History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen

by J. N. Larned

know, it is as nothing in comparison with the prodigious
scheme imagined by Richelieu and Louis XIII.; a scheme which,
though never carried out, gave a very strong impulse to the
works, and ensured the completion of the present building, at
least in a subsequent reign. … Happily for the Louvre Louis
XIV. interested himself in it before he engulfed his millions
at Marly and Versailles. … The sums of money expended on the
Louvre and Tuileries defy all calculation. … The greatest
spender on these palaces was Napoleon III."
P. G. Hamerton.
Paris in Old and Present Times,
chapter 6.
LOVERS, War of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.
LOW CHURCH.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).
LOW COUNTRIES, The.
See NETHERLANDS.
LOWLANDS OF SCOTLAND.
See SCOTCH HIGHLAND and LOWLAND.
LOWOSITZ, OR LOBOSITZ, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.
LOYALISTS, American.
See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
LOYOLA, and the founding of the Order of Jesus.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.
----------LUBECK: Start--------
LUBECK:
Origin and rise.
"Near the mouth of the river Trave there had long existed a
small settlement of pirates or fishermen. The convenience of
the harbour had led to this settlement and it had been much
frequented by Christian merchants. The unsettled state of the
country, however, afforded them little security, and it had
been often taken and plundered by the Pagan freebooters. When
Henry acquired the dominion of the soil [Henry the Lion, Duke
of Saxony, who subdued the heathen Wendish tribe of the
Oborites, A. D. 1165, and added their country to his
dominions] he paid particular attention to this infant
establishment, and under the shadow of his power the city of
Lubeck (for so it became) arose on a broad and permanent
basis. He made it … the seat of a bishop; he also
established a mint and a custom-house, and by the grant of a
municipal government, he secured the personal, while he
prepared the way for the political, rights of its burghers.
The ancient name of the harbour was Wisby, and by a
proclamation addressed to the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and
Russians, he invited them to frequent it, with an assurance
that the ways should be open and secure by land and water. …
This judicious policy was rewarded by a rapid and large
increase to the wealth and commerce of Lubeck."
Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
volume 1, pages 229-230.
See, also, HANSA TOWNS.
LUBECK: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
LUBECK: A. D. 1806.
Battle of French and Prussians.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).
LUBECK: A. D. 1810.
Annexation to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
LUBECK: A. D. 1810-1815.
Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."
See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
and VIENNA, CONGRESS OF.
LUBECK: A. D. 1866.
Surrender of free privileges.
Entrance into the Zollverein.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
----------LUBECK: End--------
LUBECK, Treaty of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
LUCANIANS, The.
See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.
----------LUCCA: Start--------
LUCCA:
The founding of the city.
See MUTINA AND PARMA.
LUCCA: 8th Century.
The seat of Tuscan government.
See TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.
LUCCA: A. D. 1248-1278.
In the wars of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.
LUCCA: A. D. 1284-1293.
War with Pisa.
See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.
LUCCA: A. D. 1314-1328.
The brief tyranny of Uguccione della Faggiuola,
and the longer despotism of Castruccio Castracani.
Erected into an imperial duchy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
LUCCA: A. D. 1335-1341.
Acquired by Mastino della Scala of Verona.
Sold to Florence.
Taken by Pisa.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.
LUCCA: A. D. 1805.
Conferred on the sister of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
LUCCA: A. D. 1814-1860.
After the fall of Napoleon Lucca was briefly occupied by the
Neapolitans; then, in the new arrangements, figured for some
time as a distinct duchy; afterwards became part of Tuscany,
until its absorption in the kingdom of Italy.
----------LUCCA: End--------
LUCENA, Battle of (1483).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
LUCERES, The.
See ROME: BEGINNING AND NAME.
LUCHANA, Battle of (1836).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
LUCIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1144-1145.
Lucius III., Pope, 1181-1185.
LUCKA, Battle of (1308).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
LUCKNOW, The siege of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST),
and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).
LUCOTECIA.
See LUTETIA.
LUD.
Ancient Lydia.
LUDDITES, Rioting of the.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.
LUDI.
LUDI CIRCENSES, ETC.
"Public games (Ludi) formed an important feature in the
worship of the gods [in ancient Rome], and in the earlier ages
were always regarded as religious rites; so that the words
Ludi, Feriae and Dies Festi are frequently employed as
synonymous. Games celebrated every year upon a fixed day were
denominated Ludi Stati. Such were the Ludi Romani s. Magni,
held invariably on the 21st of September; the Megalesia on 4th
April; the Floralia on 28th April, and many others. …
Another classification of Ludi was derived from the place
where they were exhibited and the nature of the exhibition …
1. Ludi Circenses, chariot races and other games exhibited in
a circus.
2. Ludi Scenici, dramatic entertainments exhibited in a
theatre.
3. Munera Gladiatoria, prize-fights, which were usually
exhibited in an amphitheatre."
W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 10.
{2054}
LUDI MAXIMI ROMANI.
See ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.
LUDI SÆCULARES, The.
See SECULAR GAMES.
LUDOVICO (called Il Moro),
Duke of Milan, A. D. 1494-1500.
LUDWIG.
See LOUIS.
LUGDUNENSIS AND LUGDUNUM.
See LYONS: UNDER THE ROMANS.
LUGUVALLIUM.
The Roman military station at the western extremity of the
Roman wall in Britain; the site of the modern city of
Carlisle.
H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 8.
LUITPERTUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 700-701.
LUKETIA.
See LUTETIA.
LUNA: Destruction by the Northmen.
See NORMANS: A. D. 849-860.
LUND, Battle of (1676).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
LUNDY, Benjamin, and the rise of the Abolitionists.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.
LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
LUNEBURG, Duchy of.
See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY;
and A. D. 1178-1183.
LUNEBURG HEATH, Battle of (A. D. 880).
See EBBSDORF.
LUNEVILLE, The Treaty of (1801).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
LUPERCAL.
LUPERCALIA.
The Lupercal was the wolf cave in which, according to Roman
legend, the twins, Romulus and Remus, were nursed by a
she-wolf. It was supposed to be situated at the foot of the
Palatine Hill. "The Lupercal is described by Dionysius as
having once been a large grotto, shaded with thick bushes and
large trees, and containing a copious spring of water. This
grotto was dedicated to Lupercus, an ancient Latin pastoral
divinity, who was worshipped by shepherds as the protector of
their flocks against wolves. A festival was held every year,
on the 15th of February, in the Lupercal, in honour of
Lupercus; the place contained an altar and a grove sacred to
the god. … Gibbon tells us the festival of the Lupercalia,
whose origin had preceded the foundation of Rome, was still
celebrated in the reign of Anthemus, 472 A.D."
H. M. Westropp,
Early and Imperial Rome,
page 35.
"At the Lupercalia youths ran through the streets dressed
in goats' skins, beating all those they met with
strips of goats' leather."
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 13.
LURIS.
See GYPSIES.
LUSIGNAN, House of.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187, 1192-1229, and 1291;
also, CYPRUS: A. D. 1191, and 1192-1489.
LUSITANIA.
LUSITANIANS.
The Lusitani or Lusitanians were the people who resisted the
Roman conquest of Spain most obstinately—with even more
resolution than their neighbors and kinsmen, the Celtiberians.
In 153 B. C. they defeated a Roman army, which lost 6,000 men.
The following year they inflicted another defeat, on the
prætor Mummius, who lost 9,000 of his soldiers. Again, in 151,
the prætor Galba suffered a loss of 7,000 men at their hands.
But, in 150, Galba ravaged the Lusitanian country so
effectually that they sued for peace. Pretending to arrange
terms of friendship with them, this infamous Roman persuaded
three large bands of the Lusitanians to lay down their arms,
which being done he surrounded them with his troops and
massacred them in cold blood. One of the few who escaped was a
man named Viriathus, who became thenceforth the leader of his
surviving countrymen in a guerrilla warfare which lasted for
ten years, and which cost the Romans thousands of men. In the
end they could not vanquish Viriathus, but basely bribed some
traitors in his own camp to murder him. The Roman province
which was afterwards formed out of the country of the
Lusitanians, and which took their name, has been mistakenly
identified with the modern kingdom of Portugal, which it
coincided with only in part.
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
H. M. Stephens,
The Story of Portugal,
chapter 1.
See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.
On the settlement of the Alans,
See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
LUSTRUM.
After the [Roman] Censors had concluded the various duties
committed to their charge, they proceeded in the last place to
offer up, on behalf of the whole Roman people, the great
expiatory sacrifice called Lustrum, and this being offered up
once only in the space of five years, the term Lustrum is
frequently employed to denote that space of time. … On the
day fixed, the whole body of the people were summoned to
assemble in the Campus Martius in martial order (exercitus)
ranked according to their Classes and Centuries, horse and
foot. The victims, consisting of a sow, a sheep, and a bull,
whence the sacrifice was termed Suovetaurilia, before being
led to the altar, were carried thrice round the multitude, who
were then held to be purified and absolved from sin, and while
the immolation took place the Censor recited a set form of
prayer for the preservation and aggrandizement of the Roman
State."
W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 5.
LUTETIA,
LUKETIA,
LUCOTECIA.
The beginning of the great city of Paris was represented by a
small town named as above—the stronghold of the Gallic people
called the Parisii—built on one of the islands in the Seine
which Paris now covers and surrounds.
See PARIS, BEGINNING OF.
LUTHER, Martin, and the Reformation.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521,
1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;
also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
LUTHER: On Education.
See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: GERMANY.
LUTTER, Battle of (1626).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.
LÜTZEN, Battle of (1632).
Death of Gustavus Adolphus.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
LÜTZEN, OR GROSS GÖRSCHEN, Battle of (1813).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (APRIL-MAY).
LUXEMBURG, The House of:
Its aggrandizement in the Empire, in Bohemia, Hungary,
and Brandenburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313, and 1347-1493;
also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442;
and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168=1417.
----------LUXEMBURG: Start--------
{2055}
LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1713.
Ceded to Holland.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1795.
Siege and capture by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1867.
Separated from Germany and formed into a neutral state.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.
----------LUXEMBURG: End--------
LUZZARA, Battle of (1702).
See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.
LYCEUM, The Athenian.
See ACADEMY, THE ATHENIAN;
and GYMNASIA, GREEK;
also, relative to the suppression of the Lyceum,
see ATHENS: A. D. 529.
LYCIAN LEAGUE, The.
"Probably the best constructed Federal Government that the
ancient world beheld. The account given by Strabo, our sole
authority, is so full, clear, and brief, that I cannot do
better than translate it. The 'ancestral constitution of the
Lykian League' is described by the great geographer in these
words: 'There are three and twenty cities which have a share
in the suffrage, and they come together from each city in the
common Federal Assembly, choosing for their place of meeting
any city which they think best. And, among the cities, the
greatest are possessed of three votes apiece, the middle ones
of two, and the rest of one; and in the same proportion they
pay taxes, and take their share of other public burthens. …
And, in the Federal Assembly, first the Lykiarch is chosen and
then the other Magistrates of the League, and bodies of
Federal Judges are appointed; and formerly they used to
consult about war, and peace, and alliance; this now, of
course, they cannot do, but these things must needs rest with
the Romans.' … On the practical working of this constitution
Strabo bestows the highest praise. Lykia was, in his day, a
Roman dependency, but it retained its own laws and internal
government."
E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 4, section 4.
LYCIANS, The.
The people who occupied in ancient times the extreme southern
peninsula of Asia Minor. "The ancients knew of no unmixed
population in this district. The Phœnicians explored the
Lycian Taurus as well as the Cilician; and by land also
Semitic tribes seem to have immigrated out of Syria and
Cilicia; and these tribes formed the tribe of the Solymi.
Another influx of population was conducted to this coast by
means of the Rhodian chain of islands: men of Crete came
across, who called themselves Termili or Trameli, and
venerated Sarpedon as their Hero. After an arduous struggle,
they gradually made themselves masters of the land encircled
by sea and rock. … From the mouth of the Xanthus the Cretans
entered the land. There Leto had first found a hospitable
reception; in Patara, near by, arose the first great temple of
Apollo, the god of light, or Lycius, with the worship of whom
the inhabitants of the land became subsequently to such a
degree identified as to receive themselves from the Greeks on
whose coasts they landed the same name as the god, viz.,
Lycians. … We know that the Lycians, in courage and
knowledge of the sea fully the equals of the most seafaring
nation of the Archipelago, from a desire of an orderly
political life, renounced at an early period the public
practice of piracy, which their neighbours in Pisidia and
Cilicia never relinquished. Their patriotism they proved in
heroic struggles, and in the quiet of home developed a greater
refinement of manners, to which the special honour in which
they held the female sex bears marked testimony."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).
LYCURGUS, Constitution of.
See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION.
LYDIANS, The.
"On the western coast of Asia Minor the nation of the Lydians,
which possessed the vallies of the Hermus and Mæander, had
early arrived at a monarchy and a point of civilization far in
advance of the stages of primitive life. … When the Greeks
forced the Phenicians from the islands of the Ægean sea, and
then, about the end of the eleventh and beginning of the tenth
century, B. C., landed on the western coast of Asia Minor, the
Lydians were not able any more than the Teucrians and Mysians
in the North, or the Carians in the South, to prevent the
establishment of the Greeks on their coasts, the loss of the
ancient native sanctuaries at Smyrna, Colophon, Ephesus, and
the founding of Greek cities in their land on the mouths of
the Lydian rivers, the Hermus and the Cayster, though the
Greek emigrants came in isolated expeditions over the sea. It
was on the Lydian coasts that the most important Greek cities
rose: Cyme, Phocæa, Smyrna, Colophon, Ephesus. Priene, Myus,
and Miletus were on the land of the Carians."
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 4, chapter 17.
"On the basis of a population related to the Phrygians and
Armenians arose the nation of the Lydians, which through its
original ancestor, Lud, would appear in Eastern tradition also
to be reckoned as a member of the Semitic family. As long as
we remain unacquainted with the spoken and written language of
the Lydians, it will be impossible to define with any accuracy
the mixture of peoples which here took place. But, speaking
generally, there is no doubt of the double relationship of
this people, and of its consequent important place in
civilization among the groups of the nations of Asia Minor.
The Lydians became on land, as the Phœnicians by sea, the
mediators between Hellas and Anterior Asia. … The Lydians
are the first among the nations of Asia Minor of whom we have
any intimate knowledge as a political community."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).
The first, perhaps legendary, dynasty of Lydia, called the
Atyadæ, was followed by one called the Herakleidæ by the
Greeks, which is said to have ruled over 500 years. The last
king of that family, Kandaules, was murdered, about B. C. 715,
by Gyges, who founded the dynasty of the Mermnadæ, under whom
the Lydian dominion was extended over most of Asia Minor, and
its kings contended on fairly equal terms with the power of
the Medes. But their monarchy was overthrown by Cyrus, B. C.
546, and the famous Crœsus, last of their line, ended his days
as an attendant and counselor of the Persian king.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 17 and 32.
Recent discoveries tend to the conclusion that the primitive
inhabitants of Lydia were of a race to which the Hittites
belonged.
A. H. Sayce,
editor, Ancient Empires of the East,
appendix 4.
See, also,
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539;
and PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.
{2056}
LYGIANS, The.
"Of all the invaders of Gaul [in the reign of Probus, A.
D.277] the most formidable were the Lygians, a distant people
who reigned over a wide domain on the frontiers of Poland and
Silesia. In the Lygian nation the Arii held the first rank by
their numbers and fierceness. 'The Arii' (it is thus that they
are described by the energy of Tacitus) 'study to improve by
art and circumstances the innate terrors of their barbarism.
Their shields are black, their bodies are painted black. They
choose for the combat the darkest hour of the night.' … Yet
the arms and discipline of the Romans easily discomfited these
horrid phantoms. The Lygii were defeated in a general
engagement, and Semno, the most renowned of their chiefs, fell
alive into the hands of Probus. That prudent emperor,
unwilling to reduce a brave people to despair, granted them an
honourable capitulation and permitted them to return in safety
to their native country. But the losses which they suffered in
the march, the battle, and the retreat, broke the power of the
nation; nor is the Lygian name ever repeated in the history
either of Germany or of the empire."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 12.
"Lygii appears to have been the generic name of the Slavonians
on the Vistula. They are the same people as those called Lekhs
by Nestor, the Russian chronicler of the twelfth century.
These Lekhs are the ancestors of the Poles."
See
Latham,
The Germania of Tacitus,
page 158.
W. Smith,
Note to above, from Gibbon.
"The Ligii were a widely-spread tribe, comprehending several
clans. Tacitus names the Harii [or Arii], Helvecones, Manimi,
Elisii, and Nahanarvali. Their territory was between the Oder
and Vistula, and would include the greater part of Poland, and
probably a portion of Silesia."
Church and Brodribb,
Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus.
"The Elysii are supposed to have given name to Silesia."
Note to the Oxford Translation of Tacitus: Germany,
chapter 43.
LYKIANS, The.
See LYCIANS.
LYMNE, in Roman times.
See PORTUS LEMANIS.
LYON, General Nathaniel:
Campaign in Missouri, and death.
See MISSOURI; A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY);
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER; MISSOURI).
----------LYONS: Start--------
LYONS:
Under the Romans.
Minutius Plancus, Roman governor of Gallia Comata, or the Gaul
of Cæsar's conquest, founded, B. C. 43, a city called
Lugdunum, at the confluence of the Rhone and the Saone. A few
years later, under Augustus, it was made the capital of a
province to which it gave its name—Lugdunensis—and which
comprised the whole of central Gaul, between the Loire and the
Seine with the Armorican peninsula. In time the name Lugdunum
became softened and shorn to Lyons. "Lyons, which stood on the
west side of the Rhone, not so near the confluence of the
Sâone as now, appears to have been settled by fugitive Romans
driven out of Vienne by another party. It grew with as
marvelous a rapidity as some of our western cities, for in
fifteen years it swelled from a simple colony into a
metropolis of considerable splendor. … Lugdun appears to
have been a Keltic designation, and, as the 'g' in that speech
took the sound of 'y' and 'd' was silent, we can easily see
how the name became Lyon."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 2, chapter 5, with foot-note.
"Not having originated out of a Celtic canton, and hence
always with a territory of narrow limits, but from the outset
composed of Italians and in possession of the full Roman
franchise, it [Lyons] stood forth unique in its kind among the
communities of the three Gauls—as respects its legal
relations, in some measure resembling Washington in the North
American federation. … Only the governor of the middle or
Lugudunensian province had his seat there; but when emperors
or princes stayed in Gaul they as a rule resided in Lyons.
Lyons was, alongside of Carthage, the only city of the Latin
half of the empire which obtained a standing garrison, after
the model of that of the capital. The only mint for imperial
money which we can point to with certainty, for the earlier
period of the empire, is that of Lyons. Here was the
headquarters of the transit-dues which embraced all Gaul; and
to this as a centre the Gallic network of roads converged. …
Thus Lugudunum rapidly rose into prosperity. … In the later
period of the empire, no doubt, it fell behind Treves."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 3.
LYONS: A. D. 500.
Under the Burgundians.
See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.
LYONS: 10th Century.
In the kingdom of Aries.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843—933.
LYONS: 12th Century.
The Poor Men of Lyons."
See WALDENSES.
LYONS: A. D. 1685-1698.
Loss in the silk weaving industry by the Huguenot exodus.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
LYONS: A. D. 1793-1794.
Revolt against the Revolutionary government at Paris.
Siege and capture and fearful vengeance by the Terrorists.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);
and 1793—1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
LYONS: A. D. 1795.
Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
The White Terror.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).
----------LYONS: End----------
LYONS, Battle of (A. D. 197).
See ROME: A. D. 192-284.
LYSIMACHUS, and the wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316, to 297-280.
LYTTON, Lord, The Indian administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1876, 1877;
and AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
MAARMORS.
See MORMAERS.
MACÆ, The.
See LIBYANS.
McALLISTER, Fort, The storming of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).
MACALO, Battle of (1427).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
MACBETH, King of Scotland: A. D. 1039-1054.
MACCABEES, The.
See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
MACCIOWICE, Battle of (1794).
See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
McCLELLAN, General George B.
Campaign in West Virginia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).
McCLELLAN, General George B:
Appointment to chief command.
Organization of the Army of the Potomac.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
{2057}
McCLELLAN, General George B:
Protracted inaction through the winter of 1861-62.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).
McCLELLAN, General George B:
Peninsular campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA),
(JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).
McCLELLAN, General George B:
During General Pope's campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA),
to (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, VIRGINIA).
McCLELLAN, General George B:
Antietam Campaign, and removal from command.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND);
and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: VIRGINIA).
McCLELLAN, General George B:
Defeat in Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
MACDONALD, Marshal.
Campaigns of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL),
1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);
GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
1813 (APRIL-MAY), (AUGUST), (OCTOBER),
(OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
MACDONOUGH, Commodore Thomas,
and his victory on Lake Champlain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (SEPTEMBER).
McDOWELL, Battle at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862. (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
MACE, as a symbol of authority, The.
"The club or mace, formed originally of hard wood, and the
latter, subsequently either wholly or in part of metal, would
naturally be adopted as one of the earliest weapons of
primitive man, but it soon came to be regarded as a symbol of
authority. … In the Middle Ages the mace was a common weapon
with ecclesiastics, who, in consequence of their tenures,
frequently took the field, but were, by a canon of the Church,
forbidden to wield the sword. It strikes me as not improbable
that in this custom we have the origin of the use of the mace
as a symbol of authority by our cathedral and other ancient
religious bodies. … In all probability its use by lay
corporations may be traced to the corps of sergeants-at-mace,
instituted as a body-guard both by Philip Augustus of France
and our own Richard I., whilst with the Crusaders in
Palestine. We learn that when the former monarch was in the
Holy Land he found it necessary to secure his person from the
emissaries of a sheik, called 'the Old Man of the Mountain,'
who bound themselves to assassinate whomsoever he assigned.
'When the king,' says an ancient chronicler, 'heard of this he
began to reflect seriously, and took counsel how he might best
guard his person. He therefore instituted a guard of
serjeants-à-maces who night and day were to be about his
person in order to protect him.' These sergens-à-maces were
'afterwards called sergeants-at-arms, for Jean Bouteiller, …
who lived in the time of Charles VI., that is, at the
conclusion of the fourteenth century tells us, "The sergens
d'armes are the mace-bearers that the king has to perform his
duty, and who carry maces before the king; these are called
sergeants-at-arms, because they are sergeants for the king's
body.'" We learn further that Richard I. of England soon
imitated the conduct of the French king, but he seems to have
given his corps of sergeants-at-arms a more extensive power.
Not only were they to watch round the king's tent in complete
armour, with a mace, a sword, a bow and arrows, but were
occasionally to arrest traitors and other offenders about the
court, for which the mace was deemed a sufficient authority.
… Hence, in all probability, was derived the custom of the
chief magistrate of a municipality, who, as such, is the
representative of the sovereign, being attended by his
mace-bearer, as a symbol of the royal authority thus delegated
to him."
W. Kelly,
The Great Mace
(Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 3).
----------MACEDONIA: Start--------
MACEDONIA AND MACEDONIANS, The.
"The Macedonians of the fourth century B. C. acquired, from
the ability and enterprise of two successive kings, a great
perfection in Greek military organization, without any of the
loftier Hellenic qualities. Their career in Greece is purely
destructive, extinguishing the free movement of the separate
cities, and disarming the citizen-soldier to make room for the
foreign mercenary whose sword was unhallowed by any feelings
of patriotism—yet totally incompetent to substitute any good
system of central or pacific administration. But the
Macedonians of the seventh and sixth centuries B. C. are an
aggregate only of rude inland tribes, subdivided into distinct
petty principalities, and separated from the Greeks by a wider
ethnical difference even than the Epirots; since Herodotus,
who considers the Epirotic Molossians and Thesprotians as
children of Hellen, decidedly thinks the contrary respecting
the Macedonians. In the main, however, they seem at this early
period analogous to the Epirots in character and civilization.
They had some few towns, but they were chiefly village
residents, extremely brave and pugnacious. … The original
seats of the Macedonians were in the regions east of the chain
of Skardus (the northerly continuation of Pindus)—north of
the chain called the Cambunian mountains, which connects
Olympus with Pindus, and which forms the north-western
boundary of Thessaly; but they did not reach so far eastward
as the Thermaic Gulf. … The Macedonian language was
different from Illyrian, from Thracian, and seemingly also
from Pæonian. It was also different from Greek, yet apparently
not more widely distinct than that of the Epirots; so that the
acquisition of Greek was comparatively easy to the chiefs and
people. … The large and comparatively productive region
covered by the various sections of Macedonians, helps to
explain that increase of ascendency which they successively
acquired over all their neighbours. It was not however until a
late period that they became united under one government. At
first, each section—how many we do not know—had its own
prince or chief. The Elymiots, or inhabitants of Elymeia, the
southernmost portion of Macedonia, were thus originally
distinct and independent; also the Orestæ, in mountain-seats
somewhat north-west of the Elymiots. … The section of the
Macedonian name who afterwards swallowed up all the rest and
became known as 'The Macedonians' had their original centre at
Ægæ or Edessa—the lofty, commanding and picturesque site of
the modern Vodhena."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3).
MACEDONIA: B. C. 508.
Subjection to Persia.
See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 383-379.
Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy by Sparta.
See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.
{2058}
MACEDONIA: B. C. 359-358.
Accession and first proceedings of King Philip.
His acquisition of Amphipolis.
See GREECE: B. C. 359-358.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 353-336.
Philip's conquest of Thessaly.
Intervention in the Sacred War.
Victory at Chæronea.
Mastery of Greece.
Preparation to invade Persia.
Assassination.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 351-348.
War with the Olynthian Confederacy.
Destruction of Olynthus.
See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 340.
Philip's unsuccessful siege of Byzantium.
See GREECE: B. C. 340.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 336-335.
Alexander's campaigns at the north.
Revolt and destruction of Thebes.
See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.
Invasion and conquest of the Persian empire
by Alexander the Great.
Philip of Macedonia fell under the hand of an assassin in the
midst of his preparations (B. C. 336) for the invasion of the
Persian Empire. He was succeeded by his son, Alexander, who
applied himself first, with significant energy, to the
chastisement of the troublesome barbarians on his northern
frontier, and to the crushing of revolt in Greece (see GREECE:
B. C. 336-335). He had not yet been a year on the throne
"when he stood forth a greater and more powerful sovereign than
his father, with his empire united in the bonds of fear and
admiration, and ready to carry out the long premeditated
attack of the Greeks on the dominion of the Great king. … He
had indeed a splendid army of all branches, heavy infantry,
light infantry, slingers and archers, artillery such as the
ancients could produce without gunpowder, and cavalry, both
Thessalian and Macedonian, fit for both skirmishing and the
shock of battle. If its numbers were not above 40,000, this
moderate force was surely as much as any commander could
handle in a rapid campaign with long marches through a hostile
country. … After a Homeric landing on the coast near Ilium,
and sacrifices to the Ilian goddess at her ancient shrine,
with feasts and games, the king started East to meet the
Persian satraps, who had collected their cavalry and Greek
mercenary infantry on the plain of Zeleia, behind the river
Granicus (B. C. 334). Here he fought his first great battle,
and showed the nature of his tactics. He used his heavy
infantry, divided into two columns or phalanxes as his left
wing, flanked by Thessalian cavalry, to threaten the right of
the enemy, and keep him engaged while he delivered his main
attack. Developing this movement by a rapid advance in
echelonned squadrons thrown forward to the right, threatening
to outflank the enemy, he induced them to spread their forces
towards their left wing, and so weaken their left centre. No
sooner had he succeeded in this than he threw his heavy
cavalry on this weak point, and after a very severe struggle
in crossing the river, and climbing its rugged banks, he
completely broke the enemy's line. … He did not strike
straight into Asia, for this would have left it possible for
Mentor and Memnon, the able Rhodians who commanded on the
coast for Darius, either to have raised all Asia Minor against
him, or to have transferred the war back to Macedon. … So
then he seized Sardis, the key of all the highroads eastwards;
he laid siege to Halicarnassus, which made a very long and
stubborn resistance, and did not advance till he had his rear
safe from attack. Even with all these precautions, the Persian
fleet, under Memnon, was producing serious difficulties, and
had not that able general died at the critical moment (B. C.
333), the Spartan revolt, which was put down the following
year in Greece, would have assumed serious proportions.
Alexander now saw that he could press on, and strike at the
headquarters of the enemies' power—Phœnicia and the Great
king himself. He crossed the difficult range of the Taurus,
the southern bulwark of the Persian Empire, and occupied
Cilicia. Even the sea was supposed to have retreated to allow
his army to pass along a narrow strand under precipitous
cliffs. The Great king was awaiting him with a vast
army—grossly exaggerated, moreover, in our Greek accounts—in
the plain of Syria, near Damascus. Foolish advisers persuaded
him, owing to some delay in Alexander's advance, to leave his
favourable position, where the advantage of his hosts of
cavalry was clear. He therefore actually crossed Alexander,
who had passed on the sea side of Mount Amanus, southward, and
occupied Issus on his rear. The Macedonian army was thus cut
off from home, and a victory necessary to its very existence.
The great battle of Issus was fought on such narrow ground,
between the sea and the mountains, that neither side had room
for outflanking its opponent, except by occupying the high
ground on the inland side of the plain (B. C. 333). This was
done by the Persians, and the banks of a little river (the
Pinarus) crossing their front were fortified as at the
Granicus. Alexander was obliged to advance with a large
reserve to protect his right flank. As usual he attacked with
his right centre, and as soon as he had shaken the troops
opposed to him, wheeled to the left, and made straight for the
king himself, who occupied the centre in his chariot. Had
Darius withstood him bravely and for some time, the defeat of
the Macedonians' left wing would probably have been complete,
for the Persian cavalry on the coast, attacking the
Thessalians on Alexander's left wing, were decidedly superior,
and the Greek infantry was at this time a match for the
phalanx. But the flight of Darius, and the panic which ensued
about him, left Alexander leisure to turn to the assistance of
his hard-pressed left wing, and recover the victory. … The
greatness of this victory completely paralyzed all the revolt
prepared in his rear by the Persian fleet. Alexander was now
strong enough to go on without any base of operation, and he
boldly (in the manifesto he addressed to Darius after the
battle) proclaimed himself King of' Persia by right of
conquest, who would brook no equal. Nevertheless, he delayed
many months (which the siege of Tyre [see TYRE: B. C. 332]
cost him, B. C. 332), and then, passing through Jerusalem, and
showing consideration for the Jews, he again paused at the
siege of Gaza [see GAZA: B. C. 332], merely, we may suppose,
to prove that he was invincible, and to settle once for all
the question of the world's mastery. He delayed again for a
short while in Egypt [see EGYPT: B. C. 332], when he regulated
the country as a province under his sway, with kindness
towards the inhabitants, and respect for their religion, and
founded Alexandria; nay, he even here made his first essay in
claiming divinity; and then, at last, set out to conquer the
Eastern provinces of Darius' empire.
{2059}
The great decisive battle in the plains of Mesopotamia (B. C.
331)—it is called either Arbela or Gaugamela—was spoken of
as a trial of strength, and the enormous number of the Persian
cavalry, acting on open ground, gave timid people room to
fear; but Alexander had long since found out, what the British
have found in their many Eastern wars, that even a valiant
cavalry is helpless, if undisciplined, against an army of
regulars under a competent commander. … The Macedonian had
again, however, failed to capture his opponent, for which he
blamed Parmenio. … So then, though the issue of the war was
not doubtful, there was still a real and legitimate rival to
the throne, commanding the sympathies of most of his subjects.
For the present, however, Alexander turned his attention to
occupying the great capitals of the Persian empire—capitals
of older kingdoms, embodied in the empire. … These great
cities, Babylon in Mesopotamia, Susa (Shushan) in Elam,
Persepolis in Persia proper, and Ecbatana in Media, were all
full of ancient wealth and splendour, adorned with great
palaces, and famed for monstrous treasures. The actual amount
of gold and silver seized in these hoards (not less than
£30,000,000 of English money, and perhaps a great deal more)
had a far larger effect on the world than the discovery of
gold and silver mines in recent times. Every adventurer in the
army became suddenly rich; all the means and materials for
luxury which the long civilization of the East had discovered
and employed, were suddenly thrown into the hands of
comparatively rude and even barbarous soldiers. It was a prey
such as the Spaniards found in Mexico and Peru, but had a far
stronger civilization, which must react upon the conquerors.
And already Alexander showed clear signs that he regarded
himself as no mere Macedonian or Greek king, but as the
Emperor of the East, and successor in every sense of the
unfortunate Darius. He made superhuman efforts to overtake
Darius in his retreat from Ecbatana through the Parthian
passes to the northern provinces—Balkh and Samarcand. The
narrative of this famous pursuit is as wonderful as anything
in Alexander's campaign. He only reached the fleeing Persian
as he was dying of the wounds dealt him by the traitor Bessus,
his satrap in Bactria, who had aspired to the crown (B. C.
330). Alexander signally executed the regicide, and himself
married the daughter of Darius—who had no son—thus
assuming, as far as possible, the character of Darius'
legitimate successor."
J. P. Mahaffy,
The Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapters 2-3.
ALSO IN:
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapters 49-50 (volume 6).
E. S. Creasy,
Fifteen Decisive Battles: Arabela.
T. A. Dodge,
Alexander,
chapters 18-31.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.
Alexander's conquest of Afghanistan, Bactria and Sogdiana.
His invasion of India.
His death at Babylon.
His character and aims.
"After reducing the country at the south of the Caspian,
Alexander marched east and south, through what is now Persia
and Afghanistan. On his way he founded the colony of
Alexandria Arion, now Herat, an important military position on
the western border of Afghanistan. At Prophthasia (Furrah), a
little further south, he stayed two months. … Thence he went
on eastwards and founded a city, said to be the modern
Candahar, and then turned north and crossed the Hindo Koosh
mountains, founding another colony near what is now Cabul.
Bessus had intended to resist Alexander in Bactria (Balkh),
but he fled northwards, and was taken and put to death.
Alexander kept on marching northwards, and took Mara Kanda,
now Samarcand, the capital of Bokhara (B. C. 329). He crossed
the river Jaxartes (Sir), running into the sea of Aral, and
defeated the Scythians beyond it, but did not penetrate their
country. He intended the Jaxartes to be the northern frontier
of his empire. … The conquest of Sogdiana (Bokhara) gave
Alexander some trouble, and occupied him till the year B. C.
327. In B. C. 327 Alexander set out from Bactria to conquer
India [see INDIA: B. C. 327-312]. … Alexander was as eager
for discovery as for conquest; and from the mouth of the Indus
he sent his fleet, under the admiral Nearchus, to make their
way along the coast to the mouth of the Euphrates. He himself
marched westwards with the army through the deserts of
Beloochistan, and brought them after terrible sufferings,
through thirst, disease, and fatigue, again to Persepolis (B.
C. 324). From this he went to Susa, where he stayed some
months, investigating the conduct of his satraps, and
punishing some of them severely. Since the battle of Arbela,
Alexander had become more and more like a Persian king in his
way of living, although he did not allow it to interfere with
his activity. He dressed in the Persian manner, and took up
the ceremonies of the Persian court. The soldiers were
displeased at his giving up the habits of Macedonia, and at
Susa he provoked them still more by making eighty of his chief
officers marry Persian wives. The object of Alexander was to
break down distinctions of race and country in his empire, and
to abolish the great gulf that there had hitherto been between
the Greeks and the Asiatics. He also enrolled many Persians in
the regiments which had hitherto contained none but
Macedonians, and levied 30,000 troops from the most warlike
districts of Asia, whom he armed in the Macedonian manner.
Since the voyage of Nearchus, Alexander had determined on an
expedition against Arabia by sea, and had given orders for
ships to be built in Phœnicia, and then taken to pieces and
carried by land to Thapsakus on the Euphrates. At Thapsakus
they were to be put together again, and so make their way to
Babylon, from which the expedition was to start. In the spring
of B. C. 323, Alexander set out from Susa for Babylon. On his
journey he was met by embassies from nearly all the States of
the known world. At Babylon he found the ships ready: fresh
troops had arrived, both Greek and Asiatic; and the expedition
was on the point of starting, when Alexander was seized with
fever and died (June, B. C. 323). He was only thirty-two
years old."
