Volume I—A To Elba (continued 23)

See CUMBRIA AND STRATH-CLYDE.

BRITAIN: A. D. 635. Defeat Of The Welsh By The English Of Bernicia.

See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.

—————BRITAIN: End—————

BRITAIN, GREAT: ADOPTION Of The Name For The United Kingdoms Of England And Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

BRITAIN, Roman Walls In.

See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

BRITANNIA, The Origin Of The Name.

"Many are the speculations which have been started as to the etymology of the word Britannia, and among the later ones have been some of the most extraordinary. Yet surely it is not one of those philological difficulties which we need despair of solving. Few persons will question that the name Britannia is connected with the name Britanni, in the same way as Germania, Gallia, Graecia, &c., with Germani, Galli, Graeci, &c., and it is not unreasonable to assume that Britanni was originally nothing more than the Latinized form of the Welsh word Brython, a name which we find given in the Triads to one of the three tribes who first colonized Britain. … From the Welsh 'brith' and Irish 'brit,' parti-coloured, may have come Brython, which on this hypothesis would signify the painted men. … As far then as philology is concerned, there seems to be no objection to our assuming Brython, and therefore also Britanni, to signify the painted men. How this Celtic name first came to denote the inhabitants of these islands is a question, the proper answer to which lies deeper than is generally supposed. … The 'Britannic Isles' is the oldest name we find given to these islands in the classical writers. Under this title Polybius (3. 57) refers to them in connection with the tin-trade, and the well-known work on the Kosmos (c. 3) mentions 'The Britannic Isles, Albion and Ierne.' … But in truth neither the authorship nor the age of this last-named work has been satisfactorily settled, and therefore we cannot assert that the phrase 'The Britannic Isles' came into use before the second century B. C. The name Britannia first occurs in the works of Cæsar and was not improbably invented by him."

E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2, chapter 1.

The etymology contended for by Dr. Guest is scouted by Mr. Rhys, on principles of Celtic phonology. He, on the contrary, traces relations between the name Brython and "the Welsh vocables 'bethyn,' cloth, and its congeners," and concludes that it signified "a clothed or cloth-clad people."

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 6.

BRITANNIA PRIMA AND SECUNDA.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

{324}

BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871. Establishment of provincial government. Union with the Dominion of Canada.

"British Columbia, the largest of the Canadian provinces, cannot be said to have had any existence as a colony until 1858. Previous to that year provision had been made by a series of Acts for extending the Civil and Criminal Laws of the Courts of Lower and Upper Canada over territories not within any province, but otherwise the territory was used as a hunting ground of the Hudson's Bay Company. The disputes and difficulties that arose from the influx of miners owing to the gold discoveries in 1856, resulted in the revocation of the licence of the Hudson's Bay Company, and the passing of the Imperial Act 21 & 22 Vic., c. 99, to provide for the government of British Columbia. … Sir James Douglas was appointed Governor and by his commission he was authorised to make laws, institutions and ordinances for the peace, order and good government of British Columbia, by proclamation issued under the public seal of the colony. … The Governor continued to legislate by proclamation until 1864, when his proclamations gave way to Ordinances passed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council. … Up to this time the Governor of British Columbia was also Governor of the neighbouring island of Vancouver. Vancouver's Island is historically an older colony than British Columbia. Though discovered in 1592 it remained practically unknown to Europeans for two centuries, and it was not until 1849, when the island was granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, that a Governor was appointed. … In 1865 the legislature of the island adopted a series of resolutions in favour of union with British Columbia, and by the Imperial Act 29 & 30 Vic. (i), c. 67, the two colonies were united. … By an Order in Council dated the 16th day of May, 1871, British Columbia was declared to be a province of the Dominion [see CANADA: A. D. 1867, and 1869-1873] from the 20th of July, 1871."

J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 27: British Columbia.

BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1872. Settlement Of The San Juan Water Boundary Dispute.

See SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN WATER BOUNDARY QUESTION.

—————BRITISH COLUMBIA: End—————

BRITISH EAST AFRICA AND SOUTH AFRICA COMPANIES.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

BRITISH HONDURAS.

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

BRITONS, OR BRITHONS.

See CELTS; ALSO, BRITANNIA; and BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

BRITONS OF CUMBRIA AND STRATHCLYDE.

See CUMBRIA.

BRITTANY, OR BRITANNY: In The Roman Period.

See ARMORICA; also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

BRITTANY: A. D. 383. Alleged Origin Of The British Settlement And Name.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.

BRITTANY: A. D. 409. Independence Asserted.

At the time that the British island practically severed its connection with the expiring Roman Empire (about 409) the Britons of the continent,—of the Armorican province, or modern Brittany,—followed the example. "They expelled the Roman magistrates, who acted under the authority of the usurper Constantine; and a free government was established among a people who had so long been subject to the arbitrary will of a master."

"From this time, perhaps, we ought to date that isolation of Brittany from the politics of the rest of France which has not entirely disappeared even at the present day."

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

The Armoricans, however, were found fighting by the side of the Romans and the Goths, against the Huns, on the great day at Chalons.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912. The Breyzad Kingdom. Subjection To The Norman Dukes.

"Charlemagne's supremacy over the Armoricans may be compared to the dominion exercised by Imperial Russia amongst the Caucasian tribes—periods during which the vassals dare not claim the rights of independence, intercalated amongst the converse periods when the Emperor cannot assert the rights of authority; yet the Frank would not abandon the prerogative of the Cæsars, whilst the mutual antipathy between the races inflamed the desire of dominion on the one part, and the determination of resistance on the other. Britanny is divided into Bretagne Bretonnante and Bretagne Gallicante, according to the predominance of the Breyzad and the Romane languages respectively. The latter constituted the march-lands, and here the Counts-marchers were placed by Charlemagne and his successors, Franks mostly by lineage; yet one Breyzad, Nominoë, was trusted by Louis-le-débonnaire [A. D. 818] with a delegated authority. Nominoë deserved his power; he was one of the new men of the era, literally taken from the plough. … The dissensions among the Franks enabled Nominoë to increase his authority. Could there be any adversary of the Empire so stupid as not to profit by the battle of Fontenay. … Nominoë assumed the royal title, vindicated the independence of his ancient people, and enabled them, in the time of Rollo, to assert with incorrect grandiloquence, pardonable in political argument, that the Frank had never reigned within the proper Armorican boundaries." Nominoë transmitted his crown to his son Herispoë; but the latter reigned briefly, succumbing to a conspiracy which raised his nephew, Solomon, to the throne. Solomon was a vigorous warrior, sometimes fighting the Franks, and sometimes struggling with the Normans, who pressed hard upon his small kingdom. He extended his dominions considerably, in Maine, Anjou, and the future Normandy, and his royal title was sanctioned by Charles the Bald. But he, too, was conspired against, blinded and dethroned, dying in prison; and, about 912, the second duke of Normandy established his lordship over the distracted country. "Historical Britanny settled into four great counties, which also absorbed the Carlovingian march-lands, Rennes, Nantes, Vannes and Cornouailles, rivalling and jealousing, snarling and warring against each other for the royal or ducal dignity, until the supremacy was permanently established in Alan Fergant's line, the ally, the opponent, the son-in-law of William the Bastard. But the suzerainty or superiority of all Britanny was vested in the Conqueror's and the Plantagenet's lineage, till the forfeiture incurred by King John—an unjust exercise of justice."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 3.

BRITTANY: A. D. 992-1237. The First Dukes.

"After the death of Solomon … all these districts or territories merged in the three dominations of Nantes, Rennes, and Cornouaille. Amongst the Celts concord was impossible. In early times Nomenoe, the Ruler of Cornouaille, had assumed, by Papal authority, the royal style, but the Counts of Rennes acquired the pre-eminence over the other chieftains. Regality vanished. Geoffrey, son of Conan [A. D. 992-1008] … must be distinguished as the first Duke of Brittany. He constituted himself Duke simply by taking the title. This assumption may possibly have been sanctioned by the successor of Saint Peter; and, by degrees, his rank in the civil hierarchy became ultimately recognized. … The Counts of Brittany, and the Dukes in like manner, in later times, rendered homage 'en parage' to Normandy in the first instance, and that same homage was afterwards demanded by the crown of France. But the Capetian monarchs refused to acknowledge the 'Duke,' until the time of Peter Mauclerc, son of Robert, Count of Dreux, Earl of Richmond [A. D. 1213-1237]."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, volume 3, page 165.

{325}

BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365. The Long Civil War. Montfort Against Blois.

Almost simultaneously with the beginning of the Hundred Years War of the English kings in France, there broke out a malignant and destructive civil war in Brittany, which French and English took part in, on the opposing sides. "John III. duke of that province, had died without issue, and two rivals disputed his inheritance. The one was Charles de Blois, husband of one of his nieces and nephew of the King of France; the other, Montfort, … younger brother of the last duke and … disinherited by him. The Court of Peers, devoted to the king, adjudged the duchy to Charles de Blois, his nephew. Montfort immediately made himself master of the strongest places, and rendered homage for Brittany to king Edward [III. of England], whose assistance he implored. This war, in which Charles de Blois was supported by France and Montfort by England, lasted twenty-four years without interruption, and presented, in the midst of heroic actions, a long course of treacheries and atrocious robberies." The war was ended in 1365 by the battle of Auray, in which Charles de Blois was slain, and Bertrand Du Guesclin, the famous Breton warrior, was taken prisoner. This was soon followed by the treaty of Guérande, which established Montfort in the duchy.

E. De Bonnechose, History of France, volume 1, book 2, chapters 2 and 4.

ALSO IN: Froissart (Johnes), Chronicles, book 1, chapters 64-227.

