VOLUME IV SLICE III Borgia, Lucrezia to Bradford, John (continued 5)

A new charter went into effect in 1910. It provided for municipal elections in January; for the election of a mayor for four years; for his recall at the end of two years if a majority of the registered voters so vote in the state election in November in the second year of his term; for the summary removal for cause by the mayor of any department head or other of his appointees, for a city council of one chamber of nine members, elected at large each for three years; for nomination by petition; for a permanent finance commission appointed by the governor; for the confirmation of the mayor’s appointments by the state civil service commission; for the mayor’s preparation of the annual budget (in which items may be reduced but not increased by the council), and for his absolute veto of appropriations except for school use. The school committee (who serve gratuitously) appoint the superintendent and supervisors of schools. The number of members of the school-board was in 1905 reduced from twenty-four to five, elected by the city at large, and serving for one, two or three years; at the same time power was centralized in the hands of the superintendent of schools. Civil service reform principles cover the entire municipal administration. The city’s work is done under an eight-hour law.

An analysis of city election returns for the decade 1890-1899 showed that the interest of the citizens was greatest in the choice of a president; then, successively, in the choice of a mayor, a governor, the determination of liquor-license questions by referendum, and the settlement of other referenda. On 21 referenda, 10 being questions of license, the ratio of actual to registered voters ranged on the latter from 57.00 to 75.38% (mean 61.15), and on other referenda from 75.63 to 33.40 (mean 61.39),—the mean for all, 64.18. But the average of two presidential votes was 85.37%; and the maxima, minima and means for mayors and governors were respectively 83.86, 74.99, 78.36 and 84.73, 61.78, 75.72. Of those who might, only some 50 to 65% actually register. Women vote for school committee-men (categories as above, 95.18, 59.62, 76.49%). On a referendum in 1895 on the expediency of granting municipal suffrage to women only 59.08% of the women who were registered voted, and probably less than 10% of those entitled to be registered.

Hospitals, asylums, refuges and homes, pauper, reformatory and penal institutions, flower missions, relief associations, and other charitable or philanthropic organizations, private and public, number several hundreds. The Associated Charities is an incorporated organization for systematizing the various charities of the city. The Massachusetts general hospital (1811-1821)— with a branch for mental and nervous diseases, McLean hospital (1816), in the township of Belmont (post-office, Waverley) about 6 m. W.N.W. of Boston; the Perkins Institution and Massachusetts school for the blind (1832), famous for its conduct by Samuel G. Howe, and for association with Laura Bridgman and Helen Keller; the Massachusetts school for idiotic and feebleminded children (1839); and the Massachusetts charitable eye and ear infirmary (1824), all receive financial aid from the commonwealth, which has representation in their management. The city hospital dates from 1864. A floating hospital for women and children in the summer months, with permanent and transient wards, has been maintained since 1894 (incorporated 1901). Boston was one of the first municipalities of the country to make provision for the separate treatment of juvenile offenders; in 1906 a juvenile court was established. A People’s Palace dedicated to the work of the Salvation Army, and containing baths, gymnasium, a public hall, a library, sleeping-rooms, an employment bureau, free medical and legal bureaus, &c., was opened in 1906. Simmons College and Harvard University maintain the Boston school for social workers (1904). Beneficent social work out of the more usual type is directed by the music and bath departments of the city government. In the provision of public gymnasiums and baths (1866) Boston was the pioneer city of the country, and remains the most advanced. The beach reservations of the metropolitan park system at Revere and Nantasket, and several smaller city beaches are a special feature of this service. Benjamin Franklin, who was born and spent his boyhood in Boston, left £1000 to the city in his will; it amounted in 1905 to $403,000, and constituted a fund to be used for the good of the labouring class of the city.

Largely owing to activity in public works Boston has long been the most expensively governed of American cities. The average yearly expenditure for ten years preceding 1904 was $27,354,416, exclusive of payments on funded and floating debts. The running expenses per-capita in 1900 were $35.23; more than twice the average of 86 leading cities of the country (New York, $23.92; Chicago, $11.62). Schools, police, charities, water, streets and parks are the items of heaviest cost. The cost of the public schools for the five years from 1901-1902 to 1906-1907 was $27,883,937, of which $7,057,895.42 was for new buildings; the cost of the police department was $11,387,314.66 for the six years 1902-1907; and of the water department $4,941,343.37 for the six years 1902-1907; of charities and social work a much larger sum. The remaking of the city was enormously expensive, especially the alteration of the streets after 1866, when the city received power to make such alterations and assess a part of the improvements upon abutting estates. The creation of the city water-system has also been excessively costly, and the total cost up to the 31st of January 1908 of the works remaining to the city after the creation of the metropolitan board in 1898 was about $17,000,000. The metropolitan water board—of whose expenditures Boston bears only a share—expended from 1895 to 1900 $20,693,870; and the system was planned to consume finally probably 40 millions at least. The city park system proper had cost $16,627,033 up to 1899 inclusive; and the metropolitan parks $13,679,456 up to 1907 inclusive. There are no municipal lighting-plants; but the companies upon which the city depends for its service are (with all others) subject to the control of a state commission. In 1885 a state law placed a limit on the contractable debt and upon the taxation rate of the city. Revenues were not realized adequate to its lavish undertakings, and loans were used to meet current expenses. The limits were altered subsequently, but the net debt has continued to rise. In 1822 it was $100,000; in 1850, $6,195,144; in 1886, $24,712,820; in 1904, $58,216,725; in 1907, $70,781,969 (gross debt, $104,206,706)—this included the debt of Suffolk county which in 1907 was $3,517,000. The chief objects for which the city debt was created were in 1907, in millions of dollars: highways, 24.07, parks, 16.29, drainage and sewers, 15.05, rapid transit, 13.57 and water-works, 4.53. Boston paid in 1907 36% of all state taxes, and about 33, 62, 47 and 79% respectively of the assessments for the metropolitan sewer, parks, boulevards and water services. About a third of its revenue goes for such uses or for Suffolk county expenditures over which it has but limited control. The improvement of the Back Bay and of the South Boston flats was in considerable measure forced upon the city by the commonwealth. The debt per capita is as high as the cost of current administration relatively to other cities. The average interest rate on the city obligations in 1907 was about 3.7%. The city’s tax valuation in 1907 was $1,313,471,556 (in 1822, $42,140,200; in 1850, $180,000,500), of which only $242,606,856 represented personalty; although in the judgment of the city board of trade such property cannot by any possibility be inferior in value to realty.

Population.—Up to the War of Independence the population was not only American, but it was in its ideas and standards essentially Puritan; modern liberalism, however, has introduced new standards of social life. In 1900 35.1% of the inhabitants were foreign-born, and 72.2% wholly or in part of foreign parentage. Irish, English-Canadian, Russian, Italian, English and German are the leading races. Of the foreign-born population these elements constituted respectively 35.6, 24.0, 7.6, 7.0, 6.7 and 5.3%. Large foreign colonies, like adjoining but unmixing nations, divide among themselves a large part of the city, and give to its life a cosmopolitan colour of varied speech, opinion, habits, traditions, social relations and religions. Most remarkable of all, the Roman Catholic churches, in this stronghold of exiled Puritanism where Catholics were so long under the heavy ban of law, outnumber those of any single Protestant denomination; Irish Catholics dominate the politics of the city, and Protestants and Catholics have been aligned against each other on the question of the control of the public schools. Despite, however, its heavy foreign admixture the old Americanism of the city remains strikingly predominant. The population of Boston at the end of each decennial period since 1790 was as follows:—(1790), 18,320; (1800), 24,937; (1810), 33,787; (1820), 43,298; (1830), 61,392; (1840), 93,383; (1850), 136,881; (1860), 177,840; (1870), 250,526; (1880), 362,839; (1890), 448,477; (1900), 560,892.

History.—John Smith visited Boston Harbour in 1614, and it was explored in 1621 by a party from Plymouth. There were various attempts to settle about its borders in the following years before John Endecott in 1628 landed at Salem as governor of the colony of Massachusetts bay, within which Boston was included. In June 1630 John Winthrop’s company reached Charlestown. At that time a “bookish recluse,” William Blaxton (Blackstone), one of the several “old planters” scattered about the bay, had for several years been living on Boston peninsula. The location seemed one suitable for commerce and defence, and the Winthrop party chose it for their settlement. The triple summit of Beacon Hill, of which no trace remains to-day (or possibly a reference to the three hills of the then peninsula, Beacon, Copp’s and Fort) led to the adoption of the name Trimountaine for the peninsula,—a name perpetuated variously in present municipal nomenclature as in Tremont; but on the 17th of September 1630, the date adopted for anniversary celebrations, it was ordered that “Trimountaine shall be called Boston,” after the borough of that name in Lincolnshire, England, of which several of the leading settlers had formerly been prominent citizens.4

For several years it was uncertain whether Cambridge, Charlestown or Boston should be the capital of the colony, but in 1632 the General Court agreed “by general consent, that Boston is the fittest place for public meetings of any place in the Bay.” It rapidly became the wealthiest and most populous. Throughout the 17th century its history is so largely that of Massachusetts generally that they are inseparable. Theological systems were largely concerned. The chief features of this epoch —the Antinomian dissensions, the Quaker and Baptist persecutions, the witchcraft delusion (four witches were executed in Boston, in 1648, 1651, 1656, 1688) &c.—are referred to in the article Massachusetts (q.v.). In 1692 the first permanent and successful printing press was established; in 1704 the first newspaper in America, the Boston News-Letter, which was published weekly until 1776. Puritanism steadily mellowed under many influences. By the turn of the first century bigotry was distinctly weakened. Among the marks of the second half of the 17th century was growing material prosperity, and there were those who thought their fellows unduly willing to relax church tests of fellowship when good trade was in question. There was an unpleasant Englishman who declared in 1699 that he found “Money Their God, and Large Possessions the only Heaven they Covet.” Prices were low, foreign commerce was already large, business thriving; wealth gave social status; the official British class lent a lustre to society; and Boston “town” was drawing society from the “country.” Of the two-score or so of families most prominent in the first century hardly one retained place in the similar list for the early years of the second. Boston was a prosperous, thrifty, English country town, one traveller thought. Another, Daniel Neal, in 1720, found Boston conversation “as polite as in most of the cities and towns in England, many of their merchants having the advantage of a free conversation with travellers; so that a gentleman from London would almost think himself at home at Boston, when he observes the number of people, their houses, their furniture, their tables, their dress and conversation, which perhaps is as splendid and showy as that of the most considerable tradesmen in London.”