C. A. Fyffe,
History of Greece (Primer),
chapter 7.
"Three great battles and several great sieges made Alexander
master of the Persian empire. And it is worth remark that the
immediate results of the three battles, Granikos, Issos, and
Gaugamela, coincide with lasting results in the history of the
world. The victory of the Granikos made Alexander master of
Asia Minor, of a region which in the course of a few centuries
was thoroughly hellenized, and which remained Greek,
Christian, and Orthodox, down to the Turkish invasions of the
11th century.
{2060}
The territory which Alexander thus won, the lands from the
Danube to Mount Tauros, answered very nearly to the extent of
the Byzantine Empire for several centuries, and it might very
possibly have been ruled by him, as it was in Byzantine times,
from an European centre. The field of Issos gave him Syria and
Egypt, lands which the Macedonian and the Roman kept for
nearly a thousand years, and which for ages contained, in
Alexandria and Antioch, the two greatest of Grecian cities.
But Syria and Egypt themselves never became Greek; when they
became Christian, they failed to become Orthodox, and they
fell away at the first touch of the victorious Saracen. Their
government called for an Asiatic or Egyptian capital, but
their ruler might himself still have remained European and
Hellenic. His third triumph at Gaugamela gave him the
possession of the whole East; but it was but a momentary
possession: he had now pressed onward into lands where neither
Grecian culture, Roman dominion, nor Christian theology proved
in the end able to strike any lasting root. … He had gone
too far for his original objects. Lasting possession of his
conquests beyond the Tigris could be kept only in the

character of King of the Medes and Persians. Policy bade him
put on that character. We can also fully believe that he was
himself really dazzled with the splendour of his superhuman
success. … His own deeds had outdone those which were told
of any of his divine forefathers or their comrades; Achilleus,
Herakles, Theseus, Dionysos, had done and suffered less than
Alexander. Was it then wonderful that he should seriously
believe that one who had outdone their acts must come of a
stock equal to their own? Was it wonderful if, not merely in
pride or policy, but in genuine faith, he disclaimed a human
parent in Philip, and looked for the real father of the
conqueror and lord of earth in the conqueror and lord of the
heavenly world? We believe then that policy, passion, and
genuine superstition were all joined together in the demand
which Alexander made for divine, or at least for unusual,
honours. He had taken the place of the Great King, and he
demanded the homage which was held to be due to him who held
that place. Such homage his barbarian' subjects were perfectly
ready to pay; they would most likely have had but little
respect for a king who forgot to call for it. But the homage
which to a Persian seemed only the natural expression of
respect for the royal dignity, seemed to Greeks and
Macedonians an invasion of the honour due only to the immortal
Gods. … He not only sent round to all the cities of Greece
to demand divine honours, which were perhaps not worth
refusing, but he ordered each city to bring back its political
exiles. This last was an interference with the internal
government of the cities which certainly was not warranted by
Alexander's position as head of the Greek Confederacy. And, in
other respects also, from this unhappy time all the worst
failings of Alexander become more strongly developed. … The
unfulfilled designs of Alexander must ever remain in darkness;
no man can tell what might have been done by one of such
mighty powers who was cut off at so early a stage of his
career. That he looked forward to still further conquests
seems beyond doubt. The only question is, Did his conquests,
alike those which were won and those which were still to be
won, spring from mere ambition and love of adventure, or is he
to be looked on as in any degree the intentional missionary of
Hellenic culture? That such he was is set forth with much
warmth and some extravagance in a special treatise of
Plutarch; it is argued more soberly, but with true vigour and
eloquence, in the seventh volume of Bishop Thirlwall. Mr.
Grote denies him all merit of the kind."
E. A. Freeman,
Alexander
(Historical Essays, series 2).
ALSO IN:
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapters 51-55 (volumes 6-7).
MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-322.
Revolt in Greece.
The Lamian War.
Subjugation of Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
The Partition of the Empire of Alexander.
First Period of the Wars of the Diadochi
or Successors of Alexander.
Alexander "left his wife Roxana pregnant, who at the end of
three months brought into the world the rightful heir to the
sceptre, Alexander; he left likewise an illegitimate son,
Hercules; a bastard half-brother, Arrhidæus; his mother, the
haughty and cruel Olympias, and a sister, Cleopatra, both
widows; the artful Eurydice, (daughter to Cyane, one of
Philip's sisters,) subsequently married to the king,
Arrhidæus; and Thessalonica, Philip's daughter, afterwards
united to Cassander of Macedonia. The weak Arrhidæus, under
the name of Philip, and the infant Alexander, were at last
proclaimed kings, the regency being placed in the hands of
Perdiccas, Leonnatus, and Meleager; the last of whom was
quickly cut off at the instigation of Perdiccas." The
provinces of the Empire which Alexander had conquered were now
divided between the generals of his army, who are known in
history as the Diadochi, that is, the Successors. The division
was as follows: "Ptolemy son of Lagus received Egypt [see
EGYPT: B. C. 323-30]; Leonnatus, Mysia; Antigonus, Phyrgia,
Lycia, and Pamphylia; Lysymachus, Macedonian Thrace; Antipater
and Craterus remained in possession of Macedonia. … The
remaining provinces either did not come under the new division
[see SELEUCIDAE], or else their governors are unworthy of
notice,"
A. H. L. Heeren,
Manual of Ancient History,
page 222.
Meantime, "the body of Alexander lay unburied and neglected,
and it was not until two years after his death that his
remains were consigned to the tomb. But his followers still
shewed their respect for his memory by retaining the feeble
Arrhidæus on the throne, and preventing the marriage of
Perdiccas with Cleopatra, the daughter of Philip; a union
which manifestly was projected to open a way to the throne.
But while this project of marriage occupied the attention of
the regent, a league had secretly been formed for his
destruction; and the storm burst forth from a quarter whence
it was least expected. … The barbarous tribes of the
Cappadocians and Paphlagonians … asserted their independence
after the death of Alexander, and chose Ariarathes for their
leader. Perdiccas sent against them Eumenes, who had hitherto
fulfilled the peaceful duties of a secretary; and sent orders
to Antigonus and Leonatns, the governors of Western Asia, to
join the expedition with all their forces. These commands were
disobeyed; and Perdiccas was forced to march with the royal army
against the insurgents. He easily defeated these undisciplined
troops, but sullied his victory by unnecessary cruelty.
{2061}
On his return he summoned the satraps of Western Asia to
appear before his tribunal, and answer for their disobedience.
Antigonus, seeing his danger, entered into a league with
Ptolemy the satrap of Egypt, Antipater the governor of
Macedon, and several other noblemen, to crush the regency.
Perdiccas, on the other hand, leaving Eumenes to guard Lower
Asia, marched with the choicest divisions of the royal army
against Ptolemy, whose craft and ability he dreaded even more
than his power. Antipater and Craterus were early in the
field; they crossed the Hellespont with the army that had been
left for the defence of Macedon. … Seduced by … false
information, they divided their forces; Antipater hastening
through Phrygia in pursuit of Perdiccas, while Craterus and
Neoptolemus marched against Eumenes. They encountered him in
the Trojan plain, and were completely defeated. … Eumenes
sent intelligence of his success to Perdiccas; but two days
before the messenger reached the royal camp the regent was no
more. His army, wearied by the long siege of Pelusium, became
dissatisfied; their mutinous dispositions were secretly
encouraged by the emissaries of Ptolemy … and Perdiccas was
murdered in his tent (B. C. 321). … In the meantime a brief
struggle for independence had taken place in Greece, which is
commonly called the Lamian war [see GREECE: B. C. 323-322].
… As soon as Ptolemy had been informed of the murder of
Perdiccas, he came to the royal army with a large supply of
wine and provisions. His kindness and courteous manners so won
upon these turbulent soldiers, that they unanimously offered
him the regency; but he had the prudence to decline so
dangerous an office. On his refusal, the feeble Arrhidæus and
the traitor Python were appointed to the regency, just as the
news arrived of the recent victory of Eumenes. This
intelligence filled the royal army with indignation. … They
hastily passed a vote proclaiming Eumenes and his adherents
public enemies. … The advance of an army to give effect to
these decrees was delayed by a new revolution. Eurydice, the
wife of Arrhidæus, a woman of great ambition and considerable
talent for intrigue, wrested the regency from her feeble
husband and Python, but was stripped of power on the arrival
of Antipater, who reproached the Macedonians for submitting to
the government of a woman; and, being ably supported by
Antigonus and Seleucus, obtained for himself the office of
regent. No sooner had Antipater been invested with supreme
power than he sent Arrhidæus and Eurydice prisoners to Pella,
and entrusted the conduct of the war against Eumenes to the
crafty and ambitious Antigonus. … Eumenes was unable to cope
with the forces sent against him; having been defeated in the
open field, he took shelter in Nora, a Cappadocian city, and
maintained a vigorous defence, rejecting the many tempting
offers by which Antigonus endeavoured to win him to the
support of his designs (B. C. 318). The death of Antipater
produced a new revolution in the empire; and Eumenes in the
meantime escaped from Nora, accompanied by his principal
friends. … Antipater, at his death, bequeathed the regency
to Polysperchon, excluding his son Cassander from power on
account of his criminal intrigues with the wicked and
ambitious Eurydice. Though a brave general, Polysperchon had
not the qualifications of a statesman; he provoked the
powerful resentment of Antigonus by entering into a close
alliance with Eumenes; and he permitted Cassander to
strengthen himself in southern Greece, where he seized the
strong fortress of Munychia. … Polysperchon, unable to drive
Cassander from Attica, entered the Peloponnesus to punish the
Arcadians, and engaged in a fruitless siege of Megalopolis. In
the meantime Olympias, to whom he had confided the government
of Macedon, seized Arrhidæus and Eurydice, whom she had
murdered in prison. Cassander hasted, at the head of all his
forces, to avenge the death of his mistress: Olympias, unable
to meet him in the field, fled to Pydna; but the city was
forced to surrender after a brief defence, and Olympias was
immediately put to death. Among the captives were Roxana the
widow, Alexander Ægus the posthumous son, and Thessalonica the
youngest daughter, of Alexander the Great. Cassander sought
and obtained the hand of the latter princess, and thus
consoled himself for the loss of his beloved Eurydice. By this
marriage he acquired such influence, that Polysperchon did not
venture to return home, but continued in the Peloponnesus,
where he retained for some time a shadow of authority over the
few Macedonians who still clung to the family of Alexander. In
Asia, Eumenes maintained the royal cause against Antigonus,
though deserted by all the satraps, and harassed by the
mutinous dispositions of his troops, especially the
Argyraspides, a body of guards that Alexander had raised to
attend his own person, and presented with the silver shields
from which they derived their name. After a long struggle,
both armies joined in a decisive engagement; the Argyraspides
broke the hostile infantry, but learning that their baggage
had in the meantime been captured by the light troops of the
enemy, they mutinied in the very moment of victory, and
delivered their leader, bound with his own sash, into the
hands of his merciless enemy (B. C. 315). The faithful Eumenes
was put to death by the traitorous Antigonus; but he punished
the Argyraspides for their treachery."
W. C. Taylor,
The Student's Manual of Ancient History,
chapter 11, section 3.
ALSO IN:
P. Smith,
History of the World: Ancient,
chapter 17 (volume 2).
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
chapter 96 (volume 12).
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 321-312.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310.
The first league and war against Antigonus.
Extermination of the heirs of Alexander.
"Antigonus was now unquestionably the most powerful of the
successors of Alexander the Great. As master of Asia, he ruled
over those vast and rich lands that extended from India to the
Mediterranean Sea. … Although nearly seventy years old, and
blind in one eye, he still preserved the vigor of his forces.
… He was fortunate in being assisted by a son, the famous
Demetrius, who, though possessed of a very passionate nature,
yet from early youth displayed wonderful military ability.
Above all, the prominent representatives of the royal family
had disappeared, and there remained only the youthful
Alexander, Herakles, the illegitimate son of Alexander the
Great, who had no lawful claim whatever to the sovereignty,
and two daughters of Philip, Kleopatra, who lived at Sardis,
and Thessalonike, whom Kassander had recently married—none of
whom were sufficiently strong to assert their rights to the
throne.
{2062}
Thus Antigonus seemed indeed destined to become vicar and
master of the entire Alexandrian kingdom, and to restore the
unity of the empire. But not only was this union not realized,
but even the great realm which Antigonus had established in
Asia was doomed to inevitable destruction. The generals who
possessed the various satrapies of the empire could not bear
his supremacy, and accordingly entered into a convention,
which gradually ripened into an active alliance against him.
The principal organ of this movement was Seleukus, who, having
escaped to Ptolemy of Egypt, first of all persuaded the latter
to form an alliance—which Kassander of Macedonia and
Lysimachus of Thrace readily joined—against the formidable
power of Antigonus. The war lasted for four years, and was
carried on in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Its fortunes were
various [the most noteworthy event being a bloody defeat
inflicted upon Demetrius the son of Antigonus, by Ptolemy, at
Gaza, in 312], but the result was not decisive. … In 311 B.
C. a compact was made between Antigonus on one side, and
Kassander, Ptolemy, and Lysimachus on the other, whereby 'the
supreme command in Europe was guaranteed to Kassander, until
the maturity of Alexander, son of Roxana; Thrace being at the
same time assured to Lysimachus, Egypt to Ptolemy, and the
whole of Asia to Antigonus. It was at the same time covenanted
by all that the Hellenic cities should be free.' Evidently
this peace contained the seeds of new disputes and increasing
jealousies. The first act of Kassander was to cause the death
of Roxana and her child in the fortress of Amphipolis, where
they had been confined; and thus disappeared forever the only
link which apparently maintained the union of the empire, and
a ready career now lay open to the ambition of the successors.
Again, the name of Seleukus was not even mentioned in the
peace, while it was well known at the time it was concluded
that he had firmly established his rule over the eastern
satrapies of Asia. … The troops also of Antigonus,
notwithstanding the treaty, still remained in Hellas, under
command of his nephew Ptolemy. Ptolemy of Egypt, therefore,
accusing Antigonus of having contravened the treaty by
garrisoning various Hellenic cities, renewed the war and the
triple alliance against him." A series of assassinations soon
followed, which put out of the way the young prince Herakles,
bastard son of Alexander the Great, and Kleopatra, the sister
of Alexander, who was preparing to wed Ptolemy of Egypt when
Antigonus brought about her murder, to prevent the marriage.
Another victim of the jealousies that were rife among the
Diadochi was Antigonus' nephew Ptolemy, who had deserted his
uncle's side, but who was killed by the Egyptian Ptolemy. "For
more than ten years … Antigonus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and
Kassander successively promised to leave the Greeks
independent, free, and unguarded; but the latter never ceased
to be guarded, taxed, and ruled by Macedonian despots. We may,
indeed, say that the cities of Hellas never before had
suffered so much as during the time when such great promises
were made about their liberty. The Ætolians alone still
possessed their independence. Rough, courageous, warlike, and
fond of freedom, they continued fighting against the
Macedonian rule."
T. T. Timayenis,
History of Greece,
part 9, chapter 5 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. P. Mahaffy,
Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapters 5-6.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.
Demetrius Poliorcetes at Athens.
His siege of Rhodes.
The last combination against Antigonus.
His defeat and death at Ipsus.
Partition of his dominions.
After the war which was renewed in 310 B. C. had lasted three
years, "Antigonus' resolved to make a vigorous effort to wrest
Greece from the hands of Cassander and Ptolemy, who held all
the principal towns in it. Accordingly, in the summer of 307
B. C., he despatched his son Demetrius from Ephesus to Athens,
with a fleet of 250 sail, and 5,000 talents in money.
Demetrius, who afterwards obtained the surname of
'Poliorcetes,' or 'Besieger of Cities,' was a young man of
ardent temperament and great abilities. Upon arriving at the
Piræus, he immediately proclaimed the object of his expedition
to be the liberation of Athens and the expulsion of the
Macedonian garrison. Supported by the Macedonians, Demetrius
the Phalerean had now ruled Athens for a period of more than
ten years. … During the first period of his administration
he appears to have governed wisely and equitably, to have
improved the Athenian laws, and to have adorned the city with
useful buildings. But in spite of his pretensions to
philosophy, the possession of uncontrolled power soon altered
his character for the worse, and he became remarkable for
luxury, ostentation, und sensuality. Hence he gradually lost
the popularity which he had once enjoyed. … The Athenians
heard with pleasure the proclamations of the son of Antigonus;
his namesake, the Phalerean, was obliged to surrender the city
to him, and to close his political career by retiring to
Thebes. … Demetrius Poliorcetes then formally announced to
the Athenian assembly the restoration of their ancient
constitution, and promised them a large donative of corn and
ship-timber. This munificence was repaid by the Athenians with
the basest and most abject flattery
See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.
… Demetrius Poliorcetes did not remain long at Athens. Early
in 306 B. C. he was recalled by his father, and, sailing to
Cyprus, undertook the siege of Salamis. Ptolemy hastened to
its relief with 140 vessels and 10,000 troops. The battle that
ensued was one of the most memorable in the annals of ancient
naval warfare, more particularly on account of the vast size
of the vessels engaged. Ptolemy was completely defeated; and
so important was the victory deemed by Antigonus, that on the
strength of it he assumed the title of king, which he also
conferred upon his son. This example was followed by Ptolemy,
Seleucus, and Lysimachus. Encouraged by their success at
Cyprus, Antigonus and Demetrius made a vain attempt upon
Egypt, which, however, proved a disastrous failure. By way of
revenge, Demetrius undertook an expedition against Rhodes,
which had refused its aid in the attack upon Ptolemy. It was
from the memorable siege of Rhodes that Demetrius obtained his
name of Poliorcetes. … After a year spent in the vain
attempt to take the town, Demetrius was forced to retire and
grant the Rhodians peace.
See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.
{2063}
Whilst Demetrius was thus employed, Cassander had made great
progress in reducing Greece. He had taken Corinth, and was
besieging Athens, when Demetrius entered the Euripus.
Cassander immediately raised the siege, and was subsequently
defeated in an action near Thermopylae. When Demetrius entered
Athens he was received as before with the most extravagant
flatteries. He remained two or three years in Greece, during
which his superiority over Cassander was decided, though no
great battle was fought. In the spring of 301 B. C. he was
recalled by his father Antigonus, who stood in need of his
assistance against Lysimachus and Seleucus. In the course of
the same year the struggle between Antigonus and his rivals
was brought to a close by the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia, in
which Antigonus was killed, and his army completely defeated.
Antigonus had attained the age of 81 at the time of his death.
Demetrius retreated with the remnant of the army to Ephesus,
whence he sailed to Cyprus, and afterwards proposed to go to
Athens; but the Athenians, alienated by his ill-fortune at
Ipsus, refused to receive him."
W. Smith,
History of Greece,
chapter 45.
"After the battle [of Ipsus] it remained for the conquerors to
divide the spoil. The dominions of Antigonus were actually in
the hands of Seleucus and Lysimachus, and they alone had
achieved the victory. It does not appear that they consulted
either of their allies on the partition, though it seems that
they obtained the assent of Cassander. They agreed to share
all that Antigonus had possessed between themselves. It is not
clear on what principle the line of demarcation was drawn, nor
is it possible to trace it. But the greater part of Asia Minor
was given to Lysimachus. The portion of Seleucus included not
only the whole country between the coast of Syria and the
Euphrates, but also, it seems, a part of Phrygia and of
Cappadocia. Cilicia was assigned to Cassander's brother
Pleistarchus. With regard to Syria however a difficulty
remained. The greater part of it had … been conquered by
Ptolemy: Tyre and Sidon alone were still occupied by the
garrisons of Antigonus. Ptolemy had at least as good a right
as his ally to all that he possessed. … Seleucus however
began to take possession of it, and when Ptolemy pressed his
claims returned an answer, mild in sound, but threatening in
its import … : and it appears that Ptolemy was induced to
withdraw his opposition. There were however also some native
princes [Ardoates in Armenia, and Mithridates, son of
Ariobarzanes, in Pontus—see MITHRIDATIC WARS] who had taken
advantage of the contests between the Macedonian chiefs to
establish their authority over extensive territories in the
west of Asia. … So far as regards Asia, the battle of Ipsus
must be considered as a disastrous event. Not because it
transferred the power of Antigonus into different hands, nor
because it would have been more desirable that he should have
triumphed over Seleucus. But the new distribution of territory
led to calamitous consequences, which might perhaps otherwise
have been averted. If the empire of Seleucus had remained
confined between the Indus and the Euphrates, it might have
subsisted much longer, at least, as a barrier against the
inroads of the barbarians, who at last obliterated all the
traces of European civilisation left there by Alexander and
his successors. But shortly after his victory, Seleucus
founded his new capital on the Orontes, called, after his
father, Antiochia, peopling it with the inhabitants of
Antigonia. It became the residence of his dynasty, and grew,
while their vast empire dwindled into the Syrian monarchy. For
the prospects of Greece, on the other hand, the fall of
Antigonus must clearly be accounted an advantage, so far as
the effect was to dismember his territory, and to distribute
it so that the most powerful of his successors was at the
greatest distance. It was a gain that Macedonia was left an
independent kingdom, within its ancient limits, and bounded on
the north by a state of superior strength. It does not appear
that any compact was made between Cassander and his allies as
to the possession of Greece. It was probably understood that
he should keep whatever he might acquire there."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 59 (volume 7).
ALSO IN:
B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
lectures 86-87 (volume 3).
MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.
Death of Casander.
Intrigues of Ptolemy Keraunos.
Overthrow and death of Lysimachus.
Abdication and death of Ptolemy.
Murder of Seleucus.
Seizure of the Macedonian crown by Keraunos.
"Casander died of disease (a rare end among this seed of
dragon's teeth) in 297 B. C., and so the Greeks were left to
assert their liberty, and Demetrius to machinate and effect
his establishment on the throne of Macedonia, as well as to
keep the world in fear and suspense by his naval forces, and
his preparations to reconquer his father's position.
Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy were watching one another,
and alternating in alliance and in war. All these princes, as
well as Demetrius and Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, were connected
in marriage; they all married as many wives as they pleased,
apparently without remonstrance from their previous consorts.
So the whole complex of the warring kings were in close family
relations. … Pyrrhus was now a very rising and ambitions
prince; if not in alliance with Demetrius, he was striving to
extend his kingdom of Epirus into Macedonia, and would
doubtless have succeeded, but for the superior power of
Lysimachus. This Thracian monarch, in spite of serious
reverses against the barbarians of the North, who took both
him and his son prisoners, and released them very
chivalrously, about this time possessed a solid and secure
kingdom, and moreover an able and righteous son, Agathocles,
so that his dynasty might have been established, but for the
poisonous influence of Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy, whom
he, an old man, had married in token of an alliance after the
battle of Ipsus. … The family quarrel which upset the world
arose in this wise. To seal the alliance after Ipsus, old king
Ptolemy sent his daughter Arsinoe to marry his rival and
friend Lysimachus, who, on his side, had sent his daughter,
another Arsinoe, in marriage to the younger Ptolemy
(Philadelphus). This was the second son of the great Ptolemy,
who had chosen him for the throne in preference to his eldest
son, Keraunos, a man of violent and reckless character, who
accordingly left the country, and went to seek his fortune at
foreign courts. Meanwhile the old Ptolemy, for safety's sake,
installed his second son as king of Egypt during his own life,
and abdicated at the age of 83 [B. C. 283], full of honours,
nor did he leave the court, where he appeared as a subject
before his son as king. Keraunos naturally visited, in the
first instance, the Thracian court, where he not only had a
half sister (Arsinoe) queen, but where his full sister,
Lysandra, was married to the crown prince, the gallant and
popular Agathocles; but Keraunos and the queen conspired
against this prince; they persuaded old Lysimachus that he was
a traitor, and so Keraunos was directed to put him to death.
{2064}
This crime caused unusual excitement and odium all through the
country, and the relations and party of the murdered prince
called on Seleucus to avenge him. He did so, and advanced with
an army against Lysimachus, whom he defeated and slew in a
great battle, somewhere not far from the field of Ipsus. It
was called the plain of Coron (B. C. 281). Thus died the last
but one of Alexander's Companions, at the age of 80, he, too,
in battle. Ptolemy was already laid in his peaceful grave (B.
C. 283). There remained the last and greatest, the king of
Asia, Seleucus. He, however, gave up all his Asiatic
possessions from the Hellespont to the Indus to his son
Antiochus, and meant to spend his last years in the home of
his fathers, Macedonia; but as he was entering that kingdom he
was murdered by Keraunos, whom he brought with him in his
train. This bloodthirsty adventurer was thus left with an army
which had no leader, in a kingdom which had no king; for
Demetrius' son, Antigonus, the strongest claimant, had not yet
made good his position. All the other kings, whose heads were
full with their newly acquired sovereignties, viz., Antiochus
in Asia and Ptolemy II. in Egypt, joined with Keraunos in
buying off the dangerous Pyrrhus [king of Epirus—see ROME:
B. C. 282-275], by bribes of men, money, and elephants, to
make his expedition to Italy, and leave them to settle their
affairs. The Greek cities, as usual, when there was a change
of sovereign in Macedonia, rose and asserted what they were
pleased to call their liberty, so preventing Antigonus from
recovering his father's dominions. Meanwhile Keraunos
established himself in Macedonia; he even, like our Richard,
induced the queen, his step-sister, his old accomplice against
Agathocles, to marry him! but it was only to murder her
children by Lysimachus, the only dangerous claimants to the
Thracian provinces. The wretched queen fled to Samothrace, and
thence to Egypt, where she ended her guilty and chequered
career as queen of her full brother Ptolemy II.
(Philadelphus), and was deified during her life! Such then was
the state of Alexander's Empire in 280 B. C. All the first
Diadochi were dead, and so were even the sons of two of them,
Demetrius and Agathocles. The son of the former was a claimant
for the throne of Macedonia, which he acquired after long and
doubtful struggles. Antiochus, who had long been regent of the
Eastern provinces beyond Mesopotamia, had come suddenly, by
his father's murder, into possession of so vast a kingdom,
that he could not control the coast of Asia Minor, where
sundry free cities and dynasts sought to establish themselves.
Ptolemy II. was already king of Egypt, including the
suzerainty of Cyrene, and had claims on Palestine and Syria.
Ptolemy Keraunos, the double-dyed villain and murderer, was in
possession of the throne of Macedonia, but at war with the
claimant Antigonus. Pyrrhus of Epirus was gone to conquer a
new kingdom in the West. Such was the state of things when a
terrible new scourge [the invasion of the Gauls] broke over
the world."
J. P. Mahaffy,
The Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 60 (volume 8).
MACEDONIA: B. C. 280-279.
Invasion by the Gauls.
Death of Ptolemy Keraunos.
See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
Strife for the throne.
Failures of Pyrrhus.
Success of Antigonus Gonatus.
His subjugation of Athens and Corinth.
"On the retirement of the Gauls, Antipater, the nephew of
Cassander, came forward for the second time, and was accepted
as king by a portion, at any rate, of the Macedonians. But a
new pretender soon appeared upon the scene. Antigonus Gonatus,
the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who had maintained himself
since that monarch's captivity as an independent prince in
Central or Southern Hellas, claimed the throne once filled by
his father, and, having taken into his service a body of
Gallic mercenaries, defeated Antipater and made himself master
of Macedonia. His pretensions being disputed by Antiochus
Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to the throne of
Syria, he engaged in war with that prince, crossing into Asia
and uniting his forces with those of Nicomedes, the Bithynian
king, whom Antiochus was endeavouring to conquer. To this
combination Antiochus was forced to yield: relinquishing his
claims, he gave his sister, Phila, in marriage to Antigonus,
and recognised him as king of Macedonia. Antigonus upon this
fully established his power, repulsing a fresh attack of the
Gauls. … But he was not long left in repose. In B. C. 274,
Pyrrhus finally quitted Italy, having failed in all his
schemes, but having made himself a great reputation. Landing
in Epirus with a scanty force, he found the condition of
Macedonia and of Greece favourable to his ambition. Antigonus
had no hold on the affections of his subjects, whose
recollections of his father, Demetrius, were unpleasing. The
Greek cities were, some of them, under tyrants, others
occupied against their will by Macedonian garrisons. Above
all, Greece and Macedonia were full of military adventurers,
ready to flock to any standard which offered them a fair
prospect of plunder. Pyrrhus, therefore, having taken a body
of Celts into his pay, declared war against Antigonus, B. C.
273, and suddenly invaded Macedonia. Antigonus gave him
battle, but was worsted, owing to the disaffection of his
soldiers, and being twice defeated became a fugitive and a
wanderer. The victories of Pyrrhus, and his son Ptolemy,
placed the Macedonian crown upon the brow of the former, who
might not improbably have become the founder of a great power,
if he could have turned his attention to consolidation,
instead of looking out for fresh conquests. But the arts and
employments of peace had no charm for the Epirotic
knight-errant. Hardly was he settled in his seat when, upon
the invitation of Cleonymus of Sparta, he led an expedition
into the Peloponnese, and attempted the conquest of that rough
and difficult region. Repulsed from Sparta, which he had hoped
to surprise, he sought to cover his disappointment by the
capture of Argos; but here he was still more unsuccessful.
Antigonus, now once more at the head of an army, watched the
city, prepared to dispute its occupation, while the lately
threatened Spartans hung upon the invader's rear.
{2065}
In a desperate attempt to seize the place by night, the
adventurous Epirote was first wounded by a soldier and then
slain by the blow of a tile, thrown from a housetop by an
Argive woman, B. C. 271. On the death of Pyrrhus the
Macedonian throne was recovered by Antigonus, who commenced
his second reign by establishing his influence over most of
the Peloponnese, after which he was engaged in a long war with
the Athenians (B. C. 268 to 263), who were supported by Sparta
and by Egypt [see ATHENS: B. C. 288-263]. These allies
rendered, however, but little help; and Athens must have soon
succumbed, had not Antigonus been called away to Macedonia by
the invasion of Alexander, son of Pyrrhus. This enterprising
prince carried, at first, all before him, and was even
acknowledged as Macedonian king; but ere long Demetrius, the
son of Antigonus, having defeated Alexander near Derdia,
re-established his father's dominion over Macedon, and,
invading Epirus, succeeded in driving the Epirotic monarch out
of his paternal kingdom. The Epirots soon restored him; but
from this time he remained at peace with Antigonus, who was
able once more to devote his undivided attention to the
subjugation of the Greeks. In B. C. 263 he took Athens, and
rendered himself complete master of Attica; and, in B. C. 244,
… he contrived by a treacherous stratagem to obtain
possession of Corinth. But at this point his successes ceased.
A power had been quietly growing up in a corner of the
Peloponnese [the Achaian League—see GREECE: B. C. 280-146]
which was to become a counterpoise to Macedonia, and to give
to the closing scenes of Grecian history an interest little
inferior to that which had belonged to its earlier pages."
G. Rawlinson,
Manual of Ancient History,
pages 261-263.
ALSO IN:
B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
lectures 100-102.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 214-168.
The Roman conquest.
Extinction of the kingdom.
See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 205-197.
Last relations with the Seleucid empire.
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
Slavonic occupation.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7TH CENTURIES.
----------MACEDONIA: End----------
MACEDON IAN DYNASTY, The.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
MACEDONIAN PHALANX.
See PHALANX, MACEDONIAN.
MACEDONIAN WARS, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
MACERATA, Battle of (1815).
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1815.
McHENRY, Fort, The bombardment of, by the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
MACHICUIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
MACHINE, Political.
See STALWARTS.
MACK, Capitulation of, at Ulm.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).
MACKENZIE, William Lyon, and the Canadian Rebellion.
See CANADA: A. D.1837; and 1837-1838.
----------MACKINAW: Start--------
MACKINAW (MICHILLIMACKINAC):
Discovery and first Jesuit Mission.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
MACKINAW:
Rendezvous of the Coureurs de Bois.
See COUREURS DE BOIS.
MACKINAW: A. D. 1763.
Captured by the Indians.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
----------MACKINAW: End--------
McKINLEY TARIFF ACT, The.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1890.
McLEOD CASE, The.
See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.
MacMAHON, Marshal,
President of the French Republic, A. D. 1873-1879.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876; and 1875-1889.
MACON, Fort, Capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).
McPHERSON, General: Death in the Atlanta campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA);
and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).
MACRINUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 217-218.
MACUSHI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
MADAGASCAR: A. D. 1882-1883.
French claims and demands enforced by war.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
MADEIRA ISLAND, Discovery of.
In the year 1419, Joham Gonçalvez Zarco and Tristam Vaz,
"seeing from Porto Santo something that seemed like a cloud,
but yet different (the origin of so much discovery, noting the
difference in the likeness), built two boats, and, making for
this cloud, soon found themselves alongside a beautiful
island, abounding in many things, but most of all in trees, on
which account they gave it the name of Madeira (wood)."
A. Helps,
Spanish Conquest,
book 1, chapter 1.
MADISON, James,
and the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; 1787-1789.
Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808 to 1817.
MADRAS: A. D. 1640.
The founding of the city.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
MADRAS: A. D. 1746-1748.
Taken by the French.
Restored to England.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
MADRAS: A. D. 1758-1759.
Unsuccessful siege by the French.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
----------MADRID: Start--------
MADRID: A. D. 1560.
Made the capital of Spain by Philip II.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.
MADRID: A. D. 1706-1710.
Taken and retaken by the French and Austrian claimants
of the crown.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1706; and 1707-1710.
MADRID: A. D. 1808.
Occupied by the French.
Popular insurrection.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
MADRID: A. D. 1808.
Arrival of Joseph Bonaparte, as king, and his speedy flight.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).
MADRID: A. D. 1808 (December).
Recovery by the French.
Return of King Joseph Bonaparte.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
MADRID: A. D. 1812.
Evacuation by the French.
Occupation of the city by Wellington and his army.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
MADRID: A. D. 1823.
Again occupied by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
{2066}
MADRID, The Treaty of (1526).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.
----------MADRID: End--------
MÆATÆ, The.
A common or national name given by the Romans to the tribes in
Scotland which dwelt between the Forth and the Clyde, next to
"the wall."
MÆOTIS PALUS,
PALUS MÆOTIS.
The ancient Greek name of the body of
water now called the Sea of Azov.
----------MAESTRICHT: Start--------
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1576.
The Spanish Fury.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1579.
Spanish siege, capture and massacre.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1632.
Siege and capture by the Dutch.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1673.
Siege and capture by Vauban and Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1676.
Unsuccessfully besieged by William of Orange.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1678.
Restored to Holland.
See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1748.
Taken by the French and restored to Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, CONGRESS AND TREATY.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1793.
Unsuccessful siege by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1795.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
----------MAESTRICHT: End--------
MAFRIAN.
See JACOBITE CHURCH.
MAGADHA, The kingdom of.
See INDIA: B. C. 327-312; and 312—.
MAGDALA, Capture of (1868).
See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
MAGDEBURG: A. D. 1631.
Siege, storming, and horrible sack and massacre
by the troops of Tilly.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.
MAGELLAN, Voyage of.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
MAGENTA, Battle of (1859).
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.
MAGESÆTAS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
MAGIANS.
MAGI.
The priesthood of the ancient Iranian religion—the religion
of the Avesta and of Zarathrustra, or Zoroaster—as it existed
among the Medes and Persians. In Eastern Iran the priests were
called Athravas. In Western Iran "they are not called
Athravas, but Magush. This name is first found in the
inscription which Darius caused to be cut on the rock-wall of
Behistun; afterwards it was consistently used by Western
writers, from Herodotus to Agathias, for the priests of Iran."
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 8 (volume 5).
"The priests of the Zoroastrians, from a time not long
subsequent to Darius Hystaspis, were the Magi. This tribe, or
caste, originally perhaps external to Zoroastrianism, had come
to be recognised as a true priestly order; and was entrusted
by the Sassanian princes with the whole control and direction
of the religion of the state. Its chief was a personage
holding a rank but very little inferior to the king. He bore
the title of 'Tenpet,' 'Head of the Religion,' or 'Movpetan
Movpet,' 'Head of the Chief Magi.'"
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 28.
