Volume I—A To Elba (continued 21)

F. Schiller, History of the Thirty Years' War, book 1, pages 51-55.

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, The Thirty Years' War, chapter 2.

A. Gindely, History of the Thirty Years' War, chapter 1.

F. Kohlrausch, History of Germany, chapter 22.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1618-1620. Conciliatory measures defeated by Ferdinand. His election to the Imperial throne, and his deposition in Bohemia. Acceptance of the crown by Frederick the Palatine Elector. His unsupported situation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1620. Disappointment in the newly elected King. His aggressive Calvinism. Battle of the White Mountain before Prague. Frederick's flight. Annulling of the Royal charter. Loss of Bohemian Liberties.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1620, and HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648. The Reign of Terror. Death, banishment, confiscation, dragoonades. The country a desert. Protestantism crushed, but not slain.

"In June, 1621, a fearful reign of terror began in Bohemia, with the execution of 27 of the most distinguished heretics. For years the unhappy people bled under it; thousands were banished, and yet Protestantism was not fully exterminated. The charter was cut into shreds by the Emperor himself; there could be no forbearance towards 'such acknowledged rebels.' As a matter of course, the Lutheran preaching was forbidden under the heaviest penalties; heretical works, Bibles especially, were taken away in heaps. Jesuit colleges, churches, and schools came into power; but this was not all. A large number of distinguished Protestant families were deprived of their property, and, as if that were not enough, it was decreed that no non-Catholic could be a citizen, nor carry on a trade, enter into a marriage, nor make a will; anyone who harboured a Protestant preacher forfeited his property; whoever permitted Protestant instruction to be given was to be fined, and whipped out of town; the Protestant poor who were not converted were to be driven out of the hospitals, and to be replaced by Catholic poor; he who gave free expression to his opinions about religion was to be executed. In 1624 an order was issued to all preachers and teachers to leave the country within eight days under pain of death; and finally, it was ordained that whoever had not become Catholic by Easter, 1626, must emigrate. … But the real conversions were few; thousands quietly remained true to the faith; other thousands wandered as beggars into foreign lands, more than 30,000 Bohemian families, and among them 500 belonging to the aristocracy, went into banishment. Exiled Bohemians were to be found in every country of Europe, and were not wanting in any of the armies that fought against Austria. Those who could not or would not emigrate, held to their faith in secret. Against them dragoonades were employed. Detachments of soldiers were sent into the various districts to torment the heretics till they were converted. The 'Converters' (Seligmacher) went thus throughout all Bohemia, plundering and murdering. … No succour reached the unfortunate people; but neither did the victors attain their end. Protestantism and the Hussite memories could not be slain, and only outward submission was extorted. … A respectable Protestant party exists to this day in Bohemia and Moravia. But a desert was created; the land was crushed for a generation. Before the war Bohemia had 4,000,000 inhabitants, and in 1648 there were but 700,000 or 800,000. These figures appear preposterous, but they are certified by Bohemian historians. In some parts of the country the population has not attained the standard of 1620 to this day."

L. Häusser, The Period of the Reformation, chapter 32.

ALSO IN: C. A. Peschek, Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia, volume 2.

E. de Schweinitz, History of the Church known as the Unitas Fratrum, chapter 47-51.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1631-1632. Temporary occupation by the Saxons. Their expulsion by Wallenstein.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1640-1645. Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1646-1648. Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War. Surprise and capture of part of Prague by the Swedes. Siege of the old city. Peace.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1740. The question of the Austrian Succession. The Pragmatic Sanction.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1741. See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER), and (OCTOBER).

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY). Prussian invasion. Battle of Chotusitz.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).

{294}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER). Expulsion of the French. Belleisle's retreat. Maria Theresa crowned at Prague.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1757. The Seven Years War. Frederick's invasion and defeat. Battles of Prague and Kolin.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

—————BOHEMIA: End—————

BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, The.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457, and GERMANY: A. D. 1620.

BOHEMIANS (Gypsies).

See GYPSIES.

BOIANS, OR BOII.

Some passages in the earlier history and movements of the powerful Gallic tribe known as the Boii will be found touched upon under ROME: B. C. 390-347, and B. C. 295-191, in accounts given of the destruction of Rome by the Gauls, and of the subsequent wars of the Romans with the Cisalpine Gauls. After the final conquest of the Boians in Gallia Cisalpina, early in the second century, B. C., the Romans seem to have expelled them, wholly or partly, from that country, forcing them to cross the Alps. They afterwards occupied a region embraced in modern Bavaria and Bohemia, both of which countries are thought to have derived their names from these Boian people. Some part of the nation, however, associated itself with the Helvetii and joined in the migration which Cæsar arrested. He settled these Boians in Gaul, within the Æduan territory, between the Loire and the Allier. Their capital city was Gergovia, which was also the name of a city of the Arverni. The Gergovia of the Boians is conjectured to have been modern Moulius. Their territory was the modern Bourbonnais, which probably derived its name from them. Three important names, therefore, in European geography and history, viz.—Bourbon, Bavaria and Bohemia, are traced to the Gallic nation of the Boii.

Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb, notes.

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12, note.

BOIS-LE-DUC. Siege and capture by the Dutch (1629).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

BOKHARA (Ancient Transoxania).

"Taken literally, the name [Transoxania] is a translation of the Arabic Mavera-un-nehr (that which lies beyond or across the river), and it might therefore be supposed that Transoxania meant the country lying beyond or on the right shore of the Oxus. But this is not strictly speaking the case. … From the period of the Samanides down to modern times, the districts of Talkan, Tokharistan and Zem, although lying partly or entirely on the left bank of the Oxus, have been looked on as integral portions of Bokhara. Our historical researches seem to prove that this arrangement dates from the Samanides, who were themselves originally natives of that part of Khorassan. … It is almost impossible in dealing geographically with Transoxania to assign definitely an accurate frontier. We can and will therefore comprehend in our definition of Transoxania solely Bokhara, or the khanate of Bokhara; for although it has only been known by the latter name since the time of Sheïbani and of the Ozbegs [A. D. 1500], the shores of the Zerefshan and the tract of country stretching southwards to the Oxus and northwards to the desert of Kizil Kum, represent the only parts of the territory which have remained uninterruptedly portions of the original undivided state of Transoxania from the earliest historical times. … Bokhara, the capital from the time of the Samanides, and at the date of the very earliest geographical reports concerning Transoxania, is said, during its prosperity, to have been the largest city of the Islamite world. … Bokhara was not, however, merely a luxurious city, distinguished by great natural advantages; it was also the principal emporium for the trade between China and Western Asia; in addition to the vast warehouses for silks, brocades, and cotton stuffs, for the finest carpets, and all kinds of gold and silversmiths' work, it boasted of a great money-market, being in fact the Exchange of all the population of Eastern and Western Asia. … Sogd … comprised the mountainous part of Transoxania (which may be described as the extreme western spurs of the Thien-Shan). … The capital was Samarkand, undoubtedly the Maracanda of the Greeks, which they specify as the capital of Sogdia. The city has, throughout the history of Transoxania been the rival of Bokhara. Before the time of the Samanides, Samarkand was the largest city beyond the Oxus, and only began to decline from its former importance when Ismail chose Bokhara for his own residence. Under the Khahrezmians it is said to have raised itself again, and become much larger than its rival, and under Timour to have reached the culminating point of its prosperity."

A. Vambery, History of Bokhara, introduction.

ALSO IN: J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapters 2-3.

BOKHARA: B. C. 329-327. Conquest by Alexander the Great.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

BOKHARA: 6th Century. Conquest from the White Huns by the Turks.

See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

BOKHARA: A. D. 710. The Moslem Conquest.

See. MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.

BOKHARA: A. D. 991-998. Under the Samanides.

See SAMANIDES.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1004-1193. The Seldjuk Turks.

See TURKS (THE SELDJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and after.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1209-1220. Under the Khuarezmians.

See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1219. Destruction of the city by Jingis Khan.

Bokhara was taken by Jingis Khan in the summer of 1219. "It was then a very large and magnificent city. Its name, according to the historian Alai-ud-din, is derived from Bokhar, which in the Magian language means the Centre of Science." The city surrendered after a siege of a few days. Jingis Khan, on entering the town, saw the great mosque and asked if it was the Sultan's palace. "Being told it was the house of God, he dismounted, climbed the steps, and said in a loud voice to his followers, 'The hay is cut, give your horses fodder.' They easily understood this cynical invitation to plunder. … The inhabitants were ordered to leave the town in a body, with only their clothes, so that it might be more easily pillaged, after which the spoil was divided among the victors. 'It was a fearful day,' says Ibn al Ithir; 'one only heard the sobs and weeping of men, women and children, who were separated forever; women were ravished, while men died rather than survive the dishonour of their wives and daughters.' The Mongols ended by setting fire to all the wooden portion of the town, and only the great mosque and certain palaces which were built of brick remained standing."

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1, chapter 3.

{295}

"The flourishing city on the Zerefshan had become a heap of rubbish, but the garrison in the citadel, commanded by Kok Khan, continued to hold out with a bravery which deserves our admiration. The Mongols used every imaginable effort to reduce this last refuge of the enemy; the Bokhariots themselves were forced on to the scaling-ladders: but all in vain, and it was not until the moat had been literally choked with corpses of men and animals that the stronghold was taken and its brave defenders put to death. The peaceable portion of the population was also made to suffer for this heroic resistance. More than 30,000 men were executed, and the remainder were, with the exception of the very old people among them, reduced to slavery, without any distinction of rank whatever; and thus the inhabitants of Bokhara, lately so celebrated for their learning, their love of art, and their general refinement, were brought down to a dead level of misery and degradation and scattered to all quarters."

A. Vambery, History of Bokhara, chapter 8.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1868. Subjection to Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

—————BOKHARA: End—————

BOLERIUM.

See BELERION.

