THE

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

ELEVENTH EDITION

COPYRIGHT

in all countries subscribing to the
Bern Convention

by

THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS

of the

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

All rights reserved

THE

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A

DICTIONARY

OF

ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL

INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XV

ITALY to KYSHTYM

New York

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

342 Madison Avenue

Copyright, in the United States of America, 1910,
by
The Encyclopædia Britannica Company.

VOLUME XV SLICE I

Italy to Jacobite Church

Articles in This Slice

INITIALS USED IN VOLUME XV. TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUAL
CONTRIBUTORS,1 WITH THE HEADINGS OF THE
ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME SO SIGNED.

PRINCIPAL UNSIGNED ARTICLES

1

ITALY (Italia), the name1 applied both in ancient and in modern times to the great peninsula that projects from the mass of central Europe far to the south into the Mediterranean Sea, where the island of Sicily may be considered as a continuation of the continental promontory. The portion of the Mediterranean commonly termed the Tyrrhenian Sea forms its limit on the W. and S., and the Adriatic on the E.; while to the N., where it joins the main continent of Europe, it is separated from the adjacent regions by the mighty barrier of the Alps, which sweeps round in a vast semicircle from the head of the Adriatic to the shores of Nice and Monaco.

Topography.—The land thus circumscribed extends between the parallels of 46° 40′ and 36° 38′ N., and between 6° 30′ and 18° 30′ E. Its greatest length in a straight line along the mainland is from N.W. to S.E., in which direction it measures 708 m. in a direct line from the frontier near Courmayeur to Cape Sta Maria di Leuca, south of Otranto, but the great mountain peninsula of Calabria extends about two degrees farther south to Cape Spartivento in lat. 37° 55′. Its breadth is, owing to its configuration, very irregular. The northern portion, measured from the Alps at the Monte Viso to the mouth of the Po, has a breadth of about 270 m., while the maximum breadth, from the Rocca Chiardonnet near Susa to a peak in the valley of the Isonzo, is 354 m. But the peninsula of Italy, which forms the largest portion of the country, nowhere exceeds 150 m. in breadth, while it does not generally measure more than 100 m. across. Its southern extremity, Calabria, forms a complete peninsula, being united to the mass of Lucania or the Basilicata by an isthmus only 35 m. in width, while that between the gulfs of Sta Eufemia and Squillace, which connects the two portions of the province, does not exceed 20 m. The area of the kingdom of Italy, exclusive of the large islands, is computed at 91,277 sq. m. Though Boundaries. the Alps form throughout the northern boundary of Italy, the exact limits at the extremities of the Alpine chain are not clearly marked. Ancient geographers appear to have generally regarded the remarkable headland which descends from the Maritime Alps to the sea between Nice and Monaco as the limit of Italy in that direction, and in a purely geographical point of view it is probably the best point that could be selected. But Augustus, who was the first to give to Italy a definite political organization, carried the frontier to the river Varus or Var, a few miles west of Nice, and this river continued in modern times to be generally recognized as the boundary between France and Italy. But in 1860 the annexation of Nice and the adjoining territory to France brought the political frontier farther east, to a point between Mentone and Ventimiglia which constitutes no natural limit.

Towards the north-east, the point where the Julian Alps approach close to the seashore (just at the sources of the little stream known in ancient times as the Timavus) would seem to constitute the best natural limit. But by Augustus the frontier was carried farther east so as to include Tergeste (Trieste), and the little river Formio (Risano) was in the first instance chosen as the limit, but this was subsequently transferred to the river Arsia (the Arsa), which flows into the Gulf of Quarnero, so as to include almost all Istria; and the circumstance that the coast of Istria was throughout the middle ages held by the republic of Venice tended to perpetuate this arrangement, so that Istria was generally regarded as belonging to Italy, though certainly not forming any natural portion of that country. Present Italian aspirations are similarly directed.

The only other part of the northern frontier of Italy where the boundary is not clearly marked by nature is Tirol or the valley of the Adige. Here the main chain of the Alps (as marked by the watershed) recedes so far to the north that it has never constituted the frontier. In ancient times the upper valleys of the Adige and its tributaries were inhabited by Raetian tribes and included in the province of Raetia; and the line of demarcation between that province and Italy was purely arbitrary, as it remains to this day. Tridentum or Trent was in the time of Pliny included in the tenth region of Italy or Venetia, but he tells us that the inhabitants were a Raetian tribe. At the present day the frontier between Austria and the kingdom of Italy crosses the Adige about 30 m. below Trent—that city and its territory, which previous to the treaty of Lunéville in 1801 was governed by sovereign archbishops, subject only to the German emperors, being now included in the Austrian empire.

While the Alps thus constitute the northern boundary of Italy, its configuration and internal geography are determined almost entirely by the great chain of the Apennines, which branches off from the Maritime Alps between Nice and Genoa, and, after stretching in an unbroken line from the Gulf of Genoa to the Adriatic, turns more to the south, and is continued throughout 2 Central and Southern Italy, of which it forms as it were the backbone, until it ends in the southernmost extremity of Calabria at Cape Spartivento. The great spur or promontory projecting towards the east to Brindisi and Otranto has no direct connexion with the central chain.

One chief result of the manner in which the Apennines traverse Italy from the Mediterranean to the Adriatic is the marked division between Northern Italy, including the region north of the Apennines and extending thence to the foot of the Alps, and the central and more southerly portions of the peninsula. No such line of separation exists farther south, and the terms Central and Southern Italy, though in general use among geographers and convenient for descriptive purposes, do not correspond to any natural divisions.

1. Northern Italy.—By far the larger portion of Northern Italy is occupied by the basin of the Po, which comprises the whole of the broad plain extending from the foot of the Apennines to that of the Alps, together with the valleys and slopes on both sides of it. From its source in Monte Viso to its outflow into the Adriatic—a distance of more than 220 m. in a direct line—the Po receives all the waters that flow from the Apennines northwards, and all those that descend from the Alps towards the south, Mincio (the outlet of the Lake of Garda) inclusive. The next river to the E. is the Adige, which, after pursuing a parallel course with the Po for a considerable distance, enters the Adriatic by a separate mouth. Farther to the N. and N.E. the various rivers of Venetia fall directly into the Gulf of Venice.

There is no other instance in Europe of a basin of similar extent equally clearly characterized—the perfectly level character of the plain being as striking as the boldness with which the lower slopes of the mountain ranges begin to rise on each side of it. This is most clearly marked on the side of the Apennines, where the great Aemilian Way, which has been the high road from the time of the Romans to our own, preserves an unbroken straight line from Rimini to Piacenza, a distance of more than 150 m., during which the underfalls of the mountains continually approach it on the left, without once crossing the line of road.

The geography of Northern Italy will be best described by following the course of the Po. That river has its origin as a mountain torrent descending from two little dark lakes on the north flank of Monte Viso, at a height of more than 6000 ft. above the sea; and after a course of less than 20 m. it enters the plain at Saluzzo, between which and Turin, a distance of only 30 m., it receives three considerable tributaries—the Chisone on its left bank, bringing down the waters from the valley of Fenestrelle, and the Varaita and Maira on the south, contributing those of two valleys of the Alps immediately south of that of the Po itself. A few miles below Valenza it is joined by the Tanaro, a large stream, which brings with it the united waters of the Stura, the Bormida and several minor rivers.

More important are the rivers that descend from the main chain of the Graian and Pennine Alps and join the Po on its left bank. Of these the Dora (called for distinction’s sake Dora Riparia), which unites with the greater river just below Turin, has its source in the Mont Genèvre, and flows past Susa at the foot of the Mont Cenis. Next comes the Stura, which rises in the glaciers of the Roche Melon; then the Orca, flowing through the Val di Locana; and then the Dora Baltea, one of the greatest of all the Alpine tributaries of the Po, which has its source in the glaciers of Mont Blanc, above Courmayeur, and thence descends through the Val d’Aosta for about 70 m. till it enters the plain at Ivrea, and, after flowing about 20 m. more, joins the Po a few miles below Chivasso. This great valley—one of the most considerable on the southern side of the Alps—has attracted special attention, in ancient as well as modern times, from its leading to two of the most frequented passes across the great mountain chain—the Great and the Little St Bernard—the former diverging at Aosta, and crossing the main ridges to the north into the valley of the Rhone, the other following a more westerly direction into Savoy. Below Aosta also the Dora Baltea receives several considerable tributaries, which descend from the glaciers between Mont Blanc and Monte Rosa.

About 25 m. below its confluence with the Dora, the Po receives the Sesia, also a large river, which has its source above Alagna at the southern foot of Monte Rosa, and after flowing by Varallo and Vercelli falls into the Po about 14 m. below the latter city. About 30 m. east of this confluence—in the course of which the Po makes a great bend south to Valenza, and then returns again to the northward—it is joined by the Ticino, a large and rapid river, which brings with it the outflow of Lago Maggiore and all the waters that flow into it. Of these the Ticino itself has its source about 10 m. above Airolo at the foot of the St Gotthard, and after flowing above 36 m. through the Val Leventina to Bellinzona (where it is joined by the Moësa bringing down the waters of the Val Misocco) enters the lake through a marshy plain at Magadino, about 10 m. distant. On the west side of the lake the Toccia or Tosa descends from the pass of the Gries nearly due south to Domodossola, where it receives the waters of the Doveria from the Simplon, and a few miles lower down those of the Val d’Anzasca from the foot of Monte Rosa, and 12 m. farther has its outlet into the lake between Baveno and Pallanza. The Lago Maggiore is also the receptacle of the waters of the Lago di Lugano on the east and the Lago d’Orta on the west.

The next great affluent of the Po, the Adda, forms the outflow of the Lake of Como, and has also its sources in the Alps, above Bormio, whence it flows through the broad and fertile valley of the Valtellina for more than 65 m. till it enters the lake near Colico. The Adda in this part of its course has a direction almost due east to west; but at the point where it reaches the lake, the Liro descends the valley of S. Giacomo, which runs nearly north and south from the pass of the Splügen, thus affording one of the most direct lines of communication across the Alps. The Adda flows out of the lake at its south-eastern extremity at Lecco, and has thence a course through the plain of above 70 m. till it enters the Po between Piacenza and Cremona. It flows by Lodi and Pizzighettone, and receives the waters of the Brembo, descending from the Val Brembana, and the Serio from the Val Seriana above Bergamo. The Oglio, a more considerable stream than either of the last two, rises in the Monte Tonale above Edolo, and descends through the Val Camonica to Lovere, where it expands into a large lake, called Iseo from the town of that name on its southern shore. Issuing thence at its south-west extremity, the Oglio has a long and winding course through the plain before it finally reaches the Po a few miles above Borgoforte. In this lower part it receives the smaller streams of the Mella, which flows by Brescia, and the Chiese, which proceeds from the small Lago d’Idro, between the Lago d’Iseo and that of Garda.

The last of the great tributaries of the Po is the Mincio, which flows from the Lago di Garda, and has a course of about 40 m. from Peschiera, where it issues from the lake at its south-eastern angle, till it joins the Po. About 12 m. above the confluence it passes under the walls of Mantua, and expands into a broad lake-like reach so as entirely to encircle that city. Notwithstanding its extent, the Lago di Garda is not fed by the snows of the high Alps, nor is the stream which enters it at its northern extremity (at Riva) commonly known as the Mincio, though forming the main source of that river, but is termed the Sarca; it rises at the foot of Monte Tonale.

The Adige, formed by the junction of two streams—the Etsch or Adige proper and the Eisak, both of which belong to Tirol rather than to Italy—descends as far as Verona, where it enters the great plain, with a course from north to south nearly parallel to the rivers last described, and would seem likely to discharge its waters into those of the Po, but below Legnago it turns eastward and runs parallel to the Po for about 40 m., entering the Adriatic by an independent mouth about 8 m. from the northern outlet of the greater stream. The waters of the two rivers have, however, been made to communicate by artificial cuts and canals in more than one place.

The Po itself, which is here a very large stream, with an average width of 400 to 600 yds., continues to flow with an undivided mass of waters as far as Sta Maria di Ariano, where it parts into two arms, known as the Po di Maestra and Po di Goro, and these again are subdivided into several other branches, forming a delta above 20 m. in width from north to south. The point of bifurcation, at present about 25 m. from the sea, was formerly much farther inland, more than 10 m. west of Ferrara, where a small arm of the river, still called the Po di Ferrara, branches from the main stream. Previous to the year 1154 this channel was the main stream, and the two small branches into which it subdivides, called the Po di Volano and Po di Primaro, were in early times the two main outlets of the river. The southernmost of these, the Po di Primaro, enters the Adriatic about 12 m. north of Ravenna, so that if these two arms be included, the delta of the Po extends about 36 m. from south to north. The whole course of the river, including its windings, is estimated at about 450 m.

Besides the delta of the Po and the large marshy tracts which it forms, there exist on both sides of it extensive lagoons of salt water, generally separated from the Adriatic by narrow strips of sand or embankments, partly natural and partly artificial, but having openings which admit the influx and efflux of the sea-water, and serve as ports for communication with the mainland. The best known and the most extensive of these lagoons is that in which Venice is situated, which extends from Torcello in the north to Chioggia and Brondolo in the south, a distance of above 40 m.; but they were formerly much more extensive, and afforded a continuous means of internal navigation, by what were called “the Seven Seas” (Septem Maria), from Ravenna to Altinum, a few miles north of Torcello. That city, like Ravenna, originally stood in the midst of a lagoon; and the coast east of it to near Monfalcone, where it meets the mountains, is occupied by similar expanses of water, which are, however, becoming gradually converted into dry land.

The tract adjoining this long line of lagoons is, like the basin of the Po, a broad expanse of perfectly level alluvial plain, extending from the Adige eastwards to the Carnic Alps, where they approach close to the Adriatic between Aquileia and Trieste, and northwards to the foot of the great chain, which here sweeps round in a semicircle from the neighbourhood of Vicenza to that of Aquileia. The space thus included was known in ancient times as Venetia, a name applied in the middle ages to the well-known city; the eastern portion of it became known in the middle ages as the Frioul or Friuli.

Returning to the south of the Po, the tributaries of that river on its right bank below the Tanaro are very inferior in volume and importance to those from the north. Flowing from the Ligurian 3 Apennines, which never attain the limit of perpetual snow, they generally dwindle in summer into insignificant streams. Beginning from the Tanaro, the principal of them are—(1) the Scrivia, a small but rapid stream flowing from the Apennines at the back of Genoa; (2) the Trebbia, a much larger river, though of the same torrent-like character, which rises near Torriglia within 20 m. of Genoa, flows by Bobbio, and joins the Po a few miles above Piacenza; (3) the Nure, a few miles east of the preceding; (4) the Taro, a more considerable stream; (5) the Parma, flowing by the city of the same name; (6) the Enza; (7) the Secchia, which flows by Modena; (8) the Panaro, a few miles to the east of that city; (9) the Reno, which flows by Bologna, but instead of holding its course till it discharges its waters into the Po, as it did in Roman times, is turned aside by an artificial channel into the Po di Primaro. The other small streams east of this—of which the most considerable are the Solaro, the Santerno, flowing by Imola, the Lamone by Faenza, the Montone by Forlì, all in Roman times tributaries of the Po—have their outlet in like manner into the Po di Primaro, or by artificial mouths into the Adriatic between Ravenna and Rimini. The river Marecchia, which enters the sea immediately north of Rimini, may be considered as the natural limit of Northern Italy. It was adopted by Augustus as the boundary of Gallia Cispadana; the far-famed Rubicon was a trifling stream a few miles farther north, now called Fiumicino. The Savio is the only other stream of any importance which has always flowed directly into the Adriatic from this side of the Tuscan Apennines.

The narrow strip of coast-land between the Maritime Alps, the Apennines and the sea—called in ancient times Liguria, and now known as the Riviera of Genoa—is throughout its extent, from Nice to Genoa on the one side, and from Genoa to Spezia on the other, almost wholly mountainous. It is occupied by the branches and offshoots of the mountain ranges which separate it from the great plain to the north, and send down their lateral ridges close to the water’s edge, leaving only in places a few square miles of level plains at the mouths of the rivers and openings of the valleys. The district is by no means devoid of fertility, the steep slopes facing the south enjoying so fine a climate as to render them very favourable for the | growth of fruit trees, especially the olive, which is cultivated in terraces to a considerable height up the face of the mountains, while the openings of the valleys are generally occupied by towns or villages, some of which have become favourite winter resorts.