The population, which was almost stationary through much of the century, was about 20,000 in the years immediately before the War of Independence. At this time Boston was the most flourishing town of North America. It built ships as cheaply as any place in the world, it carried goods for other colonies, it traded—often evading British laws—with Europe, Guinea, Madagascar and above all with the West Indies. The merchant princes and social leaders of the time are painted with elaborate show of luxury in the canvases of Copley. The great English writers of Queen Anne’s reign seem to have been but little known in the colony, and the local literature, though changed somewhat in character, showed but scant improvement. About the middle of the century restrictions upon the press began to disappear. At the same time questions of trade, of local politics, finally of colonial autonomy, of imperial policy, had gradually, but already long since, replaced theology in leading interest. In the years 1760-1776 Boston was the most frequently recurring and most important name in British colonial history. Sentiments of limited independence of the British government had been developing since the very beginning of the settlement (see Massachusetts), and their strength in 1689 had been strikingly exhibited in the local revolution of that year, when the royal governor, Sir Edmund Andros, and other high officials, were frightened into surrender and were imprisoned. This movement, it should be noted, was a popular rising, and not the work of a few leaders.

The incidents that marked the approach of the War of Independence need barely be adverted to. Opposition to the measures of the British government for taxing and oppressing the colonies began in Boston. The argument of Otis on the writs of assistance was in 1760-1761. The Stamp Act, passed in 1765, was repealed in 1766; it was opposed in Boston by a surprising show of determined and unified public sentiment. Troops were first quartered in the town in 1768. In 1770, on the 5th of March, in a street brawl, a number of citizens were killed or wounded by the soldiers, who fired into a crowd that were baiting a sentry. This incident is known as the “Boston Massacre.” The Tea Act of 1773 was defied by the emptying into the harbour of three cargoes of tea on the 16th of December 1773, by a party of citizens disguised as Indians, after the people in town-meeting had exhausted every effort, through a period of weeks, to procure the return of the tea-ships to England. To this act Great Britain replied by various penal regulations and reconstructive acts of government. She quartered troops in Boston; she made the juries, sheriffs and judges of the colony dependent on the royal officers; she ordered capital offenders to be tried in Nova Scotia or England; she endeavoured completely to control or to abolish town-meetings; and finally, by the so-called “Boston Port Bill,” she closed the port of Boston on the 1st of June 1774. Not even a ferry, a scow or other boat could move in the harbour. Marblehead and Salem were made ports of entry, and Salem was made the capital. But they would not profit by Boston’s misfortune. The people covenanted not to use British goods and to suspend trade with Great Britain. From near neighbours and from distant colonies came provisions and encouragement. In October 1774, when General Gage refused recognition to the Massachusetts general court at Salem, the members adjourned to Concord as the first provincial congress. Finally came war, with Lexington and Bunker Hill, and beleaguerment by the colonial army; until on the 17th of March 1776 the British were compelled by Washington to evacuate the city. With them went about 1100 Tory refugees, many of them of the finest families of the city and province. The evacuation closed the heroic period of Boston’s history. War did not again approach the city.

The years from 1776 to the end of “town” government in 1822 were marked by slow growth and prosperity. Commerce and manufactures alike took great impetus. Direct trade with the East Indies began about 1785, with Russia in 1787. A Boston vessel, the “Columbia” (Captain Robert Gray), opened trade with the north-west coast of America, and was the first American ship to circumnavigate the globe (1787-1790). In 1805 Boston began the export of ice to Jamaica, a trade which was gradually extended to Cuba, to ports of the southern states, and finally to Rio de Janeiro and Calcutta (1833), declining only after the Civil War; it enabled Boston to control the American trade of Calcutta against New York throughout the entire period. But of course it was far less important than various other articles of trade in the aggregate values of commerce. It was Boston commerce that was most sorely hurt by the embargo and non-importation policy of President Jefferson. In manufactures the foundation was laid of the city’s wealth. In politics the period is characterized by Boston’s connexion with the fortunes of the Federalist party. The city was warmly in favour of the adoption of the federal constitution of 1787; even Samuel Adams was rejected for Congress because he was backward in its support. It was the losses entailed upon her commerce by the commercial policy of Jefferson’s administration that embittered Boston against the Democratic-Republican party and put her public men in the forefront of the opposition to its policies that culminated in lukewarmness toward the War of 1812, and in the Hartford Convention of 1814.

Some mention must be made of the Unitarian movement. Unitarian tendencies away from the Calvinism of the old Congregational churches were plainly evident about 1750, and it is said by Andrew P. Peabody (1811-1893) that by 1780 nearly all the Congregational pulpits around Boston were filled by Unitarians. Organized Unitarianism in Boston dates from 1785. In 1782 King’s chapel (Episcopal) became Unitarian, and in 1805 one of that faith was made professor of divinity in Harvard. But the Unitarianism of those times, even the Unitarianism of Channing, was very different from that of to-day. Theodore Parker and Channing have been the greatest leaders. The American Unitarian Association, organized in 1825, has always retained its headquarters in Boston. The theological and philosophical developments of the second quarter of the 19th century were characterized by the transcendental movement (see Massachusetts).

In the period from 1822 to the Civil War anti-slavery is the most striking feature of Boston’s annals. Garrison established the Liberator in 1831; W.E. Channing became active in the cause of abolition in 1835, and Wendell Phillips a little later. In 1835 a mob, composed in part of wealthy and high-standing citizens, attacked a city-building, and dragged Garrison through the streets until the mayor secured his safety by putting him in gaol. But times changed. In 1850 a reception was given in Faneuil Hall in honour of the English anti-slavery leader, George Thompson, whose reported intention to address Bostonians in 1835 precipitated the riot of that year. In 1851 the Court House was surrounded with chains to prevent the “rescue” of a slave (Sims) held for rendition under the Fugitive Slave Law; another slave (Shadrach) was released this same year, and in 1854 there was a riot and intense excitement over the rendition of Anthony Burns. Boston had long since taken her place in the very front of anti-slavery ranks, and with the rest of Massachusetts was playing somewhat the same part as in the years before the War of Independence.

Later events of importance have already been indicated in essentials. On the 9th-10th of November 1872 a terrible fire swept the business part of the city, destroying hundreds of buildings of brick and granite, and inflicting a loss of some $75,000,000. Within two years the whole area, solidly rebuilt and with widened and straightened streets, showed no traces of the ruin except an appearance superior in all respects to that presented before the fire. The expense of this re-creation probably duplicated, at least, the loss from the conflagration. Since this time there has been no set-back to the prosperity of the city. But it is not upon material prosperity that Boston rests its claims for consideration. It prides itself on its schools, its libraries, its literary traditions, its splendid public works and its reputation as the chief centre of American culture.

Authorities.—See the annual City Documents; also Justin Winsor (ed.) The Memorial History of Boston, including Suffolk County ... 1630-1880 (4 vols., Boston, 1880-1881), a work that covers every phase of the city’s growth, history and life; S.A. Drake, The History and Antiquities of ... Boston (2 vols., Boston, 1854; and later editions), and Old Landmarks and Historic Personages of Boston (Boston, 1873, and later editions); Josiah Quincy, A Municipal History of ... Boston ... to ... 1830 (Boston, 1852); C.W. Ernst, Constitutional History of Boston (Boston, 1894); H.H. Sprague, City Government in Boston—its Rise and Development (Boston, 1890); E.E. Hale, Historic Boston and its Neighbourhood (New York, 1898), and L. Swift, Literary Landmarks of Boston (Boston, 1903). A great mass of original historical documents have been published by the registry department of the city government since 1876 (34 v. to 1905). Boston has been described in many works of fiction, and the reader may be referred to the novels of E.L. Bynner, to L. Maria Childs’ The Rebels, to J.F. Cooper’s Lionel Lincoln, to the early novels of W.D. Howells (also those of Arlo Bates), to O.W. Holmes’ Poet and Autocrat, and Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter, as pictures of Boston life at various periods since early colonial days.

1 On the alteration of streets alone $26,691,496 were expended from 1822 to 1880.

2 Faneuil Hall is the headquarters of the Ancient and Honourable Artillery Company of Boston, the oldest military organization of the country, organized in 1638.

3 The dam is 1250 ft. long, with a maximum height of 129 ft., only 750 ft. having a depth of more than 40 ft. from high water to rock. The entire surface of the basin was scraped to bed rock, sand or mineral earth, this alone costing $3,000,000. Connected with the reservoir is an aqueduct, of which 2 m. are tunnel and 7 m. covered masonry. The metropolitan system as planned in 1905 for the near future contemplated storage for 80,000,000,000 gallons, reservoirs holding 2,200,000,000 gallons for immediate use, aqueducts capable of carrying 420,000,000 gallons daily, and a minimum daily supply of 173,000,000 gallons.

4 In 1851 the mayor of the English Boston sent over a copy of that city’s seals, framed in oak from St Botolph’s church, of which John Cotton, the famous Boston divine (he came over in 1633) had been vicar. The seals now hang in the city hall. In 1855 a number of Americans, including Charles Francis Adams and Edward Everett, and also various descendants of Cotton, united to restore the south-west chapel of St Botolph’s church, and to erect in it a memorial tablet to Cotton’s memory. The total amount raised by subscription for this purpose was £673.

