Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 43)

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders, part 2, chapter 7.

"Many of the old retainers of the Temple became servants of the new lawyers, who had ousted their masters. … The dining in pairs, the expulsion from hall for misconduct, and the locking out of chambers were old customs also kept up. The judges of Common Pleas retained the title of knight, and the Fratres Servientcs of the Templars arose again in the character of learned serjeants-at-law, the coif of the modern serjeant being the linen coif of the old Freres Serjens of the Temple."

W. Thornbury, Old and New London, volume 1, chapter 14.

ALSO IN: C. G. Addison, The Knights Templars chapter 7.

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1299. Their last campaign in Palestine.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1307-1314. The prosecution and destruction of the order.

"When the Holy Land fell completely into Mahomedan hands on the loss of Acre in 1291 [see JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291] they [the Templars] abandoned the hopeless task and settled in Cyprus. By the end of the thirteenth century they had almost all returned to Europe. They were peculiarly strong and wealthy in France—the strength and wealth were alike dangerous to them. In Paris they built their fortress, the Temple, over against the King's palace of the Louvre; and in that stronghold the King himself had once to take refuge from the angry Parisian mob, exasperated by his heavy extortions. During the life and death struggle with the Papacy, the order had not taken the side of the Church against the sovereign; for their wealth had held them down. Philip [Philip IV], however, knew no gratitude, and they were doomed. A powerful and secret society endangered the safety of the state: their wealth was a sore temptation: there was no lack of rumours. Dark tales came out respecting the habits of the order; tales exaggerated and blackened by the diseased imagination of the age. Popular proverbs, those ominous straws of public opinion, were heard in different lands, hinting at dark vices and crimes. Doubtless the vows of the order, imposed on unruly natures, led to grievous sins against the first laws of moral life. And there was more than this: there were strange rumours of horrible infidelity and blasphemy; and men were prepared to believe everything. So no one seemed to be amazed when, in October, 1307, the King made a sudden coup d'etat, arrested all the Templars in France on the same day, and seized their goods. The Temple at Paris with the Grand Master fell into his hands. Their property was presently placed in the custody of the Pope's nuncios in France; the knights were kept in dark and dismal prisons. Their trial was long and tedious. Two hundred and thirty-one knights were examined, with all the brutality that examination then meant; the Pope also took the depositions of more than seventy. From these examinations what can we learn? All means were used: some were tortured, others threatened, others tempted with promises of immunity. They made confession accordingly; and the ghastly catalogue of their professed ill-doings may be read in the history of the trial. Who shall say what truth there was in it all? Probably little or none. Many confessed and then recanted their confession. The golden image with eyes of glowing carbuncle which they worshipped; the trampling and spitting on the crucifix; the names of Galla and Baphomet; the hideous practices of the initiation;—all these things pass before us, in the dim uncertainty, like some horrible procession of the vices in hell. What the truth was will never be known. … The knights made a dignified defence in these last moments of their history; they did not flinch either at the terrible prospect before them, or through memory of the tortures which they had undergone. Public opinion, in and out of France, began to stir against the barbarous treatment they had received; they were no longer proud and wealthy princes, but suffering martyrs, showing bravery and a firm front against the cruelties of the King and his lawyers. Marigni, Philip's minister and friend, and the King himself, were embarrassed by the number and firmness of their victims, by the sight of Europe looking aghast, by the murmurs of the people. Marigni suggested that men who had confessed and recanted might be treated as relapsed heretics, such being the law of the Inquisition, (what irony was here!) and accordingly in 1310 an enclosure was made at Paris, within which fifty-nine Templars perished miserably by fire. Others were burnt later at Senlis. … The King and Pope worked on the feeble Council, until in March 1312 the abolition of the order was formally decreed; and its chief property, its lands and buildings, were given over to the Knights of St. John, to be used for the recovery of the Holy Land; 'which thing,' says the Supplementor to William of Nangis, 'came not to pass, but rather the endowment did but make them worse than before.' The chief part of the spoil, as might be well believed, never left the King's hands. One more tragedy, and then all was over. The four heads of the order were still at Paris, prisoners —Jacques de Molai, Grand Master; Guy of Auvergne, the Master of Normandy, and two more. The Pope had reserved their fate in his own hands, and sent a commission to Paris, who were enjoined once more to hear the confession of these dignitaries, and then to condemn them to perpetual captivity. But at the last moment the Grand Master and Guy publicly retracted their forced confessions, and declared themselves and the order guiltless of all the abominable charges laid against them. Philip was filled with devouring rage. Without further trial or judgment he ordered them to be led that night to the island in the Seine; there they were fastened to the stake and burnt."

G. W. Kitchin, History of France, volume 1, book 3, chapter 10, section 3.

{3093}

In England, a similar prosecution of the Templars, instigated by the pope, was commenced in January, 1308, when the chiefs of the order were seized and imprisoned and subjected to examination with torture. The result was the dissolution of the order and the confiscation of its property; but none of the knights were executed, though some died in prison from the effects of their barbarous treatment. "The property of the Templars in England was placed under the charge of a commission at the time that proceedings were commenced against them, and the king very soon treated it as if it were his own, giving away manors and convents at his pleasure. A great part of the possessions of the Order was subsequently made over to the Hospitallers. … Some of the surviving Templars retired to monasteries, others returned to the world, and assumed secular habits, for which they incurred the censures of the Pope. … In Spain, Portugal, and Germany, proceedings were taken against the Order; their property was confiscated, and in some cases torture was used; but it is remarkable that it was only in France, and those places where Philip's influence was powerful, that any Templar was actually put to death."

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders, part 2, chapters 6-7 and 5.

ALSO IN: C. G. Addison, The Knights Templars, chapter 7.

J. Michelet, History of France, book 5, chapter 3.

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 12, chapters 1-2 (volume 5).

—————TEMPLARS: End————

TEMPLE, The (London).

See TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.

TEMPLE OF CONCORD AT ROME, The.

After the long contest in Rome over the Licinian Laws, which were adopted B. C. 367, M. Furius Camillus—the great Camillus—being made Dictator for the fifth time, in his eightieth year, brought about peace between the patricians and plebeians, in commemoration of which he vowed a temple to Concord. "Before he could dedicate it, the old hero died. The temple, however, was built according to his design; its site, now one of the best known among those of ancient Rome, can still be traced with great certainty at the north-western angle of the Forum, immediately under the Capitoline. The building was restored with great magnificence by the Emperor Tiberius; and it deserved to be so, for it commemorated one of the greatest events of Roman history."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1).

TEMPLE OF DIANA.

See EPHESUS.

TEMPLE OF JANUS, The.

"The Temple of Janus was one of the earliest buildings of Rome, founded, according to Livy (i. 19.) by Numa. It stood near the Curia, on the northeast side of the Forum, at the verge of a district called the Argiletum. … [it was] a small 'ædicula' or shrine, which towards the end of the Republic, or perhaps earlier, was of bronze. It is shown with much minuteness on a First Brass of Nero as a small cella, without columns, but with richly ornamented frieze and cornice. Its doors were closed on those rare occasions when Rome was at peace with all the world. From the time of its traditional founder, Numa, to that of Livy, it was only twice shut—once after the first Punic War, and secondly after the victory of Augustus at Actium. … It contained a very ancient statue, probably by an Etruscan artist, of the double faced Janus Bifrons, or Geminus. … The Temple of Janus gave its name to this part of the edge of the Forum, and from the numerous shops of the argentarii or bankers and money-lenders which were there, the word Janus came to mean the usurers' quarter."

J. H. Middleton, Ancient Rome in 1885, chapter 5.

The Temple of Janus was closed, once more, by Vespasian, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the ending of the war in Judea, A. D. 71. "It had stood open since the German wars of the first princeps [Augustus]; or, according to the computation of the christian Orosius, from the birth of Christ to the overthrow of the Jewish people: for the senate had refused to sanction Nero's caprice in closing it on his precarious accommodation with Parthia. Never before had this solemn act addressed the feelings of the citizens so directly. … The Peace of Vespasian was celebrated by a new bevy of poets and historians not less loudly than the Peace of Augustus. A new era of happiness and prosperity was not less passionately predicted."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 60.

TEMPLE OF SOLOMON, The.

"As soon as David had given to his people the boon of a unique capital, nothing could be more natural than the wish to add sacredness to the glory of the capital by making it the centre of the national worship. According to the Chronicles, David … had made unheard-of preparations to build a house for God. But it had been decreed unfit that the sanctuary should be built by a man whose hands were red with the blood of many wars, and he had received the promise that the great work should be accomplished by his son. Into that work Solomon threw himself with hearty zeal in the month Zif of the fourth year of his reign, when his kingdom was consolidated. … He inherited the friendship which David had enjoyed, with Hiram, King of Tyre. … The friendliest overtures passed between the two kings in letters, to which Josephus appeals as still extant. A commercial treaty was made by which Solomon engaged to furnish the Tyrian king with annual revenues of wheat, barley, and oil, and Hiram put at Solomon's disposal the skilled labour of an army of Sidonian wood-cutters and artisans. … Some writers have tried to minimise Solomon's work as a builder, and have spoken of the Temple as an exceedingly insignificant structure which would not stand a moment's comparison with the smallest and humblest of our own cathedrals. Insignificant in size it certainly was, but we must not forget its costly splendour, the remote age in which the work was achieved, and the truly stupendous constructions which the design required. Mount Moriah was selected as a site hallowed by the tradition of Abraham's sacrifice, and more recently by David's vision of the Angel of the Pestilence with his drawn sword on the threshing-floor of the Jebusite Prince Araunah. But to utilise this doubly consecrated area involved almost super-human difficulties, which would have been avoided if the loftier but less suitable height of the Mount of Olives could have been chosen. The rugged summit had to be enlarged to a space of 500 yards square, and this level was supported by Cyclopean walls, which have long been the wonder of the world. … The caverns, quarries, water storages, and subterranean conduits hewn out of the solid rock, over which Jerusalem is built, could only have been constructed at the cost of immeasurable toil. … It was perhaps from his Egyptian father-in-law that Solomon, to his own cost, learnt the secret of forced labour which alone rendered such undertakings possible. … {3094} Four classes were subject to it.

