Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 12)

P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: W. M. F. Petrie, Naukratis.

See, also, NAUKRATIS.

EGYPT: B. C. 525-332. Persian conquest and sovereignty.

The kings of the Twenty-Sixth or Saite Dynasty maintained the independence of Egypt for nearly a century and a half, and even revived its military glories briefly, by Necho's ephemeral conquests in Syria and his overthrow of Josiah king of Judah. In the meantime, Assyria and Babylonia had fallen and the Persian power raised up by Cyrus had taken their place. In his own time, Cyrus did not finish a plan of conquest which included Egypt; his son Cambyses took up the task. "It appears that four years were consumed by the Persian monarch in his preparations for his Egyptian expedition. It was not until B. C. 525 that he entered Egypt at the head of his troops and fought the great battle which decided the fate of the country. The struggle was long and bloody [see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521]. Psammenitus, who had succeeded his father Amasis, had the services, not only of his Egyptian subjects, but of a large body of mercenaries besides, Greeks and Carians. … In spite of their courage and fanaticism, the Egyptian army was completely defeated. … The conquest of Egypt was followed by the submission of the neighbouring tribes. … Even the Greeks of the more remote Barca and Cyrene sent gifts to the conqueror and consented to become his tributaries." But Cambyses wasted 50,000 men in a disastrous expedition through the Libyan desert to Ammon, and he retreated from Ethiopia with loss and shame. An attempted rising of the Egyptians, before he had quitted their country, was crushed with merciless severity. The deities, the temples and the priests of Egypt were treated with insult and contempt and the spirit of the people seems to have been entirely broken. "Egypt became now for a full generation the obsequious slave of Persia, and gave no more trouble to her subjugator than the weakest, or the most contented, of the provinces."

George Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 7.

"The Persian kings, from Cambyses to Darius II. Nothus, are enrolled as the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty of Manetho. The ensuing revolts [see ATHENS: B. C. 460-449] are recognized in the Twenty-Eighth (Saite) Dynasty, consisting only of Amyrtæus, who restored the independence of Egypt (B. C. 414-408), and the Twenty-Ninth (Mendesian) and Thirtieth (Sebennyte) Dynasties (about B. C. 408-353), of whose intricate history we need only here say that they ruled with great prosperity and have left beautiful monuments of art. The last king of independent Egypt was Nectanebo II., who succumbed to the invasion of Artaxerxes Ochus, and fled to Ethiopia (B. C. 353). The last three kings of Persia, Ochus, Arses, and Darius Codomannus, form the Thirty-First Dynasty of Manetho, ending with the submission of Egypt to Alexander the Great (B. C. 332)."

P. Smith, Ancient History of the East (Students'), chapter 8.

ALSO IN: S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 5.

{758}

EGYPT: B. C. 332. Alexander's conquest.

"In the summer of 332 [after the siege and destruction of Tyre—see TYRE: B. C. 332, and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330] Alexander set forward on his march toward Egypt, accompanied by the fleet, which he had placed under the orders of Hephæstion." But, being detained on the way several months by the siege of Gaza, it was not before December that he entered Egypt. "He might safely reckon not merely on an easy conquest, but on an ardent reception, from a people who burnt to shake off the Persian tyranny. … Mazaces [the Persian commander] himself, as soon as he heard of the battle of Issus, became aware that all resistance to Alexander would be useless, and met him with a voluntary submission. At Pelusium he found the fleet, and, having left a garrison in the fortress, ordered it to proceed up the Nile as far as Memphis, while he marched across the desert. Here he conciliated the Egyptians by the honours which he paid to all their gods, especially to Apis, who had been so cruelly insulted by the Persian invaders. … He then embarked, and dropt down the western or Canobic arm of the river to Canobus, to survey the extremity of the Delta on that side, and having sailed round the lake Mareotis, landed on the narrow belt of low ground which parts it from the sea, and is sheltered from the violence of the northern gales … by a long ridge of rock, then separated from the main land by a channel, nearly a mile (seven stades) broad and forming the isle of Pharos. On this site stood the village of Racotis, where the ancient kings of Egypt had stationed a permanent guard to protect this entrance of their dominions from adventurers. … Alexander's keen eye was immediately struck by the advantages of this position for a city, which should become a great emporium of commerce, and a link between the East and the West. … He immediately gave orders for the beginning of the work, himself traced the outline, which was suggested by the natural features of the ground itself, and marked the site of some of the principal buildings, squares, palaces and temples" (see ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332). Alexander remained in Egypt until the spring of 331, arranging the occupation and administration of the country. "The system which he established served in some points as a model for the policy of Rome under the Emperors." Before quitting the country he made a toilsome march along the coast, westward, and thence, far into the desert, to visit the famous oracle of Ammon.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 50.

EGYPT: B. C. 323-30. The kingdom of the Ptolemies.

In the division of the empire of Alexander the Great between his generals, when he died, Ptolemy Lagus—reputed to be a natural son of Alexander's father Philip—chose Egypt (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316), with a modesty which proved to be wise. In all the provinces of the Macedonian conquest, it was the country most easily to be held as an independent state, by reason of the sea and desert which separated it from the rest of the world. It resulted from the prudence of Ptolemy that he founded a kingdom which lasted longer and enjoyed more security and prosperity than any other among the monarchies of the Diadochi. He was king of Egypt, in fact, for seventeen years before, in 307, B. C., he ventured to assume the name (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301). Meantime, he had added to his dominion the little Greek state of Cyrene, on the African coast with Phœnicia, Judæa, Cœle-Syria, and the island of Cyprus. These latter became disputed territory, fought over for two centuries, between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, sometimes dominated by the one and sometimes by the other (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187). At its greatest extent, the dominion of the Ptolemies, under Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Lagus, included large parts of Asia Minor and many of the Greek islands. Egypt and Cyrene they held, with little disturbance, until Rome absorbed them. Notwithstanding the vices which the family of Ptolemy developed, and which were as rank of their kind as history can show, Egypt under their rule appears to have been one of the most prosperous countries of the time. In Alexandria, they more than realized the dream of its Macedonian projector. They made it not only the wealthiest city of their day, but the greatest seat of learning,—the successor of Athens as the capital of Greek civilization in the ancient world.

S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapters 7-12.

The first Ptolemy abdicated in favor of his son, Ptolemy Philadelphus, in 284 B. C., and died in the second year following.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.

"Although the political constitution of Egypt was not greatly altered when the land fell into Greek hands, yet in other respects great changes took place. The mere fact that Egypt took its place among a family of Hellenistic nations, instead of claiming as of old a proud isolation, must have had a great effect on the trade, the manufactures, and the customs of the country. To begin with trade. Under the native kings Egypt had scarcely any external trade, and trade could scarcely spring up during the wars with Persia. But under the Ptolemies, intercourse between Egypt and Sicily, Syria or Greece, would naturally and necessarily advance rapidly. Egypt produced manufactured goods which were everywhere in demand; fine linen, ivory, porcelain, notably that papyrus which Egypt alone produced, and which was necessary to the growing trade in manuscripts. Artificial barriers being once removed, enterprising traders of Corinth and Tarentum, Ephesus and Rhodes, would naturally seek these goods in Egypt, bringing in return whatever of most attractive their own countries had to offer. It seems probable that the subjects of the Ptolemies seldom or never had the courage to sail direct down the Red Sea to India. In Roman times this voyage became not unusual, but at an earlier time the Indian trade was principally in the hands of the Arabs of Yemen and of the Persian Gulf. Nevertheless the commerce of Egypt under the Ptolemies spread eastwards as well as westwards. The important towns of Arsinoë and Berenice arose on the Red Sea as emporia of the Arabian trade. And as always happens when Egypt is in vigorous hands, the limits of Egyptian rule and commerce were pushed further and further up the Nile. The influx into Alexandria and Memphis of a crowd of Greek architects, artists, and artizans, could not fail to produce movement in that stream of art which had in Egypt long remained all but stagnant. … If we may trust the somewhat over-coloured and flighty panegyrics which have come down to us, the material progress of Egypt under Ptolemy Philadelphus was most wonderful. We read, though we cannot for a moment trust the figures of Appian, that in his reign Egypt possessed an army of 200,000 foot soldiers and 40,000 horsemen, 300 elephants and 2,000 chariots of war. The fleet at the same period is said to have included 1,500 large vessels, some of them with twenty or thirty banks of oars. Allowing for exaggeration, we must suppose that Egypt was then more powerful than it had been since the days of Rameses."

P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, chapter 7.

See, also, ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246; and EDUCATION, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.

{759}

EGYPT: B. C. 80-48. Strife among the Ptolemies. Roman pretensions.

The throne of Egypt being disputed, B. C. 80, between Cleopatra Berenice, who had seized it, and her step-son, Ptolemy Alexander, then in Rome, the latter bribed the Romans to support his claims by making a will in which he named the Roman Republic as his heir. The Senate, thereat, sent him to Alexandria with orders that Berenice should marry him and that they should reign jointly, as king and queen. The order was obeyed. The foully mated pair were wedded, and, nineteen days afterwards, the young king procured the death of his queen. The crime provoked an insurrection in which Ptolemy Alexander was slain by his own guard. This ended the legitimate line of the Ptolemies; but an illegitimate prince, usually called Auletes, or "the piper," was put on the throne, and he succeeded in holding it for twenty-four years. The claim of the Romans, under the will of Ptolemy Alexander, seems to have been kept in abeyance by the bribes which Auletes employed with liberality among the senatorial leaders. In 58 B. C. a rising at Alexandria drove Auletes from the throne; in 54 B. C. he bought the support of Gabinius, Roman pro-consul in Syria, who reinstated him. He died in 51 B. C. leaving by will his kingdom to his elder daughter, Cleopatra, and his elder son, Ptolemy, who, according to the abominable custom of the Ptolemies, were to marry one another and reign together. The Roman people, by the terms of the will were made its executors. When, therefore, Cæsar, coming to Alexandria, three years afterwards, found the will of Auletes set at nought, Ptolemy occupying the throne, alone, and Cleopatra struggling against him, he had some ground for a pretension of right to interfere.

