History for ready reference, Volume 4, Nicæa to Tunis

by J. N. Larned

forfeited by his father's infirmity, so far as he was
concerned,) would have been to place a child at the head of
the state, and must have inferred, amid this most arduous
crisis, all the doubts and difficulties of choosing a regent.
Such choice might, too, be the means, at a future time, of
reviving his father's claim to the crown. The countries of
Denmark and Sweden had been too long rivals, for the Swedes to
subject themselves to the yoke of the King of Denmark; and to
choose the Duke of Oldenburg would have been, in effect, to
submit themselves to Russia, of whose last behaviour towards
her Sweden had considerable reason to complain. In this
embarrassment they were thought to start a happy idea, who
proposed to conciliate Napoleon by bestowing the ancient crown
of the Goths upon one of his own Field Marshals, and a high
noble of his empire, namely, John Julian Baptiste Bernadotte,
Prince of Ponte Corvo. This distinguished officer was married
to a sister of Joseph Buonaparte's wife, (daughter of a
wealthy and respectable individual, named Clary,) through whom
he had the advantage of an alliance with the Imperial family
of Napoleon, and he had acquired a high reputation in the
north of Europe, both when governor of Hanover, and
administrator of Swedish Pomerania. On the latter occasion,
Bernadotte was said to have shown himself in a particular
manner the friend and protector of the Swedish nation; and it
was even insinuated that he would not be averse to exchange
the errors of Popery for the reformed tenets of Luther. The
Swedish nation fell very generally into the line of policy
which prompted this choice. … It was a choice, sure, as they
thought, to be agreeable to him upon whose nod the world
seemed to depend. Yet, there is the best reason to doubt,
whether, in preferring Bernadotte to their vacant throne, the
Swedes did a thing which was gratifying to Napoleon. The name
of the Crown Prince of Sweden elect, had been known in the
wars of the Revolution, before that of Buonaparte had been
heard of. Bernadotte had been the older, therefore, though
certainly not the better soldier. On the 18th Brumaire, he was
so far from joining Buonaparte in his enterprise against the
Council of Five Hundred, notwithstanding all advances made to
him, that he was on the spot at St. Cloud armed and prepared,
had circumstances permitted, to place himself at the head of
any part of the military, who might be brought to declare for
the Directory. And although, like everyone else, Bernadotte
submitted to the Consular system, and held the government of
Holland under Buonaparte, yet then, as well as under the
empire, he was always understood to belong to a class of
officers, whom Napoleon employed indeed, and rewarded, but
without loving them, or perhaps relying on them more than he
was compelled to do, although their character was in most
instances a warrant for their fidelity. These officers formed
a comparatively small class, yet comprehending some of the
most distinguished names in the French army. … Reconciled by
necessity to a state of servitude which they could not avoid,
this party considered themselves as the soldiers of France,
not of Napoleon, and followed the banner of their country
rather than the fortunes of the Emperor. Without being
personally Napoleon's enemies, they were not the friends of
his despotic power. … Besides the suspicion entertained by
Napoleon of Bernadotte's political opinions, subjects of
positive discord had recently arisen between them. … But while
such were the bad terms betwixt the Emperor and his general,
the Swedes, unsuspicious of the true state of the case,
imagined, that in choosing Bernadotte for successor to their
throne, they were paying to Buonaparte the most acceptable
tribute. And, notwithstanding that Napoleon was actually at
variance with Bernadotte, and although, in a political view,
he would much rather have given his aid to the pretensions of
the King of Denmark, he was under the necessity of reflecting,
that Sweden retained a certain degree of independence; that
the sea separated her shores from his armies; and that,
however willing to conciliate him, the Swedes were not in a
condition absolutely to be compelled to receive laws at his
hand.
{2832}
It was necessary to acquiesce in their choice, since he could
not dictate to them; and by doing so he might at the same time
exhibit another splendid example of the height to which his
service conducted his generals. … We have, however, been
favoured with some manuscript observations … which prove
distinctly, that while Napoleon treated the Crown Prince Elect
of Sweden with fair language, he endeavoured by underhand
intrigues to prevent the accomplishment of his hopes. The
Swedes, however, remained fixed in their choice,
notwithstanding the insinuations of Desaugier, the French
envoy, whom Napoleon afterwards affected to disown and recall,
for supporting in the diet of Orebro the interest of the King
of Denmark, instead of that of Bernadotte. Napoleon's cold
assent, or rather an assurance that he would not dissent,
being thus wrung reluctantly from him, Bernadotte, owing to
his excellent character among the Swedes, and their opinion of
his interest with Napoleon, was chosen Crown Prince of Sweden
by the States of that kingdom, 21st August 1810."
Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 4, chapter 7.
Lady Bloomfield,
Memoirs of Lord Bloomfield,
volume 1, pages 17-34.
W. G. Meredith,
Memorials of Charles John, King of Sweden and Norway.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810.
Alliance with Russia against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1813.
Joined with the new Coalition against Napoleon.
Participation in the War of Liberation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813 to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Peace of Kiel.
Cession of Norway to Sweden and
of Swedish Pomerania to Denmark.
"The Danes, having been driven out of Holstein by Bernadotte
[see GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER)], concluded an
armistice December 18th, and, finally, the Peace of Kiel,
January 14th 1814, by which Frederick VI. ceded Norway to
Sweden; reserving, however, Greenland, the Ferroe Isles, and
Iceland, which were regarded as dependencies of Norway.
Norway, which was anciently governed by its own kings, had
remained united with Denmark ever since the death of Olaf V.
in 1387. Charles XIII., on his side, ceded to Denmark Swedish
Pomerania and the Isle of Rugen. This treaty founded the
present system of the North. Sweden withdrew entirely from her
connection with Germany, and became a purely Scandinavian
Power. The Norwegians, who detested the Swedes, made an
attempt to assert their independence under the conduct of
Prince Christian Frederick, cousin-german and heir of
Frederick VI. of Denmark. Christian Frederick was proclaimed
King of Norway; but the movement was opposed by Great Britain
and the Allied Powers from considerations of policy rather
than justice; and the Norwegians found themselves compelled to
decree the union of Norway and Sweden in a storting, or Diet,
assembled at Christiania, November 4th 1814. Frederick VI.
also signed a peace with Great Britain at Kiel, January 14th
1814. All the Danish colonies, except Heligoland, which had
been taken by the English, were restored."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 16 (volume 4).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1814.
The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
Fall of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH),
and (MARCH-APRIL).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Norway): A. D. 1814-1815.
The Norwegian constitution under the union with Sweden.
"When, by the treaty of Kiel in 1814, Norway was taken from
Denmark, and handed over to Sweden, the Norwegians roused
them·selves to once more assert their nationality. The Swedes
appeared in force, by land and sea, upon the frontiers of
Norway. It was not, however, until the latter country had been
guaranteed complete national independence that she consented
to a union of the countries under the one crown. The agreement
was made, and the constitution of Norway granted on the 17th
of May 1814, at which date the contemporary history of Norway
begins. … The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv),
which almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and
hung up in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th
of November 1814. The Act of Union with Sweden is dated the
6th of August 1815. The union of the two states is a union of
the crown alone. … Sweden and Norway form, like Great Britain,
a hereditary limited monarchy. One of the clauses in the Act
of Union provides that the king of the joint countries must
reside for a certain part of the year in Norway. But, as a
matter of fact, this period is a short one. In his absence,
the king is represented by the Council of State (Statsraad),
which must be composed entirely of Norwegians, and consist of
two Ministers of State (Cabinet Ministers), and nine other
Councillors of State. As with us, the king personally can do
no wrong; the responsibility for his acts rests with his
ministers. Of the State Council, or Privy Council (above
spoken of), three members, one a Cabinet Minister, and two
ordinary members of the Privy Council, are always in
attendance upon the king, whether he is residing in Norway or
Sweden. The rest of the Council forms the Norwegian Government
resident in the country. All functionaries are appointed by
the king, with the ad·vice of this Council of State. The
officials, who form what we should call the Government (as
distinguished from what we should call the Civil Service),
together with the préfets (Amtmen) and the higher grades of
the army are, nominally, removable by the king; but, If
removed, they continue to draw two-thirds of their salary
until their case has come before Parliament (the Stor-thing,
Great Thing), which decides upon their pensions. … In 1876 the
number of electors to the Storthing were under 140,000, not
more than 7.7 per cent. of the whole population. So that the
franchise was by no means a very wide one. … In foreign
affairs only does Norway not act as an independent nation.
There is a single foreign minister for the two countries and
he is usually a Swede. For the purposes of internal
administration, Norway is divided into twenty districts,
called Amter—which we may best translate 'Prefectures.' Of
these, the two chief towns of the country, Christiania (with
its population of 150,000) and Bergen (population about
50,000) form each a separate Amt."
C. F. Keary,
Norway and the Norwegians,
chapter 13.
See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1815.
Swedish Pomerania sold to Prussia.
See VIENNA, CONGRESS.
{2833}
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1818.
Accession of Charles XIV. (Bernadotte).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1839.
Accession of Christian VIII.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1844.
Accession of Oscar I.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848.
Accession of Frederick VII.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848-1862.
The Schleswig-Holstein question.
First war with Prussia.
"The two Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein lie to the south of
modern Denmark. Holstein, the more southern of the two, is
exclusively German in its population. Schleswig, the more
northern, contains a mixed population of Danes and Germans. In
the course of the 14th century Schleswig was conquered by
Denmark, but ceded to Count Gerard of Holstein—the
Constitution of Waldemar providing that the two Duchies should
be under one Lord, but that they should never be united to
Denmark. This is the first fact to realise in the complex
history of the Schleswig-Holstein question. The line of Gerard
of Holstein expired in 1375. It was succeeded by a branch of
the house of Oldenburg. In 1448 a member of this house, the
nephew of the reigning Duke, was elected to the throne of
Denmark. The reigning Duke procured in that year a
confirmation of the compact that Schleswig should never be
united with Denmark. Dying without issue in 1459, the Duke was
succeeded, by the election of the Estates, by his nephew
Christian I. of Denmark. In electing Christian, however, the
Estates compelled him in 1460 to renew the compact confirmed
in 1448. And, though Duchies and Crown were thenceforward
united, the only link between them was the sovereign. Even
this link could possibly be severed. For the succession in the
Duchy was secured to the male heir in direct contradiction of
the law of Denmark. … It would complicate this narrative if
stress were laid on the various changes in the relations
between Kingdom and Duchies which were consequent on the
unsettled state of Europe during the three succeeding
centuries. It is sufficient to say that, by a treaty made in
1773, the arrangements concluded more than 300 years before
were confirmed. Schleswig-Holstein reverted once more to the
King of Denmark under exactly the same conditions as in the
time of Christian I., who had expressly recognised that he
governed them as Duke, that is, by virtue of their own law of
succession. Such an arrangement was not likely to be respected
amidst the convulsions which affected Europe in the
commencement of the present century. In 1806 Christian VII.
took advantage of the disruption of the German Empire formally
to incorporate the Duchies into his Kingdom. No one was in a
position to dispute the act of the monarch. In 1815, however,
the King of Denmark, by virtue of his rights in Holstein and
Lauenburg, joined the Confederation of the Rhine; and the
nobility of Holstein, brought in this way into fresh
connection with Germany, appealed to the German Diet. But the
Diet, in the first quarter of the 19th century, was subject to
influences opposed to the rights of nationalities. It declined
to interfere, and the union of Duchies and Kingdom was
maintained. Christian VII. was succeeded in 1808 by his son
Frederick VI., who was followed in 1839 by his cousin
Christian VIII. The latter monarch had only one son,
afterwards Frederick VII., who, though twice married, had no
children. On his death, if no alteration had been made, the
crown of Denmark would have passed to the female line—the
present reigning dynasty —while the Duchies, by the old
undisputed law, would have reverted to a younger branch, which
descended through males to the house of Augustenburg. With
this prospect before them it became very desirable for the
Danes to amalgamate the Duchies; and in the year 1844 the
Danish Estates almost unanimously adopted a motion that the
King should proclaim Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein, and
Lauenburg one indivisible State. In 1846 the King put forth a
declaration that there was no doubt that the Danish law of
succession prevailed in Schleswig. He admitted that there was
more doubt respecting Holstein. But he promised to use his
endeavours to obtain the recognition of the integrity of
Denmark as a collective State. Powerless alone against the
Danes and their sovereign, Holstein appealed to the Diet; and
the Diet took up the quarrel, and reserved the right of
enforcing its legitimate authority in case of need. Christian
VIII. died in .January 1848. His son, Frederick VII., the last
of his line, grasped the tiller of the State at a critical
moment. Crowns, before a month was over, were tumbling off the
heads of half the sovereigns of Europe; and Denmark, shaken by
these events, felt the full force of the revolutionary
movement. Face to face with revolution at home and Germany
across the frontier, the new King tried to cut instead of
untying the Gordian knot. He separated Holstein from
Schleswig, incorporating the latter in Denmark but allowing
the former under its own constitution to form part of the
German Confederation. Frederick VII. probably hoped that the
German Diet would be content with the half-loaf which he
offered it. The Diet., however, replied to the challenge by
formally incorporating Schleswig in Germany, and by committing
to Prussia the office of mediation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
War broke out, but the arms of Prussia were crippled by the
revolution which shook her throne. The sword of Denmark, under
these circumstances, proved victorious; and the Duchies were
ultimately compelled to submit to the decision which force had
pronounced. These events gave rise to the famous protocol
which was signed in London, in August 1850, by England,
France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. This document
settled the question, so far as diplomacy could determine it,
in the interests of Denmark. The unity of Denmark, Schleswig,
Holstein and Lauenburg was secured by a uniform law of
succession, and their internal affairs were placed, as far as
practicable, under a common administration. The protocol of
1850 was signed by Lord Palmerston during the Russell
Administration. It was succeeded by the treaty of 1852, which
was concluded by Lord Malmesbury. This treaty, to which all
the great powers were parties, was the logical consequence of
the protocol. Under it the succession to Kingdom and Duchies
was assigned to Prince Christian of Glücksburg, the present
reigning King of Denmark. The integrity of the whole Danish
Monarchy was declared permanent; but the rights of the German
Confederation with respect to Holstein and Schleswig were
reserved.
{2834}
The declaration was made in accordance with the views of
Russia, England, and France; the reservation was inserted in
the interests of the German powers; and in a manifesto, which
was communicated to the German Courts, the King of Denmark
laid down elaborate rules for the treatment and government of
the Duchies. Thus, while the succession to the Danish throne
and the integrity of Denmark had been secured by the protocol
of 1850 and the treaty of 1852, the elaborate promises of the
Danish King, formally communicated to the German powers, had
given the latter a pretext for contending that these pledges
were at least as sacred as the treaty. And the next ten years
made the pretext much more formidable than it seemed in 1852.
… The Danes endeavoured to extricate themselves from a
constantly growing embarrassment by repeating the policy of
1848, by granting, under what was known as the Constitution of
1855, autonomous institutions to Holstein, by consolidating
the purely Danish portions of the Monarchy, and by
incorporating Schleswig, which was partly Danish and partly
German, in Denmark. But the German inhabitants of Schleswig
resented this arrangement. They complained of the suppression
of their language and the employment of Danish functionaries,
and they argued that, under the engagements which had been
contracted between 1851 and 1852, Holstein had a voice in
constitutional changes of this character. This argument added
heat to a dispute already acute. For it was now plain that,
while the German Diet claimed the right to interfere in
Holstein, Holstein asserted her claim to be heard on the
affairs of the entire Kingdom."
S. Walpole,
Life of Lord John Russell,
chapter 30 (volume 2).
In the first period of the war of 1848-9, the only important
battle was fought at Duppeln, June 5, 1848. The Prussians were
superior in land forces, but the Danes were able to make use
of a flotilla of gunboats in defending their strong position.
"After a useless slaughter, both parties remained nearly in
the same position as they had occupied at the commencement of
the conflict." The war was suspended in August by an
armistice—that of Malmö—but was renewed in the April
following. "On the 20th April [1849] the Prussians invaded
Jutland with 48 battalions, 48 guns, and 2,000 horse; and the
Danish generals, unable to make head against such a crusade,
retired through the town of Kolding, which was fortified and
commanded an important bridge that was abandoned to the
invaders. The Danes, however, returned, and after a bloody
combat dislodged the Prussians, but were finally obliged to
evacuate it by the fire of the German mortars, which reduced
the town to ashes. On the 3d May the Danes had their revenge,
in the defeat of a large body of the Schleswig insurgents by a
Danish corps near the fortress of Fredericia, with the loss of
340 men. A more important advantage was gained by them on the
6th July," over the Germans who were besieging Fredericia.
"The loss of the Germans in this disastrous affair was 96
officers and 3,250 men killed and wounded, with their whole
siege-artillery and stores. … This brilliant victory was
immediately followed by the retreat of the Germans from nearly
the whole of Jutland. A convention was soon after concluded at
Berlin, which established an armistice for six months," and
which was followed by the negotiations and treaties described
above. But hostilities were not yet at an end; for the
insurgents of Schleswig and Holstein remained in arms, and
were said to receive almost open encouragement and aid from
Prussia. Their army, 32,000 strong, occupied Idstedt and
Wedelspang. They were attacked at the former place, on the
25th of July, 1850, by the Danes, and defeated after a bloody
conflict. "The loss on both sides amounted to nearly 8,000
men, or about one in eight of the troops engaged; a prodigious
slaughter, unexampled in European war since the battle of
Waterloo. Of these, nearly 3,000, including 85 officers, were
killed or wounded on the side of the Danes, and 5,000 on that
of the insurgents, whose loss in officers was peculiarly
severe."
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1815-1852,
chapter 53.
From 1855 to 1862 the history of Denmark was uneventful. But
in the next year King Frederick VII. died, and the Treaty of
London, which had settled the succession upon Prince Christian
of Glücksburg, failed to prevent the reopening of the
Schleswig-Holstein question.
ALSO IN:
C. A. Gosch,
Denmark and Germany since 1815,
chapters 3-9.
A Forgotten War
(Spectator, September 22, 1894, reviewing Count von
Moltke's "Geschichte des Krieges gegen Dänemark, 1848-49 ").
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark-Iceland): A. D. 1849-1874.
The Danish constitution.
Relations of Iceland to Denmark.
Denmark became a constitutional monarchy in 1849. The
principal provisions of the Constitution are these: Every king
of Denmark, before he can assume the government of the
monarchy, must deliver a written oath that he will observe the
constitution. He alone is invested with the executive power,
but the legislative he exercises conjointly with the Assembly
(Rigsdag). He can declare war and make peace, enter and
renounce alliances. But he cannot, without the consent of the
Assembly, sign away any of the possessions of the kingdom or
encumber it with any State obligations. … The king's person is
sacred and inviolable; he is exempt from all responsibility.
The ministers form the Council of State, of which the king is
the president, and where, by right, the heir-apparent has a
seat. The king has an absolute veto. The Rigsdag (Assembly)
meets every year, and cannot be prorogued till the session has
lasted for two months at least. It consists of two
Chambers—the Upper Chamber, 'Landsting,' and the Lower
Chamber, 'Folketing.' The Upper Chamber consists of 66
members, twelve of which are Crown-elects for life, seven
chosen by Copenhagen, and one by the so-called Lagting of
Faro. The 46 remaining members are voted in by ten electoral
districts, each of which comprises from one to three Amts, or
rural governorships, with the towns situated within each of
them included. The elections are arranged on the proportional
or minority system. In Copenhagen and in the other towns one
moiety of electors is chosen out of those who possess the
franchise for the Lower House, the other moiety is selected
from among those who pay the highest municipal rates. In every
rural commune one elector is chosen by all the enfranchised
members of the community. … The Lower House is elected for
three years, and consists of 102 members; consequently there
are 102 electorates or electoral districts. … The Lower House
is elected by manhood suffrage.
{2835}
Every man thirty years old has a vote, provided there be no
stain on his character, and that he possesses the birthright
of a citizen within his district, and has been domiciled for a
year within it before exercising his right of voting, and does
not stand in such a subordinate relation of service to private
persons as not to have a home of his own. … The two Chambers
of the Rigsdag stand, as legislative bodies, on an equal
footing, both having the right to propose and to alter laws. …
At present [1891] this very Liberal Constitution is not
working smoothly. As was to be expected, two parties have
gradually come into existence—a Conservative and a Liberal,
or, as they are termed after French fashion, the Right and the
Left. The country is governed at present arbitrarily against
an opposition in overwhelming majority in the Lower House. The
dispute between the Left and the Ministry does not really turn
so much upon conflicting views with regard to great public
interests, as upon the question whether Denmark has, or has
not, to have parliamentary government. … The Right represents
chiefly the educated and the wealthy classes; the Left the
mass of the people, and is looked down upon by the Right. … I
said in the beginning that I would tell you how the
constitutional principle has been applied to Iceland. I have
only time briefly to touch upon that matter. In 1800 the old
Althing (All Men's Assembly, General Diet), which had existed
from 930, came to an end. Forty-five years later it was
re-established by King Christian VIII. in the character of a
consultative assembly. … The Althing at once began to direct
its attention to the question—What Iceland's proper position
should be in the Danish monarchy when eventually its
anticipated constitution should be carried out. The country
had always been governed by its special laws; it had a code of
laws of its own, and it had never been ruled, in
administrative sense, as a province of Denmark. Every
successive king had, on his accession to the throne, issued a
proclamation guaranteeing to Iceland due observance of the
country's laws and traditional privileges. Hence it was found
entirely impracticable to include Iceland under the provisions
of the charter for Denmark; and a royal rescript of September
23, 1848, announced that with regard to Iceland no measures
for settling the constitutional relation of that part of the
monarchy would be adopted until a constitutive assembly in the
country itself 'had been heard' on the subject. Unfortunately,
the revolt of the duchies intervened between this declaration
and the date of the constitutive assembly which was fixed for
1851. The Government took fright, being unfortunately quite in
the dark about the real state of public opinion in the distant
dependency. … The Icelanders only wanted to abide by their
laws, and to have the management of their own home affairs,
but the so-called National-Liberal Government wanted to
incorporate the country as a province in the kingdom of
Denmark proper. This idea the Icelanders really never could
understand as seriously meant. … The constitutive assembly was
brusquely dissolved by the Royal Commissary when he saw that
it meant to insist on autonomy for the Icelanders in their own
home affairs. And from 1851 to 1874 every successive Althing
(but one) persisted in calling on the Government to fulfil the
royal promise of 1848. It was no doubt due to the very loyal,
quiet, and able manner in which the Icelanders pursued their
case, under the leadership of the trusted patriot, Jon
Sigurdsson, that in 1874 the Government at last agreed to give
Iceland the constitution it demanded. But instead of frankly
meeting the Icelandic demands in full, they were only
partially complied with, and from the first the charter met
with but scanty popularity."
E. Magnusson,
Denmark and Iceland
(National Life and Thought, chapter 12).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1855.
In the alliance against Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1859.
Accession of Charles XV.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1863.
Accession of Christian IX.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1864.
Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
Austro-Prussian invasion and conquest of the duchies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1872.
Accession of Oscar II.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1890.
Population.
By a census taken, at the close of 1890, the population of
Sweden was found to be 4,784,981, and that of Norway
2,000,917. The population of Denmark, according to a census
taken in February, 1890, was 2,185,335.
Statesman's Year-Book, 1894.
----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: End--------
SCANZIA, Island of.
The peninsula of Sweden and Norway was so called by some
ancient writers.
See GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.
SCHAH,
SHAH.
See BEY.
SCHAMYL'S WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS.
See CAUCASUS.
SCHARNHORST'S MILITARY REFORMS IN PRUSSIA.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.
SCHELLENBERG, or
HERMANSTADT, Battle of (1599).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).
SCHENECTADY: A. D. 1690.
Massacre and Destruction by French and Indians.
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690;
also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
SCHEPENS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
SCHILL'S RISING.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).
SCHISM, The Great.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417, and 1414-1418;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.
SCHISM ACT.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
SCHKIPETARS, Albanian.
See ILLYRIANS.
SCHLESWIG, and the Schleswig-Holstein question.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862,
and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, and 1866.
SCHMALKALDIC LEAGUE, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
SCHŒNE, The.
An ancient Egyptian measure of length which is supposed, as in
the case of the Persian parasang, to have been fixed by no
standard, but to have been merely a rude estimate of distance.
See PARASANG.
{2836}
SCHOFIELD, General J. M.
Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS),
and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
The Atlanta Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA),
to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
Campaign against Hood.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
SCHOLARII.
The household troops or imperial life-guards of the Eastern
Roman Empire.
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 5, chapter 20.
SCHOLASTICISM.
SCHOOLMEN.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.
SCHOOL OF THE PALACE, Charlemagne's.
"Charlemagne took great care to attract distinguished
foreigners into his states, and … among those who helped to
second intellectual development in Frankish Gaul, many came
from abroad. … He not only strove to attract distinguished men
into his states, but he protected and encouraged them wherever
he discovered them. More than one Anglo-Saxon abbey shared his
liberality; and learned men who, after following him into
Gaul, wished to return to their country, in no way became
strangers to him. … Alcuin fixed himself there permanently. He
was born in England, at York, about 735. The intellectual
state of Ireland and England was then superior to that of the
continent; letters and schools prospered there more than
anywhere else. … The schools of England, and particularly that
of York, were superior to those of the continent. That of York
possessed a rich library, where many of the works of pagan
antiquity were found; among others, those of Aristotle, which
it is a mistake to say were first introduced to the knowledge
of modern Europe by the Arabians, and the Arabians only; for
from the fifth to the tenth century, there is no epoch in
which we do not find them mentioned in some library, in which
they were not known and studied by some men of letters. … In
780, on the death of archbishop Ælbert, and the accession of
his successor, Eanbald, Alcuin received from him the mission
to proceed to Rome for the purpose of obtaining from the pope
and bringing to him the 'pallium.' In returning from Rome, he
came to Parma, where he found Charlemagne. … The emperor at
once pressed him to take up his abode in France. After some
hesitation, Alcuin accepted the invitation, subject to the
permission of his bishop, and of his own sovereign. The
permission was obtained, and in 782 we find him established in
the court of Charlemagne, who at once gave him three abbeys,
those of Ferrieres in Gatanois, of St. Loup at Troyes, and of
St. Josse in the county of Ponthieu. From this time forth,
Alcuin was the confidant, the councillor, the intellectual
prime minister, so to speak, of Charlemagne. … From 782 to
796, the period of his residence in the court of Charlemagne,
Alcuin presided over a private school, called 'The School of
the Palace,' which accompanied Charlemagne wherever he went,
and at which were regularly present all those who were with
the emperor. … It is difficult to say what could have been the
course of instruction pursued in this school; I am disposed to
believe that to such auditors Alcuin addressed himself
generally upon all sorts of topics as they occurred; that in
the 'Ecole du Palais,' in fact, it was conversation rather
than teaching, especially so called, that went on; that
movement given to mind, curiosity constantly excited and
satisfied, was its chief merit."
F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
lecture 22 (volume 3).
See, also, EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.
ALSO IN:
A. F. West,
Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian Schools.
SCHOOLS.
See EDUCATION.
SCHÖNBRUNN,
Treaty of (1806).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
Treaty of (1809).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
SCHOUT AND SCHEPENS.
The chief magistrate and aldermen of the chartered towns of
Holland were called the Schout and the Schepens.
J. L. Motley,
Rise of the Dutch Republic,
introduction, section 6.
"In every tribunal there is a Schout or sheriff, who convenes
the judges, and demands from them justice for the litigating
parties; for the word 'schout' is derived from 'schuld,' debt,
and he is so denominated because he is the person who recovers
or demands common debts, according to Grotius."
Van Leeuwen,
Commentaries on Roman Dutch Law,
quoted in O'Callaghan's History of New Netherland,
volume 1, page 101, foot-note,
and volume 2, page 212.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
SCHUMLA, Siege of (1828).
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
SCHUYLER, General Philip, and the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
SCHUYLER, Fort (Late Fort Stanwix): A. D. 1777.
Defense against the British and Indians under St. Leger.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
SCHWECHAT, Battle of (1848).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
SCHWEIDNITZ, Battle of (1642).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
SCHWEIDNITZ:
Captured and recaptured.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.
SCINDE,
SINDH.
"Sindh is the Sanskrit word Sindh or Sindhu, a river or ocean.
It was applied to the river Indus, the first great body of
water encountered by the Aryan invaders. … Sindh, which is
part of the Bombay Presidency, is bounded on the north and
west by the territories of the khan of Khelat, in Beluchistan;
the Punjab and the Bahawalpur State lie on the north-east. …
Three-fourths of the people are Muhammadans and the remainder
Hindus." Sindh was included in the Indian conquests of Mahmud
of Ghazni, Akbar, and Nadir Shah.
See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290; 1399-1605; and 1662-1748).
"In 1748 the country became an appanage of Kabul, as part of
the dowry bestowed by the reigning emperor upon Timur, son of
Ahmed Shah Durani, who founded the kingdom of Afghanistan. …
The connection of the British government with Sindh had its
origin in A. D. 1758, when Ghulam Shah Kalhora … granted a
'purwanah,' or permit, to an officer in the East India
Company's service for the establishment of a factory in the
province. … In their relations with the British government the
Amirs throughout displayed much jealousy of foreign
interference. Several treaties were made with them from time
to time.
{2837}
In 1836, owing to the designs of Ranjit Singh on Sindh, which,
however, were not carried out because of the interposition of
the British government, more intimate connection with the
Amirs was sought. Colonel Pottinger visited them to negotiate
for this purpose. It was not, however, till 1838 that a short
treaty was concluded, in which it was stipulated that a
British minister should reside at Haidarabad. At this time the
friendly alliance of the Amirs was deemed necessary in the
contemplated war with Afghanistan which the British government
was about to undertake, to place a friendly ruler on the
Afghan throne. The events that followed led to the occupation
of Karachi by the British, and placed the Amirs in subsidiary
dependence on the British government. New treaties became
necessary, and Sir Charles Napier was sent to Haidarabad to
negotiate. The Beluchis were infuriated at this proceeding,
and openly insulted the officer, Sir James Outram, at the
Residency at Haidarabad. Sir Charles Napier thereupon attacked
the Amir's forces at Meanee, on 17th February, 1843, with
2,800 men, and twelve pieces of artillery, and succeeded in
gaining a complete victory over 22,000 Beluchis, with the
result that the whole of Sindh was annexed to British India."
D. Ross,
The Land of the Five Rivers and Sindh,
pages 1-6.
ALSO IN:
Mohan Lal,
Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan,
chapter 14 (volume 2).
See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.
SCIO.
See CHIOS.
SCIPIO AFRICANUS, The Campaigns of.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
SCIPIO AFRICANUS MINOR,
Destruction of Carthage by.
See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.
SCIR-GEREFA.
See SHERIFF; SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.
SCIRONIAN WAY, The.
"The Scironian Way led from Megara to Corinth, along the
eastern shore of the isthmus. At a short distance from Megara
it passed along the Scironian rocks, a long range of
precipices overhanging the sea, forming the extremity of a
spur which descends from Mount Geranium. This portion of the
road is now known as the 'Kaki Scala,' and is passed with some
difficulty. The way seems to have been no more than a footpath
until the time of Adrian, who made a good carriage road
throughout the whole distance. There is but one other route by
which the isthmus can be traversed. It runs inland, and passes
over a higher portion of Mount Geranium, presenting to the
traveller equal or greater difficulties."
G. Rawlinson,
History of Herodotus,
book 8, section 71, foot-note.
SCLAVENES.
SCLAVONIC PEOPLES.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.
SCLAVONIC.
See SLAVONIC.
SCODRA, OR SKODRA.·
See ILLYRIANS.
SCONE, Kingdom of.
See SCOTLAND: 8-9TH CENTURIES.
SCORDISCANS, The.
The Scordiscans, called by some Roman writers a Thracian
people, but supposed to have been Celtic, were settled in the
south of Pannonia in the second century, B. C. In B. C. 114
they destroyed a Roman army under consul C. Portius Cato. Two
years later consul M. Livius Drusus drove them across the
Danube.
E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 18, section 1 (volume 2).
SCOT AND LOT.
"Paying scot and lot; that is, bearing their rateable
proportion in the payments levied from the town for local or
national purposes."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 20, section 745 (volume 3).
SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.
"If a line is drawn from a point on the eastern bank of Loch
Lomond, somewhat south of Ben Lomond, following in the main
the line of the Grampians, and crossing the Forth at Aberfoil,
the Teith at Callander, the Almond at Crieff, the Tay at
Dunkeld, the Ericht at Blairgowrie, and proceeding through the
hills of Brae Angus till it reaches the great range of the
Mounth, then crossing the Dee at Ballater, the Spey at lower
Craigellachie, till it reaches the Moray Firth at Nairn—this
forms what was called the Highland Line and separated the
Celtic from the Teutonic-speaking people. Within this line,
with the exception of the county of Caithness which belongs to
the Teutonic division, the Gaelic language forms the
vernacular of the inhabitants."
W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 2, page 453.
SCOTCH-IRISH, The.
In 1607, six counties in the Irish province of Ulster,
formerly belonging to the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel, were
confiscated by the English crown. The two earls, who had
submitted and had been pardoned, after a long rebellion during
the reign of queen Elizabeth, had now fled from new charges of
treason, and their great estates were forfeited.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603, and 1607-1611.
These estates, thus acquired by King James, the first of the
Stuarts, were "parcelled out among a body of Scotch and
English, brought over for the purpose. The far greater number
of these plantations were from the lower part of Scotland, and
became known as 'Scotch-Irish.' Thus a new population was
given to the north of Ireland, which has changed its history.
The province of Ulster, with fewer natural advantages than
either Munster, Leinster, or Connaught, became the most
prosperous, industrious and law-abiding of all Ireland. … But
the Protestant population thus transplanted to the north of
Ireland was destined to suffer many … persecutions. … In 1704,
the test-oath was imposed, by which everyone in public
employment was required to profess English prelacy. It was
intended to suppress Popery, but was used by the Episcopal
bishops to check Presbyterianism. To this was added burdensome
restraints on their commerce, and extortionate rents from
their landlords, resulting in what is known as the Antrim
evictions. There had been occasional emigrations from the
north of Ireland from the plantation of the Scotch, and one of
the ministers sent over in 1683, Francis Makemie, had
organized on the eastern shore of Maryland and in the
adjoining counties of Virginia the first Presbyterian churches
in America. But in the early part of the eighteenth century
the great movement began which transported so large a portion
of the Scotch-Irish into the American colonies, and, through
their influence, shaped in a great measure the destinies of
America. Says the historian Froude: 'In the two years which
followed the Antrim evictions, thirty-thousand Protestants
left Ulster for a land where there was no legal robbery, and
where those who sowed the seed could reap the harvest.'
Alarmed by the depletion of the Protestant population, the
Toleration Act was passed, and by it, and further promises of
relief, the tide of emigration was checked for a brief period.
{2838}
In 1728, however, it began anew, and from 1729 to 1750, it was
estimated that 'about twelve thousand came annually from
Ulster to America.' So many had settled in Pennsylvania before
1729 that James Logan, the Quaker president of that colony,
expressed his fear that they would become proprietors of the
province. … This bold stream of emigrants struck the American
continent mainly on the eastern border of Pennsylvania, and
was, in great measure, turned southward through Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, reaching and
crossing the Savannah river. It was met at various points by
counter streams of the same race, which had entered the
continent through the seaports of the Carolinas and Georgia.
Turning westward the combined flood overflowed the mountains
and covered the rich valley of the Mississippi beyond. As the
Puritans or Round-heads of the south, but freed from
fanaticism, they gave tone to its people and direction to its
history. … The task would be almost endless to simply call the
names of this people [the Scotch-Irish] in the South who have
distinguished themselves in the annals of their country. Yet
some rise before me, whose names demand utterance in any
mention of their people —names which the world will not
willingly let die. Among the statesmen they have given to the
world are Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Benton. Among the
orators, Henry, Rutledge, Preston, McDuffie, Yancy. Among the
poets, the peerless Poe. Among the jurists, Marshall,
Campbell, Robertson. Among the divines, Waddell, the
Alexanders, Breckinridge, Robinson, Plummer, Hoge, Hawks,
Fuller, McKendree. Among the physicians, McDowell, Sims,
McGuire. Among the inventors, McCormick. Among the soldiers,
Lee, the Jacksons, the Johnstons, Stuart. Among the sailors,
Paul Jones, Buchanan. Presidents from the South,
seven—Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Taylor, Polk,
Johnson."
W. W. Henry,
The Scotch Irish of the South,
(Proceedings of the Scotch-Irish Congress, 1889).
"Full credit has been awarded the Roundhead and the Cavalier
for their leadership in our history; nor have we been
altogether blind to the deeds of the Hollander and the
Huguenot; but it is doubtful if we have wholly realized the
importance of the part played by that stern and virile people,
the Irish whose preachers taught the creed of Knox and Calvin.
These Irish representatives of the Covenanters were in the
west almost what the Puritans were in the northeast, and more
than the Cavaliers were in the south. Mingled with the
descendants of many other races, they nevertheless formed the
kernel of the distinctively and intensely American stock who
were the pioneers of our people in their march westward, the
vanguard of the army of fighting settlers, who with axe and
rifle won their way from the Alleghanies to the Rio Grande and
the Pacific. … They … made their abode at the foot of the
mountains, and became the outposts of civilization. … In this
land of hills, covered by unbroken forest, they took root and
flourished, stretching in a broad belt from north to south, a
shield of sinewy men thrust in between the people of the
seaboard and the red warriors of the wilderness. All through
this region they were alike; they had as little kinship with
the Cavalier as with the Quaker; the west was won by those who
have been rightly called the Roundheads of the south, the same
men who, before any others, declared for American
independence. The two facts of most importance to remember in
dealing with our pioneer history are, first, that the western
portions of Virginia and the Carolinas were peopled by an
entirely different stock from that which had long existed in
the tide-water regions of those colonies; and, secondly, that,
except for those in the Carolinas who came from Charleston,
the immigrants of this stock were mostly from the north, from
their great breeding ground and nursery in western
Pennsylvania. That these Irish Presbyterians were a bold and
hardy race is proved by their at once pushing past the settled
regions, and plunging into the wilderness as the leaders of
the white advance. They were the first and last set of
immigrants to do this; all others have merely followed in the
wake of their predecessors. But, indeed, they were fitted to
be Americans from the very start; they were kinsfolk of the
Covenanters; they deemed it a religious duty to interpret
their own Bible, and held for a divine right the election of
their own clergy. For generations, their whole ecclesiastic
and scholastic systems had been fundamentally democratic."
T. Roosevelt,
The Winning of the West,
volume 1, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
J. Phelan,
History of Tennessee,
chapter 23.
SCOTCH MILE ACT.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.
SCOTIA, The name.
See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.
----------SCOTLAND: Start--------
SCOTLAND:
The name.
"The name of Scotia, or Scotland, whether in its Latin or its
Saxon form, was not applied to any part of the territory
forming the modern kingdom of Scotland till towards the end of
the tenth century. Prior to that period it was comprised in
the general appellation of Britannia, or Britain, by which the
whole island was designated in contradistinction from that of
Hibernia, or Ireland. That part of the island of Britain which
is situated to the north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
seems indeed to have been known to the Romans as early as the
first century by the distinctive name of Caledonia, and it
also appears to have borne from an early period another
appellation, the Celtic form of which was Albu, Alba, or
Alban, and Its Latin form Albania. The name of Scotia,
however, was exclusively appropriated to the island of
Ireland. Ireland was emphatically Scotia, the 'patria,' or
mother-country of the Scots; and although a colony of that
people had established themselves as early as the beginning of
the sixth century in the western districts of Scotland, it was
not till the tenth century that any part of the present
country of Scotland came to be known under that name. …
{2839}
From the tenth to the twelfth or thirteenth centuries the name
of Scotia, gradually superseding the older name of Alban, or
Albania, was confined to a district nearly corresponding with
that part of the Lowlands of Scotland which is situated on the
north of the Firth of Forth. … The three propositions—
1st, That Scotia, prior to the tenth century, was Ireland, and
Ireland alone;
2d, That when applied to Scotland it was considered a new name
superinduced upon the older designation of Alban or Albania;
and;
3d, That the Scotia of the three succeeding centuries was
limited to the districts between the Forth, the Spey, and
Drumalban,—lie at the very threshold of Scottish history."
W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 1, introduction.
SCOTLAND:
The Picts and Scots.
"Cæsar tells us that the inhabitants of Britain in his day

painted themselves with a dye extracted from woad; by the
time, however, of British independence under Carausius and
Allectus, in the latter part of the third century, the fashion
had so far fallen off in Roman Britain that the word 'Picti,'
Picts, or painted men, had got to mean the peoples beyond the
Northern wall. … Now, all these Picts were natives of Britain,
and the word Picti is found applied to them for the first
time, in a panegyric by Eumenius, in the year 296; but in the
year 360 another painted people appeared on the scene. They
came from Ireland, and, to distinguish these two sets of
painted foes from one another, Latin historians left the
painted natives to be called Picti, as had been done before,
and for the painted invaders from Ireland they retained,
untranslated, a Celtic word of the same (or nearly the same)
meaning, namely 'Scotti.' Neither the Picts nor the Scotti
probably owned these names, the former of which is to be
traced to Roman authors, while the latter was probably given
the invaders from Ireland by the Brythons, whose country they
crossed the sea to ravage. The Scots, however, did recognize a
national name, which described them as painted or tattooed
men. … This word was Cruithnig, which is found applied equally
to the painted people of both islands. … The eponymus of all
the Picts was Cruithne, or Cruithneehan, and we have a kindred
Brythonic form in Prydyn, the name by which Scotland once used
to be known to the Kymry."
J. Rhys,
Celtic Britain,
chapter 7.
A different view of the origin and signification of these
names is maintained by Dr. Guest.
E. Guest,
Origines Celticae,
volume 2, part 1, chapter 1.
Prof. Freeman looks upon the question as unsettled. He says:
"The proper Scots, as no one denies, were a Gaelic colony from
Ireland. The only question is as to the Picts or Caledonians.
Were they another Gaelic tribe, the vestige of a Gaelic
occupation of the island earlier than the British occupation,
or were they simply Britons who had never been brought under
the Roman dominion? The geographical aspect of the case
favours the former belief, but the weight of philological
evidence seems to be on the side of the latter."
E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 2, section 1, foot-note.
ALSO IN:
W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 1, chapter 5.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 78-84.
Roman conquests under Agricola.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 208-211.
Campaigns of Severus against the Caledonians.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 367-370.
The repulse of the Picts and Scots by Theodosius.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.
SCOTLAND: 6th Century.
The Mission of St. Columba.
See COLUMBAN CHURCH.
SCOTLAND: 6-7th Centuries.
Part included in the English Kingdom of Northumberland.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
SCOTLAND: 7th Century.
The Four Kingdoms.
"Out of these Celtic and Teutonic races [Picts, Scots, Britons
of Strathclyde, and Angles] there emerged in that northern
part of Britain which eventually became the territory of the
subsequent monarchy of Scotland, four kingdoms within definite
limits and under settled forms of government; and as such we
find them in the beginning of the 7th century, when the
conflict among these races, which succeeded the departure of
the Romans from the island, and the termination of their power
in Britain, may be held to have ceased and the limits of these
kingdoms to have become settled. North of the Firths of Forth
and Clyde were the two kingdoms of the Scots of Dalriada on
the west and of the Picts on the east. They were separated
from each other by a range of mountains termed by Adamnan the
Dorsal ridge of Britain, and generally known by the name of
Drumalban. … The colony [of Dalriada] was originally founded
by Fergus Mor, son of Erc, who came with his two brothers
Loarn and Angus from Irish Dalriada in the end of the 5th
century [see DALRIADA], but the true founder of the Dalriadic
kingdom was his great grandson Aedan, son of Gabran. … The
remaining districts north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
formed the kingdom of the Picts. … The districts south of the
Firths of Forth and Clyde, and extending to the Solway Firth
on the west and to the Tyne on the east, were possessed by the
two kingdoms of the Britons [afterwards Strathclyde], on the
west and of the Angles of Bernicia on the east. The former
extended from the river Derwent in Cumberland in the south to
the Firth of Clyde in the north, which separated the Britons
from the Scots of Dalriada. … The Angles of Bernicia … were
now in firm possession of the districts extending along the
east coast as far as the Firth of Forth, originally occupied
by the British tribe of the Ottadeni and afterwards by the
Picts, and including the counties of Berwick and Roxburgh and
that of East Lothian or Haddington, the rivers Esk and Gala
forming here their western boundary. … In the centre of
Scotland, where it is intersected by the two arms of the sea,
the Forth and the Clyde, and where the boundaries of these
four kingdoms approach one another, is a territory extending
from the Esk to the Tay, which possessed a very mixed
population and was the scene of most of the conflicts between
these four states." About the middle of the 7th century, Osuiu
or Oswiu, king of Northumberland (which then included
Bernicia), having overcome the Mercians, "extended his sway
not only over the Britons but over the Picts and Scots; and
thus commenced the dominion of the Angles over the Britons of
Alclyde, the Scots of Dalriada, and the southern Picts, which
was destined to last for thirty years. … In the meantime the
little kingdom of Dalriada was in a state of complete
disorganisation. We find no record of any real king over the
whole nation of the Scots, but each separate tribe seems to
have remained isolated from the rest under its own chief,
while the Britons exercised a kind of sway over them, and
along with the Britons they were under subjection to the
Angles."
{2840}
In 685, on an attempt being made to throw off the yoke of the
Angles of Northumbria, King Ecgfrid or Ecgfrith, son of Oswiu,
led an army into the country of the Picts and was there
defeated crushingly and slain in a conflict styled variously
the battle of Dunnichen, Duin Nechtain, and Nechtan's Mere.
The effect of the defeat is thus described by Bede; "'From
that time the hopes and strength of the Anglic kingdom began
to fluctuate and to retrograde, for the Picts recovered the
territory belonging to them which the Angles had held, and the
Scots who were in Britain and a certain part of the Britons
regained their liberty, which they have now enjoyed for about
forty-six years.'"
W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).
SCOTLAND: 8-9th Centuries.
The kingdom of Scone and the kingdom of Alban.
"The Pictish kingdom had risen fast to greatness after the
victory of Nectansmere in 685. In the century which followed
Ecgfrith's defeat, its kings reduced the Scots of Dalriada
from nominal dependence to actual subjection, the annexation
of Angus and Fife carried their eastern border to the sea,
while to the south their alliance with the Northumbrians in
the warfare which both waged on the Welsh extended their
bounds on the side of Cumbria or Strath·Clyde. But the hour of
Pictish greatness was marked by the extinction of the Pictish
name. In the midst of the 9th century the direct line of their
royal house came to an end, and the under-king of the Scots of
Dalriada, Kenneth Mac Alpin, ascended the Pictish throne in
right of his maternal descent. For fifty years more Kenneth
and his successors remained kings of the Picts. At the moment
we have reached, however [the close of the 9th century], the
title passed suddenly away, the tribe which had given its
chief to the throne gave its name to the realm, and
'Pict-land' disappeared from history to make room first for
Alban or Albania, and then for 'the land of the Scots.'"
J. R. Green,
The Conquest of England,
chapter 4.
It appears however that, before the kingdom of Alban was
known, there was a period during which the realm established
by the successors of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the Scot, occupying
the throne of the Picts, was called the kingdom of Scone, from
the town which became its capital. "It was at Scone too that
the Coronation Stone was 'reverently kept for the consecration
of the kings of Alban,' and of this stone it was believed that
'no king was ever wont to reign in Scotland unless he had
first, on receiving the royal name, sat upon this stone at
Scone.' … Of its identity with the stone now preserved in the
coronation chair at Westminster there can be no doubt. It is
an oblong block of red sandstone, some 26 inches long by 16
inches broad, and 10½ inches deep. … Its mythic origin
identifies it with the stone which Jacob used as a pillow at
Bethel, … but history knows of it only at Scone." Some time
near the close of the 9th century "the kingdom ceased to be
called that of Scone and its territory Cruithentuath, or
Pictavia its Latin equivalent, and now became known as the
kingdom of Alban or Albania, and we find its kings no longer
called kings of the Picts but kings of Alban."
W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 1, chapters 6-7 (volume 1).
SCOTLAND: 9th Century.
The Northmen on the coasts and in the Islands.
See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN; 8-9TH CENTURIES.
SCOTLAND: 10-11th Centuries.
The forming of' the modern kingdom
and its relations to England.
"The fact that the West-Saxon or English Kings, from Eadward
the Elder [son of Alfred the Great] onwards, did exercise an
external supremacy over the Celtic princes of the island is a
fact too clear to be misunderstood by anyone who looks the
evidence on the matter fairly in the face. I date their
supremacy over Scotland from the reign of Eadward the Elder,
because there is no certain earlier instance of submission on
the part of the Scots to any West-Saxon King. … The submission
of Wales [A. D. 828] dates from the time of Ecgberht; but it
evidently received a more distinct and formal acknowledgement
[A. D. 922] in the reign of Eadward. Two years after followed
the Commendation of Scotland and Strathclyde. … I use the
feudal word Commendation, because that word seems to me better
than any other to express the real state of the case. The
transaction between Eadward and the Celtic princes was simply
an application, on an international scale, of the general
principle of the Comitatus. … A man 'chose his Lord'; he
sought some one more powerful than himself, with whom he
entered into the relation of Comitatus; as feudal ideas
strengthened, he commonly surrendered his allodial land to the
Lord so chosen, and received it back again from him on a
feudal tenure. This was the process of Commendation, a process
of everyday occurrence in the case of private men choosing
their Lords, whether those Lords were simple gentlemen or
Kings. And the process was equally familiar among sovereign
princes themselves. … There was nothing unusual or degrading
in the relation; if Scotland, Wales, Strathclyde, commended
themselves to the West-Saxon King, they only put themselves in
the same relation to their powerful neighbour in which every
continental prince stood in theory, and most of them in actual
fact, to the Emperor, Lord of the World. … The original
Commendation to the Eadward of the tenth century, confirmed by
a series of acts of submission spread over the whole of the
intermediate time, is the true justification for the acts of
his glorious namesake [Edward I.] in the thirteenth century.
The only difference was that, during that time, feudal notions
had greatly developed on both sides; the original Commendation
of the Scottish King and people to a Lord had changed, in the
ideas of both sides, into a feudal tenure of the land of the
Scottish Kingdom. But this change was simply the universal
change which had come over all such relations everywhere. …
But it is here needful to point out two other distinct events
which have often been confounded with the Commendation of
Scotland, a confusion through which the real state of the case
has often been misunderstood. … It is hard to make people
understand that there have not always been Kingdoms of England
and Scotland, with the Tweed and the Cheviot Hills as the
boundaries between them. It must be borne in mind that in the
tenth century no such boundaries existed, and that the names
of England and Scotland were only just beginning to be known.
At the time of the Commendation the country which is now
called Scotland was divided among three quite distinct
sovereignties.
{2841}
North of the Forth and Clyde reigned the King of Scots, an
independent Celtic prince reigning over a Celtic people, the
Picts and Scots, the exact relation between which two tribes
is a matter of perfect indifference to my present purpose.
