VOLUME III SLICE IV Basso-relievo to Bedfordshire (continued 5)

Area and Population.—Bavaria proper, or the eastern portion, contains an area of 26,998 sq. m., and the Palatinate or western, 2288 sq. m., making the whole extent of the kingdom about 29,286 sq. m. The total population, according to the census of 1905, was 6,512,824. Almost a quarter of the inhabitants live in towns, of which Munich and Nuremberg have populations exceeding 100,000, Augsburg, Würzburg, Fürth and Ludwigshafen between 50,000 and 100,000, while twenty-six other towns number from 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants.

Ethnographically, the Bavarians belong to various ancient tribes; Germanized Slavs in the north-east, Swabians and Franks in the centre, Franks towards the west, and, in the Palatinate, Walloons. Politically, the country is divided into eight provinces, as follows:—

Provinces. Capital. Pop. of Province in 1905. Area in sq. m.

Upper Bavaria Munich 1,410,763 6,456

Lower Bavaria Landshut 706,345 4,152

Upper Palatinate Regensburg 573,476 3,728

Upper Franconia Bayreuth 637,239 2,702

Middle Franconia Ansbach 868,072 2,925

Lower Franconia Würzburg 680,769 3,243

Swabia Augsburg 750,880 3,792

The Palatinate Spires 885,280 2,288

Total 6,512,824 29,286

Religion.—The majority of the inhabitants (about 70%) are Roman Catholics. The Protestant-Evangelical Church claims about 29%, while Jews, and a very small number of other sects, account for the remainder.

The districts of Lower Bavaria, Upper Bavaria and the Upper Palatinate are almost wholly Roman Catholic, while in the Rhine Palatinate, Upper Franconia, and especially Middle Franconia, the preponderance is on the side of the Protestants. The exercise of religious worship in Bavaria is altogether free. The Protestants have the same civil rights as the Roman Catholics, and the sovereign may be either Roman Catholic or Protestant. Of the Roman Catholic Church the heads are the two archbishops of Munich-Freising and Bamberg, and the six bishops of Eichstätt, Spires, Würzburg, Augsburg, Regensburg and Passau, of whom the first three are suffragans of Bamberg. The “Old Catholic” party, under the bishop of Bonn, has failed, despite its early successes, to take deep root in the country. Among the Protestants the highest authority is the general consistory of Munich. The numbers of the different religions in 1900 were as follows:—Roman Catholics, 4,357,133; Protestants, 1,749,206; Jews, 54,928.

Education.—Bavaria, formerly backward in education, has recently done much in this connexion. The state has two Roman Catholic universities, Munich and Würzburg, and a Lutheran, Erlangen; in Munich there are a polytechnic, an academy of sciences and an academy of art.

Agriculture.—Of the total surface of Bavaria about one-half is under cultivation, one-third forest, and the remaining sixth mostly pasture. The level country, including both Lower Bavaria (extending northwards to the Danube) and the western and middle parts of Franconia, is productive of rye, oats, wheat, barley and millet, and also of hemp, flax, madder and fruit and vines. The last are grown chiefly in the vicinity of the Lake of Constance, on the banks of the Main, in the lower part of its course, and in the Palatinate of the Rhine. Hops are extensively grown in central Franconia; tobacco (the best in Germany) round Nuremberg and in the Palatinate, which also largely produces the sugar-beet. Potatoes are cultivated in all the provinces, but especially in the Palatinate and in the Spessart district, which lies in the north-west within a curve of the Main. The southern divisions of Swabia and Upper Bavaria, where pasture-land predominates, form a cattle-breeding district and the dairy produce is extensive. Here also horses are bred in large numbers.

The extent of forest forms nearly a third of the total area of Bavaria. This is owing to various causes: the amount of hilly and mountainous country, the thinness of the population and the necessity of keeping a given extent of ground under wood for the supply of fuel. More than a third of the forests are public property and furnish a considerable addition to the revenue. They are principally situated in the provinces of Upper Bavaria, Lower Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine. The forests are well stocked with game, deer, chamois (in the Alps), wild boars, capercailzie, grouse, pheasants, &c. being plentiful. The greater proportion of the land throughout the kingdom is in the hands of peasant proprietors, the extent of the separate holdings differing very much in different districts. The largest peasant property may be about 170 acres, and the smallest, except in the Palatinate, about 50.

Minerals.—The chief mineral deposits in Bavaria are coal, iron ore, graphite and salt. The coal mines lie principally in the districts of Amberg, Kissingen, Steben, Munich and the Rhine Palatinate. Salt is obtained on a large scale partly from brine springs and partly from mines, the principal centres being Halle, Berchtesgaden, Traunstein and Rosenheim. The government monopoly which had long existed was abolished in 1867 and free trade was established in salt between the members of the customs-union. Of quicksilver there are several mines, chiefly in the Palatinate of the Rhine; and small quantities of copper, manganese and cobalt are obtained. There are numerous quarries of excellent marble, alabaster, gypsum and building stone; and the porcelain-clay is among the finest in Europe. To these may be added emery, steatite, barytes, felspar and ochre, in considerable quantities; excellent lithographic stone is obtained at Solenhofen; and gold and silver are still worked, but to an insignificant extent.

Manufactures and Trade.—A great stimulus was given to manufacturing industry in Bavaria by the law of 1868, which abolished the last remains of the old restrictions of the gilds, and gave the whole country the liberty which had been enjoyed by the Rhine Palatinate alone. The chief centres of industry are Munich, Nuremberg, Augsburg, Fürth, Erlangen, Aschaffenburg, Regensburg, Würzburg, Bayreuth, Ansbach, Bamberg and Hof in Bavaria proper, and in the Palatinate Spires and the Rhine port of Ludwigshafen. The main centres of the hardware industry are Munich, Nuremberg, Augsburg and Fürth; the two first especially for locomotives and automobiles, the last for tinfoil and metal toys. Aschaffenburg manufactures fancy goods, Augsburg and Hof produce excellent cloth, and Munich has a great reputation for scientific instruments. In Franconia are numerous paper-mills, and the manufacture of wooden toys is largely carried on in the forest districts of Upper Bavaria. A considerable quantity of glass is made, particularly in the Böhmerwald. Brewing forms an important industry, the best-known breweries being those of Munich, Nuremberg, Erlangen and Kulmbach. Other articles of manufacture are leather, tobacco, porcelain, cement, spirits, lead pencils (Nuremberg), plate-glass, sugar, matches, aniline dyes, straw hats and baskets. The commerce of Bavaria is very considerable. The exports consist chiefly of corn, potatoes, hops, beer, wine, cloth, cotton goods, glass, fancy wares, toys, cattle, pigs and vegetables. The seat of the hop-trade is Nuremberg; of wool, Augsburg. The imports comprise sugar, tobacco, cocoa, coffee, oils, silk and pig iron.

Communications.—Trade is served by an excellent railway system and there are steamboat services on the navigable rivers, to the east by way of Passau on the Danube, and to the west by Ludwigshafen. The high roads of Bavaria, many of which are military roads laid out at the beginning of the 19th century, extend in all over about 10,000 m. There were 4377 m. of railways in operation in 1904, of which about 3800 were in the hands of the state, and about 440 m. belonged to the private system of the Palatinate. The principal canal is the Ludwigskanal, which connects the Rhine with the Danube, extending from Bamberg on the Regnitz to Dietfurt on the Altmühl. There is an extensive network of telegraph and telephone lines. All belong to the government post office, which forms an administrative system independent of the imperial German post office.

Constitution and Administration.—By the treaty of Versailles (23rd November 1870) and the imperial constitution of the 16th of April 1871, Bavaria was incorporated with the German empire, reserving, however, certain separate privileges (Sonderrechte) in respect of the administration of the army, the railways and the posts, the excise duties on beer, the rights of domicile and the insurance of real estate. The king is the supreme chief of the army, and matters requiring adjudication in the adjutant-general’s court are referred to a special Bavarian court attached to the supreme imperial military tribunal in Berlin. Bavaria is represented in the Bundesrat by six votes and sends forty-eight deputies to the imperial diet. The Bavarian constitution is mainly founded on the constitutional act of the 26th of May 1818, modified by subsequent acts—that of the 9th of March 1828 as affecting the upper house, and those of the 4th of June 1848 and of the 21st of March 1881 as affecting the lower—and is a limited monarchy, with a legislative body of two houses. The crown is hereditary in the house of Wittelsbach, according to the rights of primogeniture, females being excluded from succession so long as male agnates of equal birth exist. The title of the sovereign is king of Bavaria, that of his presumptive heir is crown-prince of Bavaria, and during the minority or incapacity of the sovereign a regency is declared, which is vested in the nearest male agnate capable of ascending the throne. Such a regency began on the 10th of June 1886, at first for King Louis II., and after the 14th of the same month for King Otto I., in the person of the prince regent Luitpold. The executive power resides in the king and the responsibility for the government of the kingdom in his ministers. The royal family is Roman Catholic, and the seat of government is Munich, the capital.

The upper house of the Bavarian parliament (Kammer der Reichsräte) is composed of (1) the princes of the blood royal (being of full age), (2) the ministers of the crown, (3) the archbishops of Munich, Freising and Bamberg, (4) the heads of such noble families as were formerly “immediate” so long as they retain their ancient possessions in Bavaria, (5) of a Roman Catholic bishop appointed by the king for life, and of the president for the time being of the Protestant consistory, (6) of hereditary counsellors (Reichsräte) appointed by the king, and (7) of other counsellors appointed by the king for life. The lower house (Kammer der Abgeordneten) or chamber of representatives, consists, since 1881, of 159 deputies, in proportion of one—reckoned on the census of 1875—to every 31,500 inhabitants. A general election takes place every six years, and, under the electoral law of 1906, is direct. Qualifications for the general body of electors are full age of twenty-five years, Bavarian citizenship of one year at least, and discharge of all rates and taxes. Parliament must be assembled every three years, but as the budget is taken every two years, it is regularly called together within that period. No laws affecting the liberty or property of the subject can be passed without the sanction of parliament.

Revenue.—The following is a fairly typical statement of the budget estimates (1902-1903), in marks (= 1 shilling sterling):—

Receipts.

Mks.

