THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

Articles in This Slice

VOLUME IV SLICE II
Bohemia to Borgia, Francis

BOHEMIA[1] (Ger. Böhmen, Czech Čechy, Lat. Bohemia), a kingdom and crownland of Austria, bounded N.E. by Prussian Silesia, S.E. by Moravia and Lower Austria, S. by Upper Austria, S.W. by Bavaria and N.W. by Saxony. It has an area of 20,060 sq. m., or about two-thirds the size of Scotland, and forms the principal province of the Austrian empire. Situated in the geographical centre of the European continent, at about equal distance from all the European seas, enclosed by high mountains, and nevertheless easily accessible through Moravia from the Danubian plain and opened by the valley of the Elbe to the German plain, Bohemia was bound to play a leading part in the cultural development of Europe. It became early the scene of important historical events, the avenue and junction of the migration of peoples; and it forms the borderland between the German and Slavonic worlds.

Geography.—Bohemia has the form of an irregular rhomb, of which the northernmost place, Buchberg, just above Hainspach, is at the same time the farthest north in the whole Austro-Hungarian monarchy. From an orographic point of view, Bohemia constitutes amongst the Austrian provinces a separate massif, bordered on three sides by mountain ranges: on the S.W. by the Böhmerwald or Bohemian Forest; on the N.W. by the Erzgebirge or Ore Mountains; and on the N.E. by the Riesengebirge or Giant Mountains and other ranges of the Sudetes. The Böhmerwald, which, like its parallel range, the Sudetes, has a general direction from S.E. to N.W., is divided by the pass of Neumark into two parts. The northern part (Czech Cesky Les) attains in the massif of Czerkov an altitude of 3300 ft., but the southern part (Czech Šumava) is at the same time the highest and the most picturesque part of the range, including on the Bohemian side the Osser (4053 ft.) and the Plöckenstein (4513 ft.), although the highest peak, the Arber (4872), is in Bavaria. The beauty of this range of mountains consists in its pure crystalline torrents, in the numerous blue lakes of its valleys, and above all in the magnificent forests of oak and pine with which its sides are covered. The pass of Neumark, called also the pass of Neugedein, has always been the principal approach to Bohemia from Germany. It stretches towards the east, above the small town of Taus (Czech Domažlice, once called Tuhoŝt, i.e. the Fortress), and is the place where some of the bloodiest battles in the history of Bohemia were fought. Here in the first half of the 7th century Samo repulsed the invading hordes of the Avars, which threatened the independence of the newly-settled Slavonic inhabitants; here also Wratislas II. defeated the German emperor Henry III. in a two-days’ battle (August 22 and 23, 1040). It was in the same place that the Hussites gained in 1431 one of their greatest victories against a German army of crusaders, and another similar German army was vanquished here by George of Poděbrad.

The Erzgebirge (Czech Rudo Horí), which form the north-west frontier, have an average altitude of 2600 ft., and as their highest point, the Keilberg (4080 ft.). The numerous mining villages, the great number of cultivated areas and the easy passes, traversed by good roads, give those mountains in many places the aspect of a hilly undulating plain. Several of the villages are built very near the summit of the mountains, and one of them, Gottesgab (pop. about 1500), lies at an altitude of 3345 ft., the highest place in Bohemia and central Germany. To the west the Erzgebirge combine through the Elstergebirge with the Fichtelgebirge, which in their turn are united with the Böhmerwald through the plateau of Waldsassen. To the east the Erzgebirge are separated from the Elbsandsteingebirge by the Nollendorf pass, traversed by the ancient military route to Saxony; it was the route followed by Napoleon I. after the battle of Dresden (1813). To the south stretches the “Thermopylae of Bohemia,” the scene of the battle of Kulm and Arbesau. A little farther to the east the Elbe escapes into Saxony at the lowest point in Bohemia (alt. 367 ft.). The north-east frontier is formed by the Sudetes, which comprise the Lausitzergebirge (2500 ft.), the Isergebirge (with the highest peak, the Tafelfichte, 3683 ft.), the Jeschkengebirge (3322 ft.), and the Riesengebirge. The Riesengebirge (Czech Kroknosě) are, after the Alps, among the highest mountains of central Europe, and attain in the Schneekoppe an altitude of 5264 ft. The last groups of the Sudetes in Bohemia are the Heuscheuergebirge (2532 ft.) and the Adlergebirge (3664 ft.). The fourth side of the rhomb is formed by the so-called Bohemian-Moravian Hills, a plateau or broad series of low hills, composed of primitive rocks, and attaining in some places an altitude of 2500 ft.

The interior of Bohemia has sometimes been compared to a deep basin; but for the most part it is an undulating plateau, over 1000 ft. high, formed by a succession of terraces, which gradually slope down from south to north. Its lowest-lying points are not in the middle but in the north, in the valley of the Elbe, and the country can be divided into two parts by a line passing through Hohenmauth-Prague-Komotau. The part lying to the south of this line can be designated as highland, and only the part north of it as lowland. The mountain-ranges of the interior of Bohemia are the Brdywald (2798 ft.) in the middle; the Tepler Gebirge (2657 ft.), the Karsbader Gebirge (3057 ft.) and the Kaiserwald (3238 ft.), in the north-west part; while the northern corner is occupied by the Mittelgebirge (2739 ft.), a volcanic massif, stretching on both sides of the Elbe.

Bohemia belongs to the watershed of the Elbe, which rises within the territory and receives on the right the Iser and the Polzen, and on the left the Adler; the Eger with its affluent the Tepl; the Biela and the Moldau. But the principal river of Bohemia, from every point of view, is the Moldau (Czech Vltava), not the Elbe. A glance at the hydrographic structure of Bohemia, which is of such a striking regularity, shows us that the Moldau is the main stem, while the Elbe and the other rivers are only lateral branches; moreover, the Elbe below Melnik, the point of its confluence with the Moldau, follows the general direction of the Moldau. Besides, the Moldau is the principal commercial artery of the country, being navigable below Budweis, while the Upper-Elbe is not navigable; its basin (11,890 sq. m.) is twice as great as that of the Elbe, and its width and depth are also greater. It has a length of 270 m., 47 m. longer than the Upper-Elbe, but it runs through a deep and narrow valley, in which there is neither road nor railway, extending from above Budweis to about 15 m. south of Prague. The Moldau receives on the right the Lužniza and the Sazawa and on the left the Wottawa and the Beraun. The Beraun is formed by the union of the Mies with the Radbusa, Angel and Uslawa, and is the third most important river of the country. There are only a few lakes, which are mostly found at high altitudes.

Climate.—Bohemia has a continental, generally healthy climate, which varies much in different parts of the country. It is mildest in the centre, where, e.g. at Prague, the mean annual temperature is 48.5° F. The rainfall varies also according to the districts, the rainy season being the summer. Thus the mean annual rainfall in the interior of Bohemia is 18 in., in the Riesengebirge 40 in., while in the Böhmerwald it reaches 60 to 70 in.

Agriculture.—Favoured with a suitable climate and inhabited by a thriving rural population, Bohemia is very highly developed in the matter of agriculture. Over 50% of the whole area is under cultivation and the soil is in many parts very fertile, the best-known regions being the “Golden Road” round Königgrätz, the “Paradise” round Teplitz, and the “Garden of Bohemia” round Leitmeritz. The principal products are oats, rye, barley and wheat, but since the competition of Hungarian wheat large tracts of land have been converted to the cultivation of beetroot. The potato crop, which forms the staple food of the people, is great; the Saaz district is celebrated for hops, and the flax is also of a good quality. Fruit, especially plums, is very abundant and constitutes a great article of export. The forests cover 29.01% of the total area; meadows, 10.05, pastures 5.05, and gardens 1.35%. Cattle-rearing is not so well developed as agriculture, but great flocks of geese are reared, especially in the south, and bee-cultivation constitutes another important industry. Pisciculture has been for centuries successfully pursued by the Bohemian peasants, and the attempts recently made for the rearing of silkworms have met with fair success.

Minerals.—Except salt, which is entirely absent, almost every useful metal and mineral is to be found. First in importance, both in quantity and in value, come lignite and coal. Some of the richest lignite fields in Europe are found in the north-east corner of Bohemia round Brüx, Dux, Falkenau, Ossegg and Teplitz. Coal is mined round Kladno, Buschtěhrad, Pilsen, Schlan, Rakonitz, Nürschan and Radnitz, the last-named place containing the oldest coal mines of Bohemia (17th century). Iron ores are found at Kruŝnahora and Nuĉic, and the principal foundries are round Kladno and Königshof. Owing to the improvements in refining, Bohemia has become an important centre of the iron industry. Silver is extracted at Přibram and Joachimsthal, but the silver mines near Kuttenberg, famous in the middle ages, are now abandoned. Lead is extracted at Přibram, tin at Graupen in the Erzgebirge, the only place in Austria where this metal is found. Antimony is extracted at Milleschau near Tabor; uranium and radium near Joachimsthal; graphite near Krumau and Budweis; porcelain-earth near Carlsbad. Other minerals found in various places of Bohemia are copper, sulphur, cobalt, alum, nickel, arsenic and various sorts of precious stone, like the Bohemian garnet (pyrope), and building stone. A large amount of peat is collected, especially in the south-west of Bohemia, as well as a great quantity of asphalt.

Bohemia possesses over two hundred mineral springs, but only a few are used for medicinal purposes. Among them are some of the most celebrated mineral springs in the world, such as Carlsbad, Marienbad, Franzensbad, Teplitz-Schönau and Bilin. Other springs of importance are Püllna, Sedlitz and Seidschitz near Brüx; Giesshübl near Carlsbad; Liebwerda, Königswart, Sangerberg, Neudorf, Tetschen, Johannisbad, situated at the foot of the Schneekoppe, &c.

Manufactures and Commerce.—From an industrial point of view, Bohemia takes the first rank amongst the Austrian provinces, and at the same time is one of the greatest manufacturing centres of Europe. Rich as the country is in coal and iron, and in water supplies which can be transformed into motive power, the inhabitants were not slow to utilize these advantages, so that the industry of Bohemia made enormous strides during the last half of the 19th century. The glass industry was introduced from Venice in the 13th century and soon attained a vast importance; the factories are in the neighbourhood of the mountains, where minerals, and especially silica and fuel, are plentiful. The finest product, the crystal-glass, is made round Haida and Steinschönau. The very extensive porcelain industry is concentrated in and around Carlsbad. The textile industry stands in the front rank and is mostly concentrated in the north-east corner of Bohemia, round Reichenberg, and in the valley of the Lower Elbe. The cloth manufacture is located at Reichenberg; Rumburg and Trautenau are the centre of the linen industry; woollen yarns are made at Aussig and Asch. Lace, which is pursued as a home-industry in the Erzgebirge region, has its principal centre at Weipert, while Strakonitz has the speciality of the manufacture of red fezes (Turkish caps). The metallurgic industries, favoured by the abundance of coal and iron, are concentrated round the mines. Industrial and agricultural machinery are manufactured at Reichenberg, Pilsen and Prague, and at the last-named place is also to be found a great establishment for the production of railway rolling-stock. Sugar refining is another industry, which, although of recent date, has had a very great development, and the breweries produce a beer which is appreciated all over the world. Other important branches of industry are:—the manufacture of chemicals at Prague and Aussig; pencils at Budweis; musical instruments at Graslitz and Schönbach; paper, leather, dyeing and calico-printing. Hand-in-hand with the industrial activity of the country goes its commercial development, which is stimulated by an extensive railway system, good roads and navigable rivers. The centre of the railway system, which had in 1898 a length of some 3500 m., or 30% of the total length of the Austrian railways, is Prague; and through the Elbe Bohemia has easy access to the sea for its export trade.

Population and Administration.—Bohemia had in 1900 a population of 6,318,280, which corresponds to 315 inhabitants per square mile. As regards numbers, it occupies the second place amongst the Austrian provinces, coming after Galicia, and as regards density of population it stands third, Silesia and Lower Austria, which contains Vienna, standing higher. In 1800 the population was a little over 3,000,000. According to nationality, about 35% are Germans and 65% Czechs. The Czechs occupy the middle of the country, as well as its south and south-east region, while the Germans are concentrated near its borders, especially in the north and west, and are also found all over the country in the large towns. Besides, there are numerous German-speaking enclaves situated in purely Czech districts; on the other hand, the Czechs have shown a tendency to invade the purely German mining and manufacturing districts. Notwithstanding its rich natural resources and its great industrial development, Bohemia sends out a steady flow of emigrants, who either settle in the other provinces of the monarchy, in Germany and in Russia, or cross the Atlantic to America. To the Roman Catholic Church belong 96% of the total population; Bohemia is divided into the archbishopric of Prague, and the three bishoprics of Budweis, Königgrätz and Leitmeritz.

Education is well advanced, and Bohemia has the lowest proportion of illiterates amongst the Austrian provinces. At the head of the educational establishments stand the two universities at Prague, one German and the other Czech.

Bohemia sends 130 deputies to the Reichsrat at Vienna; the local diet, to which belong ex officio the archbishop, the three bishops, and the two rectors of the universities, consists of 242 members. For administrative purposes Bohemia is divided into ninety-four districts and two autonomous municipalities, Prague (pop. 204,478), the capital, and Reichenberg (34,204). Other important towns are Pilsen (68,292), Budweis (39,360), Aussig (37,255), Schönau (24,110), Eger (23,665), Warnsdorf (21,150), Brüx (21,525), Gablonz (21,086), Asch (18,675), Kladno (18,600), Pardubitz (17,029), Saaz (16,168), Komotau (15,925), Kolin (15,025), Kuttenberg (14,799), Trautenau (14,777), Carlsbad (14,640), Přibram (13,576), Jungbunzlau (13,479), Leitmeritz (13,075), Chrudim (13,017), Dux (11,921), Bodenbach (10,782), Tabor (10,692), Bohmisch-Leipa (10,674), Rumburg (10,382), Weipert (10,037).

See F. Umlauft, Die Länder Österreich-Ungarns in Wort und Bild, (15 vols., Vienna, 1881-1889), vol. vii.; Mikowec, Altertümer und Denkwürdigkeiten Bohmen’s (2 vols., Prague, 1859-1865); F. Rivnáĉ, Reisehandbuch fur das Konigreich Bohmen (Prague, 1882), very useful for its numerous and detailed historical notes.

(O. Br.)

History

The country derives its name from the Boii, a Celtic tribe which in the earliest historical period inhabited part of the land. According to very ancient traditions accepted by the modern historians of Bohemia, the Boii, whose capital was called Boiohemum, were weakened by continual warfare with neighbouring tribes, and finally subdued by the Teutonic tribe of the Marcomanni (about 12 B.C.). The Marcomanni were afterwards expelled by other Teutonic tribes, and eventually Bohemia was conquered by Slavic tribes, of whom the Čechs (see [Czech]) were the most important. The date of the arrival of the Čechs in Bohemia is very uncertain, and the scanty references to the country in classical and Byzantine writers are rather Slav Conquest. misleading than otherwise. Recent archaeological research has proved the existence of Slavic inhabitants in Bohemia as far back as the beginning of the Christian era. The Čechs appear to have become the masters of the country in the 5th century. The first of their rulers mentioned in history is Samo, who is stated to have defeated the Avars, a Turanian tribe which had for a time obtained the overlordship over Bohemia. Samo also defeated the Franks in a great battle that took place at Wogatisburg (630), probably near the site of the present town of Eger. After the death of Samo the history of Bohemia again becomes absolutely obscure for about 130 years. The next events that are recorded by the oldest chroniclers, such as Cosmas, refer to the foundation of a Bohemian principality by Krok (or Crocus) and his daughter Libussa. The latter is said to have married Přemysl, a peasant who was found ploughing his field—a legend that is common in most Slavic countries. Beginning with this semi-mythic ruler, the ancient chroniclers have constructed a continuous list of Přemyslide princes. Neither the deeds attributed to these princes nor the dates of their reigns can be considered as historical.

From the time of the introduction of Christianity into Bohemia the history of the country becomes less obscure. The first attempts to introduce Christianity undoubtedly came from Germany. They met with little success, as Christianity. innate distrust of the Germans naturally rendered the Bohemians unfavourable to a creed which reached them from the realm of their western neighbours. Matters were different when Christianity approached them from Moravia, where its doctrine had been taught by Cyrillus and Methodius—Greek monks from Thessalonica. About the year 873 the Bohemian prince Bořivoj was baptized by Methodius, and the Bohemians Wenceslas now rapidly adopted the Christian faith. Of the rulers of Bohemia the most famous at this period was Wenceslas, surnamed the Holy, who in 935 was murdered by his brother Boleslav, and who was afterwards canonized by the Church of Rome. As Wenceslas had been an ally of Germany, his murder resulted in a war with that country, in which, as far as we can judge by the scanty records of the time. Boleslav, the brother and successor of Wenceslas, was on the whole successful. During the reigns of Boleslav and his son, Boleslav. Boleslav II., Bohemia extended its frontiers in several directions. Boleslav II. indeed established his rule not only over Bohemia and Moravia, but also over a large part of Silesia, and over that part of Poland which is now the Austrian province of Galicia. Like most Slavic states at this and even a later period, the great Bohemian empire of Boleslav II. did not endure long. Boleslav III., son of Boleslav II., lost all his foreign possessions to Boleslav the Great, king of Poland. During his reign Bohemia was involved in constant civil war, caused by the dissensions between Boleslav III. and his brothers Jaromir and Ulrick. Though the prince succeeded in expelling his brothers from the country, his cruelty induced the Bohemians to dethrone him and to choose as their ruler the Polish prince Vladivoj. Vladivoj, brother of Boleslav the Great, and son of the Bohemian princess Ďubravka (Dobrawa). Vladivoj attempted to strengthen his hold over Bohemia by securing the aid of Germany. He consented not only to continue to pay the tribute which the Germans had already obtained from several previous rulers of Bohemia, but also to become a vassal of the German empire and to receive the German title of duke. This state continued when after the death of Vladivoj the Přemyslide dynasty was restored. The Přemyslide prince Břetislav Břetislav I. I. (1037-1055) restored the former power of Bohemia, and again added Moravia, Silesia and a considerable part of Poland to the Bohemian dominions. To obviate the incessant struggles which had endangered the land at every vacancy of the throne, Břetislav, with the consent of the nobles, decreed that the oldest member of the house of Přemysl should be the ruler of Bohemia. Břetislav was therefore succeeded first by his eldest son Spitihněv, and then by his second son Vratislav.

In 1088 Vratislav obtained the title of king from the emperor Henry IV., whom he had assisted in the struggle with the papal see which is known as the contest about investitures. Though the title of king was only conferred on Vratislav Vratislav becomes “king”. personally, the German king, Conrad III., conferred on the Bohemian prince Sobeslav (1125-1140) the title of hereditary cupbearer of the Empire, thus granting a certain influence on the election of the emperors to Bohemia, which hitherto had only obligations towards the Empire but no part in its government. In 1156 the emperor Frederick I. Barbarossa ceded Upper Lusatia to the Bohemian prince Vladislav II., and conferred on him the title of king on condition of his taking part in Frederick’s Italian campaigns. It was intended that that title should henceforth be hereditary, but it again fell into abeyance during the struggles between the Přemyslide princes which followed the abdication of Vladislav in 1173.

The consequences of these constant internal struggles were twofold; the German influence became stronger, and the power of the sovereign declined, as the nobility on whose support the competitors for the crown were obliged to rely constantly obtained new privileges. In 1197 Přemysl Ottakar became undisputed ruler of Bohemia, and he was crowned as king in the following year. The royal title of the Bohemian sovereigns was continued uninterruptedly from that date. Wenceslas I. (1230-1253) succeeded his father as king of Bohemia without opposition. The last years of his reign were troubled by internal Ottakar II. discord. Wenceslas’s son, Přemysl Ottakar II., who under the sovereignty of his father ruled Moravia, became for a time the chief leader of the malcontents. A reconciliation between son and father, however, took place before the latter’s death. Přemysl Ottakar II. was one of the greatest of Bohemia’s kings. He had during the lifetime of his father obtained possession of the archduchies of Austria, and, about the time of his accession to the Bohemian throne, the nobility of Styria also recognized him as their ruler. These extensions of his dominions involved Přemysl Ottakar II. in repeated wars with Hungary. In 1260 he decisively defeated Bela, king of Hungary, in the great battle of Kressenbrunn. After this victory Ottakar’s power rose to its greatest height. He now obtained possession of Carinthia, Istria and parts of northern Italy. His possessions extended from the Giant Mountains in Bohemia to the Adriatic, and included almost all the parts of the present Habsburg empire west of the Leitha. His contemporaries called Ottakar “the man of gold” because of his great wealth, or “the man of iron” because of his military power. From political rather than racial causes Ottakar favoured the immigration of Germans into his dominions. He hoped to find in the German townsmen a counterpoise to the overwhelming power of the Bohemian nobility. In 1273 Rudolph, count of Habsburg, was elected king of the Romans. It is very probable that the German crown had previously been offered to Ottakar, but that he had refused it. Several causes, among others his Slavic nationality, which was likely to render him obnoxious to the Germans, contributed to his decision. As Rudolph immediately claimed as vacant fiefs of the Empire most of the lands held by Ottakar, war was inevitable. Ottakar was deserted by many of his new subjects, and even by part of the Bohemian nobility. He was therefore unable to resist the German king, and was obliged to surrender to him all his lands except Bohemia and Moravia, and to recognize Rudolph as his overlord. New dissensions between the two sovereigns broke out almost immediately. In 1278 Ottakar invaded the Austrian duchies, now under the rule of Rudolph, but was defeated and killed at the battle of Durnkrut on the Marchfeld.

Ottakar’s son, Wenceslas II., was only seven years of age at the death of his father, and Otto of Brandenburg, a nephew of Ottakar, for a time governed Bohemia as guardian of the young sovereign. Otto’s rule was very unpopular, Wenceslas II. an insurrection broke out against him, and Bohemia was for a time in a state of complete anarchy. The country was at last pacified through the intervention of Rudolph of Habsburg, and at the age of twelve Wenceslas became nominal ruler of the country. All power was, however, in the hands of Zavis of Falkenstein, one of the great Bohemian nobles, who had married the king’s mother, Kunegunda. The power of Zavis at last became invidious to the king, by whose order he was beheaded in 1290. Wenceslas, though only nineteen years of age, henceforth governed Bohemia himself, and his short reign was a period of great happiness for the country. Poland also accepted the rule of Wenceslas and the Hungarian crown was offered to him. Towards the end of his reign Wenceslas became involved in war with Albert, archduke of Austria, afterwards king of the Romans. While preparing to invade Austria Wenceslas died suddenly (1305). His son and successor, Wenceslas III., was then only sixteen years of age, and he only ruled over Bohemia for one year. While planning a warlike expedition against Poland, on which country the Bohemian sovereigns now again maintained their claim, he was murdered by unknown assassins (1306). With him ended the rule of the Přemyslide dynasty over Bohemia.

Albert, king of the Romans, declared that Bohemia was a vacant fief of the Empire, and, mainly by intimidation, induced the Bohemians to elect his son Rudolph as their sovereign; but Rudolph died after a reign of only one year. Though the Habsburg princes at this period already claimed a hereditary right to the Bohemian throne, the Bohemians determined to maintain their right of electing their sovereign, and they chose Henry, duke of Carinthia, who had married a daughter of King Wenceslas II. Henry soon became unpopular, as he was accused of unduly favouring the German settlers in Bohemia. It was decided to depose him, and the choice of the Bohemians now John of Luxemburg. fell on John of Luxemburg, son of Henry, king of the Romans. The Luxemburg dynasty henceforth ruled over Bohemia up to the time of its extinction at the death of Sigismund (1437). Though King John, by his marriage to the princess Elizabeth, a daughter of Wenceslas II., became more closely connected with Bohemia, he does not appear to have felt much interest in that country. Most of his life was spent in other lands, his campaigns ranging from Italy in the south to Lithuania in the north. It became proverbial “that nothing could be done in the world without the help of God and of the king of Bohemia.” The policy of John was founded on a close alliance with France, the country for which he felt most sympathy. Fighting as an ally of France he fell at the battle of Crécy (1346).

He was succeeded as king of Bohemia by his son Charles, whom the German electors had previously elected as their sovereign at Rense (1346). Charles proved one of the greatest rulers of Bohemia, where his memory is still King Charles. revered. Prague was his favourite residence, and by the foundation of the nové město (new town) he greatly enlarged the city, which now had three times its former extent, and soon also trebled its population. He also added greatly to the importance of the city by founding the famous university of Prague. Charles succeeded in re-establishing order in Bohemia. The country had been in a very disturbed state in consequence of feuds that were incessant during the reign of John, who had almost always been absent from Bohemia. Charles also attempted to codify the obscure and contradictory laws of Bohemia; but this attempt failed through the resistance of the powerful nobility of the country. During the reign of Charles, the first symptoms of that movement in favour of church reform that afterwards acquired a world-wide importance, appeared in Bohemia. As Charles has often been accused of undue subserviency to the Church of Rome, it should be mentioned that he granted his protection to several priests who favoured the cause of church reform. In his foreign policy Charles differed from his father. The relations with France gradually became colder, and at the end of his reign Charles favoured an alliance with England; he died in 1378 at the age of sixty-two, prematurely exhausted by arduous work.

Charles was succeeded by his son Wenceslas, who was then seventeen years of age. His reign marks the decline of the rule of the house of Luxemburg over Bohemia. He was a weak and incapable sovereign, but the very exaggerated Wenceslas IV. accusations against him, which are found principally in the works of older historians, are mainly due to the fact that the king and to a larger extent his queen, Sophia, for a time furthered the cause of church reform, thus incurring the displeasure of Romanist writers. During the earlier part of the reign of Wenceslas a continual struggle took place between the king and the powerful Bohemian nobles, who indeed twice imprisoned their sovereign. Wenceslas also became involved in a dispute with the archbishop, which resulted in the death of the famous John of Nepomuk.

The later part of the reign of Wenceslas is a record of incipient religious conflict. The hold of the Church of Rome on Bohemia had already been weakened during the reign of King Charles by attacks on the immorality of the clergy, Huss and the Hussites. which proceeded from pious priests such as Milić and Waldhauser. The church schism, during which the rival pontiffs assailed each other with all the wild threats and objurgations of medieval theological strife, necessarily alienated the Bohemians to a yet greater extent. Almost the whole Bohemian nation therefore espoused the cause of Huss (q.v.). Wenceslas on the occasion of these disputes displayed the weakness and irresolution that always characterized him, but Queen Sophia openly favoured the cause of Huss, who for some time was her confessor. Huss was tried before the council of Constance (q.v.), to which he had proceeded with a letter of safe conduct given by Wenceslas’s brother Sigismund, king of the Romans. He was declared a heretic and burnt on the 6th of July 1415. The inevitable and immediate result of this event was the outbreak of civil war in Bohemia, where Huss was greatly revered by the large majority of the population. The nobles of Bohemia and Moravia met at Prague on the 2nd of September 1415, and sent to the council the famed Protestatio Bohemorum, in which they strongly protested against the execution of Huss, “a good, just and catholic man who had for many years been favourably known in the Kingdom by his life, conduct and fame, and who had been convicted of no offence.” They further declared that all who affirmed that heresy existed in Bohemia were “liars, vile traitors and calumniators of Bohemia and Moravia, the worst of all heretics, full of all evil, sons of the devil.” They finally stated “that they would defend the law of our Lord Jesus Christ and its pious, humble and steadfast preachers at the cost of their blood, scorning all fear and all human decrees that might be contrary to them.”[2] This protest was a declaration of war against the Roman church, and marks the beginning of the Hussite wars. The council, indeed, summoned the nobles before its tribunal, but they refused to appear. A large number of the nobles and knights who had met at Prague formed a confederacy and declared that they consented to freedom of preaching the word of God on their estates, that they declined to recognize the authority of the council of Constance, but would obey the Bohemian bishops and a future pope lawfully elected. Meanwhile they declared the university of Prague the supreme authority in all matters of religion. The members of the confederacy attempted, though unsuccessfully, to induce King Wenceslas to become their leader. The Romanist nobles, who were not numerous, but some of whom owned vast estates, now also formed a confederacy, pledging themselves to support the pope and the council. After the closing of the council in 1418, Sigismund, who—Wenceslas being childless—was heir to the Bohemian throne, sent a letter to his brother, which was practically a manifesto addressed to the Bohemian people. He threatened with the severest penalties all who should continue to resist the authority of Rome. Wenceslas maintained the vacillating attitude that was characteristic of his whole reign, though Queen Sophia still extended her protection to the reformers. By doing this, indeed, she incurred the wrath of the Church to so great an extent that an act of accusation against her was drawn up at the council of Constance. Intimidated by his brother, Wenceslas now attempted to stem the current of religious enthusiasm. Immediately after the death of Huss many priests who refused to administer communion in the two kinds—now the principal tenet of the adherents of Huss—had been expelled from their parishes. Wenceslas decreed that they should be reinstated, and it was only after some hesitation that he even permitted that religious services according to the Utraquist doctrine should be held in three of the churches of Prague. Some of the more advanced reformers left Prague and formed the party known as the Taborites, from the town of Tabor which became their centre. Troubles soon broke out at Prague. When on the 30th of July 1419, the Hussite priest, John of Zelivo, was leading a procession through the streets of Prague, stones were thrown at him and his followers from the town hall of the “new town.” The Hussites, led by John Žižka (q.v.), stormed the town-hall and threw the magistrates from its windows. On receiving the news of these riots King Wenceslas was immediately seized by an attack of apoplexy; a second fit on the 16th of August ended his life.

The news of the death of the king caused renewed rioting in Prague and many other Bohemian cities, from which many Germans, mostly adherents of the Church of Rome, were expelled. Finally a temporary truce was Sigismund. concluded, and, early in the following year, Sigismund, who now claimed the Bohemian crown as successor of his brother, arrived at Kutna Hora (Kuttenberg). Pope Martin V. on the 1st of March 1420 proclaimed a crusade against Bohemia, and crusaders from all parts of Europe joined Sigismund’s army. “On the 30th day of June the Hungarian king, Sigismund, with a large army consisting of men of various countries, as well as of Bohemians, occupied the castle of Prague, determined to conquer the city, which they considered a heretical community because they used the sacred chalice and accepted other evangelical truths.”[3] But the attempt of the crusaders to conquer Prague failed, and after an attack by them on the Vitkov (now Zizkov) hill had been repulsed by the desperate bravery of the Taborites, led by Žižka, Sigismund determined to abandon the siege of Prague. An attempt of Sigismund to relieve the besieged garrison of the Vyŝehrad fortress on the outskirts of Prague also failed, as he was again entirely defeated at the battle of the Vyŝehrad (November 1, 1420).