South of the two great firths the Scottish name and the
Scottish dominion were unknown. The south-west part of modern
Scotland formed part of the Kingdom of the Strathclyde Welsh,
which up to 924 was, like the Kingdom of the Scots, an
independent Celtic principality. The south-eastern part of
modern Scotland, Lothian in the wide sense of the word, was
purely English or Danish, as in language it remains to this
day. It was part of the Kingdom of Northumberland, and it had
its share in all the revolutions of that Kingdom. In the year
924 Lothian was ruled by the Danish Kings of Northumberland,
subject only to that precarious superiority on the part of
Wessex which had been handed on from Ecgberht and Ælfred. In
the year 924, when the three Kingdoms, Scotland, Strathclyde
and Northumberland, all commended themselves to Eadward, the
relation was something new on the part of Scotland and
Strathclyde; but on the part of Lothian, as an integral part
of Northumberland, it was only a renewal of the relation which
had been formerly entered into with Ecgberht and Ælfred. … The
transactions which brought Scotland, Strathclyde, and Lothian
into their relations to one another and to the English Crown
were quite distinct from each other. They were as
follows:—First, the Commendation of the King and people of the
Scots to Eadward in 924. Secondly, the grant of Cumberland by
Eadmund to Malcolm in 945. … In 945 the reigning King [of
Cumberland, or Strathclyde] revolted against his over-lord
Eadmund; he was overthrown and his Kingdom ravaged; it was
then granted on tenure of military service to his kinsman
Malcolm King of Scots. … The southern part of this territory
was afterwards … annexed to Eng]and; the northern part was
retained by the Scottish Kings, and was gradually, though very
gradually, incorporated with their own Kingdom. The
distinction between the two states seems to have been quite
forgotten in the 13th century." The third transaction was "the
grant of Lothian to the Scottish kings, either under Eadgar or
under Cnut. … The date of the grant of Lothian is not
perfectly clear. But whatever was the date of the grant, there
can be no doubt at all as to its nature. Lothian, an integral
part of England, could be granted only as any other part of
England could be granted, namely to be held as part of
England, its ruler being in the position of an English Earl. …
But in such a grant the seeds of separation were sown. A part
of the Kingdom which was governed by a foreign sovereign, on
whatever terms of dependence, could not long remain in the
position of a province governed by an ordinary Earl. … That
the possession of Lothian would under all ordinary
circumstances remain hereditary, must have been looked for
from the beginning. This alone would distinguish Lothian from
all other Earldoms. … It was then to be expected that Lothian,
when once granted to the King of Scots, should gradually be
merged in the Kingdom of Scotland. But the peculiar and
singular destiny of this country could hardly have been looked
for. Neither Eadgar nor Kenneth could dream that this purely
English or Danish province would become the historical
Scotland. The different tenures of Scotland and Lothian got
confounded; the Kings of Scots, from the end of the eleventh
century, became English in manners and language; they were not
without some pretensions to the Crown of England, and not
without some hopes of winning it. They thus learned to attach
more and more value to the English part of their dominions,
and they laboured to spread its language and manners over
their original Celtic territory. They retained their ancient
title of Kings of Scots, but they became in truth Kings of
English Lothian and of Anglicized Fife. A state was thus
formed, politically distinct from England, and which political
circumstances gradually made bitterly hostile to England, a
state which indeed retained a dark and mysterious Celtic
background, but which, as it appears in history, is English in
laws, language and manners, more truly English indeed, in many
respects, than England itself remained after the Norman
Conquest."
E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 3, section. 4.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1005-1034.
The kingdom acquires its final name.
"The mixed population of Picts and Scots had now become to a
great extent amalgamated, and under the influence of the
dominant race of the Scots were identified with them in name.
Their power was now to be further consolidated, and their
influence extended during the thirty years' reign of a king
who proved to be the last of his race, and who was to bequeath
the kingdom, under the name of Scotia, to a new line of kings.
This was Malcolm, the son of Kenneth, who slew his
predecessor, Kenneth, the son of Dubh, at Monzievaird. … With
Malcolm the descendants of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the founder of
the Scottish dynasty, became extinct in the male line."
W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 1, chapter 8.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1039-1054.
The reign of Macbeth or Macbeda.
Malcolm was succeeded by his daughter's son, Duncan. "There is
little noticeable in his [Duncan's] life but its conclusion.
He had made vain efforts to extend his frontiers southward
through Northumberland, and was engaged in a war with the
holders of the northern independent states at his death in the
year 1039. … He was slain in 'Bothgowan,' which is held to be
Gaelic for 'a smith's hut.' The person who slew him, whether
with his own hand or not, was Macbeda, the Maarmor of Ross, or
of Ross and Moray; the ruler, in short, of the district
stretching from the Moray Frith and Loch Ness northwards. The
place where the smith's hut stood is said to have been near
Elgin. This has not been very distinctly established; but at
all events it was near if not actually within the territory
ruled by Macbeda, and Duncan was there with aggressive
designs. The maarmor's wife was Gruach, a granddaughter of
Kenneth IV. If there was a grandson of Kenneth killed by
Malcolm, this was his sister. But whether or not she had this
inheritance of revenge, she was, according to the Scots
authorities, the representative of the Kenneth whom the
grandfather of Duncan had deprived of his throne and his life.
… The deeds which raised Macbeda and his wife to power were
not to appearance much worse than others of their day done for
similar ends. However he may have gained his power, he
exercised it with good repute, according to the reports
nearest to his time.
{2842}
It is among the most curious of the antagonisms that sometimes
separate the popular opinion of people of mark from anything
positively known about them, that this man, in a manner sacred
to splendid infamy, is the first whose name appears in the
ecclesiastical records both as a king of Scotland and a
benefactor of the Church; and is also the first who, as king
of Scotland, is said by the chroniclers to have offered his
services to the Bishop of Rome. The ecclesiastical records of
St. Andrews tell how he and his queen made over certain lands
to the Culdees of Lochleven, and there is no such fact on
record of any earlier king of Scotland. Of his connection with
Rome, it is a question whether he went there himself. … That
he sent money there, however, was so very notorious as not
only to be recorded by the insular authorities, but to be
noticed on the Continent as a significant event. … The reign
of this Macbeda or Macbeth forms a noticeable period in our
history. He had a wider dominion than any previous ruler,
having command over all the country now known as Scotland,
except the Isles and a portion of the Western Highlands. …
With him, too, ended that mixed or alternative regal
succession which, whether it was systematic or followed the
law of force, is exceedingly troublesome to the inquirer. …
From Macbeth downwards … the rule of hereditary succession
holds, at all events to the extent that a son, where there is
one, succeeds to his father. Hence this reign is a sort of
turning-point in the constitutional history of the Scottish
crown."
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 10.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1093.
Effects of the Norman Conquest of England.
Civilization and growth of the Northern Kingdom.
Reign of Malcolm III.
"The Norman Conquest of England produced a great effect upon
their neighbours. In the first place, a very great number of
the Saxons who fled from the cruelty of William the Conqueror,
retired into Scotland, and this had a considerable effect in
civilizing the southern parts of that country; for if the
Saxons were inferior to the Normans in arts and in learning,
they were, on the other hand, much superior to the Scots, who
were a rude and very ignorant people. These exiles were headed
and accompanied by what remained of the Saxon royal family,
and particularly by a young prince named Edgar Etheling, who
was a near kinsman of Edward the Confessor, and the heir of
his throne, but dispossessed by the Norman Conqueror. This
prince brought with him to Scotland two sisters, named
Margaret and Christian. They were received with much kindness
by Malcolm III., called Canmore [Ceanmore] (or Great Head),
who remembered the assistance which he had received from
Edward the Confessor. … He himself married the Princess
Margaret (1068), and made her the Queen of Scotland. … When
Malcolm, King of Scotland, was thus connected with the Saxon
royal family of England, he began to think of chasing away the
Normans, and of restoring Edgar Etheling to the English
throne. This was an enterprise for which he had not sufficient
strength; but he made deep and bloody inroads into the
northern parts of England, and brought away so many captives,
that they were to be found for many years afterwards in every
Scottish village, nay, in every Scottish hovel. No doubt, the
number of Saxons thus introduced into Scotland tended much to
improve and civilize the manners of the people. … Not only the
Saxons, but afterwards a number of the Normans themselves,
came to settle in Scotland, … and were welcomed by King
Malcolm. He was desirous to retain these brave men in his
service, and for that purpose he gave them great grants of
land, to be held for military services; and most of the
Scottish nobility are of Norman descent. And thus the Feudal
System was introduced into Scotland as well as England, and
went on gradually gaining strength, till it became the general
law of the country, as indeed it was that of Europe at large.
Malcolm Canmore, thus increasing in power, and obtaining
re-enforcements of warlike and civilized subjects, began
greatly to enlarge his dominions. At first he had resided
almost entirely in the province of Fife, and at the town of
Dunfermline, where there are still the ruins of a small tower
which served him for a palace. But as he found his power
increase, he ventured across the Frith of Forth, and took
possession of Edinburgh, and the surrounding country, which
had hitherto been accounted part of England. The great
strength of the castle of Edinburgh, situated upon a lofty
rock, led him to choose that town frequently for his
residence, so that in time it became the metropolis, or chief
city of Scotland. This king Malcolm was a brave and wise
prince, though without education. He often made war upon King
William the Conqueror of England, and upon his son and
successor, William, who, from his complexion, was called
William Rufus, that is, Red William. Malcolm was sometimes
beaten in these wars, but he was more frequently successful;
and not only made a complete conquest of Lothian, but
threatened also to possess himself of the great English
province of Northumberland, which he frequently invaded."
Malcolm Canmore was killed in battle at Alnwick Castle (1093),
during one of his invasions of English territory.
Sir W. Scott,
Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);
abridged by E. Ginn,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 11.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1093-1153.
Successors of Malcolm III.
The reign of David I.
His civilizing work and influence.
"Six sons and two daughters were the offspring of the marriage
between Malcolm and Margaret. Edward, the eldest, perished
with his father, and Ethelred, created Abbot of Dunkeld and
Earl of Fife, appears to have survived his parents for a very
short time: Edmund died in an English cloister, a penitent and
mysterious recluse; Edgar, Alexander, and David, lived to
wear, in succession, the crown of Scotland. Of the two
daughters, Editha … became the queen of Henry of England. …
Three parties may be said to have divided Scot·land at the
period of Malcolm's death." One of these parties, inspired
with jealousy of the English influence which had come into the
kingdom with queen Margaret, succeeded in raising Donald Bane,
a brother of the late king Malcolm, to the throne. Donald was
soon displaced by Edmund, who is sometimes said to have been
an illegitimate son of Malcolm; and in 1097 Edmund was
dethroned by Edgar, the son of Malcolm and Margaret. Edgar,
dying in 1107, was succeeded by Alexander I., and he, in 1124,
by David I.
{2843}
The reign of David was contemporary with the dark and troubled
time of Stephen in England, and he took an unfortunate part in
the struggle between Stephen and the Empress Matilda,
suffering a dreadful defeat in the famous Battle of the
Standard (see STANDARD, BATTLE OF). But "the whole of the
north of England beyond the Tees" was "for several years …
under the influence, if not under the direct authority, of the
Scottish king, and the comparative prosperity of this part of
the kingdom, contrasting strongly with the anarchy prevailing
in every other quarter, naturally inclined the population of
the northern counties to look with favour upon a continuance
of the Scottish connection. … Pursuing the policy inaugurated
by his mother [the English princess Margaret] …, he
encouraged the resort of foreign merchants to the ports of
Scotland, insuring to native traders the same advantages which
they had enjoyed during the reign of his father; whilst he
familiarized his Gaelic nobles, in their attendance upon the
royal court, with habits of luxury and magnificence, remitting
three years' rent and tribute—according to the account of his
contemporary Malmesbury—to all his people who were willing to
improve their dwellings, to dress with greater elegance, and
to adopt increased refinement in their general manner of
living. Even in the occupations of his leisure moments he
seems to have wished to exercise a softening influence over
his countrymen, for, like many men of his character, he was
fond of gardening, and he delighted in indoctrinating his
people in the peaceful arts of horticulture, and in the
mysteries of planting and of grafting. For similar reasons he
sedulously promoted the improvement of agriculture, or rather,
perhaps, directed increased attention to it; for the Scots of
that period were still a pastoral, and, in some respects, a
migratory people. … David hoped to convert the lower orders
into a more settled and industrious population; whilst he
enjoined the higher classes to 'live like noblemen' upon their
own estates, and not to waste the property of their
neighbours. … In consequence of these measures feudal castles
began, ere long, to replace the earlier buildings of wood and
wattles rudely fortified by earthworks; and towns rapidly grew
up around the royal castles and about the principal localities
of commerce. … The prosperity of the country during the last
fifteen years of his reign [he died in 1153] contrasted
strongly with the miseries of England under the disastrous
rule of Stephen; Scotland became the granary from which her
neighbour's wants were supplied; and to the court of
Scotland's king resorted the knights and nobles of foreign
origin, whom the commotions of the Continent had hitherto
driven to take refuge in England."
E. W. Robertson,
Scotland under her Early Kings,
volume 1, chapters 6-8.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1153.
Accession of Malcolm IV.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1165.
Accession of William IV. (called The Lion).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189.
Captivity of William the Lion, his oath of fealty to the
English king, and his release from it.
In 1174, on the occasion of a general conspiracy of rebellion
against Henry II., contrived at Paris, headed by his wife and
sons, and joined by great numbers of the nobles throughout his
dominions, both in England and in France, William the Lion,
king of Scotland, was induced to assist the rebellion by the
promise of Northumberland for himself. Henry was in France
until July, 1174, when he was warned that "only his own
presence could retrieve England, where a Scotch army was
pouring in from the north, while David of Huntingdon headed an
army in the midland counties, and the young prince was
preparing to bring over fresh forces from Gravelines. Henry
crossed the channel in a storm, and, by advice of a Norman
bishop, proceeded at once to do penance at Becket's shrine. On
the day of his humiliation, the Scotch king, William the Lion,
was surprised at Alnwick and captured. This, in fact, ended
the war, for David of Huntingdon was forced to return into
Scotland, where the old feud of Gael and Saxon had broken out.
The English rebels purchased peace by a prompt submission. In
less than a month Henry was able to leave England to itself."
The king of Scotland was taken as a prisoner to Falaise, in
Normandy, where he was detained for several months. "By advice
of a deputation of Scotch prelates and barons he at last
consented to swear fealty to Henry as his liege lord, and to
do provisional homage for his son. His chief vassals
guaranteed this engagement; hostages were given; and English
garrisons received into three Scotch towns, Roxburgh, Berwick,
and Edinburgh. Next year [1175] the treaty was solemnly
ratified at York."
C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 1, chapter 31.
This engagement of fealty on the part of William the Lion is
often referred to as the Treaty of Falaise. Fourteen years
afterwards, when Henry's son, Richard, Cœur de Lion, had
succeeded to the throne, the Scotch king was absolved from it.
"Early in December [1189], while Richard was at Canterbury on
his way to the sea [preparing to embark upon his crusade],
William the Lion came to visit him, and a bargain was struck
to the satisfaction of both parties. Richard received from
William a sum of 10,000 marks, and his homage for his English
estates, as they had been held by his brother Malcolm; in
return, he restored to him the castles of Roxburgh and
Berwick, and released him and his heirs for ever from the
homage for Scotland itself, enforced by Henry in 1175."
K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 2, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
W. Burns,
Scottish War of Independence,
volume 1, chapter 12.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1214.
Accession of Alexander II.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1249.
Accession of Alexander III.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263.
The Norwegian invasion and the Battle of Largs.
"The western Highlands and Islands formed the original
territory of the Scots. But we have seen how the Norwegians
and Danes, seizing Shetland and Orkney, spread themselves over
the western Archipelago, even as far south as Man, thereby
putting an end, for 300 years, to the intercommunication
between the mainlands of Scotland and Ireland. These islands
long formed a sort of maritime community, sometimes under the
active authority of the kings of Norway, sometimes connected
with the Norwegian settlers in Ireland—Ostmen, as they were
called; sometimes partially ruled by kings of Man, but more
generally subject to chieftains more or less powerful, who,
when opportunity offered, made encroachments even on the
mainland. …
{2844}
Alexander II. seems to have determined to bring this sort of
interregnum to a close, and he was engaged in an expedition
for that purpose when he died at the little island of Kerrera,
near Oban. His son, as he advanced to manhood, appears to have
revived the idea of completely re-annexing the Islands.
Complaints were made by the islanders to Haco, king of Norway,
of aggressions by the earl of Ross and other mainland
magnates, in the interest of the king of Scots; and Haco, who
was at once a powerful and a despotic monarch, resolved to
vindicate his claims as suzerain of the isles. … Haco
accordingly fitted out a splendid fleet, consisting of 100
vessels, mostly of large size, fully equipped, and crowded
with gallant soldiers and seamen. … On the 10th of July, 1263,
'the mightiest armament that ever left the shores of Norway
sailed from the haven of Herlover.' … The island chieftains,
Magnus of the Orkneys, Magnus, king of Man, Dougal MacRoderic,
and others, met the triumphant fleet, swelling its numbers as
it advanced amongst the islands. Most of the chiefs made their
peace with Haco; though there were exceptions. … The invading
fleet entered the Clyde, numbering by this time as many as 160
ships. A squadron of 60 sail proceeded up Loch-long; the crews
drew their boats across the narrow isthmus at Tarbet, launched
on Loch-lomond, and spread their ravages, by fire and sword,
over the Lennox and Stirlingshire. … The alarm spread over the
surrounding country, and gradually a Scottish army began to
gather on the Ayrshire side of the firth. … Whether
voluntarily, or from stress of weather, some portion of the
Norwegians made a landing near Largs, on the Ayrshire coast,
opposite to Bute. These being attacked by the Scots,
reinforcements were landed, and a fierce but desultory
struggle was kept up, with varying success, from morning till
night. Many of the ships were driven ashore. Most of the
Norwegians who had landed were slain. The remainder of the
fleet was seriously damaged. … Retracing its course among the
islands, on the 20th of October it reached Kirkwall in Orkney,
where king Haco expired on 15th December. Such was the result
of an expedition which had set out with such fair promises of
success."
W. Burns,
The Scottish War of Independence,
chapter 13 (volume 1).
"In the Norse annals our famous Battle of Largs makes small
figure, or almost none at all, among Hakon's battles and
feats. … Of Largs there is no mention whatever in Norse books.
But beyond any doubt, such is the other evidence, Hakon did
land there; land and fight, not conquering, probably rather
beaten; and very certainly 'retiring to his ships,' as in
either case he behooved to do! It is further certain he was
dreadfully maltreated by the weather on those wild coasts; and
altogether credible, as the Scotch records bear, that he was
so at Largs very specially. The Norse Records or Sagas say
merely he lost many of his ships by the tempests, and many of
his men by land fighting in various parts,—tacitly including
Largs, no doubt, which was the last of these misfortunes to
him. … To this day, on a little plain to the south of the
village, now town, of Largs, in Ayrshire, there are seen stone
cairns and monumental heaps, and, until within a century ago,
one huge, solitary, upright stone; still mutely testifying to
a battle there—altogether clearly to this battle of King
Hakon's; who by the Norse records, too, was in these
neighbourhoods at that same date, and evidently in an
aggressive, high kind of humour."
T. Carlyle,
Early Kings of Norway,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 15 (volume 2).
See, also,
NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES,
and 10-13TH CENTURIES.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1266.
Acquisition of the Western Islands.
Three years after the battle of Largs, "in 1266, Magnus IV.,
the new King [of Norway], by formal treaty ceded to the King
of Scots Man and all the Western Isles, specially reserving
Orkney and Shetland to the crown of Norway. On the other hand,
the King of Scots agreed to pay down a ransom for them of a
thousand marks, and an annual rent of a hundred marks."
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 15 (volume 2).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1286.
Accession of Queen Margaret (called The Maid of Norway)
who died on her way to Scotland in 1290.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
Death of the Maid of Norway.
Reign of John Balliol.
English conquest by Edward I.
Exploits of Wallace.
Alexander III. of Scotland, dying in 1286, left only an infant
granddaughter to inherit his crown. This was the child of his
daughter Margaret, married to the king of Norway and dead
after her first confinement. The baby queen, known in Scottish
history as the Maid of Norway, was betrothed in her sixth year
to Prince Edward of England, son of Edward I., and all looked
promising for an early union of the Scottish and English
crowns. "But this project was abruptly frustrated by the
child's death on her voyage to Scotland, and with the rise of
claimant after claimant of the vacant throne Edward was drawn
into far other relations to the Scottish realm. Of the
thirteen pretenders to the throne of Scotland, only three
could be regarded as serious claimants. By the extinction of
the line of William the Lion, the right of succession passed
to the daughters of his brother David. The claim of John
Balliol, Lord of Galloway, rested on his descent from the
eldest of these; that of Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale, on
his descent from the second; that of John Hastings, Lord of
Abergavenny, on his descent from the third. … All the rights
of a feudal suzerain were at once assumed by the English King;
he entered into the possession of the country as into that of
a disputed fief to be held by its overlord till the dispute
was settled. … Scotland was thus reduced to the subjection
which she had experienced under Henry II. … The commissioners
whom he named to report on the claims to the throne were
mainly Scotch; a proposal for the partition of the realm among
the claimants was rejected as contrary to Scotch law, and the
claim of Balliol as representative of the elder branch was
finally preferred to that of his rivals. The castles were at
once delivered to the new monarch, and Balliol did homage to
Edward with full acknowledgment of the services due to him
from the realm of Scotland. For a time there was peace." But,
presently, Edward made claims upon the Scotch nobles for
service in his foreign wars which were resented and
disregarded. He also asserted for his courts a right of
hearing appeals from the Scottish tribunals, which was angrily
denied. Barons and people were provoked to a hostility that
forced Balliol to challenge war. He obtained from the pope
absolution from his oath of fealty and he entered into a
secret alliance with the king of France.
{2845}
In the spring of 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, carried Berwick
by storm, slaughtered 8,000 of its citizens, defeated the
Scots with great slaughter at Dunbar, occupied Edinburgh,
Stirling and Perth, and received, in July, the surrender of
Balliol, who was sent to imprisonment in the Tower of London.
"No further punishment, however, was exacted from the
prostrate realm. Edward simply treated it as a fief, and
declared its forfeiture to be the legal consequence of
Balliol's treason. It lapsed in fact to the overlord, and its
earls, barons and gentry swore homage in Parliament at Berwick
to Edward as their king. … The government of the new
dependency was intrusted to Warenne, Earl of Surrey, at the
head of an English Council of Regency. … The disgraceful
submission of their leaders brought the people themselves to
the front. … The genius of an outlaw knight, William Wallace,
saw in their smouldering discontent a hope of freedom for his
country, and his daring raids on outlying parties of the
English soldiery roused the country at last into revolt. Of
Wallace himself, of his life or temper, we know little or
nothing; the very traditions of his gigantic stature and
enormous strength are dim and unhistorical. But the instinct
of the Scotch people has guided it aright in choosing Wallace
for its national hero. He … called the people itself to arms."
At Stirling, in September, 1297, Wallace caught the English
army in the midst of its passage of the Forth, cut half of it
in pieces and put the remainder to flight. At Falkirk, in the
following July, Edward avenged himself upon the forces of
Wallace with terrible slaughter, and the Scottish leader
narrowly escaped. In the struggle which the Scots still
maintained for several years, he seems to have borne no longer
a prominent part. But when they submitted, in 1303, Wallace
refused Edward's offered amnesty; he was afterwards captured,
sent to London for trial, and executed, his head being placed
on London Bridge, according to the barbarous custom of the
time.
J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 4, section 3.
ALSO:
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapters 15 and 18-22.
C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 2, chapters 12-13.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1305-1307.
The rising under Robert Bruce.
After the submission of Scotland in 1303, King Edward of
England "set to work to complete the union of the two
kingdoms. In the meantime Scotland was to be governed by a
Lieutenant aided by a council of barons and churchmen. It was
to be represented in the English parliament by ten
deputies,—four churchmen, four barons, and two members of the
commons, one for the country north of the Firths, one for the
south. These members attended one parliament at Westminster,
and an ordinance was issued for the government of Scotland. …
But the great difficulty in dealing with the Scots was that
they never knew when they were conquered, and, just when
Edward hoped that his scheme for union was carried out, they
rose in arms once more. The leader this time was Robert Bruce,
Lord of Annandale, Earl of Carrick in right of his mother, and
the grandson and heir of the rival of Balliol. He had joined
Wallace, but had again sworn fealty to Edward at the
Convention of Irvine, and had since then received many favours
from the English king. Bruce signed a bond with William
Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, who had also been one of
Wallace's supporters. In this bond each party swore to stand
by the other in all his undertakings, no matter what, and not
to act without the knowledge of the other. … This bond became
known to Edward; and Bruce, afraid of his anger, fled from
London to Dumfries. There in the Church of the Grey Friars he
had an interview with John Comyn of Badenoch, called the Red
Comyn, who, after Balliol and his sons, was the next heir to
the throne. … What passed between them cannot be certainly
known, as they met alone"—but Comyn was slain. "By this murder
and sacrilege Bruce put himself at once out of the pale of the
law and of the Church, but by it he became the nearest heir to
the crown, after the Balliols. This gave him a great hold on
the people, whose faith in the virtue of hereditary succession
was strong, and on whom the English yoke weighed heavily. On
March 27, 1306, Bruce was crowned [at Scone] with as near an
imitation of the old ceremonies as could be compassed on such
short notice. The actual crowning was done by Isabella,
Countess of Buchan, who, though her husband was a Comyn, and,
as such, a sworn foe of Bruce, came secretly to uphold the
right of her own family, the Macduffs, to place the crown on
the head of the King of Scots. Edward determined this time to
put down the Scots with rigour. … All who had taken any part
in the murder of the Red Comyn were denounced as traitors, and
death was to be the fate of all persons taken in arms. Bruce
was excommunicated by a special bull from the Pope. The
Countess of Buchan was confined in a room, made like a cage,
in one of the towers of Berwick Castle. One of King Robert's
sisters was condemned to a like punishment. His brother Nigel,
his brother-in-law Christopher Seaton, and three other nobles
were taken prisoners, and were put to death as traitors. …
Edward this time made greater preparations than ever. All
classes of his subjects from all parts of his dominions were
invited to join the army, and he exhorted his son, Edward
Prince of Wales, and 300 newly-created knights, to win their
spurs worthily in the reduction of contumacious Scotland. It
was well for Scotland that he did not live to carry out his
vows of vengeance. He died at Burgh-on-the-Sands, July 30th.
His death proved a turning-point in the history of Scotland,
for, though the English still remained in possession of the
strongholds, Edward II. took no effective steps to crush the
rebels. He only brought the army raised by his father as far
as Cumnock in Ayrshire, and retreated without doing anything."
M. MacArthur,
History of Scotland,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapters 8-9.
W. Burns,
Scottish War of Independence,
volume 2, chapters 21-22.
{2846}
SCOTLAND: A. D, 1314.
The Battle of Bannockburn.
"It is extremely difficult to give distinctness and
chronological sequence to the events in Scotland from 1306 to
1310: the conditions are indeed antagonistic to distinctness.
We have a people restless and feverishly excited to efforts
for their liberty when opportunity should come, but not yet
embodied in open war against their invaders, and therefore
doing nothing distinct enough to hold a place in history. …
The other prominent feature in the historical conditions was
the new-made king [Robert Bruce], … a tall strong man, of
comely, attractive, and commanding countenance. … He is steady
and sanguine of temperament; his good spirits and good-humour
never fail, and in the midst of misery and peril he can keep
up the spirits of his followers by chivalrous stories and
pleasant banter. … The English were driven out of the strong
places one by one—sometimes by the people of the district. We
hear of the fall of Edinburgh, Roxburgh, Linlithgow, Perth,
Dundee, Rutherglen, and Dumfries. … In the beginning of the
year 1309 Scotland was so far consolidated as to be getting
into a place in European diplomacy. The King of France advised
his son-in-law, Edward II., to agree to a souffrance or truce
with the Scots. … While the negotiations with France went on,
countenance still more important was given to the new order of
things at home. The clergy in council set forth their
adherence to King Robert, with the reasons for it. … This was
an extremely important matter, for it meant, of course, that
the Church would do its best to protect him from all
ecclesiastical risk arising from the death of Comyn. … A
crisis came at last which roused the Government of England to
a great effort. After the fortresses had fallen one by one,
Stirling Castle still held out. It was besieged by Edward
Bruce [brother of Robert] before the end of the year 1313.
Mowbray, the governor, stipulated that he would surrender if
not relieved before the Feast of St. John the Baptist in the
following year, or the 24th of June. The taking of this
fortress was an achievement of which King Edward [I.] was
prouder than of anything else he had done in the invasions of
Scotland. … That the crowning acquisition of their mighty king
should thus be allowed to pass away, and stamp emphatically
the utter loss of the great conquest he had made for the
English crown, was a consummation too humiliating for the
chivalry of England to endure without an effort. Stirling
Castle must be relieved before St. John's Day, and the
relieving of Stirling Castle meant a thorough invasion and
resubjection of Scotland." On both sides the utmost efforts
were made,—the one to relieve the Castle, the other to
strengthen its besiegers. "On the 23d of June [1314] the two
armies were visible to each other. If the Scots had, as it was
said, between 30,000 and 40,000 men, it was a great force for
the country at that time to furnish. Looking at the urgency of
the measures taken to draw out the feudal array of England, to
the presence of the Welsh and Irish, and to a large body of
Gascons and other foreigners, it is easy to be believed that
the army carried into Scotland might be, as it was said to be,
100,000 in all. The efficient force, however, was in the
mounted men, and these were supposed to be about equal in
number to the whole Scottish army." The Scots occupied a
position of great strength and advantage (on the banks of the
Bunnock Burn), which they had skilfully improved by
honeycombing all the flat ground with hidden pits, to make it
impassable for cavalry. The English attacked them at daybreak
on the 24th of June, and suffered a most ignominious and awful
defeat. "The end was rout, confused and hopeless. The pitted
field added to the disasters; for though they avoided it in
their advance, many horsemen were pressed into it in the
retreat, and floundered among the pitfalls. Through all the
history of her great wars before and since, never did England
suffer a humiliation deep enough to approach even comparison
with this. Besides the inferiority of the victorious army,
Bannockburn is exceptional among battles by the utter
helplessness of the defeated. There seems to have been no
rallying point anywhere. … None of the parts of that mighty
host could keep together, and the very chaos among the
multitudes around seems to have perplexed the orderly army of
the Scots. The foot-soldiers of the English army seem simply
to have dispersed at all points, and the little said of them
is painfully suggestive of the poor wanderers having to face
the two alternatives—starvation in the wilds, or death at the
hands of the peasantry. The cavalry fled right out towards
England. … Stirling Castle was delivered up in terms of the
stipulation."
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 23.
"The defeated army … left dead upon the field about 30,000
men, including 200 knights and 700 esquires."
W. Burns,
Scottish War of Independence,
chapter 23 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 3.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314-1328.
After Bannockburn.
The consequences of the battle in different views.
"A very general impression exists, especially among
Englishmen, that the defeat at Bannockburn put an end to the
attempted subjugation of Scotland. This is a mistake. … No
doubt the defeat was of so decisive a character as to render
the final result all but certain. But it required many others,
though of a minor kind, to bring about the conviction
described by Mr. Froude [that the Scotch would never stoop to
the supremacy inflicted upon Wales]; and it was yet fourteen
long years till the treaty of Northampton."
W. Burns,
The Scottish War of Independence,
chapter 24 (volume 2).
"No defeat, however crushing, ever proved half so injurious to
any country as the victory of Bannockburn did to Scotland.
This is the testimony borne by men whose patriotism cannot be
called in question. … It drove from Scotland the very elements
of its growing civilization and its material wealth. The
artisans of North Britain were at that time mostly English.
These retired or were driven from Scotland, and with them the
commercial importance of the Scottish towns was lost. The
estates held by Englishmen in Scotland were confiscated, and
the wealth which through the hands of these proprietors had
found its way from the southern parts of the kingdom and
fertilized the more barren soil of the north, at once ceased.
The higher and more cultured clergy were English; these
retired when the severance of Scotland from England was
effected, and with them Scottish scholarship was almost
extinguished, and the budding literature of the north
disappeared. How calamitous was the period which followed upon
Bannockburn may be partially estimated by two significant
facts. Of the six princes who had nominal rule in Scotland
from the death of Robert III. to James VI., not one died a
natural death. Of the ten kings whose names are entered on the
roll of Scottish history from the death of Robert Bruce, seven
came to the throne whilst minors, and James I. was detained in
England for nineteen years. The country during these long
minorities, and the time of the captivity of James, was
exposed to the strife commonly attendant on minorities.…
{2847}
The war commenced by Bruce lingered for almost three

centuries, either in the shape of formal warfare proclaimed by
heralds and by the ceremonials usually observed at the
beginning of national strife, or in the informal but equally
destructive hostilities which neighbours indulge in, and which
partake of the bitterness of civil war. … For three centuries
the lands south of the Tweed, and almost as far as the Tyne at
its mouth, were exposed to the ceaseless ravages of
moss-troopers. … For a while men were killed, and women
outraged and murdered, and children slain without pity, and
houses plundered and then burnt, and cattle swept off the
grazing lands between Tweed and Tyne, until none cared, unless
they were outlaws, to occupy any part of the country within a
night's ride of the borders of Scotland. The sufferers in
their turn soon learned to recognize no law save that of
might, and avenged their wrongs by inflicting like wrongs upon
others; and thus there grew up along the frontiers of either
country a savage population, whose occupation was murder and
plunder, and whose sole wealth was what they had obtained by
violence. … The war, indeed, which has been called a war of
independence, and fills so large a part of the annals of
England and Scotland during the Middle Ages, was successful so
far as its main object was concerned, the preservation of
power in the hands of 'barbarous chieftains who neither feared
the king nor pitied the people'; the war was a miserable
failure if we regard the well-being of the people themselves
and the progress of the nation."
W. Denton,
England in the Fifteenth Century,
pages 68-78.
On the other side: "It [the battle of Bannockburn] put an end
for ever to all hopes upon the part of England of
accomplishing the conquest of her sister country. … Nor have
the consequences of this victory been partial or confined.
Their duration throughout succeeding centuries of Scottish
history and Scottish liberty, down to the hour in which this
is written, cannot be questioned; and without launching out
into any inappropriate field of historical speculation, we
have only to think of the most obvious consequences which must
have resulted from Scotland becoming a conquered province of
England; and if we wish for proof, to fix our eyes on the
present condition of Ireland, in order to feel the reality of
all that we owe to the victory at Bannockburn, and to the
memory of such men as Bruce, Randolph, and Douglas."
P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 3.
"It is impossible, even now, after the lapse of more than 570
years, to read any account of that battle—or still more to
visit the field—without emotion. For we must remember all the
political and social questions which depended on it. For good
or for evil, tremendous issues follow on the gain or on the
loss of national independence. … Where the seeds of a strong
national civilisation, of a strong national character, and of
intellectual wealth have been deeply sown in any human soil,
the preservation of it from conquest, and from invasion, and
from foreign rule, is the essential condition of its yielding
its due contribution to the progress of the world. Who, then,
can compute or reckon up the debt which Scotland owes to the
few and gallant men who, inspired by a splendid courage and a
noble faith, stood by The Bruce in the War of Independence,
and on June 24, 1314, saw the armies of the invader flying
down the Carse of Stirling?"
The Duke of Argyll,
Scotland as it was and as it is,
volume 1, chapter 2.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.
The formation of the Scottish Parliament.
"As many causes contributed to bring government earlier to
perfection in Eng]and than in Scotland; as the rigour of the
feudal institutions abated sooner, and its defects were
supplied with greater facility in the one kingdom than in the
other; England led the way in all these changes, and burgesses
and knights of the shire appeared in the parliaments of that
nation, before they were heard of in ours. Burgesses were
first admitted into the Scottish parliaments by Robert Bruce
[A. D. 1326]; and in the preamble to the laws of Robert III.
they are ranked among the constituent members of that
assembly. The lesser barons were indebted to James I. [A. D.
1427] for a statute exempting them from personal attendance,
and permitting them to elect representatives: the exemption
was eagerly laid hold on, but the privilege was so little
valued that, except one or two instances, it lay neglected
during one hundred and sixty years; and James VI. first
obliged them to send representatives regularly to parliament.
A Scottish parliament, then, consisted anciently of great
barons, of ecclesiastics, and a few representatives of
boroughs. Nor were these divided, as in Eng]and, into two
houses, but composed one assembly, in which the lord
chancellor presided. … The great barons, or lords of
parliament, were extremely few; even so late as the beginning
of the reign of James VI. they amounted only to 53. The
ecclesiastics equalled them in number, and, being devoted
implicitly to the crown, … rendered all hopes of victory in
any struggle desperate. … As far back as our records enable us
to trace the constitution of our parliaments, we find a
committee distinguished by the name of lords of articles. It
was their business to prepare and to digest all matters which
were to be laid before the parliament. There was rarely any
business introduced into parliament but what had passed
through the channel of this committee. … This committee owed
the extraordinary powers vested in it to the military genius
of the ancient nobles, too impatient to submit to the drudgery
of civil business. … The lords of articles, then, not only
directed all the proceedings of parliament, but possessed a
negative before debate. That committee was chosen and
constituted in such a manner as put this valuable privilege
entirely in the king's hands. It is extremely probable that
our kings once had the sole right of nominating the lords of
articles. They came afterwards to be elected by the
parliament, and consisted of an equal number out of each
estate."
W. Robertson,
History of Scotland,
book 1.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.
The Peace of Northampton.
In 1327 King Edward III. of England collected a splendid army
of 60,000 men for his first campaign against the Scots. After
several weeks of tiresome marching and countermarching, in
vain attempts to bring the agile Scots to an engagement, or to
stop the bold ravages of Douglas and Randolph, who led them,
the young king abandoned his undertaking in disgust.
{2848}
He next "convoked a parliament at York, in which there
appeared a tendency on the part of England to concede the main
points on which proposals for peace had hitherto failed, by
acknowledging the independence of Scotland and the legitimate
sovereignty of Bruce." A truce was presently agreed upon,
"which it was now determined should be the introduction to a
lasting peace. As a necessary preliminary, the English
statesmen resolved formally to execute a resignation of all
claims of dominion and superiority which had been assumed over
the kingdom of Scotland, and agreed that all muniments or
public instruments asserting or tending to support such a
claim should be delivered up. This agreement was subscribed by
the king on the 4th of March, 1328. Peace was afterwards
concluded at Edinburgh the 17th of March, 1328, and ratified
at a parliament held at Northampton, the 4th of May, 1328. It
was confirmed by a match agreed upon between the princess
Joanna, sister to Edward III., and David, son of Robert I.,
though both were as yet infants. Articles of strict amity were
settled betwixt the nations, without prejudice to the effect
of the alliance between Scotland and France. … It was
stipulated that all the charters and documents carried from
Scotland by Edward I. should be restored, and the king of
England was pledged to give his aid in the court of Rome
towards the recall of the excommunication awarded against king
Robert. Lastly, Scotland was to pay a sum of £20,000 in
consideration of these favourable terms. The borders were to
be maintained in strict order on both sides, and the fatal
coronation-stone was to be restored to Scotland. There was
another separate obligation on the Scottish side, which led to
most serious consequences in the subsequent reign. The seventh
article of the Peace of Northampton provided that certain
English barons … should be restored to the lands and heritages
in Scotland, whereof they had been deprived during the war, by
the king of Scots seizing them into his own hand. The
execution of this article was deferred by the Scottish king,
who was not, it may be conceived, very willing again to
introduce English nobles as landholders into Scotland. The
English mob, on their part, resisted the removal of the fatal
stone from Westminster, where it had been deposited. … The
deed called Ragman's Roll, being the list of the barons and
men of note who subscribed the submission to Edward I. in
1296, was, however, delivered up to the Scots."
Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 12 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. Froissart,
Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
book 1, chapter 18.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1329.
Accession of David II.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.
The Disinherited Barons.
Balliol's invasion.
Siege of Berwick and battle of Halidon Hill.
Until his death, in 1329, King Robert Bruce evaded the
enforcement of that provision of the Treaty of Northampton
which pledged him to restore the forfeited estates of English
nobles within the Scottish border. His death left the crown to
a child of seven years, his son David, under the regency of
Randolph, Earl of Murray, and the regent still procrastinated
the restoration of the estates in question. At length, in
1332, the "disinherited barons," as they were called,
determined to prosecute their claim by force of arms, and they
made common cause with Edward Balliol, son of the ex-king of
Scotland, who had been exiled in France. The English king,
Edward III. would not openly give countenance to their
undertaking, nor permit them to invade Scotland across the
English frontier; but he did nothing to prevent their
recruiting in the northern counties an army of 3,300 men,
which took ship at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, and landed on the
coast of Fifeshire, under Balliol's command. Marching
westward, the invaders "finally took up a strong position in
the heart of the country, with the river Earn in their front.
Just before this crisis, the wise and capable Regent,
Randolph, Earl of Murray, had died, and the great Sir James
Douglas, having gone with King Robert's heart to offer it at
the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre, had perished on his way, in
conflict with the Moors of Spain. The regency had devolved
upon the Earl of Mar, a man wanting both in energy and in
military capacity; but so strong was the national antipathy to
Balliol, as representing the idea of English supremacy, that
Mar found no difficulty in bringing an army of 40,000 men into
the field against him. He drew up over against the enemy on
the northern bank of the Earn, on Dupplin Moor, while the Earl
of March, with forces scarcely inferior to the Regent's,
threatened the flank of the little army of the invaders.
Balliol, however, was not wanting in valour or generalship,
and there were, as usual, traitors in the Scotch army, one of
whom led the English, by a ford which he knew, safe across the
river in the darkness of the night. They threw themselves upon
the scattered, over-secure, and ill-sentinelled camp of the
enemy with such a sudden and furious onslaught, that the huge
Scottish army broke up into a panic-stricken and disorganised
crowd and were slaughtered like sheep, the number of the slain
four times exceeding that of the whole of Balliol's army,
which escaped with the loss of thirty men. The invaders now
took possession of Perth, which the Earl of March forthwith
surrounded, by land and water, and thought to starve into
submission; but Balliol's ships broke through the blockade on
the Tay, and the besiegers, despairing of success, marched off
and disbanded without striking another blow. Scotland having
been thus subdued by a handful of men, the nobles one by one
came to make their submission. Young King David and his
affianced bride were sent over to France for security, and
Edward Balliol was crowned King at Scone on September 24,
1332, two months after his disembarkation in Scotland. As
Balliol was thus actual (de facto) King of Scotland, Edward
could now form an alliance with him without a breach of the
treaty; and there seemed to be many arguments in favour of
espousing his cause. The young Bruce and his dynasty
represented the troublesome spirit of Scottish independence,
and were closely allied with France, whose king, as will be
seen, lost no opportunity of stimulating and supporting the
party of resistance to England. Balliol, on the other hand,
admitted in a secret despatch to Edward that the success of
the expedition was owing to that King's friendly
non-intervention, and the aid of his subjects; offered to hold
Scotland 'as his man,' doing him homage for it as an English
fief; and, treating the princess Joan's hastily formed union
with David as a mere engagement, proposed to marry her himself
instead. The King, as always, even on less important issues
than the present, consulted his Parliament. …
{2849}
Balliol in the meanwhile, having dismissed the greater part of
his English auxiliaries, was lying unsuspicious of danger at
Annan, when his camp was attacked in the middle of the night
by a strong body of cavalry under Murray, son of the wise
Regent, and Douglas, brother of the great Sir James. The
entrenchments were stormed in the darkness; noble, vassal and
retainer were slaughtered before they were able to organise
any resistance, and Balliol himself barely escaped with his
life across the English border." In the following year,
however, Edward restored his helpless vassal, invading
Scotland in person, besieging Berwick, and routing and
destroying, at Halidon Hill, a Scotch army which came to its
relief.
W. Warburton,
Edward III.,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
W. Longman,
Life and Times of Edward III.,
volume 1, chapter 4.
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 3, chapter 25.
See, also, BERWICK-UPON-TWEED.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.
The long-continued wars with Edward III.
"Throughout the whole country of Scotland, only four castles
and a small tower acknowledged the sovereignty of David Bruce,
after the battle of Halidon; and it is wonderful to see how,
by their efforts, the patriots soon afterwards changed for the
better that unfavourable and seemingly desperate state of
things. In the several skirmishes and battles which were
fought all over the kingdom, the Scots, knowing the country,
and having the good-will of the inhabitants, were generally
successful, as also in surprising castles and forts, cutting
off convoys of provisions which were going to the English, and
destroying scattered parties of the enemy; so that, by a long
and incessant course of fighting, the patriots gradually
regained what they lost in great battles. … You may well
imagine that, during those long and terrible wars which were
waged, when castles were defended and taken, prisoners made,
many battles fought, and numbers of men wounded and slain, the
state of the country of Scotland was most miserable. There was
no finding refuge or protection in the law. … All laws of
humanity and charity were transgressed without scruple. People
were found starved to death in the woods with their families,
while the country was so depopulated and void of cultivation
that the wild deer came out of the remote forests, and
approached near to cities and the dwellings of men. …
Notwithstanding the valiant defence maintained by the Scots,
their country was reduced to a most disastrous state, by the
continued wars of Edward III., who was a wise and warlike King
as ever lived. Could he have turned against Scotland the whole
power of his kingdom, he might probably have effected the
complete conquest, which had been so long attempted in vain.
But while the wars in Scotland were at the hottest, Edward
became also engaged in hostilities with France, having laid
claim to the crown of that kingdom. … The Scots sent an
embassy to obtain money and assistance from the French; and
they received supplies of both, which enabled them to recover
their castles and towns from the English. Edinburgh Castle was
taken from the invaders by a stratagem. … Perth, and other
important places, were also retaken by the Scots, and Edward
Baliol retired out of the country, in despair of, making good
his pretensions to the crown. The nobles of Scotland, finding
the affairs of the kingdom more prosperous, now came to the
resolution of bringing back from France, where he had resided
for safety, their young King, David II., and his consort,
Queen Joanna. They arrived in 1341. David II. was still a
youth, neither did he possess at any period of life the wisdom
and talents of his father, the great King Robert. The nobles
of Scotland had become each a petty prince on his own estates;
they made war on each other as they had done upon the English,
and the poor King possessed, no power of restraining them.
Edward III. being absent in France, and in the act of
besieging Calais, David was induced, by the pressing and
urgent counsels of the French King, to renew the war, and
profit by the King's absence from England. The young King of
Scotland raised, accordingly, a large army, and, entering
England on the west frontier, he marched eastward towards
Durham, harassing and wasting the country with great severity;
the Scots boasting that, now the King and his nobles were
absent, there were none in England to oppose them, save
priests and base mechanics. But they were greatly deceived.
The lords of the northern counties of England, together with
the Archbishop of York, assembled a gallant army. They
defeated the vanguard of the Scots and came upon the main body
by surprise. … The Scottish army fell fast into disorder. The
King himself fought bravely in the midst of his nobles and was
twice wounded with arrows. At length he was captured. …The
left wing of the Scottish army continued fighting long after
the rest were routed, and at length made a safe retreat. It
was commanded by the Steward of Scotland and the Earl of
March. Very many of the Scottish nobility were slain; very
many made prisoners. The King himself was led in triumph
through the streets of London, and committed to the Tower a
close prisoner. This battle was fought at Neville's Cross,
near Durham, on 17th October, 1346. Thus was another great
victory gained by the English over the Scots. It was followed
by farther advantages, which gave the victors for a time
possession of the country from the Scottish Border as far as
the verge of Lothian. But the Scots, as usual, were no sooner
compelled to momentary submission, than they began to consider
the means of shaking off the yoke. Edward III. was not more
fortunate in making war on Scotland in his own name, than when
he used the pretext of supporting Baliol. He marched into
East-Lothian in spring, 1355, and committed such ravages that
the period was long marked by the name of the Burned
Candlemas, because so many towns and villages were burned. But
the Scots had removed every species of provisions which could
be of use to the invaders, and avoided a general battle, while
they engaged in a number of skirmishes. In this manner Edward
was compelled to retreat out of Scotland, after sustaining
much loss. After the failure of this effort, Edward seems to
have despaired of the conquest of Scotland, and entered into
terms for a truce, and for setting the King at liberty. Thus
David II. at length obtained his freedom from the English,
after he had been detained in prison eleven years. The latter
years of this King's life have nothing very remarkable. He
died in 1370."
Sir W. Scott,
Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);
abridged by E. Ginn,
chapters 14-15.
{2850}
ALSO IN:
J. Froissart,
Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
book 1.
W. Longman,
Life and Times of Edward III.,
volume 1, chapters 4, 10, 15, 22.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1346.
Founding of the Lordship of the Isles.
See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370.
The accession of Robert II. the first of the Stewart
or Stuart Dynasty.
On the death of David II. of Scotland (son of Robert Bruce) A.
D. 1370, he was succeeded on the throne by his nephew, "Robert
the High Steward of Scotland," whose mother was Marjory,
daughter of Robert Bruce. The succession had been so fixed by
act of the Scottish Parliament during "good King Robert's"
life. The new King Robert began the Stewart line, as a royal
dynasty. "The name of his family was Allan, or Fitz Allan, but
it had become habitual to call them by the name of the feudal
office held by them in Scotland, and hence Robert II. was the
first of the Steward, or, as it came to be written, the
Stewart dynasty. They obtained their feudal influence through
the office enjoyed by their ancestors at the Court of
Scotland—the office of Steward."
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 26 (volume 3).
The succession of the family on the Scottish throne was as
follows:
Robert II.,
Robert III.,
James I.,
James II.,
James III.,
James IV.,
James V.,
Mary,
James VI.
The grandmother of Mary, the great grandmother of James VI.,
was Margaret Tudor, of the English royal family—sister of
Henry VIII. The death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603 left the
English throne with no nearer heir than the Scottish King
James. He, therefore, united the two crowns and became James
I. of England, as well as James VI. of Scotland. His
successors of the dynasty in England were Charles I., before
the Rebellion and Commonwealth, then Charles II., James II.,
Mary (of the joint reign of William and Mary), and Anne. The
Hanoverian line, which succeeded, was derived from the Stuart,
through a daughter of James I.—Elizabeth of Bohemia.
M. Noble,
Historical Genealogy of the House of Stuart.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 15 (volume 1).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1388.
The Battle of Otterburn.
See OTTERBURN.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1390.
Accession of Robert III.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.
Homildon Hill and Shrewsbury.
The captivity of James I.
From 1389 to 1399 there was a truce between England and
Scotland, and the Scotch borderers watched impatiently for the
termination of it, that they might be let loose on the
northern English counties, "like hounds let off the leash. It
was asserted on the part of England, indeed, that they did not
wait for the conclusion. Ten years of peaceful husbandry had
prepared a harvest for them, and they swept it off in the old
way—the English borderers retaliating by an invasion of the
Lowlands. The political aspect again became menacing for
Scotland. The conditions which rendered peace almost a
necessity for England had ceased with a revolution. It was no
longer Richard II., but Henry IV., who reigned; and he began
his reign by a great invasion of Scotland." He marched with a
large army (A. D. 1400) as far as Leith and threatened
Edinburgh Castle, which was stoutly defended by the Scottish
king's son; but the expedition was fruitless of results.