From the proximity of the mountains to the sea none of the rivers in this part of Italy has a long course, and they are generally mere mountain torrents, rapid and swollen in winter and spring, and almost dry in summer. The largest and most important are those which descend from the Maritime Alps between Nice and Albenga. The most considerable of them are—the Roja, which rises in the Col di Tenda and descends to Ventimiglia; the Taggia, between San Remo and Oneglia; and the Centa, which enters the sea at Albenga. The Lavagna, which enters the sea at Chiavari, is the only stream of any importance between Genoa and the Gulf of Spezia. But immediately east of that inlet (a remarkable instance of a deep landlocked gulf with no river flowing into it) the Magra, which descends from Pontremoli down the valley known as the Lunigiana, is a large stream, and brings with it the waters of another considerable stream, the Vara. The Magra (Macra), in ancient times the boundary between Liguria and Etruria, may be considered as constituting on this side the limit of Northern Italy.

The Apennines (q.v.), as has been already mentioned, here traverse the whole breadth of Italy, cutting off the peninsula properly so termed from the broader mass of Northern Italy by a continuous barrier of considerable breadth, though of far inferior elevation to that of the Alps. The Ligurian Apennines may be considered as taking their rise in the neighbourhood of Savona, where a pass of very moderate elevation connects them with the Maritime Alps, of which they are in fact only a continuation. From the neighbourhood of Savona to that of Genoa they do not rise to more than 3000 to 4000 ft., and are traversed by passes of less than 2000 ft. As they extend towards the east they increase in elevation; the Monte Bue rises to 5915 ft., while the Monte Cimone, a little farther east, attains 7103 ft. This is the highest point in the northern Apennines, and belongs to a group of summits of nearly equal altitude; the range which is continued thence between Tuscany and what are now known as the Emilian provinces presents a continuous ridge from the mountains at the head of the Val di Mugello (due north of Florence) to the point where they are traversed by the celebrated Furlo Pass. The highest point in this part of the range is the Monte Falterona, above the sources of the Arno, which attains 5410 ft. Throughout this tract the Apennines are generally covered with extensive forests of chestnut, oak and beech; while their upper slopes afford admirable pasturage. Few towns of any importance are found either on their northern or southern declivity, and the former region especially, though occupying a tract of from 30 to 40 m. in width, between the crest of the Apennines and the plain of the Po, is one of the least known and at the same time least interesting portions of Italy.

2. Central Italy.—The geography of Central Italy is almost wholly determined by the Apennines, which traverse it in a direction from about north-north-east to south-south-west, almost precisely parallel to that of the coast of the Adriatic from Rimini to Pescara. The line of the highest summits and of the watershed ranges is about 30 to 40 m. from the Adriatic, while about double that distance separates it from the Tyrrhenian Sea on the west. In this part of the range almost all the highest points of the Apennines are found. Beginning from the group called the Alpi della Luna near the sources of the Tiber, which attain 4435 ft., they are continued by the Monte Nerone (5010 ft.), Monte Catria (5590), and Monte Maggio to the Monte Pennino near Nocera (5169 ft.), and thence to the Monte della Sibilla, at the source of the Nar or Nera, which attains 7663 ft. Proceeding thence southwards, we find in succession the Monte Vettore (8128 ft.), the Pizzo di Sevo (7945 ft.), and the two great mountain masses of the Monte Corno, commonly called the Gran Sasso d’Italia, the most lofty of all the Apennines, attaining to a height of 9560 ft., and the Monte della Maiella, its highest summit measuring 9170 ft. Farther south no very lofty summits are found till we come to the group of Monti del Matese, in Samnium (6660 ft.), which according to the division here adopted belongs to Southern Italy. Besides the lofty central masses enumerated there are two other lofty peaks, outliers from the main range, and separated from it by valleys of considerable extent. These are the Monte Terminillo, near Leonessa (7278 ft.), and the Monte Velino near the Lake Fucino, rising to 8192 ft., both of which are covered with snow from November till May. But the Apennines of Central Italy, instead of presenting, like the Alps and the northern Apennines, a definite central ridge, with transverse valleys leading down from it on both sides, in reality constitute a mountain mass of very considerable breadth, composed of a number of minor ranges and groups of mountains, which preserve a generally parallel direction, and are separated by upland valleys, some of them of considerable extent as well as considerable elevation above the sea. Such is the basin of Lake Fucino, situated in the centre of the mass, almost exactly midway between the two seas, at an elevation of 2180 ft. above them; while the upper valley of the Aterno, in which Aquila is situated, is 2380 ft. above the sea. Still more elevated is the valley of the Gizio (a tributary of the Aterno), of which Sulmona is the chief town. This communicates with the upper valley of the Sangro by a level plain called the Piano di Cinque Miglia, at an elevation of 4298 ft., regarded as the most wintry spot in Italy. Nor do the highest summits form a continuous ridge of great altitude for any considerable distance; they are rather a series of groups separated by tracts of very inferior elevation forming natural passes across the range, and broken in some places (as is the case in almost all limestone countries) by the waters from the upland valleys turning suddenly at right angles, and breaking through the mountain ranges which bound them. Thus the Gran Sasso and the Maiella are separated by the deep valley of the Aterno, while the Tronto breaks through the range between Monte Vettore and the Pizzo di Sevo. This constitution of the great mass of the central Apennines has in all ages exercised an important influence upon the character of this portion of Italy, which may be considered as divided by nature into two great regions, a cold and barren upland country, bordered on both sides by rich and fertile tracts, enjoying a warm but temperate climate.

The district west of the Apennines, a region of great beauty and fertility, though inferior in productiveness to Northern Italy, coincides in a general way with the countries familiar to all students of ancient history as Etruria and Latium. Until the union of Italy they were comprised in Tuscany and the southern Papal States. The northern part of Tuscany is indeed occupied to a considerable extent by the underfalls and offshoots of the Apennines, which, besides the slopes and spurs of the main range that constitutes its northern frontier towards the plain of the Po, throw off several outlying ranges or groups. Of these the most remarkable is the group between the valleys of the Serchio and the Magra, commonly known as the mountains of Carrara, from the celebrated marble quarries in the vicinity of that city. Two of the summits of this group, the Pizzo d’Uccello and the Pania della Croce, attain 6155 and 6100 ft. Another lateral range, the Prato Magno, which branches off from the central chain at the Monte Falterona, and separates the upper valley of the Arno from its second basin, rises to 5188 ft.; while a similar branch, called the Alpe di Catenaja, of inferior elevation, divides the upper course of the Arno from that of the Tiber.

The rest of this tract is for the most part a hilly, broken country, of moderate elevation, but Monte Amiata, near Radicofani, an isolated mass of volcanic origin, attains a height of 5650 ft. South of this the country between the frontier of Tuscany and the Tiber is in great part of volcanic origin, forming hills with distinct crater-shaped basins, in several instances occupied by small lakes (the Lake of Bolsena, Lake of Vico and Lake of Bracciano). This volcanic tract extends across the Campagna of Rome, till it rises again in the lofty group of the Alban hills, the highest summit of which, the Monte Cavo, is 3160 ft. above the sea. In this part the Apennines are separated from the sea, distant about 30 m. by the undulating volcanic plain of the Roman Campagna, from which the mountains rise in a wall-like barrier, of which the highest point, the Monte Gennaro, attains 4165 ft. South of Palestrina again, the main mass of the Apennines throws off another lateral mass, known in ancient times as the Volscian mountains (now called the Monti Lepini), separated from the central ranges by the broad valley of the Sacco, a tributary of the Liri (Liris) or Garigliano, and forming a large and rugged mountain mass, nearly 5000 ft. in height, which descends to the sea at Terracina, and 4 between that point and the mouth of the Liri throws out several rugged mountain headlands, which may be considered as constituting the natural boundary between Latium and Campania, and consequently the natural limit of Central Italy. Besides these offshoots of the Apennines there are in this part of Central Italy several detached mountains, rising almost like islands on the seashore, of which the two most remarkable are the Monte Argentaro on the coast of Tuscany near Orbetello (2087 ft.) and the Monte Circello (1771 ft.) at the angle of the Pontine Marshes, by the whole breadth of which it is separated from the Volscian Apennines.

The two valleys of the Arno and the Tiber (Ital. Tevere) may be considered as furnishing the key to the geography of all this portion of Italy west of the Apennines. The Arno, which has its source in the Monte Falterona, one of the most elevated summits of the main chain of the Tuscan Apennines, flows nearly south till in the neighbourhood of Arezzo it turns abruptly north-west, and pursues that course as far as Pontassieve, where it again makes a sudden bend to the west, and pursues a westerly course thence to the sea, passing through Florence and Pisa. Its principal tributary is the Sieve, which joins it at Pontassieve, bringing down the waters of the Val di Mugello. The Elsa and the Era, which join it on its left bank, descending from the hills near Siena and Volterra, are inconsiderable streams; and the Serchio, which flows from the territory of Lucca and the Alpi Apuani, and formerly joined the Arno a few miles from its mouth, now enters the sea by a separate channel. The most considerable rivers of Tuscany south of the Arno are the Cecina, which flows through the plain below Volterra, and the Ombrone, which rises in the hills near Siena, and enters the sea about 12 m. below Grosseto.

The Tiber, a much more important river than the Arno, and the largest in Italy with the exception of the Po, rises in the Apennines, about 20 m. east of the source of the Arno, and flows nearly south by Borgo S. Sepolcro and Città di Castello, then between Perugia and Todi to Orte, just below which it receives the Nera. The Nera, which rises in the lofty group of the Monte della Sibilla, is a considerable stream, and brings with it the waters of the Velino (with its tributaries the Turano and the Salto), which joins it a few miles below its celebrated waterfall at Terni. The Teverone or Anio, which enters the Tiber a few miles above Rome, is an inferior stream to the Nera, but brings down a considerable body of water from the mountains above Subiaco. It is a singular fact in the geography of Central Italy that the valleys of the Tiber and Arno are in some measure connected by that of the Chiana, a level and marshy tract, the waters from which flow partly into the Arno and partly into the Tiber.

The eastern declivity of the central Apennines towards the Adriatic is far less interesting and varied than the western. The central range here approaches much nearer to the sea, and hence, with few exceptions, the rivers that flow from it have short courses and are of comparatively little importance. They may be enumerated, proceeding from Rimini southwards: (1) the Foglia; (2) the Metauro, of historical celebrity, and affording access to one of the most frequented passes of the Apennines; (3) the Esino; (4) the Potenza; (5) the Chienti; (6) the Aso; (7) the Tronto; (8) the Vomano; (9) the Aterno; (10) the Sangro; (11) the Trigno, which forms the boundary of the southernmost province of the Abruzzi, and may therefore be taken as the limit of Central Italy.

The whole of this portion of Central Italy is a hilly country, much broken and cut up by the torrents from the mountains, but fertile, especially in fruit-trees, olives and vines; and it has been, both in ancient and modern times, a populous district, containing many small towns though no great cities. Its chief disadvantage is the absence of ports, the coast preserving an almost unbroken straight line, with the single exception of Ancona, the only port worthy of the name on the eastern coast of Central Italy.

3. Southern Italy.—The great central mass of the Apennines, which has held its course throughout Central Italy, with a general direction from north-west to south-east, may be considered as continued in the same direction for about 100 m. farther, from the basin-shaped group of the Monti del Matese (which rises to 6660 ft.) to the neighbourhood of Potenza, in the heart of the province of Basilicata, corresponding nearly to the ancient Lucania. The whole of the district known in ancient times as Samnium (a part of which retains the name of Sannio, though officially designated the province of Campobasso) is occupied by an irregular mass of mountains, of much inferior height to those of Central Italy, and broken up into a number of groups, intersected by rivers, which have for the most part a very tortuous course. This mountainous tract, which has an average breadth of from 50 to 60 m., is bounded west by the plain of Campania, now called the Terra di Lavoro, and east by the much broader and more extensive tract of Apulia or Puglia, composed partly of level plains, but for the most part of undulating downs, contrasting strongly with the mountain ranges of the Apennines, which rise abruptly above them. The central mass of the mountains, however, throws out two outlying ranges, the one to the west, which separates the Bay of Naples from that of Salerno, and culminates in the Monte S. Angelo above Castellammare (4720 ft.), while the detached volcanic cone of Vesuvius (nearly 4000 ft.) is isolated from the neighbouring mountains by an intervening strip of plain. On the east side in like manner the Monte Gargano (3465 ft.), a detached limestone mass which projects in a bold spur-like promontory into the Adriatic, forming the only break in the otherwise uniform coast-line of Italy on that sea, though separated from the great body of the Apennines by a considerable interval of low country, may be considered as merely an outlier from the central mass.

From the neighbourhood of Potenza, the main ridge of the Apennines is continued by the Monti della Maddalena in a direction nearly due south, so that it approaches within a short distance of the Gulf of Policastro, whence it is carried on as far as the Monte Pollino, the last of the lofty summits of the Apennine chain, which exceeds 7000 ft. in height. The range is, however, continued through the province now called Calabria, to the southern extremity or “toe” of Italy, but presents in this part a very much altered character, the broken limestone range which is the true continuation of the chain as far as the neighbourhood of Nicastro and Catanzaro, and keeps close to the west coast, being flanked on the east by a great mass of granitic mountains, rising to about 6000 ft., and covered with vast forests, from which it derives the name of La Sila. A similar mass, separated from the preceding by a low neck of Tertiary hills, fills up the whole of the peninsular extremity of Italy from Squillace to Reggio. Its highest point is called Aspromonte (6420 ft.).

While the rugged and mountainous district of Calabria, extending nearly due south for a distance of more than 150 m., thus derives its character and configuration almost wholly from the range of the Apennines, the long spur-like promontory which projects towards the east to Brindisi and Otranto is merely a continuation of the low tract of Apulia, with a dry calcareous soil of Tertiary origin. The Monte Volture, which rises in the neighbourhood of Melfi and Venosa to 4357 ft., is of volcanic origin, and in great measure detached from the adjoining mass of the Apennines. Eastward from this the ranges of low bare hills called the Murgie of Gravina and Altamura gradually sink into the still more moderate level of those which constitute the peninsular tract between Brindisi and Taranto as far as the Cape of Sta Maria di Leuca, the south-east extremity of Italy. This projecting tract, which may be termed the “heel” or “spur” of Southern Italy, in conjunction with the great promontory of Calabria, forms the deep Gulf of Taranto, about 70 m. in width, and somewhat greater depth, which receives a number of streams from the central mass of the Apennines.

None of the rivers of Southern Italy is of any great importance. The Liri (Liris) or Garigliano, which has its source in the central Apennines above Sora, not far from Lake Fucino, and enters the Gulf of Gaeta about 10 m. east of the city of that name, brings down a considerable body of water; as does also the Volturno, which rises in the mountains between Castel di Sangro and Agnone, flows past Isernia, Venafro and Capua, and enters the sea about 15 m. from the mouth of the Garigliano. About 16 m. above Capua it receives the Calore, which flows by Benevento. The Silarus or Sele enters the Gulf of Salerno a few miles below the ruins of Paestum. Below this the watershed of the Apennines is too near to the sea on that side to allow the formation of any large streams. Hence the rivers that flow in the opposite direction into the Adriatic and the Gulf of Taranto have much longer courses, though all partake of the character of mountain torrents, rushing down with great violence in winter and after storms, but dwindling in the summer into scanty streams, which hold a winding and sluggish course through the great plains of Apulia. Proceeding south from the Trigno, already mentioned as constituting the limit of Central Italy, there are (1) the Biferno and (2) the Fortore, both rising in the mountains of Samnium, and flowing into the Adriatic west of Monte Gargano; (3) the Cervaro, south of the great promontory; and (4) the Ofanto, the Aufidus of Horace, whose description of it is characteristic of almost all the rivers of Southern Italy, of which it may be taken as the typical representative. It rises about 15 m. west of Conza, and only about 25 m. from the Gulf of Salerno, so that it is frequently (though erroneously) described as traversing the whole range of the Apennines. In its lower course it flows near Canosa and traverses the celebrated battlefield of Cannae. (5) The Bradano, which rises near Venosa, almost at the foot of Monte Volture, flows towards the south-east into the Gulf of Taranto, as do the Basento, the Agri and the Sinni, all of which descend from the central chain of the Apennines south of Potenza. The Crati, which flows from Cosenza northwards, and then turns abruptly eastward to enter the same gulf, is the only stream worthy of notice in the rugged peninsula of Calabria; while the arid limestone hills projecting eastwards to Capo di Leuca do not give rise to anything more than a mere streamlet, from the mouth of the Ofanto to the south-eastern extremity of Italy.