Direct taxes 38,199,000

Customs and indirect taxes 50,900,990

State railways 184,551,000

Posts and telegraphs 41,665,100

Forests and agricultural dues 37,395,000

Imperial assignments 62,571,605

—————

415,282,695

=========

= £20,764,135

Disbursements.

Mks.

Civil list 5,402,475

State debt 51,323,200

Ministry of the Royal house and of Foreign dept. 688,398

Ministry of Justice 20,615,299

Ministry of interior 30,055,338

Public worship and education 34,667,673

Minister of finance 6,696,780

Constribution to imperial exchequer 72,647,090

—————

222,296,253

=========

= £11,114,813

The public debt amounts to about £95,000,000, of which over 75% was incurred for railways.

Army.—The Bavarian army forms a separate portion of the army of the German empire, with a separate administration, but in time of war is under the supreme command of the German emperor. The regulations applicable to other sections of the whole imperial army are, however, observed. It consists, on a peace footing, of three army corps, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Royal Bavarian (each of two divisions), the headquarters of which are in Munich, Nuremberg and Würzburg respectively. The Bavarian army comprises sixty-seven battalions of infantry, two battalions of rifles, ten regiments of cavalry (two heavy, two Ulan and six Chevauxlegers), a squadron of mounted infantry (Jäger-zu-pferde), twelve field- and two foot-artillery regiments, three battalions of engineers, three of army service, and a balloon section; in all 60,000 men with 10,000 horses. In time of war the total force is trebled.

(P. A. A.)

History

The earliest known inhabitants of the district afterwards called Bavaria were a people, probably of Celtic extraction, who were subdued by the Romans just before the opening of the Christian era, when colonies were founded among them and their land was included in the province of Raetia. During the 5th century it was ravaged by the troops of Odoacer and, after being almost denuded of inhabitants, was occupied by tribes who, pushing along the valley of the Danube, settled there between A.D. 488 and 520. Many conjectures have been formed concerning the race and origin of these people, who were certainly a new and composite social aggregate. Most likely they were descendants of the Marcomanni, Quadi and Narisci, tribes of the Suevic or Swabian race, with possibly a small intermixture of Gothic or Celtic elements. They were called Baioarii, Baiowarii, Bawarii or Baiuwarii, words derived most probably from Baja or Baya, corruptions of Bojer, and given to them because they came from Bojerland or Bohemia. Another but less probable explanation derives the name from a combination of the old high German word uuâra, meaning league, and bai, a Gothic word for both. The Bavarians are first mentioned in a Frankish document of 520, and twenty years later Jordanes refers to them as lying east of the Swabians. Their country bore some traces of Roman influence, and its main boundaries were the Enns, the Danube, the Lech and the Alps; but its complete settlement was a work of time.

The Bavarians soon came under the dominion of the Franks, probably without a serious struggle; and were ruled from 555 to 788 by dukes of the Agilolfing family, who were possibly of Frankish descent. For a century and a Frankish influence. half a succession of dukes resisted the inroads of the Slavs on their eastern frontier, and by the time of Duke Theodo I., who died in 717, were completely independent of the feeble Frankish kings. When Charles Martel became the virtual ruler of the Frankish realm he brought the Bavarians into strict dependence, and deposed two dukes successively for contumacy. Pippin the Short was equally successful in maintaining his authority, and several marriages took place between the family to which he belonged and the Agilolfings, who were united in a similar manner with the kings of the Lombards. The ease with which various risings were suppressed by the Franks gives colour to the supposition that they were rather the outcome of family quarrels than the revolt of an oppressed people. Between the years 739 and 748 the Bavarian law was committed to writing and supplementary clauses were afterwards added, all of which bear evident traces of Frankish influence. Thus, while the dukedom belongs to the Agilolfing family, the duke must be chosen by the people and his election confirmed by the Frankish king, to whom he owes fealty. He has a fivefold wergild, summons the nobles and clergy for purposes of deliberation, calls out the host, administers justice and regulates finance. There are five noble families, possibly representing a former division of the people, after whom come the freeborn, and then the freedmen. The country is divided into gaus or counties, under their counts, who are assisted by judges responsible for declaring the law.

Christianity had lingered in Bavaria from Roman times; but a new era set in when Rupert, bishop of Worms, came to the country at the invitation of Duke Theodo I. in 696. He founded several monasteries, and a similar work was also performed by St Emmeran, bishop of Poitiers; with the result Christianity. that before long the bulk of the people professed Christianity and relations were established between Bavaria and Rome. The 8th century witnessed indeed a heathen reaction; but it was checked by the arrival in Bavaria about 734 of St. Boniface, who organized the Bavarian church and founded or restored bishoprics at Salzburg, Freising, Regensburg and Passau.

Tassilo III., who became duke of the Bavarians in 749, recognized the supremacy of the Frankish king Pippin the Short in 757, but soon afterwards refused to furnish a contribution to the war in Aquitaine. Moreover, during Frankish conquest. the early years of the reign of Charlemagne, Tassilo gave decisions in ecclesiastical and civil causes in his own name, refused to appear in the assemblies of the Franks, and in general acted as an independent ruler. His position as possessor of the Alpine passes, as an ally of the Avars, and as son-in-law of the Lombard king Desiderius, was so serious a menace to the Frankish kingdom that Charlemagne determined to crush him. The details of this contest are obscure. Tassilo appears to have done homage in 781, and again in 787, probably owing to the presence of Frankish armies. But further trouble soon arose, and in 788 the duke was summoned to Ingelheim, where on a charge of treachery he was sentenced to death. He was, however, pardoned by the king; and he then entered a monastery and formally renounced his duchy at Frankfort in 794. The country was ruled by Gerold, a brother-in-law of Charlemagne, till his death in a battle with the Avars in 799, when its administration was entrusted to Frankish counts and assimilated with that of the rest of the Carolingian empire, while its condition was improved by the measures taken by Charlemagne for the intellectual progress and material welfare of his realm. The Bavarians offered no resistance to the change which thus abolished their dukedom; and their incorporation with the Frankish dominions, due mainly to the unifying influence of the church, was already so complete that Charlemagne did not find it necessary to issue more than two capitularies dealing especially with Bavarian affairs.

The history of Bavaria for the ensuing century is bound up with that of the Carolingian empire. Given at the partition of 817 to the king of the East Franks, Louis the German, it formed part of the larger territories which were Union with Carolingian Empire. confirmed to him in 843 by the treaty of Verdun, Louis made Regensburg the centre of his government, and was active in improving the condition of Bavaria, and providing for its security by numerous campaigns against the Slavs. When he divided his possessions in 865 it passed to his eldest son, Carloman, who had already undertaken its government, and after his death in 880 it formed part of the extensive territories of the emperor Charles the Fat. Its defence was left by this incompetent emperor to Arnulf, an illegitimate son of Carloman, and it was mainly owing to the support of the Bavarians that Arnulf was able to take the field against Charles in 887, and to secure his own election as German king in the following year. Bavaria, which was the centre of the East Frankish kingdom, passed in 899 to Louis the Child, during whose reign it was constantly ravaged by the Hungarians. The resistance to these inroads became gradually feebler, and it is said that on the 5th of July 907 almost the whole of the Bavarian race perished in battle with these formidable enemies. For the defence of Bavaria the mark of Carinthia had been erected on the south-eastern frontier, and during the reign of Louis the Child this was ruled by Liutpold, count of Scheyern, who possessed large domains in Bavaria. He was among those who fell in the great fight of 907; but his son Arnulf, surnamed the Bad, rallied the remnants of the race, drove back the Hungarians, and was chosen duke of the Bavarians in 911, when Bavaria and Carinthia were united under his rule. Refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of the German king Conrad I., he was unsuccessfully attacked by the latter, and in 920 was recognized as duke by Conrad’s successor, Henry I., the Fowler, who admitted his right to appoint the bishops, to coin money and to issue laws. A similar conflict took place between Arnulf’s son and successor Part of the German Kingdom. Eberhard and Otto the Great; but Eberhard was less successful than his father, for in 938 he was driven from Bavaria, which was given by Otto with reduced privileges to the late duke’s uncle, Bertold; and a count palatine in the person of Eberhard’s brother Arnulf was appointed to watch the royal interests. When Bertold died in 947 Otto conferred the duchy upon his own brother Henry, who had married Judith, a daughter of Duke Arnulf. Henry was disliked by the Bavarians and his short reign was spent mainly in disputes with his people. The ravages of the Hungarians ceased after their defeat on the Lechfeld in 955, and the area of the duchy was temporarily increased by the addition of certain adjacent districts in Italy. In 955 Henry was succeeded by his young son Henry, surnamed the Quarrelsome, who in 974 was implicated in a conspiracy against King Otto II. The reason for this rising was that the king had granted the duchy of Swabia to Henry’s enemy, Otto, a grandson of the emperor Otto the Great, and had given the new Bavarian East Mark, afterwards known as Austria, to Leopold I., count of Babenberg. The revolt was, however, soon suppressed; but Henry, who on his escape from prison renewed his plots, was formally deposed in 976 when Bavaria was given to Otto, duke of Swabia. At the same time Carinthia was made into a separate duchy, the office of count palatine was restored, and the church was made dependent on the king instead of on the duke. Restored in 985, Henry proved himself a capable ruler by establishing internal order, issuing important laws and taking measures to reform the monasteries. His son and successor, who was chosen German king as Henry II. in 1002, gave Bavaria to his brother-in-law Henry of Luxemburg; after whose death in 1026 it passed successively to Henry, afterwards the emperor Henry III., and to another member of the family of Luxemburg, as Duke Henry VII. In 1061 the empress Agnes, mother of and regent for the German king Henry IV., entrusted the duchy to Otto of The duchy passes to the Welfs. Nordheim, who was deposed by the king in 1070, when the duchy was granted to Count Welf, a member of an influential Bavarian family. In consequence of his support of Pope Greegory VII. in his quarrel with Henry, Welf lost but subsequently regained Bavaria; and was followed successively by his sons, Welf II. in 1101, and Henry IX. in 1120, both of whom exercised considerable influence among the German princes. Henry was succeeded in 1126 by his son Henry X., called the Proud, who obtained the duchy of Saxony in 1137. Alarmed at this prince’s power, King Conrad III. refused to allow two duchies to remain in the same hands; and, having declared Henry deposed, he bestowed Bavaria upon Leopold IV., margrave of Austria. When Leopold died in 1141, the king retained the duchy himself; but it continued to be the scene of considerable disorder, and in 1143 he entrusted it to Henry II., surnamed Jasomirgott, margrave of Austria. The struggle for its possession continued until 1156, when King Frederick I. in his desire to restore peace to Germany persuaded Henry to give up Bavaria to Henry the Lion, a son of Duke Henry the Proud.