BOLESLAUS I., King of Poland, A. D. 1000-1025. Boleslaus II., King of Poland, A. D. 1058-1083. Boleslaus III., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1102-1138. Boleslaus IV., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1146-1173. Boleslaus V., King of Poland, A. D. 1227-1279.

BOLEYN, Anne. Marriage, trial and execution.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and, 1536-1543.

BOLGARI.

See BULGARIA: ORIGIN OF.

BOLIVAR'S LIBERATION OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN STATES.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819, 1819-1830; and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.

BOLIVIA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

"With the Toromonos tribe, who occupied, as Orbigny tells us, a district of from 11° to 13° of South latitude, it was an established rule for every man to build his house, with his own hands alone, and if he did otherwise he lost the title of man, as well as became the laughing-stock of his fellow citizens. The only clothing worn by these people was a turban on the head, composed of feathers, the rest of the body being perfectly naked; whilst the women used a garment, manufactured out of cotton, that only partially covered their persons. … The ornament in which the soft sex took most pride was a necklace made of the teeth of enemies, killed by their husbands in battle. Amongst the Moxos polygamy was tolerated, and woman's infidelity severely punished. … The Moxos cultivated the land with ploughs, and other implements of agriculture, made of wood. They fabricated canoes, fought and fished with bows and arrows. In the province of the Moxos lived also a tribe called Itonomos, who, besides these last named instruments of war, used two edged wooden scimitars. The immorality of these Itonomos was something like that of the Mormons of our time. … The Canichanas, who lived near Machupo, between 13° and 14° South latitude and 67° to 68° West longitude, are reputed by M. d'Orbigny as the bravest of the Bolivian Indians. They are accredited to have been cannibals. …Where Jujuy—the most northern province· of the Argentine Republic—joins Bolivia, we have in the present day the Mataguaya and Cambas Indians. The latter are represented to me by Dr. Matienzo, of Rosario, as intelligent and devoted to agricultural labor. They have fixed tolderias [villages], the houses of which are clean and neat. Each town is commanded by a capitan, whose sovereignty is hereditary to his male descendants only."

T. J. Hutchinson, The Parana, chapter 4.

See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS, and TUPI.

In the Empire of the Incas.

See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1559. Establishment of the Audiencia of Charcas.

See AUDIENCIAS.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826. The independent Republic founded and named in Upper Peru. The Bolivian Constitution.

"Upper Peru [or Las Charcas, as it was more specifically known] … had been detached [in 1776—see ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777] from the government of Lima … to form part of the newly constituted Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres. The fifteen years' struggle for independence was here a sanguinary one indeed. There is scarcely a town, village, or noticeable place in this vast region where blood is not recorded to have been shed in this terrible struggle. … The Spanish army afterwards succumbed to that of the independents of Peru; and thus Upper Peru gained, not indeed liberty, but independence under the rule of a republican army. This vast province was incapable of governing itself. The Argentines laid claim to it as a province of the confederation; but they already exercised too great a preponderance in the South American system, and the Colombian generals obtained the relinquishment of these pretensions. Sucre [Bolivar's Chief of Staff] assumed the government until a congress could be assembled: and under the influence of the Colombian soldiery Upper Peru was erected into an independent state by the name of the Republic of Bolivar, or Bolivia."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, page 290.

For an account of the Peruvian war of liberation—the results of which embraced Upper Peru—and the adoption of the Bolivian constitution by the latter,

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, and 1825-1826.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1834-1839. Confederation with Peru. War with Chile.

See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1879-1884. The war with Chile.

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

—————BOLIVIA: End—————

BOLIVIAN CONSTITUTION, or Code Bolivar.

See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.

BOLOGNA: Origin of the city.

On the final conquest of the Boian Gauls in North Italy, a new Roman colony and frontier fortress were established, B. C. 189, called first Felsina and then Bononia, which is the Bologna of modern Italy.

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 41.

BOLOGNA: Origin of the name.

See BOIANS.

{296}

BOLOGNA: B. C. 43. Conference of the Triumvirs.

See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

BOLOGNA: 11th Century. School of Law. The Glossators.

"Just at this time [end of the 11th century] we find a famous school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all its instructions was the Corpus Juris Civilis. Its teachers, who constitute a series of distinguished jurists extending over a century and a half, devoted themselves to the work of expounding the text and elucidating the principles of the Corpus Juris, and especially the Digest. From the form in which they recorded and handed down the results of their studies, they have obtained the name of glossators. On their copies of the Corpus Juris they were accustomed to write glosses, i. e., brief marginal explanations and remarks. These glosses came at length to be an immense literature."

J. Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law, lecture 2.

BOLOGNA: 11th-12th Centuries. Rise and Acquisition of Republican Independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1275. Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1350-1447. Under the tyranny of the Visconti.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447; and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1512. Acquisition by Pope Julius II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1796-1797. Joined to the Cispadane Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1831. Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

—————BOLOGNA: End—————

BOMBAY. Cession to England (1661).

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

BON HOMME RICHARD AND THE SERAPIS. Sea-fight.

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

BONAPARTE, Jerome, and his Kingdom of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY); 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

BONAPARTE, Joseph, King of Naples, King of Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER); SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.

BONAPARTE, Louis, and the Kingdom of Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

BONAPARTE, Louis Napoleon.

See NAPOLEON III.

BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON, The career of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER), to 1815.

BONAPARTE FAMILY, The origin of the.

"About four miles to the south of Florence, on an eminence overlooking the valley of the little river Greve, and the then bridle-path leading towards Siena and Rome, there was a very strong castle, called Monte Boni, Mons Boni, as it is styled in sundry deeds of gift executed within its walls in the years 1041, 1085, and 1100, by which its lords made their peace with the Church, in the usual way, by sharing with churchmen the proceeds of a course of life such as needed a whitewashing stroke of the Church's office. A strong castle on the road to Rome, and just at a point where the path ascended a steep hill, offered advantages and temptations not to be resisted; and the lords of Monte Boni 'took toll' of passengers. But, as Villani very naïvely says, 'the Florentines could not endure that another should do what they abstained from doing.' So as usual they sallied forth from their gates one fine morning, attacked the strong fortress, and razed it to the ground. All this was, as we have seen, an ordinary occurrence enough in the history of young Florence. This was a way the burghers had. They were clearing their land of these vestiges of feudalism, much as an American settler clears his ground of the stumps remaining from the primeval forest. But a special interest will be admitted to belong to this instance of the clearing process, when we discover who those noble old freebooters of Monte Boni were. The lords of Monte Boni were called, by an easy, but it might be fancied ironical, derivation from the name of their castle 'Buoni del Monte,'—the Good Men of the Mountain;—and by abbreviation, Buondelmonte, a name which we shall hear more of anon in the pages of this history. But when, after the destruction of their fortress, these Good Men of the Mountain became Florentine citizens, they increased and multiplied; and in the next generation, dividing off into two branches, they assumed, as was the frequent practice, two distinctive appellations; the one branch remaining Buondelmonti, and the other calling themselves Buonaparte. This latter branch shortly afterwards again divided itself into two, of which one settled at San Miniato al Tedesco, and became extinct there in the person of an aged canon of the name within this century; while the other first established itself at Sarzaua, a little town on the coast about half-way between Florence and Genoa, and from thence at a later period transplanted itself to Corsica; and has since been heard of."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, volume 1, pages 50-51.

BONIFACE, ST., The Mission of.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.

BONIFACE, COUNT, and the Vandals.

See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

BONIFACE III., Pope, A. D. 607, FEBRUARY TO NOVEMBER. Boniface IV., Pope, A. D. 608-615. Boniface V., Pope, A. D. 619-625. Boniface VI., Pope, A. D. 896. Boniface VII., Pope, A. D. 974, 984-985. Boniface VIII., Pope, A. D. 1294-1303. Boniface IX., Pope, A. D. 1389-1404.

BONN, Siege and Capture by Marlborough (1703).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

BONNET ROUGE, The.

See LIBERTY CAP.

BONONIA IN GAUL.

See GESORIACUM.

BONONIA IN ITALY.

See BOLOGNA.

BOOK OF THE DEAD.

"A collection (ancient Egyptian) of prayers and exorcisms composed at various periods for the benefit of the pilgrim soul in his journey through Amenti (the Egyptian Hades); and it was in order to provide him with a safe conduct through the perils of that terrible valley that copies of this work, or portions of it, were buried with the mummy in his tomb. Of the many thousands of papyri which have been preserved to this day, it is perhaps scarcely too much to say that one half, if not two thirds, are copies more or less complete of the Book of the Dead."

A. B. Edwards, Academy, Sept. 10, 1887.

{297}

M. Naville published in 1887 a collation of the numerous differing texts of the Book of the Dead, on the preparation of which he had been engaged for ten years.

BOONE, Daniel, and the settlement of Kentucky.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778, and 1775-1784.

BOONVILLE, Battle of.

See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

BOONSBORO, or South Mountain, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

BOOTH, John Wilkes. Assassination of President Lincoln.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

BOR-RUSSIA.

See PRUSSIA: THE ORIGINAL COUNTRY AND ITS NAME.

BORDARII.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND; also MANORS.

BORDEAUX: Origin.

See BURDIGALA.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 732. Stormed and sacked by the Moslems.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1650. Revolt of the Frondeurs. Siege of the city. Treaty of Peace.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653. The last phase of the Fronde. Rebellion of the Society of the Ormée. Cromwell's help invoked. Siege and submission of the city.