The only important lakes are those on or near the north frontier, formed by the expansion of the tributaries of the Po. They have been already noticed in connexion with the rivers by which they are formed, but may be again enumerated in order of Lakes. succession. They are, proceeding from west to east, (1) the Lago d’Orta, (2) the Lago Maggiore, (3) the Lago di Lugano, (4) the Lago di Como, (5) the Lago d’Iseo, (6) the Lago d’Idro, and (7) the Lago di Garda. Of these the last named is considerably the largest, covering an area of 143 sq. m. It is 32¼ m. long by 10 broad; while the Lago Maggiore, notwithstanding its name, though considerably exceeding it in length (37 m.), falls materially below it in superficial extent. They are all of great depth—the Lago Maggiore having an extreme 5 depth of 1198 ft., while that of Como attains to 1365 ft. Of a wholly different character is the Lago di Varese, between the Lago Maggiore and that of Lugano, which is a mere shallow expanse of water, surrounded by hills of very moderate elevation. Two other small lakes in the same neighbourhood, as well as those of Erba and Pusiano, between Como and Lecco, are of a similar character.

The lakes of Central Italy, which are comparatively of trifling dimensions, belong to a wholly different class. The most important of these, the Lacus Fucinus of the ancients, now called the Lago di Celano, situated almost exactly in the centre of the peninsula, occupies a basin of considerable extent, surrounded by mountains and without any natural outlet, at an elevation of more than 2000 ft. Its waters have been in great part carried off by an artificial channel, and more than half its surface laid bare. Next in size is the Lago Trasimeno, a broad expanse of shallow waters, about 30 m. in circumference, surrounded by low hills. The neighbouring lake of Chiusi is of similar character, but much smaller dimensions. All the other lakes of Central Italy, which are scattered through the volcanic districts west of the Apennines, are of an entirely different formation, and occupy deep cup-shaped hollows, which have undoubtedly at one time formed the craters of extinct volcanoes. Such is the Lago di Bolsena, near the city of the same name, which is an extensive sheet of water, as well as the much smaller Lago di Vico (the Ciminian lake of ancient writers) and the Lago di Bracciano, nearer Rome, while to the south of Rome the well known lakes of Albano and Nemi have a similar origin.

The only lake properly so called in southern Italy is the Lago del Matese, in the heart of the mountain group of the same name, of small extent. The so-called lakes on the coast of the Adriatic north and south of the promontory of Gargano are brackish lagoons communicating with the sea.

The three great islands of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica are closely connected with Italy, both by geographical position and community of language, but they are considered at length in separate articles. Of the smaller islands that lie near the coasts Islands. of Italy, the most considerable is that of Elba, off the west coast of central Italy, about 50 m. S. of Leghorn, and separated from the mainland at Piombino by a strait of only about 6 m. in width. North of this, and about midway between Corsica and Tuscany, is the small island of Capraia, steep and rocky, and only 4½ m. long, but with a secure port; Gorgona, about 25 m. farther north, is still smaller, and is a mere rock, inhabited by a few fishermen. South of Elba are the equally insignificant islets of Pianosa and Montecristo, while the more considerable island of Giglio lies much nearer the mainland, immediately opposite the mountain promontory of Monte Argentano, itself almost an island. The islands farther south in the Tyrrhenian Sea are of an entirely different character. Of these Ischia and Procida, close to the northern headland of the Bay of Naples, are of volcanic origin, as is the case also with the more distant group of the Ponza Islands. These are three in number—Ponza, Palmarola and Zannone; while Ventotene (also of volcanic formation) is about midway between Ponza and Ischia. The island of Capri, on the other hand, opposite the southern promontory of the Bay of Naples, is a precipitous limestone rock. The Aeolian or Lipari Islands, a remarkable volcanic group, belong rather to Sicily than to Italy, though Stromboli, the most easterly of them, is about equidistant from Sicily and from the mainland.

The Italian coast of the Adriatic presents a great contrast to its opposite shores, for while the coast of Dalmatia is bordered by a succession of islands, great and small, the long and uniform coast-line of Italy from Otranto to Rimini presents not a single adjacent island; and the small outlying group of the Tremiti Islands (north of the Monte Gargano and about 15 m. from the mainland) alone breaks the monotony of this part of the Adriatic.

Geology.—The geology of Italy is mainly dependent upon that of the Apennines (q.v.). On each side of that great chain are found extensive Tertiary deposits, sometimes, as in Tuscany, the district of Monferrat, &c., forming a broken, hilly country, at others spreading into broad plains or undulating downs, such as the Tavoliere of Puglia, and the tract that forms the spur of Italy from Bari to Otranto.

Besides these, and leaving out of account the islands, the Italian peninsula presents four distinct volcanic districts. In three of them the volcanoes are entirely extinct, while the fourth is still in great activity.

1. The Euganean hills form a small group extending for about 10 m. from the neighbourhood of Padua to Este, and separated from the lower offshoots of the Alps by a portion of the wide plain of Padua. Monte Venda, their highest peak, is 1890 ft. high.

2. The Roman district, the largest of the four, extends from the hills of Albano to the frontier of Tuscany, and from the lower slopes of the Apennines to the Tyrrhenian Sea. It may be divided into three groups: the Monti Albani, the second highest2 of which, Monte Cavo (3115 ft.), is the ancient Mons Albanus, on the summit of which stood the temple of Jupiter Latialis, where the assemblies of the cities forming the Latin confederation were held; the Monti Cimini, which extend from the valley of the Tiber to the neighbourhood of Civita Vecchia, and attain at their culminating point an elevation of 3454 ft.; and the mountains of Radicofani and Monte Amiata, the latter of which is 5688 ft. high. The lakes of Bolsena (Vulsiniensis), of Bracciano (Sabatinus), of Vico (Ciminus), of Albano (Albanus), of Nemi (Nemorensis), and other smaller lakes belong to this district; while between its south-west extremity and Monte Circello the Pontine Marshes form a broad strip of alluvial soil infested by malaria.

3. The volcanic region of the Terra di Lavoro is separated by the Volscian mountains from the Roman district. It may be also divided into three groups. Of Roccamonfina, at the N.N.W. end of the Campanian Plain, the highest cone, called Montagna di Santa Croce, is 3291 ft. The Phlegraean Fields embrace all the country round Baiae and Pozzuoli and the adjoining islands. Monte Barbaro (Gaurus), north-east of the site of Cumae, Monte San Nicola (Epomeus), 2589 ft. in Ischia, and Camaldoli, 1488 ft., west of Naples, are the highest cones. The lakes Averno (Avernus), Lucrino (Lucrinus), Fusaro (Palus Acherusia), and Agnano are within this group, which has shown activity in historical times. A stream of lava issued in 1198 from the crater of the Solfatara, which still continues to exhale steam and noxious gases; the Lava dell’ Arso came out of the N.E. flank of Monte Epomeo in 1302; and Monte Nuovo, north-west of Pozzuoli (455 ft.), was thrown up in three days in September 1538. Since its first historical eruption in A.D. 79, Vesuvius or Somma, which forms the third group, has been in constant activity. The Punta del Nasone, the highest point of Somma, is 3714 ft. high, while the Punta del Palo, the highest point of the brim of the crater of Vesuvius, varies materially with successive eruptions from 3856 to 4275 ft.

4. The Apulian volcanic formation consists of the great mass of Monte Volture, which rises at the west end of the plains of Apulia, on the frontier of Basilicata, and is surrounded by the Apennines on its south-west and north-west sides. Its highest peak, the Pizzuto di Melfi, attains an elevation of 4365 ft. Within the widest crater there are the two small lakes of Monticchio and San Michele. In connexion with the volcanic districts we may mention Le Mofete, the pools of Ampsanctus, in a wooded valley S.E. of Frigento, in the province of Avellino, Campania (Virgil, Aeneid, vii. 563-571), The largest is not more than 160 ft. in circumference, and 7 ft. deep.

The whole of the great plain of Lombardy is covered by Pleistocene and recent deposits. It is a great depression—the continuation of the Adriatic Sea—filled up by deposits brought down by the rivers from the mountains. The depression was probably formed during the later stages of the growth of the Alps.

Climate and Vegetation.—The geographical position of Italy, extending from about 46° to 38° N., renders it one of the hottest countries in Europe. But the effect of its southern latitude is tempered by its peninsular character, bounded as it is on both sides by seas of considerable extent, as well as by the great range of the Alps with its snows and glaciers to the north. There are thus irregular variations of climate. Great differences also exist with regard to climate between northern and southern Italy, due in great part to other circumstances as well as to differences of latitude. Thus the great plain of northern Italy is chilled by the cold winds from the Alps, while the damp warm winds from the Mediterranean are to a great extent intercepted by the Ligurian Apennines. Hence this part of the country has a cold winter climate, so that while the mean summer temperature of Milan is higher than that of Sassari, and equal to that of Naples, and the extremes reached at Milan and Bologna are a good deal higher than those of Naples, the mean winter temperature of Turin is actually lower than that of Copenhagen. The lowest recorded winter temperature at Turin is 5° Fahr. Throughout the region north of the Apennines no plants will thrive which cannot stand occasional severe frosts in winter, so that not only oranges and lemons but even the olive tree cannot be grown, except in specially favoured situations. But the strip of coast between the Apennines and the sea, known as the Riviera of Genoa, is not only extremely favourable to the growth of olives, but produces oranges and lemons in abundance, while even the aloe, the cactus and the palm flourish in many places.

Central Italy also presents striking differences of climate and temperature according to the greater or less proximity to the mountains. Thus the greater part of Tuscany, and the provinces thence to Rome, enjoy a mild winter climate, and are well adapted to the growth of mulberries and olives as well as vines, but it is not till after passing Terracina, in proceeding along the western coast towards the south, that the vegetation of southern Italy develops in its full luxuriance. Even in the central parts of Tuscany, however, the climate is very much affected by the neighbouring mountains, and the increasing elevation of the Apennines as they proceed south produces a corresponding effect upon the temperature. But it is when we reach the central range of the Apennines that we find the coldest districts of Italy. In all the upland valleys of the Abruzzi snow begins to fall early in November, and heavy storms occur often as late as May; whole communities are shut out for months from any intercourse with their neighbours, and some villages are so long buried in snow that regular passages are made between the different houses for the sake of communication among the inhabitants. The district from the south-east of Lake Fucino to the Piano di Cinque Miglia, enclosing the upper basin of the Sangro 6 and the small lake of Scanno, is the coldest and most bleak part of Italy south of the Alps. Heavy falls of snow in June are not uncommon, and only for a short time towards the end of July are the nights totally exempt from light frosts. Yet less than 40 m. E. of this district, and even more to the north, the olive, the fig-tree and the orange thrive luxuriantly on the shores of the Adriatic from Ortona to Vasto. In the same way, whilst in the plains and hills round Naples snow is rarely seen, and never remains long, and the thermometer seldom descends to the freezing-point, 20 m. E. from it in the fertile valley of Avellino, of no great elevation, but encircled by high mountains, light frosts are not uncommon as late as June; and 18 m. farther east, in the elevated region of San Angelo dei Lombardi and Bisaccia, the inhabitants are always warmly clad, and vines grow with difficulty and only in sheltered places. Still farther south-east, Potenza has almost the coldest climate in Italy, and certainly the lowest summer temperatures. But nowhere are these contrasts so striking as in Calabria. The shores, especially on the Tyrrhenian Sea, present almost a continued grove of olive, orange, lemon and citron trees, which attain a size unknown in the north of Italy. The sugar-cane flourishes, the cotton-plant ripens to perfection, date-trees are seen in the gardens, the rocks are clothed with the prickly-pear or Indian fig, the enclosures of the fields are formed by aloes and sometimes pomegranates, the liquorice-root grows wild, and the mastic, the myrtle and many varieties of oleander and cistus form the underwood of the natural forests of arbutus and evergreen oak. If we turn inland but 5 or 6 m. from the shore, and often even less, the scene changes. High districts covered with oaks and chestnuts succeed to this almost tropical vegetation; a little higher up and we reach the elevated regions of the Pollino and the Sila, covered with firs and pines, and affording rich pastures even in the midst of summer, when heavy dews and light frosts succeed each other in July and August, and snow begins to appear at the end of September or early in October. Along the shores of the Adriatic, which are exposed to the north-east winds, blowing coldly from over the Albanian mountains, delicate plants do not thrive so well in general as under the same latitude along the shores of the Tyrrhenian Sea.

Southern Italy indeed has in general a very different climate from the northern portion of the kingdom; and, though large tracts are still occupied by rugged mountains of sufficient elevation to retain the snow for a considerable part of the year, the districts adjoining the sea enjoy a climate similar to that of Greece and the southern provinces of Spain. Unfortunately several of these fertile tracts suffer severely from malaria (q.v.), and especially the great plain adjoining the Gulf of Tarentum, which in the early ages of history was surrounded by a girdle of Greek cities—some of which attained to almost unexampled prosperity—has for centuries past been given up to almost complete desolation.3

It is remarkable that, of the vegetable productions of Italy, many which are at the present day among the first to attract the attention of the visitor are of comparatively late introduction, and were unknown in ancient times. The olive indeed in all ages clothed the hills of a large part of the country; but the orange and lemon, are a late importation from the East, while the cactus or Indian fig and the aloe, both of them so conspicuous on the shores of southern Italy, as well as of the Riviera of Genoa, are of Mexican origin, and consequently could not have been introduced earlier than the 16th century. The same remark applies to the maize or Indian corn. Many botanists are even of opinion that the sweet chestnut, which now constitutes so large a part of the forests that clothe the sides both of the Alps and the Apennines, and in some districts supplies the chief food of the inhabitants, is not originally of Italian growth; it is certain that it had not attained in ancient times to anything like the extension and importance which it now possesses. The eucalyptus is of quite modern introduction; it has been extensively planted in malarious districts. The characteristic cypress, ilex and stone-pine, however, are native trees, the last-named flourishing especially near the coast. The proportion of evergreens is large, and has a marked effect on the landscape in winter.

Fauna.—The chamois, bouquetin and marmot are found only in the Alps, not at all in the Apennines. In the latter the bear was found in Roman times, and there are said to be still a few remaining. Wolves are more numerous, though only in the mountainous districts; the flocks are protected against them by large white sheepdogs, who have some wolf blood in them. Wild boars are also found in mountainous and forest districts. Foxes are common in the neighbourhood of Rome. The sea mammals include the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis). The birds are similar to those of central Europe; in the mountains vultures, eagles, buzzards, kites, falcons and hawks are found. Partridges, woodcock, snipe, &c., are among the game birds; but all kinds of small birds are also shot for food, and their number is thus kept down, while many members of the migratory species are caught by traps in the foothills on the south side of the Alps, especially near the Lake of Como, on their passage. Large numbers of quails are shot in the spring. Among reptiles, the various kinds of lizard are noticeable. There are several varieties of snakes, of which three species (all vipers) are poisonous. Of sea-fish there are many varieties, the tunny, the sardine and the anchovy being commercially the most important. Some of the other edible fish, such as the palombo, are not found in northern waters. Small cuttlefish are in common use as an article of diet. Tortoiseshell, an important article of commerce, is derived from the Thalassochelys caretta, a sea turtle. Of freshwater fish the trout of the mountain streams and the eels of the coast lagoons may be mentioned. The tarantula spider and the scorpion are found in the south of Italy. The aquarium of the zoological station at Naples contains the finest collection in the world of marine animals, showing the wonderful variety of the different species of fish, molluscs, crustacea, &c., found in the Mediterranean.

(E. H. B.; T. As.)

(Click to enlarge top section.)

(Click to enlarge bottom section.)

Population.—The following table indicates the areas of the several provinces (sixty-nine in number), and the population of each according to the censuses of the 31st of December 1881 and the 9th of February 1901. (The larger divisions or compartments in which the provinces are grouped are not officially recognized.)

Provinces and Compartments.	Area in sq. m.	Population.
		1881.	1901.
Alessandria	1950	729,710	825,745
Cuneo	2882	635,400	670,504
Novara	2553	675,926	763,830
Turin	3955	1,029,214	1,147,414
Piedmont	11,340	3,070,250	3,407,493
Genoa	1582	760,122	931,156
Porto Maurizio	455	132,251	144,604
Liguria	2037	892,373	1,075,760
Bergamo	1098	390,775	467,549
Brescia	1845	471,568	541,765
Como	1091	515,050	594,304
Cremona	695	302,097	329,471
Mantua	912	295,728	315,448
Milan	1223	1,114,991	1,450,214
Pavia	1290	469,831	504,382
Sondrio	1232	120,534	130,966
Lombardy	9386	3,680,574	4,334,099
Belluno	1293	174,140	214,803
Padua	823	397,762	444,360
Rovigo	685	217,700	222,057
Treviso	960	375,704	416,945
Udine	2541	501,745	614,720
Venice	934	356,708	399,823
Verona	1188	394,065	427,018
Vicenza	1052	396,349	453,621
Venetia	9476	2,814,173	3,193,347
Bologna	1448	464,879	529,619
Ferrara	1012	230,807	270,558
Forlì	725	251,110	283,996
Modena	987	279,254	323,598
Parma	1250	267,306	303,694
Piacenza	954	226,758	250,491
Ravenna	715	218,359	234,656
Reggio (Emilia)	876	244,959	281,085
Emilia	7967	2,183,432	2,477,697
Arezzo	1273	238,744	275,588
Florence	2265	790,776	945,324
Grosseto	1738	114,295	137,795
Leghorn	133	121,612	121,137
Lucca	558	284,484	329,986
Massa and Carrara	687	169,469	202,749
Pisa	1179	283,563	319,854
Siena	1471	205,926	233,874
Tuscany	9304	2,208,869	2,566,307
Ancona	762	267,338	308,346
Ascoli Piceno	796	209,185	251,829
Macerata	1087	239,713	269,505
Pesaro and Urbino	1118	223,043	259,083
Marches	3763	939,279	1,088,763
Perugia—Umbria	3748	572,060	675,352
Rome—Lazio	4663	903,472	1,142,5267
Aquila degli Abruzzi (Abruzzo   Ulteriore II.)	2484	353,027	436,367
Campobasso (Molise)	1691	365,434	389,967
Chieti (Abruzzo Citeriore)	1138	343,948	387,604
Teramo (Abruzzo Ulteriore I.)	1067	254,806	312,188
Abruzzi and Molise	6380	1,317,215	1,526,135
Avellino (Principato Ulteriore)	1172	392,619	421,766
Benevento	818	238,425	265,460
Caserta (Terra di Lavoro)	2033	714,131	805,345
Naples	350	1,001,245	1,141,788
Salerno (Principato Citeriore)	1916	550,157	585,132
Campania	6289	2,896,577	3,219,491
Bari delle Puglie (Terra di Bari)	2065	679,499	837,683
Foggia (Capitanata)	2688	356,267	421,115
Lecce (Terra di Otranto)	2623	553,298	705,382
Apulia	7376	1,589,064	1,964,180
Potenza (Basilicata)	3845	524,504	491,558
Catanzaro (Calabria Ulteriore II.)	2030	433,975	498,791
Cosenza (Calabria Citeriore)	2568	451,185	503,329
Reggio di Calabria (Calabria  Ulteriore I.)	1221	372,723	437,209
Calabria	5819	1,257,883	1,439,329
Caltanisetta	1263	266,379	329,449
Catania	1917	563,457	703,598
Girgenti	1172	312,487	380,666
Messina	1246	460,924	550,895
Palermo	1948	699,151	796,151
Syracuse	1442	341,526	433,796
Trapani	948	283,977	373,569
Sicily	9936	2,927,901	3,568,124
Cagliari	5204	420,635	486,767
Sassari	4090	261,367	309,026
Sardinia	9294	682,002	795,793
Kingdom of Italy	110,623	28,459,628	32,965,504

The number of foreigners in Italy in 1901 was 61,606, of whom 37,762 were domiciled within the kingdom.

The population given in the foregoing table is the resident or “legal” population, which is also given for the individual towns. This is 490,251 higher than the actual population, 32,475,253, ascertained by the census of the 10th of February 1901; the difference is due to temporary absences from their residences of certain individuals on military service, &c., who probably were counted twice, and also to the fact that 469,020 individuals were returned as absent from Italy, while only 61,606 foreigners were in Italy at the date of the census. The kingdom is divided into 69 provinces, 284 regions, of which 197 are classed as circondarii and 87 as districts (the latter belonging to the province of Mantua and the 8 provinces of Venetia), 1806 administrative divisions (mandamenti) and 8262 communes. These were the figures at the date of the census. In 1906 there were 1805 mandamenti and 8290 communes, and 4 boroughs in Sardinia not connected with communes. The mandamenti or administrative divisions no longer correspond to the judicial divisions (mandamenti giudiziarii) which in November 1891 were reduced from 1806 to 1535 by a law which provided that judicial reform should not modify existing administrative and electoral divisions. The principal elective local administrative bodies are the provincial and the communal councils. The franchise is somewhat wider than the parliamentary. Both bodies are elected for six years, one-half being renewed every three years. The provincial council elects a provincial commission and the communal council a municipal council from among its own members; these smaller bodies carry on the business of the larger while they are not sitting. The syndic of each commune is elected by ballot by the communal council from among its own members.

The actual (not the resident or “legal”) population of Italy since 1770 is approximately given in the following table (the first census of the kingdom as a whole was taken in 1871):—

1770	14,689,317	1861	25,016,801
1800	17,237,421	1871	26,801,154
1825	19,726,977	1881	28,459,628
1848	23,617,153	1901	32,475,253

The average density increased from 257.21 per sq. m. in 1881 to 293.28 in 1901. In Venetia, Emilia, the Marches, Umbria and Tuscany the proportion of concentrated population is only from 40 to 55%; in Piedmont, Liguria and Lombardy the proportion rises to from 70 to 76%; in southern Italy, Sicily and Sardinia it attains a maximum of from 76 to 93%.

The population of towns over 100,000 is given in the following table according to the estimates for 1906. The population of the town itself is distinguished from that of its commune, which often includes a considerable portion of the surrounding country.

	Town.	Commune.
Bologna	105,153	160,423
Catania	135,548	159,210
Florence	201,183	226,559
Genoa	255,294	267,248
Messina	108,514	165,007
Milan	560,613	..
Naples	491,614	585,289
Palermo	264,036	323,747
Rome	403,282	516,580
Turin	277,121	361,720
Venice	146,940	169,563

The population of the different parts of Italy differs in character and dialect; and there is little community of sentiment between them. The modes of life and standards of comfort and morality in north Italy and in Calabria are widely different; the former being far in front of the latter. Much, however, is effected towards unification, by compulsory military service, it being the principle that no man shall serve within the military district to which he belongs. In almost all parts the idea of personal loyalty (e.g. between master and servant) retains an almost feudal strength. The inhabitants of the north—the Piedmontese, Lombards and Genoese especially—have suffered less than those of the rest of the peninsula from foreign domination and from the admixture of inferior racial elements, and the cold winter climate prevents the heat of summer from being enervating. They, and also the inhabitants of central Italy, are more industrious than the inhabitants of the southern provinces, who have by no means recovered from centuries of misgovernment and oppression, and are naturally more hot-blooded and excitable, but less stable, capable of organization or trustworthy. The southerners are apathetic except when roused, and socialist doctrines find their chief adherents in the north. The Sicilians and Sardinians have something of Spanish dignity, but the former are one of the most mixed and the latter probably one of the purest races of the Italian kingdom. Physical characteristics differ widely; but as a whole the Italian is somewhat short of stature, with dark or black hair and eyes, often good looking. Both sexes reach maturity early. Mortality is decreasing, but if we may judge from the physical conditions of the recruits the physique of the nation shows little or no improvement. Much of this lack of progress is attributed to the heavy manual (especially agricultural) work undertaken by women and children. The women especially age rapidly, largely owing to this cause (E. Nathan, Vent’ anni di vita italiana attraverso all’ annuario, 169 sqq.).

Agriculture.—Accurate statistics with regard to the area occupied in different forms of cultivation are difficult to obtain, both on account of their varied and piecemeal character and from the lack of a complete cadastral survey. A complete survey was ordered by the law of the 1st of March 1886, but many years must elapse before its completion. The law, however, enabled provinces most heavily burdened by land tax to accelerate their portion of the survey, and to profit by the re-assessment of the tax on the new basis. An idea of the effects of the survey may be gathered from the fact that the assessments in the four provinces of Mantua, Ancona, Cremona and Milan, which formerly amounted to a total of £1,454,696, are now £2,788,080, an increase of 91%. Of the total area of Italy, 70,793,000 acres, 71% are classed as “productive.” The unproductive area comprises 16% of the total area (this includes 4% occupied by lagoons or marshes, and 1.75% of the total area susceptible of bonificazione or improvement by drainage. Between 1882 and 1902 over £4,000,000 was spent on this by the government). The uncultivated area is 13%. This includes 3.50% of the total susceptible of cultivation.

Industrial Progress.—The industrial progress of Italy has been great since 1880. Many articles formerly imported are now made at home, and some Italian manufactures have begun to compete in foreign markets. Italy has only unimportant lignite and anthracite mines, but water power is abundant and has been largely applied to industry, especially in generating electricity. The electric power required for the tramways and the illumination of Rome is entirely supplied by turbines situated at Tivoli, and this is the case elsewhere, and the harnessing of this water-power is capable of very considerable extension. A sign of industrial development is to be found in the growing number of manufacturing companies, both Italian and foreign.

Condition of the Working Classes.—The condition of the numerous agricultural labourers (who constitute one-third of the population) is, except in some regions, hard, and in places absolutely miserable. Much light was thrown upon their position by the agricultural inquiry (inchiesta agraria) completed in 1884. The large numbers of emigrants, who are drawn chiefly from the rural classes, furnish another proof of poverty. The terms of agrarian contracts and leases (except in districts where mezzadria prevails in its essential form), are in many regions disadvantageous to the labourers, who suffer from the obligation to provide guarantees for payment of rent, for repayment of seed corn and for the division of products.

The condition of the workmen employed in manufactures has improved during recent years. Wages are higher, the cost of the prime necessaries of life is, as a rule, lower, though taxation on some of them is still enormous; so that the remuneration of work has improved. Taking into account the variations in wages and in the price of wheat, it may be calculated that the number of hours of work requisite to earn a sum equal to the price of a cwt. of wheat fell from 183 in 1871 to 73 in 1894. In 1898 it was 105, on account of the rise in the price of wheat, and since then up till 1902 it oscillated between 105 and 95.

Provident institutions have considerably developed in Italy under the forms of savings banks, assurance companies Provident Institutions. and mutual benefit societies. Besides the Post Office Savings Bank and the ordinary savings banks, many co-operative credit societies and ordinary credit banks receive deposits of savings.

Co-operation, for the various purposes of credit, distribution, production and labour, has attained great development in Italy. Credit co-operation is represented by a special type of association known as People’s Banks (Banche Popolari). Co-operation. They are not, as a rule, supported by workmen or peasants, but rather by small tradespeople, manufacturers and farmers. They perform a useful function in protecting their clients from the cruel usury which prevails, especially in the south. A recent form of co-operative credit banks are the Casse Rurali or rural banks, on the Raffeisen system, which lend money to peasants and small proprietors out of capital obtained on credit or by gift. These loans are made on personal security, but the members of the bank do not contribute any quota of the capital, though their liability is unlimited in case of loss. They are especially widespread in Lombardy and Venetia.

Education.—Public instruction in Italy is regulated by the state, which maintains public schools of every grade, and requires that other public schools shall conform to the rules of the state schools. No private person may open a school without state authorization. Schools may be classed thus:—

1. Elementary, of two grades, of the lower of which there must legally be at least one for boys and one for girls in each commune; while the upper grade elementary school is required in communes having normal and secondary schools or over 4000 inhabitants. In both the instruction is free. They are maintained by the communes, sometimes with state help. 16 The age limit is six to nine years for the lower grade, and up to twelve for the higher grade, attendance being obligatory at the latter also where it exists. 2. Secondary instruction (i.) classical in the ginnasi and licei, the latter leading to the universities; (ii.) technical. 3. Higher education—universities, higher institutes and special schools.

Of the secondary and higher educatory methods, in the normal schools and licei the state provides for the payment of the staff and for scientific material, and often largely supports the ginnasi and technical schools, which should by law be supported by the communes. The universities are maintained by the state and by their own ancient resources; while the higher special schools are maintained conjointly by the state, the province, the commune and (sometimes) the local chamber of commerce.

The number of persons unable to read and write has gradually decreased, both absolutely and in proportion to the number of inhabitants. The census of 1871 gave 73% of illiterates, that of 1881, 67%, and that of 1901, 56%, i.e. 51.8 for males and 60.8 for females. In Piedmont there were 17.7% of illiterates above six years (the lowest) and in Calabria 78.7% (the highest), the figures for the whole country being 48.5. As might be expected, progress has been most rapid wherever education, at the moment of national unification, was most widely diffused. For instance, the number of bridegrooms unable to write their names in 1872 was in the province of Turin 26%, and in the Calabrian province of Cosenza 90%; in 1899 the percentage in the province of Turin had fallen to 5%, while in that of Cosenza it was still 76%. Infant asylums (where the first rudiments of instruction are imparted to children between two and a half and six years of age) and elementary schools have increased in number. There has been a corresponding increase in the number of scholars. Thus:—

The teachers in 1901-1902 numbered 65,739 (exclusive of 576 non-teaching directors and 322 teachers of special subjects) or about 41.5 scholars per teacher.

Libraries are numerous in Italy, those even of small cities being often rich in manuscripts and valuable works. Statistics collected in 1893-1894 and 1896 revealed the existence of 1831 libraries, either private (but open to the public) or completely public. The public libraries have been enormously increased since 1870 by the incorporation of the treasures of suppressed monastic institutions. The richest in manuscripts is that of the Vatican, especially since the purchase of the Barberini Library in 1902; it now contains over 34,000 MSS. The Vatican archives are also of great importance. Most large towns contain important state or communal archives, in which a considerable amount of research is being done by local investigators; the various societies for local history (Società di Storia Patria) do very good work and issue valuable publications; the treasures which the archives contain are by no means exhausted. Libraries and archives are under the superintendence of the Ministry of Public Instruction. A separate department of this ministry under a director-general has the charge of antiquities and fine arts, making archaeological excavations and supervising those undertaken by private persons (permission to foreigners, even to foreign schools, to excavate in Italy is rarely granted), and maintaining the numerous state museums and picture galleries. The exportation of works of art and antiquities from Italy without leave of the ministry is forbidden (though it has in the past been sometimes evaded). An inventory of those subjects, the exportation of which can in no case be permitted, has been prepared; and the ministry has at its disposal a fund of £200,000 for the purchase of important works of art of all kinds.

Charities.—In Italy there is no legal right in the poor to be supported by the parish or commune, nor any obligation on the commune to relieve the poor—except in the case of forsaken children and the sick poor. Public charity is exercised through the permanent charitable foundations (opere pie), which are, however, very unequally distributed in the different provinces. The districts of Italy which show between 1881 and 1903 the greatest increase of new institutions, or of gifts to old ones, are Lombardy, Piedmont, Liguria, while Sardinia, Calabria and Basilicata stand lowest, Latium standing comparatively low.

Religion.—The great majority of Italians—97.12%—are Roman Catholics. Besides the ordinary Latin rite, several others are recognized. The Armenians of Venice maintain their traditional characteristics. The Albanians of the southern provinces still employ the Greek rite and the Greek language in their public worship, and their priests, like those of the Greek Church, are allowed to marry. Certain peculiarities introduced by St Ambrose distinguish the ritual of Milan from that of the general church. Up to 1871 the island of Sicily was, according to the bull of Urban II., ecclesiastically dependent on the king, and exempt from the canonical power of the pope.

Though the territorial authority of the papal see was practically abolished in 1870, the fact that Rome is the seat of the administrative centre of the vast organization of the church is not without significance to the nation. In the same city in which the administrative functions of the body politic are centralized 18 there still exists the court of the spiritual potentate which in 1879 consisted of 1821 persons. Protestants number some 65,000, of whom half are Italian and half foreign. Of the former 22,500 are Waldensians. The number of Jews was returned as 36,000, but is certainly higher. There are, besides, in Italy some 2500 members of the Greek Orthodox Church. There were in 1901 20,707 parishes in Italy, 68,444 secular clergy and 48,043 regulars (monks, lay brothers and nuns). The size of parishes varies from province to province, Sicily having larger parishes in virtue of the old Sicilian church laws, and Naples, and some parts of central Italy, having the smallest. The Italian parishes had in 1901 a total gross revenue, including assignments from the public worship endowment fund, of £1,280,000 or an average of £63 per parish; 51% of this gross sum consists of revenue from glebe lands.