A new era of government set in when, in consequence of Henry being placed under the imperial ban in 1180, the duchy was given by Frederick I. to Otto, a member of the old Bavarian family of Wittelsbach (q.v.), and a descendant of the Then to the Wittelsbachs. Area of Bavaria. counts of Scheyern. During the years following the destruction of the Carolingian empire the borders of Bavaria were continually changing, and for a lengthened period after 955 this process was one of expansion. To the west the Lech still divided Bavaria from Swabia, but on three other sides the opportunities for extension had been taken advantage of, and the duchy embraced an area of considerable dimensions north of the Danube. During the later years of the rule of the Welfs, however, a contrary tendency had operated, and the extent of Bavaria had been reduced. The immense energies of Duke Henry the Lion had been devoted to his northern rather than his southern duchy, and when the dispute over the Bavarian succession was settled in 1156 the district between the Enns and the Inn had been transferred to Austria. The increasing importance of the mark of Styria, erected into a duchy in 1180, and the county of Tirol, had diminished both the actual and the relative strength of Bavaria, which was now deprived on almost all sides of opportunities for expansion. The neighbouring duchy of Carinthia, the great temporal possessions of the archbishop of Salzburg, as well as a general tendency to independence on the part of both clerical and lay nobles, were additional forces of similar influence.

When Otto of Wittelsbach was invested with Bavaria at Altenburg in September 1180 the duchy was bounded by the Böhmerwald, the Inn, the Alps and the Lech; and the power of the duke was practically confined to his Rule of the Wittelsbachs. extensive private domains around Wittelsbach, Kelheim and Straubing. Otto only enjoyed his new dignity for three years, and was succeeded in 1183 by his son Louis I., who took a leading part in German affairs during the earlier years of the reign of the emperor Frederick II., and was assassinated at Kelheim in September 1231. His son Otto II., called the Illustrious, was the next duke, and his loyalty to the Hohenstaufen caused him to be placed under the papal ban, and Bavaria to be laid under an interdict. Like his father, Otto increased the area of his lands by purchases; and he had considerably strengthened his hold upon the duchy before he died in November 1253. The efforts of the dukes to increase their power and to give unity to the duchy had met with a fair measure of success; but they were soon vitiated by partitions among different members of the family which for 250 years made the Division of the duchy. history of Bavaria little more than a jejune chronicle of territorial divisions bringing war and weakness in their train. The first of these divisions was made in 1255 between Louis II. and Henry I., the sons of Duke Otto II., who for two years after their father’s death had ruled Bavaria jointly; and by it Louis obtained the western part of the duchy, afterwards called Upper Bavaria, and Upper Bavaria. Henry secured eastern or Lower Bavaria. In the course of a long reign Louis, who was called the Stern, became the most powerful prince in southern Germany. He was the uncle and guardian of Conradin of Hohenstaufen, and when this prince was put to death in Italy in 1268, Louis and his brother Henry inherited the domains of the Hohenstaufen in Swabia and elsewhere. He supported Rudolph, count of Habsburg, in his efforts to secure the German throne in 1273, married the new king’s daughter Mechtild, and aided him in campaigns in Bohemia and elsewhere. For some years after Louis’ death in 1294 his sons Rudolph I. and Louis, afterwards the emperor Louis IV., ruled their duchy in common; but as their relations were never harmonious a division of Upper Bavaria was made in 1310, by which Rudolph received the land east of the Isar together with the town of Munich, and Louis the district between the Isar and the Lech. It was not long, however, before this arrangement led to war between the brothers, the outcome of which was that in 1317, three years after he had been chosen German king, Louis compelled Rudolph to abdicate, and for twelve years ruled alone over the whole of Upper Bavaria. But in 1329 a series of events induced him to conclude the treaty of Pavia with Rudolph’s sons, Rudolph and Rupert, to whom he transferred the Palatinate of the Rhine, which had been in the possession of the Wittelsbach family since 1214, and also a portion of Upper Bavaria north of the Danube, which was afterwards called the Upper Palatinate. At the same time it was decided that the electoral vote should be exercised by the two lines alternately, and that in the event of either branch of the family becoming extinct the surviving branch should inherit its possessions.

Henry I. of Lower Bavaria spent most of his time in quarrels with his brother, with Ottakar II. of Bohemia and with various ecclesiastics. When he died in February 1200 Lower Bavaria was ruled by his three sons, Otto III., Louis Lower Bavaria. III. and Stephen I. Louis died childless in 1296; Stephen left two sons at his death in 1310, namely, Henry II. and Otto IV., and Otto, who was king of Hungary from 1305 to 1308, died in 1312, leaving a son, Henry III. Lower Bavaria was governed by these three princes until 1333, when Henry III. died, followed in 1334 by his cousin Otto; and as both died without sons the whole of Lower Bavaria then passed to Henry II. Dying in 1339, Henry left an only son, John I., who died childless Reunion of the duchy. in the following year, when the emperor Louis IV., by securing Lower Bavaria for himself, united the whole of the duchy under his sway. The consolidation of Bavaria under Louis lasted for seven years, during which the emperor was able to improve the condition of the country. When he died in 1347 he left six sons to share his possessions, who agreed upon a division of Bavaria in 1349. Its history, however, was complicated by its connexion with Brandenburg, Holland and Tirol, all of which had also been left by the emperor to his sons. All the six brothers exercised some authority in Bavaria; but three alone left issue, and of these the eldest, Louis, margrave of Brandenburg, died in 1361; and two years later was followed to the grave by his only son Meinhard, who was childless. The two remaining brothers, Stephen II. and Albert I., ruled over Bavaria-Landshut and Bavaria-Straubing respectively, and when Stephen died in 1375 his portion of Bavaria was governed jointly by his three sons. In 1392, when all the lines except those of Stephen and Albert had died out, an important partition took place, by which the greater part of the duchy was divided among Stephen’s three sons, Stephen III., Frederick and John II., who founded respectively the lines of Ingolstadt, Landshut and Munich. Albert’s duchy of Bavaria-Straubing passed on his death in 1404 to his son William II., and in 1417 to his younger son John, who resigned the bishopric of Liége to take up his new position. When John died in 1425 this family became extinct, and after a contest between various claimants Bavaria-Straubing was divided between the three remaining branches of the family.

The main result of the threefold division of 1392 was a succession of civil wars which led to the temporary eclipse of Bavaria as a force in German politics. Neighbouring states encroached upon its borders, and the nobles ignored Internal condition 1392. the authority of the dukes, who, deprived of the electoral vote, were mainly occupied for fifty years with intestine strife. This condition of affairs, however, was not wholly harmful. The government of the country and the control of the finances passed mainly into the hands of an assembly called the Landtag or Landschaft, which had been organized in 1392. The towns, assuming a certain independence, became strong and wealthy as trade increased, and the citizens of Munich and Regensburg were often formidable antagonists to the dukes. Thus a period of disorder saw the growth of representative institutions and the establishment of a strong civic spirit. Stephen III., duke of Bavaria-Ingolstadt, was distinguished rather as a soldier than as a statesman; and his rule was marked by struggles with various towns, and with his Intestine troubles. brother, John of Bavaria-Munich. Dying in 1413 he was followed by his son, Louis, called the Bearded, a restless and quarrelsome prince, who before his accession had played an important part in the affairs of France, where his sister Isabella was the queen of King Charles VI. About 1417 he became involved in a violent quarrel with his cousin, Henry of Bavaria-Landshut, fell under both the papal and the imperial ban, and in 1439 was attacked by his son Louis the Lame. This prince, who had married a daughter of Frederick I. of Hohenzollern, margrave of Brandenburg, was incensed at the favour shown by his father to an illegitimate son. Aided by Albert Achilles, afterwards margrave of Brandenburg, he took the elder Louis prisoner and compelled him to abdicate in 1443. When Louis the Lame died in 1445 his father came into the power of his implacable enemy, Henry of Bavaria-Landshut, and died in prison in 1447. The duchy of Bavaria-Ingolstadt passed to Henry, who had succeeded his father Frederick as duke of Bavaria-Landshut in 1393, and whose long reign was almost entirely occupied with family feuds. He died in July 1450, and was followed by his son, Louis IX. (called the Rich), and about this time Bavaria began to recover some of its former importance. Louis IX. expelled the Jews from his duchy, did something for the security of traders, and improved both the administration of justice and the condition of the finances. In 1472 he founded the university of Ingolstadt, attempted to reform the monasteries, and was successful in a struggle with Albert Achilles of Brandenburg. On his death in January 1479 he was succeeded by his son George, also called the Rich; and when George, a faithful adherent of the German king Maximilian I., died without sons in December 1503, a war broke out for the possession of his duchy.

