History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen

by J. N. Larned

theological glacier then slowly settled down upon
Massachusetts,—a glacier lasting through a period of nearly
one hundred and fifty years."
C. F. Adams,
Massachusetts: Its Historians and its History,
pages 10-59.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1638-1641.
Introduction of Slavery.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1639.
The first printing press set up.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1535-1709.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1640-1644.
The end of the Puritan exodus.
Numerical growth and political development.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1641.
Jurisdiction extended over New Hampshire.
See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1642.
The first Public School law.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1642-1732.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643.
The Confederation of the Colonies.
The growth of Plymouth.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643-1654.
Interest in Acadia and temporary conquest of the Province.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.
The Presbyterian Cabal and the Cambridge Platform.
"There had now come to be many persons in Massachusetts who
disapproved of the provision which restricted the suffrage to
members of the Independent or Congregational churches of New
England, and in 1646 the views of these people were presented
in a petition to the General Court. … The leading signers of
this menacing petition were William Vassall, Samuel Maverick,
and Dr. Robert Child. … Their request would seem at first
sight reasonable enough. At a superficial glance it seems
conceived in a modern spirit of liberalism. In reality it was
nothing of the sort. In England it was just the critical
moment of the struggle between Presbyterians and Independents
which had come in to complicate the issues of the great civil
war. Vassall, Child, and Maverick seem to have been the
leading spirits in a cabal for the establishment of
Presbyterianism in New England, and in their petition they
simply took advantage of the discontent of the disfranchised
citizens in Massachusetts in order to put in an entering
wedge. This was thoroughly understood by the legislature of
Massachusetts, and accordingly the petition was dismissed and
the petitioners were roundly fined. Just as Child was about to
start for England with his grievances, the magistrates
overhauled his papers and discovered a petition to the
parliamentary Board of Commissioners, suggesting that
Presbyterianism should be established in New England, and that
a viceroy or governor-general should be appointed to rule
there. To the men of Massachusetts this last suggestion was a
crowning horror. It seemed scarcely less than treason. The
signers of this petition were the same who had signed the
petition to the General Court. They were now fined still more
heavily and imprisoned for six months. By and by they found
their way, one after another, to London, while the colonists
sent Edward Winslow, of Plymouth, as an advocate to thwart
their schemes. … The cabal accomplished nothing because of
the decisive defeat of Presbyterianism in England. 'Pride's
Purge' settled all that. The petition of Vassall and his
friends was the occasion for the meeting of a synod of
churches at Cambridge, in order to complete the organization
of Congregationalism. In 1648 the work of the synod was
embodied in the famous Cambridge Platform, which adopted the
Westminster Confession as its creed, carefully defined the
powers of the clergy, and declared it to be the duty of
magistrates to suppress heresy. In 1649 the General Court laid
this platform before the congregations; in 1651 it was
adopted; and this event may be regarded as completing the
theocratic organization of the Puritan commonwealth in
Massachusetts. It was immediately preceded and followed by the
deaths of the two foremost men in that commonwealth. John
Winthrop died in 1649 and John Cotton in 1652."
J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
C. Mather,
Magnalia Christi Americana,
book 5, part 2.
B. Adams,
The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
chapter 3.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.
Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England.
"Massachusetts had, from the outset, sympathized with
Parliament in its contest with the king, and had blended her
fortunes with the fortunes of the reformers. She had expressed
her willingness to 'rise and fall with them,' and' sent over
useful men, others going voluntarily, to their aid, who were
of good use, and did acceptable service to the army.' Her
loyalty, therefore, procured for her the protection of
Parliament. Yet the execution of Charles, which royalists have
ever regarded with the utmost abhorrence, was not openly
approved here. 'I find,' says Hutchinson, 'scarce any marks of
approbation of the tragical scene of which this year they
received intelligence.' The few allusions we have discovered
are none of them couched in terms of exultation. Virginia
pursued a different course, and openly resisted Parliament,
refused to submit to its decrees, and adhered to the cause of
royalty. … Yet the legislation of the commonwealth was not
wholly favorable even to Massachusetts.
{2108}
The proclamation relative to Virginia asserted, in general
terms, the power of appointing governors and commissioners to
be placed in all the English colonies, without exception; and
by Mr. Winslow, their agent in England, they were informed
that it was the pleasure of Parliament the patent of
Massachusetts should be returned, and a new one taken out,
under which courts were to be held and warrants issued. With
this request the people were indisposed to comply; and, too
wary to hazard the liberties so dearly purchased, a petition
was drawn up, pleading the cause of the colony with great
force, setting forth its allegiance, and expressing the hope
that, under the new government, things might not go worse with
them than under that of the king, and that their charter might
not be recalled, as they desired no better. This remonstrance
was successful; the measure was dropped, and the charter of
Charles continued in force. Parliament was not 'foiled' by the
colony. Its request was deemed reasonable; and there was no
disposition to invade forcibly its liberties. We have evidence
of this in the course of Cromwell. After his success in the
'Emerald Isle,' conceiving the project of introducing
Puritanism into Ireland, an invitation was extended to the
people of Massachusetts to remove thither and settle. But they
were too strongly attached to the land of their adoption, and
to its government, 'the happiest and wisest this day in the
world,' readily to desert it. Hence the politic proposal of
the lord protector was respectfully declined."
J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: Puritan Colonies,
volume 1, chapter 9.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1651-1660.
The absorption of Maine.
See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution of the Quakers.
"In July, 1656, Mary Fisher and Ann Austin came to Boston from
Barbadoes; and shortly after, nine others, men and women,
arrived in the ship Speedwell from London. It was at once
known, for they did not wish to conceal it, that they were
'Friends,' vulgarly called 'Quakers'; and the Magistrates at
once took them in hand, determined that no people holding (as
they considered them) such damnable opinions, should come into
the Colony. A great crowd collected to hear them questioned,
and Boston was stirred up by a few illiterate enthusiasts.
They stood up before the Court with their hats on, apparently
without fear, and had no hesitation in calling governor
Endicott plain 'John.' … The replies which these men and
women made were direct and bold, and were considered rude and
contemptuous. … They … were committed to prison for their
'Rudeness and Insolence'; there being no law then under which
they could be punished for being Quakers." Before the year
closed, this defect of law was remedied by severe enactments,
"laying a penalty of £100 for bringing any Quaker into the
Colony: forty shillings for entertaining them for an hour;
Quaker men who came against these prohibitions were, upon
first conviction, to lose one ear, upon the second, the other
ear; and women were to be whipped. Upon the third conviction,
their tongues were to be bored with a hot iron. But these
things seemed useless, for the Quakers, knowing their fate,
swarmed into Massachusetts; and the Magistrates were fast
getting more business than they could attend to. It was then
determined to try greater severity, and in October, 1658, a
law was passed in Massachusetts (resisted by the Deputies,
urged by the Magistrates), punishing Quakers, who had been
banished, with death." The first to challenge the dread
penalty were a woman, Mary Dyer, and two men, William Robinson
and Marmaduke Stevenson, who, after being banished (September,
1659), came defiantly back the next month. "Governor Endicott
pronounced sentence of death against them. … On the 27th of
October, in the afternoon, a guard of 200 men, attended with a
drummer, conducted them to the gallows." Stevenson and
Robinson were hanged; but Mary Dyer was reprieved. "Her mind
was made up for death, and her reprieve brought her no joy.
She was taken away by her son. … Mary Dyer was a 'comely and
valiant woman,' and in the next Spring she returned. What now
was to be done? The law said she must be hung, and Endicott
again pronounced sentence, and she was led out to die a
felon's death. Some scoffed and jeered her, but the most
pitied; she died bravely, fearing nothing. … There seemed no
end; for Quaker after Quaker came; they were tried, they were
whipped, and the prison was full. … William Ledra [banished
in 1657] came back (September, 1660), and was subject to
death. They offered him his life, if he would go away and
promise not to return; he said: 'I came here to bear my
testimony, and to tell the truth of the Lord, in the ears of
this people. I refuse to go.' So he was hanged in the
succeeding March (14th). Wenlock Christopherson, or
Christison, came, and was tried and condemned to die. … The
death of Ledra, and the return of Wenlock Christison, brought
confusion among the Magistrates, and some said 'Where will
this end?' and declared it was time to stop. Governor Endicott
found it difficult to get a Court to agree to sentence
Christison to death; but he halted not, and pronounced the
sentence. … But a few days afterward the jailor opened the
prison doors, and Wenlock (with 27 others) was set at liberty,
much to his and their surprise." The friends of the Quakers in
England had prevailed upon King Charles II., then lately
restored, "to order the persecutions to cease in New England
(September 1661). Samuel Shattock, a banished Quaker, was sent
from England by Charles, with a letter to Governor Endicott
[the subject of Whittier's poem, 'The King's Missive'],
commanding that no more Quakers should be hanged or imprisoned
in New England, but should be sent to England for trial. This
ended the persecutions; for, on the 9th of December, 1661, the
Court ordered all Quakers to be set at liberty."
C. W. Elliott,
The New England History,
volume 1, chapter 36.
"Some of our writers, alike in prose and in poetry, have
assumed, and have written on the assumption, that the
deliverance of the Quakers was effected by the interposition
in their behalf of King Charles II. … The royal letter …
had … been substantially anticipated as to its principal
demand by the action of the Court [in Massachusetts]. The
general jail delivery of 31 Quakers, including the three under
the death sentence who had voluntarily agreed to go off, was
ordered by the Court in October, 1660. The King's letter was
dated at Whitehall a year afterward. Let us claim whatever of
relief we can find in reminding ourselves that it was the
stern opposition and protest of the majority of the people of
the Puritan Colony, and not the King's command, that had
opened the gates of mercy."
G. E. Ellis,
The Puritan Age and Rule,
pp. 477-479.
{2109}
While the Quakers first arrested at Boston were lying in jail,
"the Federal Commissioners, then in session at Plymouth,
recommended that laws be forthwith enacted to keep these
dreaded heretics out of the land. Next year they stooped so
far as to seek the aid of Rhode Island, the colony which they
had refused to admit into their confederacy. … Roger
Williams was then president of Rhode Island, and in full
accord with his noble spirit was the reply of the assembly.
'We have no law amongst us whereby to punish any for only
declaring by words their minds and understandings concerning
the things and ways of God as to salvation and our eternal
condition.' As for these Quakers, we find that where they are
'most of all suffered to declare themselves freely and only
opposed by arguments in discourse, there they least of all
desire to come.' Any breach of the civil law shall be
punished, but the 'freedom of different consciences shall be
respected.' This reply enraged the confederated colonies, and
Massachusetts, as the strongest and most overbearing,
threatened to cut off the trade of Rhode Island, which
forthwith appealed to Cromwell for protection. … In thus
protecting the Quakers, Williams never for a moment concealed
his antipathy to their doctrines. … The four confederated
colonies all proceeded to pass laws banishing Quakers. …
Those of Connecticut … were the mildest."
J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
B. Adams,
The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
chapter 5.
R. P. Hallowell,
The Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1657-1662.
The Halfway Covenant.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
Under the Restored Monarchy.
The first collision with the crown.
"In May, 1660, Charles II. mounted the throne of his
ancestors. … In December of this year, intelligence of the
accession of a new king had reached Massachusetts; the General
Court convened and prepared addresses to his majesty. … In
the following May a reply, signed by Mr. Secretary Morrice,
together with a mandate for the arrest of Goffe and Whalley,
the regicides who had escaped to Massachusetts, was received
in Boston. The king's response contained a general expression
of good will, which, however, did not quiet the apprehensions
of the colonists. The air was filled with rumors, and
something seemed to forebode an early collision with the
crown. At a special session of the court, held in June, 'a
declaration of natural and chartered rights' was approved and
published. In this document the people affirmed their right
'to choose their own governor, deputy governor, and
representatives; to admit freemen on terms to be prescribed at
their own pleasure; to set up all sorts of officers, superior
and inferior, and point out their power and places; to
exercise, by their annually elected magistrates and deputies,
all power and authority, legislative, executive, and judicial;
to defend themselves by force of arms against every
aggression; and to reject, as an infringement of their rights,
any parliamentary or royal imposition, prejudicial to the
country, and contrary to any just act of colonial
legislation.' More than a year elapsed from the restoration of
Charles II. to his public recognition at Boston. … Even the
drinking of his health was forbidden, and the event was
celebrated only amid the coldest formalities. Meanwhile the
colonists not only declared, but openly assumed, their rights;
and in consequence complaints were almost daily instituted by
those who were hostile to the government. Political opinion
was diversified; and while 'a majority were for sustaining,
with the charter, an independent government in undiminished
force, a minority were willing to make some concessions.' In
the midst of the discussions, John Norton, 'a friend to
moderate counsels,' and Simon Bradstreet were induced to go to
England as agents of the colony. Having been instructed to
convince the king of the loyalty of the people of
Massachusetts, and to 'engage to nothing prejudicial to their
present standing according to their patent, and to endeavor
the establishment of the rights and privileges then enjoyed,'
the commissioners sailed from Boston on the 10th of February,
1662. In England they were courteously received by king
Charles, and from him obtained, in a letter dated June 28, a
confirmation of their charter, and an amnesty for all past
offences. At the same time the king rebuked them for the
irregularities which had been complained of in the government;
directed 'a repeal of all laws derogatory to his authority;
the taking of the oath of allegiance; the administration of
justice in his name; a concession of the elective franchise to
all freeholders of competent estate; and as 'the principle of
the charter was the freedom of the liberty of conscience,' the
allowance of that freedom to those who desired to use 'the
booke of common prayer, and perform their devotion in the
manner established in England.' These requisitions of the king
proved anything but acceptable to the people of Massachusetts.
With them the question of obedience became a question of
freedom, and gave rise to the parties which continued to
divide the colony until the establishment of actual
independence. It was not thought best to comply immediately
with his majesty's demands; on the other hand, no refusal to
do so was promulgated." Presently a rumor reached America
"that royal commissioners were to be appointed to regulate the
affairs of New England. Precautionary measures were now taken.
The patent and a duplicate of the same were delivered to a
committee of four, with instructions to hold them in safe
keeping. Captain Davenport, at Castle Fort, was ordered to
give early announcement of the arrival of his Majesty's ships.
Officers and soldiers were forbidden to land from ships,
except in small parties. … On the 23d of July, 1664, 'about
five or six of the clock at night,' the 'Guinea,' followed by
three other ships of the line, arrived in Boston harbor. They
were well manned and equipped for the reduction of the Dutch
settlements on the Hudson, and brought commissioners hostile
to colonial freedom, and who were charged by the king to
determine 'all complaints and appeals in all causes and
matters, as well military as criminal and civil,' and to
'proceed in all things for the providing for and settling the
peace and security of the country, according to their good and
sound discretions.' Colonel Richard Nichols and Colonel George
Cartwright were the chief members of the commission.
{2110}
At the earliest possible moment they produced their legal
warrant, the king's letter of April 23, and requested the
assistance of the colonies in the reduction of the Dutch.
Shortly afterwards the fleet set out for New Netherlands. On
the 3d of August the General Court convened, and the state of
affairs was discussed." As the result of the discussion it was
agreed that a force of 200 men should be raised to serve
against the Dutch, and that the old law of citizenship should
be so far modified as to provide "'that all English subjects,
being freeholders, and of a competent estate, and certified by
the ministers of the place to be orthodox in faith, and not
vicious in their lives, should be made freemen, although not
members of the church.' Before the session closed,
Massachusetts published an order forbidding the making of
complaints to the commissioners," and adopted a spirited
address to the king. When, in February, 1665, three of the
commissioners returned to Boston, they soon found that they
were not to be permitted to take any proceedings which could
call in question "the privilege of government within
themselves" which the colony claimed. Attempting in May to
hold a court for the hearing of charges against a Boston
merchant, they were interrupted by a herald from the governor
who sounded his trumpet and forbade, in the name of the king,
any abetting of their proceedings. On this they wrathfully
departed for the north, after sending reports of the contumacy
of Massachusetts to the king. The latter now summoned governor
Bellingham to England, but the summons was not obeyed. "'We
have already furnished our views in writing [said the General
Court], so that the ablest persons among us could not declare
our case more fully.' … The defiance of Massachusetts was
followed by no immediate danger. For a season the contest with
the crown ceased. The king himself was too much engaged with
his women to bestow his attention upon matters of state; and
thus, while England was lamenting the want of a good
government, the colonies, true to themselves, their country,
and their God, flourished in purity and peace."
G. L. Austin,
History of Massachusetts,
chapter 4.
Records of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
volume 4, part 2.
See, also,
NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.
The struggle for the charter and its overthrow.
"Although the colonists were alarmed at their own success,
there was nothing to fear. At no time before or since could
England have been so safely defied. … The discord between
the crown and Parliament paralyzed the nation, and the
wastefulness of Charles kept him always poor. By the treaty of
Dover in 1670 he became a pensioner of Louis XIV. The Cabal
followed, probably the worst ministry England ever saw; and in
1672, at Clifford's suggestion, the exchequer was closed and the
debt repudiated to provide funds for the second Dutch war. In
March fighting began, and the tremendous battles with De
Ruyter kept the navy in the Channel. At length, in 1673, the
Cabal fell, and Danby became prime minister. Although during
these years of disaster and disgrace Massachusetts was not
molested by Great Britain, they were not all years during
which the theocracy could tranquilly enjoy its victory. …
With the rise of Danby a more regular administration opened,
and, as usual, the attention of the government was fixed upon
Massachusetts by the clamors of those who demanded redress for
injuries alleged to have been received at her hands. In 1674 the
heirs of Mason and Gorges, in despair at the reoccupation of
Maine, proposed to surrender their claim to the king,
reserving one third of the product of the customs for
themselves. The London merchants also had become restive under
the systematic violation of the Navigation Acts. The breach in
the revenue laws had, indeed, been long a subject of
complaint, and the commissioners had received instructions
relating thereto; but it was not till this year that these
questions became serious. … New England was fast getting its
share of the carrying trade. London merchants already began to
feel the competition of its cheap and untaxed ships, and
manufacturers to complain that they were undersold in the
American market, by goods brought direct from the Continental
ports. A petition, therefore, was presented to the king, to
carry the law into effect. … The famous Edward Randolph now
appears. The government was still too deeply embarrassed to
act with energy. A temporizing policy was therefore adopted;
and as the experiment of a commission had failed, Randolph was
chosen as a messenger to carry the petitions and opinions to
Massachusetts; together with a letter from the king, directing
that agents should be sent in answer thereto. After delivering
them, he was ordered to devote himself to preparing a report
upon the country. He reached Boston June 10, 1676. Although it
was a time of terrible suffering from the ravages of the Indian
war, the temper of the magistrates was harsher than ever. The
repulse of the commissioners had convinced them that Charles
was not only lazy and ignorant, but too poor to use force; and
they also believed him to be so embroiled with Parliament as
to make his overthrow probable. Filled with such feelings,
their reception of Randolph was almost brutal. John Leverett
was governor, who seems to have taken pains to mark his
contempt in every way in his power. Randolph was an able, but
an unscrupulous man, and probably it would not have been
difficult to have secured his good-will. Far however from
bribing, or even flattering him, they so treated him as to
make him the bitterest enemy the Puritan Commonwealth ever
knew. … The legislature met in August, 1676, and a decision
had to be made concerning agents. On the whole, the clergy
concluded it would be wiser to obey the crown, 'provided they
be, with utmost care & caution, qualified as to their
instructions.' Accordingly, after a short adjournment, the
General Court chose William Stoughton and Peter Bulkely; and
having strictly limited their power to a settlement of the
territorial controversy, they sent them on their mission. …
The controversy concerning the boundary was referred to the
two chief justices, who promptly decided against the Company;
and the easy acquiescence of the General Court must raise a
doubt as to their faith in the soundness of their claims. And
now again the fatality which seemed to pursue the theocracy in
all its dealings with England led it to give fresh provocation to
the king by secretly buying the title of Gorges for 1,250
pounds. Charles had intended to settle Maine on the Duke of
Monmouth. It was a worthless possession, whose revenue never
paid for its defence; yet so stubborn was the colony that it
made haste to anticipate the crown and thus became 'Lord
Proprietary' of a burdensome province at the cost of a slight
which was never forgiven.
{2111}
Almost immediately the Privy Council had begun to open other
matters, such as coining and illicit trade; and the
attorney-general drew up a list of statutes which, in his
opinion, were contrary to the laws of England. … In the
spring the law officers gave an opinion that the misdemeanors
alleged against Massachusetts were sufficient to avoid her
patent; and the Privy Council, in view of the encroachments
and injuries which she had continually practised on her
neighbors, and her contempt of his majesty's commands, advised
that a 'quo warranto' should be brought against the charter.
Randolph was appointed collector at Boston. Even Leverett now
saw that some concessions must be made, and the General Court
ordered the oath of allegiance to be taken; nothing but
perversity seems to have caused the long delay. The royal arms
were also carved in the courthouse; and this was all, for the
clergy were determined upon those matters touching their
authority. … Nearly half a century had elapsed since the
emigration, and with the growth of wealth and population
changes had come. In March, John Leverett, who had long been
the head of the high-church party, died, and the election of
Simon Bradstreet as his successor was a triumph for the
opposition. Great as the clerical influence still was, it had
lost much of its old despotic power, and the congregations
were no longer united in support of the policy of their
pastors. … Boston and the larger towns favored concession,
while the country was the ministers' stronghold. The result of
this divergence of opinion was that the moderate party, to
which Bradstreet and Dudley belonged, predominated in the
Board of Assistants, while the deputies remained immovable.
The branches of the legislature thus became opposed; no course
of action could be agreed on, and the theocracy drifted to its
destruction. … Meanwhile Randolph had renewed his attack. He
declared that in spite of promises and excuses the revenue
laws were not enforced; that his men were beaten, and that he
hourly expected to be thrown into prison; whereas in other
colonies, he asserted, he was treated with great respect.
There can be no doubt ingenuity was used to devise means of
annoyance; and certainly the life he was made to lead was
hard. In March he sailed for home, and while in London he made
a series of reports to the government which seem to have
produced the conviction that the moment for action had come.
In December he returned, commissioned as deputy-surveyor and
auditor-general for all New England, except New Hampshire. …
Hitherto the clerical party had procrastinated, buoyed up by
the hope that in the fierce struggle with the commons Charles
might be overthrown; but this dream ended with the dissolution
of the Oxford Parliament, and further inaction became
impossible. Joseph Dudley and John Richards were chosen
agents, and provided with instructions bearing the peculiar
tinge of ecclesiastical statesmanship. … The agents were
urged to do what was possible to avert, or at least delay, the
stroke; but they were forbidden to consent to appeals, or to
alterations in the qualifications required for the admission
of freemen. They had previously been directed to pacify the
king by a present of 2,000 pounds; and this ill-judged attempt
at bribery had covered them with ridicule. Further negotiation
would have been futile. Proceedings were begun at once, and
Randolph was sent to Boston to serve the writ of 'quo
warranto'; he was also charged with a royal declaration
promising that, even then, were submission made, the charter
should be restored with only such changes as the public
welfare demanded. Dudley, who was a man of much political
sagacity, had returned and strongly urged moderation. The
magistrates were not without the instincts of statesmanship:
they saw that a breach with England must destroy all
safeguards of the common freedom, and they voted an address to
the crown accepting the proffered terms. But the clergy strove
against them: the privileges of their order were at stake;
they felt that the loss of their importance would be
'destructive to the interest of religion and of Christ's
kingdom in the colony,' and they roused their congregations to
resist. The deputies did not represent the people, but the
church. … The influence which had moulded their minds and
guided their actions controlled them still, and they rejected
the address. … All that could be resolved on was to retain
Robert Humphrys of the Middle Temple to interpose such delays
as the law permitted; but no attempt was made at defence upon
the merits of their cause, probably because all knew well that
no such defence was possible. Meanwhile, for technical
reasons, the 'quo warranto' had been abandoned, and a writ of
'scire facias' had been issued out of chancery. On June 18,
1684, the lord keeper ordered the defendant to appear and
plead on the first day of the next Michaelmas Term. The time
allowed was too short for an answer from America, and judgment
was entered by default. … So perished the Puritan
Commonwealth. The child of the Reformation, its life sprang
from the assertion of the freedom of the mind; but this great
and noble principle is fatal to the temporal power of a
priesthood, and during the supremacy of the clergy the
government was doomed to be both persecuting and repressive.
Under no circumstance could the theocracy have endured: it
must have fallen by revolt from within if not by attack from
without."
Brooks Adams,
The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
chapter 6.
"December 19, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros arrived at Nantasket, in
the Kingfisher, a 50 gun ship, with commissions from King
James for the government of New England."
T. Hutchinson,
History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
volume 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
G. E. Ellis,
Puritan Age and Rule in Massachusetts,
chapter 13.
C. Deane,
The Struggle to Maintain the Charter of Charles I.
(Memorial History of Boston,
volume 1, pages 329-382).
Records of the Governor and Company Massachusetts Bay,
volume 5.
See, also,
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1674-1678.
King Philip's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1679.
The severance of New Hampshire.
See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.
{2112}
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.
The tyranny of Andros and its downfall.
"With the charter were swept away representative government,
and every right and every political institution reared during
half a century of conflict. The rule of Andros was on the
model dear to the heart of his royal master—a harsh
despotism, but neither strong nor wise; it was wretched
misgovernment, and stupid, blundering oppression. And this
arbitrary and miserable system Andros undertook to force upon
a people of English race, who had been independent and
self-governing for fifty years. He laid taxes at his own
pleasure, and not even according to previous rates, as he had
promised; he denied the Habeas Corpus to John Wise, the
intrepid minister of Ipswich, arrested for preaching against
taxation without representation, and he awakened a like
resistance in all directions. He instituted fees, was believed
to pack juries, and made Randolph licenser of the press. Worst
of all, he struck at property, demanded the examination of the
old titles, declared them worthless, extorted quit-rents for
renewal, and issued writs of intrusion against those who
resisted; while, not content with attacking political liberty
and the rights of property, he excited religious animosity by
forbidding civil marriages, seizing the old South church for
the Episcopal service, and introducing swearing by the Book in
courts of justice. He left nothing undone to enrage the people
and prepare for revolution; and when he returned from
unsuccessful Indian warfare in the east, the storm was ready
to burst. News came of the landing of the Prince of Orange.
Andros arrested the bearer of the tidings, and issued a
proclamation against the Prince; but the act was vain. Without
apparent concert or preparation Boston rose in arms, the
signal-fire blazed on Beacon Hill, and the country people
poured in, hot for revenge. Some of the old magistrates met at
the town-house, and read a 'declaration of the gentlemen,
merchants, and inhabitants,' setting forth the misdeeds of
Andros, the illegality of the Dudley government by commission,
and the wrongful suppression of the charter. Andros and Dudley
were arrested and thrown into prison, together with the
captain of the Rose frigate, which lay helpless beneath the
guns of the fort, and a provisional government was
established, with Bradstreet at its head. William and Mary
were proclaimed, the revolution was complete, and Andros soon
went back a prisoner to England."
H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies,
chapter 18.
ALSO IN:
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 3, chapters 13-14 (volume 3).
The Andros Tracts;
edited by w. H. Whitmore
(Prince Society, 1868).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.
The procuring of the new Charter.
The Colonial Republic transformed into a Royal Province.
The absorption of Plymouth.
A little more than a month from the overthrow of Andros a ship
from England arrived at Boston, with news of the proclamation
of William and Mary. This was joyful intelligence to the body
of the people. The magistrates were at once relieved from
their fears, for the revolution in the old world justified
that in the new. Three days later the proclamation was
published with unusual ceremony. … A week later the
representatives of the several towns, upon a new choice, met
at Boston, and proposals were made that charges should be
forthwith drawn up against Andros, or that all the prisoners
but Andros should be liberated on bail; but both propositions
were rejected. The representatives likewise urged the
unconditional resumption of the charter, declaring that they
could not act in any thing until this was conceded. Many
opposed the motion; but it was finally adopted; and it was
resolved that all the laws in force May 12, 1686, should be
continued until further orders. Yet the magistrates, conscious
of the insecurity of the position they occupied, used
prudently the powers intrusted to them." Meantime, Increase
Mather, who had gone to England before the Revolution took
place as agent for the colony, had procured an audience with
the new king, William III., and received from him an assurance
that he would remove Andros from the government of New England
and call him to an account for his administration. "Anxious
for the restoration of the old charter and its privileges,
under which the colony had prospered so well, the agent
applied himself diligently to that object, advising with the
wisest statesmen for its accomplishment. It was the concurrent
judgment of all that the best course would be to obtain first
a reversion of the judgment against the charter by an act of
Parliament, and then apply to the king for such additional
privileges as were necessary. Accordingly, in the House of
Commons, where the whole subject of seizing charters in the
reign of Charles II. was up for discussion, the charters of
New England were inserted with the rest; and, though enemies
opposed the measure, it was voted that their abrogation was a
grievance, and that they should be forthwith restored." But
before the bill having this most satisfactory effect had been
acted on in the House of Lords, the Convention Parliament was
prorogued, then dissolved, and the next parliament proved to
be less friendly. An order was obtained, however, from the
king, continuing the government of the colony under the old
charter until a new one was settled, and requiring Andros and
his fellow prisoners to be sent to England for trial. On the
trial, much court influence seemed to go in favor of Sir
Edmund; the proceedings against him were summarily quashed,
and he was discharged. Soon afterwards he was made governor of
Virginia, while Dudley received appointment to the office of
chief justice at New York. Contending against the intrigues of
the Andros party, and many other adverse influences, the
agents of Massachusetts were reluctantly forced at last to
relinquish all hopes of the restoration of the old charter,
and "application was made for a new grant, which should
confirm the privileges of the old instrument, and such in
addition as the experience of the people had taught them would
be of benefit. … The king was prevailed upon to refer the
affairs of New England to the two lords chief justices and the
attorney and solicitor-general, all of whom were supposed to
be friendly to the applicants. Mr. Mather was permitted to
attend their meetings." Difficulties arose in connection with
Plymouth Colony. It was the determination in England that
Plymouth should no longer be separately chartered, but should
be joined to Massachusetts or New York. In opposing the former
more natural union, the Plymouth people very nearly brought
about their annexation to New York; but Mather's influence
averted that result. "The first draught of a charter was
objected to by the agents, because of its limitation of the
powers of the governor, who was to be appointed by the king.
The second draught was also objected to; whereupon the agents
were informed that they 'must not consider themselves as
plenipotentiaries from a foreign state, and that if they were
unwilling to submit to the pleasure of the king, his majesty
would settle the country without them, and they might take
what would follow.'
{2113}
Nothing remained, therefore, but to decide whether they would
submit, or continue without a charter, and at the mercy of the
king." The two colleagues who had been associated with Mather
opposed submission, but the latter yielded, and the charter
was signed. "By the terms of this new charter the territories
of Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Maine, with a tract farther
east, were united into one jurisdiction, whose officers were
to consist of a governor, a deputy governor, and a secretary,
appointed by the king, and 28 councillors, chosen by the
people. A General Court was to be holden annually, on the last
Wednesday in May, and at such other times as the governor saw
fit; and each town was authorized to choose two deputies to
represent them in this court. The choice of these deputies was
conceded to all freeholders having an estate of the value of
forty pounds sterling, or land yielding an income of at least
forty shillings per annum; and every deputy was to take the
oath of allegiance prescribed by the crown. All residents of
the province and their children were entitled to the liberties
of natural born subjects; and liberty of conscience was
secured to all but Papists. … To the governor was given a
negative upon all laws enacted by the General Court; without
his consent in writing none were valid; and all receiving his
sanction were to be transmitted to the king for approval, and
if rejected at any time within three years were to be of no
effect. The governor was empowered to establish courts, levy
taxes, convene the militia, carry on war, exercise martial
law, with the consent of the council, and erect and furnish an
requisite forts. … Such was the province charter of 1692—a
far different instrument from the colonial charter of 1629. It
effected a thorough revolution in the country. The form of
government, the powers of the people, and the entire
foundation and objects of the body politic, were placed upon a
new basis; and the dependence of the colonies upon the crown
was secured. … It was on Saturday, the 14th of May, 1692,
that Sir William Phips arrived at Boston as the first governor
of the new province."
J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 18.
ALSO IN:
W. H. Whitmore,
The Inter-Charter Period
(Memorial History of Boston, volume 2).
G. P. Fisher,
The Colonial Era,
chapter 13.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1697.
King William's War.
Temporary conquest of Acadia.
Disastrous expedition against Quebec.
Threatened attack by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
The Salem Witchcraft madness: in its beginning.
"The people of Massachusetts in the 17th century, like all
other Christian people at that time,—at least, with extremely
rare individual exceptions,—believed in the reality of a
hideous crime called 'witchcraft.' … In a few instances
witches were believed to have appeared in the earlier years of
New England. But the cases had been sporadic. … With three
or four exceptions … no person appears to have been punished
for witchcraft in Massachusetts, nor convicted of it, for more
than sixty years after the settlement, though there had been
three or four trials of other persons suspected of the crime.
At the time when the question respecting the colonial charter
was rapidly approaching an issue, and the public mind was in
feverish agitation, the ministers sent out a paper of
proposals for collecting facts concerning witchcrafts and
other 'strange apparitions.' This brought out a work from
President [Increase] Mather entitled 'Illustrious
Providences,' in which that influential person related
numerous stories of the performances of persons leagued with
the Devil. The imagination of his restless young son [Cotton
Mather] was stimulated, and circumstances fed the flame." A
poor Irish washerwoman, in Boston, accused by some malicious
children named Goodwin, who played antics which were supposed
to signify that they had been bewitched, was tried, convicted
and sent to the gallows (1688) as a witch. "Cotton Mather took
the oldest 'afflicted' girl to his house, where she
dexterously played upon his self-conceit to stimulate his
credulity. She satisfied him that Satan regarded him as his
most terrible enemy, and avoided him with especial awe. …
Mather's account of these transactions ['Late Memorable
Providences relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions'], with a
collection of other appropriate matter, was circulated not
only in Massachusetts, but widely also in England, where it
obtained the warm commendation of Richard Baxter; and it may
be supposed to have had an important effect in producing the
more disastrous delusion which followed three years after. …
Mr. Samuel Parris was minister of a church in a part of Salem
which was then called 'Salem Village,' and which now as a
separate town bears the name of Danvers. He was a man of
talents, and of repute for professional endowments, but
avaricious, wrong-headed, and ill-tempered. Among his
parishioners, at the time of his installation and afterwards,
there had been angry disputes about the election of a
minister, which had never been composed. Neighbors and
relations were embittered against each other. Elizabeth
Parris, the minister's daughter, was now nine years old. A
niece of his, eleven years old, lived in his family. His
neighbor, Thomas Putnam, the parish clerk, had a daughter
named Ann, twelve years of age. These children, with a few
other young women, of whom two were as old as twenty years or
thereabouts, had become possessed with a wild curiosity about
the sorceries of which they had been hearing and reading, and
used to hold meetings for study, if it may be so called, and
practice. They learned to go through motions similar to those
which had lately made the Goodwin children so famous. They
forced their limbs into grotesque postures, uttered unnatural
outcries, were seized with cramps and spasms, became incapable
of speech and of motion. By and by [March, 1692], they
interrupted public worship. … The families were distressed.
The neighbors were alarmed. The physicians were perplexed and
baffled, and at length declared that nothing short of witchery
was the trouble. The kinsfolk of the 'afflicted children'
assembled for fasting and prayer. Then the neighboring
ministers were sent for, and held at Mr. Parris's house a
prayer-meeting which lasted through the day. The children
performed in their presence, and the result was a confirmation
by the ministers of the opinion of the doctors. Of course, the
next inquiry was by whom the manifest witchcraft was
exercised.
{2114}
It was presumed that the unhappy girls could give the answer.
For a time they refused to do so. But at length, yielding to
an importunity which it had become difficult to escape unless
by an avowal of their fraud, they pronounced the names of
Good, Osborn, and Tituba. Tituba—half Indian, half
negro—was a servant of Mr. Parris, brought by him from
Barbadoes, where he had formerly been a merchant. Sarah Good
was an old woman, miserably poor. Sarah Osborn had been
prosperous in early life. She had been married twice, and her
second husband was still living, but separated from her. Her
reputation was not good, and for some time she had been
bedridden, and in a disturbed nervous state. … Tituba,
whether in collusion with her young mistress, or, as was
afterwards said, in consequence of having been scourged by Mr.
Parris, confessed herself to be a witch, and charged Good and
Osborn with being her accomplices. The evidence was then
thought sufficient, and the three were committed to gaol for
trial. Martha Corey and Rebecca Nourse were next cried out
against. Both were church-members of excellent character, the
latter, seventy years of age. They were examined by the same
Magistrates, and sent to prison, and with them a child of
Sarah Good, only four or five years old, also charged with
diabolical practices."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
C. W. Upham,
Salem Witchcraft,
part 3 (volume 2).
S. G. Drake,
Annals of Witchcraft in New England.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
The Salem Witchcraft madness: in its culmination.
"Now a new feature of this thing showed itself. The wife of
Thomas Putnam joined the children, and 'makes most terrible
shrieks' against Goody Nurse—that she was bewitching her,
too. On the 3d of April, Minister Parris preached long and
strong from the Text, 'Have I not chosen you twelve, and one
of you is a devil?' in which he bore down so hard upon the
Witches accused that Sarah Cloyse, the sister of Nurse, would
not sit still, but 'went out of meeting'; always a wicked
thing to do, as they thought, but now a heinous one. At once
the children cried out against her, and she was clapt into
prison with the rest. Through the months of April and May,
Justices Hawthorne and Curwin (or Corwin), with Marshal George
Herrick, were busy getting the Witches into jail, and the good
people were startled, astounded, and terror-struck, at the
numbers who were seized. … Bridget Bishop, only, was then
brought to trial, for the new Charter and new Governor
(Phips), were expected daily. She was old, and had been
accused of witchcraft twenty years before. … So, as there
was no doubt about her, she was quickly condemned, and hung on
the 10th day of this pleasant June, in the presence of a crowd
of sad and frightened people. … The new Governor, Phips, one
of Mather's Church, fell in with the prevailing fear, and a
new bench of special Judges, composed of Lieutenant-Governor
Stoughton, Major Saltonstall, Major Richards, Major Gidney,
Mr. Wait Winthrop, Captain Sewall, and Mr. Sargent, were sworn
in, and went to work. On the 30th of June, Sarah Good, Rebeka
Nurse, Susannah Martin, Elizabeth How, and Sarah Wilder, were
brought to trial; all were found guilty, and sentenced to
death, except Nurse, who, being a Church member, was acquitted
by the jury. At this, the 'afflicted' children fell into fits,
and others made great outcries; and the popular
dissatisfaction was so great, that the Court sent them back to
the jury room, and they returned shortly, with a verdict of
Guilty! The Rev. Mr. Noyes, of Salem, then excommunicated
Nurse, delivered her to Satan, and they all were led out to
die. Minister Noyes told Susannah Martin that she was a witch,
and knew it, and she had better confess it; but she refused,
and told him that 'he lied,' and that he knew it; and, 'that
if he took away her life, God would give him blood to drink;'
which curse is now traditionally believed, and that he was
choked with blood. They were hanged, protesting their
innocence; and there was none to pity them. On the 5th of
August, a new batch was haled before the Court. Reverend
George Burroughs, John Proctor and his wife, John Willard,
George Jacobs, and Martha Carrier. Burroughs was disliked by
some of the Clergy, for he was tinctured with Roger Williams's
Heresies of Religious Freedom; and he was particularly
obnoxious to Mather, for he had spoken slightingly of
witchcraft, and had even said there was no such thing as a
witch. Willard had been a constable employed in seizing
witches, but, becoming sick of the business, had refused to do
it any more. The children at once cried out, that he, too, was
a witch; he fled for his life, but was caught at Nashua, and
brought back. Old Jacobs was accused by his own
grand-daughter; and Carrier was convicted upon the testimony
of her own children. They were all quickly convicted and
sentenced. … All but Mrs. Proctor saw the last of earth on
the 19th of August. They were hanged on Gallows Hill. Minister
Burroughs made so moving a prayer, closing with the Lord's
Prayer, which it was thought no witch could say, that there
was fear lest the crowd should hinder the hanging. As soon as
he was turned off, Mr. Mather, sitting on his horse, addressed
the people, to prove to them that Burroughs was really no
Minister, and to show how he must be guilty, notwithstanding
his prayer, for the devil could change himself into an angel
of light. … Giles Cory, an old man of 80, saw that the
accused were prejudged, and refused to plead to the charge
against him. What could be done with him? It was found that
for this, by some sort of old law, he might be pressed to
death. So on the 16th of September, just as the autumn tints
were beginning to glorify the earth, he was laid on the
ground, bound hand and foot, and stones were piled upon him,
till the tongue was pressed out of his mouth; 'the Sheriff
with his cane forced it in again when he was dying.' Such
cruel things did fear—fear of the Devil—lead these people
to do. He was the first and last who died in New England in
this way. On the 22d of September, eight of the sentenced were
carted up Gallows Hill and done to death. Amid a great
concourse of men, women, and children, from the neighboring
villages, and from Boston, the victims went crying and
singing, dragged through the lines of terror-stricken or
pitying people. Some would have rescued them, but they had no
leaders, and knew not how to act; so that tragedy was
consummated; and the Reverend Mr. Noyes, pointing at them,
said, 'What a sad thing it is to see eight fire-brands of hell
hanging there!' Sad indeed!
{2115}
Nineteen had now been hung. One pressed to death. Eight were
condemned. A hundred and fifty were in prison; and two hundred
more were accused by the 'afflicted.' Some fifty had
acknowledged themselves witches, of whom not one was executed.
… It was now October, and this mischief seemed to be
spreading like fire among the dry grass of the Prairies; and a
better quality of persons was beginning to be accused by the
bewitched. … But these accusations made people consider, and
many began to think that they had been going on too fast. 'The
juries changed sooner than the judges, and they sooner than
the Clergy.' 'At last,' says one of them, 'it was evidently
seen that there must be a stop put, or the generation of the
church of God would fall under that condemnation.' In other
words, the better class of church members were in danger! At

the January session, only three were convicted, and they were
reprieved; whereat Chief Justice Stoughton rose in anger, and
said, 'The Lord be merciful to this country!' In the spring,
Governor Phips, being about to leave the country, pardoned all
who were condemned, and the jails were delivered. The
excitement subsided as rapidly as it had arisen, but the evil
work was done."
C. W. Elliott,
The New England History,
volume 2, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
S. P. Fowler, editor,
Salem Witchcraft (including Calef's
"More Wonders of the Invisible World," etc.).
C. S. Osgood and H. M. Batchelder,
Historical Sketch of Salem,
chapter 2.
J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 2, chapter 2.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692-1693.
The Salem Witchcraft madness: its ending, and the reaction.
"On the second Wednesday in October, 1692, about a fortnight
after the last hanging of eight at Salem, the representatives
of the colony assembled; and the people of Andover, their
minister joining with them, appeared with their remonstrance
against the doings of the witch tribunals. Of the discussions
that ensued no record is preserved; we know only the issue.
The general court ordered by bill a convocation of ministers,
that the people might be led in the right way as to the
witchcraft. … They abrogated the special court, established
a tribunal by statute, and delayed its opening till January of
the following year. This interval gave the public mind
security and freedom; and though Phips still conferred the
place of chief judge on Stoughton, yet jurors acted
independently. When, in January, 1693, the court met at Salem,
six women of Andover, renouncing their confessions, treated
the witchcraft but as something so called, the bewildered but
as 'seemingly afflicted.' A memorial of like tenor came from
the inhabitants of Andover. Of the presentments, the grand
jury dismissed more than half; and of the twenty-six against
whom bills were found through the testimony on which others
had been condemned, verdicts of acquittal followed. … The
people of Salem village drove Parris from the place; Noyes
regained favor only by a full confession and consecrating the
remainder of his life to deeds of mercy. Sewall, one of the
judges, by rising in his pew in the Old South meeting-house on
a fast-day and reading to the whole congregation a paper in
which he bewailed his great offence, recovered public esteem.
Stoughton never repented. The diary of Cotton Mather proves
that he, who had sought the foundation of faith in tales of
wonders, himself 'had temptations to atheism, and to the
abandonment of all religion as a mere delusion.'"
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).
"It was long before the public mind recovered from its
paralysis. No one knew what ought to be said or done, the
tragedy had been so awful. The parties who had acted in it
were so numerous, and of such standing, including almost all
the most eminent and honored leaders of the community from the
bench, the bar, the magistracy, the pulpit, the medical
faculty, and in fact all classes and descriptions of persons;
the mysteries connected with the accusers and confessors; the
universal prevalence of the legal, theological, and
philosophical theories that had led to the proceedings; the
utter impossibility of realizing or measuring the extent of
the calamity; and the general shame and horror associated with
the subject in all minds; prevented any open movement. … Dr.
Bentley describes the condition of the community in some brief
and pregnant sentences … : 'As soon as the judges ceased to
condemn, the people ceased to accuse. … Terror at the
violence and guilt of the proceedings succeeded instantly to
the conviction of blind zeal; and what every man had
encouraged all professed to abhor. Few dared to blame other
men, because few were innocent. The guilt and the shame became
the portion of the country, while Salem had the infamy of
being the place of the transactions.'"
C. W. Upham,
Salem Witchcraft,
volume 2, supplement.
"The probability seems to be that those who began in harmless
deceit found themselves at length involved so deeply, that
dread of shame and punishment drove them to an extremity where
their only choice was between sacrificing themselves, or
others to save themselves. It is not unlikely that some of the
younger girls were so far carried along by imitation or
imaginative sympathy as in some degree to 'credit their own
lie.' … Parish and boundary feuds had set enmity between
neighbors, and the girls, called on to say who troubled them,
cried out upon those whom they had been wont to hear called by
hard names at home. They probably had no notion what a
frightful ending their comedy was to have; but at any rate
they were powerless, for the reins had passed out of their
hands into the sterner grasp of minister and magistrate. …
In one respect, to which Mr. Upham first gives the importance
it deserves, the Salem trials were distinguished from all
others. Though some of the accused had been terrified into
confession, yet not one persevered in it, but all died
protesting their innocence, and with unshaken constancy,
though an acknowledgment of guilt would have saved the lives
of all. This martyr proof of the efficacy of Puritanism in the
character and conscience may be allowed to outweigh a great
many sneers at Puritan fanaticism."
J. R. Lowell,
Witchcraft
(Among My Books, series 1).
ALSO IN:
G. M. Beard,
Psychology of the Salem Witchcraft Excitement.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1703-1711.
Queen Anne's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1704.
The first Newspaper.
See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1722-1725.
Renewed War with the northeastern Indians.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
{2116}
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War.
The taking of Louisbourg and its restoration to France.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755.
Expedition against Fort Beau Séjour in Nova Scotia.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.
Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.
The Writs of Assistance and Otis's speech.
"It was in 1761, immediately after the overthrow of the French
in Canada, that attempts were made to enforce the revenue laws
more strictly than heretofore; and trouble was at once
threatened. Charles Paxton, the principal officer of the
custom-house in Boston, applied to the Superior Court to grant
him the authority to use 'writs of assistance' in searching
for smuggled goods. A writ of assistance was a general
search-warrant, empowering the officer armed with it to enter,
by force if necessary, any dwelling-house or warehouse where
contraband goods were supposed to be stored or hidden. A
special search-warrant was one in which the name of the
suspected person, and the house which it was proposed to
search, were accurately specified, and the goods which it was
intended to seize were as far as possible described. In the
use of such special warrants there was not much danger of
gross injustice or oppression. … But the general
search-warrant, or 'writ of assistance,' as it was called
because men try to cover up the ugliness of hateful things by
giving them innocent names, was quite a different affair. It
was a blank form upon which the custom-house officer might
fill in the names of persons and descriptions of houses and
goods to suit himself. … The writ of assistance was
therefore an abominable instrument of tyranny. Such writs had
been allowed by a statute of the evil reign of Charles II.; a
statute of William III. had clothed custom-house officers in
the colonies with like powers to those which they possessed in
England; and neither of these statutes had been repealed.
There can therefore be little doubt that the issue of such
search-warrants was strictly legal, unless the authority of
Parliament to make laws for the colonies was to be denied.
James Otis then held the crown office of advocate-general,
with an ample salary and prospects of high favour from
government. When the revenue officers called upon him, in view
of his position, to defend their cause, he resigned his office
and at once undertook to act as counsel for the merchants of
Boston in their protest against the issue of the writs. A
large fee was offered him, but he refused it. 'In such a
cause,' said he, 'I despise all fees.' The case was tried in
the council-chamber at the east end of the old town-hall, or
what is now known as the 'Old State-House,' in Boston.
Chief-justice Hutchinson presided, and Jeremiah Gridley, one
of the greatest lawyers of that day, argued the case for the
writs in a very powerful speech. The reply of Otis, which took
five hours in the delivery, was one of the greatest speeches
of modern times. It went beyond the particular legal question
at issue, and took up the whole question of the constitutional
relations between the colonies and the mother-country. At the
bottom of this, as of all the disputes that led to the
Revolution, lay the ultimate question whether Americans were
bound to yield obedience to laws which they had no share in
making. This question, and the spirit that answered it flatly
and doggedly in the negative, were heard like an undertone
pervading all the arguments in Otis's wonderful speech, and it
was because of this that the young lawyer John Adams, who was
present, afterward declared that on that day 'the child
Independence was born.' Chief-justice Hutchinson … reserved
his decision until advice could be had from the law-officers
of the crown in London; and when next term he was instructed
by them to grant the writs, this result added fresh impetus to
the spirit that Otis's eloquence had aroused. The custom-house
officers, armed with their writs, began breaking into
warehouses and seizing goods which were said to have been
smuggled. In this rough way they confiscated private property
to the value of many thousands of pounds; but sometimes the
owners of warehouses armed themselves and barricaded their
doors and windows, and thus the officers were often
successfully defied, for the sheriff was far from prompt in
coming to aid them."
J. Fiske,
The War of Independence,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. Tudor,
Life of James Otis,
chapters 5-7.
F. Bowen,
Life of James Otis
(Library of American Biographies,
series 2, volume 2), chapter 2-3.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The Stamp Act Congress.
Non-importation agreements.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1766.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768.
The Circular Letter to other colonies.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre."
Removal of the troops.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1769.
The Boston patriots threatened.
Virginia roused to their support.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
Committees of Correspondence instituted.
The coming of the Tea Ships.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770; and 1772-1773.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1773.
Destruction of Tea at Boston.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.
Free government destroyed and commerce interdicted.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL);
and BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
{2117}
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
Organization of an independent Provisional Government.
The Committee of Safety.
Minute-men.
"Governor Gage issued writs, dated September 1, convening the
General Court at Salem on the 5th of October, but dissolved it
by a proclamation dated September 28, 1774. The members elected
to it, pursuant to the course agreed upon, resolved themselves
into a Provincial Congress. This body, on the 26th of October,
adopted a plan for organizing the militia, maintaining it, and
calling it out when circumstances should render it necessary.
It provided that one quarter of the number enrolled should be
held in readiness to muster at the shortest notice, who were
called by the popular name of minute-men. An executive
authority—the Committee of Safety—was created, clothed with
large discretionary powers; and another called the Committee
of Supplies."
R. Frothingham,
History of the Siege of Boston,
page 41.
Under the Provincial Congress and the energetic Committee of
Safety (which consisted at the beginning of Hancock, Warren
and Church, of Boston, Richard Devens of Charlestown, Benj.
White of Brookline, Joseph Palmer of Braintree, Abraham Watson
of Cambridge, Azor Orne of Marblehead, and Norton Quincy, who
declined) a complete and effective administration of
government, entirely independent of royal authority, was
brought into operation. Subsequently, John Pigeon of Newton,
William Heath of Roxbury, and Jabez Fisher of Wrentham, were
added to the committee.
R. Frothingham,
Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
page 389.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The country in arms and Boston under siege.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775-1776.
Washington in command at Cambridge.
British evacuation of Boston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (April-May).
Independence assumed and urged upon the General Congress.
