exceptionably) denotes 'men of all sorts,' is from Agathias,
   who quotes Asinius Quadratus. ... Notwithstanding this, I
   think it is an open question, whether the name may not have
   been applied by the truer and more unequivocal Germans of
   Suabia and Franconia, to certain less definitely Germanic
   allies from Wurtemberg and Baden,--parts of the Decumates
   Agri--parts which may have supplied a Gallic, a Gallo-Roman,
   or even a Slavonic element to the confederacy; in which case,
   a name so German as to have given the present French and
   Italian name for Germany, may, originally, have applied to a
   population other than Germanic. I know the apparently
   paradoxical elements in this view; but I also know that, in
   the way of etymology, it is quite as safe to translate 'all'
   by 'alii' as by 'omnes': and I cannot help thinking that the
   'al-' in Ale-manni is the 'al-' in 'alir-arto' (a foreigner
   or man of another sort), 'eli-benzo' (an alien), and
   'ali-land' (captivity in foreign land).--Grimm, ii.
   628.--Rechsalterth, page 359. And still more satisfied am I that
   the 'al-' in Al-emanni is the 'al-' in
   Alsatia='el-sass'='ali-satz'='foreign settlement.' In other
   words, the prefix in question is more probably the 'al-' in
   'el-se', than the 'al-' in 'all.' Little, however, of
   importance turns on this. The locality of the Alemanni was the
   parts about the Limes Romanus, a boundary which, in the time
   of Alexander Severus, Niebuhr thinks they first broke through.
   Hence they were the Marchmen of the frontier, whoever those
   Marchmen were. Other such Marchmen were the Suevi; unless,
   indeed, we consider the two names as synonymous. Zeuss admits
   that, between the Suevi of Suabia, and the Alemanni, no
   tangible difference can be found."

      _R. G. Lathan, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
      section 11._

      ALSO IN _T. Smith, Arminius, part 2, chapter 1._

      See also, SUEVI, and BAVARIANS.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.
   Invasion of Gaul and Italy.

   The Alemanni, "hovering on the frontiers of the Empire ...
   increased the general disorder that ensued after the death of
   Decius. They inflicted severe wounds on the rich provinces of
   Gaul; they were the first who removed the veil that covered
   the feeble majesty of Italy. A numerous body of the Alemanni
   penetrated across the Danube and through the Rhætian Alps into
   the plains of Lombardy, advanced as far as Ravenna and
   displayed the victorious banners of barbarians almost in sight
   of Rome [A. D. 259]. The insult and the danger
   rekindled in the senate some sparks of their ancient virtue.
   Both the Emperors were engaged in far distant wars--Valerian
   in the East and Galienus on the Rhine." The senators, however,
   succeeded in confronting the audacious invaders with a force
   which checked their advance, and they "retired into Germany
   laden with spoil."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 10.
	  https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

{36}

ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.
   Invasion of Italy.

   Italy was invaded by the Alemanni, for the second time, in the
   reign of Anrelian, A. D. 270. They ravaged the provinces from
   the Danube to the Po, and were retreating, laden with spoils,
   when the vigorous Emperor intercepted them, on the banks of
   the former river. Half the host was permitted to cross the
   Danube; the other half was surprised and surrounded. But these
   last, unable to regain their own country, broke through the
   Roman lines at their rear and sped into Italy again, spreading
   havoc as they went. It was only after three great
   battles,--one near Placentia, in which the Romans were almost
   beaten, another on the Metaurus (where Hasdrubal was
   defeated), and a third near Pavia,--that the Germanic
   invaders were destroyed.

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 11.
	  https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEMANNI: A. D. 355-361.
   Repulse by Julian.

      See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.
   Invasion of Gaul.

   The Alemanni invaded Gaul in 365, committing widespread
   ravages and carrying away into the forests of Germany great
   spoil and many captives. The next winter they crossed the
   Rhine, again, in still greater numbers, defeated the Roman
   forces and captured the standards of the Herulian and Batavian
   auxiliaries. But Valentinian was now Emperor, and he adopted
   energetic measures. His lieutenant Jovinus overcame the
   invaders in a great battle fought near Chalons and drove them
   back to their own side of the river boundary. Two years later,
   the Emperor, himself, passed the Rhine and inflicted a
   memorable chastisement on the Alemanni. At the same time he
   strengthened the frontier defences, and, by diplomatic arts,
   fomented quarrels between the Alemanni and their neighbors,
   the Burgundians, which weakened both.

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 25.
	  https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.
   Defeat by Gratian.

   On learning that the young Emperor Gratian was preparing to
   lead the military force of Gaul and the West to the help of
   his uncle and colleague, Valens, against the Goths, the
   Alemanni swarmed across the Rhine into Gaul. Gratian instantly
   recalled the legions that were marching to Pannonia and
   encountered the German invaders in a great battle fought near
   Argentaria (modern Colmar) in the month of May, A. D. 378. The
   Alemanni were routed with such slaughter that no more than
   5,000 out of 40,000 to 70,000, are said to have escaped.
   Gratian afterwards crossed the Rhine and humbled his
   troublesome neighbors in their own country.

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 26.
	  https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
   Overthrow by the Franks.

   "In the year 496 A. D. the Salians [Salian Franks] began that
   career of conquest which they followed up with scarcely any
   intermission until the death of their warrior king. The
   Alemanni, extending themselves from their original seats on
   the right bank of the Rhine, between the Main and the Danube,
   had pushed forward into Germanica Prima, where they came into
   collision with the Frankish subjects of King Sigebert of
   Cologne. Clovis flew to the assistance of his kinsman and
   defeated the Alemanni in a great battle in the neighbourhood
   of Zülpich [called, commonly, the battle of Tolbiac]. He then
   established a considerable number of his Franks in the
   territory of the Alemanni, the traces of whose residence are
   found in the names of Franconia and Frankfort."

      _V. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 2._

   "Clovis had been intending to cross the Rhine, but the hosts
   of the Alamanni came upon him, as it seems, unexpectedly and
   forced a battle on the left bank of the river. He seemed to be
   overmatched, and the horror of an impending defeat
   overshadowed the Frankish king. Then, in his despair, he
   bethought himself of the God of Clotilda [his queen, a
   Burgundian Christian princess, of the orthodox or Catholic
   faith]. Raising his eyes to heaven, he said: 'Oh Jesus Christ,
   whom Clotilda declares to be the Son of the living God, who
   art said to give help to those who are in trouble and who
   trust in Thee, I humbly beseech Thy succour! I have called on
   my gods and they are far from my help. If Thou wilt deliver me
   from mine enemies, I will believe in Thee, and be baptised in
   Thy name.' At this moment, a sudden change was seen in the
   fortunes of the Franks. The Alamanni began to waver, they
   turned, they fled. Their king, according to one account was
   slain; and the nation seems to have accepted Clovis as its
   over-lord." The following Christmas day Clovis was baptised at
   Reims and 3,000 of his warriors followed the royal example.
   "In the early years of the new century, probably about 503 or
   504, Clovis was again at war with his old enemies, the
   Alamanni. ... Clovis moved his army into their territories and
   won a victory much more decisive, though less famous than that
   of 496. This time the angry king would make no such easy terms
   as he had done before. From their pleasant dwellings by the
   Main and the Neckar, from all the valley of the Middle Rhine,
   the terrified Alamanni were forced to flee. Their place was
   taken by Frankish settlers, from whom all this district
   received in the Middle Ages the name of the Duchy of Francia,
   or, at a rather later date, that of the Circle of Franconia.
   The Alamanni, with their wives and children, a broken and
   dispirited host, moved southward to the shores of the Lake of
   Constance and entered the old Roman province of Rhætia. Here
   they were on what was held to be, in a sense, Italian ground;
   and the arm of Theodoric, as ruler of Italy, as successor to
   the Emperors of the West, was stretched forth to protect them.
   ... Eastern Switzerland, Western Tyrol, Southern Baden and
   Würtemberg and Southwestern Bavaria probably formed this new
   Alamannis, which will figure in later history as the 'Ducatus
   Alamanniæ,' or the Circle of Swabia."

      _T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN
      _P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 11._

      See, also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500;
      and FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 528-729.
   Struggles against the Frank Dominion.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 547.
   Final subjection to the Franks.

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.

{37}

ALEPPO: A. D. 638-969.
   Taken by the Arab followers of Mahomet in 638, this city was
   recovered by the Byzantines in 969.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.

ALEPPO: A. D. 1260.
   Destruction by the Mongols.

   The Mongols, under Khulagu, or Houlagou, brother of Mangu
   Khan, having overrun Mesopotamia and extinguished the
   Caliphate at Bagdad, crossed the Euphrates in the spring of
   1260 and advanced to Aleppo. The city was taken after a siege
   of seven days and given up for five days to pillage and
   slaughter. "When the carnage ceased, the streets were cumbered
   with corpses. ... It is said that 100,000 women and children
   were sold as slaves. The walls of Aleppo were razed, its
   mosques destroyed, and its gardens ravaged." Damascus
   submitted and was spared. Khulagu was meditating, it is said,
   the conquest of Jerusalem, when news of the death of the Great
   Khan called him to the East.

      _H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, pages 209-211._

ALEPPO: A. D. 1401.
   Sack and Massacre by Timour.

      See TIMOUR.

ALESIA, Siege of, by Cæsar.

      See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ALESSANDRIA: The creation of the city (1168).

   See ITALY: A. D. 1174--1183.

ALEUTS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMO.

ALEXANDER
  ALEXANDER the Great, B. C. 334-323.
  Conquests and Empire.

     See MACEDONIA, &c., B. C. 334-330, and after.

  Alexander, King of Poland, A. D. 1501-1507.

  Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.--Abduction and Abdication.

     See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886..

  Alexander I., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1801-1825..

  Alexander I., King of Scotland, A. D. 1107-1124.

  Alexander II., Pope, A. D. 1061-1073.

  Alexander II., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1855-1881.

  Alexander II., King of Scotland, A. D. 1214--1249..

  Alexander III., Pope, A. D. 1159-1181.

  Alexander III., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1881-.

  Alexander III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1249-1286.

  Alexander IV., Pope, A. D. 1254--1261.

  Alexander V., Pope, A. D. 1409-1410
  (elected by the Council of Pisa).

  Alexander VI., Pope, A. D. 1492-1503.

  Alexander VII., Pope, A. D. 1655-1667.

  Alexander VIII., Pope, A. D. 1689-1691.

  Alexander Severus, Roman Emperor, A. D. 222-235.

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332.
   The Founding of the City.

   "When Alexander reached the Egyptian military station at the
   little town or village of Rhakotis, he saw with the quick eye
   of a great commander how to turn this petty settlement into a
   great city, and to make its roadstead, out of which ships
   could be blown by a change of wind, into a double harbour
   roomy enough to shelter the navies of the world. All that was
   needed was to join the island by a mole to the continent. The
   site was admirably secure and convenient, a narrow strip of
   land between the Mediterranean and the great inland Lake
   Mareotis. The whole northern side faced the two harbours,
   which were bounded east and west by the mole, and beyond by
   the long, narrow rocky island of Pharos, stretching parallel
   with the coast. On the south was the inland port of Lake
   Mareotis. The length of the city was more than three miles,
   the breadth more than three-quarters of a mile; the mole was
   above three-quarters of a mile long and six hundred feet
   broad; its breadth is now doubled, owing to the silting up of
   the sand. Modern Alexandria until lately only occupied the
   mole, and was a great town in a corner of the space which
   Alexander, with large provision for the future, measured out.
   The form of the new city was ruled by that of the site, but
   the fancy of Alexander designed it in the shape of a
   Macedonian cloak or chlamys, such as a national hero wears on
   the coins of the kings of Macedon, his ancestors. The
   situation is excellent for commerce. Alexandria, with the best
   Egyptian harbour on the Mediterranean, and the inland port
   connected with the Nile streams and canals, was the natural
   emporium of the Indian trade. Port Said is superior now,
   because of its grand artificial port and the advantage for
   steamships of an unbroken sea route."

      _R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 12._--

      See, also, MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330;
      and EGYPT: B. C. 332.

ALEXANDRIA: Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 282-246.
   Greatness and splendor of the City.
   Its Commerce.
   Its Libraries.
   Its Museum.
   Its Schools.

   Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Soter, succeeded to the
   throne of Egypt in 282 B. C. when his father retired from it
   in his favor, and reigned until 246 B. C. "Alexandria, founded
   by the great conqueror, increased and beautified by Ptolemy
   Soter, was now far the greatest city of Alexander's Empire. It
   was the first of those new foundations which are a marked
   feature in Hellenism; there were many others of great size and
   importance--above all, Antioch, then Seleucia on the Tigris,
   then Nicomedia, Nicæa, Apamea, which lasted; besides such as
   Lysimacheia, Antigoneia, and others, which early disappeared.
   ... Alexandria was the model for all the rest. The
   intersection of two great principal thoroughfares, adorned
   with colonnades for the footways, formed the centre point, the
   omphalos of the city. The other streets were at right angles
   with these thoroughfares, so that the whole place was quite
   regular. Counting its old part, Rhakotis, which was still the
   habitation of native Egyptians, Alexandria had five quarters,
   one at least devoted to Jews who had originally settled there
   in great numbers. The mixed population there of Macedonians,
   Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians gave a peculiarly complex and
   variable character to the population. Let us not forget the
   vast number of strangers from all parts of the world whom
   trade and politics brought there. It was the great mart where
   the wealth of Europe and of Asia changed hands. Alexander had
   opened the sea-way by exploring the coasts of Media and
   Persia. Caravans from the head of the Persian Gulf, and ships
   on the Red Sea, brought all the wonders of Ceylon and China,
   as well as of Further India, to Alexandria. There, too, the
   wealth of Spain and Gaul, the produce of Italy and Macedonia,
   the amber of the Baltic and the salt fish of Pontus, the
   silver of Spain and the copper of Cyprus, the timber of
   Macedonia and Crete, the pottery and oil of Greece--a thousand
   imports from all the Mediterranean--came to be exchanged for
   the spices of Arabia, the splendid birds and embroideries of
   India and Ceylon, the gold and ivory of Africa, the antelopes,
   the apes, the leopards, the elephants of tropical climes.
   Hence the enormous wealth of the Lagidæ, for in addition to
   the marvellous fertility and great population--it is said to
   have been seven millions--of Egypt, they made all the profits
   of this enormous carrying trade.
{38}
   We gain a good idea of what the splendours of the capital were
   by the very full account preserved to us by Athenæus of the
   great feast which inaugurated the reign of Philadelphus. ...
   All this seems idle pomp, and the doing of an idle sybarite.
   Philadelphus was anything but that. ... It was he who opened
   up the Egyptian trade with Italy, and made Puteoli the great
   port for ships from Alexandria, which it remained for
   centuries. It was he who explored Ethiopia and the southern
   parts of Africa, and brought back not only the curious fauna
   to his zoological gardens, but the first knowledge of the
   Troglodytes for men of science. The cultivation of science and
   of letters too was so remarkably one of his pursuits that the
   progress of the Alexandria of his day forms an epoch in the
   world's history, and we must separate his University and its
   professors from this summary, and devote to them a separate
   section. ... The history of the organization of the University
   and its staff is covered with almost impenetrable mist. For
   the Museum and Library were in the strictest sense what we
   should now call an University, and one, too, of the Oxford
   type, where learned men were invited to take Fellowships, and
   spend their learned leisure close to observatories in science,
   and a great library of books. Like the mediæval universities,
   this endowment of research naturally turned into an engine for
   teaching, as all who desired knowledge flocked to such a
   centre, and persuaded the Fellow to become a Tutor. The model
   came from Athens. There the schools, beginning with the
   Academy of Plato, had a fixed property--a home with its
   surrounding garden, and in order to make this foundation sure,
   it was made a shrine where the Muses were worshipped, and
   where the head of the school, or a priest appointed, performed
   stated sacrifices. This, then, being held in trust by the
   successors of the donor, who bequeathed it; to them, was a
   property which it would have been sacrilegious to invade, and
   so the title Museum arose for a school of learning. Demetrius
   the Phalerean, the friend and protector of Theophrastus,
   brought this idea with him to Alexandria, when his namesake
   drove him into exile [see GREECE: B. C. 307-197] and it was no
   doubt his advice to the first Ptolemy which originated the
   great foundation, though Philadelphus, who again exiled
   Demetrius, gets the credit of it. The pupil of Aristotle
   moreover impressed on the king the necessity of storing up in
   one central repository all that the world knew or could
   produce, in order to ascertain the laws of things from a
   proper analysis of detail. Hence was founded not only the
   great library, which in those days had a thousand times the
   value a great library has now, but also observatories,
   zoological gardens, collections of exotic plants, and of other
   new and strange things brought by exploring expeditions from
   the furthest regions of Arabia and Africa. This library and
   museum proved indeed a home for the Muses, and about it a most
   brilliant group of students in literature and science was
   formed. The successive librarians were Zenodotus, the
   grammarian or critic; Callimachus, to whose poems we shall
   presently return; Eratosthenes, the astronomer, who originated
   the process by which the size of the earth is determined
   to-day; Appollonius the Rhodian, disciple and enemy of
   Callimachus; Aristophanes of Byzantium, founder of a school of
   philological criticism; and Aristarchus of Samos, reputed to
   have been the greatest critic of ancient times. The study of
   the text of Homer was the chief labour of Zenodotus,
   Aristophanes, and Aristarchus, and it was Aristarchus who
   mainly fixed the form in which the Iliad and Odyssey remain to
   this day. ... The vast collections of the library and museum
   actually determined the whole character of the literature of
   Alexandria. One word sums it all up--erudition, whether in
   philosophy, in criticism, in science, even in poetry. Strange
   to say, they neglected not only oratory, for which there was
   no scope, but history, and this we may attribute to the fact
   that history before Alexander had no charms for Hellenism.
   Mythical lore, on the other hand, strange uses and curious
   words, were departments of research dear to them. In science
   they did great things, so did they in geography. ... But were
   they original in nothing? Did they add nothing of their own to
   the splendid record of Greek literature? In the next
   generation came the art of criticism, which Aristarchus
   developed into a real science, and of that we may speak in its
   place; but even in this generation we may claim for them the
   credit of three original, or nearly original, developments in
   literature--the pastoral idyll, as we have it in Theocritus;
   the elegy, as we have it in the Roman imitators of Philetas
   and Callimachus; and the romance, or love story, the parent of
   our modern novels. All these had early prototypes in the folk
   songs of Sicily, in the love songs of Mimnermus and of
   Antimachus, in the tales of Miletus, but still the revival was
   fairly to be called original. Of these the pastoral idyll was
   far the most remarkable, and laid hold upon the world for
   ever."

      _J. P. Mahaffy, The Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 13-14._

   "There were two Libraries of Alexandria under the Ptolemies,
   the larger one in the quarter called the Bruchium, and the
   smaller one, named 'the daughter,' in the Serapeum, which was
   situated in the quarter called Rhacotis. The former was
   totally destroyed in the conflagration of the Bruchium during
   Cæsar's Alexandrian War [see below: B. C. 48-47]; but the
   latter, which was of great value, remained uninjured (see
   Matter, _Histoire de l'École d'Alexandrie, volume 1, page 133
   seg., 237 seq.)_ It is not stated by any ancient writer
   where the collection of Pergamus [see PERGAMUM] was placed,
   which Antony gave to Cleopatra (Plutarch, Anton., c. 58); but
   it is most probable that it was deposited in the Bruchium, as
   that quarter of the city was now without a library, and the
   queen was anxious to repair the ravages occasioned by the
   civil war. If this supposition is correct, two Alexandrian
   libraries continued to exist after the time of Cæsar, and this
   is rendered still more probable by the fact that during the
   first three centuries of the Christian era the Bruchium was
   still the literary quarter of Alexandria. But a great change
   took place in the time of Aurelian. This Emperor, in
   suppressing the revolt of Firmus in Egypt, A. D. 273 [see
   below: A. D. 273] is said to have destroyed the Bruchium; and
   though this statement is hardly to be taken literally, the
   Bruchium ceased from this time to be included within the walls
   of Alexandria, and was regarded only as a suburb of the city.
 {39}
   Whether the great library in the Bruchium with the museum and
   its other literary establishments, perished at this time, we
   do not know; but the Serapeum for the next century takes its
   place as the literary quarter of Alexandria, and becomes the
   chief library in the city. Hence later writers erroneously
   speak of the Serapeum as if it had been from the beginning the
   great Alexandrian library. ... Gibbon seems to think that the
   whole of the Serapeum was destroyed [A. D. 389, by order of
   the Emperor Theodosius--see below]; but this was not the case.
   It would appear that it was only the sanctuary of the god that
   was levelled with the ground, and that the library, the halls
   and other buildings in the consecrated ground remained
   standing long afterwards."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 28. Notes by Dr. William Smith.
	  https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   Concerning the reputed final destruction of the Library by the
   Moslems,

      See below: A. D. 641-646.

      ALSO IN
      _O. Delepierre, Historical Difficulties, chapter 3._

      _S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapters 7, 8 and 12._

      See, also, NEOPLATONICS.

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
   Cæsar and Cleopatra.
   The Rising against the Romans.
   The Siege.
   Destruction of the great Library.
   Roman victory.

   From the battle field of Pharsalia (see ROME: B. C. 48)
   Pompeius fled to Alexandria in Egypt; and was treacherously
   murdered as he stepped on shore. Cæsar arrived a few days
   afterwards, in close pursuit, and shed tears, it is said, on
   being shown his rival's mangled head. He had brought scarcely
   more than 3,000 of his soldiers with him, and he found Egypt
   in a turbulent state of civil war. The throne was in dispute
   between children of the late king, Ptolemæus Auletes.
   Cleopatra, the elder daughter, and Ptolemæus, a son, were at
   war with one another, and Arsinoë, a younger daughter, was
   ready to put forward claims (see EGYPT: B. C. 80-48).
   Notwithstanding the insignificance of his force, Cæsar did not
   hesitate to assume to occupy Alexandria and to adjudicate the
   dispute. But the fascinations of Cleopatra (then twenty years
   of age) soon made him her partisan, and her scarcely disguised
   lover. This aggravated the irritation which was caused in
   Alexandria by the presence of Cæsar's troops, and a furious
   rising of the city was provoked. He fortified himself in the
   great palace, which he had taken possession of, and which
   commanded the causeway to the island, Pharos, thereby
   commanding the port. Destroying a large part of the city in
   that neighborhood, he made his position exceedingly strong. At
   the same time he seized and burned the royal fleet, and thus
   caused a conflagration in which the greater of the two
   priceless libraries of Alexandria--the library of the
   Museum--was, much of it, consumed. [See above: B. C. 282-246.]
   By such measures Cæsar withstood, for several months, a siege
   conducted on the part of the Alexandrians with great
   determination and animosity. It was not until March, B. C. 47,
   that he was relieved from his dangerous situation, by the
   arrival of a faithful ally, in the person of Mithridates, king
   of Pergamus, who led an army into Egypt, reduced Pelusium, and
   crossed the Nile at the head of the Delta. Ptolemæus advanced
   with his troops to meet this new invader and was followed and
   overtaken by Cæsar. In the battle which then occurred the
   Egyptian army was utterly routed and Ptolemæus perished in the
   Nile. Cleopatra was then married, after the Egyptian fashion,
   to a younger brother, and established on the throne, while
   Arsinoë was sent a prisoner to Rome.

      _A. Hirtius, The Alexandrian War._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 20._

      _C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 18._

      _S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 12._

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 116.
   Destruction of the Jews.

      See JEWS: A. D. 116.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 215.
   Massacre by Caracalla.

   "Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left the
   capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the
   murder of Geta [A. D. 213]. The rest of his reign [four years]
   was spent in the several provinces of the Empire, particularly
   those of the East, and every province was, by turns, the scene
   of his rapine and cruelty. ... In the midst of peace, and upon
   the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at
   Alexandria, Egypt [A. D. 215], for a general massacre. From a
   secure post in the temple of Serapis, he viewed and directed
   the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers,
   without distinguishing either the number or the crime of the
   sufferers."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 6.
	  https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 260-272.
   Tumults of the Third Century.

   "The people of Alexandria, a various mixture of nations,
   united the vanity and inconstancy of the Greeks with the
   superstition and obstinacy of the Egyptians. The most trifling
   occasion, a transient scarcity of flesh or lentils, the
   neglect of an accustomed salutation, a mistake of precedency
   in the public baths, or even a religious dispute, were at any
   time sufficient to kindle a sedition among that vast
   multitude, whose resentments were furious and implacable.
   After the captivity of Valerian [the Roman Emperor, made
   prisoner by Sapor, king of Persia, A. D. 260] and the
   insolence of his son had relaxed the authority of the laws,
   the Alexandrians abandoned themselves to the ungoverned rage
   of their passions, and their unhappy country was the theatre
   of a civil war, which continued (with a few short and
   suspicious truces) above twelve years. All intercourse was cut
   off between the several quarters of the afflicted city, every
   street was polluted with blood, every building of strength
   converted into a citadel; nor did the tumult subside till a
   considerable part of Alexandria was irretrievably ruined. The
   spacious and magnificent district of Bruchion, with its
   palaces and museum, the residence of the kings and
   philosophers of Egypt, is described, above a century
   afterwards, as already reduced to its present state of dreary
   solitude."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 10.
	  https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 273.
   Destruction of the Bruchium by Aurelian.

   After subduing Palmyra and its Queen Zenobia, A. D. 272, the
   Emperor Aurelian was called into Egypt to put down a rebellion
   there, headed by one Firmus, a friend and ally of the
   Palmyrene queen. Firmus had great wealth, derived from trade,
   and from the paper-manufacture of Egypt, which was mostly in
   his hands. He was defeated and put to death. "To Aurelian's
   war against Firmus, or to that of Probus a little before in
   Egypt, may be referred the destruction of Bruchium, a great
   quarter of Alexandria, which according to Ammianus
   Marcellinus, was ruined under Aurelian and remained deserted
   everafter."

      _J. B. L. Crevier, History of the Roman Emperors,
      book 27._

{40}

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
   Siege by Diocletian.

