the Director of Military Operations; and in addition to these
official members it has had the services and the coöperation
of the Inspector-General of the Forces (Sir John French), who
occupies an independent position; of Lord Esher, who is a
great expert in all these matters; and latterly, at my
nomination, Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson. That has been the
composition of the full Committee, but from time to time we
were able to add to it, and we ought to add to it, members
ad hoc. …
"The functions of the Defence Committee arise out of the
necessity felt, I think, in almost all the great countries of
the world, but which is nowhere so pressing as it is here
owing to our geographical and economic conditions—the
necessity of coordinating the work of the Navy and Army. It is
the primary business of the Defence Committee to study and
determine what is the best provision that can from time to
time be made for the military and naval requirements of the
Empire as a whole, to keep both naval and military
requirements, and their due relation to each other, constantly
in view." Giving examples of the subjects which the committee
had discussed, he said they had had under consideration the
military needs of the Empire with reference to recent changes
in Army organization; its military requirements as affected by
the defence of India; the strategical aspects of the Firth of
Clyde Canal; aerial navigation in view of the present and
prospective developments; our policy in regard to the Channel
tunnel and to the means of transit across the Channel; the
standard of fixed defences and garrisons in various parts of
the Empire, and the scale of reinforcements.
{696}
"In 1905 Mr. Balfour, who was then Prime Minister, made a
statement of the highest importance in regard to the
possibility of an invasion of these islands. Since then Lord
Roberts had asked for a reinvestigation of the problem in the
light of new facts and of the changed situation, and in 1907 a
special committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence was
appointed to go into the whole matter. In arriving at their
conclusion the committee conceded to those who were
apprehensive of invasion that it would take place when our
Regular Forces were absent upon some foreign expedition and
that the attack might be a surprise attack. The view
unanimously arrived at was, in the first place, that as long
as the naval supremacy of the country was adequately assured,
invasion on a large scale, involving the transport of 150,000
men, was an absolutely impracticable operation. The committee
held, on the other hand, that if we were permanently to lose
command of the sea, whatever might be the strength and
organization of our military forces at the moment—even if we
had an army like that of Germany—the subjection of the country
by the enemy would be inevitable. It followed from this that
it was the business of the Admiralty to maintain our naval
supremacy at such a height as would enable us to retain
command of the sea against any reasonably possible
combination. The second conclusion arrived at was that we
ought to have an Army for home defence sufficient in numbers
and organization to repel raids and to compel an enemy who
contemplated invasion to embark a force so considerable that
it could not possibly evade our Fleet. The belief of the
Admiralty was that a force of 70,000 men could not get
through; but an ample margin must be allowed for safety, and
it therefore became the business of the War Office to see that
we had a force capable of dealing effectively with 70,000 men.
For this country, then, to be secure against invasion we ought
to have an unassailable supremacy at sea and a home Army ready
to cope with a force of the dimensions he had named. It was
upon these conclusions that both the military and naval policy
of the country during his administration would be carried on."
Speaking in Parliament, in June, 1909, of the peculiar
character and efficient quality of the Regular Army of Great
Britain, Mr. Haldane, the Secretary for War, described it as
"an Army of the kind which no other Power in the world
possesses to the same extent as we do. It is customary," he
said, "to speak of the small British Army; but what Power in
the world has 80,000 white soldiers raised in their own
country stationed in a country like India, and 40,000 in other
parts of the Empire, and a further large force at home which
is tending to increase—and more and more the overseas
Dominions are tending to undertake their own defence? Now that
force is not primarily for use at home, though it may be used
for that; its real purpose is to work with the Navy overseas
and to undertake wars there. The great armies of the Continent
can only be mobilized for a limited time, and they cannot
undertake wars which last for two or five or ten years, as
ours can because it is a professional Army and leaves the
resources of the nation unaffected. That kind of overseas Army
is a peculiarity of the military organization of this country,
a peculiarity which is too often overlooked, but which is just
as essential as the command of the sea."
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
German Emperor’s Speech.
The following speech by the Emperor William was made at
Karlsruhe, September 11, 1909, after a military review in
Baden: "We Germans are a people glad to bear arms and proud of
the game of war (kriegsspielfreudiy). We carry the
burden of our defence lightly and willingly, for we know that,
we must preserve and maintain our peace in which alone our
labour can prosper. At the review from which I have just come
I have seen that portion of the warrior sons of our Fatherland
which springs from the land of Baden. Today, under the command of
their illustrious lord, they have given me the most complete
satisfaction. So long as there are peoples there will be
enemies and envious folk; and so long as there are enemies and
envious folk it will be necessary to be on one’s guard against
them. Consequently there will continue to be prospects of war,
and even war itself, and we must be ready for everything.
Hence our army before all forms the rocher de bronze on
which the peace of Europe is based and with which no one
intends to pick a quarrel. It is to preserve this peace, to
maintain the position in the world which is our due, that our
army serves; this also is the aim of the strenuous days which
are expected of it. But I am firmly convinced that it will
stand its test successfully and that our German Fatherland may
rest in confidence that we are on guard and that with God’s
help and under God’s protection nothing will befall us."
MILITARY AND NAVAL;
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
British Imperial Defence Conference of 1909.
Its Agreements for an Imperial System.
Compulsory Military Training contemplated in Australia.
In connection with the doubts that were awakened in Great
Britain, and throughout the British Empire, in 1909, as to the
adequacy of their general preparations for defence, the
Premier announced in the House of Commons, on the 3d of May,
that steps had "been taken to ascertain whether the
Governments of the self-governing Dominions are prepared to
favour a conference at an early date for the discussion of
Imperial co-operation for defence. The Government had
suggested, he said, that the conference should be held this
summer—if possible, in July." The proposal was approved
throughout the Empire, and delegates to the Conference from
each of the self-governing Dominions came to London and held
sessions with representatives of the Home Government,
beginning on the 28th of July. The delegates in attendance
were the following;
Commonwealth of Australia.—
Colonel J. F. Foxton, Minister without portfolio, assisted by
Captain Creswell and Colonel Bridges, naval and military
experts.
New Zealand.—
Sir Joseph Ward, Prime Minister and Minister of Defence.
Canada.—
Sir Frederick Borden, Minister of Militia and Defence, Mr. L.
Brodeur, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, these Ministers
being assisted by Admiral Kingsmill and General Sir Percy
Lake, as naval and military advisers.
Newfoundland.—
Sir E. P. Morris, Prime Minister.
Cape Colony.—
Mr. J. F. X. Merriman, Prime Minister.
Natal.—
Mr. J. R. Moor, Prime Minister, assisted by
Colonel Greene, Minister of Railways.
The Transvaal.—
General J. C. Smuts, Colonial Secretary.
Orange River Colony.—
General Hertzog, Colonial Secretary.
{697}
The discussions of the Conference were unreported, but on the
26th of August, after its adjournment, the Premier, in a
statement to the House of Commons, summarized its main
conclusions as follows: "First as regards military defence:
after the main Conference at the Foreign Office, a military
Conference took place at the War Office, and resulted in an
agreement on the fundamental principles set out in papers
which had been prepared by the General Staff for consideration
by the delegates. The substance of these papers, which will be
included among the papers to be published, was the
recommendation that, without impairing the complete control of
the Government of each Dominion over the military forces
raised within it, those forces should be standardized, the
formation of units, the arrangements for transport, the
patterns of weapons, and so forth, being as far as possible
assimilated to those which have been recently worked out for
the British Army. Thus while the Dominion troops would in each
case be raised for the defence of the Dominion concerned, it
would be made readily practicable in case of need for that
Dominion to mobilize and use them for the defence of the
Empire as a whole. The military Conference then entrusted to a
sub-Conference, consisting of military experts at headquarters
and from the various Dominions, and presided over by Sir
William Nicholson, acting for the first time in the capacity
of Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the duty of working
out the detailed application of these principles. I may point
out here that the creation early this year of an Imperial
General Staff thus brought into active working is a result of
the discussions and resolutions of the Conference of 1907.
Complete agreement was reached by the members of the
sub-Conference, and their conclusions were finally approved by
the main Conference and by the Committee of Imperial Defence,
which sat for the purpose under the presidency of the Prime
Minister. The result was a plan for so organizing the forces
of the Crown wherever they are that while preserving the
complete autonomy of each Dominion, should these Dominions
desire to assist in the defence of the Empire, in a real
emergency, their forces could be rapidly combined into one
homogeneous Imperial Army.
"Naval defence was discussed at meetings of the Conference
held at the Foreign Office on August 3, 5, and 6. The
Admiralty memorandum which had been circulated to the Dominion
representatives formed the basis of the preliminary
conference. The alternative methods which might be adopted by
Dominion Governments in co-operating in Imperial naval defence
were discussed. New Zealand preferred to adhere to her present
policy of contribution; Canada and Australia preferred to lay
the foundation of fleets of their own. It was recognized that
in building up a fleet a number of conditions should be
conformed to. The fleet must be of a certain size in order to
offer a permanent career to the officers and men engaged in
the service: the personnel should be trained and
disciplined under regulations similar to those established in
the Royal Navy, in order to allow of both interchange and
union between the British and the Dominion services, and with
the same object the standard of vessels and armaments should
be uniform. A remodelling of the squadrons maintained in Far
Eastern waters was considered on the basis of establishing a
Pacific Fleet, to consist of three units in the East Indies,
Australia, and the China Seas. … The generous offer of New
Zealand and then of the Commonwealth Government to contribute
to Imperial naval defence by the gift each of a battleship was
accepted with the substitution of cruisers of the new
‘Indomitable’ type for battleships, these two ships to be
maintained one on the China and one on the Australian station.
Separate meetings took place at the Admiralty with the
representatives of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and
general statements were agreed to in each case for further
consideration by their respective Governments.
"As regards Australia, the suggested arrangement is that with
some temporary assistance from Imperial funds the Commonwealth
Government should provide and maintain the Australian unit of
the Pacific Fleet. The contribution of the New Zealand
Government would be applied towards the maintenance of the
China unit, of which some of the smaller vessels would have
New Zealand waters as their headquarters. The New Zealand
armoured cruiser would be stationed in China waters. As
regards Canada, it was considered that her double seaboard
rendered the provision of a fleet unit of the same kind
unsuitable for the present. It was proposed according to the
amount of money that might be available that Canada should
make a start with cruisers of the ‘Bristol’ class and
destroyers of the improved ‘River’ class, a part to be
stationed on the Atlantic seaboard and a part on the Pacific.
In accordance with an arrangement already made, the Canadian
Government would undertake the maintenance of dockyards at
Halifax and Esquimault, and it was a part of the arrangement
proposed by the Australian representatives that the
Commonwealth Government should eventually undertake the
maintenance of the dockyard at Sydney. Papers containing all
the material documents will be laid before Parliament in due
course, and it is hoped before the conclusion of the Session."
In Australia and New Zealand there had been eagerness for some
time to take a more effective part in the defence of the
Empire, their remote position and their contiguity to swarming
alien populations giving their people some special anxieties
which are reasonable enough. They are lonely communities of
Europeans, planted on the edge of the prodigious populations
of the Asiatic world. They have learned suddenly that some, at
least, of those populations can do things, in war and
otherwise, that were supposed to be reserved especially for
effective performance by the white variety of the human race.
What disposition of mind will move the Eastern folk in the
exercise of these powers of action—which are discoveries as
new to them as to us—has yet to be learned. It is doubtful if
they themselves know what the inclination of their career will
be, when they have really digested the new contents of their
minds and have fully surveyed their new position in the world.
Meantime, Australia has good reason to think anxiously of what
Japan certainly and China most probably can do, if they are
moved by imperialistic ambitions to an aggressive career.
{698}
If anywhere in the British Empire there was reason for the
lively stir of increased preparation for defence, it was Far
East Australasia. New Zealand, in March, had put a heavy
strain on its resources by offering to build a
Dreadnought for the Imperial Navy, and Australia had
followed quickly by the proffer of another. When,
subsequently, these projects were superseded by the
arrangement made at the London Conference, funds raised by
private subscription for the Australian Dreadnought were applied partly to the foundation of a naval college near
Sydney for the training of officers of the Australian
squadron, and partly to the establishment of at least two
farms for the training of young British immigrants, who will
be specially selected by the county colonization societies.
In acting promptly to realize the plans of military
organization that were formed at the London Conference,
Australia went far beyond anything that is likely to be done
by any other of the British Dominions, unless it may be New
Zealand; for that Commonwealth has undertaken to organize a
system of compulsory military training. A Defence Bill
introduced in the Federal Parliament on the 21st of September
applies compulsory training to all males from the age of 12 to
that of 20. "Junior cadets are to have annually 120 hours’
physical drill, elementary marching, and practice with
miniature rifles, for two years. Senior cadets will have 96
hours’ annually, including four whole-day drills, elementary
naval or military exercises, and musketry practice at ranges
up to 500 yards, for four years. The citizen forces are to
have 16 whole-day drills or their equivalent annually,
including eight days in camp for two years. Those who are to
undergo naval, artillery, and engineer training will have 25
days instead of 16. Males from the age of 20 to 26 will remain
enrolled, attending only one muster parade each year.
Exemptions will be made only on the ground of unfitness or in
the case of persons of non-European descent. The latter,
however, will be trained in non-combatant duties. Sparsely
populated districts may be exempted temporarily. Persons
failing to attend the training will be fined from £5 to £500
according to the culprit’s wealth, or may be confined and
trained till they have performed the duties they have shirked.
Persons failing to reach efficiency must undergo another
year’s training. The cadet training begins in 1911, and the
citizen training in 1912. When the scheme is in full working
order it is estimated that it will provide 40,000 junior
cadets, 75,000 senior cadets, and 55,000 citizen soldiers
under 21. The Militia, 25,000 strong, will thenceforth be
recruited only from the fully-trained, and will become a corps
d'élite."
On this subject of British imperial defence,
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909.
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
New Zealand adoption of Compulsory Military Training.
An Act which establishes compulsory military training in New
Zealand, on lines similar to that in Australia, passed the
colonial Parliament during its session which closed December
29, 1909.
NAVAL:
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
Brazil and Argentina in a "Dreadnought" Competition.
"The controversy between Brazil and Argentina about what is
called ‘equilibrium of armament’ is still carried on with much
animation in the Press of both countries, but apparently
without producing any effect, good or otherwise. The subject
of discord is the Brazilian Government’s order for three large
battleships of the ‘Dreadnought’ type, which is to be met by
an Argentine triplet, for which tenders are urgently called.
Fortunately these big ships take a long time to build, and by
the time they are ready the Press will probably be commenting
upon the entente cordiale in South America and the
obsolescence of floating engines of war; but in the meantime
taxpayers in both countries are inclined to support the
somewhat daring proposal from Buenos Ayres that Brazil should
keep the first ‘Dreadnought,’ cede the second to Argentina,
and cancel the order for the third."
Rio de Janeiro Correspondent
London Times, December 22, 1902.
Four months later the same correspondent telegraphed, May 3,
1909, among other statements quoted from the President’s
Message to Congress, that day: "In regard to the navy seven
vessels would be launched under the new programme. Two-thirds
of the total expenditure of £4,500,000 had already been paid
from ordinary resources, and this proved that the
reorganization of the navy would not be disastrous to the
national finances. Tenders would shortly be invited for the
construction of a new dry dock."
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
British Navy War Council.
The following is from an official statement issued by the
British Admiralty, October 11, 1909: "In further development
of the policy which has actuated the Board of Admiralty for
some time past of organizing a Navy War Council, it has been
decided to place on an established footing the arrangements
made in previous years for the study of strategy and the
consideration and working out of war plans. A new department,
called the Naval Mobilization Department, has been formed
under the directorship of a flag officer, and there is
concentrated in it that part of the business of the Naval
Intelligence Department and the Naval War College which
related to war plans and mobilization. Under the presidency of
the First Sea Lord, the officers directing the Naval
Intelligence Department and the Naval Mobilization Department,
and the Assistant Secretary of the Admiralty will form the
standing Navy War Council."
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The British "Two Power Standard."
During the debate in the British House on the Navy Estimates,
in the spring of 1909, the Premier, Mr. Asquith, was called on
by the Opposition to define the Government's understanding of
the requirements of the "two Power standard" of naval
strength, so called (see above). In reply, he laid it down
that in dealing with this standard they must not merely take
into account the number of Dreadnoughts and Invincibles, but
the total effective strength of the British for defensive
purposes as compared with the combined effective strength of
any two other navy Powers. That was the two-Power standard as
understood by successive Administrations, and the present
Government had in this matter in no way changed the policy
pursued by preceding Administrations. For the moment this
question was an academic one, because whatever two Powers
might be selected, their combined effective strength for
aggressive purposes against Great Britain was far below the
defensive strength of the latter. The expression "two-Power
standard" was a purely empirical generalization, a convenient
rule of thumb, and he should be very sorry to predict that
this formula would be an adequate or necessary formula some
years hence.
{699}
In measuring the combined effective strength of the two next
strongest fleets the power of one powerful homogeneous fleet
ought to be borne in mind. Further it had been established
that the rule only applied to battleships and ships ejusdem
generis. Then in existing conditions "we ought not," he said,
"to limit our vision to Europe alone; but at the same time,
while considering the combined effective strength of any other
two Powers for aggressive purposes against this country regard
should be had to geographical conditions." Supposing China had
a fleet of Dreadnoughts, no rational Minister would treat that
fleet as standing upon the same footing for the purpose of the
two-Power standard as the German or French fleet. In the same
way, the fleet of the United States could not be put in the
same category with the fleets of France and Germany.
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
Canadian Share of the Undertakings of British Imperial Defence.
For performance of the share assumed by Canada, of
undertakings of British imperial defence agreed to at the
Imperial Conference in London, July, 1909 (see above), Sir
Wilfrid Laurier brought forward a Bill in the Dominion House
of Commons, on the 12th of January, 1910, the essential
provisions of which he set forth in a speech from which the
following passages are taken:
"The bill is entitled ‘An act respecting the naval service of
Canada.’ It provides for the creation of a naval force to be
composed of a permanent corps, of a reserve force, and of a
volunteer force on the same pattern absolutely as the present
organization of the militia force. … Every man who will be
enrolled for naval service in Canada will be enrolled by
voluntary engagement. There is no compulsion of any kind, no
conscription, no balloting. … ‘Active service’ as defined by
the act means service or duty during an emergency, and
emergency means war, invasion or insurrection, real or
apprehended. The act provides also that at any time when the
Governor in Council deems it advisable, in case of war,
invasion, or insurrection, the force may be called into active
service. There is also an important provision that while the
naval force is to be under the control of the Canadian
Government, and more directly under the control and
administration of the Department of Marine, yet in case of
emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of
his Majesty for general service in the Royal Navy the naval
force or any part thereof, and any ships or vessels of the
naval service and any officers or men serving on these
vessels, or any officers or men of the naval service. There is
a subsequent provision that if action is taken by the Governor
in Council at a time when Parliament is not sitting,
Parliament shall immediately be called. …
"Another important provision of the bill is that it provides
for the establishment of a naval college on the pattern of the
Military College now in existence at Kingston."
Coming to a statement of the armament contemplated, the
Premier said: "Two plans were proposed and discussed, one
involving the expenditure of $2,000,000 a year and the other
involving an expenditure of $3,000,000. The first one would
have consisted of seven ships, the second one would have
consisted of eleven ships, namely—four Bristols, one Boadicea,
and six destroyers. We have determined to accept the second
proposition, that is to say, the larger one of eleven ships.
That is the force which we intend to create, and to start with
four Bristols, one Boadicea and six destroyers. Perhaps it
will be interesting to the House to understand what is meant
by a fleet unit, by a Bristol, a Boadicea, and a destroyer.
The fleet unit, which was suggested and which has been
accepted by Australia, and to which the government contributed
a certain sum per annum, is to be composed of one armored
cruiser of the type of the Indomitable, three protected
cruisers, six destroyers and three submarines. Now the fleet
which we have agreed to accept is to be composed of four
Bristols, one Boadicea, and six destroyers.
"A Bristol is a protected cruiser, which means that it has a
steel deck which protects all the vital parts of the ship. It
has a tonnage of 4,800 tons, with a speed of 25 knots. The
number of guns has not yet been determined, but the largest
Indomitable carries eight guns. A Boadicea carries six guns,
so that it is probable that the number of guns will be eight.
It has a total crew of 391 men, of which twenty are officers.
The Boadicea is an unarmored cruiser, with a tonnage of 3,300
tons, and carries six 4-inch guns. It has a crew of 278 men,
of whom seventeen are officers. We are to build six destroyers
of what is known as the improved river class. …
"The total cost of these eleven ships will be, according to
the British figures, £2,338,000, or a little more than
$11,000,000. According to Canadian prices, supposing the ships
were to be built in Canada, we would have to add at least 33
per cent, to the cost just given. I may say that it is our
intention to start at the earliest possible moment with the
construction of this fleet, and, if possible, to have the
construction done in Canada."
The leader of the Opposition, Mr. Borden, who spoke after Mr.
Laurier, endorsed fully the purpose of the Bill, but
criticised the proposals of the Government as being
inadequate. "They are," he said, "either too much or too
little. They are too much for carrying on experiments in the
organization of a Canadian naval service; they are too little
for immediate and effective aid, and it seems to me that the
policy of the Government will be attended with a very great
waste of money, with no immediate effective result."
The Bill embodying the naval programme of the Government, as
set forth by the Prime Minister, was enacted on the 11th of
March, 1910, by 119 votes to 78.
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
Chilian Navy-building.
It was reported from Santiago de Chile to the English Press,
October 21, 1909, that "the Government has decided upon a
naval expenditure of £4,000,000, which includes a 20,000 ton
battleship, two ocean-going destroyers, and several
submarines. Instructions for tenders have been sent to the
Commission in London." A later message to the American Press,
November 12, stated that "the naval building programme decided
upon by the Chilian government, provides for the construction
of one battleship, four torpedo boat destroyers, and two
submarines at an expenditure of $14,000,000."
{700}
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The Chinese Programme.
A Press message from Peking, October 11, 1909, announced that
a naval commission, consisting of Prince Tsai-hsun, the
Regent’s brother, Admiral Sa Chen-ping, and Sir Chen Tung
Liang Cheng, who was secretary to the Special Chinese Embassy
to the Diamond Jubilee celebrations in 1897, left that day for
Europe. This was understood to be the first step toward the
fulfilment of China’s programme for the expenditure of
£40,000,000 on the rehabilitation of her army and navy.
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
Denmark’s Fortification and Naval Defense.
See (in this Volume)
DENMARK: A. D. 1905-1909.
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The "Dreadnought" Era.
Outclassing of all Battleships built prior to 1906.
The New Type.
Effects of its Introduction.
The evolution of sea-fighting monstrosities received a
startling and revolutionizing impulsion in 1906, when a new
Dreadnought (replacing an obsolete battleship of that
name) was added to the British navy. In size, plan and
armament it embodied naval teachings just taken from the
Russo-Japanese War, and was supposed to put every other
existing battle-ship into an inferior second class. It brought
suddenly a new standard into all comparative measurements of
naval power, impairing seriously the worth of the costly
monsters then afloat. It signalled, in fact, a start for
entirely new racing among the competitors for "sea-power,"
since the prizes of substantial fighting efficiency among the
navies must all be won over again, by the quickest builders of
the Dreadnought type of ship. England had more reason
than any other nation to lament this happening, and her Lords
of the Admiralty have been sharply criticised for bringing it
about; though the new type of battle-ship would have had
creation elsewhere (as still newer types of monstrosity are
being created already) if English naval architects had not
produced it. Even Admiral Lord Charles Beresford has lashed
the naval authorities of his country for bringing on the
Dreadnought craze. In a speech at London within the
past year he said that "he did not object to Dreadnoughts or
improvements in battleships; what he did object to was the
advertisement connected with the first Dreadnought. Then they
had told another nation that that ship would sink the whole of
its fleet, and the result was that that nation set to work
upon a definite naval programme of its own. Having given that
insane advertisement of their Dreadnought, the British delayed
ship-building with the inevitable result that they would have
to pay a great deal more than if they had kept up their yearly
proportion of ships. The command of the seas was their life,
and he believed that they would have to spend £50,000,000 more
than they need have spent through that insane advertisement.
It would be absolutely impossible for Great Britain alone,
under present conditions, to keep up the two-Power standard,
and if there were no other alternative, there could only be
the prospect of bankruptcy or defeat; but the two-Power
standard could easily be kept up with an Imperial Navy."
Similar criticism appeared in a pamphlet published last year
by Mr. Carnegie; and when his attention was called to the fact
that both Japan and Russia had bigger ships than the
Dreadnought on the stocks before the latter was begun,
he wrote:
"Britain, having so much larger a Navy compared with any other
Power or compared with several other Powers together, should
have adopted the policy of waiting before building a type that
rendered most of her ships ineffective. She had nothing to
fear from Japan, Russia, nor the United States, and could
easily have overtaken Germany if Germany began building the
new type. Britain made such a noise about the Dreadnought as
to attract the attention of the whole world."
The following account of the Dreadnought and of the
interest she had excited in naval circles appeared in a
prominent technical magazine while the building of the ship
was in progress:
"Not for many years has the building of a man-of-war excited
such wide-spread interest as that of H. M. S.
Dreadnought. In many respects this ship has assumed a
sensational character; she is the largest vessel ever
constructed for any war fleet; she was the first to be
commenced after the recent great struggle in the Far East; her
design, which embodies many new features, has hitherto been
kept an official secret, and the work of construction has been
pressed forward with so much success that it is hoped she will
be in commission within fourteen months of the laying of the
keel plates. All these facts have contributed to arouse
curiosity, particularly as it is well known that British naval
attaches were accorded special privileges by the Japanese and
were enabled to watch the progress of the war to greater
advantage than the representatives of other powers.
Consequently, from the day when the first whispers of the
coming of the Dreadnought were heard, an unusual amount
of interest has been taken in this ship, not only in the
United Kingdom, but in foreign countries, and the influence of
the design may be traced in the new programmes of several
rival Powers. … The essential feature of the
Dreadnought which distinguishes her from all
battleships now in commission in the world’s fleets is that
she is of huge size and mounts only one type of gun for use in
line of battle, instead of three types, as in the 'King Edward
VII.’ class.
"The war between Japan and Russia conclusively showed that the
intermediate armament carried by the vessels flying European
flags was not effective at modern battle ranges. Even on the
partial evidence obtained by the French authorities it has
been calculated that the effective ranges for battle have been
raised from 3000 yards to 7000 or 8000 yards. Careful
calculations show that at such a distance the striking power
of 7.5-inch and 6-inch guns, which have been the favourite
intermediate weapons in the British Navy hitherto, are
comparatively useless. … It is understood that originally the
Dreadnought was to have carried twelve guns of the
12-inch type, but difficulties arose in working out the
design, and it was eventually decided to drop out two of these
weapons in order to mount effectively ten pieces of this
colossal striking power, so as to enable eight of them to fire
on the broadside, six ahead and four astern, without
endangering either the stability of the ship or running any
undue risks owing to the blast. … With a broadside of eight
12-inch guns, the Dreadnought is equivalent to any two
battleships built for the British fleet prior to the
construction of 'King Edward VII.,' and yet her total cost,
complete with guns, will be only £1,797,497, while the ships
of the ‘King Edward VII.,’ class, carrying only four 12-inch
guns and the same number of 9.2-inch guns, represent an outlay
of just under a million and a half sterling."
Cashier's Magazine,
June, 1906.
{701}
The steadily increasing sine of the Dreadnought ships
is shown in the following, reported from Portsmouth, England,
September 30, 1909: "Since the launch of the
Dreadnought by the King in February, 1906, each
successive ship which has taken the water at Portsmouth has
exceeded her predecessor in size. The weight of the
Neptune, successfully floated by the Duchess of Albany
to-day shows an advance of no fewer than 1,500 tons upon that
of the vessel launched by his Majesty; and of 500 tons over
that of the St. Vincent, the preceding battleship on the
building slip. The ship which is to be laid down next month
will probably far exceed the dimensions of the
Neptune."
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
England and Germany.
Their "Dreadnought" Building Compared.
The Question in the British Parliament and the Hysteria
in the Country.
An exciting period of debate in Parliament and of discussion
throughout Great Britain was opened on the 17th of March,
1909, when the Navy estimates for the coming year were
submitted to the House of Commons. In his speech on bringing
forward the Estimates, which contemplated an expenditure of
£35,142,700, being nearly £3,000,000 in excess of the
expenditures of the current year, the First Lord of the
Admiralty, Mr. Reginald McKenna, explained the reasons for the
increase at length, saying in part: "We cannot take stock of
our Navy, and measure our requirements except in relation to
the strength of foreign navies. I am, therefore, obliged to
refer to foreign countries in making estimates of our naval
requirements. Several of the Powers are rapidly developing
their naval strength at this moment; but none at a pace
comparable with that of Germany. If in what I have to say now
I select that Power as the standard by which to measure our
own requirements, the House will understand that I do so only
for what may be called arithmetical purposes, and without
presuming upon the expression of any feeling or opinion of my
own—except it be one of respectful admiration for
administrative and professional efficiency. …
"When the Estimates were presented to Parliament a year ago we
had seven battleships of the Dreadnought class and three
cruisers of the Invincible class, either afloat or in process
of construction. The whole of these were due for completion by
the end of 1910. At that time Germany was building four
Dreadnoughts and one Invincible, of which two Dreadnoughts
were expected to be completed by the end of this year, and the
remaining three ships in the autumn of 1910. Thus, at that
time, we had a superiority in these classes of ships of ten to
five in course of construction, with the additional advantage
that the whole of ours were expected to be completed some
months in advance of the last three of the German ships. The
new German Fleet Bill had at that time become law, and
according to our interpretation of its provisions three
Dreadnoughts and one Invincible would be laid down in the
course of the year 1908-1909. The financial provisions of that
Bill were such as to lead us to the opinion that no work would
be commenced upon these four ships until the month of August
last year, and that they would not be completed before
February, 1911. This time last year, therefore, we had to
contemplate five German ships under construction, three of
which would be completed in the autumn of 1910 and four more
ships to be commenced about August, 1908, and commissioned in
February, 1911. In view of this state of affairs this House of
Commons last year approved of a programme of two large ships
to be laid down at such a time as would give to this country a
total of 12 of these new ships, as against a possible
completed German total of nine. In the face of last year’s
programme no one could with any fairness charge this
Government with having started upon a race of competitive
armaments. By example as well as by precept we sought to check
the rapid rate of shipbuilding. We failed. …
"The difficulty in which the Government find themselves placed
at this moment is that we do not know—as we thought we did—the
rate at which German construction is taking place. We know
that the Germans have a law which, when all the ships under it
have been completed, will give them a navy more powerful than
any at present in existence. We know that, but we do not know
the rate at which the provisions of this Act are to be carried
into execution. We now expect that the four German ships of
the 1908-1909 programme will be completed, not in February, 1911,
but in the autumn of 1910. I am informed, moreover, that the
collection of materials and the manufacture of armaments,
guns, and gun-mountings have already begun for four more ships
which, according to the Navy Law, belong to the programme of
1909-1910. Therefore we have to take stock of the new
situation, in which we reckon not nine but 13 German ships may
be completed in 1911, and in 1912 such further ships, if any,
as may be begun in the course of the next financial year, or
laid down in April, 1910. We may stop here and pay a tribute
to the extraordinary growth of the power of constructing ships
of the largest size in Germany. Two years ago, I believe,
there were in Germany, with the possible exception of one or
two slips in private yards, no slip capable of carrying a
Dreadnought. To-day they have actually no less than 14 such
slips and three more under construction. And what is true of
the hull of the ships is true also of the guns, armour, and
mountings. Two years ago any one familiar with the capacity of
Krupp’s and other great German firms would have ridiculed the
possibility of their undertaking the supply of all the
component parts of eight battleships in a single year. To-day
this productive power is a realized fact, and it will tax the
resources of our own great firms if we are to retain the
supremacy in rapidity and Volume of construction.
{702}
"Having said so much on foreign naval development, I turn to
our own programme of construction. As I have said, we shall
have in March, 1911, eight completed Dreadnoughts and four
Invincibles. We propose to lay down two more Dreadnoughts in
July of this year, and the terms of the contracts will provide
that they shall be completed in July, 1911. … Two more ships
will be laid down in November this year, to be completed in
1911, and in that year our total strength in Dreadnoughts and
Invincibles will be 12 of the former and four of the latter.
The date, however, which we have to bear in mind is that up to
which the present programme must provide—April, 1912. I have
shown that we shall in the course of 1911 have 16 of these
modern ships, as against 13 ships for which Germany is already
making provision. The German law provides for four more ships
to be laid down in 1910-1911. But if the construction of these
ships is accelerated—as I understand was the case of the four
ships of the 1909-1910 programme—they would be completed by
April, 1912. Therefore on that date Germany would have 17
Dreadnoughts and Invincibles. But even if no acceleration
takes place before April, 1910, this number would be completed
in the autumn of 1912. This is a contingency which his
Majesty’s Government have to take into account.
"We cannot afford to run risks. If we are to be sure of
retaining superiority in this by far the most powerful types
of battleships, the Board of Admiralty must be in a position,
if the necessity arises, to give orders for guns,
gun-mountings, armour, and other materials at such a time and
to such an amount as will enable them to obtain delivery of
four more large armoured ships by March, 1912. We should be
prepared to meet the contingency of Germany having 17 of these
ships in the spring of 1912 by our having 20, but we can only
meet that contingency if the Government are empowered by
Parliament to give the necessary orders in the course of the
present year. I can well imagine that this method of
calculating in Dreadnoughts and Invincibles alone may seem
unsatisfactory, and even unfair to many persons. They may say:
‘What has become of the Lord Nelsons, the King Edwards, the
Duncans, and the Formidables and the earlier battleships on
which our naval superiority has been so constantly reckoned?
Is no account to be taken of our powerful fleet of armoured
cruisers, numbering no less than 35?’ Yes; the Board of
Admiralty have not forgotten these ships. They still
constitute a mighty fleet. The Dreadnought has not rendered
them obsolete, and many of them would give a good account of
themselves in the line of battle for many years to come. But,
though they have not been rendered obsolete by the
Dreadnoughts and the Invincibles, yet their life has been
shortened. … A battleship must be regarded as a machine of
which the output is fighting capacity. All improvements in the
designs of ships which increase the fighting capacity
necessarily shorten the life of earlier battleships just as in
the case of any other machine. The greater the value of the
improvements, the sooner the earlier ships become obsolete."
Mr. McKenna’s reckoning of the comparative numbers of
Dreadnoughts that Great Britain and Germany would have in 1912
was challenged at once by the leader of the Opposition, Mr.
Balfour, who said: "On the two-years’ basis of building we
shall in December, 1910, as I calculate, have ten, and only
ten, Dreadnoughts. But the Germans at that date, as I
calculate, will have 13. That assumes, of course, that I am
right in stating, and I do not think I shall be contradicted,
that the Germans anticipated their programme by four months.
If you work that out, and assume that the German ships begun
last November, in anticipation by five months of the ordinary
date, are completed in two years, then you will find that I am
not wrong in saying that in December, 1910, we shall have only
ten Dreadnoughts and the Germans will have 13. That danger
period in which, according to my calculation, the ratio of
British to German Dreadnoughts is as ten to 13 extends, on the
basis of two years’ building, from December, 1910, to the end
of March, 1911. On April 1, 1911, the Germans, as I understand
it, will have only 13 and we shall have raised our number to
12. We should still, therefore, on April 1, 1911, according to
my calculation, have one less than the Germans, and that
period of what I might call the 12 British to 13 Germans will
last until July, 1911. Then we shall have 14; but in the
meanwhile the Germans, if they build their four ships this
year, in addition to the anticipated ships they laid down in
November, will have 17, as I understand. We should still have
14 in July, 1911, but the Germans would, as I make out, have
17."
Mr. Balfour contended that the four ships which, according to
the German programme, were to be laid down on the 1st of April
coming (1909) had been actually laid down in advance of that
time. He had information to that effect; whereas Mr. McKenna
was informed that materials for them had been collected in
advance, but that the construction was not begun. Mr. Balfour
contended stoutly for the correctness of his own information,
and argued: "If they [the four battleships supposedly waiting
to be laid down April 1, 1909] were laid down in November, as
I believe, that means that the Germans laid down eight
Dreadnoughts last year. They may lay down no Dreadnoughts this
year, and they may say, ‘We anticipated our four ships for
1909-1910; we anticipated them by laying them down in November;
we have no ships for this financial year.’ But there are two
other things to remember. Having laid down eight ships last
year, they may lay down four ships this year, or they may lay
down eight ships this year. That the capacity of their yards
and their great engineering shops renders that process
perfectly feasible no one now doubts. … If the Germans go on
at that rate, which is more than possible, the probability is
that they will have on April 1, 1912, 21 Dreadnoughts to our
20. The hypotheses, then, are these, and I want to make it
clear to the Government and to the House:—Eight Dreadnoughts
have been laid down in 1908 by Germany. If four are laid down
in 1909, there will be 17 on April 1, 1912; if eight are laid
down—as eight have been laid down last year—there will be 21
on April 1, 1912, to our 20; and if the Germans imitate the
policy of the present Government and lay down not only their
eight in the financial year, but begin a new group of four
when the Government propose their group of four, on April 1,
12 months hence, they will then have 25."
{703}
Over this difference of information as to the facts of German
Dreadnought-building, and consequent differences of
conclusion, controversy raged throughout the kingdom for
weeks. The Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, tried unavailingly to
moderate the impeachment of German good faith in the matter.
"It is fair and right to the German Government that I should
say," he remarked, "that we have had a most distinct
declaration from them that it is not their intention to
accelerate their programme (cheers) and we cannot possibly, as
a Government, believing as we do most explicitly in the good
faith of those declarations (cheers), we cannot possibly put
before the House of Commons and Parliament a programme based
on the assumption that a declaration of that kind will not be
carried out. Be it observed—I want to be very careful in the
language I use about this—I am not saying that it is a pledge
in the sense of an agreement between the two countries.
Nothing of the kind. I should not accuse the German Government
of anything in the nature of bad faith if they altered their
intention. We have been told by them expressly and explicitly
that that is their intention, an intention not to accelerate,
or in other words not to do what the right honourable
gentleman contemplates, when he credits them with the
intention possibly of doing—namely, of laying down as many as
eight ships in one financial year. It is impossible in framing
these Estimates to do so while at the same time ignoring that
declaration from the German Government, and that is why I say
in taking this power to lay down if need be four ships on
April 1 next year we are making such provision as prudence
shows to be necessary for all the contingencies which we can
reasonably anticipate at the present moment."
At the same time, Mr. Asquith made a statement of importance
in reply to the question, Why should there be an increasing
competition in naval expenditure between these two countries?
"The question," he said, "has been raised by us, the British
Government, more than once, with a view to ascertaining
whether any proposal for a mutual reduction of expenditure for
naval purposes would be accepted by the German Government, but
we have been assured more than once, and in the most formal
manner, that their naval expenditure is governed solely by
reference to their own needs, and that their programme does
not depend upon ours. That is the statement which has been
made to us. They tell us quite plainly that if we build 100
Dreadnoughts we must not assume that they would add to their
naval programme, and, on the other hand, if we built no
Dreadnoughts at all they would go on with their programme just
as it is. If that is so, it is perfectly clear that there is
no possibility of an arrangement for mutual reduction. I
regret it very much, but I do not complain. The Germans, like
every other nation, are the best judges of their own national
requirements and necessities."
As will have been learned from Mr. McKenna’s statement, quoted
above, the Government desired authority to begin construction
of two new Dreadnoughts in July and two in November, 1909,
with contingent authority in addition to give orders during
the year for four more, if reasons for doing so appeared. This
did not satisfy the Opposition, which insisted that not less
than eight the new type of battle-ships should be built
outright; and a veritable panic of public excitement on the
subject of German designs against England was created in the
country, by the combined agency of speech and press and the
melodramatic stage. The Government was so little shaken by the
clamor that a motion of censure on its "declared policy" in the
matter was defeated in the House of Commons by a majority of
218. Nevertheless, on the 26th of July, Mr. McKenna made the
following announcement of a modification in its naval
programme:
"After very anxious and careful examination of the condition
of shipbuilding in foreign countries the Government have come
to the conclusion that it is desirable to take all the
necessary steps to ensure that the second four ships referred
to in this year’s programme should be completed by March,
1912. They propose to take all the necessary steps in the way
of preparation of plans, getting out of specifications,
invitations to tender, and, finally, the giving of orders
which will procure the delivery of these ships at the time I
have named. As was said in the month of March, there will be
no need to lay the keels of these ships in the course of the
present financial year. It will be quite time enough if the
keels are laid in the month of April next. …
"The examination of the state of foreign shipbuilding
programmes to which I have referred is bound to lead in the
minds of most members of the Committee to the conclusion that
the Government had no other course open to them. The Committee
had stated to them last March very amply what was the
condition of foreign shipbuilding up to that date. Since then
the development of shipbuilding in foreign countries has gone
on apace. Two countries, Italy and Austria, have now declared
a definite programme of four large armoured ships of the
latest type. In Italy one of those ships is already laid down,
a second is to be laid down immediately, and the remaining two
are both to be laid down in the course of the present year.
With regard to the Austrian programme, sceptics might say they
would never believe in it until, as in the case of Italy, they
saw the keels actually laid down, but the fact is every
earnest has been given of the determination of the Austrian
Government, and two large slips have been prepared for the
construction of battleships of the largest type."
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The English Naval Programme for 1910.
"The navy estimates for 1910, which were issued by the British
Admiralty last night, provide for an expenditure of
$203,000,500, [thousands digits, "000", obscured and unknown]
an increase of $27,805,000 over 1909. The increase is almost
wholly taken up by shipbuilding armaments authorized by
Parliament before dissolution. The new programme provides for
five large armored ships, five protected cruisers, twenty
destroyers, and a considerable number of submarines. By April
1 there will be under construction seven battleships, three
armored, nine protected, and two unarmored cruisers,
thirty-seven destroyers, and nine submarines."
New York Evening Post,
March 10, 1910.
{704}
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The French Naval Administration.
Alarming discovery of Bad Conditions.
France was greatly startled and shocked in March, 1909, by
rumored scandals in naval administration, uncovered by the
investigations of a Parliamentary Commission, but not yet
officially made known. The report of the Commission was not
published until late in June, and when it appeared it
confirmed, not the worst of the state of things which rumor
had described, but enough to show an alarming and unsuspected
weakness of the nation on that side of its armament for war.