Constitution and Government.—The Vatican palace itself (with St Peter’s), the Lateran palace, and the papal villa at Castel Gandolfo have secured to them the privilege of extraterritoriality by the law of 1871. The small republic of San Marino is the only other enclave in Italian territory. Italy is a constitutional monarchy, in which the executive power belongs exclusively to the sovereign, while the legislative power is shared by him with the parliament. He holds supreme command by land and sea, appoints ministers and officials, promulgates the laws, coins money, bestows honours, has the right of pardoning, and summons and dissolves the parliament. Treaties with foreign powers, however, must have the consent of parliament. The sovereign is irresponsible, the ministers, the signature of one of whom is required to give validity to royal decrees, being responsible. Parliament consists of two chambers, the senate and the Chamber of Deputies, which are nominally on an equal footing, though practically the elective chamber is the more important. The senate consists of princes of the blood who have attained their majority, and of an unlimited number of senators above forty years of age, who are qualified under any one of twenty-one specified categories—by having either held high office, or attained celebrity in science, literature, &c. In 1908 there were 318 senators exclusive of five members of the royal family. Nomination is by the king for life. Besides its legislative functions, the senate is the highest court of justice in the case of political offences or the impeachment of ministers. The deputies to the lower house are 508 in number, i.e. one to every 64,893 of the population, and all the constituencies are single-member constituencies. The party system is not really strong. The suffrage is extended to all citizens over twenty-one years of age who can read and write and have either attained a certain standard of elementary education or are qualified by paying a rent which varies from £6 in communes of 2500 inhabitants to £16 in communes of 150,000 inhabitants, or, if peasant farmers, 16s. of rent; or by being sharers in the profits of farms on which not less than £3, 4s. of direct (including provincial) taxation is paid; or by paying not less than £16 in direct (including provincial) taxation. Others, e.g. members of the professional classes, are qualified to vote by their position. The number of electors (2,541,327) at the general election in 1904 was 29% of the male population over twenty-one years of age, and 7.6% of the total population—exclusive of those temporarily disfranchised on account of military service; and of these 62.7% voted. No candidate can be returned unless he obtains more than half the votes given and more than one-sixth of the total number on the register; otherwise a second ballot must be held. Nor can he be returned under the age of thirty, and he must be qualified as an elector. All salaried government officials (except ministers, under-secretaries of state and other high functionaries, and officers in the army or navy), and ecclesiastics, are disqualified for election. Senators and deputies receive no salary but have free passes on railways throughout Italy and on certain lines of steamers. Parliaments are quinquennial, but the king may dissolve the Chamber of Deputies at any time, being bound, however, to convoke a new chamber within four months. The executive must call parliament together annually. Each of the chambers has the right of introducing new bills, as has also the government; but all money bills must originate in the Chamber of Deputies. The consent of both chambers and the assent of the king is necessary to their being passed. Ministers may attend the debates of either house but can only vote in that of which they are members. The sittings of both houses are public, and an absolute majority of the members must be present to make a sitting valid. The ministers are eleven in number and have salaries of about £1000 each; the presidency of the council of ministers (created in 1889) may be held by itself or (as is usual) in conjunction with any other portfolio. The ministries are: interior (under whom are the prefects of the several provinces), foreign affairs, treasury (separated from finance in 1889), finance, public works, justice and ecclesiastical affairs, war, marine, public instruction, commerce, industry and agriculture, posts and telegraphs (separated from public works in 1889). Each minister is aided by an under-secretary of state at a salary of £500. There is a council of state with advisory functions, which can also decide certain questions of administration, especially applications from local authorities and conflicts between ministries, and a court of accounts, which has the right of examining all details of state expenditure. In every country the bureaucracy is abused, with more or less reason, for unprogressiveness, timidity and “red-tape,” and Italy is no exception to the rule. The officials are not well paid, and are certainly numerous; while the manifold checks and counterchecks have by no means always been sufficient to prevent dishonesty.

20

Army.—The Italian army grew out of the old Piedmontese army with which in the main the unification of Italy was brought about. This unification meant for the army the absorption of contingents from all parts of Italy and presenting serious differences in physical and moral aptitudes, political opinions and education. Moreover the strategic geography of the country required the greater part of the army to be stationed permanently within reach of the north-eastern and north-western frontiers. These conditions made a territorial system of recruiting or organization, as understood in Germany, practically impossible. To secure fairly uniform efficiency in the various corps, and also as a means of unifying Italy, Piedmontese, Umbrians and Neapolitans are mixed in the same corps and sleep in the same barrack room. But on leaving the colours the men disperse to their homes, and thus a regiment has, on mobilization, to draw largely on the nearest reservists, irrespective of the corps to which they belong. The remedy for this condition of affairs is sought in a most elaborate and artificial system of transferring officers and men from one unit to another at stated intervals in peace-time, but this is no more than a palliative, and there are other difficulties of almost equal importance to be surmounted. Thus in Italy the universal service system, though probably the best organization both for the army and the nation, works with a maximum of friction. “Army Reform,” therefore, has been very much in the forefront of late years owing to the estrangement of Austria (which power can mobilize much more rapidly), but financial difficulties have hitherto stood in the way 21 of any radical and far-reaching reforms, and even the proposals of the Commission of 1907, referred to below, have only been partially accepted.

The peace strength under the new scheme is nominally 300,000, but actually (average throughout the year) about 240,000. The army is organized in 12 army corps (each of 2 divisions), 6 of which are quartered on the plain of Lombardy and Venetia and on the frontiers, and 2 more in northern Central Italy. Their headquarters are: I. Turin, II. Alessandria, III. Milan, IV. Genoa, V. Verona, VI. Bologna, VII. Ancona, VIII. Florence, IX. Rome, X. Naples, XI. Bari, XII. Palermo, Sardinian division Cagliari. In addition there are 22 “Alpini” battalions and 15 mountain batteries stationed on the Alpine frontiers.

The war strength was estimated in 1901 as, Active Army (incl. Reserve) 750,000, Mobile Militia 320,000, Territorial Militia 2,300,000 (more than half of the last-named untrained). These figures are, with a fractional increase in the Regular Army, applicable to-day. When the 1907 scheme takes full effect, however, the Active Army and the Mobile Militia will each be augmented by about one-third. In 1915 the field army should, including officers and permanent cadres, be about 1,012,000 strong. The Mobile Militia will not, however, at that date have felt the effects of the scheme, and the Territorial Militia (setting the drain of emigration against the increased population) will probably remain at about the same figure as in 1901.

Navy.—For purposes of naval organization the Italian coast is divided into three maritime departments, with headquarters at Spezia, Naples and Venice; and into two comandi militari, with headquarters at Taranto and at the island of Maddalena. The personnel of the navy consists of the following corps: (1) General staff; (2) naval engineers, chiefly employed in building and repairing war vessels; (3) sanitary corps; (4) commissariat corps, for supplies and account-keeping; (5) crews.

The matériel of the Italian navy has been completely transformed, especially in virtue of the bill of the 31st of March 1875. Old types of vessels have been sold or demolished, and replaced by newer types.

22

Finance.—The volume of the Italian budget has considerably increased as regards both income and expenditure. The income of £60,741,418 in 1881 rose in 1899-1900 to £69,917,126; while the expenditure increased from £58,705,929 in 1881 to £69,708,706 in 1899-1900, an increase of £9,175,708 in income and £11,002,777 in expenditure, while there has been a still further increase since, the figures for 1905-1906 showing (excluding items which figure on both sides of the account) an increase of £8,766,995 in income and £5,434,560 in expenditure over 1899-1900. These figures include not only the categories of “income and expenditure” proper, but also those known as “movement of capital,” “railway constructions” and “partite di giro” which do not constitute real income and expenditure.6 Considering only income and expenditure proper, the approximate totals are:—

History

The difficulty of Italian history lies in the fact that until modern times the Italians have had no political unity, no independence, no organized existence as a nation. Split up into numerous and mutually hostile communities, they never, through the fourteen centuries which have elapsed since the end of the old Western empire, shook off the yoke of foreigners completely; they never until lately learned to merge their local and conflicting interests in the common good of undivided Italy. Their history is therefore not the history of a single people, centralizing and absorbing its constituent elements by a process of continued evolution, but of a group of cognate populations, exemplifying divers types of constitutional developments.

The early history of Italy will be found under Rome and allied headings. The following account is therefore mainly concerned with the periods succeeding A.D. 476, when Romulus Augustulus was deposed by Odoacer. Prefixed to this are two sections dealing respectively with (A) the ethnographical and philological divisions of ancient Italy, and (B) the unification of the country under Augustus, the growth of the road system and so forth. The subsequent history is divided into five periods: (C) From 476 to 1796; (D) From 1796 to 1814; (E) From 1815 to 1870; (F) From 1870 to 1902; (G) From 1902 to 1910.

A. Ancient Languages and Peoples

The ethnography of ancient Italy is a very complicated and difficult subject, and notwithstanding the researches of modern scholars is still involved in some obscurity. The great beauty and fertility of the country, as well as the charm of its climate, undoubtedly attracted, even in early ages, successive swarms of invaders from the north, who sometimes drove out the previous occupants of the most favoured districts, at others reduced them to a state of serfdom, or settled down in the midst of them, until the two races gradually coalesced. Ancient writers are agreed as to the composite character of the population of Italy, and the diversity of races that were found within the limits of the peninsula. But unfortunately the traditions they have transmitted to us are often various and conflicting, while the only safe test of the affinities of nations, derived from the comparison of their languages, is to a great extent inapplicable, from the fact that the idioms that prevailed in Italy in and before the 5th century B.C. are preserved, if at all, only in a few scanty and fragmentary inscriptions, though from that date onwards we have now a very fair record of many of them (see, e.g. Latin Language, Osca Lingua, Iguvium, Volsci, Etruria: section Language, and below). These materials, imperfect as they are, when combined with the notices derived from ancient writers and the evidence of archaeological excavations, may be considered as having furnished some results of reasonable certainty.

It must be observed that the name “Italians” was at one time confined to the Oenotrians; indeed, according to Antiochus of Syracuse (apud Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. ii. 1), the name of Italy was first still more limited, being applied only to the southern portion of the Bruttium peninsula (now known as Calabria). But in the time of that historian, as well as of Thucydides, the names of Oenotria and Italia, which appear to have been at that period regarded as synonymous, had been extended to include the shore of the Tarentine Gulf as far as Metapontum and from thence across to the gulfs of Laus and Posidonia on the Tyrrhenian Sea. It thus still comprised only the two provinces subsequently known as Lucania and Bruttium (see references s.v. “Italia” in R. S. Conway’s Italic Dialects, p. 5). The name seems to be a Graecized form of an Italic Vitelia, from the stem vitlo-, “calf” (Lat. vitulus, Gr. ἰταλός), and perhaps to have meant “calf-land,” “grazing-land”; but the origin is more certain than the meaning; the calf may be one of the many animals connected with Italian tribes (see Hirpini, Samnites).

Taking the term Italy to comprise the whole peninsula with the northern region as far as the Alps, we must first distinguish the tribe or tribes which spoke Indo-European languages from those who did not. To the latter category it is now possible to refer with certainty only the Etruscans (for the chronology and limits of their occupation of Italian soil see Etruria: section Language). Of all the other tribes that inhabited Italy down to the classical period, of whose speech there is any record (whether explicit or in the form of names and glosses), it is impossible to maintain that any one does not belong to the Indo-European group. Putting aside the Etruscan, and also the different Greek dialects of the Greek colonies, like Cumae, Neapolis, Tarentum, and proceeding from the south to the north, the different languages or dialects, of whose separate existence at some time between, say, 600 and 200 B.C., we can be sure, may be enumerated as follows: (1) Sicel, (2) South Oscan and Oscan, (3) Messapian, (4) North Oscan, (5) Volscian, (6) East Italic or “Sabellic,” (7) Latinian, (8) Sabine, (9) Iguvine or “Umbrian,” (10) Gallic, (11) Ligurian and (12) Venetic.

Between several of these dialects it is probable that closer affinities exist. (1) It is probable, though not very clearly demonstrated, that Venetic, East Italic and Messapian are connected together and with the ancient dialects spoken in Illyria (q.v.), so that these might be provisionally entitled the Adriatic group, to which the language spoken by the Eteocretes of the city of Praesos in Crete down to the 4th century B.C. was perhaps akin. (2) Too little is known of the Sicel language to make clear more than its Indo-European character. But it must be reckoned among the languages of Italy because of the well-supported tradition of the early existence of the Sicels in Latium (see Siculi). Their possible place in the earlier stratum of Indo-European population is discussed under Sabini. How far also the language or languages spoken in Bruttium and at certain points of Lucania, such as Anxia, differed from the Oscan of Samnium and Campania there is not enough evidence to show (see Bruttii). (3) It is doubtful whether there are any actual inscriptions which can be referred with certainty to the language of the Ligures, but some other evidence seems to link them with the -CO- peoples, whose early distribution is discussed under Volsci and Liguria. (4) It is difficult to point to any definite evidence by which we may determine the dates of the earliest appearance of Gallic tribes in the north of Italy. No satisfactory collection has been made of the Celtic inscriptions of Cisalpine Gaul, though many are scattered about in different museums. For our present purpose it is important to note that the archaeological stratification in deposits like those of Bologna shows that the Gallic period supervened upon the Etruscan. Until a scientific collection of the local and personal names of this district has been made, and until the archaeological evidence is clearly interpreted, it is impossible to go beyond the region of conjecture as to the tribe or tribes occupying the valley of the Po before the two invasions. It is clear, however, that the Celtic and Etruscan elements together occupied the greater part of the district between the Apennines and the Alps down to its Romanization, which took place gradually in the course of the 2nd century B.C. Their linguistic neighbours were Ligurian in the south and south-west, and the Veneti on the east.

We know from the Roman historians that a large force of Gauls came as far south as Rome in the year 390 B.C., and that some part of this horde settled in what was henceforward known as the Ager Gallicus, the easternmost strip of coast in what was later known as Umbria, including the towns of Caesēna, Ravenna and Arīminum. A bilingual inscription (Gallic and Latin) of 26 the 2nd century B.C. was found as far south as Tuder, the modern Todi (Italic Dialects, ii. 528; Stokes, Bezzenberger’s Beiträge, 11, p. 113).

(5) Turning now to the languages which constitute the Italic group in the narrower sense, (a) Oscan; (b) the dialect of Velitrae, commonly called Volscian; (c) Latinian (i.e. Latin and its nearest congeners, like Faliscan); and (d) Umbrian (or, as it may more safely be called, Iguvine), two principles of classification offer themselves, of which the first is purely linguistic, the second linguistic and topographical. Writers on the ethnology of Italy have been hitherto content with the first, namely, the broad distinction between the dialects which preserved the Indo-European velars (especially the breathed plosive q) as velars or back-palatals (gutturals), with or without the addition of a w-sound, and the dialects which converted the velars wholly into labials, for example, Latinian quis contrasted with Oscan, Volscian and Umbrian pis (see further Latin Language).

This distinction, however, takes us but a little way towards an historical grouping of the tribes, since the only Latinian dialects of which, besides Latin, we have inscriptions are Faliscan and Marsian (see Falisci, Marsi); although the place-names of the Aequi (q.v.) suggest that they belong to the same group in this respect. Except, therefore, for a very small and apparently isolated area in the north of Latium and south of Etruria, all the tribes of Italy, though their idioms differed in certain particulars, are left undiscriminated. This presents a strong contrast to the evidence of tradition, which asserts very strongly (1) the identity of the Sabines and Samnites; (2) the conquest of an earlier population by this tribe; and which affords (3) clear evidence of the identity of the Sabines with the ruling class, i.e. the patricians, at Rome itself (see Sabini; and Rome: Early History and Ethnology).

Some clue to this enigma may perhaps be found in the second principle of classification proposed by the present writer at the Congresso Internationale di Scienze Storiche at Rome (Atti del Congresso, ii) in 1903. It was on that occasion pointed out that the ethnica or tribal and oppidan names of communities belonging to the Sabine stock were marked by the use of the suffix -NO- as in Sabini; and that there was some linguistic evidence that this stratum of population overcame an earlier population, which used, generally, ethnica in -CO- or -TI- (as in Marruci, Ardeates, transformed later into Marrucini, Ardeatini).

The validity of this distinction and its results are discussed under Sabini and Volsci, but it is well to state here its chief consequences.

1. Latin will be counted the language of the earlier plebeian stratum of the population of Rome and Latium, probably once spread over a large area of the peninsula, and akin in some degree to the language or languages spoken in north Italy before either the Etruscan or the Gallic invasions began.

2. It would follow, on the other hand, that what is called Oscan represented the language of the invading Sabines (more correctly Safines), whose racial affinities would seem to be of a distinctly more northern cast, and to mark them, like the Dorians or Achaeans in Greece, as an early wave of the invaders who more than once in later history have vitally influenced the fortunes of the tempting southern land into which they forced their way.

3. What is called Volscian, known only from the important inscription of the town of Velitrae, and what is called Umbrian, known from the famous Iguvine Tables with a few other records, would be regarded as Safine dialects, spoken by Safine communities who had become more or less isolated in the midst of the earlier and possibly partly Etruscanized populations, the result being that as early as the 4th century B.C. their language had suffered corruptions which it escaped both in the Samnite mountains and in the independent and self-contained community of Rome.

B. Consolidation of Italy

We have seen that the name of Italy was originally applied only to the southernmost part of the peninsula, and was only gradually extended so as to comprise the central regions, such as Latium and Campania, which were designated by writers as late as Thucydides and Aristotle as in Opicia. The progress of this change cannot be followed in detail, but there can be little doubt that the extension of the Roman arms, and the gradual union of the nations of the peninsula under one dominant power, would contribute to the introduction, or rather would make the necessity felt, for the use of one general appellation. At first, indeed, the term was apparently confined to the regions of the central and southern districts, exclusive of Cisalpine Gaul and the whole tract north of the Apennines, and this continued to be the official or definite signification of the name down to the end of the republic. But the natural limits of Italy are so clearly marked that the name came to be generally employed as a geographical term at a much earlier period. Thus we already find Polybius repeatedly applying it in this wider signification to the whole country, as far as the foot of the Alps; and it is evident from many passages in the Latin writers that this was the familiar use of the term in the days of Cicero and Caesar. The official distinction was, however, still retained. Cisalpine Gaul, including the whole of northern Italy, still constituted a “province,” an appellation never applied to Italy itself. As such it was assigned to Julius Caesar, together with Transalpine Gaul, and it was not till he crossed the Rubicon that he entered Italy in the strict sense of the term.

Augustus was the first who gave a definite administrative organization to Italy as a whole, and at the same time gave official sanction to that wider acceptation of the name which had already established itself in familiar usage, and which has continued to prevail ever since.

The division of Italy into eleven regions, instituted by Augustus for administrative purposes, which continued in official use till the reign of Constantine, was based mainly on the territorial divisions previously existing, and preserved with few exceptions the ancient limits.

The first region comprised Latium (in the more extended sense of the term, as including the land of the Volsci, Hernici and Aurunci), together with Campania and the district of the Picentini. It thus extended from the mouth of the Tiber to that of the Silarus (see Latium).

The second region included Apulia and Calabria (the name by which the Romans usually designated the district known to the Greeks as Messapia or Iapygia), together with the land of the Hirpini, which had usually been considered as a part of Samnium.

The third region contained Lucania and Bruttium; it was bounded on the west coast by the Silarus, on the east by the Bradanus.

The fourth region comprised all the Samnites (except the Hirpini), together with the Sabines and the cognate tribes of the Frentani, Marrucini, Marsi, Peligni, Vestini and Aequiculi. It was separated from Apulia on the south by the river Tifernus, and from Picenum on the north by the Matrinus.

The fifth region was composed solely of Picenum, extending along the coast of the Adriatic from the mouth of the Matrinus to that of the Aesis, beyond Ancona.

The sixth region was formed by Umbria, in the more extended sense of the term, as including the Ager Gallicus, along the coast of the Adriatic from the Aesis to the Ariminus, and separated from Etruria on the west by the Tiber.

The seventh region consisted of Etruria, which preserved its ancient limits, extending from the Tiber to the Tyrrhenian Sea, and separated from Liguria on the north by the river Macra.

The eighth region, termed Gallia Cispadana, comprised the southern portion of Cisalpine Gaul, and was bounded on the north (as its name implied) by the river Padus or Po, from above Placentia to its mouth. It was separated from Etruria and Umbria by the main chain of the Apennines; and the river 27 Ariminus was substituted for the far-famed Rubicon as its limit on the Adriatic.

(Click to enlarge top section.)

(Click to enlarge bottom section.)

The ninth region comprised Liguria, extending along the sea-coast from the Varus to the Macra, and inland as far as the river Padus, which constituted its northern boundary from its source in Mount Vesulus to its confluence with the Trebia just above Placentia.

The tenth region included Venetia from the Padus and Adriatic to the Alps, to which was annexed the neighbouring peninsula of Istria, and to the west the territory of the Cenomani, a Gaulish tribe, extending from the Athesis to the Addua, which had previously been regarded as a part of Gallia Cisalpina.

The eleventh region, known as Gallia Transpadana, included all the rest of Cisalpine Gaul from the Padus on the south and the Addua on the east to the foot of the Alps.

The arrangements thus established by Augustus continued almost unchanged till the time of Constantine, and formed the basis of all subsequent administrative divisions until the fall of the Western empire.

The mainstay of the Roman military control of Italy first, and of the whole empire afterwards, was the splendid system of roads. As the supremacy of Rome extended itself over Italy, the Roman road system grew step by step, Roads. each fresh conquest being marked by the pushing forward of roads through the heart of the newly-won territory, and the establishment of fortresses in connexion with them. It was in Italy that the military value of a network of roads was first appreciated by the Romans, and the lesson stood them in good stead in the provinces. And it was for military reasons that from mere cart-tracks they were developed into permanent highways (T. Ashby, in Papers of the British School at Rome, i. 129). From Rome itself roads radiated in all directions. Communications with the south-east were mainly provided by the Via Appia (the “queen of Roman roads,” as Statius called it) and the Via Latina, which met close to Casilinum, at the crossing of the Volturnus, 3 m. N.W. of Capua, the second city in Italy in the 3rd century B.C., and the centre of the road system of Campania. Here the Via Appia turned eastward towards Beneventum, while the Via Popilia continued in a south-easterly direction through the Campanian plain and thence southwards through the mountains of Lucania and Bruttii as far as Rhegium. Coast roads of minor importance as means of through communication also existed on both sides of the “toe” of the boot. Other roads ran south from Capua to Cumae, Puteoli (the most important harbour of Campania), and Neapolis, which could also be reached by a coast road from Minturnae on the Via Appia. From Beneventum, another important road centre, the Via Appia itself ran south-east through the mountains past Venusia to Tarentum on the south-west coast of the “heel,” and thence across Calabria to Brundusium, while Trajan’s correction of it, following an older mule-track, ran north-east through the mountains and then through the lower ground of Apulia, reaching the coast at Barium. Both met at Brundusium, the principal port for the East. From Aequum Tuticum, on the Via Traiana, the Via Herculia ran to the south-east, crossing the older Via Appia, then south to Potentia and so on to join the Via Popilia in the centre of Lucania.

The only highroad of importance which left Rome and ran eastwards, the Via Valeria, was not completed as far as the Adriatic before the time of Claudius; but on the north and north-west started the main highways which communicated with central and northern Italy, and with all that part of the Roman empire which was accessible by land. The Via Salaria, a very ancient road, with its branch, the Via Caecilia, ran north-eastwards to the Adriatic coast and so also did the Via Flaminia, which reached the coast at Fanum Fortunae, and thence followed it to Ariminum. The road along the east coast from Fanum Fortunae down to Barium, which connected the terminations of the Via Salaria and Via Valeria, and of other roads farther south crossing from Campania, had no special name in ancient times, as far as we know. The Via Flaminia was the earliest and most important road to the north; and it was soon extended (in 187 B.C.) by the Via Aemilia running through Bononia as far as Placentia, in an almost absolutely straight line between the plain of the Po and the foot of the Apennines. In the same year a road was constructed over the Apennines from Bononia to Arretium, but it is difficult to suppose that it was not until later that the Via Cassia was made, giving a direct communication between Arretium and Rome. The Via Clodia was an alternative route to the Cassia for the first portion out of Rome, a branch having been built at the same time from Florentia to Lucca and Luna. Along the west coast the Via Aurelia ran up to Pisa and was continued by another Via Aemilia to Genoa. Thence the Via Postumia led to Dertona, Placentia and Cremona, while the Via Aemilia and the Via Julia Augusta continued along the coast into Gallia Narbonensis.

The road system of Cisalpine Gaul was mainly conditioned by the rivers which had to be crossed, and the Alpine passes which had to be approached.

Cremona, on the north bank of the Po, was an important meeting point of roads and Postilia (Ostiglia) another; so also was Patavium, farther east, and Altinum and Aquileia farther east still. Roads, indeed, were almost as plentiful as railways at the present day in the basin of the Po.

As to the roads leading out of Italy, from Aquileia roads diverged northward into Raetia, eastward to Noricum and Pannonia, and southwards to the Istrian and Dalmatian coasts. Farther west came the roads over the higher Alpine passes—the Brenner from Verona, the Septimer and the Splügen from Clavenna (Chiavenna), the Great and the Little St Bernard from Augusta Praetoria (Aosta), and the Mont Genèvre from Augusta Taurinorum (Turin).

Westward two short but important roads led on each side of the Tiber to the great harbour at its mouth; while the coast of Latium was supplied with a coast road by Septimius Severus. To the south-west the roads were short and of little importance.

C. From 476 to 1796

The year 476 opened a new age for the Italian people. Odoacer, a chief of the Herulians, deposed Romulus, the last Augustus of the West, and placed the peninsula beneath the titular sway of the Byzantine emperors. At Pavia the barbarian conquerors of Italy proclaimed him king, and he received from Zeno the dignity of Roman patrician. Thus began that system of mixed government, Teutonic and Roman, which, in the absence of a national monarch, impressed the institutions of new Italy from the earliest date with dualism. The same revolution vested supreme authority in a non-resident and inefficient autocrat, whose title gave him the right to interfere in Italian affairs, but who lacked the power and will to rule the people for his own or their advantage. Odoacer inaugurated that long series of foreign rulers—Greeks, Franks, Germans, Spaniards and Austrians—who have successively contributed to the misgovernment of Italy from distant seats of empire.

I. Gothic and Lombard Kingdoms.—In 488 Theodoric, king of the East Goths, received commission from the Greek emperor, Zeno, to undertake the affairs of Italy. He defeated Odoacer, drove him to Ravenna, besieged him there, and in 493 completed the conquest of the country by murdering the Herulian chief with his own hand. Theodoric respected the Roman institutions which he found in Italy, held the Eternal City sacred, and governed by ministers chosen from the Roman population. He settled at Ravenna, which had been the capital of Italy since the days of Honorius, and which still testifies by its monuments to the Gothic chieftain’s Romanizing policy. Those who believe that the Italians would have gained strength by unification in a single monarchy must regret that this Gothic kingdom lacked the elements of stability. The Goths, except in the valley of the Po, resembled an army of occupation rather than a people numerous enough to blend with the Italic stock. Though their 28 rule was favourable to the Romans, they were Arians; and religious differences, combined with the pride and jealousies of a nation accustomed to imperial honours, rendered the inhabitants of Italy eager to throw off their yoke. When, therefore, Justinian undertook the reconquest of Italy, his generals, Belisarius and Narses, were supported by the south. The struggle of the Greeks and the Goths was carried on for fourteen years, between 539 and 553, when Teias, the last Gothic king, was finally defeated in a bloody battle near Vesuvius. At its close the provinces of Italy were placed beneath Greek dukes, controlled by a governor-general, entitled exarch, who ruled in the Byzantine emperor’s name at Ravenna.

This new settlement lasted but a few years. Narses had employed Lombard auxiliaries in his campaigns against the Goths; and when he was recalled by an insulting message from the empress in 565, he is said to have The Lombards. invited this fiercest and rudest of the Teutonic clans to seize the spoils of Italy. Be this as it may, the Lombards, their ranks swelled by the Gepidae, whom they had lately conquered, and by the wrecks of other barbarian tribes, passed southward under their king Alboin in 568. The Herulian invaders had been but a band of adventurers; the Goths were an army; the Lombards, far more formidable, were a nation in movement. Pavia offered stubborn resistance; but after a three years’ siege it was taken, and Alboin made it the capital of his new kingdom.

In order to understand the future history of Italy, it is necessary to form a clear conception of the method pursued by the Lombards in their conquest. Penetrating the peninsula, and advancing like a glacier or half-liquid stream of mud, they occupied the valley of the Po, and moved slowly downward through the centre of the country. Numerous as they were compared with their Gothic predecessors, they had not strength or multitude enough to occupy the whole peninsula. Venice, which since the days of Attila had offered an asylum to Roman refugees from the northern cities, was left untouched. So was Genoa with its Riviera. Ravenna, entrenched within her lagoons, remained a Greek city. Rome, protected by invincible prestige, escaped. The sea-coast cities of the south, and the islands, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, preserved their independence. Thus the Lombards neither occupied the extremities nor subjugated the brain-centre of the country. The strength of Alboin’s kingdom was in the north; his capital, Pavia. As his people pressed southward, they omitted to possess themselves of the coasts; and what was worse for the future of these conquerors, the original impetus of the invasion was checked by the untimely murder of Alboin in 573. After this event, the semi-independent chiefs of the Lombard tribe, who borrowed the title of dukes from their Roman predecessors, seem to have been contented with consolidating their power in the districts each had occupied. The duchies of Spoleto in the centre, and of Benevento in the south, inserted wedge-like into the middle of the peninsula, and enclosing independent Rome, were but loosely united to the kingdom at Pavia. Italy was broken up into districts, each offering points for attack from without, and fostering the seeds of internal revolution. Three separate capitals must be discriminated—Pavia, the seat of the new Lombard kingdom; Ravenna, the garrison city of the Byzantine emperor; and Rome, the rallying point of the old nation, where the successor of St Peter was already beginning to assume that national protectorate which proved so influential in the future.

It is not necessary to write the history of the Lombard kingdom in detail. Suffice it to say that the rule of the Lombards proved at first far more oppressive to the native population, and was less intelligent of their old customs, than that of the Goths had been. Wherever the Lombards had the upper hand, they placed the country under military rule, resembling in its general character what we now know as the feudal system. Though there is reason to suppose that the Roman laws were still administered within the cities, yet the Lombard code was that of the kingdom; and the Lombards being Arians, they added the oppression of religious intolerance to that of martial despotism and barbarous cupidity. The Italians were reduced to the last extremity when Gregory the Great (590-604), having strengthened his position by diplomatic relations with the duchy of Spoleto, and brought about the conversion of the Lombards to orthodoxy, raised the cause of the remaining Roman population throughout Italy. The fruit of his policy, which made of Rome a counterpoise against the effete empire of the Greeks upon the one hand and against the pressure of the feudal kingdom on the other, was seen in the succeeding century. When Leo the Isaurian published his decrees against the worship of images in 726, Gregory II. allied himself with Liudprand, the Lombard king, threw off allegiance to Byzantium, and established the autonomy of Rome. This pope initiated the dangerous policy of playing one hostile force off against another with a view to securing independence. He used the Lombards in his struggle with the Greeks, leaving to his successors the duty of checking these unnatural allies. This was accomplished by calling the Franks in against the Lombards. Liudprand pressed hard, not only upon the Greek dominions of the exarchate, but also upon Rome. His successors, Rachis and Aistolf, attempted to follow the same game of conquest. But the popes, Gregory III., Zachary and Stephen II., determining at any cost to espouse the national cause and to aggrandize their own office, continued to rely upon the Franks. Pippin twice crossed the Alps, and forced Aistolf to relinquish his acquisitions, including Ravenna, Pentapolis, the coast towns of Romagna and some cities in the duchy of Spoleto. These he handed over to the pope of Rome. This donation of Pippin in 756 confirmed the papal see in the protectorate of the Italic party, and conferred upon it sovereign rights. The virtual outcome of the contest carried on by Rome since the year 726 with Byzantium and Pavia was to place the popes in the position held by the Greek exarch, and to confirm the limitation of the Lombard kingdom. We must, however, be cautious to remember that the south of Italy was comparatively unaffected. The dukes of the Greek empire and the Lombard dukes of Benevento, together with a few autonomous commercial cities, still divided Italy below the Campagna of Rome (see Lombards).