Bavaria-Munich passed on the death of John II. in 1397 to his sons Ernest and William III., but they only obtained possession of their lands after a struggle with Stephen of Bavaria-Ingolstadt. Both brothers were then engaged in warfare with the other branches of the family and with the citizens of Munich. William, a loyal servant of the emperor Sigismund, died in 1435, leaving an only son, Adolf, who died five years later; and Ernest, distinguished for his bodily strength, died in 1438. In 1440 the whole of Bavaria-Munich came to Ernest’s son Albert, who had been estranged from his father owing to his union with the unfortunate Agnes Bernauer (q.v.). Albert, whose attempts to reform the monasteries earned for him the surname of Pious, was almost elected king of Bohemia in 1440. He died in 1460, leaving five sons, the two elder of whom, John IV. and Sigismund, reigned in common until the death of John in 1463. The third brother, Albert, who had been educated for the church, joined his brother in 1465, and when Sigismund abdicated two years later became sole ruler in spite of the claims of his two younger brothers. Albert, who was called the Wise, added the district of Abensberg to his possessions, and in 1504 became involved in the war which War over the succession to Bavaria-Landshut. broke out for the possession of Bavaria-Landshut on the death of George the Rich. Albert’s rival was George’s son-in-law, Rupert, formerly bishop of Freising, and son of Philip, count palatine of the Rhine; and the emperor Maximilian I., interested as archduke of Austria and count of Tirol, interfered in the dispute. Rupert died in 1504, and the following year an arrangement was made at the diet of Cologne by which the emperor and Philip’s grandson, Otto Henry, obtained certain outlying districts, while Albert by securing the bulk of George’s possessions united Bavaria under his rule. In 1506 Albert decreed that the duchy should pass undivided Reigns of Albert the Wise and William IV. according to the rules of primogeniture, and endeavoured in other ways also to consolidate Bavaria. He was partially successful in improving the condition of the country; and in 1500 Bavaria formed one of the six circles into which Germany was divided for the maintenance of peace. He died in March 1508, and was succeeded by his son, William IV., whose mother, Kunigunde, was a daughter of the emperor Frederick III. In spite of the decree of 1506 William was compelled in 1516, after a violent quarrel, to grant a share in the government to his brother Louis, an arrangement which lasted until the death of Louis in 1545.

William followed the traditional Wittelsbach policy, opposition to the Habsburgs, until in 1534 he made a treaty at Linz with Ferdinand, king of Hungary and Bohemia. This was strengthened in 1546, when the emperor Charles V. obtained the help of the duke during the war of the league of Schmalkalden by promising him in certain eventualities the succession to the Bohemian throne, and the electoral dignity enjoyed by the count palatine of the Rhine. William also did much at a critical period to secure Roman Catholicism in Bavaria. Bavaria for Catholicism. The reformed doctrines had made considerable progress in the duchy when the duke from the pope extensive rights over the bishoprics and monasteries, and took measures to repress the reformers, many of whom were banished; while the Jesuits, whom he invited into the duchy in 1541, made the university of Ingolstadt their headquarters for Germany. William, whose death occurred in March 1550, was succeeded by his son Albert IV., who had married a daughter of Ferdinand of Habsburg, afterwards the emperor Ferdinand I. Early in his reign Albert made some concessions to the reformers, who were still strong in Bavaria; but about 1563 he changed his attitude, favoured the decrees of the council of Trent, and pressed forward the work of the Counter-Reformation. As education passed by degrees into the hands of the Jesuits the progress of Protestantism was effectually arrested in Bavaria. Albert IV. was a great patron of art. His court at Munich was the resort of artists of all kinds, and the city was enriched with splendid buildings; while artistic works were collected from Italy and elsewhere. The expenses of a magnificent court led the duke to quarrel with the Landschaft, to oppress his subjects, and to leave a great burden of debt when he died in October 1579. The succeeding duke was Albert’s son, William V. (called the Pious), who was educated by the Jesuits and was keenly attached to their tenets. He secured the archbishopric of Cologne for his brother Ernest in 1583, and this dignity remained in the possession of the family for nearly 200 years. In Reign of Maximillian I. and the Thirty Years’ War. 1597 he abdicated in favour of his son Maximilian I., and retired into a monastery, where he died in 1626. Maximilian found the duchy encumbered with debt and filled with disorder, but ten years of his vigorous rule effected a remarkable change. The finances and the judicial system were reorganized, a class of civil servants and a national militia founded, and several small districts were brought under the duke’s authority. The result was a unity and order in the duchy which enabled Maximilian to play an important part in the Thirty Years’ War; during the earlier years of which he was so successful as to acquire the Upper Palatinate and the electoral dignity which had been enjoyed since 1356 by the elder branch of the Wittelsbach family. In spite of subsequent reverses these gains were retained by Maximilian at the peace of Westphalia in 1648. During the later years of this war Bavaria, especially the northern part, suffered severely. In 1632 it was invaded by the Swedes, and, when Maximilian violated the treaty of Ulm in 1647, was ravaged by the French and the Swedes. After repairing this damage to some extent, the elector died at Ingolstadt in September 1651, leaving his duchy much stronger than he had found it. The recovery of the Upper Palatinate made Bavaria compact; the acquisition of the electoral vote made it influential; and the duchy was able to play a part in European politics which intestine strife had rendered impossible for the past four hundred years.

(A. W. H.*)

Whatever lustre the international position won by Maximilian I. might add to the ducal house, on Bavaria itself its effect during the next two centuries was more dubious. Maximillian’s son, Ferdinand Maria (1651-1679), who was a Beginning of modern period. minor when he succeeded, did much indeed to repair the wounds caused by the Thirty Years’ War, encouraging agriculture and industries, and building or restoring numerous churches and monasteries. In 1669, moreover, he again called a meeting of the diet, which had been suspended since 1612. His good work, however, was largely undone by his son Maximilian II. Emmanuel (1679-1726), whose far-reaching ambition set him warring against the Turks and, on the side of France, in the great struggle of the Spanish succession. He shared in the defeat at Höchstädt on the 13th of August 1704; his dominions were temporarily partitioned between Austria and the elector palatine, and only restored to him, harried and exhausted, at the peace of Baden in 1714. Untaught by Maximilian Emmanuel’s experience, his son, Charles Albert (1726-1745), devoted all his energies to increasing the European prestige and power of his house. The death of the emperor Charles VI. was his opportunity; he disputed the validity of the Pragmatic Sanction which secured the Habsburg succession to Maria Theresa, allied himself with France, conquered Upper Austria, was crowned king of Bohemia at Prague and, in 1742, emperor at Frankfort. The price he had to pay, however, was the occupation of Bavaria itself by Austrian troops; and, though the invasion of Bohemia in 1744 by Frederick II. of Prussia enabled him to return to Munich, at his death on the 20th of January 1745 it was left to his successor to make what terms he could for the recovery of his dominions. Maximilian III. Joseph (1745-1777), by the peace of Füssen signed on the 22nd of April 1745, obtained the restitution of his dominions in return for a formal acknowledgment of the Pragmatic Sanction. He was a man of enlightenment, did much to encourage agriculture, industries and the exploitation of the mineral wealth of the country, founded the Academy of Sciences at Munich, and abolished the Jesuit censorship of the press. At his death, without issue, on the 30th of December 1777, the Bavarian line of the Wittelsbachs became extinct, and the succession passed to Charles Theodore, the elector palatine. After a separation of four and a half centuries, the Palatinate, to which the Re-union of the Palatinate. duchies of Jülich and Berg had been added, was thus reunited with Bavaria. So great an accession of strength to a neighbouring state, whose ambition she had so recently had just reason to fear, was intolerable to Austria, which laid claim to a number of lordships—forming one-third of the whole Bavarian inheritance—as lapsed fiefs of the Bohemian, Austrian, and imperial crowns. These were at once occupied by Austrian troops, with the secret consent of Charles Theodore himself, who was without legitimate heirs, and wished to obtain from the emperor the elevation of his natural children to the status of princes of the Empire. The protests of the next heir, Charles, duke of Zweibrücken (Deux-Ponts), supported by the king of Prussia, led to the war of Bavarian succession. By the peace of Teschen (May 13th, 1779) the Inn quarter was ceded to Austria, and the succession secured to Charles of Zweibrücken. For Bavaria itself Charles Theodore did less than nothing. He felt himself a foreigner among foreigners, and his favourite scheme, the subject of endless intrigues with the Austrian cabinet and the immediate cause of Frederick II.’s League of Princes (Fürstenbund) of 1785, was to exchange Bavaria for the Austrian Netherlands and the title of king of Burgundy. For the rest, the enlightened internal policy of his predecessor was abandoned. The funds of the suppressed order of Jesus, which Maximilian Joseph had destined for the reform of the educational system of the country, were used to endow a province of the knights of St John of Jerusalem, for the purpose of combating the enemies of the faith. The government was inspired by the narrowest clericalism, which culminated in the attempt to withdraw the Bavarian bishops from the jurisdiction of the great German metropolitans and place them directly under that of the pope. On the eve of the Revolution the intellectual and social condition of Bavaria remained that of the middle ages.

In 1792 the revolutionary armies overran the Palatinate; in 1795 the French, under Moreau, invaded Bavaria itself, advanced to Munich—where they were received with joy by the long-suppressed Liberals—and laid siege to Ingolstadt. The revolutionary wars. Charles Theodore, who had done nothing to prevent or to resist the invasion, fled to Saxony, leaving a regency, the members of which signed a convention with Moreau, by which he granted an armistice in return for a heavy contribution (September 7th, 1796). Immediately afterwards he was forced to retire.

Between the French and the Austrians, Bavaria was now in an evil case. Before the death of Charles Theodore (February 16th, 1799) the Austrians had again occupied the country, preparatory to renewing the war with France. Maximilian IV. Joseph (of Zweibrücken), the new elector, succeeded to a difficult inheritance. Though his own sympathies, and those of his all-powerful minister, Max Josef von Montgelas (q.v.), were, if anything, French rather than Austrian, the state of the Bavarian finances, and the fact that the Bavarian troops were scattered and disorganized, placed him helpless in the hands of Austria; on the 2nd of December 1800 the Bavarian arms were involved in the Austrian defeat at Hohenlinden, and Moreau once more occupied Munich. By the treaty of Lunéville (February 9th, 1801) Bavaria lost the Palatinate and the duchies of Zweibrücken and Jülich.