From the conclusion of the elaborate report a few translated
passages will suffice to indicate some of the conditions it
brought to light. In this final summary, the Commission states
that the testimony submitted by it establishes, among other
facts, the following:
"That during the last ten years Parliament has been asked to
authorize the construction of ships for which in most cases
the plans have not been definitely (sérieusement)
fixed; that months, and most generally years, elapsed between
the different contracts for the essential parts of the ships,
the hulls, the turrets, the boilers, &c., entailing
considerable loss of time and of money …; that numerous and
important changes were introduced in the course of
construction, … changes the chief inconvenience of which,
apart from the increase of expenditure and the retardation of
construction, is to impair that homogeneity which is the
supreme quality of a squadron; that most of these defects are
aggravated in the case of the six battleships of the Danton
type, the original contract for which, signed at the end of
December, 1906, has undergone hundreds of modifications which
must now be placed on a proper basis. …
"That the arsenals are not at present in a state to carry out
with the rapidity which is desirable new constructions and
repairs; that the mechanical equipment is in general
inadequate and out of date; that the abolition of piece-work,
which has coincided with a reduction of working hours and the
diminution of the powers and authority of the superintendents
in charge, has resulted in a considerable lessening of
production; and that lack of material sometimes entails a
stoppage of work. …
"That the four divisions of battleships and the cruiser
division of the Mediterranean Squadron have not the regulation
supply of steel shells, that the two divisions of armoured
cruisers of the Northern Squadron have only one-third of their
proper supply of steel shells, and that for both squadrons the
stores for renewing their supplies of steel shells are not
ready.
"That the various branches of the administration are wanting
in unity of views and purpose, in method and in defined
responsibility, and that neglect, disorder, and confusion too
frequently prevail. …
"In view of the fact that only a small part of the scheme of
1901 for modernizing ports and (lock yards in accordance with
the requirements of the construction programme of 1900 has
been executed, and in view of the total failure to provide
docking accommodation for the large battleships of the Danton
class, the Commission invites the Chamber to censure the want
of foresight and the indifference which these lamentable
discoveries disclose."
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
French Naval Programme revised in 1909.
Radical Changes in the Department of the Marine.
A despatch from Paris, June 8, 1909, announced:
"According to the Temps this evening, the Navy Council
has finally decided to recommend that, in addition to 45 ships
of the line, the fleet shall consist of 12 ‘scout cruisers,’
60 large destroyers, and 64 submarines. The importance
attached to an increase in the number of capital ships, which
is the chief feature of the new proposals, is illustrated by a
comparison with the so-called ‘programmes’ of 1900 and 1907.
In 1900 it was decided on paper that the fleet should consist
of 28 battleships, 24 armoured cruisers, 52 destroyers, 263
torpedo-boats, and 38 submarines or submersibles. In 1907 the
composition of the fleet was changed to 38 battleships, 20
armoured cruisers, six scouts, 109 destroyers, 170
torpedo-boats, 82 submarines for offensive purposes, and 49
defence submarines.
"A comparison of these three ‘programmes’ shows an increase in
the number of capital ships and destroyers, the abolition of
armoured cruisers as a separate class and of torpedo-boats in
favour of destroyers, and a decrease in the number of
submarines. With regard to the existing armoured cruisers,
which the Navy Council no longer regards as efficient fighting
units, it may be noted that two out of the four 14,000-ton
Gambettas have not yet been completed. Given the age limit of
armoured ships as fixed at 20 years, only the six Danton and
the six République battleships would still figure on the
effective list by 1925. In other words, 33 armoured ships
would have to be completed during the next 16 years. In
addition, 12 scout cruisers would have to be constructed, and,
besides a number of submarines, over 100 destroyers would have
to be laid down, since the life of this class of vessel is
fixed at 17 years."
On the 29th of July the Paris correspondent of the London
Times wrote: "It is semi officially announced this
evening that the Council of Ministers at its meeting to-day
approved a number of radical changes proposed by the new
Minister of Marine, among the higher ranks of the
personnel of the naval administration. All the heads of
departments at the Ministry of Marine appointed under the old
regime have been removed and their places have been filled by
Admiral Boué de Lapeyrère’s own nominees. So complete a
reconstruction of a public department is without precedent in
modern French history. These changes, moreover, are
supplemented by a number of new appointments in the commands
afloat."
On the first of April, 1910, it was announced from Paris that
the Chamber of Deputies had voted to lay down two battle-ships
in the current year, designed to equal the latest type added
to the navies of Great Britain and Germany.
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
French Naval Administration.
Parliamentary Investigation.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (MARCH-JUNE).
{705}
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The German Emperor’s Statement of his Peace Policy based
on Preparation for War.
In the spring of 1905, speaking at Bremen, on the unveiling of
a monument to his father, the Emperor made an impressive
statement of his motives in striving for the creation in
Germany of a great naval and military power. He said that in
boyhood he had been angered at the weakness of the German
navy, and that his policy had sprung from that feeling, not
directed toward aggression, but to the command of respect from
the rest of the world. His aim was to "do everything possible to
let bayonets and cannon rest, but to keep the bayonets sharp
and the cannon ready, so that envy and greed shall not disturb
us in tending our garden or building our beautiful house." "I
vowed," he said, "never to strike for world-mastery. The
world-power that I then dreamed of was to create for the
German Empire on all sides the most absolute confidence as a
quiet, honest, and peaceable neighbor. I have vowed that if
ever the time comes that history shall speak of a German
world-power, or a Hohenzollern world-power, this should not be
based upon conquest, but should come through the mutual
striving of nations after common purposes."
It is not difficult to believe in the perfect truthfulness of
this assertion of high motives, and the perfect sincerity with
which they have been obeyed, while seeing at the same time how
much, in their working, they have threatened the peace of the
world. As the power of Germany has grown under his hand, the
Kaiser has been tempted more and more to impose his will on
neighbors whose cannon were not as ready or their sharpened
bayonets as many as his. The world-power of his desire has
become more and more a dictatorial power. The peace he has
preserved by it has been peace on his own terms, more than
once. The result has been to excite throughout the world such
a feeling of being menaced by war as had not been known since
Napoleon’s day, and to impel among nations, big and little, a
more feverish and competitive arming for war than ever busied
them before. As worked out by the man, the Kaiser’s policy of
peace-making by the tools of war has certainly lost the
innocence it had when conceived by the boy.
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The German Side of the Navy-building Question.
When, in March, 1909, debate on the Navy Estimates in England
started excitement over the rapidity with which Germany seemed
to have developed the building of Dreadnoughts, Chancellor
Bülow, on the 29th of that month, said in the Reichstag: "The
Federated Governments entertain no thoughts of entering into
competition with British sea-power by means of the
construction of the German navy. According to the provisions
of the Navy Law, the immovable purpose of German naval policy
is founded upon the fact that we desire to create our naval
armaments solely for the protection of our coasts and our
trade. It is, moreover, an indisputable fact that the
programme of our naval construction lies open in absolute
publicity. We have nothing to keep secret, nothing to hide,
and it is not intended to accelerate the carrying out of our
construction programme beyond the limits of time contemplated
by the law (über die gesetzliche Frist hinaus zu
beschleunigen). All rumours to the contrary are false. In
the autumn of 1912, at the earliest, we shall have ready for
service the 13 large new ships, including three armoured
cruisers, provided by law."
This statement was supplemented by one from Admiral Tirpitz,
who said:
"Now, as previously, we build all ships in about 36 months
—about 40 months in the small yards. To that period are added
trials, which last for several months. Equally inaccurate is
the assertion that, with a view to more rapid construction,
the contracts for the newer ships are placed sooner than is
allowed by the estimates. All that is true is the following:
Subject to approval by the Reichstag, contracts for two ships
of the 1909 financial programme were last autumn promised to
two private yards at comparatively low prices. This was done
because there was a danger that, if orders for four ships were
placed at the same time at the beginning of 1909 there would
be a considerable advance in price. If orders for two ships
were already placed the Imperial Navy Office was in a much
more favourable position for placing orders for the other two.
We can put the Imperial yards into competition with the
private yards. The Imperial yards cannot undertake more than
two ships at once. The private firms, therefore, will be
compelled to ask lower terms. If the matter has been kept
secret, that is solely because the firms must not be made
aware of the business transactions of the Navy Office.
Contracts for the ships have not been placed; assurances only
have been given. The contract is concluded only after the
voting of the estimate. The period for delivery is 36 months
from April 1, 1909. Not a penny is available for the
‘promised’ ships before April 1. That must be clear to
everybody who knows the Parliamentary conditions and our
accounts system. Not even indirectly has any money been
procured from banks for the yards in any way whatever by the
agency of the Navy Office.
"In regard to the placing of the order for the first of the
two ships special account was taken of the fact that the yard
in question is principally engaged in the construction of this
kind of ship. Accelerated completion of these two ships is
neither asked for nor intended. The firms get their money only
in quarterly instalments. Contracts for the two other ships of
this year’s programme are not to be placed until some months
after the conditions for tendering are drawn up late in the
summer. As the private yards no more than the Imperial yards
know whether they will get the orders for these ships, there
can be no possibility of special preparation of material. If
there has been any such accumulation, it is, presumably, due
to business reasons, certainly to no incentive of ours.
"In conclusion, I repeat once more with emphasis that, as the
Imperial Chancellor has already said, we shall have ready for
use in 1912 ten Dreadnoughts and three Invincibles—in all 13,
and not 17, large modern ships—and that not in the spring, but
in the autumn. How far it is right to base comparisons of
naval strength upon the number of Dreadnoughts is a question
which I shall not here discuss."
As to the suggested readiness and desire of Great Britain to
join in an international agreement for the limiting of naval
armaments, the Germans have always had a rather reasonable
answer, which was phrased forcibly by one of the Agrarian
organs when it said:
"When the weaker promises the stronger to abstain from all
means of increasing his strength, the strong man needs to make
no further effort to retain his relative preponderance for
ever. If the other naval Powers entered into such an
agreement, England, without taking upon herself any further
burdens, would retain mastery at sea before which all must
bow. Little need as we have to interfere with regard to
England’s programme, even so little need has England to look
askance upon our construction of ships, not to attack England,
but only in order to have a naval power with which even the
strongest opponent will not light-heartedly engage in battle.
This good right of ours we shall not surrender by any
agreement."
{706}
But a better view was that taken by one of the German
Conservative journals, the Kreuz Zeitung, which said
last summer: "First of all we must complete our construction
programme. Before that we could not agree to any limitation of
naval armaments. Otherwise we should not be able to create the
navy of moderate size which corresponds to our position as a
seafaring people. … Even after the completion of our
construction programme our navy will be but a dwarf as
compared with the British Navy. Nevertheless, the moment ought
then to have arrived for entering into an international
agreement about limitation of armaments, and on the part of
Germany there will, presumably, be readiness for it."
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
Elasticity of the German Navy Law.
At the annual meeting of the German Navy League in June, 1909,
Admiral Weber, speaking of the German Navy Law, praised its
elasticity. "In international relations," he said, "it had
lately proved to be a political instrument of equal force with
the American Monroe doctrine and the English two-Power
standard. In 1906 the Reichstag had agreed to increase the
size of capital ships without altering the number. The
amending law of 1908 (which shortened the ‘life’ of
battleships) had rendered possible a rational fulfilment of
all immediate possibilities with regard to battleships, small
cruisers, torpedo-boats, and submarines."
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
Italian and Austrian Programmes of Naval Construction.
A despatch from Rome in May, 1909, announced that the minister
of marine, Admiral Mirabello, had obtained the approval of the
Cabinet to a naval programme that provides for the
construction within three years at a total expense of
$52,800,000 of four "Dreadnoughts" and a number of fast scout
cruisers. A local paper stated that the decision to build
these vessels was reached after Italy had learned that
Austria-Hungary was going to spend $40,000,000 on increased
naval power.
Four months later, on the 1st of October, a report came to the
English Press from Rome as follows:
"The Minister of Marine announced in June that the ships would
be begun at once, and completed before the middle of 1912.
Only one, the Dante Alighieri, has yet been laid down, and
owing to some blunder with regard to her steel plates, no work
has been done on her for more than a month. The second is
still awaiting the completion of a building slip before it can
be laid down. As to the other two, according to the
Tribuna, the contracts, which ought to have been
concluded with two shipbuilding firms last June, have not yet
been even examined by the Council of State; consequently
neither firm has yet been able to begin the work which will be
necessary in its yards before the ships can be laid down. The
Tribuna throws the blame upon the bureaucratic system."
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
Italian Fighting Strength at the End of 1909.
The fighting strength of the Italian Navy was reckoned by the
Rome correspondent of the London Times, in November,
1909, as follows:
"Counting in all four of the San Giorgio cruisers [only two of
which were then finished] as forming part of the available
navy at the end of this year, and setting aside some 20 ships
of various kinds and 40 or 50 torpedo-boats, which may,
however, be of some secondary use, the full fighting force of
the Italian navy at the beginning of 1910 should be six
first-class battleships, five second class battleships, seven
first-class armoured cruisers, three second-class armoured
cruisers, 19 destroyers, and 36 first-class torpedo-boats. But
it must be borne in mind that eight of the first 21 fighting
units—the five battleships and three armoured cruisers
described here as of the second class—are not very modern
ships.
"The shipbuilding programme of Admiral Mirabello promises,
besides other less important vessels, four battleships of the
Dreadnought type. As far as one could learn at first these
ships were to be on much the same lines as the Bellerophon,
with a displacement of 18,200, and an armament of ten 12 inch
guns. The chief question then was, When would they be ready
for sea? Admiral Mirabello said in 1912. In order to effect
this he would have had to revolutionize the whole system of
shipbuilding in the Italian navy."
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
Japan’s Armament, Present and Prospective.
The naval status of Japan in December, 1909, as ascertained
and described by the Tokio correspondent of The Times,
London, was as follows:
"Ever since the Russo-Japanese War it has been well-nigh
impossible for the public to form a clear idea of what steps
were in progress with regard to the expansion and maintenance
of the Japanese Navy. In the year before the outbreak of the
conflict—namely, 1903, a programme of expansion was approved
by the Diet. It involved the building of three battleships,
three armoured cruisers, and two second-class cruisers; that
is to say, eight fighting vessels, displacing 100,000 tons
approximately. The cost was set down as ten millions sterling,
and the programme was to have been spread over a period of 11
years, ending in 1913. Subsequently, however, owing to
financial expediency, the time of completion was extended,
first to 1915, and thereafter to 1916, so that seven years
still remain. Knowing this and observing carefully what ships
were laid down from time to time, there should have been, it
will appear, no difficulty in forming a clear perception of
the actual conditions at any moment.
{707}
"But naturally the war produced a radical change in the plans
of the Japanese Admiralty. It became necessary at once to
adopt special measures for recouping the losses suffered in
battle, as well as for renewing armaments. Of course the
general public was not taken into official confidence in such
matters, and some time elapsed before people became vaguely
conscious that not one building programme only, but three, had
been taken in hand. Occasionally announcements were made of the
launch of such-and-such a battleship or the laying down of
such-and-such a cruiser, but as to which vessel belonged to
which programme, and what dimensions the several programmes
were ultimately to take, nothing could be clearly ascertained.
Now, at length, this obscurity has been removed. It is seen
that two of the programmes were undertaken with funds included
in the war expenditures, and that, therefore, the nation is
not required to make any further provision of money on these
accounts. These programmes are, first, an emergency programme,
carried out with what is called an ‘implementing fund,’ and,
secondly, an emergency programme carried out with an
‘adjustment fund.’ Under the three programmes, respectively,
the following vessels have been bought, built, or are
building:—
Third Period Expansion Programme. Tons. "There is here a total of 13 ships displacing 176,000 tons,
Katori, battleship 15,950
Kashima, battleship 16,400
Ibuki, armoured cruiser 14,600
Emergency Implementing Programme.
Aki, battleship 19,150
Satsuma, battleship 19,150
Tsukuba, armoured cruiser 13,750
Ikoma, armoured cruiser 13,750
Kurama, armoured cruiser 14,600
Tone, cruiser 4,400
Yodo, despatch boat 1,250
Mogami, despatch boat 1,350
Emergency Adjustment Programme.
Kawachi, battleship 21,000
Settsu, battleship 21,000
approximately, and to these have to be added 29 destroyers
built under the ‘emergency implementing programme.’ As for
the vessels which have still to be built, but which have not
yet been laid down, they are as follows:- Third Period Programme. "These eight vessels, exclusive of torpedo craft, aggregate
Battleship, 1 16,000 tons
Armoured cruisers, 2 11,000 tons each
Cruisers, 2 5,000 tons each
Emergency Implementing Programme.
Armoured cruiser, 1 14,600 tons
Cruisers, 2 4,100 tons each
Destroyers, several 375 tons each
Torpedo-boats, 6 120 tons each
over 70,000 tons, and if the two lists be combined, we get a
total of 21 ships displacing 247,000 tons, approximately,
apart from about 35 destroyers and six torpedo boats. …
"It may be mentioned that in February last the ships on the
active list of the Japanese Navy were:— Battleships 13WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
Armoured Cruisers 12
Other Cruisers 43
Destroyers 59
Torpedo-boats 69"
Russian "Dreadnoughts" Building.
"The keels of the four Dreadnoughts which are to represent the
nucleus of Russia’s future navy were laid down in St.
Petersburg this morning. The materials to be employed will be
throughout Russian; the designs and the supervision will be
British. It is an open secret that the Tsar has taken a deep
personal interest in arrangements that have been made for
placing the contracts for the new ships."
St. Petersburg Correspondent
London Times, June 16, 1909.
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The United States Navy in 1909.
As summarized in the Annual Report of the Navy Department for
the fiscal year 1909, the United States Navy was composed, on
the 30th of June in that year, of the following vessels:
Fit for Service, including those under Repair: First-class battle ships, 25;
second-class battle ship, 1;
armored cruisers, 12;
armored ram, 1;
single-turret harbor-defense monitors, 4;
double-turret monitors, 6;
protected cruisers, 22;
unprotected cruisers, 3;
scout cruisers, 3;
gunboats, 9;
light-draft gunboats, 3;
composite gunboats, 8;
training ships, 3;
training brigantine, 1;
special class (Dolphin, Vesuvius), 2;
gunboats under 500 tons, 12;
torpedo boat destroyers, 16;
steel torpedo boats, 33;
wooden torpedo boat, 1;
submarine torpedo boats, 12;
iron cruising vessels, steam, 5;
wooden ditto, 5;
wooden sailing vessels, 5;
tugs, 44;
auxiliary cruisers, 5;
converted yachts, 21;
colliers, 8;
transport and supply ships, 8;
hospital ships, 2;
receiving ships, 4;
prison ships, 3.
Total, 292.
Under Construction: First-class battle ships, 6;
torpedo boat destroyers, 20;
submarine torpedo boats, 16;
tug, 1;
colliers, 6.
Total 49.
Authorized:
First-class battle ships, 2;
gunboat for Great Lakes, 1;
submarine torpedo boats, 4;
colliers, 2.
Total 9.
Unfit for Service: Of all descriptions, 12.
Grand Total, 362.
Since the above report, the House of Representatives, by vote
on the 8th of April, 1910, authorized the building of two
additional battle ships of the first class, at a cost of
$6,000,000 each.
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The World-round Cruise of the American Battleship Fleet,
1907-1909.
On the 16th of December, 1907, a fleet of battle-ships which,
comprised practically the whole available fighting force of
the United States Navy steamed away from Hampton Roads, on the
longest and most notable cruise ever made by so formidable an
assemblage of ships of war. Its primary appointment was to
circuit the American continents from the Atlantic to the
Pacific shores of the United States, and the further direction
of the voyage was left for future decision. Ultimately,
invitations from foreign governments drew the fleet to
Australia, New Zealand, China and Japan, and it returned from
these visits in the Far East by way of the Suez Canal and the
Mediterranean Sea. The duration of the long voyage was a year,
two months and six days, and the total miles of ocean
traversed were about 45,000. Many foreign ports were visited,
South American, Australasian, Asiatic and European, and
boundless hospitalities were bestowed everywhere on the fleet.
Its stay of some days at San Francisco, before leaving
American waters, was the grand event of the year to Americans
of that coast, and its call at Manila gave emphasis to
American authority in the Philippines.
Until it reached San Francisco the fleet was under the command
of Rear-Admiral Robley D. Evans; but physical disabilities
then compelled the retirement of Admiral Evans, and he was
succeeded in the command by Rear-Admiral Charles S. Sperry,
under whom the remainder of the voyage was made. The sixteen
battleships of the fleet were divided into two squadrons and
four divisions, each division consisting of vessels of the
same general type; the first division comprised the
Connecticut, Admiral Evans’s flag-ship, the Kansas, the
Vermont, and the Louisiana; the second included the Georgia,
the New Jersey, the Rhode Island and the Virginia; the third
included the Minnesota, the Ohio, the Missouri, and the Maine;
the fourth contained the Alabama, the Illinois, the Kearsarge,
and the Kentucky. The battle-ships were accompanied by two
supply-ships, a repair-ship, and a tender, and were preceded
from Hampton Roads by a flotilla of six torpedo-boats and a
squadron of armored cruisers.
{708}
From San Francisco to New Zealand the voyage of 6000 miles was
made with one stop, only, at Honolulu, and so perfectly in
order, it is said, that only twice did any ship fall out of
the line of formation, in which the ships steamed steadily
together, two hundred and fifty yards apart. This order, with
time-table regularity of movement, was maintained from
beginning to end, and when, on the 22d of February, 1909,
President Roosevelt welcomed the return of the fleet to
Hampton Roads, he was able to say with just pride: "This is
the first battle fleet that ever circumnavigated the globe.
Those who perform the feat again can but follow your
footsteps. You have falsified every prediction of failure made
by the prophets. In all your long cruise not an accident
worthy of mention has happened to a single battleship, nor yet
to the cruisers or torpedo-boats. You left this coast in a
high state of battle efficiency, and you return with your
efficiency increased as a war machine, as the fleet returns in
better shape than when it left. In addition, you have shown
yourselves the best of all possible ambassadors and heralds of
peace. Wherever you have landed you have borne yourselves so
as to make us at home proud of being your countrymen."
Before the undertaking of this notable cruise of a battle-ship
fleet having no militant mission, many political reasons for
and against the movement were urged and discussed. From the
naval point of view, professionally, the true motive of the
project was stated undoubtedly by Captain A. T. Mahan, in an
article published in the Scientific American, and it
had no political purpose whatever. "A perfectly sufficient
reason," said Captain Mahan, "is the experience to be gained
by the fleet in making a long voyage, which otherwise might
have to be made for the first time under the pressure of war,
and the disadvantage of not having experienced at least once
the huge administrative difficulties connected with so distant
an expedition by a large body of vessels dependent upon their
own resources. By ‘own resources’ must be understood, not that
which each vessel carries in herself, but self-dependence as
distinguished from dependence on near navy-yards—the great
snare of peace times. The renewal of stores and coal on the
voyage is a big problem, whether the supply vessels accompany
the fleet or are directed to join from point to point."
The following statistics are given of the cost of the cruise:
"The fleet burned 400,320 tons of coal, costing $1,078,994.
The transportation of this coal by naval and hired colliers
cost $1,463,825. The total coal bill was $2,646,069. There
were used on the engines and other machinery 125,000 gallons
of oil costing $43,750. No official statement has been made of
the cost of ammunition used in target and battle practice. The
figure is put at above a million dollars, and $20,000,000 is
estimated as the total cost of the 14 months’ cruise."
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The World Naval Armament.
Fleets of the Great Powers in March, 1910.
A British Parliamentary Paper made public on the 29th of
April, 1910, gave statistics of the navies of the greater
Powers as they existed on the 31st of March. The following
summary of the figures appeared in the next issue of The
Mail. The letters at the heads of the columns signify—
E., England;
F., France;
R., Russia;
G., Germany;
I., Italy;
U., United States; and
J., Japan:-- Ships Built. ----------WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: End--------
E. F. R. G. I. U. J.
Battleships 56 17 7 33 10 30 14
Armored C. D. Vessels - 8 2 7 - 10 -
Armored Cruisers 38 20 4 9 8 15 12
Protected Cruisers, I. 18 5 7 - - 3 2
Protected Cruisers, II. 35 9 2 23 3 16 11
Protected Cruisers, III 16 8 2 12 11 2 6
Unprotected Cruisers 2 - - 10 - 5 6
Scouts 8 - - - - 3 -
Torpedo Vessels 23 10 6 1 5 2 2
T. B. Destroyers 150 60 97 85 21 25 57
Torpedo Boats 116 246 63 82 96 30 69
Submarines 63 56 30 8 7 18 9
Ships Building.
E. F. R. G. I. U. J.
Battleships 9 6 8 8 2 4 3
Armored Cruisers 3 2 2 3 2 - 1
Protected Cruisers, II. 9 - - 5 - - 3
Unprotected Cruisers 2 - - - - - -
T. B. Destroyers 37 17 - 12 2 15 2
Submarines 11 23 3 * - 10 3
* Number uncertain.
----------WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: Start--------
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1899-1909.
General Treaties of Arbitration concluded since the First
Peace Conference at The Hague.
"Arbitration in the sense of the present day dates from Jay’s
Treaty of 1794, in which Great Britain and the United States
bound themselves to arbitrate contested boundary claims
(Article 5); claims preferred by British creditors (Article
6); and, more especially, the claims of American and British
creditors based upon ‘irregular or illegal captures or
condemnations of their vessels and other property’ (Article
7). …
"The first award under it [Jay’s Treaty] was made in 1798, so
that exactly one hundred years elapsed until the call of the
First Hague Conference. Arbitrations in this period were very
frequent. Writers differ as to the exact number; for example
Dr. Darby instances no less than 471 cases, but in his
enthusiasm for the peaceful settlement of international
differences he has included a large number of interstate
arrangements, which cannot be regarded as international
arbitrations in the strict sense of the word. Mr. Fried, in
his Handbook of the Peace Movement, enumerates some 200. M. La
Fontaine gives a list of 177 instances to the year 1900, which
should be reduced to 171 arbitrations or agreements to
arbitrate before the meeting of the First Conference in 1899.
Professor John Bassett Moore is more conservative and
enumerates 136 cases of international arbitration during the
nineteenth century, in 57 of which the United States was a
party, with a like number of 57 to which Great Britain has
been a party.
{709}
"But, as happily said by M. Descamps, arbitration is not a
question of mathematics, and whether the instances be 471,
according to Darby or 136, according to Professor Moore, the
recourse to arbitration bids fair to become a habit with
nations."
James Brown Scott,
The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907,
Volume 1, pages 210 and 224-225.
Dr. Scott cites from M. La Fontaine a table showing the
participation of each State in arbitration. Germany has no
representation in the table, either as a whole or by any of
its parts; whereas every other nation of the least importance
in the world appears as having arbitrated some of its
disputes, prior to the preparation of this table.
At the First Peace Conference, of 1899, an attempt, strongly
supported, was made to frame and secure the adoption of a
treaty of arbitration by which the nations would bind
themselves to arbitrate a carefully selected list of subjects.
This failed, says Dr. Scott, in the work quoted above, "owing
to the opposition of Germany. As a compromise, Article 19 of
the convention for the peaceful adjustment of international
differences was adopted:
"‘Independently of existing general or special treaties
imposing the obligation to have recourse to arbitration on the
part of any of the Signatory Powers, these powers reserve to
themselves the right to conclude, either before the
ratification of the present convention or subsequent to that
date, new agreements, general or special, with a view of
extending the obligation to submit controversies to
arbitration to all cases which they consider suitable for such
submission’ (re-enacted in 1907 as Article 40).
"The article did not seem at the time to be of any special
importance and it was generally looked upon as useless because
independent and sovereign States possess the right without
special reservation to conclude arbitration agreements,
general or special, without being specifically empowered to do
so. The fact is, however, that this article, insignificant and
useless as it may seem, marks, one may almost say, an era in
the history of arbitration. The existence of the article has
called attention to the subject of arbitration and by
reference to it many States have negotiated arbitration
treaties. It is true that there is no legal obligation created
by the article and it is difficult to find a moral one, for it
is not declared to be the duty of any State to conclude
arbitration treaties. The moral effect of the article has,
however, been great and salutary, and the existence of
numerous arbitration treaties based upon the reservation
contained in the article shows the attention and respect which
nations pay to the various provisions of the Hague
Conference."
Dr. Scott adds to these remarks a list of treaties, of the
character contemplated, which had been entered into since the
First Hague Conference, up to the time at which he wrote, with
appended notes describing briefly the nature of the variously
broadened or narrowed reference clauses contained in them. A
more extended list has been published since by the
International Peace Bureau of Berne, Switzerland, for a copy
of which I am indebted to Mr. Frederick P. Keppel, Secretary
of Columbia University, New York. The list below is mainly
that of the International Peace Bureau, with the addition of a
few more recent treaties to which the United States has been a
party, obtained from the State Department at Washington. Some,
but not all, of Dr. Scott’s notes have been borrowed, with his
permission.
In the list of treaties as they are given here the date of
signature is entered first, with the prefix S.; that of
ratification follows, with the prefix R. When two dates of
ratification are given, the first is that by the government
named first in the entry of the parties to the treaty in
question. [Notes "A", "B", "C" and "E" are defined following
entry 105 below.]
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST:
List of States between which Permanent Treaties of Arbitration
have been concluded since the First Peace Conference at The
Hague, with the Dates of their Signature and Ratification.
1. Brazil and Chile.
S. May 18, 1899.
R. March 7, 1906, at Santiago.
2. Argentine and Uruguay.
S. June 8, 1899.
R. December 21, 1901.
Additional protocol
S. December 21, 1901.
R. December 18, 1901.
3. Argentine and Paraguay,
S. November 6, 1899.
R. June 5, 1902.
Additional protocol
S. January 25, 1902.
R. June 5, 1902.
4. Bolivia and Peru.
S. November 21, 1901.
R. December 29, 1903.
5. Spain and Mexico.
S. January 11, 1902.
R. July 18, 1902.
6. Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica.
S. January 20, 1902.
[R. No date given.]
7. Argentine and Spain.
S. January 28, 1902.
[R. No date given.]
8. Spain and Salvador.
S. January 28, 1902.
R. July 18, 1902.
9. Spain and Dominican Republic.
S. January 28, 1902.
R. July 18, 1902.
10. Spain and Uruguay.
S. January 28, 1902.
R. July 18, 1902.
11. Pan-American Treaty of obligatory arbitration between
Argentine, Bolivia, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay.
Peru, Dominican Republic, Salvador, and Uruguay (for
differences relating to diplomatic privileges, rights of
navigation, questions of frontiers and interpretation and
enforcement of treaties). E
S. January 29, 1902, at Mexico. According to Article 21 of the
Treaty it would become of force as soon as three States among
those which signed the Treaty should make known their
approbation to the government of Mexico, which would
communicate the information to other governments. It has been
ratified by the governments of Salvador, May 28, 1902, of
Guatemala, August 25, 1902, and of Uruguay, January 31, 1903.
12. Special Treaty between the seventeen States represented at
the Pan-American Conference at Mexico, including the United
States of America, relating to the adjustment by means of
arbitration of difficulties resulting from financial
questions.
S. January 30, 1902, at Mexico.
[R. No date given.]
13. Argentine and Bolivia.
S. February 3, 1902.
R. March 13, 1902.
14. Bolivia and Spain.
S. February 17, 1902.
R. October 10, 1903.
15. Colombia and Spain.
S. February 17, 1902
R. July 18, 1902.
16. Spain and Guatemala.
S. February 28, 1902.
R. July 18, 1902.
{710}
17. Mexico and Persia.
S. May 14, 1902.
[R. No date given.]
18. Argentine and Chile. E
S. May 28, 1902.
R. July 30, 1902.
19. Germany and Venezuela.
S. May 7, 1903.
(R. La ratification n’a pas étc exigée.)
20. Paraguay and Peru.
S. May 18, 1903.
[R. No date given.]
21. France and Great Britain. C
S. October 14, 1903.
R. February 25, 1904.
22. Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Salvador.
S. November, 1903.
[R. No date given.]
23. France and Italy. C
S. December 25, 1903.
R. March 26, 1904-March 7, 1904.
24. Great Britain and Italy. C
S. February 1, 1904.
Not ratified.
25. Denmark and The Netherlands. B
S. February 12, 1904.
R. March 8, 1906, at The Hague.
26. Spain and France. C
S. February 26, 1904.
R. March 7, 1904-April 20, 1904.
27. Spain and Great Britain. C
S. February 27, 1904.
R. March 7, 1904-March 16, 1904.
28. France and The Netherlands. C
S. April 6, 1904.
R. July 5, 1905, at Paris.
29. Spain and Portugal.
S. May 31, 1904.
Not ratified.
30. France and Sweden. C
S. July 9, 1904.
R. November 9, 1904.
31. France and Norway. C
S. July 9, 1904.
R. November 9, 1904.
32. Germany and Great Britain. C
S. July 12, 1904.
Without reserve of ratification.
33. Great Britain and Sweden. C
S. August 11, 1904.
R. November 9, 1904.
34. Great Britain and Norway. C
S. August 11, 1904.
R. November 9, 1904.
35. The Netherlands and Portugal.
S. October 1, 1904.
R. October 29, 1908, at The Hague.
36. Spain and Nicaragua.
S. October 4, 1904.
R. March 19, 1908.
37. Belgium and Russia. A
S. October 17/30, 1904.
R. September 9/August 27, 1905-July 27 /August 9, 1905.
38. Belgium and Switzerland. A
S. November 15, 1904.
R. August 19, 1905.
39. Great Britain and Switzerland. C
S. November 16, 1904.
R. July 12, 1905.
40. Great Britain and Portugal. C
S. November 16, 1904.
Not ratified.
41. Germany and The United States of America.
S. November 22, 1904.
Not ratified.
42. Italy and Switzerland. C
S. November 23, 1904.
R. December 5, 1905.
43. Norway and Russia. A
S. November 26/December 9, 1904.
R. February 27, 1905-February 12/25, 1905.
44. Russia and Sweden. A
S. November 26/December 9, 1904.
R. February 12/25-February 27/14, 1905.
45. Belgium and Sweden. A
S. November 30, 1904.
R. August 11, 1905.
46. Belgium and Norway. A
S. November 30, 1904.
R. August 11, 1905-October 30, 1906.
47. Austria-Hungary and Switzerland. C
S. December 3, 1904.
R. October 17, 1905, at Vienna.
48. France and Switzerland. C
S. December 14, 1904.
R. July 13, 1905.
49. Sweden and Switzerland. A
S. December 17, 1904.
R. July 13, 1905.
50. Norway and Switzerland. A
S. December 17, 1904.
R. July 13, 1905.
51. Austria-Hungary and The United States of America.
S. January 6, 1905.
Not ratified.
52. Austria-Hungary and Great Britain. C
S. January 11, 1905.
R. May 17, 1905, at Loudon.
53. Spain and Sweden.
S. January 23, 1905.
R. March 20, 1905.
54. Spain and Norway.
S. January 23, 1905.
R. March 20, 1905.
55. Belgium and Spain. A
S. January 23, 1905.
R. December 16-July 28, 1905.
56. Great Britain and The Netherlands. C
S. February 15, 1905.
R. July 12, 1905, at London.
57. Denmark and Russia. A
S. February 16/March 1, 1905.
R. April 11, 1905-March 20/April 3, 1905.
58. Italy and Peru.
S. April 18, 1905.
R. November 11, 1905.
59. Belgium and Greece. A
S. April 19/May 2, 1905.
R. July 9/22, 1905.
60. Belgium and Denmark. A
S. April 26, 1905.
R. May 2, 1906.
61. Portugal and Sweden. C
S. May 6, 1905.
Not ratified.
62. Norway and Portugal. C
S. May 6, 1905.
Not ratified.
63. Italy and Portugal. C
S. May 11, 1905.
Not ratified.
64. Spain and Honduras.
S. May 13, 1905.
R. July 16, 1906.
65. Belgium and Roumania. A
S. May 27/14, 1905.
R. October 9/September 26, 1905.
66. Portugal and Switzerland. C
S. August 18, 1905.
R. October 23, 1908, at Berne.
67. Argentine and Brazil.
S. September 7, 1905.
R. September 28, 1908-October 2, 1908.
68. Colombia and Peru.
S. September 12, 1905.
R. July 6, 1906, with the modus rivendi.
69. Denmark and France. C
S. September 15, 1905.
R. May 31, 1906.
70. Denmark and Great Britain. C
S. October 25, 1905.
R. May 4, 1906.
71. Norway and Sweden. A
S. October 26, 1905.
Without reserve of ratification.
72. Denmark and Spain. A
S. December 1, 1905.
R. May 10, 1906-May 14. 1906.
73. Denmark and Italy. B
S. December 16, 1905.
R. May 22--March 30, 1906.
74. Austria-Hungary and Portugal. C
S. February 13, 1906.
R. October 16, 1908, at Vienna.
75. Belgium and Nicaragua.
S. March 6, 1906.
Not ratified.
76. France and Portugal. C
S. July 29, 1906.
Not ratified.
77. Denmark and Portugal. B
S. March 20, 1907.
R. October 26, 1908, at Copenhagen.
78. Nicaragua and Salvador.
S. April 3, 1907.
Not ratified.
79. Spain and Switzerland. C
S. May 14, 1907.
R. July 9, 1907.
80. Argentine and Italy.
S. September 18, 1907.
Not ratified.
81. Italy and Mexico.
S. October 16, 1907.
R. December 31, 1907.
82. Honduras, Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
S. December 20, 1907, at Washington.
R. March, 1908.
83. United States of America and France. D
S. February 10, 1908.
R. March 12, 1908, at Washington.
84. United States of America and Greece.-
S. February 29, 1908.
Not ratified [?].
85. United States of America and Switzerland. D
S. February 29, 1908.
R. December 23, 1908.
86. United States of America and Mexico. D
S. March 24, 1908.
R. June 27, 1908, at Washington.
{711}
87. United States of America and Italy. D
S. March 28, 1008.
R. January 22, 1900.
88. United States of America and Great Britain. D
S. April 4, 1008.
R. June 4, 1908, at Washington.
89. United States of America and Norway. D
S. April 4, 1908.
R. June 24, 1908, at Washington.
90. United States of America and Portugal. D
S. April 6, 1908.
R. November 14, 1908.
91. United States of America and Spain. D
S. April 20, 1908.
R. June 2, 1908, at Washington.
92. United States of America and Sweden. D
S. May 2, 1908.
R. August 18, 1908, at Washington.
93. United States of America and The Netherlands. D
S. May 2, 1908.
R. March 25, 1909.
94. United States of America and Japan. D
S. May 5, 1908.
R. August 24, 1908, at Washington.
95. Denmark and the United States of America. D
S. May 18, 1908.
R. March 29, 1909.
96. Denmark and Sweden. D
S. July 17, 1908.
Not ratified.
97. China and the United States of America. D
S. October 8, 1908.
R. April 6, 1909.
98. Denmark and Norway.
S. October 8, 1908.
Not ratified.
99. United States of America and Austria-Hungary. D
S. January 15, 1909, at Washington.
R. May 13, 1909.
100. United States of America and Peru. D
S. December 5, 1908, at Washington.
R. June 29, 1909.
101. United States of America and Salvador. D
S. December 21, 1908, at Washington.
R. July 3, 1909.
102. United States of America and Costa Rica. D
S. January 13, 1909, at Washington.
R. July 20, 1909.
NOTES.
The treaties differ in the range given to the obligation
imposed on the signatory parties, as to the nature of the
differences which they shall submit to arbitration. Most of
them, however, are divisible in this respect into three
classes, distinguished above by the reference letters "A,"
"B," and "C," and the distinction described in the following
notes thus marked, from Dr. Scott’s work. Treaties concluded
by the United States have an otherwise distinct character, as
explained in note "D."
A.—The article of reference in these treaties is substantially
(when not identically) as follows:
"The high contracting parties agree to submit to the permanent
Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the
Convention of July 29, 1899, the differences which may arise
between them in the cases enumerated in Article 3, in so far
as they affect neither the independence, the honor, the vital
interests, nor the exercise of sovereignty of the contracting
countries, and provided it has been impossible to obtain an
amicable solution by means of direct diplomatic negotiations
or by any other method of conciliation.
"1. In case of disputes concerning the application or
interpretation of any convention concluded or to be concluded
between the high contracting parties and relating—a. To
matters of international private law; b. To the management of
companies; c. To matters of procedure, either civil or
criminal, and to extradition.
"2. In cases of disputes concerning pecuniary claims based on
damages, when the principle of indemnity has been recognized
by the parties.
"Differences which may arise with regard to the interpretation
or application of a convention concluded or to be concluded
between the high contracting parties and in which third powers
have participated or to which they have adhered shall be
excluded from settlement by arbitration."
"B. The treaties of this noble class are the few thus far
concluded which pledge the parties engaged in them to submit
all differences that may arise between them to pacific
arbitration, reserving no dispute, of any nature, to
become a possible entanglement in war. The formula of
reference in them is substantially this:
"The high contracting parties agree to submit to the permanent
Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the
Convention of July 29, 1899, all differences of every nature
that may arise between them, and which cannot be settled by
diplomacy, and this even in the case of such differences as
have had their origin prior to the conclusion of the present
Convention."
C.—The reference clause in these treaties is substantially
alike in all, to the following purpose:
"Differences which may arise of a legal nature, or relating to
the interpretation of treaties existing between the two
contracting parties, and which it may not have been possible
to settle by diplomacy, shall be referred to the Permanent
Court of Arbitration, established at The Hague by the
convention of the 29th July, 1899; provided, nevertheless,
that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence,
or the honor of the two contracting States, and do not concern
the interests of third parties."
D.—In the treaties of arbitration negotiated by the United
States the article of reference is like that last quoted, in
Note C; but the following is added to it:
"In each individual case the High Contracting Parties, before
appealing to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, shall
conclude a special Agreement, defining clearly the matter in
dispute, the scope of the powers of the arbitrators, and the
periods to be fixed for the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal
and the several stages of the procedure. It is understood that
on the part of the United States such special agreements will
be made by the President of the United States, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and on the part of
Costa Rica shall be subject to the procedure required by the
Constitution and laws thereof."
This was required by the United States Senate, which rejected
a number of earlier arbitration treaties, negotiated by
Secretary Hay, because they would have allowed cases of
controversy with other nations to be referred to The Hague
Tribunal by the President without specific consent from the
Senate in each particular case. This brings the general treaty
of arbitration down very close to absurdity, leaving almost
nothing of its intended pacific influence to act.
E.—See below: A. D. 1901 (November), and 1902.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1901 (November).
Treaty of Unreserved Arbitration for all Controversies between
Bolivia and Peru.
On the 21st of November, 1901, the republics of Bolivia and
Peru set a great example of trust in arbitration as a means of
settling controversies between nations, by concluding a
convention which pledged them for ten years to submit every
disagreement between themselves to that peaceful solution,
reserving no question whatsoever. Their example, as will be
seen, was remarkably imitated among their Spanish-American
neighbors in the following year. The subjoined are the
important articles of their compact of peace:
"Article 1.