"Massachusetts had for nearly a year acted independently of
the officers of the crown. … The General Court, at their
session in April [1776], passed a resolve to alter the style
of writs and other legal processes—substituting 'the people
and government of Massachusetts' for George III.; and, in
dating official papers, the particular year of the king was
omitted, and only the year of our Lord was mentioned. Early in
May, likewise, an order was passed and published, by which the
people of the several towns in the province were advised to
give instructions to their respective representatives, to be
chosen for the following political year, on the subject of
independence. It is not contended that this was the first
instance in which such a proposition was publicly made; for
North Carolina had, two weeks before, authorized her delegates
to join with the other colonies in declaring independence; and
Rhode Island and Connecticut had indicated their inclination
by dispensing with the oath of allegiance to the king, though
a month elapsed before the Connecticut Assembly instructed
their delegates to vote for independence. The returns from the
towns of Massachusetts were highly encouraging, and in nearly
every instance the instructions to their representatives were
favorable to an explicit declaration of independence."
J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 3, chapter 3.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (July).
The Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776-1777.
The struggle for New York and the Hudson.
The campaigns in New Jersey and on the Delaware.
Burgoyne's invasion and surrender.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST),
to 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1777-1783.
The Articles of Confederation.
Alliance with France.
Treason of Arnold.
The war in the south.
Surrender of Cornwallis.
Peace.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, to 1783.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1779.
Framing and adoption of a State Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1781.
Emancipation of Slaves.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1785.
Western territorial claims
and their cession to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786.
Settlement of land claims with New York.
The cession of western New York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.
The Shays Rebellion.
"The Shays Rebellion, which takes its name from the leader of
the insurgents, Daniel Shays, lately a captain in the
Continental army, had its taproot in the growing spirit of
lawlessness. But special causes of discontent were traceable
to an unequal distribution of wealth and excessive land
taxation in Massachusetts, the sole seat of the outbreak.
Governor Bowdoin and his party strove vigorously to reduce the
State debt and keep up the public credit at a period of great
public depression. But this strained severely the farmers and
citizens of moderate means in the inland towns. Private
creditors pressed their debtors, while the State pressed all.
Attachments were put upon the poor man's cattle and teams, and
his little homestead was sacrificed under the sheriff's
hammer. It was no sign of prosperity that the dockets of the
county courts were crowded, and that lawyers and court
officers put in the sickle. There was common complaint of the
high salaries of public officials and the wasteful cost
attending litigation. One might suppose that a legislature
annually chosen would soon remedy this state of things. But
the inhabitants of the western counties took the short cut of
resisting civil process and openly defying the laws. And
herein their error lay. Shays rallied so large a force of
malcontents about Worcester in the fall of 1786 that the
sheriff and his deputies were powerless against them, and no
court could be held. … This first success of the
Massachusetts insurgents alarmed the friends of order
throughout the Union. … Congress, by this time an adept in
stealthy and diplomatic methods, offered secret aid to the
authorities of Massachusetts upon the pretext of dispatching
troops against the Indians. But the tender was not accepted;
for in James Bowdoin the State had an executive equal to the
emergency. Availing himself of a temporary loan from patriotic
citizens, he raised and equipped a militia force, large enough
to overawe the rebels, which, under General Lincoln's command,
was promptly marched against them. Shays appears to have had
more of the demagogue than warrior about him, and his
followers fled as the troops advanced [being finally surprised
and routed at Petersham, February 4, 1787]. By midwinter civil
order was restored; but the legislature made some concessions
not less just than prudent. The vanquished rebels were treated
with marked clemency. But Governor Bowdoin's energy lost him a
re-election the following spring, and one of the manliest
pioneers of Continental reform was remitted to private life
for the rest of his days. To him succeeded the veteran
Hancock, whose light shone through a horn-lantern of vanity
and love of popular applause."
J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 1, section 1.
ALSO IN:
J. B. McMaster,
History of the People of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 3.
J. G. Holland,
History of West Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapters 16-18.
M. A. Green,
Springfield, 1636-1886,
chapter 14.
J. E. A. Smith,
History of Pittsfield, 1734-1800,
chapters 21-22.
{2118}
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1788.
Ratification of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1812-1814.
Opposition of Federalists to the war with England.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1814.
The Hartford Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1818-1821.
The founding of Amherst College.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1820.
The district of Maine erected into a distinct State.
See MAINE: A. D. 1820.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April).
Prompt response to President Lincoln's call for troops.
Attack on the Sixth Regiment in Baltimore.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
The Eighth Regiment making its way to Washington.
Butler and Baltimore.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1889.
The founding of Clark University.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1887-1889.
----------MASSACHUSETTS: End----------
MASSACRES.
Of Glenco.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.
MASSACRES:
Of the Mamelukes (1811).
See EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.
MASSACRES:
Of the Mountain Meadows (1857).
See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.
MASSACRES:
Of St. Bartholomew's Day.
MASSACRES:
See FRANCE: A. D. 1572.
MASSACRES:
Of St. Brice's Day (1002).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
MASSACRES:
Of September, 1792, in the Paris prisons.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
MASSACRES:
Of the Shiites.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
MASSACRES:
The Sicilian Vespers (1282).
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.
MASSAGETÆ, The.
See SCYTHIANS.
MASSALIANS, The.
See MYSTICISM.
MASSALIOTS.
The people of Massilia—ancient Marseilles.
MASSENA, Marshal, Campaigns of.
See FRANCE:
A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER) and (AUGUST-DECEMBER);
1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY);
1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER);
1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
and SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.
MASSILIA.
The ancient name of Marseilles.
See PHOCÆANS.
MASSIMILIANO, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1512-1515.
MASSORETES.
See MASORETES.
MASULIPATAM, English capture of (1759).
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
MATAGUAYAS, The.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
MATELOTAGE.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
MATHER, Cotton, and the Witchcraft excitement.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
MATHER, Increase, and the new Massachusetts Charter.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.
MATILDA, Donation of the Countess.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
MATRONA, The.
The ancient name of the river Marne.
MATRONALIA, The.
An ancient Roman festival, celebrated on the Calends of March,
in memory of the intervention of the Sabine matrons, to make
peace between their Sabine kinsmen and their Roman husbands.
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1).
See ROME: THE RAPE OF THE SABINE WOMEN.
MATTHIAS,
Germanic Emperor, A. D. 1612-1619.
Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, 1457-1490.
MATTIACI, The.
The Mattiaci were an ancient German tribe friendly to Rome.
They inhabited a region in Nassau, about Wiesbaden.
Church and Brodribb,
Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus.
See, also, MOGONTIACUM.
MAUREGATO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 783-788.
----------MAURETANIA: Start--------
MAURETANIA.
MAURETANIANS.
MOORS.
See NUMIDIANS.
MAURETANIA:
Under the Romans.
See AFRICA: THE ROMAN PROVINCE.
MAURETANIA: A. D. 374-398.-Revolts of Firmus and Gildo.
See ROME: A. D. 396-398.
MAURETANIA:
Conquest by the Vandals. See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
MAURETANIA:
Mahometan Conquest.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.
MAURETANIA:
Mediæval and Modern History.
See MAROCCO;
also, BARBARY STATES.
----------MAURETANIA: End--------
MAURICE,
Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 582-602.
Maurice, Prince of Orange and Count of Nassau,
Stadtholder of the United Provinces (Netherlands), 1587-1625.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585, to 1621-1633.
Maurice of Saxony, The dishonorable exploits of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.
MAURIENNE, Counts of.
The earliest title of the princes of the House of Savoy.
See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.
MAURITANIANS.
See MAURETANIA.
MAURITIUS, or the Isle of France, English acquisition of the (1810).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
also, INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
MAURITIUS RIVER.
The name given by the Dutch to the Hudson River.
MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS.
See CARIANS.
MAUSOLEUM OF HADRIAN.
See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.
MAVROVALLACHIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 12TH CENTURY.
MAXEN, Capitulation of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
MAXIMA CÆSARIENSIS.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.
MAXIMIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 286-305.
{2119}
MAXIMILIAN, Emperor of Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
Maximilian I., Archduke of Austria, King of the Romans,
A. D. 1486-1493;
Germanic Emperor, 1493-1519.
Maximilian II., Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary
and Bohemia, and Germanic Emperor, 1564-1576.
MAXIMIN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 235-238.
MAXIMUS, Revolt of.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.
MAXYANS, The.
See LIBYANS.
MAY, Cape
MEY, Cape:
The Name.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
MAY LAWS, The German.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
MAY LAWS, The Russian, of 1882.
See JEWS: 19TH CENTURY.
MAYAS, The, and their early civilization.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.
MAYENCE.
See MENTZ.
MAYFLOWER, The Voyage of the.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
MAYNOOTH, Siege of.
The castle of Maynooth, held by the Irish in the rebellion of
1535, was besieged by the English, stormed and taken, March 23
of that year, and twenty-six of its defenders hanged. The
rebellion soon collapsed.
J. A. Fronde,
History of England,
chapter 8.
MAYNOOTH GRANT, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1844.
MAYO, Lord, The Indian administration and the assassination of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.
MAYOR OF THE PALACE.
"The Mayor of the Palace is met with in all the Frankish
kingdoms. … The mayors were at first merely the first
superintendents, the first administrators of the interior of
the palace of the king; the chiefs whom he put at the head of
his companions, of his leudes, still united around him. It was
their duty to maintain order among the king's men, to
administer justice, to look to all the affairs, to all the
wants, of that great domestic society. They were the men of
the king with the leudes; this was their first character,
their first state. Now for the second. After having exercised
the power of the king over his leudes, his mayors of the
palace usurped it to their own profit. The leudes, by grants
of public charges and fiefs, were not long before they became
great proprietors. This new situation was superior to that of
companions of the king; they detached themselves from him, and
united in order to defend their common interests. According as
their fortune dictated, the mayors of the palace sometimes
resisted them, more often united with them, and, at first
servants of the king, they at last became the chiefs of an
aristocracy, against whom royalty could do nothing. These are
the two principal phases of this institution: it gained more
extension and fixedness in Austrasia, in the family of the
Pepins, who possessed it almost a century and a half, than
anywhere else."
F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 19.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 5.
See, also,
FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
MAYORUNA,
BARBUDO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
MAYPO, Battle of (1818).
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
MAZACA.
"Mazaca [the capital city of ancient Cappadocia] was situated
at the base of the great volcanic mountain Argaeus (Argish),
about 13,000 feet high. … The Roman emperor Tiberius changed
the name of Mazaca to Caesareia, and it is now Kaisariyeh on
the Kara Su, a small stream which flows into the Halys (Kizil
Ermak)."
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 22.
MAZARIN, Ministry of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643, to 1659-1661.
MAZARINE BIBLE, The.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.
MAZARQUIVER, Siege of (1563).
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.
MAZES.
See LABYRINTHS.
MAZOR.
See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.
MAZZINI, Joseph, and the revolutionary movements in Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.
MEADE, General George G.:
Command of the Army of the Potomac.
Battle of Gettysburg, and after.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);
and (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
MEAL-TUB PLOT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (JUNE).
MEANEE, Battle of (1843).
See SCINDE.
MEAUX, Siege of.
The city of Meaux, on the Marne, in France, was vigorously
besieged for seven months by Henry V. of England, but
surrendered on the 10th of May, 1422.
Monstrelet,
Chronicles,
book 1, chapters 249-259.
----------MECCA: Start--------
MECCA:
Rise of Mahometanism.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: 609-632.
MECCA: A. D. 692.
Siege by the Omeyyads.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.
MECCA: A. D. 929.
Stormed and Pillaged by the Carmathians.
See CARMATHIANS.
----------MECCA: End--------
MECHANICSVILLE, Engagements at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA) THE PENINSULAR CAMPAIGN;
and (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).
----------MECHLIN: Start--------
MECHLIN: A. D. 1572.
Pillage and massacre by Alva's troops.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.
MECHLIN: A. D. 1585.
Surrender to the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
----------MECHLIN: End--------
MECKLENBURG: The Duchy bestowed on Wallenstein (1628).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
MECKLENBURG DECLARATION, The.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).
MEDAIN.
Medain, "the twin city," combined in one, under this Arabic
name, the two contiguous Persian capitals, Seleucia and
Ctesiphon. The name Medain signifies "cities," and "it is said
to have comprised a cluster of seven towns, but it is
ordinarily taken to designate the twin cities of Seleucia and
Ctesiphon."
Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapters 10 and 17.
{2120}
----------MEDIA: Start--------
MEDIA AND THE MEDES.
The country of the Medes, in its original extent, coincided
very nearly with the northwestern part of modern Persia,
between Farsistan and the Elburz mountains. "The boundaries of
Media are given somewhat differently by different writers, and
no doubt they actually varied at different periods; but the
variations were not great, and the natural limits, on three
sides at any rate, may be laid down with tolerable precision.
Towards the north the boundary was at first the mountain chain
closing in on that side the Urumiyeh basin, after which it seems
to have been held that the true limit was the Araxes, to its
entrance on the low country, and then the mountain chain west
and south of the Caspian. Westward, the line of demarcation
may be best regarded as, towards the south, running along the
centre of the Zagros region; and, above this, as formed by
that continuation of the Zagros chain which separates the
Urumiyeh from the Van basin. Eastward, the boundary was marked
by the spur from the Elburz, across which lay the pass known
as the Pylæ Caspiæ, and below this by the great salt desert,
whose western limit is nearly in the same longitude. Towards
the south there was no marked line or natural boundary. … We
may place the southern limit with much probability about the
line of the thirty-second parallel, which is nearly the
present boundary between Irak and Fars."
G. Rawlinson,
Five great Monarchies: Media,
chapter 1.
"The nation of the Medes belongs to the group of the Arian
tribes, which occupied the table-land of Iran. This has been
already proved by the statement of Herodotus that in ancient
times the Medians were called Areans by all men, by the
religion of the Medes, and by all the Median words and names
that have come down to us. According to Herodotus the nation
consisted of six tribes: the Arizanti, Busae, Struchates,
Budii, Paraetaceni, and Magi. … The Magians we have already
found to be a hereditary order of Priests."
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 1.
The Medes, who seem to have been long without any centralizing
authority among them, became, at last, united under a monarchy
which grew in power, until, in the later part of the seventh
century B. C., it combined with Babylonia against the decaying
Assyrian kingdom. Nineveh was destroyed by the confederates,
and the dominions of Assyria were divided between them. The
Median empire which then rose, by the side of the Babylonian,
endured little more than half a century. It was the first of
the conquests of Cyrus (see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521), or Kyros,
the founder of the Persian empire (B. C. 549).
A. H. Sayce,
Ancient Empires of the East,
appendix 5.
ALSO IN:
F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
book 5, chapters 1-4.
MEDIA:
The ancient religion.
See ZOROASTRIANS.
----------MEDIA: End----------
MEDIA ATROPATENE.
See ATROPATENE.
MEDIÆVAL, Belonging to the.
See MIDDLE AGES.
----------MEDICAL SCIENCE: Start--------
MEDICAL SCIENCE:
Chronology of Development.
Renouard, in his "History of Medicine," arranges the
chronology of the development of medical knowledge in three
grand divisions or Ages, subdivided into eight periods. "The
First Age commences with the infancy of society, as far back
as historic tradition carries us, and terminates toward the
end of the second century of the Christian era, at the death
of Galen, during the reign of Septimus Severus. This lapse of
time constitutes, in Medicine, the Foundation Age. The germ of
the Healing Art, concealed, at first, in the instincts of men,
is gradually developed; the basis of the science is laid, and
great principles are discussed. … The Second Age, which may
be called the Age of Transition, offers very little material
to the history of Medicine. We see no longer the conflicts and
discussions between partisans of different doctrines; the
medical sects are confounded. The art remains stationary, or
imperceptibly retrogrades. I can not better depict this epoch
than by comparing it to the life of an insect in the nympha
state; though no exterior change appears, an admirable
metamorphosis is going on, imperceptibly, within. The eye of
man only perceives the wonder after it has been finished. Thus
from the 15th century, which is the beginning of the third and
last Age of Medicine, or the Age of Renovation, Europe offers
us a spectacle of which the most glorious eras of the
republics of Greece and Rome only can give us an idea. It
would seem as if a new life was infused into the veins of the
inhabitants of this part of the world; the sciences, fine
arts, industry, religion, social institutions, all are
changed. A multitude of schools are open for teaching
Medicine. Establishments which had no models among the
ancients, are created for the purpose of extending to the
poorer classes the benefits of the Healing Art. The ingenious
activity of modern Christians explores and is sufficient for
everything. These three grand chronological divisions do not
suffice to classify, in our minds, the principal phases of the
history of Medicine; consequently, I have subdivided each age
into a smaller number of sections, easy to be retained, and
which I have named Periods. The first Age embraces four
periods, the second and third ages, each, two. … The first
period, which we name Primitive Period, or that of instinct,
ends with the ruin of Troy, about twelve centuries before the
Christian era. The second, called the Mystic or Sacred Period,
extends from the dissolution of the 'Pythagorean Society' to
about the year 500 A. C. The third period, which ends at the
foundation of the Alexandrian Library, A. C., 320, we name the
Philosophic Period. The fourth, which we designate the
Anatomic, extends to the end of the first age, i. e., to the
year 200 of the Christian era. The fifth is called the Greek
Period; it ends at the destruction of the Alexandrian Library,
A. D. 640. The sixth receives the surname of Arabic, and
closes with the 14th century. The seventh period, which begins
the third age, comprises the 15th and 16th centuries; it is
distinguished as the Erudite. Finally, the eighth, or last
period, embraces the 17th and 18th centuries [beyond which the
writer did not carry his history]. I call it the Reform
Period."
P. V. Renouard,
History of Medicine,
introduction.
MEDICAL SCIENCE:
Egyptian.
"Medicine is practised among them [the Egyptians] on a plan of
separation; each physician treats a single disorder, and no
more: thus the country swarms with medical practitioners, some
undertaking to cure diseases of the eye, others of the head,
others again of the teeth, others of the intestines, and some
those which are not local."
Herodotus,
History,
translated by Rawlinson,
book 2, chapter 84.
{2121}
"Not only was the study of medicine of very early date in
Egypt, but medical men there were in such repute that they
were sent for at various times from other countries. Their
knowledge of medicine is celebrated by Homer (Od. iv. 229),
who describes Polydamna, the wife of Thonis, as giving
medicinal plants 'to Helen, in Egypt, a country producing an
infinite number of drugs … where each physician possesses
knowledge above all other men.' 'O virgin daughter of Egypt,'
says Jeremiah (lxvi. 11), 'in vain shalt thou use many
medicines.' Cyrus and Darius both sent to Egypt for medical
men (Her. iii. 1, 132): and Pliny (xix. 5) says post mortem
examinations were made in order to discover the nature of
maladies. Doctors received their salaries from the treasury;
but they were obliged to conform in the treatment of a patient
to the rules laid down in their books, his death being a
capital crime, if he was found to have been treated in any
other way. But deviations from, and approved additions to, the
sacred prescriptions were occasionally made; and the
prohibition was only to prevent the experiments of young
practitioners, whom Pliny considers the only persons
privileged to kill a man with impunity. Aristotle indeed says
'the Egyptian physicians were allowed after the third day to
alter the treatment prescribed by authority, and even before,
taking upon themselves the responsibility' (Polit. iii. 11).
Experience gradually taught them many new remedies; and that
they had adopted a method (of no very old standing in modern
practice) of stopping teeth with gold is proved by some
mummies found at Thebes. Besides the protection of society
from the pretensions of quacks, the Egyptians provided that
doctors should not demand fees on a foreign journey or on
military service, when patients were treated free of expense
(Diod. i. 82); and we may conclude that they were obliged to
treat the poor gratis, on consideration of the allowance paid
them as a body by government. … Poor and superstitious
people sometimes had recourse to dreams, to wizards, to
donations to sacred animals, and to exvotos to the gods. …
Charms were also written for the credulous, some of which have
been found on small pieces of papyrus, which were rolled up
and worn as by the modern Egyptians. Accoucheurs were women;
which we learn from Exodus i. 15, and from the sculptures, as
in modern Egypt. … The Egyptian doctors were of the
sacerdotal order, like the embalmers, who are called (in
Genesis l. 2) 'Physicians,' and were' commanded by Joseph to
embalm his father.' They were of the class called Pastophori,
who, according to Clemens (Strom. lib. 6), being physicians,
were expected to know about all things relating to the body,
and diseases, and remedies, contained in the six last sacred
books of Hermes. Manetho tells us that Athothes, the second
king of Egypt, who was a physician, wrote the anatomical
books; and his name, translated Hermogenes, may have been the
origin of the tradition that ascribed them to Hermes, the
Egyptian Thoth. Or the fable may mean that they were the
result of intellect personified by Thoth, or Hermes."
Herodotus,
History,
translated by Rawlinson,
Note.
"The ancient Egyptians, though medical science was zealously
studied by them, also thought that the efficacy of the
treatment was enhanced by magic formulæ. In the Ebers Papyrus,
an important and very ancient manual of Egyptian medicine, the
prescriptions for various medicaments are accompanied by the
forms of exorcism to be used at the same time, and yet many
portions of this work give evidence of the advanced knowledge
of its authors."
G. Ebers,
Egypt,
volume 2, pages 61-62.
"Works on medicine abounded in Egypt from the remotest times,
and the great medical library of Memphis, which was of
immemorial antiquity, was yet in existence in the second
century before our era, when Galen visited the Valley of the
Nile. … Ateta, third king of the First Dynasty, is the
reputed author of a treatise on anatomy. He also covered
himself with glory by the invention of an infallible
hair-wash, which, like a dutiful son, he is said to have
prepared especially for the benefit of his mother. No less
than five medical papyri have come down to our time, the
finest being the celebrated Ebers papyrus, bought at Thebes by
Dr. Ebers in 1874. This papyrus contains one hundred and ten
pages, each page consisting of about twenty-two lines of bold
hieratic writing. It may be described as an Encyclopædia of
Medicine as known and practised by the Egyptians of the
Eighteenth Dynasty; and it contains prescriptions for all
kinds of diseases—some borrowed from Syrian medical lore, and
some of such great antiquity that they are ascribed to the
mythologic ages, when the gods yet reigned personally upon
earth. Among others, we are given the recipe for an
application whereby Osiris cured Ra of the headache. The
Egyptians attached great importance to these ancient medical
works, which were regarded as final. The physician who
faithfully followed their rules of treatment might kill or
cure with impunity; but if he ventured to treat the patient
according to his own notions, and if that patient died, he
paid for the experiment with his life. Seeing, however, what
the canonical remedies were, the marvel is that anybody ever
recovered from anything. Raw meat; horrible mixtures of nitre,
beer, milk, and blood, boiled up and swallowed hot; the bile
of certain fishes; and the bones, fat, and skins of all kinds
of unsavory creatures, such as vultures, bats, lizards and
crocodiles, were among their choicest remedies."
A. B. Edwards,
Pharaohs, Fellahs and Explorers,
chapter 6.
"In Egypt … man does not die, but some one or something
assassinates him. The murderer often belongs to our world, and
can be easily pointed out. … Often, though, it belongs to
the invisible world, and only reveals itself by the malignity
of its attacks: it is a god, a spirit, the soul of a dead man,
that has cunningly entered a living person, or that throws
itself upon him with irresistible violence. … Whoever treats
a sick person has therefore two equally important duties to
perform. He must first discover the nature of the spirit in
possession, and, if necessary, its name, and then attack it,
drive it out, or even destroy it. He can only succeed by
powerful magic, so he must be an expert in reciting
incantations, and skilful in making amulets. He must then use
medicine to contend with the disorders which the presence of
the strange being has produced in the body; this is done by a
finely graduated régime and various remedies. The cure-workers
are therefore divided into several categories.
{2122}
Some incline towards sorcery, and have faith in formulas and
talismen only; they think they have done enough if they have
driven out the spirit. Others extol the use of drugs; they
study the qualities of plants and minerals, describe the
diseases to which each of the substances provided by nature is
suitable, and settle the exact time when they must be procured
and applied: certain herbs have no power unless they are
gathered during the night at the full moon, others are
efficacious in summer only, another acts equally well in
winter or summer. The best doctors carefully avoid binding
themselves exclusively to either method."

G. Maspéro,
Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria,
chapter 7.
"The employment of numerous drugs in Egypt has been mentioned
by sacred and profane writers; and the medicinal properties of
many herbs which grow in the deserts, particularly between the
Nile and Red Sea, are still known to the Arabs, though their
application has been but imperfectly recorded and preserved.
… Homer, in the Odyssey, describes the many valuable
medicines given by Polydamna, the wife of Thonis, to Helen,
while in Egypt, 'a country whose fertile soil produces an
infinity of drugs, some salutary and some pernicious, where
each physician possesses knowledge above all other men'; and
Pliny makes frequent mention of the productions of that
country, and their use in medicine. He also notices the
physicians of Egypt; and as if their number was indicative of
the many maladies to which the inhabitants were subject, he
observes that it was a country productive of numerous
diseases. In this, however, he does not agree with Herodotus,
who affirms that, 'after the Libyans, there are no people so
healthy as the Egyptians, which may be attributed to the
invariable nature of the seasons in their country.' In Pliny's
time the introduction of luxurious habits and excess had
probably wrought a change in the people; and to the same cause
may be attributed the numerous complaints among the Romans,
'unknown to their fathers and ancestors.' The same author
tells us that the Egyptians examined the bodies after death,
to ascertain the nature of the diseases of which they had
died; and we can readily believe that a people so far advanced
in civilization and the principles of medicine as to assign
each physician his peculiar branch, would have resorted to
this effectual method of acquiring knowledge and experience
for the benefit of the community. It is evident that the
medical skill of the Egyptians was well known even in foreign
and distant countries; and we learn from Herodotus, that Cyrus
and Darius both sent to Egypt for medical men. … The
Egyptians, according to Pliny, claimed the honour of having
invented the art of curing diseases."
Sir J. G. Wilkinson,
Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,
chapter 10 (volume 2).
"The Ptolemies, down to the very termination of their dominion
over Egypt, appear to have encouraged the curative art, and
for the purpose of restoring declining health, surrounded
themselves with the most illustrious physicians of the age.
… The science of medicine of the period was fully
represented at the Museum by distinguished professors, who,
according to Athenæus, restored the knowledge of this art to
the towns and islands of the Grecian Archipelago. … About
the period of the absorption of the Egyptian kingdom into the
expanding dominion of the Romans, the schools of Alexandria
still continued to be the centre of medical studies; and
notwithstanding the apparent dissidence between the demands of
a strict science and public affairs, its professors exhibited,
equally with their brother philosophers, a taste for
diplomacy. Dioscorides and Serapion, two physicians of
Alexandria, were the envoys of the elder Ptolemy to Rome, and
at a later date were bearers of dispatches from Cæsar to one
of his officers in Egypt."
G. F. Fort,
Medical Economy During the Middle Ages,
chapter 3.
MEDICAL SCIENCE:
Babylonian.
The Babylonians "have no physicians, but when a man is ill,
they lay him in the public square, and the passers-by come up
to him, and if they have ever had his disease themselves or
have known anyone who has suffered from it, they give him
advice, recommending him to do whatever they found good in
their own case, or in the case known to them. And no one is
allowed to pass the sick man in silence without asking him
what his ailment is."
Herodotus,
History,
translated by G. Rawlinson,
book 1, chapter 197 (volume 1).
"The incantations against diseases describe a great variety of
cases. … But the most numerous are those which aim at the
cure of the plague, fever, and 'disease of the head;' this
latter, judging from the indications which are given of its
symptoms and its effects, appears to have been a sort of
erysipelas, or cutaneous disease. … These are the principal
passages of a long incantation against 'the disease of the
head:' the tablet on which we find it bears six other long
formulæ against the same evil. 'The disease of the head exists
on man. The disease of the head, the ulceration of the
forehead exists on man. The disease of the head marks like a
tiara, the disease of the head from sunrise to sunset. In the
sea and the vast earth a very small tiara is become the tiara,
the very large tiara, his tiara. The diseases of the head
pierce like a bull, the diseases of the head shoot like the
palpitation of the heart. … The diseases of the head, like
doves to their dove-cotes, like grasshoppers into the sky,
like birds into space may they fly away. May the invalid be
replaced in the protecting hands of his god!' This specimen
will give the reader an idea of the uniform composition of
these incantations against diseases, which filled the second
book of the work under consideration. They all follow the same
plan throughout, beginning with the definition of the disease
and its symptoms, which occupies the greater part of the
formula; and ending with a desire for deliverance from it, and
the order for it to depart. Sometimes, however, the
incantation of the magician assumes a dramatic form at the
end. … We must add … the use of certain enchanted drinks,
which, doubtless, really contained medicinal drugs, as a cure
for diseases, and also of magic knots, the efficacy of which
was so firmly believed in, even up to the middle ages. Here is
a remedy which one of the formulæ supposes to have been
prescribed by Hea against a disease of the head: 'Knot on the
right and arrange flat in regular bands, on the left a woman's
diadem; divide it twice in seven little bands; … gird the
head of the invalid with it; gird the forehead of the invalid
with it; gird the seat of life with it; gird his hands and his
feet: seat him on his bed; pour on him enchanted waters. Let
the disease of his head be carried away into the heavens like
a violent wind; … may the earth swallow it up like passing
waters!' Still more powerful than the incantations were
conjurations wrought by the power of numbers."
F. Lenormant,
Chaldean Magic,
chapters 1 and 3.
{2123}
MEDICAL SCIENCE:
Finnish.
"The Finnish incantations for exorcising the demons of
diseases were composed in exactly the same spirit, and founded
upon the same data, as the Accadian incantations destined for
the like purpose. They were formulæ belonging to the same
family, and they often showed a remarkable similarity of
language; the Egyptian incantations, on the contrary, having
been composed by people with very different ideas about the
supernatural world, assumed quite another form. This is an
incantation from one of the songs of the Kalevala: 'O malady,
disappear into the heavens; pain, rise up to the clouds;
inflamed vapour, fly into the air, in order that the wind may
take thee away, that the tempest may chase thee to distant
regions, where neither sun nor moon give their light, where
the warm wind does not inflame the flesh. O pain, mount upon
the winged steed of stone, and fly to the mountains covered
with iron. For he is too robust to be devoured by disease, to
be consumed by pains. Go, O diseases, to where the virgin of
pains has her hearth, where the daughter of Wäinämöinen cooks
pains, go to the hill of pains. There are the white dogs, who
formerly howled in torments, who groaned in their
sufferings.'"
F. Lenormant,
Chaldean Magic,
chapter 17.
MEDICAL SCIENCE:
Hindu.
"There is reason to … conclude, from the imperfect
opportunities of investigation we possess, that in medicine,
as in astronomy and metaphysics, the Hindus once kept pace
with the most enlightened nations of the world; and that they
attained as thorough a proficiency in medicine and surgery as
any people whose acquisitions are recorded, and as indeed was
practicable, before anatomy was made known to us by the
discoveries of modern enquirers. It might easily be supposed
that their patient attention and natural shrewdness would
render the Hindus excellent observers; whilst the extent and
fertility of their native country would furnish them with many
valuable drugs and medicaments. Their Nidana or Diagnosis,
accordingly, appears to define and distinguish symptoms with
great accuracy, and their Dravyabhidhana, or Materia Medica,
is sufficiently voluminous. They have also paid great
attention to regimen and diet, and have a number of works on
the food and general treatment, suited to the complaint, or
favourable to the operation of the medicine administered. This
branch they entitle Pathyapathya. To these subjects are to be
added the Chikitsa, or medical treatment of diseases—on which
subject they have a variety of compositions, containing much
absurdity, with much that is of value; and the Rasavidya, or
Pharmacy, in which they are most deficient. All these works,
however, are of little avail to the present generation, as
they are very rarely studied, and still more rarely
understood, by any of the practising empirics. The divisions
of the science thus noticed, as existing in books, exclude two
important branches, without which the whole system must be
defective—Anatomy and Surgery. We can easily imagine, that
these were not likely to have been much cultivated in
Hindustan. … The Ayur Veda, as the medical writings of
highest antiquity and authority are collectively called, is
considered to be a portion of the fourth or Atharva Veda, and
is consequently the work of Brahma—by him it was communicated
to Daksha, the Prajapati, and by him the two Aswins, or sons
of Surya, the Sun, were instructed in it, and they then became
the medical attendants of the gods—a genealogy that cannot
fail recalling to us the two sons of Esculapius, and their
descent from Apollo. Now what were the duties of the Aswins,
according to Hindu authorities?—the gods, enjoying eternal
youth and health, stood in no need of physicians, and
consequently they held no such sinecure station. The wars
between the gods and demons, however, and the conflicts
amongst the gods themselves, in which wounds might be
suffered, although death might not be inflicted, required
chirurgical aid—and it was this, accordingly, which the two
Aswins rendered. … The meaning of these legendary
absurdities is clear enough, and is conformable to the tenor
of all history. Man, in the semi-barbarous state, if not more
subject to external injuries than internal disease, was at
least more likely to seek remedies for the former, which were
obvious to his senses, than to imagine the means of relieving
the latter, whose nature he could so little comprehend.
Surgical, therefore, preceded medicinal skill; as Celsus has
asserted, when commenting on Homer's account of Podalirius and
Machaon, who were not consulted, he says, during the plague in
the Grecian camp, although regularly employed to extract darts
and heal wounds. … We may be satisfied that Surgery was once
extensively cultivated, and highly esteemed by the Hindus. Its
rational principles and scientific practice are, however, now,
it may be admitted, wholly unknown to them. … It would be an
enquiry of some interest to trace the period and causes of the
disappearance of Surgery from amongst the Hindus: it is
evidently of comparatively modern occurrence, as operative and
instrumental practice forms so principal a part of those
writings, which are undeniably most ancient; and which, being
regarded as the composition of inspired writers, are held of
the highest authority."
H. H. Wilson,
Essays on Sanskrit Literature,
pages 269-276, and 391.
"The number of medical works and authors is extraordinarily
large. The former are either systems embracing the whole
domain of the science, or highly special investigations of
single topics, or, lastly, vast compilations prepared in modern
times under the patronage of kings and princes. The sum of
knowledge embodied in their contents appears really to be most
respectable. Many of the statements on dietetics and on the
origin and diagnosis of diseases bespeak a very keen
observation. In surgery, too, the Indians seem to have
attained a special proficiency, and in this department
European surgeons might perhaps even at the present day still
learn something from them, as indeed they have already
borrowed from them the operation of rhinoplasty. The
information, again, regarding the medicinal properties of
minerals (especially precious stones and metals), of plants,
and animal substances, and the chemical analysis and
decomposition of these, covers certainly much that is
valuable. Indeed, the branch of Materia Medica generally
appears to be handled with great predilection, and this makes
up to us in some measure at least for the absence of
investigations in the field of natural science. On the
diseases, &c., of horses and elephants also there exist very
special monographs.
{2124}
For the rest, during the last few centuries medical science
has suffered great detriment from the increasing prevalence of
the notion, in itself a very ancient one, that diseases are
but the result of transgressions and sins committed, and from
the consequent very general substitution of fastings, alms,
and gifts to the Brahmans, for real remedies. … The
influence … of Hindu medicine upon the Arabs in the first
centuries of the Hijra was one of the very highest
significance; and the Khalifs of Bagdad caused a considerable
number of works upon the subject to be translated. Now, as
Arabian medicine constituted the chief authority and guiding
principle of European physicians down to the seventeenth
century, it directly follows—just as in the case of
astronomy—that the Indians must have been held in high esteem
by these latter; and indeed Charaka is repeatedly mentioned in
the Latin translations of Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Rhazes (Al
Rasi), and Serapion (Ibn Serabi)."
A. Weber,
History of Indian Literature,
pages 269-271.
MEDICAL SCIENCE:
Jewish.
"If we are to judge from the frequent mention of physicians
(Exodus xv. 26; Isaiah iii. 7; Jeremiah viii. 22; Sirach x.
11, xxxviii. 1 ff.; Matthew ix. 12; Mark v. 26; Luke iv. 23,
etc.), the Israelites must have given much attention to
medicine from ancient times. The physicians must have
understood how to heal wounds and external injuries with
bandaging, mollifying with oil (Isaiah i. 6; Luke x. 34),
balsam (Jeremiah xlvi. 11, li. 8), plasters (2 Kings xx. 7),
and salves prepared from herbs (Sirach xxxviii. 8; Exodus xxi.
19; 2 Kings viii. 29; Ezekiel xxx. 21). The ordinances
respecting leprosy also show that the lawgiver was well
acquainted with the various kinds of skin eruptions (comp.
section 114). And not only Moses, but other Israelites also
may have acquired much practical knowledge of medicine in
Egypt, where the healing art was cultivated from high
antiquity. But as to how far the Israelitish physicians
advanced in this art, we have not more exact information. From
the few scattered hints in the Old and New Testaments, so much
only is clear, that internal diseases were also treated (2
Chronicles xvi. 12; Luke viii. 43), and that the medicinal
springs which Palestine possesses were much used by invalids.
It by no means follows from the fact that the superintendence
of lepers and the pronouncing of them clean are assigned by
the law to the priests, that these occupied themselves chiefly
with medicine. The task which the law laid on them has nothing
to do with the healing of leprosy. Of the application of
charms, there is not a single instance in Scripture."
C. F. Keil,
Manual of Biblical Archæology,
volume 2, pages 276-277.
The surgery of the Talmud includes a knowledge of dislocations
of the thigh, contusions of the head, perforation of the lungs
and other organs, injuries of the spinal cord and trachea, and
fractures of the ribs. Polypus of the nose was considered to
be a punishment for past sins. In sciatica the patient is
advised to rub the hip sixty times with meat-broth. Bleeding
was performed by mechanics or barbers. The pathology of the
Talmud ascribes diseases to a constitutional vice, to evil
influences acting on the body from without, or to the effect
of magic. Jaundice is recognized as arising from retention of
the bile, dropsy from suppression of the urine. The Talmudists
divided dropsy into anasarca, ascites, and tympanites. Rupture
and atrophy of the kidneys were held to be always fatal.
Hydatids of the liver were more favourably considered.
Suppuration of the spinal cord, induration of the lungs, etc.,
are incurable. Dr. Baas says that these are 'views which may
have been based on the dissection of (dead) animals, and may
be considered the germs of pathological anatomy.' Some
critical symptoms are sweating, sneezing, defecation, and
dreams, which promise a favourable termination of the disease.
Natural remedies, both external and internal, were employed.
Magic was also Talmudic. Dispensations were given by the
Rabbis to permit sick persons to eat prohibited food. Onions
were prescribed for worms; wine and pepper for stomach
disorders; goat's milk for difficulty of breathing; emetics in
nausea; a mixture of gum and alum for menorrhagia (not a bad
prescription); a dog's liver was ordered for the bite of a mad
dog. Many drugs, such a assafœtida, are evidently adopted from
Greek medicine. The dissection of the bodies of animals
provided the Talmudists with their anatomy. It is, however,
recorded that Rabbi Ishmael, at the close of the first
century, made a skeleton by boiling the body of a prostitute.
We find that dissection in the interests of science was
permitted by the Talmud. The Rabbis counted 252 bones in the
human skeleton."
E. Berdoe,
The Origin and Growth of the Healing Art,
book 2, chapter 2.
MEDICAL SCIENCE:
Greek.
"It is well known that the oldest documents which we possess
relative to the practice of Medicine, are the various
treatises contained in the Collection which bears the name of
Hippocrates. Their great excellence has been acknowledged in
all ages, and it has always been a question which has
naturally excited literary curiosity, by what steps the art
had attained to such perfection at so early a period. … It
is clearly established that, long before the birth of
philosophy, medicine had been zealously and successfully
cultivated by the Asclepiadæ, an order of priest-physicians
that traced its origin to a mythical personage bearing the
distinguished name of Æsculapius. Two of his sons, Podalirius
and Machaon, figure in the Homeric poems, not however as
priests, but as warriors possessed of surgical skill in the
treatment of wounds, for which they are highly complimented by
the poet. It was probably some generations after this time (if
one may venture a conjecture on a matter partaking very much
of the legendary character) that Æsculapius was deified, and
that Temples of Health, called 'Asclepia,' presided over by
the Asclepiadæ, were erected in various parts of Greece, as
receptacles for the sick, to which invalids resorted in those
days for the cure of diseases, under the same circumstances as
they go to hospitals and spas at the present time. What
remedial measures were adopted in these temples we have no
means of ascertaining so fully as could be wished, but the
following facts, collected from a variety of sources, may be
pretty confidently relied upon for their accuracy. In the
first place, then, it is well ascertained that a large
proportion of these temples were built in the vicinity of
thermæ, or medicinal springs, the virtues of which would no
doubt contribute greatly to the cure of the sick. At his
entrance into the temple, the devotee was subjected to
purifications, and made to go through a regular course of
bathing, accompanied with methodical frictions, resembling the
oriental system now well known by the name of shampooing.
{2125}
Fomentations with decoctions of odoriferous herbs were also
not forgotten. A total abstinence from food was at first
prescribed, but afterwards the patient would no doubt be
permitted to partake of the flesh of the animals which were
brought to the temples as sacrifices. Every means that could
be thought of was used for working upon the imagination of the
sick, such as religious ceremonies of an imposing nature,
accompanied by music, and whatever else could arouse their
senses, conciliate their confidence, and, in certain cases,
contribute to their amusement. … It is also well known that
the Asclepiadæ noted down with great care the symptoms and
issue of every case, and that, from such observations, they
became in time great adepts in the art of prognosis. … The
office of priesthood was hereditary in certain families, so
that information thus acquired would be transmitted from
father to son, and go on accumulating from one generation to
another. Whether the Asclepiadæ availed themselves of the
great opportunities which they must undoubtedly have had of
cultivating human and comparative anatomy, has been much
disputed in modern times. … It is worthy of remark, that
Galen holds Hippocrates to have been a very successful
cultivator of anatomy. … Of the 'Asclepia' we have mentioned
above, it will naturally be supposed that some were in much
higher repute than others, either from being possessed of
peculiar advantages, or from the prevalence of fashion. In the
beginning of the fifth century before the Christian era the
temples of Rhodes, Cnidos, and Cos were held in especial
favour, and on the extinction of the first of these, another
rose up in Italy in its stead. But the temple of Cos was
destined to throw the reputation of all the others into the
background, by producing among the priests of Æsculapius the
individual who, in all after ages, has been distinguished by
the name of the Great Hippocrates. … That Hippocrates was
lineally descended from Æsculapius was generally admitted by
his countrymen, and a genealogical table, professing to give a
list of the names of his forefathers, up to Æsculapius, has
been transmitted to us from remote antiquity. … Of the
circumstances connected with the life of Hippocrates little is
known for certain. … Aulus Gellius, … in an elaborate
disquisition on Greek and Roman chronology, states decidedly
that Socrates was contemporary with Hippocrates, but younger
than he. Now it is well ascertained that the death of Socrates
took place about the year 400 A. C., and as he was then nearly
seventy years old, his birth must be dated as happening about
the year 470 A. C. … It will readily occur to the reader,
then, that our author flourished at one of the most memorable
epochs in the intellectual development of the human race. …
From his forefathers he inherited a distinguished situation in
one of the most eminent hospitals, or Temples of Health, then
in existence, where he must have enjoyed free access to all
the treasures of observations collected during many
generations, and at the same time would have an opportunity of
assisting his own father in the management of the sick. Thus
from his youth he must have been familiar with the principles
of medicine, both in the abstract and in the concrete. …
Initiated in the theory and first principles of medicine, as
now described, Hippocrates no doubt commenced the practice of
his art in the Asclepion of Cos, as his forefathers had done
before him. Why he afterwards left the place of his nativity,
and visited distant regions of the earth, whither the duties
of his profession and the calls of humanity invited him,
cannot now be satisfactorily determined. … According to all
the accounts which have come down to us of his life, he spent
the latter part of it in Thessaly, and died at Larissa, when
far advanced in years. … As a medical author the name of
Hippocrates stands pre-eminently illustrious. … Looking upon
the animal system as one whole, every part of which conspires
and sympathises with all the other parts, he would appear to
have regarded disease also as one, and to have referred all
its modifications to peculiarities of situation. Whatever may
now be thought of his general views on Pathology, all must
admit that his mode of prosecuting the cultivation of medicine
is in the true spirit of the Inductive Philosophy; all his
descriptions of disease are evidently derived from patient
observation of its phenomena, and all his rules of practice
are clearly based on experience. Of the fallaciousness of
experience by itself he was well aware, however. … Above all
others Hippocrates was strictly the physician of experience
and common sense. In short, the basis of his system was a
rational experience, and not a blind empiricism, so that the
Empirics in after ages had no good grounds for claiming him as
belonging to their sect. What he appears to have studied with
particular attention is the natural history of diseases, that
is to say, their tendencies to a favorable or fatal issue. …
One of the most distinguishing characteristics, then, of the
Hippocratic system of medicine, is the importance attached in
it to prognosis, under which was comprehended a complete
acquaintance with the previous and present condition of the
patient and the tendency of the disease. … In the practice
of surgery he was a bold operator. He fearlessly, and as we
would now think, in some cases unnecessarily, perforated the
skull with the trepan and the trephine in injuries of the
head. He opened the chest also in empyema and hydrothorax. His
extensive practice, and no doubt his great familiarity with
the accidents occurring at the public games of his country,
must have furnished him with ample opportunities of becoming
acquainted with dislocations and fractures of all kinds; and
how well he had profited by the opportunities which he thus
enjoyed, every page of his treatises 'On Fractures,' and 'On
the Articulations,' abundantly testifies."
F. Adams,
Preliminary Discourse (Genuine Works of Hippocrates),
section 1.
"The school of the Asclepiadæ has been responsible for certain
theories which have been more or less prominent during the
earlier historical days. One of these which prevailed
throughout the Hippocratic works is that of Coction and
Crisis. By the former term is meant thickening or elaboration
of humors in the body, which was supposed to be necessary for
their elimination in some tangible form. Disease was regarded
as an association of phenomena resulting from efforts made by
the conservative principles of life to effect a coction, i.
e., a combination, of the morbific matter in the economy, it
being held that the latter could not be properly expelled until
thus united and prepared so as to form excrementious material.
{2126}
This elaboration was supposed to be brought about by the vital
principles which some called nature (Phusis), some spirit
(Psyche), some breath (Pneuma), and some heat (Thermon). The
gradual climax of morbid phenomena has, since the days of
Hippocrates, been commonly known as Crisis. All this was
regarded as the announcement of the completion of this union
by coction. The day on which it was accomplished was termed
'critical,' as were also the signs which preceded or
accompanied it, and for the crisis the physician anxiously
watched. Coction having been effected and crisis occurring, it
only remained to evacuate the morbific material, which nature
sometimes spontaneously accomplished by the critical sweat,
urination, or stools; or sometimes the physician had to come
to her relief by the administration of diuretics, purgatives,
et cetera. The term 'critical period' was given to the number
of days necessary for coction, which in its perfection was
supposed to be four, the so-called quaternary, while the
septenary was also held in high consideration. … This
doctrine of crisis in disease left an impress upon the medical
mind not yet fully eliminated."
Roswell Park,
Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).
"Making no pretension … to describe the regular medical
practice among the Greeks, I shall here, nevertheless,
introduce some few particulars more or less connected with it,
which may be regarded as characteristic of the age and people.
Great were the virtues which they ascribed to the herb
alysson, (biscutella didyma,) which, being pounded and eaten
with meat cured hydrophobia. Nay, more, being suspended in the
house, it promoted the health of its inhabitants; it protected
likewise both man and cattle from enchantment; and, bound in a
piece of scarlet flannel round the necks of the latter, it
preserved them from all diseases. Coriander-seed, eaten in too
great quantity, produced, they thought, a derangement of the
intellect. Ointment of saffron had an opposite effect, for the
nostrils and heads of lunatics being rubbed therewith they
were supposed to receive considerable relief. Melampos the
goatherd was reported to have cured the daughters of Prætos of
their madness by large doses of black hellebore, which
thereafter received from him the name of Melampodion.
Sea-onions suspended over the doors preserved from
enchantment, as did likewise a branch of rhamnus over doors or
windows. A decoction of rosemary and of the leaves and stems
of the anemone was administered to nurses to promote the
secretion of milk, and a like potion prepared from the leaves
of the Cretan dittany was given to women in labour. This herb,
in order to preserve its virtues unimpaired, and that it might
be the more easily transported to all parts of the country,
was preserved in a joint of a ferula or reed. A plaster of
incense, Cimolian earth, and oil of roses, was applied to
reduce the swelling of the breasts. A medicine prepared from
mule's fern, was believed to produce sterility, as were
likewise the waters of a certain fountain near Pyrrha, while
to those about Thespiæ a contrary effect was attributed, as
well as to the wine of Heraclea in Arcadia. The inhabitants of
this primitive region drank milk as an aperient in the Spring,
because of the medicinal herbs on which the cattle were then
supposed to feed. Medicines of laxative properties were
prepared from the juice of the wild cucumber, which were said
to retain their virtues for two hundred years, though simples
in general were thought to lose their medicinal qualities in
less than four. The oriental gum called kankamon was
administered in water or honeyed vinegar to fat persons to
diminish their obesity, and also as a remedy for the
toothache. For this latter purpose the gum of the Ethiopian
olive was put into the hollow tooth, though more efficacy
perhaps was attributed to the root of dittander which they
suspended as a charm about the neck. A plaster of the root of
the white thorn or iris roots prepared with flour of copper,
honey, and great centaury, drew out thorns and arrow heads
without pain. An unguent procured from fern was sold to
rustics for curing the necks of their cattle galled by the
yoke. A decoction of marsh-mallow leaves and wine or honeyed
vinegar was administered to persons who had been stung by bees
or wasps or other insects; bites and burns were healed by an
external application of the leaf smeared with oil, and the
powdered roots cast into water caused it to freeze if placed
out during the night in the open air; an unguent was prepared
with oil from reeds, green or dry, which protected those who
anointed themselves with it from the stings of venomous
reptiles. Cinnamon unguent, or terebinth and myrtle-berries,
boiled in wine, were supposed to be a preservative against the
bite of the tarantula or scorpion, as was the pistachio nut
against that of serpents. Some persons ate a roasted scorpion
to cure its own bite; a powder, moreover, was prepared from
sea-crabs supposed to be fatal to this reptile. Vipers were
made to contribute their part to the materia medica; for,
being caught alive, they were enclosed with salt and dried
figs in a vase which was then put into a furnace till its
contents were reduced to charcoal, which they esteemed a
valuable medicine. A. considerable quantity of viper's flesh
was in the last century imported from Egypt into Venice, to be
used in the composition of medicinal treacle. From the flowers
of the sneezewort, a sort of snuff appears to have been
manufactured, though probably used only in medicines. The
ashes of old leather cured burns, galls, and blistered feet.
The common remedy when persons had eaten poisonous mushrooms
was a dose of nitre exhibited in vinegar and water; with water
it was esteemed a cure for the sting of a burncow, and with
benzoin it operated as an antidote against the poison of
bulls' blood."
J. A. St. John,
The Hellenes,
book 6, chapter 6 (volume 3).
{2127}
MEDICAL SCIENCE:
The Hippocratic Oath.
"Medical societies or schools seem to have been as ancient as
Hippocrates. The Hippocratic oath, as it is called, has been
preserved, and is one of the greatest curiosities we have
received from antiquity:
'I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, by Hygeia, by
Panacea, and by all gods and goddesses, that I will fulfil
religiously, according to the best of my power and judgment,
the solemn vow which I now make.
I will honour as my father the master who taught me the art of
medicine; his children I will consider as my brothers, and
teach them my profession without fee or reward.
I will admit to my lectures and discourses my own sons, my
master's sons, and those pupils who have taken the medical
oath; but no one else.
I will prescribe such medicines as may be best suited to the
cases of my patients, according to the best of my judgment;
and no temptation shall ever induce me to administer poison.
I will religiously maintain the purity of my character and the
honour of my art.
I will not perform the operation of lithotomy, but leave it to
those to whose calling it belongs.
Into whatever house I enter, I will enter it with the sole
view of relieving the sick, and conduct myself with propriety
towards the women of the family.
If during my attendance I happen to hear of anything that
should not be revealed, I will keep it a profound secret.
If I observe this oath, may I have success in this life, and
may I obtain general esteem after it; if I break it, may the
contrary be my lot.'"
Ancient Physic and Physicians
(Dublin University Magazine, April, 1856).
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1st Century.
Greek physicians in Rome.
Pliny's Picture.