Royal authority now ceased in Bohemia. At a meeting of the diet at Caslav (June 1, 1421) Sigismund was deposed. It was decided that a Polish prince should be chosen as sovereign, and that meanwhile a provisional government, composed of twenty men belonging to the various parties, should be established. In 1422 Sigismund again invaded Bohemia, but was decisively defeated by Žižka at Nêmecký Brod (Deutschbrod). The Polish prince, Sigismund Korybutoviĉ, now arrived in Bohemia, and was recognized as regent by the large majority of the inhabitants; but through the influence of the papal see Religious War. he was recalled by the rulers of Poland after a stay of only a few months. After his departure, civil war between the moderate Hussites (Calixtines or Utraquists) and the advanced Taborite party broke out for the first time, though there had previously been isolated disturbances between them. The return of Prince Korybutoviĉ and the menace of a German invasion soon reunited the Bohemians, who gained a decisive victory over the Germans at Aussig in 1426. Shortly afterwards Korybutoviĉ, who had taken part in this great victory, incurred the dislike of the extreme Hussites, and was obliged to leave Bohemia. All hope of establishing an independent Slav dynasty in Bohemia thus came to an end. In 1427 several German princes undertook a new crusade against the Hussites. With the German and other invaders were 1000 English archers, bodyguard to Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, who took part in the crusade as papal legate. The crusaders were seized by a sudden panic, both at Mies (Střibro) and at Tachau, as soon as they approached the Hussites, and they fled hurriedly across the mountains into Bavaria. Though internal disturbances again broke out, the Bohemians after this success assumed the offensive, and repeatedly invaded Hungary and the German states.

The impossibility of conquering Bohemia had now become obvious, and it was resolved that a council should meet at Basel (q.v.) to examine the demands of the Hussites. The Germans, however, influenced by Sigismund, determined to make a last attempt to subdue Bohemia by armed force. The Bohemians, as usual united in the moment of peril, defeated the Germans at Domažlice (Taus) on the 1st of August 1431, after a very short fight. In the course of the same year negotiations began at Basel, the Hussites being represented by a numerous embassy under the leadership of Prokop the Great. The negotiations proceeded very slowly, and in 1433 the Bohemians returned to their own country, accompanied, however, by envoys of the council. Dissensions had meanwhile again broken out in Bohemia, and they were now of a political rather than a religious nature. The more aristocratic Hussites raised an armed force which was known as “the army of the nobles.” The Taborites also collected their men, who formed “the army of the towns.” The two armies met at Lipan, near Kolin, on the 30th of May 1434. The Taborites were defeated, and the two Prokops and most of their other leaders perished on the battlefield. The victory of the moderate party paved the way to a reconciliation with Sigismund and the Church of Rome. The Bohemians The “Compacts.” recognized Sigismund as their sovereign, but obtained considerable concessions with regard to religious matters. These concessions, which were formulated in the so-called Compacts, granted to the Bohemians the right of communion in both kinds, and of preaching the gospel freely, and also to a certain extent limited the power of the clergy to acquire worldly goods.

After the Compacts had been formally recognized at Iglau in Moravia, Sigismund proceeded to Prague and was accepted as king. He died in the following year (1437) and was succeeded by his son-in-law, Albert of Austria, whom the estates chose as their king. Albert died after he had reigned over Bohemia less than two years. Though it was known that Albert’s widow Elizabeth would shortly give birth to a child, the question as to the succession to the throne again arose; for it was only in 1627 that the question whether the Bohemian crown was elective or hereditary was decided for ever. The nobles formed two parties, one of which, the national one, had George of George of Poděbrad. Poděbrad (q.v.) as its leader. Ulrich of Rosenberg was the leader of the Roman or Austrian division of the nobility. The two parties finally came to an agreement known as the “Letter of Peace” (list mirný). Those who signed it pledged themselves to recognise the Compacts, and to support as archbishop of Prague, John of Rokycan, who had been chosen by the estates in accordance with an agreement made simultaneously with the Compacts, but whom the Church of Rome refused to recognize. On the other hand, the national party abandoned the candidature to the throne of Prince Casimir of Poland, thus paving the way to the eventual succession of Albert’s heir. On the 22nd of February 1440 Queen Elizabeth gave birth to a son, who received the name of Ladislas. The Bohemians formally acknowledged him as their king, though only after their crown had been declined by Albert, duke of Bavaria. Ladislas remained in Austria under the guardianship of his uncle Frederick, duke of Styria, afterwards the emperor Frederick III., and Bohemia, still without regular government, continued to be the scene of constant conflicts between the rival parties of the nobility. In 1446 a general meeting of the estates of Bohemia together with those of Moravia, Silesia and Lusatia—and so-called “lands of the Bohemian crown”—took place. This meeting has exceptional importance for the constitutional history of Bohemia. It was decreed that at the meeting of the estates their members should be divided into three bodies—known as curiae—representing the nobles, the knights and the towns. These curiae were to deliberate separately and only to meet for a final decision. An attempt made at this meeting to appoint a regent was unsuccessful. The negotiations with the papal see continued meanwhile, but led to no result, as the members of the Roman party used their influence at the papal court for the purpose of dissuading it from granting any concessions to their countrymen. Shortly after the termination of the diet of 1446 George of Poděbrad therefore determined to appeal to the fortune of war. He assembled a considerable army at Kutna Hora and marched on Prague (1448). He occupied the town almost without resistance and assumed the regency over the kingdom. The diet in 1451 recognized his title, which was also sanctioned by the emperor Frederick III., guardian of the young king. Poděbrad was none the less opposed, almost from the first, by the Romanists, who even concluded an alliance against him with their extreme opponents, Kolda of Žampach and the other remaining Taborites. In October 1453 Ladislas arrived in Bohemia and was crowned king at Prague; but he died somewhat suddenly on the 23rd of November 1457. George of Poděbrad has from the first frequently been accused of having poisoned him, but historical research has proved that this accusation is entirely unfounded. The Bohemian throne was now again vacant, for, when electing Ladislas the estates had reaffirmed the elective character of the monarchy. Though there were several foreign candidates, the estates unanimously elected George of Poděbrad, who had now for some time administered the country. Though the Romanist lords, whom Poděbrad had for a time won over, also voted for him, the election was considered a great victory of the national party and was welcomed with enthusiasm by the citizens of Prague.

During the earlier and more prosperous part of his reign the policy of King George was founded on a firm alliance with Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, through whose influence he was crowned by the Romanist bishop of Waitzen. The reign of King George, whose principal supporters were the men of the smaller nobility and of the towns, was at first very prosperous. After a certain time, however, some of the Romanist nobles became hostile to the king, and, partly through their influence, he became involved in a protracted struggle with the papal see. It was in consequence of this struggle that some of George’s far-reaching plans—he endeavoured for a time to obtain the supremacy over Germany—failed. After the negotiations with Rome had proved unsuccessful George assembled the estates at Prague in 1452 and declared that he would to his death remain true to the communion in both kinds, and that he was ready to risk his life and his crown in the defence of his faith. The Romanist party in Bohemia became yet more embittered against the king, and at a meeting at Zelena Hora (Grünberg) in 1465 many nobles of the Roman religion joined in a confederacy against him. In the following year Pope Paul II. granted his moral support to the confederates by pronouncing sentence of excommunication against George of Poděbrad and by releasing all Bohemians from their oath of allegiance to him. It was also through papal influence that King Matthias of Hungary, deserting his former ally, supported the lords of the league of Zelena Hora. Desultory warfare broke out between the two parties, in which George was at first successful; but fortune changed when the king of Hungary invaded Moravia and obtained possession of Brünn, the capital of the country. At a meeting of the Catholic nobles of Bohemia and Moravia at Olmütz in Moravia, Matthias was proclaimed king of Bohemia (May 3, 1469). In the following year George obtained some successes over his rival, but his death in 1471 for a time put a stop to the war. George of Poděbrad, the only Hussite king of Bohemia, has always, with Charles IV., been the ruler of Bohemia whose memory has most endeared itself to his countrymen.

George of Poděbrad had undoubtedly during the more prosperous part of his reign intended to found a national dynasty. In later years, however, hope of obtaining aid from Poland in his struggle against King Matthias induced him to offer the succession to the Bohemian throne to Vladislav (Wladislaus, Ladislaus), son of Casimir, king of Poland. No formal agreement was made, and at the death of George many Bohemian nobles supported the claim of Matthias of Hungary, who had already been proclaimed king of Bohemia. Protracted negotiations ensued, but Vladislav of Poland. they ended by the election of Prince Vladislav of Poland at Kutna Hora, the 27th of May 1471. This election was a victory of the national party, and may be considered as evidence of the strong anti-clerical feeling which then prevailed in Bohemia; for Matthias was an unconditional adherent of Rome, while the Polish envoys who represented Vladislav promised that he would maintain the Compacts. At the beginning of his reign the new king was involved in a struggle with Matthias of Hungary, who maintained his claim to the Bohemian throne. Prolonged desultory warfare continued up to 1478, when a treaty concluded at Olmütz secured Bohemia to Vladislav; Matthias was to retain the so-called “lands of the Bohemian crown”—Moravia, Silesia and Lusatia—during his lifetime, and they were to be restored to Bohemia after his death. Though Vladislav was faithful to his promise of maintaining the Compacts, and did not attempt to prevent the Bohemians from receiving the communion in both kinds, yet his policy was on the whole a reactionary one, both as regards matters of state and the religious controversies. The king appointed as government officials at Prague men of that section of the Utraquist party that was nearest to Rome, while a severe persecution of the extreme Hussites known as the Bohemian Brethren took place (see [Hussites]). Serious riots took place at Prague, and the more advanced Hussites stormed the three town halls of the city. The nobles of the same faith also formed a league to guard themselves against the menaced reaction. A meeting of all the estates at Kutna Hora in 1485, however, for a time restored peace. Both parties agreed to respect the religious views of their opponents and to abstain from all violence, and the Compacts were again confirmed.

As regards matters of state the reign of Vladislav is marked by a decrease of the royal prerogative, while the power of the nobility attained an unprecedented height, at the expense, not only of the royal power, but also of the rights of the townsmen and peasants. A decree of 1487 practically established serfdom in Bohemia, where it had hitherto been almost unknown. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this measure for the future of Bohemia. The rulers of the country were henceforth unable to rely on that numerous sturdy and independent peasantry of which the armies of Žižka and the Prokops had mainly consisted. Various enactments belonging to this reign also curtailed the rights of the Bohemian townsmen. A decree known as the “regulations of King Vladislav” codified these changes. It enumerated all the rights of the nobles and knights, but entirely ignored those of the towns. It was tacitly assumed that the townsmen had no inherent rights, but only such privileges as might be granted them by their sovereign with the consent of the nobles and knights. Civil discord was the inevitable consequence of these enactments. Several meeting? of the diet took place at which the towns were not represented. The latter in 1513 formed a confederacy to defend their rights, and chose Prince Bartholomew of Münsterberg—a grandson of King George—as their leader.

Vladislav was elected king of Hungary in 1490 and many of the events of his later life belong to the history of Hungary. He married in 1502 Anna de Candale, who was connected with the royal family of France. He had two children Louis. by her, Anna, who afterwards married the archduke Ferdinand of Austria, and Louis. Vladislav died in Hungary in 1516. His successor was his son Louis, who had already been crowned as king of Bohemia at the age of three. According to the instructions of Vladislav, Sigismund, king of Poland, and the emperor Maximilian I. were to act as guardians of the young king. The Bohemian estates recognized this decision, but they refused to allow the guardians any right of interference in the affairs of Bohemia. The great Bohemian nobles, and in particular the supreme burgrave, Zdeněk Leo, lord of Rožmital, ruled the country almost without control. The beginning of the nominal reign of King Louis is marked by an event which had great importance for the constitutional development of Bohemia. At a meeting of the estates in 1517 known as the diet of St Wenceslas—as the members first assembled on the 28th of September, the anniversary of that saint—they came to terms and settled the questions which had been the causes of discord. The citizens renounced certain privileges which they had hitherto claimed, while the two other estates recognized their municipal autonomy and tacitly sanctioned their presence at the meetings of the diet, to which they had already been informally readmitted since 1508. At the first sitting of this diet, on the 24th of October, it was declared that the three estates had agreed henceforth “to live together in friendly intercourse, as became men belonging to the same country and race.” In 1522 Louis arrived in Bohemia from Hungary, of which country he had also been elected king. On his arrival at Prague he dismissed all the Bohemian state officials, including the powerful Leo of Rožmital. He appointed Charles of Münsterberg, a cousin of Prince Bartholomew and also a grandson of King George, as regent of Bohemia during his absences, and John of Wartenberg as burgrave. The new officials appear to have supported the more advanced Hussite party, while Rožmital and the members of the town council of Prague who had acted in concert with him had been the allies of the Romanists and those Utraquists who were nearest to the Church of Rome. The new officials thus incurred the displeasure of King Louis, who was at that moment seeking the aid of the pope in his warfare with Turkey. The king therefore reinstated Leo of Rožmital in his offices in 1525. Shortly afterwards Rožmital became involved in a feud with the lords of Rosenberg; the feud became a civil war, in which most of the nobles and cities of Bohemia took sides. Meanwhile Louis, who had returned to Hungary, opened his campaign against the Turks. He requested aid from his Bohemian subjects, and this was granted, by the Rosenberg faction, while Rožmital and his party purposely delayed sending any forces to Hungary. There were, therefore, but few Bohemian troops at the battle of Mohács (August 29, 1526) at which Louis was decisively defeated and perished.

The death of Louis found Bohemia in a state of great disorder, almost of anarchy. The two last kings had mainly resided in Hungary, and in spite of the temporary agreement obtained at the diet of St Wenceslas, the Bohemians had not succeeded in establishing a strong indigenous government which might have taken the place of the absentee monarchs. Archduke Ferdinand Origin of the Habsburg dynasty. of Austria—afterwards the emperor Ferdinand I.—laid claim to the Bohemian throne as husband of Anna, daughter of King Vladislav. King Sigismund of Poland, the dukes Louis and William of Bavaria, several other German princes, as well as several Bohemian noblemen, of whom Leo of Rožmital was the most important, were also candidates. The diet resolved to entrust the election to twenty-four of their members, chosen in equal number from the three estates. These electors, on the 23rd of October (1526), Ferdinand. chose Ferdinand of Habsburg as their king. This date is memorable, as it marks the permanent accession of the Habsburg dynasty to the Bohemian throne, though the Austrian archdukes Rudolph and Albert had previously been rulers of Bohemia for short periods. Though Ferdinand fully shared that devotion to Rome which is traditional in the Habsburg dynasty, he showed great moderation in religious matters, particularly at the beginning of his reign. His principal object was to establish the hereditary right of his dynasty to the Bohemian throne, and this object he pursued with characteristic obstinacy. When a great fire broke out at Prague in 1541, which destroyed all the state documents, Ferdinand obtained the consent of the estates to the substitution of a charter stating that he had been recognized as king in consequence of the hereditary rights of his wife Anna, in the place of the former one, which had stated that he had become king by election. This caused great dissatisfaction and was one of the principal causes of the troubles that broke out shortly afterwards. Ferdinand had in 1531, mainly through the influence of his brother the emperor Charles V., been elected king of the Romans and heir to the Empire. He henceforth took a large part in the politics of Germany, particularly after he had in 1547 concluded a treaty of peace with Turkey, which assured the safety of the eastern frontiers of his dominions. Charles V. about the same time concluded his war with France, and the brothers determined to adopt a firmer policy towards the Protestants of Germany, whose power had recently greatly increased. The latter had, about the time of the recognition of Ferdinand as king of the Romans, and partly in consequence of that event, formed at Schmalkalden a league, of which John Frederick, elector of Saxony, and Philip, landgrave of Hesse, were the leaders. War broke out in Germany in the summer of 1546, and Charles relied on the aid of his brother, while the German Protestants on the other hand appealed to their Bohemian co-religionists for aid.

Since the beginning of the Reformation in Germany the views of the Bohemian reformers had undergone a considerable change. Some of the more advanced Utraquists differed but little from the German Lutherans, while the Bohemian Struggles in the war against German Protestantism. Brethren, who at this moment greatly increased in influence through the accession of several powerful nobles, strongly sympathized with the Protestants of Germany. Ferdinand’s task of raising a Bohemian army in support of his brother was therefore a difficult one. He again employed his usual tortuous policy. He persuaded the estates to vote a general levy of the forces of the country under the somewhat disingenuous pretext that Bohemia was menaced by the Turks; for at that period no armed force could be raised in Bohemia without the consent of the estates of the realm. Ferdinand fixed the town of Kaaden on the Saxon frontier as the spot where the troops were to meet, but on his arrival there he found that many cities and nobles—particularly those who belonged to the community of the Bohemian Brethren—had sent no men. Of the soldiers who arrived many were Protestants who sympathized with their German co-religionists. The Bohemian army refused to cross the Saxon frontier, and towards the end of the year 1546 Ferdinand was obliged to disband his Bohemian forces. Early in the following year he again called on his Bohemian subjects to furnish an army in aid of his brother. Only a few of the Romanists and more retrograde Utraquists obeyed his order. The large majority of Bohemians, on the other hand, considered the moment opportune for recovering the ancient liberties of Bohemia, on which Ferdinand had encroached in various ways by claiming hereditary right to the crown and by curtailing the old privileges of the land. The estates met at Prague in March 1547, without awaiting a royal summons,—undoubtedly an unconstitutional proceeding. The assembly, in which the influence of the representatives of the town of Prague and of the knights and nobles who belonged to the Bohemian Brotherhood was predominant, had a very revolutionary character. This became yet more marked when the news of the elector of Saxony’s victory at Rochlitz reached Prague. The estates demanded the re-establishment of the elective character of the Bohemian kingdom, the recognition of religious liberty for all, and various enactments limiting the royal prerogative. It was decided to entrust the management of state affairs to a committee of twelve members chosen in equal number from the three estates. Of the members of the committee chosen by the knights and nobles four belonged to the Bohemian Brotherhood. The committee decided to equip an armed force, the command of which was conferred on Kaspar Pflug of Rabenstein (d. 1576). According to his instructions he was merely to march to the Saxon frontier, and there await further orders from the estates; there seems, however, little doubt that he was secretly instructed to afford aid to the German Protestants. Pflug marched to Joachimsthal on the frontier, but refused to enter Saxon territory without a special command of the estates.

Meanwhile the great victory of the imperialists at Mühlberg had for a time crushed German Protestantism. The Bohemians were in a very difficult position. They had seriously offended their sovereign and yet afforded no aid to the German Protestants. The army of Pflug hastily dispersed, and the estates still assembled at Prague endeavoured to propitiate Ferdinand. They sent envoys to the camp of the king who, with his brother Charles, was then besieging Wittenberg. Ferdinand received the envoys better than they had perhaps expected. He indeed always maintained his plan of making Bohemia a hereditary kingdom under Habsburg rule, and of curtailing as far as possible its ancient constitution, but he did not wish to drive to despair a still warlike people. Ferdinand demanded that the Bohemians should renounce all alliances with the German Protestants, and declared that he would make his will known after his arrival in Prague. He arrived there on the 20th of July, with a large force of Spanish and Walloon mercenaries, and occupied the city almost without resistance. Ferdinand treated the nobles and knights with great forbearance, and contented himself with the confiscation of the estates of some of those who had been most compromised. On the other hand he dealt very severely with the towns—Prague in particular. He declared that their ancient privileges should be revised—a measure that practically signified a broad confiscation of lands that belonged to the municipalities. Ferdinand also forced the townsmen to accept the control of state officials who were to be called town-judges and in Prague town-captains. These royal representatives were given almost unlimited control over municipal affairs. The Bohemian Brethren were also severely persecuted, and their bishop Augusta was imprisoned for many years.

Ferdinand’s policy here was as able as it always was. The peasantry had ceased to be dangerous since the establishment of serfdom; the power of the cities was now thoroughly undermined. Ferdinand had only to deal with the nobles and knights, and he hoped that the influence of his court, and yet more that of the Jesuits, whom he established in Bohemia about this time, would gradually render them amenable to the royal will. If we consider the customs of his time Ferdinand cannot be considered as having acted with cruelty in the moment of his success. Only four of the principal leaders of the revolt—two knights, and two citizens of Prague—were sentenced to death. They were decapitated on the square outside the Hradĉany palace where the estates met on that day (August 22). This diet therefore became known as the “Krvavy’sneěm” (bloody diet). In one of the last years of his life (1562) Ferdinand succeeded in obtaining the coronation of his eldest son Maximilian as king of Bohemia, thus ensuring to him the succession to the Bohemian throne. As Ferdinand I. acceded to the Hungarian throne at the same time as to that of Bohemia, and as he also became king of the Romans and after the death of Charles V. emperor, many events of his life do not belong to the history of Bohemia. He died in 1564.

Maximilian succeeded his father as king of Bohemia without any opposition. Circumstances were greatly in his favour; he had in his youth mainly been educated by Protestant tutors, and for a time openly avowed strong sympathy Maximilian. for the party of church reform. This fact, which became known in Bohemia, secured for him the support of the Bohemian church reformers, while the Romanists and retrograde Utraquists were traditionally on the side of the house of Habsburg. The reign of Maximilian did not fulfil the hopes that met it. Though he published new decrees against the Bohemian Brethren, he generally refused to sanction any measures against the Protestants, in spite of the advice of the Jesuits, who were gradually obtaining great influence in Bohemia. He did nothing, however, to satisfy the expectations of the partisans of church reform, and indeed after a time began again to assist at the functions of the Roman church, from which he had long absented himself. Indifference, perhaps founded on religious scepticism, characterized the king during the many ecclesiastical disputes that played so large a part in his reign. In 1567 Maximilian, who had also succeeded his father as king of Hungary and emperor, visited the Bohemians for the first time since his accession to the throne. Like most princes of the Habsburg dynasty, he was constantly confronted at this period by the difficulty of raising funds for warfare against the Turks. When he asked the Bohemians to grant him supplies for this purpose, they immediately Abolition of the “Compacts.” retorted by bringing forward their demands with regard to matters of religion. Their principal demand appears somewhat strange in the light of the events of the past. The estates expressed the wish that the celebrated Compacts should cease to form part of the laws of the country. These enactments had indeed granted freedom of worship to the most moderate Utraquists—men who, except that they claimed the right to receive the communion in both kinds, hardly differed in their faith from the Roman church. On the other hand Ferdinand I. had used the Compacts as an instrument which justified him in oppressing the Bohemian Brethren, and the advanced Utraquists, whose teaching now differed but little from that of Luther. He had argued that all those who professed doctrines differing from the Church of Rome more widely than did the retrograde Utraquists, were outside the pale of religious toleration. Maximilian, indifferent as usual to matters of religious controversy, consented to the abolition of the Compacts, and these enactments, which had once been sacred to the Bohemian people, perished unregretted by all parties. The Romanists had always hated them, believing them not to be in accord with the general custom of the papal church, while the Lutherans and Bohemian Brethren considered their suppression a guarantee of their own liberty of worship.

In 1575 Maximilian, who had long been absent from Bohemia, returned there, as the estates refused to grant subsidies to an absentee monarch. The sittings of the diet that met in 1575 were very prolonged. The king maintained a vacillating attitude, influenced now by the threats of the Bohemians, now by the advice of the papal nuncio, who had followed him to Prague. The latter strongly represented to him how great would be the difficulties that he would encounter in his other dominions, should he make concessions to the Protestants of Bohemia. The principal demand of the Bohemians was that the “Confession Confessio Bohemica. of Augsburg”—a summary of Luther’s teaching—should be recognized in Bohemia. They further renewed the demand, which they had already expressed at the diet of 1567, that the estates should have the right of appointing the members of the consistory—the ecclesiastical body which ruled the Utraquist church; for since the death of John of Rokycan that church had had no archbishop. After long deliberations and the king’s final refusal to recognize the confession of Augsburg, the majority of the diet, consisting of members of the Bohemian brotherhood and advanced Utraquists, drew up a profession of faith that became known as the Confessio Bohemica. It was in most points identical with the Augsburg confession, but differed from it with regard to the doctrine of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Here the Bohemian profession agreed with the views of Calvin rather than with those of Luther. This is undoubtedly due to the influence of the Bohemian Brethren. The Confessio Bohemica was presented to Maximilian, who verbally expressed his approval, but would not consent to this being made public, and also refused his consent to the inclusion of the Confessio among the charters of the kingdom. Maximilian rejected the demand of the Bohemian estates, that they and not the king should in future appoint the members of the consistory. He finally, however, consented to exempt the Lutherans and advanced Utraquists from the jurisdiction of the consistory, and allowed them to choose fifteen defenders—five of whom were to belong to each of the estates—who were to have supreme control over the Lutheran church. These defenders were to appoint for each district a superintendent (moderator), who was to maintain order and discipline among the clergy. As the Bohemian Brotherhood had never recognized the consistory, that body now lost whatever influence it had still possessed. It became, indeed, subservient to the Romanist archbishopric of Prague, which had been re-established by Ferdinand I. Its members henceforth were men who on almost all points agreed with Rome, and sometimes even men who had joined the Roman church, but continued by order of their superiors to remain members of the consistory, where it was thought that their influence might be useful to their new creed.

The results of the diet of 1575 were on the whole favourable to the estates, and they seem to have taken this view, for almost immediately afterwards they recognized Maximilian’s eldest son Rudolph as his successor and consented to his Rudolph. being crowned king of Bohemia. Maximilian died in the following year, and Rudolph succeeded him without any opposition. The events of the last years of the reign of Rudolph have the greatest importance for Bohemian history, but the earlier part of his reign requires little notice. As Rudolph had been educated in Spain it was at first thought that he would treat the Bohemian church reformers with great severity. The new sovereign, however, showed with regard to the unceasing religious controversy the same apathy and indifference with which he also met matters of state. He had been from his early youth subject to fits of melancholia, and during several short periods was actually insane. Rudolph was a great patron of the arts, and he greatly contributed to the embellishment of Prague, which, as it was his favourite residence, became the centre of the vast Habsburg dominions. In 1600 the mental condition of Rudolph became so seriously impaired that the princes of the house of Habsburg thought it necessary to consider the future of the state, particularly as Rudolph had no legitimate descendants. Matthias, the eldest of his brothers, came to Prague and pointed out to Rudolph the necessity of appointing a coadjutor, should he be incapacitated from fulfilling his royal duties, and also of making arrangements concerning the succession to the throne. These suggestions were indignantly repelled by Rudolph, whose anger was greatly increased by a letter of Pope Clement VIII. The pope in a forcible though formally courteous manner pointed out to him the evil results which his neglect of his royal duties would entail on his subjects, and called on him to appoint one of the Habsburg princes his successor both to the imperial crown and to the thrones of Bohemia and Hungary. It is probable that the fear that the pope might make good the threats contained in this letter induced Rudolph, who had hitherto been indifferent to matters of religion, to become more subservient to the Roman church. The papal nuncio at Prague, in particular, appears for a time to have obtained great influence over the king. Under this influence, Rudolph in 1602 issued a decree which renewed obsolete enactments against the Bohemian Brethren that had been published by King Vladislav in 1508. The royal decree was purposely worded in an obscure manner. It referred to the Compacts that had been abolished, and was liable to an interpretation excluding from tolerance all but the Romanists and the retrograde Utraquists. It appeared therefore as a menace to the Lutherans—and all the more advanced Utraquists had now embraced that creed—as well as to the Bohemian Brethren. The estates of Bohemia met at Prague in January 1603. The discussions were very stormy. Budovec of Budova, a nobleman belonging to the community of the Bohemian Brethren, became the leader of all those who were opposed to the Church of Rome. He vigorously attacked the royal decree, which he declared to be contrary to the promises made by King Maximilian. He, however, advised the estates to vote the supplies that King Rudolph had demanded. Immediately after this vote had been passed, the diet was closed by order of the king. Though the royal power was at that period very weak in Bohemia, the open partisanship of the king encouraged the Romanist nobles, who were not numerous, but among whom were some owners of large estates, to attempt to re-establish the Roman creed on their territories. Some of these nobles committed great cruelties while attempting to obtain these forcible conversions.

Strife again broke out between Rudolph and his treacherous younger brother Matthias, who used the religious and political controversies of the time for the purpose of supplanting his brother. The formal cause of the rupture between the two princes was Rudolph’s refusal to sanction a treaty of peace with Turkey, which Matthias had concluded as his brother’s representative in Hungary. The Hungarians accepted Matthias as their ruler, and when his forces entered Moravia the estates of that country had, by Charles, lord of Žerotin, also renounced the allegiance of Rudolph. Matthias then invaded Bohemia, and invited the estates of the kingdom to meet him at Časlav (Ceslau). In consequence of a sudden revolution of feeling for which it is difficult to account, the Bohemians declined the overtures of Matthias. The estates met at Prague in March 1608, and, though again submitting their demands concerning ecclesiastical matters to Rudolph, authorized him to levy troops for the defence of Bohemia. The forces of Matthias had meanwhile entered Bohemia and had arrived at Libeň, a small town near Prague now incorporated with that city. Here Matthias, probably disappointed by the refusal of the Bohemians to join his standard, came to an understanding with his brother (June 25, 1608). Rudolph formally ceded to Matthias the government of Hungary, Moravia, and Upper and Lower Austria, but retained his rights as king of Bohemia.

