Volume I—A To Elba (continued 24)

Basil I., A. D. 867-886; Leo VI., A. D. 886-911; Constantine VII. (Porphyrogenitus), A. D. 911-950; Romanus I. (Colleague), A. D. 919-944; Constantine VIII. (Colleague), A. D. 944; Romanus II., A. D. 959-963; Nicephorus II., A. D. 963-969; John Zimisces, A. D. 969-976; Basil II., A. D. 963-1025; Constantine IX., A. D. 963-1028; Romanus III., A. D. 1028-1034; Michael IV., A. D. 1034-1041; Michael V., A. D. 1041-1042; Zoe and Theodora, A. D. 1042-1056; Constantine X., A. D. 1042-1054; Michael VI., A. D. 1056-1057.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 865-1043. Wars, commerce and Church Connection with the Russians.

See RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900; also CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865 and 907-1043.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 870-1016. Fresh acquisitions in Southern Italy.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025. Recovery of prestige and territory.

"Amidst all the crimes and revolutions of the Byzantine government—and its history is but a series of crimes and revolutions—it was never dismembered by intestine war. A sedition in the army, a tumult in the theatre, a conspiracy in the palace, precipitated a monarch from the throne; but the allegiance of Constantinople was instantly transferred to his successor, and the provinces implicitly obeyed the voice of the capital. The custom, too, of partition, so baneful to the Latin kingdoms, and which was not altogether unknown to the Saracens, never prevailed in the Greek Empire. It stood in the middle of the tenth century, as vicious indeed and cowardly, but more wealthy, more enlightened, and far more secure from its enemies than under the first successors of Heraclius. For about one hundred years preceding there had been only partial wars with the Mohammedan potentates; and in these the emperors seem gradually to have gained the advantage, and to have become more frequently the aggressors. But the increasing distractions of the East encouraged two brave usurpers, Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, to attempt the actual recovery of the lost provinces. They carried the Roman arms (one may use the term with less reluctance than usual) over Syria; Antioch and Aleppo were taken by storm; Damascus submitted; even the cities of Mesopotamia, beyond the ancient boundary of the Euphrates, were added to the trophies of Zimisces, who unwillingly spared the capital of the Khalifate. From such distant conquests it was expedient, and indeed necessary to withdraw; but Cilicia and Antioch were permanently restored to the Empire. At the close of the tenth century the emperors of Constantinople possessed the best and greatest portion of the modern kingdom of Naples, a part of Sicily, the whole [present] European dominions of the Ottomans, the province of Anatolia or Asia Minor, with some part of Syria and Armenia."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 6.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 970-1014. Recovery of Bulgaria.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043; also BULGARIA, and ACHRIDA.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1054. Ecclesiastical division of the Eastern from the Roman Church.

See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY, and ORTHODOX CHURCH.

{339}

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1057-1081. Between the Basilian and the Comnenian dynasties. A dark period.

"The moment that the last of the Macedonian dynasty was gone, the elements of discord seemed unchained, and the double scourge of civil war and foreign invasion began to afflict the empire. In the twenty-four years between 1057 and 1081 were pressed more disasters than had been seen in any other period of East Roman history, save perhaps the reign of Heraclius. … The aged Theodora had named as her successor on the throne Michael Stratiocus, a contemporary of her own who had been an able soldier 25 years back. But Michael VI. was grown aged and incompetent, and the empire was full of ambitious generals, who would not tolerate a dotard on the throne. Before a year had passed a band of great Asiatic nobles entered into a conspiracy to overturn Michael, and replace him by Isaac Comnenus, the chief of one of the ancient Cappadocian houses, and the most popular general of the East. Isaac Comnenus and his friends took arms, and dispossessed the aged Michael of his throne with little difficulty. But a curse seemed to rest upon the usurpation; Isaac was stricken down by disease when he had been little more than a year on the throne, and retired to a monastery to die. His crown was transferred to Constantine Ducas, another Cappadocian noble," who reigned for seven troubled years. His three immediate successors were:

Romanus IV., A. D. 1067-1071; Michael VII., A. D. 1071-1078; Nicephorus III., A. D. 1078-1081.

C. W. C. Oman, The Story of the Byzantine Empire, chapter 20.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1063-1092. Disasters in Asia Minor.

See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073; and A. D. 1073-1092.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1064. Great revival of pilgrimages from Western Europe to the Holy Land.

See CRUSADES: CAUSES, ETC.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081. The enthronement of the Comnenian Dynasty.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085. Attempted Norman conquest from Southern Italy.

Robert Guiscard, the Norman adventurer who had carved for himself a principality in Southern Italy and acquired the title of Duke of Apulia,—his duchy coinciding with the subsequent Norman kingdom of Naples—conceived the ambitious design of adding the Byzantine Empire to his estate. His conquests in Italy had been mostly at the expense of the Byzantine dominions, and he believed that he had measured the strength of the degenerate Roman-Greeks. He was encouraged, moreover, by the successive revolutions which tossed the imperial crown from hand to hand, and which had just given it to the Comnenian, Alexius I. Beyond all, he had a claim of right to interfere in the affairs of the Empire; for his young daughter was betrothed to the heir-expectant whose expectations were now vanishing, and had actually been sent to Constantinople to receive her education for the throne. To promote his bold undertaking, Robert obtained the approval of the pope, and an absolution for all who would join his ranks. Thus spiritually equipped, the Norman duke invaded Greece, in the summer of 1081, with 150 ships and 30,000 men. Making himself master, on the way, of the island of Corcyra (Corfu), and taking several ports on the mainland, he laid siege to Dyrrachium, and found it a most obstinate fortification to reduce. Its massive ancient walls defied the Norman enginery, and it was not until February, 1082, that Robert Guiscard gained possession of the town, by the treachery of one of its defenders. Meantime the Normans had routed and scattered one large army, which the Emperor Alexius led in person to the relief of Dyrrachium; but the fortified towns in Illyria and Epirus delayed their advance toward Constantinople. Robert was called home to Italy by important affairs and left his son Bohemund (the subsequent Crusader and Prince of Antioch), in command. Bohemund defeated Alexius again in the spring of 1083, and still a third time the following autumn. All Epirus was overrun and Macedonia and Thessaly invaded; but the Normans, while besieging Larissa, were undone by a stratagem, lost their camp and found it necessary to retreat. Robert was then just reentering the field, in person, and had won an important naval battle at Corfu, over the combined Greeks and Venetians, when he died (July, 1085), and his project of conquest in Greece ended with him. Twenty years afterwards, his son Bohemund, when Prince of Antioch, and quarreling with the Byzantines, gathered a crusading army in France and Italy to lead it against Constantinople; but it was stopped by stubborn Dyrrachium, and never got beyond. Alexius had recovered that strong coast defence shortly after Robert Guiscard's death, with the help of the Venetians and Amalfians. By way of reward, those merchant allies received important commercial privileges, and the title of Venice to the sovereignty of Dalmatia and Croatia was recognized. "From this time the doge appears to have styled himself lord of the kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1185. The Comnenian emperors.

Alexius I., A. D. 1081-1118; John II., A. D. 1118-1143; Manuel I., A. D. 1143-1181; Alexius II., A. D. 1181-1183; Andronicus I., A. D. 1183-1185.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1096-1097. The passage of the first Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146. Destructive invasion of Roger, king of Sicily. Sack of Thebes and Corinth.

When Roger, king of Sicily, united the Norman possessions in Southern Italy to his Sicilian realm he became ambitious, in his turn, to acquire some part of the Byzantine possessions. His single attack, however, made simultaneously with the second crusading movement (A. D. 1146), amounted to no more than a great and destructive plundering raid in Greece. An insurrection in Corfu gave that island to him, after which his fleet ravaged the coasts of Eubœa and Attica, Acarnania and Ætolia. "It then entered the gulf of Corinth, and debarked a body of troops at Crissa. This force marched through the country to Thebes, plundering every town and village on the way. Thebes offered no resistance, and was plundered in the most deliberate and barbarous manner. The inhabitants were numerous and wealthy. The soil of Bœotia is extremely productive, and numerous manufactures established in the city of Thebes gave additional value to the abundant produce of agricultural industry. … All military spirit was now dead, and the Thebans had so long lived without any fear of invasion that they had not even adopted any effectual measures to secure or conceal their movable property. The conquerors, secure against all danger of interruption, plundered Thebes at their leisure. … When all ordinary means of collecting booty were exhausted, the citizens were compelled to take an oath on the Holy Scriptures that they had not concealed any portion of their property yet many of the wealthiest were dragged away captive, in order to profit by their ransom; and many of the most skilful workmen in the silk-manufactories, for which Thebes had long been famous, were pressed on board the fleet to labour at the oar. … {340} Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Thebes about twenty years later, or perhaps in 1161, speaks of it as then a large city, with two thousand Jewish inhabitants, who were the most eminent manufacturers of silk and purple cloth in all Greece. The silks of Thebes continued to be celebrated as of superior quality after this invasion. … From Bœotia the army passed to Corinth. … Corinth was sacked as cruelly as Thebes; men of rank, beautiful women, and skilful artisans, with their wives and families, were carried away into captivity. … This invasion of Greece was conducted entirely as a plundering expedition. … Corfu was the only conquest of which Roger retained possession; yet this passing invasion is the period from which the decline of Byzantine Greece is to be dated. The century-and-a-half which preceded this disaster had passed in uninterrupted tranquillity, and the Greek people had increased rapidly in numbers and wealth. The power of the Sclavonian population sank with the ruin of the kingdom of Achrida; and the Sclavonians who now dwelt in Greece were peaceable cultivators of the soil, or graziers. The Greek population, on the other hand, was in possession of an extensive commerce and many flourishing manufactures. The ruin of this commerce and of these manufactures has been ascribed to the transference of the silk trade from Thebes and Corinth to Palermo, under the judicious protection it received from Roger; but it would be more correct to say that the injudicious and oppressive financial administration of the Byzantine Emperors destroyed the commercial prosperity and manufacturing industry of the Greeks; while the wise liberality and intelligent protection of the Norman kings extended the commerce and increased the industry of the Sicilians. When the Sicilian fleet returned to Palermo, Roger determined to employ all the silk-manufacturers in their original occupations. He consequently collected all their families together, and settled them at Palermo, supplying them with the means of exercising their industry with profit to themselves, and inducing them to teach his own subjects to manufacture the richest brocades, and to rival the rarest productions of the East. … It is not remarkable that the commerce and manufactures of Greece were transferred in the course of another century to Sicily and Italy."