BOSTON, a game of cards invented during the last quarter of the 18th century. It is said to have originated in Boston, Massachusetts, during the siege by the British. It seems to have been invented by the officers of the French fleet which lay for a time off the town of Marblehead, and the name of the two small islands in Marblehead harbour which have, from the period of the American Revolution, been called Great and Little Misery, correspond with expressions used in the game. William Tudor, in his Letters on the Eastern States, published in 1821, states somewhat differently that “A game of cards was invented in Versailles and called in honour of the town, Boston; the points of the game are allusive, ‘great independence,’ ‘little independence,’ ’great misery,’ ‘little misery,’ &c. It is composed partly of whist and partly of quadrille, though partaking mostly of the former.” The game enjoyed an extraordinary vogue in high French society, where it was the fashion at that time to admire all things American. “The ladies... filled my pockets with bon-bons, and ... called me ‘le pétit Bostonien.’ It was indeed by the name of Bostonian that all Americans were known in France then. The war having broken out in Boston and the first great battle fought in its neighbourhood, gave to that name universal celebrity. A game invented at that time, played with cards, was called ‘Boston,’ and is to this day (1830) exceedingly fashionable at Paris by that appellation” (Recollections of Samuel Breck, Philadelphia, 1877). There was a tradition that Dr Franklin was fond of the game and even that he had a hand in its invention. At the middle of the 19th century it was still popular in Europe, and to a less degree in America, but its favour has steadily declined since then.

The rules of Boston recognized in English-speaking countries differ somewhat from those in vogue in France. According to the former, two packs of 52 cards are used, which rank as in whist, both for cutting and dealing. Four players take part, and there are usually no partners. Counters are used, generally of three colours and values, and each hand is settled for as soon as finished. The entire first pack is dealt out by fours and fives, and the second pack is cut for the trump, the suit of the card turned being “first preference,” the other suit of the same colour “second preference” or “colour,” while the two remaining suits are “plain suits.” The eldest hand then announces that he will make a certain number of tricks provided he may name the trump, or lose a certain number without trumps. The different bids are called by various names, but the usual ones are as follows:—To win five tricks, “Boston.” (To win) “six tricks.” (To win) “seven tricks.” To lose twelve tricks, after discarding one card that is not shown, “little misère.” (To win) “eight tricks.” (To win) “nine tricks.” To lose every trick, “grand misère.” (To win) “ten tricks.” (To win) “eleven tricks.” To lose twelve tricks, after discarding one card that is not shown, the remaining twelve cards being exposed on the table but not liable to be called, “little spread.” (To win) “twelve tricks.” To lose every trick with exposed cards, “grand spread.” To win thirteen tricks, “grand slam.” If a player does not care to bid he may pass, and the next player bids. Succeeding players may “overcall,” i.e. overbid, previous bidders. Players passing may thereafter bid only “misères.” If a player bids seven but makes ten he is paid for the three extra tricks, but on a lower scale than if he had bid ten. If no bid should be made, a “misère partout” (general poverty) is often played, the trump being turned down and each player striving to take as few tricks as possible. Payments are made by each loser according to the value of the winner’s bid and the overtricks he has scored. There are regular tables of payments. In America overtricks are not usually paid for. In French Boston the knave of diamonds arbitrarily wins over all other cards, even trumps. The names of the different bids remind one of the period of the American Revolution, including “Independence,” “Philadelphia,” “Souveraine,” “Concordia,” &c. Other variations of the game are Boston de Fontainebleau and Russian Boston.

BOSTONITE, in petrology, a fine-grained, pale-coloured, grey or pinkish rock, which consists essentially of alkali-felspar (orthoclase, microperthite, &c.). Some of them contain a small amount of interstitial quartz (quartz bostonites); others have a small percentage of lime, which occasions the presence of a plagioclase felspar (maenite, gauteite, lime-bostonite). Other minerals, except apatite, zircon and magnetite, are typically absent. They have very much the same composition as the trachytes; and many rocks of this series have been grouped with these or with the orthophyres. Typically they occur as dikes or as thin sills, often in association with nepheline-syenite; and they seem to bear a complementary relationship to certain types of lamprophyre, such as camptonite and monchiquite. Though nowhere very common they have a wide distribution, being known from Scotland, Wales, Massachusetts, Montreal, Portugal, Bohemia, &c. The lindoites and quartz-lindoites of Norway are closely allied to the bostonites.

BOSTRÖM, CHRISTOFFER JACOB (1797-1866), Swedish philosopher, was born at Piteå and studied at Upsala, where from 1840 to 1863 he was professor of practical philosophy. His philosophy, as he himself described it, is a thoroughgoing rational idealism founded on the principle that the only true reality is spiritual. God is Infinite Spirit in whom all existence is contained, and is outside the limitations of time and space. Thus Boström protests not only against empiricism but also against those doctrines of Christian theology which seemed to him to picture God as something less than Pure Spirit. In ethics the highest aim is the direction of actions by reason in harmony with the Divine; so the state, like the individual, exists solely in God, and in its most perfect form consists in the harmonious obedience of all its members to a constitutional monarch; the perfection of mankind as a whole is to be sought in a rational orderly system of such states in obedience to Universal Reason. This system differs from Platonism in that the “ideas” of God are not archetypal abstractions but concrete personalities.

Boström’s writings were edited by H. Edfeldt (2 vols., Upsala, 1883). For his school see Sweden: Literature; also H. Höffding, Filosofien i Sverig (German trans. in Philos. Monatsheften, 1879), and History of Mod. Philos. (Eng. trans., 1900), p. 284; R. Falckenberg, Hist. of Phil. (Eng. trans., 1895); A. Nyblaeus, Om den Boströmske filosofien (Lund, 1883), and Karakteristik af den Boströmska filosofien (Lund, 1892).

BOSWELL, JAMES (1740-1795), Scottish man of letters, the biographer of Samuel Johnson, was born at Edinburgh on the 29th of October 1740. His grandfather was in good practice at the Scottish bar, and his father, Alexander Boswell of Auchinleck, was also a noted advocate, who, on his elevation to the supreme court in 1754, took the name of his Ayrshire property as Lord Auchinleck. A Thomas Boswell (said upon doubtful evidence to have been a minstrel in the household of James IV.) was killed at Flodden, and since 1513 the family had greatly improved its position in the world by intermarriage with the first Scots nobility. In contradiction to his father, a rigid Presbyterian Whig, James was “a fine boy, wore a white cockade, and prayed for King James until his uncle Cochrane gave him a shilling to pray for King George, which he accordingly did” (“Whigs of all ages are made in the same way” was Johnson’s comment). He met one or two English boys, and acquired a “tincture of polite letters” at the high school in Edinburgh. Like R.L. Stevenson, he early frequented society such as that of the actors at the Edinburgh theatre, sternly disapproved of by his father. At the university, where he was constrained for a season to study civil law, he met William Johnson Temple, his future friend and correspondent. The letters of Boswell to his “Atticus” were first published by Bentley in 1857. One winter he spent at Glasgow, where he sat under Adam Smith, who was then lecturing on moral philosophy and rhetoric.

In 1760 he was first brought into contact with “the elegance, the refinement and the liberality” of London society, for which he had long sighed. The young earl of Eglintoun took him to Newmarket and introduced him into the society of “the great, the gay and the ingenious.” He wrote a poem called “The Cub at Newmarket,” published by Dodsley in 1762, and had visions of entering the Guards. Reclaimed with some difficulty by his father from his rakish companions in the metropolis, he contrived to alleviate the irksomeness of law study in Edinburgh by forcing his acquaintance upon the celebrities then assembled in the northern capital, among them Kames, Blair, Robertson, Hume and Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes), of whose sayings on the Northern Circuit he kept a brief journal. Boswell had already realized his vocation, the exercise of which was to give a new word to the language. He had begun to Boswellize. He was already on the track of bigger game—the biggest available in the Britain of that day. In the spring of 1763 Boswell came to a composition with his father. He consented to give up his pursuit of a guidon in the Guards and three and sixpence a day on condition that his father would allow him to study civil law on the continent. He set out in April 1763 by “the best road in Scotland” with a servant, on horseback like himself, in “a cocked hat, a brown wig, brown coat made in the court fashion, red vest, corduroy small clothes and long military boots.” On Monday, the 16th of May 1763, in the back shop of Tom Davies the bookseller, No. 8 Russell Street, Covent Garden, James Boswell first met “Dictionary Johnson,” the great man of his dreams, and was severely buffeted by him. Eight days later, on Tuesday, the 24th of May, Boswell boldly called on Mr Johnson at his chambers on the first floor of No. 1 Inner Temple Lane. On this occasion Johnson pressed him to stay; on the 13th of June he said, “Come to me as often as you can”; on the 25th of June Boswell gave the great man a little sketch of his own life, and Johnson exclaimed with warmth, “Give me your hand; I have taken a liking to you.” Boswell experienced a variety of sensations, among which exultation was predominant. Some one asked, “Who is this Scotch cur at Johnson’s heels?” “He is not a cur,” replied Goldsmith, “he is only a bur. Tom Davies flung him at Johnson in sport, and he has the faculty of sticking.” Johnson was fifty-four at this time and Boswell twenty-three. After June 1763 they met on something like 270 subsequent days. These meetings formed the memorable part of Boswell’s life, and they are told inimitably in his famous biography of his friend.