"The peace of Bordeaux in October, 1650. had left the city tranquil, but not intimidated, and its citizens were neither attached to the government nor afraid of it. … There, as at Paris, a violent element obtained control, ready for disturbance, and not alarmed by the possibility of radical changes in the government. … During the popular emotion against Épernon, meetings, mostly of the lower classes, had been held under some great elms near the city, and from this circumstance a party had taken the name of the Ormée. It now assumed a more definite form, and began to protest against the slackness of the officers and magistrates, who it was charged, were ready to abandon the popular cause. The Parliament was itself divided into two factions," known as the Little Fronde and the Great Fronde—the latter of which was devoted to the Prince of Condé. "The Ormée was a society composed originally of a small number of active and violent men, and in its organization not wholly unlike the society of the Jacobins. … Troubles increased between this society and the parliament, and on June 3d [1652] it held a meeting attended by 3,000 armed men, and decided on the exile of fourteen of the judges who were regarded as traitors to the cause. … The offending judges were obliged to leave the city, but in a few days the Parliament again obtained control, and the exiles were recalled and received with great solemnity. But the Ormée was not thus to be overcome. On June 25th these contests resulted in a battle in the streets, in which the society had the advantage. Many of the judges abandoned the conflict and left the city. The Ormée established itself at the Hotel de Ville, and succeeded in controlling for the most part the affairs of the city. … Condé decided that he would recognize the Ormée as a political organization, and strengthen it by his approval. … The restoration of the King's authority at Paris [see FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653] strengthened the party at Bordeaux that desired peace, and increased the violence of the party that was opposed to it. Plots were laid for the overthrow of the local authorities, but they were wholly unsuccessful. … The desire of the people, the nobility, and the clergy was for peace. Only by speedy aid from Spain could the city be kept in hostility to its King and in allegiance to Condé. Spain was asked to send assistance and prevent this important loss, but the Spanish delayed any vigorous action, partly from remissness and partly from lack of troops and money. The most of the province of Guienne was gradually lost to the insurgents. … Condé seems to have left Guienne to itself. … In this condition, the people of Bordeaux turned to Cromwell as the only person who had the power to help them. … The envoys were received by Cromwell, but he took no steps to send aid to Bordeaux. Hopes were held out which encouraged the city and alarmed the French minister, but no ships were sent." Meantime, the King's forces in Guienne advanced with steady success, and early in the summer of 1653 they began the siege of the city. The peace party within, thus encouraged, soon overthrew the Ormée, and arranged terms for the submission of the town. "The government proceeded at once to erect the castles of Trompette and Ho, and they were made powerful enough to check any future turbulence."

J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, chapter 15 (volume 2).

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1791. The Girondists in the National Legislative Assembly.

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

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1793. Revolt against the Revolutionary Government of Paris. Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE); (JULY-DECEMBER); AND 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1814. Occupied by the English.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

—————BORDEAUX: End—————

BORDER-RUFFIANS.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

BORGHETTO, Battle of.

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

BORGIAS, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

BORIS, Czar of Russia. A. D. 1598-1605.

BORLA, The.

See PERU: A.D. 1533-1548.

BORNHOVED, Battle of (1227).

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

BORNY, OR COLOMBEY-NOUILLY, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

BORODINO, OR THE MOSKOWA, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

BOROUGH. CITY. TOWN. VILLE.

"The burh of the Anglo-Saxon period was simply a more strictly organized form of the township. It was probably in a more defensible position; had a ditch and mound instead of the quickset hedge or 'tun' from which the township took its name; and as the 'tun' originally was the fenced homestead of the cultivator, the burh was the fortified house and court-yard of the mighty man—the king, the magistrate, or the noble."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 5.

{298}

"I must freely confess that I do not know what difference, except a difference in rank, there is in England between a city and a borough. … A city does not seem to have any rights or powers as a city which are not equally shared by every other corporate town. The only corporate towns which have any special powers above others are those which are counties of themselves; and all cities are not counties of themselves, while some towns which are not cities are. The city in England is not so easily defined as the city in the United States. There, every corporate town is a city. This makes a great many cities, and it leads to an use of the word city in common talk which seems a little strange in British ears. In England, even in speaking of a real city, the word city is seldom used, except in language a little formal or rhetorical; in America it is used whenever a city is mentioned. But the American rule has the advantage of being perfectly clear and avoiding all doubt. And it agrees very well with the origin of the word: a corporate town is a 'civitas,' a commonwealth; any lesser collection of men hardly is a commonwealth, or is such only in a much less perfect degree. This brings us to the historical use of the word. It is clear at starting that the word is not English. It has no Old-English equivalent; burh, burgh, borough, in its various spellings and various shades of meaning, is our native word for urbes of every kind from Rome downward. It is curious that this word should in ordinary speech have been so largely displaced by the vaguer word tun, town, which means an enclosure of any kind, and in some English dialects is still applied to a single house and its surroundings. … In common talk we use the word borough hardly oftener than the word city; when the word is used, it has commonly some direct reference to the parliamentary or municipal characters of the town. Many people, I suspect, would define a borough as a town which sends members to Parliament, and such a definition, though still not accurate, has, by late changes, been brought nearer to accuracy than it used to be. City and borough, then, are both rather formal words; town is the word which comes most naturally to the lips when there is no special reason for using one of the others. Of the two formal words, borough is English; city is Latin; it comes to us from Gaul and Italy by some road or other. It is in Domesday that we find, by no means its first use in England, but its first clearly formal use, the first use of it to distinguish a certain class of towns, to mark those towns which are 'civitates' as well as burgi from those which are burgi only. Now in Gaul the 'civitas' in formal Roman language was the tribe and its territory, the whole land of the Arverni, Parisii, or any other tribe. In a secondary sense it meant the head town of the tribe. … When Christianity was established, the 'civitas' in the wider sense marked the extent of the bishop's diocese; the 'civitas' in the narrower sense became the immediate seat of his bishopstool. Thus we cannot say that in Gaul a town became a city because it was a bishop's see; but we may say that a certain class of towns became bishops' sees because they were already cities. But in modern French use no distinction is made between these ancient capitals which became bishoprics and other towns of less temporal and spiritual honour. The seat of the bishopric, the head of the ancient province, the head of the modern department, the smaller town which has never risen to any of those dignities, are all alike ville. Lyons, Rheims, Paris, are in no way distinguished from meaner places. The word cité is common enough, but it has a purely local meaning. It often distinguishes the old part of a town, the ancient 'civitas,' from later additions. In Italy on the other hand, città is both the familiar and the formal name for towns great and small. It is used just like ville in French."

E. A. Freeman, City and Borough Macmillan's Magazine, May, 1889.

BOROUGH-ENGLISH.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

BOROUGHBRIDGE, Battle of.

Fought March 16, 1322, in the civil war which arose in England during the reign of Edward II. on account of the King's favorites, the Déspensers. Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, the leader of opposition, was defeated, captured, summarily tried and beheaded.

BOROUGHS, Rotten and Pocket.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830, and 1830-1832.

BORROMEAN, OR GOLDEN LEAGUE, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

BORYSTHENES, The.

The name which the Greeks gave anciently to the river now known as the Dnieper. It also became the name of a town near the mouth of the river, which was originally called Olbia,—a very early trading settlement of the Milesians.

BOSCOBEL, The Royal Oak of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.

BOSNIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BOSPHORUS, OR BOSPORUS, The.

The word means literally an 'ox-ford,' and the Greeks derived it as a name from the legend of Io, who, driven by a gad-fly, swam across the straits from Europe into Asia. They gave the name particularly to that channel, on which Constantinople lies, but applied it also to other similar straits, such as the Cimmerian Bosporus, opening the Sea of Azov.

BOSPHORUS: The city and kingdom.

"Respecting Bosporus, or Pantikapæum (for both names denote the same city, though the former name often comprehends the whole annexed dominion) founded by Milesian settlers on the European side of the Kimmerian Bosporus (near Kertsch) we first hear, about the period when Xerxes was repulsed from Greece (480-479 B. C.) It was the centre of a dominion including Phanagoria, Kepi, Hermonassa, and other Greek cities on the Asiatic side of the strait; and it is said to have been governed by what seems to have been an oligarchy—called the Archæanaktidæ—for forty-two years (480-438 B. C.) After them we have a series of princes standing out individually by name, and succeeding each other in the same family, [438-284 B. C.]. … During the reigns of these princes, a connexion of some intimacy subsisted between Athens and Bosporus; a connexion not political, since the Bosporanic princes had little interest in the contentions about Hellenic hegemony—but of private intercourse, commercial exchange and reciprocal good offices. The eastern corner of the Tauric Chersonesus, between Pantikapæum and Theodosia, was well suited for the production of corn; while plenty of fish, as well as salt, was to be had in or near the Palus Mæotis. Corn, salted fish and meat, hides and barbaric slaves in considerable numbers, were in demand among all Greeks round the Ægean, and not least at Athens, where Scythian slaves were numerous; while oil and wine, and other products of more southern regions, were acceptable in Bosporus and the other Pontic ports. {299} This important traffic seems to have been mainly carried on in ships and by capital belonging to Athens and other Ægean maritime towns, and must have been greatly under the protection and regulation of the Athenians, so long as their maritime empire subsisted. Enterprising citizens of Athens went to Bosporus (as to Thrace and the Thracian Chersonesus), to push their fortunes. … We have no means of following [the fortunes of the Bosporanic princes] in detail; but we know that, about a century B. C., the then reigning prince, Parisades IV. found himself so pressed and squeezed by the Scythians, that he was forced (like Olbia and the Pentapolis) to forego his independence, and to call in, as auxiliary or master, the formidable Mithridates Eupator of Pontus; from whom a new dynasty of Bosporanic kings began—subject, however, after no long interval, to the dominion and interference of Rome."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 98.

ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 7.

See MITHRIDATIC WARS, and ROME: B. C. 47-46.

Acquisition by the Goths.

See GOTHS, ACQUISITION OF BOSPHORUS.

BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574. Capture by the Turks.

"During the reign of Justin [A. D. 565-574] the city of Bosporus, in Tauris, had been captured by the Turks, who then occupied a considerable portion of the Tauric Chersonesus. The city of Cherson alone continued to maintain its independence in the northern regions of the Black Sea."

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 4, section 8.

See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.

—————BOSPHORUS: End—————

BOSSISM.