G. Finlay, History of Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 2, section 3.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1147-1148. Trouble with the German and French Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1185-1204. The Angeli. Isaac II., A. D. 1185-1195; Alexius III., A. D. 1195-1203; Alexius IV., A. D. 1203-1204.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204. Its overthrow by the Venetians and Crusaders. Sack of Constantinople.

The last of the Comnenian Emperors in the male line—the brutal Andronicus I.—perished horribly in a wild insurrection at Constantinople which his tyranny provoked, A. D. 1185. His successor, Isaac Angelus, collaterally related to the imperial house, had been a contemptible creature before his coronation, and received no tincture of manliness or virtue from that ceremony. In the second year of his reign, the Empire was shorn of its Bulgarian and Wallachian provinces by a successful revolt. In the tenth year (A. D. 1195), Isaac was pushed from his throne, deprived of sight and shut up in a dungeon, by a brother of equal worthlessness, who styled himself Alexius III. The latter neglected, however, to secure the person of Isaac's son, Alexius, who escaped from Constantinople and made his way to his sister, wife of Philip, the German King and claimant of the western imperial crown. Philip thereupon plotted with the Venetians to divert the great crusading expedition, then assembling to take ship at Venice, and to employ it for the restoration of young Alexius and his father Isaac to the Byzantine throne. The cunning and perfidious means by which that diversion was brought about are related in another place (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203). The great fleet of the crusading filibusters arrived in the Bosphorus near the end of June, 1203. The army which it bore was landed first on the Asiatic side of the strait, opposite the imperial city. After ten days of parley and preparation it was conveyed across the water and began its attack. The towers guarding the entrance to the Golden Horn—the harbor of Constantinople—were captured, the chain removed, the harbor occupied; and the imperial fleet seized or destroyed. On the 17th of July a combined assault by land and water was made on the walls of the city, at their northwest corner, near the Blachern palace, where they presented one face to the Horn and another to the land. The land-attack failed. The Venetians, from their ships, stormed twenty-five towers, gained possession of a long stretch of the wall, and pushed into the city far enough to start a conflagration which spread ruin over an extensive district. They could not hold their ground, and withdrew; but the result was a victory. The cowardly Emperor, Alexius III., fled from the city that night, and blind old Isaac Angelus was restored to the throne. He was ready to associate his son in the sovereignty, and to fulfill, if he could, the contracts which the latter had made with Venetians and Crusaders. These invaders had now no present excuse for making war on Constantinople any further. But the excuse was soon found. Money to pay their heavy claims could not be raised, and their hatefulness to the Greeks was increased by the insolence of their demeanor. A serious collision occurred at length, provoked by the plundering of a Mahometan mosque which the Byzantines had tolerated in their capital. Once more, on this occasion, the splendid city was fired by the ruthless invaders, and an immense district in the richest and most populous part was destroyed, while many of the inhabitants perished. The fire lasted two days and nights, sweeping a wide belt from the harbor to the Marmora. The suburbs of Constantinople were pillaged and ruined by the Latin soldiery, and more and more it became impossible for the two restored emperors to raise money for paying the claims of the Crusaders who had championed them. Their subjects hated them and were desperate. At last, in January, 1204, the public feeling of Constantinople flamed out in a revolution which crowned a new emperor,—one Alexis Ducas, nicknamed Mourtzophlos, on account of his eyebrows, which met. {341} A few days afterwards, with suspicious opportuneness, Isaac and Alexius died. Then both sides entered upon active preparations for serious war; but it was not until April 9th that the Crusaders and Venetians were ready to assail the walls once more. The first assault was repelled, with heavy loss to the besiegers. They rested two days and repeated the attack on the 12th with irresistible resolution and fury. The towers were taken, the gates were broken down, knights and soldiers poured into the fated city, killing without mercy, burning without scruple—starting a third appalling conflagration which laid another wide district in ruins. The new emperor fled, the troops laid down their arms,—Constantinople was conquered and prostrate. "Then began the plunder of the city. The imperial treasury and the arsenal were placed under guard; but with these exceptions the right to plunder was given indiscriminately to the troops and sailors. Never in Europe was a work of pillage more systematically and shamelessly carried out. Never by the army of a Christian state was there a more barbarous sack of a city than that perpetrated by these soldiers of Christ, sworn to chastity, pledged before God not to shed Christian blood, and bearing upon them the emblem of the Prince of Peace. … 'Never since the world was created,' says the Marshal [Villehardouin] 'was there so much booty gained in one city. Each man took the house which pleased him, and there were enough for all. Those who were poor found themselves suddenly rich. There was captured an immense supply of gold and silver, of plate and of precious stones, of satins and of silk, of furs and of every kind of wealth ever found upon the earth.' … The Greek eye-witness [Nicetas] gives the complement of the picture of Villehardouin. The lust of the army spared neither maiden nor the virgin dedicated to God. Violence and debauchery were everywhere present; cries and lamentations and the groans of the victims were heard throughout the city; for everywhere pillage was unrestrained and lust unbridled. … A large part of the booty had been collected in the three churches designated for that purpose. … The distribution was made during the latter end of April. Many works of art in bronze were sent to the melting-pot to be coined. Many statues were broken up in order to obtain the metals with which they were adorned. The conquerors knew nothing and cared nothing for the art which had added value to the metal."

E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapters 14-15.

ALSO IN: G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 3, section 3.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204. Reign of Alexius V.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205. The partitioning of the Empire by the Crusaders and the Venetians.

"Before the crusaders made their last successful attack on Constantinople, they concluded a treaty partitioning the Byzantine empire and dividing the plunder of the capital. … This treaty was entered into by the Frank crusaders on the one part, and the citizens of the Venetian republic on the other, for the purpose of preventing disputes and preserving unity in the expedition." The treaty further provided for the creation of an Empire of Romania, to take the place of the Byzantine Empire, and for the election of an Emperor to reign over it. The arrangements of the treaty in this latter respect were carried out, not long after the taking of the city by the election of Baldwin, count of Flanders, the most esteemed and the most popular among the princes of the crusade, and he received the imperial crown of the new Empire of Romania at the hands of the legate of the pope. "Measures were immediately taken after the coronation of Baldwin to carry into execution the act of partition as arranged by the joint consent of the Frank and Venetian commissioners. But their ignorance of geography, and the resistance offered by the Greeks in Asia Minor, and by the Vallachians and Albanians in Europe, threw innumerable difficulties in the way of the proposed distribution of fiefs. The quarter of the Empire that formed the portion of Baldwin consisted of the city of Constantinople, with the country in its immediate vicinity, as far as Bizya and Tzouroulos in Europe and Nicomedia in Asia. Beyond the territory around Constantinople, Baldwin possessed districts extending as far as the Strymon in Europe and the Sangarins in Asia; but his possessions were intermingled with those of the Venetians and the vassals of the Empire. Prokonnesos, Lesbos, Chios, Lemnos, Skyros, and several smaller islands, also fell to his share."

G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders, chapter 4, sections 1-2.

"In the division of the Greek provinces the share of the Venetians was more ample than that of the Latin emperor. No more than one fourth was appropriated to his domain; a clear moiety of the remainder was reserved for Venice and the other moiety was distributed among the adventurers of France and Lombardy. The venerable Dandolo was proclaimed Despot of Romania, and was invested, after the Greek fashion, with the purple buskins. He ended at Constantinople his long and glorious life; and if the prerogative was personal, the title was used by his successors till the middle of the fourteenth century, with the singular, though true, addition of 'Lords of one fourth and a half of the Roman Empire.' … They possessed three of the eight quarters of the city. … They had rashly accepted the dominion and defence of Adrianople; but it was the more reasonable aim of their policy to form a chain of factories and cities and islands along the maritime coast, from the neighbourhood of Ragnsa to the Hellespont and the Bosphorus. … For the price of 10,000 marks the republic purchased of the marquis of Montferrat the fertile island of Crete or Candia with the ruins of a hundred cities. … In the moiety of the adventurers the Marquis Boniface [of Montferrat] might claim the most liberal reward; and, besides the isle of Crete, his exclusion from the throne [for which he had been a candidate against Baldwin of Flanders] was compensated by the royal title and the provinces beyond the Hellespont. But he prudently exchanged that distant and difficult conquest for the kingdom of Thessalonica or Macedonia, twelve days' journey from the capital, where he might be supported by the neighbouring powers of his brother-in-law, the king of Hungary. … The lots of the Latin pilgrims were regulated by chance or choice or subsequent exchange. … At the head of his knights and archers each baron mounted on horseback to secure the possession of his share, and their first efforts were generally successful. But the public force was weakened by their dispersion; and a thousand quarrels must arise under a law and among men whose sole umpire was the sword."

