History for ready reference, Volume 4, Nicæa to Tunis

by J. N. Larned

is largely tinctured with fable, and deduces the Tartar
chief's descent from the Magi who visited the Saviour in His
cradle.
{2586}
It would seem that the Nestorians of Syria, for the sake of
vying with the boasts of the Latins, delighted in inventing
tales as to the wealth, the splendour, and the happiness of
their convert's kingdom; and to them is probably to be
ascribed an extravagantly absurd letter, in which Prester John
is made to dilate on the greatness and the riches of his
dominions, the magnificence of his state and the beauty of his
wives, and to offer the Byzantine emperor, Manuel, if he be of
the true faith, the office of lord chamberlain in the court of
Karakorum. In 1177 Alexander III. was induced by reports which
a physician named Philip had brought back from Tartary, as to
Prester John's desire to be received into communion with the
pope, to address a letter to the king, recommending Philip as
a religions instructor. But nothing is known as to the result
of this; and in 1202 the Keraït kingdom was overthrown by the
Tartar conqueror Genghis Khan. In explanation of the story as
to the union of priesthood with royalty in Prester John, many
theories have been proposed, of which two may be mentioned
here: that it arose out of the fact of a Nestorian priest's
having got possession of the kingdom on the death of a khan;
or that, the Tartar prince's title being compounded of the
Chinese 'wang' (king) and the Mongol 'khan,' the first of
these words was confounded by the Nestorians of Syria with the
name John, and the second with 'cohen' (a priest). … The
identification of Prester John's kingdom with Abyssinia was a
mistake of Portuguese explorers some centuries later."
J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
book 6, chapter 11, with foot-note (volume 5).
ALSO IN:
Colonel H. Yule,
Note to 'The Book of Marco Polo,'
volume 1, pages 204-209.
PRESTON,
Battle of (1648).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).
Battle of (1715).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.
PRESTON PANS, Battle of (1745).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
PRESTONBURG, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
PRETAXATION.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
PRETENDERS, The Stuart.
See JACOBITES.
PRICE'S RAID.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).
PRIDE'S PURGE.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
PRIEST'S LANE, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
PRIM, General, Assassination of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
PRIMATES.
METROPOLITANS.
PATRIARCHS.
In the early organization of the Christian Church, the bishops
of every province found it necessary "to make one of
themselves superior to all the rest, and invest him with
certain powers and privileges for the good of the whole, whom
they therefore named their primate, or metropolitan, that is,
the principal bishop of the province. … Next in order to the
metropolitans or primates were the patriarchs; or, as they
were at first called, archbishops and exarchs of the diocese.
For though now an archbishop and a metropolitan be generally
taken for the same, to wit, the primate of a single province;
yet anciently the name archbishop was a more extensive title,
and scarce given to any but those whose jurisdiction extended
over a whole imperial diocese, as the bishop of Rome,
Alexandria, Antioch, &c."
T. Bingham,
Antiquities of the Christian Church,
book 2, chapters 16-17 (volume 1).
See, also, CHRISTIANITY; A. D. 312-337.
PRIME MINISTER, The English.
See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
PRINCE, Origin of the title.
See PRINCEPS SENATUS.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
"Prince Edward's Island, the smallest province of the Dominion
[of Canada], originally called St. John's Island, until 1770
formed part of Nova Scotia. The first Governor was Walter
Patterson. … The first assembly met in 1773." In 1873 Prince
Edward Island consented to be received into the Confederation
of the Dominion of Canada—the latest of the provinces to
accede to the Union, except Newfoundland, which still (1894)
remains outside.
J. E. C. Munro,
The Constitution of Canada,
chapter 2.
See, also,
CANADA: A. D. 1867; and 1869-1873.
PRINCE OF THE CAPTIVITY.
See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.
PRINCE OF WALES.
See WALES, PRINCE OF.
PRINCEPS SENATUS.
"As the title of imperator conferred the highest military rank
upon Augustus and his successors, so did that of princeps
senatus, or princeps (as it came to be expressed by an easy
but material abridgment), convey the idea of the highest civil
preeminence consistent with the forms of the old constitution.
In ancient times this title had been appropriated to the first
in succession of living censorii, men who had served the
office of censor; and such were necessarily patricians and
senators. The sole privilege it conferred was that of speaking
first in the debates of the senate; a privilege however to
which considerable importance might attach from the exceeding
deference habitually paid to authority and example by the
Roman assemblies. … The title of princeps was modest and
constitutional; it was associated with the recollection of the
best ages of the free state and the purest models of public
virtue; it could not be considered beyond the deserts of one
who was undoubtedly the foremost man of the nation. … The
popularity which the assumption of this republican title
conferred upon the early emperors may be inferred from the
care with which it is noted, and its constitutional functions
referred to by the writers of the Augustan age and that which
succeeded it. But it was an easy and natural step in the
progress of political ideas to drop the application of the
title, and contract it from prince of the senate, to prince
merely. The original character of the appellation was soon
forgotten, and the proper limits of its privileges confounded
in the more vague and general prerogative which the bare
designation of first or premier seemed to imply."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 31.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 3, note by Dr. W. Smith.
PRINCETON, Battle of (1777).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776-1777 WASHINGTON'S RETREAT.
PRINCIPES.
See LEGION, THE ROMAN.
{2587}
----------PRINTING AND THE PRESS: Start--------
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1430-1456.
The invention of movable type.
Rival claims for Coster and Gutenberg.
The first Printed Book.
"Before arriving at the movable type placed side by side, and
forming phrases, which appears to us to-day so simple and so
ordinary, many years passed. It is certain that long before
Gutenberg a means was found of cutting wood and metal in
relief and reproducing by application the image traced. …
Remembering that the numerous guilds of 'tailleurs d' images,'
or sculptors in relief, had in the Middle Ages the specialty
of carving ivories and of placing effigies on tombs, it can be
admitted without much difficulty that these people one day
found a means of multiplying the sketches of a figure often
asked for, by modelling its contour in relief on ivory or
wood, and afterwards taking a reproduction on paper or
parchment by means of pressure. When and where was this
discovery produced? We cannot possibly say; but it is certain
that playing cards were produced by this means, and that from
the year 1423 popular figures were cut in wood, as we know
from the St. Christopher of that date belonging to Lord
Spencer. … It is a recognised fact that the single sheet with
a printed figure preceded the xylographic book, in which text
and illustration were cut in the same block. This process did
not appear much before the second quarter of the 15th century,
and it was employed principally for popular works which were
then the universal taste. The engraving also was nothing more
than a kind of imposition palmed off as a manuscript; the
vignettes were often covered with brilliant colours and gold,
and the whole sold as of the best quality. … An attempt had
been made to put some text at the foot of the St. Christopher
of 1423, and the idea of giving more importance to the text
was to the advantage of the booksellers. … At the epoch of the
St. Christopher, in 1423, several works were in vogue in the
universities, the schools, and with the public. … To find a
means of multiplying these treatises at little cost was a
fortune to the inventor. It is to be supposed that many
artisans of the time attempted it; and without doubt it was
the booksellers themselves, mostly mere dealers, who were
tempted to the adventure by the sculptors and wood-cutters.
But none had yet been so bold as to cut in relief a series of
blocks with engravings and text to compose a complete work.
That point was reached very quickly when some legend was
engraved at the foot of a vignette, and it may be thought that
the 'Donatus' [i. e. the Latin Syntax of Ælius Donatus] was
the most ancient of books so obtained among the 'Incunabuli,'
as we now call them, a word that signifies origin or cradle.
The first books then were formed of sheets of paper or
parchment, laboriously printed from xylographic blocks, that
is to say wooden blocks on which a 'tailleur d' images' had
left in relief the designs and the letters of the text. He had
thus to trace his characters in reverse, so that they could be
reproduced as written; he had to avoid faults, because a
phrase once done, well or ill, lasted. It was doubtless this
difficulty of correction that gave the idea of movable types.
… This at least explains the legend of Laurent Coster, of
Haarlem, who, according to Hadrian Junius, his compatriot,
discovered by accident the secret of separate types while
playing with his children. And if the legend of which we speak
contains the least truth, it must be found in the sense above
indicated, that is in the correction of faults, rather than in
the innocent game of a merchant of Haarlem. … Movable type,
the capital point of printing, the pivot of the art of the
Book, developed itself little by little, according to needs,
when there was occasion to correct an erroneous inscription;
but, in any case, its origin is unknown. Doubtless to vary the
text, means were found to replace entire phrases by other
phrases, preserving the original figures; and thus the light
dawned upon these craftsmen, occupied in the manufacture and
sale of their books. According to Hadrian Junius, Laurent
Janszoon Coster (the latter name signifying 'the discoverer')
published one of the celebrated series of works under the
general title of 'Speculum' which was then so popular, … the
'Speculum Humanæ Salvationis.' … Junius, as we see, attributes
to Laurent Coster the first impression of the 'Speculum,' no
longer the purely xylographic impression of the 'Donatus' from
an engraved block, but that of the more advanced manner in
movable types [probably between 1430 and 1440]. In point of
fact, this book had at least four editions, similar in
engravings and body of letters, but of different text. It must
then be admitted that the fount was dispersed, and typography
discovered. … All the xylographic works of the 15th century
may be classed in two categories: the xylographs, rightly so
called, or the block books, such as the 'Donatus,' and the
books with movable types, like the 'Speculum,' of which we
speak. … The movable types used, cut separately in wood, were
not constituted to give an ideal impression. We can understand
the cost that the execution of these characters must have
occasioned, made as they were one by one, without the
possibility of ever making them perfectly uniform. Progress
was to substitute for this irregular process types that were
similar, identical, easily produced, and used for a long time
without breaking. Following on the essays of Laurent Coster,
continuous researches bore on this point. … Here history is
somewhat confused. Hadrian Junius positively accuses one of
Laurent Coster's workmen of having stolen the secrets of his
master and taken flight to Mayence, where he afterwards
founded a printing office. According to Junius, the metal type
was the discovery of the Dutchman, and the name of the thief
was John. Who was this John? Was it John Gænsefleisch, called
Gutenberg, or possibly John Fust? But it is not at all
apparent that Gutenberg, a gentleman of Mayence, exiled from
his country, was ever in the service of the Dutch inventor. As
to Fust, we believe his only intervention in the association
of printers of Mayence was as a money-lender, from which may
be comprehended the unlikelihood of his having been with
Coster, the more so as we find Gutenberg retired to
Strasbourg, where he pursued his researches. There he was, as
it were, out of his sphere, a ruined noble whose great
knowledge was bent entirely on invention. Doubtless, like many
others, he may have had in his hands one of the printed works
of Laurent Coster, and conceived the idea of appropriating the
infant process.
{2588}
In 1439 he was associated with two artisans of the city of
Strasbourg, ostensibly in the fabrication of mirrors, which
may be otherwise understood as printing of 'Speculums,' the
Latin word signifying the same thing. … Three problems
presented themselves to him. He wanted types less fragile than
wooden types and less costly than engraving. He wanted a press
by the aid of which he could obtain a clear impression on
parchment or paper. He desired also that the leaves of his
books should not be anopistograph, or printed only on one
side. … Until then, and even long after, the xylographs were
printed 'au frotton,' or with a brush, rubbing the paper upon
the forme coated with ink, thicker than ordinary ink. He
dreamed of something better. In the course of his work John
Gutenberg returned to Mayence. The idea of publishing a Bible,
the Book of books, had taken possession of his heart. … The
cutting of his types had ruined him. … In this unhappy
situation, Gutenberg made the acquaintance of a financier of
Mayence, named Fust, … who put a sum of 1,100 florins at his
disposal to continue his experiments. Unfortunately this money
disappeared, it melted away, and the results obtained were
absolutely ludicrous. … About this time a third actor enters
on the scene. Peter Schoeffer, of Gernsheim, a writer,
introduced into the workshop of Gutenberg to design letters,
benefited by the abortive experiments, and taking up the
invention at its dead-lock, conducted it to success. John of
Tritenheim, called Trithemius, the learned abbot of Spanheim,
is the person who relates these facts; but as he got his
information from Schoeffer himself, too much credence must not
be given to his statements. Besides, Schoeffer was not at all
an ordinary artisan. If we credit a Strasbourg manuscript
written by his hand in 1449, he was a student of the 'most
glorious university of Paris.'" How much Schoeffer contributed
to the working out of the invention is a matter of conjecture;
but in 1454 it was advanced to a state in which the first
known application of it in practical use was made. This was in
the printing of copies of the famous letters of indulgence
which Pope Nicholas V. was then selling throughout Europe.
Having the so far perfected invention in hand, Fust and
Schoeffer (the latter now having married the former's
granddaughter) wished to rid themselves of Gutenberg. "Fust
had a most easy pretext, which was to demand purely and simply
from his associate the sums advanced by him, and which had
produced so little. Gutenberg had probably commenced his
Bible, but, in face of the claims of Fust, he had to abandon
it altogether, types, formes, and press. In November, 1455, he
had retired to a little house outside the city, where he tried
his best, by the aid of foreign help, to establish a workshop,
and to preserve the most perfect secrecy. Relieved of his
company, Fust and Schoeffer were able to take up the
impression of the Bible and to complete it without him. … One
thing is certain: that the Bible of Schoeffer, commenced by
Gutenberg or not, put on sale by Fust and Schoeffer alone
about the end of 1455 or beginning of 1456, proves to be the
first completed book. … It is now called the Mazarine Bible,
from the fact that the copy in the Mazarin Library was the
first to give evidence concerning it. The book was put on sale
at the end of 1455 or beginning of 1456, for a manuscript note
of a vicar of St. Stephen at Mayence records that he finished
the binding and illuminating of the first volume on St.
Bartholomew's Day [June 13], 1456, and the second on the 15th
of August. … All these remarks show that the printers did not
proclaim themselves, and were making pseudo-manuscripts. …
Many of the copies are illuminated with as much care and
beauty as if they were the finest manuscripts. … Copies are by
no means uncommon, most of the great libraries having one, and
many are in private collections."
H. Bouchot,
The Printed Book,
chapter 1.
"The general consent of all nations in ascribing the honour of
the invention of printing to Gutenberg seems at first sight a
very strong argument in his favour; but if Gutenberg were not
the first to invent and use movable types, but the clever man
who brought to perfection what already existed in a crude
state, we can quite imagine his fame to have spread everywhere
as the real inventor. As a master in the art of printing,
Gutenberg's name was known in Paris so early as 1472. … Mr.
Hessels … believes that the Coster mentioned in the archives
as living in Haarlem, 1436-83, was the inventor of types, and
that, taken as a whole, the story as told by Junius is
substantially correct. Personally I should like to wait for
more evidence. There is no doubt that the back-bone of the
Dutch claim lies in the pieces and fragments of old books
discovered for the most part in the last few decades, and
which give support to, at the same time that they receive
support from, the Cologne Chronicler. … These now amount to
forty-seven different works. Their number is being added to
continually now that the attention of librarians has been
strongly called to the importance of noting and preserving
them. They have been catalogued with profound insight by Mr.
Hessels, and for the first time classified by internal
evidence into their various types and classes. But, it may
well be asked, what evidence is there that all these books
were not printed long after Gutenberg's press was at work? …
The earliest book of Dutch printing bears date 1473, and not a
single edition out of all the so-called Costeriana has any
printer's name or place or date. To this the reply is, that
these small pieces were school-books or absies and such-like
works, in the production of which there was nothing to boast
of, as there would be in a Bible. Such things were at all
times 'sine ulla nota,' and certain to be destroyed when done
with, so that the wonder would be to find them so dated, and
the very fact of their bearing a date would go far to prove
them not genuine. These fragments have been nearly all
discovered in 15th-century books, printed mostly' in various
towns of Holland. … Mr. Hessels quotes forty-seven different
books as 'Costeriana,' which include four editions of the
Speculum, nineteen of Donatus, and seven of Doctrinale. The
Donatuses are in five different types, probably from five
different Dutch presses. Compared with the earliest dated
books of 1473 and onwards, printed in Holland, they have
nothing in common, while their brotherhood to the Dutch MSS.
and block-books of about thirty years earlier is apparent.
Just as astronomers have been unable to explain certain
aberrations of the planets without surmising a missing link in
the chain of their knowledge, so is it with early typography.
That such finished works as the first editions of the Bible
and Psalter could be the legitimate predecessors of the
Costeriana, the Bruges, the Westminster press, and others, I
cannot reconcile with the internal evidence of their
workmanship. But admit the existence of an earlier and much
ruder school of typography, and all is plain and harmonious."
W. Blades,
Books in Chains, and other Bibliographical Papers,
pages 149-158.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Hessels,
Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?
C. H. Timperley,
Encyclopœdia of Literature and Typographical Anecdote,
pages 101-120.
H. N. Humphreys,
History of the Art of Printing,
chapters 3-4.
{2589}
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1457-1489.
Progress and diffusion of the art.
After the Mazarine Bible, "then follows the Kalendar for the
year 1457, most probably printed at the end of 1456. Then
again the printed dates, August 14, 1457 and 1459, with place
(Mentz) in the colophons of the Psalter issued by Fust and
Schoeffer; the printed year 1460 (with Mentz added) in the
Catholicon with the exception of 1458, there is no interruption in Mentz
printing from the moment that we see it begin there. As
regards the printed psalter, its printers are mentioned
distinctly in the book itself; but the other books just
mentioned are assumed to have been issued by the same two
Mentz printing-offices which are supposed to be already at
work there in 1454, though the 1460 Catholicon and some of the
other works are ascribed by some to other printers. By the
side of these dates, we find already a Bible completed in 1460
by Mentelin at Strassburg, according to a MS. note in the copy
preserved at Freiburg. … Assuming then, for a moment, that
Mentz is the starting-point, we see printing spread to
Strassburg in 1460; to Bamberg in 1461; to Subiaco in 1465; in
1466 (perhaps already in 1463) it is established at Cologne;
in 1467 at Eltville, Rome; in 1468 at Augsburg, Basle,
Marienthal; in 1469 at Venice; 1470 at Nuremberg, Verona,
Foligno, Trevi, Savigliano, Paris; 1471 at Spire, Bologna,
Ferrara, Florence, Milan, Naples, Pavia, Treviso; 1472 at
Esslingen, Cremona, Mantua, Padua, Parma, Monreale, Fivizano,
Verona; 1473 at Laugingen, Ulm (perhaps here earlier),
Merseburg, Alost, Utrecht, Lyons, Brescia, Messina; 1474 at
Louvain, Genoa, Como, Savona, Turin, Vicenza; 1475 at Lubeck,
Breslau, Blaubeuren, Burgdorf, Modena, Reggio, Cagli, Caselle
or Casale, Saragossa; 1476 at Rostock, Bruges (here earlier?),
Brussels; 1477 at Reichenstein, Deventer, Gouda, Delft,
Westminster; 1478 at Oxford, St. Maartensdyk, Colle,
Schussenried, Eichstadt; 1479 at Erfurt, Würzburg, Nymegen,
Zwolle, Poitiers; 1480 at London [?], Oudenaarde, Hasselt,
Reggio; 1481 at Passau, Leipzig, Magdeburg, Treves, Urach;
1482 at Reutlingen, Memmingen, Metz, Antwerp; 1483 at Leiden,
Kuilenburg, Ghent, Haarlem; 1484 at Bois-le–Duc, Siena; 1485
at Heidelberg, Regensburg; 1486 at Munster, Stuttgart; 1487 at
Ingolstadt; 1488 at Stendal; 1489 at Hagenau, &c."
J. H. Hessels,
Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz,
chapter 4.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.
The early Venetian printers.
The Aldine Press.
"One of the famous first race of German printers, John of
Spires, arrived at Venice in the year 1469, and immediately
brought his art into full play; producing within the first
three months his fine edition of the 'Letters of Cicero.' a
masterpiece of early printing. … The success of John of Spires
as a printer was at once recognized by the Venetian Republic;
and Pasquale Malipiero, the reigning Doge, granted a patent
conferring upon him the sole right of printing books within
the territory of Venice. … But the enterprising printer did
not live to enjoy the privilege," and it was not continued to
any of his family, "On the withdrawal of the monopoly several
new printers set up their Presses in the city, among whom was
the celebrated Jenson, the ingenious Frenchman who was sent by
Charles VII. to acquire the art at Mayence. … John Emeric, of
Udenheim, was another of the German printers who immediately
succeeded John and Vindelin of Spires; and still more
successful, though somewhat later, in the field, was Erard
Ratdolt. … He [Ratdolt] is said to have been the first to
adopt a regular form of Title at all approaching our modern
conception of a Book-Title; and he also took the lead in the
production of those beautifully-engraved initials for which
the books printed in Italy towards the close of the 15th
century are famous. His most splendid work is undoubtedly the
'Elements of Euclid, with the Commentaries of Campanus.' …
Nicholas Jenson was the most renowned of those who followed
the earliest German printers in Venice, until his works were
partially eclipsed by those of the Aldi. … In 1470 he [Jenson]
had … completed his preparations, and the first four works
which issued from his Venetian press appeared in that year. …
These works were printed with Roman characters of his own
engraving, more perfect in form than those of any previous
printer. His types are in fact the direct parents of the
letters now in general use, which only differ from them in
certain small details dependent solely on fashion. … This
celebrated printer died in September of the year 1481. …
Andrea Torresani and others continued Jenson's Association,
making use of the same types. Torresani was eventually
succeeded in the same establishment by the celebrated Aldo
Manuccio, who, having married his daughter, adopted the
important vocation of printer, and became the first of those
famous 'Aldi,' as they are commonly termed, whose fame has not
only absorbed that of all the earlier Venetian printers, but
that of the early printers of every other Italian seat of the
art. … It was Manuccio who, among many other advances in this
art, first invented the semi-cursive style of character now
known as 'Italic'; and it is said that it was founded upon a
close imitation of the careful handwriting of Petrarch, which,
in fact, it closely resembles. This new type was used for a
small octavo edition of 'Virgil,' issued in 1501, on the
appearance of which he obtained from Pope Leo X. a letter of
privilege, entitling him to the sole use of the new type which
he had invented." The list of the productions of the elder
Aldus and his son Paul "comprises nearly all the great works
of antiquity, and of the best Italian authors of their own
time. From their learning and general accomplishments, the
Aldi might have occupied a brilliant position as scholars and
authors, but preferred the useful labour of giving correctly
to the world the valuable works of others. The Greek editions
of the elder Aldus form the basis of his true glory,
especially the 'Aristotle,' printed in 1405, a work of almost
inconceivable labour and perseverance."
H. N. Humphreys,
History of the Art of Printing,
chapter 8.
{2590}
"Aldus and his studio and all his precious manuscripts
disappeared during the troubled years of the great Continental
war in which all the world was against Venice [see VENICE: A.
D. 1508-1500]. In 1510, 1511, and 1512, scarcely any book
proceeded from his press. … After the war Aldus returned to
his work with renewed fervour. 'It is difficult,' says
Renouard, 'to form an idea of the passion with which he
devoted himself to the reproduction of the great works of
ancient literature. If he heard of the existence anywhere of a
manuscript unpublished, or which could throw a light upon an
existing text, he never rested till he had it in his
possession. He did not shrink from long journeys, great
expenditure, applications of all kinds.' … It is not in this
way however that the publisher, that much questioned and
severely criticised middleman, makes a fortune. And Aldus died
poor. His privileges did not stand him in much stead,
copyright, especially when not in books but in new forms of
type, being non-existent in his day. In France and Germany,
and still nearer home, his beautiful Italic was robbed from
him, copied on all sides, notwithstanding the protection
granted by the Pope and other princes as well as by the
Venetian Signoria. His fine editions were printed from, and
made the foundation of foreign issues which replaced his own.
How far his princely patrons stood by him to repair his losses
there seems no information. His father-in-law, Andrea of
Asola, a printer who was not so fine a scholar, but perhaps
more able to cope with the world, did come to his aid, and his
son Paolo Manutio, and his grandson Aldo il Giovane, as he is
called, succeeded him in turn."
Mrs. Oliphant,
The Makers of Venice,
part 4, chapter 3.
Aldus died in 1515. His son Paul left Venice for Rome in 1562.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1476-1491.
Introduction in England.
The Caxton Press.
"It was probably at the press of Colard Mansion, in a little
room over the porch of St. Donat's at Bruges, that William
Caxton learned the art which he was the first to introduce
into England. A Kentish boy by birth, but apprenticed to a
London mercer, Caxton had already spent thirty years of his
manhood in Flanders as Governor of the English gild of
Merchant Adventurers there, when we find him engaged as
copyist in the service of Edward's sister, Duchess Margaret of
Burgundy. But the tedious process of copying was soon thrown
aside for the new art which Colard Mansion had introduced into
Bruges. … The printing-press was the precious freight he
brought back to England in 1476 after an absence of
five-and-thirty years. Through the next fifteen, at an age
when other men look for ease and retirement, we see him
plunging with characteristic energy into his new occupation.
His 'red pale' or heraldic shield marked with a red bar down
the middle invited buyers to the press he established in the
Almonry at Westminster, a little enclosure containing a chapel
and almshouses near the west front of the church, where the
alms of the abbey were distributed to the poor. … Caxton was a
practical man of business, … no rival of the Venetian Aldi or
of the classical printers of Rome, but resolved to get a
living from his trade, supplying priests with service books
and preachers with sermons, furnishing the clerk with his
'Golden Legend' and knight and baron with 'joyous and pleasant
histories of chivalry.' But while careful to win his daily
bread, he found time to do much for what of higher literature
lay fairly to hand. He printed all the English poetry of any
moment which was then in existence. His reverence for that
'worshipful man, Geoffrey Chaucer,' who 'ought to be eternally
remembered,' is shown not merely by his edition of the
'Canterbury Tales,' but by his reprint of them when a purer
text of the poem offered itself. The poems of Lydgate and
Gower were added to those of Chaucer. The Chronicle of Brut
and Higden's 'Polychronicon' were the only available works of
an historical character then existing in the English tongue,
and Caxton not only printed them but himself continued the
latter up to his own time. A translation of Boethius, a
version of the Eneid from the French, and a tract or two of
Cicero, were the stray first-fruits of the classical press in
England. Busy as was Caxton's printing-press, he was even
busier as a translator than as a printer. More than four
thousand of his printed pages are from works of his own
rendering. The need of these translations shows the popular
drift of literature at the time; but keen as the demand seems
to have been, there is nothing mechanical in the temper with
which Caxton prepared to meet it. A natural, simple-hearted
taste and enthusiasm, especially for the style and forms of
language, breaks out in his curious prefaces. … But the work
of translation involved a choice of English which made
Caxton's work important in the history of our language. He
stood between two schools of translation, that of French
affectation and English pedantry. It was a moment when the
character of our literary tongue was being settled, and it is
curious to see in his own words the struggle over it which was
going on in Caxton's time. 'Some honest and great clerks have
been with me and desired me to write the most curious terms
that I could find;' on the other hand, 'some gentlemen of late
blamed me, saying that in my translations I had over many
curious terms which could not be understood of common people,
and desired me to use old and homely terms in my
translations.' 'Fain would I please every man,' comments the
good-humoured printer, but his sturdy sense saved him alike
from the temptations of the court and the schools. His own
taste pointed to English, but 'to the common terms that be
daily used' rather than to the English of his antiquarian
advisers. 'I took an old book and read therein, and certainly
the English was so rude and broad I could not well understand
it,' while the Old-English charters which the Abbot of
Westminster lent as models from the archives of his house
seemed 'more like to Dutch than to English.' To adopt current
phraseology however was by no means easy at a time when even
the speech of common talk was in a state of rapid flux. …
Coupling this with his long absence in Flanders we can hardly
wonder at the confession he makes over his first translation,
that 'when all these things came to fore me, after that I had
made and written a five or six quires, I fell in despair of
this work, and purposed never to have continued therein, and
the quires laid apart, and in two years after laboured no more
in this work.' He was still however busy translating when he
died [in 1491].
{2591}
All difficulties in fact were lightened by the general
interest which his labours aroused. When the length of the
'Golden Legend' makes him 'half desperate to have accomplished
it' and ready to 'lay it apart,' the Earl of Arundel solicits
him in no wise to leave it and promises a yearly fee of a buck
in summer and a doc in winter, once it were done. 'Many noble
and divers gentle men of this realm came and demanded many and
often times wherefore I have not made and imprinted the noble
history of the San Graal.' … Caxton profited in fact by the
wide literary interest which was a mark of the time."
J. R. Green,
History of the English People,
book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2).
"Contemporary with Caxton were the printers Lettou and
Machlinia, … who carried on business in the city of London,
where they established a press in 1480. Machlinia had
previously worked under Caxton. … Wynkyn de Worde … in all
probability … was one of Caxton's assistants or workmen, when
the latter was living at Bruges, but without doubt he was
employed in his office at Westminster until 1491, when he
commenced business on his own account, having in his
possession a considerable quantity of Caxton's type. Wynkyn de
Worde, who was one of the founders of the Stationers' Company,
died in 1534, after having printed no less than 410 books
known to bibliographers, the earliest of which bearing a date
is the 'Liber Festivalis,' 4to, 1493."
J. H. Slater,
Book Collecting,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
C. Knight,
William Caxton.
C. H. Timperley,
Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
pages 138-194.
T. C. Hansard,
History and Process of Printing
("The Five Black Arts," chapter 1).
Gentleman's Magazine Library:
Bibliographical Notes, and Literary Curiosities.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1496-1598.
The Estienne or Stephanus Press in Paris.
"With the names of Aldus and Elzevir we are all acquainted;
the name of Estienne, or Stephanus, has a less familiar sound
to English ears, though the family of Parisian printers was as
famous in its day as the great houses of Venice and Leyden.
The most brilliant member of it was the second Henry, whose
story forms a melancholy episode in French literary history of
the 16th century. … The Estiennes are said to have come of a
noble Provençal family, but nothing is exactly known of their
descent. The art of printing was not much more than fifty
years old when Henry Estienne, having learnt his trade in
Germany, came to Paris, and set up his press [about 1496] in
the Rue Saint Jean de Beauvais, opposite the school of Canon
Law. There for some twenty years he laboured diligently,
bringing out in that time no less than 120 volumes, chiefly
folios. The greater number of these are theological and
scholastic works; among the few modern authors on the list is
the name of Erasmus. Henry Estienne died in 1520 leaving three
sons. Robert, the second of them, was born probably in 1503.
The boys all being minors, the business passed into the hands
of their mother, who in the following year married Simon de
Colines, her late husband's foreman, and perhaps partner. …
Robert worked with De Colines for five or six years before he
went into business on his own account in the same street." It
was he who first gave celebrity to the name and the press.
"The spell of the Renaissance had early fallen upon the young
printer, and it held him captive almost till the end of his
life." He married "the daughter of the learned Flemish printer
Jodocus Badius, notable for her culture and her beauty. Latin
was the ordinary language of the household. The children
learned it in infancy from hearing it constantly spoken. … At
one time ten foreign scholars lived in Estienne's house to
assist him in selecting and revising his manuscripts and in
correcting his proofs. … Both Francis [King Francis I.] and
his sister Marguerite of Navarre had a great regard for
Robert, and often visited the workshop; to that royal
patronage the printer was more than once indebted for his
liberty and his life." His danger came from the bigoted
Sorbonne, with whom he brought himself into collision by
printing the Bible with as careful a correction of the text as
he had performed in the case of the Latin classics. After the
death of Francis I., the peril of the printer's situation
became more serious, and in 1550 he fled to Geneva, renouncing
the Roman Catholic faith. He died there in 1559.
H. C. Macdowall,
An old French Printer
(Macmillan's Magazine, November 1892).
The second Henry Estienne, son of Robert, either did not
accompany his father to Geneva, or soon returned to Paris, and
founded anew the Press of his family, bringing to it even more
learning than his father, with equal laboriousness and zeal.
He died at Lyons in 1598.
E. Greswell,
A View of the Early Parisian Greek Press.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1535-1709.
Introduction in America.
The first Spanish printing in Mexico.
The early Massachusetts Press.
Restrictions upon its freedom.
"The art of printing was first introduced into Spanish
America, as early as the middle of the 16th century. The
historians whose works I have consulted are all silent as to
the time when it was first practiced on the American
continent; … but it is certain that printing was executed,
both in Mexico and Peru, long before it made its appearance in
the British North American colonies. [The precise date of the
introduction of printing into Mexico was for a long time in
doubt. … When Mr. Thomas wrote his 'History of Printing in
America,' early works on America were rare, and it is probable
that there was not one in the country printed in either
America or Europe in the 16th century, except the copy of
Molina's dictionary; now many of the period may be found in
our great private libraries. The dictionary of Molina, in
Mexican and Spanish, printed in Mexico, in 1571, in folio,
was, by many, asserted and believed to be the earliest book
printed in America. … No one here had seen an earlier book
until the 'Doctrina Christiana,' printed in the house of Juan
Cromberger, in the city of Mexico, in the year 1544, was
discovered. Copies of this rare work were found in two well
known private libraries in New York and Providence. For a long
time the honor was awarded to this as the earliest book
printed in America. But there is now strong evidence that
printing was really introduced in Mexico nine years before
that time, and positive evidence, by existing books, that a
press was established in 1540. Readers familiar with early
books relating to Mexico have seen mention of a book printed
there as early as 1535, … the 'Spiritual Ladder' of St John
Climacus. … It seems that no copy of the 'Spiritual Ladder'
has ever been seen in recent times, and the quoted
testimonials are the only ones yet found which refer to it.
Note by Hon. John R. Bartlett,
appendix A., giving a 'List of Books printed in Mexico
between the years 1540 and 1560 inclusive.'
{2592}
… In January, 1639, printing was first performed in that part
of North America which extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the
Frozen ocean. For this press our country is chiefly indebted
to the Rev. Mr. Glover, a nonconformist minister, who
possessed a considerable estate. … Another press, with types,
and another printer, were, in 1660, sent over from England by
the corporation for propagating the gospel among the Indians
in New England. This press, &c., was designed solely for the
purpose of printing the Bible, and other books, in the Indian
language. On their arrival they were carried to Cambridge, and
employed in the printing house already established in that
place. … The fathers of Massachusetts kept a watchful eye on
the press; and in neither a religious nor civil point of view
were they disposed to give it much liberty. … In 1662, the
government of Massachusetts appointed licensers of the press;
and afterward, in 1664, passed a law that 'no printing should
be allowed in any town within the jurisdiction, except in
Cambridge'; nor should any thing be printed there but what the
government permitted through the agency of those persons who
were empowered for the purpose. … In a short time, this law
was so far repealed as to permit the use of a press at Boston.
… It does not appear that the press, in Massachusetts, was
free from legal restraints till about the year 1755 [see
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729]. … Except in
Massachusetts, no presses were set up in the colonies till
near the close of the 17th century. Printing then [1686] was
performed in Pennsylvania [by William Bradford], 'near
Philadelphia' [at Shackamaxon, now Kensington], and afterward
in that city, by the same press which, in a few years
subsequent, was removed to New York.
See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1685-1693;
also PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.
The use of types commenced in Virginia about 1681; in 1682 the
press was prohibited. In 1709 a press was established at New
London, in Connecticut."
I. Thomas,
History of Printing in America,
2nd edition. (Translated and Collection
of the American Antiquity Society, volume 5),
volume 1, pages 1-17.
ALSO IN:
J. L. Bishop,
History of American Manufactures,
volume 1, chapter 7.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650.
Origin of printed newspapers.
The newspaper defined.
Its earliest appearances in Germany and Italy.
"Lally-Tollendal, in his 'Life of Queen Elizabeth,' in the
'Biographie Universelle' (vol. xiii, published in 1815, p. 56)
… remarks that 'as far as the publication of an official
journal is concerned, France can claim the priority by more
than half a century; for in the Royal Library at Paris there
is a bulletin of the campaign of Louis XII. in Italy in 1509.'
He then gives the title of this 'bulletin,' from which it
clearly appears that it is not a political journal, but an
isolated piece of news—a kind of publication of which there
are hundreds in existence of a date anterior to 1588 [formerly
supposed to be the date of the first English newspaper—see
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702], and of which there
is no doubt that thousands were issued. There is, for
instance, in the British Museum a French pamphlet of six
printed leaves, containing an account of the surrender of
Granada to Ferdinand and Isabella on the 'first of January
last past' (le premier jour de janvier dernierement passe), in
the year 1492; and there are also the three editions of the
celebrated letter of Columbus, giving the first account of the
discovery of America, all printed at Rome in 1493. Nay, one of
the very earliest productions of the German press was an
official manifesto of Diether, Archbishop of Cologne, against
Count Adolph of Nassau, very satisfactorily proved to have
been printed at Mentz in 1462. There is among the German
bibliographers a technical name for this class of printed
documents, which are called 'Relations.' In fact, in order to
arrive at a satisfactory conclusion with regard to the origin
of newspapers, it is requisite, in the first place, to settle
with some approach to precision what a newspaper is. Four
classes of publications succeeded to each other from the 15th
to the 19th century, to which the term has by different
writers been applied:
1st. Accounts of individual public transactions of recent
occurrence.
2nd. Accounts in one publication of several public
transactions of recent occurrence, only connected together by
having taken place about the same period, so as at one time to
form the 'news of the day.'
3rd. Accounts similar to those of the second class, but issued
in a numbered series.
4th. Accounts similar to those of the second class, but issued
not only in a numbered series, but at stated intervals.
The notices of the surrender of Granada and the discovery of
America belong to the first class, and so also do the last
dying speeches, which are in our own time cried about the
streets. These surely are not newspapers. The Times and Daily
News [London] belong to the fourth class, and these, of
course, are newspapers. … Are not, in fact, all the essentials
of a newspaper comprised in the definition of the second
class, which it may be as well to repeat: 'Accounts in one
publication of several public transactions of recent
occurrence, only connected together by having taken place
about the same period, so as at one time to form the news of
the day'? Let us take an instance. There is preserved in the
British Museum a collection of several volumes of interesting
publications issued in Italy between 1640 and 1650, and
containing the news of the times. They are of a small folio
size, and consist in general of four pages, but sometimes of
six, sometimes only of two. There is a series for the month of
December, 1644, consisting entirely of the news from Rome. The
first line of the first page runs thus:—'Di Roma,' with the
date, first of the 3rd, then of the 10th, then the 17th, then
the 24th, and lastly the 31st of December, showing that a
number was published every week, most probably on the arrival
of the post from Rome. The place of publication was Florence,
and the same publishers who issued this collection of the news
from Rome, sent forth in the same month of December, 1644, two
other similar gazettes, at similar intervals, one of the news
from Genoa, the other of the news from Germany and abroad.
That this interesting series of publications, which is well
worthy of a minute examination and a detailed description, is
in reality a series of newspapers, will, I believe, be
questioned by very few; but each individual number presents no
mark by which, if separately met with, it could be known to
form part of a set. …
{2593}
The most minute researches on the history of newspapers in
Germany are, as already mentioned, those of Prutz, who has
collected notices of a large number of the 'relations,' though
much remains to be gleaned. There are, for instance, in Van
Heusde's Catalogue of the Library at Utrecht (Utrecht, 1835,
folio), the titles of nearly a hundred of them, all as early
as the sixteenth century; and the British Museum possesses a
considerable quantity, all of recent acquisition. Prutz has no
notice of the two that have been mentioned, and, like all
preceding writers, he draws no distinction between the
publications of the first class and the second. The view that
he takes is, that no publication which does not answer to the
definition of what I have termed the fourth class is entitled
to the name of a newspaper. There was in the possession of
Professor Grellman a publication called an 'Aviso,' numbered
as '14,' and published in 1612, which has been considered by
many German writers as their earliest newspaper, but Prutz
denies that honour to it, on the ground of there being no
proof that it was published at stated intervals. In the year
1615 Egenolph Emmel, of Frankfort-on-the-Main, issued a weekly
intelligencer, numbered in a series, and this, according to
Prutz, is the proper claimant. Its history has been traced
with some minuteness in a separate dissertation by
Schwarzkopf, who has also the credit of having published in
1795 the first general essay on newspapers of any value, and
to have followed up the subject in a series of articles in the
Allgemeine Litterarische Anzeiger. … The claims of Italy have
yet to be considered. Prutz dismisses them very summarily,
because, as he says, the Venetian gazettes of the sixteenth
century, said to be preserved at Florence, are in manuscript,
and it is essential to the definition of a newspaper that it
should be printed. These Venetian gazettes have never, so far
as I am aware, been described at all; they may be mere
'news-letters,' or they may be something closely approaching
to the modern newspaper. But I am strongly inclined to believe
that something of the second class of Italian origin will turn
up in the great libraries of Europe when further research is
devoted to the subject. … The existence of these 'gazettes' in
so many languages furnishes strong ground for supposing that
the popularity of newspapers originated in Italy."
T. Watts,
The fabricated "Earliest English Newspaper"
(Gentleman's Magazine, 1850, reprinted in the Gentleman's
Magazine Library; Bibliographical Notes, pages 146-150).
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1617-1680.
The Elzevirs.
"Just as the house of Aldus waned and expired, that of the
great Dutch printers, the Elzevirs, began obscurely enough at
Leyden in 1583. The Elzevir's were not, like Aldus, ripe
scholars and men of devotion to learning. Aldus laboured for
the love of noble studies; the Elzevirs were acute, and too
often 'smart' men of business. The founder of the family was
Louis (born at Louvain, 1540, died 1617). But it was in the
second and third generations that Bonaventura and Abraham
Elzevir began to publish at Leyden their editions in small
duodecimo. Like Aldus, these Elzevirs aimed at producing books
at once handy, cheap, correct, and beautiful in execution.
Their adventure was a complete success. The Elzevirs did not,
like Aldus, surround themselves with the most learned scholars
of their time. Their famous literary adviser, Heinsius, was
full of literary jealousies, and kept students of his own
calibre at a distance. The classical editions of the Elzevirs,
beautiful, but too small in type for modern eyes, are anything
but exquisitely correct. … The ordinary marks of the Elzevirs
were the sphere, the old hermit, the Athena, the eagle, and
the burning faggot. But all little old books marked with
spheres are not Elzevirs, as many booksellers suppose. Other
printers also stole the designs for the tops of chapters, the
Aegipan, the Siren, the head of Medusa, the crossed sceptres,
and the rest. In some cases the Elzevirs published their
books, especially when they were piracies, anonymously. When
they published for the Jansenists, they allowed their clients
to put fantastic pseudonyms on the title pages. But, except in
four cases, they had only two pseudonyms used on the titles of
books published by and for themselves. These disguises are
'Jean Sambix' for Jean and Daniel Elzevir, at Leyden, and 'for
the Elzevirs of Amsterdam, 'Jacques le Jeune.' The last of the
great representatives of the house, Daniel, died at Amsterdam,
1680. Abraham, an unworthy scion, struggled on at Leyden till
1712. The family still prospers, but no longer prints, in
Holland."
A. Lang,
The Library,
chapter 3.
"Though Elzevirs have been more fashionable than at present,
they are still regarded by novelists as the great prize of the
book collector. You read in novels about 'priceless little
Elzevirs,' about books 'as rare as an old Elzevir.' I have
met, in the works of a lady novelist (but not elsewhere) with
an Elzevir 'Theocritus.' The late Mr. Hepworth Dixon
introduced into one of his romances a romantic Elzevir Greek
Testament, 'worth its weight in gold.' Casual remarks of this
kind encourage a popular delusion that all Elzevirs are pearls
of considerable price."
A. Lang,
Books and Bookmen,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Slater,
Book Collecting,
chapter 8.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702.
The first printed Newspaper and
the first daily Newspaper in England.
"Up to 1839 (when Mr. Watts, of the British Museum, exposed
the forgery) the world was led to believe that the first
English newspaper appeared in 1588." Mr. Watts "ascertained

that 'The English Mercurie,' which Mr. George Chalmers first
discovered on the shelves of the British Museum, and which was
said to have been 'imprinted in London by her highness's
printer, 1588,' was a forgery, for which the second Earl of
Hardwicke appears to be answerable." As to the actual date of
the appearance of the first printed newspaper in England, "Mr.
Knight Hunt, in his 'Fourth Estate,' speaks confidently. …
'There is now no reason to doubt,' he says, 'that the puny
ancestor of the myriads of broad sheets of our time was
published in the metropolis in 1622; and that the most
prominent of the ingenious speculators who offered the novelty
to the world, was one Nathaniel Butter.' As the printing press
had then been at work in England for a century and a half,
Caxton having established himself in Westminster Abbey in
1471, and as manuscript news-letters had been current for many
years previous to 1622, one cannot help wondering that the
inventive wits of that age should have been so slow in finding
out this excellent mode of turning Faust's invention to
profitable account.
{2594}
Butter's journal was called—'The Weekly Newes,' a name which
still survives, although the original possessor of that title
has long since gone the way of all newspapers. The first
number in the British Museum collection bears date the 23rd of
May, 1622, and contains 'news from Italy, Germanie,' &c. The
last number made its appearance on the 9th of January, 1640; a
memorable year, in which the Short Parliament, dismissed by
King Charles 'in a huff,' after a session of three weeks, was
succeeded by the Long Parliament, which unlucky Charles could
not manage quite so easily. … It was nearly a century after
'The Weekly Newes' made its first appearance, before a daily
newspaper was attempted. When weekly papers had become firmly
established, some of the more enterprising printers began to
publish their sheets twice, and ultimately three times a week.
Thus at the beginning of last century we find several papers
informing the public that they are 'published every Tuesday,
Thursday, and Saturday morning.' One of the most respectable
looking was entitled 'The New State of Europe,' or a 'True
Account of Public Transactions and Learning.' It consisted of
two pages of thin, coarse paper … and contained altogether
about as much matter as there is in a single column of the
'Times' of 1855. The custom at that period was to publish the
newspaper on a folio or quarto sheet, two pages of which were
left blank to be used for correspondence. This is expressly
stated in a standing advertisement in the 'New State of
Europe,' in which the names of certain booksellers are given
'where any person may have this paper with a blank half sheet
to write their own private affairs.' … The first number of the
'Daily Courant' [the first daily newspaper in England] was
published on the 11th of March, 1702, just three days after
the accession of Queen Anne. … As regards the form and size of
the new journal, the 'author' condescends to give the
following information, with a growling remark at the
impertinence of the 'Postboys,' 'Postmen,' 'Mercuries,' and
'Intelligencers' of that day:—'This "Courant" (as the title
shows) will be published Daily, being designed to give all the
Material News as soon as every Post arrives, and is confined
to half the compass to save the Publick at least half the
Impertinences of ordinary Newspapers.' In addition to the
Prospectus we have quoted, the first number of the 'Daily
Courant' contains only nine paragraphs, five of which were
translated from the 'Harlem Courant,' three from the 'Paris
Gazette,' and one from the 'Amsterdam Courant.' They all
relate to the war of the Spanish Succession then waging, or to
the attempts making by diplomats to settle the affairs of the
Continent at some kind of Vienna or Utrecht Conference. After
adhering for several weeks to the strict rule of giving only
one page of news, and those entirely foreign, the 'Courant'
begins to show certain symptoms of improvement. The number for
April 22, contains two pages of news and advertisements. … The
alteration in the getting-up of the 'Courant' was owing to a
change of proprietorship. The paper had now come into the
hands of 'Sam Buckley, at the Dolphin, Little Britain.' … Mr.
Samuel Buckley, who continued to publish and conduct the
'Daily Courant' for many years, was a notable man among London
publishers, as we find from various references to him in the
fugitive literature of that age."
The London Daily Press
(Westminster Review, October, 1855).
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1631.
The first printed Newspaper in France.
Dr. Renandot and his "Gazette."
"The first Frenchman to found a printed newspaper was Dr.
Théophraste Renaudot, who obtained the King's privilege for
the 'Gazette de France' in 1631. … He was a shrewd man, born
at London in 1567, brought up in Paris, but graduate of the
Faculty of Montpellier. In 1612, being then twenty-six, he
returned to the capital, and somehow got appointed at once
doctor to the King. But there was no salary attached to this
post, which was in his case purely honorary, and so Renaudot
opened a school, though the fact that he, a mere provincial
doctor, had obtained a medical appointment at court, was very
sore to the Paris Faculty of Medicine, who began to annoy him
from that moment. Renaudot, however, was a man far ahead of
his contemporaries in sagacity, patience, learning and
humanity. Petty spite did not disturb him, or at least it did
not deter him from executing any of the numerous plans he had
in mind for the welfare of his contemporaries. … This
extraordinary man not only inaugurated in France an Estate,
Professional and Servants' Agency, as well as an office for
private sales and exchanges, but further laid the basis of the
Poste Restante, Parcels Delivery, Post-Office Directory,
Tourist's Guide and Money Order Office; besides affording an
outlet to troubled spirits like those who correspond through
the agony column of 'The Times.' It is not surprising that his
office in the Rue de la Calandre should soon have been all too
small for its multifarious duties and that his original staff
of six clerks should, in less than three months, have swelled
to fifty. Richelieu, in sheer admiration at the man, sent for
him and thanked him for the services he was rendering the
King's subjects. He also offered him money to extend his
offices, and this Renaudot accepted, but only as a loan. It
was his custom to levy a commission of six deniers per livre
(franc) on the sales he effected, and by means of these and
other receipts he soon repaid the Cardinal every penny that
had been advanced to him. But he did more than this. Finding
that his registers were not always convenient modes of
reference, by reason of the excessive crowds which pressed
round them, he brought out a printed advertiser, which is
almost the exact prototype of a journal at present well known
in London. It was called 'Feuille du Bureau d'Adresses,' and
appeared every Saturday, at the price of 1 sou. Opinions
differ as to whether this paper preceded the 'Gazette de
France,' or was issued simultaneously with it. Probably it was
first published in manuscript form, but came out in print at
least six months before the 'Gazette,' for a number bearing
the date of June 14th, 1631, shows a periodical in full
organisation and containing indirect references to
advertisements which must have appeared several weeks before.