   A general revolt of the African provinces of the Roman Empire
   occurred A. D. 296. The barbarous tribes of Ethiopia and the
   desert were brought into alliance with the provincials of
   Egypt, Cyrenaica, Carthage and Mauritania, and the flame of
   war was universal. Both the emperors of the time, Diocletian
   and Maximian, were called to the African field. "Diocletian,
   on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of
   Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters of
   the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, and,
   rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the besieged
   multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with caution and
   vigor. After a siege of eight months, Alexandria, wasted by
   the sword and by fire, implored the clemency of the conqueror,
   but it experienced the full extent of his severity. Many
   thousands of the citizens perished in a promiscuous slaughter,
   and there were few obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a
   sentence either of death or at least of exile. The fate of
   Busiris and of Coptos was still more melancholy than that of
   Alexandria; those proud cities ... were utterly destroyed."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 13.
	  https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 365.
   Great Earthquake.

      See EARTHQUAKE IN THE ROMAN WORLD: A. D.365.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 389.
   Destruction of the Serapeum.

   "After the edicts of Theodosius had severely prohibited the
   sacrifices of the pagans, they were still tolerated in the
   city and temple of Serapis. ... The archepiscopal throne of
   Alexandria was filled by Theophilus, the perpetual enemy of
   peace and virtue; a bold, bad man, whose hands were
   alternately polluted with gold and with blood. His pious
   indignation was excited by the honours of Serapis. ... The
   votaries of Serapis, whose strength and numbers were much
   inferior to those of their antagonists, rose in arms [A. D.
   389] at the instigation of the philosopher Olympius, who
   exhorted them to die in the defence of the altars of the gods.
   These pagan fanatics fortified themselves in the temple, or
   rather fortress, of Serapis; repelled the besiegers by daring
   sallies and a resolute defence; and, by the inhuman cruelties
   which they exercised on their Christian prisoners, obtained
   the last consolation of despair. The efforts of the prudent
   magistrate were usefully exerted for the establishment of a
   truce till the answer of Theodosius should determine the fate
   of Serapis." The judgment of the emperor condemned the great
   temple to destruction and it was reduced to a heap of ruins.
   "The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed;
   and, near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty
   shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator
   whose mind was not totally darkened by religious
   prejudice."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 28.
	  https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   Gibbon's statement as to the destruction of the great library
   in the Serapeum is called in question by his learned
   annotator, Dr. Smith.

      See above: B. C. 282-246.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.
   The Patriarch Cyril and his Mobs.

   "His voice [that of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, A. D.
   412-444] inflamed or appeased the passions of the multitude:
   his commands were blindly obeyed by his numerous and fanatic
   parabolani, familiarized in their daily office with scenes of
   death; and the præfects of Egypt were awed or provoked by the
   temporal power of these Christian pontiffs. Ardent in the
   prosecution of heresy, Cyril auspiciously opened his reign by
   oppressing the Novatians, the most innocent and harmless of
   the sectaries. ... The toleration, and even the privileges of
   the Jews, who had multiplied to the number of 40,000, were
   secured by the laws of the Cæsars and Ptolemies, and a long
   prescription of 700 years since the foundation of Alexandria.
   Without any legal sentence, without any royal mandate, the
   patriarch, at the dawn of day, led a seditious multitude to
   the attack of the synagogues. Unarmed and unprepared, the Jews
   were incapable of resistance; their houses of prayer were
   levelled with the ground, and the episcopal warrior, after
   rewarding his troops with the plunder of their goods, expelled
   from the city the remnant of the misbelieving nation. Perhaps
   he might plead the insolence of their prosperity, and their
   deadly hatred of the Christians, whose blood they had recently
   shed in a malicious or accidental tumult. Such crimes would
   have deserved the animadversions of the magistrate; but in
   this promiscuous outrage the innocent were confounded with the
   guilty."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47.
	  https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   "Before long the adherents of the archbishop were guilty of a
   more atrocious and unprovoked crime, of the guilt of which a
   deep suspicion attached to Cyril. All Alexandria respected,
   honoured, took pride in the celebrated Hypatia. She was a
   woman of extraordinary learning; in her was centred the
   lingering knowledge of that Alexandrian Platonism cultivated
   by Plotinus and his school. Her beauty was equal to her
   learning; her modesty commended both. ... Hypatia lived in
   great intimacy with the præfect Orestes; the only charge
   whispered against her was that she encouraged him in his
   hostility to the patriarch. ... Some of Cyril's ferocious
   partisans seized this woman, dragged her from her chariot, and
   with the most revolting indecency tore her clothes off and then
   rent her limb from limb."

      _H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _C. Kingsley, Hypatia._

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 616.
   Taken by Chosroes.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 641-646.
   The Moslem Conquest.

   The precise date of events in the Moslem conquest of Egypt, by
   Amru, lieutenant of the Caliph Omar, is uncertain. Sir William
   Muir fixes the first surrender of Alexandria to Amru in A. D.
   641. After that it was reoccupied by the Byzantines either
   once or twice, on occasions of neglect by the Arabs, as they
   pursued their conquests elsewhere. The probability seems to be
   that this occurred only once, in 646. It seems also probable,
   as remarked by Sir W. Muir, that the two sieges on the taking
   and retaking of the city--641 and 646--have been much confused
   in the scanty accounts which have come down to us. On the
   first occasion Alexandria would appear to have been generously
   treated; while, on the second, it suffered pillage and its
   fortifications were destroyed. How far there is truth in the
   commonly accepted story of the deliberate burning of the great
   Alexandrian Library--or so much of it as had escaped
   destruction at the hands of Roman generals and Christian
   patriarchs--is a question still in dispute. Gibbon discredited
   the story, and Sir William Muir, the latest of students in
   Mahometan history, declines even the mention of it in his
   narrative of the conquest of Egypt. But other historians of
   repute maintain the probable accuracy of the tale told by
   Abulpharagus--that Caliph Omar ordered the destruction of the
   Library, on the ground that, if the books in it agreed with
   the Koran they were useless, if they disagreed with it they
   were pernicious.

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

{41}

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 815-823.
   Occupied by piratical Saracens from Spain.

      See CRETE: A. D. 823.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1798.
   Captured by the French under Bonaparte.

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

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1801-1802.
   Battle of French and English.
   Restoration to the Turks.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1807.
   Surrendered to the English.
   The brief occupation and humiliating capitulation.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1840.
   Bombardment by the English.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1882.
   Bombardment by the English fleet.
   Massacre of Europeans.
   Destruction.

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

----------ALEXANDRIA: End----------

ALEXANDRIA, LA., The Burning of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

ALEXANDRIA, VA., A. D. 1861 (May).
   Occupation by Union troops.
   Murder of Colonel Ellsworth.

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

ALEXANDRIAN TALENT.

      See TALENT.

ALEXIS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1645-1676.

ALEXIUS I. (Comnenus),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1081-1118.

   Alexius II. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), A. D. 1181-1183.

   Alexius III. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), A. D. 1195-1203

   Alexius IV. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), A. D. 1203-1204

   Alexius V. (Ducas), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
   A. D. 1204.

ALFONSO
  ALFONSO I., King of Aragon and Navarre, A. D. 1104-1134

  Alfonso I., King of Castile, A. D. 1072-1109;
    and VI. of Leon, A. D. 1065-1109.

  Alfonso I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo,
  A. D. 739-757.

  Alfonso I., King of Portugal, A. D. 1112-1185.

  Alfonso II., King of Aragon, A D. 1163-1196.

  Alfonso II., King of Castile, A. D. 1126-1157.

  Alfonso II., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 791-842.

  Alfonso II., King of Naples, A. D. 1494-1495.

  Alfonso II., King of Portugal, A. D. 1211-1223.

  Alfonso III., King of Aragon, A. D. 1285-1291.

  Alfonso III., King of Castile, A. D. 1158-1214.

  Alfonso III., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 866-910.

  Alfonso III., King of Portugal, A. D. 1244-1279.

  Alfonso IV., King of Aragon, A. D. 1327-1336.

  Alfonso IV., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 925-930.

  Alfonso IV., King of Portugal, A. D. 1323-1357.

  Alfonso V., King of Aragon and I. of Sicily, A. D. 1416-1458;
  I. of Naples, A. D. 1443-1458.

  Alfonso V., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 9919-1027.

  Alfonso V., King of Portugal, A. D. 1438-1481.

  Alfonso VI., King of Portugal, A. D., 1656-1667.

  Alfonso VII., King of Leon, A. D. 1109-1126.

  Alfonso VIII., King of Leon, A. D. 1126-1157.

  Alfonso IX., King of Leon, A. D. 1188-1230.

  Alfonso X., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1252-1284.

  Alfonso XI., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1312-1350.

  Alfonso XII., King of Spain, A. D. 1874-1885.

ALFORD, Battle of (A. D. 1645).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

ALFRED, called the Great, King of Wessex, A. D. 871-901.

ALGIERS AND ALGERIA.

   "The term Algiers literally signifies 'the island,' and was
   derived from the original construction of its harbour, one
   side of which was separated from the land."

      _M. Russell, History of the Barbary States, page 314._

      For history, see BARBARY STATES.

ALGIHED, The.

   The term by which a war is proclaimed among the Mahometans to
   be a Holy War.

ALGONKINS, OR ALGONQUINS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.

ALGUAZIL.

      See ALCALDE.

ALHAMA, The taking of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

ALHAMBRA, The building of the.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

ALI, Caliph, A. D. 655-661.

ALIA, Battle of the (B. C. 390).

      See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

ALIBAMUS, OR ALIBAMONS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY.

ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

ALIGARH, Battle of (1803).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ALIWAL, Battle of (1846).

      See INDIA: A D. 1845-1849.

ALJUBAROTA, Battle of (1385).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385,
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

ALKMAAR, Siege by the Spaniards and successful defense (1573).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

ALKMAR, Battle of.

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

"ALL THE TALENTS," The Ministry of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806, and 1806-1812.

ALLEGHANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.

ALLEMAGNE.

   The French name for Germany, derived from the confederation of
   the Alemanni.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALLEN, Ethan, and the Green Mountain Boys.

      See VERMONT, A. D. 1749-1774.

   And the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga.

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

ALLERHEIM, Battle of (or Second battle of Nördlingen,--1645.)

      See GERMANY: A.. D. 1640-1645.

ALLERTON Isaac, and the Plymouth Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH): A. D. 1623-1629. and after.

ALLIANCE, The Farmers'.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

{42}

ALLOBROGES, Conquest of the.

   The Allobroges (see ÆDUI; also GAULS) having sheltered the
   chiefs of the Salyes, when the latter succumbed to the Romans,
   and having refused to deliver them up, the proconsul Cn.
   Domitius marched his army toward their country, B. C. 121. The
   Allobroges advanced to meet him and were defeated at
   Vindalium, near the junction of the Sorgues with the Rhone,
   and not far from Avignon, having 20,000 men slain and 3,000
   taken prisoners. The Arverni, who were the allies of the
   Allobroges, then took the field, crossing the Cevennes
   mountains and the river Rhone with a vast host, to attack the
   small Roman army of 30,000 men, which had passed under the
   command of Q. Fabius Maximus Æmilianus. On the 8th of August,
   B. C. 121, the Gaulish horde encountered the legions of Rome,
   at a point near the junction of the Isere and the Rhone, and
   were routed with such enormous slaughter that 150,000 are said
   to have been slain or drowned. This battle settled the fate of
   the Allobroges, who surrendered to Rome without further
   struggle; but the Arverni were not pursued. The final conquest
   of that people was reserved for Cæsar.

      _G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapter 21._

ALMA, Battle of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER).

ALMAGROS AND PIZARROS, The quarrel of the.

      See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

ALMANZA, Battle of (A. D. 1707).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

ALMENARA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

ALMOHADES, The.

   The empire of the Almoravides, in Morocco and Spain, which
   originated in a Moslem missionary movement, was overturned in
   the middle of the twelfth century by a movement of somewhat
   similar nature. The agitating cause of the revolution was a
   religious teacher named Mahomet ben Abdallah, who rose in the
   reign of Ali (successor to the great Almoravide prince,
   Joseph), who gained the odor of sanctity at Morocco and who
   took the title of Al Mehdi, or El Mahdi, the Leader, "giving
   himself out for the person whom many Mahometans expect under
   that title. As before, the sect grew into an army, and the
   army grew into an empire. The new dynasty were called
   Almohades from Al Mehdi, and by his appointment a certain
   Abdelmumen was elected Caliph and Commander of the Faithful.
   Under his vigorous guidance the new kingdom rapidly grew, till
   the Almohades obtained quite the upper hand in Africa, and in
   1146 they too passed into Spain. Under Abdelmumen and his
   successors, Joseph and Jacob Almansor, the Almohades entirely
   supplanted the Almoravides, and became more formidable foes
   than they had been to the rising Christian powers. Jacob
   Almansor won in 1195 the terrible battle of Alarcos against
   Alfonso of Castile, and carried his conquests deep into that
   kingdom. His fame spread through the whole Moslem world. ...
   With Jacob Almansor perished the glory of the Almohade. His
   successor, Mahomet, lost in 1211 [June 16] the great battle of
   Alacab or Tolosa against Alfonso, and that day may be said to
   have decided the fate of Mahometanism in Spain. The Almohade
   dynasty gradually declined. ... The Almohades, like the
   Ommiads and the Almoravides, vanish from history amidst a
   scene of confusion the details of which it were hopeless to
   attempt to remember."