{342}

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205. The political shaping of the fragments.

See ROMANIA. THE EMPIRE; GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA; TREBIZOND; EPIRUS: NAXOS, THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387: ATHENS: A. D. 1205-1456: SALONIKI.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453. The Greek restoration. Last struggle with the Turks and final overthrow.

The story of the shadowy restoration of a Greek Empire at Constantinople, its last struggle with the Turks, and its fall is told elsewhere.

See CONSTANTINOPLE, A. D. 1261-1453.

"From the hour of her foundation to that in which her sun finally sank in blood, Christian Constantinople was engaged in constant struggles against successive hordes of barbarians. She did not always triumph in the strife, but, even when she was beaten she did not succumb, but carried on the contest still; and the fact that she was able to do so is alone a sufficing proof of the strength and vitality of her organization. … Of the seventy-six emperors and five empresses who occupied the Byzantine throne, 15 were put to death, 7 were blinded or otherwise mutilated, 4 were deposed and imprisoned in monasteries, and 10 were compelled to abdicate. This list, comprising nearly half of the whole number, is sufficient indication of the horrors by which the history of the empire is only too often marked, and it may be frankly admitted that these dark stains, disfiguring pages which but for them would be bright with the things which were beautiful and glorious, go some way to excuse, if not to justify, the obloquy which Western writers have been so prone to cast upon the East. But it is not by considering the evil only, any more than the good only, that it is possible to form a just judgment upon an historic epoch. To judge the Byzantine Empire only by the crimes which defiled the palace would be as unjust as if the French people were to be estimated by nothing but the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the Reign of Terror, and the Commune of 1871. The dynastic crimes and revolutions of New Rome were not a constant feature in her history. On the contrary, the times of trouble and anarchy were episodes between long periods of peace. They arose either from quarrels in the imperial family itself, which degraded the dignity of the crown, or from the contentions of pretenders struggling among themselves till one or other had worsted his rivals and was able to become the founder of a long dynasty. … The most deplorable epoch in the history of the Byzantine Empire, the period in which assassination and mutilation most abounded, was that in which it was exposed to the influence of the Crusaders, and thus brought into contact with Western Europe. … The Byzantine people, although in every respect the superiors of their contemporaries, were unable entirely to escape the influence of their neighborhood. As the guardians of classical civilization, they strove to keep above the deluge of barbarism by which the rest of the world was then inundated. But it was a flood whose waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and sometimes all the high hills were covered, even where might have rested the ark in which the traditions of ancient culture were being preserved. … The Byzantine Empire was predestinated to perform in especial one great work in human history. That work was to preserve civilization during the period of barbarism which we call the Middle Ages. … Constantinople fell, and the whole Hellenic world passed into Turkish slavery. Western Europe looked on with unconcern at the appalling catastrophe. It was in vain that the last of the Palaiologoi cried to them for help. 'Christendom,' says Gibbon, 'beheld with indifference the fall of Constantinople,' … Up to her last hour she had never ceased, for more than a thousand years, to fight. In the fourth century she fought the Goths; in the fifth, the Huns and Vandals; in the sixth, the Slavs; in the seventh, the Persians, the Avars, and the Arabs; in the eighth, ninth, and tenth, the Bulgars, the Magyars, and the Russians; in the eleventh, the Koumanoi, the Petzenegoi, and the Seljoukian Turks; in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Ottomans, the Normans, the Crusaders, the Venetians, and the Genoese. No wonder that at last she fell exhausted. The wonder is, how she could keep herself alive so long. But it was by this long battle that she succeeded in saving from destruction, amid the universal cataclysm which overwhelmed the classical world, the civilization of the ancients, modified by the Christian religion. The moral and intellectual development of modern Europe are owing to the Byzantine Empire, if it be true that this development is the common offspring of antiquity upon the one hand and of Christianity upon the other."

Demetrios Bikelas, The Byzantine Empire (Scottish Review, volume 8, 1886).

—————BYZANTINE EMPIRE: End—————

BYZANTIUM, Beginnings of.

The ancient Greek city of Byzantium, which occupied part of the site of the modern city of Constantinople, was founded, according to tradition, by Megarians, in the seventh century B. C. Its situation on the Bosphorus enabled the possessors of the city to control the important corn supply which came from the Euxine, while its tunny fisheries were renowned sources of wealth. It was to the latter that the bay called the Golden Horn was said to owe its name. The Persians, the Lacedæmonians, the Athenians and the Macedonians were successive masters of Byzantium, before the Roman day, Athens and Sparta having taken and retaken the city from one another many times during their wars.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 478. Taken by the Greeks from the Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 440. Unsuccessful revolt against Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 408. Revolt and reduction by the Athenians.

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 340. Unsuccessful siege by Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 340.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 336. Alliance with Alexander the Great.

See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 194. Siege by Severus.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 267. Capture by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 323. Siege by Constantine.

See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 330. Transformed into Constantinople.

See CONSTANTINOPLE.

{343} C.

ÇA IRA: The origin of the cry and the song.

"When the news of the disastrous retreat [of Washington, in 1776] through the Jerseys and the miseries of Valley Forge reached France, many good friends to America began to think that now indeed all was lost. But, the stout heart of Franklin never flinched. 'This is indeed bad news,' said he, 'but ça ira, ça ira [literally, 'this will go, this will go'], it will all come right in the end.' Old diplomats and courtiers, amazed at his confidence, passed about his cheering words. They were taken up by the newspapers; they were remembered by the people, and, in the dark days of the French Revolution, were repeated over and over again on every side, and made the subject of a stirring song which, till the Marseillaise Hymn appeared, had no equal in France."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, volume 2, page 89.

L. Rosenthal, America and France, page 263.

"The original words (afterward much changed) were by Ladré, a street singer; and the music was a popular dance tune of the time composed by Bécourt, a drummer of the Grand Opera."

Century Dictionary.

"The original name of the tune to which the words were written is 'Le Carillon National,' and it is a remarkable circumstance that it was a great favourite with the unfortunate Marie Antoinette, who used to play it on the harpsichord."

J. Oxenford, Book of French Songs (note to "Ça ira").

CAABA AT MECCA, The.

"An Arab legend asserts that this famous temple was erected by Abraham and his son Ishmael with the aid of the angel Gabriel. Mahomet lent his authority to the legend and devoted to it several chapters in the Koran, and thus it became one of the Mussulman articles of faith. Even before the introduction of Islamism this story was current through a great part of Arabia and spread abroad in proportion as the Ishmaelitish tribes gained ground. … This temple, whose name 'square house' indicates its form, is still preserved. It was very small and of very rude construction. It was not till comparatively recent times that it had a door with a lock. … For a long time the sole sacred object it contained was the celebrated black stone hadjarel-aswad, an aerolite, which is still the object of Mussulman veneration. … We have already mentioned Hobal, the first anthropomorphic idol, placed in the Caaba. This example was soon copied. … The Caaba thus became a sort of Arabian Pantheon, and even the Virgin Mary, with her child on her knees, eventually found a place there."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 7, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Muir, Life of Mahomet, chapter 2.

CABAL, The.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH; also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.

CABALA, The.

"The term Cabala is usually applied to that wild system of Oriental philosophy which was introduced, it is uncertain at what period, into the Jewish schools: in a wider sense it comprehended all the decisions of the Rabbinical courts or schools, whether on religious or civil points."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, volume 2, book 18.

"The philosophic Cabala aspired to be a more sublime and transcendental Rabbinism. It was a mystery not exclusive of, but above their more common mysteries; a secret more profound than their profoundest secrets. It claimed the same guaranty of antiquity, of revelation, of tradition; it was the true, occult, to few intelligible sense of the sacred writings and of the sayings of the most renowned Wise Men; the inward interpretation of the genuine interpretation of the Law and the Prophets. Men went on; they advanced, they rose from the most full and perfect study of the Talmuds to the higher doctrines, to the more divine contemplations of the Cabala. And the Zohar was the Book of the Cabala which soared almost above the comprehension of the wisest. … In its traditional, no doubt unwritten form, the Cabala, at least a Cabala, ascends to a very early date, the Captivity; in its proper and more mature form, it belongs to the first century, and reaches down to the end of the seventh century of our era. The Sepher Yetzira, the Book of Creation, which boasts itself to be derived from Moses, from Abraham, if not from Adam, or even aspires higher, belongs to the earlier period; the Zohar, the Light, to the later. The remote origin of the Cabala belongs to that period when the Jewish mind, during the Captivity, became so deeply impregnated with Oriental notions, those of the Persian or Zoroastrian religion. Some of the first principles of the Cabala, as well as many of the tenets, still more of the superstitions, of the Talmud, coincide so exactly with the Zendavesta … as to leave no doubt of their kindred and affiliation."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 30.

CABILDO. The.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1769.

CABINET, The American.

"There is in the government of the United States no such thing as a Cabinet in the English sense of the term. But I use the term, not only because it is current in America to describe the chief ministers of the President, but also because it calls attention to the remarkable difference which exists between the great officers of State in America and the similar officers in the free countries of Europe. Almost the only reference in the Constitution to the ministers of the President is that contained in the power given him to require the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.' All these departments have been created by Acts of Congress. Washington began in 1789 with four only, at the head of whom were the following four officials: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of War, Attorney General. In 1798 there was added a Secretary of the Navy, in 1829 a Postmaster General, and in 1849 a Secretary of the Interior. … Each receives a salary of $8,000 (£1,600). All are appointed by the President, subject to the consent of the Senate (which is practically never refused), and may be removed by the President alone. Nothing marks them off from any other officials who might be placed in charge of a department, except that they are summoned by the President to his private council. None of them can vote in Congress, Art. XI., §6 of the Constitution providing that 'no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.'"