Soon after the conclusion of this temporary settlement, the estates of Bohemia again brought their demands before their king. Rudolph had declined to discuss all religious matters during the time that the troops of his brother Diet of 1609. Demand for religious liberty. occupied part of Bohemia. The diet that met on the 20th of January 1609 is one of the most important in the history of Bohemia. Here, as so frequently in the 17th century, the religious controversies were largely influenced by personal enmities. Rudolph never forgave the treachery of his brother, and was secretly negotiating (at the time when he again appeared as champion of Catholicism) with Christian of Anhalt, the leader of the German Protestants. This was known to the court of Spain, and the Bohemians also knew that the king could therefore rely on no aid from that quarter. They were therefore not intimidated when Rudolph, vacillating as ever, suddenly assumed a most truculent attitude. The estates had at their meeting in March of the previous year drawn up a document consisting of twenty-five so-called Articles, which formulated their demands with regard to matters of religion. The king now demanded that this document, which he considered illegal, should be delivered up to him for destruction. The “articles” expressed the wish that the Confessio Bohemica should be recognized as one of the fundamental laws of the kingdom, and that complete religious liberty should be granted to all classes. They further demanded that the Protestants—as it now became customary to call jointly the Utraquists, Lutherans and Bohemian Brethren—and the Roman Catholics should have an equal right to hold all the offices of state, and that the power of the Jesuits to acquire land should be limited. They finally asked for redress of several grievances caused by the misrule of Rudolph. This document had remained in the hands of Budova, who refused to deliver it to the king. The estates then chose twelve of their number—among whom was Count Henry Matthias Thurn—who were to negotiate with the king and his councillors. Protracted discussions ensued, and the king finally stated, on the 31st of March, that he could grant no concessions in matters of religion. On the following day the estates met under the leadership of Budova. They decided to arm for the defence of their rights, and when the king immediately afterwards dissolved the diet, it was resolved to meet again after a month, even without a royal summons. When they returned to Prague, Adam of Sternberg, the burgrave, again informed Budova that the king would grant no concessions in ecclesiastical matters. Bohemia appeared to be on the verge of a revolution. It is unnecessary to record the frequent and contradictory resolutions of the king, influenced now by the extreme Romanists, now by those of his councillors who favoured a peaceful solution. Finally—on the 9th of July 1609—Rudolph signed the famed “Letter of Majesty” which gave satisfaction to all the legitimate demands of the Bohemian Protestants. In the “Letter of Majesty” Rudolph recognized the Confessio Bohemica. He further granted to the Protestant estates the control over the university of Prague, and authorized them to elect the members of the Utraquist consistory. They were further empowered to elect “defenders” chosen in equal number from the estates of the nobles, knights and citizens, who were to superintend the execution of the enactments of the Letter of Majesty and generally to uphold the rights of the Protestants. On the same day the Romanist and the Protestant members of the diet also signed an agreement by which they guaranteed to each other full liberty of religious worship and declared that this liberty should be extended to all classes of the population.

In 1611 the peace of Bohemia was again disturbed by the invasion of the archduke Leopold of Austria, bishop of Passau, who probably acted in connivance with his cousin King Rudolph. Leopold succeeded in obtaining Matthias. possession of part of the town of Prague, but his army was defeated by the troops which the Bohemian estates had hurriedly raised, and he was obliged to leave Bohemia. Matthias considered his hereditary rights menaced by the raid of Leopold and again occupied Bohemia. Mainly at his instigation the estates now formally deposed Rudolph, who survived his dethronement only a few months, and died on the 20th of January 1612. Though Matthias had allied himself with the Bohemian Protestants during his prolonged struggle against his brother, he now adopted that policy favourable to the Church of Rome which is traditional of the Habsburg dynasty. His relations with the Bohemian Protestants, therefore, soon became strained. In 1615 Matthias convoked a general diet, i.e. one that besides the Bohemian representatives included also the representatives of the “lands of the Bohemian crown.” At the meeting of this diet the question of nationality, which through the constant religious controversies had receded to the background, again became predominant. Former enactments enforcing the use of the national language were reaffirmed, and it was decreed that Bohemian should be the “authorized” (i.e. official) language of the country.

As Matthias was childless, the question as to the succession to the Bohemian throne again arose. The king wished to secure the succession to his cousin Ferdinand, duke of Styria. Ferdinand was known as a fanatical adherent of the Church of Rome and as a cruel persecutor of the Protestants of Styria. None the less the state officials of Bohemia, by not very scrupulous means, succeeded in persuading the estates to accept Ferdinand as heir to the throne and to consent to his coronation, which took place at Prague on the 17th of June 1617. No doubt through the influence of Ferdinand, the policy of Matthias henceforth assumed a yet more pronouncedly ultramontane character. The king’s councillors, all adherents of the Church of Rome, openly expressed their hope that the Catholic Church would soon recover its ancient hold over Bohemia. On the other hand the Bohemian Protestants, led by Count Thurn, one of the few nobles who had refused to vote for the recognition of Ferdinand as heir to the throne, did not wish to defer what they considered an inevitable conflict. It appeared to them more advantageous to encounter the weak Matthias than his younger and more fanatical successor. A comparatively unimportant incident precipitated matters. In December 1617, the archbishop of Prague and the abbot of Břevnov (Braunau) ordered the suppression of the Protestant religious services in churches that had been built on their domains. This was a direct infringement of the agreement concluded by the Romanist and Utraquist estates on the day on which King Rudolph had signed the Letter of Majesty. The defenders took immediate action, by inviting all Protestant members of the diet to meet at Prague. They assembled there on 21st of May 1618, and decided to proceed in full armour to the Hradĉany palace to bring their complaints to the knowledge of the councillors of Matthias. On the following day, Thurn, Wenceslas of Ruppa, Ulrich of Kinsky, and other members of the more advanced party held a secret meeting, at which it was decided to put to death the most influential of Matthias’s councillors. On the 23rd the representatives of the Protestants of Bohemia proceeded to the Hradĉany. Violent accusations were brought forward, particularly against Martinic and Slavata, the king’s most trusted councillors, who were accused of having advised him to oppose the wishes of the Bohemians. Finally these two councillors, together with Fabricius, secretary of the royal council, were thrown from the windows of the Hradĉany into the moat below—an event known in history as the Defenestration of Prague. Both Martinic and Slavata were but little injured, and succeeded in escaping from Prague. The Bohemians immediately established a provisional government consisting of thirty “directors,” ten of whom were chosen by each of the estates. They also proceeded to raise an armed force, the command of which was given to Count Thurn. Hostilities with Austria began in July, when an imperial force entered Bohemia. The troops of Matthias were, however, soon repulsed by the Bohemians, and in November Thurn’s army entered Austria, but was soon obliged to retire to Bohemia because of the lateness of the season.

In the following March the Bohemian crown became vacant by the death of Matthias. On the 31st of July the Bohemian estates pronounced the formal deposition of Ferdinand, and on the 26th of August they elected as their king War with the emperor Ferdinand. Frederick, elector palatine. The new king and his queen, Elizabeth of England, arrived in Bohemia in October, and were crowned somewhat later at St Vitus’s cathedral in Prague. Warfare with Austria continued during this year—1619. Thurn occupied Moravia, which now threw in its lot with Bohemia, and he even advanced on Vienna, but was soon obliged to retreat. In the following year events took a fatal turn for Bohemia. The powerful duke Maximilian of Bavaria joined his forces to those of Ferdinand, who had become Matthias’s successor as emperor, and who was determined to reconquer Bohemia. Ferdinand also received aid from Spain, Poland and several Italian states. Even the Lutheran elector of Saxony espoused his cause. A large imperialist army, under the command of the duke of Bavaria, Tilly and Bouquoi, entered Bohemia in September 1620. After several skirmishes, in all of which the Bohemians were defeated, the imperial forces arrived at the outskirts of Prague on the evening of the 7th of November. On the following morning they attacked the Bohemian army, which occupied a slightly fortified position on the plateau known as the “Bila Hora” (White Hill). The Bohemians were defeated after a struggle of only a few hours, and on the evening of battle the imperialists already occupied the port of Prague, situated on the left bank of the Vltava (Moldau). King Frederick, who had lost all courage, hurriedly left Prague on the following morning.

Bohemia itself, as well as the lands of the Bohemian crown, now submitted to Ferdinand almost without resistance. The battle of the White Hill marks an epoch in the history of Bohemia. The execution of the principal leaders of the national movement Submission of Bohemia. (June 21, 1621) was followed by a system of wholesale confiscation of the lands of all who had in any way participated in the national movement. Almost the entire ancient nobility of Bohemia was driven into exile, and adventurers from all countries, mostly men who had served in the imperial army, shared the spoils. Gradually all those who refused to recognize the creed of the Roman church were expelled from Bohemia, and by the use of terrible cruelty Catholicism was entirely re-established in the country. In 1627 Ferdinand published a decree, which formally suppressed the ancient free constitution of Bohemia, though a semblance of representative government was left to the country. The new constitution proclaimed the heredity of the Bohemian crown in the house of Habsburg. It added a new “estate,” that of the clergy, to the three already existing. This estate, which was to take precedence of all the others, consisted of the Roman archbishop of Prague and of all the ecclesiastics who were endowed with landed estates. The diet was deprived of all legislative power, which was exclusively vested in the sovereign. At its meetings the diet was to discuss such matters only as were laid before it by the representatives of the king. The estates continued to have the right of voting taxes, but they were specially forbidden to attach any conditions to the grants of money which they made to their sovereign. It was finally decreed that the German language should have equal right with the Bohemian one in all the government offices and law-courts of the kingdom. This had indeed become a necessity, since, in consequence of the vast confiscations, the greatest part of the land was in the hands of foreigners to whom the national language was unknown. Though these enactments still left some autonomy to Bohemia, the country gradually lost all individuality. Its history from this moment to the beginning of the 19th century is but a part of the history of Austria (q.v.).

Bohemia was the theatre of hostilities during a large part of the Thirty Years’ War, which had begun in its capital. In 1631 the Saxons for a time occupied a large part of Bohemia, and even attempted to re-establish Protestantism, Bohemia under Austrian domination. During the later period of the Thirty Years’ War Bohemia was frequently pillaged by Swedish troops, and the taking of part of Prague by the Swedish general Königsmark in 1648 was the last event of the great war. The attempts of the Swedish envoys to obtain a certain amount of toleration for the Bohemian Protestants proved fruitless, as the imperial representatives were inflexible on this point. At the beginning of the 18th century the possibility of the extinction of the male line of the house of Habsburg arose. The estates of Bohemia, at a meeting that took place at Prague on the 16th of October 1720, sanctioned the female succession to the Bohemian throne and recognized the so-called Pragmatic Sanction which proclaimed the indivisibility of the Habsburg realm. The archduchess Maria Theresa, in whose favour these enactments were made, none the less met with great opposition on the death of her father the emperor Charles VI. Charles, elector of Bavaria, raised claims to the Bohemian throne and invaded the country with a large army of Bavarian, French and Saxon troops. He occupied Prague, and a large part of the nobles and knights of Bohemia took the oath of allegiance to him (December 19, 1741). The fortune of war, however, changed shortly afterwards. Maria Theresa recovered Bohemia and the other lands that had been under the rule of the house of Habsburg. During the reign of Maria Theresa, and to a greater extent during that of her son Joseph II., many changes in the internal administration of the Habsburg realm took place which all tended to limit yet further the autonomy of Bohemia. A decree of 1749 abolished the separate law-courts that still existed in Bohemia, and a few years later an Austro-Bohemian chancellor was appointed who was to have the control of the administration of Bohemia, as well as of the German domains of the house of Habsburg. The power of the royal officials who constituted the executive government of Bohemia was greatly curtailed, and though the chief representative of the sovereign in Prague continued to bear the ancient title of supreme burgrave, he was instructed to conform in all matters to the orders of the central government of Vienna. Yet more extreme measures tending to centralization were introduced by the emperor Joseph, who refused to be crowned at Prague as king of Bohemia. The powers of the Bohemian diet and of the royal officials at Prague were yet further limited, and the German language was introduced into all the upper schools of Bohemia. Some of the reforms introduced by Joseph were, incidentally and contrary to the wishes of their originator, favourable to the Bohemian nationality. Thus the greater liberty which he granted to the press enabled the Bohemians to publish a newspaper in the national language. After the death of Joseph in 1790 the Bohemian estates, whose meetings had been suspended during his reign, again assembled, but they at first made but scanty attempts to reassert their former rights. During the long Napoleonic wars, in which the house of Habsburg was almost continuously engaged, Bohemia continued in its previous lethargic state. In 1804 a merely formal change in the constitutional position of Bohemia took place when Francis I. assumed the hereditary title of emperor of Austria. It was stated in an imperial decree that the new title of the sovereign should in no way prejudice the ancient rights of Bohemia and that the sovereigns would continue to be crowned as kings of Bohemia.

After the re-establishment of European peace in 1815 the long-suppressed national aspirations of Bohemia began to revive. The national movement, however, at first only found expression in the revival of Bohemian literature. Revival of national aspirations. The arbitrary and absolutist government of Prince Metternich rendered all political action impossible in the lands ruled by the house of Habsburg. In spite of this pressure the estates of Bohemia began in 1845 to assume an attitude of opposition to the government of Vienna. They affirmed their right of voting the taxes of the country—a right that was due to them according to the constitution of 1627. To obtain the support of the wider classes of the population, they determined in 1847 to propose at their session of the following year that the towns should have a more extensive representation at the diet, that the control of the estates over the finances of the country should be made more stringent, and that the Bohemian language should be introduced into all the higher schools of the country. The revolutionary outbreak of 1848 prevented this Collapse in 1848. meeting of the estates. When the news of the February revolution in Paris reached Prague the excitement there was very great. On the 11th of March a vast public meeting voted a petition to the government of Vienna which demanded that the Bohemian language should enjoy equal rights with the German in all the government offices of the country, that a general diet comprising all the Bohemian lands, but elected on an extensive suffrage, should be convoked, and that numerous liberal reforms should be introduced. The deputation which presented these demands in Vienna received a somewhat equivocal answer. In reply, however, to a second deputation, the emperor Ferdinand declared on the 8th of April that equality of rights would be secured to both nationalities in Bohemia, that the question of the reunion of Moravia and Silesia to Bohemia should be left to a general meeting of representatives of all parts of Austria, and that a new meeting of the estates of Bohemia, which would include representatives of the principal towns, would shortly be convoked. This assembly, which was to have had full powers to create a new constitution, and which would have established complete autonomy, never met, though the election of its members took place on the 17th of May. In consequence of the general national movement which is so characteristic of the year 1848, it was decided to hold at Prague a “Slavic congress” to which Slavs of all parts of the Austrian empire, as well as those belonging to other countries, were invited. The deliberations were interrupted by the serious riots that broke out in the streets of Prague on the 12th of June. They were suppressed after prolonged fighting and considerable bloodshed. The Austrian commander, Prince Windischgrätz, bombarded the city, which finally capitulated unconditionally. The nationalist and liberal movement in Bohemia was thus suddenly checked, though the Bohemians took part in the Austrian constituent assembly that met at Vienna, and afterwards at Kroměřiž (Kremsier).

By the end of the year 1849 all constitutional government had ceased in Bohemia, as in all parts of the Habsburg empire. The reaction that now ensued was felt more severely than in any other part of the monarchy; for not only were all attempts to obtain self-government and liberty ruthlessly suppressed, but a determined attempt was made to exterminate the national language. The German language was again exclusively used in all schools and government offices, all Bohemian newspapers were suppressed, and even the society of the Bohemian museum—a society composed of Bohemian noblemen and scholars—was for a time only allowed to hold its meetings under the supervision of the police.

The events of the Italian campaign of 1859 rendered the continuation of absolutism in the Austrian empire impossible. It was attempted to establish a constitutional system which, while maintaining to a certain extent the unity Austrian constitutional changes. of the empire, should yet recognize the ancient constitutional rights of some of the countries united under the rule of the house of Habsburg. A decree published on the 20th of October 1860 established diets with limited powers. The composition of these parliamentary assemblies was to a certain extent modelled on that of the ancient diets of Bohemia and other parts of the empire. This decree was favourably received in Bohemia, but the hopes which it raised in the country fell when a new imperial decree appeared on the 26th of February 1861. This established a central parliament at Vienna with very extensive powers, and introduced an electoral system which was grossly partial to the Germans. The Bohemians indeed consented to send their representatives to Vienna, but they left the parliament in 1863, stating that the assembly had encroached on the power which constitutionally belonged to the diet of Prague. Two years later the central parliament of Vienna was suspended, and in the following year—1866—the Austro-Prussian war caused a complete change in the constitutional position of Bohemia. The congress of Vienna in 1815 had declared that that country should form part of the newly formed Germanic Confederation; this was done without consulting the estates of the country, as had been customary even after the battle of the White Hill on the occasion of serious constitutional changes. The treaty with Prussia, signed at Prague on the 23rd of August 1866, excluded from Germany all lands ruled by the house of Habsburg. As a natural consequence German influence declined in the Austrian empire, and in Bohemia in particular. While Hungary now obtained complete independence, the new constitution of 1867, which applied only to the German and Slavic parts of the Habsburg empire, maintained the system of centralization and attempted to maintain the waning German influence. The Bohemians energetically opposed this new constitution and refused to send representatives to Vienna.

In 1871 it appeared probable for a moment that the wishes of the Bohemians, who desired that their ancient constitution should be re-established in a modernized form, would be realized. The new Austrian prime minister, Count Renewed struggles of Bohemian nationalism. Karl Hohenwart, took office with the firm intention of accomplishing an agreement between Bohemia and the other parts of the Habsburg empire. Prolonged negotiations ensued, and an attempt was made to establish a constitutional system which, while satisfying the claims of the Bohemians, would yet have firmly connected them with the other lands ruled by the house of Habsburg. An imperial message addressed to the diet of Prague (September 14, 1871) stated that the sovereign “in consideration of the former constitutional position of Bohemia and remembering the power and glory which its crown had given to his ancestors, and the constant fidelity of its population, gladly recognized the rights of the kingdom of Bohemia, and was willing to confirm this assurance by taking the coronation oath.” Various influences caused the failure of this attempt to reconcile Bohemia with Austria. In 1872 a government with a pronounced German tendency took office in Vienna, and the Bohemians for a time again refused to attend the parliamentary assemblies of Vienna and Prague. In 1879 Count Eduard Taaffe became Austrian prime minister, and he succeeded in persuading the representatives of Bohemia to take part in the deliberations of the parliament of Vienna. They did so, after stating that they took this step without prejudice to their view that Bohemia with Moravia and Silesia constituted a separate state under the rule of the same sovereign as Austria and Hungary. The government of Count Taaffe, in recognition of this concession by the Bohemians, consented to remove some of the grossest anomalies connected with the electoral system of Bohemia, which had hitherto been grossly partial to the German minority of the population. The government of Count Taaffe also consented to the foundation of a Bohemian university at Prague, which greatly contributed to the intellectual development of the country. On the fall of the government of Count Taaffe, Prince Alfred Windischgrätz became prime minister. The policy of his short-lived government was hostile to Bohemia and he was soon replaced by Count Badeni.

Badeni again attempted to conciliate Bohemia. He did not indeed consider it feasible to reopen the question of its autonomy, but he endeavoured to remedy some of the most serious grievances of the country. In the beginning The language question. of 1897 Count Badeni issued a decree which stated that after a certain date all government officials who wished to be employed in Bohemia would have to prove a certain knowledge of the Bohemian as well as of the German language. This decree met with violent opposition on the part of the German inhabitants of Austria, and caused the fall of Count Badeni’s cabinet at the end of the year 1897. After a brief interval he was succeeded by Count Thun and then by Count Clary, whose government repealed the decrees that had to a certain extent granted equal rights to the Bohemian language. In consequence troubles broke out in Prague, and were severely repressed by the Austrian authorities. During the subsequent ministries of Körber and Gautsch the Bohemians continued to oppose the central government of Vienna, and to assert their national rights.

See generally Count Lützow, Bohemia, a Historical Sketch (London, 1896). The valuable collection of historical documents entitled Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum, published at Prague in the latter part of the 19th century, has superseded earlier ones such as Freherus (Marquard Freher), Rerum Bohemicarum Antiqui Scriptores. Similarly, the earlier historical works of Pubitschka, Pelzl and De Florgy are superseded by Frantisek Palacký’s Geschichte von Bohmen (Prague, 1844-1867), which, however, ends with the year 1526. Rezek, Gindely and others have dealt with the history of Bohemia posterior to the year 1526. Professor Adolf Bachmann published (vol. i. in 1899, vol. ii. 1905) a Geschichte Bohmens up to 1526, which has a strongly marked German tendency. Of French works Professor Ernest Denis’s Jean Hus, et la guerre des Hussites (Paris, 1878), Fin de l’independance bohème (2 vols., 1890), and La Bohême depuis la Montagne Blanche (2 vols., 1903), give a continuous account of Bohemian history from the beginning of the 15th century.

(L.)

Literature

The earliest records of the Bohemian or Čzech language are very ancient, though the so-called MSS. of Zelena Hora (Grüneberg) and Kralodvur (Königinhof) are almost certainly forgeries of the early part of the 19th century. The earliest genuine documents of the Bohemian language comprise several hymns and legends; of the latter the legend of St Catherine and that of St Dorothy have the greatest value. Several ancient epic fragments have also been preserved, such as the Alexandreis and Tandarias a Floribella. These and other early Bohemian writings have been printed since the revival of Bohemian literature in the 19th century. Of considerable historical value is the rhymed chronicle generally though wrongly known as the chronicle of Dalimil. The author, who probably lived during the reign of King John (1310-1346), records the events of Bohemian history from the earliest period to the reign of King Henry of Carinthia, the immediate predecessor of John. A strong feeling of racial antipathy to the Germans pervades the chronicle.

It is undoubtedly to be attributed to the high intellectual level which Bohemia attained in the 14th century that at that period we already find writers on religious and philosophical subjects who used the national language. Old Czech literature. Of these the most important is Thomas of Štitný (c. 1331-1401). Of his works, which contain many ideas similar to those of his contemporary Wycliffe, those entitled O obecnych vecech Krestanskych (on general Christian matters) and Besedni reči (in a rough translation “learned entertainments”) have most value. Štitný and some of his contemporaries whose Bohemian writings have perished are known as the forerunners of Huss. Huss, like many of his contemporaries in Bohemia, wrote both in Bohemian and in Latin. Of the Bohemian writings of Huss, who contributed greatly to the development of his native language, the most important is his Výklad viry, desatera Boziho prikazani, a patere (exposition of the creed, the ten commandments and the Lord’s Prayer) written in 1412. Of his numerous other Bohemian works we may mention the Postilla (collection of sermons), the treatises O poznani cesty prave k spaseni (the true road to salvation) and O svatokupectvi (on simony), and a large collection of letters; those written in prison are very touching.

The years that followed the death of Huss formed in Bohemia a period of incessant theological strife. The anti-Roman or Hussite movement was largely a democratic one, and it is therefore natural that the national language rather than Latin should have been used in the writings that belong to this period. Unfortunately in consequence of the systematic destruction of all Bohemian writings which took place through the agency of the Jesuits, after the battle of the White Hill (1620), a large part of this controversial literature has perished. Thus the writings of the members of the extreme Hussite party, the so-called Taborites, have been entirely destroyed. Of the writings of the more moderate Hussites, known as the Calixtines or Utraquists, some have been preserved. Such are the books entitled Of the Great Torment of the Holy Church and the Lives of the Priests of Tabor, written in a sense violently hostile to that community. A Bohemian work by Archbishop John of Rokycan has also been preserved; it is entitled Postilla and is similar though inferior to the work of Huss that bears the same name.

A quite independent religious writer who belongs to the period of the Hussite wars is Peter Chelcicky (born in the last years of the 14th century, died 1460), who may be called the Tolstoy of the 15th. His dominant ideas were horror of bloodshed and the determination to accept unresistingly all, even unjust, decrees of the worldly authorities. Though a strenuous enemy of the Church of Rome, Chelcicky joined none of the Hussite parties. His masterpiece is the Sít viry (the net of faith). Among his other works his Postilla and polemical writings in the form of letters to Archbishop John of Rokycan and Bishop Nicolas of Pelhrimov deserve mention.

The Hussite period is rather poor in historical works written in the language of the country. We should, however, mention some chroniclers who were contemporaries and sometimes eye-witnesses of the events of the Hussite wars. Their writings have been collected and published by Frantisek Palacký under the title of Stare česke letopisy.

In the 16th century when Bohemia was in a state of comparative tranquillity, the native literature was largely developed. Besides the writers of the community of the Bohemian Brethren, we meet at this period with three historians of merit. Of these far the best-known is Wenceslas Hajek of Libočan. The year of his birth is uncertain, but we read of him as a priest in 1524; he died in 1553. His great work Kronika česka was dedicated to the emperor Ferdinand I., king of Bohemia, and appeared under the auspices of government officials. It has therefore a strong dynastic and Romanist tendency, and its circulation was permitted even at the time when most Bohemian books were prohibited and many totally destroyed. Hajek’s book was translated into several languages and frequently quoted. We find such second-hand quotations even in the works of many writers who had probably never heard of Hajek. His book is, however, inaccurate and grossly partial. Very little known on the other hand are the works of Bartoš, surnamed “pisár” (the writer), as he was for many years employed as secretary by the city of Prague, and those of Sixt of Ottersdorf. The work of Bartoš (or Bartholomew) entitled the Chronicle of Prague has great historical value. He describes the troubles that befell Prague and Bohemia generally during the reign of the weak and absentee sovereign King Louis. The year of the birth of Bartos is uncertain, but it is known that he died in 1539. The somewhat later work of Sixt of Ottersdorf (1500-1583) deals with a short but very important episode in the history of Bohemia. It is entitled Memorials of the Troubled Years 1546 and 1547. The book describes the unsuccessful rising of the Bohemians against Ferdinand I. of Austria. Sixt took a considerable part in this movement, a fact that greatly enhances the value of his book.

Though the life of Chelĉicky, who has already been mentioned, was an isolated one, he is undoubtedly the indirect founder of the community of the “Bohemian Brethren,” who greatly influenced Bohemian literature. Almost all their historical and theological works were written in the national language, which through their influence became far more refined and polished. Before referring to some of the writings of members of the community we should mention the famed translation of the Scriptures known as the Bible of Kralice. It was the joint work of several divines of the brotherhood, and was first printed at Kralice in Moravia in 1593. Brother Gregory, surnamed the patriarch of the brotherhood, has left a large number of writings dealing mainly with theological matters. Most important are the Letters to Archbishop Rokycan and the book On good and evil priests. After the death of Brother Gregory in 1480 discord broke out in the community, and it resulted in very great literary activity. Brothers Lucas, Blahoslav and Jaffet, as well as Augusta, a bishop of the community, have left us numerous controversial works. Very interesting is the account of the captivity of Bishop Augusta, written by his companion the young priest Jan Bilek. We have evidence that numerous historical works written by members of the brotherhood existed, but most of them perished in the 17th century when nearly all anti-Roman books written in Bohemia were destroyed. Thus only fragments of Blahoslav’s History of the Unity (i.e. the brotherhood) have been preserved. One of the historians of the brotherhood, Wenceslas Brezan, wrote a History of the House of Rosenberg, of which only the biographies of William and Peter of Rosenberg have been preserved. The greatest writer of the brotherhood is John Amos Komensky or Comenius (1592-1670). Of his many works written in his native language the most important is his Labyrinth of the World, an allegorical tale which is perhaps the most famous work written in Bohemian.[4] Many of the numerous devotional and educational writings of Comenius,—his works number 142,—are also written in his native tongue.

The year 1620, which witnessed the downfall of Bohemian independence, also marks the beginning of a period of decline of the national tongue, which indeed later, in the 18th century, was almost extinct as a written language. Yet we must notice besides Comenius two other writers, both historians, whose works belong to a date later than 1620. Of these one was an adherent of the nationalist, the other of the imperialist party. Paul Skála ze Zhoře (1582-c. 1640) was an official in the service of the “winter king” Frederick of the Palatinate. He for a time followed his sovereign into exile, and spent the last years of his life at Freiberg in Saxony. It was at this period of his life, after his political activity had ceased, that he wrote his historical works. His first work was a short book which is a mere series of chronological tables. Somewhat later he undertook a vast work entitled Histoire cirkevni (history of the church). In spite of its title the book, which consists of ten enormous MS. volumes, deals as much with political as with ecclesiastical matters. The most valuable part, that dealing with events of 1602 to 1623, of which Skála writes as a contemporary and often as an eye-witness, has been edited and published by Prof. Tieftrunk. A contemporary and a political opponent of Skála was William Count Slavata (1572-1652). He was a faithful servant of the house of Habsburg, and one of the government officials who were thrown from the windows of the Hradĉany palace in 1618, at the beginning of the Bohemian uprising. In 1637 Slavata published his Pamety (memoirs) which deal exclusively with the events of the years 1618 and 1619, in which he had played so great a part. During the leisure of the last years of his long life Slavata composed a vast work entitled Historické Spisovani (historical works). It consists of fourteen large MS. volumes, two of which contain the previously-written memoirs. These two volumes have recently been edited and published by Dr Jos. Jirěcek.

After the deaths of Skála, Slavata and Comenius, no works of any importance were written in the Bohemian language for a considerable period, and the new Austrian government endeavoured in every way to discourage the 19th-century revival. use of that language. A change took place when the romantic movement started at the beginning of the 19th century. The early revival of the Bohemian language was very modest, and at first almost exclusively translations from foreign languages were published. The first writer who again drew attention to the then almost forgotten Bohemian language was Joseph Dobrovský (1753-1829). His works, which include a grammar of the Bohemian language and a history of Bohemian literature, were mostly written in German or Latin, and his only Bohemian works are some essays which he contributed to the early numbers of the Časopis Musea Království CČeského (Journal of the Bohemian Museum) and a collection of letters.

It is, however, to four men belonging to a time somewhat subsequent to that of Dobrovský that the revival of the language and literature of Bohemia is mainly due. They are Jungmann, Kolar, Šafařik and Palacký. Joseph Jungmann (1773-1847) published early in life numerous Bohemian translations of German and English writers. His most important works are his Dejepes literatury česka (history of Bohemian literature), and his monumental German and Bohemian dictionary, which largely contributed to the development of the Bohemian language. John Kolar (1793-1852) was the greatest poet of the Bohemian revival, and it is only in quite recent days that Bohemian poetry has risen to a higher level. Kolar’s principal poem is the Slavy dcera (daughter of Slavia), a personification of the Slavic race. Its principal importance at the present time consists rather in the part it played in the revival of Bohemian literature than in its artistic value. Kolar’s other works are mostly philological studies. Paul Joseph Šafařik (1795-1861) was a very fruitful writer. His Starožitnosti Slovanské (Slavic antiquities), an attempt to record the then almost unknown history and literature of the early Slavs, has still considerable value. Francis Palacký (1798-1876) is undoubtedly the greatest of Bohemian historians. Among his many works his history of Bohemia from the earliest period to the year 1526 is the most important.