The high contracting parties pledge themselves to submit to
arbitration all the controversies which have thus far been
pending, and those which, while the present treaty is in
force, may arise between them, whatever may be their nature
and causes provided that it has been found impossible to
settle them by direct negotiation.
"Article 2.
In each case that may arise the contracting parties shall
conclude a special agreement with a view to determining the
subject-matter of the controversy, to fixing the points that
are to be settled, the extent of the powers of the
arbitrators, and the procedure to be observed.
"Article 3.
In case the high contracting parties do not succeed in
agreeing on the points referred to in the foregoing article,
the arbitrator shall be authorized to determine, in view of
the claims of both parties, the points of fact and of law that
are to be decided for the settlement of the controversy, and
to establish the mode of procedure to be followed.
{712}
"Article 4.
The high contracting parties agree that the arbitrator shall
be the permanent court of arbitration that may be established
in virtue of the decisions adopted by the Pan-American
Conference now sitting in the City of Mexico.
"Article 5.
For these two cases: (a) If the court referred to in
the foregoing article shall not be created, and (b) if
there is need of having recourse to arbitration before that
court shall be created, the high contracting parties agree to
designate as arbitrator the Government of the Argentine
Republic, that of Spain, and that of the United Mexican States
for the performance of this duty, one to act in case of the
disability of the other, and in the order in which they are
named.
"Article 6.
If, while the present treaty is in force, and in the two
contingencies referred to in the foregoing article, different
cases of arbitration shall arise, they shall be successively
submitted for decision to the aforesaid governments in the
order above established.
"Article 7.
The arbitrator shall further be competent:
1. To pass upon the regularity of his appointment, the
validity of the agreement, and the interpretation thereof.
2. To adopt such measures as may be necessary, and to settle
all difficulties that may arise in the course of the debate.
Concerning questions of a technical or scientific character
that may arise during the debate, the opinion of the Royal
Geographical Society of London or that of the International
Geodetic Institute of Berlin shall be asked.
3. To designate the time in which he shall perform his
arbitral functions.
"Article 8.
The arbitrator shall decide in strict obedience to the
provisions of international law, and, on questions relating to
boundary, in strict obedience to the American principle of
‘uti possedetis’ of 1810, whenever, in the agreement mentioned
in article 2, the application of the special rules shall not
be established, or in case the arbitrator shall (not ?) be
authorized to decide as an amicable referee.
"Article 9.
The decision shall decide, definitely, every point in dispute,
stating the reasons therefor. It shall be prepared in
duplicate, and notice thereof shall be given to each of the
parties through its representative before the arbitrator.
"Article 10.
The decision, legally pronounced, shall decide, within the
limits of its scope, the contest between the parties.
"Article 11.
The arbitrator shall fix, in his decision, the time within
which said decision is to be executed.
"Article 12.
No appeal from the decision shall be allowed, and its
execution is intrusted to the honor of the nations that sign
this treaty.
"Nevertheless, an appeal for revision to the arbitrator who
pronounced it shall be admissible, provided that such appeal
be taken before the expiration of the time fixed for its
execution, in the following cases:
1. If the decision has been pronounced on the basis of a
counterfeit document, or of one that has been tampered with.
2. If the decision has been, either in whole or in part, the
consequence of a fact resulting from the proceedings or
documents of the case."
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1902.
Noble Treaties between Argentina and Chile for Obligatory
Arbitration of all Disputes, and for Restriction of Naval
Armaments.
Notwithstanding the fortunate arrangement, in 1898, for
arbitration of a serious boundary dispute between the
Argentine Republic and Chile (see, in Volume VI. of this work,
Argentine Republic), there continued to be troublesome
frictions between the two Spanish-American neighbors, while
awaiting the decision of the arbitrator, King Edward VII.,
which was not rendered until November 27, 1902. These had led
to a ruinous rivalry in naval armament. Reporting on this
state of affairs in May of that year, Mr. William P. Lord, the
American Minister to the Argentine Government, wrote:
"Both countries have incurred heavy expense for the equipment
and maintenance of largely increased army and naval forces.
Chile has recently contracted for two formidable warships
involving a heavy cost with the object of putting her navy
upon an equality with the Argentine navy, whereupon Argentina,
not to be outdone, contracted for two war ships larger in size
and perhaps more formidable at a like heavy cost in order to
continue and maintain her naval superiority. The costly
expenditure incurred on account of war and naval preparations
is paralyzing industrial activity and commercial enterprise.
Both countries are largely in debt and confronted with a
deficit. Both have appropriated their conversion funds which
had been set apart for a specific purpose, and which, it would
seem, should have been preserved inviolable. Neither is able
to make a foreign loan without paying a high rate of interest
and giving guarantees to meet the additional expenses which
their war policy is incurring, and both Governments know and
their people know that the only remedy to which either can
resort to meet existing financial conditions is to levy fresh
taxes of some description, notwithstanding nearly everything
that can be taxed is now taxed to the utmost limit. The weight
of taxation already imposed bears heavily upon the energies
and activities of the people. The outlook is not promising,
business being dull, wage employment scarce, and failures
frequent."
Happily, good sense prevailed over this folly very soon after
Minister Lord wrote his account of it. On the 3d of June,
1902, the same writer was enabled to forward to Washington the
text of four remarkable "peace agreements" which had been
signed on the 28th of May, at the Chilean capital, by the
Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations and the Argentine
Minister Plenipotentiary to Chile, who had been brought to
negotiations by the friendly mediation of Great Britain. The
four documents were: a political convention declaring a common
international policy on the part of the two republics; a broad
treaty of general arbitration; an agreement for the reducing
of naval forces; an agreement for the conclusive marking of
boundary lines by the engineers of the arbitrator, King
Edward. The general arbitration treaty is no less unreserved
and comprehensive than that between Peru and Bolivia and
offers another Spanish-American model for imitation in the
interest of peace. Its articles are as follows:
"Article 1.
The high contracting parties bind themselves to submit to
arbitration every difficulty or question of whatever nature
that may arise between them, provided such questions do not
affect the precepts of the respective constitutions of the two
countries, and that they can not be solved through direct
negotiation.
{713}
" Article 2.
This treaty does not embrace those questions that have given
rise to definite agreements between the two parties. In such
cases the arbitration shall be limited exclusively to
questions of validity, interpretation, or fulfillment of these
agreements.
"Article 3.
The high contracting parties designate as arbitrator the
Government of His Britannic Majesty or, in the event of either
of the powers having broken off relations with the British
Government, the Swiss Government. Within sixty days from the
exchange of ratifications the British Government and the Swiss
Government shall be asked to accept the charge of arbitrators.
"Article 4.
The points of controversy, questions or divergencies shall be
specified by the high contracting parties, who may determine
the powers of the arbitrator or any other circumstance
connected with the procedure.
"Article 5.
In the case of divergence of opinion, either party may solicit
the intervention of the arbitrator, who will determine the
circumstances of procedure, the contracting parties placing
every means of information at the service of the arbitrator.
"Article 6.
Either party is at liberty to name one or more commissioners
near the arbitrator.
"Article 7.
The arbitrator is qualified to decide upon the validity of the
obligation and its interpretation, as well as upon questions
as to what difficulties come within the sphere of the
arbitration.
"Article 8.
The arbitrator shall decide in accordance with international
law, unless the obligation involves the application of special
rules or he have been authorized to act as friendly mediator.
"Article 9.
The award shall definitely decide each point of controversy.
"Article. 10.
The award shall be drawn up in two copies.
"Article 11.
The award legally delivered shall decide within the limits of
its scope the question between the two parties.
"Article 12.
The arbitrator shall specify in his award the term within
which the award shall be carried out, and he is competent to
deal with any question arising as to the fulfillment.
"Article 13.
There can be no appeal from the award, and its fulfillment is
intrusted to the honor of the signatory powers. Nevertheless,
the recourse of revision is admitted under the following
circumstances:
1. If the award be given on the strength of a false
document;
2. If the award be the result, either partially or totally,
of an error of fact.
"Article. 14.
The contracting parties shall pay their own expenses and each
a half of the expenses of the arbitration.
"Article 15.
The present agreement shall last for ten years from the date
of the exchange of the ratifications, and shall be renewed for
another term of ten years, unless either party shall give
notice to the contrary six months before expiry."
Papers relating to the Foreign Relations
of the United States, 1902, pages 13-20.
In their convention on naval armaments the two governments
"renounced the acquisition of the war vessels they have in
construction and the making for the present of any new
acquisitions," agreeing to reduce their fleets to "a prudent
equilibrium."
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1902.
Ten South and Central American Nations join in Protocol
of Convention for Compulsory Arbitration.
"Ten of the nineteen nations represented at the City of Mexico
[Second Pan-American Conference, 1902] united in the project
of a treaty, to be ratified by their respective governments,
providing for compulsory arbitration of all controversies
which, in the judgment of any of the interested nations, do
not affect either their independence or national honor; and it
is prescribed that in independence and national honor are not
included controversies concerning diplomatic privileges,
limits, rights of navigation, or the validity, interpretation,
and fulfillment of treaties. Mexico became a party to this
project, but the United States declined; thus showing an
entire change of attitude on the part of these two nations
since the Washington conference of 1890. Mexico had in the
meantime adjusted its boundary dispute with Guatemala. But
since Mr. Blaine’s ardent advocacy of compulsory arbitration
the Senate of the United States had manifested its opposition
to the policy by the rejection of the Olney-Pauncefote
arbitration treaty of 1897, and it is to be inferred that the
Secretary of State did not think it wise to commit our
government to a measure which had been disapproved of by the
coordinate branch of the treaty-making power."
J. W. Foster,
Pan-American Diplomacy
(Atlantic Monthly, April, 1902).
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1902.
Central America.
Treaty of Compulsory Arbitration between Nicaragua, Salvador,
Honduras, Costa Rica, and Guatemala.
A treaty of compulsory arbitration and obligatory peace,
between four of the States above named, in fulfillment of the
agreement at Mexico was signed at Corinto on the 20th of
January, 1902.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS: SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
Its essential provisions were the following:
"The Governments of Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras, and Costa
Rica, desirous of contributing by all the means in their power
to the maintenance of the peace and good harmony that exists
and should exist among them, have agreed to celebrate a
convention of peace and obligatory arbitration, and to that
effect have named as their respective plenipotentiaries: …
Who, after having presented their credentials and the same
being found in good and due form, have agreed upon the
following covenant:
"Article 1.
It is declared that the present convention has for object the
incorporation in form of public treaty the conclusions to
which have arrived their excellencies, the Presidents, General
Don J. Santos Zelaya, General Don Tomas Regalado, General Don
Terencio Sierra, and Don Rafael Iglesias, in the several
conferences that have been held in this port with the sole
object of maintaining and assuring, by all possible means, the
peace of Central America.
"Article 2.
The contracting Governments establish the principle of
obligatory arbitration, in order to adjust every difficulty or
question that might present itself between the contracting
parties, binding themselves in consequence to submit them to a
tribunal of Central American arbitrators.
{714}
"Article 3.
Each one of the contracting parties shall name an arbitrator
and a substitute to constitute the tribunal. The terms of the
arbitrators shall be for one year, counting from their
acceptance, and then they may be reelected.
"Article 4.
The arbitrators of those states among whom exists the
disagreement shall not form part of the tribunal for the
consideration of the concrete case, this remaining entirely
with the arbitrator or arbitrators of the remaining states.
"Article 5.
If, through pairing, there should be no decision, the tribunal
shall select a third among the substitutes. The third should
necessarily adhere to one of the views given out.
"Article 6.
As soon as a difficulty or question presents itself between
two or more states, their respective Governments shall advise
the remaining signers of the present convention.
"Article 7.
The contracting Governments establish and recognize the right
of each one of them to offer without delay, singly or
conjointly, their good offices to the Governments of the
states that are in disagreement, even without previous
acceptation by them, and though they should not have notified
them of the difficulty or question pending.
"Article 8.
The friendly offices exhausted without satisfactory result,
the government or governments that would have exercised them
shall notify the others, declaring at the proper time
arbitration proceedings. This declaration shall be
communicated with the greatest possible brevity to the member
of the tribunal corresponding to the president of same, with
the object that within a period not exceeding fifteen days the
tribunal that is to know and decide the case comes together.
The installation of the tribunal shall be communicated by
telegraph to the signing governments, demanding from the
contending parties the presentation of their claims within the
fifteen days following.
"Article 9.
The tribunal shall give its judgment within five days
following the expiration of the term which has been spoken of.
"Article 10.
The difficulties that may arise through questions of pending
limits, or through interpretation, or execution of treaties of
limits, shall be submitted by the governments interested to
the knowledge and decision of a foreign arbitrator of American
nationality
"Article 11.
The Governments of the states in dispute solemnly agree not to
execute any hostile act, warlike preparations, or mobilization
of forces, with the object of not impeding the arrangement of
the difficulty or question through the means established by
the present agreement."
On the 1st of March following the signing of this peace treaty
by the four Presidents named above, the United States Minister
to Costa Rica, Mr. William Lawrence Merry, reported to his
Government that the President of Guatemala had added his
signature to theirs.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1903.
Gift of a Court House and Library for the Permanent Court
of Arbitration at The Hague.
By a deed signed October 7, 1903, Mr. Andrew Carnegie created
a foundation or trust under the Netherland law (a
Stichting in the Dutch language), "for the purpose of
building, establishing, and maintaining in perpetuity at The
Hague a court-house and library (temple of peace) for the
permanent court of arbitration established by the treaty of
July 29, 1899." As stated in the deed, "the Netherland
Government, according to agreement, will see to the
appointment of a board of directors under proper control, and
draw up the rules according to which the ‘Stichting’ shall be
governed, so as to ensure in perpetuity its maintenance and
efficiency. The words maintaining, maintenance, in this
agreement are not to be construed as relieving the signatory
powers to the treaty of July 29, 1899, from the financial
obligations incurred and so far discharged in connection with
the permanent court of arbitration. If at any time the purpose
for which the 'Stichting' was founded should fail, the assets
of the ‘Stichting’ shall be employed for promoting the cause
of international peace and concord in such a manner as shall
be determined jointly by the sovereign of the Netherlands and
the President of the United States."
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904.
International Peace Congresses.
The Thirteenth at Boston.
The First International Peace Congress was held in London in
1843, when men who could think of the possibility of ending
war were jeered at, and little heed was given to their talk.
In the next ten years it had six successors, all in Europe,
and three of them in Great Britain. Then came the succession
of wars in the fifties, sixties and seventies, which seemed to
discourage peace-dreams, and it was not until 1878, on the
occasion of the Paris Exposition, that an eighth international
gathering of the dreamers was attempted. Then they waited
eleven years for hope and faith enough to draw them for a
ninth time together. After that date the series ran on under
growing impulsions and encouragements, and when Boston, in
1904, invited its moving spirits to honor America, for the
first time, with their assemblage, the Congress gathered in
that city, in early October, was the Thirteenth of its name
and kind. It was given exceptional brilliancy by the
attendance of many distinguished people from abroad who had
been drawn to the United States that season by the Exposition
at St. Louis and the various conferences there.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904.
A Philosopher’s Plan for Ending War.
"Man lives inhabits, indeed, but what he lives for is thrills
and excitements. The only relief from Habit’s tediousness is
periodical excitement. From time immemorial wars have been,
especially for non-combatants, the supremely thrilling
excitement. Heavy and dragging at its end, at its outset every
war means an explosion of imaginative energy. The dams of
routine burst, and boundless prospects open. The remotest
spectators share the fascination. …
"This is the constitution of human nature which we have to
work against. The plain truth is that people want war.
They want it anyhow; for itself; and apart from each and every
possible consequence. It is the final bouquet of life’s
fireworks. The born soldiers want it hot and actual. The
non-combatants want it in the background, and always as an
open possibility, to feed imagination on and keep excitement
going. …
{715}
"We do ill, I fancy, to talk much of universal peace or of a
general disarmament. We must go in for preventive medicine,
not for radical cure. We must cheat our foe, politically
circumvent his action, not try to change his nature. In one
respect war is like love, though in no other. Both leave us
intervals of rest; and in the intervals life goes on perfectly
well without them, though the imagination still dallies with
their possibility. … Let the general possibility of war be
left open, in Heaven’s name, for the imagination to dally
with. Let the soldiers dream of killing, as the old maids
dream of marrying. But organize in every conceivable way the
practical machinery for making each successive chance of war
abortive. Put peace-men in power; educate the editors and
statesmen to responsibility;—how beautifully did their trained
responsibility in England make the Venezuela incident
abortive! Seize every pretext, however small, for arbitration
methods, and multiply the precedents; foster rival excitements
and invent new outlets for heroic energy; and from one
generation to another, the chances are that irritations will
grow less acute and states of strain less dangerous among the
nations. Armies and navies will continue, of course, and will
fire the minds of populations with their potentialities of
greatness. But their officers will find that somehow or other,
with no deliberate intention on any one’s part, each
successive ‘incident’ has managed to evaporate and to lead
nowhere, and that the thought of what might have been remains
their only consolation."
William James,
Remarks at the Peace Banquet
(Atlantic Monthly, December, 1904).
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904-1909.
The Interparliamentary Union.
The Interparliamentary Union, composed of members of the
parliamentary bodies of many countries, had its origin in
1888, when, on the 31st of October, thirty members of the
French Chamber of Deputies met with ten members of the British
Parliament, at Paris, to discuss the practicability of
cooperation in efforts for the promotion of international
peace. William Randal Cremer, a labor union member of
Parliament, is credited with the conception and the active
agency which set the movement on foot, and in 1903 he received
the Nobel Prize of $35,000, for distinguished service to the
cause of peace. He devoted the money to the same cause. He
received further honors from the Government of France, which
made him a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor. The results of
the undertaking he led have already acquired high importance,
and exhibit more each year. If the glorious dream of a World
Parliament, empowered to enact international law, is ever
realized, the realization may be a growth from this seed.
Thus far, the growth has produced an Interparliamentary Union
composed of representatives from the legislatures of every
country in Europe which has a really constitutional
government, and from the United States. The Congress of the
latter became represented in the Union in the winter of 1904,
and the next meeting of the Union was held at St. Louis that
year, while the Louisiana Purchase Exposition was in progress.
The membership of the Union had then risen to about 2000 in
number, drawn entirely from the national law-making bodies of
the world,—elected representatives of many millions of people,
making up a powerfully influential combination of experienced
public men. The St. Louis meeting was attended by two hundred
of these, including many of distinguished standing in the
parliaments of their several countries. This session of the
Union was under the presidency of the Honorable Richard
Bartholdt, Member of Congress from Missouri. Its most
important action was the adoption, by unanimous vote, of the
following resolution:
"Whereas, Enlightened public opinion and the spirit of
modern civilization alike demand that differences between
nations should be adjudicated and settled in the same manner
as disputes between individuals are adjudicated—namely, by
the arbitrament of courts in accordance with recognized
principles of law;
"The Conference requests the several governments of the world
to send representatives to an International Conference, to be
held at a time and place to be agreed upon by them, for the
purpose of considering—
"First, the questions for the consideration of which the
Conference at The Hague expressed a wish that a future
conference be called;
"Second, the negotiation of arbitration treaties between the
nations represented at the Conference to be convened;
"Third, the advisability of establishing an International
Congress to convene periodically for the discussion of
international questions;
"And this Conference respectfully and cordially requests the
President of the United States to invite all the nations to
send representatives to such a Conference."
Subsequently, this resolution was presented to the President,
at Washington, by the members of the Union, and his assent to
the request was received. Out of this came the train of
proceedings which brought about the Second Peace Conference at
The Hague.
In 1905 the meeting of the Interparliamentary Union was held
at Brussels; in 1906 at London; in 1908 at Berlin.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
The First National Peace Congress in the United States,
assembled at New York.
The Peace Congress assembled at New York April 14, 1907, (the
first National assembly of its character), on the initiative
of Andrew Carnegie, "surpassed expectation. First of all, in
numbers. Delegates registered by the thousand. The best hall
in the metropolis proved inadequate. Overflow and additional
meetings were held in other halls and in churches. For the
first time in the history of great conferences, two banquets
were necessary at the close, taking place coincidentally, with
some of the same speakers passing from one to the other, no
hotel accommodations being sufficient for the function if all
applicants were to be housed in one place. Even with this
doubling the issuance of tickets had to be stopped.
"Secondly, the Congress was the first really National peace
meeting in America. In comparison, previous peace congresses
have been sectional. But at last week’s over thirty-five
States were represented by their Governors or their
representatives, by members of State tribunals and State
Legislatures, and by Mayors of important cities. The Federal
Government was represented by members of the Hague Court, of
the Supreme, Circuit, and District Courts, and of Congress.
Thus the resultant body was a peculiarly representative
official gathering. …
{716}
"Still another striking feature of the Congress lay in the
prominent place given to the representatives of labor and
commerce, a feature comprised in two meetings, addressed by
prominent leaders of the various industries. The general
position was well taken by Mr. Samuel Gompers, President of
the American Federation of Labor: ‘Not as workers will we
permit ourselves to be shot down in order to conquer the
markets of barbarians and savages. I know of no gathering of
labor in the last twenty-five years which has not declared
itself unequivocally for international brotherhood and
peace.’"
"A final and chief feature of interest lay in the notably
practical character of the vast majority of speakers and
listeners. The Congress was no ‘collection of cranks and
fools,’ as a hard-headed man of affairs dubbed it in passing
the hall, without looking in to verify his statement. Neither
was it a collection of white-blooded, weak-kneed theorists,
feebly appreciating the actual conditions that govern
individual passions and national prejudices. As one glanced
around, there were the faces of great captains of industry, of
practical leaders of labor, of men who bulk large in
commercial enterprises, of trusted political leaders. Nor was
the Congress any mere anti-war affair: its business was
positive, not negative; it was to affirm the necessity of
substituting reason for passion. There was a general sentiment
that it ought to emphasize, not ‘rainbows’ or distant Utopias,
but only practical plans certain of realization, and of
realization, too, not in the far future, but in this very
coming summer by action at The Hague."
The Outlook,
April 27, 1907.
Among the prominent speakers were Mr. Carnegie, who presided,
Mr. Root, Secretary of State, Governor Hughes, of New York,
Ambassador Bryce, Mr. William J. Bryan, Congressman Bartholdt,
President of the American group in the Inter-parliamentary
Union, Professor Münsterberg, President Eliot, Baron
d’Estournelles, the eminent peace advocate of France, and Mr.
W. T. Stead. Mr. Root pointed out the great obstacle to
arbitration—a fear that the tribunals selected would not be
impartial, because arbitrators are thought often to act
diplomatically rather than judicially. "We need," he said,
"for arbitrators, not distinguished public men concerned in
all the international questions of the day, but judges
interested only in the question appearing on the record before
them. Plainly, this end is to be attained by the establishment
of a court of permanent judges."
Mr. Bryan made the excellent suggestion that in time of war
money-lenders shall not be allowed to wax fat by loans, taking
advantage of a nation’s weakness and urging it to continue
hostilities. A loan by the citizens of a neutral nation, he
pointed out, is practically a loan by the nation itself, and
should be objected to as much as furnishing shot and shell.
Mr. Stead, writing of the Congress in the American Review
of Reviews, characterized it as "in many respects the most
notable Congress of its kind that has ever been held in the
Old World or the New," and as being "the pioneer or John the
Baptist of the Second International Conference" soon to meet
at The Hague. "It represented," he said, "the first
rudimentary, crude, but nevertheless definite effort on the
part of the New World to impress its will on the Old World."
But he thought the resolutions of the Congress, "as a whole,
were hardly worthy of the importance of the occasion or the
representative character of the conference," and criticised
the committee for taking "no steps for pressing their adoption
upon other governments than their own."
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
Second International Peace Conference at The Hague:
Its Conventions, Declarations, and Recommendations.
Text of the Convention for a Pacific Settlement of
International Disputes, and of the "Final Act," with its
recommended Draft Convention for the Creation of a Judicial
Arbitration Court.
"Pursuant to a request of the Interparliamentary Union, held
at St. Louis in 1904, that a further peace conference be held,
and that the President of the United States invite all nations
to send representatives to such a conference, the late
Secretary of State, at the direction of the President,
instructed, on October 21, 1904, the representatives of the
United States accredited to each of the signatories to the
acts of The Hague Conference of 1889 to present overtures for
a second conference to the ministers for foreign affairs of
the respective countries.
"The replies received to this circular instruction of October
21, 1904, indicated that the proposition for the calling of a
second conference met with general favor. At a later period it
was intimated by Russia that the initiator of the First
Conference was, owing to the restoration of peace in the
Orient, disposed to undertake the calling of a new conference
to continue as well as to supplement the works of the first.
The offer of the Czar to take steps requisite to convene a
second international peace conference was gladly welcomed by
the President, and the Final Act of the Conference only
recites in its preamble the invitation of the President.
"The Russian Government thus assumed the calling of the
Conference, and on April 12, 1906, submitted the following
programme, which was acceptable to the Powers generally and
which served as the basis of the work of the Conference:
"1. Improvements to be made in the provisions of the
convention relative to the peaceful settlement of
international disputes as regards the Court of Arbitration and
the International commissions of inquiry.
"2. Additions to be made to the provisions of the convention
of 1899 relative to the laws and customs of war on land—among
others, those concerning the opening of hostilities, the
rights of neutrals on land, etc. Declaration of 1899. One of
these having expired, question of its being revived.
"3. Framing of a convention relative to the laws and customs
of maritime warfare, concerning—
"The special operations of maritime warfare, such as the
bombardment of ports, cities, and villages by a naval force;
the laying of torpedoes, etc.
"The transformation of merchant vessels into war ships.
"The private property of belligerents at sea.
"The length of time to be granted to merchant ships for their
departure from ports of neutrals or of the enemy after the
opening of hostilities.
{717}
"The rights and duties of neutrals at sea, among others the
questions of contraband, the rules applicable to belligerent
vessels in neutral ports; destruction, in cases of vis
major, of neutral merchant vessels captured as prizes.
"In the said convention to be drafted there would be
introduced the provisions relative to war on land that would
be also applicable to maritime warfare.
"4. Additions to be made to the convention of 1899 for the
adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva
Convention of 1864.
"The United States, however, reserved the right to bring to
discussion two matters of great importance not included in the
programme, namely, the reduction or limitation of armaments
and restrictions or limitations upon the use of force for the
collection of ordinary public debts arising out of contracts.
"It was finally decided that the Conference should meet at The
Hague on the 15th day of June, 1907, and thus the Conference,
proposed by the President of the United States, and convoked
by Her Majesty the Queen of The Netherlands upon the
invitation of the Emperor of All the Russias, assumed definite
shape and form. …
"In the circulars of October 21 and December 16, 1904, it was
suggested as desirable to consider and adopt a procedure by
which States nonsignatory to the original acts of The Hague
Conference may become adhering parties. This suggestion was
taken note of by the Russian Government and invitations were
issued to forty-seven countries, in response to which the
representatives of forty-four nations assembled at The Hague
and took part in the Conference. No opposition was made to the
admission of the nonsignatory States."
The delegation of the United States to the Conference was
composed of the following members: Commissioners
plenipotentiary with the rank of ambassador extraordinary:
Joseph H. Choate, of New York, Horace Porter, of New York,
Uriah M. Rose, of Arkansas; Commissioner plenipotentiary:
David Jayne Hill, of New York, envoy extraordinary and
minister plenipotentiary of the United States to the
Netherlands; Commissioners Plenipotentiary with rank of
minister plenipotentiary: Brigadier General George B. Davis,
Judge-Advocate-General, United States Army, Rear-Admiral
Charles S. Sperry, United States Navy, William I. Buchanan, of
New York; Technical delegate and expert in international law:
James Brown Scott, of California; Technical delegate and
expert attache to the Commission: Charles Henry Butler, of New
York; Secretary to the Commission: Chandler Hale, of Maine;
Assistant secretaries to the Commission: A. Bailly-Blanchard,
of Louisiana, William M. Malloy, of Illinois.
"The Dutch Government set aside for the use of the Conference,
the Binnenhof, the seat of the States-General, and on the 15th
day of June, 1907, at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, the
Conference was opened by his excellency the Dutch minister for
foreign affairs in the presence of delegates representing
forty-four nations. … At the conclusion of the address of
welcome his excellency suggested as president of the
Conference His Excellency M. Nelidow, first delegate of
Russia, and, with the unanimous consent of the assembly, M.
Nelidow accepted the presidency and delivered an address." …
In accordance with the suggestion of the president, an order
of procedure, in twelve articles, was adopted, and the
Conference was divided into four Commissions, between which
the subjects specified in the programme of the Conference were
apportioned. "The actual work of the Conference was,
therefore, done in commission and committee. The results, so
far as the several commissions desired, were reported to the
Conference sitting in plenary session for approval, and after
approval, submitted to the small subediting committee for
final revision which, however, affected form, not substance.
The results thus reached were included in the Final Act and
signed by the plenipotentiaries on the 18th day of October,
1907, upon which date the Conference adjourned."
Report of the Delegates of the United States
(60th Congress, 1st Session Senate Doc. 444).
The results of the Conference are embodied in fourteen
Conventions duly formulated and signed, and a "Final Act" in
which certain principles are declared as being "unanimously
admitted." Of the Conventions entered into, that most
important one which provides means for a pacific solution of
international conflicts is but a revision of the Convention
for the same purpose which the Powers represented at the First
Peace Conference, of 1899, gave adhesion to, and the full text
of which is printed in Volume VI. of this work (pages
356-359). To a large extent the articles of the Convention are
unchanged, and the changes made are mostly in the nature of an
amplification of provisions and prescriptions of procedure for
carrying out the agreements set forth in the compact of 1899.
This occurs especially in Part III., relating to
"International Commissions of Inquiry," the specifications for
which, merely outlined in six articles of the Convention of
1899, were detailed with precision in twenty-eight articles of
the Convention of 1907. A similar amplification was given to
the chapters on "The System of Arbitration" and "Arbitral
Procedure." By a verbal change of some significance, the
parties to the Convention are designated "Contracting Powers,"
instead of "Signatory Powers," as before.
Other important features of the revision are noted in an
article which the Honorable David Jayne Hill, one of the
American Commission at the Conference, communicated to The
American Review of Reviews of December, 1907. Dr. Hill
wrote:
"With regard to good offices and mediation, a slight step
forward was taken by the acceptance of the American
proposition that the initiative of powers foreign to the
controversy in offering them is not only ‘useful’ but
‘desirable.’ Greater precision has been given to the operation
of commissions of inquiry, whose great utility has already been
tested, but it was decided that the functions of such
commissions should be confined to a determination of facts and
should not extend to fixing responsibility. As regards
arbitration, while it was reasserted that ‘in questions of a
legal character, and especially in the interpretation or
application of international conventions, arbitration is
recognized by the contracting powers as the most efficacious
and at the same time the most equitable means of settling
differences that have not been adjusted by diplomacy,’ and,
‘in consequence, it would be desirable that, in contentions of
this character, the powers should resort to arbitration,’ it
was not found possible to render this resort an obligation.
{718}
"It is necessary to state, however, that while unanimity upon
this proposal was not obtainable—even for a convention that
omitted all questions affecting ‘the vital interests,
independence, or honor’ of the contestants and included only a
meagre list of mainly unimportant subjects—32 powers voted in
favor of it, only 9 were opposed, and 3 abstained from voting.
As practical unanimity was held to be necessary for the
inclusion of a convention in the final act, even this very
moderate attempt at obligatory arbitration was unfruitful.
Still, as this strong manifestation of a disposition to make a
definite engagement could not conveniently be nullified
without being in some measure recognized, it was resolved,
with four abstentions, that the first commission was:
‘Unanimous (1) in recognizing the principle of obligatory
arbitration; and (2) in declaring that certain differences,
notably those relative to the interpretation and application
of conventional stipulations, are susceptible of being
submitted to obligatory arbitration without restriction.’
"Regarding this resolution as a retreat from the more advanced
position that had been taken by 32 powers, the head of the
American delegation clearly explained its attitude and
refrained from voting.
"It must, in justice, he added that some of the powers voting
against an obligatory arbitration convention probably did so
chiefly for the purpose of avoiding the isolation of others,
and that some of the powers most earnest in opposing the
project not only have negotiated special treaties of
obligatory arbitration, but declare their intention of
negotiating many more. The state of the question, then, is
this: All accept the principle of obligatory arbitration in
certain classes of cases, 32 powers are prepared to make
definite engagements with all the rest, 9 prefer to make them
only with states on whose responsibility they can rely, and 3
decline at present to commit themselves."
On the part of the United States, when this important
Convention was submitted subsequently to the Senate, it was
ratified conditionally, by the following resolution, adopted
April 2, 1908.
"Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of a convention signed by the delegates of the
United States to the Second International Peace Conference,
held at The Hague from June sixteenth to October eighteenth,
nineteen hundred and seven, for the pacific settlement of
international disputes, subject to the declaration made by the
delegates of the United States before signing said convention,
namely:
"‘Nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed
as to require the United States of America to depart from its
traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or
entangling itself in the political questions of policy or
internal administration of any foreign state; nor shall
anything contained in the said convention be construed to
imply a relinquishment by the United States of its traditional
attitude toward purely American questions.’
"Resolved further, as a part of this act of
ratification, That the United States approves this
convention with the understanding that recourse to the
permanent court for the settlement of differences can be had
only by agreement thereto through general or special treaties
of arbitration heretofore or hereafter concluded between the
parties in dispute; and the United States now exercises the
option contained in article fifty-three of said convention, to
exclude the formulation of the ‘compromis’ by the permanent
court, and hereby excludes from the competence of the
permanent court the power to frame the ‘compromis’ required by
general or special treaties of arbitration concluded or
hereafter to be concluded by the United States, and further
expressly declares that the ‘compromis’ required by any treaty
of arbitration to which the United States may be a party shall
be settled only by agreement between the contracting parties,
unless such treaty shall expressly provide otherwise."
Of the other Conventions agreed to and signed at the
Conference it will be sufficient to give here in part a
summary statement of their objects and provisions which was
prepared by the Honorable James Brown Scott, one of the
Technical Delegates to the Conference from the United States,
originally for publication in The American Journal of
International Law for January, 1908. They are described by
Mr. Scott as follows:
"The second is the convention restricting the use of force for
the recovery of contract debts. This was introduced by the
American delegation, loyally and devotedly seconded by Doctor
Drago, who has battled for the doctrine to which he has given
his name. Without the support of Doctor Drago, it is doubtful
if Latin America—for whose benefit it was introduced—would
have voted for this very important doctrine. The proposition
is very short; it consists of but three articles, but we must
not measure things by their size. In full it is as follows;
‘In order to avoid between nations armed conflicts of a purely
pecuniary origin arising from contractual debts claimed from
the government of one country by the government of another
country to be due to its nationals, the contracting powers
agree not to have recourse to armed force for the collection
of such contractual debts.
"‘However, this stipulation shall not be applicable when the
debtor state refuses or leaves unanswered an offer to
arbitrate, or, in case of acceptance, makes it impossible to
formulate the terms of submission, or after arbitration, fails
to comply with the award rendered.
"‘It is further agreed that arbitration here contemplated
shall be in conformity, as to procedure, with Title IV,
Chapter III of the convention for the pacific settlement of
international disputes adopted at The Hague, and that it shall
determine, in so far as there shall be no agreement between
the parties, the justice, and the amount of the debt, the time
and mode of payment thereof.’ …
{719}
"The third convention relates to the opening of hostilities
and provides, in Article I, that the contracting powers
recognize that hostilities between them should not commence
without notice, which shall be either in the form of a formal
declaration of war or of an ultimatum in the nature of a
declaration of conditional war. This is to protect
belligerents from surprise and bad faith. Article 11 is meant
to safeguard the rights of neutrals. The state of war should
be notified without delay to neutral powers, and shall only
affect them after the receipt of a notification, which may be
sent even by telegram.’ …
"The fourth convention concerns the laws and customs of land
warfare, [and is] a revision of the convention of 1899. It is
highly technical and codifies in a humanitarian spirit the
warfare of the present.
"The fifth convention attempts to regulate the rights and
duties of neutral powers and of neutral persons in case of
land warfare. Short, but important, its guiding spirit is
expressed in the opening paragraph of the preamble, namely, to
render more certain the rights and duties of neutral powers in
case of warfare upon land and to regulate the situation of
belligerent refugees in neutral territory. …
"The sixth is the convention concerning enemy merchant ships
found in enemy ports or upon the high seas at the outbreak of
hostilities. Custom forbids the capture of enemy vessels
within the port of the enemy on the outbreak of hostilities
and allows them a limited time to discharge or load their
cargo and depart for their port of destination. The attempt
was made to establish this custom or privilege as a right. The
proposition, however, met with serious opposition and, instead
of the right, the convention states that it is desirable that
enemy ships be permitted freely to leave the port. The
convention, therefore, was restrictive rather than declaratory
of existing international practice. The same might be said of
another provision of the convention concerning the treatment
of enemy merchant ships upon the high seas. It may be said
that the expression of a desire is tantamount to a positive
declaration, but, strictly construed, the convention is not
progressive. It lessens rights acquired by custom and usage,
although it does, indeed, render the privilege granted
universal. The American delegation, therefore, refrained from
signing the convention.
"The seventh convention deals with the transformation of
merchant ships into ships of war, and it must be said that the
positive results of this convention are of little or no
practical value. The burning question was whether merchant
ships might be transformed into men-of-war upon the high seas.
As the transformation of merchant vessels into war vessels
upon the high seas caused an international commotion during
the recent Russo-Japanese war. Great Britain and the United
States insisted that the transfer should only be allowed
within the territorial jurisdiction of the transforming power.
Some of the continental states, on the contrary, refused to
renounce the exercise of the alleged right. The great maritime
states were thus divided, and as the question was too simple
and too plain to admit of compromise, it was agreed to drop it
entirely for the present. In order, however, that something
might remain of the careful and elaborate discussions of the
subject, a series of regulations was drawn up regarding the
transformation of merchant ships into vessels of war,
declaratory of international custom. … Indirectly, the
rightfulness or wrongfulness of privateering was concerned,
and inasmuch as the United States would not consent to abolish
privateering unless the immunity of private property be
safeguarded, the American delegation abstained from signing
the convention.
"The eighth convention relates to the placing of submarine
automatic mines of contact, a subject of present and special
interest to belligerents; while the interest of the neutral is
very general. … Mines break from their moorings and endanger
neutral life and property. The conference, therefore, desires
to regulate the use of mines in such a way as not to deprive
the belligerents of a recognized and legitimate means of
warfare, but to restrict, as far as possible, the damage to
the immediate belligerents. …
"The ninth convention forbade the bombardment by naval forces
of undefended harbors, villages, towns, or buildings. The
presence, however, of military stores would permit bombardment
of such ports for the sole purpose of destroying the stores,
provided they were not destroyed or delivered up upon request.
Notice, however, should be given of the intention to bombard.
In like manner, the convention permitted the bombardment of
such undefended places if provisions were not supplied upon
requisition to the naval force. Bombardment, however, was not
allowed for the collection of mere money contributions. …
"The tenth convention adapted to maritime warfare the
principles of the Geneva Convention of 1906. …
"The eleventh convention relates to certain restrictions in
the exercise of the right of capture in maritime war. It is a
modest document, but is all that was saved from the wreck of
the immunity of private property. The American delegation
urged the abolition of the right of capture of unoffending
enemy private property upon the high seas, but great maritime
powers such as Great Britain, France, Russia, and Japan were
unwilling to relinquish this means of bringing the enemy to
terms. …
"The twelfth convention sought to establish an international
court of prize, and there only remains the ratification of
this convention by the contracting powers in order to call
into being this great and beneficent institution. For years
enlightened opinion has protested against the right of
belligerents to pass final judgment upon the lawfulness of the
capture of neutral property, and it is a pleasure to be able
to state that the interests of the neutrals in the neutral
prize are henceforward to be placed in the hands of neutral
judges with a representation of the belligerents, in order
that the rights of all concerned may be carefully weighed and
considered. …
{720}
"The thirteenth convention concerns and seeks to regulate the
rights and duties of neutral powers in case of maritime war.
This is an elaborate codification of the rights and duties of
neutrals in which the conference essayed to generalize and
define on the one hand the rights of neutrals and the
correlative duties of the belligerents, and in the second
place to set forth in detail the duties of neutrals, thus
safeguarding the rights of belligerents in certain phases of
maritime warfare. … The result, however, was unsatisfactory to
some of the larger maritime powers, which prefer their present
regulations on the subject of neutrality or which were
unwilling to accept the modifications proposed. The United
States was not satisfied with certain provisions of the
convention, and reserved the right to study the project in
detail before expressing a final opinion. It therefore
abstained from voting and signing.
"The fourteenth convention is a reenactment of the declaration
of 1899 forbidding the launching of projectiles and explosives
from balloons. The original declaration was agreed to for a
period of five years, and as this period had expired the
powers were without a regulation on the subject. The
reenactment provided that the present declaration shall
extend, not merely for a period of five years, but to the end
of the Third Conference of Peace."
Reprinted in
Senate Document Number 433, 60th Congress, 1st Session.
Appended to these Conventions are the Resolutions or
Declarations of accepted Principles embodied in the "Final
Act"; and these are far from being the least important of the
fruits of the Conference. They need presentation in full.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST:
Final Act of the Second International Peace Conference.
"At a series of meetings, held from the 15th June to the 18th
October, 1907, in which the above Delegates [named in a
preamble] were throughout animated by the desire to realize,
in the fullest possible measure, the generous views of the
august initiator of the Conference and the intentions of their
Governments, the Conference drew up for submission for
signature by the Plenipotentiaries, the text of the
Conventions and of the Declaration enumerated below [named in
their order, as summarized above] and annexed to the present
Act:—
"These Conventions and Declaration shall form so many separate
Acts. These Acts shall be dated this day, and may be signed up
to the 30th June, 1908, at The Hague, by the Plenipotentiaries
of the Powers represented at the Second Peace Conference.
"The Conference, actuated by the spirit of mutual agreement
and concession characterizing its deliberations, has agreed
upon the following Declaration, which, while reserving to each
of the Powers represented full liberty of action as regards
voting, enables them to affirm the principles which they
regard as unanimously admitted;—
"It is unanimous—
"1. In admitting the principle of compulsory arbitration.
"2. In declaring that certain disputes, in particular those
relating to the interpretation and application of the
provisions of International Agreements, may be submitted to
compulsory arbitration without any restriction.
"Finally, it is unanimous in proclaiming that, although it has
not yet been found feasible to conclude a Convention in this
sense, nevertheless the divergences of opinion which have come
to light have not exceeded the bounds of judicial controversy,
and that, by working together here during the past four
months, the collected Powers not only have learnt to
understand one another and to draw closer together, but have
succeeded in the course of this long collaboration in evolving
a very lofty conception of the common welfare of humanity.
