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 2)

Article 117. The law of Nations forms a part of the National Legislation; its dispositions will be specially in force in cases of civil war, which can be terminated by treaties between the belligerents who will have to respect the humanitarian customs of Christians and civilized nations, the guarantee of life being, in every case, inviolable.

Article 118. This constitution can be reformed by the National Legislature if the legislatures of the States desire it, but there shall never be any reform except in the parts upon which the majority of the States coincide; also a reform can be made upon one or more points when two-thirds of the members of the National Legislature, deliberating separately and by the proceedings established to sanction the laws, shall accord it; but, in this second case, the amendment voted shall be submitted to the legislatures of the States, and it will stand sanctioned in the point or points that may have been ratified by them.

Article 119. This constitution will take effect from the day of its official promulgation in each State, and in all public acts and official documents there will be cited the date of the Federation to begin with February 20, 1859, and the date of the law to begin with March 28, 1864.

Article 120. The constitutional period for the offices of the General Administration of the Republic will continue to be computed from February 20, 1882, the date on which the reformed constitution took effect.

Article 121. For every act of civil and political life of the States of the Federation, its basis of population is that which is determined in the last census approved by the National Legislature.

Article 122. The Federal Constitution of April 27, 1881, is repealed. Done in Caracas, in the Palace of the Federal Legislative Corps, and sealed with the seal of Congress on the 9th day of April, 1891. The 28th year of the Law and the 33rd year of the Federation.

(Here follow the signatures of the Presidents, Vice-Presidents, and Second Vice-Presidents of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, together with those of the Senators and Deputies of the various States, followed by those of the President and the ministers of his cabinet.)

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.

—————CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA: End—————

CONSTITUTION OF THE WATAUGA ASSOCIATION (the first Western American Commonwealth).

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON.

The "Constitutions of Clarendon" were a series of declarations drawn up by a council which King Henry II. of England convened at Clarendon, near Winchester, in 1164, and which were intended to determine the law on various points in dispute between the Crown and the laity, on one side, and the Church on the other. The issues in question were those which brought Henry into collision with Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. The general provisions embodied in the Constitutions of Clarendon "would now be scarcely challenged in the most Catholic country in the world.

1. During the vacancy of any archbishopric, bishopric, abbey, or priory of royal foundation, the estates were to be in the custody of the Crown. Elections to these preferments were to be held in the royal chapel, with the assent of the king and council.

2. In every suit to which a clerk was a party, proceedings were to commence before the king's justices, and these justices were to decide whether the case was to be tried before a spiritual or a civil court. If it was referred to a spiritual court, a civil officer was to attend to watch the trial, and if a clerk was found guilty of felony the Church was to cease to protect him.

3. No tenant-in-chief of the king, or officer of his household, was to be excommunicated, or his lands laid under an interdict, until application had been first made to the king, or, in his absence, to the chief justice.

4. Laymen were not to be indicted in a bishop's court, either for perjury or other similar offence, except in the bishop's presence by a lawful prosecutor and with lawful witnesses. If the accused was of so high rank that no prosecutor would appear, the bishop might require the sheriff to call a jury to inquire into the case.

5. Archbishops, bishops, and other great persons were forbidden to leave the realm without the king's permission.

6. Appeals were to be from the archdeacon to the bishop, from the bishop to the archbishop, from the archbishop to the king, and no further; that, by the king's mandate, the case might be ended in the archbishop's court.

The last article the king afterwards explained away. It was one of the most essential, but he was unable to maintain it; and he was rash, or he was ill-advised, in raising a second question, on which the pope would naturally be sensitive, before he had disposed of the first."

J. A. Froude, Life and Times of Becket, pages 31-32.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

CONSTITUTIONS, Roman Imperial.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

CONSTITUTIONAL UNION PARTY, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

CONSUL, Roman.

When the Romans had rid themselves of their kings and established a republic, or, rather, an aristocratic government, "the civil duties of the king were given to two magistrates, chosen for a year, who were at first called 'prætores' or generals, 'judices' or judges, or consules (cf. con 'together' and salio 'to leap') or 'colleagues.' In the matter of their power, no violent departure was made from the imperium of the king. The greatest limitation on the consuls was the short period for which they were at the head of the state; but even here they were thought of, by a fiction, as voluntarily abdicating at the expiration of their term, and as nominating their successors, although they were required to nominate the men who had already been selected in the 'comitia centuriata.' Another limitation was the result of the dual character of the magistracy. The imperium was not divided between the consuls, but each possessed it in full, as the king had before. When, therefore, they did not agree, the veto of the one prevailed over the proposal of the other, and there was no action."

A. Tighe, Development of the Roman Constitution, chapter 4.

{611}

"As judges, the consuls occupied altogether the place of the kings. They decided the legal disputes of the citizens either personally or by deputy. Their criminal jurisdiction was probably limited to the most important cases. … In the warlike state of the Romans the military character of the consuls was no doubt most prominent and most important. When the consul led the army into the field he possessed the unlimited military power of the kings (the imperium). He was entrusted with the direction of the war, the distribution of the booty, and the first disposal of the conquered land. … The oldest designation for the consuls, therefore, was derived from their military quality, for they were called prætors, that is, commanders. It was, however, precisely in war that the division of power among two colleagues must often have proved prejudicial … and the necessity of unity in the direction of affairs was felt to be indispensable. The dictatorship served this purpose. By decree of the senate one of the consuls could be charged with naming a dictator for six months, and in this officer the full power of the king was revived for a limited period. The dictatorship was a formal suspension of the constitution of the republic. … Military was substituted for common law, and Rome, during the time of the dictatorship, was in a state of siege."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 1, and book 6, chapters 3-5.

In the later years of the Roman empire, "two consuls were created by the sovereigns of Rome and Constantinople for the sole purpose of giving al date to the year and a festival to the people. But the expenses of this festival, in which the wealthy and the vain aspired to surpass their predecessors, insensibly arose to the enormous sum of four score thousand pounds; the wisest senators declined a useless honour which involved the certain ruin of their families, and to this reluctance I should impute the frequent chasms in the last age of the consular Fasti. … The succession of consuls finally ceased in the thirteenth year of Justinian [A. D. 541] whose despotic temper might be gratified by the final extinction of a title which admonished the Romans of their ancient freedom. Yet the annual consulship still lived in the minds of the people; they fondly expected its speedy restoration … and three centuries elapsed after the death of Justinian before that obsolete dignity, which had been suppressed by custom, could be abolished by law. The imperfect mode of distinguishing each year by the name of a magistrate was usefully supplied by the date of a permanent era."

"There were no consuls in 531 and 532. The Emperor held the office alone in 533, and with a colleague in 534. Belisarius was sole consul in 535. The two following years, having no consuls of their own, were styled the First and Second after the Consulship of Belisarius. John of Cappadocia gave his name to the year 538, and the years 539 and 540 had again consuls, though one only for each year. In 541 Albinus Basilius sat in the curule chair, and he was practically the last of the long list of warriors, orators, demagogues, courtiers, which began (in the year 500 B. C.) with the names of Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus. All the rest of the years of Justinian, twenty-four in number, were reckoned as Post Consulatum Basilii."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders. book 5, chapter 14.

See, also, ROME B. C. 500.

CONSULAR TRIBUNES, Roman.

The plebeians of Rome having demanded admission for their order to the consulship, a compromise was arranged, B. C. 444, which settled that, thereafter, "the people should be free to elect either consuls—that is, patricians according to the old law—or in their place other officers under the title of 'military tribunes with consular power,' consisting of patricians and plebeians. … It is not reported in what respect the official competency of the consular tribunes was to differ from that of the consuls. Still, so much is plain, that the difference consisted not alone in name. The number of the consular tribunes was in the beginning fixed at three."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 11.

CONSULATE GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

CONTINENTAL ARMY. "The Continentals" of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST).

CONTINENTAL CURRENCY, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (JANUARY-APRIL).

CONTINENTAL SYSTEM OF NAPOLEON, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802, and 1806-1810.

CONTIONES, OR CONCIONES.

The contiones, or conciones, at Rome, were assemblies of the people, "less formal than the comitia," held for the mere purpose of discussing public questions, and incapable of passing any binding resolution. "They could not be called together by anybody except the magistrates, neither had every man the liberty of speaking in them, of making proposals or of declaring his opinion; … but even in this limited manner public questions could be discussed and the people could be enlightened. … The custom of discussing public questions in the contiones became general after the comitia of the tribes had obtained full legislative competency."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 1.

See, also, COMITIA CURIATA.

CONTRABANDS.

In the early part of the American civil war of 1861-65, the escaped slaves of the Confederates, who came within the Union lines, were called contrabands, General Butler having supplied the term by declaring them to be "contraband of war."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY).

CONTRERAS, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CONVENT.

See MONASTERY.

CONVENTICLE ACT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.

CONVENTION, The French National, of the great Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST), and 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER), to 1705 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

CONVOCATION.

The assemblies of the clergy in the two ecclesiastical provinces of England are called the Convocation of Canterbury and the Convocation of York. The former, which is the superior body, frequently receives the name of Convocation, simply. It is constituted upon the model of Parliament, and is, in fact, the Parliament of the Church of England. It has two Houses: the upper one consisting of the Archbishop and his Bishops; the lower one composed of deans, archdeacons and proctors, representing the inferior clergy. The Convocation of York has but one House. Since 1716 Convocation has possessed slight powers.

{612}

CONWAY CABAL, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1778.

COOMASSIE, Burning of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880.

COPAIC REEDS.

See BŒOTIA.