At all events this 'Feuille' was purely an advertisement
sheet—a forerunner of the 'Petites Affiches' which were
reinvented in 1746—it was in no sense a newspaper. … It is
clear that from the moment he started his 'Feuille du Bureau
d'Adresses,' Renaudot must have conceived the possibility of
founding a news-sheet. … The manuscript News Letters had
attained, by the year 1630, to such a pitch of perfection, and
found such a ready sale, that the notion of further
popularising them by printing must have suggested itself to
more than one man before it was actually put into practice.
{2595}
But the great bar was this, that nothing could be printed
without the King's privilege, and this privilege was not
lightly granted. … Renaudot, who had no wish to publish
tattle, had no reason to fear censorship. He addressed himself
to Richelieu, and craved leave to start a printed newspaper
under royal patronage. The politic Cardinal was quite shrewd
enough to see how useful might be to him an organ which would
set information before the public in the manner he desired,
and in that manner alone; so he granted all Renaudot wished,
in the form of 'letters patent,' securing him an entire
monopoly of printing newspapers, and moreover he conferred on
his protégé the pompous title of Historiographer of France.
The first number of the 'Gazette de France' appeared on
Friday, May 30, 1631. Its size was four quarto pages, and its
price one sol parisis, i. e. ½d., worth about l½d. modern
money. … The first number contained no preface or address,
nothing in the way of a leading article, but plunged at once
in medias res, and gave news from nineteen foreign towns or
countries, but oddly enough, not a line of French
intelligence. … The bulk of the matter inserted was furnished
direct by Richelieu from the Foreign Office, and several of
the paragraphs were written in his own hand. … The publication
of the 'Gazette' was continued uninterruptedly from week to
week but the press of matter was so great that Renaudot took
to issuing a Supplement with the last number of every month.
In this he condensed the reports of the preceding numbers,
corrected errors, added fresh news, and answered his
detractors. … At the end of the year 1631 he suppressed his
monthly Supplement, increased the 'Gazette' to eight pages,
and announced that for the future he would issue supplements
as they were needed. It seems they were needed pretty often,
for towards the beginning of the year 1633 Renaudot published
Supplements, under the title of 'Ordinaries and
Extraordinaries,' as often as twice, and even three times in
one week. In fact whenever a budget of news arrived which
would nowadays justify a special edition, the indefatigable
editor set his criers afoot with a fresh printed sheet,
shouting, 'Buy the "Extraordinary," containing the account of
the superb burial of the King of Denmark!' or, 'Buy and read
of the capture of the beautiful island of Curaçoa in the
Indies by the Dutch from the Spaniards!' Renaudot understood
the noble art of puffing. He dressed his criers in red, and
gave them a trumpet apiece to go and bray the praises of the
'Gazette' on the off days, when the paper did not appear. … On
the death of Renaudot, he was succeeded by his sons Eusèbe and
Isaac, who in their turn bequeathed the Gazette' to Eusèbe
junior, son of the elder brother, who took orders and
consequently left no progeny. After this the 'Gazette' became
Government property. … In 1762 the 'Gazette' was annexed to
the Foreign Office Department. … The 'Gazette de France'
continued to appear under royal patronage until May 1st, 1792,
when its official ties were snapped and it came out as a
private and republican journal with the date 'Fourth Year of
Freedom.' The 'Gazette' has flourished with more or less
brilliancy ever since, and has been for the last fifty years a
legitimist organ, read chiefly in the provinces."
The French Press
(Cornhill Magazine, June, 1873).
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1637.
Archbishop Laud's Star-Chamber restriction of printing.
On the 11th of July, 1637, "Archbishop Laud procured a decree
to be passed in the star chamber, by which it was ordered,
that the master printers should be reduced to twenty in
number; and that if any other should secretly, or openly,
pursue the trade of printing, he should be set in the pillory,
or whipped through the streets, and suffer such other
punishment as the court should inflict upon him; that none of
the master printers should print any book or books of
divinity, law, physic, philosophy, or poetry, till the said
books, together with the titles, epistles, prefaces, tables,
or commendatory verses, should be lawfully licensed, on pain
of losing the exercise of his art, and being proceeded against
in the star chamber, &c.; that no person should reprint any
book without a new license; that every merchant, bookseller,
&c., who should import any book or books, should present a
catalogue of them to the archbishop or bishop, &c., before
they were delivered, or exposed to sale, who should view them,
with power to seize those that were schismatical; and, that no
merchant, &c., should print or cause to be printed abroad, any
book, or books, which either entirely or for the most part,
were written in the English tongue, nor knowingly import any
such books, upon pain of being proceeded against in the star
chamber, or high commission court. … That there should be four
founders of letters for printing, and no more. That the
archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of London, with six
other high commissioners, shall supply the places of those
four as they shall become void. That no master founder shall
keep above two apprentices at one time. That all journeymen
founders be employed by the masters of the trade; and that all
the idle journeymen be compelled to work upon pain of
imprisonment, and such other punishment as the court shall
think fit. That no master founder of letters shall employ any
other person in any work belonging to casting and founding of
letters than freemen and apprentices to the trade, save only
in putting off the knots of metal hanging at the end of the
letters when they are first cast; in which work, every master
founder may employ one boy only, not bound to the trade."
C. H. Timperley,
Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
page 490.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1647.
Renewed ordinance, in England, against the printers.
"An ordinance of parliament passed the house of lords on this
day [September 30, 1647], that no person shall make, write,
print, sell, publish or utter, or cause to be made, &c., any
book, pamphlet, treatise, ballad, libel, sheet, or sheets of
news whatsoever (except the same be licensed by both or either
house of parliament,) under the penalty of 40s. and an
imprisonment not exceeding forty days, if he can not pay it:
if a printer, he is to pay a fine of only 20s., or suffer
twenty days' imprisonment, and likewise to have his press and
implements of printing broken in pieces. The book-seller, or
stationer, to pay 10s., or suffer ten days' imprisonment,—and,
lastly, the hawker, pedlar, or ballad-singer, to forfeit all
his printed papers exposed to sale, and to be whipped as a
common rogue in the parish where he shall be apprehended.
{2596}
Early in the following year, the committee of estates in
Scotland passed an act prohibiting the printing under the pain
of death, any book, declaration, or writing, until these were
first submitted to their revisal. … One of the consequences of
these persecutions was the raising up of a new class of
publishers, those who became noted for what was called
'unlawful and unlicensed books.' Sparkes, the publisher of
Prynne's Histriomastix, was of this class. The presbyterian
party in parliament, who thus found the press closed on them,
vehemently cried out for its freedom; and it was imagined,
that when they ascended into power, the odious office of a
licenser of the press would have been abolished; but these
pretended friends of freedom, on the contrary, discovered
themselves as tenderly alive to the office as the old
government, and maintained it with the extremest vigour. Both
in England and Scotland, during the civil wars, the party in
power endeavoured to crush by every means the freedom of the
press."
C. H. Timperley,
Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
page 506.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1654-1694.
Freedom of the press under Cromwell.
Censorship under the restored Stuarts.
Roger L'Estrange and the first news reporters.
"During the Protectorate of Cromwell the newspaper press knew
… what it was to enjoy the luxury of freedom. The natural
result was that a very great increase took place in the number
of new political journals. Most of them, however, had only a
very brief existence. Many of their number could not boast of
a longer life than six or seven months—nay, many of them not
so much as even that term of life. But, as might have been
expected, from what was known of the antecedents of Charles
II., the freedom of the press, which previously existed, came
to an immediate end on his ascending the throne. Hardly had he
done so, than an edict was issued, prohibiting the publication
of any journal except the London Gazette, which was originally
printed at Oxford, and called the Oxford Gazette,—the Court
being then resident there on account of the plague raging in
London at the time, 1665, when it was commenced, and for some
time afterwards. This was an act of pure despotism. But
Government at this time reserved to itself the right —a right
which there was none to dispute—to publish a broad sheet in
connexion with the London Gazette, whenever they might deem it
expedient, which should contain either foreign or domestic
matters of interest,—of the knowledge of which some of the
King's subjects might wish to be put in early possession. …
The newspapers of the seventeenth century were permitted,
until the time of Charles II., to be published without being
licensed by the Government of the day; but in the reign of
that despotic sovereign, a law was passed [1662] prohibiting
the publication of any newspaper without being duly licensed.
… Sir John Birkenhead, … one of the three men whom Disraeli
the elder called the fathers of the English press, was
appointed to the office of Licenser of the Press. But he was
soon succeeded by Sir Roger l'Estrange."
J. Grant,
The Newspaper Press,
volume 1, chapter. 2.
Roger L'Estrange "is remarkable for having been the writer of
the best newspapers which appeared before the age of Queen
Anne, and, at the same time, a most bitter enemy to the
freedom of the press. He was appointed licenser or censor in
1663, and in the same year was given authority to publish all
newspapers, periodicals, and pamphlets, not exceeding two
sheets in size. He appears to have looked upon his newspaper
as a noxious thing, suffered to exist only that an income
might be created for him in return for the labour of purging
the press. Yet he spared no pains to make his Public
Intelligencer readable, and if we may trust his letters now
preserved at the State Paper Office, expended in the first
year more than £500 on 'spyes for collecting intelligence.'
Three years afterwards he estimated the profits at £400 a
year. … He sent paid correspondents, or 'spyes' as they were
called, to all parts of the country, and even induced some
respectable persons, under promise of concealing their names,
to contribute occasional paragraphs; these persons were for
the most part repaid by sending to them their newspapers and
letters free of postage. Another set of 'spyes' was employed
in picking up the news of the town on Paul's Walk or in the
taverns and coffee–houses. L'Estrange printed about sixteen
reams of his Intelligencer weekly, which were for the most
part sold by the mercury-women who cried them about the
streets. One Mrs. Andrews is said to have taken more than
one-third of the whole quantity printed. … Advantage was taken
of a slip in the weekly intelligence to deprive L'Estrange of
his monopoly in favour of the new Oxford Gazette, published in
the winter of 1665 and transferred to London in the ensuing
spring. The Gazette was placed under the control of
Williamson, then a rising under-Secretary of State, under
whose austere influence nothing was suffered to appear which
could excite or even amuse the public. … L'Estrange has not
been a favourite with historians, and we confess that his
harsh measures towards the press are apt to raise a feeling of
repugnance. … But he was certainly an enthusiastic and
industrious writer, who raised the tone of the press, even
while taking pains to fetter its liberty. When he lost his
monopoly, that era of desolation began which Macaulay has so
forcibly described. The newspapers became completely sterile,
omitting events even of such importance as the trial of the
seven bishops, and were supplanted in popular favour by the
manuscript news-letters, which were, in fact, the only
journals of importance. On the day after the abdication of
James II. three fresh newspapers appeared, and many more burst
out after the appearance of the official journal under the
style of the Orange Gazette. But it was not until 1694 that
the king was induced to abolish the censorship and to permit
free trade in news; 'he doubted much,' says Hume, 'of the
salutary effects of such unlimited freedom.' The newspapers
increased and multiplied exceedingly for the eighteen years
between the abolition of the office of licenser and the
passing of the Stamp Act, in 1712, by which a halfpenny tax
was laid on every half-sheet of intelligence."
Early English Newspapers
(Cornhill Magazine, July, 1868).
{2597}
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1685-1693.
William Bradford and his Press in Philadelphia and New York.
William Bradford, a young printer, of the Society of Friends,
came to Philadelphia in the autumn of 1685, and established
himself in business. "His first publication was 'Kalendarium
Pennsilvaniense, or America's Messenger; Being an Almanack for
the Year of Grace 1686.' This brought him a summons before the
Governor and Council, for referring to the Proprietary, in the
table of chronology, ns 'Lord Penn;' and, on his appearance,
he was ordered to blot out the objectionable title, and
forbidden to print anything without license from the
Provincial Council. In 1687 he was cautioned by the
Philadelphia meeting not to print anything touching the
Quakers without its approval. Two years later he was again
called before the Governor, and Council—this time for printing
the charter of the province. The spirited report, in his own
handwriting, of his examination on this occasion, is now
preserved in the collection of the New York Historical
Society. Disappointed at the non-fulfilment of Penn's promise
of the government printing and the failure of his scheme for
printing an English Bible, which, although indorsed by the
meeting, found few subscribers, and harassed by both the civil
and religious authorities, Bradford determined to leave the
province," which he did, with his family, sailing to England
in 1689. He was induced, however, by promises of increased
business and a yearly salary of £40, to return. In 1692,
having become one of the supporters of George Keith, and
having printed Keith's "Appeal", he was arrested and
imprisoned.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.
This occurred in August, and his trial followed in December.
The jury disagreed, and he was held for appearance at the next
court. "In the meantime the dissensions in the province
aroused by the Keithian schism had led to the abrogation of
Penn's charter by the crown, and the appointment of Benjamin
Fletcher to be Royal Governor of Pennsylvania as well as New
York." This change led to the dropping of proceedings against
Bradford, and to his removal from Philadelphia to New York,
whither he seems to have been invited. His removal was
undoubtedly prompted by a resolution which the Provincial
Council of New York adopted on the 23d of March, 1693: "That
if a Printer will come and settle in the city of New York for
the printing of our Acts of Assembly and Publick Papers, he
shall be allowed the sum of £40 current money of New York per
annum for his salary and have the benefit of his printing
besides what serves the publick." "Bradford's first warrant
for his salary as 'Printer to King William and Queen Mary, at
the City of New York,' was dated October 12, 1693, and was for
six months, due on the 10th preceding," showing that he had
established himself in the colony more hospitable to his art
as early as the 10th of April, 1693. "What was the first
product of his press is a matter of doubt. It may have been,
as Dr. Moore suggests, the 'Journal of the Late Actions of the
French at Canada,' or 'New England's Spirit of Persecution
Transmitted to Pennsilvania'"—which was a report of his own
trial at Philadelphia—or it may have been an Act of the New
York Assembly—one of three which his press produced early that
year, but the priority among which is uncertain.
C. R Hildeburn,
Printing in New York in the 17th Century
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 15.)
ALSO IN:
I. Thomas,
History of Printing in America,
2d edition, volume 1.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.
Expiration of the Censorship law in England.
Quick multiplication of Newspapers.
"While the Licensing Act was in force there was no newspaper
in England except the 'London Gazette,' which was edited by a
clerk in the office of the Secretary of State, and which
contained nothing but what the Secretary of State wished the
nation to know. There were indeed many periodical papers: but
none of those papers could be called a newspaper. Welwood, a
zealous Whig, published a journal called the Observator: but
his Observator, like the Observator which Lestrange had
formerly edited, contained, not the news, but merely
dissertations on politics. A crazy bookseller, named John
Dunton, published the Athenian Mercury: but the Athenian
Mercury merely discussed questions of natural philosophy, of
casuistry and of gallantry. A fellow of the Royal Society,
named John Houghton, published what he called a Collection for
the Improvement of Industry and Trade: but his Collection
contained little more than the prices of stocks, explanations
of the modes of doing business in the City, puffs of new
projects, and advertisements of books, quack medicines,
chocolate, Spa water, civet cats, surgeons wanting ships,
valets wanting masters, and ladies wanting husbands. If ever
he printed any political news, he transcribed it from the
Gazette. The Gazette was so partial and so meagre a chronicle
of events that, though it had no competitors, it had but a
small circulation. … But the deficiencies of the Gazette were
to a certain extent supplied in London by the coffeehouses,
and in the country by the news-letters. On the third of May
1695 the law which had subjected the press to a censorship
expired. Within a fortnight, a stanch old Whig, named Harris,
who had, in the days of the Exclusion Bill, attempted to set
up a newspaper entitled Intelligence Domestic and Foreign, and
who had been speedily forced to relinquish that design,
announced that the Intelligence Domestic and Foreign,
suppressed fourteen years before by tyranny, would again
appear. Ten days later was printed the first number of the
English Courant. Then came the Packet Boat from Holland and
Flanders, the Pegasus, the London Newsletter, the London Post,
the Flying Post, the Old Postmaster, the Postboy, and the
Postman. The history of the newspapers of England from that
time to the present day is a most interesting and instructive
part of the history of the country. At first they were small
and mean-looking. … Only two numbers came out in a week; and a
number contained little more matter than may be found in a
single column of a daily paper of our time."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 21.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.
The first Newspapers in America.
"There was not a newspaper published in the English colonies,
throughout the extensive continent of North America, until the
24th of April, 1704. John Campbell, a Scotchman, who was a
bookseller and postmaster in Boston, was the first who began
and established a publication of this kind. It was entitled
'The Boston News-Letter.' … It is printed on half a sheet of
pot paper, with a small pica type, folio.
{2598}
The first page is filled with an extract from 'The London
Flying Post,' respecting the pretender. … The queen's speech
to both houses of parliament on that occasion, a few articles
under the Boston head, four short paragraphs of marine
intelligence from New York, Philadelphia, and New London, and
one advertisement, form its whole contents. The advertisement
is from Campbell, the proprietor of the paper." In 1719, a
rival paper was started in Boston, called the "Gazette," and
in 1721, a third, founded by James Franklin, took the name of
"The New England Courant." Meantime there had appeared at
Philadelphia, on the 22nd of December, 1719,—only one day
later than the second of the Boston newspapers—"The American
Weekly Mercury," printed by Andrew Bradford, son of William
Bradford. The same printer, Andrew Bradford, removing to New
York, brought out "The New York Gazette," the first newspaper
printed in that city, in October, 1725.
I. Thomas,
History of Printing in America,
volume 2, page 12, and after.
"In 1740, the number of newspapers in the English colonies on
the continent had increased to eleven, of which one appeared
in South Carolina, one in Virginia, three in Pennsylvania—one
of them being in German—one in New York, and the remaining
five in Boston. … The New England 'Courant,' the fourth
American periodical, was, in August 1721, established by James
Franklin as an organ of independent opinion. Its temporary
success was advanced by Benjamin, his brother and apprentice,
a boy of fifteen, who wrote for its columns, worked in
composing the types as well as printing off the sheets, and,
as carrier, distributed the papers to the customers. The sheet
satirized hypocrisy, and spoke of religious knaves as of all
knaves the worst. This was described as tending 'to abuse the
ministers of religion in a manner which was intolerable.' … In
July 1722, a resolve passed the council, appointing a censor
for the press of James Franklin; but the house refused its
concurrence. The ministers persevered; and, in January 1723, a
committee of inquiry was raised by the legislature. Benjamin,
being examined, escaped with an admonition; James, the
publisher, refusing to discover the author of the offence, was
kept in jail for a month; his paper was censured as reflecting
injuriously on the reverend ministers of the gospel; and, by
vote of the house and council, he was forbidden to print it,
'except it be first supervised.' Vexed at the arbitrary
proceedings, Benjamin Franklin, then but seventeen years old,
in October 1723, sailed clandestinely for New York. Finding
there no employment, he crossed to Amboy; went on foot to the
Delaware; for want of a wind, rowed in a boat from Burlington
to Philadelphia; and bearing marks of his labor at the oar,
weary, hungry, having for his whole stock of cash a single
dollar, the runaway apprentice—the pupil of the free schools
of Boston, rich in the boundless hope of youth and the
unconscious power of modest genius—stepped on shore to seek
food and occupation. On the deep foundations of sobriety,
frugality and industry, the young journeyman built his
fortunes and fame; and he soon came to have a printing-office
of his own. … The assembly of Pennsylvania chose him its
printer. He planned a newspaper [the 'Pennsylvania Gazette'];
and, when (1729] he became its proprietor and editor, he
defended freedom of thought and speech, and the inalienable
power of the people."
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States of America,
part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. Parton,
Life of Franklin,
parts 1-2 (volume l).
B. Franklin,
Life by Himself,
edited by J. Bigelow,
part 1.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1709-1752.
The Periodicals of the Essayists.
The "Tatler," "Spectator," and their successors.
"In the spring of 1709, Steele [Sir Richard] formed a literary
project, of which he was far indeed from foreseeing the
consequences. Periodical papers had during many years been
published in London. Most of these were political; but in some
of them questions of morality, taste, and love-casuistry had
been discussed. The literary merit of these works was small
indeed; and even their names are now known only to the
curious. Steele had been appointed gazetteer by Sunderland, at
the request, it is said, of Addison; and thus had access to
foreign intelligence earlier and more authentic than was in
those times within the reach of an ordinary news-writer. This
circumstance seems to have suggested to him the scheme of
publishing a periodical paper on a new plan. It was to appear
on the days on which the post left London for the country,
which were, in that generation, the Tuesdays, Thursdays, and
Saturdays. It was to contain the foreign news, accounts of
theatrical representations, and the literary gossip of Will's
and of the Grecian. It was also to contain remarks on the
fashionable topics of the day, compliments to beauties,
pasquinades on noted sharpers, and criticisms on popular
preachers. The aim of Steele does not appear to have been at
first higher than this. … Issac Bickerstaff, Esquire,
Astrologer, was an imaginary person, almost as well known in
that age as Mr. Paul Pry or Mr. Pickwick in ours. Swift had
assumed the name of Bickerstaff in a satirical pamphlet
against Partridge, the almanac-maker. Partridge had been fool
enough to publish a furious reply. Bickerstaff had rejoined in
a second pamphlet still more diverting than the first. All the
wits had combined to keep up the joke, and the town was long
in convulsions of laughter. Steele determined to employ the
name which this controversy had made popular; and, in April,
1709, it was announced that Isaac Bickerstaff, Esquire,
Astrologer, was about to publish a paper called the 'Tatler.'
Addison had not been consulted about this scheme; but as soon
as he heard of it, he determined to give it his assistance.
The effect of that assistance cannot be better described than
in Steele's own words. 'I fared,' he said, 'like a distressed
prince who calls in a powerful neighbour to his aid. I was
undone by my auxiliary. When I had once called him in, I could
not subsist without dependence on him.' 'The paper,' he says
elsewhere, 'was advanced indeed. It was raised to a greater
thing than I intended it.'"
Lord Macaulay.
Life and Writings of Addison (Essays).
"Steele, on the 12th of April 1709, issued the first number of
the 'Tatler.' … This famous newspaper, printed in one folio
sheet of 'tobacco paper' with 'scurvy letter,' ran to 271
numbers, and abruptly ceased to appear in January 1711. It
enjoyed an unprecedented success, for, indeed, nothing that
approached it had ever before been issued from the periodical
press in England. The division of its contents was thus
arranged by the editor: 'All accounts of gallantry, pleasure,
and entertainment shall be under the article of White's
Chocolate House; poetry under that of Will's Coffee-House;
learning under the title of Grecian; foreign and domestic news
you will have from St. James's Coffee-House; and what else I
shall on any other subject offer shall be dated from my own
apartment.'
{2599}
The political news gradually ceased to appear. … Of the 271
'Tatlers,' 188 were written by Steele, 42 by Addison, and 36
by both conjointly. Three were from the pen of John Hughes. …
These, at least, are the numbers usually given, but the
evidence on which they are based is slight. It rests mainly
upon the indications given by Steele to Tickell when the
latter was preparing his edition of Addison's Works. The
conjecture may be hazarded that there were not a few Tatlers
written by Addison which he was not anxious to claim as his
particular property. … Addison, … remained Steele's firm
friend, and less than two months after the cessation of the
'Tatler' there appeared the first number of a still more
famous common enterprise, the 'Spectator,' on the 1st of March
1711. It was announced to appear daily, and was to be composed
of the reflections and actions of the members of an imaginary
club, formed around 'Mr. Spectator.' In this club the most
familiar figure is the Worcestershire Knight, Sir Roger de
Coverley, the peculiar property of Addison. … The 'Spectator'
continued to appear daily until December 1712. It consisted of
555 numbers, of which Addison wrote 274, Steele 236, Hughes
19, and Pope 1 (The Messiah, 'Spectator' 378). Another
contributor was Eustace Budgell (1685-1736), Addison's cousin.
… The 'Spectator' enjoyed so very unequivocal a success that
it has puzzled historians to account for its discontinuance.
In No. 517 Addison killed Sir Roger de Coverley 'that nobody
else might murder him.' This shows a voluntary intention to
stop the publication, which the Stamp Act itself had not been
able to do by force."
E. Gosse,
A History of Eighteenth Century Literature,
chapter 6.
"After this, in 1713, came the 'Guardian'; and in 1714 an
eighth volume of the 'Spectator' was issued by Addison alone.
He was also the sole author of the 'Freeholder,' 1715, which
contains the admirable sketch of the 'Tory Foxhunter.' Steele,
on his side, followed up the 'Guardian' by the 'Lover,' the
'Reader,' and half-a–dozen abortive efforts; but his real
successes, as well as those of Addison, were in the three
great collections for which they worked together. … Between
the 'Guardian' of 1713 and the 'Rambler' of 1750-2 there were
a number of periodical essayists of varying merit. It is
scarcely necessary to recall the names of these now forgotten
'Intelligencers,' 'Moderators,' 'Remembrancers,' and the like,
the bulk of which were political. Fielding places one of them,
the 'Freethinker' of Philips, nearly on a level with 'those
great originals the "Tatlers" and the "Spectators;"' but the
initial chapters to the different books of 'Tom Jones' attract
us more forcibly to the author's own 'Champion,' written in
conjunction with the Ralph who 'makes night hideous' in the
'Dunciad.' … Another of Fielding's enterprises in the
'Spectator' vein was the 'Covent Garden Journal,' 1752. …
Concurrently with the 'Covent Garden Journal' appeared the
final volume of Johnson's 'Rambler,' a work upon the cardinal
defect of which its author laid his finger, when in later
life, he declared it to be 'too wordy.' Lady Mary said in her
smart way that the 'Rambler' followed the 'Spectator' as a
pack horse would do a hunter. … In the twenty-nine papers
which Johnson wrote for Hawkesworth's 'Adventurer,' the
'Rambler' style is maintained. In the 'Idler,' however, which
belongs to a later date, when its author's mind was unclouded,
and he was comparatively free from the daily pressure" of
necessity, he adopts a simpler and less polysyllabic style."
A. Dobson,
Eighteenth Century Essays,
introduction.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1712.
The first Stamp Tax on Newspapers in England.
The first stamp tax on newspapers in England went into effect
on the 12th day of August, 1712. "An act had passed the
legislature, that 'for every pamphlet or paper contained in
half a sheet, or lesser piece of paper so printed, the sum of
one halfpenny sterling: and for every such pamphlet or paper
being larger than half a sheet, and not exceeding one whole
sheet, so printed, a duty after the rate of one penny sterling
for every sheet printed thereof.' This act, which was to curb
the licentiousness of the press, was to be in force for the
space of thirty-two years, to be reckoned from the 10th day of
June, 1712. Addison, in the 'Spectator' of this day, says,
'this is the day on which many eminent authors will probably
publish their last works. I am afraid that few of our weekly
historians, who are men that above all others delight in war,
will be able to subsist under the weight of a stamp duty in an
approaching peace. In short, the necessity of carrying a
stamp, and the impracticability of notifying a bloody battle,
will, I am afraid, both concur to the sinking of these thin
folios which have every other day related to us the history of
Europe for several years last past. A facetious friend of
mine, who loves a pun, calls this present mortality among
authors, "the fall of the leaf.'" On this tax Dean Swift thus
humorously alludes in his Journal to Stella, as follows
(August 7):—'Do you know that all Grub-street is dead and gone
last week? No more Ghosts or murders now for love or money. I
plied it close the last fortnight, and published at least
seven papers of my own, besides some of other people's; but
now every single half-sheet pays a halfpenny to the queen. The
'Observator' is fallen; the 'Medleys' are jumbled together
with the 'Flying Post'; the 'Examiner' is deadly sick; the
'Spectator' keeps up and doubles its price; I know not how
long it will hold. Have you seen the red stamp the papers are
marked with? Methinks the stamping is worth a half-penny.' The
stamp mark upon the newspapers was a rose and thistle joined
by the stalks, and enclosing between the Irish shamrock, the
whole three were surmounted by a crown. … It is curious to
observe what an effect this trifling impost had upon the
circulation of the most favourite papers. Many were entirely
discontinued, and several of those which survived were
generally united into one publication. The bill operated in a
directly contrary manner to what the ministers had
anticipated; for the opposition, who had more leisure, and
perhaps more acrimony of feeling, were unanimous in the
support of their cause. The adherents of ministers, who were
by no means behind the opposition in their proficiency in the
topic of defamation, were, it seems, not so strenuously
supported; and the measure thus chiefly destroyed those whom
it was Bolinbroke's interest to protect.
{2600}
For some reason, which we have not been able to trace, the
stamp-duties were removed shortly after their imposition, and
were not again enforced until 1725. In order to understand how
so small a duty as one halfpenny should operate so strongly
upon these periodical publications, we must look at the price
at which they were vended at that period. The majority of them
were published at a penny, many at a halfpenny, and some were
even published so low as a farthing."
C. H. Timperley,
Encyclopædia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
pages 601-602.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1723.
End of Newspaper monopoly in France.
"Until Louis XVI. was dethroned, Paris was officially supposed
to possess but three periodicals: the 'Gazette de France' for
politics, 'Le Journal des Savants' for literature and science,
and the 'Mercure de France' for politics, literature, and
social matters mingled. For a time these monopolies were
respected, but only for a very short time. … During the
Regency of the Duke of Orleans (1715-23), the 'Gazette de
France,' 'Mercure,' and 'Journal des Savants' combined to
bring an action for infringement against all the papers then
existing, but they were non-suited on a technical objection;
and this was their last attempt at asserting their
prerogative."
The French Press
(Cornhill Magazine, October, 1873).
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1734.
Zenger's trial in New York.
Determination of the freedom of the Press.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1771.
Freedom of Parliamentary reporting won in England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1777.
The first Daily Newspaper in France.
"In 1777 there appeared the 'Journal de Paris,' which only
deserves notice from its being the first daily paper issued in
France."
Westminster Review,
July 1860, page 219.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1784-1813.
The earliest daily Newspapers in the United States.
"The first daily newspaper published in the United States was
the 'American Daily Advertiser.' It was issued in Philadelphia
in 1784, by Benjamin Franklin Bache, afterwards of the Aurora.
When the seat of national government was in Philadelphia, it
shared the confidence and support of Jefferson with the
'National Gazette.' It was strong in its opposition to the
Federal section of the administration of Washington, and to
all the measures originating with Hamilton. Zachariah Poulson
became its proprietor and publisher in 1802, and it was known
as 'Poulson's Advertiser,' and we believe he continued its
publisher till October 28, 1839, when the establishment was
sold to Brace and Newbold, the publishers of a new paper
called the 'North American.' The name after that was the
'North American and Daily Advertiser.' … The 'New York Daily
Advertiser,' the second real journal in the United States, was
published in 1785. It was commenced on the 1st of March by
Francis Childs & Co. … On the 29th of July, 1786, the
'Pittsburg (Pennsylvania) Gazette,' the first newspaper
printed west of the Alleghany Mountains, appeared, and in 1796
the 'Post' was issued. … 'The United States Gazette' was
started in New York in 1789 by John Fenno, of Boston. Its
original name was 'Gazette of the United States.' It was first
issued in New York, because the seat of the national
government was then in that city. When Congress removed to
Philadelphia in 1790, the 'Gazette' went with that body. In
1792 it was the special organ of Alexander Hamilton. … Noah
Webster, the lexicographer of America, was a lawyer in 1793,
and had an office in Hartford, Connecticut. 'Washington's
administration was then violently assailed by the 'Aurora,'
'National Gazette,' and other organs of the Republican Party,
and by the partisans of France. Jefferson was organizing the
opposition elements, and Hamilton was endeavoring to
strengthen the Federal party. Newspapers were established on
each side as the chief means of accomplishing the objects each
party had in view. Noah Webster was considered, in this state
of affairs, the man to aid the Federalists journalistically in
New York. He was, therefore, induced to remove to that city
and take charge of a Federal organ. On the 9th of December,
1793, he issued the first number of a daily paper, which was
named the 'Minerva.' According to its imprint, it appeared
'every day, Sundays excepted, at four o'clock, or earlier if
the arrival of the mail will permit.' … With the 'Minerva' was
connected a semi-weekly paper called the 'Herald.' … The names
of 'Minerva' and 'Herald' were shortly changed to those of
'Commercial Advertiser' and 'New York Spectator,' and these
names have continued. … The 'Commercial Advertiser' is the
oldest daily newspaper in the metropolis. Of the hundreds of
daily papers started in New York, from the time of Bradford's
Gazette in 1725 to the 'Journal of Commerce' in 1827, there
are now [1872] only two survivors—the 'Evening Post' and the
'Commercial Advertiser.' … The first prominent daily paper
issued in New England was the Boston Daily Advertiser, the
publication of which was commenced on the 3d of March, 1813.
There was a daily paper begun in that city on the 6th of
October, 1796, by Alexander Martin, and edited by John O'Ley
Burk, one of the 'United Irishmen.' It lived about six months.
It was called the Polar Star and Boston Daily Advertiser.
Another was attempted on the 1st of January, 1798, by Caleb P.
Wayne, who was afterwards editor of the United States Gazette
of Philadelphia. This second daily paper of Boston was named
the Federal Gazette and Daily Advertiser. It lived three
months. The third attempt at a daily paper in the capital of
Massachusetts was a success. It was published by William W.
Clapp, afterwards of the Saturday Evening Gazette, and edited
by Horatio Biglow."
F. Hudson,
Journalism in the United States,
pages 175-194, and 378.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1785-1812.
The founding of "The Times," in London.
The beginning of "leading articles."
The newspaper afterwards famous as "The Times" was started, in
1785, under the name of the "Daily Universal Register," and
did not adopt the title of "The Times" until the 1st of
January, 1788.
J. Grant,
The Newspaper Press,
volume 1, chapter 16.
"All the newspapers that can be said to have been
distinguished in any way till the appearance of the 'Times'
were distinguished by some freak of cleverness. … The 'Times'
took up a line of its own from the first day of its existence.
The proprietors staked their fortunes upon the general
character of their paper, upon the promptitude and accuracy of
its intelligence, upon its policy, upon the frank and
independent spirit of its comments on public men. … The chief
proprietor of the 'Times' was John Walter—a man who knew
nothing or next to nothing of newspaper work, but who knew
precisely what the public wanted in a newspaper, and
possessed, with this instinct and intelligence, the
determination and enterprise which constitute the character of
a successful man of business.
{2601}
He saw how a newspaper ought to be conducted, and he thought
he saw how, by the development of a new idea in printing, he
could produce the 'Times' a good deal cheaper than any of its
contemporaries. The whole English language, according to Mr.
Walter, consisted of about 90,000 words; but by separating the
particles and omitting the obsolete words, technical terms,
and common terminations, Mr. Walter believed it to be possible
to reduce the stock in common use to about 50,000, and a large
proportion of these words, with all the common terminations,
he proposed to have cast separately, so that the compositor,
with a slip of MS. before him to set in type, might pick up
words or even phrases instead of picking up one by one every
letter of every word in his copy, and thus, of course, save a
good deal of time. The idea was impracticable, utterly
impracticable, because the number of words required to carry
out the system must in itself be so great that no case of type
that a printer could stand before would hold them all, even if
the printer 'learn his boxes' with a case of some 4,000 or
5,000 compartments before him; but it took a good many years,
a good many experiments, and the expenditure of some thousands
of pounds to convince Mr. Walter that the failure was not due
to the perversity of his printers but to the practical
difficulties which surrounded his conception. John Walter was
far more successful in the general conduct of the 'Times' as a
newspaper than he was in the management of the 'Times'
printing office. He set all the printers in London by the ears
with his whim about logographic printing. But he had a very
clear conception of what a national newspaper ought to be, and
with the assistance of a miscellaneous group of men, who, as
they are sketched for us by Henry Crabb Robinson, were
apparently far more picturesque than practical, John Walter
made the 'Times' what the 'Times' has been for nearly a
century, pre-eminently and distinctly a national newspaper.
The 'Times,' in its original shape, consisted merely of the
day's news, a few advertisements, some market quotations,
perhaps a notice of a new book, a few scraps of gossip, and in
the session, a Parliamentary report. The 'Morning Chronicle'
had the credit … of inventing the leading article, as it had
the credit of inventing Parliamentary reporting. The 'Morning
Chronicle,' on the 12th of May, 1791, published a paragraph,
announcing that 'the great and firm body of the Whigs of
England, true to their principles, had decided on the dispute
between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, in favor of Mr. Fox, as the
representative of the pure doctrines of Whiggery,' and that in
consequence of this resolution Mr. Burke would retire from
Parliament. It was very short, but this paragraph is the
nearest approximation that is to be found in the newspapers of
that time to a leading article, and appearing as it did in the
part of the 'Morning Chronicle' where a year or two afterwards
the leading articles were printed, Mr. Wingrove Cooke cites it
as the germ of the leaders which, when they became general,
gave a distinctive colour and authority to newspapers as
independent organs of opinion and criticism. The idea soon
became popular; and in the 'Morning Post' and the 'Courier'
the leading article, developed as it was by Coleridge and
Macintosh into a work of art, often rivalling in argument,
wit, and eloquence the best speeches in Parliament, became the
object of quite as much interest as the Parliamentary reports
themselves. The 'Times,' knowing how to appropriate one by one
all the specialties of its contemporaries, and to improve upon
what it appropriated, was one of the first newspapers to adopt
the idea of leading articles, and in adopting that idea, to
improve upon it by stamping its articles with a spirit of
frankness and independence which was all its own. … The reign
of John Walter, practically the founder of the 'Times,' ended
in the year 1812, and upon his death his son, the second John
Walter, took possession of Printing House Square, and, acting
in the spirit of his father, with ampler means, soon made the
'Times' the power in the State that it has been from that day
to this."
C. Pebody,
English Journalism,
pages 92-99.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1817.
The trials of William Hone.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1830-1833.
The first Penny Papers in the United States.
"The Penny Press of America dates from 1833. There were small
and cheap papers published in Boston and Philadelphia before
and about that time. The Bostonian was one. The Cent, in
Philadelphia, was another. The latter was issued by
Christopher C. Cornwall in 1830. These and all similar
adventures were not permanent. Most of them were issued by
printers when they had nothing else to do. Still they belonged
to the class of cheap papers. The idea came from the
illustrated Penny Magazine, issued in London in 1830. … The
Morning Post was the first penny paper of any pretensions in
the United States. It was started on New-Year's Day, 1833, as
a two-cent paper, by Dr. Horatio David Shepard, with Horace
Greeley and Francis V. Story as partners, printers, and
publishers. … After one week's trial, with the exhaustion of
the capital, the original idea of Dr. Shepard, his dream of
the previous year 1832 was attempted, and the price reduced to
one cent; but it was too late. … This experiment, however, was
the seed of the Cheap Press. It had taken root. On Tuesday,
the 3d of September, in the same year 1833, the first number
of the Sun was issued by Benjamin H. Day."

F. Hudson,
Journalism in the United States,
pages 416-417.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1853-1870.
Extinction of taxes on Newspapers in England.
The beginning of Penny Papers.
Rise of the provincial daily press.
"In 1853 the advertisement duty was repealed; in 1855 the
obligatory newspaper stamp was abolished, and in 1861, with
the repeal of the paper duty, the last check upon the
unrestrained journalism was taken away. As a matter of course,
the resulting increase in the number of newspapers has been
very great as well as the resulting diminution in their price.
… When it was seen that the trammels of journalism were about
to be loosed the penny paper came into existence. The 'Daily
Telegraph,' the first newspaper published at that price, was
established in June, 1855, and is now one of the most
successful of English journals."
T. G. Bowles,
Newspapers (Fortnightly Review,
July 1, 1884).
{2602}
"With the entire freedom from taxation began the modern era of
the daily press. At this time [1861] London had nine or ten
daily newspapers, with the 'Times' in the lead. Of these, six
or seven still survive, and are holding their own with
competitors of more recent origin. Up to the time of the
abolition of the stamp duties, London was the only city which
had a daily press; but between 1855 and 1870 a large number of
newspapers published in the provincial cities, which had
hitherto been issued in weekly or bi-weekly form, made their
appearance as daily journals. With only one or two exceptions,
all the prosperous provincial morning papers of to-day were
originally weeklies, and as such had long occupied the ground
they now hold as dailies."
E. Porritt,
The Englishman at Home,
chapter 13.
PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1874-1894.
Surviving Press Censorship in Germany.
"It would be wrong to speak of the Newspaper Press of Germany
as the fourth estate. In the land which gave Gutenberg and the
art of printing to the world, the Press has not yet
established a claim to a title so imposing. To the growth and
power of a Free Press are needed liberal laws and
institutions, with freedom of political opinion and civil
action for the subject. Hitherto these fundamental conditions
have been absent. During the last fifty years little has been
done to liberate the newspaper, to give it free play, to
unmuzzle it. It is the misfortune of the German Press that the
special laws for the regulation of newspapers and serial
publications have been evolved from a system of legislation
which was devised in times of great political unrest and
agitation. … Liberty of the Press has been one of the leading
political watchwords of the reform party during the last
three-quarters of a century. Yet though the Press does not
stand where it stood at the beginning of the century, when
even visiting cards could not be printed without the solemn
assent of the public censor, and when objectionable prints
were summarily suppressed at the mere beck of a Minister or
his subordinate, little ground has been won since the severer
features of the measures passed in 1854 for the repression of
democratic excesses were abandoned. The constitution of
Prussia says that 'Every Prussian has the right to express his
opinion freely by word, writing, print, or pictorial
representation' (Article 27). But this right is superseded by
the provision of the imperial constitution (Article 41,
Section 16) which reserves to the Empire the regulation of the
Press, and by a measure of May 7th, 1874, which gives to this
provision concrete form. This is the Press Law of Germany
to-day. The law does, indeed, concede, in principle at least,
the freedom of the Press (Pressfreiheit), and it abolishes the
formal censorship. But a severe form of control is still
exercised by the police, whose authority over the Press is
greater in reality than it seems to be from the letter of the
statute. It is no longer necessary, as it once was, and still
is in Russia, to obtain sanction for the issue of each number
before it is sent into the world, but it is the legal duty of
a publisher to lay a copy of his journal before the police
authority directly it reaches the press. This an informal
censor revises, and in the event of any article being
obnoxious he may order the immediate confiscation of the whole
issue, or a court of law, which in such matters works very
speedily, may do so for him. As the police and judicial
authorities have wide discretion in the determination of
editorial culpability, this power of confiscation is felt to
be a harsh one. While the Socialist Law existed the powers of
the police were far more extensive than now, and that they
were also real is proved by the wholesale extermination of
newspapers of Socialistic tendencies which took place between
the years 1878 and 1890. Since that law disappeared, however,
Socialist journals have sprung up again in abundance, though
the experience gained by their conductors in the unhappy past
does not enable them to steer clear of friction with the
authorities. The police, too, regulates the public sale of
newspapers and decides whether they shall be cried in the
street or not. In Berlin special editions cannot be published
without the prior sanction of this authority. … So frequent
are prosecutions of editors that many newspapers are compelled
to maintain on their staffs batches of Sitzredakteure, or
'sitting editors,' whose special function is to serve in
prison (colloquially sitzen=sit) the terms of detention that
may be awarded for the too liberal exercise of the critical
faculty. … Some measure of the public depreciation of
newspapers is due to the fact that they are largely in Hebrew
hands. In the large towns the Press is, indeed, essentially a
Jewish institution."
W. H. Dawson,
Germany and the Germans,
part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).
PRINTING AND THE PRESS:
American Periodicals founded before 1870 and existing in 1894.
The following is a carefully prepared chronological list of
important newspapers and other periodicals, still published
(1894) in the United States and Canada, which have existed for
a quarter of a century or more, having been founded before
1870. The * before a title indicates that the information
given has been obtained directly from the publisher. For some
of the periodicals not so marked, the dates of beginning have
been taken from their own files. In other cases, where
publishers have neglected to answer a request for information,
the facts have been borrowed from Rowell's American Newspaper
Directory:
1764.
* Connecticut Courant (Hartford), w.;
added Courant, d., 1836.
* Quebec Gazette (French and English), weekly; ran many years
as tri-weekly, in English; discontinued for about 16 years;
now resumed as Quebec Gazette in connection with Quebec
Morning Chronicle (founded 1847).
1766 or 1767.
* Connecticut Herald and Post Boy
(New Haven); various names;
now Connecticut Herald and Weekly Journal.
1768.
* Essex Gazette; changes of name and place; suspended;
revived at Salem, Massachusetts, as Salem Mercury, 1786;
became semi-weekly, 1796; became Salem Daily Gazette, 1892.
1770.
Worcester Spy, weekly; added daily, 1845.
1771.
* Pennsylvania Packet and General Advertiser
(Philadelphia), weekly;
became Pennsylvania Packet and American Daily Advertiser,
daily, 1784;
consolidated with North American (founded 1839), 1839;
consolidated with United States Gazette (established 1789,
see 1789, Gazette of the U. S.),
as North American and United States Gazette, 1847;
became North American, 1876.
{2603}
1773.
* Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser;
merged in Baltimore American, 1799.
1778.
* Gazette (Montreal), weekly; now daily and weekly;
since 1870 absorbed Telegraph and Daily News.
1785.
*Falmouth (Maine) Gazette and Weekly Advertiser;
Cumberland Gazette, 1786;
Gazette of Maine, 1790;
Eastern Herald, 1792;
Eastern Herald and Gazette of Maine, 1796;
Jenks' Portland Gazette, 1798;
Portland Gazette and Maine Advertiser, 1805;
Portland Advertiser, semi-weekly, 1823; daily, 1831.
* Journal (Poughkeepsie, New York); established to take the
place of New York Journal, published at Poughkeepsie, 1778-1783;
consolidated with Eagle (founded 1828—see 1828,
Dutchess Intelligencer), as Journal and Eagle;
became Eagle after a few years.
1786.
Hampshire Gazette (Northampton, Massachusetts).
Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette.
1789.
* Gazette of the United States (New York);
removed to Philadelphia, 1790; daily, 1793;
became The Union, or United States Gazette and True American;
merged in North American, 1847.
Berkshire County Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts), weekly.
1793.
Gazette (Cincinnati), weekly; added daily,
Commercial Gazette, 1841.
Minerva (New York), daily, and Herald, semi-weekly;
became Commercial Advertiser, and New York Spectator.
Newburyport (Massachusetts) Herald.
Utica Gazette; consolidated with Herald (founded 1847),
as Morning Herald and Gazette.
1794.
Rutland (Vermont) Herald.
1796.
* Sentinel of Freedom (Newark), weekly;
added Newark Daily Advertiser, daily, 1832.
1800.
* Salem Register, weekly; then semi-weekly; now weekly.
1801.
New York Evening Post.
Ægis and Gazette (Worcester), weekly;
added Evening Gazette, 1843.
1803.
Charleston News and Courier.
Portland (Maine) Eastern Argus.
1804.
Pittsburgh Post.
1805.
Missionary Herald (Boston), monthly.
* Quebec Mercury, tri-weekly; became daily about 1860.
1806.
* Precurser (Montpelier), weekly;
became Vermont Watchman, 1807, weekly.
1807.
* New Bedford (Massachusetts) Mercury, weekly;
added daily, 1831.
1808.
* Cooperstown(New York) Federalist;
became Freeman's Journal, weekly, 1820.
Le Canadien (Montreal).
St. Louis Republic, weekly; added daily, 1835.
1809.
* New Hampshire Patriot (Concord, New Hampshire);
consolidated with People (founded 1868)
as People and Patriot, 1878, daily and weekly.
Montreal Herald.
1810.
Kingston (Ontario) News, weekly.; added daily, 1851.
1811.
* Buffalo Gazette, weekly;
became Niagara Patriot, weekly, 1818;
became Buffalo Patriot, weekly, July 10, 1821;
added Buffalo Commercial Advertiser, daily, 1835.
* Western Intelligencer;
Western Intelligencer and Columbus Gazette, 1814;
became Ohio State Journal, 1825; daily, 1839.
1812.
* Columbian Weekly Register (New Haven);
added Evening Register, daily, 1848.
1813.
Albany Argus.
Boston Advertiser.
Acadian Recorder (Halifax).
1815.
North American Review (New York), monthly.
1816.
* Boston Recorder; merged in Congregationalist, weekly, 1867.
Knoxville Tribune, weekly; added daily, 1865.
Rochester Union and Advertiser, weekly; added daily, 1826.
1817.
* Hartford Times, weekly; added daily., 1841.
1819.
* Cleveland Herald;
consolidated with Evening News (founded 1868), 1885.
See 1848. Cleveland Leader.
Arkansas Gazette (Little Rock).
* Oswego Palladium, weekly; added daily about 1860.
1820.
Nova Scotian (Halifax), weekly;
added Chronicle, 3 times a week, 1845;
added Morning Chronicle, 1865.
* Manufacturers' and Farmers' Journal
(Providence), semi-weekly; added Daily Journal, 1829.
1821.
* Christian Register (Boston), weekly.
Indianapolis Sentinel.
Mobile Register.
1822.
Broome Republican (Binghamton, New York), weekly;
added Republican, daily, 1849.
* Old Colony Memorial (Plymouth, Massachusetts), weekly;
has absorbed Plymouth Rock, and Old Colony Sentinel.
1823.
Auburn (New York) News and Democrat, weekly;
added Bulletin, daily, 1870.
Zion's Herald (Boston), weekly.
* New Hampshire Statesman (Concord), weekly;
consolidated with Independent Democrat (founded 1845),
as Independent Statesman, 1871; added daily,
Concord Evening Monitor, 1864.
* Western Censor and Emigrant's Guide (Indianapolis);
became Indianapolis Journal, weekly,
and semi-weekly during session of the Legislature;
became weekly and daily, 1850.
* Observer (New York), weekly.
* Register (New York), weekly; became Examiner, 1855.
Poughkeepsie News-Telegraph, weekly;
added News-Press, daily, 1852.
1824.
* Springfield (Massachusetts) Republican, weekly;
added daily, 1844.
1825.
Kennebec Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.