"To the whole ancient world Zoroaster's lore was best known by
the name of the doctrine of the Magi, which denomination was
commonly applied to the priests of India, Persia, and
Babylonia. The earliest mention of them is made by the prophet
Jeremiah (xxxix. 3), who enumerated among the retinue of King
Nebuchadnezzar at his entry into Jerusalem, the 'Chief of the
Magi' ('rab mag' in Hebrew), from which statement we may
distinctly gather that the Magi exercised a great influence at
the court of Babylonia 600 years B. C. They were, however,
foreigners, and are not to be confounded with the indigenous
priests. … The name Magi occurs even in the New Testament.
In the Gospel according to St. Matthew (ii. 1), the Magi
(Greek 'magoi,' translated in the English Bible by 'wise men')
came from the East to Jerusalem, to worship the new-born child
Jesus at Bethlehem. That these Magi were priests of the
Zoroastrian religion, we know from Greek writers."
M. Haug,
Essays on the Religion of the Parsis, 1.
See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.
MAGNA CARTA.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.
MAGNA GRÆCIA.
"It was during the height of their prosperity, seemingly, in
the sixth century B. C., that the Italic Greeks [in southern
Italy] either acquired for, or bestowed upon, their territory
the appellation of Magna Græcia, which at that time it well
deserved; for not only were Sybaris and Kroton then the
greatest Grecian cities situated near together, but the whole
peninsula of Calabria may be considered as attached to the
Grecian cities on the coast. The native Œnotrians and Sikels
occupying the interior had become hellenised, or
semi-hellenised, with a mixture of Greeks among them—common
subjects of these great cities."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22.
On the Samnite conquest of Magna Græcia
See SAMNITES.
MAGNANO, Battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D, 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
MAGNATÆ, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
MAGNESIA.
The eastern coast of Thessaly was anciently so called. The
Magnetes who occupied it were among the people who became
subject to the Thessalians or Thesprotians, when the latter
came over from Epirus and occupied the valley of the Peneus.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 3.
Two towns named Magnesia in Asia Minor were believed to be
colonies from the Magnetes of Thessaly. One was on the south
side of the Meander; the other, more northerly, near the river
Harmus.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 13.
MAGNESIA, Battle of (B. C. 190).
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
MAGNUS I., King of Denmark,
A. D. 1042-1047.
Magnus I. (called The Good), King of Norway, 1035-1047.
Magnus I., King of Sweden, 1275-1290.
Magnus II., King of Norway, 1066-1069.
Magnus II., King of Sweden, 1319-1350, and 1359-1363;
and VII. of Norway, 1319-1343.
Magnus III., King of Norway, 1093-1103.
Magnus IV., King of Norway, 1130-1134.
Magnus V., King of Norway, 1162-1186.
Magnus VI., King of Norway, 1263-1280.
{2067}
MAGYARS, The.
See HUNGARIANS.
MAHARAJA.
See RAJA.
MAHDI, Al, Caliph, A. D. 775-785.
MAHDI, The.
"The religion of Islam acknowledges the mission of Jesus, but
not His divinity. Since the Creation, it teaches, five
prophets had appeared before the birth of Mahomet—Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Moses, and Jesus—each being greater than his
predecessor, and each bringing a fuller and higher revelation
than the last. Jesus ranks above all the prophets of the old
dispensation, but below those of the new, inaugurated by
Mahomet. In the final struggle He will be but the servant and
auxiliary of a more august personage—the Mahdi. The literal
meaning of the word Mahdi is not, as the newspapers generally
assert, 'He who leads,' a meaning more in consonance with
European ideas, but 'He who is led.' … If he leads his
fellow-men it is because he alone is the 'well-guided one,'
led by God—the Mahdi. The word Mahdi is only an epithet which
may be applied to any prophet, or even to any ordinary person;
but used as a proper name it indicates him who is
'well-guided' beyond all others, the Mahdi 'par excellence,'
who is to end the drama of the world, and of whom Jesus shall
only be the vicar. … The Koran does not speak of the Mahdi,
but it seems certain that Mahomet must have announced him. …
The idea of the Mahdi once formed, it circulated throughout
the Mussulman world: we will follow it rapidly in its course
among the Persians, the Turks, the Egyptians, and the Arabs of
the Soudan; but without for an instant pretending to pass in
review all the Mahdis who have appeared upon the prophetic
stage; for their name is Legion."
J. Darmesteter,
The Mahdi, Past and Present,
chapters 1-2.
See, also,
ISLAM; ALMOHADES;
and EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883, and 1884-1885.
MAHDIYA:
Taken by the Moorish Corsair, Dragut,
and retaken by the Spaniards (1550).
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
MAHMOUD I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1730-1754.
Mahmoud II., Turkish Sultan, 1808-1839.
Mahmoud, the Afghan, Shah of Persia, 1722-1725.
Mahmoud, the Gaznevide, The Empire of.
See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
----------MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: Start--------
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
The Mission of the Prophet.
Mahomet (the usage of Christendom has fixed this form of the
name Mohammad) was born at Mecca, on or about the 20th day of
August, A. D. 570. He sprang from "the noblest race in Mecca
and in Arabia [the tribe of Koreish and the family of Hashem].
To his family belonged the hereditary guardianship of the
Kaaba and a high place among the aristocracy of his native
city. Personally poor, he was raised to a position of
importance by his marriage with the rich widow Khadijah, whose
mercantile affairs he had previously conducted. In his
fortieth year he began to announce himself as an Apostle of
God, sent to root out idolatry, and to restore the true faith
of the preceding Prophets, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Slowly
and gradually he makes converts in his native city; his good
wife Khadijah, his faithful servant Zeyd, are the first to
recognize his mission; his young cousin, the noble Ali, the
brave and generous and injured model of Arabian chivalry,
declares himself his convert and Vizier; the prudent, moderate
and bountiful Abu-Bekr acknowledges the pretensions of the
daring innovator. Through mockery and persecution the Prophet
keeps unflinchingly in his path; no threats, no injuries,
hinder him from still preaching to his people the unity and
the righteousness of God, and exhorting to a far purer and
better morality than had ever been set before them. He claims
no temporal power, no spiritual domination; he asks but for
simple toleration, for free permission to win men by
persuasion into the way of truth. … As yet at least his
hands were not stained with blood, nor his inner life with
lust."
E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 2.
After ten years of preaching at Mecca, and of a private
circulation and repetition of the successive Suras or chapters
of the Koran, as the prophet delivered them, Mahomet had
gained but a small following, while the opposition to his
doctrines and pretensions had gained strength. But in A. D.
620 (he being then fifty years of age) he gained the ear of a
company of pilgrims from Medina and won them to his faith.
Returning home, they spread the gospel of Islam among their
neighbors, and the disciples at Medina were soon strong enough
in numbers to offer protection to their prophet and to his
persecuted followers in Mecca. As the result of two pledges,
famous in Mahometan history, which were given by the men of
Medina to Mahomet, in secret meetings at the hill of Acaba, a
general emigration of the adherents of the new faith from
Mecca to Medina took place in the spring of the year 622.
Mahomet and his closest friend, Abu Bakr, having remained with
their families until the last, escaped the rage of the
Koreish, or Coreish, only by a secret flight and a concealment
for three days in a cave on Mount Thaur, near Mecca. Their
departure from the cave of Thaur, according to the most
accepted reckoning, was on the 20th of June, A. D. 622. This
is the date of the Hegira, or flight, or emigration of Mahomet
from Mecca to Medina. The Mahometan Era of the Hegira, "though
referring 'par excellence' to the flight of the Prophet, …
is also applicable to all his followers who emigrated to
Medina prior to the capture of Mecca; and they are hence
called Muhâjirîn, i. e., the Emigrants, or Refugees. We have
seen that they commenced to emigrate from the beginning of
Moharram (the first month of the Hegira era) two months
before." The title of the Muhâjirîn, or Refugees, soon became
an illustrious one, as did that of the Ansar, or Allies, of
Medina, who received and protected them. At Medina Mahomet
found himself strongly sustained. Before the year of his
flight ended, he opened hostilities against the city which had
rejected him, by attacking its Syrian caravans. The attacks
were followed up and the traffic of Mecca greatly interfered
with, until January, 624, when the famous battle of Bedr, or
Badr, was fought, and the first great victory of the sword of
Islam achieved.
{2068}
The 300 warriors of Bedr formed "the peerage of Islam." From
this time the ascendancy of Mahomet was rapidly gained, and
assumed a political as well as a religious character. His
authority was established at Medina and his influence spread
among the neighboring tribes. Nor was his cause more than
temporarily depressed by a sharp defeat which he sustained,
January, 625, in battle with the Koreish at Ohod. Two years
later Medina was attacked and besieged by a great force of the
Koreish and other tribes of Arabs and Jews, against the latter
of whom Mahomet, after vainly courting their adhesion and
recognition, had turned with relentless hostility. The siege
failed and the retreat of the enemy was hastened by a timely
storm. In the next year Mahomet extorted from the Koreish a
treaty, known as the Truce of Hodeibia, which suspended
hostilities for ten years and permitted the prophet and his
followers to visit Mecca for three days in the following year.
The pilgrimage to Mecca was made in the holy month, February,
629, and in 630 Mahomet found adherents enough within the city
and outside of it to deliver the coveted shrine and capital of
Arabia into his hands. Alleging a breach of the treaty of
peace, he marched against the city with an army of 10,000 men,
and it was surrendered to him by his obstinate opponent, Abu
Sofiân, who acknowledged, at last, the divine commission of
Mahomet and became a disciple. The idols in the Kaaba were
thrown down and the ancient temple dedicated to the worship of
the one God. The conquest of Mecca was followed within no long
time by the submission of the whole Arabic peninsula. The most
obstinate in resisting were the great Bedouin tribe of the
Hawazin, in the hill country, southeast of Mecca, with their
kindred, the Bani Thackif. These were crushed in the important
battle of Honein, and their strong city of Tayif was
afterwards taken. Before Mahomet died, on the 8th June, A. D.
632, he was the prince as well as the prophet of Arabia, and
his armies, passing the Syrian borders, had already
encountered the Romans, though not gloriously, in a battle
fought at Muta, not far from the Dead Sea.
Sir W. Muir,
Life of Mahomet.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 50.
J. W. H. Stobart,
Islam and its Founder,
chapters 3-9.
W. Irving,
Mahomet and his Successors,
chapters 6-39.
R. D. Osborn,
Islam under the Arabs,
part 1, chapters 1-3.
See, also,
ISLAM, and ERA, MAHOMETAN.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
Abu Bekr.
Omar.
The founding of the Caliphate.
Conquest of Syria.
The death of Mahomet left Islam without a head. The Prophet
had neither named a successor (Khalif or Caliph), nor had he
instituted a mode in which the choice of one should be made.
His nephew and son-in-law—"the Bayard of Islam," the
lion-hearted Ali—seemed the natural heir of that strangely
born sovereignty of the Arab world. But its elders and chiefs
were averse to Ali, and the assembly which they convened
preferred, instead, the Prophet's faithful friend, the
venerable Abu Bekr. This first of the caliphs reigned modestly
but two years, and on his death, July, A. D. 634, the stern
soldier Omar was raised to the more than royal place. By this
time the armies of the crescent were already far advanced
beyond the frontiers of Arabia in their fierce career of
conquest. No sooner had Abu Bekr, in 632, set his heel on some
rebellious movements, which threatened his authority, than he
made haste to open fields in which the military spirit and
ambitions of his unquiet people might find full exercise. With
bold impartiality he challenged, at once, and alike, the two
dominant powers of the eastern world, sending armies to invade
the soil of Persia, on one hand, and the Syrian provinces of
the Roman empire, on the other. The invincible Khaled, or
Caled, led the former, at first, but was soon transferred to
the more critical field, which the latter proved to be. "One
of the fifteen provinces of Syria, the cultivated lands to the
eastward of the Jordan, had been decorated by Roman vanity
with the name of 'Arabia'; and the first arms of the Saracens
were justified by the semblance of a national right." The
strong city of Bosra was taken, partly through the treachery
of its commander, Romanus, who renounced Christianity and
embraced the faith of Islam. From Bosra the Moslems advanced
on Damascus, but suspended the siege of the city until they
had encountered the army which the Emperor Heraclius sent to
its relief. This they did on the field of Aiznadin, in the
south of Palestine, July 30, A. D. 634, when 50,000 of the
Roman-Greeks and Syrians are said to have perished, while but
470 Arabs fell. Damascus was immediately invested and taken
after a protracted siege, which Voltaire has likened to the
siege of Troy, on account of the many combats and
stratagems—the many incidents of tragedy and romance—which
poets and historians have handed down, in some connection with
its progress or its end. The ferocity of Khaled was only half
restrained by his milder colleague in command, Abu Obeidah,
and the wretched inhabitants of Damascus suffered terribly at
his hands. The city, itself, was spared and highly favored,
becoming the Syrian capital of the Arabs. Heliopolis (Baalbec)
was besieged and taken in January, A. D. 636; Emessa
surrendered soon after. In November, 636, a great and decisive
battle was fought with the forces of Heraclius at Yermuk, or
Yermouk, on the borders of Palestine and Arabia. The
Christians fought obstinately and well, but they were
overwhelmed with fearful slaughter. "After the battle of
Yermuk the Roman army no longer appeared in the field; and the
Saracens might securely choose, among the fortified towns of
Syria, the first object of their attack. They consulted the
caliph whether they should march to Cæsarea or Jerusalem; and
the advice of Ali determined the immediate siege of the
latter. … After Mecca and Medina, it was revered and visited
by the devout Moslems as the temple of the Holy Land, which
had been sanctified by the revelation of Moses, of Jesus, and
of Mahomet himself." The defense of Jerusalem, notwithstanding
its great strength, was maintained with less stubbornness than
that of Damascus had been. After a siege of four months, in
the winter of A. D. 637, the Christian patriarch or bishop of
Jerusalem, who seems to have been first in authority, proposed
to give up the Holy City, if Omar, the caliph, would come in
person from Medina to settle and sign the terms of surrender.
Omar deemed the prize worthy of this concession and made the
long journey, travelling as simply as the humblest pilgrim and
entering Jerusalem on foot.
{2069}
After this, little remained to make the conquest of all Syria
complete. Aleppo was taken, but not easily, after a siege, and
Antioch, the splendid seat of eastern luxury and wealth, was
abandoned by the emperor and submitted, paying a great ransom
for its escape from spoliation and the sword. The year 639 saw
Syria at the feet of the Arabs whom it had despised six years
before, and the armies of the caliph were ready to advance to
new fields, east, northwards, and west.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 51.
ALSO IN:
W. Irving,
Mahomet and His Successors,
volume 2, chapters 3-23.
S. Ockley,
History of the Saracens: Abubeker.
Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapters 2, 11, 19-21.
See, also,
JERUSALEM: A. D. 637;
and TYRE: A. D. 638.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
Conquest of Persia.
During the invasion of Syria, Abu Bekr, the first of the
Caliphs, sent an expedition towards the Euphrates, under
command of the redoubtable Khaled (633). The first object of
its attack was Hira, a city on the western branch of the
Euphrates, not far from modern Kufa. Hira was the seat of a
small kingdom of Christian Arabs tributary to Persia and under
Persian protection and control. Its domain embraced the
northern part of that fertile tract between the desert and the
Euphrates which the Arab writers call Sawad; the southern part
being a Persian province of which the capital, Obolla, was the
great emporium of the Indian trade. Hira and Obolla were
speedily taken and this whole region subdued. But, Khaled
being then transferred to the army in Syria, the Persians
regained courage, while the energy of the Moslems was relaxed.
In an encounter called the Battle of the Bridge, A. D. 635,
the latter experienced a disastrous check; but the next year
found them more victorious than ever. The great battle of
Cadesia (Kadisiyeh) ended all hope in Persia of doing more
than defend the Euphrates as a western frontier. Within two
years even that hope disappeared. The new Arab general, Sa'ad
Ibn Abi Wakas, having spent the interval in strengthening his
forces, and in founding the city of Busrah, or Bassora, below
the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris, as well as that of
Kufa, which became the Moslem capital, advanced into
Mesopotamia, A. D. 637, crossing the river without opposition.
The Persian capital, Ctesiphon, was abandoned to him so
precipitately that most of its vast treasures fell into his
hands. It was not until six months later that the Persians and
Arabs met in battle, at Jalula, and the encounter was fatal to
the former, 100,000 having perished on the field. "By the
close of the year A. D. 637 the banner of the Prophet waved
over the whole tract west of Zagros, from Nineveh almost to
Susa." Then a brief pause ensued. In 641 the Persian king
Isdigerd—last of the Sassanian house—made a great, heroic
effort to recover his lost dominions and save what remained.
He staked all and lost, in the final battle of Nehavend, which
the Arabs called "Fattah-hul-Futtuh," or "Victory of
Victories." "The defeat of Nehavend terminated the Sassanian
power. Isdigerd indeed, escaping from Rei, and flying
continually from place to place, prolonged an inglorious
existence for the space of ten more years—from A. D. 641 to
A. D. 651; but he had no longer a kingdom. Persia fell to
pieces on the occasion of 'the victory of victories,' and made
no other united effort against the Arabs. Province after
province was occupied by the fierce invaders; and, at length,
in A. D. 651, their arms penetrated to Merv, where the last
scion of the house of Babek had for some years found a refuge.
… The order of conquest seems to have been the following:
Media, Northern Persia, Rhagiana, Azerbijan, Gurgan, Tantrist,
and Khorassan in A. D. 642; Southern Persia, Kerman, Seistan,
Mekran, and Kurdistan in A. D. 643; Merv, Balkh, Herat, and
Kharezm in A. D. 650 or 652."
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 26, and foot-notes.
ALSO IN:
W. Irving,
Mahomet and his Successors,
volume 2, chapters 25-34.
Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapters 10-18, 25-26.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
Conquest of Egypt.
"It was in the nineteenth or twentieth year of the Hegira [A.
D. 640 or 641] that Amru, having obtained the hesitating
consent of the Caliph, set out from Palestine for Egypt. His
army, though joined on its march by bands of Bedouins lured by
the hope of plunder, did not at the first exceed 4,000 men.
Soon after he had left, Omar, concerned at the smallness of
his force, would have recalled him; but finding that he had
already gone too far to be stopped, he sent heavy
reinforcements, under Zobeir, one of the chief Companions,
after him. The army of Amru was thus swelled to an imposing
array of from 12,000 to 16,000 men, some of them warriors of
renown. Amru entered Egypt by Arish, and overcoming the
garrison at Faroma [ancient Pelusium], turned to the left and
so passed onward through the desert, reaching thus the
easternmost of the seven estuaries of the Nile. Along this
branch of the river he marched by Bubastis towards Upper
Egypt,"—and, so, to Heliopolis, near to the great ancient
city of Misr, or Memphis. Here, and throughout their conquest
of Egypt, the Moslem invaders appear to have found some
goodwill towards them prevailing among the Christians of the
Jacobite sect, who had never become reconciled to the Orthodox
Greeks. Heliopolis and Memphis were surrendered to their arms
after some hard fighting and a siege of no long duration.
"Amru lost no time in marching upon Alexandria so as to reach
it before the Greek troops, hastily called in from the
outlying garrisons, could rally there for its defence. On the
way he put to flight several columns which sought to hinder
his advance; and at last presented himself before the walls of
the great city, which, offering (as it still does) on the land
side a narrow and well-fortified front, was capable of an
obstinate resistance. Towards the sea also it was open to
succour at the pleasure of the Byzantine Court. But during the
siege Heraclius died, and the opportunity of relief was
supinely allowed to slip away." In the end Alexandria
capitulated and was protected from plunder (see LIBRARIES,
ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA), paying tribute to the conquerors. "Amru,
it is said, wished to fix his seat of government at
Alexandria, but Omar would not allow him to remain so far away
from his camp, with so many branches of the Nile between. So
he returned to Upper Egypt. A body of the Arabs crossed the
Nile and settled in Ghizeh, on the western bank—a movement
which Omar permitted only on condition that a strong fortress
was constructed there to prevent the possibility of their
being surprised and cut off.
{2070}
The headquarters of the army were pitched near Memphis. Around

them grew up a military station, called from its origin
Fostat, or 'the Encampment.' It expanded rapidly into the
capital of Egypt, the modern Cairo. … This name 'Cahira,'
or City of the Victory, is of later date [see below: A. D.
908-1171]. … Zobeir urged Amru to enforce the right of
conquest, and divide the land among his followers. But Amru
refused; and the Caliph, as might have been expected,
confirmed the judgment. 'Leave the land of Egypt,' was his
wise reply, 'in the people's hands to nurse and fructify.' As
elsewhere, Omar would not allow the Arabs to become
proprietors of a single acre. Even Amru was refused ground
whereupon to build a mansion for himself. … So the land of
Egypt, left in the hands of its ancestral occupants, became a
rich granary for the Hejaz, even as in bygone times it had
been the granary of Italy and the Byzantine empire. … Amru,
with the restless spirit of his faith, soon pushed his
conquests westward beyond the limits of Egypt, established
himself in Barca, and reached even to Tripoli. … Early in
the Caliphate of Othman [A. D. 646] a desperate attempt was
made to regain possession of Alexandria. The Moslems, busy
with their conquests elsewhere, had left the city
insufficiently protected. The Greek inhabitants conspired with
the Court; and a fleet of 300 ships was sent under command of
Manuel, who drove out the garrison and took possession of the
city. Amru hastened to its rescue. A great battle was fought
outside the walls: the Greeks were defeated, and the unhappy
town was subjected to the miseries of a second and a longer
siege. It was at last taken by storm and given up to plunder.
… The city, though still maintaining its commercial import,
fell now from its high estate. The pomp and circumstance of
the Moslem Court were transferred to Fostat, and Alexandria
ceased to be the capital of Egypt."
Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapter 24, with foot-note.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 51.
W. Irving,
Mahomet and his Successors,
volume 2, chapters 24 and 35.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 644.
Assassination of Caliph Omar.
The death of Omar, the second of the Caliphs, was a violent
one. "It occurred in November, A. D. 644. One day a slave who
worked for his master at the carpenter's bench came to see the
Commander of the Faithful, and complained to him of being
overworked, and badly treated by the citizen that owned him.
Omar listened attentively, but arriving at the conclusion that
the charges were false, sternly dismissed the carpenter to his
bench. The man retired, vowing to be revenged. The following
day was Friday, 'the day of the Assembly.' Omar, as usual,
went to lead the prayers of the assembly in the great mosque.
He opened his mouth to speak. He had just said 'Allah,' when
the keen dagger of the offended slave was thrust into his
back, and the Commander of the Faithful fell on the sacred
floor, fatally wounded. The people, in a perfect frenzy of
horror and rage, fell upon the assassin, but with superhuman
strength he threw them off, and rushing about in the madness
of despair he killed some and wounded others, and finally
turning the point of his dagger to his own breast, fell dead.
Omar lingered several days in great agony, but he was brave to
the end. His dying words were, 'Give to my successor this
parting bequest, that he be kind to the men of this city,
Medina, which gave a home to us, and to the Faith. Tell him to
make much of their virtues, and to pass lightly over their
faults. Bid him also treat well the Arab tribes, for verily
they are the backbone of Islam. Moreover, let him faithfully
fulfil the covenants made with the Christians and the Jews! O
Allah! I have finished my course! To him that cometh after me,
I leave the kingdom firmly established and at peace!' Thus
perished one of the greatest Princes the Mohammedans were ever
to know. Omar was truly a great and good man, of whom
any country and any creed might be proud."
J. J. Pool,
Studies in Mohammedanism,
pages 58-59.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.
Conquest of northern Africa.
"While Egypt was won almost without a blow, Latin Africa
[northern Africa beyond Egypt] took sixty years to conquer. It
was first invaded under Othman in 647, but Carthage was not
subdued till 698, nor was the province fully reduced for
eleven years longer. And why? Doubtless because Africa
contained two classes of inhabitants, not over-friendly to
each other, but both of whom had something to lose by a
Saracenic conquest. The citizens of Carthage were Roman in
every sense, their language was Latin, their faith was
orthodox; they had no wrongs beyond those which always afflict
provincials under a despotism; wrongs not likely to be
alleviated by exchanging a Christian despot at Constantinople
for an infidel one at Medina or Damascus. Beyond them, in the
inland provinces, were the native Moors, barbarians, and many
of them pagans; they had fought for their rude liberty against
the Cæsars, and they had no intention of surrendering it to
the Caliphs. Romans and Moors alike long preferred the chances
of the sword to either Koran or tribute; but their ultimate
fate was different. Latin civilization and Latin Christianity
gradually disappeared by the decay and extermination of their
votaries. The Moors, a people not unlike the Arabs in their
unconverted state, were at last content to embrace their
religion, and to share their destinies and their triumphs.
Arabs and Moors intermingled went on to further conquests; and
the name of the barbarian converts was more familiarly used in
Western Europe to denote the united nation than the terrible
name of the original compatriots of the Prophet."
E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 3.
"In their climate and government, their diet and habitation,
the wandering Moors resembled the Bedoweens of the desert.
With the religion they were proud to adopt the language, name,
and origin of Arabs; the blood of the strangers and natives
was insensibly mingled; and from the Euphrates to the Atlantic
the same nation might seem to be diffused over the sandy
plains of Asia and Africa. Yet I will not deny that 50,000
tents of pure Arabians might be transported over the Nile and
scattered through the Libyan desert; and I am not ignorant
that five of the Moorish tribes still retain their barbarous
idiom, with the appellation and character of 'white'
Africans."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 51.
"By 647 the Barbary coast was overrun up to the gates of Roman
Carthage; but the wild Berber population was more difficult to
subdue than the luxurious subjects of the Sasanids of Persia
or the Greeks of Syria and Egypt. Kayrawan was founded as the
African capital in 670; Carthage fell in 693, and the Arabs
pushed their arms as far as the Atlantic. From Tangier they
crossed into Spain in 710."
S. Lane-Poole,
The Mohammadan Dynasties,
page 5.
ALSO IN:
W. Irving,
Mahomet and his Successors,
volume 2, chapters 35, 44, 54-55.
R. D. Osborn,
Islam under the Arabs,
part 1, chapters 1-3.
See, also,
CARTHAGE: A. D. 698;
and MOROCCO.
{2071}
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.
Accession of the Omeyyads.
Abu Bekr, the immediate successor of Mahomet, reigned but two
years, dying August, A. D. 634. By his nomination, Omar was
raised to the Caliphate and ruled Islam until 644, when he was
murdered by a Persian slave. His successor was Othman, who had
been the secretary of the Prophet. The Caliphate of Othman was
troubled by many plots and increasing disaffection, which
ended in his assassination, A. D. 656. It was not until then
that Ali, the nephew and son-in-law of Mahomet, was permitted
to take the Prophet's seat. But the dissensions in the Moslem
world had grown more bitter as the fields of ambitious rivalry
were widened, and the factions opposed to Ali were implacable,
"Now begins the tragic tale of the wrongs and martyrdoms of
the immediate family of the Prophet. The province of Syria was
now ruled by the crafty Moawiyah, whose father was Abu-Sofian,
so long the bitterest enemy of Mahomet, and at last a tardy
and unwilling proselyte. … Such was the parentage of the man
who was to deprive the descendants of the Apostle of their
heritage. Moawiyah gave himself out as the avenger of Othman;
Ali was represented as his murderer, although his sons, the
grandsons of the Prophet, had fought, and one of them received
a wound, in the defence of that Caliph. … Ayesha, too, the
Mother of the Faithful, Telha and Zobeir, the Prophet's old
companions, revolted on their own account, and the whole of
the brief reign of Ali was one constant succession of civil
war." Syria adhered to Moawiyah. Ayesha, Zobeir and Telha
gained possession of Bussorah and made that city their
headquarters of rebellion. They were defeated there by Ali in
a great battle, A. D. 656, called the Battle of the Camel,
because the litter which bore Ayesha on the back of a camel
became the center of the fight. But he gained little from the
success; nor more from a long, indecisive battle fought with
Moawiyah at Siffin, in July, A. D. 657. Amru, the conqueror of
Egypt, had now joined Moawiyah, and his influence enlisted
that great province in the revolt. At last, in 661, the civil
war was ended by the assassination of Ali. His eldest son,
Hassan, who seems to have been a spiritless youth, bargained
away his claims to Moawiyah, and the latter became undisputed
Caliph, founding a dynasty called that of the Ommiades, or
Omeyyads (from Ommiah, or Omeyya, the great grandfather of
Moawiyah), which occupied the throne for almost a century—not
at Medina, but at Damascus, to which city the Caliphate was
now transferred. "In thus converting the Caliphate into an
hereditary monarchy he utterly changed its character. It soon
assumed the character of a common oriental empire. … The
Ommiads were masters of slaves instead of leaders of freemen;
the public will was no longer consulted, and the public good
as little; the Commander of the Faithful sank into an earthly
despot, ruling by force, like any Assyrian conqueror of old.
The early Caliphs dwelt in the sacred city of Medina, and
directed the counsels of the Empire from beside the tomb of
the Prophet. Moawiyah transferred his throne to the conquered
splendours of Damascus; and Mecca and Medina became tributary
cities to the ruler of Syria. At one time a rival Caliph,
Abdallah, established himself in Arabia; twice were the holy
cities taken by storm, and the Kaaba itself was battered down
by the engines of the invaders. … Such a revolution however
did not effect itself without considerable opposition. The
partizans of the house of Ali continued to form a formidable
sect. In their ideas the Vicarship of the Prophet was not to
be, like an earthly kingdom, the mere prize of craft or of
valour. It was the inalienable heritage of the sacred
descendants of the Prophet himself. … This was the origin of
the Shiah sect, the assertors of the rights of Ali and his
house."
E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 3.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapters 31-46.
R. D. Osborn,
Islam Under the Arabs,
part 3.
S. Lane-Poole,
The Mohammadan Dynasties,
pages 9-11.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.
The Tragedy at Kerbela.
When Ali, or Aly, the nephew and son-in-law of Mahomet, had
been slain, A. D. 661, and the Caliphate had been seized by
Moawiyah, the first of the Ommiades, "the followers of 'Aly
proclaimed his elder son, Hasan, Khalif; but this
poor-spirited youth was contented to sell his pretensions to
the throne. … On his death, his brother Hoseyn became the
lawful Khalif in the eyes of the partisans of the House of
'Aly, who ignored the general admission of the authority of
the 'Ommiades.' … For a time Hoseyn remained quietly at
Medina, leading a life of devotion, and declining to push his
claims. But at length an opportunity for striking a blow at
the rival House presented itself, and Hoseyn did not hesitate
to avail himself of it. He was invited to join an insurrection
which had broken out at Kufa [A. D. 680], the most mutinous
and fickle of all the cities of the empire; and he set out
with his family and friends, to the number of 100 souls, and
an escort of 500 horsemen, to join the insurgents. As he drew
nigh to Kufa, he discovered that the rising had been
suppressed by the 'Ommiade' governor of the city, and that
the country round him was hostile instead of loyal to him. And
now there came out from Kufa an army of 4,000 horse, who
surrounded the little body of travellers [on the plain of
Kerbela], and cut them off alike from the city and the river.
… A series of single combats, in which Hoseyn and his
followers displayed heroic courage, ended in the death of the
Imam and the men who were with him, and the enslaving of the
women and children."
S. Lane-Poole,
Studies in a Mosque,
chapter 7.
"The scene [of the massacre of Hosein and his band] … is
still fresh as yesterday in the mind of every Believer, and is
commemorated with wild grief and frenzy as often as the fatal
day, the Tenth of the first month of the year [tenth of
Moharram—October 10], comes round. … The tragedy of Kerbala
decided not only the fate of the Caliphate, but of Mahometan
kingdoms long after the Caliphate had waned and disappeared.
… The tragedy is yearly represented on the stage as a
religious ceremony"—in the "Passion Play" of the Moharram
Festival.
Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapter 49, with foot-note.
See, also, ISLAM.
{2072}
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 668-675.
First repulse from Constantinople.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 668-675.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.
Subjugation of the Turks.
"After the fall of the Persian kingdom, the river Oxus divided
the territories of the Saracens and of the Turks: This narrow
boundary was soon overleaped by the spirit of the Arabs; the
governors of Chorassan extended their successive inroads; and
one of their triumphs was adorned with the buskin of a Turkish
queen, which she dropped in her precipitate flight beyond the
hills of Bochara. But the final conquest of Transoxana, as
well as of Spain, was reserved for the glorious reign of the
inactive Walid; and the name of Catibah, the camel-driver,
declares the origin and merit of his successful lieutenant.
While one of his colleagues displayed the first Mahometan
banner on the banks of the Indus, the spacious regions between
the Oxus, the Jaxartes, and the Caspian sea were reduced by
the arms of Catibah to the obedience of the prophet and of the
caliph. A tribute of two millions of pieces of gold was
imposed on the infidels; their idols were burned or broken;
the Mussulman chief pronounced a sermon in the new mosch
[mosque] of Carizme; after several battles the Turkish hordes
were driven back to the desert; and the emperors of China
solicited the friendship of the victorious Arabs. To their
industry the prosperity of the province, the Sogdiana of the
ancients, may in a great measure be ascribed; but the
advantages of the soil and climate had been understood and
cultivated since the reign of the Macedonian kings. Before the
invasion of the Saracens, Carizme, Bochara, and Samarcand were
rich and populous under the yoke of the shepherds of the
North."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 51.
ALSO IN:
E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 3.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 711-713.
Conquest of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
------------------------------------
[Page 2073 and 2074 are placed here to avoid interrupting
the next article, "The repulse from Gaul.".]
SEVENTH CENTURY.
CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.
A.D.
602.
Revolt in Constantinople;
fall and death of Maurice;
accession of Phocas.
604.
Death of Pope Gregory the Great.
Death of St. Augustine of Canterbury. [Uncertain date.]
608.
Invasion of Asia Minor by Chosroes II., king of Persia.
610.
Death of the Eastern Emperor Phocas;
accession of Heraclius.
Venetia ravaged by the Avars.
614.
Invasion of Syria by Chosroes II.;
capture of Damascus.
615.
Capture of Jerusalem by Chosroes;
removal of the supposed True Cross.
616.
First expulsion of the Jews from Spain.
Advance of the Persians to the Bosphorus.
622.
The flight of Mahomet from Mecca (the Hegira).
Romans under Heraclius victorious over the Persians.
626.
Siege of Constantinople by Persians and Avars.
627.
Victory of Heraclius over Chosroes of Persia, at Nineveh.
Conversion of Northumbria to Christianity.
628.
Recovery of Jerusalem and of the supposed True Cross,
from the Persians, by Heraclius.
630.
Submission of Mecca to the Prophet.
632.
Death of Mahomet;
Abu Bekr chosen caliph.
634.
Death of Abu Bekr;
Omar chosen caliph.
Battle of Hieromax or Yermuk;
Battle of the Bridge. [Uncertain date.]
Defeat of Heraclius.
Compilation and arrangement of the Koran. [Uncertain date.]
635.
Siege and capture of Damascus by the Mahometans;
invasion of Persia;
victory at Kadisiyeh. [Uncertain date.]
Defeat of the Welsh by the English
in the battle of the Heavenfield.
636.
Mahometan subjugation of Syria;
retreat of the Romans.
637.
Siege and conquest of Jerusalem by the Moslems;
their victories in Persia.
639.
Publication of the Ecthesis of Heraclius.
640.
Capture of Cæsarea by the Moslems;
invasion of Egypt by Amru.
641.
Death of the Eastern Emperor Heraclius;
three rival emperors;
accession of Constans II.
Victory at Nehavend and final conquest of Persia
by the Mahometans;
end of the Sassanian kingdom;
capture of Alexandria, [Uncertain date.]
founding of Cairo.
643.
Publication of the Lombard Code of Laws.
644.
Assassination of Omar;
Othman chosen caliph.
646.
Alexandria recovered by the Greeks and lost again.
648.
Publication by Constans II. of the edict called "The Type."
649.
Mahometan invasion of Cyprus.
650.
Conquest of Merv, Balkh, and Herat by the Moslems.
[Uncertain date.]
652.
Conversion of the East Saxons in England.
653.
Seizure and banishment of Pope Martin I.
by the Emperor Constans II.
656.
Murder of Caliph Othman;
Ali chosen caliph;
rebellion of Moawiyah;
civil war;
Battle of the Camel.