The friendship, consecrated by the most delightful of biographies, and one of the most gorgeous feasts in the whole banquet of letters, was not so ill-assorted as has been inconsiderately maintained. Boswell’s freshness at the table of conversation gave a new zest to every maxim that Johnson enunciated, while Boswell developed a perfect genius for interpreting the kind of worldly philosophy at which Johnson was so unapproachable. Both men welcomed an excuse for avoiding the task-work of life. Johnson’s favourite indulgence was to talk; Boswell’s great idea of success to elicit memorable conversation. Boswell is almost equally admirable as a reporter and as an interviewer, as a collector and as a researcher. He prepared meetings for Johnson, he prepared topics for him, he drew him out on questions of the day, he secured a copy of his famous letter to Lord Chesterfield, he obtained an almost verbatim report of Johnson’s interview with the king, he frequented the tea-table of Miss Williams, he attended the testy old scholar on lengthy peregrinations in the Highlands and in the midlands. “Sir,” said Johnson to his follower, “you appear to have only two subjects, yourself and me, and I am sick of both.” Yet thorough as the scheme was from the outset, and admirable as was the devotedness of the biographer, Boswell was far too volatile a man to confine himself to any one ambition in life that was not consistent with a large amount of present fame and notoriety. He would have liked to Boswellize the popular idol Wilkes, or Chatham, or Voltaire, or even the great Frederick himself. As it was, during his continental tour he managed in the autumn of 1765 to get on terms with Pasquale di Paoli, the leader of the Corsican insurgents in their unwise struggle against Genoa. After a few weeks in Corsica he returned to London in February 1766, and was received by Johnson with the utmost cordiality. In accordance with the family compact referred to, he was now admitted advocate at Edinburgh, and signalized his return to the law by an enthusiastic pamphlet entitled The Essence of the Douglas Cause (November 1767), in which he vigorously repelled the charge of imposture from the youthful claimant. In the same year he issued a little book called Dorando, containing a history of the Douglas cause in the guise of a Spanish tale, and bringing the story to a conclusion by the triumph of Archibald Douglas in the law courts. Editors who published extracts while the case was still sub judice were censured severely by the court of session; but though his identity was notorious the author himself escaped censure. In the spring of 1768 Boswell published through the Foulis brothers of Glasgow his Account of Corsica, Journal of a Tour to that Island, and Memoirs of Pascal Paoli. The liveliness of personal impression which he managed to communicate to all his books gained for this one a deserved success, and the Tour was promptly translated into French, German, Italian and Dutch. Walpole and others, jeered, but Boswell was talked about everywhere, as Paoli Boswell or Paoli’s Englishman, and to aid the mob in the task of identifying him at the Shakespeare jubilee of 1769 he took the trouble to insert a placard in his hat bearing the legend “Corsica Boswell.” The amazing costume of “a Corsican chief” which he wore on this occasion was described at length in the magazines.

On the 25th of November 1769, after a short tour in Ireland undertaken to empty his head of Corsica (Johnson’s emphatic direction), Boswell married his cousin Margaret Montgomery at Lainshaw in Ayrshire. For some years henceforth his visits to London were brief, but on the 30th of April 1773 he was present at his admission to the Literary Club, for which honour he had been proposed by Johnson himself, and in the autumn of this year in the course of his tour to the Hebrides Johnson visited the Boswells in Ayrshire. Neither Boswell’s father nor his wife shared his enthusiasm for the lexicographer. Lord Auchinleck remarked that Jamie was “gane clean gyte ... And whose tail do ye think he has pinned himself to now, man? A dominie, an auld dominie, that keepit a schule and ca’d it an academy!” Housewives less prim than Mrs Boswell might have objected to Johnson’s habit of turning lighted candles upside down when in the parlour to make them burn better. She called the great man a bear. Boswell’s Journal of a Tour in the Hebrides was written for the most part during the journey, but was not published until the spring of 1786. The diary of Pepys was not then known to the public, and Boswell’s indiscretions as to the emotions aroused in him by the neat ladies’ maids at Inveraray, and the extremity of drunkenness which he exhibited at Corrichatachin, created a literary sensation and sent the Tour through three editions in one year. In the meantime his pecuniary and other difficulties at home were great; he made hardly more than £100 a year by his profession, and his relations with his father were chronically strained. In 1775 he began to keep terms at the Inner Temple and managed to see a good deal of Johnson, between whom and John Wilkes he succeeded in bringing about a meeting at the famous dinner at Dilly’s on the 15th of May 1776. On the 30th of August 1782 his father died, leaving him an estate worth £1600 a year. On the 30th of June 1784, Boswell met Johnson for the last time at a dinner at Sir Joshua Reynolds’s. He accompanied him back in the coach from Leicester Square to Bolt Court. “We bade adieu to each other affectionately in the carriage. When he had got down upon the foot pavement he called out ‘Fare you well’; and without looking back, sprung away with a kind of pathetic briskness, if I may use that expression, which seemed to indicate a struggle to conceal uneasiness, and impressed me with a foreboding of our long, long separation.” Johnson died that year, and two years later the Boswells moved to London. In 1789 Mrs Boswell died, leaving five children. She had been an excellent mother and a good wife, despite the infidelities and drunkenness of her husband, and from her death Boswell relapsed into worse excesses, grievously aggravated by hypochondria. He died of a complication of disorders at his house in Great Poland Street on the 19th of May 1795, and was buried a fortnight later at Auchinleck.

Up to the eve of his last illness Boswell had been busy upon his magnum opus, The Life of Samuel Johnson, which was in process of crystallization to the last. The first edition was published in two quarto volumes in an edition of 1700 copies on the 16th of May 1791. He was preparing a third edition when he died; this was completed by his friend Edmund Malone, who brought out a fifth edition in 1807. That of James Boswell junior (the editor of Malone’s Variorum Shakespeare, 1821) appeared in 1811.

The Life of Johnson was written on a scale practically unknown to biographers before Boswell. It is a full-length with all the blotches and pimples revealed (“I will not make my tiger a cat to please anybody,” wrote “Bozzy”). It may be overmuch an exhibition of oddities, but it is also, be it remembered, a pioneer application of the experimental method to the determination of human character. Its size and lack of divisions (to divide it into chapters was an original device of Croker’s) are a drawback, and have prevented Boswell’s Life from that assured triumph abroad which has fallen to the lot of various English classics such as Robinson Crusoe or Gulliver’s Travels. But wherever English is spoken, it has become a veritable sacred book and has pervaded English life and thought in the same way, that the Bible, Shakespeare and Bunyan have done. Boswell has successfully (to use his own phrase) “Johnsonized” Britain, but has not yet Johnsonized the planet. The model originally proposed to himself by Boswell was Mason’s Life of Gray, but he far surpassed that, or indeed any other, model. The fashion that Boswell adopted of giving the conversations not in the neutral tints of oratio obliqua but in full oratio recta was a stroke of genius. But he is far from being the mere mechanical transmitter of good things. He is a dramatic and descriptive artist of the first order. The extraordinary vitality of his figures postulates a certain admixture of fiction, and it is certain that Boswell exaggerates the sympathy expressed in word or deed by Johnson for some of his own tenderer foibles. But, on the whole, the best judges are of opinion that Boswell’s accuracy is exceptional, as it is undoubtedly seconded by a power of observation of a singular retentiveness and intensity. The difficulty of dramatic description can only be realized, as Jowett well pointed out, by those who have attempted it, and it is not until we compare Boswell’s reports with those of less skilful hearers that we can appreciate the skill with which the essence of a conversation is extracted, and the whole scene indicated by a few telling touches. The result is that Johnson, not, it is true, in the early days of his poverty, total idleness and the pride of literature, but in the fulness of fame and competence of fortune from 1763 to 1784, is better known to us than any other man in history. The old theory to explain such a marvel (originally propounded by Gray when the Tour in Corsica appeared) that “any fool may write a valuable book by chance” is now regarded as untenable. If fool is a word to describe Boswell (and his folly was at times transcendent) he wrote his great book because and not in despite of the fact that he was one. There can be no doubt, in fact, that he was a biographical genius, and that he arranged his opportunities just as he prepared his transitions and introduced those inimitable glosses by which Johnson’s motives are explained, his state of mind upon particular occasions indicated, and the general feeling of his company conveyed. This remarkable literary faculty, however, was but a fraction of the total make-up requisite to produce such a masterpiece as the Life. There is a touch of genius, too, in the naïf and imperturbable good nature and persistency (“Sir, I will not be baited with ’what’ and ‘why.’ ‘Why is a cow’s tail long?’ ‘Why is a fox’s tail bushy?’”), and even in the abnegation of all personal dignity, with which Boswell pursued his hero. As he himself said of Goldsmith, “He had sagacity enough to cultivate assiduously the acquaintance of Johnson, and his faculties were gradually enlarged.” Character, the vital principle of the individual, is the ignis fatuus of the mechanical biographer. Its attainment may be secured by a variety of means—witness Xenophon, Cellini, Aubrey, Lockhart and Froude—but it has never been attained with such complete intensity as by Boswell in his Life of Johnson. The more we study Boswell, the more we compare him with other biographers, the greater his work appears.

The eleventh edition of Boswell’s Johnson was brought out by John Wilson Croker in 1831; in this the original text is expanded by numerous letters and variorum anecdotes and is already knee-deep in annotation. Its blunders provoked the celebrated and mutually corrective criticisms of Macaulay and Carlyle. Its value as an unrivalled granary of Johnsoniana, stored opportunely before the last links with a Johnsonian age had disappeared, has not been adequately recognized. A new edition of the original text was issued in 1874 by Percy Fitzgerald (who has also written a useful life of James Boswell in 2 vols., London, 1891); a six-volume edition, including the Tour and Johnsoniana, was published by the Rev. Alexander Napier in 1884; the definitive edition is that by Dr Birkbeck Hill in 6 vols., 1887, with copious annotations and a model index. A generously illustrated edition was completed in 1907 in two large volumes by Roger Ingpen, and reprints of value have also been edited by R. Carruthers (with woodcuts), A. Birrell, Mowbray Morris (Globe edition) and Austin Dobson. A short biography of Boswell was written in 1896 by W. Keith Leask. Boswell’s commonplace-book was published in 1876, under the title of Boswelliana, with a memoir by the Rev. C. Rogers.

(T. Se.)

BOSWORTH, JOSEPH (1789-1876), British Anglo-Saxon scholar, was born in Derbyshire in 1789. Educated at Repton, whence he proceeded to Aberdeen University, he became in 1817 vicar of Little Horwood, Buckinghamshire, and devoted his spare time to literature and particularly to the study of Anglo-Saxon. In 1823 appeared his Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar. In 1829 Bosworth went to Holland as chaplain, first at Amsterdam and then at Rotterdam. He remained in Holland until 1840, working there on his Dictionary of the Anglo-Saxon Language (1838), his best-known work. In 1857 he became rector of Water Shelford, Buckinghamshire, and in the following year was appointed Rawlinson professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford. He gave to the university of Cambridge in 1867 £10,000 for the establishment of a professorship of Anglo-Saxon. He died on the 27th of May 1876, leaving behind him a mass of annotations on the Anglo-Saxon charters.