The "Spoils System" in American politics [see SPOILS SYSTEM] developed enormously the influence and power of certain leaders and managers of party organizations, in the great cities and some of the states, who acquired the names of "Bosses," while the system of politics which they represented was called "Bossism." The notorious William H. Tweed, of the New York "Tammany Ring" [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871] seems to have been the first of the species to be dubbed "Boss Tweed" by his "heelers," or followers, and the title passed from him to others of like kind.

BOSTON: A. D. 1628-1630. The first white inhabitant. The founding and naming of the city.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628, and 1630.

BOSTON: A. D. 1631-1651. The Puritan Theocracy. Troubles with Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson and the Presbyterians.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1646-1651.

BOSTON: A. D. 1656-1661. The persecution of Quakers.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669. The Halfway Covenant and the founding of the Old South Church.

"In Massachusetts after 1650 the opinion rapidly gained ground that all baptised persons of upright and decorous lives ought to be considered, for practical purposes, as members of the church, and therefore entitled to the exercise of political rights, even though unqualified for participation in the Lord's Supper. This theory of church membership, based on what was at that time stigmatized as the Halfway Covenant, aroused intense opposition. It was the great question of the day. In 1657 a council was held in Boston, which approved the principle of the Halfway Covenant; and as this decision was far from satisfying the churches, a synod of all the clergymen in Massachusetts was held five years later, to reconsider the great question. The decision of the synod substantially confirmed the decision of the council, but there were some dissenting voices. Foremost among the dissenters, who wished to retain the old theocratic regime in all its strictness, was Charles Chauncey, the president of Harvard College, and Increase Mather agreed with him at the time, though he afterward saw reason to change his opinion and published two tracts in favour of the Halfway Covenant. Most bitter of all toward the new theory of church-membership was, naturally enough, Mr. Davenport of New Haven. This burning question was the source of angry contentions in the First Church of Boston. Its teacher, the learned and melancholy Norton, died in 1663, and four years later the aged pastor, John Wilson, followed him. In choosing a successor to Wilson the church decided to declare itself in opposition to the liberal decision of the synod, and in token thereof invited Davenport to come from New Haven to take charge of it. Davenport, who was then seventy years old, was disgusted at the recent annexation of his colony to Connecticut. He accepted the invitation and came to Boston, against the wishes of nearly half of the Boston congregation, who did not like the illiberal principle which he represented. In little more than a year his ministry at Boston was ended by death; but the opposition to his call had already proceeded so far that a secession from the old church had become inevitable. In 1669 the advocates of the Halfway Covenant organized themselves into a new society under the title of the 'Third Church in Boston.' A wooden meeting-house was built on a lot which had once belonged to the late governor Winthrop, in what was then the south part of the town, so that the society and its meeting-house became known as the South Church; and after a new church founded in Summer Street in 1717 took the name of the New South, the church of 1669 came to be further distinguished as the Old South. As this church represented a liberal idea which was growing in favour with the people, it soon became the most flourishing church in America. After sixty years its numbers had increased so that the old meeting-house could not contain them; and in 1729 the famous building which still stands was erected on the same spot,—a building with a grander history than any other on the American continent, unless it be that other plain brick building in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence was adopted and the Federal Constitution framed."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: H. M. Dexter, The Congregationalism of the last 300 years, lecture 9.

B. B. Wisner, History of the Old South Church, sermon 1.

W. Emerson, Historical Sketch of the First Church in Boston, section 4-7.

BOSTON: A. D. 1674-1678. King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

BOSTON: A. D. 1689. The rising for William and Mary and the downfall of Andros.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.

{300}

BOSTON: A. D. 1697. Threatened attack by the French.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1692-1697.

BOSTON: A. D. 1704. The first newspaper.

See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.

BOSTON: A. D. 1740-1742. The origin of Faneuil Hall.

See FANEUIL HALL.

BOSTON: A. D. 1761. The question of the Writs of assistance and James Otis's speech.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 176l.

BOSTON: A. D. 1764-1767. Patriotic self-denials. Non-importation agreements.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

BOSTON: A. D. 1765-1767. The doings under the Liberty Tree.

See LIBERTY TREE.

BOSTON: A. D. 1768. The seizure of the sloop "Liberty." Riotous patriotism.

"For some years these officers [of the customs] had been resisted in making seizures of uncustomed goods, which were frequently rescued from their possession by interested parties, and the determination of the commissioners of customs to break up this practice frequently led to collisions; but no flagrant outbreak occurred until the seizure of John Hancock's sloop 'Liberty' (June 10, 1768), laden with a cargo of Madeira wine. The officer in charge, refusing a bribe, was forcibly locked up in the cabin, the greater part of the cargo was removed, and the remainder entered at the custom-house as the whole cargo. This led to seizure of the vessel, said to have been the first made by the commissioners, and for security she was placed under the guns of the 'Romney,' a man-of-war in the harbor. For this the revenue officers were roughly handled by the mob. Their boat was burned, their houses threatened, and they, with their alarmed families, took refuge on board the 'Romney,' and finally in the Castle. These proceedings undoubtedly led to the sending additional military forces to Boston in September. The General Court was in session at the time, but no effectual proceedings were taken against the rioters. Public sympathy was with them in their purposes if not in their measures."

M. Chamberlain, The Revolution Impending (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6, chapter 1).

BOSTON: A. D. 1768. The quartering of British troops.

"Before news had reached England of the late riot in Boston, two regiments from Halifax had been ordered thither. When news of that riot arrived, two additional regiments were ordered from Ireland. The arrival of an officer, sent by Gage from New York, to provide quarters for these troops, occasioned a town meeting in Boston, by which the governor was requested to summon a new General Court, which he peremptorily refused to do. The meeting then recommended a convention of delegates from all the towns in the province to assemble at Boston in ten days; 'in consequence of prevailing apprehensions of a war with France'—such was the pretence—they advised all persons not already provided with fire-arms to procure them at once; they also appointed a day of fasting and prayer, to be observed by all the Congregational societies. Delegates from more than a hundred towns met accordingly at the day appointed [Sept. 22], chose Cushing, speaker of the late House, as their chairman, and petitioned Bernard to summon a General Court. The governor not only refused to receive their petition, but denounced the meeting as treasonable. In view of this charge, the proceedings were exceedingly cautious and moderate. All pretensions to political authority were expressly disclaimed. In the course of a four days' session a petition to the King was agreed to, and a letter to the agent, De Berdt, of which the chief burden was to defend the province against the charge of a rebellious spirit. Such was the first of those popular conventions, destined within a few years to assume the whole political authority of the colonies. The day after the adjournment the troops from Halifax arrived. There was room in the barracks at the castle, but Gage, alarmed at the accounts from Massachusetts, had sent orders from New York to have the two regiments quartered in the town. The council were called upon to find quarters, but, by the very terms of the Quartering Act, as they alleged, till the barracks were full there was no necessity to provide quarters elsewhere. Bernard insisted that the barracks had been reserved for the two regiments expected from Ireland, and must, therefore, be considered as already full. The council replied, that, even allowing that to be the case, by the terms of the act, the provision of quarters belonged not to them, but to the local magistrates. There was a large building in Boston belonging to the province, known as the 'Manufactory House,' and occupied by a number of poor families. Bernard pressed the council to advise that this building be cleared and prepared for the reception of the troops; but they utterly refused. The governor then undertook to do it on his own authority. The troops had already landed, under cover of the ships of war, to the number of a thousand men. Some of them appeared to demand an entrance into the Manufactory House; but the tenants were encouraged to keep possession; nor did the governor venture to use force. One of the regiments encamped on the common; for a part of the other regiment, which had no tents, the temporary use of Faneuil Hall was reluctantly yielded; to the rest of it, the Town House, used also as a State House, all except the council chamber, was thrown open by the governor's order. It was Sunday. The Town House was directly opposite the meeting-house of the First Church. Cannon were planted in front of it; sentinels were stationed in the streets; the inhabitants were challenged as they passed. The devout were greatly aggravated and annoyed by the beating of drums and the marching of the troops. Presently Gage came to Boston to urge the provision of quarters. The council directed his attention to the terms of the act, and referred him to the selectmen. As the act spoke only of justices of the peace, the selectmen declined to take any steps in the matter. Bernard then constituted what he called a Board of Justices, and required them to find quarters; but they did not choose to exercise a doubtful and unpopular authority. Gage was finally obliged to quarter the troops in houses which he hired for the purpose, and to procure out of his own military chest the firing, bedding, and other articles mentioned in the Quartering Act, the council having declined to order any expenditure for those purposes, on the ground that the appropriation of money belonged exclusively to the General Court."

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, chapter 29 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 6.

T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774, pages 202-217.

{301}

BOSTON: A. D. 1769. The patriots threatened and Virginia speaking out.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.

BOSTON: A. D. 1770. Soldiers and citizens in collision. The "Massacre." Removal of the troops.