In view of the scarcely disguised ambitions and intrigues of the Austrian court, Montgelas now believed that the interests of Bavaria lay in a frank alliance with the French republic; he succeeded in overcoming the reluctance of French influence. Maximilian Joseph; and, on the 24th of August, a separate treaty of peace and alliance with France was signed at Paris. By the third article of this the First Consul undertook to see that the compensation promised under the 7th article of the treaty of Lunéville for the territory ceded on the left bank of the Rhine, should be carried out at the expense of the Empire in the manner most agreeable to Bavaria (de Martens, Recueil, vol. vii. p. 365). In 1803, accordingly, in the territorial rearrangements consequent on Napoleon’s suppression of the ecclesiastical states, and of many free cities of the Empire, Bavaria received the bishoprics of Würzburg, Bamberg, Augsburg and Freisingen, part of that of Passau, the territories of twelve abbeys, and seventeen cities and villages, the whole forming a compact territory which more than compensated for the loss of her outlying provinces on the Rhine.1 Montgelas’ ambition was now to raise Bavaria to the rank of a first-rate power, and he pursued this object during the Napoleonic epoch with consummate skill, allowing fully for the preponderance of France—so long as it lasted—but never permitting Bavaria to sink, like so many of the states of the confederation of the Rhine, into a mere French dependency. In the war of 1805, in accordance with a treaty of alliance signed at Würzburg on the 23rd of September, Bavarian troops, for the first time since Charles VII., fought side by side with the French, and by the treaty of Pressburg, signed on the 26th of December, the principality of Eichstädt, the margraviate of Burgau, the lordship of Vorarlberg, the countships of Hohenems and Königsegg-Rothenfels, the lordships of Argen and Tetnang, and the city of Lindau with its territory were to be added to Bavaria. On the other hand Würzburg, obtained in 1803, was to be ceded by Bavaria to the elector of Salzburg in exchange for Tirol. By the 1st article of the treaty the emperor acknowledged the assumption by the elector of the title of king, as Maximilian I.2 The price which Maximilian had reluctantly to pay for this accession of dignity was the marriage of his daughter Augusta with Eugène Beauharnais.

For the internal constitution of Bavaria also the French alliance had noteworthy consequences. Maximilian himself was an “enlightened” prince of the 18th-century type, whose tolerant principles had already grievously offended his clerical subjects; Montgelas was a firm believer in drastic reform “from above,” and, in 1803, had discussed with the rump of the old estates the question of reforms. But the revolutionary changes introduced by the constitution proclaimed on the 1st of May 1808 were due to the direct influence of Napoleon. A clean sweep was made of the medieval polity surviving in the somnolent local diets and corporations. In place of the old system of privileges and exemptions were set equality before the law, universal liability to taxation, abolition of serfdom, security of person and property, liberty of conscience and of the press. A representative assembly was created on paper, based on a narrow franchise and with very limited powers, but was never summoned.

In 1809 Bavaria was again engaged in war with Austria on the side of France, and by the treaty signed at Paris on the 28th of February 1810 ceded southern Tirol to Italy and some small districts to Württemberg, receiving as compensation parts of Salzburg, the quarters of the Inn and Hausrück and the principalities of Bayreuth and Regensburg. So far the policy of Montgelas had been brilliantly successful; but the star of Napoleon had now reached its zenith, and already the astute opportunist had noted the signs of the coming change. The events of 1812 followed; in 1813 Bavaria was summoned to join the alliance against Napoleon, the demand being passionately backed by the crown prince Louis and by Marshal Wrede; on Treaty of Ried. the 8th of October was signed the treaty of Ried, by which Bavaria threw in her lot with the Allies. Montgelas announced to the French ambassador that he had been compelled temporarily to bow before the storm, adding “Bavaria has need of France.” (For Bavaria’s share in the war see Napoleonic Campaigns.)

Immediately after the first peace of Paris (1814), Bavaria ceded to Austria Tirol and Vorarlberg; by the congress of Vienna it was decided that she was to add to these the greater part of Salzburg and the quarters of the Inn and Hausrück, receiving as compensation, besides Würzburg and Relations with Austria. Aschaffenburg, the Palatinate on the left bank of the Rhine and certain districts of Hesse and of the former abbacy of Fulda. But with the collapse of France the old fear and jealousy of Austria had revived in full force, and Bavaria only agreed to these cessions (treaty of Munich, April 16th, 1816) on Austria promising that, in the event of the powers ignoring her claim to the Baden succession in favour of that of the line of the counts of Hochberg, she should receive also the Palatinate on the right bank of the Rhine. The question was thus left open, the tension between the two powers remained extreme, and war was only averted by the authority of the Grand Alliance. At the congress of Aix (1818) the question of the Baden succession was settled in favour of the Hochberg line, without the compensation stipulated for in the treaty of Munich; and by the treaty of Frankfort, signed on behalf of the four great powers on the 20th of July 1819, the territorial questions at issue between Bavaria and Austria were settled, in spite of the protests of the former, in the general sense of the arrangement made at Vienna. A small strip of territory was added, to connect Bavaria with the Palatinate, and Bavarian troops were to garrison the federal fortress of Mainz.

Meanwhile, on the 1st of February 1817, Montgelas had been dismissed; and Bavaria had entered on a new era of constitutional reform. This implied no breach with the European policy of the fallen minister. In the new German Constitution of 1818. confederation Bavaria had assumed the rôle of defender of the smaller states against the ambitions of Austria and Prussia, and Montgelas had dreamed of a Bavarian hegemony in South Germany similar to that of Prussia in the north. It was to obtain popular support for this policy and for the Bavarian claims on Baden that the crown prince pressed for a liberal constitution, the reluctance of Montgelas to concede it being the cause of his dismissal. On the 26th of May 1818 the constitution was proclaimed. The parliament was to consist of two houses; the first comprising the great hereditary landowners, government officials and nominees of the crown; the second, elected on a very narrow franchise, representatives of the small land-owners, the towns and the peasants. By additional articles the equality of religions was guaranteed and the rights of Protestants safeguarded, concessions which were denounced at Rome as a breach of the Concordat, which had been signed immediately before. The result of the constitutional experiment hardly justified the royal expectations; the parliament was hardly opened (February 5th, 1819) before the doctrinaire radicalism of some of its members, culminating in the demand that the army should swear allegiance to the constitution, so alarmed the king, that he appealed to Austria and Germany, undertaking to carry out any repressive measures they might recommend. Prussia, however, refused to approve of any coup d’état; the parliament, chastened by the consciousness that its life depended on the goodwill of the king, moderated its tone; and Maximilian ruled till his death as a model constitutional monarch. On the 13th of October 1825, he was succeeded by his son, Louis I., an enlightened patron of the arts and sciences, who transferred the university of Landshut to Munich, which, by his magnificent taste in building, he transformed into one of the most beautiful cities of the continent. The earlier years of his reign were marked by a liberal spirit and the reform, especially, of the financial administration; but the revolutions of 1831 frightened him into reaction, which was accentuated by the opposition of the parliament to his expenditure on building and works of art. In 1837 the Ultramontanes came into power with Karl von Abel (1788-1859) as prime minister. The Jesuits now gained the upper hand; one by one the liberal provisions of the constitution were modified or annulled; the Protestants were harried and oppressed; and a rigorous censorship forbade any free discussion of internal politics. The collapse of this régime was due, not to popular agitation, but to the resentment of Louis at the clerical opposition to the influence of his mistress, Lola Montez. On the 17th of February 1847, Abel was dismissed, for publishing his Lola Montez. memorandum against the proposal to naturalize Lola, who was an Irishwoman; and the Protestant Georg Ludwig von Maurer (q.v.) took his place. The new ministry granted the certificate of naturalization; but riots, in which ultramontane professors of the university took part, were the result. The professors were deprived, the parliament dissolved, and, on the 27th of November, the ministry dismissed. Lola Montez, created Countess Landsfeld, was supreme in the state; and the new minister, Prince Ludwig von Oettingen-Wallerstein (1791-1870), in spite of his efforts to enlist Liberal sympathy by appeals to pan-German patriotism, was powerless to form a stable government. His cabinet was known as the “Lolaministerium”; in February 1848, stimulated by the news from Paris, riots broke out against the countess; on the 11th of March the king dismissed Oettingen, and on the 20th, realizing the force of public opinion against him, abdicated in favour of his son, Maximilian II.

Before his abdication Louis had issued, on the 6th of March, a proclamation promising the zealous co-operation of the Bavarian government in the work of German freedom and unity. To the spirit of this Maximilian was faithful, Anti-Prussian policy. accepting the authority of the central government at Frankfort, and (19th of December) sanctioning the official promulgation of the laws passed by the German parliament. But Prussia was henceforth the enemy, not Austria. In refusing to agree to the offer of the imperial crown to Frederick William IV., Maximilian had the support of his parliament. In withholding his assent to the new German constitution, by which Austria was excluded from the Confederation, he ran indeed counter to the sentiment of his people; but by this time the back of the revolution was broken, and in the events which led to the humiliation of Prussia at Olmütz in 1851, and the restoration of the old diet of the Confederation, Bavaria was safe in casting in her lot with Austria (see Germany: History). The guiding spirit in this anti-Prussian policy, which characterized Bavarian statesmanship up to the war of 1866, was Ludwig Karl Heinrich von der Pfordten (1811-1880), who became minister for foreign affairs on the 19th of April 1849. His idea for the ultimate solution of the question of the balance of power in Germany was the so-called Trias, i.e. a league of the Rhenish states as a counterpoise to the preponderance of Austria and Prussia. In internal affairs his ministry was characterized by a reactionary policy less severe than elsewhere in Germany, which led none the less from 1854 onward to a struggle with the parliament, which ended in the dismissal of Pfordten’s ministry on the 27th of March 1859. He was succeeded by Karl Freiherr von Schrenk auf Notzing (1806-1884), an official of Liberal tendencies who had been Bavarian representative in the diet of the Confederation. Important reforms were now introduced, including the separation of the judicial and executive powers and the drawing up of a new criminal code. In foreign affairs Schrenk, like his predecessor, aimed at safeguarding the independence of Bavaria, and supported the idea of superseding the actual constitution of the Confederation by a supreme directory, in which Bavaria, as leader of the purely German states, would hold the balance between Prussia and Austria. Bavaria accordingly opposed the Prussian proposals for the reorganization of the Confederation, and one of the last acts of King Maximilian was to take a conspicuous part in the assembly of princes summoned to Frankfort in 1863 by the emperor Francis Joseph (see Germany).

Maximilian was succeeded on the 10th of March 1864 by his son Louis II., a youth of eighteen. The government was at first carried on by Schrenk and Pfordten in concert. Schrenk soon retired, when the Bavarian government found it necessary, in order to maintain its position in the Prussian Zollverein, to become a party to the Prussian commercial treaty with France, signed in 1862. In the complicated Schleswig-Holstein question (q.v.) Bavaria, under Pfordten’s guidance, consistently opposed Prussia, and headed the lesser states in their support of Frederick of Augustenburg against the policy of the two great German powers. Finally, in the war of 1866, in spite of Bismarck’s efforts to secure her neutrality, Bavaria sided actively with Austria.