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, chapter 9.

{344}

"In 1862 a separate Department of Agriculture was established. … In 1889 the head of the Department became Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and a Cabinet officer. A Bureau of Labor under the Interior Department was created in 1884. In 1888 Congress constituted it a separate department, but did not make its head a Secretary, and therefore not a Cabinet officer." There are now (1891) eight heads of departments who constitute the President's Cabinet.

W. W. and W. F. Willoughby, Government and Administration of the United States (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series IX., numbers 1-2), chapter 10.

CABINET, The English.

"Few things in our history are more curious than the origin and growth of the power now possessed by the Cabinet. From an early period the Kings of England had been assisted by a Privy Council to which the law assigned many important functions and duties (see PRIVY COUNCIL). During several centuries this body deliberated on the gravest and most delicate affairs. But by degrees its character changed. It became too large for despatch and secrecy. The rank of Privy Councillor was often bestowed as an honorary distinction on persons to whom nothing was confided, and whose opinion was never asked. The sovereign, on the most important occasions, resorted for advice to a small knot of leading ministers. The advantages and disadvantages of this course were early pointed out by Bacon, with his usual judgment and sagacity: but it was not till after the Restoration that the interior council began to attract general notice. During many years old fashioned politicians continued to regard the Cabinet as an unconstitutional and dangerous board. Nevertheless, it constantly became more and more important. It at length drew to itself the chief executive power, and has now been regarded, during several generations, as an essential part of our polity. Yet, strange to say, it still continues to be altogether unknown to the law. The names of the noblemen and gentlemen who compose it are never officially announced to the public. No record is kept of its meetings and resolutions; nor has its existence ever been recognized by any Act of Parliament. During some years the word Cabal was popularly used as synonymous with Cabinet. But it happened by a whimsical coincidence that, in 1671, the Cabinet consisted of five persons the initial letters of whose names made up the word Cabal, Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale. These ministers were therefore emphatically called the Cabal; and they soon made that appellation so infamous that it has never since their time been used except as a term of reproach."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 2.

"Walpole's work, … the effect of his policy, when it was finally carried through, was to establish the Cabinet on a definite footing, as the seat and centre of the executive government, to maintain the executive in the closest relation with the legislature, to govern through the legislature, and to transfer the power and authority of the Crown to the House of Commons. Some writers have held that the first Ministry in the modern sense was that combination of Whigs whom William called to aid him in government in 1695. Others contend that the second administration of Lord Rockingham, which came into power in 1782, after the triumph of the American colonists, the fall of Lord North, and the defeat of George III., was the earliest Ministry of the type of to-day. At whatever date we choose first to see all the decisive marks of that remarkable system which combines unity, steadfastness, and initiative in the executive, with the possession of supreme authority alike over men and measures by the House of Commons, it is certain that it was under Walpole that its ruling principles were first fixed in parliamentary government, and that the Cabinet system received the impression that it bears in our own time. … Perhaps the most important of all the distinctions between the Cabinet in its rudimentary stage at the beginning of the century and its later practice, remains to be noticed. Queen Anne held a Cabinet every Sunday, at which she was herself present, just as we have seen that she was present at debates in the House of Lords. With a doubtful exception in the time of George III., no sovereign has been present at a meeting of the Cabinet since Anne. … This vital change was probably due to the accident that Anne's successor did not understand the language in which its deliberations were carried on. The withdrawal of the sovereign from Cabinet Councils was essential to the momentous change which has transferred the whole substance of authority and power from the Crown, to a committee chosen by one member of the two Houses of Parliament, from among other members. … The Prime Minister is the keystone of the Cabinet arch. Although in Cabinet all its members stand on an equal footing, speak with equal voice, and, on the rare occasions when a division is taken, are counted on the fraternal principle of one man, one vote, yet the head of the Cabinet is 'primus inter pares,' and occupies a position which, so long as it lasts, is one of exceptional and peculiar authority. It is true that he is in form chosen by the Crown, but in practice the choice of the Crown is pretty strictly confined to the man who is designated by the acclamation of a party majority. … The Prime Minister, once appointed, chooses his own colleagues, and assigns them to their respective offices. … The flexibility of the Cabinet system allows the Prime Minister in an emergency to take upon himself a power not inferior to that of a dictator, provided always that the House of Commons will stand by him. In ordinary circumstances, he leaves the heads of departments to do their own work in their own way. … Just as the Cabinet has been described as being the regulator of relations between Queen, Lords and Commons, so is the Prime Minister the regulator of relations between the Queen and her servants. … Walpole was in practice able to invest himself with more of the functions and powers of a Prime Minister than any of his successors, and yet was compelled by the feeling of the time earnestly and profusely to repudiate both the name and title, and everyone of the pretensions that it involves. The earliest instance in which I have found, the head of the government designated as the Premier is in a letter to the Duke of Newcastle from the Duke of Cumberland in 1746."

J. Morley, Walpole, chapter 7.

"In theory the Cabinet is nothing but a committee of the Privy Council, yet with the Council it has in reality no dealings; and thus the extraordinary result has taken place, that the Government of England is in the hands of men whose position is legally undefined: that while the Cabinet is a word of every-day use, no lawyer can say what a Cabinet is: that while no ordinary Englishman knows who the Lords of the Council are, the Church of England prays, Sunday by Sunday, that these Lords may be 'endued with wisdom and understanding'! that while the collective responsibility of Ministers is a doctrine appealed to by members of the Government, no less than by their opponents, it is more than doubtful whether such responsibility could be enforced by any legal penalties: that, to sum up this catalogue of contradictions, the Privy Council has the same political powers which it had when Henry VIII. ascended the throne, whilst it is in reality composed of persons many of whom never have taken part or wished to take part in the contests of political life."

A. V. Dicey. The Privy Council, page 143.

{345}

CABINET, The Kitchen.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.

CABOCHIENS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

CABOT, John and Sebastian. American Discoveries.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497, and 1498.

CABUL: A. D. 1840-1841. Occupation by the British. Successful native rising. Retreat and destruction of the British army.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.

CABUL: A. D. 1878-1880. Murder of Major Cavagnari, the British Resident. Second occupation by the English.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

—————CABUL: End—————

CACIQUE.

"Cacique, lord of vassals, was the name by which the natives of Cuba, designated their chiefs. Learning this, the conquerors applied the name generally to the rulers of wild tribes, although in none of the dialects of the continent is the word found."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, page 210, foot-note.

CADDOAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY; also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CADE'S REBELLION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.

CADESIA (KADISIYEH), Battle of.

This was the first of the decisive series of battles in which the Arab followers of Mohammed effected the overthrow of the Persian Empire (the Sassannian) and the conquest of its dominions. It was desperately fought, A. D. 636, under the walls of the fortified town of Cadesia (Kadisiyeh in the Arabic) situated near the Sea of Nedjef, between the Euphrates and the Arabian desert. The Persians numbered 120,000 men, under Rustam, their best general. The Arabs were but 30,000 strong at first, but were reinforced the second day. They were commanded by Sa'ad and led by the redoubtable Kaled. The battle was obstinately prolonged through four days, but ended in the complete rout of the Persians and the death of Rustam, with 40,000 of his men.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 26.

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

CADIZ: Origin.

See UTICA, and GADES.

CADIZ: A. D. 1596. Taken and sacked by the English and Dutch.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1596.

CADIZ: A. D. 1702. Abortive English and Dutch expedition against.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

CADIZ: A. D. 1810-1811. Siege by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

CADIZ: A. D. 1823. Siege, bombardment and capture by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

CADMEA (KADMEIA), The.

See GREECE: B. C. 383.

CADMEANS, OR KADMEIANS.

See BŒOTIA.

CADURCI, The.

The Cadurci were one of the tribes of ancient Gaul whose chief place was Divona, now Cahors on the Lot.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 17.

CADUSIANS, The.

An ancient people so-called by the Greeks, whose territory was on the south-western border of the Caspian Sea,—the district of modern Persians called Ghilan or Ghulan. Their native name was "Gaels."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 8, chapter 1.

CADWALLON, Death of.

See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.

CÆLLAN HILL, The.

See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

CAERLAVEROCK, Siege of.

A famous siege and reduction of the Scottish castle of Caerlaverock, in Dumfriesshire, by Edward I. A. D. 1300.

CAERLEON.

"Caer," like the "Ceaster" of the Saxons, is a corruption by Celtic tongues of the Roman "Castrum." "In memory of the second legion, which had been so long established at the Silurian Isca, they [the Welsh] gave to the ruins of that city the name of Caer-Legion, the city of the legion, now softened to Caerleon."

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

CÆSAR, JULIUS, Career and death of.

See ROME: B. C. 69-63, to 44; GAUL: B. C. 58-51; and BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

CÆSAR, The title.