1. The lightest labour was required from the native freeborn Israelites (ezrach). They were not regarded as bondsmen, … yet 30,000 of these were required in relays of 10,000 to work, one month in every three, in the forest of Lebanon.

2. There were the strangers, or resident aliens (Gerim), such as the Phœnicians and Giblites, who were Hiram's subjects and worked for pay.

3. There were three classes of slaves—those taken in war, or sold for debt, or home-born.

4. Lowest and most wretched of all, there were the vassal Canaanites (Toshabim), from whom were drawn those 70,000 burden-bearers, and 80,000 quarry-men, the Helots of Palestine, who were placed under the charge of 3,600 Israelite officers.

The blotches of smoke are still visible on the walls and roofs of the subterranean quarries where these poor serfs, in the dim torchlight and suffocating air, 'laboured without reward, perished without pity, and suffered without redress.' The sad narrative reveals to us, and modern research confirms, that the purple of Solomon had a very seamy side, and that an abyss of misery heaved and moaned under the glittering surface of his splendour. … Apart from the lavish costliness of its materials the actual Temple was architecturally a poor and commonplace structure. It was quite small —only 90 feet long, 35 feet broad, and 45 feet high. It was meant for the symbolic habitation of God, not for the worship of great congregations. … Of the external aspect of the building in Solomon's day we know nothing. We cannot even tell whether it had one level roof, or whether the Holy of Holies was like a lower chancel at the end of it; nor whether the roof was flat or, as the Rabbis say, ridged; nor whether the outer surface of the three-storied chambers which surrounded it was of stone, or planked with cedar, or overlaid with plinths of gold and silver; nor whether, in any case, it was ornamented with carvings or left blank; nor whether the cornices only were decorated with open flowers like the Assyrian rosettes. Nor do we know with certainty whether it was supported within by pillars or not. … It required the toil of 300,000 men for twenty years to build one of the pyramids. It took two hundred years to build and four hundred to embellish the great Temple of Artemis of the Ephesians. It took more than five centuries to give to Westminster Abbey its present form. Solomon's Temple only took seven and a half years to build; but … its objects were wholly different from those of the great shrines which we have mentioned. … Needing but little repair, it stood for more than four centuries. Succeeded as it was by the Temples of Zerubbabel and of Herod, it carried down till seventy years after the Christian era the memory of the Tabernacle in the wilderness, of which it preserved the general outline, though it exactly doubled all the proportions and admitted many innovations."

F. W. Farrar, The First Book of Kings, chapter 14 (Expositor's Bible).

TEN, The Council of.

See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

TEN THOUSAND, The Retreat of the.

See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL, The.

See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

TEN YEARS WAR, The.

The long conflict between Athens and her confederated enemies, Sparta at the head, which is usually called the Peloponnesian War, was divided into two periods by the Peace or Nicias. The war in the first period, covering a decade, was known as the Ten Years War; though the Peloponnesians called it the Attic War.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 2.

See ATHENS: B. C. 421.

TENANT RIGHT, The Ulster. The Tenant League.

See IRELAND: A. D.1848-1852.

TENCHEBRAY, Battle of (1106).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

TENCTHERI, The.

See USIPETES.

TENEDOS.

See TROJA; and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

TENEZ, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

—————TENNESSEE: Start————

TENNESSEE: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE, and CHEROKEES.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1629. Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1663. Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Shaftesbury and others.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1748. First English exploration from Virginia.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1768. The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix. Pretended cession of country south of the Ohio.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772. The first settlers in the eastern valley. The Watauga commonwealth and its constitution.

"Soon after the successful ending of the last colonial struggle with France, and the conquest of Canada, the British king issued a proclamation forbidding the English colonists from trespassing on Indian grounds, or moving west of the mountains.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1763.

But in 1768, at the treaty of Fort Stanwix, the Six Nations agreed to surrender to the English all the lands lying between the Ohio and the Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

This treaty was at once seized upon by the backwoodsmen as offering an excuse for settling beyond the mountains. However, the Iroquois had ceded lands to which they had no more right than a score or more other Indian tribes. … The great hunting-grounds between the Ohio and the Tennessee formed a debatable land, claimed by every tribe that could hold its own against its rivals. The eastern part of what is now Tennessee consists of a great hill-strewn, forest-clad valley, running from northeast to southwest, bounded on one side by the Cumberland, and on the other by the Great Smoky and Unaka Mountains; the latter separating it from North Carolina. In this valley arise and end the Clinch, the Holston, the Watauga, the Nolichucky, the French Broad, and the other streams, whose combined volume makes the Tennessee River. The upper end of the valley lies in southwestern Virginia, the headwaters of some of the rivers being well within that State; and though the province was really part of North Carolina, it was separated therefrom by high mountain chains, while from Virginia it was easy to follow the watercourses down the valley. Thus, as elsewhere among the mountains forming the western frontier, the first movements of population went parallel with, rather than across, the ranges. {3095} As in western Virginia the first settlers came, for the most part, from Pennsylvania, so, in turn, in what was then western North Carolina, and is now eastern Tennessee, the first settlers came mainly from Virginia, and, indeed, in great part, from this same Pennsylvanian stock. Of course, in each case there was also a very considerable movement directly westward. They were a sturdy race, enterprising and intelligent, fond of the strong excitement inherent in the adventurous frontier life. Their untamed and turbulent passions, and the lawless freedom of their lives, made them a population very productive of wild, headstrong characters; yet, as a whole, they were a God-fearing race, as was but natural in those who sprang from the loins of the Irish Calvinists. Their preachers, all Presbyterians, followed close behind the first settlers and shared their toil and dangers. … In 1769, the year that Boon first went to Kentucky, the first permanent settlers came to the banks of the Watauga, the settlement being merely an enlargement of the Virginia settlement, which had for a short time existed on the head-waters of the Holston, especially near Wolf Hills. At first the settlers thought they were still in the domain of Virginia, for at that time the line marking her southern boundary had not been run so far west. … But in 1771, one of the new-comers, who was a practical surveyor, ran out the Virginia boundary line some distance to the westward, and discovered that the Watauga settlement came within the limits of North Carolina. Hitherto the settlers had supposed that they themselves were governed by the Virginian law, and that their rights as against the Indians were guaranteed by the Virginian government; but this discovery threw them back upon their own resources. They suddenly found themselves obliged to organize a civil government. … About the time that the Watauga commonwealth was founded; the troubles in North Carolina came to a head. Open war ensued between the adherents of the royal governor, Tryon, on the one hand, and the Regulators, as the insurgents styled themselves, on the other, the struggle ending with the overthrow of the Regulators at the battle of Alamance.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.

As a consequence of these troubles, many people from the back counties of North Carolina crossed the mountains, and took up their abode among the pioneers on the Watauga and upper Holston; the beautiful valley of the Nolichucky soon receiving its share of this stream of immigration. Among the first comers were many members of the class of desperate adventurers always to be found hanging round the outskirts of frontier civilization. … But the bulk of the settlers were men of sterling worth; fit to be the pioneer fathers of a mighty and beautiful state. … Such were the settlers of the Watauga, the founders of the commonwealth that grew into the State of Tennessee, who early in 1772 decided that they must form some kind of government that would put down wrong-doing and work equity between man and man. Two of their number already towered head and shoulders above the rest in importance and merit especial mention; for they were destined for the next thirty years to play the chief parts in the history of that portion of the Southwest which largely through their own efforts became the State of Tennessee. These two men, neither of them yet thirty years of age, were John Sevier and James Robertson. … With their characteristic capacity for combination, so striking as existing together with the equally characteristic capacity for individual self-help, the settlers determined to organize a government of their own. They promptly put their, resolution into effect early in the spring of 1772, Robertson being apparently the leader in the movement. They decided to adopt written articles of agreement, by which their conduct should be governed; and these were known as the Articles of the Watauga Association. They formed a written constitution, the first ever adopted west of the mountains, or by a community composed of American-born freemen. It is this fact of the early independence and self-government of the settlers along the head-waters of the Tennessee that gives to their history its peculiar importance. They were the first men of American birth to establish a free and independent community on the continent. … The first step taken by the Watauga settlers, when they had determined to organize, was to meet in general convention, holding a kind of folk-thing, akin to the New England town-meeting. They then elected a representative assembly, a small parliament or 'witanagemot,' which met at Robertson's station. Apparently the freemen of each little fort or palisaded village, each block-house that was the centre of a group of detached cabins and clearings, sent a member to this first frontier legislature. It consisted of thirteen representatives, who proceeded to elect from their number five—among them Sevier and Robertson—to form a committee or court, which should carry on the actual business of government, and should exercise both judicial and executive functions. This court had a clerk and a sheriff, or executive officer, who respectively recorded and enforced their decrees. … In fact, the dwellers, in this little outlying frontier commonwealth, exercised the rights of full statehood for a number of years; establishing in true American style a purely democratic government with representative institutions."