COPAN, Ruins of.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS; and MEXICO, ANCIENT.

COPEHAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COPEHAN FAMILY.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1362. Taken and pillaged by the Hanseatic League.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1658-1660. Sieges by Charles X. of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1700. Surrender to Charles XII. of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1801. Bombardment by the English fleet.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1807. Bombardment of the city by the English. Seizure of the fleet.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

—————COPENHAGEN: End—————

COPPERHEADS.

During the American Civil War, the Democratic Party in the Northern States "comprised two well-recognized classes: The Anti-War (or Peace) Democrats, commonly called 'Copperheads,' who sympathized with the Rebellion, and opposed the War for the Union; and the War (or Union) Democrats, who favored a vigorous prosecution of the War for the preservation of the Union."

J. A. Logan, The Great Conspiracy, page 574, foot-note.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

COPREDY BRIDGE, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).

COPTS, The.

The descendants of the ancient Egyptian race, who form to this day the larger part of the population of Egypt.

See EGYPT: ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT PEOPLE.

COPTOS. Destroyed by Diocletian.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

COR, The.

See EPHAH.

CORBIE, Spanish capture of (1636).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

CORCYRA.

See KORKYRA.

CORDAY, Charlotte, and the assassination of Marat.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).

CORDELIERS.

See MENDICANT ORDERS.

CORDELIERS, Club of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

CORDOVA (Spain): A. D. 711. Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

CORDOVA: A. D. 756-1031. The Caliphate at.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 756-1031.

CORDOVA: A. D. 1235. Capture by the King of Castile.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

—————CORDOVA: End—————

CORDOVA (Mexico), Treaty of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

CORDYENE.

See GORDYENE.

COREA.

See COREA in Supplement (volume 5).

COREISH, KOREISH.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 609-632.

COREY, Martha and Giles, The execution for witchcraft of.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

CORFINIUM, Cæsar's Capture of.

See ROME: B. C. 50-49.

CORFU, Ancient.

See KORKYRA.

CORFU: A. D. 1216-1880. Since the fall of the Greek Empire.

Corfu was won by the Venetians in the early years of the Latin conquest of the Greek empire (1216), but was presently lost, to come back again into the possession of the republic 170 years later. "No part of Greece has been so often cutoff from the Greek body. Under Pyrrhos and Agathoklês, no less than under Michael Angelos and Roger, it obeyed an Epeirot or Sicilian master. … At last, after yet another turn of Sicilian rule, it passed for 400 years [1386-. 1797] to the great commonwealth [of Venice]. In our own day Corfu was not added to free Greece till long after the deliverance of Attica and Peloponnesos. But, under so many changes of foreign masters, the island has always remained part of Europe and of Christendom. Alone among the Greek lands, Corfu has never passed under barbarian rule. It has seen the Turk only, for one moment, as an invader [see TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718], for another moment as a nominal overlord."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, page 408.

See IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.

—————CORFU: End—————

CORINIUM.

A Roman city in Britain, on the site of which is the modern city of Cirencester. Some of the richest mosaic pavements found in England have been uncovered there.

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

CORINTH.

Corinth, the chief city and state, in ancient times, of the narrow isthmus which connects Peloponnesus with northern Greece, "owed everything to her situation. The double sea by the isthmus, the confluence of the high road of the whole of Hellas, the rocky citadel towering aloft over land and sea, through which rushed—or around which flowed—an abundance of springs; all these formed so extraordinary a commixture of advantages, that, if the intercourse with other countries remained undisturbed, they could not but call forth an important city. As in Argolis, so on the isthmus also, other besides Dorian families had in the days of the migration helped to found the new state. … By the side of the Dorian, five non-Dorian tribes existed in Corinth, attesting the multitude and variety of population, which were kept together as one state by the royal power of the Heraclidæ, supported by the armed force of the Dorians. In the ninth century [B. C.] the royal power passed into the hands of a branch of the Heraclidæ deriving its descent from Bacchis [one of the earliest of the kings]; and it was in the extraordinary genius of this royal line that the greatness of the city originated. The Bacchiadæ opened the city to the immigration of the industrious settlers who hoped to make their fortunes more speedily than elsewhere at this meeting point of all Greek high-roads of commerce. They cherished and advanced every invention of importance. … They took commerce into their own hands, and established the tramway on the isthmus, along which ships were, on rollers, transported from one gulf to the other. … They converted the gulf which had hitherto taken its name from Crisa into the Corinthian, and secured its narrow inlet by means of the fortified place of Molycria. … They continued their advance along the coast and occupied the most important points on the Achelous."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 1.

{613}

CORINTH: B. C. 745-725. Constitutional Revolution. End of Monarchy. The prytanes. Commercial progress.

A violent contention which arose between two branches of the Bacchiadæ "no doubt gave the nobles of Corinth power and opportunity to end the struggle by a change in the constitution, and by the discontinuance of the monarchy; this occurred in the year 745 B. C., after eight generations of kings. … Yet the place at the head of the commonwealth was not to be entirely taken away from the ancient royal house. A presiding chief (a prytanis), newly elected each year by the whole nobility from the members of the royal race, was henceforward to conduct the government [see PRYTANIS]. It was a peculiar arrangement which this change introduced into Corinth. We may assume that the sovereignty was transferred to the nobles collectively, or to their representative. This representation seems to have been so regulated that each of the eight tribes sent an equal number of members to the Gerousia, i. e. the council of elders. … But the first of these eight tribes, to which belonged the royal family, was privileged. From it was chosen the head of the state, an office for which only a Bacchiad was eligible—that is, only a member of the old royal house, which took the foremost place in the first tribe. This clan of the Bacchiadæ is said to have contained 200 men. 'They were numerous and wealthy,' says Strabo. Accordingly the royal house did not exclusively retain the first rank in the state, but only in conjunction with the families connected with it by kindred and race. … The new constitution of Corinth, the government by nobles, under the dynastic presidency of one family, became a type for other cantons. It was a Corinthian of the Bacchiadæ who, twenty or thirty years after the introduction of the prytanes, regulated the oligarchy of the Thebans and gave them laws (about 725 B. C.) … The fall of the monarchy in Corinth at first brought with it disastrous consequences for the power and prestige of the commonwealth. The communities of the Megarians—either because the new government made increased demands upon them, or because they considered their allegiance had ceased with the cessation of monarchy, and thought the moment was favourable—deserted Corinth and asserted their freedom. The five communities on the isthmus united together around the territory of Megara, lying in the plain by the Saronic Gulf, where the majority of the Doric tribes had settled; the city of Megara, in the vicinity of two ancient fortresses … became the chief centre of the communities, now associated in one commonwealth. … The important progress of Corinth under the prytany of the Bacchiadæ was not due to successes upon the mainland, but in another sphere. For navigation and commerce no canton in Hellas was more favourably situated. Lying on the neck of the isthmus, it extended from sea to sea, an advantageous position which had indeed first attracted the Phœnicians thither in ancient times. … Corinth, says Thucydides, was always from the first a centre of commerce, and abounded in wealth; for the population within and without the Peloponnesus communicated with each other more in ancient times by land across the isthmus than by sea. But when the Hellenes became more practised in navigation, the Corinthians with their ships put down piracy and established marts on both sides; and through this influx of riches their city became very powerful."

M. Duncker, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

CORINTH: B. C. 509-506. Opposition to the desire of Sparta to restore tyranny at Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

CORINTH: B. C. 481-479. Congress and organized Hellenic union against Persia.

See GREECE: B. C.481-479.

CORINTH: B. C. 458-456. Alliance with Ægina in unsuccessful war with Athens and Megara.

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

CORINTH: B. C. 440. Opposition to Spartan interference with Athens in Samos.

See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

CORINTH: B. C. 435-432. Quarrel with Korkyra. Interference of Athens. Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.

See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.

CORINTH: B. C. 432. Great sea-fight with the Korkyrians and Athenians.

See GREECE: B. C. 432.

CORINTH: B. C. 429-427. The Peloponnesian War: sea-fights and defeats. Fruitless aid to the Mitylenæans.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

CORINTH: B. C. 421. Opposition to the Peace of Nicias.

See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

CORINTH: B. C. 415-413. Help to Syracuse against the Athenians.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

CORINTH: B. C. 395-387. Confederacy against Sparta. The Corinthian War. Battle on the Nemea. The Peace of Antalcidas.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

CORINTH: B. C. 368-365. Attempt of Epaminondas to surprise the city. Attempt of the Athenians.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

CORINTH: B. C. 337. Congress of Greek states to acknowledge the hegemony of Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

CORINTH: B. C. 244. Capture by Antigonus Gonatus, king of Macedon.

See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.

CORINTH: B. C. 243-146. In the Achaian League.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

CORINTH: B. C. 146. Sack by the Romans.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

CORINTH: B. C. 44. Restoration by Cæsar.

"In the desolate land of Greece, Cæsar, besides other plans, … busied himself above all with the restoration of Corinth. Not only was a considerable burgess-colony conducted thither, but a plan was projected for cutting through the isthmus, so as to avoid the dangerous circumnavigation of the Peloponnesus and to make the whole traffic between Italy and Asia pass through the Corintho-Saronic gulf."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 11.

"Cæsar sent to Corinth a large number of freedmen, and other settlers were afterwards sent by Augustus; but it is certain that many Greeks came to live in the new Corinth, for it became a Greek town. Corinth was a mass of ruins when the new settlers came, and while they were removing the rubbish, they grubbed up the burial places, where they found a great number of earthen figures and bronze urns, which they sold at a high price and filled Rome with them."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 32.