II. Frankish Emperors.—The Franko-Papal alliance, which conferred a crown on Pippin and sovereign rights upon the see of Rome, held within itself that ideal of mutually supporting papacy and empire which exercised so Charles the Great and the Carolingians. powerful an influence in medieval history. When Charles the Great (Charlemagne) deposed his father-in-law Desiderius, the last Lombard king, in 774, and when he received the circlet of the empire from Leo III. at Rome in 800, he did but complete and ratify the compact offered to his grandfather, Charles Martel, by Gregory III. The relations between the new emperor and the pope were ill defined; and this proved the source of infinite disasters to Italy and Europe in the sequel. But for the moment each seemed necessary to the other; and that sufficed. Charles took possession of the kingdom of Italy, as limited by Pippin’s settlement. The pope was confirmed in his rectorship of the cities ceded by Aistolf, with the further understanding, tacit rather than expressed, that, even as he had wrung these provinces for the Italic people from both Greeks and Lombards, so in the future he might claim the protectorate of such portions of Italy, external to the kingdom, as he should be able to acquire. This, at any rate, seems to be the meaning of that obscure re-settlement of the peninsula which Charles effected. The kingdom of Italy, transmitted on his death by Charles the Great, and afterwards confirmed to his grandson Lothar by the peace of Verdun in 843, stretched from the Alps to Terracina. The duchy of Benevento remained tributary, but independent. The cities of Gaeta and Naples, Sicily and the so-called Theme of Lombardy in South Apulia and Calabria, still recognized the Byzantine emperor. Venice stood aloof, professing a nominal allegiance to the East. The parcels into which the Lombards had divided the peninsula remained thus virtually unaltered, except for the new authority acquired by the see of Rome.

Internally Charles left the affairs of the Italian kingdom 29 much as he found them, except that he appears to have pursued the policy of breaking up the larger fiefs of the Lombards, substituting counts for their dukes, and adding to the privileges of the bishops. We may reckon these measures among the earliest advantages extended to the cities, which still contained the bulk of the old Roman population, and which were destined to intervene with decisive effect two centuries later in Italian history. It should also here be noticed that the changes introduced into the holding of the fiefs, whether by altering their boundaries or substituting Frankish for Lombard vassals, were chief among the causes why the feudal system took no permanent hold in Italy. Feudalism was not at any time a national institution. The hierarchy of dukes and marquises and counts consisted of foreign soldiers imposed on the indigenous inhabitants; and the rapid succession of conquerors, Lombards, Franks and Germans following each other at no long interval, and each endeavouring to weaken the remaining strength of his predecessor, prevented this alien hierarchy from acquiring fixity by permanence of tenure. Among the many miseries inflicted upon Italy by the frequent changes of her northern rulers, this at least may be reckoned a blessing.

The Italians acknowledged eight kings of the house of Charles the Great, ending in Charles the Fat, who was deposed in 888. After them followed ten sovereigns, some of whom have been misnamed Italians by writers too eager Frankish and Italian kings. to catch at any resemblance of national glory for a people passive in the hands of foreign masters. The truth is that no period in Italian history was less really glorious than that which came to a close in 961 by Berengar II.’s cession of his rights to Otto the Great. It was a period marked in the first place by the conquests of the Saracens, who began to occupy Sicily early in the 9th century, overran Calabria and Apulia, took Bari and threatened Rome. In the second place it was marked by a restoration of the Greeks to power. In 890 they established themselves again at Bari, and ruled the Theme of Lombardy by means of an officer entitled Catapan. In the third place it was marked by a decline of good government in Rome. Early in the 10th century the papacy fell into the hands of a noble family, known eventually as the counts of Tusculum, who almost succeeded in rendering the office hereditary, and in uniting the civil and ecclesiastical functions of the city under a single member of their house. It is not necessary to relate the scandals of Marozia’s and Theodora’s female reign, the infamies of John XII. or the intrigues which tended to convert Rome into a duchy. The most important fact for the historian of Italy to notice is that during this time the popes abandoned, not only their high duties as chiefs of Christendom, but also their protectorate of Italian liberties. A fourth humiliating episode in this period was the invasion of the Magyar barbarians, who overran the north of Italy, and reduced its fairest provinces to the condition of a wilderness. Anarchy and misery are indeed the main features of that long space of time which elapsed between the death of Charles the Great and the descent of Otto. Through the almost impenetrable darkness and confusion we only discern this much, that Italy was powerless to constitute herself a nation.

The discords which followed on the break-up of the Carolingian power, and the weakness of the so-called Italian emperors, who were unable to control the feudatories (marquises of Ivrea and Tuscany, dukes of Friuli and Spoleto), from whose ranks they sprang, exposed Italy to ever-increasing misrule. The country by this time had become thickly covered over with castles, the seats of greater or lesser nobles, all of whom were eager to detach themselves from strict allegiance to the “Regno.” The cities, exposed to pillage by Huns in the north and Saracens in the south, and ravaged on the coast by Norse pirates, asserted their right to enclose themselves with walls, and taught their burghers the use of arms. Within the circuit of their ramparts, the bishops already began to exercise authority in rivalry with the counts, to whom, since the days of Theodoric, had been entrusted the government of the Italian burghs. Agreeably to feudal customs, these nobles, as they grew in power, retired from the town, and built themselves fortresses on points of vantage in the neighbourhood. Thus the titular king of Italy found himself simultaneously at war with those great vassals who had chosen him from their own class, with the turbulent factions of the Roman aristocracy, with unruly bishops in the growing cities and with the multitude of minor counts and barons who occupied the open lands, and who changed sides according to the interests of the moment. The last king of the quasi-Italian succession, Berengar II., marquis of Ivrea (951-961), made a vigorous effort to restore the authority of the regno; and had he succeeded, it is not impossible that now at the last moment Italy might have become an independent nation. But this attempt at unification was reckoned to Berengar for a crime. He only won the hatred of all classes, and was represented by the obscure annalists of that period as an oppressor of the church and a remorseless tyrant. In Italy, divided between feudal nobles and almost hereditary ecclesiastics, of foreign blood and alien sympathies, there was no national feeling. Berengar stood alone against a multitude, unanimous in their intolerance of discipline. His predecessor in the kingdom, Lothar, had left a young and beautiful widow, Adelheid. Berengar imprisoned her upon the Lake of Como, and threatened her with a forced marriage to his son Adalbert. She escaped to the castle of Canossa, where the great count of Tuscany espoused her cause, and appealed in her behalf to Otto the Saxon. The king of Germany descended into Italy, and took Adelheid in marriage. After this episode Berengar was more discredited and impotent than ever. In the extremity of his fortunes he had recourse himself to Otto, making a formal cession of the Italian kingdom, in his own name and that of his son Adalbert, to the Saxon as his overlord. By this slender tie the crown of Italy was joined to that of Germany; and the formal right of the elected king of Germany to be considered king of Italy and emperor may be held to have accrued from this epoch.

III. The German Emperors.—Berengar gained nothing by his act of obedience to Otto. The great Italian nobles, in their turn, appealed to Germany. Otto entered Lombardy in 961, deposed Berengar, assumed the crown in San Saxon and Franconian emperors. Ambrogio at Milan, and in 962 was proclaimed emperor by John XII. at Rome. Henceforward Italy changed masters according as one or other of the German families assumed supremacy beyond the Alps. It is one of the strongest instances furnished by history of the fascination exercised by an idea that the Italians themselves should have grown to glory in this dependence of their nation upon Caesars who had nothing but a name in common with the Roman Imperator of the past.

The first thing we have to notice in this revolution which placed Otto the Great upon the imperial throne is that the Italian kingdom, founded by the Lombards, recognized by the Franks and recently claimed by eminent Italian feudatories, virtually ceased to exist. It was merged in the German kingdom; and, since for the German princes Germany was of necessity their first care, Italy from this time forward began to be left more and more to herself. The central authority of Pavia had always been weak; the regno had proved insufficient to combine the nation. But now even that shadow of union disappeared, and the Italians were abandoned to the slowly working influences which tended to divide them into separate states. The most brilliant period of their chequered history, the period which includes the rise of communes, the exchange of municipal liberty for despotism and the gradual discrimination of the five great powers (Milan, Venice, Florence, the Papacy and the kingdom of Naples), now begins. Among the centrifugal forces which determined the future of the Italian race must be reckoned, first and foremost, the new spirit of municipal independence. We have seen how the cities enclosed themselves with walls, and how the bishops defined their authority against that of the counts. Otto encouraged this revolution by placing the enclosures of the chief burghs beyond the jurisdiction of the counts. Within those precincts the bishops and the citizens were independent of all feudal masters but the emperor. He further 30 broke the power of the great vassals by redivisions of their feuds, and by the creation of new marches which he assigned to his German followers. In this way, owing to the dislocation of the ancient aristocracy, to the enlarged jurisdiction of a power so democratic as the episcopate, and to the increased privileges of the burghs, feudalism received a powerful check in Italy. The Italian people, that people which gave to the world the commerce and the arts of Florence, was not indeed as yet apparent. But the conditions under which it could arise, casting from itself all foreign and feudal trammels, recognizing its true past in ancient Rome, and reconstructing a civility out of the ruins of those glorious memories, were now at last granted. The nobles from this time forward retired into the country and the mountains, fortified themselves in strong places outside the cities, and gave their best attention to fostering the rural population. Within the cities and upon the open lands the Italians, in this and the next century, doubled, trebled and quadrupled their numbers. A race was formed strong enough to keep the empire itself in check, strong enough, except for its own internecine contests, to have formed a nation equal to its happier neighbours.

The recent scandals of the papacy induced Otto to deprive the Romans of their right to elect popes. But when he died in 973, his son Otto II. (married to Theophano of the imperial Byzantine house) and his grandson, Otto III., who descended into Italy in 996, found that the affairs of Rome and of the southern provinces were more than even their imperial powers could cope with. The faction of the counts of Tusculum raised its head from time to time in the Eternal City, and Rome still claimed to be a commonwealth. Otto III.’s untimely death in 1002 introduced new discords. Rome fell once more into the hands of her nobles. The Lombards chose Ardoin, marquis of Ivrea, for king, and Pavia supported his claims against those of Henry of Bavaria, who had been elected in Germany. Milan sided with Henry; and this is perhaps the first eminent instance of cities being reckoned powerful allies in the Italian disputes of sovereigns. It is also the first instance of that bitter feud between the two great capitals of Lombardy, a feud rooted in ancient antipathies between the Roman population of Mediolanum and the Lombard garrison of Alboin’s successors, which proved so disastrous to the national cause. Ardoin retired to a monastery, where he died in 1015. Henry nearly destroyed Pavia, was crowned in Rome and died in 1024. After this event Heribert, the archbishop of Milan, invited Conrad, the Franconian king of Germany, into Italy, and crowned him with the iron crown of the kingdom.

The intervention of this man, Heribert, compels us to turn a closer glance upon the cities of North Italy. It is here, at the present epoch and for the next two centuries, that the pith and nerve of the Italian nation must be sought; Heribert and the Lombard burghs. and among the burghs of Lombardy, Milan, the eldest daughter of ancient Rome, assumes the lead. In Milan we hear for the first time the word Comune. In Milan the citizens first form themselves into a Parlamento. In Milan the archbishop organizes the hitherto voiceless, defenceless population into a community capable of expressing its needs, and an army ready to maintain its rights. To Heribert is attributed the invention of the Carroccio, which played so singular and important a part in the warfare of Italian cities. A huge car drawn by oxen, bearing the standard of the burgh, and carrying an altar with the host, this carroccio, like the ark of the Israelites, formed a rallying point in battle, and reminded the armed artisans that they had a city and a church to fight for. That Heribert’s device proved effectual in raising the spirit of his burghers, and consolidating them into a formidable band of warriors, is shown by the fact that it was speedily adopted in all the free cities. It must not, however, be supposed that at this epoch the liberties of the burghs were fully developed. The mass of the people remained unrepresented in the government; and even if the consuls existed in the days of Heribert, they were but humble legal officers, transacting business for their constituents in the courts of the bishop and his viscount. It still needed nearly a century of struggle to render the burghers independent of lordship, with a fully organized commune, self-governed in its several assemblies. While making these reservations, it is at the same time right to observe that certain Italian communities were more advanced upon the path of independence than others. This is specially the case with the maritime ports. Not to mention Venice, which has not yet entered the Italian community, and remains a Greek free city, Genoa and Pisa were rapidly rising into ill-defined autonomy. Their command of fleets gave them incontestable advantages, as when, for instance, Otto II. employed the Pisans in 980 against the Greeks in Lower Italy, and the Pisans and Genoese together attacked the Saracens of Sardinia in 1017. Still, speaking generally, the age of independence for the burghs had only begun when Heribert from Milan undertook the earliest organization of a force that was to become paramount in peace and war.

Next to Milan, and from the point of view of general politics even more than Milan, Rome now claims attention. The destinies of Italy depended upon the character which the see of St Peter should assume. Even the liberties Rome. of her republics in the north hung on the issue of a contest which in the 11th and 12th centuries shook Europe to its farthest boundaries. So fatally were the internal affairs of that magnificent but unhappy country bound up with concerns which brought the forces of the civilized world into play. Her ancient prestige, her geographical position and the intellectual primacy of her most noble children rendered Italy the battleground of principles that set all Christendom in motion, and by the clash of which she found herself for ever afterwards divided. During the reign of Conrad II., the party of the counts of Tusculum revived in Rome; and Crescentius, claiming the title of consul in the imperial city, sought once more to control the election of the popes. When Henry III., the son of Conrad, entered Italy in 1046, he found three popes in Rome. These he abolished, and, taking the appointment into his own hands, gave German bishops to the see. The policy thus initiated upon the precedent laid down by Otto the Great was a remedy for pressing evils. It saved Rome from becoming a duchy in the hands of the Tusculum house. But it neither raised the prestige of the papacy, nor could it satisfy the Italians, who rightly regarded the Roman see as theirs. These German popes were short-lived and inefficient. Their appointment, according to notions which defined themselves within the church at this epoch, was simoniacal; and during the long minority of Henry IV., who succeeded his father in 1056, the terrible Tuscan monk, Hildebrand of Soana, forged weapons which he used with deadly effect against the presumption of the empire. The condition of the church seemed desperate, unless it could be purged of crying scandals—of the subjection of the papacy to the great Roman nobles, of its subordination to the German emperor and of its internal demoralization. It was Hildebrand’s policy throughout three papacies, during which he controlled the counsels of the Vatican, and before he himself assumed the tiara, to prepare the mind of Italy and Europe for a mighty change. His programme included these three points: (1) the celibacy of the clergy; (2) the abolition of ecclesiastical appointments made by the secular authority; (3) the vesting of the papal election in the hands of the Roman clergy and people, presided over by the curia of cardinals. How Hildebrand paved the way for these reforms during the pontificates of Nicholas II. and Alexander II., how he succeeded in raising the papal office from the depths of degradation and subjection to illimitable sway over the minds of men in Europe, and how his warfare with the empire established on a solid basis the still doubtful independence of the Italian burghs, renewing the long neglected protectorate of the Italian race, and bequeathing to his successors a national policy which had been forgotten by the popes since his great predecessor Gregory II., forms a chapter in European history which must now be interrupted. We have to follow the fortunes of unexpected allies, upon whom in no small measure his success depended.

31

In order to maintain some thread of continuity through the perplexed and tangled vicissitudes of the Italian race, it has been necessary to disregard those provinces which did not immediately contribute to the formation of its history. Norman conquest of the Two Sicilies. For this reason we have left the whole of the south up to the present point unnoticed. Sicily in the hands of the Mussulmans, the Theme of Lombardy abandoned to the weak suzerainty of the Greek catapans, the Lombard duchy of Benevento slowly falling to pieces and the maritime republics of Naples, Gaeta and Amalfi extending their influence by commerce in the Mediterranean, were in effect detached from the Italian regno, beyond the jurisidiction of Rome, included in no parcel of Italy proper. But now the moment had arrived when this vast group of provinces, forming the future kingdom of the Two Sicilies, was about to enter definitely and decisively within the bounds of the Italian community. Some Norman adventurers, on pilgrimage to St Michael’s shrine on Monte Gargano, lent their swords in 1017 to the Lombard cities of Apulia against the Greeks. Twelve years later we find the Normans settled at Aversa under their Count Rainulf. From this station as a centre the little band of adventurers, playing the Greeks off against the Lombards, and the Lombards against the Greeks, spread their power in all directions, until they made themselves the most considerable force in southern Italy. William of Hauteville was proclaimed count of Apulia. His half-brother, Robert Wiskard or Guiscard, after defeating the papal troops at Civitella in 1053, received from Leo IX. the investiture of all present and future conquests in Apulia, Calabria and Sicily, which he agreed to hold as fiefs of the Holy See. Nicholas II. ratified this grant, and confirmed the title of count. Having consolidated their possessions on the mainland, the Normans, under Robert Guiscard’s brother, the great Count Roger, undertook the conquest of Sicily in 1060. After a prolonged struggle of thirty years, they wrested the whole island from the Saracens; and Roger, dying in 1101, bequeathed to his son Roger a kingdom in Calabria and Sicily second to none in Europe for wealth and magnificence. This, while the elder branch of the Hauteville family still held the title and domains of the Apulian duchy; but in 1127, upon the death of his cousin Duke William, Roger united the whole of the future realm. In 1130 he assumed the style of king of Sicily, inscribing upon his sword the famous hexameter—

“Appulus et Calaber Siculus mihi servit et Afer.”