BRITTANY: A. D. 1491. Joined By Marriage To The French Crown.

The family of Montfort, having been established in the duchy of Brittany by the arms of the English, were naturally inclined to English connections; "but the Bretons would seldom permit them to be effectual. Two cardinal feelings guided the conduct of this brave and faithful people; the one an attachment to the French nation and monarchy in opposition to foreign enemies; the other, a zeal for their own privileges, and the family of Montfort, in opposition to the encroachments of the crown. In Francis II., the present duke [at the time of the accession of Charles VIII. of France, A. D. 1483], the male line of that family was about to be extinguished. His daughter Anne was naturally the object of many suitors, among whom were particularly distinguished the duke of Orleans, who seems to have been preferred by herself; the lord of Albret, a member of the Gascon family of Foix, favoured by the Breton nobility, as most likely to preserve the peace and liberties of their country, but whose age rendered him not very acceptable to a youthful princess; and Maximilian, king of the Romans [whose first wife, Mary of Burgundy, died in 1482]. Britany was rent by factions and overrun by the armies of the regent of France, who did not lose this opportunity of interfering with its domestic troubles, and of persecuting her private enemy, the duke of Orleans. Anne of Britany, upon her father's death, finding no other means of escaping the addresses of Albret, was married by proxy to Maximilian. This, however, aggravated the evils of the country, since France was resolved at all events to break off so dangerous a connexion. And as Maximilian himself was unable, or took not sufficient pains to relieve his betrothed wife from her embarrassments, she was ultimately compelled to accept the hand of Charles VIII. He had long been engaged by the treaty of Arras to marry the daughter of Maximilian, and that princess was educated at the French court. But this engagement had not prevented several years of hostilities, and continual intrigues with the towns of Flanders against Maximilian. The double injury which the latter sustained in the marriage of Charles with the heiress of Britany seemed likely to excite a protracted contest; but the king of France, who had other objects in view, and perhaps was conscious that he had not acted a fair part, soon came to an accommodation, by which he restored Artois and Franche-comté. … France was now consolidated into a great kingdom: the feudal system was at an end."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2.

In the contract of marriage between Charles VIII. and Anne of Brittany, "each party surrendered all separate pretensions upon the Duchy, and one stipulation alone was considered requisite to secure the perpetual union of Bretany with France, namely, that in case the queen should survive her consort, she should not remarry unless either with the future king, or, if that were not possible, with the presumptive heir of the crown."

E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 18.

ALSO IN: F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 26.

BRITTANY: A. D. 1532. Final Reunion With The Crown Of France.

"Duprat [chancellor of Francis I. of France], whose administration was … shameful, promoted one measure of high utility. Francis I. until then had governed Brittany only in the quality of duke of that province; Duprat counselled him to unite this duchy in an indissoluble manner with the crown, and he prevailed upon the States of Brittany themselves to request this reunion, which alone was capable of preventing the breaking out of civil wars at the death of the king. It was irrevocably voted by the States assembled at Vannes in 1532. The king swore to respect the rights of Brittany, and not to raise any subsidy therein without the consent of the States Provincial."

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, book 1, chapter 2.

BRITTANY: A. D. 1793. Resistance To The French Revolution. The Vendean War.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE); (JULY-DECEMBER).

BRITTANY: A. D. 1794-1796. The Chouans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

—————BRITTANY: End—————

BRIXHAM CAVE.

A cavern near Brixham, Devonshire, England, in which noted evidences of a very early race of men, contemporaneous with certain extinct animals, have been found.

J. Geikie, Prehistoric Europe.

ALSO IN: W. B. Dawkins, Cave Hunting.

{326}

BROAD-BOTTOMED ADMINISTRATION, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.

BROAD CHURCH, The.

See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

BROCK, General Isaac, and the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

BROMSEBRO, PEACE OF (1645).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

BRONKHORST SPRUIT, Battle of (1880).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1880.

BRONZE AGE.

See STONE AGE.

BROOKLYN, New York: A. D. 1624. The First Settlers.

"A few families of Walloons, in 1624, built their cottages on Long Island, and began the cultivation of the lands they had secured, the women working in the fields, while the men were engaged in the service of the company [the Dutch West India Company, controlling the colony of New Netherland]. These were the first settlers of Brooklyn. They were joined in time by a few others, until there were enough to be incorporated as a village. The numbers were not large, for Brooklyn, nearly forty years afterward, contained only 31 households and 134 souls."

G. W. Schuyler, Colonial New York, volume 1, page 27.

BROOKLYN: A. D. 1646. The Town Named And Organized.

"The occupation of land within the limits of the present city of Brooklyn … had steadily progressed, until now (1646) nearly the whole water-front, from Newtown Creek to the southerly side of Gowanus Bay, was in the possession of individuals who were engaged in its actual cultivation. … The village … which was located on the present Fulton Avenue, in the vicinity of the junction of Hoyt and Smith streets with said avenue, and southeast of the present City Hall, was called Breuckelen, after the ancient village of the same name in Holland, some 18 miles from Amsterdam." The town of Breuckelen was organized under a commission from the Colonial Council in 1646, and two schepens appointed. The following winter Jan Teunissen was commissioned as schout.

H. R. Stiles, History of Brooklyn, chapter 1.

BROOKLYN: A. D. 1776. The Battle Of Long Island And Defeat Of The Americans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

—————BROOKLYN: End—————

BROTHERS. BROTHERHOODS.

See BRETHREN.

BROTHERS' CLUB, The.

See CLUBS.

BROWN, GEORGE, AND THE CANADIAN "CLEAR GRITS."

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

BROWN, GENERAL JACOB, AND THE WAR OF 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER); 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BROWN, John. Attack On Harper's Ferry. Trial And Execution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.

BROWNISTS.

See INDEPENDENTS.

BROWNLOW, PARSON, AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

BRUCE, Robert, King of Scotland, A. D. 1305-1329.

BRUCHIUM, The.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 273.

BRUCTERI, The.

"After the Tencteri [on the Rhine] came, in former days, the Bructeri; but the general account now is, that the Chamavi and Angrivarii entered their settlements, drove them out and utterly exterminated them with the common help of the neighbouring tribes, either from hatred of their tyranny, or from the attractions of plunder, or from heaven's favourable regard for us. It did not even grudge us the spectacle of the conflict. More than 60,000 fell, not beneath the Roman arms and weapons, but, grander far, before our delighted eyes."

"The original settlements of the Bructeri, from which they were driven by the Chamavi and Angrivarii, seem to have been between the Rhine and the Ems, on either side of the Lippe. Their destruction could hardly have been so complete as Tacitus represents, as they are subsequently mentioned by Claudian."

Tacitus, Minor works, translated by Church and Brodribb: The Germany, with geographical notes.

See, also, FRANKS.

BRUGES: 13th CENTURY. The Great Fair.

See FLANDERS: 13th CENTURY.

BRUGES: A. D. 13th-15th CENTURIES. Commercial Importance In The Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

BRUGES: A. D. 1302. Massacre Of The French. "The Bruges Matins."

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.

BRUGES: A. D. 1341. Made the Staple for English trade.

See STAPLE.

BRUGES: A. D. 1379-1381. Hostilities With Ghent.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

BRUGES: A. D. 1382. Taken And Plundered By The People Of Ghent.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

BRUGES: A. D. 1482-1488. At War With Maximilian.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

BRUGES: A. D. 1584. Submission to Philip of Spain.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

BRUGES: A. D. 1745-1748. Taken By The French, And Restored.

See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745; and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.

—————BRUGES: End—————

BRULÉ, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

BRUMAIRE, THE MONTH.

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

BRUMAIRE, THE EIGHTEENTH OF.

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

BRUNDISIUM: Origin.

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

BRUNDISIUM: B. C.49. Flight of Pompeius before Cæsar.

See ROME: B. C. 50-49.

BRUNDISIUM: B. C. 40. The Peace Of Antony And Octavius.

The peace which Antony and Octavius were forced by their own soldiers to make at Brundisium, B. C. 40, postponed for ten years the final struggle between the two chief Triumvirs. For a much longer time it "did at least secure the repose of Italy. For a period of three hundred and fifty years, except one day's fighting in the streets of Rome, from Rhegium to the Rubicon no swords were again crossed in war."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 27.

See also, ROME: B. C. 31.

—————BRUNDISIUM: End—————

BRUNKEBURG, Battle of the (1471).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

BRUNNABURGH, OR BRUNANBURH, BATTLE OF.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 938.

BRUNSWICK, THE CITY OF. Origin And Name.

In the tenth century, a prince named Bruno, younger son of the reigning duke of Bavaria, and grandson of the Emperor Henry the Fowler, received as his patrimony the country about the Ocker. "Having fixed his residence at a village established by Charlemagne on the banks of that river, it became known as the 'Vicus Brunonis,' and, when enlarged and formed into a city, afterwards gave its name to the principality of which it formed the capital."

Sir A. Halliday, Annals of the House of Hanover, volume 1, book 4.

{327}

BRUNSWICK: IN THE HANSEATIC LEAGUE.

See HANSA TOWNS.

BRUNSWICK-LÜNEBURG, OR HANOVER.

See HANOVER.

BRUNSWICK-WOLFENBÜTTEL, OR BRUNSWICK: Origin Of The House And Dukedom.

See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY, and A. D. 1178-1183.

BRUNSWICK: THE GUELF CONNECTION.

See GUELF AND GHIBELLINE, AND ESTE, HOUSE OF.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1543. Expulsion Of Duke Henry By The League Of Smalcald.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1546. Final Separation From The Lüneburg Or Hanoverian Branch Of The House.