Henry, however, gained the adhesion of the Earl of March, one
of the most powerful of the Scottish nobles, who had received
an unpardonable affront from the Duke of Albany, then regent
of Scotland, and who joined the English against his country in
consequence. In the autumn of 1402 the Scotch retaliated
Henry's invasion by a great plundering expedition under
Douglas, which penetrated as far as Durham. The rievers were
returning, laden with plunder, when they were intercepted by
Hotspur and the traitor March, at Homildon Hill, near Wooler,
and fearfully beaten, a large number of Scotch knights and
lords being killed or taken prisoner. Douglas and others among
the prisoners of this battle were subsequently released by
Hotspur, in defiance of the orders of King Henry, and they
joined him with a considerable force when he raised his
standard of revolt. Sharing the defeat of the rebellious
Percys, Douglas was again taken prisoner at Shrewsbury, A. D.
1403. Two years later the English king gained a more important
captive, in the person of the young heir to the Scottish
throne, subsequently King James I., who was taken at sea while
on a voyage to France. The young prince (who became titular
king of Scotland in 1406, on his father's death) was detained
at the English court nineteen years, treated with friendly
courtesy by Henry IV. and Henry V. and educated with care. He
married Jane Beaufort, niece of Henry IV., and was set free to
return to his kingdom in 1424, prepared by his English
training to introduce in Scotland a better system of
government and more respectful ideas of law. The reforms which
he undertook gave rise to fear and hatred among the lawless
lords of the north, and they rid themselves of a king who
troubled them with too many restraints, by assassinating him,
on the 20th of February, 1436.
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 3, chapters 26-27.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapters 16-18.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1411.
Battle of Harlaw.
Defeat of the Lord of the Isles and the Highland clans.
See HARLAW.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1437-1460.
Reign of James II.
Feuds in the kingdom.
The Douglases.
James II. was crowned (1437) at six years of age. "Sir
Alexander Livingstone became guardian of his person; Sir
William Crichton, Chancellor of his kingdom; and Archibald,
fifth Earl of Douglas, … nephew of the late King, became
Lieutenant-General. The history of the regency is the history
of the perpetual strife of Livingstone and Crichton with each
other and with the Earl of Douglas, who had become 'very
potent in kine and friendis.' His 'kine and friend is' now
spread over vast territories in southern Scotland, including
Galloway and Annandale, and in France he was Lord of
Longueville and possessor of the magnificent duchy of
Touraine. The position the Douglases occupied in being nearly
related to the house of Baliol (now extinct) and to the house
of Comyn placed them perilously near the throne; but there was
a greater peril still, and this lay in the very dearness of
the name of Douglas to Scotland. … To the Queen-mother had
been committed by Parliament the care of her son, but as
Crichton, the Chancellor, seemed disposed to take this charge
upon himself, she determined to outwit him and to fulfil her
duties. Accordingly, saying she was bound on a pilgrimage, she
contrived to pack the boy up in her luggage, and carried him
off to Stirling Castle.
{2851}
He was soon, however, brought back to Edinburgh by those in
power, and then they executed a wicked plot for the
destruction of William, who, in 1439, had, at the age of
sixteen, succeeded his father, Archibald, as Earl of Douglas.
The Earl and his brother … were executed, and for a time it
would appear that the mightiness of the Douglases received a
shock. … The Queen-mother had been early thrust out of the
regency by Livingstone and Crichton. Distrusted because she
was by birth one 'of our auld enemies of England'; separated
from her son; still comparatively young, and needing a strong
protector, she gave her hand to Sir James Stewart, the Black
Knight of Lorn. … After her second marriage she sinks out of
notice, but enough is told to make it apparent that neglect
and suffering accompanied the last years of the winning Jane
Beaufort, who had stolen the heart of the King of Scots at
Windsor Castle. … The long minority of James, and the first
years of his brief reign, were too much occupied in strife
with the Douglases to leave time for good government. … When
there was peace, the King and his Parliament enacted many good
laws. … Although the Wars of the Roses left the English little
time to send armies to Scotland, and although there were no
great hostilities with England, yet during this reign a great
Scottish army threatened England, and a great English army
threatened Scotland. James was on the side of the House of
Lancaster; and 'the only key to the complicated understanding
of the transactions of Scotland during the Wars of the two
Roses is to recollect that the hostilities of James were
directed, not against England, but against the successes of
the House of York.' … Since the Battle of Durham, the frontier
fortress of Roxburgh had been in English hands; and when, in
1460, it was commanded by the great partisan of York, the Earl
of Warwick, James laid siege to it in person. Artillery had
been in use for some time, and years before we hear of the
'cracks of war.' Still many of the guns were novelties, and,
curious to study the strange new machinery of death, 'more
curious than became the majesty of ane King,' James ventured
too near 'ane misframed gun.' It burst, and one of its oaken
wedges striking him, he fell to the ground, and 'died hastlie
thairafter,' being in the thirtieth year of his age. … King
James III., who was eight years old, was crowned at the
Monastery of Kelso in 1460."
M. G. J. Kinloch,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 16.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1460.
Accession of James Ill.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.
Lauder Bridge and Sauchie Burn.
James III., who was an infant at the time of his father's
death, developed a character, as he came to manhood, which the
rude nobles of his court and kingdom could not understand. "He
had a dislike to the active sports of hunting and the games of
chivalry, mounted on horseback rarely, and rode ill. … He was
attached to what are now called the fine arts of architecture
and music; and in studying these used the instructions of
Rogers, an English musician, Cochrane, a mason or architect,
and Torphichen, a dancing-master. Another of his domestic
minions was Hommil, a tailor, not the least important in the
conclave, if we may judge from the variety and extent of the
royal wardrobe, of which a voluminous catalogue is preserved.
Spending his time with such persons, who, whatever their merit
might be in their own several professions, could not be
fitting company for a prince, James necessarily lost the taste
for society of a different description, whose rank imposed on
him a certain degree of restraint. … The nation, therefore,
with disgust and displeasure, saw the king disuse the society
of the Scottish nobles, and abstain from their counsel, to
lavish favours upon and be guided by the advice of a few whom
the age termed base mechanics. In this situation, the public
eye was fixed upon James's younger brothers, Alexander duke of
Albany, and John earl of Mar." The jealousy and suspicion of
the king were presently excited by the popularity of his
brothers and he caused them to be arrested (1478). Mar,
accused of having dealings with witches, was secretly executed
in prison and his earldom was sold to the king's favourite,
Cochrane, who had amassed wealth by a thrifty use of his
influence and opportunities. Albany escaped to France and
thence to England, where he put himself forward as a claimant
of the Scottish throne, securing the support of Edward IV. by
offering to surrender the hard-won independence of the
kingdom. An English army, under Richard of Gloucester
(afterwards King Richard III.) was sent into Scotland to
enforce his claim. The Scotch king assembled his forces and
advanced from Edinburgh as far as Lauder (1482), to meet the
invasion. At Lauder, the nobles, having becoming deeply
exasperated by the arrogant state which the ex-architect
assumed as Earl of Mar, held a meeting which resulted in the
sudden seizure and hanging of all the king's favourites on
Lauder Bridge. "All the favourites of the weak prince perished
except a youth called Ramsay of Balmain, who clung close to
the king's person," and was spared. Peace with Albany and his
English allies was now arranged, on terms which made the duke
lieutenant-general of the kingdom; but it lasted no more than
a year. Albany became obnoxious and fled to England again. The
doings of the king were still hateful to his nobles and people
and a continual provocation of smouldering wrath. In 1488, the
discontent broke out in actual rebellion, and James was easily
defeated in a battle fought at Sauchie Burn, between
Bannockburn and Stirling. Flying from the battlefield, he fell
from his horse and was taken, badly injured, into the house of
a miller near by, where he disclosed his name. "The
consequence was, that some of the rebels who followed the
chase entered the hut and stabbed him to the heart. The
persons of the murderers were never known, nor was the king's
body ever found."
Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 20 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
series 3, chapters 18 and 22.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1488.
Accession of James IV.
{2852}
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502.
The marriage which brought the crown of England
to the Stuarts.
"On the 8th of August 1502 the ceremony of marriage between
King James [IV. of Scotland] and Margaret, Princess of England
[daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII.], was
celebrated in the Chapel of Holyrood. A union of crowns and
governments might be viewed as a possible result of such a
marriage; but there had been others between Scotland and
England whence none followed. It was long ere such a harvest
of peace seemed likely to arise from this union—it seemed,
indeed, to be so buried under events of a contrary tenor that
it was almost forgotten; yet, a hundred and one years later,
it sent the great-grandson of James IV. to be King of
England."
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 30 (volume 3).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502-1504.
The Highlands brought to order.
Suppression of the independent Lordship of the Isles.
"The marriage of James in 1502 with the Princess Margaret,
daughter of Henry VII., helped to prolong the period of
tranquillity. But, in fact, his energetic administration of
justice had, almost from the beginning of his reign, restored
confidence, and re-awakened in his subjects an industrial
activity, that had slumbered since the death of Alexander III.
Everywhere he set his barons the novel task of keeping their
territories in order. The Huntlys in the North, the Argylls in
the West, were made virtual viceroys of the Highlands; the
Douglasses were charged with maintaining the peace of the
Borders; and at length the formidable Lordship of the Isles,
which had been the source of all the Celtic troubles of
Scotland since the days of Somerled, was broken up in 1504,
after a series of fierce revolts, and the claim to an
independent sovereignty abandoned forever. Henceforth the
chieftains of the Hebrides held their lands of the Crown, and
were made responsible for the conduct of their clans."
J. M. Ross,
Scottish History and Literature,
chapter 5, page 177.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.
The Battle of Flodden.
In 1513, while Henry VIII. of England, who had joined the Holy
League against France, was engaged in the latter country,
besieging Terouenne, he received an embassy from James IV.,
king of Scotland, his brother-in-law. "French intrigues, and
the long-standing alliance between the nations, had induced
James to entertain the idea of a breach with England. Causes
of complaint were not wanting. There was a legacy due from
Henry VII.; Sir Robert Ker, the Scotch Warden of the Marches,
had been killed by a Heron of Ford, and the murderer found
refuge in England; Andrew Barton, who, licensed with letters
of marque against the Portuguese in revenge for the death of
his father, had extended his reprisals to general piracy, had
been captured and slain by Lord Thomas and Sir Edward Howard,
and the Scotch King demanded justice for the death of his
captain. To these questions, which had been long unsettled, an
answer was now imperiously demanded. Henry replied with scorn,
and the Scotch King declared war. The safety of England had
been intrusted to the Earl of Surrey, who, when James crossed
the border, was lying at Pontefract. Without delay, he pushed
forward northward, and, challenging James to meet him on the
Friday next following, came up with him when strongly posted
on the hill of Flodden, with one flank covered by the river
Till, the other by an impassable morass, and his front
rendered impregnable by the massing of his artillery. Ashamed,
after his challenge, to avoid the combat, Surrey moved
suddenly northward, as though bound for Scotland, but soon
marching round to the left, he crossed the Till near its
junction with the Tweed, and thus turned James's position. The
Scots were thus compelled to fight [September 9, 1513]. On the
English right, the sons of Surrey with difficulty held their
own. In the centre, where Surrey himself was assaulted by the
Scotch King and his choicest troops, the battle inclined
against the English; but upon the English left the Highlanders
were swept away by the archers, and Stanley, who had the
command in that wing, fell on the rear of the successful
Scotch centre, and determined the fortune of the day. The
slaughter of the Scotch was enormous, and among the number of
the slain was James himself, with all his chief nobility."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
volume 2, pages 370-372.
"There lay slain on the fatal field of Flodden twelve Scottish
earls, thirteen lords, and five eldest sons of peers—fifty
chiefs, knights, and men of eminence, and about 10,000 common
men. Scotland had sustained defeats in which the loss had been
numerically greater, but never one in which the number of the
nobles slain bore such a proportion to those of the inferior
rank. The cause was partly the unusual obstinacy of the long
defence, partly that when the common people began … to desert
their standards, the nobility and gentry were deterred by
shame and a sense of honour from following their example."
Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 21 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 6.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.
Accession of James V.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.
The disaster at Solway-frith.
James V. of Scotland, who was the nephew of Henry VIII. of
England—the son of Henry's sister, Margaret Tudor—gave offense
to his proud and powerful uncle (A. D. 1541) by excusing
himself from a meeting which had been arranged to take place
between the two kings, and for which Henry had taken the
trouble to travel to York. It was the eager wish of the
English king to persuade his royal nephew to take possession
of the property of the monasteries of Scotland, in imitation
of his own example. The appointed meeting was for the further
urging of these proposals, more especially, and it had been
frustrated through the influence of the Catholic clergy with
young King James,—very much to the disgust of many among the
Scottish nobles, as well as to the wrath of King Henry. Whence
came results that were unexpectedly sad. Henry determined to
avenge himself for the slight that had been put upon him, and,
having made his preparations for war, he issued a manifesto,
alleging various injuries which gave color to his declaration
of hostilities. "He even revived the old claim to the
vassalage of Scotland, and he summoned James to do homage to
him as his liege lord and superior. He employed the Duke of
Norfolk, whom he called the scourge of the Scots, to command
in the war." After some preliminary raiding expeditions, the
Duke of Norfolk advanced to the border with 20,000 men, or
more. "James had assembled his whole military force at Fala
and Sautrey, and was ready to advance as soon as he should be
informed of Norfolk's invading his kingdom. The English passed
the Tweed at Berwick, and marched along the banks of the river
as far as Kelso; but hearing that James had collected near
30,000 men, they repassed the river at that village, and
retreated into their own country. The King of Scots, inflamed
with a desire of military glory, and of revenge on his
invaders, gave the signal for pursuing them, and carrying the
war into England.
{2853}
He was surprised to find that his nobility, who were in
general disaffected on account of the preference which he had
given to the clergy, opposed this resolution, and refused to
attend him in his projected enterprise. Enraged at this
mutiny, he reproached them with cowardice, and threatened
vengeance; but still resolved, with the forces which adhered
to him, to make an impression on the enemy. He sent 10,000 men
to the western borders, who entered England at Solway-frith
[or Solway Moss]; and he himself followed them at a small
distance, ready to join them upon occasion." At the same time,
he took the command of his little army away from Lord Maxwell,
and conferred it on one of his favorites, Oliver Sinclair.
"The army was extremely disgusted with this alteration, and
was ready to disband; when a small body of English appeared,
not exceeding 500 men, under the command of Dacres and
Musgrave. A panic seized the Scots, who immediately took to
flight, and were pursued by the enemy. Few were killed in this
rout, for it was no action; but a great many were taken
prisoners, and some of the principal nobility." The effect of
this shameful disaster upon the mind of James was so
overwhelming that he took to his bed and died in a few days.
While he lay upon his deathbed, his queen gave birth to a
daughter, who inherited his crown, and who played in
subsequent history the unfortunate role of Mary, Queen of
Scots."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 33.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 33.
W. Robertson,
History of Scotland,
book 1.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.
Accession of Queen Mary.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
The English Wooing of Queen Mary.
Immediately on the death of James V., Henry VIII. of England
began a most resolute undertaking to secure the hand of the
infant queen Mary for his own infant son. Scotland, however,
was averse to the union, and resisted all the influences which
the English king could bring to bear. Enraged by his failure,
Henry despatched the Earl of Hertford, in May 1544, with a
military and naval force, commissioned to do the utmost
destructive work in its power, without attempting permanent
conquest, for which it was not adequate. The expedition landed
at Newhaven and seized the town of Leith, before Cardinal
Beaton or Beatoun, then governing Scotland in the name of the
Regent, the Earl of Arran, had learned of its approach. "The
Cardinal immediately deserted the capital and fled in the
greatest dismay to Stirling. The Earl of Hertford demanded the
unconditional surrender of the infant Queen, and being
informed that the Scottish capital and nation would suffer
every disaster before they would submit to his ignominious
terms, he marched immediately with his whole forces upon
Edinburgh. … The English army entered by the Water-gate
without opposition, and assaulted the Nether Bow Port, and
beat it open on the second day, with a terrible slaughter of
the citizens. They immediately attempted to lay siege to the
Castle. … Baffled in their attempts on the fortress, they
immediately proceeded to wreak their vengeance on the city.
They set it on fire in numerous quarters, and continued the
work of devastation and plunder till compelled to abandon it
by the smoke and flames, as well as the continual firing from
the Castle. They renewed the work of destruction on the
following day; and for three successive days they returned
with unabated fury to the smoking ruins, till they had
completely effected their purpose. The Earl of Hertford then
proceeded to lay waste the surrounding country with fire and
sword. … This disastrous event forms an important era in the
history of Edinburgh; if we except a portion of the Castle,
the churches, and the north-west wing of Holyrood Palace, no
building anterior to this date now exists in Edinburgh. … The
death of Henry VIII. in 1547 tended to accelerate the renewal
of his project for enforcing the union of the neighbouring
kingdoms, by the marriage of his son with the Scottish Queen.
Henry, on his deathbed, urged the prosecution of the war with
Scotland; and the councillors of the young King Edward VI.
lost no time in completing their arrangements for the purpose.
… In the beginning of September, the Earl of Hertford, now
Duke of Somerset, and Lord Protector of England, during the
minority of his nephew Edward VI., again entered Scotland at
the head of a numerous army; while a fleet of about 60 sail
co-operated with him, by a descent on the Scottish coast. At
his advance, he found the Scottish army assembled in great
force to oppose him. … After skirmishing for several days with
various success in the neighbourhood of Prestonpans, where the
English army was encamped,—a scene long afterwards made
memorable by the brief triumph of Mary's hapless descendant,
Charles Stuart,—the two armies at length came to a decisive
engagement on Saturday the 10th of September 1547, long after
known by the name of 'Black Saturday.' The field of Pinkie,
the scene of this fatal contest, lies about six miles distant
from Edinburgh. … The Scots were at first victorious, and
succeeded in driving back the enemy, and carrying off the
royal standard of England; but being almost destitute of
cavalry … they were driven from the field, after a dreadful
slaughter, with the loss of many of their nobles and leaders,
both slain and taken prisoners." Notwithstanding their severe
defeat, the Scots were still stubbornly resolved that their
young queen should not be won by such savage wooing; and the
English returned home, after burning Leith and desolating the
coast country once more. Next year the royal maid of Scotland,
then six years old, was betrothed to the dauphin of France and
sent to the French court to be reared. So the English scheme
of marriage was frustrated in a decisive way. Meantime, the
Scots were reinforced by 8,000 French and 1,000 Dutch troops,
and expelled the English from most of the places they held in
the country.
D. Wilson,
Memorials of Edinburgh,
part 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 3, chapters 1-2.
J. A. Froude,
History of England,
chapter 22 (volume 4) and chapters 24-25 (volume 5).
{2854}
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.
The murder of Cardinal Beatoun.
Cardinal Beatoun [who had acquired practical control of the
government, although the Earl of Arran was nominally Regent]
had not used his power with moderation, equal to the prudence
by which he attained it. Notwithstanding his great abilities,
he had too many of the passions and prejudices of an angry
leader of a faction, to govern a divided people with temper.
His resentment against one party of the nobility, his
insolence towards the rest, his severity to the reformers,
and, above all, the barbarous and illegal execution of the
famous George Wishart, a man of honourable birth and of
primitive sanctity, wore out the patience of a fierce age; and
nothing but a bold hand was wanting to gratify the public wish
by his destruction. Private revenge, inflamed and sanctified
by a false zeal for religion, quickly supplied this want.
Norman Lesly, the eldest son of the earl of Rothes, had been
treated by the cardinal with injustice and contempt. It was
not the temper of the man, or the spirit of the times, quietly
to digest an affront. … The cardinal, at that time, resided in
the castle of St. Andrew's, which he had fortified at great
expense, and, in the opinion of the age, had rendered it
impregnable. His retinue was numerous, the town at his
devotion, and the neighbouring country full of his dependents.
In this situation, sixteen persons undertook to surprise his
castle, and to assassinate himself; and their success was
equal to the boldness of the attempt. … His death was fatal to
the catholic religion, and to the French interest in Scotland.
The same zeal for both continued among a great party in the
nation, but when deprived of the genius and authority of so
skilful a leader, operated with less effect." The sixteen
conspirators, having full possession of the castle of St.
Andrew's, were soon joined by friends and sympathizers—John
Knox being one of the party—until 150 men were within the
walls. They stood a siege for five months and only surrendered
to a force sent over by the king of France, on being promised
their lives. They were sent as prisoners to France, and the
castle of St. Andrew's was demolished.
W. Robertson,
History of Scotland,
book 2 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 3, chapters 1-2.
T. M'Crie,
Life of John Knox,
period 2.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557.
The birth of the Protestant Reformation.
In Scotland, the kings of the house of Stuart "obtained a
decisive influence over the appointment to the high dignities
in the Church, but this proved advantageous neither to the
Church nor, at last, to themselves. … The French abuses came
into vogue here also: ecclesiastical benefices fell to the
dependents of the court, to the younger sons of leading
houses, often to their bastards: they were given or sold 'in
commendam,' and then served only for pleasure and gain: the
Scotch Church fell into an exceedingly scandalous and corrupt
state. It was not so much disputed questions of doctrine as in
Germany, nor again the attempt to keep out Papal influence as
in England, but mainly aversion to the moral corruption of the
spirituality which gave the first impulse to the efforts at
reformation in Scotland. We find Lollard societies among the
Scots much later than in England: their tendencies spread
through wide circles, owing to the anti-clerical spirit of the
century, and received fresh support from the doctrinal
writings that came over from Germany. But the Scotch clergy
was resolved to defend itself with all its might. … It
persecuted all with equal severity as tending to injure the
stability of holy Church, and awarded the most extreme
penalties. To put suspected heretics to death by fire was the
order of the day; happy the man who escaped the unrelenting
persecution by flight, which was only possible amid great
peril. These two causes, an undeniably corrupt condition, and
relentless punishment of those who blamed it as it well
deserved, gave the Reform movement in Scotland, which was
repressed but not stifled, a peculiar character of
exasperation and thirst for vengeance. Nor was it without a
political bearing, in Scotland as elsewhere. In particular,
Henry VIII. proposed to his nephew, King James V., to remodel
the Church after his example: and a part of the nobility,
which was already favourably disposed towards England, would
have gladly seen this done. But James preferred the French
pattern to the English: he was kept firm in his Catholic and
French sympathies by his wife, Mary of Guise, and by the
energetic Archbishop Beaton. Hence he became involved in the
war with England in which he fell, and after this it
occasionally seemed, especially at the time of the invasions
by the Duke of Somerset, as if the English, and in connexion
with them the Protestant, sympathies would gain the
ascendancy. But national feelings were still stronger than the
religious. Exactly because England defended and recommended
the religious change it failed to make way in Scotland. Under
the regency of the Queen dowager, with some passing
fluctuations, the clerical interests on the whole kept the
upper hand. … It is remarkable how under these unfavourable
circumstances the foundation of the Scotch Church was laid.
Most of the Scots who had fled from the country were content
to provide for their subsistence in a foreign land and improve
their own culture. But there was one among them who did not
reconcile himself for one moment to this fate. John Knox was
the first who formed a Protestant congregation in the besieged
fortress of S. Andrew's; when the French took the place in
1547 he was made prisoner and condemned to serve in the
galleys. … After he was released, he took a zealous share in
the labours of the English Reformers under Edward VI., but
was not altogether content with the result; after the King's
death he had to fly to the continent. He went to Geneva, where
he became a student once more and tried to fill up the gaps in
his studies, but above all he imbibed, or confirmed his
knowledge of, the views which prevailed in that Church. … A
transient relaxation of ecclesiastical control in Scotland
made it possible for him to return thither … towards the end
of 1555: without delay he set his hand to form a church-union,
according to his ideas of religious independence, which was
not to be again destroyed by any state power. … Sometimes in
one and sometimes in another of the places of refuge which he

found, he administered the Communion to little congregations
according to the Reformed rite; this was done with greater
solemnity at Easter 1556, in the house of Lord Erskine of Dun,
one of those Scottish noblemen who had ever promoted literary
studies and the religious movement as far as lay in his power.
A number of people of consequence from the Mearns (Mearnshire)
were present. But they were not content with partaking the
Communion; following the mind of their preacher they pledged
themselves to avoid every other religious community, and to
uphold with all their power the preaching of the Gospel. In
this union we may see the origin of the Scotch Church,
properly so called. …
{2855}
At Erskine's house met together also Lord Lorn, afterwards
Earl of Argyle, and the Prior of S. Andrew's, subsequently
Earl of Murray; in December 1557 Erskine, Lorn, Murray,
Glencairn (also a friend of Knox), and Morton, united in a
solemn engagement, to support God's word and defend his
congregation against every evil and tyrannical power even unto
death. When, in spite of this, another execution took place
which excited universal aversion, they proceeded to an express
declaration, that they would not suffer any man to be punished
for transgressing a clerical law based on human ordinances.
What the influence of England had not been able to effect was
now produced by antipathy to France. The opinion prevailed
that the King of France wished to add Scotland to his
territories, and that the Regent gave him aid thereto. When
she gathered the feudal army on the borders in 1557 (for the
Scots had refused to contribute towards enlisting mercenaries)
to invade England according to an understanding with the
French, the barons held a consultation on the Tweed, in
consequence of which they refused their co-operation for this
purpose. … It was this quarrel of the Regent with the great
men of the country that gave an opportunity to the lords who
were combined for the support of religion to advance with
increasing resolution."
L. Von Ranke,
History of England principally in the 17th Century,
book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
T. M'Crie,
Life of John Knox,
period 1-6.
G. Stuart,
History of the Establishment of the
Reformation of Religion in Scotland,
books 1-2.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557.
The First Covenant and the Lords of the Congregation.
In 1556 John Knox withdrew from Scotland and returned to
Geneva—whether through fear of increasing dangers, or for
other reasons, is a question in dispute. The following year he
was solicited to come back to the Scottish field of labor, by
those nobles who favored the reformation, and he gave up his
Genevan congregation for the purpose of obeying their summons.
"In the beginning of October he proceeded to Dieppe; but while
he waited there for a vessel to convey him to Scotland, he
received other letters which dashed all his hopes, by
counselling him to remain where he was. The Reformers had
suddenly changed their minds. … Sitting down in his lodging at
Dieppe, Knox wrote a letter to the lords whose faith had
failed, after inviting him to come to their help. … With it he
despatched another addressed to the whole nobility of
Scotland, and others to particular friends. … The letters of
Knox had an immediate and powerful effect in stimulating the
decaying zeal of the Reforming nobles. Like a fire stirred up
just when ready to die out among its own ashes, it now burned
more brightly than ever. Meeting at Edinburgh in the month of
December, they drew up a bond which knit them into one body,
pledged them to a definite line of conduct and gave
consistency and shape to their plans. They had separated from
the Roman communion; they now formed themselves into an
opposing phalanx. This document is known in our Church history
as the first Covenant, and is so important that we give it
entire:
'We, perceiving how Satan, in his members, the anti-christs of
our time, cruelly do rage, seeking to overthrow and destroy
the gospel of Christ and His congregation, ought, according to
our bounden duty, to strive in our Master's cause, even unto
the death, being certain of the victory in Him. The which our
duty being well considered, we do promise before the Majesty
of God and His congregation, that we, by His grace, shall,
with all diligence, continually apply our whole power,
substance, and our very lives, to maintain, set forward, and
establish the most blessed Word of God and His congregation;
and shall labour, at our possibility, to have faithful
ministers, truly and purely to administer Christ's gospel and
sacraments to His people. We shall maintain them, nourish
them, and defend them, the whole congregation of Christ, and
every member thereof, at our whole powers and waging of our
lives, against Satan and all wicked power that doth intend
tyranny or trouble against the foresaid congregation. Unto the
which holy word and congregation we do join us, and so do
forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan, with all the
superstitious abomination and idolatry thereof; and, moreover,
shall declare ourselves manifestly enemies thereto, by this
our faithful promise before God, testified to His congregation
by our subscription to these presents, at Edinburgh, the 3rd
day of December 1557 years. God called to witness—A., Earl of
Argyle, Glencairn, Morton, Archibald, Lord of Lorn, John
Erskine of Dun,' &c.
From the time that the Reformers had resolved to refrain from
being present at mass, they had been in the habit of meeting
among themselves for the purpose of worship. … Elders and
deacons were chosen to superintend the affairs of these infant
communities. Edinburgh has the honour of having given the
example, and the names of her first five elders are still
preserved. The existence of these small Protestant
'congregations,' scattered over the country, probably led the
lords to employ the word so frequently in their bond, and this
again led to their being called the Lords of the Congregation.
It was a bold document to which they had thus put their names.
It was throwing down the gauntlet to all the powers of the
existing Church and State."
J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
John Knox,
History of the Reformation in Scotland
(Works, volume 1), book 1.
D. Calderwood,
History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1557
(volume 1).
T. M'Crie,
Life of John Knox,
periods 5-6.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558.
Marriage of Mary Stuart to the Dauphin of France.
Contemplated union of Crowns.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation.
The Geneva Confession adopted.
"In 1558 the burning of an old preacher, Walter Mill, at St.
Andrew's, aroused the Lords of the Congregation, as the
signers of the Covenant now called themselves. They presented
their demands to the regent [the queen-dowager, Mary of
Guise], and some time was spent in useless discussion. But the
hands of the Reformers were strengthened by Elizabeth's
accession in England, and on May 2, 1559, the leading spirit
of the Scottish Reformation, John Knox, returned to Scotland.
… Knox's influence was soon felt in the course of affairs. In
May, 1559, the regent, stirred to action by the Cardinal of
Lorraine, summoned the reformed clergy to Stirling. They came,
but surrounded by so many followers, that the regent was
afraid, and promised that, if they would disperse, she would
proceed no further. They agreed; but scarcely were they gone
before Mary caused the preachers to be tried and condemned in
their absence.
{2856}
Knox's anger broke out in a fierce sermon against idolatry,
preached at Perth. The people of the town rose and destroyed
the images in the churches, and tore down all architectural
ornaments which contained sculpture. The example of Perth was
followed elsewhere, and the churches of Scotland were soon
robbed of their old beauty. From this time we must date the
decay of the fine ecclesiastical buildings of Scotland, whose
ruins still bear witness to their former splendour. … The
Lords of the Congregation were now in open rebellion against
the regent, and war was on the point of breaking out. It was,
however, averted for a time by the mediation of a few moderate
men, amongst whom was Lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son
of the late king, known in later history as the Earl of
Murray. Both parties agreed to lay down their arms, and submit
their disputes to a meeting of the Estates of the Realm, while
the regent promised not to molest the people of Perth, or
garrison the town with French soldiers. She kept the letter
only of her promise; for she hired native troops with French
money, and proceeded to punish the people of Perth. This
perfidy gave strength to the Congregation. They again took up
arms, seized Edinburgh, summoned a parliament, and deposed the
regent (October, 1559). This was a bold step; but without help
from England it could not be maintained. As the regent was
strong in French troops, the Congregation must ally with
England. Elizabeth wished to help them; but her course was by
no means clear. To ally with rebels fighting against their
lawful sovereign was a bad example for one in Elizabeth's
position to set. … At last, in January, 1560, a treaty was
made at Berwick, between Elizabeth and the Duke of
Chatelherault [better known as the Earl of Arran, who had
resigned the regency of Scotland in favor of Mary of Guise,
and received from the French king the duchy of Chatelherault],
the second person in the Scottish realm. Elizabeth undertook
to aid the Scottish lords in expelling the French, but would
only aid them so long as they acknowledged their queen. And
now a strange change had come over Scotland. The Scots were
fighting side by side with the English against their old
allies the French. Already their religious feelings had
overcome their old national animosities; or, rather, religion
itself had become a powerful element in their national spirit.
… But meanwhile affairs in France took a direction favourable
to the Reformers. … The French troops were needed at home, and
could no longer be spared for Scotland. The withdrawal of the
French made peace necessary in Scotland, and by the treaty of
Edinburgh (July, 1560), it was provided that henceforth no
foreigners should be employed in Scotland without the consent
of the Estates of the Realm. Elizabeth's policy was rewarded
by a condition that Mary and Francis II. should acknowledge
her queen of England, lay aside their own pretensions, and no
longer wear the British arms. Before the treaty was signed the
queen-regent died (June 20), and with her the power of France
and the Guises in Scotland was gone for the present. The
Congregation was now triumphant, and the work of Reformation
was quickly carried on. A meeting of the Estates approved of
the Geneva Confession of Faith, abjured the authority of the
Pope, and forbade the administration, or presence at the
administration, of the mass, on pain of death for the third
offence (August 25, 1560). … The plans of the Guises were no
longer to be carried on in Scotland and Eng]and by armed
interference, but by the political craft and cunning of their
niece, Mary of Scotland [now widowed by the death, December 4,
1560, of her husband, the young French king, Francis II.], who
had been trained under their influence."
M. Creighton,
The Age of Elizabeth,
book 2, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. A. Froude,
History of England,
volume 7, chapters 2-3.
J. Knox,
History of the Reformation in Scotland,
book 2 (Works, volume 1).
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapters 37-38 (volume 4).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
The reign of Mary.
Differing views of her conduct and character.
In August, 1561, Queen Mary returned from her long residence
in France, to undertake the government of a country of which
she was the acknowledged sovereign, but of which she knew
almost nothing. "She was now a widow, so the Scots were freed
from the fear they had felt of seeing their country sink into
a province of France. The people, who had an almost
superstitious reverence for kingship, which was very
inconsistent with their contempt for kingly authority,
welcomed her with open arms. … They had yet to find out that
she had come back to them French in all but birth, gifted with
wit, intellect, and beauty, but subtle beyond their power of
searching, and quite as zealous for the old form of religion
as they were for the new one. The Queen, too, who came thus as
a stranger among her own people, had to deal with a state of
things unknown in former reigns. Hitherto the Church had taken
the side of the Crown against the nobles; now both [the
Reformed Church and the Lords of the Congregation] were united
against the Crown, whose only hope lay in the quarrels between
these ill-matched allies. The chief cause of discord between
them was the property of the Church. The Reformed ministers
fancied that they had succeeded, not only to the Pope's right
of dictation in all matters, public and private, but to the
lands of the Church as well. To neither of these claims would
the Lords agree. They were as little inclined to submit to the
tyranny of presbyters as to the tyranny of the Pope. They
withstood the ministers who wished to forbid the Queen and her
attendants hearing mass in her private chapel, and they
refused to accept as law the First, Book of Discipline, a code
of rules drawn up by the ministers for the guidance of the new
Church. As to the land, much of it had already passed into the
hands of laymen, who, with the lands, generally bore the title
of the Church dignitary who had formerly held them. The Privy
Council took one-third of what remained to pay the stipends of
the ministers, while the rest was supposed to remain in the
hands of the Churchmen in possession, and, as they died out,
it was to fall in to the Crown. Lord James Stewart, Prior of
St. Andrews, whom the Queen created Earl of Murray, was the
hope of the Protestants, but in the north the Romanists were
still numerous and strong. Their head was the Earl of Huntly,
chief of the Gordons, who reigned supreme over most of the
north." One of the first proceedings of the Queen was to join
the Earl of Murray in hostilities which pursued the Earl of
Huntly and his son to their death.
{2857}
And yet they were the main pillars of the Church which she was
determined to restore! "The most interesting question now for
all parties was, whom the Queen would marry. Many foreign
princes were talked of, and Elizabeth suggested her own
favourite, the Earl of Leicester, but Mary settled the matter
herself by falling in love with her own cousin, Henry Stewart,
Lord Darnley." Murray opposed the marriage with bitterness,
and took up arms against it, but failed of support and fled to
England. The wretched consequences of Mary's union with the
handsome but worthless Darnley are among the tragedies of
history which all the world is acquainted with. She tired of
him, and inflamed his jealousy, with that of all her court, by
making a favorite of her Italian secretary, David Rizzio.
Rizzio was brutally murdered, in her presence, March 9, 1566,
by a band of conspirators, to whom Darnley had pledged his
protection. The Queen dissembled her resentment until she had
power to make it effective, flying from Edinburgh to Dunbar,
meantime. When, within a month, she returned to the capital,
it was with a strong force, brought to her support by James
Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. The murderers of Rizzio were
outlawed, and Darnley, while recovering from an attack of
smallpox, was killed (February 9, 1567) by the blowing up of a
house, outside of Edinburgh, in which the Queen had placed
him. "It was commonly believed that Bothwell was guilty of the
murder, and it was suspected that he had done it to please the
Queen and with her consent. This suspicion was strengthened by
her conduct. She made no effort to find out the murderer and
to bring him to punishment, and on the day of the funeral she
gave Bothwell the feudal superiority over the town of Leith."
In May, three months after Darnley's death, she married the
Earl of Bothwell,—who had freed himself from an earlier tie by
hasty divorce. This shameless conduct caused a rising of the
barons, who occupied Edinburgh in force. Bothwell attempted to
oppose them with an army; but there was no battle. The Queen
surrendered herself, at Carberry, June 15, 1567; Bothwell
escaped, first to Orkney, and then to Denmark, where he died
about ten years later. "Just a month after her third marriage
the Queen was brought back to Edinburgh, to be greeted by the
railings of the mob, who now openly accused her as a
murderess. … From Edinburgh she was taken to a lonely castle
built on a small island in the centre of Loch Leven. A few
days later a casket containing eight letters was produced.
These letters, it was said, Bothwell had left behind him in
his flight, and they seemed to have been written by Mary to
him while Darnley was ill in Glasgow. If she really wrote
them, they proved very plainly that she had planned the murder
with Bothwell. They are called the 'casket letters,' from the
box or casket in which they were found. The confederate barons
acted as if they were really hers. The Lord Lindsay and Robert
Melville were sent to her at Loch Leven, and she there signed
the demission of the government to her son, and desired that
Murray should be the first regent." The infant king, James
VI., was crowned at Stirling; and Murray, recalled from
France, became regent. Within a year Mary escaped from her
prison, reasserted her right of sovereignty, and was supported
by a considerable party. Defeated in a battle fought at
Langside, May 13, 1568, she then fled to England, and received
from Elizabeth the hospitality of a prison. She was confined
in various castles and manor-houses, ending her life, after
many removes, at Fotheringay, where she was executed February
8, 1587.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.
M. Macarthur,
History of Scotland,
chapter 6.
"In spite of all the prurient suggestions of writers who have
fastened on the story of Mary's life as on a savoury morsel,
there is no reason whatever for thinking that she was a woman
of licentious disposition, and there is strong evidence to the
contrary. There was never anything to her discredit in France.
… The charge of adultery with Rizzio is dismissed as unworthy
of belief even by Mr. Froude, the severest of her judges.
Bothwell indeed she loved, and, like many another woman who
does not deserve to be called licentious, she sacrificed her
reputation to the man she loved. But the most conclusive proof
that she was no slave to appetite is afforded by her nineteen
years' residence in England, which began when she was only
twenty-five. During almost the whole of that time she was
mixing freely in the society of the other sex, with the
fullest opportunity for misconduct had she been so inclined.
It is not to be supposed that she was fettered by any scruples
of religion or morality. Yet no charge of unchastity is made
against her. … That Darnley was murdered by Bothwell is not
disputed. That Mary was cognisant of the plot and lured him to
the shambles, has been doubted by few investigators at once
competent and unbiased. She lent herself to this part not
without compunction. Bothwell had the advantage over her that
the loved has over the lover; and he used it mercilessly for
his headlong ambition, hardly taking the trouble to pretend
that he cared for the unhappy woman who was sacrificing
everything for him. He in fact cared more for his lawful wife,
whom he was preparing to divorce, and to whom he had been
married only six months. … What brought sudden and
irretrievable ruin on Mary was not the murder of Darnley, but
the infatuation which made her the passive instrument of
Bothwell's presumptuous ambition."
E. S. Beesly,
Queen Elizabeth,
chapter 4.
"Constitutionally, Mary was not a person likely to come under
the sway of a violent and absorbing passion. Her whole nature
was masculine in its moderation, its firmness, its
magnanimity. She was tolerant, uncapricious, capable of
carrying out a purpose steadily, yet with tact and policy. She
was never hysterical, never fanciful. With her, love was not
an engrossing occupation; on the contrary, to Mary, as to most
men, it was but the child and plaything of unfrequent leisure.
Her lovers went mad about her, but she never went mad about
her lovers. She sent Chatelar to the scaffold. She saw Sir
John Gordon beheaded. She admitted Rizzio to a close intimacy.
Rizzio was her intellectual mate, the depository of her state
secrets, her politic guide and confidant: but the very
notoriety of her intercourse with him showed how innocent and
unsexual it was in its nature,—the frank companionship of
friendly statesmen.
{2858}
Had she been Rizzio's mistress, nay, even had love in the
abstract been a more important matter to her than it was, she
would have been more cautious and discreet; however important
the public business which they were transacting might have
been, she would hardly have kept the Italian secretary in her
boudoir half the night. Her marriage with Darnley was not
exclusively a love-match: it was a marriage to which her
judgment, as well as her heart, consented. Her love-letters
abound in pretty trifles: her business letters are clear,
strong, rapid, brilliantly direct. By the fantastic irony of
fate this masculine unsentimental career has been translated
into an effeminate love-story,—the truth being, as I have had
to say again and again, that no woman ever lived to whom love
was less of a necessity. This was the strength of Mary's
character as a queen—as a woman, its defect. A love-sick girl,
when her castle in the air was shattered, might have come to
hate Darnley with a feverish feminine hatred; but the sedate
and politic intelligence of the Queen could only have been
incidentally affected by such considerations. She knew that,
even at the worst, Darnley was a useful ally, and the motives
which induced her to marry him must have restrained her from
putting him forcibly away. Yet when the deed was done, it is
not surprising that she should have acquiesced in the action
of the nobility. Bothwell, again, was in her estimation a
loyal retainer, a trusted adviser of the Crown; but he was
nothing more. Yet it need not surprise us that after her
forcible detention at Dunbar, she should have resolved to
submit with a good grace to the inevitable. Saving Argyle and
Huntley, Bothwell was the most powerful of her peers. He was
essentially a strong man; fit, it seemed, to rule that
turbulent nobility. He had been recommended to her acceptance
by the unanimous voice of the aristocracy, Protestant and
Catholic. … On a woman of ardent sentimentality these
considerations would have had little effect: they were exactly
the considerations which would appeal to Mary's masculine
common-sense. Yet, though she made what seemed to her the best
of a bad business, she was very wretched."
J. Skelton,
Essays in History and Biography,
pages 40-41.
"To establish the genuineness of the Casket Letters is
necessarily to establish that Mary was a co-conspirator with
Bothwell in the murder of her husband. … The expressions in
the letters are not consistent with an innocent purpose, or
with the theory that she brought Darnley to Edinburgh in order
to facilitate the obtaining of a divorce. Apart even from
other corroborative evidence, the evidence of the letters, if
their genuineness be admitted, is sufficient to establish her
guilt. Inasmuch, however, as her entire innocence is not
consistent with other evidence, it can scarcely be affirmed
that the problem of the genuineness of the letters has an
absolutely vital bearing on the character of Mary. Mr.
Skelton, who does not admit the genuineness of the letters,
and who may be reckoned one of the most distinguished and
ingenious defenders of Mary in this country, has taken no
pains to conceal his contempt for what he terms the 'theory of
the ecclesiastics'—that Mary, during the whole progress of the
plot against Darnley's life, was 'innocent as a child,
immaculate as a saint.' He is unable to adopt a more friendly
attitude towards her than that of an apologizer, and is
compelled to attempt the assumption of a middle position—that
she was neither wholly innocent nor wholly guilty; that,
ignorant of the details and method of the plot, she only
vaguely guessed that it was in progress, and failed merely in
firmly and promptly forbidding its execution. But in a case of
murder a middle position—a position of even partial
indifference—is, except in very peculiar circumstances,
well-nigh impossible; in the case of a wife's attitude to the
murder of her husband, the limit of impossibility is still
more nearly approached; but when the wife possesses such
exceptional courage, fertility of resource, and strength of
will as were possessed by Mary, the impossibility may be
regarded as absolute. Besides, as a matter of fact, Mary was
not indifferent in the matter. She had long regarded her
husband's conduct with antipathy and indignation; she did not
conceal her eager desire to be delivered from the yoke of
marriage to him; and she had abundant reasons, many of which
were justifiable, for this desire. … The fatal weakness … of
all such arguments as are used to establish either Mary's
absolute or partial innocence of the murder is, that they do
not harmonize with the leading traits of her disposition. She
was possessed of altogether exceptional decision and force of
will; she was remarkably wary and acute; and she was a match
for almost any of her contemporaries in the art of diplomacy.
She was not one to be concussed into a course of action to
which she had any strong aversion."
T. F. Henderson,
The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots,
chapter 1.
"The beauties of her person, and graces of her air, combined
to make her the most amiable of women; and the charms of her
address and conversation aided the impression which her lovely
figure made on the hearts of all beholders. Ambitious and
active in her temper, yet inclined to cheerfulness and
society; of a lofty spirit, constant and even vehement in her
purpose, yet polite, and gentle, and affable in her demeanour;
she seemed to partake only so much of the male virtues as to
render her estimable, without relinquishing those soft graces
which compose the proper ornament of her sex. In order to form
a just idea of her character, we must set aside one part of
her conduct, while she abandoned herself to the guidance of a
profligate man; and must consider these faults, whether we
admit them to be imprudences or crimes, as the result of an
inexplicable, though not uncommon, inconstancy in the human
mind, of the frailty of our nature, of the violence of
passion, and of the influence which situations, and sometimes
momentary incidents, have on persons whose principles are not
thoroughly confirmed by experience and reflection. Enraged by
the ungrateful conduct of her husband, seduced by the
treacherous counsels of one in whom she reposed confidence,
transported by the violence of her own temper, which never lay
sufficiently under the guidance of discretion, she was
betrayed into actions which may with some difficulty be
accounted for, but which admit of no apology, nor even of
alleviation. An enumeration of her qualities might carry the
appearance of a panegyric: an account of her conduct must in
some parts wear the aspect of severe satire and invective. Her
numerous misfortunes, the solitude of her long and tedious
captivity, and the persecutions to which she had been exposed
on account of her religion, had wrought her up to a degree of
bigotry during her later years; and such were the prevalent
spirit and principles of the age, that it is the less wonder
if her zeal, her resentment, and her interest uniting, induced
her to give consent to a design which conspirators, actuated
only by the first of these motives, had formed against the
life of Elizabeth."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 42 (volume 4).
{2859}
"More books have been written about Mary Stuart than exist as
to all the Queens in the world; yet, so greatly do those
biographies vary in their representations of her character,
that at first it seems scarcely credible how any person could
be so differently described. The triumph of a creed or party
has unhappily been more considered than the development of
facts, or those principles of moral justice which ought to
animate the pen of the Historian; and, after all the literary
gladiatorship that has been practised in this arena for some
three hundred years, the guilt or innocence of Mary Queen of
Scots is still under consideration, for party feeling and
sectarian hate have not yet exhausted their malice. … If the
opinions of Mary Stuart's own sex were allowed to decide the
question at issue, a verdict of not guilty would have been
pronounced by an overwhelming majority of all readers,
irrespective of creed or party. Is, then, the moral standard
erected by women for one another, lower than that which is
required of them by men? Are they less acute in their
perceptions of right and wrong, or more disposed to tolerate
frailties? The contrary has generally been proved. With the
exception of Queen Elizabeth, Catharine de Medicis, Lady
Shrewsbury, and Margaret Erskine (Lady Douglas), of infamous
memory, Mary Stuart had no female enemies worthy of notice. It
is a remarkable fact that English gold could not purchase
witnesses from the female portion of the household of the
Queen of Scots. None of the ladies of the Court, whether
Protestant or Catholic, imputed crime at any time to their
mistress. In the days of her Royal splendour in France Queen
Mary was attended by ladies of ancient family and unsullied
honour, and, like true women, they clung to her in the darkest
hour of her later adversity, through good and evil report they
shared the gloom and sorrow of her prison life."
S. H. Burke,
Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty
and the Reformation Period,
volume 4, chapter 7.
"Mary Stuart was in many respects the creature of her age, of
her creed, and of her station; but the noblest and most
noteworthy qualities of her nature were independent of rank,
opinion, or time. Even the detractors who defend her conduct
on the plea that she was a dastard and a dupe are compelled in
the same breath to retract this implied reproach, and to
admit, with illogical acclamation and incongruous applause,
that the world never saw more splendid courage at the service
of more brilliant intelligence; that a braver if not 'a rarer
spirit never did steer humanity.' A kinder or more faithful
friend, a deadlier or more dangerous enemy, it would be
impossible to dread or to desire. Passion alone could shake
the double fortress of her impregnable heart and ever active
brain. The passion of love, after very sufficient experience,
she apparently and naturally outlived; the passion of hatred
and revenge was as inextinguishable in her inmost nature as
the emotion of loyalty and gratitude. Of repentance it would
seem that she knew as little as of fear; having been trained
from her infancy in a religion where the Decalogue was
supplanted by the Creed. Adept as she was in the most
exquisite delicacy of dissimulation, the most salient note of
her original disposition was daring rather than subtlety.
Beside or behind the voluptuous or intellectual attractions of
beauty and culture, she had about her the fresher charm of a
fearless and frank simplicity, a genuine and enduring pleasure
in small and harmless things no less than in such as were
neither. … For her own freedom of will and of way, of passion
and of action, she cared much; for her creed she cared
something; for her country she cared less than nothing. She
would have flung Scotland with England into the hellfire of
Spanish Catholicism rather than forego the faintest chance of
personal revenge. … In the private and personal qualities
which attract and attach a friend to his friend and a follower
to his leader, no man or woman was ever more constant and more
eminent than Mary Queen of Scots."
A. C. Swinburne,
Mary Queen of Scots
(Miscellanies, pages 357-359).
ALSO IN:
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapters 41-47 (volume 4).
M. Laing,
History of Scotland,
volumes 1-2.
F. A. Mignet,
History of Mary, Queen of Scots.
A. Strickland,
Life of Mary, Queen of Scots.
J. Skelton,
Maitland of Lethington.
W. Robertson,
History of Scotland,
Appendix.
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos of English History,
series 4, chapter 32,
and series 5, chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1567.
Accession of James VI.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1568-1572.
Distracted state of the kingdom.
The Reformed Church and John Knox.
During the whole minority of the young king, James VI.,
Scotland was torn by warring factions. Murray, assassinated in
1570, was succeeded in the regency by the Earl of Lennox, who
was killed in a fight the next year. The Earl of Mar followed
him, and Morton held the office next. "The civil commotions
that ensued on Murray's assassination were not wholly adverse
to the reformed cause, as they gave it an overwhelming
influence with the king's party, which it supported. On the
other hand they excused every kind of irregularity. There was
a scramble for forfeited estates and the patrimony of the
kirk, from which latter source the leaders of both parties
rewarded their partisans. … The church … viewed with alarm the
various processes by which the ecclesiastical revenues were
being secularised. Nor can it be doubted that means, by which
the evil might be stayed, were the subject of conference
between committees of the Privy Council and General Assembly.
The plan which was actually adopted incorporated in the
reformed church the spiritual estate, and reintroduced the
bishops by their proper titles, subject to stringent
conditions of qualification. …
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.
Knox, whose life had been attempted in March 1570-1, had been
constrained to retire from Edinburgh and was at St. Andrews
when the new platform was arranged. On the strength of certain
notices that are not at all conclusive, it has been
strenuously denied that he was a party to it even by consent.
… There are facts, however, to the contrary. … On the evidence
available Knox cannot be claimed as the advocate of a divine
right, either of presbytery or episcopacy. … With fast-failing
strength he returned to Edinburgh towards the end of August."
On the 24th of November, 1572, he died.
M. C. Taylor,
John Knox
(St. Giles' Lectures, 3d series).