BOTANY (from Gr. βοτάνη, plant; βόσκειν, to graze), the science which includes everything relating to the vegetable kingdom, whether in a living or in a fossil state. It embraces a consideration of the external forms of plants—of their anatomical structure, however minute—of the functions which they perform—of their arrangement and classification—of their distribution over the globe at the present and at former epochs—and of the uses to which they are subservient. It examines the plant in its earliest state of development, and follows it through all its stages of progress until it attains maturity. It takes a comprehensive view of all the plants which cover the earth, from the minutest organism, only visible by the aid of the microscope, to the most gigantic productions of the tropics. It marks the relations which subsist between all members of the plant world, including those between existing groups and those which are known only from their fossilized remains preserved in the rocks. We deal here with the history and evolution of the science.

The plants which adorn the globe more or less in all countries must necessarily have attracted the attention of mankind from the earliest times. The science that treats of them dates back to the days of Solomon, who “spake of trees, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop on the wall.” The Chaldaeans, Egyptians and Greeks were the early cultivators of science, and botany was not neglected, although the study of it was mixed up with crude speculations as to vegetable life, and as to the change of plants into animals. About 300 years before Christ Theophrastus wrote a History of Plants, and described about 500 species used for the treatment of diseases. Dioscorides, a Greek writer, who appears to have flourished about the time of Nero, issued a work on Materia Medica. The elder Pliny described about a thousand plants, many of them famous for their medicinal virtues. Asiatic and Arabian writers also took up this subject. Little, however, was done in the science of botany, properly so called, until the 16th century of the Christian era, when the revival of learning dispelled the darkness which had long hung over Europe. Otto Brunfels, a physician of Bern, has been looked upon as the restorer of the science in Europe. In his Herbarium, printed at Strassburg (1530-1536), he gave descriptions of a large number of plants, chiefly those of central Europe, illustrated by beautiful woodcuts. He was followed by other writers,—Leonhard Fuchs, whose Historia Stirpium (Basel, 1542) is worthy of special note for its excellent woodcuts; Hieronymus Bock, whose Kreutter Buch appeared in 1539; and William Turner, “The Father of English Botany,” the first part of whose New Herbal, printed in English, was issued in 1551. The descriptions in these early works were encumbered with much medicinal detail, including speculations as to the virtues of plants. Plants which were strikingly alike were placed together, but there was at first little attempt at systematic classification. A crude system, based on the external appearance of plants and their uses to man, was gradually evolved, and is well illustrated in the Herbal, issued in 1597 by John Gerard (1545-1612), a barber-surgeon, who had a garden in Holborn, and was a keen student of British plants.

One of the earliest attempts at a methodical arrangement of plants was made in Florence by Andreas Caesalpinus (1519-1603), who is called by Linnaeus primus verus systematicus. In his work De Plantis, published at Florence in 1583, he distributed the 1520 plants then known into fifteen classes, the distinguishing characters being taken from the fruit.

John Ray (1627-1705) did much to advance the science of botany, and was also a good zoologist. He promulgated a system which may be considered as the dawn of the “natural system” of the present day (Ray, Methodus Plantarum, 1682). He separated flowering from flowerless plants, and divided the former into Dicotyledons and Monocotyledons. His orders (or “classes”) were founded to some extent on a correct idea of the affinities of plants, and he far outstripped his contemporaries in his enlightened views of arrangement.

About the year 1670 Dr Robert Morison1 (1620-1683), the first professor of botany at Oxford, published a systematic arrangement of plants, largely on the lines previously suggested by Caesalpinus. He divided them into eighteen classes, distinguishing plants according as they were woody or herbaceous, and taking into account the nature of the flowers and fruit. In 1690 Rivinus2 promulgated a classification founded chiefly on the forms of the flowers. J.P. de Tournefort3 (1656-1708), who about the same time took up the subject of vegetable taxonomy, was long at the head of the French school of botany, and published a systematic arrangement in 1694-1700. He described about 8000 species of plants, and distributed them into twenty-two classes, chiefly according to the form of the corolla, distinguishing herbs and under-shrubs on the one hand from trees and shrubs on the other. The system of Tournefort was for a long time adopted on the continent, but was ultimately displaced by that of Carl von Linné, or Linnaeus (q.v.; 1707-1778).

The system of Linnaeus was founded on characters derived from the stamens and pistils, the so-called sexual organs of the flower, and hence it is often called the sexual system. It is an artificial method, because it takes into account only a few marked characters in plants, and does not propose to unite them by natural affinities. It is an index to a department of the book of nature, and as such is useful to the student. It does not aspire to any higher character, and although it cannot be looked upon as a scientific and natural arrangement, still it has a certain facility of application which at once commended it. It does not of itself give the student a view of the true relations of plants, and by leading to the discovery of the name of a plant, it is only a stepping-stone to the natural system. Linnaeus himself claimed nothing higher for it. He says—“Methodi Naturalis fragmenta studiose inquirenda sunt. Primum et ultimum hoc in botanicis desideratum est. Natura non facit saltus. Plantae omnes utrinque affinitatem monstrant, uti territorium in mappa geographica.” Accordingly, besides his artificial index, he also promulgated fragments of a natural method of arrangement.

The Linnean system was strongly supported by Sir James Edward Smith (1759-1828), who adopted it in his English Flora, and who also became possessor of the Linnean collection. The system was for a long time the only one taught in the schools of Britain, even after it had been discarded by those in France and in other continental countries.

The foundation of botanic gardens during the 16th and 17th centuries did much in the way of advancing botany. They were at first appropriated chiefly to the cultivation of medicinal plants. This was especially the case at universities, where medical schools existed. The first botanic garden was established at Padua in 1545, and was followed by that of Pisa. The garden at Leiden dates from 1577, that at Leipzig from 1579. Gardens also early existed at Florence and Bologna. The Montpellier garden was founded in 1592, that of Giessen in 1605, of Strassburg in 1620, of Altdorf in 1625, and of Jena in 1629. The Jardin des Plantes at Paris was established in 1626, and the Upsala garden in 1627. The botanic garden at Oxford was founded in 1632. The garden at Edinburgh was founded by Sir Andrew Balfour and Sir Robert Sibbald in 1670, and, under the name of the Physic Garden, was placed under the superintendence of James Sutherland, afterwards professor of botany in the university. The garden at Kew dates from about 1730, when Frederick, prince of Wales, obtained a long lease of Kew House and its gardens from the Capel family. After his death in 1751 his widow, Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, showed great interest in their scientific development, and in 1759 engaged William Aiton to establish a Physic Garden. The garden of the Royal Dublin Society at Glasnevin was opened about 1796; that of Trinity College, Dublin, in 1807; and that of Glasgow in 1818. The Madrid garden dates from 1763, and that of Coimbra from 1773. Jean Gesner (1709-1790), a Swiss physician and botanist, states that at the end of the 18th century there were 1600 botanic gardens in Europe.

A new era dawned on botanical classification with the work of Antoine Laurent de Jussieu (1748-1836). His uncle, Bernard de Jussieu, had adopted the principles of Linnaeus’s Fragmenta in his arrangement of the plants in the royal garden at the Trianon. At an early age Antoine became botanical demonstrator in the Jardin des Plantes, and was thus led to devote his time to the science of botany. Being called upon to arrange the plants in the garden, he necessarily had to consider the best method of doing so, and, following the lines already suggested by his uncle, adopted a system founded in a certain degree on that of Ray, in which he embraced all the discoveries in organography, adopted the simplicity of the Linnean definitions, and displayed the natural affinities of plants. His Genera Plantarum, begun in 1778, and finally published in 1789, was an important advance, and formed the basis of all natural classifications. One of the early supporters of this natural method was Augustin Pyramus de Candolle (1778-1841), who in 1813 published his Théorie élémentaire de la botanique, in which he showed that the affinities of plants are to be sought by the comparative study of the form and development of organs (morphology), not of their functions (physiology). His Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis was intended to embrace an arrangement and description of all known plants. The work was continued after his death, by his son Alphonse de Candolle, with the aid of other eminent botanists, and embraces descriptions of the genera and species of the orders of Dicotyledonous plants. The system followed by de Candolle is a modification of that of Jussieu.

In arranging plants according to a natural method, we require to have a thorough knowledge of structural and morphological botany, and hence we find that the advances made in these departments have materially aided the efforts of systematic botanists.

Robert Brown (1773-1858) was the first British botanist to support and advocate the natural system of classification. The publication of his Prodromus Florae Novae Hollandiae (in 1810), according to the natural method, led the way to the adoption of that method in the universities and schools of Britain. In 1827 Brown announced his important discovery of the distinction between Angiosperms and Gymnosperms, and the philosophical character of his work led A. von Humboldt to refer to him as “Botanicorum facile princeps.” In 1830 John Lindley published the first edition of his Introduction to the Natural System, embodying a slight modification of de Candolle’s system. From the year 1832 up to 1859 great advances were made in systematic botany, both in Britain and on the continent of Europe. The Enchiridion and Genera Plantarum of S.L. Endlicher (1804-1849), the Prodromus of de Candolle, and the Vegetable Kingdom (1846) of J. Lindley became the guides in systematic botany, according to the natural system.

The least satisfactory part of all these systems was that concerned with the lower plants or Cryptogams as contrasted with the higher or flowering plants (Phanerogams). The development of the compound microscope rendered possible the accurate study of their life-histories; and the publication in 1851 of the results of Wilhelm Hofmeister’s researches on the comparative embryology of the higher Cryptogamia shed a flood of light on their relationships to each other and to the higher plants, and supplied the basis for the distinction of the great groups Thallophyta, Bryophyta, Pteridophyta and Phanerogamae, the last named including Gymnospermae and Angiospermae.

A system of classification for the Phanerogams, or, as they are frequently now called, Spermatophyta (seed-plants), which has been much used in Great Britain and in America, is that of Bentham and Hooker, whose Genera Plantarum (1862-1883) is a descriptive account of all the genera of flowering plants, based on their careful examination. The arrangement is a modification of that adopted by the de Candolles. Another system differing somewhat in detail is that of A.W. Eichler (Berlin, 1883), a modified form of which was elaborated by Dr Adolf Engler of Berlin, the principal editor of Die natrürliche Pflanzenfamilien.