{614}

"Corinth rapidly rose under these auspices, became a centre of commerce and art, and took the lead among the cities of European Hellas. Here was established the seat of the Roman government of Achaia, and its population, though the representations we have received of it are extravagant, undoubtedly exceeded that of any Grecian rival."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 40.

CORINTH: A. D. 267. Ravaged by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

CORINTH: A. D. 395. Plundered by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

CORINTH: A. D. 1146. Sacked by the Normans of Sicily. Abduction of silk weavers.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

CORINTH: A. D. 1445. Destruction by the Turks.

The fortifications of the isthmus of Corinth were stormed and the Peloponnesus invaded by Amurath II. in 1445. "Corinth itself, a city sanctified by its antiquity, by its gods, by its arts, by the beauty of its women, by its fountains, its cypresses, its very ruins themselves, whence its unrivalled situation had always restored it, fell anew, buried in its flames, by the hands of Tourakhan, that ancient and ambitious vizier of Amurath. Its flames were seen from Athens, from Ægina, from Lepanto, from Cytheron, from Pindus. The inhabitants, as also those of Patras, were led into slavery in Asia, to the number of 60,000."

A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 11, section 10.

CORINTH: A. D. 1463-1464. Unsuccessful siege by the Venetians. Fortification of the Isthmus.

See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

CORINTH: A. D. 1687. Taken by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

CORINTH: A. D. 1822. Revolt, siege and capture by the Turks.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

—————CORINTH: End—————

CORINTH, Mississippi, Siege and Battle.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI), and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

CORINTH CANAL, The.

"On Sunday [August 6, 1893] the canal across the Isthmus of Corinth—[projected by Cæsar—see ROME: B. C. 45-44] begun by Nero, and completed, nearly 2,000 years later, by a Greek engineer, M. Matsas—was opened by the King of Greece, who steamed through the canal in his yacht, accompanied by a procession consisting of four Greek torpedo-boats and other vessels, including three English men-of-war and an English despatch-boat. The canal … will be practicable for all but the largest vessels."

The Spectator, Aug. 12, 1893.

[Transcriber's note: "It was planned by the Hungarian architects István Türr and Béla Gerster… Its construction was started by a French company, which ceased works only after the two ends had been dug, due to financial difficulties. A Greek company took over, the main contractor being Antonis Matsas, and continued (and completed) the project." http://wiki.phantis.com]

CORINTHIAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

CORINTHIAN WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

CORIONDI, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF ANCIENT.

CORITANI, OR CORITAVI. A British tribe which occupied the lower valley of the Trent and its vicinity.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CORN LAWS (English) and their repeal.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828; 1836-1839; 1842; and 1845-1846.

CORNABII, OR CORNAVII, The.

An ancient British tribe which dwelt near the mouths of the Dee and the Mersey.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CORNWALL, Duchy of.

In the division of the spoils of his conquest of England, William the Conqueror gave to his brother Robert almost the whole shire of Cornwall, besides other vast estates. "Out of those possessions," says Mr. Freeman, "arose that great Earldom, and afterwards Duchy, of Cornwall, which was deemed too powerful to be trusted in the hands of any but men closely akin to the royal house, and the remains of which have for ages formed the appanage of the heir-apparent to the Crown."

See, also, WALES, PRINCE OF.

CORNWALLIS, Charles, Lord. In the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); 1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

Indian administration.

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

Irish administration.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

CORON, Battle of (B. C. 281).

See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 297-280.

CORONADO, Expedition of.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

CORONATION.

"The royal consecration in its most perfect form included both coronation and unction. The wearing of a crown was a most ancient sign of royalty, into the origin of which it is useless now to inquire; but the solemn rite of crowning was borrowed from the Old Testament by the Byzantine Cæsars; the second Theodosius was the first emperor crowned with religious ceremonies in Christian times. The introduction of the rite of anointing is less certainly ascertained. It did not always accompany coronation, and, although usual with the later emperors is not recorded in the case of the earlier ones."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 6, section 60.

CORONATION STONE.

See SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES; also, LIA FAIL.

CORONEIA, Battles of (B. C. 447 and B. C. 394).

See GREECE: B. C. 449-445; and B. C. 399-387.

CORPS DE BELGIQUE.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS, The.

"The Corpus Juris Civilis represents the Roman law in the form which it assumed at the close of the ancient period (a thousand years after the decemviral legislation of the Twelve Tables), and through which mainly it has acted upon modern times. It was compiled in the Eastern Roman Empire (the Western ceased in 476 A. D.) under the Emperor Justinian, … who reigned 527-565 A. D. The plan of the work, as laid out by [his great law-minister] Tribonian, included two principal parts, to be made from the constitutions of the Roman emperors, and from the treatises of the Roman lawyers. The constitutiones' (law-utterances) of the emperors consisted of: 1. 'Orationes,' proposals of law, submitted to and adopted by the Senate; 2. 'Edicta,' laws issued directly by the emperor as head of the state; 3. 'Mandata,' instructions addressed by the emperor to high officers of law and justice; 4. 'Decreta,' decisions given by the emperor in cases brought before him by appeal or otherwise; 5. 'Rescripta,' answers returned by the emperor when consulted on questions of law by parties in a suit or by magistrates. {615} … Three or four collections had already been made, in which the most important constitutions were selected from the mass, presented in a condensed form, and arranged according to their subjects. The last and most elaborate of these collections was the Theodosian Code, compiled about a century before the accession of Justinian; it is still in great part extant. … The new Codex Constitutionem, prepared in little more than a year, was published in April, 529. The next work was to digest the treatises of the most eminent law writers. Thirty-nine were selected, nearly all of whom lived between 100 B. C. and 250 A. D. Their books (2,000 in number) were divided among a body of collaborators (sixteen besides Tribonian), each of whom from the books assigned to him extracted what he thought proper. … and putting the extracts (9,000 in all) under an arranged series of heads. … The Digest—or Pandects (all-receiving), as it is also called from the multiplicity of its sources—was issued with authority of law, in December, 533. … While the Digest or Pandects forms much the largest fraction of the Corpus Juris, its relative value and importance are far more than proportionate to its extent. The Digest is, in fact, the soul of the Corpus. … To bring the Codex Constitutionem into better conformity with the Digest, it was revised in 534 and issued as we now have it in November of that year. … The Corpus Juris includes also an elementary text-book, the Institutiones (founded on the 'institutiones' of Gaius, who flourished about 150). … The Institutes, Digest and Codex were given, as a complete body of law, to the law-schools at Constantinople, Rome, Berytus, Alexandria, Cæsarea, to be studied in their five years' curriculum. In the courts it was to supersede all earlier authorities. … Later statutes of Justinian, arranged in order of time, form the Novels ('novellae constitutione,' most of them in Greek), the last component of the Corpus Juris."

J. Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law, lecture 1.

ALSO IN: J. E. Goudsmit, The Pandects.

CORREGIDOR.

See ALCALDE.

CORSICA: Early history.

"The original inhabitants of Corsica are supposed to have been Ligurians, but at a very early period the people had commercial intercourse with Spain, Ionia and Tuscany. The island was subsequently occupied by the Carthaginians, who, however, were expelled by the Romans during the first Punic war. A few years later Corsica came under the dominion of Rome, and that sway was nominally maintained until the downfall of the Empire. It then fell under the dominion of the Vandals, and after their expulsion owned successively the rule of the Goths, the Saracens and the Pisans, and finally of the Genoese. It came into the possession of the latter people in the year 1120. Pisa subsequently made several attempts to drive out her rivals, but they were in the end void of results. But in 1448, Genoa, having sustained great losses in the constant wars in which she was engaged, was induced to surrender the administration of Corsica and of her colonies in the Levant to a corporation known as the Bank of St George. From that time the island was administered by governors appointed by the Bank of St George, almost precisely in the manner in which, in England, up to 1859, the East Indies were administered by an 'imperium in imperio.'"

G. B. Malleson, Studies from Genoese History, chapter 3.

CORSICA: A. D. 1558-1559. Revolt against the Genoese rule, and re-subjection.

See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559; and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769. The Struggle for independence. Romance of King Theodore. The Paolis. Cession to France.