"The Conference has further unanimously adopted the following
Resolution:—
"The Second Peace Conference confirms the Resolution adopted
by the Conference of 1899 in regard to the limitation of
military expenditure; and inasmuch as military expenditure has
considerably increased in almost every country since that
time, the Conference declares that it is eminently desirable
that the Governments should resume the serious examination of
this question.
"It has besides expressed the following opinions:—
"1. The Conference calls the attention of the Signatory Powers
to the advisability of adopting the annexed draft Convention
for the creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court, and of
bringing it into force as soon as an agreement has been
reached respecting the selection of the Judges and the
constitution of the Court.
"2. The Conference expresses the opinion that, in case of war,
the responsible authorities, civil as well as military, should
make it their special duty to ensure and safeguard the
maintenance of specific relations, more especially of the
commercial and industrial relations between the inhabitants of
the belligerent States and neutral countries.
"3. The Conference expresses the opinion that the Powers
should regulate, by special Treaties, the position, as regards
military charges, of foreigners residing within their
territories.
"4. The Conference expresses the opinion that the preparation
of regulations relative to the laws and customs of naval war
should figure in the programme of the next Conference, and
that in any case the Powers may apply, as far as possible, to
war by sea the principles of the Convention relative to the
Laws and Customs of War on land.
"Finally, the Conference recommends to the Powers the assembly
of a Third Peace Conference, which might be held within a
period corresponding to that which has elapsed since the
preceding Conference, at a date to be fixed by common
agreement between the Powers, and it calls their attention to
the necessity of preparing the programme of this Third
Conference a sufficient time in advance to ensure its
deliberations being conducted with the necessary authority and
expedition.
"In order to attain this object the Conference considers that
it would be very desirable that, some two years before the
probable date of the meeting, a preparatory Committee should
be charged by the Governments with the task of collecting the
various proposals to be submitted to the Conference, of
ascertaining what subjects are ripe for embodiment in an
International Regulation, and of preparing a programme which
the Governments should decide upon in sufficient time to
enable it to be carefully examined by the countries
interested. This Committee should further be intrusted with
the task of proposing a system of organization and procedure
for the Conference itself.
"In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have signed the
present Act and have affixed their seals thereto."
{721}
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST:
Draft Convention recommended for the Creation of
a Judicial Arbitration Court.
The following are the more important provisions of the
"annexed draft Convention for the creation of a Judicial
Arbitration Court" which the Signatory Powers are asked, in
the first of the "Opinions" expressed above, to consider "the
advisability of adopting":
"Article I.
With a view to promoting the cause of arbitration, the
Contracting Powers agree to constitute, without altering the
status of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a Judicial
Arbitration Court, of free and easy access, composed of Judges
representing the various juridical systems of the world, and
capable of insuring continuity in jurisprudence of
arbitration.
"Article II.
The Judicial Arbitration Court is composed of Judges and
Deputy Judges chosen from persons of the highest moral
reputation, and all fulfilling conditions qualifying them, in
their respective countries, to occupy high legal posts, or be
jurists of recognized competence in matters of international
law. The Judges and Deputy Judges of the Court are appointed,
as far as possible, from the members of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration. The appointment shall be made within the six
months following the ratification of the present Convention.
"Article III.
The Judges and Deputy Judges are appointed for a period of
twelve years, counting from the date on which the appointment
is notified to the Administrative Council created by the
Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes. Their appointments can be renewed. Should a Judge or
Deputy Judge die or retire, the vacancy is filled in the
manner in which his appointment was made. In this case, the
appointment is made for a fresh period of twelve years.
"Article IV.
The Judges of the Judicial Arbitration Court are equal and
rank according to the date on which their appointment was
notified. The Judge who is senior in point of age takes
precedence when the date of notification is the same. The
Deputy Judges are assimilated, in the exercise of their
functions, with the Judges. They rank, however, below the
latter.
"Article V.
The Judges enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities in the
exercise of their functions, outside their own country. Before
taking their seat, the Judges and Deputy Judges must swear,
before the Administrative Council, or make a solemn
affirmation to exercise their functions impartially and
conscientiously.
"Article VI.
The Court annually nominates three Judges to form a special
delegation and three more to replace them should the necessity
arise. They may be re-elected. They are balloted for. The
persons who secure the largest number of votes are considered
elected. The delegation itself elects its President, who, in
default of a majority, is appointed by lot. A member of the
delegation cannot exercise his duties when the Power which
appointed him, or of which he is a national, is one of the
parties. The members of the delegation are to conclude all
matters submitted to them, even if the period for which they
have been appointed Judges has expired.
"Article VII.
A Judge may not exercise his judicial functions in any case in
which he has, in any way whatever, taken part in the decision
of a National Tribunal, of a Tribunal of Arbitration, or of a
Commission of Inquiry, or has figured in the suit as counsel
or advocate for one of the parties. A Judge cannot act as
agent or advocate before the Judicial Arbitration Court or the
Permanent Court of Arbitration, before a Special Tribunal of
Arbitration or a Commission of Inquiry, nor act for one of the
parties in any capacity whatsoever so long as his appointment
lasts. …
"Article X.
The Judges may not accept from their own Government or from
that of any other Power any remuneration for services
connected with their duties in their capacity of members of
the Court.
"Article XI.
The seat of the Judicial Court of Arbitration is at The Hague,
and cannot be transferred, unless absolutely obliged by
circumstances, elsewhere. …
"Article XII.
The Administrative Council fulfills with regard to the
Judicial Court of Arbitration the same functions as to the
Permanent Court of Arbitration.
"Article XIV.
The Court meets in session once a year. The session opens the
third Wednesday in June and lasts until all the business on
the agenda has been transacted. …
"Article XVII. The Judicial Court of Arbitration is competent
to deal with all cases submitted to it, in virtue either of a
general undertaking to have recourse to arbitration or of a
special agreement.
"Article XXXII.
The Court itself draws up its own rules of procedure, which
must be communicated to the Contracting Powers. After the
ratification of the present Convention the Court shall meet as
early as possible in order to elaborate these rules, elect the
President and Vice-President, and appoint the members of the
delegation.
"Article XXXIII.
The Court may propose modifications in the provisions of the
present Convention concerning procedure. These proposals are
communicated through the Netherland Government to the
Contracting Powers, which will consider together as to the
measures to be taken."
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST:
The sequent International Naval Conference
at London in 1908-1909.
The action of the Peace Conference which contemplated the
establishment of an International Prize Court (embodied in the
Twelfth Convention described above) had a sequel in the next
year, resulting from the suggestion by the British Government
that, preliminary to the creation of such a court, the prior
holding of an International Naval Conference was desirable,
for the purpose which it explained in the following words:
"Having regard to the importance attached by his Majesty’s
Government to the setting up of that Court, they decided to
take the initiative in inviting the co-operation of the Powers
whose belligerent rights would be most directly affected, in
formulating in precise terms a set of rules relative to the
law of prize, which should be recognized as embodying
doctrines held to be generally binding as part of the existing
law of nations." In connection with this suggestion a list of
questions was submitted to the several Governments consulted,
"on which his Majesty’s Government, after careful examination,
considered that an understanding should if possible be
reached, and which would therefore appropriately constitute
the programme of a special naval conference to meet in
London."
{722}
The questions were as follows:
"(a.)
Contraband, including the circumstances under which particular
articles can be considered as contraband; the penalties for
their carriage; the immunity of a ship from search when under
convoy; and the rules with regard to compensation where
vessels have been seized but have been found in fact only to
be carrying innocent cargo;
"(b.)
Blockade, including the questions as to the locality where
seizure can be effected, and the notice that is necessary
before a ship can be seized;
"(c.)
The doctrine of continuous voyage in respect both of
contraband and of blockade;
"(d.)
The legality of the destruction of neutral vessels prior to
their condemnation by a Prize Court;
"(e.)
The rules as to neutral ships or persons rendering ‘unneutral
service’ (‘assistance hostile’);
"(f.)
The legality of the conversion of a merchant-vessel into a
war-ship on the high seas;
"(g.)
The rules as to the transfer of merchant-vessels from a
belligerent to a neutral flag during or in contemplation of
hostilities;
"(h.)
The question whether the nationality or the domicile of the
owner should be adopted as the dominant factor in deciding
whether property is enemy property."
Responses to the British invitation by the greater naval
Powers were favorable, and the resulting International Naval
Conference had sittings in London from December 4, 1908, until
February 26, 1909. The Powers sending representatives to take
part in it were Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia,
Austria-Hungary, Italy, the United States, Japan, Spain,
Holland. A report of the proceedings and conclusions arrived
at was made public on the 22d of March. On two, only, of the
questions, proposed by Great Britain, no agreement was
reached, and these were left open,—namely; "the legality of
the conversion of a merchant-vessel into a war-ship on the
high seas, and the question whether the nationality or the
domicile of the owner should be regarded as the dominant
factor in deciding the character, neutral or enemy, of
property." Original differences on other questions were
compromised.
A serious difficulty in the undertakings of the Conference was
occasioned by the fact that the Constitution of the United
States is held to preclude any right of appeal from decisions
of its Supreme Court. What was done to overcome this
difficulty is explained in the report of the British Delegates
as follows: "The Conference was asked to express its
acceptance of the principle that, as regards countries in
which such constitutional difficulty arose, all proceedings in
the International Prize Court should be treated as a rehearing
of the case de novo, in the form of an action for
compensation, whereby the validity of the judgments of the
national courts would remain unaffected, whilst the duty of
carrying out a decision of the International Court ordering
the payment of compensation would fall upon the government
concerned. The proposal was further coupled with the
suggestion that the jurisdiction of the International Prize
Court might be extended, by agreement between two or more of
the signatory Powers, to cover cases at present excluded from
its jurisdiction by the express terms of the Prize Court
Convention, and that in the hearing of such cases that court
should have the functions, and follow the procedure, laid down
in the Draft Convention relative to the creation of a Judicial
Arbitration Court, which was annexed to the Final Act of the
Second Peace Conference of 1907.
"Great hesitation was felt in approaching these questions. It
was undeniable that they lay wholly outside the programme
which the Conference had been invited to discuss, and to which
the Powers accepting the invitation had expressly assented. It
was, however, not disputed that so much of the United States
proposal as related to the difficulties in the way of the
ratification of the Prize Court Convention was in so far
germane to the labours of the Conference, as these also were
avowedly directed to preparing the way for the more general
acceptance of the Prize Court Convention. As it must clearly
be desired by all countries interested in the establishment of
the International Prize Court that the United States should be
one of the Powers submitting to its jurisdiction and bound by
its decisions, the Conference thought it right,
notwithstanding its lack of formal authority, to go so far as
to express the wish (‘vœu’) which stands recorded in the final
Protocol of its proceedings, and of which the substance is
that the attention of the various Governments represented is
called by their delegates to the desirability of allowing such
countries as are precluded by the terms of their constitution
from ratifying the Prize Court Convention in its present form,
to do so with a reservation in the sense of the first part of
the United States proposal. On the other hand, the question of
setting up the Judicial Arbitration Court, which seemed to
have no necessary connexion with the Prize Court Convention,
was decided by all the delegations, except that which had
brought it forward, to be one which the Conference could not
discuss."
Parliamentary Papers, 1909:
Papers by Command, 4554. Also,
London Times, March 22, 1909.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST:
Central American Peace Conference at Washington.
General Treaty of Peace and Amity.
Convention establishing a Central American Court of Justice.
See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1907.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1908.
Waning of the Military Passion in France.
Two very striking indications of the cooling in the French
people of the militant passion which made them in former times
one of the most warlike of the European races have been
afforded within the past three years. The first appeared in
the winter of 1907, when a Paris newspaper of great
circulation collected votes from its readers on the question,
"Who was the Greatest Frenchman of the Nineteenth Century?"
Much interest in the query was excited, and more than
15,000,000 [votes] were said to have been cast.
{723}
From any prior generation the answer of a big majority would
undoubtedly have been, "Napoleon Bonaparte"; but the French of
the Twentieth Century have developed so different an estimate of
human greatness that Louis Pasteur, the Man of Science, led
the poll, receiving 1,838,103 votes; while Victor Hugo came
next below him, by somewhat more than a hundred thousand
votes, and Gambetta was put third in the list. Napoleon
received only the fourth place of honor in the estimate of
fifteen millions of the French of these days.
About a year later the same change was betokened in a hardly
less significant way, by a speech from the Prime Minister of
France. The occasion of the address was the inauguration of a
monument to M. Scheurer-Kestner, who had been vice-president
of the French Senate when the Dreyfus iniquities began to be
dragged out of darkness into light, and who was one of the few
men in public life then who strove heroically to have the
truth ascertained and justice done. Scheurer-Kestner was an
Alsatian, and this fact gave Premier Clemenceau an opportunity
to break silence on the sore subject of the loss of Alsace,
which French statesmen have not ventured to refer to since the
heart-breaking surrender of 1871. His breaking of that silence
was meant to break, and assuredly does break, the long
brooding of revengefulness in French hearts which has been a
menace to the peace of Europe for nearly 40 years.
"I do not fear," he said, "to call up the memory of that
bloody past. I am mindful of the responsibility which belongs
to my office, and I can speak without constraint of events
which have entered into history. I can proclaim feelings which
we cannot repudiate—which we cannot even hide without lowering
ourselves." And this is his open proclamation of the feeling
to which France has come, in its thought of Alsace:
"We received France issuing from frightful trial. To rebuild
her in her legitimate power of expansion as well as in her
dignity as a great moral person, we have no need either to
hate or to lie, nor even to recriminate. We look to the
future. Sons of a great history, jealously careful of the
lofty impulses native to us, in which the civilizing virtue of
France was fashioned, we can look in quiet of soul on the
descendants of strong races which for centuries have measured
themselves with the men of our lands in battlefields beyond
numbering. Two such great rival peoples, for the very honor of
their rivalry, have a like interest to keep their respect, the
one for the other."
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1909.
German Opposition to the "Navy Fever,"
in High Circles as well as Low.
Views of Herr Von Holstein and Admiral Galster.
How far the naval ambitions and costly naval policy of Germany
are supported by public opinion is much of a question. It is
certain that they are a cause of wide discontent in the
industrial classes, and no less certain that the weightiest
influence behind them is that of the Emperor, who stimulates
the exertions of a powerful Navy League. That there is an
effective disapproval of the policy in high political circles
has been shown lately by the publication of some expressions
on the subject by the late Herr von Holstein, who was for many
years the chief of the Political Department of the German
Foreign Office,—the mentor and prompter from behind the scenes
of several successive Chancellors of the Empire. In some
reminiscences of this important official, by an intimate
friend, Herr von Rath, who published them in September, 1909,
he is quoted as having, in 1907, denounced what he called
"navy fever" in Germany in these strong words;
"This dangerous disease is fed upon the fear of an attack by
England, which is not in accordance with facts. The effect
of the ‘navy fever’ is pernicious in three directions—in
domestic politics on account of the intrigues of the Navy
League, which also produce the greatest ill-feeling in South
Germany; in the finances on account of the prohibitive
expenditure; in foreign politics on account of the mistrust
which these armaments awake. England sees in them a menace
which keeps her bound to the side of France. At the same time,
even with taxation strained to the utmost limit, the
construction of a fleet able to cope with the united fleets of
England and France is entirely out of the question. From the
menace which everybody in England sees in German naval
construction the present Liberal Government in England will
not draw serious conclusions. It will be different when the
Conservatives come into power. The danger of war between
Germany on the one hand and England and France on the other is
even today playing a part in the political calculations of
other countries. Against armaments on land nobody will offer
any objection, because they are justified by the needs of
defence. In our naval armaments several Powers see a perpetual
menace.
"Even among Parliamentary Deputies there are many who condemn
the ‘navy fever,’ but no one of them will take the
responsibility of refusing to vote ships, a responsibility
which would recoil upon him in the event of a defeat at sea.
Anybody who to-day makes a stand against the prevailing ‘navy
fever’ is attacked from all sides as wanting in patriotism,
but a few years hence the justice of my opinion will be
established."
According to Herr von Rath, Herr von Holstein declared in
February, 1909, three months before his death, that the navy
question transcended all others in importance. He is said to
have watched with approval the campaign which is still more or
less vigorously carried on by Vice-Admiral Galster and others
against the "big ship policy," and to have said, with
reference to one of Admiral Galster’s pamphlets:—"The main
thing is to expose the lying and treacherous fallacy expressed
in the statement that every fresh ship is an addition to the
power of Germany—when every fresh ship causes England, to say
nothing of France, to build two ships."
The Vice-Admiral Galster here referred to contends that
submarines are more effective for defence than Dreadnoughts,
and he labors to persuade his fellow countrymen to be
satisfied with defensive armament, repudiating what creates
suspicion of offensive designs.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1908.
School Peace League, The American.
"The American School Peace League [organized in 1908] aims to
secure the cooperation of the educational public of America in
the project for promoting international justice and equity. …
It is hoped that every teacher in the country will subscribe
to the purposes of the League by becoming a member. Much of
the work will be done by committees, five of which have been
organized up to the present time. …
{724}
"The Committee on Meetings and Discussion aims to induce
educational associations throughout the country to place the
subject of internationalism on their programs. It also seeks
to stimulate literary and debating societies, in colleges and
schools, to study the subject. The Committee recommends to
educational associations the establishment of International
Committees, or Departments, for the purpose of making a
detailed study of the relation of the International Movement
to school instruction.
"The Committee on Publications intends to build up a body of
literature, dealing with the interrelation between peoples and
nations along political, industrial, and social lines. To this
end, the Committee purposes to issue, directly or indirectly,
a series of publications for the young, that may be used in
the geography, history, science, and literature classes; it
also intends to make a collection of the present songs which
illustrate the peace sentiment, and to stimulate the writing
of new ones.
"The Press Committee, which comprises some of the leading
educational editors of the country, is prepared to acquaint
teachers with the work of the League through the columns of
the educational magazines.
"The Committee on Teaching History will study the textbooks
with reference to the space devoted respectively to war and to
peace. It hopes to develop among teachers a sentiment which
shall lay emphasis on the arts of peace, and on the industrial
and social conditions of the people, rather than on campaigns,
battles, and other military details. It further aims to
arrange, if possible, courses in history to be given at summer
schools and teachers’ institutes, with special attention to
the growth of international friendship.
"The International Committee intends to make a constructive
study of international cooperation in activities which
particularly affect educational work."
Mrs. Fannie Fern Andrews, Secretary.
Objects of the American School Peace League,
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1908.
Evasion of the Conscription in Russia.
According to statistics published in the spring of 1909 by the
military organ, the Russky Invalid, the conscription of
1908 took place in the following circumstances. The annual
contingent had been fixed by the Duma at 456,481 men.
Altogether 1,281,655 conscripts were called up for
examination. Of this huge number 80,165 men failed to appear,
including 20,693 Jews, out of a total of 64,005 Jews
conscripted. The largest number of absentees was in the
provinces of Suwalki, Lomja, Plotzk, and Kovno. It is from
these provinces that a general exodus of Polish, Lithuanian,
and Jewish youths to America is noticeable. The actual number
found to be fit for military service in 1908 was 17,926 short
of the contingent fixed by the Duma. This deficiency was
composed of 943 Russians, 5,154 other Christians, 10,677 Jews,
1,082 Mahomedans, and 70 other non-Christians. The recruiting
stations noted a general falling off in the physique of the
conscripts.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
Changed Conditions in Europe making for Peace.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1909.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST:
International School of Peace.
Mr. Ginn’s Great Fund for Peace Propagandism.
Members of the various Boston peace organizations took part
last evening [December 15] in the formation of an
International School of Peace. The idea originated with Edwin
Ginn, the publisher, and the ‘house warming’ took place at No.
29 Beacon Street, where a room was appropriately adorned for
the occasion with the flags of many nations and large
portraits of Sumner and Cobden and other great international
leaders.
"Mr. Ginn welcomed the company in a speech wherein the motives
and experience which prompted him to found the school were set
forth. He explained what he hoped of the organization, how he
had for years appealed to various millionaires to unite with
him in some larger provision than any which existed for the
systematic education of the people in peace principles, the
response to which had been disappointing.
"Mr. Ginn felt that some large beginning must be made by
somebody; and so he had appropriated $50,000 a year to the
work from now on, and provided in his will that the bulk of
his estate, after proper provision for family and friends,
should go to this cause, which he felt to be the greatest and
most necessary cause in the world. This action had brought him
multitudes of letters, he said, and clearly awakened much
interest; and if it prompted others to do much more than he
could do, that was what he wanted. The friends of the cause,
especially its wealthy friends, had been strangely asleep to
the pressing need for this work of popular education. It must
be thoroughly organized to reach the schools and colleges, the
churches and newspapers and business men. He gave
illustrations of the awful cost and waste of the present
military system, which he said violated every principle of
good business, political economy, and common sense. …
‘The room is not only a bureau for the office force, but a
reading-room and library, where the latest information
touching the progress of the movement will always be furnished
to teachers, preachers, and all who are interested. Regular
conferences upon the different aspects of the movement will
also be held there."
The Boston Transcript,
December 16, 1909.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
The Second National Peace Congress in the United States,
assembled at Chicago.
The Second National Peace Congress in the United States held
its session in Chicago, May 3-5, 1909. The attendance was
large, the speaking of high quality and the prevailing spirit
earnest in its repudiation of all reasoning or feeling that is
tolerant of the barbarism of war. Respectful attention was
given to an address by the German Ambassador to the United
States, Count Bernstorff, who defended the attitude of his
Government on the question of a limitation of armaments, but
the expressions of the Congress on the subject were not toned
to agreement with his plea. Among its resolutions was the
following:
"Resolved, That no dispute between nations, except such as may
involve the national life and independence, should be reserved
from arbitration, and that a general treaty of obligatory
arbitration should be included at the earliest possible date.
Pending such a general treaty, we urge upon our government,
and the other leading Powers, such broadening of the scope of
their arbitration treaties as shall provide, after the example
of the Danish Netherlands treaty, for the reference to the
Hague Court of all differences whatever not settled otherwise
by peaceful means."
{725}
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
The Annual Lake Mohonk Peace Conferences in the United States.
The annual Peace Conferences at Lake Mohonk, in the United
States, have been held with regularity. At the Fifteenth,
convened in May, 1909, a strong resolution was adopted, asking
the Government of the United States to consider "whether the
peculiar position it occupies among the nations does not
afford it a special opportunity to lead the way towards …
carrying into effect the strongly expressed desire of the two
Peace Conferences at The Hague, that the governments examine
the possibility of an agreement as to the limitation of armed
forces by land and sea, and of war budgets."
Privately during the Conference there was discussion of the
suggestion that if four or five of the great Powers—England,
Germany, France, Italy, the United States, and Japan, and
perhaps Spain and Russia—could join in establishing a Supreme
Court of the nations, to which they would refer their
difficulties, other nations would be compelled by the course
of events to accept the tribunal and its decisions, and to
come into participation in it on such terms as might later be
agreed upon.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
Exchange of Parliamentary Visits between France and Sweden.
Seventy-six members of the French Parliament, representing the
international arbitration group, visited Stockholm in July,
1909, under the leadership of Baron d’Estournelles de
Constant. The visit was paid in return for one made by the
members of the three Scandinavian Parliaments to Paris some
time before.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
A World Petition for a General Treaty
of Obligatory Arbitration.
At the annual meeting of the International Peace Bureau at
Brussels, October 9, 1909, the following resolution was
adopted, expressing approval of the world-petition to the
third Hague Conference in favor of a general treaty of
obligatory arbitration:
"Whereas, Public opinion, if recorded, will
prove an influential factor at the third Hague Conference; and
Whereas, The ‘world-petition to the third Hague
Conference’ has begun to successfully establish a statistical
record of the men and women in every country who desire to
support the governments in their efforts to perfect the new
international order based on the principle of the solidarity
of all nations;
Resolved, That the Commission and the General Assembly
of the International Peace Bureau, meeting at Brussels October
8 and 9, 1909, urgently recommend the signing of the
‘world-petition to the third Hague Conference.’"
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
Evasion of Military Service in France.
Spread of Anti-Militarism.
According to returns of the recruiting for the French Army,
published in the summer of 1909, there appears to be a steady
increase in the evasion of service by young men at the times
they are required by law to enter it. "Since 1906, when the
number of refractory recruits amounted to 4,567, the figures
have slowly risen, until they have now reached 11,782. The
soldat insoumis may be punished in France by
imprisonment of from one month to one year. But on about an
average of every two years during the last 20 years Parliament
has regularly voted an Amnesty Bill in favour of deserters and
recalcitrant recruits or reservists." This is one supposed
cause of the increasing evasions; but a more important
influence working with it is the propagandism of anti-military
doctrines, preached passionately by Gustav Hervé, accepted
widely, it is said, among the primary teachers of the country,
as well as in the ranks of the workingmen. The General
Confederation of Labor is reported to be distributing annually
some thousands of "soldiers’ manuals" in which desertion is urged
as a duty to humanity at large.
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909 (October).
American Proposal that the Prize Court now established be
also a Court of Arbitral Justice.
By reference to the proceedings of the Second Peace Conference
at The Hague, as set forth above, it will be seen that the
Conference gave favorable consideration to a draft Convention
for the creation of a "Judicial Arbitration Court" (the text
of which draft is given at the end of said proceedings), and
that the Conference went so far as to declare the
"advisability of adopting … and of bringing it into force as
soon as an agreement has been reached respecting the selection
of the judges and the constitution of the Court." It will be
seen, also, that the Conference adopted measures for the
creation of an International Prize Court, preliminary to which
an International Naval Conference was held in London from
December 4, 1908, until February 26, 1909. At that Conference
a suggestion was made that "the jurisdiction of the
International Prize Court might be extended, by agreement
between two or more of the signatory Powers, to cover cases at
present excluded from its jurisdiction by the express terms of
the Prize Court Convention, and that in the hearing of such
cases that Court should have the functions and follow the
procedure laid down in the draft Convention relative to the
creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court, which was annexed to
the Final Act of the Second Peace Conference, of 1907."
In line with this suggestion, it was made known, in the later
part of the past year, that the Government of the United
States, through its State Department, had proposed in a
circular note to the Powers, that the Prize Court should be
invested with the jurisdiction and functions of the proposed
Judicial Arbitration Court. The difficulties in selecting
judges for that contemplated Court, which caused the creation
of it to be postponed in 1907, would thus be happily
surmounted, and, as remarked by Secretary Knox, there would be
at once given "to the world an international judicial body to
adjudge cases arising in peace, as well as controversies
incident to war."
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
Attitude of the Workingmen.
At the Twentieth International Congress of Miners, held in
Berlin, in May, 1909, there were strong declarations for
disarmament, and one Belgian delegate, M. Maroille, said
significantly: If it were better organized the International
Federation of Miners could by itself render wars impossible.
They need not do anything violent or illegal; they had only to
remain quiet, so very quiet that war could not be carried on.
{726}
WAR.
See (in this Volume)
Red Cross Society.
WARD, SIR JOSEPH GEORGE:
Prime Minister of New Zealand.
See (in this Volume)
NEW ZEALAND A. D. 1906-1909.
WARD, SIR JOSEPH GEORGE:
At the Imperial Conference of 1907.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.
WARD, SIR JOSEPH GEORGE:
Testimony on the Working of Woman Suffrage in New Zealand.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
WARSAW, DISTURBANCES IN.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905, and 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).
WASHBURN, Reverend. Dr. George:
President of Robert College.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: TURKEY, &c.
WASHINGTON, BOOKER T.:
His work at Tuskegee Institute.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1906.
WASHINGTON: A. D. 1908.
Meeting of International Congress on Tuberculosis.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH. TUBERCULOSIS.
WASHINGTON MEMORIAL INSTITUTION, THE.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901.
WATER POWER TRUST:
Threatened in the United States.
Precautionary Measures taken.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.
WATERS AND WATER POWER, CONSERVATION OF.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
WATERS-PIERCE OIL COMPANY.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.:
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.
WATERWAYS COMMISSION AND WATERWAYS TREATY.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY).
WATKINS, THOMAS H.:
On the Anthracite Coal Strike Arbitration Commission.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1903.
WATSON, J. C.:
Premier of Australia.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1903-1904.
WATSON, Thomas E.:
Nomination for President of the United States.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER),
and 1908 (MARCH-NOVEMBER).
WAZEER, GRAND.
See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1903.
WEALTH:
Its Concentration in Great Britain.
In a speech made in Parliament, on a motion to graduate the
Income Tax, March 24, 1909, Mr. Chiozza-Money, who speaks with
considerable authority on such subjects, made the following
statements: "Statistics were available in Somerset House
showing the product of the graduated scale of death duties
imposed by Sir William Harcourt in 1894. Of the 700,000
persons who died annually, only about 80,000 left sufficient
property to need an inquisition by Somerset House. Out of the
80,000 persons nearly the whole of the property was left by
27,000 persons; and £200,000,000 worth of property was left by
about 4,000 persons each year. This was not only a curious
fact, but it was a constant fact in relation to this problem.
He also showed that there had arisen a tendency among rich
persons to devise part of their property before death in order
to escape the death duties, with the result that a good deal
of wealth did not come under the review of Somerset House.
What he described as his own conservative estimate of the
wealth of the United Kingdom was a total of about
£11,500,000,000. Of that sum five millions of persons owned
£10,900,000,000. One-ninth of the population owned 95 per
cent. of the entire capital stock of the United Kingdom. Thus
the whole of the country regarded as a business undertaking
was in the hands of a handful of people. Taking the income of
the country at 1,800 millions a year, there were about five
million persons who took one-half and 39 millions the other
half. Of the five million persons who took 900 millions of
income about 1¼ million persons, or 250,000 families, took 600
millions out of the 900 millions. From this state of facts the
most terrible inequalities resulted, evidences of which could
be seen along the Embankment and other parts of Westminster
almost within a stone’s throw of that House."
WEALTH PROBLEM, THE.
The Question of a Progressive Taxation.
"At this moment we are passing through a period of great
unrest—social, political and industrial unrest. It is of the
utmost importance for our future that this should prove to be
not the unrest of mere rebelliousness against life, of mere
dissatisfaction with the inevitable inequality of conditions,
but the unrest of a resolute and eager ambition to secure the
betterment of the individual and the nation. … It is a prime
necessity that if the present unrest is to result in permanent
good the emotion shall be translated into action, and that the
action shall be marked by honesty, sanity, and self-restraint.
There is mighty little good in a mere spasm of reform. The
reform that counts is that which comes through steady,
continuous growth; violent emotionalism leads to exhaustion.
"It is important to this people to grapple with the problems
connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use
of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business.
We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes
well won and fortunes ill won; between those gained as an
incident to performing great services to the community as a
whole, and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within
the limits of mere law-honesty. Of course no amount of charity
in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for
misconduct in making them. As a matter of personal conviction,
and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the
system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the
adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on
all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or
devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual—a tax so
framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of
these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount
to any one individual; the tax, of course, to be imposed by
the National and not the State Government. Such taxation
should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or
transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen
beyond all healthy limits."
President Roosevelt,
Address at the Laying of the Corner Stone of the
Office-Building of the House of Representatives,
April 14, 1906.
WEAVER, JOHN: MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA.
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
{727}
WEEKLY REST DAY.
See (in this Volume)
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
"WE FREES."
See (in this Volume)
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1904-1905.
WEI-HAI-WEI:
Strategic Worthlessness of the Port.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (FEBRUARY).
WEKERLE, ALEXANDER: PRIME MINISTER OF HUNGARY.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906, and 1908-1909.
WELSH COERCION ACT.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1902.
WERMUTH, Herr:
Secretary of the German Imperial Treasury.
See (in this Volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1908-1909.
WEST AFRICA:
White Colonization impossible in Present Conditions.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA.
WEST INDIES, DANISH:
Failure of Projected Sale to the United States.
See (in this Volume)
DENMARK: A. D. 1902.
WESTERN FEDERATION OF MINERS.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION. UNITED STATES: A. D. 1899-1907.
WET, C. R. de.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1901-1902.
WEYLER, GENERAL Y NICOLAU:
Suppression of Strike at Barcelona.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: SPAIN.
WEYLER, GENERAL Y NICOLAU:
Spanish Minister of War.
See (in this Volume)
SPAIN: A. D. 1901-1904.
WHITE, HENRY:
American Delegate to the Algeciras Conference'
on the Morocco Question.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
WHITE HOUSE, THE:
Its Restoration.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
WHITE MOUNTAIN FOREST, PRESERVATION OF THE.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: UNITED STATES.
WHITE SLAVE TRADE, MOVEMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE.
The movement for the suppression of what is now described as
the White Slave Traffic, and which has grown into an important
international organization, appears to have had its beginning
in the formation of a committee at London, in 1880, "for the
purpose of exposing and suppressing the [then] existing
traffic in English, Scotch and Irish girls for foreign
prostitution." This committee presented a memorial on the
subject to Lord Granville, then Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
setting out a statement of facts which "revealed the existence
of systematic abduction to Brussels, and elsewhere on the
Continent of Europe, of girls who were English subjects, and
who, having been induced to go abroad under promise of
obtaining employment or respectable situations, were on
arrival taken to the office of the ‘Police des Mœurs’ for
registration as prostitutes." The memorialists craved Lord
Granville’s influence "in favour of measures which would
render it impossible that British subjects, however humble,
should in the future be subjected to such infamy and
degradation, including the loss of their personal liberty."
Such measures were taken, Parliament passing an Act which
became law in 1885, with so much effectiveness that "the
traffic was at once checked. The miscreants who were engaged
in it were dismayed by its provisions, and within five years
after the Act had come into operation the Burgomaster of
Brussels, which had been the head-quarters of the traffic,
questioned as to the effect produced by that measure, in April
1890 wrote as follows: 'Comme suite à votre lettre du 15
courant, j’ai l’honneur de vous faire connaître que depuis
1880 aucune fille de nationalité Auglaise n’a été inscrite aux
registres de Bruxelles.’ While, however, the traffic, so far
as the United Kingdom was concerned, was thus almost
extinguished, it seems to have increased and spread in certain
districts of Eastern Europe to an extent which attracted the
serious and alarmed attention of the Governments and public
authorities of the countries immediately concerned. About the
year 1898 the National Vigilance Society, headed by the late
Duke of Westminster, then its President, resolved ‘to open
definite measures for its mitigation—if possible, its
suppression.’ This organization was fortunate in having for
its Secretary and chief administrative officer Mr. William
Alexander Coote, a man of remarkable energy and
determination."
Parliamentary Papers, 1907 (Cd. 3453).
Mr. Coote went on a mission to the Continent and aroused the
interest of the Governments most concerned. International
conferences on the subject were held, in London, 1899, at
Paris, 1902, and again at Paris in 1906, producing concerted
action. In 1904 an International Agreement was signed at
Paris, May 18, by the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain,
Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Sweden and Norway, and
Switzerland, the first two articles of which were as follows:
"Article 1.
Each of the Contracting Governments undertakes to establish or
name some authority charged with the co-ordination of all
information relative to the procuring of women or girls for
immoral purposes abroad; this authority shall be empowered to
correspond direct with the similar department established in
each of the other Contracting States.
Article 2.
Each of the Governments undertakes to have a watch kept,
especially in railway stations, ports of embarkation, and
en route, for persons in charge of women and girls
destined for an immoral life. With this object instructions
shall be given to the officials and all other qualified
persons to obtain, within legal limits, all information likely
to lead to the detection of criminal traffic. The arrival of
persons who clearly appear to be the principals, accomplices
in, or victims of, such traffic shall be notified, when it
occurs, either to the authorities of the place of destination,
or to the Diplomatic or Consular Agents interested, or to any
other competent authorities."
Parliamentary Papers, 1905,
Treaty Series No. 24 (Cd. 2689).
Meantime, in the United States, due attention was not given to
the matter, until it was found that the abominable traffic had
become organized to an appalling extent in the country,
especially in connection with its foreign immigration, and had
a principal seat in New York, with a suspected connivance on
the part of men having political influence, if not official
power. An investigation of the facts became one of the main
objects of the Congressional Immigration Commission which
pursued inquiries in Europe and America in 1909, and was the
leading subject of the preliminary report made public by the
Commission, December 10.
{728}
In this report the Commission says that the white slave
traffic is the most pitiful phase of the immigration question.
The business has assumed large proportions, and has exerted an
evil influence upon the country. The inquiry covered the
cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland,
Salt Lake, Ogden, Butte, Denver, Buffalo, Boston, and New
Orleans. No attempt was made to investigate conditions in
every important city. But the commission believes that enough
evidence with reference to women of different races and
nationalities, living under different conditions has been
obtained from localities sufficiently scattered to warrant the
reports being used as a basis for official action.
Among other recommendations of the Commission is one that the
transportation of persons from one State, Territory, or
district, to another for the purpose of prostitution be
forbidden under heavy penalties. The commission also expresses
the opinion that the Legislatures of the several States should
consider the advisability of enacting more stringent laws
regarding prostitution. It is suggested that the Illinois
statute regarding pandering be carefully considered. A number
of suggestions of administrative changes and more rigid
enforcement of existing regulations by the Department of
Commerce and Labor, particularly by the Bureau of Immigration,
and amendments of the Immigration act itself are submitted by
the commission.
Legislation on the lines recommended is now pending in
Congress and in New York and other States, while the alleged
organization of the traffic in the city of New York is being
investigated by a special grand jury of one of the State
Courts.
WICKERSHAM, GEORGE W.:
Attorney-General.
See (in this Volume )
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909 (MARCH).
WIJU.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
WILLIAM II., German Emperor:
Statement of his Peace Policy based on Preparation for War.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
WILLIAM II., German Emperor:
His speech at Tangier.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
WILLIAM II., German Emperor:
His published Interview with an Englishman and its Effect.
See (in this Volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (NOVEMBER).
WILSON, James:
Secretary of Agriculture.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905; 1905-1909; AND 1909 (MARCH).
WILSON, General John M.:
On the Anthracite Coal Strike Arbitration Commission.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1903.
WILSON, Woodrow:
President of Princeton University.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909.
WINE-GROWERS’ REVOLT, IN FRANCE.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (MAY-JULY).
WINNIPEG: A. D. 1909.
Meeting of British Association for the Advancement of Science.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: PHYSICAL.
WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
See (in this Volume and in Volume VI.)
SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.
WISCONSIN: A. D. 1900-1909.
Governor and Senator La Follette.
The recognized "new movement" in American politics which has
been putting a distinctive mark on the last decade, directed
towards the emancipation of parties from a selfishly organized
system, or "machine," had nowhere in the West a more vigorous
starting than in Wisconsin; and nobody can doubt that the
initial force given to it there came mostly from the energy of
the leader it found in Robert Marion La Follette. He had
entered politics when he entered the profession of law, in
1880. From 1889 to 1901 he was a representative in Congress.
At the end of that period he had been elected Governor of his
State, and he held the office for three terms, resigning it in
1905 to accept a seat in the Senate of the United States,
where he exercises a degree of independence not common in that
assembly. All this advancement in public service has gone with
a personal leadership in politics, resisted unavailingly by
the old party organization.
WISCONSIN: A. D. 1907.
Enactment of Public Utilities Law.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC UTILITIES.
WISCONSIN STATE UNIVERSITY:
Its Legislative Reference Department and Municipal
Reference Bureau.
See (in this Volume).
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
WITBOIS, THE.
See (in this Volume)
Africa: A. D. 1904-1905,
and
GERMANY: A. D. 1906-1907.
WITTE, Sergius Yulievitch:
As Russian Finance Minister and practically as Premier.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904, and 1904-1905.
WITTE, Sergius Yulievitch:
Withdrawal from Premiership.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1906.
WITTE, Sergius Yulievitch:
Memorial to the Tsar on Religious Liberty and the Bondage
of the Church to the State.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (APRIL-AUGUST).
WITTE, Sergius Yulievitch:
Russian Plenipotentiary for negotiating Treaty of Peace
with Japan.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
WOLF’S HILL, The Capture of.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).
WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
WOMEN, International Council of: A. D. 1909.
Proceedings at Toronto.
The International Council of Women was assembled at Toronto,
Canada, in June, 1909, being then in the twenty-fifth year of
its existence. Its large gatherings are undertaken but once in
five years, executive meetings being held in years between.
The Toronto session was opened on the 17th of June, and was
prolonged interestingly for ten days. The delegates attending
numbered 160, from all parts of Europe, America and
Australasia, Great Britain sending the largest number. Germany
comes next with 19, Sweden sends 7, Denmark 4, Italy 3,
Austria-Hungary 5, Norway 10, Belgium 4, Greece 3, the
Netherlands 11, Australasia 11, the United States 16, and
Canada 11.
Lady Aberdeen, the President of the Council, in her opening
remarks, indicated the breadth of the ideas of service to the
world which this international organization contemplates, when
she said: "Having proved that we are truly representative of
the women workers of the world and that within our various
councils we have gathered organizations of women of all races,
creeds, classes, and parties, what is the outcome?
{729}
What do we stand for? What practical contribution can we offer
to the world’s welfare?" Turning to the Canadian delegates,
she answered these questions by alluding to the sympathy that
the National Council of Canada had created between the women
of the different provinces and the way in which it had made
them recognize their true relationship to their country and
the world. From this Lady Aberdeen went on to say:
"Our International Council must indeed be of necessity the
strongest peace society that can exist, for if the homes of
the different countries of the world are brought in touch with
one another and understand and believe in one another, there
can be no more war. Again, the health movement which our
national councils’ reports show us is going on in all
countries of the world is one that has within itself
potentialities far beyond the immediate objects it aims at.
What are these medical and scientific congresses, these
international conferences on tuberculosis, infant mortality,
school hygiene, temperance, and the like doing? Are they not
bringing the world’s thinkers and workers into line for the
preservation of life, for the furtherance of a high and
vigorous type of life based on knowledge, principle, and
self-control, for international action in the interests of the
world’s health? Here is work which concerns all women in all
countries, and in which every society has an interest. … But …
the keynote of our success and influence must always lie in
the fact that we lay stress in being more than doing, in the
spirit of our work more than the work itself, in the motive
underlying our union, rather than in our actual federation."
Peace and Arbitration, Woman Suffrage (favored by a majority
of the delegates in attendance), the "White Slave Traffic,"
so-called, Public Health, Education, Immigration, cheapened
International Postage, were among the principal subjects of
discussion taken up on successive days.
The next quinquennial council was appointed to be held at
Rome, in 1914, with executive meetings in Sweden in 1911 and
in the Netherlands in 1913. Lady Aberdeen was reelected
President.
WOMEN WORKERS:
Legal Regulation of Hours and Conditions.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR.
WOOD, GENERAL LEONARD:
Military Governor of Cuba.
See (in this Volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1901-1902.
WOODWARD, Dr. Robert S.:
President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION: CARNEGIE INSTITUTION.