"As the spring of the year 1770 appeared, the 14th and 29th regiments had been in Boston about seventeen months. The 14th was in barracks near the Brattle Street Church; the 29th was quartered just south of King Street; about midway between them, in King Street, and close at hand to the town-house, was the main guard, whose nearness to the public buildings had been a subject of great annoyance to the people. … One is forced to admit … that a good degree of discipline was maintained; no blood had as yet been shed by the soldiers, although provocations were constant, the rude element in the town growing gradually more aggressive as the soldiers were never allowed to use their arms. Insults and blows with fists were frequently taken and given, and cudgels also came into fashion in the brawls. Whatever awe the regiments had inspired at their first coming had long worn off. In particular the workmen of the rope-walks and ship-yards allowed their tongues the largest license and were foremost in the encounters. About the 1st of March fights of unusual bitterness had occurred near Grey's rope-walk, not far from the quarters of the 29th, between the hands of the rope-walk and soldiers of that regiment, which had a particularly bad reputation. The soldiers had got the worst of it, and were much irritated. Threats of revenge had been made, which had called out arrogant replies, and signs abounded that serious trouble was not far off. From an early hour on the evening of the 5th of March the symptoms were very ominous. … At length an altercation began in King Street between a company of lawless boys and a few older brawlers on the one side, and the sentinel, who paced his beat before the custom-house, on the other. … The soldier retreated up the steps of the custom-house and called out for help. A file of soldiers was at once despatched from the main guard, across the street, by Captain Preston, officer of the guard, who himself soon followed to the scene of trouble. A coating of ice covered the ground, upon which shortly before had fallen a light snow. A young moon was shining; the whole transaction, therefore, was plainly visible. The soldiers, with the sentinel, nine in number, drew up in line before the people, who greatly outnumbered them. The pieces were loaded and held ready, but the mob, believing that the troops would not use their arms except upon requisition of a civil magistrate, shouted coarse insults, pressed upon the very muzzles of the pieces, struck them with sticks, and assaulted the soldiers with balls of ice. In the tumult precisely what was said and done cannot be known. Many affidavits were taken in the investigation that followed, and, as always at such times, the testimony was most contradictory. Henry Knox, afterwards the artillery general, at this time a bookseller, was on the spot and used his influence with Preston to prevent a command to fire. Preston declared that he never gave the command. The air, however, was full of shouts, daring the soldiers to fire, some of which may have been easily understood as commands, and at last the discharge came. If it had failed to come, indeed, the forbearance would have been quite miraculous. Three were killed outright, and eight were wounded, only one of whom, Crispus Attucks, a tall mulatto who faced the soldiers, leaning on a stick of cordwood, had really taken any part in the disturbance. The rest were bystanders or were hurrying into the street, not knowing the cause of the tumult. … A wild confusion … took possession of the town. The alarm-bells rang frantically; on the other hand the drums of the regiments thundered to arms. … What averted a fearful battle in the streets was the excellent conduct of Hutchinson"—the lieutenant-governor, who made his way promptly to the scene, caused the troops to be sent back to their barracks, ordered the arrest of Captain Preston and the nine soldiers who had done the firing, and began an investigation of the affair the same night. The next day a great town meeting was held, and, as crowds from the surrounding towns pressed in, it was adjourned from Faneuil Hall to the Old South Church, and overflowed in the neighboring streets. A formal demand for the removal of the troops was sent to the governor and council by a committee which had Samuel Adams at its head. Governor Hutchinson disclaimed authority over the troops; but their commanding officer, Colonel Dalrymple, proposed to compromise by sending away the 29th regiment and retaining the 14th. As the committee returned to the meeting with this proposal, through the crowd, Adams dropped right and left the words, "Both regiments or none."—"Both regiments or none." So he put into the mouths of the people their reply, which they shouted as with one voice when the report of the committee was made to them. There was a determination in the cry which overcame even the obstinacy of Governor Hutchinson, and the departure of both regiments was ordered that same day. "In England the affair was regarded as a 'successful bully' of the whole power of the government by the little town, and when Lord North received details of these events he always referred to the 14th and 29th as the 'Sam Adams regiments.'"

J. K. Hosmer, Samuel Adams, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 6.

R. Frothingham, The Sam Adams Regiments (Atlantic Monthly, volumes 9, 10, and 12; 1862-63).

J. Q. Adams, Life of John Adams, chapter 3 (volume l).

T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774, pages 270-280.

H. Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution (Centennial edition), pages 15-79.

F. Kedder, History of the Boston Massacre.

BOSTON: A. D. 1770. The fair trial of the soldiers.

"The episode [of the affray of March 5th] had … a sequel which is extremely creditable to the American people. It was determined to try the soldiers for their lives, and public feeling ran so fiercely against them that it seemed as if their fate was sealed. The trial, however, was delayed for seven months, till the excitement had in some degree subsided. Captain Preston very judiciously appealed to John Adams, who was rapidly rising to the first place both among the lawyers and the popular patriots of Boston, to undertake his defence. Adams knew well how much he was risking by espousing so unpopular a cause, but he knew also his professional duty, and, though violently opposed to the British government, he was an eminently honest, brave, and humane man. {302} In conjunction with Josiah Quincy, a young lawyer who was also of the patriotic party, he undertook the invidious task, and he discharged it with consummate ability. … There was abundant evidence that the soldiers had endured gross provocation and some violence. If the trial had been the prosecution of a smuggler or a seditious writer, the jury would probably have decided against evidence, but they had no disposition to shed innocent blood. Judges, counsel, and jurymen acted bravely and honourably. All the soldiers were acquitted, except two, who were found guilty of manslaughter, and who escaped with very slight punishment. It is very remarkable that after Adams had accepted the task of defending the incriminated soldiers, he was elected by the people of Boston as their representative in the Assembly, and the public opinion of the province appears to have fully acquiesced in the verdict. In truth, although no people have indulged more largely than the Americans in violent, reckless, and unscrupulous language, no people have at every period of their history been more signally free from the thirst for blood, which in moments of great political excitement has been often shown both in England and France."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 12 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: J. Adams, Autobiography (Works, volume 2, page 230).

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, volume 5, page 269.

BOSTON: A. D 1773. The Tea Party.

"News reached Boston in the spring of this year [1773] that the East India Company, which was embarrassed by the accumulation of tea in England, owing to the refusal of the Americans to buy it, had induced parliament to permit its exportation to America without the payment of the usual duty [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773]. This was intended to bribe the colonists to buy; for there had been a duty both in England and in America. That in England was six pence a pound, that in America three pence. Ships were laden and sent to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston, and they were now expected to arrive in a short time. … On the 28th of November, 1773, which was Sunday, the first tea-ship (the 'Dartmouth ') entered the harbor [of Boston]. The following morning the citizens were informed by placard that the 'worst of plagues, the detested tea,' had actually arrived, and that a meeting was to be held at nine in the morning, at Faneuil Hall, for the purpose of making 'a united and successful resistance to this last, worst, and most destructive measure of administration.' The Cradle of Liberty was not large enough to contain the crowd that was called together, Adams rose and made a stirring motion expressing determination that the tea should not be landed, and it was unanimously agreed to. The meeting then adjourned to the Old South meeting-house, where the motion was repeated, and again adopted without an opposing voice. The owner of the ship protested in vain that the proceedings were illegal; a watch of twenty-five persons was set, to see that the intentions of the citizens were not evaded, and the meeting adjourned to the following morning. The throng at that time was as great as usual, and while the deliberations were going on, a message was received from the governor, through the sheriff, ordering them to cease their proceedings. It was voted not to follow the advice, and the sheriff was hissed and obliged to retreat discomfited. It was formally resolved that any person importing tea from England should be deemed an enemy to his country, and it was declared that at the risk of their lives and properties the landing of the tea should be prevented, and its return effected. It was necessary that some positive action should be taken in regard to the tea within twenty days from its arrival, or the collector of customs would confiscate ships and cargoes. … The twenty days would expire on the 16th of December. On the fourteenth a crowded meeting was held at the Old South, and the importer was enjoined to apply for a clearance to allow his vessel to return with its cargo. He applied, but the collector refused to give an answer until the following day. The meeting therefore adjourned to the 16th, the last day before confiscation would be legal, and before the tea would be placed under protection of the ships of war in the harbor. There was another early morning meeting, and 7,000 people thronged about the meeting-house, all filled with a sense of the fact that something notable was to occur. The importer appeared and reported that the collector refused a clearance. He was then directed to ask the governor for a pass to enable him to sail by the Castle. Hutchinson had retreated to his mansion at Milton, and it would take some time to make the demand. The importer started out in the cold of a New England winter, apologized to his Excellency for his visit, but assured him that it was involuntary. He received a reply that no pass could be given him. … It was six o'clock before the importer returned, and a few candles were brought in to relieve the fast-increasing darkness. He reported the governor's reply, and Samuel Adams rose and exclaimed: 'This meeting can do nothing more to save the country!' In an instant there was a shout on the porch; there was a war-whoop in response, and forty or fifty of the men disguised as Indians rushed out of the doors, down Milk Street towards Griffin's (afterwards Liverpool) Wharf, where the vessels lay. The meeting was declared dissolved, and the throng followed their leaders, forming a determined guard about the wharf. The 'Mohawks' entered the vessel; there was tugging at the ropes; there was breaking of light boxes; there was pouring of precious tea into the waters of the harbor. For two or three hours the work went on, and three hundred and forty-two chests were emptied. Then, under the light of the moon, the Indians marched to the sound of fife and drum to their homes, and the vast throng melted away, until not a man remained to tell of the deed. The committee of correspondence held a meeting next day, and Samuel Adams and four others were appointed to prepare an account of the affair to be posted to other places. Paul Revere, who is said to have been one of the 'Mohawks,' was sent express to Philadelphia with the news, which was received at that place on the 26th. It was announced by ringing of bells, and there was every sign of joy. … The continent was universally stirred at last."

A. Gilman, The Story of Boston, chapter 23.

ALSO IN: E. G. Porter, The Beginning of the Revolution (Memorial History of Boston, volume 3, chapter 1).

B. J. Lossing, Field Book of the Revolution, volume 1, chapter 21.

{303}

T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774, pages 429-440.

T. Hutchinson, Diary and Letters, page 138.

G. Bancroft, History of the United States. (Author's last revision), volume 3, chapter 34.

J. Kimball, The 100th Anniversary of the Destruction of Tea (Essex Inst. Hist. Coll., volume 12, number 3).

BOSTON: A. D. 1774. The Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act. Commerce interdicted. Town Meetings forbidden.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL).

BOSTON: A. D. 1774. The enforcement of the Port Bill and its effects. Military occupation of the city by General Gage.