Other Bohemian writers whose work belongs mainly to the earlier part of the 19th century are the poets Francis Ladislav Čelakovský, author of the Růže stolistova (the hundred-leaved rose), Erben, Macha, Tyl, to mention but a few of the most famous writers. The talented writer Karel Havlicek, the founder of Bohemian journalism, deserves special notice.

During the latter part of the 19th century, and particularly after the foundation of the national university in 1882, Bohemian literature has developed to an extent that few perhaps foresaw. Of older writers Božena Němceva, whose Babička has been translated into many languages, and Benes Trebizky, author of many historical novels, should be named. John Neruda (1834-1891) was a very fruitful and talented writer both of poetry and of prose. Perhaps the most valuable of his many works is his philosophical epic entitled Kosmicke basne (cosmic poems). Julius Zeyer (1841-1901) also wrote much both in prose and in verse. His epic poem entitled Vysehrad, which celebrates the ancient glory of the acropolis of Prague, has great value, and of his many novels Jan Maria Plojhar has had the greatest success. Of later Bohemian poets the best are Adolf Heyduk, Svatopluk Čech and Jaroslav Vrchlický (b. 1853). Of Svatopluk Cech’s many poems, which are all inspired by national enthusiasm, Václav z Michalovic, Lesetinsky Kovar (the smith of Lesetin) and Basne otroka (the songs of a slave) are the most notable. While Vrchlický (pseudonym of Emil Frida) has no less strong patriotic feelings, he has been more catholic in the choice of the subjects of his many works, both in poetry and in prose. Of his many collections of lyric poems Rok na jihu (a year in the south), Poute k Eldoradu (pilgrimages to Eldorado) and Sonety Samotare (sonnets of a recluse) have particular value. Vrchlický is also a very brilliant dramatist. Bohemian novelists have become very numerous. Mention should be made of Alois Jirásek, also a distinguished dramatic author; Jacob Arbes, whose Romanetta have great merit; and Václav Hladík, whose Evzen Voldan is a very striking representation of the life of modern Prague. Like so many Bohemian authors, Hladík also is a copious dramatic author.

Bohemia has been very fruitful in historic writers. Wenceslas Tomek (1818-1905) left many historical works, of which his Dějepis miěsta Prahy (history of the town of Prague) is the most important. Jaroslav Goll (b. 1846) is the author of many historical works, especially on the community of the Bohemian Brethren. Professor Joseph Kalousek has written much on the early history of Bohemia, and is also the author of a very valuable study of the ancient constitution (Statni pravo) of Bohemia. Dr Anton Rezek is the author of important historical studies, many of which appeared in the Journal of the Bohemian Museum and in the Česky Časopis Historický (Bohemian Historical Review), which he founded in 1895 jointly with Professor Jaroslav Goll. More recently Dr Václav Flajshans has published some excellent studies on the life and writings of John Huss, and Professors Pic and Niederle have published learned archaeological studies on the earliest period of Bohemian history.

See Count Lützow, A History of Bohemian Literature (London, 1899); W.R. Morfill, Slavonic Literature (1883); A.N. Pypin and V.D. Spasovič, History of Slavonic Literature (written in Russian, translated into German by Trangott Pech, Gesch. der slav. Literaturen, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1880-1884). There are modern histories of Bohemian literature written in the national language by Dr Karel Tieftrunk, Dr Václav Flajšhans and Mr Jaroslav Vlaek.

(L.)

[1] As a guide to the English-speaking reader, the following notes on the pronunciation of Bohemian names are appended. The Czech (Čech) alphabet is the same as the English, with the omission of the letters q, w and x. Certain letters, however, vary in pronunciation, and are distinguished by diacritical marks, a device orginated by John Huss. The vowels a, e, i, (y), o, u, are pronounced as in Italian; but ě = Eng. yě in “yet,” and ů = Eng. oo.

The consonants, b, d, f, k, l, m, n, p, r, v, z, are as in English; g = Eng. g in “gone”; s = Eng. initial s. But ň = Span. ñ (in cañon); ř = rsh; š = sh; ž = zh (i.e. the French j); k before d = g; v before k, p, s, t = f. Of the other consonants c = Eng. ts; č = ch; ch = Germ. ch; j = Eng. y, but is not pronounced before d, m, s. Accents on vowels lengthen them; on d and t they are softening marks. H is always pronounced in Czech. At the end of words and before k and t it = Germ, ch; in other places, as in bahno (morass) its pronunciation is somewhat softer.

[2] Protestatio Bohemorum, frequently printed in English and German, as well as in the Latin original.

[3] Laurence of Brezova’s (contemporary) Kronika Husitská.

[4] This work has been translated into English by Count Lützow for the “Temple Classics.”

BOHEMUND, the name of a series of princes of Antioch, afterwards counts of Tripoli. Their connexion is shown in the following table:—

Bohemund I. (c. A.D. 1058-1111), prince of Otranto and afterwards of Antioch, whose first name was Marc, was the eldest son of Robert Guiscard, dux Apuliae et Calabriae, by an early marriage contracted before 1059. He served under his father in the great attack on the East Roman empire (1080-1085), and commanded the Normans during Guiscard’s absence (1082-1084), penetrating into Thessaly as far as Larissa, but being repulsed by Alexius Comnenus. This early hostility to Alexius had a great influence in determining the course of his future career, and thereby helped to determine the history of the First Crusade, of which Bohemund may be regarded as the leader. On the death of Guiscard in 1085, his younger son Roger, born “in the purple” of a Lombard princess Sicelgaeta, succeeded to the duchy of Apulia and Calabria, and a war arose between Bohemund (whom his father had destined for the throne of Constantinople) and Duke Roger. The war was finally composed by the mediation of Urban II. and the award of Otranto and other possessions to Bohemund. In 1096 Bohemund, along with his uncle the great count of Sicily, was attacking Amalfi, which had revolted against Duke Roger, when bands of crusaders began to pass, on their way through Italy to Constantinople. The zeal of the crusader came upon Bohemund: it is possible, too, that he saw in the First Crusade a chance of realizing his father’s policy (which was also an old Norse instinct) of the Drang nach Osten, and hoped from the first to carve for himself an eastern principality. He gathered a fine Norman army (perhaps the finest division in the crusading host), at the head of which he crossed the Adriatic, and penetrated to Constantinople along the route he had tried to follow in 1082-1084. He was careful to observe a “correct” attitude towards Alexius, and when he arrived at Constantinople in April 1097 he did homage to the emperor. He may have negotiated with Alexius about a principality at Antioch; if he did so, he had little encouragement. From Constantinople to Antioch Bohemund was the real leader of the First Crusade; and it says much for his leading that the First Crusade succeeded in crossing Asia Minor, which the Crusades of 1101, 1147 and 1189 failed to accomplish. A politique, Bohemund was resolved to engineer the enthusiasm of the crusaders to his own ends; and when his nephew Tancred left the main army at Heraclea, and attempted to establish a footing in Cilicia, the movement may have been already intended as a preparation for Bohemund’s eastern principality. Bohemund was the first to get into position before Antioch (October 1097), and he took a great part in the siege, beating off the Mahommedan attempts at relief from the east, and connecting the besiegers on the west with the port of St Simeon and the Italian ships which lay there. The capture of Antioch was due to his connexion with Firuz, one of the commanders in the city; but he would not bring matters to an issue until the possession of the city was assured him (May 1098), under the terror of the approach of Kerbogha with a great army of relief, and with a reservation in favour of Alexius, if Alexius should fulfil his promise to aid the crusaders. But Bohemund was not secure in the possession of Antioch, even after its surrender and the defeat of Kerbogha; he had to make good his claims against Raymund of Toulouse, who championed the rights of Alexius. He obtained full possession in January 1099, and stayed in the neighbourhood of Antioch to secure his position, while the other crusaders moved southward to the capture of Jerusalem. He came to Jerusalem at Christmas 1099, and had Dagobert of Pisa elected as patriarch, perhaps in order to check the growth of a strong Lotharingian power in the city. It might seem in 1100 that Bohemund was destined to found a great principality in Antioch, which would dwarf Jerusalem; he had a fine territory, a good strategical position and a strong army. But he had to face two great forces—the East Roman empire, which claimed the whole of his territories and was supported in its claim by Raymund of Toulouse, and the strong Mahommedan principalities in the north-east of Syria. Against these two forces he failed. In 1100 he was captured by Danishmend of Sivas, and he languished in prison till 1103. Tancred took his place; but meanwhile Raymund established himself with the aid of Alexius in Tripoli, and was able to check the expansion of Antioch to the south. Ransomed in 1103 by the generosity of an Armenian prince, Bohemund made it his first object to attack the neighbouring Mahommedan powers in order to gain supplies. But in heading an attack on Harran, in 1104, he was severely defeated at Balich, near Rakka on the Euphrates. The defeat was decisive; it made impossible the great eastern principality which Bohemund had contemplated. It was followed by a Greek attack on Cilicia; and despairing of his own resources, Bohemund returned to Europe for reinforcements in order to defend his position. His attractive personality won him the hand of Constance, the daughter of the French king, Philip I., and he collected a large army. Dazzled by his success, he resolved to use his army not to defend Antioch against the Greeks, but to attack Alexius. He did so; but Alexius, aided by the Venetians, proved too strong, and Bohemund had to submit to a humiliating peace (1108), by which he became the vassal of Alexius, consented to receive his pay, with the title of Sebastos, and promised to cede disputed territories and to admit a Greek patriarch into Antioch. Henceforth Bohemund was a broken man. He died without returning to the East, and was buried at Canossa in Apulia, in 1111.

Literature.—The anonymous Gesta Francorum (edited by H. Hagenmeyer) is written by one of Bohemund’s followers; and the Alexiad of Anna Comnena is a primary authority for the whole of his life. His career is discussed by B. von Kügler, Bohemund und Tancred (Tübingen, 1862); while L. von Heinemann, Geschichte der Normannen in Sicilien und Unteritalien (Leipzig, 1894), and R. Röhricht, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (Innsbruck, 1901), and Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem (Innsbruck, 1898), may also be consulted for his history.

Bohemund II. (1108-1131), son of the great Bohemund by his marriage with Constance of France, was born in 1108, the year of his father’s defeat at Durazzo. In 1126 he came from Apulia to Antioch (which, since the fall of Roger, the successor of Tancred, in 1119, had been under the regency of Baldwin II.); and in 1127 he married Alice, the younger daughter of Baldwin. After some trouble with Joscelin of Edessa, and after joining with Baldwin II. in an attack on Damascus (1127), he was defeated and slain on his northern frontier by a Mahommedan army from Aleppo (1131). He had shown that he had his father’s courage: if time had sufficed, he might have shown that he had the other qualities of the first Bohemund.

Bohemund III. was the son of Constance, daughter of Bohemund II., by her first husband, Raymund of Antioch. He succeeded his mother in the principality of Antioch in 1163, and first appears prominently in 1164, as regent of the kingdom of Jerusalem during the expedition of Amalric I. to Egypt. During the absence of Amalric, he was defeated and captured by Nureddin (August 1164) at Harenc, to the east of Antioch. He was at once ransomed by his brother-in-law, the emperor Manuel, and went to Constantinople, whence he returned with a Greek patriarch. In 1180 he deserted his second wife, the princess Orguilleuse, for a certain Sibylla, and he was in consequence excommunicated. By Orguilleuse he had had two sons, Raymund and Bohemund (the future Bohemund IV.), whose relations and actions determined the rest of his life. Raymund married Alice, a daughter of the Armenian prince Rhupen (Rupin), brother of Leo of Armenia, and died in 1197, leaving behind him a son, Raymund Rhupen. Bohemund, the younger brother of Raymund, had succeeded the last count of Tripoli in the possession of that county, 1187; and the problem which occupied the last years of Bohemund III. was to determine whether his grandson, Raymund Rhupen, or his younger son, Bohemund, should succeed him in Antioch. Leo of Armenia was naturally the champion of his great-nephew, Raymund Rhupen; indeed he had already claimed Antioch in his own right, before the marriage of his niece to Raymund, in 1194, when he had captured Bohemund III. at Gastin, and attempted without success to force him to cede Antioch.[1] Bohemund the younger, however, prosecuted his claim with vigour, and even evicted his father from Antioch about 1199: but he was ousted by Leo (now king of Armenia by the grace of the emperor, Henry VI.), and Bohemund III. died in possession of his principality (1201).

Bohemund IV., younger son of Bohemund III. by his second wife Orguilleuse, became count of Tripoli in 1187, and succeeded his father in the principality of Antioch, to the exclusion of Raymund Rhupen, in 1201. But the dispute lasted for many years (Leo of Armenia continuing to champion the cause of his great-nephew), and long occupied the attention of Innocent III. Bohemund IV. enjoyed the support of the Templars (who, like the Knights of St John, had estates in Tripoli) and of the Greek inhabitants of Antioch, to whom he granted their own patriarch in 1207, while Leo appealed (1210-1211) both to Innocent III. and the emperor Otto IV., and was supported by the Hospitallers. In 1216 Leo captured Antioch, and established Raymund Rhupen as its prince; but he lost it again in less than four years, and it was once more in the possession of Bohemund IV. when Leo died in 1220. Raymund Rhupen died in 1221; and after the event Bohemund reigned in Antioch and Tripoli till his death, proving himself a determined enemy of the Hospitallers, and thereby incurring excommunication in 1230. He first joined, and then deserted, the emperor Frederick II., during the crusade of 1228-29; and he was excluded from the operation of the treaty of 1229. When he died in 1233, he had just concluded peace with the Hospitallers, and Gregory IX. had released him from the excommunication of 1230.

Bohemund V., son of Bohemund IV. by his wife Plaisance (daughter of Hugh of Gibelet), succeeded his father in 1233. He was prince of Antioch and count of Tripoli, like his father; and like him he enjoyed the alliance of the Templars and experienced the hostility of Armenia, which was not appeased till 1251, when the mediation of St Louis, and the marriage of the future Bohemund VI. to the sister of the Armenian king, finally brought peace. By his first marriage in 1225 with Alice, the widow of Hugh I. of Cyprus, Bohemund V. connected the history of Antioch for a time with that of Cyprus. He died in 1251. He had resided chiefly at Tripoli, and under him Antioch was left to be governed by its bailiff and commune.

Bohemund VI. was the son of Bohemund V. by Luciana, a daughter of the count of Segni, nephew of Innocent III. Born in 1237, Bohemund VI. succeeded his father in 1251, and was knighted by St Louis in 1252. His sister Plaisance had married in 1250 Henry I. of Cyprus, the son of Hugh I.; and the Cypriot connexion of Antioch, originally formed by the marriage of Bohemund V. and Alice, the widow of Hugh I., was thus maintained. In 1252 Bohemund VI. established himself in Antioch, leaving Tripoli to itself, and in 1257 he procured the recognition of his nephew, Hugh II., the son of Henry I. by Plaisance, as king of Jerusalem. He allied himself to the Mongols against the advance of the Egyptian sultan; but in 1268 he lost Antioch to Bibars, and when he died in 1275 he was only count of Tripoli.

Bohemund VII., son of Bohemund VI. by Sibylla, sister of Leo III. of Armenia, succeeded to the county of Tripoli in 1275, with his mother as regent. In his short and troubled reign he had trouble with the Templars who were established in Tripoli; and in the very year of his death (1287) he lost Laodicea to the sultan of Egypt. He died without issue; and as, within two years of his death, Tripoli was captured, the county of Tripoli may be said to have become extinct with him.

Literature.—The history of the Bohemunds is the history of the principality of Antioch, and, after Bohemund IV., of the county of Tripoli also. For Antioch, we possess its Assises (Venice, 1876); and two articles on its history have appeared in the Revue de l’Orient Latin (Paris, 1893, fol.), both by E. Rey (“Resumé chronologique de l’histpire des princes d’Antioche,” vol. iv., and “Les dignitaires de la principauté d’Antioche,” vol. viii.). R. Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem (Innsbruck, 1898), gives practically all that is known about the history of Antioch and Tripoli.

(E. Br.)

[1] During the captivity of Bohemund III. the patriarch of Antioch helped to found a commune, which persisted, with its mayor and jurats, during the 13th century.

BÖHMER, JOHANN FRIEDRICH (1795-1863), German historian, son of Karl Ludwig Böhmer (d. 1817), was born at Frankfort-on-Main on the 22nd of April 1795. Educated at the universities of Heidelberg and Göttingen, he showed an interest in art and visited Italy; but returning to Frankfort he turned his attention to the study of history, and became secretary of the Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde. He was also archivist and then librarian of the city of Frankfort. Böhmer had a great dislike of Prussia and the Protestant faith, and a corresponding affection for Austria and the Roman Catholic Church, to which, however, he did not belong. His critical sense was, perhaps, somewhat warped; but his researches are of great value to students. He died unmarried, at Frankfort, on the 22nd of October 1863. Böhmer’s historical work was chiefly concerned with collecting and tabulating charters and other imperial documents of the middle ages. First appeared an abstract, the Regesta chronologico-diplomatica regum atque imperatorum Romanorum 911-1313 (Frankfort, 1831), which was followed by the Regesta chronologico-diplomatica Karolorum. Die Urkunden sämtlicher Karolinger in kurzen Auszügen (Frankfort, 1833), and a series of Regesta imperii. For the period 1314-1347 (Frankfort, 1839) the Regesta was followed by three, and for the period 1246-1313 (Frankfort, 1844) by two supplementary volumes. The remaining period of the Regesta, as edited by Böhmer, is 1198-1254 (Stuttgart, 1849). These collections contain introductions and explanatory passages by the author. Very valuable also is the Fontes rerum Germanicarum (Stuttgart, 1843-1868), a collection of original authorities for German history during the 13th and 14th centuries. The fourth and last volume of this work was edited by A. Huber after the author’s death. Other collections edited by Böhmer are: Die Reichsgesetze 900-1400 (Frankfort, 1832); Wittelsbachische Regesten von der Erwerbung des Herzogtums Bayern bis zu 1340 (Stuttgart, 1854); and Codex diplomaticus Moeno-Francofurtanus. Urkundenbuch der Reichsstadt Frankfurt (Frankfort, 1836; new edition by F. Law, 1901). Other volumes and editions of the Regesta imperii, edited by J. Ficker, E. Mühlbacher, E. Winkelmann and others, are largely based on Böhmer’s work. Böhmer left a great amount of unpublished material, and after his death two other works were published from his papers: Acta imperii selecta, edited by J. Ficker (Innsbruck, 1870); and Regesta archiepiscoporum Maguntinensium, edited by C. Will (Innsbruck, 1877-1886).

See J. Janssen, J.F. Böhmers Leben, Briefe und kleinere Schriften (Freiburg, 1868).

BOHN, HENRY GEORGE (1796-1884), British publisher, son of a German bookbinder settled in England, was born in London on the 4th of January 1796. In 1831 he started as a dealer in rare books and “remainders.” In 1841 he issued his “Guinea” Catalogue of books, a monumental work containing 23,208 items. Bohn was noted for his book auction sales: one held in 1848 lasted four days, the catalogue comprising twenty folio pages. Printed on this catalogue was the information: “Dinner at 2 o’clock, dessert at 4, tea at 5, and supper at 10.” The name of Bohn is principally remembered by the important Libraries which he inaugurated: these were begun in 1846 and comprised editions of standard works and translations, dealing with history, science, classics, theology and archaeology, consisting in all of 766 volumes. One of Bohn’s most useful and laborious undertakings was his revision (6 vols. 1864) of The Bibliographer’s Manual of English Literature (1834) of W.T. Lowndes. The plan includes bibliographical and critical notices, particulars of prices, &c., and a considerable addition to the original work. It had been one of Bohn’s ambitions to found a great publishing house, but, finding that his sons had no taste for the trade, he sold the Libraries in 1864 to Messrs. Bell and Daldy, afterwards G. Bell & Sons. Bohn was a man of wide culture and many interests. He himself made considerable contributions to his Libraries: he collected pictures, china and ivories, and was a famous rose-grower. He died at Twickenham on the 22nd of August 1884.

BÖHTLINGK, OTTO VON (1815-1004) German Sanskrit scholar, was born on the 30th of May (11th of June O.S.) 1815 at St Petersburg. Having studied (1833-1835) Oriental languages, particularly Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit, at the university of St Petersburg, he continued his studies in Germany, first in Berlin and then (1839-1842) in Bonn. Returning to St Petersburg in 1842, he was attached to the Royal Academy of Sciences, and was elected an ordinary member of that society in 1855. In 1860 he was made “Russian state councillor,” and later “privy councillor” with a title of nobility. In 1868 he settled at Jena, and in 1885 removed to Leipzig, where he resided until his death there on the 1st of April 1904. Böhtlingk was one of the most distinguished scholars of the 19th century, and his works are of pre-eminent value in the field of Indian and comparative philology. His first great work was an edition of Panini’s Acht Bücher grammatischer Regeln (Bonn, 1839-1840), which was in reality a criticism of Franz Bopp’s philological methods. This book Böhtlingk again took up forty-seven years later, when he republished it with a complete translation under the title Paninis Grammatik mit Übersetzung (Leipzig, 1887). The earlier edition was followed by Vopadevas Grammatik (St Petersburg, 1847); Über die Sprache der Jakuten (St Petersburg, 1851); Indische Spruche (2nd ed. in 3 parts, St Petersburg, 1870-1873, to which an index was published by Blau, Leipzig, 1893); a critical examination and translation of Chhandogya-upanishad (St Petersburg, 1889) and a translation of Brihadaranyaka-upanishad (St Petersburg, 1889). In addition to these he published several smaller treatises, notably one on the Sanskrit accents, Über den Accent im Sanskrit (1843). But his magnum opus is his great Sanskrit dictionary, Sanskrit-Wörterbuch (7 vols., St Petersburg, 1853-1875; new ed. 7 vols., St Petersburg, 1879-1889), which with the assistance of his two friends, Rudolf Roth (1821-1895) and Albrecht Weber (b. 1825), was completed in twenty-three years.

BOHUN, the name of a family which plays an important part in English history during the 13th and 14th centuries; it was taken from a village situated in the Cotentin between Coutances and the estuary of the Vire. The Bohuns came into England at, or shortly after, the Norman Conquest; but their early history there is obscure. The founder of their greatness was Humphrey III., who in the latter years of Henry I., makes his appearance as a dapifer, or steward, in the royal household. He married the daughter of Milo of Gloucester, and played an ambiguous part in Stephen’s reign, siding at first with the king and afterwards with the empress. Humphrey III. lived until 1187, but his history is uneventful. He remained loyal to Henry II. through all changes, and fought in 1173 at Farnham against the rebels of East Anglia. Outliving his eldest son, Humphrey IV., he was succeeded in the family estates by his grandson Henry. Henry was connected with the royal house of Scotland through his mother Margaret, a sister of William the Lion; an alliance which no doubt assisted him to obtain the earldom of Hereford from John (1199). The lands of the family lay chiefly on the Welsh Marches, and from this date the Bohuns take a foremost place among the Marcher barons. Henry de Bohun figures with the earls of Clare and Gloucester among the twenty-five barons who were elected by their fellows to enforce the terms of the Great Charter. In the subsequent civil war he fought on the side of Louis, and was captured at the battle of Lincoln (1217). He took the cross in the same year and died on his pilgrimage (June 1, 1220). Humphrey V., his son and heir, returned to the path of loyalty, and was permitted, some time before 1239, to inherit the earldom of Essex from his maternal uncle, William de Mandeville. But in 1258 this Humphrey fell away, like his father, from the royal to the baronial cause. He served as a nominee of the opposition on the committee of twenty-four which was appointed, in the Oxford parliament of that year, to reform the administration. It was only the alliance of Montfort with Llewelyn of North Wales that brought the earl of Hereford back to his allegiance. Humphrey V. headed the first secession of the Welsh Marchers from the party of the opposition (1263), and was amongst the captives whom the Montfortians took at Lewes. The earl’s son and namesake was on the victorious side, and shared in the defeat of Evesham, which he did not long survive. Humphrey V. was, therefore, naturally selected as one of the twelve arbitrators to draw up the ban of Kenilworth (1266), by which the disinherited rebels were allowed to make their peace. Dying in 1275, he was succeeded by his grandson Humphrey VII. This Bohun lives in history as one of the recalcitrant barons of the year 1297, who extorted from Edward I. the Confirmatio Cartarum. The motives of the earl’s defiance were not altogether disinterested. He had suffered twice from the chicanery of Edward’s lawyers; in 1284 when a dispute between himself and the royal favourite, John Giffard, was decided in the latter’s favour; and again in 1292 when he was punished with temporary imprisonment and sequestration for a technical, and apparently unwitting, contempt of the king’s court. In company, therefore, with the earl of Norfolk he refused to render foreign service in Gascony, on the plea that they were only bound to serve with the king, who was himself bound for Flanders. Their attitude brought to a head the general discontent which Edward had excited by his arbitrary taxation; and Edward was obliged to make a surrender on all the subjects of complaint. At Falkirk (1298) Humphrey VII. redeemed his character for loyalty. His son, Humphrey VIII., who succeeded him in the same year, was allowed to marry one of the king’s daughters, Eleanor, the widowed countess of Holland (1302). This close connexion with the royal house did not prevent him, as it did not prevent Earl Thomas of Lancaster, from joining the opposition to the feeble Edward II. In 1310 Humphrey VIII. figured among the Lords Ordainers; though, with more patriotism than some of his fellow-commissioners, he afterwards followed the king to Bannockburn. He was taken captive in the battle, but exchanged for the wife of Robert Bruce. Subsequently he returned to the cause of his order, and fell on the side of Earl Thomas at the field of Boroughbridge (1322). With him, as with his father, the politics of the Marches had been the main consideration; his final change of side was due to jealousy of the younger Despenser, whose lordship of Glamorgan was too great for the comfort of the Bohuns in Brecon. With the death of Humphrey VIII. the fortunes of the family enter on a more peaceful stage. Earl John (d. 1335) was inconspicuous; Humphrey IX. (d. 1361) merely distinguished himself as a captain in the Breton campaigns of the Hundred Years’ War, winning the victories of Morlaix (1342) and La Roche Derrien (1347). His nephew and heir, Humphrey X., who inherited the earldom of Northampton from his father, was territorially the most important representative of the Bohuns. But the male line was extinguished by his death (1373). The three earldoms and the broad lands of the Bohuns were divided between two co-heiresses. Both married members of the royal house. The elder, Eleanor, was given in 1374 to Thomas of Woodstock, seventh son of Edward III.; the younger, Mary, to Henry, earl of Derby, son of John of Gaunt and afterwards Henry IV., in 1380 or 1381. From these two marriages sprang the houses of Lancaster and Stafford.

See J.E. Doyle’s Official Baronage of England (1886), the Complete Peerage of G. E. C(okayne), (1867-1898); T.F. Tout’s “Wales and the March during the Barons’ War,” in Owens College Historical Essays, pp. 87-136 (1902); J.E. Morris’ Welsh Wars of King Edward I., chs. vi., viii. (1901).

(H. W. C. D.)

BOIARDO, MATTEO MARIA, Count (1434-1404), Italian poet, who came of a noble and illustrious house established at Ferrara, but originally from Reggio, was born at Scandiano, one of the seignorial estates of his family, near Reggio di Modena, about the year 1434, according to Tiraboschi, or 1420 according to Mazzuchelli. At an early age he entered the university of Ferrara, where he acquired a good knowledge of Greek and Latin, and even of the Oriental languages, and was in due time admitted doctor in philosophy and in law. At the court of Ferrara, where he enjoyed the favour of Duke Borso d’Este and his successor Hercules, he was entrusted with several honourable employments, and in particular was named governor of Reggio, an appointment which he held in the year 1478. Three years afterwards he was elected captain of Modena, and reappointed governor of the town and citadel of Reggio, where he died in the year 1494, though in what month is uncertain.

Almost all Boiardo’s works, and especially his great poem of the Orlando Inamorato, were composed for the amusement of Duke Hercules and his court, though not written within its precincts. His practice, it is said, was to retire to Scandiano or some other of his estates, and there to devote himself to composition; and Castelvetro, Vallisnieri, Mazzuchelli and Tiraboschi all unite in stating that he took care to insert in the descriptions of his poem those of the agreeable environs of his chateau, and that the greater part of the names of his heroes, as Mandricardo, Gradasse, Sacripant, Agramant and others, were merely the names of some of his peasants, which, from their uncouthness, appeared to him proper to be given to Saracen warriors. Be this as it may, the Orlando Inamorato deserves to be considered as one of the most important poems in Italian literature, since it forms the first example of the romantic epic worthy to serve as a model, and, as such, undoubtedly produced Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso. Gravina and Mazzuchell have said, and succeeding writers have repeated on their authority, that Boiardo proposed to himself as his model the Iliad of Homer; that Paris is besieged like the city of Troy; that Angelica holds the place of Helen; and that, in short, the one poem is a sort of reflex image of the other. In point of fact, however, the subject-matter of the poem is derived from the Fabulous Chronicle of the pseudo-Turpin; though, with the exception of the names of Charlemagne, Roland, Oliver, and some other principal warriors, who necessarily figure as important characters in the various scenes, there is little resemblance between the detailed plot of the one and that of the other. The poem, which Boiardo did not live to finish, was printed at Scandiano the year after his death, under the superintendence of his son Count Camillo. The title of the book is without date; but a Latin letter from Antonia Caraffa di Reggio, prefixed to the poem, is dated the kalends of June 1495. A second edition, also without date, but which must have been printed before the year 1500, appeared at Venice; and the poem was twice reprinted there during the first twenty years of the 16th century. These editions are the more curious and valuable since they contain nothing but the text of the author, which is comprised in three books, divided into cantos, the third book being incomplete. But Niccolo degli Agostini, an indifferent poet, had the courage to continue the work commenced by Boiardo, adding to it three books, which were printed at Venice in 1526-1531, in 4to; and since that time no edition of the Orlando has been printed without the continuation of Agostini, wretched as it unquestionably is. Boiardo’s poem suffers from the incurable defect of a laboured and heavy style. His story is skilfully constructed, the characters are well drawn and sustained throughout; many of the incidents show a power and fertility of imagination not inferior to that of Ariosto, but the perfect workmanship indispensable for a great work of art is wanting. The poem in its original shape was not popular, and has been completely superseded by the Rifacimento of Francesco Berni (q.v.).