* Rome (New York) Republican, weekly; became Telegram;
became Sentinel, 1837; added daily, 1852-1860;
added daily, 1881.
1826.
Detroit Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1835.
* Lowell Courier, weekly; added daily, 1845;
weekly now called Lowell Weekly Journal.
* La Minerve (Montreal), daily and weekly.
Christian Advocate (New York), weekly.
Journal of the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia), monthly.
* St. Lawrence Republican (Potsdam, New York) weekly;
removed to Canton, N. Y., 1827; removed to Ogdensburg, 1830,
and consolidated with St. Lawrence Gazette (founded 1815);
purchased by Ogdensburg Journal (founded 1855), daily, 1858;
both papers continue.
Rochester Democrat; consolidated with
Chronicle (founded 1868) as Democrat and Chronicle.
{2604}
1827.
* Youth's Companion (Boston), weekly.
* Independent News Letter (Cleveland);
became Advertiser, 1832; became Plain Dealer, 1842.
Columbus (Ohio) Press.
New York Journal of Commerce.
1828.
* Orleans Republican (Albion, New York), weekly.
Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, weekly, added daily, 1844.
Montgomery (Alabama) Advertiser.
* Dutchess Intelligencer (Poughkeepsie, New York);
consolidated with Dutchess Republican, as Poughkeepsie Eagle,
weekly, 1833; consolidated with Poughkeepsie Journal
(see 1785, Journal), as Journal and Eagle, 1844; now Eagle;
added daily, 1860.
1829.
* Auburn (New York) Journal, weekly;
added Daily Advertiser, 1844.
* Northwestern Journal (Detroit), weekly;
semi-weekly, then 3 times a week, 1835;
became Daily Advertiser, 1836;
consolidated with Tribune (founded 1849), as
Advertiser and Tribune, 1862;
consolidated with Daily Post (founded 1866),
as Post and Tribune, 1877; became Tribune, 1885.
* Elmira Gazette, weekly, added daily, 1860.
Philadelphia Inquirer.
* Providence Daily Journal.
* Syracuse Standard; successor to Onondaga Standard.
1830.
* Albany Evening Journal.
* Boston Transcript.
Louisville Journal; consolidated with Courier
(founded 1843) and Democrat (founded 1844),
under name of Louisville Courier-Journal, 1868.
* Evangelist (New York), weekly.
* Sunday School Journal (Philadelphia), weekly;
merged in Sunday School Times, 1859.
1831.
Orleans American (Albion, New York), weekly.
* Boston Daily Post.
Presbyterian (Philadelphia), weekly.
Illinois State Journal (Springfield), weekly;
added daily, 1848.
1832.
* Patriot (Montpelier, Vermont);
consolidated with Argus (founded 1851, Bellows Falls),
as Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.
* Herald (New Haven), daily; various names;
became Journal and Courier, 1849.
Morning Journal and Courier (New Haven).
1833.
* Catholic Intelligencer (Boston), weekly;
successor to Jesuit; became Pilot, 1836.
* Boston Mercantile Journal; now Boston Journal.
* The Sun (New York).
1834.
Bangor Whig and Courier.
* Western Christian Advocate (Cincinnati), weekly.
* British Whig (Kingston, Ontario), daily, 1849.
* New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, weekly; added daily, 1845
Anzeiger des Westens (St. Louis).
1835.
* New York Herald.
Schenectady Reflector, weekly; added Evening Star, 1855.
Troy Morning Telegram.
1836.
* Miner's Express, weekly;
merged in Dubuque Herald (founded 1853), now daily and weekly.
* Public Ledger and Daily Transcript (Philadelphia).
* Illinois State Register (Vandalia), weekly;
absorbed People's Advocate, 1836;
removed to Springfield, 1839;
absorbed Illinois Republican, 1839; added daily, 1848.
* Toledo Blade, weekly; added daily, 1848.
1837.
* Sun (Baltimore), daily and weekly.
Buffalo Demokrat und Weltbürger.
Burlington (Iowa) Gazette.
* Cincinnati Times, daily and weekly;
daily consolidated with Star (founded 1872),
daily and weekly, as Cincinnati Times-Star, 1880.
Southern Christian Advocate (Columbia, South Carolina), weekly.
Jackson (Mississippi) Clarion, weekly.
* Milwaukee Sentinel, weekly;
absorbed Gazette and became Sentinel-Gazette, 1846;
dropped "Gazette," 1851; daily 1844.
* New Orleans Picayune.
1838.
Bangor Commercial.
* Philadelphia Demokrat.
* St. Louis Evening Gazette;
became Evening Mirror, 1847;
became New Era, 1848;
became Intelligencer, 1849;
became Evening News, 1857;
consolidated with Dispatch, 1867;
consolidated with Evening Post, as Post Dispatch, 1878.
1839.
* Iowa Patriot (Burlington), weekly;
became Hawkeye and Iowa Patriot;
has been, at various times, semi-weekly, and daily;
now Burlington Hawkeye, daily and weekly.
* Christliche Apologete (Cincinnati), weekly.
* Madison Express, weekly;
became Wisconsin Express, 1848; daily, 1851;
consolidated with a new paper, Statesman, as Palladium,
daily and weekly, 1852;
became Wisconsin State Journal, 1852.
Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register (New York), weekly.
* North American (Philadelphia);
absorbed Pennsylvania Packet
(see 1771, Pennsylvania Packet), 1839.
Western State Journal (Syracuse), weekly;
became Syracuse Journal, 1844; added daily, 1846;
absorbed Evening Chronicle, 1856; added semi-weekly, 1893.
1840.
Chicago Tribune.
* Appeal Memphis);
consolidated with Avalanche (founded 1857),
as Appeal-Avalanche, 1890 (?);
consolidated with Commercial (founded 1889),
as Commercial Appeal, 1894.
* Union and Evangelist (Uniontown, Pennsylvania);
became Evangelist and Observer at Pittsburgh;
succeeded by Cumberland Presbyterian,
about 1846, at Uniontown; removed to Brownsville;
then to Waynesburg; to Alton, Illinois, in 1868;
and to Nashville, Tennessee, in 1874;
here consolidated with Banner of Peace
(founded, Princeton, Kentucky, 1840;
removed to Lebanon, Tennessee, 1843; then to Nashville).
* Roman Citizen, weekly; became Rome Semi-Weekly Citizen, 1888.
1841.
* Brooklyn Eagle.
* Prairie Farmer (Chicago), weekly.
* New York Tribune.
* Pittsburgh Chronicle;
consolidated with Pittsburgh Telegraph (founded 1873), as
Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph, 1884.
Reading Eagle, weekly; added daily, 1868.
{2605}
1842.
* Daily Mercantile Courier and Democratic Economist (Buffalo);
became Daily Courier and Economist, 1843;
became Buffalo Courier, daily, 1845.
* Cincinnati Enquirer, daily and semi-weekly.
* Galveston News.
Rural New Yorker (New York), weekly.
* Preacher (Pittsburgh), weekly;
became United Presbyterian, 1854.
1843.
* Albany Daily Knickerbocker;
consolidated with Press (founded 1877), as
Daily Press and Knickerbocker, 1877.
* Steuben Courier (Bath, New York).
1844.
Chicago Evening Journal.
* Woechentlicher Seebote (Milwaukee);
became Der Seebote, daily and Woechentlicher Seebote.
* American Baptist (New York);
became Baptist Weekly;
has absorbed Gospel Age;
became Christian Inquirer, weekly, 1888.
* Churchman (New York), weekly.
*New Yorker Demokrat; New Yorker Journal, 1862;
consolidated as New Yorker Zeitung, 1878.
Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature (New York), monthly.
Ledger (New York), weekly.
Oswego Times.
* Globe (Toronto).
1845.
* Binghamton Democrat, weekly; added daily, 1864.
* Buffalo Morning Express.
* Independent Democrat (Concord, New Hampshire).
See 1823, New Hampshire Statesman.
Montreal Witness, weekly; added daily, 1860.
Scientific American (New York), weekly.
* St. Joseph (Missouri) Gazette, daily and weekly.
1846.
* Boston Herald, daily and weekly.
* Evening News (Hamilton, Ontario), daily and weekly;
successor to Journal and Express, semi-weekly;
became Banner and Railway Chronicle, 1852 or 1853;
became Evening Times, 1858.
* Hamilton (Ontario) Spectator, semi-weekly; added daily, 1852.
Keokuk (Iowa) Gate City.
* Bankers' Magazine (New York), monthly.
* Newport (Rhode Island) Daily News.
Pittsburgh Dispatch.
1847.
* Albany Morning Express.
New England Historical and Genealogical Register (Boston),
quarterly.
Boston Traveller.
Illinois Staats-Zeitung (Chicago).
* Lewiston (Maine) Weekly Journal;
added Evening Journal, 1861.
London (Ontario) Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1859.
* Evening Wisconsin Milwaukee).
Iron Age (New York), weekly.
Toledo Commercial.
Utica Morning Herald; consolidated with Gazette (founded 1793),
as Morning Herald and Gazette.
1848.
* Massachusetts Teacher;
afterwards, with College Courant (founded 1866, New Haven),
Rhode Island Schoolmaster (founded 1855),
and Connecticut School Journal,
formed Journal of Education (founded 1875, Boston).
* Williamsburg Times; became Brooklyn Daily Times, 1854.
* Cleveland Leader, daily;
added, by purchase, Evening News (founded 1868), 1869;
purchased Cleveland Herald (founded 1819), and consolidated it
with Evening News, as News and Herald, 1885.
Des Moines Leader.
* Independent (New York), weekly.
1849.
* Congregationalist (Boston), weekly;
absorbed Boston Recorder (founded 1816), 1867.
* Detroit Tribune; consolidated with Post, 1877.
See 1829, Northwestern Journal.
* Irish American (New York), weekly.
* Water Cure Journal (New York);
became Herald of Health, 1863;
became Journal of Hygiene and Herald of Health, m., 1893.
* St. Paul Pioneer, weekly; daily, 1854;
consolidated with St. Paul Press (founded 1860), daily,
as Pioneer Press, 1875.
Wilkesbarre Leader, weekly; added daily, 1879.
1850.
* Buffalo Christian Advocate, weekly.
Kansas City (Missouri) Times.
Mirror and American (Manchester, New Hampshire).
Harper's New Monthly Magazine (New York).
* Oregonian (Portland), weekly; added daily, 1861.
Richmond Dispatch.
* Deseret News (Salt Lake City), weekly;
added semi-weekly, 1865; added daily, 1867.
* Morning News (Savannah, Georgia), daily and weekly;
absorbed Savannah Republican (founded 1802),
and Savannah Daily Advertiser (founded 1866), 1874.
* Watertown (New York) Weekly Reformer;
added Daily Times, 1860.
1851.
La Crosse Morning Chronicle.
* Union Democrat (Manchester, New Hampshire), weekly;
added Manchester Union, daily, 1863.
* Argus (Bellows Falls); consolidated with Patriot,
at Montpelier, under name of Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.
* New York Times, daily and weekly.
* Rochester Beobachter, weekly; 3 times a week, 1855;
daily, 1863; consolidated with Abendpost (founded 1880),
as Rochester Abendpost und Beobachter, daily and weekly, 1881.
St. Joseph (Mo.) Herald.
* Troy (New York) Times, daily.
1852.
Wächter am Erie (Cleveland).
St. Louis Globe–Democrat.
Wheeling Intelligencer (Wheeling, West Virginia).
1853.
Elmira Advertiser.
Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly (New York).
Richmond Anzeiger.
San Francisco Evening Post.
Toledo Express.
Washington Evening Star.
* Record of the Times (Wilkesbarre), weekly;
added Wilkesbarre Record, daily, 1873.
1854.
* Deutsche Zeitung (Charleston, South Carolina),
semi-weekly and weekly;
suspended during four years of Civil War.
Chicago Times, daily and weekly.
* American Israelite (Cincinnati), weekly.
* Kansas City (Missouri) Journal, weekly; added daily, 1864.
La Crosse Republican and Leader.
Herold (Milwaukee).
* Nebraska City News.
* Anzeiger des Nordens (Rochester);
became Rochester Volksblatt, weekly, 1859, added daily, 1863.
{2606}
1855.
* Ogdensburg Journal, daily;
purchased St. Lawrence Republican (founded 1826), weekly, 1858.
1856.
* Albany Times; absorbed Evening Courier, 1861;
consolidated with Evening Union (founded 1882),
as Albany Times-Union, daily and weekly, 1891.
* Buffalo Allgemeine Zeitung, weekly;
succeeded by Buffalo Freie Presse, daily 3 months,
then semi-weekly; daily, 1872.
* Iowa State Register (Des Moines), weekly; added daily, 1861.
Dubuque Times.
* Western Railroad Gazette (Chicago), weekly;
became Railroad Gazette; removed to New York, 1871.
San Francisco Call.
* Scranton Republican, weekly; added daily, 1867.
1857.
Baltimore News.
Atlantic Monthly (Boston).
* Banner of Light (Boston), weekly.
Leavenworth Times.
New Haven Union.
Harper's Weekly (New York).
* Jewish Messenger (New York), weekly.
* Scottish American (New York), weekly.
Philadelphia Press.
Courrier du Canada (Quebec).
Westliche Post (St. Louis).
Syracuse Courier.
1858.
Hartford Evening Post; Connecticut Post, weekly.
Nebraska Press (Nebraska City), daily and weekly.
Rochester Post-Express.
1859.
* Boston Commercial Bulletin, weekly.
* Rocky Mountain News (Denver), weekly; added daily, 1860.
Kansas City (Missouri) Post (German).
* Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), weekly;
succeeded Sunday School Journal (founded 1830);
absorbed Sunday School Workman (founded 1870), 1871;
absorbed National Sunday School Teacher (founded 1866), 1882.
St. John (New Brunswick) Globe.
1860.
World (New York).
1861.
Commonwealth (Boston), weekly.
1862.
* New Yorker Journal. See 1844, New Yorker Demokrat.
* Maine State Press (Portland), weekly;
Portland Press, daily.
Raleigh News and Observer.
St. John (New Brunswick) Telegraph, weekly;added daily, 1869.
1863.
* Brooklyn Daily Union;
consolidated with Brooklyn Daily Standard (founded 1884),
as Brooklyn Standard Union, 1887.
London (Ontario) Advertiser.
* New Orleans Times;
consolidated with Democrat (founded 1876),
as New Orleans Times–Democrat, 1881, all daily and weekly.
Army and Navy Journal (New York), weekly.
Portland (Oregon) Evening Telegram.
Providence Evening Bulletin.
* Sioux City Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.
* Wheeling Register.
1864.
* Concord (New Hampshire) Evening Monitor, daily;
issued in connection with Independent Statesman
(see 1823, New Hampshire Statesman).
Reading Post (German), weekly; added daily, 1867.
* Springfield (Massachusetts) Union.
1865.
Albany Evening Post.
* Skandinaven (Chicago), weekly; daily, 1871.
Halifax Morning Chronicle.
Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville).
Memphis Public Ledger.
* Catholic World (New York City), monthly.
[https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39367 (first of many)]
* Commercial and Financial Chronicle (New York), weekly;
absorbed Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, 1870.
Nation (New York), weekly
Norfolk Virginian.
* Daily Herald (Omaha, Nebraska); consolidated with
Evening World (founded 1885), as World-Herald, 1889.
* Index (Petersburg, Virginia);
consolidated with Appeal (successor to Express,
founded in 1848), as Index-Appeal, 1873.
Philadelphia Abend Post.
San Antonio Express.
* San Francisco Chronicle.
* Union (Schenectady), daily, and weekly.
1866.
* Denver Tribune;
consolidated with Denver Republican (founded 1878),
under name of Tribune-Republican, 1884;
became Denver Republican, daily and weekly.
* Christian at Work (New York), weekly;
became Christian Work, 1894;
has absorbed The Continent, The Manhattan Magazine,
Every Thursday, and others.
Engineering and Mining Journal (New York), weekly.
Sanitarian (New York), monthly.
1867.
* Advance (Chicago), weekly.
* Evening Journal (Jersey City).
* Nebraska Commonwealth (Lincoln), weekly; became
Nebraska State Journal, weekly, 1869; added daily, 1870.
* Democrat (Madison, Wisconsin), daily and weekly.
Minneapolis Tribune.
* Le Monde (Montreal).
Engineering News (New York), weekly.
Harper's Bazaar (New York), weekly.
American Naturalist (Philadelphia), monthly.
* L'Evenement (Quebec).
* Seattle Intelligencer, weekly; daily, 1876;
consolidated with Post (founded 1878), daily,
under name of Post-Intelligencer, 1881.
Vicksburg Commercial Herald, weekly; added daily, 1869.
Wilmington (North Carolina) Messenger.
* Morning Star (Wilmington, North Carolina).
1868.
Atlanta Constitution.
* Buffalo Volksfreund, daily and weekly.
* People (Concord, New Hampshire).
See 1809, New Hampshire Patriot.
Lippincott's Magazine (Philadelphia), monthly.
St. Paul Dispatch.
* San Diego Union, weekly; added daily, 1871.
Troy Press.
1869.
* Evening Star (Montreal);
became Montreal Evening Star, then Montreal Daily Star;
added Family Herald and Weekly Star, weekly.
* Christian Union (New York), weekly; became The Outlook, 1893.
Manufacturer and Builder (New York), monthly.
* Ottawa Free Press, daily and weekly.
Scranton Times, daily and weekly.
{2607}
PRIOR.
PRIORY.
See MONASTERY.
PRIORIES, Alien.
"These were cells of foreign abbeys, founded upon estates
which English proprietors had given to the foreign houses."
E. L. Cutts,
Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
chapter 4.
PRIORS OF THE FLORENTINE GUILDS.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1203.
PRISAGE.
See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.
PRISON-SHIPS, British, at New York.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777
PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.
PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS,
Confederate.
Libby.
Belle Isle.
Andersonville.
"The Libby, which is best known, though also used as a place
of confinement for private soldiers, is generally understood
to be the officers' prison. It is a row of brick buildings,
three stories high, situated on the canal [in Richmond,
Virginia], and overlooking the James river, and was formerly a
tobacco warehouse. … The rooms are 100 feet long by 40 feet
broad. In six of these rooms, 1,200 United States officers, of
all grades, from the Brigadier-General to the Second-Lieutenant,
were confined for many months, and this was all
the space that was allowed them in which to cook, eat, wash,
sleep, and take exercise. … Ten feet by two were all that
could be claimed by each man—hardly enough to measure his
length upon; and even this was further abridged by the room
necessarily taken for cooking, washing and clothes-drying. At
one time they were not allowed the use of benches, chairs, or
stools, nor even to fold their blankets and sit upon them, but
those who would rest were obliged to huddle on their haunches,
as one of them expresses it, 'like so many slaves on the
middle passage.' After awhile this severe restriction was
removed, and they were allowed to make chairs and stools for
themselves, out of the barrels and boxes which they had
received from the North. They were overrun with vermin in
spite of every precaution and constant ablutions. Their
blankets, which averaged one to a man, and sometimes less, had
not been issued by the rebels, but had been procured in
different ways; sometimes by purchase, sometimes through the
Sanitary Commission. The prisoners had to help themselves from
the refuse accumulation of these articles. … The prison did
not seem to be under any general and uniform army regulations,
but the captives were subject to the caprices of Major Turner,
the officer in charge, and Richard Turner, inspector of the
prison. It was among the rules that no one should go within
three feet of the windows, a rule which seems to be general in
all Southern prisons of this character. … Often by accident,
or unconsciously, an officer would go near a window, and be
instantly shot at without warning. The reports of the sentry's
musket were heard almost every day, and frequently a prisoner
fell either killed or wounded. It was even worse with a large
prison near by, called the Pemberton Buildings, which was
crowded with enlisted men. … The daily ration in the officers'
quarter of Libby Prison was a small loaf of bread about the
size of a man's fist, made of Indian meal. Sometimes it was
made from wheat flour, but of variable quality. It weighed a
little over half a pound. With it was given a piece of beef
weighing two ounces. … But there is a still lower depth of
suffering to be exposed. The rank of the officers, however
disregarded in most respects, induced some consideration, but
for the private soldiers there seemed to be no regard
whatever, and no sentiment which could restrain. It is to this
most melancholy part of their task that the Commissioners now
proceed. Belle Isle is a small island in the James river,
opposite the Tredegar Iron–works, and in full sight from the
Libby windows. … The portion on which the prisoners are
confined is low, sandy, and barren, without a tree to cast a
shadow, and poured upon by the burning rays of a Southern sun.
Here is an enclosure, variously estimated to be from three to
six acres in extent, surrounded by an earthwork about three
feet high, with a ditch on either side. … The interior has
something of the look of an encampment, a number of Sibley
tents being set in rows, with 'streets' between. These tents,
rotten, torn, full of holes,—poor shelter at any
rate,—accommodated only a small proportion of the number who
were confined within these low earth walls. The number varied
at different periods, but from 10,000 to 12,000 men have been
imprisoned in this small space at one time, turned into the
enclosure like so many cattle, to find what resting place they
could. … Thousands had no tents, and no shelter of any kind.
Nothing was provided for their accommodation. Lumber was
plenty in a country of forests, but not a cabin or shed was
built. … Every day, during the winter season, numbers were
conveyed away stiff and stark, having fallen asleep in
everlasting cold. … They were fed as the swine are fed. A
chunk of corn-bread, 12 or 14 ounces in weight, half-baked,
full of cracks as if baked in the sun, musty in taste,
containing whole grains of corn, fragments of cob, and pieces
of husks; meat often tainted, suspiciously like mule–meat, and
a mere mouthful at that; two or three spoonfuls of rotten
beans; soup thin and briny, often with worms floating on the
surface. None of these were given together, and the whole
ration was never one-half the quantity necessary for the
support of a healthy man."
V. Mott, and others,
Report of United States Sanitary Commission Com. of
Inquiry on the Sufferings of Prisoners of War in
the hands of the Rebel Authorities,
chapters 2-3.
The little hamlet of Anderson, so named, in 1853, after John
W. Anderson, of Savannah, but called Andersonville by the Post
Office Department, is situated in the heart of the richest
portion of the cotton and corn-growing region of Georgia, on
the Southwestern Railroad, 62 miles south from Macon and 9
miles north of Americus. "Here, on the 27th day of November,
1863, W. S. Winder, a captain in the rebel army, and who was
selected for the purpose, came and located the grounds, for a
'Confederate States Military Prison.' … When the site was
definitely established, it was found to be covered with a
thick growth of pines and oaks. … It was … suggested to W. S.
Winder by a disinterested spectator of his preliminary
proceedings … that the shade afforded by the trees would prove
grateful protections to the prisoners. The reply was
characteristic of the man and prophetic of their future fate.
'That is just what I am not going to do! I will make a pen
here for the d—d Yankees, where they will rot faster than they
can be sent!' … The trees were leveled to the ground, and the
space was cleared. … No buildings, barracks, houses, or huts
of any kind were built.
{2608}
The canopy of the sky was the only covering." In March, 1864,
John H. Winder, father of the W. S. Winder mentioned above,
became commandant of the post, and with him came Henry Wirz,
as superintendent of the prison. These two names are linked in
infamy with the horrors of the Andersonville Prison-Pen. "The
stockade at Andersonville was originally built, as we learn
from many sources, with a capacity for 10,000, its area being
about 18 acres. It continued without enlargement until the
month of June, 1864, when it was increased about one third,
its area then, as shown by actual survey, being 23½ acres. …
From Colonel Chandler's Inspection Report [the report of a
Confederate official], dated August 5th, 1864, I quote the
following: 'A railing around the inside of the stockade, and
about 20 feet from it, constitutes the 'dead line,' beyond
which prisoners are not allowed to pass. A small stream passes
from west to east through the inclosure, about 150 yards from
its southern limit, and furnishes the only water for washing
accessible to the prisoners. Bordering this stream, about
three quarters of an acre in the centre of the inclosure are
so marshy as to be at present unfit for occupation, reducing
the available present area to about 23½ acres, which gives
somewhat less than six square feet to each prisoner'; and, he
remarks, 'even this is being constantly reduced by the
additions to their number.' … Dr. Joseph Jones, Professor of
Chemistry in the Medical College of Georgia, … went to
Andersonville under the direction of the surgeon general of
the Confederacy, pursuant to an order dated Richmond,
Virginia, August 6th, 1864. … Dr. Jones proceeds to give a
table illustrating the mean strength of prisoners confined in
the stockade. … His table … shows the following as the mean
result: March, 7,500; April, 10,000; May, 15,000; June,
22,291; July, 29,030; August, 32,899. He says: 'Within the
circumscribed area of the stockade the Federal prisoners were
compelled to perform all the offices of life, cooking,
washing, urinating, defecation, exercise, and sleeping.' …
'The low grounds bordering the stream were covered with human
excrement and filth of all kinds, which in many cases appeared
to be alive with working maggots. An indescribable sickening
stench arose from the fermenting mass of human dung and
filth.' And again: 'There were nearly 5,000 seriously-ill
Federals in the stockade and Confederate States Military
Prison Hospital, and the deaths exceeded 100 per day. … I
visited 2,000 sick within the stockade, lying under some long
sheds which they had built at the northern portion for
themselves. At this time only one medical officer was in
attendance.'" At the close of the war, Wirz, the inhuman
jailor of Andersonville was tried for his many crimes before a
military commission, over which General Lewis Wallace
presided, was condemned and was hanged, at Andersonville,
November 10, 1865. His superior officer, Winder, escaped the
earthly tribunal by dying of a gangrenous disorder, which had
been caused, without doubt, by the poisoned air of the place.
A. Spencer,
Narrative of Andersonville,
chapters 1, 4, 5, 13, 15.
"There can be no accurate count of the mortality in rebel
prisons. The report made by the War Department to the 40th
Congress shows that about 188,000 Union soldiers were captured
by the Confederates; that half of them were paroled, and half
confined in prison; of this number 36,000 died in captivity.
The Union armies, on the other hand, captured 476,000
Confederates: of these 227,000 were retained as prisoners, and
30,000 died. While the percentage of mortality in Northern
prisons was 13 in the hundred, that in rebel prisons was 38."
J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
Abraham Lincoln,
volume 7, chapter 16.
Report of Special Commission on Treatment of Prisoners
(H.R. Report No. 45, 40th Cong., 3d Session).
Trial of Henry Wirz.
Southern Historical Society Papers,
volume 1.
ALSO IN:
J. McElroy,
Andersonville.
[https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4257 (volume 1)]
F. F. Cavada,
Libby Life.
A. B. Isham, H. M. Davidson and H. B. Furness,
Prisoners of War and Military Prisons.
PRIVATE WARFARE, The Right of.
See LANDFRIEDE.
PRIVATEERING, American, in the War of 1812.
"The war [of 1812-14] lasted about three years, and the result
was, as near as I have been able to ascertain, a loss to Great
Britain of about 2,000 ships and vessels of every description,
including men-of-war and merchantmen. Eighteen hundred sail
are recorded as having been taken, burnt, sunk, or destroyed.
To this number may be added 200 more, which were either
destroyed or considered too insignificant to be reported;
making an aggregate of 2,000 sail of British shipping captured
by our little navy, with the aid of privateers and
letters-of-marque. … I have not had sufficient time in giving
this summary to ascertain, precisely, what proportion of these
2,000 vessels were captured by the United States government
ships; but, at a rough estimate, should judge one-third part
of the whole number, leaving two-thirds, or, say, 1330 sail,
to have been taken by American privateers and private-armed
vessels. I have found it difficult to ascertain the exact
number of our own vessels taken and destroyed by the English;
but, from the best information I can obtain, I should judge
they would not amount to more than 500 sail. It must be
recollected that the most of our losses occurred during the
first six months of the war. After that period, we had very
few vessels afloat, except privateers and letters-of–marque."
G. Coggeshall,
History of American Privateers, 1812-14,
pages 394-395.
PRIVATEERS.
LETTERS OF MARQUE.
"Until lately all maritime states have … been in the habit of
using privateers, which are vessels belonging to private
owners, and sailing under a commission of war [such
commissions being denominated letters of marque and reprisal]
empowering the person to whom it is granted to carry on all
forms of hostility which are permissible at sea by the usages
of war. … Universally as privateers were formerly employed,
the right to use them has now almost disappeared from the
world. It formed part of the Declaration adopted at the
Congress of Paris in 1856 with reference to Maritime Law that
'privateering is and remains abolished'; and all civilised
states have since become signataries of the Declaration,
except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. For the future
privateers can only be employed by signataries of the
Declaration of Paris during war with one of the last-mentioned
states."
W. E. Hall,
Treatise on International Law,
part 3, chapter 7, section 180.
{2609}
"There is a distinction between a privateer and a letter of
marque in this, that the former are always equipped for the
sole purpose of war, while the latter may be a merchantman,
uniting the purposes of commerce to those of capture. In
popular language, however, all private vessels commissioned
for hostile purposes, upon the enemy's property, are called
letters of marque."
F. H. Upton,
The Law of Nations affecting Commerce during War,
page 186.
See, also, DECLARATION OF PARIS.
PRIVILEGE OF UNION AND GENERAL PRIVILEGE OF ARAGON.
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.
PRIVILEGIUM MAJUS, THE.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
PRIVY COUNCIL, THE.
"It was in the reign of Henry VI. that the King's Council
first assumed the name of the 'Privy Council,' and it was also
during the minority of this King that a select Council was
gradually emerging from out of the larger body of the Privy
Council, which ultimately resulted in the institution of our
modern Cabinet.
See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
From the accession of Henry VII. to the reign of Charles I.
the Privy Council was wholly subservient to the royal will,
and the instrument of unconstitutional and arbitrary
proceedings. The first act of the Long Parliament was to
deprive the Council of most of its judicial power, leaving,
however, its constitution and political functions unchanged.
Since the Revolution of 1688 the Privy Council has dwindled
into comparative insignificance, when contrasted with its
original authoritative position. Its judicial functions are
now restrained within very narrow limits. The only relic of
its ancient authority in criminal matters is its power of
taking examinations, and issuing commitments for treason. It
still, however, continues to exercise an original jurisdiction
in advising the Crown concerning the grant of charters, and it
has exclusively assumed the appellate jurisdiction over the
colonies and dependencies of the Crown, which formerly
appertained to the Council in Parliament. Theoretically, the
Privy Council still retains its ancient supremacy, and in a
constitutional point of view is presumed to be the only legal
and responsible Council of the Crown. … As her Majesty can
only act through her privy councillors, or upon their advice,
all the higher and more formal acts of administration must
proceed from the authority of the Sovereign in Council, and
their performance be directed by orders issued by the
Sovereign at a meeting of the Privy Council specially convened
for that purpose. No rule can be laid down defining those
political acts of the Crown which may be performed upon the
advice of particular ministers, or those which must be
exercised only 'in Council'—the distinction depends partly on
usage and partly on the wording of Acts of Parliament. … The
ancient functions of the Privy Council are now performed by
committees, excepting those formal measures which proceed from
the authority of her Majesty in Council. The acts of these
committees are designated as those of the Lords of the
Council. These Lords of Council (who are usually selected by
the Lord President of the Council, of whom more hereafter)
constitute a high court of record for the Investigation of all
offences against the Government, and of such other
extraordinary matters as may be brought before them. … If the
matter be one properly cognisable by a legal tribunal, it is
referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This
committee, which is composed of the Lord President, the Lord
Chancellor, and such members of the Privy Council as from time
to time hold certain high judicial offices, has jurisdiction
in appeals from all colonial courts: it is also the supreme
court of maritime jurisdiction, and the tribunal wherein the
Crown exercises its judicial supremacy in ecclesiastical
cases. The Privy Council has also to direct local authorities
throughout the kingdom in matters affecting the preservation
of the public health. A committee of the Privy Council is also
appointed to provide 'for the general management and
superintendence of Education,' and subject to this committee
is the Science and Art Department for the United Kingdom. …
Formerly meetings of the Council were frequently held, but
they now seldom occur oftener than once in three or four
weeks, and are always convened to assemble at the royal
residence for the time being. The attendance of seven Privy
Councillors used to be regarded as the quorum necessary to
constitute a Council for ordinary purposes of state, but this
number has been diminished frequently to only three. No Privy
Councillor presumes to attend upon any meeting of the Privy
Council unless specially summoned. The last time the whole
Council was convoked was in 1839. Privy Councillors are
appointed absolutely, without patent or grant, at the
discretion of the Sovereign. Their number is unlimited. …
Since the separate existence of the Cabinet Council, meetings
of the Privy Council for purposes of deliberation have ceased
to be held. The Privy Council consists ordinarily of the
members of the Royal Family, the Archbishops of Canterbury and
York, the Bishop of London, all the Cabinet Ministers, the
Lord Chancellor, the chief officers of the Royal Household,
the Judges of the Courts of Equity, the Chief Justices of the

Courts of Common Law, and some of the Puisne Judges, the
Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Judges and the Judge-Advocate,
the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker of the House of
Commons, the Ambassadors and the Chief Ministers
Plenipotentiary, the Governors of the chief colonies, the
Commander-in-Chief, the Vice-President of the Committee of
Council for Education, certain other officials I need not
particularise, and occasionally a Junior Lord of the
Admiralty, though it is not usual for Under Secretaries of
State or Junior Lords of the Treasury or Admiralty to have
this rank conferred upon them. A seat in the Privy Council is
sometimes given to persons retiring from the public service,
who have filled responsible situations under the Crown, as an
honorary distinction. A Privy Councillor is styled Right
Honourable, and he takes precedence of all baronets, knights,
and younger sons of viscounts and barons."
A. C. Ewald,
The Crown and its Advisers,
lecture 2.
ALSO IN:
A. V. Dicey,
The Privy Council.
{2610}
PROBULI, The.
A board of ten provisional councillors, instituted at Athens
during the later period of the Peloponnesian War, after the
great calamity at Syracuse. It was intended to introduce a
conservative agency into the too democratic constitution of
the state; to be "a board composed of men of mature age, who
should examine all proposals and motions, after which only
such among the latter as this board had sanctioned and
approved should come before the citizens. This new board was,
at the same time, in urgent cases itself to propose the
necessary measures."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 5.
See ATHENS; B. C. 413-411.
PROBUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 276-282.
PROBUS, Wall of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 277.
PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, Controversy on.
See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.
PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR, ROMAN.
"If a Consul was pursuing his operations ever so successfully,
he was liable to be superseded at the year's close by his
successor in the Consulship: and this successor brought with
him new soldiers and new officers; everything, it would seem,
had to be done over again. This was always felt in times of
difficulty, and the constitutional usages were practically
suspended. … In the year 328 B. C. the Senate first assumed
the power of decreeing that a Consul or Prætor might be
continued in his command for several successive years, with
the title of Proconsul, or Proprætor, the power of these
officers being, within their own district, equal to the power
of the Consul or Prætor himself. The Proconsul also was
allowed to keep part of his old army, and would of course
continue his Tribunes and Centurions in office. … Almost all
the great successes of Marcellus and Scipio were gained in
Proconsular commands."
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 35.
PROCURATOR.
PROCTOR.
See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
PROHIBITIONISTS.
A party in American politics which contends for the enactment
of laws to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating
liquors.
PROMANTY, The Right of.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
PROPAGANDA, The College of the.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1622.
PROPHESYINGS.
In the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, among those
English reformers who were subsequently known as Puritans,
"the clergy in several dioceses set up, with encouragement
from their superiors, a certain religious exercise, called
prophesyings. They met at appointed times to expound and
discuss together particular texts of Scripture, under the
presidency of a moderator appointed by the bishop, who
finished by repeating the substance of their debate, with his
own determination upon it. These discussions were in public,
and it was contended that this sifting of the grounds of their
faith, and habitual argumentation, would both tend to edify
the people, very little acquainted as yet with their religion,
and supply in some degree the deficiencies of learning among
the pastors themselves." The prophesyings, however, were
suppressed by the queen and Archbishop Parker.
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 4 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. B. Marsden,
History of the Early Puritans,
chapter 4. sections 7-25.
PROPHETS, The Hebrew.
"The Hebrew word 'Nabi' is derived from the verb 'naba.' … The
root of the verb is said to be a word signifying 'to boil or
bubble over,' and is thus taken from the metaphor of a
fountain bursting forth from the heart of man, into which God
has poured it. Its actual meaning is 'to pour forth excited
utterances,' as appears from its occasional use in the sense
of 'raving.' Even to this day, in the East, the ideas of
prophet and madman are closely connected. The religious sense,
in which, with these exceptions, the word is always employed,
is that of 'speaking' or 'singing under a divine afflatus or
impulse,' to which the peculiar form of the word, as just
observed, lends itself. … It is this word that the Seventy
translated by a Greek term not of frequent usage in classical
authors, but which, through their adoption of it, has passed
into all modern European languages; namely, the word …
Prophet. … The English words 'prophet,' 'prophecy,'
'prophesying,' originally kept tolerably close to the Biblical
use of the word. The celebrated dispute about 'prophesyings,'
in the sense of 'preachings,' in the reign of Elizabeth, and
the treatise of Jeremy Taylor on 'The Liberty of Prophesying,'
i. e. the liberty of preaching, show that even down to the
seventeenth century the word was still used, as in the Bible,
for 'preaching,' or 'speaking according to the will of God.'
In the seventeenth century, however, the limitation of the
word to the sense of 'prediction' had gradually begun to
appear. … The Prophet then was 'the messenger or interpreter
of the Divine will.'"
Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 19 (volume 1).
PROPHETS, Schools of the.
See EDUCATION, ANCIENT; JUDÆA.
PROPONTIS, The.
The small sea which intervenes between the Pontus Euxinus
(Black Sea) and the Ægean. So-called by the Greeks; now called
the Sea of Marmora.
PROPRÆTOR, Roman.
See PROCONSUL.
PROPYLÆA OF THE ACROPOLIS, The.
See ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.
PROTECTIVE TARIFFS.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION.
PROTECTORATE, Cromwell's.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (DECEMBER); 1654-1658.
PROTESTANT, Origin of the name.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
PROTESTANT FLAIL, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.
----------PROTESTANT REFORMATION: Start--------
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Bohemia.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415. and after.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, to 1558-1588.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
France.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535; and
FRANCE; A. D. 1532-1547, and after.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Germany.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522,
1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563;
also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, and 1530-1532,
to 1552-1561;
also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1518-1572.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Ireland: its failure.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555, and after.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Piedmont.
See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557; 1557; 1558-1560;
and 1561-1568.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Sweden and Denmark.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES; A. D. 1397-1527.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Switzerland.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;
and GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.
----------PROTESTANT REFORMATION: End--------
PROTOSEVASTOS.
See SEVASTOS.
{2611}
PROVENCE:
Roman origin.
"The colonization of Narbo [Narbonne, B. C. 118] may be
considered as the epoch when the Romans finally settled the
province of southern Gallia, which they generally named Gallia
Provincia, and sometimes simply Provincia. From the time of
Augustus it was named Narbonensis Provincia, and sometimes
Gallia Braccata. It comprehended on the east all the country
between the Rhone and the Alps. The most northeastern town in
the Provincia was Geneva in the territory of the Allobroges.
Massilia, the ally of Rome, remained a free city. On the west
side of the Rhone, from the latitude of Lugdunum (Lyon), the
Cevenna, or range of the Cévennes, was the boundary of the
Provincia. … The limits of the Provincia were subsequently
extended to Carcaso (Carcassone) and Tolosa (Toulouse); and it
will appear afterwards that some additions were made to it
even on the other side of the Cévennes. This country is a part
of France which is separated by natural boundaries from the
rest of that great empire, and in climate and products it is
Italian rather than French. In the Provincia the Romans have
left some of the noblest and most enduring of their great
works."
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 22.
The Provincia of the Romans became the Provence of mediæval
times.
PROVENCE:
Cession to the Visigoths.
"The fair region which we now call Provence, nearly the
earliest formed and quite the latest lost 'Provincia' of Rome,
that region in which the Latin spirit dwelt so strongly that
the Roman nobles thought of migrating thither in 401, when
Alaric first invaded Italy, refused to submit to the rule of
the upstart barbarian [Odovacar, or Odoacer, who subverted the
Western Empire in 476]. The Provençals sent an embassy to
Constantinople to claim the protection of Zeno for the still
loyal subjects of the Empire." But Zeno "inclined to the cause
of Odovacar. The latter, however, who perhaps thought that he
had enough upon his hands without forcing his yoke on the
Provençals, made over his claim to Euric king of the
Visigoths, whose influence was at this time predominant in
Gaul."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 3).
See, also,
ARLES: A. D. 508-510.
PROVENCE: A. D. 493-526.
Embraced in the Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric.
See ROME: A. D. 488-526.
PROVENCE: A. D. 536.
Cession to the Franks.
Out of the wreck of the Visigothic kingdom in Gaul, when it
was overthrown by the Frank king, Clovis, the Ostrogothic king
of Italy, Theodoric, seems to have secured Provence. Eleven
years after the death of Theodoric, and on the eve of the
subversion of his own proudly planted kingdom, in 536, his
successor Witigis, or Vitigis, bought the neutrality of the
Franks by the cession to them of all the Ostrogothic
possessions in Gaul, which were Provence and part of Dauphiné.
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 3 (volume 3),
and book 5, chapter 3 (volume 4).
PROVENCE: A. D. 877-933.
The Kingdom.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092.
The Kings become Counts.
The Spanish connection.
"Southern France, … after having been the inheritance of
several of the successors of Charlemagne, was elevated in 870
to the rank of an independent kingdom, by Bozon, who was
crowned at Mantes under the title of King of Arles, and who
reduced under his dominion Provence, Dauphiny, Savoy, the
Lyonnese, and some provinces of Burgundy. The sovereignty of
this territory exchanged, in 943, the title of King for that
of Count, under Bozon II.; but the kingdom of Provence was
preserved entire, and continued in the house of Burgundy, of
which Bozon I. was the founder. This noble house became
extinct in 1092, in the person of Gilibert, who left only two
daughters, between whom his possessions were divided. One of
these, Faydide, married Alphonso, Count of Toulouse; and the
other, Douce, became the wife of Raymond Berenger, Count of
Barcelona. … The accession of Raymond Berenger, Count of
Barcelona and husband of Douce, to the throne of Provence,
gave a new direction to the national spirit, by the mixture of
the Catalans with the Provençals. … Raymond Berenger and his
successors introduced into Provence the spirit both of liberty
and chivalry, and a taste for elegance and the arts, with all
the sciences of the Arabians. The union of these noble
sentiments gave birth to that poetical spirit which shone out,
at once, over Provence and all the south of Europe, like an
electric flash in the midst of the most palpable darkness,
illuminating all things by the brightness of its flame."
J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
Literature of the South of Europe,
chapter 3 (volume l).
See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
Before the Albigensian Crusade.
"At the accession of Philippe Auguste [crowned as joint-king
of France, 1179, succeeded his father, 1180], the greater part
of the south of France was holden, not of him, but of Pedro of
Arragon, as the supreme suzerain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
To the Arragonese king belonged especially the counties of
Provence, Forcalquier, Narbonne, Beziers, and Carcassonne. His
supremacy was acknowledged by the Counts of Bearn, of
Armagnac, of Bigorre, of Comminges, of Foix, of Roussillon,
and of Montpellier; while the powerful Count of Toulouse,
surrounded by his estates and vassals, maintained with
difficulty his independence against him. To these extensive
territories were given the names sometimes of Provence, in the
larger and less exact use of that word, and sometimes of
Languedoc, in allusion to the rich, harmonious, picturesque,
and flexible language which was then vernacular there.
See LANGUE D'OC.
They who used it called themselves Provençaux or Aquitanians,
to indicate that they were not Frenchmen, but members of a
different and indeed of a hostile nation. Tracing their
descent to the ancient Roman colonists and to the Gothic
invaders of Southern Gaul, the Provençaux regarded with a
mixture of contempt, of fear, and ill will, the inhabitants of
the country north of the Loire, who had made far less progress
than themselves, either in civil liberty, or in the arts and
refinements of social life. … Toulouse, Marseilles, Arles,
Beziers, and many other of their greater cities, emulous of
the Italian republics, with whom they traded and formed
alliances, were themselves living under a government which was
virtually republican. Each of these free cities being,
however, the capital of one of the greater lords among whom
the whole of Aquitaine was parceled out, became the seat of a
princely and luxurious court.
{2612}
A genial climate, a fertile soil, and an active commerce,
rendered the means of subsistence abundant even to the poor,
and gave to the rich ample resources for indulging in all the
gratifications which wealth can purchase. … They lived as if
life had been one protracted holiday. Theirs was the land of
feasting, of gallantry, and of mirth. … They refined and
enhanced the pleasures of appetite by the pleasures of the
imagination. They played with the stern features of war in
knightly tournaments. They parodied the severe toils of
justice in their courts of love. They transferred the poet's
sacred office and high vocation to the Troubadours, whose
amatory and artificial effusions posterity has willingly let
die, notwithstanding the recent labours of MM. Raynouard and
Fauriel to revive them."
Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 7.
"In the south of France, more particularly, peace, riches, and
a court life, had introduced, amongst the nobility, an extreme
laxity of manners. Gallantry seems to have been the sole
object of their existence. The ladies, who only appeared in
society after marriage, were proud of the celebrity which
their lovers conferred on their charms. They were delighted
with becoming the objects of the songs of their Troubadour;
nor were they offended at the poems composed in their praise,
in which gallantry was often mingled with licentiousness. They
even themselves professed the Gay Science, 'el Gai Saber,' for
thus poetry was called; and, in their turn, they expressed
their feelings in tender and impassioned verses. They
instituted Courts of Love, where questions of gallantry were
gravely debated and decided by their suffrages. They gave, in
short, to the whole south of France the character of a
carnival, affording a singular contrast to the ideas of
reserve, virtue, and modesty, which we usually attribute to
those good old times."
J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
Literature of the South of Europe,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
C. C. Fauriel,
History of Provençal Poetry.
See, also, TROUBADOURS.
PROVENCE: A. D. 1209-1242.
The Albigensian Crusades.
See ALBIGENSES.
PROVENCE: A. D. 1246.
The count becomes founder of the Third House of Anjou.
See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
PROVENCE: A. D. 1348.
Sale and transfer of Avignon to the Pope.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
PROVENCE: A. D. 1536-1546.
Invasion by Charles V.
Defensive wasting of the country.
Massacre of Waldenses.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
PROVENCE: 16th Century.
Strength of Protestantism.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
----------PROVENCE: End--------
PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND:
The Plantation and the City.
See RHODE ISLAND.
PROVISIONS OF OXFORD AND WESTMINSTER.
See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.
PROVISORS, Statute of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.
PROXENI.
In ancient Sparta, "the so-called Proxeni, whose number was
fluctuating, served as the subordinates of the kings in their
diplomatic communication with foreign States."
G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1, section 9.
PRUSA: A. D. 1326.
The first capital of the Ottomans.
See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326.
----------PRUSSIA: Start--------
PRUSSIA:
The original country and its name.
"Five–hundred miles, and more, to the east of Brandenburg,
lies a Country then [10th century] as now called Preussen
(Prussia Proper), inhabited by Heathens, where also endeavours
at conversion are going on, though without success hitherto. …
Part of the great plain or flat which stretches, sloping
insensibly, continuously, in vast expanse, from the Silesian
Mountains to the amber–regions of the Baltic; Preussen is the
seaward, more alluvial part of this,—extending west and east,
on both sides of the Weichsel (Vistula), from the regions of
the Oder river to the main stream of the Memel.
'Bordering-on-Russia' its name signifies: Bor-Russia,
B'russia, Prussia; or—some say it was only on a certain
inconsiderable river in those parts, river Reussen, that it
'bordered,' and not on the great Country, or any part of it,
which now in our days is conspicuously its next neighbour. Who
knows?—In Henry the Fowler's time, and long afterwards,
Preussen was a vehemently Heathen country; the natives a
Miscellany of rough Serbic Wends, Letts, Swedish Goths, or
Dryasdust knows not what;—very probably a sprinkling of
Swedish Goths, from old time, chiefly along the coasts.
Dryasdust knows only that these Preussen were a strong-boned,
iracund herdsman-and-fisher people; highly averse to be
interfered with, in their religion especially. Famous
otherwise, through all the centuries, for the amber they had
been used to fish, and sell in foreign parts. … Their
knowledge of Christianity was trifling; their aversion to
knowing anything of it was great."
T. Carlyle,
Frederick the Great,
book 2, chapter 2.
PRUSSIA: 13th Century.
Conquered and Christianized by the Teutonic Knights.
The first Christian missionary who ventured among the savage
heathen of Prussia Proper was Adalbert, bishop of Prague, who
fell a martyr to his zeal in 997. For two centuries after that
tragedy they were little disturbed in their paganism; but
early in the 13th century a Pomeranian monk named Christian
succeeded in establishing among them many promising churches.
The heathen party in the country, however, was enraged by the
progress of the Christians and rose furiously against them,
putting numerous converts to the sword. "Other agencies were
now invoked by Bishop Christian, and the 'Order of Knights
Brethren of Dobrin,' formed on the model of that which we have
already encountered in Livonia, was bidden to coerce the
people into the reception of Christianity. But they failed to
achieve the task assigned them, and then it was that the
famous 'Order of Teutonic Knights,' united with the 'Brethren
of the Sword' in Livonia, concentrated their energies on this
European crusade. Originally instituted for the purpose of
succouring German pilgrims in the Holy Land, the 'Order of
Teutonic Knights,' now that the old crusades had become
unpopular, enrolled numbers of eager adventurers determined to
expel the last remains of heathenism from the face of Europe.
After the union of the two Orders had been duly solemnized at
Rome, in the presence of the Pope, in the year A. D. 1238,
they entered the Prussian territory, and for a space of nearly
fifty years continued a series of remorseless wars against the
wretched inhabitants.