657.
Ali's transfer of the seat of government to Kufa.
658.
Syria abandoned to Moawiyah;
Egypt in revolt.
661.
Assassination of Ali;
Moawiyah, first of the Omeyyads, made caliph;
Damascus his capital.
663.
Visit of the Emperor Constans to Rome.
668.
Assassination of Constans at Syracuse; [Uncertain date.]
accession of Constantine IV. to the throne of the Eastern Empire.
Beginning of the siege of Constantinople by the Saracens.
670.
The founding of Kairwan, or Kayrawan. [Uncertain date.]
673.
First Council of the Anglo-Saxon Church, at Hereford.
Birth of the Venerable Bede [Uncertain date.] (died 735).
677.
The raising of the siege of Constantinople;
treaty of peace. [Uncertain date.]
680.
Sixth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople;
condemnation of the Monothelite heresy.
Massacre at Kerbela of Hoseyn, son of Ali, and his followers.
685.
Death of the Eastern Emperor, Constantine IV.,
and accession of Justinian II.
The Angles of Northumbria, under King Ecgfrith,
defeated by the Picts at Nectansmere.
687.
Battle of Testri;
victory of Pippin of Heristal over the Neustrians.
695.
Fall and banishment of Justinian II.
696.
Founding of the bishopric of Salzburg.
697.
Election of the first Doge of Venice.
698.
Conquest and destruction of Carthage by the Moslems.
[Uncertain date]
EIGHTH CENTURY.
CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.
A.D.
704.
Recovery of the throne by the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.
705.
Accession of the Caliph Welid.
709.
Accession of Roderick to the Gothic throne in Spain.
711.
Invasion of Spain by the Arab-Moors.
Moslem conquest of Transoxiana and Sardinia.
Final fall and death of the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.
712.
Surrender of Toledo to the Moslem invaders of Spain.
717.
Elevation of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of the Eastern Empire.
Second siege of Constantinople by the Moslems.
Great defeat of the Moslems at the Cave of Covadonga in Spain.
718.
Victory of Charles Martel at Soissons;
his authority acknowledged in both Frankish kingdoms.
719.
Mahometan conquest and occupation of Narbonne.
721.
Siege of Toulouse;
defeat of the Moslems.
725.
Mahometan conquests in Septimania.
726.
Iconoclastic edicts of Leo the Isaurian;
tumult and insurrection in Constantinople.
731.
Death of Pope Gregory II.;
election of Gregory III.;
last confirmation of a Papal election by the Eastern Emperor.
732.
Great defeat of the Moslems by the Franks
under Charles Martel at Poitiers, or Tours.
Council held at Rome by Pope Gregory III.;
edict against the Iconoclasts.
733.
Practical termination of Byzantine imperial authority.
735.
Birth of Alcuin (died 804).
740.
Death of Leo the Isaurian, Emperor in the East;
accession of Constantine V.
741.
Death of Charles Martel.
Death of Pope Gregory III.;
election of Zacharias.
742.
Birth of Charlemagne (died 814).
744.
Defeat of the Saxons by Carloman;
their forced baptism.
Death of Liutprand, king of the Lombards.
747.
The Plague in Constantinople.
Pippin the Short made Mayor in both kingdoms of the Franks.
750.
Fall of the Omeyyad dynasty of caliphs and rise of the Abbassides.
751.
Extinction of the Exarchate of Ravenna by the Lombards.
752.
End of the Merovingian dynasty of Frankish kings;
assumption of the crown by Pippin the Short.
Death of Pope Zacharias;
election of Stephen II.
754.
First invasion of Italy by Pippin the Short.
Rome assailed by the Lombards.
755.
Subjugation of the Lombards by Pippin;
his donation of temporalities to the Pope.
Martyrdom of Saint Boniface in Germany.
756.
Founding of the caliphate of Cordova by Abderrahman.
757.
Death of Pope Stephen II.;
election of Paul I.
758.
Accession of Offa, king of Mercia.
759.
Loss of Narbonne, the last foothold of the
Mahometans north of the Pyrenees.
763.
Founding of the capital of the Eastern Caliphs at Bagdad.
[Uncertain date.]
767.
Death of Pope Paul I.;
usurpation of the anti-pope, Constantine.
768.
Conquest of Aquitaine by Pippin the Short.
Death of Pippin;
accession of Charlemagne and Carloman.
Deposition of the anti-pope Constantine;
election of Pope Stephen III.
771.
Death of Carloman, leaving Charlemagne sole king of the Franks.
772.
Charlemagne's first wars with the Saxons.
Death of Pope Stephen III.;
election of Hadrian I.
774.
Charlemagne's acquisition of the Lombard kingdom;
his enlargement of the donation of temporalities to the Pope.
Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine." [Uncertain date.]
775.
Death of the Eastern Emperor Constantine V.;
accession of Leo IV.
778.
Charlemagne's invasion of Spain;
the "dolorous rout" of Roncesvalles.
780.
Death of the Eastern Emperor Leo IV.;
accession of Constantine VI.;
regency of Irene.
781.
Italy and Aquitaine formed into separate kingdoms by Charlemagne.
785.
Great struggle of the Saxons against Charlemagne;
submission of Wittikind.
786.
Accession of Haroun al Raschid in the eastern caliphate.
787.
Seventh General Council of the Church (Second Council of Nicæa).
First incursions of the Danes in England.
788.
Subjugation of the Bavarians by Charlemagne.
Death of Abderrahman.
790.
Composition of the Caroline books. [Uncertain date.]
791.
Charlemagne's first campaign against the Avars.
794.
Accession of Cenwulf, king of Mercia.
795.
Death of Pope Hadrian I.;
election of Leo III.
797.
Deposition and blinding of the Eastern Emperor
Constantine VI., by his mother Irene.
800.
Imperial coronation of Charlemagne;
revival of the Empire.
Accession of Ecgberht, king of Wessex,
the first king of all the English.
-------------------------------------
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
The repulse from Gaul.
"The deeds of Musa [in Africa and Spain] had been performed
'in the evening of his life,' but, to borrow the words of
Gibbon, 'his breast was still fired with the ardor of youth,
and the possession of Spain was considered as only the first
step to the monarchy of Europe. With a powerful armament by
sea and land, he was preparing to pass the Pyrenees, to
extinguish in Gaul the declining kingdoms of the Franks and
Lombards, and to preach the unity of God on the altar of the
Vatican. Thence, subduing the barbarians of Germany, he
proposed to follow the course of the Danube from its source to
the Euxine Sea, to overthrow the Greek or Roman empire of
Constantinople, and, returning from Europe to Asia, to unite
his new acquisitions with Antioch and the provinces of Syria.'
This vast enterprise … was freely revolved by the successors
of Musa. In pursuance of it, El Haur, the new lieutenant of
the califs, assailed the fugitive Goths in their retreats in
Septimania (715-718). El Zamah, who succeeded him, crossed the
mountains, and, seizing Narbonne, expelled the inhabitants and
settled there a colony of Saracens (719). The following year
they passed the Rhone, in order to extend their dominion over
Provence, but, repelled by the dukes and the militia of the
country, turned their forces toward Toulouse (721). Eudo, Duke
of Aquitain, bravely defending his capital, brought on a
decisive combat. … El Zamah fell. The carnage among his
retreating men then became so great that the Arabs named the
passage from Toulouse to Carcassone the Road of Martyrs (Balat
al Chouda). Supporting their terrible reverses with the
characteristic resignation of their race and faith, the Arabs
were still able to retain a hold of Narbonne and of other
fortresses of the south, and, after a respite of four years,
spent in recruiting their troops from Spain and Africa, to
resume their projects of invasion and pillage in Gaul (725).
Under the Wali Anbessa, they ascended the Rhone as far as the
city of Lyons, devastating the towns and the fields. … When,
… at the close of his expeditions, Anbessa perished by the
hands of the Infidels, all the fanaticism of the Mussulman
heart was aroused into an eager desire for revenge. His
successor, Abd-el-Rahman, a tried and experienced general,
energetic and heroic as he was just and prudent, … entered
into elaborate preparations for the final conquest of Gaul.
For two years the ports of Syria, Egypt, and Africa swarmed
with departing soldiery, and Spain resounded with the calls
and cries to arms (727-729)." The storm broke first on
Aquitaine, and its valiant Duke Eudes, or Eudo, rashly meeting
the enemy in the open field, in front of Bordeaux, suffered an
irretrievable defeat (May, 731). Bordeaux was stormed and
sacked, and all Aquitaine was given up to the ravages of the
unsparing Moslem host. Eudes fled, a helpless fugitive, to his
enemies the Franks, and besought the aid of the great
palace-mayor, Karl Martel, practical sovereign of the Frankish
kingdoms, and father of the Pippin who would soon become king
in name as well as in fact. But, not for Aquitaine, only, but
for all Gaul, all Germany,—all Christendom in Europe,—Karl
and his Franks were called on to rally and do battle against
the sons of the desert, whose fateful march of conquest seemed
never to end. "'During all the rest of the summer, the Roman
clarions and the German horns sounded and groaned through all
the cities of Neustria and Austrasia, through the rustic
palaces of the Frankish leudes, and in the woody gaus of
western Germany.' … Meanwhile, Abel-el-Rahman, laden with
plunder and satiated with blood, had bent his steps toward the
southwest, where he concentrated his troops on the banks of
the Charente. Enriched and victorious as he was, there was
still an object in Gaul which provoked alike the cupidity and
the zeal of his followers. This was the Basilica of St. Martin
of Tours, the shrine of the Gallic Christians, where the
richest treasures of the Church were collected, and in which
the profoundest veneration of its members centred. He yearned
for the pillage and the overthrow of this illustrious
sanctuary, and, taking the road from Poitiers, he encountered
the giants of the North in the same valley of the Vienne and
Clain where, nearly three hundred years before, the Franks and
the Wisigoths had disputed the supremacy of Gaul. There, on
those autumn fields, the Koran and the Bible—Islamism and
Christianity—Asia and Europe—stood face to face, ready to
grapple in a deadly and decisive conflict. …
{2075}
Trivial skirmishes from time to time kept alive the ardor of
both hosts, till at length, at dawn on Saturday, the 11th of
October [A. D. 732], the signal for a general onset was given.
With one loud shout of Allah-Akbar (God is great), the Arab
horsemen charged like a tempest upon their foe, but the deep
columns of the Franks did not bend before the blast. 'Like a
wall of iron,' says the chronicler, 'like a rampart of ice,
the men of the North stood unmoved by the frightful shock.'
All day long the charges were renewed." Still the stout Franks
held their ground, and still the indomitable warriors of Islam
pressed upon them, until late in the afternoon, when the
latter were thrown into confusion by an attack on their rear.
Then Karl and his men charged on them and their lines were
broken—their rout was bloody and complete. When night put an
end to the slaughter, the Franks slept upon their arms,
expecting that the dreaded Saracens would rally and resume the
fight. But they vanished in the darkness. Their leader, the
brave Abd-el-Rahman had fallen in the wild melée and no
courage was left in their hearts. Abandoning everything but
their horses and their arms, they fled to Narbonne. "Europe
was rescued, Christianity triumphant, Karl the hero forever of
Christian civilization."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 14.
The booty found by the Franks in the Moslem camp "was
enormous; hard-money, ingots of the precious metals, melted
from jewels and shrines; precious vases, rich stuffs,
subsistence stores, flocks and herds gathered and parked in
the camp. Most of this booty had been taken by the Moslemah
from the Aquitanians, who now had the sorrow of seeing it
greedily divided among the Franks."
H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the! Arab-Moors,
book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
E. S. Creasy,
Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
chapter 7.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.
Omeyyads and Abbassides.
The dividing of the Caliphate.
The tragic death of Hosein and his companions at Kerbela
kindled a passion which time would not extinguish in the
hearts of one great party among the Moslems. The first
ambitious leader to take advantage of the excitement of it, as
a means of overthrowing the Omeyyads, was Abdallah ibn Zobeir,
who, posing first as the "Protector of the Holy House" of Ali,
soon proclaimed himself Caliph and maintained for thirteen
years a rival court at Mecca. In the war which raged during a
great part of those years, Medina was taken by storm and given
over to pillage, while the holy city of Mecca withstood a
siege of forty days, during which the sacred Caaba was
destroyed. Zobeir fell, at last, in a final battle fought
under the walls of Mecca. Meantime, several changes in the
caliphate at Damascus had taken place and the throne was soon
afterwards [A. D. 705] occupied by the Caliph Welid, whose
reign proved more glorious than that of any other prince of
his house. "Elements of disorder still remained, but under the
wise and firm sceptre of Welid they were held in check. The
arts of peace prevailed; schools were founded, learning
cultivated, and poets royally rewarded; public works of every
useful kind were promoted, and even hospitals established for
the aged, lame, and blind. Such, indeed, at this era, was the
glory of the court of Damascus that Weild, of all the Caliphs
both before and after, gives the precedence to Welid. It is
the fashion for the Arabian historians to abuse the Omeyyads
as a dissolute, intemperate, and godless race; but we must not
forget that these all wrote more or less under Abbasside
inspiration. … After Welid, the Omeyyad dynasty lasted
six-and-thirty years. But it began to rest on a precarious
basis. For now the agents of the house of Hashim, descendants
of the Prophet and of his uncle Abbas, commenced to ply
secretly, but with vigour and persistency, their task of
canvass and intrigue in distant cities, and especially in the
provinces of the East. For a long time, the endeavour of these
agitators was directed to the advocacy of the Shiya right;
that is to say, it was based upon the Divine claim of Aly, and
his descendants in the Prophet's line, to the Imamate or
leadership over the empire of Islam. … The discomfiture of
the Shiyas paved the way for the designing advocates of the
other Hashimite branch, namely, that of the house of Abbas,
the uncle of the Prophet. These had all along been plotting in
the background, and watching their opportunity. They now
vaunted the claims of this line, and were barefaced enough to
urge that, being descended from the uncle of Mahomet through
male representatives, they took precedence over the direct
descendants of the Prophet himself, because these came through
Fatima in the female line. About the year 130 of the Hegira,
Abul Abbas, of Abasside descent, was put forward in Persia, as
the candidate of this party, and his claim was supported by
the famous general Abu Muslim. Successful in the East, Abu
Muslim turned his arms to the West. A great battle, one of
those which decide the fate of empires, was fought on the
banks of the Zab [A. D. 750]; and, through the defection of
certain Kharejite and Yemen levies, was lost by the Omeyyad
army. Merwan II., the last of his dynasty, was driven to
Egypt, and there killed in the church of Bussir, whither he
had fled for refuge. At the close of the year 132 [August 5,
A. D. 750], the black flag, emblem of the Abbassides, floated
over the battlements of Damascus. The Omeyyad dynasty, after
ruling the vast Moslem empire for a century, now disappeared
in cruelty and bloodshed. … So perished the royal house of
the Omeyyads. But one escaped. He fled to Spain, which had
never favoured the overweening pretensions of the Prophet's
family, whether in the line of Aly or Abbas. Accepted by the
Arab tribes, whose influence in the West was paramount, Abd al
Rahman now laid the foundation of a new Dynasty and
perpetuated the Omeyyad name at the magnificent court of
Cordova. … Thus, with the rise of the Abbassides, the unity
of the Caliphate came to an end. Never after, either in theory
or in fact, was there a successor to the Prophet, acknowledged
as such over all Islam. Other provinces followed in the wake
of Spain. The Aghlabite dynasty in the east of Africa, and,
west of it, the Edrisites in Fez, both of Alyite descent;
Egypt and Sicily under independent rulers; the Tahirite kings
in Persia, their native soil; these and others, breaking away
from the central government, established kingdoms of their
own. The name of Caliph, however it might survive in the
Abbasside lineage, or be assumed by less legitimate
pretenders, had now altogether lost its virtue and
significance."
Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapter 50.
ALSO IN:
S. Lane-Poole,
The Mohammadan Dynasties,
pages 12-14.
R. D. Osborn,
Islam Under the Arabs,
part 3.
{2076}
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 717-718.
Second repulse from Constantinople.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 717-718.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.
Final expulsion from southern Gaul.
During the year of his coronation (A. D. 752) Pippin, or Pepin
the Short—the first of the Carolingians to assume the
Frankish crown—having taken measures to reduce Aquitaine to
obedience, was diverted, on his march towards that country,
into Septimania. The discord prevailing among the Moslems, who
had occupied this region of Gaul for more than thirty years,
"opened the prospect of an easy conquest. With little
fighting, and through the treachery of a Goth named Ansemond,
who commanded at Beziers, Agde, Maguelonne, and Nismes, under
an Arabian wali, he was enabled to seize those strong-holds,
and to leave a part of his troops to besiege Narbonne, as the
first step toward future success." Then Pippin was called away
by war with the Saxons and in Brittany, and was occupied with
other cares and conflicts, until A. D. 759, when he took up
and finished the task of expelling the Saracens from Gaul.
"His troops left in occupation of Septimania (752) had
steadily prosecuted the siege of Narbonne. … Not till after
a blockade of seven years was the city surrendered, and then
through the treason of the Christians and Goths who were
inside the walls, and made secret terms with the beleaguers.
They rose upon the Arabs, cut them in pieces, and opened the
gates to the Franks. A reduction of Elne, Caucoliberis, and
Carcassone followed hard upon that of Narbonne. … In a
little while the entire Arab population was driven out of
Septimania, after an occupation of forty years; and a large
and important province (equivalent nearly to the whole of
Languedoc), held during the time of the Merovingians by the
Wisigoths, was secured to the possession of the Franks. The
Arabs, however, though expelled, left many traces of their
long residence on the manners and customs of Southern Gaul."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 15.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 756-1031.
The Omeyyad caliphs of Cordova.
When the struggle of the house of Abbas with the house of
Omeyya, for the throne of the caliphate at Damascus, was ended
by the overthrow of the Omeyyads (A. D. 750), the wretched
members of the fallen family were hunted down with unsparing
ferocity. "A single youth of the doomed race escaped from
destruction. After a long series of romantic adventures, he
found his way into Spain [A. D. 756]; he there found
partizans, by whose aid he was enabled to establish himself as
sovereign of the country, and to resist all the attempts of
the Abbassides to regain, or rather to obtain, possession of
the distant province. From this Abderrahman [or Abdalrahman]
the Ommiad proceeded the line of Emirs and Caliphs of Cordova,
who reigned in splendour in the West for three centuries after
their house had been exterminated in their original
possessions. … When the Ommiad Abdalrahman escaped into
Spain … the peninsula was in a very disordered state. The
authority of the Caliphs of the East was nearly nominal, and
governors rose and fell with very little reference to their
distant sovereign. … The elevation of Abdalrahman may have
been the result, not so much of any blind preference of
Ommiads to Abbassides, as of a conviction that nature designed
the Iberian peninsula to form an independent state. But at
that early period of Mahometan history an independent
Mahometan state could hardly be founded, except under the
guise of a rival Caliphate. … And undoubtedly nothing is
more certain than that the Ommiads of Cordova were in every
sense a rival dynasty to the Abbassides of Bagdad. The race of
Moawiyah seem to have decidedly improved by their migration
westward. The Caliphs of Spain must be allowed one of the
highest places among Mahometan dynasties. In the duration of
their house and in the abundance of able princes which it
produced, they yield only to the Ottoman Sultans, while they
rise incomparably above them in every estimable quality. …
The most splendid period of the Saracen empire in Spain was
during the tenth century. The great Caliph Abdalrahman Annasir
Ledinallah raised the magnificence of the Cordovan monarchy to
its highest pitch. … The last thirty years of the Ommiad
dynasty are a mere wearisome series of usurpations and civil
wars. In 1031 the line became extinct, and the Ommiad empire
was cut up into numerous petty states. From this moment the
Christians advance, no more to retreat, and the cause of Islam
is only sustained by repeated African immigrations."
E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lectures 4-5.
ALSO IN:
H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 6, chapter 5;
book 7, chapters 1-4;
book 8, chapter 1.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 763.
The Caliphate transferred to Bagdad.
"The city of Damascus, full as it was of memorials of the
pride and greatness of the Ommiade dynasty, was naturally
distasteful to the Abbassides. The Caliph Mansur had commenced
the building of a new capital in the neighbourhood of Kufa, to
be called after the founder of his family, Hashimiyeh. The
Kufans, however, were devoted partisans of the descendants of
Ali. … The growing jealousy and distrust between the two
houses made it inadvisable for the Beni Abbas to plant the
seat of their empire in immediate propinquity to the
head-quarters of the Ali faction, and Mansur therefore
selected another site [about A. D. 763]. This was Bagdad, on
the western bank of the Tigris [fifteen miles above Medain,
which was the ancient Seleucia and Ctesiphon]. It was well
suited by nature for a great capital. The Tigris brought
commerce from Diyar Bekr on the north, and through the Persian
Gulf from India and China on the east; while the Euphrates,
which here approaches the Tigris at the nearest point, and is
reached by a good road, communicated directly with Syria and
the west. The name Bagdad is a very ancient one, signifying
'given or founded by the deity,' and testifies to the
importance of the site. The new city rapidly increased in
extent and magnificence, the founder and his next two
successors expending fabulous sums upon its embellishment, and
the ancient palaces of the Sassanian kings, as well as the
other principal cities of Asia, were robbed of their works of
art for its adornment."
E. H. Palmer,
Haroun Alraschid, Caliph of Bagdad,
chapter 2.
"Baghdad, answering to its proud name of 'Dar al Salam,' 'The
City of Peace,' became for a time the capital of the world,
the centre of luxury, the emporium of commerce, and the scat
of learning."
Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapter 50.
{2077}
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.
Decline and temporal fall of the Caliphate at Bagdad.
"It was not until nearly the close of the first century after
the Hejira that the banners of Islam were carried into the
regions beyond the Oxus, and only after a great deal of hard
fighting that the oases of Bokhara and Samarkand were annexed
to the dominions of the khalif. In these struggles, a large
number of Turks—men, women, and children—fell into the power
of the Moslems, and were scattered over Asia as slaves. …
The khalif Mamoun [son of Haroun Alraschid—A. D. 815-834] was
the first sovereign who conceived the idea of basing the royal
power on a foundation of regularly drilled Turkish soldiers."
R. D. Osborn,
Islam under the Khalifs of Bagdad,
part 3, chapter 1.
"The Caliphs from this time leaned for support on great bands
of foreign mercenaries, chiefly Turks, and their captains
became the real lords of the empire as soon as they realised
their own strength. How thoroughly the Abbásid caliphate had
been undermined was shown all at once in a shocking manner,
when the Caliph Mutawakkil was murdered by his own servants at
the command of his son, and the parricide Muntasir set upon
the throne in his stead (December 861). The power of the
Caliphs was now at an end; they became the mere playthings of
their own savage warriors. The remoter, sometimes even the
nearer, provinces were practically independent. The princes
formally recognised the Caliph as their sovereign, stamped his
name upon their coins, and gave it precedence in public
prayer, but these were honours without any solid value. Some
Caliphs, indeed, recovered a measure of real power, but only
as rulers of a much diminished State. Theoretically the
fiction of an undivided empire of Islam was maintained, but it
had long ceased to be a reality. The names of Caliph,
Commander of the Faithful, Imám, continued still to inspire
some reverence; the theological doctors of law insisted that
the Caliph, in spiritual things at least, must everywhere bear
rule, and control all judicial posts; but even theoretically
his position was far behind that of a pope, and in practice
was not for a moment to be compared to it. The Caliph never
was the head of a true hierarchy; Islam in fact knows no
priesthood on which such a system could have rested. In the
tenth century the Buids, three brothers who had left the
hardly converted Gilán (the mountainous district at the
southwest angle of the Caspian Sea) as poor adventurers,
succeeded in conquering for themselves the sovereign command
over wide domains, and over Bagdad itself [establishing what
is known as the dynasty of the Buids or Bouides, or Bowides,
or Dilemites]. They even proposed to themselves to displace
the Abbásids and set descendants of Ali upon the throne, and
abandoned the idea only because they feared that a Caliph of
the house of Ali might exercise too great an authority over
their Shíite soldiers, and so become independent; while, on
the other hand, they could make use of these troops for any
violence they chose against the Abbásid puppet who sat in
Mansúr's seat."
T. Nöldeke,
Sketches from Eastern History,
chapter 3.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 827-878.
Conquest of Sicily.
See SICILY: A. D. 827-878.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 840-890.
The Saracens in southern Italy.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171.
The Fatimite caliphs.
"Egypt, during the ninth and tenth centuries, was the theatre
of several revolutions. Two dynasties of Turkish slaves, the
Tolunides and the Ilkshidites, established themselves in that
country, which was only reunited to the Caliphate of Bagdad
for a brief period between their usurpations. But early in the
ninth century a singular power had been growing up on its
western border. … A schism arose among the followers of Ali
[the shiahs, who recognized no succession to the Prophet, or
Imamate—leadership in Islam—except in the line of descent
from Ali, nephew of Mahomet and husband of Mahomet's daughter,
Fatima], regarding the legitimate succession to the sixth Imam,
Jaffer. His eldest son, Ismail or Ishmael, dying before him,
Jaffer appointed another son, Moussa or Moses, his heir. But a
large body of the sect denied that Jaffer had the right to
make a new nomination; they affirmed the Imamate to be
strictly hereditary, and formed a new party of Ishmaelians,
who seem to have made something very like a deity of their
hero. A chief of this sect, Mahomet, surnamed Al Mehdi, or the
Leader, a title given by the Shiahs to their Imams, revolted
in Africa in 908. He professed himself, though his claims were
bitterly derided by his enemies, to be a descendant of
Ishmael, and consequently to be the legitimate Imam. Armed
with this claim, it was of course his business to acquire, if
he could, the temporal power of a Caliph; and as he soon
obtained the sovereignty of a considerable portion of Africa,

a rival Caliphate was consequently established in that
country. This dynasty assumed the name of Fatimites, in honour
of their famous ancestress Fatima, the daughter of the
Prophet. The fourth in succession, Muezzeddin by name,
obtained possession of Egypt about 967. … The Ilkshidites
and their nominal sovereigns, the Abbassides, lost Egypt with
great rapidity. Al Muezzeddin transferred his residence
thither, and founded [at Fostat—see above, A. D. 640-646] the
city of Cairo, which he made his capital. Egypt thus, from a
tributary province, became again, as in the days of its
Pharaohs and Ptolemies, the scat of a powerful kingdom. The
claims of the Egyptian Caliphs were diligently preached
throughout all Islam, and their temporal power was rapidly
extended into the adjoining provinces of Syria and Arabia.
Palestine became again … the battle-field for the lords of
Egypt and of the East. Jerusalem, the holy city of so many
creeds, was conquered and reconquered. … The Egyptian
Caliphate … played an important part in the history of the
Crusades. At last, in 1171, it was abolished by the famous
Saladin. He himself became the founder of a new dynasty; but
the formal aspect of the change was that Egypt, so long
schismatic, was again restored to the obedience of Bagdad.
Saladin was lord of Egypt, but the titles of the Abbasside
Caliph, the true Commander of the Faithful, appeared again on
the coin and in the public prayers, instead of that of his
Fatimite rival."
E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 4.
ALSO IN:
S. Lane-Poole,
The Mohammadan Dynasties,
pages 70-73.
W. C. Taylor,
History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,
chapters 8 and 10.
See, also,
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
{2078}
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 962-1187.
The Ghaznavide empire.
See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290;
and TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 964-976.
Losses in Syria and Cilicia.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025;
also, ANTIOCH, A. D. 969.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1004-1160.
The Seljuk Conquests.
See TURKS: A. D. 1004-1063 to 1092-1160.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1017.
Expulsion from Sardinia by the Pisans and Genoese.
See PISA: ORIGIN OF THE CITY.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1031-1086.
Fragmentary kingdoms in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1060-1090.
The loss of Sicily.
See ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1086-1147.
The empire of the Almoravides.
See ALMORAVIDES.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1146-1232.
The empire of the Almohades.
See ALMOHADES;
and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1240-1453.
Conquests of the Ottoman Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359;
1360-1389; 1389-1403; 1402-1451; and 1451-1481.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1258.
Extinction of the Caliphate of Bagdad by the Mongols.
See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1273-1492.
Decay and fall of the last Moorish kingdom in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460; and 1476-1492.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1519-1605.
The Mogul conquest of India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
----------MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: End----------
MAHOMETAN ERA.
See ERA, MAHOMETAN.
----------MAHRATTAS: Start--------
MAHRATTAS: 17th Century.
Origin and growth of power.
See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.
MAHRATTAS: A. D. 1759-1761.
Disastrous conflict with the Afghans.
Great defeat at Panniput.
See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
MAHRATTAS: A. D. 1781-1819.
Wars with the English.
See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783; 1798-1805; and 1816-1819.
----------MAHRATTAS: End--------
MAID OF NORWAY.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
MAID OF ORLEANS, The Mission of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
MAIDA, Battle of (1806).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).
MAILLOTINS, Insurrection of the,
See PARIS: A. D. 1381.
----------MAINE: Start--------
MAINE:
The Name.
"Sullivan in 'History of Maine,' and others, say that the
territory was called the Province of Maine, in compliment to
Queen Henrietta, who had that province in France for dowry.
But Folsom, 'Discourse on Maine' (Maine Historical Collection,
volume ii., page 38), says that that province in France did
not belong to Henrietta. Maine, like all the rest of the
coast, was known as the 'Maine,' the mainland, and it is not
unlikely that the word so much used by the early fishers on
the coast, may thus have been permanently given to this part
of it."
W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
History of the United States,
volume 1, page 337; foot-note.
MAINE:
Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
MAINE:
Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.
See NORUMBEGA;
also, CANADA: THE NAMES.
MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.
The Popham colony on the Kennebec.
Fruitless undertaking of the Plymouth Company.
The company chartered in England by King James, in 1606, for
the colonization of the indefinite region called Virginia, was
divided into two branches. To one, commonly spoken of as the
London Company, but sometimes as the Virginia Company, was
assigned a domain in the south, from 34° to 41° North
Latitude. To the other, less familiarly known as the Plymouth
Company, or the North Virginia Company, was granted a range of
territory from 38° to 45° North Latitude.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.
The first named company founded a state; the Plymouth branch
was less fortunate. "Of the Plymouth Company, George Popham,
brother of the Chief Justice, and Raleigh Gilbert, son of the
earlier navigator and nephew of Sir Walter Raleigh, were
original associates. A vessel despatched from Bristol by Sir
John Popham made a further survey of the coast of New England,
and returned with accounts which infused vigorous life into the
undertaking; and it was now prosecuted with eagerness and
liberality. But in little more than a year 'all its former
hopes were frozen to death.' Three ships sailed from Plymouth
with 100 settlers, amply furnished, and taking two of Gorges's
Indians [kidnapped on the voyage of Captain Weymouth in 1605] as
interpreters and guides. After a prosperous voyage they
reached the mouth of the river called Sagadahoc, or Kennebec,
in Maine, and on a projecting point proceeded to organize
their community. After prayers and a sermon, they listened to
a reading of the patent and of the ordinances under which it
had been decreed by the authorities at home that they should
live. George Popham had been constituted their President,
Raleigh Gilbert was Admiral. … The adventurers dug wells,
and built huts. More than half of the number became
discouraged, and returned with the ships to England.
Forty-five remained through the winter, which proved to be
very long and severe. … When the President sickened and
died, and, presently after, a vessel despatched to them with
supplies brought intelligence of the death of Sir John Popham,
and of Sir John Gilbert,—the latter event calling for the
presence of the Admiral, Gilbert's brother and heir, in
England,—they were ready to avail themselves of the excuses
thus afforded for retreating from the distasteful enterprise.
All yielded to their homesickness, and embarked on board of
the returning ship, taking with them a small vessel which they
had built, and some furs and other products of the country.
Statesmen, merchants, and soldiers had not learned the
conditions of a settlement in New England. 'The country was
branded by the return of the plantation as being over cold,
and in respect of that not habitable by Englishmen.' Still the
son of the Chief Justice, 'Sir Francis Popham, could not so give
it over, but continued to send thither several years after, in
hope of better fortunes, but found it fruitless, and was
necessitated at last to sit down with the loss he had already
undergone.' Sir Francis Popham's enterprises were merely
commercial. Gorges alone [Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who had been
among the most active of the original promotors of the
Company], 'not doubting but God would effect that which man
despaired of,' persevered in cherishing the project of a
colony."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
chapter 12, volume 1.
R. K. Sewall,
Ancient Dominions of Maine,
chapter 3.
{2079}
MAINE: A. D. 1623-1631.
Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.
First colonies planted.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631.
The Ligonia, or Plow Patent, and other grants.
"The coast from the Piscataqua to the Kennebec was covered by
six … patents, issued in the course of three years by the
Council for New England, with the consent, doubtless, of
Gorges, who was anxious to interest as many persons as
possible in the projects of colonization to which he was
himself so much devoted. Several of these grants were for
small tracts; the most important embraced an extent of 40
miles square, bordering on Casco Bay, and named Ligonia. The
establishments hitherto attempted on the eastern coast had
been principally for fishing and fur-trading; this was to be
an agricultural colony, and became familiarly known as the
'Plow patent.' A company was formed, and some settlers sent
out; but they did not like the situation, and removed to
Massachusetts. Another of these grants was the Pemaquid
patent, a narrow tract on both sides of Pemaquid Point, where
already were some settlers. Pemaquid remained an independent
community for the next forty years."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
The Plow Patent "first came into notoriety in a territorial
dispute in 1643. The main facts of the case are told shortly
but clearly by Winthrop. According to him, in July, 1631, ten
husbandmen came from England, in a ship named the Plough, with
a patent for land at Sagadahock. But as the place did not
please them they settled in Massachusetts, and were seemingly
dispersed in the religious troubles of 1636. … At a later
day the rights of the patentees were bought up, and were made
a ground for ousting Gorges from a part of his territory."
J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
volume 1, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
J. W. Thornton,
Pemaquid Papers; and Ancient Pemaquid,
(Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 5).
MAINE: A. D. 1639.
A Palatine principality.
The royal charter to Sir Ferdinando Gorges.
"In April 1639 a charter was granted by the King constituting
Gorges Lord Proprietor of Maine. The territory was bounded by
the Sagadahock or Kennebec on the north and the Piscataqua on
the south, and was to extend 120 miles inland. The political
privileges of the Proprietor were to be identical with those
enjoyed by the Bishop of Durham as Count Palatine. He was to
legislate in conjunction with the freeholders of the province,
and with the usual reservation in favour of the laws of
England. His political rights were to be subject to the
control of the Commissioners for Plantations, but his
territorial rights were to be independent and complete in
themselves. He was also to enjoy a monopoly of the trade of
the colony. The only other points specially worth notice were
a declaration that the religion of the colony was to be that
of the Church of England, a reservation on behalf of all
English subjects of the right of fishing with its necessary
incidents, and the grant to the Proprietor of authority to
create manors and manorial courts. There is something painful
in the spectacle of the once vigorous and enterprising soldier
amusing his old age by playing at kingship. In no little
German court of the last century could the forms of government
and the realities of life have been more at variance. To
conduct the business of two fishing villages Gorges called
into existence a staff of officials which might have sufficed
for the affairs of the Byzantine Empire. He even outdid the
absurdities which the Proprietors of Carolina perpetrated
thirty years later. They at least saw that their elaborate
machinery of caciques and landgraves was unfit for practical
purposes, and they waived it in favour of a simple system
which had sprung up in obedience to natural wants. But Gorges
tells complacently and with a deliberate care, which contrasts
with his usually hurried and slovenly style, how he parcelled
out his territory and nominated his officials. … The task of
putting this cumbrous machinery into motion was entrusted by
the Proprietor to his son, Thomas Gorges, as Deputy-Governor."
J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
volume 1, chapter 7.
"The Province was divided into two counties, of one of which
Agamenticus, or York, was the principal settlement; of the
other, Saco. … The greatness of York made it arrogant; and
it sent a deputation of aldermen and burgesses to the General
Court at Saco, to save its metropolitan rights by a solemn
protest. The Proprietary was its friend, and before long
exalted it still more by a city charter, authorizing it and
its suburbs, constituting a territory of 21 square miles, to
be governed, under the name of 'Gorgeana,' by a Mayor, twelve
Aldermen, a Common Council of 24 members, and a Recorder, all
to be annually chosen by the citizens. Probably as many as two
thirds of the adult males were in places of authority. The
forms of proceeding in the Recorder's Court were to be copied
from those of the British chancery. This grave foolery was
acted more than ten years."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 13.