See HANOVER: A. D. 1546.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1806. The Duke's Dominions Confiscated By Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1807. Absorbed In The Kingdom Of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1830. Deposition of the Duke.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.

—————BRUNSWICK: End—————

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1577. The Union Of The Patriots.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1585. Surrender to the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1695. BOMBARDMENT BY THE FRENCH.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1706. Taken By Marlborough And The Allies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1746-1748. Taken By The French And Restored To Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747, and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1815. The Battle Of Waterloo.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1830. Riot And Revolution. Dutch Attack On The City Repelled.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

—————BRUSSELS: End—————

BRUTTII, The.

See SAMNITES.

BRUTUM FULMEN.

A phrase, signifying a blind thrust, or a stupid and ineffectual blow, which was specially applied in a contemporary pamphlet by Francis Hotman to the Bull of excommunication issued by Pope Sixtus V. against Henry of Navarre, in 1585.

H. M. Baird, The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre, volume 1, page 369.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

BRUTUS, LUCIUS JUNIUS, AND THE EXPULSION OF THE TARQUINS.

See ROME: B. C. 510.

BRUTUS, MARCUS JUNIUS, AND THE ASSASSINATION OF CAESAR.

See ROME: B. C. 44 to 44-42.

BRYTHONS, The.

See CELTS, THE.

BUBASTIS.

"On the eastern side of the Delta [of the Nile], more than half-way from Memphis to Zoan, lay the great city of Pi-beseth, or Bubastis. Vast mounds now mark the site and preserve the name; deep in their midst lie the shattered fragments of the beautiful temple which Herodotus saw, and to which in his days the Egyptians came annually in vast numbers to keep the greatest festival of the year, the Assembly of Bast, the goddess of the place. Here, after the Empire had fallen, Shishak [Sheshonk] set up his throne, and for a short space revived the imperial magnificence of Thebes."

R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 10.

BUCCANEERS, The.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

BUCENTAUR, The.

See VENICE: 14TH CENTURY.

BUCHANAN, JAMES. Presidential Election And Administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856 to 1861.

BUCHAREST, TREATY OF (1812).

See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812; also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

BUCKINGHAM, ASSASSINATION OF.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.

BUCKINGHAM PALACE.

See ST. JAMES, THE PALACE AND COURT OF.

BUCKTAILS.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

BUDA: A. D. 1526. Taken And Plundered By The Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

BUDA: A. D. 1529-1567. Taken by the Turks. Besieged by the Austrians. Occupied by the Sultan. Becomes the seat of a Pasha.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

BUDA: A. D. 1686. Recovery from the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.

BUDA: A. D. 1849. Siege And Capture By The Hungarians.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

—————BUDA: End—————

BUDA-PESTH: A. D. 1872. Union Of The Cities.

Buda, on the right bank of the Danube, and Pesth, on the left, were incorporated in 1872 into one city—Buda-Pesth.

BUDDHISM.

See INDIA: B. C. 312; also LAMAS. LAMAISM; and CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.

BUDGET, The.

"The annual financial statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes in the House of Commons in a Committee of ways and means. In making this statement the minister gives a view of the general financial policy of the government, and at the same time presents an estimate of the probable income and expenditure for the following twelve months, and a statement of what taxes it is intended to reduce or abolish, or what new ones it may be necessary to impose.—To open the budget, to lay before the legislative body the financial estimates and plans of the executive government."

Imp. Dict.

Mr. Dowell in his History of Taxation (volume 1, chapter 5) states that the phrase 'opening the Budget' came into use in England during the reign of George III., and that it bore a reference to the bougette, or little bag, in which the chancellor of the exchequer kept his papers. The French, he adds, adopted the term in the present century, about 1814. The following, however, is in disagreement with Mr. Dowell's explanation: "In the reign of George II. the word was used with conscious allusion to the celebrated pamphlet which ridiculed Sir R. Walpole as a conjuror opening his budget or 'bag of tricks.' Afterwards, it must, for a time, have been current as slang; but, as it supplied a want, it was soon taken up into the ordinary vocabulary."

Athenæum, February 14, 1891, page 213.

{328}

BUDINI, The.

A nomadic tribe which Herodotus describes as anciently inhabiting a region between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea.

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

BUELL, GENERAL DON CARLOS, CAMPAIGNS OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER); A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE); A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE); A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

BUENA VISTA, BATTLE OF.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

BUENOS AYRES, VICEROYALTY AND REPUBLIC OF.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

BUENOS AYRES, The City of: A. D. 1534. First and unsuccessful founding of the city.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

BUFFALO, New York: The Aboriginal Occupants Of The Site.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1764. Cession Of The Four Mile Strip By The Senecas.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1779. The Site Occupied By The Senecas After Sullivan's Expedition.

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

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1799. The founding and naming of the city.

See NEW YORK A. D. 1786-1799.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1812. At The Opening Of The War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1813. Destruction by British and Indians.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (DECEMBER).

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1825. Opening of the Erie Canal.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1848. The National Free-soil Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1866. The Fenian Invasion Of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

—————BUFFALO, New York: End—————

BUFFALO HILL, Battles of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

BUFFINGTON FORD, BATTLE OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

BUGIA, CONQUEST BY THE SPANIARDS (1510).

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

BULGARIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BULGARIANS, THE RELIGIOUS SECTARIES SO CALLED.

See PAULICIANS.

BULL "APOSTOLICUM," The.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

BULL "AUSCULTA FILI," The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BULL "CLERICIS LAICOS."

Published by Pope Boniface VIII. February 24, 1296, forbidding "the clergy to pay and the secular powers to exact, under penalty of excommunication, contributions or taxes, tenths, twentieths, hundredths, or the like, from the revenues or the goods of the churches or their ministers."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 14.

ALSO IN: E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 4, number 6.

See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BULL "DOMINUS REDEMPTOR NOSTER."

See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

BULL "EXURGE DOMINE."

See PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.

BULL, Golden.

See GOLDEN BULL, BYZANTINE; also GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493. and HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

BULL, "LAUDABILITER," The.

A papal bull promulgated in 1155 by Pope Adrian IV. (the one Englishman who ever attained to St. Peter's seat) assuming to bestow the kingdom of Ireland on the English King Henry II.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

BULL, "SALVATOR MUNDI," THE.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BULL "UNIGENITUS," THE.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

BULL RUN, OR MANASSAS, FIRST BATTLE OF.

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

BULL RUN, SECOND BATTLE OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

BULLA, THE.

See TOGA.

BUMMERS, SHERMAN'S.

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

BUND, BUNDESRATH, BUNDESPRESIDENT, BUNDESGERICHT, THE SWISS.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

BUNDES-STAAT.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

BUNDSCHUH INSURRECTIONS.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

BUNKER HILL, BATTLE OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE).

BURDIGALA.

The original name of the modern city of Bordeaux, which was a town of the Gallic tribe called the Bituriges-Vivisci.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 7.

BURGAGE TENURE.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

BURGESS.

See BOURGEOIS.

BURGH, OR BURGI, OR BURH.

See BOROUGH.

BURGOS, BATTLE OF.

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

BURGOYNE, GENERAL JOHN, AND THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY); A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

BURGRAVES.

See PALATINE, COUNTS.

BURGUNDIANS: Origin And Early History.

"About the middle of the fourth century, the countries, perhaps of Lusace and Thuringia, on either side of the Elbe, were occupied by the vague dominion of the Burgundians—a warlike and numerous people of the Vandal race, whose obscure name insensibly swelled into a powerful kingdom, and has finally settled on a flourishing province. … The disputed possession of some salt-pits engaged the Alemanni and the Burgundians in frequent contests. The latter were easily tempted by the secret solicitations and liberal offers of the emperor [Valentinian, A. D. 371]; and their fabulous descent from the Roman soldiers who had formerly been left to garrison the fortresses of Drusus was admitted with mutual credulity, as it was conducive to mutual interest. An army of fourscore thousand Burgundians soon appeared on the banks of the Rhine, and impatiently required the support and subsidies which Valentinian had promised; but they were amused with excuses and delays, till at length, after a fruitless expectation, they were compelled to retire. The arms and fortifications of the Gallic frontier checked the fury of their just resentment."

{329}

"We first hear of them [the Burgundians] as a tribe of Teutonic stock, located between the Oder and the Vistula, on either bank of the river Warta. When the Gepidæ descended southward with the Goths, the Burgundians were compelled to recoil before the advance of the former tribe: one portion of them took refuge in Bornholm, an island of the Baltic; the remainder turned westward, and made an attempt to enter Gaul. They were repulsed by Probus, but permitted to settle near the sources of the Main. Jovian showed them favour, and gave them lands in the Germania Secunda. This was in the latter part of the fourth century. Just at its close, they adopted Christianity, but under an Arian form. Ammianus tells us that they were a most warlike race."

J. G. Sheppard, The Fall of Rome, lecture 8.

"The other Teutonic people had very little regard for the Burgundians; they accused them of having degenerated from the valor of their ancestors, by taking in petty towns (bourgades), whence their name Burgundii sprang; and they looked upon them as being more suitable for the professions of mechanics, smiths, and carpenters, than for a military life."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the Merovingians, chapter 3.

"A document of A. D. 786, in noticing the high tract of lands between Ellwangen and Anspach, has the following expression,—'in Waldo, qui vocatur Virgunnia.' Grimm looks for the derivation of this word in the Mœso-Gothic word 'fairguni,' Old High 'German 'fergunnd'=woody hill-range. … I have little doubt but that this is the name of the tract of land from which the name Burgundi arose; and that it is the one which fixes their locality. If so, between the Burgundian and Suevic Germans, the difference, such as it was, was probably, almost wholly political."

R. G. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena, section 12.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 406-409. Invasion Of Gaul.