The study of the anatomy and physiology of plants did not keep pace with the advance in classification. Nehemiah Grew and his contemporary Marcello Malpighi were the earliest discoverers in the department of plant anatomy. Both authors laid an account of the results of their study of plant structure before the Royal Society of London almost at the same time in 1671. Malpighi’s complete work, Anatome Plantarum, appeared in 1675 and Grew’s Anatomy of Plants in 1682. For more than a hundred years the study of internal structure was neglected. In 1802 appeared the Traité d’anatomie et de physiologie végétale of C.F.B. de Mirbel (1776-1854), which was quickly followed by other publications by Kurt Sprengel, L.C. Treviranus (1779-1864), and others. In 1812 J.J. P. Moldenhawer isolated cells by maceration of tissues in water. The work of F.J.F. Meyen and H. von Mohl in the middle of the 19th century placed the study of plant anatomy on a more scientific basis. Reference must also be made to M.J. Schleiden (1804-1881) and F. Unger (1800-1870), while in K.W. von Nägeli’s investigations on molecular structure and the growth of the cell membrane we recognize the origin of modern methods of the study of cell-structure included under cytology (q.v.). The work of Karl Sanio and Th. Hartig advanced knowledge on the structure and development of tissues, while A. de Bary’s Comparative Anatomy of the Phanerogams and Ferns (1877) supplied an admirable presentation of the facts so far known. Since then the work has been carried on by Ph. van Tieghem and his pupils, and others, who have sought to correlate the large mass of facts and to find some general underlying principles (see Plants: Anatomy of).

The subject of fertilization was one which early excited attention. The idea of the existence of separate sexes in plants was entertained in early times, long before separate male and female organs had been demonstrated. The production of dates in Egypt, by bringing two kinds of flowers into contact, proves that in very remote periods some notions were entertained on the subject. Female date-palms only were cultivated, and wild ones were brought from the desert in order to fertilize them. Herodotus informs us that the Babylonians knew of old that there were male and female date-trees, and that the female required the concurrence of the male to become fertile. This fact was also known to the Egyptians, the Phoenicians and other nations of Asia and Africa. The Babylonians suspended male clusters from wild dates over the females; but they seem to have supposed that the fertility thus produced depended on the presence of small flies among the wild flowers, which, by entering the female flowers, caused them to set and ripen. The process was called palmification. Theophrastus, who succeeded Aristotle in his school in the 114th Olympiad, frequently mentions the sexes of plants, but he does not appear to have determined the organs of reproduction. Pliny, who flourished under Vespasian, speaks particularly of a male and female palm, but his statements were not founded on any real knowledge of the organs. From Theophrastus down to Caesalpinus, who died at Rome in 1603, there does not appear to have been any attention paid to the reproductive organs of plants. Caesalpinus had his attention directed to the subject, and he speaks of a halitus or emanation from the male plants causing fertility in the female.

Nehemiah Grew seems to have been the first to describe, in a paper on the Anatomy of Plants, read before the Royal Society in November 1676, the functions of the stamens and pistils. Up to this period all was vague conjecture. Grew speaks of the attire, or the stamens, as being the male parts, and refers to conversations with Sir Thomas Millington, Sedleian professor at Oxford, to whom the credit of the sexual theory seems really to belong. Grew says that “when the attire or apices break or open, the globules or dust falls down on the seedcase or uterus, and touches it with a prolific virtue.” Ray adopted Grew’s views, and states various arguments to prove their correctness in the preface to his work on European plants, published in 1694. In 1694 R.J. Camerarius, professor of botany and medicine at Tübingen, published a letter on the sexes of plants, in which he refers to the stamens and pistils as the organs of reproduction, and states the difficulties he had encountered in determining the organs of Cryptogamic plants. In 1703 Samuel Morland, in a paper read before the Royal Society, stated that the farina (pollen) is a congeries of seminal plants, one of which must be conveyed into every ovum or seed before it can become prolific. In this remarkable statement he seems to anticipate in part the discoveries afterwards made as to pollen tubes, and more particularly the peculiar views promulgated by Schleiden. In 1711 E.F. Geoffrey, in a memoir presented to the Royal Academy at Paris, supported the views of Grew and others as to the sexes of plants. He states that the germ is never to be seen in the seed till the apices (anthers) shed their dust; and that if the stamina be cut out before the apices open, the seed will either not ripen, or be barren if it ripens. He mentions two experiments made by him to prove this—one by cutting off the staminal flowers in Maize, and the other by rearing the female plant of Mercurialis apart from the male. In these instances most of the flowers were abortive, but a few were fertile, which he attributes to the dust of the apices having been wafted by the wind from other plants.

Linnaeus took up the subject in the inauguration of his sexual system. He first published his views in 1736, and he thus writes—“Antheras et stigmata constituere sexum plantarum, a palmicolis, Millingtono, Grewio, Rayo, Camerario, Godofredo, Morlando, Vaillantio, Blairio, Jussievio, Bradleyo, Royeno, Logano, &c., detectum, descriptum, et pro infallibili assumptum; nec ullum, apertis oculis considerantem cujuscunque plantae flores, latere potest.” He divided plants into sexual and asexual, the former being Phanerogamous or flowering, and the latter Cryptogamous or flowerless. In the latter division of plants he could not detect stamens and pistils, and he did not investigate the mode in which their germs were produced. He was no physiologist, and did not promulgate any views as to the embryogenic process. His followers were chiefly engaged in the arrangement and classification of plants, and while descriptive botany made great advances the physiological department of the science was neglected. His views were not, however, adopted at once by all, for we find Charles Alston stating arguments against them in his Dissertation on the Sexes of Plants. Alston’s observations were founded on what occurred in certain unisexual plants, such as Mercurialis, Spinach, Hemp, Hop and Bryony. The conclusion at which he arrives is that the pollen is not in all flowering plants necessary for impregnation, for fertile seeds can be produced without its influence. He supports parthenogenesis in some plants. Soon after the promulgation of Linnaeus’s method of classification, the attention of botanists was directed to the study of Cryptogamic plants, and the valuable work of Johann Hedwig (1730-1799) on the reproductive organs of mosses made its appearance in 1782. He was one of the first to point out the existence of certain cellular bodies in these plants which appeared to perform the functions of reproductive organs, and to them the names of antheridia and pistillidia were given. This opened up a new field of research, and led the way in the study of Cryptogamic reproduction, which has since been much advanced by the labours of numerous botanical inquiries. The interesting observations of Morland, already quoted, seem to have been neglected, and no one attempted to follow in the path which he had pointed out. Botanists were for a long time content to know that the scattering of the pollen from the anther, and its application to the stigma, were necessary for the production of perfect seed, but the stages of the process of fertilization remained unexplored. The matter seemed involved in mystery, and no one attempted to raise the veil which hung over the subject of embryogeny. The general view was, that the embryo originated in the ovule, which was in some obscure manner fertilized by the pollen.

In 1815 L.C. Treviranus, professor of botany in Bonn, roused the attention of botanists to the development of the embryo, but although he made valuable researches, he did not add much in the way of new information. In 1823 G.B. Amici discovered the existence of pollen tubes, and he was followed by A.T. Brongniart and R. Brown. The latter traced the tubes as far as the nucleus of the ovule. These important discoveries mark a new epoch in embryology, and may be said to be the foundation of the views now entertained, which were materially aided by the subsequent elucidation of the process of cytogenesis, or cell-development, by Schleiden, Schwann, Mohl and others. The whole subject of fertilization and development of the embryo has been more recently investigated with great assiduity and zeal, as regards both cryptogamous and phanerogamous plants, and details must be sought in the various special articles. The observations of Darwin as to the fertilization of orchids, Primula, Linum and Lythrum, and other plants, and the part which insects take in this function, gave an explanation of the observations of Christian Konrad Sprengel, made at the close of the 18th century, and opened up a new phase in the study of botany, which has been followed by Hermann Müller, Federico Delpino and others, and more recently by Paul Knuth.

One of the earliest workers at plant physiology was Stephen Hales. In his Statical Essays (1727) he gave an account of numerous experiments and observations which he had made on the nutrition of plants and the movement of sap in them. He showed that the gaseous constituents of the air contribute largely to the nourishment of plants, and that the leaves are the organs which elaborate the food; the importance of leaves in nutrition had been previously pointed out by Malpighi in a short account of nutrition which forms an appendix to his anatomical work. The birth of modern chemistry in the work of J. Priestley and Lavoisier, at the close of the 18th century, made possible the scientific study of plant-nutrition, though Jan Ingenhousz in 1779 discovered that plants incessantly give out carbonic acid gas, but that the green leaves and shoots only exhale oxygen in sunlight or clear daylight, thereby indicating the distinction between assimilation of carbonic acid gas (photosynthesis) and respiration. N.T. de Saussure (1767-1845) gave precision to the science of plant-nutrition by use of quantitative methods. The subjects of plant nutrition and respiration were further studied by R.J.H. Dutrochet towards the middle of the century, and Liebig’s application of chemistry to agriculture and physiology put beyond question the parts played by the atmosphere and the soil in the nutrition of plants.

The phenomena of movements of the organs of plants attracted the attention of John Ray (1693), who ascribed the movements of the leaf of Mimosa and others to alteration in temperature. Linnaeus also studied the periodical movements of flowers and leaves, and referred to the assumption of the night-position as the sleep-movement. Early in the 19th century Andrew Knight showed by experiment that the vertical growth of stems and roots is due to the influence of gravitation, and made other observations on the relation between the position assumed by plant organs and external directive forces, and later Dutrochet, H. von Mohl and others contributed to the advance of this phase of plant physiology. Darwin’s experiments in reference to the movements of climbing and twining plants, and of leaves in insectivorous plants, have opened up a wide field of inquiry as to the relation between plants and the various external factors, which has attracted numerous workers. By the work of Julius Sachs and his pupils plant physiology was established on a scientific basis, and became an important part of the study of plants, for the development of which reference may be made to the article Plants: Physiology. The study of form and development has advanced under the name “morphology,” with the progress of which are associated the names of K. Goebel, E. Strasburger, A. de Bary and others, while more recently, as cytology (q.v.), the intimate study of the cell and its contents has attracted considerable attention.