      _E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 5._

      ALSO IN
      _H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 4_

      See, also, SPAIN. A. D. 1146-1232.

ALMONACID, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

ALMORAVIDES, The.

   During the confusions of the 11th century in the Moslem world,
   a missionary from Kairwan--one Abdallah--preaching the faith
   of Islam to a wild tribe in Western North Africa, created a
   religious movement which "naturally led to a political one."
   "The tribe now called themselves Almoravides, or more properly
   Morabethah, which appears to mean followers of the Marabout or
   religious teacher. Abdallah does not appear to have himself
   claimed more than a religious authority, but their princes
   Zachariah and Abu Bekr were completely guided by his counsels.
   After his death Abu Bekr founded in 1070 the city of Morocco.
   There he left as his lieutenant his cousin Joseph, who grew so
   powerful that Abu Bekr, by a wonderful exercise of moderation,
   abdicated in his favour, to avoid a probable civil war. This
   Joseph, when he had become lord of most part of Western
   Africa, was requested, or caused himself to be requested, to
   assume the title of Emir al Momenin, Commander of the
   Faithful. As a loyal subject of the Caliph of Bagdad, he
   shrank from such sacrilegious usurpation, but he did not
   scruple to style himself Emir Al Muslemin, Commander of the
   Moslems. ... The Almoravide Joseph passed over into Spain,
   like another Tarik; he vanquished Alfonso [the Christian
   prince of the rising kingdom of Castile] at Zalacca [Oct. 23,
   A. D. 1086] and then converted the greater portion of
   Mahometan Spain into an appendage to his own kingdom of
   Morocco. The chief portion to escape was the kingdom of
   Zaragossa, the great out-post of the Saracens in northeastern
   Spain. ... The great cities of Andalusia were all brought
   under a degrading submission to the Almoravides. Their dynasty
   however was not of long duration, and it fell in turn [A. D.
   1147] before one whose origin was strikingly similar to their
   own" [the Almohades].

      _E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 5._

      ALSO IN
      _H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 8,
      chapter 2 and 4_.

      See, also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

ALOD.--ALODIAL

   "It may be questioned whether any etymological connexion
   exists between the words odal and alod, but their
   signification applied to land is the same: the alod is the
   hereditary estate derived from primitive occupation; for which
   the owner owes no service except the personal obligation to
   appear in the host and in the council. ... The land held in
   full ownership might be either an ethel, an inherited or
   otherwise acquired portion of original allotment; or an estate
   created by legal process out of public land. Both these are
   included in the more common term alod; but the former looks
   for its evidence in the pedigree of its owner or in the
   witness of the community, while the latter can produce the
   charter or· book by which it is created, and is called
   bocland. As the primitive allotments gradually lost their
   historical character, as the primitive modes of transfer
   became obsolete, and the use of written records took their
   place, the ethel is lost sight of in the bookland. All the
   land that is not so accounted for is folcland, or public
   land."

      _William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, c
      hapter 3, section 24, and chapter 5, section 36._

{43}

   "Alodial lands are commonly opposed to beneficiary or feudal;
   the former being strictly proprietary, while the latter
   depended upon a superior. In this sense the word is of
   continual recurrence in ancient histories, laws and
   instruments. It sometimes, however, bears the sense of
   inheritance. . . . Hence, in the charters of the eleventh
   century, hereditary fiefs are frequently termed alodia."

      _H. Hallam, Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 1, note._

      ALSO IN
      _J. M. Kemble, The Saxon in England, book 1, chapter 11._

      See, also, FOLCLAND.

ALP ARSLAN, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1063-1073.

ALPHONSO.

      See ALFONSO.

ALSACE.--ALSATIA:
   The Name.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALSACE: A. D. 843-870.
   Included in the Kingdom of Lorraine.

        See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

ALSACE: 10th Century.
   Joined to the Empire.

      See LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.

ALSACE: 10th Century.
   Origin of the House of Hapsburg.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246--1282.

ALSACE: A. D. 1525.
   Revolt of the Peasants.

      See   GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

ALSACE: A. D. 1621-1622.
   Invasions by Mansfeld and his predatory army.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

ALSACE: A. D. 1636-1639.
   Invasion and conquest by Duke Bernhard of Weimar.
   Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ALSACE: A. D. 1648.
   Cession to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

ALSACE: A. D. 1659.
   Renunciation of the claims of the King of Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

ALSACE: A. D. 1674-1678.
   Ravaged in the Campaigns of Turenne and Condé.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

ALSACE: A. D. 1679-1681.
   Complete Absorption in France.
   Assumption of entire Sovereignty by Louis XIV.
   Encroachments of the Chamber of Reannexation.
   Seizure of Strasburg.
   Overthrow of its independence as an Imperial City.

     See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

ALSACE: A. D. 1744.
   Invasion by the Austrians.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

ALSACE: A. D. 1871.
   Ceded to the German Empire by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

ALSACE: 1871-1879.
   Organization of government as   a German Impanel Province.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.

----------ALSACE: End----------

ALTA CALIFORNIA.--Upper California.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

ALTENHElM, Battle of (A. D. 1675).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

ALTENHOVEN, Battle of (1793).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

ALTHING, The.

      See THING;

      Also, NORMANS.--NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;

      And SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

ALTIS, The.

      See OLYMPIC FESTIVAL.

ALTMARCK.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.

ALTONA: A. D. 1713.
   Burned by the Swedes.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

ALTOPASCIO, Battle of (1325).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

ALVA IN THE NETHERLANDS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568 to 1573-1574.

AMADEO, King of Spain, A. D. 1871-1873.

AMAHUACA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

AMALASONTHA, Queen of the Ostrogoths.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

AMALEKITES, The.

   "The Amalekites were usually regarded as a branch of the
   Edomites or 'Red-skins'. Amalek, like Kenaz, the father of the
   Kenizzites or 'Hunters,' was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:
   12, 16). He thus belonged to the group of nations,--Edomites,
   Ammonites, and Moabites,--who stood in a relation of close
   kinship to Israel. But they had preceded the Israelites in
   dispossessing the older inhabitants of the land, and
   establishing themselves in their place. The Edomites had
   partly destroyed, partly amalgamated the Horites of Mount Seir
   (Deuteronomy 2: 12); the Moabites had done the same to the Emim,
   'a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim' (Deuteronomy
   2: 10), while the Ammonites had extirpated and succeeded to
   the Rephaim or 'Giants,' who in that part of the country were
   termed Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2: 20; Gen. 14: 5). Edom however
   stood in a closer relation to Israel than its two more
   northerly neighbours. ... Separate from the Edomites or
   Amalekites were the Kenites or wandering 'smiths.' They formed
   an important Guild in an age when the art of metallurgy was
   confined to a few. In the time of Saul we hear of them as
   camping among the Amalekites (1. Samuel 15: 6.) ... The
   Kenites ... did not constitute a race, or even a tribe. They
   were, at most, a caste. But they had originally come, like the
   Israelites or the Edomites, from those barren regions of
   Northern Arabia which were peopled by the Menti of the
   Egyptian inscriptions. Racially, therefore, we may regard them
   as allied to the descendants of Abraham. While the Kenites and
   Amalekites were thus Semitic in their origin, the Hivites or
   'Villagers' are specially associated with Amorites."

      _A. H. Sayce, Races of the Old Testament, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN
      _H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 1, section 4._

      See, also, ARABIA.

AMALFI.

   "It was the singular fate of this city to have filled up the
   interval between two periods of civilization, in neither of
   which she was destined to be distinguished. Scarcely known
   before the end of the sixth century, Amalfi ran a brilliant
   career, as a free and trading republic [see ROME: A. D.
   554-800], which was checked by the arms of a conqueror in the
   middle of the twelfth. ... There must be, I suspect, some
   exaggeration about the commerce and opulence of Amalfi, in the
   only age when she possessed any at all."

      _H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 9, part 1, with note._

{44}

   "Amalfi and Atrani lie close together in two ... ravines, the
   mountains almost arching over them, and the sea washing their
   very house-walls. ... It is not easy to imagine the time when
   Amalfi and Atrani were one town, with docks and arsenals and
   harbourage for their associated fleets, and when these little
   communities were second in importance to no naval power of
   Christian Europe. The Byzantine Empire lost its hold on Italy
   during the eighth century; and after this time the history of
   Calabria is mainly concerned with the republics of Naples and
   Amalfi, their conflict with the Lombard dukes of Benevento,
   their opposition to the Saracens, and their final subjugation
   by the Norman conquerors of Sicily. Between the year 839 A.
   D., when Amalfi freed itself from the control of Naples and
   the yoke of Benevento, and the year 1131, when Roger of
   Hauteville incorporated the republic in his kingdom of the Two
   Sicilies, this city was the foremost naval and commercial port
   of Italy. The burghers of Amalfi elected their own doge;
   founded the Hospital of Jerusalem, whence sprang the knightly
   order of S. John; gave their name to the richest quarter in
   Palermo; and owned trading establishments or factories in all
   the chief cities of the Levant. Their gold coinage of 'tari'
   formed the standard of currency before the Florentines had
   stamped the lily and S. John upon the Tuscan florin. Their
   shipping regulations supplied Europe with a code of maritime
   laws. Their scholars, in the darkest depths of the dark ages,
   prized and conned a famous copy of the Pandects of Justinian,
   and their seamen deserved the fame of having first used, if
   they did not actually invent, the compass. ... The republic
   had grown and flourished on the decay of the Greek Empire.
   When the hard-handed race of Hauteville absorbed the heritage
   of Greeks and Lombards and Saracens in Southern Italy [see
   ITALY (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090], these adventurers
   succeeded in annexing Amalfi. But it was not their interest to
   extinguish the state. On the contrary, they relied for
   assistance upon the navies and the armies of the little
   commonwealth. New powers had meanwhile arisen in the North of
   Italy, who were jealous of rivalry upon the open seas; and
   when the Neapolitans resisted King Roger in 1135, they called
   Pisa to their aid, and sent her fleet to destroy Amalfi. The
   ships of Amalfi were on guard with Roger's navy in the Bay of
   Naples. The armed citizens were, under Roger's orders, at
   Aversa. Meanwhile the home of the republic lay defenceless on
   its mountain-girdled seaboard. The Pisans sailed into the
   harbour, sacked the city and carried off the famous Pandects
   of Justinian as a trophy. Two years later they returned, to
   complete the work of devastation. Amalfi never recovered from
   the injuries and the humiliation of these two attacks. It was
   ever thus that the Italians, like the children of the dragon's
   teeth which Cadmus sowed, consumed each other."

      _J. A. Symonds, Sketches and Studies in Italy,
      pages 2-4._

AMALINGS, OR AMALS.

   The royal race of the ancient Ostragoths, as the Balthi or
   Balthings were of the Visigoths, both claiming a descent from
   the gods.

AMAZIGH, The.

      See LIBYANS.

AMAZONS.

   "The Amazons, daughters of Arês and Harmonia, are both early
   creations, and frequent reproductions, of the ancient epic.
   ... A nation of courageous, hardy and indefatigable women,
   dwelling apart from men, permitting only a short temporary
   intercourse for the purpose of renovating their numbers, and
   burning out their right breast with a view of enabling
   themselves to draw the bow freely,--this was at once a general
   type stimulating to the fancy of the poet, and a theme
   eminently popular with his hearers. Nor was it at all
   repugnant to the faith of the latter--who had no recorded
   facts to guide them, and no other standard of credibility as
   to the past except such poetical narratives themselves--to
   conceive communities of Amazons as having actually existed in
   anterior time. Accordingly we find these warlike females
   constantly reappearing in the ancient poems, and universally
   accepted as past realities. In the Iliad, when Priam wishes to
   illustrate emphatically the most numerous host in which he
   ever found himself included, he tells us that it was assembled
   in Phrygia, on the banks of the Sangarius, for the purpose of
   resisting the formidable Amazons. When Bellerophon is to be
   employed on a deadly and perilous undertaking, by those who
   indirectly wish to procure his death, he is despatched against
   the Amazons. ... The Argonautic heroes find the Amazons on the
   river Thermôdon in their expedition along the southern coast
   of the Euxine. To the same spot Hêrakles goes to attack them,
   in the performance of the ninth labour imposed upon him by
   Eurystheus, for the purpose of procuring the girdle of the
   Amazonian queen, Hippolyte; and we are told that they had not
   yet recovered from the losses sustained in this severe
   aggression when Theseus also assaulted and defeated them,
   carrying off their queen Antiopê. This injury they avenged by
   invading Attica ... and penetrated even into Athens itself:
   where the final battle, hard-fought and at one time doubtful,
   by which Thêseus crushed them, was fought--in the very heart
   of the city. Attic antiquaries confidently pointed out the
   exact position of the two contending armies. ... No portion of
   the ante-historical epic appears to have been more deeply
   worked into the national mind of Greece than this invasion and
   defeat of the Amazons. ... Their proper territory was asserted
   to be the town and plain of Themiskyra, near the Grecian
   colony of Amisus, on the river Thermôdon [northern Asia
   Minor], a region called after their name by Roman historians
   and geographers. ... Some authors placed them in Libya or
   Ethiopia."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 11._

AMAZONS RIVER, Discovery and Naming of the.

   The mouth of the great river of South America was discovered
   in 1500 by Pinzon, or Pinçon (see AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500),
   who called it 'Santa Maria de la Mar Dulce' (Saint Mary of the
   Fresh-Water Sea). "This was the first name given to the river,
   except that older and better one of the Indians, 'Parana,' the
   Sea; afterwards it was Marañon and Rio das Amazonas, from the
   female warriors that were supposed to live near its banks. ...
   After Pinçon's time, there were others who saw the fresh-water
   sea, but no one was hardy enough to venture into it. The honor
   of its real discovery was reserved for Francisco de Orellana;
   and he explored it, not from the east, but from the west, in
   one of the most daring voyages that was ever recorded. It was
   accident rather than design that led him to it. After ...
   Pizarro had conquered Peru, he sent his brother Gonzalo, with
   340 Spanish soldiers, and 4,000 Indians, to explore the great
   forest east of Quito, 'where there were cinnamon trees.' The
   expedition started late in 1539, and it was two years before
   the starved and ragged survivors returned to Quito. In the
   course of their wanderings they had struck the river Coco;
   building here a brigantine, they followed down the current, a
   part of them in the vessel, a part on shore.
{45}
   After a while they met some Indians, who told them of a rich
   country ten days' journey beyond--a country of gold, and with
   plenty of provisions. Gonzalo placed Orellana in command of
   the brigantine, and ordered him, with 50 soldiers, to go on to
   this gold-land, and return with a load of provisions. Orellana
   arrived at the mouth of the Coco in three days, but found no
   provisions; 'and he considered that if he should return with
   this news to Pizarro, he would not reach him in a year, on
   account of the strong current, and that if he remained where
   he was, he would be of no use to the one or to the other. Not
   knowing how long Gonzalo Pizarro would take to reach the
   place, without consulting anyone he set sail and prosecuted
   his voyage onward, intending to ignore Gonzalo, to reach
   Spain, and obtain that government for himself.' Down the Napo
   and the Amazons, for seven months, these Spaniards floated to
   the Atlantic. At times they suffered terribly from hunger:
   'There was nothing to eat but the skins which formed their
   girdles, and the leather of their shoes, boiled with a few
   herbs.' When they did get food they were often obliged to
   fight hard for it; and again they were attacked by thousands
   of naked Indians, who came in canoes against the Spanish
   vessel. At some Indian villages, however, they were kindly
   received and well fed, so they could rest while building a new
   and stronger vessel. ... On the 26th of August, 1541, Orellana
   and his men sailed out to the blue water 'without either
   pilot, compass, or anything useful for navigation; nor did
   they know what direction they should take.' Following the
   coast, they passed inside of the island of Trinidad, and so at
   length reached Cubagua in September. From the king of Spain
   Orellana received a grant of the land he had discovered; but
   he died while returning to it, and his company was dispersed.
   It was not a very reliable account of the river that was given
   by Orellana and his chronicler, Padre Carbajal. So Herrera
   tells their story of the warrior females, and very properly
   adds: 'Every reader may believe as much as he likes.'"

      _H. H. Smith, Brazil, the Amazons, and the Coast, chapter 1._

   In chapter 18 of this same work "The Amazon Myth" is discussed at
   length, with the reports and opinions of numerous travellers,
   both early and recent, concerning it.--Mr. Southey had so much
   respect for the memory of Orellana that he made an effort to
   restore that bold but unprincipled discoverer's name to the
   great river. "He discarded Maranon, as having too much
   resemblance to Maranham, and Amazon, as being founded upon
   fiction and at the same time inconvenient. Accordingly, in his
   map, and in all his references to the great river he
   denominates it Orellana. This decision of the poet-laureate of
   Great Britain has not proved authoritative in Brazil. O
   Amazonas is the universal appellation of the great river among
   those who float upon its waters and who live upon its banks.
   ... Pará, the aboriginal name of this river, was more
   appropriate than any other. It signifies 'the father of
   waters.' ... The origin of the name and mystery concerning the
   female warriors, I think, has been solved within the last few
   years by the intrepid Mr. Wallace. ... Mr. Wallace, I think,
   shows conclusively that Friar Gaspar [Carbajal] and his
   companions saw Indian male warriors who were attired in
   habiliments such as Europeans would attribute to women. ... I
   am strongly of the opinion that the story of the Amazons has
   arisen from these feminine-looking warriors encountered by the
   early voyagers."

      _J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the
      Brazilians, chapter 27._

      ALSO IN
      _A. R. Wallace, Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro,
      chapter 17._

      _R. Southey, History of Brazil, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

AMAZULUS, OR ZULUS.-The Zulu War.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
      and the same: A. D. 1877-1879.

AMBACTI.

   "The Celtic aristocracy [of Gaul] ... developed the system of
   retainers, that is, the privilege of the nobility to surround
   themselves with a number of hired mounted servants--the
   ambacti as they were called--and thereby to form a state
   within a state; and, resting on the support of these troops of
   their own, they defied the legal authorities and the common
   levy and practically broke up the commonwealth. ... This
   remarkable word [ambacti] must have been in use as early as
   the sixth century of Rome among the Celts in the valley of the
   Po. ... It is not merely Celtic, however, but also German, the
   root of our 'Amt,' as indeed the retainer-system itself is
   common to the Celts and the Germans. It would be of great
   historical importance to ascertain whether the word--and
   therefore the thing--came to the Celts from the Germans or to
   the Germans from the Celts. If, as is usually supposed, the
   word is originally German and primarily signified the servant
   standing in battle 'against the back' ('and '=against,
   'bak'=back) of his master, this is not wholly irreconcilable
   with the singularly early occurrence of the word among the
   Celts. ... It is ... probable that the Celts, in Italy as in
   Gaul, employed Germans chiefly as those hired
   servants-at-arms. The 'Swiss guard' would therefore in that
   case be some thousands of years older than people suppose."

      _T. Mommsen, History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 7, and foot-note._

AMBARRI, The.

   A small tribe in Gaul which occupied anciently a district
   between the Saone, the Rhone and the Ain.

      _Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2, note._

AMBIANI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

AMBITUS.

   Bribery at elections was termed ambitus among the Romans, and
   many unavailing laws were enacted to check it.

      _W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 9._

AMBIVARETI, The.

   A tribe in ancient Gaul which occupied the left bank of the
   Meuse, to the south of the marsh of Peel.

      _Napoleon III., History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, note._

AMBLEVE, Battle of (716.)

      See FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752.

AMBOISE, Conspiracy or Tumult of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

AMBOISE, Edict of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

AMBOYNA, Massacre of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

AMBRACIA (Ambrakia).

      See KORKYRA.

AMBRONES, The.

      See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.

AMBROSIAN CHURCH.--AMBROSIAN CHANT.

      See MILAN: A. D. 374-397.

AMEIXAL, OR ESTREMOS, Battle of (1663).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

[Image: ETHNOLOGICAL MAP OF MODERN EUROPE (right)]

{46}

AMERICA, The Name.

      See below: A. D. 1500-1514.

AMERICA, Prehistoric.

   "Widely scattered throughout the United States, from sea to
   sea, artificial mounds are discovered, which may be enumerated
   by the thousands or hundreds of thousands. They vary greatly
   in size; some are so small that a half-dozen laborers with
   shovels might construct one of them in a day, while others
   cover acres and are scores of feet in height. These mounds
   were observed by the earliest explorers and pioneers of the
   country. They did not attract great attention, however, until
   the science of archæology demanded their investigation. Then
   they were assumed to furnish evidence of a race of people
   older than the Indian tribes. Pseud-archæologists descanted on
   the Mound-builders that once inhabited the land, and they told
   of swarming populations who had reached a high condition of
   culture, erecting temples, practicing arts in the metals, and
   using hieroglyphs. So the Mound-builders formed the theme of
   many an essay on the wonders of ancient civilization. The
   research of the past ten or fifteen years has put this subject
   in a proper light. First, the annals of the Columbian epoch
   have been carefully studied, and it is found that some of the
   mounds have been constructed in historical time, while early
   explorers and settlers found many actually used by tribes of
   North American Indians; so we know that many of them were
   builders of mounds. Again, hundreds and thousands of these
   mounds have been carefully examined, and the works of art
   found therein have been collected and assembled in museums. At
   the same time, the works of art of the Indian tribes, as they
   were produced before modification by European culture, have
   been assembled in the same museums, and the two classes of
   collections have been carefully compared. All this has been
   done with the greatest painstaking, and the Mound-builder's
   arts and the Indian's arts are found to be substantially
   identical. No fragment of evidence remains to support the
   figment of theory that there was an ancient race of
   Mound-builders superior in culture to the North American
   Indians. ... That some of these mounds were built and used in
   modern times is proved in another way. They often contain
   articles manifestly made by white men, such as glass beads and
   copper ornaments. ... So it chances that to-day unskilled
   archæologists are collecting many beautiful things in copper,
   stone, and shell which were made by white men and traded to
   the Indians. Now, some of these things are found in the
   mounds; and bird pipes, elephant pipes, banner stones, copper
   spear heads and knives, and machine-made wampum are collected
   in quantities and sold at high prices to wealthy amateurs. ...
   The study of these mounds, historically and archæologically,
   proves that they were used for a variety of purposes. Some
   were for sepulture, and such are the most common and widely
   scattered. Others were used as artificial hills on which to
   build communal houses. ... Some of the very large mounds were
   sites of large communal houses in which entire tribes dwelt.
   There is still a third class ... constructed as places for
   public assembly. ... But to explain the mounds and their uses
   would expand this article into a book. It is enough to say
   that the Mound-builders were the Indian tribes discovered by
   white men. It may well be that some of the mounds were erected
   by tribes extinct when Columbus first saw these shores, but
   they were kindred in culture to the peoples that still
   existed. In the southwestern portion of the United States,
   conditions of aridity prevail. Forests are few and are found
   only at great heights. ... The tribes lived in the plains and
   valleys below, while the highlands were their hunting grounds.
   The arid lands below were often naked of vegetation; and the
   ledges and cliffs that stand athwart the lands, and the canyon
   walls that inclose the streams, were everywhere quarries of
   loose rock, lying in blocks ready to the builder's hand. Hence
   these people learned to build their dwellings of stone; and
   they had large communal houses, even larger than the
   structures of wood made by the tribes of the east and north.
   Many of these stone pueblos are still occupied, but the ruins
   are scattered wide over a region of country embracing a little
   of California and Nevada, much of Utah, most of Colorado, the
   whole of New Mexico and Arizona, and far southward toward the
   Isthmus. ... No ruin has been discovered where evidences of a
   higher culture are found than exists in modern times at Zuni,
   Oraibi, or Laguna. The earliest may have been built thousands
   of years ago, but they were built by the ancestors of existing
   tribes and their congeners. A careful study of these ruins,
   made during the last twenty years, abundantly demonstrates
   that the pueblo culture began with rude structures of stone
   and brush, and gradually developed, until at the time of the
   exploration of the country by the Spaniards, beginning about
   1540, it had reached its highest phase. Zuni [in New Mexico]
   has been built since, and it is among the largest and best
   villages ever established within the territory of the United
   States without the aid of ideas derived from civilized men."
   With regard to the ruins of dwellings found sheltered in the
   craters of extinct volcanoes, or on the shelves of cliffs, or
   otherwise contrived, the conclusion to which all recent
   archæological study tends is the same. "All the stone pueblo
   ruins, all the clay ruins, all the cliff dwellings, all the
   crater villages, all the cavate chambers, and all the
   tufa-block houses are fully accounted for without resort to
   hypothetical peoples inhabiting the country anterior to the
   Indian tribes. ... Pre-Columbian culture was indigenous; it
   began at the lowest stage of savagery and developed to the
   highest, and was in many places passing into barbarism when
   the good queen sold her jewels."

      _Major J. W. Powell, Prehistoric Man in America;
      in "The Forum," January, 1890._

   "The writer believes ... that the majority of American
   archæologists now sees no sufficient reason for supposing that
   any mysterious superior race has ever lived in any portion of
   our continent. They find no archæological evidence proving
   that at the time of its discovery any tribe had reached a
   stage of culture that can properly be called civilization.
   Even if we accept the exaggerated statements of the Spanish
   conquerors, the most intelligent and advanced peoples found
   here were only semi-barbarians, in the stage of transition
   from the stone to the bronze age, possessing no written
   language, or what can properly be styled an alphabet, and not
   yet having even learned the use of beasts of burden."

      _H. W. Haynes, Prehistoric Archæology of North America
      (volume 1, chapter 6, of "Narrative and Critical History of
      America")._

{47}

   "It may be premised ... that the Spanish adventurers who
   thronged to the New World after its discovery found the same
   race of Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and
   South America, in Florida and in Mexico. In their mode of life
   and means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages and
   customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and
   physical characteristics, they were the same people in
   different stages of advancement. ... There was neither a
   political society, nor a state, nor any civilization in
   America when it was discovered; and excluding the Eskimos, but
   one race of Indians, the Red Race."

      _L. H. Morgan, Houses and House-life of the American
      Aborigines: (Contributions to North American Ethnology,
      v, 5.), chapter 10_.

   "We have in this country the conclusive evidence of the
   existence of man before the time of the glaciers, and from the
   primitive conditions of that time, he has lived here and
   developed, through stages which correspond in many particulars
   to the Homeric age of Greece."

      _F. W. Putnam, Report, Peabody Museum of Archæology,
      1886._

      ALSO IN
      _L. Carr, The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley_.

      _C. Thomas, Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the
      United States: Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      1883-84_.

      _Marquis de Nadaillac, Prehistoric America_.

      _J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 1._

      See, also, MEXICO; PERU;
      and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS, CHEROKEES, and MAYAS.

AMERICA: 10th-11th Centuries.
   Supposed Discoveries by the Northmen.

   The fact that the Northmen knew of the existence of the
   Western Continent prior to the age of Columbus, was
   prominently brought before the people of this country in the
   year 1837, when the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries at
   Copenhagen published their work on the Antiquities of North
   America, under the editorial supervision of the great
   Icelandic scholar, Professor Rafn. But we are not to suppose
   that the first general account of these voyages was then
   given, for it has always been known that the history of
   certain early voyages to America by the Northmen were
   preserved in the libraries of Denmark and Iceland. ... Yet,
   owing to the fact that the Icelandic language, though simple
   in construction and easy of acquisition, was a tongue not
   understood by scholars, the subject has until recent years
   been suffered to lie in the background, and permitted, through
   a want of interest, to share in a measure the treatment meted
   out to vague and uncertain reports. ... It now remains to give
   the reader some general account of the contents of the
   narratives which relate more or less to the discovery of the
   western continent. ... The first extracts given are very
   brief. They are taken from the 'Landanama Book,' and relate to
   the report in general circulation, which indicated one
   Gunniborn as the discoverer of Greenland, an event which has
   been fixed at the year 876. ... The next narrative relates to
   the rediscovery of Greenland by the outlaw, Eric the Red, in
   983, who there passed three years in exile, and afterwards
   returned to Iceland. About the year 986, he brought out to
   Greenland a considerable colony of settlers, who fixed their
   abode at Brattahlid, in Ericsfiord. Then follow two versions
   of the voyage of Biarne Heriulfson, who, in the same year,
   986, when sailing for Greenland, was driven away during a
   storm, and saw a new land at the southward, which he did not
   visit. Next is given three accounts of the voyage of Leif, son
   of Eric the Red, who in the year 1000 sailed from Brattahlid
   to find the land which Biarne saw. Two of these accounts are
   hardly more than notices of the voyage, but the third is of
   considerable length, and details the successes of Leif, who
   found and explored this new land, where he spent the winter,
   returning to Greenland the following spring [having named
   different regions which he visited Helluland, Markland and
   Vinland, the latter name indicative of the finding of grapes].
   After this follows the voyage of Thorvald Ericson, brother of
   Leif, who sailed to Vinland from Greenland, which was the
   point of departure in all these voyages. This expedition was
   begun in 1002, and it cost him his life, as an arrow from one
   of the natives pierced his side, causing death. Thorstein, his
   brother, went to seek Vinland, with the intention of bringing
   home his body, but failed in the attempt. The most
   distinguished explorer was Thorfinn Karlsefne, the Hopeful, an
   Icelander whose genealogy runs back in the old Northern
   annals, through Danish, Swedish, and even Scotch and Irish
   ancestors, some of whom were of royal blood. In the year 1006
   he went to Greenland, where he met Gudrid, widow of Thorstein,
   whom he married. Accompanied by his wife, who urged him to the
   undertaking, he sailed to Vinland in the spring of 1007, with
   three vessels and 160 men, where he remained three years. Here
   his son Snorre was born. He afterwards became the founder of a
   great family in Iceland, which gave the island several of its
   first bishops. Thorfinn finally left Vinland because he found
   it difficult to sustain himself against the attacks of the
   natives. The next to undertake a voyage was a wicked woman
   named Freydis, a sister to Leif Ericson, who went to Vinland
   in 1011, where she lived for a time with her two ships, in the
   same places occupied by Leif and Thorfinn. Before she
   returned, she caused the crew of one ship to be cruelly
   murdered, assisting in the butchery with her own hands. After
   this we have what are called the Minor Narratives, which are
   not essential.

      _B. F. De Costa, Pre-Columban Discovery of America,
      General Introduction._

   By those who accept fully the claims made for the Northmen, as
   discoverers of the American continent in the voyages believed
   to be authentically narrated in these sagas, the Helluland of
   Leif is commonly identified with Newfoundland, Markland with
   Nova Scotia, and Vinland with various parts of New England.
   Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod, Nantucket Island, Martha's
   Vineyard, Buzzard's Bay, Narragansett Bay, Mount Hope Bay,
   Long Island Sound, and New York Bay are among the localities
   supposed to be recognized in the Norse narratives, or marked
   by some traces of the presence of the Viking explorers. Professor
   Gustav Storm, the most recent of the Scandinavian
   investigators of this subject, finds the Helluland of the
   sagas in Labrador or Northern Newfoundland, Markland in
   Newfoundland, and Vinland in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton
   Island.

      _G. Storm, Studies of the Vineland Voyages._

{48}

   "The only discredit which has been thrown upon the story of
   the Vinland voyages, in the eyes either of scholars or of the
   general public, has arisen from the eager credulity with which
   ingenious antiquarians have now and then tried to prove more
   than facts will warrant. ... Archælogical remains of the
   Northmen abound in Greenland, all the way from Immartinek to
   near Cape Farewell; the existence of one such relic on the
   North American continent has never yet been proved. Not a
   single vestige of the Northmen's presence here, at all worthy
   of credence, has ever been found. ... The most convincing
   proof that the Northmen never founded a colony in America,
   south of Davis Strait, is furnished by the total absence of
   horses, cattle and other domestic animals from the soil of
   North America until they were brought hither by the Spanish,
   French and English settlers."

      _J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 2._

   "What Leif and Karlsefne knew they experienced," writes Professor
   Justin Winsor, "and what the sagas tell us they underwent,
   must have just the difference between a crisp narrative of
   personal adventure and the oft-repeated and embellished story
   of a fireside narrator, since the traditions of the Norse
   voyages were not put in the shape of records till about two
   centuries had elapsed, and we have no earlier manuscript of
   such a record than one made nearly two hundred years later
   still. ... A blending of history and myth prompts Horn to say
   that 'some of the sagas were doubtless originally based on
   facts, but the telling and retelling have changed them into
   pure myths.' The unsympathetic stranger sees this in stories
   that the patriotic Scandinavians are over-anxious to make
   appear as genuine chronicles. ... The weight of probability is
   in favor of a Northman descent upon the coast of the American
   mainland at some point, or at several, somewhere to the south
   of Greenland; but the evidence is hardly that which attaches
   to well established historical records. ... There is not a
   single item of all the evidence thus advanced from time to
   time which can be said to connect by archæological traces the
   presence of the Northmen on the soil of North America south of
   Davis' Straits." Of other imagined pre-Columban discoveries of
   America, by the Welsh, by the Arabs, by the Basques, &c., the
   possibilities and probabilities are critically discussed by
   Professor Winsor in the same connection.

      J. Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 1, chapter 2, and Critical Notes to the same._

      ALSO IN
      _Bryant and Gay, Popular History of the United States,
      chapter 3._

      _E. F. Slafter, Editor,
      Voyages of the Northmen to America (Prince Society, 1877)_.

      _E. F. Slafter, Editor,
      Discovery of America by the Northmen (N. H. History
      Society, 1888)_.

      _N. L. Beamish, Discovery of America by the
      Northmen._

      _A. J. Weise, Discoveries of America, chapter 1._

AMERICA: A. D. 1484-1492.
   The great project of Columbus, and the sources of its inspiration.
   His seven years' suit at the Spanish Court.
   His departure from Palos.

   "All attempts to diminish the glory of Columbus' achievement
   by proving a previous discovery whose results were known to
   him have signally failed. ... Columbus originated no new
   theory respecting the earth's form or size, though a popular
   idea has always prevailed, notwithstanding the statements of
   the best writers to the contrary, that he is entitled to the
   glory of the theory as well as to that of the execution of the
   project. He was not in advance of his age, entertained no new
   theories, believed no more than did Prince Henry, his
   predecessor, or Toscanelli, his contemporary; nor was he the
   first to conceive the possibility of reaching the east by
   sailing west. He was however the first to act in accordance
   with existing beliefs. The Northmen in their voyages had
   entertained no ideas of a New World, or of an Asia to the
   West. To knowledge of theoretical geography, Columbus added
   the skill of a practical navigator, and the iron will to
   overcome obstacles. He sailed west, reached Asia as he
   believed, and proved old theories correct. There seem to be
   two undecided points in that matter, neither of which can ever
   be settled. First, did his experience in the Portuguese
   voyages, the perusal of some old author, or a hint from one of
   the few men acquainted with old traditions, first suggest to
   Columbus his project? ... Second, to what extent did his
   voyage to the north [made in 1477, probably with an English
   merchantman from Bristol, in which voyage he is believed to
   have visited Iceland] influence his plan? There is no
   evidence, but a strong probability, that he heard in that
   voyage of the existence of land in the west. ... Still, his
   visit to the north was in 1477, several years after the first
   formation of his plan, and any information gained at the time
   could only have been confirmatory rather than suggestive."

      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1,
      summary appendix to chapter 1._

   "Of the works of learned men, that which, according to
   Ferdinand Columbus, had most weight with his father, was the
   'Cosmographia' of Cardinal Aliaco. Columbus was also confirmed
   in his views of the existence of a western passage to the
   Indies by Paulo Toscanelli, the Florentine philosopher, to
   whom much credit is due for the encouragement he afforded to
   the enterprise. That the notices, however, of western lands
   were not such as to have much weight with other men, is
   sufficiently proved by the difficulty which Columbus had in
   contending with adverse geographers and men of science in
   general, of whom he says he never was able to convince any
   one. After a new world had been discovered, many scattered
   indications were then found to have foreshown it. One thing
   which cannot be denied to Columbus is that he worked out his
   own idea himself. ... He first applied himself to his
   countrymen, the Genoese, who would have nothing to say to his
   scheme. He then tried the Portuguese, who listened to what he
   had to say, but with bad faith sought to anticipate him by
   sending out a caravel with instructions founded upon his plan.
   ... Columbus, disgusted at the treatment he had received from
   the Portuguese Court, quitted Lisbon, and, after visiting
   Genoa, as it appears, went to see what favour he could meet
   with in Spain, arriving at Palos in the year 1485." The story
   of the long suit of Columbus at the Court of Ferdinand and
   Isabella; of his discouragement and departure, with intent to
   go to France; of his recall by command of Queen Isabella; of
   the tedious hearings and negotiations that now took place; of
   the lofty demands adhered to by the confident Genoese, who
   required "to be made an admiral at once, to be appointed
   viceroy of the countries he should discover, and to have an
   eighth of the profits of the expedition;" of his second
   rebuff, his second departure for France, and second recall by
   Isabella, who finally put her heart into the enterprise and
   persuaded her more skeptical consort to assent to it--the
   story of those seven years of the struggle of Columbus to
   obtain means for his voyage is familiar to all readers.
{49}
   "The agreement between Columbus and their Catholic highnesses
   was signed at Santa Fe on the 17th of April, 1492; and
   Columbus went to Palos to make preparation for his voyage,
   bearing with him an order that the two vessels which that city
   furnished annually to the crown for three months should be
   placed at his disposal. ... The Pinzons, rich men and skilful
   mariners of Palos, joined in the undertaking, subscribing an
   eighth of the expenses; and thus, by these united exertions,
   three vessels were manned with 90 mariners, and provisioned
   for a year. At length all the preparations were complete, and
   on a Friday (not inauspicious in this case), the 3d of August,
   1492, after they had all confessed and received the sacrament,
   they set sail from the bar of Saltes, making for the Canary
   Islands."

      _Sir A. Helps, The Spanish Conquest in America, book 2,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN
      _J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 5-9, and 20._

AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
   The First Voyage of Columbus.
   Discovery of the Bahamas, Cuba and Hayti.

   The three vessels of Columbus were called the Santa Maria, the
   Pinta and the Nina. "All had forecastles and high poops, but
   the 'Santa Maria' was the only one that was decked amidships,
   and she was called a 'nao' or ship. The other two were
   caravelas, a class of small vessels built for speed. The
   'Santa Maria,' as I gather from scattered notices in the
   letters of Columbus, was of 120 to 130 tons, like a modern
   coasting schooner, and she carried 70 men, much crowded. Her
   sails were a foresail and a foretop-sail, a sprit-sail, a
   main-sail with two bonnets, and maintop sail, a mizzen, and a
   boat's sail were occasionally hoisted on the poop. The 'Pinta'
   and 'Nina' only had square sails on the foremast and lateen
   sails on the main and mizzen. The former was 50 tons, the
   latter 40 tons, with crews of 20 men each. On Friday, the 3d
   of August, the three little vessels left the haven of Palos,
   and this memorable voyage was commenced. ... The expedition
   proceeded to the Canary Islands, where the rig of the 'Pinta'
   was altered. Her lateen sails were not adapted for running
   before the wind, and she was therefore fitted with square
   sails, like the 'Santa Maria.' Repairs were completed, the
   vessels were filled up with wood and water at Gomera, and the
   expedition took its final departure from the island of Gomera,
   one of the Canaries, on September 6th, 1492. ... Columbus had
   chosen his route most happily, and with that fortunate
   prevision which often waits upon genius. From Gomera, by a
   course a little south of west, he would run down the trades to
   the Bahama Islands. From the parallel of about 30° N. nearly
   to the equator there is a zone of perpetual winds--namely, the
   north-east trade winds--always moving in the same direction,
   as steadily as the current of a river, except where they are
   turned aside by local causes, so that the ships of Columbus
   were steadily carried to their destination by a law of nature
   which, in due time, revealed itself to that close observer of
   her secrets. The constancy of the wind was one cause of alarm
   among the crews, for they began to murmur that the provisions
   would all be exhausted if they had to beat against these
   unceasing winds on the return voyage. The next event which
   excited alarm among the pilots was the discovery that the
   compasses had more than a point of easterly variation. ...
   This was observed on the 17th of September, and about 300
   miles westward of the meridian of the Azores, when the ships
   had been eleven days at sea. Soon afterwards the voyagers
   found themselves surrounded by masses of seaweed, in what is
   called the Sargasso Sea, and this again aroused their fears.
   They thought that the ships would get entangled in the beds of
   weed and become immovable, and that the beds marked the limit
   of navigation. The cause of this accumulation is well known
   now. If bits of cork are put into a basin of water, and a
   circular motion given to it, all the corks will be found
   crowding together towards the centre of the pool where there
   is the least motion. The Atlantic Ocean is just such a basin,
   the Gulf Stream is the whirl, and the Sargasso Sea is in the
   centre. There Columbus found it, and there it has remained to
   this day, moving up and down and changing its position
   according to seasons, storms and winds, but never altering its
   mean position. ... As day after day passed, and there was no
   sign of land, the crews became turbulent and mutinous.
   Columbus encouraged them with hopes of reward, while he told
   them plainly that he had come to discover India, and that,
   with the help of God, he would persevere until he found it. At
   length, on the 11th of October, towards ten at night, Columbus
   was on the poop and saw a light. ... At two next morning, land
   was distinctly seen. ... The island, called by the natives
   Guanahani, and by Columbus San Salvador, has now been
   ascertained to be Watling Island, one of the Bahamas, 14 miles
   long by 6 broad, with a brackish lake in the centre, in 24°
   10' 30'' north latitude. ... The difference of latitude
   between Gomera and Watling Island is 235 miles. Course, West 5°
   South; distance 3,114 miles; average distance made good daily,
   85'; voyage 35 days. ... After discovering several smaller
   islands the fleet came in sight of Cuba on the 27th October,
   and explored part of the northern coast. Columbus believed it
   to be Cipango, the island placed on the chart of Toscanelli,
   between Europe and Asia. ... Crossing the channel between Cuba
   and St. Domingo [or Hayti], they anchored in the harbour of
   St. Nicholas Mole on December 4th. The natives came with
   presents and the country was enchanting. Columbus ... named
   the island 'Española' [or Hispaniola]. But with all this
   peaceful beauty around him he was on the eve of disaster." The
   Santa Maria was drifted by a strong current upon a sand bank
   and hopelessly wrecked. "It was now necessary to leave a small
   colony on the island. ... A fort was built and named 'La
   Navidad,' 39 men remaining behind supplied with stores and
   provisions," and on Friday, January 4, 1493, Columbus began his
   homeward voyage. Weathering a dangerous gale, which lasted
   several days, his little vessels reached the Azores February 17,
   and arrived at Palos March 15, bearing their marvellous news.

      _C. R. Markham, The Sea Fathers, chapter 2._

      _C. R. Markham, Life of Columbus, chapter 5._

{50}

   The statement above that the island of the Bahamas on which
   Columbus first landed, and which he called San Salvador, "has
   now been ascertained to be Watling Island" seems hardly
   justified. The question between Watling Island, San Salvador
   or Cat Island, Samana, or Attwood's Cay, Mariguana, the Grand
   Turk, and others is still in dispute. Professor Justin Winsor
   says "the weight of modern testimony seems to favor Watling's
   Island;" but at the same time he thinks it "probable that men
   will never quite agree which of the Bahamas it was upon which
   these startled and exultant Europeans first stepped."

      _J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 9._

      _J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 1, note B._

   Professor John Fiske, says: "All that can be positively
   asserted of Guanahani is that it was one of the Bahamas; there
   has been endless discussion as to which one, and the question
   is not easy to settle. Perhaps the theory of Captain Gustavus
   Fox, of the United States Navy, is on the whole best
   supported. Captain Fox maintains that the true Guanahani was
   the little Island now known as Samana or Attwood's Cay."

      _J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Report, 1880,
      appendix 18._

AMERICA: A. D. 1493.
   Papal grant of the New World to Spain.

   "Spain was at this time connected with the Pope about a most
   momentous matter. The Genoese, Cristoforo Colombo, arrived at
   the Spanish court in March, 1493, with the astounding news of
   the discovery of a new continent. ... Ferdinand and Isabella
   thought it wise to secure a title to all that might ensue from
   their new discovery. The Pope, as Vicar of Christ, was held to
   have authority to dispose of lands inhabited by the heathen;
   and by papal Bulls the discoveries of Portugal along the
   African coast had been secured. The Portuguese showed signs of
   urging claims to the New World, as being already conveyed to
   them by the papal grants previously issued in their favour. To
   remove all cause of dispute, the Spanish monarchs at once had
   recourse to Alexander VI., who issued two Bulls on May 4 and 5
   [1493] to determine the respective rights of Spain and
   Portugal. In the first, the Pope granted to the Spanish
   monarchs and their heirs all lands discovered or hereafter to
   be discovered in the western ocean. In the second, he defined
   his grant to mean all lands that might be discovered west and
   south of an imaginary line, drawn from the North to the South
   Pole, at the distance of a hundred leagues westward of the
   Azores and Cape de Verd Islands. In the light of our present
   knowledge we are amazed at this simple means of disposing of a
   vast extent of the earth's surface." Under the Pope's
   stupendous patent, Spain was able to claim every part of the
   American Continent except the Brazilian coast.

      _M. Creighton, History of the Papacy during the
      Reformation, book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN
      _E. G. Bourne, The Demarcation Line of Pope Alexander VI.
      (Yale Review., May, 1892)_.

      _J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      _J. Gordon, The Bulls distributing America
      (American Society of Ch. Dist., volume 4)_.

      See, also, below: A. D. 1494.

AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.
   The Second Voyage of Columbus.
   Discovery of Jamaica and the Caribbees.
   Subjugation of Hispaniola.

   "The departure of Columbus on his second voyage of discovery
   presented a brilliant contrast to his gloomy embarkation at
   Palos. On the 25th of September [1493], at the dawn of day the
   bay of Cadiz was whitened by his fleet: There were three large
   ships of heavy burden and fourteen caravels. ... Before
   sunrise the whole fleet was under way." Arrived at the
   Canaries on the 1st of October, Columbus purchased there
   calves, goats, sheep, hogs, and fowls, with which to stock the
   island of Hispaniola; also "seeds of oranges, lemons,
   bergamots, melons, and various orchard fruits, which were thus
   first introduced into the islands of the west from the
   Hesperides or Fortunate Islands of the Old World." It was not
   until the 13th of October that the fleet left the Canaries,
   and it arrived among the islands since called the Lesser
   Antilles or Caribbees, on the evening of November 2. Sailing
   through this archipelago, discovering the larger island of
   Porto Rico on the way, Columbus reached the eastern extremity
   of Hispaniola or Hayti on the 22d of November, and arrived on
   the 27th at La Navidad, where he had left a garrison ten
   months before. He found nothing but ruin, silence and the
   marks of death, and learned, after much inquiry, that his
   unfortunate men, losing all discipline after his departure,
   had provoked the natives by rapacity and licentiousness until
   the latter rose against them and destroyed them. Abandoning
   the scene of this disaster, Columbus found an excellent harbor
   ten leagues east of Monte Christi and there he began the
   founding of a city which he named Isabella. "Isabella at the
   present day is quite overgrown with forests, in the midst of
   which are still to be seen, partly standing, the pillars of
   the church, some remains of the king's storehouses, and part
   of the residence of Columbus, all built of hewn stone." While
   the foundations of the new city were being laid, Columbus sent
   back part of his ships to Spain, and undertook an exploration
   of the interior of the island--the mountains of Cibao--where
   abundance of gold was promised. Some gold washings were
   found--far too scanty to satisfy the expectations of the
   Spaniards; and, as want and sickness soon made their
   appearance at Isabella, discontent was rife and mutiny afoot
   before the year had ended. In April, 1494, Columbus set sail
   with three caravels to revisit the coast of Cuba, for a more
   extended exploration than he had attempted on the first
   discovery. "He supposed it to be a continent, and the extreme
   end of Asia, and if so, by following its shores in the
   proposed direction he must eventually arrive at Cathay and
   those other rich and commercial, though semi-barbarous
   countries, described by Mandeville and Marco Polo." Reports of
   gold led him southward from Cuba until he discovered the
   island which he called Santiago, but which has kept its native
   name, Jamaica, signifying the Island of Springs. Disappointed
   in the search for gold, he soon returned from Jamaica to Cuba
   and sailed along its southern coast to very near the western
   extremity, confirming himself and his followers in the belief
   that they skirted the shores of Asia and might follow them to
   the Red Sea, if their ships and stores were equal to so long a
   voyage. "Two or three days' further sail would have carried
   Columbus round the extremity of Cuba; would have dispelled his
   illusion, and might have given an entirely different course to
   his subsequent discoveries. In his present conviction he lived
   and died; believing to his last hour that Cuba was the
   extremity of the Asiatic continent."
{51}
   Returning eastward, he visited Jamaica again and purposed some
   further exploration of the Caribbee Islands, when his toils
   and anxieties overcame him. "He fell into a deep lethargy,
   resembling death itself. His crew, alarmed at this profound
   torpor, feared that death was really at hand. They abandoned,
   therefore, all further prosecution of the voyage; and
   spreading their sails to the east wind so prevalent in those
   seas, bore Columbus back, in a state of complete
   insensibility, to the harbor of Isabella,"--Sept. 4.
   Recovering consciousness, the admiral was rejoiced to find his
   brother Bartholomew, from whom he had been separated for
   years, and who had been sent out to him from Spain, in command
   of three ships. Otherwise there was little to give pleasure to
   Columbus when he returned to Isabella. His followers were
   again disorganized, again at war with the natives, whom they
   plundered and licentiously abused, and a mischief-making
   priest had gone back to Spain, along with certain intriguing
   officers, to make complaints and set enmities astir at the
   court. Involved in war, Columbus prosecuted it relentlessly,
   reduced the island to submission and the natives to servitude
   and misery by heavy exactions. In March 1496 he returned to
   Spain, to defend himself against the machinations of his
   enemies, transferring the government of Hispaniola to his
   brother Bartholomew.

      _W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, books 6-8
      (volumes 1-2)._

      ALSO IN
      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 12-14._

AMERICA: A. D. 1494.
   The Treaty of Tordesillas.
   Amended Partition of the New World between Spain and Portugal.

   "When speaking or writing of the conquest of America, it is
   generally believed that the only title upon which were based
   the conquests of Spain and Portugal was the famous Papal Bull
   of partition of the Ocean, of 1493. Few modern authors take
   into consideration that this Bull was amended, upon the
   petition of the King of Portugal, by the [Treaty of
   Tordesillas], signed by both powers in 1494, augmenting the
   portion assigned to the Portuguese in the partition made
   between them of the Continent of America. The arc of meridian
   fixed by this treaty as a dividing line, which gave rise,
   owing to the ignorance of the age, to so many diplomatic
   congresses and interminable controversies, may now be traced
   by any student of elementary mathematics. This line ... runs
   along the meridian of 47° 32' 56" west of Greenwich. ... The
   name Brazil, or 'tierra del Brazil,' at that time [the middle
   of the 16th century] referred only to the part of the
   continent producing the dye wood so-called. Nearly two
   centuries later the Portuguese advanced toward the South, and
   the name Brazil then covered the new possessions they were
   acquiring."

      _L. L. Dominguez, Introduction to "The Conquest of the
      River Plate" (Hakluyt Society Publications. No. 81)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1497.
   Discovery of the North American Continent by John Cabot.

   "The achievement of Columbus, revealing the wonderful truth of
   which the germ may have existed in the imagination of every
   thoughtful mariner, won [in England] the admiration which
   belonged to genius that seemed more divine than human; and
   'there was great talk of it in all the court of Henry VII.' A
   feeling of disappointment remained, that a series of disasters
   had defeated the wish of the illustrious Genoese to make his
   voyage of essay under the flag of England. It was, therefore,
   not difficult for John Cabot, a denizen of Venice, residing at
   Bristol, to interest that politic king in plans for discovery.
   On the 5th of March, 1496, he obtained under the great seal a
   commission empowering himself and his three sons, or either of
   them, their heirs, or their deputies, to sail into the
   eastern, western, or northern sea with a fleet of five ships,
   at their own expense, in search of islands, provinces, or
   regions hitherto unseen by Christian people; to affix the
   banners of England on city, island, or continent; and, as
   vassals of the English crown, to possess and occupy the
   territories that might be found. It was further stipulated in
   this 'most ancient American State paper of England,' that the
   patentees should be strictly bound, on every return, to land
   at the port of Bristol, and to pay to the king one-fifth part
   of their gains; while the exclusive right of frequenting all
   the countries that might be found was reserved to them and to
   their assigns' without limit of time. Under this patent,
   which, at the first direction of English enterprise toward
   America, embodied the worst features of monopoly and
   commercial restriction, John Cabot, taking with him his son
   Sebastian, embarked in quest of new islands and a passage to
   Asia by the north-west. After sailing prosperously, as he
   reported, for 700 leagues, on the 24th day of June, early in
   the morning, almost fourteen months before Columbus on his
   third voyage came in sight of the main, and more than two
   years before Amerigo Vespucci sailed west of the Canaries, he
   discovered the western continent, probably in the latitude of
   about 56° degrees, among the dismal cliffs of Labrador. He ran
   along the coast for many leagues, it is said even for 300, and
   landed on what he considered to be the territory of the Grand
   Cham. But he encountered no human being, although there were
   marks that the region was inhabited. He planted on the land a
   large cross with the flag of England, and, from affection for
   the republic of Venice, he added the banner of St. Mark, which
   had never been borne so far before. On his homeward voyage he
   saw on his right hand two islands, which for want of
   provisions he could not stop to explore. After an absence of
   three months the great discoverer re-entered Bristol harbor,
   where due honors awaited him. The king gave him money, and
   encouraged him to continue his career, The people called him
   the great admiral; he dressed in silk; and the English, and
   even Venetians who chanced to be at Bristol, ran after him
   with such zeal that he could enlist for a new voyage as many
   as he pleased. ... On the third day of the month of February
   next after his return, 'John Kaboto, Venecian,' accordingly
   obtained a power to take up ships for another voyage, at the
   rates fixed for those employed in the service of the king, and
   once more to set sail with as many companions as would go with
   him of their own will. With this license every trace of John
   Cabot disappears. He may have died before the summer; but no
   one knows certainly the time or the place of his end, and it
   has not even been ascertained in what country this finder of a
   continent first saw the light."

      _G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. of Am._
      (Author's last Revision), part 1, chapter 1.

{52}

   In the Critical Essay appended to a chapter on the voyages of the
   Cabots, in the _Narrative and Critical History of America_,
   there is published, for the first time, an English translation
   of a dispatch from Raimondo de Soncino, envoy of the Duke of
   Milan to Henry VII., written Aug. 24, 1497, and giving an
   account of the voyage from which 'Master John Caboto,' 'a
   Venetian fellow,' had just returned. This paper was brought to
   light in 1865, from the State Archives of Milan. Referring to
   the dispatch, and to a letter, also quoted, from the 'Venetian
   Calendars,' written Aug. 23, 1497, by Lorenzo Pasqualigo, a
   merchant in London, to his brothers in Venice, Mr. Charles
   Deane says: "These letters are sufficient to show that North
   America was discovered by John Cabot, the name of Sebastian
   being nowhere mentioned in them, and that the discovery was
   made in 1497. The place which he first sighted is given on the
   map of 1544 [a map of Sebastian Cabot, discovered in Germany
   in 1843] as the north part of Cape Breton Island, on which is
   inscribed 'prima tierra vista,' which was reached, according
   to the Legend, on the 24th of June. Pasqualigo, the only one
   who mentions it, says he coasted 300 leagues. Mr. Brevoort,
   who accepts the statement, thinks he made the periplus of the
   Gulf of St. Lawrence, passing out at the Straits of Belle
   Isle, and thence home. ... The extensive sailing up and down
   the coast described by chroniclers from conversations with
   Sebastian Cabot many years afterwards, though apparently told
   as occurring on the voyage of discovery--as only one voyage is
   ever mentioned--must have taken place on a later voyage."

      _C. Deane, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume
      3, chapter 1, Crit. Essay._

      ALSO IN
      _R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 1-8._

AMERICA: A. D. 1497-1498.
   The first Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
   Misunderstandings and disputes concerning it.
   Vindication of the Florentine navigator.
   His exploration of 4,000 miles of continental coast.

   "Our information concerning Americus Vespucius, from the early
   part of the year 1496 until after his return from the
   Portuguese to the Spanish service in the latter part of 1504,
   rests primarily upon his two famous letters; the one addressed
   to his old patron Lorenzo di Pier Francesco de' Medici (a
   cousin of Lorenzo the Magnificent) and written in March or
   April, 1503, giving an account of his third voyage; the other
   addressed to his old school-fellow Piero Soderini [then
   Gonfaloniere of Florence] and dated from Lisbon, September 4,
   1504, giving a brief account of four voyages which he had made
   under various commanders in the capacity of astronomer or
   pilot. These letters ... became speedily popular, and many
   editions were published, more especially in France, Germany,
   and Italy. ... The letter to Soderini gives an account of four
   voyages in which the writer took part, the first two in the
   service of Spain, the other two in the service of Portugal.
   The first expedition sailed from Cadiz May 10, 1497, and
   returned October 15, 1498, after having explored a coast so
   long as to seem unquestionably that of a continent. This
   voyage, as we shall see, was concerned with parts of America
   not visited again until 1513 and 1517. It discovered nothing
   that was calculated to invest it with much importance in
   Spain, though it by no means passed without notice there, as
   has often been wrongly asserted. Outside of Spain it came to
   attract more attention, but in an unfortunate way, for a
   slight but very serious error in proof-reading or editing, in
   the most important of the Latin versions, caused it after a
   while to be practically identified with the second voyage,
   made two years later. This confusion eventually led to most
   outrageous imputations upon the good name of Americus, which
   it has been left for the present century to remove. The second
   voyage of Vespucius was that in which he accompanied Alonso de
   Ojeda and Juan de la Costa, from May 20, 1499, to June, 1500.
   They explored the northern coast of South America from some
   point on what we would now call the north coast of Brazil, as
   far as the Pearl Coast visited by Columbus in the preceding
   year; and they went beyond, as far as the Gulf of Maracaibo.
   Here the squadron seems to have become divided, Ojeda going
   over to Hispaniola in September, while Vespucius remained
   cruising till February. ... It is certainly much to be
   regretted that in the narrative of his first expedition,
   Vespucius did not happen to mention the name of the chief
   commander. ... However ... he was writing not for us, but for
   his friend, and he told Soderini only what he thought would
   interest him. ... Of the letter to Soderini the version which
   has played the most important part in history is the Latin one
   first published at the press of the little college at
   Saint-Dié in Lorraine, April 25 (vij Kl' Maij), 1507. ... It
   was translated, not from an original text, but from an
   intermediate French version, which is lost. Of late years,
   however, we have detected, in an excessively rare Italian
   text, the original from which the famous Lorraine version was
   ultimately derived. ... If now we compare this primitive text
   with the Latin of the Lorraine version of 1507, we observe
   that, in the latter, one proper name--the Indian name of a
   place visited by Americus on his first voyage--has been
   altered. In the original it is 'Lariab;' in the Latin it has
   become 'Parias.' This looks like an instance of injudicious
   editing on the part of the Latin translator, although, of
   course, it may be a case of careless proof-reading. Lariab is
   a queer-looking word. It is no wonder that a scholar in his
   study among the mountains of Lorraine could make nothing of
   it. If he had happened to be acquainted with the language of
   the Huastecas, who dwelt at that time about the river
   Panuco--fierce and dreaded enemies of their southern
   neighbours the Aztecs--he would have known that names of
   places in that region were apt to end in ab. ... But as such
   facts were quite beyond our worthy translator's ken, we cannot
   much blame him if he felt that such a word as Lariab needed
   doctoring. Parias (Paria) was known to be the native name of a
   region on the western shores of the Atlantic, and so Lariab
   became Parias. As the distance from the one place to the other
   is more than two thousand miles, this little emendation
   shifted the scene of the first voyage beyond all recognition,
   and cast the whole subject into an outer darkness where there
   has been much groaning and gnashing of teeth. Another curious
   circumstance came in to confirm this error. On his first
   voyage, shortly before arriving at Lariab, Vespucius saw an
   Indian town built over the water, 'like Venice.' He counted 44
   large wooden houses, 'like barracks,' supported on huge tree-
   trunks and communicating with each other by bridges that could
   be drawn up in case of danger.
{53}
   This may well have been a village of communal houses of the
   Chontals on the coast of Tabasco; but such villages were
   afterwards seen on the Gulf of Maracaibo, and one of them was
   called Venezuela, or 'Little Venice,' a name since spread over
   a territory nearly twice as large as France. So the amphibious
   town described by Vespucius was incontinently moved to
   Maracaibo, as if there could be only one such place, as if
   that style of defensive building had not been common enough in
   many ages and in many parts of the earth, from ancient
   Switzerland to modern Siam. ... Thus in spite of the latitudes
   and longitudes distinctly stated by Vespucius in his letter,
   did Lariab and the little wooden Venice get shifted from the
   Gulf of Mexico to the northern coast of South America. Now
   there is no question that Vespucius in his second voyage, with
   Ojeda for captain, did sail along that coast, visiting the
   gulfs of Paria and Maracaibo. This was in the summer of 1499,
   one year after a part of the same coast had been visited by
   Columbus. Hence in a later period, long after the actors in
   these scenes had been gathered unto their fathers, and when
   people had begun to wonder how the New World could ever have
   come to be called America instead of Columbia, it was
   suggested that the first voyage described by Vespucius must be
   merely a clumsy and fictitious duplicate of the second, and
   that he invented it and thrust it back from 1499 to 1497, in
   order that he might be accredited with 'the discovery of the
   continent' one year in advance of his friend Columbus. It was
   assumed that he must have written his letter to Soderini with
   the base intention of supplanting his friend, and that the
   shabby device was successful. This explanation seemed so
   simple and intelligible that it became quite generally
   adopted, and it held its ground until the subject began to be
   critically studied, and Alexander von Humboldt showed, about
   sixty years ago, that the first naming of America occurred in
   no such way as had been supposed. As soon as we refrain from
   projecting our modern knowledge of geography into the past, as
   soon as we pause to consider how these great events appeared
   to the actors themselves, the absurdity of this accusation
   against Americus becomes evident. We arc told that he falsely
   pretended to have visited Paria and Maracaibo in 1497, in
   order to claim priority over Columbus in the discovery of 'the
   continent.' What continent? When Vespucius wrote that letter
   to Soderini, neither he nor anybody else suspected that what
   we now call America had been discovered. The only continent of
   which there could be any question, so far as supplanting
   Columbus was concerned, was Asia. But in 1504 Columbus was
   generally supposed to have discovered the continent of Asia,
   by his new route, in 1492. ... It was M. Varnhagen who first
   turned inquiry on this subject in the right direction. ...
   Having taken a correct start by simply following the words of
   Vespucius himself, from a primitive text, without reference to
   any preconceived theories or traditions, M. Varnhagen finds"
   that Americus in his first voyage made land on the northern
   coast of Honduras; "that he sailed around Yucatan, and found
   his aquatic village of communal houses, his little wooden
   Venice, on the shore of Tabasco. Thence, after a fight with
   the natives in which a few tawny prisoners were captured and
   carried on board the caravels, Vespucius seems to have taken a
   straight course to the Huasteca country by Tampico, without
   touching at points in the region subject or tributary to the
   Aztec confederacy. This Tampico country was what Vespucius
   understood to be called Lariab. He again gives the latitude
   definitely and correctly as 23° N., and he mentions a few
   interesting circumstances. He saw the natives roasting a
   dreadfully ugly animal," of which he gives what seems to be
   "an excellent description of the iguana, the flesh of which is
   to this day an important article of food in tropical America.
   ... After leaving this country of Lariab the ships kept still
   to the northwest for a short distance, and then followed the
   windings of the coast for 870 leagues. ... After traversing
   the 870 leagues of crooked coast, the ships found themselves
   'in the finest harbour in the world' [which M. Varnhagen
   supposed, at first, to have been in Chesapeake Bay, but
   afterwards reached conclusions pointing to the neighbourhood
   of Cape Cañaveral, on the Florida coast]. It was in June,
   1498, thirteen months since they had started from Spain. ...
   They spent seven-and-thirty days in this unrivalled harbour,
   preparing for the home voyage, and found the natives very
   hospitable. These red men courted the aid of the white
   strangers," in an attack which they wished to make upon a
   fierce race of cannibals, who inhabited certain islands some
   distance out to sea. The Spaniards agreed to the expedition,
   and sailed late in August, taking seven of the friendly
   Indians for guides. "After a week's voyage they fell in with
   the islands, some peopled, others uninhabited, evidently the
   Bermudas, 600 miles from Cape Hatteras as the crow flies. The
   Spaniards landed on an island called Iti, and had a brisk
   fight," resulting in the capture of more than 200 prisoners.
   Seven of these were given to the Indian guides, who paddled
   home with them. "'We also [wrote Vespucius] set sail for
   Spain, with 222 prisoners, slaves; and arrived in the port of
   Cadiz on the 15th day of October, 1498, where we were well
   received and sold our slaves.' ... The obscurity in which this
   voyage has so long been enveloped is due chiefly to the fact
   that it was not followed up till many years had elapsed, and
   the reason for this neglect impresses upon us forcibly the
   impossibility of understanding the history of the Discovery of
   America unless we bear in mind all the attendant
   circumstances. One might at first suppose that a voyage which
   revealed some 4,000 miles of the coast of North America would
   have attracted much attention in Spain and have become
   altogether too famous to be soon forgotten. Such an argument,