See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451. Their Savoyan Kingdom.

"In the south-east of Gaul, the Burgundians had, after many wars and some reverses, established themselves (443) with the consent of the Romans in the district then called Sapaudia and now Savoy. Their territory was somewhat more extensive than the province which was the cradle of the present royal house of Italy, since it stretched northwards beyond the lake of Neufchatel and southwards as far as Grenoble. Here the Burgundian immigrants under their king Gundiok, were busy settling themselves in their new possession, cultivating the lands which they had divided by lot, each one receiving half the estate of a Roman host or 'hospes' (for under such gentle names the spoliation was veiled), when the news came that the terrible Hun had crossed the Rhine [A. D. 451], and that all hosts and guests in Gaul must unite for its defence."

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

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 451. At The Battle Of Chalons.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500. Extension Of Their Kingdom.

"Their [the Burgundians] domain, considerably more extensive than when we last viewed it on the eve of Attila's invasion, now included the later provinces of Burgundy, Franche-Comté and Dauphiné, besides Savoy and the greater part of Switzerland—in fact the whole of the valleys of the Saone and the Rhone, save that for the last hundred miles of its course the Visigoths barred them from the right bank and from the mouths of the latter river." At the time now spoken of (A. D. 500), the Burgundian kingdom was divided between two brother-kings, Gundobad, reigning at Lyons and Vienne, and Godegisel at Geneva. Godegisel, the younger, had conspired with Clovis, the king of the Franks, against Gundobad, and in this year 500 the two confederates defeated the latter, at Dijon, driving him from the most part of his kingdom. But Gundobad presently recovered his footing, besieged and captured his treacherous brother at Vienne and promptly put him to death—thereby reuniting the kingdom.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 534. Final Conquest By The Franks.

"I am impatient to pursue the final ruin of that kingdom [the Burgundian] which was accomplished under the reign of Sigismond, the son of Gundobald [or Gundobad]. The Catholic Sigismond has acquired the honours of a saint and martyr; but the hands of the royal saint were stained with the blood of his innocent son. … It was his humble prayer that Heaven would inflict in this world the punishment of his sins. His prayer was heard; the avengers were at hand; and the provinces of Burgundy were overwhelmed by an army of victorious Franks. After the event of an unsuccessful battle, Sigismond … with his wife and two children, was transported to Orleans and buried alive in a deep well by the stern command of the sons of Clovis, whose cruelty might derive some excuse from the maxims and examples of their barbarous age. … The rebellious Burgundians, for they attempted to break their chains, were still permitted to enjoy their national laws under the obligation of tribute and military service; and the Merovingian princes peaceably reigned over a kingdom whose glory and greatness had been first overthrown by the arms of Clovis."

ALSO IN: W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3.

—————BURGUNDIANS: End—————

BURGUNDY: A. D. 534-752. The Merovingian Kingdom.

After the overthrow of the Burgundian monarchy by the sons of Clovis, the territory of the Burgundians, with part of the neighboring Frank territory added to it, became, under the name of Burgundia or Burgundy, one of the three Frank kingdoms (Austrasia and Neustria being the other two), into which the Merovingian princes divided their dominion. It occupied "the east of the country, between the Loire and the Alps, from Provence on the south to the hill-ranges of the Vosges on the north."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, chapter 13.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933. Divisions of the early kingdom. The later kingdoms of the south and the French dukedom of the northwest.

By the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, which formally divided the empire of Charlemagne between his three grandsons, a part of Burgundy was taken to form, with Italy and Lorraine, the kingdom of the Emperor Lothar, or Lothaire. In the further dissolutions which followed, a kingdom of Burgundy or Provence was founded in 877 by one Boso, a prince who had married Irmingard, daughter of the Emperor Louis II., son of Lothaire. It "included Provence, Dauphiné, the southern part of Savoy, and the country between the Saone and the Jura," and is sometimes called the kingdom of Cis-Jurane Burgundy. "The kingdom of Trans-Jurane Burgundy, … founded by Rudolf in A. D. 888, recognized in the same year by the Emperor Arnulf, included the northern part of Savoy, and all Switzerland between the Reuss and the Jura."

J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, chapter 6, and appendix, note A.

{330}

"The kingdoms of Provence and Transjuran Burgundy were united, in 933, by Raoul II., King of Transjuran Burgundy, and formed the kingdom of Arles, governed, from 937 to 993, by Conrad le Pacifique."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 24.

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

"Several of the greater and more commercial towns of France, such as Lyons, Vienne, Geneva, Besançon, Avignon, Arles, Marseille and Grenoble were situated within the bounds of his [Conrad the Pacific's] states."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, France Under the Feudal System, chapter 2.

"Of the older Burgundian kingdom, the northwestern part, forming the land best known as the Duchy of Burgundy, was, in the divisions of the ninth century, a fief of Karolingia or the Western Kingdom. This is the Burgundy which has Dijon for its capital, and which was held by more than one dynasty of dukes as vassals of the Western kings, first at Laon, and then at Paris. This Burgundy, which, as the name of France came to bear its modern sense may be distinguished as the French Duchy, must be carefully distinguished from the Royal Burgundy" of the Cis-Jurane and Trans-Jurane kingdoms mentioned above.

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 6, section 1.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 888-1032. The French Dukedom. The Founding Of The First Capetian House.

Of the earliest princes of this northwestern fragment of the old kingdom of Burgundy little seems to have been discoverable. The fief and its title do not seem to have become hereditary until they fell into the grasping hands of the Capetian family, which happened just at the time when the aspiring counts of Paris were rising to royal rank. In the early years of the tenth century the reigning count or duke was Richard-le-Justicier, whose distinguishing princely virtue is recorded in his name. This Richard-le-Justicier was a brother of that Boso, or Boson, son-in-law of the Emperor Louis II., who took advantage of the confusions of the time to fashion for himself a kingdom of Burgundy in the South (Cis-Jurane Burgundy, or Provence,—see above). Richard's son Raoul, or Rudolph, married Emma, the daughter of Robert, Count of Paris and Duke of France, who was soon afterwards chosen king, by the nobles who tired of Carlovingian misrule. King Robert's reign was short; he fell in battle with the Carlovingians, at Soissons, the next year (A. D. 923). His son Hugh, called Le Grand, or The Great, found it more to his taste to be king-maker than to be king. He declined the proffered crown, and brought about the coronation of his brother-in-law, the Burgundian Rudolph, who reigned for eleven years. When he died, in 934, Hugh the Great still held the crown at his disposal and still refused to wear it himself. It now pleased this king-maker to set a Carlovingian prince on the throne, in the person of Louis d'Outre Mer, a young son of Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England by his English mother. But, if Duke Hugh cared nothing for the name, he cared much for the substance, of power. He grasped dominion wherever it fell within his reach, and the Burgundian duchy was among the states which he clutched. King Rudolph left no son to inherit either his dukedom or his kingdom. He had a brother, Hugh, who claimed the Duchy; but the greater Hugh was too strong for him and secured, with the authority of the young king, his protegé, the title of Duke of Burgundy and the larger part of the domain. "In the Duchy of France or the County of Paris Hugh-le-Grand had nothing beyond the regalities to desire, and both in Burgundy and the Duchy he now became an irremovable Viceroy. But the privileges so obtained by Hugh-le-Grand produced very important political results, both present and future. Hugh assumed even a loftier bearing than before; Burgundy was annexed to the Duchy of France, and passed with the Duchy; and the grant thereof made by Hugh Capet to his son [brother?] Henri-le-Grand, severing the same from the crown, created the premier Duchy of Christendom, the most splendid appanage which a prince of the third race [the Capetians] could enjoy—the rival of the throne."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, part 2, chapters 1-4.

Hugh-le-Grand died in 956. "His power, which, more than his talents or exploits, had given him the name of Great, was divided between his children, who were yet very young. … There is some doubt as to their number and the order of their birth. It appears, however, that Otho was the eldest of his three sons. He had given him his part of the duchy of Burgundy, and had made him marry the daughter and heir of Gislebert, duke of another part of Burgundy, to which Otho succeeded the same year. The latter dying in 963 or 965, the duchy of Burgundy passed to his third brother, sometimes named Henry, sometimes Eudes. Hugues [Hugh], surnamed Capet, who succeeded to the county of Paris and the duchy of France, was but the second son."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the Carlovingians, chapter 15.

In 987 Hugh Capet became king of France and founded the lasting dynasty which bears his name. His elder brother Henry remained Duke of Burgundy until his death, in 1002, when his royal nephew, Robert, son and successor of Hugh, annexed the Duchy to the Crown. It so remained until 1032. Then King Henry I., son of Robert, granted it as an appanage to his brother Robert, who founded the first Capetian House of Burgundy.

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, book 1, chapter 2.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032. The Last Kingdom. Its Union With Germany, And Its Dissolution.

The last kingdom which bore the name of Burgundy—though more often called the kingdom of Arles—formed, as stated above, by the union of the short-lived kingdoms of Provence and Transjurane Burgundy, became in 1032 nominally united to the dominions of the Emperor-King of Germany. Its last independent king was Rudolf III., son of Conrad the Pacific, who was uncle to the Emperor Henry II. Being childless, he named Henry his heir. The latter, however, died first, in 1024, and Rudolf attempted to cancel his bequest, claiming that it was made to Henry personally, not as King of the Germans. When, however, the Burgundian king died, in 1032, the then reigning Emperor, Conrad the Salic, or the Franconian, formally proclaimed the union of Burgundy with Germany. "But since Burgundy was ruled almost exclusively by the great nobility, the sovereignty of the German Emperors there was never much more than nominal. Besides, the country, from the Bernese Oberland to the Mediterranean, except that part of Allemannia which is now German Switzerland, was inhabited by a Romance people, too distinct in language, customs and laws from the German empire ever really to form a part of it. … Yet Switzerland was thenceforth connected forever with the development of Germany, and for 500 years remained a part of the empire."