T. Roosevelt, The Winning of the West, volume 1, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: E. Kirke (pseudonym J. R. Gilmore), The Rear-Guard of the Revolution, chapters 2-6.

J. Phelan, History of Tennessee, chapters 1-3.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784. Annexation to North Carolina. Cession by that state to the Congress of the Confederation. Consequent revolt. Repeal of the act of cession.

"The Watauga people had hopes, when the articles of association were adopted, of being able eventually to form an independent government, governed as the older colonies were governed, by royal governors. When the disagreements between the colonies and the mother country arose, they modified their views to the new order of things, and regarded themselves as a distinct though as yet inchoate state. But their weakness … rendered the protection of some more powerful state necessary for their welfare. … They petitioned North Carolina for annexation in 1776. Their petition was granted. … The provincial congress of North Carolina met at Halifax in November, 1776, and [Robertson, Sevier and two others] were delegates from Washington District, Watauga settlement. … {3096} After the annexation of the Washington District the old form of government was allowed to stand until the spring of 1777. … In November of this year, 1777, the District of Washington became Washington County. … From 1777 until the disturbances of eight years later, the history of Tennessee was a part of the history of North Carolina. … The part played by the inhabitants of Tennessee in the war for independence was active, and in one instance [at King's Mountain] decisive. Their operations were chiefly of a desultory, guerrilla kind, under the leadership of Sevier … and Shelby." Sevier was also the leader in wars with the Indians, which were carried on with unsparing fierceness on both sides. "In the April session of 1784, the General Assembly of North Carolina, in accordance with the recommendation of Congress itself, as well as with the dictates of a far-seeing and enlightened statesmanship, imitated the example of Virginia and New York, and ceded to the United States all the territory which is now the State of Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1781-1786.

This of course included all the settlements. The condition of the cession was its acceptance by Congress within two years. Until Congress should have accepted the ceded territory, the jurisdiction of North Carolina over it was to remain in every respect the same as heretofore. … When the question of cession was first broached, it was accepted by the four representatives of the western counties at Hillsboro, as well as by those who proposed it, as the natural and legitimate solution of a complex problem. No one apparently dreamed of opposition on the part of the settlers themselves. … There is no reason to think that the Watauga people had any objection to the cession. … The objection was against the manner of the cession and its conditions. … The main cause of complaint was that North Carolina had left them without any form of government for two years. … A storm of indignation swept through the entire settlement. … The people regarded themselves without government, and, true to the traditions of their race, they sought the solution of the difficulty in their own resources. … It is one of the noteworthy facts in the history of institutions that the possessors of English tradition always begin with the first primal germ of local self-government at hand, be it court leet, court of quarter sessions, township, county, school district, or military company, and build upward. The Watauga people had nothing so convenient as the militia companies, and they began with them as representing a more minutely varied constituency than the county court. Each company elected two representatives, and the representatives so elected in each county formed themselves into a committee, and the three committees of Washington, Sullivan, and Greene counties met as a kind of impromptu or temporary legislature, and decided to call a general convention to be elected by the people of the different counties. This convention met on the 23d of August, 1784, at Jonesboro. John Sevier was elected president, and Landon Carter secretary. … It is supposed that the convention which met at Jonesboro adopted the resolution to form a 'separate and distinct State, independent of the State of North Carolina.' … Provision was made for the calling of a future convention in which representation was to be according to companies. … The meeting adjourned, having fairly inaugurated the contest with North Carolina, which still claimed jurisdiction." Soon afterward the legislature of North Carolina repealed the act of cession, and "for a time it was supposed that this would terminate the agitation in favor of a new State."

J. Phelan, History of Tennessee, chapters 5-10.

ALSO IN: J. R. Gilmore, John Sevier as a Commonwealth Builder, chapter 2.

J. G. M. Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, chapter 3.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1780. The Battle of King's Mountain.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785. The organization of the State of Franklin.

"Toward the close of May [1785] the western lands being again under discussion [in Congress], a resolution was carried urging North Carolina to reconsider her act of the previous November, and once more cede to Congress her possessions beyond the mountains. Had the request been granted, there can be no doubt, the measure would have speedily brought peace and quiet to that distracted region. But North Carolina was too intent on bringing her rebellious subjects to terms to think for a moment of bestowing them with their lands and goods on Congress. Indeed, when the news of the request was carried into the district some months later, the malcontents expressed much surprise. They could not, they said, understand why Congress should apply to North Carolina; North Carolina had nothing to do with them. The parent State had, by her act of 1784, given them away. Congress did not take them under its protection. They belonged, therefore, to nobody, and while in this condition had called a convention, had framed a constitution, had formed a new State, had chosen for it a name, and elected a Legislature which was actually in session at the time the act of the 23d of May was passed. … Much of what they stated was strictly true. The delegates to the second convention had assembled early in 1785. These had given the State the name of Franklin, and had drawn up a constitution which they submitted to the people. It was expected that the men of the district would consider it carefully, and select delegates to a third convention, which should have full power to ratify or reject. The place fixed upon for the meeting of the convention was Greenville. But as there was then no printing-press nearer than Charleston or Richmond, and as much time must elapse before the constitution could become known to all, the delegates were not to convene till the 14th of November. Meanwhile the Legislature was to organize. Elections were held without delay; members were chosen after the manner in which the settlers had long been accustomed to elect representatives to the Assembly of the parent State, and these, meeting at Jonesboro, conducted their business with so much dispatch that on the last day of March they adjourned. Many acts were passed by them. But one alone excited general comment, and was the cause of unbounded merriment across the mountains. A list of articles at that time scarce to be met with in the State of Franklin would be a long one. But there would be no article in the list less plentiful than money. … When, therefore, the Legislature came to determine what should be the legal currency of the State, it most wisely contented itself with fixing the value of such articles as had, from time immemorial, been used as money. {3097} One pound of sugar, the law said, should pass for a shilling-piece; the skin of a raccoon or a fox for a shilling and threepence. A gallon of rye whiskey, it was thought, was worth twice that sum, while a gallon of peach-brandy or a yard of good nine hundred flax linen was each to pass for a three-shilling piece. Some difficulty was met with in selecting articles that could be easily carried from place to place and expressive of large values. It was, however, finally determined that a clean beaver-skin, an otter or a deer-skin, should each of them be the representative of six shillings. In this kind of money, the law further prescribed, the salary of every officer of the State, from the Governor down to the hangman, was to be paid. When this act became known in the East the wits were greatly amused. … In the belief that the new money could not be counterfeited they were much mistaken. Many bundles of what seemed to be otter-skins were soon passing about, which, on being opened, were found to be skins of raccoons with tails of otters sewed to them. … The name of the State has often been asserted to be Frankland, the land of the Franks, or Freemen. … But letters are extant from high officials of the State to Benjamin Franklin declaring that it was named after him."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, volume 1, chapter 3, with foot-note.

ALSO IN: J. G. M. Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, chapter 4.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796. The troubled history and the fall of the state of Franklin. The rise of the state of Tennessee.

On receiving news of the organization of the independent state of Franklin, Governor Martin, of North Carolina, issued a proclamation which was skilfully addressed to the cooler judgment of the mountaineers and which "was not without its effect." But, although the adherents of North Carolina "gradually gained ground in the new commonwealth, a majority still clung to Sevier, and refused to recognize any government but the one they themselves had organized. In this opposition of parties, disorders sprang up which presently degenerated into lawlessness. Both governments claimed jurisdiction, and both sought to exercise it. The consequence was that both became inefficient. Party quarrels ensued; old friends became enemies; Tipton and his followers openly supported the claims of North Carolina; Sevier sought to maintain his authority as the executive officer of Franklin. This antagonistic spirit led to the commission of various outrages. … But in the midst of these inglorious quarrels, Governor Sevier did not neglect to defend from Indian aggressions the state over which he had been called to preside. … He was far less successful, however, in giving peace to the distracted state of Franklin. The continuance of intestine dissensions, and the nice balance of parties which took place in 1787, induced the people to refuse to pay taxes either to North Carolina or to the local government, until the supremacy of one or the other should be more generally acknowledged. In this state of affairs, with his government tottering to its downfall, Sevier earnestly appealed to North Carolina for a ratification of the independence of the state of Franklin, and to Franklin himself, and the governors of Georgia and Virginia, for counsel and assistance. Disappointed on all sides, he finally rested for support upon his immediate friends, conscious of the rectitude of his own intentions. … But the people were already weary of a feud which threatened, at every fresh outbreak, to end in bloodshed. In 1787 the last legislature of the state of Franklin held its session at Greenville. … The conciliatory measures of North Carolina presently disarmed the malecontents of all further arguments for opposing the reunion; and in February, 1788, the state of Franklin ceased to exist." Fierce conflicts between Sevier and Tipton and their hotter partisans still continued for some time; until, in October, Sevier was arrested for high treason and imprisoned at Morgantown. He escaped soon after, through the aid of his sons, was elected to the North Carolina senate, and was permitted to qualify for the seat on renewing his oath of allegiance. "His services were remembered and his faults forgotten." Meantime, settlements on the Cumberland, founded in 1779 by James Robertson, had prospered and grown strong, and Nashville, the chief among them, assumed its name in 1784, "in commemoration of the patriotic services of Colonel Francis Nash," of North Carolina, who fell in the battle of Germantown. In 1790, after ratifying the Federal Constitution, North Carolina, re-enacted the cession of her western territory, coinciding with the present state of Tennessee, to the United States, stipulating "that no regulation made or to be made by Congress shall tend to the emancipation of slaves." The "Territory southwest of the Ohio" was then organized, with William Blount for governor. Six years later (January, 1796), the population of the Territory having been ascertained by a census to be 67,000 free white inhabitants and 10,000 slaves, a constitution was adopted, the State of Tennessee was formed, with John Sevier for Governor, and, after some opposition in Congress, it was formally admitted to its place and rank as one of the United States of America. Its first Representative in the House was Andrew Jackson.