{2860}
"It seems to me hard measure that this Scottish man [John
Knox], now after three-hundred years, should have to plead
like a culprit before the world; intrinsically for having
been, in such way as it was then possible to be, the bravest
of all Scotchmen! Had he been a poor Half-and-half, he could
have crouched into the corner, like so many others; Scotland
had not been delivered; and Knox had been without blame. He is
the one Scotchman to whom, of all others, his country and the
world owe a debt. He has to plead that Scotland would forgive
him for having been worth to it any million 'unblamable'
Scotchmen that need no forgiveness. He bared his breast to the
battle; had to row in French galleys, wander forlorn in exile,
in clouds and storms; was censured, shot-at through his
windows; had a right sore fighting life; if this world were
his place of recompense, he had made but a bad venture of it.
I cannot apologise for Knox. To him it is very indifferent,
these two-hundred-and-fifty years or more, what men say of
him."
T. Carlyle,
Heroes and Hero-worship,
lecture 4.
"Altogether, if we estimate him [Knox], as we are alone
entitled to do, in his historical position and circumstances,
Knox appears a very great and heroic man—no violent demagogue,
or even stern dogmatist—although violence and sternness and
dogmatism were all parts of his character. These coarser
elements mingled with but did not obscure the fresh, living,
and keenly sympathetic humanity beneath. Far inferior to
Luther in tenderness and breadth and lovableness, he is
greatly superior to Calvin in the same qualities. You feel
that he had a strong and loving heart under all his harshness,
and that you can get near to it, and could have spent a cheery
social evening with him in his house at the head of the Canon
gate, over that good old wine that he had stored in his
cellar, and which he was glad and proud to dispense to his
friends. It might not have been a very pleasant thing to
differ with him even in such circumstances; but, upon the
whole, it would have been a pleasanter and safer audacity than
to have disputed some favourite tenet with Calvin. There was
in Knox far more of mere human feeling and of shrewd worldly
sense, always tolerant of differences; and you could have
fallen back upon these, and felt yourself comparatively safe
in the utterance of some daring sentiment. And in this point
of view it deserves to be noticed that Knox alone of the
reformers, along with Luther, is free from all stain of
violent persecution. Intolerant he was towards the mass,
towards Mary, and towards the old Catholic clergy; yet he was
no persecutor. He was never cruel in act, cruel as his
language sometimes is, and severe as were some of his
judgments. Modern enlightenment and scientific indifference we
have no right to look for in him. His superstitions about the
weather and witches were common to him with all men of his
time. … As a mere thinker, save perhaps on political subjects,
he takes no rank; and his political views, wise and
enlightened as they were, seem rather the growth of his manly
instinctive sense than reasoned from any fundamental
principles. Earnest, intense, and powerful in every practical
direction, he was not in the least characteristically
reflective or speculative. Everywhere the hero, he is nowhere
the philosopher or sage.—He was, in short, a man for his work
and time—knowing what was good for his country there and then,
when the old Catholic bonds had rotted to the very heart. A
man of God, yet with sinful weaknesses like us all. There is
something in him we can no longer love,—a harshness and
severity by no means beautiful or attractive; but there is
little in him that we cannot in the retrospect heartily
respect, and even admiringly cherish."
J. Tulloch,
Leaders of the Reformation: Knox.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1570-1573.
Civil War.
"All the miseries of civil war desolated the kingdom.
Fellow-citizens, friends, brothers, took different sides, and
ranged themselves under the standards of the contending
factions. In every county, and almost in every town and
village, 'king's men' and 'queen's men' were names of
distinction. Political hatred dissolved all natural ties, and
extinguished the reciprocal good-will and confidence which
hold mankind together in society. Religious zeal mingled
itself with these civil distinctions, and contributed not a
little to heighten and to inflame them. The factions which
divided the kingdom were, in appearance, only two; but in both
these there were persons with views and principles so
different from each other that they ought to be distinguished.
With some, considerations of religion were predominant, and
they either adhered to the queen because they hoped by her
means to reestablish popery, or they defended the king's
authority as the best support of the protestant faith. Among
these the opposition was violent and irreconcilable. … As
Morton, who commanded the regent's forces [1572, during the
regency of Mar], lay at Leith, and Kirkaldy still held out the
town and castle of Edinburgh [for the party of the queen],
scarce a day passed without a skirmish. … Both parties hanged
the prisoners which they took, of whatever rank or quality,
without mercy and without trial. Great numbers suffered in
this shocking manner; the unhappy victims were led by fifties
at a time to execution; and it was not till both sides had
smarted severely that they discontinued this barbarous
practice." In 1573, Morton, being now regent, made peace with
one faction of the queen's party, and succeeded, with the help
of a siege train and force which Queen Elizabeth sent him from
England, in overcoming the other faction which held Edinburgh
and its castle. Kirkaldy was compelled to surrender after a
siege of thirty-three days, receiving promises of protection
from the English commander, in spite of which he was hanged.
W. Robertson,
History of Scotland,
book 6 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapters 53-56 (volume 5).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.
Episcopacy restored.
The Concordat of Leith.
The Tulchan Bishops.
"On the 12th of January, 1572, a Convention of the Church
assembled at Leith. By whom it was convened is unknown. It was
not a regular Assembly, but it assumed to itself 'the
strength, force, and effect of a General Assembly,' and it was
attended by 'the superintendents, barons, commissioners to
plant kirks, commissioners of provinces, towns, kirks, and
ministers.' …
{2861}
By the 1st of February the joint committees
framed a concordat, of which the following articles were the
chief;
1. That the names of archbishops and bishops, and the bounds
of dioceses, should remain as they were before the
Reformation, at the least till the majority of the king, or
till a different arrangement should be made by the parliament;
and that to every cathedral church there should be attached a
chapter of learned men; but that the bishops should have no
more power than was possessed by the superintendents, and
should like them be subject to the General Assemblies.
2. That abbots and friars should be continued as parts of the
Spiritual Estate of the realm. …
Such was the famous concordat agreed upon by the Church and
State in Scotland in 1572. … The Church had in vain …
struggled to get possession of its patrimony. It had in vain
argued that the bishoprics and abbacies should be dissolved,
and their revenues applied for the maintenance of the
ministry, the education of the youthhead, and the support of
the poor. The bishoprics and abbacies were maintained as if
they were indissoluble. Some of them were already gifted to
laymen, and the ministers of the Protestant Church were poorly
paid out of the thirds of benefices. The collection of these
even the regent had recently stopped, and beggary was at the
door. What was to be done? The only way of obtaining the
episcopal revenues was by reintroducing the episcopal office.
… The ministers regarded archbishops, bishops, deans and
chapters as things lawful, but not expedient—'they sounded ·of
papistry'; but now, under the pressure of a still stronger
expediency, they received them into the Church. … Knox yielded
to the same necessity under which the Church had bowed. … It
was a mongrel prelacy that was thus introduced into Scotland—a
cross betwixt Popery and Presbytery. It was not of the true
Roman breed. It was not even of the Anglican. It could not
pretend to the apostolical descent."
J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 12.
"The new dignitaries got from the populace the name of the
Tulchan bishops. A tulchan, an old Scots word of unknown
origin, was applied to a stuffed calf-skin which was brought
into the presence of a recently-calved cow. It was an
agricultural doctrine of that age, and of later times, that
the presence of this changeling induced the bereaved mother
easily to part with her milk. To draw what remained of the
bishops' revenue, it was expedient that there should be
bishops; but the revenues were not for them, but for the lay
lords, who milked the ecclesiastical cow."
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 54 (volume 5).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581.
The Second Covenant, called also The First National Covenant.
"The national covenant of Scotland was simply an abjuration of
popery, and a solemn engagement, ratified by a solemn oath, to
support the protestant religion. Its immediate occasion was a
dread, too well founded—a dread from which Scotland was never
entirely freed till the revolution—of the re-introduction of
popery. It was well known that Lennox was an emissary of the
house of Guise, and had been sent over to prevail on the young
king to embrace the Roman Catholic faith. … A conspiracy so
dangerous at all times to a country divided in religious
sentiment, demanded a counter-combination equally strict and
solemn, and led to the formation of the national covenant of
Scotland. This was drawn up at the king's request, by his
chaplain, John Craig. It consisted of an abjuration, in the
most solemn and explicit terms, of the various articles of the
popish system, and an engagement to adhere to and defend the
reformed doctrine and discipline of the reformed church of
Scotland. The covenanters further pledged themselves, under
the same oath, 'to defend his majesty's person and authority
with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ's
evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice,
and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within the
realm or without.' This bond, at first called 'the king's
confession,' was sworn and subscribed by the king and his
household, for example to others, on the 28th of January 1581;
and afterwards, in consequence of an order in council, and an
act of the general assembly, it was cheerfully subscribed by
all ranks of persons through the kingdom; the ministers
zealously promoting the subscription in their respective
parishes."
T. M'Crie,
Sketches of Scottish Church History,
volume 1, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
D. Calderwood,
History of the Kirk of Scotland,
volume 3, 1581.
J. Row,
History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1581.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1582.
The Raid of Ruthven.
"The two favourites [Lennox and Arran], by their ascendant
over the king, possessed uncontrolled power in the kingdom,
and exercised it with the utmost wantonness." The provocation
which they gave brought about, at length, a combination of
nobles, formed for the purpose of removing the young king from
their influence. Invited to Ruthven Castle in August, 1582, by
its master, Lord Ruthven, lately created Earl of Gowrie, James
found there a large assemblage of the conspirators and was
detained against his will. He was afterwards removed to
Stirling, and later to the palace of Holyrood, but still under
restraint. This continued until the following June, when the
king effected his escape and Arran recovered his power. Lennox
had died meantime in France. All those concerned in what was
known as the Raid of Ruthven were proclaimed guilty of high
treason and fled the country. The clergy gave great offense to
the king by approving and sustaining the Raid of Ruthven. He
never forgave the Church for its attitude on this occasion.
W. Robertson,
History of Scotland,
book 6 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
series 5, chapter 20.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.
The Black Acts.
"James was bent upon destroying a form of Church government
which he imagined to be inconsistent with his own kingly
prerogatives. The General Assembly rested upon too popular a
basis; they were too independent of his absolute will; they
assumed a jurisdiction which he could not allow. The ministers
were too much given to discuss political subjects in the
pulpit—to speak evil of dignities—to resist the powers that
were ordained of God. … On the 22d of May, 1584, the
Parliament assembled. … A series of acts were passed almost
entirely subversive of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the
Church. By one, the ancient jurisdiction of the Three Estates
was ratified,—and to speak evil of any one of them was
declared to be treason; thus were the bishops hedged about. By
another, the king was declared to be supreme in all causes and
over all persons, and to decline his judgment was pronounced
to be treason; thus was the boldness of such men as Melville
to be chastised.
{2862}
By a third, all convocations except those specially licensed
by the king were declared to be unlawful; thus were the courts
of the Church to be shorn of their power. By a fourth, the
chief jurisdiction of the Church was lodged in the hands of
the Episcopal body; for the bishops must now do what the
Assemblies and presbyteries had hitherto done. By still
another act, it was provided 'that none should presume,
privately or publicly, in sermons, declamations, or familiar
conferences, to utter any false, untrue, or slanderous
speeches, to the reproach of his Majesty or council, or meddle
with the affairs of his Highness and Estate, under the pains
contained in the acts of parliament made against the makers
and reporters of lies.' … The parliament registered the
resolves of the king; for though Scottish barons were
turbulent, Scottish parliaments were docile, and seldom
thwarted the reigning power. But the people sympathized with
the ministers; the acts became known as the Black Acts; and
the struggle between the court and the Church, which lasted
with some intermissions for more than a century, was begun."
J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
D. Calderwood,
History of the Kirk of Scotland,
volume 4, 1584.
Scottish Divines
(St. Giles' Lectures, series 3),
lecture 2.
J. Melville,
Autobiography and Diary, 1584.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.
The execution of Mary Stuart in England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.
Appropriation of Church lands and ruin of the Episcopacy.
The parliament of 1587 passed an act which "annexed to the
crown such lands of the church as had not been inalienably
bestowed upon the nobles or landed gentry; these were still
considerable, and were held either by the titular bishops who
possessed the benefices, or were granted to laymen by rights
merely temporary. The only fund reserved for the clergy who
were to serve the cure was the principal mansion house, with a
few acres of glebe land. The fund from which their stipends
were to be paid was limited to the tithes. … The crown … was
little benefited by an enactment which, detaching the church
lands from all connection with ecclesiastical persons, totally
ruined the order of bishops, for the restoration of whom, with
some dignity and authority, king James, and his successor
afterwards, expressed considerable anxiety."
Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 37 (volume 2).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1600.
The Gowrie Plot.
"On the morning of the 5th of August, 1600, as James was
setting out hunting from Falkland Palace, he was met by
Alexander Ruthven, the younger brother of the Earl of Gowrie
[both being sons of the Gowrie of the ' Raid of Ruthven'], who
told him with a great air of mystery that he had discovered a
man burying a pot of money in a field, and that he thought the
affair so suspicious that he had taken him prisoner, and
begged the King to come to Gowrie House in Perth to see him.
James went, taking with him Mar, Lennox, and about twenty
other gentlemen. After dinner Alexander took the King aside,
and, when his attendants missed him, they were told that he
had gone back to Falkland. They were preparing to follow him
there when some of them heard cries from a turret. They
recognized the King's voice, and they presently saw his head
thrust out of a window, calling for help. They had much ado to
make their way to him, but they found him at last in a small
room struggling with Alexander, while a man dressed in armour
was looking on. Alexander Ruthven and Gowrie were both killed
in the scuffle which followed. A tumult rose in the town, for
the Earl had been Provost and was very popular with the
towns-folk, and the King and his followers had to make their
escape by the river. The doom of traitors was passed on the
dead men, and their name was proscribed, but as no accomplice
could be discovered, it was hard to say what was the extent or
object of their plot. The whole affair was very mysterious,
the only witnesses being the King himself and Henderson the
man in armour. Some of the ministers thought it so suspicions
that they refused to return thanks for the King's safety, as
they thought the whole affair an invention of his own." Eight
years later, however, some letters were discovered which
seemed to prove that there had really been a plot to seize the
King's person.
M. Macarthur,
History of Scotland,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 40 (volume 2).
P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 4, chapter 11.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1603.
Accession of James VI. to the English throne.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.
The Five Articles of Perth.
After his accession to the English throne, James became more

deeply enamoured of Episcopacy, and of its ecclesiastical and
ceremonial incidents, than before, and more determined to
force them on the Scottish church. He worked to that end with
arbitrary insolence and violence, and with every kind of
dishonest intrigue, until he had accomplished his purpose
completely. Not only were his bishops seated, with fair
endowments and large powers restored, but he had them ordained
in England, to ensure their apostolic legitimacy. When this
had been done, he resolved to impose a liturgy upon the
Church, with certain ordinances of his own framing. The five
articles in which the latter were embodied became for two
years the subject of a most bitter and heated struggle between
the court and its bishops on one side, with most of the
general clergy on the other. At length, in August, 1618, an
Assembly made up at Perth proved subservient enough to submit
to the royal brow-beating and to adopt the five articles.
These Five Articles of Perth, as they are known, enjoined
kneeling at the communion, observance of five holidays, and
episcopal confirmation; and they authorized the private
dispensation both of baptism and of the Lord's Supper. The
powers of the court of high commission were actively brought
into play to enforce them.
J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 1.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.
Laud's Liturgy and Jenny Geddes' Stool.
"Now we are summoned to a sadder subject; from the sufferings
of a private person [John Williams, bishop of Lincoln, pursued
and persecuted by Laud] to the miseries and almost mutual]
ruin of two kingdoms, England and Scotland. I confess, my
hands have always been unwilling to write of that cold
country, for fear my fingers should be frostbitten therewith;
but necessity to make our story entire puts me upon the
employment. Miseries, caused from the sending of the Book of
Service or new Liturgy thither, which may sadly be termed a
'Rubric' indeed, dyed with the blood of so many of both
nations, slain on that occasion.
{2863}
It seems the design began in the reign of king James; who
desired and endeavoured an uniformity of public prayers
through the kingdom of Scotland. … In the reign of king
Charles, the project being resumed (but whether the same book
or no, God knoweth), it was concluded not to send into
Scotland the same Liturgy of England 'totidem verbis,' lest
this should be misconstrued a badge of dependence of that
church on ours. It was resolved also, that the two Liturgies
should not differ in substance, lest the Roman party should
upbraid us with weighty and material differences. A similitude
therefore not identity being resolved of, it was drawn up with
some, as they termed them, insensible alterations, but such as
were quickly found and felt by the Scotch to their great
distaste. … The names of sundry saints, omitted in the
English, are inserted into the Scotch Calendar (but only in
black letters), on their several days. … Some of these were
kings, all of them natives of that country. … But these Scotch
saints were so far from making the English Liturgy acceptable,
that the English Liturgy rather made the saints odious unto
them. … No sooner had the dean of Edinburgh begun to read the
book in the church of St. Giles, Sunday, July 23rd, in the
presence of the Privy Council, both the archbishops, divers
bishops, and magistrates of the city, but presently such a
tumult was raised that, through clapping of hands, cursing,
and crying, one could neither hear nor be heard. The bishop of
Edinburgh endeavoured in vain to appease the tumult; when a
stool, aimed to be thrown at him [according to popular
tradition by an old herb-woman named Jenny Geddes], had
killed, if not diverted by one present; so that the same book
had occasioned his death and prescribed the form of his
burial; and this hubbub was hardly suppressed by the lord
provost and bailiffs of Edinburgh. This first tumult was
caused by such, whom I find called 'the scum of the city,'
considerable for nothing but their number. But, few days
after, the cream of the nation (some of the highest and best
quality therein) engaged in the same cause, crying out, 'God
defend all those who will defend God's cause! and God confound
the service-book and all the maintainers of it!'"
T. Fuller,
Church History of Britain,
book 11, section 2 (volume 3).
"One of the most distinct and familiar of historical
traditions attributes the honour of flinging the first stool,
and so beginning the great civil war, to a certain Jenny or
Janet Geddes. But a search among contemporary writers for the
identification of such an actor on the scene, will have the
same inconclusive result that often attends the search after
some criminal hero with a mythical celebrity when he is wanted
by the police. … Wodrow, on the authority of Robert Stewart—a
son of the Lord Advocate of the Revolution—utter]y dethrones
Mrs. Geddes: 'He tells me that it's the constantly-believed
tradition that it was Mrs. Mean, wife to John Mean, merchant
in Edinburgh, that cast the first stool when the service was
read in the New Kirk, Edinburgh, 1637; and that many of the
lasses that carried on the fray were prentices in disguise,
for they threw stools to a great length.'"
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 6, pages 443-444, foot-note.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.
The Tables, and the signing of the National Covenant.
"Nobles, ministers, gentlemen, and burghers from every
district poured into Edinburgh to take part in a national
resistance to these innovations [of the Service Book], and an
appeal was made from the whole body assembled in the capital,
not only against the Service Book, but also against the Book
of Canons and the conduct of the bishops. Instead, however, of
granting redress of these grievances, the King issued a series
of angry and exasperating proclamations, commanding the crowds
of strangers in the capital to return immediately to their own
homes, and instructing the Council and the Supreme Courts of
Law to remove to Linlithgow. But instead of obeying the
injunction to leave Edinburgh, the multitudes there continued
to receive accessions from all parts of the country. … In
answer to the complaint of the Council that their meeting in
such numbers was disorderly and illegal, the supplicants
offered to choose a limited number from each of the classes
into which they were socially divided—nobles, lesser barons,
burgesses, and clergy—to act as their representatives. This
was at once very imprudently agreed to by the Council. A
committee of four was accordingly selected by each of these
classes, who were instructed to reside in the capital, and
were empowered to take all necessary steps to promote their
common object. They had also authority to assemble the whole
of their constituents should any extraordinary emergency
arise. The opponents of the new Canons and Service Book were
thus organised with official approval into one large and
powerful body, known in history as 'The Tables,' which
speedily exercised an important influence in the country. As
soon as this arrangement was completed, the crowds of
supplicants who thronged the metropolis returned to their own
homes, leaving the committee of sixteen to watch the progress
of events." But the obstinacy of the King soon brought affairs
to a crisis, and early in 1638 the deputies of The Tables
"resolved to summon the whole body of supplicants to repair at
once to the capital in order to concert measures for their
common safety and the furtherance of the good cause. The
summons was promptly obeyed, and after full deliberation it
was resolved, on the suggestion of Johnstone of Warriston,
that in order to strengthen their union against the enemies of
the Protestant faith they should renew the National Covenant,
which had been originally drawn up and sworn to at a time [A.
D. 1581] when the Protestant religion was in imminent peril,
through the schemes of France and Spain, and the plots of
Queen Mary and the Roman Catholics in England and Scotland.
The original document denounced in vehement terms the errors
and devices of the Romish Church, and an addition was now made
to it, adapting its declarations and pledges to existing
circumstances."
J. Taylor,
The Scottish Covenanters,
chapter 1.
"It was in the Greyfriars' Church at Edinburgh that it [the
National Covenant] was first received, on February 28, 1638.
The aged Earl of Sutherland was the first to sign his name.
Then the whole congregation followed. Then it was laid on the
flat grave-stone still preserved in the church-yard. Men and
women crowded to add their names. Some wept aloud, others
wrote their names in their own blood; others added after their
names 'till death.' For hours they signed, till every corner
of the parchment was filled, and only room left for their
initials, and the shades of night alone checked the continual
flow.
{2864}
From Greyfriars' church-yard it spread to the whole of
Scotland. Gentlemen and noblemen carried copies of it 'in
their portmanteaus and pockets, requiring and collecting
subscriptions publicly and privately.' Women sat in church all
day and all night, from Friday till Sunday, in order to
receive the Communion with it. None dared to refuse their
names."
A. P. Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland,
lecture 2.
ALSO IN:
J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 2.
D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 1, chapter 7.
R. Chambers,
Domestic Annals of Scotland,
volume 2, pages 116-127.
The following is the text of the Scottish National Covenant:
"The confession of faith of the Kirk of Scotland, subscribed
at first by the King's Majesty and his household in the year
of God 1580; thereafter by persons of all ranks in the year
1581, by ordinance of the Lords of the secret council, and
acts of the General Assembly; subscribed again by all sorts of
persons in the year 1590, by a new ordinance of council, at
the desire of the General Assembly; with a general band for
the maintenance of the true religion, and the King's person,
and now subscribed in the year 1638, by us noblemen, barons,
gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under
subscribing; together with our resolution and promises for the
causes after specified, to maintain the said true religion,
and the King's Majesty, according to the confession aforesaid,
and Acts of Parliament; the tenure whereof here followeth: 'We
all, and every one of us underwritten, do protest, that after
long and due examination of our own consciences in matters of
true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved of the
truth, by the word and spirit of God; and therefore we believe
with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our
hands, and constantly affirm before God and the whole world,
that this only is the true Christian faith and religion,
pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by
the mercy of God revealed to the world by the preaching of the
blessed evangel, and received, believed, and defended by many
and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the Kirk
of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three estates of this
realm, as God's eternal truth and only ground of our
salvation; as more particularly is expressed in the confession
of our faith, established and publicly confirmed by sundry
Acts of Parliament; and now of a long time hath been openly
professed by the King's Majesty, and whole body of this realm,
both in burgh and land. To the which confession and form of
religion we willingly agree in our consciences in all points,
as unto God's undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon
His written Word; and therefore we abhor and detest all
contrary religion and doctrine, but chiefly all kind of
papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now
damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland.
But in special we detest and refuse the usurped authority of
that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the
Kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his
tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our
Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine against the
sufficiency of the written Word, the perfection of the law,
the office of Christ and His blessed evangel; his corrupted
doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and
rebellion to God's law, our justification by faith only, our
imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law, the nature,
number, and use of the holy sacraments; his five bastard
sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false
doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments,
without the Word of God; his cruel judgments against infants
departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of
baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation or real
presence of Christ's body in the elements, and receiving of
the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations,
with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage,
forbidden in the Word; his cruelty against the innocent
divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his
profane sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick; his
canonization of men, calling upon angels or saints departed,
worshipping of imagery, relics, and crosses, dedicating of
kirks, altars, days, vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers
for the dead, praying or speaking in a strange language; with
his processions and blasphemous litany, and multitudes of
advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular
confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his
general and doubtsome faith; his satisfaction of men for their
sins; his justification by works, "opus operatum," works of
supererogation, merits, pardons, perigrinations and stations;
his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits,
crossing, saning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God's
good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined
therewith; his worldly monarchy and wicked hierarchy; his
three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts;
his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the
subscribers and approvers of that cruel and bloody band
conjured against the Kirk of God. And finally, we detest all
his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in
the Kirk without or against the Word of God, and doctrine of
this true reformed Kirk, to which we join ourselves willingly,
in doctrine, religion, faith, discipline, and life of the holy
sacraments, as lively members of the same, in Christ our head,
promising and swearing, by the great name of the Lord our God,
that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and
discipline of this Kirk, and shall defend the same according
to our vocation and power all the days of our lives, under the
pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul
in the day of God's fearful judgment. And seeing that many are
stirred up by Satan and that Roman Antichrist, to promise,
swear, subscribe, and for a time use the holy sacraments in
the Kirk, deceitfully against their own consciences, minding
thereby, first under the external cloak of religion, to
corrupt and subvert secretly God's true religion within the
Kirk; and afterwards, when time may serve, to become open
enemies and persecutors of the same, under vain hope of the
Pope's dispensation, devised against the Word of God, to his
great confusion, and their double condemnation in the day of
the Lord Jesus.
{2865}
We therefore, willing to take away all suspicion of hypocrisy,
and of such double dealing with God and his Kirk, protest and
call the Searcher of all hearts for witness, that our minds
and hearts do fully agree with this our confession, promise,
oath, and subscription: so that we are not moved for any
worldly respect, but are persuaded only in our consciences,
through the knowledge and love of God's true religion printed
in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we shall answer to Him in
the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed. And
because we perceive that the quietness and stability of our
religion and Kirk doth depend upon the safety and good
behaviour of the King's Majesty, as upon a comfortable
instrument of God's mercy granted to this country for the
maintenance of His Kirk, and ministration of justice among us,
we protest and promise with our hearts under the same oath,
handwrit, and pains, that we shall defend his person and
authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of
Christ His evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of
justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies
within this realm or without, as we desire our God to be a
strong and merciful defender to us in the day of our death,
and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; to Whom, with the Father
and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory eternally. Like
as many Acts of Parliament not only in general do abrogate,
annul, and rescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions,
canons civil or municipal, with all other ordinances and
practick penalties whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true
religion, and professors thereof, or of the true Kirk
discipline, jurisdiction, and freedom thereof; or in favours
of idolatry and superstition; or of the papistical kirk (as
Act 3. Act 31. Parliament 1. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114.
Parliament 12, of K. James VI), that papistry and superstition
may be utter]y suppressed, according to the intention of the
Acts of Parliament reported in Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James
VI. And to that end they ordained all papists and priests to
be punished by manifold civil and ecclesiastical pains, as
adversaries to God's true religion preached, and by law
established within this realm (Act 24. Parliament 11. K. James
VI) as common enemies to all Christian government (Act 18.
Parliament 16. K. James VI), as rebellers and gainstanders of
our Sovereign Lord's authority (Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James
VI, and as idolaters, Act 104. Parliament 7. K. James VI), but
also in particular (by and attour the confession of faith) do
abolish and condemn the Pope's authority and jurisdiction out
of this land, and ordains the maintainers thereof to be
punished (Act 2. Parliament 1. Act 51. Parliament 3. Act 106.
Parliament 7. Act 114. Parliament 12. of K. James VI); do
condemn the Pope's erroneous doctrine, or any other erroneous
doctrine repugnant to any of the Articles of the true and
Christian religion publicly preached, and by law established
in this realm; and ordains the spreaders or makers of books or
libels, or letters or writs of that nature, to be punished
(Act 46. Parliament 3. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 24.
Parliament 11. K. James VI); do condemn all baptism conform to
the Pope's kirk, and the idolatry of the Mass; and ordains all
sayers, wilful hearers, and concealers of the Mass, the
maintainers, and resetters of the priests, Jesuits,
trafficking Papists, to be punished without exception or
restriction (Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 120. Parliament 12. Act
164. Parliament 13. Act 193. Parliament 14. Act 1. Parliament
19. Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James VI); do condemn all
erroneous books and writs containing erroneous doctrine
against the religion presently professed, or containing
superstitious rights or ceremonies papistical, whereby the
people are greatly abused; and ordains the home-bringers of
them to be punished (Act 25. Parliament 11. K. James VI); do
condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going
to crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such
other superstitious and papistical rites, to the dishonour of
God, contempt of true religion, and fostering of great errors
among the people, and ordains the users of them to be punished
for the second fault as idolaters (Act 104. Parliament 7. K.
James VI). Like us many Acts of Parliament are conceived for
maintenance of God's true and Christian religion, and the
purity thereof in doctrine and sacraments of the true Church
of God, the liberty and freedom thereof in her national
synodal assemblies, presbyteries, sessions, policy,
discipline, and jurisdiction thereof, as that purity of
religion and liberty of the Church was used, professed,
exercised, preached, and confessed according to the
reformation of religion in this realm. (As for instance: Act
99. Parliament 7. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114. Parliament
12. Act 160. Parliament 13. K. James VI, ratified by Act 4. K.
Charles.) So that Act 6. Parliament 1. and Act 68. Parliament
6. of K. James VI, in the year of God 1579, declare the
ministers of the blessed evangel, whom God of His mercy had
raised up or hereafter should raise, agreeing with them that
then lived in doctrine and administration of the sacraments,
and the people that professed Christ, as He was then offered
in the evangel, and doth communicate with the holy sacraments
(as in the reformed Kirks of this realm they were presently
administered) according to the confession of faith to be the
true and holy Kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm, and
discerns and declares all and sundry, who either gainsays the
word of the evangel, received and approved as the heads of the
confession of faith, professed in Parliament in the year of
God 1560, specified also in the first Parliament of K. James
VI, and ratified in this present parliament, more particularly
do specify; or that refuses the administration of the holy
sacraments as they were then ministrated, to be no members of
the said Kirk within this realm and true religion presently
professed, so long as they keep themselves so divided from the
society of Christ's body. And the subsequent Act 69.
Parliament 6. K. James VI, declares that there is no other
face of Kirk, nor other face of religion than was presently at
that time by the favour of God established within this realm,
which therefore is ever styled God's true religion, Christ's
true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect
religion, which by manifold Acts of Parliament all within this
realm are bound to profess to subscribe the Articles thereof,
the confession of faith, to recant all doctrine and errors
repugnant to any of the said Articles (Act 4 and 9. Parliament
1. Act 45. 46. 47. Parliament 3. Act 71. Parliament 6. Act
106. Parliament 7. Act 24. Parliament 11. Act 123. Parliament
12. Act 194 and 197. Parliament 14 of King James VI). And all
magistrates, sheriffs, &c., on the one part, are ordained to
search, apprehend, and punish all contraveners (for instance,
Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 104. Parliament 7. Act 25. Parliament
11. K. James VI), and that, notwithstanding of the King's
Majesty's licences on the contrary, which are discharged and
declared to be of no force, in so far as they tend in any ways
to the prejudice and hindrance of the execution of the Acts of
Parliament against Papists and adversaries of the true
religion (Act 106. Parliament 7. K. James VI).
{2866}
On the other part, in Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James VI, it is
declared and ordained, seeing the cause of God's true religion
and His Highness's authority are so joined as the hurt of the
one is common to both; and that none shall be reputed as loyal
and faithful subjects to our Sovereign Lord or his authority,
but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders of the same,
who shall not give their confession and make profession of the
said true religion; and that they, who after defection shall
give the confession of their faith of new, they shall promise
to continue therein in time coming to maintain our Sovereign
Lord's authority, and at the uttermost of their power to
fortify, assist, and maintain the true preachers and
professors of Christ's religion, against whatsoever enemies
and gainstanders of the same; and namely, against all such of
whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they be of, that have
joined or bound themselves, or have assisted or assists to set
forward and execute the cruel decrees of Trent, contrary to
the preachers and true professors of the Word of God, which is
repeated word by word in the Articles of Pacification at
Perth, the 23d Feb., 1572, approved by Parliament the last of
April 1573, ratified in Parliament 1578, and related Act 123.
Parliament 12. of K. James VI., with this addition, that they
are bound to resist all treasonable uproars and hostilities
raised against the true religion, the King's Majesty and the
true professors. Like as an lieges are bound to maintain the
King's Majesty's royal person and authority, the authority of
Parliaments, without which neither any laws or lawful
judicatories can be established (Act 130. Act 131. Parliament
8. K. James VI), and the subject's liberties, who ought only
to live and be governed by the King's laws, the common laws of
this realm allanerly (Act 48. Parliament 3. K. James I, Act
79. Parliament 6. K. James VI, repeated in Act 131. Parliament
8. K. James VI), which if they be innovated or prejudged the
commission anent the union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and
England, which is the sole Act of 17 Parliament James VI,
declares such confusion would ensue as this realm could be no
more a free monarchy, because by the fundamental laws, ancient
privileges, offices, and liberties of this kingdom, not only
the princely authority of His Majesty's royal descent hath
been these many ages maintained; also the people's security of
their lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties and dignities
preserved; and therefore for the preservation of the said true
religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, it is statute by
Act 8. Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7.
ratified in Act 23. Parliament 11 and 14. Act of K. James VI
and 4 Act of K. Charles, that all Kings and Princes at their
coronation and reception of their princely authority, shall
make their faithful promise by their solemn oath in the
presence of the Eternal God, that during the whole time of
their lives they shall serve the same Eternal God to the
utmost of their power, according as He hath required in His
most Holy Word, contained in the Old and New Testaments, and
according to the same Word shall maintain the true religion of
Christ Jesus, the preaching of His Holy Word, the due and
right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached
within this realm (according to the confession of faith
immediately preceding); and shall abolish and gainstand all
false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the people
committed to their charge according to the will and
commandment of God revealed in His aforesaid Word, and
according to the lowable laws and constitutions received in
this realm, no ways repugnant to the said will of the Eternal
God; and shall procure to the utmost of their power, to the
Kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect
peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to
root out of their Empire all heretics and enemies to the true
worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God
of the aforesaid crimes. Which was also observed by His
Majesty at his coronation in Edinburgh, 1633, as may be seen
in the Order of the Coronation. In obedience to the commands
of God, conform to the practice of the godly in former times,
and according to the laudable example of our worthy and
religious progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us,
which was warranted also by act of council, commanding a
general band to be made and subscribed by His Majesty's
subjects of all ranks for two causes: one was, for defending
the true religion, as it was then reformed, and is expressed
in the confession of faith above written, and a former large
confession established by sundry acts of lawful general
assemblies and of Parliament unto which it hath relation, set
down in public catechisms, and which had been for many years
with a blessing from heaven preached and professed in this
Kirk and kingdom, as God's undoubted truth grounded only upon
His written Word. The other cause was for maintaining the
King's Majesty, his person and estate: the true worship of God
and the King's authority being so straitly joined, as that
they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand
and fall together. And finally, being convinced in our minds;
and confessing with our mouths, that the present and
succeeding generations in this land are bound to keep the
aforesaid national oath and subscription inviolable:—We
noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons
under subscribing, considering divers times before, and
especially at this time, the danger of the true reformed
religion of the King's honour, and of the public of the
kingdom, by the manifold innovations and evils generally
contained and particularly mentioned in our late
supplications, complaints, and protestations, do hereby
profess, and before God, His angels and the world, solemnly
declare, that with our whole hearts we agree and resolve all
the days of our life constantly to adhere unto and to defend
the aforesaid true religion, and forbearing the practice of
all novations already introduced in the matters of the worship
of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the public
government of the Kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen
till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in
Parliaments, to labour by all means lawful to recover the
purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and
professed before the aforesaid novations; and because, after
due examination, we plainly perceive and undoubtedly believe
that the innovations and evils contained in our supplications,
complaints and protestations have no warrant of the Word of
God, are contrary to the articles of the aforesaid
confessions, to the intention and meaning of the blessed
reformers of religion in this land, to the above-written Acts
of Parliament, and do sensibly tend to the reestablishing of
the popish religion and tyranny, and to the subversion and
ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties, laws
and estates; we also declare that the aforesaid confessions
are to be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the
aforesaid novations and evils, no less than if everyone of
them had been expressed in the aforesaid confessions; and that
we are obliged to detest and abhor them, amongst other
particular heads of papistry abjured therein.
{2867}
And therefore from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to
God, to our King and country, without any worldly respect or
inducement so far as human infirmity will suffer, wishing a
further measure of the grace of God for this effect, we
promise and swear by the great name of the Lord our God, to
continue in the profession and obedience of the aforesaid
religion; that we shall defend the same, and resist all these
contrary errors and corruptions according to our vocation, and
to the utmost of that power that God hath put into our hands,
all the days of our life. And in like manner, with the same
heart we declare before God and men, that we have no intention
or desire to attempt anything that may turn to the dishonour
of God or the diminution of the King's greatness and
authority; but on the contrary we promise and swear that we
shall to the utmost of our power, with our means and lives,
stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign the King's
Majesty, his person and authority, in the defence and
preservation of the aforesaid true religion, liberties and
laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual defence and
assistance everyone of us of another, in the same cause of
maintaining the true religion and His Majesty's authority,
with our best counsels, our bodies, means and whole power,
against all sorts of persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever
shall be done to the least of us for that cause shall be taken
as done to us all in general, and to everyone of us in
particular; and that we shall neither directly or indirectly
suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn by whatsoever
suggestion, combination, allurement or terror from this
blessed and loyal conjunction; nor shall cast in any let or
impediment that may stay or hinder any such resolution as by
common consent shall be found to conduce for so good ends; but
on the contrary shall by all lawful means labour to further
and promote the same; and if any such dangerous and divisive
motion be made to us by word or writ, we and everyone of us
shall either suppress it or (if need be) shall incontinently
make the same known, that it may be timously obviated. Neither
do we fear the foul aspersions of rebellion, combination or
what else our adversaries from their craft and malice would
put upon us, seeing what we do is so well warranted, and
ariseth from an unfeigned desire to maintain the true worship
of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the kingdom
for the common happiness of ourselves and posterity. And
because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our
proceedings, except with our profession and subscription, we
join such a life and conversation as beseemeth Christians who
have renewed their covenant with God: we therefore faithfully
promise, for ourselves, our followers, and all other under us,
both in public, in our particular families and personal
carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds of
Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all
godliness, soberness and righteousness, and of every duty we
owe to God and man; and that this our union and conjunction
may be observed without violation we call the living God, the
searcher of our hearts to witness, who knoweth this to be our
sincere desire and unfeigned resolution, as we shall answer to
Jesus Christ in the great day, and under the pain of God's
everlasting wrath, and of infamy, and of loss of all honour
and respect in this world; most humbly beseeching the Lord to
strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless
our desires and proceedings with a happy success, that
religion and righteousness may flourish in the land, to the
glory of God, the honour of our King, and peace and comfort of
us all.' In witness whereof we have subscribed with our hands
all the premises, &c."
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
The First Bishops' War.
In November, 1638, a General Assembly was convened at Glasgow,
with the consent of the king, and was opened by the Marquis of
Hamilton as Royal Commissioner. But when the Assembly took in
hand the trial of the bishops, Hamilton withdrew and ordered
the members to disperse. They paid no heed to the order, but
deposed the bishops and excommunicated eight of them. "The
Canons and the Liturgy were then rejected, and all acts of the
Assemblies held since 1606 were annulled. In the North, where
Huntly was the King's lieutenant, the Covenant had not been
received, and the Tables resolved to enforce it with the
sword. Scotland was now full of trained soldiers just come
back from Germany, where they had learnt to fight in the
Thirty Years' war, and as plenty of money had been collected
among the Covenanters, an army was easily raised. Their banner
bore the motto, 'For Religion, the Covenant, and the Country,'
and their leader was James Graham, Earl of Montrose, one of
the most zealous among the champions of the cause. … While
Montrose had been thus busy for the Covenant in the North, the
King had been making ready to put down his rebellious Scottish
subjects with the sword. Early in May a fleet entered the
Forth under the command of Hamilton. But the Tables took
possession of the strongholds, and seized the ammunition which
had been laid in for the King. They then raised another army
of 22,000 foot and 1,200 horse, and placed at its head
Alexander Leslie, a veteran trained in the German war. Their
army they sent southwards to meet the English host which the
King was bringing to reduce Scotland. The two armies faced
each other on opposite banks of the Tweed. The Scots were
skilfully posted on Dunse Law, a hill commanding the Northern
road. To pass them without fighting was impossible, and to
fight would have been almost certain defeat. The King seeing
this agreed to treat. By a treaty called the Pacification of
Berwick, it was settled that the questions at issue between
the King and the Covenanters should be put to a free Assembly,
that both armies should be disbanded, and that the strongholds
should be restored to the King (June 9, 1639). The Assembly
which met at Edinburgh repeated and approved all that had been
done at Glasgow. When the Estates met for the first time in
the New Parliament-house, June 2, 1640, they went still
further, for they not only confirmed the Acts of the
Assemblies, but ordered every one to sign the Covenant under
pain of civil penalties.
{2868}
Now for the first time they acted in open defiance of the
King, to whom hitherto they had professed the greatest loyalty
and submission. Three times had they been adjourned by the
King, who had also refused to see the Commissioners whom they
sent up to London. Now they met in spite of him, and, as in
former times of troubles and difficulties, they appealed to
France for help. When this intrigue with the French was found
out, the Lord Loudon, one of their Commissioners, was sent to
the Tower, and the English Parliament was summoned to vote
supplies for putting down the Scots by force of arms."
M. Macarthur,
History of Scotland,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1641,
chapters 88-89 (volume 9).
D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 2, book 1, chapter 1.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1640.
The Second Bishops' War.-
Invasion of England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1643.
The Solemn League and Covenant with the English Parliament.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
The exploits of Montrose.
At the beginning of the conflict between Charles I. and the
Covenanters, James Graham, the brilliant and accomplished Earl
of Montrose, attached himself to the latter, but soon deserted
their cause and gave himself with great earnestness to that of
the court. For his reward, he was raised to the dignity of
Marquis of Montrose. After the great defeat of Prince Rupert
at Marston Moor, Montrose obtained a commission to raise
forces among the Highlanders and proved to be a remarkably
successful leader of these wild warriors. Along with his
Highlanders he incorporated a body of still wilder Celts,
received from Ireland. On the 1st of September, 1644, Montrose
attacked an army of the Covenanters, 6,000 foot and horse, at
Tippermuir, "totally routed them, and took their artillery and
baggage, without losing a man. Perth immediately surrendered
to Montrose, and he had some further successes; but threatened
by a superior force under the Marquis of Argyll, he retreated
northwards into Badenoch, and thence sweeping down into
Argyllshire, he mercilessly ravaged the country of the
Campbells. Exasperated with the devastation of his estates,
Argyll marched against Montrose, who, not waiting to be
attacked, surprised the army of the Covenanters at Inverlochy,
2d February, 1645, and totally defeated them, no fewer than
1,500 of the clan Campbell perishing in the battle, while
Montrose lost only four or five men. Brilliant as were these
victories, they had no abiding influence in quenching this
terrible civil war. It was a game of winning and losing; and
looking to the fact that the Scotch generally took the side of
the Covenant, the struggle was almost hopeless. Still Montrose
was undaunted. After the Inverlochy affair, he went southwards
through Elgin and Banff into Aberdeenshire, carrying
everything before him. Major-general Baillie, a second-rate
Covenanting commander, and his lieutenant, General Hurry, were
at Brechin, with a force to oppose him; but Montrose, by a
dexterous movement, eluded them, captured and pillaged the
city of Dundee, and escaped safely into the Grampians. On the
4th May, he attacked, and by extraordinary generalship routed
Hurry at Auldearn, near Nairn. After enjoying a short respite
with his fierce veterans in Badenoch, he again issued from his
wilds, and inflicted a still more disastrous defeat on
Baillie, at Alford, in Aberdeenshire, July 2. There was now
nothing to prevent his march south, and he set out with a
force of from 5,000 to 6,000 men." Overtaken by Baillie at
Kilsyth, he once more defeated that commander overwhelmingly.
"The number of slain was upwards of 6,000, with very few
killed on the side of the royalists. The victory so effected,
15th August 1645, was the greatest Montrose ever gained. His
triumph was complete, for the victory of Kilsyth put him in
possession of the whole of Scotland. The government of the
country was broken up; every organ of the recent
administration, civil and ecclesiastical, at once vanished.
The conqueror was hailed as 'the great Marquis of Montrose.'
Glasgow yielded him tribute and homage; counties and burghs
compounded for mercy. The city of Edinburgh humbly deprecated
his vengeance, and implored his pardon and forgiveness." But,
if the conquest of Scotland was complete for the moment, it
came too late. The battle of Naseby had been fought two months
before the battle of Kilsyth, and the king's cause was lost.
It was in vain that Charles sent to his brilliant champion of
the north a commission as Lieutenant-governor of Scotland.
Montrose's army melted away so rapidly that when, in
September, he marched south, leading his forlorn hope to the
help of the king in England, he had but 700 foot and 200
mounted gentlemen. The small force was intercepted and
surprised at Philiphaugh (September 13, 1645) by Leslie, with
4,000 horse. Montrose, after fighting with vain obstinacy
until no more fighting could be done, made his escape, with a
few followers. Most of his troops, taken prisoners, were
massacred a few days afterwards, cold-bloodedly, in the
courtyard of Newark Castle; and the deed is said to have been
due, not to military, but to clerical malignity.
W. Chambers,
Stories of Old Families,
pages 206-217.
ALSO in:
M. Napier,
Montrose and the Covenanters.
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 73 (volume 7).
Lady V. Greville,
Montrose.
P. Bayne,
The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 7.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
Flight of King Charles to the Scots army
and his surrender to the English Parliament.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1648.
Royalist invasion of England and Battle of Preston.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).
Scottish loyalty revived.
Charles II. accepted as a "Covenant King."
"The Scots had begun the great movement whose object was at
once to resist the tyranny of the Stuarts and the tyranny of
Rome, and which was destined to result in incalculable
consequences for Europe. But now they retraced their steps,
and put themselves in opposition to the Commonwealth of
England. They wanted a leader. 'With Oliver Cromwell born a
Scotchman,' says Carlyle; 'with a Hero King and a unanimous
Hero Nation at his back, it might have been far otherwise.
With Oliver born Scotch, one sees not but the whole world
might have become Puritan.' Without shutting our eyes to the
truth there may be in this pas·sage, we find the cause of this
northern war elsewhere. In spiritual things the Scots
acknowledged Jesus Christ as their king; in temporal, they
recognized Charles II.
{2869}
They had no wish that the latter should usurp the kingdom of
the former; but they also had no desire that Cromwell should
seize upon the Stuarts' throne. They possessed a double
loyalty—one towards the heavenly king, and another to their
earthly sovereign. They had cast off the abuses of the latter,
but not the monarchy itself. They accordingly invited the
prince, who was then in Holland, to come to Scotland, and take
possession of his kingdom. … Charles at this time was
conniving at Montrose, who was spreading desolation throughout
Scotland; and the young king hoped by his means to recover a
throne without having to take upon himself any embarrassing
engagement. But when the marquis was defeated, he determined
to surrender to the Scottish parliament. One circumstance had
nearly caused his ruin. Among Montrose's papers was found a
commission from the king, giving him authority to levy troops
and subdue the country by force of arms. The indignant
parliament immediately recalled their commissioner from
Holland; but the individual to whom the order was addressed
treacherously concealed the document from his colleagues, and
by showing it to none but the prince, gave him to understand
that he could no longer safely temporize. Charles being thus
convinced hurried on board, and set sail for Scotland,
attended by a train of unprincipled men. The most serious
thinkers in the nation saw that they could expect little else
from him than duplicity, treachery, and licentiousness. It has
been said that the Scotch compelled Charles to adopt their
detested Covenant voluntarily. Most certainly the political
leaders cannot be entirely exculpated of this charge; but it
was not so with the religious part of the government. When he
declared his readiness to sign that deed on board the ship,
even before he landed, Livingston, who doubted his sincerity,
begged him to wait until he had reached Scotland, and given
satisfactory proofs of his good faith. But it was all to no
effect. … If Charles Stuart had thought of ascending his
native throne only, Cromwell and the English would have
remained quiet; but he aimed at the recovery of the three
kingdoms, and the Scotch were disposed to aid him. Oliver
immediately saw the magnitude of the danger which threatened
the religion, liberty, and morals of England, and did not
hesitate."
J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
The Protector,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
A. Bisset,
Omitted Chapters of the History of England,
volume 1, chapter 5.
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 75 (volume 7).
P. Bayne,
The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 6.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (September).
Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.
War with Scotland having been determined upon by the English
Council of State, and Fairfax having declined the command,
Cromwell was recalled from Ireland to head the army. "He
passed the Tweed with an army of 16,000 men on the 16th of
July. The Scots had placed themselves under the command of the
old Earl of Leven and of David Leslie. As yet their army was a
purely Covenanting one. By an act of the Scotch Church, called
the Act of Classes, all known Malignants, and the Engagers (as
those men were called who had joined Hamilton's insurrection),
had been removed from the army. The country between the Tweed
and Edinburgh had been wasted; and the inhabitants, terrified
by ridiculous stories of the English cruelty, had taken
flight; but Cromwell's army, marching by the coast, was
supplied by the fleet. He thus reached the immediate
neighbourhood of Edinburgh; but Leslie skilfully availed
himself of the advantages of the ground and refused to be
brought to an engagement. It became necessary for Cromwell to
withdraw towards his supplies. He fell back to Dunbar, which
lies upon a peninsula, jutting out into the Firth of Forth.
The base of this peninsula is at a little distance encircled
by high ground, an offshoot of the Lammermuir Hills. These
heights were occupied by the Scotch army, as was also the pass
through which the road to Berwick lies. Cromwell was therefore
apparently shut up between the enemy and the sea, with no
choice but to retire to his ships or surrender. Had Leslie
continued his cautious policy, such might have been the event.
A little glen, through which runs a brook called the Broxburn,
separated the two enemies. Between it and the high grounds lay
a narrow but comparatively level tract. Either army attacking
the other must cross this glen. There were two convenient
places for passing it: one, the more inland one, towards the
right of the English, who stood with their back to the sea,
was already in the hands of the Scotch. Could Leslie secure
the other, at the mouth of the glen, he would have it in his
power to attack when he pleased. The temptation was too strong
for him; be gradually moved his army down from the hills
towards its own right flank, thereby bringing it on the narrow
ground between the hill and the brook, intending with his
right to secure the passage at Broxmouth, Cromwell and Lambert
saw the movement, saw that it gave them a corresponding
advantage if they suddenly crossed the glen at Broxmouth, and
fell upon Leslie's right wing, while his main body was
entangled in the narrow ground before mentioned. The attack
was immediately decided upon, and [next morning] early on the
3rd of September carried out with perfect success. The Scotch
horse of the right wing were driven in confusion back upon
their main body, whom they trampled under foot, and the whole
army was thus rolled back upon itself in inextricable
confusion."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, pages 694-696.