C. T. Lewis, History of Germany, book 2, chapter 6-7.

{331}

"The weakness of Rodolph-le-Fainéant [Rodolph III., who made Henry II. of Germany his heir, as stated above], gave the great lords of the kingdom of Arles an opportunity of consolidating their independence. Among these one begins to remark Berchtold and his son, Humbert-aux-Blanches-Mains (the White-handed), Counts of Maurienne, and founders of the House of Savoy; Otto William, who it is pretended was the son of Adalbert, King of Italy, and heir by right of his mother to the county of Burgundy, was the founder of the sovereign house of Franche-Comté [County Palatine of Burgundy]; Guigue, Count of Albon, founder of the sovereign house of the dauphins of Viennois; and William, who it is pretended was the issue of a brother of Rodolph of Burgundy, King of France, and who was sovereign count of Provence. These four lords had, throughout the reign of Rodolph, much more power than he in the kingdom of Arles; and when at his death his crown was united to that of the Empire, the feudatories who had grown great at his expense became almost absolutely independent. On the other hand, their vassals began on their side to acquire importance under them; and in Provence can be traced at this period the succession of the counts of Forcalquier and of Venaissin, of the princes of Orange, of the viscounts of Marseille, of the barons of Baux, of Sault, of Grignau, and of Castellane. We can still follow the formation of a great number of other feudatory or rather sovereign houses. Thus the counts of Toulouse, those of Rouergue, the dukes of Gascony, the counts of Foix, of Beam, and of Carcassone, date least from this epoch; but their existence is announced to us only by their diplomas and their wills."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, France under the Feudal System, chapter 2.

See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, AND FRANCHE COMTÉ.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378. The Franco-Germanic Contest For The Valley Of The Rhone. End Of The Kingdom Of Arles.

"As soon as the Capetian monarchs had acquired enough strength at home to be able to look with safety abroad, they began to make aggressions on the tempting and wealthy dependencies of the distant emperors. But the Rhone valley was too important in itself, and of too great strategical value as securing an easy road to Italy, to make it possible for the emperors to acquiesce easily in its loss. Hence a long conflict, which soon became a national conflict of French and Germans, to maintain the Imperial position in the 'middle kingdom' of the Rhone valley. M. Fournier's book ['Le Royaume d' Arles et de Vienne (1138-1178)'; par Paul Fournier] aims at giving an adequate account of this struggle. … From the times of the mighty Barbarossa to the times of the pretentious and cunning Charles of Luxemburg [see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268, and A. D. 1347-1493], nearly every emperor sought by constant acts of sovereignty to uphold his precarious powers in the Arelate. Unable to effect much with their own resources, the emperors exhausted their ingenuity in finding allies and inventing brilliant schemes for reviving the Arelate, which invariably came to nothing. Barbarossa won the hand of the heiress of the county of Burgundy, and sought to put in place of the local dynasties princes on whom he could rely, like Berthold of Zäringen, whose father had received in 1127 from Conrad III. the high-sounding but meaningless title of Hector of the Burgundies. But his quarrel with the church soon set the clergy against Frederick, and, led by the Carthusian and Cistercian orders, the Churchmen of the Arelate began to look upon the orthodox king of the French as their truest protector from a schismatic emperor. But the French kings of the period saw in the power of Henry of Anjou [Henry II., of England—see ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189] a more real and pressing danger than the Empire of the Hohenstaufen. The result was an alliance between Philip Augustus and his successors and the Swabian emperors, which gave Frederick and his successors a new term in which they could strive to win back a real hold over Burgundy. Frederick II. never lost sight of this object. His investiture of the great feudal lord William of Baux with the kingdom of Arles in 1215; his long struggle with the wealthy merchant city of Marseilles; his alliance with Raymond of Toulouse and the heretical elements in Provence against the Pope and the French; his efforts to lead an army against Innocent IV. at Lyons, were among the chief phases of his constant efforts to make the Imperial influence really felt in the valley of the Rhone. But he had so little success that the French crusaders against the Albigenses waged open war within its limits, and destroyed the heretic city of Avignon [see ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229], while Innocent in his exile could find no surer protection against the emperor than in the Imperial city of Lyons. After Frederick's death the policy of St. Louis of France was a complete triumph. His brother, Charles of Anjou, established himself in Provence, though in later times the Angevin lords of Provence and Naples became so strong that their local interests made them enemies rather than friends of the extension of French power on their borders. The subsequent efforts of the emperors were the merest shams and unrealities. Rudolf of Hapsburg acquiesced without a murmur in the progress of Philip the Fair, who made himself master of Lyons, and secured the Free County of Burgundy for his son [see FRANCHE-COMTÉ]. … The residence of the Popes at Avignon was a further help to the French advance. … Weak as were the early Valois kings, they were strong enough to push still further the advantage won by their greater predecessors. The rivalry of the leading states of the Rhone valley, Savoy and Dauphiny, facilitated their task. Philip VI. aspired to take Vienne as Philip IV. had obtained Lyons. The Dauphin, Humbert II., struggled in vain against him, and at last accepted the inevitable by ceding to the French king the succession to all his rights in Dauphiny, henceforth to become the appanage of the eldest sons of the French kings. At last, Charles of Luxemburg, in 1378, gave the French aggressions a legal basis by conferring the Vicariat of Arles on the Dauphin Charles, subsequently the mad Charles VI. of France. From this grant Savoy only was excepted. Henceforth the power of France in the Rhone valley became so great that it soon became the fashion to despise and ignore the theoretical claims of the Empire."

The Athenæum, Oct. 3, 1891, reviewing "Le Royaume d'Arles et de Vienne," par Paul Fournier.

[Image: POSSESSIONS OF CHARLES THE BOLD, DUKE OF BURGUNDY, ABOUT 1475.]

{332}

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1207-1401. Advance Of The Dominions Of The House Of Savoy Beyond Lake Geneva.

See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1364. The French Dukedom. The Planting Of The Burgundian Branch Of The House Of Valois.

The last Duke of Burgundy of the Capetian house which descended from Robert, son of King Robert, died in December, 1361. He was called Philip de Rouvre, because the Château de Rouvre, near Dijon, had been his birth-place, and his residence. He was still in his youth when he died, although he had borne the ducal title for twelve years. It fell to him at the age of four, when his father died. From his mother and his grandmother he inherited, additionally, the county of Burgundy (Franche Comté) and the counties of Boulogne, Auvergne and Artois. His tender years had not prevented the marriage of the young duke to Margaret, daughter and heiress of the Count of Flanders. John II. King of France, whose mother was a Burgundian princess, claimed to be the nearest relative of the young duke, when the latter died, in 1361, and, although his claim was disputed by the King of Navarre, Charles the Bad, King John took possession of the dukedom. He took it by right of succession, and not as a fief which had lapsed, the original grant of King Robert having contained no reversionary provision. Franche Comté, or the county of Burgundy, together with Artois, remained to the young widow, Margaret of Flanders, while the counties of Boulogne and Auvergne passed to John of Boulogne, Count de Montfort. A great opportunity for strengthening the crown of France, by annexing to it the powerful Burgundian dukedom, was now offered to King John; but he lacked the wisdom to improve it. He preferred to grant it away as a splendid appanage for his favorite son—the fourth—the spirited lad Philip, called the Fearless, who had stood by his father's side in the disastrous battle of Poitiers, and who had shared his captivity in England. By a deed which took effect on King John's death, in 1364, the great duchy of Burgundy was conferred on Philip the Fearless and on his heirs. Soon afterwards, Philip's marriage with the young widow of his predecessor, Philip de Rouvre, was brought about, which restored to their former union with the dukedom the Burgundian County (Franche Comté) and the county of Artois, while it gave to the new duke prospectively the rich county of Flanders, to which Margaret was the heiress. Thus was raised up anew the most formidable rival which the royal power in France had ever to contend with, and the magnitude of the blunder of King John was revealed before half a century had passed.

Froissart (Johnes) Chronicles, book 1, chapter 216.

ALSO IN: F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 22.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1383. Flanders Added To The Ducal Dominions.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1405-1453. Civil war with the Armagnacs. Alliance with the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; 1415-1419; 1417-1422; 1429-1431; 1431-1453.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1430. Holland, Hainault And Friesland Absorbed By The Dukes.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND AND HAINAULT): A. D. 1417-1430.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467. Charles The Bold. His Position, Between Germany And France. His Antagonism To Louis Xi. The "Middle Kingdom" Of His Aims.