WORKMEN.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, BRITISH.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION.
WORLD MOVEMENTS:
Fichte’s Prophecy of a World Commonwealth.
The Progress of a Century toward its Fulfilment.
"Fichte says: ‘It is the vocation of our race to unite itself
into one single body, all the parts of which shall be
thoroughly known to each other, and all possessed of similar
culture. Nature, and even the passions and vices of men have,
from the beginning, tended towards this end: a great part of
the way towards it is already passed, and we may surely
calculate that this end, which is the condition of all further
progress, will in time be attained. … Until the existing
culture of every age shall have been diffused over the whole
inhabited globe, and our race become capable of the most
unlimited inter-communication with itself, one nation or one
continent must pause on the great common path of progress, and
wait for the advance of the others; and each must bring as an
offering to the universal commonwealth, for the sake of which
alone it exists, its ages of apparent immobility, or
retrogression. When that first point shall have been attained,
when every useful discovery made at one end of the earth shall
be at once made known and communicated to all the rest, then,
without further interruption, without halt or regress, with
united strength and equal step, humanity shall move onward to
a higher culture, of which we can at present form no
conception.’
"This was an end-of-the-eighteenth-century utterance, and
events have followed it as if it were a resistless fiat
compelling its own fulfilment, rather than the dictum of a
philosopher. The nations have striven fiercely to carry
forward the work which the great Seer pointed to as the
essential condition of the higher progress. Inspired by varied
aims, and carried forward by diverse means, the end has been
ever the same. The missionary with his religious mandate, the
devil-may-care adventurer seeking excitement, the restless
military caste craving advancement, the trader thirsting for
gain, all promote the ‘Divine plan.’ …
"The pride of independent nationality must gradually give way
to the pride of being members of the great confederations. The
transition from Nationalism to internationalism will be
brought about by a threefold pressure, and will be rendered
easy by the system we have evolved with our great Colonies.
There will be the pressure of the higher organisation on the
lower, the larger upon the less; there will be racial
pressure, as yellow and black begin to feel their power; and
there will be commercial pressure. This irresistible pressure
will be gradually recognised as a benevolent despotism forcing
the practical recognition of the brotherhood of man.
"With regard to commercial pressure. A glance ahead will show
that the Western nations, in forcing their trade on yellow and
black races, are educating the latter into formidable
competitors. Like the Japs they will better the instruction,
and, with their more favourable economic conditions, will
flood the Western world with commodities at prices it cannot
compete with. To avoid being dragged down to their lower level
of subsistence the great world powers will be compelled to
draw a ring-fence of tariffs round their possessions. In our
case the British Empire contains nearly all climates and
resources that will enable it to be entirely self-contained
and self-supporting. The comparative free trade within the
fence will starve isolated countries to come in.
{730}
"There is no reason why an Empire such as ours should not be
much more truly happy and prosperous than it has yet been, if
we organise it scientifically. The loss of our abnormal
position in foreign trade will be a blessing if we exercise
foresight. In the furtherance of the World-purpose it was
necessary that the progressive nations should for a time
worship foreign trade as a fetich, and as the chief means of
prosperity. Nothing else would have given them the needed
stimulus, and forced them to such Herculean efforts to conquer
and keep foreign markets. But when all foreign markets have
been opened up, and we have unintentionally educated other
races, not only to supply their own wants, but to swamp us
with their manufactures, then we must readjust our ideas, and
adopt less one-sided aims. In our ambition to be the Cheap
John of the world, we have developed some of our resources
abnormally, and neglected others. To foster foreign trade we
converted a large part of our island home into black country,
we have been prodigally wasteful of our mineral resources, and
have neglected our agriculture. In striving for foreign
markets we have neglected the best market in the world—the
Home market—and have left ourselves miserably dependent on the
foreigner. This is really incipient heart disease of the
Empire.
"It was providential that we adopted ‘free trade’ when we did,
as it gives a moral justification for our annexations which no
protective nation can show; but as the other great Powers
extend their sway, and their tariff barriers, we shall cease
to need our free trade justification. Then we can reconsider
the case."
E. W. Cook,
The Organisation of Mankind
(Contemporary Review, September, 1901).
WORLD MOVEMENTS:
The Making of a World Constitution and the development
of World Legislation.
"In the relations of nations to one another, as proved by
their treaties and code of international law, certain truths
are recognized which involve the very nature of mankind as a
created whole. That is, there is a world-constitution,
unwritten, not called by that name, but existing as truly as
the animal creation existed before it was named by man, and as
independent of his recognition and his naming as the animal
creation was independent of human recognition. Though that
world-constitution has remained obscure and unrecognized, yet
world progress toward its formal expression has been
wonderfully rapid in recent years.
"In the first place that constitution is bringing about the
formal existence of an organ for the use and for the
expression of the intelligence and the will of the world.
Nations, repeatedly, in separate congresses, upon special
subjects, have expressed their intelligence and their will,
and have entrusted to the nations severally the duty of
carrying out that will, as is most perfectly illustrated in
the case of the Universal Postal Union. That is, the nations
are creating a world legislative department.
"In the next place, the establishment of the Hague Court of
Arbitration is doubtless the beginning of the establishment of
a judicial department which will include other duties than the
settlement of causes dangerous to the peace of nations.
Lastly, the formal establishment of some world-executive will
not long lag behind the creation of the legislative and
judicial departments. The world is moving rapidly toward
political organization as one body, and the situation must
soon reveal itself to present doubters."
R. L. Bridgman,
World-Organization secures World-Peace
(Atlantic Monthly, September, 1904).
"At the session of the Massachusetts Legislature of 1902 a
petition was presented in favor of a world-legislature. That
petition was referred to the Legislature of 1903 in order that
the subject might receive further public consideration, and
the chairman of the committee which heard the petitioners
said, in each branch respectively, that the proposal was
meritorious. According to the report, the petition is pending
before the Legislature of 1903, with hundreds of signers,
including some of the best citizens. The American Peace
Society, by vote of its directors, signed the petition, while
it also presented another petition of its own, asking for a
movement for a world-conference or congress, with
recommendatory powers, to meet at stated intervals, say once
in seven years. Thus the proposal of world-organization is
formally before the public.
"Since the first petition was presented repeated instances
have occurred to support the main argument for it,—that
business exigencies of the world were becoming so urgent that
world-organization, as a necessity, would precede the efforts
of pure philanthropy or statesmanship for the same end. Early
in the year came the Pan-American Congress. Among its
proposals, suited for a world-scale, were these: a
Pan-American bank; a custom-house congress, and an
international customs commission; a statistical bureau of
international scope; an international copyright law; an
international commission to codify international law;
international regulations to cover inventions and trademarks;
a common treaty of extradition and protection against anarchy;
international regulations for the world-wide practice of the
liberal professions; an international archaeological
commission; an international office as depositary of the
archives of international conferences; an international
regulation granting equal rights to all foreigners from any of
the signatory countries, and some minor plans.
"Other world-propositions which developed during the year
included (in January) the organization of the International
Banking Corporation, with power, under a Connecticut charter,
of doing business all over the world; (early in the year)
circulation by the Manchester (England) Statistical Society of
a pamphlet advocating an international gold coinage; (in July)
suggestion by Russia of an international conference to protect
the nations against trusts and other private operations of
capital; (in July) another plan for an international bank; (in
August) meeting of the International Congress on Commerce and
Industry; and (in December) the meeting of the International
Sanitary Conference in Washington; to which may be added (in
January, 1903) the meeting in New York of the International
Customs Congress. For one year that is a notable record of
progress toward world-organization in matters of business, not
as matters of theory or of pure philanthropy. These instances
illustrate the truth, which many persons still fail to
realize, that the world is getting together at a rapid rate,
and that, as a matter of self-interest, the nations must soon
have a permanent legislative body as a means of establishing
regulations for the benefit of all.
{731}
"Pertinent to the case is the fact that world-legislation has
occurred repeatedly, though no world-legislature has been
organized. … In the case of the International Postal Union we
have absolute world-legislation. … That is the most
conspicuous and most successful illustration of
world-legislation, because it embraces organized mankind, and
because it is so eminently successful. …
"Mention may be made of the International Conference in
Washington, in 1885, for the establishment of a common prime
meridian, at which twenty-six nations were represented. At the
International Sanitary Conference in Vienna in 1892, fifteen
nations were represented. At the Dresden International
Sanitary Conference in 1893, nineteen nations were
represented."
R. L. Bridgman,
A World-Legislature
(Atlantic Monthly, March, 1903).
WORLD MOVEMENTS:
The Passing of the Age of Colonial Dominion.
The Coming of the Epoch of the "Open Door."
The old notions of colonial dominion, which had pricked the
ambition of nations since the sixteenth century, came
practically to the end of their working in the last years of
the nineteenth. The European partitioning of Africa, in the
decade after 1884, the scramble for footings in China between
1897 and the Boxer rising, and the Spanish-American War of
1898, may be looked upon as the expiring operations of
statesmanship on lines of "colonial policy," in the
acquisitive sense. As certainly as anything in politics can be
certain, the epoch of the founding and spreading of colonial
dominions came then to its close.
The colonial policy of that epoch meant colonial dominion
necessarily, for the reason that the commerce-spreading
nations of the West could not think of agreeing to open doors
of trade with the feebler or more backward folk of the East.
Each could make sure of marts in the great orient and oceanic
region only by seizing and walling them in, behind well-locked
doors, to keep the others out. Now, however, they have arrived
at a state of things in the world which compels them to think
of the "open door" for commerce, as a substitute for the
colonial dependency, held under lock and key. Several changes
have worked together in bringing this new situation about.
Principally, of course, it results from the near approach to
an exhaustion of the territory available for easy conquest and
colony-making. Africa and the great archipelagos of the South
Sea have all been divided up. Japan, with China making ready
to stand with her, has undertaken a policing of Eastern Asia,
to stop the staking out of lawless claims there. Moreover,
confidence in the stability as well as belief in the
usefulness of colonial dominion is much shaken of late, by
increasing signs of relaxing bonds in the great British
Empire, without much sign of harm to the prosperity or the
power of the imperial nation itself. Several of the outlying
dependencies of the British crown have grown to so much of
independence that they have taken the doorkeeping of their
commerce into their own hands and the sovereign mother country
makes no objection or complaint.
For many years past the commercial experience of England has
been furnishing proof that trade and dominion, under the
conditions of the present day, have little of necessary
connection with each other; and now the Germans, within later
years, have been adding to that proof. The few colonies they
have laid hands on, in Africa and Oceanica, have been of less
profit than expense to them; but, more rapidly than any other
people, they have pushed their trade in regions where they
have no political influence or control, by sheer energy and
careful learning of the conditions to be met.
The commercial mind, which has always dictated the policies of
government, is being thus compelled to turn its thought to the
"open door," and that, as a commercial aim, will evidently
extinguish colonial undertakings hereafter. It ruled the
settlement of the Chinese troubles of 1900 (thanks to John
Hay); it has gone into the recent treaties of Japan with
England, Russia and France; it gave a practicable solution to
the Morocco problem, at the Algeciras conference; it furnished
the ground in 1907 for an arrangement of long-troubled
relations between England and Russia in Persia, Tibet, and
Afghanistan.
Manifestly, the commercial policy of the future is to be, not
the policy of colonial dependencies, but the policy of open
doors. Even the imperialists and the stand-patters of the
United States will have to accept it; and in due time the
tariff-walled nations, after practicing themselves
sufficiently in the dictatorial opening of other people’s
doors, will be ready to unlock their own.
WORLD MOVEMENTS:
For and against War.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR,
and
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST.
World’s Prohibition Confederation.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM; INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS.
WOS Y GIL, GENERAL:
Revolutionary President of San Domingo.
See (in this Volume)
SAN DOMINGO: A. D. 1904-1907
WRIGHT, DR. A. E.,
WRIGHT, DR. DOUGLAS;
The Discoverers of Opsonins.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT. OPSONINS.
WRIGHT, Carroll D.:
On the Anthracite Coal Strike Arbitration Commission.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES; A. D. 1902-1903.
WRIGHT, GENERAL LUKE E.:
Secretary of War.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1909.
WRIGHT, ORVILLE AND WILBUR.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: AERONAUTICS.
WURTEMBERG: A. D. 1906.
Displacement of Privileged Members from the Parliament.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: GERMANY: A. D. 1906.
WYNDHAM, G.:
Chief Secretary for Ireland.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (JULY).
WYNNE, Robert J.:
Postmaster-General.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905.
{732}
Y.
YALU, BATTLES AT THE.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
YAMAGATA, Prince Aritomo.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (JUNE) and 1909 (OCTOBER).
YANGTZULING, BATTLE OF.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
YASHIMA, SINKING OF THE.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
YASS-CANBERRA.
Chosen Site of the Capital of Australia.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1905-1906.
YELLOW FEVER.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH.
YOUNG EGYPT.
See (in this Volume)
EGYPT. A. D. 1909 (SEPTEMBER).
YOUNG FINNS:
See (in this Volume)
FINLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
YOUNG TURKS.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER), and after.
YOUNGHUSBAND, COLONEL GEORGE J.:
Mission to Tibet.
See (in this Volume)
TIBET: A. D. 1902-1904.
YOUSSUF IZEDDIN.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
YUAN SHIH-KAI:
His abrupt Dismissal from Office.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY).
YUKON DISTRICT, THE:
Census, 1901.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1901-1902.
YUSHIN-KAI.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1909.
ZAHLE MINISTRY.
See (in this Volume)
DENMARK: A. D. 1905-1909.
ZAIMIS, M.,
High Commissioner of Crete.
See (in this Volume)
CRETE: A. D. 1905-1906.
ZAMENHOF, DR.:
Inventor of Esperanto.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: ESPERANTO.
ZANARDELLI, Giuseppe:
Premier of Italy.
See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1901 and 1903.
ZANZIBAR: A. D. 1903.
Practical Ending of Slavery.
The following remarks are from reports made by British
consular officers in 1903. By decree of the Sultan of Zanzibar
the legal status of slavery was annulled in 1897: "As I have
anticipated in my former Reports, the number of slaves who
have thought fit to present themselves for freedom to the
Zanzibar Government has been very small. … It is as well known
as ever throughout the Island of Zanzibar that a slave has
only to appear and ask for freedom and it is immediately
granted. But the slaves have long since discovered that
freedom is not such ‘a bed of roses’ as was anticipated. They
have learnt that practically they lose far more than they gain
by leaving their owners to get freedom, and then having to
find a new home and support themselves."
"The slavery question may be said to be at an end in Pemba.
Those slaves who still remain in a state of servitude are
slaves only in name, and they continue to be so of their own
free will, for there is not a man or a woman at this time in
the island unaware of the fact that any slave can obtain
manumission for the asking. A small number of slaves do apply
for and obtain their freedom month by month, but the bulk of
the servile population in Pemba appear to be content with
their existing status."
ZASULICH, General.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
ZAYISTAS.
See (in this Volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1906-1909.
ZEEMAN, Peter.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
ZELAYA, JOSE CANTOS:
President of Nicaragua.
See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA: NICARAGUA: A. D. 1909.
ZEMSTVOS, RUSSIAN.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905, and 1905-1907.
ZEPPELIN, Count.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: AERONAUTICS.
ZICHY, Count.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1904; 1905-1906.
ZIEGLER ARCTIC EXPEDITIONS.
See (in this Volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION.
ZIL-ES-SULTAN.
See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D. 1907-1908 (SEPTEMBER-JUNE).
ZULUS, The:
Their revolt in 1906.
See (in this Volume)
South Africa.
{733}
COURSES FOR STUDY OR READING
PREPARED by C. W. CHASE
As an aid to those possessors of this work who may wish to
pursue in it regular courses of reading or study, the
following directory, as it may be called, has been prepared by
a gentleman whose acquaintance with the contents of the
Volumes and with their arrangement is very thorough, and whose
equipment of historical knowledge is large. This responds to a
great number of requests and suggestions that have been coming
to the publishers of "History for Ready Reference," ever since
it began to make itself known as the best of compilations for
"Topical Reading" in history, as well as for "Ready
Reference," because drawn from the best historical writers in
their own exact words.
Those who make use of these "Studies" should bear in mind that
the first five Volumes of "History for Ready Reference" cover
all times, from the earliest, down to its publication in 1895,
and are under one comprehensive arrangement, for which reason
the numbering of pages in those Volumes is consecutive from
the first to the last; whereas Volumes VI. and VII. deal with
two succeeding periods, of Recent History, and have separately
numbered pages. Hence reference in the "Studies" to pages in
the first five Volumes is without mention of the number of the
Volume.
On revision of the original five-Volume work in 1901 some
rearrangement of matter occurred which changed the page
numbers. This necessitates the giving of both new and old
numbers in the reference to every matter within those Volumes.
For copies of the work purchased before 1901 the numbers are
in parenthesis, and those for the later edition precede them.
The following is a subject index to the "Studies" appended:
ALEXANDER’S CONQUESTS:
Study X.
AMERICA:
Study XXIII.
(See, also, UNITED STATES, CANADA, and SPANISH AMERICA.)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY:
Studies
XIV.,
XV.,
XXVII.,
XXXIV.,
XXXV.,
XXXVI.
BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA:
Study IV.
CANADA:
Study XLIX.
CHINA:
Studies
VII., LI.
CHRISTIANITY:
Studies
XVIII.,
XIX.,
XX.,
XXIV.
CRUSADES:
Study XXV.
EGYPT, ANCIENT:
Study V.
ENGLAND:
Studies
XXVIII.,
XXIX.,
XXX.,
XXXI.,
XXXII.,
XXXIII.,
XXXV.,
XXXVI.,
XLII.,
XLVIII.
EUROPE AT LARGE:
Studies
XII.,
XIII.,
XIV.,
XVIII.,
XIX.,
XX.,
XXII.,
XXIII.,
XXIV.,
XXV.,
XXVII.,
XXXIV.,
XXXV.,
XXXVI.
FRANCE:
Studies
XIII.,
XIV.,
XVI.,
XXIII.,
XXIV.,
XXV.,
XXXIV.,
XXXV.,
XXXVI.,
XLIII.
FRENCH REVOLUTION AND NAPOLEON:
Studies
XXXV
XXXVI.
GERMANY:
Studies
XIII.,
XIV.,
XV.,
XXIII.,
XXIV.,
XXVII.,
XXXIV.,
XXXV.,
XXXVI.,
XLIV.
GREAT BRITAIN.
See ENGLAND.
GREECE, ANCIENT:
Studies
VIII.,
IX.,
X.
HISTORY AND ITS STUDY:
Study I.
INDIA, ANCIENT:
Study VII.
ITALY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN:
Studies
XIV.,
XVII.,
XXIII.,
XXXV.,
XXXVI.,
LV.
JAPAN:
Study L.
JEWS:
Study VI.
MIDDLE AGES:
Studies
XIII.,
XIV.,
XV.,
XVI.,
XVII.
MOHAMMEDANISM:
Studies
XXI.,
XXII.
MONASTICISM:
Study XX.
NETHERLANDS:
Study XXVI.
PAPACY:
Study
XIX.,
XXIV.,
XXV.
PRIMITIVE PEOPLES:
Studies
II.,
III.
REFORMATION, PROTESTANT:
Studies
XXIV.,
XXV.
RENAISSANCE:
Study XXIII.
ROME, ANCIENT:
Studies
XI.,
XII.,
XIII.
RUSSIA:
Study LII.
SPAIN:
Studies
XXVI.,
XXXVI.
SPANISH AMERICA:
Study LIV.
(See, also, AMERICA.)
TURKISH EMPIRE:
Study LIII.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
Studies
XXXVII.,
XXXVIII.,
XXXIX.,
XL.,
XLI.,
XLV.,
XLVI.,
XLVII.
{734}
APPENDIX
COURSES FOR STUDY OR READING
Note.
The text of "History for Ready Reference" is made up of matter
taken from the best writers and special students of all ages
and all nations. Under the various topics in these Studies,
therefore, the historical works referred to are those from
which the matter of the text is taken; the figures following
each citation indicating the pages in "History for Ready
Reference" where the matter may be found,—the figures inclosed
in parentheses showing where the same matter may be found in
the first (1895) edition of the work. These extracts vary from
a quarter of a column to five or six columns in length.
[Transcriber's note—A colon (:) at the end of a line
indicates the following line begins a subheading,
a citation, or the citation title.]
STUDY I.
HISTORY AND ITS STUDY.
"It is seldom appreciated what a very large share of the
world’s literature is history of some sort. The primitive
savage is probably the only kind of a man who takes no
interest in it. But as soon as a spark of civilization
illumines this primitive darkness men begin to take interest
in other men,—not only beyond their immediate surroundings,
but beyond the limits of their own generation. Interest in the
past and provision for the future are perhaps essential
differences between the civilized man and the savage.
Accordingly as this care for the past and future increases,
all literature divides itself into that which concerns the
forces of nature, and that which concerns the history of man."
PROFESSOR J. P. MAHAFFY.
1. VARIOUS VIEWS AS TO WHAT HISTORY IS:
R. Flint:
History of the Philosophy of History,
1686-1687 (1648-1649).
archive.org/details/historyphilosop00flingoog
"With us the word ‘History,’ like its equivalents in all
modern languages, signifies either a form of literary
composition, or the appropriate subject matter of such
composition,—either a narrative of events, or events which may
be narrated."
R. FLINT.
2. THE PROPER SUBJECTS AND OBJECTS OF HISTORY:
E. A. Freeman:
Practical Bearings of European History,
1687-1688 (1648-1649).
T. B. Macaulay:
History (Essays),
1692 (1658).
"The perfect historian is he in whose work the character and
spirit of an age is exhibited in miniature. … By judicious
selection, rejection, and arrangement, he gives to truth those
attractions which have been usurped by fiction. … He shows us
the court, the camp, and the senate. But he also shows us the
nation. He considers no anecdote, no peculiarity of manner, no
familiar saying, as too insignificant for his notice, which is
not too insignificant to illustrate the operation of laws, of
religion, and of education, and to mark the progress of the
human mind."
T. B. MACAULAY.
3. THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY:
R. Flint:
Philosophy of History,
1688 (1649).
4. HISTORY AS A SCIENCE;
and
HISTORY AS THE ROOT OF ALL SCIENCE:
H. T. Buckle:
History of Civilization in England,
1688 (1649).
www.gutenberg.org
J. G. Droysen:
Outline of the Principles of History,
1689 (1650).
archive.org/details/outlineofprincip01droy
T. Carlyle:
On History (Essays),
1689-1690 (1650-1651).
"There is, I speak humbly, in common with Natural Science, in
the study of living History, a gradual approximation to a
consciousness that we are growing into a perception of the
workings of the Almighty ruler of the world. … The study of
History is in this respect, as Coleridge said of Poetry, its
own great reward, a thing to be loved and cultivated for its
own sake. … For one great, insoluble problem of astronomy or
geology, there are a thousand insoluble problems in the life,
in the character, in the face of every man that meets you in
the street. Thus, whether we look at the dignity of the
subject matter, or at the nature of the mental exercise which
it requires, or at the nature of the field over which the
pursuit ranges, History, the knowledge of the adventures, the
development, the changeful career, the varied growths, the
ambitions, aspirations, and, if you like, the approximating
destinies of mankind, claims a place second to none in the
roll of Sciences."
BISHOP STUBBS.
5. HOW TO STUDY HISTORY:
A. B. Hart:
How to Study History,
1693 (1654).
6. THE EDUCATIONAL AND PRACTICAL VALUE OF HISTORY;
ITS MORAL LESSONS:
J. A. Froude:
Short Studies on Great Subjects,
1690 (1651).
W. E. H. Lecky:
The Political Value of History,
1690 (1651).
C. K. Adams:
Manual of Historical Literature,
1690-1691 (1651-1652).
W. Stubbs:
The Study of Modern History,
1691 (1652).
"The effect of historical reading is analogous, in many
respects, to that produced by foreign travel. The student,
like the tourist, is transported into a new state of society.
He sees new fashions. He hears new modes of expression. His
mind is enlarged by contemplating the wide diversities of
laws, of morals, and of manners."
T. B. MACAULAY.
7. THE PROVINCE AND VALUE OF THE HISTORICAL ROMANCE:
G. H. Lewes:
Historical Romance,
1692-1693 (1653-1654).
A. Thierry:
The Merovingian Era,
1693 (1654).
J. R. Seeley:
History and Politics,
1693 (1654).
"To say that there is more real history in his (Scott’s)
novels on Scotland and England than in the philosophically
false compilations which still possess that great name, is not
advancing anything strange in the eyes of those who have read
and understood ‘Old Mortality,’ ‘Waverley,’ ‘Rob Roy,’ the
‘Fortunes of Nigel,’ and the ‘Heart of Midlothian.’"
A. THIERRY.
"We can hardly read the interesting Life of Lord Macaulay
without perceiving that the most popular historical work of
modern times owes its origin in a great measure to the
Waverley Novels. Macaulay grew up in a world of novels: his
youth and early manhood witnessed the appearance of the
Waverley Novels themselves. He became naturally possessed by
the idea which is expressed over and over again in his Essays,
and which at last he realized with such wonderful success, the
idea that it was quite possible to make history as interesting
as romance."
J. R. SEELEY.
{736}
8. THE IMPORTANCE OF A KNOWLEDGE OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY:
O. Browning:
The Teaching Of History In Schools,
1604 (1655).
"To know History is impossible; not even Mr. Freeman, not
Professor Ranke himself, can be said to know history. … No
one, therefore, should be discouraged from studying History.
Its greatest service is not so much to increase our knowledge
as to stimulate thought and broaden our intellectual horizon,
and for this purpose no study is its equal."
W. P. ATKINSON.
STUDY II.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
THE DAWN OF HISTORY; PRIMITIVE PEOPLES.
I. THE THREE MARKED DIVISIONS OF THE HUMAN RACE
WHEN THE EARLIEST HISTORIC RECORD BEGINS:
(a) The Aryan:
144 (137), 145 (138) and
Appendix A., Volume V. (Volume I).
(b) The Semitic:
2963-2966 (2886-2889).
(c) The Turanian:
3245, 1740, 2265 (3129, 1701, 2221).
2. THESE DIVISIONS WERE NOT PROPERLY RACIAL, BUT LINGUISTIC,
THOUGH USAGE HAS GIVEN THEM A RACIAL SIGNIFICANCE:
"Aryan in Scientific language is utterly inapplicable to race.
It means language, and nothing but language … I have declared
again and again that if I say ‘Aryas,’ I mean simply those who
speak the ‘Aryan’ language."
MAX MÜLLER.
"The ‘Semitic race’ owes its name to a confusion of ethnology
and 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’ … But
whatever justification there may have been for speaking of a
Semitic family of languages, there was none for speaking of a
Semitic race."
A. H. SAYCE.
3. BIRTHPLACE OF THE ARYANS:
C. F. Keary:
The Dawn of History,
144-145 (137-138).
www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52030.
J. N. Larned:
A Historical Sketch of Europe,
1018 (990).
J. Rhys:
Race Theories,
145 (138).
4. EARLY ARYAN MIGRATIONS:
(a) To India.
W. W. Hunter:
History of India,
1740-1741 (1701-1702).
M. Duncker:
History of Antiquity,
1741-1742 (1702-1703).
M. Williams:
Religious Thought in India,
1742 (1703).
(b) To Greece.
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
2603 (2535).
C. W. C. Oman:
History of Greece,
1604-1605 (1566-1567).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1019-1021 (991-993).
D. G. Hogarth:
Authority and Archaeology,
Volume VI., 23-25.
(c) To Italy.
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
1016-1017, 1845 (988-989, 1805).
F. Haverfield:
Authority and Archaeology,
Volume VI., 25.
(d) To Western Europe.
J. Rhys:
Celtic Britain,
412 (402).
J. N. Larned:
Europe, 1019 (991).
(e) In General.
Appendix A.
at end of Volume V. (Volume I.).
Ethnological Map,
before Title Page, Volume I.
5. ORIGIN OF THE SEMITIC PEOPLES:
George Adam Smith:
Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
2964-2965 (2887-2888).
6. THE VARIOUS DIVISIONS OF THE SEMITES:
(a) In General.
J. F. McCurdy:
History, Prophecy, and the Monuments,
2963-2964 (2886-2887).
(b) The Babylonian.
J F. McCurdy:
History, Prophecy, and the Monuments,
2965-2966 (2888-2889).
Z. A. Ragozin:
The Story of Chaldea,
246-247 (239-240).
A. H. Sayce:
Recent Discoveries in Babylonia,
Volume VI., 14-15.
(c) The Canaanitic and Phoenician.
F. Lenormant:
Ancient History of East,
2598-2599 (2530-2531).
(d) The Hebraic.
A. Kuenen:
Religion of Israel,
1936 (1895).
H. Ewald:
History of Israel,
1937 (1896).
S. R. Driver:
Authority and Archaeology,
Volume VI., 12.
7. DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF SEMITES, AND THEIR
CONTRIBUTION TO THE WORLD CIVILIZATION:
A. H Sayce:
Babylonian Literature,
246 (239).
E. Renan:
Studies in Religious History,
2965 (2888).
"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 religion."
E. RENAN.
8. RELATION BETWEEN THE EARLY SEMITES AND THE PRIMITIVE CHINESE:
R. K. Douglas:
China,
430-432 (416-418).
T. de Lacouperie:
History of Chinese Civilization,
246 (239).
9. ORIGIN AND RACIAL CONNECTIONS OF
THE PRIMITIVE EGYPTIAN PEOPLES:
H. Brugsch Bey:
Egypt under the Pharaohs,
777 (750).
G. Rawlinson.
History of Ancient Egypt,
777 (750).
W. M. F. Petrie:
Recent Research in Egypt,
Volume VI., 18-20.
10. THE EARLIEST SEMITES KNOWN TO HISTORY:
J. F. McCurdy:
History, Prophecy, and the Monuments,
2965-2966 (2888-2889).
Max Müller:
The Enormous Antiquity of the East,
2966 (2889).
A. H. Sayce:
Babylonian Literature,
246 (239).
"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
settlement on the lower Euphrates and Tigris."
J. F. MCCURDY.
{737}
STUDY III.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
THE LIFE OF PRIMITIVE PEOPLES;
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH.
1. GENERAL CHARACTER OF WORK OF EXCAVATION OF BURIED CITIES:
W. M. F. Petrie.
The Story of a "Tell,"
782 (755).
G. Smith:
Assyrian Discoveries,
149-150 (143).
H. V. Hilprecht:
Recent Research in Bible Lands,
Volume VI., 12.
Sunday School Times,
Volume VI., 13.
2. PREHISTORIC CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION:
(a) Babylonia.
A. H. Sayce:
Babylonian Literature,
246 (239).
J. F. McCurdy:
History, Prophecy, and The Monuments,
2965-2966 (2888-2889).
S. R. Driver:
Authority and Archaeology,
Volume VI., 12.
Perrot and Chipiez:
Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,
2969 (2892).
"When civilization makes up its mind to reenter upon that
country, nothing more will be needed for the reawakening in it
of life and reproductive energy, than the restoration of the
great works undertaken by the contemporaries of Abraham and
Jacob."
PERROT AND CHIPIEZ.
(b) Egypt.
H. G. Tomkins:
Studies on Times of Abraham,
778-779 (751-752).
W. M. F. Petrie:
Recent Egyptian Exploration,
Volume VI., 20, 21.
(c) Greece.
C. W. C. Oman:
History of Greece,
1605, last column, (1567).
P. Gardner:
New Chapters in Greek History,
1605-1606 (1567-1568).
S. H. Butcher:
Aspects of Greek Genius,
1675 (1636).
A. J. Evans:
London Times,
Volume VI., 23, 24.
A. L. Frothingham:
Archaeological Progress,
Volume VI., 25.
(d) Italy and Rome.
Padre de Cara:
The Academy,
1845 (1805).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1020-1021 (992-993).
F. de Coulanges:
The Ancient City,
2731 (2657).
Goldwin Smith:
The Greatness of the Romans,
2732-2733 (2658-2659).
"It may seem a paradox, but we suspect that in their imperial
ascendency is seen one of the earliest and not least important
steps in that gradual triumph of intellect over force, even in
war, which has been an essential part of the progress of
civilization. The happy day may come when Science in the form
of a benign old gentleman with a bald head and spectacles on
nose, holding some beneficent compound in his hand, will
confront a standing army, and the standing army will cease to
exist. That will be the final victory of intellect. But in the
meantime, our acknowledgments are due to the primitive
inventors of military discipline. They shivered Goliath’s
spear."
GOLDWIN SMITH.
(e) India.
W. W. Hunter:
History of Indian People,
1740-1741 (1701-1702).
(f) China.
R. K. Douglas:
China,
430-432 (416-418).
3. Early Language and Literature:
(a) Babylonia and Assyria.
A. H. Sayce:
Fresh Light from the Monuments,
150, 245-246, 664-665 (143, 238-239, 641-642).
A. H. Sayce:
Social Life of Assyrians and Babylonians,
2044 (2000).
A. H. Sayce:
Races of the Old Testament,
2963 (2886)
A. Lefèvre:
Race and Language,
2971 (2894).
(b) Egypt.
H. Brugsch-Bey:
History of Egypt,
777 (750).
M. Duncker:
History of Antiquity,
777 (750).
E. A. W. Budge:
The Mummy,
1684-1685 (1645-1646).
A. Mariette-Bey:
Monuments of Upper Egypt,
2826 (2752).
(c) Phoenicia.
Perrot and Chipiez:
Art in Phoenicia,
2601 end of last column, (2533).
(d) Greece
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
1674-1675 (1635-1636).
W. E. Gladstone:
Homer,
1699-1700 (1660-1661).
W. Leaf:
Companion to the Iliad,
1700 (1661).
A. Lang:
Homer and the Epic,
1700 (1661).
D. G. Hogarth:
Authority and Archæology,
Volume VI., 25.
(e) Italy and Rome.
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
1845 (1805).
G. A. Simcox:
History of Latin Literature,
2734 (2660).
(f) India.
M. Duncker:
History of Antiquity,
1741-1742 (1702-1703).
M. Williams:
Religious Thought in India,
1742 (1703).
4. EDUCATION:
(a) Babylonia and Assyria.
A. H. Sayce:
Babylonian Literature,
246, 697-698 (239, 674-675).
A. H. Sayce:
Social Life among the Babylonians,
698 (675).
A. H. Sayce:
Fresh Light from the Monuments,
150 (143).
"The primitive Chaldeans were preeminently a literary people,
and it is by their literary relics, by the scattered contents
of their libraries, that we can know and judge them. As
befitted the inventors of a system of writing, like the
Chinese they set the highest value on education, even though
examinations may have been unknown among them. Education,
however, was widely diffused."
A. H. SAYCE.
(b) Egypt.
G. Maspero:
Life in Ancient Egypt,
697 (674).
H. Brugsch-Bey:
History of Egypt,
697 (674).
"In the education of youth the Egyptians were particularly
strict; and ‘they knew,’ says Plato, ‘that children ought to
be early accustomed to such gestures, looks, and motions, as
are decent and proper; and not to be suffered either to hear
or learn any verses and songs other than those which are
calculated to inspire them with virtue.’"
J. G. WILKINSON.
(c) Greece.
(1) Athenian.
Plato:
Protagoras,
701 (678).
Aristotle:
Politics,
701-702 (678-679).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Old Greek Education,
703 (680).
J. A. St. John:
The Hellenes,
703-704 (680-681).
W. W. Capes:
University Life in Ancient Athens,
5 (5).
Guhl and Koner:
Life of Greeks and Romans,
1657 (1619).
(2) Spartan.
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
704-5 (681-2).
(d) Alexandria.
J. H. Newman:
Historical Sketches,
708 (685).
(e) Rome.
J. J. Döllinger:
Gentile and Jew,
708-709 (685-686).
(f) Judæa.
E. Schürer:
History of Jewish People,
700 (677).
H. Graetz:
History of the Jews,
700-1 (677-678).
(g) China.
W. A. P. Martin:
The Chinese,
698-699 (675-676).
(h) Persia.
G. Rawlinson:
The Five Great Monarchies,
699-700 (676-677).
5. RELIGION:
(a) China.
R. K. Douglas:
China,
432-433 (418-419).
(b) Egypt.
A. B. Edwards:
The Academy,
305 (296).
(c) Greece.
C. C. Felton:
Greece, Ancient and Modern,
804-805, 2453 (777-778, 2401).
{738}
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
2452 (2400).
W. M. Leake:
Topography of Athens,
2451 (2399).
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
2451 (2399).
G. Grote:
History of Greece,
680 (657).
(d) India.
M. Williams:
Religious Thought in India,
1742 (1703).
Hinduism,
1743-1744 (1704-1705).
J. T. Wheeler:
History of India,
406 (396).
(e) Persia.
G. Rawlinson:
Religions of the Ancient World,
3788-3789 (3666-3667).
M. Haug:
Lectures on Zoroaster,
3790 (3668).
(f) Rome.
T. Arnold:
History of Rome,
2981 (2903).
H. Macmillan:
Roman Mosaics,
2981 (2903).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
195 (188).
W. Ramsay:
Roman Antiquities,
196-197 (189-190).
Guhl and Koner:
Greeks and Romans,
3743 (3623).
N. Hawthorne:
The Marble Faun,
2476 (2417).
Note.—In nearly all cases, in the Studies that follow, all
chronological divisions previous to the sixth or seventh
centuries B. C. must be regarded as approximate only. The
dates given are those generally accepted by the best scholars
of the present day.
STUDY IV.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.
1. GEOGRAPHY:
G. Rawlinson:
Five Great Monarchies,
2198 (2154).
F. Lenormant:
Ancient History of the East,
2964 (2887).
G. Adam Smith:
Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
2964 (2887).
2. CHALDEA-BABYLONIA:
A. H. Sayce:
Fresh Light from the Monuments,
245-246 (239), and following authorities.
3. THE ACCADIANS, SUMERIANS, ELAMITES, AND CUSHITES:
A. H. Sayce:
Babylonian Literature,
246, 698 (239, 675).
A. H. Sayce:
Fresh Light from the Monuments,
150, 246 (143, 239).
A. H. Sayce:
Races of the Old Testament,
2963 (2886).
Z. A. Ragozin:
Story of Chaldea,
795(768).
J. F. McCurdy:
History, Prophecy, and Monuments,
2965-2966 (2888-2889).
Dr. Tiele:
History of Babylonia,
2967 (2890).
F. Lenormant:
Ancient History of the East,
128-129 (121-122).
A. H. Sayce:
Contemporary Review,
Volume VI., 14.
4. THE ERA OF CITY STATES
(5000 to 3800 B. C.):
Z. A. Ragozin:
Story of Chaldea,
246-247 (239-240).
5. CONQUESTS OF SARGON I.
(3750 B. C.):
Dr. Tiele:
History of Babylonia,
2967 (2890).
F. Max Müller:
Enormous Antiquity of the East,
2966 (2889).
Z. A. Ragozin:
Story of Chaldea,
247 (240).
A. H. Sayce:
Contemporary Review,
Volume VI., 13, 14.
6. HAMMURABI ESTABLISHES THE FIRST BABYLONIAN EMPIRE
(2250 B. C.):
E. J. Simcox:
Primitive Civilizations,
2967(2890).
J. F. McCurdy:
History, Prophecy, and the Monuments,
2967 (2890).
A. H. Sayce:
Ancient Empires of the East,
247 (240).
7. THE CITY OF BABYLON:
A. H. Sayce:
Ancient Empires of the East,
247 (240).
G. Rawlinson:
Herodotus,
245 (238).
W. B. Wright:
Ancient Cities,
2969-2970 (2893).
B. T. A. Evetts:
New Light on the Bible and Holy Land,
2970-2971 (2893-2894).
8. THE KASSITE EMPIRE AND EGYPTIAN INVASIONS
(1800-1250 B. C.):
J. F. McCurdy:
History, Prophecy, and the Monuments,
2967 (2890).
A. H. Sayce:
Higher Criticism and Verdict of the Monuments,
2968 (2891).
A. Lefèvre:
Race and Language,
2968 (2891).
G. Rawlinson:
History of Ancient Egypt,
779-780 (752-753).
9. ASSYRIA GAINS AND HOLDS SUPREMACY
(1250-600 B. C.):
Perrot and Chipiez:
History of Art in Chaldea and Assyria,
2968-2969 (2891-2892).
L. von Ranke:
Universal History,
2969 (2892).
10. THE CITY OF NINEVEH:
A. H. Sayce:
Higher Criticism and the Monuments,
2967-2968 (2891).
A. H. Sayce:
Fresh Light from the Monuments,
150 (143).
Z. A. Ragozin:
Story of Chaldea,
2415 (2363).
Perrot and Chipiez:
History of Art in Chaldea and Assyria,
2969 (2892).
11. THE LAST BABYLONIAN EMPIRE
(625-536 B. C.):
E. A. W. Budge:
Babylonian Life and History,
2969 (2892).
A. H. Sayce:
Ancient Empires of East,
247 (240).
Introduction to Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther,
2577-2578 (2510-2511).
Ancient Empires of the East,
2577 (2510).
12. BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN LIFE:
(a) Literature.
A. H. Sayce:
Fresh Light from the Monuments,
245-246 (238-239).
A. H. Sayce:
Babylonian Literature,
246, 697-698 (239, 674-675).
A. H. Sayce:
Social Life among the Babylonians,
698 (675).
A. V. Hilprecht:
Sunday School Times,
Volume VI., 15-16.
(b) Education.
A. H. Sayce:
Babylonian Literature,
698 (675).
A. H. Sayce:
Social Life Among the Babylonians,
698 (675).
A. H. Sayce:
Contemporary Review,
Volume VI., 14.
(c) Trade and Commerce.
M. Duncker:
History of Antiquity,
3207-3208 (3697).
E. J. Lubbock:
History of Money,
2243 (2199).
Sir J. Simcox:
Primitive Civilizations,
2243-2244 (2200).
(d) Treatment of Diseases.
G. Rawlinson:
Herodotus,
2166 (2122).
F. Lenormant:
Chaldean Magic,
2166-2167 (2122-2123).
{739}
13. THE PRE-EMINENT FIGURES IN BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN HISTORY:
B. C.
Sargon I 3750
Hammurabi 2250
Tiglathpileser I. 1110-1090
Tiglathpileser III. 745-727
Sargon II 722-705
Sennacherib 705-681
Assurbanipal
(Sardanapalus) 668-626
Nebuchadnezzar 605-562
STUDY V.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
EGYPT.
1. ORIGIN OP THE NAME AND PEOPLE:
H. Brugsch-Bey:
History of Egypt,
776 (749).
R. S. Poole:
Cities of Egypt,
776 (749).
G. Rawlinson:
History of Ancient Egypt,
777 (750).
M. Duncker:
History of Antiquity,
777 (750).