"The pursuit extended over a distance of eight miles, and the
total loss of the Scots amounted to 3,000 killed and 10,000
prisoners, while 30 guns and 15,000 stand of arms were taken;
the casualties of the English army did not exceed 20 men. Of
the prisoners, 5,000, being wounded, old men or boys, were
allowed to return home; the remaining 5,000 were sent into
England, whence, after enduring terrible hardships, they were,
as had been the prisoners taken at Preston, sold either as
slaves to the planters or as soldiers to the Venetians. On the
day following that of the battle, Lambert pushed on to
Edinburgh with six regiments of horse and one of foot;
Cromwell himself, after a rest of a few days, advanced on the
capital, which at once surrendered to the victors. The example
thus set was followed by Leith, but Edinburgh Castle still
held out [until the following December] against the English.
The remnant of the Scottish army (but 1,300 horse remained of
the 6,000 who took part in the battle) retired on Stirling,
while Charles himself took up his residence at Perth."
N. L. Walford,
Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
A. Bisset,
Omitted Chapters of the History of England,
chapter 6.
T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 6.
{2870}
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August).
Charles' rash advance into England.
Cromwell's pursuit and crushing victory at Worcester.
"Lesley was gathering the wreck of his army about him at
Stirling. Charles, with the Scottish authorities, had retired
to Perth. The Presbyterian party became divided; and the
royalists obtained a higher influence in the direction of the
national policy. Charles, without further question of his real
intentions, was crowned at Scone on the 1st of January, 1651.
After a three months' blockade, and then a bombardment,
Edinburgh Castle was surrendered to Cromwell on the 18th of
December. He had little to do to make himself master of
Scotland on the south of the Forth. On the 4th of February the
army marched towards Stirling, but returned without any
result, driven to the good quarters of Edinburgh by terrible
storms of sleet and snow. The Lord-General became seriously
ill through this exposure. But on the 5th of June he was out
again; and at the end of the month was vigorously prosecuting
the campaign. The Scottish army was entrenched at Stirling.
The king had been invited to take its command in person.
Cromwell, on the 2nd of August, had succeeded in possessing
himself of Perth. At that juncture the news reached him that
the royal camp at Stirling was broken up, on the 31st of July;
and that Charles was on his march southward, at the head of
11,000 men, his lieutenant-general being David Lesley. Argyll
was opposed to this bold resolution, and had retired to
Inverary. Charles took the western road by Carlisle; and when
on English ground issued a proclamation offering pardon to
those who would return to their allegiance—exempting from his
promised amnesty Bradshaw, Cromwell, and Cook. He was also
proclaimed king of England, at the head of his army: and
similar proclamation was made at Penrith and other
market-towns. Strict discipline was preserved, and although
the presence of Scots in arms was hateful to the people, they
were not outraged by any attempts at plunder. Charles,
however, had few important accessions of strength. There was
no general rising in his favour. The gates of Shrewsbury were
shut against him. At Warrington, his passage of the Mersey was
opposed by Lambert and Harrison, who had got before him with
their cavalry. On the 22nd of August Charles reached
Worcester, the parliamentary garrison having evacuated the
city. He there set up his standard, and a summons went forth
for all male subjects of due age to gather round their
Sovereign Lord, at the general muster of his forces on the
26th of August. An inconsiderable number of gentlemen came,
with about 200 followers. Meanwhile Cromwell had marched
rapidly from Scotland with 10,000 men, leaving behind him
6,000 men under Monk. The militias of the counties joined him
with a zeal which showed their belief that another civil war
would not be a national blessing. On the 28th of August the
General of the Commonwealth was close to Worcester, with
30,000 men." On the 3d of September (the anniversary of the
victory of Dunbar, won just a year before), he attacked the
royalist army and made an end of it. "'We beat the enemy from
hedge to hedge [he wrote to parliament] till we beat him into
Worcester. The enemy then drew all his forces on the other
side the town, all but what he had lost; and made a very
considerable fight with us, for three hours' space; but in the
end we beat him totally, and pursued him to his royal fort,
which we took,—and indeed have beaten his whole army.' The
prisoners taken at the battle of Worcester, and in the
subsequent flight, exceeded 7,000. They included some of the
most distinguished leaders of the royalists in England and
Scotland. Courts-martial were held upon nine of these; and
three, amongst whom was the earl of Derby, were executed."
Charles Stuart escaped by flight, with his long cavalier locks
cut close and his royal person ignobly disguised, wandering
and hiding for six weeks before he reached the coast and got
ship for France. The story of his adventures—his concealment
in the oak at Boscobel, his ride to Bristol as a serving man,
with a lady on the pillion behind him, &c., &c.,—has been told
often enough.
C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 27.
ALSO IN:

T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 6, letters 96-124.
Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 13 (volume 5).
A. Bisset,
Omitted Chapters of English History,
chapters 10-11 (volume 2).
F. P. Guizot,
History of Oliver Cromwell,
book 2 (volume 1).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August-September).
The conquest completed by Monk.
When Cromwell followed Charles and his Scottish army into
England, to destroy them at Worcester, he left Monk in
Scotland, with a few thousand men, and that resolute general
soon completed the conquest of the kingdom. He met with most
resistance at Dundee. "Dundee was a town well fortified,
supplied with a good garrison under Lumisden, and full of all
the rich furniture, the plate, and money of the kingdom, which
had been sent thither as to a place of safety. Monk appeared
before it: and having made a breach, gave a general assault.
He carried the town; and, following the example and
instructions of Cromwell, put all the inhabitants to the
sword, in order to strike a general terror into the kingdom.
Warned by this example, Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, Inverness, and
other towns and forts, yielded, of their own accord, to the
enemy. … That kingdom, which had hitherto, through all ages,
by means of its situation, poverty, and valour, maintained its
independence, was reduced to total subjection."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 60 (volume 5).
ALSO IN:
J. Browne,
History of the Highlands,
volume 2, chapter 4.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654.
Incorporated with England by Protector Cromwell.
In 1654, "Cromwell completed another work which the Long
Parliament and the Barebone Parliament had both undertaken and
left unfinished. Under favour of the discussions which had
arisen between the great powers of the Commonwealth, the
Scottish royalists had once more conceived hopes, and taken up
arms. … The insurrection, though chiefly confined to the
Highlands, descended occasionally to ravage the plains; and
towards the beginning of February, 1654, Middleton had been
sent from France, by Charles II., to attempt to give, in the
king's name, that unity and consistency of action in which it
had until then been deficient.
{2871}
No sooner had he been proclaimed Protector, than Cromwell took
decisive measures to crush these dangers in their infancy: he
despatched to Ireland his second son, Henry, an intelligent,
circumspect, and resolute young man, and to Scotland, Monk,
whom that country had already once recognized as her
conqueror. Both succeeded in their mission. … Monk, with his
usual prompt and intrepid boldness, carried the war into the
very heart of the Highlands, established his quarters there,
pursued the insurgents into their most inaccessible retreats,
defeated Middleton and compelled him to re-embark for the
Continent, and, after a campaign of four months, returned to
Edinburgh at the end of August, 1654, and began once more,
without passion or noise, to govern the country which he had
twice subjugated. Cromwell had reckoned beforehand on his
success, for, on the 12th of April, 1654, at the very period
when he ordered Monk to march against the Scottish insurgents,
be had, by a sovereign ordinance, incorporated Scotland with
England, abolished all monarchical or feudal jurisdiction in
the ancient realm of the Stuarts, and determined the place
which its representatives, as well as those of Ireland, should
occupy in the common Parliament of the new State."
F. P. Guizot,
History of Oliver Cromwell,
book 5 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 11, chapter 1.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.
The restored King and the restored prelatical Church.
The oppression of the Covenanters.
"In Scotland the restoration of the Stuarts had been hailed
with delight; for it was regarded as the restoration of
national independence. And true it was that the yoke which
Cromwell had imposed was, in appearance, taken away, that the
Scottish Estates again met in their old hall at Edinburgh, and
that the Senators of the College of Justice again administered
the Scottish law according to the old forms. Yet was the
independence of the little kingdom necessarily rather nominal
than real: for, as long as the King had England on his side,
he had nothing to apprehend from disaffection in his other
dominions. He was now in such a situation that he could renew
the attempt which had proved destructive to his father without
any danger of his father's fate. … The government resolved to
set up a prelatical church in Scotland. The design was
disapproved by every Scotchman whose judgment was entitled to
respect. … The Scottish Parliament was so constituted that it
had scarcely ever offered any serious opposition even to Kings
much weaker than Charles then was. Episcopacy, therefore, was
established by law. As to the form of worship, a large
discretion was left to the clergy. In some churches the
English Liturgy was used. In others, the ministers selected
from that Liturgy such prayers and thanksgivings as were
likely to be least offensive to the people. But in general the
doxology was sung at the close of public worship, and the
Apostles' Creed was recited when baptism was administered. By
the great body of the Scottish nation the new Church was
detested both as superstitious and as foreign; as tainted with
the corruptions of Rome, and as a mark of the predominance of
England. There was, however, no general insurrection. The
country was not what it had been twenty-two years before.
Disastrous war and alien domination had tamed the spirit of
the people. … The bulk of the Scottish nation, therefore,
sullenly submitted, and, with many misgivings of conscience,
attended the ministrations of the Episcopal clergy, or of
Presbyterian divines who had consented to accept from the
government a half toleration known by the name of the
Indulgence. But there were, particularly in the western
lowlands, many fierce and resolute men who held that the
obligation to observe the Covenant was paramount to the
obligation to obey the magistrate. These people, in defiance
of the law, persisted in meeting to worship God after their
own fashion. The Indulgence they regarded, not as a partial
reparation of the wrongs inflicted by the State on the Church,
but as a new wrong, the more odious because it was disguised
under the appearance of a benefit. Persecution, they said,
could only kill the body; but the black Indulgence was deadly
to the soul. Driven from the towns, they assembled on, heaths
and mountains. Attacked by the civil power, they without
scruple repelled force by force. At every conventicle they
mustered in arms. They repeatedly broke out into open
rebellion. They were easily defeated and mercilessly punished:
but neither defeat nor punishment could subdue their spirit.
Hunted down like wild beasts, tortured till their bones were
beaten fiat, imprisoned by hundreds, hanged by scores, exposed
at one time to the license of soldiers from England, abandoned
at another time to the mercy of troops of marauders from the
Highlands, they still stood at bay, in a mood so savage that
the boldest and mightiest oppressor could not but dread the
audacity of their despair."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 2 (volume 1).
The Scottish Parliament by which Episcopacy was established at
the king's bidding is known as the Drunken Parliament. "Every
man of them, with one exception, is said to have been
intoxicated at the time of passing it [October 1, 1662]. Its
effect was that 350 ministers were ejected from their livings.
The apparatus of ecclesiastical tyranny was completed by a
Mile Act, similar to the Five Mile Act of England, forbidding
any recusant minister to reside within twenty miles of his own
parish, or within three miles of a royal borough."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, page 729.
"The violence of the drunken parliament was finally shown in
the absurdity of what was called the 'Act Rescissory,' by
which every law that had been passed in the Scottish
parliament during twenty-eight years was wholly annulled. The
legal foundations of Presbytery were thus swept away."
C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 29.
ALSO IN:
J. Aikman,
Annals of the Persecution in Scotland,
volume 1, books 2-5.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679.
Lauderdale's despotism.
The Highland host.
"A new Parliament was assembled [October 19, 1669] at
Edinburgh, and Lauderdale was sent down commissioner. … It
were endless to recount every act of violence and arbitrary
authority exercised during Lauderdale's administration. All
the lawyers were put from the bar, nay banished, by the king's
order, twelve miles from the capital, and by that means the
whole justice of the kingdom was suspended for a year, till
these lawyers were brought to declare it as their opinion that
all appeals to Parliament were illegal. A letter was procured
from the king, for expelling twelve of the chief magistrates
of Edinburgh, and declaring them incapable of an public
office, though their only crime had been their want of
compliance with Lauderdale. …
{2872}
The private deportment of Lauderdale was as insolent and
provoking as his public administration was violent and
tyrannical. Justice likewise was universally perverted by
faction and interest: and from the great rapacity of that
duke, and still more of his duchess, all offices and favours
were openly put to sale. No one was allowed to approach the
throne who was not dependent on him; and no remedy could be
hoped for or obtained against his manifold oppressions. … The
law enacted against conventicles had called them seminaries of
rebellion. This expression, which was nothing but a flourish
of rhetoric, Lauderdale and the privy council were willing to
understand in a literal sense; and because the western
counties abounded in conventicles, though otherwise in
profound peace, they pretended that these counties were in a
state of actual war and rebellion. They made therefore an
agreement with some highland chieftains to call out their
clans, to the number of 8,000 men; to these they joined the
guards, and the militia of Angus: and they sent the whole to
live at free quarters upon the lands of such as had refused
the bonds [engaging them as landlords to restrain their
tenants from attending conventicles] illegally required of
them. The obnoxious counties were the most populous and most
industrious in Scotland. The highlanders were the people the
most disorderly and the least civilized. It is easy to imagine
the havoc and destruction which ensued. … After two months'
free quarter, the highlanders were sent back to their hills,
loaded with the spoils and the execrations of the west. … Lest
the cry of an oppressed people should reach the throne, the
council forbad, under severe penalties, all noblemen or
gentlemen of landed property to leave the kingdom. … It is
reported that Charles, after a full hearing of the debates
concerning Scottish affairs, said, 'I perceive that Lauderdale
has been guilty of many bad things against the people of
Scotland; but I cannot find that he has acted anything
contrary to my interest.'"
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 66 (volume 6).
ALSO IN:
G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
books 2-3.
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 78 (volume 7).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (May-June).
The Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.
"The public indignation which these measures [under
Lauderdale] roused was chiefly directed against the Archbishop
of St. Andrews [Dr. James Sharp], who was generally regarded
as their author or instigator, and was doubly obnoxious as the
Judas of the Presbyterian Church." On the 3d of May, 1679, the
Archbishop was dragged from his carriage on Magus Moor, three
miles from St. Andrews, and murdered, by a band of twelve
Covenanters, headed by Hackston of Rathillet, and Balfour of
Burley, his brother-in-law. "The great body of the
Presbyterians, though doubtless thinking that 'the loon was
weel away,' condemned this cruel and bloody deed as a foul
murder; and they could not fail to see that it would greatly
increase the severity of the persecution against their party.
… It was now declared a treasonable act to attend a
conventicle, and orders were issued to the commanders of the
troops in the western district to disperse all such meetings
at the point of the sword. … Towards the end of May
preparations were made to hold a great conventicle on a moor
in the parish of Avondale, near the borders of Lanarkshire.
The day selected for the service was the first of June. No
secret was made of the arrangement, and it became known to
John Graham of Claverhouse, the 'Bloody Claverhouse,' as he
was called, who commanded a body of dragoons, stationed at
Glasgow, for the purpose of suppressing the Covenanters in
that district. … Having been apprised of the intended meeting,
he hastened towards the spot at the head of his own troop of
horse and two companies of dragoons. … The Covenanters had
assembled on the farm of Drumclog, in the midst of a high and
moorland district out of which rises the wild craggy eminence
of Loudoun Hill, in whose vicinity Robert Bruce gained his
first victory. … The preacher, Thomas Douglas, had proceeded
only a short way with his sermon when a watchman posted on an
adjoining height fired his gun as a signal that the enemy was
approaching. The preacher paused in his discourse, and closed
with the oft-quoted words—'You have got the theory; now for
the practice.' The women and children were sent to the rear.
The armed men separated from the rest of the meeting and took
up their position. … Claverhouse and his dragoons were
descending the slope of the opposite eminence, called Calder
Hill, and with a loud cheer they rushed towards the morass and
fired a volley at the Covenanters. It was returned with great
effect, emptying a number of saddles. The dragoons made
several unsuccessful attempts to cross the marsh, and flanking
parties sent to the right and to the left were repulsed with
considerable loss. At this juncture John Nisbet [an old
soldier of the Thirty Years' War] cried out, 'Jump the ditch
and charge the enemy.' The order was instantly obeyed.
Balfour, at the head of the horsemen, and Cleland, with a
portion of the infantry, crossed the marsh and attacked the
dragoons with such fury that they were thrown into confusion
and took to flight, leaving from forty to fifty of their
number dead on the field. Claverhouse himself had his horse
killed under him and narrowly escaped his pursuers. … The
victory at Drumclog roused the whole country. Great numbers
poured in to join the victors, and in a short time their ranks
had swelled to upwards of 6,000 men."
J. Taylor,
The Scottish Covenanters,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
M. Morris,
Claverhouse,
chapter 4.
Sir W. Scott,
Old Morality.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (June).
Monmouth's success at Bothwell Bridge.
"The King was for suppressing the insurrection immediately by
forces from England to join those in Scotland, and the Duke of
Monmouth to command them all. … The Duke of Monmouth, after a
friendly parting with the King, who had been displeased with
him, set out from London, June 18, for Scotland, where he
arrived in three days, with an expedition considered
incredible, and took the command. The Covenanters were 5,000
or 6,000 strong, and had taken up a position six miles from
Hamilton, at Bothwell Bridge, which they barricaded and
disputed the Duke's passage. These Covenanters were
irresolute. An attempt to negotiate was made, but they were
told that no proposal could be received from rebels in arms.
One half hour was allowed. The Covenanters went on consuming
their time in theological controversy, considering 'the Duke
to be in rebellion against the Lord and his people.'
{2873}
While thus almost unprepared, they were entirely defeated in
an action, 22d of June, which, in compliment to the Duke of
Monmouth, was too proudly called the battle of Bothwell
Bridge. Four hundred Covenanters were killed, and 1,200 made
prisoners. Monmouth was evidently favourable to them. … The
Duke would not let the dragoons pursue and massacre those (as
Oldmixon calls them) Protestants. … The same historian adds,
that the Duke of York talked of Monmouth's expedition to
Scotland, as a courting the people there, and their friends in
England, by his sparing those that were left alive; and that
Charles himself said to Monmouth, 'If I had been there, we
would not have had the trouble of prisoners.' The Duke
answered, 'I cannot kill men in cold blood; that's work only
for butchers.' The prisoners who promised to live peaceably
were set at liberty; the others, about 270, were transported
to our plantations, but were all cast away at sea! The Duke of
Lauderdale's creatures pressed the keeping the army some time
in Scotland, with a design to have them eat it up; but the
Duke of Monmouth sent home the militia, and put the troops
under discipline; so that all the country was sensible he had
preserved them from ruin. The Duke asked the King to grant an
indemnity for what was past, and liberty to the Covenanters to
hold their meetings under the King's license; but these
softening measures fell with Monmouth, and rage and slaughter
again reigned when the Duke of York obtained the government of
Scotland."
G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 4 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 79 (volume 7).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
The pitiless rule of James II.
The hunting of the Cameronians.
Claverhouse's brutalities.
In 1681 the government of Scotland was committed to the king's
brother, the duke of York (afterwards James II.), as viceroy.
"Succeeding the duke of Monmouth, who was universally beloved,
he was anxious to exhibit as a statesman that capacity which
he thought he had given sufficient proof of as a general and
as a naval commander. In assuming the direction of the affairs
of Scotland, he at first affected moderation; but at a very
early period an occasion presented itself for displaying
severity; he was then pitiless. A few hundred presbyterians,
under the conduct of two ministers, Cameron and Cargill,
having taken arms and declared that they would acknowledge
neither the king nor the bishops, he sent the troops against
them. The insurgents, who called themselves Cargillites and
Cameronians, were beaten, and a great number of them killed.
The prisoners, taken to Edinburgh, were tortured and put to
death. The duke was present at the executions, which he
witnessed with an unmoved countenance, and as though they were
curious experiments."
A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
chapter 2.
"Unlike the English Puritans, the great majority of the
Scottish Presbyterians were staunch supporters of monarchy. …
Now, however, owing to the 'oppression which maketh a wise man
mad,' an extreme party arose among them, who not only
condemned the Indulgence and refused to pay cess, but publicly
threw off their allegiance to the King, on the ground of his
violation of his coronation oath, his breach of the Covenant
which he solemnly swore to maintain, his perfidy, and his
'tyranny in matters civil.' A declaration to this effect was
publicly read, and then affixed (June 22d, 1680) to the market
cross of Sanquhar in Dumfriesshire, by Richard Cameron and
Donald Cargill, two of the most distinguished Covenanting
ministers, accompanied by an armed party of about twenty
persons. … These acts of the 'Society men,' or Cameronians, as
they were called after their leader, afforded the government a
plausible pretext for far more severe measures than they had
yet taken against the Hillmen, whom they hunted for several
weeks through the moors and wild glens of Ayr and Galloway."
J. Taylor,
The Scottish Covenanters,
chapter 4.
"He [James II.], whose favourite theme had been the injustice
of requiring civil functionaries to take religious tests,
established in Scotland, when he resided there as Viceroy, the
most rigorous religious test that has ever been known in the
empire. He, who had expressed just indignation when the
priests of his own faith were hanged and quartered, amused
himself with hearing Covenanters shriek and seeing them writhe
while their knees were beaten flat in the boots. In this mood
he became King, and he immediately demanded and obtained from
the obsequious Estates of Scotland, as the surest pledge of
their loyalty, the most sanguinary law that has ever in our
islands been enacted against Protestant Nonconformists. With
this law the whole spirit of his administration was in perfect
harmony. The fiery persecution, which had raged when he ruled
Scotland as vicegerent, waxed hotter than ever from the day on
which he he came sovereign. Those shires in which the
Covenanters were most numerous were given up to the license of
the army. … Preeminent among the bands which oppressed and
wasted these unhappy districts were the dragoons commanded by
John Graham of Claverhouse. The story ran that these wicked
men used in their revels to play at the torments of hell, and
to call each other by the names of devils and damned souls.
The chief of this Tophet, a soldier of distinguished courage
and professional skill, but rapacious and profane, of violent
temper and obdurate heart, has left a name which, wherever the
Scottish race is settled on the face of the globe, is
mentioned with a peculiar energy of hatred. To recapitulate
all the crimes by which this man, and men like him, goaded the
peasantry of the Western Lowlands into madness, would be an
endless task."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 4 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. Cunningham,
History of the Church of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 6.
M. Morris,
Claverhouse.
J. Aikman,
Annals of the Persecution in Scotland,
volume 2, books 5-12.
A Cloud of Witnesses.
J. Howie,
The Scots Worthies.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1685.
Argyll's invasion.
Monmouth's rebellion.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1687.
Declarations of Indulgence by James II.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
{2874}
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.
The Revolution.
Fall of the Stuarts and their Bishops.
Presbyterianism finally restored and established.
"At the first prospect of invasion from Holland [by William of
Orange], James had ordered the regiments on duty in Scotland to
march southward. The withdrawal of the troops was followed by
outbreaks in various parts. In Glasgow the Covenanters rose,
and proclaimed the Prince of Orange king. In Edinburgh riots
broke out. The chapel of Holyrood Palace was dismantled, and
the Romish bishops and priests fled in fear for their lives.
On hearing that William had entered into London, the leading
Whigs, under the Duke of Hamilton, repaired thither, and had
an interview with him. He invited them to meet in Convention.
This they accordingly did, and on January 9, 1689, it was
resolved to request William to summon a meeting of the
Scottish Estates for the 14th of March, and in the interim to
administer the government. To this William consented. The
Estates of Scotland met on the appointed day. All the bishops,
and a great number of the peers were adherents of James. After
a stormy debate, the Duke of Hamilton was elected President.
But the minority (Jacobites) was a large one. … The Duke of
Gordon still held Edinburgh Castle for James, and when the
minority found it hopeless to carry their measures, he
proposed they should with him withdraw from Edinburgh and hold
a rival Convention at Stirling. But these intentions were
discovered, many Jacobites were arrested, and many others,
amongst them Viscount Dundee, escaped to the Highlands. In the
end, the crown was offered to William and Mary on the same
terms on which it had been offered by the English Convention.
The offer was accompanied by a claim of rights, almost
identical with the English declaration, but containing the
additional clause, that 'prelacy was a great and insupportable
grievance.' On April 11, 1689, William and Mary were solemnly
proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh. It was high time some
form of government should be settled, for, throughout the
Lowlands, scenes of mob violence were daily witnessed. The
Presbyterians, so long down-trodden, rose in many a parish.
The Episcopal clergy were ejected, in some cases with
bloodshed. The 'rabbling,' as it is called in Scotch history,
continued for some months, until the Presbyterian Church was
reinstated by law as the Established Church of Scotland, in
June 1690."
E. Hale,
The Fall of the Stuarts,
chapter 13.
"Episcopacy was now thrown down; but Presbytery was yet to be
built up. … Months passed away, and the year 1690 began. King
William was quite prepared to establish Presbytery, but he was
most unwilling to abolish patronage. Moreover, he was desirous
that the foundations of the new Church should be as widely
laid as possible, and that it should comprehend all the
ministers of the old Church who chose to conform to its
discipline. But he began to see that some concession was
necessary, if a Church was to be built up at all. On the 25th
of April the Parliament met which was to give us the
Establishment which we still enjoy. Its first act was to
abolish the Act 1669, which asserted the king's supremacy over
all persons and in all causes. Its second act was to restore
all the Presbyterian ministers who had been ejected from their
livings for not complying with Prelacy. This done, the
parliament paused in its full career of ecclesiastical
legislation, and abolished the Lords of the Articles, who for
so many centuries had managed the whole business of the Scotch
Estates, and ordained that the electors of commissioners to
the Estates should take the Oath of Allegiance before
exercising the franchise. The next act forms the foundation of
our present Establishment. It ratifies the 'Westminster
Confession of Faith'; it revives the Act 1592; it repeals all
the laws in favour of Episcopacy; it legalizes the ejections
of the western rabble; it declares that the government of the
Church was to be vested in the ministers who were outed for
nonconformity, on and after the 1st January 1661, and were now
restored, and those who had been or should be admitted by
them; it appoints the General Assembly to meet; and empowers
it to nominate visitors to purge out all insufficient,
negligent, scandalous, and erroneous ministers, by due course
of ecclesiastical process. In this act the Presbyterians
gained all that they could desire, as Presbytery was
established, and the government of the Church was placed
entirely in their hands. By this act, the Westminster
Confession became the creed of the Church, and is recorded at
length in the minutes of the parliament. But the Catechisms
and the 'Directory of Worship' are not found by its side. A
pamphleteer of the day declares that the Confession was read
amid much yawning and weariness, and, by the time it was
finished, the Estates grew restive, and would hear no more. It
is at least certain that the Catechisms and Directory are not
once mentioned, though the Presbyterian ministers were very
anxious that they should. From this it would appear that,
while the State has fixed the Church's faith, it has not fixed
the Church's worship. … The Covenants were utterly ignored,
though there were many in the Church who would have wished
them revived."
J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 7.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 July).
War in the Highlands.
The Battle of Killiecrankie.
"The duke of Gordon still held out the castle of Edinburgh for
James; and the viscount Dundee [Graham of Claverhouse], the
soul of the Jacobite party in Scotland, having collected a
small but gallant army of Highlanders, threatened with
subjection the whole northern part of the kingdom. Dundee, who
had publicly disavowed the authority of the Scottish
convention, had been declared an outlaw by that assembly; and
general Mackay was sent against him with a body of regular
troops. The castle of Blair being occupied by the adherents of
James, Mackay resolved to attempt its reduction. The viscount,
apprised of the design of his antagonist, summoned up all his
enterprising spirit, and by forced marches arrived at Athol
before him. He was soon [July 27, 1689] informed that Mackay's
vanguard had cleared the pass of Killicranky; a narrow defile,
formed by the steep sides of the Grampian hills, and a dark,
rapid, and deep river. Though chagrined at this intelligence
he was not disconcerted. He despatched Sir Alexander Maclean
to attack the enemy's advanced party while he himself should
approach with the main body of the Highlanders. But before
Maclean had proceeded a mile, Dundee received information that
Mackay had marched through the pass with his whole army. He
commanded Maclean to halt, and boldly advanced with his
faithful band, determined to give battle to the enemy."
Mackay's army, consisting of four thousand five hundred foot,
and two troops of horse, was formed in eight battalions, and
ready for action when Dundee came in view. His own brave but
undisciplined followers, of all ranks and conditions, did not
exceed 3,300 men. "These he instantly ranged in hostile array.
{2875}
They stood inactive for several hours in sight of the enemy,
on the steep side of a hill, which faced the narrow plain
where Mackay had formed his line, neither party choosing to
change its ground. But the signal for battle was no sooner
given, than the Highlanders rushed down the hill in deep
columns; and having discharged their muskets with effect, they
had recourse to the broadsword, their proper weapon, with
which they furiously attacked the enemy. Mackay's left wing
was instantly broken, and driven from the field with great
slaughter by the Macleans, who formed the right of Dundee's
army. The Macdonalds, who composed his left, were not equally
successful: Colonel Hasting's regiment of English foot
repelled their most vigorous efforts, and obliged them to
retreat. But Maclean and Cameron, at the head of part of their
respective clans, suddenly assailed this gallant regiment in
flank, and put it to the rout. Two thousand of Mackay's army
were slain; and his artillery, baggage, ammunition,
provisions, and even king William's Dutch standard, fell into
the hands of the Highlanders. But their joy, like a smile upon
the cheek of death, delusive and insincere, was of short
duration. Dundee was mortally wounded by a musket shot as he
was pursuing the fugitives; he expired soon after his victory,
and with him perished the hopes of James in Scotland. The
castle of Edinburgh had already surrendered to the convention;
and the Highlanders, discouraged by the loss of a leader whom
they loved and almost adored, gradually dispersed themselves,
and returned to their savage mountains, to bewail him in their
songs. His memory is still dear to them; he is considered as
the last of their heroes; and his name, even to this day, is
seldom mentioned among them without a sigh or a tear."
W. Russell,
History of Modern Europe,
part 2, letter 17 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. Browne,
History of the Highlands,
volume 2, chapters 6-7.
M. Morris,
Claverhouse,
chapter 11.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (August).
Cameronian victory at Dunkeld.
After the victory and death of Dundee at Killiecrankie, the
command of his Highlanders had devolved upon Cannon, an Irish
officer. "With an army increased to 4,000 men, he continued to
coast along the Grampians, followed by Mackay; the one afraid
to descend from the mountains, and the other to quit, with his
cavalry, the advantage of the open plains. Returning by a
secret march to Dunkeld [August 21], he surrounded the
regiment of Cameronians, whose destruction appeared so
inevitable that they were abandoned by a party of horse to
their fate. But the Cameronians, notwithstanding the loss of
Cleland, their gallant commander, defended themselves … with
such desperate enthusiasm that the highlanders, discouraged by
the repulse, and incapable of persevering fortitude, dispersed
and returned to their homes."
M. Laing,
History of Scotland, 1603-1707,
book 10 (volume 4).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.
The Massacre of Glenco.
A scheme, originating with Lord Breadalbane, for the pacifying
of the Highlanders, was approved by King William and acted
upon, in 1691. It offered a free pardon and a sum of money to
all the chiefs who would take the oath of allegiance to
William and Mary before the first of January, 1692, and it
contemplated the extirpation of such clans as refused. "The
last man to submit to government was Macdonald of Glenco.
Towards the end of December he applied to the governor of Fort
William, who refused, as not being a civil magistrate, to
administer the oaths; but dispatched him in haste, with an
earnest recommendation to the Sheriff of Argyle. From the
snows and other interruptions which he met with on the road,
the day prescribed for submission had elapsed, before he
reached Inverary, the county town. The benefit of the
indemnity was strictly forfeited; the sheriff was moved,
however, by his tears and entreaties, to receive his oath of
allegiance, and to certify the unavoidable cause of his delay.
But his oath was industriously suppressed, by the advice
particularly of Stair the president; the certificate was
erased from the list presented to the privy council; and it
appears that an extensive combination was formed for his
destruction. The earl of Breadalbane, whose lands he had
plundered, and … Dalrymple, the secretary, … persuaded William
that Glenco was the chief obstacle to the pacification of the
highlands. Perhaps they concealed the circumstance that he had
applied within due time for the oaths to government, and had
received them since. But they procured instructions, signed,
and for their greater security, countersigned by the king
himself, to proceed to military execution against such rebels
as had rejected the indemnity, and had refused to submit on
assurance of their lives. As these instructions were found
insufficient, they obtained an additional order, signed, and
also countersigned, by the king, 'that if Glenco and his clan
could well be separated from the rest, it would be a proper
vindication of public justice to extirpate that sect of
thieves.' But the directions given by Dalrymple far exceeded
even the king's instructions. … Glenco, assured of an
indemnity, had remained at home, unmolested for a month, when
a detachment arrived from Fort William, under Campbell of
Glenlyon, whose niece was married to one of his sons. The
soldiers were received on assurance of peace and friendship;
and were quartered among the inhabitants of the sequestered
vale. Their commander enjoyed for a fortnight the daily
hospitality of his nephew's table. They had passed the evening
at cards together, and the officers were to dine with his
father next day. Their orders arrived that night, to attack
their defenceless hosts while asleep at midnight, and not to
suffer a man, under the age of seventy, to escape their
swords. From some suspicious circumstances the sons were
impressed with a sudden apprehension of danger, and discovered
their approach; but before they could alarm their father, the
massacre spread through the whole vale. Before the break of
day, a party, entering as friends, shot Glenco as he rose from
his bed. His wife was stript naked by the soldiers, who tore
the rings with their teeth from her fingers; and she expired
next morning with horror and grief. Nine men were bound and
deliberately shot at Glenlyon's quarters; his landlord was
shot by his orders, and a young boy, who clung to his knees
for protection, was stabbed to death. At another part of the
vale the inhabitants were shot while sitting around their
fire; women perished with their children in their arms; an old
man of eighty was put to the sword; another, who escaped to a
house for concealment, was burnt alive.
{2876}
Thirty-eight persons were thus inhumanly massacred by their
inmates and guests. The rest, alarmed by the report of
musquetry, escaped to the hills, and were preserved from
destruction by a tempest that added to the horrors of the
night. … The carnage was succeeded by rapine and desolation.
The cattle were driven off or destroyed. The houses, to fulfil
Dalrymple's instructions, were burnt to the ground; and the
women and children, stript naked, were left to explore their
way to some remote and friendly habitation, or to perish in
the snows. The outcry against the massacre of Glenco was not
confined to Scotland; but, by the industry of the Jacobites,
it resounded with every aggravation through Europe. Whether
the inhuman rigour or the perfidious execution of the orders
were considered, each part of the bloody transaction
discovered a deliberate, treacherous, and an impolitic
cruelty, from which the king himself was not altogether
exempt. Instead of the terror which it was meant to inspire,
the horror and universal execration which it excited rendered
the highlanders irreconcilable to his government, and the
government justly odious to his subjects."
M. Laing,
History of Scotland, 1603-1707,
book 10 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 18 (volume 4).
J. Browne,
History of the Highlands,
volume 2, chapter 10.
G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 5 (volume 4), 1692.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.
The Darien scheme.
King William urges a Union of the kingdoms.
"The peace of Ryswic was succeeded by an event which had well
nigh created a civil war between Scotland and England. As the
writers of no nation are more marked by grandeur and meanness
of composition in the same person, and the actors in public
life by grandeur and meanness of character in the same person,
than those of England; so the proceedings of the national
assembly of England, the noblest that ever was on earth,
except that of Rome, are often tinctured with a strange
mixture of the great and the little. Of this truth an instance
appeared at this time, in the proceedings of parliament with
regard to the Scots colony of Darien, settled by Mr. Paterson.
… Paterson, having examined the places, satisfied himself that
on the isthmus of Darien there was a tract of country running
across from the Atlantic to the South Sea, which the Spaniards
had never possessed, and inhabited by a people continually at
war with them; … that the two seas were connected by a ridge
of hills, which, by their height, created a temperate climate;
… that roads could be made with ease along the ridge, by which
mules, and even carriages, might pass from the one sea to the
other in the space of a day, and that consequently this
passage seemed to be pointed out by the finger of nature, as a
common centre, to connect together the trade and intercourse
of the universe. … By this obscure Scotsman a project was
formed to settle, on this neglected spot, a great and powerful
colony, not as other colonies have for the most part been
settled, by chance, and unprotected by the country from whence
they went, but by system, upon foresight, and to receive the
ample protection of those governments to whom he was to offer
his project. And certainly no greater idea has been formed
since the time of Columbus. … Paterson's original intention
was to offer his project to England, as the country which had
the most interest in it." Receiving no encouragement, however,
in London, nor in Holland, nor Germany, to which countries he
repaired, he returned finally to Scotland, and there awakened
the interest of several influential gentlemen, including Mr.
Fletcher of Salton, the Marquis of Tweddale, Lord Stair, and
others. "These persons, in June 1695, procured a statute from
parliament, and afterwards a charter from the crown in terms
of it, for creating a trading company to Africa and the new
world, with power to plant colonies and build forts, with
consent of the inhabitants, in places not possessed by other
European nations. Paterson, now finding the ground firm under
him, … threw his project boldly upon the public, and opened a
subscription for a company. The frenzy of the Scots nation to
sign the solemn league and covenant never exceeded the
rapidity with which they ran to subscribe to the Darien
company. The nobility, the gentry, the merchants, the people,
the royal burghs, without the exception of one, most of the
other public bodies, subscribed. Young women threw their
little fortunes into the stock, widows sold their jointures to
get the command of money for the same purpose. Almost in an
instant £400,000 were subscribed in Scotland, although it be
now known that there was not at that time above £800,000 of
cash in the kingdom. … The English subscribed £300,000, and
the Dutch and Hamburghers £200,000 more. … In the mean time,
the jealousy of trade, which has done more mischief to the
trade of England than all other causes put together, created
an alarm in England; and the houses of lords and commons,
without previous inquiry or reflection, on the 13th December
of the year 1695, concurred in a joint address to the King
against the establishment of the Darien company, as
detrimental to the interest of the East India company. Soon
after, the commons impeached some of their own countrymen for
being instrumental in erecting the company. … The King's
answer was 'that he had been ill-advised in Scotland.' He soon
after changed his Scottish ministers, and sent orders to his
resident at Hamburgh to present a memorial to the senate, in
which he disowned the company, and warned them against all
connections with it. … The Scots, not discouraged, were rather
animated by this oppression; for they converted it into a
proof of the envy of the English, and of their consciousness
of the great advantages which were to flow to Scotland from
the colony. The company proceeded to build six ships in
Holland, from 36 to 60 guns, and they engaged 1,200 men for
the colony; among whom were younger sons of many of the noble
and most ancient families of Scotland, and sixty officers who
had been disbanded at the peace." The first colony sailed from
Leith, July 26, 1698, and arrived safely at Darien in two
months. They "fixed their station at Acta, calling it New St.
Andrew, … and the country itself New Caledonia. … The first
public act of the colony was to publish a declaration of
freedom of trade and religion to all nations. This luminous
idea originated with Paterson.
{2877}
But the Dutch East India company having pressed the King, in
concurrence with his English subjects, to prevent the
settlement of Darien, orders had been sent from England to the
governors of the West Indian and American colonies, to issue
proclamations against giving assistance, or even to hold
correspondence with the colony; and these were more or less
harshly expressed, according to the tempers of the different
governors. The Scots, trusting to far different treatment, and
to the supplies which they expected from those colonies, had
not brought provisions enough with them; they fell into
diseases, from bad food, and from want of food. … They
lingered eight months, awaiting, but in vain, for assistance
from Scotland, and almost all of them either died out or
quitted the settlement. Paterson, who had been the first that
entered the ship at Leith, was the last who went on board at
Darien." To complete the destruction of the undertaking, the
Spanish government, which had not moved in opposition before,
now bestirred itself against the Scottish company, and entered
formal complaints at London (May 3, 1699). "The Scots,
ignorant of the misfortunes of their colony, but provoked at
this memorial [of Spain], sent out another colony soon after
of 1,300 men, to support an establishment which was now no
more." This last colony, after gallant fighting and great
suffering, was expelled from Darien by a Spanish expedition,
and "not more than thirty, saved from war, shipwreck, or
disease, ever saw their own country again. … While the second
colony of the Scots were exposing themselves, far from their
country, in the cause, mediately or immediately, of all who
spoke the English language, the house of lords of England were
a second time addressing the King at home against the
settlement itself. … He answered the address of the lords, on
the 12th of February 1699, in the following words: 'His
Majesty does apprehend that difficulties may too often arise,
with respect to the different interests of trade between his
two kingdoms, unless some way he found out to unite them more
nearly and completely; and therefore his Majesty takes this
opportunity of putting the house of peers in mind of what he
recommended to his parliament soon after his accession to the
throne, that they would consider of an union between the two
kingdoms.'"
Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memorials of Great Britain,
part 3, book 6 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
J. H. Burton,
History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 4 (volume l).
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter. 24 (volume 5).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
Hostility to England.
The Act of Security.
The Scottish Plot.
"This Parliament of 1703 was not in a temper of conciliation
towards England. Glencoe and Darien were still watchwords of
strife. The failure of the negotiations for Union necessarily
produced exasperation. Whilst Marlborough was fighting the
battles of the Allies, the Scottish Parliament manifested a
decided inclination to the interests of France, by removing
restrictions on the importation of French wines. The 'Act for
the Security of the Kingdom' was a more open declaration not
only of the independence of Scotland, but of her disposition
to separate wholly from England—to abrogate, on the first
opportunity, that union of the crowns which had endured for a
century. The Act of Settlement, by which the crown of England
was to pass in the Protestant line to the electress Sophia and
her descendants, was not to be accepted; but, on the demise of
queen Anne without issue, the Estates of Scotland were to name
a successor from the Protestant descendants of the Stuart
line, and that successor was to be under conditions to secure
'the religious freedom and trade of the nation from English or
any foreign influence.' For four months this matter was
vehemently debated in the Scottish Parliament. The Act of
Security was carried, but the Lord High Commissioner refused
his assent. Following this legislative commotion came what was
called in England the Scottish plot—a most complicated affair
of intrigue and official treachery, with some real treason at
the bottom of it. [This Scottish Plot, otherwise called the
Queensberry Plot, was a scheme to raise the Highland clans for
the Pretender, abortively planned by one Simon Fraser.] The
House of Lords in England took cognizance of the matter, which
provoked the highest wrath in Scotland, that another nation
should interfere with her affairs. … When the Scottish Estates
reassembled in 1704 they denounced the proceedings of the
House of Lords, as an interference with the prerogative of the
queen of Scotland; and they again passed the Security Act. The
royal assent was not now withheld; whether from fear or from
policy on the part of the English ministry is not very clear.
The Parliament of England then adopted a somewhat strong
measure of retaliation. The queen was addressed, requesting
her to put Carlisle, Newcastle, Tynemouth, and Hull in a state
of defence, and to send forces to the border. A Statute was
passed which in the first place provided for a treaty of
Union; and then enacted that until the Scottish Parliament
should settle the succession to the crown in the same line as
that of the English Act of Settlement, no native of Scotland,
except those domiciled in England, or in the navy or army,
should acquire the privileges of a natural-born Englishman;
and prohibiting all importations of coals, cattle, sheep, or
linen from Scotland. It was evident that there must be Union
or War."
C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 5, chapter 21.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Burton,
History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
chapters 4 and 7 (volume 1).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
The Union with England.
To avert war between Scotland and England by a complete
political Union of the two kingdoms in one became now the
greatest object of the solicitude of the wiser statesmen on
both sides. They used their influence to so good an effect
that, in the spring of 1706, thirty-one Commissioners on the
part of each kingdom were appointed to negotiate the terms of
Union. The Commissioners held their first meeting on the 16th
of April, and were in session until the 22d of July, when the
Articles of Union agreed upon by them received the signature
of twenty-seven of the English and twenty-six of the Scots. On
the 16th of the following January (1707) these Articles were
ratified with amendments by the Scottish Parliament. The
English Parliament adopted them as amended a month later, and
on the 6th of March the Union was perfected by the royal
assent, given solemnly by the Queen, in presence of the Lords
and Commons of England. "It was agreed that Great Britain
should be the designation of the united island; the name of
Scotland to be merged in the name of North Britain. It was
agreed that the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew should be
conjoined in the flag of the united kingdom.
{2878}
It was agreed that the arms of the two countries—the three
lions passant and guardant Or, and the lion rampant Or, within
a double tressure flory and counterflory, Gules—should be
quartered with all heraldic honours. It was agreed that the
united kingdom should have a new Great Seal. As regards the
House of Commons, the English party proposed that Scotland
should be represented by 38 members. Even Scottish writers
have observed that if taxation be taken as the measure of
representation, and if it be remembered that the Scots of that
time had asked and been allowed to limit their share of the
Land-tax to one-fortieth of the share of England, it would
follow that, as an addition to the 513 members of Parliament
returned by England, Scotland was entitled to demand no more
than 13. But even 38 seemed by no means adequate to the claims
on other grounds of that ancient and renowned kingdom. The
Scottish Commissioners stood out for an increase, and the
English Commissioners finally conceded 45. The Peers of
England were at this juncture 185 and the Peers of Scotland
154. It was intended that the latter should send
representatives to the former, and the proportion was settled
according to the precedent that was just decided. The 45
members from Scotland when added to the 513 from England would
make one-twelfth of the whole; and 16 Peers from Scotland when
added to the 185 from England would also make about
one-twelfth of the whole. Sixteen was therefore the number
adopted; and the mode of election both of Commoners and Peers
was left to be determined by the Parliament of Scotland,
before the day appointed for the Union, that is the first of
May 1707. By this treaty Scotland was to retain her heritable
jurisdiction, her Court of Session and her entire system of
law. The Presbyterian Church as by law established was to
continue unaltered, having been indeed excluded from debate by
the express terms of the Commission."
Earl Stanhope,
History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Burton,
History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
Sir W. Scott,
Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland,
series 2, chapters 12.
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 17 (volume 3).
The text of the Act of Union may be found in the
Parliamentary History,
volume 6, appendix 2.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
Hostility to the Union.
Spread of Jacobitism.
"In Scotland it [the Union] was regarded with an almost
universal feeling of discontent and dishonour. The Jacobite
party, who had entertained great hopes of eluding the act for
settling the kingdom upon the family of Hanover, beheld them
entirely blighted; the Whigs, or Presbyterians, found
themselves forming part of a nation in which Prelacy was an
institution of the state; the Country party, who had nourished
a vain but honourable idea of maintaining the independence of
Scotland, now saw it, with all its symbols of ancient
sovereignty, sunk and merged under the government of England.
All the different professions and classes of men saw each
something in the obnoxious treaty which affected their own
interest. … There was, therefore, nothing save discontent and
lamentation to be heard throughout Scotland, and men of every
class vented their complaints against the Union the more
loudly, because their sense of personal grievances might be
concealed, and yet indulged under popular declamations
concerning the dishonour done to the country. … Almost all the
dissenting and Cameronian ministers were anti-unionists, and
some of the more enthusiastic were so peculiarly vehement,

that long after the controversy had fallen asleep, I have
heard my grandfather say (for your grandfather, Mr. Hugh
Littlejohn, had a grandfather in his time), that he had heard
an old clergyman confess he could never bring his sermon, upon
whatever subject, to a conclusion, without having what he
called a 'blaud,' that is a slap, at the Union. … The
detestation of the treaty being for the present the ruling
passion of the times, all other distinctions of party, and
even of religious opinions in Scotland, were laid aside, and a
singular coalition took place, in which Episcopalians,
Presbyterians, Cavaliers, and many friends of the revolution,
drowned all former hostility in the predominant aversion to
the Union. … For a time almost all the inhabitants of Scotland
were disposed to join unanimously in the Restoration, as it
was called, of James the Second's son to the throne of his
fathers; and had his ally, the King of France, been hearty in
his cause, or his Scottish partisans more united among
themselves, or any leader amongst them possessed of
distinguished talent, the Stewart family might have
repossessed themselves of their ancient domain of Scotland,
and perhaps of England also." Early in 1708 an attempt was
made to take advantage of this feeling in Scotland, on behalf
of the Pretender, by a naval and military expedition from
France, fitted out by the French king. It was vulgarly
frustrated by an attack of measles, which prostrated the
Stuart adventurer (the Chevalier de St. George) at Dunkirk,
until the English government had warning enough to be too well
prepared.
Sir W. Scott,
Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland,
series 3, chapters 1-2.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.
The Jacobite rising.
In 1715 "there were Jacobite risings both in Scotland and in
England. Early in September John Erskine, Earl of Mar—who some
years before had been a Whig and helped to bring about the
Union—raised the standard of rebellion in Braemar, and in a
short time found himself in command of a large Highland army.
But Mar was very slow in his movements, and lingered for six
weeks in Perth. The Duke of Argyle, famous as both a warrior
and a statesman, was sent from London to deal with this
danger; and, going to Stirling, used the time which Mar was
wasting in gathering round him soldiers and loyal Low-landers.
While things stood thus in the far north a few hundred
Jacobites took up arms in Northumberland under Mr. Forster and
Lord Derwentwater. Joining with some Southern Scots raised by
Lord Kenmure, and some Highlanders whom Mar had sent to their
aid, they marched to Preston, in Lancashire. The fate of the
two risings was settled on the same day. At Preston the
English Jacobites and their Scottish allies had to give
themselves up to a small body of soldiers under General
Carpenter. At Sheriffmuir, about eight miles north of
Stirling, the Highlanders, whom Mar had put in motion at last,
met Argyle's little army in battle, and, though not utterly
beaten, were forced to fall back to Perth. There Mar's army
soon dwindled to a mere handful of men. Just when things
seemed at the worst the Pretender himself landed in Scotland.
{2879}
But he altogether lacked the daring and high spirit needful to
the cause at the time; and his presence at Perth did not even
delay the end, which was now sure. Late in January 1716
Argyle's troops started from Stirling northwards; and the
small Highland force broke up from Perth and went to Montrose.
Thence James Edward and Mar slipped away unnoticed, and sailed
to France; and the Highlanders scampered off to their several
homes. Of the rebels that were taken prisoners about forty
were tried and put to death; and many were sent beyond the
seas. Derwentwater and Kenmure were beheaded; the other
leaders of rank either were forgiven or escaped from prison."
J. Rowley,
The Settlement of the Constitution,
book 3, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. McCarthy,
History of the Four Georges,
volume 1, chapter 7.
J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Pretenders,
volume 1, chapters 3-4.
Earl Stanhope,
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 5-6 (volume l).
Mrs. K. Thomson,
Memoirs of the Jacobites,
volumes 1-2.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1736.
The Porteous Riot.
See EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
The Young Pretender's invasion.
The last rising of the Jacobites.
"As early as 1744 Charles Edward [known as 'the Young
Pretender'], the grandson of James II., was placed by the
French government at the head of a formidable armament. But
his plan of a descent on Scotland was defeated by a storm
which wrecked his fleet, and by the march of the French troops
which had sailed in it to the war in Flanders. In 1745,
however, the young adventurer again embarked with but seven
friends in a small vessel and landed on a little island of the
Hebrides. For three weeks he stood almost alone; but on the
29th of August the clans rallied to his standard in
Glenfinnan. … His force swelled to an army as he marched
through Blair Athol on Perth, entered Edinburgh in triumph,
and proclaimed 'James the Eighth' at the Town Cross: and two
thousand English troops who marched against him under Sir John
Cope were broken and cut to pieces on the 21st of September by
a single charge of the clansmen at Preston Pans. Victory at
once doubled the forces of the conqueror. The Prince was now
at the head of 6,000 men; but all were still Highlanders. …
After skilfully evading an army gathered at Newcastle, he
marched through Lancashire, and pushed on the 4th of December
as far as Derby. But here all hope of success came to an end.