Charles, known commonly in history as Charles the Bold, became Duke of Burgundy in 1467, succeeding his father Philip, misnamed "The Good." "His position was a very peculiar one; it requires a successful shaking-off of modern notions fully to take in what it was. Charles held the rank of one of the first princes in Europe without being a King, and without possessing an inch of ground for which he did not owe service to some superior lord. And, more than this, he did not owe service to one lord only. The phrase of 'Great Powers' had not been invented in the 15th century; but there can be no doubt that, if it had been, the Duke of Burgundy would have ranked among the foremost of them. He was, in actual strength, the equal of his royal neighbour to the west, and far more than the equal of his Imperial neighbour to the east. Yet for every inch of his territories he owed a vassal's duty to one or other of them. Placed on the borders of France and the Empire, some of his territories were held of the Empire and some of the French Crown. Charles, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders and Artois, was a vassal of France; but Charles, Duke of Brabant, Count of Burgundy, Holland, and a dozen other duchies and counties, held his dominions as a vassal of Cæsar. His dominions were large in positive extent, and they were valuable out of all proportion to their extent. No other prince in Europe was the direct sovereign of so many rich and flourishing cities, rendered still more rich and flourishing through the long and, in the main, peaceful administration of his father. The cities of the Netherlands were incomparably greater and more prosperous than those of France or England; and, though they enjoyed large municipal privileges, they were not, like those of Germany, independent commonwealths, acknowledging only an external suzerain in their nominal lord; Other parts of his dominions, the Duchy of Burgundy especially, were as rich in men as Flanders was rich in money. So far the Duke of Burgundy had some great advantages over every other prince of his time. But, on the other hand, his dominions were further removed than those of any prince in Europe from forming a compact whole. He was not King of one kingdom, but Duke, Count, and Lord of innumerable duchies, counties, and lordships, acquired by different means, held by different titles and of different overlords, speaking different languages, subject to different laws, transmitted according to different rules of succession. … They lay in two large masses, the two Burgundies forming one and the Low Countries forming the other, so that their common master could not go from one capital to another without passing through a foreign territory. {333} And, even within these two great masses, there were portions of territory intersecting the ducal dominions which there was no hope of annexing by fair means. … The career of Charles the Bold … divides itself into a French and a German portion. In both alike he is exposed to the restless rivalry of Lewis of France; but in the one period that rivalry is carried on openly within the French territory, while in the second period the crafty king finds the means to deal far more effectual blows through the agency of Teutonic hands. … As a French prince, he joined with other French princes to put limits on the power of the Crown, and to divide the kingdom into great feudal holdings, as nearly independent as might be of the common overlord. As a French prince, he played his part in the War of the Public Weal [see FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468], and insisted, as a main object of his policy, on the establishment of the King's brother as an all but independent Duke of Normandy. The object of Lewis was to make France a compact monarchy; the object of Charles and his fellows was to keep France as nearly as might be in the same state as Germany. But, when the other French princes had been gradually conquered, won over, or got rid of in some way or other by the crafty policy of Lewis, Charles remained no longer the chief of a coalition of French princes, but the personal rival, the deadly enemy, of the French King. … Chronologically and geographically alike. Charles and his Duchy form the great barrier, or the great connecting link, whichever we choose to call it, between the main divisions of European history and European geography. The Dukes of Burgundy of the House of Valois form a sort of bridge between the later Middle Age and the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation. They connect those two periods by forming the kernel of the vast dominion of that Austrian House which became their heir, and which, mainly by virtue of that heirship fills such a space in the history of the 16th and 17th centuries. But the dominions of the Burgundian Dukes hold a still higher historical position. They may be said to bind together the whole of European history for the last thousand years. From the 9th century to the 19th, the politics of Europe have largely gathered round the rivalry between the Eastern and the Western Kingdoms—in modern language, between Germany and France. From the 9th century to the 19th, a succession of efforts have been made to establish, in one shape or another, a middle state between the two. Over and over again during that long period have men striven to make the whole or some portion of the frontier lands stretching from the mouth of the Rhine to the mouth of the Rhone into an independent barrier state. … That object was never more distinctly aimed at, and it never seemed nearer to its accomplishment, than when Charles the Bold actually reigned from the Zuyder Zee to the Lake of Neufchâtel, and was not without hopes of extending his frontier to the Gulf of Lyons. … Holding, as he did, parts of old Lotharingia and parts of old Burgundy, there can be no doubt that he aimed at the re-establishment of a great Middle Kingdom, which should take in all that had ever been Burgundian or Lotharingian ground. He aimed, in short, as others have aimed before and since, at the formation of a state which should hold a central position between France, Germany and Italy—a state which should discharge, with infinitely greater strength, all the duties which our own age has endeavoured to throw on Switzerland, Belgium and Savoy. … Undoubtedly it would have been for the permanent interest of Europe if he had succeeded in his attempt."

E. A. Freeman, Charles the Bold (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 11).

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468. The war of Charles the Bold with the Liegeois and his troubles with Louis XI.

"Soon after the pacification of the troubles of France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468], the Duke of Burgundy began a war against the Liegeois, which lasted for several years; and whenever the king of France [Louis XI.] had a mind to interrupt him, he attempted some new action against the Bretons, and, in the meantime, supported the Liegeois underhand; upon which the Duke of Burgundy turned against him to succour his allies, or else they came to some treaty or truce among themselves. … During these wars, and ever since, secret and fresh intrigues were carried on by the princes. The king was so exceedingly exasperated against the Dukes of Bretagne and Burgundy that it was wonderful. … The king of France's aim, in the meantime, was chiefly to carry his design against the province of Bretagne, and he looked upon it as a more feasible attempt, and likelier to give him less resistance than the house of Burgundy. Besides, the Bretons were the people who protected and entertained all his malcontents; as his brother, and others, whose interest and intelligence were great in his kingdom; for this cause he endeavoured very earnestly with Charles, Duke of Burgundy, by several advantageous offers and proposals, to prevail with him to desert them, promising that upon those terms he also would abandon the Liegeois, and give no further protection to his malcontents. The Duke of Burgundy would by no means consent to it, but again made preparations for war against the Liegeois, who had broken the peace." This was in October, 1467. The Duke (Charles the Bold) attacked St. Tron, which was held by a garrison of 3,000 of the men of Liege. The Liegeois, 30,000 strong, came to the relief of the besieged town, and were routed, leaving 6,000 slain on the field. St. Tron and Tongres were both surrendered, and Liege, itself, after considerable strife among its citizens, opened its gates to the Duke, who entered in triumph (Nov. 17, 1467) and hanged half-a-dozen for his moderate satisfaction. In the course of the next summer the French king opened war afresh upon the Duke of Bretagne and forced him into a treaty, before the Duke of Burgundy, his ally, could take the field. The king, then being extremely anxious to pacify the Duke of Burgundy, took the extraordinary step of visiting the latter at Peronne, without any guard, trusting himself wholly to the honor of his enemy. But it happened unfortunately, during the king's stay at Peronne, that a ferocious revolt occurred at Liege, which was traced beyond denial to the intrigues of two agents whom king Louis had sent thither not long before, for mischief-making purposes. The Duke, in his wrath, was not easily restrained from doing some violence to the king; but the royal trickster escaped from his grave predicament by giving up the unhappy Liegeois to the vengeance of Duke Charles and personally assisting the latter to inflict it. {334} "After the conclusion of the peace [dictated by Charles at Peronne and signed submissively by Louis] the King and the Duke of Burgundy set out the next morning [Oct. 15, 1468] for Cambray, and from thence towards the country of Liége: it was the beginning of winter and the weather was very bad. The king had with him only his Scotch guards and a small body of his standing forces; but he ordered 300 of his men-at-arms to join him." Liége was invested, and, notwithstanding its walls had been thrown down the previous year, it made a stubborn defense. During a siege of a fortnight, several desperate sallies were made, by the last one of which both the Duke and the King were brought into great personal peril. Exhausted by this final effort, the Liegeois were unprepared to repel a grand assault which the besieging forces made upon the town the next morning—Sunday, Oct. 30. Liege was taken that day almost without resistance, the miserable inhabitants flying across the Maes into the forest of Ardennes, abandoning their homes to pillage. The Duke of Burgundy now permitted King Louis to return home, while he remained a few days longer in desolate Liege, which his fierce hatred had doomed. "Before the Duke left the city, a great number of those poor creatures who had hid themselves in the houses when the town was taken, and were afterwards made prisoners, were drowned. He also resolved to burn the city, which had always been very populous; and orders were given for firing it in three different places, and 3,000 or 4,000 foot of the country of Limbourg (who were their neighbours, and used the same habit and language), were commanded to effect this desolation, but to secure the churches. … All things being thus ordered, the Duke began his march into the country of Franchemont: he was no sooner out of town, but immediately we saw a great number of houses on fire beyond the river; the duke lay that night four leagues from the city, yet we could hear the noise as distinctly as if we had been upon the spot; but whether it was the wind which lay that way, or our quartering upon the river, that was the cause of it, I know not. The next day the Duke marched on, and those who were left in the town continued the conflagration according to his orders; but all the churches (except some few) were preserved, and above 300 houses belonging to the priests and officers of the churches, which was the reason it was so soon reinhabited, for many flocked thither to live with the priests."

Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 2.

ALSO IN: J. F. Kirk, History of Charles the Bold, book 1, chapters 7-9; book 2.

P. F. Willert, The Reign of Louis XI.

Sir W. Scott, Quentin Durward.

See, also, DINANT.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477. Charles The Bold And The Swiss. His Defeats And His Death. The Effects Of His Fall.

"Sovereign of the duchy of Burgundy, of the Free County, of Hainaut, of Flanders, of Holland, and of Gueldre, Charles wished, by joining to it Lorraine, a portion of Switzerland, and the inheritance of old King René, Count of Provence, to recompose the ancient kingdom of Lorraine, such as it had existed under the Carlovingian dynasty; and flattered himself that by offering his daughter to Maximilian, son of Frederick III., he would obtain the title of king. Deceived in his hopes, the Duke of Burgundy tried means to take away Lorraine from the young René. That province was necessary to him, in order to join his northern states with those in the south. The conquest was rapid, and Nancy opened its gates to Charles the Rash; but it was reserved for a small people, already celebrated for their heroic valour and by their love of liberty, to beat this powerful man. Irritated against the Swiss, who had braved him, Charles crossed over the Jura, besieged the little town of Granson, and, in despite of a capitulation, caused all the defenders to be hanged or drowned. At this news the eight cantons which then composed the Helvetian republic arose, and under the very walls of the town which had been the theatre of his cruelty they attacked the Duke and dispersed his troops [March 3, 1476]. Some months later [June 21], supported by young René of Lorraine, despoiled of his inheritance, they exterminated a second Burgundian army before Morat. Charles, vanquished, reassembled a third army, and marched in the midst of winter against Nancy, which had fallen into the hands of the Swiss and Lorrainers. It was there that he perished [January 5, 1477] betrayed by his mercenary soldiers, and overpowered by numbers."