"Octavius was the adopted heir of Julius Cæsar; from the moment of his adoption the surname Cæsar became appropriated to him, and it was by this name accordingly that he was most familiarly known to his own contemporaries. Modern writers for the sake of distinction have agreed for the most part to confine this illustrious title to the first of the Cæsarian dynasty; but we should doubtless gain a clearer conception of the gradual process by which the idea of a dynastic succession fixed itself in the minds of the Romans, if we followed their own practice in this particular, and applied the name of Cæsar, not to Augustus only, but also to his adopted son Tiberius, to the scions of the same lineage who succeeded him, and even to those of later and independent dynasties. As late indeed as the reign of Diocletian, the Roman monarch was still eminently the Cæsar. It was not till the close of the third century of our era that that illustrious title was deposed from its preeminence, and restricted to a secondary and deputed authority. Its older use was however revived and perpetuated, though less exclusively, through the declining ages of the empire, and has survived with perhaps unbroken continuity even to our own days. The Austrian Kaiser still retains the name, though he has renounced the succession, of the Cæsars of Rome, while the Czar of Muscovy pretends to derive his national designation by direct inheritance from the Cæsars of Byzantium."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 31.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.

One of the fortified posts established in Spain by the Emperor Augustus, B. C. 27, and in which the veterans of the legions were settled. The place and its name (corrupted) survive in modern Saragossa.

C. Merivale, History of the Roman, chapter 34.

{346}

CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: Origin.

See MAZACA.

CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: A. D. 260. Capture, massacre and pillage by Sapor, king of Persia.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

CÆSAREA IN PALESTINE: Massacre of Jews.

See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

CÆSAREA IN PALESTINE: The Church in.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

CÆSAROMAGUS IN BRITAIN.

A Roman town identified, generally, with modern Chelmsford.

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

CÆSAROMAGUS IN GAUL. Modern Beauvais.

See BELGÆ.

CÆSARS, The Twelve.

See ROME: A. D. 68-96.

CÆSAR'S TOWER.

See TOWER OF LONDON.

CAFFA.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

CAHORS: Origin.

See CADURCI.

CAHORS: A. D. 1580. Siege and capture by Henry of Navarre.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

CAIRN.

See BARROW.

CAIRO: A. D. 641. Origin.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

CAIRO: A. D. 967-1171. Capital of the Fatimite Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

CAIRO: A. D. 1517. Capture, sack and massacre by the Ottoman Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

CAIRO: A. D. 1798. Occupied by the French under Bonaparte.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

CAIRO: A. D. 1800. Revolt suppressed by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).

CAIRO: A. D. 1801-1802. Surrender to the English. Restoration to Turkey.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

CAIRO: A. D. 1805-1811. Massacres of the Mamelukes.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.

CAIRO: A. D. 1879-1883. Revolt against the Khedive and the foreign control. Occupation by the British.

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

—————CAIRO: End—————

CAIROAN.

See KAIRWAN.

CAIUS, called Caligula, Roman Emperor, A. D. 37-41.

CAKCHIQUELS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES, and MAYAS.

CALABRIA: Transfer of the name.

"After the loss of the true Calabria [to the Lombards] the vanity of the Greeks substituted that name instead of the more ignoble appellation of Bruttium; and the change appears to have taken place before the time of Charlemagne."

CALABRIA: A. D. 1080. Norman duchy.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.

—————CALABRIA: End—————

CALAIS: A. D. 1346-1347. Siege and capture by Edward III.

Immediately after his great victory won at Creci, the English king, Edward III. laid siege to the strong city of Calais. He built a town of huts round the city, "which he called 'Newtown the Bold,' and laid it out with a market, regular streets and shops, and all the necessary accommodation for an army, and hither were carried in vast stores of victuals and other necessaries, obtained by ravaging the country round and by shipment from England." Calais held out for a year, and angered the king so by its obstinacy that when, in August, 1347, starvation forced its people to surrender, he required that six of the chief burgesses should be given up to him, with halters round their necks, for execution. Eustache St. Pierre and five others nobly offered themselves for the sacrifice, and it was only by the weeping intercession of Queen Philippa that Edward was induced to spare their lives. He expelled all the inhabitants who refused to take an oath of fealty to him and repeopled the town with Englishmen.

W. Warburton, Edward III., Second Decade, chapter 3.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

CALAIS: A. D. 1348. The Staple for English trade.

See STAPLE.

CALAIS: A. D. 1558. Recovery from the English by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CALAIS: A. D. 1564. Final surrender of English claims.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.

CALAIS: A. D. 1596-1598. Surprise and capture by the Spaniards. Restoration to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

—————CALAIS: End—————

CALATRAVA AND SANTIAGO, Knights of.

"It was to repress the never-ceasing incursions of the Mohammedans, as well as to return these incursions with interest, that, in the time of Fernando [Fernando II. of the early Spanish kingdom of Leon], two military orders, those of Calatrava and Santiago [or St. Jago—or St. James of Compostella], were instituted. The origin of the former order was owing to the devotion of two Cistercian monks; St. Raymond, abbot of Fitero, and his companion, the friar Diego Velasquez. These intrepid men, who had both borne arms previous to their monastic profession, indignant at the cowardice of the Templars, who resigned into the king of Castile's hands the fortress of Calatrava, which had been confided to their defense by the emperor Alfonso, proposed, in 1158, to the regency of that kingdom, to preserve that position against the assailants. The proposal was readily accepted. The preaching of the warlike abbot was so efficacious, that in a short time he assembled 20,000 men, whom he conducted to Calatrava, and among whom were not a few of his own monks. There he drew up the institutions of the order, which took its name from the place, and which in its religious government long followed the Cistercian rule, and wore the same monastic habit,—a white robe and scapulary. [By pope Benedict XIII. the habit was dispensed with, and the knights allowed to marry 'once.'—Foot-note.] The other order commenced in 1161. Some robbers of Leon, touched with their past enormities, resolved to make reparation for them, by defending the frontiers against the incursions of the Mohammedans. Don Pedro Fernandez—if the 'don' has not been added to give something like respectability to the origin—was the chief founder of the order. He engaged the brethren to assume the rule of St. Augustine, in addition to the ordinary obligations of knighthood. His military and monastic fraternity was approved by king Fernando; at whose suggestion the knights chose Santiago as their patron, whose bloody sword, in form of a cross, became their professional symbol. These two orders were richly endowed by successive kings of Leon and Castile, until their possessions became immense."

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3, section 2, chapter 1, division 2.

{347}

In 1396 the knights of the order of St. James of Compostella "received permission to marry. In 1493, the Grand Mastership was united to the crown of Spain." In 1523 the right of nomination to the Grand Mastership of the Order of Calatrava was transferred from the Pope to the crown of Spain, "and since that time the order has gradually merged into a court institution. The state dress is a white robe, with a red cross on the left breast. The permission to marry has been enjoyed since 1540."

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders, part 4.

CALAURIA, Confederation of.

A naval confederation, formed at a very early period of Greek history, by the seven maritime cities of Orchomenus, Athens, Ægina, Epidaurus, Hermione, Prasiæ and Nauplia against the kings of Argos. The island of Calauria, off the eastern point of Argolis, was the center of the confederacy.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, V. 1, book 1, chapter 3.

CALCINATO, Battle of (1706).

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

CALCUTTA: A. D. 1698. The founding of the city.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

CALCUTTA: A. D. 1756. Capture by Surajah Dowlah. The tragedy of the Black Hole.

See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757.

—————CALCUTTA: End—————

CALDERON, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

CALEDONIA, The name.

See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.

CALEDONIA, Ancient Tribes.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CALEDONIA, Wars of the Romans.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

—————CALEDONIA: End—————

CALEDONIA SYLVA.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CALEDONII, The.

One of the wild tribes which occupied the Highlands of Scotland when the Romans held Britain, and whose name they gave finally to all the Highland tribes and to that part of the island.

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 1.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CALENDAR, The French Republican.

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

CALENDAR, Gregorian. Gregorian Era.

"This was a correction and improvement of the Julian [see CALENDAR, JULIAN]. It was discovered at length, by more accurate astronomical observations, that the true solar or tropical year was 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 57 seconds; whence it fell short of the Julian or Egyptian computation of 365 days and 6 hours by an interval of 11 minutes, 3 seconds, … which, in the course of 130 years, amounted to a whole day. At the end of 130 years, therefore, the tropical year began a day earlier than the civil, or fell back a day behind it. … In the time of Pope Gregory XIII., A. D. 1582, … the [vernal] equinox was found to be on the 11th of March, having fallen back ten days. In order, therefore, to bring it forward to its former place of the 21st, he left out ten days in October, calling the 5th the 15th day of that month. Whence in that year of confusion, the 22d day of December became the first of January, A. D. 1583, which was the first year of the Gregorian Era. In making this correction, he was principally assisted by the celebrated mathematician Clavius. But to prevent the repetition of this error in future, a further reformation of the Julian Calendar was wanting. Because the vernal equinox fell backwards three days in the course of 390 years, Gregory, chiefly by the assistance of Aloysius Lillius, decreed that three days should be omitted in every four centuries: namely, that every first, second and third centurial year, which would otherwise be bissextile, should be a common year; but that every fourth centurial year should remain bissextile. Thus, the years A. D. 1700, 1800, 1900, and 2100, 2200, 2300, were to be common years; but A. D. 1600, 2000, 2400, to remain leap years. By this ingenious reform, the Julian Calendar is rendered sufficiently accurate for all the purposes of chronology, and even of astronomy, for 6000 years to come. … The Gregorian or reformed Julian year was not adopted in England until A. D. 1751, when, the deficiency from the time of the Council of Nice then amounting to eleven days, this number was struck out of the month of September, by Act of Parliament; and the 3d day was counted the 14th, in that year of confusion. The next year A. D. 1752, was the first of the new style, beginning January 1, instead of March 25."

W. Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, volume 1, book 1.