"The execution of this measure [the Port Bill] devolved on Thomas Gage, who arrived at Boston May 13, 1774, as Captain General and Governor of Massachusetts. He was not a stranger in the colonies. He had exhibited gallantry in Braddock's defeat. … He had married in one of the most respectable families in New York, and had partaken of the hospitalities of the people of Boston. His manners were pleasing. Hence he entered upon his public duties with a large measure of popularity. But he took a narrow view of men and things about him. … General Gage, on the 17th of May, landed at the Long Wharf and was received with much parade. … On the first day of June the act went into effect. It met with no opposition from the people, and hence, there was no difficulty in carrying it into rigorous execution. 'I hear from many,' the governor writes, 'that the act has staggered the most presumptuous; the violent party men seem to break, and people to fall off from them.' Hence he looked for submission; but Boston asked assistance from other colonies, and the General Court requested him to appoint a day of fasting and prayer. The loyalists felt uneasy at the absence of the army. … Hence a respectable force was soon concentrated in Boston. On the 4th of June, the 4th or king's own regiment, and on the 15th the 43d regiment, landed at the Long Wharf and encamped on the common." The 5th and 38th regiments arrived on the 4th and 5th of July; the 59th regiment was landed at Salem August 6, and additional troops were ordered from New York, the Jerseys and Quebec. "The Boston Port Bill went into operation amid the tolling of bells, fasting and prayer. … It bore severely upon two towns, Boston and Charlestown, which had been long connected by a common patriotism. Their laborers were thrown out of employment, their poor were deprived of bread, and gloom pervaded their streets. But they were cheered and sustained by the large contributions sent from every quarter for their relief, and by the noble words that accompanied them. … The excitement of the public mind was intense; and the months of June, July, and August, were characterized by varied political activity. Multitudes signed a solemn league and covenant against the use of British goods. The breach between the whigs and loyalists daily became wider. Patriotic donations from every colony were on their way to the suffering towns. Supplies for the British troops were refused. … It was while the public mind was in this state of excitement that other acts arrived which General Gage was instructed to carry into effect." These were the acts which virtually annulled the Massachusetts charter, which forbade town meetings, and which provided for the sending of accused persons to England or to other colonies for trial. "Should Massachusetts submit to the new acts? Would the other colonies see, without increased alarm, the humiliation of Massachusetts? This was the turning-point of the Revolution. It did not find the patriots unprepared. They had an organization beyond the reach alike of proclamations from the governors, or of circulars from the ministry. This was the Committees of Correspondence, chosen in most of the towns in legal town-meetings, or by the various colonial assemblies, and extending throughout the colonies. … The crisis called for all the wisdom of these committees. A remarkable circular from Boston addressed to the towns (July, 1774), dwelt upon the duty of opposing the new laws; the towns, in their answers, were bold, spirited, and firm and echoed the necessity of resistance. Nor was this all. The people promptly thwarted the first attempts to exercise authority under them. Such councillors as accepted their appointments were compelled to resign, or, to avoid compulsion, retired into Boston." General Gage now began (in September) movements to secure the cannon and powder in the neighborhood. Some 250 barrels of powder belonging to the province were stealthily removed by his orders from a magazine at Charlestown and two field-pieces were carried away from Cambridge. "The report of this affair, spreading rapidly, excited great indignation. The people collected in large numbers, and many were in favor of attempting to recapture the powder and cannon. Influential patriots, however, succeeded in turning their attention in another direction. … Meantime the fact of the removal of the powder became magnified into a report that the British had cannonaded Boston, when the bells rang, beacon-fires blazed on the hills, the neighbor colonies were alarmed, and the roads were filled with armed men hastening to the point of supposed danger. These demonstrations opened the eyes of the governor to the extent of the popular movement. … General Gage saw no hope of procuring obedience but by the power of arms; and the patriot party saw no safety in anything short of military preparation. Resistance to the acts continued to be manifested in every form. On the 9th of September the memorable Suffolk resolves [drawn by Joseph Warren] were adopted [by a convention of Suffolk county, which embraced Boston] … and these were succeeded by others in other counties equally bold and spirited. These resolves were approved by the Continental Congress, then in session. Everywhere the people either compelled the unconstitutional officers to resign, or opposed every attempt to exercise authority, whether by the governor or constable. They also made every effort to transport ammunition and stores to places of security. Cannon and muskets were carried secretly out of Boston. The guns were taken from an old battery at Charlestown, where the navy yard is, … silently, at night. … General Gage immediately began to fortify Boston Neck. This added intensity to the excitement. The inhabitants became alarmed at so ominous a movement; and, on the 5th of September, the selectmen waited on the general, represented the public feeling, and requested him to explain his object. The governor stated in reply that his object was to protect his majesty's troops and his majesty's subjects; and that he had no intention to stop up the avenue, or to obstruct the free passage over it, or to do anything hostile against the inhabitants. He went on with the works and soon mounted on them two twenty-four pounders and eight nine pounders."

R. Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 11, and appendix 1 (giving text of the Suffolk Resolves).

W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, volume 2, pages 164-232.

W. Tudor, Life of James Otis, chapters 27-29.

{304}

BOSTON: A. D. 1775. The beginning of war. Lexington. Concord. The British troops beleaguered in the city. Battle of Bunker Hill.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

BOSTON: A. D. 1775-1776. The siege directed by Washington. Evacuation of the city by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.

—————BOSTON: End—————

BOSWORTH, Battle of (A. D. 1485).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1483-1485.

BOTANY BAY.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

BOTHWELL BRIDGE, Battle of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (JUNE).

BOTOCUDOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

BOUCHAIN, Marlborough's capture of (1711).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.

BOUIDES, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945;

Also, TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063;

Also, SAMANIDES.

BOULANGER, General, The intrigues of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

BOULE, The. The Council of Chiefs in Homeric Greece.

G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 20.

See, also, AREOPAGUS.

BOULOGNE: Origin.

See GESORIACUM.

BOULOGNE: A. D. 1801. Bonaparte's preparations for the invasion of England. Nelson's attack.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

BOULON, Battle of.

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

BOUQUET'S EXPEDITION.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BOURBON, The Constable: His treason and his attack on Rome.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, 1523-1525, 1525-1526;

And ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, 1527.

BOURBON: Origin of the name.

See BOIANS; also ROME: B. C. 390-347.

BOURBON, The House of: Its origin.

From King Louis IX. (St. Louis), of France, "through his last male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of Béatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name which they have retained, that of France being reserved for the Royal branch. … The House which had the honour of supplying sovereigns to our country was called 'France.' But our kings, jealous of that great name, reserved it for their own sons and grandsons. Hence the designation 'fils' and 'petit-fils de France.' The posterity of each 'fils de France' formed a cadet branch which took its name from the title borne by its head, Valois, Artois, Bourbon, &c. At the time of the accession of Henry IV. the name of Bourbon remained with those younger branches of Condé and Montpensier, which had sprung from the main branch before the death of Henry III. But Henry IV.'s children, those of Louis XIII., and those of their successors in the throne, were surnamed 'de France'; whilst in conformity with the law the descendants of Louis XIII.'s second son received the surname d' Orleans, from the title borne by their grandfather. … Possessors of vast territories which they [the Bourbons] owed more to family alliances than to the generosity of kings, they had known how to win the affection of their vassals. Their magnificent hospitality drew around them a numerous and brilliant nobility. Thus the 'hôtel' of those brave and august princes, the 'gracieux ducs de Bourbon,' as our ancient poet called them, was considered the best school in which a young nobleman could learn the profession of arms. The order of the Écu, instituted by one of them, had been coveted and worn by the bravest warriors of France. Sufficiently powerful to outshine the rank and file of the nobility, they had at the same time neither the large estates nor the immense power which enabled the Dukes of Bourgogne, of Bretagne, and other great vassals, to become the rivals or the enemies of the royal authority." The example of the treason of the Constable Bourbon [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523] "was not followed by any of the princes of his House. … The property of the Connétable was definitely alienated from his House, and Vendôme [his brother] did not receive the hereditary possessions of the Dukes d' Alençon, to which his wife was entitled. He died on the 25th of March, 1538, leaving but a scanty patrimony to his numerous descendants. … Five only of his sons obtained their majority. … Two of these princes founded families: Antoine [Duc de Vendôme and afterwards King of Navarre through his marriage with Jeanne d' Albret, see NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563], father of Henry IV., who was the ancestor of all the Bourbons now living, and Louis [Prince de Condé, born 1530], who was the root of the House of Condé and all its branches."

Duc d' Aumale, History of the Princes of the House of Condé, book 1, chapter 1, and foot-note.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1327.

BOURBON: The Spanish House.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and 1701-1702.

BOURBON FAMILY COMPACT, The First.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

The Second.

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

The Third.

See FRANCE: A. D: 1761 (AUGUST).

BOURGEOIS. BOURG.

In France, "the word Bourg originally meant any aggregation of houses, from the greatest city to the smallest hamlet. But … the word shifted its meaning, and came to signify an assemblage of houses surrounded with walls. Secondly, the word Bourgeois also was at first used as synonymous with the inhabitant of a bourg. Afterward, when corporate franchises were bestowed on particular bourgs, the word acquired a sense corresponding with that of the English designation Burgess; that is a person entitled to the privileges of a municipal corporation. Finally, the word Bourgeoisie, in its primitive sense, was the description of the burgesses when spoken of collectively. But, in its later use, the word would be best rendered into English by our term citizenship; that is, the privilege of franchise of being a burgess."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 5.

{305}

BOURGES, Origin of.

The city of Bourges, France, was originally the capital city of the Gallic tribe of the Bituriges, and was called Avaricum. "As with many other Gaulish towns, the original name became exchanged for that of the people, i. e., Bituriges, and thence the modern Bourges and the name of the province, Berri."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12.

See, also, ÆDUI, and GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

BOUVINES, Battle of (A. D. 1214).