The rapid victory of the Prussians and the wise moderation of Bismarck paved the way for a complete revolution in Bavaria’s relation to Prussia and the German question. The South German Confederation, contemplated by the Union with German Empire. 6th article of the treaty of Prague, never came into being; and, though Prussia, in order not prematurely to excite the alarm of France, opposed the suggestion that the southern states should join the North German Confederation, the bonds of Bavaria, as of the other southern states, with the north, were strengthened by an offensive and defensive alliance with Prussia, as the result of Napoleon’s demand for “compensation” in the Palatinate. This was signed at Berlin on the 22nd of August 1866, on the same day as the signature of the formal treaty of peace between the two countries. The separatist ambitions of Bavaria were thus formally given up; she had no longer “need of France”; and in the war of 1870-71, the Bavarian army marched, under the command of the Prussian crown prince, against the common enemy of Germany. It was on the proposal of King Louis II. that the imperial crown was offered to King William.

This was preceded, on the 23rd of November 1870, by the signature of a treaty between Bavaria and the North German Confederation. By this instrument, though Bavaria became an integral part of the new German empire, she reserved a larger measure of sovereign independence than any of the other constituent states. Thus she retained a separate diplomatic service, military administration, and postal, telegraph and railway systems. The treaty was ratified by the Bavarian chambers on the 21st of January 1871, though not without considerable opposition on the part of the so-called “patriot” party. Their hostility was increased by the Kulturkampf, due to the promulgation in 1870 of the dogma of papal infallibility. Munich University, where Döllinger (q.v.) was professor, became the centre of the opposition to the new dogma, and the “old Catholics” (q.v.) were protected by the king and the government. The federal law expelling the Jesuits was proclaimed in Bavaria on the 6th of September 1871 and was extended to the Redemptorists in 1873. On the 31st of March 1871, moreover, the bonds with the rest of the empire had been drawn closer by the acceptance of a number of laws of the North German Confederation, of which the most important was the new criminal code, which was finally put into force in Bavaria in 1879. The opposition of the “patriot” party, however, reinforced by the strong Catholic sentiment of the country, continued powerful, and it was only the steady support given by the king to successive Liberal ministries that prevented its finding disastrous expression in the parliament, where it remained in a greater or less majority till 1887, and has since, as the “centre,” continued to form the most compact party in an assembly made up of “groups.”

Meanwhile the royal dreamer, whose passion for building palaces was becoming a serious drain on the treasury, had been declared insane, and, on the 7th of June 1886, the heir-presumptive, Prince Luitpold, was proclaimed regent. Six days later, on the 13th of June, Louis committed suicide. His brother, Otto I., being also insane, the regency was confirmed to Prince Luitpold.

Since 1871 Bavaria has shared to the full in the marvellous development of Germany; but her “particularism,” founded on traditional racial and religious antagonism to the Prussians, was by no means dead, though it exhibited itself in no more dangerous form than the prohibition, reissued in 1900, to display any but the Bavarian flag on public buildings on the emperor’s birthday; a provision which has been since so far modified as to allow the Bavarian and imperial flags to be hung side by side.

Authorities.—Monumenta Boica (44 vols., Munich, 1763-1900); G.T. Rudhart, Aelteste Geschichte Bayerns (Hamburg, 1841); A. Quitzmann, Abstammung, Ursitz, und älteste Geschichte der Bairwaren (Munich, 1857), and Die älteste Geschichte der Baiern bis 911 (Brunswick, 1873); S. Riezler, Geschichte Bayerns (Gotha, 1878-1899); Ad. Brecher, Darstellung der geschichtlichen Entwickelung des bayrischen Staatsgebiets, map (Berlin, 1890); E. Rosenthal, Geschichte des Gerichtswesens und der Verwaltungsorganisation Bayerns (Würzburg, 1889); A. Buchner, Geschichte von Baiern (Munich, 1820-1853); Forschungen zur Geschichte Bayerns, edited by K. von Reinhardstottner (Berlin, 1897 fol.). Much valuable detail will be found in the lives of Bavarian princes and statesmen in the Allgemeine deutsche Biographie (Leipzig, 1875-1906 in progr.)

(W. A. P.)

1 See Recès de la députation de l’empire ... du 25 févr, 1803, &c., § II. vol. vii. p. 453 of G.F. de Martens, Recueil des Traités, &c. (Gottingue, 1831).

2 Text in de Martens’ Recueil, viii. p. 388.

BAVENO, a town of Piedmont, Italy, in the province of Novara, on the west shore of Lago Maggiore, 13 m. N.N.W. of Arona by rail. Pop. (1901) 2502. It is much frequented as a resort in spring, summer and autumn, and has many beautiful villas. To the north-west are the famous red granite quarries, which have supplied the columns for the cathedral of Milan, the church of S. Paolo fuori le Mura at Rome, the Galleria Vittorio Emanuele at Milan, and other important buildings.

BAWBEE (of very doubtful origin, the most plausible conjecture being that the word is a corruption from the name of the mint master Sillebawby, by whom they were first issued, c. 1541), the Scottish name for a halfpenny or other small coin, and hence used of money generally. A writer in 1573, quoted in Tytler’s History of Scotland, speaks of “a coin called a bawbee, ... which is in value English one penny and a quarter.” The word was sometimes written “babie,” and has therefore been identified merely with a “baby coin,” but this etymology is less probable.

BAXTER, ANDREW (1686-1750), Scottish metaphysician, was born in Aberdeen and educated at King’s College. He maintained himself by acting as tutor to noblemen’s sons. From 1741 to 1747 he lived with Lord Blantyre and Mr Hay of Drummelzier at Utrecht, and made excursions in Flanders, France and Germany. Returning to Scotland, he lived at Whittingehame, near Edinburgh, till his death in 1750. At Spa he had met John Wilkes, then twenty years of age, and formed a lasting friendship with him. His chief work, An Inquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul (editions 1733, 1737 and 1745; with appendix added in 1750 in answer to an attack in Maclaurin’s Account of Sir I. Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries, and dedication to John Wilkes), examines the properties of matter. The one essential property of matter is its inactivity, vis inertiae (accepted later by Monboddo). All movement in matter is, therefore, caused by some immaterial force, namely, God. But the movements of the body are not analogous to the movements of matter; they are caused by a special immaterial force, the soul. The soul, as being immaterial, is immortal, and its consciousness does not depend upon its connexion with the body. The argument is supported by an analysis of the phenomena of dreams, which are ascribed to direct spiritual influences. Lastly Baxter attempted to prove that matter is finite. His work is an attack on Toland’s Letters to Serena (1704), which argued that motion is essential to matter, and on Locke and Berkeley. His criticism of Berkeley (in the second volume) is, however, based on the common misinterpretation of his theory (see Berkeley). Sir Leslie Stephen speaks of him as a curious example of “the effects of an exploded metaphysics on a feeble though ingenious intellect.”

Beside the Inquiry, Baxter wrote Matho sive Cosmotheoria Puerilis (an exposition in Latin of the elements of astronomy written for his pupils—editions in English 1740, 1745 and 1765, with one dialogue re-written); Evidence of Reason in Proof of the Immortality of the Soul (published posthumously from MSS. by Dr Duncan in 1779).

See life in Biographia Britannica; McCosh’s Scottish Philosophy, pp. 42-49.

BAXTER, RICHARD (1615-1691), English puritan divine, called by Dean Stanley “the chief of English Protestant Schoolmen,” was born at Rowton, in Shropshire, at the house of his maternal grandfather, in November (probably the 12th) 1615. His ancestors had been gentlefolk, but his father had reduced himself to hard straits by loose living. About the time of Richard’s birth, however, he changed decisively for the better. The boy’s early education was poor, being mainly in the hands of the illiterate and dissolute clergy and readers who held the neighbouring livings at that time. He was better served by John Owen, master of the free school at Wroxeter, where he studied from about 1629 to 1632, and made fair progress in Latin. On Owen’s advice he did not proceed to Oxford (a step which he afterwards regretted), but went to Ludlow Castle to read with Richard Wickstead, the council’s chaplain there. Wickstead neglected his pupil entirely, but Baxter’s eager mind found abundant nourishment in the great library at the castle. He was persuaded—against his will—to turn his attention to a court life, and he went to London under the patronage of Sir Henry Herbert, master of the revels, to follow that course; but he very soon returned home with a fixed resolve—confirmed by the death of his mother—to study divinity. After three months’ schoolmastering for Owen at Wroxeter he read theology, and especially the schoolmen, with Francis Garbet, the local clergyman. About this time (1634) he met Joseph Symonds and Walter Cradock, two famous Nonconformists, whose piety and fervour influenced him considerably. In 1638 he was nominated to the mastership of the free grammar school, Dudley, in which place he commenced his ministry, having been ordained and licensed by John Thornborough, bishop of Worcester. His success as a preacher was, at this early period, not very great; but he was soon transferred to Bridgnorth (Shropshire), where, as assistant to a Mr Madstard, he established a reputation for the vigorous discharge of the duties of his office.

He remained at Bridgnorth nearly two years, during which time he took a special interest in the controversy relating to Nonconformity and the Church of England. He soon, on some points, especially matters of discipline, became alienated from the Church; and after the requirement of what is called “the et cetera oath,” he rejected episcopacy in its English form. He could not, however, be called more than a moderate Nonconformist; and such he continued to be throughout his life. Though commonly denominated a Presbyterian, he had no exclusive attachment to Presbyterianism, and often manifested a willingness to accept a modified Episcopalianism. All forms of church government were regarded by him as subservient to the true purposes of religion.

One of the first measures of the Long Parliament was to effect the reformation of the clergy; and, with this view, a committee was appointed to receive complaints against them. Among the complainants were the inhabitants of Kidderminster, a town which had become famous for its ignorance and depravity. This state of matters was so clearly proved that an arrangement was agreed to on the part of the vicar (Dance), by which he allowed £60 a year, out of his income £200, to a preacher who should be chosen by certain trustees. Baxter was invited to deliver a sermon before the people, and was unanimously elected as the minister of the place. This happened in April 1641, when he was twenty-six years of age.

His ministry continued, with very considerable interruptions, for about nineteen years; and during that time he accomplished a work of reformation in Kidderminster and the neighbourhood which is as notable as anything of the kind upon record. Civilized behaviour succeeded to brutality of manners; and, whereas the professors of religion had been but small exceptions to the mass, the unreligious people became the exceptions in their turn. He formed the ministers in the country around him into an association for the better fulfilment of the duties of their calling, uniting them together irrespective of their differences as Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Independents. The spirit in which he acted may be judged of from The Reformed Pastor, a book published in relation to the general ministerial efforts he promoted. It drives home the sense of clerical responsibility with extraordinary power. The result of his action is that, to this day his memory is cherished as that of the true apostle of the district where he laboured.

The interruptions to which his Kidderminster life was subjected arose from the condition of things occasioned by the civil war. Baxter blamed both parties, but Worcestershire was a cavalier county, and a man in his position was, while the war continued, exposed to annoyance and danger in a place like Kidderminster. He therefore removed to Gloucester, and afterwards (1643-1645) settled in Coventry, where he preached regularly both to the garrison and the citizens. After the battle of Naseby he took the situation of chaplain to Colonel Whalley’s regiment, and continued to hold it till February 1647. During these stormy years he wrote his Aphorisms of Justification, which on its appearance in 1649 excited great controversy.

Baxter’s connexion with the Parliamentary army was a very characteristic one. He joined it that he might, if possible, counteract the growth of the sectaries in that field, and maintain the cause of constitutional government in opposition to the republican tendencies of the time. He regretted that he had not previously accepted an offer of Cromwell to become chaplain to the Ironsides, being confident in his power of persuasion under the most difficult circumstances. His success in converting the soldiery to his views does not seem to have been very great, but he preserved his own consistency and fidelity in a remarkable degree. By public disputation and private conference, as well as by preaching, he enforced his doctrines, both ecclesiastical and political, and shrank no more from urging what he conceived to be the truth upon the most powerful officers than he did from instructing the meanest followers of the camp. Cromwell disliked his loquacity and shunned his society; but Baxter having to preach before him after he had assumed the Protectorship, chose for his subject the old topic of the divisions and distractions of the church, and in subsequent interviews not only opposed him about liberty of conscience, but spoke in favour of the monarchy he had subverted. There is a striking proof of Baxter’s insight into character in his account of what happened under these circumstances. Of Cromwell he says, “I saw that what he learned must be from himself.” It is worthy of notice that this intercourse with Cromwell occurred when Baxter was summoned to London to assist in settling “the fundamentals of religion,” and made the memorable declaration, in answer to the objection that what he had proposed as fundamental “might be subscribed by a Papist or Socinian,”—“So much the better, and so much the fitter it is to be the matter of concord.” In 1647 he was staying at the home of Lady Rouse of Rouse-Lench, and there, in much physical weakness, wrote a great part of his famous work, The Saints’ Everlasting Rest (1650). On his recovery he returned to his charge at Kidderminster, where he also became a prominent political leader, his sensitive conscience leading him into conflict with almost every one of the contending parties in state and church. His conduct now, as at all times, did “credit to his conscientiousness rather than to his wisdom.”

After the Restoration in 1660 Baxter, who had helped to bring about that event, settled in London. He preached there till the Act of Uniformity took effect in 1662, and was employed in seeking for such terms of comprehension as would have permitted the moderate dissenters with whom he acted to have remained in the Church of England. In this hope he was sadly disappointed. There was at that time on the part of the rulers of the church no wish for such comprehension, and their object in the negotiations that took place was to excuse the breach of faith which their rejection of all reasonable methods of concession involved. The chief good that resulted from the Savoy conference was the production of Baxter’s Reformed Liturgy, a work of remarkable excellence, though it was cast aside without consideration. The same kind of reputation which Baxter had obtained in the country he secured in the larger and more important circle of the metropolis. The power of his preaching was universally felt, and his capacity for business placed him at the head of his party. He had been made a king’s chaplain, and was offered the bishopric of Hereford, but he could not accept the offer without virtually assenting to things as they were. This he could not do, and after his refusal he was not allowed, even before the passing of the Act of Uniformity, to be a curate in Kidderminster, though he was willing to serve that office gratuitously. Bishop Morley even prohibited him from preaching in the diocese of Worcester. Baxter, however, found much consolation in his marriage on the 24th of September 1662 with Margaret Charlton, a woman like-minded with himself. She died in 1681.

From the ejectment of 1662 to the indulgence of 1687, Baxter’s life was constantly disturbed by persecution of one kind or another. He retired to Acton in Middlesex, for the purpose of quiet study, and was dragged thence to prison for keeping a conventicle. The mittimus was pronounced illegal and irregular, and Baxter procured a habeas corpus in the court of common pleas. He was taken up for preaching in London after the licences granted in 1672 were recalled by the king. The meetinghouse which he had built for himself in Oxendon Street was closed against him after he had preached there but once. He was, in 1680, seized in his house, and conveyed away at the risk of his life; and though he was released that he might die at home, his books and goods were distrained. He was, in 1684, carried three times to the sessions house, being scarcely able to stand, and without any apparent cause was made to enter into a bond for £400 in security for his good behaviour.

But his worst encounter was with the chief justice, Sir George Jeffreys, in May 1685. He had been committed to the king’s bench prison on the ridiculous charge of libelling the Church in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, and was tried before Jeffreys on this accusation. The trial is well known as among the most brutal perversions of justice which have occurred in England, though it must be remembered that no authoritative report of the trial exists. If the partisan account on which tradition is based is to be accepted, it would appear that Jeffreys himself acted like an infuriated madman. (See Jeffreys, Sir George.) Baxter was sentenced to pay 500 marks, to lie in prison till the money was paid, and to be bound to his good behaviour for seven years. It was even asserted at the time that Jeffreys proposed he should be whipped at the cart’s tail through London. The old man, for he was now seventy, remained in prison for eighteen months, when the government, vainly hoping to win his influence to their side, remitted the fine and released him.

During the long time of oppression and injury which followed the ejectment, Baxter was sadly afflicted in body. His whole life was indeed one continued illness, but in this part of it his pain and languor had greatly increased. Yet this was the period of his greatest activity as a writer. He was a most voluminous author, his separate works, it is said, amounting to 168. They are as learned as they are elaborate, and as varied in their subjects as they are faithfully composed. Such treatises as the Christian Directory, the Methodus Theologiae Christianae, and the Catholic Theology, might each have occupied the principal part of the life of an ordinary man. His Breviate of the Life of Mrs Margaret Baxter records the virtues of his wife, and reveals on the part of Baxter a tenderness of nature which might otherwise have been unknown. His editors have contented themselves with re-publishing his “Practical Works,” and his ethical, philosophical, historical and political writings still await a competent editor.

The remainder of Baxter’s life, from 1687 onwards, was passed in peace and honour. He continued to preach and to publish almost to the end. He was surrounded by attached friends, and reverenced by the religious world. His saintly behaviour, his great talents, and his wide influence, added to his extended age, raised him to a position of unequalled reputation. He helped to bring about the downfall of James II. and complied with the Toleration Act under William and Mary. He died in London on the 8th of December 1691, and his funeral was attended by churchmen as well as dissenters. A similar tribute of general esteem was paid to him nearly two centuries later, when a statue was erected to his memory at Kidderminster in July 1875.

Baxter was possessed by an unconquerable belief in the power of persuasive argument. He thought every one was amenable to reason—bishops and levellers included. And yet he was as far as possible from being a quarrelsome man. He was at once a man of fixed belief and large appreciation, so that his dogmatism and his liberality sometimes came into collision. His popularity as a preacher was deservedly pre-eminent; but no more diligent student ever shut himself up with his books. He was singularly fitted for intellectual debate, but his devotional tendency was equally strong with his logical aptitude. Some of his writings, from their metaphysical subtilty, will always puzzle the learned; but he could write to the level of the common heart without loss of dignity or pointedness. His Reasons for the Christian Religion is still, for its evidential purpose, better than most works of its kind. His Poor Man’s Family Book is a manual that continues to be worthy of its title. His Saints’ Everlasting Rest will always command the grateful admiration of pious readers. It is also charged with a robust and manly eloquence and a rare and unsought felicity of language that make it a masterpiece of style. Perhaps no thinker has exerted so great an influence upon nonconformity as Baxter has done, and that not in one direction only, but in every form of development, doctrinal, ecclesiastical and practical. He is the type of a distinct class of the Christian ministry—that class which aspires after scholarly training, prefers a broad to a sectarian theology, and adheres to rational methods of religious investigation and appeal. The rational element in him was very strong. He had a settled hatred of fanaticism. Even Quakerism he could scarcely endure. Religion was with him all and in all—that by which all besides was measured, and to whose interests all else was subordinated. Isaac Barrow said that “his practical writings were never minded, and his controversial ones seldom confuted,” and John Wilkins, bishop of Chester, asserted that “if he had lived in the primitive time he had been one of the fathers of the church.”

Bibliography.—Our most valuable source is Baxter’s autobiography, called Reliquiae Baxterianae or Mr Richard Baxter’s Narrative of the most memorable Passages of his Life and Times (published by Matthew Sylvester in 1696). Edmund Calamy abridged this work (1702). The abridgment forms the first volume of the account of the ejected ministers, but whoever refers to it should also acquaint himself with the reply to the accusations which had been brought against Baxter, and which will be found in the second volume of Calamy’s Continuation. William Orme’s Life and Times of Richard Baxter appeared in 2 vols. in 1830; it also forms the first volume of “Practical Works” (1830, reprinted 1868). Sir James Stephen’s interesting paper on Baxter, contributed originally to the Edinburgh Review, is reprinted in the second volume of his Essays. More recent estimates of Baxter are those given by John Tulloch in his English Puritanism and its Leaders, and by Dean Stanley in his address at the inauguration of the statue to Baxter at Kidderminster (see Macmillan’s Magazine, xxxii. 385).

There is a good portrait of Baxter in the Williams library, Gordon Square, London.