A. H. Keane:
The African Races,
17 (19).
2. HISTORICAL ANTIQUITY:
H. Brugsch-Bey:
History of Egypt,
776-777 (750).
W. M. F. Petrie:
History of Egypt,
777 (3743).
W. M. F. Petrie:
Address,
Volume VI., 20-21.
3. PREHISTORIC CIVILIZATION:
W. M. F. Petrie:
Recent Egyptian Exploration,
Volume VI., 20.
4. THE OLD AND MIDDLE EMPIRES
(4700-2750 B. C.);
F. Lenormant:
Ancient History,
777-778, 2127 (750-751, 2083).
W. M. F. Petrie:
Recent Research in Egypt,
Volume VI., 18-19.
W. M. F. Petrie:
History of Egypt,
777-778 (750-751).
R. S. Poole:
Cities of Egypt,
2196, 3189 (2152, 3104).
5. THE PYRAMIDS, AND THE OBELISKS; "CLEOPATRA’S NEEDLES"
F. Lenormant:
Ancient History,
777 (750).
G. Rawlinson:
Ancient Egypt,
780 (753).
6. THE HYKSOS, OR SHEPHERD KINGS (2150-1700 B. C.),
AND SOJOURN OF ABRAHAM:
G. Rawlinson:
History of Ancient Egypt,
778 (751).
E. Wilson:
The Egypt of the Past,
778 (751).
E. A. W. Budge:
The Dwellers on the Nile,
1937 (1896).
G. Rawlinson:
Ancient Egypt,
1937 (1896).
E. Renan:
The People of Israel,
1937-1938 (1896-1897).
A. H. Sayce:
The Hittites,
116, 1695 (109, 1656).
H. Brugsch-Bey:
Egypt under the Pharaohs,
779 (752).
7. THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY; THE NEW EMPIRE
(1600-1300 B. C.):
G. Rawlinson:
History of Ancient Egypt,
779-780 (752-753).
C. Bezold:
Oriental Diplomacy,
781 (754).
A. Lefèvre:
Race and Language,
2968 (2891).
8. ISRAEL IN EGYPT
(1750-1300 B. C.):
E. A.W. Budge:
Dwellers on the Nile,
1937 (1896).
G. Rawlinson:
Ancient Egypt,
1937 (1896).
H. Brugsch-Bey:
Egypt under the Pharaohs,
1937 (1896).
F. Lenormant:
Ancient History,
782 (755).
R. S. Poole:
Ancient Egypt,
782 (755).
9. DECLINE OF EMPIRE OF THE PHARAOHS;
ASSYRIAN CONQUEST (1200-525 B. C.):
G. Rawlinson:
History of Ancient Egypt,
782-783 (755-6).
Five Great Monarchies,
783 (756).
10. THE PERSIAN CONQUEST
(525-332 B. C.):
G. Rawlinson:
Five Great Monarchies,
784 (757).
P. Smith:
Ancient History,
784 (757).
A. H. Sayce:
Introduction to Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther,
2578 (2511).
11. ANCIENT EGYPTIAN LIFE AND CULTURE:
(a) Literature and Art.
A. B. Edwards:
The Academy,
305 (296).
Edinburgh Review:
The Tel El-Amarna Tablets,
780 (753).
C. Bezold:
Oriental Diplomacy,
781 (754).
W. M. F. Petrie:
Recent Egyptian Exploration,
Volume VI., 20-21.
(b) Education.
J. G. Wilkinson, and others,
696-697 (673-674).
(c) Trade and Commerce.
Earliest Records of Trade,
3207 (3696).
Sir J. Lubbock:
History of Money,
2243 (2199).
E. J. Simcox:
Primitive Civilizations,
2244 (2200).
M. Duncker:
History of Antiquity,
2600 (2532).
F. Lenormant:
History of the East,
129 (122).
P. Gardner:
New Chapters in Greek History,
785-786 (758-759).
C. Merivale:
History of the Romans,
3211-3213 (3700-3702).
(d) Treatment of Diseases.
G. Rawlinson and others,
2164-2166 (2120-2122).
12. THE CONQUEST OF ALEXANDER AND THE KINGDOM OF THE PTOLEMIES
(332-330 B. C.):
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
785 (758).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Story of Alexander’s Empire,
2103 (2059).
A. H. L. Heeren:
Ancient History,
2104 (2060).
T. Timayenis:
History of Greece,
2106 (2062).
S. Sharpe:
History of Egypt,
785, also 786 (758, 759).
C. Merivale:
History of the Romans,
786 (759).
13. THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA:
J. P. Mahaffy:
The Story of Alexander’s Empire,
44-45 (37-38).
A. Hirtius:
The Alexandrian War,
46 (39).
J. J. Döllinger:
History of the Church,
2295-2296 (2247-2248).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall of Roman Empire,
46, also 47 (39, 40).
H. H. Milman:
History of Latin Christianity,
47 (40).
Sir W. Muir:
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
2115 (2070).
E. Kirkpatrick:
Development of Superior Instruction,
707-708 (684-685).
Fraser’s Magazine:
Historical Researches on the Burning of
the Library of Alexandria by Saracens,
2047-2048 (2003-2004).
Fraser’s Magazine:
The American Journal of Archaeology,
Volume VI., 28.
14. THE MOSLEM CONQUEST
(640-646 A. D.):
Sir W. Muir:
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
2114-2115 (2069-2070).
15. EGYPT AND THE CRUSADES
(1216-1254 A. D.):
G. Procter:
The Crusades,
656-657 (633-634).
T. L. Kington:
History of Frederick II.,
657 (634).
F. P. Guizot.
History of France,
657-658 (634-635).
{740}
16. THE OTTOMAN CONQUEST
(1517 A. D.):
S. Lane-Poole:
The Story of Turkey,
3254 (3138).
17. OVERTHROW OF THE OTTOMAN POWER BY NAPOLEON
(A. D. 1798):
W. Massey:
History of England,
1354-1355 (1321-1322).
J. G. Lockhart:
Life of Napoleon,
1357-1359 (1324-1326).
18. OVERTHROW OF FRENCH POWER BY ENGLAND,
AND RESTORATION OF EGYPT TO TURKEY
(1801-1802 A.D.):
J. R. Green:
History of English People,
1368-1369 (1335-1336).
19. BANKRUPTCY OF THE STATE AND ENGLISH OCCUPATION
(1875-1883):
H. Vogt:
The Egyptian War of 1882,
792 (765).
J. E. Bowen:
Conflict of East and West in Egypt,
792-794 (765-767).
E. Dicey.
Egypt,
Volume VI., 198.
20. THE ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONDOMINIUM (1899):
Great Britain, Papers by Command;
Egypt,
Volume VI., 201-203.
STUDY VI.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
THE JEWS.
1. THE NATIONAL NAMES:
H. Ewald:
History of Israel,
1936 (1895).
A. P. Stanley:
History of Jewish Church,
1936 (1895).
2. THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR RACIAL CONNECTIONS:
George Adam Smith:
Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
2964-2965 (2887-2888).
A. H. Sayce:
Races of the Old Testament,
2963 (2886).
J. F. McCurdy:
History, Prophecy, and the Monuments,
2963-2964 (2886-2887).
A. Lefèvre:
Race and Language,
2971 (2804).
3. THE MIGRATION OF ABRAHAM
(2200 B. C.):
E. A. W. Budge:
Dwellers on the Nile,
1937 (1896).
E. Wilson:
Egypt of the Past,
778 (751).
H. Ewald:
History of Israel,
1937 (1896).
4. THE PRINCIPAL NATIONS WITH WHOM ISRAEL CAME IN CONTACT:
(a) The Canaanites.
A. H. Sayce:
Fresh Light from the Monuments,
365 (355).
A. Kuenen:
The Religion of Israel,
1936 (1895).
F. Lenormant:
Ancient History of East,
2599 (2531).
(b) The Hittites.
A. H. Sayce:
The Hittites,
1695 (1656).
Padre de Cara:
Civilità Cattolica,
1845 (1805).
(c) The Amorites.
A. H. Sayce:
The Hittites,
116 (109).
(d) The Moabites.
A. H. Sayce:
Fresh Light from the Monuments,
2237 (2193).
(e) The Philistines.
F. W. Newman:
History of the Hebrew Monarchy,
2598 (2530).
George Adam Smith:
Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
2598 (2530).
5. THE SOJOURN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT
(1750-1300 B. C.):
H. Brugsch-Bey:
Egypt under the Pharaohs,
779, 1937 (752, 1896).
E. A. W. Budge:
Dwellers on the Nile,
1937 (1896).
E. Renan:
The People of Israel,
1937-1938 (1896-1897).
G. Rawlinson:
Ancient Egypt,
1937 (1896).
6. THE EXODUS AND THE SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN
(1300-1230 B. C.):
E. Naville:
The Store-City Pithom,
1938 (1897).
F. Lenormant:
History of the East,
782 (755).
R. S. Poole:
Ancient Egypt,
782 (755).
E. Naville:
Route of the Exodus,
1938-1939 (1897-1898).
M. Duncker:
History of Antiquity,
1939-1940 (1898-1899).
7. THE JUDGES
(1250-1075 B. C.):
Dean Stanley:
Lectures on Jewish Church,
1940 (1899).
S. Sharpe:
History of the Hebrew Nation,
1940-1941 (1899-1900).
W. Robertson Smith:
The Prophets of Israel,
1941 (1900).
Dean Stanley:
Lectures on Jewish Church,
701 (678).
8. JERUSALEM THE NATIONAL CAPITAL:
T. Lewin:
Jerusalem,
1921 (1880).
F. W. Newman:
History of the Hebrew Monarchy,
1922 (1881).
Josephus:
Antiquities,
1922 (1881).
L. von Ranke:
Universal History,
1942 (1901).
9. THE SINGLE MONARCHY
(1075-950 B. C.):
L. von Ranke:
Universal History,
1941-1942 (1900-1901).
H. Graetz:
History of the Jews,
1943 (1902).
E. Renan:
The People of Israel,
1943-1944 (1902-1903).
H. Ewald;
History of Israel,
3210 (3699).
10. THE DIVIDED KINGDOM; ISRAEL, JUDAH
(950-730 B. C.):
Dean Stanley:
Lectures on the Jewish Church,
1944 (1903).
W. Robertson Smith:
The Prophets of Israel,
1945 (1904).
J. Wellhausen:
History of Israel and Judah,
1945 (1904).
A. H. Sayce:
LIFE AND TIMES OF ISAIAH,
1945 (1904).
Dean Stanley:
Lectures on the Jewish Church,
1946 (1905).
11. SAMARIA, THE CAPITAL CITY OF ISRAEL:
Dean Stanley:
Lectures on Jewish Church,
1944 (1903).
W. Robertson Smith:
The Prophets of Israel,
1944 (1904).
H. Ewald:
History of Israel,
2871 (2796).
H. Graetz:
History of the Jews,
2871-2872 (2796-2797).
H. H. Milman:
History of the Jews,
2872 (2797).
12. THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH
(724-598 B. C.):
M. Arnold:
Isaiah of Jerusalem,
1946 (1905).
J. Wellhausen:
Israel and Judah,
1946 (1905).
S. R. Driver:
Isaiah,
1946-1947 (1905-1906).
C. G. Montefiore:
Lectures on Religion,
1947-1948 (1906-1907).
A. Kuenen:
Religion of Israel,
1948 (1907).
J. Wellhausen:
Israel and Judah,
1945 (1904).
{741}
13. THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION
(598-332 B. C.):
H. H. Milman:
History of the Jews,
1948-1949 (1907-1908).
A. Kuenen:
Religion of Israel,
1949 (1908).
P. H. Hunter:
After the Exile,
1949-1950 (1908-1909).
M. Duncker:
History of Antiquity,
1950-1951 (1909-1910).
J. J. Döllinger:
Gentile and Jew,
1952 (1911).
H. H. Milman:
History of the Jews,
1952 (1911).
A. H. Sayce:
Ancient Empires of the East,
2577 (2510).
A. H. Sayce:
Introduction to Books of Ezra, etc.,
2577-2578 (2510-2511).
14. THE GREEK DOMINION AND THE MACCABEAN WAR
(332-340 B. C.):
J. P. Mahaffy:
Story of Alexander’s Empire,
2102-2103 (2058-2059).
G. Rawlinson:
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
2960 (2883).
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
2960 (2883).
H. Ewald:
History of Israel,
1953 (1912).
J. J. Döllinger:
Gentile and Jew,
1954 (1913).
E. H. Palmer:
History of Jewish Nation,
1954 (1913).
W. D. Morrison:
Jews under Roman Rule,
1954-1955 (1913-1914).
J. H. Allen:
Hebrew Men and Times,
1955 (1914).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
1956 (1915).
E. Schürer:
History of Jewish People,
1957 (1916).
T. Keim:
History of Jesus of Nazara,
1958 (1917).
E. Schürer,
History of the Jewish People,
1677-1678 (1638-1639).
15. HEROD AND THE HERODIANS; ROMAN SUPREMACY
(B. C. 40-A. D. 44):
T. Keim:
History of Jesus of Nazara,
1958-1959 (1917-1918).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
1960 (1919).
H. H. Milman:
History of the Jews,
1960 (1919).
16. THE BIRTH OF JESUS AND THE FALL OF JERUSALEM
(B. C. 8-A. D. 70):
T. Keim:
History of Jesus of Nazara,
1960-1961 (1919-1920).
E. de Pressensé:
Jesus Christ,
1961-1962 (1920-1921).
C. Merivale:
History of the Romans,
1962 (1921).
Besant and Palmer:
Jerusalem,
1962-1963 (1921-1922).
H. H. Milman:
History of the Jews,
1963 (1922).
"Nations that are fitted to play a part in universal history
must die first that the world may live through them' A people
must choose between the prolonged life, the tranquil and
obscure destiny of one who lives for himself, and the
troubled, stormy career of one who lives for humanity. The
nation which revolves within its breast social and religious
problems is always weak politically. Thus it was with the
Jews, who in order to make the religious conquest of the world
must needs disappear as a nation. They lost a material city;
they opened the reign of the Spiritual Jerusalem."
RENAN.
STUDY VII.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
EARLY HISTORY OF INDIA AND CHINA.
A. INDIA.
1. THE NAME, AND ORIGINAL INHABITANTS:
J. R. Seeley:
The Expansion of England,
1739-1740 (1701).
H. G. Keene:
History of Hindustan,
1740 (1701).
C. F. Keary:
Dawn of History,
144-145 (137-138).
W. W. Hunter:
History of Indian People,
1740-1741 (1701-1702).
See Maps of India,
1748 (1708).
2. THE ARYAN CONQUEST
(B. C. 1500-1400 (?)):
M. Duncker:
History of Antiquity,
1741-1742 (1702-1703).
M. Williams:
Religious Life in India,
1742 (1703).
3. THE INVASION AND CONQUESTS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT
(B. C. 327-322):
J. T. Wheeler:
History of India,
1742-1743 (1703-1704).
C. A. Fyffe:
History of Greece,
2103 (2059).
G. Rawlinson:
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
2960 (2883).
4. THE SPREAD OF BUDDHISM
(B. C. 312-):
M. Williams:
Hinduism,
1743-1744 (1704-1705).
V. Smith:
London Times,
Volume VI., 57-58.
5. TRADE AND COMMERCE:
Mrs. Manning:
Ancient and Mediaeval India,
3208 (3697).
M. Duncker:
History of Antiquity,
3208 (3697).
B. CHINA.
1. THE NAME AND GEOGRAPHY OF THE COUNTRY:
H. Yule:
Cathay,
428 (416).
E. Reclus:
The Earth and its Inhabitants,
428-430.
2. THE ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF THE PEOPLE:
T. de Lacouperie:
Babylonia and China,
246 (239).
T. de Lacouperie:
History of Chinese Civilization,
246 (239).
R. K. Douglas:
China,
431-432 (416-418).
3. LIFE OF THE EARLY PEOPLE:
(a) Religion.
R. K. Douglas:
China,
432-433 (418-419).
T. W. Rhys Davids:
Buddhism,
433 (419).
(b) Education.
W. A. P. Martin:
The Chinese,
699 (675-676).
(c) Trade and Commerce.
Sir J. Lubbock:
History of Money,
2244-2245 (2200-2201).
E. J. Simcox:
Primitive Civilizations,
3215 (3704).
STUDY VIII.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
EARLY GREECE AND THE PERSIAN WARS.
"Our interest in Ancient history, it may be said, lies not in
large masses. It matters little how early the Arcadians
acquired a political unity or what Nabis did to Mycenae; that
which interests us is the Constitution of Athens, the repulse
of Persia, the brief bloom of Thebes."
S. H. BOTCHER.
1. THE LAND, AND ITS INFLUENCE UPON THE PEOPLE:
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
3192 (3107).
E. Reclus:
The Earth and its Inhabitants,
1603 (1565).
E. A. Freeman:
Practical Bearings of European History,
1604 (1566).
F. B. Jevons:
History of Greek Literature,
1676-1677 (1637-1638).
C. A. Fyffe:
History of Greece,
1606 (1568).
E. Abbott:
History of Greece,
1606 (1568).
2. THE EARLIEST INHABITANTS:
(a) In General.
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
2562-2563 (2496-2497).
E. Abbott:
History of Greece,
2563 (2497).
{741}
C. F. Keary:
The Dawn of History,
145 (138).
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
1674-1675 (1635-1636).
(b) The Pelopids and Mycenae.
G. Grote:
History of Greece,
2563 (2497).
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
2563 (2497).
P. Gardner:
New Chapters of Greek History,
1605-1606 (1567-1568).
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
3241-3242 (3125-3126).
The Nation:
Dr. Schliemann’s Work,
3242 (3126).
(c) The Cretans and Knossos.
G. Schömann:
Antiquities of Greece,
647 (624).
A. J. Evans:
London Times,
Volume VI., 23-24.
D. G. Hogarth:
Authority and Archaeology,
Volume VI., 24-25.
A. L. Frothingham:
Archaeological Progress,
Volume VI., 25.
3. EARLY MIGRATIONS:
(a) In General.
C. W. C. Oman:
History of Greece,
1605 (1567).
E. Abbott:
History of Greece,
146-147 (139-140).
(5) Dorians and Ionians.
C. O. Müller:
History of Dorian Race,
687, 1682 (664, 1643).
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
687 (664).
G. Schömann:
Antiquities of Greece,
687 (664).
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
3100 (3018).
194-195 (187-188).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1020-1021 (992-993).
(c) Æolians.
G. Schömann:
Antiquities of Greece,
9-10.
E. Abbott:
History of Greece,
146-147 (139-140).
4. THE EARLY CITY STATES, AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS:
C. A. Fyffe:
History of Greece,
1606 (1568).
Thucydides:
History,
151-153 (144-146).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1019 (991).
Z. A. Ragozin:
Story of Chaldea,
246-247 (239-240).
L. von Ranke:
Universal History,
1607 (1569).
Perrot and Chipiez:
Chaldea and Assyria,
2968, top of second column, (2891).
F. B. Jevons:
History of Greek Literature,
1676, second column, (1637).
P. Gardner:
New Chapters in Greek History,
189, second column, (182).
M. Duncker:
History of Greece,
3189-3190 (3105).
5. THE RENOWNED LAWGIVERS:
(a) Lycurgus.
E. Abbott:
History of Greece,
3100-3102 (3018-3020).
C. H. Hanson:
The Land of Greece,
3103 (3021).
(b) Draco.
G. Grote:
History of Greece,
153 (146).
(c) Solon.
C. F. Hermann:
Political Antiquities of Greece,
155 (148).
W. Wachsmuth:
Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,
155-156 (148-149).
G. Grote:
History of Greeks,
673 (649-650).
6. THE RISE OF ATHENS:
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
194-195 (187-188).
Thucydides:
History,
151-153 (144-146).
W. W. Leake:
Topography of Athens,
151 (144).
See Maps, 152 (145).
E. Bulwer-Lytton:
Athens, 154 (147).
7. THE PISISTRATIDÆ AND CONSTITUTION OF CLEISTHENES
(560-507 B. C.):
E. Abbott:
History of Greece,
156 (149).
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
156-157 (149-50).
8. CONTEST WITH SPARTA FOR SUPREMACY
(509-506 B. C.):
C. H. Hanson:
The Land of Greece,
3102 (3021).
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
156-157 (149-150).
C. W. Cox:
The Greeks and Persians,
157 (150).
9. THE IONIAN REVOLT AND PERSIAN WARS
(B. C. 500-479):
(a) In General.
Herodotus:
Story of the Persian War,
1607-1608 (1569-1570).
P. Smith:
Ancient History of the East,
2579 (2512).
P. Smith:
History of the World, 1609 (1571).
L. von Ranke:
Universal History,
157-159 (150-152).
G. Rawlinson:
Ancient History,
2580 (2513).
(b) Marathon.
G. Grote:
History of Greece,
1609 (1571).
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
1609-1610 (1571-1572).
(c) Thermopylae.
Herodotus:
History,
1610-1611 (1572-1573).
B. G. Niebuhr:
Ancient History,
160-161 (153-154).
(d) Platæa and Mycale.
Herodotus:
History,
1612, 1613 (1574, 1575).
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
1613 (1575).
B. G. Niebuhr:
Ancient History,
160-161 (153-154).
10. THE CONFEDERACY OF DELOS AND END OF PERSIAN WARS
(B. C. 477-461):
G. W. Cox:
History of Greece.
1613 (1575).
W. W. Lloyd:
The Age of Pericles,
1614 (1576).
T. Keightley:
History of Greece,
164 (157).
J. Fiske:
Greek Federations,
1137 (1109).
11. POLITICAL RESULTS OF PERSIAN WARS:
G. Grote:
History of Greece,
163 (155-156).
Aristotle:
Constitution of Athens,
163-164 (156-157).
"None of these men were enervated by wealth or hesitated to
resign the pleasures of life. … And when the moment came they
were minded to resist and suffer, rather than to fly and save
their lives; they ran away from the word of dishonor, but on
the battlefield their feet stood fast, and in an instant, at
the height of their fortune, they passed away from the scene,
not of their fear, but of their glory. Such was the end of
these men; they were worthy of Athens; and the living may not
desire to have a more heroic spirit although they may pray for
a less fatal issue. … The sacrifice which they collectively
made was individually repaid to them; for they received again
each one for himself a praise which grows not old, and the
noblest of all sepulchers—I speak not of that in which their
remains are laid, but of that in which their glory survives,
and is proclaimed always and on every fitting occasion both in
word and deed. For the whole earth is the sepulcher of famous
men; not only are they commemorated by columns and
inscriptions in their own country, but in foreign lands there
dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on
stone, but in the hearts of men."
From the Funeral Oration of Pericles,
pages 175-178 (168-171).
STUDY IX.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
THE GOLDEN AGE OF GREECE.
"To Greece we owe the love of Science, the love of Art, the
love of Freedom; not Science alone, Art alone, or Freedom
alone, but these vitally correlated with one another and
brought into organic union. And in this union we recognize the
distinctive features of the West. The Greek genius is the
European genius in its first and brightest bloom. From a
vivifying contact with the Greek spirit Europe derived that
new and mighty impulse which we call Progress."
S. H. BUTCHER.
I. ATHENS AFTER THE PERSIAN WARS:
(a) The Rebuilding of the City.
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
161-152 (154-155).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1022-1023 (994-995).
(b) The Enlargement of the Democracy.
G. Grote:
History of Greece,
162-163 (155-156).
{743}
Aristotle:
The Constitution of Athens,
163-164 (156-157).
A. J. Grant:
The Age of Pericles,
1615 (1577).
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
132 (125).
(c) Quarrels with Sparta.
C. W. C. Oman:
History of Greece,
165-166 (158-159).
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
166-167 (159-160).
A. J. Grant:
Age of Pericles,
1614 (1576).
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
1615-1616 (1577-1578).
2. THE RISE OF PERICLES
(B. C. 466-429):
C. W. C. Oman:
History of Greece,
165-166 (158-159).
A. J. Grant:
The Age of Pericles,
1615 (1577).
3. THE AGE OF PERICLES
(B. C. 445-429):
(a) The Splendor of Athens.
E. Abbott:
Pericles,
167-168 (160-161).
E. Bulwer-Lytton:
Athens,
168 (161).
(b) Art and the Domestic Life.
E. E. Viollet-le-Duc:
Habitations of Man in All Ages,
168-169 (161-162).
R. C. Jebb:
Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
1676 (1637).
(c) Education and Literature.
Plato:
Protagoras,
701 (678).
Aristotle:
Politics,
702 (679).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Old Greek Education,
702-703 (679-680).
O. Browning:
Educational Theories,
703 (680).
J. A. St. John:
The Hellenes,
703-704 (680-681).
F. B. Jevons:
History of Greek Literature,
1676-1677 (1637-1638).
S. H. Butcher:
Some Aspects of Greek Genius,
1675 (1636).
(d) Law and its Administration.
Sir H. S. Maine:
Ancient Law,
170 (163).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Social Life in Greece,
170-171 (163-164).
(e) The Political Life.
E. A. Freeman:
Athenian Democracy,
172 (165).
E. A. Freeman:
Comparative Politics,
171-172 (164-165).
S. H. Butcher:
Some Aspects of Greek Genius,
172 (165).
J. S. Blackie:
What does History Teach,
173 (166).
Pericles:
Funeral Oration,
175-178 (168-171).
4. THE GREAT PLAGUE AND DEATH OF PERICLES
(B.C. 430-429):
Thucydides:
History,
178 (171).
5. THE RISE OF THE DEMAGOGUES
(429-421 B. C.):
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
178-179 (171-172).
E. A. Freeman:
Historical Essays,
179 (172).
6. SOCRATES AS SOLDIER AND CITIZEN:
F. J. Church:
Trial and Death of Socrates,
179-180 (172-173).
E. Zeller:
Socrates,
705-706 (682-683).
7. THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR (B. C. 431-404):
(a) First Period (431-421) to Peace of Nicias:
Thucydides:
History,
1620 (1582).
W. Mitford:
History of Greece,
1620-1621 (1582-1583).
C. W. C. Oman:
History of Greece,
1622 (1584).
T. Timayenis:
History of Greece,
1623-1924 (1585-1586).
C. W. C. Oman:
History of Greece,
181 (174).
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
181 (174).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1023 (995).
(b) Alcibiades; The Sicilian Expedition
(B. C. 415-413):
B. G. Niebuhr:
Ancient History,
1624-1625 (1586-1587).
Y. Duruy:
History of Greek People,
182 (175).
E. A. Freeman:
Story of Sicily,
182-183 (175-176).
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
1625-1627 (1587-15899).
T. N. Talfourd:
History of Greece,
1629 (1591).
W. Wachsmuth:
Antiquities of the Greeks,
184-185 (177-178).
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
185 (178).
(c) Battle of Ægospotami; Overthrow of Athens
(405 B. C.).
G. Grote:
History of Greece,
185 (178).
G. W. Cox:
Athenian Empire,
1629-1630 (1591-1592).
8. THE OVERTHROW OF DEMOCRACY:
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
185-186 (178-179).
9. EXPEDITION OF CYRUS; RETREAT OF THE "TEN THOUSAND"
(B. C. 401-400):
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
2581 (2514).
10. THE SUPREMACY OF THEBES
(B. C. 379-362):
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
1631-1632 (1593-1594).
Xenophon:
Hellenica,
1632 (1594).
C. Sankey:
The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
1632-1634 (1594-1596).
11. CHÆRONEA; END OF GREEK INDEPENDENCE
(B. C. 338):
B. G. Niebuhr:
Ancient History,
1634-1636 (1596-1598).
W. W. Fowler:
The City State,
186-187 (179-180).
P. Gardner:
Greek History,
189, first column, (182).
12. HELLENIC GENIUS, CULTURE, AND INFLUENCE:
The Funeral Oration of Pericles,
175-178 (168-171).
P. Gardner:
New Chapters in Greek History,
189-190 (182-183).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Greek Life and Thought,
188, 189, 706 (181, 182, 683).
T. Davidson:
Aristotle,
704 and 705 (681, 682).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Old Greek Education,
702-703 (679-680).
O. Browning:
Educational Theories,
703 (680).
The Nation:
Free Schools in Greece,
705 (682).
W. W. Capes:
University Life in Ancient Athens,
706-707 (683-684).
S. H. Butcher:
Some Aspects of Greek Genius,
1675 (1636).
R. C. Jebb:
Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
1675-1676 (1636-1637).
F. B. Jevons:
History of Greek Literature,
1676-1677 (1637-1638).
J. P. Mahaffy:
The Greek World under Roman Sway,
1680 (1641).
L. E. Upcott:
Introduction to Greek Sculpture,
2956-2957.
J. A. St. John:
The Hellenes,
1657 (1819).
W. M. Leake:
Topography of Athens,
1657 (1619).
W. W. Capes:
University Life in Ancient Athens,
5 (5).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
1679 second column, (1640).
"So long as Greece was free and the spirit of freedom animated
the Greeks, so long their literature was creative and genius
marked it. When liberty perished, literature declined. The
field of Chæronea was fatal alike to the political liberty and
to the literature of Greece."
F. B. JEVONS.
{744}
STUDY X.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
THE CONQUESTS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT.
1. MACEDONIA AND ITS EARLY HISTORY:
G. Grote:
History of Greece,
2101 (2057).
P. Smith:
Ancient History of East,
2579 (2512).
G. Grote:
History of Greece,
1631 (1593).
2. RISE AND CAREER OF PHILIP OF MACEDON
(B. C. 359-336):
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
1634 (1596).
B. G. Niebuhr:
Ancient History,
1634-1636 (1596-1598).
E. Curtius:
History of Greece,
1636 (1598).
W. W. Fowler:
The City-State,
186-187 (179-180).
A. H. L. Heeren:
Politics of Ancient Greece,
188 (181).
"No alliance could save Greece from the Macedonian power, as
subsequent events plainly showed. What was needed was a real
federal union between the leading states, with a strong
central controlling force; and Demosthenes’ policy was
hopeless just because Athens could never be the center of such
a union, nor could any other city. Demosthenes is thus the
last, and in some respects the most heroic champion of the old
Greek instinct for autonomy. He is the true child of the
City-State, but the child of its old age and decrepitude."
W. W. FOWLER.
3. THE CAREER OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT
(B. C. 336-323):
L. von Ranke:
Universal History,
1637 (1599).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Story of Alexander’s Empire,
2102-2103 (2058-2059).
C. A. Fyffe:
History of Greece,
2103 (2059).
E. A. Freeman:
Alexander,
2103-2104 (2059-2060).
J. T. Wheeler:
History of India,
1742-1743 (1703-1704).
See Maps,
2106-2107 (2062-2063).
4. THE EFFECTS OF THE MACEDONIAN CONQUESTS:
E. Zeller:
Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics,
188 (181).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Greek Life and Thought,
188-189 (181-182).
P. Gardner:
New Chapters in Greek History,
189-190 (182-183).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Story of Alexander’s Empire,
1640, first column, (1602).
F. B. Jevons:
History of Greek Literature,
1676-1677 (1637-1638).
R. S. Poole:
Cities of Egypt,
44 (37).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Story of Alexander’s Empire,
44-45 (37-38).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1023-1024 (995-996).
5. The Division of Alexander’s Empire:
(a) Preliminary Struggles to Battle of Ipsus
(B.C. 323-301).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Story of Alexander’s Empire,
1639-1640 (1601-1602).
T. Keightley:
History of Greece,
1637-1639 (1599-1601).
A. H. L. Heeren:
Ancient History,
2104 (2060).
W. C. Taylor:
Ancient History,
2104-2105 (2060-2061).
T. T. Timayenis:
History of Greece,
2105-2016 (2061-2062).
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
2106-2107 (2062-2063).
(b) The Seleucidæ.
G. Rawlinson:
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
2960 (2883).
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
2960 (2883).
B. G. Niebuhr:
Ancient History,
2960-2961 (2883-2884).
P. Smith:
History of the World,
2961-2963 (2884-2886).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall of Roman Empire,
2959-2960 (2882-2883).
(c) The Ptolemies.
S. Sharpe:
History of Egypt,
785 (758).
P. Gardner:
New Chapters in Greek History,
785-786 (758-759).
J. H. Newman:
Historical Sketches,
707-708 (684-685).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Story of Alexander’s Empire,
44-45 (37-38).
6. THE ACHAIAN LEAGUE (E. C. 280-146):
E. A. Freeman:
Federal Government,
1640-1641 (1602-1603).
E. A. Freeman:
Federal Government,
1136 (1108).
John Fiske:
American Political Ideas,
1137 (1109).
7. THE GALLIC INVASION
(B. C. 280-279):
C. Merivale:
History of the Romans,
1448-1449 (1415-1416).
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
1449 (1416).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Story of Alexander’s Empire,
1442 (1409).
8. THE ROMAN CONQUEST (B. C. 214-146):
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
1641 (1603).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
191 (184).
E. S. Shuckburgh:
History of Rome,
2752-2753 (2678-2679).
R. C. Jebb:
Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
1678 (1639).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
1680 (1641).
"So too it was with Greece. As a people she ceased to be. When
her freedom was overthrown at Chæronea, the page of her
history was to all appearance closed. Yet from that moment
'she was to enter on a larger life and on universal empire. …
As Alexander passed conquering through Asia, he restored to
the East, as garnered grain, that Greek civilization whose
seeds had long ago been received from the East. Each conqueror
in turn, the Macedonian and the Roman, bowed before conquered
Greece and learnt lessons at her feet. To the modern world too
Greece has been the great civilizer, the œcumenical teacher,
the disturber and regenerator of slumbering societies. She is
the source of most of the quickening ideas which remake
nations and renovate literature and art. If we reckon up our
secular possessions, the wealth and heritage of the past, the
large share may be traced back to Greece. One half of life she
has made her domain,—all, or well-nigh all, that belongs to
the present order of things, and to the visible world.
S. H. Butcher:
Some Aspects of Greek Genius,
page 1675 (1636).
STUDY XI.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
RISE OF ROME AND CONQUEST OF THE WORLD.
1. ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE:
C. F. Keary:
Dawn of History,
144-145 (137-138).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
37-38, 1844-1845, 2731 (30-31, 1804-1805, 2657).
A. Tighe:
Roman Constitution,
1455-1456 (1422-1423).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
1456 (1423).
F. de Coulanges:
The Ancient City,
2731 (2657).
E. A. Freeman:
European History,
2731-2732 (2658).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1024 (996).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
2861 (2787).
Padre de Cara:
Civilità Cattolica,
1845 (1805).
Appendix A,
3793-3794 (End Volume I.).
2. LATIUM AND THE LATIN NAME:
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
37-38, 1998 (30-31, 1954).
T. Arnold:
History of Rome,
1997-1998 (1953-1954).
3. THE FOUNDING OF ROME, AND ITS CIVILIZATION
(B. C. 753-):
Sir H. Nicholas:
Chronology of History,
2734 (2660).
E. A. Freeman:
European History,
2731-2732 (2658).
Goldwin Smith:
Greatness of the Romans,
2733 (2659).
G. A Simcox:
History of Latin Literature,
2734 (2660).
{745}
4. THE PATRICIANS AND PLEBS:
E. A. Freeman:
European History,
2732 (2658).
A. Tighe:
The Roman Constitution,
505 (491).
F. de Coulanges:
The Ancient City,
2738 (2664).
5. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS:
(a) The King.
Sir G. C. Lewis:
Early Roman History,
2734-2735 (2660-2661).
W. W. Fowler:
The City-State,
2735 (2661).
H. F. Pelham,
Roman History,
2735-2736 (2661-2662).
(b) The Comitia Curiata, Comitia Centuriata,
and Comitia Tributa.
A. Tighe:
The Roman Constitution,
504, 505 (490, 491).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
2739 (2665).
W. Ihne:
History of Rome,
2739 (2665).
(c) The Senate.
A. Tighe:
The Roman Constitution,
2971 (2894).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
2971-2972 (2894-2895).
(d) The Consuls and Prætors.
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
2737 (2663).
A. Tighe:
Roman Constitution,
633-634 (610-11).
W. Ihne:
History of Rome,
634, 2744 (611, 2670).
(e) The Censors.
T. Arnold:
History of Rome,
412 (402-403).
(f) The Tribunes.
R. F. Horton:
History of Romans,
2737-2738, 2739 (2663-2664, 2665).
W. Ihne:
History of Rome,
634, 2738, 2739 (611, 2664, 2665).
F. de Coulanges:
The Ancient City,
2738 (2664).
6. THE LEGENDARY PERIOD OF THE KINGS
(B. C. 753-510):
Sir G. C. Lewis:
Early Roman History,
2734-2735 (2660-2661).
T. Livy:
History of Rome,
2735 (2661).
H. F. Pelham:
Roman History,
2735-2736 (2661-2662).
A. J. Church:
Stories from Livy,
2736-2737 (2662-2663).
7. RISE OF THE REPUBLIC
(B. C. 509-):
(a) Struggle between Patricians and Plebeians
(B. C. 509-286).
R. F. Horton:
History of Romans,
2738 (2664).
F. de Coulanges:
Ancient City,
2738 (2664).
J. Hadley:
Introduction to Roman Law,
673 (650).
J. L. Strachan-Davidson:
Plebeian Privilege at Rome,
2740 (2666).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1025 (997).
(b) Laws establishing Privileges of the People.
(1) The Valerian Laws (B. C. 509).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
2737 (2663).
W. Ihne:
History of Rome,
2737 (2663).
(2) The Publilian Laws
(B. C. 472).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
2739 (2665).
W. Ihne:
History of Rome,
2739 (2665).
(3) The Icilian Law
(B. C. 456).
J. L. Strachan-Davidson:
Plebeian Privilege at Rome,
2740 (2666).
(4) The Terentilian Law and The Twelve Tables
(B. C. 451-449)
W. Ihne:
History of Rome,
2740-2741 (2666-2667).
H. S. Maine:
Ancient Law,
2741 (2667).
(5) The Valerio-Horatian Laws
(B. C. 440).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
2741 (2667).
(6)
The Canuleian Law
(B. C. 445).
V. Duruy:
History of Rome,
2741-2742 (2667-2668).
(7) The Licinian Laws
(B. C. 376-367).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
2743 (2669).
A. Stephenson:
Agrarian Laws of Roman Republic,
2743-2744 (2669-2670).
(8) The Publilian Laws
(B. C. 340).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
2745 (2671).
(9) The Hortensian Laws
(B. C. 286).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
2747 (2673).
H. F. Pelham:
Roman History,
2747-2748 (2673-2674).
T. Arnold:
History of Rome,
673 (650).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
2727-2728 (2653-2654).
8. THE EXPANSION OF ROME:
W. Ihne:
History of Rome,
2739 (2665).
R. F. Horton:
History of Romans,
2739, 2742 (2665, 2668).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
2743 (2669).
J. Michelet:
The Roman Republic,
2744-2745 (2671).
W. Ihne:
History of Romans,
2745 (2671).
F. de Coulanges:
The Ancient City,
2745 (2671).
W. Ihne:
History of Rome,
2746-2747 (2672-2673).
T. Arnold:
History of Rome,
2748 (2674).
9. GALLIC INVASION AND DESTRUCTION OF THE CITY
(B. C. 390):
J. Rhys:
Celtic Britain,
412 (402).
C. Merivale:
History of the Romans,
1448-1449 (1415-1416).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
2743 (2669).
10. UNION OF ITALY UNDER THE REPUBLIC
(B. C. 275):
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
2748-2749 (2674-2675).
J. N. Larned.
Europe,
1025 (997).
11. THE PUNIC WARS
(B. C. 264-202):
M. Duncker:
History of Antiquity,
402 (392).
G. Grote:
History of Greece,
403 (393).
T. Arnold:
History of Rome,
2749 (2675).
W. B. Boyce:
Introduction to Study of History,
2750 (2676).
E. A. Freeman:
Outlines of History,
2750 (2676).
M. Creighton:
History of Rome,
2750-2751 (2676-2677).
R. F. Horton:
History of Romans,
2751 (2677).
R. F. Leighton:
History of Rome,
2751-2752 (2677-2678).
R. B. Smith:
Carthage and the Carthaginians,
403-404, 2687-2690, 2752 (393-394, 2614-2617, 2678).
H. F. Pelham:
Roman History,
2754 (2680).
12. DECLINE OF THE REPUBLIC
(B. C. 200-45):
E. S. Shuckburgh:
History of Rome,
2752-2753 (2678-2679).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
2753-2754 (2680).
H. F. Pelham:
Roman History,
2754-2755 (2680).
W. T. Arnold:
Roman Administration,
2755 (2681).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
2971-2972 (2894-2895).
M. Creighton:
History of Rome,
2756-2757 (2682-2683).
13. ATTEMPTS AT REFORM; AGRARIAN LAWS; THE GRACCHI:
G. Long:Decline of Roman Republic,
27 (20).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
27 (20).
A. Stephenson:
Agrarian Laws, etc.,
2743-2744 (2669-2670).
H. F. Pelham:
Roman History,
2755 (2681).
G. Long:
Decline of Roman Republic,
2755-2756 (2681-2682).
C. Merivale:
Fall of Roman Republic,
2756 (2682).
14. THE SOCIAL AND CIVIL WARS
(B. C. 90-45):
W. Ihne:
History of Rome,
2757-2758 (2683-2684).
G. Long:
Decline of Roman Republic,
2758-2759 (2684-2685).
C. Merivale:
Roman Triumvirates,
2759-2760 (2685-2686).
W. Forsyth:
Life of Cicero,
2762 (2688).
{746}
15. JULIUS CAESAR; QUÆSTOR TO IMPERATOR
(B. C. 69-45):
W. W. Fowler:
Julius Caesar,
2761-2762 (2687-2688).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
2762-2763 (2688-2689).
J. Cæsar:
Gallic Wars,
1444-1445 (1411-1412).
R. F. Horton:
History of Romans,
2763-2764 (2690).
Plutarch: Cæsar,
2764-2765 (2690-2691).
C. Merivale:
History of Romans,
2767-2768 (2693-2694).
V. Duruy:
History of Rome,
2768-2769 (2694-2695).
J. A. Froude:
Cæsar,
2770-2771 (2696-2697).
Goldwin Smith:
Last Republicans of Rome,
2771 (2697).
16. THE TRIUMVIRATES; RISE OF THE EMPIRE
(B. C. 44-31):
C. Merivale:
History of the Romans,
2772-2773 (2698).
W. W. Capes:
The Early Empire,
2773-2775 (2699-2701).
H. F. Pelham:
Roman History,
2775 (2701).
C. Merivale:
History of the Romans,
355 (345).
17. CONQUEST OF THE WORLD:
G. Long:
Decline of Roman Republic,
3053 (2973).
J. Cæsar:
Gallic War,
1444-1445 (1411-1412).
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
1641 (1603).
P. Smith:
History of the World,
2961-2963 (2884-2886).