The department of geographical botany made rapid advance by means of the various scientific expeditions which have been sent to all quarters of the globe, as well as by individual effort (see Plants: Distribution) since the time of A. von Humboldt. The question of the mode in which the floras of islands and of continents have been formed gave rise to important speculations by such eminent botanical travellers as Charles Darwin, Sir J.D. Hooker, A.R. Wallace and others. The connexion between climate and vegetation has also been studied. Quite recently under the name of “Ecology” or “Oecology” the study of plants in relation to each other and to their environment has become the subject of systematic investigation.

The subject of palaeontological botany (see Palaeobotany) has been advanced by the researches of both botanists and geologists. The nature of the climate at different epochs of the earth’s history has also been determined from the character of the flora. The works of A.T. Brongniart, H.R. Goeppert and W.P. Schimper advanced this department of science. Among others who contributed valuable papers on the subject may be noticed Oswald Heer (1809-1883), who made observations on the Miocene flora, especially in Arctic regions; Gaston de Saporta (1823-1895), who examined the Tertiary flora; Sir J.W. Dawson and Leo Lesquereux, and others who reported on the Canadian and American fossil plants. In Great Britain also W.C. Williamson, by his study of the structure of the plants of the coal-measures, opened up a new line of research which has been followed by Bertrand Renault, D.H. Scott, A.C. Seward and others, and has led to important discoveries on the nature of extinct groups of plants and also on the phylogeny of existing groups.

Botany may be divided into the following departments:—

1. Structural, having reference to the form and structure of the various parts, including (a) Morphology, the study of the general form of the organs and their development—this will be treated in a series of articles dealing with the great subdivisions of plants (see Angiosperms, Gymnosperms, Pteridophyta, Bryophyta, Algae, Lichens, Fungi and Bacteriology) and the more important organs (see Stem, Leaf, Root, Flower, Fruit); (b) Anatomy, the study of internal structure, including minute anatomy or histology (see Plants: Anatomy).

2. Cytology (q.v.), the intimate structure and behaviour of the cell and its contents—protoplasm, nucleus, &c.

3. Physiology, the study of the life-functions of the entire plant and its organs (see Plants: Physiology).

4. Systematic, the arrangement and classification of plants (see Plants: Classification).

5. Distribution or Geographical Botany, the consideration of the distribution of plants on the earth’s surface (see Plants: Distribution).

6. Palaeontology, the study of the fossils found in the various strata of which the earth is composed (see Palaeobotany).

7. Ecology or Oecology, the study of plants in relation to each other and to their environment (see Plants: Ecology).

Besides these departments which deal with Botany as a science, there are various applications of botany, such as forestry (see Forests and Forestry), agriculture (q.v.), horticulture (q.v.), and materia medica (for use in medicine; see the separate articles on each plant).

(A. B. R.)

1 Morison, Pradudia Botanica (1672); Plantarum Historia Universalis (1680).

2 Rivinus (Augustus Quirinus) paterno nomine Bachmann, Introductio genetatis in Rem Herbariam (Lipsiae, 1690).

3 Tournefort, Élémens de botanique (1694); Institutiones Rei Herbariae (1700).

BOTANY BAY, an inlet on the coast of Cumberland county, New South Wales, Australia, 5 m. south of the city of Sydney. On its shore is the township of Botany, forming a suburb of Sydney, with which it is connected by a tramway. It was first visited by Captain Cook in 1770, who landed at a spot marked by a monument, and took possession of the territory for the crown. The bay received its name from Joseph Banks, the botanist of the expedition, on account of the variety of its flora. When, on the revolt of the New England colonies, the convict establishments in America were no longer available (see Deportation and New South Wales), the attention of the British government, then under the leadership of Pitt, was turned to Botany Bay; and in 1787 Commodore Arthur Phillip was commissioned to form a penal settlement there. Finding, on his arrival, however, that the locality was ill suited for such a purpose, he removed northwards to the site of the present city of Sydney. The name of Botany Bay seems to have struck the popular fancy, and continued to be used in a general way for any convict establishment in Australia. The transportation of criminals to New South Wales was discontinued in 1840.

BOTHA, LOUIS (1862- ), Boer general and statesman, was the son of one of the “Voortrekkers,” and was born on the 27th of September 1862 at Greytown (Natal). He saw active service in savage warfare, and in 1887 served as a field-cornet. Subsequently he settled in the Vryheid district, which he represented in the Volksraad of 1897. In the war of 1899 he served at first under Lucas Meyer in northern Natal, but soon rose to higher commands. He was in command of the Boers at the battles of Colenso and Spion Kop, and these victories earned him so great a reputation that on the death of P.J. Joubert, Botha was made commander-in-chief of the Transvaal Boers. His capacity was again demonstrated in the action of Belfast-Dalmanutha (August 23-28, 1900), and after the fall of Pretoria he reorganized the Boer resistance with a view to prolonged guerrilla warfare. In this task, and in the subsequent operations of the war, he was aided by his able lieutenants de la Rey and de Wet. The success of his measures was seen in the steady resistance offered by the Boers to the very close of the three years’ war. He was the chief representative of his countrymen in the peace negotiations of 1902, after which, with de Wet and de la Rey, he visited Europe in order to raise funds to enable the Boers to resume their former avocations. In the period of reconstruction under British rule, General Botha, who was still looked upon as the leader of the Boer people, took a prominent part in politics, advocating always measures which he considered as tending to the maintenance of peace and good order and the re-establishment of prosperity in the Transvaal. After the grant of self-government to the Transvaal in 1907, General Botha was called upon by Lord Selborne to form a government, and in the spring of the same year he took part in the conference of colonial premiers held in London. During his visit to England on this occasion General Botha declared the whole-hearted adhesion of the Transvaal to the British empire, and his intention to work for the welfare of the country regardless of racial differences. (See Transvaal: History.)

BOTHNIA, GULF OF, the northern part of the Baltic Sea (q.v.). The name is preserved from the former territory of Bothnia, of which the western part is now included in Sweden, the eastern in Finland.

BOTHWELL, JAMES HEPBURN, 4th Earl of, duke of Orkney and Shetland (c. 1536-1578), husband of Mary, queen of Scots, son of Patrick, 3rd earl of Bothwell, and of Agnes, daughter of Henry, Lord Sinclair, was born about 1536. His father, Patrick, the 3rd earl (c. 1512-1556), was the only son of Adam, the 2nd earl, who was killed at Flodden, and the grandson of Patrick (d. c. 1508), 3rd Lord Hailes and 1st earl of Bothwell. It was this Patrick who laid the foundation of the family fortunes. Having fought against King James III. at the battle of Sauchieburn in 1488, he was rewarded by the new king, James IV., with the earldom of Bothwell, the office of lord high admiral and other dignities. He also received many grants of land, including the lordship of Bothwell, which had been taken from John Ramsay, Lord Bothwell (d. 1513), the favourite of James III.

James Hepburn succeeded in 1556 to his father’s titles, lands and hereditary offices, including that of lord high admiral of Scotland. Though a Protestant, he supported the government of Mary of Guise, showed himself violently anti-English, and led a raid into England, subsequently in 1559 meeting the English commissioners and signing articles for peace on the border. The same year he seized £1000 secretly sent by Elizabeth to the lords of the congregation. In retaliation Arran occupied and stripped his castle at Crichton, whereupon Bothwell in November sent Arran a challenge, which the latter declined. In December he was sent by the queen dowager to secure Stirling, and in 1560 was despatched on a mission to France, visiting Denmark on the way, where he either married or seduced Anne, daughter of Christopher Thorssen, whom he afterwards deserted, and who came to Scotland in 1563 to obtain redress. He joined Mary at Paris in September, and in 1561 was sent by her as a commissioner to summon the parliament; in February he arrived in Edinburgh and was chosen a privy councillor on the 6th of September. He now entered into obligations to keep the peace with his various rivals, but was soon implicated in riots and partisan disorders, and was ordered in December to leave the city. In March 1562, having made up his quarrel with Arran, he was accused of having proposed to the latter a project for seizing the queen, and in May he was imprisoned in Edinburgh castle, whence he succeeded in escaping on the 28th of August. On the 23rd of September he submitted to the queen. Murray’s influence, however, being now supreme, he embarked in December for France, but was driven by storms on to Holy Island, where he was detained, and was subsequently, on the 18th of January 1564, seized at Berwick and sent by Elizabeth to the Tower, whence he was soon liberated and proceeded to France. After these adventures he returned to Scotland in March 1565, but withdrew once more before the superior strength of his opponents to France. The same year, however, he was recalled by Mary to aid in the suppression of Murray’s rebellion, successfully eluding the ships of Elizabeth sent to capture him. As lieutenant of the Marches he was employed in settling disputes on the border, but used his power to instigate thieving and disorders, and is described by Cecil’s correspondents as “as naughty a man as liveth and much given to the most detestable vices,” “as false as a devil,” “one that the godly of this whole nation hath a cause to curse for ever.”1 In February 1566 Bothwell, in spite of his previous matrimonial engagements—and he had also been united by “handfasting” to Janet Betoun of Cranstoun Riddell—married Jane, daughter of George Gordon, 4th earl of Huntly. Notwithstanding his insulting language concerning Mary and the fact that he was the “stoutest” in refusing mass, he became one of her chief advisers, but his complete ascendancy over her mind and affections dates from the murder of Rizzio on the 9th of March 1566. The queen required a protector, whom she found, not in the feeble Darnley, nor in any of the leaders of the factions, but in the strong, determined earl who had ever been a stanch supporter of the throne against the Protestant party and English influence. In Bothwell also, “the glorious, rash and hazardous young man,” romantic, handsome, charming even in his guilt, Mary gained what she lacked in her husband, a lover. He now stood forth as her champion; Mary took refuge with him at Dunbar, presented him, among other estates, with the castle there and the chief lands of the earldom of March, and made him the most powerful noble in the south of Scotland. Her partiality for him increased as her contempt and hatred of Darnley became more confirmed. On the 7th of October he was dangerously wounded, and the queen showed her anxiety for his safety by riding 40 miles to visit him, incurring a severe illness. In November she visited him at Dunbar, and in December took place the conference at Craigmillar at which both were present, and at which the disposal of Darnley was arranged, Bothwell with some others subsequently signing the bond to accomplish his murder. He himself superintended all the preparations, visiting Darnley with Mary on the night of the crime, Sunday, 9th of February 1567, attending the queen on her return to Holyrood for the ball, and riding back to Kirk o’ Field to carry out the crime. After the explosion he hurried back to Holyrood and feigned surprise at the receipt of the news half an hour later, ascribing the catastrophe to “the strangest accident that ever chancit, to wit, the fouder (lightning) came out of the luft (sky) and had burnt the king’s house.”2