Hardly a man had risen in his support as he passed through the
districts where Jacobitism boasted of its strength. …
Catholics and Tories abounded in Lancashire, but only a single
squire took up arms. … The policy of Walpole had in fact
secured England for the House of Hanover. The long peace, the
prosperity of the country, and the clemency of the Government,
had done their work. … Even in the Highlands the Macleods rose
in arms for King George, while the Gordons refused to stir,
though roused by a small French force which landed at
Montrose. To advance further south was impossible, and Charles
fell rapidly back on Glasgow; but the reinforcements which he
found there raised his army to 9,000 men, and on the 23rd
January, 1746, he boldly attacked an English army under
General Hawley, which had followed his retreat and had
encamped near Falkirk. Again the wild charge of his
Highlanders won victory for the Prince, but victory was as
fatal as defeat. The bulk of his forces dispersed with their
booty to the mountains, and Charles fell sullenly back to the
north before the Duke of Cumberland. On the 16th of April the
armies faced one another on Culloden Moor, a few miles
eastward of Inverness. The Highlanders still numbered 6,000
men, but they were starving and dispirited. … In a few moments
all was over, and the Stuart force was a mass of hunted
fugitives. Charles himself after strange adventures escaped
[in the disguise of a female servant, attending the famous
Flora Macdonald] to France. In England fifty of his followers
were hanged; three Scotch lords, Lovat, Balmerino, and
Kilmarnock, brought to the block; and forty persons of rank
attainted by Act of Parliament. More extensive measures of
repression were needful in the Highlands. The feudal tenures
were abolished. The hereditary jurisdictions of the chiefs
were bought up and transferred to the Crown. The tartan, or
garb of the Highlanders, was forbidden by law. These measures,
followed by a general Act of Indemnity, proved effective for
their purpose."
J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 10, section 1.
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 26-29 (volume 3).
R. Chambers,
History of the Rebellion of 1745.
Mrs. K. Thomson,
Memoirs of the Jacobites,
volumes 2-3.
Chevalier de Johnstone,
Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1745.
J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Pretenders.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1779.
No-Popery Riots.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1832.
Representation in Parliament increased by the Reform Bill.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.
The Disruption of the Church.
Formation of the Free Church.
"Lay patronage was … inconsistent with the conception and the
fundamental principles of the Presbyterian Church, and she
opposed and rejected it, and fought against it. It was
abolished shortly after the Revolution of 1688, but again
restored by the British Parliament in 1712, contrary to the
letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Union, and to all
conceptions of a wise policy toward the Scottish nation. … An
internal struggle arose between the party who held firmly to
these sentiments and the new party—called 'the Moderate
party.' … In the middle of the 18th century the opposite views
of the popular and the moderate parties had become distinct.
The chief point of polity in dispute was the settlement of
ministers in parishes against the wishes of the congregations.
Cases of this character were constantly coming before the
presbyteries and general assemblies; and in 1733 it was on
matters arising from such cases that a secession took place. …
In 1773 there were upwards of two hundred dissenting
congregations, besides Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. … As
an attempt to redress the evils involved in patronage, the
popular party proposed, in the assembly of 1833, that when a
majority of a congregation objected to the minister presented
by the patron, the presbytery should not proceed with the
settlement. … It was on this reasonable regulation [passed
into an act, called the Veto Act, by the Assembly of 1834]
that the struggle which issued in the Disruption was fought,
although there were other principles involved in the
conflict."
{2880}
In 1839, a case arising in the parish church of Auchterarder,
in Perthshire, led to a decision in the Court of Session
against the legality of the Veto Act, and this decision, on
appeal, was affirmed by the House of Lords. "For several years
the country rang with the clamour and talk of non-intrusion
and spiritual independence, and the excitement was intense.
Pamphlets, speeches and ballads were circulated through the
kingdom in hundreds of thousands. The engrossing subject
attracted the attention of every household, and many a family
became divided in religious sentiments." Finally, in 1843,
finding no prospect of legislation from Parliament to free the
Church of Scotland from the odious fetters of patronage, the
popular party resolved upon a general secession from it. This
occurred in a memorable scene at the opening of the Assembly,
in Edinburgh, on the 18th of May, 1843. The Moderator of the
body, Dr. Welsh, read a protest against further proceedings in
the Assembly, because of certain acts, sanctioned by the
Government of the country, which had infringed on the
liberties of the constitution of the Church. He then left the
chair and walked out of the church. "Instantly Dr. Chalmers,
Dr. Gordon, and the whole of those in the left side of the
Church, rose and followed him. Upwards of two hundred
ministers walked out, and they were joined outside by three
hundred clergymen and other adherents. Dr. Welsh wore his
Moderator's dress, and when he appeared on the street, and the
people saw that principle had risen above interest, shouts of
triumph rent the air such as had not been heard in Edinburgh
since the days of the Covenant. They walked through Hanover
Street to Canonmills, where a large hall was erected for the
reception of the disestablished assembly. They elected Dr.
Chalmers Moderator, and formed the first General Assembly of
'The Free Church of Scotland.' Four hundred and seventy-four
ministers left the Establishment in 1843; they were also
joined by two hundred probationers, nearly one hundred
theological students of the University of Edinburgh, three
fourths of those in Glasgow, and a majority of those in
Aberdeen. The Disruption was an accomplished fact."
J. Mackintosh,
Scotland,
chapter 19.
"It is not every nation, it is not every age, which can
produce the spectacle of nearly 500 men leaving their homes,
abandoning their incomes, for the sake of opinion. It is
literally true that disruption was frequently a sentence of
poverty, and occasionally of death, to the ministers of the
Church. Well, then, might a great Scotchman of that time [Lord
Jeffrey] say that he was proud of his country, proud of the
heroism and self-denial of which her pastors proved capable.
But well also might a Scotchman of the present time say that
he was proud of the success which Voluntaryism achieved. It
was the good fortune of the Church that in the hour of her
trial she had a worthy leader. Years before, while ministering
to a poor congregation in Glasgow, Chalmers had insisted on
the cardinal doctrine that the poor should be made to help
themselves. He applied the same principle to the Scotch
Church. He … called on his friends around him to 'organise,
organise, organise.' It is not, however, the Church alone
which deserves commendation. The nation supported the Church.
… In the four years which succeeded the disruption, the Free
Church raised £1,254,000, and built 654 churches. Her
ministrations were extended to every district and almost every
parish in the land."
S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 21 (volume 4).
"In 1874 the Patronage Act of 1712 was repealed, but it was
too late to be of much use, and Scottish Presbyterianism
remains split up into different camps. Some of the older
secessions were in 1847 joined together to form the United
Presbyterian Church, mostly distinguished from the Free Church
by its upholding as a theory the 'Voluntary Principle.'"
T. F. Tout,
History of England from 1689,
page 238.
ALSO IN:
T. Brown,
Annals of the Disruption.
R. Buchanan,
The Ten Years' Conflict.
W. Hanna,
Memoirs of Thomas Chalmers,
volume 3, chapter 18
and volume 4, chapters 6-25.
P. Bayne,
Life and Letters of Hugh Miller,
book 5 (volume 2).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1868.
Parliamentary Reform.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1884.
Enlargement of the Suffrage.
Representation of the People Act.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
----------SCOTLAND: End--------
SCOTS,
Deliverance of Roman Britain by Theodosius from the.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.
SCOTT, Dred, The case of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
SCOTT, General Winfield.
In the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
SCOTT, General Winfield.
The Mexican campaign of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
SCOTT, General Winfield.
Defeat in Presidential Election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
SCOTT, General Winfield
Retirement from military service.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
SCOTTI.
SCOTS.
See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.
SCOTTISH PLOT, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
SCOURGE OF GOD, The.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
SCREW PROPELLER, Invention of the.
See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.
SCRIBES, The.
"The Scribes or 'Lawyers,' that is, the learned in the
Pentateuch. … It is evident that in the Scribes, rather than
in any of the other functionaries of the Jewish Church, is the
nearest original of the clergy of later times."
Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 44.
"The learned men after Ezra were called 'Sopherim' (singular
'Sopher'), Scribes; because to be a skilled writer was the
first criterion of a man of learning. To transcribe the
authenticated Law as deposited in the temple was one of the
Scribe's occupations. His next occupations were to read,
expound and teach it. The text was without vowel points,
without divisions of words, verses and chapters; hence it was
nearly hieroglyphic, so that the correct reading thereof was
traditional, and had to be communicated from master to
disciple. As the Great Synod legislated by expounding and
extending the Law, these additions also had to be taught
orally."
I. M. Wise,
History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth,
period 1, chapter 4.
SCROOBY, The Separatist Church at.
See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.
SCRUPULA.
See As.
{2881}
SCRUTIN DE LISTE.
A term applied in France to the mode of electing deputies by a
general ticket in each department—that is, in groups—instead
of singly, in separate districts.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
SCUTAGE.
The origin of this tax is implied in its title; it was derived
from the 'service of the shield' (scutum)—one of the
distinguishing marks of feudal tenure—whereby the holder of a
certain quantity of land was bound to furnish to his lord the
services of a fully-armed horseman for forty days in the year.
The portion of land charged with this service constituted a
'knight's fee,' and was usually reckoned at the extent of five
hides, or the value of twenty pounds annually."
K. Norgate,
England Under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
W. Stubbs,
The Early Plantagenets,
page 54.
SCUTARI: A. D. 1473-1479.
Stubborn resistance and final surrender to the Turks.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
SCUTUM.
A long wooden shield, covered with leather, having the form of
a cylinder cut in half, which the Romans are said to have
adopted from the Samnites.
E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 107.
SCYRI, The.
The Scyri were a tribe known to the Greeks as early as the
second century B. C. They were then on the shores of the Black
Sea. In the fifth century of the Christian era, after the
breaking up of the Hunnish empire of Attila, they appeared
among the people occupying the region embraced in modern
Austria,—on the Hungarian borders. They seem to have spoken
the Gothic language.
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2).
SCYRIS, The dynasty of the.
See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.
SCYTALISM AT ARGOS, The.
The city of Argos was the scene of a terrible outbreak of mob
violence (B. C. 370) consequent on the discovery of an
oligarchical conspiracy to overturn the democratic
constitution. The furious multitude, armed with clubs, slew
twelve hundred of the more prominent citizens, including the
democratic leaders who tried to restrain them. "This was the
rebellion at Argos known under the name of the Scytalism
(cudgelling): an event hitherto unparalleled in Greek
history,—so unprecedented, that even abroad it was looked upon
as an awful sign of the times, and that the Athenians
instituted a purification of their city, being of opinion that
the whole Hellenic people was polluted by these horrors."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 6, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 78.
SCYTHIANS, The.
"Their name, unnoticed by Homer, occurs for the first time in
the Hesiodic poems. When the Homeric Zeus in the Iliad turns
his eye away from Troy towards Thrace, he sees, besides the
Thracians and Mysians, other tribes, whose names cannot be
made out, but whom the poet knows as milk-eaters and
mare-milkers. The same characteristic attributes, coupled with
that of 'having waggons for their dwelling-houses,' appear in
Hesiod connected with the name of the Scythians. … Herodotus,
who personally visited the town of Olbia, together with the
inland regions adjoining to it, and probably other Grecian
settlements in the Euxine (at a time which we may presume to
have been about 450-440 B. C.)—and who conversed with both
Scythians and Greeks competent to give him information—has
left us far more valuable statements respecting the Scythian
people, dominion, and manners, as they stood in his day. His
conception of the Scythians, as well as that of Hippokrates,
is precise and well-defined—very different from that of the
later authors, who use the word almost indiscriminately to
denote all barbarous Nomads. His territory called Scythia is a
square area, twenty days' journey or 4,000 stadia (somewhat
less than 500 English miles) in each direction—bounded by the
Danube (the course of which river he conceives in a direction
from Northwest to Southeast), the Euxine, and the Palus Mæotis
with the river Tanais, on three sides respectively—and on the
fourth or north side by the nations called Agathyrsi, Neuri,
Androphagi and Melanchlæni. … The whole area was either
occupied by or subject to the Scythians. And this name
comprised tribes differing materially in habits and
civilization. The great mass of the people who bore it,
strictly Nomadic in their habits—neither sowing nor planting,
but living only on food derived from animals, especially
mare's-milk and cheese—moved from place to place, carrying
their families in waggons covered with wicker and leather,
themselves always on horseback with their flocks and herds,
between the Borysthenes [the Dnieper] and the Palus Mæotis
[sea of Azov]. … It is the purely Nomadic Scythians whom he
[Herodotus] depicts, the earliest specimens of the Mongolian
race (so it seems probable) known to history, and prototypes
of the Huns and Bulgarians of later centuries."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 17.
"The Scythians Proper of Herodotus and Hippocrates extended
from the Danube and the Carpathians on the one side, to the
Tanais or Don upon the other. The Sauromatæ, a race at least
half-Scythic, then succeeded, and held the country from the
Tanais to the Wolga. Beyond this were the Massagetæ, Scythian
in dress and customs, reaching down to the Jaxartes on the
east side of the Caspian. In the same neighbourhood were the
Asiatic Scyths or Sacæ, who seem to have bordered upon the
Bactrians."
G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Assyria,
chapter 9, footnote.
For an account of the Scythian expedition of Darius, B. C. 508.
See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, of Athens.
"The Athenian State also possessed slaves of its own. Such
slaves were, first of all, the so-called Scythæ or archers, a
corps at first of 300, then of 600 or even 1,200 men, who were
also called Speusinii, after a certain Speusinus, who first
(at what time is uncertain) effected the raising of the corps.
They served as gendarmes or armed police, and their
guard-house was at first in the market, afterwards in the
Areopagus. They were also used in war, and the corps of
Hippotoxotæ or mounted archers 200 strong, which is named in
the same connection with them, likewise without doubt
consisted of slaves."
G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens: The State,
book 2, chapter 11.
SEARCH, The Right of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.
SEBASTE.
See SAMARIA: REBUILDING OF THE CITY BY HEROD.
{2882}
SEBASTIAN, King of Portugal, A. D. 1557-1578.
SEBASTOPOL:
The Name.
"The Greeks translated the name of Augustus into Sebastos …,
in consequence of which a colony founded by Augustus on the
shores of the Black Sea was called Sebastopolis."
H. N. Humphreys,
History of the Art of Printing,
page 68.
SEBASTOPOL: A. D. 1854-1855.
Siege and capture by the English, French, and Sardinians.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1854-1856.
SECESH.
See Boys IN BLUE.
SECESSION, AMERICAN WAR OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.
SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.
During the prolonged struggle of the plebeians of Rome to
extort civil and political rights from the originally
governing order, the patricians, they gained their end on
several occasions by marching out in a body from the city,
refusing military service and threatening to found a new city.
The first of these secessions was about 494 B. C. when they
wrung from the patricians the extraordinary concession of the
Tribunate.
See ROME: B. C. 494-492.
The second was B. C. 449, when the tyranny of the Decemvirs
was overthrown. The third was four years later, on the demand
for the Canuleian Law. The last was B. C. 286, and resulted in
the securing of the Hortensian Laws.
See ROME: B. C. 445-400; and 286.
SECOFFEE INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
SECOND EMPIRE (French), The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852, to 1870 (SEPTEMBER).
SECOND REPUBLIC (French), The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, to 1851-1852.
SECULAR CLERGY.
The secular clergy of the monastic ages "was so called because
it lived in the world, in the 'siècle.' It was composed of all
the ecclesiastics who were not under vows in a religious
community. The ecclesiastical members of communities, or
inhabitants of convents, composed the 'regular clergy.'"
E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
epoch 2, book 1, chapter 6, foot-note.
See, also, BENEDICTINE ORDERS.
SECULAR GAMES AT ROME, The.
The Ludi Sæculares, or secular games, at Rome, were supposed
to celebrate points of time which marked the successive ages
of the city. According to tradition, the first age was
determined by the death of the last survivor of those who were
born in the year of the founding of Rome. Afterwards, the
period became a fixed one; but whether it was 100 or 110 years
is a debated question. At all events, during the period of the
empire, the secular games were celebrated five times (by
Augustus, Claudius, Domitian, Severus and Philip) with
irregularity, as suited the caprice of the emperors. The last
celebration was in the year A. U. 1000—A. D. 247.
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 35, with footnote.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 7.
SECURITY, The Act of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
SEDAN, The French Catastrophe at.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
SEDAN: The Sovereign Principality and its extinction.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.
SEDGEMOOR, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).
SEFAVEAN DYNASTY, The.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
SEGESVAR, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
SEGNI, The.
The Segni were a tribe in ancient Gaul who occupied a region
on the Rhine supposed to be indicated by the name of the
modern small town of Sinei or Segnei, a small town in the
territory of Namur on the Meuse above Liège.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 8.
SEGONTIACI, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons living near the Thames.
SEGONTIUM.
"One of the most important Roman towns in Wales, the walls of
which are still visible at Caer Seiont, near Caernarvon, on
the coast of the Irish Sea."
T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
SEGUSIAVI, The.
One of the tribes of Gaul which occupied the ancient Forez
(departments of the Rhone and the Loire) and extended to the
left bank of the Saone.
Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.
SEISACHTHEIA OF SOLON, The.
See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.
SEJANUS, The malign influence of.
See ROME: A. D. 14-37.
SELAH.
The city in the rocks—Petra—of the Edomites, Idumeans, or
Nabatheans.
See NABATHEANS.
SELDJUKS, OR SELJUKS, The.
See TURKS: THE SELJUKS.
SELECTMEN.
In 1665 the General Court or Town Meeting of Plymouth Colony
enacted that "'in every Towne of this Jurisdiction there be
three or five Celectmen chosen by the Townsmen out of the
freemen such as shal be approved by the Court; for the better
managing of the afaires of the respective Townships; and that
the Celect men in every Towne or the major parte of them are
heerby Impowered to heare and determine all debtes and
differences arising between pson and pson within theire
respective Townships not exceeding forty shillings,' &c. … The
origin of the title 'Selectmen' it is difficult to determine.
It may possibly be referred to the tun-gerefa of the old
Anglo-Saxon township, who, with 'the four best men,' was the
legal representative of the community, or to the 'probi
homines' of more ancient times. The prefix 'select' would seem
to indicate the best, the most approved, but, as in the
Massachusetts Colony, they were called, as early as 1642.
'selected townsmen,' it is probable that without reference to
any historic type they were merely the men appointed, chosen,
selected from the townsmen, to have charge of town affairs."
W. T. Davis,
Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,
pages 84-85.
See, also, TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.
SELEUCIA.
Seleucia, about forty-five miles from Babylon, on the Tigris,
was one of the capitals founded by Seleucus Nicator. "Many
ages after the fall of [the Macedonian or Seleucid Empire in
Asia] … Seleucia retained the genuine characters of a Grecian
colony—arts, military virtue, and the love of freedom.
{2883}
The independent republic was governed by a senate of three
hundred nobles; the people consisted of 600,000 citizens; the
walls were strong, and, as long as concord prevailed among the
several orders of the State, they viewed with contempt the
power of the Parthian; but the madness of faction was
sometimes provoked to implore the dangerous aid of the common
enemy, who was posted almost at the gates of the colony." The
Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, grew up at a distance of only
three miles from Seleucia. "Under the reign of Marcus, the
Roman generals penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia.
They were received as friends by the Greek colony; they
attacked as enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both
cities experienced the same treatment. The sack and
conflagration of Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the
inhabitants, tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 8.
See, also, CTESIPHON; SELEUCIDÆ; and MEDAIN.
----------SELEUCIDÆ: Start--------
SELEUCIDÆ, The Empire of the.
The struggle for power which broke out after his death among
the successors of Alexander the Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C.
323-316 to 297-280) may be regarded as having been brought to
a close by the battle of Ipsus. "The period of fermentation
was then concluded, and something like a settled condition of
things brought about. A quadripartite division of Alexander's
dominions was recognised, Macedonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and
Syria (or south-western Asia) becoming thenceforth distinct
political entities. … Of the four powers thus established, the
most important … was the kingdom of Syria (as it was called),
or that ruled for 247 years by the Seleucidæ. Seleucus
Nicator, the founder of this kingdom, was one of Alexander's
officers, but served without much distinction through the
various campaigns by which the conquest of the East was
effected. At the first distribution of provinces (B. C. 323)
among Alexander's generals after his death, he received no
share; and it was not until B. C. 320, when upon the death of
Perdiccas a fresh distribution was made at Triparadisus, that
his merits were recognised, and he was given the satrapy of
Babylon. … Seleucus led the flower of the eastern provinces to
the field of Ipsus (B. C. 301), and contributed largely to the
victory, thus winning himself a position among the foremost
potentates of the day. By the terms of the agreement made
after Ipsus, Seleucus was recognised as monarch of an the
Greek conquests in Asia, with the sole exceptions of Lower
Syria and Asia Minor. The monarchy thus established extended
from the Holy Land and the Mediterranean on the west, to the
Indus valley and the Bolor mountain-chain upon the east, and
from the Caspian and Jaxartes towards the north, to the
Persian gulf and Indian Ocean towards the south. It comprised
Upper Syria, Mesopotamia, parts of Cappadocia and Phrygia,
Armenia, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Susiana, Persia, Carmania,
Sagartia, Hyrcania, Parthia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Aria,
Zarangia, Arachosia, Sacastana, Gedrosia, and probably some
part of India."
G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 3.
The original capital of the great Empire of Seleucus was
Babylon; but not satisfied with it he founded and built the
city of Seleucia, about forty miles from Babylon, on the
Tigris. Even there he was not content, and, after the battle
of Ipsus, he created, within a few years, the magnificent city
of Antioch, in the valley of the Orontes, and made it his
royal residence. This removal of the capital from the center
of his dominions to the Syrian border is thought to have been
among the causes which led to the disintegration of the
kingdom. First Bactria, then Parthia, fell away, and the
latter, in time, absorbed most of the Seleucid empire.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapters 58-60 (volumes 7-8).
ALSO IN:
J. P. Mahaffy,
The Story of Alexander's Empire.
B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
volume 3.
SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 281-224.
Wars with the Ptolemies and civil wars.
Decay of the empire.
"Antiochus Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to
his father [murdered B. C. 281—see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280]
at the age of 40, received the surname of Soter [Saviour] from
his complete victory [time and place unknown] over the Gauls
at the time when they had crossed the Bosporus [see GALATIA].
… He reigned little more (?) than twenty years. At the
beginning of his reign, Antiochus carried on wars with
Antigonus and Ptolemy Ceraunus [see MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244],
which, however, were soon brought to a close. The war with
Antigonus had commenced as early as the time of Demetrius; it
was a maritime war, in which nothing sufficiently important
was done; both parties felt that it was only a useless waste
of strength, and soon concluded peace. Antiochus was wise
enough altogether to abstain from interfering in the affairs
of Europe. In Asia he apparently enlarged the dominion of his
father, and his magnificent empire extended from the mountains
of Candahar as far as the Hellespont; but many parts of it,
which his father had left him in a state of submission,
asserted their independence, as e. g., Cappadocia and Pontus
under Ariarathes, and so also Armenia and several other
countries in the midst of his empire; and he was obliged to be
satisfied with maintaining a nominal supremacy in those parts.
There can be no doubt that in his reign Bactria also became
independent under a Macedonian king. Even Seleucus had no
longer ruled over the Indian states, which, having separated
from the empire, returned to their own national institutions.
With Ptolemy Philadelphus [Egypt] he at first concluded peace,
and was on good terms with him; but during the latter years of
his reign he was again involved in war with him, although
Ptolemy undoubtedly was far more powerful; and this war was
protracted until the reign of his son Antiochus. … The
Egyptians carried on the war on the offensive against Asia
Minor, where they already possessed a few places, and
principally at sea. The Syrians conquered Damascus, though
otherwise the war was unfavourable to them; they did not carry
it on with energy, and the Egyptians at that time conquered
Ephesus, the coast of Ionia, Caria, Pamphylia, and probably
Cilicia also; the Cyclades likewise fell into their hands
about that period. … On the death of Antiochus Soter (Olymp.
129, 3) [B. C. 252] the government passed into the hands of
his surviving son, … Antiochus Theos, one of the most
detestable Asiatic despots." Peace with Egypt was brought
about by the marriage of Antiochus Theos to Berenice, daughter
of Ptolemy Philadelphus; but in order to marry her he was
obliged to divorce and send away his wife Laudice, or Laodice.
{2884}
After Ptolemy Philadelphus died, however (B. C. 248), Laodice
returned, "recovered her whole influence, and Berenice, with
her child, was sent to Antioch"—the royal residence of
Antiochus then being at Ephesus. The next year Antiochus, who
had been ill for a long time—"in a perpetual state of
intoxication"—died, perhaps of poison. Laodice "caused a waxen
image of him to be placed in a bed, and thus deceived the
courtiers, who were obliged to stand at a respectful
distance," while she, "with her sons, took possession of the
government, and adopted measures to rid herself of Berenice.
But the citizens of Antioch sided with Berenice, and … she for
a time remained in possession of Antioch. … But she was
betrayed by the nobles …; her child was dragged from her arms
and murdered before her eyes; she then fled into the temple at
Daphne, and was herself murdered there in the asylum. The two
brothers, Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax, then
assumed the crown; but they seem to have divided the empire,
and Antiochus obtained Asia Minor. … Ptolemy Euergetes, the
third among the Ptolemies, and the last in the series that
deserves praise, now rose in just indignation at the fate of
his unhappy sister (Olymp. 133, 3) [B. C. 246]. He marched out
with all the forces of his empire, and wherever he went the
nations declared in his favour. … 'All the Ionian, Cilician,
and other towns, which were already in arms to support
Berenice,' joined Euergetes, and he traversed the whole of the
Syrian empire. … He himself proceeded as far as Babylon.
Media, Persia, and the upper satrapies, southern Chorassan and
Sistan as far as Cabul, all of which belonged to Syria,
submitted to him. He was equally successful in Asia Minor: the
acropolis of Sardes, a part of Lydia, and Phrygia Major, alone
maintained themselves. Even the countries on the coast of
Thrace … were conquered by the Egyptians. … Seleucus
Callinicus, in the meantime, probably maintained himself in
the mountainous districts of Armenia, in Aderbidjan. 'His
brother, Antiochus, deserted him, and negotiated with
Ptolemy.' In the conquered countries, Ptolemy everywhere
exercised the rights of a conqueror in the harsh Egyptian
manner. … While he was thus levying contributions abroad, an
insurrection broke out in Egypt, which obliged him to return."
He, thereupon, divided his conquests, "retaining for himself
Syria as far as the Euphrates, and the coast districts of Asia
Minor and Thrace, so that he had a complete maritime empire.
The remaining territories he divided into two states: the
country beyond the Euphrates was given, according to St.
Jerome on Daniel (xi. 7 foll.), to one Xanthippus, who is
otherwise unknown, and western Asia was left to Antiochus
Hierax. It would seem that after this he never visited those
countries again. After he had withdrawn, a party hostile to
him came forward to oppose him. … The confederates formed a
fleet, with the assistance of which, and supported by a
general insurrection of the Asiatics, who were exasperated
against the Egyptians on account of their rapacity, Seleucus
Callinicus rallied again. He recovered the whole of upper
Asia, and for a time he was united with his brother Antiochus
Hierax. … Ptolemy being pressed on all sides concluded a truce
of ten years with Seleucus on the basis 'uti possidetis.' Both
parties seem to have retained the places which they possessed
at the time, so that all the disadvantage was on the side of
the Seleucidae, for the fortified town of Seleucia, e. g.,
remained in the hands of the Egyptians, whereby the capital
was placed in a dangerous position. 'A part of Cilicia, the
whole of Caria, the Ionian cities, the Thracian Chersonesus,
and several Macedonian towns likewise continued to belong to
Egypt.' During this period, a war broke out between the
brothers Seleucus and Antiochus. … The war between the two
brothers lasted for years: its seat was Asia Minor. …
'Seleucus established himself in upper Asia, where the
Parthians, who during the war between the brothers had subdued
Sistan and lower Chorassan, were in the possession of Media,
Babylonia and Persia.'" In the end, Antiochus was overcome,
and fled into Thrace. "But there he was taken prisoner by a
general of Euergetes, 'and orders were sent from Alexandria to
keep him in safe custody'; for in the mean time a peace had
been concluded between Seleucus and Ptolemy, by which the
Egyptian empire in its immense extent was strengthened again."
Antiochus Hierax then escaped and took refuge among the Gauls,
but was murdered for the jewels that he carried with him.
"Notwithstanding its successful enterprises, Egypt had been
shaken by the war to its foundations and had lost its
strength. … The empire was already in a state of internal
decay, and even more so than that of Syria. The death of
Euergetes [B. C. 221] decided its downfall. 'But in Syria too
the long wars had loosened the connection among the provinces
more than ever, and those of Asia Minor, the jewels of the
Syrian crown, were separated from the rest. For while Seleucus
was in Upper Asia, Achaeus, his uncle, availed himself of the
opportunity of making himself an independent satrap in western
Asia.' Seleucus did not reign long after this. He was
succeeded by his son Seleucus Ceraunus (Olymp. 138, 2) [B. C.
227] who marched against the younger Achaeus, but was murdered
by a Gaul named Apaturius, at the instigation of the same
Achaeus (Olymp. 130, 1) [B. C. 224]. He had reigned only three
years, and resided in western Asia. He was succeeded by his
younger brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great. … Under
Antiochus the Syrian empire revived again and acquired a great
extent, especially in the south. Although he was not a great
man, his courtiers, not without reason, gave him the surname
of the Great, because he restored the empire. This happened at
the time when Antigonus Doson [king of Macedonia] died.
Achaeus, in Asia Minor, was in a state of insurrection; the
satrap of Media was likewise revolting, and the Syrian empire
was confined to Syria, Babylonia, and Persia. During this
confusion, new sovereigns ascended the thrones everywhere. In
Macedonia, Philip succeeded; in Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator; in
Media, Molon; and in Bactria a consolidated Macedonian dynasty
had already established itself."
B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
lectures 103-104 (volume 3).
{2885}
SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 224-187.
The reign of Antiochus the Great.
His early successes.
His disastrous war with the Romans.
His diminished kingdom.
His death.
Antiochus the Great first proved his military talents in the
war against the rebellious brothers Molo and Alexander, the
satraps of Media and Persia (B. C. 220). "He next renewed the
old contest with Egypt for the possession of Cœle-Syria and
Palestine, and was forced to cede those provinces to Ptolemy
Philopator, as the result of his decisive defeat at Raphia,
near Gaza, in the same year in which the battle of the
Trasimene lake (between Hannibal and the Romans] was fought
(B. C. 217). Meanwhile, Achæus, the governor of Asia Minor,
had raised the standard of independence; but after an
obstinate resistance he was defeated and taken at Sardis, and
put to death by Antiochus (B. C. 214). This success in the
West encouraged Antiochus, like his father, to attempt the
reconquest of the East, and with greater appearance at least
of success. But a seven years' war (B. C. 212-205) only
resulted in his acknowledgment of the independence of the
Parthian monarchy (B. C. 205). The same year witnessed not
only the crisis of the Hannibalic War, but the death of
Ptolemy Philopator; and the opportunity offered by the latter
event effectually withdrew Antiochus from direct participation
in the great conflict. The league which he made with Philip
[Philip V., king of Macedonia, who had then just concluded a
peace with the Romans, ending the 'First Macedonian War'—see
GREECE: B. C. 214-146], instead of being a well-concerted plan
for the exclusion of the Romans from Asia, was only intended
to leave him at liberty to pursue his designs against Egypt,
while Philip bore the brunt of the war with Attalus [king of
Pergamus, or Pergamum] and the Romans. During the crisis of
the Macedonian War, he prosecuted a vigorous attack upon
Cilicia, Cœle-Syria, and Palestine, while the Romans hesitated
to engage in a new contest to protect the dominions of their
youthful ward [Ptolemy V. Epiphanes, the infant king of Egypt,
whose guardians had placed him under the protection of the
Roman senate]. At length a decisive victory over the Egyptians
at Panium, the hill whence the Jordan rises, was followed by a
peace which gave the coveted provinces to Antiochus [see JEWS:
B. C. 332-167], while the youthful Ptolemy was betrothed to
Cleopatra, the daughter of the Syrian king (B. C. 198). It
must not be forgotten that, the transference of these
provinces from Egypt, which had constantly pursued a tolerant
policy towards the Jews, led afterwards to the furious
persecution of that people by Antiochus Epiphanes, and their
successful revolt under the Maccabees [see JEWS: B. C.
166-40]. The time seemed now arrived for Antiochus to fly to
the aid of Philip, before he should be crushed by the Romans;
but the Syrian king still clung to the nearer and dearer
object of extending his power over the whole of Asia Minor. …
He collected a great army at Sardis, while his fleet advanced
along the southern shores of Asia Minor, so that he was
brought into collision both with Attalus and the Rhodians, the
allies of Rome. … Though the Rhodians succeeded in protecting
the chief cities of Caria, and Antiochus was repelled from
some important places by the resistance of the inhabitants, he
became master of several others, and among the rest of Abydos
on the Hellespont. Even the conquest of his ally Philip was in
the first instance favourable to his progress; for the
hesitating policy of the Romans suffered him to occupy the
places vacated by the Macedonian garrisons." It was not until
191 B. C. that the fatuity of the Syrian monarch brought him
into collision with the legions of Rome. He had formed an
alliance with the Ætolians in Greece, and he had received into
his camp the fugitive Carthaginian, Hannibal; but petty
jealousies forbade his profiting by the genius of the great
unfortunate soldier. He entered Greece with a small force in
192 B. C., occupied the pass of Thermopylæ, and entrenched
himself there, waiting reinforcements which did not come to
him. Even the Macedonians were arrayed against him. Early in
the following year he was attacked in this strong position by
the Roman consul Manius Acilius Glabrio, Despite the immense
advantages of the position he was defeated overwhelmingly and
his army almost totally destroyed (B. C. 191). He fled to
Chalcis and from Chalcis to Asia; but he had not escaped the
long arm of wrathful Rome, now roused against him. For the
first time, a Roman army crossed the Hellespont and entered
the Asiatic world, under the command of the powerful Scipios,
Africanus and his brother. At the same time a Roman fleet, in
co-operation with the navy of Rhodes, swept the coasts of Asia
Minor. After some minor naval engagements, a great battle was
fought off the promontory of Myonnesus, near Ephesus, in which
the Syrians lost half their fleet (B. C. 190). … On land
Antiochus fared no better. A vast and motley host which he
gathered for the defense of his dominions was assailed by L.
Scipio at Magnesia, under Mount Sipylus (B. C. 190), and
easily destroyed, some 50,000 of its dead being left on the
field. This ended the war and stripped Antiochus of all his
former conquests in Asia Minor. Much of the territory taken
from him was handed over to the king of Pergamum, faithful
ally and friend of Rome; some to the republic of Rhodes, and
some was left undisturbed in its political state, as organized
in the minor states of Cappadocia, Bithynia and the rest. "As
the battle of Magnesia was the last, in ancient history, of
those unequal conflicts, in which oriental armies yielded like
unsubstantial shows to the might of disciplined freedom, so it
sealed the fate of the last of the great oriental empires; for
the kingdom left to the heirs of Seleucus was only strong
enough to indulge them in the luxuries of Antioch and the
malignant satisfaction of persecuting the Jews. All resistance
ceased in Asia Minor; that great peninsula was ceded as far as
the Taurus and the Halys, with whatever remained nominally to
Antiochus in Thrace; and, with characteristic levity, he
thanked the Romans for relieving him of the government of too
large a kingdom. … Never, perhaps, did a great power fall so
rapidly, so thoroughly, and so ignominiously as the kingdom of
the Seleucidæ under this Antiochus the Great. He himself was
soon afterwards slain by the indignant inhabitants of Elymaïs
at the head of the Persian Gulf, on occasion of the plundering
of a temple of Bel, with the treasures of which he had sought
to replenish his empty coffers (B. C. 187), … The petty
princes of Phrygia soon submitted to the power and exactions
of the new lords of Western Asia; but the powerful Celtic
tribes of Galatia made a stand in the fastnesses of Mount
Olympus." They were overcome, however, and the survivors
driven beyond the Halys. "That river, fixed by the treaty with
Antiochus as the eastern limit of Roman power, in Asia, was
respected as the present terminus of their conquests, without
putting a bound to their influence."
{2886}
Eumenes, king of Pergamus, "was justly rewarded for his
sufferings and services by the apportionment of the greater
part of the territories ceded by Antiochus to the
aggrandizement of his kingdom. Pergamus became the most
powerful state of Western Asia, including nearly the whole of

Asia Minor up to the Halys and the Taurus, except Bithynia and
Galatia on the one side, and on the other Lycia and the
greater part of Caria, which went to recompense the fidelity
of the Rhodians; and to these Asiatic possessions were added,
in Europe, the Thracian Chersonese and the city of
Lysimachia."
P. Smith,
History of the World: Ancient,
chapter 27 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. P. Mahaffy,
The Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapters 24 and 28.
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 2.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 65.
SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 150.
Conquest by the Parthians of Media, Persia, Susiana,
Babylonia and Assyria.
See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 64.
Pompeius in the East.
Syria absorbed in the dominion of Rome.
In 64, B. C. having finished the Mithridatic War, driving the
Pontic king across the Euxine into the Crimea, Pompeius Magnus
marched into Syria to settle affairs in that disordered
region.
See ROME: B. C. 69-63.
He had received from the Roman senate and people, under the
Manilian Law, an extraordinary commission, with supreme powers
in Asia, and by virtue of this authority he assumed to dispose
of the eastern kingdoms at will. The last of the Seleucid
kings of Syria was deprived of his throne at Pompey's command,
and Syria was added to the dominions of Rome. He then turned
his attention to Judæa.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapters 9-10.
See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
----------SELEUCIDÆ: End--------
SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
SELGOVÆ, The.
A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern county of
Dumfries, Scotland.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
SELIM I.,
Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1512-1520.
Selim II., Turkish Sultan, 1566-1574.
Selim III., Turkish Sultan, 1789-1807.
SELINUS, Destruction of (B. C. 409).
See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
SELJUKS.
See TURKS (SELJUKS).
SELLA CURULIS.
See CURULE CHAIR.
SELLASIA, Battle of.
The last and decisive battle in what was called the Kleomenic
War—fought B. C. 221. The war had its origin in the resistance
of Sparta, under the influence of its last heroic king,
Kleomenes, to the growing power of the Achaian League, revived
and extended by Aratos. In the end, the League, to defeat
Kleomenes, was persuaded by Aratos to call in Antigonus Doson,
king of Macedonia, and practically to surrender itself, as an
instrument in his hands, for the subjugation of Sparta and all
Peloponnesus. The deed was accomplished on the field of
Sellasia. Kleomenes fled to Egypt; "Sparta now, for the first
time since the return of the Hêrakleids, opened her gates to a
foreign conqueror."
E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 7, section 4.
ALSO IN:
Plutarch,
Kleomenes.
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
SELLI, The.
See HELLAS.
SEMINARA, Battle of (1503).
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
SEMINOLES.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SEMINOLES,
and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
also, FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818, 1835-1843.
----------SEMITES: Start--------
SEMITES, The
"The 'Semitic Race' owes its name to a confusion of ethnology
with philology. A certain family of speech, composed of
languages closely related to one another and presupposing a
common mother-tongue, received the title of 'Semitic' from the
German scholar Eichhorn. There was some justification for such
a name. The family of speech consists of Hebrew and
Phoenician, of Aramaic, of Assyrian and Babylonian, of
Arabian, of South Arabian and of Ethiopic or Ge'ez. Eber,
Aram, and Asshur were all sons of Shem, and the South Arabian
tribes claimed descent from Joktan. In default of a better
title, therefore, 'Semitic' was introduced and accepted in
order to denote the group of languages of which Hebrew and
Aramaic form part. But whatever justification there may have
been for speaking of a Semitic family of languages there was
none for speaking of a Semitic race. To do so was to confound
language and race, and to perpetuate the old error which
failed to distinguish between the two. Unfortunately, however,
when scholars began to realise the distinction between
language and race, the mischief was already done. 'The Semitic
race' had become, as it were, a household term of ethnological
science. It was too late to try to displace it; all we can do
is to define it accurately and distinguish it carefully from
the philological term, 'the Semitic family of speech.' … There
are members of the Semitic race who do not speak Semitic
languages, and speakers of Semitic languages who do not belong
to the Semitic race. … It is questionable whether the
Phoenicians or Canaanites were of purely Semitic ancestry, and
yet it was from them that the Israelites learned the language
which we call Hebrew. … Northern Arabia was the early home of
the Semitic stock, and it is in Northern Arabia that we still
meet with it but little changed. … The Bedawin of Northern
Arabia, and to a lesser extent the settled population of the
Hijaz, may therefore be regarded as presenting us with the
purest examples of the Semitic type. But even the Bedawin are
not free from admixture."
A. H. Sayce,
The Races of the Old Testament,
chapter 4.
"The following is a scheme of the divisions of the Semitic
race. It is based partly upon the evidence afforded by
linguistic affinity, and partly upon geographical and
historical distribution:
A. Northern Semites.
I. Babylonian:
a. Old Babylonian
b. Assyrian
c. Chaldæan
II. Aramæan:
a. Mesopotamian
b. Syrian.
III. Canaanitic
a. Canaanites
b. Phœnicians
IV. Hebraic
a. Hebrews
b. Moabites
c. Ammonites
d. Edomites
B. Southern Semites.
I. Sabæans
II. Ethiopians
III. Arabs.
{2887}
It should be said with regard to the foregoing classification,
that it has been made as general as possible, since it is a
matter of great difficulty to make clear-cut divisions on an
exact ethnological basis. If a linguistic classification were
attempted, a scheme largely different would have to be
exhibited. … Again it should be observed that the mixture of
races which was continually going on in the Semitic world is
not and cannot be indicated by our classification. The
Babylonians, for example, received a constant accession from
Aramæans encamped on their borders, and even beyond the
Tigris; but these, as well as non-Semitic elements from the
mountains and plains to the east, they assimilated in speech
and customs. The same general remark applies to the Aramæans
of Northern Mesopotamia and Syria, while the peoples of
Southern and Eastern Palestine, and in fact all the
communities that bordered on the Great Desert, from the
Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, were continually absorbing
individuals or tribes of Arabian stock. Finally, it must be
remarked that in some sub-divisions it is necessary to use a
geographical instead of a properly racial distinction; and
that is, of course, to be limited chronologically. Thus, for
instance, it is impossible to devise a single strictly
ethnological term for the two great divisions of the Aramæans.
It is now pretty generally admitted that the home of the
Semitic race, before its separation into the historical
divisions, was Northern Arabia. … The historical distribution
of the several families is thus best accounted for. … While
among the Southern Semites the various Arab tribes remained
for the most part in their desert home for thousands of years
as obscure Bedawin, and the Sabæans cultivated the rich soil
of the southwest and the southern coast of Arabia, and there
developed cities and a flourishing commerce, and the nearly
related Ethiopians, migrating across the Red Sea, slowly built
up in Abyssinia an isolated civilization of their own, those
branches of the race with which we are immediately concerned,
after a lengthened residence in common camping grounds, moved
northward and westward to engage in more important
enterprises. The Babylonians, occupying the region which the
Bible makes known to us as the scene of man's creation, and
which historical research indicates to have been the seat of
the earliest civilization, made their home on the lands of the
Lower Euphrates and Tigris, converting them through
canalization and irrigation into rich and powerful kingdoms
finally united under the rule of Babylon. Before the union was
effected, emigrants from among these Babylonians settled along
the Middle Tigris, founded the city of Asshur, and later still
the group of cities known to history as Nineveh. The Assyrians
then, after long struggles, rose to pre-eminence in Western
Asia, till after centuries of stern dominion they yielded to
the new Babylonian regime founded by the Chaldæans from the
shores of the Persian Gulf. The Canaanites, debarred from the
riches of the East, turned northwestward at an unknown early
date, and while some of them occupied and cultivated the
valleys of Palestine, others seized the maritime plain and the
western slope of Lebanon. On the coast of the latter region
they took advantage of the natural harbours wanting in the
former, and tried the resources and possibilities of the sea.
As Phœnicians of Sidon and Tyre, they became the great
navigators and maritime traders for the nations, and sent
forth colonies over the Mediterranean. …
See PHŒNICIA.
Meanwhile the pasture lands between the Tigris and the
Euphrates and between the southern desert and the northern
mountains were gradually being occupied by the Aramæans, who
advanced with flocks and herds along the Euphrates. … While
the bulk of the Aramæans adhered to the old pastoral life
among the good grazing districts in the confines of the
desert, a large number, favoured by their intermediate
position between urban and nomadic settlements, addicted
themselves to the carrying trade between the East and the
West. … This remarkable people, however, never attained to
political autonomy on a large scale in their Mesopotamian
home, to which for long ages they were confined. After the
decline of the Hettite principalities west of the Euphrates
[see HITTITES], to which they themselves largely contributed,
they rapidly spread in that quarter also. They mingled with
the non-Semitic Hettite inhabitants of Carchemish and Hamath,
formed settlements along the slopes of Amanus and
Anti-Lebanon, and created on the northeast corner of Palestine
a powerful state with Damascus as the centre, which was long a
rival of Israel, and even stood out against the might of
Assyria. Thus the Aramæans really acted a more prominent
political part to the west than they did to the east of the
Euphrates, and accordingly they have been popularly most
closely associated with the name 'Syria.' At the same time
they did not abandon their old settlements between the Rivers.
… As the latest of the historical divisions of the race to
form an independent community, the Hebraic family made their
permanent settlement in and about Palestine.
See JEWS.
Their common ancestors of the family of Terah emigrated from
Southern Babylonia more than two thousand years before the
Christian era. It is highly probable that they were of Aramæan
stock."
J. F. McCurdy,
History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).
"The Hebrews … divided the country of Aram [between the
[Mediterranean and the Euphrates] into several regions;
1st Aram Naharaim, or 'Aram of the two rivers,' that is, the
Mesopotamia of the Greeks, between the Euphrates and the
Tigris;
2d Aram properly so called, that is, Syria, whose most ancient
and important city was Damascus; and
3d Aram Zobah, or the region in which in later times was
formed the kingdom of Palmyra."
F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier,
Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
book 1, chapter 4.
"The Semitic home is distinguished by its central position in
geography—between Asia and Africa, and between the Indian
Ocean and the Mediterranean, which is Europe; and the rôle in
history of the Semitic race has been also intermediary. The
Semites have been the great middlemen of the world. Not
second-rate in war, they have risen to the first rank in
commerce and religion. They have been the carriers between
East and West, they have stood between the great ancient
civilizations and those which go to make up the modern world;
while by a higher gift, for which their conditions neither in
place nor in time fully account, they have been mediary
between God and man, and proved the religious teachers of the
world, through whom have come its three highest faiths, its
only universal religions."
George Adam Smith,
Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
page 5.
{2888}
"If we ask what the Semitic peoples have contributed to this
organic and living whole which is called civilization, we
shall find, in the first place, that, in polity, we owe them
nothing at all. Political life is perhaps the most peculiar
and native characteristic of the Indo-European nations. These
nations are the only ones that have known liberty, that have
reconciled the State with the independence of the individual.
… In art and poetry what do we owe to them? In art nothing.
These tribes have but little of the artist; our art comes
entirely from Greece. In poetry, nevertheless, without being
their tributaries, we have with them more than one bond of
union. The Psalms have become in some respects one of our
sources of poetry. Hebrew poetry has taken a place with us
beside Greek poetry, not as having furnished a distinct order
of poetry, but as constituting a poetic ideal, a sort of
Olympus where in consequence of an accepted prestige
everything is suffused with a halo of light. … Here again,
however, all the shades of expression, all the delicacy, all
the depth is our work. The thing essentially poetic is the
destiny of man; his melancholy moods, his restless search
after causes, his just complaint to heaven. There was no
necessity of going to strangers to learn this. The eternal
school here is each man's soul. In science and philosophy we
are exclusively Greek. The investigation of causes, knowledge
for knowledge's own sake, is a thing of which there is no
trace previous to Greece, a thing that we have learned from
her alone. Babylon possessed a science, but it had not that
pre-eminently scientific principle, the absolute fixedness of
natural law. … We owe to the Semitic race neither political
life, art, poetry, philosophy, nor science. What then do we
owe to them? We owe to them religion. The whole world, if we
except India, China, Japan, and tribes altogether savage, has
adopted the Semitic religions. The civilized world comprises
only Jews, Christians, and Mussulmans. The Indo-European race
in particular, excepting the Brahmanic family and the feeble
relics of the Parsees, has gone over completely to the Semitic
faiths. What has been the cause of this strange phenomenon?
How happens it that the nations who hold the supremacy of the
world have renounced their own creed to adopt that of the
people they have conquered? The primitive worship of the
Indo-European race … was charming and profound, like the
imagination of the nations themselves. It was like an echo of
nature, a sort of naturalistic hymn, in which the idea of one
sole cause appears but occasionally and uncertainly. It was a
child's religion, full of artlessness and poetry, but destined
to crumble at the first demand of thought. Persia first
effected its reform (that which is associated with the name of
Zoroaster) under influences and at an epoch unknown to us.
Greece, in the time of Pisistratus, was already dissatisfied
with her religion, and was turning towards the East. In the
Roman period, the old pagan worship had become utterly
insufficient. It no longer addressed the imagination; it spoke
feebly to the moral sense. The old myths on the forces of
nature had become changed into fables, not unfrequently
amusing and ingenious; but destitute of all religious value.
It is precisely at this epoch that the civilized world finds
itself face to face with the Jewish faith. Based upon the
clear and simple dogma of the divine unity, discarding
naturalism and pantheism by the marvellously terse phrase: 'In
the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,'
possessing a law, a book, the depository of grand moral
precepts and of an elevated religious poetry, Judaism had an
incontestable superiority, and it might have been foreseen
then that some day the world would become Jewish, that is to
say would forsake the old mythology for Monotheism."
E. Renan,
Studies of Religious History and Criticism,
pages 154-160.
SEMITES:
Primitive Babylonia.
"The Babylonians were … the first of the Semites to enter the
arena of history, and they did so by virtue of the
civilization to which they attained in and through their
settlements on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris. … The
unrivalled fertility of the soil of Babylonia was the result
not only of the quality of the soil, but of the superadded
benefits of the colossal system of drainage and canalization
which was begun by the ingenuity of the first civilized
inhabitants. Of the natural elements of fertility, the
Euphrates contributed by far the larger share. … The …
formations of clay, mud, and gypsum, comprising elements of
the richest soil, are found in such profusion in Babylonia
that in the days of ancient civilization it was the most
fruitful portion of the whole earth with the possible
exception of the valley of the Nile. It was roughly reckoned
by Herodotus to equal in productiveness half the rest of Asia.
… The rise of the Semites in Babylonia, like all other
origins, is involved in obscurity. The earliest authentic
records, drawn as they are from their own monuments, reveal
this gifted race as already in possession of a high degree of
civilization, with completed systems of national religion, a
language already long past its formative period, and a stage
of advancement in art that testifies to the existence of a
wealthy class of taste and leisure, to whom their nomadic
ancestry must have been little more than a vague tradition.