W. H. Carpenter, History of Tennessee, chapters 13-17.

ALSO IN: J. R. Gilmore, John Sevier as a Commonwealth-Builder, chapters 4-12.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1800. The question of the Free Navigation of the Mississippi. Discontent of the settlers and intrigues among them.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1813-1814. The Creek War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-MAY). The mode in which the state was dragged into Rebellion.

"The Legislature of Tennessee met on the 6th of January. On the 12th, a bill for the calling of a state convention [with the object of following the lead, in secession, which South Carolina had taken on the 20th of December was passed.]

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

{3098}

It was passed subject to the approval of the voters. The election took place on the 8th day of February. The people voted against holding a convention by 67,360, to 54,156. In disregard of this vote of the people, however, the legislature, on May 1st, passed a joint resolution authorizing the governor to enter into a military league with the Confederate States. The league was formed. The Governor, Isham G. Harris, sent a message to the legislature, announcing the fact. He stated its terms. … It stipulated that until the state should become a member of the Confederacy, 'the whole military force and military operations, offensive and defensive, of said state, in the impending conflict with the United States, shall be under the chief control and direction of the President of the Confederate States.' It was also agreed that the state would, as soon as it should join the Confederacy, turn over all public property it might acquire from the United States. The legislature ratified the league by decided majorities of both branches. These final proceedings took place on the 7th day of May. On the preceding day, the legislature put forth a declaration of independence. It was submitted to the votes of the people for ratification. This document waives the right of secession, as follows: 'We, the people of the State of Tennessee, waiving an expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and independent people,' declare that all the laws and ordinances by which Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union, 'are hereby abrogated.' The vote for separation was declared by the governor to be 104,019 for, and 47,238 against that measure. It thus appears that the Legislature of Tennessee, in declaring the separation of the state from the Federal Union, placed its action upon the ground of a revolutionary right, which all admit to be inalienable, if the cause be just."

S. S. Cox, Three Decades of Federal Legislation, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: F. Moore, editor, Rebellion Record, volume 1, documents 201-205.

O. J. Victor, History of the Southern Rebellion, division 4, chapter 11 (volume 2).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (April). Governor Harris' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (June). The loyalty of East Tennessee and its resistance to Secession.

"For separation and representation at Richmond, East Tennessee gave [at the election, June 8, when the question of secession was nominally submitted to the people, the state having been already delivered by its governor and legislature to the Confederacy] 14,700 votes; and half of that number were Rebel troops, having no authority under the Constitution to vote at any election. For 'no separation' and 'no representation,'—the straight-out Union vote,—East Tennessee gave 33,000, or 18,300 of a majority, with at least 5,000 quiet citizens deterred from coming out by threats of violence, and by the presence of drunken troops at the polls to insult them. … By … fraud and villainy, … the great State of Tennessee was carried out of the Union. The loyal people of East Tennessee, to their great honor, had no lot or part in the work."

W. G. Brownlow, Sketches of the Rise, Progress and Decline of Secession, pages 222-223.

"Finding themselves powerless before the tyranny inaugurated, the Unionists of East Tennessee resolved, as a last resort, to hold a Convention at Greenville, to consult as to the best course to pursue. This Convention met June 17th. The attendance was very large—thirty-one counties having delegates present on the first day. Judge Nelson presided. After a four days' session it adopted a Declaration of Grievances and Resolutions," declaring that "we prefer to remain attached to the Government of our fathers. The Constitution of the United States has done us no wrong. The Congress of the United States has passed no law to oppress us. … The secession cause has thus far been sustained by deception and falsehood." The Convention protested on behalf of East Tennessee against being dragged into rebellion, and appointed commissioners to pursue measures looking to the formation of a separate state. "Vain protest! It was not long before those Unionists and protestants against wrong were flying for their lives, and were hunted down like wild beasts."

O. J. Victor, History of the Southern Rebellion, division 5, chapter 5 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: T. W. Humes, The Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee, chapters 6-11.

W. Rule, Loyalists of Tennessee in the late War (Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery, L. L. volume 2).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (February). The breaking of the Rebel line of defense at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (March). Andrew Johnson appointed military governor.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April). The continued advance of the Union armies. Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April-May). The Union advance upon Corinth, Mississippi.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June). Evacuation of Fort Pillow and surrender of Memphis by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June-October). The Buell-Bragg campaign. Chattanooga secured by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862-1863 (December-January). Bragg and Rosecrans. The Battle of Stone River, or Murfreesborough.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (February-April). Engagements at Dover and Franklin.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (June-July). The Tullahoma campaign of Rosecrans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September). Burnside in east Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE) BURNSIDE'S DELIVERANCE.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September). The Chickamauga campaign and battle. The Union army at Chattanooga.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE) ROSECRANS' ADVANCE.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-November). The Siege and the Battles of Chattanooga. Lookout Mountain. Missionary Ridge.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-December). Siege of Knoxville.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

{3099}

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863-1864 (December-April). Winter operations. Withdrawal of Longstreet from east Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864(DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (April). The Fort Pillow Massacre.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (September-October). Forrest's raid. The capture of Athens.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (November). Hood's invasion and destruction. The Battles of Franklin and Nashville.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE), and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865. President Johnson's recognition of the reconstructed State Government.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866. Reconstruction. Abolition of Slavery. Restoration of the State to its "former, proper, practical relation to the Union."

In the early part of 1865, Andrew Johnson, though Vice-President-elect, was "still discharging the functions of military governor of Tennessee. A popular convention originating from his recommendation and assembling under his auspices, was organized at Nashville on the 9th day of January, 1865. Membership of the body was limited to those who 'give an active support to the Union cause, who have never voluntarily borne arms against the Government, who have never voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy.' … Tennessee, as Johnson bluntly maintained, could only be organized and controlled as a State in the Union by that portion of her citizens who acknowledged their allegiance to the Government of the Union. Under this theory of procedure the popular convention proposed an amendment to the State constitution, 'forever abolishing and prohibiting slavery in the State,' and further declaring that 'the Legislature shall make no law recognizing the right of property in man.' The convention took several other important steps, annulling in whole and in detail all the legislation which under Confederate rule had made the State a guilty participant in the rebellion. Thus was swept away the ordinance of Secession, and the State debt created in aid of the war against the Union. All these proceedings were submitted to popular vote on the 22d of February, and were ratified by an affirmative vote of 25,293 against a negative vote of 48. The total vote of the State at the Presidential election of 1860 was 145,333. Mr. Lincoln's requirement of one-tenth of that number was abundantly complied with by the vote on the questions submitted to the popular decision. … Under this new order of things, William G. Brownlow, better known to the world by his soubriquet of 'Parson' Brownlow, was chosen governor without opposition on the 4th day of March, 1865, the day of Mr. Lincoln's second inauguration. The new Legislature met at Nashville a month later, on the 3d of April, and on the 5th ratified the Thirteenth Amendment; thus adding the abolition of slavery by National authority to that already decreed by the State. The Legislature completed its work by electing two consistent Union men, David T. Patterson and Joseph S. Fowler, to the United States Senate. The framework of the new Government was thus completed and in operation before the death of Mr. Lincoln."

J. G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, volume 2, chapter 3.

After the organization of a loyal government in Tennessee, more than a year passed before the restoration of the State to its constitutional relations with the United States, by the admission of its Senators and Representatives to Congress. Tennessee was the first, however, among the seceded States to obtain that recognition, by being the first to ratify the Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment. "Immediately on the reception of the circular of the Secretary of State containing the proposed amendment, Governor Brownlow issued a proclamation summoning the Legislature of Tennessee to assemble at Nashville on the 4th of July [1866]. … Every effort was made to prevent the assembling of the required number [to constitute a quorum]. The powerful influence of the President himself was thrown in opposition to ratification." By arresting recalcitrant members, and by "the expedient of considering the members who were under arrest and confined in a committee room as present in their places," the quorum was assumed to have been made up and the amendment was ratified. "Immediately after the news was received in Washington, Mr. Bingham, in the House of Representatives, moved to reconsider a motion by which a joint resolution relating to the restoration of Tennessee had been referred to the Committee on Reconstruction," and, this motion being adopted, he introduced a substitute which declared, "That the State of Tennessee is hereby restored to her former, proper, practical relation to the Union, and again entitled to be represented by Senators and Representatives in Congress, duly elected and qualified, upon their taking the oaths of office required by existing laws." On the following day this joint resolution passed the House, and a day later (July 21st), it was adopted by the Senate.