Pliny's account of the Greek physicians in Rome in his time
(first century) is not flattering to the profession. He says:
"For the cure of King Antiochus—to give our first
illustration of the profits realized by the medical
art—Erasistratus received from his son, King Ptolemæus, the
sum of one hundred talents. … I pass over in silence many
physicians of the very highest celebrity, the Cassii, for
instance, the Calpetani, the Arruntii, and the Rubrii, men who
received fees yearly from the great, amounting to no less than
250,000 sesterces. As for Q. Stertinius, he thought that he
conferred an obligation upon the emperors in being content
with 500,000 sesterces per annum; and indeed he proved, by an
enumeration of the several houses, that a city practice would
bring him in a yearly income of not less than 600,000
sesterces. Fully equal to this was the sum lavished upon his
brother by Claudius Cæsar; and the two brothers, although they
had drawn largely upon their fortunes in beautifying the
public buildings at Neapolis, left to their heirs no less than
30,000,000 of sesterces! such an estate as no physician but
Arruntius had till then possessed. Next in succession arose
Vettius Valens, rendered so notorious by his adulterous
connection with Messalina, the wife of Claudius Cæsar, and
equally celebrated as a professor of eloquence. When
established in public favour, he became the founder of a new
sect. It was in the same age, too, during the reign of the
Emperor Nero, that the destinies of the medical art passed
into the hands of Thessalus, a man who swept away all the
precepts of his predecessors, and declaimed with a sort of
frenzy against the physicians of every age; but with what
discretion and in what spirit, we may abundantly conclude from
a single trait presented by his character—upon his tomb,
which is still to be seen on the Appian Way, he had his name
inscribed as the 'Iatronices'—the 'Conqueror of the
Physicians.' No stage-player, no driver of a three-horse
chariot, had a greater throng attending him when he appeared
in public: but he was at last eclipsed in credit by Crinas, a
native of Massilia, who, to wear an appearance of greater
discreetness and more devoutness, united in himself the
pursuit of two sciences, and prescribed diets to his patients
in accordance with the movements of the heavenly bodies, as
indicated by the almanacks of the mathematicians, taking
observations himself of the various times and seasons. It was
but recently that he died, leaving 10,000,000 of sesterces,
after having expended hardly a less sum upon building the
walls of his native place and of other towns. It was while
these men were ruling our destinies, that all at once,
Charmis, a native also of Massilia, took the City by surprise.
Not content with condemning the practice of preceding
physicians, he proscribed the use of warm baths as well, and
persuaded people, in the very depth of winter even, to immerse
themselves in cold water. His patients he used to plunge into
large vessels filled with cold water, and it was a common
thing to see aged men of consular rank make it a matter of
parade to freeze themselves; a method of treatment, in favour
of which Annæus Seneca gives his personal testimony, in
writings still extant. There can be no doubt whatever, that
all these men, in the pursuit of celebrity by the introduction
of some novelty or other, made purchase of it at the downright
expense of human life. Hence those woeful discussions, those
consultations at the bedside of the patient, where no one
thinks fit to be of the same opinion as another, lest he may
have the appearance of being subordinate to another; hence,
too, that ominous inscription to be read upon a tomb, 'It was
the multitude of physicians that killed me.' The medical art,
so often modified and renewed as it has been, is still on the
change from day to day, and still are we impelled onwards by
the puffs which emanate from the ingenuity of the Greeks. …
Cassius Hemina, one of our most ancient writers, says that the
first physician that visited Rome was Archagathus, the son of
Lysanias, who came over from Peloponnesus, in the year of the
City 535, L. Æmilius and M. Livius being consuls. He states
also, that the right of free citizenship was granted him, and
that he had a shop provided for his practice at the public
expense in the Acilian Cross-way; that from his practice he
received the name of 'Vulnerarius'; that on his arrival he was
greatly welcomed at first, but that soon afterwards, from the
cruelty displayed by him in cutting and searing his patients,
he acquired the new name of 'Carnifex,' and brought his art
and physicians in general into considerable disrepute. That
such was the fact, we may readily understand from the words of
M. Cato, a man whose authority stands so high of itself, that
but little weight is added to it by the triumph which he
gained, and the Censorship which he held. I shall, therefore,
give his own words in reference to this subject. 'Concerning
those Greeks, son Marcus, I will speak to you more at length
on the befitting occasion. I will show you the results of my
own experience at Athens, and that, while it is a good plan to
dip into their literature, it is not worth while to make a
thorough acquaintance with it. They are a most iniquitous and
intractable race, and you may take my word as the word of a
prophet, when I tell you, that whenever that nation shall
bestow its literature upon Rome it will mar everything; and
that all the sooner, if it sends its physicians among us. They
have conspired among themselves to murder all barbarians with
their medicine; a profession which they exercise for lucre, in
order that they may win our confidence, and dispatch us all
the more easily. They are in the common habit, too, of calling
us barbarians, and stigmatize us beyond all other nations, by
giving us the abominable appellation of Opici.
{2128}
I forbid you to have anything to do with physicians.' Cato,
who wrote to this effect, died in his eighty-fifth year, in
the year of the City 605; so that no one is to suppose that he
had not sufficient time to form his experience, either with
reference to the duration of the republic, or the length of
his own life. Well then—are we to conclude that he has
stamped with condemnation a thing that in itself is most
useful? Far from it, by Hercules! … Medicine is the only one
of the arts of Greece, that, lucrative as it is, the Roman
gravity has hitherto refused to cultivate. It is but very few
of our fellow-citizens that have even attempted it."
Pliny,
Natural History
(Bohn's translation),
book 29, chapters 3-8 (volume 5).
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 2d Century.
Galen and the development of Anatomy and Pathology.
"In the earliest conceptions which men entertained of their
power of moving their own members, they probably had no
thought of any mechanism or organization by which this was
effected. The foot and the hand, no less than the head, were
seen to be endowed with life; and this pervading life seemed
sufficiently to explain the power of motion in each part of
the frame, without its being held necessary to seek out a
special seat of the will, or instruments by which its impulses
were made effective. But the slightest inspection of dissected
animals showed that their limbs were formed of a curious and
complex collection of cordage, and communications of various
kinds, running along and connecting the bones of the skeleton.
These cords and communications we now distinguish as muscles,
nerves, veins, arteries, &c.; and among these, we assign to
the muscles the office of moving the parts to which they are
attached, as cords move the parts of a machine. Though this
action of the muscles on the bones may now appear very
obvious, it was, probably, not at first discerned. It is
observed that Homer, who describes the wounds which are
inflicted in his battles with so much apparent anatomical
precision, nowhere employs the word muscle. And even
Hippocrates of Cos, the most celebrated physician of
antiquity, is held to have had no distinct conception of such
an organ. … Nor do we find much more distinctness on this
subject even in Aristotle, a generation or two later. … He
is held to have really had the merit of discovering the nerves
of sensation, which he calls the 'canals of the brain' … ,
but the analysis of the mechanism of motion is left by him
almost untouched. … His immediate predecessors were far from
remedying the deficiencies of his doctrines. Those who
professed to study physiology and medicine were, for the most
part, studious only to frame some general system of abstract
principles, which might give an appearance of connexion and
profundity to their tenets. In this manner the successors of
Hippocrates became a medical school, of great note in its day,
designated as the Dogmatic school; in opposition to which
arose an Empiric sect, who professed to deduce their modes of
cure, not from theoretical dogmas, but from experience. These
rival parties prevailed principally in Asia Minor and Egypt,
during the time of Alexander's successors,—a period rich in
names, but poor in discoveries; and we find no clear evidence
of any decided advance in anatomy. … The victories of
Lucullus and Pompeius, in Greece and Asia, made the Romans
acquainted with the Greek philosophy; and the consequence soon
was, that shoals of philosophers, rhetoricians, poets, and
physicians streamed from Greece, Asia Minor, and Egypt, to
Rome and Italy, to traffic their knowledge and their arts for
Roman wealth. Among these was one person whose name makes a
great figure in the history of medicine, Asclepiades of Prusa
in Bithynia. This man appears to have been a quack, with the
usual endowments of his class. … He would not, on such
accounts, deserve a place in the history of science, but that
he became the founder of a new school, the Methodic, which
professed to hold itself separate both from the Dogmatics and
the Empirics. I have noticed these schools of medicine,
because, though I am not able to state distinctly their
respective merits in the cultivation of anatomy, a great
progress in that science was undoubtedly made during their
domination, of which the praise must, I conceive, be in some
way divided among them. The amount of this progress we are
able to estimate, when we come to the works of Galen, who
flourished under the Antonines, and died about A. D. 203. The
following passage from his works will show that this progress
in knowledge was not made without the usual condition of
laborious and careful experiment, while it implies the curious
fact of such experiment being conducted by means of family
tradition and instruction, so as to give rise to a caste of
dissectors. In the opening of his Second Book on Anatomical
Manipulations, he speaks thus of his predecessors: 'I do not
blame the ancients, who did not write books on anatomical
manipulation; though I praise Marinus, who did. For it was
superfluous for them to compose such records for themselves or
others, while they were, from their childhood, exercised by
their parents in dissecting, just as familiarly as in writing
and reading; so that there was no more fear of their
forgetting their anatomy, than of forgetting their alphabet.
But when grown men, as well as children, were taught, this
thorough discipline fell off; and, the art being carried out
of the family of the Asclepiads, and declining by repeated
transmission, books became necessary for the student.' That
the general structure of the animal frame, as composed of
bones and muscles, was known with great accuracy before the
time of Galen, is manifest from the nature of the mistakes and
deficiencies of his predecessors which he finds it necessary
to notice. … Galen was from the first highly esteemed as an
anatomist. He was originally of Pergamus; and after receiving
the instructions of many medical and philosophical professors,
and especially of those of Alexandria, which was then the
metropolis of the learned and scientific world, he came to
Rome, where his reputation was soon so great as to excite the
envy and hatred of the Roman physicians. The emperors Marcus
Aurelius and Lucius Verus would have retained him near them;
but he preferred pursuing his travels, directed principally by
curiosity. When he died, he left behind him numerous works, an
of them of great value for the light they throw on the history
of anatomy and medicine; and these were for a long period the
storehouse of all the most important anatomical knowledge
which the world possessed. In the time of intellectual
barrenness and servility, among the Arabians and the Europeans
of the dark ages, the writings of Galen had almost unquestioned
authority; and it was only by an uncommon effort of
independent thinking that Abdollatif ventured to assert, that
even Galen's assertions must give way to the evidence of the
senses. In more modern times, when Vesalius, in the sixteenth
century, accused Galen of mistakes, he drew upon himself the
hostility of the whole body of physicians."
W. Whewell,
History of the Inductive Sciences,
book 17, chapter 1, section 1 (volume 2).
{2129}
"Galen strongly denied being attached to any of the sects of
his day, and regarded as slaves those who took the title of
Hippocratists, Praxagoreaus, or Herophilists, and so on.
Nevertheless his predilection in favor of the Hippocratic
writings is well marked, for he explains, comments upon them,
and amplifies them at length, refutes the objections of their
adversaries and gives them the highest place. He says, 'No one
before me has given the true method of treating disease;
Hippocrates, I confess, has heretofore shown the path, but as
he was the first to enter it he was not able to go as far as
he wished. … He has not made all the necessary distinction,
and is often obscure, as is usually the case with ancients
when they attempt to be concise. He says very little of
complicated diseases; in a word, he has only sketched what
another was to complete; he has opened the path, but has left
it for a successor to enlarge and make it plain.' This implies
how he regarded himself as the successor of Hippocrates, and
how little weight he attached to the labors of others. He held
that there were three sorts of principles in man—spirits,
humors, and solids. Throughout his metaphysical speculations
Galen reproduces and amplifies the Hippocratic dogmatism.
Between perfect health and disease there were, he thought,
eight kinds of temperaments or imperfect mixtures compatible
with the exercise of the functions of life. With Plato and
Aristotle he thought the human soul to be composed of three
faculties or parts, the vegetive, residing in the liver; the
irascible, having its seat in the heart, and the rational,
which resided in the brain. He divided diseases of the solids
of the body into what he called distempers; he distinguished
between the continued and intermittent fevers, regarding the
quotidian as being caused by phlegm, the tertian as due to
yellow bile, and the quartan due to atrabile. In the doctrine
of coction, crises, and critical days, he agreed with
Hippocrates; with him he also agreed in the positive statement
that diseases are cured by their contraries."
Roswell Park,
Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11th Centuries.
Medical Art of the Arabs.
"It probably sounds paradoxical (though it is not) to affirm
that, throughout the first half of the Middle Ages, science
made its home chiefly with the Semites and Græco-Romans (its
founders), while, in opposition to the original relations,
faith and its outgrowths alone were fostered by the Germans.
In the sterile wastes of the desert the Arabians constructed a
verdant oasis of science, in lands to-day the home once more
of absolute or partial barbarism. A genuine meteor of
civilization were these Arabians. … The Arabians built their
medicine upon the principles and theories of the Greeks (whose
medical writings were studied and copied mostly in
translations only), and especially upon those of Galen, in
such a way, that, on the whole, they added to it very little
matter of their own, save numerous subtle definitions and
amplifications. But Indian medical views and works, as well as
those of other earlier Asiatic peoples (e. g., the Chaldeans),
exercised demonstrably, but in a subordinate degree, an
influence upon Arabian medicine. The Arabians interwove too
into their medical views various philosophical theorems,
especially those of Aristotle, already corrupted by the
Alexandrians and still further falsified by themselves with
portions of the Neo-Platonic philosophy; and finally they
added thereto a goodly share of the absurdities of astrology
and alchemy. Indeed it is nowadays considered proven that they
even made use of ancient Egyptian medical works, e. g., the
papyrus Ebers. Thus the medicine of the Arabians, like Grecian
medicine its parent, did not greatly surpass the grade of
development of mere medical philosophy, and, so far as regards
its intrinsic worth, it stands entirely upon Grecian
foundations. … Yet they constantly advanced novelties in the
sciences subsidiary to medicine, materia medica and pharmacy,
from the latter of which chemistry, pharmacies and the
profession of the apothecary were developed. … The mode of
transfer of Greek medicine to the Arabians was probably as
follows: The inhabitants of the neighboring parts of Asia,
including both the Persians and Arabians, as the result of
multifarious business connexions with Alexandria, came, even
at an early date, in contact with Grecian science, and by
degrees a permanent alliance was formed with it. In a more
evident way the same result was accomplished by the Jewish
schools in Asia, the great majority of which owed their
foundation to Alexandria. Such schools were established at
Nisibis, at Nahardea in Mesopotamia, at Mathæ-Mechasja on the
Euphrates, at Sura, &c., and their period of prime falls in
the 5th century. The influence of the Nestorian universities
was especially favorable and permanent, particularly the
school under Greek management founded at Edessa, in
Mesopotamia, where Stephen of Edessa, the reputed father of
Alexander of Tralles, taught (A. D. 530). …. Still more
influential in the transfer of Grecian science to the Arabians
was the banishment of the 'heathen' philosophers of the last
so-called Platonic school of Athens, by the 'Christian' despot
Justinian I. (529). These philosophers were well received at
the court of the infidel Chosroës, and in return manifested
their gratitude by the propagation of Grecian science. …
From all these causes it resulted that, even as early as the
time of Mohammed (571-632), physicians educated in the Grecian
doctrines lived among the Arabians. … Arabian culture (and
of course Arabian medicine) reached its zenith at the period
of the greatest power and greatest wealth of the Caliphate in
the 9th and 10th centuries. At that time intellectual life was
rooted in the schools of the mosques, i. e., the Arabian
universities, which the great caliphs were zealous in
founding. Such Arabian universities arose and existed in the
progress of time (even as late as the 14th century) at Bagdad,
Bassora, Cufa, Samarcand, Ispahan, Damascus, Bokhara,
Firuzabad and Khurdistan, and under the scholastic Fatimides
(909-1171) in Alexandria. Under the Ommyiades (755-1031),
after the settlement of the Arabians in Spain in the beginning
of the 8th century, were founded the famous universities of
Cordova (possessing in the 10th century a library of 250,000
volumes), Seville, Toledo, Almeria and Murcia under the three
caliphs named Abderrahman and Al Hakem.
{2130}
Less important were the universities of Granada and Valencia,
and least important of all, those founded by the Edrisi
dynasty (800-986) in the provinces of Tunis, Fez and Morocco.
In spite of all these institutions the Arabians possessed no
talent for productive research; still less, like the ancient
Semites, did they create any arts, save poesy and
architecture. Their whole civilization bore the stamp of its
foreign origin. … 'The Prince of Physicians' (el Sheik el
Reis—he was also a poet) was the title given by the Arabians
to Abu Ali el Hossein ebn Abdallah ebn Sina (Ebn Sina,

Avicenna), 980-1037, in recognition of his great erudition, of
which the chief evidences are stored in his 'Canon.' This
work, though it contains substantially merely the conclusions
of the Greeks, was the text-book and law of the healing art,
even as late as the first century of modern times."
J. H. Baas,
Outlines of the History of Medicine,
pages 216-229.
"The Saracens commenced the application of chemistry, both to
the theory and practice of medicine, in the explanation of the
functions of the human body and in the cure of its diseases.
Nor was their surgery behind their medicine. Albucasis, of
Cordova, shrinks not from the performance of the most
formidable operations in his own and in the obstetrical art;
the actual cautery and the knife are used without hesitation.
He has left us ample descriptions of the surgical instruments
then employed; and from him we learn that, in operations on
females in which considerations of delicacy intervened, the
services of properly instructed women were secured. How
different was all this from the state of things in Europe: the
Christian peasant, fever-stricken or overtaken by accident,
hied to the nearest saint-shrine and expected a miracle; the
Spanish Moor relied on the prescription or lancet of his
physician, or the bandage and knife of his surgeon."
J. W. Draper,
History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
volume 2, chapter 2.
"The accession of Gehwer to the throne of Mussulman Spain,
early in the eleventh century, was marked by the promulgation
of regulations so judiciously planned, touching medical
science and its practice, that he deserves the highest
commendation for the unwavering zeal with which he supervised
this important branch of learning taught in the metropolis.
Those evils which the provinces had suffered previous to his
rule, through the practice of medicine by debased empirics,
were quickly removed by this sagacious Caliph. Upon the
publication of his rescripts, such medical charlatans or
ambulatory physicians as boldly announced themselves to be
medici, without a knowledge of the science, were ignominiously
expelled from the provincial towns. He decreed that a college
of skilled surgeons should be forthwith organized, for the
single specified function of rigidly examining into the
assumed qualifications of applicants for licenses to exercise
the curative art in municipal or rural departments, or sought
professional employment as physicians in the numerous
hospitals upon the Mahometan domains."
G. F. Fort,
Medical Economy during the Middle Ages,
chapter 17.
"Anatomy and physiology, far from making any conquests under
Arabian rule, followed on the contrary a retrograde movement.
As those physicians never devoted themselves to dissections,
they were under the necessity of conforming entirely to the
accounts of Galen. … Pathology was enriched in the Arabian
writings by some new observations. … The physicians of this
nation were the first … who began to distinguish eruptive
fevers by the exterior characters of the eruption, while the
Greeks paid but little attention to these signs. Therapeutics
made also some interesting acquisitions under the Arab
physicians. It owes to them, among other things, the
introduction of mild purgatives, such as cassia, senna, and
manna, which replaced advantageously, in many cases, the
drastics employed by the ancients; it is indebted to them,
also, for several chemical and pharmaceutical improvements, as
the confection of syrups, tinctures, and distilled waters,
which are very frequently and usefully employed. Finally,
external therapeutics, or surgery, received some minor
additions, such as pomades, plasters, and new ointments; but
these additions were very far from compensating for the
considerable losses which it suffered by their abandoning a
multitude of operations in use among the Greeks."
P. V. Renouard,
History of Medicine,
page 267.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17th Centuries.
Mediæval Medicine.
"The difficulties under which medical science laboured may be
estimated from the fact that dissection was forbidden by the
clergy of the Middle Ages, on the ground that it was impious
to mutilate a form made in the image of God. We do not find
this pious objection interfering with such mutilation when
effected by means of the rack and the wheel and such other
clerical rather than medical instruments. But in the reign of
Philip the Second of Spain a famous Spanish doctor was
actually condemned by the Inquisition to be burnt for having
performed a surgical operation, and it was only by royal
favour that he was permitted instead to expiate his crime by a
pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where he died in poverty and
exile. This being the attitude of the all-powerful Church
towards medical progress, it is not surprising that medical
science should have stagnated, and that Galen and Dioscorides
were permitted to lay down the law in the sixteenth century as
they had done since the beginning of the Christian era. Some
light is thrown upon the state of things here from resulting
by a work translated from the German in the year 1561, and
entitled 'A most excellent and perfecte homish apothecarye or
physicke booke, for all the grefes and diseases of the bodye.'
The first chapter is 'Concerning the Head and his partes.'
'Galen sayth, the head is divided into foure partes: in the
fore part hath blood the dominion; Colera in the ryght syde,
Melancholy in the left syde, and Flegma beareth rule in the
hindermost part. If the head doth ake so sore by reason of a
runninge that he cannot snoffe hys nose, bath hys fete in a
depe tub untill the knees and give him this medicine … which
riseth into hys head and dryeth hys moyst braynes. Galen sayth
He that hath payne in the hindermost part of hys head, the
same must be let blood under the chynne, specially on the
right side; also were it good ofte to burn the heyre of a man
before hys nose. The braynes are greved many wayes; many there
are whom the head whyrleth so sore that he thinketh the earth
turneth upsydedoune: Cummin refraineth the whyrling,
comforteth the braynes and maketh them to growe agayne: or he
may take the braynes of a hogge, rost the same upon a grede
yron and cut slices thereof and lay to the greved parts.'
{2131}
This doctrine of like helping like was of universal
application, and in medical works of the Middle Ages we meet
constantly with such prescriptions as these:—'Take the right
eye of a Frogg, lap it in a peece of russet cloth and hang it
about the neck: it cureth the light eye if it bee en flamed or
bleared. And if the left eye be greved, do the like by the
left eye of the said Frogg." Again—'The skin of a Raven's
heel is good against the gout, but the right heel skin must be
laid upon the right foot if that be gouty, and the left upon
the left. … If you would have a man become bold or impudent
let him carry about him the skin or eyes of a Lion or a Cock,
and he will be fearless of his enemies, nay, he will be very
terrible unto them. If you would have him talkative, give him
tongues, and seek out those of water frogs and ducks and such
creatures notorious for their continuall noise making.' On the
same principle we find it prescribed as a cure for the
quartane ague to lay the fourth book of Homer's Iliad under
the patient's head; a remedy which had at least the negative
merit of not being nauseous. … For weak eyes the patient is
to 'take the tounge of a foxe, and hange the same about his
necke, and so long it hangeth there his sight shall not wax
feeble, as sayth Pliny.' The hanging of such amulets round the
neck was very frequently prescribed, and the efficacy of them
is a thing curiously well attested. Elias Ashmole in his diary
for 1681 has entered the following—'I tooke this morning a
good dose of elixir, and hung three spiders about my neck, and
they drove my ague away. Deo gratias!' A baked toad hung in a
silk bag about the neck was also held in high esteem, as was a
toad, either alive or dried, laid upon the back of the neck as
a means of stopping a bleeding at the nose: and again, 'either
frogg or toade, the nails whereof have been clipped, hanged
about one that is sick of quartane ague, riddeth away the
disease forever, as sayth Pliny.' We have even a striking
instance of the benefit derived from an amulet by a horse, who
could not be suspected of having helped forward the cure by
the strength of his faith in it. 'The root of cut Malowe
hanged about the neck driveth away blemishes of the eyen,
whether it be in a man or a horse, as I Jerome of Brunsweig,
have seene myselfe. I have myselfe done it to a blind horse
that I bought for X crounes, and was sold again of XL
crounes'—a trick distinctly worth knowing."
E. A. King,
Mediæval Medicine
(Nineteenth Century, July 1893).
"If we survey the social and political state of Europe from
the twelfth to the sixteenth century, in its relation to the
development of medical art, our attention is at once arrested
by Italy, which at this period was far ahead of the rest of
the world. Taking the number of universities as an index of
civilization, we find that, before the year 1500, there were
sixteen in Italy,—while in France there were but six: in
Germany, including Hungary, Bohemia, Bavaria, &c., there were
eight: and in Britain, two; making sixteen in all,—the exact
number which existed in Italy alone. The Italian Universities
were, likewise, no less superior in number than in fame to
those of the north. … In many of the Italian republics,
during the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, the
power was chiefly in the hands of the middle classes; and it
is probable that the physicians occupied a high and
influential position among them. Galvanis Flamma describes
Milan in 1288, as having a population of 200,000, among whom
were 600 notaries, 200 physicians, 80 schoolmasters, and fifty
transcribers of manuscripts or books. Milan was about this
period at a pitch of glory which has not been equalled since
the Greek republics."
J. R. Russell,
History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
chapter 5.
"Three schools, as early as 1158, had a reputation which
extended throughout the whole of Europe: Paris for theological
studies, Bologna for Roman or civil law, and Salerno as the
chief medical school of the west."
G. F. Fort,
Medical Economy during the Middle Ages,
chapter 24.
"In 1215 Pope Innocent III. fulminated an anathema specially
directed against surgery, by ordaining, that as the church
abhorred all cruel or sanguinary practices, no priest should
be permitted to follow surgery, or to perform any operations
in which either instruments of steel or fire were employed:
and that they should refuse their benediction to all those who
professed and pursued it. … The saints have proved sad
enemies to the doctors. Miraculous cures are attested by
monks, abbots, bishops, popes, and consecrated saints. …
Pilgrimages and visits to holy shrines have usurped the place
of medicine, and, as in many cases at our own watering places,
by air and exercise, have unquestionably effected what the
employment of regular professional aid had been unable to
accomplish. St. Dominic, St. Bellinus, and St. Vitus have been
greatly renowned in the cure of diseases in general; the
latter particularly, who takes both poisons and madness of all
kinds under his special protection. Melton says 'the saints of
the Romanists have usurped the place of the zodiacal
constellations in their governance of the parts of man's body,
and that "for every limbe they have a saint." Thus St. Otilia
keepes the head instead of Aries; St. Blasius is appointed to
governe the necke instead of Taurus; St. Lawrence keepes the
backe and shoulders instead of Gemini, Cancer, and Leo: St.
Erasmus rules the belly with the entrayles, in the place of
Libra and Scorpius; in the stead of Sagittarius, Capricornus,
Aquarius, and Pisces, the holy church of Rome hath elected St.
Burgarde, St. Rochus. St. Quirinus, St. John, and many others,
which governe the thighes, feet, shinnes, and knees.' This
supposed influence of the Romish saints is more minutely
exhibited, according to Hone, in two very old prints, from
engravings on wood, in the collection of the British Museum.
Right hand: the top joint of the thumb is dedicated to God,
the second joint to the Virgin; the top joint of the
fore-finger to St. Barnabas, the second joint to St. John, the
third to St. Paul: the top joint of the second finger to Simon
Cleophas, the second joint to Tathideo, the third to Joseph;
the top joint of the third finger to Zaccheus, the second to
Stephen, the third to the evangelist Luke; the top joint of
the little finger to Leatus, the second to Mark, the third to
Nicodemus. Left hand: the top joint of the thumb is dedicated
to Christ, the second joint to the Virgin: the top joint of
the fore-finger to St. James, the second to St. John the
Evangelist, the third to St. Peter; the first joint of the
second finger to St. Simon, the second joint to St. Matthew,
the third to St. James the Great; the top joint of the third
finger to St. Jude, the second joint to St. Bartholomew, the
third to St. Andrew; the top joint of the little finger to St.
Matthias, the second to St. Thomas, the third joint to St.
Philip. …
{2132}
"The credulity of mankind has never been more strongly
displayed than in the general belief afforded to the
authenticity of remarkable cures of diseases said to have been
effected by the imposition of royal hands. The practice seems
to have originated in an opinion that there is something
sacred or divine attaching either to the sovereign or his
functions. … The practice appears to be one of English
growth, commencing with Edward the Confessor, and descending
only to foreign potentates who could show an alliance with the
royal family of England. The kings of France, however, claimed
the right to dispense the Gift of Healing, and it was
certainly exercised by Philip the First; but the French
historians say that he was deprived of the power on account of
the irregularity of his life. Laurentius, first physician to
Henry IV, of France, who is indignant at the attempt made to
derive its origin from Edward the Confessor, asserts the power
to have commenced with Clovis I, A. D. 481, and says that
Louis I, A. D. 814, added to the ceremonial of touching, the
sign of the cross. Mezeray also says, that St. Louis, through
humility, first added the sign of the cross in touching for
the king's evil. … If credit is to be given to a statement
… by William of Malmesbury, with respect to Edward the
Confessor, we must admit that in England, for a period of
nearly 700 years, the practice of the royal touch was
exercised in a greater or lesser degree, as it extended to the
reign of Queen Anne. It must not however be supposed that
historical documents are extant to prove a regular continuance
of the practice during this time. No accounts whatever of the
first four Norman kings attempting to cure the complaint are
to be found. In the reign of William III, it was not on any
occasion exercised. He manifested more sense than his
predecessors, for he withheld from employing the royal touch
for the cure of scrofula; and Rapin says, that he was so
persuaded he should do no injury to persons afflicted with
this distemper by not touching them, that he refrained from it
all his reign. Queen Elizabeth was also averse to the
practice, yet she extensively performed it. It flourished most
in the time of Charles II, particularly after his restoration,
and a public register of cases was kept at Whitehall, the
principal scene of its operation."
T. J. Pettigrew,
Superstitions connected with the History and Practice
of Medicine and Surgery,
pages 34-37, and 117-121.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.
Paracelsus.
Paracelsus, of whose many names this one stands alone in
history to represent him, was an extraordinary person, born in
Switzerland, in 1493. He died in 1541. "His character has been
very variously estimated. The obstructives of his own age and
many hasty judges since have pronounced him a quack. This is
simply ridiculous. As a chemist, he is considered to have been
the discoverer of zinc, and perhaps of bismuth. He was
acquainted with hydrogen, muriatic, and sulphurous gases. He
distinguished alum from the vitriols; remarking that the
former contained an earth, and the latter metals. He perceived
the part played by the atmosphere in combustion, and
recognized the analogy between combustion and respiration. He
saw that in the organic system chemical processes are
constantly going on. Thus, to him is due the fundamental idea
from which have sprung the chemico-physiological researches of
Liebig, Mulder, Boussingault, and others. By using in
medicine, not crude vegetables, but their active principles,
he opened the way to the discovery of the proximate principles
of vegetables, organic alkalis, and the like. But perhaps the
greatest service he rendered to chemistry, was by declaring it
an essential part of medical education, and by showing that
its true practical application lay not in gold-making, but in
pharmacy and the industrial arts. In medicine he scouted the
fearfully complex electuaries and mixtures of the Galenists
and the Arabian polypharmacists, recommending simpler and more
active preparations. He showed that the idea of poison is
merely relative, and knew that poisons in suitable doses may
be employed in medicine. He prescribed tin as a remedy for
intestinal worms, mercury as an anti-syphilitic, and lead in
the diseases of the skin. He also used preparations of
antimony, arsenic, and iron. He employed sulphuric acid in the
treatment of saturnine affections. The astonishing cures which
he undoubtedly performed were, however, due not so much to his
peculiar medicines, as to his eminent sagacity and insight. He
showed the importance of a chemical examination of urine for
the diagnosis of disease."
J. W. Slater,
Paracelsus
(Imperial Dict. of Univ. Biog.).
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.
The first English College of Physicians.
"The modern doctor dates only from the reign of Henry VIII.,
when the College of Physicians in England was founded as a
body corporate by letters patent in the tenth year of the
reign. This grant was in response to a petition from a few of
the most notable members of the profession resident in London,
who were perhaps moved by both a laudable zeal in the
interests of science, and a compassion for the sufferings of
the subjects of astrological and toxicological experiments.
The charter thus obtained, though probably drafted by the
promoters themselves, was found to be so inadequately worded
and expressed, that it became necessary to obtain powers to
amend it by Act of Parliament. Among these early members were
Linacre, Wotton, and others, famous scholars beyond doubt,
though possibly but indifferent practitioners. In fact, we are
constantly struck throughout the early history of the
profession by the frequent occurrence of names associated with
almost every other branch of study than that strictly
appertaining to the art of medicine. We have naturalists,
magneticians, astronomers, mathematicians, logicians, and
classical scholars, but scarce one who accomplished anything
worthy to be recorded in the annals of medical science. Indeed
it is difficult to conceive any useful object that could have
been attained by the existence of the College as a
professional licensing body, other than the pecuniary
interests of the orthodox. … It is most significant as to
the social degradation of the science of medicine, that most
of the notorious empirics of the latter half of the sixteenth
century were both highly recommended and strenuously supported
in their resistance to the proctors of orthodoxy by some of
the greatest names of the age. These self-deluded victims of
quackery were not indeed adverse in theory to the pretensions
of more regular members of the profession.
{2133}
They would patronize the Court physicians, or, if favorites of
the Crown, they might even submit to the Sovereign's
recommendation in that behalf; but none the less their family
doctor was in far too many cases some outlandish professor of
occult arts, retained in learned state on the premises, who
undertook the speedy, not to say miraculous, cure of his
patron's particular disease by all the charms of the Cabala."
H. Hall,
The Early Medicus
(Merry England; also in Eclectic Magazine, June, 1884).
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.
The System of Van Helmont.
John Baptist van Helmont "was born at Brussels in the year
1577. … His parents were noble, and he was heir to great
possessions. He pursued in Louvain the usual course of
scholastic philosophy. … Becoming accidentally acquainted
with the writings of Thomas à Kempis and John Tauler, he from
that day adopted what goes by the vague term of mysticism.
That is, thoroughly convinced that there was a spiritual world
in intimate and eternal union with the spirit of man; that
this spiritual world was revealed to that human soul which
submitted to receive it in humility; and that the doctrines of
Christianity were not to be looked upon as a system of
philosophy; but as a rule of life, he resolved to follow them
to the letter. The consequence of this resolution was, that he
devoted himself to the art of medicine, in imitation of the
Great Healer of the body as well as of the soul; and as the
prejudices of his time and country made his rank and wealth an
obstacle to his entrance into the medical profession, he made
over all his property, with its honours, to his sister; that,
'laying aside every weight, he might run the race that was set
before him.' He entered on his new studies with all the zeal
of his character, and very soon had so completely mastered the
writings of Hippocrates and Galen, as to excite the surprise
of his contemporaries. But although styled a dreamer, and
having a mind easily moved to belief in spiritual
manifestation, he was not of a credulous nature in regard to
matters belonging to the senses. And as he believed that
Christianity was to be practised, and to be found true by the
test of experiment, so he believed that the doctrines of
Hippocrates and of Galen were to be subjected to a similar
trial. An opportunity soon occurred to himself. He caught the
itch and turned to Galen for its cure. Galen attributes this
disease to overheated bile and sour phlegm, and says that it
is to be cured by purgatives. Van Helmont, with the implicit
faith of his simple nature, procured the prescribed medicines,
and took them as ordered by Galen. Alas, no cure of the itch
followed, but great exhaustion of his whole body: so Galen was
not to be trusted. This was a serious discovery; for if he
could not trust Galen, by whom the whole medical world swore,
to whom was he to turn? … Van Helmont resolved to work out
for himself a solution of the great problem to which he had
devoted his life. Van Helmont's system may be called spiritual
vitalism. The primary cause of all organization was Archæus.
By Archæus, a man is much more nearly allied, he says, to the
world of spirits and the Father of spirits than to the
external world. Archæus is the creative spirit which, working
upon the raw material of water or fluidity, by means of 'a
ferment' excites all the endless actions which result in the
growth and nourishment of the body. Thus, digestion is neither
a chemical nor a mechanical operation; nor is it, as was then
supposed, the effects of heat, for it is arrested instead of
aided by fever, and goes on in perfection in fishes and
cold-blooded animals; but, on the command of Archæus, an acid
is generated in the stomach, which dissolves the food. This is
the first digestion. The second consists in the neutralization
of this acid by the bile out of the gall bladder. The third
takes place in the vessels of the mesentery. The fourth goes
on in the heart, by the action of the vital spirits. The fifth
consists in the conversion of the arterial blood into vital
spirits, chiefly in the brain. The sixth consists of the
preparation of nourishment in the laboratory of each organ,
during which operation Archæus, present everywhere, is itself
regenerated, and superintends the momentary regeneration of
the whole frame. If for digestion we substitute the word
nutrition, we cannot fail to be struck by the near approach to
accuracy in this description of the succession of processes by
which it is brought about. Van Helmont's pathology was quite
consistent with his physiology. As life and all vital action
depended upon Archæus, so the perturbation of Archæus gave
rise to fevers, and derangements of the blood and secretions.
Thus, gout was a disease not confined to the part in which it
showed itself, but was the result of Archæus. It will be seen
that by this theory the entire system of Galen was non-suited.
There is no place for the elements and the humours."
J. R. Russell,
History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
chapter 8.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
Harvey and the Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood.
William Harvey, "physician and discoverer of the circulation
of the blood, was born at Folkestone, Kent, 1 April 1578, in a
house which was in later times the posthouse of the town and
which still belongs to Caius College, Cambridge, to which
Harvey bequeathed it. His father was Thomas Harvey, a Kentish
yeoman. … In 1588 William was sent to the King's School,
Canterbury. Thence he went to Cambridge, where he was admitted
a pensioner in Gonville and Caius College, 31 May 1593. … He
graduated B. A. 1597, and, determining to study medicine,
travelled through France and Germany to Padua, the most famous
school of physic of that time. … He returned to England,
graduated M. D. at Cambridge 1602, and soon after took a house
in the parish of St. Martin-extra-Ludgate in London. … On 4
August 1615 he was elected Lumleian lecturer at the College of
Physicians, … and in the following April, on the 16th, 17th,
and 18th, he delivered at the college in Knightrider Street,
near St. Paul's Cathedral, the lectures in which he made the
first public statement of his thoughts on the circulation of
the blood. The notes from which he delivered these lectures
exist in their original manuscript and binding at the British
Museum. … In 1628, twelve years after his first statement of
it in his lectures, he published at Frankfurt, through William
Fitzer, his discovery of the circulation of the blood. The
book is a small quarto, entitled 'Exercitatio Anatomica de
Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus,' and contains
seventy-two pages and two plates of diagrams. The printers
evidently had difficulty in reading the author's handwriting,
and there are many misprints. …
{2134}
He begins by modestly stating how the difficulties of the
subject had gradually become clear to him, and by expressing
with a quotation from the 'Andria' of Terence, the hope that
his discovery might help others to still further knowledge. He
then describes the motions of arteries, of the ventricles of
the heart, and of its auricles, as seen in living animals, and
the use of these movements. He shows that the blood coming
into the right auricle from the vena cava, and passing then to
the right ventricle, is pumped out to the lungs through the
pulmonary artery, passes through the parenchyma of the lungs,
and comes thence by the pulmonary veins to the left ventricle.
This same blood, he shows, is then pumped out to the body. It
is carried out by arteries and comes back by veins, performing
a complete circulation. He shows that, in a live snake, when
the great veins are tied some way from the heart, the piece of
vein between the ligature and the heart is empty, and further,
that blood coming from the heart is checked in an artery by a
ligature, so that there is blood between the heart and the
ligature and no blood beyond the ligature. He then shows how
the blood comes back to the heart by the veins, and
demonstrates their valves. These had before been described by
Hieronymus Fabricius of Aquapendente, but before Harvey no
exact explanation of their function had been given. He gives
diagrams showing the results of obstructing the veins, and
that these valves may thus be seen to prevent the flow of
blood in the veins in any direction except towards the heart.
After a summary of a few lines in the fourteenth chapter he
further illustrates the perpetual circuit of the blood, and
points out how morbid materials are carried from the heart all
over the body. The last chapter gives a masterly account of
the structure of the heart in men and animals, and points out
that the right ventricle is thinner than the left because it
has only to send the blood a short way into the lungs, while
the left ventricle has to pump it all over the body. This
great and original book at once attracted attention and
excited discussion. In the College of Physicians of London,
where Harvey had mentioned the discovery in his lectures every
year since 1616, the Exercitatio received all the honour it
deserved. On the continent of Europe it was received with less
favour, but neither in England nor abroad did anyone suggest
that the discovery was to be found in other writers. …
Before his death the great discovery of Harvey was accepted
throughout the medical world. The modern controversy … as to
whether the discovery was taken from some previous author is
sufficiently refuted by the opinion of the opponents of his
views in his own time, who agreed in denouncing the doctrine
as new; by the laborious method of gradual demonstration
obvious in his book and lectures; and, lastly, by the complete
absence of lucid demonstration of the action of the heart and
course of the blood in Cæsalpinus, Servetus, and all others
who have been suggested as possible originals of the
discovery. It remains to this day the greatest of the
discoveries of physiology, and its whole honour belongs to
Harvey."
N. Moore,
Harvey
(Dict. of National Biog., volume 25).
ALSO IN:
R. Willis,
William Harvey: A history of the Discovery of
the Circulation of the Blood.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
Discovery of the Lymphatic Circulation.
"The discovery of the lymphatic vessels and their purpose was
scarcely less remarkable than that of the circulation of the
blood. It has about it less of eclat, because it was not the
work of one man, but was a matter of slow development.
Herophilus and Erasistratus had seen white vessels connected
with the lymph nodes in the mesentery of certain animals, and
had supposed them to be arteries full of air. Galen disputed
this, and believed the intestinal chyle to be carried by the
veins of the mesentery into the liver. In 1563 Eustachius had
described the thoracic duct in the horse; in 1622 Aselli,
professor of anatomy at Milan, discovered the lacteal vessels
in a dog which had been killed immediately after eating.
Having pricked one of these by mistake, he saw a white fluid
issue from it. Repeating the same experiment at other times he
became certain that the white threads were vessels which drew
the chyle from the intestines. He observed the valves with
which they are supplied, and supposed these vessels to all
meet in the pancreas and to be continued into the liver. In
1647 Pecquet, who was still a student at Montpelier,
discovered the lymph reservoir, or receptaculum chyli, and the
canal which leads from it, i. e., the thoracic duct, which he
followed to its termination in the left subclavian vein.
Having ligated it he saw it swell below, and empty itself
above the ligature. He studied the courses of the lacteals,
and convinced himself that they all entered into the common
reservoir. His discovery gave the last blow to the ancient
theory, which attributed to the liver the function of blood
making, and it confirmed the doctrine of Harvey, while, like
it, it had been very strongly opposed. Strangely enough,
Harvey in this instance united with his great opponent,
Riolan, in making common cause against the discovery of
Pecquet and its significance. From that time the lymphatic
vessels and glands became objects of common interest and were
investigated by many anatomists, especially Bartholin, Ruysch,
the Hunters, Hewson, and above all by Mascagni. He was the
first to give a graphic description of the whole lymphatic
apparatus."
Roswell Park,
Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
Descartes and the dawn of modern Physiological science.
"The essence of modern, as contrasted with ancient,
physiological science appears to me to lie in its antagonism
to animistic hypotheses and animistic phraseology. It offers
physical explanations of vital phenomena, or frankly confesses
that it has none to offer. And, so far as I know, the first
person who gave expression to this modern view of physiology,
who was bold enough to enunciate the proposition that vital
phenomena, like all the other phenomena of the physical world,
are, in ultimate analysis, resolvable into matter and motion
was René Descartes. The fifty-four years of life of this most
original and powerful thinker are widely overlapped, on both
sides, by the eighty of Harvey, who survived his younger
contemporary by seven years, and takes pleasure in
acknowledging the French philosopher's appreciation of his
great discovery.
{2135}
In fact, Descartes accepted the doctrine of the circulation as
propounded by 'Harvæus médecin d'Angleterre,' and gave a full
account of it in his first work, the famous 'Discours de la
Méthode,' which was published in 1637, only nine years after
the exercitation 'De motu cordis;' and, though differing from
Harvey on some important points (in which it may be noted, in
passing, Descartes was wrong and Harvey right), he always
speaks of him with great respect. And so important does the
subject seem to Descartes that he returns to it in the 'Traité
des Passions' and in the 'Traité de l'Homme.' It is easy to
see that Harvey's work must have had a peculiar significance
for the subtle thinker, to whom we owe both the spiritualistic
and the materialistic philosophies of modern times. It was in
the very year of its publication, 1628, that Descartes
withdrew into that life of solitary investigation and
meditation of which his philosophy was the fruit. …
Descartes uses 'thought' as the equivalent of our modern term
'consciousness.' Thought is the function of the soul, and its
only function. Our natural heat and all the movements of the
body, says he, do not depend on the soul. Death does not take
place from any fault of the soul, but only because some of the
principal parts of the body become corrupted. … Descartes'
'Treatise on Man' is a sketch of human physiology, in which a
bold attempt is made to explain all the phenomena of life,
except those of consciousness, by physical reasonings. To a
mind turned in this direction, Harvey's exposition of the
heart and vessels as a hydraulic mechanism must have been
supremely welcome. Descartes was not a mere philosophical
theorist, but a hardworking dissector and experimenter, and he
held the strongest opinion respecting the practical value of
the new conception which he was introducing. … 'It is true,'
says he, 'that as medicine is now practised, it contains
little that is very useful; but without any desire to
depreciate, I am sure that there is no one, even among
professional men, who will not declare that all we know is
very little as compared with that which remains to be known;
and that we might escape an infinity of diseases of the mind,
no less than of the body, and even perhaps from the weakness
of old age, if we had sufficient knowledge of their causes and
of all the remedies with which nature has provided us.' So
strongly impressed was Descartes with this, that he resolved
to spend the rest of his life in trying to acquire such a
knowledge of nature as would lead to the construction of a
better medical doctrine. The anti-Cartesians found material
for cheap ridicule in these aspirations of the philosopher;
and it is almost needless to say that, in the thirteen years
which elapsed between the publication of the 'Discours' and
the death of Descartes, he did not contribute much to their
realisation. But, for the next century, all progress in
physiology took place along the lines which Descartes laid
down. The greatest physiological and pathological work of the
seventeenth century, Borelli's treatise 'De Motu Animalium,'
is, to all intents and purposes, a development of Descartes'
fundamental conception; and the same may be said of the
physiology and pathology of Boerhaave, whose authority
dominated in the medical world of the first half of the
eighteenth century. With the origin of modern chemistry, and
of electrical science, in the latter half of the eighteenth
century, aids in the analysis of the phenomena of life, of
which Descartes could not have dreamed, were offered to the
physiologist. And the greater part of the gigantic progress
which has been made in the present century is a justification
of the prevision of Descartes. For it consists, essentially,
in a more and more complete resolution of the grosser organs
of the living body into physico-chemical mechanisms. 'I shall
try to explain our whole bodily machinery in such a way, that
it will be no more necessary for us to suppose that the soul
produces such movements as are not voluntary, than it is to
think that there is in a clock a soul which causes it to show
the hours.' These words of Descartes might be appropriately
taken as a motto by the author of any modern treatise on
physiology."
T. H. Huxley,
Connection of the Biological Sciences with Medicine
(Science and Culture, etc., lecture 13).
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
Introduction of Peruvian Bark.
"The aborigines of South America appear, except perhaps in one
locality, to have been ignorant of the virtues of Peruvian
bark. This sovereign remedy is absent in the wallets of
itinerant doctors, whose materia medica has been handed down
from father to son, since the days of the Yncas. It is
mentioned neither by the Ynca Garcilasso de la Vega, nor by
Acosta, in their lists of Indian medicines. It seems probable,
nevertheless, that the Indians were aware of the virtues of
Peruvian bark in the neighborhood of Loxa, 230 miles south of
Quito, where its use was first made known to Europeans; and
the local name for the tree quina-quina, 'bark of bark,'
indicates that it was believed to possess some special
medicinal properties. … In 1638 the wife of Don Luis
Geronimo Fernandez de Cabrera Bobadilla y Mendoza, fourth
Count of Chinchon, and Viceroy of Peru, lay sick of an
intermittent fever in the palace of Lima. … The news of her
illness at Lima reached Don Francisco Lopez de Canizares, the
Corregidor of Loxa, who had become acquainted with the
febrifuge virtues of the bark. He sent a parcel of it to the
Vice-Queen, and the new remedy, administered by her physician,
Dr. Don Juan de Vega, effected a rapid and complete cure. …
The Countess of Chinchon returned to Spain in the spring of
1640, bringing with her a supply of that precious quina bark
which had worked so wonderful a cure upon herself, and the
healing virtues of which she intended to distribute amongst
the sick on her husband's estates. It thus gradually became
known in Europe, and was most appropriately called Countess's
powder (Pulvis Comitissæ). By this name it was long known to
druggists and in commerce. … In memory of the great service
to humanity performed by the Countess of Chinchon, Linnæus
named the genus which yields Peruvian bark, Chinchona.
Unfortunately the great botanist was misinformed as to the
name of her whom he desired to honour. This is to be accounted
for by his having received his knowledge of the Countess
through a foreign and not a Spanish source. Thus misled,
Linnæus spelt the word Cinchona … and Cinhona, … omitting
one or two letters. … After the cure of the Countess of
Chinchon the Jesuits were the great promoters of the
introduction of bark into Europe. In 1670 these fathers sent
parcels of the powdered bark to Rome, whence it was
distributed to members of the fraternity throughout Europe, by
Cardinal de Lugo, and used for the cure of agues with great
success. Hence the name of 'Jesuits' bark,' and 'Cardinal's
bark;' and it was a ludicrous result of its patronage by the
Jesuits that its use should have been for a long time opposed
by Protestants, and favoured by Roman Catholics. In 1679 Louis
XIV. bought the secret of preparing quinquina from Sir Robert
Talbor, an English doctor, for 2,000 louis-d'or, a large
pension, and a title. From that time Peruvian bark seems to
have been recognised as the most efficacious remedy for
intermittent fevers."
C. R. Markham,
Peruvian Bark,
chapters 2-4.
{2136}
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
Sydenham, the Father of Rational Medicine.
"Sydenham [Thomas Sydenham, 1624-1689], the prince of
practical physicians, whose character is as beautiful and as
genuinely English as his name, did for his art what Locke did
for the philosophy of mind—he made it, in the main,
observational; he made knowledge a means, not an end. It would
not be easy to over-estimate our obligations as a nation to these
two men, in regard to all that is involved in the promotion of
health of body and soundness of mind. They were among the
first in their respective regions to show their faith in the
inductive method, by their works. They both professed to be
more of guides than critics, and were the interpreters and
servants of Nature, not her diviners and tormentors." Of
Sydenham, "we must remember in the midst of what a mass of
errors and prejudices, of theories actively mischievous, he
was placed, at a time when the mania of hypothesis was at its
height, and when the practical part of his art was overrun and
stultified by vile and silly nostrums. We must have all this
in our mind, or we shall fail in estimating the amount of
independent thought, of courage and uprightness, and of all
that deserves to be called magnanimity and virtue, which was
involved in his thinking and writing and acting as he did.
'The improvement of physic [he wrote] in my opinion, depends,
1st, Upon collecting as genuine and natural a description or
history of diseases as can be procured; and, 2d, Upon laying
down a fixed and complete method of cure. With regard to the
history of diseases, whoever considers the undertaking
deliberately will perceive that a few such particulars must be
attended to: 1st, All diseases should be described as objects
of natural history, with the same exactness as is done by
botanists, for there are many diseases that come under the
same genus, and bear the same name, that, being specifically
different, require a different treatment. The word carduus or
thistle, is applied to several herbs, and yet a botanist would
be inaccurate and imperfect who would content himself with a
generic description. Furthermore, when this distribution of
distempers into genera has been attempted, it has been to fit
into some hypothesis, and hence this distribution is made to
suit the bent of the author rather than the real nature of the
disorder. How much this has obstructed the improvement of
physic any man may know. In writing, therefore, such a natural
history of diseases, every merely philosophical hypothesis
should be set aside, and the manifest and natural phenomena,
however minute, should be noted with the utmost exactness. The
usefulness of this procedure cannot be easily overrated, as
compared with the subtle inquiries and trifling notions of
modern writers. … If only one person in every age had
accurately described, and consistently cured, but a single
disease, and made known his secret, physic would not be where
it now is; but we have long since forsook the ancient method
of cure, founded upon the knowledge of conjunct causes,
insomuch that the art, as at this day practised, is rather the
art of talking about diseases than of curing them.' … His
friend Locke could not have stated the case more clearly or
sensibly. It is this doctrine of 'conjunct causes,' this
necessity for watching the action of compound and often
opposing forces, and the having to do all this not in a
machine, of which if you have seen one, you have seen all, but
where each organism has often much that is different from, as
well as common with, all others. … It is this which takes
medicine out of the category of exact sciences, and puts it
into that which includes politics, ethics, navigation and
practical engineering, in all of which, though there are
principles, and those principles quite within the scope of
human reason, yet the application of these principles must, in
the main, be left to each man's skill, presence of mind, and
judgment, as to the case in hand. … It would not be easy to
over-estimate the permanent impression for good, which the
writings, the character, and the practice of Sydenham have
made on the art of healing in England, and on the Continent
generally. In the writings of Boerhaave, Stahl, Gaubius,
Pinel, Bordeu, Haller, and many others, he is spoken of as the
father of rational medicine; as the first man who applied to
his profession the Baconian principles of interpreting and
serving nature, and who never forgot the master's rule, 'Non
fingendum aut excogitandum, sed inveniendum, quid natura aut
faciat aut ferat.' … Like all men of a large practical
nature, he could not have been what he was, or done what he
did, without possessing and often exercising the true
philosophizing faculty. He was a man of the same quality of
mind in this respect with Watt, Franklin, and John Hunter, in
whom speculation was not the less genuine that it was with
them a means rather than an end."