The same records also show this Semitic people to have
extended their sway in Western Asia as far as the
Mediterranean coastland many centuries before Phœnicians or
Hebrews or Hettites came before the world in any national or
corporate form. Questions of deep interest arise in connection
with such facts as these. It is asked: Did the Babylonian
Semites develop the elements of their civilization alone, or
did they inherit that of another race? … In the absence of
direct evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to assume
that the same race who in historical times gave proof of high
mental endowments reached their unique level of intellectual
attainment by a process of self-education. A contrary opinion
is held by many scholars of high rank. I refer to the
well-known theory that the Semitic Babylonians acquired their
civilization from another people who preceded them in the
occupation and cultivation of the country.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
{2889}
This hypothetical race is named Sumerian from the term Sumer,
generally, but erroneously, supposed to be the designation of
Southern Babylonia. With this in the Inscriptions is coupled
the name of Akkad, another geographical term properly
connoting Northern Babylonia. This appellation has given rise
to the name 'Akkadian;' used by most of these modern
authorities to designate a supposed subdivision of the same
people, speaking a dialect of the main Sumerian language. …
The Sumerian theory has played a great role in linguistic and
ethnological research during the last twenty years. The
general aspect of the supposed language led at once to its
being classed with the agglutinative families of speech, and
the inevitable 'Turanian' conveniently opened its hospitable
doors. … While we are … obliged, until further light shall
have been cast upon the subject, to assume that the earliest
type of Babylonian culture was mainly of Semitic origin, it
would be rash to assert that people of that race were the sole
occupants of the lower River country in prehistoric times, or
that they received no important contributions to their
development from any outside races. … It … remains for us to
assume it to be possible that an antecedent or contemporanous
people bore a small share with the Semites in the early
development of the country, and that, as a result of their
contact with the stronger race, they bequeathed to it some of
the elements of the surviving religion, mythology, and popular
superstition."
J. F. McCurdy,
History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).
"As to the ancient history of Babylon, it is well to learn to
be patient and to wait. The progress of discovery and
decipherment is so rapid, that what is true this year is shown
to be wrong next year. … This is no discredit to the valiant
pioneers in this glorious campaign. On the contrary it speaks
well for their perseverance and for their sense of truth. I
shall only give you one instance to show what I mean by
calling the ancient periods of Babylonian history also
constructive rather than authentic. My friend Professor Sayce
claims 4000 B. C. as the beginning of Babylonian literature.
Nabonidus, he tells us (Hibbert Lectures, page 21), in 550 B.
C. explored the great temple of the Sun god at Sippara. This
temple was believed to have been founded by Naram Sin, the son
of Sargon. Nabonidus, however, lighted upon the actual
foundation-stone—a stone, we are told, which had not been seen
by any of his predecessors for 3,200 years. On the strength of
this the date of 3,200 + 550 years, that is, 3750 B. C., is
assigned to Naram Sin, the son of Sargon. These two kings,
however, are said to be quite modern, and to have been
preceded by a number of so-called Proto-Chaldæan kings, who
spoke a Proto-Chaldæan language, long before the Semitic
population had entered the land. It is concluded, further,
from some old inscriptions on diorite, brought from the
Peninsula of Sinai to Chaldæa, that the quarries of Sinai,
which were worked by the Egyptians at the time of their third
dynasty, say six thousand years ago, may have been visited
about the same time by these Proto-Chaldæans. 4000 B. C., we
are told, would therefore be a very moderate initial epoch for
Babylonian and Egyptian literature. I am the very last person
to deny the ingeniousness of these arguments, or to doubt the
real antiquity of the early civilization of Babylon or Egypt.
All I wish to point out is, that we should always keep before
our eyes the constructive character of this ancient history
and chronology. To use a foundation-stone, on its own
authority, as a stepping-stone over a gap of 3,200 years, is
purely constructive chronology, and as such is to be carefully
distinguished from what historians mean by authentic history,
as when Herodotus or Thucydides tells us what happened during
their own lives or before their own eyes."
F. Max Müller,
On the "Enormous Antiquity" of the East
(Nineteenth Century, 1891).
"Dr. Tiele rejects the name 'Accadian,' which has been adopted
by so many Assyriologists, and is strongly indisposed to admit
Turanian affinities. Yet he is so_far from accepting the
alternative theory of Halévy and Guyard, that this so-called
Accadian, or Sumerian, is only another way of writing
Assyrian, that he can scarcely comprehend how a man of
learning and penetration can maintain such a strange position.
He seems to consider a positive decision in the present stage
of the inquiry premature; but pronounces the hypothesis which
lies at the basis of the Accadian theory, namely, that the
peculiarities of the cuneiform writing are explicable only by
the assumption that it was originally intended for another
language than the Assyrian, to be by far the most probable. He
calls this language, which may or may not have been
non-Semitic, 'Old Chaldee,' because what was later on called
Chaldaea 'was certainly its starting-point in Mesopotamia.'
The superiority of this name to 'Accadian' or 'Sumerian' is
not very obvious, as the name 'Chaldee' is not found before
the ninth century B. C., while the oldest title of the
Babylonian kings is 'king of Sumir and Accad.' In the
interesting account of the provinces and cities of Babylonia
and Assyria, … two identifications which have found much
favour with Assyriologists are mentioned in a very sceptical
way. The 'Ur' of Abraham is generally believed, with Schrader,
to be the 'El Mughair' of the Arabs. Dr. Tiele coldly observes
that this identification, though not impossible, is not
proved. Again, the tower of Babel is identified by Schrader
either with Babil on the left side of the river, or with Birs
Nimrud (Borsippa) on the right side. Dr. Tiele considers the
latter site impossible, because Borsippa is always spoken of
as a distinct place, and was too distant from Babylon for the
supposed outer wall of the great city to enclose it. He also
rejects Schrader's theory that the name Nineveh in later times
included Dur Sargon (Khorsabad), Resen, and Calah, as well as
Nineveh proper. The history is divided into four periods:
1. The old Babylonian period, from the earliest days down to
the time when Assyria was sufficiently strong and independent
to contend with Babylon on equal terms.
2. The first Assyrian period down to the accession of
Tiglath-pileser II. in 745 B. C.
3. The Second Assyrian Period, from 745 B. C. to the Fall of
Nineveh.
4. The New Babylonian Empire.
In treating of the first period, Dr. Tiele makes no attempt to
deal with the Deluge Tablets as a source of historical
knowledge, putting them on one side apparently as purely
mythical. He despairs of tracing Babylonian culture to its
earliest home. The belief that it originated on the shores of
the Persian Gulf seems to him uncertain, but he is not able to
fill the gap with any other satisfactory hypothesis.
Babylonian history begins for him with Sargon I., whom he
regards as most probably either of Semitic descent or a
representative of Semitic sovereignty. He is sceptical about
the early date assigned to this king by Nabunahid, the
thirty-eighth century B. C., and is disposed to regard the
quaint story of his concealment when an infant in a basket of
reeds as a solar myth; but he is compelled to admit as solid
fact the amazing statements of the inscriptions about his
mighty empire 'extending from Elam to the coast of the
Mediterranean and the borders of Egypt, nay, even to Cyprus.'
So early as 1850 B. C., he thinks, the supremacy of Babylon
had been established for centuries."
Review of Dr. Tiele's History of Babylonia and Assyria
(Academy, January 1, 1887).
ALSO IN:
The Earliest History of Babylonia
(Quarterly Review, October, 1894, reviewing
"Découvertes en Chaldée, par Ernest de Sarsec).
{2890}
SEMITES:
The First Babylonian Empire.
"It is with the reign of Hammurabi that the importance of
Babylonia—the country owning Babel as its capital—begins. …
Hammurabi (circ. 2250 B. C.) is the sixth on the Babylonian
list [i. e. a list of kings found among the inscriptions
recovered from the mounds of ruined cities in Mesopotamia].
The great majority of the inscriptions of his long reign of
fifty-five years refer to peaceful works." As, for example,
"the famous canal inscription: 'I am Hammurabi, the mighty
king, king of Ka-dingirra (Babylon), the king whom the regions
obey, the winner of victory for his lord Merodach, the
shepherd, who rejoices his heart. When the gods Anu and Bel
granted me to rule the people of Sumer and Akkad, and gave the
sceptre into my hand, I dug the canal called "Hammurabi, the
blessing of the people," which carries with it the overflow of
the water for the people of Sumer and Akkad. I allotted both
its shores for food. Measures of corn I poured forth. A
lasting water supply I made for the people of Sumer and Akkad.
I brought together the numerous troops of the people of Sumer
and Akkad, food and drink I made for them; with blessing and
abundance I gifted them. In convenient abodes I caused them to
dwell. Thenceforward I am Hammurabi, the mighty king, the
favourite of the great gods. With the might accorded me by
Merodach I built a tall tower with great entrances, whose
summits are high like … at the head of the canal "Hammurabi,
the blessing of the people." I named the tower Sinmuballit
tower, after the name of my father, my begetter. The statue of
Sinmuballit, my father, my begetter, I set up at the four
quarters of heaven.' … Rings bearing the legend 'Palace of
Hammurabi' have been found in the neighbourhood of Bagdad, and
presumably indicate the existence of a royal residence there."
E. J. Simcox,
Primitive Civilizations,
volume 1, pages 282-283.
"The canal to which this king boasts of having given his name,
the 'Nahar-Hammourabi,' was called in later days the royal
canal, 'Nahar Malcha.' Herodotus saw and admired it, its good
condition was an object of care to the king himself, and we
know that it was considerably repaired by Nebuchadnezzar. When
civilization makes up its mind to re-enter upon that country,
nothing more will be needed for the re-awakening in it of life
and reproductive energy, than the restoration of the great
works undertaken by the contemporaries of Abraham and Jacob."
G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,
volume 1, page 40.
"After a reign of fifty-five years, Chammurabi [or Hammurabi]
bequeathed the crown of Babylon and the united kingdoms of
Babylonia to his son Samsu-iluna (B. C. 2209-2180). This
ruler, reigning in the spirit of his father, developed still
further the national system of canalization. … Five kings
after Chammurabi, till 2098 B. C., complete the list of the
eleven kings of this first dynasty, who reigned in all 304
years. The epoch made memorable by the deeds and enterprise of
Chammurabi is followed by a period of 368 years, of the
occurrences of which absolutely nothing is known, except the
names and regnal years of another list of eleven kings
reigning in the city of Babylon. … The foreign non-Semitic
race, which for nearly six centuries (c. 1730-1153), from this
time onward, held a controlling place in the affairs of
Babylonia, are referred to in the inscriptions by the name
Kassē. These Kasshites came from the border country between
Northern Elam and Media, and were in all probability of the
same race as the Elamites. The references to them make them
out to be both mountaineers and tent-dwellers. … The political
sway of the foreign masters was undisputed, but the genius of
the government and the national type of culture and forms of
activity were essentially unchanged. … Through century after
century, and millennium after millennium, the dominant genius
of Babylonia remained the same. It conquered all its
conquerors, and moulded them to its own likeness by the force
of its manifold culture, by the appliances as well as the
prestige of the arts of peace. … The Babylonians were not able
to maintain perpetually their political autonomy or integrity,
not because they were not brave or patriotic," but because
"they were not, first and foremost, a military people. Their
energies were mainly spent in trade and manufacture, in
science and art. … The time which the native historiographers
allow to the new [Kasshite] dynasty is 577 years. … This
Kasshite conquest of Babylonia … prevented the consolidation
of the eastern branch of the Semites, by alienating from
Babylonia the Assyrian colonists. … Henceforth there was
almost perpetual rivalry and strife between Assyria and the
parent country. Henceforth, also, it is Assyria that becomes
the leading power in the West."
J. F. McCurdy,
History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
book 2, chapter 3,
and book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1).
"The Kassites gave a dynasty to Babylonia which lasted for 576
years (B. C. 1806-1230). The fact that the rulers of the
country were Kassites by race, and that their army largely
consisted of Kassite troops, caused the neighbouring
populations to identify the Babylonians with their conquerors
and lords. Hence it is that in the tablets of Tel el-Amarna,
the Canaanite writers invariably term the Babylonians the
'Kasi.' The 'Kasi' or Cush, we are told, had overrun Palestine
in former years and were again threatening the Egyptian
province. In calling Nimrod, therefore, a son of Cush the Book
of Genesis merely means that he was a Babylonian. But the
designation takes us back to the age of the Tel el-Amarna
tablets. It was not a designation which could have belonged to
that later age, when the Babylonians were known to the
Israelites as the 'Kasdim' only. Indeed there is a passage in
the Book of Micah (chapter 5) which proves plainly that in
that later age 'the land of Nimrod' was synonymous not with
Babylonia but with Assyria. The Nimrod of Genesis must have
come down to us from the time when the Kassite dynasty still
reigned over Babylonia. …
{2891}
Nimrod was not satisfied with his Babylonian dominions. 'Out
of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh,
and Rehoboth 'Ir (the city boulevards), and Calah and Resen.'
… The city of Asshur had been long in existence when Nimrod
led his Kassite followers to it, and so made its
'high-priests' tributary to Babylon. It stood on the high-road
to the west, and it is not surprising, therefore, that the
Kassite kings, after making themselves masters of the future
kingdom of Assyria, should have continued their victorious
career as far as the shores of the Mediterranean. We may
conjecture that Nimrod was the first of them who planted his
power so firmly in Palestine as to be remembered in the
proverbial lore of the country, and to have introduced that
Babylonian culture of which the Tel el-Amarna tablets have
given us such abundant evidence."
A. H. Sayce,
The Higher Criticism, and the Verdict of the Monuments,
chapter 3.
It was during the Kasshite domination in Babylonia that Ahmes,
founder of the eighteenth dynasty in Egypt, expelled the
Hyksos intruders from that country; and "his successors,
returning upon Asia the attack which they had thence received,
subjugating, or rather putting to ransom, all the Canaanites
of Judea, Phœnicia, and Syria, crossed the Euphrates and the
Tigris.
See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.
Nineveh twice fell into their power, and the whole Semitic
world became vassal to the Pharaohs. The influence of Egypt
was real though temporary, but in the reciprocal dealings
which were the result of the conquests of the Tutnes [or
Thothmes] and the Amenhoteps, the share of the Semites was on
the whole the larger. Marriages with the daughters of kings or
vassal governors brought into Egypt and established Asiatic
types, ideas, and customs on the Theban throne. Amenhotep IV.
was purely Semitic; he endeavoured to replace the religion of
Ammon by the sun-worship of Syria. In 1887 were discovered the
fragments of a correspondence exchanged between the kings of
Syria, Armenia, and Babylonia, and the Pharaohs Amenhotep III.
and IV.
See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.
All these letters are written in cuneiform character and in
Semitic or other dialects; it is probable that the answers
were drawn up in the same character and in the same languages.
For the rest, the subjugated nations had soon recovered.
Saryoukm I. had reconstituted the Chaldean empire; the
Assyrians, ever at war on their eastern and western frontiers,
had more than once crossed the Upper Euphrates and penetrated
Asia Minor as far as Troad, where the name Assaracus seems to
be a relic of an Assyrian dynasty. The Hittites or Khetas
occupied the north of Syria; and when Ramses II., Sesostris,
desired in the 15th century to renew the exploits of his
ancestors, he was checked at Kadech by the Hittites and forced
to retreat after an undecided battle. The great expansion of
Egypt was stopped, at least towards the north. The Semitic
peoples, on the contrary, were everywhere in the ascendant."
A. Lefèvre,
Race and Language,
pages 205-206.
SEMITES:
The Assyrian Empire.
"According to all appearance it was the Egyptian conquest
about sixteen centuries B. C., that led to the partition of
Mesopotamia. Vassals of Thothmes and Rameses, called by
Berosus the 'Arab kings,' sat upon the throne of Babylon. The
tribes of Upper Mesopotamia were farther from Egypt, and their
chiefs found it easier to preserve their independence. At
first each city had its own prince, but in time one of these
petty kingdoms absorbed the rest, and Nineveh became the
capital of an united Assyria. As the years passed away the
frontiers of the nation thus constituted were pushed gradually
southwards until all Mesopotamia was brought under one
sceptre. This consummation appears to have been complete by
the end of the fourteenth century, at which period Egypt,
enfeebled and rolled back upon herself, ceased to make her
influence felt upon the Euphrates. Even then Babylon kept her
own kings, but they had sunk to be little more than hereditary
satraps receiving investiture from Nineveh. Over and over
again Babylon attempted to shake off the yoke of her
neighbour; but down to the seventh century her revolts were
always suppressed, and the Assyrian supremacy re-established
after more or less desperate conflicts. During nearly half a
century, from about 1060 to 1020 B. C., Babylon seems to have
recovered the upper hand. The victories of her princes put an
end to what is called the First Assyrian Empire. But after one
or two generations a new family mounted the northern throne,
and, toiling energetically for a century or so to establish
the grandeur of the monarchy, founded the Second Assyrian
Empire. The upper country regained its ascendency by the help
of military institutions whose details now escape us, although
their results may be traced throughout the later history of
Assyria. From the tenth century onwards the effects of these
institutions become visible in expeditions made by the armies
of Assyria, now to the shores of the Persian Gulf or the
Caspian, and now through the mountains of Armenia into the
plains of Cappadocia, or across the Syrian desert to the
Lebanon and the coast cities of Phœnicia. The first princes
whose figured monuments—in contradistinction to mere
inscriptions—have come down to us, belonged to those days. The
oldest of all was Assurnazirpal, whose residence was at Calach
(Nimroud). The bas-reliefs with which his palace was decorated
are now in the Louvre and the British Museum, most of them in
the latter. … To Assurnazirpal's son Shalmaneser III. belongs
the obelisk of basalt which also stands in the British Museum.
… Shalmaneser was an intrepid man of war. The inscriptions on
his obelisk recall the events of thirty-one campaigns waged
against the neighbouring peoples under the leadership of the
king himself. … Under the immediate successors of Shalmaneser
the Assyrian prestige was maintained at a high level by dint
of the same lavish bloodshed and truculent energy; but towards
the eighth century it began to decline. There was then a
period of languor and decadence, some echo of which, and of
its accompanying disasters, seems to have been embodied by the
Greeks in the romantic tale of Sardanapalus. No shadow of
confirmation for the story of a first destruction of Nineveh
is to be found in the inscriptions, and, in the middle of the
same century, we again find the Assyrian arms triumphant under
the leadership of Tiglath Pileser II., a king modelled after
the great warriors of the earlier days. This prince seems to
have carried his victorious arms as far east as the Indus, and
west as the frontiers of Egypt.
{2892}
And yet it was only under his second successor, Saryoukin, or,
to give him his popular name, Sargon, the founder of a new
dynasty, that Syria, with the exception of Tyre, was brought
into complete submission after a great victory over the
Egyptians (721-704). … His son Sennacherib equalled him both
as a soldier and as a builder. He began by crushing the rebels
of Elam and Chaldæa with unflinching severity; in his anger he
almost exterminated the inhabitants of Babylon, the perennial
seat of revolt; but, on the other hand, he repaired and
restored Nineveh. Most of his predecessors had been absentees
from the capital, and had neglected its buildings. … He chose
a site well within the city for the magnificent palace which
Mr. Layard has been the means of restoring to the world. This
building is now known as Kouyoundjik, from the name of the
village perched upon the mound within which the buildings of
Sennacherib were hidden. Sennacherib rebuilt the walls, the
towers, and the quays of Nineveh at the same time, so that the
capital, which had never ceased to be the strongest and most
populous city of the empire, again became the residence of the
king—a distinction which it was to preserve until the fast
approaching date of its final destruction. The son of
Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and his grandson, Assurbanipal [long
identified with the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; but Prof.
Sayce now finds the Sardanapalus of Greek romance in a rebel
king, Assur-dain-pal, who reigned B. C. 827-820, and whose
name and history fit the tale], pushed the adventures and
conquests of the Assyrian arms still farther. They subdued the
whole north of Arabia, and invaded Egypt more than once. …
There was a moment when the great Semitic Empire founded by
the Sargonides touched even the Ægæan, for Cyges, king of
Lydia, finding himself menaced by the Cimmerians, did homage
to Assurbanipal, and sued for help against those foes to all
civilization."
G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
A History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,
chapter 1, section 5 (volume 1).
"The power of Assurbanipal was equal to the task of holding
under control the subjects of Assyria at all points. He boasts
of having compelled the king of Tyre to drink sea-water to
quench his thirst. The greatest opposition he met with was in
Elam, but this too he was able to suppress. … Assurbanipal
says that he increased the tributes, but that his action was
opposed by his own brother, whom he had formerly maintained by
force of arms in Babylon, This brother now seduced a great
number of other nations and princes from their allegiance. …
The king of Babylon placed himself, so to speak, at their
head. … The danger was immensely increased when the king set
up by Assurbanipal in Elam joined the movement. It was
necessary to put an end to this revolt, and this was effected
for once without much difficulty. … Thereupon the rebellious
brother in Babylon has to give way. The gods who go before
Assurbanipal have, as he says, thrust the king of Babylon into
a consuming fire and put an end to his life. His adherents …
are horribly punished. … The provinces which joined them are
subjected to the laws of the Assyrian gods. Even the Arabs,
who have sided with the rebels, bow before the king, whilst of
his power in Egypt it is said that it extended to the sources
of the Nile. His dominion reached even to Asia Minor. …
Assyria is the first conquering power which we encounter in
the history of the world. The most effective means which she
brought to bear in consolidating her conquests consisted in
the transportation of the principal inhabitants from the
subjugated districts to Assyria, and the settlement of
Assyrians in the newly acquired provinces. … The most
important result of the action of Assyria upon the world was
perhaps that she limited or broke up the petty sovereignties
and the local religions of Western Asia. … It was … an event
which convulsed the world when this power, in the full current
of its life and progress, suddenly ceased to exist. Since the
10th century every event of importance had originated in
Assyria; in the middle of the 7th she suddenly collapsed. … Of
the manner in which the ruin of Nineveh was brought about we
have nowhere any authentic record. … Apart from their
miraculous accessories, the one circumstance in which … [most
of the accounts given] agree, is that Assyria was overthrown
by the combination of the Medes and Babylonians. Everything
else that is said on the subject verges on the fabulous; and
even the fact of the alliance is doubtful, since Herodotus,
who lived nearest to the period we are treating of, knows
nothing of it, and ascribes the conquest simply to the Medes."
L. von Ranke,
Universal History: The Oldest Historical Group of Nations,
chapter 3.
SEMITES:
The last Babylonian Empire and its overthrow.
The story, briefly told, of the alliance by which the Assyrian
monarchy is said to have been overthrown, is as follows: About
626 or 625, B. C., a new revolt broke out in Babylonia, and
the Assyrian king sent a general named Nabu-pal-usur or
Nabopolassar to quell it. Nabu-pal-usur succeeded in his
undertaking, and seems to have been rewarded by being made
governor of Babylon. But his ambition aimed higher, and he
mounted the ancient Babylonian throne, casting off his
allegiance to Assyria and joining her enemies. "He was wise
enough to see that Assyria could not be completely crushed by
one nation, and he therefore made a league with Pharaoh Necho,
of Egypt, and asked the Median king, Cyaxares, to give his
daughter, Amytes, to Nebuchadnezzar, his son, to wife. Thus a
league was made, and about B. C. 609 the kings marched against
Assyria. They suffered various defeats, but eventually the
Assyrian army was defeated, and Shalman, the brother of the
king of Assyria, [was] slain. The united kings then besieged
Nineveh. During the siege the river Tigris rose and carried
away the greater part of the city wall. The Assyrian king
gathered together his wives and property in the palace, and
setting fire to it, all perished in the flames. The enemies
went into the city and utterly destroyed all they could lay
their hands upon. With the fall of Nineveh, Assyria as a power
practically ceased to exist." About 608 B. C. Nebuchadnezzar
succeeded his father on the throne. "When he had become
established in the kingdom he set his various captives, Jews,
Phœnicians, Syrians, and Egyptians, at work to make Babylon
the greatest city in the world. And as a builder he remains
almost unsurpassed."
E. A. Wallis Budge,
Babylonian Life and History,
chapter 5.
{2893}
"The Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar occupied a square of which each
side was nearly fifteen miles in length, and was bisected by
the Euphrates diagonally from northwest to southeast. This
square was enclosed by a deep moat, flooded from the river.
The clay excavated in digging the moat, moulded into bricks
and laid in bitumen, formed the walls of the city. These
walls, more than 300 feet high and more than 70 thick, and
protected by parapets, afforded a commodious driveway along
their top of nearly 60 miles, needing only aerial bridges over
the Euphrates river. The waters of the river were forced to
flow through the city between quays of masonry which equaled
the walls in thickness and height. The walls were pierced at
equal intervals for a hundred gates, and each gateway closed
with double leaves of ponderous metal, swinging upon bronze
posts built into the wall. Fifty broad avenues, crossing each
other at right angles, joined the opposite gates of the city,
and divided it into a checkerboard of gigantic squares. The
river quays were pierced by 25 gates like those in the outer
walls. One of the streets was carried across the river upon an
arched bridge, another ran in a tunnel beneath the river bed,
and ferries plied continually across the water where the other
streets abutted. The great squares of the city were not all
occupied by buildings. Many of them were used as gardens and
even farms, and the great fertility of the soil, caused by
irrigation, producing two and even three crops a year,
supplied food sufficient for the inhabitants in case of siege.
Babylon was a vast fortified province rather than a city. …
There is a curious fact which I do not remember to have seen
noticed, and of which I will not here venture to suggest the
explanation. Babylon stands in the Book of Revelation as the
emblem of all the abominations which are to be destroyed by
the power of Christ. But Babylon is the one city known to
history which could have served as a model for John's
description of the New Jerusalem: 'the city lying four
square,' 'the walls great and high,' the river which flowed
through the city, 'and in the midst of the street of it, and
on either side of the river the tree of life, bearing twelve
manner of fruits;' 'the foundations of the wall of the city
garnished with all manner of precious stones,' as the base of
the walls inclosing the great palace were faced with glazed
and enameled bricks of brilliant colors, and a broad space
left that they might be seen,—these characteristics, and they
are all unique, have been combined in no other city."
W. B. Wright,
Ancient Cities,
pages 41-44.
"Undoubtedly, one of the important results already obtained
from the study of the native chronicles of Babylon is the
establishment, on grounds apart from the question of the
authenticity of the Book of Daniel, of the historical
character of Belshazzar. The name of this prince had always
been a puzzle to commentators and historians. The only native
authority on Babylonian history—Berosus—did not appear to
have mentioned such a person. … According to the extracts from
the work of Berosus preserved for us in the writings of these
authors, the following is the history of the last King of
Babylon. His name was Nabonidus, or Nabonedus, and he first
appears as the leader of a band of conspirators who determined
to bring about a change in the government. The throne was then
occupied by the youthful Laborosoarchod (for this is the
corrupt Greek form of the Babylonian Lâbâshi-Marduk), who was
the son of Neriglissar, and therefore, through his mother, the
grandson of the great Nebuchadnezzar; but, in spite of his
tender age, the new sovereign who had only succeeded his
father two months before, had already given proof of a bad
disposition. … When the designs of the conspirators had been
carried out, they appointed Nabonidus king in the room of the
youthful son of Neriglissar. … We next hear that in the
seventeenth year of Nabonidus, Cyrus, who had already
conquered the rest of Asia, marched upon Babylon, B. C. 538.
See PERSIA B. C. 549-521.
The native forces met the Persians in battle, but were put to
flight, with their king at their head, and took refuge behind
the ramparts of Borsippa. Cyrus thereupon entered Babylon, we
are told, and threw down her walls. … Herodotus states that
the last king of Babylon was the son of the great
Nebuchadnezzar—to give that monarch his true name—for in so
doing he bears out, so far as his testimony is of any value,
the words of the Book of Daniel, which not only calls
Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar, but also introduces the wife
of the latter monarch as being the mother of the ill-fated
prince who closed the long line of native rulers. Such being
the only testimony of secular writers, there was no
alternative but to identify Belshazzar with Nabonidus. … Yet
the name Nabonidus stood in no sort of relation to that of
Belshazzar; and the identification of the two personages was,
undoubtedly, both arbitrary and difficult. The cuneiform
inscriptions brought to Europe from the site of Babylon and
other ancient cities of Chaldæa soon changed the aspect of the
problem. … Nabonidus, or, in the native form, Nabu naïd, that
is to say, 'Nebo exalts,' is the name given to the last native
king of Babylon in the contemporary records inscribed on clay.
This monarch, however, was found to speak of his eldest son as
bearing the very name preserved in the Book of Daniel, and
hitherto known to us from that source alone. … 'Set the fear
of thy great godhead in the heart of. Belshazzar, my firstborn
son, my own offspring; and let him not commit sin, in order
that he may enjoy the fulness of life.' … 'Belshazzar, my
firstborn son, … lengthen his days; let him not commit sin. …'
These passages provide us, in an unexpected manner, with the
name which had hitherto been known from the Book of Daniel,
and from that document alone; but we were still in the dark as
to the reason which could have induced the author to represent
Belshazzar as king of Babylon. … In 1882 a cuneiform

inscription was for the first time interpreted and published
by Mr. Pinches; it had been disinterred among the ruins of
Babylon by Mr. Hormuzd Russam. This document proved to contain
the annals of the king whose fate we have just been
discussing—namely, Nabonidus. Though mutilated in parts, it
allowed us to learn some portions of his history, both before
and during the invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus; and one of the
most remarkable facts that it added to our knowledge was that
of the regency—if that term may be used—of the king's son
during the absence of the sovereign from the Court and army.
Here, surely, the explanation of the Book of Daniel was found:
Belshazzar was, at the time of the irruption of the Persians,
acting as his father's representative; he was commanding the
Babylonian army and presiding over the Babylonian Court. When
Cyrus entered Babylon, doubtless the only resistance he met
with was in the royal palace, and there it was probably
slight. In the same night Belshazzar was taken and slain."
B. T. A. Evetts,
New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land,
chapter 11, part 2.
{2894}
Cyrus the Great, in whose vast empire the Babylonian kingdom
was finally swallowed up, was originally "king of Anzan in
Elam, not of Persia. Anzan had been first occupied, it would
appear, by his great-grandfather Teispes the Achaemenian. The
conquest of Astyages and of his capital Ekbatana took place in
B. C. 549, and a year or two later Cyrus obtained possession
of Persia." Then, B. C. 538, came the conquest of Babylonia,
invited by a party in the country hostile to its king,
Nabonidos. Cyrus "assumed the title of 'King of Babylon,' thus
claiming to be the legitimate descendant of the ancient
Babylonian kings. He announced himself as the devoted
worshipper of Bel and Nebo, who by the command of Merodach had
overthrown the sacrilegious usurper Nabonidos, and he and his
son accordingly offered sacrifices to ten times the usual
amount in the Babylonian temples, and restored the images of
the gods to their ancient shrines. At the same time he allowed
the foreign populations who had been deported to Babylonia to
return to their homes along with the statues of their gods.
Among these foreign populations, as we know from the Old
Testament, were the Jews."
A. H. Sayce,
Primer of Assyriology,
pages 74-78.
SEMITES:
Hebraic branch.
See JEWS, AMMONITES; MOABITES; and EDOMITES.
SEMITES:
Canaanitic branch.
See JEWS: EARLY HISTORY; and PHŒNICIANS.
SEMITES:
Southern branches.
See ARABIA; ETHIOPIA; and ABYSSINIA.
----------SEMITES: End--------
SEMITIC LANGUAGES.
"There is no stronger or more unchanging unity among any group
of languages than that which exists in the Semitic group. The
dead and living languages which compose it hardly differ from
each other so much as the various Romance or Sclavonic
dialects. Not only are the elements of the common vocabulary
unchanged, but the structure of the word and of the phrase has
remained the same. … The Semitic languages form two great
branches, each subdivided into two groups. The northern branch
comprehends the Aramaic-Assyrian group and the Canaanitish
group; the southern … includes the Arabic group, properly so
called, and the Himyarite group. The name Aramaic is given to
two dialects which are very nearly allied—Chaldean and Syriac.
… The Aramaic which was spoken at the time of Christ was
divided into two sub-dialects: that of Galilee, which
resembled the Syriac pronunciation, and that of Jerusalem, of
which the pronunciation was more marked and nearer to
Chaldean. Jesus and his disciples evidently spoke the dialect
of their country. … Syriac, in its primitive state, is unknown
to us, as also Syro-Chaldean. … Assyrian is a discovery of
this century. … To the Canaanitish group belong Phœnician,
Samaritan, the languages of the left bank of the Jordan,
notably Moabite. … and lastly, Hebrew. The first and the last
of these dialects are almost exactly alike. … Arabic, being
the language of Islam, has deeply penetrated all the Mussulman
nations, Turkish, Persian, and Hindustani. … Himyarite reigned
to the south of Arabic; it was the language of the Queen of
Sheba, and is now well known through a great number of
inscriptions, and is perhaps still spoken under the name of
Ekhili in the district of Marah. … It is in Abyssinia that we
must seek for the last vestiges of Himyarite. Several
centuries before our era, the African coast of the Red Sea had
received Semitic colonies, and a language known as Ghez or
Ethiopian."
A. Lefèvre,
Race and Language,
pages 213-223.
SEMNONES, The.
"The Semnones were the chief Suevic clan. Their settlements
seem to have been between the Elbe and Oder, coinciding as
nearly as possible with Brandenburg, and reaching possibly
into Prussian Poland."-
Church and Brodribb,
Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.
SEMPACH, Battle of (1386).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
SEMPRONIAN LAWS.
The laws proposed and carried at Rome by the Gracchi, who were
of the Sempronian gens, are often so referred to.
See ROME: B. C. 133-121.
SENA, The Druidic oracle of.
A little island called Sena—modern Sein—off the extreme
western coast of Brittany, is mentioned by Pomponius Mela as
the site of a celebrated oracle, consulted by Gaulish
navigators and served by nine virgin priestesses.
E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2).
SENATE, Canadian.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
SENATE, French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
SENATE, Roman.
"In prehistoric times, the clans which subsequently united to
form cantons had each possessed a monarchical constitution of
its own. When the clan governments were merged in that of the
canton, the monarchs ('reges') of these clans became senators,
or elders, in the new community. In the case of Rome the
number of senators was three hundred, because in the
beginning, as tradition said, there were three hundred clans.
In regal times the king appointed the senators. Probably, at
first, he chose one from each clan, honoring in this way some
man whose age had given him experience and whose ability made
his opinion entitled to consideration. Afterward, when the
rigidity of the arrangement by clans was lost, the senators
were selected from the whole body of the people, without any
attempt at preserving the clan representation. Primarily the
senate was not a legislative body. When the king died without
having nominated his successor, the senators served
successively as 'interreges' ('kings for an interval'), for
periods of five days each, until a 'rex' was chosen. … This
general duty was the first of the senate's original functions.
Again, when the citizens had passed a law at the suggestion of
the king, the senate had a right ('patrum auctoritas') to veto
it, if it seemed contrary to the spirit of the city's
institutions. Finally, as the senate was composed of men of
experience and ability, the king used to consult it in times
of personal doubt or national danger."
A. Tighe,
Development of the Roman Constitution,
chapter 3.
{2895}
Of the Roman Senate as it became in the great days of the
Republic—at the close of the Punic Wars and after—the
following is an account: "All the acts of the Roman Republic
ran in the name of the Senate and People, as if the Senate
were half the state, though its number seems still to have
been limited to Three Hundred members. The Senate of Rome was
perhaps the most remarkable assembly that the world has ever
seen. Its members held their seats for life; once Senators
always Senators, unless they were degraded for some
dishonourable cause. But the Senatorial Peerage was not
hereditary. No father could transmit the honour to his son.
Each man must win it for himself. The manner in which seats in
the Senate were obtained is tolerably well ascertained. Many
persons will be surprised to learn that the members of this
august body, all —or nearly all—owed their places to the votes
of the people. In theory, indeed, the Censors still possessed
the power really exercised by the Kings and early Consuls, of
choosing the Senators at their own will and pleasure. But
official powers, however arbitrary, are always limited in
practice; and the Censors followed rules established by
ancient precedent. … The Senate was recruited from the lists
of official persons. … It was not by a mere figure of speech
that the minister of Pyrrhus called the Roman Senate 'an
Assembly of Kings.' Many of its members had exercised
Sovereign power; many were preparing to exercise it. The power
of the Senate was equal to its dignity. … In regard to
legislation, they [it] exercised an absolute control over the
Centuriate Assembly, because no law could be submitted to its
votes which had not originated in the Senate. … In respect to
foreign affairs, the power of the Senate was absolute, except
in declaring War or concluding treaties of Peace,—matters
which were submitted to the votes of the People. They assigned
to the Consuls and Prætors their respective provinces of
administration and command; they fixed the amount of troops to
be levied every year from the list of Roman citizens, and of
the contingents to be furnished by the Italian allies. They
prolonged the command of a general or superseded him at
pleasure. … In the administration of home affairs, all the
regulation of religious matters was in their hands. … All the
financial arrangements of the State were left to their
discretion. … They might resolve themselves into a High Court
of Justice for the trial of extraordinary offences."
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 35 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 2.
See, also, ROME: B. C. 146; and CONSCRIPT FATHERS.
SENATE, United States.
"The Senate is composed of two Senators from each State, and
these Senators are chosen by the State Legislatures. The
representation is then equal, each State having two Senators
and each Senator having one vote; and no difference is made
among the States on account of size, population, or wealth.
The Senate is not, strictly speaking, a popular body, and the
higher qualifications demanded of its members, and the longer
period of service, make it the more important body of the two.
The Senate is presumedly more conservative in its action, and
acts as a safeguard against the precipitate and changing
legislation that is more characteristic of the House of
Representatives, which, being chosen directly by the people,
and at frequent intervals, is more easily affected by and
reflects the prevailing temper of the times. The Senate is
more intimately connected with the Executive than is the lower
body. The President must submit to the Senate for its approval
the treaties he has contracted with foreign powers; he must
ask the advice and consent of the Senate in the appointment of
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States
whose appointments have not been otherwise provided for. … The
Senate has sole power to try all impeachments, but it cannot
originate proceedings of impeachment. … In case a vacancy
occurs when the State Legislature is not in session, the
governor may make a temporary appointment; but at the next
meeting of the Legislature the vacancy must be filled in the
usual way. The presiding officer of the Senate is the
Vice-President of the United States. He is elected in the same
manner as the President, for were he chosen from the Senate
itself, the equality of representation would be broken. He has
no vote save when the Senate is equally divided, and his
powers are very limited."
W. C. Ford,
The American Citizen's Manual,
part 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
The Federalist,
Numbers 62-66.
J. Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution,
chapter 10 (volume 2).
J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
chapters 10-12 (volume 1).
See, also, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
SENATUS-CONSULTUM.
SENATUS-DECRETUM.
"A proposition sanctioned by a majority of the [Roman] Senate,
and not vetoed by one of the Tribunes of the Plebs, who might
interrupt the proceedings at any stage, was called
Senatus-Consultum or Senatus-Decretum, the only distinction
between the terms being that the former was more
comprehensive, since Senatus-Consultum might include several
orders or Decreta."
W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 6.
SENCHUS MOR, The.
One of the books of the ancient Irish laws, known as the
Brehon Laws.
SENECAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SENECAS.
SENEFFE, Battle of (1674).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
SENLAC OR HASTINGS, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (OCTOBER).
SENNACHIES.
One of the names given to the Bards, or Ollamhs, of the
ancient Irish.
SENONES, The.
A strong tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory was between the
Loire and the Marne. Their chief town was Agedincum—modern
Sens.
Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.
The Senones were also prominent among the Gauls which crossed
the Alps, settled Cisalpine Gaul and contested northern Italy
with the Romans.
See ROME: B. C. 390-347, and 295-191.
SENS, Origin of.
See SENONES.
SENTINUM, Battle of (B. C. 295).
See ROME: B. C. 343-290, and B. C. 295-191.
SEPARATISTS.
See INDEPENDENTS.
SEPHARDIM, The.
Jews descended from those who were expelled from Spain in 1492
are called the Sephardim.
See JEWS: 8-15TH CENTURIES.
SEPHARVAIM.
See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.
SEPHER YETZIRA, The.
See CABALA.
SEPOY: The name.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
{2896}
SEPOY MUTINY,
of 1763, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
Of 1806.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
Of 1857-1858.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).
SEPT, OR CLAN.
See CLANS.
SEPTA.
See CAMPUS MARTIUS.
SEPTEMBER LAWS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.
SEPTEMBER MASSACRES AT PARIS.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
SEPTENNATE IN FRANCE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.
SEPTENNIAL ACT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.
SEPTIMANIA:
Under the Goths.
See GOTHIA, IN GAUL;
also GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419; and 419-451.
SEPTIMANIA: A. D. 715-718.
Occupation by the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
SEPTIMANIA: A. D. 752-759.
Recovery from the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.
SEPTIMANIA: 10th Century.
The dukes and their successors.
See TOULOUSE: 10-11TH CENTURIES.
SEPTUAGINT, The.
"We have in the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Hebrew Old
Testament, the first great essay in translation into Greek, a
solitary specimen of the ordinary language spoken and
understood in those days [at Alexandria 3d century B. C.].
There is a famous legend of the origin of the work by order of
the Egyptian king, and of the perfect agreement of all the
versions produced by the learned men who had been sent at his
request from Judæa. Laying aside these fables, it appears that
the books were gradually rendered for the benefit of the many
Jews settled in Egypt, who seem to have been actually
forgetting their old language. Perhaps Philadelphus gave an
impulse to the thing by requiring a copy for his library,
which seems to have admitted none but Greek books."
J. P. Mahaffy,
Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 14.
ALSO IN:
W. Robertson Smith,
The Old Testament in the Jewish Church,
lecture 4.
F. W. Farrar,
History of Interpretation (
Bampton Lectures, 1885), lecture 3.
SEQUANA, The.
The ancient name of the river Seine.
SEQUANI, The.
See GAULS.
SERAI.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
SERAPEUM, at Alexandria.
See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 389;
also LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.
SERAPEUM, at Memphis.
"The Serapeum is one of the edifices of Memphis [Egypt]
rendered famous by a frequently quoted passage of Strabo, and
by the constant mention made of it on the Greek papyri. It had
long been sought for, and we had the good fortune to discover
it in 1851. Apis, the living image of Osiris revisiting the
earth, was a bull who, while he lived, had his temple at
Memphis (Mitrahenny), and, when dead, had his tomb at
Sakkarah. The palace which the bull inhabited in his lifetime
was called the Apieum; the Serapeum was the name given to his
tomb."
A. Mariette,
Monuments of Upper Egypt,
page 88.
SERAPHIM, OR "BLUE RIBBON," The order of the.
"There is no doubt whatever of the antiquity of this Order,
yet it is very difficult to arrive at the exact date of the
foundation. General opinion, though without positive proof,
ascribes its origin, about the year 1280, to King Magnus I.
[of Sweden], who is said to have instituted it at the
persuasion of the Maltese Knights. Another account ascribes
the foundation to Magnus's grandson, Magnus Erichson. … King
Frederick I. revived the Order, as also those of the Sword and
North Star, on the 28th April, 1748."
Sir B. Burke,
The Book of Orders of Knighthood,
page 329.
SERBONIAN BOG.
"There is a lake between Cœlo-Syria and Egypt, very narrow,
but exceeding deep, even to a wonder, two hundred furlongs in
length, called Serbon: if any through ignorance approach it
they are lost irrecoverably; for the channel being very
narrow, like a swaddling-band, and compassed round with vast
heaps of sand, great quantities of it are cast into the lake,
by the continued southern winds, which so cover the surface of
the water, and make it to the view so like unto dry land, that
it cannot possibly be distinguished; and therefore many,
unacquainted with the nature of the place, by missing their
way, have been there swallowed up, together with whole armies.
For the sand being trod upon, sinks down and gives way by
degrees, and like a malicious cheat, deludes and decoys them
that come upon it, till too late, when they see the mischief
they are likely to fall into, they begin to support and help
one another, but without any possibility either of returning
back or escaping certain ruin."
Diodorus
(Booth's translation)
book 1, chapter 3.
According to Dr. Brugsch, the lake Serbon, or Sirbonis, so
graphically described by Diodorus, but owing its modern
celebrity to Milton's allusion (Paradise Lost, ii.
502-4), is in our days almost entirely dried up. He
describes it as having been really a lagoon, on the
northeastern coast of Egypt, "divided from the Mediterranean
by a long tongue of land which, in ancient times, formed the
only road from Egypt to Palestine." It is Dr. Brugsch's theory
that the exodus of the Israelites was by this route and that
the host of Pharaoh perished in the Serbonian quicksands.
H. Brugsch,
History of Egypt,
volume 2, appendix.
SERBS, The.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).
SERES.
See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.
SERFDOM.
SERFS.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN.
SERGIUS I.,
Pope, A. D. 687-701.
Sergius II., Pope, 844-847.
Sergius III., Pope, 904-911.
Sergius IV., Pope, 1009-1012.
SERINGAPATAM: A. D. 1792.
Siege by the English.
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
SERINGAPATAM: A. D. 1799.
Final capture by the English.
Death of Sultan Tippoo.
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
SERJEANTS-AT-LAW.
See TEMPLARS: THE ORDER IN ENGLAND.
SERPUL, Treaty of (1868).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1850-1876.
SERRANO, Ministry and Regency of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
SERTORIUS, in Spain.
See SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.
{2897}
SERVI.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND; also, CATTANI.
SERVIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
SERVIAN CONSTITUTION.
The first important modification of the primitive Roman
constitution, ascribed to King Servius Tullius.
See COMITIA CENTURIATA.
SERVIAN WALL OF ROME, The.
See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.
SERVILES, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
SERVITES, The.
The order of the "Religious Servants of the Holy Virgin,"
better known as Servites, was founded in 1233 by seven
Florentine merchants. It spread rapidly in its early years,
and has a considerable number of houses still existing.
SESQUIPES.
See FOOT, THE ROMAN.
SESTERTIUS, The.
See AS.
SESTOS, OR SESTUS, Siege and capture of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.
SESTUNTII, The.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
SETTE POZZI, OR MALVASIA, Battle of (1263).
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
SETTLEMENT, Act of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701, and IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
SEVASTOS.
The Greek form, in the Byzantine Empire, of the title of
"Augustus." "It was divided into four gradations, sevastos,
protosevastos, panhypersevastos, and sevastokrator."
G. Finlay,
History Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
book 3, chapter 2, section 1.
SEVEN BISHOPS, The: Sent to the Tower.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
SEVEN BOROUGHS, The.
See FIVE BOROUGHS. THE.
SEVEN CHAMPIONS OF CHRISTENDOM, The.
St. George, for England,
St. Denis, for France,
St. James, for Spain,
St. Anthony, for Italy,
St. Andrew, for Scotland,
St. Patrick, for Ireland, and
St. David, for Wales,
were called, in mediæval times, the Seven Champions of
Christendom.
SEVEN CITIES, The Isle of the.
See ANTILLES.
SEVEN CITIES OF CIBOLA.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
SEVEN DAYS RETREAT, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).
SEVEN GATES OF THEBES, The.
See THEBES, GREECE: THE FOUNDING OF THE CITY.
SEVEN HILLS OF ROME, The.
"The seven hills were not occupied all at once, but one after
the other, as they were required. The Palatine held the 'arx'
of the primitive inhabitants, and was the original nucleus of
the town, round which a wall or earthern rampart was raised by
Romulus. The hill of Saturn, afterwards the Capitoline, is
said to have been united, after the death of Titus Tatius, by
Romulus; who drew a second wall or earthern rampart round the
two hills. The Aventine, which was chiefly used as a pasture
ground, was added by Ancus Martius, who settled the population
of the conquered towns of Politorium, Tellena, and Ficana upon
it. According to Livy, the Cælian Hill was added to the city
by Tullus Hostilius. The population increasing, it seemed
necessary to further enlarge the city. Servius Tullius, Livy
tells us, added two hills, the Quirinal and the Viminal,
afterwards extending it further to the Esquiline, where, he
says, to give dignity to the place, he dwelt himself. The city
having reached such an extent, a vast undertaking was planned
by the king, Servius, to protect it. A line of wall [the
Servian Wall] was built to encircle the seven hills over which
the city had extended."
H. M. Westropp,
Early and Imperial Rome,
pages 56-57.
SEVEN ISLANDS, The Republic of the.
See IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.
SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS, The.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.
SEVEN MOUNTS, The.
See PALATINE HILL; and QUIRINAL.
SEVEN PINES, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
SEVEN PROVINCES, The Union of the.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
SEVEN REDUCTIONS, The War of the.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
SEVEN RIVERS, The Land of the.
See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.
SEVEN WEEKS WAR, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
SEVEN WISE MEN OF GREECE.
"The name and poetry of Solon, and the short maxims, or
sayings, of Phokylidês, conduct us to the mention of the Seven
Wise Men of Greece. Solon was himself one of the seven, and
most if, not all of them were poets, or composers in verse. To
most of them is ascribed also an abundance of pithy repartees,
together with one short saying, or maxim, peculiar to each,
serving as a sort of distinctive motto. … Respecting this
constellation of Wise Men—who, in the next century of Grecian
history, when philosophy came to be a matter of discussion and
argumentation, were spoken of with great eulogy—all the
statements are confused, in part even contradictory. Neither
the number nor the names are given by all authors alike.
Dikæarchus numbered ten, Hermippus seventeen: the names of
Solon the Athenian, Thalês the Milesian, Pittakus the
Mitylenean, and Bias the Prienean, were comprised in all the
lists —and the remaining names as given by Plato were
Kleobulus of Lindus in Rhodes, Myson of Chênæ, and Cheilon of
Sparta. We cannot certainly distribute among them the sayings,
or mottoes, upon which in later days the Amphiktyons conferred
the honour of inscription in the Delphian temple:
'Know thyself,'
'Nothing too much,'
'Know thy opportunity,'
'Suretyship is the precursor of ruin.'
… Dikæarchus, however, justly observed that these seven or ten
persons were not wise men, or philosophers, in the sense which
those words bore in his day, but persons of practical
discernment in reference to man and society,—of the same turn
of mind as their contemporary the fabulist Æsop, though not
employing the same mode of illustration. Their appearance
forms an epoch in Grecian history, inasmuch as they are the
first persons who ever acquired an Hellenic reputation
grounded on mental competency apart from poetical genius or
effect—a proof that political and social prudence was
beginning to be appreciated and admired on its own account."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 29.
{2898}
SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD.
See RHODES, THE COLOSSUS OF.
----------SEVEN YEARS WAR: Start--------
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
Its causes and provocations.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
Campaigns in America.
See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, and 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
English Naval Operations.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755;
ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST),
and 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
Campaigns in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1756, to 1761-1762.
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
The conflict in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
The Treaties which ended the war.
The Peace of Paris and the Peace of Hubertsburg.
Negotiations for a peace between England, France, and Spain
were brought to a close by the signing of preliminaries at
Fontainebleau, November 3, 1762. In the course of the next
month, a conference for the arrangement of terms between
Prussia, Austria and Saxony was begun at Hubertsburg, a
hunting-seat of the Elector of Saxony, between Leipsic and
Dresden. "The definitive Peace of Paris, between France,
Spain, England, and Portugal, was signed February 10th 1763.
Both France and England abandoned their allies, and neither
Austria nor Prussia was mentioned in the treaty." But it was
stipulated that all territories belonging to the Elector of
Hanover, the Landgrave of Hesse, and the Count of Lippe
Bücheburg should be restored to them. "France ceded to England
Nova Scotia, Canada, and the country east of the Mississippi
as far as the Iberville. A line drawn through the Mississippi,
from its source to its mouth, was henceforth to form the
boundary between the possessions of the two nations, except
that the town and island of New Orleans were not to be
included in this cession. France also ceded the island of Cape
Breton, with the isles and coasts of the St. Lawrence,
retaining, under certain restrictions, the right of fishing at
Newfoundland, and the isles of St. Peter and Miquelon. In the
West Indies she ceded Grenada and the Grenadines, and three of
the so-called neuter islands, namely, Dominica, St. Vincent,
and Tobago, retaining the fourth, St. Lucie. Also in Africa,
the river Senegal, recovering Goree; in the East Indies, the
French settlements on the coast of Coromandel made since 1749,
retaining previous ones. She also restored to Great Britain
Natal and Tabanouly, in Sumatra, and engaged to keep no troops
in Bengal. In Europe, besides relinquishing her conquests in
Germany, she restored Minorca, and engaged to place Dunkirk in
the state required by former treaties. Great Britain, on her
side, restored Belle Isle, and in the West Indies, Martinique,
Guadaloupe, Marie Galante, and La Desirade. Spain ceded to
Great Britain Florida and all districts east of the
Mississippi, recovering the Havannah and all other British
conquests. British subjects were to enjoy the privilege of
cutting logwood in the Bay of Honduras. … With regard to the
Portuguese colonies, matters were to be placed in the same
state as before the war. … By way of compensation for the loss
of Florida, France, by a private agreement, made over to Spain
New Orleans and what remained to her of Louisiana. The Peace
of Hubertsburg, between Austria, Prussia, and Saxony, was
signed February 15th 1763. Marie Theresa renounced all
pretensions she might have to any of the dominions of the King
of Prussia, and especially those which had been ceded to him
by the treaties of Breslau and Berlin; and she agreed to
restore to Prussia the town and county of Glatz, and the
fortresses of Wesel and Gelders. The Empire was included in
the peace, but the Emperor was not even named. … In the peace
with the Elector of Saxony, Frederick engaged speedily to
evacuate that Electorate and to restore the archives, &c.; but
he would give no indemnification for losses suffered. The
Treaty of Dresden, of 1745, was renewed."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 6 (volume 3).
"Of the Peace-Treaties at Hubertsburg, Paris and other places,
it is not necessary that we say almost anything. … The
substance of the whole lies now in Three Points. … The issue,
as between Austria and Prussia, strives to be, in all points,
simply 'As-you-were'; and, in all outward or tangible points,
strictly is so. After such a tornado of strife as the
civilised world had not witnessed since the Thirty-Years War.
Tornado springing doubtless from the regions called Infernal;
and darkening the upper world from south to north, and from
east to west for Seven Years long;—issuing in general
'As-you-were'! Yes truly, the tornado was Infernal; but
Heaven, too, had silently its purposes in it. Nor is the mere
expenditure of men's diabolic rages, in mutual clash as of
opposite electricities, with reduction to equipoise, and
restoration of zero and repose again after seven years, the
one or the principal result arrived at. Inarticulately, little
dreamt on at the time by any bystander, the results, on survey
from this distance, are visible as Threefold. Let us name them
one other time:
1°. There is no taking of Silesia from this man; no clipping
him down to the orthodox old limits; he and his Country have
palpably outgrown these. Austria gives-up the problem: 'We
have lost Silesia!' Yes; and, what you hardly yet know,—and
what, I perceive, Friedrich himself still less knows,—
Teutschland has found Prussia. Prussia, it seems, cannot be
conquered by the whole world trying to do it; Prussia has gone
through its Fire-Baptism, to the satisfaction of gods and men;
and is a Nation henceforth. In and of poor dislocated
Teutschland, there is one of the Great Powers of the World
henceforth; an actual Nation. And a Nation not grounding
itself on extinct Traditions, Wiggeries, Papistries,
Immaculate Conceptions; no, but on living Facts, —Facts of
Arithmetic, Geometry, Gravitation, Martin Luther's
Reformation, and what it really can believe in:—to the
infinite advantage of said Nation and of poor Teutschland
henceforth. …
2°. In regard to England. Her Jenkins's-Ear Controversy is at
last settled. Not only liberty of the Seas, but, if she were
not wiser, dominion of them; guardianship of liberty for all
others whatsoever: Dominion of the Seas for that wise object.
America is to be English, not French; what a result is that,
were there no other! Really a considerable Fact in the History
of the World. Fact principally due to Pitt, as I believe,
according to my best conjecture, and comparison of
probabilities and circumstances. For which, after all, is not
everybody thankful, less or more? O my English brothers, O my
Yankee half-brothers, how oblivious are we of those that have
done us benefit! …
{2899}
3°. In regard to France. It appears, noble old Teutschland,
with such pieties and unconquerable silent valours, such
opulences human and divine, amid its wreck of new and old
confusions, is not to be cut in Four, and made to dance to the
piping of Versailles or another. Far the contrary! To
Versailles itself there has gone forth, Versailles may read it
or not, the writing on the wall: 'Thou art weighed in the
balance, and found wanting' (at last even 'found wanting')!
France, beaten, stript, humiliated; sinful, unrepentant,
governed by mere sinners and, at best, clever fools ('fous
pleins d'esprit'),—collapses, like a creature whose limbs fail
it; sinks into bankrupt quiescence, into nameless
fermentation, generally into dry-rot."
T. Carlyle,
History of Friedrich II.,
book 20, chapter 13 (volume 9).
The text of the Treaty of Paris may be found here.
Parliamentary History,
volume 15, page 1291,
Entick's History of the Late War,
volume 5, page 438.
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
The death and misery of the war summed up by Frederick the
Great.
"Prussia enumerated 180,000 men, whom she had been deprived of
by the war. Her armies had fought 16 pitched battles. The
enemy had beside almost totally destroyed three large corps;
that of the convoy of Olmutz, that of Maxen, and that of
Fouquet at Landshut; exclusive of the garrison of Breslau, two
garrisons of Schweidnitz, one of Torgau, and one of
Wittenberg, that were taken with these towns. It was further
estimated that 20,000 souls perished in the kingdom of Prussia
by the ravages of the Russians; 6,000 in Pomerania; 4,000 in
the New March and 3,000 in the electorate of Brandenbourg. The
Russian troops had fought four grand battles, and it was
computed that the war had cost them 120,000 men, including
part of the recruits that perished, in coming from the
frontiers of Persia and China, to join their corps in Germany.
The Austrians had fought ten regular battles. Two garrisons at
Schweidnitz and one at Breslau had been taken; and they
estimated their loss at 140,000 men. The French made their
losses amount to 200,000; the English with their allies to
160,000; the Swedes to 25,000; and the troops of the circles
to 28,000. … From the general picture which we have sketched,
the result is that the governments of Austria, France, and
even England, were overwhelmed with debts, and almost
destitute of credit; but that the people, not having been
sufferers in the war, were only sensible of it from the
prodigious taxes which had been exacted by their sovereigns.
Whereas, in Prussia, the government was possessed of money,
but the provinces were laid waste and desolated, by the
rapacity and barbarity of enemies. The electorate of Saxony
was, next to Prussia, the province of Germany that had
suffered the most; but this country found resources, in the
goodness of its soil and the industry of its inhabitants,
which are wanting to Prussia throughout her provinces, Silesia
excepted. Time, which cures and effaces all ills, will no
doubt soon restore the Prussian states to their former
abundance, prosperity, and splendor. Other powers will in like
manner recover, and other ambitious men will arise, excite new
wars, and incur new disasters. Such are the properties of the
human mind; no man benefits by example."
Frederick II.,
History of the Seven Years War
(Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapter 17.
----------SEVEN YEARS WAR: End--------
SEVERINUS, Pope, A. D. 640, May to August.
SEVERUS, Alexander, Roman Emperor, A. D. 222-235.
SEVERUS, Libius, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 461-465.
SEVERUS, Septimius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193-211.
Campaigns in Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.
SEVERUS, Wall of.
See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.
SEVIER, John, and the early settlement of Tennessee.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.
----------SEVILLE: Start--------
SEVILLE:
Early history of the city.
"Seville was a prosperous port under the Phœnicians; and was
singularly favored by the Scipios. In 45 B. C., Julius Cæsar
entered the city; he enlarged it, strengthened and fortified
it, and thus made it a favorite residence with the patricians
of Rome, several of whom came to live there; no wonder, with
its perfect climate and brilliant skies. It was then called
Hispalis."
E. E. and S. Hale,
The Story of Spain,
chapter 18.
SEVILLE: A. D. 712.
Surrender to the Arab-Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
SEVILLE: A. D. 1031-1091.
The seat of a Moorish kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.
SEVILLE: A. D. 1248.
Conquest from the Moors by St. Ferdinand of Castile.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.
----------SEVILLE: End--------
SEVILLE, Treaty of (1730).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
SEVIN, Battle of (1877).
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
SEWAN.
See WAMPUM.
SEWARD, William H.
Defeat in the Chicago Convention of 1860.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
In President Lincoln's Cabinet.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (MARCH), and after.
The Trent Affair.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D.1861 (NOVEMBER).
The Proclamation of Emancipation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER).
Attempted assassination.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).
In President Johnson's Cabinet.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
SFORZA, Francesco, The rise to ducal sovereignty of.
See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
SHABATZ, Battle of (1806).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).
SHACAYA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
SHAH, OR SCHAH.
See BEY; also CHESS.
SHAH JAHAN,
Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1628-1658.
SHAH ROKH, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1747-1751.
SHAHAPTIAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.
SHAHPUR.
One of the capitals of the later Persian empire, the ruins of
which exist near Kazerun, in the province of Fars. It was
built by Sapor I., the second of the Sassanian kings, and
received his name.
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 4.
{2900}
SHAKERS, The.
"From the time of the first settlements until the age of the
Revolution, if there were any communistic societies founded,
[in the United States] I have met with no account of them. The
first which has had a long life, was that of the Shakers, or
Shaking Quakers, as they were at first called, on account of
their bodily movements in worship. The members of this sect or
society left England in 1774, and have prospered ever since.
It has now multiplied into settlements—twelve of them in New
York and New England—in regard to which we borrow the
following statistics from Dr. Nordhoff's book on communistic
societies in the United States, published in 1875. Their
property consists of 49,335 acres of land in home farms, with
other real estate. The value of their houses and personal
property is not given. The population of all the communities
consists of 695 male and 1,189 female adults, with 531 young
persons under twenty-one, of whom 192 are males and 339
females, amounting in all to 2,415 in 1874. The maximum of
population was 5,069, a decline to less than half, for which
we are not able to account save on the supposition that there
are permanent causes of decay now at work within the
communities. … The Shakers were at their origin a society of
enthusiasts in humble life, who separated from the Quakers
about the middle of the eighteenth century. Ann Lee, one of
the members, on account of spiritual manifestations believed
to have been made to her, became an oracle in the body, and in
1773 she declared that a revelation from heaven instructed her
to go to America. The next year she crossed the sea, with
eight others, and settled in the woods of Watervliet, near
Albany. She preached, and was believed to have performed
remarkable cures. From her … [was] derived the rule of
celibacy. … She died in 1784, as the acknowledged head of the
church; and had afterward nearly equal honors paid to her with
the Saviour. Under the second successor of Ann Lee almost all
the societies in New York and New England were founded; and
under the third, a woman named Lucy Wright, whose leadership
lasted nearly thirty years, those in Ohio and Kentucky. …
After 1830 the Shakers founded no new society. Dr. Nordhoff
gives the leading doctrines of the Shakers, which are, some of
them, singular enough. They hold that God is a dual person,
male and female; that Adam, created in his image, was dual
also; that the same is true of all angels and spirits; and
that Christ is one of the highest spirits, who appeared first
in the person of Jesus and afterward in that of Ann Lee. There
are four heavens and four hells. Noah went to the first
heaven, and the wicked of his time to the first hell. The
second heaven was called Paradise, and contained the pious
Jews until the appearance of Christ. The third, that into
which the Apostle Paul was caught, included all that lived
until the time of Ann Lee. The fourth is now being filled up,
and 'is to supersede all the others.' They hold that the day
of judgment, or beginning of Christ's kingdom on earth, began
with the establishment of their church, and will go on until
it is brought to its completion. … In regard to marriage and
property they do not take the position that these are crimes;
but only marks of a lower order of society. The world will
have a chance to become pure in a future state as well as
here. They believed in spiritual communication and
possession."
T. D. Woolsey,
Communism and Socialism,
pages 51-56.
ALSO IN:
C. Nordhoff,
The Communistic Societies of the United States,
pages 117-232.
SHAKESPEARE, and the English Renaissance.
See ENGLAND: 15-16TH CENTURIES.
SHAMANISM.
See LAMAS.—LAMAISM.
SHARON, Plain of.
That part of the low-land of the Palestine seacoast which
stretched northward from Philistia to the promontory of Mt.
Carmel. It was assigned to the tribe of Dan.
SHARPSBURG, OR ANTIETAM, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).
SHASTAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.
SHASU, The.
An Egyptian name "in which science has for a long time and
with perfect certainty recognized the Bedouins of the highest
antiquity. They inhabited the great desert between Egypt and
the land of Canaan and extended their wanderings sometimes as
far as the river Euphrates."
H. Brugsch,
History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs,
chapter 11.
See, also, EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.
SHAWMUT.
The Indian name of the peninsula on which Boston,
Massachusetts, was built.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.
SHAWNEES, OR SHAWANESE.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.
SHAYS REBELLION.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.
SHEADINGS.
See MANX KINGDOM, THE.
SHEBA.
"The name of Sheba is still to be recognised in the tribe of
Benu-es-Sab, who inhabit a portion of Oman" (Southern Arabia).
F. Lenormant,
Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
book 7, chapter 1.
See, also,
ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.
SHEEPEATERS (Tukuarika).
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
SHEKEL, The.
"Queipo is of opinion that the talent, the larger unit of
Egyptian weight for monetary purposes, and for weighing the
precious metals, was equal to the weight of water contained in
the cube of 2/3 of the royal or sacred cubit, and thus
equivalent to 42.48 kilos, or 113.814 lbs. troy. He considers
this to have been the weight of the Mosaic talent taken by the
Hebrews out of Egypt. It was divided into fifty minas, each
equal to 849.6 grammes, or 13,111 English grains; and the mina
into fifty shekels, each equal to 14.16 grammes, or 218.5
English grains. … There appears to be satisfactory evidence

from existing specimens of the earliest Jewish coins that the
normal weight of the later Jewish shekel of silver was 218.5
troy grains, or 14.16 grammes."
H. W. Chisholm,
On the Science of Weighing and Measuring,
chapter 2.
SHELBURNE MINISTRY, and the negotiation
of peace between England and the United States.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783;
AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
SHENANDOAH, The Confederate Cruiser.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1865.
----------SHENANDOAH VALLEY: Start--------
SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1716.
Possession taken by the Virginians.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1710.
{2901}
SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1744.
Purchase from the Six Nations.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.
SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1861-1864.
Campaigns in the Civil War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL,: VIRGINIA);
1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA), (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND),
(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA);
A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA),
(JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND), and (AUGUST-OCTOBER:VIRGINIA).
----------SHENANDOAH VALLEY: End--------
SHENIR, Battle of.
A crushing defeat of the army of king Hazael of Damascus by
Shalmanezer, king of Assyria, B. C. 841.
SHEPHELAH, The.
The name given by the Jews to the tract of low-lying coast
which the Philistines occupied.
SHEPHERD KINGS.
See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.
SHERIDAN, General Philip H.:
In the Battle of Stone River.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).
At Chickamauga, and in the Chattanooga Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
ROSECRANS' ADVANCE, and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
Raid to Richmond.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
Raid to Trevillian Station.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
Campaign in the Shenandoah.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).
Battle of Five Forks.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).
SHERIFF.
SCIRGEREFA.
"The Scirgerefa is, as his name denotes, the person who stands
at the head of the shire, 'pagus' or county: he is also called
Scirman or Scirigman. He is properly speaking the holder of
the county court, scirgemot, or folcmot, and probably at first
was its elected chief. But as this gerefa was at first the
people's officer, he seems to have shared the fate of the
people, and to have sunk in the scale as the royal authority
gradually rose: during the whole of our historical period we
find him exercising only a concurrent jurisdiction, shared in
and controlled by the ealdorman on the one hand and the bishop
on the other. … The sheriff was naturally the leader of the
militia, posse comitatus, or levy of the free men, who served
under his banner, as the different lords with their dependents
served under the royal officers. … In the earliest periods,
the office was doubtless elective, and possibly even to the
last the people may have enjoyed theoretically, at least, a
sort of concurrent choice. But I cannot hesitate for a moment
in asserting that under the consolidated monarchy, the
scirgerefa was nominated by the king, with or without the
acceptance of the county-court, though this in all probability
was never refused."
J. M. Kemble,
The Saxons in England,
book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
R. Gneist,
History of the English Constitution,
chapter 4.
See, also,
SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.
SHERIFFMUIR, Battle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.
SHERMAN, General W. T.:
At the first Battle of Bull Run.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
Removal from command in Kentucky.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
Battle of Shiloh.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
The second attempt against Vicksburg.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
The final Vicksburg campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
The capture of Jackson.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).
The Chattanooga Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
Meridian expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL; TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).
Atlanta campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).
March to the Sea.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER; GEORGIA),
and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).
The last campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS),
and (APRIL 26TH).
SHERMAN SILVER ACT, and its repeal.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890-1893.
SHERSTONE, Battle of.
The second battle fought between Cnut, or Canute, and Edmund
Ironsides for the English crown. It was in Wiltshire, A. D.
1016.
SHERWOOD FOREST.
"The name of Sherwood or Shirewood is, there can be no
reasonable doubt," says Mr. Llewellyn Jewett, "derived from
the open-air assemblies, or folk-moots, or witenagemotes of
the shire being there held in primitive times." The Forest
once covered the whole county of Nottingham and extended into
both Yorkshire and Derbyshire, twenty-five miles one way by
eight or ten the other. It was a royal forest and favorite
hunting resort of both Saxon and Norman kings; but is best
known as the scene of the exploits of the bold outlaw Robin
Hood. Few vestiges of the great forest now remain.
J. C. Brown,
The Forests of England.
SHESHATAPOOSH INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
SHETLAND, OR ZETLAND, ISLES:
8-13th Centuries.
The Northmen in possession.
See NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES, and 10-13TH CENTURIES.
SHEYENNES, OR CHEYENNES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
SHI WEI, The.
See MONGOLS: ORIGIN, &c.
SHIAHS, OR SHIAS, The.
See ISLAM;
also PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
SHIITES, Sultan Selim's massacre of the.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
SHILOH, OR PITTSBURG LANDING, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
SHINAR.
See BABYLONIA: PRIMITIVE.
SHIP OF THE LINE.
In the time of wooden navies, "a ship carrying not less than
74 guns upon three decks, and of sufficient size to be placed
in line of battle," was called a "ship of the line," or a
"line-of-battle ship."
SHIP-MONEY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
SHIPKA PASS, Struggle for the.
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
SHIPWRECK, Law of.
See LAW: ADMIRALTY.
{2902}
SHIRE.
SHIREMOOT.
"The name scir or shire, which marks the division immediately
superior to the hundred, merely means a subdivision or share
of a larger whole, and was early used in connexion with an
official name to designate the territorial sphere appointed to
the particular magistracy denoted by that name. So the diocese
was the bishop's scire. … The historical shires or counties
owe their origin to different causes. … The sheriff or
scir-gerefa, the scir-man of the laws of Ini, was the king's
steward and judicial president of the shire. … The sheriff
held the shiremoot, according to Edgar's law, twice in the
year. Although the ealdorman and bishop sat in it to declare
the law secular and spiritual, the sheriff was the
constituting officer."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5, sections 48-50 (volume 1).
See, also, KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE;
EALDORMAN; and GAU.
SHOE-STRING DISTRICT, The.
See GERRYMANDERING.
SHOGUN.
See JAPAN: SKETCH OF HISTORY.
SHOSHONES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
SHREWSBURY, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1403.
SHREWSBURY SCHOOL.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.
SHULUH, The.
See LIBYANS.
SHUMIR, OR SUMIR.
See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.
SHUPANES.
GRAND SHUPANES.
The princes, ultimately kings, of the early Servian people.
L. Ranke,
History of Servia,
chapter 1.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 9TH CENTURY (SERVIA).
SHUSHAN.
See SUSA.
SIAM.
"The people known to Europeans as the 'Siamese,' but who call
themselves 'Thai,' that is 'Free Men,' have exercised the
greatest civilising influence on the aboriginal populations of
the interior. Within the historic period Siam has also
generally held the most extensive domain beyond the natural
limits of the Menam basin. Even still, although hemmed in on
one side by the British possessions, on the other by the
French protectorate of Camboja, Siam comprises beyond the
Menam Valley a considerable part of the Malay Peninsula, and
draws tribute from numerous people in the Mekong and Salwen
basins. But this State, with an area about half as large again
as that of France, has a population probably less than
6,000,000. … The inhabitants of Siam, whether Shans, Laos, or
Siamese proper, belong all alike to the same Thai stock, which
is also represented by numerous tribes in Assam, Manipur, and
China. The Shans are very numerous in the region of the Upper
Irrawaddi and its Chinese affluents, in the Salwen Valley and
in the portion of the Sittang basin included in British
territory. … The Lovas, better known by the name of Laos or
Laotians, are related to the Shans, and occupy the north of
Siam. … They form several 'kingdoms,' all vassals of the King
of Siam. … The Siamese, properly so called, are centred
chiefly in the Lower Menam basin and along the seaboard.
Although the most civilised they are not the purest of the
Thai race. … Siam or Sayam is said by some natives to mean
'Three,' because the country was formerly peopled by three
races now fused in one nation. Others derive it from saya,
'independent,' sama, 'brown,' or samo, 'dark'. … The Siamese
are well named 'Indo-Chinese,' their manners, customs, civil
and religious institutions, all partaking of this twofold
character. Their feasts are of Brahmanical origin, while their
laws and administration are obviously borrowed from the
Chinese. … About one-fourth of the inhabitants of Siam had
from various causes fallen into a state of bondage about the
middle of the present century. But since the abolition of
slavery in 1872, the population has increased, especially by
Chinese immigration. … The 'Master of the World,' or 'Master
of Life,' as the King of Siam is generally called, enjoys
absolute power over the lives and property of his subjects. …
A second king, always nearly related to the first, enjoys the
title and a few attributes of royalty. But he exercises no
power. … British having succeeded to Chinese influence, most
of the naval and military as well as of the custom-house
officers are Englishmen."
É. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
volume 3, chapter 21.
The former capital of Siam was Ayuthia, a city founded A. D.
1351, and now in ruins. "Anterior to the establishment of
Ayuthia … the annals of Siam are made up of traditional
legends and fables, such as most nations are fond of
substituting in the place of veracious history. … There are
accounts of intermarriages with Chinese princesses, of
embassies and wars with neighbouring States, all interblended
with wonders and miraculous interpositions of Indra and other
divinities; but from the time when the city of Ayuthia was
founded by Phaja-Uthong, who took the title of
Phra-Rama-Thibodi, the succession of sovereigns and the course
of events are recorded with tolerable accuracy."
Sir J. Bowring,
Kingdom and People of Siam,
volume 1, chapter 2.
"For centuries the Siamese government paid tribute to China;
but since 1852 this tribute has been refused. In 1855 the
first commercial treaty with a European power (Great Britain)
was concluded."
G. G. Chisholm,
The Two Hemispheres,
page 523.
ALSO IN:
A. R. Colquhoun,
Amongst the Shans,
introduction by T. de La Couperie,
and sup. by H. S. Hallett.
SIBERIA: The Russian conquest.
Siberia was scarcely known to the Russians before the middle
of the 16th century. The first conquest of a great part of the
country was achieved in the latter part of that century by a
Cossack adventurer named Yermac Timoseef, who began his attack
upon the Tartars in 1578. Unable to hold what he had won,
Yermac offered the sovereignty of his conquests to the Czar of
Muscovy, who took it gladly and sent reinforcements. The
conquests of Yermac were lost for a time after his death, but
soon recovered by fresh bodies of Muscovite troops sent into
the country. "This success was the forerunner of still greater
acquisitions. The Russians rapidly extended their conquests;
wherever they appeared, the Tartars were either reduced or
exterminated; new towns were built and colonies planted.
Before a century had elapsed, that vast tract of country now
called Siberia, which stretches from the confines of Europe to
the Eastern Ocean, and from the Frozen Sea to the frontiers of
China, was annexed to the Russian dominions."
W. Coxe,
Russian Discoveries between Asia and America,
part 2, chapter 1.
{2903}
SIBUZATES, The.
See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
SIBYLS.
SIBYLLINE BOOKS.
"Tarquinius [Tarquinius Superbus, the last of the kings of
"Rome] built a mighty temple, and consecrated it to Jupiter,
and to Juno, and to Minerva, the greatest of the gods of the
Etruscans. At this time there came a strange woman to the king
and offered him nine books of the prophecies of the Sibyl for
a certain price. "When the king refused them, the woman went
and burnt three of the books, and came back and offered the
six at the same price which she had asked for the nine; but
they mocked at her and would not take the books. Then she went
away and burnt three more, and came back and asked still the
same price for the remaining three. At this the king was
astonished, and asked of the augurs what he should do. They
said that he had done wrong in refusing the gift of the gods,
and bade him by all means to buy the books that were left. So
he bought them; and the woman who sold them was seen no more
from that day forwards. Then the books were put into a chest
of stone, and were kept under ground in the Capitol, and two
men were appointed to keep them, and were called the two men
of the sacred books."
T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapter 4.
"Collections of prophecies similar to the Sibylline books are
met with not only among the Greeks, but also among the
Italians —Etruscans as well as those of Sabellian race. The
Romans had the prophecies of the Marcii ('Carmina Marciana,'
Hartung, 'Religion der Römer,' i. 139); prophetic lines
('sortes') of the nymph Albunea had come down to Rome from
Tibur in a miraculous manner (Marquardt, 'Röm. Alterth., iv.
299). There existed likewise Etruscan 'libri fatales' (Livy,
v. 45; Cicero, 'De Divin., i. 44, 100), and prophecies of the
Etruscan nymph Begoe (quæ artem scripserat fulguritorum apud
Tuscos. Lactant, 'Instit.,' i. 6, 12). Such books as these
were kept in the Capitol, together with the Sibylline books,
in the care of the Quindecemveri sacris faciundis. They are
all called without distinction 'libri fatales' and 'Sibylline'
books, and there seems to have been little difference between
them."
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 8, foot-note (volume 1).
"Every schoolboy is familiar with the picturesque Roman legend
of the Sibyl. It is variously told in connection with the
elder and the later Tarquin, the two Etruscan kings of Rome;
and the scene of it is laid by some in Cumæ, where Tarquinius
Superbus spent the last years of his life in exile—and by
others in Rome. … The original books of the Cumæan Sibyl were
written in Greek, which was the language of the whole of the
south of Italy at that time. The oracles were inscribed upon
palm leaves; to which circumstance Virgil alludes in his
description of the sayings of the Cumæan Sibyl being written
upon the leaves of the forest. They were in the form of
acrostic verses. … It is supposed that they contained not so
much predictions of future events, as directions regarding the
means by which the wrath of the gods, as revealed by prodigies
and calamities, might be appeased. They seem to have been
consulted in the same way as Eastern nations consult the Koran
and Hafiz. … The Cumæan Sibyl was not the only prophetess of
the kind. There were no less than ten females, endowed with
the gift of prevision, and held in high repute, to whom the
name of Sibyl was given. We read of the Persian Sibyl, the
Libyan, the Delphic, the Erythræan, the Hellespontine, the
Phrygian, and the Tiburtine. With the name of the
last-mentioned Sibyl tourists make acquaintance at Tivoli. …
Clement of Alexandria does not scruple to call the Cumæan
Sibyl a true prophetess, and her oracles saving canticles. And
St. Augustine includes her among the number of those who
belong to the 'City of God.' And this idea of the Sibyls'
sacredness continued to a late age in the Christian Church.
She had a place in the prophetic order beside the patriarchs
and prophets of old."
H. Macmillan,
Roman Mosaics,
chapter 3.
"Either under the seventh or the eighth Ptolemy there appeared
at Alexandria the oldest of the Sibylline oracles, bearing the
name of the Erythræan Sibyl, which, containing the history of
the past and the dim forebodings of the future, imposed alike
on the Greek, Jewish, and Christian world, and added almost
another book to the Canon. When Thomas of Celano composed the
most famous hymn of the Latin Church he did not scruple to
place the Sibyl on a level with David; and when Michel Angelo
adorned the roof of the Sixtine Chapel, the figures of the
weird sisters of Pagan antiquity are as prominent as the seers
of Israel and Judah. Their union was the result of the bold
stroke of an Alexandrian Jew."
A. P. Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 47 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
Dionysius, History,
book 4, section 62.
See, also, CUMÆ.
SICAMBRI,
SIGAMBRI,
SUGAMBRI.
See USIPETES;
also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.
SICARII, The.
See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.
SICELIOTES AND ITALIOTES.
The inhabitants of the ancient Greek colonies in southern
Italy (Magna Graecia) and Sicily were known as Siceliotes and
Italiotes, to distinguish them from the native Siceli and
Itali.
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1).
SICELS.
SICANIANS.
See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.
SICILIAN VESPERS, The.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.
SICILIES, The Two.
See Two SICILIES.
----------SICILY: Start--------
SICILY:
The early inhabitants.
The date of the first known Greek settlement in Sicily is
fixed at B. C. 735. It was a colony led from the Eubœan city
of Chalcis and from the island of Naxos, which latter gave
its name to the town which the emigrants founded on the
eastern coast of their new island home. "Sicily was at this
time inhabited by at least four distinct races: by Sicanians,
whom Thucydides considers as a tribe of the Iberians, who,
sprung perhaps from Africa, had overspread Spain and the
adjacent coasts, and even remote islands of the
Mediterranean; by Sicels, an Italian people, probably not
more foreign to the Greeks than the Pelasgians, who had been
driven out of Italy by the progress of the Oscan or Ausonian
race, and in their turn had pressed the Sicanians back toward
the southern and western parts of the island, and themselves
occupied so large a portion of it as to give their name to
the whole. Of the other races, the Phœnicians were in
possession of several points on the coast, and of some
neighbouring islets, from which they carried on their
commerce with the natives.
{2904}
The fourth people, which inhabited the towns of Eryx and
Egesta, or Segesta, at the western end of the island, and bore
the name of Elymians, was probably composed of different
tribes, varying in their degrees of affinity to the Greeks. …
The Sicels and the Phœnicians gradually retreated before the
Greeks. … But the Sicels maintained themselves in the inland
and on the north coast, and the Phœnicians, or Carthaginians,
who succeeded them, established themselves in the west, where
they possessed the towns of Motya, Solus, and Panormus,
destined, under the name of Palermo, to become the capital of
Sicily."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22.
E. A. Freeman,
History of Sicily,
chapter 2.
See, also, ŒNOTRIANS.
SICILY:
Phœnician and Greek colonies.
"Sicilian history begins when the great colonizing nations of
antiquity, the Phœnicians and the Greeks, began to settle in
Sicily. … It was a chief seat for the planting of colonies,
first from Phœnicia and then from Greece. It is the presence
of these Phœnician and Greek colonies which made the history
of Sicily what it was. These settlements were of course made
more or less at the expense of the oldest inhabitants of the
island, those who were there before the Phœnicians and Greeks
came to settle. … Phœnician and Greek settlers could occupy
the coasts, but only the coasts; it was only at the corners
that they could at all spread from sea to sea. A great inland
region was necessarily left to the older inhabitants. But
there was no room in Sicily, as there was in Asia, for the
growth of great barbarian powers dangerous to the settlers.
Neither Phœnician nor Greek was ever able to occupy or conquer
the whole island; but neither people stood in any fear of
being conquered or driven out, unless by one another. But
instead of conquest came influence. Both Phœnicians and Greeks
largely influenced the native inhabitants. In the end, without
any general conquest, the whole island became practically
Greek. … Carthage at a later time plays so great a part in
Sicilian history that we are tempted to bring it in before its
time, and to fancy that the Phœnician colonies in Sicily were,
as they are sometimes carelessly called, Carthaginian
colonies. This is not so; the Phœnician cities in Sicily did
in after times become Carthaginian dependencies: but they were
not founded by Carthage. We cannot fix an exact date for their
foundation, nor can we tell for certain how far they were
settled straight from the old Phœnicia and how far from the
older Phœnician cities in Africa. But we may be sure that
their foundation happened between the migration of the Sikels
in the 11th century B. C. and the beginning of Greek
settlement in the 8th. And we may suspect that the Phœnician
settlements in the east of Sicily were planted straight from
Tyre and Sidon, and those in the west from the cities in
Africa. We know that all round Sicily the Phœnicians occupied
small islands and points of coast which were fitted for their
trade, but we may doubt whether they anywhere in Eastern
Sicily planted real colonies, cities with a territory attached
to them. In the west they seem to have done so. For, when the
Greeks began to advance in Sicily, the Phœnicians withdrew to
their strong posts in the western part of the island, Motya,
Solous, and Panormos. There they kept a firm hold till the
time of Roman dominion. The Greeks could never permanently
dislodge them from their possessions in this part. Held,
partly by Phœnicians, partly by Sikans and Elymians who had
been brought under Phœnician influence, the northwestern
corner of Sicily remained a barbarian corner. … The greatest
of all Phœnician settlements in Sicily lay within the bay of
which the hill of Solous is one horn, but much nearer to the
other horn, the hill of Herkte, now Pellegrino. Here the
mountains fence in a wonderfully fruitful plain, known in
after times as the Golden Shell (conca d'oro). In the middle
of it there was a small inlet of the sea, parted into two
branches, with a tongue of land between them, guarded by a
small peninsula at the mouth. There could be no better site
for Phœnician traders. Here then rose a Phœnician city, which,
though on the north coast of Sicily, looks straight towards
the rising sun. It is strange that we do not know its
Phœnician name; in Greek it was called Panormos, the
All-haven, a name borne also by other places. This is the
modern Palermo, which, under both Phœnicians and Saracens, was
the Semitic head of Sicily, and which remained the capital of
the island under the Norman kings. … Thus in Sicily the East
became West and the West East. The men of Asia withdrew before
the men of Europe to the west of the island, and thence warred
against the men of Europe to the east of them. In the great
central island of Europe they held their own barbarian corner.
It was the land of Phœnicians, Sikans, and Elymians, as
opposed to the eastern land of the Greeks and their Sikel
subjects and pupils. … For a long time Greek settlement was
directed to the East rather than to the West. And it was said
that, when settlement in Italy and Sicily did begin, the
earliest Greek colony, like the earliest Phœnician colony, was
the most distant. It was believed that Kyme, the Latin Cumæ in
Campania, was founded in the 11th century B. C. The other
plantations in Italy and Sicily did not begin till the 8th.
Kyme always stood by itself, as the head of a group of Greek
towns in its own neighbourhood and apart from those more to
the south, and it may very well be that some accident caused
it to be settled sooner than the points nearer to Greece. But
it is not likely to have been settled 300 years earlier. Most
likely it was planted just long enough before the nearer sites
to suggest their planting. Anyhow, in the latter half of the
8th century B. C. Greek settlement to the West, in Illyria,
Sicily, and Italy, began in good earnest. It was said that the
first settlement in Sicily came of an accident. Chalkis in
Euboia was then one of the chief sea-faring towns of Greece.
Theokles, a man of Chalkis, was driven by storm to the coast
of Sicily. He came back, saying that it was a good land and
that the people would be easy to conquer. So in 735 B. C. he
was sent forth to plant the first Greek colony in Sicily. The
settlers were partly from Chalkis, partly from the island of
Naxos. So it was agreed that the new town should be called
Naxos, but that Chalkis should count as its metropolis. So the
new Naxos arose on the eastern coast of Sicily, on a peninsula
made by the lava. It looked up at the great hill of Tauros, on
which Taormina now stands. The Greek settlers drove out the
Sikels and took so much land as they wanted. They built and
fortified a town, and part of their walls may still be seen. …
Naxos, as the beginning of Greek settlement in Sicily, answers
to Ebbsfleet, the beginning of English settlement in Britain."
E. A. Freeman,
The Story of Sicily,
chapters 1-4.
ALSO IN:
E. A. Freeman,
History of Sicily,
chapters 3-4 (volume 1).
{2905}
SICILY: B. C. 480.
Carthaginian invasion.
Battle of Himera.
During the same year in which Xerxes invaded Greece (B. C.
480), the Greeks in Sicily were equally menaced by an
appalling invasion from Carthage. The Carthaginians, invited
by the tyrant of Himera, who had been expelled from that city
by a neighbor tyrant, sent 300,000 men it is said, to
reinstate him, and to strengthen for themselves the slender
footing they already had in one corner of the island. Gelo,
the powerful tyrant of Syracuse, came promptly to the aid of
the Himerians, and defeated the Carthaginians with terrible
slaughter. Hamilcar the commander was among the slain. Those
who escaped the sword were nearly all taken prisoners and made
slaves. The fleet which brought them over was destroyed, and
scarcely a ship returned to Carthage to bear the deplorable
tidings.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 43.
SICILY: B. C. 415-413.
Siege of Syracuse by the Athenians.
Its disastrous failure.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
Carthaginian invasion.
The quarrels of the city of Egesta, in Sicily, with its
neighbors, brought about the fatal expedition from Athens
against Syracuse, B. C. 415. Six years later, in the same
protracted quarrel, Egesta appealed to Carthage for help,
against the city of Selinus, and thus invited the first of the
Hannibals to revenge terribly the defeat and death of his
grandfather Hamilcar, at Himera, seventy years before.
Hannibal landed an army of more than one hundred thousand
savage mercenaries in Sicily, in the spring of 409 B. C. and
laid siege to Selinus with such vigor that the city was
carried by storm at the end of ten days and most of its
inhabitants slain. The temples and walls of the town were
destroyed and it was left a deserted ruin. "The ruins, yet
remaining, of the ancient temples of Selinus, are vast and
imposing; characteristic as specimens of Doric art during the
fifth and sixth centuries B. C. From the great magnitude of
the fallen columns, it has been supposed that they were
overthrown by an earthquake. But the ruins afford distinct
evidence that these columns have been first undermined, and
then overthrown by crowbars. This impressive fact,
demonstrating the agency of the Carthaginian destroyers, is
stated by Niebuhr." From Selinus, Hannibal passed on to Himera
and, having taken that city in like manner, destroyed it
utterly. The women and children were distributed as slaves;
the male captives were slain in a body on the spot where
Hamilcar fell—a sacrifice to his shade. A new town called
Therma was subsequently founded by the Carthaginians on the
site of Himera. Having satisfied himself with revenge,
Hannibal disbanded his army, glutted with spoil, and returned
home. But three years later he invaded Sicily again, with an
armament even greater than before, and the great city of
Agrigentum was the first to fall before his arms. "Its
population was very great; comprising, according to one
account, 20,000 citizens, among an aggregate total of 200,000
males—citizens, metics, and slaves; according to another
account, an aggregate total of no less than 800,000 persons;
numbers unauthenticated, and not to be trusted further than as
indicating a very populous city. … Its temples and porticos,
especially the spacious temple of Zeus Olympus—its statues and
pictures—its abundance of chariots and horses—its
fortifications—its sewers—its artificial lake of near a mile
in circumference, abundantly stocked with fish—all these
placed it on a par with the most splendid cities of the
Hellenic world." After a siege of some duration Agrigentum was
evacuated and most of its inhabitants escaped. The
Carthaginians stripped it of every monument of art, sending
much away to Carthage and destroying more. Hannibal had died
of a pestilence during the siege and his colleague Imilkon
succeeded him in command. Having quartered his army at
Agrigentum during the winter, he attacked the cities of Gela
and Kamarina in the spring, and both were believed to have
been betrayed to him by the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius, who
had then just established himself in power. A treaty of peace
was presently concluded between Dionysius and Imilkon, which
gave up all the south of Sicily, as well as Selinus, Himera,
and Agrigentum, to the Carthaginians, and made Gela and
Kamarina tributary to them. The Carthaginian army had been
half destroyed by pestilence and the disease, carried home by
its survivors, desolated Carthage and the surrounding country.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 81-82, with foot-note.
ALSO IN:
E. A. Freeman,
History of Sicily,
chapter 9 (volume 3).
SICILY: B. C. 397-396.
Dionysius, the Tyrant of Syracuse,
and his war with the Carthaginians.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
SICILY: B. C. 394-384.
Conquests and dominion of Dionysius.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 394-384.
SICILY: B. C. 383.
War with Carthage.
Dionysius, the Syracusan despot, was the aggressor in a fresh
war with Carthage which broke out in 383 B. C. The theatre of
war extended from Sicily to southern Italy, where Dionysius
had made considerable conquests, but only two battles of
serious magnitude were fought—both in Sicily. Dionysius was
the victor in the first of these, which was a desperate and
sanguinary struggle, at a place called Kabala. The
Carthaginian commander, Magon, was slain, with 10,000 of his
troops, while 5,000 were made captive. The survivors begged
for peace and Dionysius dictated, as a first condition, the
entire withdrawal of their forces from Sicily. While
negotiations were in progress, Magon's young son, succeeding
to his father's command, so reorganized and reinspirited his
army as to be able to attack the Syracusans and defeat them
with more terrific slaughter than his own side had experienced
a few days before. This battle, fought at Kronium, reversed
the situation, and forced Dionysius to purchase a humiliating
peace at heavy cost.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 83.
SICILY: B. C. 344.
Fall of the Tyranny of Dionysius at Syracuse.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.
SICILY: B. C. 317-289.
Syracuse under Agathokles.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.
SICILY: B. C. 278-276.
Expedition of Pyrrhus.
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
{2906}
SICILY: B. C. 264-241.
The Mamertines in Messene.
First war of Rome and Carthage.-
Evacuation of the island by the Carthaginians.
The Romans in possession.
See PUNIC WAR: THE FIRST.
SICILY: B. C. 216-212.
Alliance with Hannibal and revolt against Rome.
The Roman siege of Syracuse.
See PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND.
SICILY: B. C. 133-103.
Slave wars.
See SLAVE WARS IN SICILY.
SICILY: A. D. 429-525.
Under the Vandals, and the Goths.
"Sicily, which had been for a generation subjected, first to
the devastations and then to the rule of the Vandal king [in
Africa], was now by a formal treaty, which must have been
nearly the last public act of Gaiseric [or Genseric, who died
A. D. 477] ceded to Odovacar [or Odoacer, who extinguished the
Western Roman Empire and was the first barbarian king of
Italy], all but a small part, probably at the western end of
the island, which the Vandal reserved to himself. A yearly
tribute was to be the price of this concession; but, in the
decay of the kingdom under Gaiseric's successors, it is
possible that this tribute was not rigorously enforced, as it
is also almost certain that the reserved portion of the
island, following the example of the remainder, owned the sway
of Odovacar."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 4.
Under Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who overthrew Odoacer and
reigned in Italy from 493 until 525, Sicily was free both from
invasion and from tribute and shared with Italy the benefits
and the trials of the Gothic supremacy.
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 9.
SICILY: A. D. 535.
Recovered by Belisarius for the Emperor Justinian.
See ROME: A. D. 535-553.
SICILY: A. D. 550.
Gothic invasion.
See ROME: A. D. 535-553.
SICILY: A. D. 827-878.
Conquest by the Saracens.
The conquest of Sicily from the Byzantine empire, by the
Saracens, was instigated in the first instance and aided by an
influential Syracusan named Euphemios, whom the Emperor
Michael had undertaken to punish for abduction of a nun.
Euphemios invited the African Saracens to the island, and
Ziadet Allah, the Aglabite sovereign who had established
himself in power at Cairowan or Kairwan, felt strong enough to
improve the opportunity. In June 827 the admiral of the
Moslems formed a junction with the ships which Euphemios had
set afloat, and the Saracens landed at Mazara. The Byzantines
were defeated in a battle near Platana and the Saracens
occupied Girgenti. Having gained this foothold they waited
some time for reinforcements, which came, at last, in a naval
armament from Spain and troops from Africa. "The war was then
carried on with activity: Messina was taken in 831; Palermo
capitulated in the following year; and Enna was besieged, for
the first time, in 836. The war continued with various
success, as the invaders received assistance from Africa, and
the Christians from Constantinople. The Byzantine forces
recovered possession of Messina, which was not permanently
occupied by the Saracens until 843. … At length, in the year
859, Enna was taken by the Saracens. Syracuse, in order to
preserve its commerce from ruin, had purchased peace by paying
a tribute of 50,000 byzants; and it was not until the reign of
Basil I, in the year 878, that it was compelled to surrender,
and the conquest of Sicily was completed by the Arabs. Some
districts, however, continued, either by treaty or by force of
arms, to preserve their municipal independence, and the
exclusive exercise of the Christian religion, within their
territory, to a later period."
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
book 1, chapter 3, section 1.
"Syracuse preserved about fifty years [after the landing of
the Saracens in Sicily] the faith which she had sworn to
Christ and to Cæsar. In the last and fatal siege her citizens
displayed some remnant of the spirit which had formerly
resisted the powers of Athens and Carthage. They stood above
twenty days against the battering-rams and catapultæ, the
mines and tortoises of the besiegers; and the place might have
been relieved, if the mariners of the imperial fleet had not
been detained at Constantinople in building a church to the
Virgin Mary. … In Sicily the religion and language of the
Greeks were eradicated; and such was the docility of the
rising generation that 15,000 boys were circumcised and
clothed on the same day with the son of the Fatimite caliph.
The Arabian squadrons issued from the harbours of Palermo,
Biserta, and Tunis; a hundred and fifty towns of Calabria and
Campania were attacked and pillaged; nor could the suburbs of
Rome be defended by the name of the Cæsars and apostles. Had
the Mahometans been united, Italy must have fallen an easy and
glorious accession to the empire of the prophet."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 52.
A hundred and fifty years after the fall of Syracuse Basil II.
undertook its recovery, but death overcame him in the midst of
his plans. "Ten years later, the Byzantine general Maniakes
commenced the reconquest of Sicily in a manner worthy of Basil
himself, but the women and eunuchs who ruled at Constantinople
procured his recall; affairs fell into confusion, and the
prize was eventually snatched from both parties by the Normans
of Apulia."
E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 5.
SICILY: A. D. 1060-1090.
Norman conquest.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.
SICILY: A. D. 1127-1194.
Union with Apulia in the kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies.
Prosperity and peace.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1081-1194.
SICILY: A. D. 1146.
Introduction of Silk-culture and manufacture.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
SICILY: A. D. 1194-1266.
Under the Hohenstaufen.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1183-1250.
SICILY: A. D. 1266.
Invasion and conquest of the kingdom of the Sicilies
by Charles of Anjou.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.
SICILY: A. D. 1282-1300.
The Massacre of the Sicilian Vespers.
Separation from the kingdom of Naples.
Transfer to the House of Aragon.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.
SICILY: A. D. 1313.
Alliance with the Emperor against Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
SICILY: A. D. 1442.
Reunion of the crowns of Sicily and Naples,
or the Two Sicilies, by Alphonso of Aragon.
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
SICILY: A. D. 1458.
Separation of the crown of Naples from
those of Aragon and Sicily.
See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
SICILY: A. D. 1530.
Cession of Malta to the Knights of St. John.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.
{2907}
SICILY: A. D. 1532-1553.
Frightful ravages of the Turks along the coast.
See ITALY: A. D. 1528-1570.
SICILY: A. D. 1713.
Ceded by Spain to the Duke of Savoy.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
SICILY: A. D. 1718-1719.
Retaken by Spain, again surrendered, and acquired by
Austria in exchange for Sardinia.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
SICILY: A. D. 1734-1735.
Occupation by the Spaniards.
Cession to Spain, with Naples,
forming a kingdom for Don Carlos.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
SICILY: A. D. 1749-1792.
Under the Spanish-Bourbon regime.
See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.
SICILY: A. D. 1805-1806.
Held by the King, expelled from Naples by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).
SICILY: A. D. 1821.
Revolutionary insurrection.
See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.
SICILY: A. D. 1848-1849.
Patriotic rising.
A year of independence.
Subjugation of the insurgents by King "Bomba."
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
SICILY: A. D. 1860-1861.
Liberation by Garibaldi.
Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
----------SICILY: End--------
SICULI, The.
See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.
SICYON,
SIKYON.
"Sicyon was the starting point of the Ionic civilization which
pervaded the whole valley of the Asopus from the mountains of Argolis to the Gulf of Corinth, in
northeastern Peloponnesus]; the long series of kings of Sicyon
testifies to the high age with which the city was credited. At
one time it was the capital of all Asopia as well as of the
shore in front of it, and the myth of Adrastus has preserved
the memory of this the historic glory of Sicyon. The Dorian
immigration dissolved the political connection between the
cities of the Asopus. Sicyon itself had to admit Dorian
families." The ascendancy which the Dorian invaders then
assumed was lost at a later time. The old Ionian population of
the country dwelling on the shores of the Corinthian gulf,
engaged in commerce and fishing, acquired superior wealth and
were trained to superior enterprise by their occupation. In
time they overthrew the Doric state, under the lead of a
family, the Orthagoridæ, which established a famous tyranny in
Sicyon (about 670 B. C.). Myron and Clisthenes, the first two
tyrants of the house, acquired a great name in Greece by their
wealth, by their liberal encouragement of art and by their
devotion to the sanctuaries at Olympus and at Delphi.
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).
See, also, TYRANTS, GREEK.
SICYON: B. C. 280-146.
The Achaian League.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
SIDNEY, Algernon, The execution of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.
SIDNEY, Sir Philip, The death of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.
SIDON, The suicidal burning of.
About 346 B. C., Ochus, king of Persia, having subdued a
revolt in Cyprus, proceeded against the Phœnician cities,
which had joined in it. Sidon was betrayed to him by its
prince, and he intimated his intention to take signal revenge
on the city; whereupon the Sidonians "took the desperate
resolution, first of burning their fleet that no one might
escape—next, of shutting themselves up with their families,
and setting fire each man to his own house. In this deplorable
conflagration 40,000 persons are said to have perished; and
such was the wealth destroyed, that the privilege of searching
the ruins was purchased for a large sum of money."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 90.
SIDONIANS, The.
See PHŒNICIANS.
SIEBENBÜRGEN.
The early name given to the principality of Transylvania, and
having reference to seven forts erected within it.
J. Samuelson,
Roumania,
page 182.
----------SIENA: Start--------
SIENA:
The mediæval factions.
"The way in which this city conducted its government for a
long course of years [in the Middle Ages] justified Varchi in
calling it 'a jumble, so to speak, and chaos of republics,
rather than a well-ordered and disciplined commonwealth.' The
discords of Siena were wholly internal. They proceeded from
the wrangling of five factions, or Monti, as the people of
Siena called them. The first of these was termed the Monte de'
Nobili; for Siena had originally been controlled by certain
noble families. … The nobles split into parties among
themselves. … At last they found it impossible to conduct the
government, and agreed to relinquish it for a season to nine
plebeian families chosen from among the richest and most
influential. This gave rise to the Monte de' Nove. … In time,
however, their insolence became insufferable. The populace
rebelled, deposed the Nove, and invested with supreme
authority 12 other families of plebeian origin. The Monte de'
Dodici, created after this fashion, ran nearly the same course
as their predecessors, except that they appear to have
administered the city equitably. Getting tired of this form of
government, the people next superseded them by 16 men chosen
from the dregs of the plebeians, who assumed the title of
Riformatori. This new Monte de' Sedici or de' Riformatori
showed much integrity in their management of affairs, but, as
is the wont of red republicans, they were not averse to
bloodshed. Their cruelty caused the people, with the help of
the surviving patrician houses, together with the Nove and the
Dodici, to rise and shake them off. The last governing body
formed in this diabolical five-part fugue of crazy statecraft