The other works of Boiardo are—(1) Il Timone, a comedy, Scandiano, 1500, 4to; (2) Sonnetti e Canzoni, Reggio, 1499, 4to; (3) Carmen Bucolicon, Reggio, 1500, 4to; (4) Cinque Capitoli in terza rima, Venice, 1523 or 1533; (5) Apulejo dell’ Asino d’Oro, Venice, 1516, 1518; (6) Asino d’Oro de Luciano tradolto in volgare, Venice, 1523, 8vo; (7) Erodoto Alicarnasseo istorico, tradotto di Greco in Lingua Italiana, Venice, 1533 and 1538, 8vo; (8) Rerum Italicarum Scriptores.

See Panizzi’s Boiardo (9 vols., 1830-1831).

BOIE, HEINRICH CHRISTIAN (1744-1806), German author, was born at Meldorf in the then Danish province of Schleswig-Holstein on the 19th of July 1744. After studying law at Jena, he went in 1769 to Göttingen, where he became one of the leading spirits in the Göttingen “Dichterbund” or “Hain.” Boie’s poetical talent was not great, but his thorough knowledge of literature, his excellent taste and sound judgment, made him an ideal person to awake the poetical genius of others. Together with F.W. Gotter (q.v.) he founded in 1770 the Göttingen Musenalmanach, which he directed and edited until 1775, when, in conjunction with C.W. von Dohm (1751-1820), he brought out Das deutsche Museum, which became one of the best literary periodicals of the day. In 1776 Boie became secretary to the commander-in-chief at Hanover, and in 1781 was appointed administrator of the province of Süderditmarschen in Holstein. He died at Meldorf on the 3rd of March 1806.

See K. Weinhold, Heinrich Christian Boie (Halle, 1868).

BOIELDIEU, FRANÇOIS ADRIEN (1775-1834), French composer of comic opera, was born at Rouen on the 15th of December 1775. He received his first musical education from M. Broche, the cathedral organist, who appears to have treated him very harshly. He began composing songs and chamber music at a very early age-his first opera, La Fille coupable (the libretto by his father), and his second opera, Rosalie et Myrza, being produced on the stage of Rouen in 1795. Not satisfied with his local success he went to Paris in 1795. His scores were submitted to Cherubini, Méhul and others, but met with little approbation. Grand opera was the order of the day. Boieldieu had to fall back on his talent as a pianoforte-player for a livelihood. Success came at last from an unexpected source. P.J. Garat, a fashionable singer of the period, admired Boieldleu’s touch on the piano, and made him his accompanist. In the drawing-rooms of the Directoire Garat sang the charming songs and ballads with which the young composer supplied him. Thus Boieldieu’s reputation gradually extended to wider circles. In 1796 Les Deux lettres was produced, and in 1797 La Famille suisse appeared for the first time on a Paris stage, and was well received. Several other operas followed in rapid succession, of which only Le Calife de Bagdad (1800) has escaped oblivion. After the enormous success of this work, Boieldieu felt the want of a thorough musical training and took lessons from Cherubini, the influence of that great master being clearly discernible in the higher artistic finish of his pupil’s later compositions. In 1802 Boieldieu, to escape the domestic troubles caused by his marriage with Clotilde Aug. Mafleuroy, a celebrated ballet-dancer of the Paris opera, took flight and went to Russia, where he was received with open arms by the emperor Alexander. During his prolonged stay at St Petersburg he composed a number of operas. He also set to music the choruses of Racine’s Athalie, one of his few attempts at the tragic style of dramatic writing. In 1811 he returned to his own country, where the following year witnessed the production of one of his finest works, Jean de Paris, in which he depicted with much felicity the charming coquetry of the queen of Navarre, the chivalrous verve of the king, the officious pedantry of the seneschal, and the amorous tenderness of the page. He succeeded Méhul as professor of composition at the Conservatoire in 1817. Le Chapeau rouge was produced with great success in 1818. Boieldieu’s second and greatest masterpiece was his Dame blanche (1825). The libretto, written by Scribe, was partly suggested by Walter Scott’s Monastery, and several original Scottish tunes cleverly introduced by the composer add to the melodious charm and local colour of the work. On the death of his wife in 1825, Boieldieu married a singer. His own death was due to a violent attack of pulmonary disease. He vainly tried to escape the rapid progress of the illness by travel in Italy and the south of France, but returned to Paris only to die on the 8th of October 1834.

Lives of Boieldieu have been written by Pougin (Paris, 1875), J.A. Refeuvaille (Rouen, 1836), Hequet (Paris, 1864), Emile Duval (Geneva, 1883). See also Adolphe Charles Adam, Derniers souvenirs d’un musicien.

BOIGNE, BENOÎT DE, Count (1751-1830), the first of the French military adventurers in India, was born at Chambéry in Savoy on the 8th of March 1751, being the son of a fur merchant. He joined the Irish Brigade in France in 1768, and subsequently he entered the Russian service and was captured by the Turks. Hearing of the wealth of India, he made his way to that country, and after serving for a short time in the East India Company, he resigned and joined Mahadji Sindhia in 1784 for the purpose of training his troops in the European methods of war. In the battles of Lalsot and Chaksana Boigne and his two battalions proved their worth by holding the field when the rest of the Mahratta army was defeated by the Rajputs. In the battle of Agra (1788) he restored the Mahratta fortunes, and made Mahadji Sindhia undisputed master of Hindostan. This success led to his being given the command of a brigade of ten battalions of infantry, with which he won the victories of Patan and Merta in 1790. In consequence Boigne was allowed to raise two further brigades of disciplined infantry, and made commander-in-chief of Sindhia’s army. In the battle of Lakhairi (1793) he defeated Holkar’s army. On the death of Mahadji Sindhia in 1794, Boigne could have made himself master of Hindostan had he wished it, but he remained loyal to Daulat Rao Sindhia. In 1795 his health began to fail, and he resigned his command, and in the following year returned to Europe with a fortune of £400,000. He lived in retirement during the lifetime of Napoleon, but was greatly honoured by Louis XVIII. He died on the 21st of June 1830.

See H. Compton, European Military Adventurers of Hindustan (1892).

BOII (perhaps = “the terrible”), a Celtic people, whose original home was Gallia Transalpina. They were known to the Romans, at least by name, in the time of Plautus, as is shown by the contemptuous reference in the Captivi (888). At an early date they split up into two main groups, one of which made its way into Italy, the other into Germany. Some, however, appear to have stayed behind, since, during the Second Punic War, Magalus, a Boian prince, offered to show Hannibal the way into Italy after he had crossed the Pyrenees (Livy xxi. 29). The first group of immigrants is said to have crossed the Pennine Alps (Great St Bernard) into the valley of the Po. Finding the district already occupied, they proceeded over the river, drove out the Etruscans and Umbrians, and established themselves as far as the Apennines in the modern Romagna. According to Cato (in Pliny, Nat. Hist. iii. 116) they comprised as many as 112 different tribes, and from the remains discovered in the tombs at Hallstatt, La Tène and other places, they appear to have been fairly civilized. Several wars took place between them and the Romans. In 283 they were defeated, together with the Etruscans, at the Vadimonian lake; in 224, after the battle of Telamon in Etruria, they were forced to submit. But they still cherished a hatred of the Romans, and during the Second Punic War (218), irritated by the foundation of the Roman colonies of Cremona and Placentia, they rendered valuable assistance to Hannibal. They continued the struggle against Rome from 201 to 191, when they were finally subdued by P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, and deprived of nearly half their territory. According to Strabo (v. p. 213) the Boii were driven back across the Alps and settled on the land of their kinsmen, the Taurisci, on the Danube, adjoining Vindelicia and Raetia. Most authorities, however, assume that there had been a settlement of the Boii on the Danube from very early times, in part of the modern Bohemia (anc. Boiohemum, “land of the Boii”). About 60 B.C. some of the Boii migrated to Noricum and Pannonia, when 32,000 of them joined the expedition of the Helvetians into Gaul, and shared their defeat near Bibracte (58). They were subsequently allowed by Caesar to settle in the territory of the Aedui between the Loire and the Allier. Their chief town was Gorgobina (site uncertain). Those who remained on the Danube were exterminated by the Dacian king, Boerebista, and the district they had occupied was afterwards called the “desert of the Boii” (Strabo vii. p. 292). In A.D. 69 a Boian named Mariccus stirred up a fanatical revolt, but was soon defeated and put to death. Some remnants of the Boii are mentioned as dwelling near Bordeaux; but Mommsen inclines to the opinion that the three groups (in Bordeaux, Bohemia and the Po districts) were not really scattered branches of one and the same stock, but that they are instances of a mere similarity of name.

The Boii, as we know them, belonged almost certainly to the Early Iron age. They probably used long iron swords for dealing cutting blows, and from the size of the handles they must have been a race of large men (cf. Polybius ii. 30). For their ethnological affinities and especially their possible connexion with the Homeric Achaeans see W. Ridgeway’s Early Age of Greece (vol. i., 1901).

See L. Contzen, Die Wanderungen der Kelten (Leipzig, 1861); A. Desjardins, Géographie historique de la Gaule romaine, ii. (1876-1893); T.R. Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul (1899), pp. 426-428; T. Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, ii. (Eng. trans. 5 vols., 1894), p. 373 note; M. Ihm in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopadie, iii. pt. 1 (1897); A. Holder, Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz.

BOIL, in medicine, a progressive local inflammation of the skin, taking the form of a hard suppurating tumour, with a core of dead tissue, resulting from infection by a microbe, Staphylococcus pyogenes, and commonly occurring in young persons whose blood is disordered, or as a complication in certain diseases. Treatment proceeds on the lines of bringing the mischief out, assisting the evacuation of the boil by the lancet, and clearing the system. In the English Bible, and also in popular medical terminology, “boil” is used of various forms of ulcerous affection. The boils which were one of the plagues in Egypt were apparently the bubonic plague. The terms Aleppo boil (or button), Delhi boil, Oriental boil, Biskra button, &c., have been given to a tropical epidemic, characterized by ulcers on the face, due to a diplococcus parasite.

BOILEAU-DESPRÉAUX, NICOLAS (1636-1711), French poet and critic, was born on the 1st of November 1636 in the rue de Jérusalem, Paris. The same Despréaux was derived from a small property at Crosne near Villeneuve Saint-Georges. He was the fifteenth child of Gilles Boileau, a clerk in the parlement. Two of his brothers attained some distinction: Gilles Boileau (1631-1669), the author of a translation of Epictetus; and Jacques Boileau, who became a canon of the Sainte-Chapelle, and made valuable contributions to church history. His mother died when he was two years old; and Nicolas Boileau, who had a delicate constitution, seems to have suffered something from want of care. Sainte-Beuve puts down his somewhat hard and unsympathetic outlook quite as much to the uninspiring circumstances of these days as to the general character of his time. He cannot be said to have been early disenchanted, for he never seems to have had any illusions; he grew up with a single passion, “the hatred of stupid books.” He was educated at the Collège de Beauvais, and was then sent to study theology at the Sorbonne. He exchanged theology for law, however, and was called to the bar on the 4th of December 1656. From the profession of law, after a short trial, he recoiled in disgust, complaining bitterly of the amount of chicanery which passed under the name of law and justice. His father died in 1657, leaving him a small fortune, and thenceforward he devoted himself to letters.

Such of his early poems as have been preserved hardly contain the promise of what he ultimately became. The first piece in which his peculiar powers were displayed was the first satire (1660), in imitation of the third satire of Juvenal; it embodied the farewell of a poet to the city of Paris. This was quickly followed by eight others, and the number was at a later period increased to twelve. A twofold interest attaches to the satires. In the first place the author skilfully parodies and attacks writers who at the time were placed in the very first rank, such as Jean Chapelain, the abbé Charles Cotin, Philippe Quinault and Georges de Scudéry; he openly raised the standard of revolt against the older poets. But in the second place he showed both by precept and practice what were the poetical capabilities of the French language. Prose in the hands of such writers as Descartes and Pascal had proved itself a flexible and powerful instrument of expression, with a distinct mechanism and form. But except with Malherbe, there had been no attempt to fashion French versification according to rule or method. In Boileau for the first time appeared terseness and vigour of expression, with perfect regularity of verse structure. His admiration for Molière found expression in the stanzas addressed to him (1663), and in the second satire (1664). In 1664 he composed his prose Dialogue des héros de roman, a satire on the elaborate romances of the time, which may be said to have once for all abolished the lucubrations of La Calprenède, Mlle de Scudéry and their fellows. Though fairly widely read in manuscript, the book was not published till 1713, out of regard, it is said, for Mlle de Scudéry. To these early days belong the reunions at the Moulon Blanc and the Pomme du Pin, where Boileau, Molière, Racine, Chapelle and Antoine Furetière met to discuss literary questions. To Molière and Racine he proved a constant friend, and supported their interests on many occasions.

In 1666, prompted by the publication of two unauthorized editions, he published Satires du Sieur D...., containing seven satires and the Discours au roi. From 1669 onwards appeared his epistles, graver in tone than the satires, maturer in thought, more exquisite and polished in style. The Épitres gained for him the favour of Louis XIV., who desired his presence at court. The king asked him which he thought his best verses. Whereupon Boileau diplomatically selected as his “least bad” some still unprinted lines in honour of the grand monarch and proceeded to recite them. He received forthwith a pension of 2000 livres. In 1674 his two masterpieces, L’Art poétique and Le Lutrin, were published with some earlier works as the Œuvres diverses du sieur D.... The first, in imitation of the Ars Poetica of Horace, lays down the code for all future French verse, and may be said to fill in French literature a parallel place to that held by its prototype in Latin. On English literature the maxims of Boileau, through the translation revised by Dryden, and through the magnificent imitation of them in Pope’s Essay on Criticism, have exercised no slight influence. Boileau does not merely lay down rules for the language of poetry, but analyses carefully the various kinds of verse composition, and enunciates the principles peculiar to each. Of the four books of L’Art poétique, the first and last consist of general precepts, inculcating mainly the great rule of bon sens; the second treats of the pastoral, the elegy, the ode, the epigram and satire; and the third of tragic and epic poetry. Though the rules laid down are of value, their tendency is rather to hamper and render too mechanical the efforts of poetry. Boileau himself, a great, though by no means infallible critic in verse, cannot be considered a great poet. He rendered the utmost service in destroying the exaggerated reputations of the mediocrities of his time, but his judgment was sometimes at fault. The Lutrin, a mock heroic poem, of which four cantos appeared in 1674, furnished Alexander Pope with a model for the Rape of the Lock, but the English poem is superior in richness of imagination and subtlety of invention. The fifth and sixth cantos, afterwards added by Boileau, rather detract from the beauty of the poem; the last canto in particular is quite unworthy of his genius. In 1674 appeared also his translation of Longinus On the Sublime, to which were added in 1693 certain critical reflections, chiefly directed against the theory of the superiority of the moderns over the ancients as advanced by Charles Perrault.

Boileau was made historiographer to the king in 1677. From this time the amount of his production diminished. To this period of his life belong the satire, Sur les femmes, the ode, Sur la prise de Namur, the epistles, À mes vers and Sur l’amour de Dieu, and the satire Sur l’homme. The satires had raised up a crowd of enemies against Boileau. The 10th satire, on women, provoked an Apologie des femmes from Charles Perrault. Antoine Arnauld in the year of his death wrote a letter in defence of Boileau, but when at the desire of his friends he submitted his reply to Bossuet, the bishop pronounced all satire to be incompatible with the spirit of Christianity, and the 10th satire to be subversive of morality. The friends of Arnauld had declared that it was inconsistent with the dignity of a churchman to write on any subject so trivial as poetry. The epistle, Sur l’amour de Dieu, was a triumphant vindication on the part of Boileau of the dignity of his art. It was not until the 15th of April 1684 that he was admitted to the Academy, and then only by the king’s wish. In 1687 he retired to a country-house he had bought at Auteuil, which Racine, because of the numerous guests, calls his hôtellerie d’Auteuil. In 1705 he sold his house and returned to Paris, where he lived with his confessor in the cloisters of Notre Dame. In the 12th satire, Sur l’équivoque, he attacked the Jesuits in verses which Sainte-Beuve called a recapitulation of the Lettres provinciales of Pascal. This was written about 1705. He then gave his attention to the arrangement of a complete and definitive edition of his works. But the Jesuit fathers obtained from Louis XIV. the withdrawal of the privilege already granted for the publication, and demanded the suppression of the 12th satire. These annoyances are said to have hastened his death, which took place on the 13th of March 1711.

Boileau was a man of warm and kindly feelings, honest, outspoken and benevolent. Many anecdotes are told of his frankness of speech at court, and of his generous actions. He holds a well-defined place in French literature, as the first who reduced its versification to rule, and taught the value of workmanship for its own sake. His influence on English literature, through Pope and his contemporaries, was not less strong, though less durable. After much undue depreciation Boileau’s critical work has been rehabilitated by recent writers, perhaps to the extent of some exaggeration in the other direction. It has been shown that in spite of undue harshness in individual cases most of his criticisms have been substantially adopted by his successors.

Numerous editions of Boileau’s works were published during his lifetime. The last of these, Œuvres diverses (1701), known as the “favourite” edition of the poet, was reprinted with variants and notes by Alphonse Pauly (2 vols., 1894). The critical text of his works was established by Berriat Saint-Prix, Œuvres de Boileau (4 vols., 1830-1837), who made use of some 350 editions. This text, edited with notes by Paul Chéron, with the Boloeana of 1740, and an essay by Sainte-Beuve, was reprinted by Garnier frères (1860).

See also Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi, vol. vi.; F. Brunetière, “L’Esthétique de Boileau” (Revue des Deux Mondes, June 1889), and an exhaustive article by the same critic in La Grande encyclopédie; G. Lanson, Boileau (1892), in the series of Grands écrivains français.

BOILER, a vessel in which water or other liquid is heated to the boiling point; specifically, the apparatus by which steam is produced from water, as one step in the process whereby the potential energy of coal or other fuel is converted into mechanical work by means of the steam-engine. Boilers of the latter kind must all possess certain essential features, whilst of other qualities that are desirable some may not be altogether compatible with the special conditions under which the boilers are to be worked. Amongst the essentials are a receptacle capable of containing the water and the steam produced by its evaporation, and strong enough continuously to withstand with safety the highest pressure of steam for which the boiler is intended. Another essential is a furnace for burning the fuel, and a further one is the provision of a sufficiency of heating surface for the transmission of the heat produced by the combustion of the fuel to the water which is required to be evaporated. Desirable qualities are that the arrangements of the furnaces should be such that a reasonably perfect combustion of the fuel should be possible, and that the heating surfaces should be capable of transmitting a large proportion of the heat produced to the water so as to obtain a high evaporative efficiency. Further, the design generally should be compact, not too heavy or costly, and such that the cleaning necessary to maintain the evaporative efficiency can be easily effected. It should also be such that the cost of upkeep will be small, and that only an average amount of skill and attention will be required under working conditions. It is for providing these qualities in different degrees according to the special requirements of various circumstances that the very different designs of the various types of boilers have been evolved.

Classes of Boilers.—Boilers generally may be divided into two distinct classes, one comprising those which are generally called “tank” boilers, containing relatively large quantities of water, and the other those which are generally called “water-tube” boilers, in which the water is mainly contained in numerous comparatively small tubes. There are, however, some types of boiler which combine to some extent the properties of both these classes. Each class has its representatives amongst both land and marine boilers. In “tank” boilers the outer shell is wholly or partially cylindrical, this form being one in which the necessary strength can be obtained without the use of a large number of stays. The boilers are generally internally fired, the furnace plates being surrounded with water and forming the most efficient portion of the heating surfaces. On leaving the furnace the products of combustion are led into a chamber and thence through flues or through numerous small tubes which serve to transmit some of the heat of combustion to the water contained in the boiler. In “water-tube” boilers the fire is usually placed under a collection of tubes containing water and forming the major portion of the heating surface of the boiler. Both the fire and the tubes are enclosed in an outer casing of brickwork or other fire-resisting substance. In some forms of water-tube boiler the fire is entirely surrounded by water-tubes and the casing is in no part exposed to the direct action of the fire. In “tank” boilers generally no difficulty is experienced in keeping all the heating surfaces in close contact with water, but in “water-tube” boilers special provision has to be made in the design for maintaining the circulation of water through the tubes. (For “flash” boilers see [Motor Vehicles], and for domestic hot-water boilers [Heating].)

Tank Boilers.—Of large stationary boilers the forms most commonly used are those known as the “Lancashire” boiler, and its modification the “Galloway” boiler. These boilers are made from 26 to 30 ft. long, with diameters from 6½ to Lancashire. 8 ft., and have two cylindrical furnace flues which in the “Lancashire” boiler extend for its whole length (see fig. 3). The working pressure is about 60 ℔ per sq. in. in the older boilers, from 100 ℔ to 120 ℔ per sq. in. in those supplying steam to compound engines, and from 150 to 170 ℔ where triple expansion engines are used. In some cases they have been constructed for a pressure of 200 ℔ per sq. in. The furnace flues are usually made in sections from 3 to 3½ ft. long. Each section consists of one plate bent into a cylindrical form, the longitudinal joint being welded, and is flanged at both ends, the various pieces being joined together by an “Adamson” joint (fig. 1.). It will be seen that these joints do not expose either rivets or double thickness of plate to the action of the fire; they further serve as stiffening rings to prevent collapse of the flue. In most of these boilers the heating surface is increased by fitting in the furnace flues a number of “Galloway” tubes. These are conical tubes, made with a flange at each end, by means of which they are connected to the furnace plate. They are so proportioned that the diameter of the large end of the tube is slightly greater than that of the flange of the small end; this enables them to be readily removed and replaced if necessary. These tubes not only add to the heating surface, but they stiffen the flue, promote circulation of the water in the boiler, and by mixing up the flue gases improve the evaporative efficiency.

In the “Galloway” boiler the two furnaces extend only for about 9 or 10 ft. into the boiler, and lead into a large chamber or flue in which a number of “Galloway” tubes are fitted, and which extends from the furnace end to the end of the boiler. A cross section of this flue showing the distribution of the Galloway tubes is shown in fig. 2. When boilers less than about 6½ ft. in diameter are needed, a somewhat similar type to the Lancashire boiler is used containing only one furnace. This is called a “Cornish” boiler.

In all three types of boiler the brickwork is constructed to form one central flue passing along the bottom of the boiler and two side flues extending up the side nearly to the water-level. A cross section of the brickwork is shown in fig. 2. The usual arrangement is for the flue gases to be divided as they leave the internal flue; one-half returns along each side flue to the front of the boiler, and the whole then passes downwards into the central flue, travelling under the bottom of the boiler until the gases again reach the back end, where they pass into the chimney. In a few cases the arrangement is reversed, the gases first passing along the bottom flue and returning along the side flues. This latter arrangement, whilst promoting a more rapid circulation of water, has the disadvantage of requiring two dampers, and it is not suitable for those cases in which heavy deposits form on the bottoms of the boilers.

Where floor space is limited and also for small installations, other forms of cylindrical boilers are used, most of them being of the vertical type. That most commonly used is the simple vertical boiler, with a plain vertical fire-box, and an internal Vertical. smoke stack traversing the steam space. The fire-box is made slightly tapering in diameter, the space between it and the shell being filled with water. In all but the small sizes cross tubes are generally fitted. These are made about 9 in. in diameter of 3⁄8-in. plate flanged at each end to enable them to be riveted to the fire-box plates. They are usually fitted with a slight inclination to facilitate water circulation. and a hand-hole closed by a suitable door is provided in the outer shell opposite to each tube for cleaning purposes. A boiler of this kind is illustrated in fig. 4. This form is often used on board ship for auxiliary purposes. Where more heating surface is required than can be obtained in the cross-tube boiler other types of vertical boiler are employed. For instance, in the “Tyne” boiler (fig. 5) the furnace is hemispherical, and the products of combustion are led into an upper combustion chamber traversed by four or more inclined water-tubes of about 9 in. diameter and by several vertical water-tubes of less diameter. In the “Victoria” boiler made by Messrs Clarke, Chapman & Co., and illustrated in fig. 6, the furnace is hemispherical; the furnace gases are led to an internal combustion chamber, and thence through numerous horizontal smoke-tubes to a smoke-box placed on the side of the boiler. In the somewhat similar boiler known as the “Cochran,” the combustion chamber is made with a “dry” back. Instead of a water space at the back of the chamber, doors lined with firebrick are fitted. These give easy access to the tube ends.

The cylindrical multitubular return tube boiler is in almost universal use in merchant steamers. It is made in various sizes ranging up to 17 ft. in diameter, the usual working pressure being from 160 to 200 ℔ Marine. per sq. in., although in some few cases pressures of 265 ℔ per sq. in. are in use. These boilers are of two types, double- and single-ended. In single-ended boilers, which are those most generally used, the furnaces are fitted at one end only and vary in number from one in the smallest boiler to four in the largest. Three furnaces are the most usual practice. Each furnace generally has its own separate combustion chamber. In four furnace boilers, however, one chamber is sometimes made common to the two middle furnaces, and sometimes one chamber is fitted to each pair of side furnaces. In double-ended boilers furnaces are fitted at each end. In some cases each furnace has a separate combustion chamber, but more usually one chamber is made to serve for two furnaces, one at each end of the boiler. The two types of boilers are shown in figs. 7 and 8, which illustrate boilers made by Messrs D. Rowan & Co. of Glasgow, and which may be taken as representing good modern practice. The furnaces used in the smaller sizes are often of the plain cylindrical type, the thickness of plate varying from 3⁄8 in. up to ¾ in. according to the diameter of the furnace and the working pressure. Occasionally furnaces with “Adamson” joints similar to those used in Lancashire boilers are employed, but for large furnaces and for high pressures corrugated or ribbed furnaces are usually adopted. Sketches of the sections of these are shown in fig. 9. The sections of the Morison, Fox and Deighton types are made from plates originally rolled of a uniform thickness, made into a cylindrical form with a welded longitudinal joint and then corrugated, the only difference between them being in the shapes of the corrugations. In the other three types the plates from which the furnaces are made are rolled with ribs or thickened portions at distances of 9 in. These furnaces are stronger to resist collapse than plain furnaces of the same thickness, and accommodate themselves more readily to changes of temperature.

There are two distinct types of connexion between the furnaces and the combustion chambers. In one, shown in fig. 8, the furnace is flanged at the crown portion for riveting to the tube plate, and the lower part of the furnace is riveted to the “wrapper” or side plate of the combustion chamber. In the other type, shown in fig. 7, and known generally as the “Gourlay back end,” the end of the furnace is contracted into an oval conical form, and is then flanged outwards round the whole of its circumference. The tube plate is made to extend to the bottom of the combustion chamber, and the furnace is riveted to the tube plate. The advantage of the Gourlay back end is that in case of accident to the furnace it can be removed from the boiler and be replaced by one of the same design without disturbing the end plates, which is not possible with the other design. The Gourlay back end, however, is not so stiff as the other, and more longitudinal stays are required in the boiler.

The flat sides and backs of the combustion chambers are stayed either to one another or to the shell of the boiler by numerous screw stays which are screwed through the two plates they connect, and which are nearly always fitted with nuts inside the combustion chambers. The tops of the chambers are usually stayed by strong girders resting upon the tube plates and chamber back plates. In a few cases, however, they are stayed by vertical stays attached to T bars riveted to the boiler shell. A few boilers are made in which the chamber tops are strengthened by heavy transverse girder plates. The end plates of the boiler in the steam space and below the combustion chambers are stayed by longitudinal stays passing through the whole length of the boiler and secured by double nuts at each end. The tube plates are strengthened by stay tubes screwed into them.

Where natural or chimney draught is used the tubes are generally made 3 or 3¼ in. outside diameter and are rarely more than 7 ft. long, but where “forced” draught is employed they are usually made 2½ in. diameter and 8 to 8½ ft. long. A clear space of 1¼ in. between the tubes is almost always arranged for, irrespective of size of tubes.

Stay tubes are screwed at both ends, the threads of the two ends being continuous so that they can be screwed into both tube plates; occasionally nuts are fitted to the front ends. The stay tubes are expanded into the plates and then beaded over.

The locomotive boiler consists of a cylindrical barrel attached to a portion containing the fire-box, which is nearly rectangular both in horizontal and vertical section. The fire-box sides are stayed to the fire-box shell by numerous stays about Locomotive. 1 in. in diameter, usually pitched 4 in. apart both vertically and horizontally. The top of the fire-box in small boilers is stayed by means of girder stays running longitudinally and supported at the ends upon the tube plate and the opposite fire-box plate. In some boilers the girders are partly supported by slings from the crown of the boiler. In larger boilers the crown of the boiler above the fire-box is made flat and the fire-box crown is supported by vertical stays connecting it with the shell crown. Provision is generally made for the expansion of the tube plate, which is of copper, by allowing the two or three cross rows of stays nearest the tube plate to have freedom of motion upwards but not downwards. The ordinary tubes are usually 1¾ in. diameter. The fire-bars are generally, though not always, made to slope downwards away from the fire door, and just below the lowest tubes a fire-bridge or baffle is fitted, extending about half-way from the tube plate to the fire-door side of the fire-box. In some cases water-tubes are fitted, extending right across the fire-box. In a boiler for the London & South-Western Railway Co., having a grate area of 31.5 sq. ft. and a total heating surface of 2727 sq. ft., there are 112 water-tubes each 2¾ in. diameter. These are arranged in two clusters, each containing 56, one set being placed above the fire-bridge, and the other set nearer the fire-door end of the boiler. The water-tubes are of seamless steel, and are expanded into the fire-box side plates. In way of these tubes the outer shell side plates are supported by stay bars passing right through the water-tubes. The usual pressure of locomotive boilers is about 175 ℔ to 200 ℔ per sq. in.

A good example of an express locomotive boiler is shown in fig. 10. In this case the grate area is 30.9 sq. ft. and the heating surface 2500 sq. ft. The barrel is 5 ft. 6 in. diameter, 16 ft. long between tube plates. The fire-box crown is stayed by vertical stays extending to the shell crown, except for the three rows of stays nearest the tube plates. These are supported by cross girders resting upon brackets secured to the outer shell.