Bothwell’s power was now greater, and the queen’s affection for him more ardent than ever. She was reported to have said that she cared not to lose France, England and her own country for him, and would go with him to the world’s end in a white petticoat ere she left him.3 He was gratified with further rewards, and his success was clouded by no stings of conscience or remorse. According to Melville he had designs on the life of the young prince. On the demand of Lennox, Darnley’s father, Bothwell was put upon his trial in April, but Lennox, having been forbidden to enter the city with more than six attendants, refused to attend, and Bothwell was declared not guilty. The queen’s intention to marry Bothwell, which had been kept a strict secret before the issue of the trial, was now made public. On the 19th of April he obtained the consent and support of the Protestant lords, who signed a bond in his favour. On the 24th he seized Mary’s willing person near Edinburgh, and carried her to his castle at Dunbar. On the 3rd of May Bothwell’s divorce from his wife was decreed by the civil court, on the ground of his adultery with a maidservant, and on the 7th by the Roman Catholic court on the ground of consanguinity. Archbishop Hamilton, however, who now granted the decree, had himself obtained a papal dispensation for the marriage,4 and in consequence it is extremely doubtful whether according to the Roman Catholic law Bothwell and Mary were ever husband and wife. On the 12th Bothwell was created duke of Orkney and Shetland and the marriage took place on the 15th according to the Protestant usage, the Roman Catholic rite being performed, according to some accounts, afterwards in addition.5

Bothwell’s triumph, however, was shortlived. The nobles, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, now immediately united to effect his destruction. In June Mary and Bothwell fled from Holyrood to Borthwick Castle, whence Bothwell, on the place being surrounded by Morton and his followers, escaped to Dunbar, Mary subsequently joining him. Thence they marched with a strong force towards Edinburgh, meeting the lords on the 15th of June at Carberry Hill. Bothwell invited any one of the nobles to single combat, but Mary forbade the acceptance of the challenge. Meanwhile, during the negotiations, the queen’s troops had been deserting; a surrender became inevitable, and Bothwell returned to Dunbar, parting from Mary for ever. Subsequently Bothwell left Dunbar for the north, visited Orkney and Shetland, and in July placed himself at the head of a band of pirates, and after eluding all attempts to capture him, arrived at Karm Sound in Norway. Here he was confronted by his first wife or victim, Anne Thorssen, whose claims he satisfied by the gift of a ship and promises of an annuity, and on his identity becoming known he was sent by the authorities to Copenhagen, where he arrived on the 30th of September. He wrote Les Affaires du comte de Boduel, exhibiting himself as the victim of the malice of his enemies, and gained King Frederick II.’s goodwill by an offer to restore the Orkneys and Shetlands to Denmark. In consequence the king allowed him to remain at Copenhagen, and refused all requests for his surrender. In January 1568 he was removed to Malmoe in Sweden. He corresponded frequently with Mary, but there being no hopes whatever of his restoration, and a new suitor being found in the duke of Norfolk, Mary demanded a divorce, on pleas which recall those of Henry VIII. in the matter of Catherine of Aragon. The divorce was finally granted by the pope in September 1570 on the ground of her prenuptial ravishment by Bothwell,6 and met with no opposition from the latter. After the downfall of Mary, Bothwell’s good treatment came to an end, and on the 16th of June 1573 he was removed to the castle of Dragsholm or Adelersborg in Zealand. Here the close and solitary confinement, and the dreary and hopeless inactivity to which he was condemned, proved a terrible punishment for the full-blooded, energetic and masterful Bothwell. He sank into insanity, and died on the 14th of April 1578. He was buried at the church of Faareveille, where a coffin, doubtfully supposed to be his, was opened in 1858. A portrait was taken of the head of the body found therein, now in the museum of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland. His so-called death-bed confession is not genuine.

He left no lawful descendants; but his nephew, Francis Stewart Hepburn, who, through his father, John Stewart, prior of Coldingham, was a grandson of King James V., and was thus related to Mary, queen of Scots, and the regent Murray, was in 1581 created earl of Bothwell. He was lord high admiral of Scotland, and was a person of some importance at the court of James VI. during the time when the influence of the Protestants was uppermost. He was anxious that Mary Stuart’s death should be avenged by an invasion of England, and in 1589 he suffered a short imprisonment for his share in a rising. By this time he had completely lost the royal favour. Again imprisoned, this time on a charge of witchcraft, he escaped from captivity in 1591, and was deprived by parliament of his lands and titles; as an outlaw his career was one of extraordinary lawlessness. In 1591 he attempted to seize Holyrood palace, and in 1593 he captured the king, forcing from him a promise of pardon. But almost at once he reverted to his former manner of life, and, although James failed to apprehend him, he was forced to take refuge in France about 1595. He died at Naples before July 1614. This earl had three sons, but his titles were never restored.

Bibliography.—See the article in the Dict. of Nat. Biog. and authorities; Les Affaires du comte de Boduel (written January 1568, publ. Bannatyne Club, 1829); “Memoirs of James, Earl of Bothwell,” in G. Chalmers’s Life of Mary, Queen of Scots (1818); Life of Bothwell, by F. Schiern (trans. 1880); Pièces et documents relatifs au comte de Bothwell, by Prince A. Lobanoff (1856); Appendix to the Hist. of Scotland, by G. Buchanan (1721); Sir James Melville’s Memoirs (Bannatyne Club, 1827); A Lost Chapter in the Hist. of Mary, Queen of Scots, by J. Stuart (1874); J.H. Burton’s Hist. of Scotland (1873); A. Lang’s Hist. of Scotland, ii. (1902); Archaeologia, xxxviii. 308; Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, Scottish, Venetian, vii; Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, xix. and xx., Domestic, Border Papers; Hist. MSS. Comm., MSS. of Marq. of Salisbury, i. ii. See also Mary, Queen of Scots.

(P. C. Y.)

1 Cal. of State Papers, Scottish, i. 679.

2 Sir James Melville’s Mem. 174.

3 Cal. of State Pap., Foreign, 1566-1568, p. 212.

4 Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep. ii. p. 177.

5 Cal. of State Pap., Scottish, ii. 333.

6 Cal. of State Pap., Foreign, 1569-1571, p. 372.

BOTHWELL, a town of Lanarkshire, Scotland. Pop. of town (1901) 3015; of parish (1901) 45,905. The town lies on the right bank of the Clyde, 9 m. E.S.E. of Glasgow by the North British and Caledonian railways. Owing to its pleasant situation it has become a residential quarter of Glasgow. The choir of the old Gothic church of 1398 (restored at the end of the 19th century) forms a portion of the parish church. Joanna Baillie, the poetess, was born in the manse, and a memorial has been erected in her honour. The river is crossed by a suspension bridge as well as the bridge near which, on the 22nd of June 1679, was fought the battle of Bothwell Bridge between the Royalists, under the duke of Monmouth, and the Covenanters, in which the latter lost 500 men and 1000 prisoners. Adjoining this bridge, on the level north-eastern bank, is the castle that once belonged to James Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh (fl. 1566-1580), the assassin of the regent Murray; and near the present farmhouse the South Calder is spanned by a Roman bridge. The picturesque ruins of Bothwell Castle occupy a conspicuous position on the side of the river, which here takes the bold sweep famed in Scottish song as Bothwell bank. The fortress belonged to Sir Andrew Moray, who fell at Stirling in 1297, and passed by marriage to the Douglases. The lordship was bestowed in 1487 on Patrick Hepburn, 3rd Lord Hailes, 1st earl of Bothwell, who resigned it in 1491 in favour of Archibald Douglas, 5th earl of Angus. It thus reverted to the Douglases and now belongs to the earl of Home, a descendant. The castle is a fine example of Gothic, and mainly consists of a great oblong quadrangle, flanked on the south side by circular towers. At the east end are the remains of the chapel. A dungeon bears the nickname of “Wallace’s Beef Barrel.” The unpretending mansion near by was built by Archibald Douglas, 1st earl of Forfar (1653-1712). The parish of Bothwell contains several flourishing towns and villages, all owing their prosperity to the abundance of coal, iron and oil-shale. The principal places, most of which have stations on the North British or Caledonian railway or both, are Bothwell Park, Carfin, Chapelhall, Bellshill (pop. 8786), Holytown, Mossend, Newarthill, Uddingston (pop. 7463), Clydesdale, Hamilton Palace, Colliery Rows and Tennochside.

BOTOCUDOS (from Port. botoque, a plug, in allusion to the wooden disks or plugs worn in their lips and ears), the foreign name for a tribe of South American Indians of eastern Brazil, also known as the Aimores or Aimbores. They appear to have no collective tribal name for themselves. Some are called Nac-nanuk or Nac-poruk, “sons of the soil.” The name Botocudos cannot be traced much farther back than the writings of Prince Maximilian von Neuwied (Reise nach Bresilien, Frankfort-On-Main, 1820). When the Portuguese adventurer Vasco Fernando Coutinho reached the east coast of Brazil in 1535, he erected a fort at the head of Espirito Santo Bay to defend himself against “the Aimores and other tribes.” The original home of the tribe comprised most of the present province of Espirito Santo, and reached inland to the headwaters of Rio Grande (Belmonte) and Rio Doce on the eastern slopes of the Serra do Espinhacao, but the Botocudos are now mainly confined to the country between Rio Pardo and Rio Doce, and seldom roam westward beyond Serra dos Aimores into Minas Geraes. It was in the latter district that at the close of the 18th century they came into collision with the whites, who were attracted thither by the diamond fields.