Dr. John Brown,
Locke and Sydenham and other Papers,
pages 54-90.
ALSO IN:
T. Sydenham,
Works;
translated by R. G, Latham.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
Closing period of the Humoral Pathology.
The Doctrines of Hoffmann, Stahl and Boerhaave.
"If we take a general survey of medical opinions, we shall
find that they are all either subordinate to, or coincident
with, two grand theories. The one of these considers the solid
constituents of the animal economy as the elementary vehicle
of life, and consequently places in them the primary seat of
disease. The other, on the contrary, sees in the humors the
original realization of vitality; and these, as they determine
the existence and quality of the secondary parts, or solids,
contain, therefore, within themselves, the ultimate principle
of the morbid affection. By relation to these theories, the
history of medicine is divided into three great periods.
During the first, the two theories, still crude, are not yet
disentangled from each other; this period extends from the
origin of medicine to the time of Galen. The second
comprehends the reign of Humoral Pathology—the interval
between Galen and Frederic Hoffmann. In the last the doctrine
of the Living Solid is predominant; from Hoffmann it reaches
to the present day. … By Galen, Humorism was first formally
expounded, and reduced to a regular code of doctrine.
{2137}
Four elementary fluids, their relations and changes, sufficed
to explain the varieties of natural temperament, and the
causes of disease; while the genius, eloquence, and unbounded
learning with which he illustrated this theory, mainly
bestowed on it the ascendency, which, without essential
alteration, it retained from the conclusion of the second to
the beginning of the eighteenth century. Galenism and Humorism
are, in fact, convertible expressions. Not that this
hypothesis during that long interval encountered no
opposition. It met, certainly, with some partial contradiction
among the Greek and Arabian physicians. After the restoration
of learning Fernelius and Brissot, Argenterius and Joubert,
attacked it in different ways. … Until the epoch we have
stated, the prevalence of the Humoral Pathology was, however,
all but universal. Nor was this doctrine merely an erroneous
speculation; it exerted the most decisive, the most pernicious
influence on practice.—The various diseased affections were
denominated in accommodation to the theory. In place of saying
that a malady affected the liver, the peritonæum, or the
organs of circulation, its seat was assumed in the blood, the
bile, or the lymph. The morbific causes acted exclusively on
the fluids; the food digested in the stomach, and converted
into chyle, determined the qualities of the blood; and poisons
operated through the corruption they thus effected in the
vital humors. All symptoms were interpreted in blind
subservience to the hypothesis; and those only attracted
attention which the hypothesis seemed calculated to explain.
The color and consistence of the blood, mucus, feces, urine,
and pus, were carefully studied. On the other hand the
phenomena of the solids, if not wholly overlooked, as mere
accidents, were slumped together under some collective name,
and attached to the theory through a subsidiary hypothesis. By
supposed changes in the humors, they explained the association
and consecution of symptoms. Under the terms, crudity,
coction, and evacuation, were designated the three principal
periods of diseases, as dependent on an alteration of the
morbific matter. In the first, this matter, in all its
deleterious energy, had not yet undergone any change on the
part of the organs; it was still crude. In the second, nature
gradually resumed the ascendant; coction took place. In the
third, the peccant matter, now rendered mobile, was evacuated
by urine, perspiration, dejection, &c., and æquilibrium
restored. When no critical discharge was apparent, the
morbific matter, it was supposed, had, after a suitable
elaboration, been assimilated to the humors, and its
deleterious character neutralized. Coction might be perfect or
imperfect; and the transformation of one disease into another
was lightly solved by the transport or emigration of the
noxious humor. … Examinations of the dead body confirmed
them in their notions. In the redness and tumefaction of
inflamed parts, they beheld only a congestion of blood; and in
dropsies, merely the dissolution of that fluid; tubercles were
simply coagula of lymph; and other organic alterations, in
general, naught but obstructions from an increased viscosity
of the humors. The plan of cure was in unison with the rest of
the hypothesis. Venesection was copiously employed to renew
the blood, to attenuate its consistency, or to remove a part
of the morbific matter with which it was impregnated; and
cathartics, sudorifics, diuretics, were largely administered,
with a similar intent. In a word, as plethora or cacochymia
were the two great causes of disease, their whole therapeutic
was directed to change the quantity or quality of the fluids.
Nor was this murderous treatment limited to the actual period
of disease. Seven or eight annual bloodings, and as many
purgations—such was the common regimen the theory prescribed
to insure continuance of health; and the twofold depletion,
still customary, at spring and fall, among the peasantry of
many European countries, is a remnant of the once universal
practice. In Spain, every village has even now its Sangrador,
whose only cast of surgery is blood-letting; and he is rarely
idle. The medical treatment of Lewis XIII, may be quoted as a
specimen of the humoral therapeutic, Within a single year this
theory inflicted on that unfortunate monarch above a hundred
cathartics, and more than forty bloodings.—During the fifteen
centuries of Humorism, how many millions of lives did medicine
cost mankind? The establishment of a system founded on the
correcter doctrine of Solidism, and purified from the
crudities of the Iatro-mathematical and Iatro-chemical
hypotheses was reserved for three celebrated physicians toward
the commencement of the eighteenth century—Frederic
Hoffmann—George Ernest Stahl—and Hermann Boerhaave. The
first and second of this triumvirate were born in the same
year, were both pupils of Wedelius of Jena, and both
professors, and rival professors, in the University of Halle;
the third was eight years younger than his contemporaries, and
long an ornament of the University of Leyden."
Sir W. Hamilton,
Discussions on Philosophy and Literature,
pages 246-249.
"The great and permanent merits of Hoffmann [1660-1742] as a
medical philosopher, undoubtedly consisted in his having
perceived and pointed out more clearly than any of his
predecessors, the extensive and powerful influence of the
Nervous System, in modifying and regulating at least, if not
in producing, all the phenomena of the organic as well as of
the animal functions in the human economy, and more
particularly in his application of this doctrine to the
explanation of diseases. … It was reserved for Hoffmann …
to take a comprehensive view of the Nervous System, not only
as the organ of sense and motion, but also as the common
centre by which all the different parts of the animal economy
are connected together, and through which they mutually
influence each other. He was, accordingly, led to regard all
those alterations in the structure and functions of this
economy, which constitute the state of disease, as having
their primary origin in affections of the nervous system, and
as depending, therefore, upon a deranged state of the
imperceptible and contractile motions in the solids, rather
than upon changes induced in the chemical composition of the
fluid parts of the body."
J. Thomson,
Account of the Life, Lectures and Writings of William Cullen,
pages 195-196.
{2138}
"George Ernest Stahl (1660-1734), chemist, was professor of
medicine at Halle (1694) and physician to the King of Prussia
(1716). He opposed materialism, and substituted 'animism,'
explaining the symptoms of disease as efforts of the soul to
get rid of morbid influences. Stahl's 'anima' corresponds to
Sydenham's 'nature' in a measure, and has some relationship to
the Archeus of Paracelsus and Van Helmont. Stahl was the author
of the 'phlogiston' theory in chemistry, which in its time has
had important influence on medicine. Phlogiston was a
substance which he supposed to exist in all combustible
matters, and the escape of this principle from any compound
was held to account for the phenomenon of fire. According to
Stahl, diseases arise from the direct action of noxious powers
upon the body; and from the reaction of the system itself
endeavouring to oppose and counteract the effects of the
noxious powers, and so preserve and repair itself. He did not
consider diseases, therefore, pernicious in themselves, though
he admitted that they might become so from mistakes made by
the soul in the choice, or proportion of the motions excited
to remove them, or the time when these efforts are made.
Death, according to this theory, is due to the indolence of
the soul, leading it to desist from its vital motions, and
refusing to continue longer the struggle against the
derangements of the body. Here we have the 'expectant

treatment' so much in vogue with many medical men. 'Trusting
to the constant attention and wisdom of nature,' they
administered inert medicines as placebos, while they left to
nature the cure of the disease. But they neglected the use of
invaluable remedies such as opium and Peruvian bark, for which
error it must be admitted they atoned by discountenancing
bleeding, vomiting, etc. Stahl's remedies were chiefly of the
class known as 'Antiphlogistic,' or anti-febrile."
E. Berdoe,
The Origin and Growth of the Healing Art,
book 5, chapter 7.
"The influence of Boerhaave [1668-1738] was immense while it
lasted—it was world-wide; but it was like a ripple on the
ocean—it had no depth. He knew everything and did everything
better than any of his contemporaries, except those who made
one thing, not everything, their study. He was familiar with
the researches of the great anatomists, of the chemists, of
the botanists, of historians, of men of learning, but he was
not a great anatomist, chemist, or historian. As to his
practice, we cannot pronounce a very decided opinion, except
that he was a man of judgment and independence. Here his
reputation made his success: a prescription of his would no
doubt effect many a cure, although the patient had taken the
remedy he prescribed fifty times without any benefit. His
greatness depended upon his inexhaustible activity. He had the
energy of a dozen ordinary men, and so he was twelve times as
powerful as one. He mentions quite incidentally how he was in
the habit of frequently spending whole nights in botanical
excursions on foot; and we know he had no time to sleep in the
day. He took an interest in everything, was always on the
alert, had a prodigious memory, and indefatigable industry. On
these great homely qualities, added to a kind disposition and
an unaffected piety, his popularity was founded. It was all
fairly won and nobly worn. It is startling, however, to find
that a man whose name one hundred years ago was familiar to
the ear as household words, and of whom historians predicted
that he would always be regarded as one of the greatest as
well as best of men, an example to his race, should be already
almost forgotten. An example is of no use unless it is known;
Boerhaave is now unknown. The reason is plain;—he was not the
founder of any system, nor did he make any discovery. He
simply used with supreme success the thoughts and discoveries
of others; as soon as he ceased to live, his influence began
therefore to decline; and before his generation had passed
away, his star had waned before the genius of Cullen, who
succeeded in fixing the attention of Europe, and who, in his
turn, was soon to be displaced by others."
J. R. Russell,
History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
pages 297-298.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18th Centuries.
Introduction of the Microscope in Medicine.
First glimmerings of the Germ Theory of Disease.
"Since Athanasius Kircher [1601-1680] mistook blood and pus
corpuscles for small worms, and built up on his mistake a new
theory of disease and putrefaction, and since Christian Lange,
the Professor of Pathological Anatomy in Leipzig, in the
preface to Kircher's book (1671) expressed his opinion that
the purpura of lying-in-women, measles, and other fevers were
the result of putrefaction caused by worms or animalculæ, a
'Pathologia Animata' has, from time to time, been put forward
to explain the causation of disease. … Remarkable as were
Kircher's observations, still more wonderful were those of
Anthony van Leeuwenhoek, a native of Delft in Holland, who in
his youth had learned the art of polishing lenses, and who was
able, ultimately, to produce the first really good microscope
that had yet been constructed. Not only did Leeuwenhoek make
his microscope, but he used it to such good purpose that he
was able to place before the Royal Society of London a series
of most interesting and valuable letters giving the result of
his researches on minute specks of living protoplasm. … The
world that Leeuwenhoek … opened up so thoroughly was rapidly
invaded by other observers and theorists. The thoughtful
physicians of the time believed that at last they had found
the 'fons et origo mali,' and Nicolas Andry, reviewing
Kircher's' Contagium Animatum,' replaced his worms by these
newly-described animalculæ or germs, and pushing the theory to
its legitimate and logical conclusion, he also evolved a germ
theory of putrefaction and fermentation. He maintained that
air, water, vinegar, fermenting wine, old beer, and sour milk
were all full of germs; that the blood and pustules of
smallpox also contained them, and that other diseases, very
rife about this period, were the result of the activity of
these organisms. Such headway did he make, and such conviction
did his arguments carry with them, that the mercurial
treatment much in vogue at that time was actually based on the
supposition that these organisms, the 'causæ causantes' of
disease, were killed by the action of mercury and mercurial
salts. With a kind of prophetic instinct, and certainly as the
result of keen observation, Varro and Lancisi ascribed the
dangerous character of marsh or swamp air to the action of
invisible animalculæ; in fact the theory was so freely and
forcibly propagated that even where no micro-organisms could
be found their presence was inferred with the inevitable
result, as Löffler points out, that these 'inconceivable'
worms became the legitimate butts for the shafts of ridicule;
and in 1726 there appeared in Paris a satirical work, in which
these small organisms received the name of 'fainter,'
'body-pincher,' 'ulcerator,' 'weeping fistula,' 'sensualist';
the whole system was thus laughingly held up to satire, and
the germ theory of disease completely discredited.
{2139}
Linnæus [1707-1778], however, with his wonderful powers of
observation and deduction, considered that it was possible
that there might be rescued from this 'chaos' small living
beings which were as yet insufficiently separated and
examined, but in which he firmly believed might lie not only
the actual contagium of certain eruptive diseases, and of
acute fevers, but also the exciting causes of both
fermentation and putrefaction. The man, however, who of all
workers earliest recognized the importance of Linnæus'
observations was a Viennese doctor, Marcus Antonius Plenciz.
… He it was who, at this time, insisted upon the specific
character of the infective agent in every case of disease; for
scarlet fever there was a scarlet fever seed or germ—a seed
which could never give rise to smallpox. He showed that it was
possible for this organism to become disseminated through the
air, and for it to multiply in the body; and he explained the
incubation stage of a febrile disease as dependent on the
growth of a germ within the body during the period after its
introduction, when its presence had not yet been made
manifest. … As regards putrefaction, having corroborated
Linnæus' observations and found countless animalculæ in
putrefying matter, he came to the conclusion that this process
was the result of the development, multiplication, and
carrying on of the functions of nutrition and excretion by
these germs; the products of fermentation being the volatile
salts set free by the organisms, which, multiplying rapidly by
forming seeds or eggs, rendered the fluid in which they
developed thick, turbid, and foul. This theory, admirable as
it was, and accurate as it has since been proved to be, could
not then be based on any very extensive or detailed
observation, and we find that some of the most prominent and
brilliant men of the period did not feel justified in
accepting the explanation that Plenciz had offered as to the
causes of disease and fermentation processes."
G. S. Woodhead,
Bacteria and their Products,
chapter 3.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18th Centuries.
Hahnemann and the origin of the System of Homœopathy.
Samuel Hahnemann, originator of the system of medicine called
"Homœopathy," was born in 1755, at Meissen, in Saxony. He
studied medicine at Leipsic, and afterwards at Vienna. In 1784
he settled in Dresden, but returned to Leipsic in 1789. "In
the following year, while translating Cullen's Materia Medica
out of English into German, his attention was arrested by the
insufficient explanation's advanced in that work of the cure
of ague by cinchona bark. By way of experiment, he took a
large dose of that substance to ascertain its action on the
healthy body. In the course of a few days he experienced the
symptoms of ague; and it thus occurred to him that perhaps the
reason why cinchona cures ague is because it has the power to
produce symptoms in a healthy person similar to those of ague.
To ascertain the truth of this conjecture, he ransacked the
records of medicine for well-attested cures effected by single
remedies; and finding sufficient evidences of this fact, he
advanced a step further, and proposed, in an article published
in Hufeland's Journal, in the year 1797, to apply this new
principle to the discovery of proper medicines for every form
of disease. Soon afterwards he published a case to illustrate
his method. It was one of a severe kind of colic cured by a
strong dose of veratrum album. Before this substance gave
relief to the patient it excited a severe aggravation of his
symptoms. This induced Hahnemann, instead of drops or grains,
to give the fraction of a drop or grain, and he thus
introduced infinitesimal doses. Some years later he applied
his new principle in the treatment of scarlet fever; and
finding that belladonna cured the peculiar type of that
disease, which then prevailed in Germany, he proposed to give
this medicine as a prophylactic, or preventive against scarlet
fever; from that time it has been extensively employed for
this purpose. In the year 1810 he published his great work,
entitled Organon of Medicine, which has been translated into
all the European languages, as well as into Arabic. In this
book he fully expounded his new system, which he called
Homœopathy. His next publication was a Materia Medica,
consisting of a description of the effects of medicines upon
persons in health. These works were published between the
years 1810 and 1821, at Leipsic, where he founded a school,
and was surrounded by disciples. As his system involved the
administration of medicines, each separately by itself, and in
doses infinitely minute, there was no longer any need of the
apothecaries' intervention between their physician and the
patient. In consequence of this the Apothecaries Company
brought to bear upon Hahnemann an act forbidding physicians to
dispense their own medicines, and with such effect that he was
obliged to leave Leipsic. The Grand Duke of Anhalt Köthen,
appointed him his physician, and invited him to live at
Köthen. Thither, accordingly, he removed in the year 1821, and
there he prepared various new editions of his Organon, and new
volumes of his Materia Medica for publication. In 1835 he
married a second time; his wife was a French lady of
considerable position; and in the same year he left Köthen,
and settled in Paris, where he enjoyed a great reputation till
his death, which took place in the year 1843."
W. Bayes,
Origin and Present Status of Homœopathy
(Translation of the Homœopathic Medical Society
of the State of New York, 1869, article 21).
ALSO IN:
W. Aneke,
History of Homœopathy.
J. C. Burnett,
Ecce Medicus;
or Hahnemann as a man and as a physician.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
The work of John Hunter in surgery and anatomy.
"John Hunter [born 1728, died 1793] was not only one of the
most profound anatomists of the age in which he lived, but he
is by the common consent of his successors allowed to be one
of the greatest men that ever practised surgery. One of the
most striking discoveries in this part of his profession—
indeed one of the most brilliant in surgery of his
century—was the operation for the cure of popliteal aneurism
by tying the femoral artery above the tumour in the ham, and
without interfering with it. He improved the treatment of the
rupture of the tendo achillis, in consequence of having
experienced the accident himself when dancing. He invented the
method of curing fistula lacrymalis by perforating the os
unguis, and curing hydrocele radically by injection. His
anatomical discoveries were numerous and important—amongst
others the distribution of the blood-vessels of the uterus,
which he traced till their disappearance in the placenta.
{2140}
He was the first who demonstrated the existence of lymphatic
vessels in birds; described the distribution of the branches
of the olfactory nerve, as well as those of the fifth pair;
and to him we owe the best and most faithful account of the
descent of the testicle in the human subject, from the abdomen
into the scrotum. Physiology is also indebted to him for many
new views and ingenious suggestions. … 'Before his time
surgery had been little more than a mechanical art, somewhat
dignified by the material on which it was employed. Hunter
first made it a science; and by pointing out its peculiar
excellence as affording visible examples of the effects and
progress of disease, induced men of far higher attainments
than those who had before practised it to make it their
study.' The best monument of his genius and talents, however,
is the splendid museum which he formed by his sole efforts,
and which he made, too, when labouring under every
disadvantage of deficient education and limited means. It
shows that as an anatomist and physiologist he had no
superior."
W. Baird,
Hunter (The Imperial dictionary of universal biography).
ALSO IN:
S. D. Gross,
John Hunter and his Pupils.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
Preventive Inoculation against Smallpox.
"One of the most notable events of the 18th century, or for
that matter, in the history of medicine, was the introduction
of the systematic practice of preventive inoculation against
small-pox. We are so generally taught that this is entirely
due to the efforts of Jenner, or rather we are so often
allowed to think it without being necessarily taught
otherwise, that the measure deserves a historical sketch. The
communication of the natural disease to the healthy in order
to protect them from the same natural disease, in other words,
the communication of small-pox to prevent the same, reaches
back into antiquity. It is mentioned in the Sanskrit Vedas as
then performed, always by Brahmins, who employed pus procured
from small-pox vesicles a year before. They rubbed the place
selected for operation until the skin was red, then scratched
with a sharp instrument, and laid upon the place cotton soaked
in the variolous pus, moistened with water from the sacred
Ganges. Along with this measure they insisted upon most
hygienic regulations, to which in a large measure their good
results were due. Among the Chinese was practised what was
known as 'Pock-sowing,' and as long ago as 1000 years before
Christ they introduced into the nasal cavities of young
children pledgets of cotton saturated with variolous pus. The
Arabians inoculated the same disease with needles, and so did
the Circassians, while in the states of north Africa incisions
were made between the fingers, and among some of the negroes
inoculation was performed in or upon the nose. In
Constantinople, under the Greeks, the custom had long been
naturalized and was practised by old women instructed in the
art, who regarded it as a revelation of St. Mary. The first
accounts of this practice were given to the Royal Society by
Timoni, a physician of Constantinople, in 1714. The actual
introduction of the practice into the West, however, was due
to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who died in 1762, and who was
wife of the English ambassador to the Porte in 1717. She had
her son inoculated in Constantinople by her surgeon Maitland,
and after her return to London, in 1721, it was also performed
upon her daughter. During the same years experiments were
undertaken by Maitland upon criminals; and as these turned out
favorably, the Prince of Wales and his sisters were inoculated
by Mead. The practice was then more or less speedily adopted
on this side of the ocean as well as on that, but suffered
occasional severe blows because of unfortunate cases here and
there, such as never can be avoided. The clergy, especially,
using the Bible, as designing men always can use it, to back
up any view or practice, became warm opponents of vaccination,
and stigmatized it as a very atrocious invasion of the Divine
prerogative of punishment. But in 1746 the Bishop of Worcester
recommended it from the pulpit, and established houses for
inoculation, and thus made it again popular. In Germany the
operation was generally favored, and in France and Italy a
little later came into vogue."
Roswell Park,
Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
Jenner and the discovery of Vaccination.
Many before the English physician, Dr. Jenner, "had witnessed
the cow-pox, and had heard of the report current among the
milkmaids in Gloucestershire, that whoever had taken that
disease was secure against smallpox. It was a trifling, vulgar
rumor, supposed to have no significance whatever; and no one
had thought it worthy of investigation, until it was
accidentally brought under the notice of Jenner. He was a
youth, pursuing his studies at Sodbury, when his attention was
arrested by the casual observation made by a country girl who
came to his master's shop for advice. The smallpox was
mentioned, when the girl said, 'I can't take that disease, for
I have had cow-pox.' The observation immediately riveted
Jenner's attention, and he forthwith set about inquiring and
making observations on the subject. His professional friends,
to whom he mentioned his views as to the prophylactic virtues
of cow-pox, laughed at him, and even threatened to expel him
from their society, if he persisted in harassing them with the
subject. In London he was so fortunate as to study under John
Hunter [1770-1773] to whom he communicated his views. The
advice of the great anatomist was thoroughly characteristic:
'Don't think, but try; be patient, be accurate.' Jenner's
courage was greatly supported by the advice, which conveyed to
him the true art of philosophical investigation. He went back
to the country to practise his profession, and carefully to
make observations and experiments, which he continued to
pursue for a period of twenty years. His faith in his
discovery was so implicit that he vaccinated his own son on
three several occasions. At length he published his views in a
quarto of about seventy pages, in which he gave the details of
twenty-three cases of successful vaccination of individuals,
to whom it was found afterwards impossible to communicate the
smallpox either by contagion or inoculation. It was in 1798
that this treatise was published; though he had been working
out his ideas as long before as 1775, when they began to
assume a definite form. How was the discovery received? First
with indifference, then with active hostility. He proceeded to
London to exhibit to the profession the process of vaccination
and its successful results; but not a single doctor could be
got to make a trial of it, and after fruitlessly waiting for
nearly three months, Jenner returned to his native village.
{2141}
He was even caricatured and abused for his attempt to
'bestialize' his species by the introduction into their
systems of diseased matter from the cow's udder. Cobbett was
one of his most furious assailants. Vaccination was denounced
from the pulpit as 'diabolical.' It was averred that
vaccinated children became 'ox-faced,' that abscesses broke
out to 'indicate sprouting horns,' and that the countenance
was gradually 'transmuted into the visage of a cow, the voice
into the bellowing of bulls.' Vaccination, however, was a
truth, and notwithstanding the violence of the opposition
belief in it spread slowly. In one village where a gentleman
tried to introduce the practice, the first persons who
permitted themselves to be vaccinated were absolutely pelted,
and were driven into their houses if they appeared out of
doors. Two ladies of title,—Lady Ducie and the Countess of
Berkeley,—to their honor be it remembered,—had the courage
to vaccinate their own children; and the prejudices of the day
were at once broken through. The medical profession gradually
came round, and there were several who even sought to rob Dr.
Jenner of the merit of the discovery, when its vast importance
came to be recognized. Jenner's cause at last triumphed, and
he was publicly honored and rewarded. In his prosperity he was
as modest as he had been in his obscurity. He was invited to
settle in London, and told that he might command a practice of
£10,000 a year. But his answer was, 'No! In the morning of my
days I have sought the sequestered and lowly paths of
life,—the valley, and not the mountain,—and now, in the
evening of my days, it is not meet for me to hold myself up as
an object for fortune and for fame.' In Jenner's own lifetime
the practice of vaccination had been adopted all over the
civilized world; and when he died, his title as Benefactor of
his kind was recognized far and wide. Cuvier has said, 'If
vaccine were the only discovery of the epoch, it would serve
to render it illustrious forever."
S. Smiles,
Self-help,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
J. Barron,
Life of Edward Jenner.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
The Brunonian System of Stimulation.
"John Brown, born of obscure parents in a village of Berwick,
in Scotland, was remarkable, from his early youth, for an
extraordinary aptitude for acquiring languages, a decided
inclination for scholastic dispute, a pedantic tone and
manner, and somewhat irregular conduct. Having abandoned
theology for medicine, he fixed his residence in Edinburgh.
… He was particularly entertained and countenanced by
Cullen, who even took him into his family in the character of
preceptor of his children. This agreeable relation subsisted
during twelve consecutive years between these two men, whose
characters and minds were so different. … But some trifling
matters of mutual discontent grew at length into coldness, and
changed the old friendship which had united them into an
irreconcilable hatred. Their rupture broke out about the year
1778, and in a short time after, Brown published his Elements
of Medicine. … Brown employed some of the ideas of his
master to develop a doctrine much more simple in appearance,
but founded entirely on abstract considerations; a doctrine in
which every provision seems to be made for discussion, but
none for practice. Cullen had said that the nervous system
receives the first impression of excitants, and transmits it
afterwards to the other organs endowed with motion and
vitality. Brown explains thus, the same thought: 'Life is only
sustained by incitation. It is only the result of the action
of incitants on the incitability of organs.' Cullen regarded
the atony of the small vessels as the proximate cause of
fever. Brown, improving on this hypothesis, admits, with
hardly any exceptions, only hyposthenic diseases. … The
Scotch physiologist distinguished only two pathological
states—one consisting in an excess of incitability, which he
names the sthenic diathesis; the other, constituted by a want,
more or less notable, of the same faculty, which he designates
as the asthenic diathesis. Besides, Brown considers these two
states as affecting the entire economy, rather than any organ
in particular. … After having reduced all diseases to two
genera, and withdrawn from pathology the study of local
lesions, Brown arrives, by a subtile argumentation, to
consider the affections of the sthenic order as prevailing in
a very small number of instances, so that the diseases of the
asthenic type comprehend nearly the totality of affections.
According to this theory, a physician is rarely ever mistaken
if he orders in all his cases, remedies of an exciting nature.
… Never since the days of Thessalus (of charlatan memory)
had anyone simplified to such a point the study and practice
of medicine. We may even say that in this respect the Scotch
pathologist left far in the rear the physician of Nero. To
this attraction, well calculated to tempt students and
practitioners, the doctrine of Brown joined the advantage of
being presented in an energetic and captivating style, full of
imagery, which suffices to explain its rapid progress. But
this doctrine, so seductive in its exposition, so easy in its
application, is one of the most disastrous that man has been
able to imagine, for it tends to propagate the abuse of
diffusible stimulants, of which spirituous liquors make a
part, an abuse excessively injurious to health in general, and
the intellectual faculties in particular—an abuse to which
man is too much inclined, naturally, and which the sophisms of
Brown may have contributed to spread in all classes of English
society. … Notwithstanding its defects, the system of Brown
made rapid progress, principally in Germany and Italy."
P. V. Renouard,
History of Medicine,
pages 555-560.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
The System of Haller.
"About the time when we seniors commenced the study of
medicine, it was still under the influence of the important
discoveries which Albrecht von Haller [1708-1777] had made on
the excitability of nerves; and which he had placed in
connection with the vitalistic theory of the nature of life.
Haller had observed the excitability in the nerves and muscles
of amputated members. The most surprising thing to him was,
that the most varied external actions, mechanical, chemical,
thermal, to which electrical ones were subsequently added, had
always the same result; namely, that they produced muscular
contraction. They were only quantitatively distinguished as
regards their action on the organism, that is, only by the
strength of the excitation; he designated them by the common
name of stimulus; he called the altered condition of the nerve
the excitation, and its capacity of responding to a stimulus
the excitability, which was lost at death.
{2142}
This entire condition of things, which physically speaking
asserts no more than the nerves, as concerns the changes which
take place in them after excitation, are in an exceedingly
unstable state of equilibrium; this was looked upon as the
fundamental property of animal life, and was unhesitatingly
transferred to the other organs and tissues of the body, for
which there was no similar justification. It was believed that
none of them were active of themselves, but must receive an
impulse by a stimulus from without; air and nourishment were
considered to be the normal stimuli. The kind of activity
seemed, on the contrary, to be conditioned by the specific
energy of the organ, under the influence of the vital force.
Increase or diminution of the excitability was the category
under which the whole of the acute diseases were referred, and
from which indications were taken as to whether the treatment
should be lowering or stimulating. The rigid one-sidedness and
the unrelenting logic with which … [John] Brown had once
worked out the system was broken, but it always furnished the
leading points of view."
H. Helmholtz,
On Thought in Medicine
(Popular Lectures, series 2, lecture 5).
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th. Century.
Physiological Views of Bichat.
Marie Francis Xavier Bichat, was born in 1771 and died in
1802, accomplishing his extraordinary work as an anatomist and
physician within a lifetime of thirty-one years. "The peculiar
physiological views of Bichat are to be found stated more or
less distinctly in all his works; and it is a merit of his
that he has always kept in sight the necessary connexion of
this part of the science of medicine with every other, and, so
far as he has developed his ideas upon the subjects of
pathology, materia medica, and therapeutics, they seem all to
have been founded upon and connected with the principles of
physiology, which he had adopted. … Everything around living
bodies, according to Bichat, tends constantly to their
destruction. And to this influence they would necessarily
yield, were they not gifted with some permanent principle of
reaction. This principle is their life, and a living system is
therefore necessarily always engaged in the performance of
functions, whose object is to resist death. Life, however,
does not consist in a single principle, as has been taught by
some celebrated writers, by Stahl, Van Helmont, and Barthez,
&c. We are to study the phenomena of life, as we do those of
other matter, and refer the operations performed in living
systems to such ultimate principles as we can trace them to,
in the same way that we do the operations taking place among
inorganic substances. … His essential doctrine … is that
there is no one single, individual, presiding principle of
vitality, which animates the body, but that it is a collection
of matter gifted for a time with certain powers of action,
combined into organs which are thus enabled to act, and that
the result is a series of functions, the connected performance
of which constitutes it a living thing. This is his view of
life, considered in the most general and simple way. But in
carrying the examination farther, he points out two remarkable
modifications of life, as considered in different relations,
one common both to vegetables and animals, the other peculiar
to animals. … Those which we have in common with the
vegetable, which are necessary merely to our individual,
bodily existence, are called the functions of organic life,
because they are common to all organized matter. Those, on the
other hand, which are peculiar to animals, which in them are
superadded to the possession of the organic functions, are
called the functions of animal life. Physiologically speaking,
then, we have two lives, the concurrence of which enables us
to live and move and have our being; both equally necessary to
the relations we maintain as human beings, but not equally
necessary to the simple existence of a living thing. … The
two lives differ, in some important respects, as to the organs
by which their functions are performed. Those of the animal
life present a symmetry of external form, strongly contrasted
with the irregularity, which is a prominent characteristic of
those of organic life. In the animal life, every function IS
either performed by a pair of organs, perfectly similar in
structure and size, situated one upon each side of the median
dividing line of the body, or else by a single organ divided
into two similar and perfectly symmetrical halves by that
line. … The organs of the organic life, on the contrary,
present a picture totally different; they are irregularly
formed, and irregularly arranged. … This symmetry of the
form is accompanied by a corresponding harmony in the
functions of the organs of the animal life. … The functions
of the organic life are constantly going on; they admit of no
interruption, no repose. … In those of the animal life, the
case is widely different. They have intervals of entire
repose. The organs of this life are incapable of constant
activity, they become fatigued by exercise and require rest.
This rest, with regard to any particular organ, is the sleep
of that organ. … Upon this principle, Bichat founds his
theory of sleep. General sleep is the combination of the sleep
of particular organs. Sleep then is not any definite state,
but is more or less complete rest of the whole system in
proportion to the number of organs which require repose. …
The two lives differ also in regard to habit; the animal being
much under its control, the organic but slightly. … But the
principal and most important feature in the physiological
system of Bichat, is the complete, and entire, and exclusive
explanation of all the phenomena of the living system upon the
principles of vitality alone. Former physiologists have not
always kept this distinctly in view. … The human body has
been regarded, too often, as a mass of matter, organized to be
sure, but yet under the direction of physical laws, and the
performance of its functions has been ascribed to the powers
of inorganic matter. Hence, physiology has generally been
somewhat tinctured by the favorite science of the age, with
some of its notions. … With Bichat the properties of life
were all in all. The phenomena of the system, whether in
health or disease, were all ascribed to their influence and
operation."
J. Ware,
Life and Writings of Bichat
(North American Review, July, 1822).
{2143}
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18-19th Centuries.
Pinel and the Reform in treatment of the Insane.
Philippe Pinel, "who had attained some distinction as an
alienist, was appointed, 1792, to fill the post of
superintendent of the Bicêtre, which then contained upwards of
200 male patients, believed not only to be incurable, but
entirely uncontrollable. The previous experience of the
physician, here stood him in good stead. He had been a
diligent student of the authorities of his own and foreign
countries on diseases of the mind, and in his earlier years
had been appointed by the French government to report on the
condition of the asylums at Paris and Charenton. On assuming
the oversight of the Bicêtre, he found 53 men languishing in
chains, some of whom had been bound for a great number of
years. These were regarded by the authorities as dangerous and
even desperate characters; but the sight of men grown gray and
decrepit as the result of prolonged torture, made a very
different impression on the mind of Pinel. He addressed appeal
after appeal to the Commune, craving power to release, without
delay, the unhappy beings under his charge. The authorities
tardily and unwillingly yielded to the importunity of the
physician. An official, who was deputed by the Commune to
accompany the superintendent and watch his experiment, no
sooner caught sight of the chained maniacs than he excitedly
exclaimed: 'Ah, ça! citoyen, es-tu fou toi-même de vouloir
déchaîner de pareils animaux?' The physician was not to be
deterred, however, from carrying out his benevolent project,
and did not rest satisfied until all of the 53 men had been
gradually liberated from their chains. Singular as it may
appear, the man who had been regarded as the most dangerous,
and who had survived forty years of this severe treatment, was
afterwards known as the faithful and devoted servant of Pinel.
The reforms of Pinel were not confined to the Bicêtre, an
establishment exclusively for men, but extended to the
Salpêtrière, an institution for women. There is, perhaps, no
more touching event in history than that of this kind-hearted
and wise physician removing the bands and chains from the
ill-fated inmates of this place of horrors. The monstrous
fallacy of cruel treatment once fully exposed, the insane came
to be looked upon as unfortunate human beings, stricken with a
terrible disease, and, like other sick persons, requiring
every aid which science and benevolent sympathy could provide
with a view to cure. Governmental inquiries were instituted
with a view to the attainment of better treatment, and in
different countries, almost simultaneously, the provision of
suitable and adequate accommodation for the insane was
declared to be a State necessity."
W. P. Letchworth,
The Insane in Foreign Countries,
chapter 1.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
The Discovery of Anæsthetics.
"In 1798, Mr. Humphry Davy, an apprentice to Mr. Borlase a
surgeon at Bodmin, had so distinguished himself by zeal and
power in the study of chemistry and natural philosophy, that
he was invited by Dr. Beddoes of Bristol, to become the
'superintendent of the Pneumatic Institution which had been
established at Clifton for the purpose of trying the medicinal
effects of different gases.' He obtained release from his
apprenticeship, accepted the appointment, and devoted himself
to the study of gases, not only in their medicinal effects,
but much more in all their chemical and physical relations.
After two years' work he published his 'Researches, Chemical
and Philosophical, chiefly concerning Nitrous Oxide.' … He
wrote, near the end of his essay: 'As nitrous oxide in its
extensive operation appears capable of destroying physical
pain, it may probably be used with advantage during surgical
operations in which no great effusion of blood takes place.'
It seems strange that no one caught at a suggestion such as
this. … The nitrous oxide might have been of as little
general interest as the carbonic or any other, had it not been
for the strange and various excitements produced by its
inhalation. These made it a favourite subject with chemical
lecturers, and year after year, in nearly every chemical
theatre, it was fun to inhale it after the lecture on the
gaseous compounds of nitrogen; and among those who inhaled it
there must have been many who, in their intoxication, received
sharp and heavy blows, but, at the time, felt no pain. And
this went on for more than forty years, exciting nothing
worthy to be called thought or observation, till, in December
1844, Mr. Colton, a popular itinerant lecturer on chemistry,
delivered a lecture on 'laughing gas' in Hartford,
Connecticut. Among his auditors was Mr. Horace Wells, an
enterprising dentist in that town, a man of some power in
mechanical invention. After the lecture came the usual
amusement of inhaling the gas, and Wells, in whom long wishing
had bred a kind of belief that something might be found to
make tooth-drawing painless, observed that one of the men
excited by the gas was not conscious of hurting himself when
he fell on the benches and bruised and cut his knees. Even
when he became calm and clear-headed the man was sure that he
did not feel pain at the time of his fall. Wells was at once
convinced—more easily convinced than a man of more scientific
mind would have been—that, during similar insensibility, in a
state of intense nervous excitement, teeth might be drawn
without pain, and he determined that himself and one of his
own largest teeth should be the first for trial. Next morning
Colton gave him the gas, and his friend Dr. Riggs extracted
his tooth. He remained unconscious for a few moments, and then
exclaimed, 'A new era in tooth-pulling! It did not hurt me
more than the prick of a pin. It is the greatest discovery
ever made.' In the next three weeks Wells extracted teeth from
some twelve or fifteen persons under the influence of the
nitrous oxide, and gave pain to only two or three. Dr. Riggs,
also, used it with the same success, and the practice was well
known and talked of in Hartford. Encouraged by his success
Wells went to Boston, wishing to enlarge the reputation of his
discovery and to have an opportunity of giving the gas to some
one undergoing a surgical operation. Dr. J. C. Warren, the
senior Surgeon of the Massachusetts General Hospital, to whom
he applied for this purpose, asked him to show first its
effects on some one from whom he would draw a tooth. He
undertook to do this in the theatre of the medical college
before a large class of students, to whom he had, on a
previous day, explained his plan. Unluckily, the bag of gas
from which the patient was inhaling was taken a way too soon;
he cried out when his tooth was drawn; the students hissed and
hooted; and the discovery was denounced as an imposture. Wells
left Boston disappointed and disheartened; he fell ill, and
was for many months unable to practise his profession. Soon
afterwards he gave up dentistry, and neglected the use and
study of the nitrous oxide, till he was recalled to it by a
discovery even more important than his own. The thread of the
history of nitrous oxide may be broken here.
{2144}
The inhalation of sulphuric ether was often, even in the last
century, used for the relief of spasmodic asthma, phthisis,
and some other diseases of the chest. … As the sulphuric
ether would 'produce effects very similar to those occasioned
by nitrous oxide,' and was much the more easy to procure, it
came to be often inhaled, for amusement, by chemist's lads and
by pupils in the dispensaries of surgeons. It was often thus
used by young people in many places in the United States. They
had what they called 'ether frolics.' … Among those who had
joined in these ether-frolics was Dr. Wilhite of Anderson,
South Carolina. In one of them, in 1839," a negro boy was
unconscious so long that he was supposed for some time to be
dead. "The fright at having, it was supposed, so nearly killed
the boy, put an end to the ether-frolics in that
neighbourhood; but in 1842, Wilhite had become a pupil of Dr.
Crauford Long, practising at that time at Jefferson (Jackson
County, Georgia). Here he and Dr. Long and three fellow-pupils
often amused themselves with the ether-inhalation, and Dr.
Long observed that when he became furiously excited, as he
often did, he was unconscious of the blows which he, by
chance, received as he rushed or tumbled about. He observed
the same in his pupils; and thinking over this, and emboldened
by what Mr. Wilhite told him of the negro-boy recovering after
an hour's insensibility, he determined to try whether the
ether-inhalation would make any one insensible of the pain of
an operation. So, in March, 1842, nearly three years before
Wells's observations with the nitrous oxide, he induced a Mr.
Venable, who had been very fond of inhaling ether, to inhale
it till he was quite insensible. Then he dissected a tumour
from his neck; no pain was felt, and no harm followed. Three
months later, he similarly removed another tumour from him;
and again, in 1842 and in 1845, he operated on other three
patients, and none felt pain. His operations were known and
talked of in his neighbourhood; but the neighbourhood was only
that of an obscure little town; and he did not publish any of
his observations. … He waited to test the ether more
thoroughly in some greater operation than those in which he
had yet tried it; and then he would have published his account
of it. While he was waiting, others began to stir more
actively in busier places, where his work was quite unknown,
not even heard of. Among those with whom, in his unlucky visit
to Boston, Wells talked of his use of the nitrous oxide, and
of the great discovery which he believed that he had made,
were Dr. Morton and Dr. Charles Jackson. … Morton was a
restless energetic dentist, a rough man, resolute to get
practice and make his fortune. Jackson was a quiet scientific
gentleman, unpractical and unselfish, in good repute as a
chemist, geologist, and mineralogist. At the time of Wells's
visit, Morton, who had been his pupil in 1842, and for a short
time, in 1843, his partner, was studying medicine and anatomy
at the Massachusetts Medical College, and was living in
Jackson's house. Neither Morton nor Jackson put much if any
faith in Wells's story, and Morton witnessed his failure in
the medical theatre. Still, Morton had it in his head that
tooth-drawing might somehow be made painless. … Jackson had
long known, as many others did, of sulphuric ether being
inhaled for amusement and of its producing effects like those
of nitrous oxide; he knew also of its employment as a remedy
for the irritation caused by inhaling chlorine. He had himself
used it for this purpose, and once, in 1842, while using it,
he became completely insensible. He had thus been led to think
that the pure ether might be used for the prevention of pain
in surgical operations; he spoke of it with some scientific
friends, and sometimes advised a trial of it; but he did not
urge it or take any active steps to promote even the trial.
One evening, Morton, who was now in practice as a dentist,
called on him, full of some scheme which he did not divulge,
and urgent for success in painless tooth-drawing. Jackson
advised him to use the ether, and taught him how to use it. On
that same evening, the 30th of September, 1846, Morton inhaled
the ether, put himself to sleep, and, when he awoke, found
that he had been asleep for eight minutes. Instantly, as he
tells, he looked for an opportunity of giving it to a patient;
and one just then coming in, a stout healthy man, he induced
him to inhale, made him quite insensible, and drew his tooth
without his having the least consciousness of what was done.
But the great step had yet to be made. … Could it be right
to incur the risk of insensibility long enough and deep enough
for a large surgical operation? It was generally believed that
in such insensibility there was serious danger to life. Was it
really so? Jackson advised Morton to ask Dr. J. C. Warren to
let him try, and Warren dared to let him. It is hard, now, to
think how bold the enterprise must have seemed to those who
were capable of thinking accurately on the facts then known.
The first trial was made on the 16th of October, 1846. Morton
gave the ether to a patient in the Massachusetts General
Hospital, and Dr. Warren removed a tumour from his neck. The
result was not complete success; the patient hardly felt the
pain of the cutting, but he was aware that the operation was
being performed. On the next day, in a severer operation by
Dr. Hayward, the success was perfect; the patient felt
nothing, and in long insensibility there was no appearance of
danger to life. The discovery might already be deemed
complete; for the trials of the next following days had the
same success, and thence onwards the use of the ether extended
over constantly widening fields. … It might almost be said
that in every place, at least in Europe, where the discovery
was promoted more quickly than in America, the month might be
named before which all operative surgery was agonising, and
after which it was painless."
Sir J. Paget,
Escape from Pain
(Nineteenth Century, December 1879).
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
The Study of Fermentation and its results.
"It was some time ago the current belief that epidemic
diseases generally were propagated by a kind of malaria, which
consisted of organic matter in a state of motor-decay; that
when such matter was taken into the body through the lungs,
skin, or stomach, it had the power of spreading there the
destroying process by which itself had been assailed. Such a
power was visibly exerted in the case of yeast. A little
leaven was seen to leaven the whole lump—a mere speck of
matter, in this supposed state of decomposition, being
apparently competent to propagate indefinitely its own decay.
Why should not a bit of rotten malaria act in a similar manner
within the human frame? In 1836 a very wonderful reply was
given to this question. In that year Cagniard de la Tour
discovered the yeast-plant—a living organism, which when
placed in a proper medium feeds, grows, and reproduces itself,
and in this way carries on the process which we name
fermentation. By this striking discovery fermentation was
connected with organic growth. Schwann, of Berlin, discovered
the yeast-plant independently about the same time."
J. Tyndall,
Fragments of Science,
volume 1, chapter 5.
{2145}
The question of fermentation "had come to present an entirely
new aspect through the discovery of Cagniard de la Tour that
yeast is really a plant belonging to one of the lowest types
of fungi, which grows and reproduces itself in the fermentable
fluid, and whose vegetative action is presumably the cause of
that fermentation, just as the development of mould in a
jam-pot occasions a like change in the upper stratum of the
jam, on whose surface, and at whose expense, it lives and
reproduces itself. Chemists generally—especially Liebig, who
had a fermentation theory of his own—pooh-poohed this idea
altogether; maintaining the presence of the yeast-plant to be
a mere concomitant, and refusing to believe that it had any
real share in the process. But in 1843, Professor Helmholtz,
then a young undistinguished man, devised a method of stopping
the passage of organic germs from a fermenting into a
fermentable liquid, without checking the passage of fluids;
and as no fermentation was then set up, he drew the inference
that the 'particulate' organic germs, not the soluble material
of the yeast, furnish the primum mobile of this change,—a
doctrine which, though now universally accepted, had to fight
its way for some time against the whole force of chemical
authority. A little before Cagniard de la Tour's discovery, a
set of investigations had been made by Schulze and Schwann, to
determine whether the exclusion of air was absolutely
necessary to prevent the appearance of living organisms in
decomposing fluids, or whether these fluids might be kept free
from animal or vegetable life, by such means as would
presumably destroy any germs which the air admitted to them
might bring in from without, such as passing it through a
red-hot tube or strong sulphuric acid. These experiments, it
should be said, had reference rather to the question of
'spontaneous generation,' or 'abiogenesis,' than to the cause
of fermentation and decomposition; its object being to
determine whether the living things found by the microscope in
a decomposing liquid exposed to the air, spring from germs
brought by the atmosphere, or are generated 'de novo' in the
act of decay—the latter doctrine having then many upholders.
But the discovery of the real nature of yeast, and the
recognition of the part it plays in alcoholic fermentation,
gave an entirely new value to Schulze's and Schwann's results;
suggesting that putrefactive and other kinds of decomposition
may be really due, not (as formerly supposed) to the action of
atmospheric oxygen upon unstable organic compounds, but to a
new arrangement of elements brought about by the development
of germinal particles deposited from the atmosphere. It was at
this point that Pasteur took up the inquiry; and for its
subsequent complete working-out, science is mainly indebted to
him: for although other investigators—notably Professor
Tyndall—have confirmed and extended his conclusions by
ingenious variations on his mode of research, they would be
the first to acknowledge that all those main positions which
have now gained universal acceptance—save on the part of a
few obstinate 'irreconcilables'—have been established by
Pasteur's own labours. … The first application of these
doctrines to the study of disease in the living animal was
made in a very important investigation, committed to Pasteur
by his old master in chemistry (the eminent and eloquent
Dumas), into the nature of the 'pébrine,' which was
threatening to extinguish the whole silk culture of France and
Italy. … Though it concerned only a humble worm, it laid the
foundation of an entirely new system and method of research
into the nature and causes of a large class of diseases in man
and the higher animals, of which we are now only beginning to
see the important issues. Among the most immediately
productive of its results, may be accounted the 'antiseptic
surgery' of Professor Lister; of which the principle is the
careful exclusion of living bacteria and other germs, alike
from the natural internal cavities of the body, and from such
as are formed by disease, whenever these may be laid open by
accident, or may have to be opened surgically. This exclusion
is effected by the judicious use of carbolic acid, which kills
the germs without doing any mischief to the patient; and the
saving of lives, of limbs, and of severe suffering, already
brought about by this method, constitutes in itself a glorious
triumph alike to the scientific elaborator of the
germ-doctrine, and to the scientific surgeon by whom it has
been thus applied. A far wider range of study, however, soon
opened itself. The revival by Dr. Farr of the doctrine of
'zymosis' (fermentation),—long ago suggested by the sagacity
of Robert Boyle, and practically taken up in the middle of the
last century by Sir John Pringle (the most scientific
physician of his time),—as the expression of the effect
produced in the blood by the introduction of a specific poison
(such as that of small-pox, measles, scarlatina, cholera,
typhus, &c.), had naturally directed the attention of
thoughtful men to the question (often previously raised
speculatively), whether these specific poisons are not really
organic germs, each kind of which, a real 'contagium vivum,'
when sown in the circulating fluid, produces a definite
'zymosis' of its own, in the course of which the poison is
reproduced with large increase, exactly after the manner of
yeast in a fermenting wort. Pasteur's success brought this
question to the front, as one not to talk about, but to work at."
W. B. Carpenter,
Disease-Germs
(Nineteenth Century, October, 1881).
ALSO IN:
L. Pasteur,
Studies in Fermentation.
Dr. Duclaux,
Fermentation.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
Virchow and Cellular Pathology.
"That really gifted scholar and paragon of industry and
attainment, Rudolph Virchow, announced in 1858 a theory known
as Modern Vitalism which was borrowed from natural scientific
medicine and is distinguished from the vitalism of the
previous century in this, that it breaks up the old vital
force, which was supposed to be either distributed throughout
the entire body, or located in a few organs, into an
indefinite number of associate vital forces working
harmoniously, and assigns to them all the final elementary
principles without microscopic seat. 'Every animal principle
has a sum of vital unities, each of which bears all the
characteristics of life.