Water-Tube Boilers.—The “Babcock & Wilcox” boiler, as fitted for land purposes, and illustrated in fig. 11, consists of a horizontal cylinder forming a steam chest, having dished ends and two specially constructed cross-boxes riveted to the Babcock and Wilcox stationary. bottom. Under the cylinder is placed a sloping nest of tubes, under the upper end of which is the fire. The sides and back of the boiler are enclosed in brickwork up to the height of the centre of the horizontal cylinder and the front is fitted with an iron casing lined with brick at the lower part. Suitable brickwork baffles are arranged between the tubes themselves, and between the nests of tubes and the cylinder, to ensure a proper circulation of the products of combustion, which are made to pass between the tubes three times. The nest of tubes consists of several separate elements, each formed by a front and back header made of wrought steel of sinuous form connected by a number of tubes. The upper ends of the front headers are connected by short tubes to the front cross-box of the horizontal cylinder, the lower ends being closed. The upper ends of the back headers are connected by longer pipes to the back cross-box, and their lower ends by short pipes to a horizontal mud drum to which a blow-off cock and pipe are attached. The headers are furnished with holes on two opposite sides; those on one side form the means of connexion between the headers and tubes, and the others allow access for fixing the tubes in position and cleaning. The outer holes are oval, and closed by special fittings shown in fig. 18, the watertightness of the joints being secured by the outer cover plates. The holes being oval, the inside fitting can be placed in position from outside, and it is so made as to cover the opening and prevent any great outrush of steam or water should the bolt break. Any desired working pressure can be provided for in these boilers; in some special cases it rises as high as 500 ℔ per sq. in., but a more usual pressure is 180 ℔ Like all water-tube boilers, they require to be frequently cleaned if impure feed-water is used, but the straightness of their tubes enables their condition to be ascertained at any time when the boiler is out of use, and any accumulation of scale to be removed. The superheaters, which are frequently fitted, consist of two cross-boxes or headers placed transversely under the cylindrical drum and connected by numerous C-shaped tubes. They are situated between the tubes and the steam-chest, and are exposed to the heat of the furnace gases after their first passage across the tubes. The steam is taken by an internal pipe passing through the bottom of the drum into the upper cross-box, then through the C tubes into the lower box, and thence to the steam pipe. When steam is being raised, the superheater is flooded with water, which is drained out through a blow-off pipe before communication is opened with the steam-pipe. In large boilers of this type, two steam-chests are placed side by side connected together by two cross steam pipes and by the mud drum. Each, however, has its own separate feed supply. The largest boiler made has two steam chests 4½ ft. diameter by 25½ ft. long, a grate surface of 85 sq. ft., and a total heating surface of 6182 sq. ft.

Another type of water-tube boiler in use for stationary purposes is the “Stirling” (fig. 12). This boiler consists of four or five horizontal drums, of which the three upper form the steam-space, and the one or two lower contain water. Stirling. The lower drums, where two are fitted, are connected to each other at about the middle of their height by horizontal tubes, and to the upper drums by numerous nearly vertical tubes which form the major portion of the heating surfaces. The central upper drum is at a slightly higher level than the others, and communicates with that nearest the back of the boiler by a set of curved tubes entirely above the water-level, and with the front drum by two sets—the upper one being above and the lower below the water-level. The whole boiler is enclosed in brickwork, into which the supporting columns and girders are built. Brickwork baffles compel the furnace gases to take specified courses among the tubes. It will be seen that the space between the boiler front and the tubes form a large combustion chamber into which all the furnace gases must pass before they enter the spaces between the tubes; in this chamber a baffle-bridge is sometimes built. Another chamber is formed between the first and second sets of tubes. The feed-water enters the back upper drum, and must pass down the third set of tubes into the lower drum before it reaches the other parts of the boiler. Thus the coldest water is always where the temperature of the furnace gases is lowest; and as the current through the lower drum is slight, the solid matters separated from the feed-water while its temperature is being raised have an opportunity of settling to the bottom of this drum, where the heating is not great and where therefore their presence will not be injurious. When superheaters are required, they are made of two drums connected by numerous small tubes, and are somewhat similar in construction to the boiler proper. The superheater is placed between the first and second sets of tubes, where it is exposed to the furnace gases before too much heat has been taken from them. Arrangements are provided for flooding the superheater while steam is being raised, and for draining it before the steam is passed through it.

A somewhat similar boiler is made by Messrs. Clarke, Chapman & Co., and is known as the “Woodeson” boiler (fig. 13). It consists of three upper drums placed side by side connected together by numerous short tubes, some above and some Woodeson. below the water-level, and of three smaller lower drums also connected by short cross tubes. The upper and lower drums are connected by numerous nearly vertical straight tubes. The whole is enclosed in firebrick casing. The design permits of the insides of all the tubes being readily inspected, and also of any tube being taken out and renewed without displacing any other part of the boiler.

The earliest form of water-tube boiler which came into general use in the British navy is the Belleville. Two views of this boiler are shown in fig. 14. It is composed of two parts, the boiler proper and the “economizer.” Each of these consists of Belleville. several sets of elements placed side by side; those of the boiler proper are situated immediately over the fire, and those of the economizer in the uptake above the boiler, the intervening space being designed to act as a combustion chamber. Each element is constructed of a number of straight tubes connected at their ends by means of screwed joints to junction-boxes which are made of malleable cast iron. These are arranged vertically over one another, and except in the case of the upper and lower ones at the front of the boiler, each connects the upper end of one tube with the lower end of the next tube of the element. The boxes at the back of the boiler are all close-ended, but those at the front are provided with a small oval hole, opposite to each tube end, closed by an internal door with bolt and cross-bar; the purpose of these openings is to permit the inside of the tubes to be examined and cleaned. The lower front box of each element of the boiler proper is connected to a horizontal cross-tube of square section, called a “feed-collector,” which extends the whole width of the boiler. When the boiler is not in use, any element can be readily disconnected and a spare one inserted. The lower part of the steam-chest is connected to the feed-collector by vertical pipes at each end of the boiler, and prolongations of these pipes below the level of the feed-collector form closed pockets for the collection of sediment. The tubes are made of seamless steel. They are generally about 4½ in. in external diameter: the two lower rows are 3⁄8 in. thick, the next two rows 5⁄16 and the remainder about 1⁄5 in. The construction of the economizer is similar to that of the boiler proper, but the tubes are shorter and smaller, being generally about 2¾ in. in diameter. The lower boxes of the economizer elements are connected to a horizontal feed pipe which is kept supplied with water by a feed-pumping engine, and the upper boxes are connected to another horizontal pipe from which the heated feed-water is taken into the steam-chest. Both the boiler proper and the economizer are enclosed in a casing which is formed of two thicknesses of thin iron separated by non-conducting material and lined with firebrick at the part between the fire-bar level and the lower rows of tubes. Along the front of the boiler, above the level of the firing-doors, there is a small tube having several nozzles directed across the fire-grate, and supplied with compressed air at a pressure of about 10 ℔ per sq. in. In this way not only is additional air supplied, but the gases issuing from the fire are stirred up and mixed, their combustion being thereby facilitated before they pass into the spaces between the tubes. A similar air-tube is provided for the space between the boiler proper and the economizer. Any water suspended in the steam is separated in a special separator fitted in the main steam-pipe, and the steam is further dried by passing through a reducing-valve, which ensures a steady pressure on the engine side of the valve, notwithstanding fluctuations of pressure in the boiler. The boiler pressure is usually maintained at about 50 ℔ per sq. in. in excess of that at which the engines are working, the excess forming a reservoir of energy to provide for irregular firing or feeding.

Another type of large-tube boiler which has been used in the British and in other navies is the “Niclausse,” shown in fig. 15. It is also in use on land in several electric-light installations. It consists of a horizontal steam-chest under Niclausse. which is placed a number of elements arranged side by side over the fire, the whole being enclosed in an iron casing lined with firebrick where it is exposed to the direct action of the fire. Each element consists of a header of rectangular cross-section, fitted with two rows of inclined close-ended tubes, which slope downwards towards the back of the boiler with an inclination of 6° to the horizontal. The headers are usually of malleable cast iron with diaphragms cast in them, but sometimes steel has been employed, the bottoms being closed by a riveted steel plate, and the diaphragms being made of the same material. The headers are bolted to socket-pieces which are riveted to the bottom of the steam-chest, so that any element may be easily removed. The tube-holes are accurately bored, at an angle to suit the inclination of the tubes, through both the front and back of the headers and through the diaphragm, those in the header walls being slightly conical. The tubes themselves, which are made of seamless steel, are of peculiar construction. The lower or back ends are reduced in diameter and screwed and fitted with cap-nuts which entirely close them. The front ends are thickened by being upset, and the parts where they fit into the header walls and in the diaphragm are carefully turned to gauge. The upper and lower parts of the tubes between these fitting portions are then cut away, the side portions only being retained, and the end is termed a “lanterne.” A small water-circulating tube of thin sheet steel, fitted inside each generating tube, is open at the lower end, and at the other is secured to a smaller “lanterne,” which, however, only extends from the front of the header to the diaphragm. This smaller “lanterne” closes the front end of the generating tube. The whole arrangement is such that when the tubes are in place only the small inner circulating tubes communicate with the space between the front of the header and the diaphragm, while the annular spaces in the generating tubes around the water-circulating tubes communicate only with the space between the diaphragm and the back of the header. The steam formed in the tubes escapes from them into this back space, through which it rises into the steam-chest, whilst the space in the front of the header always contains a down-current of water supplying the inner circulating tubes. The tubes are maintained in position by cross-bars, each secured by one stud-bolt screwed into the header front wall, and each serving to fix two tubes. The products of combustion ascend directly from the fire amongst the tubes, and the combustion is rendered more complete by the introduction of jets of high-pressure air immediately over the fire, as in the “Belleville” boiler.

The “Dürr” boiler, in use in several vessels in the German navy, and in a few vessels of the British navy, in some respects resembles the “Niclausse.” The separate headers of the latter, however, are replaced by one large water-chamber Dürr. formed of steel plates with welded joints, and instead of the tubes being secured by “lanternes” to two plates they are secured to the inner plate only by conical joints, the holes in the outer plate being closed by small round doors fitted from the inside. In fixing the tubes each is separately forced into its position by means of a small portable hydraulic jack. The lower ends of the caps are closed by cap-nuts made of a special heat-resisting alloy of copper and manganese. Circulation is provided for by a diaphragm in the water-chamber and by inner tubes as in the Niclausse boiler. Baffle plates are fitted amongst the tubes to ensure a circulation of the furnace gases amongst them. Above the main set of tubes is a smaller set arranged horizontally, and connected directly to the steam receiver. These are fitted with internal tubes, and an internal diaphragm is provided so that steam from the chest circulates through these tubes on its way to the stop-valves. This supplementary set of tubes is intended to serve as a superheater, but the amount of surface is not sufficient to obtain more than a very small amount of superheat.

The Yarrow boiler (fig. 16) is largely in use in the British and also in several other navies. It consists of a large cylindrical steam chest and two lower water-chambers, Yarrow. connected by numerous straight tubes. In the boilers for large vessels all the tubes are of 1¾ in. external diameter, but in the large express boilers the two rows nearest to the fire on each side are of 1¼ in. and the remainder of 1 in. diameter. They are arranged with their centres forming equilateral triangles, and are spaced so that they can be cleaned externally both from the front of the boiler and also cross-ways in two directions. In some boilers the lower part of the steam-chest is connected with the water-chambers by large pipes outside the casings with the view of improving the circulation.

The largest size of single-ended large tube boiler in use has a steam drum 4 ft. 2 in. diameter, a grate area of 73.5 sq. ft. and 3750 sq. ft. of heating surface, but much larger double-ended boilers have been made, these being fired from both ends.

In most of the boilers made, access to the inside is obtained by manholes in the steam-chest and water-chamber ends, but in the smaller sizes fitted in torpedo boats the water-chambers are too small for this, and they are each arranged in two parts connected by a bolted joint, which makes all the tube ends accessible.

The Babcock & Wilcox marine boiler (fig. 17) is much used in the American and British navies, and it has also been used in several yachts and merchant steamers. It consists of a horizontal cylindrical steam-chest placed transversely over a group of elements, beneath which is the fire, the whole being enclosed in an iron casing lined with firebrick. Each element consists of a front and back header connected by numerous water-tubes which have a considerable inclination to facilitate the circulation. The upper ends of the front headers are situated immediately under the steam-chest and are connected to it by short nipples; by a similar means they are connected at the bottom to a pipe of square section which extends across the width of the boiler. Additional connexions are made by nearly vertical tubes between this cross-pipe and the bottom of the steam-chest. The back headers are each connected at their upper ends by means of two long horizontal tubes with the steam-chest, the bottom ends of the headers being closed. The headers are made of wrought steel, and except the outer pairs, which are flat on the outer portions, they are sinuous on both sides, the sinuosities fitting into one another. The tubes are of two sizes, the two lower rows and the return tubes between the back headers and steam-chest being 315⁄16 in. outside diameter, and the remaining tubes 113⁄16 in. The small tubes are arranged in groups of two or four to nearly all of the sinuosities of the headers, the purpose of this arrangement being to give opportunities for the furnace gases to become well mixed together, and to ensure their contact with the heating surfaces. Access for securing the tubes in the headers is provided by a hole formed on the other side of the header opposite each of the tubes, where they are grouped in fours, and by one larger hole opposite each group of two tubes. The larger holes are oval, and are closed by fittings similar to those used in the land boiler (fig. 18). The smaller holes are conical, with the larger diameter on the inside, and are closed by special conical fittings: the conical portion and bolt are one forging, and the nut is close-ended. In case of the breakage of the bolt, the fitting would be retained in place by the steam-pressure. A set of firebrick baffles is placed so as to cover rather more than half of the spaces between the upper of the two bottom rows of large tubes, and another set of baffles covers about two-thirds of the spaces between the upper small tubes. Vertical baffles are also built between the smaller tubes, as shown in the longitudinal section. These baffles compel the products of combustion to circulate among the tubes in the direction shown by the arrows. Experience has shown that this arrangement gives a better evaporative efficiency than where the furnace gases are allowed to pass unbaffled straight up between the tubes. The boilers are usually fitted in pairs placed back to back, and one side of each is always made accessible. On this side the casing is provided with numerous small doors, through any of which a steam jet can be inserted for the purpose of sweeping the tubes.

A class of water-tube boilers largely in use in torpedo-boat destroyers and cruisers, where the maximum of power is required in proportion to the total weight of the installation, is generally known as express boilers. In these the tubes Express boilers. are made of smaller diameter than those used in the boilers already described, and the boilers are designed to admit of a high rate of combustion of fuel obtained by a high degree of “forced draught.” Of these express boilers the Yarrow is of similar construction to the large tube Yarrow boiler already described with the exception that the tubes are smaller in diameter and much more closely arranged.

In the Normand boiler (fig. 19) there are three chambers as in the Yarrow, connected together by a large number of bent tubes which form the heating surface, and also connected at each end by large outside circulating tubes. The two outer rows Normand. of heating tubes on each side are arranged to touch one another to nearly their whole length so as to form a “water-wall” for the protection of the outer casing. They enter the steam-chest at about the water-level. The two inner rows of tubes, which are bent to the form shown in the figure, also form a water-wall for the larger portion of the length of the boiler, and thus compel the products of combustion to pass in a definite course amongst all the tubes. In the Blechynden and White-Foster boilers there are also three chambers connected by bent tubes, the curvature being so arranged that in the former boiler any of the tubes can be taken out of the boiler through small doors provided in the upper part of the steam-chest, and in the White-Foster boiler they can be taken out through the manhole in the end of the steam-chest.

In the Reed boiler the tubes are longer and more curved than in the Normand boiler, and there are no “water-walls,” the products of combustion passing from the fire-grate amongst all the tubes direct to the chimney. The special feature of Reed. the boiler is that each tube, instead of being expanded into the tube plate, is fitted at each end with specially designed screw and nut connexions to enable them to be quickly taken out and replaced if necessary. At their lower ends the tubes are reduced in diameter to enable smaller chambers to be used than would otherwise be necessary. Provision is made for access to the lower tube ends by means of numerous doors in the water-chambers. Access to the top ends is obtained in the steam-chest.

Messrs John I. Thornycroft & Co. make two forms of express boiler. One called the Thornycroft boiler consists of three chambers connected by tubes which are straight for the major portion of their length but bent at each end to enable Thornycroft. them to enter the steam- and water-chambers normally. The outer rows of tubes form “water-walls” at their lower parts, but permit the passage of the gases between them at their upper ends. Similarly the inner rows form “water-walls” at their upper parts, but are open at the lower ends. The products of combustion are thus compelled to pass over the whole of the heating surfaces. The fire-rows of tubes in this boiler are made 13⁄8 in. outside diameter and the remainder are made 11⁄8 in. diameter. Large outside circulating pipes are provided at the front end of the boiler.

In the other type of boiler, known as the Thornycroft-Schulz boiler (fig. 20), there are four chambers, and the fire-grate is arranged in two separate portions. The two outermost rows of tubes on each side are arranged to form water-walls at Thornycroft-Schulz. their lower part, and permit the gases to pass between them at the upper part. The rows nearest the fires are arranged similarly to those in the Thornycroft boiler. Circulation in the outer sets of tubes is arranged for by outer circulating pipes of large diameter connecting the steam- and water-chambers. For the middle water-chamber several nearly vertical down-comers are provided in the centre of the boiler. Boilers of this type are extensively used in the British and German navies.

Material of Boilers.—In ordinary land boilers and in marine boilers of all types the plates and stays are almost invariably made of mild steel. For the shell plates and for long stays, a quality having a tensile strength ranging from 28 to 32 tons per sq. in. is usually employed, and for furnaces and flues, for plates which have to be flanged, and for short-screwed stays, a somewhat softer steel with a strength ranging from 26 to 30 tons per sq. in. is used. The tubes of ordinary land and marine boilers are usually made of lap-welded wrought iron. In water-tube boilers for naval purposes seamless steel tubes are invariably used. In locomotive boilers the shells are generally of mild steel, the fire-box plates of copper (in America of steel), the fire-box side stays of copper or special bronze, and other stays of steel. The tubes are usually of brass with a composition either of two parts by weight of copper to one of zinc or 70% copper, 30% zinc; sometimes, however, copper tubes and occasionally steel tubes are used. Where water tubes are used they are made of seamless steel.

Boiler Accessories.—All boilers must be provided with certain mountings and accessories. The water-level in them must be kept above the highest part of the heating surfaces. In some land boilers, and in some of the water-tube boilers used on shipboard, the feeding is automatically regulated by mechanism actuated by a float, but in these cases means of regulating the feed-supply by hand are also provided. In most boilers hand regulation only is relied upon. The actual level of water in the boiler is ascertained by a glass water-gauge, which consists of a glass tube and three cocks, two communicating directly with the boiler, one above and one below the desired water-level, and the third acting as a blow-out for cleaning the gauge and for testing its working. Three small try-cocks are also fitted, one just at, one above, and one below the proper water-level. The feeding of the boiler is sometimes performed by a pump driven from the main engine, sometimes by an independent steam-pump, and sometimes by means of an injector. The feed-water is admitted by a “check-valve,” the lift of which is regulated by a screw and hand-wheel, and which when the feed-pump is not working is kept on its seating by the boiler pressure.

Every boiler is in addition supplied with a steam-gauge to indicate the steam-pressure, with a stop-valve for regulating the admission of steam to the steam-pipes, and with one or two safety-valves. These last in stationary boilers usually consist of valves kept in their seats against the steam-pressure in the boiler by levers carrying weights, but in marine and locomotive boilers the valves are kept closed by means of steel springs. One at least of the safety-valves is fitted with easing gear by which it can be lifted at any time for blowing off the steam. Blow-out cocks are fitted for emptying the boiler.

Openings must always be made in boilers for access for cleaning and examination. When these are large enough to allow a man to enter the boiler they are termed man-holes. They are usually made oval, as this shape permits the doors by which they are closed to be placed on the inside so that the pressure upon them tends to keep them shut. The doors are held in place by one or two bolts, secured to cross-bars or “dogs” outside the boiler. It is important in making these doors that they should fit the holes so accurately that the jointing material cannot be forced out of its proper position. In the few cases where doors are fitted outside a boiler, so that the steam-pressure tends to open them, they are always secured by several bolts so that the breakage of one bolt will not allow the door to be forced off.

Water-softening.—Seeing that the impurities contained in the feed-water are not evaporated in the steam they become concentrated in the boiler water. Most of them become precipitated in the boiler either in the form of mud or else as scale which forms on the heating surfaces. Some of the mud and such of the impurities as remain soluble may be removed by means of the blow-off cocks, but the scale can only be removed by periodical cleaning. Incrustations on the heating surface not only lessen the efficiency of the boiler by obstructing the transmission of heat through the plates and tubes, but if excessive they become a source of considerable danger by permitting the plates to become overheated and thereby weakened. When the feed-water is very impure, therefore, the boilers used are those which permit of very easy cleaning, such as the Lancashire, Galloway and Cornish types, to the exclusion of multitubular or water-tube boilers in which thorough cleaning is more difficult. In other cases, however, the feed-water is purified by passing it through some type of “softener” before pumping it into the boiler. Most of the impurities in ordinary feed-water are either lime or magnesia salts, which although soluble in cold water are much less so in hot water. In the “softener” measured quantities of feed-water and of some chemical reagents are thoroughly mixed and at the same time the temperature is raised either by exhaust steam or by other means. Most of the impurity is thus precipitated, and some of the remainder is converted into more soluble salts which remain in solution in the boiler until blown out. The water is filtered before being pumped into the boiler. The quantity and kind of chemical employed is determined according to the nature and amount of the impurity in the “hard” feed-water.

Thermal Storage.—In some cases where the work required is very intermittent, “thermal storage” is employed. Above the boiler a large cylindrical storage vessel is placed, having sufficient capacity to contain enough feed-water to supply the boiler throughout the periods when the maximum output is required. The upper part of this storage vessel is always in free communication with the steam space of the boiler, and from the lower part of it the feed-water may be run into the boiler when required. The feed-water is delivered into the upper part of the vessel, and arrangements are made by which before it falls to the bottom of the chamber it runs over very extended surfaces exposed to the steam, its temperature being thus raised to that of the steam. At times when less than the normal supply of steam is required for the engine more than the average quantity of feed-water is pumped into the chamber, and the excess accumulates with its temperature raised to the evaporation point. When an extra supply of steam is required, the feed-pump is stopped and the boiler is fed with the hot water stored in the chamber. Besides the “storage” effect, it is found that many of the impurities of the feed become deposited in the chamber, where they are comparatively harmless and from which they are readily removable.

Oil Separators.—When the steam from the engines is condensed and used as feed-water, as is the case with marine boilers, much difficulty is often experienced with the oil which passes over with the steam. Feed-filters are employed to stop the coarser particles of the oil, but some of the oil becomes “emulsified” or suspended in the water in such extremely minute particles that they pass through the finest filtering materials. On the evaporation of the water in the boiler, this oil is left as a thin film upon the heating surfaces, and by preventing the actual contact of water with the plates has been the cause of serious trouble. An attempt has been made to overcome the emulsion difficulty by uniformly mixing with the water a small quantity of solution of lime. On the water being raised in temperature the lime is precipitated, and the minute particles separated apparently attract the small globules of oil and become aggregated in sufficient size to deposit themselves in quiet parts of the boiler, whence they can be occasionally removed either by blowing out or by cleaning. Much, however, still remains to be done before the oil difficulty will be thoroughly removed.

Corrosion.—When chemicals of any kind are used to soften or purify feed-water it is essential that neither they nor the products they form should have a corrosive effect upon the boiler-plates, &c. Much of the corrosion which occasionally occurs has been traced to the action of the oxygen of the air which enters the boiler in solution in the feed-water, and the best practice now provides for the delivery of the feed into the boiler at such positions that the air evolved from it as it becomes heated passes direct to the steam space without having an opportunity of becoming disengaged upon the under-water surfaces of the boiler.

Where corrosion is feared it is usual to fit zinc slabs in the water spaces of the boiler. Experience shows that it is better to make them of rolled rather than of cast zinc, and to secure them on studs which can be kept bright, so as to ensure a direct metallic contact between the zinc and the boiler-plate. The function of the zinc is to set up galvanic action; it plays the part of the negative metal, and is dissolved while the metal of the shell is kept electro-positive. Care must always be taken that the fragments which break off the zinc as it wastes away cannot fall upon the heating surfaces of the boiler.

Evaporators.—In marine boilers the waste of water which occurs from leakages in the cycle of the evaporation in the boiler, use in the engine, condensation in the condenser and return to the boiler as feed-water, is made up by fresh water distilled from sea-water in “evaporators.” Of these there are many forms with different provisions for cleaning the coils, but they are all identical in principle. They are fed with sea-water, and means are provided for blowing out the brine produced in them when some of the water is evaporated. The heat required for the evaporation is obtained from live steam from the boilers, which is admitted into coils of copper pipe. The water condensed in these coils is returned direct to the feed-water, and the steam evaporated from the sea-water is led either into the low-pressure receiver of the steam-engine or into the condenser.

Efficiency of Boilers.—The useful work obtained from any boiler depends upon many considerations. For a high efficiency, that is, a large amount of steam produced in proportion to the amount of fuel consumed, different conditions have to be fulfilled from those required where a large output of steam from a given plant is of more importance than economy of fuel. For a high efficiency, completeness of combustion of fuel must be combined with sufficient heating surface to absorb so much of the heat produced as will reduce the temperature of the funnel gases to nearly that of steam. Completeness of combustion can only be obtained by admitting considerably more air to the fire than is theoretically necessary fully to oxidize the combustible portions of the fuel, and by providing sufficient time and opportunity for a thorough mixture of the air and furnace gases to take place before the temperature is lowered to that critical point below which combustion will not take place. It is generally considered that the amount of excess air required is nearly equal to that theoretically necessary; experience, however, tends to show that much less than this is really required if proper means are provided for ensuring an early complete mixture of the gases. Different means are needed to effect this with different kinds of coal, those necessary for properly burning Welsh coal being altogether unsuitable for use with North Country or Scottish coal. As all the excess air has to be raised to the same temperature as that of the really burnt gases, it follows that an excess of air passing through the fire lowers the temperature in the fire and flues, and therefore lessens the heat transmission; and as it leaves the boiler at a high temperature it carries off some of the heat produced. A reduction of the amount of air, therefore, may, by increasing the fire temperature and lessening the chimney waste, actually increase the efficiency even if at the same time it is accompanied by a slight incompleteness of combustion.

Mechanical Stoking.—Most boilers are hand-fired, a system involving much labour and frequent openings of the furnace doors, whereby large quantities of cold air are admitted above the fires. Many systems of mechanical stoking have been tried, but none has been found free from objections. That most usually employed is known as the “chain-grate” stoker. In this system, which is illustrated in fig. 13 (Woodeson boiler), the grate consists of a wide endless chain formed of short cast-iron bars; this passes over suitable drums at the front and back of the boiler, by the slow rotation of which the grate travels very slowly from front to back. The coal, which is broken small, is fed from a hopper over the whole width of the grate, the thickness of the fire being regulated by a door which can be raised or lowered as desired. Thus the volatile portions of the coal are distilled at the front of the fire, and pass over the incandescent fuel at the back end. The speed of travel is so regulated that by the time the remaining parts of the fuel reach the back end the combustion is nearly complete. It will be seen that the fire becomes thinner towards the back, and too much air is prevented from entering the thin portion by means of vanes actuated from the front of the boiler.

Draught.—In most boilers the draught necessary for combustion is “natural,” i.e. produced by a chimney. For marine purposes, although “natural” draught is the more common, many boiler installations are fitted with “forced” draught arrangements. Two distinct systems are used. In that known as the “closed stokehold” the stokehold compartment of the vessel is so closed that the only exit for air from it is through the fires. Air is driven into the stokehold by means of fans which are made so that they can maintain an air pressure in the stokehold above that of the outside atmosphere. This is the system almost universally adopted in war vessels, and it is used also in some fast passenger ships. The air pressure usually adopted in large vessels is that corresponding to a height of from 1 to 1½ in. of water, whilst so much as 4 in. is sometimes used in torpedo-boats and similar craft. This is, of course, in addition to the chimney-draught due to the height of the funnel. In the closed ashpit or Howden system, the stokehold is open, and fans drive the air round a number of tubes, situated in the uptake, through which the products of combustion pass on their way to the chimney. The air thus becomes heated, and part of it is then delivered into the ashpit below the fire and part into a casing round the furnace front from which it enters the furnace above the fire. In locomotive boilers the draught is produced by the blast or the exhaust steam. With natural draught a combustion of about 15 to 20 ℔ of coal per sq. ft. of grate area per hour can be obtained. With forced draught much greater rates can be maintained, ranging from 20 ℔ to 35 ℔ in the larger vessels with a moderate air pressure, to as much as 70 and even 80 ℔ per sq. ft. in the express types of boiler used in torpedo boats and similar craft.

Performance of Boilers.—The makers of several types of boilers have published particulars regarding the efficiency of the boilers they construct, but naturally these results have been obtained under the most favourable circumstances which may not always represent the conditions of ordinary working. The following table of actual results of marine boiler trials, made at the instance of the British admiralty, is particularly useful because the trials were made with great care under working conditions, the whole of the coal being weighed and the feed-water measured throughout the trials by skilled observers. The various trials can be compared amongst themselves as South Welsh coal of excellent quality was used in all cases.

In experimental tests such as those above referred to, many conditions have to be taken into account, the principal being the duration of the trial. It is essential that the condition of the boiler at the conclusion of the test should be precisely the same as at the commencement, both as regards the quantity of unconsumed coals on the fire-grate and the quantity of water and the steam-pressure in the boiler. The longer the period over which the observations are taken the less is the influence of errors in the estimation of these particulars. Further, in order properly to represent working conditions, the rate of combustion of the fuel throughout the trial must be the same as that intended to be used in ordinary working, and the duration of the test must be sufficient to include proportionately as much cleaning of fires as would occur under the normal working conditions. The tests should always be made with the kind of coal intended to be generally used, and the records should include a test of the calorific value of a sample of the fuel carefully selected so as fairly to represent the bulk of the coal used during the trial. The periodic records taken are the weights of the fuel used and of the ashes, &c., produced, the temperature and quantity of the feed-water, the steam pressure maintained, and the wetness of the steam produced. This last should be ascertained from samples taken from the steam pipe at a position where the full pressure is maintained. In order to reduce to a common standard observations taken under different conditions of feed temperatures and steam pressures, the results are calculated to an equivalent evaporation at the atmospheric pressure from a feed temperature of 212° F.