R. F. Horton:
History of Romans,
2236-2237 (2192-2193).
A. Hirtius:
The Alexandrian War,
46 (39).
J. Cæsar:
Gallic War,
329 (319).
C. Merivale:
History of the Romans,
329-331, 1463-1464 (319-321, 1430-1431).
STUDY XII.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
1. TRANSITION FROM THE REPUBLIC TO THE EMPIRE:
W. W. Capes:
The Early Empire,
2773-2775 (2699-2701).
C. Merivale:
History of Romans,
196, 355 (189, 345).
W. Ramsay:
Roman Antiquities,
196 (189).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1032 (1004).
C. Merivale:
History of Romans,
2773 (2699).
2. THE RISING INFLUENCE OF THE PRÆTORIAN GUARDS:
W. Ihne:
History of Rome,
2040 (1996).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2040 (1996).
W. Ramsay:
Roman Antiquities,
2655 (2583).
C. Merivale:
History of Romans,
2655 (2583).
B. G. Niebuhr:
History of Rome,
2776 (2702).
3. THE JULIAN AND CHRISTIAN ERA:
Sir H. Nicholas:
Chronology of History,
357-358 (347-348)
W. Hales:
Analysis of Chronology,
358, 1011 (348, 984).
T. Keim:
Jesus of Nazara,
1960-1961 (1919-1920).
4. THE JULIAN LINE
(B. C. 31-A. D. 70):
T. De Quincey:
The Cæsars,
2782 (2708).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of the Roman Empire,
1975 (1934).
B. G. Niebuhr:
History of Rome,
2775-2776 (2701-2702).
Suetonius:
Lives of the Twelve Cæsars,
2776-2777 (2702-2703).
C. Merivale:
History of Romans,
2777-2779 (2703-2705).
T. Keightley:
Roman Empire,
2779-2780 (2705-2706).
5. NERO; THE BURNING OF ROME AND PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS
(A. D. 64-68):
T. De Quincey:
The Cæsars,
2780-2781 (2706-2707).
F. W. Farrar:
Early Days of Christianity,
2781-2782 (2707-2708).
6. THE FLAVIAN LINE
(A. D. 69-192):
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of the Roman Empire,
1159 (1129).
(a) Vespasian-Domitian (69-96):
Y. Duruy:
History of Rome,
2783-2785 (2709-2711).
Besant and Palmer:
Jerusalem,
1962-1963 (1921-1922).
H. H. Milman:
History of the Jews,
1963 (1922).
C. Merivale:
History of Romans,
2632-2633 (2560-2561).
E. Edwards:
Memoirs of Libraries,
2049-2050 (2005-2006).
(b) Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian
(A. D. 96-138).
R. W. Browne:
History of Rome,
2785-2787 (2713).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
1963-1964 (1922-1923).
(c) The Antonines (138-192).
F. W. Farrar:
Seekers after God,
2787-2788 (2714).
E. Renan:
English Conferences,
2788 (2714).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2788-2789 (2714-2715).
"If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the
world during which the condition of the human race was most
happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that
which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of
Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by
absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The
armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four
successive Emperors whose characters and authority commanded
involuntary respect."
E. GIBBON.
7. COMMODUS TO CONSTANTINE
(A. D. 192-305):
T. Keightley:
Outlines of History,
2789-2790 (2716).
J. C. Robertson:
History of Christian Church,
2790 (2716).
W.C. Taylor:
Ancient History,
2790-2791 (2716-2717).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2472-2473 (2413-2414).
B. F. Westcott:
History of Religious Thought,
454 (440).
G. Uhlhorn:
Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
456 (442).
8. THE CONSTANTINES
(A. D. 305-361):
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2793-2794, 2795-2796 (2719-2720, 2721-2722).
Eusebius:
Ecclesiastical History,
2794 (2720).
E. L. Cutts:
Constantine the Great,
2795 (2721).
9. CHRISTIANITY BECOMES THE STATE RELIGION
(A. D. 323-):
E. L. Cutts:
Constantine the Great,
2794-1795 (2720-2721).
A. Neander:
History of Christian Religion.
2795 (2721).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of Roman Empire,
2795 (2721).
G. P. Fisher:
The Christian Church,
465 (451).
A. Carr:
Christianity and Roman Empire,
465-466 (451-2).
H. H. Milman:
History of Christianity,
467 (453).
J. N. Lamed:
Europe,
1035-1036 (1007-1008).
"Shortly after the beginning of the fourth century there
occurred an event which, had it been predicted in the days of
Nero or even of Decius, would have been deemed a wild fancy.
It was nothing less than the conversion of the Roman Emperor
to the Christian faith. It was an event of momentous
importance in the history of the Christian religion. The Roman
Empire, from being the enemy and persecutor of the Church,
thenceforward became its protector and patron. The Church
entered into an alliance with the State, which was to prove
fruitful of consequences, both good and evil, in the
subsequent history of Europe. Christianity was now to reap the
advantages and incur the dangers arising from the friendship
of earthly rulers, and from a close connection with the civil
authority."
G. P. FISHER.
{747}
"This important crisis in the history of Christianity almost
forcibly arrests attention to contemplate the change wrought
in Christianity by its advancement into a dominant power in
the State. By ceasing to exist as a separate community, and by
advancing its pretensions to influence the general government
of mankind, Christianity, to a certain extent, forfeited its
independence. It was no longer a republic, governed
exclusively—as far, at least, as its religious concerns—by
its own internal policy. The interference of the civil power
in some of its most, private affairs, the promulgation of its
canons and even, in some cases, the election of its bishops,
by the State, was the price which it must inevitably pay for
its association with the ruling power."
H. H. MILMAN.
10. THE NEW CAPITAL OF THE EMPIRE
(A. D. 330):
E. L. Cutts:
Constantine the Great,
519 (505).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
520-521 (506-507).
G. Finlay:
Greece under Romans,
521 (507).
11. JULIAN, TO THE DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE
(A. D. 361-395):
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2796 (2722).
P. Godwin:
History of France,
1445 (1412).
G. Rawlinson:
Seventh Oriental Monarchy,
2582 (2515).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of Roman Empire,
2799 (2724-2725).
T. Hodgkin:
Dynasty of Theodosius,
2799-2800 (2725-2726).
12. REVIVAL AND FINAL OVERTHROW OF PAGANISM
(A. D. 361-395):
G. Uhlhorn:
Conflict of Christianity and Heathenism,
2796-2798 (2722-2724).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2800-2801 (2726-2727).
J. B. Carwithen:
History of Christian Church,
2801 (2727).
13. THE DIVIDED EMPIRE
(A. D. 395-):
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
2801 (2727).
R. H. Wrightson:
Respublica Romana,
2801-2802 (2727-2728).
G. Finlay:
Greece under the Romans,
2803-2804 (2729-2730).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1037 (1009).
14. THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS
(A. D. 400-):
W. Smith:
Note to Decline and Fall,
1591-1592 (1553-1554).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
1592 (1554).
J. G. Sheppard:
Fall of Rome,
3714-3715 (3594-3595).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
1592-1593 (1554-1555).
C. A. Scott:
Ulfilas,
1594 (1556).
J. C. L. de Sismondi:
Fall of Roman Empire,
1595 (1557).
W. C. Perry:
The Franks,
1431 (1397-1398).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
1431 (1398).
J. B. Bury:
Later Roman Empire,
2805 (2731).
E. A. Freeman:
European History,
2805-2806 (2731-2732).
F. Guizot:
History of Civilization,
2806 (2732).
C. J. Stillé:
Mediæval History,
2806-2807 (2732-2733).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of Roman Empire,
2807-2808, 2808-2809 (2733-2734, 2734-2735).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2808 (2734).
R. W. Church:
Beginning of Middle Ages,
2809 (2735).
J. Bryce:
Holy Roman Empire,
2809-2810 (2735-2736).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1038-1040 (1010-1012).
15. CAUSES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE:
G. B. Adams:
Civilization during Middle Ages,
2807 (2733).
R. W. Church:
Beginning of Middle Ages,
2810 (2736).
J. R. Seeley:
Roman Imperialism,
2810-2811 (2736-2737).
C. Merivale:
History of Romans,
2811-2812 (2738).
A. Thierry:
Merovingian Era,
2812 (2738).
W. Stewart:
The Church in Fourth Century,
470-471 (456-457).
C. Merivale:
Epochs of Church History,
471 (457).
E. Hatch:
Organization of Christian Churches,
471 (457).
16. CIVILIZATION OF THE LATER REPUBLIC AND EMPIRE:
(a) Education.
J. J. I. Döllinger:
Gentile and Jew,
708-709 (685-686).
E. Kirkpatrick:
Development of Superior Education,
709-710 (686-687).
F. Guizot:
History of Civilization,
710-711 (688).
E. Edwards:
Memoirs of Libraries,
2048-2049 (2005).
Guhl and Koner:
Life of Greeks and Romans,
2049 (2005).
T. H. Horne:
Study of Bibliography,
2050 (2006).
Historic Researches regarding Library of Alexandria,
2047-2048 (2003-2004).
(b) Religion.
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
195 (188).
W. Ramsay:
Roman Antiquities,
196-197 (189-190).
(c) Law.
E. Reich:
Græco-Roman Institutions,
2726-2727, 2728-2729 (2652-2653, 2655).
Sir F. Pollock:
Oxford Lectures,
2728 (2654).
T. W. Dwight:
Introduction to Maine’s Ancient Law,
www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22910
2727 (2653).
J. Austin:
Lectures on Jurisprudence,
2728-2729 (2654-2655).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
2727-2728 (2653-2654).
J. Hadley:
Introduction to Roman Law,
673 (650).
(d) Trade and Commerce.
C. Merivale:
History of Rome,
3211-3213 (3702).
H. Pigeonneau:
History of French Commerce,
3213-3215 (3702-3704).
H. Fox Bourne:
Romance of Trade,
2245-2246 (2201-2202).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
2248 (2204).
(e) Medical Science.
Pliny:
Natural History,
2171-2172 (2127-2128).
W. Whewell:
Inductive Sciences,
2172-2173 (2129).
Roswell Park:
History of Medicine,
2173(2129).
(f) Slavery.
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
2753-2754 (2680).
W. R. Brownlow:
Slavery and Serfdom,
2990 (2912).
STUDY XIII.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
FROM THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS TO CHARLEMAGNE
(A. D. 400-800).
1. ORIGIN AND MIGRATIONS OF THE BARBARIC NATIONS:
C. F. Keary:
Dawn of Civilization,
144-145 (137-138).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
42, 483 (35, 469).
T. Smith:
Arminius,
1464-1465 (1431-1432).
Appendix A.,
3793-3796 (End of Volume I.).
2. GAUL AND THE GAULS:
J. Rhys:
Celtic Britain,
412 (402).
C. Merivale:
History of Romans,
1448-1449 (1416).
H. G. Liddell:
History of Rome,
2743 (2669).
W. Ihne:
History of Rome,
2746-2747 (2672-2673).
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
1449 (1416).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Story of Alexander’s Empire,
1442 (1409).
J. Cæsar:
Gallic Wars,
1444-1445 (1411-1412).
P. Godwin:
History of France,
1445, 1448 (1412, 1415).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
1445-1446 (1412-1413).
H. Pigeonneau:
History of French Commerce,
3213-3215 (3702-3704).
{748}
3. THE GOTHS:
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and her Invaders.
1592 (1554).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
1592-1593 (1554-1555).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
1593 (1555).
C. A. A. Scott:
Ulfilas,
1594 (1556).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of the Roman Empire,
1595-1596 (1557-1558).
G. Finlay:
Greece under the Romans,
1596-1597 (1558-1559).
(a.) The Ostrogoths and Theodoric.
H. Bradley:
Story of the Goths,
1594 (1556).
J. G. Sheppard:
Fall of Rome.
1728 (1689).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
1598 (1560).
H. Bradley:
Story of the Goths,
1598-1599 (1560-1561).
H. Bradley:
Story of the Goths,
2812-2813 (2738-2739).
V. Duruy:
History of Rome,
2813 (2739).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
2814-2815 (2740-2741).
J. G. Sheppard:
Fall of Rome,
1600 (1562).
(b) The Visigoths and Alaric.
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of Roman Empire,
1594-1595 (1556-1557).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
1594, 1595 (1556, 1557).
H. Bradley:
Story of the Goths,
1597 (1559).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of Roman Empire,
2807-2808 (2733-2734).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
1597 (1559).
H. Bradley:
Story of the Goths,
1598, 1599 (1560, 1561).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of Roman Empire,
1598 (1560).
R. W. Church:
Beginning of Middle Ages,
1599-1600 (1561-1562).
4. BREAKING OF THE RHINE BARRIER
(A. D. 406-500):
J. B. Bury:
Later Roman Empire,
2805 (2731).
E. A. Freeman:
European History,
2805-2806 (2731-2732)
F. Guizot:
History of Civilization,
2806 (2732).
C. J. Stillé:
Mediæval History,
2806-2807 (2732-2733).
G. B. Adams:
Civilization during Middle Ages,
2807 (2733).
5. THE HUNS AND ATTILA:
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
1726 (1687).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of Roman Empire,
1594-1595 (1556-1557).
R. W. Church:
Beginning of the Middle Ages,
1726 (1687).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
1727 (1688).
J. G. Sheppard:
Fall of Rome,
1727 (1688).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
1727 (1688).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
1727-1728 (1689)
Sir E. Creasy:
Fifteen Decisive Battles,
1728 (1689).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
1728-1729 (1689-1690).
6. THE VANDALS AND GENSERIC:
J. G. Sheppard:
Fall of Rome,
3714-3715 (3594-3595).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
1445-1446, 3053-3054, 3715 (1412-1413, 2973-2974, 3595).
G. Finlay:
Greece under the Romans,
3716 (3596).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
3716 (3596).
7. THE FRANKS AND CLOVIS:
W. C. Perry:
The Franks,
1430-1431 (1397-1398).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
1431 (1398).
P. Godwin:
History of France,
1445 (1412).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
3207 (3121).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
French under the Merovingians,
1432 (1399).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
42-43 (35-36).
R. W. Church:
Beginning of Middle Ages,
1432 (1399).
P. Godwin:
History of France,
1433 (1400).
S. Baring Gould:
The Church in Germany,
472 (458).
8. THE REIGN OF JUSTINIAN
(A. D. 527-565):
G. Finlay:
Greece Under the Romans,
2814 (2740).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
2814-2415 (2740-2701).
J. Hadley:
Introduction to Roman Law,
637-638 (614-615).
9. THE MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY
(A. D. 448-752):
J. C. L. Sismondi:
The French under the Merovingians,
1432 (1399).
R. W. Church:
Beginning of the Middle Ages,
1432 (1399).
W. C. Perry:
The Franks,
202, 1432-1433 (195, 1399-1400).
P. Godwin:
History of France,
202 (195).
T. Smith:
Arminius,
1465-1466 (1432-1435).
P. Godwin:
History of France,
1466 (1435).
A. Thierry:
The Merovingian Era,
1446 (1413).
10. THE LOMBARDS:
J. G. Sheppard:
Fall of Rome,
2076 (2032).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of Roman Empire,
2077 (2033).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2077 (2033).
P. Godwin:
History of France,
2077-2078 (2033-2034).
11. CIVILIZATION AT BEGINNING OF THE MIDDLE AGES:
(a) Political and Social.
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
2224 (2180).
G. B. Adams:
Civilization during the Middle Ages,
2224-2225 (2180-2181).
B. Bosanquet:
Civilization of Christendom,
2225 (2181).
A. Thierry:
Formation of the Tiers État,
1446-1448 (1413-1415).
W. Robertson:
Charles the Fifth,
2990-2991 (2913).
(i) Religion.
W. Stewart:
Church of the Fifth Century,
470-471 (456-457).
C. Merivale:
Early Church History,
471 (457).
E. Hatch:
Organization of Christian Churches,
471 (457).
G. Stokes:
The Celtic Church,
472 (458).
M. Creighton:
The Papacy,
2818 (2744).
I. Gregory Smith:
Christian Monasticism,
2239-2240 (2195-2196).
Count de Montalembert:
Monks of the West,
2240-2241 (2196-2197).
(c) Education.
J. A. Symonds:
Renaissance in Italy,
710 (687).
F. Guizot:
History of Civilization,
710-711 (687-688).
A. T. Drane:
Christian Schools,
711-712 (688-689).
12. THE RISE OF FEUDALISM:
W. Stubbs:
Constitutional History of England,
1145-1146 (1117-1118).
E. Emerton:
The Middle Ages,
1146 (1118).
Schröder:
Deutsehen Rechtsgeschichte,
1146-1147.
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1047-1048 (1019-1020).
A. Thierry:
Formation of the Tiers État,
1446-1448 (1413-1415).
{749}
STUDY XIV.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
THE RISE OF THE MODERN NATIONS.
1. THE FRANKS:
R. W. Church:
Beginning of the Middle Ages,
1432 (1399).
T. Smith:
Arminius,
1465-1466 (1432-1435).
P. Godwin:
History of France,
1466 (1435).
F. Guizot:
History of Civilization.
2163 (2119).
W. C. Perry:
The Franks,
1432-1433 (1399-1400).
S. Baring Gould:
The Church in Germany,
472 (458).
E. L. Cutts:
Charlemagne,
472-473 (458-459).
2. THE BURGUNDIANS:
J. G. Sheppard:
The Fall of Rome,
3714-3715 (3594-3495).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
338 (328).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
The French under the Merovingians,
339 (329).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
339 (329).
3. THE SAXONS:
W. Stubbs:
Constitutional History of England,
2884-2885 (2809-2810).
R. G. Latham:
The Germany of Tacitus,
2885 (2810).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
2885 (2810).
4. THE EMPIRE OF CHARLEMAGNE
(A. D. 800-814):
C. J. Stillé:
Mediæval History,
1467-1468 (1436-1437).
R. W. Church:
Beginning of the Middle Ages,
1434 (1401).
E. Emerton:
Study of the Middle Ages,
1434-1435 (1401-1402).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1435 (1402)
Sir J. Stephen:
History of France,
1436 (1403).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1468 (1437).
A. T. Drane:
Christian Schools and Scholars,
712 (689).
F. Guizot:
History of Civilization,
2911 (2836).
Eginhard:
Life of Charlemagne,
474 (460).
J. B. Mullinger:
Schools of Charles the Great,
474 (460).
"Gibbon has remarked, that of all the heroes to whom the title
of ‘The Great’ has been given, Charlemagne alone has retained
it as a permanent addition to his name. The reason may perhaps
be that in no other man were ever united, in so large a
measure, and in such perfect harmony, the qualities, which, in
their combination, constitute the heroic character,—such as
energy, or love of action; ambition, or the love of power;
curiosity, or the love of knowledge; and sensibility, or the
love of pleasure. Not, indeed, the love of forbidden,
unhallowed, or of enervating pleasure, but the keen relish for
those blameless delights by which the burdened mind and jaded
spirits recruit and renovate their powers. … His lofty
stature, his open countenance, his large and brilliant eyes,
and the dome-like structure of his head, imparted, as we learn
from Eginhard, to all his attitudes the dignity which becomes
a King, relieved by the graceful activity of a practised
warrior. … Whether he was engaged in a frolic or a
chase—composed verses or listened to homilies—fought or
negotiated—cast down thrones or built them up—studied,
conversed, or legislated, it seemed as if he, and he alone,
were the one wakeful and really living agent in the midst of
an inert, visionary, and somnolent generation."
SIR JAMES STEPHEN.
5. THE BEGINNINGS OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY:
F. Lenormant:
Ancient History,
3245 (3129).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
1726 (1687).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of Roman Empire,
1594-1595 (1556-1557).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
1728-1729 (1689-1690).
J. G. Sheppard:
Fall of Rome,
242-243 (235-236).
G. P. R. James:
History of Charlemagne,
243 (236).
L. Leger:
History of Austro-Hungary,
205 (198).
6. DISSOLUTION OF THE CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE
(A. D. 814-877):
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1436-1438 (1403-1405).
H. H. Milman:
History of Latin Christianity,
1468 (1437).
S. Menzies:
History of Europe,
1468-1469 (1437-1438).
7. THE TREATY OF VERDUN
(A. D. 843):
P. Godwin:
History of France,
3735 (3615).
H. Hallam:
Middle Ages,
3736 (3616).
E. A. Freeman:
Historical Geography of Europe,
1469 (1438).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1436-1438 (1403-1405).
8. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MODERN EUROPEAN NATIONS
(A. D. 843-1000):
(a) France.
P. Godwin:
History of France,
1187 (1157).
E. A. Freeman:
The Franks and Gauls,
1187 (1157).
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
1187-1188 (1157-1158).
G. W. Kitchin:
History of France,
1188 (1158).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1436-1438 (1403-1405).
E. A. Freeman:
The Franks and Gauls,
1438 (1405).
Sir F. Palgrave:
History of Normandy and England,
1188 (1158).
G. W. Kitchin:
History of France,
1188-1189 (1158-1159).
E. de Bonnechose:
History of France,
1189 (1159).
E. A. Freeman:
The Franks and Gauls,
1189 (1159).
E. Lavisse:
Political History of Europe,
1189 (1159).
G. W. Kitchin:
History of France,
3274 (3158).
(b) Germany.
T. Smith:
Arminius,
1464-1465 (1431-1432).
C. J. Stillé:
Mediæval History,
1467-1468 (1436-1437).
R. W. Church:
Beginnings of Middle Ages,
1434 (1401).
E. Emerton:
Study of Middle Ages,
1434 (1401).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1436-1438 (1403-1405).
E. A. Freeman:
Franks and Gauls,
1438 (1405).
E. A. Freeman:
Historical Geography of Europe,
1469 (1438).
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
1470 (1439).
A. W. Grübe:
Heroes of History,
1470 (1439).
C. W. Koch:
The Revolutions of Europe,
1470-1471 (1439-1440).
L. Ranke:
History of Reformation,
1471-1472 (1440-1441).
(c) Italy.
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2816 (2742).
J. G. Sheppard:
Fall of Rome,
2076 (2032).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of Roman Empire,
2077 (2033).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2077 (2033).
P. Godwin:
History of France,
2077-2078 (2033-2034).
S. Menzies:
History of Europe,
1468-1469 (1437-1438).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1847-1848 (1807-1808).
A. F. Villemain:
Life of Gregory VII.,
2820 (2746).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
1848 (1808).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Italian Republics,
1848 (1808).
E. A. Freeman:
Historical Geography of Europe,
1849 (1809).
{750}
STUDY XV.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
GERMANY TO THE END OF THE MIDDLE AGES
(A. D. 1000-1450).
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS AT CLOSE OF THE TENTH CENTURY:
J. I. von Döllinger:
European History,
2820-2821 (2746-2747).
Cardinal J. H. Newman:
Essays,
2485-2486 (2426-2427).
W. B. Boyce:
Introduction to the Study of History,
1472-1473 (1441-1442).
S. A. Dunham:
History of the Germanic Empire,
2730 (2656).
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
2730 (2656).
J. H. Allen:
Christian History,
1473 (1442).
2. BEGINNING OF THE CONTEST BETWEEN THE EMPIRE AND THE PAPACY:
G. B. Adams:
Civilization during the Middle Ages,
1473-1474 (1442-1443).
Count de Montalembert:
Monks of the West,
2486-2487 (2427-2428).
J. Alzog:
Manual of Church History,
2487 (2428).
Hinschius:
Investiturstrcit,
2488-2489 (3794-3796).
W. R. W. Stephens:
Hildebrand,
396-397 (386-387).
C. T. Lewis:
History of Germany,
2887 (2812).
J. H. Allen:
Christian History,
1474 (1443).
J. J. I. Döllinger:
History of the Church,
1474-1475 (1443-1444).
3. RISE OF THE COLLEGE OF ELECTORS
(A. D. 1125-1272):
K. Lamprecht:
History of Germany,
1475-1476 (3759-3760).
T. Carlyle:
Frederick the Great,
1476-1477 (1445).
T. Carlyle:
Frederick the Great,
316-317 (306).
4. THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE EMPIRE:
J. Jastrow:
Deutschen Einheitstraum,
1477-1478 (3761-3672).
C. Beard:
Martin Luther,
487 (473).
W. J. Wyatt:
History of Prussia,
487-488 (473-474).
5. RISE OF THE HOHENSTAUFEN; THE GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES:
U. Balzani:
The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
1478 (1445).
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
1652 (1614).
P. M. Thornton:
The Brunswick Accession,
1652-1653 (1614-1615).
A. Gallenga:
Italy,
1014-1015 (986-987).
Sir A. Halliday:
Annals of the House of Hanover,
2888 (2813).
T. A. Trollope:
Commonwealth of Florence,
1857-1858 (1817-1818).
6. THE TWO GREAT FREDERICKS:
(a) Frederick I., Barbarossa (A. D. 1152-1190).
O. Browning:
Guelphs and Ghibellines,
1478-1479 (1445-1446).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
The Italian Republics,
1851-1852 (1811-1812).
U. Balzani:
The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
1852 (1812).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
The Italian Republics,
1852 (1812).
U. Balzani:
The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
1852-1853 (1812-1813).
W. Menzel:
History of Germany,
1853 (1813).
M. Creighton:
History of the Papacy,
2492-2493 (2432-2433).
The Republic of Venice,
3726 (3606).
(b) Frederick the Second
(A. D. 1220-1250).
E. A. Freeman:
European History,
1480 (1447).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1854 (1814).
A. B. Pennington:
Emperor Frederick II.,
1854-1855 (1814-1815).
T. L. Kington:
Frederick the Second,
1855-1856 (1815-1816).
G. Procter:
History of the Crusades,
657, first column, (634).
Besant and Palmer:
Jerusalem,
1926, second column, (1885).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1481-1482 (1448-1449).
"We have seen the Roman Empire revived in A. D. 800, by a
prince whose vast dominions gave ground to his claim of
universal monarchy; again erected, in A. D. 962, on the
narrower but firmer basis of the German Kingdom. We have seen
Otto the Great and his successors during the three following
centuries, a line of monarchs of unrivalled vigor and
abilities, strain every nerve to make good the pretensions of
their office against the rebels in Italy and the
ecclesiastical power. The Roman Empire might, and, so far as
practical utility was concerned, ought now to have been
suffered to expire; nor could it have ended more gloriously
than with the last of the Hohenstaufen. That it did not so
expire, but lived on 600 years more, till it became a piece of
antiquarianism hardly more venerable than ridiculous,—till, as
Voltaire said, all that could be said about it was that it was
neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire,—was owing partly
indeed to the belief, still unshaken, that it was a necessary
part of the world’s order, yet chiefly to its connection,
which was by this time indissoluble, with the German Kingdom.
The Germans had confounded the two characters of their
sovereign so long, and had grown so fond of the style and
pretensions of a dignity whose possession appeared to exalt
them above the other peoples of Europe, that it was now too
late for them to separate the local from the universal
monarch."
JAMES BRYCE.
7. THE HANSEATIC LEAGUE
(ABOUT A. D. 1250):
History of the Hanseatic League,
1663 (1626).
R. Schröder:
Der Deutschen Rechtsgeschichte,
1663-1664.
K. Lamprecht:
Deutsche Geschichte,
1664-1665.
8. THE RISE OF THE HAPSBURGS:
Sir R. Comyn:
History of the Western Empire,
1482-1483 (1449-1450).
W. Coxe:
History of the House of Austria,
206 (199).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1481-1482 (1448-1449).
Sir R. Comyn:
The Western Empire,
206-207 (199-200).
T. H. Dyer:
Modern Europe,
1710 (1671).
The Legend of Tell and Rütli,
3127, first column, (3043).
9. A CENTURY OF CONFUSION:
C. T. Lewis:
History of Germany,
1484 (1451).
S. A. Dunham:
The Germanic Empire,
1484-1485 (1451-1452).
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
1485-1486 (1452-1543).
L. von Ranke:
The Reformation in Germany,
1486 (1453).
10. THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE:
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1435 and 2725 (1402 and 2652).
L. von Ranke:
History of the World,
2725-2726.
W. von Giesebrecht:
The German Empire,
2726.
F. A. Gregorovius:
History of Rome,
2726.
C. W. Koch:
Revolutions of Europe,
1471, second column, (1440).
L. von Ranke:
History of the Reformation,
1471-1472 (1440-1441).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1481-1482 (1448-1449).
L. von Ranke:
History of the Reformation,
1486 (1453).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1541 (1507).
{751}
"On August 1, the French Envoy at Regensburg announced to the
Diet that his master, who had consented to become Protector of
the Confederate princes, no longer recognized the existence of
the Empire. Francis II. resolved at once to anticipate this
new Odoacer, and by a declaration, dated August 6, 1800,
resigned the imperial dignity. … Throughout, the term German
Empire (deutsches Reich) is employed. But it was the crown of
Augustus, of Constantine, of Charles, of Maximilian, that
Francis of Hapsburg laid down, and a new era in the world’s
history was marked by the fall of its most venerable
institution. One thousand and six years after Leo, the Pope,
had crowned the Frankish King, eighteen hundred and
fifty-eight years after Cæsar had conquered at Pharsalia, the
Holy Roman Empire came to its end."
JAMES BRYCE.
STUDY XVI.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
FRANCE TO THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
(A. D. 1000-1453).
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PERIOD
(ABOUT A. D. 1000):
E. de Bounechose:
History of France,
1189 (1159).
E. A. Freeman:
The Franks and the Gauls,
1189 (1159).
E. Lavisse:
Political History of Europe,
1189 (1159).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
France under the Feudal System,
1189-1190 (1159-1160).
G. W. Kitchin:
History of France,
1190 (1161).
M. Arnold:
Schools and Universities,
717-718 (694-695).
2. THE RISE OF FREE CITIES AND OF THE COMMUNES:
Achille Luchaire:
The French Communes,
1190-1193 (3748-3750).
W. Stubbs:
Constitutional History of England,
505-506 (491-492).
F. P. Guizot:
History of France,
506 (492).
3. CONSOLIDATION AND EXPANSION OF THE KINGDOM
(A. D. 1100-1225):
C. M. Yonge:
History of France,
1193 (1162).
Mrs. J. R. Green:
Henry the Second,
826 (799).
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
1193-1194 (1162).
E. Smedley:
History of France,
2551 (2485).
W. Stubbs:
Constitutional History of England,
828 (801).
See Maps between pages 1200-1201 (1168-1169).
4. THE NOTABLE REIGN OF SAINT LOUIS, LOUIS IX.
(1226-1270):
G. Masson:
St. Louis,
1194 (1163).
A. L. la Marche:
France under Saint Louis,
1194-1196 (3750-3753).
Saint Louis of France,
1196 (1164).
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
1197 (1165).
H. H. Milman:
Latin Christianity,
1197 (1165).
F. P. Guizot;
History of France,
657-658 and 658-659 (634-635 and 635-636).
Origin of the Houses of Valois and Bourbon,
1197, 3714 (1165, 3594).
Duc d’Aumale:
The House of Condé,
314 (304).
"St. Louis struck at the spirit of the Middle Age, and therein
insured the downfall of its forms and whole embodiment. … He
undermined Feudalism, because he hated injustice; he warred
with the Middle Age, because he could not tolerate its
disregard of human rights; and he paved the way for
Philip-le-Bel’s struggle with the Papacy, because he looked
upon religion and the Church as instruments for man’s
salvation, not as tools for worldly aggrandizement. The first
calm, deliberate, consistent opposition to the centralizing
power of the great See was that offered by its truest friend
and honest ally, Louis of France. … He is perhaps the only
monarch on record who failed in most of what he undertook of
active enterprise, who was under the control of the prejudices
of his age, who was a true conservative, who never dreamed of
effecting great social changes,—and who yet, by his mere
virtues, his sense of duty, his power of conscience, made the
most mighty and vital reforms."
5. PHILIP IV. AND THE STRUGGLE WITH THE PAPACY
(A. D. 1285-1314):
G. M. Bussey:
History of France,
1198 (1166).
G. Trevor:
Fall of the Western Empire,
2494-2495 (2434-2435).
A. R. Pennington:
The Church in Italy,
2495 (2435).
G. W. Kitchin:
History of France,
3177 (3092).
6. THE PARLIAMENT OF PARIS AND THE STATES GENERAL:
Sir James Stephen:
History of France,
2554-2555 (2488-2489).
Lord Brougham:
History of England and France,
2555 (2489).
Sir James Stephen:
History of France,
3108-3109 3026-3027).
F. P. Guizot:
History of France,
3109 (3027).
A. Thierry:
The Tiers État,
1202-1203 (1170-1171).
7. THE ACCESSION OF PHILIP OF VALOIS, PHILIP VI.
(A. D. 1328):
J. Michelet:
History of France.
1200 (1168).
E. de Bonnechose:
History of France,
1200 (1168).
J. Michelet:
History of France,
1200 (1168).
8. THE ONE HUNDRED YEARS WAR
(A. D. 1327-1435):
(a) The First Period (1327-1380).
J. Froissart:
Chronicles,
1200-1201 (1168-1169).
H. Hallam:
Middle Ages,
1201 (1169).
F. Guizot:
History of Civilization,
2868 (2794).
G. W. Kitchin:
History of France,
2868 (2794).
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
2868 (2794).
G. W. Kitchin:
History of France,
1201 (1169).
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
1201 (1169).
J. Michelet:
History of France,
1201-1202 (1169-1170).
A. Thierry:
The Tiers État,
1202-1203 (1170-1171).
Professor de Vericour:
The Jacquerie,
1204 (1172).
F. P. Guizot:
History of France,
1204 (1172).
E. Bonnechose:
History of France,
1205 (1173).
(b) The Second Period
(1415-1435).
A. J. Church:
Henry the Fifth,
1205-1206 (1173-1174).
C. M. Yonge:
English History,
1206 (1174).
F. P. Guizot:
History of France,
1207 (1175).
9. MISSION OF THE MAID OF ORLEANS
(A. D. 1429-1431);
A. de Lamartine:
Joan of Arc,
1207-1208 (1175-1176).
S. Luce:
Jeanne d’Arc,
1208 (3755).
A. de Lamartine:
Joan of Arc,
1208-1209 (1175-1176).
Lord Mahon:
Historical Essays,
1209 (1177).
J. O’Hagan:
Joan of Arc,
1209 (1177).
T. de Quincey:
Joan of Arc,
1209-1210 (1177-1178).
"Her ways and habits during the year she was in arms are
attested by a multitude of witnesses. Dunois and the Duke of
Alençon bear testimony to what they term her extraordinary
talents for war, and to her perfect fearlessness in action;
but in all other things she was the most simple of creatures.
She wept when she first saw men slain in battle, to think that
they should have died without confession. She wept at the
abominable epithets which the English heaped upon her; but she
was without a trace of vindictiveness. … In her diet she was
abstemious in the extreme, rarely eating until evening, and
then for the most part, of bread and water, sometimes mixed
with wine. In the field, she slept in her armor; but when she
came into a city, she always sought out some honorable matron,
under whose protection she placed herself; and there is
wonderful evidence of the atmosphere of purity which she
diffused around her, her very presence banishing from men’s
hearts all evil thoughts and wishes. Her conversation, when
not of war, was entirely of religion. She confessed often, and
received communion twice in the week."
J. O’HAGAN.
{752}
10. THE EFFECTS OF THE ONE HUNDRED YEARS WAR:
E. E. Crowe:
History of France,
1210 (1178).
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
1211 (1179).
C. W. Oman:
Warwick the King-Maker,
846-847 (819-820).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1065-1068 (1037-1040).
11. THE PRAGMATIC SANCTION OF CHARLES VII.
(A. D. 1438):
R. C. Trench:
Church History,
2500 (2440).
M. Creighton:
History of the Papacy,
1210-1211 (1178-1179).
"Such were the chief reforms of its own special grievances
which France wished to establish. It was the first step in the
assertion of the rights of National Churches to arrange for
themselves the details of their own ecclesiastical
organizations."
M. CREIGHTON.
STUDY XVII.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
ITALY TO THE END OF THE MIDDLE AGES
(A. D. 1000-1450).
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS AT THE CLOSE OF THE TENTH CENTURY:
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1848 (1808).
A. F. Villemain:
Life of Gregory VII.,
2820 (2746).
H. H. Milman:
Latin Christianity,
2820 (2746).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
The Italian Republics,
1848 (1808).
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
1848-1849 (1808-1809).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
2725 (2652).
L. von Ranke:
History of the World,
2725-2726.
P. Godwin:
History of France,
2078, first column, (2034).
2. THE NORMAN SETTLEMENTS
(A. D. 1000-1100):
A. Thierry:
Conquest of England,
2418 (2366).
Sir F. Palgrave:
History of Normandy, etc.,
2419-2420 (2367-2368).
E. A. Freeman:
The Norman Conquest,
2421-2422 (2369-2370).
Sir F. Palgrave:
History of Normandy,
2422 (2370).
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
2981-2982 (2903-2904).
E. A. Freeman:
Story of Sicily,
2983 (2905).
G. Finlay:
The Byzantine Empire,
2984 (2906).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2984 (2906).
J. Michelet:
History of France,
1849 (1809).
G. Procter:
History of Italy,
1849-1850 (1809-1810).
H. H. Milman:
Latin Christianity,
2821 (2747).
A. H. Johnson:
The Normans in Europe,
1850-1851 (1810-1811).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1051 (1023).
3. RISE OF THE FREE CITIES:
P. Godwin:
History of France,
2077-2078 (2033-2034).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
The Italian Republics,
1850 (1810).
Hinschius:
Investiturstreit,
2488-2489 (3794-3796).
H. E. Napier:
Florentine History,
3273 (3157).
(a) Milan.
W. Ihne:
History of Rome,
2746-2747 (2672-2673).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2226 (2182).
G. B. Testa:
War of Frederick I. against Lombardy,
2226 (2182).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
2226-2227 (2182-2183).
(b) Florence.
H. E. Napier:
Florentine History,
1160 (1130).
T. A. Trollope:
Commonwealth of Florence,
1160-1161 (1130-1131).
B. Duffy:
The Tuscan Republics,
1161 (1131).
(c) Pavia.
G. B Niebuhr:
History of Rome,
2070 (2026).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2077 (2033).
(d) Pisa.
L. Pignotti:
History of Tuscany,
2605-2606 (2537-2538).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Italian Republics,
2606-2607 (2538-2539).
(e) Venice.
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
3722 (3602).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
3722 (3602).
G. Finlay:
Byzantine Empire,
3722-3723 (3602-3603).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Italian Republics,
3724-3725 (3604-3605).
4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATES OF THE CHURCH:
J. N. Murphy:
The Chair of Peter,
2492 (2432).
H. E. Napier:
Florentine History,
3273 (3157).
M. Creighton:
History of the Papacy,
2493 (2433).
5. CONDITIONS IN ROME.
J. I. Döllinger:
European History,
2821 (2747).
H. H. Milman:
Latin Christianity,
2821 (2747).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2822 (2748).
6. STRUGGLE OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLICS WITH THE EMPERORS:
(a) With Frederick I., Barbarossa (A. D. 1154-1183).
O. Browning:
Guelphs and Ghibellines,
1478-1479 (1445-1446).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
The Italian Republics,
1851-1852 (1811-1812).
U. Balzani:
The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
1852 (1812).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
The Italian Republics,
1852 (1812).
U. Balzani:
The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
1852-1853 (1812-1813).
W. Menzel:
History of Germany,
1853 (1813).
(b) With Frederick the Second
(A. D. 1220-1250).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1854 (1814).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Italian Republics,
1137-1138 (1109-1110).
E. A. Freeman:
European History,
1479 (1446).
E. A. Freeman:
Frederick the Second,
1480, first column (1447).
J. A. Symonds:
The Revival of Learning,
720 (697).
(c) The Results of the Contest.
J. Burckhardt:
The Renaissance in Italy,
1856-1857 (1816-1817).
O. Browning:
Guelfs and Ghibellines,
1856 (1816).
E. Smedley:
History of France,
1858-1859 (1818-1819).
J. A. Symonds:
Florence and the Medici,
1163 (1133).
7. THE GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES:
U. Balzani:
The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
1478 (1445).
H. Hallam:
Middle Ages,
1652 (1614).
Sir A. Halliday:
Annals of House of Hanover,
1652 (1614).
T. A. Trollope:
Commonwealth of Florence,
1857-1858 (1817-1818).
R. W. Church:
Dante,
1858 (1818).
N. Machiavelli:
History of Florence,
1161-1162 (1131-1132).
{753}
O. Browning:
Guelphs and Ghibellines,
1162 (1132).
T. A. Trollope:
The Commonwealth of Florence,
1162-1163 (1132-1133).
8. THE AGE OF THE DESPOTS
(A. D. 1250-1500):
J. Burckhardt:
The Renaissance in Italy,
1856-1857 (1816-1817).
T. A. Trollope:
The Commonwealth of Florence,
1857-1858 (1817-1818).
E. A. Freeman:
Historical Geography of Europe,
1859 (1819).
J. A. Symonds:
The Renaissance in Italy,
1859 (1819).
J. Yeats:
Growth of Commerce,
2249, second column, (2205).
A. von Reumont:
Lorenzo de’ Medici,
2250 (2206).
T. A. Trollope:
Commonwealth of Florence,
2250 (2206).
J. A. Symonds:
The Renaissance,
2463-2464.
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1074-1045 (1046-1047).
9. CONTINUED CONTESTS BETWEEN THE GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES:
W. Hunt:
History of Italy,
1860-1861 (1820-1821).
H. E. Napier:
Florentine History,
1861 (1821).
G. Procter:
History of Italy,
1862-1863 (1822-1823).
10. RIENZI; THE LAST OF THE TRIBUNES
(A. D. 1347-1354):
Professor de Vericour:
Rienzi, 2822-2824 (2748-2750).
W. W. Story:
The Castle of St. Angelo,
2824-2825 (2750-2751).
11. THE INFAMOUS "FREE COMPANIES"
(ABOUT A. D. 1340-1390):
T. A. Trollope:
Commonwealth of Florence,
1865-1866 (1825-1826).
W. P. Urquhart:
Life of F. Sforza,
1866 (1826).
Sir John Hawkwood,
1866 (1826).
12. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY PRINCIPALITIES:
(a) Florence.
(1) The Passing of the Republic.
J. A. Symonds:
Florence and the Medici,
1163 (1133).
C. Balbo:
Life of Dante,
1164 (1134).
W. P. Urquhart:
Life of F. Sforza,
1165 (1135).
T. B. Macaulay:
Machiavelli,
1166 (1136).
G. Boccaccio:
The Decameron,
1166 (1136).
J. E. T. Rogers:
History of Agriculture,
292-293 (283-284).
T. A. Trollope:
Commonwealth of Florence,
1166-1167 (1136-1137).
H. E. Napier:
Florentine History,
1167 (1137).
(2) The Medici.