The revolt of 1558 was renewetl in 1564, but ended in 1567, upon the death of its leader, Sampiero. For the next century and a half, Corsica remained inactive; "depressed and miserable under renewed Genoese exactions and tyrannies, but too exhausted to resume hostilities. In 1729, however, fighting again broke out, suddenly roused by one of the many private wrongs then pressing upon the lower orders, and the rebellion soon spread over the whole island. It was well organized under two leaders of energy and ability, and was more determined in its measures than ever. … Genoa had recourse to the emperor of Germany, from whom she bought several thousand mercenaries, who were sent across the sea to try their skill upon these unconquerable islanders. … The courage and chivalry of his insular foes … won for them the regard of the opposing General Wachtendonk; and, chiefly through his mediation, a treaty, supposed to be favourable to the islanders, was concluded between Genoa and the Corte legislative assembly in 1732. Wachtendonk remained in the island another year to see the treaty carried out, and in June, 1734, the German general returned to his own country. … But he had scarcely retired before the treaty was broken. Genoa began anew her system of illegal arrests and attempted assassinations; and, once more, the people arose under Hyacinth Paoli, an obscure native of the little village of Morosaglia, but a man of spirit and talent, and a scholar. Under the direction of this man, and of Giafferi, his colleague, a democratic constitution, in the highest degree prudent and practical, was framed for the Corsican people. … Early in the next year occurred a strange and romantic adventure in this adventureful country. A man, handsome and well-dressed, surrounded by obsequious courtiers, and attended by every luxury, landed in the island from a vessel well-furnished with gold, ammunition, and arms. This man was a German adventurer, Baron Theodore von Neuhoff, who, after a romantic youth, had suddenly conceived a desire to become king of Corsica. He was a man of great talent and personal fascination, of good judgment, and enthusiastic disposition. He had fallen in love with the bravery and determination of the Corsicans, and longed to head such a nation. He had put himself into communication with the leading islanders; and, having really some little influence at the continental courts, persuaded them that he had much more. He offered to obtain such assistance from foreign potentates, by his persuasions, as should effectually oust the Genoese; and, in return, requested the crown of Corsica. His genius and his enthusiasm were so great, and his promises so dazzling, that, after some hesitation, the poor Corsicans, in their despair, seized upon this last straw; and in March, 1736, Theodore was crowned king. His exertions for the good of this country were untiring. He established manufactures and promoted with all his power art and commerce, at the same time that, with all the force of his genius, he endeavoured to persuade foreign powers to lend their assistance to his new subjects in the field. {616} His style of living meanwhile was regal and sumptuous. … Towards the conclusion of his first year of sovereignty, Theodore left Corsica on a continental tour, with the avowed object of hastening the promised succour. In two years he returned, bringing with him three large and several smaller war vessels, handsomely laden with ammunition, which had actually been raised by means of his talents and persuasive faculties, chiefly amongst the Dutch. But, meanwhile, the Corsicans had had other affairs to which to attend. France had interfered at the request of Genoa; and negotiations were actively going on, which the arrival of the pseudo-king could only interrupt. Theodore, although now so well attended, found himself unheeded and disregarded; and after a few months was forced to leave his new kingdom to its fate, and to return to the continent. Five years later, in 1743, he again returned, again well equipped, this time with English vessels, but with the same ill success. Convinced now that his chance was over and his dream of royalty destroyed, Theodore returned to England with a sore heart, spending his remaining years in this asylum for dethroned kings and ruined adventurers. His tomb may be seen in Westminster Abbey. For the next five and twenty years the war continued between Corsica and Genoa, still fought out on the blood-deluged plains of the unhappy little island. But the republic of Genoa was now long past her prime, and her energies were fading into senility; and, had it not been for the ever-increasing assistance of France, her intrepid foes would long ere this have got the better of her. In May, 1768, a treaty was signed between Genoa and France, by which the republic ceded her now enfeebled claims on Corsica to her ally, and left her long-oppressed victim to fight the contest out with the French troops. During this time, first Gaffori, then Pasquale Paoli, were the leaders of the people. Gaffori, a man of refinement, and a hero of skill and intrepidity, was murdered in a vendetta in 1753, and in 1755 Pasquale, youngest son of the old patriot Hyacinth Paoli, left his position as officer in the Neapolitan service, and landed, by the general desire of his own people, at Aleria, to undertake the command of the Corsican army. … From 1764 to 1768 a truce was concluded between the foes. … In August, 1768, the truce was to expire; but, before the appointed day had arrived, an army of 20,000 French suddenly swooped down upon the luckless island. … It was a hopeless struggle for Corsica; but the heroism of the undaunted people moved all Europe to sympathy. … The Corsicans at first got the better of their formidable foe, at the Bridge of Golo, in the taking of Borgo, and in other lesser actions. … Meanwhile, the country was being destroyed, and the troops becoming exhausted. … The battle of Ponte Nuovo, on the 9th of May, 1769, at once and forever annihilated the Corsican cause. … After this victory, the French rapidly gained possession of the whole island, and shortly afterwards the struggle was abandoned. … In the same year, 1769, Napoleon Buonaparte was born in the house out of the Place du Marché at Ajaccio. 'I was born,' he said himself in a letter to Paoli, 'the year my country died.'"

G. Forde, A Lady's Tour in Corsica, volume 2, chapter 18.

ALSO IN: P. Fitzgerald, Kings and Queens of an Hour, chapter 1.

J. Boswell, Journal of a Tour to Corsica.

Corsica: A. D. 1794. Conquest by the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

Corsica: A. D. 1796. Evacuated by the English. Reoccupied by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).

—————Corsica: End—————

CORTENUOVA, Battle of (1236).

See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.

CORTES, HERNANDO, Conquest of Mexico by.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 to 1521-1524.

CORTES, The early Spanish. The old monarchical constitutions of Castile and Aragon.

"The earliest instance on record of popular representation in Castile occurred at Burgos, in 1169; nearly a century antecedent to the celebrated Leicester parliament. Each city had but one vote, whatever might be the number of its representatives. A much greater irregularity, in regard to the number of cities required to send deputies to cortes [the name signifying 'court'] on different occasions, prevailed in Castile, than had ever existed in England; though, previously to the 15th century, this does not seem to have proceeded from any design of infringing on the liberties of the people. The nomination of these was originally vested in the householders at large, but was afterwards confined to the municipalities,—a most mischievous alteration, which subjected their election eventually to the corrupt influence of the crown. They assembled in the same chamber with the higher orders of the nobility and clergy, but on questions of moment, retired to deliberate by themselves. After the transaction of other business, their own petitions were presented to the sovereign, and his assent gave them the validity of laws. The Castilian commons, by neglecting to make their money grants depend on corresponding concessions from the crown, relinquished that powerful check on its operations so beneficially exerted in the British parliament, but in vain contended for even there till a much later period than that now under consideration. Whatever may have been the right of the nobility and clergy to attend in cortes, their sanction was not deemed essential to the validity of legislative acts; for their presence was not even required in many assemblies of the nation which occurred in the 14th and 15th centuries. The extraordinary power thus committed to the commons was, on the whole, unfavorable to their liberties. It deprived them of the sympathy and cooperation of the great orders of the state, whose authority alone could have enabled them to withstand the encroachments of arbitrary power, and who, in fact, did eventually desert them in their utmost need. … The Aragonese cortes was composed of four branches, or arms; the ricos hombres, or great barons; the lesser nobles, comprehending the knights; the clergy; and the commons. The nobility of every denomination were entitled to a seat in the legislature. The ricos hombres were allowed to appear by proxy, and a similar privilege was enjoyed by baronial heiresses. The number of this body was very limited, twelve of them constituting a quorum. {617} The arm of the ecclesiastics embraced an ample delegation from the inferior as well as higher clergy. It is affirmed not to have been a component of the national legislature until more than a century and a half after the admission of the commons. Indeed, the influence of the church was much less sensible in Aragon than in the other kingdoms of the Peninsula. … The commons enjoyed higher consideration and civil privileges. For this they were perhaps somewhat indebted to the example of their Catalan neighbors, the influence of whose democratic institutions naturally extended to other parts of the Aragonese monarchy. The charters of certain cities accorded to the inhabitants privileges of nobility, particularly that of immunity from taxation; while the magistrates of others were permitted to take their seats in the order of hidalgos. From a very early period we find them employed in offices of public trust, and on important missions. The epoch of their admission into the national assembly is traced as far back as 1133, several years earlier than the commencement of popular representation in Castile. Each city had the right of sending two or more deputies selected from persons eligible to its magistracy; but with the privilege of only one vote, whatever might be the number of its deputies. Any place which had been once represented in cortes might always claim to be so. By a statute of 1307, the convocation of the states, which had been annual, was declared biennial. The kings, however, paid little regard to this provision, rarely summoning them except for some specific necessity. The great officers of the crown, whatever might be their personal rank, were jealously excluded from their deliberations. … It was in the power of any member to defeat the passage of a bill, by opposing to it his veto or dissent, formally registered to that effect. He might even interpose his negative on the proceedings of the house, and thus put a stop to the prosecution of all further business during the session. This anomalous privilege, transcending even that claimed in the Polish diet, must have been too invidious in its exercise, and too pernicious in its consequences, to have been often resorted to. This may be inferred from the fact that it was not formally repealed until the reign of Philip II., in 1502. … The cortes exercised the highest functions, whether of a deliberative, legislative, or judicial nature. It had a right to be consulted on all matters of importance, especially on those of peace and war. No law was valid, no tax could be imposed, without its consent; and it carefully provided for the application of the revenue to its destined uses. It determined the succession to the crown, removed obnoxious ministers, reformed the household and domestic expenditure of the monarch, and exercised the power, in the most unreserved manner, of withholding supplies, as well as of resisting what it regarded as an encroachment on the liberties of the nation. … The statute-book affords the most unequivocal evidence of the fidelity with which the guardians of the realm discharged the high trust reposed in them, in the numerous enactments it exhibits for the security both of person and property. Almost the first page which meets the eye in this venerable record contains the General Privilege, the Magna Charta, as it has been well denominated, of Aragon. It was granted by Peter the Great to the cortes at Saragossa, in 1283. It embraces a variety of provisions for the fair and open administration of justice; for ascertaining the legitimate powers intrusted to the cortes; for the security of property against exactions of the crown; and for the conservation of their legal immunities to the municipal corporations and the different orders of nobility. … The Aragonese, who rightly regarded the General Privilege as the broadest basis of their liberties, repeatedly procured its confirmation by succeeding sovereigns. … The judicial functions of the cortes have not been sufficiently noticed by writers. They were extensive in their operation, and gave it the name of the General Court."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, introduction, sections 1-2.