{2146}
The characteristics and unity of life cannot be found in any
determinate point of a higher organism, e. g., in the brain,
but only in the definite, ever recurring arrangements of each
element present. Hence it results that the composition of a
large body amounts to a kind of social arrangement, in which
each one of the movements of individual existence is dependent
upon the others, but in such a way that each element has a
special activity of its own, and that each, although it
receives the impulse to its own activity from other parts,
still itself performs its own functions.' This it will be seen
is nothing but another way of expressing the cell doctrine to
which most medical men are now committed, which means that our
bodies are built up with cells, and that each cell has a unity
and a purpose of its own. Sir Robert Hooke in 1677 discovered
plant cells. Schwann discovered animal cells, and Robert Brown
discovered cell nuclei, but it remained for Virchow, using the
microscope, to supply the gap which had risen between
anatomical knowledge and medical theory, that is, to supply a
'cellular pathology,' since which time the cell has assumed
the role which the fibre occupied in the theories of the 17th
and 18th centuries. Time alone can decide as to the ultimate
validity of these views. This theory was from its announcement
most enthusiastically received, and so far has responded to
nearly all the requirements which have been made of it. Even
its author was almost startled with its success. … As a
result of Virchow's labors there has arisen in Germany what

has been called the medical school of natural sciences of
which Virchow is the intellectual father. This school seeks
mainly by means of pathological anatomy and microscopy,
experimental physiology and pathology, and the other applied
sciences, or rather by their methods, to make medicine also an
exact science."
Roswell Park,
Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
The development of Bacteriology.
"The traditional expression contagium vivum received a more
precise meaning in 1840 from Henle, who in his 'Pathologischen
Untersuchungen,' showed clearly and distinctly that the
contagia till then invisible must be regarded as living
organisms, and gave his reasons for this view. … If we are
forced to recognise the characteristic qualities of living
beings in these contagia, there is no good reason why we
should not regard them as real living beings, parasites. For
the only general distinction between their mode of appearance
and operation and that of parasites is, that the parasites
with which we are acquainted have been seen and the contagia
have not. That this may be due to imperfect observation is
shown by the experiments on the itch in 1840, in which the
contagium, the itch-mite, though almost visible without
magnifying power, was long at least misunderstood. It was only
a short time before that the microscopic Fungus, Achorion,
which causes favus, was unexpectedly discovered, as well as
the Fungus which gives rise to the infectious disease in the
caterpillar of the silkworm known as muscardine. Other and
similar cases occurred at a later time, and among them that of
the discovery of the Trichinae between 1850 and 1860, a very
remarkable instance of a contagious parasite long overlooked.
Henle repeated his statements in 1853 in his 'Rationelle
Pathologie,' but for reasons which it is not our business to
examine, his views on animal pathology met with little
attention or approval. It was in connection with
plant-pathology that Henle's views were first destined to
further development, and obtained a firmer footing. It is true
that the botanists who occupied themselves with the diseases
of plants knew nothing of Henle's pathological writings, but
made independent efforts to carry on some first attempts which
had been made with distinguished success in the beginning of
the century. But they did in fact strike upon the path
indicated by Henle, and the constant advance made after, about
the year 1850, resulted not only in the tracing back of all
infectious diseases in plants to parasites as their exciting
cause, but in proving that most of the diseases of plants are
due to parasitic infection. It may now certainly be admitted
that the task was comparatively easy in the vegetable kingdom,
partly because the structure of plants makes them more
accessible to research, partly because most of the parasites
which infect them are true Fungi, and considerably larger than
most of the contagia of animal bodies. From this time
observers in the domain of animal pathology, partly
influenced, more or less, by these discoveries in botany, and
partly in consequence of the revival of the vitalistic theory
of fermentation by Pasteur about the year 1860, returned to
Henle's vitalistic theory of contagion. Henle himself, in the
exposition of his views, had already indicated the points of
comparison between his own theory and the theory of
fermentation founded at that time by Cagniard-Latour and
Schwann. Under the influence, as he expressly says, of
Pasteur's writings, Davaine recalled to mind the little rods
first seen by his teacher, Rayer, in the blood of an animal
suffering from anthrax, and actually discovered in them the
exciting cause of the disease, which may be taken as a type of
an infectious disease both contagious and miasmatic also, in
so far as it originates, as has been said, in
anthrax-districts. This was, in 1863, a very important
confirmation of Henle's theory, inasmuch as a very small
parasite, not very easy of observation at that time, was
recognised as a contagium. It was some time before much
further advance was made. … The latest advance to be
recorded begins with the participation of Robert Koch in the
work of research since 1876."
A. De Bary,
Lectures on Bacteria,
pages 145-148.
"M. Pasteur is no ordinary man; he is one of the rare
individuals who must be described by the term 'genius.' Having
commenced his scientific career and attained great distinction
as a chemist, M. Pasteur was led by his study of the chemical
process of fermentations to give his attention to the
phenomena of disease in living bodies resembling
fermentations. Owing to a singular and fortunate mental
characteristic, he has been able, not simply to pursue a rigid
path of investigation dictated by the logical or natural
connection of the phenomena investigated, but deliberately to
select for inquiry matters of the most profound importance to
the community, and to bring his inquiries to a successful
practical issue in a large number of instances.
{2147}
Thus he has saved the silkworm industry of France and Italy
from destruction, he has taught the French wine-makers to
quickly mature their wine, he has effected an enormous
improvement and economy in the manufacture of beer, he has
rescued the sheep and cattle of Europe from the fatal disease
'anthrax,' and it is probable—he would not himself assert
that it is at present more than probable—that he has rendered
hydrophobia a thing of the past. The discoveries made by this
remarkable man would have rendered him, had he patented their
application and disposed of them according to commercial
principles, the richest man in the world. They represent a
gain of some millions sterling annually to the community. …
M. Pasteur's first experiment in relation to hydrophobia was
made in December 1880, when he inoculated two rabbits with the
mucus from the mouth of a child which had died of that
disease. As his inquiries extended he found that it was
necessary to establish by means of experiment even the most
elementary facts with regard to the disease, for the existing
knowledge on the subject was extremely small, and much of what
passed for knowledge was only ill-founded tradition."
E. R. Lankester,
The Advancement of Science,
pages 121-123.
"The development of our knowledge relating to the bacteria,
stimulated by the controversy relating to spontaneous
generation and by the demonstration that various processes of
fermentation and putrefaction are due to microörganisms of
this class, has depended largely upon improvements in methods
of research. Among the most important points in the
development of bacteriological technique we may mention first,
the use of a cotton air filter (Schröder and Von Dusch, 1854);
second, the sterilization of culture fluids by heat (methods
perfected by Pasteur, Koch, and others); third, the use of the
aniline dyes as staining agents (first recommended by Weigert
in 1877); fourth, the introduction of solid culture media and
the 'plate method' for obtaining pure cultures, by Koch in
1881. The various improvements in methods of research, and
especially the introduction of solid culture media and Koch's
'plate method' for isolating bacteria from mixed 'cultures,
have placed bacteriology upon a scientific basis. … It was a
distinguished French physician, Davaine, who first
demonstrated the etiological relation of a microörganism of
this class to a specific infectious disease. The anthrax
bacillus had been seen in the blood of animals dying from this
disease by Pollender in 1849, and by Davaine in 1850, but it
was several years later (1863) before the last-named observer
claimed to have demonstrated by inoculation experiments the
causal relation of the bacillus to the disease in question.
The experiments of Davaine were not generally accepted as
conclusive, because in inoculating an animal with blood
containing the bacillus, from an infected animal which had
succumbed to the disease, the living microörganism was
associated with material from the body of the diseased animal.
This objection was subsequently removed by the experiments of
Pasteur, Koch, and many others, with pure cultures of the
bacillus, which were shown to have the same pathogenic effects
as had been obtained in inoculation experiments with the blood
of an infected animal."
G. M. Sternberg,
Manual of Bacteriology,
page 6.
"In 1876 the eminent microscopist, Professor Cohn, of Breslau,
was in London, and he then handed me a number of his
'Beiträge,' containing a memoir by Dr. Koch on Splenic Fever
(Milzbrand, Charbon, Malignant Pustule), which seemed to me to
mark an epoch in the history of this formidable disease. With
admirable patience, skill, and penetration Koch followed up
the life-history of bacillus anthracis, the contagium of this
fever. At the time here referred to he was a young physician
holding a small appointment in the neighbourhood of Breslau,
and it was easy to predict, and indeed I predicted at the
time, that he would soon find himself in a higher position.
When I next heard of him he was head of the Imperial Sanitary
Institute of Berlin. … Koch was not the discoverer of the
parasite of splenic fever. Davaine and Rayer, in 1850, had
observed the little microscopic rods in the blood of animals
which had died of splenic fever. But they were quite
unconscious of the significance of their observation, and for
thirteen years, as M. Radot informs us, strangely let the
matter drop. In 1863 Davaine's attention was again directed to
the subject by the researches of Pasteur, and he then
pronounced the parasite to be the cause of the fever. He was
opposed by some of his fellow-countrymen; long discussions
followed, and a second period of thirteen years, ending with
the publication of Koch's paper, elapsed before M. Pasteur
took up the question. I always, indeed, assumed that from the
paper of the learned German came the impulse towards a line of
inquiry in which M. Pasteur has achieved such splendid
results."
J. Tyndall,
New Fragments,
pages 190-191.
"On the 24th of March, 1882, an address of very serious public
import was delivered by Dr. Koch before the Physiological
Society of Berlin. … The address … is entitled 'The
Etiology of Tubercular Disease.' Koch first made himself
known, and famous, by the penetration, skill, and thoroughness
of his researches on the contagium of anthrax, or splenic
fever. … Koch's last inquiry deals with a disease which, in
point of mortality, stands at the head of them all. 'If,' he
says, 'the seriousness of a malady be measured by the number
of its victims, then the most dreaded pests which have
hitherto ravaged the world—plague and cholera included—must
stand far behind the one now under consideration.' Then
follows the startling statement that one-seventh of the deaths
of the human race are due to tubercular disease. Prior to Koch
it had been placed beyond doubt that the disease was
communicable; and the aim of the Berlin physician has been to
determine the precise character of the contagium which
previous experiments on inoculation and inhalation had proved
to be capable of indefinite transfer and reproduction. He
subjected the diseased organs of a great number of men and
animals to microscopic examination, and found, in all cases,
the tubercles infested by a minute, rod-shaped parasite, which
by means of a special dye, he differentiated from the
surrounding tissue. 'It was,' he says, 'in the highest degree
impressive to observe in the centre of the tubercle-cell the
minute organism which had created it.' Transferring directly,
by inoculation, the tuberculous matter from diseased animals
to healthy ones, he in every instance reproduced the disease.
To meet the objection that it was not the parasite itself, but
some virus in which it was imbedded in the diseased organ,
that was the real contagium, he cultivated his bacilli
artificially for long periods of time and through many
successive generations.
{2148}
With a speck of matter, for example, from a tuberculous human
lung, he infected a substance prepared, after much trial, by
himself, with the view of affording nutriment to the parasite.
In this medium he permitted it to grow and multiply: From the
new generation he took a minute sample, and infected therewith
fresh nutritive matter, thus producing another brood.
Generation after generation of bacilli were developed in this
way, without the intervention of disease. At the end of the
process, which sometimes embraced successive cultivations
extending over half a year, the purified bacilli were
introduced into the circulation of healthy animals of various
kinds. In every case inoculation was followed by the
reproduction and spread of the parasite, and the generation of
the original disease. … The moral of these experiments is
obvious. In no other conceivable way than that pursued by Koch
could the true character of the most destructive malady by
which humanity is now assailed be determined. And however
noisy the fanaticism of the moment may be, the common-sense of
Englishmen will not, in the long run, permit it to enact
cruelty in the name of tenderness, or to debar us from the
light and leading of such investigations as that which is here
so imperfectly described."
J. Tyndall,
New Fragments,
pages 423-428.
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
The Theory of Germ Diseases.
"An account of the innumerable questions and investigations in
this department of modern pathogenesis, of the various views
on certain questions, etc., does not fall within the compass
of our brief sketch. Nor are we able to furnish a consistent
theory, simply because such an one does not [1889] exist. One
fact alone is agreed upon, to wit, that certain of the lower
fungi, as parasites within or upon the body, excite diseases
(infectious diseases). As regards the modus operandi of these
parasites two main theories are held. According to one theory,
these parasites, by their development, deprive the body of its
nutriment and endanger life particularly when, thronging in
the blood, they deprive this of the oxygen necessary for
existence. According to the other theory, they threaten life
by occasioning decompositions which engender putrid poisons
(ptomaines). These latter poisons were first isolated by P. L.
Panum in 1856, and have been recently specially studied by
Brieger (Ueber Ptomaine, Berlin, 1885-86). They act
differently upon bodies according to the variety of the
alkaloidal poison. Metschnikoff regards the white
blood-corpuscles as antagonists of these parasites (thus
explaining the cases of recovery from parasitic diseases), and
in this point of view calls them 'phagocytes.' On the other
hand E. Salmon and Theodore Smith ('Transactions of the
Washington Biological Society, February 22d, 1886) were the
first to demonstrate that sterilized nutritive solutions or
germ-free products of change of matter of the virulent
exciters of disease, when injected, afford protection. A.
Chauveau as early as 1880 had brought forward evidence of the
probability of this fact, and Hans Buchner in 1879 admitted
the possibility of depriving bacteria of their virulence.
Pasteur, however, believes he has demonstrated that by
continued cultures (also a sort of bacillary Isopathy)
'debilitated' germs act as prophylactics against the
corresponding parasitic diseases, and he even thinks he has
confirmed this by his inoculations against hydrophobia—a
view, at all events, still open to doubt. … The chief
diseases regarded as of parasitic origin at present are:
anthrax (Davaine, 1850); relapsing fever (Obermeier, 1873);
gonorrhœa and blenorrhœa neonatorum (Neisser, 1879); glanders
(Struck, 1882, Loeffler and Schütz); syphilis (Sigm.
Lustgarten, 1884); diphtheria (Oertel, Letzerich, Klebs);
typhus (Eberle, Klebs); tuberculosis (Koch, 1882); cholera
(Koch, 1884); lepra (Armauer-Hansen); actinomycosis (Bollinger
in cattle, 1877; Israel in man, 1884); septicæmia (Klebs);
erysipelas (Fehleisen); pneumonia (Friedländer); malarial
fever (Klebs, Tommasi-Crudeli, Marchiafava); malignant œdema
(Koch); tetanus (Carle and Rattone, Nicolaier, Roeschlaub
assumed a tetania occasioned by bacilli); cancer (Scheuerlen;
priority contested by Dr. G. Rappia and Prof. Domingo Freire
of Rio Janeiro); yellow fever (microbe claimed to have been
discovered by Freire); dysentery (bacillary diphtheritis of
the large intestine); cholera nostras (Finkler and Prior);
scarlet fever (Coze and Feltz, '72); variola and vaccina
(Keber, Zülzer, Weigert, Klebs); acute yellow atrophy of the
liver (Klebs, Waldeyer, Eppinger); endocarditis (Ziegler);
hæmophilia neonatorum (Klebs, Eppinger); trachoma (Sattler);
keratitis (Leber—aspergillus); ulcus rodens corneæ (Sattler);
gonorrhœal rheumatism (Petrone, Kammerer). If the bacterial
theory of infection, constantly threatening life by such
numerous pathogenic varieties of infecting organisms, must be
looked upon as a gloomy one, the anti-bacterial Phagocyte
Theory of Metschnikoff, professor of zoology in Odessa, is
adapted to make one feel more comfortable, inasmuch as it
brings into view the possibility of an antagonism to these
infecting organisms, and explains the method of nature's
cures. Metschnikoff observed that the wandering cells—the
white blood corpuscles—after the manner of amœbæ, surround,
hold fast, digest ('devour,' hence 'phagocytes'), and thus
render harmless the bacteria which have entered the body. …
The prophylactic effects of inoculation are explained on the
theory that by means of this operation the wandering cells are
prepared, as it were, for subsequent accidental irruptions of
similar pathogenic bacteria, are habituated or compelled
thereby to at once devour such organisms when they enter the
body spontaneously, and thus to render them harmless.
Inoculation would thus be a sort of training or education of
the phagocytes. The immunity of many persons from infectious
diseases, so far as it is not effected by inoculations, would
by analogy be explained on the theory that with such
individuals the phagocytes are from the outset so constituted
that they at once render harmless any stray bacteria which
come within their domain by immediately devouring them. …
When … in spite of the phagocytes, the patients die of
infectious diseases, the fact is to be explained by the
excessive number of the bacteria present, which is so great
that the phagocytes are unequal to the task of 'devouring'
them all."
J. H. Baas,
Outlines of the History of Medicine,
pages 1007-1009.
{2149}
MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
Sanitary Science and Legislation.
"Together with the growth of our knowledge of the causes of
disease there has been … slowly growing up also a new kind
of warfare against disease. It is this science of hygiene
which is now promising to transform all the old traditional
ways of dealing with disease, and which now makes possible the
organisation of the conditions of health. And this science of
hygiene, it must be repeated, rests on the exact knowledge of
the causes of disease which we are now obtaining. … At the
beginning of the eighteenth century Mead, a famous physician
of that day, whose reputation still lives, had proposed the
formation of a central board of health to organise common
measures for the public safety. It was not, however, until
more than a hundred years later, in 1831, under the influence
of the terror of cholera, that this first step was taken; so
that, as it has been well said and often since proved, 'panic
is the parent of sanitation.' In 1842 Sir Edwin Chadwick
issued his report on 'The Sanitary Condition of the Labouring
Population of Great Britain.' This report produced marked
effect, and may truly be said to have inaugurated the new era
of collective action, embodying itself in legislation directed
to the preservation of national health, an era which is thus
just half a century old. Chadwick's report led to a Royal
Commission, which was the first step in the elevation of
public health to a State interest; and a few years later
(1847) Liverpool, and immediately afterwards London, appointed
the first medical officers of health in Great Britain. In 1848
another epidemic of cholera appeared, and a General Board of
Health was established. During this epidemic Dr. Snow began
those inquiries which led to the discovery that the spread of
the disease was due to the contamination of drinking-water by
the intestinal discharges of patients. That discovery marked
the first great stage in the new movement. Henceforth the
objects to be striven for in the evolution of sanitation
became ever more clear and precise, and a succession of
notable discoveries in connection with various epidemics
enlarged the sphere of sanitation, and revealed new
possibilities in the prevention of human misery."
H. Ellis,
The Nationalisation of Health,
pages 21-24.
"Of all countries of the civilized world, none has a sanitary
code so complete and so precise as England. In addition,
English legislation is distinguished from that of other
countries, by the fact that the principal regulations emanate
from Parliament instead of being simple administrative orders.
Thus the legislation is the work of the nation, which has
recognised its necessity in its own interest. Consequently the
laws are respected, and, as a rule, religiously observed,
without objection or murmur. In the whole country, the
marvellous results which have been produced can be seen.
Thanks to these laws, the rate of mortality has been lowered,
the mean duration of life increased, the amount of sickness
decreased. They have greatly alleviated the misery in the
houses of the poor, who, thanks to sanitary measures, have a
better prospect of recovering their health and the means of
providing for their subsistence and that of their families.
… The sanitary administration of England is, in accordance
with the Public Health Act of 1875, in the hands of a central
authority, the Local Government Board; and local authorities,
the Local Boards of Health. The Local Government Board
consists of a president, nominated by the Queen, and the
following ex-officio members:—the Lord President of the Privy
Council, all the principal Secretaries of State for the time
being, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a
Parliamentary Secretary, and a permanent Secretary. The
President and Secretaries are, properly speaking, the
directors of the Local Government Board, the other members
being only consulted on matters of prime importance. Nine
special departments are controlled by the Local Government
Board:
1. Poor-law administration.
2. Legal questions.
3. Sanitary regulations respecting buildings.
4. Sanitary regulations respecting sewers, streets, etc.
5. Medical and hygienic matters.
6. Vaccination.
7. The Hygiene of factories.
8. The water supply of London.
9. Statistics.
Medical and sanitary matters are under the direction of a
Medical Officer, and an Assistant Medical Officer."
A. Palmberg,
Treatise on Public Health: England,
chapter 1.
"The United States have no uniform legislation for the
organization of public hygiene to the present day. Each State
organizes this service as it chooses. … That which
characterizes the sanitary organization of the States is the
fact that, in a large number of States, the right is granted
to the sanitary administrations to carry before the justices
the infractions of the regulations on this subject. It is a
similar organization to that of Great Britain, with a little
less independence, and it is the logical result of the general
system of administration which exists in the American Union.
… Without doubt the day will come when the National Board of
Health will be by act of Congress, with the consent of all the
States, the real superior council of public hygiene of the
American Union."
E. Sève,
On the General Organization of Public Hygiene
(Proceedings, International Sanitary Conference, 1881).
"The General Government [of the United States] can do little
in the way of compulsory legislation, which might interfere
with the action of the several States to control their own
sanitary affairs. It is possible that upon the ground of power
to legislate with regard to commerce, it might establish some
general system of quarantine and do something toward the
prevention of the pollution of navigable streams; but it could
probably only do this with such restrictions and exceptions as
would make its action of little practical value, unless,
indeed, it should resort to its right of eminent domain, and
become liable for all damages, individual or municipal, which
its action might cause. … No one would deny that the General
Government can properly create an organization for the purpose
of collecting and diffusing information on sanitary matters;
but comparatively few understand how much real power and
influence such an organization might acquire without having
the slightest legal authority to enforce any of its
recommendations. The passing of sanitary laws, and the
granting to a certain department the power to enforce these
laws, will not ensure good public health unless the public at
large supports those laws intelligently, and it can only do
this through State and municipal sanitary organizations. The
General Government might do much to promote the formation of
such organizations, and to assist them in various ways. … By
the 'act to prevent the introduction of infectious or
contagious diseases into the United States, and to establish a
national board of health,' approved March 3, 1879, the first
step has been taken in the direction above indicated.
{2150}
The act provides for a national board of health, to consist of
seven members, appointed by the President, and of four
officers detailed from the Medical Department of the Army,
Medical Department of the Navy, and the Marine Hospital
Service, and the Department of Justice respectively. No
definite term of Office is prescribed, the Board being
essentially provisional in character. The duties of the board
are 'to obtain information upon all matters affecting the
public health, to advise the several departments of the
government, the executives of the several States, and the
Commissioners of the District of Columbia, on all questions
submitted by them, or whenever in the opinion of the board
such advice may tend to the preservation and improvement of
the public health.' The board is also directed to prepare a
plan for a national public health organization in conjunction
with the National Academy of Sciences."
J. S. Billings,
Introduction to "A Treatise on Hygiene and Public Health,"
edited by A. IL Buck.
ALSO IN:
Sir J. Simon,
English Sanitary Institutions
Sir J. Simon,
Public Health: Reports of the Medical Officer
of the Privy Council and Local Government Board.
United States National Board of Health, Annual Reports.
Massachusetts Board of Health, Annual Reports.
----------MEDICAL SCIENCE: End----------
MEDICI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427, and after.
----------MEDINA: Start--------
MEDINA: the City of the Prophet.
By Mahomet's Hegira or flight from Mecca to Yethrib, A. D.
622, the latter city became the seat of Islam and was
henceforward known as Medina—Medinet-en-Neby—"the City of
the Prophet."
S. Lane-Poole,
Studies in a Mosque,
chapter 2.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
MEDINA: A. D. 661.
The Caliphate transferred.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.
MEDINA: A. D. 683.
Stormed and sacked.
In the civil war which followed the accession of Yezid, the
second of the Omeyyad caliphs, Medina was besieged and stormed
by Yezid's army and given up for three days to every
imaginable brutality on the part of the soldiery. The
inhabitants who survived were made slaves.
Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapter 50.
ALSO IN:
W. Irving,
Mahomet and his Successors,
volume 2, chapter 47.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.
----------MEDINA: End----------
MEDINA DEL RIO SECO, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).
MEDIOLANUM.
Modern Milan. Taken by the Romans in 222 B. C. from the
Insubrian Gauls.
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
MEDIOMATRICI.
The original form of the name of the city of Metz, which had
been called Divodurum by the Gauls at an earlier day.
MEDISM.
MEDIZED GREEKS.
During the wars of the Persians against the Greeks, the former
had many friends and allies, both secret and open, among the
latter. These were commonly called Medized Greeks, and their
treason went by the name of Medism.
MEDITERRANEAN FUND.
A special fund provided by the United States Congress, in
1803, for the War with Tripoli.
H. Adams,
History of the United States,
volume 2, chapter 7.
MEDITERRANEAN SEA:
When named.
"For this sea … the Greeks had no distinctive name, because
it had so long been practically the only one known to them;
and Strabo can only distinguish it as 'the Inner' or 'Our'
Sea. … The now familiar appellation of Mediterranean is in
like manner first used by Solinus [third century], only as a
convenient designation, not as a strictly geographical term.
… The first extant author who employs it distinctly as a
proper name is Isidorus, who wrote in the seventh century."
E: H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 21, section 1,
chapter 23, section 2, foot-note,
chapter 31 (volume 2).
MEERUT, The Sepoy mutiny at.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY).
MEGALESIA, The.
See LUDI.
----------MEGALOPOLIS: Start--------
MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 371.
The founding of the city.
See GREECE: B. C. 371.
MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 317.
Defense against Polysperchon.
See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.
MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 222.
Destruction and restoration.
The last exploit of Cleomenes of Sparta, in his struggle with
the Achæan League and its ally, the king of Macedonia, before
the fatal field of Sellasia, was the capture of Megalopolis,
B. C. 222. Most of the citizens escaped. He offered to restore
their town to them, if they would forsake the League. They
refused, and he destroyed it, so utterly that its restoration
was believed to be impossible. But in the following year the
inhabitants were brought back and Megalopolis existed again,
though never with its former importance.
Polybius,
Histories,
book 2, chapter 55 and after (volume 1).
MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 194-183.
In the Achaian League.
"The city of Megalopolis held at this time [B. C. 194-183] the
same sort of position in the Achaian League which the State of
Virginia held in the first days of the American Union. Without
any sort of legal preëminence, without at all assuming the
character of a capital, Megalopolis was clearly the first city
of the League, the city which gave the nation the largest
proportion of its leading statesmen. Megalopolis, like
Virginia, was 'the Mother of Presidents,' and that too of
Presidents of different political parties. As Virginia
produced both Washington and Jefferson, so Megalopolis, if she
produced Philopoimen and Lykortas, produced also Aristainos
and Diophanes."
E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 9, section 2.
----------MEGALOPOLIS: End--------
----------MEGARA: Start--------
MEGARA.
Megara, the ancient Greek city and state whose territory lay
between Attica and Corinth, forming part of the Corinthian
isthmus, "is affirmed to have been originally settled by the
Dorians of Corinth, and to have remained for some time a
dependency of that city. It is farther said to have been at
first merely one of five separate villages—Megara, Heræa,
Peiræa, Kynosura, Tripodiskus—inhabited by a kindred
population, and generally on friendly terms, yet sometimes
distracted by quarrels. …
See CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.
Whatever may be the truth respecting this alleged early
subjection of Megara, we know it in the historical age, and
that too as early as the 14th Olympiad, only as an independent
Dorian city, maintaining the integrity of its territory under its
leader Orsippus, the famous Olympic runner, against some
powerful enemies, probably the Corinthians. It was of no mean
consideration, possessing a territory which extended across
Mount Geraneia to the Corinthian Gulf, on which the fortified
town and port of Pêgæ, belonging to the Megarians, was
situated. It was mother of early and distant colonies,—and
competent, during the time of Solon, to carry on a protracted
contest with the Athenians, for the possession of Salamis;
wherein, although the latter were at last victorious, it was
not without an intermediate period of ill-success and
despair."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 9.
See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
{2151}
MEGARA: B. C. 610-600.
Struggle with Athens for Salamis.
Spartan arbitration favorable to the Athenians.
See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.
MEGARA: B. C. 458-456.
Alliance with Athens in war with Corinth and Ægina.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
MEGARA: B. C. 446-445.
Rising against Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
MEGARA: B. C. 431-424.
Athenian invasions and ravages.
See ATHENS: B. C. 431.
MEGARA: B. C. 339-338.
Resistance to Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
----------MEGARA: End--------
MEGARA OF CARTHAGE, The.
See CARTHAGE: DIVISIONS.
MEGIDDO.
The valley of Megiddo, forming the western part of the great
Plain of Esdraelon, in northern Palestine—stretching from the
valley of the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, along the
course of the river Kishon—was the field of many important
battles in ancient times. Thothmes III. of the eighteenth
Egyptian dynasty, whose reign is placed about 1600 B. C., met
there, near the city of Megiddo, and defeated a confederacy of
Syrian and Canaanite princes who attempted to throw off his
yoke. A remarkable account of his victory and of the spoils he
took is preserved in inscriptions on the walls of the temple
at Karnak.
H. Brugsch,
History of Egypt,
chapter 13 (volume 1).
It was at Megiddo, also, that Sisera, commanding the forces of
the Canaanites, was beaten and driven to flight by the
Israelites under Barak. Gideon's' assault on the Midianites
was from the slope of Mount Gilboa, which rises out of the
same valley. The latter battle has been called by historians
the Battle of Jezreel, and Jezreel is one of the forms of the
name of the valley of Esdraelon. It was there that the
Philistines were arrayed when Saul fought his last battle with
them, and on the slopes of Gilboa he fell on his sword and
died. On the same historic plain, near the city of Megiddo,
Josiah, king of Judah, fought against Necho, the Pharaoh of
Egypt, B. C. 609, and was defeated and mortally wounded. The
plain of Megiddo was so often, in fact, the meeting place of
ancient armies that it seems to have come to be looked upon as
the typical battle-ground, and apparently the name Armageddon
in Revelations is an allusion to it in that sense. The ancient
city of Megiddo has been identified in site with the present
town of Ledjûn, which is the Legio of the Romans—the station
of a Roman legion.
MEGISTANES, The.
"The king [of the Parthian monarchy] was permanently advised
by two councils, consisting of persons not of his own
nomination, whom rights, conferred by birth or office,
entitled to their seats. One of these was a family conclave,
… or assembly of the full-grown males of the Royal House;
the other was a senate comprising both the spiritual and the
temporal chiefs of the nation, the Sophi, or 'Wise Men,' and
the Magi, or 'Priests.' Together these two bodies constituted
the Megistanes, the 'Nobles' or 'Great Men'—the privileged
class which to a considerable extent checked and controlled
the monarch. The monarchy was elective; but only in the house
of the Arsacidæ."
G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 6.
MEHDI, AL.
See MAHDI, AL.
MEHEMET ALI AND THE INDEPENDENT PASHALIK OF EGYPT.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840;
and EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.
MEHERRINS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH
MEIGS, Fort, Sieges of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813
HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.
MELBOURNE MINISTRIES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837; and 1841-1842.
MELCHITES.
A name applied in the religious controversies of the 6th
century, by the heretical Jacobites, to the adherents of the
orthodox church. It signified that they were imperialists, or
royalists, taking their doctrines from the sovereign power.
H. F. Tozer,
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
chapter 5.
MELDÆ, The.
A tribe in ancient Gaul which was established in the north of
the modern French department of the Seine-et-Marne and in a
small part of the department of the Oise.
Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2).
MELIAN FAMINE.
See GREECE: B. C. 416.
MELIGNANO,
MARIGNANO, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1515.
MELISCEET INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
MELORIA, Battles of (1241 and 1284).
See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.
MELOS: Siege, conquest and massacre by the Athenians:
See GREECE: B. C. 416.
MELUN, Siege of.
One of the important sieges in the second campaign of the
English king Henry V. in France, A. D. 1420.
Monstrelet,
Chronicles,
book 1, chapters 226-230 (volume 1).
MEMLUKS.
See MAMELUKES.
----------MEMPHIS, Egypt: Start--------
MEMPHIS, Egypt.
The foundation of Memphis is the first event in Egyptian
history, the one large historical incident in the reign of the
first king, who emerges a real man from the shadow land which
the Egyptians called the reign of the gods. … Menes, the
founder of Memphis and Egyptian history, came from the south.
Civilisation descended the Nile. His native place was Thinis,
or This, in Upper Egypt, a still older town, where his shadowy
predecessors ruled. … A great engineering work was the first
act of the builder. He chose his site … but the stream was
on the wrong side, flowing below the Libyan chain, flowing
over where the city should be, offering no water-bulwark
against the invader from the eastern border. So he raised, a
few miles to the south, a mighty dyke, and turned the river
into the present course, founding the city on the west bank,
with the desert behind and the Nile before. … The new city
received a name which reflects the satisfaction of the ancient
founder: he called it Mennufre, 'the Good' or 'Perfect
Mansion.' This was the civil name. … The civil name is
the parent of the Greek Memphis and the Hebrew Moph, also
found in the form Noph."
R. S. Poole,
Cities of Egypt,
chapter 2.
See, also,
EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.
{2152}
MEMPHIS: A. D. 640-641.
Surrender to the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
----------MEMPHIS, Egypt: End--------
----------MEMPHIS, Tennessee: Start--------
MEMPHIS, Tennessee: A. D. 1739-1740.
A French fort on the site.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
MEMPHIS, Tennessee: A. D. 1862.
Naval fight in the river.
Surrender of the city to the Union forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
----------MEMPHIS, Tennessee: End--------
MENAPII, The.
See BELGÆ;
also, IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
MENDICANT ORDERS.
Franciscans.
Dominicans.
"This period [12-13th centuries], so prolific in institutions
of every sort, also gave birth to the Mendicant orders, a
species of spiritual chivalry still more generous and heroic
than that which we have just treated [the military-religious
orders], and unique in history. … Many causes combined to
call them into existence. In proportion as the Church grew
wealthy her discipline relaxed, and dangers menaced her on
every side. … The problem thus presented to the Church was
taken up at the opening of the 13th century, and thrown into
practical shape by two men equally eminent in intellectual
endowments and spiritual gifts. While each solved it in his
own way, they were both attached to each other by the closest
friendship. Dominic, a member of the powerful house of Guzman,
was born in the year 1170, at Callaruega (Calahorra, in Old
Castile), a village in the diocese of Osma. While pursuing his
studies in the university of Valencia, he was distinguished by
a spirit of charity and self-sacrifice. … Diego, Bishop of
Osma, … a man of severe character, and ardently devoted to
the good of the Church, found in Dominic one after his own
heart. He took the young priest with him on a mission which he
made to the south of France." Dominic was finally left in
charge of the mission. "His peaceful disposition, his spirit
of prayer, his charity, forbearance, and patient temper formed
a consoling contrast to the bloody crusade which had recently
been set on foot against the Albigenses. After spending ten
years in this toilsome and thankless mission, labouring only
for love of God and the profit of souls, he set out for Rome,
in 1215, with his plans fully matured, and submitted to Pope
Innocent III. the project of giving to the Church a new method
of defence, in an order which should combine the contemplative
life of the monk with the active career of a secular priest.
… Innocent gave his sanction to Dominic's project, provided
he would manage to bring it under some of the existing Rules.
Dominic accordingly selected the Rule of St. Augustine,
introducing a few changes, with a view to greater severity,
taken from the Rule of the Premonstratensians. That the
members of the new order might be free to devote themselves
entirely to their spiritual labours, they were forbidden to
accept any property requiring their active administration, but
were permitted to receive the incomes of such as was
administered by others. Property, therefore, might be held by
the Order as a body, but not administered by its members. Pope
Honorius III. confirmed the action of his illustrious
predecessor, and approved the Order in the following year,
giving it, from its object, the name of the 'Order of Friars
Preachers' ('Ordo Prædicatorum, Fratres Prædicatores'). …
Dominic founded, in the year 1206, an Order of Dominican nuns.
… The dress of the Dominicans is a white garment and
scapular, resembling in form that of the Augustinians, with a
black cloak and a pointed cap. Francis of Assisi, the son of a
wealthy merchant named Bernardini, was born in the year 1182,
in Assisi, in Umbria. His baptismal name was John, but from
his habit of reading the romances of the Troubadours in his
youth, he gradually acquired the name of Il Francesco, or the
Little Frenchman. … When about twenty-four years of age, he
fell dangerously ill, and, while suffering from this attack,
gave himself up to a train of religious thought which led him
to consider the emptiness and uselessness of his past life.
… He … conceived the idea of founding a society whose
members should go about through the whole world, after the
manner of the apostles, preaching and exhorting to penance.
… His zeal gradually excited emulation, and prompted others
to aspire after the same perfection. His first associates were
his townsmen, Bernard Quintavalle and Peter Cattano, and
others soon followed. Their habit consisted of a long brown
tunic of coarse woolen cloth, surmounted by a hood of the same
material, and confined about the waist with a hempen cord.
This simple but ennobling dress was selected because it was
that of the poor peasants of the surrounding country. … He
sent his companions, two-and-two, in all directions, saying to
them in taking leave: 'Go; always travel two-and-two. Pray
until the third hour; then only may you speak. Let your speech
be simple and humble.' … With St. Francis, absolute poverty
was not only a practice, it was the essential principle on
which he based his Order. Not only were the individual members
forbidden to have any personal property whatever, but neither
could they hold any as an Order, and were entirely dependent
for their support upon alms. … Hence the chief difference
between mendicant and other monastic orders consists in this,
that, in the former, begging takes the place of the ordinary
vow of personal poverty. … In 1223, Pope Honorius III.
approved the Order of Franciscans (Fratres Minores), to which
… Innocent III. had given a verbal sanction in 1210."
J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
section 247 (volume 2).
"They were" called 'Friars' because, out of humility, their
founders would not have them called 'Father' and 'Dominus,'
like the monks, but simply 'Brother' ('Frater,' 'Frère,'
Friar). … Dominic gave to his order the name of Preaching
Friars; more commonly they were styled Dominicans, or, from
the colour of their habits, Black Friars. … The Franciscans
were styled by their founder 'Fratri Minori'—lesser brothers,
Friars Minors; they were more usually called Grey Friars, from
the colour of their habits, or Cordeliers, from the knotted
cord which formed their characteristic girdle."
E. L. Cutts,
Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
chapter 5.
{2153}
"People talk of 'Monks and Friars' as if these were
convertible terms. The truth is that the difference between
the Monks and the Friars was almost one of kind. The Monk was
supposed never to leave his cloister. The Friar in St.
Francis' first intention had no cloister to leave."
A. Jessopp,
The Coming of the Friars, 1.
ALSO IN:
Mrs. Oliphant,
Life of St. Francis of Assisi.
H. L. Lacordaire,
Life of St. Dominic.
R. Pauli,
Pictures of Old England,
chapter 2.
E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 3, number 8.
P. Sabatier,
Life of St. Francis of Assisi.
MENENDEZ'S MASSACRE OF FLORIDA HUGUENOTS.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.
MENHIR.
Meaning literally "long-stone." The name is usually given to
single, upright stones, sometimes very large, which are found
in the British islands, France and elsewhere, and which are
supposed to be the rude sepulchral monuments of some of the
earlier races, Celtic and pre-Celtic.
Sir J. Lubbock,
Prehistoric Times,
chapter 5.
MENOMINEES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
MENTANA, Battle of (1867).
See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.
----------MENTZ: Start--------
MENTZ: Origin.
See MOGONTIACUM.
MENTZ: A. D. 406.
Destruction by the Germans.
See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
MENTZ: 12th Century.
Origin of the electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
MENTZ: A. D. 1455-1456.
Appearance of the first printed book.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.
MENTZ: A. D. 1631.
Occupied by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
MENTZ: A. D. 1792.
Occupation by the French Revolutionary army.
Incorporation with the French Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
MENTZ: A. D. 1793.
Recovery by the Germans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).
MENTZ: A. D. 1801-1803.
Extinction of the electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
----------MENTZ: End--------
MENTZ, Treaty of (1621).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
MENZEL PAPERS, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and 1756.
MERCED, The order of La.
"Jayme [king of Aragon, called El Conquistador], when a
captive in the hands of Simon de Montfort [see SPAIN: A. D.
1212-1238], had—mere baby as he was—made a vow that, when he
should be a man and a king, he would endeavour to do something
for the redemption of captives. So, before he was a man in
age, he instituted another religious order of knighthood,
called La Merced, which added to their other duties that of
collecting alms and using them for the ransoming of captives
to the Moors."
C. M. Yonge,
The Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain,
page 184.
MERCENARIES, Revolt of the.
See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.
MERCHANT ADVENTURERS.
"The original Company of the Merchant Adventurers carried on
trade chiefly with the Netherlands. Their principal mart was
at first Bruges, whence it was removed to Antwerp early in the
fifteenth century. In distinction from the staplers, who dealt
in certain raw materials, the Merchant Adventurers had the
monopoly of exporting certain manufactured articles,
especially cloths. Though of national importance, they
constituted a strictly private company, and not, like the
staplers, an administrative organ of the British government.
The former were all subjects of the English crown; the
staplers were made up of aliens as well as Englishmen. In the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries frequent dissensions broke
out between these two bodies regarding the exportation of
cloth. To carry on foreign trade freely in wool as well as in
cloth, a merchant had to join both companies. Much obscurity
hangs over the early history of the Merchant Adventurers. They

claimed' that John, Duke of Brabant, founded their society in
1216 or 1248, and that it originally bore the name of the
Brotherhood of St. Thomas à Becket. But it could scarcely have
existed in its later form before the reign of Edward III.,
when the cloth industry began to flourish in England. The
earliest charter granted to it as an organized association
dates from the year 1407. Their powers were greatly increased
by Henry VII. The soul of this society, and perhaps its
original nucleus, was the Mercers' Company of London. …
Though the most influential Merchant Adventurers resided in
London, there were many in other English towns. … The
contrast between the old Gild Merchant and the Company of
Merchant Adventurers is striking. The one had to do wholly
with foreign trade, and its members were forbidden to exercise
a manual occupation or even to be retail shopkeepers; the
other consisted mainly of small shopkeepers and artisans. The
line of demarkation between merchants and manual craftsmen was
sharply drawn by the second half of the sixteenth century, the
term 'merchant' having already acquired its modern
signification as a dealer on an extensive scale. Besides the
Company of Merchant Adventurers trading to the Low
Countries—which during the eighteenth century was called the
Hamburg Company—various new Companies of Merchant Adventurers
trading to other lands arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, especially during the reigns of Elizabeth and her
immediate successors. Among them were the Russian or Muscovy
Company, the Turkey or Levant Company, the Guinea Company, the
Morocco Company, the Eastland Company, the Spanish Company,
and the East India Company, the last-mentioned being the most
powerful of them all."
C. Gross,
The Gild Merchant,
pages 148-156.
MERCHANT GUILD.
See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.
MERCHANT TAYLORS' SCHOOL.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES—ENGLAND.
MERCIA, The Kingdom of.
A kingdom formed at the close of the 6th century by the West
Angles, on the Welsh border, or March. The people who formed
it had acquired the name of Men of the March, from which they
came to be called Mercians, and their kingdom Mercia. In the
next century, under King Penda, its territory and its power
were greatly extended, at the expense of Northumbria.
J. R. Green,
The Making of England.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
{2154}
MERCY FOR THE REDEMPTION OF CHRISTIAN CAPTIVES, The Order of.
"For the institution of this godlike order, the Christian
world was indebted to Pope Innocent III., at the close of the
12th century. … The exertions of the order were soon crowned
with success. One third of its revenues was appropriated to
the objects of its foundation, and thousands groaning in
slavery were restored to their country. … The order … met
with so much encouragement that, in the time of Alberic, the
monk (who wrote about forty years after its institution), the
number of monastic houses amounted to 600, most of which were
situated in France, Lombardy and Spain."
S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, section 3, chapter 4 (volume 4).
MERGENTHEIM, Battle of (1645).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
----------MERIDA: Start--------
MERIDA, Origin of.
See EMERITA AUGUSTA.
MERIDA: A. D. 712.
Siege and capture by the Arab-Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
----------MERIDA: End--------
MERIDIAN, Mississippi,
Sherman's Raid to.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).
MERMNADÆ, The.
The third dynasty of the kings of Lydia, beginning
with Gyges and ending with Crœsus.
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 4, chapter 17 (volume 3).
MEROË, The Kingdom of.
See ETHIOPIA.
MEROM, Battle of.
The final great victory won by Joshua in the conquest of
Canaan, over the Canaanite and Amorite kings, under Jabin,
king of Hazor, who seems to have been a kind of over-king or
chieftain among them.
Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 12 (volume 1).
MEROVINGIANS, The.
See FRANKS: A. D. 448-456; and 511-752.
MERRIMAC AND MONITOR, Battle of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH).
MERRYMOUNT.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.
MERTÆ, The.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
MERTON, Statutes of.
A body of laws enacted at a Great Council held at Merton, in
England, under Henry III., A. D. 1236, which marks an
important advance made in the development of constitutional
legislation.
G. W. Prothero,
Simon de Montfort.
MERU.
See MERV.
----------MERV: Start--------
MERV, OR MERU: A. D. 1221.
Destruction by Jingis Khan.
In the merciless march through Central Asia of the awful
Mongol horde set in motion by Jingis Khan, the great city of
Meru (modern Merv) was reached in the autumn of A. D. 1220.
This was "Meru Shahjan, i. e., Meru the king of the world, one
of the four chief cities of Khorassan, and one of the oldest
cities of the world. It had been the capital of the great
Seljuk Sultans Melikshah and Sanjar, and was very rich and
populous. It was situated on the banks of the Meri el rond,
also called the Murjab. … The siege commenced on the 25th of
February, 1221. The governor of the town … sent a venerable
imam as an envoy to the Mongol camp. He returned with such
fair promises that the governor himself repaired to the camp,
and was loaded with presents; he was asked to send for his
chief relations and friends; when these were fairly in his
power, Tulni [one of the sons of Jingis Khan] ordered them
all, including the governor, to be killed. The Mongols then
entered the town, the inhabitants were ordered to evacuate it
with their treasures; the mournful procession, we are told,
took four days to defile out. … A general and frightful
massacre ensued; only 400 artisans and a certain number of
young people were reserved as slaves. The author of the
'Jhankushai' says that the Seyid Yzz-ud-din, a man renowned
for his virtues and piety, assisted by many people, were
thirteen days in counting the corpses, which numbered
1,300,000. Ibn al Ethir says that 700,000 corpses were
counted. The town was sacked, the mausolemn of the Sultan
Sanjar was rifled and then burnt, and the walls and citadel of
Meru levelled with the ground."
H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
volume 1, page 87.
See, also, KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.
MERV, OR MERU: A. D. 1884.
Russian occupation.
See RUSSIA. A. D. 1869-1881.
----------MERV: End--------
MERWAN I., Caliph, A. D. 683-684.
Merwan II., Caliph, 744-750.
MERWING.
One of the forms given to the name of the royal family of the
Franks, established in power by Clovis, and more commonly
known as the Merovingian Family.
MÉRY, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
MESCHIANZA,
MISCHIANZA, The.
See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.
MESOPOTAMIA.
"Between the outer limits of the Syro-Arabian desert and the
foot of the great mountain-range of Kurdistan and Luristan
intervenes a territory long famous in the world's history, and
the chief site of three out of the five empires of whose
history, geography, and antiquities it is proposed to treat in
the present volumes. Known to the Jews as Aram-Naharaim, or
'Syria of the two rivers'; to the Greeks and Romans as
Mesopotamia, or 'the between-river country'; to the Arabs as
Al-Jezireh, or, 'the island,' this district has always taken
its name from the streams [the Tigris and Euphrates] which
constitute its most striking feature."
G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Chaldœa,
chapter 1.
MESSALINA, The infamies of.
See ROME: A. D. 47-54.
MESSANA.
See MESSENE.
MESSAPIANS, The.
See ŒNOTRIANS.
----------MESSENE: Start--------
MESSENE, in Peloponnesus: B. C. 369.
The founding of the city.
Restoration of the enslaved Messenians.
See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD;
also, GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
MESSENE: B. C. 338.
Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE; B. C. 357-336.
MESSENE: B. C. 184.
Revolt from the Achæan League.
A faction in Messene which was hostile to the Achæan League
having gained the ascendancy, B. C. 184, declared its
secession from the League. Philopœmen, the chief of the
League, proceeded at once with a small force to reduce the
Messenians to obedience, but was taken prisoner and was foully
executed by his enemies. Bishop Thirlwall pronounced him "the
last great man whom Greece produced." The death of Philopœmen
was speedily avenged on those who caused it and Messene was
recovered to the League.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 65.
ALSO IN:
Plutarch,
Philopœmen.
{2155}
MESSENE (MODERN MESSINA), in Sicily.
The founding of the city.
"Zancle was originally colonised by pirates who came from Cyme
the Chalcidian city in Opicia. … Zancle was the original
name of the place, a name given by the Sicels because the site
was in shape like a sickle, for which the Sicel word is
Zanclon. These earlier settlers were afterwards driven out by
the Samians and other Ionians, who when they fled from the
Persians found their way to Sicily. Not long afterwards
Anaxilas, the tyrant of Rhegium, drove out these Samians. He
then repeopled their city with a mixed multitude, and called
the place Messene, after his native country."
Thucydides,
History,
translated by Jowett,
book 6, section 4.
MESSENE: B. C. 396.
Destruction by the Carthaginians.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
MESSENE: B. C. 264.
The Mamertines.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
MESSINA: A. D. 1849.
Bombardment and capture by King Ferdinand.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
----------MESSENIAN WARS: Start--------
MESSENIAN WARS, The First and Second.
The Spartans were engaged in two successive wars with their
neighbors of Messenia, whose territory, adjoining their own in
the southwestern extremity of Peloponnesus, was rich,
prosperous and covetable. "It was unavoidable that the
Spartans should look down with envy from their bare rocky
ridges into the prosperous land of their neighbours and the
terraces close by, descending to the river, with their
well-cultivated plantations of oil and wine. Besides, the
Dorians who had immigrated into Messenia had, under the
influence of the native population and of a life of
comfortable ease, lost their primitive character. Messenia
seemed like a piece of Arcadia, with which it was most
intimately connected. … Hence this was no war of Dorians
against Dorians; it rather seemed to be Sparta's mission to
make good the failure of the Dorization of Messenia which had
sunk back into Pelasgic conditions of life, and to unite with
herself the remains of the Dorian people still surviving
there. In short, a variety of motives contributed to provoke a
forcible extension of Spartan military power on this
particular side."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).
The First Messenian War was commenced B. C. 745 and lasted
twenty years, ending in the complete subjugation of the
Messenians, who were reduced to a state of servitude like that
of the Helots of Sparta. After enduring the oppression for
thirty-nine years, the Messenians rose in revolt against their
Spartan masters, B. C. 685. The leader and great hero of this
Second Messenian War was Aristomenes, whose renown became so
great in the despairing struggle that the latter was called
among the ancients the Aristomnean War. But all the valor and
self-sacrifice of the unhappy Messenians availed nothing. They
gave up the contest, B. C. 668; large numbers of them escaped
to other lands and those who remained were reduced to a more
wretched condition than before.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 9.
See, also, SPARTA: B. C. 743-510.
MESSENIAN WARS: The Third.
"The whole of Laconia [E. C. 464] was shaken by an earthquake,
which opened great chasms in the ground, and rolled down huge
masses from the highest peaks of Taygetus: Sparta itself
became a heap of ruins, in which not more than five houses are
said to have been left standing. More than 20,000 persons were
believed to have been destroyed by the shock, and the flower
of the Spartan youth was overwhelmed by the fall of the
buildings in which they were exercising themselves at the
time."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 17.
The Helots of Sparta, especially those who were descended from
the enslaved Messenians, took advantage of the confusion
produced by the earthquake, to rise in revolt. Having secured
possession of Ithome, they fortified themselves in the town
and withstood there a siege of ten years,—sometimes called
the Third Messenian War. The Spartans invited the Athenians to
aid them in the siege, but soon grew jealous of their allies
and dismissed them with some rudeness. This was one of the
prime causes of the animosity between Athens and Sparta which
afterward flamed out in the Peloponnesian War. In the end, the
Messenians at Ithome capitulated and were allowed to quit the
country; whereupon the Athenians settled them at Naupactus, on
the Corinthian gulf, and so gained an ardent ally, in an
important situation.
Thucydides,
History,
book 1, sections 101-103.
Nearly one hundred years later (B. C. 369) when Thebes, under
Epaminondas, rose to power in Greece and Sparta was
humiliated, it was one of the measures of the Theban statesman
to found at Ithome an important city which he named Messene,
into which the long oppressed Messenians were gathered, from
slavery and from exile, and were organized in a state once
more, free and independent.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 39.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 78.
----------MESSENIAN WARS: End----------
MESSIDOR, The month,
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER) THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.
MESTIZO.
MULATTO.
A half-breed person in Peru, born of a white father and an
Indian mother, is called a Mestizo. One born of a white father
and a negro mother is called a mulatto.
J. J. Von Tschudi,
Travels in Peru,
chapter 5.
METAPONTIUM.
See SIRIS.
METAURUS, Battle of the.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
METAURUS, Defeat of the Alemanni.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.