(J. T. Mi.)

Trials of Various Types of Marine Boilers

Boiler Making

The practice of the boiler, bridge and girder shops may here be conveniently treated together, because similar materials and methods are employed in each, notwithstanding that many points of divergence in practice generally relegate them to separate departments. The materials used are chiefly iron and steel. The methods mostly adopted are those involved in the working of plates and rolled sections, which vastly predominate over the bars and rods used chiefly in the smithy. But there are numerous differences in methods of construction. Flanging occupies a large place in boilermaking, for end-plates, tube-plates, furnace flues, &c., but is scarcely represented in bridge and girder work. Plates are bent to cylindrical shapes in boilermaking, for shells and furnaces, but not in girder work. Welding is much more common in the first than in the second, furnace flues being always welded and stand pipes frequently. In boiler work holes are generally drilled through the seams of adjacent plates. In bridge work each plate or bar is usually drilled or punched apart from its fellows. Boilers, again, being subject to high temperatures and pressures, must be constructed with provisions to ensure some elasticity and freedom of movement under varying temperatures to prevent fractures or grooving, and must be made of materials that combine high ductility with strength when heated to furnace temperatures. Flanging of certain parts, judicious staying, limitation of the length of the tubes, the forms of which are inherently weak, provide for the first; the selection of steel or iron of high percentage elongation, and the imposition of temper, or bending tests, both hot and cold, provide for the second.

The following are the leading features of present-day methods.

It might be hastily supposed that, because plates, angles, tees, channels and joist sections are rolled ready for use, little work could be left for the plater and boilermaker. But actually so much is involved that subdivisions of tasks are numerous; the operations of templet-making, rolling, planing, punching and shearing, bending, welding and forging, flanging, drilling, riveting, caulking, and tubing require the labours of several groups of machine attendants, and of gangs of unskilled labourers or helpers. Some operations also have to be done at a red or white heat, others cold. To the first belong flanging and welding, to the latter generally all the other operations. Heating is necessary for the rolling of tubes of small diameter; bending is done cold or hot according to circumstances.

The fact that some kinds of treatment, as shearing and punching, flanging and bending, are of a very violent character explains why practice has changed radically in regard to the method of performing these operations in cases where safety is a cardinal matter. Shearing and punching are both severely detrusive operations performed on cold metal; both leave jagged edges and, as experience has proved, very minute cracks, the tendency of which is to extend under subsequent stress, with liability to produce fracture. But it has been found that, when a shorn edge is planed and a punched hole enlarged by reamering, no harm results, provided not less than about 1⁄16 in. is removed. A great advance was therefore made when specifications first insisted on the removal of the rough edges before the parts were united.

In the work of riveting another evil long existed. When holes are punched it is practically impossible to ensure the exact coincidence of holes in different plates which have to be brought together for the purpose of riveting. From this followed the use of the drift,—a tapered rod driven forcibly by hammer blows through corresponding holes in adjacent plates, by which violent treatment the holes were forcibly drawn into alignment. This drifting stressed the plates, setting up permanent strains and enlarging incipient cracks, and many boiler explosions have been clearly traceable to the abuse of this tool. Then, next, specifications insisted that all holes should be enlarged by reamering after the plates were in place. But even that did not prove a safeguard, because it often happened that the metal reamered was nearly all removed from one side of a hole, so leaving the other side just as the punch had torn it. Ultimately came the era of drilling rivet-holes, to which there is no exception now in high-class boiler work. For average girder and bridge work the practice of punching and reamering is still in use, because the conditions of service are not so severe as are those in steam boilers.

Flanging signifies the turning or bending over of the edges of a plate to afford a means of union to other plates. Examples occur in the back end-plates of Lancashire and Cornish boilers, the front and back plates of marine boilers, the fire-boxes of locomotive boilers, the crowns of vertical boilers, the ends of conical cross-tubes, and the Adamson seams of furnace flues. This practice has superseded the older system of effecting union by means of rings forming two sides of a rectangular section (angle iron rings). These were a fruitful source of grooving and explosions in steam boilers, because their sharp angular form lacked elasticity; hence the reason for the substitution of a flange turned with a large radius, which afforded the elasticity necessary to counteract the effects of changes in temperature. In girder work where such conditions do not exist, the method of union with angles is of course retained. In the early days of flanging the process was performed in detail by a skilled workman (the angle ironsmith), and it is still so done in small establishments. A length of edge of about 10 in. or a foot is heated, and bent by hammering around the edge of a block of iron of suitable shape. Then another “heat” is taken and flanged, and another, until the work is complete. But in modern boiler shops little hand work is ever done; instead, plates 4 ft., 6 ft., or 8 ft. in diameter, and fire-box plates for locomotive boilers, have their entire flanges bent at a single squeeze between massive dies in a hydraulic press. In the case of the ends of marine boilers which are too large for such treatment, a special form of press bends the edges over in successive heats. The flanges of Adamson seams are rolled over in a special machine. A length of flue is rotated on a table, while the flange is turned over within a minute between revolving rollers. There is another advantage in the adoption of machine-flanging, besides the enormous saving of time, namely, that the material suffers far less injury than it does in hand-flanging.

These differences in practice would not have assumed such magnitude but for the introduction of mild steel in place of malleable iron. Iron suffers less from overheating and irregular heating than does steel. Steel possesses higher ductility, but it is also more liable to develop cracks if subjected to improper treatment. All this and much more is writ large in the early testing of steel, and is reflected in present-day practice.

A feature peculiar to the boiler and plating shops is the enormous number of rivet holes which have to be made, and of rivets to be inserted. These requirements are reflected in machine design. To punch or drill holes singly is too slow a process in the best practice, and so machines are made for producing many holes simultaneously. Besides this, the different sections of boilers are drilled in machines of different types, some for shells, some for furnaces, some peculiar to the shells or furnaces of one type of boilers, others to those of another type only. And generally now these machines not only drill, but can also be adjusted to drill to exact pitch, the necessity thus being avoided of marking out the holes as guides to the drills.

Hand-riveting has mostly been displaced by hydraulic and pneumatic machines, with resulting great saving in cost, and the advantage of more trustworthy and uniform results. For boiler work, machines are mostly of fixed type; for bridge and girder work they are portable, being slung from chains and provided with pressure water or compressed air by systems of flexible pipes.

Welding fills a large place in boiler work, but it is that of the edges of plates chiefly, predominating over that of the bars and rods of the smithy. The edges to be united are thin and long, so that short lengths have to be done in succession at successive “heats.” Much of this is hand work, and “gluts” or insertion pieces are generally preferred to overlapping joints. But in large shops, steam-driven power hammers are used for closing the welds. Parts that are commonly welded are the furnace flues, the conical cross-tubes and angle rings.

Another aspect of the work of these departments is the immense proportions of the modern machine tools used. This development is due in great degree to the substitution of steel for iron. The steel shell-plates of the largest boilers are 1½ in. thick, and these have to be bent into cylindrical forms. In the old days of iron boilers the capacity of rolls never exceeded about ¾ in. plate. Often, alternatively to rolling, these thick plates are bent by squeezing them in successive sections between huge blocks operated by hydraulic pressure acting on toggle levers. And other machines besides the rolls are made more massive than formerly to deal with the immense plates of modern marine boilers.

The boiler and plating shops have been affected by the general tendency to specialize manufactures. Firms have fallen into the practice of restricting their range of product, with increase in volume. The time has gone past when a single shop could turn out several classes of boilers, and undertake any bridge and girder work as well. One reason is to be found in the diminution of hand work and the growth of the machine tool. Almost every distinct operation on every section of a boiler or bridge may now be accomplished by one of several highly specialized machines. Repetitive operations are provided for thus, and by a system of templeting. If twenty or fifty similar boilers are made in a year, each plate, hole, flange or stay will be exactly like every similar one in the set. Dimensions of plates will be marked from a sample or templet plate, and holes will be marked similarly; or in many cases they are not marked at all, but pitched and drilled at once by self-acting mechanism embodied in drilling machines specially designed for one set of operations on one kind of plate. Hundreds of bracing bars for bridges and girders will be cut off all alike, and drilled or punched from a templet bar, so that they are ready to take their place in bridge or girder without any adjustments or fitting.

(J. G. H.)

BOILING TO DEATH, a punishment once common both in England and on the continent. The only extant legislative notice of it in England occurs in an act passed in 1531 during the reign of Henry VIII., providing that convicted poisoners should be boiled to death; it is, however, frequently mentioned earlier as a punishment for coining. The Chronicles of the Grey Friars (published by the Camden Society, 1852) have an account of boiling for poisoning at Smithfield in the year 1522, the man being fastened to a chain and lowered into boiling water several times until he died. The preamble of the statute of Henry VIII. (which made poisoning treason) in 1531 recites that one Richard Roose (or Coke), a cook, by putting poison in some food intended for the household of the bishop of Rochester and for the poor of the parish of Lambeth, killed a man and woman. He was found guilty of treason and sentenced to be boiled to death without benefit of clergy. He was publicly boiled at Smithfield. In the same year a maid-servant for poisoning her mistress was boiled at King’s Lynn. In 1542 Margaret Davy, a servant, for poisoning her employer, was boiled at Smithfield. In the reign of Edward VI., in 1547, the act was repealed.

See also W. Andrews, Old Time Punishments (Hull, 1890); Notes and Queries, vol. i. (1862), vol. ix. (1867); Du Cange (s.v. Caldariis decoquere).

BOIS BRÛLÉS, or Brulés (a French translation of their Indian name Sichangu), a sub-tribe of North American Dakota Indians (Teton river division). The name is most frequently associated with the half-breeds in Manitoba, who in 1869 came into temporary prominence in connexion with Riel’s Rebellion (see [Red River]); at that time they had lost all tribal purity, and were alternatively called Metis (half-castes), the majority being descendants of French-Canadians.

BOISÉ, a city and the county-seat of Ada county, Idaho, U.S.A., and the capital of the state, situated on the N. side of the Boisé river, in the S.W. part of the state, at an altitude of about 2700 ft. Pop. (1890) 2311; (1900) 5957; (1910) 17,358. It is served by the Oregon Short Line railway, being the terminus of a branch connecting with the main line at Nampa, about 20 m. W.; and by electric lines connecting with Caldwell and Nampa. The principal buildings are the state capitol, the United States assay office, a Carnegie library, a natatorium, and the Federal building, containing the post office, the United States circuit and district court rooms, and a U.S. land office. Boisé is the seat of the state school for the deaf and blind (1906), and just outside the city limits are the state soldiers’ home and the state penitentiary. About 2 m. from the city are Federal barracks. Hot water (175° F.) from artesian wells near the city is utilized for the natatorium and to heat many residences and public buildings. The Boisé valley is an excellent country for raising apples, prunes and other fruits. The manufactured products of the city are such as are demanded by a mining country, principally lumber, flour and machine-shop products. Boisé is the trade centre of the surrounding fruit-growing, agricultural and mining country, and is an important wool market. The oldest settlement in the vicinity was made by the Hudson’s Bay Fur Company on the west side of the Boisé river, before 1860; the present city, chartered in 1864, dates from 1863. After 1900 the city grew very rapidly, principally owing to the great irrigation schemes in southern Idaho; the water for the immense Boisé-Payette irrigation system is taken from the Boisé, 8 m. above the city. (See [Idaho].)

BOISGOBEY, FORTUNÉ DU (1824-1891), French writer of fiction, whose real surname was Castille, was born at Granville (Manche) on the 11th of September 1824. He served in the army pay department in Algeria from 1844 to 1848, and extended his travels to the East. He made his literary debut in the Petit journal with a story entitled Deux comédiens (1868). With Le Forçat colonel (1872) he became one of the most popular feuilleton writers. His police stories, though not so convincing as those of Émile Gaboriau, with whom his name is generally associated, had a great circulation, and many of them have been translated into English. Among his stories may be mentioned: Les Mystères du nouveau Paris (1876), Le Demi-Monde sous la Terreur (1877), Les Nuits de Constantinople (1882), Le Cri du sang (1885), La Main froide (1889). Boisgobey died on the 26th of February 1891.

BOISGUILBERT, PIERRE LE PESANT, Sieur de (1676-1714), French economist, was born at Rouen of an ancient noble family of Normandy, allied to that of Corneille. He received his classical education in Rouen, entered the magistracy and became judge at Montivilliers, near Havre. In 1690 he became president of the bailliage of Rouen, a post which he retained almost until his death, leaving it to his son. In these two situations he made a close study of local economic conditions, personally supervising the cultivation of his lands, and entering into relations with the principal merchants of Rouen. He was thus led to consider the misery of the people under the burden of taxation. In 1695 he published his principal work, Le Détail de la France; la cause de la diminution de ses biens, et la facilité du remède.... In it he drew a picture of the general ruin of all classes of Frenchmen, caused by the bad economic régime. In opposition to Colbert’s views he held that the wealth of a country consists, not in the abundance of money which it possesses but in what it produces and exchanges. The remedy for the evils of the time was not so much the reduction as the equalization of the imposts, which would allow the poor to consume more, raise the production and add to the general wealth. He demanded the reform of the taille, the suppression of internal customs duties and greater freedom of trade. In his Factum de la France, published in 1705 or 1706, he gave a more concise résumé of his ideas. But his proposal to substitute for all aides and customs duties a single capitation tax of a tenth of the revenue of all property was naturally opposed by the farmers of taxes and found little support. Indeed his work, written in a diffuse and inelegant style, passed almost unnoticed. Saint Simon relates that he once asked a hearing of the comte de Pontchartrain, saying that he would at first believe him mad, then become interested, and then see he was right. Pontchartrain bluntly told him that he did think him mad, and turned his back on him. With Michel de Chamillart, whom he had known as intendant of Rouen (1689-1690), he had no better success. Upon the disgrace of Vauban, whose Dîme royale had much in common with Boisguilbert’s plan, Boisguilbert violently attacked the controller in a pamphlet, Supplément au détail de la France. The book was seized and condemned, and its author exiled to Auvergne, though soon allowed to return. At last in 1710 the controller-general, Nicolas Desmarets, established a new impost, the “tenth” (dixième), which had some analogy with the project of Boisguilbert. Instead of replacing the former imposts, however, Desmarets simply added his dixième to them; the experiment was naturally disastrous, and the idea was abandoned.

In 1712 appeared a Testament politique de M. de Vauban, which is simply Boisguilbert’s Détail de la France. Vauban’s Dîme royale was formerly wrongly attributed to him. Boisguilbert’s works were collected by Daire in the first volume of the Collection des grands économistes. His letters are in the Correspondance des contrôleurs généraux, vol. i., published by M. de Boislisle.

BOISROBERT, FRANÇOIS LE METEL DE (1592-1662), French poet, was born at Caen in 1592. He was trained for the law, and practised for some time at the bar at Rouen. About 1622 he went to Paris, and by the next year had established a footing at court, for he had a share in the ballet of the Bacchanales performed at the Louvre in February. He accompanied an embassy to England in 1625, and in 1630 visited Rome, where he won the favour of Urban VIII. by his wit. He took orders, and was made a canon of Rouen. He had been introduced to Richelieu in 1623, and by his humour and his talent as a raconteur soon made himself indispensable to the cardinal. Boisrobert became one of the five poets who carried out Richelieu’s dramatic ideas. He had a passion for play, and was a friend of Ninon de l’Enclos; and his enemies found ready weapons against him in the undisguised looseness of his life. He was more than once disgraced, but never for long, although in his later years he was compelled to give more attention to his duties as a priest. It was Boisrobert who suggested to Richelieu the plan of the Academy, and he was one of its earliest and most active members. Rich as he was through the benefices conferred on him by his patron, he was liberal to men of letters. After the death of Richelieu, he attached himself to Mazarin, whom he served faithfully throughout the Fronde. He died on the 30th of March 1662. He wrote a number of comedies, to one of which, La Belle Plaideuse, Molière’s L’Avare is said to owe something; and also some volumes of verse. The licentious Contes, published under the name of his brother D’Ouville, are often attributed to him.

BOISSARD, JEAN JACQUES (1528-1602), French antiquary and Latin poet, was born at Besançon. He studied at Louvain; but, disgusted by the severity of his master, he secretly left that seminary, and after traversing a great part of Germany reached Italy, where he remained several years and was often reduced to great straits. His residence in Italy developed in his mind a taste for antiquities, and he soon formed a collection of the most curious monuments from Rome and its vicinity. He then visited the islands of the Archipelago, with the intention of travelling through Greece, but a severe illness obliged him to return to Rome. Here he resumed his favourite pursuits with great ardour, and having completed his collection, returned to his native country; but not being permitted to profess publicly the Protestant religion, which he had embraced some time before, he withdrew to Metz, where he died on the 30th of October 1602. His most important works are: Poemata (1574); Emblemata (1584); Icones Virorum Illustrium (1597); Vitae et Icones Sultanorum Turcicorum, &c. (1597); Theatrum Vitae Humanae (1596); Romanae Urbis Topographia (1597-1602), now very rare; De Divinatione et Magicis Praestigiis (1605); Habitus Variarum Orbis Gentium (1581), ornamented with seventy illuminated figures.

BOISSIER, MARIE LOUIS ANTOINE GASTON (1823-1908), French classical scholar, and secretary of the French Academy, was born at Nimes on the 15th of August 1823. The Roman monuments of his native town very early attracted Gaston Boissier to the study of ancient history. He made epigraphy his particular theme, and at the age of twenty-three became a professor of rhetoric at Angoulême, where he lived and worked for ten years without further ambition. A travelling inspector of the university, however, happened to hear him lecture, and Boissier was called to Paris to be professor at the Lycée Charlemagne. He began his literary career by a thesis on the poet Attius (1857) and a study on the life and work of M. Terentius Varro (1861). In 1861 he was made professor of Latin oratory at the Collège de France, and he became an active contributor to the Revue des deux mondes. In 1865 he published Cicéron et ses amis (Eng. trans, by A.D. Jones, 1897), which has enjoyed a success such as rarely falls to the lot of a work of erudition. In studying the manners of ancient Rome, Boissier had learned to re-create its society and to reproduce its characteristics with exquisite vivacity. In 1874 he published La Religion romaine d’Auguste aux Antonins (2 vols.), in which he analysed the great religious movement of antiquity that preceded the acceptance of Christianity. In L’Opposition sous les Césars (1875) he drew a remarkable picture of the political decadence of Rome under the early successors of Augustus. By this time Boissier had drawn to himself the universal respect of scholars and men of letters, and on the death of H.J.G. Patin, the author of Études sur les tragiques grecs, in 1876, he was elected a member of the French Academy, of which he was appointed perpetual secretary in 1895.

His later works include Promenades archéologiques: Rome et Pompéi (1880; second series, 1886); L’Afrique romaine, promenades archéologiques (1901); La Fin du paganisme (2 vols., 1891); Le Conjuration de Catilina (1905); Tacite (1903, Eng. trans, by W.G. Hutchison, 1906). He was a representative example of the French talent for lucidity and elegance applied with entire seriousness to weighty matters of literature. Though he devoted himself mainly to his great theme, the reconstruction of the elements of Roman society, he also wrote monographs on Madame de Sévigné (1887) and Saint-Simon (1892). He died in June 1908.

BOISSONADE DE FONTARABIE, JEAN FRANÇOIS (1774-1857), French classical scholar, was born at Paris on the 12th of August 1774. In 1792 he entered the public service during the administration of General Dumouriez. Driven from it in 1795, he was restored by Lucien Bonaparte, during whose time of office he served as secretary to the prefecture of the Upper Marne. He then definitely resigned public employment and devoted himself to the study of Greek. In 1809 he was appointed deputy professor of Greek at the faculty of letters at Paris, and titular professor in 1813 on the death of P.H. Larcher. In 1828 he succeeded J.B. Gail in the chair of Greek at the Collège de France. He also held the offices of librarian of the Bibliothèque du Roi, and of perpetual secretary of the Académie des Inscriptions. He died on the 8th of September 1857. Boissonade chiefly devoted his attention to later Greek literature: Philostratus, Heroica (1806) and Epistolae (1842); Marinus, Vita procli (1814); Tiberius Rhetor, De Figuris (1815); Nicetas Eugenianus, Drosilla et Charicles (1819); Herodian, Partitiones (1819); Aristaenetus, Epistolae (1822); Eunapius, Vitae Sophistarum (1822); Babrius, Fables (1844); Tzetzes, Allegoriae Iliados (1851); and a Collection of Greek Poets in 24 vols. The Anecdota Graeca (1829-1833) and Anecdota Nova (1844) are important for Byzantine history and the Greek grammarians.

A selection of his papers was published by F. Colincamp, Critique littéraire sous le premier Empire (1863), vol. i. of which contains a complete list of his works, and a “Notice Historique sur Monsieur B.,” by Naudet.

BOISSY D’ANGLAS, FRANÇOIS ANTOINE DE (1756-1828), French statesman, received a careful education and busied himself at first with literature. He had been a member of several provincial academies before coming to Paris, where he purchased a position as advocate to the parlement. In 1789 he was elected by the third estate of the sénéchaussée of Annonay as deputy to the states-general. He was one of those who induced the states-general to proclaim itself a National Assembly on the 17th of June 1789; approved, in several speeches, of the capture of the Bastille and of the taking of the royal family to Paris (October 1789); demanded that strict measures be taken against the royalists who were intriguing in the south of France, and published some pamphlets on finance. During the Legislative Assembly he was procureur-syndic for the directory of the department of Ardeche. Elected to the Convention, he sat in the centre, “le Marais,” voting in the trial of Louis XVI. for his detention until deportation should be judged expedient for the state. He was then sent on a mission to Lyons to investigate the frauds in connexion with the supplies of the army of the Alps. During the Terror he was one of those deputies of the centre who supported Robespierre; but he was gained over by the members of the Mountain hostile to Robespierre, and his support, along with that of some other leaders of the Marais, made possible the 9th Thermidor. He was then elected a member of the Committee of Public Safety and charged with the superintendence of the provisioning of Paris. He presented the report supporting the decree of the 3rd Ventose of the year III. which established liberty of worship. In the critical days of Germinal and of Prairial of the year III. he showed great courage. On the 12th Germinal he was in the tribune, reading a report on the food supplies, when the hall of the Convention was invaded by the rioters, and when they withdrew he quietly continued where he had been interrupted. On the 1st Prairial he presided over the Convention, and remained unmoved by the insults and menaces of the insurgents. When the head of the deputy, Jean Féraud, was presented to him on the end of a pike, he saluted it impassively. He was reporter of the committee which drew up the constitution of the year III., and his report shows keen apprehension of a return of the Reign of Terror, and presents reactionary measures as precautions against the re-establishment of “tyranny and anarchy.” This report, the proposal that he made (August 27, 1795) to lessen the severity of the revolutionary laws, and the eulogies he received from several Paris sections suspected of disloyalty to the republic, resulted in his being obliged to justify himself (October 15, 1795). As a member of the Council of the Five Hundred he became more and more suspected of royalism. He presented a measure in favour of full liberty for the press, which at that time was almost unanimously reactionary, protested against the outlawry of returned émigrés, spoke in favour of the deported priests and attacked the Directory. Accordingly he was proscribed on the 18th Fructidor, and lived in England until the Consulate. In 1801 he was made a member of the Tribunate, and in 1805 a senator. In 1814 he voted for Napoleon’s abdication, which won for him a seat in the chamber of peers; but during the Hundred Days he served Napoleon, and in consequence, on the second Restoration, was for a short while excluded. In the chamber he still sought to obtain liberty for the press—a theme upon which he published a volume of his speeches (Paris, 1817). He was a member of the Institute from its foundation, and in 1816, at the reorganization, became a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. He published in 1819-1821 a two-volume Essai sur la vie et les opinions de M. de Malesherbes.

See F.A. Aulard, Les Orateurs de la Révolution (2nd ed., 1906); L. Sciout, Le Directoire (4 vols., 1895); and the “Notice sur la vie et les œuvres de M. Boissy d’Anglas” in the Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions, ix.

(R. A.*)

BOITO, ARRIGO (1842-  ), Italian poet and musical composer, was born at Padua on the 24th of February 1842. He studied music at the Milan Conservatoire, but even in those early days he devoted as much of his time to literature as to music, forecasting the divided allegiance which was to be the chief characteristic of his life’s history. While at the Conservatoire he wrote and composed, in collaboration with Franco Faccio, a cantata, Le Sorelle d’Italia, which was performed with success. On completing his studies Boito travelled for some years, and after his return to Italy settled down in Milan, dividing his time between journalism and music. In 1866 he fought under Garibaldi, and in 1868 conducted the first performance of his opera Mefistofele at the Scala theatre, Milan. The work failed completely, and was withdrawn after a second performance. It was revived in 1875 at Bologna in a much altered and abbreviated form, when its success was beyond question. It was performed in London in 1880 with success, but in spite of frequent revivals has never succeeded in firmly establishing itself in popular favour. Boito treated the Faust legend in a spirit far more nearly akin to the conception of Goethe than is found in Gounod’s Faust, but, in spite of many isolated beauties, his opera lacks cohesion and dramatic interest. His energies were afterwards chiefly devoted to the composition of libretti, of which the principal are Otello and Falstaff, set to music by Verdi; La Gioconda, set by Ponchielli; Amleto, set by Faccio; and Ero e Leandre, set by Bottesini and Mancinelli. These works display a rare knowledge of the requirements of dramatic poetry, together with uncommon literary value. Boito also published a book of poems and a novel, L’Alfier Meno. The degree of doctor of music was conferred upon him in 1893 by the university of Cambridge.

BOIVIN, FRANÇOIS DE, Baron de Villars (d. 1618), French chronicler, entered the service of Charles, Marshal Brissac, as secretary, and accompanied him to Piedmont in 1550 when the marshal went to take command of the French troops in the war with Spain. Remaining in this service he was sent after the defeat of the French at St Quentin in 1557 to assure the French king Henry II. of the support of Brissac. He took part in the negotiations which led to the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis in April 1559, but was unable to prevent Henry II. from ceding the conquests made by Brissac. Boivin wrote Mémoires sur les guerres démêlées tant dans le Piémont qu’au Montferrat et duche de Milan par Charles de Cossé, comte de Brissac (Paris, 1607), which, in spite of some drawbacks, is valuable as the testimony of an eye-witness of the war. An edition, carefully revised, appears in the Mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France, tome x., edited by J.F. Michaud and J.J.F. Poujoulat (Paris, 1850). He also wrote Instruction sur les affaires d’état (Lyons, 1610).

See J. Lelong, Bibliothèque historique de la France (Paris, 1768-1778).

BOKENAM, OSBERN (1393?-1447?), English author, was born, by his own account, on the 6th of October 1393. Dr Horstmann suggests that he may have been a native of Bokeham, now Bookham, in Surrey, and derived his name from the place. In a concluding note to his Lives of the Saints he is described as “a Suffolke man, frere Austyn of Stoke Clare.” He travelled in Italy on at least two occasions, and in 1445 was a pilgrim to Santiago de Compostela. He wrote a series of thirteen legends of holy maidens and women. These are written chiefly in seven- and eight-lined stanzas, and nine of them are preceded by prologues. Bokenam was a follower of Chaucer and Lydgate, and doubtless had in mind Chaucer’s Legend of Good Women. His chief, but by no means his only, source was the Legenda Aurea of Jacobus de Voragine, archbishop of Genoa, whom he cites as “Januence.” The first of the legends, Vita Scae Margaretae, virginis et martiris, was written for his friend, Thomas Burgh, a Cambridge monk; others are dedicated to pious ladies who desired the history of their name-saints. The Arundel MS. 327 (British Museum) is a unique copy of Bokenam’s work; it was finished, according to the concluding note, in 1447, and presented by the scribe, Thomas Burgh, to a convent unnamed “that the nuns may remember him and his sister, Dame Betrice Burgh.” The poems were edited (1835) for the Roxburghe Club with the title Lyvys of Seyntys ..., and by Dr Carl Horstmann as Osbern Bokenams Legenden (Heilbronn, 1883), in E. Kölbing’s Altengl. Bibliothek, vol. i. Both editions include a dialogue written in Latin and English taken from Dugdale’s Monasticon Anglicanum (ed. 1846, vol. vi. p. 1600); “this dialogue betwixt a Secular asking and a Frere answerynge at the grave of Dame Johan of Acres shewith the lyneal descent of the lordis of the honoure of Clare fro ... MCCXLVIII to ... MCCCLVI”. Bokenam wrote, as he tells us, plainly, in the Suffolk speech. He explains his lack of decoration on the plea that the finest flowers had been already plucked by Chaucer, Gower and Lydgate.

BOKHARA, or Bukhara (the common central Asian pronunciation is Bukhara), a state of central Asia, under the protection of Russia. It lies on the right bank of the middle Oxus, between 37° and 41° N., and between 62° and 72° E., and is bounded by the Russian governments of Syr-darya, Samarkand and Ferghana on the N., the Pamirs on the E., Afghanistan on the S., and the Transcaspian territory and Khiva on the W. Its south-eastern frontier on the Pamirs is undetermined except where it touches the Russian dominions. Including the khanates of Karateghin and Darvaz the area is about 85,000 sq. m. The western portion of the state is a plain watered by the Zarafshan and by countless irrigation canals drawn from it. It has in the east the Karnap-chul steppe, covered with grass in early summer, and in the north an intrusion of the Kara-kum sand desert. Land suitable for cultivation is found only in oases, where it is watered by irrigation canals, but these oases are very fertile. The middle portion of the state is occupied by high plateaus, about 4000 ft. in altitude, sloping from the Tian-shan, and intersected by numerous rivers, flowing towards the Oxus. This region, very fertile in the valleys and enjoying a cooler and damper climate than the lower plains, is densely populated, and agriculture and cattle-breeding are carried on extensively. Here are the towns of Karshi, Kitab, Shaar, Chirakchi and Guzar or Huzar. The Hissar range, a westward continuation of the Alai Mountains, separates the Zarafshan from the tributaries of the Oxus—the Surkhan, Kafirnihan and Vakhsh. Its length is about 200 m., and its passes, 1000 to 3000 ft. below the surrounding peaks, reach altitudes of 12,000 to 14,000 ft. and are extremely difficult. Numbers of rivers pierce or flow in wild gorges between its spurs. Its southern foot-hills, covered with loess, make the fertile valleys of Hissar and the Vakhsh. The climate is so dry, and the rains are so scarce, that an absence of forests and Alpine meadows is characteristic of the ridge; but when heavy rain falls simultaneously with the melting of the snows in the mountains, the watercourses become filled with furious torrents, which create great havoc. The main glaciers (12) are on the north slope, but none creeps below 10,000 to 12,000 ft. The Peter the Great range, or Periokh-tau, in Karateghin, south of the valley of the Vakhsh, runs west-south-west to east-north-east for about 130 m., and is higher than the Hissar range. From the meridian of Garm or Harm it rises above the snowline, attaining at least 18,000 ft. in the Sary-kaudal peak, and 20,000 ft. farther east where it joins the snow-clad Darvaz range, and where the group Sandal, adorned with several glaciers, rises to 24,000 or 25,000 ft. Only three passes, very difficult, are known across it.