J. A. Symonds:
Florence and the Medici,
1167-1168 (1137-1138).
T. A. Trollope:
Commonwealth of Florence,
1168-1169 (1138-1139).
W. B. Scaife:
Florentine Life,
1169 (1139).
W. Hunt:
History of Italy,
1169 (1139).
A. von Reumont:
Lorenzo de’ Medici,
1169-1170 (1139-1140).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Italian Republics,
1170-1171 (1140-1141).
P. Villari:
Machiavelli,
1171-1172 (1141-1142).
Mrs. Oliphant:
Makers of Florence,
1172 (1142).
H. A. Taine:
Italy, Florence, and Venice,
1172-1173 (1142-1143).
(3) Savonarola.
O. T. Hill:
Savonarola’s Triumph of the Cross,
1173-1175 (1143-1145).
H. E. Napier:
Florentine History,
1176 (1146).
J. A. Symonds:
Studies in Italy,
1176-1177 (1146-1147).
Mrs. Oliphant:
Makers of Florence,
1172 (1142).
"Florence was as near a pagan city as it was possible for its
rulers to make it. … Society had never been more dissolute,
more selfish, or more utterly deprived of any higher aim.
Barren scholarship, busy over grammatical questions, and
elegant philosophy, snipping and piecing its logical systems,
formed the top-dressing to that half-brutal,
hall-superstitious ignorance of the poor. The dilettante world
dreamed hazily of a restoration of the worship of the pagan
gods; Cardinal Bembo bade his friend beware of reading St.
Paul’s Epistles, lest their barbarous style should corrupt his
taste. … Thus limited intellectually, the age of Lorenzo was
still more hopeless morally, full of debauchery, cruelty and
corruption, violating oaths, betraying trusts, believing in
nothing but Greek manuscripts, coins, and statues, caring for
nothing but pleasure. This was the world in which Savonarola
found himself."
MRS. OLIPHANT.
(b) Milan.
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Italian Republics,
1851, second column, (1811).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
1852, second column, (1812).
J. A. Symonds:
Age of Despots,
2227-2228 (2183-2184).
W. Robertson:
Charles the Fifth,
2228 (2184).
A. von Reumont:
Lorenzo de’ Medici,
2228-2229 (2184-2185).
(c) Pisa.
J. T. Bent:
Genoa,
2606-2607 (2538-2539).
J. A. Symonds:
Studies in Italy,
50-51 (43-44).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
522-523 (508-509).
G. Procter:
History of Italy,
1862-1863 (1822-1823).
W. Hunt:
History of Italy,
1868 (1828).
J. N. Murphy:
The Chair of St. Peter,
2498 (2438).
(d) Genoa.
J. T. Bent:
Genoa,
1452-1453, 2606-2607 (1419-1420, 2538-2539).
J. A. Symonds:
Renaissance in Italy,
2227, second column, (2183).
J. T. Bent:
Genoa,
1454, 2251-2252 (1421, 2207-2208).
G. B. Malleson:
Genoese History,
1454 (1421).
J. N. Larned:
Venice and Genoa,
3220 (3709).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Italian Republics,
1454 (1421).
(e) Venice.
G. Finlay:
Byzantine and Greek Empires,
3726 (3606).
The Republic of Venice,
3726 (3606).
E. Pears:
The Fall of Constantinople,
3726 (3606).
W. C. Hazlitt:
The Venetian Republic,
3727 (3607).
J. Yeats:
The Growth of Commerce,
3727 (3607).
G. Finlay:
Byzantine and Greek Empires,
523-524 (509-510).
F. A. Parker:
Fleets of the World,
3728 (3608).
J. T. Bent:
Genoa,
3729 (3609).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Italian Republics,
1869 (1829).
STUDY XVIII.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH: FROM PENTECOST TO GREGORY THE GREAT
(A. D. 30(?)-600).
1. JUDÆA AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA:
E. de Pressensé:
Jesus Christ,
1961-1962 (1920-1921).
E. Schürer:
The Jewish People,
1678 (1639).
A. Edersheim:
Life of Jesus,
446 (432).
H. W. Hulbert:
Historical Geography,
446 (432).
{754}
2. HEROD AND THE HERODIANS
(B. C. 40-A. D. 44):
T. Keim:
Jesus of Nazara,
1958-1959 (1917-1918).
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
1960 (1919).
H. H. Milman:
History of the Jews,
1960 (1919).
3. THE BIRTH OF JESUS:
T. Keim:
Jesus of Nazara,
1960-1961 (1919-1920).
W. Hales:
Analysis of Chronology,
1011 (984).
4. PENTECOST, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIRST CHURCHES:
G. Y. Lechler:
The Apostolic Times,
447 (433).
A. Sabatier:
The Apostle Paul,
447 (433).
J. B. Lightfoot:
The Apostolic Age,
448 (434).
W. Moeller:
The Christian Church,
448 (434).
J. E. Wiltsch:
Statistics of the Church,
448 (434).
J. B. Lightfoot:
The Apostolic Age,
449 (435).
W. Moeller:
The Christian Church,
449 (435).
5. THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD (A. D. 30(?)-100):
(a) The Church at Antioch.
C. Thirlwall:
History of Greece,
2107, 2960 (2063, 2883).
W. Moeller:
The Christian Church,
448 (434).
J. J. von Döllinger:
European History,
449 (435).
W. M. Ramsay:
The Church in the Roman Empire,
449 (435).
W. Moeller:
The Christian Church,
449 (435).
B. Weiss:
Introduction to the New Testament,
450 (436).
G. B. Brown:
From Schola to Cathedral,
450 (436).
(b) The Missions of St. Paul.
G. P. Fisher:
The Christian Church,
450 (436).
A. Sabatier;
The Apostle Paul,
450-451 (436-437).
A. Sabatier;
The Apostle Paul,
451, second column, (437).
J. B. Lightfoot:
Biblical Essays,
451 (437).
W. M. Ramsay:
The Church in the Roman Empire,
451 (437).
C. T. Cruttwell:
Literary History of Early Christianity,
191-192 (184-185).
(c) The Church at Rome.
W. Moeller:
The Christian Church,
453 (439).
G. Salmon:
Infallibility of the Church,
2476 (2417).
J. J. I. Döllinger:
History of the Church,
2476-2477 (2417-2418).
F. W. Farrar:
Early Days of Christianity,
2781-2782 (2707-2708).
J. B. Lightfoot:
The Apostolic Age,
453 (439).
(d) The Church at Alexandria.
R. S. Poole:
The Cities of Egypt,
44 (37).
E. Kirkpatrick:
Development of Superior Education,
708 (685).
A. Neander:
History of the Christian Church,
452 (438).
J. P. Mahaffy:
Alexander’s Empire,
2973 (2896).
(e) The Destruction of Jerusalem.
J. B. Lightfoot:
The Apostolic Age,
449 (435).
C. Merivale:
History of the Romans,
1962 (1921).
Besant and Palmer:
Jerusalem,
1963 (1922).
H. H. Milman:
History of the Jews,
1963 (1922).
J. B. Lightfoot:
The Apostolic Age,
461 (447).
(f) St. John, and the Church at Ephesus.
E. Abbott:
History of Greece,
146, second column, (139).
J. T. Wood:
Discoveries at Ephesus,
1008-1009 (981-2)
C. Merivale:
History of the Romans,
1009 (982).
J. B. Lightfoot;
Biblical Essays,
451-452 (437-438).
"For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind
either in locality or in speech, or in customs. … They dwell
in their own countries as the lot of each is cast, but only as
sojourners; they bear their share in all things as citizens,
and they endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign
country is a fatherland to him and every fatherland is
foreign. … Their existence is on earth, but their citizenship
is in heaven. They obey the established laws, and they surpass
the laws in their own lives. They love all men, and they are
persecuted by all. War is urged against them as aliens by the
Jews, and persecution is carried on against them by the
Greeks, and yet those that hate them cannot tell the reason of
their hostility."
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS (ABOUT A. D. 150).
6. THE PERIOD OF CHURCH DEVELOPMENT (A. D. 100-312):
G. B. Brown:
From Schola to Cathedral,
455 (441).
B. F. Westcott:
Religious Thought in the West,
453-454, 454 (439-440, 440).
J. F. Hurst:
History of the Christian Church,
454 (440).
G. Uhlhorn:
Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
454 (440).
W. M. Ramsay:
The Church in the Roman Empire,
455 (441).
J. H. Kurtz:
Church History,
457 (443).
G. A. Jackson:
The Fathers of the Third Century,
457 (443).
See Map between pages 446-7 (432-3),
and Appendix D, 3806-3810 (End of Volume I.).
7. CHARACTERISTICS OF EARLY CHURCH AND CHRISTIANS:
G. Uhlhorn:
Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
454 (440).
J. B. Lightfoot:
Translation Epistle to Diognetus,
454 (440).
R. W. Church:
Gifts of Civilization,
455 (441).
J. B. Lightfoot:
Apostolic Age,
457 (443).
G. P. Fisher:
Christian Church,
459 (445).
W. M. Ramsay:
The Church in the Roman Empire,
456 (442).
H. Hayman:
Diocesan Synods,
456 (442).
W. Moeller:
History of the Christian Church,
457 (443) .
G. A. Jackson:
Fathers of the Third Century,
457 (443).
J. H. Kurtz:
Church History,
459 (445).
8. THE RISE OF ECCLESIASTICISM:
W. D. Killen:
The Old Catholic Church,
458 (444).
J. B. Lightfoot:
The Apostolic Age,
458 (444).
C. Gore:
The Mission of the Church,
458 (444).
A. Neander:
The Christian Religion,
458 (444).
9. GROWTH OF GREAT CHURCH CENTRES:
F. W. Puller:
Primitive Saints,
458 (444).
(a) Alexandria.
C. T. Cruttwell:
Literary History of Early Christianity,
459-460 (445-446).
J. B. Heard:
Alexandrian Theology,
460 (446).
W. Moeller:
Christian Church,
460 (446).
C. Bigg:
The Christian Platonists,
460-461 (446-447).
F. C. Baur:
Church of the First Three Centuries,
1589 (1551).
(b) Rome.
W. Moeller:
The Christian Church,
462 (448).
R. Lanciani:
Pagan and Christian Rome,
462-463 (448-449).
E. de Pressensé:
Early Years of Christianity,
463 (449).
(c) Carthage.
C. T. Cruttwell:
Literary History of Early Christianity,
461-462 (447-448).
J. I. von Döllinger:
European History,
462 (448).
{755}
10. THE PERSECUTIONS:
G. Uhlhorn:
The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
456 (442).
G. B. Brown:
From Schola to Cathedral,
455 (442).
(а) Under Nero
(A. D. 64-68).
F. W. Farrar:
Early Days of Christianity,
2781-2782 (2707-2708).
(b) Under Domitian
(A. D. 93-96).
V. Duruy:
History of Rome,
2784 (2710).
(c) Under Trajan
(A. D. 112-116).
R. W. Browne:
History of Rome,
2786, first column, (2712).
(d) Under Marcus Aurelius
(A. D. 175-178).
F. W. Farrar:
Seekers after God,
2788 (2714).
(e) Under Decius
(about A. D. 250).
J. C. Robertson:
History of Christian Church,
2790 (2716).
(f) Under Diocletian
(A. D. 303-5).
S. Eliot:
History of the Early Christians,
2792-2793 (2718-2719).
The Ante-Nicene Churches,
Appendix D, 3806 (End of Volume I.).
11. THE CHURCH FATHERS:
J. F. Hurst:
History of the Christian Church,
454 (440).
W. Moeller:
The Christian Church,
456-457 (442-443).
J. H. Kurtz:
Church History,
457 (443).
G. A. Jackson:
Fathers of the Third Century,
457 (443).
W. Moeller:
The Christian Church,
460 (446).
A. Plummer:
Church of the Early Fathers,
461 (447).
J. I. von Döllinger:
European History,
462 (448).
E. de Pressensé:
Early Years of Christianity,
463 (449).
W. Stewart:
Church in the Fourth Century,
468 (454).
G. T. Stokes:
The Celtic Church,
472 (458).
W. Stewart:
Church in the Fourth Century,
471 (456-457).
T. W. Allies:
The Holy See,
2482 (2423).
12. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH BECOMES THE CHURCH OF THE EMPIRE
(A. D. 323):
G. P. Fisher:
History of the Christian Church,
465 (451).
A. Carr:
The Church and the Roman Empire,
465-466 (451-452).
Eusebius:
Ecclesiastical History,
2794 (2720).
E. L. Cutts:
Constantine the Great,
2794-2795 (2721).
A. Neander:
History of the Christian Church,
2795 (2721).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of the Roman Empire,
2795 (2721).
H. H. Milman:
History of Christianity,
466-467, 467-468 (452-453, 453-454).
13. THE EASTERN, OR GREEK CHURCH:
E. L. Cutts:
Constantine the Great,
519 (505).
G. Finlay:
Greece under the Romans,
520 (506).
T. Hodgkin:
Italy and Her Invaders,
2801 (2727).
H. F. Tozer:
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
468-469 (454-455).
R. W. Church:
The Gifts of Civilization,
469 (455).
J. C. Lees:
The Greek Church,
470 (456).
14. THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY, AND COUNCIL OF NICÆA
(A. D. 325):
The Councils of the Church,
644 (621).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of the Roman Empire,
138 (131).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
138-139 (131-132).
R. W. Bush:
St. Athanasius,
2411 (2359).
W. Moeller:
Christian Church,
466 (452).
T. Hodgkin:
The Dynasty of Theodosius,
2799, second column, (2725).
E. L. Cutts:
Charlemagne,
1150 (1120).
P. Schaff:
History of Christian Church,
1150 (1120).
15. THE REVIVAL OF PAGANISM, AND FORMAL ESTABLISHMENT OF
CHRISTIANITY (A. D. 361-395):
G. Uhlhorn:
Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
2796-2798 (2722-2724).
J. C. L. Sismondi:
Fall of the Roman Empire,
2798, first column, (2724).
J. B. S. Carwithen:
History of the Christian Church,
2801 (2727).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2800-2801 (2726-2727).
16. THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE PROVINCES:
E. de Pressensé:
Early Years of Christianity,
463 (449).
C. A. A. Scott:
Ulfilas,
464, 1594 (450, 1556).
R. W. Church:
Beginning of the Middle Ages,
1432 (1399).
S. Baring-Gould;
The Church in Germany,
472 (458).
C. Merivale:
Church History,
464 (450).
R. W. Church:
Gifts of Civilization,
465 (451).
A. Plummer:
Church of the Early Fathers,
464 (450).
Appendix D, 3807-3810 (End of Volume I.).
17. THE FALL OF IMPERIAL, RISE OF ECCLESIASTICAL ROME:
J. Watt:
The Latin Church,
471 (457).
C. Merivale:
Early Church History,
471 (457).
E. Hatch:
Organization of the Christian Churches,
471 (457).
G. T. Stokes:
The Celtic Church,
472 (458).
J. J. I. von Döllinger:
History of the Church,
2481 (2421-2482).
C. Gore:
Leo the Great,
2481 (2422).
STUDY XIX.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
THE ESTABLISHMENT AND GROWTH OF THE PAPACY.
1. THE ROMAN CHURCH CLAIM OF DESCENT FROM ST. PETER:
G. Salmon:
Infallibility of the Church,
2476 (2417).
J. J. I. von Döllinger;
History of the Church,
2476-2477 (2417-2418).
Cardinal Gibbons:
The Faith of Our Fathers,
2477-2478 (2418-2419).
Abbé Guettée:
The Papacy,
2478-2479 (2419-2420).
S. Cheetham:
History of the Church,
2480 (2421).
G. F. Seymour:
Christian Unity,
2480 (2421).
E. de Pressensé:
Early Years of Christianity.
463 (449).
2. THE RISE OF THE EPISCOPATE:
W. D. Killen:
The Old Catholic Church,
458 (444).
C. Gore:
Mission of the Church,
458 (444).
J. B. Lightfoot;
The Apostolic Age, 458 (444).
A. Neander:
The Christian Religion,
458 (444).
E. Hatch:
Organization of the Christian Churches,
471 (457).
C. Gore:
Leo the Great,
2481 (2422).
{756}
3. The PATRIARCHATES:
J. H. Egar:
Christendom; Ecclesiastical and Political,
466 (452).
J. E. T. Wiltsch:
Statistics of the Church,
466 (452).
J. C. Lees:
The Greek Church,
470, first column, (456).
C. Merivale:
Early Church History,
471 (457).
4. THE EARLY BISHOPS OF ROME
(A. D. 42-600):
J. J. I. von Döllinger:
History of the Church,
2480-2481 (2421-2422).
C. Gore:
Leo the Great,
2481 (2422).
J. H. Egar:
Ecclesiastical and Political Christendom,
476 (462).
V. Duruy:
Middle Ages,
476 (462).
5. ORIGIN OF THE PAPAL TITLE:
A. P. Stanley:
The Eastern Church,
2480 (2421).
R. W. Bush:
St. Athanasius,
2411 (2359).
6. CAUSES THAT LED TO THE SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH:
J. Watt:
The Latin Church,
471 (457).
C. Merivale:
Church History,
471 (457).
E. Hatch:
The Christian Churches,
471 (457).
C. Gore:
Leo the Great,
2481 (2422).
S. Cheetham:
The Christian Church,
2479, last column, 2480 (2421).
J. N. Larned:
Europe, 1045 (1017).
7. GREGORY THE GREAT
(A. D. 590-604):
V. Duruy:
The Middle Ages,
475-476 (461-462).
J. Barmby:
Gregory the Great,
2481-2482 (2422-2423).
T. W. Allies:
The Holy See,
2482 (2423).
M. Creighton:
History of the Papacy,
2818 (2744).
C. Merivale:
Early Church History,
476 (462).
V. Duruy:
The Middle Ages,
476-477 (462-463).
J. F. Rowbotham:
History of Music,
2280-2281.
8. FROM GREGORY TO CHARLEMAGNE
(A. D. 600-800):
The Succession of Popes,
2482-2483 (2423-2424).
(a) The Rise of Papal Sovereignty at Rome.
G. Finlay:
The Byzantine Empire,
2483 (2424).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2483 (2424).
J. E. Darras:
History of the Catholic Church,
2483 (2424).
P. Godwin:
History of France,
2483 (2424).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
2483 (2424).
C. J. Stillé;
Mediæval History,
1467, second column, (1436).
(b) The Iconoclastic Controversy.
J. L. von Mosheim:
Ecclesiastical History,
1732 (1692-1693).
J. C. Lees:
The Greek Church,
470 (456).
(c) The Forged Donation of Constantine, and False Decretals.
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2484 (2425).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
2484 (2425).
J. Alzog:
Manual of Church History,
2484 (2425).
J. E. Riddle:
History of the Papacy,
2485 (2426).
9. THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE PAPACY AND THE FRANKS:
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire
(1846-1806). [sic]
R. W. Church:
Beginning of the Middle Ages,
1846-1847 (1806-1807).
C. J. Stillé:
Studies in Mediaeval History,
1467-1468 (1436-1437).
E.Emerton:
The Middle Ages,
1434-1435 (1401-1402).
10. FROM CHARLEMAGNE TO HILDEBRAND; DEGRADATION OF THE HOLY SEE
(A. D. 300-1073):
Cardinal J. H. Newman:
Essays,
2485-2486 (2426-2427).
A. F. Villemain:
Life of Gregory VII.,
2820 (2746).
Abbé J. E. Darras:
The Catholic Church,
2820 (2746).
C. W. Koch:
The Revolutions of Europe,
1471 (1439-1440).
J. I. von Döllinger:
European History,
2820-2821 (2746-2747).
J. H. Allen:
Christian History,
1473 (1442).
G. B. Adams:
Civilization during Middle Ages,
1473-1474 (1442-1443).
E. L. Cutts:
Charlemagne,
1150 (1120).
P. Schaff;
History of the Christian Church,
1150 (1120).
"Such are a few of the most prominent features of the
ecclesiastical history of these dreadful times, when, in the
words of St. Bruno, 'the world lay in wickedness, holiness had
disappeared, justice had perished, and truth had been buried;
Simon Magus lording it over the Church, whose bishops and
priests were given to luxury and fornication.’ Had we lived in
such deplorable times … we should have felt for certain, that
if it was possible to retrieve the Church, it must be by some
external power; she was helpless and resourceless; and the
civil power must interfere, or there was no hope."
CARDINAL J. H. NEWMAN.
11. HILDEBRAND AND REFORM
(A. D. 1073-1086):
Count de Montalembert:
Monks of the West,
2486-2487 (2427-2428).
J. Alzog:
Manual of History,
2487-2488 (2428).
G. B. Adams:
Civilization during Middle Ages,
1473-1474 (1442-1443).
J. N. Murphy:
The Chair of Peter,
2492 (2432).
(а) Papal Elections.
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
2491-2492 (2431-2432).
(b) Celibacy.
Sir James Stephen:
Hildebrand,
2488 (2429).
(c) Investitures.
Hinschius:
Investiturstreit,
2488-2489 (3794-3796).
(d) At Canossa.
W. Moeller:
The Christian Church,
2490 (2430).
W. R. W. Stephens:
Hildebrand and His Times,
396-397 (386-387).
W. S. Lilly:
The Turning-Point of the Middle Ages,
2490-2491 (2430-2431).
J. H. Allen:
Christian History,
1474 (1442).
H. H. Milman:
Latin Christianity,
2821 (2747).
(e) The Concordat of Worms.
J. Sime:
History of Germany,
1474 (1443).
J. J. I. Döllinger:
History of the Church,
1474-1475 (1443-1444).
R. C. Trench:
Mediæval Church History,
2491 (2431).
12. THE POPES AND THE HOHENSTAUFEN
(A. D. 1138-1250):
J. C. L. Sismondi:
The Italian Republics,
1850 (1810).
M. Creighton:
History of the Papacy,
2492-2493 (2432-2433).
H. Hallam:
The Middle Ages,
2493-2494 (2433-2434).
U. Balzani:
The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
1478 (1445).
O. Browning:
Guelphs and Ghibellines,
1478-1479 (1445-1446).
E. A. Freeman:
European History,
1479 (1446).
E. A. Freeman:
Frederick the Second,
1479-1480 (1446-1447).
J. Bryce:
The Holy Roman Empire,
1854 (1814).
T. L. Kington:
Frederick the Second,
1855-1856 (1815-1816).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1050 and 1054 (1022, 1026).
13. THE "BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY"
(A. D. 1294-1378):
G. Trevor:
Rome,
2494-2495 (2434-2435).
L. Pastor:
History of the Popes,
2495-2496 (2435-2436).
M. Creighton:
History of the Papacy,
2496 (2436).
{757}
14. THE "GREAT SCHISM"
(A. D. 1378-1417):
W. W. Story:
Castle St. Angelo,
2497 (2437).
J. N. Murphy:
The Chair of Peter,
2498 (2438).
L. Pastor:
History of the Popes,
2498 (2438).
J. Alzog:
Manual of Church History,
2498-2499 (2438-2439).
15. THE DARKEST AGE OF THE PAPACY
(A. D. 1417-1517):
R. C. Trench:
Mediæval Church History,
2500 (2440).
R. L. Poole:
Wycliffe and Reform Movements,
2501 (2441).
T. H. Dyer:
Modern Europe,
2501 (2441).
H. A. Taine:
English Literature,
2501-2502 (2441-2442).
J. A. Symonds:
Renaissance in Italy,
2502, 2503 (2442, 2443).
16. EVE OF THE GREAT REFORMATION;
T. Kolde:
Martin Luther,
2504.
L. Ranke:
History of the Reformation,
2504-2505 (2443-2444).
G. P. Fisher:
The Reformation,
2505 (2444).
Cardinal N. Wiseman:
Lectures on Catholic Church,
2505-2506 (2444-2445).
J. N. M. D’Aubigné:
Story of the Reformation,
2506 (2445).
17. THE INQUISITION
(A. D. 1203-1525):
J. A. Symonds:
The Catholic Reaction,
1789-1791 (1750-1752).
STUDY XX.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
MONASTICISM AND THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS.
1. MONASTICISM:
I. Gregory Smith:
Christian Monasticism,
468 (454).
E. Schürer:
The Jewish People,
1014 (3745).
Charles Kingsley:
The Hermits,
119-120 (112-113).
I. Gregory Smith:
Christian Monasticism,
2239-2240 (2195-2196).
Count de Montalembert:
Monks of the West,
2240-2241 (2196-2197).
A. Jessop:
The Coming of the Friars,
2241-2242 (2197-2198).
Count de Montalembert:
Monks of the West,
2050-2051 (2006-2007).
F. Madan:
Books in Manuscript,
2051-2052 (2007-2008).
F. Guizot:
History of Civilization,
711 (688).
A. T. Drane:
Christian Schools,
711-712 (688-689).
2. THE BENEDICTINES
(ABOUT A. D. 500):
(a) The Original Order.
C. J. Stillé:
Mediæval History,
288 (279).
(b) The Congregations of Cluny.
R. C. Trench:
Mediæval History,
495 (481).
3. THE CARTHUSIANS
(ABOUT A. D. 1075):
J. E. Darras:
The Catholic Church,
405 (395).
M. A. Schimmelpenninck:
La Grande Chartreuse,
405 (395).
4. THE CISTERCIANS
(ABOUT A. D. 1100):
(a) The Original Order.
K. Norgate:
England under the Angevin Kings,
487 (472-473).
C. J. Stillé:
Mediæval History,
491-492 (477-478).
H. Stebbing:
The Universal Church,
492 (478).
G. W. Cox:
The Crusades,
653 (630).
(b) The Trappists
(about 1150).
C. Lancelot:
La Grande Chartreuse,
3237-3238 (3121-3122).
(c) Port Royal
(A. D. 1204-1710).
J. Tulloch:
Pascal,
2637 (2565).
J. B. Perkins:
France under Mazarin,
2637-2639 (2565-2567).
H. Martin:
History of France,
2639 (2567).
Duke of Saint Simon:
Memoirs,
2640 (2568).
J. J. I. Döllinger:
European History,
2640 (2568).
5. THE AUGUSTINIANS, OR AUSTIN CANONS
(ABOUT A. D. 1150):
K. Norgate:
England under the Angevin Kings,
197 (190).
E. L. Cutts:
Middle Ages,
2656 (2584).
6. THE CARMELITE FRIARS
(ABOUT A. D. 1150):
J. L. von Mosheim:
Ecclesiastical History,
401 (391).
7. THE DOMINICANS
(ABOUT A. D. 1200):
J. Alzog:
Manual of Church History,
2196 (2152).
J. A. Symonds:
Renaissance in Italy,
1789-1791 (1750-1752).
8. THE FRANCISCANS
(ABOUT A. D. 1225):
J. Alzog:
Manual of Church History,
2196 (2152).
E. L. Cutts:
Middle Ages,
2196 (2152).
A. M. F. Robinson:
End of the Middle Ages,
285 (276).
J. L. von Mosheim:
Ecclesiastical History,
286 (277).
M. Creighton:
The Papacy,
2493, first column, (2433).
See
"The Recollects,"
2700 (2627).
9. THE CAPUCHINS
(ABOUT A. D. 1500):
J. Alzog:
Manual of Church History,
399 (389).
10. THE THEATINES
(ABOUT A. D. 1525):
A. W. Ward:
The Counter-Reformation,
3189 (3104).
L. von Ranke:
History of the Popes,
3189 (3104).
11. THE LAZARISTS
(ABOUT A. D. 1625):
J. Alzog:
Universal History,
2039 (1995).
12. HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM
(A. D. 1118-):
T. Keightley:
The Crusaders,
1701-1702 (1662-1663).
F. C. Woodhouse:
Military Religious Orders,
1702 (1663).
G. Finlay:
The Byzantine and Greek Empires,
1702 (1663).
W. H. Prescott:
Reign of Philip II.,
1703-1704 (1664-1665).
F. C. Woodhouse;
Military Religious Orders,
1704-1705 (1665-1666).
13. THE KNIGHTS TEMPLARS
(ABOUT A. D. 1120):
T. Keightley:
The Crusaders,
3176 (3091).
C. G. Addison:
The Knights Templars,
3176 (3091).
G. W. Kitchin:
History of France,
3177 (3092).
A. P. Marras:
Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
1438-1439 (1405-1406).
R. A. Vaughn:
Hours with the Mystics,
2826-2827 (2752-2753).
14. THE TEUTONIC KNIGHTS
(ABOUT A. D. 1190):
F. C. Woodhouse:
Military Religious Orders,
3185-3186 (3100-3101).
G. F. Maclear:
Apostles of Mediæval Europe,
2684-2685 (2612-2613).
{758}
15. THE SOCIETY OF JESUS
(A. D. 1540-):
(a) Loyola, and the Founding of the Order.
L. Häusser:
The Reformation,
1928-1929 (1887-1888).
G. B. Nicolini:
The Jesuits,
1929 (1888).
A. T. Drane:
Christian Schools,
731 (708).
G. Compayré:
History of Pedagogy,
731-732 (708-709).
O. Browning:
Educational Theories,
732 (709).
(b) Early Jesuit Missions.
A Historical Sketch of the Jesuits,
1929-1930 (1888-1889).
W. P. Greswell:
The Dominion of Canada,
1930 (1889).
F. Parkman:
The Jesuits in North America,
1930-1931 (1889-1890).
R. Mackenzie:
America,
371-372 (361-362).
The Hundred Years of Christianity in Japan,
1915-1916 (1875-1876).
D. Murray:
The Story of Japan,
1916 (1876).
(c) Changes in the Statutes of the Order.
L. von Ranke:
History of the Popes,
1931-1932 (1890-1891).
(d) Expulsion of the Order from France
(A. D. 1595).
T. H. Dyer:
Modern Europe,
1246, first column, (1214).
(e) Controversy with the Jansenists
(A. D. 1653-1715).
J. B. Perkins:
France and Mazarin,
2637-2639 (2565-2567).
H. Martin:
History of France,
2639 (2567).
(f) General Suppression of the Society throughout Europe
(A. D. 1757-1775).
H. M. Stephens:
The Story of Portugal,
1932-1933 (1891-1892).
W. H. Jervis:
History of the Church of France,
1933-1934 (1892-1893).
(g) Suppression of the Order by the Pope (A. D. 1773),
and Restoration (A. D. 1814).
The Jesuits and Their Expulsion,
1934-1935, and 1935 (1893-1894, and 1894).
Clement XIV. and the Jesuits,
1935 (1894).
"Himself without home or country, and not holding the
doctrines of any political party, the Disciple of Jesus
renounced everything which might alienate him among varying
nationalities, pursuing various political aims. Then he did
not confine his labors to the pulpit and the confessional; he
gained an influence over the rising generation by a systematic
attention to education, which had been shamefully neglected by
the other orders. It is a true saying, that ‘he who gains the
youth possesses the future’; and by devoting themselves to the
education of youth, the Jesuits secured a future to the Church
more surely than by any other scheme that could have been
devised. What the schoolmasters were for the youth, the
confessors were for those of riper years; what the clerical
teachers were for the common people, the spiritual directors
and confidants were for great lords and rulers—for the Jesuits
aspired to a place at the side of the great, and at gaining
the confidence of Kings."
L. HÄUSSER.
STUDY XXL
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
THE RISE AND CONQUESTS OF MOHAMMEDANISM.
1. ARABIA AND THE ARABS; THE SARACENS;
A. H. Sayce;
Races of the Old Testament,
2963 (2886).
G. Rawlinson:
Notes to Herodotus,
128 (121).
F. Lenormant:
Ancient History.
128-129 (121-122).
A. H. Sayce:
Ancient Arabia,
129-130 (122-123).
E. Gibbon;
Decline and Fall,
2878 (2803).
H. H. Milman:
Note to Gibbon,
2878 (2803).
H. Yule:
Cathay,
3215-3216, and 3216-3217 (3704-3705, and 3705-3706).
2. The Birth and Career of Mohammed
(A. D. 570-632):
E. A. Freeman:
Conquests of the Saracens,
2112 (2067).
Sir W. Muir:
Life of Mahomet,
2112-2113 (2067-2068).
J. W. H. Stobart
Islam and Its Founder,
1843 (1803).
Sir H. Nicholas:
Chronology of History,
1011 (984).
S. Lane-Poole:
Studies in a Mosque,
2194 (2150).
3. THE FIRST CALIPHATE; FROM ABU BEER TO ALI
(A. D. 632-661);
See
Caliph,
363 (353).
R. D. Osborn:
Islam under the Khalifs,
1735 (1696).
(а) Conquest of Syria.
George Adam Smith:
Geography of Holy Land,
3141-3142 (3057-3058).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2113-2114 (2068-2069).
W. Irving:
Mahomet and His Successors,
1923 (1882).
(b) Conquest of Persia.
G. Rawlinson:
Seventh Oriental Monarchy,
2114 (2069).
(c) Conquest of Egypt.
Sir W. Muir:
Annals of Early Caliphate,
2114-2115 (2069-2070).
Researches on Burning of Library of Alexandria,
2047-2048 (2003-2004).
(d) Conquest of Northern Africa.
T. Mommsen:
History of Rome,
2442 (2390)
H. E. M. Stutfield:
El Maghreb,
2133-2134 (2089-2090).
E. A. Freeman:
Conquest of Saracens,
2115 (2070).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
2115 (2070).
4. THE OMEYYAD CALIPHATE
(A. D. 661-750)
E. A. Freeman:
Conquests of the Saracens,
2116 (2071).
Sir W. Muir:
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
2116-2117 (2071-2072).
5. THE SUBJUGATION OF THE TURKS
(A. D. 710):
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall, 3246 (3130).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall, 2117 (2072).
6. THE CONQUEST OF SPAIN (A. D. 711-13),
AND BATTLE OF TOURS (732):
R. W. Church:
Beginning of the Middle Ages,
1599-1600 (1561-1562).
H. Coppée:
The Conquest of Spain,
3054 (2974).
P. Godwin:
History of France,
2117-2118, 2119 (2072-2075, 2076).
7. THE DIVIDED CALIPHATE; THE OMEYYADS AND ABBASSIDES
(A. D. 715):
Sir W. Muir:
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
2118 (2075).
E. A. Freeman:
Conquests of the Saracens,
2119, 2120 (2076, 2077).
E. H. Palmer:
Haroun Alraschid,
2119 (2076).
T. Nöldeke:
Eastern History,
2120 (2077).
8. TURKISH SUPREMACY, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SULTANATE
(A. D. 1000-):
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall.
3247 (3131).
A. Vambéry:
History of Bokhara,
3247, 3249 (3131, 3133).
R. D. Osborn:
Islam under Khalifs of Bagdad,
3247-3248 (3131-3132).
E. Pears:
The Fall of Constantinople,
3248 (3132).
G. Finlay:
The Byzantine and Greek Empires,
3348 (3133).
{759}
9. RISK OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE (A. D. 1250-):
Besant and Palmer:
Jerusalem,
3867 (3793-3763).
J. F. Michaud:
History of the Crusades,
3867 (3793).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
3349-3350 (3133-3131).
10. CIVILIZATION OF THE SARACENS:
(a) Education.
J. W. Draper.
Intellectual Development of Europe,
713 (690).
Westminster Review:
Intellectual Revival,
713-714 (690-691).
(b) Medical Science.
J. H. Baas:
History of Medicine,
3173-3174 (3130).
G. F. Fort:
Medical Economy of Middle Ages,
2174 (2130).
P. V. Renouard:
History of Medicine,
3174 (2130).
(c) Commerce.
H. Yule:
Cathay,
3215-3217 (3704-3706).
G. Finlay:
The Byzantine Empire,
3217-3218 (3706-3707).
STUDY XXII.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
THE CRUSADES.
"‘You,’ continued the eloquent pontiff [Urban II.], ‘you, who
hear me, and who have received the true faith, and been
endowed by God with power, and strength, and greatness of
soul,—whose ancestors have been the prop of Christendom, and
whose Kings have put a barrier against the progress of the
infidel,—I call upon you to wipe off these impurities from the
face of the earth, and lift your oppressed fellow Christians
from the depths into which they have been trampled.’ Palestine
was, he said, a land flowing with milk and honey, and precious
in the sight of God, as the scene of the grand events which
have saved mankind. That land, he promised, should be divided
among them. Moreover, they should have full pardon for all
their offenses against God or man. ‘Go then,’ he added, ‘in
expiation of your sins; and go assured that, after this world
shall have passed away, imperishable glory shall be yours in
the world to come.’ The enthusiasm was no longer to be
restrained, and loud shouts interrupted the speaker; the
people exclaiming as with one voice, ‘Dieu le veult! Dieu le
veult!’"
C. MACKAY.
1. CAUSES OF THE MOVEMENTS:
W. Irving:
Mahomet and His Successors,
1923 (1882).
E. A. Freeman:
Conquests of the Saracens,
2120 (2077).
G. Finlay:
Byzantine and Greek Empires,
649 (626).
2. PREACHING OF POPE URBAN II., AND PETER THE HERMIT:
C. Mackay:
Popular Delusions,
649-50 (626-627).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
650 (627).
3. THE FIRST CRUSADE
(A. D. 1096-1099):
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
650-651 (627-628).
Besant and Palmer:
Jerusalem,
1923-1924 (1882-1883).
T. Keightley:
The Crusaders,
651-652 (628-629).
H. F. Brown:
Venice,
3725-3726 (3605-3606).
4. THE LATIN KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM
(A. D. 1099-1291):
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
1924 (1883).
T. Keightley:
The Crusaders,
1924 (1883).
C. Mills:
The Crusades,
1924-1925 (1883-1884).
G. W. Cox:
The Crusades,
1925 (1884).
5. THE SECOND CRUSADE
(A. D. 1147-1149):
H. von Sybel:
The Crusades,
652-653 (629-630).
G. W. Cox:
The Crusades,
653 (630).
C. M. Yonge:
History of France,
1193 (1161-1162).
K. Norgate:
England under the Angevin Kings,
127-128 (120-121).
6. THE THIRD CRUSADE
(A. D. 1188-1192):
J. F. Michaud:
The Crusades,
653 (630).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
653-654 (630-631).
G. W. Cox:
The Crusades,
654 (631).
7. THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CRUSADES
(A. D. 1196-1203):
G. W. Cox:
The Crusades,
654 (631).
E. Pears:
The Fall of Constantinople,
654-655 (631-632).
8. THE CONQUEST OF CONSTANTINOPLE
(A D. 1204):
G. Finlay:
The Byzantine and Greek Empires,
3726 (3606).
E. Pears:
The Fall of Constantinople,
3726, and 350-351 (3606 and 340-341).
G. Finlay:
History of Greece,
351 (341).
E. Gibbon:
Decline and Fall,
351-352 (341-342).
G. Finlay:
History of Greece,
6 and 2730 (6 and 2656).
G. Finlay:
Byzantine and Greek Empires,
1649-1650 (1611-1612).
9. MINOR CRUSADING MOVEMENTS:
(a) The Children’s Crusade (A. D. 1212).
Besant and Palmer:
Jerusalem,
655-656 (632-633).
(b) Against the Albigenses (A. D. 1209-1229).
G. Rawlinson:
Seventh Oriental Monarchy,
2127-2128 (2083-2084).
J. L. Mosheim:
Christianity.
2128 (2084).
H. H. Milman:
Latin Christianity,
39 (32).
J. Alzog:
Manual of Church History,
39 (32).
Sir J. Stephen:
History of France,
39 (32).
E. Smedley:
History of France,
39-40 (32-33).
Sir James Stephen:
History of France,
40 and 41 (33 and 34).
E. A. Freeman:
Historical Geography of Europe,
40-41 (33-34).
(c) Against the Livonians
(about A. D. 1200).
G. F. Maclear:
Apostles of Mediaeval Europe,
2075 (2031).
(d) Against the Prussians
(about A. D. 1250-).
G. F. Maclear:
Apostles of Mediæval Europe,
2684-2685 (2612-2613).
T. Carlyle:
Frederick the Great,
2685 (2613).
(e) Against the Almohades
(A. D. 1212).
E. A. Freeman:
Conquest of the Saracens,
49 (42.)
H. Coppée:
Conquest of Spain by the Moors,
3058 (2977).
10. THE SIXTH CRUSADE
(A. D. 1216-1229):
G. Procter:
The Crusades,
656-657 (633-634).
E. A. Freeman:
Emperor Frederick the Second,
1480 (1446-1447).
Besant and Palmer:
Jerusalem,
1926 (1885).
11. THE SEVENTH CRUSADE
(A. D. 1248-1254):
F. P. Guizot:
History of France,
657-658 (634-635).
J. F. Michaud:
The Crusades,
658 (635).
12. FINAL MOVEMENTS
(A. D. (1270-1299):
F. P. Guizot:
HISTORY OF FRANCE,
658-659 (635-636).
G. Procter:
The Crusades,
1927-1928 (1886-1887).
W. Stubbs:
Mediaeval and Modern History,
1928 (1887).
C. G. Addison:
The Knights Templars,
659 (636).
{760}
13. THE EFFECTS OF THE CRUSADES:
E. Gibbon;
Decline and Fall,
659 (636).
H. Hallam;
The Middle Ages,
659 (636).
W. Robertson;
Progress of Society in Europe,
659 (636).
W. Stubbs;
Mediæval and Modern History,
660 (637).
F. Guizot:
History of Civilization,
660-661 (637-638).
"The principle of the Crusades was a savage fanaticism; and
the most important effects were analogous to the cause. Each
pilgrim was ambitious to return with his sacred spoils, the
relics of Greece and Palestine; and each relic was preceded
and followed by a train of miracles and visions. The belief of
the Catholics was corrupted by new legends, their practice by
new superstitions; and the establishment of the inquisition,
the mendicant orders of monks and friars, the last abuse of
indulgences, and the final progress of idolatry, flowed from
the baleful fountain of the holy war."
E. GIBBON.
STUDY XXIII.
Page references in first 1895 edition in parentheses.
THE RENAISSANCE—THE BIRTH OF THE MODERN AGE
(A. D. 1400-1500).
1. THE GENERAL MEANING OF THE TERM:
J. A. Symonds:
Renaissance in Italy,
2703-2704 (2630-2631).
P. Villari:
Niccolo Machiavelli,
2704 (2631).
J. N. Larned:
Europe,
1077-1079 (1049-1051).
2. THE LEADING INFLUENCE OF ITALY IN THE AWAKENING:
J. A. Symonds:
Renaissance in Italy,
1872-1873, 1874-1875 (1832-1833, 1834-1835).
Vernon Lee:
Euphorion,
1874 (1834).
H. A. Taine:
Italy, Florence, and Venice,
1173 (1143).
"When Machiavelli called Italy 'the corruption of the world,'
he did not speak rhetorically. An impure and worldly clergy;
an irreligious, though superstitious, laity; a self-indulgent
and materialistic middle class: an idle aristocracy, excluded