MÉTAYERS.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789.
METEMNEH, Battle of(1885).
See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.
METHODISTS:
Origin of the Religious Denomination.
"The term Methodist was a college nickname bestowed upon a
small society of students at Oxford who met together between
1729 and 1735 for the purpose of mutual improvement. They were
accustomed to communicate every week, to fast regularly on
Wednesdays and Fridays, and on most days during Lent; to read
and discuss the Bible in common, to abstain from most forms of
amusement and luxury, and to visit sick persons and prisoners
in the gaol. John Wesley, the master-spirit of this society,
and the future leader of the religious revival of the
eighteenth century, was born in 1703, and was the second
surviving son of Samuel Wesley, the Rector of Epworth, in
Lincolnshire. … The society hardly numbered more than
fifteen members, and was the object of much ridicule at the
university; but it included some men who afterwards played
considerable parts in the world.
{2156}
Among them was Charles, the younger brother of John Wesley,
whose hymns became the favourite poetry of the sect, and whose
gentler, more submissive, and more amiable character, though
less fitted than that of his brother for the great conflicts
of public life, was very useful in moderating the movement,
and in drawing converts to it by personal influence. Charles
Wesley appears to have been the first to originate the society
at Oxford; he brought Whitefield into its pale, and besides
being the most popular poet he was one of the most persuasive
preachers of the movement. There, too, was James Hervey, who
became one of the earliest links connecting Methodism with
general literature."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 9 (volume 2).
METHUEN, Rout of.
The first Scotch army assembled by Robert Bruce after he had
been crowned king of Scotland, was surprised and routed by
Aymer de Valence, June 26, 1306.
C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 2, chapter 14.
METHUEN TREATY, The.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703;
and SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.
METÖACS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
METŒCI.
"Resident aliens, or Metœci, are non-citizens possessed of
personal freedom, and settled in Attica. Their number, in the
flourishing periods of the State, might amount to 45,000, and
therefore was about half that of the citizens."
G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3, section 2.
METON, The year of.
"Hitherto [before the age of Pericles] the Athenians had only
had the Octaëteris, i. e., the period of eight years, of which
three were composed of thirteen months, in order thus to make
the lunar years correspond to the solar. But as eight such
solar years still amount to something short of 99 lunar
months, this cycle was insufficient for its purpose. … Meton
and his associates calculated that a more correct adjustment
might be obtained within a cycle of 6,940 days. These made up
235 months, which formed a cycle of 19 years; and this was the
so-called 'Great Year,' or 'Year of Meton.'"
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).
METRETES, The.
See EPHAH.
METROPOLITANS.
See PRIMATES.
METROPOTAMIA, The proposed State of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.
METTERNICH, The governing system of.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
----------METZ: Start--------
METZ: Original names.
The Gallic town of Divodurum acquired later the name of
Mediomatrici, which modern tongues have changed to Metz.
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 34, foot-note.
METZ: A. D. 451.
Destruction by the Huns.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
METZ: A. D. 511-752.
The Austrasian capital.
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
METZ: A. D. 1552-1559.
Treacherous occupation by the French.
Siege by Charles V.
Cession to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
METZ: A. D. 1648.
Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
METZ: A. D. 1679-1680.
The Chamber of Reannexation.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
METZ: A. D. 1870.
The French army of Bazaine enclosed and besieged.
The surrender.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST), to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
METZ: A. D. 1871.
Cession to Germany.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
----------METZ: End--------
MEXICAN PICTURE-WRITING.
See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.
----------MEXICO: Start--------
MEXICO.
Ancient: The Maya and Nahua peoples and their civilization.
"Notwithstanding evident marks of similarity in nearly all the
manifestations of the progressional spirit in aboriginal
America, in art, thought, and religion, there is much reason
for and convenience in referring all the native civilization
to two branches, the Maya and the Nahua, the former the more
ancient, the latter the more recent and wide-spread. … It is
only, however, in a very general sense that this
classification can be accepted, and then only for practical
convenience in elucidating the subject; since there are
several nations that must be ranked among our civilized
peoples, which, particularly in the matter of language, show
no Maya nor Nahua affinities. Nor is too much importance to be
attached to the names Maya and Nahua, by which I designate
these parallel civilizations. The former is adopted for the
reason that the Maya people and tongue are commonly regarded
as among the most ancient in all the Central American region,
a region where formerly flourished the civilization that left
such wonderful remains at Palenque, Uxmal, and Copan; the
latter as being an older designation than either Aztec or
Toltec, both of which stocks the race Nahua includes. The
civilization of what is now the Mexican Republic, north of
Tehuantepec, belonged to the Nahua branch, both at the time of
the conquest and throughout the historic period preceding.
Very few traces of the Maya element occur north of Chiapas,
and these are chiefly linguistic, appearing in two or three
nations dwelling along the shores of the Mexican gulf. In
published works upon the subject the Aztecs are the
representatives of the Nahua element; indeed, what is known of
the Aztecs has furnished material for nine tenths of all that
has been written on the American civilized nations in general.
The truth of the matter is that the Aztecs were only the most
powerful of a league or confederation of three nations, which
in the 16th century, from their capitals in the valley, ruled
central Mexico."
H. H. Bancroft,
Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 2, chapter 2.
"The evidence … has pointed—with varying force, but with
great uniformity of direction—towards the Central or
Usumacinta region [Central America], not necessarily as the
original cradle of American civilization, but as the most
ancient home to which it can be traced by traditional,
monumental, and linguistic records. …
{2157}
Throughout several centuries preceding the Christian era, and
perhaps one or two centuries following, there flourished in
Central America the great Maya empire of the Chanes, Culhuas,
or Serpents, known to its foes as Xibalba, with its centre in
Chiapas at or near Palenque, and with several allied capitals
in the surrounding region. Its first establishment at a remote
period was attributed by the people to a being called Votan,
who was afterwards worshipped as a god. … From its centre in
the Usumacinta region the Votanic power was gradually extended
north-westward towards Anáhuac, where its subjects vaguely
appear in tradition as Quinames, or giants. It also penetrated
northeastward into Yucatan, where Zamná was its reputed
founder, and the Cocomes and Itzas probably its subjects. …
The Maya empire seems to have been in the height of its
prosperity when the rival Nahua power came into prominence,
perhaps two or three centuries before Christ. The origin of
the new people and of the new institutions is as deeply
shrouded in mystery as is that of their predecessors. … The
Plumed Serpent, known in different tongues as Quetzalcoatl,
Gucumatz, and Cukulcan, was the being who traditionally
founded the new order of things. The Nahua power grew up side
by side with its Xibalban predecessor, having its capital
Tulan apparently in Chiapas. Like the Maya power, it was not
confined to its original home, but was borne … towards
Anáhuac. … The struggle on the part of the Xibalbans seems
to have been that of an old effete monarchy against a young
and progressive people. Whatever its cause, the result of the
conquest was the overthrow of the Votanic monarchs at a date
which may be approximately fixed within a century before or
after the beginning of our era. From that time the ancient
empire disappears from traditional history. … Respecting the
ensuing period of Nahua greatness in Central America nothing
is recorded save that it ended in revolt, disaster, and a
general scattering of the tribes at some period probably
preceding the 5th century. The national names that appear in
connection with the closing struggles are the Toltecs,
Chichimecs, Quichés, Nonohualcas, and Tutul Xius, none of them
apparently identical with the Xibalbans. … Of the tribes
that were successively defeated and forced to seek new homes,
those that spoke the Maya dialects, although considering
themselves Nahuas, seem to have settled chiefly in the south
and east. Some of them afterwards rose to great prominence in
Guatemala and Yucatan. … The Nahua-speaking tribes as a rule
established themselves in Anáhuac and in the western and
north-western parts of Mexico. … The valley of Mexico and
the country immediately adjoining soon became the centre of
the Nahuas in Mexico."
H. H. Bancroft,
Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 5, chapter 3.
See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS;
and AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.
MEXICO: Ancient:
The Toltec empire and civilization.
Are they mythical?
"The old-time story, how the Toltecs in the 6th century
appeared on the Mexican table-land, how they were driven out
and scattered in the 11th century, how after a brief interval
the Chichimecs followed their footsteps, and how these last
were succeeded by the Aztecs who were found in
possession,—the last two, and probably the first, migrating
in immense hordes from the far north-west,—all this is
sufficiently familiar to readers of Mexican history, and is
furthermore fully set forth in the 5th volume of this work. It
is probable, however, that this account, accurate to a certain
degree, has been by many writers too literally construed;
since the once popular theory of wholesale national migrations
of American peoples within historic times, and particularly of
such migrations from the northwest, may now be regarded as
practically unfounded. The 6th century is the most remote
period to which we are carried in the annals of Anáhuac by
traditions sufficiently definite to be considered in any
proper sense as historic records. … At the opening … of
the historic times, we find the Toltecs in possession of
Anáhuac and the surrounding country. Though the civilization
was old, the name was new, derived probably, although not so
regarded by all, from Tollan, a capital city of the empire,
but afterward becoming synonymous with all that is excellent
in art and high culture. Tradition imputes to the Toltecs a
higher civilization than that found among the Aztecs, who had
degenerated with the growth of the warlike spirit, and
especially by the introduction of more cruel and sanguinary
religious rites. But this superiority, in some respects not
improbable, rests on no very strong evidence, since this
people left no relics of that artistic skill which gave them
so great traditional fame; there is, however, much reason to
ascribe the construction of the pyramids at Teotihuacan and
Cholula to the Toltec or a still earlier period. Among the
civilized peoples of the 16th century, however, and among
their descendants down to the present day, nearly every
ancient relic of architecture or sculpture is accredited to
the Toltecs, from whom all claim descent. … So confusing has
been the effect of this universal reference of all traditional
events to a Toltec source, that, while we can not doubt the
actual existence of this great empire, the details of its
history, into which the supernatural so largely enters, must
be regarded as to a great extent mythical. There are no data
for fixing accurately the bounds of the Toltec domain,
particularly in the south. There is very little, however, to
indicate that it was more extensive in this direction than
that of the Aztecs in later times, although it seems to have
extended somewhat farther northward. On the west there is some
evidence that it included the territory of Michoacan, never
subdued by the Aztecs; and it probably stretched eastward to
the Atlantic. … During the most flourishing period of its
traditional five centuries of duration, the Toltec empire was
ruled by a confederacy, similar in some respects to the
alliance of later date between Mexico, Tezcuco and Tlacopan.
The capitals were Culhuacan, Otompan, and Tollan, the two
former corresponding somewhat in territory with Mexico and
Tezcuco, while the latter was just beyond the limits of the
valley toward the north-west. Each of these capital cities
became in turn the leading power in the confederacy. Tollan
reached the highest eminence in culture, splendor, and fame,
and Culhuacan was the only one of the three to survive by name
the bloody convulsions by which the empire was at last
overthrown, and retain anything of her former greatness.
Long-continued civil wars, arising chiefly from dissensions
between rival religious factions, … gradually undermine the
imperial thrones. … So the kings of Tollan, Culhuacan, and
Otompan, lose, year by year, their prestige, and finally, in
the middle of the 11th century, are completely overthrown,
leaving the Mexican tableland to be ruled by new combinations
of rising powers."
H. H. Bancroft,
Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 2, chapter 2.
{2158}
"Long before the Aztecs, a Toltec tribe called the Acolhuas,
or Culhuas, had settled in the valley of Mexico. The name is
more ancient than that of Toltec, and the Mexican civilization
might perhaps as appropriately be called Culhua as Nahua. The
name is interpreted 'crooked' from coloa, bend; also
'grandfather' from colli. Colhuacan might therefore signify
Land of Our Ancestors."
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 4, page 23, foot-note.
"The most venerable traditions of the Maya race claimed for
them a migration from 'Tollan in Zuyva.' … This Tollan is
certainly none other than the abode of Quetzalcoatl. … The
cities which selected him as their tutelary deity were named
for that which he was supposed to have ruled over. Thus we
have Tollan and Tollantzinco ('behind Tollan') in the Valley
of Mexico, and the pyramid Cholula was called
'Tollan-Cholollan,' as well as many other Tollans and Tulas
among the Nahuatl colonies. The natives of the city of Tula
were called, from its name, Tolteca, which simply means 'those
who dwell in Tollan.' And who, let us ask, were these Toltecs?
They have hovered about the dawn of American history long
enough. To them have been attributed not only the primitive
culture of Central America and Mexico, but of lands far to the
north, and even the earthworks of the Ohio Valley. It is time
they were assigned their proper place, and that is among the
purely fabulous creations of the imagination, among the giants
and fairies, the gnomes and sylphs, and other such fancied
beings which in all ages and nations the popular mind has
loved to create. Toltec, Toltecatl, which in later days came
to mean a skilled craftsman or artificer, signifies, as I have
said, an inhabitant of Tollan—of the City of the Sun—in
other words, a Child of Light. … In some, and these I
consider the original versions of the myth, they do not
constitute a nation at all, but are merely the disciples or
servants of Quetzalcoatl. They have all the traits of beings
of supernatural powers."
D. G. Brinton,
American Hero-Myths,
chapter 3, section 3.
ALSO IN:
D. G. Brinton,
Essays of an Americanist,
pages 83-100.
A recent totally contrary view, in which the Toltecs are fully
accepted and modernized, is presented by M. Charnay.
D. Charnay,
Ancient Cities of the New World.
MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
The Aztec period.
The so called empire of Montezuma.
"The new era succeeding the Toltec rule is that of the
Chichimec empire, which endured with some variations down to
the coming of Cortes. The ordinary version of the early annals
has it, that the Chichimecs, a wild tribe living far in the
north-west, learning that the fertile regions of Central
Mexico had been abandoned by the Toltecs, came down in immense
hordes to occupy the land. … The name Chichimec at the time
of the Spanish conquest, and subsequently, was used with two
significations, first, as applied to the line of kings that
reigned at Tezcuco, and second, to all the wild hunting
tribes, particularly in the broad and little-known regions of
the north. Traditionally or historically, the name has been
applied to nearly every people mentioned in the ancient
history of America. This has caused the greatest confusion
among writers on the subject, a confusion which I believe can
only be cleared up by the supposition that the name Chichimec,
like that of Toltec, never was applied as a tribal or national
designation proper to any people, while such people were
living. It seems probable that among the Nahua peoples that
occupied the country from the 6th to the 11th centuries, a few
of the leading powers appropriated to themselves the title
Toltecs, which had been at first employed by the inhabitants
of Tollan, whose artistic excellence soon rendered it a
designation of honor. To the other Nahua peoples, by whom
these leading powers were surrounded, whose institutions were
identical, but whose polish and elegance of manner were deemed
by these self-constituted aristocrats somewhat inferior, the
term Chichimecs, barbarians, etymologically 'dogs,' was
applied. After the convulsions that overthrew Tollan, and
reversed the condition of the Nahua nations, the 'dogs' in
their turn assumed an air of superiority and retained their
designation, Chichimecs, as a title of honor and nobility."
H. H. Bancroft,
Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 2, chapter 2.
"We may suppose the 'Toltec period' in Mexican tradition to
have been simply the period when the pueblo-town of Tollan was
flourishing, and domineered most likely over neighbouring
pueblos. One might thus speak it as one would speak of the
'Theban period' in Greek history. After the 'Toltec period,'
with perhaps an intervening 'Chichimec period' of confusion,
came the 'Aztec period;' or, in other words, some time after
Tollan lost its importance, the city of Mexico came to the
front. Such, I suspect, is the slender historical residuum
underlying the legend of a 'Toltec empire.' The Codex Ramirez
assigns the year 1168 as the date of the abandonment of the
Serpent Hill by the people of Tollan. We begin to leave this
twilight of legend when we meet the Aztecs already encamped in
the Valley of Mexico. Finding the most obviously eligible
sites preoccupied, they were sagacious enough to detect the
advantages of a certain marshy spot through which the outlets
of lakes Chalco and Xochimilco, besides sundry rivulets,
flowed northward and eastward into Lake Tezcuco. Here in the
year 1325 they began to build their pueblo, which they called
Tenochtitlan,—a name whereby hangs a tale. When the Aztecs,
hard pressed by foes, took refuge among these marshes, they
came upon a sacrificial stone which they recognized as one
upon which some years before one of their priests had
immolated a captive chief. From a crevice in this stone, where
a little earth was imbedded, there grew a cactus, upon which
sat an eagle holding in its beak a serpent. A priest
ingeniously interpreted this symbolism as a prophecy of signal
and long-continued victory, and forthwith diving into the lake
he had an interview with Tlaloc, the god of waters, who told
him that upon that very spot the people were to build their
town. The place was therefore called Tenochtitlan, or 'place
of the cactus-rock,' but the name under which it afterward came
to be best known was taken from Mexitl, one of the names of
the war-god Huitzilopochtli. The device of the rock and
cactus, with the eagle and serpent, formed a tribal totem for
the Aztecs, and has been adopted as the coat-of-arms of the
present Republic of Mexico.
{2159}
The pueblo of Tenochtitlan was surrounded by salt marshes;
which by dint of dikes and causeways the Aztecs gradually
converted into a large artificial lake, and thus made their
pueblo by far the most defensible stronghold in Anahuac,—
impregnable, indeed, so far as Indian modes of attack were
concerned. The advantages of this commanding position were
slowly but surely realized. A dangerous neighbour upon the
western shore of the lake was the tribe of Tecpanecas, whose
principal pueblo was Azcaputzalco. The Aztecs succeeded in
making an alliance with these Tecpanecas, but it was upon
unfavourable terms and involved the payment of tribute to
Azcaputzalco. It gave the Aztecs, however, some time to
develop their strength. Their military organization was
gradually perfected, and in 1375 they elected their first
tlacatecuhtli, or 'chief-of-men,' whom European writers, in
the loose phraseology formerly current, called 'founder of the
Mexican empire.' The name of this official was Acamapichtli,
or 'Handful-of-Reeds.' During the eight-and-twenty years of
his chieftancy the pueblo houses in Tenochtitlan began to be
built very solidly of stone, and the irregular water-courses
flowing between them were improved into canals. Some months
after his death in 1403 his son Huitzilihuitl, or
'Humming-bird,' was chosen to succeed him. This Huitzilihuitl
was succeeded in 1414 by his brother Chimalpopoca, or 'Smoking
Shield,' under whom temporary calamity visited the Aztec town.
The alliance with Azcaputzalco was broken, and that pueblo
joined its forces to those of Tezcuco on the eastern shore of
the lake. United they attacked the Aztecs, defeated them, and
captured their chief-of-men, who died a prisoner in 1427. He
was succeeded by Izcoatzin, or 'Obsidian Snake,' an aged
chieftain who died in 1436. During these nine years a complete
change came over the scene. Quarrels arose between
Azcaputzalco and Tezcuco; the latter pueblo entered into
alliance with Tenochtitlan, and together they overwhelmed and
destroyed Azcaputzalco, and butchered most of its people. What
was left of the conquered pueblo was made a slave mart for the
Aztecs, and the remnant of the people were removed to the
neighbouring pueblo of Tlacopan, which was made tributary to
Mexico. By this great victory the Aztecs also acquired secure
control of the springs upon Chepultepec, or 'Grasshopper
Hill,' which furnished a steady supply of fresh water to their
island pueblo. The next step was the formation of a
partnership between the three pueblo towns, Tenochtitlan,
Tezcuco, and Tlacopan, for the organized and systematic
plunder of other pueblos. All the tribute or spoils extorted
was to be divided into five parts, of which two parts each
were for Tezcuco and Tenochtitlan, and one part for Tlacopan.
The Aztec chief-of-men became military commander of the
confederacy, which now' began to extend operations to a
distance. The next four chiefs-of-men were Montezuma, or
'Angry Chief,' the First, from 1436 to 1464; Axayacatl, or
'Face-in-the-Water,' from 1464 to 1477; Tizoc, or 'Wounded
Leg,' from 1477 to 1486; and Ahuizotl, or 'Water-Rat,' from
1486 to 1502. Under these chiefs the great temple of Mexico
was completed, and the aqueduct from Chepultepec was increased
in capacity until it not only supplied water for ordinary
uses, but could also be made to maintain the level of the
canals and the lake. In the driest seasons, therefore,
Tenochtitlan remained safe from attack. Forth from this
well-protected lair the Aztec warriors went on their errands
of blood. Thirty or more pueblo towns, mostly between
Tenochtitlan and the Gulf coast, scattered over an area about
the size of Massachusetts, were made tributary to the
Confederacy; and as all these communities spoke the Nahua
language, this process of conquest, if it had not been cut
short by the Spaniards, might in course of time have ended in
the formation of a primitive kind of state. This tributary
area formed but a very small portion of the country which we
call Mexico. If the reader will just look at a map of the
Republic of Mexico in a modern atlas, and observe that the
states of Queretaro, Guanaxuato, Michoacan, Guerrero, and a
good part of La Puebla, lie outside the region sometimes
absurdly styled 'Montezuma's Empire,' and surround three sides
of it, he will begin to put himself into the proper state of
mind for appreciating the history of Cortes and his
companions. Into the outlying region just mentioned, occupied
by tribes for the most part akin to the Nahuas in blood and
speech, the warriors of the Confederacy sometimes ventured,
with varying fortunes. They levied occasional tribute among
the pueblos in these regions, but hardly made any of them
regularly tributary. The longest range of their arms seems to
have been to the eastward, where they sent their tax-gatherers
along the coast into the isthmus of Tehuantepec, and came into
conflict with the warlike Mayas and Quiches. … Such was, in
general outline, what we may call the political situation in
the time of the son of Axayacatl, the second Montezuma, who
was elected chief-of-men in 1502, being then thirty-four years
of age."
J. Fiske,
The Discovery of America,
chapter 8 (volume 2).
MEXICO: A. D. 1517-1518.
First found by the Spaniards.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.
MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (February-April).
The coming of Cortes and the Spaniards.
Some time in the latter part of the year 1517, the Spaniards
in Cuba had acquired definite knowledge of a much civilized
people who inhabited "terra firma" to the west of them, by the
return of Hernandez de Cordova from his involuntary voyage to
Yucatan (see AMERICA: A. D. 1157-1518). In the spring of 1518
the Cuban governor, Velasquez, had enlarged that knowledge by
sending an expedition under Grijalva to the Mexican coast,
and, even before Grijalva returned, he had begun preparations
for a more serious undertaking of conquest and occupation in
the rich country newly found. For the command of this second
armament he selected Hernando Cortes, one of the boldest and
most ambitious of the adventurers who had helped to subdue and
settle the island of Cuba. Before the fleet sailed, however, a
jealous distrust of his lieutenant had become excited by some
cause in the governor's mind, and he attempted to supersede
him in the command, Cortes slipped out of port, half prepared
as he was for the voyage, defied the orders of his superior,
and made his way (February, 1519) to the scene of his future
conquests, actually as a rebel against the authority which
commissioned him. "The squadron of Cortés was composed of
eleven small vessels.
{2160}
There were 110 sailors, 553 soldiers, of which 13 were armed
with muskets, and 32 with arquebuses, the others with swords
and pikes only. There were 10 little field-pieces, and 16
horses. Such were the forces with which the bold adventurer
set forth to conquer a vast empire, defended by large armies,
not without courage, according to the report of Grijalva. But
the companions of Cortes were unfamiliar with fear. Cortés
followed the same route as Grijalva. … At the Tabasco River,
which the Spanish called Rio de Grijalva, because that
explorer had discovered it, they had a fight with some natives
who resisted their approach. These natives fought bravely, but
the fire-arms, and above all the horses, which they conceived
to be of one piece with their riders, caused them extreme
terror, and the rout was complete. … The native prince,
overcome, sent gifts to the conqueror, and, without much
knowing the extent of his agreement, acknowledged himself as
vassal of the king of Spain, the most powerful monarch of the
world." Meantime, tidings of a fresh appearance of the same
strange race which had briefly visited the shores of the
empire the year before were conveyed to Montezuma, and the
king, who had sent envoys to the strangers before, but not
quickly enough to find them, resolved to do so again. "The
presents prepared for Grijalva, which had reached the shore
too late, were, alas! all ready. To these were now added the
ornaments used in the decoration of the image of Quetzalcoatl,
on days of solemnity, regarded as the most sacred among all
the possessions of the royal house of Mexico. Cortés accepted
the rôle of Quetzalcoatl and allowed himself to be decorated
with the ornaments belonging to that god without hesitation.
The populace were convinced that it was their deity really
returned to them. A feast was served to the envoys, with the
accompaniment of some European wine which they found
delicious. … During the feast native painters were busy
depicting every thing they saw to be shown to their royal
master. … Cortes sent to Montezuma a gilt helmet with the
message that he hoped to see it back again filled with gold.
… The bearer of this gift and communication, returning
swiftly to the court, reported to the monarch that the
intention of the stranger was to come at once to the capital
of the empire. Montezuma at once assembled a new council of
all his great vassals, some of whom urged the reception of
Cortés, others his immediate dismissal. The latter view
prevailed, and the monarch sent, with more presents to the
unknown invader, benevolent but peremptory commands that he
should go away immediately. … Meanwhile the Spanish camp was
feasting and reposing in huts of cane, with fresh provisions,
in great joy after the weariness of their voyage. They
accepted with enthusiasm the presents of the emperor, but the
treasures which were sent had an entirely different effect
from that hoped for by Montezuma; they only inflamed the
desire of the Spaniard to have all within his grasp, of which
this was but a specimen. It was now that the great mistake in
policy was apparent, by which the Aztec chieftain had for
years been making enemies all over the country, invading
surrounding states, and carrying off prisoners for a horrible
death by sacrifice. These welcomed the strangers and
encouraged their presence."
S. Hale,
The Story of Mexico,
chapter 13.
ALSO IN:
Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
Memoirs,
chapter 2-39 (volume 1).
J. Fiske,
The Discovery of America,
chapter 8 (volume 2).
MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (June-October).
The advance of Cortés to Tlascala.
"Meanwhile Cortés, by his craft, quieted a rising faction of
the party of Velasquez which demanded to be led back to Cuba.
He did this by seeming to acquiesce in the demand of his
followers in laying the foundations of a town and constituting
its people a municipality competent to choose a representative
of the royal authority. This done, Cortés resigned his
commission from Velasquez, and was at once invested with
supreme power by the new municipality. The scheme which
Velasquez had suspected was thus brought to fruition. Whoever
resisted the new captain was conquered by force, persuasion,
tact, or magnetism; and Cortés became as popular as he was
irresistible. At this point messengers presented themselves
from tribes not far off who were unwilling subjects of the
Aztec power. The presence of possible allies was a propitious
circumstance, and Cortés proceeded to cultivate the friendship
of these tribes. He moved his camp day by day along the shore,
inuring his men to marches, while the fleet sailed in company.
They reached a large city [Cempoalla, or Zempoalla, the site
of which has not been determined], and were regaled. Each
chief told of the tyranny of Montezuma, and the eyes of Cortés
glistened. The Spaniards went on to another town, slaves being
provided to bear their burdens. Here they found tax-gatherers
of Montezuma collecting tribute. Emboldened by Cortés' glance,
his hosts seized the Aztec emissaries and delivered them to
the Spaniards. Cortés now played a double game. He propitiated
the servants of Montezuma by secretly releasing them, and
added to his allies by enjoining every tribe he could reach to
resist the Aztec collectors of tribute. The wandering
municipality, as represented in this piratical army, at last
stopped at a harbor where a town (La Villa Rica de Vera Cruz)
sprang up, and became the base of future operations." At this
point in his movements the adventurer despatched a vessel to
Spain, with letters to the king, and with dazzling gifts of
gold and Aztec fabrics. "Now came the famous resolve of
Cortés. He would band his heterogeneous folk together—
adherents of Cortés and of Velasquez—in one common cause and
danger. So he adroitly led them to be partners in the deed
which he stealthily planned. Hulk after hulk of the apparently
worm-eaten vessels of the fleet sank in the harbor, until
there was no flotilla left upon which any could desert him.
The march to Mexico was now assured. The force with which to
accomplish this consisted of about 450 Spaniards, six or seven
light guns, fifteen horses, and a swarm of Indian slaves and
attendants. A body of the Totonacs accompanied them. Two or
three days brought them into the higher plain and its
enlivening vegetation. When they reached the dependencies of
Montezuma, they found orders had been given to extend to them
every courtesy. They soon reached the Anahuac plateau, which
reminded them not a little of Spain itself. They passed from
cacique to cacique, some of whom groaned under the yoke of the
Aztec; but not one dared do more than orders from Montezuma
dictated.
{2161}
Then the invaders approached the territory of an independent
people, those of Tlascala, who had walled their country
against neighboring enemies. A fight took place at the
frontiers, in which the Spaniards lost two horses. They forced
passes against great odds, but again lost a horse or two,—
which was a perceptible diminution of their power to terrify.
The accounts speak of immense hordes of the Tlascalans, which
historians now take with allowances, great or small. Cortés
spread what alarm he could by burning villages and capturing
the country people. His greatest obstacle soon appeared in the
compacted army of Tlascalans arrayed in his front. The
conflict which ensued was for a while doubtful. Every horse
was hurt, and 60 Spaniards were wounded; but the result was
the retreat of the Tlascalans. Divining that the Spanish power

was derived from the sun, the enemy planned a night attack;
but Cortés suspected it, and assaulted them in their own
ambush. Cortés now had an opportunity to display his
double-facedness and his wiles. He received embassies both
from Montezuma and from the senate of the Tlascalans. He
cajoled each, and played off his friendship for the one in
cementing an alliance with the other. But to Tlascala and
Mexico he would go, so he told them. The Tlascalans were not
averse, for they thought it boded no good to the Aztecs, if he
could be bound to themselves. Montezuma dreaded the contact,
and tried to intimidate the strangers by tales of the horrible
difficulties of the journey. Presently the army took up its
march for Tlascala, where they were royally received, and
wives in abundance were bestowed upon the leaders. Next they
passed to Cholula, which was subject to the Aztecs."
J. Winsor,
Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 2, chapter 6.
MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (October).
The Massacre at Cholula.
The march to Mexico.
"The distance from Tlascala to Chololan [or Cholula] is but
from 15 to 20 miles. It was a kind of holy place, venerated
far and wide in Anahuac; pilgrimages were made thither, as the
Mahometans go to Mecca, and Christians to Jerusalem or Rome.
The city was consecrated to the worship of Quetzalcoatl, who
had there the noblest temple in all Mexico, built, like all
the temples in the country, on the summit of a truncated
pyramid. The traveller of the present day beholds this pyramid
on the horizon as he approaches Puebla, on his route from Vera
Cruz to Mexico. But the worship of the beneficent Quetzalcoatl
had been perverted by the sombre genius of the Aztecs. To this
essentially good deity 6,000 human victims were annually
immolated in his temple at Chololan. … The Spaniards found
at Chololan an eager and, to all appearance at least, a
perfectly cordial welcome." But this hospitality masked, it is
said, a great plot for their destruction, which Montezuma had
inspired and to aid which he had sent into the neighborhood of
the city a powerful Mexican army. The plot was revealed to
Cortez—so the Spanish historians relate—and "he took his
resolution with his accustomed energy and foresight. He made
his dispositions for the very next day. He acquainted the
caciques of Chololan that he should evacuate the city at break
of dawn, and required them to furnish 2,000 porters or
'tamanes,' for the baggage. The caciques then organized their
attack for the morrow morning, not without a promise of the
men required, whom, in fact, they brought at dawn to the great
court in which the foreigners were domiciled. The conflict
soon began. The Spaniards, who were perfectly prepared,
commenced by massacring the caciques. The mass of Chololans
that attempted to invade their quarters were crushed under the
fire of their artillery and musketry, and the charges of their
cavalry. Hearing the reports, the Tlascalans, who had been
left at the entrance of the city, rushed on to the rescue. …
They could now glut their hatred and vengeance; they
slaughtered as long as they could, and then set to work at
plunder. The Spaniards, too, after having killed all that
resisted, betook themselves to pillage. The unfortunate city
of Chololan was thus inundated with blood and sacked. Cortez,
however, enjoined that the women and children should be
spared, and we are assured that in that he was obeyed, even by
his cruel auxiliaries from Tlascala. … To the praise of
Cortez it must be said that, after the victory, he once more
showed himself tolerant: he left the inhabitants at liberty to
follow their old religion on condition that they should no
longer immolate human victims. After this signal blow, all the
threats, all the intrigues, of Montezuma, had no possible
effect, and the Aztec emperor could be under no illusion as to
the inflexible intention of Cortez. The latter, as soon as he
had installed new chiefs at Chololan, and effaced the more
hideous traces of the massacre and pillage that had desolated
the city, set out with his own troops and his Indian
auxiliaries from Tlascala for the capital of the Aztec empire,
the magnificent city of Tenochtitlan."
M. Chevalier,
Mexico, Ancient and Modern,
part 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).
MEXICO:
The Capital of Montezuma as described
by Cortés and Bernal Diaz.
"This Province is in the form of a circle, surrounded on all
sides by lofty and rugged mountains; its level surface
comprises an area of about 70 leagues in circumference,
including two lakes, that overspread nearly the whole valley,
being navigated by boats more than 50 leagues round. One of
these lakes contains fresh, and the other, which is the larger
of the two, salt water. On one side of the lakes, in the
middle of the valley, a range of highlands divides them from
one another, with the exception of a narrow strait which lies
between the highlands and the lofty Sierras. This strait is a
bow-shot wide, and connects the two lakes; and by this means a
trade is carried on between the cities and other settlements
on the lakes in canoes without the necessity of travelling by
land. As the salt lake rises and falls with its tides like the
sea, during the time of high water it pours into the other
lake with the rapidity of a powerful stream; and on the other
hand, when the tide has ebbed, the water runs from the fresh
into the salt lake. This great city of Temixtitan
[Tenochtitlan—Mexico] is situated in this salt lake, and from
the main land to the denser parts of it, by whichever route
one chooses to enter, the distance is two leagues. There are
four avenues or entrances to the city, all of which are formed
by artificial causeways, two spears' length in width. The city
is as large as Seville or Cordova; its streets, I speak of the
principal ones, are very wide and straight; some of these, and
all the inferior ones, are half land and half water, and are
navigated by canoes.
{2162}
All the streets at intervals have openings, through which the
water flows, crossing from one street to another; and at these
openings, some of which are very wide, there are also very
wide bridges, composed of large pieces of timber, of great
strength and well put together; on many of these bridges ten
horses can go abreast. … This city has many public squares,
in which are situated the markets and other places for buying
and selling. There is one square twice as large as that of the
city of Salamanca, surrounded by porticoes, where are daily
assembled more than 60,000 souls, engaged in buying and
selling; and where are found all kinds of merchandise that the
world affords, embracing the necessaries of life, as for
instance articles of food, as well as jewels of gold and
silver, lead, brass, copper, tin, precious stones, bones,
shells, snails, and feathers. … Every kind of merchandise is
sold in a particular street or quarter assigned to it
exclusively, and thus the best order is preserved. They sell
everything by number or measure; at least so far we have not
observed them to sell any thing by weight. There is a building
in the great square that is used as an audience house, where
ten or twelve persons, who are magistrates, sit and decide all
controversies that arise in the market, and order delinquents
to be punished. … This great city contains a large number of
temples, or houses for their idols, very handsome edifices,
which are situated in the different districts and the suburbs.
… Among these temples there is one which far surpasses all
the rest, whose grandeur of architectural details no human
tongue is able to describe; for within its precincts,
surrounded by a lofty wall, there is room enough for a town of
500 families. Around the interior of this enclosure there are
handsome edifices, containing large halls and corridors, in
which the religious persons attached to the temple reside.
There are full 40 towers, which are lofty and well built, the
largest of which has 50 steps leading to its main body, and is
higher than the tower of the principal church at Seville. The
stone and wood of which they are constructed are so well
wrought in every part that nothing could be better done. …
This noble city contains many fine and magnificent houses;
which may be accounted for from the fact that all the nobility
of the country, who are the vassals of Muteczuma, have houses
in the city, in which they reside a certain part of the year;
and, besides, there are numerous wealthy citizens who also
possess fine houses."
H. Cortés,
Despatches [Letters] (translated by G. Folsom),
letter 2, chapter 5.
"We had already been four days in the city of Mexico, and
neither our commander nor any of us had, during that time,
left our quarters, excepting to visit the gardens and
buildings adjoining the palace. Cortes now, therefore,
determined to view the city, and visit the great market, and
the chief temple of Huitzilopochtli. … The moment we arrived
in this immense market, we were perfectly astonished at the
vast numbers of people, the profusion of merchandise which was
there exposed for sale, and at the good police and order that
reigned throughout. … Every species of goods which New Spain
produces were here to be found; and everything put me in mind
of my native town Medina del Campo during fair time, where
every merchandise has a separate street assigned for its sale.
… On quitting the market, we entered the spacious yards
which surround the chief temple. … Motecusuma, who was
sacrificing on the top to his idols, sent six papas and two of
his principal officers to conduct Cortes up the steps. There
were 114 steps to the summit. …Indeed, this infernal temple,
from its great height, commanded a view of the whole
surrounding neighbourhood. From this place we could likewise
see the three causeways which led into Mexico. … We also
observed the aqueduct which ran from Chapultepec, and provided
the whole town with sweet water. We could also distinctly see
the bridges across the openings, by which these causeways were
intersected, and through which the waters of the lake ebbed
and flowed. The lake itself was crowded with canoes, which
were bringing provisions, manufactures and other merchandise
to the city. From here we also discovered that the only
communication of the houses in this city, and of all the other
towns built in the lake, was by means of drawbridges or
canoes. In all these towns the beautiful white plastered
temples rose above the smaller ones, like so many towers and
castles in our Spanish towns, and this, it may be imagined,
was a splendid sight."
Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
Memoirs (translated by Lockhart),
chapter 92 (volume 1).
MEXICO:
The same as viewed in the light of modern historical criticism.
"In the West India Islands the Spanish discoverers found small
Indian tribes under the government of chiefs; but on the
continent, in the Valley of Mexico, they found a confederacy
of three Indian tribes under a more advanced but similar
government. In the midst of the valley was a large pueblo, the
largest in America, surrounded with water, approached by
causeways; in fine, a water-girt fortress impregnable to
Indian assault. This pueblo presented to the Spanish
adventurers the extraordinary spectacle of an Indian society
lying two ethnical periods back of European society, but with
a government and plan of life at once intelligent, orderly,
and complete. … The Spanish adventurers who captured the
pueblo of Mexico saw a king in Montezuma, lords in Aztec
chiefs, and a palace in the large joint-tenement house
occupied, Indian fashion, by Montezuma and his
fellow-householders. It was, perhaps, an unavoidable
self-deception at the time, because they knew nothing of the
Aztec social system. Unfortunately it inaugurated American
aboriginal history upon a misconception of Indian life which
has remained substantially unquestioned until recently. The
first eye-witnesses gave the keynote to this history by
introducing Montezuma as a king, occupying a palace of great
extent crowded with retainers, and situated in the midst of a
grand and populous city, over which, and much besides, he was
reputed master. But king and kingdom were in time found too
common to express all the glory and splendor the imagination
was beginning to conceive of Aztec society; and emperor and
empire gradually superseded the more humble conception of the
conquerors. … To every author, from Cortes and Bernal Diaz
to Brasseur de Bourbourg and Hubert H. Bancroft, Indian
society was an unfathomable mystery, and their works have left
it a mystery still. Ignorant of its structure and principles,
and unable to comprehend its peculiarities, they invoked the
imagination to supply whatever was necessary to fill out the
picture. …
{2163}
Thus, in this case, we have a grand historical romance, strung
upon the conquest of Mexico as upon a thread; the acts of the
Spaniards, the pueblo of Mexico, and its capture, are
historical, while the descriptions of Indian society and
government are imaginary and delusive. … There is a strong
probability, from what is known of Indian life and society,
that the house in which Montezuma lived, was a joint-tenement
house of the aboriginal American model, owned by a large
number of related families, and occupied by them in common as
joint proprietors; that the dinner [of Montezuma, in his
palace, as described by Cortes and Bernal Diaz] … was the
usual single daily meal of a communal household, prepared in a
common cookhouse from common stores, and divided, Indian
fashion, from the kettle; and that all the Spaniards found in
Mexico was a simple confederacy of three Indian tribes, the
counterpart of which was found in all parts of America. It may
be premised further that the Spanish adventurers who thronged
to the new world after its discovery found the same race of
Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and South
America, in Florida, and in Mexico. In their mode of life and
means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages, and
customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and
physical characteristics, they were the same people in
different stages of advancement. No distinction of race was
observed, and none in fact existed. … Not a vestige of the
ancient pueblo of Mexico (Tenochtitlan) remains to assist us
to a knowledge of its architecture. Its structures, which were
useless to a people of European habits, were speedily
destroyed to make room for a city adapted to the wants of a
civilized race. We must seek for its characteristics in
contemporary Indian houses which still remain in ruins, and in
such of the early descriptions as have come down to us, and
then leave the subject with but little accurate knowledge. Its
situation, partly on dry land and partly in the waters of a
shallow artificial pond formed by causeways and dikes, led to
the formation of streets and squares, which were unusual in
Indian pueblos, and gave to it a remarkable appearance. …
Many of the houses were large, far beyond the supposable wants
of a single Indian family. They were constructed of adobe
brick, and of stone, and plastered over in both cases with
gypsum, which made them a brilliant white; and some were
constructed of a red porous stone. In cutting and dressing
this stone flint implements were used. The fact that the
houses were plastered externally leads us to infer that they
had not learned to dress stone and lay them in courses. It is
not certainly established that they had learned the use of a
mortar of lime and sand. In the final attack and capture, it
is said that Cortes, in the course of seventeen days,
destroyed and levelled three-quarters of the pueblo, which
demonstrates the flimsy character of the masonry. … It is
doubtful whether there was a single pueblo in North America,
with the exception of Tlascala, Cholula, Tezcuco, and Mexico,
which contained 10,000 inhabitants. There is no occasion to
apply the term 'city' to any of them. None of the Spanish
descriptions enable us to realize the exact form and structure
of these houses, or their relations to each other in forming a
pueblo. … It is evident from the citations made that the
largest of these joint-tenement houses would accommodate from
500 to 1,000 or more people, living in the fashion of Indians;
and that the courts were probably quadrangles, formed by
constructing the building on three sides of an inclosed space,
as in the New Mexican pueblos, or upon the four sides, as in
the House of the Nuns, at Uxmal."
L. H. Morgan,
Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines
(United States Geographical and Geological Survey of
Rocky Mountain Region:
Contribution to North American Ethnology, volume 4),
chapter 10.
MEXICO: A. D. 1519-1520.
Captivity of Montezuma, Cortés ruling in his name.
The discomfiture of Narvaez.
The revolt of the capital.
When Cortés had time to survey and to realize his position in
the Mexican capital, he saw that it was full of extreme
danger. To be isolated with so small a force in the midst of
any hostile, populous city would be perilous; but in Mexico
that peril was immeasurably increased by the peculiar
situation and construction of the island-city—Venice-like in
its insulation, and connected with the mainland by long and
narrow, causeways and bridges, easily broken and difficult to
secure for retreat. With characteristic audacity, the Spanish
leader mastered the danger of the situation, so to speak, by
taking Montezuma himself in pledge for the peace and good
behavior of his subjects. Commanded by Cortés to quit his
palace, and to take up his residence with the Spaniards in
their quarters, the Mexican monarch remonstrated but obeyed,
and became from that day the shadow of a king. "During, six
months that Cortes remained in Mexico [from November, 1519,
until May, 1520], the monarch continued in the Spanish
quarters, with an appearance of as entire satisfaction and
tranquillity as if he had resided there, not from constraint,
but through choice. His ministers and officers attended him as
usual. He took cognizance of all affairs; every order was
issued in his name. … Such was the dread which both
Montezuma and his subjects had of the Spaniards, or such the
veneration in which they held them, that no attempt was made
to deliver their sovereign from confinement, and though
Cortes, relying on this ascendant which he had acquired over
their minds, permitted him not only to visit his temples, but
to make hunting excursions beyond the lake, a guard of a few
Spaniards carried with it such a terrour as to intimidate the
multitude, and secure the captive monarch. Thus, by the
fortunate temerity of Cortes in seizing Montezuma, the
Spaniards at once secured to themselves more extensive
authority in the Mexican empire than it was possible to have
acquired in a long course of time by open force; and they
exercised more absolute sway in the name of another than they
could have done in their own. … Cortes availed himself to
the utmost of the powers which he possessed by being able to
act in the name of Montezuma. He sent some Spaniards, whom he
judged best qualified for such commissions, into different
parts of the empire, accompanied by persons of distinction,
whom Montezuma appointed to attend them both as guides and
protectors. They visited most of the provinces, viewed their
soil and productions, surveyed with particular care the
districts which yielded gold or silver, pitched upon several
places as proper stations for future colonies, and endeavoured
to prepare the minds of the people for submitting to the
Spanish yoke." At the same time, Cortes strengthened his
footing in the capital by building and launching two brigantines
on the lake, with an equipment and armament which his royal
prisoner caused to be brought up for him from Vera Cruz.
{2164}
He also persuaded Montezuma to acknowledge himself a vassal of
the King of Castile, and to subject his kingdom to the payment
of an annual tribute. But, while his cunning conquest of an
empire was advancing thus prosperously, the astute Spanish
captain allowed his prudence to be overridden by his religious
zeal. Becoming impatient at the obstinacy with which Montezuma
clung to his false gods, Cortes made a rash attempt, with his
soldiers, to cast down the idols in the great temple of the
city, and to set the image of the Virgin in their place. The
sacrilegious outrage roused the Mexicans from their tame
submission and fired them with an inextinguishable rage. At
this most unfortunate juncture, news came from Vera Cruz which
demanded the personal presence of Cortes on the coast.
Velasquez, the hostile governor of Cuba, to whom the
adventurer in Mexico was a rebel, had sent, at last, an
expedition, to put a stop to his unauthorized proceedings and
to arrest his person. Cortes faced the new menace as boldly as
he had faced all others. Leaving 150 men in the angry Mexican
capital, under Pedro de Alvarado, he set out with the small
remainder of his force to attack the Spanish intruders. Even
after picking up some detachments outside and joining the
garrison at Vera Cruz, he could muster but 250 men; while
Narvaez, who commanded the expedition from Cuba, had brought
800 foot soldiers and 80 horse, with twelve pieces of cannon.
The latter had taken possession of the city of Zempoalla and
was strongly posted in one of its temples. There Cortes
surprised him, in a night attack, took him prisoner, in a
wounded state, and compelled his troops to lay down their
arms. Nearly the whole of the latter were soon captivated by
the commanding genius of the man they had been sent to arrest,
and enlisted in his service. He found himself now at the head
of a thousand well armed men; and he found in the same moment
that he needed them all. For news came from Mexico that
Alvarado, thinking to anticipate and crush a suspected
intention of the Mexicans to rise against him, had provoked
the revolt and made it desperate by a most perfidious, brutal
massacre of several hundred of the chief persons of the
empire, committed while they were celebrating one of the
festivals of their religion, in the temple. The Spaniards at
Mexico were now beleaguered, as the consequence, in their
quarters, and their only hope was the hope that Cortes would
make haste to their rescue,—which he did.
W. Robertson,
History of America,
book 5 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 4, chapters 17-23.
MEXICO: A. D. 1520 (JUNE-JULY).
The return of Cortes to the Mexican Capital.
The battle in the city.
The death of Montezuma.
The disastrous Retreat of the Spaniards.
The alarming intelligence which came to him from the Mexican
capital called out in Cortés the whole energy of his nature.
Hastily summoning back the various expeditions he had already
sent out, and gathering all his forces together, he "reviewed
his men, and found that they amounted to 1,300 soldiers, among
whom were 96 horsemen, 80 cross-bowmen, and about 80
musketeers. Cortez marched with great strides to Mexico, and
entered the city at the head of this formidable force on the
24th of June, 1520, the day of John the Baptist. Very
different was the reception of Cortez on this occasion from
that on his first entry into Mexico, when Montezuma had gone
forth with all pomp to meet him. Now, the Indians stood
silently in the doorways of their houses, and the bridges
between the houses were taken up. Even when he arrived at his
own quarters he found the gates barred, so strict had been the
siege, and he had to demand an entry." The Mexicans, strangely
enough, made no attempt to oppose his entrance into the city
and his junction with Alvarado; yet the day after his return
their attack upon the Spanish quarters, now so strongly
reinforced, was renewed. "Cortez, who was not at all given to
exaggeration, says that neither the streets nor the terraced
roofs ('azoteas') were visible, being entirely obscured by the
people who were upon them; that the multitude of stones was so
great that it seemed as if it rained stones; and that the
arrows came so thickly that the walls and the courts were full
of them, rendering it difficult to move about. Cortez made two
or three desperate sallies, and was wounded. The Mexicans
succeeded in setting fire to the fortress, which was with
difficulty subdued, and they would have scaled the walls at
the point where the fire had done most damage but for a large
force of cross-bowmen, musketeers, and artillery, which Cortez
threw forward to meet the danger. The Mexicans at last drew
back, leaving no fewer than 80 Spaniards wounded in this first
encounter. The ensuing morning, as soon as it was daylight,
the attack was renewed. … Again, and with considerable
success, Cortez made sallies from the fortress in the course
of the day; but at the end of it there were about 60 more of
his men to be added to the list of wounded, already large,
from the injuries received on the preceding day. The third day
was devoted by the ingenious Cortez to making three movable
fortresses, called 'mantas,' which, he thought, would enable
his men, with less danger, to contend against the Mexicans
upon their terraced roofs. … It was on this day that the
unfortunate Montezuma, either at the request of Cortez, or of
his own accord, came out upon a battlement and addressed the
people." He was interrupted by a shower of stones and arrows
and received wounds from which he died soon after. The
fighting on this day was more desperate than it had been
before. The Spaniards undertook to dislodge a body of the
Indians who had posted themselves on the summit of the great
temple, which was dangerously near at hand. Again and again
they were driven back, until Cortez bound his shield to his
wounded arm and led the assault. Then, after three hours of
fighting, from terrace to terrace, they gained the upper
platform and put every Mexican to the sword. But 40 Spaniards
perished in the struggle. "This fight in the temple gave a
momentary brightness to the arms of the Spaniards and afforded
Cortez an opportunity to resume negotiations. But the
determination of the Mexicans was fixed and complete. … They
would all perish, if that were needful, to gain their point of
destroying the Spaniards. They bade Cortez look at the
streets, the squares, and the terraces, covered with people;
and then, in a business-like and calculating manner, they told
him that if 25,000 of them were to die for each Spaniard, still
the Spaniards would perish first. …
{2165}
It generally requires at least as much courage to retreat as
to advance. Indeed, few men have the courage and the ready
wisdom to retreat in time. But Cortez, once convinced that his
position in Mexico was no longer tenable, wasted no time or
energy in parleying with danger. Terror had lost its influence
with the Mexicans, and superior strategy was of little avail
against such overpowering numbers. … Cortez resolved to quit
the city that night [July 1, 1520]. … A little before
midnight the stealthy march began. The Spaniards succeeded in
laying down the pontoon over the first bridge-way, and the
vanguard with Sandoval passed over; but, while the rest were
passing, the Mexicans gave the alarm with loud shouts and
blowing of horns. … Almost immediately upon this alarm the
lake was covered with canoes. It rained, and the misfortunes
of the night commenced by two horses slipping from the pontoon
into the water. Then the Mexicans attacked the pontoon-bearers
so furiously that it was impossible for them to raise it up
again." After that, all seems to have been a confused struggle
in the darkness, where even Cortez could do little for the
unfortunate rear-guard of his troops. "This memorable night
has ever been celebrated in American history as 'la noche
triste.' In this flight from Mexico all the artillery was
lost, and there perished 450 Spaniards, … 4,000 of the
Indian allies, 46 horses, and most of the Mexican prisoners,
including one son and two daughters of Montezuma, and his
nephew the King of Tezcuco. A loss which posterity will ever
regret was that of the books and accounts, memorials and
writings, of which there were some, it is said, that contained
a narrative of all that had happened since Cortez left Cuba.
… In the annals of retreats there has seldom been one
recorded which proved more entirely disastrous."
Sir A. Helps,
Spanish Conquest in America,
book 10, chapters 7-8 (volume 2).
MEXICO: A. D. 1520-1521.
The retreat to Tlascala.
Reinforcements and recovery.
Cortes in the field again.
Preparations to attack Mexico.