"Castile bore a closer analogy to England in its form of civil polity than France or even Aragon. But the frequent disorders of its government and a barbarous state of manners rendered violations of law much more continual and flagrant than they were in England under the Plantagenet dynasty. And besides these practical mischiefs, there were two essential defects in the constitution of Castile, through which perhaps it was ultimately subverted. It wanted those two brilliants in the coronet of British liberty, the representation of freeholders among the commons, and trial by jury. The cortes of Castile became a congress of deputies from a few cities, public spirited, indeed, and intrepid, as we find them in bad times, to an eminent degree, but too much limited in number, and too unconnected with the territorial aristocracy, to maintain a just balance against the crown. … Perhaps in no European monarchy except our own was the form of government more interesting than in Aragon, as a fortunate temperament of law and justice with the royal authority. … Blancas quotes a noble passage from the acts of cortes in 1451. 'We have always heard of old time, and it is found by experience, that seeing the great barrenness of this land, and the poverty of the realm, if it were not for the liberties thereof, the folk would go hence to live and abide in other realms and lands more fruitful.' This high spirit of freedom had long animated the Aragonese. After several contests with the crown in the reign of James I., not to go back to earlier times, they compelled Peter III. in 1283 to grant a law called the General Privilege, the Magna Charta of Aragon, and perhaps a more full and satisfactory basis of civil liberty than our own." They further "established a positive right of maintaining their liberties by arms. This was contained in the Privilege of Union granted by Alfonso III. in 1287, after a violent conflict with his subjects; but which was afterwards so completely abolished, and even eradicated from the records of the kingdom, that its precise words have never been recovered. … That watchfulness over public liberty which originally belonged to the aristocracy of ricos hombres … and which was afterwards maintained by the dangerous Privilege of Union, became the duty of a civil magistrate whose office and functions are the most pleasing feature in the constitutional history of Aragon. The Justiza or Justiciary of Aragon has been treated by some writers as a sort of anomalous magistrate. … But I do not perceive that his functions were, in any essential respect, different from those of the chief justice of England, divided, from the time of Edward I., among the judges of the King's Bench. … {618} All the royal as well as territorial judges were bound to apply for his opinion in case of legal difficulties arising in their courts, which he was to certify within eight days. By subsequent statutes of the same reign it was made penal for anyone to obtain letters from the king, impeding the execution of the Justiza's process, and they were declared null. Inferior courts were forbidden to proceed in any business after his prohibition. … There are two parts of his remedial jurisdiction which deserve special notice. These are the processes of juris firma, or firma del derechio, and of manifestation. The former bears some analogy to the writs of 'pone' and 'certiorari' in England, through which the Court of King's Bench exercises its right of withdrawing a suit from the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals. But the Aragonese juris firma was of more extensive operation. … The process termed manifestation afforded as ample security for personal liberty as that of juris firma did for property."

H. Hallam, The Middle Age, chapter 4 (volume 2).

For some account of the loss of the old constitutional liberties of Castile and Aragon, under Charles V.,

See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

"The councils or meetings of the bishops after the reconquest, like the later Councils of Toledo, were always 'jussu regis,' and were attended by counts and magnates 'ad videndum sine ad audiendum verbum Domini.' But when the ecclesiastical business was ended, it was natural that the lay part of the assembly should discuss the affairs of the kingdom and of the people; and insensibly this after-part of the proceedings grew as the first part diminished in importance. The exact date when the Council merged into the Curia or Cortes is difficult to determine; Señor Colmeiro takes the so-named Council of Leon in 1020 as the true starting-point of the latter. The early monarchy of Spain was elective, and the acclamation of the assembled people (plebs) was at least theoretically necessary to render the king's election valid. The presence of the citizens at the Cortes or Zamora, though stated by Sandoval and Morales, is impugned by Señor Colmeiro; but at the Council of Oviedo in 1115 were present bishops of Spain and Portugal 'cum principibus et plebe praedictae regionis,' and these latter also subscribed the Acts. Still, though present and making their influence more and more felt, there is no record of a true representation of cities until Alfonso IX. convoked the Cortes of Leon in 1188, 'cum archiepiscopo, et episcopis, et magnatibus regni mei et cum electis civibus ex singulis civitatibus'; from this time the three estates—clergy, nobles, citizens—were always represented in the Cortes of Leon. Unfortunately, the political development of Castille did not synchronise with that of Leon. In general, that of Castille was fully half a century later. We pass by as more than doubtful the alleged presence of citizens at Burgos in 1169; the 'majores civitatum et villarum' at the Cortes of Carrion in 1188 were not deputies, but the judges or governors of twenty-eight cities. It is not till the united Cortes of both kingdoms met at Seville in 1250, that we find true representation in Castille. Castille was always more feudal than Leon. It is in this want of simultaneous development, and in the presence of privileged classes, that we find the germ of the evils which eventually destroyed the liberties of Spain. Neither the number of deputies nor of the cities represented was ever fixed; at Burgos, in 1315, we find 200 deputies (procuradores) from 100 cities; gradually the number sank till seventeen, and finally twenty-two, cities alone were represented. The deputies were chosen from the municipality either by lot, by rotation, or by election; they were the mere spokesmen of the city councils, whose mandate was imperative. Their payment was at first by the cities, but, after 1422, by the king; and there are constant complaints that the salary was insufficient. The reign of Juan II. (1406-54) was fatal to the liberties of Castille; the answers to the demands and petitions of the deputies were deferred; and, in fact, if not in form, the law that no tax should be levied without consent of the Cortes was constantly violated. Still, but for the death of Prince Juan, in 1497, and the advent of the Austrian dynasty with the possession of the Low Countries, the old liberties might yet have been recovered. … With the Cortes of Toledo, in 1538, ended the meeting of the three estates. The nobility first, then the clergy, were eliminated from the Cortes, leaving only the proctors of the cities to become servile instruments for the purposes of taxation."

W. Webster, Review of Colmeiro's "Cortes de los Antiguos Reinos de Leon y de Castilla" (Academy, August 16, 1884).

CORUNNA, Battle of (1809).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

CORUPEDION, Battle of.

A battle fought in western Phrygia, B. C. 281, in which Lysimmachus, one of the disputants for Alexander's empire, was defeated by Seleucus, and slain.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 60.

CORVÉE.

One of the feudal rights possessed in France (under the old regime, before the Revolution) "by the lord of the manor over his subjects, by means of which he could employ for his own profit a certain number of their days of labour, or of their oxen and horses. The 'Corvée à volonté,' that is to say, at the arbitrary will of the Seigneur, had been completely abolished [before the Revolution]: forced labour had been for some time past confined to a certain number of days a year."

A. de Tocqueville, On the State of Society in France before 1789, note 4 E. (p. 499).

CORVUS, The Roman.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

COS, OR KOS.

One of the islands in the Ægean called the Sporades, near the Carian coast of Asia Minor. The island was sacred to Asclepius, or Æsculapeus, and was the birthplace of the celebrated physician Hippocrates, as well as of the painter Apelles. It was an Æolian colony, but joined the Dorian confederacy.

COSIMO DE' MEDICI, The ascendancy at Florence of.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.

COSMOS, COSMIOS, COSMOPOLIS.

See DEMIURGI.

{619}

COSSACKS, The.

"The origin of the Cossack tribes is lost in the obscurity of ages; and many celebrated historians are still divided in opinion as to whence the term Cossack, or rather Kosaque, is properly to be derived. This word, indeed, is susceptible of so many etymological explanations, as scarcely to offer for anyone of them decided grounds of preference. Everything, however, would seem to favour the belief that the word Cossack, or Kosaque, was in much earlier use in the vicinity of the Caucasus than in the Ukraine. … Sherer, in his 'Annals of Russia Minor,' (La Petite Russie,) traces back the origin of the Cossacks to the ninth century; but he does not support his assertion by any facts clothed with the dignity of historical truth. It appears certain, however, that the vast pasture lands between the Don and the Dnieper, the country lying on the south of Kïow, and traversed by the Dnieper up to the Black Sea, was the principal birthplace of the Cossacks. When, in 1242, Batukhan came with 500,000 men to take possession of the empire which fell to his share of the vast inheritance left by Tchingis Khan [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294], he extirpated many nations and displaced many others. One portion of the Komans flying from the horrors of this terrific storm, and arriving on the borders of the Caspian Sea, on the banks of the Iaïk, (now Ouralsek,) turned to the left, and took refuge between the embouchures of that river, where they dwelt in small numbers, apart from their brethren, in a less fertile climate. These were, incontestably, the progenitors of the Cossacks of the Iaïk, who are, historically, scarcely important enough for notice. … At the approach of this formidable invasion towards the Don, that portion of the Komans located on the left bank took refuge in the marshes, and in the numerous islands formed by that river near its embouchure. Here they found a secure retreat; and from thence, having, from their new position, acquired maritime habits and seafaring experience, they not only, themselves, resorted to piracy as a means of existence, but likewise enlisted in a formidable confederacy, for purposes of rapine and pillage, all the roving and discontented tribes in their surrounding neighbourhood. These latter were very numerous. The Tartars, ever but indifferent seamen, had not the courage to join them in these piratical expeditions. This division of the Komans is indubitably the parent stock of the modern Cossacks of the Don, by far the most numerous of the Cossack tribes: by amalgamation; however, with whole hosts of Tartar and Calmuck hordes, lawless, desperate, and nomadic as themselves, they lost, in some degree, the primitive and deeply marked distinctive character of their race. The Komans of the Dnieper offered no more energetic resistance to the invading hordes of Batukhan than had been shown by their brethren of the Don: they dispersed in various directions, and from this people, flying at the advance of the ferocious Tartars, descended a variety of hordes, who occasionally figure in history as distinct and independent nations. … [They] ultimately found a permanent resting-place in the wild islets of the Dnieper, below the cataracts, where dwelt already a small number of their ancient compatriots, who had escaped the general destruction of their nation. This spot became the cradle of the Cossacks of the Ukraine, or of the tribes known in after times as the Polish Cossacks. When Guedynum, Grand Duke of Lithuania, after having defeated twelve Russian princes on the banks of the Piërna, conquered Kïow with its dependencies in 1320, the wandering tribes scattered over the steppes of the Ukraine owned his allegiance. After the victories of Olgierd, of Vitold, and of Ladislas Iagellon, over the Tartars and the Russians, large bodies of Scythian militia, known subsequently by the comprehensive denomination of Cossacks, or Kosaques, served under these conquerors: and after the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with Poland, in 1386, they continued under the dominion of the grand dukes of Lithuania, forming, apparently, an intermediate tribe or caste, superior to the peasantry and inferior to the nobles. At a later period, when the Ukraine was annexed to the Polish crown, they passed under the protection of the kings of Poland. … Although there may, doubtless, exist several species or castes of Cossacks, and to whom Russia in order to impose on Europe, is pleased to give as many different names, yet there never have been, nor will there ever be, properly speaking, more than two principal tribes of the Cossack nation, namely the Cossacks of the Don, or Don-Cossacks, and the Cossacks of the Black Sea, known in ancient times as the Polish Cossacks, or Zaporowscy Kozacy. … The Cossacks [of the Don] … have rendered signal service to Russia, which, ever since the year 1549, has taken them under her protection, without, however, the existence of any official act, treaty, or stipulation, confirming their submission to that power. … The Don-Cossacks enjoy a certain kind of liberty and independence; they have a hetman, attaman, or chief, nominated by the Emperor of Russia; and to this chief they yield an obedience more or less willing and implicit; in general, they are commanded only by Cossack officers, who take equal rank in the Russian army. They have a separate war administration of their own; although they are compelled to furnish a stated number of recruits who serve in a manner for life, inasmuch as they are rarely discharged before attaining sixty years of age: on the whole, their condition is happier than that of the rest of the Russian population. They belong to the Greek-Russian church. The existence of this small republic of the Don, in the very heart of the most despotic and most extensive empire in the world, appears to constitute a problem, the solution of which is not as yet definitely known, and the ultimate solution of which yet remains to be ascertained."