ALSO IN:
Sir F. Gorges,
Brief Narration
(Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2).
MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.
Territorial jurisdiction in dispute.
The claims of Massachusetts made good.
"In 1643, the troubles in England between the King and Commons
grew violent, and in that year Alexander Rigby bought the old
grant called Lygonia or 'Plow Patent,' and appointed George
Cleaves his deputy-president. Governor Thomas Gorges about
that time returned to England, and left Vines in his place.
Between Cleaves and Vines there was of course a conflict of
jurisdiction, and Cleaves appealed for aid to Massachusetts;
and both parties agreed to leave their claims (1645) to the
decision of the Massachusetts Magistrates, who decided—that
they could not decide the matter. But the next year the
Commissioners for American plantations in England decided in
favor of Rigby; and Vines left the country. In 1647, at last,
at the age of 74, Sir Ferdinando Gorges died, and with him
died all his plans for kingdoms and power in Maine. In 1651,
Massachusetts, finding that her patent, which included lands
lying three miles north of the head waters of the Merrimack,
took in all the lower part of Maine, began to extend her
jurisdiction, and as most of the settlers favored her
authority, it was pretty well established till the time of the
Restoration (1660).
{2080}
Upon the Restoration of Charles II., the heir of Gorges
claimed his rights to Maine. His agent in the province was
Edward Godfrey. Those claims were confirmed by the Committee
of Parliament, and in 1664 he obtained an order from the King
to the Governor of Massachusetts to restore him his province.
In 1664 the King's Commissioners came over, and proceeded
through the Colonies, and among the rest to Maine; where they
appointed various officers without the concurrence of
Massachusetts; so that for some years Maine was distracted
with parties, and was in confusion. In 1668, Massachusetts
sent four Commissioners to York, who resumed and
re-established the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, with which
the majority of the people were best pleased; and in 1669 the
Deputies from Maine again took their seats in the
Massachusetts Court. Her jurisdiction was, however, disputed
by the heirs of Mason and Gorges, and it was not finally set
at rest till the year 1677, by the purchase of their claims
from them, by Massachusetts, for £1,250."
C. W. Elliott,
The New England History,
volume 1, chapter 26.
ALSO IN:
R. K. Sewall,
Ancient Dominions of Maine,
chapters 3-4.
W. D. Williamson,
History of Maine,
volume 1, chapters 6-21.
MAINE: A. D. 1664.
The Pemaquid patent purchased and granted
to the Duke of York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
MAINE: A. D. 1675.
Outbreak of the Tarentines.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
MAINE: A. D. 1689-1697.
King William's War.
Indian cruelties.
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.
MAINE: A. D. 1722-1725.
Renewed Indian war.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
MAINE: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
MAINE: A. D. 1814.
Occupied in large part and held by the English.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.
MAINE: A. D. 1820.
Separation from Massachusetts.
Recognition as a distinct commonwealth and
admission into the Union.
"Petitions for the separation of the District of Maine were
first preferred to the legislature of Massachusetts in 1816,
and a convention was appointed to be holden at Brunswick. This
convention voted in favor of the step, but the separation was
not effected until 1820, at which time Maine was erected into
a distinct and independent commonwealth, and was admitted into
the American Union."
G. L. Austin,
History of Massachusetts,
page 408.
"In the division of the property all the real estate in
Massachusetts was to be forever hers; all that in Maine to be
equally divided between the two, share and share alike. …
The admission of Maine and Missouri into the Union were both
under discussion in Congress at the same time. The advocates
of the latter, wishing to carry it through the Legislature,
without any restrictive clause against slavery, put both into
a bill together,—determined each should share the same fate.
… Several days the subject was debated, and sent from one
branch to the other in Congress, till the 1st of March, when,
to our joy, they were divorced; and on the 3d of the month
[March, 1820] an act was passed by which Maine was declared to
be, from and after the 15th of that month, one of the United
States."
W. D. Williamson,
History of Maine,
volume 2, chapter 27.
See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
MAINE: A. D. 1842.
Settlement of the northern boundary disputes,
by the Ashburton Treaty.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
----------MAINE: End----------
MAIWAND, English disaster at (1880).
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
MAJESTAS, The Law of.
"The law of Majestas or Treason … under the [Roman] empire
… was the legal protection thrown round the person of the
chief of the state: any attempt against the dignity or safety
of the community became an attack on its glorified
representative. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the first
legal enactment which received this title, half a century
before the foundation of the empire, was actually devised for
the protection, not of the state itself, but of a personage
dear to the state, namely, the tribune of the people. Treason
to the State indeed had long before been known, and defined as
Perduellio, the levying of war against the commonwealth. …
But the crime of majesty was first specified by the demagogue
Apuleius, in an enactment of the year 654 [B. C. 100], for the
purpose of guarding or exalting the dignity of the champion of
the plebs. … The law of Apuleius was followed by that of
another tribune, Varius, conceived in a similar spirit. …
[After the constitution of Sulla] the distinction between
Majestas and Perduellio henceforth vanishes: the crime of
Treason is specifically extended from acts of violence to
measures calculated to bring the State into contempt."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 44.
MAJORCA:
Conquest by King James of Aragon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
MAJORIAN, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 457-461.
MAJUBA HILL, Battle of (1881).
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
----------MALAGA: Start--------
MALAGA: A. D. 1036-1055.
The seat of a Moorish kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.
MALAGA: A. D. 1487.
Siege and capture from the Moors by the Christians.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
----------MALAGA: End--------
MALAKHOFF, The storming of the (1855).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
MALAMOCCO.
The second capital of the Venetians.
See VENICE: A. D. 697-810; and 452.
MALATESTA FAMILY, The.
"No one with any tincture of literary knowledge is ignorant of
the fame at least of the great Malatesta family—the house of
the Wrongheads, as they were rightly called by some prevision
of their future part in Lombard history. … The story of
Francesca da Polenta, who was wedded to the hunchback Giovanni
Malatesta and murdered by him with her lover Paolo, is known
not merely to students of Dante, but to readers of Byron and
Leigh Hunt, to admirers of Flaxman, Ary Scheffer, Doré—to
all, in fact, who have of art and letters any love. The
history of these Malatesti, from their first establishment
under Otho III. [A. D. 996-1002] as lieutenants for the Empire
in the Marches of Ancona, down to their final subjugation by the
Papacy in the age of the Renaissance, is made up of all the
vicissitudes which could befall a mediæval Italian despotism.
{2081}
Acquiring an unlawful right over the towns of Rimini, Cesena,
Sogliano, Ghiacciuolo, they ruled their petty principalities
like tyrants by the help of the Guelf and Ghibelline factions,
inclining to the one or the other as it suited their humour or
their interest, wrangling among themselves, transmitting the
succession of their dynasty through bastards and by deeds of
force, quarrelling with their neighbours the Counts of Urbino,
alternately defying and submitting to the Papal legates in
Romagna, serving as condottieri in the wars of the Visconti
and the state of Venice, and by their restlessness and genius
for military intrigues contributing in no slight measure to
the general disturbance of Italy. The Malatesti were a race
of strongly marked character: more, perhaps, than any other
house of Italian tyrants, they combined for generations those
qualities of the fox and the lion, which Machiavelli thought
indispensable to a successful despot. … So far as Rimini is
concerned, the house of Malatesta culminated in Sigismondo
Pandolfo, son of Gian Galeazzo Visconti's general, the
perfidious Pandolfo. … Having begun by defying the Holy See,
he was impeached at Rome for heresy, parricide, incest,
adultery, rape, and sacrilege, burned in effigy by Pope Pius
II., and finally restored to the bosom of the Church, after
suffering the despoliation of almost all his territories, in
1463. The occasion on which this fierce and turbulent despiser
of laws human and divine was forced to kneel as a penitent
before the Papal legate in the gorgeous temple dedicated to
his own pride, in order that the ban of excommunication might
be removed from Rimini, was one of those petty triumphs,
interesting chiefly for their picturesqueness, by which the
Popes confirmed their questionable rights over the cities of
Romagna. Sigismondo, shorn of his sovereignty, took the
command of the Venetian troops against the Turks in the Morea,
and returned in 1465, crowned with laurels, to die at Rimini."
J. A. Symonds,
Sketches in Italy and Greece,
pages 217-220.
ALSO IN:
A. M. F. Robinson,
The End of the Middle Ages,
pages 274-299.
MALAYAN RACE, The.
Many ethnologists set up as a distinct stock "the '.Malayan'
or 'Brown' race, and claim for it an importance not less than
any of the darker varieties of the species. It bears, however,
the marks of an origin too recent, and presents Asian
analogies too clearly, for it to be regarded otherwise than as
a branch of the Asian race, descended like it from some
ancestral tribe in that great continent. Its dispersion has
been extraordinary. Its members are found almost continuously
on the land areas from Madagascar to Easter Island, a distance
nearly two-thirds of the circumference of the globe;
everywhere they speak dialects with such affinities that we
must assume for all one parent stem, and their separation must
have taken place not so very long ago to have permitted such a
monoglottic trait as this. The stock is divided at present
into two groups, the western or Malayan peoples, and the
eastern or Polynesian peoples. There has been some discussion
about the original identity of these, but we may consider it
now proved by both physical, linguistic and traditional
evidence. The original home of the parent stem has also
excited some controversy, but this too may be taken as
settled. There is no reasonable doubt but that the Malays came
from the southeastern regions of Asia, from the peninsula of
Farther India, and thence spread south, east and west over the
whole of the island world. Their first occupation of Sumatra
and Java has been estimated to have occurred not later than
1000 B. C., and probably was a thousand years earlier, or
about the time that the Aryans entered Northern India. The
relationship of the Malayic with the other Asian stocks has
not yet been made out. Physically they stand near to the
Sinitic peoples of small stature and roundish heads of
southeastern Asia. The oldest form of their language, however,
was not monosyllabic and tonic, but was disyllabic. … The
purest type of the true Malays is seen in Malacca, Sumatra and
Java. … It has changed slightly by foreign intermixture
among the Battaks of Sumatra, the Dayaks of Borneo, the
Alfures and the Bugis. But the supposition that these are so
remote that they cannot properly be classed with the Malays is
an exaggeration of some recent ethnographers, and is not
approved by the best authorities. … In character the Malays
are energetic, quick of perception, genial in demeanor, but
unscrupulous, cruel and revengeful. Veracity is unknown, and
the love of gain is far stronger than any other passion or
affection. This thirst for gold made the Malay the daring
navigator he early became. As merchant, pirate or explorer,
and generally as all three in one, he pushed his crafts far
and wide over the tropical seas through 12,000 miles of
extent. On the extreme west he reached and colonized
Madagascar. The Hovas there, undoubtedly of Malay blood,
number about 800,000 in a population of five and a half
millions, the remainder being Negroids of various degrees of
fusion. In spite of this disproportion, the Hovas are the
recognized masters of the island. … The Malays probably
established various colonies in southern India. The natives at
Travancore and the Sinhalese of Ceylon bear a strongly Malayan
aspect. … Some ethnographers would make the Polynesians and
Micronesians a different race from the Malays; but the
farthest that one can go in this direction is to admit that
they reveal some strain of another blood. This is evident in
their physical appearance. … All the Polynesian languages
have some affinities to the Malayan, and the Polynesian
traditions unanimously refer to the west for the home of their
ancestors. We are able, indeed, by carefully analyzing these
traditions, to trace with considerable accuracy both the route
they followed to the Oceanic isles, and the respective dates
when they settled them. Thus, the first station of their
ancestors ou leaving the western group, was the small island
of Buru or Boru, between Celebes and New Guinea. Here they
encountered the Papuas, some of whom still dwell in the
interior, while the coast people are fair. Leaving Boru, they
passed to the north of New Guinea, colonizing the Caroline and
Solomon islands, but the vanguard pressing forward to take
possession of Savai in the Samoan group and Tonga to its
south. These two islands formed a second center of
distribution over the western Pacific. The Maoris of New
Zealand moved from Tonga—'holy Tonga' as they call it in
their songs—about 600 years ago. The Society islanders
migrated from Savai, and they in turn sent forth the
population of the Marquesas, the Sandwich islands and Easter
island. The separation of the Polynesians from the western
Malays must have taken place about the beginning of our era."
D. G. Brinton,
Races and Peoples,
lecture 8, section. 2.
ALSO IN:
A. R. Wallace,
The Malay Archipelago,
chapter 40.
R. Brown,
The Races of Mankind,
volume 2, chapter 7.
{2082}
MALCOLM III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1057-1093.
Malcolm IV., King of Scotland, 1153-1165.
MALDON, Battle of.
Fought, A. D. 991, by the English against an invading army of
Norwegians, who proved the victors. The battle, with the
heroic death of the English leader, Brihtnoth, became the
subject of a famous early-English poem, which is translated in
Freeman's "Old English History for Children." The field of
battle was on the Blackwater in Essex.
MALEK SHAH, Seljuk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1073-1092.
MALIANS, The.
One of the early peoples of Greece, who dwelt on the Malian
Gulf, in the lower valley of the Sperchæus. They were a
warlike people, neighbors and close allies of the Dorians,
before the migration of the latter to the Peloponnesus.
C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
volume 1, book 1, chapter 2.
MALIGNANTS.
"About this time [A. D. 1643] the word 'malignant' was first
born (as to the common use) in England; the deduction thereof
being disputable, whether from 'malus ignis,' bad fire, or
'malum lignum,' bad fuel; but this is sure, betwixt both, the
name made a combustion all over England. It was fixed as a
note of disgrace on those of the king's party."
T. Fuller,
Church History of Britain,
book 11, section 4 (volume 3).
MALINES: Taken by Marlborough and the Allies (1706).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
MALLUM.
MALL.
MALLBERG.
"The Franks … constituted one great army, the main body of
which was encamped round the abode of their Kyning or
commander, and the rest of which was broken up into various
detachments. … Every such detachment became ere long a
sedentary tribe, and the chief of each was accustomed, as
occasion required, to convene the mallum (that is, an assembly
of the free inhabitants) of his district, to deliberate with
him on all the affairs of his immediate locality. The Kyning
also occasionally convened an assembly of the whole of the
Frankish chiefs, to deliberate with him at the Champs de Mars
on the affairs of the whole confederacy. But neither the
mallum nor the Champs de Mars was a legislative convention.
Each of them was a council of war or an assembly of warriors."
Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 8.
"The Court was mostly held in a field or on a hill, called
'mallstatt,' or 'mallberg,' that is, the place or hill where
the 'mall' or Court assembled, and the judge set up his shield
of office, without which he might not hold Court."
J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 10.
See, also.
PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.
MALMÖ, Armistice of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
MALO-JOROSLAVETZ, Battle of.
See RUSSIA: A. D.1812 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
MALPLAQUET, Battle of (1709).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.
----------MALTA: Start--------
MALTA: A. D. 1530-1565.
Ceded by the emperor, Charles V., to the Knights of St. John.
Their defense of the island against the Turks in the great siege.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.
MALTA: A. D. 1551.
Unsuccessful attack by the Turks.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
MALTA: A. D. 1798.
Seizure and occupation by Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
MALTA: A. D. 1800-1802.
Surrender to an English fleet.
Agreement of restoration to the Knights of St. John.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
MALTA: A. D. 1814.
Ceded to England.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).
----------MALTA: End--------
MALTA, Knights of.
During their occupation of the island, the Knights
Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called
Knights of Malta, as they had previously been called Knights
of Rhodes:
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.
MALVASIA, Battle of (1263).
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
MALVERN CHASE.
An ancient royal forest in Worcestershire, England, between
Malvern Hills and the River Severn. Few remains of it exist.
J. C. Brown,
Forests of England.
MALVERN HILL, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).
MAMACONAS.
See YANACONAS.
MAMELUKE, OR SLAVE, DYNASTY OF INDIA.
See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
MAMELUKES OF BRAZIL.
See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.
MAMELUKES OF EGYPT;
their rise;
their sovereignty;
their destruction.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517; and 1803-1811.
MAMELUKES OF GENEVA, The.
See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.
MAMERTINE PRISON, The.
"Near the Basilica Porcia, and at the foot of the Capitoline
Hill [in ancient Rome], was the ancient carcer or prison. The
original erection of it has been attributed to Ancus Martius,
as we learn from Livy, who says 'he made a prison in the
middle of the city, overlooking the Forum.' The name by which
it is known—Mamertinus—may have been derived from its being
built by Ancus Martius. Mamers was the Sabine name of the god
Mars, and consequently from the name Mamertius, the Sabine way
of spelling Martius, may have been derived Mamertinus. In this
prison there are two chambers, one above the other, built of
hewn stone. The upper is square, while the lower is
semicircular. The style of masonry points to an early date,
when the Etruscan style of masonry prevailed in Rome. … To
these chambers there was no entrance except by a small
aperture in the upper roof, and a similar hole in the upper
floor led to the cell below. From a passage in Livy it would
appear that Tullianum was the name given to the lower cell of
the carcer. … Varro expressly tells us that the lower part
of the prison which was underground was called Tullianum
because it was added by Servius Tullius."
H. M. Westropp,
Early and Imperial Rome,
page 93.
{2083}
"The oldest portion of the horror-striking Mamertine Prisons
… is the most ancient among all Roman buildings still extant
as originally constructed."
C. I. Hemans,
Historic and Monumental Rome,
chapter 4.
"Here, Jugurtha, king of Mauritania, was starved to death by
Marius. Here Julius Cæsar, during his triumph for the conquest
of Gaul, caused his gallant enemy Vercingetorix to be put to
death. … The spot is more interesting to the Christian world
as the prison of SS. Peter and Paul."
A. J. C. Hare,
Walks in Rome,
chapter 3.
MAMERTINES OF MESSENE, The.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
MAMUN, AL, Caliph, A. D. 813-833.
MAN, Kingdom of.
See MANX KINGDOM, THE.
MANAOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
----------MANASSAS: Start--------
MANASSAS: A. D. 1861 (July).
First battle (Bull Run).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
MANASSAS: A. D. 1862 (March).
Confederate evacuation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).
MANASSAS: A. D. 1862 (August).
Stonewall Jackson's Raid.
The Second Battle.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).
----------MANASSAS: End--------
----------MANCHESTER: Start--------
MANCHESTER:
Origin.
See MANCUNIUM.
MANCHESTER: A. D. 1817-1819.
The march of the Blanketeers,
and the "Massacre of Peterloo."
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
MANCHESTER: A. D. 1838-1839.
Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law agitation.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839.
MANCHESTER: A. D. 1861-1865.
The Cotton Famine.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
MANCHESTER: A. D. 1894.
Opening of the Ship Canal.
A ship canal, connecting Manchester with Liverpool, and making
the former practically a seaport, was opened on the 1st day of
January, 1894. The building of the canal was begun in 1887.
----------MANCHESTER: End--------
MANCHU TARTAR DYNASTY OF CHINA, The.
See CHINA: A.D. 1294-1882.
MANCUNIUM.
A Roman town in Britain which occupied the site of the modern
city of Manchester.
T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5.
MANDANS,
MANDANES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
MANDATA, Roman Imperial.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
MANDUBII, The.
A tribe in ancient Gaul, which occupied part of the modern
French department of the Côte-d'Or and whose chief town was
Alesia, the scene of Cæsar's famous siege.
Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2).
MANETHO, List of.
"Of all the Greek writers who have treated of the history of
the Pharaohs, there is only one whose testimony has, since the
deciphering of the hieroglyphics, preserved any great value—a
value which increases the more it is compared with the
original monuments; we speak of Manetho. Once he was treated
with contempt; his veracity was disputed, the long series of
dynasties he unfolds to our view was regarded as fabulous.
Now, all that remains of his work is the first of an
authorities for the reconstruction of the ancient history of
Egypt. Manetho, a priest of the town of Sebennytus, in the
Delta, wrote in Greek, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, a
history of Egypt, founded on the official archives preserved
in the temples. Like many other books of antiquity, this
history has been lost; we possess now a few fragments only,
with the list of all the kings placed by Manetho at the end of
his work—a list happily preserved in the writings of some
chronologers of the Christian epoch. This list divides into
dynasties, or royal families, all the kings who reigned
successively in Egypt down to the time of Alexander."
F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 3, chapter 1, section 2 (volume 1).
See, also,
EGYPT: ITS HISTORICAL ANTIQUITY.
----------MANHATTAN ISLAND: Start--------
MANHATTAN ISLAND:
Its aboriginal People and name.
"The earliest notice we have of the island which is now
adorned by a beautiful and opulent city is to be found in
Hudson's journal. 'Mana-hata' is therein mentioned, in
reference to the hostile people whom he encountered on his
return from his exploring of the river, and who resided on
this island. De Laet … calls those wicked people Manatthans,
and names the river Manhattes. … Hartger calls the Indians
and the island Mahattan. … In some of the early transactions
of the colony, it is spelled Monhattoes, Munhatos, and
Manhattoes. Professor Ebeling says, that at the mouth of the
river lived the Manhattans or Manathanes (or as the Englishmen
commonly called it, Manhados), who kept up violent animosities
with their neighbours, and were at first most hostile towards
the Dutch, but suffered themselves to be persuaded afterwards
to sell them the island, or at least that part of it where New
York now stands. Manhattan is now the name, and it was, when
correctly adopted, so given by the Dutch, and by them it not
only distinguished the Indians, the island and the river, but
it was a general name of their plantations. … Mr.
Heckewelder observes that hitherto an his labours had been
fruitless in inquiring about a nation or tribe of Indians
called the 'Manhattos' or 'Manathones'; Indians both of the
Mahicanni and Delaware nations assured him that they never had
heard of any Indian tribe by that name. He says he is
convinced that it was the Delawares or Munseys (which last was
a branch of the Delawares) who inhabited that part of the
country where New York now is. York Island is called by the
Delawares to this day [1824] Manahattani or Manahachtanink.
The Delaware word for 'Island' is 'Manátey'; the Monsey word
for the same is 'Manáchtey' … Dr. Barton also has given as
his belief that the Manhattæ were a branch of the Munsis."
J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton,
History of the State of New York,
volume 1, pages 223-224.
ALSO IN:
Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 2.
See, also,
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES,
and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
MANHATTAN ISLAND: A. D. 1613.
First settlements.
Argall's visit.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
----------MANHATTAN ISLAND: End--------
{2084}
MANICHEANS, The.
"A certain Mani (or Manes, as the ecclesiastical writers call
him), born in Persia about A. D. 240, grew to manhood under
Sapor, exposed to … various religious influences. … With a
mind free from prejudice and open to conviction, he studied the
various systems of belief which he found established in
Western Asia—the Cabalism of the Babylonian Jews, the Dualism
of the Magi, the mysterious doctrines of the Christians, and
even the Buddhism of India. At first he inclined to
Christianity, and is said to have been admitted to priest's
orders and to have ministered to a congregation; but after a
time he thought that he saw his way to the formation of a new
creed, which should combine all that was best in the religious
systems which he was acquainted with, and omit what was
superfluous or objectionable. He adopted the Dualism of the
Zoroastrians, the metempsychosis of India, the angelism and
demonism of the Talmud and Trinitarianism of the Gospel of
Christ. Christ himself he identified with Mithra, and gave Him
his dwelling in the sun. He assumed to be the Paraclete
promised by Christ, who should guide men into all truth, and
claimed that his 'Ertang,' a sacred book illustrated by
pictures of his own painting, should supersede the New
Testament. Such pretensions were not likely to be tolerated by
the Christian community; and Manes had not put them forward
very long when he was expelled from the church and forced to
carry his teaching elsewhere. Under these circumstances he is
said to have addressed himself to Sapor [the Persian king],
who was at first inclined to show him some favour; but when he
found out what the doctrines of the new teacher actually were,
his feelings underwent a change, and Manes, proscribed, or at
any rate threatened with penalties, had to retire into a
foreign country. … Though the morality of the Manichees was
pure, and though their religion is regarded by some as a sort
of Christianity, there were but few points in which it was an
improvement on Zoroastrianism."
G. Rawlinson,
The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 4.
First in Persia and, afterwards, throughout Christendom, the
Manicheans were subjected to a merciless persecution; but they
spread their doctrines, notwithstanding, in the west and in
the east, and it was not until several centuries had passed
that the heresy became extinct.
J. L. Mosheim,
Christianity during the first 325 years, Third Century,
lectures 39-55.
See, also, PAULICIANS.
MANIFESTATION, The Aragonese process of.
See CORTES. THE EARLY SPANISH.
MANILIAN LAW, The.
See ROME: B. C. 69-63.
MANIMI, The.
See LYGIANS.
MANIN, Daniel, and the struggle for Venetian independence.
See ITALY: A. D.1848-1849.
MANIOTO,
MAYNO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
MANIPULI.
See LEGION, ROMAN.
MANITOBA.
See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
MANNAHOACS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.
----------MANNHEIM: Start--------
MANNHEIM: A. D. 1622.
Capture by Tilly.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
MANNHEIM: A. D. 1689.
Destroyed by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
MANNHEIM: A. D. 1799.
Capture by the Austrians.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
----------MANNHEIM: End--------
MANOA, The fabled city of.
See EL DORADO.
MANORS.
"The name manor is of Norman origin, but the estate to which
it was given existed, in its essential character, long before
the Conquest; it received a new name as the shire also did,
but neither the one nor the other was created by this change.
The local jurisdictions of the thegns who had grants of sac
and soc, or who exercised judicial functions amongst their
free neighbours, were identical with the manorial
jurisdictions of the new owners. … The manor itself was, as
Ordericus tells us, nothing more nor less than the ancient
township, now held by a lord who possessed certain judicial
rights varying according to the terms of the grant by which he
was infeoffed. Every manor had a court baron, the ancient
gemot of the township, in which by-laws were made and other
local business transacted, and a court customary in which the
business of the villenage was despatched. Those manors whose
lords had under the Anglo-Saxon laws possessed sac and soc, or
who since the Conquest had had grants in which those terms
were used, had also a court-leet, or criminal jurisdiction,
cut out as it were from the criminal jurisdiction of the
hundred, and excusing the suitors who attended it from going
to the court-leet of the hundred."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 9, section 98,
and chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1).
"From the Conquest to the 14th century we find the same
agricultural conditions prevailing over the greater part of
England. Small gatherings of houses and cots appear as oases
in the moorland and forest, more or less frequent according to
the early or late settlement of the district, and its freedom
from, or exposure to, the ravages of war and the punishment of
rebellion. These oases, townships or vills if of some extent,

hamlets if of but a few houses, gather round one or more
mansions of superior size and importance, the Manor houses, or
abodes of the Lords of the respective Manors. Round each
township stretch the great ploughed fields, usually three in
number, open and uninclosed. Each field is divided into a
series of parallel strips a furlong in length, a rod wide,
four of which would make an acre, the strips being separated
by ridges of turf called balks, while along the head of each
series of strips runs a broad band of turf known as a
headland, on which the plough is turned, when it does not by
custom turn on some fellow-tenant's land, and which serves as
a road to the various strips in the fields. These strips are
allotted in rotation to a certain number of the dwellers in
the township, a very common holding being that known as a
virgate or yardland, consisting of about 30 acres. … Mr.
Seebohm's exhaustive researches have conclusively connected
this system of open fields and rotation of strips with the
system of common ploughing, each holder of land providing so
many oxen for the common plough, two being the contribution of
the holder of a virgate, and eight the normal number drawing
the plough, though this would vary with the character of the
soil. … At the date of Domesday (1086), the holders of land
in the common fields comprise the Lord; the free tenants,
socmanni or liberi homines, when there are any; the villani or
Saxon geburs, the holders of virgates or half virgates; and
the bordarii or cotarii, holders of small plots of 5 acres or
so, who have fewer rights and fewer duties. Besides ploughing
the common-fields, the villani as part of their tenure have to
supply the labour necessary to cultivate the arable land that
the Lord of the Manor keeps in his own hands as his domain,
dominicum, or demesne."
T. E. Scrutton,
Commons and Common Fields,
chapter 1.
{2085}
Relative to the origin of the manor and the development of the
community from which it rose there are divergent views much
discussed at the present day. "The interpretation, current
fifteen years ago, was the natural outcome of the Mark theory
and was somewhat as follows: The community was a voluntary
association, a simple unit within which there were households
or families of various degrees of wealth, rank and authority,
but in point of status each was the equal of the other. Each
was subject only to the customs and usages of the community
and to the court of the Mark. The Mark was therefore a
judicial and political as well as an agricultural unit, though
cultivation of the soil was the primary bond of union. All
offices were filled by election, but the incumbent in due time
sank back into the general body of 'markgenossen.' He who was
afterwards to be the lord of the manor was originally only the
first Marksman,' who attained to this preeminence in part by
the prestige of election to a position of headship, in part by
usurpation, and in part by the prerogatives which protection
and assistance to weaker Marksmen brought. Thus the first
Marksman became the lord and held the others in a kind of
subjection to himself, and received from them, though free,
dues and services which grew increasingly more severe. The
main difficulty here seems to be in the premise, and it is the
evident artificiality of the voluntary association of freemen
which has led to such adverse criticism upon the whole theory.
… While the free village community was under fire at home as
well as abroad, Mr. Seebohm presented a new view of an exactly
opposite character, with the formula of the community in
villeinage under a lord. Although this view has for the moment
divided thinkers on the subject, it has proved no more
satisfactory than the other; for while it does explain the
origin of the lord of the manor, it leaves wholly untouched
the body of free Saxons whom Earle calls the rank and file of
the invading army. Other theories have sought to supply the
omissions in this vague non-documentary field, all erected
with learning and skill, but unfortunately not in harmony with
one another. Coote and Finlason have given to the manor an
unqualified Roman origin. Lewis holds to a solid British
foundation, the Teutonists would make it wholly Saxon, while
Gomme is inclined to see an Aryo-British community under Saxon
overlordship. Thus there is a wide range from which to select;
all cannot be true; no one is an explanation of all
conditions, yet most of them have considerable sound evidence
to support them. It is this lack of harmony which drives the
student to discover some theory which shall be in touch with
known tribal conditions and a natural consequence of their
development, and which at the same time shall be sufficiently
elastic to conform to the facts which confront us in the early
historical period. An attempt has been made [in the work here
quoted from] to lay down two premises, the first of which is
the composite character of the tribal and village community,
and the second the diverse ethnological conditions of Britain
after the Conquest, conditions which would allow for different
results. … Kemble in his chapter on Personal Rank has a
remark which is ill in keeping with his peaceful Mark theory.
He says: 'There can be no doubt that some kind of military
organization preceded the peaceful settlement, and in many
respects determined its mode and character.' To this statement
Earle has added another equally pregnant: 'Of all principles
of military regiment there is none so necessary or so
elementary as this, that all men must be under a captain, and
such a captain as is able to command prompt and willing
obedience. Upon this military principle I conceive the English
settlements were originally founded, that each several
settlement was under a military leader, and that this military
leader was the ancestor of the lord of the manor.' Professor
Earle then continues in the endeavor to apply the suggestion
contained in the above quotation. He shows that the 'hundreds'
represent the first permanent encampment of the invading host,
and that the military occupation preceded the civil
organization, the latter falling into the mould which the
former had prepared. According to this the manorial
organization was based upon a composite military foundation,
the rank and file composing the one element, the village
community; the captain or military leader composing the other,
settled with suitable provision by the side of his company;
the lord by the side of free owners. In this attempt to give
the manor a composite origin, as the only rational means
whereby the chief difficulty can be removed, and in the
attempt to carry the seignorial element to the very beginning
we believe him to be wholly right. But an objection must be
raised to the way in which Professor Earle makes up his
composite element. It is too artificial, too exclusively
military; the occupiers of the village are the members of the
'company,' the occupier of the adjacent seat is the
'captain,' afterwards to become the lord. … We feel certain
that the local community, the village, was simply the kindred,
the sub-clan group, which had become a local habitation, yet
when we attempt to test its presence in Anglo-Saxon Britain we
meet with many difficulties."
C. McL. Andrews,
The Old English Manor,
pages 7-51.
ALSO IN:
F. Seebohm,
English Village Communities,
chapter 2, section 12.
Sir H. Maine,
Village Communities,
lecture 5.
MANSFIELD, OR
SABINE CROSS ROADS, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
MANSOURAH, Battle of (1250).
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.
MANSUR, Al, Caliph, A. D. 754-775.
----------MANTINEA: Start--------
MANTINEA.
"Mantinea was the single city of Arcadia which had dared to
pursue an independent line of policy [see SPARTA: B. C.
743-510]. Not until the Persian Wars the community coalesced
out of five villages into one fortified city; this being done
at the instigation of Argos, which already at this early date
entertained thoughts of forming for itself a confederation in
its vicinity: Mantinea had endeavored to increase its city
and territory by conquest, and after the Peace of Nicias had
openly opposed Sparta."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 5, chapter 5 (volume 4).
MANTINEA: B. C. 418.
Battle.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
{2086}
MANTINEA: B. C. 385.
Destruction by the Spartans.
See GREECE: B. C. 385.
MANTINEA: B. C. 371-362.
Restoration of the city.
Arcadian union and disunion.
The great battle.
Victory and death of Epaminondas.
See GREECE: B. C. 371; and 371-362.
MANTINEA: B. C. 222.
Change of name.
In the war between Cleomenes of Sparta and the Achæan League,
the city of Mantinea was, first, surprised by Aratus, the
chief of the League, B. C. 226, and occupied by an Achæan
garrison; then recaptured by Cleomenes, and his partisans, B.
C. 224, and finally, B. C. 222, stormed by Antigonus, king of
Macedonia, acting in the name of the League, and given up to
pillage. Its citizens were sold into slavery. "The dispeopled
city was placed by the conqueror at the disposal of Argos,
which decreed that a colony should be sent to take possession
of it under the auspices of Aratus. The occasion enabled him
to pay another courtly compliment to the king of Macedonia. On
his proposal, the name of the 'lovely Mantinea'—as it was
described in the Homeric catalogue—was exchanged for that of
Antigonea, a symbol of its ruin and of the humiliation of
Greece."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 62 (volume 8).
MANTINEA: B. C. 207.
Defeat of the Lacedæmonians.
In the wars of the Achæan League, the Lacedæmonians were
defeated under the walls of Mantinea with great slaughter, by
the forces of the League, ably marshalled by Philopœmen, and
the Lacedaemonian king Machanidas was slain. "It was the third
great battle fought on the same, or nearly the same, ground.
Here, in the interval between the two parts of the
Peloponnesian War, had Agis restored the glory of Sparta after
her humiliation at Sphakteria; here Epameinôndas had fallen in
the moment of victory; here now [B. C. 207] was to be fought
the last great battle of independent Greece."
E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 8, section 2.
----------MANTINEA: End----------
MANTUA: 11-12th Centuries.
Rise and acquisition of republican independence.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
MANTUA: A. D. 1077-1115.
In the dominions of the Countess Matilda.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
MANTUA: A. D. 1328-1708.
The house of Gonzaga.
See GONZAGA.
MANTUA: A. D. 1627-1631.
War of France, Spain and the Empire over the disputed
succession to the duchy.
Siege and capture of the city by the Imperialists.
Rights of the Duke de Nevers established.
See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
MANTUA: A. D. 1635.
Alliance with France against Spain.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
MANTUA: A. D. 1796-1797.
Siege and reduction by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
MANTUA: A. D. 1797.
Ceded by Austria to the Cisalpine Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
MANTUA: A. D. 1799.
Siege and capture by Suwarrow.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
MANTUA: A. D. 1814.
Restoration to Austria.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).
MANTUA: A. D. 1866.
The Austrians retained Mantua until their final withdrawal
from the peninsula, in 1866, when it was absorbed in the new
kingdom of Italy.
MANU, Laws of.
"The Indians [of Hindostan] possess a series of books of law,
which, like that called after Manu, bear the name of a saint
or seer of antiquity, or of a god. One is named after Gautama,
another after Vasishtha, a third after Apastamba, a fourth
after Yajnavalkya; others after Bandhayana and Vishnu.
According to the tradition of the Indians the law of Manu is
the oldest and most honourable. … The conclusion is …
inevitable that the decisive precepts which we find in the
collection must have been put together and written down about
the year 600 [B. C.]."
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 5, chapter 6.
"The name, 'Laws of Manu,' somewhat resembles a 'pious fraud';
for the 'Laws' are merely the laws or customs of a school or
association of Hindus, called the Manavas, who lived in the
country rendered holy by the divine river Saraswati. In this
district the Hindus first felt themselves a settled people,
and in this neighbourhood they established colleges and
hermitages, or 'asramas,' from some of which we may suppose
Brahmanas, Upanishads, and other religious compositions may
have issued; and under such influences we may imagine the Code
of Manu to have been composed."
Mrs. Manning,
Ancient and Mediæval India,
volume 1, page 276.
MANUAL TRAINING.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &C.: A. D. 1865-1886.
MANUEL I. (Comnenus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1143-1181.
Manuel II. (Palæologus),
Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1391-1425.
MANX KINGDOM, The.
The Isle of Man in the Irish Sea gets its English name, Man,
by an abbreviation of the native name, Mannin, the origin of
which is unknown. The language, called Manx (now little used),
and the inhabitants, called Manxmen, are both of Gaelic, or
Irish derivation. From the sixth to the tenth century the
island was successively ruled by the Scots (Irish), the Welsh
and the Norwegians, finally becoming a separate petty kingdom,
with Norwegian claims upon it. In the thirteenth century the
little kingdom was annexed to Scotland. Subsequently, after
various vicissitudes, it passed under English control and was
granted by Henry IV. to Sir John Stanley. The Stanleys, after
some generations, found a dignity which they esteemed higher,
in the earldom of Derby, and relinquished the title of King of
Man. This was done by the second Earl of Derby, 1505. In 1765
the sovereignty and revenues of the island were purchased by
the British government; but its independent form of government
has undergone little change. It enjoys "home rule" to
perfection. It has its own legislature, called the Court of
Tynwald, consisting of a council, or upper chamber, and a
representative body called the House of Keys. Acts of the
imperial parliament do not apply to the Isle of Man unless it
is specifically named in them. It has its own courts, with
judges called deemsters (who are the successors of the ancient
Druidical priests), and its own governor, appointed by the
crown. The divisions of the island, corresponding to English
counties, are called sheadings.
S. Walpole,
The Land of Home Rule.
ALSO IN:
H. I. Jenkinson,
Guide to Isle of Man.
Hall Caine,
The Little Manx Nation.
Our Own Country,
volume 5.
See
MONAPIA:
and NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
{2087}
MANZIKERT, Battle of (1071).
See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.
MAONITES, The.
"We must … regard them as a remnant of the Amorites, which,
in later times, … spread to the west of Petra."
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
introduction, section 4.
MAORIS.
MAORI WAR.
See NEW ZEALAND: THE ABORIGINES: A. D. 1853-1883;
also, MALAYAN RACE.
MAPOCHINS, The.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
MAQUAHUITL, The.
This was a weapon in use among the Mexicans when the Spaniards
found them. It "was a stout stick, three feet and a half long,
and about four inches broad, armed on each side with a sort of
razors of the stone itztli (obsidian), extraordinarily sharp,
fixed and firmly fastened to the stick with gum lack. … The
first stroke only was to be feared, for the razors became soon
blunt."
F. S. Clavigero,
History of Mexico,
book 7.
ALSO IN:
Sir A. Helps,
The Spanish Conquest of America,
book 10 (volume 2).
MARACANDA.
The chief city of the ancient Sogdiani, in Central Asia—now
Samarcand.
MARAGHA.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.
MARAIS, OR PLAIN, The Party of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
MARANHA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
MARANGA, Battle of.
One of the battles fought by the Romans with the Persians
during the retreat from Julian's fatal expedition beyond the
Tigris, A. D. 363. The Persians were repulsed.
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 10.
MARAPHIANS, The.
One of the tribes of the ancient Persians.
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 3.
MARAT AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1793 (MARCH-JUNE).
Assassination by Charlotte Corday.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).
MARATA.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
MARATHAS.
See MAHRATTAS.
MARATHON, Battle of.
See GREECE: B. C. 490.
MARAVEDIS.
See SPANISH COINS.
MARBURG CONFERENCE, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.
MARCEL, Etienne, and the States General of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.
MARCELLUS II., Pope, A. D. 1555, April to May.
MARCH.
MARK.
The frontier or boundary of a territory; a border. Hence came
the title of Marquis, which was originally that of an officer
charged with the guarding of some March or border district of
a kingdom. In Great Britain this title ranks second in the
five orders of nobility, only the title of Duke being superior
to it. The old English kingdom of Mercia was formed by the
Angles who were first called the "Men of the March," having
settled on the Welsh border, and that was the origin of its
name. The kingdom of Prussia grew out of the "Mark of
Brandenburg," which was originally a military border district
formed on the skirts of the German empire to resist the Wends.
Various other European states had the same origin.
See, also, MARGRAVE.
MARCH CLUB.
See CLUBS: THE OCTOBER AND THE MARCH.
MARCHFELD OR MARSCHFELD, Battle of the (1278).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
(1809) (also called the battle of Aspern-Esslingen,
or of Aspern).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
MARCIAN, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 450-457.
MARCIANAPOLIS.
See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.
----------MARCOMANNI AND QUADI: Start--------
MARCOMANNI AND QUADI, The.
"The Marcomanni [an ancient German people who dwelt, first, on
the Rhine, but afterwards occupied southern Bohemia] stand
first in strength and renown, and their very territory, from
which the Boii were driven in a former age, was won by valour.
Nor are the Narisci [settled in the region of modern Ratisbon]
and Quadi [who probably occupied Moravia] inferior to them.
This I may call the frontier of Germany, so far as it is
completed by the Danube. The Marcomanni and Quadi have, up to
our time, been ruled by kings of their own nation, descended
from the noble stock of Maroboduus and Tudrus. They now submit
even to foreigners; but the strength and power of the monarch
depend on Roman influence."
Tacitus,
Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb,
chapter 42.
"The Marcomanni cannot be demonstrated as a distinct people
before Marbod. It is very possible that the word up to that
point indicates nothing but what it etymologically
signifies—the land or frontier guard."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 7, foot-note.
See, also, AGRI DECUMATES.
MARCOMANNI AND QUADI:
War with Tiberius.
See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.
MARCOMANNI AND QUADI:
Wars with Marcus Aurelius.
See SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS
OF MARCUS AURELIUS.
----------MARCOMANNI AND QUADI: End--------
MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS,
Roman Emperor, A. D. 161-180.
MARDIA, Battle of (A. D. 313).
See ROME: A. D. 305-323.
MARDIANS, The.
One of the tribes of the ancient Persians;
also called Amardians.
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 3.
See, also, TAPURIANS.
----------MARDYCK: Start--------
MARDYCK: A. D. 1645-1646.
Thrice taken and retaken by French and Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.
MARDYCK: A. D. 1657.
Siege and capture by the French.
Delivery to the English.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
----------MARDYCK: End--------
MARENGO, Battle of (1800).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
MARFEE, Battle of (1641).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.
MARGARET,
Queen of the North: Denmark and Norway, A. D. 1387-1412;
Sweden, 1388-1412.
Margaret (called The Maid of Norway),
Queen of Scotland, 1286-1290.
Margaret of Anjou, and the Wars of the Roses.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
Margaret of Navarre, or Marguerite d'Angouléme,
and the Reformation in France.
See PAPACY: A.D. 1521-1535;
and NAVARRE: A.D. 1528-1563.
Margaret of Parma and her Regency in the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559, and after.
{2088}
MARGHUSH.
See MARGIANA.
MARGIANA.
The ancient name of the valley of the Murghab or Moorghab
(called the Margos). It is represented at the present day by
the oasis now called Merv; was the Bactrian Mourn and the
Marghush of the old Persians. It was inhabited by the
Margiani.
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 1.
MARGRAVE.
MARQUIS.
"This of Markgrafs (Grafs of the Marches, 'marked' Places, or
Boundaries) was a natural invention in that state of
circumstances [the circumstances of the Germany of the 10th
century, under Henry the Fowler]. It did not quite originate
with Henry; but was much perfected by him, he first
recognising how essential it was. On all frontiers he had his
'Graf' (Count, 'Reeve,' 'G'reeve,' whom some think to be only
'Grau,' Gray, or 'Senior,' the hardiest, wisest steel-gray man
he could discover) stationed on the Marck, strenuously doing
watch and ward there: the post of difficulty, of peril, and
naturally of honour too, nothing of a sinecure by any means.
Which post, like every other, always had a tendency to become
hereditary, if the kindred did not fail in fit men. And hence
have come the innumerable Margraves, Marquises, and such like,
of modern times; titles now become chimerical, and more or
less mendacious, as most of our titles are."
T. Carlyle,
Frederick the Great,
book 2, chapter 1.
"The title derived from the old imperial office of markgrave
[margrave], 'comes marchensis,' or count of the marches, had
belonged to several foreigners who were brought into relation
with England in the twelfth century; the duke of Brabant was
marquess of Antwerp, and the count of Maurienne marquess of
Italy; but in France the title was not commonly used until the
seventeenth century, and it is possible that it came to
England direct from Germany. … The fact that, within a
century of its introduction into England, it was used in so
unmeaning a designation as the marquess of Montague, shows
that it had lost all traces of its original application."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 20, section 751.
See MARCH; also, GRAF.
MARGUS, Treaty of.
A treaty which Attila the Hun extorted from the Eastern Roman
Emperor, Theodosius, A. D. 434,—called by Sismondi "the most
shameful treaty that ever monarch signed." It gave up to the
savage king every fugitive from his vengeance or his jealousy
whom he demanded, and even the Roman captives who had escaped
from his bonds. It promised, moreover, an annual tribute to
him of 700 pounds of gold.
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
MARHATTAS.
See MAHRATTAS.
MARIA,
Queen of Hungary, A. D. 1399-1437.
Maria, Queen of Sicily, 1377-1402.
Maria I., Queen of Portugal, 1777-1807.
Maria II., Queen of Portugal, 1826-1853.
Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria and
Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, 1745-1780.
MARIA THERESA, The military order of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).
MARIANA.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
MARIANDYNIANS, The.
See BITHYNIANS.
MARIANS, The.
See ROME: B. C. 88-78.
MARICOPAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
MARIE ANTOINETTE,
Imprisonment, trial and execution of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST);
and 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
Marie Louise of Austria, Napoleon's marriage to.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
Marie de Medicis, The regency and the intrigues of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1630-1632.
Marie.
See, also, MARY.
MARIETTA, OHIO:
The Settlement and Naming of the town.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1786-1788.
MARIGNANO, OR MELIGNANO, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1515.
MARINUS, Pope.
See MARTIN.
MARIOLATRY, Rise of.
See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.
MARION, Francis, and the partisan warfare in the Carolinas.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER), and 1780-1781.
MARIPOSAN F AMIL Y, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.
MARITIME PROVINCES.
The British American provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, are commonly referred
to as the Maritime Provinces.
MARIUS AND SULLA, The civil war of.
See ROME: B. C. 88-78.
MARIZZA, Battle of the (1363).
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.
MARJ DABIK, Battle of (1516).
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
MARK.
A border.
See MARCH, MARK.
MARK, The.
"The theory of the Mark, or as it is more generally called in
its later form, the free village community, has been an
accepted hypothesis for the historical and economic world for
more than half a century. Elaborated and expanded by the
writings of Kemble in England and v. Maurer in Germany, taken
up by later English writers and given wide currency through
the works of Sir Henry Maine, Green, and Freeman, it has been
accepted and extended by scores of historical writers on this
side of the Atlantic as well as the other until it has become
a commonplace in literature. Firm as has been its hold and
important as has been its work, it is almost universally
conceded that further modification or entire rejection must be
the next step to be taken in the presence of the more thorough
and scholarly research which is becoming prominent, and before
all questions can be answered which this study brings to
light. A change has taken place in the thought upon this
subject; a reaction against the idealism of the political
thinkers of half a century ago. The history of the hypothesis
forms an interesting chapter in the relation between modern
thought and the interpretation of past history, and shows that
in the formation of an opinion both writer and reader are
unconsciously dependent upon the spirit of the age in which
they live. The free village community, as it is commonly
understood, standing at the dawn of English and German history
is discoverable in no historical documents, and for that
reason it has been accepted by prudent scholars with caution.
{2089}
But the causes which have made it a widely acceptable
hypothesis and have served to entrench it firmly in the mind
of scholar and reader alike, have easily supplied what was
wanting in the way of exact material, and have led to
conclusions which are now recognized as often too hazy,
historically inaccurate, though agreeable to the thought
tendencies of the age. … The Mark as defined by Kemble, who
felt in this interpretation the influence of the German
writers, … was a district large or small with a well-defined
boundary, containing certain proportions of heath, forest, fen
and pasture. Upon this tract of land were communities of
families or households, originally bound by kindred or tribal
ties, but who had early lost this blood relationship and were
composed of freemen, voluntarily associated for mutual support
and tillage of the soil, with commonable rights in the land
within the Mark. The Marks were entirely independent, having
nothing to do with each other, self-supporting and isolated,
until by continual expansion they either federated or
coalesced into larger communities. Such communities varying in
size covered England, internally differing only in minor
details, in all other respects similar. This view of the Mark
had been taken already more or less independently by v. Maurer
in Germany, and five years after the appearance of Kemble's
work, there was published the first of the series of volumes
which have rendered Maurer's name famous as the establisher of
the theory. As his method was more exact, his results were
built upon a more stable foundation than were those of Kemble,
but in general the two writers did not greatly differ."
C. McL. Andrews,
The Old English Manor,
pages 1-6.
ALSO IN:
J. M. Kemble,
The Saxons in England,
book 1, chapter 2.
E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest,
chapter 3, section 2.
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3, section 24 (volume 1).
See, also, MANOR.
MARKLAND.
See AMERICA: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.
MARKS, Spanish.
See SPANISH COINS.
MARLBOROUGH, John Churchill, Duke of;
and the fall of the English Whigs.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
Campaigns.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 17101712;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
----------MAROCCO: Start--------
MAROCCO:
Ancient.
See MAURETANIA.
MAROCCO:
The Arab conquest, and since.
The tide of Mahometan conquest, sweeping across North Africa
(see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709), burst upon Marocco in
698. "Eleven years were required to overcome the stubborn
resistance of the Berbers, who, however, when once conquered,
submitted with a good grace and embraced the new creed with a
facility entirely in accordance with the adaptive nature they
still exhibit. Mingled bands of Moors and Arabs passed over
into Spain, under Tarik and Moossa, and by the defeat of
Roderic at the battle of Guadalete, in 711, the foundation of
their Spanish empire was laid [see SPAIN: A. D. 711-713], on
which was afterwards raised the magnificent fabric of the
Western Khalifate. This is not the place to dwell on the
glories of their dominion. … Suffice it to say, that a
reflection of this glory extended to Marocco, where the
libraries and universities of Fez and Marocco City told of the
learning introduced by wise men, Moorish and Christian alike,
who pursued their studies without fear of interruption on the
score of religious belief. The Moors in the days of their
greatness, be it observed, were far more liberal-minded than
the Spanish Catholics afterwards showed themselves, and
allowed Christians to practise their own religion in their own
places of worship—in striking contrast to the fanaticism of
their descendants in Marocco at the present day. … The
intervals of repose under the rule of powerful and enlightened
monarchs, during which the above-mentioned institutions
flourished, were nevertheless comparatively rare, and the
general history of Marocco during the Moorish dominion in
Spain seems to have been one monotonous record of strife
between contending tribes and dynasties. Early in the tenth
century, the Berbers got the mastery of the Arabs, who never
afterwards appear in the history of the country except under
the general name of Moors. Various principalities were formed
[11-13th centuries—see ALMORAVIDES and ALMOHADES], of which
the chief were Fez, Marocco, and Tafilet, though now and
again, and especially under the Marin dynasty, in the 13th
century, the two former were consolidated into one kingdom. In
the 15th century the successes of the Spaniards caused the
centre of Moorish power to shift from Spain to Marocco. In the
declining days of the Hispano-Moorish empire, and after its
final extinction, the Spaniards and Portuguese revenged
themselves on their conquerors by attacking the coast-towns of
Marocco, many of which they captured. It is not improbable
that they would eventually have possessed themselves of the
entire country, but for the disastrous defeat of King
Sebastian in 1578, at the battle of the Three Kings, on the
banks of the Wad El Ma Hassen, near Alcazar [see PORTUGAL: A.
D. 1579-1580]. This was the turning-point in Moorish history,
and an African Creasy would have to rank the conflict at
Alcazar among the decisive battles of the continent. With the
rout and slaughter of the Portuguese fled the last chance of
civilizing the country, which from that period gradually
relapsed into a state of isolated barbarism. … For 250 years
the throne has been in the hands of members of the Shereefian
family of Fileli, who have remained practically undisputed
masters of the whole of the empire. All this time, as in the
earlier classical ages, Marocco has been practically shut out
from the world. … The chief events of importance in Moorish
affairs in the present century were the defeat of the Moors by
the French at the battle of Isly [see BARBARY STATES: A. D.
1830-1846], near the Algerian frontier, in 1844, and the
subsequent bombardment of Mogador and the coast-towns, and the
Spanish war which terminated in 1860 with the peace of Tetuan.
These reverses taught the Moors the power of European states,
and brought about a great improvement in the position of
Christians in the country. The Government of Marocco is in
effect a kind of' graduated despotism, where every official,
while possessing complete authority over those beneath him,
must render absolute submission to his superiors. The supreme
power is vested in the Sultan, the head of the State in all
things spiritual and temporal. … Of the ultimate dissolution
of the Moorish dominion there can be little doubt. …
European States have long had their eyes upon it, but the same
mutual distrust and jealousy which preserves the decaying fabric
of the Turkish Empire has hitherto done the like for Marocco,
whose Sultan serves the same purpose on the Straits of
Gibraltar as the Turkish Sultan does on the Bosphorus."
H. E. M. Stutfield,
El Maghreb,
chapter 16.
See, also, BARBARY STATES.
----------MAROCCO: End--------
{2090}
MARONITES, The.
See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.
MAROONS.
See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.
MARQUETTE'S EXPLORATIONS.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
MARQUIS.
See MARGRAVE.
MARRANA, The.
An ancient ditch running from Alba to Rome,—being part of a
channel by which the Vale of Grotta was drained.
B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography.,
volume 2, page 50.
MARRANOS.
See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
MARRIAGE, Republican.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
MARRUCINIANS, The.
See SABINES.
MARS' HILL.
See AREOPAGUS.
MARSAGLIA, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).
MARSCHFELD.
See MARCHFELD.
MARSEILLAISE, The.
Origin of the Song.
Its introduction into Paris.
In preparation for the insurrection of August 10, 1792, which
overthrew the French monarchy, and made the Revolution begun
in 1789 complete, the Jacobins had summoned armed bands of
their supporters from an parts of France, ostensibly as
volunteers to join the army on the frontier, but actually and
immediately as a reinforcement for the attack which they had
planned to make on the king at the Tuileries.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST).
Among the "fédérés" who came was a battalion of 500 from
Marseilles, which arrived at the capital on the 30th of July.
"This battalion has been described by every historian as a
collection of the vagabonds who are always to be found in a
great seaport town, and particularly in one like Marseilles,
where food was cheap and lodging unnecessary. But their
character has lately been vindicated, and it has been shown
that these Marseillais were picked men from the national
guards of Marseilles, like the other fédérés, and contained
the most hardy as well as the most revolutionary men of the
city. …. They left Marseilles 513 strong, with two guns, on
July 2, and had been marching slowly across France, singing
the immortal war song to which they gave their name. … The
'Marseillaise' had in itself no very radical history. On April
24, 1792, just after the declaration of war, the mayor of
Strasbourg, Dietrich, who was himself no advanced republican,
but a constitutionalist, remarked at a great banquet that it
was very sad that all the national war songs of France could
not be sung by her present defenders, because they all treated
of loyalty to the king and not to the nation as well. One of
the guests was a young captain of engineers, Rouget de Lisle,
who had in 1791 composed a successful 'Hymne à la Liberté,'
and Dietrich appealed to him to compose something suitable.
The young man was struck by the notion, and during the night
he was suddenly inspired with both words and air, and on the
following day he sang over to Dietrich's guests the famous
song which was to be the war-song of the French Republic.
Madame Dietrich arranged the air for the orchestra; Rouget de
Lisle dedicated it to Marshal Lückner, as the 'Chant de guerre
pour l'armée du Rhin,' and it at once became popular in
Strasbourg. Neither Dietrich nor Rouget were advanced
republicans. The watchword of the famous song was not 'Sauvons
la République,' but' Sauvons la Patrie.' The air was a taking
one. From Strasbourg it quickly spread over the south of
France, and particularly attracted the patriots of Marseilles.
… There are many legends on the origin of the
'Marseillaise'; the account here followed is that given by
Amedée Rouget de Lisle, the author's nephew, in his 'La verité
sur la paternité de la Marseillaise,' Paris, 1865, which is
confirmed by a letter of Madame Dietrich's, written at the
time, and first published in 'Souvenirs d' Alsace—Rouget de
Lisle à Strasbourg et a Huningue,' by Adolphe Morpain."
H. M. Stephens,
History of the French Revolution,
volume 2, page 114-115.
A quite different but less trustworthy
version of the story may be found in
A. de Lamartine
History of the Girondists,
book 16, section 26-30 (volume 1).
----------MARSEILLES: Start--------
MARSEILLES:
The founding of.
See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539,
and PHOCÆANS.
MARSEILLES: B. C. 49.
Conquest by Cæsar.
See ROME: B. C. 49.
MARSEILLES: 10th Century.
In the kingdom of Aries.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
MARSEILLES: 11th Century.
The Viscounts of.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
MARSEILLES: 12th Century.
Prosperity and freedom.
See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
MARSEILLES: A. D. 1524.
Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards and the Constable Bourbon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.
MARSEILLES: A. D. 1792.
The Marseillais sent to Paris, and their war-song.
See MARSEILLAISE.
MARSEILLES: A. D. 1793.
Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.
Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);
and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
MARSEILLES: A. D. 1795.
Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
The White Terror.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).
----------MARSEILLES: End--------
MARSHAL, The.
See CONSTABLE.
MARSHALL, John,
and the Federal Constitution of the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789;
and SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
MARSI, The.
See SAXONS; also, FRANKS.
MARSIAN WAR, The.
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
MARSIANS, The.
See SABINES;
also, ITALY: ANCIENT.
MARSIGNI, The.
The Marsigni were an ancient German tribe who inhabited "what
is now Galatz, Jagerndorf and part of Silesia."
Tacitus,
Germany;
Oxford translation, foot-note.
MARSTON MOOR, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).
MARTHA'S VINEYARD:
Named by Gosnold.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
MARTIN,
King of Aragon, A. D. 1395-1410;
King of Sicily, A. D. 1409-1410.
Martin I., Pope, 649-655.
Martin I., King of Sicily, 1402-1409.
Martin II. (or Marinus I.), Pope, 882-884.
Martin II., King of Sicily, 1409-1410.
Martin III. (or Marinus II.), Pope, 942-946.
Martin IV., Pope, 1281-1285.
Martin V., Pope, 1417-1431 (elected by the Council of Constance).
{2091}
MARTLING MEN.
In February, 1806, when DeWitt Clinton and his political
followers were organizing opposition to Governor Lewis, and
were forming an alliance to that end with the political
friends of Aaron Burr, a meeting of Republicans (afterwards
called Democrats) was held at "Martling's Long Room," in New
York City. Hence Mr. Clinton's Democratic opponents, "for a
long time afterwards, were known in other parts of the state
by the name of Martling Men."
J. D. Hammond,
History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
volume 1, page 230.
MARY
(called Mary Tudor), Queen of England, A. D. 1553-1558.
Mary of Burgundy, The Austrian marriage of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
Mary II., Queen of England
(with King William III., her consort), 1689-1694.
Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, 1542-1567.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548, to 1561-1568;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.
Mary.
See, also, MARIE.
----------MARYLAND: Start--------
MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
The charter granted to Lord Baltimore.
An American palatinate.
"Among those who had become interested in the London or
Virginia, Company, under its second charter, in 1609, was Sir
George Calvert, afterwards the founder of Maryland. … Upon
the dissolution of the Virginia Company … he was named by
the king one of the royal commissioners to whom the government
of that colony was confided. Hitherto he had been a
Protestant, but in 1624, having become unsettled in his
religious convictions, he renounced the church of England, in
which he had been bred, and embraced the faith of the Catholic
church. Moved by conscientious scruples, he determined no
longer to hold the office of secretary of state [conferred on
him in 1619], which would make him, in a manner, the
instrument of persecution against those whose faith he had
adopted, and tendered his resignation to the king. … The
king, … while he accepted his resignation, continued him as
a member of his privy council for life, and soon after created
him Lord Baltimore, of Baltimore, in Ireland. The spirit of
intolerance at that time pervaded England. … The laws
against the Catholics in England were particularly severe and
cruel, and rendered it impossible for any man to practice his
religion in quiet and safety. Sir George Calvert felt this;
and although he was assured of protection from the gratitude
and affection of the king, he determined to seek another land
and to found a new state, where conscience should be free and
every man might worship God according to his own heart, in
peace and perfect security. … At first he fixed his eyes on
New-found-land, in the settlement of which he had been
interested before his conversion. … Having purchased a ship,
he sailed with his family to that island, in which, a few
years before, he had obtained a grant of a province under the
name of Avalon. Here he only resided two years [see
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655], when he found the climate and
soil unsuited for the establishment of a flourishing
community, and determined to seek a more genial country in the
south. Accordingly, in 1628, he sailed to Virginia, with the
intention of settling in the limits of that colony, or more
probably to explore the uninhabited country on its borders, in
order to secure a grant of it from the king. Upon his arrival
within the jurisdiction of the colony, the authorities
tendered him the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, to which,
as then framed, no Catholic could subscribe. Lord Baltimore
refused to take them, but prepared a form of an oath of
allegiance which he and all his followers were willing to
accept. His proposal was rejected, and being compelled to
leave their waters, he explored the Chesapeake above the
settlements. He was pleased with the beautiful and well wooded
country, which surrounded the noble inlets and indentations of
the great bay, and determined there to found his principality.
… He returned to England to obtain a grant from Charles I,
who had succeeded his father, James I, upon the throne.
Remembering his services to his father, and perhaps moved by
the intercessions of Henrietta Maria, his Catholic queen, who

desired to secure an asylum abroad for the persecuted members
of her church in England, Charles directed the patent to be
issued. It was prepared by Lord Baltimore himself; but before
it was finally executed that truly great and good, man died,
and the patent was delivered to his son Cecilius, who
succeeded as well to his noble designs as to his titles and
estates. The charter was issued on the 20th of June, 1632, and
the new province, in honor of Queen Henrietta Maria, was named
'Terra Mariæ'—Maryland."
J. McSherry,
History of Maryland,
introduction.
"The boundaries of Maryland, unlike those of the other
colonies, were precisely defined. Its limits were: on the
north, the fortieth parallel of north latitude; on the west
and southwest, a line running south from this parallel to the
farthest source of the Potomac, and thence by the farther or
western bank of that river to Chesapeake Bay; on the south by
a line running across the bay and peninsula to the Atlantic;
and on the east by the ocean and the Delaware Bay and River.
It included, therefore, all the present State of Delaware, a
large tract of land now forming part of Pennsylvania, and
another now occupied and claimed by West Virginia. The charter
of Maryland contained the most ample rights and privileges
ever conferred by a sovereign of England. It erected Maryland
into a palatinate, equivalent to a principality, reserving
only the feudal supremacy of the crown. The Proprietary was
made absolute lord of the land and water within his
boundaries, could erect towns, cities, and ports, make war or
peace, call the whole fighting population to arms, and declare
martial law, levy tolls and duties, establish courts of
justice, appoint judges, magistrates, and other civil
officers, execute the laws, and pardon offenders. He could
erect manors with courts-baron and courts-leet, and confer
titles and dignities, so that they differed from those of
England. He could make laws with the assent of the freemen of
the province, and, in cases of emergency, ordinances not
impairing life, limb, or property, without their assent. He
could found churches and chapels, have them consecrated
according to the ecclesiastical laws of England, and appoint
the incumbents. All this territory, with these royal rights,
'jura regalia,' was to be held of the crown in free socage, by
the delivery of two Indian arrows yearly at the palace of
Windsor, and the fifth of all gold or silver mined. The
colonists and their descendants were to remain English
subjects. …
{2092}
The King furthermore bound himself and his successors to lay
no taxes, customs, subsidies, or contributions whatever upon
the people of the province. … This charter, by which
Maryland was virtually an independent and self-governed
community, placed the destinies of the colonists in their own
hands. … Though often attacked, and at times held in
abeyance, the charter was never revoked."
W. H. Browne,
Maryland,
chapter 2.
The intention to create a palatine principality in Maryland is
distinctly expressed in the fourth section of the charter,
which grants to Lord Baltimore, his heirs and assigns, "as
ample rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives,
royalties, liberties, immunities, and royal rights … as any
bishop of Durham, within the bishoprick or county palatine of
Durham, in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore hath had,
held, used, or enjoyed, or of right could, or ought to have,
held, use, or enjoy."
J. L. Bozman,
History of Maryland,
volume 2, page. 11.
ALSO IN:
H. W. Preston,
Documents Illustrative of American History,
page 62.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1633-1637.
The planting of the colony at St. Mary's.
"Cecil, Lord Baltimore, after receiving his charter for
Maryland, in June, 1632, prepared to carry out his father's
plans. Terms of settlement were issued to attract colonists,
and a body of emigrants was soon collected to begin the
foundation of the new province. The leading gentlemen who were
induced to take part in the project were Catholics; those whom
they took out to till the soil, or ply various trades, were
not all or, indeed, mainly Catholics, but they could not have
been very strongly Protestant to embark in a venture so
absolutely under Catholic control. At Avalon Sir George
Calvert, anxious for the religious life of his colonists, had
taken over both Catholic and Protestant clergymen, and was ill
repaid for his liberal conduct. To avoid a similar ground of
reproach, Baron Cecil left each part of his colonists free to
take their own clergymen. It is a significant fact that the
Protestant portion were so indifferent that they neither took
over any minister of religion, nor for several years after
Maryland settlements began made any attempt to procure one. On
behalf of the Catholic settlers, Lord Baltimore applied to
Father Richard Blount, at that time provincial of the Jesuits
in England, and wrote to the General of the Society, at Rome,
to excite their zeal in behalf of the English Catholics who
were about to proceed to Maryland. He could offer the clergy
no support. … The Jesuits did not shrink from a mission
field where they were to look for no support from the
proprietary or their flock, and were to live amid dangers. It
was decided that two Fathers were to go as gentlemen
adventurers, taking artisans with them, and acquiring lands
like others, from which they were to draw their support. …
The Maryland pilgrims under Leonard Calvert, brother of the
lord proprietary, consisted of his brother George, some 20
other gentlemen, and 200 laboring men well provided. To convey
these to the land of Mary, Lord Baltimore had his own pinnace,
the Dove, of 50 tons, commanded by Robert Winter, and the Ark,
a chartered vessel of 350 tons burthen, Richard Lowe being
captain. Leonard Calvert was appointed governor, Jerome Hawley
and Thomas Cornwaleys being joined in the commission." After
many malicious hindrances and delays, the two vessels sailed
from Cowes, November 22, 1633, and made their voyage in
safety, though encountering heavy storms. They came to anchor
in Chesapeake Bay, near one of the Heron Islands, which they
named St. Clement; and on that island they raised a cross and
celebrated mass. "Catholicity thus planted her cross and her
altar in the heart of the English colonies in America, March
25, 1634. The land was consecrated, and then preparations were
made to select a spot for the settlement. Leaving Father White
at St. Clement's, the governor, with Father Altham, ran up the
river in a pinnace, and at Potomac on the southern shore met
Archihau, regent of the powerful tribe that held sway over
that part of the land." Having won the goodwill of the
savages, "Leonard Calvert sailed back to Saint Clement's. Then
the pilgrims entered the Saint Mary's, a bold, broad stream,
emptying into the Potomac about 12 miles from its mouth. For
the first settlement of the new province, Leonard Calvert, who
had landed, selected a spot a short distance above, about a
mile from the eastern shore of the river. Here stood an Indian
town, whose inhabitants, harassed by the Susquehannas, had
already begun to emigrate to the westward. To observe strict
justice with the Indian tribes, Calvert purchased from the
werowance, or king, Yaocomoco, 30 miles of territory. The
Indians gradually gave up some of their houses to the
colonists, agreeing to leave the rest also after they had
gathered in their harvest. … The new settlement began with
Catholic and Protestant dwelling together in harmony, neither
attempting to interfere with the religious rights of the
other, 'and religious liberty obtained a home, its only home
in the wide world, at the humble village which bore the name
of St. Mary's' [Bancroft, i, 247]. … The settlers were soon
at work. Houses for their use were erected, crops were
planted, activity and industry prevailed. St. Mary's chapel
was dedicated to the worship of Almighty God, and near it a
fort stood, ready to protect the settlers. It was required by
the fact that Clayborne the Virginia Council], the fanatical enemy of Lord Baltimore
and his Catholic projects, who had already settled on Kent
Island, was exciting the Indians against the colonists of
Maryland. The little community gave the priests a field too
limited for their zeal. … The Indian tribes were to be
reached. … Another priest, with a lay brother, came to share
their labors before the close of the year 1635; and the next
year four priests were reported as the number assigned to the
Maryland mission. Of their early labors no record is
preserved. … Sickness prevailed in the colony, and the
missionaries did not escape. Within two months after his
arrival Father Knolles, a talented young priest of much hope,
sank a victim to the climate, and Brother Gervase, one of the
original band of settlers, also died. … Lord Baltimore's
scheme embraced not only religious but legislative freedom,
and his charter provided for a colonial assembly. … In less
than three years an assembly of the freemen of the little
colony was convened and opened its sessions on the 25-26th of
January, 1637. All who had taken up lands were summoned to
attend in person." Some of the resulting legislation was
disapproved by the missionaries, and "the variance of opinion
was most unfortunate in its results to the colony, as
impairing the harmony which had hitherto prevailed."
J. G. Shea,
The Catholic Church in Colonial Days,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
J. L. Bozman,
History of Maryland,
chapter 1
W. H. Browne,
George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
chapters 3-4.
{2093}
MARYLAND: A. D. 1634.
Embraced in the palatine grant of New Albion.
See NEW ALBION.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1635-1638.
The troubles with Clayborne.
William Clayborne "was the person most aggrieved by the
Maryland charter. Under a general license from Charles I. to
trade, he had established a lucrative post on Kent Island. The
King, as he had unquestioned right to do under the theory of
English law, granted to Lord Baltimore a certain tract of wild
land, including Kent Island. Clayborne had no legal right
there except as the subject of Baltimore; but, since his real
injuries coincided with the fancied ones of the Virginians
generally, his claim assumed importance. … There was … so
strong a feeling in favor of Clayborne in Virginia that he was
soon able to send an armed pinnace up the Chesapeake to defend
his invaded rights at Kent Island, but the expedition was
unfortunate. Governor Calvert, after a sharp encounter,
captured Clayborne's pinnace, and proclaimed its owner a
rebel. Calvert then demanded that the author of this trouble
should be given up by Virginia; but Harvey [the governor], who
had been in difficulties himself on account of his
lukewarmness toward Clayborne, refused to comply. Clayborne,
however, solved the problem in his own way, by going at once
to England to attack his enemies in their stronghold. … On
his arrival in England he … presented a petition to the
King, and by adroitly working on the cupidity of Charles, not
only came near recovering Kent Island, but almost obtained a
large grant besides. After involving Lord Baltimore in a good
deal of litigation, Clayborne was obliged, by an adverse
decision of the Lords Commissioners of Plantations, to abandon
all hopes in England, and therefore withdrew to Virginia to
wait for better times."
H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies in America,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
J. L. Bozman,
History of Maryland,
volume 2, chapter 1.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1643-1649.
Colonial disturbances from the English Civil War.
Lord Baltimore and the Puritans.
The struggle of parties incident to the overthrow of the
monarchy and the civil war, in England, was attended in
Maryland "with a degree of violence disproportionate to its
substantial results. It is difficult to fasten the blame of
the first attack definitely on either party. In 1643 or 1644
the King gave letters of marque to Leonard Calvert
commissioning him to seize upon all ships belonging to the
Parliament. It would seem, however, as if the other side had
begun to be active, since only three months later we find the
Governor issuing a proclamation for the arrest of Richard
Ingle, a sea-captain, apparently a Puritan and an ally of
Clayborne. … Ingle … landed at St. Mary's [1645], while
Clayborne at the same time made a fresh attempt upon Kent
Island. Later events showed that under a resolute leader the
Maryland Royalists were capable of a determined resistance,
but now either no such leader was forthcoming, or the party
was taken by surprise. Cornwallis, who seems to have been the
most energetic man in the colony, was absent in England, and
Leonard Calvert fled into Virginia, apparently without an
effort to maintain his authority. Ingle and his followers
landed and seized upon St. Mary's, took possession of the
government, and plundered Cornwallis's house and goods to the
value of £300. Their success was short-lived. Calvert
returned, rallied his party, and ejected Clayborne and Ingle.
The Parliament made no attempt to back the proceedings of its
supporters, and the matter dwindled into a petty dispute
between Ingle and Cornwallis, in which the latter obtained at
least some redress for his losses. The Isle of Kent held out
somewhat longer, but in the course of the next year it was
brought back to its allegiance. This event was followed in
less than a twelvemonth by the death of the Governor [June 9,
1647]. Baltimore now began to see that in the existing
position of parties he must choose between his fidelity to a
fallen cause and his position as the Proprietor of Maryland.
As early as 1642 we find him warning the Roman Catholic
priests in his colony that they must expect no privileges
beyond those which they would enjoy in England. He now showed
his anxiety to propitiate the rising powers by his choice of a
successor to his brother. The new Governor, William Stone, was
a Protestant. The Council was also reconstituted and only two
Papists appeared among its members. … Furthermore he [Lord
Baltimore] exacted from Stone an oath that he would not molest
any persons on the ground of their religion, provided they
accepted the fundamental dogmas of Christianity. The Roman
Catholics were singled out as the special objects of this
protection, though we may reasonably suppose that it was also
intended to check religious dissensions. So far Baltimore only
acted like a prudent, unenthusiastic man, who was willing to
make the best of a defeat and save what he could out of it by
a seemingly free sacrifice of what was already lost. … The
internal condition of the colony had now been substantially
changed since the failure of Ingle and Clayborne. The Puritan
party there had received an important addition. … A number
of Nonconformists had made an attempt to establish themselves
on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. … The toleration which
was denied them by the rigid and narrow-minded Anglicanism of
Virginia was conceded by the liberality or the indifference of
Baltimore. The precise date and manner of their immigration
cannot be discovered, but we know that by 1650 their
settlement was important enough to be made into a separate
county under the name of Ann Arundel, and by 1653 they formed
two distinct communities, numbering between them close upon
140 householders. All that was required of them was an oath of
fidelity to the Proprietor, and it seems doubtful whether even
that was exacted at the outset. They seem, in the unsettled
and anarchical condition of the colony, to have been allowed
to form a separate and well-nigh independent body, holding
political views openly at variance with those of the
Proprietor. To what extent the settlers on the Isle of Kent
were avowedly hostile to Baltimore's government is doubtful.
But it is clear that discontent was rife among them, and that
in conjunction with the new-comers they made up a formidable
body, prepared to oppose the Proprietor and support the
Parliament. Symptoms of internal disaffection were seen in the
proceedings of the Assembly of 1649."
J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: Virginia, Maryland, &c.,
chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
G. P. Fisher,
The Colonial Era,
chapter 5.
{2094}
MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.
The Act of Toleration.
Religious liberty was a vital part of the earliest common-law
of the province. At the date of the charter, Toleration
existed in the heart of the proprietary. And it appeared in
the earliest administration of the affairs of the province.
But an oath was soon prepared by him, including a pledge from
the governor and the privy counsellors, 'directly or
indirectly' to 'trouble, molest, or discountenance' no 'person
whatever,' in the province, 'professing to believe in Jesus
Christ.' Its date is still an open question—some writers
supposing it was imposed in 1637; and others, in 1648. I am
inclined to think the oath of the latter was but 'an augmented
edition' of the one in the former year. The grant of the
charter marks the era of a special Toleration. But the
earliest practice of the government presents the first, the
official oath the second, the action of the Assembly in 1649
the third, and to advocates of a republican government the
most important phasis, in the history of the general
Toleration. … To the legislators of 1649 was it given … to
take their own rank among the foremost spirits of the age.
Near the close of the session, … by a solemn act [the 'Act
Concerning Religion'], they endorsed that policy which ever
since has shed the brightest lustre upon the legislative
annals of the province. … The design was five-fold:—to
guard by an express penalty 'the most sacred things of God';
to inculcate the principle of religious decency and order; to
establish, upon a firmer basis, the harmony already existing
between the colonists; to secure, in the fullest sense,
freedom as well as protection to all believers in
Christianity; and to protect quiet disbelievers against every
sort of reproach or ignominy."
G. L. Davis,
The Daystar of American Freedom,
chapters 4-7.
"In the wording of this act we see evident marks of a
compromise between the differing sentiments in the Assembly.
… It was as good a compromise as could be made at the time,
and an immense advance upon the principles and practice of the
age. In reality, it simply formulated in a statute what had
been Baltimore's policy from the first. … From the
foundation of the colony no man was molested under Baltimore's
rule on account of religion. Whenever the Proprietary's power
was overthrown, religious persecution began, and was checked
so soon as he was reinstated."
W. H. Browne,
Maryland,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. H. Browne,
George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
chapter 8.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1650-1675.
In Puritan times, and after.
"To whatever causes … toleration was due, it worked well in
populating Maryland. There was an influx of immigration,
composed in part of the Puritans driven from Virginia by
Berkeley. These people, although refusing the oath of
fidelity, settled at Providence, near the site of Annapolis.
Not merely the Protestant but the Puritan interest was now
predominant in Maryland, and in the next Assembly the Puritan
faction had control. They elected one of their leaders
Speaker, and expelled a Catholic who refused to take an oath
requiring secrecy on the part of the Burgesses. … Yet they
passed stringent laws against Clayborne, and an act reciting
their affection for Lord Baltimore, who had so vivid an idea
of their power that he deemed it best to assent to sumptuary
laws of a typically Puritan character. The Assembly appears to
have acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament, while their
proprietary went so far in the same direction that his loyalty
was doubted, and Charles II. afterward appointed Sir William
Davenant in his place to govern Maryland. This discreet
conduct on the part of Lord Baltimore served, however, as a
protection neither to the colonists nor to the proprietary
rights. To the next Assembly, the Puritans of Providence
refused to send delegates, evidently expecting a dissolution
of the proprietary government, and the consequent supremacy of
their faction. Nor were they deceived. Such had been the
prudence of the Assembly and of Lord Baltimore that Maryland
was not expressly named in the Parliamentary commission for
the 'reducement' of the colonies; but, unfortunately,
Clayborne was the ruling spirit among the Parliamentary
commissioners, and he was not the man to let any informality
of wording in a document stand between him and his revenge.
… Clayborne and Richard Bennet, one of the Providence
settlers, and also a commissioner, soon gave their undivided
attention to Maryland." Stone was displaced from the
Governorship, but reinstated after a year, taking sides for a
time with the Puritan party. "He endeavored to trim at a time
when trimming was impossible. … Stone's second change,
however, was a decided one. Although he proclaimed Cromwell as
Lord-Protector, he carried on the government exclusively in
Baltimore's interest, ejected the Puritans, recalled the
Catholic Councillors, and issued a proclamation against the
inhabitants of Providence as factious and seditious. A
flagrant attempt to convert a young girl to Catholicism added
fuel to the flames. Moderation was at an end. Clayborne and
Bennet, backed by Virginia, returned and called an Assembly,
from which Catholics were to be excluded. In Maryland, as in
England, the extreme wing of the Puritan party was now in the
ascendant, and exercised its power oppressively and
relentlessly. Stone took arms and marched against the
Puritans. A battle was fought at Providence, in which the
Puritans, who, whatever their other failings, were always
ready in a fray, were completely victorious. A few executions
and some sequestrations followed, and severe laws against the
Catholics were passed. The policy of the Puritans was not
toleration, and they certainly never believed in it.
Nevertheless, Lord Baltimore kept his patent, and the Puritans
did not receive in England the warm sympathy they had
expected." In the end (1657) there was a compromise. The
proprietary government was re-established, and Fendall, whom
Baltimore had appointed Governor in place of Stone, was
recognized. "The results of all this turbulence were the right
to carry arms, the practical assertion of the right to make
laws and lay taxes, relief from the oath of fealty with the
obnoxious clauses, and the breakdown of the Catholic interest
in Maryland politics. Toleration was wisely restored. The
solid advantages were gained by the Puritan minority at the
expense of the lord proprietary.
{2095}
In the interregnum which ensued on the abdication of Richard
Cromwell, the Assembly met and claimed supreme authority in
the province, and denied their responsibility to anyone but
the sovereign in England. Fendall, a weak man of the agitator
species, acceded to the claims of the Assembly; but Baltimore
removed Fendall, and kept the power which the Assembly had
attempted to take away. … Maryland did not suffer by the
Restoration, as was the case with her sister colonies, but
gained many solid advantages. The factious strife of years was
at last allayed, and order, peace, and stability of government
supervened. Philip Calvert, an illegitimate son of the first
proprietary, was governor for nearly two years, and was then
succeeded [1661] by his nephew, Charles, the oldest son of
Lord Baltimore, whose administration lasted for fourteen. It
would have been difficult to find at that time better
governors than these Calverts proved themselves. Moderate and
just, they administered the affairs of Maryland sensibly and
well. Population increased, and the immigration of Quakers and
foreigners, and of the oppressed of all nations, was greatly
stimulated by a renewal of the old policy of religious
toleration. The prosperity of the colony was marked."
H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
J. Grahame,
History of the United States (Colonial),
book 3 (volume 1).
D. R. Randall,
A Puritan Colony in Maryland.
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, 4th series, no. 6).
W. H. Browne,
George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
chapters 8-9.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1664-1682.
Claims to Delaware disputed by the Duke of York.
Grant of Delaware by the Duke to William Penn.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1681-1685.
The Boundary dispute with William Penn, in its first stages.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1688-1757.
Lord Baltimore deprived of the government.
Change of faith and restoration of his son.
Intolerance revived.
Lord Baltimore, "though guilty of no maladministration in his
government, though a zealous Roman catholic, and firmly
attached to the cause of King James II., could not prevent his
charter from being questioned in that arbitrary reign, and a
suit from being commenced to deprive him of the property and
jurisdiction of a province granted by the royal favour, and
peopled at such a vast expense of his own. But it was the
error of that weak and unfortunate reign, neither to know its
friends, nor its enemies; but by a blind precipitate conduct
to hurry on everything of whatever consequence with almost
equal heat, and to imagine that the sound of the royal
authority was sufficient to justify every sort of conduct to
every sort of people. But these injuries could not shake the
honour and constancy of Lord Baltimore, nor tempt him to
desert the cause of his master. Upon the revolution [1688] he
had no reason to expect any favour; yet he met with more than
king James had intended him; he was deprived indeed of all his
jurisdiction [1691], but he was left the profits of his province,
which were by no means inconsiderable; and when his
descendents had conformed to the church of England, they were
restored [1741] to all their rights as fully as the
legislature has thought fit that any proprietor should enjoy
them. When upon the revolution power changed hands in that
province, the new men made but an indifferent requital for the
liberties and indulgences they had enjoyed under the old
administration. They not only deprived the Roman Catholics of
all share in the government, but of all the rights of freemen;
they have even adopted the whole body of the penal laws of
England against them; they are at this day [1757] meditating
new laws in the same spirit, and they would undoubtedly go to
the greatest lengths in this respect, if the moderation and
good sense of the government in England did not set some
bounds to their bigotry."
E. Burke,
Account of the European Settlements in America,
part 7, chapter 18 (volume 2).
"We may now place side by side the three tolerations of
Maryland. The toleration of the Proprietaries lasted fifty
years, and under it all believers in Christ were equal before
the law, and all support to churches or ministers was
voluntary; the Puritan toleration lasted six years, and
included all but Papists, Prelatists, and those who held
objectionable doctrines; the Anglican toleration lasted eighty
years, and had glebes and churches for the Establishment,
connivance for Dissenters, the penal laws for Catholics."
W. H. Browne,
Maryland,
chapter 11.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
King William's War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
and CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.
The founding of Baltimore.
"Maryland had never taken kindly to towns, and though in Queen
Anne's reign, in conformity with the royal wish, a number were
founded, the reluctant Assembly 'erecting' them by batches—42 at
once in 1706—scarcely any passed beyond the embryonic stage.
… St. Mary's and Annapolis, the one waning as the other
waxed, remained the only real towns of the colony for the
first 90 years of its existence; Joppa, on the Gunpowder, was
the next, and had a fair share of prosperity for 50 years and
more, until her young and more vigorous rival, Baltimore, drew
off her trade, and she gradually dwindled, peaked, and pined
away to a solitary house and a grass-grown grave-yard, wherein
slumber the mortal remains of her ancient citizens. Baltimore on
the Patapsco was not the first to bear that appellation. At
least two Baltimores had a name, if not a local habitation,
and perished, if they can be said ever to have rightly
existed, before their younger sister saw the light. … In
1729, the planters near the Patapsco, feeling the need of a
convenient port, made application to the Assembly, and an act
was passed authorising the purchase of the necessary land,
whereupon 60 acres bounding on the northwest branch of the
river, at the part of the harbor now called the Basin, were
bought of Daniel and Charles Carroll at 40 shillings the acre.
The streets and lots were laid off in the following January,
and purchasers invited. The waterfronts were immediately taken
up."
W. H. Browne,
Maryland,
chapter 12.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War.
See
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
{2096}
MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1767.
Settlement of the boundary dispute with Pennsylvania.
Mason and Dixon's line.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
Opening events of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1775;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1776.
The end of proprietary and royal government.
Formation and adoption of a state constitution.
"In Maryland the party in favor of independence encountered
peculiar obstacles. Under the proprietary rule the colony
enjoyed a large measure of happiness and prosperity. The
Governor, Robert Eden, was greatly respected, and to the last
was treated with forbearance. … The political power was
vested in a Convention which created the Council of Safety and
provided for the common defence. This was, however, so much
under the control of the proprietary party and timid Whigs
that, on the 21st of May [1776], it renewed its former
instructions against independence. … The popular leaders
determined 'to take the sense of the people.' Charles Carroll
of Carrolton, and Samuel Chase, who had just returned from
Canada, entered with zeal into the movement on the side of
independence and revolution. Meetings were called in the
counties. … Anne Arundel County declared that the province,
except in questions of domestic policy, was bound by the
decisions of Congress. … Charles County followed,
pronouncing for independence, confederation, and a new
government. … Frederick County (June 17) unanimously
resolved: 'That what may be recommended by a majority of the
Congress equally delegated by the people of the United
Colonies, we will, at the hazard of our lives and fortunes,
support and maintain.' … This was immediately printed. 'Read
the papers,' Samuel Chase wrote on the 21st to John Adams,
'and be assured Frederick speaks the sense of many counties.'
Two days afterward the British man-of-war, Fowey, with a flag
of truce at her top-gallant mast, anchored before Annapolis;
the next day, Governor Eden was on board; and so closed the
series of royal governors on Maryland soil."
R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic,
pp. 525-527.
"Elections were held throughout the state on the 1st day of
August, 1776, for delegates to a new convention to form a
constitution and state government. … On the 14th of August
this new body assembled. … On the 3d of November the bill of
rights was adopted. On the 8th of the same month the
constitution of the State was finally agreed to, and elections
ordered to carry it into effect."
J. McSherry,
History of Maryland,
chapter 10.
See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1776-1779.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
The War of Independence, to the Peace with Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1808.
Anti-Slavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1777-1781.
Resistance to the western territorial claims of states
chartered to the Pacific Ocean.
Influence upon land-cessions to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1787-1788.
Adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1813.
The coast of Chesapeake Bay harried by the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
Reply of Governor Hicks to President Lincoln's call for troops.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
Secession activity.
Baltimore mastered by the rebel mob.
Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (APRIL) ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
Attempted "neutrality" and the end of it.
General Butler at Annapolis and Baltimore.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).
MARYLAND: A. D. 1862 (September).
Lee's first invasion and his cool reception.
The battles of South Mountain and Antietam.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).
MARYLAND: A. D. 1863.
Lee's second invasion.
Gettysburg.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).
MARYLAND: A. D. 1864.
Early's invasion.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA—MARYLAND).
MARYLAND: A. D. 1867.
The founding of Johns Hopkins University.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.
----------MARYLAND: End----------
MARZOCCO.
"'Marzocco' was the name given to the Florentine Lion, a stone
figure of which was set up in all subject places and the name
shouted as a battle-cry by their armies. It is said to be
derived from the Hebrew, 'Mare' (form, or appearance, or
aspect) and 'Sciahhal,' 'a great Lion.'"
H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
volume 4, page 103, foot-note.
MASANIELLO'S REVOLT.
See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
MASKOKI FAMILY OF INDIANS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
MASKOUTENS,
MASCONTENS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SACS, &c.
MASNADA,
See CATTANI.
MASON, John, and his grant in New Hampshire.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
MASON AND DIXON'S LINE.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.
MASON AND SLIDELL, The seizure of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (NOVEMBER).
MASORETES,
MASSORETES
MASORETIC.
When the Hebrew language had ceased to be a living language
"the so-called Masoretes, or Jewish scribes, in the sixth
century after the Christian era, invented a system of symbols
which should represent the pronunciation of the Hebrew of the
Old Testament as read, or rather chanted, at the time in the
great synagogue of Tiberias in Palestine. It is in accordance
with this Masoretic mode of pronunciation that Hebrew is now
taught."
A. H. Sayce,
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 3.
"Massora denotes, in general, tradition … ; but more
especially it denotes the tradition concerning the text of the
Bible. Hence those who made this special tradition their
object of study were called Massoretes. … As there was an
eastern and western, or Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud, so
likewise there developed itself a twofold Massora,—a
Babylonian, or eastern, and a Palestinian, or western: the
more important is the former. At Tiberias the study of the
Massora had been in a flourishing condition for a long time.
Here lived the famous Massorete, Aaron ben-Moses ben-Asher,
commonly called Ben-Asher, in the beginning of the tenth
century, who finally fixed the so-called Massoretic text."
Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
{2097}
MASPIANS, The.
One of the tribes of the ancient Persians.
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 3.
MASSACHUSETTS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
----------MASSACHUSETTS: Start--------
MASSACHUSETTS:
The Name.
"The name Massachusetts, so far as I have observed, is first
mentioned by Captain Smith in his 'Description of New
England,' 1616. He spells the word variously, but he appears
to use the term Massachuset and Massachewset to denote the
country, while he adds a final's' when he is speaking of the
inhabitants. He speaks of Massachusets Mount and Massachusets
River, using the word also in its possessive form; while in
another place he calls the former 'the high mountain of
Massachusit.' To this mountain, on his map, he gives the
English name of 'Chevyot Hills.' Hutchinson (i. 460) supposes
the Blue Hills of Milton to be intended. He says that a small
hill near Squantum, the former seat of a great Indian sachem,
was called Massachusetts Hill, or Mount Massachusetts, down to
his time. Cotton, in his Indian vocabulary, says the word
means 'a hill in the form of an arrow's head.' See, also,
Neal's 'New England,' ii. 215, 216. In the Massachusetts
charter the name is spelled in three or four different ways,
to make sure of a description of the territory."
C. Deane,
New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, page 342, footnote).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1602.
The Bay visited by Gosnold.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1605.
The Bay visited by Champlain.
See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
The Pilgrim Fathers.
Whence and why they came to New England.
See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
The voyage of the Mayflower.
The landing of the Pilgrims.
The founding of Plymouth colony.
The congregation of John Robinson, at Leyden, having, after
long efforts, procured from the London Company for Virginia a
patent or grant of land which proved useless to them, and
having closed a hard bargain with certain merchants of London
who supplied to some limited extent the means necessary for
their emigration and settlement (see INDEPENDENTS, OR
SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620), were prepared, in the summer of
1620, to send forth the first pilgrims from their community,
across the ocean, seeking freedom in the worship of God. "The
means at command provided only for sending a portion of the
company; and 'those that stayed, being the greater number,
required the pastor to stay with them,' while Elder Brewster
accompanied, in the pastor's stead, the almost as numerous
minority who were to constitute a church by themselves; and in
every church, by Robinson's theories, the 'governing elder,'
next in rank to the pastor and the teacher, must be 'apt to
teach.' A small ship,—the 'Speedwell,'—of some 60 tons
burden, was bought and fitted out in Holland, and early in
July those who were ready for the formidable voyage, being
'the youngest and strongest part,' left Leyden for embarkation
at Delft-Haven, nearly 20 miles to the southward,—sad at the
parting, 'but,' says Bradford, 'they knew that they were
pilgrims.' About the middle of the second week of the month
the vessel sailed for Southampton, England. On the arrival
there they found the 'Mayflower,' a ship of about 180 tons
burden, which had been hired in London, awaiting them with
their fellow passengers,—partly laborers employed by the
merchants, partly Englishmen like-minded with themselves, who
were disposed to join the colony. Mr. Weston, also, was there,
to represent the merchants; but, when discussion arose about
the terms of the contract, he went off in anger, leaving the
contract unsigned, and the arrangements so incomplete that the
Pilgrims were forced to dispose of sixty pounds' worth of
their not abundant stock of provisions to meet absolutely
necessary charges. The ships, with perhaps 120 passengers, put
to sea about August 5/15, with hopes of the colony being well
settled before winter; but the 'Speedwell' was soon pronounced
too leaky to proceed without being overhauled, and so both ships
put in at Dartmouth, after eight days' sail. Repairs were
made, and before the end of another week they started again;
but when about a hundred leagues beyond Land's End, Reynolds,
the master of the' Speedwell,' declared her in imminent danger
of sinking, so that both ships again put about. On reaching
Plymouth Harbor it was decided to abandon the smaller vessel,
and thus to send back those of the company whom such a
succession of mishaps had disheartened. … It was not known
till later that the alarm over the 'Speedwell's' condition was
owing to deception practised by the master and crew. … At
length, on Wednesday, September 6/16, the Mayflower left
Plymouth, and nine weeks from the following day, on November
9/19, sighted the eastern coast of the flat, but at that time
well-wooded shores of Cape Cod. She took from Plymouth 102
passengers, besides the master and crew; on the voyage one
man-servant died and one child was born, making 102 (73 males
and 29 females) who reached their destination. Of these, the
colony proper consisted of 34 adult males, 18 of them
accompanied by their wives and 14 by minor children (20 boys
and 8 girls); besides these, there were 3 maid-servants and 19
men-servants, sailors, and craftsmen,—5 of them only
half-grown boys,—who were hired for temporary service. Of the
34 men who were the nucleus of the colony, more than half are
known to have come from Leyden; in fact, but 4 of the 34 are
certainly known to be of the Southampton accessions. … And
whither were they bound? As we have seen, a patent was secured
in 1619 in Mr. Wincob's name; but 'God so disposed as he never
went nor they ever made use of this patent,' says Bradford,—not
however making it clear when the intention of colonizing under
this instrument was abandoned.
{2098}
The 'merchant adventurers' while negotiating at Leyden seem to
have taken out another patent from the Virginia Company, in
February, 1620, in the names of John Peirce and of his
associates; and this was more probably the authority under
which the Mayflower voyage was undertaken. As the Pilgrims had
known before leaving Holland of an intended grant of the
northern parts of Virginia to a new company,—the Council for
New England,—when they found themselves off Cape Cod, 'the
patent they had being for Virginia and not for New England,
which belonged to another Government, with which the Virginia
Company had nothing to do,' they changed the ship's course,
with intent, says Bradford, 'to find some place about Hudson's
River for their habitation,' and so fulfil the conditions of
their patent; but difficulties of navigation and opposition
from the master and crew caused the exiles, after half a day's
voyage, to retrace their course and seek a resting-place on
the nearest shore. … Their radical change of destination
exposed the colonists to a new danger. As soon as it was
known, some of the hired laborers threatened to break loose
(upon landing) from their engagements, and to enjoy full
license, as a result of the loss of the authority delegated in
the Virginia Company's patent. The necessity of some mode of
civil government had been enjoined on the Pilgrims in the
farewell letter from their pastor, and was now availed of to
restrain these insurgents and to unite visibly the
well-affected. A compact, which has often been eulogized as
the first written constitution in the world, was drawn up. …
Of the 41 signers to this compact, 34 were the adults called
above the nucleus of the colony, and seven were servants or
hired workmen; the seven remaining adult males of the latter
sort were perhaps too ill to sign with the rest (all of them
soon died), or the list of signers may be imperfect. This
needful preliminary step was taken on Saturday, November
11/21, by which time the Mayflower had rounded the Cape and
found shelter in the quiet harbor on which now lies the
village of Provincetown; and probably on the same day they
'chose, or rather confirmed,' as Bradford has it, … Mr. John
Carver governor for the ensuing year. On the same day an armed
delegation visited the neighboring shore, finding no
inhabitants. There were no attractions, however, for a
permanent settlement, nor even accommodations for a
comfortable encampment while such a place was being sought."
Some days were spent in exploring Cape Cod Bay, and the harbor
since known as Plymouth Bay was chosen for the settlement of
the colony. The exploring party landed, as is believed, at the
famous Rock, on Monday December 11/21. "Through an unfortunate
mistake, originating in the last century, the 22d has been
commonly adopted as the true date. … Tradition divides the
honor of being the first to step on Plymouth Rock between John
Alden and Mary Chilton, but the date of their landing must
have been subsequent to December 11 [N. S. 21]." It was not
till the end of the week, December 16/26, that the Mayflower
was anchored in the chosen haven. "The selection of a site and
the preparation of materials, in uncertain weather, delayed
till Monday, the 25th [January 4, N. S.] the beginning of 'the
first house for common use, to receive them and their goods.'
Before the new year, house-lots were assigned to families, and
by the middle of January most of the company had left the ship
for a home on land."
F. B. Dexter,
The Pilgrim Church and Plymouth Colony
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 8, with foot-notes).
"Before the Pilgrims landed, they by a solemn instrument
founded the Puritan republic. The tone of this instrument and
the success of its authors may afford a lesson to
revolutionists who sever the present from the past with the
guillotine, fling the illustrious dead out of their tombs, and
begin history again with the year one. These men had been
wronged as much as the Jacobins. 'In the name of God. Amen. We
whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread
Sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God of Great
Britain and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc., having
undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the
Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage
to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,
do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of
God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves
together into a civil body politic for our better ordering and
preservation, and for the furtherance of the ends aforesaid;
and by virtue hereof to exact, constitute, and frame such just
and equal laws, ordinances and acts, constitutions and
offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet for
the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due
submission and obedience.' And then follows the roll of
plebeian names, to which the Roll of Battle Abbey is a poor
record of nobility. There are points in history at which the
spirit which moves the whole shows itself more clearly through
the outward frame. This is one of them. Here we are passing
from the feudal age of privilege and force to the age of due
submission and obedience, to just and equal offices and laws,
for our better ordering and preservation. In this political
covenant of the Pilgrim fathers lies the American Declaration
of Independence. From the American Declaration of Independence
was borrowed the French Declaration of the Rights of Man.
France, rushing ill-prepared, though with overweening
confidence, on the great problems of the eighteenth century,
shattered not her own hopes alone, but nearly at the same
moment the Puritan Republic, breaking the last slight link
that bound it to feudal Europe, and placing modern society
firmly and tranquilly on its new foundation. To the free
States of America we owe our best assurance that the oldest,
the most famous, the most cherished of human institutions are
not the life, nor would their fall be the death, of social
man; that all which comes of Charlemagne, and all which comes
of Constantine, might go to the tombs of Charlemagne and
Constantine, and yet social duty and affection, religion and
worship, free obedience to good government, free reverence for
just laws, continue as before. They who have achieved this
have little need to talk of Bunker's Hill."
Goldwin Smith,
On the Foundation of the American Colonies
(Lectures on the Study of History).
ALSO IN:
W. Bradford,
History of Plymouth Plantation
(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
4th series, volume 3), book 1.
Mourt's Relation,
or Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth;
edited by H. M. Dexter.
J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 3.
{2099}
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621.
The first year of the Plymouth Colony and its sufferings.
The Pierce patent.
The naming of Plymouth.
"The labor of providing habitations had scarcely begun, when
sickness set in, the consequence of exposure and bad food.
Within four months it carried off nearly half their number.
Six died in December, eight in January, seventeen in February,
and thirteen in March. At one time during the winter, only six or
seven had strength enough left to nurse the dying and bury the
dead. Destitute of every provision, which the weakness and the
daintiness of the invalid require, the sick lay crowded in the
unwholesome vessel, or in half-built cabins heaped around with
snow-drifts. The rude sailors refused them even a share of
those coarse sea-stores which would have given a little
variety to their diet, till disease spread among the crew, and
the kind ministrations of those whom they had neglected and
affronted brought them to a better temper. The dead were
interred in a bluff by the water-side, the marks of burial
being carefully effaced, lest the natives should discover how
the colony had been weakened. … Meantime, courage and
fidelity never gave out. The well carried out the dead through
the cold and snow, and then hastened back from the burial to
wait on the sick; and as the sick began to recover, they took
the places of those whose strength had been exhausted." In
March, the first intercourse of the colonists with the few
natives of the region was opened, through Samoset, a friendly
Indian, who had learned from fishermen on the more eastern
coast to speak a little English. Soon afterwards, they made a
treaty of friendship and alliance with Massasoit, the chief of
the nearest tribe, which treaty remained in force for 54
years. On the 5th of April the Mayflower set sail on her
homeward voyage, "with scarcely more than half the crew which
had navigated her to America, the rest having fallen victims
to the epidemic of the winter. … She carried back not one of
the emigrants, dispiriting as were the hardships which they
had endured, and those they had still in prospect." Soon after

the departure of the Mayflower, Carver, the Governor, died.
"Bradford was chosen to the vacant office, with Isaac
Allerton, at his request, for his Assistant. Forty-six of the
colonists of the Mayflower were now dead,—28 out of the 48
adult men. Before the arrival of the second party of emigrants
in the autumn, the dead reached the number of 51, and only an
equal number survived the first miseries of the enterprise.
… Before the winter set in, tidings from England had come,
to relieve the long year's lonesomeness; and a welcome
addition was made to the sadly diminished number. The Fortune,
a vessel of 55 tons' burden, reached Plymouth after a passage
of four months, with Cushman and some 30 other emigrants. The
men who now arrived outnumbered those of their predecessors
who were still living. … Some were old friends of the
colonists, at Leyden. Others were persons who added to the
moral as well as to the numerical strength of the settlement.
But there were not wanting such as became subjects for anxiety
and coercion." The Fortune also brought to the colonists a
patent from the Council for New England, as it was commonly
known—the corporation into which the old Plymouth Company, or
North Virginia branch of the Virginia Company, had been
transformed (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623). "Upon lands of
this corporation Bradford and his companions had sat down
without leave, and were of course liable to be summarily
expelled. Informed of their position by the return of the
Mayflower to England in the spring, their friends obtained
from the Council a patent which was brought by the Fortune. It
was taken out in the name of 'John Pierce, citizen and
cloth-worker of London, and his associates,' with the
understanding that it should be held in trust for the
Adventurers, of whom Pierce was one. It allowed 100 acres of
land to every colonist gone and to go to New England, at a
yearly rent of two shillings an acre after seven years. It
granted 1,500 acres for public uses, and liberty to 'hawk,
fish, and fowl'; to 'truck, trade, and traffic with the
savages'; to 'establish such laws and ordinances as are for
their better government, and the same, by such officer or
officers as they shall by most voices elect and choose, to put
in execution'; and 'to encounter, expulse, repel, and resist
by force of arms' all intruders. … The instrument was signed
for the Council by the Duke of Hamilton, the Duke of Lenox,
the Earl of Warwick, Lord Sheffield, and Sir Ferdinando
Gorges. … The precise time of the adoption of the name which
the settlement has borne since its first year is not known.
Plymouth is the name recorded on Smith's map as having been
given to the spot by Prince Charles. It seems very likely that
the emigrants had with them this map, which had been much
circulated. … Morton (Memorial, 56) assigns as a reason for
adopting it that 'Plymouth in Old England was the last town
they left in their native country, and they received many
kindnesses from some Christians there.' In Mourt, 'Plymouth'
and 'the now well-defended town of New Plymouth' are used as
equivalent. Later, the name Plymouth came to be appropriated
to the town, and New Plymouth to the Colony."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 5, and foot-note.
ALSO IN:
J. A. Goodwin,
The Pilgrim Republic,
chapters 9-16.
F. Baylies,
Historical Memoir of the Colony of New Plymouth,
volume 1, chapters 5-6.
A. Young,
Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.
Weston at Wessagusset, Morton at Merrymount,
and other settlements.
"During the years immediately following the voyage of the
Mayflower, several attempts at settlement were made about the
shores of Massachusetts bay. One of the merchant adventurers,
Thomas Weston, took it into his head in 1622 to separate from
his partners and send out a colony of seventy men on his own
account. These men made a settlement at Wessagusset, some
twenty-five miles north of Plymouth. They were a disorderly,
thriftless rabble, picked up from the London streets, and soon
got into trouble with the Indians; after a year they were glad to
get back to England as best they could, and in this the
Plymouth settlers willingly aided them. In June of that same
year 1622 there arrived on the scene a picturesque but ill
understood personage, Thomas Morton, 'of Clifford's Inn,
Gent.,' as he tells on the title-page of his quaint and
delightful book, the 'New English Canaan.' Bradford
disparagingly says that he 'had been a kind of petiefogger of
Furnifell's Inn'; but the churchman Samuel Maverick declares
that he was a 'gentleman of good qualitie.'
{2100}
He was an agent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and came with some
thirty followers, to make the beginnings of a royalist and
Episcopal settlement in the Massachusetts bay, He was
naturally regarded with ill favour by the Pilgrims as well as
by the later Puritan settlers, and their accounts of him will
probably bear taking with a grain or two of salt. In 1625
there came one Captain Wollaston, with a gang of indented
white servants, and established himself on the site of the
present town of Quincy. Finding this system of industry ill
suited to northern agriculture, he carried most of his men off
to Virginia, where he sold them. Morton took possession of the
site of the settlement, which he called Merrymount. There,
according to Bradford, he set up a 'schoole of athisme,' and
his men did quaff strong waters and comport themselves 'as if
they had anew revived and celebrated the feasts of ye Roman
Goddes Flora, or the beastly practices of ye madd
Bachanalians.' Charges of atheism have been freely hurled
about in all ages. In Morton's case the accusation seems to
have been based upon the fact that he used the Book of Common
Prayer. His men so far maintained the ancient customs of merry
England as to plant a Maypole eighty feet high, about which
they frolicked with the redskins, while furthermore they
taught them the use of firearms and sold them muskets and rum.
This was positively dangerous, and in the summer of 1628 the
settlers at Merrymount were dispersed by Miles Standish.
Morton was sent to England, but returned the next year, and
presently again repaired to Merrymount. By this time other
settlements were dotted about the coast. There were a few
scattered cottages or cabins at Nantasket and at the mouth of
the Piscataqua, while Samuel Maverick had fortified himself on
Noddle's Island, and William Blackstone already lived upon the
Shawmut peninsula, since called Boston. These two gentlemen
were no friends to the Puritans; they were churchmen and
representatives of Sir Ferdinando Gorges."
J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
C. F. Adams, Jr.,
Old Planters about Boston Harbor
(Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, June, 1878).
C. F. Adams, Jr.,
Introduction to Morton's New English Canaan
(Prince Society, 1883).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623.
Grant to Robert Gorges on the Bay.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
Plymouth Colony.
Land allotments.
Buying freedom from the adventurers at London.
The new patent.