"After the disasters and fatigues of the 'noche triste,' the
melancholy and broken band of Cortez rested for a day at
Tacuba, whilst the Mexicans returned to their capital,
probably to bury the dead and purify their city. It is
singular, yet it is certain, that they did not follow up their
successes by a death blow at the disarmed Spaniards. But this
momentary paralysis of their efforts was not to be trusted,
and accordingly Cortez began to retreat eastwardly, under the
guidance of the Tlascalans, by a circuitous route around the
northern limits of lake Zumpango. The flying forces and their
auxiliaries were soon in a famishing condition, subsisting
alone on corn or on wild cherries gathered in the forest, with
occasional refreshment and support from the carcase of a horse
that perished by the way. For six days these fragments of the
Spanish army continued their weary pilgrimage, and, on the
seventh, reached Otumba." At Otumba their progress was barred
by a vast army of the Aztecs, which had marched by a shorter
road to intercept them; but after a desperate battle the
natives fled and the Spaniards were troubled no more until
they reached the friendly shelter of Tlascala. The Tlascalans
held faithfully to their alliance and received the flying
strangers with helpful hands and encouraging words. But many
of Cortez' men demanded permission to continue their retreat
to Vera Cruz. "Just at this moment, too, Cuitlahua, who
mounted the throne of Mexico on the death of Montezuma,
despatched a mission to the Tlascalans, proposing to bury the
hatchet, and to unite in sweeping the Spaniards from the
realm." A hot discussion ensued in the council of the
Tlascalan chiefs, which resulted in the rejection of the
Mexican proposal, and the confidence of Cortez was restored.
He succeeded in pacifying his men, and gave them employment by
expeditions against tribes and towns within reach which
adhered to the Mexican king. After some time he obtained
reinforcements, by an arrival of vessels at Vera Cruz bringing
men and supplies, and he began to make serious preparations
for the reconquest of the Aztec capital. He "constructed new
arms and caused old ones to be repaired; made powder with
sulphur obtained from the volcano of Popocatopetl; and, under
the direction of his builder, Lopez, prepared the timber for
brigantines, which he designed to carry, in pieces, and launch
on the lake at the town of Tezcoco. At that port, he resolved
to prepare himself fully for the final attack, and, this time,
he determined to assault the enemy's capital by water as well
as by land." The last day of December found him once more on
the shores of the Mexican lake, encamped at Tezcoco, with a
Spanish force restored to 600 men in strength, having 40
horses, 80 arquebuses and nine small cannon. Of Indian allies
he is said to have had many thousands. Meantime, Cuitlahua had
died of smallpox—which came to the country with the
Spaniards—and had been succeeded by Guatemozin, his nephew, a
vigorous young man of twenty-five. "At Tezcoco, Cortéz was
firmly planted on the eastern edge of the valley of Mexico, in
full sight of the capital which lay across the lake, near its
western shore, at the distance of about twelve miles. Behind
him, towards the sea-coast, he commanded the country, …
while, by passes through lower spurs of the mountains, he
might easily communicate with the valleys of which the
Tlascalans and Cholulans were masters." One by one he reduced
and destroyed or occupied the neighboring towns, and overran
the surrounding country, in expeditions which made the
complete circle of the valley and gave him a complete
knowledge of it, while they re-established the prestige of the
Spaniards and the terror of their arms. On the 28th of April
the newly built brigantines, 12 in number, were launched upon
the lake, and all was in readiness for an attack upon the
city, with forces now increased by fresh arrivals to 87 horse
and 818 Spanish infantry, with three iron field pieces and 15
brass falconets.
B. Mayer,
Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican,
book 1, chapters 6-8 (volume 1).
MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (May-July).
The siege of the Aztec capital begun.
"The observations which
Cortes had made in his late tour of reconnaissance
had determined him to begin the siege by
distributing his forces into three separate camps,
which he proposed to establish at the extremities
of the principal causeways," under three of his
captains, Alvarado, Olid and Sandoval. The
movement of forces from Tezcuco began on the
10th of May, 1521.
{2166}
Alvarado and Olid occupied Tacuba,
cut the aqueduct which conveyed water
from Chapoltepec to the capital, and made an
unsuccessful attempt to get possession of the
fatal causeway of "the noche triste." Holding
Tacuba, however, Alvarado commanded that
important passage, while Sandoval, seizing the
city of Iztapalapan, at the southern extremity
of the lake, and Olid, establishing himself near the
latter, at Cojohuacan, were planted at the two
outlets, it would seem, of another of the causeways,
which branched to attain the shore at
those two points. When so much had been accomplished,
Cortés, in person, set sail with his
fleet of brigantines and speedily cleared the lake
of all the swarm of light canoes and little vessels
with which the unfortunate Mexicans tried vainly
though valorously to dispute it with him. "This
victory, more complete than even the sanguine
temper of Cortés had prognosticated, proved the
superiority of the Spaniards, and left them,
henceforth, undisputed masters of the Aztec sea.
It was nearly dusk when the squadron, coasting
along the great southern causeway, anchored off
the point of junction, called Xoloc, where the
branch from Cojohuacan meets the principal dike.
The avenue widened at this point, so as to afford
room for two towers, or turreted temples, built
of stone, and surrounded by walls of the same
material, which presented altogether a position
of some strength, and, at the present moment,
was garrisoned by a body of Aztecs. They were
not numerous; and Cortés, landing with his soldiers,
succeeded without much difficulty in dislodging
the enemy, and in getting possession of
the works." Here, in a most advantageous
position on the great causeway, the Spanish
commander fortified himself and established his
headquarters, summoning Olid with half of his
force to join him and transferring Sandoval to
Olid's post at Cojohuacan. "The two principal
avenues to Mexico, those on the south and the
west, were now occupied by the Christians.
There still remained a third, the great dike of
Tepejacac, on the north, which, indeed, taking
up the principal street, that passed in a direct
line through the heart of the city, might be
regarded as a continuation of the dike of Iztapalapan.
By this northern route a means of escape
was still left open to the besieged, and they
availed themselves of it, at present, to maintain
their communications with the country, and to
supply themselves with provisions. Alvarado,
who observed this from his station at Tacuba,
advised his commander of it, and the latter
instructed Sandoval to take up his position on the
causeway. That officer, though suffering at the
time from a severe wound, … hastened to
obey; and thus, by shutting up its only
communication with the surrounding country,
completed the blockade of the capital. But Cortés
was not content to wait patiently the effects of a
dilatory blockade." He arranged with his
subordinate captains the plan of a simultaneous
advance along each of the causeways toward the
city. From his own post he pushed forward with
great success, assisted by the brigantines which
sailed along side, and which, by the flanking fire
of their artillery, drove the Aztecs from one
barricade after another, which they had erected
at every dismantled bridge. Fighting their way
steadily, the Spaniards traversed the whole
length of the dike and entered the city;
penetrated to the great square; saw once more their
old quarters; scaled again the sides of the
pyramid-temple, to slay the bloody priests and to
strip the idols of their jewels and gold. But the
Aztecs were frenzied by this sacrilege, as they
had been frenzied by the same deed before, and
renewed the battle with so much fury that the
Spaniards were driven back in thorough panic
and disarray. "All seemed to be lost;—when
suddenly sounds were heard in an adjoining
street, like the distant tramp of horses galloping
rapidly over the pavement. They drew nearer
and nearer, and a body of cavalry soon emerged
on the great square. Though but a handful in
number, they plunged boldly into the thick of
the enemy," who speedily broke and fled, enabling
Cortés to withdraw his troops in safety. Neither
Alvarado nor Sandoval, who had greater difficulties
to overcome, and who had no help from
the brigantines, reached the suburbs of the city;
but their assault had been vigorously made, and
had been of great help to that of Cortés. The
success of the demonstration spread consternation
among the Mexicans and their vassals, and
brought a number of the latter over to the
Spanish side. Among these latter was the prince
of Tezcuco, who joined Cortés, with a large
force, in the next assault which the latter made
presently upon the city. Again penetrating to
the great square, the Spaniards on this occasion
destroyed the palaces there by fire. But the
spirit of the Mexicans remained unbroken, and
they were found in every encounter opposing as
obstinate a resistance as ever. They contrived,
too, for a remarkable length of time, to run the
blockade of the brigantines on the lake and to
bring supplies into the city by their canoes. But,
at length, when most of the great towns of the
neighborhood had deserted their cause, the
supplies failed and starvation began to do its work
in the fated city. At the same time, the Spaniards
were amply provisioned, and their new
allies built barracks and huts for their shelter.
Cortés "would gladly have spared the town and
its inhabitants. … He intimated more than
once, by means of the prisoners whom he released,
his willingness to grant them fair terms of
capitulation. Day after day, he fully expected
his proffers would be accepted. But day after
day he was disappointed. He had yet to learn
how tenacious was the memory of the Aztecs."
W. H. Prescott,
History of the Conquest of Mexico,
book 6, chapters 4-5.
MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (July).
Disastrous repulse of the Spaniards.
"The impatience of the soldiers grew to a great height, and
was supported in an official quarter—by no less a person than
Alderete, the king's treasurer. Cortez gave way, against his
own judgment, to their importunities" and another general
attack was ordered. "On the appointed day Cortez moved from
his camp, supported by seven brigantines, and by more than
3,000 canoes filled with his Indian allies. When his soldiers
reached the entrance of the city, he divided them in the
following manner. There were three streets which led to the
market-place from the position which the Spaniards had already
gained. Along, the principal street, the king's treasurer,
with 70 Spaniards and 15,000 or 20,000 allies, was to make his
way. His rear was to be protected by a small guard of
horsemen. The other two streets were smaller, and led from the
street of Tlacuba to the market-place.
{2167}
Along the broader of these two streets Cortez sent two of his
principal captains, with 80 Spaniards and 10,000 Indians; he
himself, with eight horsemen, 75 foot-soldiers, 25 musketeers,
and an 'infinite number' of allies, was to enter the narrower
street. At the entrance to the street of Tlacuba he left two
large cannon, with eight horsemen to guard them, and at the
entrance of his own street he also left eight horsemen to
protect the rear. … The Spaniards and their allies made
their entrance into the city with even more success and less
embarrassment than on previous occasions. Bridges and
barricades were gained, and the three main bodies of the army
moved forward into the heart of the city." But in the
excitement of their advance they left unrepaired behind them a
great breach in the causeway, ten or twelve paces wide,
although Cortez had repeatedly enjoined upon his captains that
no such dangerous death-trap should be left to catch them in
the event of a retreat. The neglect in this case was most
disastrous. Being presently repulsed and driven back, the
division which had allowed this chasm to yawn behind it was
engulfed. Cortez, whose distrust had been excited in some way,
discovered the danger, but too late. He made his way to the
spot, only to find "the whole aperture so full of Spaniards
and Indians that, as he says, there was not room for a straw
to float upon the surface of the water. The peril was so
imminent that Cortez not only thought that the Conquest of
Mexico was gone, but that the term of his life as well as of
his victories had come, and he resolved to die there fighting.
All that he could do at first was to help his men out of the
water; and, meanwhile, the Mexicans charged upon them in such
numbers that he and his little party were entirely surrounded.
The enemy seized upon his person, and would have carried him
off but for the resolute bravery of some of his guard, one of
whom lost his life there in succouring his master. … At last
he and a few of his men succeeded in fighting their way to the
broad street of Tlacuba, where, like a brave captain, instead
of continuing his flight, he and the few horsemen who were
with him turned round and formed a rear guard to protect his
retreating troops. He also sent immediate orders to the king's
treasurer and the other commanders to make good their
retreat."
Sir A. Helps,
The Spanish Conquest in America,
book 11, book 1 (volume 2).
"As we were thus retreating, we continually heard the large
drum beating from the summit of the chief temple of the city.
Its tone was mournful indeed, and sounded like the very
instrument of Satan. This drum was so vast in its dimensions
that it could be heard from eight to twelve miles distance.
Every time we heard its mournful sound, the Mexicans, as we
subsequently learnt, offered to their idols the bleeding
hearts of our unfortunate countrymen. … After we had at
last, with excessive toil, crossed a deep opening, and had
arrived at our encampment, … the large drum of
Huitzilopochtli again resounded from the summit of the temple,
accompanied by all the hellish music of shell trumpets, horns,
and other instruments. … We could plainly see the platform,
with the chapel in which those cursed idols stood; how the
Mexicans had adorned the heads of the Spaniards with feathers,
and compelled their victims to dance round the god
Huitzilopochtli; we saw how they stretched them out at full
length on a large stone, ripped open their breasts with flint
knives, tore out the palpitating heart and offered it to their
idols. Alas! we were forced to be spectators of all this, and
how they then seized hold of the dead bodies by the legs and
threw them headlong down the steps of the temple, at the
bottom of which other executioners stood ready to receive
them, who severed the arms, legs, and heads from the bodies,
drew the skin off the faces, which were tanned with the beards
still adhering to them, and produced as spectacles of mockery
and derision at their feasts; the legs, arms, and other parts
of the body being cut up and devoured. … On that terrible
day the loss of the three divisions amounted to 60 men and 7
horses."
Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
Memoirs,
chapter 152 (volume 2).
MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (August).
The last days of the Siege.
The taking of the ruined city.
The end of the Aztec dominion.
"Guatemozin's victory diffused immense enthusiasm among the
Aztecs and those who remained united to them. The priests
proclaimed that the gods, satiated by the sacrifice of the
Spanish prisoners, had promised to rid the country of the
foreigners, and that the promise would be fulfilled within
eight days. This intelligence spread alarm among the allies of
the Spaniards. They deserted in great numbers—not to go over
to the Aztecs, whose anger they dreaded, but to return to
their homes. Cortez had good watch kept in the camp. The
sorties of the besieged were repulsed; the eight days passed
without the Spaniards having lost more than a few marauders.
The allies, seeing that the oracle was wrong, came back to
their former friends. The aggressive ardour of the besieged
grew cooler, and they soon found themselves assailed by the
plagues that ordinarily attack troops massed in a city—not
only famine, but epidemic diseases, the result of want and
overcrowding. … Famine pinched them more cruelly day after
day. Lizards and such rats as they could find were their
richest nourishment; reptiles and insects were eagerly looked
for, trees stripped of their bark, and roots stealthily sought
after by night. Meanwhile, Cortez, seeing that there was no
other means of bringing them to submission, pursued the work
of destruction he had resolved on with so much regret. …
Heaps of bodies were found in every street that was won from
them; this people, so punctilious in their customs of
sepulture, had ceased to bury their dead. … Soon there was
left to the besieged but one quarter, and that the most
incommodious of all, forming barely an eighth of the city,
where there were not houses enough to give them shelter. …
The 13th August, 1521, had now arrived, and that was to be the
last day of this once flourishing empire. Before making a
final assault, Cortez once more invited the emperor to his
presence. His envoys came back with the 'cihuacoatl,' a
magistrate of the first rank, who declared, with an air of
consternation, that Guatemozin knew how to die, but that he
would not come to treat. Then, turning towards Cortez, he
added: 'Do now whatever you please.' 'Be it so,' replied
Cortez; 'go and tell your friends to prepare; they are going
to die.' In fact, the troops advanced; there was a last mêlée,
a last carnage, on land and on the lake. …
{2168}
Guatemozin, driven to the shore of the lake, threw himself
into a canoe with a few warriors, and endeavoured to escape by
dint of rowing; but he was pursued by a brigantine of the
Spanish fleet, taken and brought to Cortez, who received him
with the respect due to a crowned head. … The Aztec empire
had ceased to exist; Spanish sway was established in Mexico.
The Cross was triumphant in that fine country, and there was
no sharer in its reign. The number of persons that perished in
the siege has been differently estimated. The most moderate
calculation puts it at 120,000 on the side of the Aztecs. Very
many Indians fell on the side of the besiegers. The historian
Ixtlixochitl says there were 30,000 dead of the warriors of
Tezcuco alone. All that were left alive of the Aztecs were, at
the request of Guatemozin, allowed to leave the city in
freedom, on the morning after it was taken. … They dispersed
in all directions, everywhere spreading a terror of the
Spaniards, and the feeling that to resist them was impossible.
That conviction must have been established speedily and
firmly, for there was no further attempt at resistance, unless
it were at one point, in the territory of Panuco, near the
Atlantic Ocean."
M. Chevalier,
Mexico, Ancient and Modern,
part 2, chapters 8-9 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
H. Cortes,
Despatches [Letters] MEXICO,
translated by G. Folsom,
letter 3, chapter 5.
MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.
The rebuilding of the capital.
The completion and settlement of the Conquest.
"The first ebullition of triumph was succeeded in the army by
very different feelings, as they beheld the scanty spoil
gleaned from the conquered city;" and Cortés was driven, by
the clamors and suspicions of his soldiers, to subject his
heroic captive, Guatemozin, to torture, in the hope of
wringing from him a disclosure of some concealment of his
imagined treasures. Its only result was to add another infamy
to the name and memory of the conquerors. "The
commander-in-chief, with his little band of Spaniards, now
daily recruited by reinforcements from the Islands, still
occupied the quarters of Cojohuacan, which they had taken up
at the termination of the siege. Cortés did not immediately
decide in what quarter of the Valley to establish the new
capital which was to take the place of the ancient
Tenochtitlan. … At length he decided on retaining the site
of the ancient city, … and he made preparations for the
reconstruction of the capital on a scale of magnificence which
should, in his own language, 'raise her to the rank of Queen
of the surrounding provinces, in the same manner as she had
been of yore.' The labor was to be performed by the Indian
population, drawn from all quarters of the Valley, and
including the Mexicans themselves, great numbers of whom still
lingered in the neighborhood of their ancient residence. …
In less than four years from the destruction of Mexico, a new
city had risen on its ruins, which, if inferior to the ancient
capital in extent, surpassed it in magnificence and strength.
It occupied so exactly the same site as its predecessor that
the 'plaza mayor,' or great square, was the same spot which
had been covered by the huge 'teocalli' and the palace of
Montezuma; while the principal streets took their departure as
before from this central point, and, passing through the whole
length of the city, terminated at the principal causeways.
Great alterations, however, took place in the fashion of the
architecture." Meantime, Cortés had been brought into much
danger at the Spanish court, by the machinations of his
enemies, encouraged by Bishop Fonseca, the same minister who
pursued Columbus with hostility. His friends in Spain rallied,
however, to his support, and the result of an investigation,
undertaken by a board to which the Emperor Charles V. referred
all the charges against him, was the confirmation of his acts
in Mexico to their full extent. "He was constituted Governor,
Captain-General, and Chief Justice of New Spain, with power to
appoint to all offices, civil and military, and to order any
person to leave the country whose residence there he might
deem prejudicial to the interests of the Crown. This judgment
of the council was ratified by Charles V., and the commission
investing Cortés with these ample powers was signed by the
emperor at Valladolid, October 15th, 1522. … The attention
of Cortés was not confined to the capital. He was careful to
establish settlements in every part of the country which
afforded a favourable position for them. … While thus
occupied with the internal economy of the country, Cortés was
still bent on his great schemes of discovery and conquest." He
fitted out a fleet to explore the shores of the Pacific, and
another in the Gulf of Mexico—the prime object of both being
the discovery of some strait that would open one ocean to the
other. He also sent Olid in command of an expedition by sea to
occupy and colonize Honduras, and Alvarado, by land, at the
head of a large force, to subdue Guatemala. The former, having
partly accomplished his mission, attempted to establish for
himself an independent jurisdiction, and his conduct induced
Cortés to proceed to Honduras in person. It was in the course
of this expedition that Guatemozin, the dethroned Mexican
chief, who had been forced to accompany his conqueror, was
accused of a plot against the Spaniards and was hung to a
tree. 'We have the testimony of Bernal Diaz, one of the
Spaniards on the spot, that the execution "was most unjust,
and was thought wrong by all of us." "Within three short years
after the Conquest [Cortés] had reduced under the dominion of
Castile an extent of country more than 400 leagues in length,
as he affirms, on the Atlantic coast, and more than 500 on the
Pacific; and, with the exception of a few interior provinces
of no great importance, had brought them to a condition of
entire tranquillity."
W. H. Prescott,
History of the Conquest of Mexico,
book 7, chapters 1-3.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 5 (Mexico, volume 2), chapters 1-8.
MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1540.
Introduction of Printing.
See PRINTING, &C: A. D. 1535—1709.
MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.
Under the Spanish viceroys.
"Antonio de Mendoza, Conde de Tendilla, was the first viceroy
sent by Charles V. to New Spain. He arrived in the autumn of
1535. … He had a well-balanced and moderate character, and
governed the country with justice and generosity combined. He
… set himself to reform the abuses which had already
appeared, protected the Indians from the humiliations which
the newly arrived Spaniards were disposed to put upon them; he
stimulated all branches of agriculture, and finding the
natives were already well informed in the cultivation of land,
he encouraged them in this pursuit by all possible efforts. …
{2169}
To the religious orders in Mexico is due in great measure the
firm base upon which the government of Spain was established
there. The new viceroy fully recognized this, and encouraged
the foundations of colleges and schools already undertaken by
them. In every way he promoted the prosperity and growth of
the country, and had the satisfaction in the course of his
government, which lasted 15 years, to see everything bear the
marks of his judgment and enterprise. It was he who founded
two cities [Guadalajara and Valladolid] which have reached
great importance. … Cortés was away when the Viceroy Mendoza
arrived in Mexico. He still retained his title as governor,
with the same powers always conferred upon him; but his long
absences from the capital made it necessary, as he fully
recognized, that some other strong authority should be

established there. Nevertheless, he never got on very well
with such other authorities, and on his return soon became at
odds with Mendoza, who, in his opinion, interfered with his
prerogatives. It was then that Cortés bade farewell to his
family, and taking with him his eldest son and heir, Don
Martin, then eight years old, he embarked for Spain, leaving
Mendoza undisturbed in the execution of his office. … In
1536 was issued the first book printed in Mexico, on a press
imported by Mendoza, and put into the hands of one Juan
Pablos. … In 1550 this good ruler [Mendoza] sailed away from
Mexico. … He passed on to take charge of the government of
Peru, by a practice which came to be quite common—a sort of
diplomatic succession by which the viceroys of New Spain were
promoted to the post at Peru. Don Luis de Velasco, second
viceroy of New Spain, made his entrance into the capital with
great pomp, at the end of the year 1550. He, like his
predecessor, had been selected with care by the orders of
Charles V. … His first decree was one liberating 150 Indians
from slavery, who were working chiefly in the mines. … He
established in Mexico, for the security of travellers upon the
highway, the tribunal of the Holy Brotherhood, instituted in
Spain for the same purpose in the time of Isabella. He founded
the Royal University of Mexico, and the Royal Hospital for the
exclusive use of the natives. … The good Viceroy Velasco
died in 1564, having governed the country for 14 years. …
During the government of this ruler and his predecessor all
the administration of New Spain, political, civil, and
religious was established upon so firm a foundation that it
could go on in daily action like a well regulated machine." In
the meantime, Charles V. had resigned the burden of his great
sovereignty, transferring all his crowns to his narrow-souled
son, Philip II., who cared nothing for the New World except as
a source of gold and silver supply and a field for religious
bigotry. Under Philip "the character of the viceroys was
lowered from the high standard adhered to when Charles the
Emperor selected them himself. To follow the long list of them
would be most tedious and useless, as they passed in rotation,
governing according to the best of their lights for several
years in Mexico, and then passing on, either by death or by
promotion to Peru. In 1571 the Inquisition was fully
established … and the next year the Jesuits arrived. … The
first 'auto-da-fé' was celebrated in the year 1574, when, as
its chronicler mentions cheerfully, 'there perished 21
pestilent Lutherans.' From this time such ceremonies were of
frequent occurrence, but the Inquisition never reached the
point it did in Old Spain. … The viceroys of New Spain under
Philip III. [1578-1621] were, for the most part, men of
judgment and moderation. While the government at home, in the
hands of profligate favorites, was growing weaker and weaker,
that of Mexico was becoming more firmly established." It was
not shaken nor disturbed by the War of the Spanish Succession,
during the early years of the eighteenth century; but the
Revolution in France, which convulsed Europe before that
century closed, wrought changes which were lasting in the New
World as well as the Old. "There were in all 64 viceroys,
beginning with Don Antonio de Mendoza, 1535, and ending with
Juan O'Donoju in 1822."
S. Hale,
The Story of Mexico,
chapters 20-22.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volumes 5-6 (Mexico, volumes 2-3).
MEXICO: A. D. 1539-1586.
Expeditions of Niza, Coronado, and others to the North.
Search for the Seven Cities of Cibola.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
The first Revolutionary movement.
Hidalgo.
Allende.
Morelos.
"The causes of the coming revolution were not hidden. The law
that excluded Spaniards born in America from equal rights with
those who were immigrants was a natural, not to say necessary,
source of discontent among people whose good-will was much
needed by any viceroy. There was inevitably not a little
mutual repugnance between the Mexican and Spanish stocks, and
the home government did nothing to mollify such asperities.
There were commercial monopolies militant against public
interests. The clergy were alienated, and since they were not
thus so serviceable as formerly in the part of mediators in
enforcing governmental aims, it was found necessary to use
force where the people were not accustomed to it. The Viceroy
Jose de Iturrigaray practised a seeming condescension that
deceived no one, and he pursued his exactions partly by reason
of self-interest, and partly in order to supply Madrid with
means to meet the financial troubles that the Napoleonic era
was creating. After some years of these conditions in New
Spain, a conspiracy, resulting from a reaction, sent the
viceroy back to Spain a prisoner. This gave strength to
revolutionary sentiments, and a few trials for treason
increased the discontent. The men who were now put
successively in the vice-regal place had few qualities for the
times, and a certain timidity of policy was not conducive to
strength of government. … The outbreak, when it came,
brought to the front a curate of Dolores, a native priest,
Miguel Hidalgo, who commanded the confidence of the
disaffected, and was relied upon to guide the priesthood.
Ignacio de Allende had some of the soldierly qualities needed
for a generalissimo. The purpose of these men and their
allies, before they should openly proclaim a revolt, was to
seize some of the leading Spaniards; but their plot being
discovered, they hastily assembled at Dolores and raised the
standard of revolt (1810). Thus banded together, but badly
organized and poorly armed, a body of 5,000 insurgents marched
from Dolores, headed by Hidalgo and Allende, and approached
Guanajuato, where the intendente Riaña had intrenched himself
in a fortified alhondiga, or granary.
{2170}
The attack of the rebels was headlong and bloody. The gates
were fired with flaming rubbish, and through the glowing way
the mad throng rushed, and after a hand-to-hand conflict
(September 28, 1810) the fortress fell. The royalist leader
had been killed, and scenes of pillage and riot followed.
Meanwhile the viceroy in Mexico prepared to receive the
insurgents, and his ally, the church, excommunicated their
leaders. The military force of the royalists was
inconsiderable, and what there was, it was feared, might prove
not as loyal as was desirable. As Hidalgo marched towards the
capital, he tried to seduce to his side a young lieutenant,
Augustin Iturbide, who was in command of a small outlying
force. The future emperor declined the offer, and, making his
way to the city, was at once sent to join Trujillo, who
commanded a corps of observation which confronted the
insurgents, and who finally ran the chances of a battle at Las
Cruces. … The insurgents soon surrounded him, and he was
only able to reach the city by breaking with a part of his
force through the enveloping line. Hidalgo had lost 2,000 men,
but he had gained the day. He soon intercepted a despatch and
learned from it that General Calleja had been put in motion
from San Luis Potosi, and it seemed more prudent to Hidalgo
that, instead of approaching Mexico, he should retreat to be
nearer his recruiting ground. The retrograde movement brought
the usual result to an undisciplined force, and he was already
weakened by desertions when Calleja struck his line of march
at Aculco. Hidalgo felt it important for the revolution to
have time enough to spread into other parts of the province,
and so he merely fought Calleja to cover his further retreat.
The rebel leader soon gathered his forces at Celaya, while
Allende, his colleague, posted himself at Guanajuato. Here the
latter was attacked by Calleja and routed, and the royal
forces made bloody work in the town. Hidalgo, moving to
Valladolid, reorganized his army, and then, proceeding to
Guadalajara, he set up a form of government, with Ignacio
Lopez Rayon as Secretary-general. At this time the insurgents
held completely the provinces of Nueva Galicia, Zacatecas, and
San Luis Potosi, a belt of country stretching from sea to sea
in the latitude of Tampico. … In January, 1811, the signs
were not very propitious for the royalists. … At this
juncture … Hidalgo moved out from Guadalajara with his
entire force, which was large enough, consisting of 60,000
foot, 20,000 horse, and 100 cannon; but it was poorly armed,
and without effective discipline; while Calleja commanded a
well-equipped and well-organized force, but in extent it only
counted 3,000 foot, with as many horse, and ten guns. At the
bridge of Calderon, 10 or 11 leagues from the city, Hidalgo
prepared to stand. Here Calleja attacked him," and won the
day, entering Guadalajara as a victor on the 21st of January,
1811. "Hidalgo fled with his broken army, and soon resigned
the command to Allende. This general had scarcely 4,000 or
5,000 men left when he reached Saltillo, where he joined
Jimenes. The disheartenment of defeat was spreading through
the country. Town after town was heard from as yielding to the
victors. The leaders, counselling together at Saltillo,
resolved to escape to the United States; but, as they were
marching,—about 2,000 in all, with 24 guns and a
money-chest,—they fell into an ambush planned in the interest
of a counter-revolution by one Elizondo, and, with nothing
more than a show of resistance, the party was captured, one
and all. The judgment of death upon Hidalgo, Allende, and
Jimenes soon followed. The main force of the insurgents had
thus disappeared, but a small body still remained in arms
under the lead of Jose Maria Morelos." Morelos was uneducated,
but capable and energetic, and he kept life in the rebellion
for two years. He captured Orizaba in October, 1812, Oajaca in
the following month, and Acapulco in the spring of 1813. In
November of that year he appeared before Valladolid, the
capital of Michoacan, but was attacked there by Iturbide and
routed. "In January, 1814, Morelos made a final stand at
Puruaran, but Iturbide still drove him on. Disaster followed
upon disaster, till finally Morelos was deposed by his own
congress. This body had adherents enough to make it necessary
for Calleja to appeal to the home government for a
reinforcement of 8,000 troops. … Morelos, meanwhile,
commanding an escort which was protecting the migratory
congress, was intercepted and captured by a force of
royalists, and, after the forms of a trial, he was executed
December 22, 1815. The campaign of 1816 was sustained by the
insurgents against a force of 80,000 men which Calleja had
collected. … Neither side had much success, and the war was
simply tedious. At last, in August, a new viceroy, Juan Riaz
de Apodaca, succeeded to Calleja, and uniting a more humane
policy with vigor in disposing his forces, the leading rebel
officers … surrendered in January, 1817. … A certain
quixotic interest is lent to the closing months of the
revolution by the adventurous exploits of Espoz y Mina. He had
fitted out a small expedition in the United States, which,
landing on the Gulf coast, for a while swept victoriously
inland. … But Mina was finally surprised and executed. Other
vagrant rebel leaders fell one by one into the hands of the
royalists; but Guadalupe Victoria held out, and concealed
himself in the wilds for two years."
J. Winsor,
Spanish North America
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 8, chapter 4).
ALSO IN:
W. D. Robinson,
Memoirs of the Mexican Revolution.
MEXICO: A. D. 1819.
Texas occupied as a province.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.
MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
Independence of Spain.
The brief empire of Iturbide and its fall.
Constitution of the Republic of the United Mexican States.
"The establishment of a constitutional government in Spain, in
1820, produced upon Mexico an effect very different from what
was anticipated. As the constitution provided for a more
liberal administration of government in Mexico than had
prevailed since 1812, the increased freedom of the elections
again threw the minds of the people into a ferment, and the
spirit of independence, which had been only smothered, broke
forth anew. Moreover, divisions were created among the old
Spaniards themselves; some being in favor of the old system,
while others were sincerely attached to the constitution. Some
formidable inroads on the property and prerogatives of the
church alienated the clergy from the new government, and
induced them to desire a return to the old system.
{2171}
The Viceroy, Apodaca, encouraged by the hopes held out by the
Royalists in Spain, although he had at first taken the oath to
support the constitution, secretly favored the party opposed
to it, and arranged his plans for its overthrow. Don Augustin
Iturbide, the person selected by the Viceroy to make the first
open demonstration against the existing government, was
offered the command of a body of troops on the western coast,
at the head of which he was to proclaim the re-establishment
of the absolute authority of the king. Iturbide, accepting the
commission, departed from the capital to take command of the
troops, but with intentions very different from those which
the Viceroy supposed him to entertain. Reflecting upon the
state of the country, and convinced of the facility with which
the authority of Spain might be shaken off,—by bringing the
Creole troops to act in concert with the old insurgents,
—Iturbide resolved to proclaim Mexico wholly independent of
the Spanish nation. Having his head quarters at the little
town of Iguala, on the road to Acapulco, Iturbide, on the 24th
of February, 1821, there proclaimed his project, known as the
'Plan of Iguala,' and induced his soldiers to take an oath to
support it. This 'Plan' declared that Mexico should be an
independent nation, its religion Catholic, and its government
a constitutional monarchy. The crown was offered to Ferdinand
VII, of Spain, provided he would consent to occupy the throne
in person; and, in case of his refusal, to his infant
brothers, Don Carlos and Don Francisco. A constitution was to
be formed by a Mexican Congress; … all distinctions of caste
were to be abolished. … The Viceroy, astonished by this
unexpected movement of Iturbide, and remaining irresolute and
inactive at the capital, was deposed, and Don Francisco
Novello, a military officer, was placed at the head of the
government; but his authority was not generally recognized,
and Iturbide was left to pursue his plans in the interior
without interruption. Being joined by Generals Guerrero and
Victoria as soon as they knew that the independence of their
country was the object of Iturbide, not only all the survivors
of the first insurgents, but whole detachments of Creole
troops flocked to his standard, and his success was soon
rendered certain. The clergy and the people were equally
decided in favor of independence; … and, before the month of
July, the whole country recognized the authority of Iturbide,
with the exception of the capital, in which Novello had shut
himself up with the European troops. Iturbide had already
reached Queretaro with his troops, on his road to Mexico, when
he was informed of the arrival, at Vera Cruz, of a new
Viceroy. … At Cordova, whither the Viceroy had been allowed
to proceed, for the purpose of an interview with Iturbide, the
latter induced him to accept by treaty the Plan of Iguala, as
the only means of securing the lives and property of the
Spaniards then in Mexico, and of establishing the right to the
throne in the house of Bourbon. By this agreement, called the
'Treaty of Cordova,' the Viceroy, in the name of the king, his
master, recognized the independence of Mexico, and gave up the
capital to the army of the insurgents, which took possession
of it, without effusion of blood, on the 27th of September,
1821. All opposition being ended, and the capital occupied, in
accordance with a provision of the Plan of Iguala a
provisional junta was established, the principal business of
which was to call a congress for the formation of a
constitution suitable to the country. At the same time a
regency, consisting of five individuals, was elected, at the
head of which was placed Iturbide. … When the congress
assembled [February 24, 1822], three distinct parties were
found amongst the members. The Bourbonists, adhering to the
Plan of Iguala altogether, wished a constitutional monarchy,
with a prince of the house of Bourbon at its head; the
Republican, setting aside the Plan of Iguala, desired a
federal republic; while a third party, the Iturbidists,
adopting the Plan of Iguala with the exception of the article
in favor of the Bourbons, wished to place Iturbide himself
upon the throne. As it was soon learned that the Spanish
government had declared the treaty of Cordova null and void,
the Bourbonists ceased to exist as a party, and the struggle
was confined to the Iturbidists and the Republicans." By the
aid of a mob demonstration in the city of Mexico, on the night
of May 18, 1822, the former triumphed, and Iturbide was
declared emperor, under the title of Augustin the First. "The
choice was ratified by the provinces without opposition, and
Iturbide found himself in peaceable possession of a throne to
which his own abilities and a concurrence of favorable
circumstances had raised him. Had the monarch elect been
guided by counsels of prudence, and allowed his authority to
be confined within constitutional limits, he might perhaps
have continued to maintain a modified authority; but
forgetting the unstable foundation of his throne, he began his
reign with all the airs of hereditary royalty. On his
accession a struggle for power immediately commenced between
him and the congress." After arbitrarily imprisoning the most
distinguished members of that body, Iturbide, at last,
proclaimed its dissolution and substituted a junta of his own
nomination. "Before the end of November an insurrection broke
out in the northern provinces, but this was speedily quelled
by the imperial troops." It was followed in December by a more
formidable revolt, led off by Santa Anna (or Santana), a young
general who had supported Iturbide, but who had been haughtily
dismissed from the government of Vera Cruz. Santa Anna was
joined by Victoria and other old Republican leaders, and the
power of Iturbide crumbled so rapidly that he resigned his
crown on the 19th of March, 1823, promising to quit the
country, on being assured a yearly allowance of $25,000 for
his support. "With his family and suite he embarked for
Leghorn on the 11th of May. … From Italy he proceeded to
London, and made preparations for returning to Mexico; in
consequence of which, congress, on the 28th of April, 1824,
passed a decree of outlawry against him. He landed in disguise
at Soto la Marina, July 14th, 1824; was arrested by General
Garza, and shot at Padillo by order of the provincial congress
of Tamaulipas, on the 19th of that month. … On the departure
of Iturbide, a temporary executive was appointed, consisting
of Generals Victoria, Bravo, and Negrete, by whom the
government was administered until the meeting of a new
congress, which assembled at the capital in August, 1823.
{2172}
This body immediately entered on the duties of preparing a new
constitution, which was submitted on the 31st of January,
1824, and definitively sanctioned on the 4th of October
following. By this instrument, modeled somewhat after the
constitution of the United States, the absolute independence
of the country was declared, and the several Mexican Provinces
were united in a Federal Republic. The legislative power was
vested in a Congress, consisting of a Senate and a House of
Representatives. … The supreme executive authority was
vested in one individual, styled the 'President of the United
Mexican States.' … The third article in the constitution
declared that 'The Religion of the Mexican Nation is, and will
be perpetually, the Roman Catholic Apostolic. The nation will
protect it by wise and just laws, and prohibit the exercise of
any other whatever.' … On the 1st of January, 1825, the
first congress under the federal constitution assembled in the
city of Mexico; and, at the same time, General Guadalupe
Victoria was installed as president of the republic, and
General Nicholas Bravo as vice-president. The years 1825 and
1826 passed with few disturbances; the administration of
Victoria was generally popular; and the country enjoyed a
higher degree of prosperity than at any former or subsequent
period."
M. Willson,
American History,
book 3, part 2, chapters 4-5.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 7 (Mexico, volume 3), chapters 29-33,
and volume 8, chapters 1-2.
MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.
Free-Masonry in politics.
The rival branches of the order.
The Escocés and the Yorkinos.
For some years a furious contest raged between two political
societies, "known as the 'Escocés' and 'Yorkinos'—or, as we
should call them, Scotch Free-Masons and York
Free-Masons—whose secret organizations were employed for
political purposes by two rival political parties. At the time
of the restoration of the Constitutional Government of Spain
in 1820, Free-Masonry was introduced into Mexico; and as it
was derived from the Scotch branch of that order, it was
called, after the name of the people of Scotland, 'Escocés.'
Into this institution were initiated many of the old Spaniards
still remaining in the country, the Creole aristocracy, and
the privileged classes—parties that could ill endure the
elevation of a Creole colonel, Iturbide, to the Imperial
throne. When Mr. Poinsett was sent out as Embassador to Mexico
[1822], he carried with him the charter for a Grand Lodge from
the American, or York order of Free-Masons in the United
States. Into this new order the leaders of the Democratic
party were initiated. The bitter rivalry that sprung up
between these two branches of the Masonic body kept the
country in a ferment for ten years, and resulted finally in
the formation of a party whose motto was opposition to all
secret societies, and who derived their name of Anti-Masons
from the party of the same name then flourishing in the United
States. When the Escocés had so far lost ground in popular
favor as to be in the greatest apprehension from their
prosperous but imbittered rivals, the Yorkinos, as a last
resort, to save themselves, and to ruin the hated
organization, they pronounced against all secret societies.
… 'General Bravo,' Vice-President of Mexico, and leader of
the Escocés, having issued his proclamation declaring that, as
a last resort, he appealed to arms to rid the republic of that
pest, secret societies, and that he would not give up the
contest until he had rooted them out, root and branch, took up
his position at Tulansingo—a village about 30 miles north of
the City of Mexico. Here, at about daylight on the morning of
the 7th January, 1828, he was assailed by General Guerrero,
the leader of the Yorkinos, and commander of the forces of
government.' After a slight skirmish, in which eight men were
killed and six wounded, General Bravo and his party were made
prisoners; and thus perished forever the party of the Escocés.
This victory was so complete as to prove a real disaster to
the Yorkinos. The want of outside pressure led to internal
dissensions; so that when two of its own members, Guerrero and
Pedraza, became rival candidates for the presidency, the
election was determined by a resort to arms."
R. A. Wilson,
Mexico: its Peasants and its Priests,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 2.
MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.
The rise of Santa Anna.
Dissolution of the Federal System.
The Unitary Republic established.
Recognition by Spain.
The Pastry War.
Retrogradation and decline.
"After the death of Iturbide, by far the most powerful person
in the nation was the Creole general Santa Anna, who, at the
age of 24, had already destroyed the military empire of his
chief. Santa Anna at first interested himself in the visionary
project of Bolivar for framing a general confederation of the
new nations of South America.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.
This project … failed completely; and for several years he
settled down as governor of Vera Cruz, reconciled himself to
the Federal Republic, and took no part in public life. In
1828, however, the Presidential election led to a civil war in
which Santa Anna and his favourite Veracrusanos first found
out their capabilities; and they had an opportunity of testing
them again in the next year, when the feeble force of
Barrados, the last military attempt made by Spain to reduce
Mexico, was cut to pieces at Tampico. From that movement Santa
Anna became the sole controller of the destinies of the
country: and in 1833 he was elected President. Forty years ago
all Europe knew the picture of Santa Anna, with his tall spare
figure, sunburnt face, and black hair curling over his
forehead; how he lived on his hacienda of Manga de Clavo,
cockfighting, gambling, and horse-racing, occasionally putting
himself at the head of his bronzed troops, and either making a
dash at an insurrection, or making a pronunciamento on his own
account. Mexican histories tell how gallantly he defended Vera
Cruz in 1839, against the French invasion under Prince de
Joinville [called 'the Pastry War,' because consequent on the
non-payment of French claims, among which there was prominence
given to a certain pastry-cook's claim for goods destroyed in
the riot of a revolution at the capital in 1828]; how his leg,
having been shattered by a ball, was buried with a solemn
service and a funeral oration in the cemetery of Santa Paula
in Mexico; and how, in a few years, when Santa Anna was in
disgrace with the people, they destroyed the tomb, and kicked
Santa Anna's limb about the streets with every mark of hatred
and contempt. …
{2173}
The manifold difficulties of government in Mexico sufficiently
attested the weakness of the Federal constitution; and in
1835, after a trial of eleven years, the state governments
were dissolved, and the Republic, one and indivisible, set up
for a time in their place. There was now to be a President,
elected by an indirect vote for eight years, a Senate, and a
House of Deputies, both elected by a direct popular vote, and
an elective Supreme Court. Santa Anna, who was identified with
the Unitary principle, was re-elected three times; so that
with some intermission he governed Mexico for 20 years. The
dissolution of the Federal government naturally strengthened
the hands of Santa Anna; and in 1836 Mexico was for the first
time recognized by Spain. But the unitary republic was a time
of disaster and disgrace; and from the point of view of
progress it was a period of reaction. … Europe looked
forward, almost without jealousy, to the time when the great
nation of North America would absorb this people of
half-civilized Indians mixed with degenerate Spaniards. Events
which now happened greatly strengthened this impression."
E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
chapter 20, sections 6-7.
MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837.
The Abolition of Slavery.
"The general affairs of the country in the second half of 1829
were in a chaotic state. Disorganization fettered every branch
of the government. … And yet, amidst its constant struggle,
Guerrero's administration decreed several progressive
measures, the most important of which was the abolition of
slavery. African slavery had indeed been reduced to narrow
limits. The Dominican provincial of Chiapas, Father Matias
Cordoba, gave freedom to the slaves on the estates of his
order. On the 16th of September, 1825, President Victoria had
liberated in the country's name the slaves purchased with a
certain fund collected for that purpose, as well as those
given up by their owners to the patriotic junta. The general
abolition, however, was not actually carried out for some
time, certain difficulties having arisen; and several states,
among which was Zacatecas, had decreed the freedom of slaves
before the general government arrived at a final conclusion on
the subject. As a matter of fact, the few remaining slaves
were in domestic service, and treated more like members of
families than as actual chattels. At last Deputy Tornel,
taking advantage of the time when Guerrero was invested with
extraordinary powers, drew up and laid before him a decree for
total abolition. It was signed September 15, 1829, and
proclaimed the next day, the national anniversary. The law met
with no demur save from Coahuila and Texas, in which state
were about 1,000 slaves, whose manumission would cost heavily,
as the owners held them at a high valuation. It seems that the
law was not fully enforced; for on the 5th of April, 1837,
another was promulgated, declaring slavery abolished without
exception and with compensation to the owners."
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 4.
MEXICO: A. D. 1845.
The Annexation of Texas to the United States.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.
MEXICO: A. D. 1846.
The American aggression which precipitated war.
"Texas had claimed the Rio Grande as her western limit, though
she had never exercised actual control over either New Mexico
or the country lying between the Nueces and the Rio Grande.
The groundless character of the claims of Texas to the Rio
Grande as its western boundary was even admitted by some
friends of the measure. … Silas Wright, … referring to the
boundaries of Texas, declared that 'they embraced a country to
which Texas had no claims, over which she had never asserted
jurisdiction, and which she had no right to cede.' Mr. Benton
denounced the treaty [of annexation and cession of territory]
as an attempt to seize 2,000 square miles of Mexican territory
by the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del Norte,
which would be an act of direct aggression. … In ordering,
therefore, General Taylor to pass a portion of his forces
westward of the river Nueces, which was done before annexation
was accomplished, President Polk put in peril the peace and
the good name of the country. In his Annual Message of
December of that year [1845] he stated that American troops
were in position on the Nueces, 'to defend our own and the
rights of Texas.' But, not content with occupying ground on
and westward of the Nueces, he issued, on the 13th of January,
1846, the fatal order to General Taylor to advance and 'occupy
positions on or near the left bank of the Rio del Norte.' That
movement of the army from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande, a
distance of more than 100 miles, was an invasion of Mexican
territory,—an act of war for which the President was and must
ever be held responsible by the general judgment of mankind."
H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall
of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 2, chapter 149.
MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
The American conquest of California.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.
MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
War with the United States.
The first movements of American invasion.
Palo Alto.
Resaca de la Palma.
Monterey.
Buena Vista.
Fremont in California.
"The annexation of Texas accomplished [see TEXAS: A. D.
1824-1836, and 1836-1845], General Taylor, the United States
commander in the Southwest, received orders to advance to the
Rio Grande. Such was the impoverished and distracted condition
of Mexico that she apparently contemplated no retaliation for
the injury she had sustained, and, had the American army
remained at the Nueces, a conflict might perhaps have been
avoided. But, on Taylor's approaching the Rio Grande, a combat
ensued [May 8, 1846] at Palo Alto with Arista, the Mexican
commander, who crossed over that stream. It ended in the
defeat of the Mexicans, and the next day another engagement
took place at Resaca de la Palma, with the same result. These
actions eventually assumed considerable political importance.
They were among the causes of General Taylor's subsequent
elevation to the Presidency. As soon as intelligence of what
had occurred reached Washington, President Polk, forgetting
that the author of a war is not he who begins it, but he who
has made it necessary, addressed a special message to Congress
announcing that the Mexicans 'had at last invaded our
territory, and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our
own soil.' Congress at once (May 13th, 1846) passed an act
providing money and men.
{2174}
Its preamble stated, 'Whereas, by the act of the Republic of
Mexico, a state of war exists between that country and the
United States, be it enacted,' etc. As long previously as
1843, Mr. Bocanegra, the Mexican Minister of Foreign
Relations, had formally notified the American government that
the annexation of Texas would inevitably lead to war. General
Almonte, the Mexican minister at Washington, in a note to Mr.
Upshur, the Secretary of State, said that, 'in the name of his
nation, and now for them, he protests, in the most solemn
manner, against such an aggression; and he moreover declares,
by express order of his government, that, on sanction being
given by the executive of the Union to the incorporation of
Texas into the United States, he will consider his mission
ended, seeing that, as the Secretary of State will have
learned, the Mexican government is resolved to declare war as
soon as it receives intimation of such an act.' War being thus
provoked by the American government, General Scott received
orders (November 18th, 1846) to take command of the expedition
intended for the invasion of Mexico."
J. W. Draper,
History of the American Civil War,
chapter 23 (volume 1).
After his defeat at Resaca de la Palma, the Mexican general
Arista "retreated in the direction of San Luis Potosi, and was
superseded by General Pedro Ampudia. General Taylor marched
his forces across the Rio Grande on the 17th of May and the
invasion of Mexico was begun in earnest. From the 21st to the
24th of September, he was engaged with 7,000 men in the attack
upon Monterey, the capital of Nueva Leon, garrisoned by a
force of 9,000. He met with the same success which had
attended his former engagements. General Ampudia was also
forced to retire to San Luis Potosi. The brilliant features of
this attack were the assault upon Obispado Viejo by General
Worth on the first day of the fight, and the storming of the
heights above on the following day. … Upon the defeat of
Ampudia, Santa Anna, having then just attained to the chief
magistracy of Mexico [the American blockading squadron at Vera
Cruz had permitted him to return to the country, expecting
that his presence would be advantageous to the invaders], and
left it in the hands of his Vice-President, Gomez Farias, took
the command of the Mexican forces and set out to check the
advance of General Taylor. On the 23d of February, 1847, the
bloody battle of Angostura, as it is called by the Mexicans
(known to the Americans as the battle of Buena Vista), was
fought, and lost by the Mexican army. Santa Anna returned to
San Luis Potosi, whence he was called to the capital to head
off the insurrection against Gomez Farias, by the party called
derisively the Polkos, because their insurrection at that time
was clearly favorable to the movements of the American army,
and because James K. Polk was then the President of the United
States and head of the American party favorable to the war. It
was at this time that the army of Taylor was reduced to about
5,000 men in order to supply General Winfield Scott with
forces to carry out his military operations, and the field of
war was transferred to the region between Vera Cruz and the
capital. While these events were in progress an expedition
under General John C. Fremont had been made over-land through
New Mexico and into California [see CALIFORNIA: A. D.
1846-1847; and NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], and under the
directions of the United States government the Mexicans of
California had been incited to revolt."
A. H. Noll,
Short History of Mexico,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
H. Von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the U. S.,
volume 3, chapters 4-9.
H. O. Ladd,
History of the War with Mexico,
chapters 4-8.
E. D. Mansfield,
History of the Mexican War,
chapters 2-4 and 8.
O. O. Howard,
General Taylor,
chapters 8-19.
MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (March-September).
General Scott's campaign.
From Vera Cruz to the capital.
Cerro Gordo.
Contreras.
Churubusco.
Molino del Rey.
Chapultepec.
The conquest complete.
"General Winfield Scott was ordered to Mexico, to take chief
command and conduct the war according to his own plan. This
was, in brief, to carry an expedition against Vera Cruz,
reduce its defences, and then march on the city of Mexico by
the shortest route. … On the 7th of March [1847], the fleet
with Scott's army came to anchor a few miles south of Vera
Cruz, and two days later he landed his whole force—nearly
12,000 men—by means of surf-boats. Vera Cruz was a city of
7,000 inhabitants, strongly fortified. … On the 22d the
investment was complete. A summons to surrender being refused,
the batteries opened, and the bombardment was kept up for four
days, the small war vessels joining in it. The Mexican
batteries and the castle [of San Juan de Ulloa, on a reef in
the harbor] replied with spirit, and with some little effect;
but the city and castle were surrendered on the 27th. The want
of draught animals and wagons delayed till the middle of April
the march upon the capital of the country, 200 miles distant.