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, volume 1, book 3, chapter 2.

"And what was the cause of this war? A miserable cart-load of sheep skins that the Count of Romont had taken from the Swiss, in his passage through his estates. If God Almighty had not forsaken the Duke of Burgundy it is scarce conceivable he would have exposed himself to such great dangers upon so small and trivial an occasion; especially considering the offers the Swiss had made him, and that his conquest of such enemies would yield him neither profit nor honour; for at that time the Swiss were not in such esteem as now, and no people in the world could be poorer." At Granson, "the poor Swiss were mightily enriched by the plunder of his [the Duke of Burgundy's] camp. At first they did not understand the value of the treasure they were masters of, especially the common soldiers. One of the richest and most magnificent tents in the world was cut into pieces. There were some of them that sold quantities of dishes and plates of silver for about two sous of our money, supposing they had been pewter. His great diamond, … with a large pearl fixed to it, was taken up by a Swiss, put up again into the case, thrown under a wagon, taken up again by the same soldier, and after all offered to a priest for a florin, who bought it, and sent it to the magistrates of that country, who returned him three francs as a sufficient reward. [This was long supposed to be the famous Sancy diamond; but Mr. Streeter thinks that the tradition which so connects it is totally disproved.] They also took three very rich jewels called the Three Brothers, another large ruby called La Hatte, and another called the Ball of Flanders, which were the fairest and richest in the world; besides a prodigious quantity of other goods." In his last battle, near Nancy, the Duke had less than 4,000 men, "and of that number not above 1,200 were in a condition to fight." He encountered on this occasion a powerful army of Swiss and Germans, which the Duke of Lorraine had been able to collect, with the help of the king of France and others. It was against the advice of all his counsellors that the headstrong, half-mad Duke Charles dashed his little army upon this greater one, and he paid the penalty. {335} It was broken at the first shock, and the Duke was killed in the confused rout without being known. His body, stripped naked by the pillagers and mangled by wolves or dogs, was found frozen fast in a ditch. "I cannot easily determine towards whom God Almighty showed his anger most, whether towards him who died suddenly, without pain or sickness in the field of battle, or towards his subjects, who never enjoyed peace after his death, but were continually involved in wars against which they were not able to maintain themselves, upon account of the civil dissensions and cruel animosities that arose among them. … As I had seen these princes puissant, rich and honourable, so it fared with their subjects: for I think I have seen and known the greatest part of Europe, yet I never knew any province or country, though of a larger extent, so abounding in money, so extravagantly fine in their furniture, so sumptuous in their buildings, so profuse in their expenses, so luxurious in their feasts and entertainments, and so prodigal in all respects, as the subjects of these princes in my time; and if any think I have exaggerated, others who lived in my time will be of opinion that I have rather said too little. … In short, I have seen this family in all respects the most flourishing and celebrated of any in Christendom: and then, in a short space of time, it was quite ruined and turned upside down, and left the most desolate and miserable of any house in Europe, as regards both prince and subjects."

Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 5, chapters 1-9.

"The popular conception of this war [between Charles the Bold and the Swiss] is simply that Charles, a powerful and encroaching prince, was overthrown in three great battles by the petty commonwealths which he had expected easily to attach to his dominion. Grandson and Morat are placed side by side with Morgarten and Sempach. Such a view as this implies complete ignorance of the history; it implies ignorance of the fact that it was the Swiss who made war upon Charles, and not Charles who made war upon the Swiss; it implies ignorance of the fact that Charles's army never set foot on proper Swiss territory at all, that Grandson and Morat were at the beginning of the war no part of the possessions of the Confederation. … The mere political accident that the country which formed the chief seat of war now forms part of the Swiss Confederation has been with many people enough to determine their estimate of the quarrel. Grandson and Morat are in Switzerland; Burgundian troops appeared and were defeated at Grandson and Morat; therefore Charles must have been an invader of Switzerland, and the warfare on the Swiss side must have been a warfare of purely defensive heroism. The simple fact that it was only through the result of the Burgundian war that Grandson and Morat ever became Swiss territory at once disposes of this line of argument. … The plain facts of the case are that the Burgundian war was a war declared by Switzerland against Burgundy … and that in the campaigns of Grandson and Morat the Duke of Burgundy was simply repelling and avenging Swiss invasions of his own territory and the territory of his allies."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays, volume 1, number 11.

ALSO IN: J. F. Kirk, History of Charles the Bold, book 5.

L. S. Costello, Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy, chapters 14-27.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477. Permanently restored to the French crown

Louis XI. of France, who had been eagerly watching while Charles the Bold shattered his armies and exhausted his strength in Switzerland, received early news of the death of the self-willed Duke. While the panic and confusion which it caused still prevailed, the king lost no time in taking possession of the duchy of Burgundy, as an appanage which had reverted to the crown, through default of male heirs. The legality of his claim has been much in dispute. "Charles left an only daughter, undoubted heiress of Flanders and Artois, as well as of his dominions out of France, but whose right of succession to the duchy of Burgundy was more questionable. Originally the great fiefs of the crown descended to females, and this was the case with respect to the two first mentioned. But John had granted Burgundy to his son Philip by way of appanage; and it was contended that the appanages reverted to the crown in default of male heirs. In the form of Philip's investiture, the duchy was granted to him and his lawful heirs, without designation of sex. The construction, therefore, must be left to the established course of law. This, however, was by no means acknowledged by Mary, Charles's daughter, who maintained both that no general law restricted appanages to male heirs, and that Burgundy had always been considered as a feminine fief, John himself having possessed it, not by reversion as king (for descendants of the first dukes were then living), but by inheritance derived through females. Such was this question of succession between Louis XI. and Mary of Burgundy, upon the merits of whose pretensions I will not pretend altogether to decide, but shall only observe that, if Charles had conceived his daughter to be excluded from this part of his inheritance, he would probably, at Conflans or Peronne, where he treated upon the vantage ground, have attempted at least to obtain a renunciation of Louis's claim. There was one obvious mode of preventing all further contest, and of aggrandizing the French monarchy far more than by the reunion of Burgundy. This was the marriage of Mary with the dauphin, which was ardently wished in France." The dauphin was a child of seven years; Mary of Burgundy a masculine-minded young woman of twenty, Probably Louis despaired of reconciling the latter to such a marriage. At all events, while he talked of it occasionally, he proceeded actively in despoiling the young duchess, seizing Artois and Franche Comté, and laying hands upon the frontier towns which were exposed to his arms. He embittered her natural enmity to him by various acts of meanness and treachery. "Thus the French alliance becoming odious in Flanders, this princess married Maximilian of Austria, son of the Emperor Frederic—a connexion which Louis strove to prevent, though it was impossible then to foresee that it was ordained to retard the growth and to bias the fate of Europe during three hundred years. This war lasted till after the death of Mary, who left one son Philip and one daughter Margaret."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2.

{336}

"The king [Louis XI.] had reason to be more than ordinarily pleased at the death of that duke [of Burgundy], and he triumphed more in his ruin than in that of all the rest of his enemies, as he thought that nobody, for the future, either of his own subjects, or his neighbours, would be able to oppose him, or disturb the tranquillity of his reign. … Although God Almighty has shown, and does still show, that his determination is to punish the family of Burgundy severely, not only in the person of the duke, but in their subjects and estates; yet I think the king our master did not take right measures to that end. For, if he had acted prudently, instead of pretending to conquer them, he should rather have endeavoured to annex all those large territories, to which he had no just title, to the crown of France by some treaty of marriage; or to have gained the hearts and affections of the people, and so have brought them over to his interest, which he might, without any great difficulty, have effected, considering how their late afflictions had impoverished and dejected them. If he had acted after that manner, he would not only have prevented their ruin and destruction, but extended and strengthened his own kingdom, and established them all in a firm and lasting peace."

Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 5, chapter 12.

"He [Louis XI.] reassured, caressed, comforted the duchy of Burgundy, gave it a parliament, visited his good city of Dijon, swore in St. Benignus' church to respect all the old privileges and customs that could be sworn to, and bound his successors to do the same on their accession. Burgundy was a land of nobles; and the king raised a bridge of gold for all the great lords to come over to him."

J. Michelet, History of France, book 17, chapters 3-4.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477-1482. Reign of the Burgundian heiress in the Netherlands. Her marriage with Maximilian of Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1512. Formation of the Circle.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1544. Renunciation of the Claims of Charles V.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

—————BURGUNDY: End—————

BURH, The.

See BOROUGH.

BURI, The.

A Suevic clan of Germans whose settlements were anciently in the neighborhood of modern Cracow.

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

BURKE, Edmund, and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

BURKE, Edmund, and the French Revolution.

See ENGLAND A. D. 1793-1796.

BURLEIGH, Lord, and the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.

BURLINGAME CHINESE EMBASSY AND TREATIES.

See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

BURMA: Rise of the kingdom. First war with the English (1824-1826). Cession of Assam and Aracan.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

BURMA: A. D. 1852. Second war with the English. Loss of Pegu.

See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

BURNED CANDLEMAS.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.: Expedition to Roanoke.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E. Command of the Army of the Potomac.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E. Retirement from command of the Army of the Potomac.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E. Deliverance of East Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE.

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E. Defense of Knoxville.

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

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E. At the siege of Petersburg.