The change from Old Style, as the Julian Calendar, and dates according with it, now came to be called to New Style, or the reformed, Gregorian Calendar, was made in Spain, Portugal, part of Italy, part of the Netherlands, France, Denmark, and Lorraine, in A. D. 1582; in Poland in 1586; in Hungary in 1587; in Catholic Switzerland in 1583; in Catholic Germany in 1584; in most parts of Protestant Germany, and Switzerland in 1700 and 1701, and, lastly, in England, in 1751. In Russia, Greece, and the East generally, the Old Style is still retained.

Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History.

CALENDAR, Julian. Julian Era.

"The epoch of the Julian Era, which precedes the common or Christian Era by forty-five years, is the reformation of the Roman calendar by Julius Cæsar, who ordained that the Year of Rome 707 should consist of 15 months, forming altogether 445 days; that the ensuing year, 708, should be composed of 365 days; and that every fourth year should contain 366 days, the additional day being introduced after the 6th of the calends of March, i. e., the 24th of February, which year he called Bissextile, because the 6th of the calends of March were then doubled. Julius Cæsar also divided the months into the number of days which they at present contain. The Roman calendar, which was divided into calends, nones and ides, was used in most public instruments throughout Europe for many centuries. … The calend is the 1st day of each month. The ides were eight days in each month: in March, May, July and October the ides commence on the 15th, and in all other months on the 13th day. The nones are the 5th day of each month, excepting in March, May, July and October, when the nones fall on the 7th day. The days of the month were reckoned backwards instead of forwards: thus, the 3d calends of February is the 30th of January; the 4th calends of February the 29th January. … Excepting July and August, which were named after Julius and Augustus Cæsar, having been called Quintilis and Sextilis, the Roman months bore their present names. {348} An error prevailed for 37 years after the death of Julius Cæsar, from reckoning every third instead of every fourth year a bissextile, or leap year, as if the year contained 365 days, 8 hours. When this mistake was detected, thirteen intercalations had occurred instead of ten, and the year consequently began three days too late: the calendar was, therefore, again corrected, and it was ordered that each of the ensuing twelve years should contain 365 days only, and that there should not be any leap year until A. U. C. 760 or A. D. 7. From that time the years have been calculated without mistakes, and the Roman year has been adopted by all Christian nations, though about the sixth century they began to date from the birth of our Saviour."

Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History, page 4.

"It might naturally have been expected that Julius Cæsar would have so ordered his reformed solar year, as to begin on the day of the winter solstice, which, in the 'Year of Confusion' [i. e., the year in which the error of the calendar was corrected] was supposed to fall on December 25. But he chose to begin his new year on the first of January following, because on that day the moon was new, or in conjunction with the sun, at 7 hours, 6 minutes and 35 seconds after noon. By this means he began his year on a most high or holy day among the ancient Druids, with whose usages he was well acquainted, and also made his new year the first of a lunar cycle."

T. Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, volume 1, book 1.

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 20.

For an account of the subsequent correction of the Julian calendar, see CALENDAR, GREGORIAN

CALENDS.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

CALETI, The.

See BELGÆ.

CALHOUN, John C., And the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

CALHOUN, John C. And the Nullification Movement.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

CALIFORNIA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY, and MODOCS AND THEIR CALIFORNIA NEIGHBORS.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781. Origin of the name. Early Spanish exploration and settlement. The founding of the Franciscan missions.

"The settlements of the Spanish missionaries within the present limits of the State of California date from the first foundation of San Diego in 1769. The missions that were later founded north of San Diego were, with the original establishment itself, for a time known merely by some collective name, such as the Northern Missions. But later the name California, already long since applied to the country of the peninsular missions to the Southward, was extended to the new land, with various prefixes or qualifying phrases; and out of these the definitive name Alta [or Upper] California at last came, being applied to our present country during the whole period of the Mexican Republican ownership. As to the origin of the name California, no serious question remains that this name, as first applied, between 1535 and 1539 to a portion of Lower California, was derived from an old printed romance, the one which Mr. Edward Everett Hale rediscovered in 1862, and from which he drew this now accepted conclusion. For, in this romance, the name California was already before 1520 applied to a fabulous island, described as near the Indies and also 'very near the Terrestrial Paradise.' Colonists whom Cortes brought to the newly discovered peninsula in 1535, and who returned the next year, may have been the first to apply the name to this supposed island, on which they had been for a time resident. The coast of Upper California was first visited during the voyage of the explorer Juan Cabrillo in 1542-43. Several landings were then made on the coast and on the islands, in the Santa Barbara region. … In 1579 Drake's famous visit took place [see AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580]. … It is … almost perfectly sure that he did not enter or observe the Golden Gate, and that he got no sort of idea of the existence of the Great Bay. … This result of the examination of the evidence about Drake's voyage is now fairly well accepted, although some people will always try to insist that Drake discovered our Bay of San Francisco. The name San Francisco was probably applied to a port on this coast for the first time by Cermeñon, who, in a voyage from the Philippines in 1595 ran ashore, while exploring the coast near Point Reyes. It is now, however, perfectly sure that neither he nor any other Spanish navigator before 1769 applied this name to our present bay, which remained utterly unknown to Europeans during all this period. … In 1602-3, Sebastian Vizcaino conducted a Spanish exploring expedition along the California coast. … From this voyage a little more knowledge of the character of the coast was gained; and thenceforth geographical researches in the region of California ceased for over a century and a half. With only this meagre result we reach the era of the first settlement of Upper California. The missions of the peninsula of Lower California passed, in 1767, by the expulsion of the Jesuits, into the hands of the Franciscans; and the Spanish government, whose attention was attracted in this direction by the changed conditions, ordered the immediate prosecution of a long-cherished plan to provide the Manilla ships, on their return voyage, with good ports of supply and repairs, and to occupy the northwest land as a safeguard against Russian or other aggressions. … Thus began the career of Spanish discovery and settlement in California. The early years show a generally rapid progress, only one great disaster occurring,—the destruction of San Diego Mission in 1775, by assailing Indians. But this loss was quickly repaired. In 1770 the Mission of San Carlos was founded at Monterey. In 1772, a land expedition, under Fages and Crespi, first explored the eastern shore of our San Francisco Bay, in an effort to reach by land the old Port of San Francisco. … After 1775, the old name began to be generally applied to the new Bay, and so, thenceforth, the name Port of San Francisco means what we now mean thereby. In 1775, Lieutenant Ayala entered the new harbor by water. In the following year the Mission at San Francisco was founded, and in October its church was dedicated. Not only missions, however, but pueblos, inhabited by Spanish colonists, lay in the official plan of the new undertakings. The first of these to be established was San Jose, founded in November, 1777. The next was Los Angeles, founded in September, 1781."

J. Royce, California, chapter 1, section 2.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 13 (California, volume 1).

F. W. Blackmar, Spanish Institutions of the Southwest, chapters 5-15.

{349}

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847. The American conquest and its unexplained preludes.