H. Krasinski, The Cossacks of the Ukraine, chapter 1.

The Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred their allegiance from the King of Poland to the Czar of Russia in 1654, after a revolt led by their hetman, Bogdan Khmelnitski, in which they were assisted by the neighboring Tartars, and which was accompanied by terrible scenes of slaughter and destruction.

See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.

COSSÆANS, The.

See KOSSÆANS.

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1502. Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1813-1871. Independence of Spain. Brief annexation to Mexico. The failures of federation, the wars and revolutions of Central America.

See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1850. The Clayton Bulwer Treaty and the projected Nicaragua Canal.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

—————COSTA RICA: End—————

COSTANOAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COSTANOAN FAMILY.

COSTER, Laurent, and the invention of printing.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

COTARII.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND.

{620}

COTHON OF CARTHAGE, The.

"There were two land-locked docks or harbours, opening the one into the other, and both, it would seem, the work of human hands. … The outer harbour was rectangular, about 1,400 feet long and 1,100 broad, and was appropriated to merchant vessels; the inner was circular like a drinking cup, whence it was called the Cothon, and was reserved for ships of war. It could not be approached except through the merchant harbour, and the entrance to this last was only 70 feet wide, and could be closed at any time by chains. The war harbour was entirely surrounded by quays, containing separate docks for 220 ships. In front of each dock were two Ionic pillars of marble, so that the whole must have presented the appearance of a splendid circular colonnade. Right in the centre of the harbour was an island, the headquarters of the admiral."

R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 20.

COTSETI.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND.

COTTON, Reverend John and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.

COTTON FAMINE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.

COTTON-GIN: Eli Whitney's invention and its effects.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

COTTON MANUFACTURE: The great inventions in spinning and weaving.

"Cotton had been used in the extreme East and in the extreme West from the earliest periods of which we have any record. The Spaniards, on their discovery of America, found the Mexicans clothed in cotton. … But though the use of cotton had been known from the earliest ages, both in India and America, no cotton goods were imported into Europe; and in the ancient world both rich and poor were clothed in silk, linen, and wool. The industrious Moors introduced cotton into Spain. Many centuries afterwards cotton was imported into Italy, Saxony and the Low Countries. Isolated from the rest of Europe, with little wealth, little industry, and no roads; rent by civil commotions; the English were the last people in Europe to introduce the manufacture of cotton goods into their own homes. Towards the close of the 16th century, indeed, cotton goods were occasionally mentioned in the Statute Book, and the manufacture of the cottons of Manchester was regulated by Acts passed in the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth. But there seem to be good reasons for concluding that Manchester cottons, in the time of the Tudors, were woollen goods, and did not consist of cotton at all. More than a century elapsed before any considerable trade in cotton attracted the attention of the legislature. The woollen manufacturers complained that people were dressing their children in printed cottons; and Parliament was actually persuaded to prohibit the introduction of Indian printed calicoes. Even an Act of Parliament, however, was unable to extinguish the growing taste for Indian cottons. … The taste for cotton led to the introduction of calico-printing in London; Parliament in order to encourage the new trade, was induced to sanction the importation of plain cotton cloths from India under a duty. The demand, which was thus created for calicoes, probably promoted their manufacture at home. … Up to the middle of the last century cotton goods were really never made at all. The so-called cotton manufactures were a combination of wool or linen and cotton. No Englishman had been able to produce a cotton thread strong enough for the warp; … The superior skill of the Indian manufacturers enabled them to use cotton for a warp; while clumsy workmanship made the use of cotton as a warp unattainable at home. In the middle of the 18th century, then, a piece of cotton cloth in the true sense of the term, had never been made in England. The so-called cotton goods were all made in the cottages of the weavers. The yarn was carded by hand; it was spun by hand; it was worked into cloth by a hand loom. … The operation of weaving was, however, much more rapid than that of spinning. The weaver consumed more weft than his own family could supply him with; and the weavers generally experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining sufficient yarn. About the middle of the 18th century the ingenuity of two persons, a father and a son, made this difference more apparent. The shuttle had originally been thrown by the hand from one end of the loom to the other. John Kay, a native of Bury, by his invention of the fly-shuttle [patented in 1733], saved the weaver from this labour. … Robert Kay, John Kay's son, added the drop-box, by means of which the weaver was able 'to use any one of three shuttles, each containing a different coloured weft, without the trouble of taking them from and replacing them in the lathe.' By means of these inventions the productive power of each weaver was doubled. … Carding and roving were both slowly performed. … The trade was in this humble and primitive state when a series of extraordinary and unparalleled inventions revolutionised the conditions on which cotton had been hitherto prepared. A little more than a century ago John Hargreaves, a poor weaver in the neighbourhood of Blackburn, was returning home from a long walk, in which he had been purchasing a further supply of yarn for his loom. As he entered his cottage, his wife Jenny accidentally upset the spindle which she was using. Hargreaves noticed that the spindles which were now thrown into an upright position, continued to revolve, and that the thread was still spinning in his wife's hand. The idea immediately occurred to him that it would be possible to connect a considerable number of upright spindles with one wheel, and thus multiply the productive power of each spinster. … Hargreaves succeeded in keeping his admirable invention secret for a time; but the powers of his machine soon became known. His ignorant neighbours hastily concluded that a machine, which enabled one spinster to do the work of eight, would throw multitudes of persons out of employment. A mob broke into his house and destroyed his machine. Hargreaves himself had to retire to Nottingham, where, with the friendly assistance of another person, he was able to take out a patent [1770] for the spinning-jenny, as the machine, in compliment to his industrious wife, was called. The invention of the spinning-jenny gave a new impulse to the cotton manufacture. But the … yarn spun by the jenny, like that which had previously been spun by hand, was neither fine enough nor hard enough to be employed as warp, and linen or woollen threads had consequently to be used for this purpose. {621} In the very year, however, in which Hargreaves moved from Blackburn to Nottingham, Richard Arkwright [who began life as a barber's assistant] took out a patent [1769] for his still more celebrated machine. … 'After many years intense and painful application,' he invented his memorable machine for spinning by rollers; and laid the foundations of the gigantic industry which has done more than any other trade to concentrate in this country the wealth of the world. … He passed the thread over two pairs of rollers, one of which was made to revolve much more rapidly than the other. The thread, after passing the pair revolving slowly, was drawn into the requisite tenuity by the rollers revolving at a higher rapidity. By this simple but memorable invention Arkwright succeeded in producing thread capable of employment as warp. From the circumstance that the mill at which his machinery was first erected was driven by water power, the machine received the somewhat inappropriate name of the water frame; the thread spun by it was usually called the water twist. Invention of the spinning-jenny and the water frame would have been useless if the old system of hand-carding had not been superseded by a more efficient and more rapid process. Just as Arkwright applied rotatory motion to spinning, so Lewis Paul introduced revolving cylinders for carding cotton. … This extraordinary series of inventions placed an almost unlimited supply of yarn at the disposal of the weaver. But the machinery, which had thus been introduced, was still incapable of providing yarn fit for the finer qualities of cotton cloth. … This defect, however, was removed by the ingenuity of Samuel Crompton, a young weaver residing near Bolton. Crompton succeeded in combining in one machine the various excellences 'of Arkwright's water frame and Hargreaves' jenny.' Like the former, his machine, which from its nature is happily called the mule, 'has a system of rollers to reduce the roving; and like the latter it has spindles without bobbins to give the twist. … The effects of Crompton's great invention may be stated epigrammatically. … The natives of India could spin a pound of cotton into a thread 119 miles long.' The English succeed in spinning the same thread to a length of 160 miles. Yarn of the finest quality was at once at the disposal of the weaver. … The ingenuity of Hargreaves, Arkwright and Crompton had been exercised to provide the weaver with yarn. … The spinster had beaten the weaver. … Edmund Cartwright, a clergyman residing in Kent, happened to be staying at Matlock in the summer of 1784, and to be thrown into the company of some Manchester gentlemen. The conversation turned on Arkwright's machinery, and 'one of the company observed that, as soon as Arkwright's patent expired, so many mills would be erected and so much cotton spun that hands would never be found to weave it.' Cartwright replied 'that Arkwright must then set his wits to work to invent a weaving mill.' … Within three years he had himself proved that the invention was practicable by producing the power-loom. Subsequent inventors improved the idea which Cartwright had originated, and within fifty years from the date of his memorable visit to Matlock there were not less than 100,000 power-looms at work in Great Britain alone. … Other inventions, less generally remembered, were hardly less wonderful or less beneficial than these. … Scheele, the Swedish philosopher, discovered in 1774 the bleaching properties of chlorine, or oxymuriatic acid. Berthollet, the French chemist, conceived the idea of applying the acid to bleaching cloth. … In the same year in which Watt and Henry were introducing the new acid to the bleacher, Bell, a Scotchman, was laying the foundations of a trade in printed calicoes. 'The old method of printing was by blocks of sycamore.' … This clumsy process was superseded by cylinder printing. … Such are the leading inventions, which made Great Britain in less than a century the wealthiest country in the world."