The first obstacle was found at Cerro Gordo, 50 miles
northwest of Vera Cruz, where the Mexicans had taken position
on the heights around a rugged mountain pass, with a battery
commanding every turn of the road. A way was found to flank
the position on the extreme left, and on the morning of April
18th the Americans attacked in three columns. … The
divisions of Twiggs and Worth … attacked the height of Cerro
Gordo, where the Mexicans were most strongly intrenched, and
where Santa Anna commanded in person. This being carried by
storm, its guns were turned first upon the retreating
Mexicans, and then upon the advanced position that Pillow was
assaulting in front. The Mexicans, finding themselves
surrounded, soon surrendered. Santa Anna, with the remainder
of his troops, fled toward Jalapa, where Scott followed him
and took the place."
W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
volume 4, chapter 14.
"Less than a month later [after the battle of Cerro Gordo] the
American army occupied the city of Puebla. Scott remained at
Puebla during June and July, awaiting reinforcements and
drilling them as they arrived. On the 7th of August he set out
for the capital, which was now defended by about 30,000
troops. A series of encounters took place on the 19th, and on
the next day three battles were fought, at Contreras,
Churubusco, and San Antonio. They were in reality parts of one
general engagement. The troops on both sides fought with
stubbornness and bravery, but in the end the Mexicans were
completely routed, and the pursuit of the flying enemy reached
almost to the gates of the capital. A commissioner, Nicholas
P. Trist, having been previously appointed to negotiate with
the Mexicans, an armistice was now agreed upon, to begin on
the 23d of August.
{2175}
The armistice, from a strategic point of view, was a mistake,
the advantage of the overwhelming victories of the 19th and
20th was in great part lost, and the Mexicans were enabled to
recover from the demoralization which had followed their
defeat. The position of the American army, in the heart of the
enemy's country, where it might be cut off from reinforcements
and supplies, was full of danger, and the fortifications which
barred the way to the capital, Molino del Rey, Casa Mata, and
Chapultepec, were exceedingly formidable. On the 7th of
September the armistice came to an end. The negotiations had
failed, and General Scott prepared to move on the remaining
works. A reconnoisance was made on that day, and on the 8th
Scott attacked the enemy. The army of Santa Anna was drawn up
with its right resting on Casa Mata and its left on Molino del
Rey. Both these positions were carried by assault, and the
Mexicans, after severe loss, were defeated and driven off the
field. The next two days were occupied in preparing for the
final assault upon Chapultepec. A careful disposition was made
of the troops, batteries were planted within range, and on the
12th they opened a destructive fire. On the 13th a
simultaneous assault was made from both sides, the troops
storming the fortress with great bravery and dash, and the
works were carried, the enemy flying in confusion. The army
followed them along the two causeways of Belen and San Cosmé,
fighting its way to the gates of the city. Here a struggle
continued till after nightfall, the enemy making a desperate
defence. Early the next morning, a deputation of the city
council waited upon General Scott, asking for terms of
capitulation. These were refused, and the divisions of Worth
and Quitman entered the capital. Street fighting was kept up
for two days longer, but by the 16th the Americans had secured
possession of the city. Negotiations were now renewed, and the
occupation of the territory, meanwhile, continued. The
principal towns were garrisoned, and taxes and duties
collected by the United States. Occasional encounters took
place at various points, but the warfare was chiefly of a
guerrilla character. Towards the close of the war General
Scott was superseded by General Butler. But the work had been
already completed."
J. R. Soley,
The Wars of the United States, 1789-1850
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 7, chapter 6).
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 17-20.
General W. Scott,
Memoirs, by himself,
chapters 27-32 (volume 2.)
President's Message and Documents,
December 7, 1847
(Senate Ex. Doc., No. 1, 30th Cong., 1st Session).
MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
Territory ceded to the United States.
"The Mexican people had now succumbed to the victorious armies
of the 'barbarians of the North.' The Mexican Government was
favorable to the settlement of the questions which had caused
this unhappy war. A new administration was in power. General
Anaya on the 11th of November was elected President of the
Mexican Republic until the 8th of January, 1848, when the
constitutional term of office would expire. … National pride
… bowed to the necessities of the republic, and the deputies
assembled in the Mexican Congress favored the organization of
a commission for the purpose of reopening negotiations with
Mr. Trist, who still remained in Mexico, and was determined to
assume the responsibility of acting still as agent of the
United States [although his powers had been withdrawn]. The
lack of coöperation by the adherents of Santa Anna prevented
immediate action on the part of these commissioners. On the
8th of January, 1848, General Herrera was elected
Constitutional President of the Mexican Republic. … Under
the new administration negotiations were easily opened with a
spirit of harmony and concession which indicated a happy
issue. Mexico gave up her claim to the Nueces as the
boundary-line of her territory, and the United States did not
longer insist upon the cession of Lower California and the
right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The previous
offer of money by the United States for the cession of New
Mexico and Upper California was also continued. … On the 2d
of February a treaty of peace was unanimously adopted and
signed by the commissioners at the city of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
… The ratifications of the Mexican Congress and of the
United States Senate were exchanged May 30th, 1848. The United
States, by the terms of this treaty, paid to Mexico $15,000,000
for the territory added to its boundaries. They moreover freed
the Mexican Republic from all claims of citizens of the United
States against Mexico for damages, which the United States
agreed to pay to the amount of $3,250,000. The boundary-line
was also fixed between the two republics. It began in the Gulf
of Mexico three miles from the mouth of the Rio Grande del
Norte, running up the centre of that river to the point where
it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; then westward
along that southern boundary which runs north of Elpaso, to
its western termination; thence northward along the western
line of New Mexico until it intersects the first branch of the
river Gila, thence down the middle of the Gila until it
empties into the Rio Colorado, following the division line
between Upper and Lower California to the Pacific Ocean, one
marine league south of the port of San Diego. On the 12th of
June, the last of the United States troops left the capital of
Mexico. … The partisan supporters of President Polk's
administration did not hesitate to avow that the war with
Mexico was waged for conquest of territory. … The demands of
indemnity from Mexico first made by the United States were
equal, exclusive of Texas, to half of the domain of Mexico,
embracing a territory upward of 800,000 square miles. … The
area of New Mexico, as actually ceded by treaty to the United
States, was 526,078 square miles. The disputed ground of
Texas, which rightfully belonged to Mexico, and which was also
yielded in the treaty of peace, contained no less than 125,520
square miles. The acquisition of the total amount of 651,591
square miles of territory was one of the direct results of
this war, in which President Polk was ever pretending 'to
conquer a peace.' To this must be added the undisputed region
of Texas, which was 325,520 square miles more, in order
adequately to represent the acquisition of territory to the
United States, amounting to 851,590 square miles. This has
been computed to be seventeen times the extent of the State of
New York. … The territory thus acquired included ten degrees
of latitude on the Pacific coast, and extended east to the Rio
Grande, a distance of 1,000 miles, … Five thousand miles of
sea-coast were added to the possessions of the United States.
… The mineral resources of the conquered territory,
including California, New Mexico, Arizona, Western Colorado,
Utah, and Nevada, have been developed to such an extent that
their value is beyond computation."
H. O. Ladd,
History of the War with Mexico,
chapters 30-31.
ALSO IN:
Treaties and Conventions between the United States
and other Countries (edition of 1889),
pages 681-694.
{2176}
MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861.
The succession of Revolutions and the War of the Reform.
The new Constitution.
The government of Juarez and
the Nationalization of Church property.
"For a brief period, after the withdrawal of the American
army, the Mexican people drew the breath of peace, disturbed
only by outbreaks headed by the turbulent Paredes. … In
June, 1848, Señor Herrera (who had been in power at the
opening of the war with the United States) took possession of
the presidential chair. For the first time within the memory
of men then living, the supreme power changed hands without
disturbance or opposition. … The army … was greatly
reduced, arrangements were made with creditors abroad, and for
the faithful discharge of internal affairs. General Mariano
Arista, formerly minister of war, assumed peaceful possession
of power, in January, 1851, and continued the wise and
economical administration of his predecessor. But Mexico could
not long remain at peace, even with herself; she was quiet
merely because utterly prostrated, and in December, 1852, some
military officers, thirsting for power, rebelled against the
government. They commenced again the old system of
'pronunciamientos'; usually begun by some man in a province
distant from the seat of government, and gradually gaining
such strength that when finally met by the lawful forces they
were beyond control. Rather than plunge his country anew into
the horrors of a civil war, General Arista resigned his office
and sailed for Europe, where he died in poverty a few years
later. It may astonish anyone except the close student of
Mexican history to learn the name of the man next placed in
power by the revolutionists, for it was no one else than
General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna! Recalled by the
successful rebels from his exile in Cuba and South America,
Santa Anna hastened to the scene of conflict. … He commenced
at once to extend indefinitely the army, and to intrench
himself in a position of despotic power, and, in December,
1853, he issued a decree which, in substance, declared him
perpetual dictator. This aroused opposition all over the
country, and the Liberals, who were opposed to an arbitrary
centralized government, rose in rebellion. The most successful
leaders were Generals Alvarez and Comonfort, who, after
repeated victories, drove the arch conspirator from the
capital, on the 9th of August, 1855. Santa Anna secretly
left the city of Mexico, and a few days later embarked at Vera
Cruz for Havana. During several years he resided in Cuba, St.
Thomas, Nassau, and the United States, constantly intriguing
for a return to power in Mexico."
F. A. Ober,
Young Folks' History of Mexico,
chapter 33.
"Upon the flight of Santa Anna, anarchy was imminent in the
capital. The most prominent promoters of the revolution
assembled quickly, and elected General Romulo Diaz de la Vega
acting-president, and he succeeded in establishing order. …
By a representative assembly General Martin Carrera was
elected acting-president, and he was installed on the 15th of
August, 1855, but resigned on the 11th of the following month,
when the presidency devolved a second time upon General Romulo
Diaz de la Vega. The revolution of Alvarez and Comonfort,
known as the Plan de Ayotla, was entirely successful, and
under the wise and just administration of Diaz de la Vega, the
country was brought to the wholly abnormal state of quiet and
order. Representatives of the triumphant party assembled in
Cuernavaca and elected General Juan Alvarez president ad
interim, and upon the formation of his cabinet he named
Comonfort his Minister of War. Returning to the capital, he
transferred the presidency to his Minister of War, and on the
12th of December, 1855, General Ignacio Comonfort entered upon
the discharge of his duties as acting-president. He was made
actual president by a large majority in the popular election
held two years later, and was reinstalled on the 1st of
December, 1857. He proved to be one of the most remarkable
rulers of Mexico, and his administration marks the beginning
of a new era in Mexican history. Scarcely had Comonfort begun
his rule as the substitute of Alvarez, when revolutions again
broke out and assumed formidable proportions. Puebla was
occupied by 5,000 insurgents. Federal troops sent against them
joined their cause. Comonfort succeeded in raising an army of
16,000 men, well equipped, and at its head marched to Puebla
and suppressed the revolution before the end of March. But in
October another rebellion broke out in Puebla, headed by
Colonel Miguel Miramon. The government succeeded in
suppressing this, as well as one which broke out in San Luis
Potosi, and another, under the leadership of General Tomas
Mejia, in Queretaro. It was by Comonfort that the war between
the Church and the government, so long threatened, was
precipitated. In June, 1856, he issued a decree ordering the
sale of all the unimproved real estate held by the Church, at
its assessed value. The Church was to receive the proceeds,
but the land was to become thereby freed from all
ecclesiastical control." Upon information of a conspiracy
centering in one of the monasteries of the city of Mexico, the
president sent troops to take possession of the place, and
finally ordered it to be suppressed. These measures provoked
an implacable hostility on the part of the supporters of the
Church. "On the 5th of February, 1857, the present
Constitution of Mexico was adopted by Congress. Comonfort, as
Provisional President, subscribed it, and it was under its
provisions that he was elected actual president. But ten days
after his inauguration in December, 1857, and his taking the
oath to support the new Constitution, the President, supposing
that he could gain the full support of the Liberals, and
claiming that he had found the operation of the Constitution
impracticable, dissolved Congress and set the Constitution
aside. He threw his legal successor, Benito Juarez, the
President of the Supreme Court of Justice, and one of the
supporters of the new Constitution, into prison." Revolution
upon revolution now followed in quick succession. Comonfort
fled the country. Zuloaga, Pezuela, Pavon, Miramon, were
seated in turn in the presidential chair for brief terms of a
half recognized government.
{2177}
"Constitutionally (if we may ever use that word seriously in
connection with Mexican affairs), upon the abandonment of the
presidency by Comonfort, the office devolved upon the
President of the Supreme Court of Justice. That office was
held at the time by Don Benito Juarez, who thereupon became
president de jure of Mexico. … The most curious specimen of
the nomenclature adopted in Mexican history is that which
gives to the struggle between the Church party and its allies
and the Constitutional government the name of the War of the
Reform. … What was thereby reformed it would be difficult to
say, … further than the suppression of the outreaching
power, wealth, and influence of the Church, and the assertion
of the supremacy of the State. … But the 'War of the Reform'
had all the bitterness of a religious war. … Juarez, who is
thus made to appear as a reformer, was the most remarkable man

Mexico has ever produced. He was born in 1806 in the mountains of
Oaxaca. … He belonged to the Zapoteca tribe of Indians. Not
a drop of Spanish blood flowed in his veins. … Upon the
flight of Comonfort, Juarez was utterly without support or
means to establish his government. Being driven out of the
capital by Zuloaga he went to Guadalajara, and then by way of
the Pacific coast, Panama, and New Orleans, to Vera Cruz.
There he succeeded in setting up the Constitutional
government, supporting it out of the customs duties collected
at the ports of entry on the Gulf coast. It was war to the
knife between the President in Vera Cruz and the
Anti-Presidents in the capital. … On the 12th of July, 1859,
Juarez made a long stride in advance of Comonfort by issuing
his famous decree, 'nationalizing'—that is, sequestrating, or
more properly confiscating—the property of the Church. It was
enforced in Vera Cruz at once. … The armies of the two rival
governments met in conflict on many occasions. It was at
Calpulalpam, in a battle lasting from the 21st to the 24th of
December, 1860, that Miramon was defeated and forced to leave
the country. General Ortega, in command of the forces of
Juarez, advanced to the capital and held it for the return of
his chief. When the army of Juarez entered the capital, on the
27th of December, the decree of sequestration began to be
executed there with brutal severity. … Monasteries were
closed forthwith, and the members of the various religious
orders were expelled [from] the country. … It is said that
from the 'nationalized' church property the government secured
$20,000,000, without, as subsequent events showed, deriving
any permanent benefit from it. It helped to precipitate
another war, in which it was all dissipated, and the country
was poorer than ever. … The decree issued by Juarez from
Vera Cruz in 1859, nationalizing the property of the Church,
was quickly followed up by a decree suspending for two years
payment on all foreign debts. The national debt at that time
amounted to about $100,000,000, according to some statements,
and was divided up between England, Spain, and France.
England's share was about $80,000,000. France's claim was
comparatively insignificant. They were all said to have been
founded upon usurious or fraudulent contracts, and the French
claim was especially dubious. … Upon the issuing of the
decree suspending payment on these foreign debts, the three
creditor nations' at once broke off diplomatic relations with
Mexico, and Napoleon III., of France, proceeded to carry out a
plan which had for some time occupied his mind."
A. H. Noll,
Short History of Mexico,
chapters 10-11.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 20-30,
and volume 9 (6), chapter 1.
See CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.
MEXICO: A. D. 1853.
Sale of Arizona to the United States.
The Gadsden Treaty.
See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.
MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
The French intervention.
Maximilian's ill-starred empire and its fate.
The expedition against Mexico "was in the beginning a joint
undertaking of England, France, and Spain. Its professed
object, as set forth in a convention signed in London on
October 31st, 1861, was 'to demand from the Mexican
authorities more efficacious protection for the persons and
properties of their (the Allied Sovereigns') subjects, as well
as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted toward their
Majesties by the Republic of Mexico.' … Lord Russell, who
had acted with great forbearance towards Mexico up to this
time, now agreed to co-operate with France and Spain in
exacting reparation from Juarez. But he defined clearly the
extent to which the intervention of England would go. England
would join in an expedition for the purpose, if necessary, of
seizing on Mexican custom-houses, and thus making good the
foreign claims. But she would not go a step further. She would
have nothing to do with upsetting the Government of Mexico, or
imposing any European system on the Mexican people.
Accordingly, the Second Article of the Convention pledged the
contracting parties not to seek for themselves any acquisition
of territory or any special advantage, and not to exercise in
the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to
prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to
constitute freely the form of its government. The Emperor of
the French, however, had already made up his mind that he
would establish a sort of feudatory monarchy in Mexico. He had
long had various schemes and ambitions floating in his mind
concerning those parts of America on the shores of the Gulf of
Mexico, which were once the possessions of France. … At the
very time when he signed the convention with the pledge
contained in its second article, he had already been making
arrangements to found a monarchy in Mexico. If he could have
ventured to set up a monarchy with a French prince at its
head, he would probably have done so; but this would have been
too bold a venture. He, therefore, persuaded the Archduke
Maximilian, brother of the Emperor of Austria, to accept the
crown of the monarchy he proposed to set up in Mexico. The
Archduke was a man of pure and noble character, but evidently
wanting in strength of mind, and he agreed, after some
hesitation, to accept the offer. Meanwhile the joint
expedition sailed. We [the English] sent only a line-of-battle
ship, two frigates, and 700 marines. France sent in the first
instance about 2,500 men, whom she largely reinforced
immediately after. Spain had about 6,000 men, under the
command of the late Marshal Prim. The Allies soon began to
find that their purposes were incompatible. There was much
suspicion about the designs of France. … Some of the claims
set up by France disgusted the other Allies. The Jecker claims
were for a long time after as familiar a subject of ridicule
as our own Pacifico claims had been.
{2178}
A Swiss house of Jecker & Company had lent the former
Government of Mexico $750,000, and got bonds from that
Government, which was on its very last legs, for $15,000,000.
The Government was immediately afterwards upset, and Juarez
came into power. M. Jecker modestly put in his claim for
$15,000,000. Juarez refused to comply with the demand. He
offered to pay the $750,000 lent and five per cent. interest,
but he declined to pay exactly twenty times the amount of the
sum advanced. M. Jecker had by this time become somehow a
subject of France, and the French Government took up his
claim. It was clear that the Emperor of the French had
resolved that there should be war. At last the designs of the
French Government became evident to the English and Spanish
Plenipotentiaries, and England and Spain withdrew from the
Convention. … The Emperor of the French 'walked his own wild
road, whither that led him.' He overran a certain portion of
Mexico with his troops. He captured Puebla after a long and
desperate resistance [and after suffering a defeat on the 5th
of May, 1862, in the battle of Cinco de Mayo]; he occupied the
capital, and he set up the Mexican Empire, with Maximilian as
Emperor. French troops remained to protect the new Empire.
Against all this the United States Government protested from
time to time. … However, the Emperor Napoleon cared nothing
just then about the Monroe doctrine, complacently satisfied
that the United States were going to pieces, and that the
Southern Confederacy would be his friend and ally. He received
the protests of the American Government with unveiled
indifference. At last the tide in American affairs turned. The
Confederacy crumbled away; Richmond was taken; Lee
surrendered; Jefferson Davis was a prisoner. Then the United
States returned to the Mexican Question, and the American
Government informed Louis Napoleon that it would be
inconvenient, gravely inconvenient, if he were not to withdraw
his soldiers from Mexico. A significant movement of American
troops under a renowned General, then flushed with success,
was made in the direction of the Mexican frontier. There was
nothing for Louis Napoleon but to withdraw [March, 1867]. …
The Mexican Empire lasted two months and a week after the last
of the French troops had been withdrawn. Maximilian
endeavoured to raise an army of his own, and to defend himself
against the daily increasing strength of Juarez. He showed all
the courage which might have been expected from his race, and
from his own previous history. But in an evil hour for
himself, and yielding, it is stated, to the persuasion of a
French officer, he had issued a decree that all who resisted
his authority in arms should be shot. By virtue of this
monstrous ordinance, Mexican officers of the regular army,
taken prisoners while resisting, as they were bound to do, the
invasion of a European prince, were shot like brigands. The
Mexican general, Ortega, was one of those thus shamefully done
to death. When Juarez conquered, and Maximilian, in his turn,
was made a prisoner, he was tried by court-martial, condemned
and shot. … The French Empire never recovered the shock of
this Mexican failure."
J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 44.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 9 (Mexico, volume 6), chapters 1-14.
H. M. Flint,
Mexico under Maximilian.
F. Salm-Balm,
My Diary in Mexico (1867).
S. Schroeder,
The Fall of Maximilian's Empire.
Count E. de Keratry,
The Rise and Fall of the Emperor Maximilian.
J. M. Taylor,
Maximilian and Carlotta.
U. R. Burke,
Life of Benito Juarez.
MEXICO: A. D. 1867-1892.
The restored Republic.
"On the 15th of July [1867] Juarez made a solemn entry into
the capital. Many good citizens of Mexico, who had watched
gloomily the whole episode of the French intervention, now
emerged to light and rejoiced conspicuously in the return of
their legitimate chief. … He was received with genuine
acclamations by the populace, while high society remained
within doors, curtains close-drawn, except that the women took
pride in showing their deep mourning for the death of the
Emperor. … Peace now came back to the country. A general
election established Juarez as President, and order and
progress once more consented to test the good resolutions of
the Republic." Santa Anna made one feeble and futile attempt
to disturb the quiet of his country, but was arrested without
difficulty and sent into exile again. But Juarez had many
opponents and enemies to contend with. "As the period of
election approached, in 1871, party lines became sharply
divided, and the question of his return to power was warmly
contested. A large body still advocated the re-election of
Juarez, as of the greatest importance to the consolidation of
the Constitution and reform, but the admirers of military
glory claimed the honors of President for General Diaz, who
had done so much, at the head of the army, to restore the
Republic. A third party represented the interests of Lerdo,
minister of Juarez all through the epoch of the intervention,
a man of great strength of character and capacity for
government. … The campaign was vigorous throughout the
country. … The election took place; the Juaristas were
triumphant. Their party had a fair majority and Juarez was
re-elected. But the Mexicans not yet had learned to accept the
ballot, and a rebellion followed. The two defeated parties
combined, and civil war began again. Government defended
itself with vigor and resolution, and, in spite of the
popularity of General Diaz as a commander, held its own during
a campaign of more than a year. Its opponents were still
undaunted, and the struggle might have long continued but for
the sudden death of Juarez, on the 19th of July, 1872. … Don
Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, then President of the Supreme
Court, assumed the government, was elected President, and the
late agitation of parties was at an end. For three years peace
reigned in Mexico, and then began another revolution. Towards
the end of 1875, rumors of dissatisfaction were afloat. …
Early in the next year, a 'Plan' was started, one of those
fatal propositions for change which have always spread like
wildfire through the Mexican community. By midsummer, the
Republic was once more plunged in civil war. Although he had
apparently no hand in the 'Plan' of Tuxtepec, General Porfirio
Diaz appeared at the head of the army of the revolutionists.
… During the summer there was fighting and much confusion,
in the midst of which the election took place for the choice
of President for another term of four years.
{2179}
The result was in favor of Lerdo de Tejada, but he was so
unpopular that he was obliged soon after to leave the capital,
on the 20th of November, accompanied by his ministers and a
few other persons. The other Lerdistas hid themselves,
Congress dissolved, and the opposition triumphed. Thus ended
the government of the Lerdistas, but a few days before the
expiration of its legal term. On the 24th of November, General
Porfirio Diaz made his solemn entry into the capital, and was
proclaimed Provisional President. After a good deal of
fighting all over the country, Congress declared him, in May,
1877, to be Constitutional President for a term to last until
November 30, 1880. … President Diaz was able to consolidate
his power, and to retain his seat without civil war, although
this has been imminent at times, especially towards the end of
his term. In 1880, General Manuel Gonsalez was elected, and on
the 1st of December of that year, for the second time only in
the history of the Republic, the retiring President gave over
his office to his legally elected successor. … The
administration of Gonsalez passed through its four years
without any important outbreak. … At the end of that term
General Diaz was re-elected and became President December 1,
1884. The treasury of the country was empty, the Republic
without credit, yet he has [1888] … succeeded in placing his
government upon a tolerably stable financial basis, and done
much to restore the foreign credit of the Republic."
S. Hale,
The Story of Mexico,
chapter 41-42.
"At the close of Maximilian's empire Mexico had but one
railroad, with 260 miles of track. To-day she has them running
in all directions, with an [aggregate] of 10,025 kilometers
(about 6,300 miles), and is building more. Of telegraph lines
in 1867 she had but a few short connections, under 3,000
kilometers; now she has telephone and telegraph lines which
aggregate between 60,000 and 70,000 kilometers. … In his …
message to Congress (1891) President Diaz said: 'It is
gratifying to me to be able to inform Congress that the
financial situation of the republic continues to improve. …
Without increasing the tariff, the custom-houses now collect
$9,000,000 more than they did four years ago.' … The
revenues of the republic have more than doubled in the past
twenty years. In 1870 they were $16,000,000; they are
estimated now at over $36,000,000." The third term of
President Diaz, "now [1892] drawing to a close, has been one
of great prosperity. … As we write popular demonstrations
are being made in favor of another term."
W. Butler,
Mexico in Transition,
pages 284-287.
President Diaz was re-elected for a fourth term, which began
December 1, 1892, and will expire in 1896.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 9 (Mexico volume 6), chapter 19.
----------MEXICO: End----------
MIAMIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.
MICESLAUS I.,
King of Poland, A. D. 964-1000.
Miceslaus II., King of Poland, 1025-1037.
Miceslaus III., Duke of Poland, 1173-1177.
MICHAEL
The first of the Romanoffs, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1613-1645.
Michael I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 811-813.
Michael II. (called the Armorian), Emperor in the East, 820-829.
Michael III., Emperor in the East, 842-867.
Michael IV., Emperor in the East, 1034-1041.
Michael V., Emperor in the East, 1041-1042.
Michael VI., Emperor in the East, 1056-1057.
Michael VII., Emperor in the East, 1071-1078.
Michael VIII. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1260-1261;
Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1261-1282.
Michael Wiecnowiecki, King of Poland, 1670-1674.
----------MICHIGAN: Start----------
MICHIGAN:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, and OJIBWAYS.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1680.
Traversed by La Salle.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1686-1701.
The founding of the French post at Detroit.
See DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1760.
The surrender to the English.
See CANADA: A. D. 1760.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.
Cession to Great Britain.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.
The King's proclamation excluding settlers.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1774.
Embraced in the Province of Quebec.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1775-1783.
Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUESTS.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1784.
Included in the proposed states of Cherronesus and Sylvania.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1785-1786.
Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts
and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1787.
The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1805.
Detached from Indiana Territory and
distinctly named and organized.
See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1811.
Tecumseh and his League.
Battle of Tippecanoe.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1812.
The surrender of Detroit and the whole territory
to the British arms by General Hull.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1813.
Recovery by the Americans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813,
HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1817.
The founding of the University of Michigan.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1837.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1818-1836.
Extension of Territorial limits to the Mississippi,
and then beyond.
See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.
Admission into the Union as a State.
Settlement of Boundaries.
A conflict between the terms of the constitution under which
the state of Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1803 and the
Act of Congress which, in 1805, erected the Territory of
Michigan, gave rise to a serious boundary dispute between the
two. The Michigan claim rested not only upon the Act of 1805,
but primarily upon the great
Ordinance of 1787.
{2180}
It involved the possession of a wedge-shaped strip of
territory, which "averaged six miles in width, across Ohio,
embraced some 468 square miles, and included the lake-port of
Toledo and the mouth of the Maumee river." In 1834, Michigan
began to urge her claims to statehood. "Without waiting for an
enabling act, a convention held at Detroit in May and June,
1835, adopted a state constitution for submission to congress,
demanding entry into the Union, 'in conformity to the fifth
article of the ordinance' of 1787—of course the boundaries
sought being those established by the article in question.
That summer, there were popular disturbances in the disputed
territory, and some gunpowder harmlessly wasted. In December,
President Jackson laid the matter before congress in a special
message. Congress quietly determined to 'arbitrate' the
quarrel by giving to Ohio the disputed tract, and offering
Michigan, by way of partial recompense, the whole of what is
to-day her upper peninsula. Michigan did not want the
supposedly barren and worthless country to her northwest,
protested long and loud against what she deemed to be an
outrage, declared that she had no community of interest with
the north peninsula, and was separated from it by
insurmountable natural barriers for one-half of the year,
while it rightfully belonged to the fifth state, to be formed
out of the Northwest Territory. But congress persisted in
making this settlement of the quarrel one of the conditions
precedent to the admission of Michigan into the Union. In
September, 1836, a state convention, called for the sole
purpose of deciding the question, rejected the proposition on
the ground that congress had no right to annex such a
condition, according to the terms of the ordinance; a second
convention, however, approved of it on the 15th of December
following, and congress at once accepted this decision as
final. Thus Michigan came into the sisterhood of states,
January 26, 1837, with the territorial limits which she
possesses to-day."
R. G. Thwaites,
The Boundaries of Wisconsin
(Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
volume 11, pages 456-460).
ALSO IN:
B. A. Hinsdale,
The Old Northwest,
chapter 17.
MICHIGAN: A. D. 1854.
Early organization and victory of the Republican Party.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.
----------MICHIGAN: End----------
----------MICHIGAN, Lake: Start----------
MICHIGAN, Lake:
The Discovery.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
MICHIGAN, Lake:
Navigated by La Salle.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
----------MICHIGAN, Lake: End----------
MICHIGANIA,
The proposed State of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.
MICHILLIMACKINAC.
See MACKINAW.
MICHMASH, War of.
One of Saul's campaigns against the Philistines received this
name from Jonathan's exploit in scaling the height of Michmash
and driving the garrison in panic from their stronghold.
I. Samuel XIV.
Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 21 (volume 2).
MICKLEGARTH.
"Constantine had transplanted the Roman name, the centre of
Roman power, and much of what was Roman in ideas and habits,
to Byzantium, the New Rome.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.
The result was that remarkable empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE]
which, though since its fall it has become a by-word, was,
when it was standing, the wonder and the envy of the barbarian
world, the mysterious 'Micklegarth,' 'the Great City, the Town
of towns,' of the northern legends."
R. W. Church,
The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 6.
MICMACS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
MICROSCOPE IN MEDICINE, The.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES, and after.
MIDDLE AGES.
"The term Middle Ages is applied to the time which elapsed
between the fall of the Roman Empire and the formation of the
great modern monarchies, between the first permanent invasion
of the Germans, at the beginning of the 5th century of our era
[see GAUL: A. D. 406-409], and the last invasion, made by the
Turks, ten centuries later, in 1453."
V. Duruy,
History of the Middle Ages, author's preface.
"It is not possible to fix accurate limits to the Middle Ages;
… though the ten centuries from the 5th to the 15th seem, in
a general point of view, to constitute that period."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages, preface to first edition.
"We commonly say that ancient history closed with the year 476
A. D. The great fact which marks the close of that age and the
beginning of a new one is the conquest of the Western Roman
Empire by the German tribes, a process which occupied the
whole of the fifth century and more. But if we are to select
any special date to mark the change, the year 476 is the best
for the purpose. … When we turn to the close of medieval
history we find no such general agreement as to the specific
date which shall be selected to stand for that fact. For one
author it is 1453, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire
through the capture of Constantinople by the Turks; for
another, 1492, the discovery of America; for another, 1520,
the full opening of the Reformation. This variety of date is
in itself very significant. It unconsciously marks the
extremely important fact that the middle ages come to an end
at different dates in the different lines of
advance—manifestly earlier in politics and economics than
upon the intellectual side. … It is a transition age. Lying,
as it does, between two ages, in each of which there is an
especially rapid advance of civilization, it is not itself
primarily an age of progress. As compared with either ancient
or modern history, the additions which were made during the
middle ages to the common stock of civilization are few and
unimportant. Absolutely, perhaps, they are not so. … But the
most important of them fall within the last part of the
period, and they are really indications that the age is
drawing to a close, and a new and different one coming on.
Progress, however much there may have been, is not its
distinctive characteristic. There is a popular recognition of
this fact in the general opinion that the medieval is a very
barren and uninteresting period of history—the 'dark
ages'—so confused and without evident plan that its facts are
a mere disorganized jumble, impossible to reduce to system or
to hold in mind. This must be emphatically true for every one,
unless there can be found running through all its confusion
some single line of evolution which will give it meaning and
organization. … Most certainly there must be some such
general meaning of the age.
{2181}
The orderly and regular progress of history makes it
impossible that it should be otherwise. Whether that meaning
can be correctly stated or not is much more uncertain. It is
the difficulty of doing this which makes medieval history seem
so comparatively barren a period. The most evident general
meaning of the age is … assimilation. The greatest work
which had to be done was to bring the German barbarian, who
had taken possession of the ancient world and become
everywhere the ruling race, up to such a level of attainment
and understanding that he would be able to take up the work of
civilization where antiquity had been forced to suspend it and
go on with it from that point. … Here, then, is the work of
the middle ages. To the results of ancient history were to be
added the ideas and institutions of the Germans; to the
enfeebled Roman race was to be added the youthful energy and
vigor of the German. Under the conditions which existed this
union could not be made—a harmonious and homogeneous
Christendom could not be formed, except through centuries of
time, through anarchy, and ignorance, and superstition."
G. B. Adams,
Civilization During the Middle Ages,
introduction.
"We speak, sometimes, of the 'Dark Ages,' and in matters of
the exact sciences perhaps they were dark enough. Yet we must
deduct something from our youthful ideas of their obscurity
when we find that our truest lovers of beauty fix the building
age of the world between the years 500 and 1500 of our era.
Architecture, more than any other art, is an index to the
happiness and freedom of the people; and during this period of
1,000 years, 'an architecture, pure in its principles,
reasonable in its practice, and beautiful to the eyes of all
men, even the simplest,' covered Europe with beautiful
buildings from Constantinople to the north of Britain. In
presence of this manifestation of free and productive
intelligence, unmatched even in ancient Greece and Rome, and
utterly unmatchable to-day, we may usefully reflect upon the
expressive and constructive force of the spirit of
Christendom, even in its darkest hours. The more closely we
examine the question, the less ground we shall find for the
conception of the Middle Ages as a long sleep followed by a
sudden awakening. Rather we should consider that ancient
Greece was the root, and ancient Rome the stem and branches of
our life; that the Dark Ages, as we call them, represent its
flower, and the modern world of science and political freedom
the slowly-matured fruit. If we consider carefully that the
Christian humanistic spirit held itself as charged from the
first with the destinies of the illiterate and half-heathen
masses of the European peoples, whereas, neither in Greece nor
in the Roman Empire was civilisation intended for more than a
third or a fourth part of the inhabitants of their
territories, we shall not be surprised at an apparent fall of
intellectual level, which really meant the beginning of a
universal rise hitherto unknown in the history of the world.
Ideas of this kind may help us to understand what must remain
after all a paradox, that we have been taught to apply the
term 'Dark Ages' to the period of what were in some respects
the greatest achievements of the human mind, for example, the
Cathedral of Florence and the writings of Dante. … It is
perfectly obvious now to all who look carefully at these
questions, that the instinct of our physical science and
naturalistic art, of our evolutionist philosophy and
democratic politics, is not antagonistic to, but is
essentially one with the instinct which, in the Middle Ages,
regarded all beauty and truth and power as the working of the
Divine reason in the mind of man and in nature. What a genuine
though grotesque anticipation of Charles Darwin is there in
Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds!"
B. Bosanquet,
The Civilization of Christendom,
chapter 3.
"'I know nothing of those ages which knew nothing.' I really
forget to which of two eminent wits this saying belongs; but I
have often thought that I should have liked to ask him how he
came to know so curious and important a fact respecting ages
of which he knew nothing. Was it merely by hearsay? Everybody
allows, however, that they were dark ages. Certainly; but what
do we mean by darkness? Is not the term, as it is generally
used, comparative? Suppose I were to say that I am writing 'in
a little dark room,' would you understand me to mean that I
could not see the paper before me? Or if I should say that I
was writing 'on a dark day,' would you think I meant that the
sun had not risen by noon? Well, then, let me beg you to
remember this, when you and I use the term, dark ages. …
Many causes … have concurred to render those ages very dark
to us; but, for the present, I feel it sufficient to remind
the reader, that darkness is quite a different thing from
shutting the eyes: and that we have no right to complain that
we can see but little until we have used due diligence to see
what we can. As to the other point—that is, as to the degree
of darkness in which those ages were really involved, and as
to the mode and degree in which it affected those who lived in
them, I must express my belief, that it has been a good deal
exaggerated. There is no doubt that those who lived in what
are generally called the 'middle' or the 'dark' ages, knew
nothing of many things which are familiar to us, and which we
deem essential to our comfort, and almost to our existence;
but still I doubt whether, even in this point of view, they
were so entirely dark as some would have us suppose."
S. R. Maitland,
The Dark Ages,
introduction.
"In the Middle Ages both sides of human consciousness—that
which was turned within as that which was turned without—lay
dreaming or half-awake beneath a common veil. The veil was
woven of faith, illusion, and childish prepossession, through
which the world and history were seen clad in strange hues.
Man was conscious of himself only as a member of a race,
people, party, family, or corporation—only through some
general category. In Italy this veil first melted into air; an
objective treatment and consideration of the state and of all
the things of this world became possible. The subjective side
at the same time asserted itself with corresponding emphasis;
man became a spiritual individual, and recognised himself as
such."
J. Burckhardt,
The Renaissance in Italy,
part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).
See, also,
EUROPE (page 1010-1048):
EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL;
LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL;
MEDICAL SCIENCE, MEDIÆVAL;
MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.
MIDDLEBURG:
Taken by the Gueux of Holland (1574).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.
MIDDLESEX, Origin of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
{2182}
MIDDLESEX ELECTIONS, John Wilkes and the.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.
MIDIANITES, The.
"The name of Midian, though sometimes given peculiarly to the
tribe on the south-east shores of the Gulf of Akaba, was
extended to all Arabian tribes on the east of the
Jordan,—'the Amalekites, and all the children of the East.'"
Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 15 (volume 1).
MIGDOL.
See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
MIGHTY HOST, Knights of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
MIGNONS OF HENRY III., The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.
MIKADO.
"Though this is the name by which the whole outer world knows
the sovereign of Japan, it is not that now used in Japan
itself, except in poetry and on great occasions. The Japanese
have got into the habit of calling their sovereign by such
alien Chinese titles as Tenshi, 'the Son of Heaven'; Ten-o, or
Tenno, 'the Heavenly Emperor'; Shujo, 'the Supreme Master.'
His designation in the official translations of modern public
documents into English is 'Emperor.' … The etymology of the
word Mikado is not quite clear. Some—and theirs is the
current opinion—trace it to 'mi,' 'august,' and 'kado,' a
'gate,' reminding one of the 'Sublime Porte' of Turkey. …
The word Mikado is often employed to denote the monarch's
Court as well as the monarch himself."
B. H. Chamberlain,
Things Japanese,
page 229.
MIKASUKIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
MILAN, King, Abdication of.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889.
----------MILAN: Start--------
MILAN: B. C. 223-222.
The capital of the Insubrian Gauls (Mediolanum).
Taken by the Romans.
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
MILAN: A. D. 268.
Aureolus besieged.
During the miserable and calamitous reign of the Roman emperor
Gallienus, the army on the Upper Danube invested their leader,
Aureolus, with the imperial purple, and crossed the Alps to
place him on the throne. Defeated by Gallienus in a battle
fought near Milan, Aureolus and his army took refuge in that
city and were there besieged. During the progress of the siege
a conspiracy against Gallienus was formed in his own camp, and
he was assassinated. The crown was then offered to the soldier
Claudius—afterwards called Claudius Gothicus—and he accepted
it. The siege of Milan was continued by Claudius, the city was
forced to surrender and Aureolus was put to death.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 11.
MILAN: A. D. 286.
The Roman imperial court.
"Diocletian and Maximian were the first Roman princes who
fixed, in time of peace, their ordinary residence in the
provinces. … The court of the emperor of the west [Maximian]
was, for the most part, established at Milan, whose situation,
at the foot of the Alps, appeared far more convenient than
that of Rome, for the important purpose of watching the
motions of the barbarians of Germany. Milan soon assumed the
splendour of an imperial city. The houses are described as
numerous and well-built; the manners of the people as polished
and liberal."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 13.
MILAN: A. D. 313.
Constantine's Edict of Toleration.
See ROME: A. D. 313.
MILAN: A. D. 374-397.
The Ambrosian Church.
The greatness of the Milanese, in later times, "was chiefly
originated and promoted by the prerogatives of their
Archbishop, amongst which that of crowning, and so in a manner
constituting, the King of Italy, raised him in wealth and
splendour above every other prelate of the Roman Church, and
his city above every other city of Lombardy in power and
pride. … It is said that the Church of Milan was founded by
St. Barnabas; it is certain that it owed its chief
aggrandisement, and the splendour which distinguished it from
all other churches, to St. Ambrose [Archbishop from 374 to
397], who, having come to Milan in the time of Valentinian as
a magistrate, was by the people made Bishop also, and as such
was able to exalt it by the ordination of many inferior
dignitaries, and by obtaining supremacy for it over all the
Bishops of Lombardy. … This church received from St. Ambrose
a peculiar liturgy, which was always much loved and venerated
by the Milanese, and continued longer in use than any of those
which anciently prevailed in other churches of the West. To
the singing in divine service, which was then artless and
rude, St. Ambrose, taking for models the ancient melodies
still current in his time, the last echoes of the civilisation
of distant ages, imparted a more regular rhythm [known as 'the
Ambrosian Chant']; which, when reduced by St. Gregory to the
grave simplicity of tone that best accords with the majesty of
worship, obtained the name of 'Canto fermo'; and afterwards
becoming richer, more elaborate, and easier to learn through
the many ingenious inventions of Guido d' Arezzo, … was
brought by degrees to the perfection of modern counterpoint.
… St. Ambrose also composed prayers for his church, and
hymns; amongst others, according to popular belief, that most
sublime and majestic one, the Te Deum, which is now familiar
and dear to the whole of Western Christendom. It is said that
his clergy were not forbidden to marry. Hence an opinion
prevailed that this church, according to the ancient statutes,
ought not to be entirely subject to that of Rome."
G. B. Testa,
History of the War of Frederick I.
against the Communes of Lombardy,
pages 23-24.
MILAN: A. D. 404.
Removal of the Imperial Court.
See ROME: A. D.404-408.
MILAN: A. D. 452.
Capture by the Huns.
See HUNS: A. D. 452.
MILAN: A. D. 539.
Destroyed by the Goths.
When Belisarius, in his first campaign for the recovery of
Italy from the Goths, had secured possession of Rome, A. D.
538, he sent a small force northward to Milan, and that city,
hating its Gothic rulers, was gladly surrendered to him. It
was occupied by a small Roman garrison and unwisely left to
the attacks upon it that were inevitable. Very soon the Goths
appeared before its walls, and with them 10,000 Burgundians
who had crossed the Alps to their assistance. Belisarius
despatched an army to the relief of the city, but the generals
in command of it were cowardly and did nothing. After stoutly
resisting for six months, suffering the last extremes of
starvation and misery, Milan fell, and a terrible vengeance
was wreaked upon it. "All the men were slain, and these, if
the information given to Procopius was correct, amounted to
300,000. The women were made slaves, and handed over by the
Goths to their Burgundian allies in payment of their services.
The city itself was rased to the ground: not the only time
that signal destruction has overtaken the fair capital of
Lombardy."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 5, chapter 11.
See, also, ROME: A. D. 535-553.
{2183}
"The Goths, in their last moments, were revenged by the
destruction of a city second only to Rome in size and
opulence."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 41.
MILAN: 11th Century.
Acquisition of Republican independence.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
MILAN: A. D. 1162.
Total destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.
See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.
MILAN: A. D. 1167.
The rebuilding of the city.
See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.
MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
The rise and the reign of the Visconti.
Extension of their Tyranny over Lombardy.
The downfall of their House.
"The power of the Visconti in Milan was founded upon that of
the Della Torre family, who preceded them as Captains General
of the people at the end of the 13th century. Otho, Archbishop
of Milan, first laid a substantial basis for the dominion of
his house by imprisoning Napoleone Della Torre and five of his
relatives in three iron cages in 1277, and by causing his
nephew Matteo Visconti to be nominated both by the Emperor and
by the people of Milan as imperial Vicar. Matteo, who headed
the Ghibelline party in Lombardy, was the model of a prudent
Italian despot. From the date 1311, when he finally succeeded
in his attempts upon the sovereignty of Milan [see ITALY: A.
D. 1310-1313], to 1322, when he abdicated in favour of his son
Galeazzo, he ruled his states by force of character, craft,
and insight, more than by violence or cruelty. Excellent as a
general, he was still better as a diplomatist, winning more
cities by money than by the sword. All through his life, as
became a Ghibelline chief at that time, he persisted in fierce
enmity against the Church. … Galeazzo, his son, was less
fortunate than Matteo, surnamed Il Grande by the Lombards. The
Emperor Louis of Bavaria threw him into prison on the occasion
of his visit to Milan in 1327 [see ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330],
and only released him at the intercession of his friend
Castruccio Castracane. To such an extent was the growing
tyranny of the Visconti still dependent upon their office
delegated from the Empire. … Azzo [the son of Galeazzo]
bought the city, together with the title of Imperial Vicar,
from the same Louis who had imprisoned his father. When he was
thus seated in the tyranny of his grandfather, he proceeded to
fortify it further by the addition of ten Lombard towns, which
he reduced beneath the supremacy of Milan. At the same time he
consolidated his own power by the murder of his uncle Marco in
1329, who had grown too mighty as a general. … Azzo died in
1339, and was succeeded by his uncle Lucchino," who was
poisoned by his wife in 1349. "Lucchino was potent as a
general and governor. He bought Parma from Obizzo d' Este, and
made the town of Pisa dependent upon Milan. … Lucchino left
sons, but none of proved legitimacy. Consequently he was
succeeded by his brother Giovanni, son of old Matteo il Grande
and Archbishop of Milan. This man, the friend of Petrarch, was
one of the most notable characters of the 14th century.
Finding himself at the head of 16 cities, he added Bologna to
the tyranny of the Visconti, in 1350, and made himself strong
enough to defy the Pope. … In 1353 Giovanni annexed Genoa to
the Milanese principality, and died in 1354, having
established the rule of the Visconti over the whole of the
north of Italy, with the exception of Piedmont, Verona,
Mantua, Ferrara, and Venice. The reign of the Archbishop
Giovanni marks a new epoch in the despotism of the Visconti.
They are now no longer the successful rivals of the Della
Torre family, or dependents on imperial caprice, but self-made
sovereigns, with a well-established power in Milan and a wide
extent of subject territory. Their dynasty, though based on
force and maintained by violence, has come to be acknowledged;
and we shall soon see them allying themselves with the royal
houses of Europe. After the death of Giovanni, Matteo's sons
were extinct. But Stefano, the last of his family, had left
three children, who now succeeded to the lands and cities of
the house. They were named Matteo, Bernabo, and Galeazzo.
Between these three princes a partition of the heritage of
Giovanni Visconti was effected. … Milan and Genoa were to be
ruled by the three in common." Matteo was put out of the way
by his two brothers in 1355. Bernabo reigned brutally at
Milan, and Galeazzo with great splendor at Pavia. The latter
married his daughter to the Duke of Clarence, son of Edward
III. of England, and his son to Princess Isabella, of France.
"Galeazzo died in 1378, and was succeeded in his own portion
of the Visconti domain by his son Gian Galeazzo," who was
able, seven years afterwards, by singular refinements of
treachery, to put his uncle to death and take possession of
his territories. "The reign of Gian Galeazzo, which began with
this coup-de-main (1385-1402), forms a very important chapter
in Italian history. … At the time of his accession the
Visconti had already rooted out the Correggi and Rossi of
Parma, the Scotti of Piacenza, the Pelavicini of San Donnino,
the Tornielli of Novara, the Ponzoni and Cavalcabò of Cremona,
the Beccaria and Languschi of Pavia, the Fisiraghi of Lodi,
the Brusati of Brescia. … But the Carrara family still ruled
at Padua, the Gonzaga at Mantua, the Este at Ferrara, while
the great house of Scala was in possession of Verona. Gian
Galeazzo's schemes were at first directed against the Scala
dynasty. Founded, like that of the Visconti, upon the imperial
authority, it rose to its greatest height under the Ghibelline
general Can Grande and his nephew Mastino in the first half of
the 14th century (1312-1351). Mastino had himself cherished
the project of an Italian Kingdom; but he died before
approaching its accomplishment. The degeneracy of his house
began with his three sons. The two younger killed the eldest;
of the survivors the stronger slew the weaker and then died in
1374, leaving his domains to two of his bastards. One of
these, named Antonio, killed the other in 1381, and afterwards
fell a prey to the Visconti in 1387. In his subjugation of
Verona Gian Galeazzo contrived to make use of the Carrara
family, although these princes were allied by marriage to the
Scaligers, and had everything to lose by their downfall.
{2184}
He next proceeded to attack Padua, and gained the co-operation
of Venice. In 1388 Francesco da Carrara had to cede his
territory to Visconti's generals, who in the same year
possessed themselves for him of the Trevisan Marches. It was
then that the Venetians saw too late the error they had
committed in suffering Verona and Padua to be annexed by the
Visconti. … Having now made himself master of the north of
Italy with the exception of Mantua, Ferrara, and Bologna, Gian
Galeazzo turned his attention to these cities." By intrigues
of devilish subtlety and malignity, he drew the Marquis of
Ferrara and the Marquis of Mantua into crimes which were their
ruin, and made his conquest of those cities easy. "The whole
of Lombardy was now prostrate before the Milanese viper. His
next move was to set foot in Tuscany. For this purpose Pisa
had to be acquired; and here again he resorted to his devilish
policy of inciting other men to crimes by which he alone would
profit in the long run. Pisa was ruled at that time by the
Gambacorta family, with an old merchant named Pietro at their
head." Gian Galeazzo caused Pietro to be assassinated, and
then bought the city from the assassins (1399). "In 1399 the
Duke laid hands on Siena; and in the next two years the plague
came to his assistance by enfeebling the ruling families of
Lucca and Bologna, the Guinizzi and the Bentivogli, so that he
was now able to take possession of those cities. There
remained no power in Italy, except the Republic of Florence
and the exiled but invincible Francesco da Carrara, to
withstand his further progress. Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D.
1390-1402] delayed his conquests in Tuscany. Francesco managed
to return to Padua. Still the peril which threatened the whole
of Italy was imminent. … At last, when all other hope of
independence for Italy had failed, the plague broke out with
fury in Lombardy," and Gian Galeazzo died of it in 1402, aged
55. "At his death his two sons were still mere boys. … The
generals refused to act with them, and each seized upon such
portions of the Visconti inheritance as he could most easily
acquire. The vast tyranny of the first Duke of Milan fell to
pieces in a day." The dominion which his elder son lost (see
ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406) and which his younger son regained
(see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447) slipped from the family on the
death of the last of them, in 1447.
J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
chapter 2.
"At the end of the fourteenth century their [the Visconti's]
informal lordship passed by a royal grant [from the Emperor
Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo; A. D. 1395] into an acknowledged
duchy of the Empire. The dominion which they had gradually
gained, and which was thus in a manner legalized, took in all
the great cities of Lombardy, those especially which had
formed the Lombard League against the Swabian Emperors. Pavia
indeed, the ancient rival of Milan, kept a kind of separate
being, and was formed into a distinct county. But the duchy
granted by Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo stretched far on both
sides of the lake of Garda."
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 8, section 3.
ALSO IN:
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 4.
G. Procter (G. Perceval, pseudonym),
History of Italy,
chapters 4-5 (volume 1).
T. A. Trollope,
History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
book 4, chapters 4-6 (volume 2).
MILAN: A. D. 1360-1391.
Wars with Florence and with the Pope.
Dealings with the Free Companies.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
MILAN: A. D. 1422.
The sovereignty of Genoa surrendered to the Duke.
See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.
MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
Competitors for the ducal succession to the Visconti.
The prize carried off by Francesco Sforza.
War of Milan and Florence with Venice, Naples,
Savoy, and other states.
John Galeazzo Visconti had married (as stated above) a
daughter of King John of France. "Valentine Visconti, one of
the children of this marriage, married her cousin, Louis, duke
of Orleans, the only brother of Charles VI. In their marriage
contract, which the pope confirmed, it was stipulated that,