S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 11.

EGYPT: B. C. 48-47. Civil war between Cleopatra and Ptolemy. Intervention of Cæsar. The rising against him. The Romans besieged in Alexandria. Their ruthless victory.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

EGYPT: B. C. 30. Organized as a Roman province.

After the battle of Actium and the death of Cleopatra, Egypt was reduced by Octavius to the rank of a Roman province and the dynasty of the Ptolemies extinguished. But Octavius "had no intention of giving to the senate the rich domain which he tore from its native rulers. He would not sow in a foreign soil the seeds of independence which he was intent upon crushing nearer home. … In due time he persuaded the senate and people to establish it as a principle, that Egypt should never be placed under the administration of any man of superior rank to the equestrian, and that no senator should be allowed even to visit it, without express permission from the supreme authority."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 29.

EGYPT: A. D. 100-500. Roman and Christian.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47 to A. D. 413-415; and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100, and 100-312.

EGYPT: A. D. 296. Revolt crushed by Diocletian.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

EGYPT: A. D. 616-628. Conquest by Chosroes, the Persian.

The career of conquest pursued by Chosroes, the last Persian conqueror, extended even to Egypt, and beyond it. "Egypt itself, the only province which had been exempt since the time of Diocletian from foreign and domestic war, was again subdued by the successors of Cyrus. Pelusium, the key of that impervious country, was surprised by the cavalry of the Persians: they passed with impunity the innumerable channels of the Delta, and explored the long valley of the Nile from the pyramids of Memphis to the confines of Æthiopia. Alexandria might have been relieved by a naval force, but the archbishop and the præfect embarked for Cyprus; and Chosroes entered the second city of the empire, which still preserved a wealthy remnant of industry and commerce. His western trophy was erected, not on the walls of Carthage, but in the neighbourhood of Tripoli: the Greek colonies of Cyrene were finally extirpated." By the peace concluded in 628, after the death of Chosroes, all of his conquests were restored to the empire and the cities of Syria and Egypt evacuated by their Persian garrisons.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

EGYPT: A. D. 640-646. Moslem conquest.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

EGYPT: A. D. 967-1171. Under the Fatimite Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171.

EGYPT: A. D. 1168-1250. Under the Atabeg and Ayoubite sultans.

See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

EGYPT: A. D. 1218-1220. Invasion by the Fifth Crusade.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229.

EGYPT: A. D. 1249-1250. The crusading invasion by Saint Louis of France.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517. The Mameluke Sultans.

The Mamelukes were a military body created by Saladin. "The word means slave (literally, the possessed'), and … they were brought in youth from northern countries to serve in the South. Saladin himself was a Kurd, and long before his accession to power, Turkish and Kurdish mercenaries were employed by the Caliphs of Bagdad and Cairo, as the Pope employs Swiss. … Subsequently, however, Circassia became the country which most largely furnished this class of troops. Their apprenticeship was a long and laborious one: they were taught, first of all, to read the Koran and to write; then followed lance-exercise, during which time nobody was allowed to speak to them. At first they either resided in the castle, or were exercised living under tents; but after the time of Sultan Barkouk they were allowed to live in the town [Cairo], and the quarter now occupied by the Jews was at that time devoted to the Circassian Mamelukes. After this period they neglected their religious and warlike exercises, and became degenerate and corrupt. … The dynasty of Saladin … was of no duration, and ended in 648 A. H., or 1250 of the Christian era. {760} Then began the so-called Bahrite Sultans, in consequence of the Mamelukes of the sultan Negm-ed-din having lodged in Rodah, the Island in the Nile (Bahr-en-Nil). The intriguer of the period was Sheger-ed-dur, the widow of the monarch, who married one of the Mamelukes, Moez-eddin-aibek-el-Turcomany, who became the first of these Bahrite Sultans, and was himself murdered in the Castle of Cairo through this woman. … Their subsequent history, until the conquest of Egypt by Sultan Selim in 1517, presents nothing but a series of acts of lust, murder and rapine. So rapidly did they expel each other from power, that the average reign of each did not exceed five or six years. … The 'fleeting purple' of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire is the spectacle which these Mameluke Dynasties constantly present."

A. A. Paton, History of the Egyptian Revolution, volume 1, chapters 3-5.

EGYPT: A. D. 1516-1517. Overthrow of the Mameluke Sultans. Ottoman conquest by Sultan Selim.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799. The French conquest and occupation by Bonaparte.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST), and 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799. Bonaparte's organization of government. His victory at Aboukir. His return to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST), and 1799 (NOVEMBER).

EGYPT: A. D. 1800. Discontent and discouragement of the French. The repudiated Treaty of El Arish. Turkish defeat at Heliopolis. Revolt crushed at Cairo. Assassination of Kleber.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).

EGYPT: A. D. 1801-1802. Expulsion of the French by the English. Restoration of the province to Turkey.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811. The rise of Mohammad 'Aly (or Mehemet Ali) to power. His treacherous destruction of the Mamelukes.

"It was during the French occupation that Mohammad 'Aly [or Mehemet Ali] came on the scene. He was born in 1768 at the Albanian port of Kaballa, and by the patronage of the governor was sent to Egypt in 1801 with the contingent of troops furnished by Kaballa to the Ottoman army then operating with the English against the French. He rapidly rose to the command of the Arnaut or Albanian section of the Turkish army, and soon found himself an important factor in the confused political position which followed the departure of the British army. The Memluk Beys had not been restored to their former posts as provincial governors, and were consequently ripe for revolt against the Porte; but their party was weakened by the rivalry of its two leaders, El-Elfy and El-Bardisy, who divided their followers into two hostile camps. On the other hand, the Turkish Pasha appointed by the Porte had not yet gained a firm grip of the country, and was perpetually apprehensive of a recall to Constantinople. Mohammad 'Aly at the head of his Albanians was an important ally for either side to secure, and he fully appreciated his position. He played off one party against the other, the Pasha against the Beys, so successfully, that he not only weakened both sides, but made the people of Cairo, who were disgusted with the anarchy of Memluk and Turk alike, his firm friends; and at last suffered himself, with becoming hesitation, to be persuaded by the entreaty of the populace to become [1805] their ruler, and thus stepped to the supreme power in the curious guise of the people's friend. A fearful time followed Mohammad 'Aly's election—for such it was—to the governorship of Egypt. The Turkish Pasha, Khurshid, held the citadel, and Mohammad 'Aly, energetically aided by the people of Cairo, laid siege to it. From the minaret of the mosque of Sultan Hasan, and from the heights of Mukattam, the besiegers poured their fire into the citadel, and Khurshid replied with an indiscriminate cannonade upon the city. The firing went on for weeks (pausing on Fridays), till a messenger arrived from Constantinople bringing the confirmation of the popular vote, in the form of a firman, appointing Mohammad 'Aly governor of Egypt. Khurshid shortly afterwards retired, and the soldiery amused themselves in the approved Turkish and (even worse) Albanian fashion by making havoc of the houses of the citizens. Mohammad 'Aly now possessed the title of Governor of Egypt, but beyond the walls of Cairo his authority was everywhere disputed by the Beys. … An attempt was made to ensnare certain of the Beys, who were encamped north of the metropolis. On the 17th of August, 1805, the dam of the canal of Cairo was to be cut, and some chiefs of Mohammad 'Aly's party wrote informing them that he would go forth early on that morning with most of his troops to witness the ceremony, inviting them to enter and seize the city, and, to deceive them, stipulating for a certain sum of money as a reward. The dam, however, was cut early in the preceding night, without any ceremony. On the following morning these Beys, with their Memluks, a very numerous body, broke open the gate of the suburb El-Hosey-niyeh, and gained admittance into the city. … They marched along the principal street for some distance, with kettle-drums behind each company, and were received with apparent joy by the citizens. At the mosque called the Ashrafiyeh they separated, one party proceeding to the Azhar and the houses of certain sheykhs, and the other party continuing along the main street, and through the gate called Bab-Zuweyleh, where they turned up towards the citadel. Here they were fired on by some soldiers from the houses; and with this signal a terrible massacre commenced. Falling back towards their companions, they found the by-streets closed; and in that part of the main thoroughfare called Beyn-el-Kasreyn, they were suddenly placed between two fires. Thus shut up in a narrow street, some sought refuge in the collegiate mosque of the Barkukiyeh, while the remainder fought their way through their enemies, and escaped over the city wall with the loss of their horses. Two Memluks had in the meantime succeeded, by great exertions, in giving the alarm to their comrades in the quarter of the Azhar, who escaped by the eastern gate called Bab-el-Ghureyyib. A horrible fate awaited those who had shut themselves up in the Barkukiyeh. Having begged for quarter and surrendered, they were immediately stripped nearly naked, and about fifty were slaughtered on the spot; and about the same number were dragged away. … The wretched captives were then chained and left in the court of the Pasha's house; and on the following morning the heads of their comrades, who had perished the day before, were skinned and stuffed with straw before their eyes. {761} One Bey and two other men paid their ransom, and were released; the rest, without exception, were tortured, and put to death in the course of the ensuing night. … The Beys were disheartened by this revolting butchery, and most of them retired to the upper country. Urged by England, or more probably by the promise of a bribe from El-Elfy, the Porte began a leisurely interference in favour of the Memluks; but the failure of El-Elfy's treasury, and a handsome bribe from Mohammad 'Aly, soon changed the Sultan's views, and the Turkish fleet sailed away. … An attempt of the English Government to restore the Memluks by the action of a force of 5,000 men under General Fraser ended in disaster and humiliation, and the citizens of Cairo had the satisfaction of seeing the heads of Englishmen exposed on stakes in the Ezbekiyeh. Mohammad 'Aly now adopted a more conciliatory policy towards the Memluks, granted them land, and encouraged them to return to Cairo. The clemency was only assumed in order to prepare the way for the act of consummate treachery which finally uprooted the Memluk power. … Early in the year 1811, the preparations for an expedition against the Wahhabis in Arabia being complete, all the Memluk Beys then in Cairo were invited to the ceremony of investing Mohammad 'Aly's favourite son, Tusun, with a pelisse and the command of the army. As on the former occasion, the unfortunate Memluks fell into the snare. On the 1st of March, Shahin Bey and the other chiefs (one only excepted) repaired with their retinues to the citadel, and were courteously received by the Pasha. Having taken coffee, they formed in procession, and, preceded and followed by the Pasha's troops, slowly descended the steep and narrow road leading to the great gate of the citadel; but as soon as the Memluks arrived at the gate it was suddenly closed before them. The last of those who made their exit before the gate was shut were Albanians under Salih Kush. To those troops their chief now made known the Pasha's orders to massacre all the Memluks within the citadel; therefore having returned by another way, they gained the summit of the walls and houses, that hem in the road in which the Memluks were, and some stationed themselves upon the eminences of the rock through which that road is partly cut. Thus securely placed, they commenced a heavy fire on their defenceless victims, and immediately the troops who closed the procession, and who had the advantage of higher ground, followed their example. … 470 Memluks entered the citadel, and of these very few, if any, escaped. One of these is said to have been a Bey. According to some, he leaped his horse from the ramparts, and alighted uninjured, though the horse was killed by the fall. Others say that he was prevented from joining his comrades, and discovered the treachery while waiting without the gate. He fled and made his way to Syria. This massacre was the signal for an indiscriminate slaughter of the Memluks throughout Egypt, orders to this effect being transmitted to every governor; and in Cairo itself, the houses of the Beys were given over to the soldiery, who slaughtered all their adherents, treated their women in the most shameless manner, and sacked their dwellings. … The last of his rivals being now destroyed, Mohammad 'Aly was free to organize the administration of the country, and to engage in expeditions abroad."

S. Lane-Poole, Egypt, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: A. A. Paton, History of the Egyptian Revolution, volume 2.

EGYPT: A. D. 1807. Occupation of Alexandria by the English. Disastrous failure of their expedition.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

EGYPT: A. D. 1831-1840. Rebellion of Mehemet Ali. Successes against the Turks. Intervention of the Western Powers. Egypt made an hereditary Pashalik.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869. Mehemet Ali and his successors. The khedives. The opening of the Suez Canal.

"By the treaty of 1840 between the Porte and the European Powers, … his title to Egypt having been … affirmed … Mehemet Ali devoted himself during the next seven years to the social and material improvement of the country, with an aggregate of results which has fixed his place in history as the 'Peter the Great' of Egypt. Indeed, except some additions and further reforms made during the reign of his reputed grandson, Ismail Pasha, the whole administrative system, up till less than ten years ago, was, in the main, his work; and notwithstanding many admitted defects, it was at his death incomparably the most civilised and efficient of then existing Mussulman Governments. In 1848, this great satrap, then verging on his eightieth year, was attacked by a mental malady, induced, as it was said, by a potion administered in mistaken kindness by one of his own daughters, and the government was taken over by his adopted son, Ibrahim Pasha, the hero of Koniah and Nezib. He lingered till August 1849, but Ibrahim had already pre-deceased him; and Abbas, a son of the latter, succeeded to the viceregal throne. Though born and bred in Egypt, Abbas was a Turk of the worst type—ignorant, cowardly, sensual, fanatic, and opposed to reforms of every sort. Thus his feeble reign of less than six years was, in almost everything, a period of retrogression. On a night in July, 1854, he was strangled in his sleep by a couple of his own slaves,—acting, it was variously said, on a secret order from Constantinople, or at the behest of one of his wives. To Abbas succeeded Said, the third son of Mehemet Ali, an amiable and liberal-minded prince who retrieved much of the mischief done by his predecessor, but lacked the vigorous intelligence and force of character required to carry on the great work begun by his father. His reign will be chiefly memorable for the concession and commencement of the Suez Canal, the colossal work which, while benefiting the trade of the world, has cost so much to Egypt. Said died in January 1863, and was succeeded by his nephew Ismail Pasha, the second son of Ibrahim. As most of the leading incidents of this Prince's reign, as also the chief features of his character, are still fresh in the public memory, I need merely recall a few of the more salient of both. Amongst the former, history will give the first place to his creation of the huge public debt which forms the main element of a problem that still confronts Europe. {762} But, for this the same impartial judge will at least equally blame the financial panderers who ministered to his extravagance, with exorbitant profit to themselves, but at ruinous cost to Egypt. On the other hand, it is but historical justice to say that Ismail did much for the material progress of the country. He added more than 1,000 to the 200 miles of railway in existence at the death of Said. He greatly improved the irrigation, and so increased the cultivable area of the country; multiplied the primary schools, and encouraged native industries. For so much, at least, history will give him credit. As memorable, though less meritorious, were the magnificent fetes with which, in 1869, he opened the Suez Canal, the great work which England had so long opposed, but through which—as if by the irony of history—the first ship that passed flew the English flag, and to the present traffic of which we contribute more than eighty per cent. In personal character, Ismail was of exceptional intelligence, but cruel, crafty, and untrustworthy both in politics and in his private relations. … It may be mentioned that Ismail Pasha was the first of these Ottoman Viceroys who bore the title of 'Khedive,' which is a Perso-Arabic designation signifying rank a shade less than regal. This he obtained in 1867 by heavy bribes to the Sultan and his chief ministers, as he had the year before by similar means ousted his brother and uncle from the succession, and secured it for his own eldest son,—in virtue of which the latter now [1890] nominally reigns."

J. C. M'Coan, Egypt (National Life and Thought, lecture 18).

J. C. M'Coan, Egypt under Ismail, chapters 1-4.

EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883. Conquest of the Soudan. Measures for the suppression of the slave-trade. The government of General Gordon. Advent of the Mahdi and beginning of his revolt.

In 1870, Ismail Pasha "made an appeal for European assistance to strengthen him in completing the conquest of Central Africa. [Sir Samuel] Baker was accordingly placed in command of 1,200 men, supplied with cannon and steam-boats, and received the title of Governour-General of the provinces which he was commissioned to subdue. Having elected to make Gondokoro the seat of his government, he changed its name to Ismailia. He was not long in bringing the Bari to submission, and then, advancing southwards, he came to the districts of Dufilé and Fatiko, a healthy region endowed by nature with fertile valleys and irrigated by limpid streams, but for years past converted into a sort of hell upon earth by the slave-hunters who had made it their headquarters. From these pests Baker delivered the locality, and having by his tact and energy overcome the distrust of the native rulers, he established over their territory a certain number of small military settlements. … Baker returned to Europe flattering himself with the delusion that he had put an end to the scourge of slave dealing. It was true that various slave-dealers' dens on the Upper Nile had been destroyed, a number of outlaws had been shot, and a few thousand miserable slaves had been set at liberty; but beyond that nothing had been accomplished; no sooner had the liberator turned his back than the odious traffic recommenced with more vigour than before through the region south of Gondokoro. This, however, was only one of the slave-hunting districts, and by no means the worst. … Under European compulsion … the Khedive Ismail undertook to promote measures to put a stop to the scandal. He entered into various conventions with England on the subject; and in order to convince the Powers of the sincerity of his intentions, he consented to put the equatorial provinces under the administration of an European officer, who should be commissioned to carry on the work of repression, conquest and organisation that had been commenced by Baker. His choice fell upon a man of exceptional ability, a brilliant officer trained at Woolwich, who had already gained high renown in China, not only for military talent, but for his adroitness and skill in negotiation and diplomacy. This was Colonel Gordon, familiarly known as 'Chinese Gordon,' who was now to add fresh lustre to his name in Egypt as Gordon Pasha. Gordon was appointed Governour-General of the Soudan in 1874. With him were associated Chaillé-Long, an American officer, who was chief of his staff; the German, Dr. Emin Effendi, medical officer to the expedition; Lieutenants Chippendall and Watson; Gessi and Kemp, engineers. … Thenceforward the territories, of which so little had hitherto been known, became the continual scene of military movements and scientific excursions. … The Soudan was so far conquered as to be held by about a dozen military outposts stationed along the Nile from Lake No to Lakes Albert and Ibrahim. … In 1876 Gordon went back to Cairo. Nevertheless, although he was wearied with the continual struggle of the past two years, worn down by the incessant labours of internal organisation and geographical investigations, disheartened, too, by the jealousies, rivalries, and intrigues of all around him, and by the ill feeling of the very people whom the Khedive's Government had sent to support him, he consented to return again to his post; this time with the title of Governour-General of the Soudan, Darfur, and the Equatorial Provinces. At the beginning of 1877 he took possession of the Government palace at Khartoum. … Egyptian authority, allied with European civilisation, appeared now at length to be taking some hold on the various districts, and the Cairo Government might begin to look forward to a time when it could reckon on some reward for its labours and sacrifices. The area of the new Egyptian Soudan had now become immense. Geographically, its centre included the entire valley of the Nile proper, from Berber to the great lakes; on the east were such portions of the valleys of the Blue Nile and Atbara as lay outside Abyssinia; and on the west were the districts watered by the Bahr-el-Ghazal, and the Bahr-el-Arab, right away to the confines of Wadai. … Unfortunately in 1879 Ismail Pasha was deposed, and, to the grievous loss of the Soudan, Gordon was recalled. As the immediate consequence, the country fell back into the hands of Turkish pashas; apathy, disorder, carelessness, and ill feeling reappeared at Khartoum, and the Arab slave-dealers, who had for a period been kept under by Baker, Gessi, and Gordon, came once more to the front. … It was Raouf Pasha who, in 1879, succeeded Gordon as Governour-General. He had three Europeans as his subordinates—Emin Bey, who before Gordon left, had been placed in charge of the province of the equator; Lupton Bey, an Englishman, who had followed Gessi as Governour on the Bahr-el-Ghazal; and Slatin Bey, an Austrian, in command of Darfur. Raouf had barely been two years at Khartoum when the Mahdi appeared on the scene. {763} Prompted either by personal ambition or by religious hatred, the idea of playing the part of 'Mahdi' had been acted upon by many an Arab fanatic [see MAHDI]. Such an idea, at an early age, had taken possession of a certain Soudanese of low birth, a native of Dongola, by name Mohammed Ahmed. Before openly aspiring to the role of the regenerator of Islam he had filled several subordinate engagements, notably one under Dr. Peney, the French surgeon-general in the Soudan, who died in 1861. Shortly afterwards he received admittance into the powerful order of the Ghelani dervishes, and then commenced his schemes for stirring up a revolution in defence of his creed. His proceedings did not fail to attract the attention of Gessi Pasha, who had him arrested at Shekka and imprisoned for five months. Under the government of Raouf he took up his abode upon the small island of Abba, on the Nile above Khartoum, where he gained a considerable notoriety by the austerity of his life and by the fervour of his devotions, thus gradually gaining a high reputation for sanctity. Not only offerings but followers streamed in from every quarter. He became rich as well as powerful. … Waiting till May 1881, he then assumed that a propitious time had arrived for the realisation of his plans, and accordingly had himself publicly proclaimed as 'Mahdi,' inviting every fakir and every religious leader of Islam to come and join him at Abba. … Convinced that it was impolitic to tolerate any longer the revolutionary intrigues of such an adventurer at the very gates of Khartoum, Raouf Pasha resolved to rid the country of Mohammed and to send him to Cairo for trial. An expedition was accordingly despatched to the island of Abba, but unfortunately the means employed were inadequate to the task. Only a small body of black soldiers were sent to arrest the agitator in his quarters, and they, inspired no doubt by a vague and superstitious dread of a man who represented himself as the messenger of Allah, wavered and acted with indecision. Before their officers could rally them to energy, the Mahdi, with a fierce train of followers, knife in hand, rushed upon them, and killing many, put the rest to flight; then, seeing that a renewed assault was likely to be made, he withdrew the insurgent band into a retreat of safety amongst the mountains of Southern Kordofan. Henceforth revolt was openly declared. Such was the condition of things in August 1881. Chase was given, but every effort to secure the person of the pretended prophet was baffled. A further attempt was made to arrest him by the Mudir of Fashoda with 1,500 men, only to be attended with a still more melancholy result. After a desperate struggle the Mudir lay stretched upon the ground, his soldiers murdered all around him. One single officer, with a few straggling cavalry, escaped the massacre, and returned to report the fatal news. The reverse caused an absolute panic in Khartoum, an intense excitement spreading throughout the Soudan…. Meantime the Mahdi's prestige was ever on the increase, and he soon felt sufficiently strong to assume the offensive. His troops overran Kordofan and Sennar, advancing on the one hand to the town of Sennar, which they set on fire, and on the other to El-Obeid, which they placed in a state of siege. In the following July a fresh and more powerful expedition, this time numbering 6,000 men, under the command of Yussuf Pasha, left Fashoda and made towards the Mahdi's headquarters. It met with no better fate than the expeditions that had gone before. … And then it was that the English Government, discerning danger for Egypt in this insurrection of Islam, set to work to act for the Khedive. It told off 11,000 men, and placed them under the command of Hicks Pasha, an officer in the Egyptian service who had made the Abyssinian campaign. At the end of December 1882 this expedition embarked at Suez for Suakin, crossed the desert, reached the Nile at Berber, and after much endurance on the way, arrived at Khartoum. Before this, El-Obeid had fallen into the Mahdi's power, and there he had taken up his headquarters. Some trifling advantages were gained by Hicks, but having entered Kordofan with the design of retaking El-Obeid, he was, on the 5th of November 1883, hemmed in amongst the Kasgil passes, and after three days' heroic fighting, his army of about 10,000 men was overpowered by a force five or six times their superior in numbers, and completely exterminated. Hicks Pasha himself, his European staff, and many Egyptian officers of high rank, were among the dead, and forty-two guns fell into the hands of the enemy. Again, not a man was left to carry the fatal tidings to Khartoum. Rebellion continued to spread. After being agitated for months, the population of the Eastern Soudan also made a rising. Osman Digna, the foremost of the Mahdi's lieutenants, occupied the road between Suakin and Berber, and surrounded Sinkat and Tokar; then, having destroyed, one after another, two Egyptian columns that had been despatched for the relief of these towns, he finally cut off the communication between Khartoum and the Red Sea. The tide of insurrection by this time had risen so high that it threatened not only to overthrow the Khedive's authority in the Soudan, but to become the source of serious peril to Egypt itself."

A. J. Wauters, Stanley's Emin Pasha Expedition, chapters 1-2.

ALSO IN: Major R. F. Wingate, Mahdiism and the Egyptian Sudan, books 1-4.

Colonel Sir W. F. Butler, Charles George Gordon, chapters 5-6.

A. E. Hake, The Story of Chinese Gordon, chapters 10-15.

EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882. Bankruptcy of the state. English and French control of finances. Native hostility to the foreigners. Rebellion, led by Arabi. English bombardment of Alexandria.

"The facilities given by foreign money-lenders encouraged extravagance and ostentation on the part of the sovereign and the ruling classes, while mismanagement and corrupt practices were common among officials, so that the public debt rose in 1875 to ninety-one millions, and in January, 1881, to ninety-eight millions. … The European capitalists obtained for their money nominally six to nine per cent., but really not less than eight to ten per cent., as the bonds were issued at low rates. … The interest on these borrowed millions was punctually paid up to the end of 1875, when the Khedive found that he could not satisfy his creditors, and the British government interfered in his favour. Mr. Cave was sent to examine into Egyptian finances, and he reported that loans at twelve and thirteen per cent. were being agreed to and renewed at twenty-five per cent., and that some measure of consolidation was necessary. The two western Powers now took the matter in hand, but they thereby recognized the whole of these usurious demands. {764} The debt, although under their control, and therefore secured, was not reduced by the amount already paid in premiums for risk. Nor was the rate of interest diminished to something more nearly approaching the rate payable on English consols, which was three per cent. A tribunal under the jurisdiction of united European and native judges was also established in Egypt to decide complaints of foreigners against natives, and vice versa. In May, 1876, this tribunal gave judgment that the income of the Khedive Ismail, from his private landed property, could be appropriated to pay the creditors of the state, and an execution was put into the Viceregal palace, Er Ramleh, near Alexandria. The Khedive pronounced the judgment invalid, and the tribunal ceased to act. Two commissioners were now again sent to report on Egyptian finances—M. Joubert, the director of the Paris Bank, for France, and Mr. Goschen, a former minister, for England. These gentlemen proposed to hand over the control of the finances to two Europeans, depriving the state of all independence and governing power. The Khedive, in order to resist these demands, convoked a sort of Parliament in order to make an appeal to the people. From this Parliament was afterwards developed the Assembly of Notables, and the National party, now so often spoken of. In 1877 a European commission of control over Egyptian finance was named. … Nubar Pasha was made Prime minister in 1878; the control of the finances was entrusted to Mr. Wilson, an Englishman; and later, the French controller, M. de Blignières, entered the Cabinet. Better order was thus restored to the finances. Rothschild's new loan of eight and a half millions was issued at seventy-three, and therefore brought in from six to eight per cent. nett. … But to be able to pay the creditors their full interest, economy had to be introduced into the national expenditure. To do this, clumsy arrangements were made, and the injustice shown in carrying them out embittered many classes of the population, and laid the foundations of a fanatical hatred of race against race. … In consequence of all this, the majority of the notables, many ulemas, officers, and higher officials among the Egyptians, formed themselves into a National party, with the object of resisting the oppressive government of the foreigner. They were joined by the great mass of the discharged soldiers and subordinate officials, not to mention many others. At the end of February, 1870, a revolt broke out in Cairo. Nubar, hated by the National party, was dismissed by the Khedive Ismail, who installed his son Tewfik as Prime minister. In consequence of this, the coupons due in April were not paid till the beginning of May, and the western Powers demanded the reinstatement of Nubar. That Tewfik on this occasion retired and sided with the foreigners is the chief cause of his present [1882] unpopularity in Egypt. Ismail, however, now dismissed Wilson and De Blignières, and a Cabinet was formed, consisting chiefly of native Egyptians, with Sherif Pasha as Prime minister. Sherif now raised for the first time the cry of which we have since heard so much, and which was inscribed by Arabi on his banners, 'Egypt for the Egyptians.' The western Powers retorted by a menacing naval demonstration, and demanded of the Sultan the deposition of the Khedive. In June, 1870, this demand was agreed to. Ismail went into exile, and his place was filled br Mahomed Tewfik. … The new Khedive, with apathetic weakness, yielded the reconstruction of his ministry and the organization of his finances to the western Powers. Mr. Baring and M. de Blignières, as commissioners of the control, aided by officials named by Rothschild to watch over his private interests, now ruled the land. They devoted forty-five millions (about sixteen shillings per head on the entire population) to the payment of interest. The people were embittered by the distrust shown towards them, and the further reduction of the army from fifty to fifteen thousand men threw a large number out of employment. … Many acts of military insubordination occurred, and at last, on the 8th of November, 1881, the great military revolt broke out in Cairo. … Ahmed Arabi, colonel of the 4th regiment, now first came into public notice. Several regiments, headed by their officers, openly rebelled against the orders of the Khedive, who was compelled to recall the nationalist, Sherif Pasha, and to refer the further demands of the rebels for the increase of the army, and for a constitution, to the Sultan. Sherif Pasha, however, did not long enjoy the confidence of the National Egyptian party, at whose head Arabi now stood, winning every day more reputation and influence. The army, in which he permitted great laxity of discipline, was entirely devoted to him. … A pretended plot of Circassian officers against his life he dexterously used to increase his popularity. … Twenty-six officers were condemned to death by court-martial, but the Khedive, at the instance of the western Powers, commuted the sentence, and they were banished to Constantinople. This leniency was stigmatized by the National party as treachery to the country, and the Chamber of Notables retorted by naming Arabi commander-in-chief of the army and Prime minister without asking the consent of the Khedive. The Chamber soon afterwards came into conflict with the foreign comptrollers. … This ended in De Blignières resigning his post, and in the May of the present year (1882) the consuls of the European Powers declared that a fleet of English and French ironclads would appear before Alexandria, to demand the disbanding of the army and the punishment of its leaders. The threat was realized, and, in spite of protests from the Sultan, a fleet of English and French ironclads entered the harbour of Alexandria. The Khedive, at the advice of his ministers and the chiefs of the National party, appealed to the Sultan. … The popular hatred of foreigners now became more and more apparent, and began to assume threatening dimensions. … On the 30th of May, Arabi announced that a despatch from the Sultan had reached him, promising the deposition of Tewfik in favour of his uncle Halim Pasha. … On the 3rd of June, Dervish Pasha, a man of energy notwithstanding his years, had sailed from Constantinople. … His object was to pacify Egypt and to reconcile Tewfik and Arabi Pasha. … Since the publication of the despatch purporting to proclaim Halim Pasha as Khedive, Arabi had done nothing towards dethroning the actual ruler. But on the 2nd of June he began to strengthen the fortifications of Alexandria with earthworks. … {765} The British admiral protested, and the Sultan, on the remonstrances of British diplomacy, forbad the continuation of the works. … Serious disturbances took place in Alexandria on the 11th. The native rabble invaded the European quarter, plundered the shops, and slew many foreigners. … Though the disturbances were not renewed, a general emigration of foreigners was the result. … On the 22nd a commission, consisting of nine natives and nine Europeans … began to try the ringleaders of the riot. … But events were hurrying on towards war. The works at Alexandria were recommenced, and the fortifications armed with heavy guns. The English admiral received information that the entrance to the harbour would be blocked by sunken storeships, and this, he declared, would be an act of open war. A complete scheme for the destruction of the Suez canal was also discovered. … The English, on their side, now began to make hostile demonstrations; and Arabi, while repudiating warlike intentions, declared himself ready for resistance. … On the 27th the English vice-consul advised his fellow-countrymen to leave Alexandria, and on the 3rd of July, according to the 'Times,' the arrangements for war were complete. … Finally, as a reconnaissance on the 9th showed that the forts were still being strengthened, he [the English admiral] informed the governor of Alexandria, Zulficar Pasha, that unless the forts had been previously evacuated and surrendered to the English, he intended to commence the bombardment at four the next morning. … As the French government were unable to take part in any active measures (a grant for that purpose having been refused by the National Assembly), the greater part of their fleet, under Admiral Conrad, left Alexandria for Port Said. The ironclads of other nations, more than fifty in number, anchored outside the harbour of Alexandria. … On the evening of the 10th of July … and at daybreak on the 11th, the … ironclads took up the positions assigned to them. There was a gentle breeze from the east, and the weather was clear. At 6.30 a. m. all the ships were cleared for action. At seven the admiral signalled to the Alexandra to fire a shell into Fort Ada. … The first shot fired from the Alexandra was immediately replied to by the Egyptians; whereupon the ships of the whole fleet and the Egyptian forts and batteries opened fire, and the engagement became general. … At 8.30 Fort Marsa-el-Kanat was blown up by shells from the Invincible and Monarch, and by nine o'clock the Téméraire, Monarch, and Penelope had silenced most of the guns in Fort Meks, although four defied every effort from their protected situation. By 11.45 Forts Marabout and Adjemi had ceased firing, and a landing party of seamen and marines was despatched, under cover of the Bittern's guns, to spike and blow up the guns in the forts. At 1.30 a shell from the Superb burst in the chief powder magazine of Fort Ada and blew it up. By four o'clock all the guns of Fort Pharos, and half an hour later those of Fort Meks, were disabled, and at 5.30 the admiral ordered the firing to cease. The ships were repeatedly struck and sustained some damage. … The English casualties were five killed and twenty-eight wounded, a comparatively small loss. The Egyptian loss is not known. … At 1 p. m. on the 12th of July, the white flag was hoisted by the Egyptians. Admiral Seymour demanded, as a preliminary measure, the surrender of the forts commanding the entrance to the harbour, and the negotiations on this point were fruitlessly protracted for some hours. As night approached the city was seen to be on fire in many places, and the flames were spreading in all directions. The English now became aware that the white flag had merely been used as means to gain time for a hasty evacuation of Alexandria by Arabi and his army. Sailors and marines were now landed, and ships of other nations sent detachments on shore to protect their countrymen. But it was too late; Bedouins, convicts, and ill-disciplined soldiers had plundered and burnt the European quarter, killed many foreigners, and a Reuter's telegram of the 14th said, 'Alexandria is completely destroyed.'"

H. Vogt, The Egyptian War of 1882, pages 2-32.

ALSO IN: J. C. McCoan, Egypt under Ismail, chapters 8-10.

C. Royle, The Egyptian Campaigns, volume 1, chapters 1-20.

Khedives and Pashas.

C. F. Goodrich, Report on British Military and Naval Operations in Egypt, 1882, part 1.

EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883. The massacre and destruction in Alexandria. Declared rebellion of Arabi. Its suppression by the English. Banishment of Arabi. English occupation.

The city of Alexandria had become "such a scene of pillage, massacre, and wanton destruction as to make the world shudder. It was the old tale of horrors. Houses were plundered and burned; the European quarter, including the stately buildings surrounding the Great Square of Mehemet Ali, was sacked and left a heap of smoldering ruins; and more than two thousand Europeans, for the most part Levantines, were massacred with all the cruelty of oriental fanaticism. This was on the afternoon of the 12th. It was the second massacre that had occurred under the very eyes of the British fleet. The admiral's failure to prevent it has been called unfortunate by some and criminal by others. It seems to have been wholly without excuse. … The blue-jackets were landed on the 13th, and cleared the way before them with a Gatling gun. The next day, more ships having arrived, a sufficient force was landed to take possession of the entire city. The khedive was escorted back to Ras-el-Tin from Ramleh, and given a strong guard. Summary justice was dealt out to all hostile Arabs who had been captured in the city. In short, English intervention was followed by English occupation. The bombardment of Alexandria had defined clearly the respective positions of Arabi and the khedive toward Egypt and the Egyptian people. … The khedive was not only weak in the eyes of his people, but he was regarded as the tool of England. … From the moment the first shot was fired upon Alexandria, Arabi was the real ruler of the people. … The conference at Constantinople was stirred by the news of the bombardment of Alexandria. It presented a note to the Porte, July 15, requesting the dispatch of Turkish troops to restore the status quo in Egypt. But the sultan had no idea of taking the part of the Christian in what all Islam regarded as a contest between the Moslem and the unbeliever. … In Egypt, the khedive had been prevailed upon, after some demur, to proclaim Arabi a rebel and discharge him from his cabinet. Arabi had issued a counter-proclamation, on the same day, declaring Tewfik a traitor to his people and his religion. {766} Having received the news of the khedive's proclamation, Lord Dufferin, the British ambassador at Constantinople, announced to the conference that England was about to send an expedition to Egypt to suppress the rebellion and to restore the authority of the khedive. Thereupon the sultan declared that he had decided to send a Turkish expedition. Lord Dufferin feigned to accept the sultan's cooperation, but demanded that the Porte, as a preliminary step, should declare Arabi a rebel. Again the sultan was confronted with the danger of incurring the wrath of the Moslem world. He could not declare Arabi a rebel. … In his desperation, he sent a force of 3,000 men to Suda bay with orders to hold themselves in readiness to enter Egypt at a moment's notice. … In the meantime, however, the English expedition had arrived in Egypt and was proceeding to crush the rebellion, regardless of the diplomatic delays and bickerings at Constantinople. … It was not until the 15th of August that Sir Garnet Wolseley arrived with his force in Egypt. The English at that time held only two points, Alexandria and Suez, while the entire Egyptian interior, as well as Port Said and Ismailia, were held by Arabi, whose force, it was estimated, now amounted to about 70,000 men, of whom at least 50,000 were regulars. The objective point of General Wolseley's expedition to crush Arabi was, of course, the city of Cairo. There were two ways of approaching that city, one from Alexandria, through the Delta, and the other from the Suez canal. There were many objections to the former route. … The Suez canal was supposed to be neutral water. … But England felt no obligation to recognize any neutrality, … acting upon the principle, which is doubtless sound, that 'the neutrality of any canal joining the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans will be maintained, if at all, by the nation which can place and keep the strongest ships at each extremity.' In other words, General Wolseley decided to enter Cairo by way of the Suez canal and Ismailia. But he kept his plan a profound secret. Admiral Seymour alone knew his purpose. … On the 19th, the transports moved eastward from Alexandria, as if to attack Abukir; but under the cover of darkness that night, they were escorted on to Port Said, where they learned that the entire canal, owing to the preconcerted action of Admiral Seymour, was in the hands of the British. On the 21st, the troops met Sir Henry McPherson's Indian contingent at Ismailia. Two days were now consumed in rest and preparation. The Egyptians cut off the water supply, which came from the Delta by the Sweet Water Canal, by damming the canal. A sortie to secure possession of the dam was therefore deemed necessary, and was successfully made on the 24th. Further advances were made, and on the 26th, Kassassin, a station of some importance on the canal and railway, was occupied. Here the British force was obliged to delay for two weeks, while organizing a hospital and a transport service. This gave Arabi opportunity to concentrate his forces at Zagazig and Tel-el-Kebir. But he knew it was for his interest to strike at once before the British transports could come up with the advance. He therefore made two attempts, one on August 28, and the other on September 9, to regain the position lost at Kassassin. But he failed in both, though inflicting some loss upon his opponents. On the 12th of September preparations were made by General Wolseley for a decisive battle. He had become convinced from daily reconnoissance and from the view obtained in the engagement of September 9, that the fortifications at Tel-el-Kebir were both extensive and formidable. … It was therefore decided to make the approach under cover of darkness. … At 1.30 on the morning of the 13th General Wolseley gave the order for the advance, his force consisting of about 11,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalrymen, and sixty field-guns. They had only the stars to guide them, but so accurately was the movement conducted that the leading brigades of each division reached the enemy's outposts within two minutes of each other. 'The enemy (says General Wolseley) were completely surprised, and it was not until one or two of their advanced sentries fired their rifles that they realized our close proximity to their works.' … The intrenchments were not carried without a severe struggle. The Egyptians fought with a desperate courage and hundreds of them were bayoneted at their posts. … But what could the rank and file accomplish when 'each officer knew that he would run, but hoped his neighbor would stay.' At the first shot Arabi and his second in command took horse and galloped to Belbeis, where they caught a train for Cairo. Most of the other officers, as the reports of killed and wounded show, did the same. The Egyptians fired their first shot at 4.55 A. M., and at 6.45 the English had possession of Arabi's headquarters and the canal bridge. The British loss was 57 killed, 380 wounded, and 22 missing. The Egyptian army left about 2,000 dead in the fortifications. … A proof of the completeness of the success was the entire dissipation of Arabi's army. Groups of soldiers, it is true, were scattered to different parts of Egypt; but the army organization was completely broken up with the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. … 'Major-General Lowe was ordered to push on with all possible speed to Cairo. … General Lowe [reached] the great barracks of Abbassieh, just outside of Cairo, at 4.45 P. M., on the 14th instant. The cavalry marched sixty-five miles in these two days. … A message was sent to Arabi Pasha through the prefect of the city, calling upon him to surrender forthwith, which he did unconditionally.' … Before leaving England, Wolseley had predicted that he would enter Cairo on the 16th of September; but with still a day to spare the feat was accomplished, and Arabi's rebellion was completely crushed. England now stood alone. Victory had been won without the aid of France or the intervention of Turkey. In Constantinople negotiations regarding Turkish expeditions were still pending when Lord Dufferin received the news of Wolseley's success, and announced to the Porte that there was now no need of a Turkish force in Egypt, as the war was ended. France at once prepared to resume her share in the control; but England, having borne the sole burden of the war, did not propose now to share the influence her success had given her. And it was for the interest of Egypt that she should not. … England's first duty, after quiet was assured, was to send away all the British troops except a force of about 11,000 men, which it was deemed advisable to retain in Egypt until the khedive's authority was placed on a safe footing throughout the land. … {767} What should be done with Arabi was the question of paramount interest, when once the khedive's authority was re-established and recognized. Tewfik and his ministers, if left to themselves, would unquestionably have taken his life. … But England was determined that Arabi should have a fair trial. … It was decided that the rebel leaders should appear before a military tribunal, and they were given English counsel to plead their cause. … The trial was a farce. Everything was 'cut and dried' beforehand. It was arranged that Arabi was to plead guilty to rebellion, that he was forthwith to be condemned to death by the court, and that the khedive was immediately to commute the sentence to perpetual exile. In fact, the necessary papers were drawn up and signed before the court met for Arabi's trial on December 3. … On the 26th of December Arabi and his six companions … upon whom the same sentence had been passed, left Cairo for the Island of Ceylon, there to spend their life of perpetual exile. … Lord Dufferin … had been sent from Constantinople to Cairo, early in November, with the special mission of bringing order out of governmental chaos. In two months he had prepared a scheme of legislative reorganization. This was, however, somewhat altered; so that it was not until May, 1883, that the plan in its improved form was accepted by the decree of the khedive. The new constitution provided for three classes of assemblies: the 'Legislative' Council,' the 'General Assembly,' and the 'Provincial Councils,' of which there were to be fourteen, one for each province. … Every Egyptian man, over twenty years of age, was to vote (by ballot) for an 'elector-delegate' from the village in the neighborhood of which he lived, and the 'electors-delegate' from all the villages in a province were to form the constituency that should elect the provincial council. … The scheme for reorganization was carried forward to the extent of electing the 'electors-delegate' in September; but by that time Egypt was again in a state of such disquietude that the British advisers of the khedive considered it unwise to put the new institutions into operation. In place of legislative council and general assembly, the khedive appointed a council of state, consisting of eleven Egyptians, two Armenians, and ten Europeans. The reforms were set aside for the time being in view of impending troubles and dangers in the Sudan."

J. E. Bowen, The Conflict of East and West in Egypt, chapter 5-6.

ALSO IN: Colonel J. F. Maurice, Military History of the Campaign of 1882 in Egypt.

C. Royle, The Egyptian Campaigns, volume 1, chapters 22-44.

EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885. General Gordon's Mission to Khartoum. The town beleaguered by the Mahdists. English rescue expedition. The energy that was too late.

"The abandonment of the Soudan being decided upon, the British Government confided to General Gordon the task of extricating the Egyptian garrisons scattered throughout the country. … Gordon's original instructions were dated the 18th January, 1884. He was to proceed at once to Egypt, to report on the military situation in the Soudan, and on the measures which it might be advisable to take for the security of the Egyptian garrisons and for the safety of the European population in Khartoum. … He was to be accompanied by Colonel Stewart. … Gordon's final instructions were given him by the Egyptian Government in a firman appointing him Governor-General. … Gordon arrived at Khartoum on the 18th February. … While Gordon was sending almost daily expressions of his view as to the only way of carrying out the policy of eventual evacuation, it was also becoming clear to him that he would very soon be cut off from the rest of Egypt. His first remark on this subject was to express 'the conviction that I shall be caught in Khartoum'; and he wrote,—'Even if I was mean enough to escape I have no power to do so.' The accuracy of this forecast was speedily demonstrated. Within a few days communications with Khartoum were interrupted, and although subsequently restored for a time, the rising of the riparian tribes rendered the receipt and despatch of messages exceedingly uncertain. … Long before the summer of 1884, it was evident that the position of Gordon at Khartoum had become so critical, that if he were to be rescued at all, it could only be by the despatch of a British force. … Early in May, war preparations were commenced in England, and on the 10th of the month the military authorities in Cairo received instructions to prepare for the despatch in October of an expedition for the relief of the Soudanese capital. 12,000 camels were ordered to be purchased and held in readiness for a forward march in the autumn. On the 16th May a half-battalion of English troops was moved up the Nile to Wady Halfa. A few weeks later some other positions on the Nile were occupied by portions of the Army of Occupation. Naval officers were also sent up the river to examine and report upon the cataracts and other impediments to navigation. Still it was not till the 5th August that Mr. Gladstone rose in the House of Commons to move a vote of credit of £300,000 to enable the Government to undertake operations for the relief of Gordon. … It was agreed that there were but two routes by which Khartoum could be approached by an expedition. One by way of the Nile, and the other via Souakim and Berber. … The Nile route having been decided on, preparations on a large scale were begun. … It was at first arranged that not more than 5,000 men should form the Expedition, but later on the number was raised to 7,000. … The instructions given to Lord Wolseley stated that the primary object of the Expedition was to bring away Gordon and Stewart from Khartoum; and when that purpose should be effected, no further offensive operations of any kind were to be undertaken."

C. Royle, The Egyptian Campaigns, 1882-1885, volume 2, chapters 12-18.

"First, it was said that our troops would be before the gates of Khartoum on January 14th; next it was the middle of February; and then the time stretched out to the middle of March. … Lord Wolseley offered a hundred pounds to the regiment covering the distance from Sarras to Debbeh most expeditiously and with least damage to boats. … He also dispatched Sir Herbert Stewart on the immortal march to Gakdul. Stewart's force, composed principally of the Mounted Infantry and Camel Corps, and led by a troop of the 19th Hussars, acting as scouts—numbering about 1,100 in all—set out from Korti on December 30th. Its destination was about 100 miles from headquarters, and about 80 from the Nile at Shendy. {768} The enterprise, difficult and desperate as it was, was achieved with perfect success. … On the 17th January Sir Herbert Stewart engaged the enemy on the road to Metemneh, and after defeating some 10,000 Arabs—collected from Berber, Metemneh, and Omdurman—pushed forward to the Abu Klea Wells. His tactics were much the same as those of General Graham at Elteb, and those of the Mahdi's men—of attacking when thirst and fatigue had well-nigh prostrated the force—were at all points similar to those adopted against Hicks. Our losses were 65 non-commissioned officers and men killed and 85 wounded, with 9 officers killed—among them Colonel Burnaby—and 9 wounded. Stewart at once pushed on for Metemneh and the Nile. He left the Wells on the 18th January to occupy Metemneh, if possible, but, failing that, to make for the Nile and entrench himself. After a night's march, some five miles south of Metemneh, the column found itself in presence of an enemy said to have been about 18,000 strong. Stewart halted and formed a zareba under a deadly fire. He himself was mortally hurt in the groin, and Mr. Cameron, of the Standard, and Mr. Herbert, of the Morning Post, were killed. The zareba completed, the column advanced in square, and the Arabs, profiting by Abu Klea, moved forward in echelon, apparently with the purpose of charging. At thirty yards or so they were brought to bay, so terrific was the fire from the square, and so splendidly served was Norton's artillery. For two hours the battle raged; and then the Arabs, 'mown down in heaps,' gave way. Meantime Sir Charles Wilson had made a dash for the Nile, where he found steamers and reinforcements from Gordon, and the laconic message, 'An right at Khartoum. Can hold out for years.' … In the joy at the good news, none had stopped to consider the true meaning of the message, 'All right. Can hold out for years,' for none was aware that nearly two months before Gordon had said he had just provisions enough for 40 days, and that what he really meant was that he had come to his last biscuit. The message—which was written for the enemy—was dated December 20, and Sir Charles Wilson would reach Khartoum on January 28, just a month after its despatch. … The public, carefully kept in ignorance … and hopeful beyond their wont, were simply stupefied to hear, on February 5, that Khartoum was in the hands of the Mahdi and Gordon captured or dead."

A. E. Hake, The Story of Chinese Gordon, volume 2, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: H. M. Stanley, In Darkest Africa, chapter 1.

Colonel H. E. Colvile, History of the Soudan Campaign.

Colonel C. W. Wilson, From Korti to Khartoum.

Colonel Sir W. F. Butler, The Campaign of the Cataracts.

W. M. Pimblett, The Story of the Soudan War.

General C. G. Gordon, Journals at Khartoum.

H. W. Gordon, Events in the Life of Charles George Gordon, chapters 14-20.

EGYPT: A. D. 1893. The reigning khedive.

Mohamed Tewfik died in January, 1802 and was succeeded by his son Abbas, born in 1874.

Statesman's Year-book, 1893.

—————EGYPT: End—————

EGYPTIAN EDUCATION.

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

EGYPTIAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

EIDGENOSSEN.

The German word Eidgenossen, signifying "confederates," is often used in a special sense, historically, as applied to the members of the Swiss Confederation/

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

The name of the Huguenots is believed by some writers to be a corruption of the same term.

EIGHT SAINTS OF WAR, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

EIKON BASILIKE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

EION, Siege and capture of (B. C. 470).

See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

EIRE.

See IRELAND: THE NAME.

EKKLESIA.

See ECCLESIA.

EKOWE, Defence of (1879).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1870.

ELAGABALUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 218-222.

ELAM.

"Genesis calls a tribe dwelling on the Lower Tigris, between the river and the mountains of Iran, the Elamites, the oldest son of Shem. Among the Greeks the land of the Elamites was known as Kissia [Cissia], and afterwards as Susiana, from the name of the capital. It was also called Elymais."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 2, chapter 1.

About 2300 B. C. Chaldea, or Babylonia, was overwhelmed by an Elamite invasion—an invasion recorded by king Asshurbanipal, and which is stated to have laid waste the land of Accad and desecrated its temples. "Nor was this a passing inroad or raid of booty-seeking mountaineers. It was a real conquest. Khudur-Nankhundi and his successors remained in Southern Chaldea. … This is the first time we meet authentic monumental records of a country which was destined through the next sixteen centuries to be in continual contact, mostly hostile, with both Babylonia and her northern rival, Assyria, until its final annihilation by the latter [B. C. 649, under Asshurbanipal, the Sardanapulus of the Greeks, who reduced the whole country to a wilderness]. Its capital was Shushan (afterwards pronounced by foreigners Susa), and its own original name Shushinak. Its people were of Turanian stock, its language was nearly akin to that of Shumir and Accad. … Elam, the name under which the country is best known, both from the Bible and later monuments, is a Turanian word, which means, like 'Accad,' 'Highlands.' … One of Khudur-Nankhundi's next successors, Khudur-Lagamar, was not content with the addition of Chaldea to his kingdom of Elam. He had the ambition of a born conqueror, and the generalship of one. The Chapter xiv, of Genesis—which calls him Chedorlaomer—is the only document we have descriptive of this king's warlike career, and a very striking picture it gives of it, … Khudur-Lagamar … lived, according to the most probable calculations, about 2200 B. C."

Z. A. Ragozin, Story of Chaldea, chapter 4.

It is among the discoveries of recent times, derived from the records in clay unearthed in Babylonia, that Cyrus the Great was originally king of Elam, and acquired Persia, as he acquired his later dominions, by conquest.

See PERSIA, B. C. 549-521.

See, also, BABYLONIA.

EL ARISH, Treaty of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ELBA: A. D. 1735. Ceded to Spain by Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

ELBA: A. D. 1802. Annexation to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

ELBA: A. D. 1814. Napoleon in exile.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL), and (APRIL-JUNE).

{i}

APPENDIX A.

NOTES TO ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP, PLACED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS VOLUME.

To the eye of modern scholarship "language" forms the basis of every ethnic distinction. Physical and exterior features like the stature, the color of the skin, the diversity of habits and customs, the distinctions which once formed in great part the basis of ethnic research have all in our own day been relegated to a subordinate place.

The "language" test is of course subject to very serious limitations. The intermingling of different peoples, more general to be sure in our own day than in past ages, has nevertheless been sufficiently great in every age to make the tracing of linguistic forms a task of great difficulty. In special cases where both the civilization and language of one people have become lost in that of another the test must of course fail utterly.

With all these restrictions however the adoption of the linguistic method by modern criticism has been practically universal. Its defence, if it requires any, is apparent. It is the only method of ethnic study the deductions of which, where successful at all, approach anything like certainty. The points wherein linguistic criticism has failed have been freely admitted; on the other hand the facts which it has established are unassailable by any other school of criticism.

Taking language then as the only tangible working basis the subject resolves itself from the start into a two-fold division: the debatable and the certain. It is the purpose to indicate in the course of these notes, what is merely conjecture and what may be safely accepted as fact.

The ethnology of Europe, studied on this basis, has for its central feature the Indo-Germanic (Indo-European) or Aryan race. The distinction between the races clearly Aryan and those doubtful or non-Aryan forms the primary division of the subject. As the map is intended to deal only with the Europe of the present, a historical distinction must be made at the outset between the doubtful or non-Aryan peoples who preceded the Aryans and the non-Aryan peoples who have appeared in Europe in comparatively recent times. The simple formula, pre-Aryan, Aryan, non-Aryan, affords the key to the historical development of European ethnology.

PRE-ARYAN PEOPLES.

Of the presumably pre-Aryan peoples of western Europe the Iberians occupy easily the first place. The seat of this people at the dawn of history was in Spain and southern France; their ethnology belongs entirely to the realm of conjecture. They are of much darker complexion than the Aryans and their racial characteristic is conservatism even to stubbornness, which places them in marked contrast to their immediate Aryan neighbors, the volatile Celts. Among the speculations concerning the origin of the Iberians a plausible one is that of Dr. Bodichon, who assigns to them an African origin making them, indeed, cognate with the modern Berbers (see R. H. Patterson's "Ethnology of Europe" in "Lectures on History and Art"). This generalization is made to include also the Bretons of the north west. It is clear however that the population of modern Brittany is purely Celtic: made up largely from the immigrations from the British Isles during the fifth century.

To the stubbornness with which the Iberians resisted every foreign aggression and refused intermingling with surrounding races is due the survival to the present day of their descendants, the Basques.

The mountain ranges of northern Spain, the Cantabrians and Eastern Pyrenees have formed the very donjon-keep of this people in every age. Here the Cantabri successfully resisted the Roman arms for more than a century after the subjugation of the remainder of Spain, the final conquest not occurring until the last years of Augustus. While the Iberian race as a whole has become lost in the greater mass of Celtic and Latin intruders, it has remained almost pure in this quarter. The present seat of the Basques is in the Spanish provinces of Viscaya, Alava, Guipuzcoa, and Navarre and in the French department of Basses Pyrénées. The Ivernians of Ireland, now lost in the Celtic population, and the Ligurians along the shores of the Genoese gulf, later absorbed by the Romans, both belong likewise to this pre-Aryan class. (Modern research concerning these pre-Aryan peoples has in large part taken its inspiration from the "Untersuchungen" of Humboldt, whose view concerning the connection between the Basques and Iberians is substantially the one stated.)

Another early non-Aryan race now extinct were the Etruscans of Italy. Their origin was manifestly different from that of the pre-Aryan peoples just mentioned. By many they have been regarded as a branch of the great Ural-Altaic family. This again is conjecture.

ARYAN PEOPLES.

In beginning the survey of the Aryan peoples it is necessary to mention the principal divisions of the race. As generally enumerated there are seven of these, viz., the Sanskrit (Hindoo), Zend (Persian), Greek, Latin, Celtic, Germanic and Slavic. To these may be added two others not definitely classified, the Albanian and the Lithuanian. These bear the closest affinity respectively to the Latin and the Slavic.

Speculation concerning the origin of the Aryans need not concern us. It belongs as yet entirely to the arena of controversy. The vital question which divides the opposing schools is concerning their European or Asiatic origin. Of the numerous writers on this subject the two who perhaps afford the reader of English the best view of the opposing opinions are, on the Asiatic side, Dr. Max Müller (Lectures on the Science of Language); on the other, Professor A. H. Sayce (Introduction to the Science of Language).

{ii}

Of the divisions of the Aryan race above enumerated the first two do not appear in European ethnology. Of the other branches, the Latin, Germanic and Slavic form by great odds the bulk of the European population.

THE LATIN BRANCH.

The Latin countries are France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and the territory north of the Danube, between the Dniester and the Theiss. In the strictest ethnic sense however the term Latin can be applied only to Italy and then only to the central part. As Italy first appears in history it is inhabited by a number of different races: the Iapygians and Oenotrians of the south who were thrown in direct contact with the Greek settlers; the Umbrians, Sabines, Latins, Volscians and Oscans in the centre; the Etruscans on the west shore north of the Tiber; while in the north we find the Gauls in the valley of the Po, with the Ligurians and Venetians respectively on the west and east coasts. Of this motley collection the central group bore a close affinity to the Latin, yet all alike received the Latin stamp with the growing power of Rome.

The ethnic complexion of Italy thus formed was hardly modified by the great Germanic invasions which followed with the fall of the West-Roman Empire.

This observation applies with more or less truth to all the Latin countries, the Germanic conquerors becoming everywhere merged and finally lost in the greater mass of the conquered. Only in Lombardy where a more enduring Germanic kingdom existed for over two centuries (568-774), has the Germanic made any impression, and this indeed a slight one, on the distinctly Latin character of the Italian peninsula.

In Spain an interval between the Iberian period and the Roman conquest appears to have existed, during which the population is best described as Celt-Iberian. Upon this population the Latin stamp was placed by the long and toilsome, but for that reason more thorough, Roman conquest. The ethnic character of Spain thus formed has passed without material change through the ordeal both of Germanic and Saracenic conquest. The Gothic kingdom of Spain (418-714) and the Suevic kingdom of northern Portugal (406-584) have left behind them scarcely a trace. The effects of the great Mohammedan invasion cannot be dismissed so lightly.

Conquered entirely by the Arabs and Moors in 714, the entire country was not freed from the invader for nearly eight centuries. In the south (Granada) where the Moors clung longest their influence has been greatest. Here their impress on the pure Aryan stock has never been effaced.

The opening phrase of Cæsar's Gallic war, "all Gaul is divided into three parts," states a fact as truly ethnic as it is geographical or historical. In the south (Aquitania) we find the Celtic blending with the Iberian; in the northeast the Cimbrian Belgae, the last comers of the Celtic family, are strongly marked by the characteristics of the Germans; while in the vast central territory the people "calling themselves Galli" are of pure Celtic race. This brief statement of Caesar, allowing for the subsequent influx of the German, is no mean description of the ethnic divisions of France as they exist at the present day, and is an evidence of the remarkable continuity of ethnological as opposed to mere political conditions.

The four and a half centuries of Roman rule placed the Latin stamp on the Gallic nation, a preparation for the most determined siege of Germanic race influence which any Latin nation was fated to undergo.

In Italy and Spain the exotic kingdoms were quickly overthrown; the Frankish kingdom in northern Gaul was in strictness never overthrown at all.

In addition we soon have in the extreme north a second Germanic element in the Scandinavian Norman. Over all these outside elements, however, the Latin influence eventually triumphed. While the Franks have imposed their name upon the natives, the latter have imposed their language and civilization on the invaders.

The result of this clashing of influences is seen, however, in the present linguistic division of the old Gallic lands. The line running east and west through the centre of France marks the division between the French and the Provençal dialects, the langued'oil and the langued'oc. It is south of this line in the country of the langued'oc that the Latin or Romance influence reigns most absolute in the native speech.

In the northeast, on the other hand, in the Walloon provinces of Belgium, we have, as with the Belgae of classic times, the near approach of the Gallic to the Germanic stems.

Our survey of the Latin peoples must close with a short notice of its outlying members in the Balkan and Danubian lands. The Albanians (Skipetars) and the Roumans (Vlachs or Wallachs) represent as nearly as ethnology can determine the ancient populations respectively of Illyricum and Thrace. The ethnology of the Albanians is entirely uncertain. Their present location, considerably to the south of their supposed pristine seat in Illyricum, indicates some southern migration of the race. This migration occurred at an entirely unknown time, though it is generally believed to have been contemporary with the great southward movement of the Slavic races in the seventh century.

The Albanian migrations of the time penetrated Attica, Aetolia and the entire Peloponnesus; with the Slavs and Vlachs they formed indeed a great part of the population of Greece during the Middle Ages. While the Slavic stems have since been merged in the native Greek population, and the Vlachs have almost entirely disappeared from these southern lands, the Albanians in Greece have shown a greater tenacity. Their part in later Greek history has been a prominent one and they form to-day a great part of the population of Attica and Argolis.

The Roumans or Vlachs, the supposed native population of Thrace, are more closely identified than the Albanians with the other Latin peoples. They occupy at present the vast country north of the Danube, their boundary extending on the east to the Dniester, on the west almost to the Theiss.

Historically these people form a perplexing yet interesting study. The theory once general that they represented a continuous Latin civilization north of the Danube, connecting the classic Dacia by an unbroken chain to the present, has now been generally abandoned. (See Roesler's "Romänische Studien" or Freeman's "Historical Geography of Europe," page 435.)

{iii}

The present geographical location of the Vlach peoples is probably the result of a migration from the Thracian lands south of the Danube, which occurred for unexplained causes in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The kernel of the race at the present day is the separate state of Roumania; in the East and West they come under the respective rules of Russia and Hungary.

In mediaeval times the part played by them south of the Balkans was an important one, and to this day they still linger in considerable numbers on either side of the range of Pindus. (For a short dissertation on the Vlach peoples, see Finlay, "History of Greece," volume 3, pages 224-230.)

THE GERMANIC BRANCH.

The Germanic nations of modern Europe are England, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The Germanic races also form the major part of the population of Switzerland, the Cis-Leithan division of the Austrian Empire, and appear in isolated settlements throughout Hungary and Russia.

Of the earlier Germanic nations who overthrew the Roman Empire of the West scarcely a trace remains.

The population of the British Isles at the dawn of history furnishes a close parallel to that of Gaul. The pre-Aryan Ivernians (the possible Iberians of the British Isles) had been forced back into the recesses of Scotland and Ireland; next to them came the Celts, like those of Gaul, in two divisions, the Goidels or Gaels and the Britons.

In Britain, contrary to the usual rule, the Roman domination did not give the perpetual Latin stamp to the island; it is in fact the only country save the Pannonian and Rhaetian lands south of the upper Danube, once a Roman possession, where the Germanic element has since gained a complete mastery. The invasion of the Germanic races, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, from the sixth to the eighth centuries, were practically wars of extermination. The Celtic race is to-day represented on the British Isles only in Wales and the western portions of Scotland and Ireland. The invasions of the Danes, and later the Norman conquest, bringing with them only slight infusions of kindred Germanic nations, have produced in England no marked modification of the Saxon stock.

The German Empire, with the smaller adjoining realms, Holland and Switzerland and the Austrian provinces of Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Salzburg and Tyrol, contain the great mass of the Germanic peoples of the continent.

During the confusion following the overthrow of the West-Roman Empire the Germanic peoples were grouped much further westward than they are at present; the eastward reaction involving the dispossession of the Slavic peoples on the Elbe and Oder, has been going on ever since the days of Charlemagne. Germany like France possesses a linguistic division, Low German (Nieder-Deutsche) being generally spoken in the lands north of the cross line, High German (Hoch-Deutsche) from which the written language is derived, to the south of it, Holland uses the Flemish, a form of the Nieder-Deutsche; Belgium is about equally divided between the Flemish and the Walloon. Switzerland, though predominantly German, is encroached upon by the French in the western cantons, while in the southeast is used the Italian and a form allied to the same, the Romance speech of the Rhaetian (Tyrolese) Alps. This form also prevails in Friuli and some mountainous parts of northern Italy.

The present population of the German Empire is almost exclusively Germanic, the exceptions being the Slavic Poles of Posen, Pomerellen, southeastern Prussia and eastern Silesia, the remnant of the Wends of Lusatia and the French element in the recently acquired Imperial lands of Alsace and Lorraine. Beyond the Empire we find a German population in the Austrian territories already noted, in the border lands of Bohemia, and in isolated settlements further east. The great settlement in the Siebenbürgen was made by German emigrants in the eleventh century and similar settlements dot the map both of Hungary and Russia. On the Volga indeed exists the greatest of them all.

Denmark, Norway and Sweden are peopled by the Scandinavian branch of the Germanic race. Only in the extreme north do we find another and non-Aryan race, the Lapps. On the other hand a remnant of the Swedes still retain a precarious hold on the coast line of their former possession, the Russian Finland.

THE SLAVIC BRANCH.

The Slavs, though the last of the Aryan nations to appear in history, form numerically by far the greatest branch of the Indo-European family. Their present number in Europe is computed at nearly one hundred million souls.

At the time of the great migrations they extended over nearly all modern Germany; their slow dispossession by the Germanic peoples, beginning in the eighth century, has already been noticed. In the course of this dispossession the most westerly Slavic group, the Polabic, between the Elbe and the Oder, were merged in the German, and, barring the remnant of Wends in Lusatia (the Sorabi or Northern Serbs), have disappeared entirely from ethnic geography.

The great Slavic nation of the present day is Russia, but the great number of Slavic peoples who are not Russian and the considerable Russian population which is not Slavic renders impossible the study of this race on strictly national lines.

The Slavic peoples are separated, partly by geographical conditions, into three great divisions: the Eastern, the Western and the Southern. The greatest of these divisions, the Eastern, lies entirely within the boundaries of the Russian Empire. The sub-divisions of the Eastern group are as follows: The Great Russians occupying the vast inland territory and numbering alone between forty and fifty millions, the Little Russians inhabiting the entire south of Russia from Poland to the Caspian, and the White Russians, the least numerous of this division, in Smolensk, Wilna, and Minsk, the west provinces bordering on the Lithuanians and Poles.

The West Slavic group, omitting names of peoples now extinct, are the Poles, Slovaks, Czechs and the remnants of the Lusatian Wends. The Poles, excepting those already mentioned as within the German empire, and the Austrian Poles of Cracow, are all under the domination of Russia. Under the sovereignty of Austria are the Slovaks, Moravians and Czechs of Bohemia, the latter the most westerly as well as historically the oldest of the surviving Slavic peoples, having appeared in their present seats in the last years of the fifth century.

{iv}

In connection with this West Slavic group we should also refer to the Lithuanians whose history, despite the racial difference, is so closely allied with that of Poland. Their present location in the Russian provinces of Kowno, Kurland and Livland has been practically the same since the dawn of history.

The South Slavic peoples were isolated from their northern kinsmen by the great Finno-Tatar invasions.

The invasion of Europe by the Avars in the sixth century clove like a wedge the two great divisions of the Slavic race, the southernmost being forced upon the confines of the East-Roman Empire. Though less imposing as conquests than the Germanic invasions of the Western Empire, the racial importance of these Slavic movements is far greater since they constitute, in connection with the Finno-Tatar invasions which caused them, the most important and clearly defined series of ethnic changes which Europe has experienced during the Christian Era. During the sixth and seventh centuries these Slavic emigrants spread over almost the entire Balkan peninsula, including Epirus and the Peloponnesus. In Greece they afterwards disappeared as a separate people, but in the region between the Danube, the Save and the Balkans they immediately developed separate states (Servia in 641, Bulgaria in 678). As they exist at present they may be classed in three divisions. The Bulgarians, so called from the Finno-Tatar people whom they absorbed while accepting their name, occupy the district included in the separate state of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, with a considerable territory to the south of it in Macedonia and Thrace. It was this last named territory or one very nearly corresponding to it that was actually ceded to Bulgaria by the peace of San Stefano, though she unfortunately lost it by the subsequent compromise effected at the Congress of Berlin. The second division includes the Servians, Montenegrans, Bosnians and Croatians, the last two under Austrian control; the third and smallest are the Slovenes of Carniola, likewise under Austrian sovereignty. (Schafarik's "Slawische Alterthümer" is the greatest single authority on the early history and also comparative ethnology of the Slavs.)