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

BURR, Aaron. Duel with Hamilton. Conspiracy. Arrest. Trial.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.

BURSCHENSCHAFT, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

BUSACO, Battle of (1810).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

BUSHMEN, The.

See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BUSHY RUN, Battle of (A. D. 1763).

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BUSHWHACKERS.

A name commonly given to the rebel guerrillas or half-bandits of the southwest in the American Civil War.

J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, Abraham Lincoln, volume 6, page 371.

BUSIRIS. Destroyed by Diocletian.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

BUSSORAH AND KUFA, The rise and importance of.

In the first years of their conquest and occupation of Mesopotamia and the Delta of the Euphrates and Tigris—as early as A. D. 638—the Moslems founded two cities which acquired importance in Mahometan history. In both cases, these cities appear to have arisen out of the need felt by the Arabs for more salubrious sites of residence than their predecessors in the ancient country had been contented with. Of Bussorah, or Bassorah, the city founded in the Delta, the site is said to have been changed three times. Kufa was built on a plain very near to the neglected city of Hira, on the Euphrates. "Kufa and Bussorah … had a singular influence on the destinies of the Caliphate and of Islam itself. The vast majority of the population came from the Peninsula and were of pure Arabian blood. The tribes which, with their families, scenting from afar the prey of Persia, kept streaming into Chaldæa from every corner of Arabia, settled chiefly in these two cities. At Kufa, the races from Yemen and the south predominated; at Bussorah, from the north. Rapidly they grew into two great and luxurious capitals, with an Arab population each of from 150,000 to 200,000 souls. On the literature, theology, and politics of Islam, these cities had a greater influence than the whole Moslem world besides. … The people became petulant and factious, and both cities grew into hotbeds of turbulence and sedition. The Bedouin element, conscious of its strength, was jealous of the Coreish, and impatient of whatever checked its capricious humour. Thus factions sprang up which, controlled by the strong and wise arm of Omar, broke loose under the weaker Caliphs, eventually rent the unity of Islam, and brought on disastrous days."

Sir W. Muir, Annals of the Early Caliphate, chapter 18.

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

BUTADÆ, The.

See PHYLÆ.

BUTE'S ADMINISTRATION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.

BUTLER, General Benjamin F. In command at Baltimore.

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

BUTLER, General Benjamin F. In command at Fortress Monroe.

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

{337}

BUTLER, General Benjamin F. The Hatteras Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).

BUTLER, General Benjamin F. Command at New Orleans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

BUTLER, General Benjamin F. Command of the Army of the James.

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

BUTLER, Walter, The Tory and Indian partisans of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER). and (JULY).

BUTTERNUTS.

See BOYS IN BLUE;

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

BUXAR, OR BAXAR, OR BAKSAR, Battle of (1764).

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

BYRON, Lord, in Greece.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

BYRSA. The citadel of Carthage.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

BYTOWN.

The original name of Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion of Canada.

See OTTAWA.

BYZACIUM.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

The Eastern Roman Empire, having its capital at Byzantium (modern Constantinople), the earlier history of which will be found sketched under the caption ROME: A. D. 394-395, to 717-800, has been given, in its later years, the name of the Byzantine Empire. The propriety of this designation is questioned by some historians, and the time when it begins to be appropriate is likewise a subject of debate. For some discussion of these questions,

See ROME: A. D. 717-800.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE. Its part in history. Its defence of Europe. Its civilizing influence.

"The later Roman Empire was the bulwark of Europe against the oriental danger; Maurice and Heraclius, Constantine IV. and Leo the Isaurian were the successors of Themistocles and Africanus. … Until the days of the crusades, the German nations did not combine with the Empire against the common foe. Nor did the Teutons, by themselves, achieve any success of ecumenical importance against non-Aryan races. I may be reminded that Charles the Great exterminated the Avars; but that was after they had ceased to be really dangerous. When there existed a truly formidable Avar monarchy it was the Roman Empire that bore the brunt; and yet while most people who read history know of the Avar war of Charles, how few there are who have ever heard of Priscus, the general who so bravely warred against the Avars in the reign of Maurice. I may be reminded that Charles Martel won a great name by victories, in southern Gaul over the Saracens; yet those successes sink into insignificance by the side of the achievement of his contemporary, the third Leo, who held the gate of eastern Europe against all the forces which the Saracen power, then at its height, could muster. Everyone knows about the exploits of the Frank; it is almost incredible how little is known of the Roman Emperor's defence of the greatest city of Christian Europe, in the quarter where the real danger lay. …. The Empire was much more than the military guard of the Asiatic frontier; it not only defended but also kept alive the traditions of Greek and Roman culture. We cannot over-estimate the importance of the presence of a highly civilised state for a system of nations which were as yet only beginning to be civilised. The constant intercourse of the Empire with Italy, which until the eleventh century was partly imperial, and with southern Gaul and Spain, had an incalculable influence on the development of the West. Venice, which contributed so much to the growth of western culture, was for a long time actually, and for a much longer time nominally, a city of the Roman Empire, and learned what it taught from Byzantium. The Byzantine was the mother of the Italian school of painting, as Greece in the old days had been the mistress of Rome in the fine arts; and the Byzantine style of architecture has had perhaps a wider influence than any other. It was to New Rome that the Teutonic kings applied when they needed men of learning, and thither students from western countries, who desired a university education, repaired. … It was, moreover, in the lands ruled by New Rome that old Hellenic culture and the monuments of Hellenic literature were preserved, as in a secure storehouse, to be given at length to the 'wild nations' when they had been sufficiently tamed. And in their taming New Rome played an indispensable part. The Justinian law, which still interpenetrates European civilisation, was a product of New Rome. In the third place the Roman Empire for many centuries entirely maintained European commerce. This was a circumstance of the greatest importance; but unfortunately it is one of those facts concerning which contemporary historians did not think of leaving records to posterity. The fact that the coins of the Roman Emperors were used throughout Europe in the Middle Ages speaks for itself. … In the fourth place, the Roman Empire preserved a great idea which influenced the whole course of western European history down to the present day—the idea of the Roman Empire itself. If we look at the ecumenical event of 800 A. D. from a wide point of view, it really resolves itself into this: New Rome bestowed upon the western nations a great idea, which moulded and ordered their future history; she gave back to Old Rome the idea which Old Rome bestowed upon her five centuries before. … If Constantinople and the Empire had fallen, the imperial idea would have been lost in the whirl of the 'wild nations.' It is to New Rome that Europeans really owe thanks for the establishment of the principle and the system which brought law and order into the political relations of the West."

J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, book 6, chapter 14 (volume 2).

BYZANTINE EMPIRE. A. D. 717. Its organization by Leo the Isaurian.

"The accession of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of Constantinople suddenly opened a new era in the history of the Eastern Empire. … When Leo III. was proclaimed emperor [A. D. 717], it seemed as if no human power could save Constantinople from falling as Rome had fallen. The Saracens considered the sovereignty of every land, in which any remains of Roman civilization survived, as within their grasp. Leo, an Isaurian, and an Iconoclast, consequently a foreigner and a heretic, ascended the throne of Constantine and arrested the victorious career of the Mohammedans. He then reorganized the whole administration so completely in accordance with the new exigencies of Eastern society that the reformed empire outlived for many centuries every government contemporary with its establishment. {338} The Eastern Roman Empire, thus reformed, is called by modern historians the Byzantine Empire; and the term is well devised to mark the changes effected in the government, after the extinction of the last traces of the military monarchy of ancient Rome. … The provincial divisions of the Roman Empire had fallen into oblivion. A new geographical arrangement into Themes appears to have been established by Heraclius, when he recovered the Asiatic provinces from the Persians; it was reorganized by Leo, and endured as long as the Byzantine government. The number of themes varied at different periods. The Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing about the middle of the tenth century, counts sixteen in the Asiatic portion of the Empire and twelve in the European. … The European provinces were divided into eight continental and five insular or transmarine themes, until the loss of the exarchate of Ravenna reduced the number to twelve. Venice and Naples, though they acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern Empire, acted generally as independent cities. … When Leo was raised to the throne the Empire was threatened with immediate ruin. … Every army assembled to encounter the Saracens broke out into rebellion. The Bulgarians and Sclavonians wasted Europe up to the walls of Constantinople; the Saracens ravaged the whole of Asia Minor to the shores of the Bosphorus."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, book 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: E. W. Brooks, The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians (English History Review, April, 1893).

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797. The Isaurian dynasty.

The dynasty founded by Leo the Isaurian held the throne until the dethronement of Constantine VI. by his mother, Irene, A. D. 797, and her dethronement, in turn by, Nicephorus I., A. D. 802. It embraced the following reigns:

Constantine V., called Copronymus, A. D. 741-775; Leo IV., 775-780; Constantine VI., 780-797; Irene, 797-802.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 726-751. The Iconoclastic Controversy. Rupture with the West. Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna. End of authority in Italy.

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY, and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 802-820. Emperors: Nicephorus 1., A. D. 802-811; Stauracius, A. D. 811; Michael I., A. D. 811-813; Leo V., A. D. 813-820.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 803. Treaty with Charlemagne, fixing boundaries.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057. The Amorian and Basilian or Macedonian dynasties.

Michael, the Amorian (820-829) so named from his birth-place; Amorium, in Phrygia, was a soldier, raised to the throne by a revolution which deposed and assassinated his friend and patron, the Emperor Leo V. Michael transmitted the crown to his son (Theophilus, 829-842) and grandson. The latter, called Michael the Drunkard, was conspired against and killed by one of the companions of his drunken orgies (867), Basil the Maeedonian, who had been in early life a groom. Basil founded a dynasty which reigned, with several interruptions, from A. D. 867 to 1057—a period covering the following reigns: