Skip to main content

Full text of "The English historical review"

See other formats



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2007 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 


7 A/ 







American Editor, JUSTIN WINSOR, LL.D., Librarian of Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts 






Cop* 2)- 






Gneist on the English Constitution. By G. W, Prothero . 1 

The Claim op the House of Orleans to Milan. By Miss 

A, M. F. Bobinson (Madame James Darmesteter) . ^.}, 84, 270 -^*^^ 

BenoIt de Boigne. By Sidney James Owen . ; . . , 63 

The Campaign of Sedan. By TF. O'Connor Morris . . . 209 

Chatham, Francis, and Junius. By Leslie Stephen . . . 233 

The Plantation op Munster, ^ 584-1689. By B. Dunlop . . 260 

The Suitors of the County Court. By F, W, Maitland , . 417 

The West- Saxon Conquest op Surrey. By H. E. Maiden . 422 < 

Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim. By W, H. Hudson . . . 431 

The Early Life op Thomas Wolsey. By the late T, W. Cameron 458 

The Great Conde. By /. Breck Perkins 478 

The Settlement of Australia. By E. 0. K. Gonner . . 625 

The Tomb op Dante. By the Bev. Principal of St. Edmund Hall, 

Oxford . . . 685 

Elizabethan Presbyterianism. By William A. Shaw . . 655 

The Battle of Naseby. By Lieut.-Colonel W. G. Boss, B.E, . 669 

Notes and Documents 94, 292, 498, 680 

Reviews of Books 127, 851, 558, 761 

List op Historical Books recently published 190, 329, 609, 814 

Contents op Periodical Publications . . 201, 409, 619, 825 

Index ^^^ 


The English 

Historical Review 

No. IX,— JANUARY 1888 

Gneist on the English Constitution 

IT is strange that Dr. Gneist, who has made the study of English 
institutions the object of his Hfe, should have had to wait nearly 
forty years for a translator. He has published a series of works of 
great interest to Englishmen, beginning with his treatise on trial 
by jury (1849), but — to our shame it must be spoken — not one of 
these was translated till a year or two ago. In England he has been 
almost unknown, and only a few students have been aware that the 
highest living authority, after the bishop of Chester, on the history 
of English government, was a foreigner. 

Dr. Gneist's interest in English constitutional history is not 
solely, or even perhaps mainly, that of an historian : it is also that 
of a public man, a great jurist and a conservative political reformer. 
* It was the "Sturm und Drang" period of 1848,' he tells us in 
his preface to the ' Yerfassungsgeschichte,' * which first drew him 
from the domain of law into the wider area of politics.' The con- 
stitutional conflict in Prussia led him to examine the origin of 
social relations, and the issue of his investigations was a treatise 
entitled *Adel und Kitterschaft in England' (ed. 2, 1853). The 
confusion produced by rash and ill-informed attempts to assimilate 
foreign political ideas induced Dr. Gneist to examine in detail the 
development of administration in this country. The fruit of his 
labours was the * Geschichte und heutige Gestalt der Aemter in 
England' (1857), which was followed ten years later by the *En- 
glisches Verwaltungsrecht.' The chief object which Dr. Gneist had 
in view, namely to show the vanity of any attempt to establish 
representative institutions without those local and provincial bases 
on which in England the parliamentary system till lately reposed, 
was meanwhile attained in his work on ' Die englische Communal- 
Verfassung oder das System des Self-government ' (1860), a book 

VOL. III. — NO. IX. B 


which with some modifications has passed through three editions. 
Out of a combination of this work and the * Verwaltungsrecht,' as 
Dr. Gneist himself tells us, the ' Verfassungsgeschichte ' was com- 
posed, and * the third division of the subject,' the constitution of 
parKament, has now been laid before us. We infer from some 
words of Dr. Gneist in the preface to * Das englische Parlament,' 
that this treatise is only the precursor of a longer and more impor- 
tant work. 

In ' Das englische Parlament ' there is, indeed, except in the 
last sixty pages, which are concerned with the present century, not 
much that is new. It is for the most part a repetition of those 
portions of the * Verfassungsgeschichte ' which bear on the history 
of parliament. In some respects the newer work supplements the 
older, by treating the actual constitution of parliament and of the 
assemblies which preceded it in greater detail, but generally speak- 
ing it is the * Verfassungsgeschichte ' over again in a more or less 
compressed form. Some objections may doubtless be raised to this 
method of treating the subject — for the subject, after all, is but one 
— in three or four distinct works. There cannot but be needless 
repetitions ; the same matters reappear in different order and pro- 
portion ; and the reader is not always sure where to find the fullest 
information on any particular point. But the whole series of 
works, taken together, undoubtedly contains a mass of information 
which is not to be found elsewhere except in books and documents 
inaccessible to most readers, as well as original and thoughtful 
conclusions which, whether we accept them or not, never fail to 
deserve the respect due to careful research and impartial judgment. 

The introduction which Dr. Gneist has prefixed to 'Das englische 
Parlament ' throws an interesting light on the author's general views, 
and his manner of regarding the institutions of society in the present 
day. These views are consistent and intelligible ; they are those 
.of an evolutionary optimist. As a good Prussian and a lawyer, he 
exalts the state; as a religious man and a practical politician, he 
does not underrate the value and power of the church ; as a student 
conversant with the unceasing development of society, he has faith 
in sober and rational reform. The need of common defence, the 
necessity of a power to define the duties and maintain the rights 
of the citizen, created the state and justify a strong executive. The 
spiritual wants of men, the demand for a power to mediate between 
class and class, established and will continue to support the church. 
The eighteenth-century theories of equality and the social compact 
are mentioned only as examples of a style of speculation which the 
objective investigation of later times has driven from the field. 
The institution of private property, the inequality of classes and 
individuals, are justified by a sober analysis of human nature. 

After a few remarks on the development of medieval society, in 


its three great aspects, the state, the church, the army, Dr. Gneist 
goes on to sketch the development of EngHsh society in particular. 
The peculiar character of the relation between society and the 
state in this country is due to the fact that the state has always 
demanded the personal services of its subjects in war, justice, and 
police. Most of these duties could only be discharged by men of 
wealth and position — that is, by great landed proprietors. Hence the 
aristocratic nature of our constitution. The reliance which even 
the absolute monarchy of the Norman kings placed on the leaders 
of society, who discharged the duties of local government and 
defence, seemed at first to establish a sort of servitude of the upper 
classes, an SiYistoduly. But this regular discharge of public duties, 
involving a reciprocity of public rights, called into being the 
strongest and most durable aristocracy/ which the world' has seen. 
The monarchy, however, retained sufficient power to prevent the 
formation of an exclusive noble caste, as of exclusive trade-guilds, 
to rescue the peasants from serfdom, and to hinder the growth of 
class privilege. Under these circumstances, the formation of dis- 
tinct estates of nobles, burghers, and peasants was impossible. 
What was lost by class was gained by the local communities. 
Eural and civic corporations, counties and boroughs, acquired a 
sense of individuality and a cohesion which forced the House of 
Commons slowly into power, enabled parliament to outlive the 
Tudor s and to overthrow the Stuarts, and formed the basis of the 
parliamentary constitution of the eighteenth century. In a similar 
spirit the author sketches the relations of society and the church, 
and of church and state. Here, however, there is nothing specially 
calling for remark, unless it be the prominence given, in a general 
view of political history, to the church. Dr. Gneist's co-ordination 
of church and state, as the two great institutions in which society 
gives expression to its aims and cohesion to its scattered particles, 
may well be compared with the remark of Dr. Stubbs in one of his 
recently published lectures, that * modern history (including medi- 
eval history in the term) is coextensive in its field of view . . . 
with ecclesiastical history.' For both these great writers, church 
and state are but two aspects of the same organism. 

Dr. Gneist divides his History of the English Constitution into 
six periods: the Anglo-Saxon; the Anglo-Norman or feudal, which 
he considers as lasting down to 1272 ; the period of the estates of 
the realm — that is, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; the 
Tudors ; the Stuarts ; and the eighteenth century. The History of 
the Parliament is told in nine * Essays,' giving a series of pictures 
of that institution at different epochs. * Looking at these from the 
outside,' says Dr. Gneist, * we might imagine them to be the par- 
liaments of different nations ; but a closer view brings to light an 
inner unity or continuity not to be paralleled in the history of the 



world.' The first six of these essays cover periods identical with 
those of the ' Constitutional History.' The last three bring the 
history of parHament down to the reform bill of 1885. 

In his survey of the Anglo-Saxon period, little effort is made by 
the author to bring out the collective growth of the constitution. 
It will hardly be denied that there was almost as much difference 
between the time of Ethelbert of Kent and that of E their ed the 
Unready as there was between the time of Ethelred and that of 
William the Norman. It is no doubt very difficult — it may even 
be called hazardous — to trace the development of many institutions, 
before the Norman conquest, but it is an attempt worth making. 
The student is only too apt to forget that six hundred years elapsed 
between the coming of Hengist and the coming of William, and 
that to produce a definite set of ideas and customs and to call it 
the Anglo-Saxon system is pretty nearly the same thing as tO' 
group together the absolute monarchy of Henry I and the parlia- 
ment of Henry VI and to call such a mixture the medieval 
constitution. Dr. Gneist has perhaps hardly kept this enough in 
view. The order, too, in which he treats the different departments 
of his subject is rather likely to confuse the reader. For instance, 
after discussing the primitive bases of English society, he describes 
the Anglo-Saxon monarchy at the height of its power, with all the 
attributes and prerogatives which belong to it in the ninth and 
tenth centuries. He then harks back to the period of the Hept- 
archy and the union of the kingdoms, and discusses the origin of 
shires and other local divisions. What he has to say is in detail 
always clear and intelligible, but the general arrangement is defec- 
tive. *The history of institutions,' says Dr. Stubbs, 'cannot be 
mastered, can scarcely be approached, without an effort ; ' but this 
effort would be infinitely lightened if only historians would adopt 
a definite and consistent arrangement of their matter. 

In his treatment of these early stages of English society, Dr. 
Gneist displays a wholesome historical scepticism. English writers 
have, under the influence of strong political feelings, not unfre- 
quently shown a tendency to discover democratic principles in 
early times or to attribute powers to popular institutions for which 
there is but little evidence. It would not be fair to say that Dr. 
Gneist displays bias in any direction, but he is obviously concerned 
to refute those writers who, ' like heralds making out a pedigree,' 
are over-anxious to trace back the continuous history of popular 
government into a remote antiquity. This is very apparent in the 
second section of his work, which deals with the Norman period, 
but it is also evident in his account of still earlier times. Very 
shortly after the English Conquest, according to Dr. Gneist, > 'the 

' C. H. i. 3, 4. The references at the foot arc to the English translation by IMr. P. 
Ashworth, but the quotations in the text are generally translated directly from the. 



inequality of property had undermined the old position of the free- 
man.' The condition of dependence thus introduced produced 
widely divergent results on the upper and lower classes. On the 
one hand, the dependence of the thanes on the monarchy raised 
them into the position of a great territorial nobility ; on the other 
liand, the dependence of the poor or landless man upon the rich 
tended to deprive the former of his ancestral liberty, or at least of 
all political influence. 

Accordingly the great county courts were, at their first authentic ap- 
pearance, assemblies of greater landed proprietors. ... A picture of old 
<jermanic peasant communities, forming a court in full assembly, under 
the presidency of elective officials, is not to be deduced from Anglo-Saxon 
Tecords. The inequality of property has, in the larger assemblies, thrust 
hack the small man into the position of a bystander. Even in the small 
liundred courts the verdict is generally left to the decision of a narrower 
•circle of witan.^ 

Dr. Gneist repeats elsewhere ^ the assertion that in the county 
•court * the more influential witan ' or * the thanes ' were the regular 
judges. It is difficult to reconcile this with what is known to have 
been the composition of the county court in the middle ages, and 
with the often quoted passage from the * Leges Henrici Primi : ' 
* Regis judices sunt barones comitatus, qui liheras in eis terras habent : 
villani vero dc, non sunt inter judices numerandiJ' The distinction 
is clearly drawn, not between great men and small men, but be- 
tween freeholders and non-freeholders. It is impossible to believe 
that the county courts should have become less restricted in course 
of time : the tendency must have been the other way. One can 
hardly help supposing that Dr. Gneist has been led to adopt this 
view by the difficulty of evolving the aristocratic witenagemot from 
the popular shire-moot. But if, as is quite possible, the witenage- 
mot had another origin, the assumed restriction of the county 
•court becomes a superfluous hypothesis. 

As to the composition of the hundred court, Dr. Gneist is less 
positive. In the passage just quoted he maintains the existence 
of a restricted franchise. But elsewhere ^ he recognises the free- 
holders as habitual attendants at the court of the hundred. That 
this was the case can hardly be doubted. The origin of the hun- 
■dred is traced by Dr. Gneist to the military organisation of the 
early settlements. It is, as he points out, a common Germanic 
institution. He seems to think ^ that the boundaries of the hun- 
dreds were frequently altered before their thorough revision by 

Hence it is clear why the hundred is recognised so comparatively late 
as a territorial division, why the Saxon Chronicle does not mention the 

* C. H, i. 9. Here, by the way, the translation is seriously at fault. 

* C, H, i. 69, 166. * lb. 49, 69, 94, 95 noU. » lb. 48. 


hmidreds, &c. . . . The silence of the early Anglo-Saxon laws cannot be 
entitled to any regard [as pointing to the non-existence of the institution 
in early times], on account of the extreme rarity of their allusions to the 
military system. 

It is well known that the acreage of the hundred and consequently 
the number of hundreds in a given area vary very much in different 
parts of England. Dr. Gneist takes note of this,^ but in calling 
attention to the fact he falls into some curious geographical errors. 
He reckons Dorset as a midland county, while he places Worcester, 
Kutland, Leicester, and other midland counties among those of the 
north. These mistakes do not, however, affect the gist of his 

Few among the obscurities of the Anglo-Saxon system are more 
obscure than the history and meaning of the * tithing.' Dr. Gneist 
has a good deal to say on the subject, but he cannot be said to have 
cleared up the difficulty. After a survey of the different enactments 
on the subject in the law^s of Edgar, Cnut, and others, he arrives^ 
at the negative conclusion, * that the nature of the existing local 
aggregations absolutely excluded a territorial division into tithings.* 
And again : ^ * The local districts were formed on no regular system, 
and the tithing w^as no such local division.' The tithing, however, 
he says elsewhere, was * a small community with a responsible 
head,' and it originated, like the hundred, in the early military 
organisation.^ Now, if this be so, it must have been originally, at 
all events, a territorial unit ; and if it was afterwards utilised, like 
the hundred again, for police purposes, it can hardly have been 
anything else but a local division still. Neighbourhood is of the 
very essence of the early English arrangements for maintaining the 
peace, and mutual responsiblility would have been impossible if the 
members of the union had not been closely grouped together. Dr. 
Gneist, it appears to me, has hardly paid sufficient attention to the 
development of the system of joint surety from the original family 
bond (maegth, msegburh), through the voluntary association (gild, 
gegildan) — of which he says nothing — to the compulsory personal 
responsibility enforced by the law^s of Edgar and Cnut, which en- 
acted that every man should have a surety who should be re- 
sponsible for him. But it does not appear that these enactments 
have anything directly to do with the tithing. The notion that 
they are directly connected with it seems to have arisen from a 
failure to observe that the London frith-gild, ^° with its grouping 
into tens and hundreds under tithing-men and hundredmen, like 
the tenman-tale of York, is an entirely different thing from the 
rural tithing. In these great towns a new system of joint 
responsibility, on a strict numerical basis, seems to have sprung up 

« C.H.i.A9.. ' lb. 51, « lb. 55. 

» lb. 28, 50. »» Jvdicia Civitatis Lundonice, Thorpe, i. 229. 


about the time of Athelstan. But these frith-gilds did not extend 
into the rural districts. In the country at large the only substitute 
was the rule enforced by Edgar and Cnut, mentioned above. The 
authors of the compilation called the * Laws of Edward the Con- 
fessor,' confused the two systems. Then, finding the enactment of 
Cnut, that every free man should be 'brought into a hundred 
and 1^ tithing,' they jumped to the conclusion that the rural tithing 
was a group of ten persons, instead of being, as it is, the tenth 
part of some larger aggregate. Lastly, on this assumption they 
founded the theory that the whole population of England was 
arranged in groups of ten for the purpose of mutual responsibility. 
This they called the system of frank-pledge, and thus foisted a 
Norman institution on their predecessors before the Conquest. No 
joint responsibility of the rural tithing can, it appears to me, be 
deduced from the Anglo-Saxon laws. All they enact is that the 
inhabitants of any tithing, like the inhabitants of a hundred, shall 
be liable for certain duties, such as helping the authorities to catch 
criminals ; and that every freeman shall be a member of a tithing — 
that is, that there shall be some district in which he may perform 
those duties. It is certainly rather presumptuous to differ from 
such an authority as Dr. Gneist, but I cannot help thinking that 
the rural tithing is a local division, a fraction of the hundred, 
originating in military necessities, and afterwards utilised for other 
purposes of state ; that it has nothing to do with the system of 
mutual responsibility ; and that it is quite different from the urban 
tithing, which was strictly numerical, probably local too, and did 
involve mutual responsibility. Dr. Gneist ^^ traces the * error that 
the tithing is a local district ' to a passage in Ingulfus, in which the 
law is stated * ut omnis indigena in aliqua centuria et decima existeret* 
This he calls a corruption of the passage in William of Malmes- 
bury, * ut omnis Anglus haheret et centuriam et decimamJ But the 
author of * Ingulfus,' whoever he may have been, is simply trans-^ 
lating the law of Cnut, and is so far from copying "William that he 
states correctly what William states incorrectly. 

On the later history of the thanehood, Dr. Gneist has some 
clear and excellent remarks ; but one could wish that he had more 
fully explained its origin, and the relation between the thane and 
the gesith. If, as seems probable, the title thane was at first, 
confined to the fighting gesith, it was natural that the former, as^ 
the more honourable denomination, should eventually extinguish 
the latter. In the earlier laws the title gesith is found, but not that 
of thane; in the later the reverse is the case. The older title, 
however, exists into the tenth century in the form gesithcund and 
gesithcundman. Dr. Gneist ^^ says that the *twelfhynde man** 

» Not or, as the translation, C. H. i. 51, has it. " C. H. i. 51, note, 

« lb. 90, 91, note. 


(i.e. the man whose * wer ' is twelve hundred shillings) is equivalent 
to the thane who owns five hides of land and is bound accordingly 
to military service, while the ' sixhynde man ' is equivalent to 
the * gesithcundman,' and denotes the warrior without such free 
possessions. He adds that the latter grade *did not apparently 
maintain itself long.' This remark seems to be true of the title 
* sixhynde,' but not of the grade which it indicates. The title * gesith- 
<;und ' originally had a wide signification, meaning simply * noble,' 
and is used in this sense in the laws of Wihtraed. But in the 
general body of the ' gesithcund ' there arose certain grades, and 
that denomination became restricted to the lower nobility, as dis- 
tinct from the ealdormen and king's thanes, who formed the 
highest ranks. The title * sixhynde ' may have been the equivalent 
of * gesithcund ' in this restricted sense, but it nowhere appears 
that * gesithcund ' was a title specially denoting the * warrior with- 
out free possessions.' The * gesithcundman,' according to the 
laws of Ine,^^ may hold land or not, but, according to the table of 
wergilds,^^ probably a century and a half later, a man could not 
become ' gesithcund ' without getting five hides of land. From 
this and other indications it would appear that the title, which dis- 
appears before the end of the tenth century, simply means noble, 
and was thus the equivalent of thane ; but that, like the latter 
title, it was not applied to nobles of higher rank, who were especi- 
ally denoted as earls, ealdormen, or king's thanes. The distinc- 
tion is much the same as that betw^een majores and minores 
barones in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. But the question 
is obscure, and, after all, possesses rather an archaeological than an 
historical or political interest. 

One of the best chapters in this section of Dr. Gneist's work is 
that on the monarchy. But here again, as in the cases of the 
msegburh and the gesith, he show^s little interest in the origin of the 
institution. He passes over in complete silence the curious pheno- 
menon of the double kingship, which appears to have been the 
earliest form in several at least of the tribes which conquered 
Britain. It may be compared with the double monarchy of which 
there are traces in Homer and in early Kome, and which 
■existed in Sparta in historic times. In Kent it continued, as the 
laws of Hlothsere and Eadric show, almost as long as that state 
preserved a separate existence. 

Very little is said about the witenagemot in the * Verfassungs- 
geschichte,' but the deficiency is to a large extent supplied in * Das 
englische Parlament.' Dr. Gneist does not enter upon the ques- 
tion of its origin. This is perhaps a wise abstention, but much 
that is obscure in its later history might be elucidated if we knew 
from what earlier form of assembly it was developed. For instance, 
" Thorpe, i. 135. '* Jb, 189. 


did any but a few great men ever appear in the assembly in later 
times, or was it in theory — if we can speak of theory at all before 
the Conquest — the right of every freeman to take part in the 
council of the nation? Dr. Freeman asserts that this was the 
theory; Dr. Stubbs contents himself with pointing out that no 
case is known in which the freeman availed himself of the right, if 
right there was. Obviously, if the witan in its original form were 
the assembly of the whole folk spoken of in the ' Germania,' the 
recollection of the right might have been expected to live long 
in the mind of the people. It seems to be the received theory 
that the witan was a sort of extract of folkmoots, formed by the 
gradual withdrawal of the poor man, who, as the kingdoms became 
larger by absorption, found it more and more difficult to attend. 
There are several objections to this theory, which I have not space 
to set forth here. On the other hand, it is clearly possible that 
the witan was developed from the assembly of principes, which 
Tacitus tells us existed alongside of the popular assembly. But I 
cannot help thinking that the theory which most fully accords with 
the characteristics of the witan in later times is that it originated 
neither in the assembly of principes, nor in an amalgamation of 
folkmoots, but in the royal comitatus, the body of officials and 
others at court, with any great men from subject or tributary 
kingdoms whom the king chose to summon. On this question 
Dr. Gneist has unfortunately nothing to say, though he would 
perhaps be as much pleased as Dr. Freeman would be annoyed 
to find the witan turn out to be in its origin merely a royal 
xjouncil. As to the powers of the witan he for the most part 
follows Kemble, but makes a distinction, which is certainly neces- 
sary, between the normal rights, as that of taking part in legis- 
lation, and the abnormal exercises of power, as in the deposition 
of kings, of which there is no really valid case after the time of 
Egbert. In fact, while allowing the witan a considerable share of 
power, especially towards the close of the Anglo-Saxon period, he 
refuses to invest it with the extensive control over almost all 
matters of government which, according to Kemble, Palgrave, and 
other writers, it possessed. 

It is in his treatment of the Norman and early Angevin periods 
that Dr. Gneist's views diverge most widely from those hitherto 
generally received in this country. While not going to the lengths 
of Prynne and other historico-political writers of the seventeenth 
century, EngHsh historians of a later date have as a rule refused 
to recognise an unlimited or absolute monarchy as existing in 
England at any time. Most of them moreover, if asked at what 
period English government most nearly approached a despotism, 
would probably have answered that it was in the time of the Tudors 
Tather than in that of the Norman kings. Dr. Gneist undertakes 


to show that William the Conqueror and his immediate successors, 
were as nearly autocratic as it is possible for European sovereigns 
to be. He points out that the whole of the administrative 
machinery — ^justice, police, the army, taxation and expenditure- — 
was in their hands. They established courts of law and depart- 
ments of state, the cuiia regis and the exchequer, according to their 
convenience ; they alone appointed and dismissed their high 
officials, and created new offices ; they made peace and war, 
unhindered by the voice of the nation or by considerations of ex- 
pense ; even over the church, for a generation at least after the 
Conqueror, their will was law. If they wished to make fundamental 
changes in the law of the land, as by the act separating the civil 
and ecclesiastical jurisdictions, the utmost concession which they 
made to the theory or tradition of a legislative witan was to 
summon their great vassals, and to go through the form of obtain- 
ing an assent which no one would have dared to refuse. If they 
issued charters they did but impose voluntary fetters on themselves, 
which with equal ease they could throw aside, or they offered them 
as a bribe in order to silence objections to a defective title. It is 
true that certain assemblies, the curice de more, were for some time 
held, but these were mere gatherings for show, occasions for feast- 
ing and display. They were a substitute for the gatherings of the 
witan in Anglo-Saxon times, but the powers of the witan were in 
abeyance. What had been a legislative assembly became a mere 
consultative council, which owed its existence to the royal will, and 
even these gatherings fell into desuetude within two generations 
after the Conquest. Such is the picture which Dr. Gneist draws, 
and which he supports, it must be allowed, with very strong argu- 

He explains ^^ how this absolutism inevitably resulted from the 
circumstances of the time. There was wanting throughout the 
country that cohesion of individuals and classes which alone enables 
a people to make head against a centralised despotism. The 
Norman lords had no common bond except their suzerain, they 
could not trust their own vassals, and still less could they combine 
with the Saxon population. The Norman prelates were equally 
severed from the mass of the clergy by national differences, as well 
as by their support of celibacy and other alien principles. The 
conquered Enghsh could not resist the tyranny of the crown with- 
out exposing themselves to the nearer tyranny of the barons ; the 
conquering Normans were restrained by the dangers of their own 
position in the midst of a hostile population, or, if they rebelled,, 
were easily destroyed piecemeal by a king who in his conflicts with 
them could always rely upon the nation. 

In the light of recent investigations, few will deny that in almost. 
'« Gesch. des Pari 11 ff. 


all branches of government the Norman sovereigns exercised a 
sway practically unlimited, except by their own shrewd perception 
of what was politic or expedient. The question resolves itself into 
this : what measure of influence on the general affairs of state was 
exercised by those national assemblies which undoubtedly met at 
short intervals during the greater part of the period ? and secondly, 
to what extent did the crown control the great vassals in the enjoy- 
ment of their local authority ? Allowing full weight to the argu- 
ments which Dr. Gneist deduces from the lack of evidence about 
these national assemblies, and from the impregnable position of the 
Norman king as the single head of two hostile nationalities, I cannot 
help thinking that he underrates the limitations imposed both by 
the collective forces of the baronage in council and by the right 
which they enjoyed within the area of their feudal jurisdictions. 
We have, unfdrtunately, no reports of proceedings at the curice de 
moref but we know that they were not merely empty show. Im- 
portant affairs of state were discussed, sometimes at considerable 
length. On one occasion, for instance, in 1085 the sittings lasted 
for ^Ye days,^^ and * the king had a great council and very deep 
speech with his witan about this land.' Legislation of the type of 
Ine's or Alfred's codes there was none, so that in this respect a 
comparison between the Anglo-Saxon witan and the Norman curice is 
impossible. But for such legislation as there was, the consent of 
the great lords was not assumed ; it was asked for and obtained. 
The Conqueror states this himself in the act about ecclesiastical 
jurisdictions ; it is stated for him by Henry I with regard to the 
amendments which he introduced into the laws of Edward. Henry 
is not likely to have departed from the truth in order to invent a 
precedent limiting his own power, and even if the statement were 
untrue it would represent the theory in existence early in the 
eleventh century, a theory which asserts itself elsewhere in Henry I's 
charter. The autocratic character of legislation in the Norman 
times is inferred by Dr. Gneist ^® from the use of the first person — 
* volo,' * prohibeo,' and the like — and from the absence of the signa- 
tures which attest the documents of Anglo-Saxon times. Too much 
stress, however, should not be laid on these indications, which 
might be paralleled from times when there could be no question as 
to the necessity of parliamentary assent. It must also be remem- 
bered that William I occupied the throne as the rightful heir of 
Edward. He came not as a conqueror, but as a legitimate king* 
It was not his cue to reverse the whole system of government, and 
needlessly to alienate the mass of his English subjects by abolishing 
their chief political institutions. Nor, on the other hand, had the 
duke of Normandy possessed unlimited power in his own country, 
and his chief supporters in England were well enough acquainted 

" Engl. Chron. s. a. '« Gesch. des Pari 77. 


with this fact. It is hardly conceivable that, as soon as he crossed 
the Channel, he should have been able to emancipate himself entirely 
from the influence which his vassals had been wont to exercise in 
Normandy. It is scarcely more easy to understand how the great 
feudal lords should have been content to meet time after time in 
order to discuss affairs of state, if their wishes or opinions were of 
no effect. An assembly of great men, called together frequently to 
give advice, inevitably becomes something more than a mere 
advising body. It is true that we have no positive evidence that 
the projects of law or other measures submitted to these assemblies 
underwent any modifications at their hands, but this does not 
justify us in assuming that no such modifications took place. Dr. 
Gneist remarks that the English might see in this assembly their 
time-honoured witenagemote, and the Normans their cour de baronies 
but that the Conqueror took care that it should be neither the one 
nor the other.^^ Dr. Stubbs ^^ says : — 

The view which I have maintained is different ; I believe that the Con- 
queror wished to make these councils both witenagemotes and baronial 
courts, so maintaining form and reality that the one principle should be 
a check on the other ; but it is a mistake to adopt too strict definitions in 
such matters. 

Elsewhere *^ Dr. Stubbs speaks in stronger terms : — 

The royal court . . . entering into all the functions of the witenage- 
mote, was the supreme council of the nation, with the advice and consent 
of which the king legislated, taxed, and judged. 

It would perhaps be difficult to establish the full truth of this 
statement, but the view maintained by Dr. Gneist seems also to 
require modification. 

As to the control which the crown was able to exert over the 
great lords individually in the exercise of their local jurisdictions, 
Dr. Gneist has some instructive remarks. He points out ^^ how 
the private jurisdictions were from the first limited and gradually 

For financial and political reasons the English monarchy, unlike its 
fellows on the continent, impeded every development of the court baron, 
and, without attacking it in principle, gradually neutralised the judicial 
power of the mesne lords. 

Various circumstances contributed to this result; the dispersion 
of baronial properties over the country, the superior character of 
the royal courts, the growing complexity of the law which necessi- 
tated professional judges, and the gradual falling in of great fiefs, 
the re-grant of which was not necessarily accompanied by the grant 
of judicial rights. Later on ^3 Dr. Gneist explains how, through 

•» C. H. i. 247. 2. co^^i^ jji^^^ i 357^ ^^^^ 2, j^^ 276. 

''■" C. H. i. 172 f. " j6. 191^ 196^ ^Q^ 


the interference of the sheriff, and the system of fines or amercia- 
ments for any transgression or neglect of duty, the crown was able 
to bring strong pressure to bear upon the feudal lords, and gradu- 
ally to oust them from their jurisdictions, though this process was 
not completed till after the reign of Edward I. 

His description of the Norman and early Angevin system of 
justice and police, a description repeated with additional details in 
his work on * Self-Government,' throws much fresh light on a very 
difficult portion of the subject, and may perhaps be regarded aa 
one of the best parts of his book. He considers the sheriff's tourn, 
though held in the hundred court, as an offshoot of the county 
court, due to a royal commission, in which the sheriff appears as a 
sort of justice on eyre in his own county .^"^ Eegarded in this way, 
the sheriff's tourn anticipates the journeys of the itinerant justices. 
The development of the private courts leet from the sheriff's tourn 
is clearly explained by the author, ^-^ who, in this and other con- 
nected matters, compresses the more detailed account given in 
' Self-Government.' 

Of the royal revenue in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Dr. 
Gneist gives, on the whole, a full and clear account ; but even he 
leaves unexplained not a few of the difficulties which puzzle a 
beginner. It is impossible, for instance, to discover from Dr. 
Gneist's pages whether hidage and carucage are the same tax 
under different names, and whether the same lands were at one 
time liable to scutage and at another to carucage, or not. It is a 
pity, too, that the author has not more clearly marked the develop- 
ment of the financial system under Henry II and his sons. The 
unwary student might almost fancy that scutage was a Norman 
tax, and his attention is certainly not sufficiently directed to the 
importance of the step involved in the taxation of moveables. Dr. 
Gneist has his own explanation to give of a difficulty which has 
puzzled other historians, that of the continuation of the Danegeld — 
in spite of its abolition by Edward the Confessor — during the Norman 
times and upon certain estates. He says : ^^ — 

The Danegeld as a lawful tax was abolished and remained so ; but the 
old valuation of the productive returns of ordinary lands was often retained 
on the occasion of the later exaction of tallagia, dona, and auxilia, in order 
to avoid making a fresh valuation each time. . . . But it is easy to under- 
stand that the hated name of Danegeld, with its humiliating memories, 
was studiously avoided. Moreover every revival of Danegeld as such 
would have involved the result that the numerous exemptions from the= 
old tax would have revived also. 

But though Danegeld was dropped in common parlance, the old 
phrase was naturally used in the exchequer to denote what was. 
only the old tax in a new form. 

2* C. H. i. 177. " lb. 191. '" lb- 213, note. 


In his treatment of the central, judicial, and administrative 
bodies of the twelfth century, the curia regis and the exchequer, Dr. 
Gneist differs somewhat from the notions generally received in this 
country. With regard to the origin of the exchequer, he accepts 
Dr. Stubbs's refutation of the statement which Dr. Gneist maintained 
in the * Verwaltungsrecht,' that the exchequer was bodily transported 
into England from Normandy. Though the ' Dialogus ' itself states 
this, * an actual importation from Normandy cannot be substantiated 
. . . the material part of the institution certainly belongs to the 
Anglo-Norman state. '^'^ But he retaliates by rejecting Dr. Stubbs's 
suggestion that the Sicilian exchequer was imported into that island 
by an Englishman, Thomas Brown.^^ According to Dr. Gneist,^^ the 
exchequer, * in contradistinction to the other functions of the central 
government, which are merely temporary and periodical, forms the 
only department of state with a definite and permanent organisa- 
tion ' in the Norman period. The importance of this statement 
lies in its bearing on the curia regis regarded as a supreme court of 
law. As to the exchequer itself. Dr. Gneist has nothing new to say, 
unless it be in the note on the exchequer of the Jews, which is 
taken from Madox, and which supplements a deficiency in Dr. 
Stubbs's work. But his view of the curia differs in very important 
respects from that of Dr. Stubbs, and still more from that of other 
writers on the subject. He treats the curia regis under three 
aspects, (1) as a court-day, i.e. a levee, or general assembly of great 
vassals — the so-called curia de more; (2) as a high court of law; 
(3) as a council of state.^^ I have already dealt with his view of it 
under the first aspect. As a high court of law Dr. Gneist considers 
that it had no definite form, continuous existence, or regular body of 
judges till the reign of Henry H. He bases his negative arguments 
partly on the fact that the Norman baronage, being ignorant of 
English law, could not try cases in which English law was involved, 
while a cour de harojiie could not be formed out of the crown- vassals, 
five hundred in number, the greater of whom would not have 
submitted to be outvoted by the mass of smaller tenants-in- chief. 
Nor were the great officers of state so permanent or homogeneous a 
body as to form the regular nucleus of such a court as was required. 

For obtaining a proper legal decision there was therefore no course open 
but to select a body of persons to act as judges. . . . We find the judicial 
supremacy of the crown exercised only through the medium of commis- 
sions, and this only in comparatively few cases, in which the most 
powerful and most highly favoured tenants-in-chief were concerned. In 
all cases for which there is documentary evidence these commissions 
display so fleeting a character in respect oi ^personnel, form, and legal prin- 

2^ C. H. i. 220, note. 

2" Here, by the way, the translation is completely at fault, as a reference to Dr. 
Stubbs would have shown the translator. 

» C.H. 1.219. 3« j^, 246,/. 


<}iples, that the idea of a permanent court of justice of Norman peers 
would never have arisen had not the lack of evidence been supplemented 
hj interpolations from the institutions of the continent and of later 
centuries. . . . This cicria regis did not consist of the collective body of 
all the vassals of the crown, who in their present form constituted no 
exclusive body, nor of a definite number of great vassals, . . . nor of a 
definite number of great officers of state.^^ 

Dr. Stubbs, on the other hand,^^ regards the curia as a court 
which before the end of the Norman period had already assumed a 
tolerably definite shape. It was ' the court of the king sitting to 
administer justice with the advice of his counsellors ; these 
counsellors being, in the widest acceptation, the whole body of 
tenants-in-chief, but in the more limited usage, the great officers 
of the household and specially appointed judges.' Dr. Gneist's 
view is, as Dr. Stubbs remarks, ^^ * an extreme view, in harmony 
with his general idea of the despotism of the Norman sovereigns,' 
but it is probably nearer the mark than that of most English 
historians, w^ho ' attribute more solidity and definiteness to the 
legal institutions of the period than they can be proved to have 
possessed.' Whether the special commissions which had been 
entrusted with the decisions of important cases had before the end 
of Henry I's reign crystallised into a more or less permanent and 
definite court, it is probably impossible to decide with certainty. 
But the fact that such a court existed in the very early days of 
Henry II' s reign, together with certain allusions to the curia in 
still earlier times — for instance, in the ordinance of Henry I for 
the holding of the hundred and shire courts — seem to make it 
probable that this was the case. Dr. Gneist, indeed, refuses ^ to 
fix an earlier date than 1178 as that of the establishment of a 
permanent and definite royal court. In that year, as is well known, 
the court of king's bench — the body of justices acting coram rege 
in hanco — was established, but it is surely hypersceptical to refuse 
to recognise the existence of a regular court before that time. It 
was not a new court which Henry II created in 1178 : all accounts 
point rather to the modification of one already in existence. 

On the other hand, we cannot but agree with Dr. Gneist when 
he asserts the non-existence of a regular council of state at this 
period. Although it cannot be doubted that Henry I or Henry II 
would take counsel with one or more of his high officials as cir- 
cumstances seemed to require, there is no evidence that the whole 
body of officers with or without the assistance of other persons, 
formed in the twelfth century anything like the later council, 
regularly summoned and consulted, and acting with a collective 
authority differing essentially from that vested in any individuals. 
Such a body does not appear till the minority of Henry III. 

s» C. H. i. 257, 259, 261. ^s c^^ws^. Hist, i. 387. " Ih. 388, note. '* C. H. i. 279. 


The assumption of the existence in the twelfth century of a permanent 
royal council, under the name of a concilium ordinarium, or ' select 
council,' is an anticipation of the result of circumstances which only 
developed in later times.^^ 

The origin of what may properly be called parliamentary 
government Dr. Gneist finds in the national councils summoned by 
Henry II. These assemblies, called together not for show but 
primarily to discuss important affairs of state, formed a series of 
precedents not to be ignored, and established a custom which could 
be stated as law in the constitutional clauses of Magna Carta. I 
do not know that any previous writer has so clearly noted the 
importance of the conflict between Henry and Becket in bringing 
about this change. As Henry I summoned the national militia to 
aid him against his rebellious vassals, as Henry VIII used the 
parliament to help him in banishing the pope, so Henry II called 
together the temporal lords to support him in his struggle with the 
spiritual power. 

The ecclesiastical disorders [says Dr. Gneist] form the turning-point 
at which the king found it advisable to proceed only with the express 
sanction of the crown-vassals . . . The first step in this direction was 
when, in 1164, the king laid before them the Constitutions of Clarendon. 
. . . Thus the deeply rooted national idea of the highest legislative power 
* conse7isu melioncm terrm ' woke to new life on this occasion. ... In 
place of the informal councils, the collective body of the great prelates, 
earls, and great barons was summoned . . . and at Becket's condemna- 
tion this assembly acts as a court of peers in the form of a great feudal 
curia, no longer as a judicial commission appointed by the supreme power 
of the crown.^^ 

It is to these occasions, too, that Dr. Gneist traces the begin- 
nings of a separate estate of * lesser barons,' summoned now and 
then to take part with the greater baronage in the discussion of 
public affairs. Not that the distinction between majores and 
minores barones now first arose : on the contrary it had existed 
and had been recognised in various ways from the times immedi- 
ately succeeding the Conquest. But the distinction was accentuated 
by the different treatment which the two classes received in con- 
nexion with the national council, and was legally established by 
its recognition in the great charter. The parliamentary side of 
constitutional history during the latter half of the twelfth century 
is, however, rather superficially treated by Dr. Gneist. One need 
not be much surprised at this being the case, in accordance with 
his plan, in the ' Verfassungsgeschichte,' but there is some reason 
for surprise that instead of treating it more fully he has paid even 
less attention to it in * Das englische Parlament.' 

The same remark may be made about Dr. Gneist 's treatment of 

»* C. H. i. 269. »« lb. 286-8. 


Henry Ill's reign. He devotes a chapter — by no means too much 
— to a sketch of the causes which rendered possible the national 
combination of 1215, and to an analysis of the great charter. The 
whole of the long and important reign of Henry III is disposed of 
in another chapter. This is perhaps to be justified as being in 
accordance with Dr. Gneist's general aim, which is rather to give a 
series of pictures of the institutions actually existing at particular 
epochs, than to trace their development, or to describe the attempts 
and failures of revolutionary times. Still, it may perhaps be re- 
gretted that neither in the * Yerfassungsgeschichte ' nor in * Das 
englische Parlament' has the author devoted fuller attention to 
what he rightly calls ' the attempts at a government by estates of 
the realm,' which distinguish the reign of Henry III. It is need- 
less to say that in the space of twenty pages it is impossible to deal 
satisfactorily with the parliamentary history of the reign before 
1258 and with the events of the next seven years, so fruitful in 
constitutional precedent and constructive ideas. A few lines only 
are given to the Provisions of Oxford ; no notice at all is taken of 
the Ordinance of London (1264) ; the essential difference between 
the movement of 1258 and that of 1264 is not remarked, although 
it is this difference which marks the point when the third estate 
first comes forward as an independent claimant for political rights. 
There are some errors, too, in the sketch, short as it is. It was 
not in 1258, but in 1259, that the * communitas hachellerice Anglice ' 
sent in the protest which resulted in the Provisions of Westminster. 
The so-called barons' war did not begin in 1264, but in 1263. In 
a long note at the end of the chapter, Dr. Gneist enumerates the 
cases during Henry Ill's reign in which representatives from the 
counties were summoned to meet the king. But he will not allow 
that any but tenants-in-chief (Kronvasallen) were summoned before 
1265, and he maintains that even these were summoned, not for 
the purpose of taking part in general discussions of affairs of state, 
but only for certain specified and limited objects. I cannot see 
sufficient ground for either of these statements. The choice of 
representatives may have been practically limited to tenants-in-chief, 
but this cannot be proved from the writs, or from the method of 
election which, as far as we know^ was employed; certainly the 
phrase 'fideles nostri,' to which Dr. Gneist points ^^ as proving the 
limitation, is capable of a wider interpretation. In speaking of the 
parliament of 1264, Dr. Gneist says,^^ ' The question here touches 
only the restoration of the national peace, and a deliberation con- 
cerning it.' But the * restoration of the national peace ' was just 
then the most important subject that could have been discussed, 
and the outcome of the discussion was a complete revolution in the 
system of government. Fuller and higher powers could not have 

3' C. H. i. 331. ^ Ibid, 

VOL. III. — NO. IX. C 


been exercised by any parliament than were exercised by the par- 
liament of June 1264, and we know, from the Ordinance of London 
which was passed by that parhament, that the ' commnnitas," that is, 
the * commons,' as distinct from the ^pnelati et harones,' were present 
and consenting. The difference between the parliament of June 1264 
and the better-known one of January 1265 is not in the object of 
the summons or the business discussed, but in the fact that on the 
latter occasion members from the boroughs as distinct from the 
counties took their seats for the first time. In ' Das englische Parla- 
ment,' the parliament of June 1264 is altogether omitted. 

The third division of Dr. Gneist's two works carries the student 
from the beginning of Edward I's reign to the end of the middle 
ages and the accession of Henry VII. In the ' Constitutional His- 
tory,' although one long chapter is devoted to the history of parlia- 
ment, a far larger share of attention is devoted to the other portions 
of the subject ; in the ' History of Parliament ' this proportion is 
naturally reversed. The chapters in which the author treats of the 
system of justice and police under Edward I and his immediate 
successors are admirable specimens of his work, luminous and 
suggestive throughout. He brings out clearly and forcibly the 
importance of the period, as that in which the higher and lower 
portions of the machine of state, the central and the provincial 
organisation, were finally welded together into one compact and har- 
monious whole. Here he is in complete harmony with Dr. Stubbs, 
whose words, * The peculiar line of Edward's reforms, the ever per- 
ceptible intention of placing each member of the body politic in 
direct and immediate relation with the royal power, in justice, in 
war, and in taxation,' ^^ are quoted with full approval. 

The greatness and peculiarity of this legislation [from 1267 to 1377] lies 
in the constant realisation of a single fundamental idea — the combination 
of all the functions of the civil power with the larger communal unions 
already in existence ; a combination through which the people became 
penetrated with the consciousness of political duties, inspired with an 
idea of political unity, and competent to take the preservation of peace 
and order into their own hands.'*^ ... On the one hand [Dr. Gneist goes on 
to say], thanks to the retention of the Anglo-Saxon judicial system, to the 
complete obliteration of national differences, and to the transformation 
of the old judicium parium into the system of trial by jury, the local 
unions of county, hundred, and borough were ready to act as foundations 
for the political edifice, while the Norman autocracy had habituated the 
wealthy classes to the discharge of public duties. On the other hand, the 
central authority of the state had been established in sufficient unity and 
power, through the action of the exchequer, the curia regis, and other 
means. The problem now was to blend together these elements so as to 
form an organic union of the central government with the government of 

*» Stubbs, Const. HisL ii. 292. *" Gneist, C. II. i. 348. 


the provinces, smaller districts, and towns, such an organic union as still 
forms the chief problem which the German empire has to solve."*^ 

Dr. Gneist then proceeds to show how this prohlem was solved 
in England in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The mili- 
tary forces of the nation were organised by statute and ordinance, 
by such acts as the statute of Winchester, and by the commissions 
of array, which brought the national army directly under control of 
the crown. The principles underlying the administration of justice 
in the local courts are stated by Dr. Gneist as follows. (1) A sepa- 
ration is made between sentence and evidence [i.e. the same persons 
no longer act both as witnesses and judges] ; (2) the duty of giving 
sentence is laid upon professional judges appointed by the crown ; 
(3) the question of fact is determined by committees of the commu- 
nity [juries] selected from the hundreds and counties and named 
by a royal official.''^ The processes by which the local courts were 
connected with the benches of judges, the steps by which the jus- 
tices of the peace and other elements of the police system were 
evolved, the application of the local unions to the purpose of self- 
assessment, are clearly and explicitly stated. In another chapter 
Dr. Gneist treats of the central courts of justice, which, according 
to him, did not take their final shape, with distinct staffs of judges, 
till towards the end of the thirteenth century. Gradually the work 
of itinerant justices came to be absorbed by the justices of the 
central courts ; the work of these courts was largely extended, a 
class of professional lawyers sprang up, and the law itself was 
developed and determined by countless legal decisions, which sup- 
plemented the deficiencies of statute and ordinance. 

On the subject of the permanent or continual council, which 
at this time became a body of primary importance in the state. 
Dr. Gneist has not much to add to or correct in the work of his 
predecessors. But in treating of the history of parliament from 
Edward I's reign onward, he attaches greater importance to the 
magnum concilium, or meeting of prelates and barons only, along 
with the members of the permanent council, than has been attached 
to it by other historians. The * parliament ' of the fourteenth cen- 
tury, in Dr. Gneist's view, is primarily this body. He devotes a 
chapter to its functions and powers, crediting it with a distinct and 
independent existence down to the end of the fourteenth century 
and even later, and with much legislative and other work which is 
usually attributed to the larger body in which the commons formed 
a part. According to Dr. Gneist, the magnum concilium, inter- 
mediate between the continual council and the full parliament of 
three estates, was generally convoked four times a year during the 
greater part of this period. 

"' C. H. i. 349. *^ lb. 356. 

c 2 


We have here to do [he says"*^], not with a mere estate of the realm, in 
which a privileged class of landowners claim a right to be heard, but with 
a constant and regular participation of the magnates in a political system 
with fully developed powers over mihtary matters, justice, police, and 

Like the continual council, the magnum concilium shared with the 
crown the ordinary work of government, first by voluntary royal con- 
cession, afterwards by custom which stiffened into law. It enjoyed 

* a quadruple sphere of action, as a court of law, a council of state 
for administrative purposes, a tax-granting and a legislative body.' "^^ 
Its functions as a court of law, affording the great lords the judi- 
cium parium to which they laid claim, and to other persons an 
appeal from lower courts, were at first most obvious. Its members 
were recognised as peers, with the right of being tried by the body 
to which they belonged, by the statute of 1341. The title * parlia- 
ment ' was attached to the body in question especially when dis- 
charging judicial duties of this kind ; it was known as the magnum 
concilium when acting as a deliberative and administrative council. 
As such, it took a leading part in investigating and answering peti- 
tions, and it claimed the right of influencing the king's choice of 
his habitual advisers in the continual council. ' Under the house 
of Lancaster the greater part of the executive council consists of 
members who owe their position to the high estimation in which 
they are held in the magjium concilium.'' ^^^ In the matter of taxa- 
tion, though the great council possessed the right of granting 
scutages and aids. Dr. Gneist allows that ' this right had soon to 
be shared with the representatives of the commons, which in this 
respect "^^ gradually acquired a preponderance.' Lastly, with respect 
to legislation, *the great council,' says Dr. Gneist,"^^ 'is until later 
in the reign of Edward III the ordinary body for the discussion of 

In a subsequent chapter Dr. Gneist considers the steps by which 
the commons gradually came to share in the powers of the great 
council, and to form a separate estate in parliament. He is not 
clear as to the date at which this fusion may be regarded as fully 
established, but the general impression left upon the mind after 
reading these chapters is that the normal parliament consisted of 
the great men only till after the middle of the fourteenth century, 
and that the right of the third estate to take its full part in the 
national discussions was not recognised till at least the end of 
Edward Ill's reign. In the matter of legislation, Dr. Gneist takes 
little, if any, notice of the famous declaration of 1322, which re- 
cognises the legislative rights of the commons. According to him,^® 

* the turning-point is the long and financially embarrassed reign of 

" C. H. i. 414. <* lb. 415, « Ih. 421. 

<• Not ' from this point,' as the translation has it. " C. H. ii. 422. *« lb. 19. 


Edward III. The commons, who until then had been only occa- 
sionally mentioned in connexion with parliamentary statutes, are 
from this time seldom omitted.' The same view is maintained in 
' Das englische Parlament.' In tracing the growth of parliamentary 
control over the different departments of government, he does not 
differ essentially from the view of other historians, though he is 
much less complete in this part of his work than Dr. Stubbs, whose 
* chief merit and success ' he considers ^^ * to lie in this period.' But 
it is clear that, in his view of the importance to be attached to the 
limited parliament or great council of prelates and barons, he 
differs widely from the English historian. * The national council,' 
says Dr. Stubbs,^" * as it existed at the end of the reign of Edward I, 
was a parliamentary assembly, consisting of three bodies, the clergy 
. . . the baronage . . . the commons of the realm.' He recog- 
nises, of course, the separate existence of the magnum concilium^ 
but the difference between him and Dr. Gneist is clearly brought 
out in the following passage : -^^ — 

In conjunction with the rest of the prelates and baronage, the permanent 
council acted sometimes mider the title of magnum concilium ; and this 
name was occasionally given to assemblies in which the council and the 
estates met, which are only distinguishable in small technical points from 
proper parliaments. Many of the assemblies of the reign of Henry III . . . 
may be regarded, in the light reflected from the fourteenth century, as 
examples of the magnum concilium ; but in point of fact the magnum 
concilium under Edward II and III was only a form of the general 
national assembly which had survived for certain purposes, when for 
other practical uses of administration it had been superseded by the 
parliament of three estates as framed by Edward I. 

The question is one which it is difficult to decide. The verdict 
will partly depend on the value to be attached to precedents such 
as that set by the model parliament of 1295, and to such declara- 
tions of principle as that of 1322, and partly on the idiosyncrasies 
of the investigator. 

In his remarks on the method of election of representatives for 
counties and boroughs. Dr. Gneist, in the later of his two works, 
adopts the conclusions of Dr. Kiess, as set forth in his ' Geschichte des 
Wahlrechts zum enghschen Parlament' (Berlin, 1885). Dr. Eiess's 
investigations bring out the extreme uncertainty which prevailed in 
the fourteenth century, with regard both to town and county fran- 
chise, and the wide range of influence which the indefiniteness of 
local custom left to the sheriff. They also explain how it was that so 
many of the smaller boroughs escaped the burden of representation. 
Forming only parts of hundreds, they received cheir writs through 
the officers of the hundred and thus escaped making any direct 
return to the sheriff. A very useful excursus on the origin of the 

« C. H. i. 346. 50 Const Hist ii. 194. s' Stubbs, ih. ii. 260. 


hereditary peerage, with an elucidation of the difficulties connected 
with barony by writ, barony by tenure, and kindred matters, is 
given at the end of the chapter on the great council ; ^^ while a 
detailed summary of the steps by which the system of parlia- 
mentary taxation was developed forms an appendix to the chapter 
on the House of Commons.^^ 

The chapters in which Dr. Gneist sketches the condition of the 
church in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and reviews the 
changing fortunes of the ' king in parliament ' in a rapid survey of 
the different reigns, are slight and call for no remark. Those on 
the ' Three Estates ' and the ' Prerogative of the Crown ' are an 
able and interesting summary of the condition and mutual rela- 
tions of classes, and on the monarchy as forming the keystone of 
the political edifice at the close of the middle ages. 

Every collision of the estates with each other and with royalty awakes 
afresh the consciousness that the source of all the rights of the great 
lords and the last protection and support of the weaker classes are to be 
found in the permanent sovereign power — that is, in the monarchy. . . . 
In spite of all the fluctuations and violence of this period, the parlia- 
mentary constitution raised and enhanced the dignity of the crown to a 
point still higher than that at which it had stood in the Norman times.^^ 

The king is still * in theory the sole landowner,' he is ' the head 
of society,' the * hereditary possessor and source of all magisterial 
authority ; '.in him is vested the ' wiperium,' the right of the state 
to command and ordain ; * the king, and not the parliament, makes 
laws.' This view is in accordance with that which Dr. Gneist 
throughout maintains, and the pages in which he relates it form a 
natural stepping-stone from the medieval monarchy to the absolu- 
tism of the Tudor s. 

Up to this point, the close of the middle ages. Dr. Gneist 
traverses ground already occupied by the exhaustive work of Dr. 
Stubbs. It is hardly necessary to say that neither work can well be 
dispensed with by the student. Dr. Gneist is sometimes clearer in 
arrangement, more easy to follow through the maze of detail ; he is 
positive and incisive where Dr. Stubbs is judicial and balanced; he 
presents new views with force and originality, and not unfrequently 
throws fresh light on obscure portions of the subject. But if here and 
there Dr. Gneist supplements or even perhaps corrects Dr. Stubbs, 
there are many more departments of constitutional history in which 
the reader who wishes to find the fullest and most authoritative 
treatment must have recourse to the latter rather than the former. 
It would be invidious and unnecessary to institute a detailed com- 
parison between the two authors. I have noted the more impor- 
tant points on which their opinions differ, and it is impossible to 

« C. H. i. 434. S3 j5, II 40. M j5. II 114, 


say more for auy one who differs from Dr. Stubbs on his own 
ground than that he is a foeman fully worthy of his steel. 

"When we pass beyond the middle ages, the relation between Dr. 
Gneist and the chief English authority is somewhat different. 
Here, again, he cannot be said to supersede Hallam, for on his own 
ground, the principles of government, the nature of the great 
questions at stake, the arguments on either side, the general course 
and connexion of political events and legislation, Hallam will not 
easily be superseded. It is on this side that Dr. Gneist is most 
deficient. But the English writer almost entirely neglects one por- 
tion of his task. Generally speaking, we look in vain through his 
pages for information about the machinery of government, the 
offices of state, the local and provincial authorities, the nature of 
the different bodies or institutions by w-hich the country was 
governed. It is this deficiency which Dr. Gneist supplies, and by 
so doing he becomes a guide of primary importance, indispensable 
for certain purposes to any one who wishes to study the history of 
our constitution during the last four hundred years. 

If, however. Dr. Gneist's work supplies certain defects in other 
authors, there are considerable gaps in his own. In his account of 
the reformation, for instance, he displays an impartial mind, but 
his survey of the legal and constitutional revolution brought about by 
the parliament of 1529 and its successors is sketchy and insufficient. 
An exhaustive examination of the constitutional results of that series 
of enactments which introduced and legalised the reformation is still 
to be made. Nor, again, does Dr. Gneist investigate, except in a cur- 
sory manner, the position of parliament under the Tudors, the esta 
blishment of some of its most important privileges, the influences to 
which it was subjected, and the control which it in its turn exercised 
upon affairs. Of the use made of her ecclesiastical supremacy by 
Elizabeth in the legislation against papists and puritans we hardly 
hear anything in this section, though in his review of the ecclesias- 
tical question in the next century the author returns to this subject. 
It is characteristic of Dr. Gneist's view that he describes the execu- 
tive as ' surrounded by its more or less intimate councillors, in the 
three traditional grades ' — that is to say, the privy council, the mag- 
num concilium, and the House of Commons."^^ One hardly expects 
to meet the magnum concilium in the sixteenth century, and it is 
difficult to see what separate existence was enjoyed by the House 
of Lords apart from the House of Commons. In ' Das englische 
Par lament ' Dr. Gneist drops the title magnum concilium , but he 
enumerates the same three bodies, and treats the upper house of 
parhament separately from the lower. What Dr. Gneist seems 
to mean is that the privy council and the parliament were the two 
bodies into which the councillors of the crown were divided, but 

« C. H. ii. 143. 


why he treats the two houses of parliament as on a different 
footing in this respect is not easy to understand. A beginnefr 
would certainly infer that Henry VIII and Elizabeth summoned a 
magnum concilium as Edward I and Edward III did, but Dr. Gneist 
can hardly mean him to believe this. On the other hand, he re- 
frains from drawing a distinction — unless this is what is meant by 
the separate mention of the magnum concilmm — between the inner 
circle of the privy council and the larger body or ordinary council. 
That such a distinction was recognised, but that confusion also 
existed as to the limits of the concilium ordinarium, is clear, for in- 
stance, from the fact that it was sometimes maintained, as Hudson ^^^ 
tells us, that all peers had a right to sit in the Star Chamber. 

Dr. Gneist devotes the greater part of a chapter to the i^rivy 
council, which he describes as practically identical with the old 
continual council,^^ and not as an unrecognised committee of it. 
This chapter contains much that will be new to many readers, es- 
pecially with regard to the officers of state, the rise of the secre- 
tary, the precedence and functions of the different members of what 
may now be almost called the ministry. 

In his account of the Star Chamber, Dr. Gneist differs from 
Hallam in attaching more importance to the statute of 3 Hen. VII 
as establishing its powers than does his predecessor. He guards 
himself, however, by saying : ^^ — 

This is the extraordinary criminal jurisdiction of the king in council, 
which had never ceased, and which was in this act acknowledged afresh 
and embodied in a committee. . . . The Star Chamber is accordingly only 
a committee of the privy council, on which account also every privy 
councillor could occasionally take part in the proceedings, as was done 
at first in important cases, and later was the general rule. 

Hallam, on the contrary, maintains ^^ that * no ^m?^ of the juris- 
diction exercised by the Star Chamber could be maintained on 
the authority of the statute of Henry VII.' This is exaggerated, 
for the authority conferred on a portion of the council could surely 
be exerted by the whole body. It is clear that some of the most 
important powers exercised by the Star Chamber, i.e. by the council 
in its judicial capacity, were founded on statute, e.g. on the acts of 
1412 and 1453, and that others were well established by precedent. 
What was really illegal, or at least not founded on statute or 
justified by the analogy of early custom, was that the criminal 
jurisdiction which belonged to the whole council was exerted, and 
at length exclusively exerted, by a small and unauthorised part of 
it. Dr. Gneist misses this fact by ignoring the distinction between 
the privy and the ordinary council, which had apparently originated 
in the previous century. In other respects his view of the Star 

*^ Treatise of the Star-chainber, in Collectanea Juridica, vol. ii. 

" C. H. ii. 177. S8 j5. 183. 5« CQjist. Hist. I 54. 


Chamber corresponds with that put forward by Dr. Stubbs in his 
recently pubhshed lectures (Lecture xvi.). 

In his account of the high commission court of Elizabeth's 
reign Dr. Gneist has not used the report of the Ecclesiastical Courts 
Commission, in the framing of which Dr. Stubbs was principally 
instrumental, or he would probably have modified some of his 
views. He treats the court of high commission as if it always 
acted together and in one place. He even calls it ^'^ a ' spiritual 
privy council,' whereas its efficiency depended on its members 
being able to act in many different places at once. It was, in fact, 
much more like the commission of the peace than the privy council. 
To local institutions Dr. Gneist, as usual, devotes a good deal of 
attention, and in this respect brings much which is generally 
neglected to light. He describes at length the parochial system, 
now an important element in the political constitution ; the prin- 
ciples of the new poor-laws ; the development of the powers entrusted 
to justices of the peace, with other kindred matters, as well as the 
connexion between these local institutions and the central govern- 
ment. It would be hard to find anywhere else within an equally 
small space so good an account of this part of the subject. 

In his sketch of the reformation Dr. Gneist distinguishes two 
currents of thought and feeling which mark the movement in 
general: one the opposition to Eoman doctrine, the other the 
revolt of the national principle against the papal sovereignty. He 
justly remarks that the English reformation differs from the 
German chiefly in this, that in England the latter current pre- 
ponderated, in Germany the former. But it is an inadequate view 
of the English reformation to trace it to these two movements 
only. It is hardly necessary to point out that there were two 
other currents of feeling almost as important as the revolt against 
the doctrine and the power of Eome. There was the demand for a 
moral reform, which was uppermost in the minds of Colet and 
More ; and there was the deeply rooted dislike of the political in- 
fluence of the church which had supported Eufus against Anselm 
and Henry II against Becket, which had animated John of Gaunt 
and assisted the Yorkists against the Lancastrians. The constitu- 
tional results of the reformation cannot be explained unless full 
weight is given to these tendencies of English feeling. 

Dr. Gneist's view of Henry VIII's character and ability is much 
the same as that of Eanke, Brewer, and Dr. Stubbs. He does not 
idolise Henry with Mr. Froude, nor condemn him with Mr. Fried- 
mann for a tyrant equally vicious and incapable. 

The boldness and acumen with which Henry VIII carried out his 
scheme, when he had once resolved upon it, give his ruthless and violent 
personality a providential significance for England.^ ^ 

«» C. H. ii. 171. "'16. 158. 


On the political side he compares him with Eichelieu. 

It was by no means the passion or caprice of a despot which predomi- 
nated in his policy. It was rather an anticipation of Eichelieu's system, 
which acting on well-considered reasons of state always strikes directly 
at the heads of the opposition, in order to prevent contagion.^^ 

But it would be wrong, he declares, to style Henvy's government 
an absolute despotism. 

The parliamentary constitution existed, and there was on the part of 
the Tudors no serious intention of abolishing it, nor on that of their 
parliaments any idea of permanently abandoning any part of it.^^ 

Dr. Gneist sums up his view of the Tudor period in the following 
words : — 

The defects and cruelties of this courageous, self-willed family were the 
defects of the time in which they lived and of the nation with whose 
greatness, welfare, and rights they wished to identify themselves. It is 
an epoch of great excitement and intellectual movement, such as seldom 
fails to aifect the character of individuals and classes. But all this makes 
the personality of the Tudors, with their courage and their strength of will, 
the main feature of an era which in spite of its faults was a great one.^'' 

The fifth section of Dr. Gneist 's ' Constitutional History,' which 
deals with the Stuart period, is in some respects the least satis- 
factory portion of the work. The system of administration, the 
subject in which our author is most deeply interested, is of less 
historical importance in the seventeenth century than the great 
struggle between crown and parliament for the control of that 
system. But in the history of the struggle Dr. Gneist does not 
appear to find much that is attractive, a-nd he treats the period 
in a somewhat superficial manner. His remarks are, as usual, 
judicious and impartial, but his remarkable insight and penetration 
are not so obvious when a constitutional conflict is under discussion, 
as when the problem is to discover the nature of an institution or 
the bearing of an obscure law. One would have expected a fuller 
treatment in ' Das englische Parlament,' but this is not the case. 
It is somewhat strange, too, that Dr. Gneist does not mention in 
either of his books Mr. Gardiner's great work among his list of 
authorities, although he mentions several authors of far less im- 

If he has not consulted Mr. Gardiner, he has, nevertheless, 
arrived at the same conclusions respecting the primary importance 
of the religious question in the conflict between king and parlia- 
ment. It is the object of Dr. Gneist's introductory chapter to 
point out the political danger which resulted from the ecclesiastical 
reformation. Between the political power of the crown, limited by 

«'^ C. H. ii. IGl. i-s lb. 154. «^ lb. 193. 


those restrictions which it had been the work of the middle ages to 
impose, and the unhmited ecclesiastical supremacy which the ex- 
pulsion of papal authority had placed in its hands, there was a 
wide difference. This difference Elizabeth had recognised and had 
been content to maintain. The Stuarts sought to obliterate it by 
bringing their political power up to a level with their ecclesiastical, 
while they used their position as heads of the church in such a way 
as to endanger their headship of the state. 

As every political power [says Dr. Gneist ^■^] bears within itself a ten- 
dency to develope into absolutism, so the monarchy inevitably aimed at 
transforming the state into an administrative system after the pattern of 
the church. 

The author goes on to point out how natural it was for the church 
itself to adopt these political theories, and to enhance the royal 
authority in its own interest. 

Thence arose for the first time in England theories about the rights 
of the crown, based almost exclusively on theological conceptions, and 
supported by theological arguments.^^ 

And again : — 

The fate of the monarchy and the constitution depended on the 
attitude which the Stuart dynasty would adopt towards these new theories. 
... By taking part with one extreme, they drove the other to a resist- 
ance which overthrew the monarchy. The English reformation began in 
the sixteenth century with an alteration in the constitution of the church ; 
it ended in the seventeenth century with a political revolution.^'^ 

The introductory chapter of this section is excellent. The 
history of the struggle itself is given in so compressed a form that 
an adequate account of its chief incidents or appreciation of con- 
tending aims and arguments is impossible. Dr. Gneist's griind- 
idee, the reciprocity of rights and duties, which allows him to 
justify the Tudor absolutism, leads him to condemn the Stuarts in 
no measured terms. 

Hardly has any family of rulers ever mounted a throne which has 
shown itself so devoid of all sense of kingly duty as that of the Stuarts. 
. . . The characters of these four monarchs, while differing in other re- 
spects, had this one thing in common, a total inability to understand or 
to respect the law of the land.^^ 

He perhaps goes a little too far in saying, * All aims of this royal 
race, both domestic and foreign, were mistaken.' ^^ James I was 
not mistaken in aiming at religious toleration, at the union with 
Scotland, and at universal peace abroad. It was his methods 
rather than his objects that were wrong. Dr. Gneist is quite right 

"* C. H. ii. 226. «« Das engl. Pari. 231. «^ C. H. ii. 230. 

«« Das engl. Pari. 232. "^ C. H. ii. 233. 


in laying stress on the djaiastic aims of the Stuarts, their insin- 
cerity, their * incapacity for great and lasting political combina- 
tions.' But when he brands Strafford as * a political renegade,' 
and Charles I as ' equally cowardly and selfish,' ^° it may be doubted 
whether his feelings have not got the better of his accustomed im- 
partiality. As to the methods by which Charles I attempted to 
establish an absolute monarchy, and as to the powers of parliament 
which he set himself to abolish. Dr. Gneist is clear and to the 
point, but adds nothing to what previous writers have said. His 
remarks are of a very general nature, and he altogether omits or 
mentions only in a cursory manner the great incidents of the con- 
stitutional struggle. The student who wishes to know why the 
system of unparliamentary government broke down, why after so 
many concessions war nevertheless became inevitable, why the army 
fell out with the parliament, and many other things about which it 
is natural to inquire, will be disappointed if he expects to find 
much light thrown on his difficulties from Dr. Gneist's pages. 
Perhaps these matters do not strictly belong to a history of the 
constitution, but it is somewhat surprising to an English reader to 
find so much that he is apt to call constitutional history left out. 

Of Cromwell's character and ability as a ruler Dr. Gneist has 
a high estimate. 

The impartial observer must confess that Cromwell represented the 
state with honour. . . . The ponderousness (Schtverfdlligkeit) of the 
man, combined with his indefatigable activity, the dry, blunt manner 
with which he makes straight for his object, are incarnations of the 
English character. So too above all are his truthfulness and the sincerity 
of his convictions, ignored as these characteristics have been by later 
writers on account of the biblical unction of his language, which, after 
all, was but the language of his time and of his party. 

The difficulties which obstructed all Cromwell's attempts to form a 
permanent government are well explained by Dr. Gneist. He 
traces these difficulties principally to the anti-bureaucratic character 
of the English system, in fact to the nature . of self-government. 
The whole management of public affairs had been for ages in the 
hands of the classes opposed to Cromwell's power ; they supplied 
alike members of parliament and justices of the peace ; without 
their aid government could not be carried on. It was this which 
overthrew Charles I's absolutism. That the English constitution 
did not share the fate which representative institutions met with 
on the continent was due ' to the substructure of the English 
political system, to the equality of classes before the law, and to the 
mutual cohesion of these classes, which the Stuarts so disastrously 
misunderstood.' ^^ And what saved the constitution from the 
Stuarts saved it also from Cromwell. 

'» C. H. ii. 244, 245. "' Das. cngl. Pari 231. 


In discussing the results of the restoration, Dr. Gneist is careful 
to point out that it was, after all, only a half-restoration. 

The exaggerated party-watchwords of the royahsts, and the violence 
of their measures against all resistance, may easily make it appear that 
the barriers of the parliamentary constitution were overstepped in a 
retrograde direction. And so the restoration has often, though very 
wrongly, been conceived. . . . The restoration meant the re-estabhsh- 
ment of the monarchy by the wealthier classes, who on that very account 
asserted themselves both in the upper and lower house with a com- 
manding self-consciousness such as had not been heard of since the time 
of the baronial parliaments.'^^ 

In fact, although there was still a wide sphere of influence left to 
the crown, and although Charles II and his brother used this 
influence unscrupulously, the reign of Charles II bore more resem- 
blance to that of William III than to that of Charles I. The manner 
in which the later Stuarts employed the advantages which the long 
parliament had left to them, especially in the appointment of 
ministers and of judges and in the control of foreign policy, is well 
explained by Dr. Gneist, but he treats very slightly the growth of 
the reaction against the monarchy. He hardly mentions the Test 
Act or the Exclusion Bill, the Popish Plot or the Habeas Corpus 
Act ; he says nothing of Temple's scheme for a council. On the 
other hand, he has some useful pages about the great ofiices of state, 
and the practice, beginning under Charles I and much developed 
by Charles II, of delegating the business of the privy council to 
committees. But in general, it must be allowed, the affairs of this 
century are treated with scant attention in comparison with those 
of earlier times. 

The last section of Dr. Gneist' s ' Constitutional History ' carries 
the subject; in some detail down to the end of the eighteenth century, 
and concludes with a slight sketch of the era of reform, ending with 
the Eeform Act of 1867. In ' Das englische Parlament ' the latter 
portion is rather more fully treated and the story ends with the 
Eeform Act of 1885. In the larger work this section, like the pre- 
ceding one, is deficient in its treatment of that part of the subject 
which occupies the chief attention of Hallam and May. A single 
sentence is all that can be spared for Wilkes ; Chatham, Burke, and 
Fox are not mentioned ; we hear next to nothing of whig and tory 
measures during the reigns of William and Anne ; the India bills, 
Pitt's attempts at reform, the measures taken to deal with the 
regency question, are hardly, if at all, alluded to ; the unions with 
Scotland and Ireland and the quarrel with the American colonies are 
only incidentally mentioned, but not discussed or explained. But 
little notice is taken of the contrast between the self- obliteration of 
the first two Georges and the efforts of George III to be a king. 

« C, H. ii. 281. 


These omissions are not mentioned as a subject of complaint, for it 
was not part of Dr. Gneist's plan to dwell much upon such matters, 
but attention should be called to them. The author has only 
followed in later times the plan which led him to pass lightly over 
the baronial struggles of the twelfth century and the constitutional 
conflict of the seventeenth. 

In the opening chapter of the section. Dr. Gneist has some re- 
marks upon that characteristic of the later English system, the 
supremacy of law, which are in remarkable accord with the main 
thesis of Professor Dicey's admirable work ' The Law of the Con- 
stitution.' Speaking of the powers of the executive. Dr. Gneist 
says : ^^ — 

The crown is at all times the source, the courts of justice the barrier, 
and the law the supreme regulator of these powers. . . . The law 
recognises the crown as the fundamental institution of the land . . . the 
law controls the sovereign rights of the state . . . the law regulates the 
exercise of magisterial rights, &c. &c. . . . The long struggle against the 
absolutism of the Norman kings and the century of Stuart misgovern- 
ment brought the specialisation of these rules of law to a climax, which 
was attained in the eighteenth century. This regulation by law embraces 
all departments of internal political life. 

This result, which had been so long preparing, was finally established 
by the Eevolution of 1688. Many of the author's remarks on this 
event would gladden the hearts of the most ardent whig. But the 
true Prussian spirit of obedience to the sovereign and the wisdom 
of the legist and historian come out in the following words : — 

The lesson taught by the glorious revolution . . . was that even the 
most righteous insurrection of society against the constitutional executive 
is the greatest disaster that can befall a nation. ... It was not until the 
third generation that the wounds caused by the change of dynasty were 
fully healed.''^ 

Dr. Gneist is by no means inclined to minimise the results of the 
revolution, or to treat it as not marking the commencement of a 
new epoch. 

Every sentence of the Declaration of Rights was but too fully justified 
by preceding events. The whole chain of negative legislation since the 
days of Charles I leads to a fundamental alteration in the system of 
government. . . . Every remnant of dictatorial power, which can have 
any practical importance in the state, is from that time forth denied to 
the king.7'^ 

In support of this view the author sketches the steps by which the 
crown was brought into dependence on the parliament, or, as he 
puts it, the * king in parliament ' supersedes to a great extent the 
' king in council.' The transition from council to cabinet and the 

'» a. H. ii. 332, 340. •' lb, 339. " lb. 407. 


introduction of the modern ministerial system through the dissohi- 
tion of the great offices of state are also discussed, but there is 
nothing here that calls for remark. It may be noted, however, 
that the author, with his usual sound common sense, dismisses the 
idea that representative government without party is practicable. 

The philosophical ideals of a perfect political system, which without 
party strife shall blend the natural diversities of the popular mind into a 
single and undivided will . . . are based on a misconception of human 

In expounding the essential differences between the two great 
parties he follows very much the same lines as Macaulay in his 
famous contrast between whigs and tories, but takes care to point 
out that, whatever were their theories, both parties belonged to the 
aristocracy and betrayed an equal reluctance to take any steps 
likely to subvert their order. 

In several interesting chapters Dr. Gneist sketches the lower 
stages of the governmental system in the eighteenth century, and 
the connexion of sovereign rights and local institutions. He draws 
a distinction between what he calls economic self-government and 
magisterial self-government, the two branches of the same system 
as embodied on the one hand in the local rates, and on the other 
in the local courts and magistrates. He describes the duties and 
powers of the justices of the peace and other local officials, for an 
account of which Hallam and May may be searched in vain. He 
compares our system with those of Germany and France, but with- 
out emphasising, as Professor Dicey does, the great distinction in- 
volved in the fact that in England there is no special law for officials 
such as exists across the Channel. He discusses with great clear- 
ness what he calls the ' final consolidation of the ruling class ; ' 
the means by which the aristocracy secured for itself the complete 
control of affairs, the command of the militia, of justice and police, 
and of finance ; the close connexion between the peerage and the 
gentry, the former being merely a higher rank of the latter, con- 
stantly recruited from it ; and, lastly, the ' welding ' of the church 
into the * parliamentary state,' so that it became an essential 
and important element of the political system. He shows great 
respect for the sagacity with which cabinet government and the 
alternate rule of parties was developed. He notes how the problem 
of combining elasticity and durability was solved, and how the per- 
manence and consequent independence of the judicial and admini- 
strative bodies in all but their highest places rendered frequent 
changes of ministry comparatively innocuous to the state. The 
members of these bodies discharged for ages their allotted tasks, 
either individually or by corporate action, as justices of the peace 

'« C. H. ii. 422. 


or magistrates, as grand juries or vestries, as churchwardens or 
constables, undisturbed by parhamentary disputes and turmoils. 
It is in these humbler stages of our polity, for the most part 
neglected by continental observers and historians, that Dr. Gneist 
finds the durable foundations of the English constitution. 

It is not [he says] the rights of parliament and the forms of parliamen- 
tary government that have founded England's greatness, but, as in ancient 
Rome, the personal co-operation of all, from the lower classes upward, 
in the daily duties of public life. The details of this system are simple, 
sober, and earnest, as in the old Roman state, far removed from the 
glowing pictures which were disseminated through Europe by the author 
of the 'Esprit des Lois.' But these sober institutions are firm and durable, 
and in the hour of danger, in the strain imposed by great tasks, they 
display the energy and greatness of character which distinguish a proud, 
free nation.^^ 

These words form the keynote of Dr. Gneist's work. They show 
the general drift of his thoughts, the main object which he has had 
in view, the lesson which he has set himself to teach his country- 
men and ourselves. It is in the investigation and description of 
these institutions that the pre-eminent merit of his work consists. 

It is no wonder that, regarding the past history of our consti- 
tution from this point of view. Dr. Gneist finds grave ground for 
anxiety as to the future. These foundations of our polity are and 
have been for some time breaking up. In ' Das englische Parlament ' 
the author sketches succinctly the progress of social reforms, of the 
agitation against monopoly of land and capital, of changes in local 
administration, in the army, the universities, and the civil service. 
He points out with great force the revolution involved in the 
abandonment of the connexion between direct taxation and the 

The reduction of society to its atoms was carried out jointly by both 
parties [in 1867] in active competition for the support of public opinion. 
Thenceforward there was no principle left whiich could oppose any claim 
to the franchise. A very chaos of ideas ensued.^^ 

The necessary consequence was the Reform Act of 1885. This act, 
says Dr. Gneist,^^ 

made visible and tangible the organic defect which had originated in the 
displacement of the bases of the parliamentary constitution. . . . England at 
the end of the nineteenth century finds herself, though at a higher stage 
of development, in conditions analogous to those of the continental states 
at the commencement of their constitutional reforms. Granted that a so- 
called House of Commons still exists, the communitates exist no longer. 
The ancient combinations for the discharge of common duties are obsolete, 
and in their place have arisen social groups, maintaining their cohesion 
through the press and the right of association.^" 

" C. H. ii. 438. " Das. engl. Pari 397. '^ lb. 892. »" lb. 400. 


In every department of life the tendency to equality is making 
itself more and more strongly felt. * With the growth of democracy, 
the administration becomes more bureaucratic. The age of the 
caucus and of wire-pullers is come. The simple division into 
liberals and conservatives exists no longer.' The old parties are 
dissolving into fragments. ' Till the advent of radical governments 
nothing but coalition ministries will be possible.' But, in spite of 
the threatening aspect of circumstances, there is good hope for the 
future. The remedy is to be found in * a thorough and uniform 
enforcement of public duties on all members of the state.' ®^ * The 
immediate problem for legislation is a reform of the county system, 
which will render the personal discharge of civic duties incumbent 
on every person. Self-government in England is the equivalent of 
universal military service on the continent.' The discharge of 
public duties alone justifies and renders innocuous the claim for 
public rights. * The whole history of this state,' Dr. Gneist hope- 
fully concludes,^^ * justifies us in the expectation that the EngUsh 
people will weather the impending storm, and discover in its 
own past the corner-stones on which it may rebuild a free 
constitution, like the German nation, whose latent strength lies 
and has ever lain in the cellular system of its communes.' 

G. W. Prothero. 
«• Das engl. Pari 401. «2 j^. 405. 

VOL. III. — NO. IX. 

34 Jan, 

The Claim of the House of Orleans 
to Milan 

WHEN, on 16 Sept. 1380, Charles V of France expired, he left 
behind him two young sons. One was twelve years old, 
tall, stalwart, healthy, amiable ; the other was a lad of nine, less 
regularly handsome than his brother, slighter, darker, more agile, 
more acute and more engaging. 

Charles V had left his younger son no more than the pension of 
a private gentleman ; the elder was the king of France. The 
dying monarch, a man of many brothers, had seen the dangers 
that arise when royal princes are too rich. But he had died before 
his time; and of his two heirs the king was gentle, dull, and 
generous ; the gentleman, brilliant, grasping, and ambitious. The 
result was calculable. Twenty years later the younger son was 
king in all but name ; he was rich, puissant, terrible, and hated ; 
while his brother, impoverished and neglected, starved on the 
throne, the best-beloved man in France. Circumstances had made 
the rise of the younger son singularly easy. In his twenty- 
fourth year King Charles VI became violently mad, and hence- 
forward till his death there were long regencies (the subject of 
angry contests between his uncle and his brother) interrupted by 
periods of lax and kindly government. His younger brother, Louis, 
duke of Orleans, became as regent, and first prince of the blood, 
more powerful than the king. He was too powerful; and his 
arrogance and his extortions raised many enemies against him. 
On 23 Nov. 1407 he was cruelly murdered as he was riding by 
night through the streets of Paris. He had made himself so 
terrible that even the brother who loved him did not seek to 
avenge him, but praised the murderer * who, for the public good 
and out of faith and loyalty to us, has caused to be put out of this 
world our said brother of Orleans.' No one mourned the murdered 
man absolutely and completely except his devoted widow and his 
orphaned children. 

A year and a week later the duchess died. Her three sons, her 
one daughter, with Dunois, the natural son of Orleans, whom his 
widow had adopted, were left fatherless and motherless in a king- 


clom full of enemies, where their father's murderers triumphed. 
They entered the world as a battlefield; but, though so young, 
they entered armed and mounted. From their father they in- 
herited the duchies of Orleans, Luxembourg, and Aquitaine, the 
counties of Valois, Beaumont, Soissons, Blois, Dreux, Perigord, and 
Angouleme, with the seigneuries of Coucy and Savona. Through 
their mother they acquired the county of Yertus in Champagne, 
the county of Asti in Lombardy, and certain pretensions to the 
ducal crown of Milan. 

In the year 1387 their father, Louis of France, not yet the 
duke of Orleans, had been contracted to the duke of Milan's only 
daughter, Valentine Visconti, whom two years later he espoused. 
In relation to the established monarchs of his time, the father of 
Valentine stood in much the same situation as afterwards the great 
Napoleon, in the first years of his empire, towards the kings of 
Germany. He was rich, too powerful to be safely opposed, a 
conqueror of whom the end was still beyond prediction ; hence a 
man to conciliate and appease. Yet in their hearts they despised 
him as a parvenu and an adventurer, and deplored and deprecated 
the moral flaws that marred the beauty of his prosperity. 

Giangaleazzo, first duke of Milan, was the only son of Galeazzo 
Visconti, who, in conjunction with Bernabo, his brother, swayed the 
city of Milan and the greater part of Lombardy. They had 
murdered their own brother, and divided his inheritance between 
them — Bernabo, the elder, holding his state in Milan, Galeazzo in 
the city of Pavia. 

Bernabo had no less than nine-and-twenty children. Galeazzo 
had but two, but for these he was ambitious. He married his 
daughter to the son of the king of England ; his son he married to 
the daughter of the king of France. This was in 1360. The bride 
and bridegroom were still of childish age. Six years later their 
eldest child was born. It was a girl, Valentine. The three 
brothers who followed her died in their minority ; but Valentine 
flourished, grew to womanhood, and brought into the house of 
Orleans the tangled question of the Milanese succession. 

At her birth and during her childhood her father was but one 
of several rulers in Milan. The Visconti ruled as a clan rather 
than as an organised dynasty. They were the descendants of a 
certain captain Eriprando, who, in the year 1037, defended Milan 
against the Emperor Conrad. Notwithstandmg this beginning 
the Visconti were eminently Ghibelline and depended for all their 
subsequent fortunes on the emperor. In 1277 they chased the 
Guelfs from Milan and made themselves masters of the state. 
They became lords or domini in Milan, lords of an imperial fief, 

. »2 


but with no pretence to an imperial investiture. The emperor re- 
cognised them only as his captains, his viscounts, or his im- 
perial vicars. 

In 1372 the Emperor Charles IV, alarmed at the pretensions of 
the Visconti clan, deprived them of their office. The rich tyrants, 
not afraid of a distant emperor beyond the Alps, paid little heed 
to this punishment. The emperor died, and his son succeeded — the 
dissolute Wenzel, who was to do so much for Milan. Almost his 
first act was to create the youthful father of Valentine imperial 
vicar of the Milanese. 

This taste of power whetted the ambition of the young man, 
left fatherless now to confront the faction of his uncle Bernabo and 
his innumerable children. Lax and irregular forms of government 
favour a violent ambition. By one bold stratagem Giangaleazzo 
took his uncle prisoner, dispossessed his cousins, and established 
himself as lord of Milan. 

Milan was not enough. Fire and sword cleared the way before 
Mm, and his territory stretched to the Apennine ridges. Florence, 
on the other side, trembled for her independence. The Lombard 
kingdom was alive again, and, though the pope refused the in- 
domitable conqueror the title of king of Italy, in 1395 the Emperor 
Wenzel invested him with the duchy of Milan. 

Meanwhile, in 1389, Valentine Visconti had gone to her husband 
in France. When she left Milan she was no longer her father's 
only child. A few months before, her stepmother, Caterina Vis- 
conti, had given birth to a son. A little later a second son was 
born. The greatest conqueror of his age could now divide his 
possessions between two sons born in wedlock, a bastard boy named 
Gabriello, and his only daughter Valentine, the child of his first 
wife, the Princess Isabelle of France. The first question that con- 
fronts us is this : What provision did Giangaleazzo Visconti make 
for his daughter Valentine of Orleans ? 

For many centuries there has been much debate concerning the 
claim of Orleans to Milan. Much argument and little evidence has 
confused the question ; it is only the evidence that we shall examine 
here. In the national archives of Paris ^ there exists the original 
marriage- contract of Valentine Visconti. A copy of this document 
is contained in a brown leather folio, stamped with the Visconti 
serpent, existing in the British Museum.^ The document is in the 
form of an instrument granted by the antipope, Clement of Avignon, 
on 27 Jan. 1387, in favour of Louis of Orleans and Bertrand de 
Gasche, governor of Vertus, as representing the father of Valentine. 
The document is at once a dispensation (Louis and Valentine were 
cousins), a deed of transfer for the bride's dowry of Asti and its 
.dependencies, and a declaration of her right to succeed her father 

» J. 409, No. 42. 2 Additional MSS., No. 30669, fo. 215. 


in Milan, in case his direct male line should become extinct. The 
clause which chiefly concerns us runs as follows : ' Item est actum 
et in pactum solempni stipulatione vallatum et expresse deductum quod 
in casu quo prafatus dominus Johannes Galeas vicecomes, comes 
Virtutwm, dominus Mediolanensis^ decedat sine Jiliis masculis de suo 
proprio corpore ex legitimo matrimonio procreatis, dicta domina Valen- 
tina, nata sua^ succedat et succedere deheat in solidmn in toto dominio 
suo presente etfutnro quocumque, absque eo quod per viam testamentiy 
codicillorum, seu alicujus alterius vltimce voluntatis, aut donatione inter 
vivos, ipsa aliquid faciat seu facere possit in contrarium quovis modo.' 

The husband of Valentine was for many years the tool with 
which the astute Visconti hoped to assure his own supremacy in 
Italy. In 1393 and in 1394 Visconti had no dearer scheme than 
that Clement, the antipope at Avignon, should make the Duke of 
Orleans king of Adria. With Clement at Eome, Anjou at Naples, 
Orleans ruling the centre from Spoleto to Ferrara, Visconti beheld 
the annihilation of Venice and the Tuscan republics — a united 
Italy north of Kome. Doubtless he intended the kingdom of Adria 
and the kingdom of Lombardy to lose themselves in one monarchy ; 
but whether that result was to be attained by the subsequent spolia- 
tion of Orleans or by his adoption as heir to Milan, was a question 
which probably depended on the living or dying of the sons of 
Giangaleazzo. Orleans, however, though so young, proved himself 
no facile instrument. Giangaleazzo began to suspect this count of 
Asti and seigneur of Savona, whom the Genoese implored to 
become th6 governor of the Ligurian republic. From 1395 to 1397 
there is a moment of division between the interests of Orleans and 
Visconti ; but, as we shall see, the last act of Visconti was to enforce 
the claim of Orleans to Milan, and the Duke of Orleans in his will ^ 
expressly bequeaths to his eldest son * la comte d'Ast et autres terres 
que fay et puis avoir au pays de Lombardy et d' outre les monts,' As 
far as Orleans and Visconti could decide, there is no doubt of the 
claim of Orleans to Milan. But it is more difficult to decide by 
what right Giangaleazzo Visconti disposed of the emperor's fief of 
Milan. The claim of the emperor was a claim which Visconti him- 
self abundantly recognised ; for although, when Visconti signed his 
daughter's marriage-contract, he was simply the illegal despot of 
Milan, eight years later the emperor made him duke and received 
tribute at his hands. The lands which Visconti had gained by 
succession, by fraud, and by conquest, which he had ruled by force 
and national custom, were now indubitably his by feudal right. 
But in order to acquire the security of this legality, the duke of 
Milan, in theory at all events, had sacrificed a certain portion of 
his independence. 

The first investiture was granted him on 5 Sept. 1395. From 

5 ChampoUion-Figeac, Lotds et Charles dues d'OrUans, p. 253. 


this date he held his duchy of Milan as an imperial fief. But as 
what manner of fief ? And which class of fiefs admits a woman to 
he her father's heir ? 

These questions, seemingly simple, are in reality difficult to 
answer, because feudal law was quite indefinitely modified by 
provincial custom. It was chiefly custom which decided if an 
hereditary fief could be inherited by a woman in default of males. 
Thus in France the provinces of Burgundy and Normandy were 
strictly masculine fiefs; but Lorraine, Guienne, and Artois de- 
scended to daughters in default of sons ; and the duchy of Brittany, 
the kingdoms of Cyprus, Navarre, and Naples, will occur to every 
mind ; while in Germany itself, in the stronghold of feudalism, 
the duchy of Mecklenburg descended to daughters on extinction of 
the masculine branch ; many fiefs in Swabia, Zutphen, Pomerania, 
and Saxony, followed this example; moreover it was through a 
woman that the Hohenstaufen emperors themselves inherited the 
kingdom of Sicily. 

What was the custom in Italy ? In Naples, women wore the 
crown almost as often as their fathers or their brothers (not, it is 
true, with the happiest results) ; but in the North, the distmction 
between legitimacy and illegitimacy had become so trivial a thing, 
that sons, born in or out of wedlock, were generally forthcoming in 
sufficient numbers to distance any feminine claim. Yet, in the 
fourteenth century, the marquisate of Montferrat was brought into 
the house of the Palaeologi through a feminine succession ; and in 
1387 Valentine Yisconti brought the county of Asti (no less than 
Milan, an imperial fief) unquestioned to her husband, and with 
only the pope's investiture. A century later Caterina Sforza ruled 
in Pesaro. The custom in Italy, then, was clearly the same as the 
custom in Mecklenburg, Pomerania, Swabia, Hungary, Brittany, 
Navarre, and other places : on extinction of the male descent a 
woman might succeed. 

That is to say, a woman might succeed if her succession were 
provided for by the terms of the investiture; or, in other cases, 
unless she were deliberately excluded. In the ordinary imperial 
fiefs, which, even so late as the end of the fourteenth century, still 
in many cases preserved their original idea of military service 
granted in return for territorial possessions, a woman could not 
succeed without direct and especial mention of this fact in the 
investiture, or in some subsequent privilege. But in a purchased 
fief, I believe that, in all provinces, daughters were admitted to the 
succession in default of males. How are we to class the fief of 
Milan ? 

Milan was certainly an imperial fief, derived directly from the 
emperor, and held by the pecuHar sort of tenure known as Fahn- 
lehen, from the homage of a banner or standard paid by its 


possessor to his feudal lord ; it was destined, even if not explicitly 
reserved, for masculine occupation only ; and though Giangaleazzo 
Visconti paid the enormous price of 100,000 florins (about 50,000/. 
sterling) for the title and investiture, I am not aware that this is 
sufficient to grant the fief the looser privileges of s>feiidiim emptum. 

There is in this investiture of 1395 no mention of Valentine, 
but neither is there any direct mention of the sons of Giangaleazzo. 
The duchy of Milan is bestowed on him, sui heredes et successores. 
Now this term in Italy, where the Pandects were still the model of 
civil law, would certainly be held to include all the children of the 
possessor ; and, on failure of the male line, the daughter would be 
entitled to put in her claim. I am not aware how much was implied 
in Germany at this date by the employment of this term ; but 
probably there also it was at least ambiguous, since, under the 
Hohenstaufen emperors, Koman law had made a great advance 
through Germany, and since, later on, it was found necessary to 
formulate a special clause that the use of the expression sui heredes 
should not be considered sufficient to authorise females to claim 
succession to a masculine fief. 

Any ambiguity was dispelled the following year. There was 
then a possibility of war between France and Milan, grievously 
estranged at that date by the presence of the French in Genoa, and 
by the rumours of witchcraft which defamed the reputation and 
endangered the safety of Madame Valentine in France. At this junc- 
ture Giangaleazzo, probably alarmed at the terms of his daughter's 
marriage-contract, procured a second imperial investiture,"* distinctly 
limiting the succession to male heirs. But this was not the end. 
In 1396 news came to Paris of the battle of Nicopolis, which necessi- 
tated an immediate rapprochement with Milan ; for Giangaleazzo 
Visconti, feared and hated because of his friendship with the Turk, 
was at this juncture the one necessary man, the sole personage 
capable of mediating between the French and the East. Great 
court was paid to him, and he accepted the French advances. 
Peace and amity being restored between the two countries, on 
30 March, 1397, he obtained a third and last investiture from 
Wenzel,^ which restored the conditions of inheritance to their 
original footing, and bestowed the duchy of Milan on Giangaleazzo 
Visconti, descendentes et successores sui. 

This ambiguity of phrase may possibly have been designed. 
The fact that the fief was a Fahnlehen, directly dependent on the 
emperor, and that (so far as I can discover) no special privilege had 
been granted to Madame Valentine, would in Germany itself appear 
as strong evidence in favour of a solely masculine succession as even 
the second investiture could afford. But in Italy, by the custom of the 
country and the authority of contract and testament, the children 

* Ann, Med., in Muratori, Eer. Ital. Script, xvi. ^ Dumont, II. clxxxix. 


of Valentine would be included among the heirs and descendants of 
her father ; and, in case the whole race of his sons expired, the 
vague terms of the investiture would allow the line of Orleans 
to put in a claim which would prevent so important a part of Italy 
from relapsing to the foreign emperor. Such at least, as it 
appears to me, must have been the design of the duke in obtaining 
this last investiture, a two-edged weapon in the hands of him who 
has been described as the wisest and the most astute among all the 
princes of the west. 

His position, therefore, seems to have been as follows. To 
secure himself against any inconvenient pretensions of the French, 
he had the restrictions of the feudal law ; and yet he was equally 
protected against the encroachments of the empire. He had the 
sanction of local custom, the ambiguity of the terms of investi- 
ture; and a papal privilege conceding to Valentine the right to 
succeed her brothers or her nephews in the state of Milan. 

The right of a pope to dispose of an imperial fief appears upon 
the face of it a very questionable matter. Yet under certain 
circumstances it was enforced : for instance, both Naples and 
Provence were transferred by papal investitures, imperio vacante. 
When Valentine Visconti was contracted to her husband, Clement VH 
had declared an interregnum in the empire. Either of the two 
popes regnant in those days of schism considered himself entitled 
to arrange imperial matters. Therefore it appears that three persons 
in 1387 were capable of conferring Milan on Giangaleazzo Visconti : 
namely, in the first place, the Emperor Wenzel, who was actually 
reigning at that date, but who, utterly disregarded in Germany, was 
apparently equally disavowed abroad ; in the second place, Urban VI, 
pope at Eome, ally and counsellor of Wenzel ; or, lastly, Clement VIIi 
pope at Avignon, who actually did bestow the investiture of Asti 
upon Valentine, alleging a vacancy of the empire. Such was the 
supremacy of the church over imperial affairs at this period, that, 
notwithstanding the absurdity of this plea and the fact that Clement 
was an antipope, none was ever found to question the legality of 
the French claim to Asti, which was not granted to Orleans by any 
imperial privilege until the investiture of 1413. An intriguing 
adventurer anxious to consolidate a new and unpopular dynasty 
by every legal claim, was not likely to neglect so various an oppor- 
tunity. In fact, we know that Urban and Clement and Wenzel were 
all in turn solicited to confirm the tenure of Visconti. Corio appears 
to believe that the succession of Valentine to Milan was granted by 
Urban, who was certainly in Lombardy in the year 1387. But 
Urban had denied to Giangaleazzo the coveted title of king of 
Italy ; and there is nothing to prove the alluring hypothesis that 
the astute Visconti, to make matters surer, pressed both pope and 
antipope into his secret service. 


Enough, however, remains to show by what a cunning opposi- 
tion of France to Germany, and Germany to France, the duke of 
Milan strove to secure ItaHan independence. If the Germans, then 
but the shadow of a power, chose to assert their over-lordship, the 
claim of the French was strong enough to insure them two enemies 
instead of one ; and vice versa, as, indeed, a later century too ade- 
quately proved. Hoping to hold each neighbour in check and fear 
of the other, Giangaleazzo meant to insure a period of quiet growth 
for his own principality of Lombardy. 

Thus the contract securing Milan to Valentine by a papal 
transfer made for France ; the second investiture was absolute for 
Germany ; the first and third were so worded that they conveyed 
a different meaning on either side of the Alps. Besides papal 
privileges and imperial investitures there is, however, a third way 
of conferring property : I mean the way in which Naples was trans- 
ferred to Anjou — the way of bequest. 

But, the reader will exclaim, can a feoffer dispose of a fief 
without the written consent of his feodary ? Here, as in the ques- 
tion of feminine succession, the matter was chiefly decided by the 
custom of the province. In certain countries — as, for example, 
Nassau, Friedland, Ober Lausitz — a feoffer might dispose of his 
possessions by will, although a contrary law held good in other 

But whatever the local law, the tendency was strong, even in 
feudal Germany, to diminish the rights of the empire to the advan- 
tage of the feudatory powers. As Menzel puts it, ' the emperor 
grasped but a shadowy sceptre . . . the princes increased in wealth 
and power, while the emperor was gradually impoverished. Impe- 
rial investiture had become a mere form, which could not be re- 
fused except on certain occasions ; and the pfalzgraves, formerly 
intrusted with the management of the imperial allods, had seized 
them as hereditary fiefs.' What was done with impunity in Ger- 
many, was done with audacity beyond the Alps. And the duke of 
Milan, who had received his principality as a vassal, intended to 
dispose of it like an hereditary monarch. If we impeach his right 
to pursue this course, it is not only the claims of the Visconti, but 
of almost every noble family in Italy, Germany, or Flanders that 
must submit to be denied or censured. 

Yet claiming and acting upon his own authority to dispose of 
Milan, Giangaleazzo Visconti involved his testament in the same 
web of intrigue and counter-intrigue which characterised his earlier 
policy. No less than three wills, entirely different, are open to us ; 
and as the most important of these is only known in an undated 
copy, it is difficult to decide which was his final disposition of affairs. 
The first, familiar enough to the student of Corio, was drawn up in 
1397, and was modified in 1401 ; it makes no provision at all for 


Valentine. The second (No. ccxxiii in the first volume of Oslo's 
documents), undated, but probably composed in 1397, confirms her 
in all possessions previously bestowed, but grants her nothing else, 
unless she should fall into a state of poverty or widowhood, in which 
case she was to have sufficient and princely nurture in her brother's 
home at Milan, with a dowry in case she should contract a second 
marriage. This is all, yet this is enough to confirm the contract 
of 1387. But it is the latest-found of the testaments of Gian- 
galeazzo Visconti which is most important to the student of the 
French claim to Milan. This will, discovered in 1872 by Signor 
Luigi Oslo in the Milanese Archives, gives an entirely new force to 
the pretensions of Orleans. Yet it exists only in copy and in extract 
— like a passage of Sappho saved by some unconscious grammarian 
— quoted by a Sforzesco advocate in a letter of warning addressed 
to Lodovico il Moro on 10 Jan. 1496. 

At this date, the usurper Lodovico (possessed by the family 
conviction that at some time his grandfather, Filippo-Maria Visconti, 
must have made a will bequeathing Milan to Lodovico's mother) had 
entrusted his friend and kinsman Giason del Maino {elegantissimo et 
celeherrimo legista, if we may trust the verdict of Corio) with the 
task of searching the Milanese Archives to this end. Del Maino 
discovered nothing concerning Madonna Bianca; but instead he 
found two highly compromising copies of the will of Giangaleazzo 
Visconti, which had come to light in the house of Messer Giovanni 
Domenico Oliari, notary of Pavia, son of Andriano Oliari (an obsti- 
nate and honest servant of the Visconti dukes) , of whom my readers 
will hear more upon a future page. 

As for these copies [wrote Messer Giasone], though they are only 
copies, and by no means according to the terms, I entreat you to have them 
seized at once, as well as three other copies which I have reason to 
believe are in the possession (1) of the brothers of the Certosa of Pavia, 
(2) of Manfredo da Ozino, and (8) of the Signore della Mirandola. You 
will do well to keep them safe, for they would be of the greatest value to 
the duke of Orleans, since this testament and fidei-commissio provides 
that, should the sons of Giangaleazzo die without male heirs, one of the 
sons of Madonna Valentine shall succeed to Milan. And, though I could 
find it in my heart to maintain that the duke of Orleans has no right 
to obtain anything, as to Milan, from you or your illustrious children, 
none the less you will do well to keep these copies safe. 

Lodovico took the hint. Of the five copies mentioned not one 
exists to-day. Only the forgotten letter remains to show the inten- 
tion of Giangaleazzo Visconti. Sudden death and swift oblivion 
rudely damaged his dexterous intrigues — so much here for France, 
BO much there for Germany — an even balance held neatly in a steady 
hand. The plague numbed that cunning hand for ever in the 
autumn of 1402. Murder soon removed the elder son of the great 


duke ; and the bastard Gabriello died on the executioner's scaffold 
in hostile Genoa. Both died childless, and Milan fell to their 
younger brother, Filippo Maria. He ruled in peace and splendour 
for more than thirty years in Milan. But two marriages brought 
him no sons; only one daughter, and she illegitimate, cheered 
his magnificent palace. As the duke grew old, men began to ask 
each other who should succeed him in Milan : his natural daughter, 
married to the great captain Francesco Sforza ? or his nephew, his 
sister's son, the duke of Orleans ? or his wife's relations of Savoy ? 
or after all, must Milan return, a lapsed fief, into the foreign hands 
of the German emperor ? 


Meanwhile a melancholy fate had pursued the French heirs to 
Milan, the children of Valentine and Orleans. This is not the 
place to explain how their young dissensions with their father's 
murderers summoned the English into France ; or how the 
youngest, John of Angouleme, was sent to England, a mere child, 
in 1412, as a hostage for his brother's debt ; or how, three years 
later, the defeat at Agincourt sent Charles of Orleans to join him 
there. The sons of Valentine remained in prison all their youth. 
When, in 1440, the son of their father's murderer, the gentle duke 
of Burgundy, ransomed them out of bondage, Charles was a man 
of fifty and John was thirty-nine. They returned home to find 
their estates half ruined by disastrous wars ; their brother Philip 
dead ; their half-brother a hero — Dunois, the restorer of his country. 
It was late to regain their position in this altered world, but at 
least they lost no time. Visiting his sister, married in Brittany, 
John of Angouleme married her neighbour. Marguerite de Eohan, 
to whose elder sister he had been contracted in his youth. In the 
same month of the same year (November 1440) Charles, the elder 
brother, also married a foreign princess, Mary of Cleves. The two 
princes were determined to recover their inheritance, to raise up 
children, and restore the ancient dignity of their house. Much of 
Angouleme and much of Orleans and much of the inheritance of 
Bonne d'Armagnac was still in the hands of the English. The 
estates of Orleans in France were grievously diminished. And out- 
side France Asti had been lost also. 

In the year 1422, when Charles of Orleans had lain already 
seven years, and John ten years, in an English prison, when 
Philip of Vertus was dead, when France was paralysed, and Henry 
VI of England crowned the king of France in Paris, the county of 
Asti, in great fear of the English (those Goths of the Eiviera) and 
of the nearer jealousies of ambitious Montferrat, sent to Filippo 
Maria Visconti, duke of Milan, and begged him to receive Asti 
under his guardianship and protection until such time as either of 


his nephews should be released from England. The duke of Milan 
consented willingly. Asti was the Calais of Italy, and from the 
Italian point of view it appeared intolerable and unnatural that 
this one county should remain a little island of France in Lom- 
bardy, a pied-a-terre across the mountains for invading Gaul. And 
now, after twenty years of undisturbed possession, the duke of 
Milan turned a deaf ear to his nephew's reminder that he was 
home again and ready to reassume his inheritance. As a fact the 
duke did not dare to restore Asti. In 1438 he had made Francesco 
Sforza his lieutenant there ; and he was afraid of Sforza. It was 
in vain sending letters and requisitions ; so in the end of the year 
1442 the princes of Orleans sent Dunois to Milan .*^ 

There were other matters more important even than the resti- 
tution of Asti, upon which it was well that a man so wise, so expe- 
rienced, so persuasive as Dunois should confer with the uncle of his 
half-brothers. The duke of Milan had no sons, one daughter only, 
and she was illegitimate. Therefore, the princes of Orleans con- 
sidered themselves the heirs to Milan. But they were not alone 
in expecting this inheritance. The emperor pointed to the clause 
in the investiture of 1396 which declared that, in default of males, 
Milan should revert to the empire. Jacopo Yisconti, a distant 
cousin of the duke's, brought forward some pretensions of his 
own. Sforza, the husband of the duke's natural daughter, thought 
of the house of Este and of other Italian houses where more than 
once a bastard, if courageous and beautiful, had succeeded to his 
father before legitimate heirs ; and as to the fact that Madonna 
Bianca was a woman, had not Giovanna I of Naples succeeded to 
King Kobert, even in defiance of a Salic law? Meanwhile the 
princes of Savoy remembered that when the duke of Milan had 
married the Savoyard princess he had made, upon receipt of 
her dower, a promise to her father and her brother that if no 
children sprang from this union, he would bequeath the titles of 
Milan to Savoy. It is significant of the strange confusion of the 
laws of inheritance in Italy that all these princes believed in the 
right of a duke of Milan to bestow by testament, or deed of gift, or 
marriage-contract, that which was in fact a fief of the Holy Koman 
Empire. But the rights of the empire had fallen into long disuse 
across the Alps where a strange confusion of kinship, bequest, 
investiture, or election by the people regulated the succession to 
papal and imperial fiefs. Some princes succeeded in one way, some 
in the other. To the eyes of contemporaries they all appeared 
justifiable alternatives, giving some shadow of right to that which 
a strong hand meant to grasp and meant to keep. * Most of the 
princes in Italy,' wrote Commines fifty years later, * hold their lands 

' ' The Bastard came with this requisition in the year 1442 to Milan, where I, 
Secundinus Ventura, saw him.' — Memorialc Secundini Ventures. 


by no title, unless it be given them in heaven, which we can but 

Thus eyed suspiciously by rival heirs, Dunois, as the repre- 
sentative of Orleans, crossed the Alps in 1442 and came to Milan, 
both to require the restitution of Asti, and also, as Ventura re- 
marks, to confer on other matters with the duke. The duke of 
Milan was a sad, timid, indifferent man, old at five-and-fifty and 
harassed by an almost lunatic suspicion of danger from his friends. 
As he grew older his fears and doubts grew stronger, and he saw 
no motive for any sort of conduct beside the desire to succeed 
him in Milan. Oppressed by hypochondria, corpulent to deformity, 
fatigued by the weight of his body and exhausted by the heaviness 
upon his spirits, this timid and sceptical Volpone of Lombardy 
found his sole amusement in weaving into a complicated per- 
plexity the expectations of his heirs. Sitting immovable in his 
corner at Milan, like some huge spider spinning in the dusk, he 
crossed and recrossed, twisted and confused, in his dreary web, 
the hopes of Sforza and of Orleans, of Savoy and of the bastard 
cousins of his house. 

No one could be sure of the succession. Sforza, the object of 
his senile fondness, was the object also of his insane suspicion. 
The duke had tried a score of times to shuffle out of a promise 
to give him his natural daughter ; and the very week that he had 
finally consented to their marriage, he sent a private messenger 
to Lionello d'Este, offering hwi the hand of Madonna Bianca. 
Nevertheless, in 1441 Sforza married Bianca and acquired with her 
the signories of Cremona and Pontremoli, in addition to his lieu- 
tenancy of Asti. But after the marriage he was no more sure of 
the duke of Milan than he had been before. The uncertain see- 
saw of the duke's caprices continued as unsteady as of old. On 
the one hand the duke was aware that Sforza, though the son of a 
peasant, was the most remarkable Italian of his day, courageous, 
frank, spirited, kind of heart, and cunning. His immense strength 
of will both attracted and repelled the vacillating and suspicious 
Visconti. He loved Sforza, and Sforza was the husband of his 
only child. Still more, Sforza was secretly supported by Agnese 
del Maino, the mother of Bianca, the sole woman whose influence 
had ever touched the indifferent and preoccupied heart of Filippo 
Maria. On the other hand, the duke was afraid of Sforza — and 
to fear, in timid natures, is to hate. 

When fear and suspicion sank the scale, Visconti inclined to his 
wife's relation of Savoy, who, having no right at all except such as 
he chose to give them, presented no cause for fear. Or he en- 
couraged the claims of Jacopo Visconti. Osio, in a note, informs 
us that this Jacopo Visconti was the son of Gabriello, the bastard 
of Giangaleazzo, and had this been the case Jacopo Visconti would 


have had a certain claim. But Gabriello left no children, and 
Jacopo must have been the son of one of the numerous children 
of Bernabo. Nevertheless he considered himself to have preten- 
sions. When all these had been weighed in the balance and found 
wanting, there remained the princes of Orleans. 

In early life the duke of Milan had been inclined to France ; 
and he had been a suitor for that Princess Marie d'Anjou, who 
afterwards married King Charles VII. From 1420 to 1427 the 
pages of Osio abound in messages and treaties. Then the vexed 
question of Asti began to embitter his relations with France, and 
to increase that fatal suspicion which ever made him turn with 
sudden loathing from his former friends. While his discontent 
with Anjou was still undecided, the Genoese handed into his custody 
the enemy of Anjou, the prince of Arragon, taken prisoner at sea. 
In Visconti, the ally of Anjou, the Genoese imagined that they had 
found a sure custodian for Arragon. But they had not reckoned 
upon the personal charm of Alfonso the Magnanimous, nor upon 
the capricious indifference of Visconti. Young, handsome, engag- 
ing, fearless, their chivalrous captive won the heart of his timid 
jailer, and easily turned his fluctuating policy from Anjou towards 
Arragon. Visconti suddenly deserted his allies, released Alfonso, 
and supported him upon the throne of Naples. 

With some thought in his heart, doubtless, of the success of 
Alfonso, Dunois turned his steps to Milan. He also was handsome, 
persuasive, rhetorical ; and if no longer young, his comely head 
was encircled by the aureole of heroic victory. But Dunois lacked 
the enthusiasm, the spontaneity, that, in Arragon, had warmed for 
a moment the numb and chilly heart of the duke of Milan. Dunois 
was as cold, as sceptical, as wise, as worldly as himself. His 
flowers of speech made no real effect upon the weary duke, who, to 
get rid of him, made, doubtless, some magnificent promise for the 
future ; for Dunois did not insist on his demand for Asti, but 
returned almost immediately to France, hoping to settle matters by 
the friendly intervention of the Emperor Frederic ; but at that time 
the customary malentendu as to the occupation of Alsace estranged 
France and Germany, and Frederic declined to interfere with the 
projects of the duke of Milan. 

Dunois had not impressed the duke, who was impressed only by 
youth, fearlessness, and a never-daunted will. He thought he per- 
ceived these qualities in the young dauphin, half in disgrace on his 
estate in Dauphine. Him also Visconti determined to drag into the 
tangled web of the Milanese succession ; and about this time ne- 
gotiations with the dauphin Louis begin to complicate the difficulties 
of Transalpine policy. 

Already in the spring of 1445 ^ a minute in the Archives of 
' 23 Feb. (The Milanese began the year upon 25 Dec.) Osio, Vol. III. cccxviii. 



Milan, transcribed by Signer Luigi Osio, records the willingness of 
the duke of Milan to further the dauphin in his plan of an Italian 
invasion, provided that Louis agree to help the friends and not the 
enemies of Visconti. Asti should be confided to a person equally 
trusted by Orleans and Milan, and after the expiration of a given 
term be freely handed back to the eldest son of Valentine. Not- 
withstanding this fair-spoken scheme, Visconti finds it necessary to 
caution his young ally against certain persons on the French side 
of the Alps who use threats and menaces towards the crown of 
Milan. By these it is clear that he intends his nephews of Orleans. 
He has no friendship for them. Nolidt restituere^ briefly remarks 
Secundino Ventura. 

The negotiations with Louis proceeded briskly, and in May the 
Milanese ambassador arrived in Paris, where he found grande 
garra e divisione between the restless dauphin and King Eene of 
Sicily, who he remarks (to our unfeigned surprise) 6^ quello die 
governa tucto questo reame.' Meanwhile Louis, young as he was, 
had already learned a maxim as true in policy as in almsgiving : 
he let not his right hand divine the secrets of his left ; and while on 
the one side he treated with the duke of Milan, on the other he 
practised with Savoy. According to the latter plan Savoy and the 
dauphin, aided by Montferrat and Mantua and Ferrara, were to 
conquer between them the north of Italy ; France was to take 
Genoa, the Lucchese, Parma, Piacenza, Tortona — all south of the 
Po and east of Montferrat ; Savoy was to gain Milan and keep the 
Eiviera ; Alessandria was to be handed over to Montferrat, and the 
duke of Ferrara and the marquis of Mantua were, for the present^ 
to keep their actual possessions ; but this significant phrase was 
followed by one more significant still : ' All future conquests are to 
be divided at the rate of two shares to France and one share to 
Savoy.' ^ 

An intimate acquaintance with documents inspires little con- 
fidence in the rectitude of human nature. Of all these personages, 
Charles of Orleans, a simple lyric creature kept fresh and whole- 
some in arrested youth behind his prison bars, and Sforza, an 
honest, grasping, and ambitious soldier, alone inspire respect or 
sympathy. This old duke, conscious that in a few months his 
immense possessions will have dwindled to a single grave, amusing 
the last hours of his sceptical, indifferent existence by juggling the 
expectations of a dozen heirs ; this child-prince, without an impulse 
or illusion left of youth, successfully deceiving a couple of enemies 
who each believes himself his sole ally — these unfortunately are no 
exceptions to the rule of the game. 

8 B. de Mandrot. See also MSS. of Bib. Nat., Lat. 17779, fos. 53-56 ; and for 
the correspondence of Pope Felix with his son, Duke Louis of Savoy, upon this 
subject, an exhaustive article by M. Gaullier in the eighth volume of the Archiv fUr 
schweizerische Oeschichte. 


Savoy, in the act of drawing up this project of conquest, was 
encouraging the Milanese to trust him to secure them a free re- 
pubHc on the death of the duke. Montferrat and Mantua, pledged 
on the one hand to conquer Italy with the dauphin, w^ere as deeply 
pledged to Venice ^ to oppose the invader and preserve the peace. 
Each had been careful to risk something on every possible event, 
so that no sudden turn of the wheel of Fortune could bring about 
complete disaster. 

On 9 Feb. 1447 an indiscreet French squire, riding to Eome 
upon a message, let out to the Florentines that a league had been 
formed between the dauphin of France and the duke of Milan. ^^ 
According to this report Visconti had offered to aid the lad to 
recover Genoa, and had volunteered, in defiance of the rights of 
Orleans, to make him lord of Asti. A document in Osio (t. iii. 
ccclxxiii) dated 20 Dec. 1446, and a series of letters in the Biblio- 
theque Nationale,'^ confirm this remarkable statement, which, if 
it spread horror throughout Italy, caused no less indignation among 
the heirs of Valentine. Strangely enough it was Sforza, at that 
time the Milanese governor of Asti, who advocated the cause of the 
Dauphin. * Give him Asti, and he will do you excellent service. 
Pay him well ; and yet contrive it in such a w^ay that none but 
your highness shall be cock or hen in this country.' This advice 
was rendered still more unpalatable to the Italians and to the 
house of Orleans by a rumour that the duke of Milan intended to 
adopt the dauphin as his heir. Before the month was out the 
north Italian princes had formed themselves into a counter-league 
against France and Milan, and Orleans and Dunois had despatched 
to Milan the baillie of Sens, a certain Eeynouard du Dresnay, with 
a demand for the immediate restitution of Asti. This time they 
would brook no refusal, they would be tempted by no future benefits. 
Indignant and disenchanted, they instructed their lieutenant to 
press the matter home ; and on 4 May, Asti again returned to 
France. The conditions of the surrender were peculiar. The 
county was not directly given back to Orleans, but yielded to Du 
Dresnay as the lieutenant of the king, so long as the said king 
should preserve the good will and consent of Charles of Orleans, 
directus dominus ipsius civitatis 'et patriae. 

In this matter at least the shifty duke of Milan was outwitted. 
Asti had slipped from his grasp ; France had again her hand upon 

» 14 Feb. 1447. Reg. 17, fol. 106, Secreta, Venice. This document records 
the dismay of Florence and Venice upon learning the league of France and Milan. 
These two cities with Montferrat, Mantua, Angleria, and the other Lombard powers, 
joined in a solemn convention to oppose the common enemy and to preserve the 

'" Des jar dins. Nig. MpL avec la Toscane, t. i. p. 60 

" Bibl. Nat. MSS. Ital. 1584, Nos. 21 and 84, quoted by the Marquis de Beaucourt 
in the Bevue des Questio7is Historiqtics for October 1887. 


the key of Lombardy. Much of his interest in the game was gone. 
As the summer waxed and waned, the duke grew more than ever 
heavy, indifferent, and lethargic. He was not seriously ill, but, as 
I have said, his interest in the game was over. In August his 
health, always feeble, sank in the great heat of the summer. 
Immense in his unwieldy corpulence, the duke sat in a darkened 
chamber of his palace brooding over his unfinished testament. He 
suffered no physician near him, and his illness — a low fever— was 
kept a secret. But the faint heart of Filippo Maria could no longer 
animate the weight of his body. On 13 Aug. 1447 he died — less of 
his illness, it was said, than of utter indifference, as one who, weary 
of the spectacle of existence, left his seat and retired whence he 

Above the corpse, scarcely yet cold, the rival heirs, in eager 
expectation, gathered to the reading of the will. The duchess- 
dowager represented Savoy; Madonna Bianca appeared for the 
absent Sforza ; Eaynouard du Dresnay came to Milan on behalf of 
Orleans ; while, at a distance, Montferrat and Jacopo Visconti looked 
to their own interests ; the Venetians had hopes of their own ; the 
Milanese, as we know, intended to inaugurate a republic ; the 
emperor, serene above these petty quarrels, declared that by feudal 
law Milan had already devolved to him. Absent or present, there 
was not one of these, save him, but had some promise of Filippo 
Maria's in his mind when at length the testament was opened. The 
will was dated 12 August,^^ the day before the death of the duke. 
There was no mention in it of his daughter. Madonna Bianca, none 
of his wife, none of any of his nephews or kinsmen. He left 
Alfonso of Arragon his universal heir. 

Perhaps, as Guicciardini suggests, love of his people induced the 
dying duke to leave his city to a distant tyrant ; perhaps, in his 
suspicion of his present friends, his fancy turned with pleasure to 
the good bright youth who had been his captive long ago ; perhaps 
his defeat at Asti made him like to think of the evil turn that once 
he had done the French in Naples ; or, it may be, the mere desire 
of outraging the detestable cohue of his quasi-legal heirs proved 
irresistibly fascinating to the sceptical old man. At least so it was. 
Every right was outraged ; ^^ the king of Naples was left the duke 
of Milan. * Nevertheless come here as soon as you can,' wrote 
Antonio Guidoboni to Sforza ^^ on the 14th ; ' once on the spot and 
half the game is won.' 

'- Archivio Storico Lombardo, Anno iii. fasc. iv. 

'3 Osio, ii. note to page 2. In the hour of his death, on 14 Aug., the duke 
drew a codicil leaving everything to Alfonso. Two days before he had left Alfonso 
erede universale, and Bianca erede particolare. Of course in either case she remained 
mistress of Cremona and Pontremoli. 

^* Osio quotes this letter, which exists in the Archives of Milan: Fece d Be 
d'Arragona erede del tutto, non facta mentione veruna di M. B. [Madonna Bianca^ 



It was at this moment that for the first time the French claim 
io Milan became a question for practical politics. Frederic the 
Pacific was not the man to press the rights of the German empire 
in Italy, rights which at this time were continually disregarded, and 
which nothing less than a military occupation could enforce. Even 
the Ghibellines in Lombardy declared, not for the Emperor Frederic, 
but for Count Francesco Sforza. Yet the Emperor Frederic was, so 
far as the legal and abstract side of the matter was concerned, the 
one really serious rival of the duke of Orleans. 

For Alfonso of Arragon showed no inclination to take up arms 
in defence of his unexpected bequest. Although, in the city of 
Milan itself, he had a considerable party in his favour, at this time 
neither Alfonso nor his rivals appear to have regarded the will of 
the late duke in any serious spirit. The story ran in Milan that, 
in the week before his death, when that astounding testament was 
made, Filippo Maria had smiled and said, * It will be good to see 
how it will go to pieces when I am dead.' A cynical pleasure in 
aggravating as much as possible this imminent ruin must, I think, 
have prompted the duke to leave Milan to Alfonso. And if his 
detached, amused, malevolent soul could really from any extra- 
mundane point of vantage have watched the events which quickly 
followed his decease, he would have found the spectacle as exciting 
and as novel as he wished. The Milanese at once declared them- 
selves a free republic, governed by various Princes of Liberty. 
"Whereupon all the subject cities announced that if Milan was a 
republic, so was each of them, for they would not submit to bear 
the yoke of a city no nobler than the rest. Hereupon such of the 
cities as were not strong enough to stand alone gave themselves, 
some to the Venetians, some to Savoy, some to Genoa, some to 
Orleans, some to Montferrat, some to Ferrara ; and all these powers 
sent armies into Lombardy to protect their rights. Matters were 
still further complicated by the dissensions of the Bracceschi and 
Sforzeschi, the Guelfs and Ghibellines. In Pavia alone, for in- 
stance, the Guelfs declared, some for Venice, some for Orleans, 
some for the king of France, some for the dauphin; the Brac- 
ceschi declared for Alfonso of Arragon; Savoy and Montferrat 
each had a faction at their service, but the great body of the 
Ghibellines were in favour of Count Francesco Sforza, to whom 
finally the city submitted. This was a blow to the free republic 
of Milan next door ; but in the miserable state of their dominions, 
the unfortunate princes of liberty did not dare to remonstrate with 

Tie de la mogliere ne d'altri. . . . Vegnate pur vol via senza veruna dimora; zo7ito siate 
^iia lo mezo del giocho e vincto. 


their too potent commander, and Count Francesco, sovereign at 
Pavia, continued to be the servant of the Milanese repubhc. 

So soon as the news of the death of the duke of Milan came to 
France, the French prepared to assert the rights of Orleans. On 
3 Sept. Charles VII wrote from Bourges to Turin, recommending the 
rights of Orleans to Savoy : — 

Nostre tres-cher et trds-ame frdre, le Due d' Orleans, d present Due 
de Milan [asserts the king] par le deces du feu Due son oncle, qui est 
nagudres alU de vie a trespas, eomme son plus proehain hoir, nous a bien 
expres faiet dire et remonstre le hon droict qu'il ha au diet Dueht de 
Milan }^ 

And Savoy, in all his further proceedings to obtain the protectorate of 
Milan for himself, excepts the French claim, against which he avows 
himself powerless to protest. This claim, theoretically so strong, 
had also in its favour the devotion — the veneration, says Corio — 
which the royal name of France inspired in the Guelfs of Lombardy ; 
and in this moment of revolution, the Guelfs, the democratic party, 
were exceptionally powerful. The governor of Asti, Eaynouard du 
Dresnay, a hot-headed soldier infected by the ardour of the times, 
could no longer await the coming of his master, but on 22 Sep- 
tember, furnished with 3,300 golden ducats of Asti, at the head of 
a little force of 1,500 men-at-arms, sallied out to plant the royal 
lilies of Orleans upon the soil of Milan. 

Almost at once the inhabitants of Felizzano, Solero, Castellaccio, 
and Bergolio yielded to his arms. So many of the fortresses in the 
Alessandrino followed suit that Alessandria and all the country 
round were filled with fear. The force of Eaynouard was very 
small, but inspired with so much fury, such fervour and cruelty of 
battle, that the softer Italians did not dare resist him. The smaller 
cities opened at his knock, and even in the larger cities there was a 
party which, afraid of his vengeance, and fascinated by the prestige 
of France, would have welcomed him with open arms. Yet there 
were many, hating the stranger and his barbarian ferocity, who 
sent messenger after messenger to Sforza, bidding him arrive and 
deliver them. * Patience ! ' said Count Francesco. * In the first 
onslaught the French are more than men. Soon they will weary, 
and then we will attack them.' But meanwhile, with undiminished 
energy, day after day the victories of Eaynouard proceeded, and 
further and further into Lombardy advanced the banners of the 
king of France. 

On 1 Oct. an embassy from the unhappy republic of Milan 
arrived in Venice requesting aid and counsel. This, of a truth, was 
seeking sweetness in the jaws of the lion ; for Lodi, Codogno, and 

'* This letter is quoted in M. Gaullieur's interesting collection of documents from 
the correspondence of Duke Louis of Savoy, published in the eighth volume of the 
Archw fiir schweiz&rische Geschichte. 

E 2 


other cities had akeady revolted to the Venetians, who hoped in 
time, by skilful management, to possess the greater part of Lom- 
bardy. But the bewildered princes of liberty knew^ not in whom to 
place their trust. Venice and Florence were leagued together, and 
each hoped to obtain something from the dismemberment of the 
territories of Milan ; Montferrat, Mantua, Savoy, Genoa, and 
France, in open arms, were spoliating the corpse of their neighbour 
— for a corpse indeed it seemed — and of the captain-general of their 
own forces these heads of the republic were more profoundly sus- 
picious than of any open foe. Too many of the nobles in Milan 
were secretly in favour of this adventurer. Only the people, the 
Guelfs, sustained their republican ardour with violent rhetoric, and 
declared that they would rather be the servants of the Turk, or of 
the Devil, than of Count Francesco Sforza. 

There was this in favour of Venice, that she detested Count 
Francesco (who had left her service for the duke of Milan's) as 
bitterly as any Guelf in Lombardy. And Venice, the most aristo- 
cratic of oligarchies, was for some complicated political reason 
greatly favoured by the Guelfs. Therefore, not without hope in 
their hearts, the delegates of Milan aw^aited the answer of the 
Venetian senate. Three practicators, or agents, were deputed by 
the Ten to confer with the ambassadors concerning the proposed 
alliance between Milan and Venice ; but these agents were secretly 
bidden in no way to commit or bind the Venetian government 
{nichil ohligando nos) ; for the conference really was to be only 
a means of extracting information as to the true condition of 
affairs in Milan. ^^ And it would be as valueless to us, as to the 
hapless, bamboozled Milanese, were it not that here we get, I 
think, the first evidence of the Venetian inclination to pronounce 
for France.^^ 

There was no help here from the violence of Raynouard. Venice 
especially declared that against France and Genoa she would do 
nothing. And every day recorded the conquests of the French. 
The Milanese ambassadors returned very sadly, * despised by the 
Venetians,' says Corio, * and treated as perniciously as possible.' 
In vain they bade Francesco Sforza give battle to the audacious 
little force of Eaynouard. Count Francesco, who had ever been 
favourable to France, pursued his waiting game, although Bosco 
Marengo, closely besieged by the French, was almost at the end of 

" Secreta, Eeg. 17, fol, 171, tergo. Largely owing to the unfailing kindness of Mr. 
H. F. Brown, of Venice, I have been able to obtain copies of all the documents relating 
to the Duke of Orleans existing in the Venetian Archives, 1387-1498. 

" Sed si in colloquiis fieret me?itio per ipsos oratores de serenissimo B6ge Fran- 
eorum, et de Januense, qui occupassent de locis que fuerant quondam diwis, in hoc 
casu, praticatores ipsi iustificare debeant, in modesta et convenienti forma verhorum.y 
factum prcsfati Regis, et Januensis ; videlicet, quod per nos, contra cos, honeste et 
convenienter fieri non possit. 


possible resistance, and the fall of Bosco meant the loss of Alessan- 
dria. At last the Milanese succeeded in scraping together about 
fifteen hundred soldiers, and these, under Coglioni, they sent to 
Alessandria to harass the enemy. The French were taken between 
two fires—on the one side Coglioni, on the other the Alessandrian 
reinforcements ; yet at first they gained the day, but so furious was 
their anger, and so long they dallied in the slaughter of their ene- 
mies, that before they had despatched the last, a further reinforce- 
ment of the Milanese, and a successful sally on the part of the 
besieged, intercepted their return. Eaynouard was taken prisoner 
with many of his men ; the cities which had revolted to him returned 
to the allegiance of the Milanese republic ; and the royal troops, 
leaderless and disbanded in the very hour of victory, fled home as 
best they might to Asti. 

This was on 17 Oct. 1447. Twelve days later the duke of 
Orleans himself arrived in Asti. There he made a solemn entry 
on 26 Oct., riding under a dais borne by the notables of the city 
robed and hooded all in white, pro majori letitia adventus ipsius 
domini ducis. Charles of Orleans was now a man of fifty-eight, 
amiable and sanguine. Something of the charm and of the in- 
efficiency of youth appeared to linger round this aging poet, who, 
taken captive a youth of twenty-four, issued into the world again a 
man of fifty. Those intervening years had held for him none of 
the serious business of life : and his experience was still the expe- 
rience of charming, ardent, and unhappy youth. Since Agincourt 
he had counted his years by lyrics, not by battles ; and now perhaps 
one of the serious things to him in this contentious Lombardy was 
his friendship with Antonio Astesano, professor of eloquence and 
poetry at Asti, himself no inconsiderable versifier, and author of a 
poetic epistle on the victories of the Maid of Orleans, which in 1430 
he had sent to the duke in his English prison. Charles, with 
his serene unpractical temper, his interest in literature, his inex- 
perience of life, hoping all things, doing nothing, appears a strange 
figure in that distracted Lombardy : a garlanded maypole stuck in 
the front of battle. 

At first the arrival of the duke of Orleans appeared an event of 
immeasurable importance. The Guelfs in every Lombard town, 
who at first had thought only of Venice, began, more loudly even 
than during the campaign of Eaynouard, to declare for France. 
The duke came armed with promises from France, from Burgundy, 
from Brittany, from England. There were no bounds to the magni- 
ficence with which he declared himself about to take the field. But 
perhaps it would not be necessary to take the field at all. The 
duke sent a deputation to the Milanese republic; the lord of 
Cognac, one of the nobles of Ceva, Caretti (whose family all the 
while were practising none too secretly with Montferrat), Secondino 


Natti, Antonio Eomagnano, and Francesco Eoero, requested the 
Milanese to submit to the allegiance of their lawful duke. But the 
Milanese were all too well aware of the hateful consequences of 
tyranny. Men were still alive whose brothers and whose children 
had been torn to pieces, limb by limb, by the hounds of Giammaria 
Visconti, the uncle of this man. The suspicion, the cunning, the 
timid fear of Filippo Maria had succeeded to that oppression. 

* This time,' said the people of Milan, ' we will preserve ourselves a 
free republic' 

A show of force w^ould at least be necessary to induce them to 
change their minds; and in December 1447 Charles of Orleans 
sent an embassy to Venice,^* requesting the council to enter into 
an arrangement with him, and to furnish him with troops. He 
repeated his assurances of aid from France, England, and Bur- 
gundy ; and if such aid as this were really forthcoming, Venice, 
animated by a limited Venetian and not by a national Italian 
patriotism, would certainly hesitate to cross his path. So bitter 
was the hatred of Venice towards Sforza, that any other candidate 
appeared preferable to him ; and this douce, incapable Charles 
would be easier to manage than a man of that heroic and ambitious 
type. Yet in a matter so important it was, before all things, 
necessary to be circumspect ; and the Venetians put off the duke of 
Orleans with many assurances of their devoted adherence and af- 
fection, many warnings against the cunning and the machinations 
of Sforza, while they wrote to their allies of Florence requesting an 
opinion. At this instant Sforza was so dreaded in Italy, and his 
victory appeared so imminent, that if a few of the promised batta- 
lions had appeared in Piedmont the Venetians would gladly have 
espoused the cause of Orleans. But Sforza, left almost without 
tnoney, with no ally that he was really sure of except his valiant 
wife, found the situation untenable. He had not a friend in Italy, 
nor a friend across the mountains. Peace, if only the feint of 
peace, was imperative while he collected his unvanquished forces 
for a further struggle. Early in January he wrote to Florence, 
proposing peace. The Florentines and the Venetians were bound 
in so close a league that peace with the one meant truce with the 
other ; and though, at least twice, in solemn terms, the council of 
Ten warned the Florentine signory that there was no substance in 
this matter, for peace was contrary to the real interests of Count 
Francesco, yet in the end Venice agreed to accept this peace for 
what it was worth, using the hour of respite to further her stra- 
tagems in other quarters. 

The peace was not worth much. On 9 May Andriano Kicci of 
Asti arrived in Venice with a message from the duke of Orleans.^* 

* The French reinforcements will soon be here,' said the sanguine 

'» Keg. 17, fol. 194, tergo. 30 Dec. 1447 '» Keg. 17, fol. 221, tergo. 


duke ; * will you also be my auxiliary ? ' The Venetians, though still 
cautious, replied in terms of alacrity — 

We are ready to grant you all possible aid and favour, and there is no 
other prince on earth whom we so warmly desire to be our neighbour in 
Milan. Hasten the king of France, for if any good effect is to follow our 
endeavours, the troops should come at once. And rely upon it, so soon 
as your French auxiliaries are in readiness, we also will provide a satis- 
factory contingent to help in the conquest of Milan. And we are the 
readier to do this, since the peace which we had begun to treat with the 
Milanese republic is already broken, and we at this moment are in open 
war with Milan. 

But, just at the instant when it would have given most pleasure 
to Venice to support the claims of Orleans, she began to feel grave 
doubts as to the solidity of his pretensions. Those promised 
armies of France, England, Burgundy, and Brittany, which had 
been on the road ever since last December, would they never cross the 
Alps ? As yet not a single soldier had appeared. How far could 
Venice trust the assertions of the fanciful and sanguine Orleans ? 
A strain in him of the Visconti shiftiness mingled with the 
rhetoi'ic of his father, and for all his amiable simplicity Charles 
of Orleans was not a man to inspire conviction. The Venetians 
were, however, aware that Burgundy was really in his favour. It 
was Burgundy who had paid the ransom of Orleans, and Burgundy 
had twice sent his ambassadors to Venice, entreating the Ten in 
favour of his cousin. There was a great friendship between the 
good Duke Philip and the gentle Duke Charles ; it seemed as if,, 
having overcome the tremendous barrier of an hereditary vendetta, 
these two men, whose fathers had each been murdered to satisfy 
the feud, entertained for each other an affection that had gained 
by the obstacles it had surmounted. If Burgundy, the richest 
duke in Europe, supported Orleans, it might be well to aid him 
even in the absence of France, England, and Brittany. But it 
would be disastrous to support the inefficient duke alone against 
such mighty odds. Yet some aid against Sforza was immediately 
desirable. To the Venetians, to have two strings to your bow was 
the first axiom of policy ; and on 20 May, 1448, the Ten despatched 
to Asti a secret messenger, one Messer Bernardo Neri, who was to 
interview the duke,^^ to obtain all possible information as to his 
army and his auxiliaries, and then, in the utmost privacy, to pro- 
ceed to Savoy in order to judge in which direction it best would 
suit the Venetian cat to jump. 

Messer Bernardo stayed over a fortnight at Asti, although his 
commission was only for five days ; and from this we may suppose 
that at first he really had expectations of the success of Orleans. 

2" Eeg. 17, fol. 220. Secreta del Senato, MS. 


But on 10 June ^^ he left, ostensibly to return to Venice in order to 
receive the answer of the senate ; but in reality he went only a 
little way on the Venetian road and turned aside at once into 
Savoy, for at Turin he knew he should find further instructions 
from the senate. He could only spend a day or two over his 
negotiations with the duke there, for he had to return to Asti on 
the day when an answer might reasonably be expected to reach 
that place from Venice. But his interview with Duke Louis 
was evidently satisfactory, for it is the first of a long series of 

Meanwhile Orleans in Asti found his affairs did not progress at 
all. The Venetians, though so prodigal of offers of assistance, de- 
clined to come forward until he had an army at his back. The 
Milanese refused to recognise him. Worst of all, the French ap- 
peared to have forgotten him. It seemed best to return to France 
and collect his forces. So on 10 Aug., after a stay of nine months 
in Asti, Charles of Orleans with all his household went home again 
across the mountains. The duke took back with him his friend 
Antonio Astesano, and ever afterwards he retained a strong affection 
for the country of his mother. The visit of Charles of Orleans to 
Asti was important as an introduction of Italian fashions, Italian 
architecture, Italian arms, jewels,^^ and vestments into France. It 
caused a pure whiff of Italy to breathe across the Gothic style of 
Louis XI. But it made little or no effect on the furthering of the 
French claim to Milan. 

Orleans had scarcely crossed the Alps before he was as com- 
pletely disregarded as though he had never seemed the most 
dangerous pretender to the throne of Milan. Savoy had taken 
his place. The claim of Savoy was quite childish and ridiculous. 
He pretended that, on the payment of his sister's dowry to the late 
duke of Milan, Filippo Maria had promised to leave his duchy, in 
default of sons, to the duke of Savoy .^^ It was evident that the 
duke had done nothing of the sort ; he had left his throne to 
Arragon. Besides, it is difficult to see how his testament could dis- 
pose of property which, by his father's will and his sister's marriage- 
contract, was entailed on his nephews of Orleans, and which, by 
feudal law, must return to the Holy Eoman Empire. But, however 
shadowy his claims, the duke of Savoy was a great person to the 
Milanese. He was loved by them and he w^as feared by them ; and 
had he hazarded a bold stroke instead of counteracting his own 
efforts by a perfect maze of petty intrigues, he might easily have 
made himself, if not the duke of Milan, at any rate protector of the 
Milanese republic. 

« Beg. 13, fol. 3, Secreta del Senato, MS. 

^ VioUet-le-Duc, Mobilier Frangais, iv, 454. 

^ Olivier de la Marche, Mimoires, livre i. chap. 17. 


But Duke Louis was afraid to hazard all his chances on any 
single throw. In 1446 he had intrigued with the dauphin to divide 
the Milanese with France ; on 3 May 1448, he drew up a secret and 
solemn contract with the Milanese to protect their republic, in con- 
sequence of which, a few months later, the grateful city privately 
elected him her chief. In June 1449 he was arranging with the 
king of Arragon to conquer the estates of Milan with this ally, and 
divide them at the rate of three-fifths for Arragon and two-fifths for 
Savoy ; "^^ and in the autumn of the same year he was making a 
very similar proposal to the Venetians. In the pains he took to 
win something, however little. Savoy effectually safeguarded himself 
from winning all. Yet at one time he appeared to have great 
chances in his favour. 

In the summer and early autumn of 1448, both Venice and the 
Milanese believed that a republic under the joint protection of 
Venice and Savoy might flourish in Milan, were it not for the un- 
dying energy' and resolution of Count Francesco Sforza. To be rid 
of this man was to be rid of war ; and twice in August and once in 
September the Ten wrote to a certain Lorenzo Minio, captain of 
Brescia, that they accept a certain proposal he had made : 'If the 
person he suggests will in truth deal death to Count Francesco, we 
shall be his debtors.' ^^ According to the discretion of Minio they 
offered his candidate from ten thousand to twenty thousand ducats ; 
or, should he be of the sort that stoops not to money, he should have 
the captaincy of a regiment, of from two hundred to four hundred 
lances. ' But,' they proceeded, ' let not the matter stick for a trifle 
— cheer him and inspirit him so that his resolution come to a good 
effect, and that speedily ; put him in heart with his work and let it 
be done well.' The plain English of these phrases means that the 
Venetian council was willing to pay a great sum of money to any 
one who would undertake to poison Count Francesco Sforza. 

But before the proposal was carried out, a second message, five 
months later, bade the friend of Minio stay the destruction in his 
hand. ' Count Francesco having entered into good and faithful 
relations with the senate, we withdraw the order for his death.' 
As suddenly as before and for as short a time an alliance was de- 
clared between the Venetians and the Milanese. 

This alliance, as before, was merely an occasion for the resump- 
tion of intrigues. Arragon and Savoy, Savoy and Venice, Venice 
and Milan were secretly determining an arrangement which should 
exclude Francesco Sforza. It seems scarcely worth while to have 
countermanded the order for his death, since by some means or 
another to be rid of this adventurer is the aim and end of all this 
poHcy. The Guelfs of Milan sent to Venice a certain Arrigo Paniga- 

2* Secreta del Senato, Eeg. 18, fol. 106, MS. 
" Lamansky, Secrets d'Eiat de Venise, p. 160. 


rola, who, throwing himself upon his knees before the Ten, with tears 
and prayers implored the Venetians to defend his hapless city from 
Count Francesco. The council was impressed, but decided to 
reserve its answer for a little while. 

A few months after the arrival of Panigarola, the duke of Savoy 
sent an ambassador to Venice upon a similar errand. How was it 
possible that the Venetians, so respectable a state, could support a 
w^earisome adventurer like Count Francesco ? Savoy gave the 
Venetians to understand that if they continued to supply soldiers to 
the camp of Sforza he should reckon this behaviour on their part 
a casus belli. How much better it would be if the Venetians would 
acquiesce in an honourable peace between the Milanese republic 
and Savoy and Venice ! This threefold league would effectually crush 
Francesco Sforza, and would establish plenty and security in de- 
vastated Lombardy ; w^hereas if the present dissensions continue, 
both Orleans and Arragon would certainly come across the moun- 
tains to seek their profit here, and so should a great fire be lit in 
Italy which much effusion of blood would never quench. The 
Savoyard ambassador waxed really eloquent over the blessings of 
peace ; for at this very time his master was writing to his father 
the antipope at Lucerne : ' The Milanese have secretly elected me 
chief, but what am I to do with Italy for Sforza, Germany for the 
emperor, and France for Orleans ? ' All indeed that he could do was 
faire entretenir les Milanais par tous moyens^ sans avoir diet encore 
ne non, ne ouy ; et, d^aultre part, envoy er a Venise, et aussi envers 
le Comte Frangois, et aultres oil il est necessaire practicquer quelque 
hons moyens par voye d'accord.^^ Of all these various plots the most 
successful for Savoy would have been a peace strong enough to set 
at naught Francesco Sforza, to restore prosperity to Lombardy, and 
to enable the Milanese to elect him, with apparent spontaneity, 
protector of their state. The first step was to secure peace with 
Venice ; and he found the Venetians in an acquiescent mood. The 
. important city of Crema had followed the lead of Lodi and 
Codogno, and had declared itself the subject of Saint Mark ; and the 
Venetians, who could not keep Crema and continue the ally of 
Count Francesco, suddenly came to terms with Panigarola, de- 
clared themselves the champions of the Milanese republic, offered 
the duke of Savoy not merely a friendly neutrality but an offensive 
alliance.^^ They resumed their negotiations for the assassination of 
Count Francesco, and, ' without a thought,' says Corio, * of the league 
or law divine,' despatched him a message informing him that they, his 
comrades in arms of yesterday, should become to-morrow his enemies 
upon the field of battle. 

Count Francesco received the news with great gravity, without 

2« Reg. 18, fol. 83. 21 April, 1449. Secreta del Senato, MS. 
^^ GauUieur. Secreta del Scnato, MS. 


a sign of anger, or sorrow, or displeasure ; although his situation 
was becoming really desperate ; for, as the Venetian legate maUci- 
ously informed him, the Venetians were negotiating aUiances with 
Savoy, with Arragon, and with the pope. As to Savoy, Sforza 
forestalled them ; for he forthwith despatched a messenger to Turin 
with terms so advantageous to Duke Louis that that unstable 
personage put the Venetians out of mind and settled into peace 
with Sforza : who, enabled to turn his entire force against Venice, 
drove his late allies back beyond the Adda, defeated them utterly at 
Caravaggio, made peace with them as a victor with success be- 
fore him, and in the middle of October turned his arms against the 
Milanese republic. 

Sforza had disarmed Savoy and conquered Venice ; but he had 
not yet come to an end of his enemies. In November 1447 Charles 
of Orleans seriously resumed his intentions of a Milanese campaign. 
Already in July Burgundy had rewritten to the Venetians entreat- 
ing them to favour Orleans ; and the council had repHed ^^ that 
though their acts of late may have appeared hostile to the cause of 
Orleans, yet nothing but the instinct of self-preservation had ever 
induced them to make peace with Francesco, and their sentiments 
were still most loyal to the house of France. Nothing appeared 
more likely than the French invasion of which Savoy already had 
warned the Venetians. On 14 Nov. the duke of Orleans wrote to 
the city of Asti,^^ saying that he was now positively certain of the 
alliance of Brittany and Burgundy, and that before Christmas his 
army, under Jean Focaud, would arrive in Lombardy. This letter, 
written in a tone of the cheerfuUest high spirits, was followed a 
week later by one equally sanguine and happy : Dei gratia, omnia 
negotia Lomhardie ad nos sjyectantia sunt in his presentihus optime 
disposita. Jacques Coeur has pronounced himself favourable to 
the affair. And on 4 Dec. Orleans writes that the companies of 
Foix and Bourbon are on the point of departure ; and that John of 
Angouleme is arranging with the king for a reinforcement from the 
royal troops. 

But Christmas came, and the phantom armies of the expectant 
Orleans remained as visionary as before. Yet on 7 Jan. he writes, 
still sanguine, still bent on conquering his castle in the air : ' The 
army will be larger than we thought ; for all the French princes 
will lend their aid. Burgundy is sending great sums of gold and 
abundant troops into Lombardy.' The duke is as full as ever of 
his schemes and hopes. But this is the last of his letters ; and 
before his messenger could bring an answer home from Asti, Milan 
had found a master among the ranks of Italy. 

2« Secreta del Seimto, MS. Keg. 18, fol. 93. 3 July 1449. 

™ These four letters are quoted by M. Maurice Faucon from the Milanese Archive 
in his report of his two missions in Italy in the years 1879 and 1880, pp. 35-37. 


For famine and weariness and civil discord had broken the 
spirit of the Milanese repubHc. Even Savoy, even Venice, were 
seized with pity, and murmured to each other that almost any 
change would be desirable, at hec afflicta et misera Lombardiay 
dudum guerrariim disturbijs lacessita, aUquando qidescere possit ; tot 
popidis, tot calamitatibuSf totque oppressorum vocibus compatiendum et 
miserandiim erat. Anything short of the success of Count Fran- 
cesco would be a happy alternative to such disaster. And in Milan 
itself the discontent was as pronounced. The Guelfs still vocifer- 
ated against Francesco, but the Ghibellines, the party of the 
nobles, grew slowly and strongly in favour of the count. All parties 
at last were out of conceit with this miserable liberty, which was 
but another name for civil disunion and ruin. Some were for the 
pope, and some for Charles of France ; and these were the Guelfs. 
Some were for Savoy, some for the king of Naples. But all these 
princes lived a long way off ; they had no armies ready to combat 
the Venetians, whom each and every faction dreaded now and 
hated worse than famine. When one day Gasparo da Vimercato 
rose up in public conclave, and suggested that Milan should give 
herself to Count Francesco Sforza, it was incredible how suddenly 
the whole mind of the city turned towards the count. The count 
was the son-in-law of the late duke. The city was familiar with 
him. He was known to be humane and generous and strong. 
Should the city elect him, in one day he could dissipate the famine, 
the battles, the fear of enemies and the suspicion of treachery, 
which for thirty months had made the misery of Milan. Leonardo 
Gariboldo, Aloigi Trombetta, and Gasparo da Vimercato were sent 
at once to acquaint Count Francesco, that by the free voice of the 
people he had been elected lord of Milan. 

Among the innumerable conspirators, intriguing diplomatists, 
and successful tradesmen who filled the high places of the Italy of 
that day, Francesco Sforza appears at least a man. Simple, direct, 
and brave, no sudden honour and no reverse of fortune took from 
him that natural dignity of a balanced mind which is one of the 
finest attributes of the Italian. Good sense and kindness made a 
moral force of this captain of adventure. He disciplined his troops, 
erected a court-martial, and punished offences of rape and violence 
by death ; so that while the miserable populations of Lombardy 
had everything to fear from the other armies that occupied their 
soil, gradually they learned to feel themselves secure in the rough, 
mailed hands of Count Francesco. Among the soldiers his reputa- 
tion was more than mortal. We have to leap over a dozen genera- 
tions before the prestige of the Little Corporal presents an analogy to 
such devotion. But Count Francesco was loved and respected even 
by his enemies ; and there is a story of him which has ever struck 
me as the most charming in military history. It was at the siege 


of Como, in that very February of 1450 when, unknown to him, 
the Milanese, who had so long and so furiously resisted him, were 
crying, * Sforza ! Sforza ! ' in an ecstasy of hungry enthusiasm in 
the great piazza. Meanwhile Sforza and his men were occupying 
Monte Barro; by means of a little hill in front, overlooking the 
Adda, and fortified by five bastions, they kept in check the troops 
of Venice and Milan, ranged in impotent lines along the further 
side of the river. The bulwarks of the little hill were but slight, 
improvised in a few days for the occasion, and the poor Italian 
artillery of the fifteenth century wrought no great destruction ; yet 
such was the spell of Sforza's name, that the two armies across the 
Adda never ventured to try the place by assault. One night, how- 
ever, it leaked out that Count Francesco was not in the fort ; he 
had gone up the mountain to arrange a fresh disposition of his 
troops upon the summit of Monte Barro. In his absence it was 
decided to attack the hill, and in the late February dawn the 
Venetians and Milanese poured under the slender bulwarks, armed 
with artillery which silenced that of the fort, and, planting their 
scaling-ladders against the ramparts, they soon were in possession 
of the place. Now, as it happened, unknown to either army, late 
at night Count Francesco had returned home, and hearing the 
clamour in the place he started out of sleep and strode at once to 
the ramparts, ignorant that the enemy had taken the place by sur- 
prise, and that his soldiers, unaware of his presence in their midst, 
had already given the sign of surrender. ' Defend yourselves, for I 
am here ! ' rang out the clear voice of the count ; and at that 
moment he perceived that he stood alone in the midst of his foes. 
But the mere fact of his presence was a better defence to his bas- 
tions than a world of soldiers. The assailants, like chidden children, 
withdrew from their positions, dropped the guns and pieces they 
were carrying away, and with uncovered heads made for their 
scaling-ladders. As they passed the count, standing alone there, 
they made for his hand, kneeling, crowding to touch it. * Father 
and ornament of Italian arms, we salute you,' cried the soft 
Venetian voices ; and in little knots and groups, as quickly as they 
might, they dropped over the walls into the moat again, leaving 
Count Francesco the master of his ramparts. It was to this 
man, so eminently the hero of his hour, that the three Milanese 
delegates brought their news of the submission of the city. 

On 25 Feb. 1450, Count Francesco Sforza rode into Milan. 
He rode at the head of his troops, and he had taken care that his 
future subjects should welcome the army ; for every soldier was 
hung all over, from corslet, from waist, from shoulder, and from 
arm and hand, with loaves of bread— great clustering rolls and 
loaves that hid the armour underneath, as much as every man 
could carry. It was fine, wrote Corio, to see how the famished 




Milanese fell upon the troops, avidly tearing the longed-for food 
from neck and arm, and falling to at once {con quanta ingordigia .') 
upon the delicious bread. * Sforza ! Sforza ! ' cried the citizens, a 
thousand times more eagerly than before. Some of them cried out 
in the words of the Psalms, Hcec est dies, quam fecit Dominus ; 
exultemus et Icetemur in ea ! Sforza was in the city ; his troops and 
his bread had effectually secured his future. The Venetians might 
brew another poison. Charles of Orleans at Chauny might return 
that loan of men and gold which his cousin of Burgundy had lent 
him. Louis of Savoy wrote to his father at Lucerne : Le Comte 
Frangois a ohtenu ceste ville par intelligence^ deceptions et pratiques et 
non mie par force de guerre. All these pretenders, w^ho had felt the 
bird already in their hand, must dissemble as best they might 
their disappointment. But Genoa ^^ and Florence welcomed the 
chance of peace, and in November 1451 joined in a defensive league 
with Milan against the dauphin, the king of France, the duke 
of Savoy, and the Venetians. Lombardy was no longer the 
devastated battlefield of doubtful victory. Count Francesco Sforza 
was effectually the master of Milan. 

A. Maby F. Eobinson. 


{To he continued.) 

*> Archives of Genoa. Materie Politiche, mazzo 12, 3. See also Charavay's 
Report on the Italian letters of Louis XI, 1881. 

1888 63 

BenoU de Boigne 

IN a paper on Dupleix which appeared in these pages, ^ we observed 
that the military adventurer has, from early days, been a pro- 
minent figure in Indian history. But the European representative 
of the class was a new type, and flourished almost exclusively in 
the latter half of the last century. The circumstances of the time 
favoured his advent ; his disappearance was the result of deliberate 
policy. In the political chaos that followed the decline of the Mogul 
empire, lawless ambition was the prevailing temper, and the sword 
the great arbiter of destiny. The majestic unity of the old order 
was replaced by a variety of comparatively small states, each of 
which was fain to maintain a constant struggle with its rivals, and 
to strengthen itself, as best it could, for the ever-impending fray. 
Thus, military capacity was the first requisite for the public service. 
In this state of things, Dupleix' s career was very suggestive to the 
native mind. It revealed the fact that a new era had dawned upon 
India, and that the art of war had been revolutionised by the 
introduction of European organisation, discipline, and weapons. 
The first impression was one of panic; but seeing what great 
services Dupleix had rendered to his allies, and how easily the 
English had overthrown Suraja Dowlah, the * country powers ' 
began to covet the possession of the * new model,' which might be 
usefully employed not only against their native competitors, but in 
resisting the encroachments of the English company. Thus the 
European soldier of fortune had most encouragement, just on the 
eve of the day which was to banish him systematically from his old 
haunts. For Wellesley embodied in all his treaties of subsidiary 
alliance a stipulation to that elffect ; and in later treaties Americans 
also are excluded from employment in the service of the native 
states, except with the sanction of the British government. Thus, 
though in our own day the Lion of the Punjab had European 
officers, this was only a survival of the practice which had long 
ceased to the south of the Sutlej. 

The most eminent of these European adventurers, alike from 
his abilities and character, the greatness of his achievements, and 

» No. IV. October 1886. 


their momentous consequences, was the Savoyard, Benoit de Boigne. 
At the time of his death an account of his mihtary career was 
published at Chambery.^ Captain Grant Duff, who was well ac- 
quainted with him, had previously interwoven, in his invaluable 
* History of the Mahrattas,' the general thread of a life, which was 
mainly devoted to the aggrandisement of a Mahratta prince. This 
author's exhaustive knowledge of his subject, his sound judgment, 
his extreme conscientiousness, and the personal information which 
he derived from his illustrious friend, still make him the best 
authority on the great transactions identified with De Boigne' s 
name. But as these events excited much interest in British India, 
and were frequently noticed in the Anglo-Indian journals, many 
particulars may be gleaned from these periodicals, as well as from 
publications of a more permanent character, biographies of officers, 
military reminiscences, travels, and so forth. M. de Boigne's 
papers have mostly perished ; but a few have been preserved by his 
family, and are occasionally quoted by his latest biographer, as they 
throw some additional light on his relations with the house of 
Sindia. His marriage in England, and his separation from his 
wife on their return to the continent, are not mentioned in the 
military memoir. For these events and other details we are in- 
debted to M. Victor de Saint-Genis, who has since written a life of 
the Savoyard hero and philanthropist.^ This is, in some respects, 
a very unsatisfactory book, far too full of fine writing, moralising, 
and discursive passages on the evil effects of the French revolution, 
the selfish ambition and treacherous artifices of the British in 
India, and other more or less irrelevant and disputable topics. 
And though the author has read much, if he has read through the 
goodly array of works on Indian history &c. which he tabulates 
at the end of his volume, he makes many and sometimes great 
blunders. But we are sincerely thankful to him for his laborious 
attempt to interest his countrymen in the career of a man so 
worthy of admiration, and for enabling us to appreciate more 
exactly some hitherto obscure passages in his hero's life, as well as 
the character of his institutions in the Doab, and his beneficent 
work at Chambery. 

Benoit le Borgne (as he was originally called) was a native of 
that place. He was born in 1751 : his father was a respectable 
tradesman ; and he received what was then considered a good edu- 
cation. Little is recorded of his youth, except that he showed a 
decided taste for music and fencing, and took an active part in the 
amusements and quarrels of his companions, many of whom were 
of aristocratic birth. In his seventeenth year he left Chambery, 

' M&moire sur la carrUre militaire et politique de M. le GitUral Comte de Boigne. 
Chambery : Puthod. 1830. 2de Edition. It was compiled by M. Baymond. 
' Le Q6n6ral de Boigne. Par Victor de Saint-Genis. Poitiers. 1873. 




and purchased an ensign's commission in Lord Clare's regiment, 
one of the five which formed the famous Irish brigade in the 
French service, originally composed of Jacobite refugees. At 
Landrecies — Dupleix's birthplace — he went through the routine of 
a subaltern's duties, and devoted himself to the study of the art of 
war, in which he was encouraged by his commanding officer, Colonel 
Leigh. At the end of three years his regiment was ordered to the 
Isle of France, whence it returned to Bethune. De Boigne being 
still an ensign, with little hope of promotion or active service, re- 
signed his commission, and obtained letters of recommendation to 
Admiral Orloff, who was then employed by the Empress Catherine 
against the Turks. He became a captain in a Greek regiment ; but 
w^as taken prisoner in a descent on Tenedos, and some months after 
was released on the conclusion of peace. Again hopeless of ad- 
vancement, he left the Eussian service, and visited Smyrna. There 
he met some Englishmen, whose attractive account of India led 
him to think that he might prosper in that land of promise to the 
military adventurer. Eesolving to make his way overland, he 
joined a caravan, which advanced as far as Bagdad, but was arrested 
by a war between the Turks and the Persians. He returned to 
Smyrna, and thence proceeded to Egypt, but was wrecked at the 
mouth of the Nile. 

The Arabs, into whose hands he fell, treated him kindly, and he 
reached Cairo. There Mr. Baldwin, the English consul, befriended 
him, and gave him a letter of introduction to Major Sydenham, 
commandant of Fort St. George. But he soon found that he had 
been too sanguine in his expectations. At Madras he was for a 
time reduced to support himself by giving fencing lessons. He was 
presently appointed an ensign in the 6th native infantry, shortly 
before Hyder Ali's great invasion of the Carnatic, so eloquently 
described by Burke. De Boigne's regiment was destroyed at Per- 
ambaukum. But he had been detached with two companies to 
escort grain from Madras to the army, and he thus escaped the fate 
of Baillie and his comrades. It does not appear how he was 
occupied afterwards ; but before the war ended, he was again loose 
on the world. His retirement has been variously explained. But 
its immediate cause seems to have been an act of real or supposed 
injustice in his being passed over for an adjutancy. He now 
resumed his project of travelling across Asia, and proposed once 
more to seek his fortune in Europe. Lord Macartney, the governor 
of Madras, in vain tried to detain him, and warmly commended 
him to Warren Hastings, who received him cordially, and highly 
approved his design of exploring a route then unfamiliar to 
Europeans. He also furnished him with letters of introduction to 
the EngUsh officers on his way, and to various native princes, in- 
cluding the Great Mogul. 

VOL. III. — NO. IX, F 


At Lucknow, De Boigiie's credentials procured him much favour 
from the nawab, who gave him a letter of credit on Caubul and Kan- 
dahar. He spent several months in acquiring information as to his 
route, learning native languages, and forming friendships with 
British officers, some of which proved lasting. He also became 
intimate with another remarkable adventurer, M. Martin, who had 
retired from the company's army and devoted himself to commerce 
at Lucknow, where he acquired great wealth, and became, like our 
hero, a founder of beneficent institutions. At the end of August 
1783, De Boigne reached Delhi, but, in the absence of the minister, 
failed to obtain an audience of the emperor. And at Agra, Nujeeb 
received him coldly, suspecting him to be a secret agent of the 
governor-general. Sindia was then besieging Gwalior, which the 
English had restored to the rana of Gohud. Mr. Anderson, the 
resident at Sindia' s court, invited De Boigne to visit him. Sindia, 
who also had Warren Hastings on the brain, and hoped to unmask 
the pretended traveller by the evidence of his papers, caused his 
baggage to be plundered. Nothing material being discovered, most 
of the property was restored, and the outrage was ascribed to 
private thieves. But De Boigne did not recover the letter of credit, 
and this partly deterred him from prosecuting his journey. He 
had, however, another reason for delay. He proposed to the rana 
to levy secretly a force of 8,000 men, who were to concentrate 
suddenly from different quarters, and in concert with 1,200 more, 
already in the rana's service, and commanded by Mr. Sangster, a 
Scotchman, were to surprise Sindia' s army, and raise the siege. 
This bold project was rejected, but disclosed to Sindia in terror em. 
Though it thus came to nothing, it left on Sindia's mind a favour- 
able impression of its author's military ability. Still hankering 
after service in India, De Boigne offered his sword to Pertab Singh, 
the rajah of Jeypoor, who accepted it. But on announcing his 
•change of plan to Warren Hastings, the governor-general, in defe- 
rence to the misgivings of his council, recalled him to Calcutta. 
This, strictly speaking, he had no right to do. But De Boigne 
thought it prudent to obey the summons ; his ready compliance 
and explanations silenced the cavillers ; and he started anew, 
travelling with the governor-general as far as Lucknow. On enter- 
ing the Jeypoor territory, he was arrested by a lawless tributary of 
the rajah, and put to ransom. And when he at last reached his 
destination, Pertab had changed his mind, and, presenting him 
with a handsome sum of money, politely dismissed him. He had 
reason to regret this summary step later. 

Hitherto De Boigne' s career had been a series of mortifying 
failures, which, however, did not abate his energy, nor shake his 
resolve to make himself a name. And his later success was doubt- 
less not a little due to the varied experience, patient temper, and 



reflective habit, acquired in the course of his many unsuccessful 
openings. Fortune at last relented: Major Brown, the resident 
at Delhi, recommended De Boigne to tender his services to Sindia. 
Having already reason to think well of him, Mahadajee readily 
engaged him. 

De Boigne' s new employer was a natural son of Eanojee Sindia, 
who belonged to a well-known but decayed family in Maharashtra. 
Eanojee had discharged the lowly office of slipper-bearer to the 
great peishwa Baji Eao I, who had raised him to military command, 
and employed him, together with Mulhar Eao Holkar, in the 
conquest of Malwa, the greater part of which province was divided 
between them as jaghiredarSy or feudatories, of the peishwa. Eano- 
jee's legitimate issue failing, Mahadajee, who had escaped with a 
wound from the rout at Paniput, and had later won his spurs in 
less disastrous fields, was allowed to succeed to the jaghire. But the 
Mahratta sillidars, or gentleman cavaliers, despised him for his 
base birth, and were loth to recognise him as the proper heir. 
Though established in Hindostan, he was still closely connected 
with the Dekkan. In the Poona durbar he was one of a notable 
group of rival politicians ; while he sought to strengthen himself in 
popular estimation by posing as the hereditary potail of his ancestral 
village. But circumstances gradually gave a wider scope to his 
ambition. The great statesman. Nana Furnavese, the Mahratta 
Macchiavelli, became the chief minister at Poona, and Sindia saw 
little chance of supplanting him ; while he might hope to outshine 
Nana's administrative feats by military achievements, and to acquire 
political power in a sphere remote from the minister's influence. 
He had done good service in the earlier part of the recent war with 
the British power. And though Popham had surprised Gwalior, 
and Sindia had failed to cut off Camac in his retreat, he had been 
no loser in the end ; for the English, conciliated by his kind treat- 
ment of their prisoners and his good offices in mediating peace 
between them and the peishwa, had added to his possessions, and 
had recognised him as ' the mutual guarantee of both parties for 
the due performance of the conditions."* This curious arrange- 
ment tended to inspire him with high thoughts, for it implied 
that he was a potentate co-ordinate with the peishwa, rather than 
his subject, and tempted him to aim at becoming substantially 
what he was thus assumed to be. On the other hand, he was 
conscious of his present insecurity. His illegitimacy made his 
Mahratta dependants half-hearted in his service. The English 
attack on his territories had endangered him, and induced him to 
conclude a hasty and separate peace ; and his neighbour and rival 
Holkar would not be slow to take advantage of his internal weak- 
ness. But, critical as was his position at home, he might gain 

* Grant Duff, ii. 466. 

J 2 


much by going farther afield, and prosecuting an enterprise sure 
to be popular among his Mahratta followers, and which might 
make him, in the end, less dependent upon them. In no w^ay 
could he better gratify the characteristic taste of his tribesmen, and 
bind them to his interest, than by reasserting Mahratta influence 
at Deilhi. Mahadajee the bastard might be lightly regarded by 
his captious sillidars; but they would view with other eyes the 
conqueror of the promised land. And once established at Delhi in 
an official capacity, Sindia might indefinitely increase his army, 
and diminish the relative importance of his original followers by 
enlisting Mussulman or Kajput soldiers of fortune, who swarmed in 
the upper provinces. 

To appreciate properly the character of Sindia s design, it is 
necessary to remember also the contemporary condition of the 
country which he proposed to invade, and the relation of his scheme 
to the general course of Mahratta policy. The Mogul empire still 
existed, but in a most attenuated state. The capital had been 
shorn of its splendour, and frequently subjected to hostile violence. 
The home provinces of Delhi and Agra alone remained under the 
direct rule of Baber's descendant, though his pretensions were by 
no means limited to the territory which he actually retained. Shah 
Allum, after his defeat by the English at Buxar, had made his 
peace with his conquerors, and lived for some time under their pro- 
tection, but had quitted it, and returned to Delhi, on the invita- 
tion of a Mahratta general. He soon quarrelled with his new 
friend ; and the Mahratta army was recalled to the Dekkan on the 
death of the peishwa. Shah Allum had since been well served by 
a respectable and able minister, Nujeeb-ud-dowla, who sustained 
his master's feeble fortunes with unusual vigour and fidelity. 
But the Mogul grandees were mostly as degenerate as their 
sovereign ; public spirit was almost extinct ; bitter personal feuds 
and miserable court intrigues made up the staple of imperial 
politics ; and Nujeeb seemed the only bulwark of order in the 
decrepit community. Yet, pitiable as was this state of things, the 
emperor was still, to the native imagination, a living force, a grand 
luminary, though under eclipse, the source of all legitimate rule in 
India ; and his name was a spell by which a proficient in political 
legerdemain might hope to accomplish much. Thus both the 
actual weakness and the ideal majesty of the empire had attractions 
for Sindia ; and the more so as his design of getting the emperor 
into his keeping, and wielding his nominal authority, was in full 
accordance with approved Mahratta statecraft. To become mayor 
of the palace at Delhi would be, in fact, the crowning point of a 
series of steps by which the Mahrattas, after vindicating their 
independence against the empire in its palmy days, and impairing 
its strength in the struggle, had availed themselves of its moral 


authority to confirm and legitimise their successive encroachments. 
How Sindia, in completing this process, was to reconcile his im- 
perial position with his Mahratta citizenship and his allegiance to 
the peishwa was a question easily solved by so astute and ex- 
perienced a politician. 

Mahadajee Sindia's character has been carefully traced by Grant 
Buff ; and some parts of his description will throw light on the 
following narrative. * He was a man,' says this author, ' of great 
political sagacity, and of considerable genius, of deep artifice, of 
restless ambition, and of implacable revenge. With a high opinion 
of his personal address, he generally failed where he attempted to 
exercise it ; and, in ebullitions of anger, to which he was prone, he 
frequently exposed what he most wished to conceal. His habits 
were simple, his manners kind and frank, but sometimes blustering 
and coarse. He was beloved by his dependants, Hberal to his troops 
in assignments of land or orders on villages, but quite the reverse 
in payments from his treasury or in personal donatives. His 
disposition was not cruel, although his punishments were severe. 
He could not only write, but, what is rare among the Mahrattas, he 
was a good accountant, and understood revenue affairs. His 
districts in Malwa were well managed, a circumstance, however, 
which must be ascribed to a judicious selection of agents ; for 
Sindia, like most Mahratta chieftains, was too much engaged in 
politics or war, to bestow the time and attention necessary to a good 
civil government.^ 

The arrangement concluded between De Boigne and his patron 
was to the following effect. No advance was made to the stipendiary, 
but he was required to raise at his own cost in the first instance 
two battalions, each of eight hundred men. His own pay was to be 
a thousand rupees a month. A sum was allotted to the troops 
amounting to eight rupees a man, officers included. This crude 
calculation De Boigne rectified by assigning to each soldier SJ rupees 
a month, and proportioning the residue among the officers. To 
enlist soldiers was easy : how he procured competent officers, how 
many of them were Europeans, and the number of his guns at this 
time, we are not told. His first service was in Bundlekund, where 
he co-operated with Appa Khunde Kao, one of Sindia's generals, 
whose forces consisted almost entirely of cavalry. The battalions 
behaved well, dragging the guns up the steep passes, and crowning 
the heights which commanded the route of the cavalry ; and their 
leader distinguished himself at the siege of the great fortress of 
Callinger. But he was soon called to act a more important part. 
Nujeeb, Shah AUum's minister, had died, leaving an adopted son, 
: Afrasiab Khan, whose claim to succeed him was postponed to that 
of a relative, Mirza Shuffee. But Mohammud Beg, the governor 

» Grant Dull, iii. 90, 91. 


of Agra, opposed the new minister, and Mohammud's nephew, 
Ismael Beg, murdered him. Afrasiab had been privy to the crime, 
and he acquired the vacant post. But he still had a rival in 
Mohammud. Each sought to strengthen himself by calling in Sindia : 
he accepted the invitation of the minister; but before he could 
arrive, Afrasiab fell a victim to the vengeance of Mirza Shuffee's 
brother. Thus the court and the capital were thrown into utter 
confusion. Sindia, at the head of a strong army, entered Delhi in 
January 1785. He came as Shah Allum's deliverer from anarchy. 
His power was for the time undisputed : he was made minister and 
commander-in-chief. Mohammud submitted, and was sent to reduce 
a rebellious fortress. But Sindia' s overbearing conduct soon pro- 
voked resistance. His resumption of jaghires irritated the Mogul 
grandees; his demand of heavy tribute in the emperor's name 
provoked the rajahs of Jeypoor and Joudpoor to dispute his 
authority ; and they assembled their armies, in secret confederacy 
with the disaffected imperialists. Sindia summoned Appa Khunde 
Rao and De Boigne to his assistance, and on their arrival marched 
against the Rajputs, accompanied by Mohammud and Ismael, who 
promptly changed sides. This defection did not deter Sindia from 
giving battle. He still had twenty-five imperial battalions, which 
he placed in the centre, with De Boigne's battalions on the left, and 
on the right one under M. Lesteneau, a Frenchman. His cavalry 
he commanded in person, and posted it in the rear, as a reserve. 
The battle opened with a brisk cannonade. Then Mohammud 
charged the Mahratta right : he was killed by a cannon-ball, and 
his men began to give way, but were rallied and led on again by 
Ismael, who drove back his opponents, but was checked by Sindia' s 
cavalry. On the other flank the Rhatore horsemen charged De 
Boigne's battalions with the greatest gallantry, riding up to the guns 
and slaughtering the gunners. But after a severe struggle they 
were repulsed with heavy loss, and retired in disorder. De Boigne 
insisted that the Mogul troops should advance, and secure the 
victory. But they could not be induced to move ; and two days 
after, in broad daylight, they marched off with eighty guns, and 
joined Ismael. De Boigne advised that they should be attacked in 
the act of desertion. But Sindia preferred to retreat, first upon Deeg, 
then to Gwalior. The Rajputs returned home. Ismael pursued, 
and skirmished with the retreating army, and the steadiness of De 
Boigne's troops was again shown in their defence of the rear during 
eight days. Ismael then besieged Agra, which was well maintained 
for Sindia by Luckwa Dada. But another enemy to Mahratta 
ascendency now declared himself. Gholam Kadir, the Afghan chief 
of Saharunpoor, a miscreant pre-eminent for ferocity even among 
that savage race, drove Sindia' s garrison from Delhi, occupied the 
city (Shah Allum taking refuge in the citadel), reduced Aligurh, 


and united his forces with those of Ismael. Sindia urgently besought 
Nana to assist him, as yet without eifect. But he secured an 
important aUiance by restoring Deeg and other places to the Jats ; 
and they seriously obstructed the siege operations at Agra. To 
co-operate with them Sindia sent some of his cavalry and De 
Boigne's battalions ; and these had been reinforced by the Jats, when 
the enemy, having raised the siege, advanced to give battle. This 
took place near Bhurtpoor, on 24 April 1788. The Jats, on the right 
wing, were charged and partly broken by Gholam Kadir. Ismael 
vigorously assailed De Boigne's troops on the left, * but found 
himself received with remarkable steadiness and intrepidity.' ^ The 
Mahratta cavalry, on this as on other occasions, failed to support 
their gallant comrades, who suffered severely, and were at last 
obliged to give ground. Under cover of night a retreat was effected 
to Bhurtpoor. Gholam was detached by a diversion on his territory ; 
and Sindia's army being reinforced again advanced against Ismael, 
and near Agra gained a complete victory, to which the exertions of 
De Boigne and his men materially contributed. Ismael was 
wounded, but escaped, and at Delhi reassembled his fugitive troops^ 
There he was joined by Gholam Kadir, who was treacherously 
admitted into the citadel, plundered the palace, deposed and blinded 
the hapless emperor, and for two months continued to perpetrate 
indescribable enormities. Then Sindia's army arrived ; Ismael, 
disgusted at his associate's atrocities and propitiated by the offer of 
a jaghire, submitted ; Gholam fled, was pursued, captured, horribly 
mutilated by Sindia's order, and died in consequence. Ali Bahadur,, 
a relative of the peishwa, had reinforced Sindia's army, and 
accompanied it to Delhi. This was in consequence of an agreement 
by which Nana had at last consented to help his rival, on condition 
that all conquered territory to the north of the Chumbul should be 
equally divided between the peishwa, Sindia, and Holkar. Tukajee 
was advancing at the head of his army. Yet Sindia lingered long 
before he made his appearance at Delhi. He came at last once 
more as the emperor's deliverer, replaced the unhappy puppet on 
the throne with great solemnity, and was hailed with acclamations 
as the restorer of order. 

Though his triumph was largely due to De Boigne, and there 
was a natural affinity of interest between these sons of the sword^ 
they soon after separated. De Boigne had proposed a large in- 
crease of his force. Perhaps his terms were too high, or Sindia 
may have deferred to the jealousy of his native officers. Whatever 
its cause, the parting was friendly, and left hope of a reunion. 
Meanwhile the Savoyard followed his friend the Frenchman's ex- 
ample, and prospered as a merchant at Lucknow. 

Sindia was now all-powerful at Delhi, though he affected still 

• Grant Duff. 


to be the peishwa's servant. He had caused Shah Allum to 
appoint the peishwa Mahdoo Eao Narrain ' supreme regent of 
the emph'e.' But a simultaneous grant constituted Sindia the 
peishwa's deputy for the discharge of that august function. This 
characteristic device might satisfy the Poona durbar; but it did 
not remove Sindia's difficulties, and the conqueror's mind was ill 
at ease. He still had De Boigne's battalions, but they had lost 
their leader. The Eajputs were unsubdued. Ismael's doubtful 
•allegiance, reckless temper, and stubborn valour, were a constant 
menace. There was fear of an Afghan invasion, and the Sikhs 
were growing troublesome on the border. And though Holkar had 
marched ostensibly to his assistance in the late contest, Sindia 
knew that from him he had, in the long run, more to fear than to 
hope. He thus saw that his best chance of confirming his power 
lay in again availing himself of De Boigne's military talents. 
Hence he sent him a gracious message, which led to an interview ; 
and De Boigne, having arranged his commercial affairs, and en- 
trusted much of his capital to English agents, re-entered Sindia's 
service on his own terms. It was settled that he should raise a 
brigade of 10,000 men, who were to be liberally paid, and their 
leader was to receive 10,000 rupees a month. He resumed the 
command of his two battalions. That of M. Lesteneau was in a 
state of mutiny in consequence of that officer's departure, leaving 
its pay in arrear. Sindia, much irritated, was about to attack it 
with his cavalry, when De Boigne persuaded him to discharge part 
of the arrears, and to disband the men, whom he then re-enlisted 
under his own banner. He employed the best officers and non- 
commissioned officers whom he could find in recruiting throughout 
Eohilkund and Oude ; and thus in the course of a few months he 
raised the necessary complement of soldiers for his other ten 
battalions, the brigade being intended to comprise thirteen. Of 
these ten were regular infantry, in fact sepoys, armed with muskets 
and bayonets. The three others were more loosely organised, and 
composed of Eohilla Afghans. These soldiers wore the Persian 
uniform, and were armed with matchlocks and bayonets. To the 
brigade were also attached 500 irregular infantry, levied among 
the turbulent highlanders of Mewat, 500 cavalry, and 60 guns. 
Thus it formed, like the Eoman legion, a small corps d'armee, 
12,000 strong, and marching under the distinct standard of its 
general, the white cross of Savoy. The officers were Europeans 
of different nations ; the non-commissioned officers picked men from 
De Boigne's old troops. No pains were spared to impart to this 
little army a high state of discipline and a strong esprit de corps ; 
and events soon proved the efficiency of its training. 

Ismael, provoked by Holkar's exactions, which he attributed 
to Sindia's influence, again revolted ; the rajahs of Jeypoor and 


Joudpoor poured their feudal levies into his quarters ; and the rana 
of Oudipoor showed a disposition to join the league. Sindia detached 
Luckwa Dada and Gopal Eao, with most of his cavalry to ravage 
the country round Ismael's camp, and cut off his foragers. De 
Boigne's brigade, with another body of Mahratta horsemen and 
eighty guns, was sent to bring him to action. On 25 May 1790, 
the last champion of the old Mussulman ascendency was assailed 
near the city of Patun in a strong position, defended by powerful 
batteries. But he repelled several attacks, and De Boigne retired. 
Three weeks elapsed with no better result. Ismael wisely remained 
behind his entrenchments. At the end of that time he grew im- 
patient, or was starved out, and showed symptoms of emerging ; 
but before he cared to do so, De Boigne again attacked him, and 
the great and decisive battle was fought, which confirmed the 
victor's reputation, and delivered Sindia from his most formidable 
enemy. It is clearly and modestly described by De Boigne himself 
in a letter, which was inserted in the Calcutta Gazette of 22 July 
1790, and has been reprinted by Mr. Seton-Karr in his valuable 
selections from that journal.^ 

The English of this letter is idiomatic, but it is not said to be a 
translation. * Major De Boigne's ' detail of the confederate army 
makes it amount to 25,000 cavalry and 30,000 infantry, with 129 
cannon. After the preliminary skirmish, the fighting was entirely 
the work of his brigade ; for during the battle, as at Wandewash, 
when Coote defeated Lally, *the Mahratta cavalry,' the writer says, 
^ stood on our flanks as spectators.' According to Grant Duff, 
these were Holkar's cavalry, and their inactivity was both a 
symptom and a cause of the widening breach between the rival 

I had often [says De Boigne] tried to harass and surprise the 
enemy, but their natural, strong, and almost impregnable situation, 
added to their very great superiority of numbers both in troops and in 
artillery, rendered all my exertions fruitless. After waiting the best part of 
the day with impatient hopes to see them marching against us, as they 
had threatened, at last about three o'clock, a few Mahratta horse began to 
skirmish with the enemy's right wing, consisting of horse, which shortly 
increased from five to six thousand ; but they were soon beat off. I was 
now encouraged to try if something better could not be done on our side ; 
and in order to induce them to come out from their stronghold, I ordered 
the first line to advance. After a warm cannonade of about an hour from 
both sides, the enemy not appearing to come out, I still advanced till we 
€ame within the reach of grape shot ; then halting, we gave and received 
from each gun nearly forty rounds of grape, which made it a warm busi- 
ness, we being in the plain, and they in their trenches. The evening 
was now far advanced, and seeing at the same time such numerous bodies 
of the enemy's cavalry in motion, and ready to fall on us if they could 

■• Vol. ii. pp. 268-270. 


find an opening, I thought it prudent to move on rather quicker, which 
we did till the firing of platoons began ; but we had already lost such 
numbers of people, principally clashies, that those remaining were unable 
to drag the guns on any further ; I therefore gave immediate orders to 
storm their lines sword in hand, which was as soon executed, upon which 
the enemy, not relishing at all this close fighting, gave way on all sides, 
infantry as well as cavalry, leaving us in possession of all their guns, 
baggage, bazar, elephants, and everything else. The day being now 
closed, put an end to the slaughter of the enemy, which must have been 
very considerable if we had had an hour's more daylight. However, it 
was a complete victory. During all the engagement I was on horseback, 
encouraging our men. Thank God I have realised all the sanguine expec- 
tations of Sindia. My officers in general have behaved well ; to them I 
am a great deal indebted for the fortune of the day. 

De Boigne had 129 men killed and 472 wounded. Two thou- 
sand of the enemy's cavalry fell in the field, the rest fled. Their 
infantry suffered less, as they were under cover, and made off 
rapidly when their lines were forced. But 12,000 surrendered on 
the following morning in the city of Patun. De Boigne ascribes the 
rapid fall of that strong place to ' the terror of our arms alone,' 
and adds that at another time its reduction would have occupied a 

Ismael once more became a fugitive, and thenceforth ceased to 
be dangerous. Pertab Singh seemed inclined to lay down his 
arms ; but the Joudpoor prince still bade defiance to the conqueror. 
Sindia took no personal part in the campaign ; but from his head- 
quarters at Muttra he detached a large force to observe Pertab, 
and ordered De Boigne to march into the Joudpoor territory. 
This march was a victorious promenade, until the general reached 
Ajmir. The day after his arrival there, he took the town, and lost 
no time in laying siege to the fortress, which was strongly situated, 
well garrisoned, and amply supplied. The rajah tried to tempt 
his fidelity by the offer of Ajmir and a district around it. Whether 
nettled at this imputation on his honour, or hoping to intimidate 
the rajah by threatening him with annexation, De Boigne replied 
more sarcastically than truly, * Sindia had already given him 
Joudpoor and Jeypoor, and the rajah could not be so unreasonable 
as to expect that he would change them for Ajmir.' After prose- 
cuting the siege for seventeen days, he turned it into a blockade, 
and marched against the army which was approaching to relieve 
the place. On 9 Sept. he came upon it near Mirta, and cannonaded 
it. But the day being far advanced and his troops fatigued, he 
postponed the engagement, though Gopal Eao was eager to fight — 
or see De Boigne fight — at once. The Kajputs are estimated at 
50,000 men, more than half of them cavalry, with twenty-five guns. 
The Mahratta cavalry were as numerous, but played much the 



same part as Holkar's on the former occasion. De Boigne had 
eighty guns. He surprised the enemy at dawn, while they were 
engaged in then* ablutions ; penetrated their lines, and was 
making good progress, when Rohan, one of his officers, led on 
three battalions without orders, sustained a severe reverse, and es- 
caped with difficulty. De Boigne had just time to throw his entire 
force into hollow square, before the fiery and exulting Eajput 
cavalry thundered down upon it on all sides, but was checked, and 
at last repulsed, by the rapid and continuous fire of his guns and 
musketry. Then he re-formed his line, and again assailed the 
enemy's position. By nine o'clock he had gained a complete 
victory ; an hour later he had taken the camp, guns, and baggage ; 
and in the afternoon he carried the town of Mirta by assault. 
There he remained some time to recruit his health and to refresh 
his army. But in November he pushed on to complete the reduc- 
tion of Joudpoor, and the rajah, as well as the rana of Oudipoor, 
submitted on his approach. They obtained peace on condition of 
paying an annual tribute. Sindia was deterred from taking full 
advantage of his success by the jealousy of Holkar, who had been 
intriguing with the Eajputs, and soon after, in no amiable mood, 
recrossed the Chumbul, and began to imitate his fortunate rival by 
raising four regular battalions, under a French officer named 

This brilliant campaign was decisive in several ways. It in- 
spired Sindia with a confidence in De Boigne which was never 
shaken, and thus secured him from envious disparagement and 
half-hearted patronage, such as Perron experienced under Dowlut 
Eao. Again, whereas the proud position which Sindia had attained 
by intervening in the quarrels of the Mogul nobles had been quickly 
imperilled by a formidable combination of Mussulmans and 
Hindoos against him, this he had now thoroughly subdued, and 
left no local force capable of resisting him. And he had proved 
that the office of imperial regent, the duties of which he had 
undertaken to discharge, was not a mere political fiction, but that 
his sword could make good the pretension which he had advanced. 
And while by his artful manipulation of that fiction he had 
entitled himself to rule in Hindostan, without forfeiting his 
allegiance to the peishwa, this great campaign, achieved in spite of 
Holkar's intrigues and passive opposition, had thrown him into the 
shade and created new obstacles to his enforcing his claims in a 
region which Sindia had actually conquered. 

But though, firmans and victories combined to estabhsh Sindia's 

dominion, he was too acute not to perceive that it was liable to be 

disputed both by his own nation and by the Enghsh. De Boigne, 

on re-entering his service, had stipulated that he should not be 

. employed against the Company. And though Sindia was as little 


inclined as his lieutenant to engage in such a war, it might be forced 
upon him ; while the forbearance of his Mahratta rivals was still 
more precarious. Thus, to multiply his regular battalions was, in 
either case, his best security. Hence two more brigades were now 
raised, and a large district in the Doab was assigned to the general 
for the maintenance of his military establishments ; and he was in- 
vested with political authority over this district. His own pay, ex- 
clusive of army contracts, territorial income, and mercantile profits, 
was raised to 7,000Z. a year. 

Sindia had declined to join the triple alliance which Cornwallis 
had formed against Tippoo, and he was probably startled and 
little reassured by its success. And in his final visit to Poona he 
seems to have been partly actuated by his desire to counterbalance, 
by the ceremonious tender to the peishwa of his new imperial 
dignity, the credit which Nana had gained by pursuing successfully 
a policy from which he had held aloof. On this occasion he 
deputed to Gopal Eao the civil government of his acquisitions in 
Hindostan, and entrusted their military defence to De Boigne, two 
of whose battalions he took with him. Sindia's absence tempted 
Ismael again to revolt. He was defeated and besieged by Perron; 
caj)itulated on the promise of his life being spared, was imprisoned 
at Agra, and died there in 1799 ; and with him ended all attempts 
of the Mogul party to throw off the Mahratta yoke. But Sindia's 
ascendency did not remain unchallenged. Tukojee was as little 
inclined to forego his claim to levy exactions on the Kajputs as 
Sindia, in his new position, was to admit it. Nana, oppressed by 
Sindia's presence at Poona, was glad to create a diversion by 
fanning the flame of jealousy in the north. Holkar led a large 
army into Kajputana, and proceeded to enforce his demands. This 
brought on a war, in which De Boigne gained new laurels. Holkar, 
faithful to the old Mahratta strategy, tried to wear out his opponent 
by rapid marches and desultory skirmishes. This De Boigne, 
anticipating Arthur Wellesley, met by a system of light field equip- 
ment and indefatigable pursuit. After many doublings, Holkar 
•was brought to bay (1792) at Lukhairee, a defile near Ajmir. 
Approaching under cover of a wood, De Boigne found the enemy, 
consisting of 30,000 cavalry and Dudrenec's four battalions, posted 
behind a marsh. Holkar's artillery severely galled his troops as 
they emerged into the open and fell into line. But they stood 
fast, until the explosion of thirteen of their tumbrils caused con- 
fusion, and the Mahratta cavalry advanced to take advantage of it. 
The moment was critical ; but De Boigne with great presence of 
mind countermarched his men into the wood : the charge failed, 
and the fire of the battalions sent the horsemen to the rightabout. 
Their discomfiture was completed by a countercharge of De Boigne's 
select cavalry. His battalions and artillery then engaged Dudrenec's 


infantry : here Greek met Greek, and after a desperate resistance 
the Frenchman's force was destroyed. The victory was most 
decisive. Holkar's camp, baggage, and thirty-eight guns were 
taken; the remains of the defeated army hastily recrossed the 
Chumbul, and Holkar sought a poor revenge in plundering Oojein, 
Sindia's capital. Thus the civil war had come and gone, leaving 
Mahadajee's power, and his general's reputation, more assured 
than before. 

Pertab Singh had availed himself of these dissensions to with- 
hold his tribute, and mustered his army to oppose its exaction. 
De Boigne marched against him, pursued him to his capital, and 
prepared to invest it. Pertab thereupon yielded ; but the conqueror, 
thinking a severe example necessary at such a time, besides en- 
forcing the payment of the arrears, imposed on him a heavy war 

The coercion of Pertab Singh was the last occasion on which 
De Boigne appeared in the field. But before he left India, his 
troops again distinguished themselves at Kurdla, under Perron, his 
destined successor. Sindia had ordered De Boigne to reinforce the 
battalions which had accompanied him to the Dekkan ; and a whole 
brigade was sent, which decisively defeated M. Eaymond's disciplined 
battalions in the nizam's service, to the great delight of their old 
general. But he had meanwhile experienced an anomalous eleva- 
tion perhaps more gratifying to his self-esteem than any victory in 
the field. Mahadajee had died at Poona in February 1794, a 
year before the battle of Kurdla. In his last days Nana's intrigues 
had corrupted Eastia, the brother of Gopal Eao, whom Sindia 
had left regent in Hindostan. Gopal, fearing that his brother's 
treason might be visited on himself, fled to De Boigne' s camp, and 
implored his protection. He was kindly received, and the all- 
powerful general interceded for him, so that no steps were taken 
against him. But his authority being at an end, and no successor 
to it having been appointed, De Boigne, in addition to his military 
charge, became civil ruler of Sindia's dominions. On the acces- 
sion of Dowlut Eao, Mahadajee's great-nephew, the emperor and 
Zemaun Shah, the Afghan king, severally attempted to detach him 
from the Mahratta cause, and engage him in their own interests. 
But he continued loyal to the memory of his old patron, and so 
firmly supported his successor, that Dowlut professed the warmest 
attachment to him. His impaired health, however, and his doubt- 
ful prospects under a young prince of uncertain temper, warned 
him to retire betimes. He extorted a reluctant consent from his 
new master, promising to return should his health permit him ; 
bade a pathetic adieu to his army ; departed in February 1796 ; 
stopped some time at Lucknow to settle his commercial affairs ; and 
early in September of the same year embarked for Europe. 


Before following him thither, we may consider his political 
arrangements and the constitution of his army. The former were, 
of course, strictly subservient to the latter : what Wellesley called 
* the French state ' was the feeder of * the French army.' Though 
Sindia was fully alive to the necessity of providing liberally for the 
force to which he owed his elevation, he was still a Mahratta ; and 
De Boigne knew too well the precarious character of Mahratta 
finance to put much faith in his employer's promises, however 
sincere and definite. Nor was it even enough that the revenues of 
particular districts should be formally transferred to him, if they were 
to be collected by Sindia's revenue officers. Colonel Wellesley did 
not approve of such a plan, even when the British government w^as 
to become the paymaster. He feared that if the nizam were to cede 
territory to the company for the maintenance of a subsidiary force, 
the revenues of that territory might be confused with the company's 
general resources, and their special destination be conveniently 
ignored ; and that thus eventually the subsidiary force might be 
starved and reduced. Hence he proposed that the ceded territory 
should be managed by the military officer in command of the troops, 
who was to be immediately accountable for any surplus to the 
supreme government — a limitation which was not imposed on 
De Boigne. It is not improbable that Colonel Wellesley had the 
earlier experiment in his mind when he made this prophetic sugges- 
tion, which was not adopted by the governor-general. Thus the 
base of De Boigne's military system was the direct assignment to 
him of a large jaidad or military fief in the Gangetic Doab, with 
the right of managing it as he thought proper. He was thus able 
to create a model state, so organised and administered as to insure 
ample provision for all the establishments of his large and costly 
army; and to canton that army in a position so strong, that it 
might be described as a vast entrenched camp. 

The situation of the district was well chosen. The possession 
of the lower Doab by the nawab vizier and his powerful vassals 
left the frontier rather weak on that side. But elsewhere it was 
well protected, either by nature or by art. The two great rivers 
were natural boundaries. Beyond the Jumna, on the south, the 
mountainous region of Bundlekund, flanked by the strong fortress 
of Gwalior, was well suited to retard the approach of an enemy. 
North of the Ganges, Kohilkund, though part of the dominions of 
the nawab of Oude, supplied so many of Sindia's soldiers, and 
especially of De Boigne's, that he could count upon it as a friendly 
country ; so much so indeed, that he allowed his Eohilla troopers 
to live at home among their tribesmen, until their services were 
required in the field. Agra he occupied, and guarded Delhi from a 
short distance. He established the head-quarters of his brigades 
at the fortified town of Koel, in the centre of his territory ; his 


arsenal at Horel, a place which has since disappeared, but where the 
French traveller Jacquemont in 1831 found extensive ruins of 
these buildings; and at Pahuel, Bulundshuhur, and Alighur he 
placed his factories of cannon and small arms. The principal 
quarters of the recruits, the magazines of stores, and depots of 
provisions, were distributed between Meerut and Kalpee, with 
smaller outposts along the whole line from Koel towards Allahabad, 
at Futtehpoor, Kosa, Bithoor, Etawah, Myupoorie, and Shekoabad. 
Ges pastes (says M. de Saint-Genis), entour&s de murs creneUs ren- 
forUs d'epais remparts de terre et de fossds faciles d ino7ider, flanquds de 
bastions munis d'artillerie, relics les uns aux autres par des routes et des 
chaussees, et mis en commumication avec la rive droite de la Jumna par 
les ponts de bateaux d'Agrah, de Muttrah et de Delhi, servirent de for- 
midable ligne de defense aux villes imperiales d'Agrah et de Delhi et auoc 
territoires de Vouest ' (p. 181). 

De Boigne's first care, after quartering his troops, was to clear 
the country of dacoits and other lawless persons; his next, to 
insure good order by instituting an active police. He then turned 
his attention to the land tax, Ackbar's admirable revenue system 
had long fallen a prey to anarchy ; this he now restored with some 
modifications. He abolished revenue farmers and jaghiredars. His 
government was throughout personal in the fullest sense. He had 
his own collectors, carefully chosen and strictly controlled. The 
capacity of the land was minutely investigated by a commission of 
his officers, on local testimony, checked by actual survey. The 
assessment was moderate, and proportioned to the fertility and 
other special circumstances of the soil. By repairing tanks, re- 
opening watercourses, and otherwise helping cultivation, but more 
by the equity of the settlement, by preventing abuses in the collec- 
tion, and the oppression of the peasantry, he bettered their condi- 
tion, excited their admiration, and conciliated their affections. The 
improvement thus effected was rapid and marvellous. Abundant 
and excellent crops of indigo, tobacco, cotton, pepper, and other 
vegetables were raised, and his own revenue increased in proportion. 
A poll tax levied on the heads of families was paid readily. For it 
was not, like the abhorred jezia of the Moguls, an invidious impost 
on ' unbehevers ; ' nor could it be so interpreted, as De Boigne 
showed no intolerance, and employed impartially men of every — or 
of no — creed. 

In the course of his commercial calling he had become a good 
man of business, and he now carefully inspected every department 
of his government. Eevenue collections, agricultural improvements, 
the fabrication of arms, the construction of fortifications, the training 
and the payment of his army, all came under the searching eye of 
the master. He established two entirely distinct offices, in one of 
which the accounts were kept in Persian, in the other in French ; and 


each was designed as a check on the other. Sindia's newly acquired 
territories yielded in abundance the materials of De Boigne's mili- 
tary manufactures, iron, copper, lead, sulphur, saltpetre, with teak 
and other suitable wood. But his commercial experience inclined 
him to extend still further the range of his industrial activity, and 
provided him with new resources. Availing himself of the natural 
fertility of the country, he had promoted agriculture. Availing 
himself of the natural advantages which he commanded in the 
central situation of the district, the great cities with which it com- 
municated by well-beaten roads — the constant tracks of trade 
whenever life and property were tolerably secure — and the magnifi- 
cent river highways which bordered his territory, and were con- 
nected with so many large tributaries, he encouraged commerce, 
made Koel a great mercantile centre, and enriched himself and his 
people by an extensive carrying trade. And so vast was the con- 
course of merchants at Koel, that their gatherings were compared 
to the far-famed fairs at Hurdwar. 

Such was De Boigne as a civil ruler. The same comprehensive 
thoughtfulness, and disposition to make the most of his oppor- 
tunities, appear in his military arrangements. He made several 
improvements in the condition of the soldier which were not intro- 
duced until a later period in the Honourable East India Company's 
army. In one instance, indeed, he went further than our country- 
men have gone, or are likely to go ; for he paid his troops not 
6nly well and punctually, but a month in advance, which such a 
master risked nothing in doing. Hence he was never troubled with 
mutinies, as was constantly the case with Thomas in his early days, 
and with Ameer Khan throughout his military career. He esta- 
blished a medical staff and an ambulance corps. An invalided but 
still serviceable officer or soldier drew his pay till he recovered, and 
returned to his duty, and an allowance for his wound according to 
its severity. The permanently disabled had a small pension and 
a land allotment in the exposed quarter of the territory, where they 
were intended to form a defensive colony. This plan was more 
benevolent than successful from a military point of view. Horsemen 
who were mounted and equipped at their own expense were com- 
pensated for the loss of their property on service, except in case of 
a defeat) and part of the spoil was appropriated to this object. 
Another reform was that of the camp bazaar. The native armies 
were generally attended by a sort of itinerant fair, which is fre- 
quently described by the English writers of the period. It was a 
picturesque spectacle, but an ill-regulated assemblage of private 
hucksters. De Boigne took it under his own control, and made it 
part of his commissariat and store system. He banished from 
it obnoxious persons ; levied a license tax on the dealers whom 
he authorised ; compelled them to sell at reasonable prices ; and 


encouraged the supply of what he considered the most desirable 

Besides his heavier artillery, he had a large train of light moun- 
tain guns, which he placed on camels, whose height enabled him to 
give convenient elevation to the pieces, when employed against an 
enemy posted on hill slopes, or on fortifications at close quarters. 
The camel had the additional advantage of carrying at once the 
weapon, the gunners, and the ammunition. His field-pieces were of 
bronze, generally dragged by oxen, but on an emergency elephants 
were employed to convey them. 

One peculiarity of his formation has been already noted. While 
his entire army comprised eventually three brigades, which included 
about 20,000 regular combatants, but a far larger force of irregulars, 
and were escorted rather than materially assisted — except in pur- 
suing fugitives, skirmishing, and so forth — by three times that 
number of Mahratta cavalry, not only each brigade, but each 
battalion, was so constituted, that it formed a complete though 
minute corps d'armee, with field-pieces, camel guns, cavalry, arti- 
ficers, and a bazaar. Thus it could operate far more independently 
than an ordinary European regiment. The sepoys received lOf 
rupees a month ; officers various sums, from 3,000, a colonel's pay, 
to 150, that of an ensign. But on active service, or when sent 
to the Dekkan, they had batta, or an allowance of a third more. 
Prize money, in such a service, must also be taken into liberal 
account. The army presented a strange medley of races, creeds, 
and languages. Thus there were among the soldiers, Mahrattas, 
Moguls, Tartars, Persians, Kajputs, Kohillas, Sikhs, &c. ; and 
among the officers. Frenchmen, Savoyards, Englishmen, Swiss, 
ItaKans, Eurasians, and others. Mr. Sangster, the Scotchman 
whom De Boigne had found in the rana of Gohud's service, became 
the commandant and chief manager of his arsenal. 

Each battalion mustered 707 regular fighting men, besides 
irregulars, mechanics, and camp followers, who swelled its number 
to 3,167. Each brigade had 6,363 combatants, but in all numbered 
28,503, or, when the auxiliary Mahratta cavalry was added, 48,000 
men, of whom 25,000 were combatants. Each brigade had fifty 
guns ; it had also 3,000 Kohilla cavalry. De Boigne's personal guard 
was a splendidly mounted and caparisoned escort of 500 Persian 
horsemen, who were much devoted to him. On his departure they 
entered the English service. 

Such were De Boigne's own establishments. The extension and 
modification of his system by Perron must here be omitted. The 
following description, by one of his officers, will appropriately con- 
clude our sketch of this remarkable man's career in India, as it 
presents him at the culminating point of his greatness, and was 
written soon after he retired from Sindia's service. 

VOL. III. — NO. IX. - <* 


De Boigne is formed by nature and education to guide and command ; 
his school acquirements are much above mediocrity. He is a tolerable 
Latin scholar, and reads, writes, and speaks French, Italian, and English, 
with ease and fluency. He is not deficient in a general acquaintance 
with books, and possesses great knowledge of the world ; he is extremely 
polite, affable, pleasant, humorous, and vivacious. On the grand stage, 
where he has acted a brilliant and important part for these ten years, he 
is dreaded and idolised, feared and admired, respected and beloved : 
latterly the very name of De Boigne conveyed more terror than the 
thunder of his cannons. His justice was uncommon, and singularly well 
proportioned between severity and relaxation : he possessed the happy 
art of gaining the confidence of surrounding princes and governed subjects ; 
active and persevering to a degree which can only be conceived by those 
who were spectators of his indefatigable labours. I have seen him daily 
and monthly rise with the sun, survey his Jcarkhana (arsenal, a manu- 
factory), view his troops, enlist recruits, direct the vast movements of 
three brigades, raise resources, and encourage manufactures for their 
arms, ammunition, and stores ; harangue in his durbar, give audience to 
ambassadors, administer justice, regulate the civil and revenual affairs of 
a jay dad of twenty lacks of rupees, listen to a multitude of letters from 
various parts, on various important matters ; dictate replies, carry on an 
intricate system of intrigue in different courts ; superintend a private 
trade of lacs of rupees, keep his accounts, his private and public corre- 
spondence, and direct and move forward a most complex political machine. 
All this he did without any European assistance, for he is very diffident 
in placing his confidence. Such was his laborious occupation from sun- 
rise till past midnight, and this was the unremitting employment of nine 
or ten years.^ 

De Boigne's next appearance is in a very different character 
from that which he has sustained in the East, and reverses 
Shakespeare's order of man's parts on the stage of life. In May 
1797 he landed at Deal, was cordially received in England, and 
entered freely into the best society in London. There, at a concert 
given for a charitable object, while detained by the throng in an 
anteroom, he was fascinated by the sweet singing of a young lady, 
the daughter of a French emigre, le marquis d'Osmond ; and yield- 
ing to the spell, he procured an introduction to her and her parents. 
Her personal and mental charms confirmed the impression which 
her voice had made upon him ; and he asked her in marriage. The 
parents left the answer to herself. She had moved in the highest 
circles, having been connected with the court of Marie Antoinette, 
and later with that of her sister, the queen of Naples. Though only 
seventeen, experience, grave and gay, had made her self-possessed 
and decided beyond her years. The destitution of her family 

* A Sketch of the Rise <&c. of the regular Corps formed dc. by Europeans in the 
Service of the Native Princes of India, pp. 86-88. By Lewis Ferdinand Smith. 
London : Stockdale. 1805. This writer's account of De Boigne's adventures before 
he reached India is very inaccurate. 


afflicted her ; the gallant soldier was importunate, rich, and famous : 
she agreed to give him a private interview ; and, on his promising 
to provide liberally for her parents, frankly accepted him, with no 
superfluous display of affected emotion. This was in 1798. For 
six years De Boigne and his wife lived in England. They then 
went to Paris, where they were rejoined by the lady's parents. 
But the family party was soon broken up. The old campaigner, so 
long secluded from European society, had little sympathy with the 
tastes of his young, brilliant, and court-bred wife. He sighed after 
a life of quiet usefulness; she preferred the salons of the capital 
and the splendours of the imperial court. And ardent as had been 
De Boigne's passion, the union was too unequal to prove a happy 
one. There was no quarrel ; but there was hopeless incompatibility 
of temper. Thus this ill-assorted pair quietly agreed to separate, 
and continue friends — at a distance. The husband, having pro- 
vided handsomely for his wife, as he had already done for her 
parents, retired to his native place. Madame de Boigne settled at 
Paris ; after the restoration accompanied her father when he went 
as ambassador successively to Turin and to London ; returned with 
him to Paris in 1819 ; became there the centre of a celebrated coterie, 
and died not many years ago. But so long as her husband sur- 
vived, she each year spent several weeks with him at Chambery, 
and entertained his numerous and distinguished guests. Her in- 
timate friends stated that she rarely mentioned him, but, when 
she did, always spoke of him with the greatest respect. The 
honours bestowed on him by Louis XVIII are said to have been 
due to her solicitation. M. de Saint- Genis adds : La comtesse 
de Boigne temoigna toujours heaucoup d^affection aux enfants du 
premier mariage de son mari.^ She never had any children of her 
own. Such are the plain facts relating to this much canvassed but 
very characteristic episode in De Boigne's life. 

Though he had taken up his abode within the limits of the 
empire, and received a civil appointment, he had no sympathy 
with Napoleon, and probably distrusted the solidity of his powers 
His military talents might have found successful employment in 
the imperial service ; but to this he was averse on several accounts, 
and the emperor probably knew him w^ell enough to spare him the 
necessity of a refusal. But the battle of Hfe was not over for him ; 
and the garish splendour of his martial deeds was yet to be rivalled 
by the milder light of his achievements as a philanthropist. In this 
capacity he became publicly known only during the last eight years 
of his life ; but his private beneficence was of much earlier origin. 
As he lived quietly, though in good provincial style, his wealth 

» These were the offspring of a Persian lady, whom De Boigne had met in India, 
who became a christian and died in England, much respected by those who knew her 
history and character. Through her son De Boigne's line has been continued. 

. o 2 


steadily increased : a careful observer of the state of society, he 
gradually matured plans for its improvement ; and advancing age 
inclined him to execute them at his own cost, while he could 
superintend them. Thus in 1822 he formally addressed the 
municipal authorities of Chambery on the subject. The programme 
sketched in this document he carried out with great munificence, 
and at the same time with great judgment. The money with 
which he parted probably exceeded 120,000L ; but, instead of 
scattering it broadcast, he invested it in institutions destined to be 
permanent. Thus he improved the fabric of the hospital, and there 
endowed three beds for ordinary patients, and four more poii7' les 
voyageurs et etrangerSf malades et pauvres, de quelque nation on 
religion qu'ils soient. This was a notable stretch of charity at a 
time when, as M. de Saint-Genis reminds us, even in Geneva the 
gravest case could not be admitted into the general hospital with- 
out a certificate of Genevan citizenship. He also made permanent 
provision for certain contagious diseases not before treated in the 
hospital. Lunacy was common in the country, and was becoming 
better understood. But there was no public asylum. De Boigne 
established one, and placed at its head a proficient of the new 
school. It accommodated thirty patients. The site has since 
been changed, and the French government has greatly increased 
the scale of the institution. But the principles of the original 
plan are still observed. De Boigne also made an heroic effort to 
suppress sturdy vagrancy in and around Chambery. It had been 
forbidden by an obsolete law, of which he now procured the re- 
vival in the city and in twenty-one communes around it. The 
vagrant was first to be punished, and then consigned to a depot de 
mendicite, or reformatory, founded and, as usual, endowed by De 
Boigne. It was calculated to receive one hundred persons, fifty of 
each sex, who were to be strictly disciplined and compelled to work. 
The proceeds of their labour were to contribute to the expenses of 
the establishment. The obvious difficulties attending this experi- 
ment limited, if they did not destroy, its usefulness. The number 
of vagabonds greatly exceeded the means of accommodation, and 
the enforced labour was less profitable than had been anticipated. 
After a time, the reformatory became little else than a hospital for 
incapables. But since the French annexation matters have im- 
proved, and the house has been restored to its original purpose. 
Another donation provided for the succour of genuine and uncom- 
plaining distress in the lower classes. Such cases were to be 
privately sought out, and relieved with discretion and delicacy. 
Disabled members of the fire brigade were not forgotten ; and a fund 
was allotted to furnish poor prisoners with clean linen and tobacco. 
But the most characteristic and elaborate evidence of De Boigne's 
sympathy with real distress is to be found in his institution of the 


asyle de la vieillesse. This was to provide a comfortable retreat 
for twenty persons of each sex, of sixty years and upwards, ayant 
appartemc aux classes aisees de la societe, depourvus de moyens suf- 
Jisants d'existence, satis avoir jamais demerite ni perdu Vestime 
publique. Minute precautions were taken to prevent its assuming 
the character of a plebeian almshouse. Thus the founder directed 
that his own relatives to the fourth degree should have a prior 
claim to admission. Each inmate was to have a private room ; and 
all had free right of egress, on condition of returning to meals 
and at a fixed hour in the evening. Among candidates the most 
unfortunate was to be preferred. The ladies might be ' asked ' to 
assist in household offices and in needlework, but with proper 
regard to their age, health, and capacity for such work. And it is 
delicately added : C'est une occupation et rion pas une tdche que les 
directrices doivent offrir a leurs compagnes. The founder showed 
his good taste in reserving for himself and his family only four 
nominations : the rest were to be made by a committee of 
the principal citizens. This noble institution has thoroughly 
answered its end : it has been well managed ; its funds have in- 
creased ; and its shelter is said to be still in great request among 
the class of persons for whom it was designed. As a decided 
catholic, and a profound hater of the principles of the French 
revolution, but at the same time a man of great intelligence and of 
literary tastes, De Boigne was much interested in the cause of 
education, both primary and of the higher kind. Thus he made 
grants to the Christian Brothers and to the Sisters of St. Joseph, for 
the training of the poor of both sexes. And through his liberality 
the college of Chambery was reorganised, and committed to the 
charge of the Jesuits, who commended themselves to him by their 
zeal and traditional aptitude for education. Besides building a 
church, and contributing to other public edifices, he demolished a 
mean and unwholesome quarter, and opened a spacious avenue 
through the heart of the city. This summary does not include all 
his benefactions; but it will suffice to show his immense libe- 
rality, the beneficence of his designs, and the judicious spirit in 
which they were executed. 

His address to the magistrates on entering on his labours is 
couched in a strain of earnest and grateful piety. Its drift is, 
' Freely ye have received, freely give.' In a lighter vein, but to the 
same purport, he said of himself that, having long done so much 
for the devil, he thought it high time to do what he could for God. 
There were not wanting at the time mean spirits to disparage his 
good works, and misconstrue his motives. But the general voice 
was loud in his praise. His sovereign expressed the warmest 
sympathy with his philanthropic schemes; and when, in 1830, 
he died in the fulness of years, still engaged in benevolent 


enterprises which his son prosecuted, the tears of a grateful people 
were shed at his grave, and to testify the public grief and respect 
the shops of the city were closed for three days. The mockers have 
long been silent, and their carpings are extinct ; but De Boigne still 
lives, in the memory of orientals as an invincible master of war, in 
the hearts of his townsmen as their sincere friend and disinterested 

De Boigne' s early adventures gave little promise of his later 
eminence, and might create a prejudice against him as a rolling 
stone. But he had strong temptations to change his coat so often. 
His early engagements hardly offered a fair field for a man of 
enterprise. The aristocratic constitution of the old French army, 
the system of promotion by seniority only, and the absence of great 
prizes at that time in the Honourable East India Company's 
service, must have been very discouraging to such a man. In both 
cases also he might reasonably think that his foreign origin and 
his want of connexion were against him. His Eussian appointment 
was a rather casual one ; and his unlucky capture prevented his 
winning honour in a war, on the close of which he might have been 
dismissed, had he not retired. But besides such considerations, he 
probably felt, on each occasion, that he was not in his natural 
element. Adventurous and original, and ' formed by nature,' as 
Smith says, *to guide and to command,' he might well find the 
trivial round and minute restrictions of regimental life uncongenial 
and irksome, and envy the lot of a Sir John Hawkwood or a 
Wallenstein. This may seem an afterthought ; but it is in harmony 
with other indications of a constitutional antipathy to conventional 
life. Twice he entertained the novel and bold design of exploring 
central Asia. His plan for raising Sindia's siege of Gwalior was 
worthy of Garibaldi, the incomparable partisan but also the im- 
practicable subject of the king of Italy. The circumstances of his 
marriage in England are singularly romantic — on his side. It was 
a case of love, passing love at first sight. The hitherto unconquered 
hero, in the maturity of his career, is at once pierced to the heart 
by the strains of a girl : ilfaut, he exclaims to a friend before he 
has even seen the lady, il faiit que cette voix m' appartienne ! turns a 
deaf ear to prosaic and poetic warnings against the union of youth 
and crabbed age ; despises the smiles and the sneers of ' society ; ' and 
is made the happiest of men — for a season ! And when the logic 
of facts is too hard for him, the compromise by which he extri- 
cates himself from his false position shows the same tendency to 
defy public opinion, and, ignoring the bond which he cannot break, 
to assert his independence by taking up permanently the position 

^^ The title of count was conferred upon him by Victor Emmanuel I in 181G. The 
rest of his honours are enumerated by M. de Saint-Genis (p. 343). He was chosen a 
member of the London Asiatic Society on its foundation. 


of a ' grass-widower.' So again, when from war, travel, and love, 
he turns to philanthropy, he is still an original ; and instead of 
entering into the labours of others, he prefers to think out his 
schemes himself, and to erect his beneficent edifices on lines of his 
own. That such a man, with little prospect of rising in the ordinary- 
way, should be inclined to throw up a commission in a regular army, 
seems to us as natural as that he should find himself quite at home, 
and rise rapidly, in such a service as that of Sindia, where, un- 
trammelled by an existing system, and dependent only on the pleasure 
of an indulgent prince, he is practically his own master, and can create 
a little world of his own. His success in his last venture is thus his 
best apology for the instability of purpose which his earlier conduct 
might seem to indicate. With Sindia he did find himself in his 
natural element; but even with him he seemed destined at first 
to share the premature fate of Marcellus, and to be cut short in his 
career after a brief display of ability. 

The good conduct of his recruits in their first field proved the 
efficiency of his training. Sindia's partial success in the battle in 
which Mohammud Beg perished was their work ; and when the 
desertion of the imperial battalions made retreat necessary, it was 
De Boigne's men who steadily performed the arduous and prolonged 
duty of protecting the rear. Their later achievements in the same 
campaign were not less conspicuous, and decided its triumphant 
issue. De Boigne was now convinced that he had found his true 
place. And having done so much in the day of small things, and 
confident of his ability to do much more if the means were afforded 
him, he proposed to Sindia a great extension of his system, but on 
conditions which, though he knew them to be essential to his 
success, Sindia then considered inadmissible. Thereupon he again 
acted in a way which, at first sight, seems capricious. He had no 
cause of complaint in his relations with his employer. Each had 
well fulfilled his engagements with the other. They were on 
friendly terms ; and Sindia was not backward to acknowledge his 
obligations to his stipendiary. Yet he again tendered his resigna- 
tion, because Sindia would not at once consent to his proposals. 
We believe, however, that this apparent waywardness is capable of a 
rational explanation. De Boigne had proved his military capacity. 
He saw that Providence was on the side of his strong battalions — 
provided that there were enough of them; but if a greatly aug- 
mented force was to be permanently kept up, he knew that this 
required a great outlay, and that he must have the exclusive 
command of the requisite resources. Sindia might well hesitate to 
constitute him at once a great feudatory, almost an independent 
chief, at the head of a large europeanised army. On the other 
hand, though De Boigne may have been impatient, he does not 
seem to us to have been inconsiderate. Well as his men had 


behaved, they were far too few to insure Sindia against the many 
dangers of his invidious position. Should they, still comparatively 
raw troops, sustain a defeat, Sindia might lose confidence in them 
and in their leader, while he would certainly much regret that 
leader's absence ; and his ambition, his sense of insecurity, or an 
actual crisis, might lead him to reconsider his refusal, and recall a 
tried servant, from whom he had separated with reluctance. At 
Lucknow, De Boigne would still be within hail of Sindia ; and by 
engaging in commerce, with the advice and help of his friend 
Martin, he might amass money, the want of which had baffled his 
late design. Such we believe to have been his calculation. If 
so, it was justified by the result. Sindia pondered over his scheme, 
and in due time re-engaged him on his own terms. De Boigne 
now became, as we have said, almost independent : commanding 
the praetorian guards, he was arbiter of his master's destinies. 
Having secured such a standpoint, he showed no more vacillation, 
but faithfully and persistently devoted all his energies to the service 
of the prince who had so highly exalted him. Henceiorth he was 
the steadfast bulwark of Sindia's power : the territorial revenues 
confided to him were duly applied to the maintenance of his 
splendid army ; his campaigns were invariably successful ; the 
terror of his arms overawed the natives ; his able and beneficent 
administration, and his encouragement of trade, added lustre to 
his name, and reflected credit on a patron who sanctioned such a 
contrast to Mahratta precedent ; and his virtuous character made 
him generally respected, and mitigated the antipathy to Sindia's 

Though favoured by circumstances, De Boigne owed most to 
himself. He was a man of striking appearance, over six feet high, 
large-limbed, with expressive features, a piercing eye, a stately 
bearing, and a commanding air. These personal advantages 
enhanced the impression produced by his fine military qualities, 
self-reliance and readiness to undertake responsibility, indefatigable 
industry, great power of organisation ; in the field, dashing enter- 
prise, perfect self-possession, inflexible resolution, keenness in 
scanning the varying tide of battle, in averting pressing danger, 
and dealing the decisive blow, energy in following up a victory, and 
withal aptitude to breathe his own spirit into his soldiers, and 
make them confident, enthusiastic, and persevering. Against such 
enemies as he encountered, his work was, in reality, half done before 
he entered the field. His liberal terms and his high reputation 
attracted promising recruits in profusion, and enabled him to sift 
the raw material of his army. He was also careful in the selection 
of his officers. His training was most painstaking and systematic, 
and his discipline very strict ; while by his minute attention to the 
interests of his men he taught them to look up to him as their true 


friend and benefactor, to obey his orders cheerfully and heartily, 
and to take a special pride in serving under the white cross of 
their own adored patron. Thus his army became a corps d'elitCj 
familiar with its business when it quitted its quarters, and well 
prepared to perform it, earnestly devoted to its leader, ready to 
face any odds at his bidding, and assured of victory under his 
auspicious flag. 

The wars in which De Boigne was engaged did not demand 
elaborate strategy. To bring the enemy to action speedily, beat 
him thoroughly, leave him no time to rally, and no alternative 
short of destruction but to lay down his arms, was the root of the 
matter ; and in this De Boigne excelled. But that he might have 
distinguished himself as a strategist, may be inferred from his 
baffling Holkar's attempts to avoid a pitched battle by means very 
similar to those recommended and practised by General Wellesley. 
His rapid and decisive operations present a striking contrast to the 
dilatory and timid advance of the Bombay army on Poona a few 
years earlier, and its spiritless retreat to Wargaum, and ignominious 
* convention ' there ; and even to Goddard's partial retrieval af that 
great disaster. As a tactician, his ability is more obvious, as in his 
conduct of the retreat to Gwalior, his attack on Pertab Singh's camp 
in the early morning, and prompt concentration of his army after 
Eohan's mishap, his countermarch into the wood, and decisive 
cavalry charge in the battle with Holkar. His sieges were simple 
affairs, in which the terror of his name effected as much as his 
actual operations. But Lake's frequent repulses before Bhurtpoor 
are a warning against underrating De Boigne's success in this line, 
especially as his want of European regiments may be set off against 
Lake's deficient siege train. 

De Boigne's victories were mostly gained over undisciplined 
troops; but the destruction of Dudrenec's battalions, the defeat 
of Raymond's at Kurdla, above all the conduct of Sindia's dis- 
ciplined infantry in the English war, proved that too much stress 
must not be laid on this circumstance. 

De Boigne was also fortunate in the absence of conspicuous 
generalship among his opponents. Ismael's gallantry, energy, and 
perseverance, and Holkar's agility, indicated no special skill ; and 
Dudrenec was afterwards defeated by the undisciplined forces of 
Jeswunt Rao Holkar and Ameer Khan. 

The adventurer was also fortunate in the choice of a patron. 
Mahadajee was too great a man to fear him, too discerning to mis- 
interpret him, too independent to be prejudiced against him by 
others. Nor was he, like Tippoo, morbidly anxious to centre all 
power in himself, and thus given to dislike and repel men of strong 
character and critical temper. Much as they differed, Sindia and 
De Boigne just suited each other. To both the world was their 


oyster, ^Yhich they with sword would open. And to this end each 
contributed what the other lacked ; on the one side, an established 
political position and ample resources ; on the other, j)roficiency in 
European warfare, and a moral character which was hardly less 
desirable to Sindia under his peculiar circumstances. Though he 
could not thrive in such a sphere without a fair share of the wisdom 
of the serpent, De Boigne was unquestionably a frank, loyal, and tho- 
roughly high-minded man. As a mercenary, he had the best reasons 
for being ' faithful to his salt.' But he was no mere mercenary. He 
had a strong sense of professional honour, a chivalrous devotion to 
the cause he had embraced ; and being a man of generous impulses, 
he was grateful for the high favour which he enjoyed, and recipro- 
cated the cordial feeling which he inspired. Thus Sindia, himself 
wily and far from scrupulous, and constantly exposed to the arts of 
his enemies and the treachery of his native dependants, could not 
but prize very highly such an honest adviser, sincere friend, and 
staunch supporter, and see clearly that in magnifying De Boigne's 
authority he confirmed and increased his own. 

The political condition of Hindostan was also very favourable to 
our hero. The Mogul party, like the empire, had become phan- 
tasmal. Ismael's figure stands out in bold relief among silken 
courtiers and corrupt officials. And though Sindia's army over- 
awed Delhi on the first occasion, and on the second fought its way 
thither, he was not a mere usurper, nor was his power dependent 
on the sword alone. Mahadajee was formally invited by the 
minister to assist him against a rebel. And Shah Allum, after 
the minister's murder, accepted the Mahratta as the ' saviour of 
society,' and formally invested him with the right to wield, by 
double delegation, the power w^hich the sword had given him. 
How^ever transparent this artifice may appear in our eyes, it con- 
formed to native ideas and practice, and was a strong moral 
support to Sindia's authority. The alternative of leaving the 
emperor, his capital, and his people, exposed to such anarchy and 
brutal enormities as had prevailed in the absence of Sindia, was 
too dreadful not to incline Mussulmans and Hindoos alike to 
acquiesce in the Mahratta domination. The Eajput love of liberty 
was unquenchable ; and when the Mahrattas fell out among them- 
selves, Pertab Singh obeyed a natural impulse in withholding his 
tribute, and resisting its payment as long as he could. But such a 
disposition to evade, or even to dispute, an unpleasant obligation 
must not be confounded with a settled design of waging a new war 
of independence. Nor must it be forgotten that Sindia's right to 
tax the Eajput was threefold : first, in pursuance of the contract 
entered into at the late pacification ; secondly, as the emperor's 
minister, claiming contributions from an imperial province ; thirdly, 
as the peishwa's representative, exacting chout, according to the 



grant of a former emperor to a former peishwa. Moreover, the 
stronger and more undisputed was Sindia's authority among Hin- 
dostanees, the less able would Holkar be to make good his claim to 
share in the collection of the chout, as joint representative of the 
peishwa. Thus lawlessness and legal formulas combined to facili- 
tate Sindia's conquest, or, in other words, the progress of De 
Boigne's arms. 

That the British government offered no obstacle to the extension 
of Sindia's dominions and the development of De Boigne's military 
system, seems strange in the light of later events. But such 
inactivity was, at the time, considered masterly ; though Macpherson 
did not hesitate to exact an explicit retractation from Sindia when, in 
the first flush of triumph, he presumed to revive the imperial claim 
to tribute from Bengal; and Cornwallis informed him, in the 
plainest terms, that he would not be permitted with impunity 
to coerce our ally, the nawab of Oude. As to De Boigne personally, 
there were good reasons for forbearance. He was a Savoyard. Had 
he been, as is often assumed, a Frenchman, he would have been 
liable to suspicion, even if he had not been unfriendly to the com- 
pany. After deeply resenting St. Lubin's intrigues at Poona, 
Warren Hastings would not have cared to countenance another 
enterprising Frenchman. Nor would Lord Macartney have recom- 
mended him so warmly to the governor-general. His recall to 
Calcutta was perhaps partly due to some lurking fear that he might 
be, or become, an instrument in the hands of the French against us. 
But if ever felt, this fear was soon dissipated. As a Savoyard, who 
had served under both the French and the English flags, he was a 
neutral in the great national rivalry ; he could calmly contemplate 
the growth of the English dominion ; he was indebted, moreover, 
to English patronage; and he soon formed close ties, both of 
friendship and business, with our countrymen, which he was not 
inclined to break ; nor was he likely to make a secret of Sindia's 
written pledge that he should not be employed against the Company. 
And yet further, some of his best officers were Englishmen or 
Scotchmen of good character ; Hessing, an Englishman, commanded 
the battalions which escorted Sindia to Poona ; nor was it im- 
probable that De Boigne's successor might be a Briton. Hence he 
was regarded, not with misgiving, but as a useful link in our 
amicable relations with Mahadajee, at a time when to quarrel 
with that prince was held to be most undesirable. Before his 
death, the course of the French revolution had drawn De Boigne 
and our countrymen still closer together ; for he was a patriot, 
a royalist, and a Eoman catholic ; and in all these capacities he 
abhorred the conduct of the republicans, and sympathised strongly 
with their enemies. Had the French attacked us in India, 
we believe that he would have used all his influence on the 


company's behalf. This may sound strange to a careless reader of 
Wellesley's despatches, but less so to one who realises the contrast 
between De Boigne and his successor. 

These personal reasons for the seeming apathy of the British 
government to a phenomenon which was privately regarded with 
the deepest interest were reinforced by the general view of Anglo- 
Indian policy prevalent at home and accepted in the council 
chamber of Fort William. At the time when the adventurer 
achieved his great exploits, Warren Hastings was on his trial. The 
costly and disastrous wars with the Mahrattas and Hyder Ali had 
excited general indignation and alarm. A passionate sentiment 
in favour of non-intervention pervaded the India House, parliament, 
and the nation, and was emphatically expressed in the famous 
restrictive clause in Pitt's act. Cornwallis was appointed to carry 
out this policy ; and Sir John Shore was pedantically devoted to 
it. When Cornwallis was compelled to go to war with Tippoo, he 
had a new reason for avoiding a breach with Sindia ; and Shore 
was almost abjectly bent on conciliating him. But on Lord Mor- 
nington's arrival, soon after De Boigne' s departure, a great change 
took place in the attitude of the supreme government. The defen- 
sive alliance system turned rather than stormed the legislative 
entrenchment of the non-interventionists ; and the governor- general 
determined to bridle the Mahratta confederacy. How, with such 
views, he would have regarded and treated De Boigne, it is impos- 
sible to say ; but it may be safely assumed that the Savoyard was 
happy in having played out his part before the arrival of the 
statesman who ' sultanised India.' 

On reviewing De Boigne' s career the question naturally occurs, 
how did it ultimately affect the fortunes of the British empire in 
t he east ? It is idle to speculate on the course that events might 
have taken had he never appeared on the scene. But it may be 
confidently asserted, that by his extension of the power of Sindia, 
and by the encouragement which his example held out to the 
formation of corps similar to his own in the service of other native 
princes, he precipitated the development of Wellesley's system, the 
destruction of the Mahratta domination, and the aggrandisement of 
our own territory and influence. Wellesley could not look com- 
placently on such formidable armaments in states which constantly 
threatened the peace of India and the stability of the British power. 
And when Perron succeeded to the command of De Boigne's army, 
and it became not only more and more French, but more dis- 
tinctively and vehemently anti-English, a crisis was inevitable. 
Wellesley assumes that the .necessity of dispersing such an army 
would alone have been an adequate reason for presenting an ulti- 
malum to Dowlat Kao. On the other hand, there can be no doubt 
that he would have refused to comply with such a requisition, and 


that it was mainly their rehance on this force that emboldened him 
and the rajah of Berar to risk a war with the company. How de- 
lusive were their hopes appears not only from the event, but from 
the nature of the case. The Mahrattas had been, and still were, 
very formidable in irregular warfare. But in proportion as they 
adopted a regular formation, and hampered their flying cavalry by 
the obligation of acting in concert with regular battalions and large 
trains of artillery, they sacrificed their old advantage of celerity 
and their old power of evading pursuit, and incurred the necessity 
of fighting pitched battles. In these their cavalry were conspi- 
cuously ineffective against well- disciplined troops. While, excellent 
as were Sindia's native brigades, they were not only, in the event, 
deserted by the majority of their European officers, and out- 
generalled by Arthur Wellesley and Lake; but they would have 
been, in any case, no match for our regiments of Europeans, well 
seconded by our admirable sepoys. Hence they were demolished in 
a single campaign. But how resolutely they met their inevitable 
doom, how gallantly they fought, how gloriously they perished, is 
matter of history, attested by their conquerors. At Laswaree 
seven thousand of these heroic men fought on after all their guns 
were taken ; and resisting desperately to the last, and disdaining to 
fly, were slaughtered in their ranks. Though De Boigne was not 
among them, his spirit still animated them to do and die ; and 
thus in death they were not divided from their idolised leader. 

Sidney James Owen. 

94 Jan. 

Notes and Docuinents 


[This little paper was written in the spring of 1877. It was written hastily, in 
a (lay or two. It is, therefore, a mere first sketch. The writer meant after- 
wards to elaborate his view for a work which he had in preparation ; but, owing to 
long-continued ill-health, he never arrived at the point in this work at which it 
would have been natural for him to take it up again. The paper, however, con- 
tains in outline what he had to say as to the possibiUty of a movement fi:om 
capture to exogamy. It is disclosed at once that its purpose is limited to this. 
It passes over the facts and reasonings by which one might seek to make it 
probable that there was a want of balance between the sexes among early men, 
from which polyandry, with female kinship, and capture resulted.] 

My hypothesis, so far as concerns the present purpose, is in outhne 
as follows. The primitive groups were, or were by their members, 
when consanguinity was first thought of, assumed to be all of one 
stock. Marriage was at first unknown. In time the special 
attachments of children to mothers led to the subdivision of the 
groups into rude family groups of the Nair type, and made possible 
the rise and consolidation of the system of kinship through women 
only. Whatever other family, or rather household, groups, there 
were, it is attested by the system of kinship that those of the Nair 
type largely preponderated, and approximately, for the purposes of 
thinking, we may assume them all to have been of this type. 
While things were in this situation a practice of capturing w^omen 
for wives — having its root in a want of balance between the sexes — 
arose, and was followed by the rise of the law of exogamy. It is 
the manner in which the one might give rise to the other which is 
now to be investigated. By the joint operation, again, of the system 
of capture, exogamy, and female kinship, the original homogeneity 
of the groups was destroyed. They lost their character as stock- 
groups and became local tribes, each having within it as many 
gentes of different stocks as there were original stock-groups within 
reach that it habitually plundered for wives. It is of course an 
almost necessary inference that many groups disappeared in the 
struggle for existence. 

Whatever else may be disputable in connexion with this 
hypothesis, it will be admitted, I think, to be beyond dispute that 
the account it gives of the presence of rjentes of precisely the same 


stocks in the various local tribes inhabiting an extensive country, 
like Australia, is correct. Assuming it to be so, we obtain a series 
of inferences as to the state of the original stock-groups just before 
the commencement of the processes by which they were finally 
interfused, and every such inference, it will be seen, throws light 
on the rise of exogamy. 

It is found that every gois of any stock is connected with every 
other gens of the same stock, in whatever local tribes they may be, 

(1) by the religious regard for the totem, which marks the stock ; 

(2) by the obligation of the blood- feud, springing out of community 
of blood. This obligation must have followed the blood from its 
source wherever it went, as surely as the religious regard must 
have done so. And unless the totem bond had been fully esta- 
blished in the stock-groups before they became to any great extent 
interfused in local tribes, it could not have been established at all. 
It is the test, and apart from the memory of individuals, the only 
test, of blood relationship among the lower races ; and without it, 
as far as we know, there is absolutely nothing which could hold 
together, as a body of kindred, persons descended from the same 
stock-group but living in different local tribes, or even the same 
persons living in the same local tribe. We have, then, the inference 
that the religious regard for the totem, the blood-feud, and of 
course the system of female kinship — without which no commence- 
ment of the transfusion could have taken place — were firmly 
established in the original stock-groups before the appearance of 
the system of capture or exogamy. 

When we reflect again on the internal structure of the groups, 
it becomes apparent that each of them must have become subdivided 
into so many great families of the Nair type — holding on to primi- 
tive mothers — such as (in magnitude at least) are at a later time 
and in connexion with male kinship derived from common male 
ancestors ; and that within these great families there would be 
subdivisions again into smaller groups of mothers and their children, 
or brothers and their sisters or their children. Now whether we 
imagine these great family groups of which the stock-groups were 
made up, to hold together as settled residents on the same lands, or 
to be nomadic and separated usually, ranging within the same 
district of country, we may see that they would tend to become 
ultimately so many separate bands. The men of each would most 
conveniently find their wives within their own band ; and they 
would more frequently act together for some band purpose than in 
concert with the men of other bands for the stock-group's purposes. 
But the bands, while thus acquiring separate interests and having 
residences more or less apart, would be firmly united by the bonds 
of common blood, civil and religious. They would truly be so many 
septs, all of one blood. 


If now we imagine some cause to initiate a practice of capturing 
women for wives in a district occupied by several stock-groups, 
each subdivided, as above conceived, into bands united by a 
common faith and the law of the blood-feud, we may see instantly 
one leading result that would follow. There would be no limitation 
on capture as regards capturing the women of any subdivision of a 
different and therefore hostile stock-group ; but from the first there 
would be a positive limitation on the practice as regards capturing 
the women of any band of the stock-group to w^hich oneself be- 
longed. Of course in attempting any capture, as from a hostile 
group, the captors would be taking their lives in their hands in the 
adventure as an act of war. But a capture from one of the kindred 
bands would be more than an act of war ; it would be felt to be an 
outrage or a crime ; more than that, it would be felt to be a sin — a 
violation of the religious obligation which the blood-feud imposed, 
for it could not well be accomplished without the shedding of 
kindred blood. Moreover, all of the stock w^ould be bound to 
avenge it, and we may well see how from the first it might well 
not only be a capital offence, but regarded with a degree of horror. 

Here, then, in a law prohibiting the capturing of women of 
one's own stock for wives, we have every note of the subsequent 
law of exogamy. If we can show how^ this limitation on the right 
of capturing women for wives could be transformed into a limitation 
on the right of marriage, we shall have accounted for the origin of 
exogamy. The difficulties at this point are immense. Instead of 
its being possible to believe, with some thinkers, that the step was 
taken at a bound by * a natural confusion ' of the two things, it 
seems almost impossible to see how it could have been taken at all. 
Let us see if we can ascertain how the change might become 

The question is, how the ancient custom of wiving within the 
kindred (1) went into desuetude, and (2) came to be under the pro- 
hibition that originally applied only to capturing women of the 

So far as there was an association betw^een capture and mar- 
riage, the limitation on the right of capture would operate from the 
first as a limitation on the exercise of the right of marriage among 
kindred. If now we conceive, as required by my hypothesis, that 
the cause of the practice of capture was a scarcity of women, we 
shall see how the exercise of this right would be further restricted. 
The kindred bands in a group would be unwilling, and unable even 
if willing, to furnish one another with wives ; for, on the hypothesis, 
women were scarce with them. Kindred wives would then be 
unattainable from without, by favour or purchase, and we have 
seen that they would be unattainable by capture. So far, then, as 
the men of a band were in need of women, they would be obhged 


to obtain them by capture from groups of a stock different from 
their own. Thus the men would think more of foreign women in 
connexion with wiving than of kindred women, and so marriages 
with kindred women would tend to go into desuetude. On the 
other hand, the ideas of marriage and capture thus becoming more 
intimately associated, there would be a further approach to exogamy. 
But it is a long way from disuse of an ancient right to the 
rearing up of an absolute interdict on its exercise. In the present 
case we may believe that so long as there were in a band women of 
the men's stock, the men would marry them. Can we feign for 
ourselves how men could come to be without women of their own 
stock ? We may believe, to give what mathematicians call a sin- 
gular solution of the problem, that often, where there was a system 
of capture, the men of a band might be robbed, in their absence or 
in open fight, of their women and female children.^ Thereafter for 
these men capture and marriage would mean the same thing. The 
exercise of the right of marrying kindred women would be for them 
impossible, and the right itself therefore dead. Capture and marriage 
would become for them synonymous. The women they might sub- 
sequently capture being necessarily of some foreign stock, and the 
children of their mother's stock, there would never again be within 
the band women of their own stock. Such an experience, lasting 
for the remainder of the lifetime of the men of one generation in a 
band, might well establish exogamy as the marriage-law for the 
band. Could we imagine that such an experience as this was not 
uncommon, that it was perhaps frequent in its recurrence, with the 
bands of the various stock-groups of a country, we should have a 
condition of things in which, for long periods at least, marriage and 
capture would be practically synonymous, and whatever limitation 
applied to the one would apply to the other. Exogamy would become 
the marriage law. 

But it is not necessary to make any so violent a supposition. A 
general cause may be shown to have been in operation which would 
only require assistance from such experiences as I have referred to, 
to complete the connexion between capture and marriage. This 
cause is to be found in the absolute change in the relations of hus- 
bands and wives that must have followed upon the institution of a 
system of capturing women for wives. 

I have called Nair polyandry a mode of marriage because, in a 
juridical view, any relationship of persons of different sexes resting 
on contract and approved by public opinion — by custom or law — i> 
marriage. But it may well have been that the rude men of whom 
we are thinking, matured the idea of marriage for the first time 

' See Wallace, Travels on the Amazon [p. 516, also p. 362]; and The Malay 
Archipelago, i. 144-5. [These passages were probably referred to from memory; but 
they support the supposition made well enough.] 

VOL. III. — NO. IX. ' . H 


when the Nair species of polyandry began to decay, and give place 
to a mode of marriage which put the men in the first place, and 
women in an absolutely subordinate place in families. Under the 
Nair system a wife would live in the house of her mother, and under 
the special guardianship and protection of her brothers and mother's 
brothers. She would be in a position of almost absolute independence 
of her husbands, free within the limits of her engagements to show and 
act upon her preferences, and almost certainly to treat her husbands 
rather as favoured suitors than as lords. On a practice of capture 
arising all this would be changed. The captives would be the slaves 
of their captors — would be oivned by them, and under their protec- 
tion and guardianship. The new mode of marriage would give a 
sudden extension to the form of the family resting on monandry or 
Tibetan polyandry. There would be the cohabitation of husbands 
and wives, and for the first time the idea of a icife as a subject of her 
husband or husbands would become general. Now the new idea 
of marriage which would thus be introduced is the idea that was 
everywhere destined to triumph — that has in fact triumphed among 
all exogamous races, so far as I know. And it was natural and in- 
evitable that it should triumph. It is easily conceivable how, once 
men had experience of this new marriage system, unions of kindred 
on the old model should not only go into desuetude but not be ac- 
counted marriages at all. If, then, we conceive that some time after 
the rise of a practice of capture the name of ' wife ' came to be 
synonymous with a subject and enslaved woman in the power of her 
captor or captors, and the name of marriage to be applied to a man's 
relation to such a woman as possessor of her, the origin of exogamy 
becomes apparent. Since a subject and enslaved wife would, in the 
circumstances of the time, be attainable only by capture, marriage 
would be possible only through capture, and the prohibition which, 
as we have seen, would apply to capture, would apply to marriage. 
Marriage with a woman of the same stock would be a crime and a 
sin. It would be incest. J. F. McLennan. 

On the view as to the movement from capture to exogamy 
stated above, exogamy was in the first instance a prohibition of 
marriage only between persons of the same blood. There is evi- 
dence now forthcoming from Australia which helps the theory at this 
point, since it tends to show that exogamy is not necessarily any- 
thing more, and therefore that it was nothing more at first. The 
absence of such evidence, however, could not of itself make against 
the theory, so easy and almost inevitable does it seem that, with 
marriage thoroughly established, and strictly forbidden between 
persons of the same blood, the history of the prohibition being 



unknown, irregular relations should come to be forbidden between 
persons of the same blood ; especially when, as often happens even 
with female kinship, marriage has become, more or less completely, 
a bar to irregular relations. 

The Australian evidence above referred to is as follows : — 

1. Speaking of tribes about Port Lincoln in South Australia, Mr. 
Wilhelmi tells us ^ that they * are divided into two separate classes, 
viz. the Matter! and the Karraru;' that 'no one is allowed to 
intermarry in his own caste, but only into the other one ; ' and 
that children belong to the caste of the mother. Of Mr. Wilhelmi's 
phraseology nothing need here be said; it is enough that he 
conveys to us that the tribes which were made up of Matteri and 
Karraru were exogamous and took kinship through the mother. 
As regards marriage then- exogamy was strict. ' There are no in- 
stances,' he tells us, * of two Karrarus or two Matteris having been 
married together.' And yet, he adds, 'connexions of a less virtuous 
character which take place between members of the same caste do 
not appear to be considered incestuous.' Irregular connexions, 
then, did occur between persons whose marriage would not have 
been tolerated, and, -so far as Mr. Wilhelmi could learn, they were 
not objected to. 

2. We are told on the authority of the Eev. W. Julius Kiihn ^ — 
the statement apparently is not in Mr. Kiihn's own language — that 
the Turra tribe, also in South Australia, consisted of two great 
divisions, Wiltu (eagle-hawk) and Multa (seal), the former of which 
contained ten, and the latter six, separate totems; that the divi- 
sions or sub-tribes were exogamous, but that any totem of the one 
might intermarry with any totem of the other ; and that children 
belonged to the totem of their father, and therefore to his division 
or sub-tribe. Faithfulness in marriage, we are told, was expected 
of both husband and wife. At grand corrobborees, nevertheless 
(the account proceeds), 'the old men took any of the young wives 
of the other class [sub-tribe] for the time, and the young men of 
the Wiltu exchanged wives with those of the Multa, and vice versa, 
but only for a time, and in this the men were not confined to any 
particular totem.' The statement that the men were not confined 
to any particular totem seems to be made with reference to a theory 
of Mr. Fison's, which it does not support ; it was made, no doubt, 
in answer to a special question. For the rest, the statement leaves 
us to understand that the old men were free in their choice, and 
the younger men in their exchanges — that no exogamous restriction 
bound them. There is nothing to suggest that they were debarred 
from womeii of their own totem who had passed by marriage from 
their original sub-tribe into the other; indeed, so important an 


* The Aborigines of Victoria, by R. Brough Smith, vol. i. p. 87. 
3 Kamilaroi and Kurnai, by Lorimer Fison and A. W. Howitt, pp. 285-7. 

u 2 


exception, had it been possible to make it, could not have escaped 
mention. And, at any rate, the men were all free from the re- 
striction which is said to have bound them in marriage as Wiltu 
and Multa respectively. 

The practice of the Turra people at corrobborees was, no doubt, 
a tradition from less advanced predecessors. 

3. It now seems worth while to refer to what Mr. Eyre tells us 
of tribes in the Adelaide district."^ He says that in most of the 
tribes the utmost license prevailed among the young, and that there 
was unbounded license for all on certain solemn occasions. It is 
clear that he believed there was no restriction whatever. But Mr. 
Eyre knew nothing of the marriage law. 

Mr. Gideon Lang, however,'^ makes a somewhat similar statement, 
and Mr. Lang was aware that the tribes which had been under his 
observation were exogamous in marriage. 

Eeference may also be made to what Mr. Beveridge has said of 
the tribes of the Eiverina district ; ^ and to a fact reported of the 
Kunandaburi — a tribe of the Barcoo river, living within the Queens- 
land boundary — by Mr. A. W. Howitt on the authority of a Mr. 
O'Donnell.'^ It may be suggested, too, that certain well-known 
statements about the Kamilaroi need to be carefully considered with 
reference to the bearing they may have upon the limits of exogamy 
among that people. Unfortunately, Mr. Howitt gives us the bare 
fact he has to mention only, and the name of his authority, with 
the statement that he had lived some years among the Kunanda- 
buri. And Mr. Beveridge's knowledge of the marriage law of the 
Eiverina tribes was, no doubt, imperfect. What he says of it is, 
that the very slightest blood-relationship was a definite bar to 
marriage. But he knew there was a prohibition which applied 
to marrying, and that it was strictly enforced. And he assures us 
that, apart from marrying, there was simply no restriction what- 
ever. He had been for twenty-three years in contact with the 
Eiverina tribes — from 1845 to 1868. Perhaps he proves too much ; 

* Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia in the years 

* The Aborigines of Australia, p. 38. 

^ Journals dx. of the Royal Society of Nciv South Wales, 1884, p. 24. 

^ Australian Group Relations, p. 8, reprinted from the Smithsonian Eeport for 
1883. Jus primcB noctis allowed ' to all the men present at the camp without regard 
to class or kin.' If this be received (and a person who had lived for some years among 
the people could scarcely be mistaken about it), it shows clearly that the exogamy of 
the Kunandaburi was limited to marriage, and gives weight to all the indications or 
suggestions of exogamy being so limited which are got from the other cases mentioned. 
The objection to founding on it is that, while the fact is new for the Australians, no 
detail is given as to the order of marriage among the Kunandaburi. It may here be 
said that there is a reason why exogamy, if limited to marriage at first, might remain 
so limited among Australians — a reason consistent with the theory now submitted. 
It is that among many, perhaps most, of the Australian tribes a wife is prized chiefly 
for her services as a drUdge. 


a less unmeasured statement could be more easily received. But 
what he says has to be taken along with the impressions of Mr. 
Eyre and Mr. Lang, and the more definite information given by 
Mr. Wilhelmi and Mr. Kiihn. 

If the foregoing evidence raises a doubt as to the original scope 
of exogamy, it is enough for the purpose for which it has been 
adduced. And it seems at least sufficient to raise such a doubt. 
With a distinct statement from Mr. Kiihn that in the Turra tribe 
men were not debarred from their own totem at the corrobborees, one 
might go further. For that would leave no room for the suggestion 
that exogamous feeling, still in its original strength as regards each 
totem, had, by means of the totems, been weakened between the 
larger divisions, the Multa and Wiltu, the Matteri and Karraru — 
no room for the suggestion that the facts show us, not exogamy 
operating within its original limits, but exogamy in a state of decay. 
As to that, however, Mr. Howitt (who procured the information) 
appears to have made inquiry as to a much smaller matter — whether 
particular totems of the sub-tribes of the Turra people were con- 
fined to each other at those meetings — and he cannot have neglected 
to satisfy himself upon a question of the first importance, which is 
plainly raised by the statement which he has published, and in which 
Mr. Fison and he have, throughout their work, shown themselves 
to be deeply interested. 

In speculating on the influence of two such factors as capture 
and female kinship, it is unavoidable, though the two may have 
acted concurrently throughout, that the attempt should be made to 
follow the operation of each separately, combining the results ; or 
(which comes to the same thing) that the effects of the one should 
first be traced, and then those of the other added on to them. It 
was necessary in the preceding essay to deal with the kinship first ; 
but it may be easily seen that there would be ample time for its de- 
velopment, and for tribes which had grown too large to subdivide 
in the manner supposed, before capture could have any effects which 
need be taken into account. Capture may have been practised 
before there was any thought of relationship; it may have been 
practised, more or less, all the time that kinship through females 
was growing up. And stranger women, captives of a hostile totem, 
must from the first have been in a worse position than the native- 
born ; while their position must have grown relatively worse and 
worse as the growth of kinship gave the latter protectors and 
helped their numbers to secure them some consideration. For 
long, their children, being regarded as of some hostile totem, would 
not be allowed to live ; and we may be guided in some very small 
measure in judging how they would compare with the women through 


whom the tribe and its totem were propagated, by observing the 
low position assigned to captive wives wherever we find capture 
practised in supplement of a regular system of marriage by con- 
tract. But it is unlikely (as the analogy of the case just mentioned 
shows us) that, by their numbers merely, they could sensibly lower 
the position of native-born women ; and there appears to be 
no other effect which, in the state of things supposed, could follow 
upon their presence in a tribe. Men cannot have for tvives (even in 
a polyandrous way) women who are doomed to childlessness ; and 
(though a gradual preparation for foreign wiving would no doubt be 
going on) not until manners had so far softened, and hostile (that is, 
different) stocks grown to be so far tolerant of each other that the 
men of a totem could let the children of foreigners grow up in their 
midst, could there be a beginning of the competition between native 
and foreign marriage. 

We may believe that the children of captive women would come 
to be spared at length by a sort of tacit agreement between neigh- 
bouring tribes arrived at gradually, and no doubt very slowly. At 
first, and, indeed, for long after it became common to spare them, 
each tribe might remain of one stock or totem, so far as the men 
were concerned. The blood-feud would, at any rate, tend to drive 
the sons of captives to their mothers' relatives. The daughters, 
such of them as were spared, would succeed to the lot of their 
mothers — and by-and-by would form a nucleus of women available 
for the lot of foreign wives who could be had without capture. The 
main source of supply of such wives, however, would almost neces- 
sarily be in capture until there was, within each stock, so much tole- 
rance of foreign elements that the sons of its captives or women of 
foreign stock could continue to abide with it, and their daughters 
had as good a chance of being allowed to live as those of the 
native-born. That involves a great relaxation of the hostile feeling 
between different stocks ; it would change each separate body, from 
being a stock of a single totem, into a more or less heterogeneous 
local tribe. It might give time for a long practice of getting wives 
by capture ; and it need not be doubted that, once a preference for 
foreign wives had become general among men, understandings would 
be arrived at between tribes or methods devised (such as occur in 
known examples) with a view to their making captures easy for each 
other — understandings or methods such as might lead in time to 
contract with the form of capture. With tribes become hetero- 
geneous, of course, the need for captures might cease ; men might 
find within their own borders wives enough of different blood from 
their own — wives obtained at length by friendly bargain, but who 
would succeed to the subject lot proper to captive women and their 

It scarcely need be said that either monandry or Tibetan poly- 


andry might exist along with female kinship. This kinship must 
have lasted at least till after local tribes had become heterogeneous, 
if, with exogamous (that is, foreign) marriage, it furnishes the only 
adequate explanation of the heterogeneity. And, with the totem 
relationship already founded on it (as, by hypothesis, it was), it 
could not be superseded all at once or at the will of single indi- 
viduals or brotherhoods, nor until the minds of people living 
together, and even of their neighbour peoples, were generally pre- 
pared for the change. Moreover, capture, so long as it was practised 
to any considerable extent (since it would render fatherhood still in 
many cases uncertain) , would tend to keep it up ; and so also would 
the liberty of intercourse between people of the same stock, so long 
as that subsisted. 

The supposition that a stock-group would subdivide into bands 
composed of persons specially related to each other, though obviously 
useful, does not seem to be indispensable to the theory of the essay 
— at any rate, a little of such subdivision suffices for it. Without 
that, we may see that the lot of native women must have been very 
different from the lot of captive women, and that one of the former 
could not be treated like the latter without outrage, and no more is 
indispensable. Nevertheless, the conditions of subsistence would, 
in early times, almost necessarily make each separate band a very 
small one, and such subdivision as is supposed might be of frequent 

As to the use made of capture in the essay (though it should 
not be necessary) , it seems to be necessary to say that it is assumed 
that what men are known to have done in a certain case prehistoric 
men in the same or a similar case would do. Within times known 
to us, men have practised capture (though they have done so also 
without necessity, no doubt) when women have been scarce with 
them, whenever they could not otherwise get wives. And, in parti- 
cular, men have practised capture (or got their wives after a form of 
capture, which shows that their predecessors had to capture their 
wives) because they have been exogamous in marriage. On the 
theory stated in the essay, men, having begun to capture chiefly 
because their own women were few, formed in time through their 
relations with captive women a preference for subject wives, and 
got them by capture because at first and for long they could get 
them by capture only ; while the exemption of their own women 
from the fate of the captive, so far as each stock was itself concerned, 
formed, when a marriage system founded on capture had come to 
prevail, a hmitation on marriage, which was exogamy in its earliest 
form. How exogamy may force men into a system of capturing 
wives is excellently illustrated by the case of the Mirdites.® 

» Researches in the Highlands of Turkey, by the Eev. H. J. Tozer, vol. i. pp. 318 

et seg. 


The theory assumes that the desire for subject wives, once it 
had become general, would have effect given to it in the same 
way, while the exemption of women living among their own people 
from the lot of captive wives would make marriage in fact exo- 
gamous. The Mirdites get their wives by capture because exogamy 
is — they know not why — a law with them. Prehistoric men, be 
it observed, would be, as regards marriage, in precisely the same 
position as soon as the reason for their not taking their own 
women in marriage ceased to be thought of. Exogamy in mar- 
riage would then, at latest, be fully established. And after that 
the limitation upon marriage might easily grow into a prohibition 
of all connexions between persons of the same blood. The occur- 
rence of the form of capture along with female kinship shows, 
however, that the association between capture and marriage was 
in some cases not easily or quickly lost sight of. There are 
some peculiar Australian facts, too, which suggest that among 
certain Australians, after exogamy had been established for people 
of the same totem, and local tribes had been made heterogeneous 
by it, capture of wives was practised so extensively that it even 
availed to give a wider scope to exogamy in marriage. The 
principle that if it is wrong to capture a woman it is wrong to 
marry her will, at any rate, account for marriage being forbidden 
(as it is in most of the cases referred to) between persons of the 
same local tribe, even when they are of different totems, and also 
for it being forbidden (as it is in one or two cases) between all 
persons of those neighbour tribes who speak the same dialect. 
Comity and the fear of consequences (especially the latter) w'ould 
make capture as impossible in the small Australian local tribe as it 
would be in a body of people all of one totem ; and might make it, 
even as between neighbour tribes having dealings with each other, 
much too troublesome not to be very seriously disapproved of. 
And marriage is forbidden within the limits within which a capture 
might thus have been deemed an outrage. 

A statement made towards the close of the essay makes it proper 
to add (and no more can now be done) that no case of beenah 
marriage — not even an exclusive- practice of it by exogamous tribes, 
the only case of it which is not easily intelligible — makes any 
difficulty for the theory therein submitted. D. McL. 


The question which has been discussed in this Eeview (ii. 97, 307, 
729) by Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Eobertson Smith has a natural 
interest for me, and I have already touched upon it in my ' Hero- 
dotos' and elsewhere. The proofs that the legend of Semiramis is 




but the legend of Istar under another form have been set forth 
by rran9ois Lenormant, with his usual lucidity and learning, in his 
*Legendede S emir amis ' (Paris, 1873). I believe both him and 
Mr. Eobertson Smith to be in the right. Mr. Gilmore, too, so far as 
I can gather, does not dispute that Semiramis became in later days 
the Aphrodite of Western Asia ; what he maintains is that originally 
she was an historical character, to whom the myths about Istar were 
afterwards attached. 

The question is so closely connected with the study of the 
Assyrian monuments, that I may be pardoned for interfering in 
the controversy, more especially as the statements that have been 
made about the Assyrian evidence are not always correct. Let us 
see what it is that Assyriology teaches us. 

Mr. Gilmore has followed Canon Eawlinson in connecting the 
name of Semiramis with that of the Assyrian queen Sammuramat. 
Whether this is right or not, it is perfectly clear that the latter had 
nothing to do with the Semiramis of Herodotos (i. 184). Semi- 
ramis was a queen of Babylonia, independent enough to construct 
large irrigation works in the Babylonian plain, and she flourished 
five generations before Nitokris the mother of Nabonidos or, as 
Herodotos falsely calls him, Labynetos (i. 188). Counting thirty 
years to a generation, her date will accordingly be about b.c. 750- 
720, when Babylonia was overrun by Assyrians and other invaders, 
and was a prey to internal discords.^ No great public works could 
have been executed at such a time : indeed, only a few years later 
(B.C. 688) Babylon was razed to the ground by Sennacherib. In 
any case the date is inconsistent with that of Sammuramat, the 
wife of Eimmon-nirari III, who reigned e.g. 812-783. 

Sammuramat, moreover, was an Assyrian, and not a Babylonian, 
princess. We have no reason for assuming that she came from 
Babylonia. The name is not to be found among the numerous 
female names preserved in the Babylonian contract-tablets. The 
relations between Assyria and Babylonia in the time of Eimmon- 
nirari were not such as to encourage matrimonial alliances. The 
last public act of his father had been the capture of Babylon, and 
in B.C. 796, and again in 795, he himself marched his armies into 
the southern kingdom. The erection of temples to Nebo at Nineveh 
and Calah by Eimmon-nirari cannot be pressed to prove any special 
connexion of his with Chaldaea. Nebo is invoked by Shalmaneser II, 
and wherever the Babylonian system of writing went the worship of 

' Taking b.c. 540 instead of 538 as the date of the overthrow of Nabonidos, and 
reckoning seven generations back, we are brought to B.C. 750 as the date of the acces- 
sion of Semiramis. This is close upon the era of Nabonassar, b.c. 747. On the other 
hand LabynMos I was the contemporary of Alyatt^s the father of Kroesos, according 
to i. 74 ; so that five generations before Labynetos are two generations before Gyges 
and Assur-bani-pal, which in Herodotos's chronological scheme would be b.c. 775, as 
he makes the date of Gyg^s b.c. 715 instead of 687. 


Nebo went too. The images on which the name Sammuramat 
is found were dedicated, not by a Babylonian, but by the governor 
of Calah. 

The reading of the last syllable of the name Sammuramat is 
not quite certain, though, if the name is of Assyrian origin, it 
could only be ramat — that is, * the inhabitress.' But I do not feel 
sure that it is of Babylonian origin. As I have stated, it is not 
elsewhere found in the Assyro-Babylonian texts, and the word 
Saminu is wholly unknown to me. The only word at all like it 
with which I am acquainted is summatu, ' a dove ' — the word, in 
fact, of which I believe that Diodoros was thinking when he said 
that Semiramis meant ' a dove.' Simmas, it must be remembered, 
is given as the name of the shejDherd of Ninos, who saved Semi- 
ramis from destruction, and brought her up. But, on the whole, I 
am inclined to think that Sammuramat was a princess of neither 
Assyrian nor Babylonian origin, who may have come from the 
Arameans of the west. 

As regards Ninos and Ninyas, I am not always able to follow 
either Mr. Robertson Smith or Mr. Gilmore. The vocalisation of 
Ninyas prevents us from connecting it with the Syriac nunos, even 
though the Assyrian scribes themselves punned upon the resemblance 
of Nina or Ninua * Nineveh ' to the Assyrian iiunu, * a fish.' Ninyas 
is simply a Greek formative from Ninua, like vofids, <f)v^ds, Mlvvols, 
and means ' the Ninevite.' It is consequently a doublet of Ninos, 
illustrating a peculiarity of the royal lists of Ktesias, to which I 
have drawn attention in the * Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie,' ii. (1887). 
In these the same name is repeated in slightly varying forms, which 
are separated by one or two other names. Thus we have Arios and 
Ar alios (which I have discussed in my memoir on the Vannic In- 
scriptions in the * Journal of the E.A.S.,' xiv. 3, pp. 414-16), Baleus 
and Balaios, Sphairos and Sparthaios, Mamitos (or Mamit, the 
goddess of fate) and Mamylos, Lamprides and Lamj)raes, Tautanes 
or Teutamos and Teuteos (the man of the tavtim or ' sea '), 
Ophrateos (* the Euphrates ') and Ophratenes, Sosarmos (Samas- 
Eimmon) and Sosares, Man-daukes and Ar-tykas. In place of 
Ninyas, Ktesias also gave Zames or Zameis — that is, Samas the 
Sun-god. This throws light, not only on the meaning of Ninyas, 
but also upon the character of his mother and consort Semiramis. 

Ktesias stated that the city of Ninos stood upon the Euphrates 
(Diod. ii. 3). There is no need of supposing that there is an error in 
the text, or that the Ninos to which he referred was the ' Ninus vetus ' 
of Ammianus Marcellinus, the Mabug or Hierapolis of northern 
Syria. The statement of Ktesias is in strict accordance with fact. 
Nina was the name of a Protochaldean goddess, the daughter of Ea 
of Eridu, and gave her name to an ancient city or sanctuary of 
Babylonia (according to K 4629, Rev. 8). The ideograj)h which 


represented her name and the name of the Babylonian city, repre- 
sented also the name of Nineveh, which, as we learn from the lexical 
texts, was properly pronounced Nina.^ Nina is a dialectical form 
of the Sumerian nana, *lady,' more frequently met with in its 
abbreviated form nin. In the gender less Sumerian nin meant 
indifferently ' lord ' and * lady,' but as there were two other words 
for *lord' {mid and enu), while Nina or Nana was a goddess, the 
Semitic Babylonians chose to regard nin as denoting the female sex 
alone. It was only in the ideographic representation of a few divine 
names that nin — or rather its ideograph — was retained in the sense 
of 'lord.' 

One of these ideographic representations was that of a deity 
whose Assyrian name is unknown, though his Sumerian name was 
probably Nin-Uras. The ideographs, which, it must be remembered, 
were not pronounced, represent the Sumerian words nin and ij:) or dar, 
and perhaps signify ' the lord of the name.' Mr. Gilmore's proposal 
to see the name of Ninos in what Assyriologists, through ignorance 
of the real name, have been obliged to write NIN-IP, is inadmissi- 
ble : first of all, because the god was never known by such a name, 
and, secondly, because the second ideograph (IP) is an integral part 
of it. Of late it has been the fashion to call the god Adar, but as 
this name is certainly incorrect, while that of Uras is monumentally 
established, it is best for the present to term him Uras (see my 
'Lectures on Babylonian Eeligion,' pp. 151-153). Horus was an 
Assyrian king according to PHny (' N. H.' xxx. 51 ; xxxvii. 52), 
while the Thouras of Kedrenos (' Hist.' 15, 16 ; cp. the * Paschal 
Chron.' p. 68) is declared to be the Assyrian Ares and made the 
son of Zames or Samas. 

The Ninos of the Greek writers, then, must be the city of 
Nina, which, as Ktesias knew, stood on the Babylonian Euphrates 
before the name had been carried northward to the more famous 
city on the Tigris. Ninyas ' the Ninevite ' is also Zames the Sun- 
god, whose son Uras helped, it may be, to form the name of Arios. 
Uras was the messenger of Mul-lil 'the lord of the ghost- world,' 
and, as I have shown in my ' Lectures on the Eeligion of the 
Ancient Babylonians,' was originally the sun who issues forth from 
the shades of night. We can therefore understand why it is that 
in the list of Ktesias Arios is succeeded by Aralios — that is, by Arali 
or ' Hades.' 

Mr. Eobertson Smith disputes the connexion between the As- 
syrian Ninos and the Lydian Ninos of Herodotos. But the Lydian 
Ninos is said to be the son of Belos. Moreover, I have pointed out in 
the ' Journal of Philology,' xiv. 28, p. 278, that Herodotos's scheme 

2 The puzzling Ninua must, I think, be of Aramaic origin, derived from NinA, the 
assyrianised form of Nina. At all events, Assyrian philology is powerless to explain 
it. It is of rare occurrence in the inscriptions, and is. unknown to the lexical texts. 


of Assyrian chronology is dependent on that of Lydia.'^ It must 
have been derived from some Grseco-Lydian source, which will 
explain not only the prominent place occupied by Sardanapallos in 
Greek accounts of Assyrian history (beginning with Herodotos) 
but also the erroneous form of his name. Assur-bani-pal was the 
first Assyrian monarch with whom the Lydians, and through them 
the Greeks, came into contact, and I see no way of accounting for 
the Greek form of his name except by supposing that it has been 
assimilated to the name of Sardes, the Lydian capital. We shall 
also have an explanation of two other facts — the mistake of Hero- 
dotos in calling Babylonia Assyria, and his extraordinary version 
of later Babylonian history. Long before the days of Herodotos 
the Assyrian power had been overthrown and Babylonia had taken 
its place, but under Assur-bani-pal, when the Lydians first became 
acquainted with the East, Babylonia was a part of Assyria acknow- 
ledging the Assyrian supremacy, and ruled by an Assyrian viceroy. 
Again, the only king of the later Babylonian empire whose name 
is known to the Greek historian is Labynetos, who assisted Syennesis 
of Kilikia in bringing about peace between the Lydians and Me- 
dians in B.C. 585 (i. 74). In a later chapter (i. 188) this Labynetos is 
made the husband of Nitokris and the father of the last king of Baby- 
lonia, Labynetos II. Labynetos II of course represents Nabonidos, 
of whom Herodotos may have heard from Persian as well as from 
Lydian sources ; Labynetos I takes the place at once of Nebuchad- 
nezzar, Evil-Merodach, Laborosoarchad, and Nergal-Sharezer. In 
calling him the father of Labynetos II Herodotos has made another 
mistake, since Nabonidos was a usurper, the son of Nabu-baladh- 
su-iqbi, and apparently in no way related to the house of Nebu- 

Putting Ninos the son of Belos aside, Sardanapallos, Semiramis, 

^ I reproduce it here : 

Lower Asia. 

Ninos one generation . 30 (b.c. 1250) 
Agron and his successors 505 
The Mermnadae . . .170 (b.c. 715) 
Conquest of Cyrus b.c. 545 
Total number of years 705 

Tipper Asia. 


Ninos 30 (b.c. 1250) 

His successors for 520-30 

yrs 490 

The Median revolt followed 
by a generation of auto- 
nomy (i. 96). ... 30 (B.C. 730) 
The Median kings . . 150 
Conquest of Cyrus b.c. 550 
Total number of years 700 
The kingdom of Ninos the son of Belos separated into ' Upper Asia ' (i. 96) and 
* Lower Asia ' (i. 103, 107), and 30 years are counted for a generation as well as for a 
reign (ii. 142, &c.). The fall of the Herakleida? in Lydia is placed 15 years, i.e. half 
a generation, after the Median revolt, in accordance with the statement that the Medes 
' first ' revolted from Assyria, and ' the other nations ' not till a little later (i. 96). 
Consequently Sardanapallos is assigned to b.c 760-30, shortly before the reign of 
Semiramis. The dates of the conquests of Lydia and Babylonia by Cyrus are 
derived from the cuneiform monuments. 



Labynetos I, and Labynetos II exhaust the Hst of the * Assyrian ' 
sovereigns known to Herodotos, with the exception of Nitokris and 
Sanakharib or Sennacherib. But Nitokris is an Egyptian name, and, 
if there ever was such a queen of Babylonia, Herodotos might have 
derived his knowledge of her from Egyptian authorities. That the 
name of Sanakharib was reported to him by his Egyptian guides 
is shown not only by the fact that it forms part of the Graeco- 
Egyptian myth of Sethos, but also by the fact that Sanakharib is 
not called king of Assyria, but ' king of the Arabians and Assyrians ' 
(i. 141), the term ' Arabians ' being, as we learn from Manetho (ap. 
Joseph. Cont. Ap. i. 14), the equivalent of the Egyptian Shasu or 
* Bedouin.' Apart, therefore, from the two names, one of which 
came certainly, and the other probably, from an Egyptian source, 
all that Herodotos knows about the rulers of * Assyria ' — so far as 
we can trace it home — points to a Lydian origin. 

Semiramis is the only name which remains unclassified, and, 
since it cannot be referred to Egypt, I think we are justified in 
concluding that it, too, was derived by Herodotos from a Lydian 
writer. Let us see if we can find any evidence confirmatory of 
such a view. 

The one solid fact connected with the name of Semiramis is 
that it was the name of the Asiatic goddess worshipped at Hiera- 
polis or Membij (Lucian, De Dea Syria, 39). The sacred city of 
Hierapolis or Kadesh had succeeded to the older Hierapolis or 
Carchemish, now represented by the mounds of Jerablus, a picture 
of which, with the waters of the Euphrates washing its walls, is to 
be seen on the bronzes of Balawat.^ The statement of the pseudo- 
Lucian is supplemented by that of the Christian Melito. Lucian 
had mentioned that twice a year water was brought from a distance 
and poured into a chasm of the temple of the goddess at Hierapolis, 
the chasm being that through which the waters of the deluge 
had once been drained away {De Dea Syr. 13). Melito {Spicileg. 
Solesmense, II. p. xliv) refers to the same tradition when he says 
that the goddess Simi, the daughter of the supreme god Adad, had 
put an end to the attacks of a demon by filling the pit in which he 
lived with sea-water. The Simi of Melito is the Semi-ramis of the 
Greek writer. 

* JerablAs, written Jerabolus by Maundrell and Yaraboloos by George Smith, is 
called Jerabees by Pococke, and though intervening travellers agree with Maundrell, 
Sachau maintains that he heard only the name of Djerabis {Reise in Syrien, p. 168). 
On the other hand, Mr. Skene informed Mr. George Smith and Mr. Boscawen that the 
real name was Jerablus, Jerabis being a Turkish corruption of it ; and I have been 
assured, not only by Sir Charles Wilson, but also by Dr. Trowbridge, the head of the 
American College at Aintab, one of whose congregation has property on the spot, that 
the only name known to the natives when speaking among themselves is JerablAs. 
Hoffman has endeavoured to identify the site with that of Europos, though not very 
successfully. Excavations, however, have shown that a small town stood there in the 
Eoman period. 


Now the Semiramis of Syria is brought into direct connexion 
with Lydia in certain legends which betray a Lydian origin. The 

* Etymologicum Magnum ' {s.v. KdVarpos) asserts that the Lydian 
hero Kayster, the eponym of the Kaystrian plain, went to Syria, 
and there became the father of Semiramis by Derketo (or Atargatis). 
With this we must connect the legend quoted from Xanthos by 
Athenaios {Deipnos. viii. 37, p. 346) that Derketo had been drowned 
in the sacred lake of Askalon by the Lydian Mopsos. The same 
story is alluded to by Stephanos of Byzantium {s.v. 'Aa-KaXcov) 
when he says that the Lydian Askalos, the son of Hymenaios and 
brother of Tantalos, founded Askalon, after having been sent with 
an army into Syria by the Lydian king Akiamos. Derketo or 
Atargatis was, as we know, the goddess of Hierapolis, on the coins 
of which the simple 'Athi or TdrLs (cf. Athen. xiii. p. 346) is found.-^ 
The full form Atargatis is met with on the coins of Abd-Hadad, a 
prince who ruled at Hierapolis, as M. Six has proved, in the fourth 
century (see Waddington, Revue numismatique, new ser. v. 1861, 
pp. 9 sq.). The general conclusions to which all this leads are, 
firstly, that Semiramis was the local name of a goddess worshipped 
at Hierapolis in Syria, and, secondly, that the tradition of the 
Lydians connected this goddess with themselves. 

That the worship of the goddess spread through Syria seems to 
me, as to Mr. Kobertson Smith, to be clear from the biblical name 
Shemiramoth. But I should explain this name as denoting, not 

* images of Semiramis,' but ' Semiramis goddesses,' like Anathoth, 
' the Anats,' or Ashtaroth, * the Ashtoreths,' which are parallel to 
the Baalim or 'Baals.' Whether the name spread also into Kappa- 
dokia we have no means of ascertaining until the Hittite inscrip- 
tions are deciphered. But it is quite possible that it is not of 
Semitic origin and really claims connexion with that of the 
Amazonian goddess Smyrna or Myrinna. If it does, light would 
be thrown on its connexion with Lydia. 

For the present, however, I am inclined to believe that the 
Lydian legend of Derketo and Semiramis first grew up after the 
contact of Lydia with Assyria in the reign of Assur-bani-pal. The 
wealth and power of the Assyrian monarch must have made a great 
impression on the Lydians who sent their envoys to the distant 
and previously unknown Nineveh (where no one could be found to 
understand their language), in order to place themselves under his 
protection and ask his help against their Kimmerian foes. The 
fall of Assur-bani-pal's empire, in which they themselves had no 
unimportant share, must have produced an equally great impres- 
sion, and we cannot wonder, therefore, if legends both of the luxury 
and effeminateness of the king, and of his disastrous overthrow, 
should have developed themselves m Lydia and been communicated 

^ J. P. Six, Numismatic ChronicUy 1878, pp. 106-110. 


to the Greeks. In course of time the overthrow of the Assyrian 
power in ' Lower Asia. ' would have become associated with the rise 
of the Mermnad dynasty whose founder assisted Egypt to shake off 
the Assyrian yoke and deal the first blow at the Assyrian empire. 

Now there is an indication that Herodotos knew of Sardana- 
pallos not only as the wealthy monarch but also as the last king of 
Nineveh. As Thukydides showed that he was acquainted with 
Herodotos by silently contradicting him, and Herodotos himself, as 
I have pointed out elsewhere, proved his acquaintanceship with 
earlier authors by a similar practice, so Ktesias, one of whose main 
objects was to expose the ignorance of Herodotos in matters re- 
lating to oriental history, sometimes indicates a statement pro- 
ceeding from Herodotos by simply contradicting it. Thus when he 
declares that the name of the last king of Media was not Astyages, 
as the Greeks believed, but Aspadas, we may infer that the name 
of Astyages emanated from Herodotos, and when he similarly 
declares that the last king of Assyria was Thonos Konkholeros, and 
not Sardanapallos — a name which is excluded from his list of 
Assyrian kings — we may similarly infer that it was Herodotos 
who had made Sardanapallos the last ruler of Nineveh. The 
statement would have been found in those 'Aaa-vpLOL \6yoL of which 
w^e hear so much. 

There is another indication that the connexion of Semiramis 
with Ninos, as well as the story which made Semiramis build the 
walls of Babylon and placed Ninos in Babylonia, also originated 
with ' the father of history.' At the end of the third book of Hero- 
dotos we have an account of a capture of Babylon by Zopyros in 
the time of Dareios. The account is unhistorical, as is shown not 
only by the well-known oriental legend of the mutilation of Zopyros, 
and the fact that mutilated persons like Zopyrus and Megabyzos 
could not have been, the one a satrap of Babylonia, the other the 
commander-in-chief of the Persian army, but also by the further 
fact that the details of the siege as given by Herodotos do not agree 
with the account given by Dareios at Behistun of the two sieges of 
Babylon which took place in his own reign. Ktesias, therefore, 
was doubtless correct in saying that the siege referred to by Hero- 
dotos really took place in the time of Xerxes. Now in the legend 
as reported by Herodotos we are told of two gates of Babylon, one 
called the gate of Semiramis and the other the gate of Ninos (iii. 
156), a third gate being that of Belos. The names of the gates 
form an integral part of the legend, which is evidently derived from 
a Persian source. 

If, as I have endeavoured to show, the legend of Semiramis 
originated in Lydia, this Persian source must have been indebted to 
Lydian literature, just as the Persian legend described by Herodotos 
at the beginning of his History was indebted to Greek mythology. 


It would appear, therefore, that Herodotos drew the materials of 
his ^AcravpioL \6yoL, not only from Lydia and Egypt, but also from 
Persia, or at all events from a Graeco-Persian source. Where he 
and Ktesias are in agreement, the Persian source must be pre- 

The transference of Semiramis, then, from northern Syria, and 
her transformation into a Babylonian queen, were, I believe, due to 
Persian imagination. Her connexion with Ninos on the one side 
and with the empire of Sardanapallos on the other may be accounted 
for if we assume that the name of Semiramis was carried into the 
neighbouring districts of Kilikia along with the sculpture and hiero- 
glyphs of the Hittites. Assur-bani-pal married the daughters 
both of Mugal, king of the Tibareni and of Sanda-sar-mi, king of 
Kilikia, and we learn from Greek inscriptions that Nineis and Nineps 
were Kilikian names. At Jotapa mention is made of Mopsos, the 
son of Nineps, and of Nineis the son of Konon, the termination of 
Nineis being similar to that of the Kilikian names Kaneis, Obran- 
goneis, Dameis and Artemeis. Legend, too, discovered a direct 
connexion between Kilikia and Sardanapallos. He was said to have 
built Tarsos and Ankhiale in a day, and his tomb was pointed out 
in Tarsos.^ 

Here, it will be noticed, it was Sardanapallos and not Semiramis 
who was connected with the artificial structures of eastern Asia 
Minor whose real origin had been forgotten. I agree with Mr. 
Eobertson Smith in thinking that the ^cofzara of Babylonia which 
Semiramis is said to have erected originally meant the old mounds 
or till of the country rather than its kari or embankments. The 
words, TTpoTSpov hs smOss 6 Trorajios ava to ttsBlov rrav TrsXayl- 
^SLV, when compared with a similar expression in ii. 92, seem to 
me to be a rationalistic explanation added by Herodotos from his 
own experience of the Egyptian Delta. 

To sum up : the name of Semiramis appears to have originally 
been connected with Hierapolis in northern Syria, from whence it 
made its way to the Arameans of Mesopotamia as well as to the 
Lydians of the west. Herodotos derived his * Assyrian ' history, 
setting aside Sennacherib and possibly Nitokris, mainly from a 
Lydian source which alone can explain his system of chronology. 
This source was supplemented by a Persian one, from which Ktesias 
afterwards derived some at least of his materials. The con- 

« K. 0. Miiller [Kleine Schriften, ii. 100 sg.), followed by Movers {Die Phonizier, 
i. 458), has identified Sardanapallos with Sandan, whom Ed. Meyer has proved to have 
been originally the supreme Kilikian Baal (Z. d. M. G. xxxi. 4, 1877). In Ammianus 
Marcellinus (xiv. 7), Sandan, instead of Sardanapallos, is made the founder of Tarsos, 
and the so-called Tomb of Sardanapallos, or Dunek Tash, at Tarsos is shown by coins 
to have represented the pyramidal temple or funeral pyre of Sandan. The image of 
Sardanapallos stood beside that of Semiramis in the temple of Hierapolis {De Dea 
Syr. 40). 


nexion between Semiramis and Ninos was of Persian origin ; the 
Lydian author (or authors) more probably associated her with Sar- 
danapallos, the husband of a Kihkian princess. This would explain 
why it is that whereas Herodotos gives the names of Semiramis and 
Ninos to two of the gates of Babylon, he elsewhere (i. 184) places 
Semiramis only two generations before Gyges and Sardanapallos, 
or about b.c. 750. It is, perhaps, hardly needful to add that the 
cuneiform tablets have given us a continuous chronology of Baby- 
lonia from the accession of Nabonassar in b.c. 747 to the overthrow of 
the kingdom of Nabonidos, and that among the rulers of Babylonia 
throughout this period there is not a single queen. 

A. H. Saycb. 


The Cartulary of Beading Abbey, belonging to the earl of Fingall, 
is in many respects one of the most interesting, and probably the 
most valuable, of the several records which are known to exist of 
that once important foundation. 

Although not alluded to in the report of the inspector appointed 
by the Historical Manuscripts Commission in his recently published 
account of Lord Fingall' s collection, there can be no doubt that 
this is the Wollascot MS. mentioned by Coates in his history of 
Beading, 1802, and that it has been lost sight of for some years. 
A reference in the British Museum led the writer to think it might 
possibly be in Lord Fingall's possession. His lordship was kind 
enough to have a search made, and to authorise the publication 
of the following particulars. 

The volume, judging from the various styles of the hand- 
writing, would seem to have been written in the early part of the 
fifteenth century ; it is, in its original state, bound in oak boards, 
covered with white leather, and, when shut, is fastened by a strong 
leather strap, which closes upon a brass clasp let into the middle 
of the right side of the cover. The size of the book is eleven inches 
and a quarter by eight inches and a quarter ; rather larger than the 
other cartularies of Beading Abbey which are deposited at the British 

A memorandum affixed to the fly-leaf runs as follows : — ' This 
book of the charters of Beading Abbey was found secreted in a very 
concealed and unknown corner in my Lord Fingall's house at Shine- 
field near Beading. It was brought to Woolhampton Great House, 
now Mrs. Crew's, by Gul. Corderoy the steward, with several other 
books found by a bricklayer necessitated to pull some part of the 
house, or rather part of a wall, down in order to repair thoroughly 
a chimney in Shinefield House. This account I had from the fore- 

VOL. III. — NO. IX. ' I 


mentioned Mr. Corderoy on Wednesday the twentieth of June 1792 
(ninety-two), who Hkewise supposes the bricklayer, who is now Hving 
at Eeading, found no small sum of money or something valuable, 
as shortly after that time he advanced much in the world by means 
of money which no one knows how he could be worth. Wrote this 
account on June 23rd, 1792. N.B. Mr. Cordery told me that in 
this concealed place there was convenient room for three persons, 
there being three seats.' Although the memorandum is not signed, 
it bears evidences of its authenticity, and there can be no doubt 
that the volume was found, as stated, secreted at Shinfield House 
in the manner above described. 

The volume comprises ninety-nine folios of vellum. On the first 
page is an original entry to the following effect : — Hie est liher 
sanete Marie Radingie clmistralihus, quern qui celaverit velfraudem de 
eo fecerit Anathema sit. Vynnyngtoun. 

The table of contents at the beginning comprises a list of the 
first 315 charters, a list of the relics, catalogues of the books kept 
at the abbey at Reading, and also at the church at Leominster, a 
dependency of the abbey, and an inventory of the vestments. In 
these respects Lord Fingall's cartulary is superior to the others, 
and, in addition, it contains many important and interesting papal 
bulls and writs. 

The several charters are entered with some regard to chrono- 
logical order and according to the degree or rank of the various 
donors and others. They commence with the foundation charter 
of Henry I, and are followed by several others by the same king ; 
next come those of his daughter the empress Matilda, and of 
Adelisa the queen; then others by the several subsequent kings 
down to and including Henry III. There are also grants by some 
of the kings of Scotland, and by many great personages, amongst 
whom are Gervase Parnell, William earl of Ferrers, Eoger Bigod, 
William de Albeni earl of Sussex, William and Geoffry Martel, 
William earl of Chester, Roger earl of Warwick, William Achard, 
&c. Deeds of confirmation by some of the archbishops of Canter- 
bury and bishops of Salisbury are to be found here, together with 
bulls and briefs by the several popes who claimed to exercise 
rights, and to make concessions to the abbey, among whom are 
Honorius II, Innocent II, Calixtus II, Eugenius III, Adrian IV, 
Alexander III, and Clement III. 

Not the least interesting part of this Fingall cartulary is the 
lists of the books kept at Reading and Leominster. In the library 
at the former place the number was 228, and at the latter 130. 
Amongst them are five complete bibles, viz., four at Reading and 
one at Leominster. Of the four at Reading one is stated to have 
been in two volumes, another in three volumes ; a third copy, entered 
in the list as formerly belonging to the bishop of London, was in 


two volumes ; and the fourth copy, in two volumes, is mentioned as 
having been made by G., the singer or chanter [cantor] to be kept 
in the cloisters. 

Next in order of the Reading books follow a copy of the Penta- 
teuch, with a commentary ; two books of the Psalms, also with a 
commentary ; the books of Exodus, of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Eccle- 
siastes. Song of Songs, Kings; the epistles of St. Paul; also the 
Lamentations of Jeremiah; the gospels of Matthew, Mark, John, 
and Luke, books on the Sacraments, seventeen of St. Augustine's 
works, several homilies, lives of the fathers, various writings by 
Jerome, Josephus, Bede, Ambrose, Origen, Isidorus, Anselm, Chry- 
sostom, and Peter Alfonsi ; a * history of the English' in one volume; 
besides various sermons, lectures, missals, graduals, troparii, pro- 
cessionals, antiphons, psalters, the epistles of Seneca, Bucolics, 
and Georgics of Yirgil, epistles of Horace, Juvenal, &c., &c. 

Great care is shown in the preparation of these catalogues of 
books. The number of volumes of each work is carefully stated, 
and where a book is known by one description which may not be 
considered quite sufficient, an explanatory note is added to the 
effect that this particular book contains also other matter. Mention 
is also made as to some of the books coming from particular places 
or persons, and as to others being kept in certain parts of the 
abbey; for instance, the service books used in the chapels of Abbot 
Joseph and of the Abbot of Hide are stated to have come from 
Bordeaux. The Bucolics and Georgics of Virgil, the epistles of 
Horace and Juvenal, are stated to have been given to the abbey 
by Ralf the priest of Whitchurch. 

This catalogue of Reading Abbey books in the Fingall cartulary 
is believed to be the only one in existence, and as the latest date of 
the royal charters which are entered in the cartulary appears to 
be that of Henry III, the several books enumerated may fairly be 
considered to have been at Reading during and previously to the 
thirteenth century. Many of the manuscripts taken from Reading 
Abbey at its dissolution are now in the Bodleian and the British 
Museum, and a few of them have been identified with the catalogue 
now given. 

Some ■ idea may be formed of the interest attaching to 
Reading Abbey in former days from the large and varied number 
of the relics kept within its walls, as appears by the long list of 
them entered immediately at the end of the list of charters, and 
before the catalogue of the books in the first part of this cartulary. 
The great number of these at Reading, of which there are 234 
separate entries in the list, and the care evidently bestowed upon 
them, tend to show the value put upon these possessions at the 
time when this great abbey was at the height of its power. 

The variety of the relics is also remarkable. The list is classi- 

1 2 


fied according to the persons whose memories are desired to be 
perpetuated. First are mentioned those relating to our Lord ; 
next those of the Virgin Mary ; then several said to belong to 
(a) the patriarchs and prophets, (b) the apostles, (c) the martyrs, 
(d) the confessors, (e) the virgins ; at the end is a statement that 
there are many other relics which were omitted to be written down. 
Some of those appertaining to our Lord were : — a cross brought from 
Constantinople, gilt with the gold offered to Christ; his foreskin 
which the emperor Constantine [sic] is stated to have sent to King 
Henry I ; a piece of our Lord's shoe Icaliga] ; blood and water 
from his side ; several stones, pieces of rock, and earth from Beth- 
lehem and other places. Of those in connexion with the Virgin 
Mary are mentioned, some of her hair, * as it is thought,' parts of 
her garments and her bed, and of her tomb. Of those relating to 
the patriarchs and prophets, parts of the rods of Moses and of Aaron, 
of the rock which Moses struck, manna from Mount Sinai, three 
teeth and some of the bones of St. Simeon. Of the relics of the 
apostles : the hand of St. James, and the cloth in which it was 
wrapped; the robe of St. Thomas, and a tooth of St. Luke the 
evangelist. Of the martyrs, as also of the confessors, and of the 
virgins : the bones, the teeth, the hair, the arms, the fingers, and 
the heads of many of them are all duly entered in the list. 

On the dissolution of the abbey. Dr. London sent to Cromwell 
a list of relics which he had seized and locked up behind the high 
altar, *redy at his lordeship's commandement.' It is a much 
smaller list than that given here.^ 

The vestments and other articles used at the abbey for eccle- 
siastical purposes form the subject of a separate list in the table 
of contents in this cartulary. The following is the list : — 

Hec sunt sub manu custodis capparum : 

Cappe centum et novem, ex quibus xiii sunt brudate. Item cappe due 

coloris indici brudate. 
Casule decern et novem ex done A. abbatis. 
Dalmatice decem et septem. 
Tunice sexdecim. 

Item dalmatica et tunica de nigro camelino ex done A. abbatis. 
Ante altaria brudata duo. 
Ante altaria de serico ad majus altare iiii. 
Item ante altaria de serico per cetera altaria x. 
Turribula deaurata duo. 
Stole V cum totidem manipulis. 
Pulvinaria de serico vii. 
Missale unum argento deaurato coopertum. 
Pomum unum argenteum et deauratum. 

' It is printed by Thomas Wright, Suppression of the Monasteries, p. 226 (Camden 


Pectines eburnei iii. 

Baculi pastorales iii ; unus qui fuit Symonis ^ abbatis ; et unus qui fuit 
Helie abbatis, cum curvamine eburneo. Item unus cum curvamine 
corneo qui fuit Hugonis abbatis. Et unus cum transverse cristallino. 
Item duo absque curvamine. 

Monilia duo : scilicet unum aureum de cappa regis et aliud argenteum de 
cappa abbatis de Rameseia. Item duo ad cappas A. abbatis. Item 
cappa una de viridi baldekino ex dono Henrici Regis III. Item cappe 
due coloribus indicis de panno serico qui venit cum corpore filii Ricardi 
comitis. Item cappa una de baldekino purpureo qui venit cum corpore 
filie predicti comitis. 

Dominus A. abbas dedit cappam unam Saribiriensi ecclesie. Cappa una 
reddita fuit sacriste oleo perfuso per Hugonem Bruc'. Item duo paria 
dalmaticarum et tunicarum. 

Item casula una alba que posita est ad altare sancte Katerine. 

The following is a full copy of the list of books kept in Reading 
Abbey as shown b}^ Lord Fingall's cartulary : — 

Hii stmt lihri qui continentur in Badingensi Ecclesia. 

Bibliotece iiii : prima in duobus voluminibus ; secunda in tribus ; tercia 

parva, que fuit R. London [iensis] episcopi, in duobus voluminibus ; 

quarta similiter in duobus voluminibus, quam G. Cantor fecit tenen- 

dam in claustro. 
Pentatheucum glosatum, quod fuit R. Episcopi London [iensis], scilicet 

Genesis in uno volumine, in quo etiam continentur ii libri Salomonis 

glosati, scilicet Parabola et Ecclesiastes. 
Exodus in uno volumine ; Leviticus liber, Numeri, Deutronomium in 

singulis voluminibus. 
Josue in uno volumine, in quo etiam continentur liber Sapientie et 

Ecclesiasticum, glosata sicut scolis. 
Judicum glosatus sicut scolis in uno volumine, in quo etiam continentur 

Ruth, Parabola, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorum. 
Regum glosatus sicut in scolis legi solet [E]xpositio super libros Regum 

in uno volumine [YJsaias glosatus. 
Decreta v in singulis voluminibus, prima que fuerunt Magistri Gileberti, 

secunda que Anselmus supprior dedit, tertia que fuerunt Adam de 

Dimmoc, quarta que G. Cantor fecit habenda in claustro, quinta que 

fuerunt Hugonis physici. 
Psalteria duo optima glosata inter lineas, unum quod fuit Rogerii Sigar, 

alterum quod fuit Hugonis de Bukingeham secundum m[agistrum] 

Item Psalterium glosatum, quod magister G. dedit. 

Glosa super Psalterium secundum m[agistrum] Rad[ulfum] in uno volu- 
mine, ubi etiam continetur alia expositio super Psalterium. 
Item Psalterium, quod Rogerus Dure teste dedit, glosatum secundum G. 

porrensem \sic\. 

2 Simon died in 1226 ; Helias in 1212 ; and Hugh was abbot of Clugny in 1229. 
Coates's Beading. 


Epistule Paul] glosate secundum m[agistrum] p[etrum], quas magister G. 

Item expositio super epistolas Pauli secundum m[agistrum] G. porretanum 
in uno volumine, ubi est et textus epistolarum ante glosas. 

Item epistole Pauli in uno volumine, in quo etiam continetur brevis 
expositio super Psalterium et amalarius et expositio Eemigii Antisio- 
dorensis super canonem, missa et liber penitentialis. 

Item epistole Pauli glosate in uno volumine, ubi etiam est de interpreta- 
tionibus Hebraicorum nominum. 

Auno super epistolas Pauli in uno volumine. 

Sententie magistri Petri in uno volumine, que fuerunt magistri G. 

Item sententie m[agistri] P[etri] in alio volumine, que fuerunt m[agistri] 
Martini, in quo etiam volumine continetur liber unus, scilicet liber 
Petri damiani de officiis divinis per anni circulum. 

Item liber sic intitulatus, Liber Sententiarum, in quo etiam continetur 
brevis et utilis exceptio liistorie veteris et novi testamenti et plures 
tractatus et sententie diverse ex diversis locis sumpte. 

Item liber sic intitulatus, sententie patrum, liber magne utilitatis. 

Item liber m[agistri] Hugonis de sacramentis in uno volumine, ubi etiam 
est ilia summa de fide spe et karitate. 

Item liber m[agistri] H[ugonis] de sacramentis in uno volumine. 

Cassiodorus super Psalterium in tribus voluminibus. 

Parabole Salomonis in uno volumine, ubi est etiam utilis quedam exceptio 
sententiarum magistri P. 

Augustinus super Psalterium in tribus voluminibus. 

Augustinus super Cantica graduum et usque ad finem Psalterii in uno 

Augustinus de civitate dei in uno volumine. 

Augustinus de verbis domini secundum iiii euuangelistas et de verbis 
apostoli sermones Ixxxix. 

Augustinus de consensu euuangelistarum. 

Augustinus unum malum in uno volumine, in quo etiam continentur 
Augustinus de libero arbitrio, et Augustinus de natura boni, et Augus- 
tinus contra v hereses. 

Augustinus de nuptiis et concupiscentia in uno volumine, in quo etiam 
continentur Augustinus de perfectione justicie liominum, et Augus- 
tinus de natura et gracia, et Augustinus de gratia et libero arbitrio, et 
Augustinus de correptione et gratia. 

Epistole Augustini in uno volumine, in quo contineter etiam liber sic 
intitulatus liber exhortationis. 

-Augustinus de adulterinis conjugiis in uno volumine, in quo etiam 
continetur Augustinus de disciplina Cbristianorum, Augustinus de 
cura pro mortuis agenda, Augustinus de mendatio, Augustinus contra 
mendatium, de natura et origine anime, ad renatum liber unus, ad 
petrum presbyterum liber unus, ad vincentium victorem liber unus, et 
admonitio quedam Augustini. 

•Augustinus de videndo deo in uno volumine, in quo etiam continentur 
epistole Augustini Ix et xiiii. 

Augustinus de quantitate anime in uno volumine, in quo etiam continetur 
Augustinus super illud apostoli * fundamentum nemo potest ponere ' 


et cetera et Ysidorus contra judeos et dialogus qui sic incipit * Mater 

virtutum karitas.' 
Confessionum Augustini libri xiii in uno volumine. 
Augustinus contra achedemicos in uno volumine, in quo etiam continetur 

hystoria britonum secundum Gaufr[idum] monumetensem. 
Augustinus super epistolam Johannis in uno volumine, ubi etiam con- 
tinetur formula vite lioneste. 
Augustinus de sermone domini in monte in uno volumine, in quo etiam 

continentur Augustinus super epistolam johannis et Ambr[osius] de 

officii s ministrorum. 
Augustinus super genesim ad literam. 
Exameron Basilii. 
Expositio super apocal[ypsin]. 
Isidorus de summo bono. 
Gesta Regis Henrici secundi. 
Ystoria Rading' in uno volumine. 
Duodecim prophete glosati. 
Augustinus de vera religione in uno volumine, in quo etiam continentur 

Augustinus de doctrina Christianorum et disputatio contra felicianum 

Augustinus de trinitate in uno volumine. 
Hylarius de trinitate in uno volumine. 
Moralia Gregorii in duobus voluminibus. 
Registrum Gregorii pape in uno volumine. 
Gregorius super ezechielem in uno volumine. 
Pastoralis Gregorii pape in uno volumine. 
Quadranginta omelie Gregorii pape in uno volumine. 
Excerpta moralium in uno volumine. 
Dialogus Gregorii pape in uno volumine. 
Paterius in duobus voluminibus. 
Viginti quatuor collationes in uno volumine. 
Decern et xiiii [sic] collationes in uno volumine. 
Liber scintillarum in uno volumine, ubi etiam liabentur plures sententie 

Vite patrum in uno volumine. 
leronimus super Ysaiam in uno volumine. 
leronimus super Danielem et xii prophetas in uno volumine. 
E pistole leronimi in uno volumine, in quo etiam continetur disputatio de 

ratione anime et dialogus Augustini et jeronimi. 
leronimus super Matheum. 

leronimus de hebraicis questionibus in uno volumine, in quo etiam con- 
tinetur leronimus de interpretationibus hebraicorum nominum. 
leronimus de illustribus viris in uno volumine, in quo etiam continetur 

liber cassiodori de institutionibus divinarum scripturarum. 
leronimus contra jovinianum in uno volumine, ubi etiam est leronimus 

de menbris [sic] domini. 
Hystoria ecclesiastica in uno volumine. 
Cronica Eusebii leromini prosperi sigeberti monachi gemblacensis in uno 

losephus in duobus voluminibus. 


Egesippus in uno volumine. 

Vita Karoli et Alexandri et gesta normannorum ducum et alia. 

Hysteria Anglorum in uno volumine. 

Eabanus super matheum in uno volumine. 

[B]eda super cantica canticorum in uno volumine. 

Beda super parabolas Salomonis in uno volumine. 

Beda super lucam in uno volumine. 

Beda super actus apostolorum in uno volumine. 

Beda de temporibus in uno volumine, ubi etiam est compotus alberici. 

Beda de tabernaculo, in quo continentur liber Augustini de penitentia, de 
X cordis, de x plagis, et epistola Boetii contra euticen et tractatus 
m[agistri] h[ugonis] super antiphonam ' tota pulcra es.' 

Beda super Marcum in uno volumine. 

Beda super vii canonicas epistolas in uno volumine, ubi etiam est expo- 
sitio ejusdem super apocalipsin. 

Eabanus de corpore et sanguine domini, ubi etiam Guimundus et Lan- 
francus de eodem et dominus vobiscum. 

Bernardus super cantica canticorum in uno volumine. 

Ambr[osius] super lucam in uno volumine. 

Exameron Ambr[osii] in uno volumine. 

Ambr[osius] de fide in uno volumine. 

Ambr[osius] super * beati immaculati ' in uno volumine. 

Ambr[osius] de officiis in uno volumine, in quo etiam continetur enchi- 
ridion, epistola johannis episcopi ad theodorum monaclium et alia de 
milicia spiritali et tercia de milicia Christi et liber ejusdem de eo quod 
non leditur quis nisi a se ipso et de compunctione et reparatione 

Ambr[osius] de conflictu vitiorum in uno volumine, ubi etiam sunt omelie 
xiiii admonaclios et omelie Eusebii de pascha et vite Abbatum Oddonis, 
Maioli, Odilonis, Egidii. 

Ambrosius de penitincia, ubi etiam Ambr[osius] de bono mortis expositio, 
Bede super tobiam, Ambr[osius] de Misteriis, ambrosius de sacramentis. 

Ambr[osius] de virginitate, ubi etiam Ambrosius de lapsu virginis conse- 

Liber qui vocatur speculum in uno volumine. 

Liber Oddonis Abbatis in uno volumine. 

Liber dementis in uno volumine. 

Liber Petri Eavenensis in uno volumine. 

Amalarius in uno volumine. 

Origenes super vetus testamentum in uno volumine. 

Origenes super librum numeri in uno volumine, ubi etiam sunt epistole 
leonis pape contra euticen et sermones sancti Augustini de unitate 
trinitatis et de incarn[atione] domini et sermones maximi episcopi de 
adventu domini. 

Epithalamium Origenis super cantica canticorum, ubi etiam est liber 
rabani mauri de institutionibus clericorum. 

Origenis super lesu nave, ubi etiam continetur liber qui vocatur sigillum 
Sancte Marie et exceptio (Gregorii) super cantica canticorum. 

Omelie orig[inis] super judicium, ubi etiam continentur sermones cujus- 
dam in precipuis festis. 


Ysidorus ethimologiarum in uno volumine. 

Ysidorus super eptaticum in uno volumine, ubi etiam est expositio Bede 
de muliere forte et de quattuor difficilibus, et quidam tractatus qui sic 
incipiunt ' dum medium silentium,' et responsiones Augustini ad ques- 
tiones orosii. 

Liber Anselmi ' cur deus homo ' in uno volumine, ubi etiam sunt libri 
ejusdem de conceptu virginali, Monologion, de incarnatione verbi, medi- 
tatio nostre Eedemptionis. 

Prosologion Anselmi in uno volumine, in quo continentur hii libri : de Con- 
cordia prescientie et predestinationis ac gratie Dei cum libero arbitrio, 
de processione spiritus sancti, de sacrificio azimi fermentati, et trac- 
tatus de veritate et de libero arbitrio et de casu diaboli et omelie 
Crisostomi de Laude Pauli. 

Petrus alfunsi contra judeos in uno volumine, ubi est etiam bestiarius. 

Item Petrus alfunsi contra judeos in alio volumine. 

Lamentationes Jeremie in uno volumine quas Rodbertus exposuit. 

Expositio super Apocalipsin in uno volumine. 

Prognosticon Julianii pomerii in uno volumine, in quo etiam continentur 
hii libri : Bacarius de reparatione lapsi, encheridion de bono conjugii 
Augustini, et Augustinus de bono virginitatis. 

Liber Eoberti Abbatis de benedictionibus patriarcharum in uno volumine, 
in quo etiam continentur Augustinus de origine anime, expositio 
canonis, sermo de sacramentis neophitorum, et tractatus de ordina- 
tione clericorum et de indumentis sacerdotalibus vel pontificalibus. 

Johannes Crisostomus super epistolam ad Hebreos in uno volumine. 

Hystoria tripartita in uno volumine, ubi etiam vita et miracula sancti 
Thome, archiepiscopi et m[artyris] et vita sancti David et brendani et 
brigide et petroci et cuthberti. 

Expositio m[agistri] H[ugonis] super ierarchiam Dionisii in uno volumine, 
ubi est etiam expositio Origenis super euuangelium * In principio e[rat] 
v[erbum] ' et expositio dominice orationis et expositio crisostomi in 
psalmum 1 in ii libris. 

Liber de sciente et nesciente, ubi etiam libellus de inquirente et respon- 
dente et multe alie sententie et narrationes^ miraculorum que in 
capite libri prenotate sunt. 

Anselmus super lohannem, ubi etiam miracula Petri abbatis cluniacensis 

Miracula Marie matris Domini in uno volumine, ubi etiam vita sancte 

Effrem in uno volumine, ubi etiam monita basilii et sinonima ysidori 

Epistole Leonis Pape in uno volumine, ubi etiam sermones Augustini de 
incarnatione Domini et omelie Cesarii ad monachos et vita Johannis 
elimonis episcopi. 

Instituta Monachorum in uno volumine, ubi etiam liber Roberti de 
conubio patriarche Jacob. 

Didimus in Spiritu Sancto in uno volumine, ubi etiam libri prosperi iii 
de vita contemplativa, de vitiis et virtutibus. 

Apocalipsis in uno volumine. 

' Narratdones : MS. narratiotones. 


Libellus imus qui sic intitulatur vita Sancti Cutliberti, ubi sunt et alia 

multa utilia. 
Matheus glosatus, ubi etiam parnomia yvonis. 
Item Matheus glosatus. 

Item Matheus glosatus, ubi est pars ysodori ethimologie. 
Marcus glosatus in corio presso. 
lohannis glosatus in corio presso. 
Lucas glosatus in corio presso. 
Omeliarii duo in duobus voluminibus. 
Passionarii iii in tribus voluminibus. 
Breviaria v, unum in duobus voluminibus de capella claustri, secundum 

in capella hospitum, tercium in infirmaria. 
In capella abbatis ii in iiij voluminibus. 
Sermones in refectorio in uno volumine. 
Lectionarius in duobus voluminibus. 
Liber ad collationem in uno volumine. 
Consuetudines cluniacenses in uno volumine. 
Liber episcopalis. 
Libri missales ad majorem missam tres, unus in cappis argento opertus 

et super auratus, alter in albis et dominicis argento tectus, tercius 

cotidianis ad missam matutinalem unus. 
Ad missas privatas tam in ecclesia quam in capellis per totum, scilicet 

XV plenarii, duo parvi. 
Libri graduales undecim offerendarii duo. 
Item in capella abbatis graduales ii et unus epistolaris. 
Item in capella Joseph duo troparii breviarium, unum quod fuit thome 

de Hida et missalis quem cum superioribus computavimus. 
Troparii ornati argento novem. 
Troparii pallis operti vi. 
Troparii simplices xiii. 
Libri processionales plenarii vi. 
Alii vii in rogationibus tantum. 
Antiphonarii vii. 
Epistolarii duo. 

CoUectanei duo, unus cotidianus, alter in cappis duo ad suffragia sanc- 
torum, quorum unus jugiter in choro. 
Quartus antiquus qui est ad sanctum Michaelem. 
Quintus qui est ad exequias defunctorum. 

Psalterium quod fuit Radulfi de Witchurche, item Psalterium Jordani. 
Psalteria noviciorum iii. 
Item iiii cathenata, duo in ecclesia, duo in infirmaria, unum quod fuit 

Glose super Psalterium et epistolas Pauli. 
Secunda pars sacramentorum Hugonis et ilia summa que sic incipit de f 

fide et spe, in uno volumine, ubi est etiam tractatus magistri Hugonis f 

de incorrupta virginitate beate Marie et tractatus Bernardi abbatis de 

deo et apologeticum ejusdem ad Willelmum abbatem. 
Epistole Senece in uno volumine. 
Matheus in uno volumine partim glosatus. 



Glose super Apocalipsin in uno volumine. 

Priscianus magnus et de constructionibus et de accentibus in uno volumine. 

Item priscianus magnus in uno volumine. 

Elenchi et topica Aristotilis in uno volumine. 

Boetius de consolatione pliilosopliie in uno volumine. 

Liber de Physica passionarius, scilicet qui fuit abbatis Anscherii, in uno 

volumine ; item liber graduum. 
E pistole Canonice glosate in uno volumine. 
Matlieus glosatus. 
Johannes glosatus. 
Lucas glosatus. 

Apocalipsis glosatus et cantica canticorum in uno volumine. 
Ambrosius de officiis. 

Tractatus magistri Hugonis de contemptu mundi. 
Historia scolastica et Radulfus super Leviticum in uno volumine. 

Hii Libri venerunt de Burdegal[ia]. 
Missale continens tantum collectas. 
Liber Evangeliorum tectus corio rubro. 
Liber epistolarum tectus eodem modo. 
Liber capituli. 

Libri de capella abbatis Joseph. 

Missale plenarium cum nota. 
Aliud continens tantum collectas. 
Liber evangeliorum. 
Epistolarius cum libro capituli. 
Duo gradalia. 

De capella abbatis de Hida. 

Missale quod superius computatum est. 

Aliud continens tantum collectas. 

Epistolarius in corio presso. 

Breviarium in duobus voluminibus sicut superius notatum est. 

Libri quos dedit Badulfus presbiter de Witkir\ 

Bucolica et Georgica virgilii. 
Ode et poetria et sermones etc. 
E pistole oratii. 

The following is a copy of the entry in the cartulary as to the 
books kept in the church at Leominster : — 

Hii libri habentur in Leonensi ecclesia. 

Biblioteca ex integro per ordinem. 

Augustinus super psalterium in tribus voluminibus. 

Augustinus de civitate dei. 

Augustinus super Johannem. 

Augustinus de vera religione et ejusdem soliloquia ; idem de quantitate 


anime in eodem volumine, in quo etiam scribitur liber Cassiodori de 

Epistole Augustini. 

Encheridion Augustini ; idem de mendatio in eodem volumine. 
Item Augustinus de mendatio in alio volumine. 
Oonfessiones Augustini. 
Miracula sancte marie. 

Duo omeliarii diversorum tractatorum utrosque incipiente Beda. 
Item Beda super canonicas epistolas et prima pars epitalamii super cantica 

canticorum in uno volumine. 
Moralium beati Gregorii pape libri xxii. 

Item vi quaterni secunde partis hoc est usque ad ilium locum. 
Kotula cum vita sancti Guthlaci anglice scripta. 
Quadraginta omelie Gregorii pape. 
Gregorius super Ezechielem in quo et quedam cantica canticorum 

Dialogus Gregorii cui inseruntur et alia quedam soliloquia Augustini. 
Eegistrum Gregorii pape. 
Exameron Ambrosii. 
Ambrosius de officiis. 
Ysidorus super eptaticum. 
Ysidorus de summo bono. 
Pars quedam licit minima expositiopais super libros regum cum historia de 

Ysidorus Ethimologiarum imperfectus. 

Quedam omelie origenis super librum judicum et Ysaiam et Jeremiam. 
Origenis super Leviticum. 
Cassiodorus super psalterium. 
Prima quinquagena psalterii secundum Gilebertum Porreti et item a 

Dixit dominus usque in finem libri in eodem volumine quod corio 

rubro tectum est. 
Expositio super apocalipsin in cujus fine diversorum philosophorum 

epistole et sententie scribuntur. 
Expositio super librum losue et epistole canonice glosate et apocalipsis 

simul in eodem volumine. 
Decem collationes. 
Liber Oddonis abbatis. 
Sermo de nativitate domini cum diversis diversorum doctorum sermoni- 

bus quos sequitur vita lohannis Elimonis in eodem volumine. 
Diadema monachorum. 
Excerpta moralium. 
Vite patrum. 
Sermones in festis in refectoris legendi et in eodem volumine omelie 

Eusebii de pascha et omelie Cesarii ad monachos. 
Medicinalis unus anglicis litteris scriptus. 
Sermones ad collationem. 
Liber Hugonis abbatis Eading. 
Vita beati Anselmi. 


Liber qui appellatur landboc. 

Vita sancti Brendani et sancti Brigide et sancti David et passio sancti 

Edwardi Kegis et Martiris in uno volumine. 
Tractatus magistri Hugonis de archa domini. Idem de ecclesiasticis sacra- 

mentis in eodem volumine cum diversis sententiis Anselmi Bernard i 

Clarevair abbatis. 
Sententie magistri Petri. 

Hii libri glosati. 

Johannes, Matheus, [M]arcus Psalterium. Item Psalterium. Psalterium 
imperfectum, in quo etiam scribuntur cantica canticorum. Parabole 
Salomonis et ecclesiastes in uno volumine. Item parabole Salomonis et 
ecclesiastes in uno volumine. Duodecim prophete epistole Pauli 
apocalipsis. Item apocalipsis. Missales vi. Textus evangelorum 
duo excepto parvo. Epistolare unum. Gradales vi. Processionalia 
X. Coll[ationarii] ii. Antiphonarii iiii. Breviaria iiii. Diurnale i. 
Lectionarii iii. Troparii x. Psalteria iii. Ymn[alia] ii. Libri con- 
suetudinum iii. Ad sepulturam defunctorum et obsequia egrotantium 
liber unus libri capituli ii. Passio sancti Thome et miracula ejus. 

S. Barfield. 


ScNCE my article on this subject in the last number of the Keview 
was in type, it has occurred to me that I may have been unjust to 
Glamorgan in supposing that the word * primo ' inserted in the 
patent of his dukedom was forged by him or by his instructions in 
1660. Is it not possible that it was added in 1645, and that too 
with the approval of Charles I ? 

When the warrant directing the law officers of the crown to 
take the necessary steps for conferring a dukedom upon Glamorgan's 
father was signed, on 6 Jan. 1645, the old man was not to proceed 
farther for fear of drawing attention to his son's services in Ireland. 
The question would then arise as to the relation of the warrant to 
the patent of dukedom previously granted to Glamorgan. It would 
not do to destroy it, as if the father died before the warrant was 
taken to the signet office, there would then be no dukedom at all. 
On the other hand, upon the hypothesis which I have provisionally 
adopted, that there had been some ill feeling between the father 
and son, it is intelligible that the old man would not have been well 
pleased to know that Glamorgan had in his possession a patent 
bearing a date eight months before his own warrant, and might 
therefore produce it as giving him precedence over his father. This 
last difficulty would be removed by altering the date. If Worcester 
lived to produce his warrant and to have his patent made out, his 
son, whose patent was now dated 4 May 1645, could not come 


before him ; whereas, if Worcester died before sending his warrant 
to the signet office, Glamorgan could show his own patent, and it 
would not be of much consequence to him whether it was dated in 
1644 or in 1645. Such a thing might have been done by family 
arrangement, or it might have been done with the king's assent. 
That it was so is, of course, only a guess, but it appears to me 
sufficiently probable to make me wish to withdraw the imputations 
upon Glamorgan's character which I founded on a different solution 
of the problem. 

Whilst I am upon the subject, I may add that I have recently 
met with a curious account by a certain Allan Boteler or Butler of 
an interview with Worcester at Eaglan, from which it appears that 
Worcester, at least, had no doubt that the king's authority to treat 
in Ireland was genuine. Boteler was employed to take a message 
from the king at Oxford to Ormond, and he passed through Eaglan 
on the way. His narrative is amongst the Carte MSS. XXX fol. 
307. He says that he left Oxford on 22 Feb. 1646, that is to say 
164|-, as neither was the king any longer at Oxford, or Worcester 
at Eaglan, in 164f . 

The extract relating to his conversation with Worcester is as 
follows : — 

'On that I delivered to his Lordship his Ma^'^Mnost gratious 
and comfortable message concerning my lord his sonne, with 
thankes for their former loyall expressions unto which my Lord 
Marquesse answ^ered that it was the griefe of his heart that he was 
inforced to say that the King was wavering and fickle, and that at 
his Ma*'®^ last being there, he lent him a booke to read in his 
chamber, the beginning of which he knowes he read, but if he had 
ended it, it would have shewed him what it was to be a fickle 
Prince, for was it not enough, said his Lordship, to suffer him the 
Lord Glamorgan to be unjustly imprisoned by the Lord Marquesse 
of Ormond for what he had his Ma*'^^ authority for ; but that the 
King must in print protest against his proceedings and his owne 
allowance, and not yett recall it ; but I will pray for him, and that 
he may be more constant to his freinds, saith my Lord.' 

The book referred to is known to have been Gower's from a 
passage in Bayly's * Golden Apophthegms,' p. 5, and it was no 
doubt the ' Confessio Amantis.' The photograph of the king's 
warrant to Glamorgan, from which the facsimile which accompanied 
my article was made, has since been deposited in the manuscript 
room of the British Museum. Samuel K. Gardiner. 

1888 127 

Reviews of Books 

Histoire du Peuple d'lsrael. Par Eenest Renan. Tome I. 
(Paris : Calraann Levy. 1887.) 

The first volume of M. Kenan's new work carries down the history of 
Israel to the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of King David. 
Two more volumes are written, though they still await the author's final 
touches ; these will continue the narrative ' to the epoch of Ezra, that is 
up to the definitive establishment of Judaism.' To these volumes, for the 
revision of which he allows himself two years, M. Renan hopes to add 
a fourth, upon the period of the Hasmoneans ; but to this part of his 
plan he attaches less importance, believing that the fourth volume 
will be comparatively easy to write, and that in case of necessity 
a translation of one of the many German books on the subject would 
suffice to stop the gap. It is somewhat difficult to understand how 
M. Renan, who is fully possessed by the idea that the whole significance 
of the history of Israel lies in the sphere of religion, comes to hold that 
the period subsequent to the work of Ezra has been already so satisfactorily 
elucidated that (as he puts it) ' one may almost say that there are not two 
ways' of writing about it. It would seem that he attaches little importance 
to the obscure tract of two and a half centuries which separates Ezra from 
the Maccabee revolt, and no doubt as regards the political record that period 
is almost an absolute blank. But for the history of religion these cen- 
turies are of the highest importance. It was during them that the 
religious and social life of Israel reshaped itself in accordance with the 
institutions of Ezra. The legal establishment of Judaism was completed 
by Ezra and Nehemiah ; but the establishment of the law in the hearts 
of the people was another matter. No one who passes from the memoirs 
of Nehemiah to the first book of Maccabees can fail to perceive that in the 
interval enormous changes had taken place in the tj^e of national life and 
national religion. The problem which this observation suggests has never 
been thoroughly worked out ; but materials for its solution are not lack- 
ing, and the Psalter in particular, of which a great part must be assigned to 
the latter part of the Persian period and the first generations of the Greek 
empire, supplies the basis for a research not inferior in interest and im- 
portance to anything that remains to be done for the earlier ages of the 
sacred history. 

As regards this first volume, the author gives us fair warning that we are 
to look not so much for a history as for a half-imaginative reconstruction 
of the general movement of society and religion in those dark ages that 


preceded the liistorical period of Israel's life. In the history of Israel there 
are, we are told, no certain material facts before David ; the sources for 
everything prior to his time resolve themselves into ' epical tradition.' 
In such stories it is vain to ask what happened ; our business is to picture 
to ourselves the various ways in which things may have happened. En 
pareil cas toute phrase doit etre accompagnee d'un peut-etre. Or, again : 
Comme pour la ' Vie de Jesus,' je reclame pour le present volume, consacre 
a des temps fort obscurs, im peu de Vindulgence qiCon a coutume d'ac- 
corder aux voyants, et dont les voyants ont hesoin. Meme, quand j'aurais 
mal conjecture sur quelques points, je suis sHr d'avoir hien compris dans 
son ensemble Vceuvre unique que le Souffle de Dieu, c'est-d-dire Vdme du 
monde, a realisee par Israel. These words sufficiently characterise the 
difference between M. Eenan's method and that of the critical historians 
of Germany and Holland. It would be unfair to say that M. Renan 
makes no use of the critical analysis of Hebrew texts, or that a writer like 
Wellhausen is devoid of historical imagination. But in the German school 
the historical imagination is held under control, and laborious analysis and 
evaluation of the sources govern the whole construction of the history. 
In the present volume the analytical process is not only kept quite in the 
background, but has really very little influence on the author's conclusions. 
The faculty of imagination, or, as M. Renan prefers to say, of divination, 
rules supreme, and controls the use made of critical results. 

It would not be fair to pronounce a final judgment on M. Renan 's 
work from the fragment now before us, but hitherto the auspices are far 
from favourable. He tells us himself that nothing in the history of Israel 
is explicable without the patriarchal age, and it is plain, even at this 
stage, that his reconstruction of the patriarchal age is altogether wrong, 
and must equally be wrong whether the Pentateuchal narrative is his- 
torical or legendary. On the former supposition cadit qucestio ; it would 
be idle to ask whether M. Renan's view of the history can be reconciled 
with a literal adhesion to tradition. His position is that the patriarchs 
never existed, but that Genesis and the book of Job depict with a certain 
amount of idealisation a life which did exist in the patriarchal age. Abra- 
ham is not an historical character, in truth he was borrowed by the 
imagination of the Hebrew nomad from the figure of an ancient king of 
Ur, which they had opportunities of seeing on Babylonian cylinders.^ 
But the colour of the stories of Genesis is true ; they represent the life of 
the nomadic Semites as it really was, as it still is among the Arabian 
Bedouins, or as it is described in the legends of the Arabs before Mohammed, 
especially in the * Kitab al-Aghani,' to which M. Renan makes constant 
references, but always — and very prudently — without descending to par- 
ticulars. A generation ago it was fashionable to call Abraham an Arab 
sheikh : M. Renan is content to say that he is the type of an Arab 
sheikh ; but in point of fact it would be difficult to specify a single feature 
of resemblance between the patriarchal life, as described in Genesis, and 

' By a prodigious feat of philological audacity, M. Benan conjectures that Abraham 
means 'father Orham,' the letters he and hcth being confounded in the most ancient 
Semitic. But this act of prowess, which few will venture to imitate, is unhappily 
thrown away. The Babylonian word may be read Uruk, or Amilapsi, or Urbagas, or 
Likbagas, or no one knows how. 


the life of the modern Bedoum, which is not either superficial or part of 
the general difference between eastern and western society. And, on the 
other hand, the points of difference between the life of the patriarchs and 
the ordinary life of a nomad group are many and fundamental. On this 
question an appeal may confidently be taken to every one who either 
knows the modern Bedouin or has made any serious study of the * Aghani ' 
and other documents of Arabian life before Islam. But, indeed, it is 
enough to appeal to the Bible itself. The Hebrews knew the wild men of 
the desert, and the patriarchal history draws their type in the person of 
Ishmael. The author who drew this figure was certainly not of M. Kenan's 
mind as to the identity of the patriarchal and the nomadic life. The 
picture of the patriarchal age is an ideal picture, but it is not idealised from 
the life of the Semitic nomads, whose hand was against every man and 
every man's hand against them. If we accept the picture presented in 
Genesis literally, it displays a miraculous life. And the miracles in the his- 
tory of the patriarchs are not mere garnishing which can be stripped off 
and still leave the image of a real state of society. That Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob could roam at large through Palestine without fear and without 
war, though they were aliens from their own kin, and had not become the 
protected dependants of another kin, is a standing miracle, and on this 
miracle everything else in the history of Genesis depends. If the super- 
natural explanation is given up, the whole notion of a patriarchal age falls 
to the ground ; we must then assume with the Dutch and German critics 
that the picture in Genesis is idealised, in a way quite unhistorical, from 
the conditions of Hebrew life in the ninth and tenth centuries B.C., when 
the nomadic past of Israel already lay hid in the mists of antiquity, and 
we must hold that the actual condition of the Hebrews in the nomadic 
age was of the far ruder and wilder type to which all other evidence points. 
In the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as they are depicted in Genesis, 
the lack of a stable home is a mere incident dependent on the super- 
natural call to sojourn in a land not their own. In every other respect 
their life is of a type inconceivable in the true nomad, but precisely 
similar to that of a great householder in the time of David and his suc- 
cessors. They are not chiefs of tribes but heads of families, and their 
family life is indistinguishable from that of the earlier ages of the Hebrew 
kingdom, the only golden time which the prophets know. According to 
M. Kenan's own chronology, the history of the patriarchs was set down in 
writing in the same age in which the prophets continually speak of the 
first days of the kingdom as Israel's ideal past. Are we to beheve that in 
spite of this the ideal of the Pentateuch and the ideal of the prophets are 
two entirely different types of life ? 

But, again, with the fall of the theory of a non- supernatural ' golden 
age ' of Semitic antiquity ( Preface, p. 10) falls also the theory of a 
natural monotheistic tendency of the Semitic race, which is the corner- 
stone of M. Kenan's whole construction of the religious development of 
Israel. The monotheism of the patriarchs in the book of Genesis is not 
natural monotheism, and it does not resemble anything which has existed 
in Semitic lands apart from the influence of Judaism and Christianity. 
It is vain to appeal to Islam or to the movements in Arabia which 
preceded Islam, for these are demonstrably dependent on the influence of 

VOL. III. — NO. IX. ^ 


the synagogue and the church. And everything of monotheistic tendency 
or of the nature of what is called monolatry which M. JRenan adduces in 
support of his thesis from the phenomena of the older Semitic religions 
has its parallel among other races. To compare the Semitic tribal 
religions with the Pan-Hellenic religion of Homer or with the not less 
secondary religion of the Vedas is to beg the question. When Semitic 
society ceased to be purely tribal, Semitic religion showed as little ten- 
dency to monotheism as the religions of Greece or of India. It was in 
Israel alone, and solely through the work of the prophets, that Semitic 
particularism in religion grew into a universal monotheism, or even 
showed more tendency to grow in that direction than can be observed 
among other races under similar historical conditions. All this might be 
illustrated in detail if space permitted, but here a single example must 
suffice to show how boldly M. Kenan bends facts to suit his hypothesis. 
At p. 40 he maintains that of all ancient peoples known to us the Semites 
were certainly the least prone to gross practices of sorcery. A very different 
impression is left by the Bible (e.g. Deut. xviii.), by the monuments of 
Arabian antiquity, by what we know of Harranian heathenism, and by 
the magical superstitions that long lingered in christian Syria,^ or still 
survive in all parts of the Semitic east. Or if monotheism is an affair 
of race, by what right is Babylon excluded from the induction, which all 
antiquity looked on as the chosen home of sorcery and magic arts ? To 
divide Babylon from the nomadic Semites is to change the problem from 
one of race to one of environment. 

The hypothesis of a natural monotheism, even in the attenuated form 
in which it appears in M. Kenan's system, is simply a relic of the unhis- 
torical deism of last century, the only form of liberal thought which 
appears to be easily grafted on a strict Koman catholic education. The 
same influence appears in other parts of the volume, both in small 
matters — as when M. Kenan inclines to explain the miracles of the 
wilderness wanderings as pious frauds, or when he sneers at David for 
his habit of appealing to the oracle of Jehovah — and in things of more 
moment, particularly in his conception of the national element in Jehovah - 
worship as a grievous falling away from the simplicity of patriarchal 
faith. One is curious to know how M. Kenan will explain the work of 
the prophets on the view that the national character of the religion of 
Israel contributed to the development no elements of positive worth. 

The limits of a notice like the present make it impossible to follow 
M. Kenan from page to page and judge every part of his construction in 
its relation to the whole. As regards the material facts of the early 
history he is, as we have seen, disposed to reduce to very small compass 
all that can be certainly known for the time before David. He holds, 
with most recent inquirers, that the Hebrews originally issued from 
Arabia by the north-eastern route, and traversed as nomads the pastures 
bordering on the Euphrates, ascending as far as the region of Harran. 
Here they came in contact with Babylonian ideas, through the medium 
of the Aramaeans of Mesopotamia, and to this early influence M. Kenan 
ascribes the traditions embodied in the first twelve chapters of Genesis. 

'^ See especially Lagarde, Bel. iuris cedes, ant. pp. 230 sqq. 


From Harran the nomads moved southwards into Canaan, where they 
found a race speaking the same language and of closely kindred stock, 
but of very different character, so that no fusion took place between the 
immigrants and the Canaanites. In the district of Hebron, however, 
they lived in amity with the Hittite population, whose near relatives were 
the Hyksos of the Egyptian delta. These ' Hittites of Zoan ' probably 
attracted to Egypt a portion of the Hebrew nomads (the tribe of Joseph), 
and these were afterwards joined by other bands. As regards the resi- 
dence in Goshen only one thing is certain — Israel entered Egypt under a 
dynasty favourable to the Semites and left it under a hostile dynasty. 
The exodus is assigned to the period of decadence that followed 
the glorious reign of Eamses II, the Louis XIV of Egypt. All the 
details, perhaps even the personality of Moses, are uncertain ; it is not 
probable that the Egyptians sought to retain the Hebrews by force. The 
Hebrews left Egypt with their old religion changed not a little for the 
worse. Egypt gave them the golden calf, the brazen serpent, the lying 
priestly oracle, the Levite ' who was the leper of Israel ' — all mischievous 
things which had to be eliminated in the future progress of religion. 
Moreover, the gentle temper of the primitive nomad was changed to 
harshness and obstinacy by the yoke of oppression ; and the faith in the 
special care of Jahve for Israel, which was developed (not without the 
aid of pious fraud) by the experiences of the wilderness, strengthened 
national feeling at the expense of the sublime and true idea of primitive 
Elohism. ' The national idea desired a God who thought only of the 
nation, and who in the interests of the nation was cruel, unjust, an 
enemy of the human race.' The * adoption of Jahve seems to have been 
consummated at the Sinaitic epoch,' but what actually happened at Sinai 
is obscure. Sinai is a mountain of terror, whose storms were conceived 
as awful theophanies. In some such storm the Israelites believed that 
Jahve appeared to them, and they left the sacred mountain fuU of terror 
and persuaded that a very powerful deity dwelt in its summits. It is 
scarcely probable that the theophany gave occasion to Moses to put forth 
any moral precepts. In truth the role of Moses seems to have been 
' rather that of a chief like Abd-el-Kader than of a prophet like Ma- 

All the characteristic features in this outline of the origins of Israel 
are more or less arbitrary. There is absolutely no evidence that the 
Babylonian elements in the traditions of Genesis reached the Hebrews 
through the Aramaeans of Harran rather than through the Phoenicians, 

I it is certain that they show no sign of having been the property of a 
nomadic race, and there is no probability that they all date from the 
same period. M. Renan does not regard the first twelve chapters of 
Genesis as a literary unity : on this point he accepts the analysis of 
modern criticism. But on purely subjective grounds he refuses to believe 
that one of the two main documents is of the same origin with the Levitical 
legislation, both forming part of the document which is denoted by the 
symbol A. He sees that the legislation of A must be postexilic, and he 
will not believe that the first chapter of Genesis is later than the time of 
Hezekiah. It so happens that the unity of the document A is the most 
absolutely fixed point in criticism ; the date may still be disputed, but 
K 2 


critics of every school are agreed that the separation which M. Kenan 
desires is altogether impossible. But this does not affect the serene con- 
fidence with Avhich he maintains his own view, not bringing any new 
arguments (though the thing has been often discussed before in the same 
form), but merely waving the Dutch and the Germans aside with a polite 
sneer as worthy people who are trammelled by their narrow protestant 
education and have not got enlarged views of ancient history.^ The 
appeal to the judgment of personal self-confidence as the standard of 
truth is made in the most engaging manner, but ,the fact remains that, 
on a point of capital importance for the problems of Hebrew history, 
we have no better evidence than that M. Eenan knows himself to be a 
great deal wiser than the Germans, and that his impressions are more 
valuable than their arguments. Accordingly we may be sure that his 
view about the document A will satisfy nobody, and with its rejection all 
his ingenious speculations about the Hebrews and the Hittites, and a 
great deal that he has to say about Israel in the wilderness and about the 
conquest of Canaan, simply fall to the ground. 

Not better founded is the account of the influence of Egypt on Hebrew 
religion as regards the Levites and the oracle of Jahve. The oracle in 
its oldest form is merely the sacred lot, an institution universal among 
the Semites and one of the common possessions of all early faiths. 
M. Benan regards the appeal to Jahve as a dark spot in the record of 
Hebrew religion, a corruption of primitive Elohism, and therefore he 
gives it a foreign origin. But can he point to any nation in the stage of 
the Hebrews under the judges which had no such way of appealing to 
the decision of God ? Finally the conception of Moses as a sort of Abd- 
el-Kader is without all foundation in the texts and is absolutely incon- 
sistent with Semitic analogy. It is brought in (along with an absurd 
idea that the warlike successes of Israel may have been due to an 
Egyptian contingent) to account for the military superiority of the 
Hebrews in their conflict with the Canaanites. But the weakness of the 
nomadic Semites in military enterprises has never been due to want of 
generalship (witness the abundance of able soldiers that the first genera- 
tion of Islam produced), but wholly to the want of cohesion between the 
tribes. And this again is due to tribal pride or vanity, which refuses to 
acknowledge any human authority except in a tribesman. It has been 
well shown by Wellhausen that according to the most ancient texts the 
main function of Moses was to judge between the contending interests of 
tribes and families by an authority not human but divine, and the same 
scholar has pointed out that Mohammed was largely indebted for his 
success to the very cause that gave authority to Moses ; his judgments 
did not offend family or tribal susceptibility because they were spoken in 
the name of Allah and therefore involved no humiliation of one kindred 
before another. This is the true historical use of analogy, for it compares 
the operation of similar causes in similar circumstances, whereas the 
analogy of Abd-el-Kader is not only absolutely vague, but ignores that 
fundamental diffel'ence between the Maghrib and the true Semitic lands, 
which forces itself upon the notice of every student of the history of Islam. 

^ See his articles in the Revue des Deux Mondes, March 1886. 


In M. Kenan's account of the conquest of Canaan and the settlement 
of the tribes there is Httle which calls for notice except a certain con- 
fusedness of treatment due to a combination of general distrust in the 
historical tradition with a half-hearted adherence to the document iu 
One detail, however, may be signalised as showing a somewhat singular 
misapprehension of the use of historical analogy on which our author 
piques himself. To illustrate the relations of the Israelites to their 
Canaanite neighbours in the cities that were not conquered, he appeals to 
the relations between the Metawila of Syria and their neighbours of 
other races. ' One must see these mixed or rather double villages, where 
two populations live side by side, hating and yet tolerating one another. 
Almost aU Turkey presents the same spectacle.' But surely every one 
who knows Syria is aware that this state of things could not be maintained 
except under the sovereignty of the Turkish empire. Both parties fear 
the pasha. Modern Syria is a good analogy to illustrate the condition of 
Palestine under the Achaemenians, but it is no analogy for the age of the 
judges, when there was no external power pressing on Hebrews and 
Canaanites alike. At that time, where Hebrews and Canaanites lived 
together, the relation of the two races must have been much more similar 
to the relation between Arabs and Jews in Medina before the Hijra, and 
this is the conception which all the texts bear out. 

The period of the judges is treated in the volume before us in a spirit 
of superficial eclecticism which is somewhat surprising. On M. Kenan's 
own view that real definite history begins with David, one is necessarily 
led to conclude that the preceding period lies enveloped not in absolute 
darkness but in a semi-historical penumbra. Here, therefore, if anywhere, 
exact historical criticism, the laborious separation of primary and 
secondary sources, is indispensable. It is impossible that fable should 
end and history begin quite abruptly, and equally impossible that the 
transition should take place, in a narrative so visibly composite as that 
of the book of Judges, without history and legend overlapping each other 
in a way which can be detected by a careful analysis of the texts. In the 
story of Deborah and Barak, where a contemporary poetical document 
stands side by side with a later prose narrative, or in the story of Gideon, 
where two parallel records have been carefully distinguished by modern 
scholars, it seems inconceivable, on his own premisses, that M. Kenan 
should be able to dispense himself from the task of critical analysis. Yet even 
in these cases we find nothing but a rechauffe of the compound narrative, 
affecting a spurious appearance of criticism by the mechanical rejection 
of supernatural detail. Even more disappointing is the treatment of the 
episode of Abimelech — perhaps the most instructive portion of the whole 
book of Judges — where M. Kenan misses every point, even the obvious 
one that up to this date Shechem was a purely Canaanite city, and that 
the short-lived sovereignty of Abimelech was built not on Hebrew but 
on Canaanite support.'* 

The last point in M. Kenan's narrative on which some remark may 

* The evidence for this fundamental point is quite independent of certain acknow- 
ledged difficulties in the text of Judges ix ., for which various solutions have been pro- 
posed, and which the present reviewer has attempted to remove by transposing verses 
28, 29, and making them follow on verse 22. {Theologisch Tijdschrift, March 1886.) 


here be made, is his strong prejudice against David, in whom he can see 
nothing more than a clever and successful bandit. Until recently the 
true founder of the Hebrew state has been judged less as a king than as a 
psalmist, and from this point of view it was natural that two diametrically 
opposite views should be taken of his character. The church has conse- 
crated him as a saint : the deistic reaction, unjustly but from its own 
standpoint not at all unnaturally, has stigmatised him as a hypocrite. 
M. Eenan, who does not believe that David wrote psalms, or that in him 
the king was sunk in the liturgical dilettante of the book of Chronicles, 
ought, one imagines, to have been able to take an independent view of a 
character which, religion apart, is one of the most remarkable in Semitic 
history. But his love of startling antithesis prevails, and he sacrifices all 
attempt at historic justice to a brilliant page contrasting ' the brigand of 
Adullam and Ziklag ' with the ideal type of the Messiah, the imaginary 
author of ' the sentiments full of resignation and tender melancholy con- 
tained in the most beautiful of liturgical books.' This may be literature, 
but it is not history. The historian has to judge David as a king, and to 
judge him from his whole career. We know that his reign dwelt in the 
affectionate memory of Israel long before the nation had become a church 
and before the renown of the warrior and judge was overshadowed by the 
fame of the psalmist. The nation was grateful for deliverance from the 
Philistines, but it also remembered that David ' did justice and judgment 
to all his people.' ■' These are substantial titles to an honourable place in 
history, against which neither the weakness of an old age exhausted by 
martial toil nor the ambiguous conduct of some parts of an adventurous 
youth can fairly be set. The inner life of David as a king is revealed to 
us in a way unique in ancient history, through a document evidently 
dependent on the accounts of a contemporary observer, one who read 
faces and noted minute details with a subtlety which to the western 
reader recalls the memoirs of Saint-Simon, but which is not uncommon 
among the Arabs. This observer may have had his prejudices, but it is 
clear that his passion was the study of men, and that no prejudice would 
have induced him to suppress a characteristic trait. He spares none of 
David's weaknesses, and yet the king appears not only a far greater man, 
but a larger, better, and more generous nature than any of those about 
him. David's faults were those of his age, and the things in him that 
most offend us were not those that gave umbrage to his contemporaries. 
Even his great sin in the matter of Uriah would have been buried in 
oblivion but for his repentance. Now oriental sovereignty is not the thing 
to make a bad man better ; nay, even in a man whose general aims are 
high and beneficent, it is eminently calculated to produce the frame of 
mind which Abd-al-Malik described as wrought in himself — * that he had 
come to do good without feeling pleasure, and to do evil without feeling 
pain.' It is fair to read David's earlier life in the light reflected upon it 
by these considerations. He passed through conditions of extraordinary 
difficulty in which there was often no straight path, and in such circum- 
stances a certain amount of ruse is not only permitted but applauded by 
Semitic morality. But throughout a seemingly tortuous course he never 
failed to retain his own self-respect and the passionate devotion of all his 

■' 2 Sam. viii. 18. 


1888 REVIEWS OF BOOKS ' 135 

followers, and lie emerged from trials in which an ordinary nature would 
have made shipwreck to do his country services of the first order and to 
take a place in which he has no rival among Hebrew sovereigns. To 
condemn him because he was ambitious would be to condemn every great 
man whose career is impelled by an inward consciousness of strength : 
what we are to consider is that his ambition was noble and patriotic. 
That he played the traitor to Saul and to his country there is not a 
particle of evidence ; that he may have hoped to succeed Saul is possible, 
but this was not treason in a kingdom where there were as yet no fixed 
hereditary rights. The Philistines he certainly deceived ; but here his 
conduct, however contrary to our point of honour, was not such as to 
trouble the most sensitive Semitic conscience. That he had any responsi- 
bility for the death of Abner is a pure imagination. M. Kenan wonders 
that he did not punish Joab, but under the law of blood-revenge Joab 
was strictly within his right. Finally, when M. Renan says that few 
natures seem to have been less religious than David's, and charges him 
with an absolute lack of the sentiment of justice, he seems to use a false 
standard both of religion and of justice. David's religion was not cosmo- 
politan ; in his faith as in all his life he was an Israelite, bound by that 
strict national feeling — and even respect for national prejudice — which 
was then the basis of the whole code of right and honour. But it is a great 
mistake to suppose that the social virtues are based on cosmopolitanism, 
that a religion which does not look beyond the nation cannot be a true 
and powerful force in favour of right conduct. If Jahvism had not been 
in its origin a national religion, it could never have become a practical 
force ; its ethical influence wdthin the nation was the necessary basis of 
its ethical influence on mankind. M. Renan seems to think that David's 
devotion to Jahve was not true religion because he consulted oracles and 
because he was sometimes treacherous and cruel to the enemies of his 
country. But this only means that a good man would not act now as 
David did nearly three thousand years ago. The test of individual 
piety is not whether a man strikes out a new code of morals in 
advance of his age, but whether in the fear of God he does his duty loyally 
and trustfully according to the standard of his times, and when he sins 
returns to God in true and honest repentance. So much can safely be 
said of David, and it can also be said of him that in the most critical 
moments of his life he maintained that calm and resolute submission to 
the divine will which makes the strength of a truly religious character 
and raises the servant of God above the fear of man. 

W. Robertson Smith. 

Gesta di Federico I in Italia, descritte in versi latini da anonimo con- 
temporaneo, ora pubblicate secondo un MS. della Vaticana a cura di 
Ernesto Monaci. (Fonti per la storia d' Italia pubblicate dall' Istituto 
Storico Italiano.) (Roma : 1887.) 

The ItaHan Historical Institute, founded for the purpose of reproducmg 
the great work of Muratori by publishing the sources of the medieval 
history of Italy, could not better inaugurate its collection than by this 
volume. Hitherto we have only known of two contemporary Italian 



accounts of Frederick I's achievements in Italy which are of much 
importance : one by a Milanese, called by some the Sire Raoul, which 
extends to 1167 ; the other by Otto and Acerbus Morena, which comes 
down to 1168. Other minor writers furnish here and there some informa- 
tion, among them Godfrey of Viterbo, whose nationality is dubious, whether 
it was Italian or German, and whose reputation seems to us greater than 
his merit. But these are all scanty sources which lead us necessarily to 
German sources, especially to Otto of Freising and his continuators, for 
details of the great struggle between Barbarossa and the Lombards from 
the time of the diet of Roncaglia to the hardly won peace of Constance. 

Some years ago Professor Monaci discovered in the Vatican library 
a third contemporary narrative of Italian origin. The short extract which 
lie published at the time of the discovery in the Archivio of the Societa 
Romana di Storia Patria, gave such valuable details regarding the corona- 
tion of Barbarossa in Rome, and the death of Arnold of Brescia, that it 
awakened a lively desire, especially in Italy and Germany, for its entire 
publication, and this desire has at last been satisfied by the eminent 
Roman scholar. His discovery consists of an heroic poem of over 
three thousand verses, embracing a period shorter than that described by 
the so-called Sire Raoul and the Morena, as it stops in a.d. 1160 after 
the battle of Carcano, but at the same time extending over a larger field, 
as it also follows the course of events outside Lombardy and thus opens 
out a wide view of the early phase of the struggle between the Lombard 
municipalities and Barbarossa. It appears to have been certainly com- 
posed between 1162 and 1166 by an anonymous poet of Bergamo, when 
that city still espoused the emperor's interests. The poem indicates great 
admiration for the emperor, and it appears likely that the author had 
spent some time at his court and been an eye-witness of the exploits he 
relates. But in the account of each individual circumstance his good 
faith and exact knowledge of the facts are evident. Honest, in spite of 
being a partisan, the Bergamasque poet sometimes rebels against what is 
blameworthy, and his verse adopts a reproachful tone in describing the 
death of Arnold of Brescia, or the horrible massacre of the hostages before 
the beleaguered walls of Crema. ' A calm spirit of independence and rec- 
titude,' the editor well remarks, ' seems to brood over these pages.' More- 
over, the exactitude of his narrative is such as to enhance his importance 
as an original authority, and it is also so evidently well informed as to 
render valuable its confirmation of other sources. When on the other hand 
it is in disagreement with them, it leads often to a modification of the nar- 
rative as given by them, -or completes what they have left out. Thus, for 
instance, where he relates Frederick's visit to the Bolognese studio, 
besides adding to our knowledge regarding Frederick and Bologna, it is 
also important for the history of jurisprudence and of the general condi- 
tion of the universities, as Giesebrecht pointed out in the transactions of 
the Munich Academy. In other cases where it appears that he knew 
some of the other contemporary writings, such as the ^ Gesta Friderici ' of 
Otto of Freising, it is evident that he does not follow them blindly, but 
either adds something of his own, or expresses himself in a manner 
characteristic of his own point of view. Writing in an age which saw 
the revival of classicism and the love of ancient Roman literature, the 



anonymous poet of Bergamo adorns his historical narrative with remi- 
niscences of the classic period. This obliges the student of history to be 
careful in not giving too literal an interpretation to his phrases, which 
are often put there as a classical imitation ; but the editor has attended 
to this point most diligently, marking in footnotes all the passages 
taken from the ancients. On this Professor Monaci observes justly : 
* Nor should the tinge of classicism which pervades these pages be after 
all displeasing to us. At that time it was free from all affectation ; 
indeed, it reproduces for us the true colouring of a period in which the 
reawakened feeling of romanism broke out energetically in a thousand 
forms, on one side encouraging imperial ambition, on the other inspiring 
the formation of communes. Humanism was not then a mere rhe- 
torical mask, it filled the thoughts and guided the actions ; and not 
only in public and official life, but also in private and artistic life, there 
was an effort to remodel everything on the antique. Thus among 
historical writings side by side with meagre annals and uncouth chronicles 
is to be found the heroic poem, and that movement which was produced 
by the current of Roman influence found its natural and not altogether 
inadequate expression in a form which was the same as that in which 
Lucanus and Silius Italicus had celebrated deeds in Roman history.' 

The editor's work in preparing this text and in commenting on it 
may be taken as a model of its kind, and since the edition is to initiate 
a long series of texts which are to be published gradually, it is to be 
hoped that the editors of future volumes may take this as an example of 
what ought to be done in these respects. To say everything is diffi- 
cult in certain cases ; but to say everything with great learning, and 
without ever saying too much, is one of the best and rarest virtues in an 
editor, and Professor Monaci has shown himself to possess this sense of 
proportion in the highest degree. The Italian Historical Institute also 
deserves real praise for the care given to the exterior elegance of this book, 
with which the future volumes will be uniform. The clear type, the solid 
hand-made paper, very commendable for editions destined to last and to 
be much handled, and above all the convenient octavo form adopted, 
instead of the unwieldy and expensive folio — all these advantages deserve 
recognition and gratitude from those who are wont to draw from these 
eaily sources their knowledge of history. Ugo Balzani. 

Lectures on the Bise and Early Constitution of Universities. By S. S. 
Laurie, A.M., Professor of the Institutes and History of Education in 
the University of Edinburgh. (London : Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co. 

Peofessor Laurie disclaims all pretensions to original research. He 
adds nothing to our knowledge of the subject ; but he brings together a 
good deal of knowledge which was not hitherto conveniently accessible. 
It is unfortunate that so many time-honoured blunders should be repeated 
in his pages. Professor Laurie has in fact given a new lease of life to 
a number of serious misconceptions as to the facts of medieval university 
history, and I am bound to say that he has himself seriously added to the 
number. The best that can be said for the book is that it is always 


lively, interesting, and readable, and often right. Fatlier Denifle's 
* Die Entstehung der Universititten des Mittelalters bis 1400,' we are 
told, did not come into tlie author's hands till he was correcting his 
second proofs, and he had only time for a cursory perusal of * the most 
of it.' ' The only change of moment which he has led me to make,' he 
tells us, * is in the place to be assigned to the rector and nations at 
Paris.' If we are to understand by this, that this was the only change 
of moment called for, we are sorry to be obliged most emphatically to 
dissent from Professor Laurie. 

Professor Laurie begins ab ovo. He treats of the history of education 
from 200 a.d., and in particular of the change effected by Christianity 
in the substance and spirit of education. This forms in many respects 
the most valuable and original portion of the book, for it is here that there 
is most room for the reflections of the philosophical historian. There is 
perhaps not very much in the way of historical fact that was not contained 
in Mr. Mullinger's ' Schools of Charles the Great,' and the same writer's 
most learned and interesting introduction to his ' History of the University 
of Cambridge.' But it represents a thoroughly independent view of the 
facts. Professor Laurie contributes a good deal towards a refutation of 
Pattison's reckless ascription of the decline of culture after the fifth 
century a.d. to the triumph of Christianity. He shows to what a very 
large extent that decline which synchronised roughly with the advance 
of Christianity was due to causes entirely independent of the attitude 
towards secular learning adopted by Christian theology, while he does full 
justice to the improvement which Christianity everywhere effected on 
popular culture, and to the educational work of the religious orders. In 
fact, we should hardly go beyond Professor Laurie's conclusions if we 
said that so much of the culture of the ancient world as survived the 
barbarian invasions survived by reason of its association with Christianity. 

Professor Laurie undoubtedly insists strongly on the narrowness of 
the patristic and early medieval conception of education. Christianity, 
he says, ' tended steadily to concentrate and contract men's intellectual 
interests' (p. 24). I cannot help feeling, however, that he somewhat 
underrates the intellectual advance implied in the acceptance of the 
Christian conception of the universe. 

* By the middle of the second century,' says Professor Laurie, ' philo- 
sophy was an intellectual game, personal morality a matter of convention 
and prudence, and rhetoric an artifice. The departure of moral earnestness 
in the pursuit of abstract truth was at the same time the signal for the de- 
parture of all sound education in other subjects. Words took the place of 
things, forms of realities ' (p. 13). Surely it was an intellectual advance 
that the mind was now absorbed by some realities, though it may have 
been supposed that ' the only realities . . . were scripture truth and the 
writings of the fathers ' (p. 37). Mr. Laurie occasionally gives too much 
countenance to the assumption that there is an incommunicable ' culture,' 
a peculiar expansion of mind, an indefinable ' liberality ' to be got out of 
the study of pagan poets, and out of nothing else. It seems to be for- 
gotten that the Bible and some of the fathers are literature, and literature 
of a higher order than Horace and Statius. 

I have dwelt at rather disproportionate length upon the introductory 


portion of Professor Laurie's book, because, from an historical point of 
view, I can give but very qualified praise to the rest of it. The one im- 
portant change made in the book since the author's ' cursory ' perusal of 
Father Denifle consists in the adoption of his view as to the origin of the 
nations at Paris. But this isolated correction has very much the effect 
of the new patch on the old garment of the gospel parable. Thus, on 
p. 152, he still misunderstands the passages on the strength of which 
the nations have been hitherto referred to the twelfth century, and 
makes Henry II refer his quarrel with Becket to the nations of Paris, 
though with the unintelligible qualification, * at least as provincial unions.' 
Again, he speaks (p. 133) of a universitas citramontanorum and a uni- 
versitas ultramontanorum in the years 1210-1220 at Bologna, though 
Savigny had conjectured and Denifle has proved that there were originally 
at least four universitates at Bologna. 

He repeats, or rather exaggerates, Sa\dgny's blunder of treating 
Frederick I's authentic habita in 1158 as ' the first formal recognition of 
the universitas of Bologna ' (p. 130). It was really a privilege conferred 
on all scholars in the Lombard kingdom. It may have been mainly 
intended to benefit Bologna, but it does not officially recognise the schools 
of Bologna, much less 'the universitas.' It is, indeed, misleading to 
speak of one universitas at all at Bologna. Then Professor Laurie repeats 
the old misinterpretation of the clause of that privilege which gives the 
scholar the option of being tried coram domino vel magistro suo, vel 
i])sius civitatis einscopo. Professor Laurie (p. 132) speaks of the scholar's 
right of being judged by the ' university authorities.' Dominus is merely 
a synonym for magister, not (as has sometimes been supposed) the rector. 
The student's master would not have been in any sense a ' university au- 
thority,' even had there been any university in existence at the time. Many 
of Professor Laurie's blunders would have been avoided by a very moderate 
amount of accuracy in the use of the older second-hand authorities. Thus, 
he tells us that ' in their capacity of scholars or students the professors 
exercised power along with those they taught ' (p. 138). Now Savigny 
correctly states that the professor had no vote whatever in the university 
congregations. He was eligible to the rectorship, but not to the office of 
consiliarius, unless he had previously held the office of rector. In this 
and not a few other cases Professor Laurie is not even consistent in error. 
Thus, on p. 164, he tells us that at Bologna the proctors (by which I 
presume he means the rectors) were elected by the students only. In the 
same sentence he tells us that the students at Paris took part in the 
election of rector. This statement probably arises from a misunderstand- 
ing of a passage in Denifle, a fact of which the author apparently begins 
to have some suspicions himself by the time he gets to p. 179, since he 
there says that at Paris, ' owing to the great youth of the students, it is 
the '* masters " who control the organisation.' 

Another good illustration of Professor Laurie's manner of handling 
his authorities is afforded by the statement (p. 155) that * Bulaeus tells us 
that it was necessary to pass a statute excluding from the university all 
under twelve years of age.' If I am not very much mistaken, the statute 
which Professor Laurie has in mind (he never refers to authorities) is one 
which- provides that nullus legat Parisiis de artibus citra 12 auTios 


(Bulseus, iii. p. 81). The 12 is a misprint for 21, though the provisions 
of the statute are elsewhere correctly given by Bulseus. A German 
historian has already commented gravely upon the extreme youth of the 
Parisian masters as evidenced by this statute. It has been reserved for 
Professor Laurie to misunderstand the word legat, which of course 
means * to lecture' as a master. Again (p. 161), we are told that the 
popes restricted the * episcopal power of excommunicating members of the 
university of Paris without the approval of the holy see being first ob- 
tained.' No one who was really familiar either with the actual constitu- 
tion of the university or with the frequency with which excommunication 
was practised in the middle ages could have fallen into such a mistake.^ 
The ordinary tribunal for the trial of cases in which scholars were engaged 
was the bishop's court. How could he have enforced his jurisdiction 
without excommunication ? The prohibition of Honorius III and 
Gregory IX refers to wholesale excommunication of the university en 
masse. In closing this list — which is very far from being exhaustive — of 
Professor Laurie's inaccuracies, I may mention tw^o errors which I have 
been unableto trace to their source. Professor Laurie (pp. 151, 158) speaks 
of an allusion to the ancient privileges of the university of Paris by Pope 
Alexander III in 1159. I have been unable to find the slightest trace of 
the existence of any bull of the kind. Then (p. 238) we are informed 
that at Oxford ' University College was instituted in 1232,' and on the next 
page an important inference is founded upon the statement. Even the 
University Calendar would have told Professor Laurie that William of 
Durham, out of whose bequest the college was founded, died in 1249. On 
p. 253, 1280 is given as the date of the foundation of ' University Hall, 
Oxford,' without any indication that the author is aware of the identity of 
the two institutions. 

But it is not only with university history that Professor Laurie is un- 
familiar. In fact, he is not at home in the middle ages at all, least of all in 
the medieval church. It is true that Professor Laurie has mastered the 
fact, which he announces with much solemnity (p. 202), that ' a simple 
deacon or monk was, as such, not a priest,' but canons regular are de- 
scribed as * monks ; ' the chancellor of the church is confounded with the 
chancellor of the diocese ; and, worst of all, the friars are habitually spoken 
of as * monks.' At times, too, it would appear that Professor Laurie uses 
the term ' regular clergy ' in the sense of the ' parochial clergy.' 

One of these mistakes is indeed fatal to any real appreciation of the 
Parisian university constitution. So little l^as Professor Laurie grasped 
the constitutional position of the chancellor, that though in one place he 
speaks of the university as subject to ' the superintendence of the chan- 
cellor of Notre-Dame,' in another (p. 223) he makes Innocent III write * to 
the bishop of Paris, as chancellor of the university.' 

When we turn from facts to generalisations. Professor Laurie's treat- 
ment of what we may call the theory of a university is marred by hopeless 
vagueness and self-contradiction. The book is entitled * The Rise and 
Early Constitution of Universities,' and the title of Lecture II., ' Rise 
of Universities,' has affixed to it the date 1100 a.d. But when we ask 

' It is fair to say that this mistake was made by Thurot, Maiden, and others. 


what it was that Professor Laurie supposes to have ' risen ' in 1100 a.d., 
the answer is not so clear. On p. 51 we are introduced to a ' university 
of Constantinople ' in the time of Charles the Great, with whom, by the 
way, Scotus Erigena is (p. 53) made contemporary ; and on p. 101 we 
are told that the essential characteristic of the universities was that 
they were ' si^ecialised schools, as opposed to the schools of arts, and they 
were open to all without restriction as skcdia imhlica, or generalia, as 
opposed to the more restricted ecclesiastical schools which were under a 
rule.' It is obvious that there were many schools which satisfied these 
requirements long before 1100 a.d. And, indeed, we are elsewhere told 
that the term is used for convenience, though the author is aware that 
the term was not applied * in the ancient world, nor to the studia gene- 
ralia of mediaeval times for two centuries after they arose.' If so, why does 
Professor Laurie speak of universities 'rising' in or about 1100 a.d.? 
If, on the other hand, the term ' university ' is used to denote a particular 
form of organisation — a universitas of masters, or a universitas of students, 
or more generally of all studia generalia, i.e. schools whose degrees 
possessed that oecumenical validity — the date 1100 a.d. is far too early. 
There is no trace of the existence of a universitas of students of the 
Bologna type, of the Paris university of masters, or of that custom of 
inception or magisterial initiation on which the universities of masters 
were founded, till the second half of the twelfth century. Even the licentia 
docendi was not known under that name till 1179. The truth is that the 
date 1100 A.D. does not represent any constitutional epoch whatever in the 
development of the medieval schools, though it does correspond very fairly 
with the beginning of that great intellectual movement which ultimately 
found its most brilliant expression in the universities. But there were 
no universities in the days of Abelard in any sense in which there had 
not been universities in the days of Erigena or of Alcuin. The application 
of the term ' university ' to any earlier schools, whether of the medieval or 
of the ancient world, is as misleading as it would be to talk of a jury in 
ancient Kome, or a house of commons in the eleventh century. The 
universities arose in the second half of the twelfth century and not before. 
Professor Laurie's confusion on this head is the more surprising, inas- 
much as no writer has more clearly and forcibly exhibited the universities 
in their true position as scholastic guilds. His appreciation of the funda- 
mental fact that the university was essentially nothing more than a par- 
ticular kind of guild is, from an historical point of view, the chief merit 
of the book. 

Professor Laurie is a more satisfactory guide as to the history of ideas 
than as the historian of institutions. But even in dealing with the march 
of ideas a certain amount of definiteness and attention to dates is indispen- 
sable. Professor Laurie treats the intellectual movement of the twelfth 
century — the movement (for the sake of clearness) which culminated in 
Abelard — as due to what he calls the Saracenic impulse. 

' Now, looking, first, to the germ out of which the universities grew, I 
think we must say that the universities may be regarded as a natural 
development of the cathedral and monastery schools ; but if we seek for 
an external motive force urging men to undertake the more profound and 
independent study of the liberal arts, we can find it only in the Saracenic 


schools of Bagdad, Babylon, Alexandria, and Cordova. The Saracens 
were necessarily brought into contact with Greek literature just when the 
western church was drifting away from it, and by their translations of 
Hippocrates, Galen, Aristotle, and other Greek classics, they restored 
what may be quite accurately called the " university life " of the Greeks. 
Many of the teachers were, of course, themselves Greeks who had con- 
formed to the new faith. To these Arab schools Christians had resorted 
in considerable numbers, and were cordially welcomed. They brought 
back, especially to Italy, the knowledge and the impulse they had gained ' 
(p. 99). 

This view seems to me perfectly irreconcilable with facts and with dates. 
It has been generally recognised since the time of Jourdain that Abelard 
and his predecessors knew no more of Aristotle than had been known 
all through the dark ages — i.e. the translations of the De Interpretatione 
and of the Categories.^ What then can the intellectual movement which 
Abelard represents have owed to a * Saracenic impulse ' ? Professor Laurie 
speaks of Italy as specially affected by this impulse. But the twelfth- 
century renaissance in Italy took the form of a revived study of the Eoman 
law. Greek influences, direct or indirect, are here, it is obvious, equally 
out of the question. The fact is that Professor Laurie has confused to- 
gether two totally different though consecutive movements — on the one 
hand the revival of dialectical activity and of the study of the Latin 
classics, both well represented by Abelard (contemporary with the revival 
of legal study in Italy), and on the other hand the speculative movement 
due to the rediscovery of the whole of Aristotle, which did not begin till 
the thirteenth century and culminated in the work of Albert the Great and 
Thomas Aquinas. The renaissance of the twelfth century, like the later 
Italian renaissance, began with the revived study of a neglected, though 
never wholly forgotten, Latin literature ; it culminated in the rediscovery 
of a Greek literature, which had been practically lost for centuries. It is 
only with the latter of these movements — or phases of the same move- 
ment — that the * Saracenic impulse ' had anything to do. Even the revival 
of medicine at Salerno was in all probability originally entirely unaffected 
by Arabic influences. H. Eashdall. 

La Tactique au treizieme Siecle. Par Henei Delpech. 2 vols. 
(Paris : Alphonse Picard. 1886.) 

This is an exceptionally difficult book to review. Its merits are unmis- 
takable ; the author has devoted immense labour to his task ; he gives 
scrupulously not merely references, but quotations, to support all his 
statements and inferences ; he has restored with infinite pains the con- 
temporaneous topography of the two battles which he has chosen for 

2 Tlie Categories were, however, known only in the abridgment attributed to 
Augustine till the end of the tenth century. And it was not till the eleventh that 
the full translation came into general use. (See Haureau, Hist, de la PJiil. 
Scolastique, i. 95 seq.) Some writers find slight traces of a knowledge of other 
parts of the Organon in Abelard (see Poole, Illustr. of the Hist, of Medieval Thought, 
p. 142), but it has (so far as I know) never been suggested that the knowledge was 
obtained from any other source than the translations of Boethius. 


special study ; he makes very just observations as to the essential limita- 
tions of medieval tactics ; he has searched all the chroniclers and striven 
to unearth the details of every medieval battle ; he has saturated him- 
self, so to speak, with the military history of the middle ages ; he knows 
probably far more about the details of his subject than any other human 
being has ever known. But unfortunately, like many other people who 
take up with enthusiasm a somewhat new line of investigation, he has 
formed a theory : and a theory, like fire, is an excellent servant, but a very 
bad master. 

It is right to let M. Delpech state for himself his theory, and how he 
arrived at it. 

* L'objet de notre ouvrage est de prouver que les armees du XIII^ siecle 
ont eu une tactique reflechie ; tactique elementaire comme les armes dont 
on disposait a cette epoque, mais tres intelligente et en parfaite harmonic 
avec I'outillage du temps, 

* C'est une opinion nouvelle que nous entreprenons de demontrer ici 
methodiquement. Jusqu'a present, on a pense, sans avoir examine la ques- 
tion, que le moyen-age n'avait pas de theorie militaire et qu'il ne pouvait 
pas en avoir. Nous sommes done obliges de lutter contre une opinion 
precon9ue et ancienne. Pour ramener vers nous ce courant etabli, il nous 
parait utile de satisfaire avant tout les esprits de bonne foi, en leur expo- 
sant le plan d'etudes qui, suivi pendant onze annees, a produit le present 
ouvrage. On pourra se convaincre ainsi, quel que soit I'accueil fait a nos 
conclusions, que nos recherches ont ete serieusement faites et peuvent 
etre serieusement consultees. 

' Nous avons commence cette etude en 1874. Pendant les quatre pre- 
mieres annees le terrain et les manoeuvres d'un certain nombre de batailles 
du moyen-age ont ete releves par nous, sous I'empire d'un pur sentiment 
de curiosite, et sans prevoir que ces restaurations dussent nous conduire 
a formuler une theorie generale. Mais chacun de ces objets de recherches 
lit apparaitre des faits d'armes d'un caractere si logique, que nous en 
fumes aussi surpris que le sera probablement notre lecteur. Puis tous ces 
resultats rapproches nous revelerent des lois constantes et generales. II 
devint impossible de nous obstiner contre I'evidence ; nous avions devant 
nos yeux un systeme de guerre parfaitement rationnel.' 

Now it is probably true that modern writers have tended unduly to 
depreciate the military skill of the middle ages ; but then modern writers 
have, as a rule, known very Httle about the matter. M. Delpech has done 
good service by writing his book, if only in stimulating interest in the sub- 
ject. It is of course ludicrous to suppose that the middle ages possessed no 
military skill, no tactics, no strategy. The fundamental principles of 
strategy are, as has been truly said, permanent; they may largely be 
reduced to maxims of common sense. The merest savages have some 
idea of tactics, if only of rushing out upon an enemy from a hiding-place. 
Military skill is in its essence promptness of judgment, readiness in 
making the best use of whatever resources are available. But it is 
travelling a long way to accept M. Delpech 's theory in its entirety ; and 
it is difficult in a brief review to do more than indicate the grounds of 
our scepticism. It is obviously impossible to follow him into a detailed 
examination of every battle, even if the reviewer could pretend to a full 


and original knowledge of them all. But if we find in his, book a tendency 
to extract more out of his authorities than is contained in them, if in a 
few test cases he has misinterpreted his authorities, we are necessarily- 
rendered distrustful of his method and of his judgment. 

M. Delpech's treatment of his authorities is truly medieval. Ita 
scriptum est was in the middle ages a conclusive argument, and M. Delpech 
not only makes very little attempt to discriminate, but tacitly assumes in 
all medieval writers alike minute tactical knowledge and scrupulous 
tactical accuracy. We recognise the force of the temptation to insist that 
words must mean what they possibly may mean, if thereby support is 
to be obtained for a pet theory ; we even recognise the legitimacy of 
such a process within certain limits ; but we cannot regard views which 
have practically no other foundation as even approximately proved. 
Military precision is extremely rare even in modern histories, although 
the art of war has long been theoretically studied. And when we recol- 
lect that of the innumerable chroniclers whom M. Delpech quotes very 
few indeed were eye-witnesses, very few were likely to have had access to 
what modern research would deem trustworthy original information, and 
the great majority were monks, we must be sanguine indeed if we expect 
military precision from them, still more so if we expect uniformity in the 
use of military terms. Yet, unless medieval chroniclers one and all were 
far superior in habitual military accuracy to modern historians, M. Del- 
pech's imposing edifice is built on the sand. How many times per cent, in 
the medieval chronicles are those two most important tactical words, acies 
and agmen, used in their strict sense ? and where is precision to be found ii 
these words are used vaguely ? We should be surprised if it were other- 
wise ; they were not professors of a staff college, and their general value 
as historians is as little affected by such want of precision as the value of 
the Bible by its tacit assumption that the sun goes round the earth. But, 
in the absence of such minute accuracy, minute inferences deduced from 
them are at best conjectural. It was no doubt inevitable that M. Delpech 
should introduce a large infusion of modern military technicalities into 
his treatise ; his very purpose is to show that the middle ages had their 
own teclmicalities, and these were best described in the corresponding 
modern language. But we must not let this lead us astray ; some of the 
matters described in technical phraseology are in the nature of things, and 
their existence does not go far towards proving that the middle ages 
possessed tme tactique rdflecJiie. For instance, M. Delpech makes a great 
parade of an essential tactical distinction between combats en ordre paral- 
lele and combats e?i ordre perpendiczilaire. But the line is the obvious 
order in times when the shock of contending horsemen is the main point 
of a battle ; the so-called perpendicular order is either the column of march 
becoming suddenly the order of battle, or the result of a limited battle- 
field, which only leaves room for a short front line. Again, M. Delpech 
insists rightly enough on the Crusades as a school of military experience, 
though we should have expected to find some stress laid on the value 
of the Byzantine armies as a model of organisation. But when he talks 
about the obvious and necessary practice of placing in the van quosdam 
de illustribus to explore the route and decide where to halt, &c., as the 
commencement of a regular staff, when ha insists on the great tactical 



problem of combining the various arms having been thoroughly worked 
out, when he declares that by the thirteenth century tactics were so well 
understood that tactical requirements overruled feudal notions of honour 
and precedence, when he claims for France the fullest possession, if not 
the origination, of all these ideas — one is obliged to ask how, if this be 
true, they were all lost again — how Crecy was possible. 

To the battle of Bouvines M. Delpech devotes 175 large and closely 
printed pages. He chooses it as a typical battle, not uninfluenced perhaps 
by a patriotic desire to glorify what has been rightly called the first 
French national victory. And a typical battle in many ways it was, 
typical in the direct encounter all along the line which suited medieval 
armaments, in the feudal organisation proper to medieval armies, in the 
uselessness of superior numbers (though we confess to some scepticism 
as to the gigantic disparity set forth by M. Delpech), if two unequal armies 
are fighting with medieval weapons on a front not too wide for the smaller. 
But after reading carefully through the lively prose narrative of Guillaume 
le Breton and the clumsy verse of his * Philippis,' we fail to discover 
adequate grounds for regarding Bouvines as a battle of professional soldiers 
in the modern sense. Negatives are notoriously seldom capable of proof. 
We cannot demonstrate that the movements of the two armies before the 
battle were not dictated by elaborate strategy ; but if M. Delpech's restora- 
tion of the topography be correct — and we have not the slightest intention 
of impugning it — there was very little choice under the circumstances. 
Nor again can we demonstrate that the order of battle was other than what 
M. Delpech gives ; but his only authority is the hexameters of the ' Philip- 
pis,' and who can decide how far the exigencies of the metre determined 
the exact collocation of names, though we may fairly assume that Guil- 
laume le Breton, as an eye-witness, knew the general arrangements at least 
of his own side ? M. Delpech remarks upon the speed of the movements 
as indicating a high standard of military skill : all it proves is that the 
country was not enclosed, and also (what needs no proving) that the stiff 
drill of the days before Frederick the Great had not been introduced. 
A variety of similar points might be cited, but these should suffice. It 
is hard to treat seriously an author who gravely writes of the arrange- 
ments made at Bouvines by the etat major francais, who places Welsh 
fantassins cle ligne in the English contingent, and who names patriotism 
as being, with religion, the strongest sentiment of the middle ages. 

So far we have tested M. Delpech by internal evidence only : we have 
compared his conclusions with the authorities whom he scrupulously 
cites, in order to see whether they furnish sufficient foundation for the 
superstructure. A better test is afforded by comparing M. Delpech's 
battles with the ground ; and this can obviously be done only on a limited 
scale. The present reviewer at least can claim to have seen but few 
medieval battle-fields. But if M. Delpech's account of two well-known 
battles breaks down badly, partly through apparent ignorance of the 
ground, partly through interpreting things by the light of particular 
theories, we may reasonably mistrust his account of other battles. 

Let us see then how M. Delpech deals with Hastings, perhaps the 
most important of medieval battles, and certainly one of the best known, 
thanks to the Bayeux tapestry and to Professor Freeman's elaborate in- 



vestigations, almost as minute as M. Delpech's study of Bouvines. 
Hastings is distinguished among battles for two devices of the conqueror's : 
the feigned flight of the Norman left, which, by drawing the English 
from the right of their defensive position, began to retrieve the fortunes 
of a day hitherto at least doubtful ; and the hail of arrows on the English 
standard, simultaneously with a direct attack by the mailed knights, 
which by killing Harold finally won the victory. Both of these were the 
sudden inspirations of a practised soldier, and so far they support M. 
Delpech's general position that the middle ages were not devoid of tac- 
tical skill. But M. Delpech misrepresents both. He gives the order 
to the archers to shoot in the air, as part of William's dispositions for 
beginning the battle ; whereas Henry of Huntingdon, the authority for 
this point, mentions it almost at the end, after the feigned flight ; and, 
from the nature of the case, it could only have been then. After describing 
the failure of the first attack, the sally of the English (which for some 
mysterious reason he calls taking the enemy in flank), William's personal 
danger, and rallying of his defeated left wing, he continues as follows : 

* Ce fut alors que Guillaume, pour en finir, prescrivit a ses troupes une 
manoeuvre de cavalerie qu'il avait deja pratiquee ailleurs avec succes, et 
qui constitue le fait le plus important de la bataille de Hastings. 

* Le due de Normandie fit prendre de nouveau 1' offensive par une 
partie de sa cavalerie. Au moment oii les Saxons se trouverent le plus 
fortement attaques, ceux qui les assaillaient battirent en retraite et furent, 
comme la premiere fois, poursuivis paries defenseurs du retranchement, en 
dehors des palissades. Alors, sur un signal donne par une sonnerie de 
trompettes, les fuyards firent volte-face, chargerent les Saxons, qui les 
poursuivaient et par consequent durent les retenir ainsi engages sur place, 
en dehors des palissades. 

* Au meme moment, un second corps de cavalerie normande chargea 
la colonne saxonne, par un autre cote (d'auUre part) et vers la moitie de 
sa longueur [mediam catervam). Ainsi, tandis que I'un des corps nor- 
mands, heurtant de front la tete de colonne des Saxons, les empechait de 
regagner leurs palissades, I'autre venait manoeuvrer sur leurs flancs {altera 
humo affixa tolerat, altera diver sis viotihus agit). 

* Restaurons bien cette manoeuvre. Guillaume de Poitiers constate 
qu'elle fut realisee par le concours des deux corps qui occupaient les deux 
extremites les plus oppos^es du front de bataille. Ce furent, d'une part, 
les Manceaux, Bretons et Aquitains, que nous avons deja trouves a I'aile 
gauche ; et d'autre part, les Normands de I'aile droite, que commandait 
Robert fils de Roger de Beaumont.' (Vol. ii. 269, 270.) 

Now in the first place there is absolutely no ground for assuming that 
the feigned flight was ordered immediately after the real defeat, or that it 
was a manoeuvre which William had employed before. Fug am ex industria 
simulantes, meminerunt quain optatcB rei paullo ante fuga dederat occa- 
sionem, are the words of William of Poitiers, and they unmistakably 
refer to the previous real flight, retrieved as it had been by William's 
energy. Obviously, too, if stress is to be laid on the words at all, they 
refer to an incident which had happened more than a few minutes ago. 
Secondly, the feigned flight only gave William his first decided advantage ; 
the battle lasted several hours longer, so that it is at least premature to 


describe that manoeuvre as employed pour en finir. Further, there is not 
a trace in the authorities of the EngUsh right (very unaptly designated 
colonne by M. Delpech) being attacked in flank by a second body of Norman 
cavalry during its disorderly advance. The words of Henry of Hunting- 
don are : Dum igitur Angli in sequendo persistimt, acies principalis 
Normminorum mediam Anglorum catervam pertransiit. Quod videntes 
qui persequebantur per foveam prcedictam, redire compulsi, ibidem ex 
magna parte perierimt. No one who had not before made up his mind 
that the English pursuers must have been attacked in flank would so 
interpret these words. What exactly the writer meant hy pertransiit may 
be doubted ; very probably he had not a clear picture before his eyes — few 
narrators of a battle have. But the sentence clearly refers to a fresh 
attack on the English centre, and we know from the whole tenor of the 
history that the Normans were able to occupy the ground which the 
English right had quitted: during the last portion of the battle the 
English centre was assailed on all sides. Again, Eobert of Beaumont was 
half a mile off ; there is not a word in the sentence devoted to his exploits 
by William of Poitiers to suggest that he was doing anything but his 
obvious share in the battle, attacking like every one else straight to his 
front, that is, the English left. M. Delpech's anxiety to give antiquity 
to the volte, as an indigenous French device, has led him into the usual 
error of making things out more systematic than they really were. No 
doubt it was not borrowed from Vegetius, nor is there any necessity for 
supposing it to be borrowed from any one. As M. Delpech himself says, 
it is an obvious ruse de guerre. It is more reasonable to wonder that the 
example of Hastings produced so little fruit than to enter into arguments 
as to its parentage. 

The battle of Lewes affords another example of the facility with 
which, under the influence of a theory, the necessary facts can be dis- 
covered in narratives which, to unprejudiced eyes, warrant no such conclu- 
sions. Lewes, according to M. Delpech — and so far no one can disagree 
with him — is a specimen of a combat e?i ordre parallele. But he goes 
on to say : L'armee assaillie, au lieu de resister directement a V assaillant, 
porta sa contre-attaque sur un autre point du front de bataille. Elle 
attira Voffensive de Vennemi sur son aile gauche, et elle opera sa propre 
offensive avec son aile droite, soutenue par son centre et sa reserve. Now 
it is no doubt true that the right of the royal army, under Prince 
Edward, defeated the Londoners on Montfort's left ; and it is also true 
that the rest of the royalists were totally routed by the remainder of 
the Barons' army. But none of the contemporary authorities contain 
anything which can be twisted into a suggestion that all this was the 
result of a deliberate plan formed by Montfort. Nor, indeed, seeing 
that the earl had drawn up his army in order of battle before the royal 
troops came out of Lewes, could he have known that Prince Edward, 

Kvhom M. Delpech assumes to have commanded the 6lite of it, would be 
)n the enemy's right. Again, there is nothing in the chroniclers to justify 
!^I. Delpech in regarding the royaHsts as the assailants, and Montfort as 
standing on the defensive, or to bear out the statement that the Barons' 
ight wing was supported by their centre and reserve. On the contrary, 
ihe evidence is that both armies engaged straight to their front along the 


whole line, as usual in the good old hand-to-hand days, though Prince 
Edward's impatience brought him to close quarters before the rest. 
Again, M. Delpech has a theory that medieval writers invariably number 
the divisions of an army from right to left. Now Eishanger divides the 
royal army into three parts : the first acies (a most untechnical word, by the 
way, unless, which obviously was not the case, there had been three lines) 
commanded by Prince Edward, the second by Eichard of Cornwall, the 
third by the king. The Barons' army Eishanger divides into four acies : 
1, Young Montfort ; 2, Gloucester ; 3, the Londoners ; 4, Earl Simon. In 
accordance with his theory, M. Delpech places them as follows : — 

The earl in reserve 
Young Montfort Gloucester Londoners 

The king Eichard of Cornwall Prince Edward 

It is difficult to discover any adequate authority for Earl Simon's having 
placed his own division in reserve, though the modern writers seem to 
agree in saying that he did. But it is obvious that without this as- 
sumption the theory crumbles at once. Unfortunately, however, the 
circumstances of the battle do not tally with this ideal order. The facts 
certainly known are these : — 

1. Prince Edward defeated the Londoners. 

2. Gloucester defeated the king. 

3. Eichard of Cornwall, after hard fighting, was driven to take refuge 
in a windmill, and there surrendered. 

A glance shows that these facts are inconsistent with M. Delpech 's 
assumed order. Moreover, windmills are not placed in hollows ; it is 
inconceivable that there should ever have been one near the centre of 
the royal line : but there is one now where the down, off which Montfort's 
advance was made, sinks into the plain, just where the defeated Bex 
AlemamiicB might very well have been driven by the earl's victorious 
right. This is to say, the king must have been in the centre, Eichard 
of Cornwall on the left ; or, in other words, the only chronicler who gives 
the divisions does not number them in order from right to left. Again, 
M. Delpech, in order to sustain his theory that Montfort used every means 
to induce Prince Edward to attack the Londoners, makes him place his 
own carriage and standard, with its guard, among them The words of 
Wykes, from whom this incident is derived, do not flatly contradict this 
notion ; but the time at which the earl left behind his carriage and 
standard, with the other baggage, was before his advance in order of 
battle, which was made downhill off the ridge of the down. No one 
who has seen the ground would believe that wagons went down that 
slope, especially in the midst of a body of infantry expecting to meet the 
enemy at once. Nor would they have needed a special guard had they 
been moving with the Londoners. Nor would they have been left with 
their guard to be attacked later by Prince Edward, on his return, or 
by other royalist troops (the narratives differ as to who seized the earl's 
carriage), for they must have fallen into his hands as soon as the Lon- 
doners gave way. They were clearly left on the ridge, near where a 



conspicuous windmill now stands (or stood a few years ago). There they 
would have been isolated as the battle rolled down the slope away from 
them ; there, no doubt, they were plundered later in the day. But then 
what becomes of Earl Simon's elaborate ruse to draw Prince Edward 
against the Londoners ? 

We may have been unfortunate in our selection of instances. We are 
quite willing to believe in M. Delpech's perfect bona fides : it would be 
unfortunate, indeed, if his judgment had not served him better in other 
cases. We fully recognise our obligation to M. Delpech for having 
collected so vast a mass of interesting materials, and we quite agree with 
him in thinking that the middle ages were more systematic and better 
instructed in things military than has often been imagined. But the 
least unfavourable verdict we can record on his full-blown theory is one 
of ' not proven.' Hereford B. George. 

Der Untergang des Te^npler-Ordejis. Mit urkundlichen und kritischen 
Beitragen von Dr. Konrad Schottmuller. 2 vols. (Berlin : 
Mittler. 1887.) 

Professor Schottmuller has given us a valuable contribution to the 
already extensive Templar literature. In two visits to the Vatican 
library, made in 1880 and 1886, he found and transcribed some hitherto 
unpublished documents, which, together with a brief abstract of some 
records in the archives of Marseilles, form the second volume of the work 
which he has laid before the public. 

The first of these documents he entitles ' Processus Pictavensis ' 
(ii. 13-71). It contains the examinations of thirty-three out of the 
seventy-two Templars brought before the papal court at Poitiers in 
June 1308. It is interesting as partly filling a gap in the series of 
documentary evidence, but throws little new light on the affair, except 
as illustrating incidentally the perfunctory character of the whole per- 
formance at Poitiers, and as affording to Professor Schottmiiller fair 
grounds for discrediting the currently accepted statement that Molay 
in 1306 brought with him to France an immense amount of treasure. 

Then follows * Deminutio laboris examinantium processus contra 
ordinem Templi in Anglia ' (ii. 78-102). If this be, as the author is 
probably correct in assuming, an abstract of the English evidence, 
officially prepared at Clement's command for use at the council of Vienne, 
it is important as a proof of the unscrupulous manner in which the testi- 
mony was garbled for the purpose of misleading those who were to sit in 
judgment. All the favourable evidence is suppressed, and the childish 
gossip of women and monks is seriously presented as though authentic. 
Even making allowance for the weight ascribed to popular rumour in 
medieval trials for heresy, the dehberate purpose manifested throughout 
this paper throws a fresh and sinister light on the management deemed 
requisite to effect the predetermined object. 

The bulky ' Processus Cypricus ' (ii. 143-400) is of value, although 
the unfortunate omission of some of the formalities of the proceedings 
prevents us from estimating accurately their precise purport. The testi- 
mony of the non- Templar witnesses shows a higher estimate of the Order 


among those to whom it was best known, and who, moreover, were not 
friendly to it, than has been generally supposed. The interrogatories of 
the seventy-six Templars examined are, however, by no means deserving 
of the importance attached to them as a proof of innocence by Dr. Schott- 
miiller (i. 484-93). It was a matter of course that where torture was 
not used they should assert their purity and orthodoxy, and evidence in 
their favour must be sought from other sources. 

The ' Processus in Patrimonio Petri ' (ii. 405-19) has importance as 
manifesting the real design of the commissioners sent out in 1310 by 
Clement V, ostensibly for the purpose of affording the order an opportu- 
nity of making a defence before the council of Vienne, but in reality with 
the object of collecting evidence for its condemnation. Thus when im- 
prisoned Templars declined the invitation to appear and defend the order 
they were forced to come forward and testify against it. The extracts 
from the archives of Marseilles (ii. 423-34) would doubtless have been of 
greater value had not the author unfortunately been prevented by ill- 
ness from transcribing them in extenso. A secret order of Charles the 
Lame of Naples to his seneschal not to deliver the sequestrated property 
to the papal agents illustrates the scramble which was going on for 
the spoils. 

Had Professor Schottmiiller confined himself to the publication of 
these documents with illustrative and explanatory notes, there could have 
been nothing but praise for the acuteness which enabled him to recognise 
them under deceptive inscriptions and for the painstaking labour with 
which he has deciphered the mouldy and battered parchments. Unfor- 
tunately, however, he has deemed it necessary to accompany them with a 
diffuse and confused history of the whole affair, occupying nearly seven 
hundred and fifty octavo pages. With true German assiduity he has 
ransacked all the authorities within his reach ; he has studied all the 
official documents with miscroscopic minuteness ; many of his observa- 
tions on them are shrewd, and occasionally his comparison and confron- 
tation of the evidence throws a new and valuable side-light on certain 
points ; but he lacks the impartiality of the historian, he is a special 
pleader rather than a judge, he has framed a theory of the whole affair, 
and his book is an elaborate plaidoyer in its defence. 

The work thus becomes a misleading one, for the author is so pro- 
foundly convinced of the truth of his speculations that he confounds his 
conjectures with his facts, and presents both with equal positiveness so 
that the reader often cannot distinguish between them. The ground- 
work of his whole hypothesis is an imaginary alliance between Clement 
V and Molay to protect the former from the arrogant domination of 
Philippe le Bel and thus save him from sharing the fate of his predecessor, 
Boniface VIII. The growth of this myth illustrates the idiosyncrasy of 
the author's method. First it comes before us (i. 80) as a suggested 
explanation of Philippe's attack on the Order. Then we are told (p. 91) 
that Clement's summons in 1306 to the masters of the Temple and the 
Hospital was for the purpose of obtaining their support ; then (p. 101) that 
it is uncertain whether Clement and Molay were arranging an armed 
assault on Philippe. Gradually the idea assumes in the author's mind 
the consistency of absolute fact ; we are assured (p. 115) that Philippe 



recognised that Molay's presence had encouraged Clement to resist his 
demands ; and finally (p. 120) it is positively asserted that Philippe's 
whole expectations of advantage from the transfer of the papal court to 
France had been shattered by the protection given by the Templars to 
the pope. Thus it becomes assumed as an historical fact (p. 564) that the 
chiefs of the order had promised security and protection to Clement, an 
assertion for which there is not a particle of evidence. This would per- 
haps matter little were it not that it places the sequel of the story on a 
thoroughly false basis, forcing the author to represent Clement as bravely 
defending the Order until obliged to abandon it to its fate by Philippe's 
visit to Poitiers in May and June, 1308. To make this apparently 
credible, the bull ' Pastoralis pr^eeminentiae ' of 22 Nov. 1307, which 
virtually settled the fate of the Order, is dismissed with a brief allusion 
wholly inadequate to its supreme importance, and the author practically 
ignores the controlling fact that during those fateful six months in which 
his theory requires Clement to be staunchly maintaining the cause of the 
Order, it was being broken up at his instance and under his express 
authority in England, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, and such parts of Germany 
as he could induce to take action. This sufficiently shows that the tem- 
porary suspension by Clement of the powers of the inquisitors and bishops 
of France, on which Dr. Schottmiiller dwells with so much insistence, 
was mere skirmishing for position, to be abandoned as soon as Clement 
had secured his terms. 

This tendency to assume facts which sustain the author's theory 
pervades the whole work and renders it untrustworthy in spite of his 
evident desire to be accurate in the minutest particulars. We repeatedly 
meet with positive assertions for which there is no authority. We are 
thus told over and over again that the initial proceedings under the 
authority of the inquisitor Guillaume de Paris were declared to be invalid 
(pp. 140, 231, 287, 407) ; in fact (p. 244) that these examinations were 
made by the royal officials and were therefore illegal ; when, on the 
contrary, Philippe had been especially careful to shield himself behind 
the authority of the Inquisition, and his officials were ostensibly only 
lending their aid as required by law to the inquisitors commissioned for 
the purpose by Frere Guillaume, who deputed all Dominican priors, sub- 
priors, and lectors to act in that capacity. Possibly in some cases official 
zeal may have outrun discretion, but the whole proceedings were covered 
with a cloak of strict legality, and any indiscretions were condoned in the 
bull of 22 Nov. So (p. 140) we have a wholly unsatisfactory argument 
to prove that Molay's letter to his brethren advising them to confess 
was forged or falsified; and then a few pages later (p. 143) there is 
an allusion to Molay's falsified letter as if the falsification was a recog- 
nised historical fact. We are told (p. 670) that Molay and the master 
of Normandy were burnt against the will of the cardinal judges, when 
there is no evidence either for or against it, and the probabiHties are that 
the cardinals were delighted to be reheved of the responsibihty, which 
they could not otherwise have escaped, of handing the prisoners over to 
the secular arm for burning. In like fashion the author positively asserts 
(p. 558) that the non-appearance of Eenaud de Provins before the papal 
commission as a witness after beino; sworn was because he was so broken 


by torture that lie was unfit to give evidence — an assumption for which 
there is no warrant. In writing history after this imaginative fashion a 
good memory is requisite to avoid occasional self-contradiction, as when 
(p. 128) a visit of Hugues de Peraud to Poitiers just before the arrest is 
described as an effort to save himself from the blow which he is assumed 
to know was impending, and is subsequently (p. 243) alluded to as evi- 
dence that Clement was commencing an investigation himself — a most 
important feature of the case if only it were true, in x^lace of being a bald 

This unfortunate tendency is rendered still more serious by the author's 
lack of familiarity with the ecclesiastical jurisprudence of the period, 
leading him to frequent assertions and arguments for which there is no 
justification. Thus (p. 124) we are told that Philippe lured Molay and 
his brethren to Paris from Poitiers as a necessary preliminary to their 
arrest, and we are treated to an elaborate disquisition on the limitations 
of jurisdiction, ignorance of which, he says, has led all previous writers 
into blunders — the fact being that all the arrests were made under the 
authority of the Inquisition of Paris, whose jurisdiction in such matters 
at the time was supreme from the Atlantic Ocean to Geneva, and there 
was no more occasion to entice Molay to Paris for the purpose than 
the rest of the brethren, who were seized everywhere throughout the 
kingdom. Equally groundless is the assertion that the arrest was in 
violation of all recognised law of the period, and that the Inquisition 
exceeded its powers in prosecuting Templars whose immunities rendered 
them justiciable only by the pope (pp. 126, 251, 640). The facts are that 
even before the Inquisition was founded Lucius III abrogated all immunities 
in accusations of heresy ; that suspected heretics had practically no legal 
rights, and their capture was the highest duty of all secular officials ; that, 
moreover, the Inquisition exercised authority directly delegated by the 
pope ; and that even the mendicant orders, whose immunities were quite 
as great as those of the Templars, when they endeavoured to escape the 
jurisdiction of the Inquisition, were rudely remanded to it by Innocent IV 
in 1254. It follows that the author is completely in error when he says 
(p. 149) that Philippe had subverted the foundation -law of medieval 
society whereby ecclesiastics were subjected exclusively to spiritual juris- 
diction. Similar ignorance is manifested in the argument (p. 203) that 
the absolution given at Chinon in August 1308 to Molay and the pre- 
ceptors shows that they could not have confessed any heresy worthy of 
death ; for no heresy confessed and abjured was at that time punished 
by death, except in cases of relapse, and it was a universal rule that even 
relapsed heretics were entitled to absolution if they asked for it, although 
they were to be burned immediately thereafter, for the bosom of the church 
was never closed to the repentant sinner. Equally erroneous is the as- 
sertion (p. 231) that at that time torture could not be legally employed 
against witnesses, for it was habitually so employed in both the inquisi- 
torial and episcopal courts. More serious is the ignorance displayed in 
the effort to show (pp. 298, 663) that Clement, as late as August 1309, 
was still endeavouring to protect the Templars against Philippe by his 
bull ordering the bishops to follow the law and not introduce new methods, 
which the author regards as a prohibition of the use of torture, in place 


of being, as it was, an order for its employment under a decent veil of 
reserve— a reserve thrown off a few months later when the necessity of 
incriminating evidence became pressing, and Clement reprehended those 
who had not had recourse to torture, the employment of which, he told 
them, was customary in such cases. Twice (pp. 619 and 627) the author 
manifests complete confusion between witnesses and compurgators, whose 
functions, under medieval customs, had no relations with each other ; 
and he even seems to think (p. 320) that the Templars might have cleared 
themselves by compurgation but for Philippe's violent measures, appa- 
rently not knowing that it rested wholly with the inquisitor to determine 
whether the accused should be admitted to this method of proving his 
innocence. When he says (p. 573) that the burning of Molay and the 
master of Normandy was an act of violence in open scorn of all spiritual 
law, he seems unaware of the fact that the canons ordered relapsed 
heretics (and the victims were technically relapsed by reason of revoking 
their confessions) to be abandoned without a hearing to the secular arm 
for burning, and that Philippe only took for granted what would have 
been a mere formality on the part of the cardinal judges. All this may 
seem minute criticism, yet these errors are important, as they serve to 
prevent the recognition of what is really the most weighty lesson taught 
by the whole dreadful tragedy — that it was merely an exhibition on a 
more conspicuous stage of the atrocities habitually perpetrated for centuries 
throughout nearly all Christendom, in the effort to secure the supreme 
blessing of uniformity of faith. Had not the author been blinded by the 
strength of his convictions, it would surely have occurred to him that 
Philippe, to whose great capacity he does ample justice, was far too 
shrewd to commit such violations of law as are here imputed to him, and 
that Clement would have been a far less able man than he is here repre- 
sented if he had not taken full advantage of such blunders on the part of 
his assumed antagonist. 

Professor Schottmiiller loses no opportunity of pointing out the errors 
of his predecessors in a manner implying his own infallibility. Unfor- 
tunately he is as liable to inaccuracy as the rest of us. Thus, in his 
desire to show that Phihppe failed to secure popular belief in his charges 
against the Templars, he gives (p. 139) the answer of the university of 
Paris to his inquiries, as though it were rendered in October 1307 and 
proved that the university was incredulous, when in reality it was only a 
decision on certain legal points and could not have been other than it was ; 
then (p. 167) the date is stated to be May 25, 1308 ; and it is not until 
we reach the chronological summary (p. 656) that the correct date of 
March 25 is given. When (p. 414) we are told that the archbishops of 
Sens and Keims burned ' hundreds ' of Templars for revoking their con- 
fessions, the exaggeration of the real number of sixty- seven, instead of 
increasing our sense of the enormity, only diminishes our confidence in 
the accuracy and impartiality of the historian. Twice (pp. 195, 649) the 
confusion as to the commencement of Clement's regnal year is said to 
have been only recently cleared up ; and in the latter passage it is alluded 
to as illustrating the ignorance hitherto prevailing as to the order of events, 
when in reahty the difficulty was explained by Dom Vaissette a century 
and a half ago. We are told (p. 447) that in Italy not a single knight . 


was examined : had the author consulted the sole authority for the pro- 
ceedings in Komagnuola (Rubeus, Hist. Bavennat. ed. 1589, p. 525), he 
would have found the names of seven knights— Te7n2:>la7ii ordinis equites 
— examined by the council of Ravenna in 1311. Similarly, had he referred 
to Allart's researches, his exceedingly imperfect account of events in the 
kingdoms of Majorca and Aragon would have been fuller and more exact ; 
but even the authorities whom he cites should have preserved him from 
the repeated misstatement (pp. 551, 560, 639) that in Aragon the Templars 
passed into other Orders and that the Temple continued in existence 
mit hleinen Abmiderungen. On page 585 it is suggested that previous 
liberalities of Molay's family may have entitled him to gratuitous en- 
trance into the order, apparently in ignorance of the fact that by the 
statutes payment for admission was severely punishable, although in the 
later corruption of the order it was sometimes winked at. Equal un- 
familiarity with the statutes is manifested in a matter to which, by his 
repeated allusions (i. 187, 264; ii. 12), he seems to attach singular 
importance. In the protocol of the examinations at Poitiers, the appli- 
cant for admission is reported sometimes as asking iov f rater nitas ordinis 
and sometimes for fraternitas domus. The author regards this variation 
as of special significance as indicating the ' subjectivity ' of the reporter 
and as showing how little he knew about the order when he thus de- 
scribes a postulant as seeking admission into a single house. It happens 
that the two expressions mean precisely the same thing and can be used 
indifferently, for ' house ' is the official synonym for the order in the 
statutes of the Temple. The blunder is the more incomprehensible since 
the author quotes (i. 294) the initial words of the statute-book offered in 
evidence by the brethren of Mas Deu — Quan alcu7Ji iwoom requer la coin- 
pay a de la May so. 

It is scarce worth while to pursue this examination further. The 
original documents printed in the second volume render the work a 
necessity to all students of the Templar catastrophe ; but the first volume, 
despite the immense labour bestowed on it, and the ingenuity which it 
frequently displays, must take its place in the long series of works on the 
subject which a fondness for theorising, combined with imperfect know- 
ledge, render unsafe guides for the inquirer. Heney C. Lea. 

A Descriptive Account of the Guildhall of the City of London : its History 
and Associations. By John Edwaed Peice, F.S.A., F.R.S.L. 
Prepared by authority of the Corporation of London. (London : 
Blades, East, & Blades. 1886.) 

The issue of this sumptuous volume by the library committee of the city 
of London is an encouraging sign of the spread of historical knowledge 
and historical inquiry. The existence of a guildhall, and especially the 
early mention of the name, is in itself an important fact, and has been 
taken to prove that London had a governing guild at least as early. 
Strange to say, we know little or nothing more directly about the London 
guild. We cannot tell when it was instituted, whether it consisted solely 
of city magnates, what was its name, to what patron saint it was dedi- 
cated, and when as a guild it was finally dissolved. True, answers have 



been found by argument and inference to most of these questions ; but of 
direct information we have only a mention by Giraldus of the Guildhall, 
and by Stow of a ' cnihtenagild.' Many of the documents by which Stow 
attained his remarkable historical knowledge have been unknown until 
lately, though they were seen and consulted in so far as they related to 
ecclesiastical matters by Newcourt in the last century. These are the 
manuscripts stored in the muniment room of the dean and chapter of 
St. Paul's. The enumeration made of them by Mr. Maxwell Lyte, who 
has since become the head of the Record Office, marks an epoch in the 
history of the city, and has enabled students to ascertain in many cases 
the source from which Stow derived his information, and sometimes to 
correct or supplement what he has told us. With the aid of these manu- 
scripts it is possible to trace the history of the municipality to the 
beginning of the twelfth century with some degree of fulness and certainty. 
The oldest records at the Guildhall itself, with two or three exceptions, 
only date from the wardenship of Sir Ralph Sandwich in the reign of 
Edward I. The exceptions are the tiny charter of William the Conqueror, 
a writ in favour of ' Derman of London,' and perhaps one or two 
other documents and palimpsest entries in the letter books. But at 
St. Paul's there are numerous leases, releases, agreements, and grants to 
which aldermen and other city magnates have placed their names, and 
which enable us now to form very complete lists of the governors and 
governing families, and even to approximate to a clear understanding of 
the civic constitution little more than twenty years after the compilation 
of the * Domesday Survey.' Among these documents the most important 
for its antiquity and its completeness is a terrier of the estates belonging 
to the chapter in the city about the year 1110, enumerated under the 
wards. A magnificent facsimile of this manuscript forms the backbone, so to 
speak, of Mr. Price's volume, and will be warmly welcomed by all students 
of municipal and ecclesiastical history. Unfortunately Mr. Price's anno- 
tated translation is a very misleading performance. That he has seen 
the importance of the document and has given it to us as it stands is, 
however, such a boon that we are not disposed to examine his mistakes 
very critically. The two chief points the Hst of lands sets forth are 
points hitherto only guessed at. Mr. Price, by the way, misses them both. 
It has long been known that the bishop had his place in the municipality 
such as it was. Some authorities have looked upon him as heading the 
clergy, when the portreeve headed the laity. Others have assigned him 
a more definite place, and made him, like the prior of Holy Trinity, 
Aldgate, a kind of alderman. So, too, with regard to the portreeve or 
vicecomes, we have had to guess and theorise as to his exact position, 
and many writers have asserted that, even after the grant of Middlesex to 
the citizens, the portreeve had no judicial functions. On these two points, 
the St. Paul's Hst is conclusive. Though Mr. Lyte omitted it from his 
summary in the * Ninth Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commis- 
sion,' and though Mr. Price does not mention it or remark on it at all, 
the first ward named is ' Warda Episcopi.' The bishop's ward, moreover, 
was not on Cornhill, but consisted of the precinct of St. Paul's. So, too, 
we learn that the portreeve sat in certain cases as a judge. The canons 
complain that Gilbert ' Prutfot ' has deprived them of a piece of land in 


the modern ward of Broad Street. By referring to the report above 
mentioned, we find that it was in his capacity as portreeve or vicecomes 
that Gilbert Prondfoot had given judgment against the chapter as to the 
land on which stood the house of a certain lady named Eadild. Who 
was this otherwise unknown portreeve? Was Proudfoot a nickname? 
As he was probably, from certain indications too long to detail here, 
alderman of the ward of Cheap, can he have been the Gilbert, generally 
surnamed ' Becket,' whose wife was Eohese, and whose son, Thomas, was 
the martyr of Canterbury ? He had a house in Cheap, at a time when 
but few houses had been built in that quarter ; and the dates fit well 
together. These are not questions on which we need turn to Mr. Price 
for an answer. He is fully convinced of the Eoman origin of the London 
municipality, and quotes the writings of the late Mr. Coote with approval, 
and without any reference to the complete and crushing reply which they 
drew from Mr. Freeman. This baseless theory pervades the whole book, 
and though we can accept the facts which Mr. Price gives us with the 
greatest thankfulness, we cannot but hold that he has not himself been 
able to make much use of them. He quotes the St. Paul's document in 
full, for the sake of one or two entries relating to Aldermanbury, but as 
from these entries he infers that there were ' canons of the soke of Aldre- 
manesberi,' we may well pass by his comparison of the expression ' curia 
de la Guyldhalle ' with the ' Curia Municipalis ' of Vitruvius, and his 
mention of the ' Hall, or Moot House, in connexion with each of the 
thirty-five regions, or Wards, in Eome.' It is certainly asking too much 
from the reader to argue that because there were thirty-five guildhalls in 
ancient Eome, the one guildhall of ancient London was a Eoman institu- 

The history of the London Guildhall is quite interesting enough with- 
out any such forced comparisons. We find the first magnates of London 
seated in Aldermanbury, very near the traditional site of the king's 
house, on the north side of the wide market place. The name of Alder- 
manbury is in itself curious and interesting. The word ' bury ' in the 
dialect spoken in London, perhaps the East Saxon language, always 
means a residence. We have the bury of the Buckerels, the bury of 
Albert the Lotharingian, die bury of the canons of St. Bartholomew, the 
bury of Walter Map, the bury of the descendants of Deorman at Islington, 
called from its situation Highbury, and a good many more within the 
boundaries of modern London, and in each case we find that a residence, 
a mansion, is meant by the term. The Aldermanbury must mean the 
mansion of the alderman ; possibly, as Mr. Price has it, the court of the 
aldermen. On the east side of the street which still bears the name is 
Three Nuns Court, and here Mr. Price was informed by the vicar of the 
parish — he does not say of what parish — remains of early masonry were 
found during the rebuilding of some business premises. Stow complains 
that in his time the old guildhall in Aldermanbury had become a car- 
penter's workshop ; but he and many later writers must have been wrong 
in ascribing the removal to a new site, further east, to Whittington. 
There are many indications not only in records, but in the buildings and 
particularly in the architecture of the crypt, that the Guildhall was in its 
present situation long before the reign of Henry V, perhaps more than a 



hundred years before. There is a very mteresting paper on the subject, 
a contribution by Mr. Alfred White ; and the reader is also able to form 
an opinion for himself, as there are many woodcuts, plans, and other 
illustrations in Mr. Price's volume. But by simply consulting a map of 
the ward boundaries, a student will be able to date the present Guildhall 
approximately. He will see that though at a considerable distance from 
Cheapside, it is yet included in the ward of Cheap, and must have been 
where it is before the boundaries were fixed, because that boundary ex- 
actly includes the hall, without the last bay at the eastern end, which is 
the newest part, and which is in the adjoining ward of Bassishaw. 
There is every reason to believe that the ward boundaries have not been 
altered materially since the beginning of the fourteenth century, and the 
Guildhall must therefore have stood where it is since at least 1299. If so, 
some of the most stirring scenes of EngHsh history took place within 
these old walls. Here in 1312 the mayor celebrated the birth of the 
prince who was to reign as Edward III, when the hall ' was excellently 
well tapestried and dressed out.' After dinner the mayor, aldermen, and 
commonalty perambulated the city singing carols, ' all the rest of tho 
day and great part of the night.' In the hall in 1357 John, king of 
France, and his captor the Black Prince, were feasted by the city ; and in 
1415 the renovated and enlarged hall saw Henry V on his return from 
Agincourt, and again after his marriage with Katharine of France. But 
many events of a very different character have the Guildhall for their 
background and scenery. Here the strange forced election of Eichard III 
by the citizens took place in 1483. Here Edmund Dudley, the ex- 
tortionate minister of Henry VII, was tried and condemned in 1509. 
Here Surrey was tried and condemned just before the death of Henry VIII, 
and here, too. Lady Jane Grey, and her husband, with his two brothers 
and Archbishop Cranmer, were all arraigned together and sentenced to 
death in November 1553. In the following year Queen Mary came in 
state to the Guildhall to * show her mind to the mayor.' The poisoners 
of Sir Thomas Overbury were tried here in 1615, and in 1642 Charles I 
made his singular expedition into the city to find the five members. The 
lord mayor received him respectfully at the Guildhall, but the people 
shouted, * Privilege, liberty of parliament,' and other political cries. The 
committee of public safety sat in the Guildhall at first. Eichard Baxter 
was tried here before Judge Jeffreys in 1685, and fined 500Z. It is not 
easy to understand Mr. Price's assertion (p. 212) that the building in 
which these historic scenes took place was doomed to destruction in the 
great fire of 1666, as the Guildhall was not irreparably injured, and as, 
moreover, some of the scenes he describes occurred after the fire. Among 
them the most remarkable was probably the assembly of the lords of the 
council at the Guildhall when William of Orange was invited to assume 
the reins of government. 

We regret to observe a large number of misprints, and still larger 
number of small errors which can hardly be called misprints. Thus both 
in the text and in the index there is mention of a ' Lord Craysfort ' as a 
descendant of Alderman Probye. There is no such title in the peerage. 
At p. 16 we read of a certain ' Dering ' that his name is * identical 
with Dyrinig,' and is the ' forerunner of our English surname Deering.' 


Mr. Price does not explain how Dering can be identical with Dyrinig, and 
the usual modern form is Dering, not Deering. Under the mention of 
* Warda Haconis,' now the ward of Broad Street, we have a long note 
about St. Nicholas of Aeon, without a word to connect him with the ward 
of Hacon. Of course Hacon or Haco was an alderman. There are 
many other curiosities of literature and especially of grammar, but they 
are not worth detailing. The great value of the book will always be in 
its illustrations. Besides many woodcuts and the facsimiles already 
mentioned, there are coloured views of some of the chambers, and copies 
of every print and drawing known to exist or likely in any way to elucidate 
the subject. W. J. Loftie. 

The Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops. Vol. II. 
Edited by James Eaine, M.A., D.C.L., Honorary Canon of York. 
Published under the direction of the Master of the Eolls. (London : 
Longmans & Co. ; Triibner & Co. 1886.) 

It is matter for regret that in this second volume Canon Raine has not 
continued that sketch of the history and see of York which he began in 
the first volume. The available space, he found, was inadequate to the 
subject. ' An account of York during the momentous period between 
A.D. 685 and 867, followed by the more obscure but still most interesting 
annals of the period between 867 and the Norman Conquest, when the city 
was under the rule of a succession of Danish princes, cannot be hurried over 
and compressed into the preface of any volume of moderate size.' So we 
must console ourselves with the hope held out to us that Canon Raine 
will before long give these subjects ' a separate treatment of their own.' 
In the meantime, we should have accepted with pleasure an instalment 
or fragment of his intended work, and especially anything that would 
throw light on the dark period of Danish rule in the North. What he 
now gives us is little more than a series of introductions to the several 
pieces forming the text of the volume. Setting aside for the present the 
Chronicle of Thomas Stubbs and its continuation, the materials here 
collected fall, as the editor says, into two main groups of subjects, * Hagio- 
graphy and Controversy.' In the first class there are the Life and Miracles 
of the sainted Archbishop Oswald, by Eadmer. The Life has been printed 
before, but the Miracles are now published for the first time. Next comes 
another life of the same saint, by Senatus, prior of Worcester, whose 
information is m the main derived from Eadmer, and thus indirectly from 
the earlier and anonymous Life printed in Canon Raine' s first volume. 
These biographies are worth comparing with each other and with the 
already well-known biographies of Dunstan in regard to the * Edwy and 
Elgiva ' affair. In the story of the first biographer of Oswald, the king 
has a lawful wife whom he neglects ; and the version here given by 
Eadmer is evidently an attempt to fit this, which may be called the 
Oswald story, into the entirely different Dunstan story. 

Further on in this volume there is a short and hitherto unprinted 
Life of Thurstan, the brave archbishop who organised the resistance to 
the invading Scots in 1138. The biographer indeed attributes to him all 
the merit of winning the battle of the Standard, chiefly by means of an 


ingenious though not very credible device, which suggests that the arch- 
bishop must have been acquainted with some kind of detonating powder. 
One would like to know at what period this Life was compiled. 

* Anno ab incarnatione Domini M^^.c^^xxxoviii^., xi. kal. Septembris, 
. . . f uit bellum inter David regem Scotiae et Thurstinurn archiepiscopum ; 
et victus est rex David et omnes Scoti victi sunt. Nam idem archiepi- 
scopus cum militibus regis, latenter occurrens super Cotowne More juxta 
Northallerton, fieri jussit in viis subterraneis quaedam instrumenta sonos 
horribiles reddentia, quae Anglice dicuntur Petronces, quibus resonantibus, 
ferae, et csetera armenta, quae praecedebant exercitum praedicti David regis 
in adjutorium, timore strepitus perterrita in exercitum ejusdem regis 
David ferociter resiliebant. Et sic praedictus Thurstinus archiepiscopus 
cum militibus antedictis ipsum fugavit, occisisque pro (sic) millibus et 
spolia multa reportavit.' 

This is followed by the Life, also printed for the first time, of Arch- 
bishop William Fitzherbert, otherwise Saint William, who became, to 
some extent by the accidents of death and burial, the especial saint of 
York. Any one of William's three greatest predecessors. Saint Wilfrid, 
Saint John of Beverley, or Saint Oswald, would probably have already 
' held the field ' if York could have obtained possession of his mortal 
remains. But Eipon had acquired the body of Wilfrid ; Beverley was the 
resting-place of John ; and Worcester, that of Oswald. Some hopes appear 
to have been formed of obtaining the canonisation of Thurstan ; but even 
then, as he had died a monk at Pontefract, and was there buried, Ponte- 
fract, and not Y'ork, would have reaped the benefit. Without the relics, 
as Canon Kaine points out, there could be no shrine, and without the 
shrine, no great concourse of worshippers. Happily for York, William 
Fitzherbert, who died in 1154, was buried in his cathedral church, and 
thus upon him, * late in the history of the church of York, devolved the 
honour of being her special patron and representative.' One can imagine 
how Northern local pride would be gratified when a woman sorely diseased, 
one Albreda of Gisburne, after making a pilgrimage to Canterbury in 
vain, obtained relief nearer home by the merits of Saint William of York. 
This comes from a list of miracles which Dodsworth copied from a table 
or triptych, which was once to be seen in the revestry of the Minster. 
The list is interesting as a collection of early forms of Yorkshire place- 
names ; and two of the miracles are curious as affording instances of the 
judicial duel, and of the ordeal of hot iron. In the latter, a woman 
accused of homicide is condemned to death by a jury of knights, because, 
after carrying the iron, a blister of the size of half a walnut [vesica 
qucBclam ad quantitatem medietatis unius juglajidis — the marginal note, 
not quite accurately, says 'a swelling like a walnut') is found on her 
hand. She prays at the tomb of Saint William, and straightway the blister 
disappears. Whereupon the king's justiciars set her free, and adjudge the 
jury in misericordia domini regis for giving a false verdict. As the story 
is told, this seems hard, for they proceeded on the evidence before them. 
But it is probable, though this is not stated, that the verdict ought to 
have been deferred till the burn had had a fair time to heal. The most 
important fact which the biographer of Saint William records, and that 
chiefly for the sake of an accompanying miracle, is the fire in York 



Minster which led to the rebuilding of the choir by Archbishop Eoger in 

So much for hagiography. The controversy already spoken of is, it 
need hardly be said, the great question whether York should profess 
obedience to Canterbury or not. To the history of this controversy, 
which went on from the seventh to the fourteenth century, we have here 
a valuable contribution in the form of a history of four archbishops (from 
1070 to 1127) by Hugh the chanter, or precentor, of York, whose work 
is now printed for the first time in its entirety. From other sources it 
appears that Hugh bore the foreign -looking surname of Sottovagina or 
Sottewain ; and Canon Eaine suggests that he was * a Frenchman, who 
came into Yorkshire with Thomas of Bayeux,' that is, we suppose, in 
1070 ; but as to this, and the date of Hugh's death, the learned editor is 
obscure. If, as seems to be intimated, Hugh lived till 1143, his life was 
a long one. The especial value of his narrative is that in it the history 
of the claims of Canterbury and of the resistance of York is given from 
the York point of view. The question was political as well as ecclesi- 
astical. Hugh tells us that Lanfranc, when advocating the sole primacy 
of Canterbury, impressed upon the Conqueror that a Northern primate 
would be capable of crownmg some Danish, Norwegian, or Scottish 
adventurer as king, and so dividing the kingdom. In later days. Arch- 
bishop Thurstan, to whom a large part of Hugh's narrative is devoted, 
strove for the claims of his Northern see as stoutly as he afterwards 
fought the Scots, and with some success. It is worth noting that Hugh 
mentions the antipapa, thus affording an example of the use of this word 
nearly a century earlier than Roger of Wendover, from whom it is quoted 
in the * New English Dictionary.' 

The collected chronicles of the archbishops which have till now passed 
under the name of Thomas Stubbs, a writer of the fourteenth century, have 
been re-edited by Canon Raine from the manuscripts, with the addition 
of a hitherto unprinted part carrying the series on from Alexander 
Neville to Wolsey. ' The discovery of a manuscript written at least a 
hundred and fifty years before Stubbs 's time ' proves that he could not 
have been the author of the first part of the chronicle, though he may 
fairly be credited with the authorship of the middle portion, that from 
1147 to 1373. Canon Raine tells us all that can be made out about the 
personal history of Thomas Stubbs, whose surname is one which ' for many 
centuries . . . has been borne in the Forest of Knaresbrough by a race of 
yeomen and estatesmen.' The curious ' Miscellanea ' relative to Arch- 
bishop Scrope and his execution in 1405, which have already been printed, 
* but very inaccurately,' in the ' Anglia Sacra,' have likewise been re- 
edited for this volume. One passage of the * Articuli ' which Scrope, in 
an evil hour for himself, promulgated against * qucyidajn dominum, scilicet 
Henricum Derby ' (King Henry IV), is noteworthy as affording an illustra- 
tion of a well-known line in Shakespeare. 

[Idem dominus Henricus] * statim castra regia manu forti recepit ac 
tenuit, bona regia ubicunque fuerant inventa vastavit, et, clamando havok, 
fideles homines, tam spirituales quam temporales, quosdam spoliavit, 
quosdam captivavit et incarceravit, quosdam miserabili et incessabili et 
turpissima morte condemnavit et occidit.' 



The trial and beheading of Scrope himself, with the previous refusal 
of Chief Justice Gascoigne to pass sentence upon him, are recounted in 
a paper drawn up by one Clement Maydestone, who goes on to tell how 
the divine wrath pursued King Henry even in death. Readers of Lingard 
may remember the strange story, which he gives in a note, about Henry's 
corpse, when on its way by water to Canterbury, being thrown overboard 
to allay a sudden storm. This tale Clement and his father, Thomas 
Maydestone, Esquire, within thirty days of the event, heard from one of 
the actors in the scene. The editor's marginal note attenuates the strength 
of the evidence by making the story rest solely on the communication of 
the elder Maydestone to his son ; but the text certainly asserts that 
Clement himself saw and heard the original narrator. However, the story 
is no more to be depended upon than most other stories current * on the 
best authority.' According to Clement, the coffin was brought with all 
show of honour to Canterbury, and there buried. Canon Raine in a note 
adds : ' The king's tomb was opened some years ago, and the remains 
of the body were found in it, undisturbed.' 

A third volume is promised, with many new and valuable documents 
therein, which will be looked forward to with interest. One suggestion 
may be offered : — that a more liberal supply of dates in the margin would 
much add to the reader's comfort. Edith Thompson. 

The History of the English Constitution. By Dr. Rudolf Gneist. 
Translated by Philip A. Ashwoeth. 2 vols. (London : Clowes & 

Sons, 1885.) 

The contents of Dr. Gneist's work have already been noticed in another 
place, but something should be said here about the translation. Although 
generally readable and correct, it is by no means a perfect piece of work. 
To begin with, the style is not always such as might be desired. For 
instance, the following sentences are of a kind which no translator should 
allow himself to print : — 

' But the more that in the course of time, the business and the official 
staff became consolidated, the more did this consolidation lead to a legal 
definition of qualification on a well-balanced average, in the same way as 
all formations of estates of the realm can be ultimately reduced.^ . . . The 
membership of the council becomes gradually absorbed by the members 
of the great council, who now understood their position as forming a 
unity.'^ . . . Yet here the state of affairs, partly old and partly new, 
required to be separated from one another.^ ... In fact by the legislation 
of this period, those permanent institutions were founded, which towered 
above the struggles of the time Uke a pillar : large independent local unions 
and great judicial corporations encircle every government redoubtably, 
even in the conflict for the crown itself.'' . . .Both sides are affected by the 
same spirit, which on the continent made the nobility subservient, by 
attracting it to the court and by preferring it to the great offices.'^ . . . The 
legislation by parliament, under Henry VII, began, which recognised the 
title to the throne, or rather recreated it.' ^ 

I Vol. i. 424. 

2 lb. 429. 

s lb. 169. 

* Ih. ii. 108. 

» lb. 145.. 

« lb. 148. 

VOL. III. — NO. IX. 


Such slipshod work as this is not, it is true, very abundant, but examples 
might too easily be multiplied. Nor is the correctness of the translation 
always to be depended upon. It is not that there are many bad mistakes, 
but there are too many cases of slight inaccuracy. The result to the 
reader is a feeling akin to that of walking on thin ice : one cannot feel 
confident that the sense of the original is exactly given. For instance, in 
the very first line, ' the conquest of the British Isles by the Saxons,' &c., 
should of course be * of the British Isle.' The Saxons did not conquer 
Ireland. * Freedom ' '^ is no equivalent of ' Gemeindefreiheit : ' it is the 
self-governing communes that are in Dr. Gneist's mind. ' Das Jahrhun- 
dert der organisirenden Gesetze,' the title of § 19 of Dr. Gneist's work, is 
ill translated by 'the century of statutes,' in which the most important 
word is left out. * The step which exalted the ducal dignity, until then 
recognised as a martial title, to the permanent position of supreme power, 
was, regarded from without, of no great importance.'^ This sentence 
fails to give Dr. Gneist's meaning, which is expressed in words hardly 
capable of literal translation. If we put it thus : — ' The step which raised 
the military leader, whose authority was recognised only during a time of 
war, into a permanent sovereign, was, regarded from without, no great 
one ' — the translation may be less literal, but it is more intelligible and 
correct. A well-known passage in Cnut's laws is translated : ' Let the 
surety constringe and lead him to all his rights.' * Constringe,' by the 
way, is an unfamiliar word. Dr. Gneist keeps close to the original : * Der 
Bilrge halte und geleite ihn zu allem Becht,' i.e. ' Let the surety hold and 
bring him [to the court] for every case.' When A goes bail for B, A's 
business is not to see that B gets his rights from a third party, but that 
the third party gets his rights from B. Here, as in one or two other pas- 
sages, a little more history would have saved Mr. Ash worth from mistake. 
He would have known, for instance, that when Dr. Gneist talks about a 
* mittlere Thanschaft mit einem Besitznormal von filnf Hufen,' he did 
not mean * a thanehood with an average possession of five hides,' ^ but * a 
minimum property' of that amount. * Loan-land,' or 'leasehold,' is a 
better equivalent for ' laenland ' than ' fiefland,' ^° which introduces feudal 
ideas long before their time ; and ' provost ' is not a good substitute for 
' reeve ' (' Schulze ').^^ It is a graver error to translate ' aus jedem Flechen 
die zwolf Bilrger ' by ' from each township twelve citizens.' ^^ It is the city 
or borough, not the township, which sends its twelve representatives to the 
county-court. Among the principles on which the new system of juris- 
diction was based in the thirteenth century Dr. Gneist places first ' Tre7i- 
nung der Bechtsprecliimg von der Beweisfrage,' which is translated ' The 
separation of the administration of justice from the question of evi- 
dence.' ^^ This misses the point. What Dr. Gneist means is that the 
same persons were no longer witnesses and judges ; the delivery of sen- 
tence (Bechtsprechwig) was now the duty of one set of persons, the 
giving of evidence the duty of others. ' Auswdrtige ' is not ' foreigners,' ^^ 
but simply ' outsiders,' people not belonging to the town. ' Die Initiative 
der Gesetzgehung" is not 'the initiative of the legislature,'^^ but 'the 
initiative in legislation,' a very different thing. Dr. Gneist calls Burnet's 

' C. H. i. 14. « i. 15. « i. 69. '" i. 171, note. '» i. 182, note. 

'2 i. 361. '" i. 356. '* ii. 141. '* ii. 149. 



'History of the Reformation' ' quellenmdssig,' for which, not 'authen- 
tic,' '^ but ' authoritative,' i.e. founded on documentary evidence, is the 
equiva-lent. * A bench-court ' *^ is strange English, and hardly expresses 
what is meant by ' eine collegialische Behorde.' ' Stellung ' is not ' insti- 
tution,' ^^ but ' position.' ' Fortdauer ' is not ' progress,' *^ but ' duration.' 
Of the four committees of the privy council projected in 1660 one only, 
says Dr. Gneist, ' luurde praktisch,' which is translated, * was practical ^o 
instead of ' got into working,' or some such phrase. ' The right of ap- 
pointment vested in the council ' ^Ws an absurd mistranslation of ' Das 
Ernennungsrecht des Condi,'' and makes nonsense of the passage. What 
is meant is, of course, ' the royal prerogative of naming the council.' But 
enough of instances. Such errors, it may be said, are trivial, but they 
are sufficient to destroy that perfect confidence which a translation of an 
exact and scientific work ought to inspire. 

The feeling of mistrust is to some extent strengthened by Mr. 
Ashworth's misprints. Some of these are his own, as ' goabini ' for 

* scabini ; ' 22 < mundfyrd ' for ' mundbyrd ; ' ^^ Lord Herbert's ' Life of 
Henry VH,' which should be Henry VIII ; ^4 'Piers' for ' Riess ; ' ^^ 
' impartiality ' for ' partiality ; ' 26 < disbelief for ' belief.' ^^ But a great 
many are simply copied from Dr. Gneist, as ' Suthwai ' for ' Suthrei,' i.e. 
Surrey ; ^^ * fides futuros ' for ' fideles futures ; ' 29 • infangtheft and out- 
fangtheft ' for ' infangthef and outfangthef ; ' ^0 ' hundredo ' for ' hun- 
dreda ; ' ^^ ' cocseti ' for ' cotseti ; ' ^^ ' carucagium ' for ' carucata ; ' ^^ 

* statute of Rutland ' for ' Rhuddlan,' which is a mistake several times 
made by Dr. Gneist, and religiously repeated by Mr. Ash worth ; ^"^ ' Eiren- 
archia ' for ' Eirenarcha ; ' ^^ ' Ochenski ' for ' Ochenkowski ; ' ^^ and others. 
These are little signs of carelessness which it will be well to eliminate in 
the second edition which will doubtless soon be required. 

G. W. Peothero. 

A History of the University of Oxford from the Earliest Times to the 

year 1530. By H. C. Maxwell Lyte, M.A., F.S.A. (London: 

Macmillan & Co. 1886.) 
A History of the University of Oxford. By the Hon. G. C. Brodrick, 

D.C.L., Warden of Merton College. (London: Longmans & Co. 


In these two volumes, two very different methods of treatment of the 
same subject are brought before us. Mr. Lyte, in a large octavo of nearly 
500 pages, gives us the history of the university of Oxford down to the 
year 1530 ; the warden of Merton, in a small octavo of 222 pages, 
sketches its history down to the present time. Both writers have enjoyed 
exceptional advantages with respect to access to original documents. 
They alike write in a candid and impartial spirit, and with a manifest 
desire to represent things only as they find them, and the result is in 
each case a valuable addition to our historical literature. In neither 

'« C. H. ii. 155. 

'^ ii. 169. 

'« ii. 183. 

'9 ii. 143. 

20 ii. 288. 

2> ii. 295. 

•" i. 8. 

•-" i. 58. 

2* ii. 129. 

2* ii. 38. 

-« ii. 219. 

" ii. 408, note. 

28 i. 45. 

2" i. 124. 

«> i. 148. 

3» i. 166. 

32 i. 167. 

33 i. 215. 

3^ i. 347, 387. 

^ i. 368. 

3« ii. 98. 
M 2 


case can the task be said to have been an easy one. Mr. Lyte, who was 
at first sanguine as to the completion of his work before pubhcation, has 
found himself obliged to proceed more slowly than he had anticipated, 
and eventually to publish only the present instalment. In his case, 
the extent of the materials requiring to be examined and digested would 
alone render his task sufficiently arduous. In the other, the difficulty has 
been to give at once an outline that shall be intelligible to the general 
reader, and at the same time to avoid the introduction, in so limited 
a compass, of whatever may appear irrelevant or superfluous to the well- 
read scholar. Dr. Brodrick's task has, indeed, been of a far more onerous 
character than many would imagine ; readers who have never laboured 
in the same field would probably be surprised if Dr. Brodrick had 
thought fit to set before them the numerous sources from whence this 
condensed narrative has been compiled. Mr. Lyte, in his preface, 
says very truly that the affairs of the university have at almost every 
stage been closely connected with those of the state ; and this fact alone 
considerably enhances the labour of the historian. At every stage he 
finds himself called upon to distinguish between the direct work and 
influence of academic institutions, and the careers and influence of those 
whom these institutions have educated — a function always requiring to 
be exercised with much discrimination, but, whatever may be the dis- 
crimination exercised, almost certain to be called in question. Of one 
kind of treatment, that of the most abstract kind, Father Denifle has 
given us a specimen in the first instalment of his great work on medieval 
universities, treating of their origin and primary constitution ; a volume 
of which Mr. Rashdall gave us a very interesting account in these pages 
for October 1886. Antony Wood, on the other hand, left readers to make 
out the constitution of his own university for themselves, while he evaded 
other difficulties by treating the history of the university and that of the 
colleges separately, and putting forth the ' Athenae ' as something sup- 
plementary to both. This reduced him, so far as the university was 
concerned, to the function of a mere annalist, recording events, as Mr. 
Lyte observes, * without attempting to classify them or show their con- 
nexion with one another.' If, however, there be any force or value in 
the view on which the late J. R. Green so strenuously insisted — that 
every town possesses a distinct and characteristic existence of its own — the 
observation must be yet more true of a university, brought, as the com- 
ponent elements are, under common influences to an extent which cannot 
be asserted of any city or town. 

The mention of a town reminds us, again, how difficult it often be- 
comes to dissociate the history of a university from that of the munici- 
pality by which it is generally surrounded. The corporations at Oxford 
and Cambridge, unlike those of some of the minor university towns of 
Germany, such as Marburg and Jena, have always had a fairly defined ex- 
istence of their own. Cooper was fain to compile his annals of the university 
and of the town of Cambridge side by side : while Mr. Lyte has felt himself 
called upon, although contemplathig only a history of the university, 
to give no little attention to the successive incidents of the struggle 
between the clerks and the townsmen, from the time when a bishop of 
Tusculum first established the immunity of the university from lay juris- 



diction down to that when Wolsey's charter raised the same body * into 
a position of supremacy over all persons in Oxford.' On Dr. Brodrick it 
devolves to continue the story of the long dissension down to the time 
when it was finally set at rest by the surrender on the part of the university 
of the right it possessed of calling upon the mayor and bailiffs to swear, on 
taking office, that they would keep ' the liberties and customs of the univer- 
sity.' It would seem to be partly in consequence of the habit he has acquired 
of looking upon the history of the one body as closely interwoven with that 
of the other, that Dr. Brodrick explains the * large share of space ' which 
he has devoted to the period of the civil wars, by referring to that period 
as ' the time during which the university played a great part in the 
national drama.' Otherwise such a statement would at first sight seem 
hardly in agreement with the admission that of the great political events 
of 1641 and 1642 * the university was, of course, a mere spectator,' and 
that during the whole period ' the records of the university and colleges are 
extremely scanty ' (p. 132), or again with Antony Wood's assertion that after 
the siege ' there was scarce the face of a university left.' But the truth of 
the whole matter really is, that there are so many ways of looking at the 
subject of university history and its treatment, that until a writer has, to 
some extent, defined his own conception of his task, it is difficult justly to 
estimate the adequacy of his performance. Looking, however, upon a 
university as a body whose main function it is, according to one definition, 
to produce the thoroughly educated man, and thereby create a standard 
of education for the country at large, or looking upon it as a community 
formed for the promotion of scientific research and the furtherance of 
knowledge, we shall find valuable material in both these volumes for fairly 
estimating the extent to which Oxford, at different periods of her history, 
has failed or succeeded in realising either the one or the other ideal. In 
medieval times the thoroughly educated man was held to be the ortho- 
dox man. Heterodoxy being error, it could only exist in the imperfectly 
informed mind or in the perversely directed intellect. The statutes of 
Lincoln college, which, as remodelled by Archbishop Kotherham in 1480, 
were designed as a bulwark of orthodoxy, direct that any fellow of the 
society persisting in heresy is to be cast out of the college * as a diseased 
sheep ' at the end of eight days (Lyte, p. 349). All Souls' college, hke Cor- 
pus Christi at Cambridge, was primarily designed mainly as a chantry. The 
statutes of Magdalen, in 1457, are the first which carry with them the freer 
spirit of the Kenaissance. This fear of heterodoxy, so long the bugbear of 
the universities, seems to have culminated at Oxford with the rise of Lol- 
lardism. Most readers, I apprehend, will feel some disappointment that 
Mr. Lyte's researches have failed to produce much that is new with respect 
to WycHf's experiences in the university— experiences concerning which 
Dr. Brodrick goes so far as to say that, if known to us, they * would cover 
almost the whole academical history of Oxford during the latter part of the 
fourteenth century.' Mr. Lyte has, however, put together in his tenth 
chapter a very interesting account of all that is to be known on the sub- 
ject. There is a singular resemblance in the general features of the 
struggle waged by Wyclif and his supporters with the academic authori- 
ties, to those of the contest at Cambridge, two centuries later, waged by 
Cartwright and his followers,— although the gigantic evils denounced by 


the former contrast strongly with the mostly unimportant matters of 
ritual and discipline inveighed against by the puritan leader. It is de- 
serving of note that some of Wyclif's opponents were themselves called to 
account for having put forward heterodox views in the schools, and 
defended themselves by alleging that they had done so merely by way of 
dialectical exercise. It is probable, and various evidence from time to 
time points to such a conclusion, that the disputations in the schools 
had often a closer relation to the diffusion of sceptical thought than is 
generally supposed. Wolsey's statutes for Cardinal college, given at a 
time when the fear of Lollardism had passed away and that of Lutheran- 
ism had scarcely taken definite shape, seem to have been the first code, 
judging from Mr. Lyte's abstract, in which orthodoxy appears to have occu- 
pied the care of the founder less than the advancement of learning. So 
desirous, indeed, was the great cardinal of rendering his new founda- 
tion an efficient school of instruction,, that he somewhat incautiously in- 
vited several of the ablest scholars among the young Eeformers at Cam- 
bridge to act as lecturers and tutors, who, when it was too late, were found 
to be ' sheep ' infected with disease in a highly virulent form. The facts 
which Mr. Lyte brings forward in connexion with the divorce of Henry VIII 
from Queen Catherine sufficiently show how groundless is the distinc- 
tion which Mr. Froude has sought to draw between the conduct of the 
two universities in relation to that event. It is evident that at Oxford 
and Cambridge alike the younger masters of arts, who were less exposed 
to the temptations resulting from irregular external influences, rallied 
almost unanimously to the defence of the injured queen. 

As regards Father Denifle's treatise, to which we have already referred, 
it might have somewhat modified Mr. Lyte's treatment of his subject, at 
least in his opening chapters, if he could have profited by the learned 
Dominican's labours. He does not, however, appear to have seen the 
book, and refers chiefly to the late Professor Maiden's sketch, published 
some fifty years ago, and compiled mainly from Savigny. And Savigny, 
with all his great learning and acumen, must now yield as an authority 
to Denifle, whose wider range of view is largely derived from documents 
to which his predecessor had not even access. Dr. Brodrick, however, 
has consulted Denifle's volume, and we can perceive that he has incor- 
porated some of its more important conclusions. He readily admits, as 
also indeed does Mr, Lyte, that the community out of which the univer- 
sity of Oxford originally grew was, as at Paris, nothing more than a 
band of teachers forming themselves into a kind of guild for purposes of 
mutual protection. How it was that Oxford, unlike Cambridge, never 
obtained a charter from the pope, neither of them attempts to explain. 
Neither, again, gives us any clue as to the order in which the several 
faculties arose and were developed, a feature on which Denifle has 
thrown quite a new light in connexion with Paris. It would appear 
scarcely necessary to advert, as Dr. Brodrick has done, in accounting for 
the fact that Oxford was modelled on Paris, to such general considera- 
tions as ' the links which bound England to France, through Normandy 
and her other French provinces,' or ' the intellectual ascendency of Paris 
over western Europe.' Since Thurot wrote, it would seem to have been 
made clear beyond dispute that down to the year 1378 Paris was especi- 


ally favoured by the Koman pontiffs as the great studium generate, or 
school of general resort, for students in theology, and that consequently 
all the more ancient universities north of the Alps, where a faculty of 
theology was allowed to be established, were modelled upon Paris. At 
page 11, Dr. Brodrick refers to a seal ' supposed to be about of the year 
1200, which bears the inscription, sigillum cancellarii et universitatis 
Oxoniensis.' Such a claim to antiquity, if it; could be made good, would 
in itself be a most remarkable piece of evidence. But the claim, if I 
understand rightly the account of the matter given by Mr. Lyte (pp. 
246-8), rests upon a document which has been clearly shown to be a 

If the Keformation swept away some undeniable abuses, it effected 
little for the promotion of liberal thought either at Oxford or at Cam- 
bridge. Dr. Brodrick is even of opinion that there was less real intel- 
lectual freedom in the protestant Oxford of Elizabeth than in the catholic 
Oxford of the first three Edwards. Of Leicester's administration as 
chancellor, however, he speaks with more leniency than I should have 
expected. Like Buckingham's policy in the same capacity at Cambridge, 
it was characterised by subserviency to a party, the puritan party, with 
whom neither could have had any genuine sympathy. Dr. Brodrick 
admits, however, that Leicester's administration could not compare with 
that of Burghley at Cambridge, and that * the superiority of the sister 
university, both in vital energy and in national esteem, during the Eliza- 
bethan age, was probably due in no small degree to the superior character 
of its chancellor ' (p. 93). 

It may perhaps excite some surprise that in dealing with the period 
1603-41 — thirty- eight years of supreme importance in relation to the 
subsequent history of the university — the author should have devoted 
only twenty-two pages to its treatment, while the comparatively unim- 
portant period of nineteen years, from 1641 to 1660, during which little 
that permanently affected the organisation or character of the community 
took place, occupies no less than twenty-eight pages. During the earlier 
period there was effected the momentous transition from Calvinistic to 
Arminian tenets as the dominant faith of the university, and the Laudian 
statutes, destined to be the code of the university for more than two 
centuries, were then promulgated. The main scope and chief provisions 
of these statutes are brought very clearly before us. With respect to 
the course of study and standards of examination, they went so much 
beyond the requirements of either preceding or later times that Dr. Brod- 
rick doubts whether they can ever have been strictly enforced ; and in 
two important respects they were a failure from the first, inasmuch as 
they ' provided no security for the capacity of examiners, or against their 
collusion with the candidates,' who were consequently ' animated by little 
fear of rejection, and no hope whatever of distinction.' 

The famous statute of 1800, mainly the work of Eveleigh, the provost 
of Oriel, was the first step towards a substantial remedy for these defects. 
It estabUshed an honour as distinguished from a pass examination, and con- 
templated a further examination for the M.A. degree, ' comprising higher 
mathematical subjects, history, and Hebrew ; while candidates for the 
B.C.L. degree were to be examined in history and jurisprudence, besides 


the subjects required for the B.A. degree.' The examiners were also from 
this time paid by salaries and chosen by responsible officers to serve for 
considerable periods. It was, however, the act of 1854 which first 
broke the ' organised torpor ' of the hebdomadal board, and instituted 
an elective council, set by the side of convocation, where the use of Latin 
was obligatory, a congregation carrying on its debates in English, and 
permitted entire freedom from religious tests whether at matriculation or on 
taking the B.A. degree. In 1871 came the complete abolition of religious 
tests, including the college fellowships. 

Passing on to the fifteenth chapter, on * University Studies in the 
Eighteenth Century,' while readily conceding that it is not a period on 
which the historian of academic Oxford could be expected to dwell with 
complacency, I cannot but think that it would have gained in interest if 
some of the material collected in Mr. Christopher Wordsworth's ' Scholffi 
Academics ' had been added by way of illustration. On another point I 
should certainly not feel warranted in questioning the correctness of Dr. 
Brodrick's decision. Mr. Lyte, in his tenth chapter, goes so far as to 
co-ordinate Wesleyanism with Lollardism and Tractarianism as one of 
the * three great religious movements ' which have had their origin in 
Oxford. Dr. Brodrick, however, tells us nothing whatever about the 
Wesleyan movement, and John Wesley's name itself occurs but once or 
twice, and is mentioned only in an incidental manner. So far as I can 
judge, this omission seems quite defensible, and Oxford would seem to 
have about as much claim to be considered the centre of the influences 
which gave birth to Wesleyanism as had Antioch to be regarded as the 
nurse of Christianity. But, on the other hand, the rise of the Eoyal Society 
in the preceding century does seem to have been the direct outcome of a 
certain mental activity at Oxford, and it would have been pleasant to 
hear something about the little gatherings in Betty's or Wilkins's 
lodgings about the year 1649. There are other omissions which the 
bestowal of but a few lines would have remedied ; as, for example, college 
plays, and the importance they often assumed from the fact that tJiey 
were the vehicle of satire on existing abuses and the expression of some 
widely prevalent dissatisfaction. In the chapter dealing with the Kenais- 
sance. Bishop Grey's valuable bequest of his classical manuscripts to 
Balliol college should scarcely have been passed over unnoticed in 
connexion with a time when such facts are so rarely to be met with. 

A good index adds much to the value of an outline like the present, 
but it is evident that Dr. Brodrick did not make his own index. Geife- 
rally speaking, it is a fairly good canon that wherever a name presents 
itself it should be indexed. But even this rule has its exceptions. For 
example. Dr. Brodrick takes occasion in one passage to quote the Shake- 
spearian adage, that ' home-keeping youths have ever homely wits,' and 
accordingly Shakespeare's name appears in the index, while names really 
of importance in connexion with Oxford history, and many abstract 
nouns, such as ' bachelor,' * matriculation,' * fellowships,' &c., are 
omitted. J. Bass Mullinger. 


Historical Manuscripts Commission. Tenth Keport : 
Appendix, part iv. 1885. 

A NUMBER of papers of all kinds on a vast variety of subjects. The 
Westmorland papers, of peculiar interest to students of the Stuart 
period ; the case of the precedency of baronets ; the last illness and death of 
Kobert, earl of Salisbury, 1612 ; a httle autobiography of Charles Fane, 
third earl of Westmorland ; a journal of Maria, wife of John, third earl 
of Clarendon, 1791 and 1802-3, in France, Italy, Switzerland, and 
Austria ; verses by the second earl of Westmorland ; and letters from 
Coleman Pitt and others, make up their chief contents. This * ballet, 
3 Sept. 1698, is, I think, new : — 

Owld Oliver's gon — Owld Oliver's gon Hone Hone 
And has left his son Eichard That pretty young prickeard 

To govern these nations, alone, alone. 
The counsail & state He commanded of late Hone Hone 
But ye tables turnd quite Those govern this wight 

And turns our rejoycing to mone to mone. 
Thus w^'* their consent There's call'd Parlement Hone O Hone 
Soe twixt Suede and Spruce Ther'l be made a truce 

And wrangle be generally known 
The cuntry's are quiet Fates bless their good diet Hone O Hone 
Tis a pittifuU thing Three Kingdoms noe king 

And estates to be rackt skin & bone 
Yet we live in hope to conquer yee Pope O Hone O Hone 
When souldiers & clowns Fall at odds about crowns 

Then true men may come by their owne. 

Among Colonel Stewart's papers, besides a curious deed of adoption, 
11 Feb. 1302-3, by Ranulf de la More burgess of Rothelan, and numerous 
deeds and courtroUs &c. (1200-1800), is much of the correspondence of the 
Moore family of Cheshire and Suffolk, touching the civil war in the north- 
west and Ireland. In a diary of Colonel Moore's relating the operations 
about Dundalk in 1647, for 7 Oct. occurs this entry : ' The generall 
. . . summoned them in Portleister to render it upp but they refusing, in 
the night he planted his ordinance against it, and having begunne early 
in the morning to batter it with two great gunnes, before eleven of clock 
on Thursday on syde of the wall fell and overwhelmed several of the 
defendants, the rest betaking themselves to the bogge by the which the 
castle is situated escaped. One musketeer standing upon the verie 
toppe of the wall came downe with the mines thereof having received no 
great hurt and had made ane escape if his legge had not stuck between 
two stones, but imediatly the souldiers killed him. Our men having burnt 
the house and killed a woman or two, marched thence to a castle three 
myles of and w*^in three myles of Aboy wher they encamped this night.* 

Some charming letters from Mary Moore to her husband Colonel John 
Moore, a report of the house of commons committee as to the cause of 
the fire of London, some household rules of 1677, the dying wishes of 
Dorothy Moore 1673, a marriage proposal of 1690, a report of Falkirk 
fight 19 Jan. 1745, and a farewell letter of Simon Frazer 1747, are 
among the most noteworthy pieces of this collection. 


The letters of Edward Proger, page of honour to Charles I, groom of 
the bedchamber to Charles IT, are of some mterest. Lord Stafford sends 
some valuable rolls, grants, computus rolls, and an obit list (1230-1550), 
the Jerningham correspondence (1550-1751), rich in domestic and social 
detail. Sir N. Throckmorton contributes the church missal of Buckland, 
fifteenth century, and papers on the Gates plot, 1681-2. Stonyhurst 
college gives lists of Oxfordshire recusants, 1705, and abstracts of wills of 
priests of the society of Jesus, 1666-1780. Sir P, T. Mainwaring has 
charters of Hugh Kevelioc and Eanulf Blundevill his son, 500 deeds prior 
to Henry VIII, many court rolls, fines, rentals, patents and commissions, 
Dugdale's ' Chartularium Mainwaringianum ' 1699, army pay list of 1654, 
early post-office papers 1673-77, and the diary of Colonel Whitley 1684-97. 
The Misses Boycott of Hereford possess the manuscripts of John Earle, 
serjeant-at-law to his highness the Protector, law memoranda, love letters, 
royal objections to copyhold enfranchisement, accounts on circuit, &c. 

The Muncaster manuscripts are important. Besides a great number 
of medieval deeds (13th to 15th century) relating mostly to the north- 
west, there is a fine collection of documents, temp. Jas. I, 1605-7, on the 
peace of the west border, and its chief disturbers, the Musgraves, Kutlier- 
fords, Armstrongs, and Grahams, which are of value to the historian, the 
administrator, and the student of border ballads. Herein are to be found 
accounts of such notable events as escapes of prisoners (Scots and English 
rievers) from Carlisle castle, the murder of Sir John Carmichael, the ill 
tveek when Grton was spoiled (1603), the breaking of Carlisle castle by 
the lord of Buccleugh and Hutchin Grayme and * the fetchinge of one 
William Kinnoul [Kinmont Willie] forth thereof,' the slaying of Hector 
Armstrong by Captain Eeed (Aug. 1603), the betrayal of Sandie's 
Eynion, the death of Barnegleese, and the execution of Willie Grayme 
or Flaughtaile, William Elliott, and others. These are papers which 
Scott would have delighted to read, and which Professor Child will no 
doubt make the best use of. Admiral Pennington's log-books 1631-6 are 
of much value to students of naval history ; the very sea terms used are 
attractive, such as ' whelpes ' (small swift tenders to the admiral's ships 
of war),barkes, dragoones, pinnaces, hoyes, sloops, fly boates, bisquiners, 
shallopes, pickeroones, Turkes pyrates, and friggates, all of which occur. 
Specimens of entries are, 21 Oct. 1635 : 

* This daye wee had the Master of a freebooter in the bilbowes for not 
striking his topsayles and for giving ill language.' * About five a clock 
at night not farr from the N head of the Goodwin Sands, wee [James 
Clarke, master of the ** Blessing," of Disert, Scotland, eighty tons] were 
clapt aboard bytwo Flushinge freebooters . . . Spanish built, the greater 
of them a Carravill, and the other much like a caravill, the biggest of 
the two her beak-head turned up close unto the boult spritt. She had 
eight peeces of ordynance, her mainemast stoode somthinge stooping 
forward at the head — with a topp, but her fore-mast stooped forward 
extremely, at the head noe topp. She had a knee upon the boultsprit. 
They both boarded the " Blessing," beat the crew and did damage up to 
42Z. 5s.' They had apparently just before robbed his majesty's packet boat 
of about 70Z. ' They [the crew of a fly boat of Plymouth bound from the 
isle of May with salt] certified us [16 June 1633] of 2 Turkes that were newly 


come upon our coast, the one having 7 the other 11 pieces, which clapt 
him aboard betwixt the Gulfe and Land's End and hurt 9 or 10 of his 
men very dangerously, but at last — God bee praysed — they got from them 
and slew 4 of the Turkes — that entered them — outright and drove the 
rest overboard.' 

The Kendal corporation papers are valuable for local and west border 
history. Captain Bagot's manuscripts comprise a splendid array of 
twelfth and thirteenth century deeds, correspondence of Colonel James 
Graham of Levens Hall, 1688-1726 ; and the account book of the duke 
of York's privy purse, 1674-1676. Papers of General G. Browne of Trout- 
beck give much information as to the condition of Westmorland in the 
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, some notices of the '15 and '45, 
and the private prayer book of Thomas, seventh earl of Northumberland, 
executed 1572. The earl of Kilmorey's muniments comprise many fine 
deeds of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries ; many seven- 
teenth century papers relating principally to Salop. In 1639 tobacco was 
one shilling per oz. at Drayton, tobacco pipes two a penny, eggs five a 
penny, as the account book of Viscount Kilmorey for that year informs us. 
Mr. Stanley Leighton, who published the muniments of Oswestry, has some 
good seventeenth and eighteenth century papers relating to Shrewsbury 
and its neighbourhood. The earl of Powis has many seventeenth century 
Herbert papers, 1586-1735, a manuscript of Kobert Barratt's translation 
of Du Bartas' poems, and Sir William Herbert's ' Croftus sive de Hibernia 
liber ' (recently published). The Bishop's Castle corporation have bylaws 
or orders, and other documents, 1572-1685. Mr. A. Salwey has an inte- 
resting mass of papers relating to Major Richard Salwey and Edward 
Salwey, 1653-1685. Mr. Lechmere Parkinson has valuable thirteenth and 
fourteenth century deeds and correspondence of the Charlton and Foley 
families, full of social interest, during the reigns of William IH, Anne, 
and George I. The corporation of Much Wenlock have interesting account 
books and good constable's presentments during the Commonwealth. 
Bridgenorth muniments are chiefly valuable for social and economic 
history and Tudor municipal history. Mr. Lloyd Gatacres' documents 
comprise deeds of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and good 
seventeenth century miscellanea, songs, epitaphs, proverbs, ordinances, 
reports by John Bradeley c. 1594. Mr. Z. Lloyd has, besides medieval 
deeds, some correspondence of the early part of Henry VIII's reign, re 
Therouenne siege, sweating sickness, &c., besides notices of Wyatt's 
capture 1554, and of the three days' sea fight of 1666. Rev. T. S. Hill 
has a cartulary and many deeds of the Austin priory of Blythburgh, 
Suffolk ; and Rev. C. R. Manning extents of Sibeton abbey, and deeds of 
the chantrey of St. Mary of Metyngham. The rolls of the county of 
Essex at the Shire Hall, Chelmsford, for the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries are full and yield much matter of social and economic history. 

The records of the corporation of Eye (which royal honour, Mr. Jeaf- 
freson suggests, may be the Heye-Suftblk or High-Suffolk of local fame) 
cover a good deal of ground. The long lost gospel-book of St. Felix, the 
Red Book of Eye, has not yet been discovered, but it is darkly hinted that 
it is likely to be in existence. 

The volume closes with a supplementary account of the records of 


the corporation of Plymouth, which since the report of the Historical 
Manuscripts Commission has been very worthily stirred to catalogue, 
examine, and arrange all its muniments down to 1835. They are re- 
markably rich, though chiefly, of course, concerned with municipal and 
local history. Noteworthy are : 1587-8 receiver's book : ' Item pd to 
Edwarde Fontwill for carry enge a Confession unto Sir Walter Rawley 
well was taken of one aryved out of Spaigne, ijs viijd. Item pd to 
Robte Scarlette for goenge out to discouer the Spaynish Fleet vjs. 
Item pd to John Gibbons and Henry Woode for watchinge at Ramehedde 
iiij dales when the Spanyerds were vppon the Coaste xs.' 

The reports are well made, the index is as full as practicable, the 
misprints are not many. It would be useful in future when a deed is 
abstracted to give all the witnesses' names. The omission of ' 8 others,' 
* 7 others,' ' 10 others,' does not save much space. One puts down the 
book astonished at the marvellous preservation of old papers in 
England, at the richness of material for municipal history, and at the 
mass of really interesting correspondence which awaits the good pleasure 
of our publishing societies. 

This Report has already, I believe, stimulated students to clear off 
some of the arrears of past years' negligence, and print some of the un- 
printed papers it catalogues. Already the American is beginning to make 
English genealogical and local history his own field : we ought to do our 
share of the work, at any rate. Why should not the careful editing of 
unpublished English documents take the place of some of the burdensome 
examination cram to which our university students of modern history 
are doomed ? True history is not to be learnt from summaries, but from 
the living documents. F. Yokk Powell. 

Les Affaires Beligieuses en Boheme an Seizi&me Siecle. Par E. Charve- 

EiAT. (Paris: E. Plon. 1886.) A\ 

M. Charveriat has already earned some reputation by his ' Histoire de la 
Guerre de Trente Ans.' It is, therefore, not the first time that he has 
handled Bohemian history. But he appears in that work rather as a 
laborious compiler than as a writer of original research, nor can greater 
praise be assigned to the one now before us ; moreover he has treated his 
subject with all the bigotry of a devot. Entire freedom from prejudice is 
perhaps too robust a virtue to be required from any historian, be he who 
he may ; but something of the siccum lumen, which Bacon so earnestly 
desired, should surely be found in a writer handling the turbulent periods 
of Bohemian life in the sixteenth and earlier part of the seventeenth cen- 
turies. With our author the catholics are everywhere the champions of 
civil and religious liberty ; it is only the protestants who are intolerant. 
We soon weary of being told on every page that all the virtues were on 
the side of the Romanists. Of the Jesuits M. Charveriat says : Us eta- 
blirent un veritable enseignement religieiix catholique pour un peuple et 
un clergd qui en manquaient presque entierement. L'arriv&e de cette 
nouvelle milice religieuse ^nenaqait trop de positions mal acquises et mal 
occup&es pour ctre favorahlement accueillie en Bohdme. He sees nothing 
but a kind of political egotism in the struggles of the Bohemians for the 


purity of their faith : La Boheme, encore irritee des longues luttes qu'elle 
avait soutenues contreV Allemagne catholique, voulait, tout en s'tmissant d 
Borne conserver une eglise nationale. A ime ipoque oil la politique et la 
religion demeuraient etroitement unies, la Boheme considerait une religion 
ou du moins une Eglise distincte comme la principale base d'une nationa- 
lity veritable et compUte. We hold this view of the Bohemians to have 
been a very sound one, and we ought to be grateful to the little nation 
for so continually proclaiming it, just as Huss conferred a benefit upon 
the world by his declaration of the right of private judgment in theo- 
logical matters ; but it is going too far to say that a great factor in these 
religious troubles was the national pique which the Chekhs felt against 
the Germans. 

Our author indulges in many invectives against Luther, whom he 
styles a great revolutionary, and in no way a reformer ; as may be 
imagined, he has not much good to say about the ' Letter of Majesty,' but 
he is compelled to acknowledge the enthusiasm with which it was greeted 
by the people, thereby giving proof how much the nation had identified 
itself with opposition to the papacy. In fact, the great fault which we 
have to find with M. Charveriat is that he takes too limited a view of the 
whole business. Instead of trying to understand the spirit underlying the 
great national struggle, he is perpetually occupied with trivial and second- 
rate matters. His book, in the better parts of it, is little more than an 
adaptation of the works of Gindely, whom he once only, on page 363, as far 
as we have noticed, ventures to criticise, and to Gindely his authorities are 
almost entirely limited. Valuable as are the labours of the great Chekh his- 
torian, some of his views have become a little antiquated, and the question 
must be studied afresh in the pages of Jaroslav Goll, and others ; but the 
name of Goll is never mentioned by M. Charveriat. He has published a 
valuable work on Jerome of Prague and the chronicle of Zi^ka ('Vypsani 
M. Jeronymovi z Prahy a Kroniku o J. ^izkovi '), some of the material 
of which was furnished by a manuscript found at Freiberg in Saxony. 
M. Charveriat has also clearly not read the book by Rezek, ' Zvoleni a 
Korunovani Ferdinanda I za Krale Ceskeho ' ('On the Election and Coro- 
nation of Ferdinand I as King of Bohemia '). This author, as Goll has 
also done, contributed many valuable papers to the journal of the Bo- 
hemian Literary Society (fiasopis Ceskeho Musea). 

The whole struggle is contemplated by M. Charveriat too much from a 
religious point of view ; the burning political questions lying underneath 
are regarded as of secondary importance. He reads all this great upheav- 
ing of society, these efforts of a people for national life, and distrust of its 
medieval beliefs, only through a pair of Roman catholic spectacles, treat- 
ing of it without enthusiasm, and only contributing the laboured accuracy 
of an antiquary. We cannot trace under his guidance any of the main 
threads running through the complex web ; and as he writes without in- 
sight into character, or descriptive power, we carry away no vigorous pic- 
tures of the leaders of the struggle, be they Budovec z Budova, Augusta, 
^erotin, Sixtus von Ottersdorf, the two Ferdinands or Rudolf. We get 
nothing but pale water- coloured sketches. No part of ihe subject is treated 
more superficially than the revolt of 1547, which cost the burghers, of 
Prague and other cities so dear and led to the confiscations of their 


privileges. On this point he might have consulted with advantage 
the work of K. Tieftrunk, ' Odpor Stavuv Ceskych proti Ferdinandovi I, 
1. 1547' (' Kesistance of the Bohemian Estates to Ferdinand I in the 
year 1547 '). 

From several passages of his work we should infer that M. Charveriat 
was but imperfectly acquamted even with the writings of Palack^f. He 
has certainly ignored the great mass of literature which has been accumu- 
lating during the last few years on the subject of Wycliffe — such as the 
writings of Lechler, and the publications of the Wyclif Society. His book, 
therefore, by no means represents the latest learning on the subject. In 
his treatment of Chekh names we notice occasional inaccuracies and in- 
consistencies, but on these points both English and French writers leave 
much to be desired. On page 118 we have, Elisabeth dernier e iwincesse 
de la race de Preinysch, where it should of course be Pfemysl ; we should 
have thought that Otakar Pfemysl, at least, and his struggle with Kudolf 
of Habsburg were well known. Piatrikow in the note on page 135 should be 
Piotrikow ; but this may be only a misprint. The diet, however, was not 
held there in 1555, but the following year. Finally, the name ^erotin is 
constantly written Zierotin, for no reason that can be perceived. 


The Autobiography of the Hon. Boger North. Edited by Augustus 
Jessopp, D.D. (London : David Nutt. 1887.) 

It is altogether a matter of congratulation that this interesting record 
should have fallen into hands so capable. We do not know whether most 
to praise the helpfulness of what editing there has been, or the self- 
restraint under which Dr. Jessopp has placed himself. He has left Eoger 
North to his slirewd if somewhat garrulous chat without interrupting him 
by a single unnecessary note or comment. He has resisted the tempta- 
tion of writing, what few coul'd write so well as he, a monograph. The 
book is, indeed, the only monograph needed, containing as it does a 
picture of the man himself which we cannot help feeling to be truer than 
those which his fraternal, or we might fairly say filial, affection prompted 
him to draw of the other members of a remarkable family. The only 
source of regret is that it should have been produced in a shape and under 
conditions which must render it inaccessible to nineteen out of every 
twenty who could find in it instruction and delight. 

It is difficult to say in what the peculiar charm consists. Eoger 
North was in no respect a famous man. His estimate of himself, that 
he was ' a plant of a slow growth, and when mature but slight wood and 
of a flashy growth,' is perhaps over-modest, and yet it is evidently not 
far from the mark. During his early manhood he was, so to speak, in 
tutelage to his brothers : to John, the future master of Trinity, while at 
Cambridge ; to Francis, the lord chief justice and lord keeper, while at 
the bar. He never occupied any prominent position, and his fairly suc- 
cessful professional career was the result not so much of his own merit as 
of his position as ' favourite ' to the great and successful lawyer, the 
'bond of the faggot.' His mind, though active and from boyhood in- 
genious, was not very powerful ; and though his senses were unsealed and 



his judgment clear, and though he participated fully in the general zeal 
for culture which marked the period, his professional duties left him little 
time to become more than an interested and interesting student of music, 
mathematics, morals, politics, and a score of other subjects. As to his 
politics, they, he confesses, came by chance. Born in 1653, he was but a 
child when the fervour of the great puritan movement had passed away. 
The * universal alacrity which was upon the king's return when I was a 
very boy ' was, he fancies, the accident from which arose his conclusion 
' that a king was a brave thing, and those that killed him base men, and 
consequently the coming back of his son a glorious triumph.' These 
somewhat rudimentary principles were, through his brother's conversa- 
tion, * confirmed into an inexpugnable fidelity to the crown.' Against 
* mobs and multitudes ' he is, as befits the author of the * Examen,' severe 
in a gentlemanly and lawyer-like manner. His censures, however, are 
impartial enough ; he ' could see the rottenness of men ; those against the 
government were mad, and those for it generally false ; ' while, as to the 
court, * modesty and good meaning were not coin current there,' 

North's composition, though easy, is entirely devoid of conscious 
humour ; there is, so far as we can remember, but one instance where he 
attempts a joke, and that is at the best a clumsy one. He is reminded, 
when speaking of Sir Matthew Hale, that Burnet * has pretended to write 
his life, but wanted both information and understanding for such an 
undertaking. ... He knew not the virtues he had fit to be praised, and 
I should recommend to him the lives of Jack Cade, Wat Tyler, or Crom- 
well, as characters fitter for his learning and pen to work upon than him.' 
And yet there is scarcely a page which cannot be read with pleasure 
or which does not contain some felicity of description. The various stages 
of his life form a series of graceful and clear-cut cameos. The account 
of the government ' in general severe but tender ' of his earliest days is 
full of lively touches, and the description of his mother deserves at least 
a partial extract : — 

* She maintained her authority, and yet condiscended to entertain us. 
She was learned (for a lady) and eloquent. Had much knowledge of 
history, and readyness of witt to express herself, especially in the part of 
reproof, wherein she was fluent and pungent. And not only her children 
but servants dreaded her Eeproof, knowing how sensibly she would attag 
them, and in the most nice and tender articles that concerned them. . . . 
This saved us that were children, and of stubborne spirits, as such usually 
are, the trouble and inconvenience of contesting points with her, for we 
knew beforehand, from the steddy conduct of her authority, that submis- 
sion was the best cours, and comported accordingly. . . . We had, as I 
sayd, stubborne spirits, and would often set up for ourselves, and try the 
experiment, but she would reduce us to termes by the smart of correction ; 
and, which was more grievous, would force us to leave crying, and condi- 
scend to the abject pitch of thanking the good Rail, which she said was to 
break our spirits, which it did effectually.' 

The home was conducted on the plain but Hberal scale usual among 
the higher gentry of moderate fortunes. The boys were early taught that 
one only of them could be brought up in idleness to be the heir. Accord- 
ingly he himself, while Francis was already on the lowest steps of the legal 


ladder, and John was beginning the career which was to end in the 
mastership of Trinity, was sent to the free school at Thetford, where he 
first ' began to be sensible of some tolerable capacity,' and whence he 
' came away with a schoolboy's conscience undefiled, never being assisted 
in any school exercise.' A certain ingenuity in making toys and fire- 
works brought him in small sums from his schoolfellows, wliicli went to 
gratify — and no one can say that Koger North has failed to enrich his 
mother tongue — his ' ingordigiousness of fruit,' in which he was a ' most 
insatiable helluo.' His later considerations upon the advantages of a 
public school are far too eloquent and true to be spoiled by anything short 
of full quotation. Equally vivid is the account of his college life, which 
was passed under the ' grave silent authority ' of his brother John — who, 
by the bye, figures as somewhat of an intellectual prig. Unable, as a ' noble- 
man,' to join the common scholars in their football and other sports, and, 
as a poor, man, to keep pace with his fellows, he was * obliged to walk with 
grave seniors, and to know no other diversion.' Each generation at the 
university has its sceptical book. At this time it was Descartes, ' some 
railing at him, and forbidding the reading of him as if he had impugned ' ] 

the very gospel.' There was, of course, a corresponding desire in the 

* brisk part ' of the university to use him. North was resolved to find 
out the attraction, and at length did so, ' wherein the nitimur in vetitum 
had no small share.' 

In 1669 we find Eoger North in the Middle Temple, in ' a small 
chamber poorly furnished, and a little law library,' under the protection 
of his brother Francis, who, like John at Cambridge, kept him in a state 
of dependence which now and again irritated him to the point of rebellion. 
For some while music, mathematics, physics, the search for perpetual 
motion, yachting, and love-making, the latter of a prudent and platonic 
sort, were his chief occupations ; while the accidental burning of the 
Temple in 1678 gave him an occasion for studying the art of building. 
The scene of the burning is graphically described. The duke of Monmouth, 

* who is setting up to be popular,' the earl of Craven, a regular attendant 
at fires. Lord Feversham, and the young officers of the guards, came to 
look on. Women and children stood ankle deep in the freezing slush wait- 
ing for the booty which their husbands and fathers hoped to secure during 
the confusion ; the engines became choked with ice, so cold was it ; the 
crowd stood by and jeered at the Templars. One said, ' What a world of 
mischief this had been had it happened anywhere else ! ' others, * It's no 
matter, the lawyers are rich enough ; ' ' 111 weeds will grow fast,' remarked 
a third ; exclamations which extract from North some very sombre reflec- 
tions. The lord mayor and sheriffs came in state to assist. But the 
gentlemen of the Temple refused him entrance. They * would want his 
help rather than connive at such a precedent to be made in derogation of 
their liberties,' and so they ' beat down his sword, and would not permit 
it to be borne erect.' Whereupon the lord mayor went to a tavern 
opposite and consoled himself and his officers for the rebuff by getting 
drunk. The very curious account of the relations between the benchers 
and Serjeants, and of the rebuilding, will be of value to the historian of 
the Temple. For general readers, however, the matter of principal inte- 
rest is the sketch of Nicholas Barbon, the successful jerry-builder of the 


day, the son of no less a person than ' Praise God ' Barbon, and himself 
rejoicing in the convenient agnomen of ' Unless- Jesus-Christ-had-died-for- 
thee-thou-hadst-been-damned.' Under his father's tuition he had become 

* an exquisite mob master,' and the great fire had given him an ample 
occasion for his talents, though he was for a while a good deal discredited 
through all the vaults in Mincing Lane falling in and the houses coming 
down ' most scandalously.' But here, too, nothing but a full quotation 
would serve. 

Of himself, during his early years at the bar, he says little. His 
notices of the leaders of the profession are, however, full of interest. 
Saunders, afterwards lord chief justice, ' was cordate in his practice, and^ 
I believe, never in all his life betrayed a client to court a judge, as most 
eminent men do.' If, indeed, he played tricks at all, it was to serve his 
clients ; he had no regard to fees, but ' did all the service he could, whether 
feed double or single. Rather a Bacchus than a Momus, peace and the 
butt were his delight,' and when he ' drank up the evidence ' in a great 
distilling case he became the subject of at least one good mess story. 

Still more valuable, though evidently coloured by North's own second- 
hand political opinions, is his account of ' the incomparable magistrate * 
Sir Matthew Hale, ' a very able lawyer, and in indifferent causes a 
very exquisite judge.' He was, we learn, so prejudiced, 'perhaps of 
a plebeian spirit and inclined rather to advance a sour popular govern- 
ment than an illustrious monarchy,' that * a greasy cap had always the 
better of a powdered peruke, and he could scarce believe the latter 
honest and the other a knave.' A monarchist he hated as a villain 
and parricide. That, however, which North liked worst in him was 

* an insuperable pride and vanity.' He grants his extraordinary abili 
ties, * being of an indefatigable industry, ready apprehension, and wonder- 
ful memory.' These very qualities, however, made him an easy prey 
to flatterers, of whom ' none ever gained so much upon him as Jeffries, 
and had his ear so much as he had in Guildhall at Nisi Prius, although 
he was the most rude, indecent, and impetuous practiser that ever was ; 
and all by little accommodations administered to him in his own house 
after his own humour, as a small dinner, it may be a partridge or 
two upon a plate, and a pipe after, and in the meantime diverting him 
with satirical tales and reflections upon those who bore a name and 
figure about town.' 

Upon one matter in particular North's explicit statement is valuable. 
As junior to the attorney-general he was engaged in the trial of Lord 
William Russel, and indeed opened the case for the crown. It may well 
be that the charges of universal corruption of bar and bench require modi- 
fication, and, at any rate. North's emphatic declaration that as far as the 
crown counsel were concerned their action was scrupulously, almost 
pedantically, fair, deserves attention. 

In 1682 his brother was made keeper of the great seal, rising then to 
the height of legal ambition. It was left for Roger North to tell us how 
he had ' continually groaned at the too great certainty of it,' how he came 
home one evening with the great seal in his coach, * full of passion up to 
the brim, to such a degree as to hinder his utterance, that he should have 
been forced to give up his quiet honourable station in the law, which 

VOL. III. — NO. IX. - N 


was an a. b. c. to liim, with profit enough, for a post of first mmistry m 
the state, full of trouble, form, noise, and danger ; ' and all this for half 
the salary of his predecessor. ' I wish,' says Roger, ' this unfortunate 
place had not been his lot, for he never (as poor folks say) joyed after it, 
and he hath often vowed to me that he had not known a peaceful minute 
since he touched that cursed seal.' 

In his quiet way North gives a fresh and very effective touch to the 
picture of the last illness of Charles II. His brother * foresaw and knew 
the train of evils to come if the king did not recover, and it darkened his 
soul to a degree, that I verily believe his spirits took an infection and were 
poisoned, though not immediately appearing. . . . AVe walked about like 
ghosts, generally to and from Whitehall. We met few persons without 
passion in their eyes, as we also had. We thought of no concerns, public 
or private, but were contented to live and breathe as if we had nought 
«lse to do but to expect the issue of this grand crisis.' 

The dissertation upon art in England, introduced by the fact that he 
was left executor to Sir Peter Lely, and in that capacity had the business 
of disposing for sale of all the artist's unsold pictures, prints, and draw- 
ings, is every word of it worth reading ; especially that part which deals 
with the growth of the taste for art since Nicholas Laniere was employed 
by Charles I to go abroad and buy pictures. Indeed, when we close the 
book, any fitting account of which ought to consist of extracts, we do so 
with a thorough thankfulness that his fondness for literary composition was 
such that, as he says, * it is not uneasy but a pleasure to sit, as I now do, 
passing the pen from side to side of the paper.' Osmund Airy. 

The Trial of Maharajah Nanda Kumar ; a Narrative of a Judicial 
Murder. By H. Beveridge, Bengal Civil Service. (Calcutta : 
Thacker, Spink, & Co. 1886.) 

It has been commonly believed that Nuncomar (to use the spelling that 
has become classical) was an intriguing Bengalee Brahman who was un- 
scrupulously removed from the path of Warren Hastings just as they 
were closing in deadly hostility ; and that was even the opinion of most 
experts until the appearance of Sir James Stephen's ' Story of Nuncomar.' 
Since then, however, it has been generally admitted that the death of the 
Brahman was nothing more than one of those strokes of luck by which 
very successful men have often been helped ; and that, in the words of 
Sir James, it is not shown that Hastings, ' to protect his own reputation, i 
<jonspired with Impey to bring about the judicial murder of Nuncomar.' f 
This verdict, however, is not accepted by Mr. Beveridge. Having begun, .j 
some ten years since, to express darker views of the matter, he has i 
declined to modify them in obedience to the decision of the learned | 
judge ; and he now reproduces the substance of his former contributions ,; 
to the literature of the subject, with special answers to some of Sir \ 
James's arguments. As might have been expected, however, these ] 
answers are by no means convincing ; and we shall see that the author 
has no sufficient grounds for disturbing the conclusions of Sir J. Stephen, 
or acting as resurrectionist to buried scandals. He labours, indeed, to 
show that Nuncomar was innocent of the charge on which he was con- 



victed ; but the labour is in vain, for the point is not material. The 
issue between the defenders of Impey and the earlier writers who blamed 
him, was not whether or no Nuncomar was guilty of forgery, but whether 
the chief justice, believing him innocent, put him to death to oblige 
Hastings. Sir J. Stephen's book is generally thought to have decided 
that issue in the negative ; and nothing but stern necessity and the 
discovery of new evidence could justify the disturbance of such an award 
coming from such an authority. 

Now, how stands the case ? There is not only no new evidence of 
any importance, but Mr. Beveridge himself decides most of the case 
against his own appeal. As regards Impey, he admits that the case was 
formally and lawfully sent to trial to the court over which Impey presided. 
He admits that it was tried before a jury from whose panel all challenged 
jurors were duly eliminated. In his own words, ' it was not Impey but 
the jury who found Nanda Kumar guilty and got him hanged; and 
possibly both Impey and the jury really believed that Nanda Kumar had 
forged and deserved death ' (p. 324). Again (136) : ' I do not say that 
Impey knew that Nanda Kumar was innocent . . . probably he did 
believe him to be guilty.' But this is more than half the case. If the 
jury were the main agents, and if they and the court, after a lawfully 
conducted trial, dealt lawfully with a convict whom they believed guilty, 
we may surely say caclit qucestio, at least as far as concerns Impey. 

If we turn to what the author has to say about Warren Hastings, we 
find little besides a strong bias, a quantity of minute and tedious special 
pleading based upon gossip and speculation ; a deficiency of literary 
workmanship, and a deplorable display of bad taste. But as to the 
merits ? Well, there is no serious demonstration either that Hastings 
believed Nuncomar innocent, or that he inspired the prosecution for 
forgery. The author says, erroneously, that Sir James's theory requires 
two assumptions for its support : (1) that the employment of Impey by 
Hastings was a revolting, abominable, and horrible crime ; (2) that 
Hastings would recognise it to be so. What Sir James evidently meant 
was that it was revolting and improbable that both Hastings and Impey 
should have, in later days, referred in writing to a murderous conspiracy 
as a friendly recollection and bond of mutual affection. Can it be said 
that he is wrong ? 

An attentive examination of the facts is enough to show that Impey 
was only one out of a large number of persons who were satisfied that 
Nuncomar deserved to die. There is no evidence that Mr. Hastings 
thought otherwise, or that he had any sufficient motive for preventing 
the law from taking its course. Accordingly, it seems clear that the 
book before us is one for whose publication there was no just cause, and 
one which none but unfortunate reviewers are bound to read. 

Hastings and Nuncomar were enemies of long standing. It is true 
that, against his will and under protest, Hastings had employed the 
Brahman. He had also been kind to his son. But he had never 
concealed his distrust of Nuncomar, and had lately given him special 
provocation. Such was the state of the scene on which the new per- 
bformers entered in the latter half of the month of October 1774. The 
new court was constituted to apply the criminal law of England * as 

N 2 


nearly as the condition and circumstances of the place and persons will 
admit ' to * all persons resident in the town of Calcutta and subordinate 
factories.' Immediately after the opening of the sessions in January 
1775 a solicitor named Driver renewed an application made in the 
previous year, praying for the delivery of papers among which was an 
instrument on which his client purposed to prosecute Nuncomar ; the 
petition is dated 25-30 Jan. 1775, and refers to a former petition of 
March 1774. About the same time Hastings finally broke with 
Nuncomar and forbade his appearance at Government House. On 
11 March 1775, Nuncomar preferred to the supreme council charges of 
corruption against the governor, who was then and for some time continued 
to be paralysed by a hostile majority. Other charges by other com- 
plainants followed ; Hastings was called on by the majority to answer, 
but refused ; in April, Nuncomar and his associates were committed for 
conspiracy, avowedly on the motion of the governor-general. Meanwhile 
the charge of forgery against Nuncomar had also been instituted by Mr. 
Driver's client ; and on 6 May Nuncomar was committed on that charge 
also ; the committing magistrates were Justices Hyde and Lemaistre, 
who refused bail. While the accused was awaiting his trial, Hastings 
wrote to friends in England : ' The old gentleman is in gaol and in a fair 
way to be hanged.' Doubtless that was not a wise expression ; but it is 
not a proof of sinister and secret wickedness, rather the reverse. It is, 
moreover, obviously proper that the letter should be compared with one 
of a somewhat earlier date in which Hastings had detailed the events 
which ended in the institution of the conspiracy case. When the in- 
formant first came to him with his complaints and prayers for aid, 
Hastings was unwilling to take action. *I conjured him,' he writes on 
29 April, ' not to involve himself in destruction nor draw me into the 
prosecution of an innocent man ; ' and it was not until thoroughly con- 
vinced of the existence of a |mm^ facie case that he authorised the 
informant to go in his name to the magistrates. Now, if we use the one 
letter we may use the other, as they are written to the same address 
about the same time. So taken, they seem to show that Hastings was at 
first reluctant to prosecute ; that when he did so he did it openly, and 
that when his adversary was afterwards committed for trial on a more 
serious charge, he expressed himself with imprudent levity. Is this the 
conduct of a murderous conspirator ? 

Further reasons for doubting even the possibility of Hastings being 
the fomenter of the forgery case will be found ably marshalled in Sir J. 
Stephen's book (chap, ix.), and most persons who have studied them 
appear to have found them convincing, in spite of Macaulay's slashing 
caveat about * idiots and biographers.' And even Macaulay — though 
writing rather as a journalist than an historian — never went so far as to 
suppose that Nuncomar was innocent or that Hastings thought him so. 

Passing on to the actual trial, we see that the grand jury found a 
true bill ; that the petty jury was subject to free challenge by the prisoner ; 
that the best counsel in Calcutta were engaged for the defence ; that the 
case was heard before a full bench of all the judges. Two of these, 
Le Maistre and Hyde J.J., showed some animus in cross-examining the 
witnesses for the defence ; but for this they at once gave reasons which 



seem to have satisfied the prisoner's counsel. It is the opinion of Mr. 
Justice Stephen, the most eminent of living authorities, that the trial did 
not turn upon points beyond the experience and competence of the jury, 
and was fairly conducted. The chief summed up. * There is not a word in 
Impey's summing up,' says Sir James, * of which I should have been 
ashamed had I said it myself : all my study of the case ' (he elsewhere 
calls it earnest and patient) ' has not suggested to me a single observation 
in Nuncomar's favour which is not noticed by Impey. As to the verdict, 
I think there was ample evidence to support it.' 

He accordingly pronounces in favour of Impey, and so, indirectly, in 
favour of Hastings ; for, as he justly observes, * to say that a man could 
be judicially murdered by a fair trial is like saying that a man might be 
murdered by a physician who treated him with perfect propriety.' 

The remaining point is that — even so — the prisoner should have had 
a respite until the pleasure of the king of England could be known. On 
this head it might be sufficient to observe that, if that course were indeed 
required, it should have been adopted by the majority in council, who 
had encouraged the prisoner in his hostility to Hastings, who buoyed the 
prisoner up almost to the end with unmeaning attentions, and who were 
furnished by him with the ground of action by no less than two appeals, 
both of which they deliberately smothered. Impey three years later 
showed, in a private letter, abundant reasons why the court could not 
take the initiative in regard to a respite ; and that in so judging he did 
not stand alone, is clear from the joint report of all the judges, that ' their 
action was unanimous from first to last.' 

As to the apparent illegality — the ex post facto law, as it was even 
termed — it is for those who call the execution a * murder ' to show that 
there was any such thing. A native of Bengal had already been convicted 
and sentenced under the same statute ; a statute, indeed, which it was 
never proposed to make operative throughout the whole of the British 
possessions, but which was deemed peculiarly suited to the existing state 
of society and business in Calcutta. True, that native had been 
reprieved, and so might Nuncomar have been if only his powerful patrons 
had acted in the manner that might have been fairly expected of English 
gentlemen, or the judges had not been resolute to guard against the 
suspicion of undue and clandestine influence. It was, therefore, hardly 
right or justifiable for Mr. Beveridge to beg the question on his title-page, 
seeing that he was unable to sustain it in the text of his book. Not only 
so, but his book is very difficult reading in consequence of the faults 
above noticed. 

At the same time it is but common justice to add that the matter is 
better than the manner. It shows genuine sincerity and honest research. 
It corrects a number of small blunders -into which Sir James Stephen had 
unquestionably fallen, little though they affected the main issue. As a 
matter of legal detail, many persons may even think that Mr. Beveridge 
has shown that the best course was not taken to avoid the appearance of 
evil. Had the government advocate of the day been a first-rate lawyer, 
•or had the views of Sir Robert Chambers, a professed jurist, met with 
more attention from the other judges, Nuncomar might have been 
indicted for a misdemeanour. In that case every end would have been 


equally attained without the ill odour which, as things turned out, still 
clings to the case, and without the indefinable sense of scandal which, 
in spite of Sir James Stephen's judgment, will probably always occur ta 
men's minds whenever they think of Impey and Nuncomar. 

H. G. K. 

The History of the Pacific States. By Hubert H. Bancroft. Vols. 
I.-III., History of Central America; vols. IV.-VIII., History of 
Mexico. (San Francisco : A. L. Bancroft & Co.) 

It is impossible within the necessarily limited space of a notice to ade- 
quately discuss the historical series of which these volumes form a part. 
It is rather an historical library condensed than a history in the ordinarily 
accepted sense of the term. When all allowance has been made for the 
organising skill of Mr. Bancroft himself and the industrious co-operation 
of his subordinates, the work remains a wonder of exhaustive minuteness. 
It is possible also to feel a confidence in the accuracy and cogency of the 
statements made which one has been taught by sad experience to abandon 
in the case of exhaustive individual authors. For Mr. Bancroft is, if any- 
thing, understocked with theories and generalisations ; and of course his 
subordinates w^ould not be encouraged to indulge in such flights. The 
present volumes give the history of Central America from Columbus to the 
present year, and the history of Mexico from Cortes to just before the 
French expedition in favour of Maximilian. Doubtless Mr. Bancroft will 
soon give us a concluding volume on that luckless adventure, and on the 
recent ' reconstruction ' of Mexico ; but probably some time will have to 
elapse before the full history of the expedition is known ; and without 
deviating more into European archives than he has yet done, it will 
hardly be possible for an historian to give much more than the outside 
of events during a most complicated period. 

His conception of history is not, indeed, that study of political develop- 
ment to which it is becoming usual to restrict the term ; it is rather a 
record of everything of the slightest importance that has been done by the 
government, parties, and eminent men of the state he is considering, and an 
occasional statistical and social survey of the condition of the country. 
The reader craves for perspective, for subordination of details, for ruling 
conceptions, but he craves in vain. And as the history becomes more 
and more modern in time, and more and more superficial in character, it 
hecomes increasingly doubtful whether Mr. Bancroft's game is worth his 
candle. The method which he adopts is in its place applied to such 
times as those of which his * Native Eaces of America ' treats. Here the 
question is not what information we can use, but what we can get ; and 
to have this carefully sought out and gathered ready for us is all we want. 
This is because every one of the comparatively few facts ascertained about 
native customs may go to support or overthrow some weighty theory of 
human development ; but w^hat good can it do to know all about the 
diplomatic and warlike relations of the Central American republics ? At 
best, the efforts of a Walker to play the Wallenstein, of a Barrios to play j 
the Bonaparte on the Central American stage, and the doings of their ) 
few hundreds of what can only by a stretch of courtesy be called troops, 
are interesting as miniature examples of known tendencies, acting on 


organisms of a lower type. As a whole, the history of the Spanish 
colonies since their emancipation is hardly more edifying, though less 
drearily miinteresting, than their record before that great event. 

The story of Mexico, indeed, is better worthy of history than that of 
Costa Eica or Hondm-as. There is first the marvellous true romance of 
the conquest, to which Mr, Bancroft, by comparison of innumerable 
authorities, has added some interesting particulars. Then comes the 
long and not particularly eventful period of colonial dependence on Spain. 
It is here that we most miss a comprehensive grasp and power of sum- 
marising. The particulars of the Spanish policy and rule are frittered 
away on the brief reigns of the viceroys. Those officials had indeed an 
enormous power over the fortunes of the colony ; but were there no more 
permanent tendencies than the motives of the viceroys ? The mind fails to 
grasp the scattered references ; events do not seem to be prepared for, 
because w^e have not the gift of divination to deduce them from casual 
indications in foregoing chapters. It is hard for the reader to see with 
any clearness why the Mexican revolts broke out when they did, and why, 
after Hidalgo and Morelos, each in his turn, had failed and perished, 
Iturbide, a man smaller in every way, rode triumphant in on the crest of 
the wave of independence. Not that Mr. Bancroft does not probably see 
the causes clearly ; but we are drowned in details, and gasp for breath. 
We long for a Taine to marshal these thronging particulars into rank and 
file, and march them on, each column led by its appropriate generalisa- 

Lacking this ordering faculty, the historian and his subordinates have 
made the tale of the wars for independence rather tedious. Mr. Bancroft 
states with unnecessary liberality that these conflicts are worthy of as 
close chronicling as the fight that won the national independence of the 
United States. Certainly that struggle was not by any means so noble as 
it is often represented ; the colonists were at times as lukewarm as their 
antagonists and had Calleja been in the place of Howe, Washington 
would have brought but little away from Long Island. But at least the 
northern strife was more civilised, more humane, conducted for more 
possible and practicable aims. There was perhaps more blind courage 
among the Mexicans, more vigour among the Spaniards ; but the American 
war of independence is to the Mexican as an English revolution to an 
Irish revolt. To be sure, the Mexican patriots were chafing under the 
intolerable weight of the Spanish colonial system ; while the New Eng- 
landers rose at some small irritating oppressions which the southern 
colonists would hardly have noticed. None the less, the northern war 
never degenerated into the sordid round of small skirmishes, raids, mas- 
sacres which drag over the pages of Mr. Bancroft's fourth volume of 
Mexican history. And the final result was only indirectly due to the 
revolts ; all the fully clironicled battles between mobs of insurgents and 
bodies of Spanish soldiers who, in comparison with their opponents, might 
be called disciplined, were of Uttle practical effect. After the revolt seemed 
hopelessly crushed, a sudden change in Spain placed the government 
there in the hands of the Uberals. This tem.porary victory, soon to be 
reversed by French interference, united for the moment those who ob- 
jected to all Spanish government with those who objected to all hberal 


government. This union achieved independence for Mexico. Then, when 
the work was done, the ill-cemented majority fell apart again, and Mexico, 
being no longer drained by another power, began to ruin herself. 

The most striking event in the later history of Mexico, as far as these 
volumes take us, is the war with the United States. Here, again, Mr. 
Bancroft's work suffers from being too closely restricted to his immediate 
subject. A Httle more light on the poHtics of the Union would have 
helped greatly to explain the Mexican war. It is needless to say that the 
historian does not spare his own country ; and indeed the only justifica- 
tion that can well be pleaded for the seizure of Texas and California is 
that a vigorous and expanding race is bound sooner or later to overrun 
great territories held by a feeble neighbour unable to develop their re- 
sources. Most interesting is it to follow out how every item of the 
offence was reproduced in the punishment — how surely the Mexican war 
led to the civil war. The claim of Texas to sever herself from Mexico 
seemed to involve the right of secession ; the acquisition of that state for 
slavery led to the struggle for Kansas. The way in which the South 
dragged the Union into war was an earnest of future pretensions which 
must at last be rejected. And had Napoleon Ill's plans on Mexico 
ripened earlier and more completely, a strong, reorganised, hostile state 
might have been within reach of the Union at the time of sorest need. It 
would have been Nemesis indeed had Mexico been able to strike back 
through the Confederacy some of the blows that had been dealt at her 
through Texas. Arthur R. Ropes. 

^ur Geschichte Deutschlands und Frankreichs im neunzelinten Jahr- 
hundert. Von Leopold von Ranke. Herausgegeben von Alfred 
Dove. (Leipzig : Duncker & Humblot. 1887.) 

This rather extensive collection of letters and papers, nearly all of them 
growths assignable to the debateable ground which lies between the 
domains proper to history and to politics, forms the forty-ninth and 
fiftieth volumes of the collective edition of Ranke' s Works. Unhappily he 
has not lived to supervise the republication of these writings, only in part 
actually acknowledged by him in his lifetime ; yet there is no reasonable 
doubt but that he would have been willing permanently to associate his 
name with all. He belonged to a generation less eager perhaps than our 
own to prove the value of scientific training in the senate and the forum, 
but incapable of dissimulating the sense of responsibility Avhich prevents 
€very true patriot from being a mere critic of public affairs. Nor was the 
range of his studies in any sense remote from the problems which occupied 
the contemporaries of his earlier manhood. His book on Servian history, 
published in 1829, was one of the first to impress upon Europe the 
significance of historical movements which have not yet arrived at a settle- 
ment. The Opinion prepared by him in the summer of 1854 on the 
Eastern Question found its way fi-om the hands of King Frederick 
William IV into those of the Emperor Nicholas, and, now that the 
passions of the Crimean war have become ancient history, might almost 
be described as in its effects, not less than in its arguments, a notable 
state-paper. At all events Sybel, who was allowed to publish it in 1865 in 


his Journal, liad some warrant for contrasting its very practical conclusions 
with the hollow phrases which were made to do duty for the same subject at 
the Paris conferences. But this was very far from being the only occasion 
on which the illustrious historian's political opmion was sought by King 
Frederick William, a sovereign whom even his least generous censors must 
allow to have been gifted with a singular proficiency in the art of listen- 
ing. At the beginning of his reign, the late king was anxious for the 
eminent historian's advice in the matter of the organisation of that 
centralised system of Estates at which Prussian statesmanship laboured 
just long enough to produce a result satisfactory to nobody, and which 
was soon buried beneath the waves of the European revolution. A somid 
instinct had prompted Ranke to find excellent reasons for declining the 
royal summons ; but when in the turbulent March of the fateful year 1848 
his advice was again invited, a patriotic sense of duty led him to obey. The 
series of memoranda included in this volume, and addressed to Baron 
Edwin Manteuffel, one of the king's aides-de-camp, for his majesty's use, 
accordingly reaches from May 1848 to January 1851. In other words, it 
covers nearly the whole period of the great upheavuig which ended with 
so pitiable a peripeteia, extending fi-om the meeting of the national as- 
sembly (from which the king of Prussia afterwards received the offer of the 
German crown) to the complete restoration of the old federal constitution 
with its decrepit diet — a restoration which, as the writer gently puts it in 
the last of these papers, could not rightly be regarded as a guarantee of 
tranquillity for the future. In the earlier of his communications we find 
Eanke with very noteworthy calmness urging those whom it concerned 
not to be driven by the momentary success of the revolutionary move- 
ment into despairing of a modified renew^al of the old Prussian monarchy. 
Modified, but not transmuted : for he protests emphatically and repeatedly 
agamst any changes tending to imperil the independence of the crown. 
In other words, he cannot reconcile himself to the acceptance of the 
principle of ministerial responsibility to the people through its represen- 
tatives — a principle which, as we know, has been to this day unable to 
domesticate itself at Berlin. He not less strongly demurs to the adoption 
of imiversal suftrage ; while holding that if the masses are called upon 
to serve the state in arms, the state is in its turn bound to assure them 
the means of supporting life. If we pass to German as distinct from 
more specifically Prussian politics, we shall find further illustrations of 
the assertion of Prince Bismarck, cited by professor Dove, that there was 
an intimate agreement between Ranke's political sentiments and his o-svn. 
As early as 1849, Ranke showed a very decided inclination towards a 
compact between the Prussian crown and the national aspirations. The 
germs of the North German federal constitution of 1867 are. contained in 
the memorandum composed on the eve of the offer of the imperial crown 
to the king of Prussia in 1849. This is perhaps the most remarkable of 
the papers here published, quite apart from the flavour imparted to it by 
the suggestion of a defensive alliance with Austria on the basis of mutual 
support in Germany and in Italy, and on the model of the partition 
scheme between Frederick the Fair and Lewis the Bavarian. * Is it not,' 
demurely queries the historian in his most diplomatic mood, ' worth while 
to maintain the pope at Rome, and to avoid the dissipation of the sane- 


tuaries of the catholic church ? ' Guizot hmiself could not have more effec- 
tually controlled his protestant sentiments by his conservative instincts. 
But at home, in Germany, Ranke was thoroughly Prussian, or prussianised, 
in his aspirations. Thus he palpably hints at the desirableness of inducing 
the Hanse towns to perceive the ' necessity ' of their coming into the 
Zollverein. And in the still more important matter of the development 
of the federal constitution, he objects (in September 1850) to the restora- 
tion of the diet, if involving the establishment in it of a supreme Austrian 
authority ; supposing it, on the other hand, merely to imply the renewal of a 
loose connexion within which Prussia may pursue the accomplishment of 
her scheme of a closer federal union with the princes prepared to relinquish 
their military, commercial, and political independence, while retaining 
certain honorary privileges — well and good. In the Olmiitz days he writes 
in a rather lower key ; and he perceives very clearly that the war which 
was then staved off would have been an absurdity at this particular point 
of time. But he does not speak with confidence of the probability of a 
permanent understanding ; and the difference between the actual results of 
the Dresden conferences of 1850-51 and the proposals submitted byRank^ 
as representing Prussia's legitimate demands, very nearly measures the 
gap between what Austria was prepared to give in 1851, and what Prussia 
conquered by the sword fifteen years afterwards. 

As a curiosiim, Ranke's draft of a royal proclamation on the occasion 
of the issue of a new constitution by the king's ordinance on December 5, 
1848, should not be overlooked. It was never used, and one cannot pretend 
to regret much that this production of the great historian's pen should 
have escaped being actually associated with this portion of the minister 
Manteuffel's coiqj d'etat. The earlier and larger portion of this volume 
contains the results of Ranke's endeavour to perform the task imposed 
upon him ' against kind ' rather than against his will as editor of a 
politico-historical review. The particular hybrid consigned to his charge 
was further weighted by being intended to reconcile the policy of the 
intelligent Prussian bureaucracy with the aspirations of a liberalism 
stimulated by recent events on the farther side of the Rhine. The under- 
taking which after a year's trial Frederick Perthes abandoned in 1883 
was carried on by the devoted editor under another publisher for three 
years more, and it appears that he never could quite understand its 
failure. * Eigentlich,' he said, applying his favourite adverb, every one 
ought to have agreed with a political critic so reasonable as himself ; and 
he wrote two -thirds of the paper. The remainder of these pages repro- 
duce Ranke's commentary on the correspondence between Frederick 
William IV and Bunsen, first published in 1875. A. W. Ward. 

The Nicholas Papers. Edited by G. F. Warner. (Camden Society. 
1886.) The correspondence here printed consists of two unequal portions, 
the first consisting of letters to and from Sir E. Nicholas between August 
1641 and January 1642, and the second containing letters written from 
May 1644 to December 1652. During the period 1649-52 they complete 
and explain much of the correspondence published in the Clarendon state 
papers. The first division of the papers has already been made use of by 
Mr. Gardiner. It closes with the warrant from Charles I to Sir E. Herbert 


directing him to accuse Kimbolton and the five members (p. 62). The 
most interesting single papers in the second portion are : the account of 
Lord Culpeper's embassy to Moscow (p. 182), Lord Hatton's letter de- 
scribing the tumult which began the Fronde (p. 90), and Hyde's paper of 
considerations on the advisability of Charles II treating w4th the Level- 
lers (p. 138). The struggle of Hyde and Nicholas against the influence 
of Culpeper and Jermyn in the councils of the young king is the subject of 
many letters, and they bring very serious accusations against both those 
noblemen. Many other instances of the evil effects of Culpeper's counsel 
besides those given by Clarendon in his history are here enumerated 
(pp. 262-315). From a passage on page 233 it appears that Sir John 
Berkeley's relation of his negotiations in 1647, though not printed till 
1699, was already written in 165 L The letters contain incidental notices 
of Hobbes, Denham, Cowley, Davenant, and other writers. 

Admiral Blake. (English Worthies.) By David Hannay. (London : 
Longmans & Co. 1886.) Mr. Hannay has produced a lively sketch of 
Blake's career, and succeeded in making that admiral as distinct a figure 
as his materials permit. He does not unduly glorify his hero, and reduces 
his share in the defences of Lyme and Bristol to its proper proportions 
(p. 20). On the other hand, he rather exaggerates the importance of 
his defence of Taunton, by leaving out all mention of the equally im- 
portant resistance of Plymouth (p. 11). The sea fights are made intelli- 
gible to the non-professional reader, and there is also an interesting 
chapter on the navy of the Commonw^ealth. Mr. Hannay judiciously 
avoids any attempt to make Blake a personage of political importance, 
but he goes a little too far when he asserts that nothing was heard of 
Blake's opinions till after the commencement of the eighteenth century. 
Clarendon, at all events, considered him a republican of the most 
advanced type. 'Blake at his late being at Cadiz,' writes Hyde to 
Nicholas, ' said openly that monarchy is a kind of government the world 
is weary of; it is gone in England, going m France, and must get out of 
Spain with more gravity, but in ten years it would be determined there 
likewise' (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 27). The famihar story which 
represents Blake as telling his sailors that their business was not to meddle 
with state affairs, but to keep foreigners from fooling us, first appears in 
Henry Fletcher's Perfect Politician, published in 1660, three years after 
Blake's death. 

Shaftesbury. (EngHsh Worthies.) By H. D. Traill. (London : 
Longmans & Co. 1886.) Mr. Traill adds no new facts to those collected 
by Mr. Christie, but summarises his evidence, and reverses some of his 
judgments. Whilst accepting in several cases the validity of the defence 
set up for Shaftesbury, his final decision is extremely hostile to that 
statesman. ' I cannot see how even the most favourable critic of Shaftes- 
bury's career can deny that ambition was at all times his master passion, 
and that we need scarcely even look further than a disappointment of 
that ambition to find the adequate explanation of any important step in 
his life ' (p. 24). ' All his repeated changes of party find their simplest 
explanation in a theory of pure self-interest ' (p. 94). But Ranke, a 


sufficiently impartial critic to satisfy Mr. Traill's demands, writes of one 
single liberal principle logically pursued by Shaftesbury through the 
varying phases of his career. This Mr. Traill fails to observe, and yet it 
is this fact which gives Shaftesbury his permanent importance in English 
history. Mr. Traill justly describes Shaftesbury as one of the greatest of 
English party leaders, but goes on to claim for him much that properly 
belongs to Pym (p. 206). With equal justice he praises Shaftesbury as 
a speaker, but he is singularly unfortunate in his detailed criticism of 
Shaftesbury's oratory. He praises a speech against Cromwell's house 
of lords as * in some respects the best ' (pp. 207-40). There is not only 
no evidence that Shaftesbury ever made this speech, but there is no 
evidence that it was ever spoken at all by anybody. It was published 
anonymously in 1659, and not attributed to Shaftesbury till half a 
century after his death. Mr. Traill quotes and comments on a speech 
by Shaftesbury given in Burton's diary (p. 84), but mistakes the pecu- 
liarities of the reporter's method of reporting for the peculiarities of 
Shaftesbury's style. * Short weighty sentences ' and ' absence of literary 
graces of any kind ' are the characteristics of all the speeches taken 
down by Burton. With these reservations what Mi\ Traill says on 
pp. 206-7 of Shaftesbury's excellence as a debater is as true as it is 
admirably expressed. The number of misprints and minor errors is 
rather large : p. 133, 1781 for 1681 ; p. 27, 1662 for 1652 ; p. 31, Dec. 10 
for Dec. 12; p. 61, Billings for Bellings ; p. 181, Oct. 28 for March 28. 
The nickname * Tapski ' given to Shaftesbury seems to have puzzled 
Mr. Traill as well as Lord Campbell. It contains an allusion not only 
to his physical infirmity, but also to a favourite jest about his election as 
king of Poland. See a folio pamphlet published in 1681 entitled ' A 
modest Vindication of the Earl of Shaftesbury : in a letter to a friend 
concerning his being elected King of Poland.' In Nat. Thompson's 
* Collection of Loyal Poems ' (1685) there are many on Tapski, Potapsky, or 
Anthony, king of Poland, as he is indifferently styled. The ' ski ' or ' sky ' 
was intended to give the name a Polish form. The piece of plate pre- 
sented to Balliol college in 1681, mentioned by Mr. Traill as the gift of 
Shaftesbury alone (p. 174), appears to have been the gift of all the lords 
of the opposition party in common (* Fourth Keport of the Historical 
MSS. Commission,' p. 451). 

George Canning. (English Worthies.) By Frank H. Hill. (London : 
Longmans & Co. 1887.) This book does not of course pretend to supply 
the acknowledged want of a satisfactory biography of Pitt's great disciple ; 
but it may fairly claim to be the most readable account of Canning's 
career that is at present to be found. The essential fault is that 
Mr. Hill is only m full sympathy w^ith his subject when he has to write 
of Canning the opponent of the Holy Alliance and the protector of ' liberal 
principles ' towards Greece and the South American colonies : with 
Canning the follower of * the Pitt of decadence and apostasy,' as 
Mr. Hill describes the anti-French period of tlie statesman's career, he 
has nothing in common. Canning's life should not be written in a party 
spirit ; and though Mr. Hill has been temperate in his politics his bias 
must necessarily injure his work. Another defect is a want of a suffi- 


ciently lively picture of the man among his friends, as apart from the 
politician in the house or the cabinet. The little book is interesting, 
however, and, despite its journaHstic phrasing, well written. A few 
inaccuracies, such as the wholly unfounded charge of neglect on the 
part of Lord Stratford's father, and a want of detailed knowledge of 
the Greek negotiations 1824-7, might easily be amended. The reasons 
•(p. 178) why Canning refused to join the conference at St. Petersburg in 
1825 were the decided hostility of the Greeks themselves to any media- 
tion based upon the Russian memoir e, and his own invincible repugnance 
to coercive measures, which Austria at first declined to repudiate. But 
he did send a special ambassador to Russia at the time, and various 
negotiations took place between him and Nesselrode. The duke of 
Wellington's negotiation in 1826 did not ' drag : ' what did ' drag ' was 
the conversion of the protocol into the treaty of 1827, and the practical 
execution of the latter instrument, and that was due to the Portuguese 
policy of England. 

Dr. T. N. Brushfield, in a paper which he has reprinted from the 
Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, 
Literature, a7id Art, vol. xviii (1886), clears away a difficulty which has 
existed as to the occupation of the see of Exeter between the death of 
Edmund Stafford (September 1419) and the election of Edmund Lacy in 
the following spring. The conclusion at which he arrives is, indeed, the 
accepted one, namely that John Catrik, and he only, held the see in the 
interval ; but the author has for the first time succeeded in explaining the 
insertion of the supposititious Bishop Gary from a comparison of the first 
two editions of Godwin's * Catalogue ' and John Hooker's manuscript. 
He gives also a biography of Catrik, who attended the council of Constance 
(of which, however, he might have used a more recent historian than 
Lenfant), and prints his will from the Lambeth register. 

Historical students will be glad to hear that the Bihliotheca Historica 
has now, after an interval of five years, begun life again. Its plan is to 
give a carefully classified list not only of all books of an historical character 
published in all parts of the world, but also of articles in periodical 
publications, which are included in the same classified and alphabetical 
series, but distinguished by a different type. The latter is an extremely 
valuable feature, and the work is thoroughly well done. A hundred and 
fifty-three periodical publications are regularly dissected and arranged, not 
to speak of a considerable number of a miscellaneous or not exclusively 
historical nature from which a selection is made. The scheme of the Bihlio- 
theca is remarkably clear and workmanlike ; but we regret tliat misprints 
should be so frequent not only in foreign titles but even in German ones. 
The editor might well too consider the advisability of omitting books which 
are professedly school books, and works of an obviously popular description. 
An English reader is rather startled to find a mass of * Jubilee literature ' 
included among historical books. It is curious also that, here as in the 
Polybiblion, very many English books are marked not with the names of 
the London publishers but with those of their American agents. . The 
publishers are Messrs. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht of Gottingen. 



List of Historical Books recently published 


(Including works relating to the allied branches of knowledge and works 
of miscellaneous contents) 

CiAMPi (I.) Opuscoli vari storici e critici, 

raccolti e nuovamente editi per cura di 

P. E. Castagnola. Pp. 358. Imola : 

Galeati. 4 1. 
DoEDES (N. D.) Volken en hoofdpersonen ; 

schets der algemeene geschiedenis. 

Pp. 304. Leeuwarden : Meijer. 
Jasteow (J.) Ueber Welthandelsstrassen 

in der Geschichte des Abendlandes. 

Pp. 62. Berlin : Simion. 1 m. 
Kaufmann (D.) Etudes d'archeologie 

juive et chretienne. Premiere serie. 

Paris : Leroux. 3 f . 
Laughton (J. K.) Studies in naval his- 

tory ; biographies. Pp. 476. London : 

Longmans. 10/6. 
Makechal (E.) Histoire de la civilisation 

ancienne : Orient, Grece, et Kome. 

Pp. 702, illustr. Paris : Delalain. 

12mo. 5 f. 
Posse (0.) Die Lehre von den Privatur- 

kunden. Pp. 242, 40 plates. Leipzig : 

Veit. 4to. 36 m. 
WuNDERLiCH (W. F. H.) Geschiedenis der 

oude- en middeleeuwsche beschaving. 

Pp. 321. Zutphen : Thieme. 2-25 fl. 
Zerffi (G. G.) Studies in the science of 

general history. I : Ancient history. 

London: Hirschfeld. 12/6. 


Adams (H. C.) History of the Jews from 
the war with Kome to the present time. 
London: Religious Tract Society. 8/. 

Alberuni's India : an account of the 
religion, philosophy, literature, chro- 
nology, astronomy, customs, laws, and 
astrology, about a.d. 1030. Edited in 
the Arabic original by E. Sachau. 
London : Triibner. 4to. 63/. 

Archief voor de geschiedenis der oude 
HoUandsche zending. IV: Formosa 
[1643-1661]. Pp. 314. Utrecht : 

Friedlander (M. H.) Geschichtsbilder 
aus der nachtalmudischen Zeit, von 
Moses Mendelssohn bis auf die Gegen- 
wart. Pp. 156. Briinn : Epstein. 

Gonzalez (J. de). Essai chronologique 
sur les musulmans c61^bres de la villa 
d'Alger. (Texte fran^ais-arabe). Pp. 
67. Algiers : Peze. 

LiEBLEiN (J.) Handel und Schifffahrt 
auf dem rothen Meere in alten Zeiten, 
nach agyptischen Quellen. Pp. 151. 
Christiania : Dybwad. 

Miguel (G. de). Estudio sobre las islas 
Carolinas, comprende la historia y 
geografia de los 36 grupos que forman 

el Archipielago carolino, seguido de la 
descripcion de todas las islas del Oceano 
Pacifico situadas entre el Ecuador y el 
paralelo 10° Norte. Pp. 207. Madrid : 
Perales y Martinez. 4to, with atlas in 

NoLDEKE (T.) Die ghassanischen Fiirsten 
aus dem Hause Gafna's. Berlin : 
Akademische Buchhandlung. 

Eenan (E.) Histoire du peuple d'Israel. 

I. Paris : C. L6vy. 7'50 f. 

Smith (S. Alden). Die Keilschrifttexte 
Asurbanipals, Konigs von Assyrien 
[668-626 V. Chr.], mit Transscription, 
Uebersetzung, Kommentar, und Glossar. 

II. Pp. 99, 18 plates. Leipzig : 
Pfeiffer. 12 m. 

Strassmaier (J. N.) Babylonische Texte : 
Inschriften von Nabonidus, Konig von 
Babylon [555-538 v. Chr.], von den 
Thontafeln des Britischen Museums 
copirt und autographirt. I : No. 1-265 : 
Vom Regierungsantritt bis zum 
siebenten Jahre der Regierung. Pp. 
264. Leipzig : Pfeilfer. 12 m. 

Treubek (O.) Geschichte der Lykier. 
Pp. 247, map. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 



BocKER (F.) Damme als cler mutmassliche 
Schauplatz cler Varusschlacht, sowie 
der Kampfe bei den ' Pontes longi ' im 
Jahre 15 und der Eomer mit den 
Germanen am Angrivarierwalle im 
Jahre 16. Pp. 72, 2 plates. Cologne : 
Bachem. 1'75 m. 

BiiUNS (G.) Fontes im-is Roman! antiqui. 
Ed. 5ta, cm-a T. Mommseni. Pp. 422. 
Freiburg : Mohr. 

Carle (G.) Le origini della proprieta 
quiritaria presso le genti del Lazio. 
Pp. 30. Turin : Loescher. 

DuNCKER (M.) Abhandlungen aus der 
griechischen Geschichte. Mit einem 
Vorwort von A. Kirchhoff. Pp. 164, 
map. Leipzig : Duncker & Humblot. 
4 m. 

Faltin (G.) Ueber den Ursprung des 
zweiten punischen Krieges : ein Beitrag 
zur Kritik des Polybios. (Programm.) 
Pp. 20. Neu-Ruppin. 4to. 

GuARDUcci (T.) Annibale e la colonia 
di Spoleto : studio storico. Pp. 47. 
Florence : tip. Cooperativa. 1*20 1. 

Haignere (abbe D.) Etudes d'histoire et 
de bibliographie. IV : Le Portus Itius. 
Pp.67. Boulogne-sur-Mer : Aigre. 2-50 f. 

Imhoof-Blumer (F.) Zur Miinzkunde 
Grossgriechenlands, Siciliens, Kretas, 
&c., mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung 
einiger Miinzgruppen mit Stempel- 
gleichheiten. Pp. 82, 3 plates. Leipzig : 
Koehler. 4-50 m. 

& Gardner (P.) A numismatic com- 
mentary on Pausanias. III. Pp. 58, 
10 plates. Leipzig : Koehler. 5-50 m. 

Kruse (H.) Ueber Interpolationen in 
Xenophons Hellenika. Pp. 30. Kiel : 
Lipsius & Tischer. 4to. 

Largojolli (D.) Della politica religiosa 
di Giuliano imperatore e degli scudi 
critici piu recenti. Pp. 159. Piacenza : 
Marchesotti. 1-50 1. 

Larsen (S. C.) Studia in libellum incerti 
auctoris de bello Alexandrine. Pp. 32. 
Copenhagen : Klein. 75 (j)re. 

Mahafey (J. P.) Greek life and thought 
from the age of Alexander to the 
Roman conquest. London: Macmillan. 

Marchetti (R.) Sulle acque di Roma 
antiche e moderne. Pp. 428. Rome : 

Nacher (J.) Die romischen Militar- 
strassen und Handelswege in Siidwest- 
deutschland, in Elsass-Lothringen und 
der Schweitz. Pp. 42, map. Strass- 
burg : Noiriel. 

Roberts (E. S.) An introduction to 
Greek epigraphy. I : The archaic 
inscriptions and the Greek alphabet. 
Pp. 420. Cambridge : University Press. 

ScHAEDEL (L.) Plinius der Jiingere und 
Cassiodorius Senator: Kritische Bei- 
trage zum zehnten Buch der Briefe und 
zu den Briefen. Pp. 36. Darmstadt : 
Winter. 4to. 80 pf. 

ScHULTZE (V.) Geschichte des Unter- 
gangs des griechisch-romischen Heiden- 
tums. I : Staat und Kirche im Kampfe 
mit dem Heidentum. Pp. 455. Jena : 
Costenoble. 12 m. 

Seipt (0.) De Polybii olympiadum 
ratione et de bello Punico primo quses- 
tiones chronologic®. Pp. 50. Leipzig : 
Fock. 1 m. 

Theophylacti Simocattffi historiae. Ed. 
C. de Boor. Pp. 437. Leipzig : Teubner. 
6 m. 

WiEGAND (H.) Plataa zur Zeit des 
Einfalls der Perser in Bootien. Pp. 19. 
Leipzig : Fock. 4to. 90 pf. 

WiLiscH (E.) Beitrage zur inneren 
Geschichte des alten Korinths. (Pro- 
gramm.) Pp. 34. Zittau. 4to. 



LooFS (F.) & MiRBT (K.) Kirchenge- 
schichtliche Studien, Hermann Reuter 
gewidmet. Mit einer Beigabe von A. 
Reuter. Pp. 351. Leipzig : Hinrichs. 
8 m. 

Crespin (J.) Histoire des martyrs perse- 
cutez et mis a mort pour la verite de 
I'evangile, depuis le temps des apostres 
iusques a present [1619] ; avec intro- 
duction par D. Benoit et notes par M. 
Leli^vre. II. Pp. 774. Toulouse : 
Chauvin. 17*50 f. 

Danzas (A.) Etudes sur les temps 
primitifs de I'ordre de saint Dominique. 
2* s6rie : Saint Raymond de Pennafort 
et son epoque. I. Pp. 597. Paris : 
Lec^ne & Oudin. 7 f. 

Drane (Augusta T.) The history of St. 

Catherine of Siena and her com- 
panions ; with a translation of her 
treatise on Consummate Perfection. 2 
vol. London : Burns & Gates. 12/0. 

Ehrle (F.) Recherches critiques sur la 
biographic de Henri de Gand, dit le 
Docteur Solennel. Trad, par J. Raskop. 
Pp. 49. Tournai : Vasseur-Delmee. 3 f. 

Friedrich (J.) Geschichte des Vatikani- 
schen Konzils. III. Pp. 1258. Bonn : 
Neusser. 28 m. 

JuNGMANN (B.) Dissertationes selectse in 
historiam ecclesiasticam. VII (last). 
Pp. 475. Ratisbon : Pustet. 4*20 m. 

Keller (L.) Zur Geschichte der alt- 
evangelischen Gemeinden : Vortrag. 
Pp. 53. Berlin : Mittler. 75 pf . 

KoFFMANE (G.) Abriss der Kirchen- 
geschichte des neunzehnten Jahrhun- 


derts. (Herzog's Abriss der Kirchen- 
geschichte. Erganzungsheft.) Pp. 200. 
Erlangen : Besold. 4 m. 

Langlois (E.) Les registres de Nicolas 
IV : Kecueil des bulles de ce pape 
publiees ou analysees d'apres les ma- 
nuscrits originaux des archives du Vati- 
can. II. Paris : Thorin. 4to. 10-40 f. 

MiKLOsiCH (F.) & MtJLLER (J.) Acta et 
diplomata Grseca medii avi sacra et 
profana. V : Acta et diplomata monas- 
teriorum et ecclesiarum orientis. II. 
Pp. 482. Vienna : Gerold. 

EiCHOu (abbe L.) Histoire de I'eglise. 
3'' Edition, revue et corrigee. I. Pp. 
640, maps. Paris : Lethielleux. 6 f. 

Sanctorum vitae metricse, IX, ex codicibus 
Monacensibus, Parisiensibus. Bruxel- 
lensi, Hagensi saec. IX-XII., ed. by 
W. Harster. Pp. 237. Leipzig : 
Teubner. 3 m. 

ScHOTTMiJLLER (K.) Der Untergang des 
Templer-Ordens, mit urkundlichen und 

kritischen Beitragen. 2 vol. Pp. 760, 
450. Berlin : Mittler. 22-50 m. 

Seufert (W.) Der Ursprung und die 
Bedeutung des Apostolates in der 
christlichen Kirche der ersten zwei 
Jahrhunderte ; eine kritisch-historische 
Untersuchung auf Grund der Schriften 
des Neuen Testaments und der weiteren 
christlichen Literatur. Pp. 162. Ley- 
den : Brill. 

Smith's Dictionary of Christian biogra- 
phy, literature, sects, and doctrines, 
during the first eight centuries. Ed. 
by H. Wace. IV. London : Murray. 42/. 

Sterre (J. C. van der). Hagiologium 
Norbertinum, seu natales sanctorum 
candidissimi ordinis Praemonstratensis. 
New edition, revised. Pp. 111. Namur : 
Charneux-Douxfils. 2 f. 

TosTi (L.) Storia del concilio di Costanza. 

■ Ed. by L. Pasqualucci. 2 vol. Pp.321, 
322. Rome : tip. della Camera dei De- 
putati. 9 1. 


Bertholon (L.) La colonisation arabe 
en France [721-1026]. Pp. 51, illustr. 
Lyons : Pitrat. 

BuRLAMAccHi (A.) Dcllc origini e carat - 
teri delle corporazioni di arti e mestieri 
durante il medio-evo. Pp. 34. Lucca : 
Paolino. 16mo. 

Canet (V.) Clovis et les origines de la 
France chretienne. Pp. 216, illustr. 
Bruges : Imprimerie de la Societe 
Augustin. 2-60 f. 

Ebert (A.) Allgemeine Geschichte der 
Literatur des Mittelalters im Abend- 
lande. Ill : Die Nationalliteraturen 
von ihren Anfangen, und die lateinische 
Literatur vom Tode Karls des Kahlen 
bis zum Beginne des elften Jahrhun- 
derts. Pp. 529. Leipzig : Vogel. 12 m. 

Felten (W.) Die Bulle Ne xwcetercat 
und die Reconciliations-Verhandlungen 
Ludwigs des Bayers mit dem Papste 
Johann XXII : ein Beitrag zur Ge- 
schichte des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts ; 
mit einem Anhang von Urkunden aus 
Trier, Koblenz, und dem Vaticanischen 
Archive. II. Pp. 287. Trier : Paulinus- 
Druckerei. 3-80 m. 

Gaste (A.) Les serments de Strasbourg ; 
etude historique, critique, et philolo- 
gique. Pp. 35. Tours : Bousrez. 

IsiDORS Geschichte der Gothen, Vandalen, 
Sueven ; nebst Ausziigen aus der Kir- 
chengeschichte des Beda Venerabilis. 
Translated by D. Coste. (Geschicht- 
schreiber der deutschen Vorzeit in 

deutscher Bearbeitung. LXXX.) Pp. 
60. Leipzig : F. Duncker. 1 m. 

Kerval (L. de). Saint Jean de Capistran, 
son siecle et son influence. Pp. 182. 
16mo. Paris : Haton. 1 f . 

KoHLER (G.) Die Entwickelung des 
Kriegswesens und der Kriegfiibrung in 
der Eitterzeit von Mitte des elften Jahr- 
hunderts bis zu den Hussitenkriegen. 
Ill, 1 : Die Entwickelung der materiellen 
Streitkrafte in der Eitterzeit. Pp. xlv, 
527, plates. Breslau : Koebner. 15 m. 

Mailhard dk la Couture (G.) Charle- 
magne dans I'histoire et dans la 16- 
gende. Pp. 190. Bruges : Descl6e & 
De Brouwer. 2-60 f. 

. Godefroy de Bouillon et la pre- 
miere croisade. Pp.204. Bruges: Desclee 
& De Brouwer. 2-60 f. 

EoTTscHER (A.) Die Aufhebung der 
Sklaverei durch das Christenthum im 
ost- und westromischen Eeiche. (Frank- 
furter zeitgemasse Broschiiren, X.) 
Pp. 24. Frankfurt-am-Main : Foesser. 
50 pf. 

EuTTEN (M. L.) Overzicht der wereld- 
geschiedenis. II : Geschiedenis der 
Middeleeuwen. Pp. 130. s'Hertogen- 
bosch : Eobijns. 

Werner (K.) Die Scholastik des spate- 
ren Mittelalters. IV: 1. Der Endaus- 
gang der mittelalterlichen Scholastik. 
2. Der Uebergang der Scholastik in ihr 
nachtridentinisches Entwickelungs-sta- 
dium. Pp. 404, 359. Vienna : Brau- 


Ammann (F.) Die Schlacht bei Prag am 
6 Mai 1757 : quellenkritische Unter- 
suchungen. Pp. 142, map. Heidel- 
berg : Fetters. 3 m. 

BiZEUL DE LA BiQNONAYs (P.) Lettres 

in^dites : Prise de Namur [1692] ; 
bataille de Neerwinde [1693], publiees 
par S. deLa Nicolli^re-Teijeiro. Pp. 29. 
Nantes : Forest & Grimaud. 
Bourgeois (E.) Neuchatel et la politique 


prussienne en Franche-Comte [1702- 
I7I3]> d'apr^s des documents in6dits 
des archives de Paris, Berlin, et Neu- 
chatel. (Biblioth^que de la Faculty 
des Lettres de Lyon, I.) Pp. 267, 
map. Paris : Ler9ux. 5 f. 

Chabot (J. de). Etude historique et 
tactique de la cavalerie allemande 
pendant la guerre de 1 870- 1 871. I. 
Pp. 163, map. Nancy : Berger-Levrault. 
3-50 f. 

Crouzel (A.) Etude historique, ^cono- 
mique, et juridique sur les coalitions et 
les graves dans I'industrie. Paris : 
Eousseau. 10 f. 

Dechent (lieut.) Beitrage zur Geschichte 
des Feldzuges von 1806 nach Quellen 
des Archivs Marburg. Pp. 86. Berlin : 
Luckhardt. 2-40 m. 

D'EcKMiJHii (marquise A. L.) Le mare- 
chal Davout, prince d'Eckmiihl ; cor- 
respondance inedite [1790-1815], Pp. 
326. Paris : Perrin. 16mo. 3-50 f. 

DiTFURTH (M. von). Die Schlacht bei 
Borodino [7 Sept. 1812], mit besonderer 
Eiicksicht auf die Theilnahme der 
deutschen Keiter-Contingente. Pp. 
134, plans. Marburg : Elwert. 4-50 m. 

DuNCKER (M.) Abhandlungen aus der 
neueren Geschichte. Pp. 393. Leipzig : 
Duncker & Humblot. 8 m. 

Faure (F.) Les budgets contemporains : 
Budgets de la France depuis vingt ans, 
et des principaux 6tats de I'Europe de- 
puis 1870; Developpement des chemins 
de f er ; Navigation ; Commerce ; Forces 
militaires des principaux pays. Paris : 
Guillaumin. 4to. 30 f. 

Garden (comte de). Histoire g6n6rale 
des traites de paix et autres tran- 
sactions principales entre toutes les 
puissances de I'Europe. XV. Pp. 390. 
Paris : Le Poultel. 7'50 f. 

Ghio (G.) La guerra di 1866 in Ger- 
mania ed in Italia. Pp. 212. Florence : 
AdemoUo. 3 1. 

Hauptschlachten, die, der fridericiani- 
schen, napoleonischen, und modernen 

Periode, strategisch und taktisch be- 
leuchtet. Pp. 314. Hanover : Hel- 

JuRiEN DE LA Graviere (amiral). Les 
Chevaliers de Malte et la marine de 
Philippe II. 2 vol. Paris : Plon. 
12mo. 6 f. 

Karge (P.) Die russisch-osterreichische 
Allianz von 1746 und ihre Vorge- 
schichte, nach russischen und oster- 
reichischen Quellen. Pp. 136. Got- 
tingen : Peppmuller. 2-50 m, 

Katharina, Briefwechsel der Konigin, 
und des Konigs Jerome von Westphalen, 
sowie des Kaisers Napoleon I mit dem 
Konig Friedrich von Wiirttemberg. 
Edited by A. von Schlossberger. II. 
20 Marz i8ii-27 Sept. 1816. Pp. xliv, 
280. Stuttgart : Kohlhammer. 8 m. 

Maurice (C. E.) The revolutionary 
movements of 1848-49 in Italy, 
Austria-Hungary, and Germany ; with 
some examination of the previous 
thirty- three years. Pp. 540, illustr. 
London : Bell. 16/. 

Eanke (L. von). Zur Geschichte 
Deutschlands und Frankreichs im 
neunzehnten Jahrhundert. Edited by 
A. Dove. Pp. 623. Leipzig : Duncker 
& Humblot. 12 m. 

Eapson (E. J.) The struggle between 
England and France for supremacy 
in India. Pp. 120. London : Triibner. 

Eenault (C.) Histoire des greves. 
Paris : Guillaumin. 12mo. 3*50 f. 

Stagliexo (M.) Alcuni nuovi documenti 
intorno a Cristoforo Colombo ed alia 
sua famiglia. Pp. 23. Genoa : tip. 
dell' Istituto Sordomuti. (From the 
' Giornale Ligustico,' 1887, fasc. vii, 

Vervat (J. M.) De Pruisen voor Amster- 
dam [1787], Verdediging en verovering 
der stelling. Pp. 70. Amsterdam : 
Van Heteren. 

ViLLERMONT (Dc). Tilly ou la guerre de 
trente ans de 1618 a 1632. Pp. 437. 
Bruges : Desclee & De Brouwer. 4*60 f. 


Abobd (H.) Histoire de la r^forme et de 

la ligue dans la ville d'Autun. III. 

Pp. 605, plates. Autun : Dejussieu. 

Albiousse (L. d'). Histoire des dues 

d'Uz^s, suivie d'une notice sur leur 

chateau ducal. Paris : Champion. 

10 f. 
Arbaumont (J. d') & Marchant (L.) Le 

tr6sor de la Sainte-Chapelle de Dijon 

d'apr^s ses anciens inventaires. Pp. 

xxviii, 128, plates. Dijon : Daranti^re. 

4to. 8 & 25 f. 
Barbier (A.) Jean II d'Armagnac, 

gouverneur de Loudun, et Urbain 

Grandier. Pp. 380. Poitiers : Eoy. 5 f . 
Barthelemy (E. de). Le cardinal de 

Noailles, 6veque de Chdlons, arche- 
VOL. III. — NO. IX. 

veque de Paris, d'apr^s sa correspon- 

dance inedite [1651-1728]. Pp. 157. 

Paris : Techener. 
BosQ (P.) Versailles et les Trianons. 

Pp. 280, illustr. Paris : Laurens. 3*50 f . 
Bossier (G.) Life of Madame de S6vign6. 

Transl. by H. Llewellyn. (' Great 

French Writers.') Pp. 154, portrait. 

London : Eoutledge. 2 6. 
Bouchart (A.) Les grandes croniques de 

Bretaigne, compos^es en Fan 15 14. 

Nouvelle Edition, par H. Le Meignen. 

II. Pp. 150. Eennes : Cailh^re. 4to. 
BoucHOT (H.) Moeurs et coutumes de la 

France, la famille d'autrefois, le 

mariage, la naissance, la mort. . Pp. 

324, illustr. Paris : Lec^ne & Oudin. 

4to. 4 f. 


BouREULLE (De). L' Alsace du siecle de 
Louis XIV. Pp. 45. Saint-Die : 

Broc (vicomte de). La France sous 
I'ancien regime ; le gouvernement et 
les institutions. Paris : Plon. 7*50 f. 

Broglie (due de), Personal recollections 
of [1785-1820]. Transl. and edit, by 
R. L. de Beaufort. 2 vol. Pp. 1036, 
portrait. London : Ward & Downey. 

Camisards, Fragment de la guerre des, 
dans les environs d'Alais, Vernoux, le 
Cheylard, &c., par un anonyme [1692- 
1709]. Edited by M. Tallon. Pp. 105. 

Cappelletti (L.) Storia critica della 
rivoluzione francese. II. Pp. 293. 
Foligno : Sgariglia. 4 f. 

Castonnet des Fosses (H.) Saint- 
Domingue sous Louis XV. Pp. 39. 
Angers : Lach^se & Dolbeau. 

Chamillart (G.) Generality de Caen. 
Recherche de la noblesse, faite par 
ordre du roi en 1666 et annees sui- 
vantes ; publi6 int6gralement et pour 
la premiere fois d'apr^s plusieurs 
copies manuscrites anciennes. 2 vol. 
Paris : Lechevalier. 15 f. 

Champollion-Figeac (A.) Chroniques 
dauphinoises et documents in6dits 
relatifs au Dauphin^ pendant la revo- 
lution. Premiere periode historique : 
Les 6tats du Dauphine et la revolu- 
tion [1788-1 794]. Paris: Picard. 6 f. 

Chantelauze (R.) Les derniers chapitres 
de mon 'Louis XVII.' D6couverte 
des ossements du Dauphin en 1846, 
dans le cimeti^re Sainte-Marguerite. 
Paris : Didot. 2 f . 

Cheruel (A.) Etude sur la valeur his- 
torique des m6moires de Louis XIV. 
Pp. 24. Paris: Picard. (From the 
' Comptes-rendus de l'Acad6mie des 
Sciences Morales et Politiques.') 

CHEVAiiiER (Mgr. C.) Les fouilles de 
Saint-Martin de Tours : recherches 
sur les six basiliques successives 
elev6es autour du tombeau de saint 
Martin. Plates. ^Paris : Lechevalier. 6 f. 

Choussy (J. E.) Etude sur Jeanne d'Arc. 
Pp. 42. Moulins : Auclaire. 

Cledat (L.) Extraits de la chronique de 
Joinville, precedes d'une introduction 
grammaticale et suivis d'un glossaire. 
Pp. 159. Paris : Garnier. 12mo. 
1-50 f. 

CoiGNET (C.) a gentleman of the olden 
time, Francois de Scepeaux, Sire de 
Vieilleville [1509-1571] : Portraits and 
stories of the sixteenth century during 
the reign of Henri II. 2 vol. Pp. 634. 
London : Bentley. 21/. 

Darimon (A.) Histoire d'un parti. Le 
tier8-6tat sous I'empire [1863- 1866]. 
Paris: Dentu. 12mo. 3-50 f. 

DouAis (abbe C.) Cartulaire de I'abbaye 
de Saint-Sernin de Toulouse [844- 
1200], publie pour la premiere fois. 
Pp. cciv, 615. Paris : Picard. 4to. 40 f. 

Farcy (P. de). Abbayes de I'eveche de 
Bayeux. Ill, 4 : Notre-Dame de 
Longues [11 68- 1782]. Pp. 92, plates. 
Laval : Moreau. 4to. 

Garnault (E.) Le commerce rochelais 
au dix-huiti^me siecle. II : Etablisse- 
ments maritimes de la Rochelle. Pp. 
342, map. La Rochelle : Mareschal. 

Imbert de Saint-Amand. Les femmes 
des Tuileries : La duchesse d'Angou- 
leme et les deux restaurations. Paris : 
Dentu. 12mo. 3-50 f. 

La Chaulme (A. B. de). Vie de Marie 
Leckzinska. Pp. 215. Tours : Mame. 
12mo. 65 c. 

La Nicollikre-Teijeiro (S. de). La 
marine bretonne aux XV«^ et XVI** 
siecles ; essai historique. Pp. 107. 
Nantes : Forest & Grimaud. 

La Tremoille (Guy de) et Marie de 
Sully, Livre de comptes [1395- 1406], 
public d'apres I'original par L. de la 
Tremoille. Paris : Champion. 4to. 50 f . 

Lebourq (A.) Les anciennes fortifications 
de Reims, notes extraites des archives 
de Reims. Pp. 79, 2 plates. Reims : 
Monce. 3 f. 

Lecoy de la Marche (A.) Saint Louis, 
son gouvernement et sa politique. Pp. 
368, illustr. Tours : Mame. 2-40 f. 

Lespinasse (R. de). Cartulaire du prieure 
de La Charite-sur-Loire (Nievre), ordre 
de Cluni. Pp. xliv, 483, plates. Paris : 
Champion. 6 f. 

Le Vavasseur (A.) Valeur historique de 
la Chronique d'Arthur de Richemont, 
connetable de France, due de Bretagne 
[1 393- 1 458], par Guillaume Gruel ; 
etude critique. Pp. 80. Paris : Picard. 

Marguerite de Navarre. — Lettres de la 
reine de Navarre au pape Paul III, 
edited by P. de Nolhac. Pp. 12. 
Versailles : impr. Cerf . 

Mabmottan (P.) Tableau de Valenci- 
ennes au dix-huitieme siecle : Manuscrit 
inedit de dom Buvry, dernier abbe de 
Saint-Saulve [1783], publie et com- 
mente dans une notice preiiminaire. 
Paris : Lechevalier. 3'50 f. 

Masse (J.) Les tribunaux de Grenoble 
pendant les premieres annees de la re- 
volution [1790-1 795]. Pp.86. Grenoble: 

Mavidal (J.) & Laurent (E.) Archives 
parlementaires de 1787 a i860. Recueil 
comi:)let des debats 16gislatifs et poli- 
tiques des chambres franc^aises. 1" 
serie [1787 a 1799]. XXVII: [du 6 
juin au 5 juillet 1791J. Pp. 806. 
Paris : Dupont. 20 f. 

2" serie. LXV : Cour des pairs ; 

Proces des ex-ministres : [du l" octobre 
au 21 decembre 1830]. Debats et docu- 
ments parlementaires [du 4 decembre 
i83oau 6 Janvier 1831]. Pp.796. Paris: 
Dupont. 20 f. 

Musset (G.) Documents sur la reforme 
en Saintonge et en Aunis, XVI" et 
XVII" siecles. Pp. 126. Pons : Texier. 


Norman (C. B.) The corsairs of France. 
Pp. 464, illustr. London: Sampson 
Low. 18/. 

OuRSEL (Mme. N. N.) Nouvelle Bio- 
graphic normande, II. (L-Z). Pp. 596. 
Paris : Picard. 20 f. 

Palys (comte de). Le capitaine Breil de 
Bretagne, baron des Hommeaulx, gou- 
verneur d' Abbeville, de Saint-Quentin, 
et de Gran\dlle, d'apr^s les m^moires 
contemporains et des documents inedits 
[1503-1583]. Pp.224. Kennes : Plihon 
& Herv6. 6 f. 

Petit (E.) Histoire des dues de Bour- 
gogne de la race capetienne, avec des 
documents inedits et des pieces justifi- 
catives. II. Paris : Picard. 8 f. 

PosTEL (K.) Jeanne d'Arc, documents 
inedits et appreciations de I'heroine 
dans la litterature en Angleterre et en 
Allemagne. Pp. 191. Paris : Degorce. 
18mo. 1-50 f. 

QuARRK b'Aliony. M^moire de ses cam- 
pagnes sous le r^gne de Louis XIV, 
jusqu'a la paix de Eiswick [1697]. Pp. 
242. Beaune : imp. Batault. 

Saint-Poncy (L. de). Histoire de Mar- 
guerite de Valois, reine de France et de 
Navarre. 2 vol. Pp. 540, 594. Paris : 
Gaume. 18mo. 10 f. 

SoREL (A.) Montesquieu. Pp. 176. 
Paris : Hachette. 18mo. 2 f. 

Tarde (Jean), chanoine th^ologal et 
vicaire general de Serlat, Les chro- 
niques de, annotees par le vicomte G. de 
G6rard, prec6d6es d'une introduction 
par G. Tarde. ^Paris : Picard. 4to. 12 f. 

Trayer (P.) Etude historique sur la 
condition legale des esclaves dans les 
colonies fran^aises. Pp. 107. Paris : 

Zeller (B.) & Luchaire (A.) Louis XI 
et la maison de Bourgogne. Pp. 192, 
illustr. Paris : Hachette. 16mo. 50 c. 


(Including Austria-Hungary) 

Anger (G.) Illustrirte Geschichte der 
k. k. Armee in ihrer kulturhistorischen 
Bedeutung von der Begriindung an bis 
heute. Pp. 1456, illustr. Vienna : 

Berghoff-Ising (D.) Die Entwicklung 
des landwirthschaftlichen Pachtwesens 
in Preussen : eine historisch-okonomi- 
sche Studie. Pp. 104. Leipzig : Winter. 

BiTTKAu (G.) Aeltere Geschichte der Stadt 
Neu-Kuppin, auf Grund historischer 
Quellen. Pp. 167. Neu-Euppin : Pet- 
renz. 3*50 m. 

BussoN (A.) Beitrage zur Kritik der 
steyerischen Eeimchronik und zur 
Eeichsgeschichte im dreizehnten und 
vierzehnten Jahrhundert. II: DieWahl 
Adolfs von Nassau. Pp. 79. Vienna : 

Chroust (A.) Beitrage zur Geschichte 
Ludwigs des Bayers und seiner Zeit. 
I: Die Eomfahrt [1327-1329]. Pp. 
270. Gotha : Perthes. 5 m. 

Ebeling (F. W.) August von Sachsen 
[1 553- 1 586] : eine Charakterstudie. Pp. 
108. Berhn: Heine. 

Ermisch (H.) Das sachsische Bergrecht 
des Mittelalters. Pp. clxiv, 249, plate. 
Leipzig : Giesecke & Devrient. 9'60 m. 

Evers (G. G.) Martin Luther : Lebens- 
und Charakterbild, von ihm selbst 
gezeichnet in seinen eigenen Schriften 
und Correspondenzen. X. Pp. 320. 
Mainz : Kirchheim. 3 m. 

Friedrichs des Grossen, Politische Corre- 
epondenz. XV. Pp. 495. Berlin : A. 
Duncker. 14 m. 

Guericke (Otto von). Geschichte der 
Belagerung, Eroberung, und Zerstorung 
Magdeburg's, aus der Handschrift zum 
Erstenmale veroffentlicht von F. W. 
Hoffmann. 2te Auflage, mit einer 

Ansicht der Belagerung nach einem 
alten Stiche. Pp. 92. Magdeburg : 
Eathke. 1 m. 

GuNDLACH (W.) Wer ist der Verfasser 
des ' Carmen de Bello Saxonico ' ? 
Eine Entgegnung. Pp. 135, plates. 
Innsbruck : Wagner. 

Hafner (T.) Geschichte von Eavensburg : 
Beitrage nach Quellen und Urkunden- 
Sammlungen. Pp. 742. Eavensburg : 
Dorn. 13-50 m. 

Hauser (E.) Die Entwickelung der 
Viehzucht in Preussen [1816-1883] 
mit besonderer Eiicksicht auf die 
beiden einheitlichen Zahlungen, 1873 
und 1883, fiir das ganze deutsche Eeich. 
(Conrad's Sammlung nationalokono- 
mischer und statistischer Abhandlun- 
gen des staatswissenschaftlichen 
Seminars zu Halle, IV, 5.) Pp. 295. 
Jena : Fischer. 6 m. 

Hauthaler (P. W.) O.S.B. Libellus 
decimationis de anno 1285 : ein Beitrag 
zur kirchlichen Topographic von Steier- 
mark und Unterkarnten im dreizehnten 
Jahrhundert. Aus dem Vaticanischen 
Archive herausgegeben. Pp. 28. Salz- 
burg : Mittermiiller. 

Hermann (D. E.) Die Grundelemente 
der altgermanischen Mobiliarvindica- 
tion : eine rechtsgeschichtliche Studie. 
(Gierke's Untersuchungen zur deut- 
schen Staats- und Eechtsgeschichte, 

. XX.) Pp. 194. Breslau : Koebner. 

HiRN (J.) Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von 
Tirol : Geschichte seiner Eegierung 
und seiner Lander. II. Pp. 543. Inns- 
bruck : Wagner. 12 m. 

HoECK (W.) Zur Geschichte Heinrichs 
des Lowen und des Schutzheiligen 
seines Domes St. Thomas. Pp. 106. 
Brunswick : Wollermann. 1-50 m. 
. o 2 


HoLSCHER (L. A. T.) Die altere Diocese 
Paderborn, nach ihren Grenzen, Archi- 
diaconaten, Gauen, und alten Gerichten. 
Pp. 484. Miinster : Kegensberg. 4 m. 

Hoffmann (A.) Kaiser Friedrichs III. 
(IV.) Beziehungen zu Ungarn [1458- 
1464]. Pp. 50. Breslau : Kohler. 1 m. 

Horning (W.) Dr. Johann Marbach, 
Pfarrer zu St. Nikolai, Strassburg [i 545- 
1581] : Beitrage zu dessen Lebensbild 
mit Bezugnahme auf die Keformatoren 
Zell, Butzer, Hedio, und Capito. Pp. 
252. Strassburg : Vomhofl:'. 3 m. 

Hungary. — Monumenta vaticana histo- 
rian! regniHungarife illustrantia. Series 
I, 1 : Kationes collectorum pontificio- 
rum in Hungaria [1281-1375]. Pp. 
Ixxvii, 524, plate. Budapest : Eath. 

JuRiTzscH (G.) Adalbero, Graf von Wels 
und Lambach, Bischof von Wiirzburg 
und Griinder des Benedictiner-Stiftes 
Lambach in Ober-Oesterreich : ein 
Beitrag zum Investiturkampfe. Pp. 
151. Brunswick : Schwetschke. 

KoppMANN (K.) Geschichte der Stadt 
Kostock. I : Von der Griindung der 
Stadt bis zum Tode Joachim Sliiters 
[1532]. Pp. 151. Eostock: Werther. 
2 m. 

KosTER (A.) Die Wormser Annalen : 
eine Quellenuntersuchung. Pp. 105. 
Leipzig : Fock. 1*80 m. 

LoRENz (0.) Deutschlands Geschichts- 
quellen im Mittelalter seit der Mitte 
des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts. II. 3te, 
in Verbindung mit A. Goldmann um- 
gearbeitete Auflage. Pp. 444. Berlin : 
Hertz. 8 m. 

Martin (A.) Briefe der Konigin Luise 
von Preussen. Pp. 95. Berlin : Luck- 

Mayer (E.) Zur Entstehung der Lex 
Eibuariorum : eine rechtsgeschichtliche 
Untersuchung. Pp. 182. Munich : 
Eieger. 5 m. 

Meyer (A. B.) Die alten Strassenziige 
des Obergailthales (Karnten) und seiner 
Nachbarschaft. Pp. cv, 112. Dresden : 

Moller (J. C.) Geschichte der Weih- 
bischofe von Osnabriick. Pp. 241. 
Lingen : Van Acken. 3 m. 

Muyser (C. de). Eecueil des cartes et 
plans du pays et de la ville et forte- 
resse de Luxembourg publics depuis 
1579 jusqu'a nos jours. Pp. 16. 
Luxemburg : Biick. 
Oesterreichische Statistik. XIV : Be- 
richt uber die Erhebung der Handels- 
werthe und Haupt-Ergebnisse des aus- 
wartigen Handels im Jahre 1885 in Ver- 
gleichung mit den Vorjahren Pp. 191. 
Vienna : Gerold. 4to. 
PiiiBRAM (A. F.) Die Berichte dts kaiser- 
lichen Gesandten Franz von Lisola 
[1655 - 1660], mit einer Einleitung 
und Anmerkungen versehen. Pp. 571. 
Vienna: Gerold. 

Quetsch (F. H.) Das Verkehrswesen am 
Mittelrhein im Alterthum. Pp. 45, 
plate. Mainz : Wilckens. 1-50 m. 

Salem. — Codex diplomaticus Salemitanus. 
Urkundenbuch der Cistercienserabtei 
Salem. Edited by F. von Weech. II : 
[1 267- 1 300]. Pp. 684, 15 plates. 
Karlsruhe : Braun. 

ScHAFER (D.) Das Buch des liibeckischen 
Vogts auf Schonen, nebst fiinf Beilagen. 
(Hansische Geschichtsquellen, IV.) 
Pp. cliii, 155, maps, &g. Halle : Buch- 
handlung des Waisenhauses. 6 m. 

Schleswig - HoLSTEiN - Lauenburgische 
Eegesten und Urkunden. Edited by 
P. Hasse. I: [786-1250]. Pp. 407. 
Hamburg : Voss. 4to. 

Schmidt (G. H.) Zur Agrargesehichte 
Liibecks und Ostholsteins : Studien 
nach archivalischen Quellen. Pp. 171, 
plates. Ziirich : Orell Fiissli. 8 f. 

Schneider (E.) Wiirttembergische Ee- 
formations-Geschichte. Pp. 143. Stutt- 
gart : Eoth. 2-50 m. 

Staehling (C.) Histoire contemporaine 
de Strasbourg et de 1' Alsace. II : [1853- 
1872]. Pp. 464. Nancy: Berger- 
Levrault. 6 fr. 

Stieda (W.) Eevaler Zollbiicher und 
-Quittungen des vierzehnten Jahrhun- 
derts. (Hansische Geschichtsquellen, 
V.) Pp. cxxxviii, 107. Halle : Buch- 
handlung des Waisenhauses. 4*80 m. 

Strassburg, Urkunden und Akten der 
Stadt. 2te Abtheilung : Politische Cor- 
respondenz der Stadt Strassburg im 
Zeitalter der Eeformation. II: [1531- 
1539]. Edited by 0. Winckelmann. 
Pp. xxxi, 736. Strassburg : Triibner. 
18 m. 

ToLLiN (H.) Geschichte der franzosischen 
Colonic von Magdeburg. 2 vol. Pp. 
743, 506, plates. Halle : Niemeyer. 
22 m. 

Vambery (A.) Hungary in ancient, 
mediffival, and modern times. Pp. 462. 
London : Fisher Unwin. 5/. 

Weigel (T. 0.) Systematisches Ver- 
zeichniss derHauptwerke der deutschen 
Litteratur auf dem Gebiete der Eechts- 
und Staatswissenschaften. Edited by 
G. Mollat. Pp. 106. Leipzig : Weigel. 

WiEGAND (W.) Die Alamannenschlacht 
vor Strassburg [a.d. 357] : eine kriegs- 
geschichtliche Studie. (Beitrage zur 
Landes- und Volkskunde von Elsass- 
Lothringen, III.) Pp. 46, map. Strass- 
burg : Heitz. 1 m. 
WoELKY (C. P.) Neues preussisches Ur- 
kundenbuch. Westpreussischer Theil. 
II : Urkunden der Bisthiimer, Kirchen, 
und Kloster. 1 : Urkundenbuch des 
Bisthums Culm. Pp. 1277. Danzig : 
Bertling. 4to. 
WuTKE (C.) Beitrage zur Gesch chte des 
grossen Stadtebundskrieges [1387- 
1388]. L Pp.28. Berlin : Stargardt. 
1-20 m. 



Ball (J. T.) The reformed church of 
Ireland [1 537- 1886]. Pp.346. Dublin: 
Hodges. 7/6. 

Ballantyne (A.) Lord Carteret : a poli- 
tical biography [1690-1763]. London : 
Bentley. 16/. 

Bekker (E.) Beitrage zur englischen 
Geschichte im Zeitalter Elisabeths. 
(Giessener Studien auf dem Gebiet der 
Geschichte. IV.) Pp. 108. Giessen : 
Bicker. 2-50 m. 

Bellesheim (A.) History of the catholic 
church of Scotland from the introduc- 
tion of Christianity to the present day. 
Transl. with notes by O. H. Blair, O.S.B. 
I, II. Edinburgh : Blackwood. 25/. 

Birch (W. de G.) Domesday book : a 
popular account of the exchequer 
manuscript so called. London : Society 
for promoting Christian Knowledge. 

Brossmann (K.) Ueber die Quellen der 
mittelenglischen Chronik des Kobert 
von Gloucester. Pp. 48. Breslau : 
Kohler. 1 m. 

Canning (George). Some official corre- 
spondence. Edited, with notes, by E. J. 
Stapleton. 2 vol. Pp. 822. London : 
Longmans. 28/. 

Davis (N. D. D.) The cavahers and 
roundheads of Barbadoes [1650-1652]. 
Pp. 261. Demerara : Argosy office. 4/6. 

Dicey (A. V.) The privy council : the 
Arnold prize essay, i860 (reprint). Pp. 
150. London : Macmillan. 3/6. 

Evelyn (John). The life of Mrs. Godol- 
phin. Edited by E. W. Harcourt. Pp. 
292, portrait. London : Sampson Low. 

Felten (J.) Kobert Grosseteste, Bischof 
von Lincoln : ein Beitrag zur Kirchen- 
und Culturgeschichte des dreizehnten 
Jahrhunderts. Pp. 112. Freiburg : 
Herder. 1-60 m. 

FoRNERON (H.) Louise de Keroualle, 
duchess of Portsmouth [1649- 1734]. 
Engl. Transl. Pp. 370, portraits. 
London : Sonnenschein. 10/6. 

GoMME (G. L.) A classified collection of 
the chief contents of the Gentleman's 
Magazine [1731-1868] : Komano-British 
remains. II. London: Elliot Stock. 

Jeaffreson (J. C.) Lady Hamilton and 
Lord Nelson : an historical biography, 

based on letters and other documents 
in the possession of A. Morrison, 
esq. 2 vol. Pp. 696. London : Hurst 
& Blackett. 21/. 

Keary (C. F.) Catalogue of English 
coins in the British Museum. Anglo- 
Saxon series : I. Ed. by K. S. Poole. 
Pp. xciv, 282, plates. London : Long- 
man. 30/. 

Lee (F. G.) Eeginald Pole, cardinal arch- 
bishop of Canterbury : an historical 
sketch. Pp. 350, portrait. London : 
Nimmo. 8/6. 

Manning (Kobert) of Brunne, The story of 
England by. Edited by F. J. Furnivall. 
2 vol. London : Published under the 
direction of the master of the rolls. 

Perry (G. G.) English church history. 
Ill : [1717-1884] (Student's Manuals). 
London: Murray. 7/6. 

Power (D'A.) Memorials of the craft of 
surgery in England, from materials 
compiled by J. F. South ; edited by. 
London : Cassell. 

KicHiE (A. G.) Short history of the Irish 
people down to the date of the plan- 
tation of Ulster. Ed. by R. K, Kane. 
Pp. 634. London : Longmans. 14/. 

ScRUTTON (T. E.) Commons and common 
fields ; or the history and policy of the 
laws relating to commons and enclo- 
sures in England. Pp. 188. Cambridge : 
University Press. 10/6. 

Spillmann (J.), S.J. Die englischen 
Martyrer unter Heinrich VIII : ein 
Beitrag zur Kirchengeschichte des 
sechzehnten Jahrhunderts. Pp. 171. 
Freiburg : Herder. 2*25 m. 

Stanhope (W.) Monastic London : an 
analytical sketch of the monks and 
monasteries within the metropolitan 
area [1270-1600]. Pp. 170. London : 
Kemington. 5/. 

Stephen (L.) Dictionary of national 
biography. XIII : Craik — Damer. 
London : Smith, Elder, & Co. 15/. 

Stua (G. della). Vita di s, Osualdo, re 
di Nortumberland e martire, colla storia 
del suo culto. Pp. 52. Gemona : Tes- 

Wakeman (H. O.) The church and the 
puritans [1570-1660]. ('Epochs of 
Church History.') Pp. 218. London : 
Longmans. 2/6. 


Amari (M.) Biblioteca arabo-sicula. 2da 
appendice. . Stampata a spese della 
societa orientale di Germania. Pp. 46. 
Leipzig : Brockhaus. 2 m. 

Armand (A.) Les m6dailleurs italiens des 
XV« et XVI-' siecles. Ill : Supplement. 
Paris : Plon. 15 f. 

Bartolazzi (P. P.) Montolmo, oggi citta 

di Pausola, sua origine, incrementi, e 
decadenza nel medio evo e nel cinque- 
cento. Pp. 232. Pausola : Crocetti. 
2-50 1. 

Bortolan (D.) Podest4 e giudici in 
Vicenza[i3ii-i404]. Pp.37. Vicenza: 

Cazeneuve (P. de). San-Marino, la plus 


ancienne des republiques modernes. 

Pp. 200. Paris : Joubaud. 18mo. 

3-50 f. 
CivEzzA (Marcellino da). II romano pon- 

tificato nella storia d' Italia. III. Pp. 

802. Florence : Eicci. 
Desanctis (P.) Notizie storiche sopra il 

tempio cattedrale, ii capitolo, la serie 

dei vescovi ed i vetusti monasteri di 

Eieti. Pp. 126. Eieti : Trinchi. 2 1. 
DuRKiEU (P.) Les archives angevines de 

Naples : 6tude sur les registres du roi 

Charles I [1265-1285]. II. Pp. 426, 

plates. Paris : Thorin. 14 f. 
Florence. — Le consulte della repubblica 

fiorentina, per la prima volta pubblicate 

da Alessandro Gherardi. I. Florence : 

Sansani. 4to. 4 1. 
Frati (L.) La guerra di Gian Galeazzo 

Visconti contro Mantova [1397]. Pp. 

37. Milan : tip. Bortolotti di G. Prato. 

(From the ' Archivio storico lombardo, 

La legazione del cardinale Bene- 
detto Giustiniani a Bologna [1606- 

161 1]. Pp. 11. Genoa: tip. Sordo- 

Galeazzi (E.) Cenni geografici e storici 

delle Marche. I : Provincia d'Ancona. 
. Pp. 65. Jesi : Floro Flori. 16mo. 
Ghizzi (G.) Storia della terra di Casti- 

glione Fiorentino. Ill: [1700-1859]. 

Pp. 232. Arezzo : Bellotti. 
IvREA. — Eporedia sacra : serie cronologica 

dei parrochi della diocese d' Ivrea ; 

santi titolari e patroni. Edited by G. 

Saroglia. Pp. 183. Ivrea : Tomatis. 
Jordan (H.) Die Konige im alten Italien : 

ein Fragment. Pp. 47. Berlin : 

Weidmann. 2 m. 
Palomes (A.) La storia di li Nm'manni 'n 

Sicilia cuntata di lu Griddu, cu la junta 

di li famigghi nobili chi discinninu di 

li cavaleri nurmanni e siciliani. IV : 

Gugghiermu secunnu, dittu lu Bonu. 

Pp. 370. Palermo : stamp, dell' Armenia. 

16mo. 2-50 1. 
Papadopoli (N.) Del piccolo e del bianco, 

antichissime monete veneziane. Pp. 

13. Venice : Antonelli. 4to. 
Perugia. — Cronache della citta di Perugia, 

edite da A. Fabretti. I : [1308- 1438]. 

Pp. 246. Turin : coi tipi privati dell' 


Phillimore (Catherine M.) The warrior 
Medici, Giovanni delle Bande Nere : an 
historical study. Pp. 119. London 
Literary Society. 3 6. 

Podkecca (C.) Slavia italiana : istituti 
amministrativi e giudiziari in relazione 
a quelli del Friuli ed alia storia co- 
mune. Pp. 215. Cividale : Giovanni. 
4-50 1. 

Pdccianti (G.) & Giuliani (E.) Vittorio 
Emanuele e il risorgimento d' Italia 
[1815-1878]. Pp.292. Milan : Treves. 
16mo. 2 1. 

Eatti (C.) Delle giurisdizioni ne' di- 
versi stati italiani dalla fine del secolo 
XVIII alia pubblicazione de' codici pel 
regno d' Italia. Pp. 173. 2nd ed. 
Ancona : tip. Buon Pastore. 3 1. 

Sanesi (G.) Stefano Porcari e la sua 
congiura : studio storico. Pp. 157. 
Pistoia : tip. Cino dei fratelli Bracali. 
16mo. 2 1. 

Santoxi (G. B.) Lettere confidenziali 
sulla popolare insurrezione, seguita in 
Livorno il 31 di maggio dell' anno 1790. 
Pp. 38. Livorno : Giusti. 16mo. 

ScHiPA (M.) Saggi e recensioni. Pp. 27. 
Salerno : tip. Nazionale. 

Scott (W.) A glance at the historical 
documents relating to the church of 
Saint Mark in Venice. Pp. 53. Venice : 

Spadoni (0. L.) The Etruscans : an his- 
torical and critical notice of the origin, 
development, and civilisation of the 
early Italian race. Pp. 58. Eome : 
Piale. 2-50 1. 

Trisoli (G. B.) Serie di tutti li rettori, 
podesta, o rappresentanti che sono stati 
nel reggimento di Este [1050-1796]. 
Pp. 19. Este : Zanella. 

Venice. — Trattative segrete fatte dalla 
repubblica veneta cogli Ariosti di 
Ferrara, per ottenere il dominio di 
quella citta durante la guerra tra 
Venezia e il duca Ercole nel 1482. Pp. 
14. Venice : Cecchini. 

ViDARi (G.) Le carte storiche di Pavia. 
Pp. 18. Turin : Para via. (From the 
' Miscellanea di Storia Italiana,' 2nd 
ser., XII.) 

Weise (J.) Italien und die Langobarden- 
herrscher [568-628]. Pp. 287. Halle : 
Niemeyer. 6 m. 


Bas (F. de). Prins Frederik der Neder- 
landen en zijn tijd. II. Pp. 682, 
illustr. Schiedam : Eoelants. 

Claessens (chanoine). L'inqaisition et 
le regime p6nal pour la repression de 
I'h6r6sie dans les Pays-Bas du pass6. 
Pp. 300. Malines : College de Saint- 
Eombaut. 4 f. 

Claeys (H.) Sint-Arnold, bisschop van 
Soissons, apostel van Vlaanderen, 
stichter der abtei van Oudenburg. Pp. 
152. Ghent : Leliaert & Siffer. 12mo. 
75 centimes. 

Daris (J.) Histoire du diocese et de la 
principaute de Li^ge pendant le quin- 
zi^me si^cle. Pp. 712. Liege : De- 
marteau. 5 f. 

D'Hoop (F. H.) La Flandre orientale et 
ses anciennes archives. Pp. 236. 
Ghent : Van der Meulen. 5 f. 

DooRNiNCK (J. van) & Uitterdijk (J. N.) 
Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van 
Overijssel. IX. Pp. 192. Zwolle : Tijl. 

DucLos (A.) Jan Breidel en Pieter de 
Conine : eine schets. Pp. 94. Bruges : 
Beyaert-Storie. 12mo. 50 c. 


Geesink (W.) Calvinisten in Holland : 
Franciscus Junius [1545-1602]; Petrus 
Plancius [1552-1622]; Cornells Gese- 
lius [1583-1614]. De doleerende kerk 
van Eotterdam [1611-1618]. Pp.292. 
Eotterdam : Dunk. 

Gand, Second cartulaire de, recueilli par 
F. de Potter. Pp. 418. Ghent: Le- 
liaert & Siffer. 5 f. 

Jean des Preis, dit d'Outremeuse, Chro- 
nique et geste de. (Collection de 
chroniques beiges in^dites, publiee par 
ordre du gouvernement.) Introduction, 
&c., par S. Bormans. Pp. ccxx, 580. 
Brussels : Hayez. 4to. 

Jean de Stavelot, Chronique de. (Col- 
lection de chroniques beiges in6dites.) 
Table analytique des mati^res, par S. 
Bormans. Pp. 90. Brussels : Hayez. 

Kremer (A. J. C.) Hattuarie : de oor- 
sprong der graven van Gebre en Cleve. 
Pp. 202. The Hague : Genealogisch- 
Heraldisch Archief. 2 fl. 

MooRREES (F. D. J.) Dirk Volckertszoon 
Coornhert, notaris te Haarlem, de Li- 

bertijn, bestrijder der gereformeerde 
predikanten ten tijde van prins Willem 
J. Pp. 228. Schoonhoven : Van 

Nameche (abb6 A. J.) Le r^gne de Philippe 
TI et la lutte religieuse dans les Pays- 
Bas au XVI* si^cle. VII. Louvain : 
Fonteyn. 4 f. 

Cours d'histoire nationale. V : P6- 

riode espagnole. XIX. Pp. 439. Lou- 
vain : Fonteyn. 4 f . 

Pierre de Coninck et Jean Breydel, 

deux h6ros flamands. Pp. 156. Lou- 
vain : Fonteyn. 1*50 f. 

Sijpesteyn (C. A. van). Het merkwaardig 
beleg van Ostende [5 Juli i6oi-22 Sep- 
tember 1604]. Pp. 122, map. The 
Hague : Stockum. 

Verhagen (J.) De geschiedenis der 
christelijke gereformeerde kerk in Ne- 
derland aan het volk verhaald. 2nd 
ed., with preface by M. Noordtzy. 
Pp. 464. Kampen : Zalsman. 1-40 fl. 

WiTTE (H.) 's Rijks Academietuin te 
Leiden [1587-1887]. Pp. 27. Haar- 
lem : Tjeenk Willink. 4to. 


Bache (N.) Nordens historie. V. Co- 
penhagen : Forlagsbureauet. Complete, 
5 vol. 53-50 kr. 

Barstad (H. J.) Bergens forsvar i 1801 
og 1807-1814. Pp. xxxii, 504, map. 
Bergen : Giertsen. 8*50 kr. 

Carlson (F. F.) Geschichte Schwedens. 
VI : Geschichte Karls XII bis zum 
Altranstadter Frieden [1706]. (Ge- 
schichte der europaischen Staaten, 
XL VIII, 1.) Pp. 400. Gotha : Perthes. 
8 m. 

Christian IV (kong) egenhaendige breve, 
edited by C. F. Bricka & J. A. Fridericia. 
XIII: [1589-1619]. Pp.160. Copen- 
hagen : Klein. 3 kr. 

Cornelius (C. A.) Svenska kyrkans his- 
toria efter reformationen. Pp. 345. 
Upsala : Armqvist & Wiksell. 

Historiske kildeskrifter og bearbejdelser 
af dansk historie isaer fra det 16 aar- 
hundrede : Monumenta histories Da- 

nicae. 2nd series. II, 3. Pp. 192. 
Copenhagen : Gad. 2*50 kr. 

Lagreze (G. B. de). La reine Caroline- 
Mathilde et le comte Struens6e. Paris : 
Didot. 12mo. 3-50 f. 

Martens (H.) Skandinavische Hof- und 
Staatsgeschichten des neunzehnten 
Jahrhunderts, nach den schwedischen 
Quellen des A. Ahnfelt. Pp. 254. 
Stuttgart : Frommann. 4*50 m. 

Nielsen (0.) Kjobenhavns diplomata- 
rium : samling af dokumenter, breve, 
og andre kilder til oply suing om KJ0- 
benhavns aeidre forhold fer 1728. 
XVIII, 1. Pp. 400. Copenhagen: 
Gad. 4 kr. 

Svenska riksdagsakter [1521-1714], ed. 
by E. Hildebrand & 0. Alin. I : [1521- 
1544]. Pp.420. Stockholm : Norstedt. 
10 kr. 

TiscHLER (0.) Gedachtnissrede auf 
J. J. A. Worsaae. Pp. 11. Konigsberg : 
Koch & Reimer. 4to. 45 pf. 


(Together with Eoumania) 

BijAramberg (N.) Essai compar6 sur les 
institutions et les lois de la Eoumanie 
depuis les temps les plus recul6s jus- 
qu'4 nos jours. Pp. 808 ; supplement, 
PI). 317. Bucharest [1885-1887]. 

DuDiK. Allgemeine Geschichte Mahrens 
von den altesten Zeiten bis 1306. 
General-Register und Nachschlage- 
Buch zu den zehn Banden. Im Auf- 
trage des mahrischen Landes-Aus- 
schusses. Pp. 684. Briinn : Winiker. 
72 m. 

GoLowiN (I. von). Die geschichtliche 

Entwickelung des russischen Volkes. 

Pp. 200. Leipzig : Reihboth. 3 m. 
Hildebrand (H.) Livonica, vornamlich 

aus dem dreizehnten Jahrhundert im 

Vaticanischen Archiv. Pp. 71. Riga : 

Deubner. 2-50 m. 
MiKLosicH (F.) Die Blutrache bei den 

Slaven. Pp. 86. Vienna : Gerold. 
Onciul (D.) Zur Geschichte der Buko- 

wina. I. Pp. 29. Czernowitz : Pardini. 
Poland. — Acta historica res gestas Polo- 

niffi illustrantia. Ed. collegium his- 

toricum academisB litterarum Craco- 


viensis. XI. Acta Stephani regis 
[1576-1582]. Pp. xxxi, 430. Cracow: 
VoLKAERSBEKE (baroii Kcrvyn de). So- 
bieski et la mission de la Pologne. 
Pp. 218. Bruges : imp. de la Society 
Augustin. 2-60 f. 

WiESNER (A. C.) Beitrage zur Ge- 
schichte Eusslands, nach bisher un- 
benutzten russischen Original-Quellen. 
Pp. 141. Leipzig : Wertlier. 2-25 m. 

WoLDEicH (J. N.) Beitrage zur Urge- 
schichte Bohmens. III. Pp. 24, illustr. 
Vienna : Holder. 


Altadill (J.) Biografia y obras del 
padre Josef de Morete, primer cronista 
de Navarra. Pp. 124. Pamplona: J. 
Lorda. 4to. (Printed for private cir- 

Akantegui y Sans (J.) Apuntes histo- 
ricos sobre la artilleria espanola en los 
siglos decimocuarto y d6cimoquinto. 
Pp. 471, illustr. Madrid: Fontanet. 
4to. 13-50 pes. 

Balaguer (V.) Historia de Cataluna, XI. 
Monografias historicas, Euinas de Po- 
blet. (Obras. XIX.) Pp.590. Madrid: 
Murillo. 4to. 11 pes. 

Blanc Saint-Hilaiee. — Les Euskariens 
ou Basques ; le Sobrarbe et la Navarre ; 
leur origine, leur langue, et leur his- 
toire. Paris : A. Picard. 10 f . 

Cappa (R.) E studios criticos acerca de la 
dominacion espaiiola en America. I : 
Colon y los Espafioles. 2nd edition. 
Pp. 136, 76 Madrid : Velasco. 3 pes. 

CoQUELLE (P.) AperQu historique sur le 
Portugal et la maison de Bragance. 
Pp. 138. Paris : Roussel. 18mo. 

Histoire du Portugal et de la 

maison de Bragance. Paris : Dupret. 
12mo. 2 f. 

Felipe II, Correspondencia di, con sus 
embaj adores en la corte de Inglaterra 
[1 558-1 584]. II. (Coleccion de docu- 
mentos ineditos para la Historia de 
Espana, LXXXIX. Edited by the 
marques de la Fuensanta del Valle, 
J. S. Rayon, and F. de Zabalburu.) 
Pp. 566. Madrid : Murillo. 4to. 13 pes. 

HiNOJOSA (E.) Historia general del dere- 
cho espanol. I. Pp. 378. Madrid: 
tip. de los Hu6rfanos. 4to. 10 pes. 

MoRGADo (A.) Segunda parte de la his- 
toria de Sevilla. Pp. 487. Seville : 
Mirza. 4to. 

PiCATOSTE (F.) Estudios sobre la gran- 
deza y decadencia de Espana. I : Los 
Espafioles en Italia. II : El ejercito 
espanol en Italia. Ill : Decadencia 
de Espana. El siglo decimoseptimo. 
Madrid : Hernando. 4to. 

Semelaigne (Dr.) Yves d'Evreux, ou 
Essai de colonisation au Bresil chez les 
Tapinambos[i6i2-i6i4]. Pp.52. Paris: 
lib. des Bibliophiles. 18mo. 1*50 f. 


Dandliker (K.) Geschichte der Schweiz. 
III. Pp. 508, plates. Zurich : Schult- 
hess. 11-40 f. 

DiERAUER (J.) Geschichte der schwei- 
zerischen Eidgenossenschaft. I : bis 
141 5. (Geschichte der europaischen 
Staaten, XL VIII, 2.) Pp. 443. Gotha : 
Perthes. 3 m. 

Geering (T.) Handel und Industrie der 
Stadt Basel : Zunftwesen und Wirth- 
schaftsgeschichte bis zum Ende des 
siebzehnten Jahrhunderts, aus den 
Archiven dargestellt. Pp. 678. Basle : 

Graubunden, Rechtsquellen des Cantons. 

Edited by E. Wagner & L. E. von 

Salis. Pp. 181, 406, 153. Basle: 

Kern (J. C.) Souvenirs politiques [1838- 

1883]. Pp. 383. Bern : Jent & Reinert. 

12mo. 4 f. 
Memoires et documents publics par la 

societe d'histoire de la Suisse ro- 

mande. Deuxieme serie. I. Pp. 304. 

Lausanne : Bridel. 5 f. 
PupiKOFER (J. A.) Geschichte des Thur- 

gaus. Pp. 640. Frauenfeld : Huber. 

13-80 f. 


Bryce (J.) M.P. The predictions of 
Hamilton and De Tocqueville (Johns 
Hopkins University studies in historical 
and political science. 5th series). Pp. 
57. Baltimore : Murray. 25 c. 

Butler (N. M.) The influence of the 
war of 1812 upon the consolidation of 
the American union. (Same series.) 
Pp. 30. 25 c. 

CooLiDGE (Susan). A short history of the 
city of Philadelphia from its foundation 
to the present time. Pp. 288. Boston : 
Roberts. 12mo. ^1-25. 

Stoddard (W. O.) Andrew Jackson and 

Martin van Buren. (' The Lives of the 
Presidents.') Pp. 317. New York: 
Stokes. 12mo. ^^1-25. 

James Madison, James Munro, and 

John Quincy Adams. (Same series.) 
Pp. 331. ^1-25. 

Tyler (M. C.) Patrick Henry. (Ameri- 
can Statesmen, XVII.) Pp. 398. 
Boston : Houghton, Mifllin, & Co. 
16mo. ^1-25. 

Williams (G. W.) A history of the Negro 
troops in the war of the rebellion [1861- 
1865J. Pp.353. New York : Harper . 



Contents of Periodical Publications 


Revue Historique, xxxv. 1. September— 
G. MoNOD : Judicial customs in the 
eighth century [a commentary on the 
' Parsenesis ad Judices ' of bishop 

Theodulf of Orleans] M. Phllipp- 

soN : Studies in the history of Mary 
Stuart ; the casket letters, II [com- 
pleting the examination of them, and 
rejecting the whole series. The writer 
also calls attention to a spurious cor- 
respondence between queen Mary and 
Bothwell, 1563-1567, preserved in the 
Stowe MS. 695 in the British Museum]. 
— H. Harrisse : Christopher Columbus 
and Savona [showing that he was not 
born there, and replying to criticisms]. 

A. Stern prints three letters which 

passed between BartMlemy, the French 
minister in Switzerland, and Albert de 
Mulinen of Bern [1793] .=^=2. No- 
vember. P. MoNCEAux : The great 

temple of the Puy-de-D6me [treating of 
the old Gaulish Mercury-worship, and 
giving traces of its survival in peasants' 

customs in Auvergne]. G. Fagniez : 

The early life of pire Joseph, and his 
share in the pacification of Loudun 

[1577-1616]. A. Hellot prints 

a grant of Bertrand du Guesclin 

[1374] E. Welvert prints papers 

bearing on the private life of Louis 

Revue des Questions Historiques, xlii. 
2. — G. DU Fresne de Beaucourt : 
Charles VIVs attempts upon Genoa 
and Asti [1445- 1447], a chapter in 

diplomatic history. P. Pierling ; 

The marriage of Ivan III of Muscovy 
with Zoe [or Sophia), daughter of 

Thomas Palceologus [1472]. D. 

d'Aussy : Frangois de Lanoue and his 
last campaigns [from 1578 down to his 
death in 1591]. Abbe E. Allain: 
The policy of the revolution concern- 
ing eduA^ation, under the consulate 

[continued from vol. xl. 2]. P. 

Piolin: lialph, abbot of Saint- Jouin- 
Us-Marnes [i 1 13- 1 120], and lialph de 
la Fustaye [f 11 29, distinguishing the 
two contemporaries, who were both 

connected with St. Jouin]. G. 

Gandy : The memoirs and corre- 

spondence'of the count de VilUle [down 
to 1 816. The memoirs will soon be 

published as a separate work]. P. 

Batifeol : San Salvatore de' Greci at 
Messina [with an account of, and 
extracts from, its archives]. 

Bibliotheque de I'Ecole des Chartes, xlviii. 
4. — J. Delaville le Koulx : The 
statutes of the order of the Hospital of 
St. John of Jerusalem [giving an 
account of those of William of S. 
Stefano, from a Vatican manuscript 
written between 1287 and 1290, with a 
list of manuscripts and editions of the 

later statutes]. H. d'Arbois de 

JuBAiNviLLE : Instanccs of names of 
^ fundi ' formed from Eoman gentile 

names with the termination -acus. 

G. DiGARD : A collection of ' littere 
notate ' of the time of Boniface VIII 
[illustrating the professional rules of 
the papal chancery]. — H. Moran- 
viLLE prints two reports to Philip VI 
on the state of his finances [the one 
referring probably to 1331, the other 

dated 1344]. J. Guiffrey prints 

an inventory of the ' tapisseria ' of 
Charles VI, sold by the English in 

1422 ; continued, with an index. E. 

Maunde Thompson : On the arrangement 
and classification of manuscripts 
[translated from the ' Library Chro- 
nicle,' IV]. 

Revue d'Histoire Diplomatique, i. 4. — 
T. Funck-Brentano : National law in 
the eighteenth century [Pascal, Domat, 

andPutfendorf J. Due de Broglie: 

Letters of Louis XV to the Count de 
Coigny [1737-1745, including a letter on 
the battle of Fontenoy and four others 
on the campaign of 1745 in the Ne- 
therlands]. B. d'Harcourt : Nego- 
tiations relating to a scheme for the 
foundation of a French colony at 
Basilan in the Soulou Archipelago, 
between Borneo and the Philippine 
Islands [1845. The project was 
abandoned by the French government 
in order to conciliate Spain, and for- 
ward the negotiations for the Spanish 

marriages then in progress]. L. 

Pingaud : Jean de Bry and Joseph 


Bonaparte [letters of the former, 
chiefly relating to the congress of 

Eastadt] A. Geffroy : The origins 

of diploinacy ; the earliest Greek 

treaties. G. Eothan : Germany 

after the war of 1866 [dealing with the 
policy of Varnbiihler in Wiirttemberg, 
the recriminations of Wiirttemberg 
against Austria, its appeal to France, 

and final agreement with Prussia] 

L. Thuasne : Treaty between Charles 
VIII and the republic of Florence 
[26 Nov. 1494 ; differing in several 
points from the treaty of 25 November 
published by Capponi]. 

Annales de I'Ecole Libre des Sciences 
Politiques, ii. 3. July— Jjeyy-Buviiij : 
The infliience of Rousseau in Germany. 

E. HuLOT : The French Canadians 

and the devclopnent of parliamentary 
liberties in Canada [a sketch of their 
political action from 1763 to 1867]. 
E. BouTMY : Two theses of Sir Henry 
Maine [contesting his conclusion that 
the instability of popular govern- 
ments proves that democracy is not 
likely to be a lasting form of govern- 
ment, and rejecting his theory that 
the constitution of the United States 
is merely a modified version of the 

English constitution] E. Stoukm: 

Bibliography of French financial his- 
tory in the eighteenth century, continued 

from July number, 1886. Lefevee- 

PoNTALis : The mission of the marquis 
d'Eguilles to Scotland in 1745, con- 
tinued [describes the invasion of Eng- 
land by prince Charles Edward, and 
gives a detailed account of his treaty 

with France, 24 Oct. 1745]. De Ger- 

MON : The laivs concerning prinmry edu- 
cation in Belgium. 4 . October — E. 
BouTMY : The state and the individual 
in England [considering the position of 
the individual with respect to civil and 
political liberty, and property ; the 
position of the family, the class, and 

the sect towards the state] Dela- 

VAUD : The colonial policy of Germany 
[action of Germany in Oceania and 

Africa since 1870]. Menant: Mining 

legislation, with special reference to 
crown rights [du droit r^galien en 

mati^re de mines]. H. Begouen : 

The ' Kulturkampf ' [history of the 
termination of the conflict, 1878-1886; 
continued from the April number]. 
A. Lebon : O71 colonial policy [cri- 
ticism of Lanessan]. 

Bulletin de la Societe de I'Histoire du 
Protestantisme Fran9ais, xxxvi. 8-11. 
August-November — C. Eead : The 
granddaughter of Agrippa d'Aubigni 
in legend and history [maintaining 
against Geffroy that Madame de Main- 
tenon was to a great extent responsible 
for the revocation of the edict of 

Nantes], two articles. N. Weiss & 

E. Coyecque print documents relating 

to admiral Coligny and the massacre 

of St. Bartholomeiv. A. J. Enschede 

prints petitions of huguenot refugees in 

Holland [1688- 1689]. Letters on the 

assemblees au cUsert [1722 & I745]- 

Notes on the refuge at I'riedrichs- 

dorf [Hesse] arid at Canterbury 

C. Dardier : The edict of toleration of 
1787 ; supplemented by papers showing 
the relations of the government and 
the catholic clergy towards the protes- 
tants between 1775 and 1788, edited by 
N. Weiss, D. Benoit, and C. Pradel ; 
and by a bibliography of the subject by 

A. LoDS. N. Weiss prints a docii- 

ment on the duchess of Savoy and 
Chassincourt relating to the Vaudois 

[1561]. M. Lelievre : Anne du 

Bourg before his imprisonment in the 
Bastille [1520-1559J. 

Comptes Eendus de 1' Academic des Ins- 
criptions et Belles-Lettres. — January 
1887 — H. d'Arbois de Jubainville : 
La propriety fonciere en Gaule.== 
April — P. Berger : La seconde inscrip- 
tion bilingue de Tamassus. D. 

Charmay : Monnaie de cuivre en 

Amdrique avant la conquete. J. 

Oppert : Sur guelgues personnages 
juifs qui figurent dans les textes juri- 

diques de Babylone. The Same : 

Chronique babylonienne du Mus6e Bri- 
tannique, traduite et comment^e. 

La Controverse et le Contemporain. — 
Septernber- October — P. Allard : Les 
Chretiens sous les successeurs d'Aure- 
lien ; Tacite et Probus : naissance 
du 7nanicheis7ne.^= September — Mgr. 
EiCAED : L'abbi Maury et Mirabeau, 

concluded. J. Condamin : Arran, 

Vile des saints. 

Le Correspondant. — August 2o-October 
25 — P. Thureau-Dangin : La creation 
du royaume de Bolgique et Vdection 

de son premier roi, two articles. 

A. FoRNKRON : Les Emigres et la society 
frangaise so2is le r^gne de NapoUon I"", 

continued ; three articles. Madame 

DE VoGiJE : Malplaquet et Denain, two 
articles F. Combes : Les ante- 
cedents de la question d' Alsace-Lor- 
raine ; un curieux manifesto de 

Fr6d6ric II. G. Beaurain : Les 

curis de campagne au dix-huiti^me 
sidcle, d'apr^s des documents in6dits ; 

two articles. H. Delorme : M6moires 

du comte de VilUle. 

Nouvelle Revue. — August 15- September 
1 — Tatistcheff : Paul et Bonaparte, 
6tude historique d'apr^s des documents 
in6dits.r=i=Octo6er 1-15 — Lettres ini- 
dites de Benjamin Constant. 

Nouvelle Revue Historique du Droit. — 
July — E. Delachenal, : La biblio- 
tMque d'un avocat au quatorzii\me 
sidcle ; inventaire estimatif des livres 
de Eobert le Coq. 

La Revolution Franpaise. — July—F. A. 
AuLAUD : Instructions g6n6rales aux 


agents diplomatiques de la republiqtie 

frangaise [1 June, 1793]. E. Chara- 

VAY : Une lettre de Bailly sur la 
Udiration [8 July, ly go]. = September 
— A. Eambaud : LHndustrie, Vagricul- 
ture, et le commerce sous la revolution 
et r empire. z==:October — F. A. Aulard : 
Bailly et Vaffaire du Champ de Mars. 

Memoire de Kellermann sur la 

campagne de 1792. 

Revue Celtique. — July — H. d'Arbois de 
JuBAiNViLLE : La Gaule au moment de 

la conquMe romaine The Same : 

Becherches sur Vorigine de la propriety 
fonciere et des noms de lieu en France, 

continued. A. Longnon : Les noms 

de lieu celtiques en France : Medio- 

Revue Critique d'Histoire et de Littera- 
t\xTe. — September 19 — A. Hauvette : 
Pausanias Periegetes [on Kalkmann's 
work] .==26 — L. G. Pelissier prints 
an unpublished letter of La Condamine 

to Bottari [5 December 1757]. r 

October 17 — E. Glasson : Ancient law 
in France [in reply to criticism of H. 

d'Arbois de J ubain ville] . 24 — 

R. Gagnat : Recent theories of the 
Gennan carnpaigns of Va7-us and 
Germanicus [Mommsen's and Knoke's]. 
31 — J. Darmesteter : Indian 
coins in the British Museum [on 
Gardner's catalogue] .^=^iVbi!em6er 7 
— C. Clermont-Ganneau : The ancient 
art of Sardinia, Judea, and Asia 
Miyior [on Perrot and Chipiez' 'His- 
toire de I'Art dans rAntiquit6.'].::= 
28 — A. Chuquet : Recent literature of 
the French revolution. 

Revue des Ceux Mondes. — August 1 — 
Due DE Broglie : La seconde lutte de 
Frederic II et de Marie-TMrise : suites 

de la bataille de Fontenoy. G. 

BoissiER : L^edit de Milan et les 
premiers essais de 1 ^ — 
A. DuRUY : L'armie royale en 1789: 
I'administration, la discipline, et la tac- 
tiqxie.= September 1 — Due de Bro- 
glie : Etudes diplomatiques : Frederic II 
traite avec I'Angleterre sans le con- 
cours de la France. A. Filon : Les 

historiens anglais : J. A. Froiide.:= 
15— Marquis de VoGiJii : Villars diplo- 
mate ; la fin de la guerre de la succes- 
sion d'Espagne • les traitis de Rastadt 
et de Bade.=October 1 — Due de 
Broglie: Etudes diplomatiques : Marie 

ThirHe imp^ratrice. Jurien de la 

Graviere : Les cinq combats de la 
' Semillante.'' = 15 — E. Kenan : 
Etudes d'hisioire israMite : Saiil et 

David H. Houssaye : La France 

en 1814, d'apres des documents in6- 

Revue de Geographie. — September-Oc- 
tober — P. Gaffarel : La dicouverte du 
Canada par les Frangais ; Verrazano, 
Cartier, Hoberval : concluded. 

Revue des Etudes Juives. — July — I, 
LoEB : La controverse de 1263 a Bar- 

celone. P. Vidal : Les juifs de 

Roussillon de la Cerdagne I. 

Levi : La mort de Titus. 1. Loeb : 

Le prods de Samuel ibn Tibbon. 

Les exiUs d^Espagne a Ferrare [1493]. 

La juiverie de Jerez de la Fron- 


Revue du Monde Chtholique.— August- 
September L. Gautier : La po6sie 
religieuse dans les clottres des neuvi^me 
a onziSme si^cles, two articles.==:Oc- 
tober — RoBiNET de Clery : La diclara- 

tio7i de guerre de 1866 Abbe J. 

Loth : Un projet de mariage en Por- 
tugal pour le dauphin fits de Louis 
XIV. J. A. Petit : Marie Stuart. 

Revue du Monde Latin. — August -Sep- 
tember — Comte DE Barral : Le conclave 
de Venise et le concordat frangais [1799- 
1801], two articles. 

Revue Politique et Litteraire — Jtily 30 — 
A. Eambaud : La diplomatic frangaise 
en Orient au dix-huitidme sidcle. 

Revue de la Hiy olntioji.— September — 
V. DU Bled : Rivarol.'==September- 
October — La terreur dans les diparte- 
ments du Nord et du Pas-de-Calais, 
d'apres les d6bats du proems de Joseph 

Le Bon. October — H. Taine : La 

Provence en 1790 et 1791, continued. 

G. BoRD : La conspiration Lahoric- 

Mallet. La mort de Condorcet. 


Sybel's Historisclie Zeitschrift, Iviii. 3. 
Munich- -M. Bitter : On the begin- 
nings of the revolt in the Netherlands 
[1 559- 1 566, chiefly criticism of dis- 
puted points]. P. Bailleu describes 

a series of letters to Napoleon I from 
various princes, chiefly German [28 
March i8oo-26 Dec. 18 13] preserved 
in the Paris foreign office [with ex- 
tracts] O. Krauske : The Great 

Elector and the protestants of Hungary 
[a sketch of the progress of the counter- 
reformation in Hungary and a detailed 

study of Frederick William's interven- 
Historisches Jahrbuch der Gorres-Gesell- 
schaft, viii. 4. Munich.— K. Unkel: 
The appointment of duke Ferdinand 
of Bavaria as coadjutor of the arch- 
bishop of Cologne: II, Documents 

[1595]. F. Kayser: Pope Nicolas V 

and the Moorish wars of the Spaniards 
and Portuguese [describing the pope's 
activity in their promotion, partly with 
the help of documents in the papal 
archives]. J. Uebinger : Cardinal 


Nicolaus Cusanus as legate in Germany 

[1451-1452] Knopfler prints the 

vule of the knights templars frojn a new 
text (Munich MS. Lat. 2649, written c. 

K. B. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu 
Mlinchen : Sitzungsberichte der philos.- 
philol. und hist. Classe. 1887. II. 1.— 
Meisee : Contributions to the textual 
criticism of Quintiis Curtius Bufus. 

Krumbacher : Byzajitine proverbs. 

Keinz : Local names in the ' Monu- 

menta Boica,' i-xxvii [a supplementary- 
index containing names of fields, woods, 
vineyards, houses, hills, water, &c.] 

T. Heigel : The relations between 

Bavaria and Savoy [1648- 1653], with 
documents.=^2. — A. von Brinz : On 
the alimentary foundations of the 

Boman emperors. Von Brunn : 

Troische Miscelle7i [dealing with the 
interpretation of legends as represented 

on vases, &c.] A. Spengel : On the 

third Philippic oration of De^nosthenes. 

W. Preger : On the date of some 

sermons of Tauler. 

Treitschke & Delbriick's Preussische Jahr- 
biicher, Ix. 4-6. Berlin. — October-De- 
cember-— H. Weber : A French parlia- 
mentary conflict under Louis X V [that 
originating with Machault's financial 
scheme of 1749 and afterwards compli- 
cated with the old Jansenist question], 

H. Delbruck : Dlljypel and Alsen 

[on the second volume of the work on 
the Danish war of 1864, published by 

the Generalstab] T. voN Trotha : 

Bussian and Turkish generals in the 

tear of 1877-1878, two articles. H. 

Delbrlxk : Works on military history. 

Brieerer's Zeitschrift fiir Kirchenge- 
schichce, ix. 2, 3. Gotha.— T. Zahn : 
The dialogue of ' Adamantius ' with 
the gnostics [dealing with its text, 

sources, and date] H. V. Sauer- 

LAND : Cardiyial Johannes Dominici 
and his relation to the move^nent in 
favour of church union [1406- 141 5], 
first article, with bibliographical ap- 
pendix. H. ViRCK : Melanchthon's 

political position at the diet of Augs- 
burg [1530], second article. C. A. 

WiLKENs : Literature of the history of 
Spanish protestantism ; a survey of 
works published 1848-1886, second 

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandi- 
schen liesellschaft, xli. 2. Leipzig. — 
C. Lang : Mu'tadid als Prinz und 
Begent, ein historisches Heldengedicht 
von Ibn el Mu'tazz [edited and trans- 
lated with notes] continued from vol. 
xl J. H. MoRDTMANN : Zur Topo- 
graphic des nurdlichen Syricns aus 
griechischen Inschriften. 

Archiv fiir Oesterreichische Geschichte, 
Ixix. Vienna. — H. R. von Zeissberg : 
On the legal measures taken against 
Ottokar of Bohemia by Budolf of 

Habsburg [dealing with the general 
resumption of lands alienated from the 
empire since the death of Frederick II 
and with the special process against 
Ottokar, 1274-1275; and establishing 
the precise order of the transactions]. 
E. Rosenthal : The administra- 
tive organisation of the emperor Fer- 
dinand I [treating first of the central 
authority : (1) the growth, constitution, 
and functions of the hofrath ; (2) the 
geheivier rath (with a comparison of the 
privy councils of Bavaria, the Pala- 
tinate, Wiirttemberg, and Saxony) ; 
(3) the hofkanzlei ; (4) the liofkammer 
and central financial organisation ; 
(5) the hofkriegsrath. The article pro- 
ceeds secondly to the intermediate 
authority : (1) the governments of the 
Austrian territories ; (2) the raitkam- 
mern (chiefly for financial purposes) ; 
(3) the kamynerprocurator. Appended 
are six ordinances relating to the cen- 
tral and provincial councils and kam- 

mern, 1521-1541]. A. Fournier : 

Trade and commerce in Hungar-y and 
Poland in the middle of the eighteenth 
century [illustrating the commercial 
policy of Austria]. 

Mittheilungen des Instituts fiir Oester- 
reichische GescMchtsforschung, viii. 4. 
Innsbruck. — A. Schulte : Studies in 
the early history of the house of Habs- 
burg. III. The possessions on the 
upper Bhine down to the election of 
Budolf as king, with an historical map. 

A. Schaube shows that Maria im- 

peratrix, who appears in a Pisan docu- 
ment assigned to 121 3 or 12 14, was not 
the wife of the emperor Henry, but the 
widow of Theodore Lascaris, and that 
the document belongs to 1228. [Maria 
was thus, after the death of her brother 
the emperor Robert, regent for his son 

Baldwin II.] G. von Buchwald : 

The art of forging seals [for diplomatic 
purposes], illustrated by a letter of 

1699 E. Muhlbacher prints from 

a new manuscript of the tenth century 
a hymn to Odo of West Francia with 

the musical notation. W. Hau- 

THALER : The forged Passau bulls 

S. Steinherz : The treaty of Eltville 

[1349], with documents H. V. 

Saueeland : The destruction of the 
castle of S. Angelo under Urban Vlayid 
its restoration under Boniface IX. 

Ermischs Neues Archiv fiir Siichsische 
Geschi hte und Alterthumskunde, viii. 
3, 4. Dresden. — J. 0. Opel prints a 
memorial of AbraJiam von Sebottendorf 
drawn up for the elector JoJmnn Georg 
I [1639], with introduction. 

Theologische Quartalschrift, Ixix. 3. 
Tiibingen. — F. X. Funk : On the 
Didache and the Apostolical Constitu- 
tions, continued. 

Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1888, 
1. Gotha. — Buchwald prints a passage 


from Luther'' s Acta Augustaim [151 8] 
which is obhterated in all previously- 
known copies by order of the elector 
Hilgenfeld'sZeitschrift fiir wissenschaft- 
liche Theologie, xxx. 4. Leipzig. — 
E. NoLDECHEN : Tertulliaii in Greece 
[collecting the evidence in favour of 
his having travelled thither] J. 

Draseke : On an unnoticed work 
against the ManicJieans, included in 
that of Titus of Bostra [probably- 
written by George of Laodicea, c. 360]. 

A. Thenn edits the Mi/^/ut? toD 

07101; a-!ro(TT6\ov Sw/xa from a Munich 
manuscript (Gr. 255). H. Eonsch : 

Notes on Claudianus Mamertus 

H. Bois : O71 the text of the AtSox^. 


Archaeological Journal, No. 175. — B. 

Lewis : The antiquities of Saintes 

[with a bibliographical appendix]. 

E. Peacock : The court rolls of the 
tnanor of Hibbaldstmv [in Lindsey], 
from 11 Hen. IV to 20 Eliz. [extracts]. 
W. T. Watkins : Was Ireland ever inva- 
ded by the Romans ? [arguing against 

Pfitzner's theory that it was]. J. C. 

L. Stahlschmidt prints an indenture 
relatiyig to some property of Thomas 
Cromwell in London [May 13, 26 Hen. 

Church Quarterly Review, No. 49. Octo- 
ber — Lay baptism [with a history of 
the practice]. J. A. de Thou [a bio- 
graphy]. The national synod [trac- 
ing its history in connexion with that 

of the two English convocations] 

Religion in Ireland, past and present 
[sketching the characteristics of the 
early Celtic church, and secondly of 

the reformed church of Ireland] 

Fifty years of documentary discoveries 
on church history [based chiefly on 
Lechler's ' Urkundenfunde zur Ge- 
schichte des christlichen Alterthums ']. 

Contemporary Review, 111. 6. November 
— Archdeacon Farkar : Was there a 
real St. Antony the hermit? [showing 
that the evidence is extremely scanty 
and points rather against his existence]. 

Dublin Review. 3rd Series. No. 36.— 
Father H. I. D. Eyder : M. Emery, 
superior of Saint Sulpice [1789-1811]. 

Miss E. M. Clerke : The tiative 

princes of India [a sketch of English 

relations to them]. W. S. Lilly : 

The Irish constitution of 1782 [based 
on Lecky's ' History of England,' v., vi.] 

D. L. : Dr. Stubbs on English 

ecclesiastical law [controversial]. 

Kev. S. Malone : Where was St. Patrick 
bom? [reply to C. C. Grant's article in 
the April number]. 

Edinburgh Review, No. 340. October — 
Rural France [a sketch of the past 
and present condition of the peasantry 

and of agriculture,' &c.] Lecky's 

' History of England in the eighteenth 
century,' v., vi. English actors in 

the French revolution [chiefly concerned 
with Robert Pigott, James Watt, 
William Playfair, John Hurford Stone, 
Benjamin Vaughan, George Grieve, 

and Thomas Paine]. MissNorgate's 

' England under the Angevin Kings.' 

The Dundases of Arniston 

Memoirs of prhice Adam Czartoryski. 

Fortnightly Review. Newr Series. No. 
250. Oc^o6er— Miss A. M. F. Eobin- 
soN : The flight of Piero de' Medici. 

Law Quarterly Review, No. 12. October 
— T. E. ScRUTTON : The origin of the 
rights of common. 

National Review, x. 5. November — T. 
E. Kebbel : Tory policy sixty years 
ago ; Canning, Castlereagh, and Wel- 

Nineteenth Century, No. 128. October 
— W. E. Gladstone : Ingram's history 
of the Irish U7iion.^=129. November 
— T. D. Ingram : Reply. 

Quarterly Review, No. 330. October — 
The catholic revival of the sixteenth 
century [with reference to the works of 

Symonds and Philippson] Count 

Beust [biographical ; from his memoirs]. 

The architectural history of the 

university of Cambridge [in many 
ways illustrating the growth both of 

Cambridge and Oxford] Lord Sel- 

borne on the Church [including a 
survey of the past political relations 
and internal administration of the 
church of England]. — The Irish 
parliament and the union of 1800 [on 
Lecky's and Ingram's histories]. 

Scottish Review, No. xx. October— The 
union of 1707 viewed financially [argu- 
ing that from this point of view Scot- 
land suffered from the union] The 

coronation of Charles I at Holyrood 
[minutely described from contemporary 
materials, and illustrated by compari- 
son with English and French liturgical 

forms]. G. Gregory Smith : The 

two cliancellors — James Betoun and 
Thomas Wolsey [an historical study 

from the Scottish side] M. Kauf- 

mann: Adam Smith and his foreign 



Archivio Storico Italiano, 4th ser. xix. 3. 
Florence. — G. Mancini continues the 
publication of documents relating to 
the life and loritings of Leon Battista 
Alberti. G. Stocchi : The first con- 
quest of Britain by the Romans [an 
historical and topographical study], 

continued in xx. 1 F. Novati : The 

emperor Henry VII and Francesco da 
Barberino, with a document. De- 
scription of historical documents relat- 
ing to the Terra d' Otranlo, continued 

[1319-1438] Unpublished letter of 

Charles F[10 June 1546] Calendar 

of the Sti'ozzi cliartcrs among the state 
archives at Florence, continued. 
XX. 1, 2. — A. Chiappelli prints a docu- 
ment on measures taken by the com- 
tnune of Pistoia against the plague of 

1348. P. Santini: The towers of 

Florence and the societd for their main- 
tenance from the twelfth century on- 
wards, two articles. G. Rosa : On 

the statute of the merchants at Mantua. 

C. Desimoni prints a treaty between 

the Genoese and the khan of Tartary 
[1380-1381, of philological interest]. 

G. Sforza : Episodes in the history 

of Rome in the eighteenth centtcry [from 
the despatches of the agent from the 
city of Lucca at the papal court], con- 
tinued [1738]. Calendar of Strozzi 

charters, continued. 

Kivista Storica Italiana, iv. 3. Turin. — 
A. CoEN : Vettitis Agorius Praetextatus 
[a study m the history of Roman society 

in the fourth century a.d.] P. 

Vayra : On the credibility of the chro- 
nicles of Savoy, tested by comparison 
with a document on the war of 1387 

[now printed for the first time] T. 

Sandonnini : On Calviii's Italian visit 
and on some documents relating to 
Renie of France, duchess of Ferrara. 

G. BiGONi criticises Biidinger^s 

' Acten zu Columbus' Geschichte.' 

G. Sangiorgio : On Randaccio's his- 
tory of the Italian navy [1750-1870]. 

Archivio Storico Lombardo, xiv. 3. Milan. 
C Cantu : Gian Galeazzo Visconti [an 
essay with special reference to his work 

in the Duomo of Milan]. A. Neri : 

Niccold and Francesco Piccinino at 

Sarzanza [1437-1447]. E. Motta: 

Musicians at the court of the Sforza, 

concluded. A. Dina : Notes on Doro- 

tea Gonzaga, wife of Galeazzo Maria 

Archivio Storico per le Province Napole- 
tane, xii. 2, 3. — N. Barone prints 
notices bearing on the official history of 
Charles of Durazzo, continued [2 Nov. 
1382-22 Nov. 1391], from the registers 
of the Neapolitan chancery ; two articles. 

M. Schiva : History of tlie Lombard 

principality of Salerno, concluded [880- 

1077] ; two articles. G. del Giudici 

prints documents relative to Bartolomeo 
da Neocastro [the historian of the 
Sicilian vespers] and other contempo- 
raries at Messina [1270-1274] 

Blasiis : The houses of the Angevin 
princes in the Piazza di Castelnuovo, 

continued from vol. xi. 3 B. 

Maresca : The two treaties agreed to by 
the Neapolitan court in September 1805 
[with a history of their antecedents, 

the texts, and other documents] E. 

NuNziANTE prints a document concern- 
ing the marriage of Cassandra Marchese 
with Alfonso Castriota [in whose di- 
vorce the poet Sannazaro took an active 

interest]. Description of charters 

[i 196-1206], formerly belonging to the 
family of Fusco, continued [No. xix.- 

Archivio Storico Siciliano. New Series, 
xii. 1. — V. DI Giovanni: The Aula 
Regia {or Sala Verde) at Palermo in 
1340 ; and other points in the medieval 

topography of the city. G. Cosen- 

TiNO prints a document of 19 July 
1282, illustrating the state of affairs just 

after the Sicilian vespers. R. Star- 

RABBA calendars the notarial minutes of 

Adamo di Citella [1298-1299]. G. 

Pipitone-Federico : Sicily and the loar 
of Otranto [1470-1484], notes and 
documents [from the Neapolitan ar- 
chives] E. Pelaez: The enslave- 
ment of the prince of Paterno by the 
bey of Tunis [1797]. 

Archivio Veneto, xxxiii. 2. — V. Marchesi : 
The relations between the Venetian re- 
public and Portugal [i 522-1 797] , second 
article B. Morsolin : German set- 
tlements in the Vicentino [criticising 
and modifying Galante's conclusions], 

with a document. V. Baldissera: 

Topographical notes on Gemona. V. 

Bellema : Hydraulic works in Roman 
times [illustrated from the territory of 
Chioggia, which the writer maintains 
was then protected from inroads of the 

sea], with plates F. C. Carreri : 

The administration of justice under 
the lords of Spilimbergo from the four- 
teenth to the sixteenth century. 

D. D. Bortolan prints a brief Roman 
chronicle [i 288-1 301, chiefly a papal 

itinerary]. F. Pellegrini prints 

neio documents relating to cardinal 
Gaspare Contarini [8 April 1539-I5 

April 1542]. G. GioMo prints an 

account of the expenses of Marco Gri- 
mani on his electicni as doge of ' Venice 

[1595 y they came to 6,943 ducats]. 

N. Papadopoli gives a seal of doge 
Giovanni Gradenigo [1555- 1556]. 

E. Narducci : Materials for Venetian 
history from mamiscript collections in 



(Communicated by W. R. Mobfill) 

The Antiquary {St&riii&). —September — 
N. Bielozerskaya: Russia in the latter 
Juilf of the eighteenth century [partly 
based upon the work published in London 
in 1 768 entitled ' An Account of Russia ' 

by Sir George Macartney], The me- 

tnoirs of admiral Paul Chichagov [con- 
tinued. An account of his voyage to Lis- 
bon, when a young man, in his father's 

ship, &c.] N. Pavlovski : Alexander 

Golovnin and his share in the reform 
of tlie military academies.^=Octoher- 
November — Helbig : Russian favourites 
and adventurers in the eighteenth cen- 
tury, continued [containing, among 
others, notices of Lanskoi, Mamonov, 
Yermolov, and the notorious Shesh- 
kovski, head of the secret police in the 

reign of Catherine II] I. Morosh- 

KiN : Theodosius Yanovski, archbishop 

of Novgorod [continued] M. Kol- 

CHiN : Some account of the prisoners 
confined in the fortress of the Solovetzki 
monastery from the sixteenth to the 
nineteenth centuries' [with many details 
of the cruel treatment of prisoners]. 

V. Semevski : The question of the 

etnancipation of the serfs in the first 

half of the nineteenth century Old 

days of St. Petersburg [extracts from 
newspapers at the commencement of 
the present century illustrative of past 
social life, e.g. the sale of serfs, &c.] 
November — N. M. Kolmakov : 
Count Victor Panin [a minister of the 
emperor Nicholas, ti874]. The em- 
peror Paul and his times, from the 
papers of a Courland nobleman [1796- 
1801. Extracts from anonymous me- 
moirs, which appeared in German at 
Leipzig in 1886 ; they place the em- 
peror Paul in a somewhat favourable 
The Historical Messenger (Istoricheski 
Viestnik). — September — D. Korsakov : 
N. Kudriavtzev and his descendants 
[concluded] N. Firsov : Recollec- 
tions of the emperor Nicholas [an 
account of a visit paid by the emperor 
to the artillery school in 1853 and the 

insubordination of the pupils], A. 

TiTov: The churches belonging to the 
foi-mer monastery of Uglich [dating 
from a period earlier than the sixteenth 
century] P. Zhukovich : The sena- 
tor Novosiltzev and professor Golu- 

khovski [an episode in the history of the 
university of Vilna, 1823- 1824. The 
professor was removed for liberal tenden- 
cies at the same time as the historian 

Lelewel] J. Dubasov : The cholera 

panic at Tambov in the years 1830- 
183 1 [illustrating the superstitions of 
the Russian peasantry. The hospital 
surgeons were accused of cutting up 
the patients and boiling them].— — 
Stories about Arakcheyev told by Dr. 
Europceus [some more anecdotes about 
the favourite of Alexander I told by a 
surgeon whom the general tried to per- 
suade to enter into his service] .== 
October — The last days of the empress 
Catherine II, from the correspoiulence 
of princess Anna Golitzin [contain- 
ing many interesting details]. K. 

Yakubov : The daughter of Gustavus I 
[for whose hand Ivan the Terrible was 
an unsuccessful suitor ; she died in 

1627 aged 87] A. Truvorov : The 

formation of the Preobrazhenski and 
Semenovski regiments [dating from the 
latter part of the seventeenth century]. 
P. Kakatigin : Benkcndorf and Dubelt 
[some amusing stories about these two 
chiefs of the police in the time of 
Nicholas] An old-fashioned diplo- 
matist [sketch of the career of prince 

Andrew RazmnnvRki]. Nmtpmhpr— 

S. Tatistchev : Tlie emperor Nicholas 
and the July monarchy in France [an 
account of his dislike and opposition 

to it]. A. Antonov : A qvxirter of a 

century ago; recollections of a landed 
proprietor in the steppes [with interest- 
ing details of the emancipation of the 

serfs]. The expedition to Persia of 

lieutenant Noskov with the crystal 
bedstead [Nicholas in 1826 sent Noskov 
with presents to the Persian court, one 
of which was a crystal bedstead with 
fountains at the aide, manufactured at 
St. Petersburg glass factory. Unfor- 
tunately, before the bedstead could 
reach its destination, war broke out 
between Russia and Persia, precipitated 
by the arrogance of Abbas Mirza, the 
son of the shah ; and Noskov was 
exposed to great danger from Persian 
fanaticism. He wrote an account of 
his troubles, which has been lent for 
publication by his widow. A picture of 
the wonderful bedstead is added]. 


Boletin de la Real Academia de la 
Historia, xi. 1-3. July -September — 
F. FiTA prints documents of the inqui- 
sition relating to the murder by Jews 

of el Santo Nifio de la Guardia 

E. Saavedra : Arabic inscriptions, tenth 

to twelfth centuries, from Cordova 

A. Fernandez-Guerra : Latin inscrip- 


tion, A.D. 682, from Cordova ; three of 
republican, Antonine, and Visigothic 
periods respectively from Porcua ; and 
one relating to a descendant of Atana- 

hild, A.D. 925, from Lucena C. F. 

DuKo identities a Spaniard who from 
his surprising accomplishments was 
believed in France [1445] to be the Anti- 
christ, with Fernando del Pulgar. 

The Si^ME : Documents describing the 
removal of the relics of San Eugenia 

from S. Denis to Toledo [1565]. M. 

Jimenez de la Espada : Extracts from 
a memoir by Fra7icisco de Aguilar, a 
companion of Cortes [proving that 
Cortes did not burn but scuttle his 

ships] . 4. October — Biill of Clement 

III [I June, 1192] omitted in Loewen- 

feld's edition of Jaffa's 'Eeg. Pont.' 

Latin inscription from Gandia F. 

FiTA prints MS. relating to the inqui- 
sition on Judaism at Toledo [1485-1501] 
by Orozco [a lawyer and poet of the 
middle of the sixteenth century. Orozco 
copied his facts from the diary of an 
eye-witness of the events. It describes 
the penance of the ' reconciliados,' the 
burning of the remains of dead heretics, 
and the confiscation of their descen- 

dants' property and the autos de fe. 
Between 1485 and 1501 the total num- 
ber of those burnt or strangled at 
Toledo was 248, among whom were a 
canon, three priests, and two friars. 
A picture relating to the events and 
the sanbenitos of the victims existed 
in Orozco's time] ; extracts from the 

official register are added C. F. 

DuKo : The valley of Aran, a Spanish 
enclave in France, its inscriptions, his- 
tory, and customs. F. Fita : Char- 
ters of thirteenth century relating to 
Fera and La Guardia. 

Revista de Ciencias Histdricas, 1887, 
3. — J. Segura : Documentos para las 
costumbres de Catalufia durante la 

edad media. F. M. Cundaro : His- 

toria de la plaza de Gerona. 

Revista Contemporanea. — July 15 — M. 
Jimenez de la Espada : J2ian de Cas- 
tellanos y su historia del nuevo reino 

de Granada, continued. Aug. 30 — 

E. GuAEDiALO Y Valebo : Do7i Pedro de 
Castilla y Juan Alfojiso de Albu- 

Revista de Espana. — July 25 — A. Benitez 
DE Lugo : Fray Diego de Chaves, con- 
fesor de Felipe II. 


Johns Hopkins University Studies in 
Historical and Political Science, v. 7. 

Baltimore. — N. M. Butler : The influ- 
ence of the war of 1812 upon the con- 
solidation of the American 2inion.^= 
9.— J. Bryce : The predictions of 
Hamilton a^id De Tocqueville [with 
reference to the working of the consti- 
tution of the United States, showing 
in what respects they have been con- 
firmed or falsified in fact]. ilO. — P. 

Feedericq : The study of history in 
England and Scotland [translation of 
the report of an inquiry into the his- 
torical work of their universities made 
in 1884]. 
Magazine of American History, s viii. 4, 5. 
New York. — October-November — Mar- 
tha J. Lamb : The origin of Neiv York 
[in the Dutch time] P. Schaff : The 

relationship of church and state in tlie 

United States, two articles. 1. W. 

Andrews : The admission of Kentucky, 
Tennessee, and Ohio into the union. 

Hon. S. Gr. W. Benjamin : Daniel 

Webster, with portrait. Judge W. A. 

Wood : General Sterling Price and the 
New Mexico insiirrection [1846- 1847]. 

C. D. Baker : The first reformed 

Dutch church, Brooklyn. Colonel 

C. C. Jones, junior, prints a memo- 
randum of colonel CampbelV s march 
[1779] frojn Savannah to Augusta, 

Georgia. C. H. Peck : Arnold Burr, 

a study; I Facsimile of letter of 

governor George Clinton to governor 

Hamilton [1752] Letter of general 

Peter Muhlcnbui-g to colonel Richard 
Anderson of Kentucky [1794]. 

The English 
Historical Review 

NO. X.— APRIL 1888 

The Campaign of Sedan 

THIS is a propitious time to review briefly the first part of the 
great contest between France and Germany in 1870-1. The 
clouds of war lower over a disturbed continent, and the minds of 
men turn to the momentous scenes of the latest struggle for 
supremacy in arms which has been witnessed in this age by 
Europe. The lapse of years, too, has removed impressions hastily 
formed under the bewildering influence of victories never, perhaps, 
paralleled, and has made impartial criticism of the strife possible, 
and while events have fallen into their true perspective they have 
lost none of their engrossing interest. The materials of informa- 
tion, it should be added, which exist as regards the mighty drama 
will probably not be largely increased, and they are already suffi- 
cient and even copious. France, indeed, has been, in one sense,, 
silent with reference to her appalling disasters, and her archives 
contain no official account of Mars-la-Tour, Gravelotte, and Sedan, 
as they do of Blenheim, Kosbach, and Waterloo. But the reports 
of the trial of Marshal Bazaine, the volumes from the pen of that 
ill-fated chief, the narratives of Generals Ducrot and Wimpffen, and 
tracts written by other French officers, throw abundant light, from 
the French side, on the vicissitudes of the tremendous conflict, and 
even the promised memoirs of Marshal Macmahon will certainly 
only confirm this evidence. The German official account of the 
war contains everything, on the other hand, which the future 
historian will require for his task,^ and this vast repository of well- 
collated facts, though overloaded with minute details, deficient in 
breadth of view and of culture, and savouring strongly of the 

* Tlfie Franco-German War, 1870-1. The German official account. Part I, sec- 
tions 1-8. London, 1874, 1875. 

VOL. III. — NO. X. ' . P 


pedantry of the camp, is, nevertheless, so rich in knowledge, so 
accurate, complete, and strictly impartial, that it is invaluable to 
the real military student. Nor has English literature been wholly 
wanting in illustrating the events of 1870-1, though General 
Hamley's sketch of the first part of the campaign is by no means 
so well informed and correct as other chapters of his most admirable 
work. There are some good English accounts of this great passage 
of arms, and the lately published volume of Mr. Hooper,^ if not 
free from omissions and faults, and unconsciously written with as 
distinct a bias as his useful, but scarcely just, book on Waterloo — 
a mere Wellingtoniad, if we may use the phrase — approaches the 
dignity of a real history. This slight sketch of the war up to the 
close of Sedan is, however, mainly drawn from the great German 
account : in history as in law it is always better to seek the spring 
and not to follow the stream. 

Like the Peloponnesian and the Punic wars, the war of 1870-1 
was a fierce contest for military supremacy between rival nations. 
The scenes before the conflict may remind a scholar of the Homeric 
contrast between the * silence ' and the ' birdlike clamour ' of the 
foes round Ilium, and were characteristic of the two great races 
whose lands are on either bank of the Ehine. The shouts of 
exultation that rang through Paris must have had an ominous 
sound for Napoleon III, as, diseased, unhappy, and anticipating 
defeat, but borne along by forces he could not resist, he brooded upon 
the means he possessed of opposing an enemy whom, unlike his 
subjects, he well knew to be greatly superior in strength. The 
plan he formed for the campaign,^ he has told us himself, was 
suggested to his mind by the memorable swoop of Napoleon I on 
Belgium in 1815, and his own position was, in some respects, not 
unlike that of the great emperor. He was perfectly aware that 
the armies of France would be outnumbered by that of Prussia 
alone, and would be no match for those of a united Germany, 
just as his uncle knew that the force in his hands was little more 
than half of that of Bliicher and Wellington. But he hoped, as 
Napoleon I hoped, to make up for inferiority in strength by daring, 
brilliant, and rapid manoeuvres, and as Napoleon I thought that 
he could divide the allies and beat in detail their separate forces 
by a sudden and unexpected march on the Sambre, Napoleon III 
sought for the same results by assuming a bold offensive and 
advancing to the Ehine. An army 250,000 strong, supported by 
large reserves at Chalons, he calculated, could in a few days be 
brought together in Lorraine and Alsace, round the great fortresses 
of Metz and Strassburg, and his project was, quickly combining this 
force, to pass the river just above the Lauter and to separate, and 

2 The Campaign of Sedan. By George Hooper. London, 1887. 

3 See the works of Napoleon III, edited by the Comte La Chapelle. 


if possible to overpower, the Prussian and Southern German armies, 
which, though wholly superior to his own if once assembled on 
a given theatre, would, he conceived, be comparatively slow to 

If, however, the plan of Napoleon III had something in 
common with that of his uncle, the execution of it was very different 
from that marvellous combination of genius and skill by which the 
French army was, in 1815, massed secretly and swiftly on the 
verge of Belgium, and moved against its surprised and divided 
enemy. The mihtary organisation of France, in part antiquated, 
in a great degree neglected, and partly in a transitional state, 
proved unequal to the demand made upon it ; and a centralised 
administration which, sixty years before, had accomplished wonders 
in a master's hands, but which, during the existing reign, had fallen 
behind the requirements of the age, and abounded in grievous 
■defects and abuses, showed itself unable to meet the needs or 
to accomplish the objects of modern war. The result was that the 
expectations of the unfortunate emperor were wholly frustrated, and 
he found himself incapable from the first moment of carrying out 
his bold and ambitious project. All the existing military forces of 
France were assembled indeed, aild set in motion, and an army 
which received the name of the Ehine was hastily despatched 
towards the German frontier and collected at the designed points 
of junction. But when, in the last week of July, the emperor 
reached his headquarters at Metz, the 250,000 men he expected 
to find were not more than 180,000 ; the reserve at Chalons was 
extremely small ; and, what is more important, these inadequate 
forces were scarcely in a state to take the field, being destitute of 
all kinds of requirements. In this position of affairs Napoleon III 
adopted one of those half measures characteristic in war of inferior 
men. A cautious defensive was his true course, as he was not 
strong enough to carry out his plan ; and Moltke expected that, 
retiring on Metz, he would take his stand on the line of the Moselle. 
Or, trusting to French daring and to the chances of war, he might 
still have attempted to cross the Ehine, and to make a bold dash 
into Southern Germany ; and the Prussian commander, it is now 
known, was apprehensive that a movement of this kind might be 
followed, at least for a time, by success. The emperor, however, 
took a middle course : his comparatively feeble and ill-ordered army 
was marched to the edge of the German frontier, and dissemi- 
nated along an immense arc extending from Thionville to the south 
of Belfort; but 'willing to wound and yet afraid to strike,' its in- 
capable chief made a sudden halt, renounced all hope of a further 
advance, and stood on the verge of Lorraine and Alsace, leaving 
his scattered forces exposed to attack, and not even attempting to 
draw them together. It was the false strategy of 1806 repeated, 

p 2 


Napoleon III playing the part of Brunswick, and the French pre- 
paring a Jena for themselves. 

The gathering together and the advance of the German armies 
present a strong contrast to this feebleness, irresolution, and want 
of insight. Germany rose to arms at the summons to the field ; 
the jealousies and feuds of the north and south were forgotten at 
the approach of the old common foe ; and from the Oder to the 
Ehine the Teutonic race stood up to defend the land of their 
fathers. The organisation which had been devised by Scharnhorst, 
and brought by Koon to perfection, and which probably is in 
accord with natural tendencies of the German people,"^ worked ad- 
mirably within the Prussian dominions, and even in the states of 
Southern Germany ; and in a very few days vast arrays of war, 
completely equipped and prepared for the field, were in full march 
for the French frontier. This is not the place to compare the 
qualities of the centralised military system of France and the local 
and territorial system of Germany ; too much stress has been laid 
by critics on the mere mechanism of these arrangements ; but no 
doubt can exist that, other things being equal, the local system^ 
confers the immense advantage of superior celerity and readiness 
for the field; and, on this occasion, the centralised system com- 
pletely broke down and pitiably failed, and the local system 
seemed to accomplish wonders. Within a fortnight after the 
declaration of war three armies had been assembled for the 
campaign, and the supreme direction of the war was given to the 
renowned veteran who had shattered the power of Austria on the 
plain of Sadowa. The plan of Moltke, really that of Gneisenau, 
made many years before, was to turn to account the vantage 
ground secured to Germany in 1814-15, and, entering the Pala- 
tinate from across the Ehine, to advance into Lorraine and Alsace, 
this tract, which in previous wars had been a sallyport for the 
French armies, forming now a position menacing France, and 
lying along the flank of a French invasion. The first German 
army, in the last days of July, was moving from Treves towards the 
middle Saar ; the second, advancing from Mannheim and Mayence, 
was in the intricate region of the German Vosges ; and the third 
was still in the valley of the Ehine, its outposts having approached 
the Lauter. These great masses were thus widely apart ; and had 
the army of the Ehine possessed a real chief, it is just possible that 
a sudden attack made by a skilfully combined movement of the 

* See Caesar, De Bello Gallico, i. 51 : Germani siias copias c castris eduxerunt 
generatimque constituerunt. Tacitus also notices that the Germans always fought in 

* Nothing in war escaped the eye of Napoleon I ; and it is very remarkable that, 
when at St. Helena, he proposed a scheme for organising the military power of France 
on this very system. 


French forces on the verge of Lorraine might have been attended 
with partial success. The only effort, however, of Napoleon III 
was the puny and theatrical demonstration at Saarbriick ; and the 
effect of this was simply to warn Moltke that he would do 
well to draw his forces together. By the first days of August the 
opportunity was lost ; the three German armies, in full concert, 
and connected by a vast array of cavalry, were pressing forward to 
the Saar and the Lauter ; and, presenting a force in the first line 
of not less than 300,000 men, they already threatened to over- 
whelm a foe whose numbers were about half their own, and whose 
only army was besides divided into isolated detachments at wide 

The first really serious blow of the war was delivered on 4 Aug. 
The French army, divided into seven corps, had by this time some- 
what contracted its front ; the second, third, and fourth corps and 
the Imperial Guard holding the line of the Saar with reserves near 
Metz ; the fifth corps being stationed near Bitsche, an important 
pass of the French Vosges ; and the sixth and part of the seventh 
corps being concentrated on the northern verge of Alsace. The 
army, however, still remained disseminated upon a wide semi- 
circle. Napoleon III had for some days been endeavouring so to place 
his forces as to cover all possible points of attack, a decisive mark 
of a weak commander; and a considerable part of the seventh 
corps was distant from the immediate scene of operations. The 
three German armies, on the other hand, composed of not less than 
ten corps, were, as we have seen, approachuig each other, and 
converging upon the Saar and the Lauter, and were gathering 
in overwhelming force along the whole front of the impending 
invasion. The third army, commanded by the Crown Prince of 
Prussia, and composed of the fifth, eleventh, and two Bavarian corps, 
and of the Wiirtemberg and Baden contingents, crossed the Lauter 
on 5 Aug. ; and part of this force surprised and attacked an isolated 
detachment of the first French corps, under the immediate orders 
of Marshal Macmahon, which lay around the old town of Weis- 
senborg, famous in other wars for the lines of Villars. The French 
made a stern and gallant resistance, but were soon overpowered by 
superior numbers; and the shattered division was driven with 
heavy loss upon the main body now in position on the slopes and 
eminences which overlook Worth, a village along the stream of the 
Saarbriick. It is very remarkable — and a proof that even the 
German cavalry, whose outpost service in the campaign has been 
justly admh'ed, may on some occasions be at complete fault — that 
the crown prince should, in this instance, have lost sight of the 
defeated enemy ; and actually he seems to have been unaware that 
Macmahon was only a few miles distant. His intention certainly 
was not to fight a pitched battle within twenty-four hours, and he 


appears to have supposed that he would find the French defending- 
at Bitsche the passes of the Vosges. The event, however, was to 
prove otherwise, and a forward movement of the fifth German corps 
brought on the fiercely contested battle of Worth. On that day, at 
least, the army of France showed itself worthy of its old renown, 
and if the Germans fought with devoted courage, the arrangements 
of their chiefs were far from perfect. Macmahon's force was about 
45,000 strong ; his men baffled for nearly seven hours an enemy at 
least threefold in numbers ; and though the French position was 
formidable in the extreme, and the assailants only reached the field 
by degrees, and hesitated in more than one attack, the defence must 
be pronounced heroic. It is evident, in fact, that on this day the 
French possessed that confidence in themselves which, as Napoleon 
says, is all-powerful in war. They met the successive and slow at- 
tacks of their foes by counter-attacks of extreme daring ; and, though 
their splendid cavalry was thrown away in charges utterly hopeless 
in these days, and the superiority of the German artillery, seen 
throughout the war, was from the first established, France may 
look back on this day with pride. The battle, in truth, might have 
been nearly drawn had the fifth French corps, at a short distance, 
been summoned early in full force to the field ; but the blame for 
this error should be ascribed not to its unfortunate chief Failly, 
but to Macmahon, his superior officer, who had the fifth corps 
under his chief command. After a desperate resistance the French 
army was at last turned upon both flanks, and the marshal ought 
to have effected his retreat before his centre, surrounded and 
crushed, was overwhelmed by enemies on all sides, and defeat ! 

became a complete rout. | 

Worth was fought and won on 6 Aug., and the French bank 
of the Saar was on the same day the scene of a second fierce 
encounter. The first army, led by the veteran Steinmetz, and 
composed of the seventh and eighth corps, and the second, formed 
of the third, fourth, and tenth corps, with that of the guards, and 
under the command of Prince Frederick Charles, were, as we have 
seen, approaching the river, and three of their leading divisions 
had reached the borders of the German frontier on 5 Aug. Mean- 
while the second French corps, under the orders of Frossard, partly 
engaged in the silly affair of Saarbriick, had fallen back and drawn 
near its supports, at the intelligence of the advance of the enemy, 
and it had taken a position of great strength in front of the thriving ^ 
town of Forbach. The centre of Frossard rested on the heights of 
Spicheren, from which a spur, called the Eed Hill, projected ; his 
right was protected by a dense forest; his left was covered by 
Stiring Wendel, a village forming a large defensive obstacle ; and 
his line was protected by those improvised trenches which in 
modern war are of such use to infantry. A single division of the 


seventh German corps, crossing the Saar, fell, about noon, on the 
French ; and it held its own with heroic courage against foes 
greatly superior in numbers, until parts of the third and eighth 
corps had come to the aid of their hardly pressed comrades. The 
contending armies were now nearly equal in force, about 25,000 
and 30,000 men, the odds being on the side of the French ; and 
the battle raged furiously for several hours, without marked success 
upon either side, the assailants, however, certainly showing more 
daring and energy than the assailed, and the German guns, as at 
Worth, being the more effective. The Red Hill and the Spicheren 
heights were stormed late in the afternoon, and this was one of the 
most striking feats of sheer courage witnessed throughout the war. 
This success imperilled the centre of Frossard ; but the French 
retained their positions on either wing, and fiercely struggled to 
restore the fight; and their hold on the forest and on Stiring 
Wendel was not lost until the apparition of a fresh division of 
the seventh German corps compelled their leaders slowly to retreat. 
The battle, indeed, was indecisive, if we consider merely the occur- 
rences on the field ; but its ultimate results were of much im- 
portance, and the Germans fairly deserved their victory, though 
the premature attack of a mere detachment from their main 
bodies cannot be justified. The truth is that the German com- 
manders were ill-informed, on this occasion, of the positions and 
real strength of their enemies ; their operations betray their error, 
and had the French chiefs acted in concert with skill, they must 
have obtained a passing triumph. Not less than three divisions of 
the army of the Ehine were stationed within a few miles of 
Forbach; and had this force, fully 30,000 strong, been despatched at 
an early hour to the aid of Frossard, the Germans would have been 
outnumbered more than two to one, and must have been thrown 
back, defeated, on the Saar. But from the day of Eoncesvalles to 
that of Waterloo, want of earnest co-operation at decisive moments 
has been characteristic of French leaders in war; and though 
messenger after messenger was sent off by Frossard, and the roar 
of the battle filling the country around ought to have indicated 
the true line of march, ^ though feeble attempts to reach the second 
corps were made, no welcome French columns appeared at Forbach, 
and nothing was really done to effect a diversion that, for the 
moment, would have turned the scale of fortune. 

The defeats of Worth and Spicheren at once showed how false 
had been the strategy of Napoleon III, and how unable the army of 

' The German official account justly says : ' The enemy's superiority would have 
been still more marked if, on his side as well, instead of the eccentric rovings of three 
divisions in rear of the battle-field, all the forces eligible within the bounds of time 
and distance had co-operated in the common cause.' This is correct, but it condemns 
the German arrangements, and there can be no doubt a grave mistake was made. 


the Khine was to cope with a far more powerful foe. The forces 
of France, scattered and surprised, had been assailed when widely 
apart ; their weak front had been smitten at two points, and, un- 
supported by reserves in the rear, their thinly extended line recoiled 
and was broken. The first corps of Macmahon, routed at Worth, 
though covered by a division of the fifth corps, which had arrived 
too late to take part in the battle, was driven in eccentric retreat 
through the Southern Vosges, exposing the right flank of the main 
army ; and though it was joined by the rest of the fifth corps, which 
had safely effected its retreat from Bitsche, it was utterly unable to 
make a stand, and, panic-stricken, it was only rallied after crossing 
the Upper Moselle and the Meuse. Meanwhile the headquarters of 
Napoleon III had been a centre of such discordant councils, such 
irresolution, and such a display of weakness, as has seldom been 
known in the history of war ; and the remaining parts of the army 
of the Ehine — still an imposing, nay, a magnificent force — were 
moved hither and thither, reduced to impotence, and ere long 
placed in extreme peril by orders and counter-orders that must be 
called pitiful. The first impulse of the unhappy emperor was to 
fall back with his whole force to Chalons, to join there the sixth 
corps, his only reserve, and to draw to the spot Macmahon' s two 
corps, and the seventh corps, originally placed at Belfort ; and there 
can be little doubt that, as affairs stood, this would have been in- 
finitely the most prudent course. But this movement would have 
left Metz unguarded — this great stronghold, it will be scarcely be- 
lieved, was not in a condition to stand a siege — and would have 
roused indignant Paris to frenzy; and, chiefly owing to fear of 
the last result — political considerations had now begun to have 
a decisive influence in the French war councils — Napoleon III 
halted irresolutely in Lorraine. All kinds of plans were discussed 
and abandoned : it was proposed to make a stand before Metz on 
the Nied ; to endeavour to join Macmahon by a march southward ; 
to summon the marshal to bring up his forces : but all that was 
done was to cause the sixth corps to advance from Chalons, to 
linger round Metz, and to waste the strength and to impair the 
courage of the French soldiery in petty marches, the aimlessness of 
which they easily perceived. The general result was, that while 
the German armies, steadily carrying out a clearly arranged project, 
were gathering on all sides on their enemy, precious time was wasted, 
which, if well employed, would have assured the safety of the army 
of the Ehine, that the camps in Lorraine became demoralised, 
and that every hour added to the serious danger impending over 
the imperial forces. The emperor, at last, perplexed and alarmed, 
gave orders for a general retreat ; but even then he adopted a half 
measure, and he resolved not to fall back on Chalons, but to hold 
the intermediate line of the Meuse. The opinion, however, of the 


whole army required another chief to be placed at its head, and on 
12 Aug., after the loss of a week, he handed over the command 
to Marshal Bazaine. 

Meanwhile the victorious German armies had been on the 
march through the Vosges and Lorraine, and their chiefs were 
leisurely carrying out the orders of Moltke for the invasion of 
France. Five fresh corps were rejoining the advancing host ; the 
first added to the first army ; the second, ninth, and twelfth to the 
second; and the sixth — still in the rear — to the third; and the 
masses that had rolled across the frontier must have approached 
400,000 armed men. These gigantic arrays, with dense bodies of 
horse and artillery in the proportion of that arm, spread for leagues 
in the districts watered by the Saar, the Nied, and the afiluents of 
the Moselle; and while the Badeners were detached to besiege 
Strassburg, the rest of the three armies drew near the Moselle and 
Metz. The German advance, however, was certainly slow, and had 
nothing in common with the irresistible sweep of the march of 
Napoleon on the path of victory. The German official account 
explains the reasons : contact had been lost with the retreating 
French after their double defeats on 6 Aug. ; the movements of 
the huge host through the passes of the Yosges and the uplands 
of Lorraine were beset by obstacles ; caution too was required to 
operate against the still large and formidable army of the Khine, 
supposed to be in position near Metz; but be this as it may, 
Napoleon III could have safely effected his retreat to the Meuse, 
between 6 and 12 Aug., without molestation on the part of the 
enemy had he taken a prompt and settled decision. On 13 Aug. 
the German armies, excepting only advance guards of cavalry, 
were still a long way from the Moselle and the fortress ; the first 
and the second filling the region between the streams of the 
Nied and the Seille, the third far to the south, to the east of 
Nancy ; and had Bazaine, when invested with the chief command, 
begun at once to retire from Metz, he probably would have extri- 
cated his imperilled forces. This important day was, however, 
lost ; and though it is unfair to lay much blame on a general who 
had only just taken a large army in hand, the delay was a misfor- 
tune for France. The retrograde movement of the army of the 
Ehine did not begin until the forenoon of the 14th. The march of 
the columns was extremely slow, for whole divisions had to defile 
through Metz ; temporary bridges thrown across the Moselle had 
been carried away by sudden flood, and the roads were choked by 
impedimenta of all kinds. It was late in the afternoon before the 
second, fourth, and sixth corps had crossed the river, the third 
corps and the imperial guard remaining in positions outside Metz, 
and still on the right or eastern bank. 

The twenty-four hours which had been lost by Bazaine had 




been turned to the best account by Moltke. Informed probably 
by spies, and by his advanced guards, that the French were 
about to leave Metz, and to effect a hasty retreat to the Meuse, the 
German commander directed the second army to the Moselle by a 
rapid forced march, keeping the first army in observation on the 
Nied, his purpose being to follow the retiring columns as they 
moved along the roads that lead to the Meuse. The movement of 
the second army, w^hich in some measure exposed the first, was 
skilfully screened by masses of cavalry on its right wing; and 
by nightfall on 14 Aug. two German corps were upon the Moselle. 
Meanwhile the fiery old chief of the first army had perceived that 
the French were abandoning Metz ; and he launched a part of his 
seventh corps, soon followed by part of the first corps, against the 
third French corps and the imperial guard, still, as we have seen, 
to the east of the fortress. The scene of the well-fought battle 
which ensued was the range of gentle hills, intersected by ravines 
and fringed with copses and woods, which extends from Borny to 
Colombey and Grimont, in front of Metz ; and the assailants had 
the advantage of the excellent roads which converge as they approach 
the place. The action was only closed by the night, and had 
Bazaine engaged the imperial guard,^ the French might possibly 
have gained a passing victory. But the fierceness of the attack by 
the German right compelled the chief of the fourth French corps 
to recross the Moselle and to assist the third ; the Germans re- 
mained masters of the field at last ; and Steinmetz had gained, 
w^hat Moltke wanted, time to retard the movement of his foe 
westward, and to enable the second army to advance from the 
Moselle. The results were seen in the operations of the 15th, a 
momentous day in the vicissitudes of the campaign. The army of 
the Khine resumed its movement; but, delayed by the events of the 
recent conflict, it advanced only a few miles from Metz ; and its 
rearward divisions, the third and fourth corps, defiled slowly to the 
left bank of the Moselle. By the evening of the 15th the army of 
Bazaine was concentrated around the two great roads which lead 
by Mars-la-Tour and Etain to the Meuse; the second and sixth 
corps, in front, on the southern road between Flavigny, Gravelotte,. 
and Verneville ; the third and fourth some distance behind, and 
holding the northern road from Verneville to Metz. Meanwhile 
Moltke had made great efforts to reach the flank of his retreat- 
ing enemy; two corps, the third and tenth, were rapidly moved 
from the Moselle towards the roads that lead from Metz to the 
Meuse ; all the available corps of the second army were directed to 
co-operate as quickly as possible; and German horsemen on the 
evening of the 15th had reached Mars-la-Tour, near the French 

' To spare the imperial guard was a Napoleonic tradition, and in this instance 
Bazaine was perhaps not to blame. It was far otherwise, as we shall see, afterwards.. 


outposts. No doubt, however, remains that the German chief was 
not fully aware of the dispositions and the movements of Bazaine : 
he had calculated that the French would incline more northwards ; 
and he did not expect that the army of the Rhine would be as well 
concentrated as it actually was. To suppose otherwise would be to 
assume that Moltke, with only two corps in hand, and without pro- 
spect of speedy support, had resolved to give battle to five French 
corps collected within a narrow space ; that is, that, having an 
overwhelming superiority of force in the theatre of war, considered 
as a whole, he was ready to run the risk of a decisive conflict with 
an enemy who on the chosen spot was far more than twofold in 

These dispositions led to Mars-la-Tour, a day that ought to have 

given a triumph to France, but that ultimately led to frightful 

disasters. On the early forenoon of 16 Aug. the German outpost 

surprised an advanced guard of hght French cavalry, and before 

long the head of the third corps had come in collision with the 

second French corps lying around the hamlets of Flavigny and 

Vionville. The battle was well contested for a time, but Frossard's 

troops had felt the effects of Spicheren; Vionville and Flavigny 

were stormed and occupied, and the second corps driven back 

defeated. Bazaine had now made his appearance on the field, and, 

bringing up a part of the imperial guard, fairly drove back the 

far weaker enemy, though, as at Worth, the fine French cavalry 

was * massacred ' in utterly hopeless charges. The marshal at this 

moment had victory in his grasp; his foe was scarcely 25,000 

strong, and had he struck home with the infantry of the guard, 

sustained by Canrobert and the sixth corps, and summoned to his 

aid the third and fourth corps, he must have utterly overwhelmed 

his foes. He paused, however, at this crisis of fortune ; believing 

that his left wing near Metz was threatened, he kept the guard far 

away in reserve, and so lost an opportunity which must have had 

important results on the issue of the campaign. The battle swayed 

to and fro for some hours, the Germans concealing the inferiority 

of their force by admirably conducted cavalry movements, and by 

the continuous fire of their deployed batteries, the French hesitating 

along the whole line ; and it had become evident that the moral 

power which had done wonders at Worth on their side had now 

passed into the ranks of their adversaries. At about four or five 

the tenth German corps, followed by detachments of the eighth 

and ninth, and led by Prince Frederick Charles in person, made 

its appearance on the bloodstained field, and the prince, a soldier 

daring to a fault, at once gave the signal of a. renewed offensive. 

The French, however, had still a great superiority of force, even 

leaving out the inactive guard. The sixth corps had become 

menacing ; and had their third and fourth corps, now approaching 


the scene, been vigorously launched against the assailants' line, 
success was, even at this moment, probable. But an extraordinary 
feat of daring and skill checked the advance of the arriving columns ; 
all the German cavalry available on the spot were hurled fiercely 
against the French squadrons, and after a brief but terrible struggle 
the French were driven back and swept from the field. The moral 
eftect of this reverse was wonderful ; the march of the third and 
fourth corps was arrested, the sixth fell back after an indecisive 
effort, and the Germans rested on the field they had won, a force 
at the most perhaps 70,000 strong, having bafiied and paralysed 
the army of the Ehine, which, concentrated within a space of a 
few miles, could, if directed by a capable chief, have placed 130,000 
men in line. The losses on both sides had been immense, from 
16,000 to 17,000 men, and this alone shows how devoted had been 
the efforts. of the victorious assailants. 

On this day, all accounts agree, Bazaine played the part of a 
stout soldier. He rallied the shattered second corps, conducted 
more than one attack in person, and displayed coolness, patience, 
and firm constancy. But from first to last, in this part of the 
campaign, he showed that he had not the faculties of a great 
captain ; he was one of those men, in Napoleon's phrase, who can 
command a division, but not an army. Had he been a chief of a 
high order, he would have made Moltke bitterly rue the mis- 
take certainly committed by the Prussian leader, and he would 
have swept from his path, and perhaps crushed to atoms, the third 
German corps, which, for several hours, was the only foe barring 
his way to the Meuse. In that event the war would have run a 
different course ; and if we bear in mind the enormous power of 
resistance afterwards shown by Paris ** — wholly unexpected in the 
German camp — it is quite possible that the French armies, had 
they fallen back to the fortified capital, would have baffled, and at 
last driven back, the invaders. But the marshal let the occasion 
slip; the army of the Khine was so ill-directed that no use was 
made of the flower of its strength, and it was paralysed and 
defeated by a much weaker enemy — an event which certainly 
should not have occurred, though it is fair to add that at Mars-la- 
Tour the French soldiery were not themselves, and their adversaries 

* Moltke, without a claim to the grand original genius and resource of Napo- 
leon, is nevertheless, with the possible exception of Lee, the best strategist of the 
school of Napoleon. But like the great emperor, he showed in 1870, and especially in 
besieging Paris, that utter incapacity to understand the power of popular movements 
and patriotic passion which cost Napoleon so dear in Spain, in Eussia, and notably at 
Waterloo. The Prussian army of 1806 would never have rallied after Ligny and 
marched from Wavre to Mont St. Jean. It executed this most perilous movement on 
18 June 1815, because it was animated with an intense national spirit. How nearly 
Moltke was compelled to raise the siege of Paris, and how hard pressed the Germans 
were by the illustrious Chanzy, will not be known for some time. 


made astonishing efforts. During the night of the 16th and the 
morning of the 17th large reinforcements were despatched from 
the Moselle to aid the Germans, still perilously exposed ; and had 
Bazaine boldly attacked on that day, the chances were still in 
favour of the French. The marshal, however, took a different 
course, and it is only just to say that it was in accordance with 
principles of tactics laid down by himself. He had great con- 
fidence in the enormous power of the defensive with modern arms 
of precision, especially as the French possessed a rifle better and 
of further range than the Prussian needle-gun, and he had re- 
peatedly advised Napoleon III to accept battle on the Khenish 
frontier, in positions indicated and observed by him. He now sought 
to put his theory to the test, and instead of trying to force his way 
to the Meuse, he caused the army of the Ehine to fall back on the 
17th, and placed it along a range of uplands just outside Metz, his 
belief being that, should the Germans attack, he would baffle their 
efforts, wear them gradually out, and thus ultimately secure victory. 
The position chosen by Bazaine, though far from perfect, was, never- 
theless, extremely strong, and presented formidable obstacles to the 
most powerful adversary. The French left, resting on the forts of 
Metz, held a range of eminences fronted by the Mance, a stream 
forming a kind of fosse, and protected by villages and large farm- 
houses, and it was occupied by the imperial guard, thrown back 
under the guns of the fortress, and by the greatly diminished corps 
of Frossard. In the centre, covered by the same kind of defences, 
were placed the third corps, under Marshal le Boeuf, and the 
fourth, with L'Admirault at its head, and it extended to the 
hamlet of Amanvillers, the position here assuming a different cha- 
racter, and being less wooded and with fewer obstacles. Beyond 
Amanvillers lay the sixth corps, with Canrobert, holding a bare extent 
of downlike upland, but guarded at the extreme right by St. Privat 
and Eoncourt, large villages giving it ample support ; and though 
this was the weakest point of Bazaine's line, it offered many diffi- 
culties to the boldest adversary. The front of the position was 
nearly eight miles in length, and, except at the right — for the 
troops of Canrobert were not supplied with the necessary tools — 
the natural obstacles presented by the ground received additional 
strength from field entrenchments skilfully thrown up by the French 

This formidable position had three marked defects, made ap- 
parent in the great battle that followed : it afforded no facilities for 
counter-attacks essential in the case of French soldiers; there 
were no good roads running behind the front and enabling the 
different corps to assist each other, and the extreme right was 
almost ' in the air ' and liable to be outflanked by a long turning 
movement. It was, nevertheless, prodigiously strong to maintain 


a simply passive defence, and Bazaine, it is said, expressed assured 
confidence when, on the morning of 18 Aug., he beheld the long 
lines of the army of the Ehine, still probably 125,000 men, with some- 
what more than 500 guns, holding the places of vantage assigned 
to them. Meanwhile the Germans, as we have said, had been ap- 
proaching the scene by forced marches, and the entire strength of the 
first and second armies, except the first, the second, and the fourth 
corps — the second too was not far distant — had crossed the roads 
to the Meuse and passed Mars-la-Tour in the early forenoon of 
18 Aug. This enormous force must have been more than 200,000 
men and 800 guns, but some hours elapsed before it attained the 
enemy, and, in the first instance, the dispositions of its chiefs 
were somewhat marred by a decided error.^ Strange to say, 
Moltke once more lost contact with the army of the Ehine through- 
out the 17th, and, believing that Bazaine was retreating northwards, 
contemplated in his arrangements a pursuit of the French, and not 
fighting a great pitched battle. Even when it had become known 
that the army of the Ehine was in position outside Metz, the extent 
of its lines was not at first discovered ; it was supposed that they 
reached Amanvillers only, and this caused delay and no little con- 
fusion. These operations on either side led to the great and 
memorable battle of Gravelotte, the most equally contested in the 
whole war. The ninth German corps, under the growing belief 
that it was outflanking the right of the French, first came in 
collision with Bazaine's centre; the assailants made the most 
devoted efforts, but the assailed were not in the least shaken, and 
during the whole day retained their advantage. The seventh 
and eighth German corps had now come into action ; but though 
they captured some outlying posts, they were unable to make any 
real impression on the well-entrenched troops of Frossard and 
Le Boeuf, and Steinmetz threw away his men in thousands in 
fruitless charges in close column, after the fashion of the tactics of 
his youth. The German right was placed in no little danger, and 
had the French been able to issue from their lines and boldly to 
fall on their enfeebled enemy, the consequences might have been 
fraught with disaster to Moltke and the whole German army. 
But counter-attacks were either scarcely possible, or Le Boeuf and 
Frossard missed the occasion, and Steinmetz was given time to rally 
his men and hold in check his immovable foes. Meantime far 
away to the French right the battle had taken a different turn, 
and victory at last crowned the German standards, after a furious 
struggle and a prodigious waste of life. The corps of the guards 

• The German official account frankly acknowledges this. This is true wisdom ; 
every student of war, especially of modern war, knows that the greatest generals must 
make mistakes in an art which requires instant decision upon necessarily imperfect 


and the twelfth or Saxon corps were despatched to attack the 
French right when its real extent had become manifest, and at 
about five a great effort was made to carry and outflank the French 
position. The guards assailing their enemy in front were mown 
down by a most destructive fire, and for some hours it appeared 
probable that night would find the army of the Ehine holding the 
lines it had defended with such valour and skill. At last, however, 
the weak point of the French position was found out and reached ; 
the Saxons turned at Eoncourt the flank of the sixth corps, St. 
Privat was stormed after a stubborn defence, and with the defeat 
of Canrobert's troops Bazaine's whole line was compelled to fall 
back. Yet no doubt can exist that this terrible battle would have 
been drawn had the marshal been able to direct an army with a 
true leader's insight. Spite of messages of Canrobert to send 
troops to his aid, Bazaine kept nearly the whole imperial guard 
inactive under the guns of Metz, and had this magnificent reserve, 
20,000 strong, been despatched to support the sixth corps, the last 
German attack must have been repelled. Still it is fair to remark 
that a movement of this kind was rendered difficult owing to the 
want of facilities of communication along the French front. 

Gravelotte was not a masterpiece of the art of war ; the victory 
was not due to the strategy of Moltke ; it emphatically was a sol- 
diers' battle. The energy, nevertheless, of the German chiefs in press- 
ing home the attacks on St. Privat and Eoncourt was admirable 
and deserves the highest praise, and if the effort cost thousands 
of gallant lives, the result more than repaid the sacrifice. The 
conduct of Bazaine was poor and unskilful ; it is said that he 
never left a spot in the vicinity of Metz, and if the army of the 
Ehine fought extremely well — the battle, in fact, resembles Malpla- 
quet — we see no traces of the confidence of Worth. By 19 Aug. 
the marshal had withdrawn his whole forces under the ramparts of 
Metz, and it is not within the limits of this sketch to trace the 
scenes of indecision, neglect, and weakness, ending in intrigues 
of the most questionable kind, which terminated in a catastrophe 
compared with which that of Mack at Ulm was a mere trifle. It 
must suffice to say here that in a few days the victorious Germans 
invested Metz, an operation which ought to have been impossible 
had Bazaine been a capable chief; and Europe at last beheld the 
spectacle of an army in possession of a great fortress surrendering 
to one scarcely superior in numbers, disseminated upon a circle of 
some sixty miles and divided by the broad stream of the Moselle. 

We proceed to the operations that caused the disaster closing 
the first part of the war. A part only of the first and the second 
armies was employed in the investment of Metz, and three corps 
— the fourth, recently come into line, the guards, and the Saxon 
twelfth — were detached from the main body and given the name 


of the army of the Meuse. This force, from 70,000 to 80,000 
strong, was intended to form the right wing of the third army — 
this, as we have seen, was still east of Nancy on 13 Aug., but 
since that day had crossed the Moselle — the object of Moltke being, 
with this vast array of probably 230,000 men, to attack and over- 
whelm the hostile army known to be assembling at no great dis- 
tance, and to press on in irresistible strength to the capital. 
Moving upon a broad front of nearly fifty miles, the heads of the 
combined host had on 21 Aug. attained Yitry, in the valley of 
the Marne, the main body of the army of the Meuse being still 
in the valley east of the river, while the much greater mass of the 
third army spread from the Upper Marne nearly to the Moselle 
from Bar-le-Duc to Commercy and Toul. 

While the German invasion had thus been rolling from Lorraine 
into the flats of Champagne, the shattered right wing of the army 
of the Ehine, with reinforcements sent off from Paris, had been 
drawn together in the well-known plains made memorable by the 
defeat of Attila. By 20 Aug. the first and fifth French corps 
marched rapidly from the Upper Moselle to the Marne, had been 
joined by the seventh corps from Belfort and by the twelfth 
formed in and despatched from Paris ; and this force, numbering 
perhaps 130,000 men, with from 400 to 500 guns, had been 
concentrated round the great camp of Chalons. Macmahon was 
given the supreme command, and the first operations of the ex- 
perienced chief showed that he understood the present state of 
affairs, and were in accord with the rules of strategy. Bazaine, he 
knew, was in peril near Metz, and certainly had not attained the 
Meuse ; and he was at the head of the last army which France 
could assemble for the defence of her capital. In these circum- 
stances, impressed perhaps by the grand memories of the campaign 
of 1814, he most properly resolved to fall back towards Paris; 
but as Bazaine was possibly not far distant, and a position on the 
flank of the German advance might afford a favourable oppor- 
tunity to strike, he withdrew northwards on the 21st to Eheims, 
in the double hope that he would approach his colleague and 
threaten the communications of the advancing enemy. This, we 
repeat, was following the art of war, and had Macmahon firmly 
adhered to his purpose, there would have been no Sedan and no 
treaty of Frankfort. Unhappily the marshal, a hero in the field, 
was deficient in real strength of character, and at this critical 
moment evil counsels and false information shook, and at last 
changed, a resolve that ought to have never faltered. A new ad- 
ministration had been formed in Paris, and Palikao, the minister 
of war, devoted to the Empire, and especially bent on satisfying 
the demands of the excited capital, which passionately insisted on 
the relief of Bazaine, had conceived a project by which he hoped 


that this great object would be effected and the * dynasty ' be re- 
stored in popular opinion. The army of the Meuse, he argued, was 
near that stream, round Yerdun ; the third army was far away to 
the south; there was a considerable interval between the two 
masses; and the army of Chalons, then at Eheims, was not far 
from the Upper Meuse. In those circumstances it was quite prac- 
ticable, should Macmahon rapidly advance to the Meuse, to over- 
power with his largely superior force the army of the Meuse before 
support could be sent from the distant thu'd army ; and the enemy 
in his path being swept aside, the marshal could then descend on 
Metz, fall with the collected strength of the army of Chalons on 
the divided fragments of the investing force, and triumphantly 
effect his junction with Bazaine, having routed, perhaps, the first 
and second armies before the third could appear on the scene. The 
defiles and woods of the Argonne and the Ardennes, stretching 
between the French and the German armies, Palikao insisted, 
would form a screen to conceal the advance of the army of Chalons, 
and would greatly facilitate the proposed movement. 

This project reached Macmahon on 21 Aug., and may be pro- 
nounced one of the most reckless ever designed by a desperate 
gambler in war. The army of Chalons was, no doubt, nearly 
double the army of the Meuse in numbers, and if Moltke played 
into his antagonist's hands, Macmahon might possibly defeat that 
army by making the indicated movement from Eheims to the Meuse 
before the third army could come into line. But, to prevent this 
result, it was only necessary to throw the army of the Meuse a march 
or two back and to gain time for the advance of the third army ; 
and should the two German armies effect their junction, they 
would easily be able to overwhelm Macmahon long before he could 
approach Metz. This being the case, the only chance of success 
rested on the assumption that the German chief would make a gross 
mistake with his eyes open, an assumption certainly not admissible ; 
while, on the other hand, the chances of defeat, and even of disaster, 
were many and evident. The march of Macmahon by the Meuse 
to Metz would be a flank march along a semicircle of which his 
adversaries would hold the chord ; and it was most probable, 
therefore, that at some point on the way they would reach and 
overpower him with their united forces. Macmahon, again, for 
some days at least, would be perilously near the Belgian frontier ; 
his army, composed of beaten troops and of recent levies hastily 
raised, was not fit to undertake a movement which required a 
perfect instrument of war and extreme dexterity to have a hope of 
success. The army of Chalons in real power was hopelessly in- 
ferior to the two German armies ; what would be the results were 
this comparatively weak and inefficient force caught and stricken 
down by the masses of its foes in a position where all retreat was 

VOL. III. — NO. X. . . Q 


impossible ? Add to this that the army of Chalons was the only 
barrier between the invaders and Paris, and the folly of the scheme 
becomes even more apparent. In truth, this fatal plan was only 
another instance how the operations of the French in the war of 
1870 were, at great crises, made to depend on politics, and on the 
supposed interests of the imperial dynasty, and not on the most 
obvious military rules. These considerations were so evident that 
Macmahon at first refused to listen to what he condemned as a 
hopeless project ; but bad advisers found their way to him, and his 
resolution was already yielding when a calamitous event fixed his 
shifting purpose. A despatch from Bazaine, obscure and untrue, 
announced that he was on his way northward. Macmahon inferred 
that his beleaguered colleague had left Metz and eluded his foes, 
and, thinking that he would reach Bazaine before long, in an evil 
hour for France and for himself, he consented to attempt the march 
to the Meuse. The army of Chalons, breaking up from Eheims 
on the 23rd, was next day at Kethel ; and by the 25th it had at- 
tained the Upper Aisne, spreading from Kethel to Attigny and 
Vouziers. Its movements, however, had been slow, for it was ill 
provided with food and supplies. Its organisation had proved 
defective ; the mind of its chief was full of misgivings, and it was 
still three marches west of the Meuse, the soldiery having already 
more than once shown signs of discontent, unsteadiness, and want 
of discipline. 

The two German armies had meanwhile been steadily advancing 
from the east towards Chalons. The cavalry outposts had found 
the camp deserted on 23 Aug., and on the following day it had 
become known that Macmahon had broken up from Eheims. But 
what was the destination of the army of Chalons, and to what 
enterprise had it been committed ? For two days, at least, there 
had been rumours that Macmahon was making his way towards the 
Meuse ; but Moltke, at first, refused to believe that the French 
commander would attempt a movement in plain opposition to the 
rules of his art. Intelligence, however, no longer doubtful, reached 
the German headquarters on the 25th that the enemy was on the 
way from Kethel to the east, and the Prussian commander ceased 
at once to hesitate. At this moment the two German armies, 
which had been inclining towards the north-west, were on a broad 
front from Chalons to Verdun, the columns in the rear extending 
southwards from Bar-le-Duc to the Upper Marne ; and they were 
fully two marches from Macmahon's force, with a difficult and in- 
tricate country between. It was quite possible, therefore, that the 
army of Chalons would be able to attain and cross the Meuse 
before the Germans could come up in force, and so far Palikao was 
right ; but it did not follow from this that the advancing French 
could reach and defeat the army of the Meuse, still less descend on 


Metz and the Moselle. The blow designed by the French minister 
of war was anticipated and easily parried by Moltke ; and though 
this was not a grand display of genius, as idolaters of mere 
success have said, the movement was well planned and most ably 
carried out. The army of the Meuse was directed to recross the 
stream, to occupy positions on the eastern bank, and to retire 
slowly before the enemy in case Macmahon should advance in 
force ; two corps were detached from the second army and sent 
from Metz to join the army of the Meuse ; and the great masses 
of the third army were moved northward through the tracts of the 
Argonne, bodies of cavalry making for the roads that lead, through 
a region of woods, from Eethel to the Meuse. By this well-laid 
plan it was rendered certain that, even if Macmahon had passed 
the Meuse, his way would be barred by a force sufficient to hold 
him in check and to keep him far from Metz, whereas if he had 
not attained the river, the line of his march would be soon dis- 
covered; and it had become very probable that the third army 
would close in on the French commander, and crush him under 
its overwhelming weight. 

We can only glance at the operations that followed, but they 
should be studied with care in the German account, for they present 
a striking contrast between the movements of a well-organised 
army, ably directed, and those of a bad army, on a perilous march, 
and led by a chief without a set purpose. In the afternoon of 
26 Aug. an advanced guard of the German cavalry came into col- 
lision with a French outpost detached southerly upon Grand Pre, 
to observe the roads from Verdun to Youziers ; and German horse- 
men were ere long descried on the main road from Vouziers to the 
Meuse. At this moment the army of Chalons had only just passed 
the line of the Aisne, its right rear, the seventh corps, being at 
Vouziers, and at the apparition of the enemy on his flank, Macmahon 
moved his whole force towards his threatened wing, delay and con- 
fusion being the consequence. On the 27th the French made little 
progress, but meanwhile part of the army of the Meuse had passed 
the river at Dun and Steany ; large bodies of cavalry had seized the 
roads at Buzancy and Nouart leading to the Meuse ; and while the 
two corps had been detached from Metz, the remaining parts of the 
army of the Meuse and the third army were in full march to fall on 
the imperilled army of Chalons. Macmahon, fully alive to the 
danger, saw that he was threatened by foes on all sides ; and on 
the 28th he gave positive orders for a general and immediate retreat 
on Mezieres, his object being to attain the capital by a circuitous 
march from the northern frontier. Once more, however, the pur- 
poseless chief was induced by councils, to which he should have 
given no heed, to abandon a project which would have saved hini ; 
just as he was about to begin his march he was informed * that 

^ 2 


revolution would break out in Paris if Bazaine were abandoned at 
Metz ; ' and, yielding again to what he knew was wrong, the doomed 
commander gave counter-orders to resume the fatal advance to the 
Meuse. Political considerations thus led the French, for the third 
time, on a ruinous course ; but it is just to remark that Napoleon III 
— having left Metz and arrived at Chalons, he had followed Mac- 
mahon during the present march — remonstrated against this un- 
happy resolve. Celerity was now Macmahon's only chance, if, 
indeed, any chance was in his favour ; but his conflicting orders 
had caused the loss of a day, and it was late in the afternoon before 
his troops were in motion, the indiscipline of the soldiery and their 
bad temper having greatly increased and become alarming. The 
army of Chalons forming two masses, divided from each other by a 
wide distance, w^as directed to make a forced march to the Meuse ; 
and the left wing, the first and the twelfth corps, inclining north- 
wards, and free from the enemy, attained the river on the evening 
of the 29th, the twelfth having even crossed at Mouzon. Mean- 
while Moltke, perfectly informed of the French movements, and 
by this time assured that Macmahon's right wing, the fifth and 
seventh corps, were making for the Meuse by a southerly line, made 
preparations for a great effort against this isolated part of the 
enemy's forces. The part of the army of the Meuse that had passed 
the river was ordered back to the western bank,^^ the remaining 
part was rapidly pushed forward, supported by the right of the 
third army, and on the evening of the 29th their combined forces 
had drawn near the positions of their foes, who seem to have been 
unaware of their presence. These events led to the disasters that 
followed, the prelude of an appalling catastrophe. On the morning 
of the 30th the fifth French corps was surprised and suddenly 
attacked at Beaumont by the fourth corps of the army of the 
Meuse — the woods that abound in this forest region proved a veil 
to conceal the German advance, not a screen to protect the army of 
Chalons — and in a few hours it was driven, in rout, on the Meuse, 
the twelfth and a Bavarian corps having appeared on the scene. 
The seventh French corps, meanwhile, had been caught and de- 
feated; encumbered by the impedimenta of a large part of the 
army, it toiled slowly on a painful march, surrounded by ever in- 
creasing foes ; and it, too, reached the Meuse in a pitiable state. 
At the apparition of the fugitive multitudes, Lebrun, the chief of 
the twelfth corps, which, as we have seen, was on the right bank, 
sent a detachment across to check the pursuit ; but this was in- 
volved in the general wreck, and by nightfall of the 30th more than 
half of the army of Chalons was a shattered mass of fragments, 
without strength, coherence, or military worth. 

'" At the same time the two corps that had been detached from Metz to support 
the army of the Meuse returned to take part in the investment of the fortress. 


During these events, ominous of ill for France, the first corps 
of the army of Chalons had crossed the Meuse and attained Cari- 
gnan, on the Chiers, a tributary of the main river. Macmahon was 
at the head of the troops and expressed, it is said, assured con- 
fidence that he could reach Montmedy and descend on Metz. At 
the news, however, of the crushing defeats suffered by the fifth and 
the seventh corps, the unfortunate chief retraced his steps, and by 
the night of the 30th had placed these two bodies, with the injured 
twelfth corps, round the walls of Sedan — a fourth-rate fortress 
hard by on the Meuse — and had ordered the first corps to rejoin 
the army. The French awaited the dawn in a miserable plight, 
and eye-witnesses have dwelt with painful precision on the de- 
moralisation that prevailed everywhere, and on the symptoms of 
despair, and even of mutiny, exhibited by the discontented soldiery. 
Order, however, had been in some degree restored by the morning 
of 31 Aug., and the first corps having come into line, the question 
arose what was the next direction to be given to the ill-fated army 
of Chalons ? The situation was already terrible ; the Germans were 
known to be not far distant, Sedan was in no condition to resist an 
attack, still less to contain a large force, and Macmahon was 
pressed against the Belgian frontier, the worst position in which 
he well could be, for here defeat involved surrender and ruin. A 
great commander would not have hesitated ; the friendly town of 
Mezieres was near, the broad course of the Meuse protected the 
roads that led to it from a rapid attack, and the thirteenth French 
corps, sent in haste from Paris, had reached the spot, and was 
close at hand. Had Macmahon, therefore, formed a bold resolve, 
left his worst troops and his impedimenta behind, and, breaking 
down the bridges on the Meuse, marched with the best part of his 
force on Mezieres, he would have made a great sacrifice of men and 
material, he would have been harassed by the heads of hostile 
columns, he would probably have lost 20,000 soldiers, but he would 
have extricated the mass of the army of Chalons, have possibly 
made good his retreat to Paris, and certainly averted a dreadful 
catastrophe. But he was not equal to a great deed of daring like 
that which saved the grand army on the Beresina — one of the most 
wonderful of the feats of Napoleon. Whether it was that he dis- 
trusted the power of his shattered divisions to make a rapid march, 
or that he merely waited on the course of events, or, as seems 
probable, that he had no conception of the enormous forces gather- 
ing to his ruin, he remained inactive throughout the 31st, and 
resolved to accept battle where he stood, at Sedan, should the enemy 
cross the Meuse and attack. The position he chose was strategic- 
ally bad, but tactically of remarkable strength against adversaries 
not in overwhelming force. It may be described as a great triangle, 
covered on the southern part by the Meuse and Sedan, on the west 


by a great bend of the Meuse, by the stream of the Floing, and 
by advanced posts formed by the villages of Fleigneux and Floing, 
on the north by forests and the heights of Illy, and on the east by 
the course of the Givonne, edged by the villages of Givonne, La 
Moncelle, and Daigny. The routed fifth corps of the army of 
Chalons held the centre of these formidable lines ; the first and 
twelfth were placed along the banks of the Givonne, and the seventh, 
covered by Fleigneux and Floing, looked towards Mezieres and the 
great bend of the Meuse. 

The Germans, meanwhile, had on every side been closing in 
on their doomed adversaries. The army of the Meuse had crossed 
the river once more, and held the angle between the Meuse and the 
Chiers, and, with the exception of the sixth corps, left on the Aisne 
to observe the French thirteenth, the whole of the third army had 
drawn near Sedan. These great masses, however, were still many 
miles from the French camps on the morning of the 31st ; 
Moltke feared that Macmahon would escape by a determined effort 
to reach Mezieres, and his highest hopes did not extend beyond a 
victory that would force the greater part of the French army across 
the frontier. But when it had become apparent, as the day wore 
on, that the French were stationary around Sedan, the opportunity 
was seized by the German chief, and he perceived that it had 
become possible to surround and destroy an enemy now within his 
grasp. A night march on Sedan was ordered, the well-directed 
arrays of the Germans moved steadily through the darkness to the 
points of attack, and this grand movement was, beyond dispute, the 
finest display of strategy seen in the war. The memorable 1 Sept. 
had scarcely dawned, when the first Bavarian corps reached the 
French twelfth, and attacked Bazeilles, between the Meuse and 
the Givonne. Before long the far-spreading columns of the army 
of the Meuse had attained the Givonne, and assailed the French 
line in position on the stream, and the villages of Givonne, La 
Moncelle, and Daigny became the scene of a well-sustained en- 
counter. An accident favoured the German attack : Macmahon 
had fallen severely wounded ; between the conflicting orders of 
Ducrot and Wimpffen the first and twelfth French corps were 
moved to and fro, and this disconcerted and weakened the defence, 
though it could have no effect on the ultimate result. By noon the 
guards had stormed Givonne, and the eastern front of the army of 
Chalons having been broken by the efforts of the foe, the first and 
twelfth French corps were driven in on positions already almost 
under the guns of Sedan. Meantime a tremendous tempest of war 
had been bursting upon the western front, and sweeping all before 
it in its devastating march. By the early morning the fifth and 
eleventh corps of the third army had crossed the Meuse — the 
bridges on the river had not been broken, such had been the negli- 


gence of the French leaders — and before long the heads of the 
German columns had doubled round the great bend of the Meuse, 
and had approached the lines of the half-surprised enemy. The 
seventh French corps fought well for a time, but Fleigneux and 
Floing were ere long carried, the fire of the German batteries 
swept the space before them, and when the guards and the fifth and 
eleventh corps had effected their junction on the heights of Illy 
nothing could avert the impending disaster. The seventh French 
€orps, like the first and twelfth, was driven routed upon the ram- 
parts of Sedan; the fifth shared in the general ruin; and history 
need not dwell on the desperate efforts of a few bold horsemen and 
of handfuls of foot to escape, like caged animals, from the victors' 
toils. By five in the afternoon the shattered remains of what had 
been an army of 130,000 men was a mere chaos of fugitives, 
crowded around the walls and approaches of Sedan ; and even 
the conquerors, 180,000 strong at least, as, hemming in their foes 
on all sides, they spread for miles round the scene of carnage, amidst 
their exultation beheld with awe the havoc wrought by the con- 
verging fire of from 600 to 700 guns, a mass of artillery never 
arrayed before. After a short time all resistance ceased : at the 
command of the ill-fated emperor, a white flag was displayed from 
the citadel, and before twenty-four hours the French army was 
a collection of helpless and disarmed captives. 

Many criticisms, few of special merit, have been made on the 
campaign of Sedan. The glitter of success, perhaps unequalled, 
has bewildered minds that ought to have been more judicious, and 
it has been gravely said that the strategy of Moltke surpassed 
that of the most illustrious captains, and that his operations 
were simply faultless. Moltke's conduct of the invasion shows 
scientific skill and the most exact knowledge, and more than once 
he gave striking proof of admirable judgment, of extreme tenacity, 
of prompt decision, and of great strength of character. But his 
strategy has not the marks of original genius ; nothing he has 
achieved can compare with the march on Marengo, with the 
manoeuvres that led to the surrender of Ulm, with the wonderful 
efforts of the campaign of Italy. As for his ' faultlessness,' he 
would be the first to admit that, like all great chiefs, he has com- 
mitted mistakes, for this is inevitable from the nature of the case, 
and, in fact, he fell into grave errors before Mars-la-Tour and at 
Gravelotte ; the investment of Metz was rash in the extreme, and 
at a later, period of the war he miscalculated the power and the 
spirit of Paris, and was all but compelled to raise the siege. The 
strategic lessons of the campaign, we think, are mainly of a nega- 
tive kind ; they rather illustrate the terrible results of indecision, 
weakness, and want of capacity, than exhibit feats of remarkable 
genius; but the military student will learn a great deal as he 


dwells on the vacillation of Napoleon III, on the supineness and 
dulness of Bazaine, and on the feebleness of Macmahon's conduct 
in marching against his will from Eethel to the Meuse. It is 
necessary, however, in justice to point out that the fatal short- 
comings of those commanders were largely due to one potent cause- 
which marred the general operations of the French ; and though 
Napoleon III, Bazaine, and Macmahon were none of them chiefs 
of a high order, France would not have mourned for Metz and 
Sedan had not military principles throughout the campaign been 
subordinated to fancied political interests. This, indeed, is pro- 
bably the most striking fact in the war, and it is one conveying a 
tremendous warning to sovereigns and generals who ought to know 
that Bellona will not allow a rival, and that in the military art it 
is never safe to deviate from known military rules. 

It has been argued again that the war of 1870 proves that 
organisation and what may be called the mechanism of an army 
in the field are far more important than mere generalship, and 
that the extraordinary success of the Germans was mainly due to 
a superiority of this kind. No one will deny that the German 
armies, with the single exception of one arm, were better equipped, 
had better material, and were a better instrument of war than the 
French ; but mind really controls matter, and in war, and especially 
in modern war, with its rapid movements and its immense masses^ 
superior direction will more than ever assert its power and decide 
the result. This is so apparent in the campaign of Sedan that it 
may be confidently asserted that had Moltke been in command 
of the forces of France and Napoleon III of those of Germany, the 
issue of the contest would have been wholly different, and, not- 
withstanding her inferior strength in the field, France might have 
at last driven out the invaders. For the rest it is the caprice of 
the hour to extol the superiority of the German soldier and to 
depreciate the worth of his French antagonist, but this will not 
mislead the true student of war. We dare say the Numidian horse 
of Hannibal despised the often routed legionaries of Eome ; Napoleon^ 
we know, in the pride of a life of victories, reckoned a Frenchman 
equal to two Germans, and reasoned in this way on the eve of 
Waterloo. But Cannae was followed in turn by Zama ; Jena has 
been more than avenged by Sedan, and possibly on some yet un- 
known field the balance of fortune may be once more redressed, and 
Germany succumb to the arms of France. Arnold remarked long 
ago that if we look back through history the triumphs in war of the 
two great races parted by the Ehine have been singularly equal. 

William O'Connor Morris. 

1888 233 

Chatham, Francis, and yttnius 

IN preparing a life of Sir Philip Francis for the * Dictionary of 
National Biography,' I have had to look again into the weary 
Junius controversy. One topic connected with the discussion, the 
connexion of Francis and Junius with the reports of Chatham's 
speeches, has, I think, been rather inadequately treated, for reasons 
which will presently appear. The facts, moreover, when fully 
stated, seem to me to illustrate rather curiously a very important 
passage in the history of parliamentary reporting. That incidental 
result is of more value than any little gleam of light that may be 
thrown upon a venerable literary puzzle. And therefore I venture 
to offer to the readers of the Historical Eeview a rather fuller 
statement than would be admissible in a dictionary, and to apolo- 
gise if I am obliged to give it in the form of a discussion of a problem 
which I, for one, should be glad to see dead and buried. 

I need only remind my readers in the briefest terms of the 
general facts. My story belongs to the year 1770. The ministry 
from which Chatham had finally retired in November 1768 was in 
power at the beginning of that year. Junius had first appeared 
under that name soon after Chatham's resignation. Throughout 
1769 he had thundered with increasing audacity against the prime 
minister Grafton, the Bedfords, and all supporters of the ministry, 
and had culminated with the famous letter to the king of 19 Dec. 
1769. Whatever his motives, he had been in alliance with the 
rather heterogeneous opposition, which took advantage of the return 
of Wilkes to England and the various agitations springing out of the 
Middlesex election, and which in January 1770 seemed to be on the 
verge of success. The party wire-pullers were at work to form a 
combination under the leadership of Chatham. One of the ablest 
was Calcraft, a man who had come to London to seek his fortune 
as a youth, and at the age of forty-six possessed a landed estate of 
10,000L a year. He had broken with the elder Fox and allied 
himself with the brothers George Grenville and Temple, and their 
brother-in-law, Chatham. His great aim was to reconcile these 
three, who had been alienated in the previous party struggles, and 
bring them into line with the Kockinghams against the ministry. 


The reconciliation had been effected ; and in the session of 1770 a 
weak ministry had to face an opposition of singular ability, including 
Chatham in the house of lords, Burke in the house of commons, 
and Junius in the press, backed by the popular indignation aroused 
by Wilkes in the metropolis. The last of Chatham's friends left 
in the ministry, Granby and Camden, retired in January 1770 ; 
Yorke, persuaded to take Camden's place as chancellor, killed him- 
self in remorse ; and in February the duke of Grafton himself 
resigned, and was succeeded by North in what seemed to be an almost 
hopeless position. In our time it would have been hopeless. A 
ministry including no man of first-rate mark was not only attacked 
by a parliamentary opposition including such men as Chatham and 
Burke, but had to deal with the popular feeling roused by Wilkes, 
and uttering itself in the press through the mouth of Junius. The 
great difficulty was that the co-operation between these forces was 
imperfect. Chatham's declamations could not be heard beyond the 
house of lords. A single copy of the Times sometimes contains an 
amount of oratory equal in bulk to all Chatham's recorded speeches ; 
and one speech of Mr. Gladstone contains as much matter as the 
reports of all Chatham's speeches during this eventful year. It is 
only by accident and under various disguises that a few imperfect 
notices of the debates intrude into the papers. This was the ' un- 
reported parliament,' and, though the ' Cavendish Debates ' have 
given some account of what went on in the commons, the debates 
in the upper house are singularly imperfect. The contemporary 
reader is occasionally treated to a few fragmentary sentences, 
supposed to have been uttered in the Eobin Hood Society, or an 
anonymous correspondent mentions something that was said in a 
company where he happened to be last night. At the end of the 
month the magazines published a scanty report of proceedings in 

the U H , with a summary of the speeches made by the 

D of G and the E of C . There are, however, 

three speeches of Chatham's during 1770 which are given with a 
rather suspicious fulness, and a few briefer notices of other de- 
liveries of the same leader. To whom do we owe these reports ? 
Sir Philip Francis long afterwards made this note in a volume of 
Belsham's ' History,' vol. v. p. 298 : ' I wrote this speech for Lord 
Mansfield ' (at that page of the edition of 1805 Belsham refers to 
the speech of 9 Jan. 1770) * as well as all those of Lord Chatham 
on the Middlesex election.' If this claim be well founded, it has the 
remarkable result that all Chatham's most important speeches at 
this period were ' reported ' by Francis, and * reported ' in a sense 
which is not always very distinguishable from ' composed.' If 
Francis was * Junius,' and was also the writer of Chatham's speeches 
for the year 1770, he has claims to a considerable place in our his- 


The claim was disputed by Mr. Dilke,^ who even suspected 
Francis of manufacturing evidence upon which to base a claim to 
the Junius letters. Mr. Dilke's fault as a critic was a tendency to 
excessive suspiciousness. His arguments make it necessary, how- 
ever, to notice the circumstances under which this claim was made 
by Francis. When the volume of the * Parliamentary History ' con- 
taining the debates of 1770 was published, the editor acknowledged 
the help of a contributor who had originally reported, and now 
revised, speeches of Chatham's, delivered on 9 and 22 Jan. and 
22 Nov. 1770.2 The editor told Taylor (author of ' Junius Identi- 
fied ') that this contributor was Francis ; and in the preface to vol. 
xxxiv., published after Francis's death, the name is fully given. 
Francis therefore made this claim in 1813, and in 1816 Taylor 
pointed out the fact, and grounded upon it an argument for the 
identity of Francis and Junius. But a similar claim had been pre- 
viously made. When m 1792 Almon published his ' Anecdotes of 
Chatham,' he stated that the speeches of January 1770 were now 
reported for the first time from the notes of a ' gentleman of strong 
memory.' As these speeches are identical with those of the parlia- 
mentary history, Francis (if we believe him) was the gentleman in 
question ; and, if he was lying, it was odd that he should be able to 
step into a pair of ready-made shoes. Francis, again, had previously 
stated that he had heard these January speeches. He quotes that 
of 9 Jan. in a paper on the regency in the Monthly Mirror for 
January 1811, saying that he ' heard ' Lord Chatham use the words 
in question. The paper has a motto from the same speech, and 
is opened by this significant statement : * After the noble speaker 
of these words no man has so good a right to make use of them as 
I. They express a principle on which I have acted, and I resort to 
them as my own.' In a pamphlet on the paper currency (1810) he 
quotes a phrase from the speech of 22 Jan. with the words, ' as I 
heard Lord Chatham declare in the house of lords with a monarch's 
voice.' ^ Even Mr. Dilke could hardly have supposed that these 
various statements w^ere part of a deep-laid scheme for appropriating 
the fame of Junius, and that after all he left one statement to be found 
in Belsham's history after his death, and managed to inspire Taylor 
with suspicions so skilfully that Taylor was unconscious of inspira- 
tion. The most sceptical, it is sometimes said, are the most credu- 
lous; but the fact that Francis attended some debates and took 
notes of Chatham's speeches is now fully established by Parkes 
and Meri vale's * Life of Francis,' where his notes of a later speech 
are printed. The remarkable autobiographical fragment printed in 
the appendix to the first volume (pp. 353-370), and written accor- 
ding to Parkes before 1776, that is withhi six years of the events 

' See Papers of a Critic, vol. ii. ? Pari. Hist. xvi. 647, 741, 1091. 

» See Jimius Identified (1816), pp. 142, 146, 222. ^ 


and long before he could have thought of making any claim to be 
Junius, gives, as we shall presently see, some very curious evidence. 
But I will first notice the report speeches. 

Almon, as we have seen, claimed to give the first full reports of 
Chatham's speeches in January, the only speeches of his in that 
session which were reported at length. When in 1816 Taylor 
published the first book in which Francis was identified with 
Junius, he declared ^ that as he was accidentally reading * Almon' s 
Anecdotes ' it occurred to him that the voice of Chatham was 
really the voice of Junius. When he discovered that Chatham 
was in this case speaking through the mouth of Francis, the in- 
ference was irresistible. Taylor proceeds to give the i)hrases 
which, in his opinion, justify the identification of Francis with 
Junius. An impartial reader will probably regard some of the 
coincidences as vague, and some phrases as belonging to the 
common stock of all the writers and speakers of the time. But it 
is certainly curious to find that Chatham when he appeals to * the 
simplicity of common sense ' is using a phrase already employed by 
Junius ; that Chatham denounces the ' silken barons of modern 
times,' and that the same epithet was used both by Junius and by 
Francis ; that Chatham compares the royal prerogative to the 
feather in the eagle's wing; and that Junius uses the same daring 
metaphor afterwards for the king's honour ; or again that Chatham 
in his speech and Junius in a private letter to Wilkes use precisely 
similar language about amputating the rotten parts of the consti- 
tution. The probability arising from these and other coincidences 
will strike different readers with varying degrees of force ; what 
may, I think, be fairly said is that such coincidences might natu- 
rally be expected if Junius was in fact the reporter, sometimes 
using turns of expression already employed by himself and some- 
times catching hints which he afterwards reproduced. The expla- 
nation will meet the case, although it is not necessarily the only 
explanation. Mr. Dilke endeavoured to meet this argument by 
stating that reports of these speeches appeared at the time of their 
delivery. He regarded the fact as inconsistent with Francis's 
claim to be the reporter and with Almon' s statement that he 
published them for the first time in 1792. In regard to the first 
point, I may notice that Francis may very well have been the first 
reporter, although he afterwards used the same report for Almon's 
publication. As we shall see directly, he treated a later speech 
in this way. But is Mr. Dilke' s statement correct ? I am sorry 
to differ from a man whose accuracy is generally, and I believe 
quite rightly, admitted. I have, however, checked his remarks by 
examining all the papers in the British Museum, and with a rather 
surprising result. There is, in the first place, no report whatever 

* Edit. 1816, p. 256. 


•of the speech of 22 Jan. nor does Mr. Dilke allege that he has 
found one. This speech contains some of the coincidences noticed 
by Taylor, especially the curious simile which, according to Butler 
in his ' Eeminiscences,' was regarded as the finest extant, about the 
eagle's feather. That two people should have hit upon it indepen- 
dently, appears to me to be highly improbable ; but it is of course 
possible that Junius may have heard of Chatham's phrase else- 

There is a more remarkable coincidence in the same speech. 
In a letter to "Wilkes (7 Sept. 1771) Junius quotes a passage 
from this report verbatim about ' infusing a portion of new health 
into the constitution.' This is by itself conclusive as to Junius 
having seen the report, and as even Mr. Dilke cannot produce any 
report previous to Almon, he must have been using the report 
claimed by Francis, which, so far as we know, was still in Francis's 
desk. In the next place there is, as Mr. Dilke says, a short collec- 
tion of extracts from the speech of 9 Jan. This appeared in the 
London Evening Post, in the Public Advertiser, and in the General 
Evening Post of 23 Jan. and in the Gazetteer of the next day. 
From Mr. Dilke's account of the document, I cannot doubt that 
it is to this paper that he refers. The extracts, as he says, are 
separated by asterisks. The remarks are ostensibly attributed 
to a speaker in the Eobin Hood Society, according to a common 
practice of the time. But this subterfuge and the imperfect nature 
of the report certainly do not suggest to me that it was formed of 
extracts from some previously published report not now forth- 
coming. On the contrary, considering the extremely meagre nature 
of this report, a fortnight after the delivery, and the anxiety of 
papers at that time to introduce any of the meagre notices which 
appeared in their contemporaries, I should say that it almost 
proves that no other report had appeared. Now these extracts, so 
far as I can judge, represent a different version of the speech, 
though they correspond to its general nature ; all put together form 
a very trifling fragment of the speech ; and moreover they do not 
include the precise phrases noticed by Taylor and stated by Mr. 
Dilke to occur in the fragment. My own belief is, in spite of my 
unfeigned respect for Mr. Dilke's general carefulness, that he hastily 
jumped to the conclusion that there was an identity between the 
two reports because this report represents two or three of the 
passages in question though not in the same words. It is hard to 
prove a negative ; but my examination has convinced me that 
Almon's statement that the speeches had not previously appeared 
was absolutely correct in regard to the speech of 22 Jan. and sub- 
stantially correct in regard to that of 9 Jan. I think it indeed 
highly improbable that if any report like that in Almon had been 
published at the time it would have disappeared. The newspapers 


give the merest scraps to represent speeches which were then of the 
very highest interest. They constantly republish whatever scraps 
are given ; and a full report of Chatham would have been a curiosity 
scarcely likely to escape all reference and to drop completely out of 
sight. We shall presently see that a later report of a speech by 
Chatham was in fact at once republished in several places. Thus 
the only report extant of 9 Jan. entirely fails to bear out the state- 
ment that the phrases in question had already appeared ; and 
therefore Taylor's argument retains whatever weight it deserves. 
I will add, that in any case the use by Chatham of phrases pre- 
viously used by Junius still requires explanation. If Junius was 
the reporter, the explanation is easy. 

The other speeches of Chatham in this session are very briefly 
reported. Two or three remarks may be made upon them. The 
proximate authority which appears to have been followed in the 
'Parliamentary History ' for Chatham's speeches in 1770 (that is, for 
the speeches claimed in Francis's note) is generally the London 
Museum, This London Museum had a few miscellaneous articles, 
but its speciality was the publication of political documents. It was 
of the most pronounced opposition colouring. Almon was prosecuted 
for selling a copy of the first number, which gave a reprint of 
Junius's letter to the king. Miller, who published the Museum, was 
prosecuted for reprinting the same letter in his London Evening 
Post, Junius mentions him (private letter No. 24) as a man * who 
will have no scruples ' in publishing a dangerous document. The 
Museum itself only lived through 1770 and the first part of 1771. 
It shows its tendency by such pleasantry as the production of por- 
traits of Mansfield and Judge Jeffreys on the same page in which 
the oppressor of Wilkes and the infamous servant of James II are 
made to look as like as twins. In its reports of proceedings in the 
Lords it inverts Johnson's plan of taking care that the whig dogs 
did not get the best of the argument. The tories are burlesqued 
when they are reported at all. Eeports of Chatham are trans- 
planted from the Museum to the * ParHamentary History,' while 
the reports of ministerial speeches are taken from other authorities. 
Two reports in the first session of 1770 are remarkable. On 2 Feb. 
Chatham made two speeches, both reported in the Museum and 
transplanted to Almon. In the Museum the debate is introduced 
by a note from * Shorthand,' who gives the speeches of Sandwich 
and Chatham ; and this, says Almon, is the only report known. 
Now Francis was present at this debate, and Parkes and Merivale 
in their ' Life ' reprint his notes of Chatham's speech, and add what 
is clearly an expansion of one paragraph in the speech apparently 
intended to form part of a more extended report. It is remarkable 
that this argument does not reappear in the Museum report. 

The report there given differs, indeed, so widely from the notes 


that it awakes uncomfortable doubts of its fidelity. Some phrases, 
expressly one — comparing Wilkes to a comet — have evidently been 
reproduced, and the general line of argument is followed ; but the 
speech has obviously been rearranged and considerably modified 
in the process. It is perhaps worth notice that the substance of 
the particular argument — a rather remarkable one — expanded in 
Francis's, makes its appearance, though in very different words, in 
Junius's letter of 28 May 1770.^ 

A speech on 2 March following has a characteristic history. 
Part of it first appeared in the Public Advertiser, Junius's organ, on 
5 March 1770, to which it is sent by * Invisible.' Parts of it also 
appeared in the Lojidon Evening Post of 6 March. The same 
plan was often followed by the writer of letters ascribed too Junius. 
The most curious instance occurred on 5 Dec. 1767, when * X Y ' 
sent to the Public Advertiser what purports to be a speech at 
a political club. He calls it a mere jeu d' esprit. The report got 
into Almon's Political Register as representing a speech by Burke, 
and afterwards passed as the first of Burke's reported speeches. 
There is no proof, however, that either ' X Y ' or ' Invisible ' was 
really Junius or Francis. 

The Museum printed three other speeches by Chatham in the 
same session, which with the preceding form all that we know of 
his oratory during this period. If Francis's note in Belsham is to 
be trusted and literally construed, he must have written them ; but 
I know of no proof of this, nor are the speeches of any great 
importance. Whether the Museum copied for itself from the 
papers, or received these reports from the original reporters, I 
cannot say. Miller was the printer both of the Museum and the 
London Evening Post, and published reports in both. 

In the following session, which began in November 1770, the 
opposition had come up still confident of victory. The battle had 
been raging with doubtful results in parliament and in the law 
courts. Luttrell, in spite of Chatham and Junius, still held his 
seat for Middlesex. The electors had, therefore, no chance of again 
expressing their sympathies. Woodfall, Miller, and Almon had all 
been prosecuted for selling Junius's letter to the king. Almon was 
convicted ; Miller was acquitted ; and in W^oodfall's case the jury 
returned the special verdict * Guilty of printing and publishing only.* 
The legal effect of this verdict was just coming up for decision by 
Lord Mansfield. He finally decided (20 Nov.) that the verdict 
was insufficient. Meanwhile a difficulty was arising in a fresh 
quarter. The Falkland Islands dispute was supposed to threaten 
a war with Spain. In these matters Francis, as we learn from 
the autobiography, took the keenest interest. He was deep in all 

« Woodfall's 1812 ed. ii. 142. 


the schemes of Calcraft.^ ' I concurred with him heartily,' says 
Francis after describing his plans ; * I had no hope of advancement 
but on the line of opposition. I was sincere, though mistaken, in 
my politics, and was convinced the ministry could never stand the 
<jonsequences of the Middlesex election.' He had special reasons 
for desiring success. Though only thirty he had been married for 
€ight years and was the father of five children. His own father 
was breaking down in health, and drawing upon him for at least 
temporary loans. His wife's relations were also rather a burden 
than a help. His salary at the war office was trifling ; but in case 
of war, as his biographer rather unkindly points out, it would be 
greatly increased, as it depended partly upon fees payable upon 
such occasions as the issue of commissions to officers. But Francis 
had an ambition which looked to greater things. War would 
clearly mean the return to office of the greatest war minister who 
ever held power in England. * If Chatham had come in,' says 
Francis again, * I might have commanded anything, and could not 
Tsut have risen under his protection.' This may mean simply that 
Chatham was the patron of Calcraft, who was the patron of Francis. 
But we cannot help remembering that the young clerk might 
indeed have commanded anything if he could have revealed himself 
to Chatham as the Junius who had done in the press what Chatham 
had done in the house of lords. On 22 Nov. 1770 Chatham made 
a great speech upon foreign policy ; and on that topic he spoke of 
-course with unrivalled authority. This speech was not left, like 
the others, to ooze out in fragments or wait twenty years in private 
papers. * I took down from memory the famous speech he (Chat- 
ham) made on 22 Nov. 1770, and had it pubHshed in a few days. 
It had a great effect abroad, and alarmed or offended the ministry 
so much that they determined to shut the doors of the house of 
lords against all strangers, even the members of the other house.' 
Mr. Dilke discovered that this speech had been published at the 
time, and triumphantly rebuked * Franciscans ' on the strength of 
his discovery. He assumed that it disproved the claim advanced 
by Francis in 1813 to be the original reporter. We now see that 

• The editor of the Grenville Papers tries to support his theory that Junius was 
Lord Temple, by showing with some force that Junius was in possession of informa- ij^ 

tion which Calcraft was communicating to Chatham and jDrobably to Lord Temple. -Jl 

The argument, so far as it goes, is clearly in favour of Francis. Perhaps the strongest « 

case is this : On 11 Nov. 1770 Calcraft tells Chatham that the king had written 
to Lord Barrington four days before ordering certain military appointments to be made 
in Ireland without consulting ministers or the lord lieutenant. Calcraft must in all 
probability have heard this from Francis. Junius, writing as * Testiculus ' (an 
acknowledged signature) on 24 Nov., states, in obvious reference to this, but 
without giving any details, that ' we have sufficient reasons to think ' that it is * the 
king's intention to govern the army himself.' The vague reference seems to imply 
that the facts were not so publicly known that they could be safely mentioned ; but 
clearly Francis would be possessed of the knowledge. 3 


it confirms Francis's own statement, and it is quite consistent with 
the later claim. The speech was reprinted in the Middlesex Journal 
and in the London Evening Post, though it was too long to be got 
into one number of either. It is also reprinted in the Museum and 
in the London Magazine. The eagerness thus shown affords a 
strong presumption that the January speeches cannot have been 
published. They would otherwise have appeared somewhere. Like 
the others this speech was reprinted in Almon's Anecdotes. At the 
time it was the first speech of Chatham of which anything like a 
full contemporary report appeared. To publish it was to take a 
bold step in advance ; and Francis was attempting, prematurely, to 
introduce the modern system of enabling a parliamentary orator 
to address the whole public. Meanwhile Francis (and Junius) were 
convinced that war was approaching. ' Depend upon the assurance 
I give you,' says Junius in a private letter to Woodfall (16 Jan. 
1771), * that every man in the administration looks upon war as 
inevitable.' Francis had told his brother-in-law Macrabie on 11 Dec. : 
.* The approach of a war loads me with business, as I hope it 
will with money. ... We expect a declaration of war every day.' 
Calcraft gave the same opinion to Chatham. Francis, indeed, gave 
a more unequivocal proof of his opinion. The Spanish quarrel was 
peaceably settled in January, and, says Francis, * I lost 5001. in 
the stocks.' He adds that the lesson prevented him from ever 
* entering into such traffic again.' (It is odd, by the way, that in 
Almon's Anecdotes,"^ to which Francis contributed some passages 
(besides the reports), there is a note saying that in 1761 a clerk in 
the secretary of state's office (to which Francis then belonged) was 
discharged by Chatham for gambling in the funds. If Francis 
added this note, he must have been regretting that he had not been 
impressed by the precedent.) The hopes of opposition were thus 
upset, though Junius returned to the charge at the end of January 
in a letter which called forth Johnson's famous pamphlet. 

Meanwhile, however, the old warfare over Wilkes and the 
Junius letters had been raging furiously. The record of Chatham's 
share in these proceedings in the * Parliamentary History ' still 
apparently comes from the Museum, though the Museum itseU copies 
other papers. The article which reports his speech of 22 Nov. 
goes on, without any sign of discontinuity, to report two succeeding 
debates on 5 and 10 Dec. The debate of 5 Dec, in which various 
peers took part, included a smart encounter between Chatham and 
Mansfield on the old topic of the Middlesex election. The second 
led to a very remarkable scene. Mansfield had asked for a call of 
the house in order to make a statement in regard to his own con- 
duct in the case of Woodfall. He seems to have flinched at the 
last moment. Instead of the expected defence of his conduct he 

' 3rd edition, ii. 325. 
VOL. III. — NO. X. R 


simply said that he had left his judgment in the Woodfall case with 
the clerk, which noble lords might read and copy if they pleased. 
Chatham straightway made an assault on his antagonist. Ac- 
cording to a letter signed * Nerva ' of 14 Dec. (printed in the notes 
to Woodfall's ' Junius,' iii. 295-300) Chatham, after dwelling upon 
Mansfield's conduct in regard to this paper, concluded by attacking 
him for giving an extrajudicial and unprecedented opinion in regard 
to the Woodfall trial. Mansfield, as ' Nerva ' goes on to say^ 
pointed out Chatham's mistake with great amiability and modera- 
tion. The subject then apparently dropped, but directly afterwards 
some remarks by the duke of Manchester upon the state of our 
military preparations produced a scene of excitement such as has 
rarely ruffled the dignity of the upper house. Chatham tried to 
speak during the disturbance and was hooted down. * The deep 
bass of the claret drinkers of Arthur's,' says the Museum re- 
porter in a passage omitted by the decorous * Parliamentary 
History,' * mixed with the shrill of the macaronics brayed harsh 
discord in a confused assemblage of the most shocking dissonance^ 
Hands, voices, and legs,' he adds, * were all employed to stifle the 
voice of the great orator who had been raised to the house for 
saving the country.' The result of this tumult was that the house 
was cleared of all strangers, and on the next day even members 
of the house of commons were excluded. Francis says in his 
autobiography that he was present at this * ridiculous scene.' It 
is at this point that we come upon a coincidence with Junius 
more remarkable than those already noticed. The report of the 
two debates has some remarkable peculiarities. The debate of 
5 Dec. (strangely misdated 28 Nov. in the Museum) included 
speeches by other peers, which in the * Parliamentary History ' are 
supplied from the London Magazine. The Museum gives mere 
burlesques in their place. These had, with one exception, already 
appeared in a report in the London Evening Post of 6 Dec, whence 
it was copied by other papers. The Museum, however, substi- 
tutes a new speech for that previously attributed to Junius's special 
victim, the duke of Grafton. He is made to utter a mere string of 
incoherent phrases. * My lords,' he says, ' I am really astonished ; 
yet indeed, my lords, I ought not to be astonished. The question 
has been handled with so much ability by other noble lords that I 
shall content inyseM with this simple unadorned declaration of my 
opinions ' — which, however, he never succeeds in declaring at all. 
The report in the * Parliamentary History ' (from the London 
Magazine) makes the same speaker pronounce a grammatical and 
tolerably pointed oration, of which this may perhaps pass for a 
bold parody. The burlesque is taken from a letter signed ' Domi- 
tian ' in the Public Advertiser of 7 Dec, where it is preceded by 
a savage attack upon the duke, who 'with a very solemn and 


plausible delivery has a set of thoughts, or rather of words 
resembling thoughts, which may be applied indifferently and with 
equal success to all possible subjects.' Now ' Domitian ' was an 
alias for Junius, who sent the letter to Woodfall with the request 
that he would observe the italics (see above) strictly where they 
were marked. Francis, therefore, if Francis was the Museum 
reporter, was here appropriating Junius's satire. But the next 
debate brings out a relation between the two — if they were two — 
which must be explained more fully. 

Francis was acting, as we have seen, in the closest co-operation 
with Calcraft. Calcraft more than once sends papers to Chatham 
which he has received from Francis, as appears from the Chatham 
correspondence. Now whilst the assault upon Mansfield was brewing 
Francis wrote a long letter to Calcraft (1 Dec. 1770) obviously 
intended to be laid before Chatham. (It is printed in Parkes and 
Merivale, i. 394.) It suggests a doubt of the expediency of attack- 
ing Mansfield in the house of lords, not from any wish to spare 
Mansfield, but, on the contrary, because the motion will certainly be 
lost by a great majority, and therefore relieve Mansfield from a 
state of anxiety ' and suspense.' He wishes the cloud to hang 
over his (Mansfield's) head, but not burst * until it has collected 
weight enough to destroy him.' The attack should be continued 
by * discourse abroad,' and by ' every kind of side stroke in parlia- 
ment.' On 21 Nov. Junius had written to Woodfall : ' I will never 
rest till I have destroyed or expelled that wretch. . . . The fellow 
truckles already.' *He is even now,' Francis said, * perhaps look- 
ing forward to a distant day of punishment.' But a few days later 
Francis changed his mind. * I caught a hint of this irregularity [an 
irregularity in the recent judgment of Mansfield's in the Woodfall 
case] from Bearcroft one night at the tavern, and immediately 
drew up an argument upon it in proper form and sent it to Cal- 
craft, desiring him to transmit it to his friend [Chatham]. Within 
three days after I heard the great earl of Chatham repeat my letter 
verbatim in the house of lords, not only following the argument 
exactly, but dressing it in the same expressions I had done. His 
speech the next day flamed in the newspapers and ran through the 

The paper which Francis sent to Chatham is printed in the 
* Chatham Correspondence ' (iv. 48, where may also be found the 
subsequent versions of Chatham's speech, to be mentioned directly). 
When Mr. Merivale printed Francis's autobiography, he strangely 
overlooked the significance of this statement, and confounded this 
paper with the letter sent to Chatham on 1 Dec. Mr. Hay- 
ward saw its importance (see his article * More about Junius '), but 
treated it in a way too characteristic of the . curious want of good 
temper which gives needless bitterness to this controversy. By 


him a Franciscan was always mentioned in terms such as a severe 
theologian might apply to a Muggletonian or others to an ignorant 
and perverse fool. He says that the paper is not in Francis's hand 
(which is also said in the * Grenville Correspondence,' iii. cxvi), and 
infers that Francis had heard of it from Calcraft and was making 
a false claim in his autobiography. I have no great opinion of 
Francis's veracity, but I think that in this case there is not the 
slightest ground for suspicion. No impartial reader of the auto- 
biography will believe that in this case Francis was telling a circum- 
stantial lie to himself, for the autobiography was evidently * most 
private and confidential.' Nor is there any reason to suppose that 
he would even have known of the paper unless he had himself sent 
it. His obvious familiarity with it and the complacency with which 
he refers to it convince me of his sincerity and truthfulness in this 
case. Though I feel bound to mention Hay ward's suggestion, it 
strikes me only as a proof of the straits to which he was driven. 
Mr. Merivale replied to Hayward in a paper called * Junius, Francis, 
and Lord Mansfield in December 1770 ' {Fortnightly Review, March 
1868), in which he puts the case very fairly. Francis, if he, as I 
cannot doubt, wrote the paper, was obviously chuckling at the 
thought of checkmating the great lawyer upon a technical legal 

Chatham spoke on 10 Dec, and his speech did * flame ' in 
the papers. A brief report of his speech appeared in the London ■ 
Evening Post (quoted by Dilke in * Papers of a Critic,' and in the m 
* Grenville Correspondence,' iii. cxvii) and in other papers. A phrase / 
in it is also cited in the * Chapter of Facts ' in the Public Advertiser 
of 13. Dec, which is printed amongst the miscellaneous letters 
ascribed to Woodfall. It was publicly known, therefore, that Chatham 
had accused Mansfield of ' travelling out of the record,' and pro- 
claimed that his conduct was * irregular, extrajudicial, and unpre- 
cedented.' The * report,' however, in the Evening Post, if it can be 
called a report, gives no intelligible account of the grounds upon 
which Chatham based his denunciation. Nerva's letter, already 
quoted, shows that he too had completely missed the precise point 
made in Francis's paper, or, which is possible, that Chatham had 
himself missed it ; in any case, nobody could understand it from 
Nerva or the Post. Hereupon a letter signed ' Phalaris ' appeared 
in the Public Advertiser (7 Dec), one paragraph of which states 
the argument fully and plainly, and in part almost repeats the 
words of Francis. The last sentence of Francis's letter is : * His 
[Mansfield's] reason for this proceeding was that he might have 
an opportunity of saying, what he had no right to say on that 
occasion, that the three other judges concurred with him in the 
doctrine laid down in the charge to the jury.' Phalaris concludes 
his paragraph by saying : * His real motive for doing what he 


knew to be wrong was that he might have an opportunity of 
telling the public extrajudicially that the other three judges agreed 
with him in the doctrine laid down in his charge.' There is no 
trace of this in the Evening Post report. It can hardly be 
thought that this farfetched suggestion occurred to two people inde- 
pendently, and that they expressed it in sentences so closely resem- 
bling each other and in precisely the same connexion. I may add 
that the same mistake as to facts is implied in both. Mansfield 
had expressly cited the authority of three judges — Denison, Yates, 
and Foster — in his speech at the house of lords of 5 Dec. ; but in 
his judgment there is only a vague reference to some unnamed 
authorities. The confusion was easy, but was not likely to occur 
independently to two writers. The whole almost inevitably suggests 
the conclusion that Francis was the author of the ' Phalaris ' letter, 
and was restating his argument, which had been imperfectly repre- 
sented in the report previously published. (The name Phalaris was 
possibly suggested as a kind of Greek equivalent to Francis ?) It 
may be suggested that he was following some report — not now 
forthcoming — of Chatham's speech. It is not probable that any 
such report existed ; for every paper was eager to copy all reports. 
In the next place it is impossible to suppose that a speech trans- 
mitted first through Chatham, who was not the man simply to 
repeat a lesson by rote, though he might adopt some of its phrases, 
and then through a reporter — such as reporters were in those days 
— should bring out a precise repetition of Francis's paper and of that 
paper only. And, finally, Phalaris distinctly uses the argument as 
his own ; and he could not possibly have taken such a liberty with 
a speech of Chatham's — which had appeared in the papers and 
made a great sensation — before it was a week old. He concludes 
by saying : ' I affirm, therefore, with Lord Chatham, that his [Mans- 
field's] conduct was irregular, extrajudicial, and unprecedented ' — 
quoting, that is, the phrase which had already * flamed in the news- 
papers.' Now the next appearance of this paragraph was in the 
Museum report. There, by the simple omission of the three words 
ivith Lord Chatham, the chief paragraph of Phalaris' s letter is con- 
verted into a report of Chatham's speech. Chatham now affirms for 
himself that Mansfield's conduct deserved the three damnatory 
epithets. That this is copied from Phalaris appears from the fact 
that other phrases from his letter are used in the same report. 
Not only does Phalaris's letter thus reappear, but it constitutes the 
whole report of the speaking. No notice is taken of the rest of 
Chatham's speech nor of Mansfield's reply, both mentioned in the 
letter of Nerva. This, I think, goes near to proving that Phalaris 
had seen Francis's paper, and in all probability was Francis himself. 
The difference is precisely such as might be expected from a man 
reproducing his own argument, partly, as was natural, in the same 


words, but also expanding and rearranging a part in order to bring 
out more clearly the point misunderstood by his antagonist. 

But was not Phalaris also Junius ? The Phalaris letter is printed 
as one of the ' miscellaneous letters ' attributed to Junius in the 
edition brought out by Woodfall's son in 1812. The authority of 
this identification is not so great as might be supposed, for the 
younger Woodfall had no private means of knowledge, and some 
of the letters seem to be certainly spurious. Yet there are some 
strong reasons for confirmation of this particular assumption, though 
it was disputed by Mr. Dilke (who also denied the authority of the 
' Grand Council ' and other letters since known to have been claimed 
by Junius in his letter to George Grenville). In the first place, 
Junius, as we have just seen, was, like Francis, anxious to destroy 
Mansfield, and thought him already truckling ; that is, because he 
had decided that the verdict was insufficient. There was no one 
against whom Junius had a stronger feeling. Mansfield's support 
was of the most essential value to the government from his vast 
legal reputation, and Mansfield had taken the most prominent part 
in the various proceedings against Wilkes and Junius's publisher. 
Can it be doubted that Junius would do his best to support Chatham 
in the assault upon Mansfield, which thus flamed in the papers and 
ran through the kingdom ? Junius, who had attacked Mansfield 
savagely in November, was now under that name absolutely silent ; 
yet Junius himself was certainly alive and vigorous, for at this very 
time he was writing at least the Domitian letter of this date. Two 
others, called ' Chapters of Facts,' are also with less certainty 
attributed to Junius at the same period. But neither Domitian 
nor the ' Chapter of Facts ' does more than incidentally glance at 
Mansfield. If Junius was really Phalaris, however, the explanation 
is obvious. Junius in that case did his best to aid Chatham's 
assault by repeating his argument and claiming his authority for 
the conclusion ; and the whole letter is directed against Mansfield. 
Why, then, did not Junius set his usual signature ? Because all 
these letters obviously suggest that the writer has been at the 
house of lords. Junius, who was so nervously anxious to guard 
against detection, would be unwilling to give any such clue as 
would be offered by stating that he was one of the strangers present 
at these debates. The artifice, I must add, was not quite successful. 
The letters were not fully identified as his until the publication of 
the 1812 edition ; but I find that the Domitian letters were after- 
wards reprinted as obviously by Junius in the Museum. 

There is another curious fact. In the spring of 1772 Junius 
published the ' author's edition ' of his own letters. In a note to the 
preface he quotes Chatham's speech. He evidently quotes from the 
Museum, for he repeats an erroneous date (11 for 10 Dec). Hu 
omits, as it may not be irrelevant to observe, one sentence (e.g. * 1 


am sure that there is not a lawyer in England who will contradict 
me '), because apparently he has just used a precisely equivalent 
phrase (' I am well assured that no lawyer of character in West- 
minster Hall will contradict me ') in the text. The repetition was 
natural in a man talking upon a very familiar subject, but might 
suggest suspicions. To this speech he prefixes the curious remark 
that it * is taken with exactness.' ® How did he know that ? The 
statement is probably inaccurate, for it is quite inconceivable that 
Chatham should have put his argument so dryly and briefly in an 
exciting moment. But it was no doubt sufficiently true from the 
point of view of Francis, who had, as his autobiography shows, 
been greatly flattered by hearing his own words in the mouth of the 
great orator, and would naturally exaggerate the coincidence. In 
any case Junius goes out of his way to guarantee the accuracy of a 
report — written in all probability by Francis — of a speech which we 
know to have been originally suggested by Francis. 

One more coincidence may be noted. At the beginning of 
1772 Junius was once more preparing an attack upon his hated 
enemy. He spent obviously immense pains in writing an elaborate 
legal argument, which, however, failed of effect and only proved, 
according to Lord Campbell, that he could not have been a real 
lawyer. Having written his letter he obtained a proof from Wood- 
fall, and sent it to Chatham with a request that the great man 
would support the attack in the house of lords. Mansfield is again 
accused of * extrajudicial ' conduct, and a similar attempt is made 
to convict the great authority of trifling upon a purely legal ques- 
tion. What could be more natural if, in fact, Junius as Phalaris 
had been Chatham's ally in the assault a year earlier ? In both 
cases, it may be noticed, the attack turns upon a very narrow and 
technical question. I am not lawyer enough to know whether there 
was anything in the legal point urged by * Phalaris,' but in any 
<5ase it was curiously minute from a non-legal point of view. It 
■would only interest its original author or men passionately anxious 
to find any stone to throw at Mansfield. He was accused not of 
injustice, but at most of irrelevant introduction of certain con- 

By the beginning of 1772, however, the opposition was in 
despair. The letter then sent to Chatham was the last of Junius's 
performances in that name. The only subsequent letters were 
those in which, as Veteran and Scotus, he attacked Lord Barrington 
with singular bitterness for dismissing Doyly, Francis's most inti- 
mate friend, and with Doyly getting rid of Francis himself. The 
secret of the opposition failure is partly given by Francis. The 

^ So Francis writes to his brother-in-law Macrabie (6 March 1771) : 'How did you 
Americans like Lord Chatham's speech ? ' (probably that of 22 Nov.) ' It was 
really genuine.' (Parkes and Merivale, i. 258.) 


closing of the house of lords at the end of 1770 'was fatal to the 
opposition. It was in vain to make speeches when there was no 
audience to be informed or inflamed, nor any means of dispersing 
them among the people.' Junius's extreme anxiety on the same 
topic is shown in his private letter to Woodfall of 31 Jan. 1771. 
' It is,' he says, ' of the utmost importance to the pubHc cause that 
the doors of the house of lords should be opened on Thursday next ; 
perhaps the following [a notice stating that the ministry intend to 
open the doors, in order to give full information about the Falkland 
Islands affair] may help to shame them into it.' The ministry 
did not take the bait. During 1771 the opposition broke up ; the 
Spanish quarrel was soon forgotten and a war minister not re- 
quired. Junius reviled Grafton for again taking office, and Suffolk 
(the letters upon Suffolk signed *Henricus' are not certainly 
authentic) for carrying to the ministry the support of Grenville's 
friends ; and tried to remedy the dissensions in the city caused by 
the quarrel of Home and Wilkes. But the case went from bad 
to worse. Writing in the papers, however brilliant, could at most 
affect the constituencies of a few members ; speeches in parliament 
were of no use when the single effective publication had (as Francis 
thought) led simply to the closing of the doors. The ministry, safe 
in the support of members who could vote, though they could not 
speak, opposed to all assaults a passive indifference and a suppres- 
sion of all means of publicity. Chatham and Junius in alliance 
had thundered their best, but even the thunder was muffled and no 
bolt struck the treasury bench. The full comparison between this 
state of things and that which succeeded a full publication of the 
debate must be left to the philosophical historian. 

I shall not venture any remarks upon the Junius controversy. 
The identification of Francis with Junius must of course depend 
upon the convergence of various lines of argument, and especially 
upon the evidence from handwriting published by Mr. Twisleton. 
All that I have endeavoured to show is that the fact noticed by 
Taylor, that both Junius and Francis attended debates in the house 
of lords, and that the reports claimed by Francis show some co- 
incidences with the acknowledged writings of Junius, has further 
bearings, which could not be fully brought out until the publication 
of Francis's autobiography. There was not merely a conjunction 
of the two (not very heavenly) bodies, but a coincidence through an 
arc of their orbits. During the main part of Junius's career 
Francis, if not Junius, was acting in close co-operation with him. 
Junius supported Chatham's rhetoric in the papers ; Francis took 
reports of Chatham's speeches, and certainly published one of them, 
with the unfortunate result, as we have seen, of closing for a time 
the doors of the house of lords. Junius quotes Francis's report 
(then unpublished) in a private letter ; he guarantees the accuracy 


of another report, though it was probably inaccurate and in reality a 
mere reproduction of a letter by Francis ; and Francis seems to have 
returned the compliment by using a letter of Junius to construct 
his own reports. Both were engaged in the same political enterprise, 
had the same anticipations, and were trying to bring in Chatham, 
by endeavouring, to stimulate public opinion through the press in 
spite of the obstacles then to be encountered. But the coincidence, 
taken by itself, is of course susceptible of other explanations than 
an identity of the two allies. 

Leslie Stephen. 

250 April 

The Plantation of Munster 
1 584-1 589 

IN 1583 perished Gerald Fitzgerald, fifteenth earl of Desmond, 
the head of the younger branch of the Geraldine family, and 
the representative of one of the noblest and most powerful Anglo- 
Irish houses in Ireland. By his rebellion, his estates, and those of 
his retainers, amounting in all to 574,645 acres, ^ were placed at 
the disposal of the crown. The manner of their disposal forms the 
subject of this paper. And at the outset, without either justi- 
fying or condemning the plantation policy as a method for the 
reduction of Ireland to civility and good government, it is impor- 
tant to notice one particular fact, which certainly distinguished the 
Munster plantation from those that had preceded it, and which 
assuredly was not without considerable influence on those who ad- 
vocated and believed in that policy. I refer to the utter depopula- 
tion of the province, emphatically recorded by Spenser and other 
contemporary English writers. Hitherto in endeavouring to carry 
into execution their colonisation schemes, viz. the plantation of 
Leix and Offaly and the abortive attempts of Sir Thomas Smith and 
the earl of Essex in Ulster, the government and planters had been 
confronted by an insuperable obstacle in the presence and active 
opposition of the natives, who resisted by every means within their 
power the attempt to dispossess them of their lands. In the case 
of Munster this obstacle seemed to have been providentially re- 
moved. Many of the natives had perished in the wars ; many 
more had fled into Connaught and Ulster, where among their 
friendly bogs and wild recesses they were anxiously awaiting the 
subsidence of the storm, which should permit them to return to 
their old abodes. In 1582 more than 30,000 men, women, and 
children, we are informed, perished in that province within half a 
year, chiefly of starvation. ^ 

Aheavie but just judgment of God [says the old chronicler] upon such 
a Pharoical and stifnecked people, who by no persuasions, no counsels, 
and no reasons would be reclamed and reduced to serve God in true 

* Hamilton's Calendar, iii. 49. The estimates vary from 577,645 to 574,628. 
' Ih. ii. 361. 


religion, and to obeie their most lawful prince in dutifuU obedience, but 
made choise of a wicked idoU, the god Mazim to honor, and of that 
wicked antichrist of Rome to obeie, unto the utter overthrow of themselves 
and of their posteritie. 

The 'repeopling of Munster,' therefore, if not in truth the cause of 
the plantation, furnished at any rate a plausible excuse for it.^ 

Long before the termination of the war Elizabeth, recognising 
the importance of the interests at stake, was busily engaged in 
collecting information, which should help to guide her in her policy, 
from those best acquainted with Munster. Yery naturally she turned 
to Sir John Perrot, the able predecessor of Sir William Drury in the 
government of Munster. And he, in obedience to her command 
(1582), prepared an elaborate * Opinion for the suppressing of the 
rebellion and the well-governing of Ireland.' ^ In this tract Perrot 
expresses his belief that 

next to the want of the true knowledge of God and of the due course of 
justice, to give every man a peaceable propriety of that which is his own, 
I take (under correction) that the smoothing up of all former rebellions 
by pardons and protections hath been the misery and cause of most of this 

He is therefore in favour of correcting the rebellion with all 
earnest severity, 

not allowing pardon or protection to be given to any man but upon special 
and urgent great cause. But [he adds] lest some might draw this mine 
opinion of a severe correction into the reckoning of a more cruel sentence 
than I mean, I protest it is far from me to desire any extirpation ; but 
rather that all might be saved that were good for the country to be saved. 
Yet this I say till your majesty's sword hath meekened all, I think it neither 
honour nor safety to grant mercy to any. But when the sword hath made 
a way, then as to pardon all would be too remiss a pity, so not to pardon 
many would be an extremity nothing agreeable to your majesty's most 
godly and merciful inclination. Otherwise there would be such a vacuity 
of ground there (as it is already too great) that your realm of England, 

^ It ought, however, to be noted that already in 1568-9, during the imprisonment 
of the earl and his brother, Sir John of Desmond, in the Tower, and while the province 
was convulsed by the rebellion of James FitzMaurice, a plan was submitted to the 
government by a number of English gentlemen, well able, they declared, to carry it 
into effect, to relieve the crown of the burden of government in Munster, on condition 
of obtaining a grant of all the land between Eosscarberry and the Blasquets, being he 
possessions of the Earl of Clancarty, the MacDonough, the O'SuUivans, the O'DriscoUs, 
the MacMahons, the O'Callaghans, and the MacSweenys, at that time out in rebellion. 
All this territory they declared they would undertake to colonise with persons of 
English birth at their own risk. The proposal was favourably received, and there 
seemed some prospect at the time of an attempt being made to put it into execution. 
In the end, however, it was thought wiser to pardon the rebels, and the Earl of Des- 
mond having been restored to his estates the scheme for the nonce fell through. State 
Papers, Eliz. vols, xxvii., xxviii. 

* There is an anonymous copy of this ' Opinion,' called A Discourse for the Refor- 
mation of Ireland, amongst the Carew Papers, which Mr. Brewer {Cal. ii. 367) mis- 
takenly conjectured to be the work of Sir H. Sydney. 


though it be most populous through your majesty's most godly government 
(God be thanked, and long continue it), were not able to spare people to 
replenish the waste. 

Perrot's ' Opinion,' we are informed, was so well received by 
Elizabeth and the council as in January 1584 to obtain for him the 
office of lord deputy. And indeed a much better qualified man 
could hardly have been found to fill the office. * His word being 
inviolably kept during his government in Munster is as much 
credited as his hand and seal,' ^ wrote one who was glad to hear 
of his appointment. Accordingly on 9 June 1584 he arrived in 
the haven of Dalkey about six in the afternoon, and on the 21st, 
being Sunday, he received his oath of government in the cathedral 
church of St. Patrick.^ By that time the war had come to an end, 
and he was therefore free to direct his attention to the even more 
difficult task of settling the government of Ireland. His instruc- 
tions were to consult with the Irish council as to the best means 
for turning the escheated lands in Munster to good account and for 
rewarding those noblemen and gentlemen, * inhabitants in Munster,' 
who had served ' most dutifully in the late troubles with the hazard 
of their lives and loss of their goods and children,' as also for re- 
compensing those suitors and pensioners, whereof there were many, 
' in respect of services done during the time of the late troubles 
there.' ^ Nothing, however, it was evident, could be done in this 
respect before an exact estimate of the escheated lands was made 
and before they had been confirmed to the crown by actual act of 
parliament. Perrot was therefore informed that a commission 
had been issued to Sir Henry Wallop, Sir Valentine Browne,. 
Thomas Jenison, Launcelot Alford, and Christopher Payton (to 
which he, the lord deputy, had power to add) to make inquisition 
by jury respecting all lands which ought to come into the queen's 
hands by reason of the rebellion of Gerald, earl of Desmond, and 
others.^ Accordingly, having received his instructions, the lord 
deputy spent eighteen days in close consultation with the privy 
council. *And as soon as he understood the true state of the 
kingdom, and had laid down the measure of his government, he 
issued a proclamation of oblivion and indemnity.' ^ This done, he 
marched through Connaught to Limerick, where, having met with 
Captain (afterwards Sir) John Norris, president of Munster, and 

« Hamilton, Cal. ii. 519. 

* Lib. Hib. pt. ii. p. 4. This account differs somewhat from that given in The 
Government of Ireland and followed by Cox. 

' Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 35-49. 

^ The commission is dated 19 June, 1584. 

» Cox, Hib.-Anglic. i. 370 ; Cal. of Fiants, 4467, &c. Wallop was much opposed 
to this proclamation, being of opinion ' that for insample it were requisite to touch 
some few of the principals ; ' as it was, there would, he thought, be but little land 
escheat to the queen. State Papers, Wallop to Walsingham, 9 July 1584. 


the earl of Ormonde, he was engaged in taking order for the govern- 
ment of the province, when he was called away by disturbances in 
Ulster ; but he took precaution that all protectees and suspected 
persons should accompany him on his northern journey. There 
was, however, little reason to anticipate trouble in Munster. The 
people generally were pleased to see Perrot, * being glad of peace 
and weary of war,' and, as Sir William Stanley, at that time sheriff 
of the county of Cork, wrote, ' a man may now travel the whole 
country and none to molest him.' ^^ 

We must, however, leave Perrot to pursue his work elsewhere. 
Our interest now centres in the operations of the ' surveyors,' as 
they were called, though their duties did not extend to the measur- 
ing of land. The head of the commission, Sir Henry Wallop, one 
of the late lords justices, a vain and choleric but not incapable man, 
though well advanced in years, was already in Ireland ; but it was 
not until 24 July that Sir Valentine Browne arrived in Dublin from 
England.'^ This delay was further added to by the fact that when 
Browne did arrive the lord deputy had departed on his expedition 
into Munster. Not until 25 or 26 Aug. did the commissioners, 
Wallop, Browne, Alford, and Payton, set out for the scene of their 
labours. On 1 Sept. they commenced operations in Tipper ary, 
which, however, they were obliged to leave partially unsurveyed 
owing to the earl of Ormonde having seized a considerable portion 
of the escheated lands, which none of the inhabitants dared to 
point out to them.i^ From Tipperary they proceeded into Limerick. 
The soil they found to be universally good and fertile, but much 
wasted. Wallop was delighted to find there was so much of it 
forfeited by the rebellion, and wrote to protest against any proposal 
to restore the rebels to their lands. On the 18th they departed 
from Limerick across the mountains into Kerry, taking provisions 
sufficient to last them till they reached the Dingle ; for of the 
few inhabitants that survived 'the sword, justice, and famine,' 
none of them could be induced to lend them any assistance, but, 
on the contrary, did their utmost to boycott them. Kerry they 
found for the most part not so fertile as Limerick, nevertheless 
there was plenty of good arable land, and the bogs and mountains 
were sufficient to furnish pasture for any number of cattle — room, 
in fact, for more than twenty times the number of inhabitants there. 
Nor were they without their adventures. The weather was * extreme 
foul,' and the ways through the woods and across the mountains 
exceedingly wearisome and dangerous. Stout old Sir Valentine 
more than once was nearly overwhelmed in a bog, and had to be 
extracted by main force.'^ Camping out in the open fields, wet to the 
skin with rain and mists, and aggravated by the passive opposition 

'" Hamilton, Cal. ii. 528. " State Papers, Browne to Walsingham, 6 Aug. 

*2 Hamilton, Cal. ii. 541, iii. 276. '^ ^^^^^ Papers, Wallop to Walsingham, 16 Oct. 


of the few natives they met, it was Httle wonder that by the time 
they reached the Dingle several of their servants and Launcelot 
Alford were down with the fever and had to be left behind. From 
the Dingle they turned their steps northward, skirting the Shannon, 
and so back again into Limerick, where, at Askeaton, they rested 
for a brief season in order to refresh themselves before continuing 
their labours in Cork and Waterford. Notwithstanding the fact 
that Sir Valentine had twice narrowly escaped drowning, that his 
son had broken his arm, and that they had lost several horses, the 
commissioners, with the exception of Alford, were enjoying good 
health and very jubilant about the quantity of land they were 
finding for her majesty,^"* neither Wallop nor Browne being un- 
mindful of their own chance of plunder in their letters to Burghley 
and Walsingham, ' knowing there are many suitors at court for the 
best things here.' ^^ After spending some time in Cork ^^ they were 
on 28 Nov. driven home by stress of weather ; whereupon they 
directed their attention to the completion of the surveys they had 
made. The result of their labours was thus summed up by the 
lord president : — 

The commissioners find the country generally so wasted and dis- 
peopled in all parts, that small hope appeareth in many years to inhabit 
the same, and those also which remain very loosely disposed through the 
licentiousness of rebellion, whom of themselves being evil this late 
inquiry which they see made of their lands hath much worse affected ; 
nevertheless their weakness and last extremity is such that they are 
altogether unable to do any hurt however evil minds they bear.^^ 

One Burke had broken out of prison just before the commis- 
sioners returned, and with ' twenty other swords ' had taken to the 
woods of Aharlow ; but Norris hoped shortly to report his capture. 
During the latter portion of their inquisition the commissioners had 
been much annoyed by divers claims and titles made by the Irish to 
lands with intent, as it seemed to them, to defraud the queen, ' so 
that our care and service hath been chiefly to find the office to 
entitle the Queen.' ^^ But the difficulty thus noticed was not to 
be so easily overcome, and eventually proved one of the chief ob- 
stacles in the way of the plantation. 

The survey, roughly and imperfectly done, as Sir H. Wallop 
was obliged to admit, ^^ was not completed and in the hands of the 
government until October in the following year (1585). And until 
that was done the queen absolutely refused to dispose of any of the 

^* State Papers, Wallop to Burghley, 18 Oct. '^ jj^^ Wallop to Burghley, 17 Sept. 

'^ The presentments of the juries for the county and town of Cork on 4 and 7 Nov. 
respectively, together with the jurors' names, will be found amongst the Carew MSS. 
See Cal. ii. p. 385. 

'^ State Papers, Norris to Burghley, 20 Nov. >» lb. Payton to Burghley, '60 Nov. 

" lb. Wallop to Burghley, 11 Oct. 1585. 


escheated lands. ^^ In this way a whole year was wasted just when 
time was most valuable. And certainly Per rot was not without 
good excuse for the hasty words he is said to have uttered against 
the commissioners,^^ whom he regarded as utterly incompetent for 
the business. The difficulties they had to contend with were, indeed, 
very great, but the result unfortunately justified, as we shall have 
occasion to notice, Perrot's criticisms. 

The survey completed, however, no time was lost in formulating 
a * plot ' or plan for the plantation. In November 1585 Mr. Secre- 
tary Fenton was despatched into Ireland with a scheme for the 
peopling of Munster, which he was to submit to the lord deputy. 
The survey that had been made, he was to tell Perrot, was not 
sufficiently thorough, and he was therefore to ' appoint meet per- 
sons to survey the same, as near as might be, according to the plot 
aforesaid, with respect as well of the goodness as of the quantity of 
the ground.' ^^ Though unsatisfactory, the survey was sufficiently 
accurate to enable the government to form a pretty fair estimate of 
the lands at its disposal. And accordingly, in December, a * plot of 
her majesty's offers for the peopling of Munster ' was drawn up.^^ 
According to this plot, the escheated lands were to be divided into 
allotments of 12,000, 10,000, 8,000, 6,000, and 4,000 acres.^^ 
These allotments, or seignories, as they were subsequently called, 
were to be distributed amongst such English gentlemen or under- 
takers as were willing and able to plant in the following prescribed 
fashion : — 

. 1,600 

. 600 

. 4,200 
. 4,000 


The gentleman undertaker to have for his demesne 

One chief farmer to have 

Two good farmers each with 300 acres to have . 
Two other farmers each with 200 acres to have . 
Fourteen freeholders each with 300 acres to have 
Forty copyholders each with 100 acres to have 
Lands to be apportioned for mesne terms 

Total, 12,000 acres and 86 families. And so with the smaller 
allotments in proportion. 

About the same time a commission was issued to Sir Valentine 
Browne (who had come over to England with the surveys on account 
of ill-health) and certain other gentlemen to enter into negotiations 
with 'gentlemen disposed to repair to Ireland,' to whom they 
were to point out what a benefit it would be to the * younger houses 

^ Hamilton, Cal ii. 550. 

^' •His lordship,' complained Wallop, 'hath always seemed to make light of our 
travails, saying it would come to little or nothing, but now of late to discredit our 
service the more he hath often spoken it openly, that all we did was by a beggarly 
sergeant, and without him we could have done nothing.' — lb. iii. 48. 

'-=2 Desid. Cur. Hib. i. 72. 23 Hamilton, Cal. ii. 589. 

2* Desid. Cur. Hib. i. 61. 


of gentlemen ' to obtain land on such easy conditions as were set 
down in the plot, * and to have the manrode of so many families, 
and the disposing of so many good holdings,' being * a thing fit for 
gentlemen of good behaviour and credit, and not for any man of 
inferior calHng.' ^^ Dorsetshire, Somersetshire, Devonshire, Lanca- 
shire, and Cheshire seem to have been specially (but not exclusively, 
for there were undertakers from Essex, Hampshire, and Pembroke- 
shire as well) favoured by solicitations to take part in the great 
work of * regenerating ' Ireland.^^ Meetings were accordingly sum- 
moned by the chief gentlemen in these counties ; the benefits of 
the plantation propounded, explained, and discussed ; and the names 
of those willing to undertake transmitted to the privy council for 
consideration.^^ But as these names do not represent those who 
finally settled in Ireland, it is unnecessary here to direct attention 
to them. 

In speaking of the lands of Munster forfeited by the rebellion 
as * escheated ' I have followed the habit of the officials ; but, as a 
matter of fact, these lands had as yet not been legally passed to the 
crown. Acting upon his instructions, the lord deputy Perrot had 
on 26 April 1585 held a parliament at Dublin, which, so far as 
the upper house was concerned, was very numerously attended, 
though the commons were represented by only twenty-six cities 
and boroughs. Among the acts to be passed was one for the at- 
tainder of the late earl of Desmond and his accomplices in the 
rebellion. But owing to circumstances which it is unnecessary to 
mention in detail, but which were chiefly brought about by the 
factious opposition of Loftus, archbishop of Dublin, and an unfortu- 
nate proposal to turn St. Patrick's into a university, the session 
came to a close without anything having been effected in the matter. 
Shortly, however, after the reassembling of parliament on 28 April 
1586, the subject was introduced into the house of commons, when 
a curious scene occurred to which it is worth while to direct atten- 
tion. It is thus described to Lord Burghley in a letter by Wallop, 
who played a principal part in it, and who 

thought it not impertinent to inform his lordship that by reason of a 
feoffment showed in the parliament house, made by the late earl of 
Desmond, to the use of his son, with certain other remainders, bearing 
date 10 Sept. 1574, and his pardon in like manner showed and dated 
1 Oct. next following, the act for his attainder would hardly have passed 
the lower house without special proviso (which here we could not make) ^^ 
for the vahdity of the said feoffment, for that one John Fitz Edmund 

2* Desid. Cur. Hib. i. 57. 

2« Cox, Hib.-Anglic. i. 393, says that ' on 14 February letters were written to every 
county in England,' which may perhaps have been done, although I find no conclusive 
evidence that it was so. 

'^ Cf. Careio Cal. ii. 419, and Hamilton, Cal iii. 42. 

" Owing to the clause in Poynings's Act. 


Fitzgerald of Cloyne, then being of the parliament house and one of the 
feoffees (the other feoffees are the lord of Dunboyne and the lord Power) 
alleged the feoffment to have been made bond fide and without collusion, 
which drew most of the house to have great regard thereof until I pro- 
duced and showed forth in the house a combination of treason, dated 
18 July 1574, signed by Desmond himself, the lord of Lixnaw, Sir John 
of Desmond, the aforenamed John Fitz Edmund and many others, as by 
copy of the same, which herewith I send your lordship, may appear ; ^^ 
which combination I have long kept in store to meet with said feoffment 
and found the same in the earl's house of Askeaton, when it was first 
taken by Sir William Pelham in April 1580, the charge thereof being 
then committed to me and my band of footmen. This combination 
(bearing date before the feoffment, and the feoffee that spake therein 
being one of the conspirators) being read in the house, and he not able to 
deny his hand to be to it, presently caused the house to conceive very 
hardly of him, and also without further delay to pass the bill, which 
otherwise in respect of the feoffment aforesaid, I believe verily, they 
would not have done until another parliament. ^^ 

The arrangements for the plantation were, however, proceeding 
at snail's pace. It was now more than six months since Secretary 
Fenton had arrived with instructions to Sir John Perrot to appoint 
a new commission * to perfect the survey of the escheated lands ,^ 
and to compound with the intermixtors,' i.e. those freeholders not 
implicated in the rebellion who possessed lands ' which lie intermixed 
with the lands escheated to her majesty,' ^^ a piece of business, 
according to Fenton, extremely necessary to be completed before 
the arrival of the undertakers. And there was all the more need for 
haste in this respect, because on 27 June 1586 Elizabeth had given 
her consent to an amended ' plot ' for the peopling of Munster, in- 
corporated in the ' Articles for repeopling and inhabiting Munster. '^^ 
According to this new * plot ' the land was to be allotted in parcels, 
known as seignories, of 12,000, 8,000, 6,000, and 4,000 acres.^a In 
a seignory of 12,000 acres 

The gentleman undertaker was to have as demesne . . .2,100 

Six farmers each having 400 acres 2,400 

Six freeholders each having 300 acres 1,800 

Forty-two copyholders each having 100 acres .... 4,200 
Mesne properties to be held by 36 families at least . . . 1,600^ 

Total 12,000 acres and 91 families. And so proportionately for the 
smaller seignories. In comparing this * plot ' with the former ^'^ certain 
differences will be remarked. It will be noticed that while the num- 
ber of families to be planted (which was the main point) has increased 
from eighty-six to ninety-one, and while the demesne land of the 

'» The bond is printed in Morrin's Patent Bolls, p. 109. 

*» Hamilton, Cal. iii. 63. "» Desid. Cur. Hib. i. 72. t'HJrfB:!, 

^ Under date June 21. " Hamilton, Cal. iii. 61. »' Suprai p. 255.. 

VOL. III. — NO. X. S 


undertakers has grown from 1,600 acres to 2,100, the number of 
freeholders has decreased from fourteen to six. This alteration 
must have been intended for the benefit of the undertakers ; but 
whether there was not an ulterior design in it I am not prepared to 
say. In the ' Articles ' the queen consented to the division of the 
land into seignories, and agreed that they should be held in free 
socage at a yearly rent, commencing from Michaelmas 1590 (up to 
which time they were to be remitted), of 33L 6s. 8d, in Cork, 
Tipperary, and Waterford, 62Z. 10s. in Limerick, 751. in Conne- 
lough, and lOOZ. in Kerry and Desmond for every entire seignory 
of 12,000 acres. After Michaelmas 1593 these rents were to be 
doubled, and so to continue for ever. Her majesty was also pleased 
to allow that all bogs and wastes should not be reckoned as part 
of the rented grounds, though for every acre of such land as was 
reclaimed a rent of one halfpenny was to be taken. The free rents 
and services of such Irish freeholders as had lands within any of the 
allotted precincts were to be granted to the undertakers, always 
reserving to the crown such rents and services as were before paid 
by them over and above the rents to be reserved for the lands. 
Further, the undertakers were to have license to transport into 
any country, being in amity with England, corn or other victuals 
growing upon their lands without the payment of customs dues. 
It was, however, stipulated that no estate larger than 12,000 acres 
should be granted to any single undertaker, and that none of the 
undertakers should make any alienation of estate to the mere Irish. 
Moreover, the heads of every family were to be of English birth, 
and the heirs female were to marry with none but persons born of 
English parents under pain of forfeiting their estates. For the 
sake of mutual defence against the Irishry and invaders, each 
farmer and freeholder was to have in readiness one light horse 
with man and furniture, the principal undertakers each three 
horsemen and six footmen, and every copyholder furniture for one 
footman. For seven years (by which time the plantation might 
be considered as established) the planters were to be freed from 
service abroad and defended by garrisons at the charge of the crown. 
At their request they were to be allowed to plant in companies, so 
that the ties formed in England might not be severed in Ireland. 
And in order to decide any disputes arising amongst the planters 
commissioners were to be appointed, composed of the principal 
undertakers. Certain special regulations were added by which the 
lands in counties Limerick (except Connelough), Tipperary, and 
Waterford (except a small portion to be assigned to the undertakers 
in Cork) were allotted to Sir Christopher Hatton and the gentlemen 
of Cheshire and Lancashire. To Sir Walter Rawley and the 
gentlemen undertakers of Devonshire, Somersetshire, and Dorset- 
shire were allotted certain portions of land in county Cork, with so 


much land in Lisfinin and near thereunto adjoining in county- 
Water ford as should not exceed two entire seignories. To Sir 
Valentine Browne and those joined in society with him was assigned 
land in Kerry and Desmond ; while Connelough was to be reserved 
for Sir William Courtenay and his company .^^ 

So far the arrangements were complete, and a number of planters 
came over in the autumn, but were obliged to return to England 
as Sir Geoffrey Fenton predicted, owing to the fact that the com- 
mission for assigning lands to them had not then been appointed.^^ 
This defect was, of course, as Sir Valentine Browne represented to 
Lord Burghley, not only a great grievance and cause of complaint to 
the undertakers, but likely also, unless it was speedily remedied, to 
put a complete stop to the plantation.^^ Not until the end of August 
1586 was a commission * for dividing and bounding into seignories 
her majesty's attainted, escheated, and concealed lands within the 
province of Munster, and for the rating and apportioning of the 
rents to be reserved out of the same unto her highness,' issued to 
Sir Henry Wallop, Thomas Norris, Eoger Wilbraham, and others. 
Once appointed, however, the commissioners appear to have lost 
no time in beginning their work. On 21 Sept. they arrived at 
Dungarvan, where they spent eight days in surveying and meting 
out the lands assigned to Sir Christopher Hatton.^^ From Dun- 
garvan they proceeded to Lismore and thence to Youghal, where 
they spent eight more days in meting and bounding such lands as 
they understood were to be assigned to Sir W. Eawley. They had, 
however, not been long at work before they discovered the incom- 
pleteness and unsatisfactoriness of the former survey,^^ ' owing to 
the want of law skill, being defective in matter, as not declaring what 
offence the offenders committed — either treason or felony — or of what 
estates the offenders were seized, either for life or in fee, and such 
like blemishes.' ^^ Wherefore they * thought good to procure another 
new commission besides, to the persons named to be surveyors in 
England, to inquire of all attainted and forfeited lands.' And 
while the ' measurers ' were engaged in assigning and dividing the 
land into seignories. Solicitor-general Wilbraham and some of the 
commissioners were busy examining the titles of such as * pretended 
to or had any lands or titles intermixed or adjoining to her 
majesty's,' a course calculated, in their opinion, *to satisfy the 
world that no secret encroachments unduly to her majesty were 
intended, and that the undertakers might not be too manifestly 
deluded by obtaining other men's lands.' "^ Since the rebellion no 
attempt had been made to cultivate the land of Munster, which had 
become so overgrown with long rank grass, brambles, and furze, 

" Hamilton, Cal. iii. 84-9. •« lb. iii. 167. '" lb. in. 186. 

a' lb. iii. 168. «• Supra, p. 255. *» lb. iii. 216. 

*' Jb. iii. 216. 

8 2 


as seriously to impede the work of the surveyors. To add to their 
misfortunes the wet season and short wintry days came on before 
they had well begun their labours, and obliged a partial cessation. 
Accordingly in October, after measuring about 27,486 acres good" 
and bad, they * returned to Dublin, committing the further pro- 
ceedings in that service to Captain Thomas Norris, vice-president, 
Justice Jessua Smythes, Mr. James Golde, and Mr. Wiseman, and 
four measurers, viz. Eobins, Lawson, Whiteacre, and Jobson, to 
proceed further in the county of Cork, who accomplished their 
service so far forth as the short days and foul weather would 
permit them.' Towards the end of December, however, Mr. Wise- 
man with three of the measurers returned, leaving only Eobins 
to continue measuring and * drawing the ground into plots.' In 
this way about 63,000 acres were measured. About the middle of 
February 1587 Mr. Eobins was ordered * to leave off his plotting' 
and together with Jobson to * proceed in measuring only,' so as to 
get over more ground and enable the undertakers to settle as soon 
as possible, leaving the more perfect survey of the whole to be 
made at leisure."^^ 

All this delay, with loss of time and money, was by no means 
agreeable to the undertakers, who accordingly in January 1587 
presented a humble petition to her majesty praying that the work 
might be expedited ; that an additional year's exemption from rent 
might be given them ' through default of the advancement of the 
survey ; ' that there might be * restraint for transportation of any 
corn or other victual out of any part of Munster until Michaelmas 
twelvemonth, and that none might be allowed to buy corn sown in 
the ground within any part of Munster unless it were some of the 
undertakers.' ^^ To this their prayer the queen gave her consent, 
and on 28 Feb. 1587 the privy council informed the lord deputy 
that her majesty thought it good ' that a commission should be 
granted to the persons already appointed to be surveyors of the 
said lands, to cause the said survey to be prosecuted out of hand 
in a more speedy and superficial sort,' a course of proceeding which 
* they find may be done without hindrance either to her majesty or 
the undertakers, for that the chiefest of them have already by 
mutual accord between themselves agreed what special seignories 
or smaller parcels shall be allotted to each of them.' ^^ 

Accordingly on 26 April two commissions were issued for the 
purpose of expediting the passing of lands to the undertakers. 
The first to Eobert Gardner, Sir Henry Wallop, Sir Valentine 
Browne, Sir Eobert Dillon, Sir Lticas Dillon, and Jessua Smythes, 
requiring them 

to give order and warrant to our sergeant-at-law, our attorney and solicitor- 
general, or to any one of tliem, to draw and ingross into parchment several 
« Hamilton, Cal iii. 261. " lb. iii. 249. ** lb. iii. 272, 



books for the disposing of the manors, lordships, castles, lands, tenements, 
territories, and hereditaments, comprised in our letters patents for this 
purpose, bearing date 27 June, in the twenty-eighth year of our reign 
[1586], unto the several undertakers thereof according to our plot unto the 
same letters patents annexed, and under the form and to the effect of that 
whereof the draft is hereunto annexed ; which book and books so being 
ingrossed and signed with the hand of our said sergeant, attorney and 
solicitor-general, or of the one of them, and with the hands of any three 

or more of you, our said commissioners, shall from time to time be a 
sufficient warrant for and unto our chancellor or keeper of our great seal 
of Ireland for the passing of all and every such book and books under our 

, great seal of Ireland.''^ 

Eegarding the ' Draft ' *^ referred to in this commission, it is 
: sufficient to remark that it was based altogether on the articles of 
27 June 1586. At the same time (26 April) another commission 
was issued to Sir John Norris, Sir Henry Wallop, Sir Valentine 
Browne, Sir Edward Fyton, Sir George Bourchier, and Sir William 
Herbert and others for the hearing and ending of controversies 
between the undertakers. Such a commission was indeed very 
necessary, seeing that the undertakers were to be allowed to deter- 
mine amongst themselves what were to be their proper allotments. 
Already in the spring of 1587 several undertakers, and amongst 
them Sir W. Herbert, to whose energetic co-operation the govern- 
ment were largely indebted for whatever success attended the plan- 
tation, had begun to plant their lands, and in the beginning of June 
we are informed ' that for the western undertakers only there be 
already gone over above 200 persons and more upon passing as 
soon as the harvest approacheth.' "^^ The harvest proved to be a 
plentiful one, and everything conduced to encourage the under- 
takers to proceed with their work.'^® Unfortunately, the obstacles in 
the way of the plantation were as yet by no means overcome. The 
Irish, who during the stormy season that followed the suppression 
of the rebellion had sought shelter in the wild districts of Connaught, 
had gradually and stealthily made their way back again into 
Munster, and were, as Sir Henry Wallop remarked, busily engaged in 
* pretending titles ' to lands already in the possession of the crown. 
The government of Perrot had by no means been satisfactory to some 
in point of severity, and though, as was noted by Justice Smythes in 
1586, two or three hundred were annually executed in the province, 
there was a complaint that numerous pardons had been granted 
whereby the lands at the disposal of the crown had been greatly 
diminished. The cases of John Fitz Edmund, seneschal of Imokilly, 
and Patrick Condon, two large freeholders in the county of Cork, 
at this time incarcerated in Dublin Castle, attracted a considerable 
amount of attention. In April instructions were sent to the com- 

" HamUton, Cal. iii. 299. . "« lb. iii. 302-9. 

*' lb. iii. 367. *^ lb. iii. 405. 


missioners for assigning lands * to declare unto them her highness's 
good acceptation of their submission, and to offer unto them of her 
majesty's gift, to be holden of her in knight's service, the several 
quantities of their late possessions and lands,' on condition of pay- 
ing certain rents ; but if they, or either of them, should not hold 
themselves contented, they were to be deprived of their land, which 
was to be divided amongst the undertakers/^ By reason of this 
act of clemency it was calculated that of the lands allotted to the 
western undertakers sixteen entire seignories were claimed by the 
Irish, ' so that there was not left unto the western undertakers, 
free without claim, above three seignories except those allotted to 
Sir Walter Eawley.' ^" No doubt Sir Edward Fyton exaggerated 
somewhat when he declared that there was * a general claim laid to 
the lands of the undertakers,' but it is undeniable from the official 
despatches that there were grave apprehensions that the encourage- 
ment given to the Irish would eventually so cripple the plantation 
as to destroy all the good effects that had been expected to 
accrue from it for the government of Ireland generally. The lord 
deputy was accordingly instructed * to require such of the Irish as 
shall pretend any interest to the lands granted to the said under- 
takers to show good matter of record or writing to maintain their 
said pretended titles. -^^ On 11 Sept. Solicitor-general Wilbraham 
wrote to the lords commissioners for Munster causes that he and 
his fellow-commissioners had spent five weeks at Cork, Kilmallock, 
and Clonmel hearing the claims and titles of the Irish to lands^ 
and that very many bills and fair evidences had been shown 

whereby it appeareth the Irishry (especially by their feoffments to uses) 
have practised as many fraudulent shifts for preserving their lands from 
forfeiture as in England ; and albeit their evidence be fair and very law- 
like without exception, yet because fraud is secret and seldom found 
for her majesty by jury,^'^ we have put the undertakers for the most part 
in possession ; who dwelling but half a year upon the land shall have 
better intelligences to discover the false practices than the commissioners 
can possibly learn out. They plead their causes by lawyers, who almost 

" Hamilton, Cal iii. 310. 

*° lb. iii. 386. * Besides these parcels (i.e. those to which claim had been laid) 
and that which Sir W. Eawley hath, I cannot learn that there is so much as will 
make up three whole seignories in Cork, which is Mallow, assigned to Mr. Thomaa 
Norris half a seignory ; Kilcolman assigned to Andrew Keade, being the fourth part 
of a seignory; the great wood assigned to Hugh Cuffe, being now not a whole 
seignory ; and some parcels assigned to Arthur Hyde and some other parcels about 
Cork, assigned to George Eobinson.' — Petition of Attorney-General, Sir John Popham. 
16. iii. 449. 

»» lb. iii. 389. 

" In a letter to Lord Burghley Mr. Justice Smythes commented on the ' stubborn- 
ness of the jury (in Kerry), though several times instructed from the bench, gently 
admonished and persuaded by the space of two whole days, and imprisoned in 
Castlemaigne with grievous fines.' {lb. iii. 396.) 


all of them in those parts have purchased titles against her majesty, so as 
we have had much trouble to pacify and content them in some reasonable 
sort by persuasion of further hearing hereafter and full allowance of their 
good titles. "^^ 

Of this * further hearing ' something will be said presently. The 
general situation of affairs, however, was very far from satisfactory. 
A number of undertakers had come over in the autumn and were 
* importunate ' to have their patents passed.^'' 

But what with the undecided claims of the Irish,^^ the disputes 
of the undertakers themselves ^^ as to what constituted bog land 
and what arable land, and the want of a definite survey and proper 
system of allotments, the * commissioners for passing lands ' were 
hard pressed to accommodate the undertakers, who for the most 
part finding it impossible to obtain their grants returned to 
England, leaving their lands in the hands of agents with instruc- 
tions to make them as profitable a speculation as possible, which 
they endeavoured to do by leasing them out forthwith to Irishmen. 
Of Irish, we are informed, there were in the county of Limerick 
five times as many as there had been during the two preceding 
years, * so as within two years plenty more there will be little 
room for English ; for the Irish tenants will take farms with harder 
conditions than any English can or will ; and therefore the true 
performance of her majesty's articles and plot may be justly 
doubted.' ^^ On the other hand, the undertakers were not without 
some excuse for their neglect to fulfil the conditions of their grants. 
They had already suffered severely through the continued postpone- 
ment of the plantation, and now, after having been put to consider- 
able expense, it seemed as if they were after all, owing to the claims 
of the Irish, to be deprived of their promised share in the rich lands of 
Munster. The charges incurred by waiting on the commissioners* 
decision were so heavy that in March 1588 the attorney-general 
certified to the privy council that Sir John Stowell, Sir John 

^^ Hamilton, Cal. iii. 406. Cf. 412. ' No so good prevention as to persuade the 
undertakers in person to sit down amongst them with speed, so shall they kill the 
young ones in the nest before they have feathers to fly.' 

" The first grant I find recorded is that of Sir Edward Fyton to the barony, 
manor, castle, and borough town of Awney, with other lands and tenements in the 
counties of Limerick, Waterford, and Tipperary, dated 3 Sept. 1587 .—Calendar of 
Fiants, No. 5032. 

** Cf. Sir Edward Fyton to Walsingham, Hamilton, Cal. iii. 426. 

*** According to Wilbraham the undertakers were every whit as bad as the Irish 
in obstructing the plantation. ' None but complaineth that untenantable and unpro- 
fitable land is . measured unto them, and in every seignory some measured that is in 
controversy, yet undiscussed, so as when any deduction falleth out, as I am sure it 
will daily upon titles, then the measure of the rest is but conjectural and by estimate, 
80 that the proviso is in my opinion very necessary in every patent : besides, it cannot 
be but the Serjeants have given the measurers false bounders in many places to please 
their neighbour freeholders and conceal her majesty's rights.' — lb. iii. 405. 

" lb. iii. 405. . 


Clifton, John Poijham, Thomas Hannam, Edward Eogers, John 
Coles, John Cowper, Edward Hexte, John Eyves, Samuel Norton, 
Amice Banfield, Eoger Warre, Thomas Phillips, Michael Sidden- 
ham, George Popham, and Eoger Isham had been compelled to 
desist from the enterprise.^^ As for the others, they petitioned the 
queen that some order should be immediately given to determine 
the claims of the Irish one way or another, otherwise they protested 
* we the undertakers, foreseeing that many for lack of place to stay 
in for surety to ourselves must be driven to give over, whereb}^ the 
rest remaining will be so weak as they shall not be able to continue, 
shall be driven humbly to beseech her majesty that we may call 
home those people which we have there already.' -^^ 

Such* a disaster was of course to be avoided by every possible 
means, and on 5 March 1588 Elizabeth wrote to the lord deputy 
intimating that she intended (in answer to the above petition) to 
send Sir Edmund Anderson, chief justice of the common pleas, and 
some other person skilled in the law, to try the titles of those who 
laid claim to portions of the escheated lands.^^ Accordingly, on 
2 July, a commission was issued to Sir William Fitzwilliam (the 
new lord deputy), Sir Edmund Anderson, Eobert Gardner, Sir 
Henry Wallop, Sir Nicholas White, Sir Eobert Dillon, Sir Lucas 
Dillon, Thomas Gent, and Jessua Smythes, for examining and com- 
pounding all claims to the escheated lands in Munster.^^ The ap- 
pointment of the commission did much to remove the anxiety of the 
undertakers, and it was hoped that it would ' establish an universal 
quiet among the undertakers and those of that province.' "^^ The 
commissioners Anderson and Gent were expected to arrive from 
England in Munster about the beginning of August, and every pre- 
caution was taken by the lord deputy to have everything prepared 
so as to enable them to set instantly to work, by arranging the 
records of survey and by causing it to be published in every city 
and market-town in Munster that all who had ' any title of right 
to any of the said lands should prepare their bills and proofs of their 
matters against the time of the arrival of Chief-justice Anderson 
and Baron Gent.' ^^ On 22 Aug. Sir E. Anderson, Baron Gent, and 
Sir John Popham arrived at Waterford, and proceeded to Cork, where 
they were joined about the end of the month by the rest of the 
commissioners. The commission was opened at Cork on 3 Sept. 
The first case to be heard was that of Donough O'Grady, who claimed 
as his property the town and lands of Kilfiadmore, in the county 
of Limerick, on the ground of a grant made by James, earl of Des- 
mond, father to the late earl, on 3 Aug. 1557, to John O'Grady and 
his heirs, from whom it descended to the complainant as son and 
heir to the said John, but from which he had been partially dis- 

" Hamilton, Cal. iii. 508. '' lb. iii. 453. «" lb. iii. 497. 

«' lb. iii. 548. '^ lb. iii. 580. " lb. iv. 5. 


possessed by a Cheshire gentleman, Edmund Manwaring, whereas 
it had been proved, by virtue of an office taken at Kilmallock, that 
KQfiadmore formed no portion of the lands of the late earl in the 
barony of Fedamore. To this claim the commissioners answered, 

that her majesty was seized in her demesne as of fee in the right of her 
<;rown of Ireland, of the lands and tenements mentioned in the said bill 
of complaint (as by sundry records and remembrances in her majesty's 
courts of records at Dublin and elsewhere it appeareth), and that every 
matter set* forth in the said bill of complaint tending any way against her 
majesty's title to the premises or to impeach the same, was, on her 
majesty's behalf, denied to be true. And though the same were true, 
yet it was alleged that the same could not prejudice her majesty's title 
for matters which should appear to the commissioners, whereof con- 
sideration was prayed to be had on her majesty's behalf. Wherefore there 
was no further proceeding therein.^"* 

This was all the satisfaction that Donough O'Grady obtained. 
Eighty-one other claims were shown, and with only one exception 
they were all dismissed. Maurice Shighane, who claimed the lands 
of Dromebegge, half a ploughland, in county Limerick, which one 
John Day, lessee to Sir George Bourchier, had wrongfully entered, 
was allowed to sue his petition according to the commission.^^ Yet 
even this small boon was conferred on him, we are given to under- 
stand, not on the ground of the soundness of his claim, but as an 
acknowledgment for some service rendered by him to the govern- 
ment during the rebellion. Four years later Maurice Shighane 
complained to the privy council that Sir George Bourchier threatened 
to distrain him for the rent of his land, and he therefore prayed 
that he might be either restored to the possession of his land or dis- 
charged of the rent and have allowance for his building and plough- 
ing thereupon during his lease.^^ On the whole the decision of the 
commissioners was hardly likely to afford much satisfaction to the 
Irish, and there is little doubt that they regarded it as an attempt 
by hook and by crook to deprive them of their lands. ' I conjec- 
ture,' wrote Wilbraham to Lord Burghley, * the Irish are not yet 
satisfied ; they will have farther hearing, which if it be granted it 
were not the worst way and least charge to have the depositions 
taken here and the cause determined there in your sight.' ^^ They 
had had, according to Lord Eoche, * great expectations of justice, 
with favour and expedition at the hands of the commissioners,' yet 
to their sorrow they had found the success of their suits to proceed 
and fall out quite contrary, and without any redress or remedy, 
' were left entangled and subject to the suppressions and heavy hand 
of the undertakers without redress as before and every one discon- 
tented.' ^^ Nor were these ' suppressions ' of the undertakers a 

«* Hamilton, Cal. iv. 14. « jj, jy, 25. «« lb. iv. 489. 

" lb. iv. 51. «« 16. iv. 60. 




mere concoction of the Irish brain. Lord Eoche is perhaps not a 
very credible witness ; but no one can refuse to believe the testimony 
of Sir William Herbert, one of the very few undertakers who really 
tried to carry into execution the conditions of the plantation. ' Our 
pretence,' he wrote to Lord Burghley, * in the enterprise of planta- 
tion was to establish in these parts piety, justice, inhabitation and 
civility with comfort and good example to the parts adjacent. Our 
drift now is, being here possessed of land, to extort, make the state of 
thmgs turbulent, and live by prey and by pay.' ^^ * It might be well,' 
wrote Sir Thomas Norris, vice-president of Munster, to the privy 
council, * if your lordships let the undertakers know that it would 
be better for them to fashion themselves to live within compass of 
law, and to measure their actions by rule thereof as in England 
they have been accustomed.' ^^ There can indeed be no doubt that 
the slovenly manner in which the arrangements for the plantation 
had been executed and the absence of any effectual supervision had 
not only vitiated the whote scheme, but also led to much opi^res- 
sion of the Irish. Left practically to themselves the undertakers 
imagined that they could carry things as they liked. Their general 
neglect to fulfil the conditions of their grants led to the appoint- 
ment of a commission in May 1589 to examine into the proceed- 
ings of the undertakers ; to inquire how far the lands they held 
exceeded or fell short of the quantity allotted to them ; whether 
they had passed their patents ; what were the chargeable lands and 
chief rents within each particular ; what land had been assigned to • 
tenants ; how many Englishmen with their families had been j)lanted, 
and what was the nature and extent of each adventurer's stock.'''^ 
The commissioners commenced their inquiries in the autumn, and 
the result of their investigations, concluded about the beginning of 
October, throws considerable light on the state of the Munster plan- 
tation. A reference to the following table and map will give a general 
idea of the state of the plantation in and about the year 1589. 


of Estate 

Euglisli on 


Irish on Estate 

Date of Patent 

Sir William Courtenay . . 


No return 

No return 

23 Sep. 1591 

Capt. Francis Barkley . . 



80 families 

18 Oct. 1590 

Henry Ughtred .... 


12 tenants 

Divers remaining 
against his will 

6 Feb. 1593 

Robert Stroude .... 


No return 

No return 

6 Feb. 1593 

William Carter .... 


No return 

No return 

2 Mar. 1592 

William Trenchard . . . 


24 tenants 

Divers tenants 

26 Nov. 1587 

Robert CoUum 


No return 

No return 

18 Aug. 1595 

Sir Geo. Bourchier . . . 



60 households ; 
most part in con- 

2 Nov. 1588 

Capt. Geo. Thornton . . . 



Inhabited by 
Irish for the 
most part 

2 Nov. 1587 

«• Hamilton, Cal iv. 62. 

'« lb. iv. 112. 

" lb. iv. 169. 





of Estate 

English on 

Irish on Estate 

Date of Patent 

Henry Billingsley .... 


40 households 

Divers inhabiting 
against his will 

2 May 1688 

Edward Manwaring . . . 


6 families 

The most inha- 
bited with Irish 

24 Oct. 1588 

Eobert Annesley .... 


No return 

No return 

22 Oct. 1589 

Sir Edward Denny , , . 



The most inha- 
bited with Irish 

27 Sep. 1587 

Sir William Herbert . . . 



Above 100, but 
only as yearly 

6 Mar. 1589 

Charles Herbert .... 


some 50 

20 or thereabouts 

6 Mar. 1589 

Sir Valentine and Nicholas 


No return 

No return 

26 Oct. 1588 


Jenkin Conway .... 


No return 

No return 

6 Nov. 1592 



Eefused to 
on account 
of the exces- 
sive rent ; 
ly a grant 
was made of 
it to Patrick 
No return 

George Stone and John 


No return 

23 Feb. 1689 


Hugh Cuff e ^2 



None mentioned 

14 Nov. 1587 

Arthur Hyde 



60 families ; most 
part in contro- 

26 Jan. 1589 

Phane Beecher and Hugh 



Divers tenants 

30 Sep. 1688 

Worth ^3 

Arthur Eobyns 



20 families or 
about 100 people 

No date 

Sir Warham St. Leger and 



Chiefly inhabited 


Sir E. Grenville 


with Irish 

Edmund Spenser .... 


6 households 

None mentioned 

26 Oct. 1590 

Thomas Saye 


No return 

No return 

21 Apr. 1589 

Eichard Beacon .... 


No return 

No return 

28 Feb. 1591 

Sir Thomas Norreys . . . 


No return 

No return 


Eichard and Alex. Fytton . 



Possessed by 
Irish ; in contro- 

14 May 1588 

Justice Jessua Smythes^* . 




Mere Irish none ; 
but some of 
English race 


Alexander Clarke ^* . . . 


His English 
have depart- 
ed doubting 
the Earl of 

Sir Christopher Hatton . . 




18 June 1589 

Thos. Fleetwood and M. 



40 families and 

3 Sep. 1587 



Sir Walter Eawley ^^ . . . 


120, many 
with families 

50 families 

June 15892 

Sir Edward Fyton . . . 



Divers tenants 

3 Sep. 1587 

T. Butler, Earl of Ormonde 


No return 

No return 

26 Apr. 1591 

'2 The greater portion of these lands were restored in 1591, and a grant of 1,953 acres- 
in the same neighbourhood made to Cuffe. 
'' Worth sold his moiety to Sir E. Grenville. 

'* I doubt very much if Smythes and Clarke proceeded with their undertakings. 
" Sir Walter Eawley's grant (under queen's letter of last Feb. 1587) had originally- 




Bfap to iliiutEate ihe 

Scale of Miles. 

The plantation of Munster was now, so far as it was ever destined 
to be, an accomplished fact. The outlook was not very promising. 
A number of English gentlemen — government officials entirely — had 
superseded the old Irish landowners over a large portion of the pro- 
vince ; but beyond that little or nothing had been done to fulfil the 
promise and expectation of reducing Munster to civility and good 
government by peopling it with Englishmen. It is not my intention 
at present to enter upon the subsequent history of the plantation, 
nor of the effects upon it of the rebeUion of Hugh O'Neill ; but it 
was evident even in 1589 that the time was not far distant when 
the land would regain its old character. Viewed in the light of the 
* Articles ' and the hopes and expectations of those who formulated 
the scheme, the plantation was a decided failure, for which it is not 
difficult to discover the reason. The policy or impolicy of the 
scheme is, of course, open to dispute and not without considerable 
interest from a speculative point of view. But without entering upon 
this subject it is well to remember that the situation of Munster 
in 1584 furnished as favourable an opportunity for carrying the 
experiment into execution as could well be imagined. Unlike the 
case of Leix and Offaly, where an internecine conflict had to be 

amounted to 3^ seignories, or 42,000 acres (Cal. of Fiants 5046 and Morrin Chancery 
Bolls, pp. 323-7). But in June 1589 the queen, in a letter to the lord deputy and 
council, informed them that Sir John Perrofc (the late deputy) in making so large a 
grant to Sir Walter had misunderstood her intention, which was that no individual 
should be allowed to undertake for more than 12,000 acres. Wherefore, as Sir Walter 
had given his consent to the alteration, the old grant was to be recalled and a new one 
lor 12,000 acres to be made to him. {State Papers, vol. cxlv. No. 43.) 


waged between the colonists and native Irish before the former 
could establish themselves, here was a wide tract — more than half a 
million acres — of rich and well-wooded land practically uninhabited, 
which seemed to promise ample recompense to those who cared to 
settle there. Why then did the project fail ? Several reasons 
suggest themselves. First and most noticeable was the unfortunate 
delay that occurred between the suppression of the rebellion and 
the arrival of the undertakers, affording as it did time to the Irish 
to recover themselves and concentrate their opposition to the 
planters. To this may be added want of experience on the part of 
the Irish officials, imperfection of the surveys, and the absence of 
a definite and well-arranged plantation * plot.' Another reason, and 
one to which attention is generally directed, was the abnormal size 
of the allotments assigned to individual undertakers ; but a more 
fatal blunder even than this was the assignment of large seignories 
to men like Sir Christopher Hatton, who were unable to devote 
their attention to ths work of plantation. Equally disastrous in 
its results was the want of encouragement to the tenant farmers. 
It was all well enough to set down in the ' plot ' that each under- 
taker was to plant so many farmers in proportion to the size of his 
seignory ; but it was not at all likely that well-to-do English farmers 
and labourers would consent to abandon their situations at home 
and migrate into Ireland, even had their prospects there been 
much brighter than they were. This, indeed, was the weakest point 
in the whole scheme, and that which rendered it impossible for the 
undertakers to fulfil the conditions of their grants. Unable to obtain 
Englishmen, they were obliged to lease their farms to the Irish. 
Nor was Elizabeth herself wholly free from blame. Anxious to 
realise the time when the government of Munster should cease to 
press upon her, she neglected to fulfil her share in the engagement, 
and threw the defence of the province almost entirely on the under- 
takers. ' Some think,' wrote Spenser in 1598, *that the first plot 
by which the late undertakers of your majesty's lands here in 
Munster were planted was not well instituted nor grounded uj^on 
sound advisament and knowledge of the country; for that more 
care was therein taken for profit and utility than for strength and 
safety. For, indeed, what hope was there that a sort of husband- 
men trained up in peace, placed abroad in sundry places, dispersed 
as your land lay dispersed, should be able to maintain and defend 
themselves against a people newly recovered out of the relics of 
rebellion, and yet practising arms and warlike exercises ? ' ^^ All, 
or nearly all, that had been done was to establish a number of 
Englishmen as landlords in Munster ; yet the plantation was, as 
we know, not without its influence on the subsequent history of the 
province. E. Dunlop. 

^' State Papers, clxxxviii. No. 18. 

270 April 

The Claim of the House of Orleans 
to Milan 


IT is one thing to have a thing by might, another to hold that 
thing by right. The theory that might is right appears suffi- 
cient in the hour of conquest, yet it is but a slender basis for future 
government ; a Francesco Sforza, safely lodged in Milan, hedged 
round with troops, greeted as duke by the very citizens who had so 
long repulsed him, was none the less aware that men regarded him 
merely in the light of a successful usurper. Even in Milan there 
were many who regretted the loss of a legitimate dynasty ; there 
were those who looked to the king of Naples, the adopted heir 
of the late duke ; and there was a party anxious to proclaim 
the suzerainty of the emperor ; and a larger party still who 
placed their faith in Charles of Orleans, the legitimate descendant 
of the great Giangaleazzo. In the eyes of such men as these what 
claim had Captain Francesco Sforza, soi-disant duke of Milan? 
He was merely a successful soldier, the husband of the late duke's 
bastard daughter, unmentioned as heir to Milan in any testament 
or codicil, who by force and famine had succeeded in imposing him- 
self, as the alternative to starvation, upon the miserable Milanese. 
In the sight of the emperor, Francesco Sforza had compromised 
whatever shadow of right he might once have had by accepting from 
the illegal hand of the people the imperial gift of his duchy. 

Before the feudal law Francesco Sforza was merely a usurper, 
and a compromised usurper. To Orleans he appeared the repre- 
sentative of the illegitimate branch defrauding the legal heirs of 
their just claims. To Arragon, Sforza was the man who pockets 
treasure bequeathed expressly to another. The humiliation of this 
position is apparent. Yet Sforza, with much magnanimity, refused 
to ruin his subjects with taxes in order to buy the imperial investi- 
ture — a purchasable commodity, as his successors and his prede- 
cessors knew, and one which would have legalised his situation. At 
first, in the triumph of success, he appears to have enjoyed his 
illegal honours, his glory as a popular hero ; and he affirmed that 


he preferred to rest his claims upon the people's voice. On 
25 March 1450 they pronounced him duke of Milan. 

Sforza made a good ruler. Under him Milan ceased to be the 
prey of miserable dissensions and disorder, and the streets no 
longer rang with the cries of Guelf or Ghibelline. The soldier 
proved an excellent despot ; not harsh or selfish, as might have been 
expected from a man sprung from so little and taught in so rude a 
school. He governed the people for the good of the people, making 
his own gain but an accident of their advantage ; and that mag- 
nanimous and disastrous impulse which made him refuse to tax 
the poor in order to purchase his investiture is characteristic of the 

Yet even in Milan there were many ill content to thrive under 
the orderly government of this benevolent usurper. Many voices 
that famine had silenced soon began to whisper — Eepublicans, 
Orleanists, Guelfs, Ghibellines were alike jealous and ill at ease 
under the military dictatorship of Sforza. Another party in the 
city headed by the dowager -duchess still kept alive the preten- 
sions of Savoy, and he was able to write to Lucerne that on the 
whole the news from Milan was not bad, for the people were 
already beginning to dislike Francesco Sforza: and Madame de 
Milan proved herself an efficient supporter of Duke Louis. 

But if there was discontent in Milan, outside the walls the 
success of Sforza was regarded with unqualified hatred and desire 
for vengeance. Savoy wished no more than to oust him from his 
seat. France and Orleans and Arragon and Germany thought it 
sufficient for the present to brand him as usurper. But the hatred 
of the Venetians for the man who once had been their servant was 
of a deeper kind, and they did not shrink from plotting his murder. 
On 22 April 1450 they had already decreed his death, and by 
26 Aug. the plan was in full train. The council had heard through 
that gentleman and soldier, Ser Giacobo Antonio Marcello of 
Crema, that Vittore dei Scoraderi, the squire of Francesco, est 
contentus occidere Comitem. Francescum ; et sicut omnes intelligere 
possunt, mors illius comitis est salus et pax nostra et totius Italice, 
Nothing was to be sent in writing to this person which might com- 
promise the Venetian senate, but Marcello was instructed to offer 
him ample terms. Further injunctions were despatched on 2 Sept., 
and early in December we hear again of a candidate, una persona 
intelligente et discreta, not a Venetian subject, who promised to 
despatch Count Francesco with aliqua venenosa rnateries.^ To this 
intelligent assistant the council recommended the use of certain 
little round pellets which, thrown upon the fire, exhale a most 
sweet and delectable odour ; but before they were despatched for 
experiment on so illustrious a subject a secret trial was to be given 

' See the documents in Lamansky, Secrets d'Etat de Venise, 161, 14, &o. 


them in Venice on the person of a prisoner condemned to death for 
larceny. In May 1451 the council added three other persons to 
the conspiracy, and by June the proffered reward had grown to 
the extravagant sum of 5,000 ducats, with a yearly revenue of 
1,000 ducats in addition, and liberty to recall four exiles. In 
return for so much munificence it is expected that Count Francesco 
' shall by your industry be despatched before the end of October.' 
But in August an extension of leave was granted until December. 
Then the messages became frequent ; and it is easy to divine that 
the noble person who is to despatch the count is none other than 
Innocentio Cotta, a man of one of the great Guelf houses of Milan, 
who, despite his blue blood, was the most ardent champion of 
popular rights, and who is familiar to the readers of Corio's 
history as the head and front of that little group of iiohili audacis- 
simiy who in 1459, unbroken by famine and long misery, spurred 
the people of Milan on to resist the arms of Sforza, and plundered 
the party of the Ghibellines for money to furnish troops to defend 
the city. The success of Count Francesco had added ruin to the 
chagrin and hatred of this man, and one of the conditions that 
Cotta demanded of the Venetians was that he should regain quelle 
forteze, terre e possessioni mie chio godetJa al tempo de la felice 
memoria del duca passato. To this man, even as to the council, it 
appeared that the death of Count Francesco could only be useful 
and fertile in good ( practica non potest esse nisi iitilis et fructuosa, 
quum ex ea mdlum damnum sequi potest) , and with the sentiments 
less of an assassin than of a lofty classic tyrannicide — a character 
ever dear to the Italians — Innocentio Cotta received, in his Brescian 
exile, the little round and perfumed pellets of poison. 

No less than eighteen times between the August of 1448 and the 
December of 1453 did the Venetian council instigate their assistant 
to the deed. Poisons were despatched to him and apparently 
administered. But the venom of the Venetians was more odious 
than fatal. Their poisons, sublimated from an irrational medley 
of volatile substances, had no regular chemical action, and the 
receipts of them which remain exhibit an incoherent confusion of 
mercury, sal-volatile, copperas, cantharides, burned yeast, salts of 
nitre and arsenic, from which, after the endless simmerings and 
powderings of their preparation, the most deadly qualities had 
evaporated, and which left (according to the analysis of Professor 
Boutlerow) a comparatively harmless combination of ammoniacal 

The sedative prescription made no perceptible effect upon the 
iron constitution of the soi-disant duke of Milan. He probably 
remained in total ignorance of the poison so frequently admi- 
nistered in the unbroken Venice glasses ; but he could not remain 
equally unaware of the distaste and suspicion which environed 


him, and he grew to desire some superior show of legality. The 
troops and bread, with which he had convinced the Milanese, were 
admirable agents, but they could not do everything. Francesco 
Sforza had six young sons, and in his heart there increased 
that invincible longing to found a dynasty which has overcome so 
many conquerors. Somewhere in the Archives, he began to think, 
in some unfound testament or neglected codicil, there must be surely 
some mention of his wife, the late duke's only child. With posses- 
sion already in its favour, the slightest mention in the old duke's 
will would serve to legalise the dynasty of Sforza. But nowhere 
in will or codicil was there any last reversion in favour of Madonna 
Bianca. The searchers only brought to light the testament of 
Giangaleazzo, which bequeathed Milan, failing direct male heirs, 
to the sons of his daughter Valentine. 

Still, if Francesco Sforza could not legalise his own succession, 
he could at least secure himself against the raising of better-founded 
claims. On 19 Feb. 1452^ Count Francesco wrote to Andriano 
Oliari of Pavia (the Oliari were a family of notaries to whom for 
generations the Archives of Milan were entrusted) commanding 
him to come at once to Milan and to bring with him to the palace 
the original will of Giangaleazzo Visconti, 

for pie explained], because of certain matters which fall out at present, 
it is necessary that we see the testament made by the illustrious quondam 
duke the first. . . . Thou must come to-morrow, Sunday, the twentieth of 
the present month, here, to our presence, and bring with thee the said 
original will. . . . And we advise thee, that for the viewing of the said 
will we will deal with thee according as thou wouldst. 

Oliari and his father before him had been servants of the legal 
dukes. Something in the tone of Sforza's letter, its awkward 
mingling of the menace and the bribe, gave pause to the faithful 
notary. He had no mind to render up so sacred a deposit to the 
tender mercies of this blunt old soldier, who was wholly with- 
out the dignity of the legitimate tyrants. Oliari wrote back and 
said that he believed a copy of the original will would be found 
to answer every purpose. 

The so-called duke of Milan was irate, and despatched a curt 
letter to the suspicious and insubordinate lawyer, and by the same 
messenger he sent a line to the castellan of Pavia, informing him 
that Oliari had not come, and bidding him despatch the notary at 
once, con dicto testamento et non cum la copia. But neither the duke 
nor the constable of the castle could induce Oliari to go back from 
his decision. ' I really cannot come,' he replied to Sforza on 
24 Feb., ' for I have neither money nor horses.' Now Pavia is not so 

2 Ghinzone, in the Archivio Storico Lomhardo, Anno ix, Fasc. 2, 1882, quotes the 
original documents from the Milanese Archives, Keg. Miss. N. 12, foglio 40. The 
letters are all of the greatest interest. 

VOL. III. — NO. X. T 


long a journey from Milan, but that, to serve a sovereign, a man might 
borrow his neighbour's hackney. The same day, the 24th, the duke 
replied in anger, both to Oliari and to the castellan, that he could 
not conceive why it should be so difficult to come at the said testa- 
ment. * And forasmuch as you hold dear our favour, and under 
pain of rebellion, you must be here with us to-morrow with the 
said will, for if you dost not come we will make you repent it.' 
Oliari dared not hold out against so ominous a command. He 
made in secret five copies of the precious document, and then we 
may suppose that he took the original to Sforza, for no more 
letters require it from his custody. Thus the original will of Gian- 
galeazzo Visconti was destroyed. 

But while Sforza was stooping to a crime in order to protect 
himself against the rivalry of Orleans, as a fact that pretender 
was less dangerous than he had been before. However good his 
claim might be, his inefficiency was a terrible counterpoise. 
When,^ at the new year of 1454, Alfonso the Magnanimous wrote 
to Venice requesting the government to continue their relations 
with Orleans, the Venetians replied that Orleans was too far off 
and too unready. They were as desirous as Arragon to get rid of 
the usurper. A month before they strove to enlist Arragon in 
favour of their novel candidate, they had written to Savoy,* 
asking Duke Louis to join with them in requesting the dauphin of 
France to invade Italy and suppress Francesco Sforza. They 
proposed that the dauphin should conquer the Ticinese and Pia- 
cenza for himself, and the duchy of Milan for the duke of Orleans. 
In case the duke was not minded to go to this expense and danger 
for a cousin's sake, the Venetians let it be understood that any 
French prince would be agreeable to them upon the throne of 


The house of Orleans had no more dangerous enemy than the 
royal house of France. Matters had greatly changed since, im- 
mediately after the liberation of Orleans, Charles VII had seconded 
his claim to the Milanese. The reduction to insignificance of the 
great feudal houses in general, and particularly the reduction of 
Orleans, was now the policy of the French crown; and at that 
moment the policy of the already inscrutable dauphin appears to 
have been the conquest of a kingdom which should comprise the 
Dauphiny, the Ticinese, Asti, the Piacentine angle of the Emilia, 
and the entire stretch of Liguria. To the restless contriver of a 
plan so bold the claims of Sforza and of Orleans came equally 
amiss; and, in secret, the chief enemy of either credulous pre- 
tender was the dauphin. 

3 Keg. 20, fol. 1. Secreta del Senato, MS. 3 Jan. 1454. 
^ Eeg. 19, fol. 232. Secreta del Senato, MS. 11 Dec. 1453. 


Sforza, however, had httle to fear from Orleans, and less from 
the French. In fact, in King Charles he found at this difficult 
period his ablest friend. The records of the Archives of Milan, 
from the year 1452 until the death of King Charles, abound in 
friendly letters, and are evidence of the cordial relations existing 
not only between the duke of Milan and the king of France, but 
between the house of Sforza and the royal governor of Asti. In 
1459 the king besought Francesco to ask the hand of the little 
Princess Marie d' Orleans for his only son ; but we may presume 
that Orleans would not consent to so much recognition of the 
usurper, for the negotiation came to nothing. Yet with the court 
of France Francesco continued on terms of affectionate friendship- 
and mutual respect. 

Even the dauphin, clever as he was, could not contrive to 
annul this arrangement. Circumstances, it must be admitted^ 
were against him. Savoy became friendly with France; Alfonso 
of Arragon died ; the states of Italy placidly accepted the success 
of Sforza ; and in 1456 his own disgrace at home sent the rest- 
less dauphin, a discomfited fugitive, to bite his nails in exile and 
mortification at the court of Philip of Burgundy. There, in 1461, 
he heard the news of his father's death ; and the enemy of Sforza 
ascended the throne of France. 

The law of historic necessity required that, having once assumed 
the uneasy crown of Louis XI, the dauphin should renounce his 
ambition of a North Italian state ; that he should abandon his 
early visions and his early friends, and adopt for his counsellors 
the men who once had ruined him, the counsellors of his father. 
Henceforth he must bend the whole strength of his spirit to the 
furthering of that policy which he had so long, and at so great a 
sacrifice, resisted and attempted to destroy. The first months after 
the accession of Louis XI were months of disgrace and retribution, 
months of volcanic upheaval. But gradually, and indeed very 
soon, it became clear that a king is not merely an individual ; and 
the most personal of individuals, Louis XI, became the acquiescent 
successor to his father's policy. 

The interests of the time required that France should renounce 
all ambitions foreign to herself in order to consolidate herself ; that 
she should sacrifice the south in order to insure the north ; that 
she should also sacrifice the aristocracy to the people ; and Louis XI 
who, as a prince, had paid so dear for his adherence to the rights 
of the nobles, became the monarch who more than any other was 
governed by men of low and base condition — who more than any 
other oppressed and resisted the pride of feudalism. Those who had 
been his friends became his enemies ; those likewise who had beeii 
his enemies became his friends. Francesco Sforza, from whom he 
had been so eager to take his duchy, became the one man alive 



whom he admh-ed and respected. Yes, this successful captain 
of adventure, who for years had prevented him in Milan, in Naples, 
and in Genoa, who had so long been a stumbling-block in the path 
of the dauphin, became almost at once the corner-stone of the policy 
of the king. Like Catherine de' Medici, like Eodrigo Borgia, 
like most unscrupulous rulers, there was something oddly magnani- 
mous in the moral indifference of Louis XI. Sforza never suffered 
for his enmity of yore. The new king of France was a being as 
destitute of rancour as devoid of gratitude. 