The battle of Bouvines, fought at Bouvines, in Flanders, not far from Tournay, on the 27th of August, A. D. 1214, was one of the important battles of European history. On one side were the French, led by their king Philip Augustus, and fighting ostensibly as the champions of the Pope and the church. On the other side was an allied army of English, under king John, of Germans, under Otho, the Guelf—one of two rival claimants of the imperial crown—and of Flemings and Lotharingians, led by their several lords. Philip Augustus had expelled the English king from his Norman dukedom and caused a court of the peers of France to declare the title forfeit. From that success his ambition rose so high that he had aspired to the conquest of the English crown. A terrible pope—Innocent III.—had approved his ambition and encouraged it; for John, the miserable English king, had given provocations to the church which had brought the thunders of the Vatican upon his head. Excommunicated, himself, his kingdom under interdict,—the latter offered itself a tempting prey to the vigorous French king, who posed as the champion of the pope. He had prepared a strong army and a fleet for the invasion of England; but fate and papal diplomacy had baffled his schemes. At the last moment, John had made a base submission, had meekly surrendered his kingdom to the pope and had received it back as a papal fief. Whereupon the victorious pope commanded his French champion to forego his intended attack. Philip, under these circumstances, determined to use the army he had assembled against a troublesome and contumacious vassal, the count of Flanders. The pope approved, and Flanders was overrun. King John led an English force across the channel to the help of the Flemish count, and Otho, the German king or emperor, who was king John's nephew, joined the coalition, to antagonize France and the pope. The battle of Bouvines was the decisive conflict of the war. It humbled, for the time, the independent spirit of Flanders, and several remoter consequences can be traced to it. It was "the first real French victory. It roused the national spirit as nothing else could have roused it; it was the nation's first taste of glory, dear above all things to the French heart. … The battle somewhat broke the high spirit of the barons: the lesser barons and churches grouped themselves round the king; the greater lords came to feel their weakness in the presence of royalty. Among the incidental consequences of the day of Bouvines was the ruin of Otho's ambition. He fled from the field into utter obscurity. He retired to the Hartz mountains, and there spent the remaining years of his life in private. King John, too, was utterly discredited by his share in the year's campaign. To it may partly be traced his humiliation before his barons, and the signing of the Great Charter in the following year at Runnymede."

G. W. Kitchin, History of France, book 3, chapter 7, section 4.

"The battle of Bouvines was not the victory of Philip Augustus alone, over a coalition of foreign princes; the victory was the work of king and people, barons, burghers, and peasants, of Ile de France, of Orleanness, of' Picardy, of Normandy, of Champagne, and of Burgundy. … The victory of Bouvines marked the commencement of the time at which men might speak, and indeed did speak, by one single name, of 'the French.' The nation in France and the kingship in France on that day rose out of and above the feudal system."

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 18.

See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250, and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213, and 1215.

BOVATE, OR OXGANG.

"Originally as much as an ox-team could plough in a year. Eight Bovates are usually said to have made a Carucate, but the number of acres which made a Bovate are variously stated in different records from 8 to 24."

N. H. Nicolas, Notitia Historica, page 134.

BOVIANUM, Battle of (B. C. 88).

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

BOWIDES, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945; also, SAMANIDES; also, TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063.

BOYACA, Battle of (1819).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

BOYARS.

"In the old times, when Russia was merely a collection of independent principalities, each reigning prince was surrounded by a group of armed men, composed partly of Boyars, or large landed proprietors, and partly of knights, or soldiers of fortune. These men, who formed the Noblesse of the time, were to a certain extent under the authority of the Prince, but they were by no means mere obedient, silent executors of his will. The Boyars might refuse to take part in his military expeditions. … Under the Tartar domination this political equilibrium was destroyed. When the country had been conquered, the princes became servile vassals of the Khan, and arbitrary rulers towards their own subjects. The political significance of the nobles was thereby greatly diminished."

D. M. Wallace, Russia, chapter 17.

BOYNE, Battle of the (1690).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

BOYS IN BLUE. BOYS IN GRAY. Soldier nicknames of the American Civil War.

"During the first year of the war [of the Rebellion, in the United States] the Union soldiers commonly called their opponents 'Rebs' and 'Secesh'; in 1862, 'Confeds'; in 1863, 'Gray-backs' and 'Butternuts'; and in 1864, 'Johnnies.' The nickname 'Butternuts' was given the Confederates on account of their homespun clothes, dyed reddish-brown with a dye made of butternut bark. The last name, 'Johnnies,' is said to have originated in a quarrel between two pickets, which began by the Union man's saying that the Confederates depended on England to get them out of their scrape. … The Union man … said that a 'Reb' was no better than a Johnny Bull, anyhow. … The name stuck, and in the last part of the war the Confederate soldiers were almost universally called 'Johnnies.' Throughout the war the Confederates dubbed all the Union soldiers 'Yankees' and 'Yanks,' without any reference to the part of the country they came from. … Other nicknames for Union soldiers, occasionally used, were 'Feds,' 'Blue Birds' and 'Blue Bellies.' Since the war the opponents have been commonly called 'Boys in Blue' and 'Boys in Gray.'"

J. D. Champlin, Jr., Young Folks' History of the War for the Union, page 137.

{306}

BOZRA.

See CARTHAGE: DIVISIONS, &c.

BOZZARIS, Marco, The death of.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

BRABANT: Mythical Explanation of the name.

See ANTWERP.

BRABANT: 4th century. First settlement of the Franks.

See TOXANDRIA.

BRABANT: 9th century. Known as Basse Lorraine.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

BRABANT: A. D. 1096-1099. Duke Godfrey de Bouillon in the First Crusade, and his kingdom of Jerusalem.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099; and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

BRABANT: 12th to 15th centuries. The county and duchy.

From the beginning of the 12th century, the county, afterwards the duchy, of Brabant, existed under its own counts and dukes, until the beginning of the 15th century, when it drifted under the influences which at that time were drawing all the Netherland States within the sphere of the sovereignty of the Burgundian dukes.

BRABANT: A. D. 1430. Acquisition by the House of Burgundy.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.

—————BRABANT: End—————

BRACCATI, The.

See ROME: B. C. 275.

BRACHYCEPHALIC MEN.

See DOLICHOCEPHALIC.

BRADDOCK'S DEFEAT.

See Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

BRADFORD, Governor, and the Plymouth Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621, and after.

BRADFORD'S PRESS.

See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709, 1704-1729, and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

BRAGANZA, The House of: A. D. 1640. Accession to the throne of Portugal.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

BRAGG, General Braxton. Invasion of Kentucky.

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

The Battle of Stone River.

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

The Tullahoma Campaign.

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

Chickamauga. The Chattanooga Campaign.

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

BRAHMANISM.

See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE AHYAS.

BRAHMANS.

See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA. Also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

BRANCHIDÆ, The.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142. Beginnings of the Margravate.

"A. D. 928, Henry the Fowler, marching across the frozen bogs, took Brannibor, a chief fortress of the Wends; first mention in human speech of the place now called Brandenburg: Bor or 'Burg of the Brenns' (if there ever was any Tribe of Brenns,—Brennus, there as elsewhere, being name for King or Leader); 'Burg of the Woods,' say others,—who as little know. Probably, at that time, a town of clay huts, with ditch and palisaded sod-wall round it; certainly 'a chief fortress of the Wends,'—who must have been a good deal surprised at sight of Henry on the rimy winter morning near a thousand years ago. … That Henry appointed due Wardenship in Brannibor was in the common course. Sure enough, some Murkgraf must take charge of Brannibor,—he of the Lausitz eastward, for example, or he of Salzwedel westward:—that Brannibor, in time, will itself be found the fit place, and have its own Markgraf of Brandenburg; this, and what in the next nine centuries Brandenburg will grow to, Henry is far from surmising. … In old books are lists of the primitive Markgraves of Brandenburg, from Henry's time downward; two sets, Markgraves of the Witekind race,' and of another: but they are altogether uncertain, a shadowy intermittent set of Markgraves, both the Witekind set and the Non-Witekind; and truly, for a couple of centuries, seem none of them to have been other than subaltern Deputies, belonging mostly to Lausitz or Salzwedel; of whom therefore we can say nothing here, but must leave the first two hundred years in their natural gray state,—perhaps sufficiently conceivable by the reader. … The Ditmarsch-Stade kindred, much slain in battle with the Heathen, and otherwise beaten upon, died out, about the year 1130 (earlier perhaps, perhaps later, for all is shadowy still); and were succeeded in the Salzwedel part of their function by a kindred called 'of Ascanien and Ballenstadt'; the Ascanier or Anhalt Margraves; whose History, and that of Brandenburg, becomes henceforth articulate to us. … This Ascanien, happily, has nothing to do with Brute of Troy or the pious Æneas's son; it is simply the name of a most ancient Castle (etymology unknown to me, ruins still dimly traceable) on the north slope of the Hartz Mountains; short way from Aschersleben,—the Castle and Town of Aschersleben are, so to speak, a second edition of Ascanien. … The kindred, called Grafs and ultimately Herzogs (Dukes) of 'Ascanien and Ballenstädt,' are very famous in old German History, especially down from this date. Some reckon that they had intermittently been Markgrafs, in their region, long before this; which is conceivable enough; at all events it is very plain they did now attain the Office in Salzwedel (straightway shifting it to Brandenburg); and held it continuously, it and much else that lay adjacent, for centuries, in a highly conspicuous manner. In Brandenburg they lasted for about two-hundred years."

T. Carlyle, Frederick the Great, book 2, chapter 3-4.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152. The Electorate.

"He they call 'Albert the Bear (Albrecht der Bär),' first of the Ascanien Markgraves of Brandenburg;—first wholly definite Markgrave of Brandenburg that there is; once a very shining figure in the world, though now fallen dim enough again, … got the Northern part of what is still called Saxony, and kept it in his family; got the Brandenburg Countries withal, got the Lausitz; was the shining figure and great man of the North in his day. The Markgrafdom of Salzwedel (which soon became of Brandenburg) he very naturally acquired (A. D. 1142 or earlier); very naturally, considering what Saxon and other honours and possessions he had already got hold of. We can only say, it was the luckiest of events for Brandenburg, and the beginning of all the better destinies it has had. {307} A conspicuous Country ever since in the world, and which grows ever more so in our late times. … He transferred the Markgrafdom to Brandenburg, probably as more central in his wide lands; Salzwedel is henceforth the led Markgrafdom or Marck, and soon falls out of notice in the world. Salzwedel is called henceforth ever since the 'Old Marck (Alte Marck, Altmarck)'; the Brandenburg countries getting the name of 'New Marck.' … Under Albert the Markgrafdom had risen to be an Electorate withal. The Markgraf of Brandenburg was now furthermore the Karfürst of Brandenburg: officially 'Arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire'; and one of the Seven who have a right (which became about this time an exclusive one for those Seven) to choose, to 'kieren' the Romish Kaiser; and who are therefore called 'Kur-Princes,' Kurfürste or Electors, as the highest dignity except the Kaiser's own."