W. H. Barnes, History of the 39th Congress, chapter 20.

ALSO IN: Ira P. Jones, Reconstruction in Tennessee (Why the Solid South? chapter 7).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1866-1871. The Ku Klux Klan.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

—————TENNESSEE: End————

TENNIS-COURT OATH, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

TENOCHTITLAN.

The native name of the city of Mexico.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

TENPET, The.

See MAGIANS.

TENURE-OF-OFFICE BILL, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1867 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

TEOTIHUACAN, Pyramids at.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE, &c.

TEQUESTA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

TERENTILIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

TERMILI, The.

See LYCIANS.

TEROUENNE: Siege and capture by the English (1513).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

TERRA FIRMA.

See TIERRA FIRME.

{3100}

TERROR, The Reign of.

As commonly used, this phrase describes the fearful state of things that prevailed in France during a period of the French Revolution which ended with the fall of Robespierre, July 27 (Ninth Thermidor), 1794. The beginning of the period so called is usually placed at the date of the coup d'état, May 31-June 2, 1793, which overthrew the Girondists and gave unrestrained power into the hands of the Terrorists of the Mountain. The Reign of Terror was not however fully organized as a deliberately merciless system, and made, according to the demand of the Paris Commune, "the order of the day," until the following September. In another view, the Reign of Terror may be said to have begun with the creation of the terrible Revolutionary Tribunal, March, 1793.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), to 1794 (JULY).

TERTIARII, The.

See BEGUINES, ETC.

TESCHEN, Treaty of (1779).

See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

TESHER.

The name which the Egyptians gave to the Arabian desert, signifying red earth.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

TESSERA HOSPITALIS.

See HOSPES.

TEST ACT, and its Repeal.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673, and 1827-1828 REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES.

TESTRI, Battle of (A. D. 687).

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

TESTS, Religious, in the English Universities: Abolished.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.

TETONS, The.

See AMERICAN' ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

TETRARCH.

As originally used, this official title, from the Greek, signified the governor of one fourth part of a country or province. Later, the Romans applied it to many tributary princes, in Syria and elsewhere, to whom they wished to give a rank inferior to that of the tributary kings.

TETZEL, and the sale of Indulgences.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1517 TETZEL.

TEUKRIANS, The.

"The elegiac poet Kallinus, in the middle of the seventh century B. C., was the first who mentioned the Teukrians; he treated them as immigrants from Krête, though other authors represented them as indigenous, or as having come from Attica. However the fact may stand as to their origin, we may gather that, in the time of Kallinus, they were still the great occupants of the Troad [northwestern Asia Minor]. Gradually the south and west coasts, as well as the interior of this region, became penetrated by successive colonies of Æolic Greeks. … The name Teukrians gradually vanished out of present use and came to belong only to the legends of the past."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 14.

TEUTECAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

TEUTONES. TEUTONIC.

"In the way of evidence of there being Teutones amongst the Germans, over and above the associate mention of their names with that of the Cimbri [see CIMBRI], there is but little. They are not so mentioned either by Tacitus or Strabo. … Arguments have been taken from … the supposed connection of the present word 'Deut-sch' =='German,' with the classical word 'Teut-ones.' … The reasoning … runs thus: The syllable in question is common to the word 'Teut-ones,' 'Teut-onicus,' 'Theod-iscas,' 'teud-uiscus,' 'teut-iscus,' 'tût-iske,' 'dût-iske,' 'tiut-sche,' 'deut-sch'; whilst the word Deut-sch means German, As the 'Teut-ones' were Germans, so were the Cimbri also. Now this line of argument is set aside by the circumstance that the syllable 'Teut-' in Teut-ones and Teut-onicus as the names of the confederates of the Cimbri, is wholly unconnected with the 'Teut-' in 'theod-iscus' and Deut-sch. This is fully shown by Grimm in his dissertation on the words German and Dutch. In its oldest form the latter word meant 'popular,' 'national,' 'vernacular'; it was an adjective applied to the 'vulgar tongue,' or the vernacular German, in opposition to the Latin. In the tenth century the secondary form 'Teut-onicus' came in vogue even with German writers. Whether this arose out of imitation of the Latin form 'Romanice,' or out of the idea of an historical connection with the Teutones of the classics, is immaterial. It is clear that the present word 'Deut-sch' proves nothing respecting the Teutones. Perhaps, however, as early as the time of Martial the word 'Teutonicus' was used in a general sense, denoting the Germans in general. Certain it is that, before his time, it meant the particular people conquered by Marius, irrespective of origin or locality."

R. G. Latham, The Germany of Tacitus, appendix 3.

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL: The founding of the order.

"It is not possible to find the exact date of the foundation of the Teutonic Order, but it was probably about A. D. 1190 that it received its full organization as one of the recognized Religious Military Orders. Its actual commencement, like that of the other Orders, was obscure and humble. About 1128 or 1129, a wealthy German, who had taken part in the siege and capture of Jerusalem, settled there with his wife, intending to spend the remainder of his life in the practice of religion and in visiting the holy places. His attention and interest were soon excited by the misfortunes of his poorer countrymen, who came in great numbers as pilgrims to Jerusalem. Many fell sick, and endured great miseries and hardships. Moved with compassion, he received some of the more distressing cases into his own house. But he soon found that the work grew beyond this, and he built a hospital, with a chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. In this institution he passed the whole of his time, nursing the sick pilgrims; and to their maintenance he devoted the whole of his means." One by one, others of his countrymen joined the pious German in his benevolent work, and "banded themselves together after the pattern of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and united the care of the sick and poor with the profession of arms in their defence, under the title of Hospitallers of the Blessed Virgin. This little band put themselves under the direction of the Grand Prior of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, although they did not actually join this Order, whose operations they so closely imitated. … It was, however, during the siege of Acre [A. D. 1189-1191] that the Teutonic Order received its final and complete organization as one of the great Military Religious Orders of Europe." At Acre, the Hospitallers of the Blessed Virgin, then driven from Jerusalem by Saladin's conquest, joined certain citizens of Bremen and Lu·beck in providing a field-hospital for the wounded and sick, and in their new sphere of labor they acquired the designation of the Teutonic Knights of the Hospital of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem. "It is said that the Order owed its constitution to Frederick, Duke of Suabia; but there is much obscurity, and little authentic record to determine this or to furnish particulars of the transaction. The Order seems, however, to have been confirmed by Pope Celestine III."

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders, part 3, chapter 1.

{3101}

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL: Conquest of Prussia.

See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY; and LIVONIA.

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL: Subjection to Poland, secularization of the Order and surrender of its territories.

See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL: A. D. 1809. Suppression by Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

TEWFIK, Khedive of Egypt, The reign of.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882; and 1882-1883.

TEWKESBURY, Battle of (1471).

The final battle of the "War of the Roses," in which Edward IV. of England overthrew the last Lancastrian army, collected by Queen Margaret of Anjou and her adherents; fought May 4, 1471. Three weeks previously, at Barnet, he had defeated and slain the Earl of Warwick. At Tewkesbury Queen Margaret was taken prisoner, her young son disappeared, how or when is uncertain, and her husband, the deposed King Henry VI., died mysteriously a few days afterwards in his prison in the tower. It was the end of the Lancastrian struggle.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

—————TEXAS: Start————

TEXAS: The aboriginal inhabitants and the name.

Amongst the small tribes found early in the 19th century existing west of the Mississippi on Red River and south of it, and believed to be natives of that region, were the Caddoes, "the Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, who have given their name to the province of Texas, and the Nabedaches, … [who] speak dialects of the Caddo language." Also, the Natchitoches, the Yatassees, the Adaize, the Appelousas, etc.

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archœologia Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 3.

ALSO IN: President's Message, February 19, 1806, with accompanying documents.

See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

TEXAS: A. D. 1685-1687. La Salle's shipwrecked colony.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835. Relinquishment of American claims to Spain. Condition as a Mexican province. Encouragement of immigration from the United States and Europe.