With Savoy, Orleans, Dunois, and Anjou the new king was 
ill-disposed to treat. He had learned the secret of their intrigues 
and their ambitions. On 10 May 1463 he wrote to Sforza that 
he was content to come to an understanding with Milan, if Milan 
would utterly disavow Savoy. This conspirator, versed since boy- 
hood in all the dismal ins and outs of treachery, was too well 
aware of the tricks of his confederates. It still might be possible 
that his enemies were honest. They at least were the only people 
he could trust ; and more than any other he confided in Francesco 
Sforza. In December 1463 he made to the de facto duke of Milan 
the astounding cession of the French claim to Genoa.^ He also 
arranged for the cession of Savona, which belonged, de jure, not to 
the king but to Orleans. Negotiations were even begun for yielding 
Asti to Francesco Sforza ; but the inhabitants declared that they 
would stand by the house of Orleans. 

At first the cousins of the king could not believe that he had 
actually abandoned them — he who had begun his career as the pupil 
of Dunois, and had suffered so long as the champion of the nobles. 
So late as 10 Oct. 1465 the descendants of Valentine Visconti sent 
a very secret embassy to Venice ^ to propose to the Ten a league 
between their government and the duke of Orleans, the count of 
Angouleme, and the duke of Brittany, for the purpose of ousting the 
usurpjr. Count Francesco, and delivering the duchy of Milan to 
Charles of Orleans. This league, which could not be confirmed by 
the pope, a political adversary, might, it was suggested, be headed 
by the king of France. Probably the Venetians were better in- 
formed as to the real intentions of Louis XI. Certainly they 
knew that it was too late or too early to dream of dislodging the 
Sforzas from Milan. They replied that they loved the house of 
France, but that peace also was dear to them : they begged to 
be excused from attacking Count Francesco. 

After this for many years the house of Orleans ceased to struggle. 
Before the year was out Charles of Orleans was dead, and the 
French pretender to the crown of Milan was only an infant, three 
years old. Before the child was six Dunois was also dead — 
Dunois who had not suffered the children of his adoptive mother to 

^ Dumont, iii. ccxxviii. " Secreta del Senato, MS. Beg. 21, folio 21. 


be cheated of their inheritance in Asti — would, had he Hved, have 
instructed his nephew in the details of his claim to Milan. But 
Louis II of Orleans, born in his father's seventy-second year, was 
naturally doomed to lose in infancy his father's contemporaries. 
As the child grew up every link was severed that might have bound 
him to the past, and he Tinew little or nothing of the pretensions of 
his house. His mother, who had a romantic worship for the 
memory of Valentine Visconti, related to her son many a legend 
of the quasi-royal power which during the last century his ancestors 
possessed. But that supremacy seemed at an end for ever. In 
France, in Italy, the star of Orleans suffered a long eclipse. By 
his own experience in rebellion Louis XI was aware how dangerous 
to the crown and how disastrous to the kingdom was the power 
of the great feudal houses. Alen9on and Armagnac and many 
another he diminished by confiscation and captivity ; Dunois, 
Bourbon, Saint -Valiier, Sancerre, he attached to the crown by royal 
marriages. Kinship in subjection, independence in imprisonment : 
these were the two alternatives presented by the king to the nobles 
of France. Among the most unfortunate of those who accepted 
the former gift was the young Louis d'Orleans. Louis XI had 
decided that with this young man the house of Orleans should 
end ; and when its representative was eleven years of age, the king 
married him to Jeanne of France, a gentle girl hunchbacked, 
incapable of offspring, and so ugly that when she was brought to 
court for her wedding the king himself exclaimed : Je ne la croyais 
pas si laide. To this bride the young duke was married in 1473. 
* They will have no expense with a nursery,' wrote the malicious 
king to Dammartin : Us rCauraient gueres a besoigner et nourrir les 
enfants qui viendraient du dit mariage : mais toutefois seferoit-il. 

Meanwhile the six sons of Sforza had grown to manhood ; and 
the eldest ruled in Milan, accepted, by the mere fact of his un- 
challenged succession, as the lawful inheritor of his father's duchy. 


When Louis II of Orleans had reached the age of twenty he was 
the best archer, the most dexterous horseman, the most adroit and 
brilliant man-at-arms about the court of France. He was handsome, 
fond of the arts, and well instructed. He had an engaging manner, 
gentle, gracious, and benign. A brave and eager cavalier, he was 
ready for adventures ; but a strong hand kept him down, a hand 
whose cruel restraint was never lifted from that audacious brow. 
Suddenly the pressure ceased : the hand was gone ; on 30 Aug. 1483, 
king Louis died. 

He was succeeded by a child of fourteen, an ugly, ignorant 
youth who had grown up neglected in the castle at Amboise, far 
from the court, alone with his gentle forsaken mother, Charlotte 


of Savoy, who had taught him the only thing she knew, the plots 
of innumerable romances of chivalry. For Louis XI, partly afraid 
of injuring the delicate constitution of his only heir, and partly 
remembering his own dangerous and rebellious childhood, denied 
any solid education to his son. He never saw the boy, leaving him 
for years at a time to grow up as best he might alone with his 
mother at Amboise. ' Let the body grow strong first,' said the 
king; ' the mind will look to itself.' And, according to tradition, 
the sole food that he provided for the eager mind of his son was 
one single Latin maxim : Qui nescit dissimulare nescit regnare. 
This was all the Latin that was taught to Charles VIII, and on this 
solitary morsel of classic attainment he was never known to act. 
Louis XI, for all his subtlety, had forgotten that by simply with- 
holding one sort of education you cannot insure vacuity. The 
child at Amboise knew nothing of history, nothing of geography, 
nothing of the classics. But his mind was stuffed with the deeds 
of Eoland and Ogier, and the beauty of La belle dame sans merci. 
Suddenly one summer day, unwonted messengers knocked at the 
gates of Amboise ; they fetched the child away to see an old, mis- 
shapen, suspicious man, whom he did not know — who was his father. 
The next day Charles VIII was king of France under the regency 
of his married sister, Anne de Bourbon. Madame Anne inherited 
her father's dislike and distrust of Orleans ; but her sister was 
his wife and adored him, and her brother, the king, admired him. 
She did her best to repress Orleans in France ; but her hand, 
though firm, had not the solidity of her father's. Orleans grew 
and expanded. 

Just at this moment Venice was in sore distress. Almost every 
power in Italy was against her, and she turned for help to France. 
On 16 Jan. 1484, she sent Antonio Loredan to Charles VIII, com- 
plaining of the aggressions of Naples, Milan, and Ferrara, and 
desiring a resumption of the Franco- Venetian league of Louis XI. 
That league had been a very tame and passive piece of policy ; the 
Venetians hoped a bolder favour from a younger king. Loredan 
was bidden to insist upon the suggestion that the kingdom of Naples, 
occupied by Ferdinand of Arragon, belonged in fact to France."^ 
' Nor content with that,' run the instructions of the senate, ' this 
king it was who instigated Lodovico Sforza to the usurpation of 
Milan.' Lodovico il Moro,^ the fourth son of Count Francesco 
Sforza, had, as a matter of fact, usurped the position of his nephew 
in 1481, and, though nominally regent, conducted himself as duke 

' MSS. Secrcta del Senato, Eeg. 31, fol. 123, tergo. 

•* Many reasons have been given for the assumption of this surname. As a fact it 
appears to have been a baptismal name. In Feb. 1401 Bianca Maria Sforza sent to 
the shrine of the Santo at Padua the silver image of a child, ex voto for the recovery 
of her fourth son, Ludovicus Maurus, films quartus masculus, aged five years. 
{^Archivio Storico Lombardo, Anno xiii ; Caffi on B. M. Sforza.) 


of Milan. But this intrusion was not the seizure which now the 
Venetians meant to blame. They wished to suggest, as the lawful 
claimant, not the young son of Galeazzo Sforza, but the duke of 

Express to the duke of Orleans in secret our desire for his exalta- 
tion [run the instructions given to Loredan], and explain to him how 
good is the opportunity for him to recover the duchy of Milan, which 
belongs to him by right ; and how his claim would be favoured by the 
differences and dissidences at present existing between ourselves and 
Milan, as also by the discontent of the Milanese with their tyrants. 
Inform the duke that Lodovico Sforza aspires to seize the sovereignty 
for himself, amid the murmurs of his people, and that he will certainly 
massacre all who uphold the claim of the Duchess Bona. Inflame and 
^excite as best you can the duke of Orleans to pursue this enterprise . . . 
and if the French should choose to make good their claim to Naples as 
against the tyrant Ferdinand, they could not find a better time than 

This is the programme of the great invasions of 1494 and 1500 ; 
but the times were not yet ripe. On 4 Feb. the Ten despatched a 
second missive to the duke of Orleans,^^ instigating him to the 
speedy conquest of Milan, and offering him the entire Venetian 
army for this service. The young duke appears to have taken 
these proposals very seriously, and the project created some dis- 
turbance and quarrelling at court. But the Venetians were in- 
capable of any sustained policy in foreign affairs ; to serve Venice 
in the way that at the moment appeared most advantageous was 
their only aim, and thus their attitude was one of constant unrest. 
In August they made peace with Naples and Milan, and sent word 
to Orleans that they were glad to hear that all disunion was at an 
end between him and the king. The same thing had happened in 
Italy. Peace had set in under the happiest auspices, and a 
fraternal affection united the king of Naples and the regent of 
Milan with the Venetian senate. 

So ended the project for a French succession. Louis of Orleans, 
thwarted of his foreign ambition, strove for greatness at home, and 
contested the regency with Anne of Bourbon. The civil war, the 
flight into Brittany, the pretensions of Louis to the hand of his 
beautiful cousin (the heiress to that duchy), the defeat of the 
Orleanist troops at Saint- Aubin on 28 July, 1488, and the three 
years' captivity of the duke, are matters of common knowledge. 
But as Charles VIII grew out of the tutelage of his sister, more 
and more he grew to favour his imprisoned cousin. There was 
little to fear from him now that the king was a major, and Anne of 
Brittany the queen of France. In 1491 the duke was released; 
-and when in 1494 Charles at the head of his troops invaded Italy, 

9 Eeg. 31, fol. 131, tergo. '» Keg. 32, fol. 87. 


Louis of Orleans preceded him across the mountains, chief in com- 
mand, master of the fleet, destined to drive the Neapolitans from 
Genoa, and thence to lead the fleet of France into the port of Naples. 


The invasion of Italy by Charles VIII appeared, even to contem- 
poraries, a miracle. The young king, ill advised, without generals, 
without money, with the impromptu army of a moment's whim, 
traversed hostile Italy as glorious as Charlemagne. With the events 
of that romantic campaign we have no business at this moment, 
for, notwithstanding his commission to lead the fleet to Naples, the 
duke of Orleans did not go south of Lombardy. While Orleans 
was gaining the battle of Eapallo, suddenly the king arrived at Asti. 
It was 9 Sept., a malarious season. Across the wide plain, the 
marshy fields of Lombardy, Orleans galloped, fresh from victory, to 
a council with the king. He had scarcely arrived at Asti when 
Charles fell ill of the small-pox. The attack was slight, and within 
a fortnight he recovered. But the very day the king began to mend, 
Orleans sickened of a quartan ague, and when his cousin was well 
again and ready, on 6 Oct., to set out for Naples, Orleans was still 
unfit to take the road. He sent his company south with the royal 
troops, and with a handful of squires and servants remained behind 
in his hereditary county of Asti, among the subjects who had loved 
his father, and who had served himself, far-off, unseen, through 
years of peril and intrigue, with as devoted and chivalrous a spirit 
of loyalty as ever the highlanders of Jacobite Scotland dedicated to 
an absent Stuart. 

Sforza and Orleans were now the nearest neighbours, bound to 
each other by their interest in the king. Fate has seldom brought 
about a more ironic complication. When Lodovico Sforza, out of 
revenge and anger towards King Ferdinand, had revived the French 
claim to Naples, and had instigated Charles to enter Italy, he had 
not foreseen the accident that left the duke of Orleans within a 
league or two of Milan. Charles VIII entered Italy as the friend 
and guest of Lodovico il Moro, the regent of Milan. To the external 
and uninitiated world the French claim to the duchy appeared 
about as actual as the claim of the English kings to France. Lodo- 
vico il Moro, familiar with the France of Louis XI, knew that the 
claims of Orleans were not likely to be countenanced by the throne. 

The present is never clear to us. Its Archives, its Secreta, are 
not given over to our perusal. Lodovico il Moro was probably 
uninstructed in that secret policy of the Venetian senate which, in 
1483, had so strongly urged the half-forgotten rights of Orleans. 
But we, familiar with those silent manuscripts, are not surprised 
to find that no sooner had the king gone south than Venice and 
Florence began to interfere with Orleans. The very day the king , 


left Asti," a secret messenger from Piero de' Medici entered the 
city. His errand was to Orleans. In their desire to stop the pro- 
gress of Charles VIII, and in their hatred of Lodovico who had 
invoked the stranger, the Itahan princes proposed to offer Milan 
to the French in place of Naples. Orleans himself suggested, 
unknown to his chivalrous young cousin, that the king would be 
satisfied if Ferdinand would pay him homage for Naples, and, 
besides a war indemnity, a yearly pension such as the kings of 
France pay to England. For himself, and as a just fine on Lodo- 
vico, he intimated that the duchy of Milan might be divided 
between the houses of Orleans and Sforza. But as time went on, 
and the arms of France were everywhere successful, he grew 
bolder in his demands, and ' Milan for the heir of the Visconti ' was 
his cry. 

But Charles, ignorant of the intrigues of Orleans and Florence, 
of Venice and of Sforza (who also for his private ends wished the 
king to keep this side the Apennines), crossed the southern range 
as he had crossed the Alps, and by the new year he was in Kome. 
Then, afraid of the French success, the Italians began to draw back 
from their conspiracy with Orleans. They had wished the French 
to take Milan instead of Naples, but Milan as well as Naples was 
too much. 


When the French had entered Italy, Orleans had had no legal 
rival to his claim, unless, indeed, the emperor be called his rival. 
To the people of Lombardy, oppressed by taxes, hating their tyrant, 
he appeared as the rightful heir, the last of the Visconti. Bound 
the history of a past not yet remote there had grown a mist 
through which all things appeared of vague, heroic, and mysterious 
proportions, of which the King Arthur, the legendary glory, was the 
first duke — * Saint Giangaleazzo,' as one of the brothers at Pavia 
called him in the presence of Commines. ' This saint of yours,' 
cried the amused historian, * was a great and wicked, though most 
honourable, tyrant.' 'That may be,' said the brother; 'we call 
him saint because he did good to our order.' 

This was also the feeling of the Milanese, for whom Giangaleazzo 
had invented security and peace, for whom he had conquered im- 
mense possessions. They forgot his sins, his crimes, and the first 
duk^ became the hero of the place. To be the last descendant of 
this man seemed in itself a claim to inherit his possessions, to sit 
in his place, to expel the usurper. While this was their feeling, in 
October the usurper died. 

Giangaleazzo Sforza, duke of Milan, a youth of five-and-twenty, 
kept in prison by his uncle, the regent Lodovico, died no less 

'^ The messenger left Florence 3 Oct. 1494. See for further details of these 
schemes the first vol. of Desjardins' N4g. dip. dans la Toscane. 


suspiciously than the little princes in the Tower. He left behind 
him a son four years old, his legitimate successor. But, with 
ominous prevision, a year before this time, Lodovico the regent had 
negotiated with the emperor to obtain the reversion of the duchy. 
He had admitted that his father, his brother, his nephew were no 
more than illegal usurpers : moreover they had prejudiced the rights 
of the empire by receiving their titles only from the people. Thus 
the infant son of Giangaleazzo was the son, not merely of a usurper, 
but of a man who had forfeited whatever rights he originally had. 
Conceding this, Lodovico besought the emperor, of his free grace 
and bounty, to bestow the duchy on himself and his descendants, 
even as once before an emperor had bestowed Milan upon a man 
who had no legal claim — namely, on Giangaleazzo Visconti. Maxi- 
milian consented, and on 5 Sept. 1494 the imperial letters of pro- 
mise ^^ were despatched from Antwerp, letters for which the regent 
paid the sum of 100,000 ducats. 

This document, kept in the deepest privacy, can have arrived 
in Milan but a few days before Giangaleazzo died. Every one 
believed that the young man had died of poison. It was a piteous 
thing. But the son of the murdered man was only four years old ; 
and the French were in Lombardy — the guests of Lodovico. ' To be 
short,' says Commines, ' Lodovico had himself declared duke of 
Milan, and that, as I think, was his only end in bringing us across 
the mountains.' Terrorised by the presence of the French, the 
people hailed the regent as their duke, * and crying Duca ! Duca I ' 
(wrote Corio), ' and having robed him in the ducal mantle, they set 
him on horseback, and he rode to the temple, the men of his faction 
proclaiming him the while, and they set the joy-bells ringing, while 
all this time the dead body of Giangaleazzo was lying still unburied 
in the great cathedral.' 

Conscious of the secret diploma in his pocket, Lodovico could 
enjoy the pleasure of this ceremony with a feeling of security. Yet 
his crown did not sit quite smoothly on his brows. Orleans in 
Asti was assuming an intolerable air of patronage. And behind 
that thin row of partisans shouting with their hired voices, 
* Duca ! Duca I ' there was a sullen, silent crowd. Those, and the 
rest of Italy, believed that Lodovico had poisoned the father in 
order to usurp the inheritance of the child, Francesco. Of the three 
pretenders, by far the most popular was the unconscious infant, 
who bore the beloved and redoubtable name of his grandfather, the 

** The copy is to be found in Corio, 457-9. I do not know where to find the original 
document, but MSS. copies, evidently from the archives of Pavia, are to be found 
among the British Museum documents. Additional MSS., 30, 675. Giovio mentions a 
report that after the death of Francesco Sfovza II, Count Massimiliano Sforza found 
the deed and restored it to the emperor. Lodovico il Moro ever insisted that he 
received Milan, not by succession, but direct from the emperor. He called himself the 
fourth, and not the seventh, duke. 


great condottiere. ' Nearly all the Milanese,' wrote Commines, 
* would have revolted to the king had he only followed Trivulzio's 
advice and set up the arms of the child-duke.' But Charles refused 
to injure the claims of his cousin of Orleans. 

Meanwhile the relations between the French and Lodovico 
were growing difficult and strained. The presence of Orleans in 
Asti, the miraculous success of Charles, inspired the duke of Milan 
with the bitterest regret that ever he had called his allies across 
the mountains. He had used them as a weapon, and now their 
use had passed. When, on 27 Feb. 1495, he heard the news that 
the French had entered Naples, he simulated every sign of joy. But 
while the bells were still ringing in the steeples, he drew aside the 
Venetian envoy. ' I have had bad news,' he whispered. ' Naples 
is lost. Let us form a league against the common enemy.' 

This was in the end of February. During the next month 
there was much secret business in the diplomatic world. Ever 
since the entry of the French into Eome the great powers had 
looked unkindly on the triumph of Charles VIII. The emperor 
beheld with dismay the alliance of Ghibelline Milan and the 
Ghibelline Colonna with the king of France. The pope believed 
with reason that France, the Colonna, and the Savelli might 
depose a pontiff so unpopular as Alexander VI. Ferdinand and 
Isabella declared that the intention of Charles was nothing less 
than to make himself the king of Italy and then proceed to con- 
quer Spain. So likely did it seem that this ungainly, limping, ill- 
instructed youth might justify the name he had assumed — Carolus 
OctavuSf Secundus Magnus, 

At Venice in the dead of the night the secret council used to 
meet. There, with the Venetian senate, the ambassadors of 
Germany, Castile and Arragon, and Milan conferred together. 
They were negotiating a league to expel the French from Italy. 
On 31 March, while Charles was still shut in the Neapolitan trap, 
the quintuple alliance was proclaimed. The last name among the 
allies was the name of the man who had called Charles into Italy, 
now given for the first time among his equals his new dignity of 
duke of Milan. Lodovico hastened to legalise this official recogni- 
tion. In May the imperial privilege, formally promised in the 
preceding autumn, arrived at Milan. In presence of the imperial 
envoys the privilege was read aloud at Lodovico' s solemn corona- 


Lodovico had sprung a disagreeable surprise upon the duke of 
Orleans, for his title, derived directly from Maximilian, was now 
as good as that of Giangaleazzo Visconti himself. To conquer 
Milan by arms, to force the emperor into revoking the privilege of 


1495, to induce him to grant a new one confirming the Visconti 
succession — this was the only course that remained to Orleans. 

Secret as the council had been at Venice, it had not escaped 
the notice of Commines, who wrote in March to Orleans bidding 
him look to the walls of Asti, and sent a messenger to Bourbon in 
France bidding him despatch a reinforcement to the scanty force 
of Orleans. The young duke at Asti was not sorry to receive the 
message. He had now been six months in Lombardy; he had 
done nothing ; and he was eager to come to battle with Lodovico. 
To all the French, by this time, II Moro appeared a traitor and 
a secret poisoner. To Louis of Orleans he appeared all this and 
also the usurper of his inheritance. 

Great were the pomp and beauty of Milan in the year 1495, 
humbled as yet by no centuries of foreign servitude, ruined by no 
battles and untouched by time. Wonderful in the fresh whiteness 
of its stately cathedral ; delicate with the unblurred beauty of the 
new frescoes by Lionardo ; rich with statuary, broken now and lost 
for ever ; gay with the clear fine moulding of its rose-red palaces, 
Milan in the rich plain was a fountain of wealth to its possessor. 
When Orleans beheld this earthly paradise of the renaissance, his 
claim to Milan, which had been at first but a shadowy pretension, 
took certainty and substance in his mind. And as the attention 
of the young man was drawn to his Visconti ancestors, and to the 
marriage of his grandfather with the daughter of the duke of Milan, 
he and his counsellors began to reconstruct the half- forgotten title 
that he had to Milan. 

No one was very clear as to the point. The ducal secretaries 
found themselves compelled to suppose, to invent. Nicole Gilles, 
the chief of them, declared that Filippo Maria Visconti had married 
Madame Bonne, daughter of King John of France (a lady who, had 
she existed, would have been a good forty years older than her 
husband), by whom he had two girls, Valentine, who married the 
duke of Orleans, and Bonne, who married the lord of Mont Auban 
in Brittany. Besides these he had a bastard child, Bianca Maria, 
the wife of Sforza. 

This is perhaps the clearest of these singular genealogies pour 
Tire. Louis was glad to escape from their confusion and bewilder- 
ment to the plain issues of the field of battle. There seemed a good 
chance for him. Lodovico was so hated by his subjects ^^ that they 
would welcome almost any change. Almost at the same moment 
that Piacenza offered herself to King Charles if he would under- 
take to support the child Francesco, the cities of Milan, Pavia, and 
Novara were secretly practising with Orleans, and Commines 
declares he would have been received in Milan with greater re- 
joicings than in his town of Blois. 

" Era molto odiato dai popoli a cagione dei denari. — Marin Sanuto, i. p. 176. 


On 17 April Lodovico il Moro insolently summoned Orleans to 
quit Asti and cross the Alps again with all his men. Thanks to 
the warning of Commines, Orleans already had fortified the town. 

This place [he replied ^'^] and its dependent castles are a part of my 
inheritance, and to put them in other hands, and to go away and leave 
my own possessions, is a thing that I never meant to do. Tell your 
master [he added to the messenger] that he will find me ready for 
combat, either waiting for him here or going forth to meet him on the 
field of battle. I have received a commission from the king, and it is my 
intention to fulfil it. 

Unfortunately, the real commission that Orleans had received from 
his cousin was to keep quiet and on no account to break the peace (for 
the league was defensive, and did not menace the royal troops if 
they retired without offence) until Charles and his diminished army 
had arrived at Asti. They would be in imminent peril if any rash 
act of Orleans should let loose upon them, amid the bewildering 
passes of the mountains, the eager concourse of their vigilant 
enemies. But Orleans did not remember this. He was burning 
for personal conflict with his rival, indignant at his treachery, and 
persuaded that he could easily secure the whole of Lombardy to 
France. Thrice in April he wrote to Bourbon entreating succour. 
* Only send me the reinforcements at once, and I think I shall do 
the king a service that men will talk of many a year.' The 
forces came ; and Orleans saw himself the master of 5,000 foot, 
100 archers, 1,300 men-at-arms or thereabouts, and two fine pieces 
of artillery.^^ He was aware that Lodovico Sforza was so out-at- 
elbows that he could not pay his army. He knew the discontent 
of Lombardy. He felt himself so much older and wiser than the 
king that he found it hard to obey his commands. His secret 
practice with the nobles of the Lombard cities informed him that 
all was ripe for a sudden stroke. On the last night of May, in the 
safety of the dark, twenty men-at-arms under Jean de Louvain 
rode out from Asti across the Lombard plain, until at daybreak on 
1 June they reached the gate of San Stefano at Novara. The gate 
was opened to them by the factors of the Opicini, two nobles of the 
place ; the citizens ran out to meet the French ; the handful of 
Sforzesco troops within the town barred themselves in the citadel. 
By 13 June, Orleans, with the flower of his army, occupied Novara. 
No sooner was he there than, first Pavia, then Milan, offered to 
receive him. He ought to have gone at once, before the armies of 
his enemies could encircle him in Novara. But his whole soul was 

'* For this letter, and for the letters of Orleans to Bourbon, quoted from the 
Library of St. Petersburg, vide vol. ii. of Cherrier's Histoire de Charles VIII, p. 184 
et seq. 

'5 This is the Venetian estimate. Guiociardini says, 300 lances, 3,000 Swiss, and 
3,000 Gascons. 


invaded by a deep distrust of the Italians. It seemed safer to 
temporise until the royal troops came up. Long before these could 
possibly arrive, on 22 June, the Venetians protected Milan with 
1,000 Grecian stradiots, 2,000 foot, 1,000 cuirassiers.^^ It was 
now impossible to take Milan, which a little boldness might easily 
have gained. It was impossible even to evacuate Novara. And 
when, after many difficulties heroically overcome, the little army 
of Charles arrived in Asti on 27 July, sorely in need of rest and 
of refreshment, a new and arduous task awaited it ; for Orleans 
and his soldiers were perishing of hunger in besieged Novara. 


Commines has set dramatically before us the division between 
the army and the council of the king. He himself warmly espoused 
the cause of the army, which frankly declared a battle impossible 
against such overwhelming odds : unless reinforcements arrived 
from Switzerland, Orleans must be released by composition from 
Novara. But the council insisted on an immediate engagement. 
The soldiers commonly said that Orleans had promised Bri9onnet 
an income of 10,000 crowns for his son, if Milan should still be 
gained and the siege of Novara raised. The Swiss did not come ; 
the army was too small. In September there began to be a serious . 
talk of peace. On the 26th of that month, Orleans and his army 
were released by composition from Novara. Over 2,000 of them 
had died of hunger, and many fell by the roadside from sheer weak- 
ness and died there as they lay. Commines found fifty of them 
dying in a garden, and saved their lives by a timely mess of pottage. 
But those who lived to reach the camp perished of the dangerous 
abundance. More than three hundred of their wasted corpses were 
cast upon the dunghills of Yercelli. 

This was a heavy price to pay for one man's disobedient ambi- 
tion. All the harder did it seem to buy nothing with so great 
expense. There were many who were still unwilling for peace. 
Orleans had endeared himself to his troops by his conduct during 
the hunger of Novara, where he had fared and fasted like any 
common man-at-arms, setting aside the ducal mess for the use of 
the sick in hospital. His mess-fellows were wilhng still to die for 
him. By an ironic turn of fate, on the very day on which the army 
evacuated Novara, 20,000 Swiss came to the relief of the king. 
With such a reinforcement as this, cried Orleans, Ligny, d'Amboise 
and their men, Charles might not only conquer Milan, but make 
himself master of the whole of Italy. But the negotiations for 
peace already were begun ; Novara was lost ; the French soldiers 
were few and much enfeebled ; and it was rumoured that the 

" This is the Venetian estimate. For the figures of Giovio and Corio, see Cherrier, 
ii. 197. 


Swiss meant no less than to capture King Charles with all his 
nobles, carry them off into the impregnable fastness of the Alps,, 
and then exact a fabulous ransom for their liberty. 

The king thought it best to dismiss at once these dangerous 
allies, and take his homesick soldiers back to France. On 10 Oct. 
peace was concluded. The king promised — on condition that Lodo- 
vico Sforza renounced all claim to Asti, made no obstacle to the 
relief of the French in Naples, and paid to Orleans a war indemnity 
of 50,000 ducats — not to sustain his cousin's right to Milan. Orleans 
was enraged and disappointed. In secret he negotiated for the 
support of the Swiss captains, and with these and with 800 of his 
men-at-arms he meant to march from Vercelli upon Milan. But 
the night before he was to leave, when all was ready, suddenly he 
demanded the consent of the king. Charles refused to sanction 
this breach of the peace, and bade his cousin join the army in march- 
ing back to France. By 7 Nov. Orleans, none the richer for all his 
endeavours, was with the king at Lyons. 

A little more than a year after this the king would gladly have- 
sent his cousin of Orleans to conquer Milan : it was the duke who 
made excuses and would not go. For soon after the French 
returned to France, the dauphin died. Charles, who had inherited 
that terrible distrust of his own children from which he had 
suffered in his father, did not greatly mourn, or so at least Com- 
mines assures us. But if the quickness of a little child of three — 
his own son — had given him concern, much more did he dread his 
new heir, the duke of Orleans. The queen, bewailing the loss of 
her child, had fallen into a lamentable melancholy, and Charles, 
with an absurd idea of cheering the poor mother, ordered a masque 
of gentlemen to dance before her. Orleans was among them, and 
he danced to such purpose, with such lightness of heart and heel, 
such buoyancy and gladness, that the sorrowing queen was seriously 
offended ; and Charles himself determined, if possible, to send hia 
cheerful heir a little further from the throne. 

An opportunity soon offered. Florence, faithful against all 
the world ^o France, sent to the king at Amboise, asking him to 
come and uproot the Sforza out of Milan. She offered to furnish 
800 men-at-arms and 5,000 footmen at her own cost. The cardinal 
of St. Peter in VincuHs, the Orsini, Bentivoglio of Bologna, Este 
of Ferrara, Gonzaga of Mantua, all had promised to hire their 
forces to the king. Genoa was to be conquered by Trivulzio while 
Orleans marched on Milan. The plan of campaign was settled, 
the troops were all drawn up, Trivulzio had already entered Italy 
with 6,000 infantry and 800 men-at-arms, when, on the very night 
of his departure, Orleans suddenly abandoned his post. On his 
own private quarrel, he declared, he could not and he would not 
go; as the king's lieutenant, and at his express command, he 


was ready to depart — not otherwise. ' I would never force him to 
the wars against his will,' exclaimed Charles, and, though for 
many days the Florentine ambassadors besought him to exercise 
the authority of the throne, he refused to interfere with Orleans. 

* Thus was the voyage dashed,' relates Commines, ' spite of great 
charges and all our friends in a readiness. And this was done to 
the king's great grief, for Milan being once won, Naples would have 
yielded of itself.' 

What, then, had happened to change the mind of Orleans — 
Orleans, disobedient at Novara, and disobedient again to-day for 
so opposite a reason? * He shunned this enterprise,' continues our 
historian, ' because he saw the king ill-disposed of his body, whose 
heir he should be if he died.' ' He would not go,' relates 
Guicciardini, * for he saw that the king was ill, and to himself 
belonged the succession of the crown.' 

Just a year after this, on the morning of Palm Sunday (8 April 
1498), Louis of Orleans, fallen into a sort of undetermined half- 
disgrace, was standing at a window in his house at Blois, when he 
saw in the street some soldiers of the royal guard, running quickly. 

* God save the king ! ' they cried ; ' Vive le roi Louis XII ! ' This 
was the first King Louis heard of the sudden death of his cousin. 
The day before, Charles VIII had fallen down, suddenly stricken to 
death, as he and his wife were watching a game of tennis from the 

gallery at Amboise. 


The French claimant to Milan was now the king of France. 
From this moment the pretensions of Orleans became a factor in 
European history. The plans of the first duke of Milan went so 
grievously astray, that, instead of France and Germany each 
holding the other in check, for half a century their armies occupied 
the soil of Lombardy, nor, when they withdrew, was the land left 
at peace, but, baffled and paralysed, the helpless prey of Spain. 

This Iliad is too important to be contained within the slender 
limits of an article. We can but briefly indicate the events which 
developed and then extinguished the right of the French to Milan. 
Conquered, in 1499, by Louis XII of France, Lombardy remained 
for five-and- twenty years an intermittent province of that kingdom, 
continually revolting, continually reconquered. During this time 
several privileges and investitures, extracted from the emperor, 
confirmed the victories of France, and annulled the claims of 
Lodovico Sforza. These investitures are worthy of at least our 
brief consideration, since, from the moment of their bestowal, the 
French claim to Milan, already emphasised by the rights of heredity, 
testamentary bequest, and contract, received the final sanction of 
the feudal law. 

The first of these imperial investitures was bestowed on King 


Louis XII by the hand of Maximilian on 7 April 1505.'^ It 
secured the duchy of Milan {non obstante prior e investitura illustri 
Ludovico Sfortia prius exhihita) to the king of France and to his 
sons ; or, in default of males, to his daughter Claude. At this 
time, through the influence of Queen Anne, Claude was most 
unnaturally betrothed to the permanent enemy of her country, the 
future Charles V, and in this document he is mentioned as her 
husband and coheir — a fact he did not allow to slip. But fortu- 
nately the heiress of Brittany, Orleans, and Milan, was not allowed 
to marry the great rival of France. On 14 June 1509, a second 
investiture confirmed the inheritance of Claude, and associated 
with her therein her future husband, Francis of Angouleme, her 
cousin, equally with herself the offspring of Valentine and Orleans.'* 
This imperial document explicitly admits the right of feminine suc- 
cession to a Lombard fief,'^ for Claude, it affirms, is the heiress to 
Milan through her father, the grandson of Madame Valentine. But 
it says nothing of the descent of Francis of Angouleme, although 
it provides that if Claude should die in childhood, and the king 
have no other children born to take her place, then Francis of 
Angouleme shall be recognised as in his own right duke of Milan 
because he is the heir of the king of France. 

These are the rights of Francis I to Milan, rights absolute and 
impregnable. But it was only by continual conquest that the 
French could keep their hold upon the Milanese. For the ten- 
dencies of ages go to show us that there is a natural right more 
potent than the claims of blood, succession, testament, adoption, 
or investiture. The French dukes of Milan were, in their own 
dominions, foreigners. And, as the wise Commines foresaw — 

There is no great seniorie but in the end the dominion thereof remaineth 
to the natural countrymen. And this appeareth by the realm of France, 
a great part whereof the Englishmen possessed the space of four hundred 
years, and yet now hold they nothing therein but Calais and two little 
castles, the defence whereof costeth them yearly a great sum of money. 
And the selfsame appeareth also by the realm of Naples and the isle of 
Sicily and the other provinces possessed by the French, where now is na 
memorial of their being there, save only their ancestors' graves. 

It was the fatal battle of Pavia which really lost her Italian 

lependencies to France. The treaty of Madrid, extorted by compul- 

don, which proved so powerless to restore to the emperor Burgundy 

^(already become an integral part of France), resigned to him for 

jver the dominions of the French in Italy ; not, however, without a 

'' Luenig, sectio ii. classis i. : De Ducatu Mediolanesi, xliv. 

'* See in Luenig, 14 June 1509, No. xlv., and also, with some unimportant variations 
text, Bib. Nat. Paris, MS. 2950, Ancien Fonds Frangais. 

'9 PrcBfatus rex ex ducihus Mediolani originem trahit, medio illustris quondam 
'domince Vdlentince avice suce, filice qiumdam illustris Johannis Galeatii Mediolani 

VOL. III. — NO. X. XJ 


struggle. No sooner was Francis released from Madrid than he 
declared that extorted contract void. He despatched protest after 
protest ^^ to all the courts in Europe ; but what availed to retain 
his hold on Cognac, proved vain to regain him the Milanese. 

Immediately after the battle of Pavia, Charles V had invested 
Francesco Sforza II, the son of II Moro, with the duchy of his 
fathers. But what should happen on the death of Francesco Sforza, 
a childless man ? Foreseeing this event, the hopes of the king of 
France were not extinguished ; and the ten years between 1530 
and 1540 are filled with the various endeavours, menaces, persua- 
sions, by which he strove to obtain from the emperor the duchy of 
Milan for the second son of France. Since it was evidently im- 
possible to induce Charles V to let Milan be an adjunct to the 
French crown, the ambition of the king persevered upon a lower 
level, and a French duke of Milan became the sum of his desires. 
At two different moments the realisation of this scheme appeared 
possible. In 1535, after the death of Francesco Sforza II, negotia- 
tions were set on foot to obtain the Milanese for Orleans. A docu- 
ment still existing in the National Library at Paris ^^ proves how 
lively and how sanguine at this moment was the hope of Francis I 
to recover Milan. The king offered a promise never to unite this 
duchy to the crown of France, and declared himself ready to expend 
an immense sum on its investiture. But the Venetians, ^^ aware of 
the danger to themselves which a great French state must create 
in Italy, temporised and manoeuvred so well that the matter came 
to nothing ; for Charles V was in a humour to credit their asser- 
tions, that any time was better than time present. The affairs of 
Italy were dull and dead to him. All his energies were fixed upon 
the idea of the crusade against Algiers. It was proposed that 
Orleans should join him in this enterprise,^^ and that, hand to hand 
in this holy fight, emperor and prince might consent to forget the 
bitter memory of bygone days. But in 1536 the eldest son of 
Francis died, and Orleans became the dauphin of France. The 
schemes, the policy which during several years had endeavoured to 
secure for the husband of Catherine de' Medici an Italian princi- 
pality, collapsed before that unexpected stroke of fate. Orleans 
was not to be the head of an Italian kingdom reaching from the 
Alps to Kome, and in 1540 Charles V invested his own son, Philip 
of Spain, with the duchy of Milan. Yet France could not acquiesce 

2» See, for example, Protestations de Francois 1", Bib. Nat. MS. 2846. 

'^* Bib. Nat. MS. 2846, no. 57 : Instruction hailUe au Seigneur cV Espercieu apris 
la mart du du^ de Milan, Sforce, dx. 

^ Ibid : ' Les Vinitiens ont praticqu4 bien avant cette nmttUrc et laissent, ce 
semble, le diet Sieur de Granvelle entendre qu'ils parlcnt autrement que le roy, par 
aventure, ne pense ; Vambassadeur parle assez publiquement de diviser le diet estat 
en plusieurs pieces. 

^ Ibid. 


in this alienation of her transalpine inheritance, and in 1544 the 
disastrous treaty of Crepy provided that, in two years from that 
date, either Milan or the Netherlands should be bestowed upon the 
third son of Francis, Charles of Orleans. But before the time of 
the engagement had expired Charles of Orleans was dead, and Milan 
fast in the grasp of the Spaniards. 

A. Mary F. Kobinson. 


292 April 

Notes and Documents 


Among the Homerica minora no question has been more discussed 
than the origin and the locaHty of the Phseacians. Eratosthenes 
declared that Homer himself neither knew nor cared to know, and 
that the whole was a poetical dream with no local habitation. Such 
an idea, however, is rather modern ^ in its conception, for it is 
certainly alien to the habits of thought among the ancient poets to 
construct a long story purely out of details existing in geography 
unknown to their auditors. Curtius, again, sees in Phaeacia a poetic 
picture of the contemporary Ionia, through which runs a gentle vein 
of poetic sarcasm and humour. Nitzsch, again, would see in the 
land of Phseacia the landscape of the neighbouring ' low-lying Italy,' 
but such an idea is at once purely subjective, and is at variance 
altogether with the known range of the landscape of the poet. Italy 
in the true sense is beyond his horizon. The extraordinary simi- 
larity, extending to the minutest question of detail, between Phoenicia^ 
and Phaeacia has often been dwelt on, but in late years has rather 
receded from contemporary criticism. We believe, however, that an 
exact study of the poems on one line of argument hitherto left un- 
touched will rather tend to confirm this hypothesis. What accounts, 
then, are given in the * Odyssey ' about the ethnography of the Phaea- 
cians, and how far does that harmonise with the last results of 
oriental research on the Phoenicians ? 

In * Odyssey,' vi. 4, Athene goes to the land of the Phaeacians, 
* who dwelt in wide Hyperie, near to the Cyclops, who harried them 
continually. Thence did the godlike Nausithous, the son of Posei- 
don and Periboia, carry them to Scherie, far off from them that 
live by bread.' (Cf. ' Od.' vii. 55.) Pausanias ^ noted the curious fact 
that in Homer the giants are not those of the later mythology, and 
that to the author of the poems the gigantomachia is unknown, 
and that to him the giants are purely human in their origin. 

Of the Phoenicians Herodotus (i. 1, vii. 87), from the evidence he 
had himself collected in Tyre, declared that they came from the Eed 
Sea, i.e. Persian Gulf. Later authorities, such as Justin (xviii. 3) 

» Wordsworth, Greece, p. 356, ed. 1868. 

' Hayman, Odyssey, i. App. G. 2. Mure, Gr. L, i. App. E. » 8, 29. 


;and Strabo (xvi. 3), asserted the same, and appealed to the similarity 
of the nomenclature of towns in the Gulf and on the Phoenician sea- 
board. Movers, indeed, called this in question, and Heeren ^ would 
reverse the process, and would regard the cities in the Persian Gulf 
as colonies from the Phoenician mother country; but Professor 
Sayce ^ and most modern orientalists are now agreed on the substan- 
tial accuracy of the Herodotean account. The younger Lenormant ^ 
even ventures to trace the route of the Phoenician migration from 
the shores of the Persian Gulf, along the line of oases still used by 
the caravans of the Haj in returning from Medina to Damascus, 
till the final arrival in the land afterwards known as Phoenicia. The 
date of the migration from the Tigro-Euphrates basin can even be 
assigned^ with a fair appearance of approximate accuracy to 2300 b.c, 
from the convulsions caused among the tribes of the Persian Gulf 
by the irruption of the Aryans into Babylonia and Chaldaea. 

Now with this the Homeric account will be found to present the 
most perfect harmony if we consider the Hyperie of the poems to 
be the highlands of Aram as opposed to the lowland of Canaan, and 
the giants to be the Eephaim or Emim, whom the immigrants would 
dislodge before they reached the seaboard, but with whom they 
must have been long at feud, and with whom they may have con- 
tracted intermarriages ('Odyssey,' vii. 55). Thus the Phoenician 
origin of the Homeric Phseacians would be used to confirm in the 
most striking manner the truth of the Herodotean account. 

Of course the adoption of such an hypothesis has nothing to do 
with the view that, even to the mind of the poet, Scherie was Corfu. 
Doubtless later traditions, as Thucydides, iii. 70, made this identifi- 
cation, and Odysseus, in the poems, does seem (unless this be a 
later rechauffe of the older version) to place Scherie off the coast of 
Thesprotia, but Dr. Jebb ^ has rightly called attention to the fact 
that the poet never speaks of the island but always of the land of the 
Phseacians. But, indeed, the conditions under which it is natural 
to conceive the poet as working would certainly explain all this, 
gathering materials for his work from all sides and giving them a 
Greek setting, so that whether the harbour of Scherie, as described 
by the poet (vi. 263), be like that of Tyre (Merry, ad loc) or like that 
of Corfu (as Hayman) is not to the point. Indeed this very habit 
may satisfactorily explain the apparent confusion by which we find 
attributed to the easy and pleasure-loving Phaeacians the incon- 
gruous detail of being the ferrymen of the dead, a legend that has, 
later on at least, been regarded as being a characteristic northern 

♦ Asiatic Nations, ii. 231. * Herodotos, p. 406, « Orient. Hist. ii. 144-7. 

^ Kenan, Histoire des langues simitiqiies (1878), p. 187 ; Sayce, Herod, ii. 43^ 
Append, p. 408. 

® Homer, p. 46. . ' 


Thus the rapprochement of the east and west in the case of the 
Phaeacians and the Phoenicians finds a curious counterpart in the 
detection of the Khitas of the Assyrian monuments with the Keteioi ^ 
of Homer. W. Keith Leask. 


In the ' Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften,' now in 
course of publication, A. Fick has printed (vol. i. p. 133) a long 
inscription from Larissa, in Thessaly, found not long since by 
LoUing, which is of the highest importance from a philological point 
of view, but which also possesses considerable historical interest. 
It contains two letters of Philip V of Macedon to Larissa, and two- 
decrees passed in consequence by the Larissseans granting citizen-^ 
ship to a large number of alien residents whose names are ap- 
pended. The date must be in or soon after 214 b.c. 

The inscription throws some light on the condition of the 
Thessalian towns, and no doubt of other Greek commonwealths, 
under the Macedonian domination. From the time of Philip II to 
the battle of Cynoscephalae Thessaly was subordinate or subject 
to the kings of Macedon. After Cynoscephalae Flamininus (Livy, 
xxxiii. 32) liberated the Thessalians amongst other peoples which 
had been sub dicione Philippi regis. Yet we see from this inscrip- 
tion that the forms of political independence were still, after more 
than a century of practical servitude, maintained. Philip does 
not grant the citizenship of Larissa, but recommends (somewhat 
pressingly no doubt) the Larissaeans to do so. In fact the position 
of such towns as Larissa under the Macedonian kings was much 
the same as that of many Greek towns later on under the Komans ;. 
formally they were * allied states,' practically they were subjects ; 
if the Macedonian monarchy had lasted as long as the Koman 
dominion did, their * independence ' would no doubt have decayed 
into nothing, and the position of their inhabitants been levelled 
down into identity with that of the other subjects of the Macedonian 
kings, as was the case with the * allied states ' under the Eoman 
empire. The position of these towns was the converse of that 
of the. medieval commonwealths of North Italy; the independ- 
ence of the one, the subject position of the other, was gradually 
becoming nominal. I do not for a moment mean to suggest that 
there is any novelty in this view (which might, e.g., be inferred 
from the Polybian narrative in Livy xxxii.), but our inscription 
brings it out with special clearness. Philip puts himself and 

" Gladstone, Hovieric Synchronism, p. 166 ; Sayce, Transactions Soc. Biblic, 
Archceology, vii. 2 ; Jebb, Homer, p. 46. 


Larissa side by side throughout. The course recommended will 
be useful * to me and to the city ; ' the new citizens are enrolled 
* according to my letter and your decree ; ' some persons have 
failed to understand ' the interests of their native city and my 
decision ; ' some of the new citizens may have committed unpardon- 
able offences * against the kingdom or the city.' Clearly sovereignty 
is more or less divided. 

But far the most interesting part of the inscription is the refer- 
ence to Eome. It is a very early date for Eome to be mentioned 
in a Greek inscription. Eome as yet only possessed Dyrrhachium, 
ApoUonia, and Corcyra on the east of the Adriatic. Of course 
there are very few Latin inscriptions at all of an earlier date than 
this. The reason also why Eome is referred to is very curious ; 
we find that two years after Cannae, though Philip had just made 
an alliance with Hannibal, he could quote Eome as a model for 
a Greek state, and this for reasons which seem to anticipate the 
views common to Claudius Caesar and modern critics as to one of 
the causes of her greatness. Eecommending the Larissaeans to be 
liberal in granting citizenship, Philip says : * You may look at 
others who enrol citizens in a similar way, amongst whom are the 
Eomans, who even when they liberate their slaves admit them 
into the body of citizens and make them eligible to office ; by such 
modes of action they not only have enlarged their own city, but 
have also sent out colonies to nearly seventy places.' This last 
sentence shows either that our lists of colonies are very incomplete 
or that Philip uses considerable exaggeration. Most probably both 
are the case. At any rate few things can be more interesting than 
to find that Philip, 214 B.C., holds Eome up for a pattern to a 
Greek town because of its liberality in extending the limits of its 


The death of Dr. Paul Ewald at the age of thirty-six years, which 
occurred on 14 October of last year, has been felt in Germany as a 
great blow to historical research. Not only those who worked in 
the same part of the field, such as Wattenbach and Lowenfeld, have 
testified this, but others, and among these the most eminent of all. 
H. von Sybel relaxes in his favour, as formerly in favour of Eanke 
and Waitz, the rule which excludes obituary notices from the 
Historische Zeitschrifty and Dr. Theodor Mommsen himself writes 
in a letter which I have received from him : 'It is a heavy loss to 
his friends and to our studies. Inhabiting the border country, I am 
not fully able to appreciate his literary merits ; but I know enough 
of his researches to bear testimony to a peculiar union of philo- 


logical acuteness and historical views. It is a sad proof of his 
merits as an editor that hitherto none of us here has been capable 
to propose any one able to succeed him.' 

His work is for the most part of a very abstruse kind. The 

* philological acuteness ' had full play ; the ' historical views ' were 
for the time held somewhat in abeyance. Like Mommsen him- 
self, he laid a foundation in textual criticism and palseographical 
research; in due time he might have shown, as Mommsen has 
done, that his insight and judgment could deal as well with 
historic phenomena as with documents. But ' he has fallen upon 
the course ; ' 'his story is a fragment.' We can only say of Paul 
Ewald that he might have become a great historian, and we must 
console ourselves by thinking of the great results that may flow 
from his masterly examination of the Eegister of Gregory the 

As his principal subject was the great pope who of all popes is 
most interesting to Englishmen, it seems desirable that Englishmen 
should receive some information about his work, and this may best 
be given in a Eeview which is not merely popular. If I undertake 
the task, it is not because I pretend to be specially qualified for it, 
but mainly because I knew Paul Ewald personally, and felt person- 
ally the shock of his death. 

His name appears on the title-page of but two works of great 
extent, and only as editor. One of these is the edition of Jaffe's 

* Eegesta Pontificum ' published in 1885, where his name is asso- 
ciated with those of Lowenfeld and Kaltenbrunner. The other is the 
fragment, which has been published since his death in the series of 
the * Monumenta Germanise,' of an edition of the letters of Gregory 
the Great. But neither of these large works contains much that 
was actually written by himself. His writings, properly speaking, 
consist mainly in a number of articles contributed to the Neues 
Archiv fur dltere deutsche Geschichtskundey which articles have also 
been issued in a separate form. Of these by far the most consider- 
able and important is ' Studien zur Ausgabe des Registers Gregors I.' 
It extends to nearly two hundred pages, and is a singular specimen 
of close investigation. To this, no doubt. Dr. Mommsen mainly 
refers when he writes in the letter above quoted : ' The very intri- 
cate question about the origin of the Eegesta has been cleared up 
by him.' But he may have also in view two articles, which, taken 
together, are of equal bulk, on the collection of papal letters, chiefly 
of the sixth, ninth, and eleventh centuries, which is found in the 
British Museum (Add. MSS. 8873). These articles are entitled ' Die 
Papstbriefe der Brittischen Sammlung.' There is also a short 
article on the Eegister of Gregory VII, and another on the Oldest 
Biography of Pope Gregory I. The remaining articles are reports 
of scientific journeys, explorations among the manuscripts of Italy, 


France, and Spain, undertaken by way of preparation for the 
great task which had been imposed upon him by the management 
of the ' Monumenta,' viz. the editing of the letters of Gregory I. 

Thus we may say that his whole life was given to the study of 
the growth of the papacy — a subject not only interesting but, for the 
historical student, of interest absolutely unique. For there is abso- 
lutely no subject so certain to be misunderstood unless it is approached 
according to the rules of the strictest historical method ; and there- 
fore there is no subject which is misunderstood so generally, and, 
since it divides parties, in so many different ways. What con- 
clusion then, perhaps we may ask, did Paul Ewald form on the 
subject ? Did he follow the eighteenth century, and take a Vol- 
tairian view of the papacy, or did he take a protestant view, or 
a catholic, or neo-catholic, or positivist view? I must answer 
that, though he spent so many years and wrote so much on the 
subject, I have scarcely found a sentence from which it could be 
inferred towards which party he inclined. Whether the papacy was 
good or bad or partly one and partly the other, or justifiable in 
certain circumstances but not in others, all these possible conclu- 
sions lay for him, at his point of view, beyond the horizon. For the 
time his endeavour was, not to arrive at a conclusion, but to make 
a commencement of inquiry. It is little to say that he referred 
to original documents ; he confined his attention to the documents 
themselves, scarcely inquiring what they said or what might be 
inferred from them, and content to ask, in what way did they come 
into existence and in what degree are they trustworthy ? In short, 
he had faithfully assimilated the discipline of the 'Monumenta 
Germanise Historica,' which treats the sources of Germanic history 
with a thoroughness like that which was formerly reserved for 
classical texts. The rage for thoroughness seems, indeed, to grow 
among these investigators. Paul Ewald aimed to outdo Jaffe, as 
Sickel leaves Bohmer, as too uncritical, behind him, though but 
thirty years ago Bohmer and Jaffe were the great names in the 
literature of the * Eegesta.' Nothing now will do but that these 
diplomas and letters and capitularies of the earliest Germanic period 
shall be scrutinised as microscopically asLachmann scrutinised the 
text of Lucretius. Is there some extravagance here ? I remember 
proposing the question to Ewald himself, and I am reminded of the 
candid answer he gave by these sentences in * ZumEegister Gregors 
YII : ' ' History in these days has resolved itself into a series of 
isolated districts of study of which each at the best comprehends a 
single age. Nay more. Within each district a considerable share 
of the labour and acuteness of investigation is applied, not to the 
substance of the record of facts, but chiefly to the mariner in which 
they have been handed down. We seem to care less what happened 
than how the information about it reached us. Hence the eager 


industry we see in the departments of the comparative science of 
authorities, diplomatics, and palaeography.' 

This describes the state of things in Germany; certainly it does 
not apply to England. As in education so in the organisation of 
research, we may for the present safely follow the example of 
Germany, because there is for the present no danger whatever of our- 
being betrayed into German excesses. But Ewald's own judgment 
is given as follows : ' The result of all this industry is, for the 
augmentation of historical knowledge, pretty insignificant, but, for 
the deepening and securing of it, more important than could have 
been anticipated.' 

Certainly when the subject is that burning heart of all human 
discord, the papacy, we may be thankful for any investigation 
which keeps clear of controversy and puts us in possession of even 
a minimum of unquestioned truth. 

Ewald's great achievement is his analysis of the letters of 
Gregory the Great, but his curious discovery of the oldest biography 
of Gregory is peculiarly interesting, as will be seen, to Englishmen. 
Of the former I will try to offer an outline, and then I will explain 
the latter. 

Whence comes the collection of letters attributed to Gregory 
the Great — the only large collection bearing the name of an early 
pope — and what reason have we for believing them to be really 
his? Ewald begins by quoting the fundamental text from the 
biography of Gregory the Great written about a.d. 872 by Johannes 
Diaconus, and dedicated to Pope John VIII : Si cui tamen, ut 
assolet, visum fuerit aliter, ad plenitiidinem scrinii lestri [i.e. 
Johannis VIII] reciirrens tot charticios libros epistolarum ejusdem 
patris [i.e. Gregorii'] quot annos prohatur vixisse, revolvat. (Prol.) 
And again, in iv. 71 : Ab exponendis epistolis, qiiamdiu vivere potiiit, 
nunquam omnino cesmvit : quarum videlicet tot libros in scrinio 
dereliquit, quot annos advixit. Unde quartum decimum epistolarum 
librum septimce indictionis imperfectum reliquit, quoniam ad ejusdem 
indictionis terminum non pertingit. 

Here certainly is an explicit statement of the kind which in 
obscure historical periods is invaluable. Here we have a some- 
what particular description of the original Lateran Eegister of 
Gregory the Great, as it was less than three centuries after Gregory's 
own time. But Ewald produces testimony more than a century 
older than this to the existence of a scrinium ecclesice Romance in 
which the letters of Gregory were preserved. Here enter two 
countrymen of our own, Bede and Boniface. Bede tells us that 
he had incorporated in his Ecclesiastical History certain letters 
which Nothelm, a presbyter of London, had brought from Eome, 
and he writes : Nonnullas ibi beati Gregorii papce simul et aliorum 


pontificum epistolas, jy^f'scrutato ejusdem sanctce ecclesiae Komanse 
scrinio, pei'missu ejus qui nunc ipsi ecclesice prceest, Gregorii [III] 
pontiJiciSf invenit. And Boniface, in 735, writes to Canterbury for a 
copy of the questions addressed by Augustin to Gregory, and of 
Gregory's answers, adding, Quia in scrinio Eomanae ecclesiae, ut 
affirmant scriniarii, cum ceteris exemplarihus sujwa dicti pontificis 
qucesita non inveniehatur. From which it follows, as Ewald remarks, 
that not all papal letters went into the scrinium, and also, we/ may 
add, that our collection cannot be identical with that in the scriiiium, 
for the very letter which was missing there is found in our collec- 
tion (Ep. xi. 64). 

But what is the relation of our collection to this original Eegister 
(Urregister) ? The number of manuscripts of the collection is, Ewald 
tells us, incredibly great. He has obtained an exact knowledge of 
more than a hundred, and has personally examined more than 
twenty, and he has arrived, first, at the negative conclusion that the 
original Eegister itself is not preserved in any of them ; secondly, 
that they fall into three wholly distinct classes. He discovers, in 
fact, three different collections, of which two are comparatively small, 
consisting of 200 and 53 letters respectively, while the third is much 
larger and consists of 686 letters. The two smaller collections con- 
stantly appear coupled together, though their distinctness is un- 
mistakable ; they have no division by books or indictions, and they 
have no title referring back to the Eegister. On the other hand, 
the large collection is divided by indictions, and bears the title 
Epistolce ex registro heati Gregorii^ dx., which title Ewald under- 
stands to convey that the collection is not a copy but only a selec- 
tion from the Eegister. The small collections are not less old, 
perhaps older, than the larger one. Ewald finds a reference to a 
manuscript in which they were coupled together in a letter of 
Alcuin's (Jafte, BibL vi. 391) : Epistolam vera qiiam heati Gregorii 
de simpla mersione dicunt esse conscriptavi, in epistolari suo libro qui 
de Eoma nobis adlatus est, non invenimus. One of the small collec- 
tions bears the name of a certain Paul, who may perhaps be Paulus 
Diaconus, the historian of the Lombards, but perhaps also not. 

As to the larger and more important collection, Ewald finds 
it plainly pointed to in the biography of Gregory by Johannes 
Diaconus, where we find (iv. 71) these words : Ex quorum \lihrorum'\ 
multitudine primi Hadriani papce temporibus qucedam epistolce decre- 
tales per singidas indictiones excerptce sunt, et in duobus voluminibus, 
sicut modo cernitur, congregatcB. For this collection is divided ac- 
cording to indictions. And there is also a very evident trace of the 
two volumes, for among the manuscripts one large class includes 
only the letters of the first seven years, and another class only 
those of the last seven years of Gregory's pontificate of fourteen 
years. He adds that when Johannes Diaconus says ' in the timea 


of Hadrian I,' we must evidently understand that the selection was 
made by and with the authority of that pope. And thus we 
acquire an historical fact of great importance. We knew already 
that in 774 Charles the Great received from Hadrian a copy of the 
collections of Dionysius Exiguus, which form the basis of the canon 
law. We also knew that he received later a copy of the ' Liber 
Sacramentorum ' of Gregory, and that he was assisted by Hadrian 
in introducing among the Franks the Gregorian church music. 
That in like manner the collection of Gregory's letters made by 
Hadrian, which now lies before us in the manuscripts examined 
by Ewald, was intended to be sent, and was sent, to Charles, he 
renders probable by referring to a letter written by Hadrian to Charles 
(Jaffe, Bibl. vi. 245) in 794. Hadrian there quotes as certainly 
known to Charles the letter of Gregory on the worship of pictures 
(ix. 105). Now that letter, remarks Ewald, is found only in this 
particular collection of Gregory's letters. 

The modern editions of the letters of Gregory give 850 letters, 
which are presented to us as constituting a single whole, identical, 
for all we are told, with the original Gregorian Kegister. The result 
of Ewald's inquiry is that they are really nothing of the kind, but 
that the collection must have been made by artificially uniting 
together three distinct collections. How and when was this done? 
This question, too, Ewald examines, and he brings to light what he 
calls the codification of Milan. 

He finds in the Vatican library a manuscript in which the three 
collections are fused together, and which contains after the last 
letter the following note : Explicit Registrimi sancti Gregorii pape 
multo stvdio correctum ad instantiam Reverendissimi domini domiiii 
Jo. Arcimboldi tituli sanctce Praxedis presbyteri cardinalis et archi- 
episcopi Mediolanensis . Per me Oddonem de Beka A lamanum scri^num . 

Arcimbaldi, an intimate friend of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, was 
archbishop of Milan from 1485 to 1488. This is the time of the 
writing of the manuscript, but Ewald has not been able to obtain 
any further information about it, and can learn nothing about Otto 
de Beka the German. But to this manuscript he traces back the 
collection which is now known as Gregory's letters. 

We have assisted at a masterly investigation. But since we 
have Gregory's letters, does it greatly matter in what way the 
collection was formed ? Clearly ; for this reason. Of the three 
collections thus fused together, only one, the largest, had any 
chronology. It was arranged according to indictions. But the 
other two collections give no note of time. Now the fusion was 
accomplished by taking the letters of the two smaller collections 
and distributing them among the indictions of the larger one. This 
process involved giving dates to these letters. On what authority, 
then, do these dates stand ? Ewald answers: ' On no authority ; the 


letters were thrown in at hazard, mtf's Gerathewohl ! ' And conse- 
quently our collection, as it stands, is full of errors of date, and is 
chronologically misleading. He produces evidence of this. 

And now he enters upon the task of construction. For an arti- 
ficial whole, he proposes to substitute the original Lateran Kegister, 
which, as we have seen, was known to Bede and Boniface, but has 
since, we know not how, disappeared. This he will reconstruct by 
a careful comparison of the three collections. 

I promised but a bare outline, but I feel that I must be content 
with furnishing only a kind of sample of Ewald's method. I have 
no space for the remarkable positive results which he reaches, nor 
yet for the equally important conclusions about the history of the 
Papal Kegister which he draws in his investigation of the British 
collection. I must fulfil the other promise which I made, of com- 
municating something interesting to Englishmen. I turn to Ewald's 
article, entitled * Die alteste Biographie Gregors I.' 

He begins by remarking that in the ninth century there was 
current a biography of Gregory the Great which was peculiarly 

This appears from the biography above mentioned of Johannes 
Diaconus, which was undertaken about 872 at the instance of Pope 
John Vin. Johannes tells us that this pope had been led to com- 
mission him to write such a biography, throwing open to him the 
Lateran Register, by observing that Gregory's own church possessed 
no biography of so great a saint, whereas both the Saxons and the 
Lombards possessed biographies of him, which, however, were short 
and insufficient. In his narrative, too, Johannes refers more than 
once to the English biographies. Thus in ii. 14 we read: Quce 
autem de Gregorii miraculis penes easdem Anglorum ecclesias vulgo 
leguntur omittenda non arhitror. And in ii. 44: Sed cum de su- 
periorihis miraculis Romanorum sit nemo qui dubitet, de hoc quod 
apud Saxones legitur . . . duhitari videtur. He speaks never of a 
single biography, but as if he had before him several. Does na 
trace remain of this English legend of Gregory the Great ? 

Canisius long ago remarked the existence of two unprinted 
biographies of Gregory. One of these was in the monastery of 
Petershausen. Canisius printed it, and thought it might be the 
Lombard biography just mentioned. This, according to Ewald, is 
impossible, and the Life is wholly uninteresting, being but a meagre 
abridgment of the work of Johannes Diaconus. The other was at 
St. Gallen ; but this Canisius himself pronounced to be of no value : 
fahidis adeo passim scatentem ut si exscripsissem ac vulgassem, et 
operam et chartam ludos fecisse non injuria censeri possem. This 
Codex Sangallensis has therefore lain in complete neglect. Ewald 
now examines it. Let us inquire what he has found. 


It is fearfully corrupt, in many parts unintelligible, and, con- 
sidered simply as a Life of Gregory, deserves the worst that Canisius 
could say of it. It is extremely meagre, inferior not only to that of 
Johannes Diaconus but also to that of Paulus Diaconus. The 
author himself is painfully aware of his own want of information. 
His work, he says, is opus tanti viri dilectione magis quam scientia 
extorsum. Again : vul/jata tantum hahemus, non ah illis qui viderunt 
et audierunt per or a didicimus. As to Gregory's death : de fine vero 
hujus vitce viri quomodo qualis esset minime aiidiinmus. Neverthe- 
less the newly found Life has a peculiarity which arrests our atten- 
tion. It consists of thirty- two chapters, of which ten (ix-xix) 
are devoted to England. But of these ten chapters seven are 
of the nature of a digression. They forget Gregory and even 
Gregory's age, and wander into the history of Northumbria, telling 
of the death of Paulinus, of King Eadwin's conversion and death, 
and of the carrying of his bones at a later time to the monastery of 
Streoneshalch (Whitby) . The writer, we observe, has extremely little 
information about Gregory, but more than enough about the king- 
dom of Northumbria and the monastery of Whitby. Have we, 
then, actually found here one of those English Lives of Gregory ? 

The very table of contents, as Ewald gives it, suggests this as a 
possibility ; it becomes a certainty when we read the copious extract 
which he prints, and which I reprint at the end of this article. 
For we find the writer habitually speaking as an Englishman. 
Gregory is ^ magister noster,' ^doctor noster,' ' apostolicus nostery' 
' papa iioster,' ' noster Gregorius' It is said of him that ' nostram 
propagavit conversionem,' ^fidem nostram prima refecit.'' We hear of 
the time, * quo gens Anglonmi hanc ingreditur insulam.' 

But, further, the writer is a Northumbrian. He writes, 'in 
gente nostra que dicitur Hiimhrensimn,' Paulinus is ' doctor noster,' 
' unus illorum quos inter nos direxit Gregorius.' E ad win is ' rex noster.' 

Further still, the wi'iter is a monk of Whitby. For in speaking 
of the carrying of the bones of Eadwin to Streoneshalch he uses the 
expression ad hoc nostrum secum asportavit coenohium. And in 
quitting this part of his subject he lets fall the expression His igitur 
peractis relationihus que proprie ad nos pertinent. 

What, now, is the age of this biography? In chapter xviii. 
the writer tells us that he had his account of the translation of the 
bones of Eadwin, which Ewald is able to place between the years 
675 and 704, from a relative of the presbyter Trimma, who figures 
in the story — -frater noster, illius preshiteri cognatus, qui hanc mihi 
exposuit ystoriam. Our author, then, was roughly contemporary 
with Bede, whose Church History ends at the year 731 and who 
died in 735. And then arises the question, Did he write before or 
after Bede ? 

Ewald argues that he must have written before Bede, from the 


simple fact that he complains so bitterly and so frequently of want 
of information. It is not credible that he would have done this if 
shortly before, in his immediate neighbourhood, there had appeared 
a history dealing with this very subject by the most famous 
historical writer Europe had seen since Isidore. 

But if he wrote before Bede, had Bede read his work ? If so, it 
is rather surprising that he does not reproduce the story of the 
translation of Eadwin's bones by Trimma. But, while he grants this, 
Ewald holds that in two distinct passages he finds Bede borrowing 
from our author. The first is the first chapter of Bede's second 
book, which is to be compared to the first chapter of our biography. 
The second is the famous story of the Anglian slaves at Kome and 
of Gregory's pious puns. Here Ewald points out the resemblance 
of Bede's opening, Nee silentio pr(etereunda opinio ^ and of that of 
our author. Quod omnino non est tegendum silentio. 

At any rate, as he remarks, it is interesting to think that, if we 
have here really the oldest biography of Gregory, the story of the 
play upon the word Deira is henceforth to be considered as coming 
to us actually from a native of Deira. And from these rude, 
scarcely intelligible pages, there certainly falls a welcome ray of 
light upon the earliest years of the Whitby monastery. 

On surveying the whole work of Paul Ewald, we see that it was 
mainly devoted to one subject, the papacy, and that he was prin- 
cipally occupied with the earlier phases of this. Had a longer 
term of years been granted him, had he been allowed to complete 
his edition of Gregory's letters and then to undertake other tasks, 
it seems likely that, on the one hand, he would have pushed his 
inquiry into the papal Eegister back from the time of Gregory to 
that of Leo and Innocent, and, on the other hand, would have been 
led to investigate the relation of the papacy to Boniface, Pippin, 
and Charles. But he describes himself also as positively fascinated 
by the subject of the Eegister of Hildebrand. We can imagine him 
then gradually acquiring such a grasp as no man has yet possessed 
of the whole development of the papacy from Innocent to Hilde- 
brand, such a grasp as Mommsen has of the history of pagan 
Eome. ' He had,' writes Lowenfeld, * such a sovereign grasp of his 
material as none of his predecessors has possessed in the remotest 
degree.' This fundamental knowledge he might in due time have 
gathered up, as Mommsen has done, into a comprehensive and 
luminous history. Such a work might have made an epoch. We 
have waited long enough for an historian who should treat this pro- 
blem of the papacy both with such adequate knowledge and in a 
truly historic spirit — that is, without prejudices ecclesiastical or 
anti-ecclesiastical, neither contenting himself with unverified theories 
nor losing himself in aimless research. 


Architectural beauty cannot be shown in the foundations of a 
building, and Ewald has left only foundations. "We admire their 
solidity and good workmanship, but they only affect our feelings 
when we remark how amply and strongly laid they are, how much 
might be reared upon them, and then reflect that death has 
frustrated the bold design. What can be said of Paul Ewald 
personally ? Did he convey to those who knew him the impression 
that he was capable of finishing nobly what he had begun so 
solidly ? 

It seems to me that he did. His friends give him credit for 
rarer powers than any which he had any opportunity of displaying ; 
nay more, for personal qualities such as cannot be displayed in any 
literary work. Dr. Mommsen not only adds * historical views ' to 

* philological acuteness ' in describing his talent, but speaks with 
strong feeling of the man. ' He was not only a scholar, but an 
accomplished gentleman. The inkstand, of which most professors 
retain the traces out of their study, was not visible in him; he 
came of a family of painters and artists, and of manifold culture ; 
he is a great loss for many of our best men.' 

I myself made his acquaintance in 1886 at Freiburg. We were 
introduced to him by our friend, his accomplished wife ; and I 
remember every word that he said to me in rambles at the entrance 
of the Black Forest. He was a man of distinguished appearance 
and fine manners. In his conversation you could certainly discern 
the specialist, but not less clearly the thinker and philosopher, the 
open mind and frank generous spirit. Perhaps, indeed, it was only 
on his own subject that his judgment seemed a little severe ; so 
much was surely unavoidable. I was not surprised that he listened 
with a kind of superb indifference when I spoke of our Milman ; but 
perhaps I was a little shocked when he pronounced of Kanke's 

* Weltgeschichte ' that it was not a work of permanent importance, 
and that it was interesting less in itself than as a record of Kanke's 
personal views. Of Eanke's work in general his appreciation was 
enthusiastic enough to satisfy even my demand, which in this matter 
is exacting, but the * Weltgeschichte ' traverses ground on which he 
could not but feel himself to be more at home even than Eanke. 

I must not in this place indulge in mere personal reminiscences. 
I speak here only of the loss which science has suffered. Science 
has lost much, and so have the friends of Paul Ewald ; but yet, 
as I close this notice, I confess I think neither of science nor even 
of the friends. I think that when I met him only a year and a half 
ago he was newly married, and that only fourteen months divided 
his wedding day from the day of his death. 

J. E. Seeley. 



Incipit liber heati et laudahilis I'iri Gregoni pape urhis Rome, 
De vita atque eius virtutihus^ 

In primis proemium. 

Cum suos sancta per orbem ecclesia catholica in omni gente 
^doctores semper celebrare non cessat, quos Christo domino magis- 
trante ad se directos in eo gloriando congaudet, eosque^ scriptis 
memorialibus promulget in posteros, ut ponant in Deo spem suam 
et non obliviscantur operum Dei sui et mandata eius exquirant, 
merito nos quoque nostri mentionem magistri possumus iuxta vires 
nostras, adiuvante Domino, facere, describentes quem sanctum 
•Gregorium cum omni etiam orbe prefato possumus appellare. 

Finit prefaciuncula. 

I. Fuit igitur iste natione Eomanus, ex patre Gordiano et matre 
Silvia, nobilis secundum legem, sed nobilior coram Deo in religione. 
Longo iam tempore manens in monasterio etc. 

IX. Quod omnino non est tegendum silentio, quam spiritaliter,^ 
quomodoque cordis incomparabili speculo oculorum, nostram pro- 
videndo propagavit ad Deum conversionem. Est igitur narratio 
fidelium, ante predict um eius pontificatum Eomam venisse quidam 
de nostra natione forma et crinibus candidati albis. Quos cum 
audisset venisse, iam dilexit vidisse. Eosque albamenti"* intuitu 
sibi adscitos, recenti specie ^ inconsueta suspensus et, quod maxi^ 
mum est, Deo intus admonente, cuius gentis fuissent, inquivisit. 
[Quos quidam pulchros fuisse pueros dicunt, quidam vero crispos 
iuvenes et decor os.] ^ Cumque responderent : Anguli dicunt ur illi 
de quibus sumus, ille dixit : Angeli Dei. Deinde dixit : Kex gentis 
illius quomodo nominatur ? Et dixerunt : Aelli. Et ille ait : 
Alleluia, laus enim Dei esse debet illic. Tribus quoque illius 
nomen de qua erant proprie requisivit. Et dixerunt : Deire. Et 
ille dixit : De ira Dei confugientes ad fidem. 

X. Tam itaque spiritali data occasione inflammatus, preces- 
sorem pontificatus sui papam Benedictum tam inhianter hue pro- 
liciscendi precatus est dare licentiam, ut precis^ sue non potuit 
declinare nimietatem, illo dicente : Miserum tam pulchris vasis 
infernus ^ debuisse repleri. Hec et his similia illo dicente licentiam 
tribuit pontifex, hue ^ iter agendi. Ex qua iam licentia populum 
satis contristavit Komanum. Unde tale dicitur condictum fecisse, 
ut se in tres partes divideret*^ iuxta viam, qua profectus est ad 

' eius supra atque add, corrector. ^ eisque cod. 

' Perverse iam hie ponit cod. ad Deum, qiLod post repetitur. 
* albe mentis cod. * specie cod. 

' Verba, qucn uncis inchcsi, aut glossator quidam addidity aut supra post albis 
'Teicienda sunt. 

'' preces cod. * Sic pro infernum cod. 

^ Corrector ex hoc. '^^ dividendo cod. 



ecclesiam sancti Petri " idem pontifex. Unaquaque autem pars eo 
transiente sic proclamavit ad eum : Petrum offendisti, Romam de- 
struxisti, Gregorium dimisisti. Is ^^ ergo tarn terribiliter tercio 
audiens, concite post missis legatis fecit eum reverti. Cuius rever- 
sionis prius Domino in se loquence sancta mente per unam locustam 
agnovit ita rationem.^"' Confecto namque trium dierum itinere, 
quiescentibus illis quodam loco, ut iter agentibus moris est, venit 
ad eum locusta ^^ legentem. E cuius nomine statim, quasi sibi 
diceret : sta in loco, agnovit. Concite tamen ortatus est comites, 
parare se ad proficiscendum. Quod dum agebat cum illis, preventus 
a nuntiis, reductus est Rome. 

XI. Postque non multum temj)us papa defuncto electus, ut 
prescripsimus, ad pontificatum est.'^ Quantaque '^ potuit festi- 
natione venerande memorie viros hue Augustinum et Mellitum 
atque Laurentium direxit cum ceteris, Augustinum ordinando epi- 
scopum, a quo hie Mellitus dicitur et a Mellito Laurentius ordi- 

XII. Per hos igitur regum omnium primus Angulorum Edil- 
bertus rex Cantuariorum ad fidem Christi correctus eius baptismo 
dealbatus cum sua enituit natione. Post hunc in gente nostra 
que dicitur Humbrensium, Eduinus, Aelli prefati filius, quem sub 
vaticinatione alleluiatica laudationis divine non inmerito memi- 
nimus, rex precepit, tarn sapientia singularis, quam etiam sceptro 
dicionis regie, a tempore quo gens Anglorum ^^ banc ingreditur 

XIII. quam pulchre quamque hec omnia decenter '^ simul 
sibi conveniunt prefata ! Ergo nomen Anglorum, ^^ si una e littera 
addetur, Angelorum sonat; pro certo vocabulum, quorum pro- 
prium est semper omnipotentem Deum in celis laudare, et non 
deficere, quia non lacescunt in laude. Quos beatus lohannes etc^ 
etc. Et Aelli duabus compositum est sillabis, quarum in priori cum 
e littera absumitur ^^ et in sequenti pro i ponitur e, alle vocatur, 
quod in nostra lingua omnes absolute indicat. Et hoc est, quod 
ait Dominus noster : Venite ad me omnes qui laboratis et onerati 
estis et reliqua. Sicut ^^ regem quoque significat alle Patrem, lu 
Filium, ia Spiritum sanctum. 

XIY. Porro cum in lumbis fortasse, cum hoc fuit vaticinatum, 
adhuc patris sui Aelli fuit, praedistinatum vas misericordie Dei ^^ 
Eduinus, cuius nomen tribus sillabis constans recte sibi designat 
sancte misterium trinitatis. Quod ille docebat, qui omnes ad se 
invitat baptizatos in nomine patris et filii et spu'itus sancti. Huius 

" sancti Petri in margine supplekir. '- His cod. {forte scribendum hos). 

'3 iterationem cod. " locusta suppl. cod. 

'* est suppl. cod. '* que suppl. cod. 

" Corr. ex Angulorum. '** Corr. ex decentur. 

'» Corr. ex Angulorum. -° adsumitur cod. 

'■" Si ad cod., uhi ad post ras. deletur. •- Deo cod. 


namque Eduini pater in baptismo venerandus fuit Paulinus, antistes 
unus illorum, quos inter nos ^^ direxit, ut diximus, Gregorius. Qui 
tarn facile signum Dei sui sapientie, quadam, ut reor, dominica 
dicitur dedisse. 

XV. Cum stipatus ad ecclesiam rex prefatus ad caticuminium ^^ 
eorum, qui adhuc erant ^"^ gentilitati non solum, sed etiam et non 
licitis stricti coniugiis, cum illo festinavit ab aula, ubi prius ad 
hoc 2^ utrumque emendandum hortati sunt ab illis, dum quedam 
stridula cornix ad plagam^^ voce peiorem cantavit. Tunc omnis 
multitudo regia, que adhuc erat in platea po]3uli, audiens avem, 
stupore ad earn conversa subsistit, quasi ilium canticum novum 
carmen Deo nostro non esset vere futurum in ecclesia, sed falso ad 
nihil utile. Tunc venerandus episcopus puero suo cuidam, Deo 
omnia ex arce sua speculante providenteque : dirige, inquit, sagit- 
tam in avem otius. Quo festinanter effecto, avis et ^^ sagitta ser- 
vari precepit, usque dum peracto '^^ catacuminio eorum, qui erant 
catezizandi, asportatur in aulam. Omnibusque illuc congregatis 
recenti rudoque adhuc populo Dei bene satis eo ^^ causam donante 
confirmavit antique scelus^^ idolatrie tam evidenti signo esse pro- 
nihilo in omnibus discendum, dicens : etiam sibi ipsi avis ilia in- 
sensata mortem canere ^^ cum nescisset, immo renatis ad imaginem 
Dei, baptizatis omnino hominibus, qui dominantur piscibus maris 
et volatilibus celi atque universis animantibus terre, nihil profu- 
turum prenuntiet. Quas illi ex sua suptili natura ad deceptionem 
stultorum se scire, Deo iuste permittente, actitant.^^ 

XVI. Sed quia regis nostri christianissimi facimus Eduini 
mentionem, dignum fuit etiam et eius conversionis ^ facere, quo- 
modo antiquitus traditur illi fuisse premonstrata. Quod non tam 
condenso quomodo audivimus verbo, sed pro veritate certantes, eo 
quo^^ credimus factum brevi replicamus et sensu, licet ab illi^ 
minime audivimus famatum, qui eius plura pre ceteris sciebant. 
Nee tamen quod tam spiritaliter a fidelibus traditur, tegi silentio 
per totum rectum rimamur, cum etiam sepe fama cuiusque rei per 
longa tempora terrarumque spatia post congesta diverso modo 
in aures diversorum perveniet. Hoc igitur multo ante horum 
omnium,^^ qui nunc supersunt, gestum est dies. Verum itaque ^"^ 
omnes fuisse scimus, quia idem rex fuit exul sub rege Uuestran- 
glorum ^® Kedualdo. Quem emulus suus sic passim persecutus est, 
qui eum ex patria pulsit tirannus iEdilfridus, ut eum pecunia sua 

'^^ Sic corr. cod. ex ita nobis. ^* caticuminum cod. ^s erant suppl. cod^ 

■^ adhuc cod. "" Sic cod. 2* et om. cod. 

-" peracta cod. 3" eo cod., id est Deo. 

^' Corr. in antiquum scelum et add. nomen, quod sine dubio interpretatio voci& 
idolatrie est. 

^ acuere cod. " Corr. ex lactitant. '' Corr. ex conversationis. 

^^ quod cod. ^" omnes cod. 37 Qqj,^^ gg. iaque. 

^^ Corr. rad. v in Uuestanglorum. 

X 2 


emere occidendum querebat. Ea tempestate dicunt ei de sua vita 
consternate quadam die quidam pulchre visionis, cum cruce Christi 
coronatus apparens eum consolari coepisse, promittens ei felicem 
vitam regnumque gentis sue futurum, si ei obedire voluisset. 
Eoque promittente voluisse, si verum probaret sibi quod promisit, 
respondit : probabis hoc verum et qui tibi primum cum hac specie 
et signo apparebit, illi debes oboedire. Qui te uni Deo, qui creavit 
omnia, vivo et vero docebit obedire, quique Deus daturus est tibi 
€a, que promitto et omnia, que tibi agenda sunt, per ilium demon - 
strabit. Sub hac igitur specie ^^ dicunt illi Paulinum prefatum 
episcopum primo apparuisse. 

XVII. piissime pater domine Deus omnipotens, licet pre- 
dictam beati Gregorii minime meremur presentiam, per eum tamen 
tibi semper sit gratiarum actio doctoris nostri Paulini, quern in fine 
suo fidelem tibi ostendisti. Nam fertur a videntibus, quod huius 
viri anima in cuiusdam magne qualis est cignus alba specie avis 
satisque pulchra quando moritur migrasse ad celum. 

XVIII. Sed ut propositum persequar, qualibet Christi lucerna 
de hoc rege Eduino signorum lucescit floribus dico, ut apertius 
merita clarescant. Huius itaque regalis vere viri ossium reliquie, 
quahter Domino relevante sunt reperte, dignum est memorie com- 
mendare. Fuit igitur frater quidam nostre gentis, nomine Trimma, 
in quodam monasterio Sundaranglorum ^^ presbiterii functus officio, 
diebus Edilredi regis illorum, adhuc in vita monastica vivente 
Aeonfleda, filia religiosi regis prefati Eduini. Cui per somnium 
presbitero vir quidam visus est dicens ei: Vade ad locum quem 
dixero tibi, qui est in regione ilia, que dicitur Hedfled, quo Eduinus 
rex occisus est ; debes enim ossa eius exinde tollere et "*' tecum ad 
Streunes-Alae deducere, quod est coenobium famosissimum Ael- 
flede, filie supradicte regine Eonflede, nate, ut supra diximus, 
Eduini, femina valde iam religiosa. Cui respondit presbiter dicens : 
Nescio ilium locum, quomodo possum quo ignoro proficisci. At ille : 
Vade, inquit, ad vicum ilium in Lindissi, cuius ^'^ nomen frater 
noster, illius presbiteri cognatus, qui banc, mihi exposuit ystoriam, 
non recolebat et quere in eo maritum quendam nomine Teoful. 
Interroga ilium de loco, ipse potest tibi monstrare, ubi est. Pres- 
biter itaque sciens esse somniorum fallatia multimoda, nimirum de 
quibus *^ scriptum est : Multos errare fecerunt somnia, dimisit rem 
adhuc taliter ostensam.'*'' Unde post hec ab eodem viro validius 
admonitus, alteri e suis, sicut illi monstratum est, retulit fratribus. 
Sed ipse eodem quo diximus modo agnoscit somnium, eumque fecit ^^ 

XIX. His itaque peractis tertius adhuc vir suus eodem pres- 

^ specie cod. ''" Corr. in Sudranglorum ; confer supra Uuestranglorum. 

*^ et addidi. *' Lindis. si cuius cod. " que cod. 

*^ ostensa cod. *■' Nescio, qna ratione scribal codex eum fecit qui de ee dimittere 



bitero apparuit eumque flagello satis redargutione correxit, sicque ^^ 
increpans ait : Nonne bis indicavi tibi, quid debes facere et negle- 
xisti? proba modo si adhuc inoboediens an oboediens mihi esse 
volueris. Turn scilicet festinanter perrexit ad maritum prefatum, 
eumque otius querendo ubi esset, invenit secundum quod illi mon- 
stratum est. A quo satis diligent er sciscitando didicit, signis aperte 
monstratis, quo iam querere reliquias debuisset regis/^ Statimque 
comperto profectus est ad locum sibi demonstratum. Et primo 
fodiens non invenit adhuc quod querebat, sed secundo laboriosius 
fodiendo, ut sepe fieri solet. Inventumque thesaurum desiderabile 
ad hoc nostrum secum asportavit coenobium. In quo nunc hono- 
rifice in sancti Petri apostolorum principis ecclesia hec eadem 
sancta ossa cum ceteris conduntur regibus nostris, ad austrum 
altaris illius, quod beatissimi Petri apostoli est nomini sanctifi- 
catum, et ab oriente illius, quod in hac ipsa sancto Gregorio est 
consecratum ^^ ecclesia. Fertur quoque ab hoc relatum presbitero, 
qui postea pro tempore prioris sanctum iamque habitavit locum 
sepultionis, crebro se iam vidisse spiritus interfectorum IIII nimi- 
rum'*^ baptizatoruni, splendide venientes sua corpora visitasse et 
adiecit, si posset monasterium ubi ^° voluisse facere. 

XX. His itaque peractis relationibus, que proprie ad nos per- 
tinent,^^ adhuc ea sequamur, quibus Christo in se quoque loquente 
vir beatissimus Gregorius signorum est sanctitate famatus nobiscum. 
Nam antiquorum etc, etc. 

XXXII. De fine vero huius vitae viri, quomodo qualis esset, 
minime audivimus. Quomodo in Deum moritur, ubi maxime que- 
ritur sanctitas. Quid amplius : fidem nostram primo refecit, quo- 
modo quod ille iam de sua scripsit humilitate monastice vitae etc. 
etc. Iste enim sanctus utique per omnem terram tam sanctus 
habetur, ut semper ab omnibus ubique sanctus Gregorius nomi- 
natur. Unde letaniis, quibus Dominum pro nostris imploramus ex- 
cessibus atque innumeris peccatis quibus eum offendimus, sanctum 
Gregorium nobis in amminiculum vocamus cum Sanctis scilicet 
apostoHs et martyribus, inter quos eum in cells Christo credimus 
coniunctum, illumque esse super familiam suam servum fidelem et 
prudentem, qui in tempore tritici tam abundanter donavit illi men- 
suram, ut cunctis per orbem sacramenta ruminando divina, qualiter 
illud granum frumenti mortuum multum cadens in terram adferens 
fructum a fidelibus cottidie debeat libari atque in perpetuum gus- 
tari salutem, quo iam de eo, qui in eo manet et ipse in illo dicebat : 
Beatus ille servus, quem cum venerit Dominus suus invenerit sic 
facientem. Amen dico vobis, super omnia bona sua constituet 
eum. Quam scilicet promissionem suam Domini sui beatissima 

*® eumque . . . sicque in marg. suppl. cod. *'' post regis erasa est vox ossarium. 

*" consecrata cod. *» pernimirum cod. ^ Forte ibi legendum. 

*' pertineat cod. 


pretiosa in conspectu eius morte IIII. idus martias ^^ expectat feli- 
citer in ecclesia sancti Petri, cuius sedit episcopatum annos XIII, 
menses VI, dies X, ante eius offitii secretarium sepultus corpore •^•' 
dormit in pace. A quo est resuscitandus in gloriam. Cuius cor- 
poris et sanguinis secreta nobis initiavit sacramenta, qui solus 
remotis omnibus hostiis carnalibus tollit immolatus omnium pec- 
cata, cum quibus omnibus in unitate deitatis sue semper est regna- 
turuB in secula seculorum amen. 


The text of M. de Boor's new edition of Theophylaktos * is based 
on a Vatican manuscript (977) of the eleventh or twelfth century, 
which also contains the Breviarium of Nikephoros, edited in 1880 
by the same scholar. The value of M. de Boor's work may be 
estimated by the fact that Pontanus had used for his text only one 
late Munich manuscript. The requirements of the student of lan- 
guage as well as of the student of history are consulted by two 
copious indexes. 

A careful reading of the ' Ecumenical History ' — things ' ecu- 
menical ' were the mode in the days of Maurice and Joannes Nes- 
teutes — in the new edition led me to discover certain serious 
chronological difficulties that beset the order of events in the 
second half of the reign of Maurice. At that time the forces of 
the empire were engaged in operations against the Avars and Slavs 
in the provinces of Illyricum and Thrace. The difficulty is to 
determine the dates of these campaigns, and to bring Theophanes 
into congruity with Theophylaktos. 

The restoration of Chosroes Eberwiz to the throne of the 
Sassanids, by the assistance of Maurice, in the summer of 591, put 
an end to the Persian war that had broken out in 572. The first step 
of the government was to transfer the armies that had served on 
the oriental frontier to the Balkan peninsula, which suffered almost 
every year from the hostilities of the Avars or the plundering 
incursions of the Slavs, who were already beginning to settle in 
cis-Danubian territory. Subsequently to the transference of the 
armies the emperor Maurice made a progress in Thrace. Now 
Theophylaktos places these two events in the closest temporal 
proximity — ras hwdfjisis 6 avroKparcop is rr)v FiVpayTrrjv o)s rd'^^Laro 


(v. 16, p. 218) — whereas Theophanes places them in separate years. 
According to Theophanes, namely, the soldiers were transported 

" id. mar. cod. *^ corporis cod. 

' Theophylacti Simocattm Histories, ed. C. de Boor (Teubuer, 1887). 


to Europe in the year of the world 6082, which ran from 
1 Sept. 589 to 1 Sept. 590, and the progress of Maurice took place 
in the following year, 6083— that is (as it took place after the 
restoration of Chosroes), in the autumn of 591. The first statement 
of Theophanes as to the date of the transference of the army can 
of course not be accepted without reserve, but there is no difficulty 
in supposing that a portion of the army was removed from Asia in 
590, and that Theophanes omits to mention the removal of the 
remainder in 591. In this way we can reconcile the two accounts. 
Theophylaktos tells us that the year in which these events took 
place was the ninth year of Maurice (p. 218), i.e. between 13 Aug. 
590 and 13 Aug. 591 (almost coincident with anfias muncli 6083). 
We are consequently entitled to conclude that the recall of the 
Eoman forces which assisted Chosroes and the progress of Maurice 
took place in the summer of 591, before the 13th day of August. 
Theophylaktos, however, has been guilty of an error which has led 
Clinton and others to a different conclusion. He says that there 
was an eclipse of the sun when Maurice was at Hebdomon, a place 
at a little distance from Constantinople on the way to Herakleia. 
Astronomical calculation determines that there was an eclipse of 
the sun on 19 March 592. Hence Clinton places the progress of 
Maurice in March 592 — that is, in the tenth year of Maurice — and 
he is thus obliged to reject Theophylaktos' statement that it was in 
the ninth year of Maurice. But it is equally legitimate to suppose 
that he was mistaken in the date of the eclipse ; and this supposi- 
tion is more scientific because (1) the notice of Theophanes sup- 
ports the harov sros of Theophylaktos, and (2) the language of 
Theophylaktos forbids the assumption that a winter intervened 
between the recall of the army and the progress of Maurice. 

The course of the narrative naturally leads us to imagine that 
the siege of Singidon, the operations of the general Priskos and his 
defeat at Herakleia by the Chagan, took place immediately after the 
return of Maurice to Constantinople, in August and September 591. 
In that case fisroTrcopov ap^o^isvov of vi. 6 would mean the late 
autumn of 591, and r^pos ap'^ofjuivov, immediately below, would 
mean the spring of 592. And thus the expedition of Priskos against 
the Slavs would fall in 592. The account of this expedition extends 
in Theophylaktos from p. 230 to p. 239, ed. De Boor. Priskos 
receives a letter from the emperor, with a mandate that the army 
should spend the winter — rr^v ^et/^e/otoi/ wpav (p. 239) — in the terri- 
tory of the barbarians ; that is, the winter of 592-3. Immediately 
after this Maurice deposes Priskos from the command in favour of 
his own brother Petros. Priskos, however, commences operations — 
spring 593 — and gains some successes before he hears of his recall ; 
then he returns to the capital (p. 245), and Petros proceeds to take 
the command. The campaign in which Petros proves his incom- 


petence we naturally assume to occupy the rest of the year 593-, 
and place his deposition and the reappointment of Priskos (p. 254) 
at the close of that year. 

But at this point Theophylaktos gives us a definite date, which 
puts us completely out of our reckoning. Immediately after his 
notice of the return of Petros and the appointment of Priskos he 
says (vii. 6, p. 254) : Trpo rsTrdpcov rolvvv tovtcov sviavroyv (irpos 
yap TO, TTpscr^vTSpa rrjs laropias avOis ycvo/xsOd) 'Icodvvrjs 6 rrjv is 
^v^dvTLOV SKK\7)(Tlav Wvvwv Tov rfjBs jScov dirsXiirsv, 

Joannes Jejunator became patriarch of Byzantium on 12 April 
582, and we learn from the ' Brief Chronography ' of Nikephoros 
that he held that office for thirteen years and five months. His 
death consequently falls about 11 Sept. 595. Hence the history of 
Theophylaktos must have already reached the end of 598, when the 
notice occurs that the patriarch John died four years ago. But in 
following the course of the narrative we had not succeeded in 
reaching further than the end of 593 — a difference of five years. 
We may reduce the difference by one year, if we suppose that 
Theophylaktos accepted a different date from that given by Nike- 
phoros for the death of John, viz. September 594 ; for such a date 
seems to be implied by Theophanes, who mentions that Kyriakos 
(John's successor) was bishop of Constantinople in 6087 = 1 Sept. 
594-1 Sept. 595. 

To explain this incongruity two alternative suppositions are 
possible. Either the historian has omitted to mention the winter 
seasons, which formed breaks in the campaigns and serve to the 
reader as a chronological guide, and has thereby run several years 
into one, or else there is a gap in the text. In the former case we 
must suppose that Theophylaktos was ignorant himself of the pre- 
cise chronology, and consciously left it undetermined. 

Turning to Theophanes, whose sole authority for these wars was 
Theophylaktos, we find that he has hammered out the metal thin, 
so as to make it extend over the years which are not accounted for. 
The first campaign of Priskos and the battle of Herakleia took 
place m 6084, that is, 592 ; the expedition against the Slavs is 
placed in 593, the mission of Tatimer and the recall of Priskos in 
594. The campaign of Petros is drawn out to extend over three 
years — 595, 596, 597 — and thus the deposition of Petros at the end 
of 597 agrees with the date of Theophylaktos, assuming that he 
assigned the decease of Joannes Jejunator to 594. 

The question is whether Theophanes used a source, not acces- 
sible to Theophylaktos, which indicated these chronological divi- 
sions, or whether, in order to suit the plan of his chronicle, he 
exercised his own judgment in parcelling out the events recorded 
by Simokatta. We cannot hesitate to reject the first alternative ;. 
for not only has no hint come down to us of the existence of such 


a source,^ but the facts do not render the assumption necessary. 
Theophanes presents us with nothing more than an excerpt of 
Theophylaktos ; he records the same events in the same order. 
Moreover a very remarkable event took place in 597, which the 
historian of Maurice does not mention — namely, the siege of Thessa- 
lonica by the Avars, of which an account has come down to us in 
the *Life of St. Demetrios of Thessalonica.' This event is also 
omitted by Theophanes. We may, then, take it for granted that the 
only sources accessible to Theophanes were the history of Theophy- 
laktos, and possibly official documents ; but the latter would hardly 
have furnished much information about the Avaric wars. The con- 
clusion is that the division of events from 592 to 597 given by 
Theophanes is quite arbitrary, and if we compare it in detail with 
his source we shall hardly consider it very plausible. 

Theophylaktos must have derived his facts mainly from the 
oral evidence of persons who witnessed the course of the campaigns, 
and, living in Egypt, he may not have been able to inform himself 
accurately on all the details. There is no trace of a lacuna in his 
history ; the narrative flows smoothly. It follows that the writer 
was ignorant of the exact years in which the various events fell ; 
and though he was not candid enough to say so directly, he was not 
dishonest enough to supply from his imagination the deficiencies of 
his information. His reticence about the siege of Thessalonica 
shows that his knowledge of events as well as of dates was defective.^ 

It is not my purpose to make any attempt in this place to re- 
arrange the chronology of the six years elapsing between the pro- 
gress of Maurice and the reappointment of Priskos. The data are 
not sufficient for any definite conclusions ; but Theophanes is 
mistaken in lengthening out the period of Petros' command to 
three years. If anything can be certain on the subject, it appears 
to me certain that Petros held the post of general for one year 
only — namely, the year 597 — the year in which Thessalonica was 
rescued by the miraculous intervention of its patron saint. I hardly 
think that even Maurice, with all his opinidtrete and all his affec- 
tion for his kindred, would have tolerated the incompetence of his 
brother for three years. 

For the remaining five years of Maurice's reign Theophylaktos 
furnishes us with sufficiently clear chronological indications. The 

'^ The only other source could be the chronicle of John Malalas, who, as G. 
Sotiriadis has lately proved, carried his chronicle down to Phokas. If this be so^ 
what we say of Theophanes will apply to Malalas, who certainly furnished Theophanes 
with no fact not recorded by Theophylaktos, and who (even if we place him as early as 
Heraklios) we may assume drew on Theophylaktos for the Avaric wars. 

^ It is worth mentioning that in his digression on the history of the reigns of 
Justin and Tiberius in bk. iii. Theopliylaktos gives a false date for the adoption of 
Tiberius, naming December in the ninth indiction— that is, 575. The true date ia 
December 574, which falls in the eighth indiction. 


campaign of Singidon and the expedition to Dalmatia occupied the 
year 598. Theophanes places the first of these events in 6090, and 
the second in 6091 ; correctly, for the last four months of 598 corre- 
spond to the first four months of 6091. After the Dalmatian ex- 
pedition no military events of any consequence took place for more 
than eighteen months : iirl fjurjvas rooyapovj/ otcrcoKaLSsKa koI 
TTSpaLTspco 'VwjjbaioLS TS Kol jBap^dpoLs Tols ava tov "larpov avXt- 
^OfjbsvoLS ovBsv a^LOV (Tvyypacfirjs Bca'TrsirpaKrat (vii. 12, p. 266). 

Beckoning therefore from October or November 598, we reach 
March or April 600. The campaigns of Priskos and Komentiolos 
occupy the year 600, and we must not allow ourselves to be confused 
by a notice which Theophylaktos inserts in an unsuitable place. 
Before entering upon the campaigns of 600 he mentions the inci- 
dent of the man who unsheathed a sword in the forum at Byzantium 
and used menacing language against Maurice, and assigns the nine- 
teenth year of Maurice as the date. The nineteenth year of Maurice 
was current from 13 Aug. 600 to 13 Aug. 601, almost corresponding 
to the year of the world 6093, in which Theophanes places the same 
event. Thus Theophylaktos here anticipates chronological order. 
In the early part of the year a treaty is concluded between the Avars 
and Bomans (p. 273), but it is soon broken. The summer of 600 is 
marked (p. 285). Komentiolos abode in Philippopolis during the 
winter and proceeded to Byzantium in the spring of 601 ; in summer 
he was reappointed general (p. 290) . But although he was nominally 
general no operations took place in the nineteenth year of Maurice 
^Aug. 600-Aug. 601 (p. 290). In spite of this assertion Theophanes 
assigns the victories of Priskos to the year 6093. In this he may be 
right, for we must not press the words of Theophylaktos to include 
strictly the latter part of the year 600 ; they refer, as is evident 
from the context, to the year 601. 

In the twentieth year of Maurice Petros was again appointed 
general in Europe. He proceeded to Palastolon, a town on the 
Danube, koI '^apaKa Trocrja-dfisvos ovrco ttjv tov Ospovs copav hirjvvsv. 
At the beginning of the autumn, fjbsroirwpov dp'^ofisvov, he proceeded 
against the Avars, who had taken up quarters in Dardania (p. 292). 
Negotiations between the Avar captain, Apsich, and Petros came to 
nothing, but no hostilities seem to have taken place, and the armies 
separated, the barbarians proceeding to Constantiola and the Bomans 
to quarters in Thrace. Now it is important to observe that these 
events must have taken place in 601, not in 602, as Theophanes 
apparently understood. The twentieth year of Maurice began on 
13 Aug. 601, and Oepovs may refer to the end of that month. The 
summer and autumn of 602 cannot possibly be meant, as Theophy- 
laktos proceeds to mention them immediately afterwards : tov hs 
Ospovs sTTsiyovTos cLKOT) ^LvBTai M^avpcKiw, /c.T.X,., and a little further 
on Mpas rolvvv /jLsro7rcopLV7]s svhTjfxovarjs, k.t.X. He thus implies 



without any ambiguity that the army spent the winter 601-2 in 
Thrace. The narration of the events which led up to the fall of 
Maurice, occupying the last months of 602, presents no chronologi- 
cal difficulty. 

We must call attention to a misstatement of Theophylaktos 
respecting the marriage of Maurice's eldest son, Theodosios. Having 
stated (p. 291) that ' Maurice appointed his brother Petros general 
in the twentieth year of his reign,' he proceeds : irpb tovtov tov 
sviavTov SsoS6(TLos 6 TOV jSaatXscDS vlos- vvfji(f)i09 7ro/jL7rsvsTac. That 
is, he places the marriage some time before 13 Aug. 601. But 
we learn from Theophanes that the event took place in the month 
of November, in the fifth indiction, which w^as current from 1 Sept. 
601 to 1 Sept. 602 ; that is, it took place in, and not ' before,' 
the twentieth year of Maurice. Now, on all events that took 
place inside the capital Theophanes is far better informed than 
Theophylaktos, and on such a matter as the marriage of a member 
of the imperial house registers were extant from which he could 
obtain precise information. Theophanes based his chronology on 
the years of the world, adopting the Alexandrine era of Panodoros ; 
and he only occasionally dates an event by the current indiction. 
Now it is a very significant fact, and I do not remember to have seen 
it noticed, that those events which he honours by mentioning the ap- 
propriate indiction are almost invariably connected with the emperor, 
or the imperial family, or the city of Constantinople. As the indic- 
tion system was the official mode of reckoning dates in the Eoman 
empire since the year 312 a.d., the obvious conclusion is that these 
dates were copied directly from official registers preserved in the 
praitorion of the prefect of the city. We are therefore bound to 
accept Theophanes' date for the marriage of Theodosios ; and it is 
probable that this mistake of Theophylaktos misled Theophanes into 
transposing events that happened in 601 to the following year. 

Having discovered that the last five years of Maurice's reign, 
598 to 602, are satisfactorily accounted for by Theophylaktos, we 
are now in a position to affirm the hypothesis which we provision- 
ally adopted above — namely, that he placed the deposition of Petros 
at the end of 597, and consequently believed that Joannes Nesteu- 
tes died in 594. There is thus a great gap in the chronology of 
Theophylaktos from a.d. 593 to 597, and we have no materials to fill 
it up. John B. Bury. 


Eleanor of Castile, the gentle and loving wife of Edward I, died on 
her way to Scotland, whither she was following her husband, on 
28 Nov. 1290, at a place described as ' Herdeby iuxta Lincolniam.' ^ 

* Rishanger, Chronica, p. 120, copied by Walsin^am, Historia Anglicana, i. 32 


The continuator of Florence of Worcester assumed that, as Herdeby 
was near Lincoln, it must be in Lincolnshire, and he accordingly 
calls it * Herdeby in comitatu Lincolniensi.'^ The Oseney annalist 
says that she died at ' Graham,' no doubt Grantham.^ Consider- 
able uncertainty exists amongst our historians as to the identifica- 
tion of this place, and this uncertainty is mainly owing to the 
assumption that Herdeby is in Lincolnshire. Pearson "^ says that 
Eleanor died at ' Hardley in Lincolnshire.' But there is no such village 
in Lincolnshire, and this name seems to be merely a modernisation 
of Herdeley, which appears in Walsingham's ' Ypodigma Neustriae,' 
p. 180, although this writer has the correct Herdeby in his * Historia 
Anglicana,' i. 32. Eiley has shown that Walsingham is a mere 
copyist of the S. Albans chronicle known to us under Eishanger's 
name, and this work has coYrectlj Hei^dehy. Moreover, Edward's 
letter to the archbishop of York announcing his wife's death is 
dated from Herdeby,^ so that there can be no doubt as to the 
contemporary form of the name. The 'Annals of England' 
give ' Hardby near Lincoln,' but there is no such village on the 
maps, and this name seems to be only a modernised form of Herdeby. 
Longman^ says that Eleanor died at 'Herdeby in Lincolnshire,' 
which is either taken from the continuator of Florence of Worcester 
or is an assumption that Herdeby was in that county. Miss Strick- 
land ^ places Eleanor's death at ' Herdeby, near Grantham,' the 
source of which assertion I have not been able to trace. Ellis, 
the editor of John de Oxenedes, does not attempt to identify Herdeby, 
and Eiley merely alters the name to ' Hardeby ' in the indexes to 
Eishanger, Walsingham, and Trokelowe. Low and Pulling' s ' Dic- 
tionary of English History ' says that Eleanor died at Grantham, 
on the authority, probably, of the Oseney annalist. There is a 
tradition at Hareby, near Horncastle, that her death occurred 
there, but this is manifestly wrong, for Hareby is too far from 
Lincoln and the north road, and as it is called Harebi in the 
Domesday Survey, it could hardly appear as Herdeby in 1290. 

The whole difficulty has arisen from the erroneous assump- 
tion that Herdeby was in Lincolnshire. Now the Nottinghamshire 
border approaches within seven miles of Lincoln, and on this border, 
but in Nottinghamshire, is the village of Harby. This is quite near 

and Yjpodigma NeustricB, p. 180 ; Opus Chroniccn-uvi, in Trokelowe, p. 49 ; John of 
Oxenedes, p. 254. The locality of her death is not recorded in the Dunstable Annals 
{Annales Monastici, iii. 362), the Worcester Annals {id. iv. 504), Trivet, p. 317^ 
Hemingborough, i. 72, Bartholomew Cotton, p. 179, Annales Londonienses, p. 99. 
'^ Vol. ii. p. 245. ' Annales Monastici, iv. 326. 

* History of England in the Early and Middle Ages, ii. 352. 

* Printed in Canon Raine's Historical Letters and Papers from the Northern 
Registers, p. 91. 

® Lectures on the History of Englaiid, 1863, i. 290. 
^ Lives of the Queens of England, i. p. 443. 


enough to Lincoln to be described as * near Lincoln,' and it is close 
to the great north road. And the ancient form of this name was 
Herdehy, so that we must have here the place of queen Eleanor's 
death. Harby was formerly a chapelry annexed to the parish of 
Clifton, but in 1874 it was incorporated with Swinethorpe in 
Lincolnshire as an ecclesiastical parish. Shortly after this date a 
church was built at Harby in succession to the ancient chapel, and 
the great event in the history of the village was then recorded by 
placing a statue of queen Eleanor over the door on the east side of 
the tower. 

The following extract from the Eegister of archbishop Eomanus 
(fo. 62) at York settles the question as to the place of queen 
Eleanor's death. Harby was, as I have said, formerly in the 
parish of Clifton, and Clifton (north and south) and Herdeby are 
reckoned as one uilla in the ' Nomina Villarum,' 9 Ed. H. This in- 
strument, it will be seen, states that queen Eleanor died at Herdeby, 
and it tells us that the chapel of Herdeby lies within the limits of 
the church of Clifton. There is no question as to the identity of 
Clifton, for, although situate in the diocese of York, it was a pre- 
bend of Lincoln, and the bishop of Lincoln was a large landowner 
in Clifton. As the instrument is not very long and is pertinent to 
the subject, I have transcribed the whole of it. 

W. H. Stevenson. 

Ordinatio super capella de Herdeby pro anima Regince Anglice. 

Vniuersis Sanctae Matris Ecclesise filiis, ad quorum notitiam 
peruenerit haec scriptura, I[ohannes], permissione diuina, Ebora- 
censis archiepiscopus, etc., salutem, etc. 

Sanctae deuotiones fidelium piis sunt prosequendae fauoribus, 
et illae praesertim, quae diuini cultus dilatationem respiciunt, quo, 
dum Patri pro peccatis populi immolatur Filius, commissorum 
remissio facilius impetratur. Cernentes itaque, quod compositio 
seu ordinatio facta per discretos uiros Decanum et Capitulum 
Lincoln' et Magistrum Willelmum de Langwath, Canonicum Lin- 
coln', Praebendarium ecclesiae de Clifton, nostrae dicecesis, ad 
sustentationem uel exhibitionem unius presbyteri, qui in capella de 
Herdeby, nostrae dicecesis (quae infra Hmites dictae praebendalis 
ecclesiae de Clifton' sita noscitur), pro anima clarae memoriae 
Dominae Alianorae, quondam Keginae Angliae, quae apud Herdeby 
(sicut D