T. Carlyle, Frederick the Great, book 2, chapter 4.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417. Under the Ascanian, the Bavarian and the Luxemburg lines, to the first of the Hohenzollern.

Albert the Bear was succeeded in 1168 by his son Otho. "In 1170, as it would appear, the name of Brandenburg was substituted for that of North Mark, which had ceased to describe more than the original nucleus of the colony, now one of the several districts into which it was divided. The city and territory of Brandenburg were not probably included in the imperial grant, but were inherited from the Wendish prince, Pribislaw, whom Albert had converted to Christianity. … Under Otho II., brother of the preceding, the family inheritance was sorely mismanaged. The Margrave becoming involved in some quarrel with the See of Magdeburg, the Archbishop placed him under the ban; and as the price of release Otho was required to accept the Suzerainty of the prelate for the older and better part of his dominions. His brother and successor, Albert II., was also unfortunate in the beginning of his career: but recovered the favor of the Emperor, and restored the prestige of his house before his death. … Very important acquisitions were made during the reign of these two princes. The preoccupations of the King of Denmark gave them a secure foothold in Pomerania, which the native nobility acknowledged; the frontiers were pushed eastward to the Oder, where the New Mark was organized, and the town of Frankfort was laid out; purchase put them in possession of the district of Lebus; and the bride of Otho III., a Bohemian princess, brought him as her dowry an extensive region on the Upper Spree with several thriving villages—all this in spite of the division of power and authority. … Otho III. died in 1267, John one year later; and a new partition of the estate was made between their several sons, the oldest, Otho IV., receiving, however, the title and prerogatives of head of the house." The last margrave of the Ascanian line, Waldemar, died in 1310. "His cousin and only heir, Henry, was a minor, and survived him but a year." Then "a host of claimants arose for the whole or parts of the Mark. The estates showed at first a gallant devotion to the widow, and intrusted the reins of authority to her; but she repaid this fidelity by hastily espousing the Duke of Brunswick, and transferring her rights to him. The transaction was not, however, ratified by the estates, and the Duke failed to enforce it by arms. Pomerania threw off the yoke which it had once unwillingly accepted; Bohemia reclaimed the wedding portion of Otho's bride; the Duke of Liegnitz sought to recover Lebus, although it had once been regularly sold; and in the general scramble the Church, through its local representatives, fought with all the energy of mere worldly robbers. But in this crisis the Emperor forgot neither the duties of his station nor the interests of his house. Louis II. of Bavaria then wore the purple. By feudal law a vacant fief reverted to its suzerain. … It was not therefore contrary to law, nor did it shock the moral sense of the age, when Louis drew the Mark practically into his own possession by conferring it nominally upon his minor son. … During the minority of Louis the Margrave, the province was administered by Louis the Emperor, and with some show of vigor." But troubles so thickened about the Emperor, in his conflict with the House of Austria, on the one hand, and with the Pope on the other [see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1317], that he could not continue the protection of his son. The Mark of Brandenburg was invaded by the King of Poland, and its Margrave "watched the devastation in helpless dismay." The people defended themselves. "The young city of Frankfort was the leader in the tardy but successful uprising. The Poles were expelled; the citizens had for the time saved the Mark. … The Margrave finally wearied even of the forms of authority, and sold his unhappy dominions to his two brothers, another Louis and Otho. In the meantime his father had died. The Electors—or five of them—had already deposed him and chosen in his place Charles of Moravia, a prince of the house of Luxemburg, as his successor. He became respectably and even creditably known in history as Charles IV. … Although he failed in the attempt to subdue by arms the Margrave of Brandenburg, who had naturally espoused his father's cause, he was persistent and ingenious in diplomatic schemes for overthrowing the House of Bavaria and bringing the Mark under his own sceptre. … From Louis he procured … a treaty of succession, by which he should acquire Brandenburg in case of the death of that Margrave and his brother Otho without heirs. His intrigues were finally crowned with complete success. Louis died suddenly in 1365. Otho, thenceforth alone in the charge, vacillated between weak submission to the Emperor's will, and spurts of petulant but feeble resistance; until Charles put an end to the farce by invading the Mark, crushing the army of the Margrave, and forcing him to an abject capitulation. In 1371, after a nominal rule of half a century, and for the price of a meagre annuity, the Bavarian line transferred all its rights to the family of Charles IV." Charles died in 1378. His son Wenzel, "for whom the Mark had been destined in the plans of Charles, acquired, meanwhile, the crown of Bohemia, a richer prize, and Brandenburg passed to the next son, Sigismond. The change was a disastrous one." Sigismond pawned the Mark to his kinsman, Jobst, of Moravia, and it fell into great disorder. "Imperial affairs during this period were in scarcely less confusion. Wenzel of Bohemia had been chosen emperor, and then deposed for obvious unfitness. Rupert, Count Palatine, had next been ejected, and had died. Again the post was vacant, and Sigismond, still the real Elector of Brandenburg, … issued successfully from the contest. His good fortune was due in a conspicuous degree to the influence and the money of Frederic, Burggrave of Nuremberg [see HOHENZOLLERN, RISE OF THE HOUSE OF]; and it is to the credit of Sigismond that he did not add ingratitude to his other vices, but on his election as emperor hastened [1411] to make his patron statthalter, or viceroy of the Mark." Six years later, in 1417, Frederic was formally invested with the sovereignty of the Mark, as Margrave and Elector.

H. Tuttle, History of Prussia to the Accession of Frederick the Great, chapters 1 and 3.

{308}

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1355. Declared an integral part of the Kingdom of Bohemia.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640. Rising importance of the Hohenzollern family. Acquisition of the Duchy of Prussia.

On being invested with the Electorate of Brandenburg, Frederick of Nuremberg sold the office of Burggrave to the Nurembergers and devoted himself to his new province. "Temperate, just, and firm in his dealings, he succeeded in reducing Brandenburg from anarchy to order. Already as deputy for Sigismund he had begun the task. … During the reign of his son and successor, characteristically known as Frederick Ironteeth [1440-1472], the strong hand was not relaxed; and Brandenburg became thenceforward tamed to law and order. The Electorate, which during the preceding century had been curtailed by losses in war and by sales, began again to enlarge its borders. The New March, which had been sold in the days of Sigismund to the Teutonic Knights, was now [1455] bought back from them in their need. … Albert Achilles, the brother and successor of Frederick II., was a man as powerful and as able as his predecessor. By his accession the principalities of Baireuth and Anspach, which had been separated from the Electorate for the younger sons of Frederick I., were reunited to it; and by a scheme of cross-remainders new plans were laid for the acquisition of territory. … It was already understood that the Electorate was to descend according to the law of primogeniture; but Anspach and Baireuth were still reserved as appanages for younger sons; and upon the death of Albert Achilles, in 1484, his territories were again divided, and remained so for more than a hundred years. The result of the division, however, was to multiply and not to weaken the strength of the House. The earlier years of the 16th century saw the Hohenzollerns rising everywhere to power. Albert Achilles had been succeeded [1486] by John, of whom little is known except his eloquence, and by Joachim [1499], who was preparing to bear his part against the Reformation. A brother of Joachim had become, in 1514, Elector of Mentz; and the double vote of the family at the election of Charles V. had increased their importance. The younger branch was rising also to eminence. George of Brandenburg, Margrave of Anspach, and grandson of Albert Achilles, was able in 1524 to purchase the Duchy of Jagerndorf in Silesia, and with it the reversions to the principalities of Oppeln and Ratibor, which eventually fell to him. His younger brother, Albert, had been chosen in 1511 Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, and was already converting his office into the hereditary Dukedom of Prussia," which it became in 1525 (see POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572). "The Elector Joachim I. of Brandenburg is perhaps the least prominent, but was not the least prudent, of his family. Throughout his life he adhered to the old faith, and preserved his dominions in tranquility. His son and successor, Joachim II., to the joy of his people, adopted the new religion [1539]; and found in the secularized bishoprics of Brandenburg, Havelburg, and Lebus, some compensation for the ecclesiastical Electorate which was about to pass, upon the death of Albert of Mentz, from his family. But he also was able to secure the continuance of peace. Distrustful of the success of the League of Smalkald he refused to join in it, and became chiefly known as a mediator in the struggles of the time. The Electors John George [1571-1598] and Joachim Frederick [1598-1608] followed the same policy of peace. … Peace and internal progress had characterized the 16th century; war and external acquisitions were to mark the 17th. The failure of the younger line in 1603 caused Bayreuth, Anspach, and Jagerndorf to fall to the Elector Joachim Frederick; but as they were re-granted almost at once to younger sons, and never again reverted to the Electorate, their acquisition became of little importance. The Margrave, George Frederick, however, had held, in addition to his own territories, the office of administrator for Albert Frederick, second Duke of Prussia, who had become imbecile; and, by his death, the Elector of Brandenburg became next of kin, and claimed to succeed to the office. The admission of this claim placed the Electors in virtual possession of the Duchy. By a deed of co-infeoffment, which Joachim II. had obtained in 1568 from his father-in-law the King of Poland, they were heirs to the Duchy upon failure of the younger line. … Duke Albert died in 1618; and Brandenburg and Prussia were then united under the Elector John Sigismund. It was well that the Duchy had been secured before the storm which was already gathering over the Empire had burst. … During the long struggle of the Thirty Years' War, the history of Brandenburg is that of a sufferer rather than an actor. … George William, who died in 1640, bequeathed a desert to his successor. That successor was Frederick William, to be known in history as the Great Elector."