"By the treaty of 1819 with Spain for the cession of the Floridas, the United States relinquished all claim to the western portion of Louisiana lying south of Red River and west of the Sabine.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821; and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

After the final ratification of that treaty by both governments, and the cession and delivery of the Floridas to the United States, the Spaniards took formal possession of the country west of the Sabine, and erected it into the 'Province of Texas,' under the authority and jurisdiction of the Viceroy of Mexico. From that time the Sabine River was the western boundary of the United States, near the Gulf of Mexico. The province of Texas at this time was occupied by the native tribes of savages, interrupted only by a few Spanish settlements. … The whole population, including some settlements in the vicinity of the seacoast, scarcely exceeded 5,000 souls, of whom the greater portion were the remains of old colonies formed during the Spanish dominion over the province of Louisiana. Each principal settlement, from San Antonio de Bexar to Nacogdoches, was placed under the government of a military commandant, who exercised civil and military authority within the limits of his presidio. … Such was the province of Texas under the Spanish monarchy until the year 1821, when Mexico became an independent nation. … On the 24th of October, 1824, the Mexican States adopted a Republican form of government, embracing 'a confederation of independent states,' known and designated as the 'United States of Mexico.' In this confederation the departments of Texas and Coahuila were admitted as one state, and were jointly represented in the Congress of Mexico. Soon after the establishment of independence in the United States of Mexico, the colonization and settlement of Texas became a favorite subject of national policy with the new government. To attract population for the settlement of the country, colonization laws were enacted, to encourage enterprising individuals from foreign countries to establish large colonies of emigrants within the limits of Texas. Under the provisions of these laws enterprise was awakened in the United States and in some portions of Europe. Founders of colonies, or 'Empresarios,' were induced to enter into engagements for the occupancy and settlement of large tracts of country, designated in their respective 'grants'; the extent of the grant being proportionate to the number of colonists to be introduced. The first grant was made to Moses Austin, a native of Durham, Connecticut, in 1821, and under its provisions he was required by the Mexican authorities to introduce 300 families from the United States. This enterprising man, having departed from Bexar for the introduction of his colony, died on his journey through the wilderness, leaving his plans of colonization to be prosecuted by his son, Colonel Stephen F. Austin, who possessed the talents, energy, and judgment requisite for the arduous undertaking. Having succeeded to his father's enterprise, he subsequently acquired more influence with the Mexican government than any other 'empresario' in the province. … But a few years had elapsed when nearly the whole area of the department of Texas had been parceled out into extensive grants for settlement by the different 'empresarios' with their colonies. … Emigration from the United States, as well as from Great Britain and Ireland, continued to augment the population in all the departments until the year 1834, when political troubles began to convulse the "Mexican Republic." In 1835 "the whole Anglo-American population of Texas was about 20,000; of this number General Austin's colony comprised no less than 13,000, or more than half the entire population. These were chiefly emigrants from the United States. … The Mexicans within the limits of Texas at this period scarcely exceeded 3,000, most of whom resided in the vicinity of Bexar."

J. W. Monette, Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley, volume 2, pages 569-572.

ALSO IN: H. Yoakum, History of Texas, volume 1, chapters 15-21.

{3102}

TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836. The introduction of Slavery. Schemes of the Slave Power in the United States. Revolutionary movement under Houston. Independence of Mexico declared, and practically won at San Jacinto.

The American settlers in Texas "brought their slaves with them, and continued to do so notwithstanding a decree of the Mexican Congress, issued in July, 1824, which forbade the importation into Mexican territory of slaves from foreign countries, and notwithstanding the Constitution adopted the same year, which declared free all children thereafter born of slaves. About that time the slave-holders in the United States began to see in Texas an object of peculiar interest to them. The Missouri Compromise, admitting Missouri as a Slave State and opening to slavery all that part of the Louisiana purchase south of 36° 30', seemed at first to give a great advantage to the slave power. But gradually it became apparent that the territory thus opened to slavery was, after all, too limited for the formation of many new Slave States, while the area for the building up of Free States was much larger. More territory for slavery was therefore needed to maintain the balance of power between the two sections. At the same time the Mexican government, growing alarmed at the unruly spirit of the American colony in Texas, attached Texas to Coahuila, the two to form one state. The constitution of Coahuila forbade the importation of slaves; and in 1829 the Republic of Mexico, by the decree of September 15, emancipated all the slaves within its boundaries. Then the American Slave States found themselves flanked in the southwest by a power not only not in sympathy with slavery, but threatening to become dangerous to its safety. The maintenance of slavery in Texas, and eventually the acquisition of that country, were thenceforth looked upon by the slaveholding interest in this Republic as matters of very great importance, and the annexation project was pushed forward systematically. First the American settlers in Texas refused to obey the Mexican decree of emancipation, and, in order to avoid an insurrection, the Mexican authorities permitted it to be understood that the decree did not embrace Texas. Thus one point was gained. Then the Southern press vigorously agitated the necessity of enlarging the area of slavery, while an interest in the North was created by organizing three land companies in New York, which used pretended Mexican land grants in Texas as the basis of issues of stock, promising to make people rich over-night, and thus drawing Texas within the circle of American business speculation. In 1830 President Jackson made another attempt to purchase Texas [Henry Clay, in 1827, when Secretary of State under John Quincy Adams, had already made a proposal to the Mexican government for the purchase], offering five millions, but without success. The Mexican government, scenting the coming danger, prohibited the immigration of Americans into Texas. This, however, had no effect. The American colony now received a capable and daring leader in Sam Houston of Tennessee, who had served with General Jackson in the Indian wars. He went to Texas for the distinct object of wresting that country from Mexico. There is reason for believing that President Jackson was not ignorant of his intentions. Revolutionary convulsions in Mexico gave the American colonists welcome opportunities for complaints, which led to collisions with the Mexican authorities. General Santa Anna, who by a successful revolutionary stroke had put himself at the head of the Mexican government, attempted to reduce the unruly Americans to obedience. In 1835 armed conflicts took place, in which the Americans frequently had the advantage. The Texans declared their independence from Mexico on March 2, 1836. The declaration was signed by about 60 men, among whom there were only two of Mexican nationality. The constitution of the new republic confirmed the existence of slavery under its jurisdiction, and surrounded it with all possible guaranties. Meanwhile Santa Anna advanced at the head of a Mexican army to subdue the revolutionists. Atrocious butcheries marked the progress of his soldiery. On March 6 the American garrison [250 men] of the Alamo [a mission church at San Antonio de Bexar] was massacred, and on the 27th a large number [500] of American prisoners at Goliad met a like fate. These atrocities created a great excitement in the United States. But on April 21 the Texans under Houston, about 800 strong, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Santa Anna's army of 1,500 men, at San Jacinto, taking Santa Anna himself prisoner. When captive Mexican President concluded an armistice with the victorious Texans, promising the evacuation of the country, and to procure the recognition of its independence; but this the Mexican Congress refused to ratify. The government of the United States maintained, in appearance, a neutral position. President Jackson had indeed instructed General Gaines to march his troops into Texas, if he should see reason to apprehend Indian incursions. Gaines actually crossed the boundary line, and was recalled only after the Mexican Minister at Washington had taken his passports. The organization of reinforcements for Houston, however, had been suffered to proceed on American soil without interference."

C. Schurz, Life of Henry Clay, chapter 17 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: H. von Holst, Constitutional and Political History of the United States, volume 2, chapter 7.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 7.

A. M. Williams, Sam Houston and the War of Independence in Texas.

TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845. Eight years of independence. Annexation to the United States. The question in Congress and the country.

"Santa Anna, … constrained in his extremity to acknowledge the independence of Texas, … was liberated, and the new republic established in October, 1836, with a Constitution modeled on that of the United States, and with General Houston inaugurated as its first President. The United States forthwith acknowledged its independence. In less than a year application was made to the United States government to receive the new republic into the Union, and, though this was at the time declined, it was obvious that the question was destined to play a most important part in American civil policy. The North saw in the whole movement a predetermined attempt at the extension of slavery, and in the invasive emigration, the revolt, the proclamation of independence, the temporary organization of a republic, and the application to be admitted into the Union as a state, successive steps of a conspiracy which would, through the creation of half a dozen or more new states, give a preponderance to the slave power in the republic. {3103} Mr. Van Buren, who had declined the overtures for the annexation of Texas, was succeeded in the Presidency by General Harrison, who, dying almost immediately after his inauguration, was followed by the Vice President, Mr. Tyler, a Virginian, and a supporter of extreme Southern principles. The annexation project was now steadily pressed forward, but, owing to the difficult circumstances under which Mr. Tyler was placed, and dissensions arising in the party that had elected him, nothing decisive could be done until 1844, when Mr. Upshur, the Secretary of State, being accidentally killed by the bursting of a cannon, Mr. Calhoun succeeded him. A treaty of annexation was at once arranged, but, on being submitted to the Senate, was rejected. Undiscouraged by this result, the South at once determined to make annexation the touchstone in the coming Presidential election. … Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Clay, the prominent candidates of the two opposing parties for the Presidency, were compelled to make known their views previously to the meeting of the nominating Conventions," and both discountenanced annexation. Van Buren was accordingly defeated in the Democratic Convention and James K. Polk received the nomination. Clay was nominated by the Whigs, and made an attempt, in the succeeding canvass, to change his ground on the Texas question; but "his attempt only served to make the matter worse, and cost him the support of the anti-slavery party, whose votes would have elected him." Polk was chosen President: but the annexation of Texas did not wait for his inauguration. "On December 19th a joint resolution was introduced into the House of Representatives providing for annexation. Attempts were made to secure half the country for free labor, the other half being resigned to slavery. … This proposition was, however, defeated. … As the measure eventually stood, it made suitable provision for the mode in which the 'State of Texas' should be admitted into the Union, the disposal of its munitions of war, public property, unappropriated lands, debts. On the main point it was arranged that new states, not exceeding four in number, in addition to Texas proper, should subsequently be made out of its territory, those lying south of latitude 36° 30' to be admitted with or without slavery, as their people might desire; in those north of that line, slavery to be prohibited. Mr. Tyler, on the last day of his term of office, unwilling to leave to his successor, Mr. Polk, the honor of completing this great Southern measure, dispatched a swift messenger to Texas; her assent was duly secured, and the Mexican province became a state of the Union. But the circumstances and conditions under which this had been done left a profound dissatisfaction in the North. The portion of territory ceded to freedom did not belong to Texas; her boundary did not approach within 200 miles of the Missouri Compromise line. The South had therefore secured the whole of the new acquisition; she had seized the substance, and had deluded the North with a shadow."