BAXTER, ROBERT DUDLEY (1827-1875), English economist and statistician, was born at Doncaster in 1827. He was educated privately and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He studied law and entered his father’s firm of Baxter & Co., solicitors, with which he was connected till his death. Though studiously attentive to business, he was enabled, as a member of the Statistical and other learned societies, to accomplish much useful economic work. His principal economic writings were The Budget and the Income Tax (1860), Railway Extension and its Results (1866), The National Income (1868), The Taxation of the United Kingdom (1869), National Debts of the World (1871), Local Government and Taxation (1874), and his purely political writings included The Volunteer Movement (1860), The Redistribution of Seats and the Counties (1866), History of English Parties and Conservatism (1870), and The Political Progress of the Working Classes (1871).

BAXTER, WILLIAM (1650-1723), British antiquarian, critic and grammarian, nephew of Richard Baxter, the divine, was born at Llanllugan, Montgomeryshire. When he went to Harrow school, at the age of eighteen, he was unable to read, and could speak no language except Welsh. His progress must have been remarkable, since he published his Latin grammar about ten years afterwards. During the greater part of his life Baxter was a schoolmaster, and was finally headmaster of the Mercers’ school, where he remained till shortly before his death on the 31st of May 1723. He was an accomplished linguist, and his learning was undoubtedly very great. His published works are: De Analogia (1679), an advanced Latin grammar; Anacreontis Teii Carmina, including two odes of Sappho (1695; reprinted in 1710, “with improvements,” which he was accused of having borrowed from the edition of Joshua Barnes); Horace (1701 and subsequent editions, regarded as remarkable for its abuse of Bentley); Glossarium Antiquitatum Britannicarum (1719); and Glossarium Antiquitatum Romanarum (1826). The last two works were published by the Rev. Moses Williams, the second (which goes no farther than the letter A) under the title of Reliquiae Baxterianae, including an autobiographical fragment. Baxter also contributed to a joint translation of Plutarch’s Moralia, and left notes on Juvenal and Persius.

BAY, a homonymous term of which the principal branches are as follows, (1) The name of the sweet laurel (Laurus nobilis) or bay tree (see Laurel); this word is derived through the O. Fr. baie, from Lat. baca, berry, the bay bearing a heavy crop of dark purple berries. The leaves of the bay were woven in garlands to crown poets, and hence the word is often used figuratively in the sense of fame and reward. (2) A wide opening or indentation in a coast line. This may be of the same origin as “bay,” in the architectural sense, or from a Latin word which is seen in the place name Baiae. (3) The name of a colour, of a reddish brown, principally used of the colour in horses; there are various shades, light bay, bright bay, &c. This word is derived from the Latin badius, which is given by Varro (in Nonnius, pp. 80-82) as one of the colours of horses. The word is also seen in baize (q.v.). (4) The deep bark of dogs. This word is also seen in the expression “at bay,” properly of a hunted animal who at the last turns on the “baying” hounds and defends itself. The origin of the word is the O. Fr. bayer, abayer, Lat. badare, properly to gape, open wide the mouth. (5) An architectural term (Fr. travée, Ital. compartimento, Ger. Abteilung) for any division or compartment of an arcade, roof, &c. Each space from pillar to pillar in a cathedral, church or other building is called a “bay” or “severy.” This word is also to be referred to bayer, to gape.

A “bay-window” or “bow-window” is a window projecting outwards and forming a recess in the apartment. Bay-windows may be rectangular, polygonal or semicircular in plan, in the last case being better known as bow-windows. The bay-window would seem to have been introduced in the 15th century, but the earliest examples of importance are those which were built during the reign of Edward IV. (1461-1483), when it was largely employed in the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge and in the feudal castles of the period. Examples are found in the palace at Eltham, Cowdray Castle in Sussex, Thornbury Castle in Gloucestershire, and in the George Inn at Glastonbury; one of the finest of a later date is that of the Banqueting Hall at Hampton Court, some 50 ft. high. In the great entrance halls of ancient mansions the floor of the last bay of the hall was generally raised two or three steps, and this portion was reserved for the lord of the manor and his guests, and was known as the dais. The usual position of the bay-window is at one end of this dais, and occasionally but rarely at both ends. The sills of the windows are at a lower level than those in the hall, and, raised on one or two steps, are seats in the recess. The recess of the bay-window was generally covered with a ribbed vault of elaborate design, and the window itself subdivided by mullions and transoms. In some of the larger windows such as those at Cowdray and Hampton Court there are no fewer than five transoms, and this sub-division gave great scale to the design. The same feature when employed in an upper storey and supported by corbels or brackets is known as an oriel window. (See also Dais and Hall.)

BAYAMO, an old inland city on the N. slope of the Sierra Maestra in Santiago province, Cuba. Pop. (1907) 4102. It lies on a plain by the Bayamo river, in a fertile country, but isolated from sea and from railway. Its older parts are extraordinarily irregular. The streets are of all widths, and of all degrees of crookedness, and run in all directions. Bayamo was the third of the seven cities founded by Diego Velazquez, and was established in 1513. During much of the 16th century it was one of the most important agricultural and commercial settlements of the island. Its inland situation gave it relative security against the pirates who then infested West Indian seas, and the misfortunes of Santiago were the fortunes of Bayamo. Down the river Cauto, then open to the sea for vessels of 200 tons, and through Manzanillo, Bayamo drove a thriving contraband trade that made it at the opening of the 17th century the leading town of Cuba. A tremendous flood, in 1616, choking the Cauto with trees and wrecked vessels, cut it off from direct access to the sea; but through Manzanillo it continued a great clandestine traffic with Curaçao, Jamaica, and other foreign islands all through the 17th and 18th centuries. Bayamo was then surrounded by fine plantations. It was a rich and turbulent city. In the war of 1868-78 it was an insurgent stronghold; near it was fought one of the most desperate conflicts of the war, and it was nearly destroyed by the opposing parties. Bayamo was the birthplace and the home of Carlos Manuel de Céspedes (1819-1874), first president of the “first” Cuban republic, and was also the birthplace and home of Tomás Estrada Palma (1835-1908), first president of the present Cuban republic.

BAYARD, PIERRE TERRAIL, Seigneur de (1473-1524), French soldier, the descendant of a noble family, nearly every head of which for two centuries past had fallen in battle, was born at the château Bayard, Dauphiné (near Pontcharra, Isère), about 1473. He served as a page to Charles I., duke of Savoy, until Charles VIII. of France, attracted by his graceful bearing, placed him among the royal followers under the seigneur (count) de Ligny (1487). As a youth he was distinguished for comeliness, affability of manner, and skill in the tilt-yard. In 1494 he accompanied Charles VIII. into Italy, and was knighted after the battle of Fornova (1495), where he had captured a standard. Shortly afterwards, entering Milan alone in ardent pursuit of the enemy, he was taken prisoner, but was set free without a ransom by Lodovico Sforza. In 1502 he was wounded at the assault of Canossa. Bayard was the hero of a celebrated combat of thirteen French knights against an equal number of Germans, and his restless energy and valour were conspicuous throughout the Italian wars of this period. On one occasion it is said that, single-handed, he made good the defence of the bridge of the Garigliano against about 200 Spaniards, an exploit that brought him such renown that Pope Julius II. sought to entice him into the papal service, but unsuccessfully. In 1508 he distinguished himself again at the siege of Genoa by Louis XII., and early in 1509 the king made him captain of a company of horse and foot. At the siege of Padua he won further distinction, not only by his valour, but also by his consummate skill. He continued to serve in the Italian wars up to the siege of Brescia in 1512. Here his intrepidity in first mounting the rampart cost him a severe wound, which obliged his soldiers to carry him into a neighbouring house, the residence of a nobleman, whose wife and daughters he protected from threatened insult. Before his wound was healed, he hurried to join Gaston de Foix, under whom he served in the terrible battle of Ravenna (1512). In 1513, when Henry VIII. of England routed the French at the battle of the Spurs (Guinegate, where Bayard’s father had received a lifelong injury in a battle of 1479), Bayard in trying to rally his countrymen found his escape cut off. Unwilling to surrender, he rode suddenly up to an English officer who was resting unarmed, and summoned him to yield; the knight complying, Bayard in turn gave himself up to his prisoner. He was taken into the English camp, but his gallantry impressed Henry as it had impressed Lodovico, and the king released him without ransom, merely exacting his parole not to serve for six weeks. On the accession of Francis I. in 1515 Bayard was made lieutenant-general of Dauphiné; and after the victory of Marignan, to which his valour largely contributed, he had the honour of conferring knighthood on his youthful sovereign. When war again broke out between Francis I. and Charles V., Bayard, with 1000 men, held Mézières, which had been declared untenable, against an army of 35,000, and after six weeks compelled the imperial generals to raise the siege. This stubborn resistance saved central France from invasion, as the king had not then sufficient forces to withstand the imperialists. All France rang with the achievement, and Francis gained time to collect the royal army which drove out the invaders (1521). The parlement thanked Bayard as the saviour of his country; the king made him a knight of the order of St Michael, and commander in his own name of 100 gens d’armes, an honour till then reserved for princes of the blood. After allaying a revolt at Genoa, and striving with the greatest assiduity to check a pestilence in Dauphiné, Bayard was sent, in 1523, into Italy with Admiral Bonnivet, who, being defeated at Robecco and wounded in a combat during his retreat, implored Bayard to assume the command and save the army. He repulsed the foremost pursuers, but in guarding the rear at the passage of the Sesia was mortally wounded by an arquebus ball (April 30th, 1524). He died in the midst of the enemy, attended by Pescara, the Spanish commander, and by his old comrade the constable de Bourbon. His body was restored to his friends and interred at Grenoble. Chivalry, free of fantastic extravagance, is perfectly mirrored in the character of Bayard. As a soldier he was one of the most skilful commanders of the age. He was particularly noted for the exactitude and completeness of his information of the enemy’s movements; this he obtained both by careful reconnaissance and by a well-arranged system of espionage. In the midst of mercenary armies Bayard remained absolutely disinterested, and to his contemporaries and his successors he was, with his romantic heroism, piety and magnanimity, the fearless and faultless knight, le chevalier sans peur et sans reproche. His gaiety and kindness won him, even more frequently, another name bestowed by his contemporaries, le bon chevalier.