Darvaz, a small vassal state of Bokhara, is situated on the Panj, where it makes its sharp bend westwards, and is emphatically a mountainous region, agriculture being possible only in the lower parts of the valleys. The population, about 35,000, consists chiefly of Moslem Tajiks, and the closely-related Galchas, and its chief town is Kala-i-khumb on the Panj, at an altitude of 4370 ft.

The chief river of Bokhara is the Oxus or Amu-darya, which separates it from Afghanistan on the south, and then flows along its south-west border. It is navigated from the mouth of the Surkhan, and steamboats ply on it up to Karki near the Afghan frontier. The next largest river, the Zarafshan, 660 m. long, the water of which is largely utilized for irrigation, is lost in the sands 20 m. before reaching the Oxus. The Kashka-darya, which flows westwards out of the glaciers of Hazret-sultan (west of the Hissar range), supplies the Shahri-sabs (properly Shaar-sabiz) oasis with water, but is lost in the desert to the west of Karshi.

The climate of Bokhara is extreme. In the lowlands a very hot summer is followed by a short but cold winter, during which a frost of -20° Fahr. may set in, and the Oxus may freeze for a fortnight. In the highlands this hot and dry summer is followed by four months of winter; and, finally, in the regions above 8000 ft. there is a great development of snowfields and glaciers, the passes are buried under snow, and the short summer is rainy. The lowlands are sometimes visited by terrible sand-storms from the west, which exhaust men and kill the cotton trees. Malaria is widely prevalent, and in some years, after a wet spring, assumes a malignant character.

The population is estimated at 1,250,000. The dominant race is the Uzbegs, who are fanatical Moslem Sunnites, scorn work, despise their Iranian subjects, and maintain their old division into tribes or clans. The nomad Turkomans and the nomad Kirghiz are also of Turkish origin; while the Sarts, who constitute the bulk of the population in the towns, are a mixture of Turks with Iranians. The great bulk of the population in the country is composed of Iranian Tajiks, who differ but very little from Sarts. Besides these there are Afghans, Persians, Jews, Arabs and Armenians. Much of the trade is in the hands of a colony of Hindus from Shikarpur. Nearly 20% of the population are nomads and about 15% semi-nomads.

On the irrigated lowlands rice, wheat and other cereals are cultivated, and exported to the highlands. Cotton is widely grown and exported. Silk is largely produced, and tobacco, wine, flax, hemp and fruits are cultivated. Cattle-breeding is vigorously prosecuted in Hissar and the highlands generally. Cotton, silks, woollen cloth, and felt are manufactured, also boots, saddles, cutlery and weapons, pottery and various oils. Salt, as also some iron and copper, and small quantities of gold are extracted. Trade has been greatly promoted by the building of the Transcaspian railway across the country (from Charjui on the Oxus to Kati-kurgan) in 1886-1888. The exports to Russia consist of raw cotton and silk, lamb-skins, fruits and carpets, and the imports of manufactured goods and sugar. The imports from India are cottons, tea, shawls and indigo. There are very few roads; goods are transported on camels, or on horses and donkeys in the hilly tracts.

Bokhara has for ages been looked upon as the centre of Mussulman erudition in central Asia. About one-fourth of the population is said to be able to read and write. The primary schools are numerous in the capital, as well as in the other cities, and even exist in villages, and madrasas or theological seminaries for higher courses of study are comparatively plentiful. The mullahs or priests enjoy very great influence, but the people are very superstitious, believing in witchcraft, omens, spirits and the evil eye. Women occupy a low position in the social scale, though slavery has been abolished at the instance of Russia. The emir of Bokhara is an autocratic ruler, his power being limited only by the traditional custom (sheriat) of the Mussulmans. He maintains an army of some 11,000 men, but is subject to Russian control, being in fact a vassal of that empire.

History.—Bokhara was known to the ancients under the name of Sogdiana. It was too far removed to the east ever to be brought under the dominion of Rome, but it has shared deeply in all the various and bloody revolutions of Asia. The foundation of the capital is ascribed to Efrasiab, the great Persian hero. After the conquests of Alexander the Great Sogdiana formed part of the empire of the Seleucidae, and shared the fortunes of the rather better-known Bactria. Somewhat later the nomad Yue-chi began to move into the valley of the Oxus from the east, and gradually became a settled territorial power in Bactria and Sogdiana, and the dominions of their king, Kadphises I. (who is believed to have come to the throne about A.D. 45), extended from Bokhara to the Indus. The district, however, was reconquered by Persia under the Sassanian dynasty, and we hear of Nestorian Christians at Samarkand, at any rate in the 6th century. Islam was introduced shortly after the Arab conquest of Persia (640-642) and speedily became the dominant faith. In the early centuries of Mahommedan rule Sogdiana was one of the most celebrated and flourishing districts of central Asia. It was called Sughd, and contained the two great cities of Samarkand and Bokhara, of which the former was generally the seat of government, while the latter had a high reputation as a seat of religion and learning. During the early middle ages this legion was also known as Ma wara ’l Nahr or Ma-vera-un-nahr, the meaning of which is given in the alternative classical title of Transoxiana. Malik Shah, third of the Seljuk dynasty of Persia, passed the Oxus about the end of the 11th century, and subdued the whole country watered by that river and the Jaxartes. In 1216 Bokhara was again subdued by Mahommed Shah Khwarizm, but his conquest was wrested from him by Jenghiz Khan in 1220. The country was wasted by the fury of this savage conqueror, but recovered something of its former prosperity under Ogdai Khan, his son, whose disposition was humane and benevolent. His posterity kept possession till 1369, when Timur or Tamerlane bore down everything before him, and established his capital at Samarkand, which with Bokhara regained for a time its former splendour. Babar, the fifth in descent from Timur, was originally prince of Ferghana, but conquered Samarkand and northern India, where he founded the Mogul (Mughal) empire. His descendants ruled in the country until about 1500, when it was overrun by the Uzbeg Tatars, under Abulkhair or Ebulkheir Khan, the founder of the Shaibani dynasty, with which the history of Bokhara properly commences. The most remarkable representative of this family was Abdullah Khan (1556-1598), who greatly extended the limits of his kingdom by the conquest of Badakshan, Herat and Meshhed, and increased its prosperity by the public works which he authorized. Before the close of the century, however, the dynasty was extinct, and Bokhara was at once desolated by a Kirghiz invasion and distracted by a disputed succession. At length, in 1598, Baki Mehemet Khan, of the Astrakhan branch of the Timur family, mounted the throne, and thus introduced the dynasty of the Ashtarkhanides. The principal event of his reign was the defeat he inflicted on Shah Abbas of Persia in the neighbourhood of Balkh. His brother Vali Mehemet, who succeeded in 1605, soon alienated his subjects, and was supplanted by his nephew Imamkuli. After a highly prosperous reign this prince resigned in favour of his brother, Nazr Mehemet, under whom the country was greatly troubled by the rebellion of his sons, who continued to quarrel with each other after their father’s death. Meanwhile the district of Khiva, previously subject to Bokhara, was made an independent khanate by Abdul-Gazi Bahadur Khan; and in the reign of Subhankuli, who ascended the throne in 1680, the political power of Bokhara was still further lessened, though it continued to enjoy the unbounded respect of the Sunnite Mahommedans. Subhankuli died in 1702, and a war of succession broke out between his two sons, who were supported by the rivalry of two Uzbeg tribes. After five years the contest terminated in favour of Obeidullah, who was little better than a puppet in the hands of Rehim Bi Atalik, his vizier. The invasion of Nadir Shah of Persia came to complete the degradation of the land; and in 1740 the feeble king, Abu ’l-Faiz, paid homage to the conqueror, and was soon after murdered and supplanted by his vizier. The time of the Ashtarkhanides had been for the most part a time of dissolution and decay; fanaticism and imbecility went hand in hand. On its fall (1785) the throne was seized by the Manghit family in the person of Mir Ma’sum, who pretended to the most extravagant sanctity, and proved by his military career that he had no small amount of ability. He turned his attention to the encroachments of the Afghans, and in 1781 reconquered the greater part of what had been lost to the south of the Oxus. Dying in 1802 he was succeeded by Saïd, who in bigotry and fanaticism was a true son of his father. In 1826 Nasrullah mounted the throne, and began with the murder of his brother a reign of continued oppression and cruelty. Meanwhile Bokhara became an object of rivalry to Russia and England, and envoys were sent by both nations to cultivate the favour of the emir, who treated the Russians with arrogance and the English with contempt. Two emissaries of the British government, Colonel C. Stoddart and Captain A. Conolly, were thrown by Nasrullah into prison, where they were put to death in 1842. In 1862-1864 Arminius Vambéry made in the disguise of a dervish a memorable journey through this fanatical state. At this time the Russian armies were gradually advancing, and at last they appeared in Khokand; but the new emir, Mozaffer-eddin, instead of attempting to expiate the insults of his predecessor, sent a letter to General M.G. Chernayev summoning him to evacuate the country, and threatening to raise all the faithful against him. In 1866 the Russians invaded the territory of Bokhara proper, and a decisive battle was fought on the 20th of May at Irdjar on the left bank of the Jaxartes. The Bokharians were defeated; but after a period of reluctant peace they forced the emir to renew the war. In 1868 the Russians entered Samarkand (May 14), and the emir was constrained to submit to the terms of the conqueror, becoming henceforward only a Russian puppet.

See Khanikov’s Bokhara, translated by De Bode (1845); Vambéry, Travels in Central Asia (1864), Sketches of Central Asia (1868), and History of Bokhara (1873); Fedchenko’s “Sketch of the Zarafshan Valley” in Journ. R. Geogr. Soc. (1870); Hellwald, Die Russen in Central Asien (1873); Lipsky, Upper Bukhara, in Russian (1902); Skrine and Ross, The Heart of Asia (1899); Lord Ronaldshay, Outskirts of Empire in Asia (1904); and Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate (1905).

(P. A. K.; C. El.)

BOKHARA (Bokkara-i-Sherif), capital of the state of Bokhara, on the left bank of the Zarafshan, and on the irrigation canal of Shahri-rud, situated in a fertile plain. It is 8 m. from the Bokhara station of the Transcaspian railway, 162 m. by rail W. of Samarkand, in 39° 47′ N. lat. and 64° 27′ E. long. The city is surrounded by a stone wall 28 ft. high and 8 m. long, with semicircular towers and eleven gates of little value as a defence. The present city was begun in A.D. 830 on the site of an older city, was destroyed by Jenghiz Khan in 1220, and rebuilt subsequently. The water-supply is very unhealthy. The city has no less than 360 mosques. Nearly 10,000 pupils are said to receive their education in its 140 madrasas or theological colleges; primary schools are kept at most mosques. Some of these buildings exhibit very fine architecture. The most notable of the mosques is the Mir-Arab, built in the 16th century, with its beautiful lecture halls; the chief mosque of the emir is the Mejid-kalyan, or Kok-humbez, close by which stands a brick minaret, 203 ft. high, from the top of which state criminals used to be thrown until 1871. Of the numerous squares the Raghistan is the principal. It has on one side the citadel, erected on an artificially made eminence 45 ft. high, surrounded by a wall 1 m. long, and containing the palace of the emir, the houses of the chief functionaries, the prison and the water-cisterns. The houses are mostly one-storeyed, built of unburned bricks, and have flat roofs.

Bokhara has for ages been a centre of learning and religious life. The mysticism which took hold on Persia in the middle ages spread also to Bokhara, and later, when the Mongol invasions of the 13th century laid waste Samarkand and other Moslem cities, Bokhara, remaining independent, continued to be a chief seat of Islamitic learning. The madrasa libraries, some of which were very rich, have been scattered and lost, or confiscated by the emirs, or have perished in conflagrations. But there are still treasures of literature concealed in private libraries, and Afghan, Persian, Armenian and Turkish bibliophiles still repair to Bokhara to buy rare books. Bokhara is, in fact, the principal book-market of central Asia. The population is supposed by Russian travellers not to exceed 50,000 or 60,000, but is otherwise estimated at 75,000 to 100,000. Amongst them is a large and ancient colony of Jews. Bokhara is the most important trading town in central Asia. In the city bazaars are made or sold silk stuffs, metal (especially copper) wares, Kara-kul (i.e. astrakhan) lamb-skins and carpets.

New Bokhara, or Kagan, a Russian town near the railway station, 8 m. from Bokhara itself, is rapidly growing, on a territory ceded by the emir. Pop. 2000.

(P. A. K.)

BOKSBURG, a town of the Transvaal; 14 m. E. of Johannesburg by rail. Pop. of the municipality (1904) 14,757, of whom 4175 were whites. It is the headquarters of the Witwatersrand coal mining industry. The collieries extend from Boksburg eastward to Springs, 11 m. distant. Brakpan, the largest colliery in South Africa, lies midway between the places named.

BOLAN PASS, an important pass on the Baluch frontier, connecting Jacobabad and Sibi with Quetta, which has always occupied an important place in the history of British campaigns in Afghanistan. Since the treaty of Gandamak, which was signed at the close of the first phase of the Afghan War in 1879, the Bolan route has been brought directly under British control, and it was selected for the first alignment of the Sind-Pishin railway from the plains to the plateau. From Sibi the line runs south-west, skirting the hills to Rindli, and originally followed the course of the Bolan stream to its head on the plateau. The destructive action of floods, however, led to the abandonment of this alignment, and the railway now follows the Mashkaf valley (which debouches into the plains close to Sibi), and is carried from near the head of the Mashkaf to a junction with the Bolan at Mach. An alternative route from Sibi to Quetta was found in the Harnai valley to the N.E. of Sibi, the line starting in exactly the opposite direction to that of the Bolan and entering the hills at Nari. The Harnai route, although longer, is the one adopted for all ordinary traffic, the Bolan loop being reserved for emergencies. At the Khundilani gorge of the Bolan route conglomerate cliffs enclose the valley rising to a height of 800 ft., and at Sir-i-Bolan the passage between the limestone rocks hardly admits of three persons riding abreast. The temperature of the pass in summer is very high, whereas in winter, near its head, the cold is extreme, and the ice-cold wind rushing down the narrow outlet becomes destructive to life. Since 1877, when the Quetta agency was founded, the freedom of the pass from plundering bands of Baluch marauders (chiefly Marris) has been secured, and it is now as safe as any pass in Scotland.

(T. H. H.*)

BOLAS (plural of Span, bola, ball), a South American Indian weapon of war and the chase, consisting of balls of stone attached to the ends of a rope of twisted or braided hide or hemp. Charles Darwin thus describes them in his Voyage of the Beagle: “The bolas, or balls, are of two kinds: the simplest, which is used chiefly for catching ostriches, consists of two round stones, covered with leather, and united by a thin, plaited thong, about 8 ft. long. The other kind differs only in having three balls united by thongs to a common centre. The Gaucho (native of Spanish descent) holds the smallest of the three in his hand, and whirls the other two around his head; then, taking aim, sends them like chain shot revolving through the air. The balls no sooner strike any object, than, winding round it, they cross each other and become firmly hitched.” Bolas have been used for centuries in the South American pampas and even the forest regions of the Rio Grande. F. Ratzel (History of Mankind) supposes them to be a form of lasso. The Eskimos use a somewhat similar weapon to kill birds. Bolas perdidas (i.e. lost) are stones attached to a very short thong, or, in some cases, having none at all.

BOLBEC, a town of northern France, in the department of Seine-Inférieure, on the Bolbec, 19 m. E.N.E. of Havre by rail. Pop. (1906) 10,959. Bolbec is important for its cotton spinning and weaving, and carries on the dyeing and printing of the fabric, and the manufacture of sugar. There are a chamber of commerce and a board of trade-arbitration. The town was enthusiastic in the cause of the Reformed Religion in the 16th century, and still contains many Protestants. It was burned almost to the ground in 1765.

BOLE (Gr. βῶλος, “a clod of earth”), a clay-like substance of red, brown or yellow colour, consisting essentially of hydrous aluminium silicate, with more or less iron. Most bole differs from ordinary clay in not being plastic, but in dropping to pieces when placed in water, thus behaving rather like fuller’s-earth. Bole was formerly in great repute medicinally, the most famous kind being the Lemnian Earth (γῆ Λήμνια), from the Isle of Lemnos in the Greek Archipelago. The earth was dug with much ceremony only once a year, and having been mixed with goats’ blood was made into little cakes or balls, which were stamped by the priests, whence they became known as Terra sigillata (“sealed earth”). Large quantities of bole occur as red partings between the successive lava flows of the Tertiary volcanic series in the north of Ireland and the west of Scotland. Here it seems to have resulted from the decomposition of the basalt and kindred rocks by meteoric agencies, during periods of volcanic repose. In Antrim the bole is associated with lithomarge, bauxite and pisolitic iron-ore. Bole occurs in like manner between the great sheets of the Deccan traps in India; and a similar substance is also found interbedded with some of the doleritic lavas of Etna.

In the sense of stem or trunk of a tree, “bole” is from the O. Norwegian bolr, of. Ger. Bohle, plank. It is probably connected with the large number of words, such as “boll,” “ball,” “bowl,” &c., which stand for a round object.

BOLESLAUS I., called “The Great,” king of Poland (d. 1025), was the son of Mieszko, first Christian prince of Poland, and the Bohemian princess Dobrawa, or Bona, whose chaplain, Jordan, converted the court from paganism to Catholicism. He succeeded his father in 992. A born warrior, he speedily raised the little struggling Polish principality on the Vistula to the rank of a great power. In 996 he gained a seaboard by seizing Pomerania, and subsequently took advantage of the troubles in Bohemia to occupy Cracow, previously a Czech city. Like his contemporaries, Stephen of Hungary and Canute of Denmark, Boleslaus recognized from the first the essential superiority of Christianity over every other form of religion, and he deserves with them the name of “Great” because he deliberately associated himself with the new faith. Thus despite an inordinate love of adventure, which makes him appear rather a wandering chieftain than an established ruler, he was essentially a man of insight and progress. He showed great sagacity in receiving the fugitive Adalbert, bishop of Prague, and when the saint suffered martyrdom at the hands of the pagan Slavs (April 23, 997), Boleslaus purchased his relics and solemnly laid them in the church of Gnesen, founded by his father, which now became the metropolitan see of Poland. It was at Gnesen that Boleslaus in the year 1000 entertained Otto III. so magnificently that the emperor, declaring such a man too worthy to be merely princeps, conferred upon him the royal crown, though twenty-five years later, in the last year of his life, Boleslaus thought it necessary to crown himself king a second time. On the death of Otto, Boleslaus invaded Germany, penetrated to the Elbe, occupying Stralsund and Meissen on his way, and extended his dominions to the Elster and the Saale. He also occupied Bohemia, till driven out by the emperor Henry IV. in 1004. The German war was terminated in 1018 by the peace of Bautzen, greatly to the advantage of Boleslaus, who retained Lusatia. He then turned his arms against Jaroslav, grand duke of Kiev, whom he routed on the banks of the Bug, then the boundary between Russia and Poland. For ten months Boleslaus remained at Kiev, whence he addressed triumphant letters to the emperors of the East and West. At his death in 1025 he left Poland one of the mightiest states of Europe, extending from the Bug to the Elbe, and from the Baltic to the Danube, and possessing besides the overlordship of Russia. But his greatest achievement was the establishment in Poland of a native church, the first step towards political independence.

See J.N. Pawlowski, St Adalbert (Danzig, 1860); Chronica Nestoris (Vienna, 1860); Heinrich R. von Zeissberg, Die Kriege Kaiser Heinrichs II. mit Herzog Boleslaw I. (Vienna, 1868).

BOLESLAUS II., called “The Bold,” king of Poland (1039-1081), eldest son of Casimir I., succeeded his father in 1058. The domestic order and tranquillity of the kingdom had been restored by his painstaking father, but Poland had shrunk territorially since the age of his grandfather Boleslaus I., and it was the aim of Boleslaus II. to restore her dignity and importance. The nearest enemy was Bohemia, to whom Poland had lately been compelled to pay tribute for her oldest possession, Silesia. But Boleslaus’s first Bohemian war proved unsuccessful, and was terminated by the marriage of his sister Swatawa with the Czech king Wratyslaus II. On the other hand Boleslaus’s ally, the fugitive Magyar prince Bela, succeeded with Polish assistance in winning the crown of Hungary. In the East Boleslaus was more successful. In 1069 he succeeded in placing Izaslaus on the throne of Kiev, thereby confirming Poland’s overlordship over Russia and enabling Boleslaus to chastise his other enemies, Bohemia among them, with the co-operation of his Russian auxiliaries. But Wratyslaus of Bohemia speedily appealed to the emperor for help, and a war between Poland and the Empire was only prevented by the sudden rupture of Henry IV. with the Holy See and the momentous events which led to the humiliating surrender of the emperor at Canossa. There is nothing to show that Boleslaus took any part in this struggle, though at this time he was on the best of terms with Gregory VII. and there was some talk of sending papal legates to restore order in the Polish Church. On the 26th of December 1076 Boleslaus encircled his own brows with the royal diadem, a striking proof that the Polish kings did not even yet consider their title quite secure. A second successful expedition to Kiev to reinstate his protégé Izaslaus, is Boleslaus’s last recorded exploit. Almost immediately afterwards (1079) we find him an exile in Hungary, where he died about 1081. The cause of this sudden eclipse was the cruel vengeance he took on the milites, or noble order, who, emulating the example of their brethren in Bohemia, were already attempting to curb the royal power. The churchmen headed by Stanislaus Szczepanowski, bishop of Cracow, took the side of the nobles, whose grievances seem to have been real. Boleslaus in his fury slew the saintly bishop, but so general was the popular indignation that he had to fly his kingdom.

See M. Maksymilian Gumplowicz, Zur Geschichte Polens im Mittelalter (Innsbruck, 1898); W.P. Augerstein, Der Konflikt des polnischen Königs Boleslaw II. mit dem Bischof Stanislaus (Thorn, 1895).

BOLESLAUS III., king of Poland (1086-1139), the son of Wladislaus I. and Judith of Bohemia, was born on the 23rd of December 1086 and succeeded his father in 1102. His earlier years were troubled continually by the intrigues of his natural half-brother Zbigniew, who till he was imprisoned and blinded involved Boleslaus in frequent contests with Bohemia and the emperor Henry V. The first of the German wars began in 1109, when Henry, materially assisted by the Bohemians, invaded Silesia. It was mainly a war of sieges, Henry sitting down before Lubusz, Glogau and Breslau, all of which he failed to take. The Poles avoided an encounter in the open field, but harried the Germans so successfully around Breslau that the plain was covered with corpses, which Henry had to leave to the dogs on his disastrous retreat; hence the scene of the action was known as “the field of dogs.” The chief political result of this disaster was the complete independence of Poland for the next quarter of a century. It was during this respite that Boleslaus devoted himself to the main business of his life—the subjugation of Pomerania (i.e. the maritime province) with the view of gaining access to the sea. Pomerania, protected on the south by virgin forests and almost impenetrable morasses, was in those days inhabited by a valiant and savage Slavonic race akin to the Wends, who clung to paganism with unconquerable obstinacy. The possession of a seaboard enabled them to maintain fleets and build relatively large towns such as Stettin and Kolberg, whilst they ravaged at will the territories of their southern neighbours the Poles. In self-defence Boleslaus was obliged to subdue them. The struggle began in 1109, when Boleslaus inflicted a terrible defeat on the Pomeranians at Nackel which compelled their temporary submission. In 1120-1124 the rebellion of his vassal Prince Warceslaus of Stettin again brought Boleslaus into the country, but the resistance was as stout as ever, and only after 18,000 of his followers had fallen and 8000 more had been expatriated did Warceslaus submit to his conqueror. The obstinacy of the resistance convinced Boleslaus that Pomerania must be christianized before it could be completely subdued; and this important work was partially accomplished by St Otto, bishop of Bamberg, an old friend of Boleslaus’s father, who knew the Slavonic languages. In 1124 the southern portions of the land were converted by St Otto, but it was only under the threat of extermination if they persisted in their evil ways that the people of Stettin accepted the faith in the following year. In 1128, at the council of Usedom, St Otto appointed his disciple Boniface bishop of Julin, the first Pomeranian diocese, and the foundation of a better order of things was laid. In his later years Boleslaus waged an unsuccessful war with Hungary and Bohemia, and was forced to claim the mediation of the emperor Lothair, to whom he did homage for Pomerania and Rügen at the diet of Merseburg in 1135. He died in 1139.

See Gallus, Chronicon, ed. Finkal (Cracow, 1899); Maksymilian Gumplowicz, Zur Geschichte Polens im Mittelalter (Innsbruck, 1898).

BOLETUS, a well-marked genus of fungi (order Polyporeae), characterized by the central stem, the cap or pileus, the soft, fleshy tissue, and the vertical, closely-packed tubes or pores which cover the under surface of the pileus and are easily detachable. The species all grow on the ground, in woods or under trees, in the early autumn. They are brown, red or yellow in colour; the pores also vary in colour from pure white to brown, red, yellow or green, and are from one or two lines to nearly an inch long. A few are poisonous; several are good for eating. One of the greatest favourites for the table is Boletus edulis, recognized by its brown cap and white pores which become green when old. It is the ceps of the continental European markets. There are forty-nine British species of Boletus.

BOLEYN (or Bullen), ANNE (c. 1507-1536), queen of Henry VIII. of England, daughter of Sir Thomas Boleyn, afterwards earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde, and of Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, afterwards duke of Norfolk, was born, according to Camden, in 1507, but her birth has been ascribed, though not conclusively, to an earlier date (to 1502 or 1501) by some later writers.[1] In 1514 she accompanied Mary Tudor to France on the marriage of the princess to Louis XII., remained there after the king’s death, and became one of the women in waiting to Queen Claude, wife of Francis I. She returned in 1521 or 1522 to England, where she had many admirers and suitors. Among the former was the poet Sir Thomas Wyatt,[2] and among the latter, Henry Percy, heir of the earl of Northumberland, a marriage with whom, however, was stopped by the king and another match provided for her in the person of Sir James Butler. Anne Boleyn, however, remained unmarried, and a series of grants and favours bestowed by Henry on her father between 1522 and 1525 have been taken, though very doubtfully, as a symptom of the king’s affections. Unlike her sister Mary, who had fallen a victim to Henry’s solicitations,[3] Anne had no intention of being the king’s mistress; she meant to be his queen, and her conduct seems to have been governed entirely by motives of ambition. The exact period of the beginning of Anne’s relations with Henry is not known. They have been surmised as originating as early as 1523; but there is nothing to prove that Henry’s passion was anterior to the proceedings taken for the divorce in May 1527, the celebrated love letters being undated. Her name is first openly connected with the king’s as a possible wife in the event of Catherine’s divorce, in a letter of Mendoza, the imperial ambassador, to Charles V. of the 16th of August 1527,[4] during the absence in France of Wolsey, who, not blinded by passion like Henry, naturally opposed the undesirable alliance, and was negotiating a marriage with Renée, daughter of Louis XII. Henry meanwhile, however, had sent William Knight, his secretary, on a separate mission to Rome to obtain facilities for his marriage with Anne; and on the cardinal’s return in August he found her installed as the king’s companion and proposed successor to Catherine of Aragon. After the king’s final separation from his wife in July 1531, Anne’s position was still more marked, and in 1532 she accompanied Henry on the visit to Francis I., while Catherine was left at home neglected and practically a prisoner. Soon after their return Anne was found to be pregnant, and in consequence Henry married her about the 25th of January 1533[5] (the exact date is unknown), their union not being made public till the following Easter. Subsequently, on the 23rd of May, their marriage was declared valid and that with Catherine null, and in June Anne was crowned with great state in Westminster Abbey. Anne Boleyn had now reached the zenith of her hopes. A weak, giddy woman of no stability of character, her success turned her head and caused her to behave with insolence and impropriety, in strong contrast with Catherine’s quiet dignity under her misfortunes. She, and not the king, probably was the author of the petty persecutions inflicted upon Catherine and upon the princess Mary, and her jealousy of the latter showed itself in spiteful malice. Mary was to be forced into the position of a humble attendant upon Anne’s infant, and her ears were to be boxed if she proved recalcitrant. She urged that both should be brought to trial under the new statute of succession passed in 1534, which declared her own children the lawful heirs to the throne. She was reported as saying that when the king gave opportunity by leaving England, she would put Mary to death even if she were burnt or flayed alive for it.[6] She incurred the remonstrances of the privy council and alienated her own friends and relations. Her uncle, the duke of Norfolk, whom she was reported to have treated “worse than a dog,” reviled her, calling her a “grande putaine.” But her day of triumph was destined to be even shorter than that of her predecessor. There were soon signs that Henry’s affection, which had before been a genuine passion, had cooled or ceased. He resented her arrogance, and a few months after the marriage he gave her cause for jealousy, and disputes arose. A strange and mysterious fate had prepared for Anne the same domestic griefs that had vexed and ruined Catherine and caused her abandonment. In September 1533 the birth of a daughter, afterwards Queen Elizabeth, instead of the long-hoped-for son, was a heavy disappointment; next year there was a miscarriage, and on the 29th of January 1536, the day of Catherine’s funeral, she gave birth to a dead male child.