J. W. Draper, History of the American Civil War, volume 1, chapter 22.

ALSO IN: T. H. Benton, Thirty Years View, volume 2, chapters 135, 138-142, 148.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 8, chapter 13.

H. Greeley, History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension, chapter 10.

TEXAS: A. D. 1846-1848. The Mexican War.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847: and 1847.

TEXAS: A. D. 1848. Territory extorted from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

TEXAS: A. D. 1850. Sale of territory to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February). Secession from the Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February). Twiggs' surrender of the Federal army, posts and stores.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1862. Farragut's occupation of coast towns.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

TEXAS: A. D. 1865 (June). Provisional government set up under President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1865-1870. Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.

—————TEXAS: End————

TEZCUCO.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

THABORITES, The.

See MYSTICISM.

THAI RACE, The.

See SIAM.

THAMANÆANS, The.

An ancient people who occupied the region in western Afghanistan which lies south and southeast of Herat, from the Haroot-rud to the Helmend.

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, Persia, chapter 1.

THAMES, Battle of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

THANAGE.

An old Celtic tenure by which certain thanes' estates were held in Scotland, and which feudalism displaced.

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 3, page 246.

THANE, THEGN.

See COMITATUS; and ETHEL; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

THANET, The Jute Landing on.

See ENGLAND: A. D.449-473.

THANKSGIVING DAY, The American: Its origin.

"The Pilgrims [at Plymouth], fond as they were of social enjoyment, had since landing known no day of rest except the sacred day of worship. Now [in 1621, the year after their landing from the Mayflower] that the summer was past and the harvest ended, they determined to have a period of recreation, combined with thanksgiving for their many mercies. The Governor thereupon sent out four huntsmen, who in one day secured enough game to supply the Colony for nearly a week. Hospitality was extended to Massasoit, who accepted and brought ninety people with him. The guests remained three days, during which they captured five deer to add to the larder of their hosts. The motley company indulged in a round of amusements, and the Colonists entertained their visitors with military tactics and evolutions. Without doubt, religious services opened each day; for the Pilgrims were cheerful Christians, who carried religion into all their affairs. Thus heartily and royally was inaugurated the great New England festival of Thanksgiving. For two centuries it continued to be a peculiarity of the Eastern States; but it has now become national, its annual return finding a welcome along the Lake shore and the Gulf, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. … {3104} In 1623 a public day of Thanksgiving is noticed; and one is mentioned in a letter of 1632. … I do not doubt that such a religious festival was held after every harvest, and that it was so much a matter of course that the records did not mention it any more than they did the great training-day, with its sermon and holiday features."

J. A. Goodwin, The Pilgrim Republic, pages 179-180, and foot-note.

THANN, THAUN, Battle of (1638).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

Battle of (1809).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

THAPSACUS.

Thapsacus "was situated just above the modern town of Rakka, at the only point in the central course of the Euphrates where that river is fordable (though even here only at certain seasons of the year), for which reason it continued to be used alike by the Persian, Greek and Roman armies during a long period. It was also a commercial route of importance in ancient times."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 10, section 2 (volume 1).

See, also, APAMEA.

THAPSUS, The Battle of (B. C. 46).

See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

THAPSUS: The Tyrian colony.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

THASOS. THASIAN MINES.

Thasos, an island off the coast of Thrace, in the northern part of the Ægean Sea, was celebrated in antiquity for its gold mines, first discovered and worked by the Phœnicians. Still more valuable mines on the neighboring Thracian coast were developed and worked by the Thasians. They were subdued by the Persians and subsequently became subject to Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

THAUR, The Cave of Mount.

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

THAUSS, Battle of (1431).

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

THEATINES, The.

The founders of the Order of the Theatines (1524) were "Gaetano of Thiene, a native of Vicenza, and Gian Pietro Caraffa [afterwards Pope Paul IV.]. The former had quitted a lucrative post at the Roman court in order to transplant the ideas of the Oratory of the Divine Love to his native city, Venice, and Verona, and had gradually come to concentrate his pious thoughts upon the reformation of the secular clergy of the Church. On his return to Rome, Bonifacio da Colle, a Lombard lawyer, became interested in his design, and then it was enthusiastically taken up by Caraffa, whose bishopric of Chieti, or, according to the older form, Theate, gave its name to the new order of the Theatines."

A. W. Ward, The Counter-Reformation, page 28.

"To the vow of poverty they made the special addition that not only would they possess nothing, but would even abstain from begging, and await the alms that might be brought to their dwellings. … They did not call themselves monks, but regular clergy—they were priests with the vows of monks. Their intention was to establish a kind of seminary for the priesthood. … They devoted themselves rigidly to their clerical duties—o preaching, the administration of the sacraments, and the care of the sick. … The order of the Theatines did not indeed become a seminary for priests precisely, its numbers were never sufficient for that; but it grew to be a seminary for bishops, coming at length to be considered the order of priests peculiar to the nobility."

L. Ranke, History of the Popes, book 2, section 3 (volume 1).

THEBAIS, The.

The southern district of Upper Egypt, taking its name from Thebes.

THEBES, Egypt.

"No city of the old world can still show so much of her former splendour as Egyptian Thebes. … Not one of the many temples of Thebes has wholly disappeared; some are almost complete; many of the royal and private tombs were, until the tourist came, fresh with colours as of yesterday. … The origin of the great city is obscure. Unlike Memphis, Thebes, her southern rival, rose to the headship by slow degrees. It was towards the close of the dark age marked by the rule of Hanes, that a new line of kings arose in the upper country, with Thebes for their capital. At first they were merely nobles; then one became a local king, and his successors won the whole dominion of Egypt. These were the sovereigns of the Eleventh Dynasty. Their date must be before Abraham, probably some centuries earlier. … Thebes, like the other cities of Egypt, had a civil and a religious name. The civil name was Apiu, 'the city of thrones,' which, with the article 't' or 'ta,' became Ta-Apiu, and was identified by the Greeks with the name of their own famous city, by us corruptly called Thebes. The sacred name was Nu-Amen, 'the city of Amen,' the god of Thebes; or simply Nu, 'the city,' and Nu-ā, 'the great city.' In these names we recognize the No-Amon and No of Scripture."

R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 4.

See, also, EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

—————THEBES, Greece: Start————

THEBES, Greece: The founding of the city.

"In the fruitful plain, only traversed by low hills, which stretches from the northern declivity of Mount Cithæron to the Bœotian lakes opposite the narrowest part of the sound which separates Eubœa from the mainland, in the 'well-watered, pasture-bearing region of the Aones,' as Euripides says, lay the citadel and town of Thebes. According to Greek tradition, it was built by Cadmus the Phœnician. The Aones, who inhabited the country, are said to have amalgamated with the Phœnicians whom Cadmus brought with him, into one people. The citadel lay on a hill of moderate height between the streams Ismenus and Dirce; it bore even in historical times the name Cadmea; the ridge to the north of the town was called Phœnicium, i. e. mountain of the Phœnicians. In the story of Cadmus and Europa, Greek legend relates the Phœnician mythus of Melkarth and Astarte. In order to seek the lost goddess of the moon, Astarte, Cadmus-Melkarth, the wandering sun-god, sets forth. He finds her in the far west, in Bœotia, and here in Thebes, on the Cadmea, celebrates the holy marriage. … There are a few relics of the wall of the citadel of Cadmea, principally on the north side; they are great blocks, not quite regularly hewn. Of the city wall and the famous seven gates in it nothing remains; even this number seven points to the Phœnicians as well as the designations which were retained by these gates even in historical times. The Electric gate belonged to the sun-god Baal, called by the Greeks Elector; the Neitic gate, it would seem, to the god of war. … {3105} The gate Hypsistia was that of Zeus Hypsistos, whose shrine stood on the Cadmea; … the Prœtidic gate belonged to Astarte, whose domain was the moon; the Oncæic gate in the north-west belonged to Athena Onca, who is expressly called a Phœnician goddess. … It is probable that the two remaining gates, the Homoloic and the Crenaic, were also dedicated to gods of this circle—to the spirits of planets. According to Greek legend, Cadmus invented the building of walls, mining, armour, and letters. Herodotus contents himself with saying that the Phœnicians who came with Cadmus taught much to the Greeks, even writing: from the Phœnicians the Ionians, in whose midst they lived, had learned letters. If even this early borrowing of writing on the part of the Greeks is incorrect, all the other particulars,—the legend of Cadmus, which extends to the Homeric poems, where the inhabitants of Thebes are called Cadmeans; the rites of the Thebans; the walls and gates,— taken together, give evidence that the Phœnicians went over from Eubœa to the continent, and here fixed one of their most important and lasting colonies upon and around the hill of Cadmea."

M. Duncker, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 4.

See, also, BŒOTIA.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 509-506. Unsuccessful war with Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 480. Traitorous alliance with the Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 480 (SALAMIS).

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 479. Siege and reduction by the confederate Greeks. Punishment for the Persian alliance.

See GREECE: B. C. 479 (PLATÆA).

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 457-456. War with Athens. Defeat at Œnophyta. Overthrow of the oligarchies.