"In 1623 the Ann and Little James, the former of 140 tons, and
the latter of 44 tons, arrived with 60 persons to be added to
the colony, and a number of others who had come at their own
charge and on their own account. … The passengers in the Ann
and Little James completed the list of those who are usually
called the first-comers. The Ann returned to England in
September, carrying Mr. Winslow to negotiate with the
merchants, for needful supplies, and the Little James remained
at Plymouth in the service of the company. … Up to that time
the company had worked together on the company lands, and,
each sharing in the fruits of another's labors, felt little of
that personal responsibility which was necessary to secure the
largest returns. … 'At length, after much debate of things,
the Governor (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them)
gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne
perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all
other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so
assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the
proportion of their number for that end. … This had very
good success; for it made all hands very industrious.' …
Such is the language of Bradford concerning a measure which
was adopted from motives of necessity, but which was, to a
certain extent, an infringement of the provisions of the
contract with the adventurers. Before the planting season of
the next year a more emphatic violation of the contract was
committed. 'They (the colony) begane now highly to prise corne
as more pretious then silver, and those that had some to spare
begane to trade one with another for smale things, by the
quarte, potle, & peck &C.: for money they had none, and if any
had, corne was prefered before it. That they might therfore
encrease their tillage to better advantage, they made suite to
the Governor to have some portion of land given them for
continuance, and not by yearly lotte. … Which being well
considered, their request was granted. And to every person was
given only one acre of land, to them and theirs, as nere the
towne as might be, and they had no more till the 7 years were
expired.' This experience gradually led the colony in the
right track, and the growing necessity for some other
circulating medium than silver secured abundant harvests."
Winslow returned from England in 1624, "bringing, besides a
good supply, '3 heifers & a bull the first begining of any
catle of that kind in the land.' At that time there were 180
persons in the colony, 'some cattle and goats, but many swine
and poultry and thirty-two dwelling houses.' In the latter
part of the year Winslow sailed again for England in the
Little James and returned in 1625. The news he brought was
discouraging to the colonists. The debt due to the adventurers
was £1,400, and the creditors had lost confidence in their
enterprise." On this intelligence, Capt. Standish was sent to
England, followed next year by Mr. Allerton, "to make a
composition with the adventurers," and obtain, if possible, a
release from the seven years contract under which the
colonists were bound. Allerton returned in 1627, having
concluded an agreement with the adventurers at London for the
purchase of all their rights and interests in the plantation,
for the sum of £1,800. The agreement was approved by the
colony, and Bradford, Standish, Allerton, Winslow, Brewster,
Howland, Alden, and others, assumed the debt of £1,800, the
trading privileges of the colony being assigned to them for
their security. "In accordance with this agreement these
gentlemen at once entered vigorously into the enterprise, and
by the use of wampum, as a circulating medium, carried on so
extensive a trade with the natives, in the purchase of furs
and other articles for export to England as within the
prescribed period [six years] to pay off the entire debt and
leave the colony in the undisputed possession of their lands.
No legal-tender scheme, in these later days, has been bolder
in its conception, or more successful in its career, than that
of the Pilgrim Fathers, which, with the shells of the shore,
relieved their community from debt, and established on a
permanent basis the wealth and prosperity of New England. …
{2101}
After the negotiations with the adventurers had been
completed, the colonists were anxious to obtain another patent
from the New England Company conferring larger powers and
defining their territorial limits. After three visits to
England, Allerton was sent a fourth time, in 1629, and secured
a patent dated January 13, 1629 (old style), and signed by the
Earl of Warwick on behalf of the Council of New England,
enlarging the original grant, and establishing the boundaries
of what has been since known as the Old Colony. It granted to
William Bradford and his associates 'all that part of New
England in America, the tract and tracts of land that lie
within or between a certain rivolet or rundlett, then commonly
caned Coahasset alias Conahasset, towards the north, and the
river commonly called Naraganset river towards the south, and
the great Western ocean towards the east," and between two
lines described as extending, severally, from the mouth of the
Naraganset and the mouth of the Coahasset, "up into the
mainland westward," "to the utmost limits and bounds of a
country or place in New England called Pokernacutt, alias
Puckenakick, alias Sawaamset."
W. T. Davis,
Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,
chapter 2.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
The Dorchester Company and the royal Charter to the Governor
and Company of Massachusetts Bay.
"While the people of Plymouth were struggling to establish
their colony, some of the English Puritans, restless under the
growing despotism of Charles, began to turn their eyes to New
England. Under the lead of the Rev. John White, the Dorchester
Company was formed for trading and fishing, and a station was
established at Cape Ann [A. D. 1623]; but the enterprise did
not prosper, the colonists were disorderly, and the Company
made an arrangement for Roger Conant and others, driven from
Plymouth by the rigid principles of the Separatists, to come
to Cape Ann. Still matters did not improve and the Company was
dissolved; but White held to his purpose, and Conant and a few
others moved to Naumkeag, and determined to settle there.
Conant induced his companions to persevere, and matters in
England led to a fresh attempt; for discontent grew rapidly as
Charles proceeded in his policy. A second Dorchester Company,
not this time a small affair for fishing and trading, but one
backed by men of wealth and influence, was formed, and a large
grant of lands [from three miles north of the Merrimac to
three miles south of the Charles, and to extend from the
Atlantic to the Western Ocean] was made by the Council for New
England to Sir Henry Roswell and five others [March, 1628].
One of the six patentees, John Endicott, went out during the
following summer with a small company, assumed the government
at Naumkeag, which was now called Salem, and sent out
exploring parties. The company thus formed in England was
merely a voluntary partnership, but it paved the way for
another and much larger scheme. Disaffection had become
wide-spread. The Puritans began to fear that religious and
political liberty alike were not only in danger but were
doomed to destruction, and a large portion of the party
resolved to combine for the preservation of all that was
dearest to them by removal to the New World. The Dorchester
Company was enlarged, and a royal charter was obtained
incorporating the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,"
March 4, 1629.
H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies in America,
chapter 18.
"This [the royal charter named above] is the instrument under
which the Colony of Massachusetts continued to conduct its
affairs for 55 years. The patentees named in it were Roswell
and his five associates, with 20 other persons, of whom White
was not one. It gave power forever to the freemen of the
Company to elect annually, from their own number, a Governor,
Deputy-Governor, and 18 Assistants, on the last Wednesday of
Easter term, and to make laws and ordinances not repugnant to
the laws of England, for their own benefit and the government
of persons inhabiting their territory. Four meetings of the
Company were to be held in a year, and others might be
convened in a manner prescribed. Meetings of the Governor,
Deputy-Governor, and Assistants, were to be held once a month
or oftener. The Governor, Deputy-Governor, and any two
Assistants, were authorized, but not required, to administer
to freemen the oaths of supremacy and allegiance. The Company
might transport settlers not 'restrained by special name.'
They had authority to admit new associates, and establish the
terms of their admission, and elect and constitute such
officers as they should see fit for the ordering and managing
of their affairs. They were empowered to 'encounter, repulse,
repel, and resist by force of arms … all such person and
persons as should at any time thereafter attempt or enterprise
the destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance to the said
plantation or inhabitants.' Nothing was said of religious
liberty. The government may have relied upon its power to
restrain it, and the emigrants on their distance and obscurity
to protect it."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 8.
"In anticipation of a future want the grantees resisted the
insertion of any condition which should fix the government of
the Company in England. Winthrop explicitly states that the
advisers of the Crown had originally imposed such a condition,
but that the patentees succeeded, not without difficulty, in
freeing themselves from it. That fact is a full answer to
those who held that in transferring the government to America
the patentees broke faith with the Crown."
J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
volume 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
Records of the Government and Company of Massachusetts Bay;
edited by N. B. Shurtleff,
volume 1 (containing the Charter).
S. F. Haven,
Origin of the Company
(Archœologia Americana, volume 3).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
The immigration of the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay, with their Royal Charter.
"Several persons, of considerable importance in the English
nation, were now enlisted among the adventurers, who, for the
unmolested enjoyment of their religion, were resolved to
remove into Massachusetts. Foreseeing, however, and dreading
the inconvenience of being governed by laws made for them
without their own consent, they judged it more reasonable that
the colony should be ruled by men residing in the plantation,
than by those dwelling at a distance of three thousand miles,
and over whom they should have no control. At a meeting of the
company on the 28th of July [1629], Matthew Cradock, the
governor, proposed that the charter should be transferred to
those of the freemen who should become inhabitants of the
colony, and the powers conferred by it be executed for the
future in New England.
{2102}
An agreement was accordingly made at Cambridge, in England, on
the 26th of August, between Sir Richard Saltonstall, Thomas
Dudley, Isaac Johnson, John Winthrop, and a few others, that,
on those conditions, they would be ready the ensuing March,
with their persons and families, to embark for New England,
for the purpose of settling in the country. The governor and
company, entirely disposed to promote the measure, called a
general court [at which, after a serious debate, adjourned
from one day to the next,] … it was decreed that the
government and the patent of the plantation should be
transferred from London to Massachusetts Bay. An order was
drawn up for that purpose, in pursuance of which a court was
holden on the 20th of October for a new election of officers,
who would be willing to remove with their families; and 'the
court having received extraordinary great commendation of Mr.
John Winthrop, both for his integrity and sufficiency, as
being one very well fitted for the place, with a full consent
chose him governor for the year ensuing.' … Preparations
were now made for the removal of a large number of colonists,
and in the spring of 1630 a fleet of 14 sail was got ready.
Mr. Winthrop having by the consent of all been chosen for
their leader, immediately set about making preparations for
his departure. He converted a fine estate of £600 or £700 per
annum into money and in March embarked on board the Arbella,
one of the principal ships. Before leaving Yarmouth, an
address to their fathers and brethren remaining in England was
drawn up, and subscribed on the 7th of April by Governor
Winthrop and others, breathing an affectionate farewell to the
Church of England and their native land. … In the same ship
with Governor Winthrop came Thomas Dudley, who had been chosen
deputy governor after the embarkation, and several other
gentlemen of wealth and quality; the fleet containing about
840 passengers, of various occupations, some of whom were from
the west of England, but most from the neighborhood of London.
The fleet sailed early in April; and the Arbella arrived off
Cape Ann on Friday, the 11th of June, and on the following day
entered the harbor of Salem. A few days after their arrival,
the governor, and several of the principal persons of the
colony, made an excursion some 20 miles along the bay, for the
purpose of selecting a convenient site for a town. They
finally pitched down on the north side of Charles river
(Charlestown), and took lodgings in the great house built
there the preceding year; the rest of the company erected
cottages, booths, and tents, for present accommodation, about
the town hill. Their place of assembling for divine service
was under a spreading tree. On the 8th of July, a day of
thanksgiving was kept for the safe arrival of the fleet. On
the 30th of the same month, after a day of solemn prayer and
fasting, the foundation of a church was laid at Charlestown,
afterwards the first church of Boston, and Governor Winthrop,
Deputy Governor Dudley, and the Rev. Mr. Wilson, entered into
church covenant. The first court of assistants was held at
Charlestown, on the 23d of August, and the first question
proposed was a suitable provision for the support of the
gospel. Towards the close of autumn, Governor Winthrop and
most of the assistants removed to the peninsula of Shawmut
(Boston), and lived there the first winter, intending in the
spring to build a fortified town, but undetermined as to its
situation. On the 6th of December they resolved to fortify the
isthmus of that peninsula; but, changing their minds before
the month expired, they agreed upon a place about three miles
above Charlestown, which they called first Newtown, and
afterwards Cambridge, where they engaged to build houses the
ensuing spring. The rest of the winter they suffered much by
the severity of the season, and were obliged to live upon
acorns, groundnuts, and shell-fish. … They had appointed the
6th of February for a fast, in consequence of their alarm for
the safety of a ship which had been sent to Ireland for
provisions; but fortunately the vessel arrived on the 5th, and
they ordered a public thanksgiving instead thereof."
J. B. Moore,
Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth
and Massachusetts Bay;
part 2: Winthrop.
ALSO IN:
R. C. Winthrop,
Life and Letters of John Winthrop,
volume 1, chapters 15-19,
and volume 2, chapters 1-4.
A. Young,
Chronicles of the first Planters of Massachusetts Bay,
chapters 14-19.
J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 7.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.
The founding of Boston.
"The English people who came with Governor Winthrop first
located upon the peninsula of Mishawum, which they called
Charlestown. … They found here a single white man named
Thomas Walford, living very peaceably and contentedly among
the Indians. They also discovered that the peninsula of
Shawmut had one solitary white inhabitant whose name was
William Blackstone. They could see every day the smoke curling
above this man's lonely cabin. He, too, was a Puritan
clergyman, like many of those who had now come to make a home
in the New World, free from the tyranny of the English
bishops. Still another Englishman, Samuel Maverick by name,
had built a house, and with the help of David Thompson, a fort
which mounted four small cannon, truly called 'murtherers,'
and was living very comfortably on the island that is now East
Boston. And again, by looking across the bay, to the south,
the smoke of an English cottage, on Thompson's Island, was
probably seen stealing upward to the sky. So that we certainly
know these people were the first settlers of Boston. But
scarcity of water, and sickness, which soon broke out among
them, made the settlers at Charlestown very discontented. They
began to scatter. Indeed this peninsula was too small properly
to accommodate all of them with their cattle. Therefore good
William Blackstone, with true hospitality, came in their
distress to tell them there was a fine spring of pure water at
Shawmut, and to invite them there. Probably his account
induced quite a number to remove at once; while others,
wishing to make farms, looked out homes along the shores of
the mainland, at Medford, Newtown (Cambridge), Watertown and
Roxbury. A separate company of colonists also settled at
Mattapan, or Dorchester. The dissatisfaction with Charlestown
was so general that at last only a few of the original
settlers remained there. … While those in chief authority
were still undecided, Isaac Johnson, one of the most
influential and honored men among the colonists, began, with
others, in earnest, the settlement of Boston. He chose for
himself the square of land now enclosed by Tremont, Court,
Washington and School Streets.
{2103}
Unfortunately this gentleman, who was much beloved, died
before the removal to Boston became general. … Although the
chief men of the colony continued for some time yet to favor
the plan of a fortified town farther inland, Boston had now
become too firmly rooted, and the people too unwilling, to
make a second change of location practicable, or even
desirable. So this project was abandoned, though not before
high words passed between Winthrop and Dudley about it. The
governor then removed the frame of his new house from
Cambridge, or Newtown, to Boston, setting it up on the land
between Milk Street, Spring Lane, and Washington Street. One
of the finest springs being upon his lot, the name Spring Lane
is easily traced. The people first located themselves within
the space now comprised between Milk, Bromfield, Tremont, and
Hanover Streets, and the water, or, in general terms, upon the
southeasterly slope of Beacon Hill. Pemberton Hill soon became
a favorite locality. The North End, including that portion of
the town north of Union Street, was soon built up by the new
emigrants coming in, or by removals from the South End, as all
the town south of this district was called. In time a third
district on the north side of Beacon Hill grew up, and was
called the West End. And in the old city these general
divisions continue to-day. Shawmut, we remember, was the first
name Boston had. Now the settlers at Charlestown, seeing
always before them a high hill topped with three little peaks,
had already, and very aptly too, we think, named Shawmut
Trimountain [the origin of the name Tremont in Boston]. But
when they began to remove there they called it Boston, after a
place of that name in England, and because they had determined
beforehand to give to their chief town this name. So says the
second highest person among them, Deputy Governor Thomas
Dudley. The settlers built their first church on the ground
now covered by Brazer's Building, in State Street. …
Directly in front of the meeting-house was the town
market-place. Where Quincy Market is was the principal
landing-place. The Common was set apart as a pasture-ground
and training-field. … A beacon was set up on the summit of
Trimountain and a fort upon the southernmost hill of the town.
From this time these hills took the names of Windmill, Beacon,
and Fort Hills."
S. A. Drake,
Around the Hub,
chapter 2.
"The order of the Court of Assistants,—Governor Winthrop
presiding,—'That Trimontaine shall be called Boston,' was
passed on the 7th of September, old style, or, as we now count
it, the 17th of September, 1630. The name of Boston was
specially dear to the Massachusetts colonists, from its
association with the old St. Botolphs' town, or Boston, of
Lincolnshire, England, from which the Lady Arbella Johnson and
her husband had come, and where John Cotton was still
preaching in its noble parish church. But the precise date of
the removal of the Governor and Company to the peninsula is
nowhere given."
R. C. Winthrop,
Boston Founded
(Memorial History of Boston;
edited by J. Winsor,
volume 1), pages 116-117.
ALSO IN:
C. F. Adams, Jr.,
Earliest Exploration and Settlement of Boston Harbor
(Mem. History, pages 63-86).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
The Puritan Theocracy and its intolerance.
"The charter of the Massachusetts Company had prescribed no
condition of investment with its franchise,—or with what
under the circumstances which had arisen was the same thing,
the prerogatives of citizenship in the plantation,—except the
will and vote of those who were already freemen. At the first
Cisatlantic General Court for election, 'to the end the body
of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men,' it
was 'ordered and agreed, that, for the time to come, no man
shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but
such as are members of some of the churches within the limits
of the same." The men who laid this singular foundation for
the commonwealth which they were instituting, had been
accustomed to feel responsibility, and to act upon
well-considered reasons. By charter from the English crown,
the land was theirs as against all other civilized people, and
they had a right to choose according to their own rules the
associates who should help them to occupy and govern it.
Exercising this right, they determined that magistracy and
citizenship should belong only to Christian men, ascertained
to be such by the best test which they knew how to apply. They
established a kind of aristocracy hitherto unknown."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 9.
"The aim of Winthrop and his friends in coming to
Massachusetts was the construction of a theocratic state which
should be to Christians, under the New Testament dispensation,
all that the theocracy of Moses and Joshua and Samuel had been
to the Jews in Old Testament days. They should be to all
intents and purposes freed from the jurisdiction of the Stuart
king, and so far as possible the text of the Holy Scriptures
should be their guide both in weighty matters of general
legislation and in the shaping of the smallest details of
daily life. In such a scheme there was no room for religious
liberty as we understand it."
J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 4.
"The projected religious commonwealth was to be founded and
administered by the Bible, the whole Bible, not by the New
Testament alone. … They revered and used and treated the
Holy Book as one whole. A single sentence from any part of it
was an oracle to them: it was as a slice or crumb from any
part of a loaf of bread, all of the same consistency. God, as
King, had been the Lawgiver of Israel: he should be their
Lawgiver too. … The Church should fashion the State and be
identical with it. Only experienced and covenanted Christian
believers, pledged by their profession to accordance of
opinion and purpose with the original proprietors and exiles,
should be admitted as freemen, or full citizens of the
commonwealth. They would restrain and limit their own liberty
of conscience, as well as their own freedom of action, within
Bible rules. In fact,—in spirit even more than in the
letter,—they did adopt all of the Jewish code which was in
any way practicable for them. The leading minister of the
colony was formally appointed by the General Court to adapt
the Jewish law to their case [1636]; and it was enacted that,
till that work was really done, 'Moses, his Judicials,' should
be in full force. Mr. Cotton in due time presented the results
of his labor in a code of laws illustrated by Scripture texts.
This code was not formally adopted by the Court; but the spirit
of it, soon rewrought into another body, had full sway. …
{2104}
That frankly avowed and practically applied purpose of the
Fathers, of establishing here a Bible Commonwealth, 'under a
due form of government, both civil and ecclesiastical,'
furnishes the key to, the explanation of, all dark things and
all the bright things in their early history. The young people
educated among us ought to read our history by that simple,
plain interpretation. The consciences of our Fathers were not
free in our sense of that word. They were held under rigid
subjection to what they regarded as God's Holy Word, through
and through in every sentence of it, just as the consciences
of their Fathers were held, under the sway of the Pope and the
Roman Church. The Bible was to them supreme. Their church was
based on it, modelled by it, governed by it; and they intended
their State should be also."
G. E. Ellis,
Lowell Institute Lectures
on the Early History of Massachusetts,
pages 50-55.
"Though communicants were not necessarily voters, no one could
be a voter who was not a communicant; therefore the
town-meeting was nothing but the church meeting, possibly
somewhat attenuated, and called by a different name. By this
insidious statute the clergy seized the temporal power, which
they held till the charter fell. The minister stood at the
head of the congregation and moulded it to suit his purposes
and to do his will. … Common men could not have kept this
hold upon the inhabitants of New England, but the clergy were
learned, resolute, and able, and their strong but narrow minds
burned with fanaticism and love of power; with their beliefs
and under their temptations persecution seemed to them not
only their most potent weapon, but a duty they owed to
Christ—and that duty they unflinchingly performed."
B. Adams,
The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 10.
P. Oliver,
The Puritan Commonwealth,
chapter 2, part 1.
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
chapter 22 (volume 2).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1633-1635.
Hostilities between the Plymouth Colony and
the French on the Maine coast.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.
Threatening movements in England.
The Charter demanded.
"That the government of Charles I. should view with a hostile
eye the growth of a Puritan state in New England is not at all
surprising. The only fit ground for wonder would seem to be
that Charles should have been willing at the outset to grant a
charter to the able and influential Puritans who organized the
Company of Massachusetts Bay. Probably, however, the king
thought at first it would relieve him at home if a few dozen
of the Puritan leaders could be allowed to concentrate their
minds upon a project of colonization in America. It might
divert attention for a moment from his own despotic schemes.
Very likely the scheme would prove a failure and the
Massachusetts colony incur a fate like that of Roanoke Island;
and at all events the wealth of the Puritans might better be
sunk in a remote and perilous enterprise than employed at home
in organizing resistance to the crown. Such, very likely, may
have been the king's motive in granting the Massachusetts
charter two days after turning his Parliament out of doors.
But the events of the last half-dozen years had come to
present the case in a new light. The young colony was not
languishing. It was full of sturdy life; it had wrought
mischief to the schemes of Gorges; and what was more, it had
begun to take unheard-of liberties with things ecclesiastical
and political. Its example was getting to be a dangerous one.
It was evidently worth while to put a strong curb upon
Massachusetts. Any promise made to his subjects Charles
regarded as a promise made under duress which he was quite
justified in breaking whenever it suited his purpose to do so.
Enemies of Massachusetts were busy in England. Schismatics
from Salem and revellers from Merrymount were ready with their
tales of woe, and now Gorges and Mason were vigorously
pressing their territorial claims."
J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 3.
In April, 1634, "the superintendence of the colonies was …
removed from the privy council to an arbitrary special
commission, of which William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury,
and the archbishop of York, were the chief. These, with ten of
the highest officers of State, were invested with full power
to make laws and orders, … to appoint judges and magistrates
and establish courts for civil and ecclesiastical affairs, …
to revoke all charters and patents which had been
surreptitiously obtained, or which conceded liberties
prejudicial to the royal prerogative. Cradock, who had been
governor of the corporation in England before the transfer of
the charter of Massachusetts, was strictly charged to deliver
it up; and he wrote to the governor and council to send it
home. Upon receipt of his letter, they resolved 'not to return
any answer or excuse at that time.' In September, a copy of
the commission to Archbishop Laud and his associates was
brought to Boston; and it was at the same time rumored that
the colonists were to be compelled by force to accept a new
governor, the discipline of the church of England, and the
laws of the commissioners. The intelligence awakened 'the
magistrates and deputies to discover their minds each to
other, and to hasten their fortifications,' towards which,
poor as was the colony, £600 were raised. In January, 1635,
all the ministers assembled at Boston; and they unanimously
declared against the reception of a general governor, saying:
'We ought to defend our lawful possessions, if we are able; if
not, to avoid and protract.' In the month before this
declaration, it is not strange that Laud and his associates
should have esteemed the inhabitants of Massachusetts to be
men of refractory humors. … Restraints were placed upon
emigration; no one above the rank of a serving man might
remove to the colony without the special leave of Laud and his
associates. … Willingly as these acts were enforced by
religious bigotry, they were promoted by another cause. A
change had come over the character of the great Plymouth
council for the colonization of New England," which now
schemed and bargained with the English court to surrender its
general charter, on the condition that the vast territory
which it had already ceded to the Massachusetts Company and
others should be reclaimed by the king and granted anew, in
severalty, to its members (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635). "At
the Trinity term of the court of king's bench, a quo warranto
was brought against the Company of the Massachusetts bay. At
the ensuing Michaelmas, several of its members who resided in
England made their appearance, and judgment was pronounced
against them individually; the rest of the patentees stood
outlawed, but no judgment was entered against them.
{2105}
The unexpected death of Mason, the proprietary of New
Hampshire, in December, 1635, removed the chief instigator of
these aggressions. In July, 1637, the king, professing 'to
redress the mischiefs that had arisen out of the many
different humours,' took the government of New England into
his own hands, and appointed over it Sir Ferdinando Gorges as
governor-general. … But the measure was feeble and
ineffectual." Gorges "never left England, and was hardly heard
of except by petitions to its government." Troubles had
thickened about king Charles and his creature Laud until they
no longer had time or disposition to bestow more of their
thoughts on Massachusetts. A long-suffering nation was making
ready to put an end to their malignant activities, and the
Puritans of New England and Old England were alike delivered.
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 1, chapter 17 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
T. Hutchinson,
History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
volume 1, pages 51 and 86-89.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1636.
The founding of Boston Latin School and Harvard College.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1635; and 1636.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1637.
The migration to Connecticut.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636.
The banishment of Roger Williams.
"The intolerance of England had established the New England
colonies. The time was at hand when those colonies should in
their turn alienate from them their own children, and be the
unwilling parents of a fresh state. In 1631, there arrived at
Boston a young minister, Roger Williams, 'godly and zealous,
having precious gifts.' … His theological doctrines seem to
have been those generally received among the Puritans, but in
questions of church discipline he went far beyond most of his
sect. He was a rigid separatist, and carried the doctrine of
toleration, or, as perhaps it might be more properly called,
state indifference, to its fullest length. Accordingly it was
impossible to employ him as a minister at Boston. He went to
Salem, which was then without a preacher, and was appointed to
the vacant office. But a message from Winthrop and the
assistants compelled the church of Salem to retract its
choice, and the young enthusiast withdrew to Plymouth," where
he remained two years, until August, 1633, when he returned to
Salem. "In 1634, he incurred the displeasure of some of his
congregation by putting forward the doctrine that no tenure of
land could be valid which had not the sanction of the natives.
His doctrine was censured by the court at Boston, but on his
satisfying the court of his 'loyalty,' the matter passed over.
But before long he put forward doctrines, in the opinion of
the government, yet more dangerous. He advocated complete
separation from the Church of England, and denounced
compulsory worship and a compulsory church establishment.
Carrying the doctrine of individual liberty to its fullest
extent, he asserted that the magistrate was only the agent of
the people, and had no right to protect the people against
itself; that his power extends only as far as such cases as
disturb the public peace. … On the 8th of August, 1635,
Williams was summoned before the general court; his opinions
were denounced as 'erroneous and very dangerous,' and notice
was given to the church at Salem that, unless it could explain
the matter to the satisfaction of the court, Williams must be
dismissed. In October, Williams was again brought before the
court, and after a 'disputation' with Mr. Hooker, which failed
to reduce him from any of his errors, he was sentenced to
depart out of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts in six weeks.
The church of Salem acquiesced in the condemnation of their
pastor. Their own experience might have taught the fathers of
New England that the best way to strengthen heresy is to
oppose it. The natural result followed; the people were 'much
taken with the apprehension of Williams 'godliness,' and a
large congregation, including 'many devout women,' gathered
round him. Since they had failed to check the evil, the
Massachusetts government resolved to exterminate it and to
ship Williams for England. The crew of a pinnace was sent to
arrest him, but, fortunately for the future of New England, he
had escaped. … He had set out [January, 1636] for the territory
of Narragansett, and there founded the village of Providence."
A. Doyle,
The American Colonies,
chapter 2.
"His [Roger Williams'] own statement is, it was 'only for the
holy truth of Christ Jesus that he was denied the common air
to breathe in, and a civil cohabitation upon the same common
earth.' But the facts of the case seem to show that it was
because his opinions differed from the opinions of those among
whom he lived, and were considered by them as dangerous and
seditious, tending to the utter destruction of their
community, that he was a sacrifice to honest convictions of
truth and duty. … The sentence of banishment, however, was
not passed without reluctance. Governor Winthrop remained his
friend to the day of his death, and even proposed, in view of
his services in the Pequot war, that his sentence should be
revoked. Governor Haynes, of Connecticut, who pronounced his
sentence, afterwards regretted it. Governor Winslow, of
Plymouth, who had no hand in his expulsion, 'put a piece of
gold in the hands of his wife,' to relieve his necessities,
and though Mr. Cotton hardly clears himself from the charge of
having procured his sentence, there was no private feud
between them. Cotton Mather concedes that 'many judicious
persons judged him to have had the root of the matter in him.'
Later writers declare him, 'from the whole course and tenor of
his life and conduct, to have been one of the most
disinterested men that ever lived, a most pious and
heavenly-minded soul.' And the magnanimous exile himself says,
'I did ever from my soul honor and love them, even when their
judgment led them to afflict me.'"
J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
J. D. Knowles,
Memoir of Roger Williams,
chapters 3-5.
E. B. Underhill,
introduction to Williams' 'Bloudy Tenent of Persecution'
(Hansard Knollys Society).
G. E. Ellis,
The Puritan Age and Rule,
chapter 8.
See, also, RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.
{2106}
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.
Mrs. Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian troubles.
"The agitation and strife connected with the Antinomian
controversy, opened by Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, came dangerously
near to bringing the fortunes of the young Massachusetts
colony to a most disastrous ruin. … The peril overhung at a
time when the proprietary colonists had the most reasonable
and fearful forebodings of the loss of their charter by the
interference of a Privy Council Commission. … Ominously
enough, too, Mrs. Hutchinson arrived here, September 18, 1634,
in the vessel which brought the copy of that commission.
Winthrop describes her as a woman of a 'ready wit and bold
spirit.' Strongly gifted herself, she had a gentle and weak
husband, who was guided by her. She had at home enjoyed no
ministrations so much as those of Cotton, and her
brother-in-law, Mr. Wheelwright. She came here to put herself
again under the preaching of the former. … She had been here
for two years, known as a ready, kindly, and most serviceable
woman, especially to her own sex in their straits and
sicknesses. But she anticipated the introduction of 'the woman
question' among the colonists in a more troublesome form than
it has yet assumed for us. Joined by her brother-in-law, who
was also admitted to the church, after those two quiet years
she soon made her influence felt for trouble, as he did
likewise. … The male members of the Boston Church had a
weekly meeting, in which they discussed the ministrations of
Cotton and Wilson. Mrs. Hutchinson organized and presided over
one, held soon twice in a week, for her own sex, attended by
nearly a hundred of the principal women on the peninsula and
in the neighborhood. It was easy to foresee what would come of
it, through one so able and earnest as herself, even if she
had no novel or disjointed or disproportioned doctrine to
inculcate; which, however, it proved that she had. Antinomian
means a denying, or, at least, a weakening, of the obligation
to observe the moral law, and to comply with the external
duties; to do the works associated with the idea of internal,
spiritual righteousness. It was a false or disproportioned
construction of St. Paul's great doctrine of justification by
faith, without the works of the law. … Mrs. Hutchinson, was
understood to teach, that one who was graciously justified by
a spiritual assurance, need not be greatly concerned for
outward sanctification by works. She judged and approved, or
censured and discredited, the preachers whom she heard,
according as they favored or repudiated that view. Her
admirers accepted her opinions. … Word soon went forth that
Mrs. Hutchinson had pronounced in her meetings, that Mr.
Cotton and her brother-in-law Wheelwright, alone of all the
ministers in the colony, were under 'a covenant of grace,' the
rest being 'legalists,' or under 'a covenant of works.' These
reports, which soon became more than opinions, were blazing
brands that it would be impossible to keep from reaching
inflammable material. … As the contention extended it
involved all the principal persons of the colony. Cotton and
all but five members of the Boston Church—though one of these
five was Winthrop, and another was Wilson—proved to be
sympathizers with Mrs. Hutchinson; while the ministers and
leading people outside in the other hamlets were strongly
opposed to her. She had a partisan, moreover, of transcending
influence in the young Governor, Sir Henry Vane," who had come
over from England the year before, and who had been chosen at
the next election for Governor, with Winthrop as deputy.
"Though pure and devout, and ardent in zeal, he had not then
the practical wisdom for which Milton afterwards praised him
in his noble sonnet:—'Vane, young in years, but in sage
counsels old.' … With his strong support, and that of two
other prominent magistrates, and of so overwhelming a
majority of the Boston Church, Mrs. Hutchinson naturally felt
emboldened." But in the end her Church and party were overcome
by the ministers and their supporters in the other parts of
the colony; she was excommunicated and banished (November,
1637, and March, 1638), going forth to perish six years later
at the hands of the Indians, while living on the shore of Long
Island Sound, at a place now known as Pelham Neck, near New
Rochelle. "As the summing up of the strife, 76 persons were
disarmed; two were disfranchised and fined; 2 more were fined;
8 more were disfranchised; 3 were banished; and 11 who had
asked permission to remove had leave, in the form of a
limitation of time within which they must do it. The more
estimable and considerable of them apologized and were
received back."
G. E. Ellis,
Lowell Institute Lectures on the
Early History of Massachusetts,
pages 95-100.
ALSO IN:
B. Adams,
The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
chapter 2.
Ecclesiastical History of New England
(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
series 1, volume 9).
G. E. Ellis,
Life of Anne Hutchinson
(Library of American Biographies,
new series, volume 6).
J. Anderson,
Memorable Women of Puritan Times,
volume 1, pages 185-220.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.
The Pequot War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.
The first Synod of the Churches and its dealings with Heresy.
The election of Sir Harry Vane to be Governor of the colony,
in place of John Winthrop, "took place in the open air upon
what is now Cambridge Common on the 27th day of May [1637].
Four months later it was followed by the gathering of the
first Synod of Massachusetts churches; which again, meeting
here in Cambridge, doubtless held its sessions in the original
meeting-house standing on what is now called Mount Auburn
Street. The Synod sat through twenty-four days, during which
it busied itself unearthing heterodox opinions and making the
situation uncomfortable for those suspected of heresy, until
it had spread upon its record no less than eighty-two such
'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous, and all
unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' all alleged
to be rife in the infant community. Having performed this
feat, it broke up amid general congratulations 'that matters
had been carried on so peaceably, and concluded so comfortably
in all love.' … As the twig is bent, the tree inclines. The
Massachusetts twig was here and then bent; and, as it was
bent, it during hard upon two centuries inclined. The question
of Religious Toleration was, so far as Massachusetts could
decide it, decided in 1637 in the negative. … The turning
point in the history of early Massachusetts was the Cambridge
Synod of September, 1637, … which succeeded in spreading on
its record, as then prevailing in the infant settlement,
eighty-two 'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous and
all unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' the whole
mighty mass of which was then incontinently dismissed, in the
language of one of the leading divines who figured in that
Assembly, 'to the devil of hell, from whence they came.'
{2107}
The mere enumeration of this long list of heresies as then
somewhere prevailing is strong evidence of intellectual
activity in early Massachusetts,—an activity which found
ready expression through such men as Roger Williams, John
Cotton, John Wheelwright and Sir Henry Vane, to say nothing of
Mrs. Hutchinson, while the receptive condition of the mental
soil is likewise seen in the hold the new opinions took. It
was plainly a period of intellectual quickening,—a dawn of
promise. Of this there can no doubt exist. It was freely
acknowledged at the time; it has been stated as one of the
conditions of that period by all writers on it since. The body
of those who listened to him stood by Roger Williams; and the
magistrates drove him away for that reason. Anne Hutchinson so
held the ear of the whole Boston community that she had 'some
of all sorts and quality, in all places to defend and
patronize' her opinions; 'some of the magistrates, some
gentlemen, some scholars and men of learning, some Burgesses
of our General Court, some of our captains and soldiers, some
chief men in towns, and some men eminent for religion, parts
and wit.' These words of a leader of the clerical
faction,—one of those most active in the work of
repression,—describe to the life an active-minded,
intelligent community quick to receive and ready to assimilate
that which is new. Then came the Synod. It was a premonition.
It was as if the fresh new sap,—the young budding leaves,—
the possible, incipient flowers, had felt the chill of an
approaching glacier. And that was exactly what it was;—a