{2613}
Slowly but surely they made their way into the very heart of
the country, and secured their conquests by erecting castles,
under the shadow of which rose the towns of Culm, Thorn,
Marienwerder, and Elbing, which they peopled with German
colonists. The authority of the Order knew scarcely any
bounds. Themselves the faithful vassals of the Pope, they
exacted the same implicit obedience, alike from the German
immigrant, or colonist, and the converted Prussians. … In A.
D. 1243 the conquered lands were divided by the Pope into
three bishoprics, Culm, Pomerania, and Ermeland, each of which
was again divided into three parts, one being subject to the
bishop, and the other two to the brethren of the Order."
G. F. Maclear,
Apostles of Mediæval Europe,
chapter 16.
"None of the Orders rose so high as the Teutonic in favour
with mankind. It had by degrees landed possessions far and
wide over Germany and beyond, … and was thought to deserve
favour from above. Valiant servants, these; to whom Heaven had
vouchsafed great labours and unspeakable blessings. In some
fifty or fifty-three years they had got Prussian Heathenism
brought to the ground; and they endeavoured to tie it well
down there by bargain and arrangement. But it would not yet
lie quiet, nor for a century to come; being still secretly
Heathen; revolting, conspiring ever again, ever on weaker
terms, till the Satanic element had burnt itself out, and
conversion and composure could ensue."
T. Carlyle,
History of Frederick the Great,
book 2, chapter 6 (volume l).
See, also, LIVONIA: 12-13TH CENTURIES.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1466-1618.
Conquest and annexation to the Polish crown.
Surrender by the Teutonic Knights.
Erection into a duchy.
Union with the electorate of Brandenburg.
See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572;
and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1626-1629.
Conquests of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
in his war with Poland.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1656-1688.
Complete sovereignty of the duchy acquired by
the Great Elector of Brandenburg.
His curbing of the nobles.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
The Dukedom erected into a Kingdom.
In the last year of the 17th century, Europe was on the verge
of the great War of the Spanish Succession. The Emperor was
making ready to contest the will by which Charles II. of Spain
had bequeathed his crown to Philip, Duke of Anjou, grandson of
Louis XIV. of France.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
"He did not doubt that he would speedily involve England,
Holland, and the Germanic diet in his quarrel. Already several
German princes were pledged to him; he had gained the Duke of
Hanover by an elector's hat, and a more powerful prince, the
Elector of Brandenburg, by a royal crown. By a treaty of
November 16, 1700, the Emperor had consented to the erection
of ducal Prussia into a kingdom, on condition that the new
King should furnish him an aid of 10,000 soldiers. The Elector
Frederick III. apprised his courtiers of this important news
at the close of a repast, by drinking 'to the health of
Frederick I. King of Prussia'; then caused himself to be
proclaimed King at Konigsberg, January 15, 1701."
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 2, chapter 5.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1713.
Neufchatel and Spanish Guelderland acquired.
Orange relinquished.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1717-1809.
Abolition of serfdom.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1720.
Acquisition of territory from Sweden, including Stettin.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1720-1794.
Reign of Frederick William I., and after.
The later history of Prussia, under Frederick William,
Frederick the Great, and their successors, will be found
included in that of GERMANY.
----------PRUSSIA: End--------
PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, The Old.
"The Old Prussian, a member of the Lithuanic family of
languages, was spoken here as late as the 16th century,
remains of which, in the shape of a catechism, are extant.
This is the language of the ancient Æstyi, or 'Men of the
East,' which Tacitus says was akin to the British, an error
arising from the similarity of name, since a Slavonian … would
call the two languages by names so like as 'Prytskaia' and
'Brytskaia,' and a German … by names so like as 'Pryttisc' and
'Bryttisc.' The Guttones, too, of Pliny, whose locality is
fixed from the fact of their having been collectors of the
amber of East Prussia and Courland, were of the same stock."
R. G. Latham,
The Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 8.
PRUTH, The Treaty of the (1711).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
PRYDYN.
See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.
PRYTANES.
PRYTANEUM.
The Council of Four Hundred, said to have been instituted at
Athens by Solon, "was divided into sections, which, under the
venerable name of prytanes, succeeded each other throughout
the year as the representatives of the whole body. Each
section during its term assembled daily in their session
house, the prytaneum, to consult on the state of affairs, to
receive intelligence, information, and suggestions, and
instantly to take such measures as the public interest
rendered it necessary to adopt without delay. … According to
the theory of Solon's constitution, the assembly of the people
was little more than the organ of the council, as it could
only act upon the propositions laid before it by the latter."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 11.
"Clisthenes … enlarged the number of the senate, 50 being now
elected by lot from each tribe, so as to make in all 500. Each
of these companies of 50 acted as presidents of both the
senate and the assemblies, for a tenth part of the year, under
the name of Prytanes: and each of these tenth parts, of 35 or
36 days, so as to complete a lunar year, was called a
Prytany."
G. F. Schömann,
Dissertation on the Assemblies of the Athenians,
page 14.
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.
PRYTANIS.
A title frequently recurring among the Greeks was that of
Prytanis, which signified prince, or supreme ruler. "Even
Hiero, the king or tyrant of Syracuse, is addressed by Pindar
as Prytanis. At Corinth, after the abolition of the monarchy,
a Prytanis, taken from the ancient house of the Bacchiadæ, was
annually appointed as supreme magistrate
See CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.
… The same title was borne by the supreme magistrate in the
Corinthian colony of Corcyra. … In Rhodes we find in the time
of Polybius a Prytany lasting for six months."
G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 2, chapter 5.
{2614}
PSALTER OF CASHEL.
PSALTER OF TARA.
See TARA, HILL AND FEIS OF.
PSEPHISM.
A decree, or enactment, in ancient Athens.
PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN DECRETALS, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.
PTOLEMAIS, Syria.
See ACRE.
PTOLEMIES, The.
See EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.
PTOLEMY KERAUNOS, The intrigues and death of.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280;
and GAULS: B. C. 280-279.
PTOLEMY SOTER, and the Wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316, to 297-280;
and EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.
PTOLEMY'S CANON.
An important chronological list of Chaldean, Persian,
Macedonian and Egyptian kings, compiled or continued by
Claudius Ptolemæus, an Alexandrian mathematician and
astronomer in the reign of the Second Antoninus.
W. Hales,
New Analysis of Chronology,
volume I, book 1.
PUANS, OR WINNEBAGOES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
PUBLIC MEALS.
See SYSSITIA.
PUBLIC PEACE, The.
See LANDFRIEDE.
PUBLIC WEAL, League of the.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1461-1468; and 1453-1461.
PUBLICANI.
The farmers of the taxes, among the Romans.
See VECTIGAL.
PUBLICIANI, The.
See ALBIGENSES;
and PAULICIANS.
PUEBLA: Capture by the French (1862).
See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
PUBLILIAN LAW OF VOLERO, The.
See ROME: B. C. 472-471.
PUBLILIAN LAWS, The.
See ROME: B. C. 340.
PUEBLOS.
The Spanish word pueblo, meaning town, village, or the
inhabitants thereof, has acquired a special signification as
applied, first, to the sedentary or village Indians of New
Mexico and Arizona, and then to the singular villages of
communal houses which they inhabit.
D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
page 113.
"The purely civic colonies of California were called pueblos
to distinguish them from missions or presidios. The term
pueblo, in its most extended meaning, may embrace towns of
every description, from a hamlet to a city. … However, in its
special significance, a pueblo means a corporate town."
F. W. Blackmar,
Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
chapter 8.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
PUELTS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
PUERTO CAVELLO, Spanish capitulation at (1823).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.
PUJUNAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUJUNAN FAMILY.
PULASKI, Fort: A. D. 1861.
Threatened by the Union forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA—GEORGIA).
PULASKI, Fort: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
Siege and capture.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).
PULLANI, The.
The descendants of the first Crusaders who remained in the
East and married Asiatic women are represented as having been
a very despicable half-breed race. They were called the
Pullani. Prof. Palmer suggests a derivation of the name from
"fulani," anybodies. Mr. Keightley, on the contrary, states
that before the crusading colonists overcame their prejudice
against Oriental wives, women were brought to them from
Apulia, in Italy. Whence the name Pullani, applied
indiscriminately to an the progeny of the Latin settlers.
W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
T. Keightley,
The Crusaders,
chapter 2.
PULTNEY ESTATE, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
PULTOWA, Battle of (1709).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
PULTUSK,
Battle of (1703).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
Battle of (1806).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.
PUMBADITHA, The. School of.
See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.
PUNCAS, OR PONCAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
PUNIC.
The adjective Punicus, derived from the name of the
Phœnicians, was used by the Romans in a sense which commonly
signified "Carthaginian,"—the Carthaginians being of Phœnician
origin. Hence "Punic Wars," "Punic faith," etc., the phrase
"Punic faith" being an imputation of faithlessness and
treachery.
----------PUNIC WARS: Start--------
PUNIC WARS,
The First.
When Pyrrhus quitted Italy he is said to have exclaimed, "How
fair a battle–field are we leaving to the Romans and
Carthaginians." He may easily have had sagacity to foresee the
deadly struggle which Rome and Carthage would soon be engaged
in, and he might as easily have predicted, too, that the
beginning of it would be in Sicily. Rome had just settled her
supremacy in the whole Italian peninsula; she was sure to
covet next the rich island that lies so near to it. In fact,
there was bred quickly in the Roman mind such an eagerness to
cross the narrow strait that it waited only for the slenderest
excuse. A poor pretext was found in the year 264 B. C. and it
was so despicably poor that the proud Roman senators turned
over to the popular assembly of the Comitia the responsibility
of accepting it. There came to Rome from Messene, in Sicily—or
Messana, as the Romans called the city—an appeal. It did not
come from the citizens of Messene, but from a band of
freebooters who had got possession of the town. These were
mercenaries from Campania (lately made Roman territory by the
Samnite conquest) who had been in the pay of Agathocles of
Syracuse. Disbanded on that tyrant's death, they had
treacherously seized Messene, slain most of the male
inhabitants, taken to themselves the women, and settled down
to a career of piracy and robbery, assuming the name of
Mamertinl,—children of Mamers, or Mars. Of course, all Sicily,
both Greek and Carthaginian, was roused against them by the
outrages they committed. Being hard pressed, the Mamertines
invoked, as Italians, the protection of Rome; although one
party among them appears to have preferred an arrangement of
terms with the Carthaginians.
{2615}
The Roman Senate, being ashamed to extend a friendly hand to
the Mamertine cutthroats, but not having virtue enough to
decline an opportunity for fresh conquests, referred the
question to the people at large. The popular vote sent an army
into Sicily, and Messene, then besieged by Hiero of Syracuse
on one side and by a Carthaginian army on the other, was
relieved of both. The Romans thereon proceeded, in two
aggressive campaigns, against Syracusans and Carthaginians
alike, until Hiero bought peace with them, at a heavy cost,
and became their half-subject ally for the remainder of his
life. The war with the Carthaginians was but just commenced.
Its first stunning blow was struck at Agrigentum, the splendid
city of Phalaris, which the Carthaginians had destroyed, B. C.
405, which Timoleon had rebuilt, and which one of the
Hannibals ("son of Gisco") now seized upon for his stronghold.
In a great battle fought under the walls of Agrigentum (B. C.
262) Hannibal lost the city and all but a small remnant of his
army. But the successes of the Romans on land were worth
little to them while the Carthaginians commanded the sea.
Hence they resolved to create a fleet, and are said to have
built a hundred ships of the quinquereme order and twenty
triremes within sixty days, while rowers for them were trained
by all imitative exercise on land. The first squadron of this
improvised navy was trapped at Lipara and lost; the remainder
was successful in its first encounter with the enemy. But
where naval warfare depended on good seamanship the Romans
were no match for the Carthaginians. They contrived therefore
a machine for their ships, called the Corvus, or raven, by
which, running straight on the opposing vessel, they were able
to grasp it by the throat, so to speak, and force fighting at
close quarters. That accomplished, they were tolerably sure of
victory. With their corvus they half annihilated the
Carthaginian fleet in a great sea-fight at Mylæ, B. C. 260,
and got so much mastery of the sea that they were able to
attack their Punic foes even in the island of Sardinia, but
without much result. In 257 B. C. another naval battle of
doubtful issue was fought at Tyndaris, and the following year,
in the great battle of Ecnomus, the naval power of the
Carthaginians, for the time being, was utterly crushed. Then
followed the invasion of Carthaginian territory by Regulus,
his complete successes at first, his insolent proposal of hard
terms, and the tremendous defeat which overwhelmed him at Adis
a little later, when he, himself, was taken prisoner. The
miserable remnant of the Roman army which held its ground at
Clypea on the African coast was rescued the next year (B. C.
255) by a new fleet, but only to be destroyed on the voyage
homeward, with 260 ships, in a great storm on the south coast
of Sicily. Then Carthaginians reappeared in Sicily and the war
in that unhappy island was resumed. In 254 B. C. the Romans
took the strong fortified city of Panormus. In 253, having
built and equipped another fleet, they were robbed of it again
by a storm at sea, and the Carthaginians gained ground and
strength in Sicily. In 251 the Roman consul, Cæcilius
Metellus, drove them back from the walls of Panormus and
inflicted on them so discouraging a defeat, that they sent
Regulus, their prisoner, on parole, with an embassy, to
solicit peace at Rome. How Regulus advised his countrymen
against peace, and how he returned to Carthage to meet a cruel
death—the traditional story is familiar to all readers, but
modern criticism throws doubt upon it. In 250 B. C. the Romans
undertook the siege of Lilybæum, which, with the neighboring
port of Drepana, were the only strongholds left to the
Carthaginians. The siege then commenced was one of the most
protracted in history, for when the First Punic War ended,
nine years later, Lilybæum was still resisting, and the Romans
only acquired it with all the rest of Sicily, under the terms
of the treaty of peace. Meantime the Carthaginians won a
bloody naval victory at Drepana (B. C. 249) over the Roman
fleet, and the latter, in the same year, had a third fleet
destroyed on the coast by relentless storms. In the year 247
B. C. the Carthaginian command in Sicily was given to the
great Hamilcar, surnamed Barca, who was the father of a yet
greater man, the Hannibal who afterwards brought Rome very
near to destruction. Hamilcar Barca, having only a few
mutinous mercenary soldiers at his command, and almost
unsupported by the authorities at Carthage, established
himself, first, on the rocky height of Mount Ercte, or Hercte,
near Panormus, and afterwards on Mount Eryx, and harassed the
Romans for six years. The end came at last as the consequence
of a decisive naval victory near the Ægatian Isles, which the
Romans achieved, with a newly built fleet, in March B. C. 241.
The Carthaginians, discouraged, proposed peace, and purchased
it by evacuating Sicily and paying a heavy war indemnity. Thus
Rome acquired Sicily, but the wealth and civilization of the
great island had been ruined beyond recovery.
R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthaginians,
chapters 4-7.
ALSO IN:
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 3.
Polybius,
Histories,
book l.
A. J. Church,
The Story of Carthage,
part 4, chapters 1-3.
See, also, ROME: B. C. 264-241.
PUNIC WARS:
The Second.
Between the First Punic War and the Second there was an
interval of twenty-three years. Carthage, meantime, had been
brought very near to destruction by the Revolt of the
Mercenaries and had been saved by the capable energy of
Hamilcar Barca.
See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.
Then the selfish faction which hated Hamilcar had regained
power in the Punic capital, and the Barcine patriot could do
no more than obtain command of an army which he led, on his
own responsibility, into Spain, B. C. 237. The Carthaginians
had inherited from the Phœnicians a considerable commerce with
Spain, but do not seem to have organized a control of the
country until Hamilcar took the task in hand. Partly by
pacific influences and partly by force, he established a rule,
rather personal than Carthaginian, which extended over nearly
all southern Spain. With the wealth that he drew from its gold
and silver mines he maintained his army and bought or bribed
at Carthage the independence he needed for the carrying out of
his plans. He had aimed from the first, no doubt, at
organizing resources with which to make war on Rome. Hamilcar
was killed in battle, B. C. 228, and his son-in-law,
Hasdrubal, who succeeded him, lived only seven years more.
Then Hannibal, the son of Hamilcar, in his twenty–sixth year,
was chosen to the command in Spain.
{2616}
He waited two years, for the settling of his authority and for
making all preparations complete, and then he threw down a
challenge to the Romans for the war which he had sworn to his
father that he would make the one purpose of his life. The
provocation of war was the taking of the city of Saguntum, a
Greek colony on the Spanish coast, which the Romans had formed
an alliance with. It was taken by Hannibal after a siege of
eight months and after most of the inhabitants had destroyed
themselves, with their wealth. When Rome declared war it was
with the expectation, no doubt, that Spain and Africa would be
the battle grounds. But Hannibal did not wait for her attack.
He led his Spanish army straight to Italy, in the early summer
of B. C. 218, skirting the Pyrenees and crossing the Alps. The
story of his passage of the Alps is familiar to every reader.
The difficulties he encountered were so terrible and the
losses sustained so great that Hannibal descended into Italy
with only 20,000 foot and 6,000 horse, out of 50,000 of the
one and 9,000 of the other which he had led through Gaul. He
received some reinforcement and co-operation from the
Cisalpine Gauls, but their strength had been broken by recent
wars with Rome and they were not efficient allies. In the
first encounter of the Romans with the dread invader, on the
Ticinus, they were beaten, but not seriously. In the next, on
the Trebia, where Scipio, the consul, made a determined stand,
they sustained an overwhelming defeat. This ended the campaign
of B. C. 218. Hannibal wintered in Cisalpine Gaul and passed
the Apennines the following spring into Etruria, stealing a
march on the Roman army, under the popular consul Flaminius,
which was watching to intercept him. The latter pursued and
was caught in ambush at Lake Trasimene, where Flaminius and
15,000 of his men were slain, while most of the survivors of
the fatal field were taken prisoners and made slaves. Rome
then seemed open to the Carthaginian, but he knew, without
doubt, that his force was not strong enough for the besieging
of the city, and he made no attempt. What he aimed at was the
isolating of Rome and the arraying of Italy against her, in a
great and powerfully handled combination of the jealousies and
animosities which he knew to exist. He led his troops
northward again, after the victory of Lake Trasimene, across
the mountains to the Adriatic coast, and rested them during
the summer. When cooler weather came he moved southward along
the coast into Apulia. The Romans meantime had chosen a
Dictator, Q. Fabius Maximus, a cautious man, whose plan of
campaign was to watch and harass and wear out the enemy,
without risking a battle. It was a policy which earned for him
the name of "The Cunctator," or Lingerer. The Roman people
were discontented with it, and next year (B. C. 216) they
elected for one of the consuls a certain Varro who had been
one of the mouth-pieces of their discontent. In opposition to
his colleague, Æmilius Paullus, Varro soon forced a battle
with Hannibal at Cannæ, in Apulia, and brought upon his
countrymen the most awful disaster in war that they ever knew.
Nearly 50,000 Roman citizens were left dead on the field,
including eighty senators, and half the young nobility of the
state. From the spoils of the field Hannibal was said to have
sent three bushels of golden rings to Carthage, stripped from
the fingers of Roman knights. Rome reeled under the blow, and
yet haughtily refused to ransom the 20,000 prisoners in
Hannibal's hands, while she met the discomfited Varro with
proud thanks, because "he had not despaired of the Republic."
Capua now opened its gates to Hannibal and became the
headquarters of his operations. The people of Southern Italy
declared generally in his favor; but he had reached and
passed, nevertheless, the crowning point of his success. He
received no effective help from Carthage; nor from his brother
in Spain, who was defeated by the elder Scipios, that same
year (B. C. 216) at Ibera, just as he had prepared to lead a
fresh army into Italy. On the other hand, the energies of the
Romans had risen with every disaster. Their Latin subjects
continued faithful to them; but they lost at this time an
important ally in Sicily, by the death of the aged Hiero of
Syracuse, and the Carthaginians succeeded in raising most of
the island against them. The war in Sicily now became for a
time more important than that in Italy, and the consul
Marcellus, the most vigorous of the Roman generals, was sent
to conduct it. His chief object was the taking of Syracuse and
the great city sustained another of the many dreadful sieges
which it was her fate to endure. The siege was prolonged for
two years, and chiefly by the science and the military
inventions of the famous mathematician, Archimides. When the
Romans entered Syracuse at last (B. C. 212) it was to pillage
and slay without restraint, and Archimides was one of the
thousands cut down by their swords. Meantime, in Italy,
Tarentum had been betrayed to Hannibal, but the Romans still
held the citadel of the town. They had gained so much strength
in the field that they were now able to lay siege to Capua and
Hannibal was powerless to relieve it. He attempted a diversion
by marching on Rome, but the threat proved idle and Capua was
left to its fate. The city surrendered soon after (B. C. 211)
and the merciless conquerors only spared it for a new
population. For three or four years after this the war in
Italy was one of minor successes and reverses on both sides,
but Hannibal lost steadily in prestige and strength. In Spain,
Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, had opportunely beaten and
slain (B. C. 212) both the elder Scipios; but another and
greater Scipio, P. Cornelius, son of Publius, had taken the
field and was sweeping the Carthaginians from the peninsula.
Yet, despite Scipio's capture of New Carthage and his
victories, at Bæcula, and elsewhere, Hasdrubal contrived, in
some unexplained way, in the year 208, B. C., to cross the
Pyrenees into Gaul and to recruit reinforcements there for a
movement on Italy. The next spring he passed the Alps and
brought his army safely into Cisalpine Gaul; but his
dispatches to Hannibal fell into the hands of the Romans and
revealed his plans. The swift energy of one of the consuls, C.
Claudius Nero, brought about a marvellous concentration of
Roman forces to meet him, and he and his army perished
together in an awful battle fought on the banks of the
Metaurus, in Umbria. The last hopes of Hannibal perished with

them; but he held his ground in the extreme south of Italy and
no Roman general dared try to dislodge him. When Scipio
returned next year (B. C. 206) and reported the complete
conquest of Spain, he was chosen consul with the understanding
that he would carry the war into Africa, though the senate
stood half opposed.
{2617}
He did so in the early months of the year 204 B. C. crossing
from Sicily with a comparatively small armament and laying
siege to Utica. That year he accomplished nothing, but during
the next winter he struck a terrible blow, surprising and
burning the camps of the Carthaginians and their Numidian
allies and slaughtering 40,000 of their number. This success
was soon followed by another, on the Great Plains, which lie
70 or 80 miles to the southwest of Carthage. The Numidian
king, Syphax, was now driven from his throne and the kingdom
delivered over to an outlawed prince, Massinissa, who became,
thenceforth, the most useful and unscrupulous of allies to the
Romans. Now pushed to despair, the Carthaginians summoned
Hannibal to their rescue. He abandoned Italy at the call and
returned to see his own land for the first time since as a boy
he left it with his father. But even his genius could not save
Carthage with the means at his command. The long war was ended
in October of the year 202 B. C. by the battle which is called
the battle of Zama, though it was fought at some distance
westward of that place. The Carthaginian army was routed
utterly, and Hannibal himself persuaded his countrymen to
accept a peace which stripped them of their ships and their
trade, their possessions in Spain and all the islands, and
their power over the Numidian states, besides wringing from
them a war indemnity of many millions. On those hard terms,
Carthage was suffered to exist a few years longer.
R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthaginians.
ALSO IN:
T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapters 43-47.
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
chapters 31-34.
T. A. Dodge,
Hannibal,
chapters 11-39.
See, also, ROME: B. C. 218-211, to 211-202.
PUNIC WARS:
The Third.
See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146;
and ROME: B. C. 151-146.
----------PUNIC WARS: End--------
PUNJAB,
PUNJAUB,
PANJAB, The.
"Everything has a meaning in India, and the Panjab is only
another name for the Five Rivers which make the historic
Indus. They rise far back among the western Himalayas, bring
down their waters from glaciers twenty-five miles in length,
and peaks 26,000 feet high, and hurl their mighty torrent into
one great current, which is thrown at last into the Arabian
Sea. It is a fertile region, not less so than the Valley of
the Ganges. This Panjab is the open door, the only one by
which the European of earlier days was able to descend upon
the plains of India for conquest and a new home. … In the
Panjab every foot of the land is a romance. No one knows how
many armies have shivered in the winds of the hills of
Afghanistan, and then pounced down through the Khaibar Pass
into India, and overspread the country, until the people could
rise and destroy the stranger within the gates. Whenever a
European invader of Asia has reached well into the continent,
his dream has always been India. That country has ever been,
and still is, the pearl of all the Orient. Its perfect sky in
winter, its plenteous rains in summer, its immense rivers, its
boundless stores of wealth, an its enduring industries, which
know no change, have made it the dream of every great
conqueror."
J. F. Hurst,
Indika,
chapter 75.
"In form, the country is a great triangle, its base resting on
the Himalayan chain and Cashmere, and its apex directed due
south–west. … The five streams which confer its name, counting
them from north to south, are the Upper Indus, the Jhelum, the
Chenab, the Ravee and the Sutlej, the Indus and Sutlej
constituting respectively the western and eastern boundary. …
The four divisions enclosed by the five convergent streams are
called doabs—lands of two waters. … Besides the territory thus
delineated, the Punjab of the Sikhs included Cashmere, the
Jummoo territory to Spiti and Tibet, the trans-Indus frontier
and the Hazara highlands in the west; and to the east the
Jullundhur Doab with Kangra and Noorpoor. These last, with the
frontier, are better known as the cis- and trans-Sutlaj
states."
E. Arnold,
The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
chapter 2 (volume 1).
The Sikhs established their supremacy in the Punjab in the
18th century, and became a formidable power, under the famous
Runjet Singh, in the early part of the 19th century. (The
English conquest of the Sikhs and annexation of the Punjab to
British India took place in 1849.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849,
and SIKHS
PUNT, Land of.
"Under the name of Punt, the old inhabitants of Kemi [ancient
Egypt] meant a distant land, washed by the great ocean, full
of valleys and hills, abounding in ebony and other rich woods,
in incense, balsam, precious metals, and costly stones; rich
also in beasts, as cameleopards, hunting leopards, panthers,
dog-headed apes, and long-tailed monkeys. … Such was the Ophir
of the Egyptians, without doubt the present coast of the
Somauli land in sight of Arabia, but separated from it by the
sea. According to an old obscure tradition, the land of Punt
was the original seat of the gods. From Punt the holy ones had
travelled to the Nile valley, at their head Amon, Horus,
Hathor."
H. Brugsch,
History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
chapter 8.
PURCHASE IN THE ARMY, Abolition of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.
----------PURITANS: Start--------
PURITANS:
The movement taking form.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566.
PURITANS:
First application of the Name.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1564-1565 (?).
PURITANS:
In distinction from the Independents or Separatists.
"When, in 1603, James I. became king of England, he found his
Protestant subjects divided into three classes,—Conformists,
or High Ritualists; Nonconformists, or Broad-Church Puritans;
and Separatists, popularly called Brownists [and subsequently
called Independents]. The Conformists and the Puritans both
adhered to the Church of England, and were struggling for its
control. … The Puritans objected to some of the ceremonies of
the Church, such as the ring in marriage, the sign of the
cross in baptism, the promises of god-parents, the showy
vestments, bowing in the creed, receiving evil-livers to the
communion, repetitions, and to kneeling at communion as if
still adoring the Host, instead of assuming an ordinary
attitude as did the apostles at the Last Supper. The majority
of the lower clergy and of the middle classes are said to have
favored Puritanism. … Dr. Neal says that the Puritan body took
form in 1564, and dissolved in 1644.
{2618}
During that term of eighty years the Puritans were ever 'in
and of the Church of England'; as Dr. Prince says in his
Annals (1736), those who left the Episcopal Church 'lost the
name of Puritans and received that of the Separatists.' … The
Separatists, unlike the Puritans, had no connection with the
National Church, and the more rigid of them even denied that
Church to be scriptural, or its ministrations to be valid. …
The Pilgrim Fathers, the founders of our Plymouth, the pioneer
colony of New England, were not Puritans. They never were
called by that name, either by themselves or their
contemporaries. They were Separatists, slightingly called
Brownists, and in time became known as Independents or
Congregationalists. As Separatists they were oppressed and
maligned by the Puritans. They did not restrict voting or
office-holding to their church-members. They heartily welcomed
to their little State all men of other sects, or of no sects,
who adhered to the essentials of Christianity and were ready
to conform to the local laws and customs. … Though their faith
was positive and strong, they laid down no formal creed."
J. A. Goodwin,
The Pilgrim Republic,
chapters 2 and 1.
"The reader of this history must have remarked that 'Puritan'
and 'Separatist' were by no means convertible terms; that, in
point of fact, they very often indicated hostile parties,
pitted against each other in bitter controversies. And the
inquiry may have arisen—How is this? Were not the Separatists
all Puritans? … The term 'Puritan' was originally applied to
all in the church of England who desired further reformation—a
greater conformity of church government and worship to
primitive and apostolic usages. But after awhile the term
became restricted in its application to those who retained
their respect for the church of England, and their connection
with it, notwithstanding its acknowledged corruptions; in
distinction from those who had been brought to abandon both
their respect for that church and their connection with it,
under the conviction that it was hopelessly corrupt, and could
never be reformed. The Separatists, then, were indeed all
Puritans, and of the most thorough and uncompromising kind.
They were the very essence—the oil of Puritanism. But the
Puritans were by no means all Separatists; though they agreed
with them in doctrinal faith, being all thoroughly Calvinistic
in their faith."
G. Punchard,
History of Congregationalism,
volume 3, appendix, note F.
ALSO IN:
G. E. Ellis,
The Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
chapter 3.
See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS.
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
chapter 16 (volume 2).
PURITANS: A. D. 1604.
Hampton Court Conference with James I.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
PURITANS: A. D. 1629.
Incorporation of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629 THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.
PURITANS: A. D. 1629-1630.
The exodus to Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629; 1629-1630; and 1630.
PURITANS: A. D. 1631-1636.
The Theocracy of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636; and 1636.
PURITANS: A. D. 1638-1640.
At the beginning of the English Civil War.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
----------PURITANS: End--------
PURUARAN, Battle of (1814).
See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
PURUMANCIANS, The.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
PUT-IN-BAY, Naval Battle at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.
PUTEOLI.
The maritime city of Puteoli, which occupied the site of the
modern town of Pozzuoli, about 7 miles from Naples, became
under the empire the chief emporium of Roman commerce in
Italy. The vicinity of Puteoli and its neighbor Baiæ was one
of the favorite resorts of the Roman nobility for villa
residence. It was at Puteoli that St. Paul landed on his
journey to Rome.
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 11.
PUTNAM, Israel, and the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-AUGUST);
1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
PYDNA, Battle of (B. C. 168).
See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
PYLÆ CASPIÆ.
See CASPIAN GATES.
PYLÆ CILICIÆ. See
CILICIAN GATES.
PYLUS, Athenian seizure of.
See GREECE: B. C. 425.
PYRAMID.
"The name 'pyramid'—first invented by the ancients to denote
the tombs of the Egyptian kings, and still used in geometry to
this day—is of Greek origin. The Egyptians themselves denoted
the pyramid—both in the sense of a sepulchre and of a figure
in Solid Geometry—by the word 'abumir;' while, on the other
hand, the word' Pir-am-us' is equivalent to the 'edge of the
pyramid,' namely, the four edges extending from the apex of
the pyramid to each corner of the quadrangular base."
H. Brugsch
History of Egypt,
chapter 7.
PYRAMIDS, Battle of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
PYRENEES, Battles of the (1813).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
PYRENEES, Treaty of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
PYRRHIC DANCE.
A spirited military dance, performed in armor, which gave much
delight to the Spartans, and is said to have been taught to
children only five years old. It was thought to have been
invented by the Cretans.
G. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapters 1-2.
PYRRHUS, and his campaigns in Italy and Sicily.
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
PYTHIAN GAMES.
See DELPHI.
PYTHO, The Sanctuary of.
According to the Greek legend, a monstrous serpent, or dragon,
Pytho, or Python, produced from the mud left by the deluge of
Deucalion, lived in a great cavern of Mount Parnassus until
slain by the god Apollo. The scene of the exploit became the
principal seat of the worship of Apollo, the site of his most
famous temple, the home of the oracle which he inspired. The
temple and its seat were originally called Pytho; the cavern,
from which arose mephitic and intoxicating vapors was called
the Pythium; the priestess who inhaled those vapors and
uttered the oracles which they were supposed to inspire, was
the Pythia; Apollo, himself, was often called Pythius.
Subsequently, town, temple and oracle were more commonly known
by the name of Delphi.
See DELPHI.
{2619}
----------QUADI, The: Start--------
QUADI, The:
Early place and history.
See MARCOMANNI.
QUADI, The:
Campaigns of Marcus Aurelius against.
See SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.
QUADI, The: A. D. 357-359.
War of Constantius.
See LIMIGANTES.
QUADI, The: A. D. 374-375.
War of Valentinian.
A treacherous outrage of peculiar blackness, committed by a
worthless Roman officer on the frontier, in 374, provoked the
Quadi to invade the province of Pannonia. They overran it with
little opposition, and their success encouraged inroads by the
neighboring Sarmatian tribes. In the following year, the
Emperor Valentinian led a retaliatory expedition into the
country of the Quadi and revenged himself upon it with
unmerciful severity. At the approach of winter he returned
across the Danube, but only to wait another spring, when his
purpose was to complete the annihilation of the offending
Quadi. The latter, thereupon, sent ambassadors to humbly pray
for peace. The choleric emperor received them, but their
presence excited him to such rage that a blood vessel was
ruptured in his body and he died on the spot.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 25.
QUADI, The:
Probable Modern Representatives of.
See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE.
----------QUADI, The: End--------
QUADRILATERAL, The.
A famous military position in northern Italy, formed by the
strong fortresses at Peschiera, Verona, Mantua, and Legnano,
bears this name. "The Quadrilateral … fulfils all the
requirements of a good defensive position, which are to cover
rearward territory, to offer absolute shelter to a defending
army whenever required, and to permit of ready offensive:
first, by the parallel course of the Mincio and Adige;
secondly, by the fortresses on these rivers; thirdly, by
passages offered at fortified points which insure the command
of the rivers."
Major C. Adams,
Great Campaigns in Europe from 1790 to 1870,
page 232.
QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE (A. D. 1718).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
QUÆSTIO PERPETUA.
See CALPURNIAN LAW.
QUÆSTOR, The Imperial.
In the later Roman empire, "the Quaestor had the care of
preparing the Imperial speeches, and was responsible for the
language of the laws. … His office is not unlike that of the
Chancellor of a mediaeval monarch."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).
QUÆSTORS, Roman.
"Probably created as assistants to the consuls in the first
year of the republic. At first two; in 421 B. C., four; in
241, eight; in 81, twenty; in 45, forty. Thrown open to
plebeians in 421 B. C. Elected in the Comitia Tributa. The
quæstor's office lasted as long as the consul's to whom he was
attached."
H. F. Horton,
History of the Romans,
appendix A.
"We have seen how the care of the city's treasures had been
intrusted to two city quæstors, soon after the abolition of
the monarchy. In like manner, soon after the fall of the
decemvirate, the expenditures connected with military affairs,
which had hitherto been in the hands of the consuls, were put
under the control of new patrician officers, the military
quæstors, who were to accompany the army on its march."
A. Tighe,
Development of the Roman Constitution,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
W. Ihne,
Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,
pages 70-84.
QUÆSTORS OF THE FLEET.
See ROME: B. C. 275.
----------QUAKERS: Start--------
QUAKERS:
Origin of the Society of Friends.
George Fox and his early Disciples.
"The religious movement which began with the wandering
preacher George Fox … grew into the Society of Friends, or, as
they came to be commonly called, 'The Quakers.' George Fox was
born in 1624, the year before Charles I. came to the throne:
and he was growing up to manhood all through the troubled time
of that king's reign, while the storms were gathering which at
last burst forth in the civil wars. It was not much that he
knew of all this, however. He was growing up in a little
out-of-the-way village of Leicestershire—Fenny Drayton—where
his father was 'by profession a weaver.'" While he was still a
child, the companions of George Fox "laughed at his grave,
sober ways, yet they respected him, too; and when, by-and-by,
he was apprenticed to a shoemaker, his master found him so
utterly trustworthy, and so true and unbending in his word,
that the saying began to go about, 'If George says "verily"
there is no altering him.' … He was more and more grieved at
what seemed to him the lightness and carelessness of men's
lives. He felt as if he were living in the midst of hollowness
and hypocrisy. … His soul was full of great thoughts of
something better and nobler than the common religion, which
seemed so poor and worldly. … He wandered about from place to
place—Northampton, London, various parts of Warwickshire
—seeking out people here and there whom he could hear of as
very religious, and likely to help him through his
difficulties. … After two years of lonely, wandering life, he
began to see a little light. It came to his soul that all
these outward forms, and ceremonies, and professions that
people were setting up and making so much ado about as
'religion,' were nothing in themselves; that priestly
education and ordination was nothing—did not really make a man
any nearer to God; that God simply wanted the hearts and souls
of all men to be turned to Him, and the worship of their own
thought and feeling. And with the sense of this there arose
within him a great loathing of all the formalism, and
priestcraft, and outward observances of the Churches. … But he
did not find peace yet. … He writes: 'My troubles continued,
and I was often under great temptations; I fasted much and
walked abroad in solitary places many days.' … It was a time
like Christ's temptations in the wilderness, or Paul's three
years in Arabia, before they went forth to their great
life-mission. But to him, as to them, came, at last, light and
peace and an open way. … A voice seemed to come to him which
said, 'There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy
condition.' 'And when I heard it,' he says, 'my heart did leap
for joy.' Fixing his mind upon Christ, all things began to be
clearer to him; he saw the grand simple truth of a religion of
spirit and life.
{2620}
… It was at Dukinfield, near Manchester, in 1647, that he
began to speak openly to men of what was in his heart. … In
those days, when he was wandering away from men, and shrinking
with a sort of horror from the fashions of the world, he had
made himself a strong rough suit of leather, and this for many
years was his dress. Very white and clean indeed was the linen
under that rough leather suit, for he hated all uncleanness
either of soul or body; and very calm and clear were his eyes,
that seemed to search into men's souls, and quailed before no
danger, and sometimes lighted up with wonderful tenderness. A
tall, burly man he was, too, of great strength. … Everywhere
he saw vanity and worldliness, pretence and injustice. It
seemed laid upon him that he must testify against it all. He
went to courts of justice, and stood up and warned the
magistrates to do justly; he went to fairs and markets, and
lifted up his voice against wakes, and feasts and plays, and
also against people's cozening and cheating. … He testified
against great things and small, bade men not swear, but keep
to 'yea' and 'nay,' and this in courts of justice as
everywhere else; he spoke against lip-honour—that men should
give up using titles of compliment, and keep to plain 'thee'
and 'thou'; 'for surely,' he said, 'the way men address God
should be enough from one to another.' But all this was merely
the side-work of his life, flowing from his great central
thought of true, pure life in the light of the Spirit of God.
That was his great thought, and that he preached most of all;
he wanted men to give up all their forms, and come face to
face with the Spirit of God, and so worship Him and live to
Him. Therefore he spoke most bitterly of all against all
priestcraft. … Gradually followers gathered to him; little
groups of people here and there accepted his teachings—began
to look to him as their leader. He did not want to found a
sect; and as for a church—the Church was the whole body of
Christ's faithful people everywhere; so those who joined him
would not take any name as a sect or church. They simply
called themselves 'friends'; they used no form of worship, but
met together, to wait upon the Lord with one another;
believing that His Spirit was always with them, and that, if
anything was to be said, He would put it into their hearts to
say it." From the first, Fox suffered persecution at the hands
of the Puritans. They "kept imprisoning him for refusing to
swear allegiance to the Commonwealth; again and again he
suffered in this way: in Nottingham Castle, in 1648; then, two
years later, at Derby, for six months, at the end of which
time they tried to force him to enter the army; but he
refused, and so they thrust him into prison again, this time
into a place called the Dungeon, among 30 felons, where they
kept him another half-year. Then, two years later, in 1653, he
was imprisoned at Carlisle, in a foul, horrible hole. … He was
again imprisoned in Launceston gaol, for eight long months.
After this came a quieter time for him; for he was taken
before Cromwell, and Cromwell had a long conversation with
him. … During Cromwell's life he was persecuted no more, but
with the restoration of Charles II. his dangers and sufferings
began again. … His followers caught his spirit, and no
persecutions could intimidate them. … They made no secret of
where their meetings were to be, and at the time there they
assembled. Constables and informers might be all about the
place, it made no difference; they went in, sat down to their
quiet worship; if anyone had a word to say he said it. The
magistrates tried closing the places, locked the doors, put a
band of soldiers to guard them. The Friends simply gathered in
the street in front, held their meetings there; went on
exactly as if nothing had happened. They might all be taken
off to prison, still it made no difference. … Is it wonderful
that such principles, preached with such noble devotion to
truth and duty, rapidly made way? By the year 1665, when Fox
had been preaching for 18 years, the Society of Friends
numbered 80,000, and in another ten years it had spread more
widely still, and its founder had visited America, and
travelled through Holland and Germany, preaching his doctrine
of the inward light, and everywhere founding Meetings. Fox
himself did not pass away until [1690] he had seen his people
past all the days of persecution."
B. Herford,
The Story of Religion in England,
chapter 27.
"At a time when personal revelation was generally believed, it
was a pardonable self-delusion that he [Fox] should imagine
himself to be commissioned by the Divinity to preach a system
which could only be objected to as too pure to be practised by
man: This belief, and an ardent temperament, led him and some
of his followers into unseasonable attempts to convert their
neighbours, and unseemly intrusions into places of worship for
that purpose, which excited general hostility against them,
and exposed them to frequent and severe punishments. …
Although they, like most other religious sects, had arisen in
the humble classes of society, … they had early been joined by
a few persons of superior rank and education. … The most
distinguished of their converts was William Penn, whose
father, Admiral Sir William Penn, had been a personal friend
of the King [James II.], and one of his instructors in naval
affairs."
Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England in 1688,
chapter 6.
"At one of the interviews between G. Fox and Gervas Bennet—one
of the magistrates who had committed him at Derby—the former
bade the latter 'Tremble at the word of the Lord'; whereupon
Bennet called him a Quaker. This epithet of scorn well suited
the tastes and prejudices of the people, and it soon became
the common appellation bestowed on Friends."
C. Evans,
Friends in the 17th Century,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
J. Gough,
History of the People called Quakers.
W. R. Wagstaff,
History of the Society of Friends.
T. Clarkson,
Portraiture of Quakerism.
American Church History,
volume 12.
QUAKERS: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution in Massachusetts.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
QUAKERS: A. D. 1681.
Penn's acquisition of Pennsylvania.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681.
QUAKERS: A. D. 1682.
Proprietary purchase of New Jersey.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.
QUAKERS: A. D. 1688-1776.
Early growth of anti-slavery sentiment in the Society.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780.
----------QUAKERS: End--------
QUALIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE:
In England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
QUALIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE:
In Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.
{2621}
QUANTRELL'S GUERRILLAS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).
QUAPAWS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
QUATRE BRAS, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
----------QUEBEC, CITY: Start--------
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1535.
Its Indian occupants.
Its name.
"When Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence, in 1535, he
found an Indian village called Stadacona occupying the site of
the present city of Quebec. "The Indian name Stadacona had
perished before the time of Champlain, owing, probably, to the
migration of the principal tribe and the succession of
others." The name Quebec, afterwards given to the French
settlement on the same ground, is said by some to be likewise
of Indian origin, having reference to the narrowing of the
river at that point. "Others give a Norman derivation for the
word: it is said that Quebec was so–called after Caudebec, on
the Seine." La Potherie says that the Normans who were with
Cartier, when they saw the high cape, cried "Quel bec!" from
which came the name Quebec. "Mr. Hawkins terms this 'a
derivation entirely illusory and improbable,' and asserts that
the word is of Norman origin. He gives an engraving of a seal
belonging to William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, dated in the
7th of Henry V., or A. D. 1420. The legend or motto is
'Sigillum Willielmi de la Pole, Comitis Suffolckiæ, Domine de
Hamburg et de Quebec.'"
E. Warburton,
The Conquest of Canada,
volume 1, chapter 2, and foot-note.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1608.
The founding of the city by Champlain.
See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1629-1632.
Capture by the English, brief occupation
and restoration to France.
See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1639.
The founding of the Ursuline Convent.
See CANADA: A. D. 1637–1657.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1690.
Unsuccessful attack by Sir Williams Phips
and the Massachusetts colonists.
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1711.
Threatened by the abortive expedition of Admiral Walker.
See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1759.
Wolfe's conquest.
See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1760.
Attempted recovery by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1760.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1775-1776.
Unsuccessful siege by the Americans.
Death of Montgomery.
See 'CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.
----------QUEBEC, CITY: End--------------
----------QUEBEC, PROVINCE: Start--------
QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1763.
Creation of the English province.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1774.
Vast extension of the province by the Quebec Act.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1867.
On the formation of the confederated Dominion of Canada, in
1867, the eastern province formerly called Lower Canada
received the name of Quebec.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
----------QUEBEC, PROVINCE: End--------
QUEBEC ACT, The.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
QUEBEC RESOLUTIONS, The.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
QUEBRADA-SECA, Battle of (1862).
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
QUEEN, Origin of the word.
See King.
QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
"Her Majesty's [Queen Anne's] birthday, which was the 6th of
February, falling this year [1704] on a Sunday, its
celebration had been postponed till the next day. On that day,
then, as well beseeming her pious and princely gift, Sir
Charles Hedges as Secretary of State brought down to the House
of Commons a message from the Queen, importing that Her
Majesty desired to make a grant of her whole revenue arising
out of the First Fruits and Tenths for the benefit of the
poorer clergy. These First Fruits and Tenths had been imposed
by the Popes some centuries ago for the support of the Holy
Wars, but had been maintained long after those wars had
ceased.
See ANNATES.
The broad besom of Henry VIII. had swept them from the Papal
to the Royal treasury, and there they continued to flow. In
the days of Charles II. they had been regarded as an excellent
fund out of which to provide for the female favourites of His
Majesty and their numerous children. … Upon the Queen's
message the Commons returned a suitable address, and proceeded
to pass a bill enabling Her Majesty to alienate this branch of
the revenue, and to create a corporation by charter to apply
it for the object she desired. … This fund has ever since and
with good reason borne the name of 'Queen Anne's Bounty.' Its
application has been extended to the building of
parsonage-houses as well as to the increase of poor livings."
Earl Stanhope,
History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 4.
QUEEN ANNE'S WAR.
The wide-ranging conflict which is known in European history
as the War of the Spanish Succession, appears in American
history more commonly under the name of Queen Anne's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
QUEENSBERRY PLOT, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
QUEENSLAND.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.
QUEENSTOWN HEIGHTS, The battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
QUELCHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
QUERANDIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
QUESNOY: A. D. 1659.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
QUESNOY: A. D. 1794.
Siege and capture by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
QUIBÉRON BAY,
Naval battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
Defeat of French Royalists (1795).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
QUICHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES.
QUICHUAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
{2622}
QUIDS, The.
John Randolph of Virginia. "had been one of the Republican
leaders while the party was in opposition [during the second
administration of Washington and the administration of John
Adams, as Presidents of the United States], but his irritable
spirit disqualified him for heading an Administration party.
He could attack, but could not defend. He had taken offense at
the President's [Jefferson's] refusal to make him Minister to
England, and immediately took sides with the Federalists
[1805] followed by a number of his friends, though not
sufficient to give the Federalists a majority. … The Randolph
faction, popularly called 'Quids,' gave fresh life to the
Federalists in Congress, and made them an active and useful
opposition party."
A. Johnston,
History of American Politics,
chapter 6, section 3.
QUIETISM.
See MYSTICISM.
QUIJO, OR NAPO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
QUINARIUS, The.
See AS.
QUINCY RAILWAY, The.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
QUINDECEMVIRS, The.
The quindecemvirs, at Rome, had the custody of the Sibylline
books.
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 31.
QUINNIPIACK.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.
QUIPU.
WAMPUM.
"The Peruvians adopted a … unique system of records, that by
means of the quipu. This was a base cord, the thickness of the
finger, of any required length, to which were attached
numerous small strings of different colors, lengths, and
textures, variously knotted and twisted one with another. Each
of these peculiarities represented a certain number, a
quality, quantity, or other idea, but what, not the most
fluent quipu reader could tell unless he was acquainted with
the general topic treated of. Therefore, whenever news was
sent in this manner a person accompanied the bearer to serve
as verbal commentator, and to prevent confusion the quipus
relating to the various departments of knowledge were placed
in separate storehouses, one for war, another for taxes, a
third for history, and so forth. On what principle of
mnemotechnics the ideas were connected with the knots and
colors we are totally in the dark; it has even been doubted
whether they had any application beyond the art of numeration.
Each combination had, however, a fixed ideographic value in a
certain branch of knowledge, and thus the quipu differed
essentially from the Catholic rosary, the Jewish phylactery,
or the knotted strings of the natives of North America and
Siberia, to all of which it has at times been compared. The
wampum used by the tribes of the North Atlantic coast was, in
many respects, analogous to the quipu. In early times it was
composed chiefly of bits of wood of equal size, but different
colors. These were hung on strings which were woven into belts
and bands, the hues, shapes, sizes, and combinations of the
strings hinting their general significance. Thus the lighter
shades were invariable harbingers of peaceful or pleasant
tidings, while the darker portended war and danger. The
substitution of beads or shells in place of wood, and the
custom of embroidering figures in the belts were, probably,
introduced by European influence."
D. G. Brinton,
The Myths of the New World,
chapter 1.
See, also, WAMPUM.
QUIRINAL, The.
"The Palatine city was not the only one that in ancient times
existed within the circle afterwards enclosed by the Servian
walls; opposite to it, in its immediate vicinity, there lay a
second city on the Quirinal. … Even the name has not been lost
by which the men of the Quirinal distinguished themselves from
their Palatine neighbours. As the Palatine city took the name
of 'the Seven Mounts,' its citizens called themselves the
'mount-men' ('montani'), and the term 'mount,' while applied
to the other heights belonging to the city, was above all
associated with the Palatine; so the Quirinal height—although
not lower, but on the contrary somewhat higher, than the
former—as well as the adjacent Viminal, never in the strict
use of the language received any other name than 'hill'
('collis'). … Thus the site of the Roman commonwealth was
still at this period occupied by the Mount-Romans of the
Palatine and the Hill-Romans of the Quirinal as two separate
communities confronting each other and doubtless in many
respects at feud. … That the community of the Seven Mounts
early attained a great preponderance over that of the Quirinal
may with certainty be inferred."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 4.
See, also, PALATINE HILL,
and SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.
QUIRITES.
In early Rome the warrior-citizens, the full burgesses, were
so-called. "The king, when he addressed them, called them
'lance-men' (quirites). … We need not … regard the name
Quirites as having been originally reserved for the burgesses
on the Quirinal. … It is indisputably certain that the name·
Quirites denoted from the first, as well as subsequently,
simply the full burgess."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapters 4 and 5.
The term quirites, in fact, signified the citizens of Rome as
a body. Whether it originally meant "men of the spear," as
derived from a Sabine word, is a question in some dispute.
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 5.
QUITO: The ancient kingdom and the modern city.
See ECUADOR.
QUIVIRA.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
QUORATEAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUORATEAN FAMILY.
R
RAAB, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
RABBLING.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.
RABELAIS, on Education.
See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE.
RAB-SHAKEH.
The title of the chief minister of the Assyrian kings. The
Rab-Shakah of Sennacherib demanded the surrender of Jerusalem.
RACHISIUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 744-750.
RADAGAISUS,
RADAGAIS,
RODOGAST;
Invasion of Italy by.
"In the year 406, Italy was suddenly overrun by a vast
multitude composed of Vandals, Sueves, Burgunds, Alans, and
Goths, under the command of a king named Radagais. To what
nation this king belonged is not certain, but it seems likely
that he was an Ostrogoth from the region of the Black Sea, who
had headed a tribe of his countrymen in a revolt against the
Huns.
{2623}
The invading host is said to have consisted of 200,000
warriors, who were accompanied by their wives and families.
These barbarians were heathens, and their manners were so
fierce and cruel that the invasion excited far more terror
than did that of Alaric. … Stilicho [the able minister and
general of the contemptible Emperor of the West, Honorius]
found it hard work to collect an army capable of opposing this
savage horde, and Radagais had got as far as Florence before
any resistance was offered to him. But while he was besieging
that city, the Roman general came upon him, and, by
surrounding his army with earthworks, compelled him to
surrender. The barbarian king was beheaded, and those of the
captives whose lives were spared were sold into slavery."
H. Bradley,
Story of the Goths,
chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 5.
See, also, ROME: A. D. 404-408.
RÆTIA.
See RHÆTIA.
RAGA,
RAGHA,
RHAGES.
"The Median city next in importance to the two Ecbatanas was
Raga or Rhages, near the Caspian Gates, almost at the extreme
eastern limits of the territory possessed by the Medes. The
great antiquity of this place is marked by its occurrence in
the Zendavesta among the primitive settlements of the Arians.
Its celebrity during the time of the Empire is indicated by
the position which it occupies in the romances of Tobit and
Judith. … Rhages gave name to a district; and this district
may be certainly identified with the long narrow tract of
fertile territory intervening between the Elburz
mountain-range and the desert, from about Kasvin to Khaar, or
from longitude 50° to 52° 30'. The exact site of the city of
Rhages within this territory is somewhat doubtful. All
accounts place it near the eastern extremity; and, as there
are in this direction ruins of a town called Rhei or Rhey, it
has been usual to assume that they positively fix the
locality. But … there are grounds for placing Rhages very much
nearer to the Caspian Gates."
G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Media,
chapter 1.
See, also, CASPIAN GATES.
RAGÆ.
See RATÆ.
RAGMAN'S ROLL.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.
RAID OF RUTHVEN, The.
See SCOTLAND. A. D. 1582.
RAILROADS, The beginning of.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
RAISIN RIVER, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.
RAJA,
RAJAH.
MAHARAJA.
Hindu titles, equivalent to king and great king.
RAJPOOTS,
RAJPUTS.
RAJPOOTANA.
"The Rajpoots, or sons of Rajas, are the noblest and proudest
race in India, … They claim to be representatives of the
Kshatriyas; the descendants of those Aryan warriors who
conquered the Punjab and Hindustan in times primeval. To this
day they display many of the characteristics of the heroes of
the Maha Bharata and Ramayana. They form a military
aristocracy of the feudal type. … The Rajpoots are the links
between ancient and modern India. In days of old they strove
with the kings of Magadha for the suzerainty of Hindustan from
the Indus to the lower Gangetic valley. They maintained
imperial thrones at Lahore and Delhi, at Kanouj and Ayodhya.
In later revolutions their seats of empire have been shifted
further west and south, but the Rajpoot kingdoms still remain
as the relics of the old Aryan aristocracy. … The dynasties of
Lahore and Delhi faded away from history, and perchance have
reappeared in more remote quarters of India. The Rajpoots
still retain their dominion in the west, whilst their power
and influence have been felt in every part of India; and to
this day a large Rajpoot element characterizes the
populations, not only of the Punjab and Hindustan, but of the
Dekhan and Peninsula. The Rajpoot empire of a remote antiquity
is represented in the present day by the three kingdoms of
Meywar, Marwar, and Jeypore. Meywar, better known as Chittore
or Udaipore, is the smallest but most important of the three.
It forms the garden of Rajpootana to the eastward of the
Aravulli range. Westward of the range is the dreary desert of
Marwar. Northward of Meywar lies the territory of Jeypore, the
intermediate kingdom between Meywar and the Mussulmans. … In
former times the sovereigns of Meywar were known as the Ranas
of Chittore; they are now known as the Ranas of Udaipore. They
belong to the blue blood of Rajpoot aristocracy."
J. T. Wheeler,
History of India,
volume 3, chapter 7.
"Everywhere [in the central region of India] Rajput septs or
petty chiefships may still be found existing in various
degrees of independence. And there are, of course, Rajput
Chiefs outside Rajputana altogether, though none of political
importance. But Rajputana proper, the country still under the
independent rule of the most ancient families of the purest
clans, may now be understood generally to mean the great tract
that would be crossed by two lines, of which one should be
drawn on the map of India from the frontier of Sind Eastward
to the gates of Agra; and the other from the Southern border
of the Punjab Government near the Sutlej Southward and
South-Eastward until it meets the broad belt of Maratha States
under the Guicowar, Holkar, and Scindia, which runs across
India from Baroda to Gwalior. This territory is divided into
nineteen States, of which sixteen are possessed by Rajput
clans, and the Chief of the clan or sept is the State's ruler.
To the Sesodia clan, the oldest and purest blood in India,
belong the States of Oodeypoor, Banswarra, Pertabgarh, and
Shahpura; to the Rathore clan, the States of Jodhpoor and
Bikanir; Jeypoor and Ulwar to the Kuchwaha, and so on."
Sir A. C. Lyall,
Asiatic Studies,
chapter 8.
RALEIGH, Sir Walter:
Colonizing undertakings in Virginia.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586, and 1587-1590.
Guiana and El Dorado expeditions.
See EL DORADO.
RAMBOUILLET, The Hôtel de.
The marquise de Rambouillet, who drew around herself, at
Paris, the famous coterie which took its name from her
hospitable house, was the daughter of a French nobleman, Jean
de Vivonne, sieur de Saint-Gohard, afterwards first marquis de
Pisani, who married a Roman lady of the noble family of the
Strozzi. Catherine de Vivonne was born of this union in 1588,
and in 1600, when less than twelve years old, became the wife
of Charles d'Angennes, vidame du Mans afterwards marquis de
Rambouillet. Her married life was more than half a century in
duration; she was the mother of seven children, and she
survived her husband thirteen years.
{2624}
During the minority of the husband the ancient residence of
his family had been sold, and from 1610 to 1617 the marquis
and marquise were engaged in building a new Hôtel de
Rambouillet, which the latter is credited with having, in
great part, designed. Her house being finished, she opened it
"to her friends and acquaintances, and her receptions, which
continued until the Fronde (1648), brought together every
evening the choicest society of the capital, and produced a
profound influence upon the manners and literature of the day.
The marquise ceased attending court some years before the
death of Henry IV., her refinement and pure character finding
there an uncongenial atmosphere. The marquise was not alone a

woman of society, but was carefully educated and fond of
literature. Consequently the reunions at the Hôtel de
Rambouillet were distinguished by a happy combination of rank
and letters. Still more important was the new position assumed
by the hostess and the ladies who frequented her house. Until
the XVIIth century the crudest views prevailed as to the
education and social position of woman. It was at the Hôtel de
Rambouillet that her position as the intellectual companion of
man was first recognized, find this position of equality, and
the deferential respect which followed it, had a powerful
influence in refining the rude manners of men of rank whose
lives had been passed in camps, and of men of letters who had
previously enjoyed few opportunities for social polish. The
two classes met for the first time on a footing of equality,
and it resulted in elevating the occupation of letters, and
imbuing men of rank with a fondness for intellectual pursuits.
The reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet began, as has been
said, about 1617, and extend until the Fronde (1648) or a few
years later. This period Larroumet ('Précieuses Ridicules,'
page 14) divides into three parts: from 1617 to about 1629;
from 1630 to 1640; and from 1640 to the death of the marquise
in 1665. During the first period the habitués of the Hôtel de
Rambouillet were": the marquis du Vigean, the maréchal de
Souvré, the duke de la Tremoïlle, Richelieu (then bishop of
Luçon), the cardinal de la Valette, the poets Malherbe, Racan,
Gombauld, Chapelain, Marino, the preacher Cospeau, Godeau, the
grammarian Vaugelas, Voiture, Balzac, Segrais, Mlle. Paulet,
the princess de Montmorency, Mlle. du Vigean, and the
daughters of the marquise de Rambouillet, "of whom the eldest,
Julie d'Angennes, until her marriage in 1645 to the marquis de
Montausier, was the soul of the reunions of the Hôtel de
Rambouillet. The second period was that of its greatest
brilliancy. To the illustrious names just mentioned must be
added": the great Condé, the marquis de Montausier,
Saint-Évremond, La Rochefoucald, Sarrasin, Costar, Patru,
Conrart, Georges de Scudéry, Mairet, Colletet, Ménage,
Benscrade, Cotin, Desmarets, Rotrou, Scarron, P. Corneille,
Bossuet, Mlle. de Bourbon, later duchesse de Longueville,
Mlle. de Coligny, Mme. Aubry, and Mlle. de Scudéry, "yet
unknown as a writer. After 1640 the Hôtel de Rambouillet began
to decline; but two names of importance belong to this period:
Mme. de la Fayette, and Mme. de Sévigné. … Voiture died in
1648, the year which witnessed the outbreak of the Fronde,
after which the reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet virtually
ceased. … Until the time of Roederer ['Mémoire pour servir à
l'histoire de la société polie en France'] it was generally
supposed that the word 'Précieuse' was synonymous with Hôtel
de Rambouillet, and that it was the marquise and her friends
whom Molière intended to satirize. Roederer endeavored to show
that it was not the marquise but her bourgeois imitators, the
circle of Mlle. de Scudéry …; Victor Cousin attempts to prove
that it was neither the marquise nor Mlle. de Scudéry, but the
imitators of the latter. … The editor of Molière in the
'Grands Écrivains de la France,' M. Despois (volume 2, page 4)
believes that the Hôtel de Rambouillet, including Mlle. de
Scudéry, was the object of Moliere's satire, although he had
no intention of attacking any particular person among the
'Précieuses,' but confined himself to ridiculing the
eccentricities common to them all. It is with this last view
that the editor of the present work unhesitatingly agrees, for
reasons which he hopes some day to give in detail in an
edition of the two plays of Molière mentioned above
['Precieuses Ridicules,' and 'Les Femmes Savantes']. From
Paris the influence of the 'Précieuses' spread into the
provinces, doubtless with all the exaggerations of an
unskilful imitation."
T. F. Crane,
Introduction to "La Société Française au
Dix-Septième Siècle."
ALSO IN:
A. G. Mason,
The Women of the French Salons,
chapters 2-7.
RAMBOUILLET DECREE, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.
RAMESES,
RAAMSES,
RAMSES,
Treasure-city of.
See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
RAMESSIDS, The.
The nineteenth dynasty of Egyptian kings, sprung from Rameses
I. [in the] fourteenth to twelfth centuries B. C.
See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1400-1200.
RAMILLIES, Battle of (1706).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
RAMIRO I.'
King of Aragon, A. D. 1035-1063.
Ramiro I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 842-850.
Ramiro II., King of Aragon, 1134-1137.
Ramiro II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 930-950.
Ramiro III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 967-982.
RAMNES.
RAMNIANS, The.
See ROME: BEGINNINGS AND NAME.
RAMOTH-GILEAD.
The strong fortress of Ramoth-Gilead, on the frontier of
Samaria and Syria, was the object and the scene of frequent
warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans of Damascus.
It was there that king Ahab of Samaria, in alliance with
Judah, was killed in battle, fighting against Ben-hadad of
Damascus.
1 Kings, xxii.
ALSO IN:
Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 33.
RANAS OF UDAIPORE OR CHITTORE.
See RAJPOOTS.
RANDOLPH, Edmund,
and the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; 1787-1789.
In the Cabinet of President Washington.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.
RANJIT SINGH,
RUNJIT SINGH,
The conquests of.
See SIKHS.
{2625}
RANTERS.
MUGGLETONIANS.
"'These [the Ranters] made it their business,' says Baxter,
'to set up the Light of Nature under the name of Christ in
Man, and to dishonour and cry down the Church, the Scripture,
and the present Ministry, and our worship and ordinances; and
called men to hearken to Christ within them. But withal they
conjoined a cursed doctrine of Libertinism, which brought them
to all abominable filthiness of life. They taught, as the
Familists, that God regardeth not the actions of the outward
man, but of the heart, and that to the pure all things are
pure.' … Of no sect do we hear more in the pamphlets and
newspapers between 1650 and 1655, though there are traces of
them of earlier date. … Sometimes confounded with the Ranters,
but really distinguishable, were some crazed men, whose crazes
had taken a religious turn, and whose extravagances became
contagious.—Such was a John Robins, first heard of about 1650,
when he went about, sometimes as God Almighty, sometimes as
Adam raised from the dead. … One heard next, in 1652, of two
associates, called John Reeve and Ludovick Muggleton, who
professed to be 'the two last Spiritual Witnesses (Revelation
xi.) and alone true Prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, God
alone blessed to all eternity,' They believed in a real
man-shaped God, existing from all eternity, who had come upon
earth as Jesus Christ, leaving Moses and Elijah to represent
him in Heaven." Muggleton died in 1698, "at the age of 90,
leaving a sect called The Muggletonians, who are perhaps not
extinct yet."
D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 5, pages 17-20.
RAPALLO,
Battle of (1425).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
Massacre at (1494).
See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
RAPE OF THE SABINE WOMEN, The.
See ROME: B. C. 753-510.
RAPES OF SUSSEX.
"The singular division of Sussex [England] into six 'rapes'
[each of which is subdivided into hundreds] seems to have been
made for military purposes. The old Norse 'hreppr' denoted a
nearly similar territorial division."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 1, foot-note.
"The 'reebning,' or mensuration by the rope or line, supplied
the technical term of 'hrepp' to the glossary of Scandinavian
legislation: archæologists have therefore pronounced an
opinion that the 'Rapes' of Sussex, the divisions ranging from
the Channel shore to the Suthrige border, were, according to
Norwegian fashion, thus plotted out by the Conqueror."
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 5.
RAPHIA, Battle of (B. C. 217).
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
RAPID INDIANS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: RAPID INDIANS.
RAPIDAN, Campaign of Meade and Lee on the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
RAPPAHANNOCK STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
RAPPAREES.
TORIES.
"Ejected proprietors [in Ireland, 17th and 18th centuries]
whose names might be traced in the annals of the Four Masters,
or around the sculptured crosses of Clonmacnoise, might be
found in abject poverty hanging around the land which had
lately been their own, shrinking from servile labour as from
an intolerable pollution, and still receiving a secret homage
from their old tenants. In a country where the clan spirit was
intensely strong, and where the new landlords were separated
from their tenants by race, by religion, and by custom, these
fallen and impoverished chiefs naturally found themselves at
the head of the discontented classes; and for many years after
the Commonwealth, and again after the Revolution, they and
their followers, under the names of tories and rapparees,
waged a kind of guerrilla war of depredations upon their
successors. After the first years of the 18th century,
however, this form of crime appears to have almost ceased; and
although we find the names of tories and rapparees on every
page of the judicial records, the old meaning was no longer
attached to them, and they had become the designations of
ordinary felons, at large in the country."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 7 (volume 2).
"The distinction between the Irish foot soldier and the Irish
Rapparee had never been very strongly marked. It now
disappeared [during the war in Ireland between James II. and
William of Orange—A. D. 1691]. Great part of the army was
turned loose to live by marauding."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 17 (volume 4).
"The Rapparee was the lowest of the low people. … The Rapparee
knew little difference between friend and foe; receiving no
mercy, they gave none."
Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memoirs or Great Britain and Ireland,
part 2, book 5 (volume 3).
"Political disaffection in Ireland has been the work, on the
one hand, of the representatives of the old disinherited
families—the Kernes, and Gallowglasses of one age, the
Rapparees of the next, the houghers and ravishers of a third;
on the other, of the restless aspirations of the Catholic
clergy."
J. A. Froude,
The English in Ireland,
book 9, chapter 1 (volume 3).
RARITANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
RAS.
RASENNA.
See ETRUSCANS.
RASCIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).
RASCOL.
RASKOL.
RASKOLNIKS.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.
RASTA, The.
See LEUGA.
RASTADT, Congress of.
Murder of French envoys.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
RASTADT, The Treaty of (1714).
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
RATÆ,
RAGÆ.
A Roman town in Britain—"one of the largest and most important
of the midland cities, adorned with rich mansions and temples,
and other public buildings. Its site is now occupied by the
town of Leicester."
T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5.
RATHMINES, Battle of (1649).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.
RATHS.
"Of those ancient Raths, or Hill-fortresses, which formed the
dwellings of the old Irish chiefs, and belonged evidently to a
period when cities were not yet in existence, there are to be
found numerous remains throughout the country. This species of
earthen work is distinguished from the artificial mounds, or
tumuli, by its being formed upon natural elevations, and
always surrounded by a rampart,"
T. Moore,
History of Ireland,
chapter 9.
RATHSMANN,
RATHSMEISTER, etc.
See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.
{2626}
RATISBON:
Taken by the Swedish-German forces (1633).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
RATISBON, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
RATISBON, Catholic League of.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
RAUCOUX, Battle of (1746).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.
RAUDINE PLAIN, Battle of the.
See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.
RAURACI, The.
An ancient tribe "whose origin is perhaps German, established
on both banks of the Rhine, towards the elbow which that river
forms at Bâle."
Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot–note.
RAVENIKA, The Parliament of.
Henry, the second emperor of the Latin empire of Romania, or
empire of Constantinople, convened a general parliament or
high-court of all his vassals, at Ravenika, in 1209, for the
determining of the feudal relations of all the subjects of the
empire. Ravenika is in ancient Chalkidike, some fifty miles
from Thessalonica.
G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 4, section 4.
----------RAVENNA: Start--------
RAVENNA: B. C. 50.
Cæsar's advance on Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 52-50.
RAVENNA: A. D. 404.
Made the capital of the Western Empire.
"The houses of Ravenna, whose appearance may be compared to
that of Venice, were raised on the foundation of wooden piles.
The adjacent country, to the distance of many miles, was a
deep and impassable morass; and the artificial causeway which
connected Ravenna with the continent might be easily guarded,
or destroyed, on the approach of a hostile army. These
morasses were interspersed, however, with vineyards; and
though the soil was exhausted by four or five crops, the town
enjoyed a more plentiful supply of wine than of fresh water.
The air, instead of receiving the sickly and almost
pestilential exhalations of low and marshy grounds, was
distinguished, like the neighbourhood of Alexandria, as
uncommonly pure and salubrious; and this singular advantage
was ascribed to the regular tides of the Adriatic. … This
advantageous situation was fortified by art and labour; and,
in the twentieth year of his age, the Emperor of the West
[Honorius, A. D. 395-423] anxious only for his personal
safety, retired to the perpetual confinement of the walls and
morasses of Ravenna. The example of Honorius was imitated by
his feeble successors, the Gothic kings, and afterwards the
exarchs, who occupied the throne and palace of the emperors;
and till the middle of the eighth century Ravenna was
considered as the seat of government and the capital of
Italy."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 30.
ALSO IN:
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
chapter 9.
See, also, ROME: A. D. 404-408.
RAVENNA: A. D. 490-493.
Siege and capture by Theodoric.
Murder of Odoacer.
Capital of the Ostrogothic kingdom.
See ROME: A. D. 488-526.
RAVENNA: A. D. 493-525.
The capital of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.
"The usual residence of Theodoric was Ravenna, with which city
his name is linked as inseparably as those of Honorius or
Placidia. The letters of Cassiodorus show his zeal for the
architectural enrichment of this capital. Square blocks of
stone were to be brought from Faenza, marble pillars to be
transported from the palace on the Pincian Hill: the most
skilful artists in mosaic were invited from Rome, to execute
some of those very works which we still wonder at in the
basilicas and baptisteries of the city by the Ronco. The chief
memorials of his reign which Theodoric has left at Ravenna are
a church, a palace, and a tomb."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3).
RAVENNA: A. D. 540.
Surrender to Belisarius.
See ROME: A. D. 535-553.
RAVENNA: A. D. 554-800.
The Exarchate.
See ROME: A. D. 554-800.
RAVENNA: A. D. 728-751.
Decline and fall of the Exarchate.
See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
RAVENNA: A. D. 1275.
The Papal sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
RAVENNA: A. D. 1512.
Taken by the French.
Battle before the city.
Defeat of the Spaniards.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
----------RAVENNA: End--------
RAVENSPUR.
The landing place of Henry of Lancaster, July 4, 1399, when he
came back from banishment to demand the crown of England from
Richard II. It is on the coast of Yorkshire.
RAYMOND, of Toulouse, The Crusade of.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099; and 1099-1144.
RAYMOND, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
REAL, Spanish.
See SPANISH COINS.
REAMS'S STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA).
REASON, The Worship of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).
REBECCAITES.
DAUGHTERS OF REBECCA.
Between 1839 and 1844, a general outbreak occurred in Wales
against what were thought to be the excessive tolls collected
on the turnpike roads. Finding that peaceful agitation was of
no avail the people determined to destroy the turnpike gates,
and did so very extensively, the movement spreading from
county to county. They applied to themselves the Bible promise
given to the descendants of Isaac's wife, that they should
possess the "gate" of their enemies, and were known as the
Daughters, or Children of Rebecca, or Rebeccaites. Their
proceedings assumed at last a generally riotous and lawless
character, and were repressed by severe measures. At the same
time Parliament removed the toll-gate grievance by an amended
law.
W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 2, page 131.
RECESS.
Certain decrees of the Germanic diet were so called.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
RECHABITES, The.
An ascetic religious association, or order, formed among the
Israelites, under the influence of the prophet Elijah, or
after his death. Like the monks of a later time, they mostly
withdrew into the desert. "The vow of their order was so
strict that they were not allowed to possess either vineyards
or corn-fields or houses, and they were consequently rigidly
confined for means of subsistence to the products of the
wilderness."
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 4, section 1 (volume 4).
{2627}
RECIPROCITY TREATY, Canadian.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION, &C.
(UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.
RECOLLECTS,
RÉCOLLETS.
This name is borne by a branch of the Franciscan order of
friars, to indicate that the aim of their lives is the
recollection of God and the forgetfulness of worldly things.
RECONSTRUCTION:
President Lincoln's Louisiana plan.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).
President Johnson's plan.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
The question in Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-JUNE),
1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH), 1867 (MARCH).
See, also:
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876;
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866;
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.
RECULVER, Roman origin of.
See REGULBIUM.
RED CAP OF LIBERTY, The.
See LIBERTY CAP.
RED CROSS, The.
"A confederation of relief societies in different countries,
acting under the Geneva Convention, carries on its work under
the sign of the Red Cross. The aim of these societies is to
ameliorate the condition of wounded soldiers in the armies in
campaign on land or sea. The societies had their rise in the
conviction of certain philanthropic men, that the official
sanitary service in wars is usually insufficient, and that the
charity of the people, which at such times exhibits itself
munificently, should be organized for the best possible
utilization. An international public conference was called at
Geneva, Switzerland, in 1863, which, though it had not an
official character, brought together representatives from a
number of Governments. At this conference a treaty was drawn
up, afterwards remodeled and improved, which twenty-five
Governments have signed. The treaty provides for the
neutrality of all sanitary supplies, ambulances, surgeons,
nurses, attendants, and sick or wounded men, and their safe
conduct, when they bear the sign of the organization, viz: the
Red Cross. Although the Convention which originated the
organization was necessarily international, the relief
societies themselves are entirely national and independent;
each one governing itself and making its own laws according to
the genius of its nationality and needs. It was necessary for
recognizance and safety, and for carrying out the general
provisions of the treaty, that a uniform badge should be
agreed upon. The Red Cross was chosen out of compliment to the
Swiss Republic, where the first convention was held, and in
which the Central Commission has its headquarters. The Swiss
colors being a white cross on a red ground, the badge chosen
was these colors reversed. There are no 'members of the Red
Cross,' but only members of societies whose sign it is. There
is no 'Order of the Red Cross.' The relief societies use, each
according to its convenience, whatever methods seem best
suited to prepare in times of peace for the necessities of
sanitary service in times of war. They gather and store gifts
of money and supplies; arrange hospitals, ambulances, methods
of transportation of wounded men, bureaus of information,
correspondence, &c. All that the most ingenious philanthropy
could devise and execute has been attempted in this direction.
In the Franco–Prussian war this was abundantly tested. … This
society had its inception in the mind of Monsieur Henri
Dunant, a Swiss gentleman, who was ably seconded in his views
by Monsieur Gustave Moynier and Dr. Louis Appia, of Geneva."
History of the Red Cross
(Washington, 1883).
RED FORTRESS, The.
The Alhambra.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
RED LAND, The.
See VEHMGERICHTS.
RED LEGS.
See JAYHAWKERS.
RED RIVER COMPANY AND SETTLEMENT.
RIEL'S REBELLION.
See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
RED RIVER EXPEDITION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
RED ROBE, Counsellors of the.
See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
RED TERROR, The.
The later period of the French Reign of Terror, when the
guillotine was busiest, is sometimes so called.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL,).
REDAN, Assaults on the (1855).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
REDEMPTIONERS.
"Redemptioners, or term slaves, as they were sometimes called,
constituted in the early part of the 18th century a peculiar
feature of colonial society. They were recruited from among
all manner of people in the old world, and through this
channel Europe emptied upon America, not only the virtuous
poor and oppressed of her population, but the vagrants,
felons, and the dregs of her communities. … There were two
kinds of redemptioners: 'indented servants,' who had bound
themselves to their masters for a term of years previous to
their leaving the old country; and 'free–willers,' who, being
without money and desirous of emigrating, agreed with the
captains of ships to allow themselves and their families to be
sold on arrival, for the captain's advantage, and thus repay
costs of passage and other expenses."
A. D. Mellick, Jr.,
The Story of an Old Farm,
chapter 11.
REDEMPTORISTS, The.
The members of the congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer,
founded by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, in 1732, are
commonly known as Redemptorists. The congregation is
especially devoted to apostolic work among neglected classes
of people. It has monasteries in several parts of Europe.
REDONES, The.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
REDSTICKS, The.
This name was given to the hostile Creek Indians of Florida.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
REDUCTIONS IN PARAGUAY, The Jesuit.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
REEVE.
See GEREFA; and MARGRAVE.
REFERENDARIUS.
See CHANCELLOR.
REFERENDUM AND INITIATIVE, The Swiss.
"A popular vote under the name Referendum was known in the
valleys of Graubunden and Wallis as early as the 16th century.
Here existed small federations of communities who regulated
certain matters of general concern by means of assemblies of
delegates from each village. These conventions were not
allowed to decide upon any important measure finally, but must
refer the matter to the various constituencies. If a majority
of these approved, the act might be passed at the next
assembly.
{2628}
This primitive system lasted till the French invasion of 1798,
and was again established in Graubünden in 1815. The word
Referendum was also used by the old federal diets, in which
there were likewise no comprehensive powers of legislation. If
not already instructed the delegates must vote 'ad referendum'
and carry all questions to the home government. The
institution as now known is a product of this century. It
originated in the canton of St. Gallen in 1830, where at the
time the constitution was undergoing revision. As a compromise
between the party which strove for pure democracy and that
desiring representative government, it was provided that all
laws should be submitted to popular vote if a respectable
number of voters so demanded. Known at first by the name Veto,
this system slowly found its way into several of the
German-speaking cantons, so that soon after the adoption of
the federal constitution five were employing the optional
Referendum. Other forms of popular legislation were destined
to find wider acceptance, but at present [1891] in eight
states, including three of the Romance tongue, laws must be
submitted on request. … The usual limit of time during which
the petition must be signed is 30 days. These requests are
directed to the Executive Council of the state, and that body
is obliged, within a similar period after receiving the same,
to appoint a day for the vote. The number of signers required
varies from 500 in the little canton Zug to 6,000 in St.
Gallen, or from one-tenth to one–fifth of all the voters. Some
states provide that in connection with the vote on the bill as
a whole, an expression may be taken on separate points. Custom
varies as to the number of votes required to veto a law. Some
fix the minimum at a majority of those taking part in the
election, and others at a majority of all citizens, whether
voting or not. In case the vote is against the bill, the
matter is referred by the Executive Council to the
legislature. This body, after examining into the correctness
of the returns, passes a resolution declaring its own act to
be void. By means of the Initiative or Imperative Petition,
the order of legislation just described is reversed, since the
impulse to make law is received from below instead of above.
The method of procedure is about as follows: Those who are
interested in the passage of a new law prepare either a full
draft of such a bill or a petition containing the points
desired to be covered, with the reasons for its enactment, and
then bring the matter before the public for the purpose of
obtaining signatures. Endorsement may be given either by
actually signing the petition or by verbal assent to it. The
latter form of consent is indicated either in the town
meetings of the communes or by appearing before the official
in charge of the petition and openly asking that his vote be
given for it. If, in the various town meetings of the canton
taken together, a stated number of affirmative votes are given
for the petition, the effect is the same as if the names of
voters had been signed. … The number of names required is
about the same in proportion to the whole body of voters as
for the Optional Referendum. The requisite number of
signatures having been procured, the petition is carried to
the legislature of the canton. This body must take the matter
into consideration within a specified time (Solothurn, two
months), and prepare a completed draft in accordance with the
request. It may also at the same time present an alternate
proposition which expresses its own ideas of the matter, so
that voters may take their choice. In any case the legislature
gives an opinion on the project, as to its desirability or
propriety, and the public has thus a report of its own select
committee for guidance. The bill is then submitted to the
voters, and on receiving the assent of a majority, and having
been promulgated by the executive authority, becomes a law of
the land."
J. M. Vincent,
State and Federal Government in Switzerland,
chapter 13.
"Between 1874 and 1886, the federal legislature passed 113
laws and resolutions which were capable of being submitted to
the referendum. Of these only 19 were subjected to the popular
vote, and of these last 13 were rejected and 6 adopted. The
strong opposing views, which are held in Switzerland regarding
the expediency of the referendum, indicate that this is one of
the features of the government which is open to future
discussion."
B. Moses,
The Federal Government of Switzerland,
page 119.
See, also, SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
"A plébiscite is a mass vote of the French people by which a
Revolutionary or Imperial Executive obtains for its policy, or
its crimes, the apparent sanction or condonation of France.
Frenchmen are asked at the moment, and in the form most
convenient to the statesmen or conspirators who rule in Paris,
to say 'Aye' or 'No' whether they will, or will not, accept a
given Constitution or a given policy. The crowd of voters are
expected to reply in accordance to the wishes or the orders of
the Executive, and the expectation always has met, and an
observer may confidently predict always will meet, with
fulfilment. The plébiscite is a revolutionary, or at least
abnormal, proceeding. It is not preceded by debate. The form
and nature of the question to be submitted to the nation is
chosen and settled by the men in power. Rarely, indeed, when a
plébiscite has been taken, has the voting itself been either
free or fair. Taine has a strange tale to tell of the methods
by which a Terrorist faction, when all but crushed by general
odium, extorted from the country by means of the plébiscite a
sham assent to the prolongation of revolutionary despotism.
The credulity of partisanship can nowadays hardly induce even
Imperialists to imagine that the plébiscites which sanctioned
the establishment of the Empire, which declared Louis Napoleon
President for life, which first re-established Imperialism,
and then approved more or less Liberal reforms, fatal at
bottom to the Imperial system, were the free, deliberate,
carefully considered votes of the French nation given after
the people had heard all that could be said for and against
the proposed innovation. … The essential characteristics,
however, the lack of which deprives a French plébiscite of all
moral significance, are the undoubted properties of the Swiss
Referendum. When a law revising the Constitution is placed
before the people of Switzerland, every citizen throughout the
land has enjoyed the opportunity of learning the merits and
demerits of the proposed alteration. The subject has been
'threshed out,' as the expression goes, in Parliament; the
scheme, whatever its worth, has received the deliberately
given approval of the elected Legislature; it comes before the
people with as much authority in its favour as a Bill which in
England has passed through both Houses."
A. V. Dicey,
The Referendum,
(Contemporary Review, April, 1890).
{2629}
"A judgment of the referendum must be based on the working of
the electoral machinery, on the interest shown by the voters,
and on the popular discrimination between good and bad
measures. The process of invoking and voting on a referendum
is simple and easily worked, if not used too often. Although
the Assembly has, in urgent cases, the constitutional right to
set a resolution in force at once, it always allows from three
to eight months' delay so as to permit the opponents of a
measure to lodge their protests against it. Voluntary
committees take charge of the movement, and, if a law is
unpopular, little difficulty is found in getting together the
necessary thirty thousand or fifty thousand signatures. Only
thrice has the effort failed when made. When, as in 1882, the
signatures run up to 180,000, the labor is severe, for every
signature is examined by the national executive to see whether
it is attested as the sign manual of a voter; sometimes, in an
interested canton, as many as 70 per cent. of the voters have
signed the demand. The system undoubtedly leads to public
discussion: newspapers criticise; addresses and counter
addresses are issued; cantonal councils publicly advise
voters; and of late the federal Assembly sends out manifestoes
against pending initiatives. The federal Executive Council
distributes to the cantons enough copies of the proposed
measure, so that one may be given to each voter. The count of
the votes is made by the Executive Council as a
returning-board. Inasmuch as the Swiss are unfamiliar with
election frauds, and there has been but one very close vote in
the national referenda, the count is not difficult, but there
are always irregularities, especially where more than one
question is presented to the voters at the same time. What is
the effect of the popular votes, thus carried out? The
following table, based on official documents, shows the
results for the twenty years, 1875-1894;
Passed Rejected Total
(a.) Constitutional amendments
proposed by the Assembly
(referendum obligatory) 1 6 7
(b.) Constitutional amendments
proposed by popular initiative 2 1 *4
(50,000 signatures)
(c.) Laws passed by the Assembly 14 6 20
(referendum demanded by 30,000).
Total 17 13 31
* One measure still pending.
Making allowances for cases where more than one question has
been submitted at the same time, there have been twenty-four
popular votes in twenty years. In addition, most of the
cantons have their own local referenda; in Zurich, for
example, in these twenty years, more than one hundred other
questions have been placed before the sovereign people. These
numbers are large in themselves, but surprising in proportion
to the total legislation. Out of 158 general acts passed by
the federal Assembly from 1874 to 1892, 27 were subjected to
the referendum; that is, about one-sixth are reviewed and
about one-tenth are reversed. Constitutional amendments
usually get through sooner or Inter, but more than two-thirds
of the statutes attacked are annulled. To apply the system on
such a scale in any State of our Union is plainly impossible;
thirty-nine–fortieths of the statute-book must still rest, as
now, on the character of the legislators. Nevertheless it may
be worth while to excise the other fortieth, if experience
shows that the people are more interested and wiser than their
representatives, when a question is put plainly and simply
before them. I must own to disappointment over the use made by
the Swiss of their envied opportunity. On the twenty referenda
between 1879 and 1891 the average vote in proportion to the
voters was but 58.5 per cent.; in only one case did it reach
67 per cent.; and in one case—the patent law of 1887—it fell
to about 40 per cent. in the Confederation, and to 9 per cent.
in Canton Schwyz. On the serious and dangerous question of
recognizing the right to employment, this present year, only
about 56 per cent. participated. In Zurich there is a
compulsory voting law, of which the curious result is that on
both national and cantonal referenda many thousands of blank
ballots are cast. The result of the small vote is that laws,
duly considered by the national legislature and passed by
considerable majorities, are often reversed by a minority of
the voters. The most probable reason for this apathy is that
there are too many elections—in some cantons as many as
fifteen a year. Whatever the cause, Swiss voters are less
interested in referenda than Swiss legislators in framing
bills. … 'I am a friend of the referendum,' says an eminent
member of the Executive Council, 'but I do not like the
initiative.' The experience of Switzerland seems to show four
things: that the Swiss voters are not deeply interested in the
referendum; that the referendum is as likely to kill good as
bad measures; that the initiative is more likely to suggest
bad measures than good; that the referendum leads straight to
the initiative. The referendum in the United States would
therefore probably be an attempt to govern great communities
by permanent town meeting."
Prof. A. B. Hart,
Vox Populi in Switzerland
(Nation, September 13, 1894).
ALSO IN:
A. L. Lowell,
The Referendum in Switzerland and America
(Atlantic Monthly, April, 1894).
E. P. Oberholtzer,
The Referendum in America.
REFORM, Parliamentary.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830; 1830-1832; 1865-1868,
and 1884-1885.
----------REFORMATION: Start--------
REFORMATION:
Bohemia.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415; and 1419-1434, and after.
REFORMATION:
England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, to 1558-1588.
REFORMATION:
France.
See PAPACY; A. D. 1521-1535;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547, and after.
REFORMATION:
Germany.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522,
1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563;
also GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, 1530-1532, 1533-1546,
1546-1552, 1552-1561;
also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE; A. D. 1518-1572.
REFORMATION:
Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567
REFORMATION:
Ireland; its failure.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.
REFORMATION:
Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555, and after.
REFORMATION:
Piedmont.
See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.
{2630}
REFORMATION:
Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557; 1557; 1558-1560;
and 1561-1568.
REFORMATION:
Sweden and Denmark.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
REFORMATION:
Switzerland.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;
and GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535; and 1536-1564.
----------REFORMATION: End--------
REFORMATION, The Counter.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540; 1537-1563; 1555-1603.
REGED.
See CUMBRIA.
REGENSBURG.
See RATISBON-under which name the town is more commonly
known to English readers.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY, New York.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.
REGICIDES AT NEW HAVEN, The.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.
REGILLUS, Lake, Battle at.
In the legendary history of the Roman kings it is told that
the last of the Tarquins strove long to regain his throne,
with the help of the Etruscans first, afterwards of the
Latins, and that the question was finally settled in a great
battle fought with the latter, near the Lake Regillus, in
which the Romans were helped by Castor and Pollux, in person.
Livy,
History,
II. 19.
REGNI, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
REGULATORS OF NORTH CAROLINA.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.
REGULBIUM.
One of the fortified Roman towns in Britain on the Kentish
coast,—modern Reculver.
T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
REGULUS, and the Carthaginians.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
REICHSTAG.
See DIET, THE GERMANIC.
REIGN OF TERROR, The.
See TERROR.
REIS EFFENDI.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
REMI, The.
See BELGÆ.
REMO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
REMONSTRANTS AND COUNTER-REMONSTRANTS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.
RENAISSANCE, The.
"The word Renaissance has of late years received a more
extended significance than that which is implied in our
English equivalent—the Revival of Learning. We use it to
denote the whole transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern
World; and though it is possible to assign certain limits to
the period during which this transition took place, we cannot
fix on any dates so positively as to say—between this year and
that the movement was accomplished. To do so would be like
trying to name the days on which spring in any particular
season began and ended. Yet we speak of spring as different
from winter and from summer. … By the term Renaissance, or new
birth, is indicated a natural movement, not to be explained by
this or that characteristic, but to be accepted as an effort
of humanity for which at length the time had come, and in the
onward progress of which we still participate. The history of
the Renaissance is not the history of arts, or of sciences, or
of literature, or even of nations. It is the history of the
attainment of self-conscious freedom by the human spirit
manifested in the European races. It is no mere political
mutation, no new fashion of art, no restoration of classical
standards of taste. The arts and the inventions, the knowledge
and the books which suddenly became vital at the time of the
Renaissance, had long lain neglected on the shores of the Dead
Sea which we call the Middle Ages. It was not their discovery
which caused the Renaissance. But it was the intellectual
energy, the spontaneous outburst of intelligence, which
enabled mankind at that moment to make use of them. The force
then generated still continues, vital and expansive, in the
spirit of the modern world. … The reason why Italy took the
lead in the Renaissance was, that Italy possessed a language,
a favourable climate, political freedom, and commercial
prosperity, at a time when other nations were still
semi-barbarous. … It was … at the beginning of the 14th
century, when Italy had lost indeed the heroic spirit which we
admire in her Communes of the 13th, but had gained instead
ease, wealth, magnificence, and that repose which springs from
long prosperity, that the new age at last began. … The great
achievements of the Renaissance were the discovery of the
world and the discovery of man. Under these two formulæ may be
classified all the phenomena which properly belong to this
period. The discovery of the world divides itself into two
branches—the exploration of the globe, and the systematic
exploration of the universe which is in fact what we call
Science. Columbus made known America in 1492; the Portuguese
rounded the Cape in 1497; Copernicus explained the solar
system in 1507. It is not necessary to add anything to this
plain statement. … In the discovery of man … it is possible to
trace a twofold process. Man in his temporal relations,
illustrated by Pagan antiquity, and man in his spiritual
relations, illustrated by Biblical antiquity: these are the
two regions, at first apparently distinct, afterwards found to
be interpenetrative, which the critical and inquisitive genius
of the Renaissance opened for investigation. In the former of
these regions we find two agencies at work, art and
scholarship. … Through the instrumentality of art, and of all
the ideas which art introduced into daily life, the
Renaissance wrought for the modern world a real resurrection
of the body. … It was scholarship which revealed to men the
wealth of their own minds, the dignity of human thought, the
value of human speculation, the importance of human life
regarded as a thing apart from religious rules and dogmas. …
The Renaissance opened to the whole reading public the
treasure-houses of Greek and Latin literature. At the same
time the Bible in its original tongues was rediscovered. Mines
of Oriental learning were laid bare for the students of the
Jewish and Arabic traditions. What we may call the Aryan and
the Semitic revelations were for the first time subjected to
something like a critical comparison. With unerring instinct
the men of the Renaissance named the voluminous subject-matter
of scholarship 'Litteræ Humaniores,' the more human
literature, the literature that humanises [hence the term
Humanism]. … Not only did scholarship restore the classics and
encourage literary criticism; it also restored the text of the
Bible, and encouraged theological criticism. In the wake of
theological freedom followed a free philosophy, no longer
subject to the dogmas of the Church. … On the one side
Descartes, and Bacon, and Spinoza, and Locke are sons of the
Renaissance, champions of new-found philosophical freedom; on
the other side, Luther is a son of the Renaissance, the herald
of new-found religious freedom."
J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,
chapter 1.
{2631}
"The Renaissance, so far as painting is concerned, may be said
to have culminated between the years 1470 and 1550. These
dates, it must be frankly admitted, are arbitrary; nor is
there anything more unprofitable than the attempt to define by
strict chronology the moments of an intellectual growth so
complex, so unequally progressive, and so varied as that of
Italian art. All that the historian can hope to do, is to
strike a mean between his reckoning of years and his more
subtle calculations based on the emergence of decisive genius
in special men. An instance of such compromise is afforded by
Lionardo da Vinci, who belongs, as far as dates go, to the
last half of the fifteenth century, but who must on any
estimate of his achievement, be classed with Michael Angelo
among the final and supreme masters of the full Renaissance.

To violate the order of time, with a view to what may here be
called the morphology of Italian art, is, in his case, a plain
duty. Bearing this in mind, it is still possible to regard the
eighty years above mentioned as a period no longer of promise
and preparation but of fulfilment and accomplishment.
Furthermore, the thirty years at the close of the fifteenth
century may be taken as one epoch in this climax of the art,
while the first half of the sixteenth forms a second. Within
the former falls the best work of Mantegna, Perugino, Francia,
the Bellini, Signorelli, Fra Bartolommeo. To the latter we may
reckon Michael Angelo, Raphael, Giorgione, Correggio, Titian,
and Andrea del Sarto. Lionardo da Vinci, though belonging
chronologically to the former epoch, ranks first among the
masters of the latter; and to this also may be given
Tintoretto, though his life extended far beyond it to the last
years of the century."
J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Fine Arts,
chapters 4-6.
"It would be difficult to find any period in the history of
modern Europe equal in importance with that distinguished in
history under the name of the Renaissance. Standing midway
between the decay of the Middle Ages and the growth of modern
institutions, we may say that it was already dawning in the
days of Dante Alighieri, in whose immortal works we find the
synthesis of a dying age and the announcement of the birth of
a new era. This new era—the Renaissance—began with Petrarch
and his learned contemporaries, and ended with Martin Luther
and the Reformation, which event not only produced signal
changes in the history of those nations which remained
Catholic, but transported beyond the Alps the centre of
gravity of European culture."
P. Villari,
Niccolo Machiavelli and his Times,
volume 1, chapter 1.
J. Burckhardt,
The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy.
On the communication of the movement of the Renaissance to
France and Europe in general, as a notable consequence of the
invasion of Italy by Charles VIII.
See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
See, also,
ITALY: 14TH CENTURY, and 15-16TH CENTURIES;
FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492;
VENICE: 16TH CENTURY;
FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515, and 16TH CENTURY;
EDUCATION: RENAISSANCE;
ENGLAND: 10-16TH CENTURIES.
[Transcriber's note: For additional commentary on the
Renaissance by James J. Walsh, see:
The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38680
Medieval Medicine https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43300
The Century of Columbus https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35095
The Popes and Science https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34019
Catholic Churchmen in Science https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34067
Education: How Old The New https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34938
]
RÉNE
(called The Good), Duke of Anjou and Lorraine and
Count of Provence, A. D. 1434-1480.
King of Naples, A. D. 1435-1442.
See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
RENSSELAER, Van.
See VAN RENSSELAER.
RENSSELAERWICK, The Patroon colony and manor of.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646;
also, LIVINGSTON MANOR.
REPARTIMIENTOS.
ENCOMIENDAS.
Columbus, as governor of Hispaniola (Hayti), made an
arrangement "by which the caciques in their vicinity, instead
of paying tribute, should furnish parties of their subjects,
free Indians, to assist the colonists in the cultivation of
their lands: a kind of feudal service, which was the origin of
the repartimientos, or distributions of free Indians among the
colonists, afterwards generally adopted, and shamefully
abused, throughout the Spanish colonies; a source of
intolerable hardships and oppressions to the unhappy natives,
and which greatly contributed to exterminate them from the
island of Hispaniola. Columbus considered the island in the
light of a conquered country, and arrogated to himself all the
rights of a conqueror, in the name of the sovereigns for whom
he fought."
W. Irving,
Life and Voyages of Columbus,
book 12, chapter 4 (volume 2).
"The words 'repartimiento' and 'encomienda' are often used
indiscriminately by Spanish authors; but, speaking accurately,
'repartimiento' means the first apportionment of
Indians,—'encomienda' the apportionment of any Spaniard's
share which might become 'vacant' by his death or banishment."
Sir A. Helps,
Spanish Conquest in America,
book 6, chapter 2, foot-note, (volume 1).
"'Repartimiento,' a distribution; 'repartir,' to divide;
'encomienda,' a charge, a commandery; 'encomendar,' to give in
charge; 'encomendero,' he who holds an encomienda. In Spain an
encomienda, as here understood, was a dignity in the four
military orders, endowed with a rental, and held by certain
members of the order. It was acquired through the liberality
of the crown as a reward for services in the wars against the
Moors. The lands taken from the Infidels were divided among
Christian commanders; the inhabitants of those lands were
crown tenants, and life-rights to their services were given
these commanders. In the legislation of the Indies, encomienda
was the patronage conferred by royal favor over a portion of
the natives, coupled with the obligation to teach them the
doctrines of the Church, and to defend their persons and
property. … The system begun in the New World by Columbus,
Bobadilla, and Ovando was continued by Vasco Nuñez, Pedrarias,
Cortés, and Pizarro, and finally became general."
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 262, foot-note.
See, also, SLAVERY, MODERN: OF THE INDIANS.
REPEAL OF THE UNION OF IRELAND WITH GREAT BRITAIN,
The Agitation for.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829, 1840-1841; and 1841-1848.
REPETUNDÆ.
See CALPURNIAN LAW.
REPHAIM, The.
See HORITES, THE.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
{2632}
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.
"This [representative government] is the great distinction
between free states of the modern type, whether kingly or
republican, and the city-commonwealths of old Greece. It is
the great political invention of Teutonic Europe, the one form
of political life to which neither Thucydides, Aristotle, nor
Polybios ever saw more than the faintest approach. In Greece
it was hardly needed, but in Italy a representative system
would have delivered Rome from the fearful choice which she
had to make between anarchy and despotism."
E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 2.
"Examples of nearly every form of government are to be found
in the varied history of Greece: but nowhere do we find a
distinct system of political representation. There is, indeed,
a passage in Aristotle which implies a knowledge of the
principles of representation. He speaks of 'a moderate
oligarchy, in which men of a certain census elect a council
entrusted with the deliberative power, but bound to exercise
this power agreeably to established laws.' There can be no
better definition of representation than this: but it appears
to express his theoretical conception of a government, rather
than to describe any example within his own experience. Such a
system was incompatible with the democratic constitutions of
the city republics: but in their international councils and
leagues, we may perceive a certain resemblance to it. There
was an approach to representation in the Amphictyonic Council,
and in the Achaian League; and the several cities of the
Lycian League had a number of votes in the assembly,
proportioned to their size—the first example of the kind—being
a still nearer approximation to the principles of
representation. But it was reserved for later ages to devise
the great scheme of representative government, under which
large States may enjoy as much liberty as the walled cities of
Greece, and individual citizens may exercise their political
rights as fully as the Athenians, without the disorders and
perils of pure democracy."
Sir T. E. May,
Democracy in Europe,
volume 1, chapter 3.
"The most interesting, and on the whole the most successful,
experiments in popular government, are those which have
frankly recognised the difficulty under which it labours. At
the head of these we must place the virtually English
discovery of government by Representation, which caused
Parliamentary institutions to be preserved in these islands
from the destruction which overtook them everywhere else, and
to devolve as an inheritance upon the United States."
Sir H. S. Maine,
Popular Government,
page 92.
"To find the real origin of the modern representative system
we must turn to the assemblies of the second grade in the
early German states. In these the freemen of the smaller
locality—the Hundred or Canton—came together in a public
meeting which possessed no doubt legislative power over
matters purely local, but whose most important function seems
to have been judicial—a local court, presided over by a chief
who suggested and announced the verdict, which, however,
derived its validity from the decision of the assembly, or, in
later times, of a number of their body appointed to act for
the whole. Those local courts, probably, as has been
suggested, because of the comparatively restricted character
of the powers which they possessed, were destined to a long
life. On the continent they lasted until the very end of the
middle ages, when they were generally overthrown by the
introduction of the Roman law, too highly scientific for their
simple methods. In England they lasted until they furnished
the model, and probably the suggestion, for a far more
important institution—the House of Commons. How many grades of
these local courts there were on the continent below the
national assembly is a matter of dispute. In England there was
clearly a series of three. The lowest was the township
assembly, concerned only with matters of very slight
importance and surviving still in the English vestry meeting
and the New England town-meeting. Above this was the hundred's
court formed upon a distinctly representative principle, the
assembly being composed, together with certain other men, of
four representatives sent from each township. Then, third, the
tribal assembly of the original little settlement, or, the
small kingdom of the early conquest, seems to have survived
when this kingdom was swallowed up in a larger one, and to
have originated a new grade in the hierarchy of assemblies,
the county assembly or shire court. At any rate, whatever may
have been its origin, and whatever may be the final decision
of the vigorously disputed question, whether in the Frankish
state there were any assemblies or courts for the counties
distinct from the courts of the hundreds, it is certain that
courts of this grade came into existence in England and were
of the utmost importance there. In them, too, the
representative principle was distinctly expressed, each
township of the shire being represented, as in the hundred's
court, by four chosen representatives. These courts, also,
pass essentially unchanged through the English feudal and
absolutist period, maintaining local self-government and
preserving more of the primitive freedom than survived
elsewhere. We shall see more in detail, at a later point, how
the representative principle originating in them is
transferred to the national legislature, creating our modern
national representative system—the most important single
contribution to the machinery of government made in historic
times, with the possible exception of federal government."
G. B. Adams,
Civilization during the Middle Ages,
chapter 5.
For an account of the rise and development of the
representative system in the English Parliament.
See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH.
REPRESENTATIVES, House of.
See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES,
The earlier.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1789-1792; 1798; and 1825-1828.
The later.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.
Liberal and Radical wings.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.
REPUBLICANS, Independent.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.
RESACA,
Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA).
Hood's attack on.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
RESACA DE LA PALMA, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
{2633}
RESAINA, Battle of.
A battle, fought A. D. 241, in which Sapor I. the Persian
king, was defeated by the Roman emperor Gordian, in
Mesopotamia.
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 4.
RESCH-GLUTHA, The.
The "Prince of the Captivity."
See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.
RESCISSORY, Act.
See SCOTLAND: A.D. 1660-1666.
RESCRIPTS, Roman Imperial.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
RESEN.
See ROTENNU, THE.
RESIDENCIA.
"Residencia was the examination or account taken of the
official acts of an executive or judicial officer [Spanish]
during the term of his residence within the province of his
jurisdiction, and while in the exercise of the functions of
his office. … While an official was undergoing his residencia
it was equivalent to his being under arrest, as he could
neither exercise office nor, except in certain cases
specified, leave the place."
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 250, foot-note.
ALSO IN:
F. W. Blackmar,
Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
page 69.
RESIDENT AT EASTERN COURTS, The English.
See INDIA. A. D. 1877.
RESTITUTION, The Edict of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
RETENNU, The.
See ROTENNU, THE.
RETHEL, Battle of (1650).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.
RETREAT OF THE TEN THOUSAND, The.
See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
RETZ, Cardinal De, and the Fronde.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1051-1653.
REUDIGNI, The.
See AVIONES.
REUIL, Peace of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1649.
REVERE, Paul, The ride of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).
REVIVAL OF LEARNING.
See RENAISSANCE.
REVOLUTION, The American.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765, and after.
REVOLUTION, The English, of 1688.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.
REVOLUTION, The French, of 1789.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789, and after.
REVOLUTION, The French, of 1830.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.
REVOLUTION, The French, of 1848.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.
REVOLUTION, The Year of.
See
EUROPE (volume 2, pages 1098-1099):
ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849:
GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), to 1848-1850;
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848, to 1848-1850;
HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849;
FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.
REVOLUTIONARY TRIBUNAL, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
REYDANIYA, Battle of (1517).
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
REYNOSA, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
----------RHÆTIA: Start--------
RHÆTIA.
Rhætians, Vindelicians, etc.
"The Alps from the Simplon pass to the sources of the Drave
were occupied by the Rhætians. Beyond the Inn and the Lake of
Constance, the plain which slopes gently towards the Danube
was known by the name of Vindelicia. Styria, the Kammergut of
Salzburg, and the southern half of the Austrian Archduchy,
belonged to the tribes of Noricum, while the passes between
that country and Italy were held by the Carnians." The Roman
conquest of this Alpine region was effected in the years 16
and 15 B. C. by the two stepsons of the Emperor Augustus,
Tiberius and Drusus. In addition to the people mentioned
above, the Camuni, the Vennones, the Brenni and the Genauni
were crushed. "The free tribes of the eastern Alps appear then
for the first time in history, only to disappear again for a
thousand years."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 35.
See, also, TYROL.
RHÆTIA:
Settlement of the Alemanni in.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
----------RHÆTIA: End--------
RHAGES.
See RAGA.
RHEGIUM, Siege of (B. C. 387).
Rhegium, an important Greek city, in the extreme south of
Italy, on the strait which separates the peninsula from
Sicily, incurred the hostility of the tyrant of Syracuse, the
elder Dionysius, by scornfully refusing him a bride whom he
solicited. The savage-tempered despot made several attempts
without success to surprise the town, and finally laid siege
to it with a powerful army and fleet. The inhabitants resisted
desperately for eleven months, at the end of which time (B. C.
387) they were starved into surrender. "Dionysius, on entering
Rhegium, found heaps of unburied corpses, besides 6,000
citizens in the last stage of emaciation. All these captives
were sent to Syracuse, where those who could provide a mina
(about £3. 17s.) were allowed to ransom themselves, while the
rest were sold as slaves. After such a period of suffering,
the number of those who retained the means of ransom was
probably very small."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 83.
RHEIMS:
Origin of the name.
See BELGÆ.
RHEIMS: A. D. 1429.
The crowning of Charles VII.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
RHEIMS: A. D. 1814.
Capture by the Allies and recovery by Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
RHEINFELDEN, Siege and Battle of (1638).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
RHETRÆ.
See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.
RHINE, The Circle of the.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
RHINE, The Confederation of the.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
and FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
RHINE, Roman passage of the.
See USIPETES AND TENCTHERI.
RHINE LEAGUE, The.
The Rhine League was one of several Bunds, or confederations
formed among the German trading towns in the middle ages, for
the common protection of their commerce. It comprised the
towns of southwest Germany and the Lower Rhine provinces.
Prominent among its members were Cologne, Wessel and Munster.
Cologne, already a large and flourishing city, the chief
market of the trade of the Rhine lands, was a member,
likewise, of the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
J. Yeats,
Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
page 158.
See, also, CITIES, IMPERIAL, AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
{2634}
----------RHODE ISLAND: Start--------
RHODE ISLAND:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1631-1636.
Roger Williams in Massachusetts.
His offenses against Boston Puritanism.
His banishment.
On the 5th of February, 1631, "the ship Lyon arrived at
Nantasket, with twenty passengers and a large store of
provisions. Her arrival was most timely, for the
[Massachusetts] colonists were reduced to the last exigencies
of famine. Many had already died of want, and many more were
rescued from imminent peril by this providential occurrence. A
public fast had been appointed for the day succeeding that on
which the ship reached Boston. It was changed to a general
thanksgiving. There was another incident connected with the
arrival of this ship, which made it an era, not only in the
affairs of Massachusetts, but in the history of America. She
brought to the shores of New England the founder of a new
State, the exponent of a new philosophy, the intellect that
was to harmonize religious differences, and soothe the
asperities of the New World; a man whose clearness of mind
enabled him to deduce, from the mass of crude speculations
which abounded in the 17th century, a proposition so
comprehensive, that it is difficult to say whether its
application has produced the most beneficial result upon
religion, or morals, or politics. This man was Roger Williams,
then about thirty-two years of age. He was a scholar, well
versed in the ancient and some of the modern tongues, an
earnest inquirer after truth, and an ardent friend of popular
liberty as well for the mind as for the body. As a 'godly
minister,' he was welcomed to the society of the Puritans, and
soon invited by the church in Salem to supply the place of the
lamented Higginson, as an assistant to their pastor Samuel
Skelton. The invitation was accepted, but the term of his
ministry was destined to be brief. The authorities at Boston
remonstrated with those at Salem against the reception of
Williams. The Court at its next session addressed a letter to
Mr. Endicott to this effect: 'That whereas Mr. Williams had
refused to join with the congregation at Boston, because they
would not make a public declaration of their repentance for
having communion with the churches of England, while they
lived there; and, besides, had declared his opinion that the
magistrate might not punish the breach of the Sabbath, nor any
other offence, as it was a breach of the first table;
therefore they marvelled that they would choose him without
advising with the council, and withal desiring him, that they
would forbear to proceed till they had conferred about it.'
This attempt of the magistrates of Boston to control the
election of a church officer at Salem, met with the rebuke it
so richly merited. The people were not ignorant of the
hostility their invitation had excited; yet on the very day
the remonstrance was written, they settled Williams as their
minister. The ostensible reasons for this hostility are set
forth in the letter above cited. That they were to a great
extent the real ones cannot be questioned. The ecclesiastical
polity of the Puritans sanctioned this interference. Their
church platform approved it. Positive statute would seem to
require it. Nevertheless, we cannot but think that, underlying
all this, there was a secret stimulus of ambition on the part
of the Boston Court to strengthen its authority over the
prosperous and, in some respects, rival colony of Salem. … As
a political measure this interference failed of its object.
The people resented so great a stretch of authority, and the
church disregarded the remonstrance. … What could not as yet
be accomplished by direct intervention of the Court was
effected in a surer manner. The fearlessness of Williams in
denouncing the errors of the times, and especially the
doctrine of the magistrate's power in religion, gave rise to a
system of persecution which, before the close of the summer,
obliged him to seek refuge beyond the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts in the more liberal colony of the Pilgrims. At
Plymouth 'he was well accepted as an assistant in the ministry
to Mr. Ralph Smith, then pastor of the church there.' The
principal men of the colony treated him with marked attention.
… The opportunities there presented for cultivating an
intimate acquaintance with the chief Sachems of the
neighboring tribes were well improved, and exerted an
important influence, not only in creating the State of which
he was to be the founder, but also in protecting all New
England amid the horrors of savage warfare. Ousamequin, or
Massasoit, as he is usually called, was the Sachem of the
Wampanoags, called also the Pokanoket tribe, inhabiting the
Plymouth territory. His seat was at Mount Hope, in what is now
the town of Bristol, R. I. With this chief, the early and
steadfast friend of the English, Williams established a
friendship which proved of the greatest service at the time of
his exile."
S. G. Arnold,
History of the State of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations,
volume 1, chapter 1.
Williams "remained at Plymouth, teaching in the church, but
supporting himself by manual labor, nearly two years. His
ministry was popular in the main and his person universally
liked. Finally, however, he advanced some opinions which did
not suit the steady-going Plymouth elders, and therefore,
departing 'something abruptly,' he returned to Salem. There he
acted as assistant to Mr. Skelton, the aged pastor of the
church, and when Mr. Skelton died, less than a year later,
became his successor. At Salem he was again under the
surveillance of the rulers and elders of the Bay, and they
were swift to make him sensible of it. He had written in
Plymouth, for the Plymouth Governor and Council a treatise on
the Massachusetts Patent, in which he had maintained his
doctrine that the King could not give the settlers a right to
take away from the natives their land without paying them for
it. He was not a lawyer but an ethical teacher, and it was
doubtless as such that he maintained this opinion. In our day
its ethical correctness is not disputed. It has always been
good Rhode Island doctrine. He also criticised the patent
because in it King James claimed to be the first Christian
prince who discovered New England, and because he called
Europe Christendom or the Christian World. Williams did not
scruple to denounce these formal fictions in downright Saxon
as lies. He does not appear to have been, at any period of his
life, a paragon of conventional propriety. A rumor of the
treatise got abroad, though it remained unpublished. The
patent happened to be a sensitive point with the magistrates.
{2635}
It had been granted in England to an English trading company,
and its transfer to Massachusetts was an act of questionable
legality. Moreover it was exceedingly doubtful whether the
rulers, in exercising the extensive civil jurisdiction which
they claimed under it, did not exceed their authority. They
were apprehensive of proceedings to forfeit it, and therefore
were easily alarmed at any turning of attention to it. When
they heard of the treatise they sent for it, and, having got
it, summoned the author 'to be censured.' He appeared in an
unexpectedly placable mood, and not only satisfied their minds
in regard to some of its obscurer passages, but offered it,
since it had served its purpose, to be burnt. The magistrates,
propitiated by his complaisance, appeared to have accepted the
offer as equivalent to a promise of silence, though it is
impossible that he, the uncompromising champion of aboriginal
rights, can ever have meant to give, or even appear to give,
such a promise. Accordingly when they heard soon afterwards
that he was discussing the patent they were deeply incensed,
though it was doubtless the popular curiosity excited by their
own indiscreet action which elicited the discussion. Their
anger was aggravated by another doctrine then put forth by
him, namely, that an oath ought not to be tendered to an
unregenerate, or, as we should say, an unreligious man,
because an oath is an act of worship, and cannot be taken by
such a man without profanation. … He also taught that an oath
being an act of worship, could not properly be exacted from
anyone against his will, and that even Christians ought not to
desecrate it by taking it for trivial causes. … The
magistrates again instituted proceedings against him, at first
subjecting him to the ordeal of clerical visitation, then
formally summoning him to answer for himself before the
General Court. At the same time the Salem church was arraigned
for contempt in choosing him as pastor while he was under
question. The court, however, did not proceed to judgment, but
allowed them both further time for repentance. It so happened
that the inhabitants of Salem had a petition before the court
for 'some land at Marblehead Neck, which they did challenge as
belonging to their town.' The court, when the petition came
up, refused to grant it until the Salem church should give
satisfaction for its contempt, thus virtually affirming that
the petitioners had no claim to justice even, so long as they
adhered to their recusant pastor. Williams was naturally
indignant. He induced his church—'enchanted his church,' says
Cotton Mather—to send letters to the sister churches,
appealing to them to admonish the magistrates and deputies of
their 'heinous sin.' He wrote the letters himself. His
Massachusetts contemporaries say he was 'unlamblike.'
Undoubtedly they heard no gentle bleating in those letters,
but rather the reverberating roar of the lion chafing in his
rage. The churches repelled the appeal; and then turning to
the Salem church, besieged it only the more assiduously,
laboring with it, nine with one, to alienate it from its
pastor. What could the one church do,—with the magistracy
against it, the clergy against it, the churches and the people
against it, muttering their vague anathemas, and Salem town
suffering unjustly on its account,—what could it do but
yield? It yielded virtually if not yet in form; and Williams
stood forth alone in his opposition to the united power of
Church and State. … The fateful court day came at last. The
court assembles, magistrates and deputies, with the clergy to
advise them. Williams appears, not to be tried, but to be
sentenced unless he will retract. He reaffirms his opinions.
Mr. Hooker, a famous clerical dialectician, is chosen to
dispute with him, and the solemn mockery of confutation
begins. … Hour after hour, he argues unsubdued, till the sun
sinks low and the weary court adjourns. On the morrow [Friday,
October 9, 1635], still persisting in his glorious
'contumacy,' he is sentenced, the clergy all save one
advising, to be banished, or, to adopt the apologetic but
felicitous euphemism of his great adversary, John Cotton,
'enlarged' out of Massachusetts. He was allowed at first six
weeks, afterwards until spring, to depart. But in January the
magistrates having heard that he was drawing others to his
opinion, and that his purpose was to erect a plantation about
Narragansett Bay, 'from whence the infection would easily
spread,' concluded to send him by ship, then ready, to England
[see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636]. The story is familiar how
Williams, advised of their intent, baffled it by plunging into
the wilderness, where, after being 'sorely tost for one
fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what
bread or bed did mean,' he settled with the opening spring, on
the east bank of the Seekonk, and there built and planted."
T. Durfee,
Historical Discourse: Two hundred and fiftieth
Anniversary of the Settlement of Providence, 1886.
"The course pursued towards Roger Williams was not
exceptional. What was done to him had been done in repeated
instances before. Within the first year of its settlement the
colony had passed sentence of exclusion from its territory
upon no less than fourteen persons. It was the ordinary method
by which a corporate body would deal with those whose presence
no longer seemed desirable. Conceiving themselves to be by
patent the exclusive possessors of the soil,—soil which they
had purchased for the accomplishment of their personal and
private ends,—the colonists never doubted their competency to
fix the terms on which others should be allowed to share in
their undertaking. … While there is some discrepancy in the
contemporary accounts of this transaction, there is entire
agreement on one point, that the assertion by Roger Williams
of the doctrine of 'soul-liberty' was not the head and front
of his offending. Whatever was meant by the vague charge in
the final sentence that he had 'broached and divulged new and
dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates,' it
did not mean that he had made emphatic the broad doctrine of
the entire separation of church and state. We have his own
testimony on this point. In several allusions to the subject
in his later writings,—and it can hardly be supposed that in a
matter which he felt so sorely his memory would have betrayed
him,—he never assigns to his opinion respecting the power of
the civil magistrate more than a secondary place. He
repeatedly affirms that the chief causes of his banishment
were his extreme views regarding separation, and his
denouncing of the patent. Had he been himself conscious of
having incurred the hostility of the Massachusetts colony for
asserting the great principle with which he was afterwards
identified, he would surely have laid stress upon it. …
{2636}
It is … clear that in the long controversy it had become
covered up by other issues, and that his opponents, at least,
did not regard it as his most dangerous heresy. So far as it
was a mere speculative opinion it was not new. … To upbraid
the Puritans as unrelenting persecutors, or extol Roger
Williams as a martyr to the cause of Religious liberty, is
equally wide of the real fact. On the one hand, the
controversy had its origin in the passionate and precipitate
zeal of a young man whose relish for disputation made him
never unwilling to encounter opposition, and on the other, in
the exigencies of a unique community, where the instincts of a
private corporation had not yet expanded into the more liberal
policy of a body politic. If we cannot impute to the colony
any large statesmanship, so neither can we wholly acquit Roger
Williams of the charge of mixing great principles with some
whimsical conceits. The years which he passed in Massachusetts
were years of discipline and growth, when he doubtless already
cherished in his active brain the germs of the principles
which he afterwards developed; but the fruit was destined to
be ripened under another sky."
J. L. Diman,
Orations and Essays,
pages 114-117.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.
The wanderings of the exiled Roger Williams.
His followers.
The settlement at Providence.
The little that is known of the wanderings of Roger Williams
after his banishment from Salem, until his settlement at
Providence, is derived from a letter which he wrote more than
thirty years afterwards (June 22, 1670) to Major Mason, the
hero of the Pequot War. In that letter he says: "When I was
unkindly and unchristianly, as I believe, driven from my house
and land and wife and children, (in the midst of a New England
winter, now about thirty-five years past,) at Salem, that ever
honored Governor, Mr. Winthrop, privately wrote to me to steer
my course to Narragansett Bay and Indians, for many high and
heavenly and public ends, encouraging me, from the freeness of
the place from any English claims or patents. I took his
prudent motion as a hint and voice from God, and waving all
other thoughts and motions, I steered my course from Salem
(though in winter snow, which I feel yet) unto these parts,
wherein I may say Peniel, that is, I have seen the face of
God. … I first pitched, and began to build and plant at
Seekonk, now Rehoboth, but I received a letter from my ancient
friend, Mr. Winslow, then Governor of Plymouth, professing his
own and others love and respect to me, yet lovingly advising
me, since I was fallen into the edge of their bounds, and they
were loath to displease the Bay, to remove but to the other
side of the water, and then he said, I had the country free
before me, and might be as free as themselves, and we should
be loving neighbors together. These were the joint
understandings of these two eminently wise and Christian
Governors and others, in their day, together with their
counsel and advice as to the freedom and vacancy of this
place, which in this respect, and many other Providences of
the Most Holy and Only Wise, I called Providence. … Some time
after, the Plymouth great Sachem, (Oufamaquin,) upon occasion
affirming that Providence was his land, and therefore
Plymouth's land, and some resenting it, the then prudent and
godly Governor, Mr. Bradford, and others of his godly council,
answered, that if, after due examination, it should be found
true what the barbarian said, yet having to my loss of a
harvest that year, been now (though by their gentle advice) as
good as banished from Plymouth as from the Massachusetts, and
I had quietly and patiently departed from them, at their
motion to the place where now I was, I should not be molested
and tossed up and down again, while they had breath in their
bodies; and surely, between those, my friends of the Bay and
Plymouth, I was sorely tossed, for one fourteen weeks, in a
bitter winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean,
beside the yearly loss of no small matter in my trading with
English and natives, being debarred from Boston, the chief
mart and port of New England."
Letters of Roger Williams;
edited by J. R. Bartlett,
pages 335-336.
"According to the weight of authority, and the foregoing
extract, when Williams left Salem he made his way from there
by sea, coasting, probably, from place to place during the
'fourteen weeks' that 'he was sorely tossed,' and holding
intercourse with the native tribes, whose language he had
acquired, as we have before stated, during his residence at
Plymouth. Dr. Dexter and Professer Diman interpret this and
other references differently, and conclude that the journey
must have been by land. See Dexter, page 62, note; Nar. Club
Pub., Vol. II, page 87. Perhaps the true interpretation is
that the journey was partly by sea and partly by land; that
is, from the coast inward—to confer with the natives—was by
land, and the rest by sea."
O. S. Straus,
Roger Williams,
chapter 5, and foot-note.
Mr. Hider, the well-known critical student of Rhode Island
history, has commented on the above passage in Mr. Straus's
work as follows: "The distance from Salem by sea to Seekonk
was across Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod Bay, the Atlantic
Ocean, Vineyard Sound, Buzzard's Bay, the Atlantic Ocean
again, and Narragansett Bay,—a distance scarcely less than 500
miles, in and out, by the line of the coast; all of which had
to be covered either in a birch bark canoe or in a shallop; if
in a canoe, then to be paddled, but if in a shallop, where did
Williams get it, and what became of it? history does not
answer. If Williams was in a boat sailing into Narragansett
Bay, 'the pleasure of the Most High to direct my steps into
the Bay' would become a positive absurdity unless the Most
High meant that Williams should jump overboard! He certainly
could have taken no steps in a boat. But if Williams was in a
boat, what sense could there be in his saying 'I was sorely
tossed for one fourteen weeks, in a bitter (hyperbole again)
winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean.' Did
they not have beds in boats, nor bread? As to the expression
in the Cotton Letter, it was his soul and not his body, which
was exposed to poverties, &c.; observe the quotation. … When
Mr. Straus in his foot-note, speaks of Williams's journey,
'partly by sea and partly by land, that is from the coast
inward, to confer with the natives,' he is dealing solely with
the imagination. No such conference ever took place."
S. S. Rider,
Roger Williams
(Book Notes, volume 11, page 148).
{2637}
It was the opinion of Prof. Gammell that, when Roger Williams
fled from Salem, "he made his way through the forest to the
lodges of the Pokanokets, who occupied the country north from
Mount Hope as far as Charles River. Ousemaguin, or Massasoit,
the famous chief of this tribe, had known Mr. Williams when he
lived in Plymouth, and had often received presents and tokens
of kindness at his hands; and now, in the days of his
friendless exile, the aged chief welcomed him to his cabin at
Mount Hope, and extended to him the protection and aid he
required. He granted to him a tract of land on the Seekonk
River, to which, at the opening of spring, he repaired, and
where 'he pitched and began to build and plant ' [near the
beautiful bend in the river, now known as 'Manton's Cove,' a
short distance above the upper bridge, directly eastward of
Providence.—Foot-note]. At this place, also, at the same time,
he was joined by a number of his friends from Salem. … But
scarcely had the first dwelling been raised … when he was
again disturbed, and obliged to move still further from
Christian neighbors and the dwellings of civilized men," as
related in his letter quoted above. "He accordingly soon
abandoned the fields which he had planted, and the dwelling he
had begun to build, and embarked in a canoe upon the Seekonk
River, in quest of another spot where, unmolested, he might
rear a home and plant a separate colony. There were five
others, who, having joined him at Seekonk, bore him company."
Coasting along the stream and "round the headlands now known
as Fox Point and India Point, up the harbor, to the mouth of
the Mooshausic River," he landed, and, "upon the beautiful
slope of the hill that ascends from the river, he descried the
spring around which he commenced the first 'plantations of
Providence.' It was in the latter part of June, 1636, as well
as can be ascertained, that Roger Williams and his companions
began the settlement at the mouth of the Mooshausic River. A
little north of what is now the centre of the city, the spring
is still pointed out, which drew the attention of the humble
voyagers from Seekonk. Here, after so many wanderings, was the
weary exile to find a home, and to lay the foundations of a
city, which should be a perpetual memorial of pious gratitude
to the superintending Providence which had protected him and
guided him to the spot. … The spot at which he had landed …
was within the territory belonging to the Narragansetts.
Canonicus, the aged chief of the tribe, and Miantonomo, his
nephew, had visited the colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts
Bay, while Williams resided there, and had learned to regard
him, in virtue of his being a minister, as one of the sachems
of the English. He had also taken special pains to conciliate
their good-will and gain their confidence. … Indeed, there is
reason to believe that, at an early period after his arrival
in New England, on finding himself so widely at variance with
his Puritan brethren, he conceived the design of withdrawing
from the colonies, and settling among the Indians, that he
might labor as a missionary. … In all his dealings with the
Indians, Mr. Williams was governed by a strict regard to the
rights which, he had always contended, belonged to them as the
sole proprietors of the soil. … It was by his influence, and
at his expense, that the purchase was procured from Canonicus
and Miantonomo, who partook largely of the shyness and
jealousy of the English so common to their tribe. He says, 'It
was not thousands nor tens of thousands of money that could
have bought of them an English entrance into this bay.'"
W. Gammell,
Life of Roger Williams
(Library of American Biographies,
series 2, volume 4), chapters 6-7.
ALSO IN:
S. G. Arnold,
History of Rhode Island,
volume 1, chapters 1 and 4.
W. R Staples,
Annals of Providence,
chapter 1.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636-1661,
Sale and gift of lands by the Indians to Roger Williams.
His conveyance of the same to his associates.
"The first object of Mr. Williams would naturally be, to
obtain from the sachems a grant of land for his new colony. He
probably visited them, and received a verbal cession of the
territory, which, two years afterwards, was formally conveyed
to him by a deed, This instrument may properly be quoted here.
'At Narraganset, the 24th of the first month, commonly called
March, the second year of the plantation or planting at
Moshassuck, or Providence [1638]; Memorandum, that we,
Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of
Narraganset, having two years since sold unto Roger Williams
the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers, called
Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, do now, by these presents,
establish and confirm the bounds of these lands, from the
river and fields of Pawtucket, the great hill of
Notaquoncanot, on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug, on
the west. We also in consideration of the many kindnesses and
services he hath continually done for us, both with our
friends of Massachusetts, as also at Connecticut, and Apaum,
or Plymouth, we do freely give unto him all that land from
those rivers reaching to Pawtuxet river; as also the grass and
meadows upon the said Pawtuxet river. In witness whereof, we
have hereunto set our hands. [The mark (a bow) of Canonicus.
The mark (an arrow) of Miantonomo]. In the presence of [The
mark of Sohash. The mark of Alsomunsit].' … The lands thus
ceded to Mr. Williams he conveyed to twelve men, who
accompanied, or soon joined, him, reserving for himself an
equal part only." Twenty-three years later, on the 20th of
December, 1661, he executed a more formal deed of conveyance
to his associates and their heirs of the lands which had
unquestionably been partly sold and partly given to himself
personally by the Indians. This latter instrument was in the
following words. "'Be it known unto all men by these presents,
that I, Roger Williams, of the town of Providence, in the
Narraganset Bay, in New England, having, in the year one
thousand six hundred thirty-four, and in the year one thousand
six hundred thirty-five had several treaties with Canonicus
and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the Narraganset, and
in the end purchased of them the lands and meadows upon the
two fresh rivers called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, the two
sachems having, by a deed under their hands, two years after
the sale thereof, established and confirmed the bounds of
these lands from the rivers and fields of Pawtucket, the great
hill of Notaquoncanot on the northwest, and the town of
Mashapaug on the west, notwithstanding I had the frequent
promise of Miantinomo, my kind friend, that it should not be
land that I should want about these bounds mentioned, provided
that I satisfied the Indians there inhabiting. I having made
covenant of peaceable neighborhood with all the sachems and
natives round about us, and having, of a sense of God's
merciful Providence unto me in my distress, called the place
Providence, I desired it might be for a shelter for persons
distressed for conscience.
{2638}
I then considering the condition of divers of my distressed
countrymen, I communicated my said purchase unto my loving
friends, John Throckmorton, William Arnold, William Harris,
Stukely Westcott, John Greene, Senior, Thomas Olney, Senior,
Richard Waterman, and others, who then desired to take shelter
here with me, and in succession unto so many others as we
should receive into the fellowship and society of enjoying and
disposing of the said purchase; and besides the first that
were admitted, our town records declare, that afterwards we
received Chad Brown, William Field, Thomas Harris, Senior,
William Wickenden, Robert Williams, Gregory Dexter, and
others, as our town book declares; and whereas, by God's
merciful assistance, I was the procurer of the purchase, not
by monies nor payment, the natives being so shy and jealous
that monies could not do it, but by that language,
acquaintance and favor with the natives, and other advantages,
which it pleased God to give me, and also bore the charges and
venture of all the gratuities, which I gave to the great
sachems and other sachems and natives round about us, and lay
engaged for a loving and peaceable neighborhood with them, to
my great charge and travel; it was therefore thought fit by
some loving friends, that I should receive some loving
consideration and gratuity, and it was agreed between us, that
every person, that should be admitted into the fellowship of
enjoying land and disposing of the purchase, should pay thirty
shillings unto the public stock; and first, about thirty
pounds should be paid unto myself, by thirty shillings a
person, as they were admitted; this sum I received, and in
love to my friends, and with respect to a town and place of
succor for the distressed as aforesaid, I do acknowledge the
said sum and payment as full satisfaction; and whereas in the
year one thousand six hundred and thirty-seven, so called, I
delivered the deed subscribed by the two aforesaid chief
sachems, so much thereof as concerneth the aforementioned
lands, from myself and from my heirs, unto the whole number of
the purchasers, with all my power, right and title therein,
reserving only unto myself one single share equal unto any of
the rest of that number; I now again, in a more formal way,
under my hand and seal, confirm my former resignation of that
deed of the lands aforesaid, and bind myself, my heirs, my
executors, my administrators and assigns, never to molest any
of the said persons already received, or hereafter to be
received, into the society of purchasers, as aforesaid; but
that they, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns,
shall at all times quietly and peaceably enjoy the premises
and every part thereof, and I do further by these presents
bind myself, my heirs, my executors, my administrators and
assigns never to lay any claim, nor cause any claim to be
laid, to any of the lands aforementioned, or unto any part or
parcel thereof, more than unto my own single share, by virtue
or pretence of any former bargain, sale or mortgage
whatsoever, or jointures, thirds or entails made by me, the
said Roger Williams, or of any other person, either for, by,
through or under me. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set
my hand and seal, the twentieth day of December, in the
present year one thousand six hundred sixty-one. Roger
Williams.' … From this document, it appears, that the twelve
persons to whom the lands, on the Moshassuck and
Wanasquatucket rivers, were conveyed by Mr. Williams, did not
pay him any part of the thirty pounds, which he received; but
that the sum of thirty shillings was exacted of every person
who was afterwards admitted, to form a common stock. From this
stock, thirty pounds were paid to Mr. Williams, for the
reasons mentioned in the instrument last quoted."
J. D. Knowles,
Memoir of Roger Williams,
chapter 8.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1637.
The Pequot War.
"Williams was banished in 1636 and settled at Providence. The
Pequot war took place the next year following. The Pequots
were a powerful tribe of Indians, dwelling … in the valley of
the Thames at the easterly end of Connecticut, and holding the
lands west to the river of that name. The parties to this war
were, the Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut colonies,
assisted by the Narragansett and Mohegan tribes of Indians on
one side, against the Pequots, single-handed, on the other.
The Pequots undertook to make an alliance with the

Narragansetts and the Mohegans (Hubbard's Indian Wars, 1677,
page 118), and but for Williams would have succeeded, (Narr.
Club, volume 6, page 269). Williams had obtained a powerful
influence over Canonicus and Miantinomi, the great Sachems of
the Narragansetts, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page 17,) and
Massachusetts having just banished him, sent at once to him to
prevent if possible this alliance, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page
269). By his influence a treaty of alliance was made with
Miantinomi, Williams being employed by both sides as a friend,
the treaty was deposited with him and he was made interpreter
by Massachusetts for the Indians upon their motion,
(Winthrop's Hist. N. E., 1853, volume 1, page 237). The
Narragansetts, the Mohegans, the Niantics, the Nipmucs, and
the Cowesets, were by this treaty either neutrals or fought
actively for the English in the war."
S. S. Rider,
Political results of the Banishment of Williams
(Book Notes, volume 8, number 17).
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
The purchase, the settlement, and the naming of the island.
The founding of Newport.
Early in the spring of 1638, while Mrs. Anne Hutchinson was
undergoing imprisonment at Boston (see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D.
1636-1638), "Mr's. Hutchinson's husband, Coddington, John
Clarke, educated a physician, and other principal persons of
the Hutchinsonian party, were given to understand that, unless
they removed of their own accord, proceedings would be taken
to compel them to do so. They sent, therefore, to seck a place
of settlement, and found one in Plymouth patent; but, as the
magistrates of that colony declined to allow them an
independent organization, they presently purchased of the
Narragansets, by the recommendation of Williams, the beautiful
and fertile Is]and of Aquiday [or Aquetnet, or Aquidneck]. The
price was 40 fathoms of white wampum; for the additional
gratuity of ten coats and twenty hoes, the present inhabitants
agreed to remove. The purchasers called it the Isle of
Rhodes—a name presently changed by use to Rhode Island.
Nineteen persons, having signed a covenant 'to incorporate
themselves into a body politic,' and to submit to 'our Lord
Jesus Christ,' and to his 'most perfect and absolute laws,'
began a settlement at its northern end, with Coddington as
their judge or chief magistrate, and three elders to assist
him. They were soon joined by others from Boston; but those
who were 'of the rigid separation, and savored Anabaptism,'
removed to Providence, which now began to be well peopled."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 9.
{2639}
"This little colony increased rapidly, so that in the
following spring some of their number moved to the south-west
part of the island and began the settlement of Newport. The
northern part of the island which was first occupied was
called Portsmouth. Both towns, however, were considered, as
they were in fact, as belonging to the same colony. To this
settlement, also, came Anne Hutchinson with her husband and
family after they had been banished from Massachusetts. There
is no record that in this atmosphere of freedom she occasioned
any trouble or disturbance. Here she led a quiet and peaceable
life until the death of her husband in 1642, when she removed
to the neighborhood of New York, where she and all the members
of her family, sixteen in number, were murdered by the
Indians, with the exception of one daughter, who was taken
into captivity. In imitation of the form of government which
existed under the judges of Israel, during the period of the
Hebrew Commonwealth, the two settlements, Rhode Island and
Portsmouth, chose Coddington to be their magistrate, with the
title of Judge, and a few months afterward they elected three
elders to assist him. This form of government continued until
1640."
O. S. Straus,
Roger Williams,
chapter 6.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.
The Constitution of Providence Plantation.
The charter and the Union.
Religious liberty as understood by Roger Williams.
"The colonists of Plymouth had formed their social compact in
the cabin of the Mayflower. The colonists of Providence formed
theirs on the banks of the Mooshausick. 'We, whose names are
hereunder,' it reads, 'desirous to inhabit in the town of
Providence, do promise to subject ourselves in active or
passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be
made for public good for the body, in an orderly way, by the
major assent of the present inhabitants, masters of families,
incorporated together into a town fellowship, and such others
as they shall admit unto them only in civil things.' Never
before, since the establishment of Christianity, has the
separation of Church from State been definitely marked out by
this limitation of the authority of the magistrate to civil
things; and never, perhaps, in the whole course of history,
was a fundamental principle so vigorously observed.
Massachusetts looked upon the experiment with jealousy and
distrust, and when ignorant or restless men confounded the
right of individual opinion in religious matters with a right
of independent action in civil matters, those who had
condemned Roger Williams to banishment, eagerly proclaimed
that no well ordered government could exist in connection with
liberty of conscience. … Questions of jurisdiction also arose.
Massachusetts could not bring herself to look upon her sister
with a friendly eye, and Plymouth was soon to be merged in
Massachusetts. It was easy to foresee that there would he
bickerings and jealousies, if not open contention between
them. Still the little Colony grew apace. The first church was
founded in 1639. To meet the wants of an increased population
the government was changed, and five disposers or selectmen
charged with the principal functions of administration,
subject, however, to the superior authority of monthly town
meetings; so early and so naturally did municipal institutions
take root in English colonies. A vital point was yet
untouched. Williams, indeed, held that the Indians, as
original occupants of the soil, were the only legal owners of
it, and carrying his principle into all his dealings with the
natives, bought of them the land on which he planted his
Colony. The Plymouth and Massachusetts colonists, also, bought
their land of the natives, but in their intercourse with the
whites founded their claim upon royal charter. They even went
so far as to apply for a charter covering all the territory of
the new Colony. Meanwhile two other colonies had been planted
on the shores of the Narragansett Bay: the Colony of
Aquidnick, on the Island of Rhode Island, and the colony of
Warwick. The sense of a common danger united them, and, in
1643, they appointed Roger Williams their agent to repair to
England and apply for a royal charter. It has been treasured
up as a bitter memory that he was compelled to seek a
conveyance in New York, for Massachusetts would not allow him
to pass through her territories. His negotiations were crowned
with full success. … He found the King at open war with the
Parliament, and the administration of the colonies entrusted
to the Earl of Warwick and a joint committee of the two
Houses. Of the details of the negotiation little is known, but
on the 14th of March of the following year [1644], a 'free and
absolute charter was granted as the Incorporation of
Providence Plantations in Narragansett Bay in New England.' …
Civil government and civil laws were the only government and
laws which it recognized; and the absence of any allusion to
religious freedom in it shows how firmly and wisely Williams
avoided every form of expression which might seem to recognize
the power to grant or to deny that inalienable right. … Yet
more than three years were allowed to pass before it went into
full force as a bond of union for the four towns. Then, in
May, 1647, the corporators met at Portsmouth in General Court
of Election, and, accepting the charter, proceeded to organize
a government in harmony with its provisions. Warwick, although
not named in the charter, was admitted to the same privileges
with her larger and more flourishing sisters. This new
government was in reality a government of the people, to whose
final decision in their General Assembly all questions were
submitted. 'And now,' says the preamble to the code, … 'it is
agreed by this present Assembly thus incorporate and by this
present act declared, that the form of government established
in Providence Plantations is Democratical.'"
G. W. Greene,
Short History of Rhode Island,
chapters 3 and 5.
"The form of government being settled, they now prepared such
laws as were necessary to enforce the due administration of
it: but the popular approbation their laws must receive,
before they were valid, made this a work of time; however,
they were so industrious in it, that in the month of May,
1647, they completed a regular body of laws, taken chiefly
from the laws of England, adding a very few of their own
forming, which the circumstances and exigencies of their
present condition required.
{2640}
These laws, for securing of right, for determining
controversies, for preserving order, suppressing vice, and
punishing offenders, were, at least, equal to the laws of any
of the neighbouring colonies; and infinitely exceeded those of
all other Christian countries at that time in this
particular,—that they left the conscience free, and did not
punish men for worshipping God in the way, they were
persuaded, he required. … It was often objected to Mr.
Williams, that such great liberty in religious matters, tended
to licentiousness, and every kind of disorder: To such
objections I will give the answer he himself made, in his own
words [Letter to the Town of Providence, January, 1654-5].
'Loving Friends and Neighbours, It pleaseth God yet to
continue this great liberty of our town meetings, for which,
we ought to be humbly thankful, and to improve these liberties
to the praise of the Giver, and to the peace and welfare of
the town and colony, without our own private ends. I thought
it my duty, to present you with this my impartial testimony,
and answer to a paper sent you the other day from my
brother,—"That it is blood-guiltiness, and against the rule of
the gospel, to execute judgment upon transgressors, against
the private or public weal." That ever I should speak or write
a tittle that tends to such an infinite liberty of conscience,
is a mistake; and which I have ever disclaimed and abhorred.
To prevent such mistakes, I at present shall only propose this
case.—There goes many a ship to sea, with many a hundred souls
in one ship, whose weal and wo is common; and is a true
picture of a commonwealth, or an human combination, or
society. It hath fallen out sometimes, that both Papists and
Protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked into one ship.
Upon which supposal, I do affirm, that all the liberty of
conscience that ever I pleaded for, turns upon these two
hinges, that none of the Papists, Protestants, Jews, or Turks,
be forced to come to the ship's prayers or worship; nor,
secondly, compelled from their own particular prayers or
worship, if they practise any. I further add, that I never
denied that, notwithstanding this liberty, the commander of
the ship ought to command the ship's course; yea, and also to
command that justice, peace, and sobriety, be kept and
practised, both among the seamen and all the passengers. If
any seamen refuse to perform their service, or passengers to
pay their freight;—if any refuse to help in person or purse,
towards the common charges, or defence;—if any refuse to obey
the common laws and orders of the ship, concerning their
common peace and preservation;—if any shall mutiny and rise up
against their commanders, and officers;—if any shall preach or
write, that there ought to be no commanders, nor officers,
because all are equal in Christ, therefore no masters, nor
officers, no laws, nor orders, no corrections nor
punishments—I say I never denied, but in such cases, whatever
is pretended, the commander or commanders may judge, resist,
compel, and punish such transgressors, according to their
deserts and merits. This, if seriously and honestly minded,
may, if it so please the Father of lights, let in some light,
to such as willingly shut not their eyes. I remain, studious
of our common peace and liberty,—Roger Williams.' This
religious liberty was not only asserted in words, but
uniformly adhered to and practised; for in the year. 1656,
soon after the Quakers made their first appearance in New
England, and at which most of these colonies were greatly
alarmed and offended;. Those at that time called the four
united colonies, which were the Massachusetts, Plymouth,
Connecticut, and New Haven, wrote to this colony, to join with
them in taking effectual methods to suppress them, and prevent
their pernicious doctrines being spread and propagated in the
country.—To this request the Assembly of this colony gave the
following worthy answer; 'We shall strictly adhere to the
foundation principle on which this colony was first settled;.
to wit, that every man who submits peaceably to the civil
authority, may peaceably worship God according to the dictates
of his own conscience, without molestation.' And not to the
people of the neighbouring governments only, was this
principle owned; but it was asserted in their applications to
the ruling powers in the mother country; for in the year 1659,
in an address of this colony to Richard Cromwell, then lord
protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland, there is this
paragraph,—'May it please your highness to know, that this
poor colony of Providence Plantations, mostly consists of a
birth and breeding of the providence of the Most High.—We
being an outcast people, formerly from our mother nation, in
the bishops' days; and since from the rest of the New English
over-zealous colonies: Our frame being much like the present
frame and constitution of our dearest mother England; bearing
with the several judgments, and consciences, each of other, in
all the towns of our colony.—The which our neighbour colonies
do not; which is the only cause of their great offence against
us.' But as every human felicity has some attendant
misfortune, so the people's enjoyment of very great liberty,
hath ever been found to produce some disorders, factions, and
parties amongst them. … It must be confessed, the historians
and ministers of the neighbouring colonies, in all their
writings for a long time, represented the inhabitants of this
colony as a company of people who lived without any order, and
quite regardless of all religion; and this, principally,
because they allowed an unlimited liberty of conscience, which
was then interpreted to be profane licentiousness, as though
religion could not subsist without the support of human laws,
and Christians must cease to be so, if they suffered any of
different sentiments to live in the same country with them.
Nor is it to be wondered at, if many among them that first
came hither, being tinctured with the same bitter spirit,
should create much disturbance; nor that others, when got
clear of the fear of censure and punishment should relax too
much, and behave as though they were become indifferent about
religion itself. With people of both these characters, the
fathers of this colony had to contend. …In this age it seemed
to be doubted whether a civil government could be kept up and
supported without some particular mode of religion was
established by its laws, and guarded by penalties and tests:
And for determining this doubt, by an actual trial, appears to
have been the principal motive with King Charles the Second,
for granting free liberty of conscience to the people of this
colony, by his charter of 1663,—in which he makes use of these
words: 'That they might hold forth a lively experiment, that a
most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be
maintained, and that amongst our English subjects, with a full
liberty in religious concernments. And that true piety,
rightly grounded on gospel principles, will give the best and
greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts
of men the strongest obligations to true loyalty.'"
Stephen Hopkins,
Historical Account of the Planting and Growth of Providence
(Massachusetts Historical Society Collections,
2d Series, volume 9).
ALSO IN:
S. G. Arnold,
History of Rhode Island,
volume 1, chapter 4.
Records of the Colony of Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations,
volume 1.
{2641}
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1639.
The first Baptist Church.
"There can be little doubt, as to what were the religious
tenets of the first settlers of Providence. At the time of
their removal here, they were members of Plymouth and
Massachusetts churches. Those churches, as it respects
government, were Independent or Congregational, in doctrine,
moderately Calvinistic and with regard to ceremonies,
Pedobaptists. The settlers of Providence, did not cease to be
members of those churches, by their removal, nor did the fact
of their being members, constitute them a church, after it.
They could not form themselves into a church of the faith and
order of the Plymouth and Massachusetts churches, until
dismissed from them; and after such dismissal, some covenant
or agreement among themselves was necessary in order to effect
it. That they met for public worship is beyond a doubt; but
such meetings, though frequent and regular, would not make
them a church. Among the first thirteen, were two ordained
ministers, Roger Williams and Thomas James. That they preached
to the settlers is quite probable, but there is no evidence of
any intent to form a church, previous to March 1689. When they
did attempt it, they had ceased to be Pedobaptists, for
Ezekiel Holyman, a layman, had baptized Roger Williams, by
immersion, and Mr. Williams afterwards had baptized Mr.
Holyman and several others of the company, in the same manner.
By this act they disowned the churches of which they had been
members, and for this, they were soon excommunicated, by those
churches. After being thus baptized, they formed a church and
called Mr. Williams to be their pastor. This was the first
church gathered in Providence. It has continued to the present
day, and is now known as The First Baptist Church. … Mr.
Williams held the pastoral office about four years, and then
resigned the same. Mr. Holyman was his colleague. … A letter
of Richard Scott, appended to 'A New England Fire-Brand
Quenched,' and published about 1678, states that Mr. Williams
left the Baptists and turned Seeker, a few months after he was
baptized. Mr. Scott was a member of the Baptist church for
some time, but at the date of this letter, had united with the
Friends. According to Mr. Williams' new views as a Seeker,
there was no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any
person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor
could there be, until new apostles should be sent by the Great
Head of the church, for whose coming he was seeking. He was
not alone in these opinions. Many in his day believed that the
ministry and ordinances of the christian church were
irretrievably lost, during the papal usurpation. It has been
supposed, by some, that Mr. Williams held these opinions while
in Massachusetts, and that this was the reason he denied the
church of England to be a true church, and withdrew from his
connexion with the Salem church. Aside from the statement of
Mr. Scott, above quoted, that Mr. Williams turned Seeker,
after he joined the Baptists and walked with them some months,
the supposition is shown to be groundless, by his
administering baptism in Providence, as before stated, and
joining with the first Baptist church there. These acts he
could not have performed, had he then been a Seeker."
W. R. Staples,
Annals of the town of Providence,
chapter 7.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647.
Samuel Gorton and the Warwick Plantation.
"Among the supporters of Mrs. Hutchinson, after her arrival at
Aquedneck, was a sincere and courageous, but incoherent and
crotchetty man named Samuel Gorton. In the denunciatory
language of that day he was called a 'proud and pestilent
seducer,' or, fas the modern newspaper would say, a 'crank.'
It is well to make due allowances for the prejudice so
conspicuous in the accounts given by his enemies, who felt
obliged to justify their harsh treatment of him. But we have
also his own writings from which to form an opinion as to his
character and views. … Himself a London clothier, and thanking
God that he had not been brought up in 'the schools of human
learning,' he set up as a preacher without ordination, and
styled himself 'professor of the mysteries of Christ.' He
seems to have cherished that doctrine of private inspiration
which the Puritans especially abhorred. … Gorton's temperament
was such as to keep him always in an atmosphere of strife.
Other heresiarchs suffered persecution in Massachusetts, but
Gorton was in hot water everywhere. His arrival in any
community was the signal for an immediate disturbance of the
peace. His troubles began in Plymouth, where the wife of the
pastor preferred his teachings to those of her husband. In
1638 he fled to Aquedneck, where his first achievement was a
schism among Mrs. Hutchinson's followers, which ended in some
staying to found the town of Portsmouth while others went away
to found Newport. Presently Portsmouth found him intolerable,
flogged and banished him, and after his departure was able to
make up its quarrel with Newport. He next made his way with a
few followers to Pawtuxet, within the jurisdiction of
Providence, and now it is the broad-minded and gentle Roger
Williams who complains of his 'bewitching and madding poor
Providence.' … Williams disapproved of Gorton, but was true to
his principles of toleration and would not take part in any
attempt to silence him. But in 1641 we find thirteen leading
citizens of Providence, headed by William Arnold, sending a
memorial to Boston, asking for assistance and counsel in
regard to this disturber of the peace. How was Massachusetts
to treat such an appeal? She could not presume to meddle with
the affair unless she could have permanent jurisdiction over
Pawtuxet; otherwise she was a mere intruder. … Whatever might
be the abstract merits of Gorton's opinions, his conduct was
politically dangerous; and accordingly the jurisdiction over
Pawtuxet was formally conceded to Massachusetts.
{2642}
Thereupon that colony, assuming jurisdiction, summoned Gorton
and his men to Boston, to prove their title to the lands they
occupied. They of course regarded the summons as a flagrant
usurpation of authority, and instead of obeying it they
withdrew to Shawomet [Warwick], on the western shore of
Narragansett bay, where they bought a tract of land from the
principal sachem of the Narragansetts, Miantonomo."
J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
pages 163-168.
"Soon afterward, by the surrender to Massachusetts of a
subordinate Indian chief, who claimed the territory …
purchased by Gorton of Miantonomi [or Miantonomo], that
Government made a demand of jurisdiction there also; and as
Gorton refused their summons to appear at Boston,
Massachusetts sent soldiers, and captured the inhabitants in
their homes, took them to Boston, tried them, and sentenced
the greater part of them to imprisonment for blasphemous
language to the Massachusetts authorities. They were finally
liberated, and banished; and as Warwick was included in the
forbidden territory, they went to Rhode Island. Gorton and two
of his friends soon afterward went to England." Subsequently,
when, in 1647, the government of Providence Plantations was
organized under the charter which Roger Williams had procured
in England in 1644, "Warwick, whither Gorton and his followers
had now returned, though not named in the charter, was
admitted to its privileges."
C. Deane,
New England
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 9).
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.
Coddington's usurpation.
Second mission of Roger Williams to England.
Restoration of the Charter.
First enactment against Slavery.
In 1651, William Coddington, who had been chosen President
some time before, but who had gone to England without legally
entering the office, succeeded by some means in obtaining from
the Council of State a commission which appointed him governor
of Rhode Island and Connecticut for life, with a council of
six to assist him in the government. This apparently annulled
the charter of the colony. Again the colony appealed to Roger
Williams to plead its cause in England and again he crossed
the ocean, "obtaining a hard-wrung leave to embark at Boston.
… In the same ship went John Clarke, as agent for the Island
towns, to ask for the revocation of Coddington's commission.
On the success of their application hung the fate of the
Colony. Meanwhile the Island towns submitted silently to
Coddington's usurpation, and the main-land towns continued to
govern themselves by their old laws, and meet and deliberate
as they had done before in their General Assembly. It was in
the midst of these dangers and dissensions that on the 19th of
May, in the session of 1652, it was 'enacted and ordered …
that no black mankind or white being forced by covenant, bond
or otherwise shall be held to service longer than ten years,'
and that 'that man that will not let them go free, or shall
sell them any else where to that end that they may be enslaved
to others for a longer time, hee or they shall forfeit to the
Colonie forty pounds.' This was the first legislation
concerning slavery on this continent. If forty pounds should
seem a small penalty, let us remember that the price of a
slave was but twenty. If it should be objected that the act
was imperfectly enforced, let us remember how honorable a
thing it is to have been the first to solemn]y recognize a
great principle. Soul liberty had borne her first fruits. …
Welcome tidings came in September, and still more welcome in
October. Williams and Clarke … had obtained, first, permission
for the colony to act under the charter until the final
decision of the controversy, and a few weeks later the
revocation of Coddington's commission. The charter was fully
restored."
G. W. Greene,
Short History of Rhode Island,
chapter 6.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1656.
Refusal to join in the persecution of Quakers.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
The Charter from Charles II,
and the boundary conflicts with Connecticut.
"At its first meeting after the King [Charles II.] came to
enjoy his own again, the government of Rhode Island caused him
to be proclaimed, and commissioned Clarke [agent of the colony
in England] to prosecute its interests at court, which he
accordingly proceeded to do. … He was intrusted with his suit
about a year before Winthrop's arrival in England; but
Winthrop [the younger, who went to England on behalf of
Connecticut] had been there several months, attending to his
business, before he heard anything of the designs of Clarke.
His charter of Connecticut had passed through the preliminary
forms, and was awaiting the great seal, when it was arrested
in consequence of representations made by the agent from Rhode
Island. … Winthrop, in his new charter, had used the words
'bounded on the east by the Narrogancett River, commonly
called Narrogancett Bay, where the said river falleth into the
sea.' To this identity between Narragansett River and
Narragansett Bay Clarke objected, as will be presently
explained. A third party was interested in the settlement of
the eastern boundary of Connecticut. This was the Atherton
Company, so called from Humphrey Atherton of Dorchester, one
of the partners. They had bought of the natives a tract of
land on the western side of Narragansett Bay; and when they
heard that Connecticut was soliciting a charter, they
naturally desired that their property should be placed under
the government of that colony, rather than under the unstable
government of Rhode Island. Winthrop, who was himself one of
the associates, wrote from London that the arrangement he had
made accorded with their wish. Rhode Island, however,
maintained that the lands of the Atherton purchase belonged to
her jurisdiction. … When Winthrop thought that he had secured
for Connecticut a territory extending eastward to Narragansett
Bay, Clarke had obtained for Rhode Island the promise of a
charter which pushed its boundary westward to the Paucatuck
River, so as to include in the latter colony a tract 25 miles
wide, and extending in length from the southern border of
Massachusetts to the sea. The interference of the charters
with each other endangered both. The agents entered into a
negotiation which issued, after several months, in a
composition effected by the award of four arbiters. Two
articles of it were material. One was that Paucatuck River
should 'be the certain bounds between the two colonies, which
said river should, for the future, be also called, alias,
Narrogansett, or Narrogansett River.' The other allowed the
Atherton Company to choose 'to which of those colonies they
would belong.' The undesirable consequences of a dispute were
thus averted; though to say that 'Paucatuck River' meant
Narragansett Bay was much the same as to give to the Thames
the name of the British Channel; and if the agreement between
the agents should stand, Connecticut would be sadly curtailed
of her domain."
{2643}
On the 8th of July, 1663, "Clarke's charter, which the King
probably did not know that he had been contradicting, passed
the seals. It created 'a body corporate and politic, in fact
and name, by the name of the Governor and Company of the
English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in
New England in America.' Similar to the charter of Connecticut
in grants marked by a liberality hitherto unexampled, it added
to them the extraordinary provision that 'no person within the
said colony, at any time thereafter, should be anywise
molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any
difference of opinion in matters of religion which did not
actually disturb the civil peace of the said colony.' …
Matters were now all ripe for a conflict of jurisdiction
between Rhode Island and Connecticut. Using the privilege of
choice secured by the compact between the agents, the Atherton
Company elected to place their lands, including a settlement
known by the name of Wickford, under the government of the
latter colony. Rhode Island enacted that all persons presuming
to settle there without her leave should be 'taken and
imprisoned for such their contempt.' … This proved to be the
beginning of a series of provocations and reprisals between
the inharmonious neighbors."
J. G. Palfrey,
Compendious History of New England,
book 2, chapter 12 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
S. S. Rider,
Book Notes,
volume 10, pages 109-110.
S. G. Arnold,
History of Rhode Island,
chapter 8 (volume 1).
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1674-1678.
King Philip's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1683.
Death of Roger Williams.
Estimates of his character.
Roger Williams, having given all to his colony, seems to have
died without property, dependent upon his children. His son,
Daniel, in a letter written in 1710, says: "He never gave me
but about three acres of land, and but a little afore he
deceased. It looked hard, that out of so much at his
disposing, that I should have so little, and he so little. …
If a covetous man had that opportunity as he had, most of this
town would have been his tenants." "Of the immediate cause and
exact time of Mr. Williams' death we are not informed. It is
certain, however, that he died at some time between January
16, 1682-3, and May 10, 1683. … He was in the 84th year of his
age."
J. D. Knowles,
Memoir of Roger Williams,
pages 111 and 354.
"We call those great who have devoted their lives to some
noble cause, and have thereby influenced for the better the
course of events. Measured by that standard, Roger Williams
deserves a high niche in the temple of fame, alongside of the
greatest reformers who mark epochs in the world's history. He
was not the first to discover the principles of religious
liberty, but he was the first to proclaim them in all their
plenitude, and to found and build up a political community
with those principles as the basis of its organization. The
influence and effect of his 'lively experiment' of religious
liberty and democratic government upon the political system of
our country, and throughout the civilized world, are admirably
stated by Professor Gervinus in his 'Introduction to the
History of the Nineteenth Century.' He says: 'Roger Williams
founded in 1636 a small new society in Rhode Island, upon the
principles of entire liberty of conscience, and the
uncontrolled power of the majority in secular affairs. The
theories of freedom in Church and State, taught in the schools
of philosophy in Europe, were here brought into practice in
the government of a small community. It was prophesied that
the democratic attempts to obtain universal suffrage, a
general elective franchise, annual parliaments, entire
religious freedom, and the Miltonian right of schism would be
of short duration. But these institutions have not only
maintained themselves here, but have spread over the whole
union. They have superseded the aristocratic commencements of
Carolina and of New York, the high-church party in Virginia,
the theocracy in Massachusetts, and the monarchy throughout
America; they have given laws to one quarter of the globe,
and, dreaded for their moral influence, they stand in the
background of every democratic struggle in Europe.'"
O. S. Straus,
Roger Williams,
page 233.
"Roger Williams, as all know, was the prophet of complete
religious toleration in America. … That as no man he was
'conscientiously contentious' I should naturally be among the
last to deny; most men who contribute materially towards
bringing about great changes, religious or moral, are
'conscientiously contentious.' Were they not so they would not
accomplish the work they are here to do."
C. F. Adams,
Massachusetts: its Historians and its History,
page 25.
"The world, having at last nearly caught up with him, seems
ready to vote—though with a peculiarly respectable minority in
opposition—that Roger Williams was after all a great man, one
of the true heroes, seers, world–movers, of these latter ages.
Perhaps one explanation of the pleasure which we take in now
looking upon him, as he looms up among his contemporaries in
New England, may be that the eye of the observer, rather
fatigued by the monotony of so vast a throng of sages and
saints, all quite immaculate, all equally prim and still in
their Puritan starch and uniform, all equally automatic and
freezing, finds a relief in the easy swing of this man's gait,
the limberness of his personal movement, his escape from the
pasteboard proprieties, his spontaneity, his impetuosity, his
indiscretions, his frank acknowledgments that he really had a
few things yet to learn. Somehow, too, though he sorely vexed
the souls of the judicious in his time, and evoked from them
words of dreadful reprehension, the best of them loved him;
for indeed this headstrong, measureless man, with his flashes
of Welsh fire, was in the grain of him a noble fellow; 'a
man,' as Edward Winslow said, 'lovely in his carriage.' … From
his early manhood even down to his late old age. Roger
Williams stands in New England a mighty and benignant form,
always pleading for some magnanimous idea, some tender
charity, the rectification of some wrong, the exercise of some
sort of forbearance toward men's bodies or souls. It was one
of his vexatious peculiarities, that he could do nothing by
halves—even in logic. Having established his major and his
minor premises, he utterly lacked the accommodating judgment
which would have enabled him to stop there and go no further
whenever it seemed that the concluding member of his syllogism
was likely to annoy the brethren. To this frailty in his
organization is due the fact that he often seemed to his
contemporaries an impracticable person, presumptuous,
turbulent, even seditious."
M. C. Tyler,
History of American Literature,
chapter 9, section 4.
{2644}
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1686.
The consolidation of New England
under Governor-general Andros.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1689-1701.
The charter government reinstated and confirmed.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1690.
King William's War.
The first Colonial Congress.
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1747.
The founding of the Redwood Library.
See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany,
and Franklin's Plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1760-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The Stamp Act Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1764.
The founding of Brown University.
Brown University was founded in 1764, especially in the
interest of the Baptist Church, and with aid from that
denomination in other parts of the country. It was placed
first at Warren, but soon removed to Providence, where it was
named in honor of its chief benefactor, John Brown.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend Duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on Tea.
Committees of Correspondence instituted.
The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1772.
The destruction of the Gaspe.
The first overt act of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
and the Quebec Act.-
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.
The further introduction of Slaves prohibited.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1774.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.-
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.-
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.
Early naval enterprises in the war.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776
BEGINNING OF THE AMERICAN NAVY.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776.
Allegiance to the king renounced.
State independence declared.
The British occupation.
"The last Colonial Assembly of Rhode Island met on the 1st of
May. On the 4th, two months before the Congressional
Declaration of Independence, it solemnly renounced its
allegiance to the British crown, no longer closing its session
with 'God save the King,' but taking in its stead as
expressive of their new relations, 'God save the United
Colonies.' … The Declaration of Independence by Congress was
received with general satisfaction, and proclaimed with a
national salute and military display. At Providence the King's
arms were burned, and the Legislature assumed its legal title,
'The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.' … From
the 4th of May, 1776, the Declaration of Independence of Rhode
Island, to the battle of Tiverton Heights, on the 29th of
August, 1778, she lived with the enemy at her door, constantly
subject to invasion by land and by water, and seldom giving
her watch-worn inhabitants the luxury of a quiet pillow. … In
November … a British fleet took possession of her waters, a
British army of her principal island. The seat of government
was removed to Providence."
G. W. Greene,
Short History of Rhode Island,
chapters 24-25.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
The War of Independence to the end.
Peace with Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1778.
Failure of attempts to drive the British from Newport.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1783-1790.
After the War of Independence.
Paper-money.
Opposition to the Federal Constitution.
Tardy entrance into the Union.
Rhode Island emerged from the war of independence bankrupt.
"The first question was how to replenish the exhausted
treasury. The first answer was that money should be created by
the fiat of Rhode Island authorities. Intercourse with others
was not much thought of. Fiat money would be good at home. So
the paper was issued by order of the Legislature which had
been chosen for that purpose. A 'respectable minority' opposed
the insane measure, but that did not serve to moderate the
insanity. When the credit of the paper began to fall, and
traders would not receive it, laws were passed to enforce its
reception at par. Fines and punishments were enacted for
failure to receive the worthless promises. Starvation, stared
many in the face. Now it was the agricultural class against
the commercial class; and the former party had a large
majority in the state and General Assembly. When dealers
arranged to secure trade outside the state, that they might
not be compelled to handle the local paper currency, it was
prohibited by act. When three judges decided that the law
compelling men to receive this 'money' was unconstitutional,
they were brought before that august General Assembly, and
tried and censured for presuming to say that constitutional
authority was higher than legislative authority. At last,
however, that lesson was learned, and the law was repealed.
Before this excitement had subsided the movement for a new
national Constitution began. But what did Rhode Island want of
a closer bond of union with other states? … She feared the
'bondage' of a centralized government. She had fought for the
respective liberties of the other colonies, as an assistant in
the struggle. She had fought for her own special, individual
liberty as a matter of her own interest.
{2645}
Further her needs were comparatively small as to governmental
machinery, and taxation must be small in proportion; and she
did not wish to be taxed to support a general government. … So
when the call was made for each state to hold a convention to
elect delegates to a Constitutional Convention, Rhode Island
paid not the slightest attention to it. All the other states
sent delegates, but Rhode Island sent none; and the work of
that convention, grand and glorious as it was, was not shared
by her. … The same party that favored inflation, or paper
money, opposed the Constitution; and that party was in the
majority and in power. The General Assembly had been elected
with this very thing in view. Meanwhile the loyal party, which
was found mostly in the cities and commercial centres, did all
in its power to induce the General Assembly to call a
convention; but that body persistently refused. Once it
suggested a vote of the people in their own precincts; but
that method was a failure. As state after state came into the
Union, the Union party, by bonfire, parade, and loud
demonstration, celebrated the event."
G. L. Harney,
How Rhode Island received the Constitution
(New England Magazine, May, 1890).
"The country party was in power, and we have seen that
elsewhere as well as in Rhode Island, it was the rural
population that hated change. The action of the other states
had been closely watched and their objections noted. One thing
strikes a Rhode Islander very peculiarly in regard to the
adoption of the federal constitution. The people were not to
vote directly upon it, but only second-hand through delegates
to a state convention. No amendment to our state constitution,
even at this day, can be adopted without a majority of
three-fifths of all the votes cast, the voting being directly
on the proposition, and a hundred years ago no state was more
democratic in its notions than Rhode Island. Although the
Philadelphia Convention had provided that the federal
constitution should be ratified in the different states by
conventions of delegates elected by the people for that
purpose, upon the call of the General Assembly, yet this did
not accord with the Rhode Island idea, so in February, 1788,
the General Assembly voted to submit the question whether the
constitution of the United States should be adopted, to the
voice of the people to be expressed at the polls on the fourth
Monday in March. The federalists fearing they would be
out-voted, largely abstained from voting, so the vote stood
two hundred and thirty-seven for the constitution, and two
thousand seven hundred and eight against it, there being about
four thousand voters in the state at that time. Governor
Collins, in a letter to the president of Congress written a
few days after the vote was taken, gives the feeling then
existing in Rhode Island, in this wise:—'Although this state
has been singular from her sister states in the mode of
collecting the sentiments of the people upon the constitution,
it was not done with the least design to give any offence to
the respectable body who composed the convention, or a
disregard to the recommendation of Congress, but upon pure
republican principles, founded upon that basis of all
governments originally derived from the body of the people at
large. And although, sir, the majority has been so great
against adopting the Constitution, yet the people, in general,
conceive that it may contain some necessary articles which
could well be added and adapted to the present confederation.
They are sensible that the present powers invested with
Congress are incompetent for the great national government of
the Union, and would heartily acquiesce in granting sufficient
authority to that body to make, exercise and enforce laws
throughout the states, which would tend to regulate commerce
and impose duties and excise, whereby Congress might establish
funds for discharging the public debt.' A majority of the
voters of the country was undoubtedly against the
constitution, but convention after convention was carried by
the superior address and management of its friends. Rhode
Island lacked great men, who favored the constitution, to lead
her. … The requisite number of states having ratified the
constitution, a government was formed under it April 30, 1789.
Our General Assembly, at its September session in that year,
sent a long letter to Congress explanatory of the situation in
Rhode Island, and its importance warrants my quoting a part of
it. 'The people of this state from its first settlement,' ran
the letter, 'have been accustomed and strongly attached to a
democratical form of government. They have viewed in the new
constitution an approach, though perhaps but small, toward
that form of government from which we have lately dissolved
our connection at so much hazard and expense of life and
treasure,—they have seen with pleasure the administration
thereof from the most important trusts downward, committed to
men who have highly merited and in whom the people of the
United States place unbounded confidence. Yet, even on this
circumstance, in itself so fortunate, they have apprehended
danger by way of precedent. Can it be thought strange, then,
that with these impressions, they should wait to see the
proposed system organized and in operation, to see what
further checks and securities would be agreed to and
established by way of amendments, before they would adopt it
as a constitution of government for themselves and their
posterity? … Rhode Island never supposed she could stand
alone. In the words of her General Assembly in the letter just
referred to:—'They know themselves to be a handful,
comparatively viewed.' This letter, as well as a former one I
have quoted from, showed that she, like New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina, hoped
to see the constitution amended. Like the latter state she
believed in getting the amendments before ratification, and so
strong was the pressure for amendments that at the very first
session of Congress a series of amendments was introduced and
passed for ratification by the states, and Rhode Island,
though the last to adopt the constitution, was the ninth state
to ratify the first ten amendments to that instrument now in
force; ratifying both constitution and amendments at
practically the same time. One can hardly wonder at the
pressure for amendments to the original constitution when the
amendments have to be resorted to for provisions that Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free use thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances; that excessive bail should not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted; for right of trial by jury in civil cases; and for
other highly important provisions."
H. Rogers,
Rhode Island's Adoption of the Federal Constitution
(Rhode Island Historical Society, 1890).
{2646}
The convention which finally accepted for Rhode Island and
ratified the federal constitution met at South Kingston, in
March, 1790, then adjourned to meet at Newport in May, and
there completed its work.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1814.
The Hartford Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843.
The Dorr Rebellion.
The old Charter replaced by a State Constitution.
The old colonial charter of Rhode Island remained unchanged
until 1843. Its property qualification of the right of
suffrage, and the inequality of representation in the
legislature which became more flagrant as the state and its
cities increased in population, became causes of great popular
discontent. The legislature turned a deaf ear to all demands
for a democratic basis of government, and in 1841 a serious
attempt was made by a resolute party to initiate and carry
through a revision of the constitution independently of
legislative action. A convention was held in October of that
year which framed a constitution and submitted it to the vote
of the people. It was adopted by a majority of the votes cast,
and, in accordance with its provisions, an election was held
the following April. Thomas Wilson Dorr was chosen Governor,
and on the 3d of May, 1842, the new government was formally
inaugurated by its supporters at Providence, where they were
in the majority. "If Mr. Dorr and his officers, supported by
the armed men then at their command, had taken possession of
the State House, Arsenal, and other state property, and acted
as if they had confidence in themselves and their cause, the
result might have been different. This was the course desired
and advocated by Mr. Dorr, but he was overruled by more timid
men, who dared go just far enough to commit themselves,
disturb the peace of the state, and provoke the Law and Order
government, but not far enough to give themselves a chance of
success. While the People's government was being organized in
Providence, the regularly elected General Assembly met on the
same day at Newport, inaugurated the officers as usual, and
passed resolutions declaring that an insurrection existed in
the state and calling on the President for aid, which was …
declined with good advice as to amnesty and concession, which
was not heeded. On the following day a member of the People's
legislature was arrested under the Algerine law, and this
arrest was followed by others, which in turn produced a
plentiful crop of resignations from that body. … At the
request of his legislature, Mr. Dorr now went to Washington
and unsuccessfully tried to secure the aid and countenance of
President Tyler. … During Mr. Dorr's absence, both parties
were pushing on military preparations. … The excitement at
this time was naturally great, though many were still inclined
to ridicule the popular fears, and the wildest rumors filled
the air." On the 18th, the Dorr party made an attempt to gain
possession of the state arsenal, but it failed rather
ignominiously, and Dorr himself fled to Connecticut. One more

abortive effort was made, by others less sagacious than
himself, to rally the supporters of the Constitution, in an
armed camp, formed at Chepachet; but the party in power
confronted it with a much stronger force, and it dispersed
without firing a gun. This was the end of the "rebellion." "In
June, 1842, while the excitement was still at its height, the
General Assembly had called still another convention, which
met in September and … framed the present constitution, making
an extension of the suffrage nearly equivalent to that
demanded by the suffrage party previous to 1841. In November
this constitution was adopted, and in May, 1843, went into
effect with a set of officers chosen from the leaders of the
Landholders' party, the same men who had always ruled the
state. … Early in August, Governor Dorr, who had remained
beyond the reach of the authorities, against his own will and
in deference to the wishes of his friends who still hoped,
issued an address explaining and justifying his course and
announcing that he should soon return to Rhode Island.
Accordingly, on October 31, he returned to Providence, without
concealment, and registered himself at the principal hotel.
Soon afterwards, he was arrested and committed to jail,
without bail, to await trial for treason. … The spirit in
which this trial was conducted does no credit to the fairness
or magnanimity of the court or of the Law and Order party.
Under an unusual provision of the act, although all Dorr's
acts had been done in Providence County, he was tried in
Newport, the most unfriendly county in the state. … Every
point was ruled against Mr. Dorr, and the charge to the jury,
while sound in law, plainly showed the opinion and wishes of
the court. It was promptly followed by a verdict of guilty,
and on this verdict Mr. Dorr, on June 25, just two years from
his joining the camp at Chepachet, was sentenced to
imprisonment for life. … Declining an offer of liberation if
he would take the oath to support the new constitution, Mr.
Dorr went to prison and remained in close confinement until
June, 1845, when an act of amnesty was passed, and he was
released. A great concourse greeted him with cheers at the
prison gates, and escorted him with music and banners to his
father's house, which he had not entered since he began his
contest for the establishment of the People's constitution.
The newspapers all over the country, which favored his cause,
congratulated him and spoke of the event as an act of tardy
justice to a martyr in the cause of freedom and popular
rights. … But Mr. Dorr's active life was over. He had left the
prison broken in health and visibly declining to his end. The
close confinement, dampness, and bad air had shattered his
constitution, and fixed upon him a disease from which he never
recovered. He lived nine years longer but in feeble health and
much suffering."
C. H. Payne,
The Great Dorr War
(New England Magazine, June, 1890).
ALSO IN:
D. King,
Life and Times of Thomas Wilson Dorr.
{2647}
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.
Constitutional Amendment.
The qualification of the Suffrage.
"The adoption of the Amendment to the Constitution of Rhode
Island, at the recent election, relating to the elective
franchise, brings to a close a political struggle which began
in earnest in 1819. Hence it has been in progress about 80
years. It makes, or will ultimately make, great political
changes here. … It may not be inopportune, upon the
consummation of so great a political change, to note briefly
some of the steps by which the change came to pass. … The
qualifications of electors was not defined by the charter.
That power was given to the General Assembly. A property
qualification was first introduced into the laws in 1665, and
has ever since been and now is in part retained. It was not at
first specified to be land, but men of competent estates,
without regard to the species of property, 'may be admitted to
be freemen.' Even so accurate a scholar as the late Judge
Potter, has erred in his statement of the case. He says that
by the act of March, 1663-4, all persons were required to be
of 'competent estate.' This is not correct. The proposition
was made two years subsequent to the establishment of the
charter, and was made by the King of England, and sent by him
by commissioners to Rhode Island and was then adopted and
enacted by the General Assembly. … This qualification was made
to depend only on land, by the act of the General Assembly of
February 1723-4, and was a purely Rhode Island measure
(Digest. of Rhode Island, 1730, p. 110). From that time until
the present, covering a period of nearly 165 years, this
qualification has in some measure remained. The value was then
(in 1723) fixed at £100, and practically, it was never
changed. It was raised or lowered from time to time to meet
the fluctuation of paper money. Sometimes it was in 'old
tenor' and sometimes in 'lawful money,' both of which were in
paper, and reckoned usually in pounds, shillings and pence. In
1760, the amount was £40 lawful money. In 1763 'lawful money'
was defined to be gold or silver. After the decimal system
came into use, the mode of reckoning was changed into dollars.
Thus in £40 are 800 shillings, which at six shillings to the
dollar, which was then New England currency, is equal to
$133.33; by the law of 1798 the sum was made $134, and so it
has always since remained, and so under the recent amendment
it remains as a qualification of an elector, who can vote on a
question of expenditure, or the levying of a tax. … There was
practically no change in the qualifications required of a man
to become an elector from the earliest times down to 1842. In
1819 a serious attempt was made to obtain a constitution. A
convention was called and a constitution was framed and
submitted to the people, that is, to the Freemen, for
adoption; but the General Assembly enacted that a majority of
three-fifths should be required for its adoption. This was the
origin of the three-fifth restriction in the present
constitution. It did not enlarge the suffrage; a proposition
to that end received only 3 votes against 61, nor was it of
any general benefit, and it was as well that it failed. The
political disabilities of men were confined to two classes, to
wit: The second son, and other younger sons of freemen, and
those other native American citizens of other states who had
moved into Rhode Island, and therein acquired a residence. To
these two classes, although possessed of abundant personal
property, and upon which the state levied and collected taxes,
and from whom the state exacted military service, the right to
vote was denied, because among their possessions there was no
land. It was taxation without representation, the very
principle upon which the Revolution had been fought. In 1828
more than one-half the taxes paid in Providence were paid by
men who could not vote upon any question. In 1830, in North
Providence, there were 200 freemen and 579 native men, over
twenty-one years, who were disfranchised. … There were in 1832
five men in Pawtucket who had fought the battles for Rhode
Island through the Revolution, but who, possessing no land,
had never been able to vote upon any question. … In another
respect a great wrong was done. It was in the representation
of the towns in the General Assembly. Jamestown had a
representative for every eighteen freemen. Providence,one to
every 275. Smithfield, one in every 206. Fifty dollars in
taxes, in Burrington, had the same power in the representation
that $750 had in Providence. The minority of legal voters
actually controlled the majority. … Such then was the
political condition of men in Rhode Island in 1830. There were
about 8,000 Freemen and about 13,000 unenfranchised Americans
with comparatively no naturalized foreigners among them. The
agitation of the question did not cease. In 1829 it was so
violent that the General Assembly referred the question to a
committee, of which Benjamin Hazard was the head, and which
committee made a report, always since known as Hazard's
Report, which it was supposed would quiet forever the
agitation. But it did not; for five years later a convention
was called and a portion of a constitution framed. The
question of foreigners was first seriously raised by Mr.
Hazard in this report. By this term Mr. Hazard intended not
only citizens of countries outside of the United States, but
he intended American citizens of other American States. He
would deny political rights to a man born in Massachusetts,
who came to dwell in Rhode Island, in the same way that he
would deny them to a Spaniard. A Massachusetts man must live
here one year, the Spaniard three, but both must own land.
These ideas were formulated in the constitution of 1834 as far
as it went. … Fortunately it fell through and by the most
disgraceful of actions; and its history when written will form
one of the darkest chapters in Rhode Island history. This
discrimination against foreign born citizens, that is, men
born in countries outside of the United States, became more
pointed in the proposed Landholders' Constitution of November
1841. A native of the United States could vote on a land
qualification, or if he paid taxes upon other species of
property. A foreigner must own land and he could not vote
otherwise. This Constitution was defeated. Then came the
People's Constitution, (otherwise known as the Dorr
Constitution). It made no restrictions upon foreigners; it
admitted all citizens of the United States upon an equal
footing; negroes were excluded in both documents. This
Constitution never went into effect. Then came the present
Constitution, adopted in September, 1842, by which all the
disabilities complained of were swept away with the exception
of the discrimination in the case of foreigners. By it negroes
were admitted, but foreigners were required to hold lands, as
all the various propositions had provided with the single
exception of the People's Constitution. Now comes the
amendment recently adopted, and parallel with it I have
reproduced the section relating to the same matter from the
People's Constitution:
{2648}
Qualification of Electors under Amendment
(Bourn) to Constitution, adopted April, 1888.
Section 1.
Every male citizen of the United States of the age of 21
years, who has had his residence and home in this State for
two years, and in the town or city in which he may offer to
vote six months next preceding the time of his voting, and
whose name shall be registered in the town or city where he
resides on or before the last day of December, in the year
next preceding to the time of his voting, shall have a right
to vote in the election of all civil officers and on all
questions in all legally organized town or ward meetings:
Provided, that no person shall at any time be allowed to vote
in that election of the City Council of any city, or upon any
proposition to impose a tax, or for the expenditure of money
in any town or city, unless he shall within the year next
preceding have paid a tax assessed upon his property therein,
valued at least at one hundred and thirty-four dollars.
Qualification of Electors under the People's
(Dorr) Constitution, 1842.
Section 1.
Every white male citizen of the United States of the age of
twenty-one years, who has resided in this State for one year,
and in any town, city or district of the same for six months
next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, shall
be an elector of all officers, who are elected, or may
hereafter be made eligible by the people. **
Section 4.
No elector who is not possessed of, and assessed for ratable
property in his own right to the amount of one hundred and
fifty dollars, or, who shall have neglected, or refused to pay
any tax assessed upon him in any town or city or district, for
one year preceding the * * meeting at which he shall offer to
vote, shall be entitled to vote on any question of taxation,
or the expenditure of any public moneys. * *
Section 7.
There shall be a strict registration of all qualified voters *
* * and no person shall be permitted to vote whose name has
not been entered upon the list of voters before the polls are
opened.
It thus appears that the people of Rhode Island have at last
adopted an amendment to the Constitution, more liberal in its
qualifications of electors, than the terms asked by Mr. Dorr,
in 1842. … All that was asked by Mr. Dorr, and even by those
of his party, more radical than himself, has been granted, and
even more. And yet they were denounced with every species of
vile epithet as Free Suffrage Men."
S. S. Rider,
The End of a great Political Struggle in Rhode Island
(Book Notes, volume 5, paged 53-57).
----------RHODE ISLAND: End--------
----------RHODES: Start--------
RHODES.
The island of Rhodes, with its picturesque capital city
identical in name, lying in the Ægean Sea, near the
southwestern corner of Asia Minor, has a place alike notable
in the history of ancient and mediæval times; hardly less of a
place, too, in prehistoric legends and myths. It has been
famed in every age for a climate almost without defect. Among
the ancients its Doric people [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK
COLONIES] were distinguished for their enterprise in commerce,
their rare probity, their courage, their refinement, their
wealth, their liberality to literature and the arts. In the
middle ages all this had disappeared, but the island and the
city had become the seat of the power of the Knights of St.
John—the last outpost of European civilization in the east,
held stoutly against the Turks until 1522. The unsuccessful
siege of Rhodes, B. C. 305 or 304, by Demetrius, the son of
Antigonus, was one of the great events of ancient military
history. It "showed not only the power but the virtues of this
merchant aristocracy. They rebuilt their shattered city with
great magnificence. They used the metal of Demetrius's
abandoned engines for the famous Colossus [see below], a
bronze figure of the sun about 100 feet high, which, however,
was thrown down and broken by the earthquake of B. C. 227, and
lay for centuries near the quays, the wonder of all visitors.
… It is said that the Saracens sold the remnants of this
statue for old metal when they captured Rhodes. … It was
doubtless during the same period that Rhodes perfected that
system of marine mercantile law which was accepted not only by
all Hellenistic states, but acknowledged by the Romans down to
the days of the empire. … We do not know what the detail of
their mercantile system was, except that it was worked by
means of an active police squadron, which put down piracy, or
confined it to shipping outside their confederacy, and also
that their persistent neutrality was only abandoned when their
commercial interests were directly attacked. In every war they
appear as mediators and peace-makers. There is an allusion in
the 'Mercator' of Plautus to young men being sent to learn
business there, as they are now sent to Hamburg or Genoa. The
wealth and culture of the people, together with the stately
plan of their city, gave much incitement and scope to artists
in bronze and marble, as well as to painters, and the names of
a large number of Rhodian artists have survived on the
pedestals of statues long since destroyed. But two famous
works—whether originals or copies seems uncertain—still
attest the genius of the school, the 'Laocoon,' now in the
Vatican, and the 'Toro Farnese.'"
J. P. Mahaffy,
Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 20, with foot-note.
RHODES: B. C. 412.
Revolt from Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
RHODES: B. C. 378-357.
In the new Athenian Confederacy.
Revolt and secession.
The Social War.
See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.
RHODES: B. C. 305-304.
Siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes.
One of the memorable sieges of antiquity was that in which the
brave, free citizens of Rhodes held their splendid town (B. C.
305) for one whole year against the utmost efforts of
Demetrius, called Poliorcetes, or "the Besieger," son of
Antigonus, the would-be successor of Alexander (see MACEDONIA:
B. C. 310-301). Demetrius was a remarkable engineer, for his
age, and constructed machinery for the siege which was the
wonder of the Grecian world. His masterpiece was the
Helepolis, or "city-taker," —a wooden tower, 150 feet high,
sheathed with iron, travelling on wheels and moved by the
united strength of 3,400 men. He also assailed the walls of
Rhodes with battering rams, 150 feet long, each driven by
1,000 men. But all his ingenious appliances failed and he was
forced in the end to recognize the independence of the valiant
Rhodians.
C. Torr,
Rhodes in Ancient Times,
pages 13-14, 44.
ALSO IN:
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 59.
{2649}
RHODES: B. C. 191.
Alliance with Rome.
War with Antiochus the Great.
Acquisition of territory in Caria and Lycia.
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
RHODES: B. C. 88.
Besieged by Mithridates.
At the beginning of his first war with the Romans, B. C. 88,
Mithridates made a desperate attempt to reduce the city of
Rhodes, which was the faithful ally of Rome. But the Rhodians
repelled all his assaults, by sea and by land, and he was
forced to abandon the siege.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapter 20.
RHODES: A. D. 1310.
Conquest and occupation by the
Knights Hospitallers of St. John.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1310.
RHODES: A. D. 1480.
Repulse of the Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.
RHODES: A. D. 1522.
Siege and conquest by the Turks.
Surrender and withdrawal of the Knights of St. John.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1522.
----------RHODES: End--------
RHODES, The Colossus of.
"In the elementary works for the instruction of young people,
we find frequent mention of the Colossus of Rhodes. The statue
is always represented with gigantic limbs, each leg resting on
the enormous rocks which face the entrance to the principal
port of the Island of Rhodes; and ships in full sail passed
easily, it is said, between its legs; for, according to Pliny
the ancient, its height was 70 cubits. This Colossus was
reckoned among the seven wonders of the world, the six others
being, as is well known, the hanging gardens of Babylon,
devised by Nitocris, wife of Nebuchadnezzar; the pyramids of
Egypt; the statue of Jupiter Olympus; the Mausoleum of
Halicarnassus; the temple of Diana at Ephesus; and the Pharos
of Alexandria, completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1303.
Nowhere has any authority been found for the assertion that
the Colossus of Rhodes spanned the entrance to the harbour of
the island and admitted the passage of vessels in full sail
between its wide-stretched limbs. … The following is the real
truth concerning the Colossus." After the abandonment of the
siege of Rhodes, in 305, by Demetrius Poliorcetes, "the
Rhodians, inspired by a sentiment of piety, and excited by
fervent gratitude for so signal a proof of the divine favour,
commanded Charès to erect a statue to the honour of their
deity [the sun-god Helios]. An inscription explained that the
expenses of its construction were defrayed out of the sale of
the materials of war left by Demetrius on his retreat from the
island of Rhodes. This statue was erected on an open space of
ground near the great harbour, and near the spot where the
pacha's seraglio now stands; and its fragments, for many years
after its destruction, were seen and admired by travellers."
O. Delepierre,
Historical Difficulties,
chapter 1.
RHODES, Knights of.
During their occupation of the island, the Knights
Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called
Knights of Rhodes, as they were afterwards called Knights of
Malta.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.
RI, The.
"The Ri or king, who was at the head of the tribe [the
'tuath,' or tribe, in ancient Ireland], held that position not
merely by election, but as the representative in the senior
line of the common ancestor, and had a hereditary claim to
their obedience. As the supreme authority and judge of the
tribe he was the Ri or king. This was his primary function. …
As the leader in war he was the 'Toisech' or Captain."
W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 3, page 140.
See, also, TUATH, THE.
RIALTO: Made the seat of Venetian government.
See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
RIBBON SOCIETIES.
RIBBONISM.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.
RIBCHESTER, Origin of.
See COCCIUM.
RICH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).
RICHARD
(of Cornwall), King of Germany, A. D. 1256-1271.
Richard I. (called Cœur de Leon), King of England, 1189-1199.
Richard II. King of England, 1377-1399.
Richard III. King of England, 1483-1485.
RICHBOROUGH, England, Roman origin of.
See RUTUPIÆ.
RICHELIEU, The Ministry of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1642-1643.
----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Start--------
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Powhatan's residence.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1781.
Lafayette's defense of the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861.
Made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862.
McClellan's Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capital.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA);
(MAY: VIRGINIA);
(JUNE: VIRGINIA);
(JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA);
and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (March).
Kilpatrick's and Dahlgren's Raid.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (May).
Sheridan's Raid to the city lines.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) SHERIDAN'S RAID.
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL).
Abandonment by the Confederate army and government.
Destructive conflagration.
President Lincoln in the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).
----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: End--------
RICIMER, Count, and his Roman imperial puppets.
See ROME: A. D. 455-476.
RICOS HOMBRES, of Aragon.
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH
RIDGEWAY, Battle of.
See CANADA: A.D. 1866-1871.
RIDINGS OF YORKSHIRE.
The name Ridings is a corruption of the word Trithings, or
'Thirds,' which was applied to the large divisions of
Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (England) in the time of the
Angles.
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 1, note.
RIEL'S REBELLION.
See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
RIENZI'S REVOLUTION.
See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.
{2650}
RIGA: A. D. 1621.
Siege and capture by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.
RIGA: A. D. 1700. Unsuccessful siege by the King of Poland.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.
"RIGHT," "LEFT," AND "CENTER," The.
In France, and several other continental European countries,
political parties in the legislative bodies are named
according to the positions of the seats which they occupy in
their respective chambers. The extreme conservatives gather at
the right of the chair of the presiding officer, and are
known, accordingly, as "The Right." The extreme radicals
similarly collected on the opposite side of the chamber, are
called "The Left." Usually, there is a moderate wing of each
of these parties which partially detaches itself and is
designated, in one case, "The Right Center," and in the other,
"The Left Center"; while, midway between all these divisions,
there is a party of independents who take the name of "The
Center."
RIGHT OF SEARCH, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.
RIGHTS, Declaration and Bill of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY),
and (OCTOBER).
RIGSDAG, The.
The legislative assembly of Denmark and Sweden.
See
SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.
RIGSRET.
See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.
RIGVEDA, The.
See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND
CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.
RIMINI,
Origin of the city.
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
RIMINI,
The Malatesta family.
See MALATESTA FAMILY.
RIMINI, A. D. 1275.
Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
RIMMON.
"The name of Rimmon, which means pomegranate,' occurs
frequently in the topography of Palestine, and was probably
derived from the culture of this beautiful tree."
J. Kenrick,
Phœnicia,
chapter 2.
RIMNIK, Battle of (1789).
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
RINGGOLD, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
RINGS OF THE AVARS.
See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.
RIOTS, Draft.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.
RIPON, Lord, The Indian administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.
RIPON, Treaty of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
RIPUARIAN FRANKS, The.
See FRANKS.
RIPUARIANS, Law of the.
"On the death of Clovis, his son, Theodoric, was king of the
eastern Franks; that is to say, of the Ripuarian Franks; he
resided at Metz. To him is generally attributed the
compilation of their law. … According to this tradition, then,
the law of the Ripuarians should be placed between the years
511 and 534. It could not have, like the Salic, the pretension
of ascending to the right-hand bank of the Rhine, and to
ancient Germany. … I am inclined to believe that it was only
under Dagobert I., between the years 628 and 638, that it took
the definite form under which it has reached us."
F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 10.
RIVOLI, Battle of (1797).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
ROAD OF THE SWANS, The.
See NORMANS: NAME AND ORIGIN.
ROANOKE: A. D. 1585-1590.
The first attempts at English settlement in America.
The lost colony.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.
ROANOKE: A. D. 1862.
Capture by Burnside's Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).
ROBE, La Noblesse de la.
See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.
ROBERT,
Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1221-1228.
Robert, King of Naples, 1309-1343.
Robert I., King of France, 922-923.
Robert I. (Bruce), King of Scotland, 1306-1329.
Robert II., King of France, 996-1031.
Robert II. (first of the Stuarts), King of Scotland, 1370-1390.
Robert III., King of Scotland, 1390-1406.
ROBERTSON, James, and the early settlement of Tennessee.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.
ROBESPIERRE, and the French Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER),
to 1794 (JULY).
ROBINSON, John, and his Congregation.
See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617;
and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
ROBOGDII, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
ROCCA SECCA, Battle of (1411).
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.
ROCHAMBEAU,
Count de, and the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY);
1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).
ROCHE-ABEILLE, La, Battle of (1569).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
----------ROCHELLE: Start--------
ROCHELLE:
Early Importance.
Expulsion of the English.
Grant of Municipal independence.
"Rochelle had always been one of the first commercial places
of France; it was well known to the English under the name of
the White Town, as they called it, from its appearance when
the sun shone and was reflected from its rocky coasts. It was
also much frequented by the Netherlanders. … The town had …
enjoyed extraordinary municipal franchises ever since the
period of the English wars.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360, and 1360-1380.
It had by its own unaided power revolted from the English
dominion [1372], for which Charles V., in his customary
manner, conferred upon the townsfolk valuable
privileges,—among others, that of independent jurisdiction in
the town and its liberties. The design of Henry II. to erect a
citadel within their walls they had been enabled fortunately
to prevent, through the favour of the Chatillons and the
Moutmorencies. Rochelle exhibited Protestant sympathies at an
early period."
L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy if France,
in the 16th and 17th Centuries,
chapter 14.
{2651}
ALSO IN:
H. M. Baird,
History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
volume 2, page 270-273.
ROCHELLE: A. D. 1568.
Becomes the headquarters of the Huguenots.
Arrival of the Queen of Navarre.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
ROCHELLE: A. D. 1573.
Siege and successful defense.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.
ROCHELLE: A. D. 1620-1622.
Huguenot revolt in support of Navarre and Bearn.
The unfavorable Peace of Montpelier.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.
ROCHELLE: A. D. 1625-1626.
Renewed revolt.
Second treaty of Montpelier.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
ROCHELLE: A. D. 1627-1628.
Revolt in alliance with England.
Siege and surrender.
Richelieu's dyke.
The decay of the city.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.
----------ROCHELLE: End--------
ROCHESTER, England:
Origin.
One of two Roman towns in Britain called Durobrivæ is
identified in site with the modern city of Rochester. It
derived its Saxon name—originally "Hrofescester"—"according to
Bede, from one of its early rulers or prefects named Hrof,
who, for some circumstance or other, had probably gained
greater notoriety than most persons of his class and rank."
T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapters 5 and 16.
ROCKINGHAM MINISTRIES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768: and 1782-1783.
ROCROI: A. D. 1643.
Siege and Battle.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.
ROCROI: A. D. 1653.
Siege by Condé in the Spanish service.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
ROCROI: A. D. 1659.
Recovered by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
RODNEY'S NAVAL VICTORY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
RODOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 654-659.
RODOLPH.
See RUDOLPH.
ROESKILDE, Treaty of (1658).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
ROGATION.
With reference to the legislation of the Romans, "he word
Rogatio is frequently used to denote a Bill proposed to the
people. … After a Rogatio was passed it became a Lex; but in
practice Rogatio and Lex were used as convertible terms, just
as Bill and Law are by ourselves."
W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 4.
ROGER I.,
Count of Sicily, A. D. 1072-1101.
ROGER II.,
Count of Sicily, 1106-1129;
King of Naples and Sicily, 1129-1154.
ROGUE RIVER INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.
ROHAN, Cardinal-Prince de, and the Diamond Necklace.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.
ROHILLA WAR, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
ROIS FAINÉANS.
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
ROLAND, Madame, and the Girondists.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
ROLAND, The great Bell.
See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.
ROLICA, Battle of (1808).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).
ROLLO, Duke,
The conquest of Normandy by.
See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911;
and NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.
ROLLS OF THE PIPE.
ROLLS OF THE CHANCERY.
See EXCHEQUER.
ROMA QUADRATA.
See PALATINE HILL.
ROMAGNA.
The old exarchate of Ravenna, "as having been the chief seat
of the later Imperial power in Italy, got the name of Romania,
Romandiola, or Romagna."
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
pages 234 and 238.
ROMAGNANO, Battle of (1524).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.
ROMAN AUGURS.
See AUGURS.
ROMAN CALENDAR.
ROMAN YEAR.
See CALENDAR, JULIAN.
ROMAN CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.
See CAMPAGNA.
ROMAN CATACOMBS, The.
See CATACOMBS.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
See PAPACY,
and CATHOLICS.
----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Start--------
ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:
Under the Republic.
See CIVES ROMANI;
also, QUIRITES.
ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:
Under the Empire.
"While Pompeius, Cæsar, Augustus and others extended the Latin
rights to many provincial communities, they were careful to
give the full Roman qualification [the 'privileges of
Quiritary proprietorship, which gave not merely the empty
title of the suffrage, but the precious immunity from tribute
or land-tax'] to persons only. Of such persons, indeed, large
numbers were admitted to citizenship by the emperors. The full
rights of Rome were conferred on the Transalpine Gauls by
Claudius, and the Latin rights on the Spaniards by Vespasian;
but it was with much reserve that any portions of territory
beyond Italy were enfranchised, and rendered Italic or
Quiritary soil, and thus endowed with a special immunity. …
The earlier emperors had, indeed, exercised a jealous reserve
in popularizing the Roman privileges; but from Claudius
downwards they seem to have vied with one another in the
facility with which they conferred them as a boon, or imposed
them as a burden. … The practice of purchasing Civitas was
undoubtedly common under Claudius. … Neither Hadrian, as
hastily affirmed by St. Chrysostom, nor his next successor, as
has been inferred from a confusion of names, was the author of
the decree by which the Roman franchise was finally
communicated to all the subjects of the empire. Whatever the
progress of enfranchisement may have been, this famous
consummation was not effected till fifty years after our
present date, by the act of Autoninus Caracalla [A. D.
211-217]."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 67, with foot-note.
----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: End--------
ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.
The "Roman chief festival or festival of the city (ludi
maximi, Romani) … was an extraordinary thanksgiving festival
celebrated in honour of the Capitoline Jupiter and the gods
dwelling along with him, ordinarily in pursuance of a vow made
by the general before battle, and therefore usually observed
on the return home of the burgess-force in autumn. A festal
procession proceeded toward the Circus staked off between the
Palatine and Aventine. … In each species of contest there was
but one competition, and that between not more that two
competitors."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 15.
{2652}
ROMAN COINAGE AND MONEY.
See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME.
ROMAN COMITIA.
See COMITIA CENTURIATA,
AND COMITIA CURIATA.
ROMAN CONSULS.
See CONSUL.
ROMAN CONTIONES.
See CONTIONES.
ROMAN DECEMVIRS.
See DECEMVIRS.
ROMAN EDUCATION.
See EDUCATION, ROMAN.
----------ROMAN EMPIRE: Start--------
ROMAN EMPIRE: B. C. 31.
Its beginning, and after.
See ROME: B. C. 31, and after.
ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 476.
Interruption of the line of Emperors in the West.
See ROME: A. D. 455-476.
ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800.
Charlemagne's restoration of the Western Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 800.
ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 843-951.
Dissolution of the Carolingian fabric.
See ITALY: A. D. 843-951.
----------ROMAN EMPIRE: End--------
----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: Start--------
ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.
Founded by Otto the Great.
Later Origin of the Name.
"The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it
commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty
of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the
creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well
as technically, it was a prolongation of the Empire of Charles
[Charlemagne]; and it rested (as will be shewn in the sequel)
upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about
the coronation of A. D. 800. … This restored Empire, which
professed itself a continuation of the Carolingian, was in
many respects different. It was less wide, including, if we
reckon strictly, only Germany proper and two-thirds of Italy;
or counting in subject but separate kingdoms, Burgundy,
Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Denmark, perhaps Hungary. Its
character was less ecclesiastical. Otto exalted indeed the
spiritual potentates of his realm, and was earnest in
spreading Christianity among the heathen: he was master of the
Pope and De·fender of the Holy Roman Church. But religion held
a less important place in his mind and his administration. …
It was also less Roman. … Under him the Germans became not
only a united nation, but were at once raised on a pinnacle
among European peoples as the imperial race, the possessors of
Rome and Rome's authority. While the political connection with
Italy stirred their spirit, it brought with it a knowledge and
culture hitherto unknown." It was not until the reign of
Frederick Barbarossa that the epithet "Holy" was prefixed to
the title of the revived Roman Empire. "Of its earlier origin,
under Conrad II (the Salic), which some have supposed, there
is no documentary trace, though there is also no proof to the
contrary. So far as is known it occurs first in the famous
Privilege of Austria, granted by Frederick in the fourth year
of his reign, the second of his empire. … Used occasionally by
Henry VI and Frederick II, it is more frequent under their
successors. William, Richard, Rudolf, till after Charles IV's
time it becomes habitual, for the last few centuries
indispensable. Regarding the origin of so singular a title
many theories have been advanced. … We need not, however, be
in any great doubt as to its true meaning and purport. … Ever
since Hildebrand had claimed for the priesthood exclusive
sanctity and supreme jurisdiction, the papal party had not
ceased to speak of the civil power as being, compared with
that of their own chief, merely secular, earthly, profane. It
may be conjectured that, to meet this reproach, no less
injurious than insulting, Frederick or his advisers began to
use in public documents the expression 'Holy Empire'; thereby
wishing to assert the divine institution and religious duties
of the office he held. … It is almost superfluous to observe
that the beginning of the title 'Holy' has nothing to do with
the beginning of the Empire itself. Essentially and
substantially, the Holy Roman Empire was, as has been shewn
already, the creation of Charles the Great. Looking at it more
technically, as the monarchy, not of the whole West, like that
of Charles, but of Germany and Italy, with a claim, which was
never more than a claim, to universal sovereignty, its
beginning is fixed by most of the German writers, whose
practice has been followed in the text, at the coronation of
Otto the Great. But the title was at least one, and probably
two centuries later."
J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapters 6, 9 and 12, with foot-note.
Otto, or Otho, the Great, the second of the Saxon line of
Germanic kings, crossed the Alps and made himself master of
the distracted kingdom of Italy in 951, on the invitation of
John XII, who desired his assistance against the reigning king
of Italy, Berengar II, and who offered him the imperial
coronation (there had been no acknowledged emperor for forty
years) as his reward. He easily reduced Berengar to vassalage,
and, after receiving the imperial crown from Pope John, he did
not scruple to depose that licentious and turbulent pontiff,
by the voice of a synod which he convoked in St. Peter's, and
to seat another in his place. Three revolts in the city of
Rome, which were stirred up by the deposed pope, the emperor
suppressed with a heavy hand, and he took away from the city
all its forms of republican liberty, entrusting the government
to the pope as his viceroy.
J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 3, part 1.
See, also,
ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
GERMANY: A. D. 936-973;
and ROMANS: KING OF THE.
ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 12th Century.
Rise of the College of Electors.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 13th Century.
Its degradation after the fall of the Hohenstaufen.
The Great Interregnum.
Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.
ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 15th Century.
Its character.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 1806.
Its end.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: End--------
ROMAN EQUESTRIAN ORDER.
See EQUESTRIAN ORDER.
ROMAN FAMILY AND PERSONAL NAMES.
See GENS.
ROMAN FETIALES.
See FETIALES.
ROMAN INDICTION.
See INDICTIONS.
{2653}
ROMAN LAW, and its lasting influence.
"Roman Law as taught in the writings of the Roman jurists is a
science, a science of great perfection, a science so perfect as
to almost approach the harmonious finish of art. But Roman Law
is not only a marvellous system of the legal customs and
concepts of the Romans; its value is not restricted to
students of Roman Law; it has an absolute value for students
of any law whatever. In other words the Romans outstripped all
other nations, both ancient and modern, in the scientific
construction of legal problems. They alone offer that curious
example of one nation's totally eclipsing the scientific
achievements of all other nations. By law, however, we here
understand not all branches of law, as constitutional,
criminal, pontifical, and private law, together with
jurisprudence. By Roman Law we mean exclusively Roman Private
Law. The writings of Roman jurists on constitutional and
criminal law have been superseded and surpassed by the
writings of more modern jurists. Their writings on questions
of Private Law, on the other hand, occupy a unique place; they
are, to the present day, considered as the inexhaustible
fountain-head, and the inimitable pattern of the science of
Private Law. … A Roman lawyer, and even a modern French or
German lawyer—French and German Private Law being essentially
Roman Law—were, and are, never obliged to ransack whole
libraries of precedents to find the law covering a given case.
They approach a case in the manner of a physician: carefully
informing themselves of the facts underlying the case, and
then eliciting the legal spark by means of close meditation on
the given data according to the general principles of their
science. The Corpus juris civilis is one stout volume. This
one volume has sufficed to cover billions of cases during more
than thirteen centuries. The principles laid down in this
volume will afford ready help in almost every case of Private
Law, because they emanate from Private Law alone, and have no
tincture of non–legal elements."
E. Reich,
Graeco-Roman Institutions,
pages 3-13.
"'The Responsa prudentum,' or answers of the learned in the
law, consisted of explanations of authoritative written
documents. It was assumed that the written law was binding,
but the responses practically modified and even overruled it.
A great variety of rules was thus supposed to be educed from
the Twelve Tables [see ROME: B. C. 451-449], which were not in
fact to be found there. They could be announced by any
jurisconsult whose opinions might, if he were distinguished,
have a binding force nearly equal to enactments of the
legislature. The responses were not published by their author,
but were recorded and edited by his pupils, and to this fact
the world is indebted for the educational treatises, called
Institutes or Commentaries, which are among the most
remarkable features of the Roman system. The distinction
between the 'responses' and the 'case law' of England should
be noticed. The one consists of expositions by the bar, and
the other by the bench. It might have been expected that such
a system would have popularized the law. This was not the
fact. Weight was only attached to the responses of conspicuous
men who were masters of the principles as well as details of
jurisprudence. The great development of legal principles at
Rome was due to this method of producing law. Under the
English system no judge can enunciate a principle until an
actual controversy arises to which the rule can be applied;
under the Roman theory, there was no limit to the question to
which a response might be given, except the skill and
ingenuity of the questioner. Every possible phase of a legal
principle could thus be examined, and the result would show
the symmetrical product of a single master mind. This method
of developing law nearly ceased at the fall of the republic.
The Responses were systematized and reduced into compendia.
The right to make responses was limited by Augustus to a few

jurisconsults. The edict of the Prætor became a source of law,
and a great school of jurists, containing such men as Ulpian,
Paulus, Gaius, and Papinian, arose, who were authors of
treatises rather than of responses."
T. W. Dwight,
Introduction to Maine's "Ancient Law."
"Apart from the more general political conditions on which
jurisprudence also, and indeed jurisprudence especially
depends, the causes of the excellence of the Roman civil law
lie mainly in two features: first, that the plaintiff and
defendant were specially obliged to explain and embody in due
and binding form the grounds of the demand and of the
objection to comply with it; and secondly, that the Romans
appointed a permanent machinery for the edictal development of
their law, and associated it immediately with practice. By the
former the Romans precluded the pettifogging practices of
advocates, by the latter they obviated incapable law-making,
so far as such things can be prevented at all; and by means of
both in conjunction they satisfied, as far as is possible, the
two conflicting requirements, that law shall constantly be
fixed, and that it shall constantly be in accordance with the
spirit of the age. … This state [Rome], which made the highest
demands on its burgesses and carried the idea of subordinating
the individual to the interest of the whole further than any
state before or since has done, only did and only could do so
by itself removing the barriers to intercourse and unshackling
liberty quite as much as it subjected it to restriction. In
permission or in prohibition the law was always absolute. … A
contract did not ordinarily furnish a ground of action, but
where the right of the creditor was acknowledged, it was so
all-powerful that there was no deliverance for the poor
debtor, and no humane or equitable consideration was shown
towards him. It seemed as if the law found a pleasure in
presenting on all sides its sharpest spikes, in drawing the
most extreme consequences, in forcibly obtruding on the
bluntest understanding the tyrannic nature of the idea of
right. The poetical form and the genial symbolism, which so
pleasingly prevail in the Germanic legal ordinances, were
foreign to the Roman; in his law all was clear and precise; no
symbol was employed, no institution was superfluous. It was
not cruel; everything necessary was performed without tedious
ceremony, even the punishment of death; that a free man could
not be tortured was a primitive maxim of Roman law, to obtain
which other peoples have had to struggle for thousands of
years. Yet this law was frightful in its inexorable severity,
which we cannot suppose to have been very greatly mitigated by
humanity in practice, for it was really the law of the people;
more terrible than Venetian piombi and chambers of torture was
that series of living entombments which the poor man saw
yawning before him in the debtors' towers of the rich. But the
greatness of Rome was involved in, and was based upon, the
fact that the Roman people ordained for itself and endured a
system of law, in which the eternal principles of freedom and
of subordination, of property and of legal redress, reigned
and still at the present day reign unadulterated and
unmodified."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1).
{2654}
"Though hard to realise, and especially so for Englishmen, it
is true that modern Europe owes to the Romans its ancient
inherited sense of the sacredness of a free man's person and
property, and its knowledge of the simplest and most rational
methods by which person and property may be secured with least
inconvenience to the whole community. The nations to come
after Rome were saved the trouble of finding out all this for
themselves; and it may be doubted whether any of them had the
requisite genius. We in England, for example, owe the peculiar
cumbrousness of our legal system to the absence of those
direct Roman influences, which, on the continent, have
simplified and illuminated the native legal material."
W. W. Fowler,
The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
page 209.
"In all the lands which had obeyed Rome, and were included in
the nominal supremacy of the revived Western Empire, it [Roman
Law] acquired a prevalence and power not derived from the
sanction of any distinct human authority. No such authority
was for the time being strong enough to compete in men's
esteem and reverence with the shadow of majesty that still
clung to the relics of Roman dominion. Thus the Roman law was
not merely taken as (what for many purposes and in many states
it really was) a common groundwork of institutions, ideas, and
method, standing towards the actual rules of a given community
somewhat in the same relation as in the Roman doctrine ius
gentium to ius civile; but it was conceived as having, by its
intrinsic reasonableness, a kind of supreme and eminent
virtue, and as claiming the universal allegiance of civilised
mankind. If I may use a German term for which I cannot find a
good English equivalent, its principles were accepted not as
ordained by Cæsar, but as in themselves binding on the
Rechtsbewusstsein of Christendom. They were part of the
dispensation of Roman authority to which the champions of the
Empire in their secular controversy with the Papacy did not
hesitate to attribute an origin no less divine than that of
the Church itself. Even in England (though not in English
practice, for anything I know) this feeling left its mark. In
the middle of the thirteenth century, just when our legal and
judicial system was settling into its typical form, Bracton
copied whole pages of the Bolognese glossator Azo. On the
Continent, where there was no centralised and countervailing
local authority, the Roman law dwarfed everything else. Yet
the law of the Corpus Juris and the glossators was not the
existing positive law of this or that place: the Roman law was
said to be the common law of the Empire, but its effect was
always taken as modified by the custom of the country or city.
'Stadtrecht bricht Landrecht, Landrecht bricht gemein Recht.'
Thus the main object of study was not a system of actually
enforced rules, but a type assumed by actual systems as their
exemplar without corresponding in detail to any of them. Under
such conditions it was inevitable that positive authority
should be depreciated, and the method of reasoning, even for
practical purposes, from an ideal fitness of things, should be
exalted, so that the distinction between laws actually
administered and rules elaborated by the learned as in
accordance with their assumed principles was almost lost sight
of."
Sir F. Pollock,
Oxford Lectures,
pages 30-32.
"In some of the nations of modern Continental Europe (as, for
example, in France), the actual system of law is mainly of
Roman descent; and in others of the same nations (as, for
example in the States of Germany), the actual system of law,
though not descended from the Roman, has been closely
assimilated to the Roman by large importations from it.
Accordingly, in most of the nations of modern Continental
Europe, much of the substance of the actual system, and much
of the technical language in which it is clothed, is derived
from the Roman Law, and without some knowledge of the Roman
Law, the technical language is unintelligible; whilst the
order or arrangement commonly given to the system, imitates
the exemplar of a scientific arrangement which is presented by
the Institutes of Justinian. Even in our own country, a large
portion of the Ecclesiastical and Equity, and some (though a
smaller) portion of the Common, Law, is derived immediately
from the Roman Law, or from the Roman through the Canon. Nor
has the influence of the Roman Law been limited to the
positive law of the modern European nations. For the technical
language of this all-reaching system has deeply tinctured the
language of the international law or morality which those
nations affect to observe. … Much has been talked of the
philosophy of the Roman Institutional writers. Of familiarity
with Grecian philosophy there are few traces in their
writings, and the little that they have borrowed from that
source is the veriest foolishness: for example, their account
of Jus naturale, in which they confound law with animal
instincts; law, with all those wants and necessities of
mankind which are causes of its institution. Nor is the Roman
law to be resorted to as a magazine of legislative wisdom. The
great Roman Lawyers are, in truth, expositors of a positive or
technical system. Not Lord Coke himself is more purely
technical. Their real merits lie in their thorough mastery of
that system; in their command of its principles; in the
readiness with which they recall, and the facility and
certainty with which they apply them. In support of my own
opinion of these great writers I shall quote the authority of
two of the most eminent Jurists of modern times. 'The
permanent value of the Corpus Juris Civilis,' says Falck,
'does not lie in the Decrees of the Emperors, but in the
remains of juristical literature which have been preserved in
the Pandects. Nor is it so much the matter of these juristical
writings, as the scientific method employed by the authors in
explicating the notions and maxims with which they have to
deal, that has rendered them models to all succeeding ages,
and pre-eminently fitted them to produce and to develope those
qualities of the mind which are requisite to form a Jurist.'
And Savigny says, 'It has been shown above, that, in our
science, all results depend on the possession of leading
principles; and it is exactly this possession upon which the
greatness of the Roman jurists rests. The notions and maxims
of their science do not appear to them to be the creatures of
their own will; they are actual beings, with whose existence
and genealogy they have become familiar from long and intimate
intercourse.
{2655}
Hence their whole method of proceeding has a certainty which
is found nowhere else except in mathematics, and it may be
said without exaggeration that they calculate with their
ideas. If they have a case to decide, they begin by acquiring
the most vivid and distinct perception of it, and we see
before our eyes the rise and progress of the whole affair, and
all the changes it undergoes. It is as if this particular case
were the germ whence the whole science was to be developed.
Hence, with them, theory and practice are not in fact
distinct; their theory is so thoroughly worked out as to be
fit for immediate application, and their practice is uniformly
ennobled by scientific treatment. In every principle they see
a case to which it may be applied; in every case, the rule by
which it is determined; and in the facility with which they
pass from the general to the particular and the particular to
the general, their mastery is indisputable.' In consequence of
this mastery of principles, of their perfect consistency
('elegantia') and of the clearness of the method in which they
are arranged, there is no positive system of law which it is
so easy to seize as a whole. The smallness of its volume tends
to the same end."
J. Austin,
Lectures on Jurisprudence,
volume 3, pages 358-361.
"A glance at the history of those countries in Europe that did
not adopt Roman Law will prove and illustrate the political
origin of the 'reception' of this law in Germany and France
still more forcibly. The Kingdom of Hungary never adopted the
theory or practice of Roman Law. This seems all the more
strange since Hungary used Latin as the official language of
her legislature, laws, and law–courts down to the first
quarter of this century. A country so intensely imbued with
the idiom of Rome would seem to be quite likely to adopt also
the law of Rome. This, however, the Hungarians never did.
Their law is essentially similar to the common law of England,
in that it is derived mainly from precedents and usage. The
unwillingness of the Hungarians to adopt Roman Law was based
on a political consideration. Roman Law, they noticed,
requires a professional and privileged class of jurists who
administer law to the exclusion of all other classes. In
German territories the privileged class of civilians were in
the service of the rulers. But it so happened that ever since
1526 the ruler, or at least the nominal head of Hungary, was a
foreigner: the Archduke of Austria, or Emperor of Germany.
Hence to introduce Roman Law in Hungary would have been
tantamount to surrendering the law of the country to the
administration of foreigners, or of professors, who had a
vital interest to work in the interest of their foreign
employer, the Archduke of Austria. Consequently the Hungarians
prudently abstained from the establishment of numerous
Universities, and persistently refused to adopt Roman Law, the
scientific excellence of which they otherwise fully
acknowledged. For, the Hungarians always were, and to the
present moment still are, the only nation on the continent who
maintained an amount of political liberty and self·government
quite unknown to the rest of continental Europe, particularly
in the last two centuries. The same reason applies to England.
England never adopted Roman Law, because it was against the
interests of English liberty to confide the making and
interpretation of law to the hands of a privileged class of
jurists. As said before, Roman Law cannot be adopted unless
you adopt a privileged class of professional jurists into the
bargain. The hatred of the English was not so much a hatred of
civil law, but of the civilians. These jurists develop law on
the strength of theoretical principles, and actual cases are
not decided according to former judgments given in similar
cases, but by principles obtained through theoretico-practical
speculation. Hence there is no division of questions of law
and fact in civil cases; nor is there, in a system of Roman
Private Law, any room for juries, and thus law is taken
completely out of the hands of the people. This, however, the
English would not endure, and thus they naturally fell to
confiding their law to their judges. English common law is
judge-made law."
E. Reich,
Graeco-Roman Institutions,
pages 62-63.
See, also, CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS;
and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ITALY.
ROMAN LEGION.
See LEGION, ROMAN.
ROMAN LIBRARIES.
See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ROME.
ROMAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1ST CENTURY, and 2D CENTURY.
ROMAN PEACE.
The benefits conferred upon the world by the universal
dominion of Rome were of quite inestimable value. First of
these benefits, … was the prolonged peace that was enforced
throughout large portions of the world where chronic warfare
had hitherto prevailed. The 'pax romana' has perhaps been
sometimes depicted in exaggerated colours; but as compared
with all that had preceded, and with all that followed, down
to the beginning of the nineteenth century, it deserved the
encomiums it has received."
J. Fiske,
American Political Ideas viewed from the
Standpoint of Universal History,
lecture 2.
ROMAN PONTIFICES.
See AUGURS.
ROMAN PRÆTORS.
See CONSUL.
ROMAN PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR.
See PROCONSUL.
ROMAN QUESTION, The.
See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.
"Four principal lines of road have been popularly known as
'the four Roman ways.' In the time of Edward the Confessor,
and probably much earlier, there were four roads in England
protected by the king's peace. These were called
Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hickenilde-strete, and Ermine-strete.
Watling-street runs from London to Wroxeter. The Fosse from
the sea coast near Seaton in Devonshire to Lincoln. The
Ikenild·street from Iclingham near Bury St. Edmund's in
Suffolk, to Wantage in Berkshire, and on to Cirencester and
Gloucester. The Erming-street ran through the Fenny district
of the east of England. These streets seem to have represented
a combination of those portions of the Roman roads which in
later times were adopted and kept in repair for the sake of
traffic. … The name of 'Watling-street' became attached to
other roads, as the Roman road beyond the Northumbrian wall,
which crossed the Tyne at Corbridge and ran to the Frith of
Forth at Cramond, bears that name; and the Roman road beyond
Uriconium (Wroxeter) to Bravinium (Leintwarden) Salop, is also
called Watling-street. The street in Canterbury through which
the road from London to Dover passes is known as
Watling-street, and a street in London also bears that name. …
Two lines of road also bear the name of the Icknield-street,
or Hikenilde-street; but there is some reason to believe that
the Icknield-street was only a British trackway and never
became a true Roman road."
H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 13.
{2656}
"In the fifth year after the Conquest, inquisition was made
throughout the kingdom into the ancient laws and customs of
England. … From this source we learn, that there were, at that
time in England four great roads protected by the King's
Peace, of which two ran lengthways through the island, and two
crossed it, and that the names of the four were respectively,
Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hikenilde-strete and Erming-strete.
These are the roads which are popularly but incorrectly known
as 'the four Roman ways.' … The King's Peace was a high
privilege. Any offence committed on these high ways was tried,
not in the local court, where local influence might interfere
with the administration of justice, but before the king's own
officers."
E. Guest,
Origines Celticae,
volume 2: The Four Roman Ways.
See, also, WATLING STREET.
ROMAN ROADS IN ITALY.
See
ÆMILIAN WAY;
APPIAN WAY;
AURELIAN ROAD:
CASSIAN ROAD;
POSTUMIAN ROAD;
and ROME: B. C. 295-191.
ROMAN SENATE.
See SENATE, ROMAN.
ROMAN VESTALS.
See VESTAL VIRGINS.
ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.
There were two great fortified walls constructed by the Romans
in Britain, but the name is most often applied to the first
one, which was built under the orders of the Emperor Hadrian,
from the Solway to the Tyne, 70 miles long and from 18 to 19
feet high, of solid masonry, with towers at intervals and with
ditches throughout. In the reign of Antoninus Pius a second
fortified line, farther to the north, extending from the Forth
to the Clyde, was constructed. This latter was a rampart of
earth connecting numerous forts. Hadrian's wall was
strengthened at a later time by Severus and is sometimes
called by his name. Popularly it is called "Graham's Dike."
Both walls were for the protection of Roman Britain from the
wild tribes of Caledonia.
E. Guest,
Origines Celticae,
volume 2, page 88-94.
ALSO IN:
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 66-67.
ROMANCE LANGUAGE, Earliest Monument of.
See STRASBURG: A. D. 842.
ROMANIA, The Empire of.
The new feudal empire, constituted by the Crusaders and the
Venetians, after their conquest of Constantinople, and having
the great and venerable but half ruined capital of the
Byzantines for its seat, received the name of the Empire of
Romania. The reign of its first emperor, the excellent Baldwin
of Flanders, was brought to a tragical end in little more than
a year from his coronation. Summoned to quell a revolt at
Adrianople, he was attacked by the king of Bulgaria, defeated,
taken prisoner and murdered within a year by his savage
captor. He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Henry, a
capable, energetic and valiant prince; but all the ability and
all the vigor of Henry could not give cohesion and strength to
an empire which was false in its constitution and predestined
to decay. On Henry's death, without children (A. D. 1216), his
sister Yoland's husband, Peter of Courtenay, a French baron,
was elected emperor; but that unfortunate prince, on
attempting to reach Constantinople by a forced march through
the hostile Greek territory of Epirus, was taken captive and
perished in an Epirot prison. His eldest son, Philip of Namur,
wisely refused the imperial dignity; a younger son, Robert,
accepted it, and reigned feebly until 1228, when he died. Then
the venerable John de Brienne, ex-king of Jerusalem, was
elected emperor-regent for life, the crown to pass on his
death to Baldwin of Courtenay, a young brother of Robert.
"John de Brienne died in 1237, after living to witness his
empire confined to a narrow circuit round the walls of
Constantinople. Baldwin II. prolonged the existence of the
empire by begging assistance from the Pope and the king of
France; and he collected the money necessary for maintaining
his household and enjoying his precarious position, by selling
the holy relics preserved by the Eastern Church [such, for
example, as the crown of thorns, the bonds, the sponge and the
cup of the crucifixion, the rod of Moses, etc.]. He was
fortunate in finding a liberal purchaser in St. Louis. … At
length, in the year 1261, a division of the Greek army [of the
empire of Nicæa] surprised Constantinople, expelled Baldwin,
and put an end to the Latin power, without the change
appearing to be a revolution of much importance beyond the
walls of the city."
See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D. 1204-1261
G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 4.
In the last days of the sham empire, Baldwin II. maintained
his court "by tearing the copper from the domes of the public
buildings erected by the Byzantine emperors, which he coined
into money, and by borrowing gold from Venetian bankers, in
whose hands he placed his eldest son Philip as a pledge."
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
book 4, chapter 1, section 3 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 61.
For an account of the creation of the Empire of Romania.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
ROMANOFFS, Origin of the dynasty of the.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.
ROMANS, King of the.
Henry II.,—St. Henry by canonization—the last of the German
emperors of the House of Saxony (A. D. 1002-1024), abstained
from styling himself "Emperor," for some years, until he had
gone to Rome and received the imperial crown from the hands of
the Pope. Meantime he invented and assumed the title of King
of the Romans. His example was followed by his successors. The
King of the Romans in later history was Emperor of the Holy
Roman Empire in embryo.
S. A. Dunham,
History of the Germanic Empire,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).
"It was not till the reign of Maximilian that the actual
coronation at Rome was dispensed with, and the title of
Emperor taken immediately after the election."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 3, part 1.
ROMANUS, Pope, A. D. 897-898.
Romanus I. (colleague of Constantine VII.),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 919-944.
Romanus II., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), 959-963.
Romanus III., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), 1028-1034.
Romanus IV., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1067-1071.
{2656a}
{2656b}
A Logical Outline of Roman History
IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.
Physical or material. (orange)
Social and political. (green)
Intellectual, moral and religious. (brown)
Geographical position. (Orange)
Three Latin and Sabine tribes of an early day established
their settlements on neighboring hills, by the banks of the
Tiber, in the midland of Italy, which is the midland of the
Mediterranean or midland sea. They were throned, as it were,
at the center of the only wide dominion in which a virile and
energetic civilization could rise in ancient times.
Patricians and Plebeians. (Green)
The union of these three tribes formed the patrician nucleus
of Rome. Around them gathered another population of kindred
blood, which acquired a certain footing of association with
them, but not immediately on equal terms. The precedence and
superiority of the primal families, in rank and in rights, was
jealously maintained, and the later-coming plebs were received
into a pseudo-citizenship which carried more burdens than
privileges with it.
By what impulse of character, or through what favor of
circumstance, at the beginning, this infant city-state grew
masterful in war, over all its neighbors, none can tell. But
as it did so, the sturdy plebeian populace which fought its
battles resented more and more the greedy monopoly of offices
and of conquered lands to which the patricians clung, and a
struggle between classes occurred which shaped the domestic
politics of Rome for more than two centuries.
B. C. 509, Founding of the Republic.
B. C. 492, Tribunes o£ the Plebs.
Before that contest came to the surface of history, the
oligarchy of the city had cast out the kings which were its
early chiefs, and had put two yearly-chosen consuls in their
place, thus founding the great Roman Republic, with a purely
aristocratic constitution. Then the battle of the plebs for
equality of rights and powers was promptly opened, and the
long, significant process of the democratizing of the state
began. By their first victory the commons seemed, for their
own leadership and defense, a remarkable magistracy, protected
by sanctities and armed with powers which never have been used
in government elsewhere, before or since. With that great
tribunician authority, invincible when capably and boldly
wielded, they won their way, step by step, to equality in the
high offices and sacred colleges of the state; to legislative
equality in their assembly; to legality of intermarriage with
the patrician class; and to participation in the public lands.
B. C. 480-275. Conquest of Italy.
B. C. 264-202. Punic wars
B. C. 214-146. Expanding Dominion.
But while plebs and patricians thus strove with each other at
home, they were united against their neighbors in many wars,
which seldom turned to their disadvantage. Æquians, Volscians,
Etruscans, Latin allies, Samnites, Gauls, Greeks of south
Italy, yielded in turn to their arms, until the whole Italian
peninsula had been brought under Roman rule. Then followed
intrusion in Sicily, collision with Carthage in that island,
and the half century of Punic wars, which tried the Republic
to the extremity of its powers, but which left it with no
rival in the Mediterranean world, From that time the career of
Roman conquest was rapidly pursued in widening fields. Sicily,
Spain, Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Southern Gaul, Northern
Africa, submitted as provinces to the proconsuls of Rome.
Corruption. (brown)
But the health of the commonwealth waned as its greatness
waxed. It was corrupted by the spoils of conquest and the
streams of tribute money that flowed from three continents
into its hands. It was leprous in its whole system with the
infection of slavery.
Social and Political Degeneration. (green)
A middle class had practically disappeared. Freemen had been
driven from industrial callings by servile competition; the
small farms of rural Rome had been swallowed up in great slave
worked estates; public lands had been drawn by one trick of
law or another, into private hands. The greater mass of the
common people had degenerated to a worthless mob. The
democratic power which their ancestors won still belonged to
them, but they had lost the sense and the spirit to exercise
it, except fitfully and threateningly, for purposes that were
generally base. A new nobility had risen out of the plebeian
ranks; the senate, reinforced by it, and helped by the
exigencies of the long period of war, had recovered control of
government, keeping ascendancy over the mob by political arts
and bribes.
B. C. 133-121. The Gracchi.
B. C. 90-88. The Social War,
B. C. 88-45. Civil Wars.
Thus came the fatal time when demagogues played with the
passions of that fickle mob which bore the awful sovereignty
of Rome in its keeping; and when patriots were forced to be as
demagogues, if they sought to lift Roman citizenship from its
muddy degradation. In the undertakings of the Gracchi, perhaps
something of both demagogue and patriot was combined; but what
they did only shook the decaying political fabric and
unsettled it more. The extension of Roman citizenship to the
Italian allies, which Caius Gracchus contended for, and which
might have grounded the Republic on broad bases of
nationality, was yielded in the next generation, but too late,
and after a ruinous war. From the embers of that fiery Social
War broke the flames of civil strife in which the old
constitution was finally consumed. Marius, Sulla, Pompeius,
Cæsar, were distinguished among its destroyers; Cicero and
Cato earned their immortality in its defense.
B. C. 45-A. D. 486, The Empire.
By the genius of Cæsar a new sovereignty—an imperial
autocracy—was founded, on the ruins of the shattered Republic.
By the shrewdness of his wise nephew, Octavius, its enduring
organization was shaped. The mighty fabric of the Roman Empire
which then arose, to dominate the world for centuries, and to
dominate the history of the world perhaps forever, owed its
greatness altogether to the effective organization of
government which it embodied. It inherited all the corruptions
and diseases in society which had sickened and destroyed the
Republic; but it extinguished factions at the seat of power,
established authority there, and perfected a radiating
mechanism of provincial administration such as had not been
known in human experience before. Hence, emperors might be
madmen or fiends or fools, as many among them were, and Rome
might be a sink of all vices and miseries, as it commonly was,
and the whole Empire might be grievously oppressed, as it
seldom failed to be; but the working of the administrative
system went on, with little disturbance or change,—so mighty
and irresistible in its machinery that it seemed to mankind
like a part of the natural world, and they lost the ability to
think of any different political state.
Christianity. (brown)
Christianity, springing up in Judæa within the first century
of the Empire, spread through and around it like an
interlacing vine,—sweet and wholesome in its early fruits,
strong as a bond, powerful as a regenerating influence. But
when the ecclesiasticism of a politically fashioned Church had
been grafted on the Christian vine, it bore then the evil
seeds of new corruption, new discord, new maladies for the
Roman world.
A. D. 476. Fall of the Empire in the West. (green)
So there came, at last, a time when the long-enduring frame of
Roman government could no longer bear the increasing
dead-weight of social paralysis within and the increasing
pressure of barbaric enemies from without. Of real vitality in
the Empire there had been little for half-a-century before its
fall in the West.
A. D. 476-1453. Survival of the Eastern Empire.
It survived in the East, because its Greek capital was more
impregnable, and more commandingly placed for the continued
centralization of a waning power; and because habit and
routine have more potency in the Eastern than in the Western
world.
A. D. 800. Revival of the Western Empire.
Even Western Europe obeyed again, after more than four
centuries, the obstinate habit of homage to Rome, when it
restored the Empire of the Cæsars, though less in fact than in
name.
{2657}
----------ROME: Start--------
ROME:
The beginning of the City-State and the origin of its name.
The three tribes of original Romans who formed
the Patrician order.-
The Plebs and their inferior citizenship.
"About fourteen miles up from the mouth of the river Tiber,
hills of moderate elevation rise on both banks of the stream,
higher on the right, lower on the left bank. With the latter
group there has been closely associated for at least two
thousand five hundred years the name of the Romans. We are
unable, of course, to tell how or when that name arose; this
much only is certain, that in the oldest form of it known to
us the inhabitants of the canton are called not Romans, but
(by a shifting of sound that frequently occurs in the earlier
period of a language, but fell very early in abeyance in
Latin) Ramnians (Ramnes), a fact which constitutes an
expressive testimony to the immemorial antiquity of the name.
Its derivation cannot be given with certainty; possibly Ramnes
may mean 'foresters,' or 'bushmen.' But they were not the only
dwellers on the hills by the bank of the Tiber. In the
earliest division of the burgesses of Rome a trace has been
preserved of the fact that that body arose out of the
amalgamation of three cantons once probably independent, the
Ramnians, Tities, and Luceres, into a single commonwealth—in
other words, out of such a 'synoikismos' as that from which
Athens arose in Attica. The great antiquity of this threefold
division of the community is perhaps best evinced by the fact
that the Romans, in matters especially of constitutional law,
regularly used the forms tribuere ('to divide into three') and
tribus ('a third') in the general sense of 'to divide' and 'a
part,' and the latter expression (tribus) like our 'quarter,'
early lost its original signification of number. … That the
Ramnians were a Latin stock cannot be doubted, for they gave
their name to the new Roman commonwealth, and therefore must
have substantially determined the nationality of the united
community. Respecting the origin of the Luceres nothing can be
affirmed, except that there is no difficulty in the way of our
assigning them, like the Ramnians, to the Latin stock. The
second of these communities, on the other hand, is with one
consent derived from Sabina. … And, as in the older and more
credible traditions, without exception, the Tities take
precedence of the Ramnians, it is probable that the intruding
Tities compelled the older Ramnians to accept the
'synoikismos.' … Long, in all probability, before an urban
settlement arose on the Tiber, these Ramnians, Tities, and
Luceres, at first separate, afterwards united, had their
stronghold on the Roman hills, and tilled their fields from
the surrounding villages. The 'wolf festival' (Lupercalia),
which the gens of the Quinctii celebrated on the Palatine
hill, was probably a tradition from these primitive ages—a
festival of husbandmen and shepherds, which more than any
other preserved the homely pastimes of patriarchal simplicity,
and, singularly enough, maintained itself longer than all the
other heathen festivals in Christian Rome. From these
settlements the later Rome arose."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 4.
"Rome did not seem to be a single city; it appeared like a
confederation of several cities, each one of which was
attached by its origin to another confederation. It was the
centre where the Latins, Etruscans, Sabellians, and Greeks
met. Its first king was a Latin; the second, a Sabine; the
fifth was, we are told, the son of a Greek; the sixth was an
Etruscan. Its language was composed of the most diverse
elements. The Latin predominated, but Sabellian roots were
numerous, and more Greek radicals were found in it than in any
other of the dialects of Central Italy. As to its name, no one
knew to what language that belonged. According to some, Rome
was a Trojan word; according to others, a Greek word. There
are reasons for believing it to be Latin, but some of the
ancients thought it to be Etruscan. The names of Roman
families also attest a great diversity of origin. … The effect
of this mixing of the most diverse nations was, that from the
beginning Rome was related to all the peoples that it knew. It
could call itself Latin with the Latins, Sabine with the
Sabines, Etruscan with the Etruscans, and Greek with the
Greeks. Its national worship was also an assemblage of several
quite different worships, each one of which attached it to one
of these nations."
Fustel de Coulanges,
The Ancient City,
book 5, chapter 2.
"The whole history of the world has been determined by the
geological fact that at a point a little below the junction of
the Tiber and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one
another than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site
marked out above all other sites for dominion, the centre of
Italy, the centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the
junction of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had
the great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of
Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of
Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of
Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two
hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood
so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on
those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on
terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues,
or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless,
more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies.
Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried;
history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice
was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the
men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate
communities into tribes of a single city. Changes of the same
kind took place on not a few spots of Greece and Italy; not a
few of the most famous cities of both lands grew on this wise
out of the union of earlier detached settlements. But no other
union of the kind, not even that which called Sparta into
being out of five villages of an older day, could compare in
its effects on all later time with the union of those two
small hill-fortresses into a single city. For that city was
Rome; the hill of Saturn became the site of Rome's capitol.
the scene of her triumphs, the home of her patron gods. The
hill on the other side of the swampy dale became the
dwelling-place of Rome's Cæsars, and handed on its name of
Palatium as the name for the homes of all the kings of the
earth.
{2658}
Around those hills as a centre, Latium, Italy, Mediterranean
Europe, were gathered in, till the world was Roman, or rather
till the world was Rome. … Three tribes, settlers on three
hills, were the elements of which the original commonwealth
was made. Whether there was anything like a nobility within
the tribes themselves, whether certain houses had any
precedence, any preferences in the disposal of offices, we
have no means of judging. That certain houses are far more
prominent in legend and history than others may suggest such a
thought, but does not prove it. But one thing is certain;
these three tribes, these older settlers, were the original
Roman people, which for a while numbered no members but
themselves. They were the patres, the fathers, a name which in
its origin meant no more than such plain names as goodman,
housefather, and the like. In the Roman polity the father only
could be looked on as a citizen in the highest sense; his
children, his grand-children, were in his power, from which,
just like slaves, they could be released only by his own
special act. Such was the origin of the name fathers, patres,
patricians, a name round which such proud associations
gathered, as the three tribes who had once been the whole
Roman people shrank up into a special noble class in the midst
of a new Roman people which grew up around them, but which
they did not admit to the same rights as themselves. The
incorporation of a third tribe marks the end of the first
period of Roman history. These were the Luceres of the Cœlian,
admitted perhaps at first with rights not quite on a level
with those of the two earlier tribes, the Ramnes of the
Palatine, the oldest Romans of all, and the Tities of the
Capitoline or hill of Saturn. The oldest Roman people was now
formed. No fourth tribe was ever admitted; the later tribes of
Rome, it must be remembered, are a separate division which
have nothing to do with these old patrician tribes. And it
must have been a most rare favour for either individuals or
whole houses to be received into any of the three original
tribes. … Now, if the privileged body of citizens is small,
and if circumstances tend to make the settlement of
non-privileged residents large, here is one of the means by
which a privileged order in the narrower sense, a nobility in
the midst of a nation or people may arise. An order which
takes in few or no new members tends to extinction; if it does
not die out, it will at least sensibly lessen. But there is no
limit to the growth of the non-privileged class outside. Thus
the number of the old burghers will be daily getting smaller,
the number of the new residents will be daily getting larger,
till those who once formed the whole people put on step by
step the character of an exclusive nobility in the midst of
the extended nation which has grown up around them. By this
time they have acquired all the attributes of nobility,
smallness of numbers, antiquity, privilege. And their
possession of the common land—a possession shared constantly
by a smaller number—is likely to give them a fourth attribute
which, vulgarly at least, goes to swell the conception of
nobility, the attribute of wealth. … Thus around the original
people of Rome, the populus, the patres, the three ancient
tribes, the settlers on the three earliest hills of Rome,
arose a second people, the plebs. The whole history of Rome is
a history of incorporation. The first union between the
Capitoline and Palatine hills was the first stage of the
process which at last made Romans of all the nations round the
Mediterranean sea. But the equal incorporation of which that
union was the type had now ceased, not to begin again for
ages. Whatever amount of belief we give to the legends of
Roman wars and conquests under the kings, we can hardly doubt
that the territory of several neighbouring towns was
incorporated with the Roman state, and that their people,
whether they removed to Rome or went on occupying their own
lands elsewhere, became Romans, but not as yet full Romans.
They were Romans in so far as they ceased to be members of any
other state, in so far as they obeyed the laws of Rome, and
served in the Roman armies. But they were not Romans in the
sense of being admitted into the original Roman body; they had
no votes in the original Roman assembly; they had no share in
its public land; they were not admissible to the high offices
of the state. They had an organization of their own; they had
their own assemblies, their own magistrates, their own sacred
rights, different in many things from those of the older Roman
People. And we must remember that, throughout the Roman
history, when any town or district was admitted to any stage,
perfect or imperfect, of Roman citizenship, its people were
admitted without regard to any distinctions which had existed
among them in their elder homes. The patricians of a Latin
town admitted to the Roman franchise became plebeians at Rome.
Thus from the beginning, the Roman plebs contained families
which, if the word 'noble' has any real meaning, were fully as
noble as any house of the three elder tribes. Not a few too of
the plebeians were rich; rich and poor, they were the more
part land-owners; no mistake can be greater than that which
looks on the Roman plebs as the low multitude of a town. As we
first see them, the truest aspect of them is that of a second
nation within the Roman state, an inferior, a subject, nation,
shut out from all political power, subject in many things to
practical oppression, but which, by its very organization as a
subject nation, was the more stirred up to seek, and the
better enabled to obtain, full equality with the elder nation
to which it stood side by side as a subject neighbour."
E. A. Freeman,
The Practical Bearings of European History
(Lectures to American Audiences),
page 278-278, and 285-292.
See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; LATIUM; ALBA; and SABINES.
ROME:
Early character and civilization of the Romans.
Opposing theories.
"That the central position of Rome, in the long and narrow
peninsula of Italy, was highly favourable to her Italian
dominion, and that the situation of Italy was favourable to
her dominion over the countries surrounding the Mediterranean,
has been often pointed out. But we have yet to ask what
launched Rome in her career of conquest, and, still more, what
rendered that career so different from those of ordinary
conquerors? … About the only answer that we get to these
questions is race. The Romans, we are told, were by nature a
peculiarly warlike race. 'They were the wolves of Italy,' says
Mr. Merivale, who may be taken to represent fairly the state
of opinion on this subject. …
{2659}
But the further we inquire, the more reason there appears to
be for believing that peculiarities of race are themselves
originally formed by the influence of external circumstances
on the primitive tribe; that, however marked and ingrained
they may be, they are not congenital and perhaps not
indelible. … Thus, by ascribing the achievements of the Romans
to the special qualities of their race, we should not be
solving the problem, but only stating it again in other terms.
… What if the very opposite theory to that of the she-wolf and
her foster-children should be true? What if the Romans should
have owed their peculiar and unparalleled success to their
having been at first not more warlike, but less warlike than
their neighbours? It may seem a paradox, but we suspect that
in their imperial ascendency is seen one of the earliest and
not least important steps in that gradual triumph of intellect
over force, even in war, which has been an essential part of
the progress of civilization. The happy day may come when
Science in the form of a benign old gentleman with a bald head
and spectacles on nose, holding some beneficent compound in
his hand, will confront a standing army, and the standing army
will cease to exist. That will be the final victory of
intellect. But in the meantime, our acknowledgements are due
to the primitive inventors of military organization and
military discipline. They shivered Goliath's spear. A mass of
comparatively unwarlike burghers, unorganized and
undisciplined, though they may be the hope of civilization
from their mental and industrial qualities, have as little of
collective as they have of individual strength in war; they
only get in each other's way, and fall singly victims to the
prowess of a gigantic barbarian. He who first thought of
combining their force by organization, so as to make their
numbers tell, and who taught them to obey officers, to form
regularly for action, and to execute united movements at the
word of command, was, perhaps, as great a benefactor of the
species as he who grew the first corn, or built the first
canoe. What is the special character of the Roman legends, so
far as they relate to war? Their special character is that
they are legends not of personal prowess but of discipline.
Rome has no Achilles. The great national heroes, Camillus,
Cincinnatus, Papirius Cursor, Fabius Maximus, Manlius, are not
prodigies of personal strength and valour, but commanders and
disciplinarians. The most striking incidents are incidents of
discipline. The most striking incident of all is the execution
by a commander of his own son for having gained a victory
against orders. 'Disciplinam militarem,' Manlius is made to
say, 'qua stetit ad hanc diem Romana res.' Discipline was the
great secret of Roman ascendency in war. … But how came
military discipline to be so specially cultivated by the
Romans? … Dismissing the notion of occult qualities of race,
we look for a rational explanation in the circumstances of the
plain which was the cradle of the Roman Empire. It is evident
that in the period designated as that of the kings, when Rome
commenced her career of conquest, she was, for that time and
country, a great and wealthy city. This is proved by the works
of the kings, the Capitoline Temple, the excavation for the
Circus Maximus, the Servian Wall, and above all the Cloaca
Maxima. Historians have indeed undertaken to give us a very
disparaging picture of the ancient Rome. … But the Cloaca
Maxima is in itself conclusive evidence of a large population,
of wealth, and of a not inconsiderable degree of civilization.
Taking our stand upon this monument, and clearing our vision
entirely of Romulus and his asylum, we seem dimly to perceive
the existence of a deep prehistoric background, richer than is
commonly supposed in the germs of civilization,—a remark which
may in all likelihood be extended to the background of history
in general. Nothing surely can be more grotesque than the idea
of a set of wolves, like the Norse pirates before their
conversion to Christianity, constructing in their den the
Cloaca Maxima. That Rome was comparatively great and wealthy
is certain. We can hardly doubt that she was a seat of
industry and commerce, and that the theory which represents
her industry and commerce as having been developed
subsequently to her conquests is the reverse of the fact.
Whence, but from industry and commerce, could the population
and the wealth have come? Peasant farmers do not live in
cities, and plunderers do not accumulate. Rome had around her
what was then a rich and peopled plain; she stood at a
meeting-place of nationalities; she was on a navigable river,
yet out of the reach of pirates; the sea near her was full of
commerce, Etruscan, Greek, and Carthaginian. … Her patricians
were financiers and money-lenders. … Even more decisive is the
proof afforded by the early political history of Rome. … The
institutions which we find existing in historic times must
have been evolved by some such struggle between the orders of
patricians and plebeians as that which Livy presents to us.
And these politics, with their parties and sections of
parties, their shades of political character, the sustained
interest which they imply in political objects, their various
devices and compromises, are not the politics of a community
of peasant farmers, living apart each on his own farm and
thinking of his own crops: they are the politics of the
quick-witted and gregarious population of an industrial and
commercial city. … Of course when Rome had once been drawn
into the career of conquest, the ascendency of the military
spirit would be complete; war, and the organization of
territories acquired in war, would then become the great
occupation of her leading citizens; industry and commerce
would fall into disesteem, and be deemed unworthy of the
members of the imperial race. … Even when the Roman nobles had
become a caste of conquerors and pro-consuls, they retained
certain mercantile habits; unlike the French aristocracy, and
aristocracies generally, they were careful keepers of their
accounts, and they showed a mercantile talent for business, as
well as a more than mercantile hardness, in their financial
exploitation of the conquered world. Brutus and his
contemporaries were usurers like the patricians of the early
times. No one, we venture to think, who has been accustomed to
study national character, will believe that the Roman
character was formed by war alone: it was manifestly formed by
war combined with business."
Goldwin Smith,
The Greatness of the Romans
(Contemporary Review, May, 1878).
A distinctly contrary theory of the primary character and
early social state of the Romans is presented in the
following: "The Italians were much more backward than the
Greeks, for their land is turned to the west, to Spain, to
Gaul, to Africa, which could teach them nothing, while Greece
is turned to the east, to the coasts along which the
civilisations of the Nile and the Tigris spread through so
many channels.
{2660}
Besides, the country itself is far less stimulating to its
inhabitants: compared to Greece, Italy is a continental
country whose inhabitants communicate more easily by land than
by sea, except in the two extreme southern peninsulas, which
characteristically were occupied by Greek colonies whose
earlier development was more brilliant than that of the mother
country. … The equable fertility of the land was itself a
hindrance. As far back as we can form any conjecture, the bulk
of the people were shepherds or husbandmen; we cannot trace a
time like that reflected in the Homeric poems, when high-born
men of spirit went roving in their youth by land and sea, and
settled down in their prime with a large stock of cattle and a
fair stud of horses, to act as referees in peace and leaders
in war to the cottars around. … Other differences less
intelligible to us were not less weighty: the volcanic
character of the western plain of central Italy, the want of a