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, volume 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: R. W. C. Taylor, Introduction to a History of the Factory System, chapter 10.

E. Baines, History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain.

A. Ure, The Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain.

COULMIERS, Battle of (1870).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, The Mormons at.

See MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.

COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623; 1621-1631; and 1635.

COUNCIL OF BLOOD, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.

COUNCIL OF FIVE HUNDRED, The Athenian.

See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

The French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

COUNCIL OF TEN, The.

See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

COUNCIL OF THE ANCIENTS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

COUNCIL, THE PRIVY.

See PRIVY COUNCIL.

COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH, General or Ecumenical.

There are seven councils admitted by both the Greek and Latin churches as œcumenical (or ecumenical)—that is general, or universal. The Roman Catholics recognize thirteen more, making twenty in all—as follows:

1. The synod of apostles in Jerusalem. 2. The first Council of Nice, A. D. 325 (see NICÆA, THE FIRST COUNCIL). 3. The first Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. 4. The first Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431. 5. The Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451. 6. The second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553. 7. The third Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681. 8. The second Council of Nice, A. D. 787. 9. The fourth Council of Constantinople, A. D. 869. 10. The first Lateran Council, A. D. 1123. 11. The second Lateran Council, A. D. 1139. 12. The third Lateran Council, A. D. 1179. 13. The fourth Lateran Council, A. D. 1215. 14. The first œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1245. 15. The second œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1274. 16. The Synod of Vienne in Gaul, A. D. 1311. 17. The Council of Constance, A. D. 1414 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418). 18. The Council of Basel, A. D. 1431 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448). 19. The Council of Trent, A. D. 1545 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563). 20. The Council of the Vatican, A. D. 1869 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870).

{622}

COUNT AND DUKE, Roman. Origin of the titles.

"The defence of the Roman empire was at length committed [under Constantine and his successors] to eight masters-general of the cavalry and infantry. Under their orders thirty-five military commanders were stationed in the provinces—three in Britain, six in Gaul, one in Spain, one in Italy, five on the Upper and four on the Lower Danube, in Asia eight, three in Egypt, and four in Africa. The titles of Counts and Dukes, by which they were properly distinguished, have obtained in modern languages so very different a sense that the use of them may occasion some surprise. But it should be recollected that the second of those appellations is only a corruption of the Latin word which was indiscriminately applied to any military chief. All these provincial generals were therefore dukes; but no more than ten among them were dignified with the rank of counts or companions, a title of honour, or rather of favour, which had been recently invented in the court of Constantine. A gold belt was the ensign which distinguished the office of the counts and dukes."

"The Duke and the Count of modern Europe—what are they but the Generals and Companions (Duces and Comites) of a Roman province? Why or when they changed places, the Duke climbing up into such unquestioned pre-eminence over his former superior the Count, I know not, nor yet by what process it was discovered that the latter was the precise equivalent of the Scandinavian Jarl."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 3.

COUNT OF THE DOMESTICS.

In the organization of the Imperial Household, during the later period of the Roman empire, the officers called Counts of the Domestics "commanded the various divisions of the household troops, known by the names of Domestici and Protectores, and thus together replaced the Prætorian Prefect of the earlier days of the Empire. … Theoretically, their duties would not greatly differ from those of a Colonel in the Guards."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 3.

COUNT OF THE SACRED LARGESSES.

In the later Roman empire, "the Count who had charge of the Sacred (i. e. Imperial) Bounty, should have been by his title simply the Grand Almoner of the Empire. … In practice, however, the minister who took charge of the Imperial Largesses had to find ways and means for every other form of Imperial expenditure. … The Count of the Sacred Largesses was therefore in fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Empire."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 3.

COUNT OF THE SAXON SHORE.

See SAXON SHORE.

COUNT PALATINE.

See PALATINE, COUNTS.

COUNTER-REFORMATION, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540; 1537-1563; 1555-1603.

COUNTRY PARTY, The.

See ENGLAND; A. D. 1672-1673.

COUP D' ETAT OF LOUIS NAPOLEON, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.

COUREURS DE BOIS.

"Out of the beaver trade [in the 17th century] rose a huge evil, baneful to the growth and the morals of Canada. All that was most active and vigorous in the colony took to the woods, and escaped from the control of intendants, councils and priests, to the savage freedom of the wilderness. Not only were the possible profits great, but, in the pursuit of them, there was a fascinating element of adventure and danger. The bush rangers, or coureurs de bois, were to the king an object of horror. They defeated his plans for the increase of the population, and shocked his native instinct of discipline and order. Edict after edict was directed against them; and more than once the colony presented the extraordinary spectacle of the greater part of its young men turned into forest outlaws. … We hear of seigniories abandoned; farms turning again into forests; wives and children left in destitution. The exodus of the coureurs de bois would take at times the character of an organized movement. The famous Du Lhut is said to have made a general combination of the young men of Canada to follow him into the woods. Their plan was to be absent four years, in order that the edicts against them might have time to relent. The intendant Duchesneau reported that 800 men out of a population of less than 10,000 souls had vanished from sight in the immensity of a boundless wilderness. Whereupon the king ordered that any person going into the woods without a license should be whipped and branded for the first offence, and sent for life to the galleys for the second. … Under such leaders as Du Lhut, the coureurs de bois built forts of palisades at various points throughout the West and Northwest. They had a post of this sort at Detroit some time before its permanent settlement, as well as others on Lake Superior and in the Valley of the Mississippi. They occupied them as long as it suited their purposes, and then abandoned them to the next comer. Michillimackinac was, however, their chief resort."

F. Parkman, The Old Regime in Canada, chapter 17.

COURLAND, Christian conquest of.

See, LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

COURT BARON.

See MANORS.

COURT CUSTOMARY.

See MANORS.

COURT-LEET.

See MANORS, and SAC AND SOC.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

See CHANCELLOR.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

See CURIA REGIS.

COURT OF HIGH COMMISSION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559; and A. D. 1686.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

See CURIA REGIS.

COURT, SUPREME, of the United States.

See SUPREME COURT.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1382. Pillaged and burned by the French.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1646. Siege and capture by the French.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1648. Taken by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1667. Taken by the French.

See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1668. Ceded to France.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND); A. D. 1668.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1679. Restored to Spain.

See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

—————COURTRAI: End—————

{623}

COURTRAI, The Battle of.

The battle of Courtrai (July 11, A. D. 1302), in which the barons and knights of France were fearfully slaughtered by the sturdy burghers of Flanders, was sometimes called the Day of the Spurs, on account of the great number of gilt spurs which was taken from the bodies of the dead and hung up by the victors in Courtrai cathedral.

G. W. Kitchen, History of France, book 3, chapter 10, section 2.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.

COURTS OF LOVE.

See PROVENCE: A.D. 1179-1207.

COUTHON, and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).

COUTRAS, Battle of (1587).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

COVADONGA, Cave of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

COVENANT, The Halfway.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

COVENANT, The Solemn League and.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

COVENANTERS.

The name given to the signers and supporters of the Scottish National Covenant (see SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581 and 1638) and afterwards to all who adhered to the Kirk of Scotland. The war of Montrose with the Covenanters will be found narrated under SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645. For the story of the persecution which they suffered under the restored Stuarts,

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666; 1669-1679; 1679; and 1681-1689.

COVENANTS, The Scottish.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557-1581; and 1638.

COWBOYS.

During the War of the American Revolution, "there was a venal and bloody set which hung on the skirts of the British army, well known as Cow-boys. They were plunderers and ruffians by profession, and came to have their name from their cattle-stealing. Some of the most cruel and disgraceful murders and barbarities of the war were perpetrated by them. Whenever they were caught they were hung up at once."

C. W. Elliott, The New England History, volume 2, page 372.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

COWPENS, Battle of the (1781).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

CRACOW: A. D. 1702. Taken by Charles XII. of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

CRACOW: A. D. 1793-1794. Occupied by the Russians. Rising of the citizens. Surrender and cession to Austria.

See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

CRACOW: A. D. 1815. Creation of the Republic.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

CRACOW: A. D. 1831-1846. Occupation by the Austrians, Russians and Prussians. Extinction of the Republic. Annexation to Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

—————CRACOW: End—————

CRADLE OF LIBERTY.

See FANEUIL HALL.

CRAFT-GUILDS.

See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

CRAGIE TRACT, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

CRAL.-KRALE.

"The princes of Servia (Ducange, Famil, Dalmaticæ, &c., c. 2-4, 9) were styled 'despots' in Greek, and Cral in their native idiom (Ducange, Gloss. Græc., page 751). That title, the equivalent of king, appears to be of Sclavonic origin, from whence it has been borrowed by the Hungarians, the modern Greeks, and even by the Turks (Leunclavius, Pandect. Turc., p. 422), who reserve the name of Padishah for the Emperor."

See, also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

CRANNOGES.

See LAKE DWELLINGS.

CRANNON (KRANNON), Battle of (B. C. 322).

See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

CRAONNE, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CRASSUS AND THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE.

See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to 57-52.

CRATER, Battle of the Petersburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

CRATERUS, AND THE WARS OF THE DIADOCHI.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

CRANGALLIDÆ, The.

See HIERODULI.

CRAYFORD, Battle of (A. D. 457).

The second battle fought between the Britons and the invading Jutes, under Hengest, for the possession of southeastern Britain.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

CRÉCY, Battle of (1346).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

CREDIT MOBILIER SCANDAL.

On the meeting of the Congress of the United States in December, 1872, attention was called by the Speaker to charges made in the preceding canvass "that the Vice-President, the Vice-President elect, the Secretary of the Treasury, several Senators, the Speaker of the House, and a large number of Representatives had been bribed, during the years 1867 and 1868, by presents of stock in a corporation known as the Credit Mobilier [organized to contract for building the Union Pacific Railroad] to vote and act for the benefit of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. On his motion, an investigating committee was appointed, L. P. Poland, of Vermont, being chairman. The Poland Committee reported February 18th, 1873, recommending the expulsion of Oakes Ames, of Massachusetts, for selling to members of Congress shares of the stock of the Credit Mobilier below their real value, with intent thereby to influence the votes of such members,' and of James Brooks, of New York, for receiving such stock. The House modified the proposed expulsion into an 'absolute condemnation' of the conduct of both members."

A. Johnston, History of American Politics, pages 210-220.

Report of Select Committee (42d Congress, 3d session, H. R. report no. 77).

ALSO IN: J. B. Crawford, The Credit Mobilier of America.

CREEKS. Creek Wars.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY; also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL), and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

CREES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CREFELD, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

CREMA, Siege of (1159-1160).

See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

CREMONA: The Roman Colony. Siege by the Gauls.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

CREMONA: A. D. 69. Destruction by the Flavians.

See ROME: A. D. 69.

CREMONA: A. D. 1702. Defeat of the French.

See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

{624}

CREOLE.

"In Europe it is very common to attach to the term Creole the idea of a particular complexion. This is a mistake. The designation Creole [in Spanish American regions] properly belongs to all the natives of America born of parents who have emigrated from the Old World, be those parents Europeans or Africans. There are, therefore, white as well as black Creoles. … The term Creole is a corruption of the Spanish word 'criollo,' which is derived from 'criar,' to create or to foster. The Spaniards apply the term 'criollo' not merely to the human race, but also to animals propagated in the colonies, but of pure European blood: thus they have creole horses, bullocks, poultry, &c."

J. J. Von Tschudi, Travels in Peru, chapter 5, and foot-note.

"The term Creole is commonly applied in books to the native of a Spanish colony descended from European ancestors, while often the popular acceptation conveys the idea of an origin partly African. In fact, its meaning varies in different times and regions, and in Louisiana alone has, and has had, its broad and its close, its earlier and its later, significance. For instance, it did not here first belong to the descendants of Spanish, but of French settlers. But such a meaning implied a certain excellence of origin, and so came early to include any native of French or Spanish descent by either parent, whose pure non-mixture with the slave race entitled him to social rank. Much later the term was adopted by, not conceded to, the natives of European-African, or Creole-African blood, and is still so used among themselves. At length the spirit of commerce availed itself of the money value of so honored a title, and broadened its meaning to take in any creature or thing of variety or manufacture peculiar to Louisiana, that might become an object of sale, as Creole ponies, chickens, cows, shoes, eggs, wagons, baskets, cabbages, etc. … There are no English, Scotch, Irish, Western, or Yankee Creoles, these all being included under the distinctive term 'Americans.' … There seems to be no more serviceable definition of the Creoles of Louisiana or of New Orleans than to say they are the French-speaking, native, ruling class."

G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W Cable, History and Present Condition of New Orleans (Tenth Census of the U. S., volume 19, page 218).

CREONES, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CRESCENT, The Order of the.

A Turkish Order instituted in 1799 by the reforming sultan, Selim III. Lord Nelson, after the victory of Aboukir, was the first to receive this decoration.

CRESPY IN VALOIS, Treaty of (1544).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

CRETAN LABYRINTH.

See LABYRINTHS.

CRETE.

"The institutions of the Cretan state show in many points so great a similarity to those of Sparta, that it is not surprising if it seemed to the ancients as though either Crete were a copy of Sparta, or Sparta of Crete. Meanwhile this similarity may be explained, apart from intentional imitation, by the community of nationality, which, under like conditions, must produce like institutions. For in Crete, as in Laconia, Dorians were the ruling people, who had subdued the old inhabitants of the island and placed them in a position of subordination. … It is, however, beyond doubt that settlements were made in Crete by the Phoenicians, and that a large portion of the island was subject to them. In the historical period, it is true, we no longer find them here; we find, on the contrary, only a number of Greek states, all moreover Dorian. Each of these consisted of a city with its surrounding district, in which no doubt also smaller cities in their turn were found standing in a relation of subordination to the principal city. For that each city of the 'ninety-citied' or 'hundred-citied' isle, as Homer calls it, formed also an independent state, will probably not be supposed. As independent states our authorities give us reason to recognize about seventeen. The most important of these were in earlier times Cnossus, Gortyn and Cydonia."-

G. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 2.

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

CRETE: B. C. 68-66. The Roman Conquest.

The Romans came into collision with the Cretans during their conflict with the Cilician pirates. The Cretans, degenerate and half piratical themselves, had formed an alliance with the professional buccaneers, and defeated, off Cydonia, a Roman fleet that had been sent against the latter, B. C. 71. They soon repented of the provocation they had offered and sent envoys to Rome to buy peace by heavy bribes; but neither the penitence nor the bribes prevailed. Three years passed, however, before the proconsul, Quintus Metellus, appeared in Crete (B. C. 68) to exact satisfaction, and two years more were spent in overcoming the stubborn resistance of the islanders. The taking of Cydonia cost Metellus a bloody battle and a prolonged siege. Cnossus and other towns held out with equal courage. In the end, however, Crete was added to the conquered dominions of Rome. At the last of the struggle there occurred a conflict of jurisdiction between Metellus and Pompey, and their respective forces fought with one another on the Cretan soil.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 4.

CRETE: A. D. 823. Conquest by the Saracens.

"The reign of Al Hakem, the Ommiade Caliph of Spain, was disturbed by continual troubles; and some theological disputes having created a violent insurrection in the suburbs of Cordova, about 15,000 Spanish Arabs were compelled to emigrate in the year 815. The greater part of these desperadoes established themselves at Alexandria, where they soon took an active part in the civil wars of Egypt. The rebellion of Thomas [an officer who disputed the Byzantine throne with Michael II.], and the absence of the naval forces of the Byzantine Empire from the Archipelago, left the island of Crete unprotected. The Andalusian Arabs of Alexandria availed themselves of this circumstance to invade the island, and establish a settlement on it, in the year 823. Michael was unable to take any measures for expelling the invaders, and an event soon happened in Egypt which added greatly to the strength of this Saracen colony. The victories of the lieutenants of the Caliph Almamum compelled the remainder of the Andalusian Arabs to quit Alexandria; so that Abou Hafs, called by the Greeks Apochaps, joined his countrymen in Crete with forty ships, determined to make the new settlement their permanent home. It is said by the Byzantine writers that they commenced their conquest of the island by destroying their fleet, and constructing a strong fortified camp, surrounded by an immense ditch, from which it received the name of Chandak, now corrupted by the western nations into Candia. … The Saracens retained possession of Crete for 135 years."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057, book 1, chapter 3.

{625}

During the stay of these piratical Andalusian Arabs at Alexandria, "they cut in pieces both friends and foes, pillaged the churches and mosques, sold above 6,000 Christian captives, and maintained their station in the capital of Egypt till they were oppressed by the forces and presence of Almamon himself."

ALSO IN: S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3, chapter 1.

CRETE: A. D. 961-963. Recovery from the Saracens.

"In the subordinate station of great domestic, or general of the East, he [Nicephorus Phocas, afterwards emperor, on the Byzantine throne], reduced the island of Crete, and extirpated the nest of pirates who had so long defied, with impunity, the majesty of the Empire. … Seven months were consumed in the siege of Candia; the despair of the native Cretans was stimulated by the frequent aid of their brethren of Africa and Spain; and, after the massy wall and double ditch had been stormed by the Greeks, a hopeless conflict was still maintained in the streets and houses of the city. The whole island was subdued in the capital, and a submissive people accepted, without resistance, the baptism of the conqueror."