Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 23)

H. Graetz, History of the Jews, chapters 19-20 (volume 1).

{2797}

"While the Hebrew writers unanimously represent the Samaritans as the descendants of the Cuthæan colonists introduced by Esarhaddon, a foreign and idolatrous race, their own traditions derive their regular lineage from Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph. The remarkable fact, that this people have preserved the book of the Mosaic law in the ruder and more ancient character, while the Jews, after the return from Babylonia, universally adopted the more elegant Chaldean form of letters, strongly confirms the opinion that, although by no means pure and unmingled, the Hebrew blood still predominated in their race. In many other respects, regard for the Sabbath and even for the sabbatic year, and the payment of tithes to their priests, the Samaritans did not fall below their Jewish rivals in attachment to the Mosaic polity. The later events in the history of the kings of Jerusalem show that the expatriation of the ten tribes was by no means complete and permanent: is it then an unreasonable supposition, that the foreign colonists were lost in the remnant of the Israelitish people, and, though perhaps slowly and imperfectly weaned from their native superstitions, fell by degrees into the habits and beliefs of their adopted country? … Whether or not it was the perpetuation of the ancient feud between the two rival kingdoms, from this period [of the return from the captivity in Babylonia] the hostility of the Jews and Samaritans assumed its character of fierce and implacable animosity. No two nations ever hated each other with more unmitigated bitterness."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 9.

SAMARIA: Change of population by Alexander the Great.

After the submission of Palestine to Alexander the Great (B. C. 332), Samaria "rebelled and murdered the Macedonian governor, Andromachus. Alexander expelled the inhabitants, and planted a Macedonian colony in their room—another heathen element in the motley population of Samaria."

P. Smith, History of the World: Ancient, volume 3, chapter 34.

SAMARIA: Rebuilding of the city by Herod.

One of the measures of King Herod, for strengthening himself outside of Jerusalem, was "the rebuilding of Samaria, which he did (B. C. 25) on a scale of great magnificence and strength, and peopled it partly with his soldiers, partly with the descendants of the old Samaritans, who hoped to see their temple likewise restored." He changed the name of Samaria, however, to Sebaste—the August.

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 11.

SAMARIA: Justinian's War.

The Christian zeal of the Emperor Justinian [A. D. 527-565] induced him to undertake the forcible conversion of all unbelievers in his empire. Among others, the Samaritans of Palestine were offered "the alternative of baptism or rebellion. They chose the latter: under the standard of a desperate leader they rose in arms, and retaliated their wrongs on the lives, the property, and the temples of a defenceless people. The Samaritans were finally subdued by the regular forces of the East; 20,000 were slain, 20,000 were sold by the Arabs to the infidels of Persia and India, and the remains of that unhappy nation atoned for the crime of treason by the sin of hypocrisy. It has been computed that 100,000 Roman subjects were extirpated in the Samaritan war, which converted the once fruitful province into a desolate and smoking wilderness."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47.

—————SAMARIA: End————

SAMARKAND.

See SAMARCAND.

SAMBUCA, The.

A great military engine, in ancient sieges, was a species of huge covered ladder, supported by two ships lashed together and floated up against the sea wall of the besieged town. The Greeks called it a Sambuca. Mithridates brought one into use when besieging Rhodes, B. C. 88, but with disastrous failure.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 2, chapter 20.

SAMIAN WARE.

An elegant species of Roman pottery, red in color, which was in great repute among the ancients.

SAMMARINESI, The.

The citizens of San Marino.

See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.

SAMNITE WARS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

SAMNITES, The.

"The Samnite nation [see ITALY: ANCIENT], which, at the time of the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, had doubtless already been for a considerable period in possession of the hill-country which rises between the Apulian and Campanian plains and commands them both, had hitherto found its further advance impeded on the one side by the Daunians, … on the other by the Greeks and Etruscans. But the fall of the Etruscan power towards the end of the third, and the decline of' the Greek colonies in the course of' the fourth century [B. C.], made room for them towards the west and south; and now one Samnite host after another marched down to, and even moved across, the south Italian seas. They first made their appearance in the plain adjoining the bay, with which the name of the Campanians has been associated from the beginning of the fourth century; the Etruscans there were suppressed, and the Greeks were confined within narrower bounds; Capua was wrested from the former [B. C. 424] Cumæ from the latter [B. C. 420]. About the same time, perhaps even earlier, the Lucanians appeared in Magna Graecia. … Towards the end of the fourth century mention first occurs of the separate confederacy of the Bruttii, who had detached themselves from the Lucanians—not, like the other Sabellian stocks, as a colony, but through a quarrel—and had become mixed up with many foreign elements. The Greeks of Lower Italy tried to resist the pressure of the barbarians. … But even the union of Magna Graecia no longer availed; for the ruler of Syracuse, Dionysius the Elder, made common cause with the Italians against his countrymen. … In an incredibly short time the circle of flourishing cities was destroyed or laid desolate. Only a few Greek settlements, such as Neapolis, succeeded with difficulty, and more by means of treaties than by force of arms, in preserving their existence and their nationality. Tarentum alone remained thoroughly independent and powerful. … About the period when Veii and the Pomptine plain came into the hands of Rome, the Samnite hordes were already in possession of all Lower Italy, with the exception of a few unconnected Greek colonies, and of the Apulo-Messapian coast."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 5.

SAMO, The Kingdom of.

See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.

{2798}

SAMOA.

Samoa is the native name of the group of twelve volcanic islands in central Polynesea formerly known as the Navigator Islands. Their place on the chart is between the parallels of 13° and 15° south latitude, and 168° and 173° west longitude. The total area of the islands is about 1,700 square miles. The population consists of about 36,000 natives and a few hundred foreigners, English, American and German. The islands are said to have been first visited by the Dutch navigator, Roggewein, in 1722. A Christian mission was first established upon them in 1830, by the London Missionary Society. After some years the trade of the islands became important, and German traders acquired an influence which they seem to have used to bring about a state of civil war between rival kings. The United States, Great Britain and Germany, at length, in 1879, by joint action, intervened, and, after ten years more of disturbed and unsatisfactory government, the affairs of Samoa were finally settled at a conference of the three Powers held in Berlin in 1889. A treaty was signed by which they jointly guarantee the neutrality of the islands, with equal rights of residence, trade and personal protection to the citizens of the three signatory Powers. They recognize the independence of the Samoan Government, and the free right of the natives to elect their chief or king and choose the form of their government. The treaty created a supreme court, with jurisdiction over all questions arising under it. It stopped the alienation of lands by the natives, excepting town lots in Apia, the capital town; and it organized a municipal government for Apia, with an elected council under the presidency of a magistrate appointed by the three Powers. Other articles impose customs duties on foreign importations, and prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to the natives.

Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1888 and 1889.

ALSO IN: The Statesman's Year-Book, 1894.

R. L. Stevenson, A Foot-note to History.

G. H. Bates, Some Aspects of the Samoan Question, and Our Relations to Samoa (The Century, April and May, 1889).

—————SAMOS: Start————

SAMOS. SAMIANS.

The island now called Samo, lying close to the coast of Asia Minor, in the part of the Ægean Sea which was anciently known as the Icarian Sea. It is of considerable size, being about eighty miles in circumference. The narrow strait which separates it from the mainland is only about three-fourths of a mile wide. The ancient Samians were early and important members of the Ionian confederacy [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES] and acquired an early prominence among Greek communities in navigation, commerce, colonizing enterprise and advancement in the arts. Shortly before the Persian wars, in the last half of the sixth century B. C. the island became subject to a profoundly able and ambitious usurper, Polycrates, the most famous of all the Greek "tyrants" of the age, and under whom Samos rose to great power and great splendor of development. "Samos was at that time the brilliant centre of all Ionia, as far as the latter was yet untouched by the barbarians. For such a position she was preeminently fitted: for nowhere had the national life of the Ionians attained to so many-sided and energetic a development as on this particular island. … An unwearying impulse for inventions was implanted in these islanders, and at the same time a manly and adventurous spirit of discovery, stimulated by the dangers of unknown seas. … Under Polycrates, Samos had become a perfectly organized piratical state; and no ship could quietly pursue its voyages without having first purchased a safe-conduct from Samos. … But Polycrates intended to be something more than a freebooter. After he had annihilated all attempts at resistance, and made his fleet the sole naval power of the Archipelago, he began to take steps for creating a new and lasting establishment. The defenceless places on the coast had to buy security by the regular payment of tribute; under his protection they united into a body, the interests and affairs of which came more and more to find their centre in Samos, which from a piratical state became the federal capital of an extensive and brilliant empire of coasts and islands."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2).

Two of the great works of Polycrates in Samos, the aqueduct, for which a mountain was tunnelled, and the harbor breakwater, were among the wonders of antiquity. The Heræum, or temple of Here, was a third marvel. After the death of Polycrates, treacherously murdered by the Persians, Samos became subject to Persia. At a later time it came under the sovereignty of Athens, and its subsequent history was full of vicissitudes. It retained considerable importance even to Roman times.

SAMOS: B. C. 440. Revolt from Athens. Siege and subjugation.

See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

SAMOS: B. C. 413. Overthrow of the oligarchy. Concession of freedom and alliance by Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

SAMOS: B. C. 33-32. Antony and Cleopatra.

The winter of B. C. 33-32. before the battle of Actium, was passed by Mark Antony at Samos, in company with Cleopatra, the Queen of Egypt. "The delicious little island was crowded with musicians, dancers and stage players; its shores resounded with the wanton strains of the flute and tabret."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 28.

SAMOS: A. D. 1824. Defeat of the Turks by the Greeks.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

—————SAMOS: End————

SAMOSATA.

See COMMAGENE.

SAMOTHRACE.

A mountainous island in the northern part of the Ægean sea, so elevated that its highest point is over 5,000 feet above the sea level. In ancient times it derived its chief importance from the mysteries of the little understood worship of the Cabiri, of which it seems to have been the chief seat.

G. S. Faber, Mysteries of the Cabiri

"The temple and mysteries of Samothrace formed a point of union for many men from all countries: for a great portion of the world at that time, the temple of Samothrace was like the Caaba of Mecca, the tomb of the prophet at Medina, or the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. Samothrace and Dodona were to the Pelasgian nations what perhaps Delphi and Delos were to the Hellenic world."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lecture 1.

SAN.

See ZOAN.

SAN ANTONIO, Battle of.

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

SAN CARLOS, Battle of.

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

SAN DOMINGO, OR HAYTI.

See HAYTI.

{2799}

—————SAN FRANCISCO: Start————

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1579. Supposed visit by Drake.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781; and AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1772-1776. First exploration and naming of the Bay. Founding of the Mission.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846. Possession taken by the Americans.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846. The naming of the Golden Gate. The great Bay.

See GOLDEN GATE.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1848. On the eve of the Gold discoveries.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1856. The Vigilance Committee.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1877-1880. Kearney and the Sand Lot Party.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

—————SAN FRANCISCO: End————

SAN FRANCISCO, Battle of (1879).

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

SAN JACINTO, Battle of (1836).

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

The treaty of 1846 which settled the Oregon boundary question left still in dispute the water-boundary between the territory of the United States and Vancouver's Island. Provision for submitting the determination of this San Juan water-boundary question, as it was called, to the Emperor of Germany was made in the Treaty of Washington.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

"The Emperor, it appears, referred the arguments on both sides to three experts, Dr. Grimm, Dr. Kiepert, and Dr. Goldschmidt, personages among the most eminent of his subjects in jurisprudence and in science, upon whose report he decided, on the 21st of October, 1872, in the terms of the reference, that the claim of the United States to have the line drawn through the Canal de Haro is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the treaty concluded on the 15th of June, 1846, between Great Britain and the United States. 'This Award,' says the President's Message of December 2, 1872, 'confirms the United States in their claim to the important archipelago of islands lying between the continent and Vancouver's Island, which for more than 26 years … Great Britain had contested, and leaves us, for the first time in the history of the United States as a nation, without a question of disputed boundary between our territory and the possessions of Great Britain on this continent.'"

C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington, page 222.

The Haro Archipelago, which formed the subject of dispute, is a group of many islands, mostly small, but containing one of considerable importance, namely the island of San Juan. The combined area of the islands is about 170 square miles. The archipelago is bounded on the north by the Canal de Haro and the Gulf of Georgia, on the east by Rosario Strait, on the west by the Canal de Haro, on the south by the Straits of Fuca. The entrance to the strait called the Canal de Haro is commanded by the Island of San Juan, which has, therefore, been called "'the Cronstadt of the Pacific.' Its position is such that a few batteries, skilfully placed, would render it almost impregnable." Hence the importance attached to the possession of this island, and especially on the part of Great Britain, looking to the future of British Columbia. By the decision of the Emperor of Germany the entire Archipelago became part of the recognized territory of the United States.

Viscount Milton, History of the San Juan Water Boundary Question [to 1869].

SAN MARINO, The Republic of.

"The Republic of San Marino is a survival unique in the political world of Europe. … The sovereign independence of San Marino is due to a series of happy accidents which were crystallised into a sentiment. The origin of the State is ascribed to a Dalmatian saint who fled from the early persecutions at Rome and dwelt in a hermitage on Mount Titanus. But it is impossible to believe that there was no earlier population. The mountain is a detached block standing free of the Apennines,—a short twelve miles from the sea-coast, easily defensible and commanding a fertile undulating district. The hill-villages must have existed before the towns of the coast. As old as Illyrian pirates were the highland townships of Verrucchio, San Leo, Urbino, Osimo, Loretto, and above all San Marino. Yet, but for the saint and his noble benefactress Felicitá, San Marino would have shared the fate of other highland communes. This lady was a Countess Matilda on a small scale. She gave to the young congregation the proprietorship of the mountain, and the lower table-land was acquired by subsequent purchase and by the generosity of Pope Æneas Sylvius. But Felicitá could not give sovereignty,—she could give no more than she possessed. The sovereignty had rested with the Roman Republic—the Empire—the Goths —the Greeks—the Germans. The Papacy itself had as much claim to San Marino as to anything which it possessed. It was included at all events in the donation of Pepin. In the Pontificate of John XXII. the Bishop of Feltro, who claimed the ownership of the town, proposed to sell it, partly because he needed money to restore his church, partly because the Sammarinesi were rebellious subjects,—'not recognising superiors here on earth, and perchance not believing upon a superior in heaven.' Yet the Papacy appears in the 13th century to have accepted a judicial decision as to the sovereign independence of the Republic, and Pius II. considerably increased its territory in 1463 at the expense of Sigismund Malatesta. The sovereignty of San Marino is therefore almost as complete a puzzle as that of the mysterious Royaume d' Yvetot. … The Malatestas, originally lords of the neighboring upland fortress of Verrucchio would willingly have made the whole ridge the backbone of their State of Rimini. But this very fact secured for the Sammarinesi the constant friendship of the lords of Urbino. … Neither power could allow the other to appropriate so invaluable a strategic position. … The existing constitution is a living lesson on medieval history. … Theoretically, sovereignty in the last resort belongs to the people, and of old this was practically exercised by the Arengo, which thus has some correspondence in meaning and functions to the Florentine Parlamento. The Sammarinesi, however, were wiser than the Florentines. When the increase of population and territory rendered a gathering of the whole people an incompetent engine of legislation, the Arengo was not allowed to remain as a mischievous survival with ill-defined authority at the mercy of the governmental wire-pullers. The prerogatives which were reserved to the Arengo were small but definite. … It was after the accession of territory granted by Pius II. in 1465 that the constitution of the State was fundamentally altered. … {2800} The people now delegated its sovereignty to the Council, which was raised to 60 members. … In 1600 an order of Patricians was established, to which was given one-third of the representation, and the Council now consists of 20 'nobili,' 20 'artisti,' artisans and shopkeepers, and 20 'contadini,' agriculturists. The harmony of the Republic is undisturbed by general elections, for the Council is recruited by co-optation. … At the head of the Executive stand the two Captains Regent. To them the statutes assign the sovereign authority and the power of the sword. … They draw a small salary, and during their six months of office are free from all State burdens."

E. Armstrong, A Political Survival (Macmillan's Magazine, January, 1891).

"Between this miniature country and its institutions there is a delicious disproportion. The little area of thin soil has for centuries maintained a complicated government. … There is a national post-office; there is an army of nine hundred and fifty men and eight officers; there are diplomatic agents in Paris and Montevideo, and consuls in various European cities. Services rendered to the State or to science may be rewarded by knighthood, and so late as 1876 San Marino expressed its gratitude to an English lady for her gift of a statue of liberty, by making her Duchess of Acquaviva. Titles are by no means the most undemocratic part of the republic. On examination it is seen to be in fact an oligarchy. … Yet an oligarchy among yeoman farmers is a very different thing from an oligarchy among merchant princes. San Marino may be compared with colonial Massachusetts. The few voters have always really represented the mass of the people. It has been a singularly united, courageous, honorable, public·spirited, and prudent people. Union was possible because it was and is a poor community, in which there were no powerful families to fight and expel each other, or exiles to come back with an enemy's army. The courage of the people is shown by their hospitality to Garibaldi when he was fleeing after his defeat of 1849. An excellent moral fibre was manifested when, in 1868, the Republic refused to receive the gambling establishments which had been made illegal in other countries. The new town-hall is a monument to the enlightened public spirit of the San Marinese, as well as to their taste. That the State is prudent is shown by its distinction, almost unique in Europe, of having no public debt. Other little states in Europe have had similar good qualities, yet have long since been destroyed. Why has San Marino outlived them all? … The perpetuation of the government is due in the first place to it singular freedom from any desire to extend its borders. The outlying villages have been added by gift or by their own free will; and when, in 1797, General Bonaparte invited the San Marinese to make their wishes known, 'if any part of the adjacent territory is absolutely necessary to you,' the hard-headed leaders declined 'an enlargement which might in time compromise their liberty.' On the other hand, the poor town had nothing worth plundering, and annexation was so difficult a task that Benedict XIV. said of Cardinal Alberoni's attempt in 1739: 'San Marino is a tough bread-crust; the man who tries to bite it gets his teeth broken.' Nevertheless, even peaceful and inoffensive communities were not safe during the last twelve centuries, without powerful protectors. The determining reason for the freedom of San Marino since 1300 has been the friendship of potentates, first of the neighboring Dukes of Urbino, then of the Popes, then of Napoleon, then of Italy. … When the kingdom of Italy was formed in 1860, no one cared to erase from the map a state which even the Pope had spared, and in which Europe was interested. Hence the San Marinese retained a situation comparable with that of the native states in India. A 'consolato' of the Italian Government resides in the town; the schools are assimilated to the Italian system; appeals may be had from the courts to the Italian upper courts, and precautions are taken to prevent the harboring of refugee criminals. Yet of the old sovereignty four important incidents are retained. San Marino has a post-office, a kind of national plaything; but the rare and beautiful stamps are much prized by collectors, and doubtless the sale helps the coffers of the state. The San Marinese manage, and well manage, their own local affairs, without any annoying interference from an Italian prefect. They owe no military service to Italy, and their own militia is no burden. Above all, they pay no taxes to Italy. If I were an Italian, I should like to be a San Marinese."

A. B. Hart, The Ancient Commonwealth of San Marino (The Nation, February 1, 1894).

SAN MARTIN, General Jose de, The liberation of Chile and Peru.

See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818; and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

SAN MARTINO, Battle of (1859).

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

SAN SALVADOR, Bahamas.

The name given by Columbus to the little island in the Bahama group which he first discovered, and the identity of which is in dispute.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

SAN SALVADOR, Central America: A. D. 1821-1871. Independence of Spain. Brief annexation to Mexico. Attempted Federations and their failure.

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

SAN STEFANO, Treaty of.

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.

SANCHO I., King of Aragon, A. D. 1063-1094;

SANCHO IV. of Navarre, A. D. 1076-1094.

SANCHO I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 955-967.

SANCHO I., King of Navarre, 905-925.

SANCHO I., King of Portugal, 1185-1211.

SANCHO II., King of Castile, 1065-1072.

SANCHO II. (called The Great), King of Navarre, 970-1035; and I. of Castile, 1026-1035.

SANCHO II., King of Portugal, 1223-1244.

SANCHO III., King of Castile, 1157-1158.

Sancho III., King of Navarre, 1054-1076.

SANCHO IV., King of Leon and Castile, 1284-1295.

SANCHO V., King of Navarre, 1150-1194.

SANCHO VI., King of Navarre, 1194-1236.

SAND LOT PARTY, The.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

{2801}

SANDEMANIANS.

Robert Sandeman "was a Scotchman who held peculiar religious views: such as—that an intellectual belief would ensure salvation, without faith; and that this intellectual belief was certain to induce Christian virtues. He held these so strongly and urgently that he made a small sect; and in 1764 he came to Connecticut, and founded churches at Danbury and at some other places, where his followers were called 'Sandemanians,' and where some traces of them exist still. … The followers of Robert Sandeman were nearly all Loyalists [at the time of the American Revolution], and many of them emigrated from Connecticut to New Brunswick."

C. W. Elliott, The New England History., volume 2. page 370.

SANDJAKS, SANJAKS.

See BEY; also TIMAR.

SANDJAR, Seljuk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1116-1157.

SANDWICH ISLANDS, The.

See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

SANGALA.

An ancient city in the Punjab, India, which was the easternmost of all the conquests of Alexander the Great. He took the town by storm (B. C. 326), slaying 17,000 of the inhabitants and taking 70,000 captives.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 94.

SANHEDRIM, The.

"Beside the priesthood [of the Jewish church], ever since the time of Ezra, there had been insensibly growing a body of scholars, who by the time of Herod had risen to a distinct function of the State. Already under John Hyrcanus there was a judicial body known as the House of Judgment (Beth Din). To this was given the Macedonian title of Synedrion [or Synhedrion], transformed into the barbarous Hebrew word Sanhedrim, or Sanhedrin."

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 50.

"The Sanhedrin was the great court of judicature; it judged of all capital offences against the law; it had the power of inflicting punishment by scourging and by death. … The Great Sanhedrin was a court of appeal from the inferior Sanhedrins of twenty-three judges established in the other towns. The Sanhedrin was probably confined to its judicial duties —it was a plenary court of justice, and no more during the reigns of the later Asmonean princes, and during those of Herod the Great and his son Archelaus. … When Judæa became a Roman province, the Sanhedrin either, as is more likely, assumed for the first time, or recovered its station as a kind of senate or representative body of the nation. … At all events, they seem to have been the channel of intercourse between the Roman rulers and the body of the people. It is the Sanhedrin, under the name of the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people, who take the lead in all the transactions recorded in the Gospels. Jesus Christ was led before the Sanhedrin, and by them denounced before the tribunal of Pilate."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 12.

SANHIKANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SANITARY COMMISSION, and Christian Commission, The United States.

"Soon after Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation [April 15, 1861, at the outbreak of the American Civil War] … calling for 75,000 soldiers, many good men and women instituted what they termed 'Soldiers' Aid Societies.' At first the government did not look upon these with approval, under an apprehension that they might interfere with the discipline and efficiency of the armies. Certain physicians and clergymen who had interested themselves in these charitable undertakings perceived how much good could be accomplished by a more extensive and thorough organization. Seeking no remuneration, they applied to the government to give them recognition and moral support, and, after some difficulty, this being secured, they organized themselves and were recognized as 'the United States Sanitary Commission.' The Reverend Henry W. Bellows, D. D., was its president. Their intention was to aid by their professional advice the medical department of the government service; but soon, the field opening out before them, their operations were greatly enlarged. From being simply an advisory, they became more and more an executive body. … The Sanitary Commission now entered on an extraordinary career of usefulness. It ranged itself in affiliation with the government medical bureau. It gathered supporters from all classes of the people. … Soon the commission had an independent transportation of its own. It had hospital transports, wagons, ambulances, railroad ambulances, cars. Ingenious men devised for it inventions of better litters, better stretchers, better ambulances. It secured comfortable transportation for the wounded soldier from the battle-field to the hospital. On the railroad it soon had its hospital cars, with kitchen, dispensary, and a surgeon's car in the midst. As its work increased, so did its energies and the singular efficiency of its organization. It divided its services into several departments of duty.

(1.) Its preventive service, or sanitary inspection department, had a corps of medical inspectors, who examined thoroughly troops in the field, and reported their condition and needs to its own officers and to the government. It had also a corps of special hospital inspectors, who visited the general hospitals of the army, nearly 300 in number, their reports being confidential, and sent to the surgeon general of the army.

(2.) Its department of general relief. This consisted of twelve branches of the general commission, having depots in the large towns, each branch having from 150 to 1,200 auxiliaries engaged in obtaining supplies. These were sent to the main depot, and there assorted, repacked, and dispatched. One of these branches, the 'Woman's Central Association,' collected stores to the value of over a million of dollars; another, the Northwestern, at Chicago, furnished more than a quarter of a million. Care was taken to have no waste in the distribution. Soldiers of all the states were equally supplied; and even wounded enemies left on the field, or sick and abandoned in the hospitals, were tenderly cared for.

(3.) Its department of special relief. This took under its charge soldiers not yet under, or just out of the care of the government; men on sick leave, or found in the streets, or left by their regiments. For such it furnished 'homes.' About 7,500 men were, on an average, thus daily or nightly accommodated. It also had 'lodges' wherein a sick soldier might stay while awaiting his pay from the paymaster general, or, if unable to reach a hospital, might stop for a time. Still more, it had 'Homes for the Wives, Mothers, and Children of Soldiers.' where those visiting the wounded or sick man to minister to his necessities might find protection, defense, food, shelter. It had its 'Feeding Stations,' where a tired and hungry soldier passing by could have a gratuitous meal. On the great military lines these stations were permanently established. On the chief rivers, the Mississippi, the Cumberland, the Potomac, it had 'sanitary steamers' for transmitting supplies and transporting the sick and wounded. It established 'agencies' to see that no injustice was done to any soldier; that the soldier, his widow, his orphan, obtained pensions, back pay, bounties, or whatever money was due; that any errors in their papers were properly corrected, and especially that no sharper took advantage of them. It instituted hospital directories by which the friends of a soldier could obtain information without cost as to his place and condition, if within a year he had been an inmate of any hospital. It had such a record of not less than 900,000 names. Whenever permitted to do so, it sent supplies to the United States prisoners of war in confinement at Andersonville, Salisbury, Richmond. …

{2802}

(4.) Its department of field relief. The duty of this was to minister to the wounded on the field of battle; to furnish bandages, cordials, nourishment; to give assistance to the surgeons, and to supply any deficiencies it could detect in the field hospitals. It had a chief inspector for the armies of the East; another for the Military Department of the Mississippi, with a competent staff for each.

(5.) Its auxiliary relief corps. This supplied deficiencies in personal attendance and work in the hospitals, or among the wounded on the field. Between May, 1864, when it was first organized, and January, 1865, it gave its services to more than 75,000 patients. It waited on the sick and wounded; wrote letters for them, gave them stationery, postage stamps, newspapers, and whiled away the heavy hours of suffering by reading magazines and books to them. To the Sanitary Commission the government gave a most earnest support; the people gave it their hearts. They furnished it with more than three millions of dollars in money, of which one million came from the Pacific States; they sent it nine millions' worth of supplies. From fairs held in its interest very large sums were derived. One in New York yielded a million and a quarter of dollars; one in Philadelphia more than a million. In towns comparatively small, there were often collected at such fairs more than twenty thousand dollars. … The Christian Commission emulated the noble conduct of the United States Sanitary Commission. It, too, received the recognition and countenance of the government. Its object was to promote the physical and spiritual welfare of soldiers and sailors. Its central office was in Philadelphia, but it had agencies in all the large towns. 'It aided the surgeon, helped the chaplain, followed the armies in their marches, went into the trenches and along the picket-line. Wherever there was a sick, a wounded, a dying man, an agent of the Christian Commission was near by.' It gave Christian burial whenever possible; it marked the graves of the dead. It had its religious services, its little extemporized chapels, its prayer-meetings. The American Bible Society gave it Bibles and Testaments; the Tract Society its publications. The government furnished its agents and supplies free transportation; it had the use of the telegraph for its purposes. Steamboat and railroad companies furthered its objects with all their ability. It distributed nearly five millions of dollars in money and supplies."

J. W. Draper, History of the American Civil War, chapter 87 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: L. P. Brockett, Woman's Work in the Civil War.

Mrs. M, A. Livermore, My Story of the War.

K. P. Wormeley, The Other Side of the War.

The Sanitary Commission: its Works and Purposes.

J. S. Newberry, The U. S. Sanitary Commission in the Mississippi Valley.

L. Moss, Annals of the United States Christian Commission.

SANITARY SCIENCE AND LEGISLATION.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

SANJAKS, SANDJAKS.

See BEY; also TIMAR.

SANQUHAR DECLARATION, The.

The Declaration affixed by the Cameronians to the market-cross of Sanquhar, in 1680, renouncing allegiance to King Charles II.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

SANS ARCS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SANSCULOTTES.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

SANSCULOTTIDES. of the French Republican Calendar, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER) THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

SANSKRIT.

"The name Sanskrit as applied to the ancient language of the Hindus is an artificial designation for a highly elaborated form of the language originally brought by the Indian branch of the great Aryan race into India. This original tongue soon became modified by contact with the dialects of the aboriginal races who preceded the Aryans, and in this way converted into the peculiar language ('bhasha') of the Aryan immigrants who settled in the neighbourhood of the seven rivers of the Panjab and its outlying districts ('Sapta-Sindhavas'=in Zand 'Hapta Hendu'). The most suitable name for the original language thus moulded into the speech of the Hindus is Hindu-i (= Sindhu-i), its principal later development being called Hindi, just as the Low German dialect of the Saxons when modified in England was called Anglo-Saxon. But very soon that happened in India which has come to pass in all civilized countries. The spoken language, when once its general form and character had been settled, separated into two lines, the one elaborated by the learned, the other popularized and variously provincialized by the unlearned. In India, however, … this separation became more marked, more diversified, and progressively intensified. Hence, the very grammar which with other nations was regarded only as a means to an end, came to be treated by Indian Pandits as the end itself, and was subtilized into an intricate science, fenced around by a bristling barrier of technicalities. The language, too, elaborated 'pari passu' with the grammar, rejected the natural name of Hindu-i, or 'the speech of the Hindus,' and adopted an artificial designation, viz. Sanskrita, 'the perfectly constructed speech,' … to denote its complete severance from vulgar purposes, and its exclusive dedication to religion and literature; while the name Prakrita—which may mean 'the original' as well as 'the derived' speech—was assigned to the common dialect."

M. Williams, Indian Wisdom., introduction, page xxviii.

SANTA ANNA, The career of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826, to 1848-1861, and TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

SANTA HERMANDAD.

See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

SANTA INES, Battle of (1859).

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

{2803}

SANTA LUCIA, Battle of (1848).

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

SANTALS, The.

See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

SANTAREM, Battle of (1184).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

SANTEES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SANTIAGO, The founding of the city (1541).

See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

SANTIAGO. OR ST. JAGO, Knights of the Order of.

See CALATRAVA.

SANTONES, The.

See PICTONES.

SAPAUDIA. The early name of Savoy.

See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.

SAPEIRES, The.

See IBERIANS, EASTERN.

SAPIENZA, OR PORTOLONGO; Battle of (1354).

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

SARACENIC EMPIRE.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

SARACENIC SCHOOLS.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

SARACENS, The name.

"From Mecca to the Euphrates, the Arabian tribes were confounded by the Greeks and Latins under the general appellation of Saracens. … The name which, used by Ptolemy and Pliny in a more confined, by Ammianus and Procopius in a larger, sense, has been derived, ridiculously, from Sarah, the wife of Abraham, obscurely from the village of Saraka, … more plausibly from the Arabic words which signify a thievish character, or Oriental situation. … Yet the last and most popular of these etymologies is refuted by Ptolemy (Arabia, p. 2. 18. in Hudson, tom. iv.), who expressly remarks the western and southern position of the Saracens, then an obscure tribe on the borders of Egypt. The appellation cannot, therefore, allude to any national character; and, since it was imposed by strangers, it must be found, not in the Arabic, but in a foreign language."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 50, and note.

"Dr. Clarke (Travels, volume ii., page 391) after expressing contemptuous pity for Gibbon's ignorance, derives the word from Zara, Zaara, Sara, the Desert, whence Saraceni, the children of the Desert. De Marlès adopts the derivation from Sarrik, a robber, History des Arabes, volume 1, page 36; St. Martin from Scharkioun, or Sharkün, Eastern, volume xi., page 55."

H. Milman, note to Gibbon, as above.

The Kadmonites "are undoubtedly what their name expresses, Orientals, Saracens, otherwise B'ne Kedem,' or Suns of the East; a name restricted in practice to the cast contiguous to Palestine, and comprising only the Arabian nations dwelling between Palestine and the Euphrates. … The name Saraceni was in use among the Romans long before Islam, apparently from the time of Trajan's and Hadrian's wars."

H. Ewald, History of Israel, introduction, section 4, with foot-note (volume 1).

In the Middle Ages the term Saracen became common in its application to the Arabs, and, in fact, to the Mahometan races pretty generally.

See ROME: A. D. 96-138.

—————SARAGOSSA: Start————

SARAGOSSA: Origin.

See CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 543. Siege by the Franks.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 713. Siege and conquest by the Arab-Moors.

See SPAIN: A. D.711-713.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 778. Siege by Charlemagne.

See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1012-1146. The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1710.- Defeat of the Spaniards by the Allies.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808. Fruitless siege by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808-1809. Siege and capture by the French. Extraordinary defense of the city.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809. Siege by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809. Battle and Spanish defeat.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

—————SARAGOSSA: End————

SARANGIANS.

The name given by Herodotus to a warlike people who dwelt anciently on the shores of the Hamun and in the Valley of the Hilmend—southwestern Afghanistan. By the later Greeks they were called Zarangians and Drangians; by the Persians Zaraka.

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).

SARATOGA, Burgoyne's surrender at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SARATOGA, The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

SARCEES (TINNEH).

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET, AND ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

—————SARDINIA: Start————

SARDINIA (The Island): Name and early history.

"The name of the island 'Sardo' is derived with probability from the Phœnician, and describes its resemblance to the human footstep. … Diodorus reckons this island among the places to which the Phœnicians sent colonies, after they had enriched themselves by the silver of Spain. … What the primitive population of the island was, which the Phœnicians found there when they touched at its southern ports on their way to Spain, whether it had come from the coast of Italy, or Africa, we can only conjecture. In historical times it appears to have been derived from three principal sources,—immigrations from Africa, represented by the traditions of Sardus and Aristæus; from Greece, represented by Iolaus, and from the south and south-east of Spain, represented by Norax. … The name Norax has evidently a reference to those singular remains of ancient architecture, the Nuraghi of Sardinia,—stone towers in the form of a truncated cone, with a spiral staircase in the thickness of the wall, which to the number of 3,000 are scattered over the island, chiefly in the southern and western parts. Nothing entirely analogous to these has been found in any other part of the world; but they resemble most the Athalayas [or Talajots] of Minorca, whose population was partly Iberian, partly Libyan. … The Carthaginians, at the time when their naval power was at its height, in the sixth and fifth centuries B. C., subdued all the level country, the former inhabitants taking refuge among the mountains, where their manners receded towards barbarism."

J. Kenrick, Phœnicia, chapter 4, section 3.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1017. Conquest from the Saracens by the Pisans and Genoese.

See PISA: ORIGIN OF THE CITY.

{2804}

SARDINIA: A. D. 1708. Taken by the Allies.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1713. Ceded to the Elector of Bavaria with the title of King.

See UTRECHT: A.D. 1712-1714.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1714. Exchanged with the emperor for the Upper Palatinate.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1717. Retaken by Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1719.

Given up by Spain and acquired by the Duke of Savoy in exchange for Sicily, giving its name to his kingdom.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; also ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

—————SARDINIA: End————

—————SARDINIA (The Kingdom): Start————

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1742. The king joins Austria in the War of the Austrian Succession.

See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743. Treaty of Worms, with Austria and England.

See ITALY: A. D. 1743.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743. The Bourbon Family Compact against the king.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1774. The War of the Austrian Succession: French and Spanish invasion of Piedmont.

See ITALY: A. D. 1744.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1745. The War of the Austrian Succession: Overwhelming reverses.

See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1746-1747. The War of the Austrian Succession: The French and Spaniards driven out.

See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1748. Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1792. Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1793. Joined in the Coalition against Revolutionary France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1794. Passes of the Alps secured by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1795. French victory at Loano.

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

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1796. Submission to the French under Bonaparte. Treaty of peace. Cession of Savoy to the Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1798. Piedmont taken by the French. Its sovereignty relinquished by the king.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1799. French evacuation of Piedmont.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1800. Recovery of Piedmont by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1802. Annexation of part of Piedmont to France.

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

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1814-1815. The king recovers his kingdom. Annexation of Genoa. Cession of part of Savoy to France.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF: also FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1815. Accession to the Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1820-1821. Abortive revolutionary rising and war with Austria. The defeat at Novara.

See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1831. Death of Charles Felix. Accession of Charles Albert.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1848-1849. Alliance with insurgent Lombardy and Venetia. War with Austria. Defeat. Abdication of Charles Albert. Accession of Victor Emmanuel II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1855. In the Alliance of the Crimean War against Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1856-1870. The great work of Count Cavour and King Victor Emmanuel. Liberation of the whole Peninsula and creation of the kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, to 1867-1870.

—————SARDINIA (The Kingdom): End————

SARDIS.

When Cyrus the Great founded the Persian empire by the overthrow of that of the Medes, B. C. 558, his first enterprise of conquest, outside of the Median dominion, was directed against the kingdom of Lydia, then, under its famous king Crœsus, dominant in Asia Minor and rapidly increasing in wealth and power. After an indecisive battle, Crœsus retired to his capital city, Sardis, which was then the most splendid city of Asia Minor, and was followed by Cyrus, who captured and plundered the town, at the end of a siege of only fourteen days. The fall of Sardis was the fall of the Lydian kingdom, which was absorbed into the great empire of Persia.

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 7.

Fifty-eight years later (about 500 B. C.) at the beginning of the Ionian Revolt, when the Greek cities of Asia Minor attempted to throw off the Persian yoke, Sardis was again plundered and burned by an invading force of Ionians and Athenians.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 14.

See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SARGASSO SEA, The.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

SARISSA, The.

See PHALANX.

SARK, Battle of (1448).

This was a severe defeat inflicted by the Scots upon an English force, invading Scottish territory, under Lord Percy. The English lost 3,000 men and Percy was taken prisoner.

Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland. chapter 19.

SARMATIA. SARMATIANS.

"The Scythians of the time of Herodotus were separated only by the river Tanais [modern Don] from the Sarmatians, who occupied the territory for several days' journey north-cast of the Palus Mæôtis; on the south, they were divided by the Danube from the section of Thracians called Getæ. Both these nations were nomadic, analogous to the Scythians in habits, military efficiency, and fierceness. Indeed, Herodotus and Hippokrates distinctly intimate that the Sarmatians were nothing but a branch of Scythians, speaking a Scythian dialect, and distinguished from their neighbours on the other side of the Tanais chiefly by this peculiarity,—that the women among them were warriors hardly less daring and expert than the men."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 17.

The Sarmatians ultimately gave their name to the whole region of northeastern Europe, and some writers have considered them to be, not Scythic or Mongolic in race, but progenitors of the modern Slavonic family. "By Sarmatia [Tacitus] seems to have understood what is now Moldavia and Wallachia, and perhaps part of the south of Russia."

Church and Brodribb, Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

{2805}

SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

It was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus that the inroads of the barbarians along the Danubian frontier of the Roman Empire began to be seriously frequent and bold. "It is represented as a simultaneous, and even a combined attack, of all the races on the northern frontier, who may be ranged under the three national divisions of Germans, Scythians, and Sarmatians; though we may question the fact of an actual league among tribes so many, so various, and so distant." The Marcomanni and the Quadi on the upper Danube, and the Sarmatian tribes on the lower, were the prominent intruders, and the campaigns which Aurelius conducted against them, A. D. 167-180, are generally called either the Marcomannian or the Sarmatian Wars. During these thirteen years, the noblest of all monarchs surrendered repeatedly the philosophic calm which he loved so well, and gave himself to the hateful business of frontier war, vainly striving to arrest in its beginning the impending flood of barbaric invasion. Repeatedly, he won the semblance of a peace with the unrelenting foe, and as repeatedly it was broken. He died in his soldier's harness, at Vindobona (Vienna), and happily did not live to witness the peace . which Rome, in the end, stooped to buy from the foes she had no more strength to overcome.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 68.

ALSO IN: P. B. Watson, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, chapters 4-6.

See, also, THUNDERING LEGION.

SARN HELEN, The.

A Roman road running through Wales, called by the Welsh the Sarn Helen, or road of Helen, from a notion that the Empress Helena caused it to be made.

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

SARPI, Fra Paolo, and the contest of Venice with the Papacy.

See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.

SARRE-LOUIS: A. D. 1680. The founding of the city.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

SARUS, Battle of the.

One of the victories of the Emperor Heraclius, A. D. 625, in his war with the Persians.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 24.

SASKATCHEWAN, The district of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

SASSANIAN DYNASTY.

Artaxerxes I., who resurrected the Persian empire, or called a new Persian empire into existence, A. D. 226, by the overthrow of the Parthian monarchy and the subjection of its dominions, founded a dynasty which took the name of the Sassanian, or the family of the Sassanidæ, from one Sasan, who, according to some accounts was the father, according to others a remoter progenitor of Artaxerxes. This second Persian monarchy is, itself, often called the Sassanian, to distinguish it from the earlier Achæmenian Persian empire.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy.

See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

SASTEAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.

SATOLLI, Apostolic Delegate in America.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1892.

SATRAP. SATRAPIES.

Darius Hystaspis "has been well called 'the true founder of the Persian state.' He found the Empire a crude and heterogeneous mass of ill-assorted elements, hanging loosely together by the single tie of subjection to a common head; he left it a compact and regularly organized body, united on a single well-ordered system, permanently established everywhere. … It was the first, and probably the best, instance of that form of government which, taking its name from the Persian word for provincial ruler, is known generally as the system of 'satrapial' administration. Its main principles were, in the first place, the reduction of the whole Empire to a quasi-uniformity by the substitution of one mode of governing for several; secondly, the substitution of fixed and definite burthens on the subject in lieu of variable and uncertain calls; and thirdly, the establishment of a variety of checks and counterpoises among the officials to whom it was necessary that the crown should delegate its powers. … The authority instituted by Darius was that of his satraps. He divided the whole Empire into a number of separate governments—a number which must have varied at different times, but which seems never to have fallen short of twenty. Over each government he placed a satrap, or supreme civil governor, charged with the collection and transmission of the revenue, the administration of justice, the maintenance of order, and the general supervision of the territory. These satraps were nominated by the king at his pleasure from any class of his subjects, and held office for no definite term, but simply until recalled, being liable to deprivation or death at any moment, without other formality than the presentation of the royal 'firman.' While, however, they remained in office they were despotic—they represented the Great King, and were clothed with a portion of his majesty. … They wielded the power of life and death. They assessed the tribute on the several towns and villages within their jurisdiction at their pleasure, and appointed deputies—called sometimes, like themselves, satraps—over cities or districts within their province, whose office was regarded as one of great dignity. … Nothing restrained their tyranny but such sense of right as they might happen to possess, and the fear of removal or execution if the voice of complaint reached the monarch."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 7.

SATTAGYDÆ, The.

See GEDROSIANS.

SATURNALIA, The Roman.

"The Saturnalia, first celebrated in Rome at the dedication [of the temple of Saturn, on the southern slope of the Capitoline Hill] … extended originally over three, but finally over seven days, during which all social distinctions were ignored; slaves were admitted to equality with their masters; and the chains which the emancipated from slavery used to hang, as thanksgiving, on or below the statue of the god, were taken down to intimate that perfect freedom had been enjoyed by all alike under the thrice-happy Saturnian reign. Varro mentions the practice of sending wax tapers as presents during this festival; and when we remember the other usage of suspending wax masks, during the Saturnalia, in a chapel beside the temple of the beneficent Deity, the analogies between these equalizing fêtes and the modern Carnival become more apparent."

C. I. Hemans, Historic and Monumental Rome, chapter 6.

SAUCHIE BURN, Battle of (1488).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.

{2806}

SAUCY CASTLE.

See CHÂTEAU GAILLARD.

SAUK, OR SAC, Indians.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS.

SAULCOURT, Battle of (A. D. 881).

A notable defeat inflicted upon the invading Northmen or Danes in 881 by the French king Louis III., one of the last of the Carolingian line. The battle is commemorated in a song which is one of the earliest specimens of Teutonic verse.

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

SAULT STE. MARIE, The Jesuit mission at.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

SAULTEUR, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAYS.

SAUMUR: Stormed by the Vendeans.

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

SAUROMATÆ, The.

See SCYTHIANS.

SAVAGE STATION, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1732. The founding of the city.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1775-1776. Activity of the Liberty Party.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1778. Taken and occupied by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779 WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1779. Unsuccessful attack by the French and Americans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1861. Threatened by the Union forces, in occupation of the islands at the mouth of the river.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1862. Reduction of Fort Pulaski by the national forces, and sealing up of the port.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1864. Confederate evacuation. Sherman in possession.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

SAVANNAHS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SAVENAY, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) THE CIVIL WAR.

SAVERNE: Taken by Duke Bernhard (1636).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SAVERY, Thomas, and the Steam Engine.

See STEAM ENGINE.

SAVONA, The Pope at.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

SAVONAROLA, in Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: The founding of the Burgundian kingdom in Savoy.

See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11th Century. The founders of the House of Savoy.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11-15th Centuries. Rise and growth of the dominions of the Savoyard princes, in Italy and the Burgundian territory. Creation of the duchy. Assumption of the title of Princes of Piedmont.

"The cradle of the Savoyard power lay in the Burgundian lands immediately bordering upon Italy and stretching on both sides of the Alps. It was to their geographical position, as holding several great mountain passes, that the Savoyard princes owed their first importance, succeeding therein in some measure to the Burgundian kings themselves. The early stages of the growth of the house are very obscure; and its power does not seem to have formed itself till after the union of Burgundy with the Empire. But it seems plain that, at the end of the 11th century, the Counts of Maurienne, which was their earliest title, held rights of sovereignty in the Burgundian districts of Maurienne, Savoy strictly so called, Tarantaise, and Aosta. … The early Savoyard possessions reached to the Lake of Geneva, and spread on both sides of the inland mouth of the Rhone. The power of the Savoyard princes in this region was largely due to their ecclesiastical position as advocates of the abbey of Saint Maurice. Thus their possessions had a most irregular outline, nearly surrounding the lands of Genevois and Faucigny. A state of this shape, like Prussia in a later age and on a greater scale, was, as it were, predestined to make further advances. But for some centuries those advances were made much more largely in Burgundy than in Italy. The original Italian possessions of the House bordered on their Burgundian counties of Maurienne and Aosta, taking in Susa and Turin. This small marchland gave its princes the sounding title of Marquesses in Italy. … In the 12th and 13th centuries, the princes of Savoy were still hemmed in, in their own corner of Italy, by princes of equal or greater power, at Montferrat, at Saluzzo, at Iverea, and at Biandrate. And it must be remembered that their position as princes at once Burgundian and Italian was not peculiar to them. … The Italian dominions of the family remained for a long while quite secondary to its Burgundian possessions. … The main object of Savoyard policy in this region was necessarily the acquisition of the lands of Faucigny and the Genevois. But the final incorporation of those lands did not take place till they were still more completely hemmed in by the Savoyard dominions through the extension of the Savoyard power to the north of the Lake. This began early in the 13th century [1207] by a royal grant of Moudon to Count Thomas of Savoy. Romont was next won, and became the centre of the Savoyard power north of the Lake. Soon after, through the conquests of Peter of Savoy [1263-1268], who was known as the Little Charlemagne and who plays a part in English as well as in Burgundian history, these possessions grew into a large dominion, stretching along a great part of the shores of the Lake of Neufchâtel and reaching as far north as Murten or Morat. … This new dominion north of the Lake was, after Peter's reign, held for a short time by a separate branch of the Savoyard princes as Barons of Vaud; but in the middle of the 14th century, their barony came into the direct possession of the elder branch of the house. The lands of Faucigny and the Genevois were thus altogether surrounded by the Savoyard territory. Faucigny had passed to the Dauphins of the Viennois, who were the constant rivals of the Savoyard counts, down to the time of the practical transfer of their dauphiny to France. Soon after that annexation, Savoy obtained Faucigny, with Gex and some other districts beyond the Rhone, in exchange for some small Savoyard possessions within the dauphiny. {2807} The long struggle for the Genevois, the county of Geneva, was ended by its purchase in the beginning of the 15th century [1401]. This left the city of Geneva altogether surrounded by Savoyard territory, a position which before long altogether changed the relations between the Savoyard counts and the city. Hitherto, in the endless struggles between the Genevese counts, bishops, and citizens, the Savoyard counts … had often been looked on by the citizens as friends and protectors. Now that they had become immediate neighbours of the city, they began before long to be its most dangerous enemies. The acquisition of the Genevois took place in the reign of the famous Amadeus, the Eighth, the first Duke of Savoy, who received that rank by grant of King Siegmund [1417], and who was afterwards the Anti-pope Felix.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.

In his reign the dominions of Savoy, as a power ruling on both sides of the Alps, reached their greatest extent. But the Savoyard power was still pre-eminently Burgundian, and Chambery was its capital. The continuous Burgundian dominion of the house now reached from the Alps to the Saône, surrounding the lake of Geneva and spreading on both sides of the lake of Neufchâtel. Besides this continuous Burgundian dominion, the House of Savoy had already become possessed [1388] of Nizza, by which their dominions reached to the sea. … After the 15th century, the Burgundian history of that house consists of the steps spread over more than 300 years by which this great dominion was lost. The real importance of the house of Savoy in Italy dates from much the same time as the great extension of its power in Burgundy. … During the 14th century, among many struggles with the Marquesses of Montferrat and Saluzzo, the Angevin counts of Provence, and the lords of Milan, the Savoyard power in Italy generally increased. … Before the end of the reign of Amadeus [the Eighth—1391-1451], the dominions of Savoy stretched as far as the Sesia, taking in Biella, Santhia and VerceIli. Counting Nizza and Aosta as Italian, which they now practically were, the Italian dominions of the House reached from the Alps of Wallis to the sea. But they were nearly cut in two by the dominions of the Marquesses of Montferrat, from whom however the Dukes of Savoy now claimed homage. … Amadeus, the first Duke of Savoy, took the title of Count of Piedmont, and afterwards that of Prince. His possessions were now fairly established as a middle state, Italian and Burgundian, in nearly equal proportions."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 8, section 7.

ALSO IN: A. Gallenga, History of Piedmont, volume 1, chapters 6-9, volume 2, chapters 1-6.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1452-1454. Alliance with Venice and Naples. War with Milan and Florence.

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1504-1535. Struggles with the independent burghers of Geneva. Loss of the Vidommate.

See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1536-1544. Conquest by the French and restoration to the Duke by the Treaty of Crespy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580. End of the French occupation. Recovery of his dominions by Emanuel Philibert. His reconstruction of the state. Treaties with the Swiss. War with the Waldenses. Tolerant Treaty of Cavour. Settlement of government at Turin.

"The history of Piedmont begins where the history of Italy terminates. At the Peace of Chateau-Cambresis], in 1559, Piedmont was born again.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

Under Amadeus VIII. Savoy bade fair to become a State of the very first order. In the course of a century it had sunk to a third-rate power. … Piedmont, utterly prostrated by five-and-twenty years of foreign occupation, laid waste by the trampling of all the armies of Europe, required now the work of a constructive genius, and Emanuel Philibert was providentially fitted for the task. No man could better afford to be pacific than the conqueror of St. Quintin. …

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

After the battle of St. Quintin, Emanuel Philibert had France at his discretion. Had his counsels been instantly followed, the Spanish army would have dictated its own terms before or within the walls of Paris. … The reconciliation of France with the hero who had alarmed and humbled her seemed, nevertheless, to be sincere." Under the terms of the treaty, the Duke of Savoy's dominions, occupied by the French, were to be restored to him, except that Turin, Chieri, Chivasso, Pinerolo, and Villanova d' Asti, with part of their territories, "were to be occupied for three years, or until the settlement of the differences between the two Courts, chiefly with regard to the dowry of Louisa of Savoy, mother of Francis I., the original cause of dispute. … So long as France insisted on keeping the five above-mentioned places, Spain was also empowered to retain Asti and Vercelli." Philip II., however, gave up VerceIli and "contented himself with the occupation of Asti and Santia." The differences with France proved hard of settlement, and it was not until 1574 that "Emanuel Philibert found himself in possession of all his Subalpine dominions. No words can describe the meanness and arrogance by which the French aggravated this prolonged usurpation of their neighbour's territories. … Had Emanuel Philibert put himself at the head of one of [the factions which fought in France at this time] … he might have paid back … the indignities he had had to endure; but his mission was the restoration of his own State, not the subjugation of his neighbour's. … The same moderation and longanimity which enabled Emanuel Philibert to avoid a collision with France, because be deemed it unreasonable, equally distinguished him in his relations with his neighbours of Italy. There was now, alas! no Italy; the country had fallen a prey to the Spanish branch of the House of Austria, and the very existence of Mantua, Parma, Tuscany, etc., was at the mercy of Philip II. … This 'most able and most honest of all the princes of his line' was fully aware of the importance of his position as the 'bulwark of Italy,' and felt that on his existence hung the fate of such states in the Peninsula as still aspired to independence. 'I know full well,' he said in a moment of cordial expansion, 'that these foreigners are all bent on the utter destruction of Italy, and that I may be the first immolated; but my fall can be indifferent to no Italian state, and least of all to Venice.' Full of these thoughts, he was unwearied in his endeavours to secure the friendship of that republic. … The same instinctive dread of the crushing ascendancy of Spain and France, which made Emanuel Philibert cling to the Venetian alliance, equally urged him to settle, no matter at what cost, the differences with the other old allies of his house—the Swiss. The Pays de Vaud, Gex, Chablais, and Lower Valais were still in the power of the confederates.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.

{2808}

It was not without a murmur that the Duke of Savoy could part with so fair a portion of his forefathers' inheritance; but it was not long ere he learnt to resign all hope of its recovery. A new generation had sprung up in those provinces, amongst whom all loyalty to Savoy had died off. The Bernese had introduced the Reformation into the conquered lands. … Political freedom went hand in hand with religious innovation. … Geneva was the very head-quarters of reform; it was proud of the appellation of the 'Rome of Calvinism.' … Emanuel Philibert, ill-supported by Spain and thwarted by France, laid aside all ideas of an appeal to force, and trusted his cause to negotiation. There was happily division in the enemy's camp; religious difference had set the old forest cantons into opposition with Berne and her Protestant associates. The Duke of Savoy made a treaty at Lucerne (November 11, 1560) with Schwytz, Uri, Unterwald, Zug, Lucerne, Soleure, and even Zurich; and these promised their good offices with their Protestant brethren in behalf of Savoy. Lengthy and somewhat stormy conferences ensued, the result of which was the treaty of Lausanne (October 30, 1564); by the terms of which Berne retained Vaud, and Friburg Romont, and Savoy only recovered Gex and Chablais. At a later period (March 4th, 1569) Valais also came to terms at Thonon; it gave up its own share of Chablais, but remained in possession of Lower Valais. By the recovery of Gex and Chablais Savoy now encompassed Geneva on all sides, and caused that town incessant uneasiness; but the Duke … was … earnestly bent on peace, and he reassured the Genevese by new treaties, signed at Berne (May 5th, 1570), by which he engaged to give no molestation to Geneva. These same treaties bound Savoy to allow freedom of conscience and worship to those of her subjects who had embraced Protestantism during the Swiss occupation; and we hear, in fact, of no persecutions in the provinces round the Leman in Emanuel Philibert's lifetime; but it is important to inquire how that Prince dealt in these matters with his subjects in general. … We hear from several authorities that 'the Piedmontese were more than half Protestants.' The Waldensian ministers reckoned their sectaries at the foot of the Alps at 800,000. … The Waldenses considered the prevalence of the new tenets as their own triumph. From 1526 to 1530 they entered into communication with the Reformers, and modified their own creed and worship in accordance with the new ideas, identifying themselves especially with the disciples of Calvin. … Their valleys became a refuge for all persecuted sectaries, amongst whom there were turbulent spirits, who stirred up those simple and loyal mountaineers to mutiny and revolt. Although they thus called down upon themselves the enmity of all the foes to Protestantism, these valleys continued nevertheless to be looked upon as a privileged district, and their brethren of other provinces found there a safe haven from the storms which drove them from their homes." In 1559, the Duke issued his edict of Nice, "intended not so much to suppress heresy as to repress it." The Waldenses "assumed a mutinous attitude," and "applied for succour to the Huguenot chiefs of the French provinces." Then the Duke sent 4,000 foot and 200 horse into the valleys, under the Count de la Trinita, and a fierce and sanguinary war ensued. "Its horrors were aggravated by foreign combatants, as the ranks of La Trinita were swelled by both French and Spanish marauders; and the Huguenots of France, and even some Protestant volunteers from Germany, fought with the Waldenses. … But it was not for the interest of the Duke of Savoy that his subjects should thus tear each other to pieces. After repeated checks La Trinita met with, … a covenant was signed at Cavour on the 5th of June, 1561. The Waldenses were allowed full amnesty and the free exercise of their worship within their own territory. … Within those same boundaries they consented to the erection of Catholic churches, and bound themselves to a reciprocal toleration of Roman rites. … The Treaty of Cavour satisfied neither party. It exposed the Duke to the loud reprimands of Rome, France and Spain, no less than to the bitter invectives of all his clergy …; and, on the other hand the Waldenses … again and again placed themselves in opposition to the authorities deputed to rule over them. … In his leniency towards the sectaries of the valleys, Emanuel Philibert was actuated by other motives besides the promptings of a naturally generous soul. … His great schemes for the regeneration of the country could only find their development in a few years of profound peace. … Whatever may be thought of the discontent to which his heavy taxes gave rise among the people, or his stern manners among the nobles, it is a beautiful consoling fact that the establishment of despotism in Piedmont did not cost a single drop of blood, that the prince subdued and disciplined his people by no other means than the firmness of his iron will. … The great work for which Piedmont will be eternally indebted to the memory of this great prince was the nationalization of the State. He established the seat of government at Turin, recalled to that city the senate which had been first convoked at Carignano, and the university which had been provisionally opened at Mondovi. Turin, whose bishop had been raised to metropolitan honours in 1515, had enjoyed comparative security under the French, who never lost possession of it from 1536 to 1562. It dates its real greatness and importance from Emanuel Philibert's reign, when the population … rose to 17,000 souls. … It was not without great bitterness that the transalpine provinces of Savoy submitted to the change, and saw the dignity and ascendancy of a sovereign state depart from them." Emanuel Philibert died in 1580, and was succeeded by his son, Charles Emanuel.

A. Gallenga, History of Piedmont, volume 3, chapter 1.

{2809}

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713. Vicissitudes of a century and a quarter. Profitable infidelities in war. The Duke wins Sicily and the title of King.

Emanuel Philibert, by his "well-timed policy of peace, … was enabled to leave his duchy immensely strengthened to his son Charles Emanuel (1580-1630). The new duke was much more active in his policy. His marriage with a daughter of Philip II. bound him to the side of Spain and he supported the cause of the League in France. With the help of the Catholic party he seized the vacant marquisate of Saluzzo, and thus involved himself in a long quarrel with Henry IV. In 1601 the pence of Lyons confirmed the duke in the possession of Saluzzo, in exchange for which he ceded Bresse on the Rhone frontier to Henry. All attempts made to recover Geneva for Savoy proved unsuccessful. Before his death the restless Charles Emanuel brought forward another claim to the marquisate of Montferrat. This had been held since 1533 by the dukes of Mantua, whose male line became extinct in 1627. The duke did not live to see the settlement of the Mantuan succession, but his son, Victor Amadeus I., obtained great part of Montferrat by the treaty of Cherasco (1631). Richelieu had now acquired Pinerolo and Casale for France and this effected a complete change in the policy of Savoy. Victor Amadeus was married to Christine, a daughter of Henry IV., and he and his successor remained till nearly the end of the century as faithful to France as his predecessors had been to Spain. Charles Emanuel II., who succeeded as a minor on the early death of his father, was at first under the guardianship of his mother, and when he came of age remained in the closest alliance with Louis XIV. His great object was to secure the Italian position which Savoy had assumed, by the acquisition of Genoa. But the maritime republic made a successful resistance both to open attack and to treacherous plots. Victor Amadeus II., who became duke in 1675, was married to a daughter of Philip of Orleans. But Louis XIV. had begun to treat Savoy less as an ally than as a dependency, and the duke, weary of French domination, broke off the old connexion, and in 1690 joined the League of Augsburg against Louis. His defection was well-timed and successful, for the treaty of Ryswick (1697) gave him the great fortresses of Pinerolo and Casale, which had so long dominated his duchy. In the war of the Spanish succession he first supported Louis and afterwards turned against him. His faithlessness was rewarded in the peace of Utrecht [1713] with the island of Sicily and the title of king. Within a few years, however, he was compelled to exchange Sicily for Sardinia."

R. Lodge, History of Modern Europe, chapter 12, section 9.

See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713, and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1592. French invasion of the Vaudois.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1597-1598. Invasion by the French. Peace with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1600. French invasion. Cession of territory to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1602-1603. Abortive attempt upon Geneva. Treaty of St. Julien with that city.

See GENEVA: A. D. 1602-1603.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1620-1626. The Valtelline War. Alliance with France. Unsuccessful attempt against Genoa.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1627-1631. War over the succession to the duchy of Mantua. French invasion. Extension of territory.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635. Alliance with France against Spain.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1630.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635-1659. Alliance with France against Spain. Civil war and foreign war.- Sieges of Turin. Territory restored.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1655. Second persecution of the Waldenses.

See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690. Joins the Grand Alliance against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690-1691. Overrun by the armies of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1691. Toleration granted to the Vaudois.

See WALDENSES: A. D. 1691.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1693. French victory at Marsaglia.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1695-1696. Desertion of the Grand Alliance by the Duke. Treaty with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1713. Acquisition of Sicily from Spain.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1717-1719. Sicily exchanged by the Duke for Sardinia, with the title of King.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1792. Savoy annexed to the French Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1796. Savoy ceded by Sardinia to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1798. Piedmont taken by the French. Its sovereignty relinquished by the King of Sardinia.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1815. Cession of a part of Savoy to France.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1860. Final cession of Savoy to France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

—————SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: End————

SAVOY CONFERENCE, The.

See ENGLAND: A: D. 1661 (APRIL-JULY).

SAWÂD, THE.

"The name Sawâd is given by the Arab writers to the whole fertile tract between the Euphrates and the Desert, from Hit to the Persian Gulf."

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 26, foot-note.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

SAXA RUBRA, Battle of (A. D. 312).

See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

SAXE-COBURG, SAXE-GOTHA, SAXE-WEIMAR, etc.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553; and WEIMAR.

SAXON HEPTARCHY.

See ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

SAXON SHORE, Count of the (Comes Littoris Saxonici).

The title of the Roman officer who had military command of the coast of Britain, between the Wash and the Isle of Wight, which was most exposed to the ravages of the Saxons.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

—————SAXONS: Start————

SAXONS, The.

"In the reign of Caracalla [A. D. 212-217] Rome first heard of the Goths and Alemanni; a little more than half a century later the Franks appear; and about the same time the Saxons, who had been named and placed geographically by Ptolemy [A. D. 130-160], make their first mark in history. They are found employed in naval and piratical expeditions on the coasts of Gaul in A. D. 287. Whatever degree of antiquity we may be inclined to ascribe to the names of these nations, and there is no need to put a precise limit to it, it can scarcely be supposed that they sprang from insignificance and obscurity to strength and power in a moment. {2810} It is far more probable that under the names of Frank and Saxon in the fourth century had been sunk the many better known earlier names of tribes who occupied the same seats. … The Cherusci, the Marsi, the Dulgibini and the Chauci may have been comprehended under the name of Saxons. … Whilst the nations on the Lower Rhine were all becoming Franks, those between the Rhine and the Oder were becoming Saxons; the name implied as yet no common organisation, at the most only an occasional combination for attack or defence."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 3 (volume 1).

"The hypothesis respecting the Saxons is as follows: The name Saxon was to the Kelts of Britain what German was to those of Gaul. Or, if not, what Suevi was—a name somewhat more specific. It probably applied to the Germans of the sea-coast, and the water-systems of the Lower Rhine, Weser, Lower Elbe, and Eyder; to Low Germans on the Rhine, to Frisians and Saxons on the Elbe, and to North Frisians on the Eyder. All the Angles were Saxons, but all the Saxons were not Angles. The reasoning in favour of this view is as follows:—That Saxon was a Britannic term is undenied. The Welsh and Gaels call us Saxons at the present moment. The Romans would take their name for certain Germans as they found it with the Britons. The Britons and Romans using the same name would be as two to one in favour of the Keltic name taking ground. It would be Roman and Keltic against a German name single-handed. The only question is whether the name Saxon was exclusively Britannic (Keltic), i. e., not German also. … I think, upon the whole, that Saxon was a word like 'Greek,' i. e., a term which, in the language of the Hellenes, was so very special, partial, and unimportant, as to have been practically a foreign term, or, at least, anything but a native name; whilst in that of the Romans it was one of general and widely extended import. Hence, mutatis mutandis, it is the insignificant Saxones of the neck of the Cimbric Chersonese, and the three Saxon islands, first mentioned by Ptolemy, who are the analogues of the equally unimportant Græci of Epirus; and these it was whose name eventually comprised populations as different as the Angles, and the Saxons of Saxony, even as the name Græcus in the mouth of a Roman comprised Dorians, Æolians, Macedonians, Athenians, Rhodians, &c. In this way the name was German; but its extended import was Keltic and Roman."

R. G. Latham, The Germany of Tacitus: Epilegomena, section 48.

See, also, GERMANY: THE NATIONAL NAMES; and ANGLES AND JUTES.

SAXONS: The sea-rovers of the 5th century.

"At the end of a long letter, written by Sidonius [Apolinaris, Bishop, at Clermont, in Auvergne, A. D. 471-488] to his friend Nammatius [an officer of the Channel fleet of the Romans, then chiefly occupied in watching and warding off the Saxon pirates], after dull compliments and duller banter, we suddenly find flashed upon us this life-like picture, by a contemporary hand, of the brothers and cousins of the men, if not of the very men themselves who had fought at Aylesford under Hengest and Horsa, or who were slowly winning the kingdom of the South Saxons: 'Behold, when I was on the point of concluding this epistle in which I have already chattered on too long, a messenger has suddenly arrived from Saintonge with whom I have spent some hours in conversing about you and your doings, and who constantly affirms that you have just sounded your trumpet on board the fleet, and that with the duties of a sailor and a soldier combined you are roaming along the winding shores of the Ocean, looking out for the curved pinnaces of the Saxons. When you see the rowers of that nation you may at once make up your mind that everyone of them is an arch-pirate, with such wonderful unanimity do all at once command, obey, teach, and learn their one chosen business of brigandage. For this reason I ought to warn you to be more than ever on your guard in this warfare. Your enemy is the most truculent of all enemies. Unexpectedly he attacks, when expected he escapes, he despises those who seek to block his path, he overthrows those who are off their guard, he always succeeds in cutting off the enemy whom he follows, while he never fails when he desires to effect his own escape. Moreover, to these men a shipwreck is capital practice rather than an object of terror. The dangers of the deep are to them, not casual acquaintances, but intimate friends. For since a tempest throws the invaded off their guard, and prevents the invaders from being descried from afar, they hail with joy the crash of waves on the rocks, which gives them their best chance of escaping from other enemies than the elements. Then again, before they raise the deep-biting anchor from the hostile soil, and set sail from the Continent for their own country, their custom is to collect the crowd of their prisoners together, by a mockery of equity to make them cast lots which of them shall undergo the iniquitous sentence of death, and then at the moment of departure to slay every tenth man so selected by crucifixion, a practice which is the more lamentable because it arises from a superstitious notion that they will thus ensure for themselves a safe return. Purifying themselves as they consider by such sacrifices, polluting themselves as we deem by such deeds of sacrilege, they think the foul murders they thus commit are acts of worship to their gods, and they glory in extorting cries of agony instead of ransoms from these doomed victims.'"

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

SAXONS: A. D. 451. At the Battle of Chalons.

In the allied army of Romans and barbarians which count Aetius brought together to encounter the Hun, Attila, on the great and terrible battlefield of Chalons, July, 451, there is mention of the "Saxones." "How came our fathers thither; they, whose homes were in the long sandy levels of Holstein? As has been already pointed out, the national migration of the Angles and Saxons to our own island had already commenced, perhaps in part determined by the impulse northward of Attila's own subjects. Possibly, like the Northmen, their successors, the Saxons may have invaded both sides of the English Channel at once, and may on this occasion have been standing in arms to defend against their old foe some newly-won possessions in Normandy or Picardy."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 3.

SAXONS: A. D. 477-527. Conquests in Britain.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

SAXONS: A. D. 528-729. Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.

See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

{2811}

SAXONS: A. D. 772-804. Conquest by Charlemagne.

"In the time of Charlemagne, the possessions of this great league [the Saxons] were very extensive, stretching, at one point, from the banks of the Rhine nearly to the Oder, and on the other hand, from the North Sea to the confines of Hesse and Thuringia. Warlike in their habits, vigorous in body, active and impatient in mind, their geographical situation, operating together with their state of barbarism, rendered them pirates, extending the predatory excursions, common to all the northern tribes, to the sea as well as to the land. … They held, from an early period, greater part of the islands scattered round the mouths of the German rivers; and, soon beginning to extend their dominion, they captured, at different times, all those on the coast of France and in the British sea. Not contented, however, with this peculiar and more appropriate mode of warfare, the Saxons who remained on land, while their fellow-countrymen were sweeping the ocean, constantly turned their arms against the adjacent continental countries, especially after the conquest of Britain had, in a manner, separated their people, and satisfied to the utmost their maritime cupidity in that direction. Surpassing all nations, except the early Huns, in fierceness, idolaters of the most bloody rites, insatiable of plunder, and persevering in the purpose of rapine to a degree which no other nation ever knew, they were the pest and scourge of the north. Happily for Europe, their government consisted of a multitude of chiefs, and their society of a multitude of independent tribes, linked together by some bond that we do not at present know, but which was not strong enough to produce unity and continuity of design. Thus they had proceeded from age to age, accomplishing great things by desultory and individual efforts; but up to the time of Charlemagne, no vast and comprehensive mind, like that of Attila, had arisen amongst them, to combine all the tribes under the sway of one monarch, and to direct all their energies to one great object. It was for neighbouring kings, however, to remember that such a chief might every day appear. … Such was the state of the Saxons at the reunion of the French [or Frank] monarchy under Charlemagne; and it would seem that the first step he proposed to himself, as an opening to all his great designs, was completely to subdue a people which every day ravaged his frontier provinces, and continually threatened the very existence of the nations around."

G. P. R. James, History of Charlemagne, book 3.

For generations before Charlemagne—from the period, in fact, of the sons of Clovis, early in the sixth century—the Frank kings had claimed supremacy over the Saxons and counted them among the tributaries of their Austrasian or German monarchy. Repeatedly, too, the Saxons had been forced to submit themselves and acknowledge the yoke, in terms, while they repudiated it in fact. When Charlemagne took in hand the conquest of this stubborn and barbarous people, he seems to have found the task as arduous as though nothing had been done in it before him. His first expedition into their country was undertaken in 772, when he advanced with fire and sword from the Rhine at Mayence to the Diemel in the Hessian country. It was on this occasion that he destroyed, near the head-waters of the Lippe, the famous national idol and fane of the Saxons called the Irminsul or Herminsaule supposed to be connected with the memory of Hermann, the Cheruscan patriot chief who destroyed the Roman legions of Varus. The campaign resulted in the submission of the Saxons, with a surrender of hostages to guarantee it. But in 774 they were again in arms, and the next summer Charlemagne swept their country to beyond the Weser with the besom of destruction. Once more they yielded and gave hostages, who were taken to Frank monasteries and made Christians of. But the peace did not last a twelvemonth, and there was another great campaign in 776, which so terrified the turbulent heathen that they accepted baptism in large numbers, and a wholesale conversion took place at Paderborn in May, 777. But a chief had risen at last among the Saxons who could unite them, and who would not kneel to Charlemagne nor bow his head to the waters of baptism. This was Wittekind, a Westphalian, brother-in-law of the king of the Danes and friend of the Frisian king, Ratbod. While Charlemagne was in Spain, in 778, Wittekind roused his countrymen to a rising which cleared their land of crosses, churches, priests and Frank castles at one sweep. From that time until 785 there were campaigns every year, with terrible carnage and destruction in the Saxon country and industrious baptising of the submissive. At Badenfield, at Bockholz, near Zutphen, and at Detmold, there were fierce battles in which the Saxons suffered most; but; at Sonnethal, on the Weser (the Dachtelfield), in 782, the Franks were fearfully beaten and slaughtered. Charlemagne took a barbarous vengeance for this reverse by beheading no less than 4,500 Saxon prisoners at Verden, on the Aller. Three years later, the country of the Saxons having been made, for the most part, a famine-smitten desert, they gave up the struggle. Even Wittekind accepted Christianity, became a monk—a missionary—a canonized saint— and disappeared otherwise from history. According to legend, the blood of more than 200,000 Saxons had "changed the very color of the soil, and the brown clay of the Saxon period gave way to the red earth of Westphalia." For seven years the Saxons were submissive and fought in Charlemagne's armies against other foes. Then there was a last despairing attempt to break the conqueror's yoke, and another long war of twelve years' duration. It ended in the practical annihilation of the Saxons as a distinct people in Germany. Many thousands of them were transplanted to other regions in Gaul and elsewhere; others escaped to Denmark and were absorbed into the great rising naval and military power of the Northmen. The survivors on their own soil were stripped of their possessions. "The Saxon war was conducted with almost unparalleled ferocity."

J. I. Mombert, History of' Charles the Great, book 2, chapters 3-4.

ALSO IN: P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, chapters 16-17.

—————SAXONS: End————

{2812}

SAXONS OF BAYEUX.

"The district of Bayeux, occupied by a Saxon colony in the latest days of the old Roman Empire, occupied again by a Scandinavian colony as the result of its conquest by Rolf [or Rollo, the Northman], has retained to this day a character which distinguishes it from every other Romance-speaking portion of the Continent. The Saxons of Bayeux preserved their name and their distinct existence under the Frankish dominion; we can hardly doubt that the Scandinavian settlers found some parts at least of the district still Teutonic, and that nearness of blood and speech exercised over them the same influence which the same causes exercised over the Scandinavian settlers in England. Danes and Saxons coalesced into one Teutonic people, and they retained their Teutonic language and character long after Rouen had become, in speech at least, no less French than Paris. With their old Teutonic speech, the second body of settlers seem to have largely retained their old Teutonic religion, and we shall presently find Bayeux the centre of a heathen and Danish party in the Duchy, in opposition to Rouen, the centre of the new speech and the new creed. The blood of the inhabitants of the Bessin must be composed of nearly the same elements, mingled in nearly the same proportions, as the blood of the inhabitants of the Danish districts of England."