"Early in 1846, the Americans in California numbered about 200, mostly able-bodied men, and who in their activity, enterprise, and audacity, constituted quite a formidable element in this sparsely inhabited region. The population of California at this time was 6,000 Mexicans and 200,000 Indians. We now come to a period in the history of California that has never been made clear, and respecting which there are conflicting statements and opinions. The following facts were obtained by careful inquiry of intelligent parties who lived in California during the period mentioned, and who participated in the scenes narrated. The native Californians appear to have entertained no very strong affection for their own government, or, rather, they felt that under the influences at work they would inevitably, and at no very distant period, become a dismembered branch of the Mexican nation; and the matter was finally narrowed down to this contested point, namely, whether this state surgery should be performed by Americans or English, the real struggle being between these two nationalities. In the northern part of the territory, such native Californians as the Vallejos, Castros, etc., with the old American settlers, Leese, Larkin, and others, sympathized with the United States, and desired annexation to the American republic. In the south, Pio Pico, then governor of the territory, and other prominent native Californians, with James Alexander Forbes, the English consul, who settled in Santa Clara in 1828, were exerting themselves to bring the country under English domination. … This was the state of affairs for two or three years previous to the Mexican War. For some months before the news that hostilities between the United States and Mexico had commenced [see MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847] reached California, the belief that such an event would certainly occur was universal throughout the territory. This quickened the impulses of all parties, and stimulated the two rivals—the American and English—in their efforts to be the first to obtain a permanent hold of the country. The United States government had sent Colonel Fremont to the Pacific on an exploring expedition. Colonel Fremont had passed through California, and was on his way to Oregon, when, in March, 1846, Lieutenant Gillespie, of the United States marine service, was sent from Washington with dispatches to Colonel Fremont. Lieutenant Gillespie went across Mexico to Mazatlan, and from thence by sea to California. He finally overtook Fremont early in June, 1846, a short distance on the road to Oregon, and communicated to him the purport of his dispatches, they having been committed to memory and the papers destroyed before he entered Mexico. What these instructions authorized Colonel Fremont to do has never been promulgated, but it is said they directed him to remain in California, and hold himself in readiness to cooperate with the United States fleet, in case war with Mexico should occur. Fremont immediately returned to California, and camped a short time on Feather River, and then took up his headquarters at Sutter's Fort. A few days after, on Sunday, June 14th, 1846, a party of fourteen Americans, under no apparent command, appeared in Sonoma, captured the place, raised the Bear flag, proclaimed the independence of California, and carried off to Fremont's headquarters four prominent citizens, namely, the two Vallejos, J. P. Leese, and Colonel Prudhon. On the consummation of these achievements, one Merritt was elected captain. This was a rough party of revolutionists, and the manner in which they improvised the famous Bear flag shows upon what slender means nations and kingdoms are sometimes started. From an estimable old lady they obtained a fragmentary portion of her white skirt, on which they painted what was intended to represent a grizzly bear, but not being artistic in their work … the Mexicans, with their usual happy faculty on such occasions, called it the 'Bandera Colchis,' or 'Hog Flag.' This flag now ornaments the rooms of the Pioneer Society in San Francisco. On the 18th of June, 1846, William B. Ide, a native of New England, who had emigrated to California the year previous, issued a proclamation as commander-in-chief of the fortress of Sonoma. This proclamation declared the purpose to overthrow the existing government, and establish in its place the republican form. … General Castro now proposed to attack the feebly manned post at Sonoma, but he was frustrated by a rapid movement of Fremont, who, on the 4th of July, 1846, called a meeting of Americans at Sonoma; and this assembly, acting under his advice, proclaimed the independence of the country, appointed Fremont Governor, and declared war against Mexico. During these proceedings at Sonoma, a flag with one star floated over the headquarters of Fremont at Sutter's Fort. The meaning of this lone-star flag no one seems to have understood. … Just as Fremont, with his company, had started for the coast to confront Castro, and act on the aggressive generally, he was suddenly brought to a stand by the astounding intelligence that Commodore Sloat had arrived at Monterey, and that, on the 7th of July, 1846, he had raised the American flag and taken possession of the place; also, that, by command of Commodore Sloat, Commander Montgomery, of the United States sloop-of-war Portsmouth, then lying in San Francisco Bay, had, on the 8th of July, taken possession of Yerba Buena and raised the American flag on the plaza. This of course settled the business for all parties. The Mexican flag and the Bear flag were lowered, and in due time, nolens volens, all acquiesced in the flying of the Stars and Stripes. … Commodore Sloat … had heard of the commencement of hostilities on the Rio Grande, … sailed from Mazatlan for California, took possession of the country and raised the American flag on his own responsibility. These decisive steps on the part of Commodore Sloat were not taken a moment too soon, as on the 14th of July the British man-of-war Collingwood, Sir George Seymour commanding, arrived at Monterey," intending, as Sir George acknowledged, "to take possession of that portion of the country." In August, Commodore Sloat relinquished the command of the Pacific squadron to Commodore Stockton, who "immediately instituted bold and vigorous measures for the subjugation of the territory. All his available force for land operations was 350 men—sailors and marines. {350} But so rapid and skilful were Stockton's movements, and so efficient was the cooperation of Fremont with his small troop, that California was effectually conquered in January, 1847. During all this period the people of the United States were ignorant of what was transpiring in California and vice versa. But the action of Commodore Sloat … and … Commodore Stockton … did but anticipate the wishes of the United States Government, which had, in June, 1846, dispatched General Kearney across the country from Fort Leavenworth [see NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], at the head of 1,600 men, with orders to conquer California, and when conquered to assume the governorship of the territory. General Kearney arrived in California via San Pasqual with greatly diminished forces, December, 1846, a few weeks before active military operations in that region ceased."

E. E. Dunbar, The Romance of the Age, pages 29-42.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 17 (California, volume 5), chapters 1-16.

J. C. Fremont, Memoirs of my Life, volume 1, chapters 14-15.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848. Cession to the United States.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849. The discovery of Gold and the immigration of the Gold-hunters.

"In the summer of 1847 the American residents of California, numbering perhaps 2,000, and mostly established near San Francisco Bay, looked forward with hope and confidence to the future. Their government held secure possession of the whole territory, and had announced its purpose to hold it permanently. … It so happened that at this time one of the leading representatives of American interests in California was John A. Sutter, a Swiss by his parentage; a German by the place of his birth in Baden; an American by residence and naturalization in Missouri; and a Mexican by subsequent residence and naturalization in California. In 1839 he had settled at the junction of the Sacramento and American rivers, near the site of the present city of Sacramento." His rancho became known as Sutter's Fort. In the summer of 1847 he planned the building of a flour-mill, and "partly to get lumber for it, he determined to build a saw-mill also. Since there was no good timber in the valley, the saw-mill must be in the mountains. The site for it was selected by James W. Marshall, a native of New Jersey, a skilful wheelwright by occupation, industrious, honest, generous, but 'cranky,' full of wild fancies, and defective in some kinds of business sense. … The place for his mill was in the small valley of Coloma, 1,500 feet above the level of the sea, and 45 miles from Sutter's Fort, from which it was accessible by wagon without expense for road-making." Early in 1848 the saw-mill was nearly completed; "the water had been turned into the race to carry away some of the loose dirt and gravel, and then had been turned off again. On the afternoon of Monday, the 24th of January, Marshall was walking in the tail-race, when on its rotten granite bed-rock he saw some yellow particles and picked up several of them. The largest were about the size of grains of wheat. … He thought they were gold, and went to the mill, where he told the men that he had found a gold mine. At the time, little importance was attached to his statement. It was regarded as a proper subject for ridicule. Marshall hammered his new metal and found it malleable; he put it into the kitchen fire, and observed that it did not readily melt or become discolored; he compared its color with gold coin; and the more he examined it the more he was convinced that it was gold." He soon found an opportunity to show his discovery to Sutter, who tested the metal with acid and by careful weighing, and satisfied himself that Marshall's, conclusion was correct. In the spring of 1848 San Francisco, a village of about 700 inhabitants, had two newspapers, the 'Californian' and the 'California Star,' both weeklies. The first printed mention of the gold discovery was a short paragraph in the former, under date of the 15th of March, stating that a gold mine had been found at Sutter's Mill, and that a package of the metal worth $30 had been received at New Helvetia. … Before the middle of June the whole territory resounded with the cry of 'gold'! … Nearly all the men hurried off to the mines. Workshops, stores, dwellings, wives, and even ripe fields of grain, were left for a time to take care of themselves. … 'The reports of the discovery, which began to reach the Atlantic States in September, 1849, commanded little credence there before January; but the news of the arrival of large amounts of gold at Mazatlan, Valparaiso, Panama, and New York, in the latter part of the winter, put an end to all doubt, and in the spring there was such a rush of peaceful migration as the world had never seen. In 1849, 25,000—according to one authority 50,000—immigrants went by land, and 23,000 by sea from the region east of the Rocky Mountains, and by sea perhaps 40,000 from other parts of the world. … The gold yield of 1848 was estimated at $5,000,000; that of 1849 at $23,000,000; that of 1850 at $50,000,000; that of 1853 at $65,000,000; and then came the decline which has continued until the present time [1890] when the yield is about $12,000,000."

J. S. Hittell, The Discovery of Gold in California (Century Magazine, February, 1891).

ALSO IN: E. E. Dunbar, The Romance of the Age, or the Discovery of Gold in California.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 18 (California, volume 6) chapters 2-4.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1850. Admission to the Union as a free state. The Compromise.

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

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856. The San Francisco Vigilance Committee.

"The association of citizens known as the vigilance committee, which was organized in San Francisco on the 15th of May, 1856, has had such an influence on the growth and prosperity of that city that now [1877], at the end of 21 years, a true account of the origin and subsequent action of that association will be read with interest. For some time the corruption in the courts of law, the insecurity of the ballot-box at elections, and the infamous character of many of the public officials, had been the subject of complaint, not only in San Francisco, but throughout the State of California. It was evident to the honest and respectable citizens of, San Francisco that … it would become the duty of the people to protect themselves by reforming the courts of law, and by taking the ballot-box from the hands of greedy and unprincipled politicians." The latter were represented by a newspaper called the Sunday Times, edited by one James P. Casey. {351} The opinion of the better classes of citizens was voiced by the Evening Bulletin, whose editor was James King. On the 14th of May, 1856, King was shot by Casey, in the public street, receiving a wound from which he died six days later, and intense excitement of feeling in the city was produced. Casey surrendered himself and was lodged in jail. During the evening of the 14th some of the members of a vigilance committee which had been formed in 1851, and which had then checked a free riot of crime in the suddenly populated and unorganized city, by trying and executing a few desperadoes, came together and determined the organization of another committee for the same purpose. "The next day (the 15th) a set of rules and regulations were drawn up which each member was obliged to sign. The committee took spacious rooms, and all citizens of San Francisco having the welfare of the city at heart were invited to join the association. Several thousands enrolled themselves in a few days. … The members of the vigilance committee were divided into companies of 100, each company having a captain. Early on Sunday (the 18th) orders were sent to the different captains to appear with their companies ready for duty at the headquarters of the committee, in Sacramento Street, at nine o'clock. When all the companies had arrived, they were formed into one body, in all about 2,000 men. Sixty picked men were selected as a guard for the executive committee. At half-past eleven the whole force moved in the direction of the jail. A large number of spectators had collected, but there was no confusion, no noise. They marched through the city to Broadway, and there formed in the open space before the jail. … The houses opposite the jail were searched for men and arms secreted there, the committee wishing to prevent any chance of a collision which might lead to bloodshed. A cannon was then brought forward and placed in front of the jail, the muzzle pointed at the door." The jailer was now called upon to deliver Casey to the committee, and complied, being unable to resist. One Charles Cora, who had killed a United States marshal the November previous, was taken from the jail at the same time. The two prisoners were escorted to the quarters of the vigilance committee and there confined under guard. Two days afterwards (May 20th) Mr. King died. Casey and Cora were put on trial before a tribunal which the committee had organized, were condemned to death, and were hanged, with solemnity, on the 22d, from a platform erected in front of the building on Sacramento Street. "The executive committee, finding that the power they held was perfectly under control, and that there was no danger of any popular excesses, determined to continue their work and rid the country of the gang of ruffians which had for so long a time managed elections in San Francisco and its vicinity. These men were all well known, and were ordered to leave San Francisco. Many went away. Those who refused to go were arrested and taken to the rooms of the committee, where they were confined until opportunities offered for shipping them out of the country. … The governor of California at this time was Mr. J. Neely Johnson. … The major-general of the second division of state militia (which included the city and county of San Francisco) was Mr. William T. Sherman [afterwards well known in the world as General Sherman] who had resigned his commission in the United States army and had become a partner in the banking house of Lucas, Turner & Co., in San Francisco. … Toward the end of May, Governor Johnson … appealed to General Sherman for advice and assistance in putting a stop to the vigilance committee. At this time General Wool was in command of the United States troops, and Commodore Farragut had charge of the navy yard." General Wool was applied to for arms, and Commodore Farragut was asked to station a vessel of war at anchor off San Francisco. Both officers declined to act as requested, having no authority to do so. "When Governor Johnson returned to Sacramento, a writ was issued, at his request, by Judge Terry of the supreme court, commanding the sheriff of San Francisco to bring before him one William Mulligan, who was then in the hands of the vigilance committee." The vigilance committee refused to surrender their prisoner to the sheriff, and General Sherman was ordered to call out the militia of his division to support that officer. At the same time the governor issued a proclamation declaring the city of San Francisco in a state or insurrection. General Sherman found it impossible to arm his militia for service, and resigned the command. The governor sought and obtained arms elsewhere; but the schooner which brought them was seized and the arms possessed by the committee. On attempting to arrest the person who had charge of the schooner, one of the vigilance committee's policemen, named Hopkins, was stabbed by the afterwards notorious Judge Terry, who, with some others, had undertaken to protect the man. "The signal for a general meeting under arms was sounded, and in a short time 1,500 men were reported ready for duty. In an hour 4,000 men were under arms and prepared to act against the so-caned law-and-order party, who were collected in force at the different armories. These armories were surrounded." Judge Terry was demanded and delivered up, and all the arms and ammunition in the armories were removed. "In this way was settled the question of power between the vigilance committee, who wished to restore order and were working to establish an honest judiciary and a pure ballot, and their opponents, the law-and-order party, who wished to uphold the dignity of the law by means of a butcher's knife in the hands of a judge of the supreme court. Although the committee were masters in San Francisco, their position was made more precarious by the very fact of their having disarmed their opponents. The attention of the whole Union was attracted to the state of things in California, and it was rumored that instructions had been sent from Washington to all the United States vessels in the Pacific to proceed at once to San Francisco; and that orders were on the way, placing the United States military force in California at the disposal of Governor Johnson. The committee went on steadily with their work. … All the important changes which they had undertaken had been carried out successfully, and they would gladly have given up the responsibility they had assumed had it not been for the case of Judge Terry. … At last the physicians announced that Hopkins was out of danger, and on the 7th of August Judge Terry was released. … Having got rid of Judge Terry the committee prepared to bring their labours to a close, and on the 18th of August the whole association, numbering over 5,000 men, after marching through the principal streets of San Francisco, returned to their headquarters in Sacramento Street, where after delivering up their arms they were relieved from duty. … In the following November there was an election of city and county officers. Every thing went off very quietly. A 'people's ticket', bearing the names of thoroughly trustworthy citizens, irrespective of party, was elected by a large majority, and for the last 20 years San Francisco has had the reputation of being one of the best governed cities in the United States."

T. G. Cary, The San Francisco Vigilance Committee (Atlantic Monthly, December 1877).

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 18 (California, volume 6), chapter 25.

General W. T. Sherman, Memoirs, chapter 4 (volume 1).

{352}

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880. Denis Kearney and the Sand Lot Party. The new state constitution.

"Late in 1877 a meeting was called in San Francisco to express sympathy with the men then on strike at Pittsburg in Pennsylvania. … Some strong language used at this meeting, and exaggerated by the newspapers, frightened the business men into forming a sort of committee of public safety. … The chief result of the incident was further irritation of the poorer classes, who perceived that the rich were afraid of them, and therefore disposed to deal harshly with them. Shortly after came an election of municipal officers and members of the State legislature. The contest, as is the custom in America, brought into life a number of clubs and other organizations, purporting to represent various parties or sections of a party, and among others a body calling itself' 'The Working men's Trade and Labor Union,' the Secretary of which was a certain Denis Kearney. When the election was over, Kearney declared that he would keep his union going, and form a working man's party. He was a drayman by trade, Irish by birth, brought up a Roman Catholic, but accustomed to include his religion among the established institutions he reviled. He had borne a good character for industry and steadiness till some friend 'put him into stocks,' and the loss of what he hoped to gain is said to have first turned him to agitation. He had gained some faculty in speaking by practice at a Sunday debating club called the Lyceum of Self Culture. … Kearney's tongue, loud and abusive, soon gathered an audience. On the west side of San Francisco, as you cross the peninsula from the harbor towards the ocean, there is (or then was) a large open space, laid out for building, but not yet built on, covered with sand, and hence called the Sand Lot. Here the mob had been wont to gather for meetings; here Kearney formed his party. At first he had merely vagabonds to listen, but one of the two great newspapers took him up. These two, the Chronicle and the Morning Call, were in keen rivalry, and the former seeing in this new movement a chance of going ahead, filling its columns with sensational matter and increasing its sale among working men, went in hot and strong for the Sand Lot party. … The advertisement which the Chronicle gave him by its reports and articles, and which he repaid by advising working men to take it, soon made him a personage; and his position was finally assured by his being, along with several other speakers, arrested and prosecuted on a charge of riot, in respect of inflammatory speeches delivered at a meeting on 'the top of Nob Hill, one of the steep heights which make San Francisco the most picturesque of American cities. The prosecution failed, and Kearney was a popular hero. Clerks and the better class of citizens now began to attend his meetings, though many went from mere curiosity, as they would have gone to a circus; the W. P. C. (Working man's Party of California) was organized as a regular party, embracing the whole State of California, with Kearney for its President. … The Sand Lot party drew its support chiefly from the Democrats, who here, as in the East, have the larger share of the rabble: hence its rise was not unwelcome to the Republicans, because it promised to divide and weaken their old opponents; while the Democrats, hoping ultimately to capture it, gave a feeble resistance. Thus it grew the faster, and soon began to run a ticket of its own at city and State elections. It carried most of the city offices, and when the question was submitted to the people whether a new Constitution should be framed for California, it threw its vote in favor of having one and prevailed. … Next came, in the summer of 1878, the choice of delegates to the convention which was to frame the new Constitution. The Working man's Party obtained a substantial representation in the convention, but its nominees were ignorant men, without experience or constructive ideas. … However; the working men's delegates, together with the more numerous and less corruptible delegates of the farmers, got their way in many things and produced that surprising instrument by which California is now governed. …

1. It restricts and limits in every possible way the powers of the State legislature, leaving it little authority except to carry out by statutes the provisions of the Constitution. It makes 'lobbying,' i. e., the attempt to corrupt a legislator, and the corrupt action of a legislator, felony.

2. It forbids the State legislature or local authorities to incur debts beyond a certain limit, taxes uncultivated land equally with cultivated, makes sums due on mortgage taxable in the district where the mortgaged property lies, authorizes an income tax, and directs a highly inquisitorial scrutiny of everybody's property for the purposes of taxation.

3. It forbids the 'watering of stock,' declares that the State has power to prevent corporations from conducting their business so as to 'infringe the general well-being of the State'; directs the charges of telegraph and gas companies, and of water-supplying bodies, to be regulated and limited by law; institutes a railroad commission with power to fix the transportation rates on all railroads and examine the books and accounts of all transportation companies.

4. It forbids all corporations to employ any Chinese, debars them from the suffrage, forbids their employment on any public works, annuls all contracts for 'coolie labour,' directs the legislature to provide for the punishment of any company which shall import Chinese, to impose conditions on the residence of Chinese, and to cause their removal if they fail to observe these conditions. It also declares that eight hours shall constitute a legal day's work on all public works. When the Constitution came to be submitted to the vote of the people, in May 1879, it was vehemently opposed by the monied men. … {353} The struggle was severe, but the Granger party commanded so many rural votes, and the Sand Lot party so many in San Francisco (whose population is nearly a third of that of the entire State) that the Constitution was carried, though by a small majority, only 11,000 out of a total of 145,000 citizens voting. … The next thing was to choose a legislature to carry out the Constitution. Had the same influences prevailed in this election as prevailed in that of the Constitutional Convention, the results might have been serious. But fortunately there was a slight reaction. … A series of statutes was passed which gave effect to the provisions of the Constitution in a form perhaps as little harmful as could be contrived, and certainly less harmful than had been feared when the Constitution was put to the vote. Many bad bills, particularly those aimed at the Chinese, were defeated, and one may say generally that the expectations of the Sand Lot men were grievously disappointed. While all this was passing, Kearney had more and more declined in fame and power. He did not sit either in the Constitutional Convention or in the legislature of 1880. The mob had tired of his harangues, especially as little seemed to come of them, and as the candidates of the W. P. C. had behaved no better in office than those of the old parties. He had quarreled with the Chronicle. He was, moreover, quite unfitted by knowledge or training to argue the legal, economical, and political questions involved in the new Constitution so that the prominence of these questions threw him into the background. … Since 1880 he has played no part in Californian politics, and is indeed so insignificant that no one cares to know where he goes or what he does."