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 447-445. Bœotian revolution. Overthrow of Athenian influence. Defeat of Athens at Coronea.

See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 431. Disastrous attack on Platæa. Opening hostilities of the Peloponnesian War.

See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 404-403. Shelter and aid to Athenian patriots.

See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 395-387. Confederacy against Sparta and alliance with Persia. The Corinthian War. Battle of Coronea. Peace of Antalcidas.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 383. The betrayal of the city to the Spartans.

See GREECE: B. C. 383.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 379-371. The liberation of the city. Rise of Epaminondas. Overthrow of Spartan supremacy at Leuctra.

See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 378. The Sacred Band.

"This was an institution connecting itself with earlier usages of the land. For already in the battle of Delium a band of the Three Hundred is mentioned, who fought, like the heroes of the Homeric age, associated in pairs, from their chariots in front of the main body of the soldiery. This doubtless very ancient institution was now [B. C. 378] revived and carried out in a new spirit under the guidance of Epaminondas and Gorgidas. They had quietly assembled around them a circle of youths, with whom they had presented themselves before the community on the day of the Liberation, so that they were regarded as the founders of the Sacred Band of Thebes. It was now no longer a privilege of the nobility to belong to the Three Hundred; but those among the youth of the land who were in feeling the noblest and most high-minded, and who already under the oppression of the Tyrants had been preparing themselves for the struggle for freedom, were henceforth the elect and the champions. It was their duty to stimulate the rest eagerly to follow their example of bravery and discipline; they were associated with one another by the bonds of friendship and by identity of feelings. … A soldier-like spirit was happily blended with ethical and political points of view, and ancient national usage with the ideas of the present and with Pythagorean principles; and it constitutes an honorable monument of the wisdom of Epaminondas."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 6, chapter 1.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 370-362. Intervention in Peloponnesus. Successive expeditions of Epaminondas. Invasions of Sparta. Formation of the Arcadian Union. Battle of Mantinea and death of Epaminondas.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 357-338. The Ten Years Sacred War with the Phocians. Intervention of Philip of Macedon. Loss of independence and liberty.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 335. Revolt. Destruction by Alexander the Great.

See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 316. Restoration by Cassander of Macedonia.

See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 291-290. Siege of by Demetrius.

Thebes, with other Bœotian towns, united in a revolt against Demetrius Poliorcetes, while the latter held the throne of Macedonia, and was reduced to submission, B. C. 290, after a siege which lasted nearly a year.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 60.

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1146. Sack by the Normans of Sicily. Abduction of silk-weavers.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1205. Included in the Latin duchy of Athens.

See ATHENS: A. D. 1205.

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1311. Conquest by the Catalans.

See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.

—————THEBES, Greece: End————

THEGN, THANE.

See COMITATUS; ETHEL; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

THEIPHALI. THEIPHALIA.

See TAIFALÆ.

THEMES.

Administrative divisions of the Byzantine Empire. "The term thema was first applied to the Roman legion. The military districts, garrisoned by legions, were then called themata, and ultimately the word was used merely to indicate geographical administrative divisions."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, book 1, chapter 1, section 1, foot-note.

See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717.

THEMISTOCLES, Ascendancy and fall of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 489-480, to 477-462.

THEODORA, Empress in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1042, and 1054-1056.

THEODORE, King of Corsica.

See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

Theodore I., Pope, A. D. 642-649.

Theodore II., Pope, 898.

Theodore or Feodore, II., Czar of Russia, 1584-1598.

Theodore III., Czar of Russia, 1676-1682.

Theodore Lascaris I., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1206-1222.

Theodore Lascaris II., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1255-1259.

THEODORIC, Ostrogothic kingdom of.

See GOTHS: A. D. 473-488; and ROME: A. D. 488-526.

{3106}

THEODOSIAN CODE, The.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

THEODOSIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 378-395; (Western), 392-395; in Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

Theodosius II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 408-450; (Western), 423-425.

Theodosius III., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 716-717.

THEOPHILUS, Emperor in the East, (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 829-842.

THEORI.

The name of Theori, among the ancient Greeks, "in addition to its familiar signification of spectators at the theatre and public ambassadors to foreign sanctuaries and festivals, was specially applied to certain public magistrates, whose function it was to superintend and take charge of religious affairs in general, though they often possessed along with this some more extensive political power."

G. Schumann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, part 2, chapter 5.

THEORICON, The.

"By means of the Theoricon …, the most pernicious issue of the age of Pericles, there arose in a small free state [Athens] a lavish expenditure, which was relatively not less than in the most voluptuous courts, and which consumed large sums, while the wars were unsuccessful for the want of money. By it is understood the money which was distributed among the people for the celebration of the festivals and games, partly to restore to the citizens the sum required for their admission into the theatre, partly to enable them to procure a better meal. In part it was expended for sacrifices, with which a public feast was connected. … The superintendents of the theoricon were not called treasurers; but they evidently had a treasury. Their office was one of the administrative offices of the government, and indeed of the most eminent. They were elected by the assembly of the people through cheirotonia. Their office seems to have been annual. Their number is nowhere given. Probably there were ten of them, one from each tribe. … The Athenian people was a tyrant, and the treasury of the theorica its private treasury."

A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens (translated by Lamb), book 2, chapter 7; also chapter 13.

THEOW.

"In the earliest English laws … slaves are found; the 'theow' [from the same root as 'dienen,' to serve] or slave simple, whether 'wealh'—that is, of British extraction, captured or purchased—or of the common German stock descended from the slaves of the first colonists; the 'esne' or slave who works for hire; the 'wite-theow' who is reduced to slavery because he cannot pay his debts."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 5, section 37.

THERA.

The ancient name of the Greek island of Santorin, one of the Sporades, whose inhabitants were enterprising navigators, and weavers and dyers of purple stuffs. They are said to have founded Cyrene, on the north African coast.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 3.

See CYRENAICA.

"The island was the site of one of the largest volcanic eruptions in recorded history … about [1600 B. C.] at the height of the Minoan civilization."

Wikipedia: Santorini. Transcriber's Note.

THERMÆ.

"The Roman thermæ were a combination on a huge scale of the common balneæ with the Greek gymnasia. Their usual form was that of a large quadrangular space, the sides of which were formed by various porticos, exedræ, and even theatres for gymnastic and literary exercises, and in the centre of which stood a block of buildings containing the bath rooms and spacious halls for undergoing the complicated process of the Roman warm bath. The area covered by the whole group of buildings was, in many cases, very large. The court of the Baths of Caracalla enclosed a space of 1,150 feet on each side, with curvilinear projections on two sides. The central mass of building was a rectangle, 730 feet by 380. … The other great Imperial thermæ of Rome, those of Nero, Titus, Domitian, Diocletian, and Constantine, were probably upon the same plan as the Thermæ Caracallæ. All were built of brick, and the interior was decorated with stucco, mosaics, or slabs of marble, and other ornamental stones. … The public balneæ, as distinct from thermæ, … were used simply as baths, and had none of the luxurious accessories attached to them which were found in the courts of the great thermæ."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, introduction.

THERMIDOR, The month.

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

THERMIDORIANS. The Ninth of Thermidor.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JULY), and 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of.

See THESSALY.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 480. The defense by Leonidas against the Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 352. Repulse of Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-330.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 279. Defense against the Gauls.

See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 191. Defeat of Antiochus by the Romans.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: A. D. 1822. Greek victory over the Turks.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

THERVINGI, The.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.

THESES OF LUTHER, The Ninety-five.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1517.

THESMOPHORIA, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 383.

THESMOTHETES.

See ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.

THESPROTIANS.

See EPIRUS; and HELLAS.

—————THESSALONICA: Start————

THESSALONICA.

Therma, an unimportant ancient city of Macedonia, received the name of Thessalonica, about 315 B. C., in honor of the sister of Alexander the Great, who married Cassander. Cassander gave an impetus to the city which proved lasting. It rose to a high commercial rank, acquired wealth, and became, under the Romans, the capital of the Illyrian provinces.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 390. Massacre ordered by Theodosius.

A riotous outbreak at Thessalonica, A. D. 390, caused by the imprisonment of one of the popular favorites of the circus, was punished by the Emperor Theodosius in a manner so fiendish that it seems wellnigh incredible. He caused the greatest possible number of the inhabitants to be invited, in his name, to witness certain games in the circus. "As soon as the assembly was complete, the soldiers, who had secretly been posted round the circus, received the signal, not of the races, but of a general massacre. {3107} The promiscuous carnage continued three hours, without discrimination of strangers or natives, of age or sex, of innocence or guilt; the most moderate accounts state the number of the slain at 7,000; and it is affirmed by some writers that more than 15,000 victims were sacrificed. … The guilt of the emperor is aggravated by his long and frequent residence at Thessalonica."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 27.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 904. Capture and pillage by the Saracens.

The capture of Thessalonica by a piratical expedition from Tarsus, A. D. 904, was one of the most terrible experiences of its kind in that age of blood and rapine, and one of which the fullest account, by an eye-witness and sufferer, has come down to posterity. The wretched inhabitants who escaped the sword were mostly sold into slavery, and the splendid city—then the second in the Byzantine Empire—was stripped of all its wealth. The defense of the place had been neglected, with implicit dependence on the goodwill and the power of St. Demetrius.