This Norman conquest of the two Sicilies forms the most romantic episode in medieval Italian history. By the consolidation of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily into a powerful kingdom, by checking the growth of the maritime republics and by recognizing the over-lordship of the papal see, the house of Hauteville influenced the destinies of Italy with more effect than any of the princes who had previously dealt with any portion of the peninsula. Their kingdom, though Naples was from time to time separated from Sicily, never quite lost the cohesion they had given it; and all the disturbances of equilibrium in Italy were due in after days to papal manipulation of the rights acquired by Robert Guiscard’s act of homage. The southern regno, in the hands of the popes, proved an insurmountable obstacle to the unification of Italy, led to French interference in Italian affairs, introduced the Spaniard and maintained in those rich southern provinces the reality of feudal sovereignty long after this alien element had been eliminated from the rest of Italy (see Normans; Sicily: History).

For the sake of clearness, we have anticipated the course of events by nearly a century. We must now return to the date of Hildebrand’s elevation to the papacy in 1073, when he chose the memorable name of Gregory VII. In War of investitures. the next year after his election Hildebrand convened a council, and passed measures enforcing the celibacy of the clergy. In 1075 he caused the investiture of ecclesiastical dignitaries by secular potentates of any degree to be condemned. These two reforms, striking at the most cherished privileges and most deeply-rooted self-indulgences of the aristocratic caste in Europe, inflamed the bitterest hostility. Henry IV., king of Germany, but not crowned emperor, convened a diet in the following year at Worms, where Gregory was deposed and excommunicated. The pope followed with a counter excommunication, far more formidable, releasing the king’s subjects from their oaths of allegiance. War was thus declared between the two chiefs of western Christendom, that war of investitures which out-lasted the lives of both Gregory and Henry, and was not terminated till the year 1122. The dramatic episodes of this struggle are too well known to be enlarged upon. In his single-handed duel with the strength of Germany, Gregory received material assistance from the Countess Matilda of Tuscany. She was the last heiress of the great house of Canossa, whose fiefs stretched from Mantua across Lombardy, passed the Apennines, included the Tuscan plains, and embraced a portion of the duchy of Spoleto. It was in her castle of Canossa that Henry IV. performed his three days’ penance in the winter of 1077; and there she made the cession of her vast domains to the church. That cession, renewed after the death of Gregory to his successors, conferred upon the popes indefinite rights, of which they afterwards availed themselves in the consolidation of their temporal power. Matilda died in the year 1115. Gregory had passed before her from the scene of his contest, an exile at Salerno, whither Robert Guiscard carried him in 1084 from the anarchy of rebellious Rome. With unbroken spirit, though the objects of his life were unattained, though Italy and Europe had been thrown into confusion, and the issue of the conflict was still doubtful, Gregory expired in 1085 with these words on his lips: “I loved justice, I hated iniquity, therefore in banishment I die.”

The greatest of the popes thus breathed his last; but the new spirit he had communicated to the papacy was not destined to expire with him. Gregory’s immediate successors, Victor III., Urban II. and Paschal II., carried on his struggle with Henry IV. and his imperial antipopes, encouraging the emperor’s son to rebel against him, and stirring up Europe for the first crusade. When Henry IV. died, his own son’s prisoner, in 1106, Henry V. crossed the Alps, entered Rome, wrung the imperial coronation from Paschal II. and compelled the pope to grant his claims on the investitures. Scarcely had he returned to Germany when the Lateran disavowed all that the pope had done, on the score that it had been extorted by force. France sided with the church. Germany rejected the bull of investiture. A new descent into Italy, a new seizure of Rome, proved of no avail. The emperor’s real weakness was in Germany, where his subjects openly expressed their discontent. He at last abandoned the contest which had distracted Europe. By the concordat of Worms, 1122, the emperor surrendered the right of investiture by ring and staff, and granted the right of election to the clergy. The popes were henceforth to be chosen by the cardinals, the bishops by the chapters subject to the pope’s approval. On the other hand the pope ceded to the emperor the right of investiture by the sceptre. But the main issue of the struggle was not in these details of ecclesiastical government; principles had been at stake far deeper and more widely reaching. The respective relations of pope and emperor, ill-defined in the compact between Charles the Great and Leo III., were brought in question, and the two chief potentates of Christendom, no longer tacitly concordant, stood against each other in irreconcilable rivalry. Upon this point, though the battle seemed to be a drawn one, the popes were really victors. They remained independent of the emperor, but the emperor had still to seek the crown at their hands. The pretensions of Otto the Great and Henry III. to make popes were gone for ever (see Papacy; Investiture).

IV. Age of the Communes.—The final gainers, however, by the war of investitures were the Italians. In the first place, from this time forward, owing to the election of popes by the Roman curia, the Holy See remained in the hands Rise of free cities. of Italians; and this, though it was by no means an unmixed good, was a great glory to the nation. In the next place, the antagonism of the popes to the emperors, which became hereditary in the Holy College, forced the former to assume the protectorate of the national cause. But by far the greatest profit the Italians reaped was the emancipation of their 32 burghs. During the forty-seven years’ war, when pope and emperor were respectively bidding for their alliance, and offering concessions to secure their support, the communes grew in self-reliance, strength and liberty. As the bishops had helped to free them from subservience to their feudal masters, so the war of investitures relieved them of dependence on their bishops. The age of real autonomy, signalized by the supremacy of consuls in the cities, had arrived.

In the republics, as we begin to know them after the war of investitures, government was carried on by officers called consuls, varying in number according to custom and according to the division of the town into districts. These magistrates, as we have already seen, were originally appointed to control and protect the humbler classes. But, in proportion as the people gained more power in the field the consuls rose into importance, superseded the bishops and began to represent the city in transactions with its neighbours. Popes and emperors who needed the assistance of a city, had to seek it from the consuls, and thus these officers gradually converted an obscure and indefinite authority into what resembles the presidency of a commonwealth. They were supported by a deliberative assembly, called credenza, chosen from the more distinguished citizens. In addition to this privy council, we find a gran consiglio, consisting of the burghers who had established the right to interfere immediately in public affairs, and a still larger assembly called parlamento, which included the whole adult population. Though the institutions of the communes varied in different localities, this is the type to which they all approximated. It will be perceived that the type was rather oligarchical than strictly democratic. Between the parlamento and the consuls with their privy council, or credenza, was interposed the gran consiglio of privileged burghers. These formed the aristocracy of the town, who by their wealth and birth held its affairs within their custody. There is good reason to believe that, when the term popolo occurs, it refers to this body and not to the whole mass of the population. The comune included the entire city—bishop, consuls, oligarchy, councils, handicraftsmen, proletariate. The popolo was the governing or upper class. It was almost inevitable in the transition from feudalism to democracy that this intermediate ground should be traversed; and the peculiar Italian phrases, primo popolo, secondo popolo, terzo popolo, and so forth, indicate successive changes, whereby the oligarchy passed from one stage to another in its progress toward absorption in democracy or tyranny.

Under their consuls the Italian burghs rose to a great height of prosperity and splendour. Pisa built her Duomo. Milan undertook the irrigation works which enriched the soil of Lombardy for ever. Massive walls, substantial edifices, commodious seaports, good roads, were the benefits conferred by this new government on Italy. It is also to be noticed that the people now began to be conscious of their past. They recognized the fact that their blood was Latin as distinguished from Teutonic, and that they must look to ancient Rome for those memories which constitute a people’s nationality. At this epoch the study of Roman law received a new impulse, and this is the real meaning of the legend that Pisa, glorious through her consuls, brought the pandects in a single codex from Amalfi. The very name consul, no less than the Romanizing character of the best architecture of the time, points to the same revival of antiquity.

The rise of the Lombard communes produced a sympathetic revolution in Rome, which deserves to be mentioned in this place. A monk, named Arnold of Brescia, animated with the spirit of the Milanese, stirred up the Romans to shake Republic in Rome. off the temporal sway of their bishop. He attempted, in fact, upon a grand scale what was being slowly and quietly effected in the northern cities. Rome, ever mindful of her unique past, listened to Arnold’s preaching. A senate was established, and the republic was proclaimed. The title of patrician was revived and offered to Conrad, king of Italy, but not crowned emperor. Conrad refused it, and the Romans conferred it upon one of their own nobles. Though these institutions borrowed high-sounding titles from antiquity, they were in reality imitations of the Lombard civic system. The patrician stood for the consuls. The senate, composed of nobles, represented the credenza and the gran consiglio. The pope was unable to check this revolution, which is now chiefly interesting as further proof of the insurgence of the Latin as against the feudal elements in Italy at this period (see Rome: History).

Though the communes gained so much by the war of investitures, the division of the country between the pope’s and emperor’s parties was no small price to pay for independence. It inflicted upon Italy the ineradicable Municipal wars. curse of party-warfare, setting city against city, house against house, and rendering concordant action for a national end impossible. No sooner had the compromise of the investitures been concluded than it was manifest that the burghers of the new enfranchised communes were resolved to turn their arms against each other. We seek in vain an obvious motive for each separate quarrel. All we know for certain is that, at this epoch, Rome attempts to ruin Tivoli, and Venice Pisa; Milan fights with Cremona, Cremona with Crema, Pavia with Verona, Verona with Padua, Piacenza with Parma, Modena and Reggio with Bologna, Bologna and Faenza with Ravenna and Imola, Florence and Pisa with Lucca and Siena, and so on through the whole list of cities. The nearer the neighbours, the more rancorous and internecine is the strife; and, as in all cases where animosity is deadly and no grave local causes of dispute are apparent, we are bound to conclude that some deeply-seated permanent uneasiness goaded these fast growing communities into rivalry. Italy was, in fact, too small for her children. As the towns expanded, they perceived that they must mutually exclude each other. They fought for bare existence, for primacy in commerce, for the command of seaports, for the keys of mountain passes, for rivers, roads and all the avenues of wealth and plenty. The pope’s cause and the emperor’s cause were of comparatively little moment to Italian burghers; and the names of Guelph and Ghibelline, which before long began to be heard in every street, on every market-place, had no meaning for them. These watchwords are said to have arisen in Germany during the disputed succession of the empire between 1135 and 1152, when the Welfs of Bavaria opposed the Swabian princes of Waiblingen origin. But in Italy, although they were severally identified with the papal and imperial parties, they really served as symbols for jealousies which altered in complexion from time to time and place to place, expressing more than antagonistic political principles, and involving differences vital enough to split the social fabric to its foundation.

Under the imperial rule of Lothar the Saxon (1125-1137) and Conrad the Swabian (1138-1152), these civil wars increased in violence owing to the absence of authority. Neither Swabian emperors. Lothar nor Conrad was strong at home; the former had no influence in Italy, and the latter never entered Italy at all. But when Conrad died, the electors chose his nephew Frederick, surnamed Barbarossa, who united the rival honours of Welf and Waiblingen, to succeed him; and it was soon obvious that the empire had a master powerful of brain and firm of will. Frederick immediately determined to reassert the imperial rights in his Frederick Barbarossa and the Lombard cities. southern provinces, and to check the warfare of the burghs. When he first crossed the Alps in 1154, Lombardy was, roughly speaking, divided between two parties, the one headed by Pavia professing loyalty to the empire, the other headed by Milan ready to oppose its claims. The municipal animosities of the last quarter of a century gave substance to these factions; yet neither the imperial nor the anti-imperial party had any real community of interest with Frederick. He came to supersede self-government by consuls, to deprive the cities of the privilege of making war on their own account and to extort his regalian rights of forage, food and lodging for his armies. It was only the habit of inter-urban jealousy which prevented the communes from at once combining to resist demands which threatened their liberty of action, and would leave them passive at the pleasure of a foreign master. The diet was opened at Roncaglia near Piacenza, where Frederick 33 listened to the complaints of Como and Lodi against Milan, of Pavia against Tortona and of the marquis of Montferrat against Asti and Chieri. The plaintiffs in each case were imperialists; and Frederick’s first action was to redress their supposed grievances. He laid waste Chieri, Asti and Tortona, then took the Lombard crown at Pavia, and, reserving Milan for a future day, passed southward to Rome. Outside the gates of Rome he was met by a deputation from the senate he had come to supersede, who addressed him in words memorable for expressing the republican spirit of new Italy face to face with autocratic feudalism: “Thou wast a stranger, I have made thee a citizen”; it is Rome who speaks: “Thou earnest as an alien from beyond the Alps, I have conferred on thee the principality.” Moved only to scorn and indignation by the rhetoric of these presumptuous enthusiasts, Frederick marched into the Leonine city, and took the imperial crown from the hands of Adrian IV. In return for this compliance, the emperor delivered over to the pope his troublesome rival Arnold of Brescia, who was burned alive by Nicholas Breakspear, the only English successor of St Peter. The gates of Rome itself were shut against Frederick; and even on this first occasion his good understanding with Adrian began to suffer. The points of dispute between them related mainly to Matilda’s bequest, and to the kingdom of Sicily, which the pope had rendered independent of the empire by renewing its investiture in the name of the Holy See. In truth, the papacy and the empire had become irreconcilable. Each claimed illimitable authority, and neither was content to abide within such limits as would have secured a mutual tolerance. Having obtained his coronation, Frederick withdrew to Germany, while Milan prepared herself against the storm which threatened. In the ensuing struggle with the empire, that great city rose to the altitude of patriotic heroism. By their sufferings no less than by their deeds of daring, her citizens showed themselves to be sublime, devoted and disinterested, winning the purest laurels which give lustre to Italian story. Almost in Frederick’s presence, they rebuilt Tortona, punished Pavia, Lodi, Cremona and the marquis of Montferrat. Then they fortified the Adda and Ticino, and waited for the emperor’s next descent. He came in 1158 with a large army, overran Lombardy, raised his imperial allies, and sat down before the walls of Milan. Famine forced the burghers to partial obedience, and Frederick held a victorious diet at Roncaglia. Here the jurists of Bologna appeared, armed with their new lore of Roman law, and expounded Justinian’s code in the interests of the German empire. It was now seen how the absolutist doctrines of autocracy developed in Justinian’s age at Byzantium would bear fruits in the development of an imperial idea, which was destined to be the fatal mirage of medieval Italy. Frederick placed judges of his own appointment, with the title of podestà, in all the Lombard communes; and this stretch of his authority, while it exacerbated his foes, forced even his friends to join their ranks against him. The war, meanwhile, dragged on. Crema yielded after an heroic siege in 1160, and was abandoned to the cruelty of its fierce rival Cremona. Milan was invested in 1161, starved into capitulation after nine months’ resistance, and given up to total destruction by the Italian imperialists of Frederick’s army, so stained and tarnished with the vindictive passions of municipal rivalry was even this, the one great glorious strife of Italian annals. Having ruined his rebellious city, but not tamed her spirit, Frederick withdrew across the Alps. But, in the interval between his second and third visit, a league was formed against him in north-eastern Lombardy. Verona, Vicenza, Padua, Treviso, Venice entered into a compact to defend their liberties; and when he came again in 1163 with a brilliant staff of German knights, the imperial cities refused to join his standards. This was the first and ominous sign of a coming change.

Meanwhile the election of Alexander III. to the papacy in 1159 added a powerful ally to the republican party. Opposed by an anti-pope whom the emperor favoured, Alexander found it was his truest policy to rely for support upon the anti-imperialist communes. They in return gladly accepted a champion who lent them the prestige and influence of the church. When Frederick once more crossed the Alps in 1166, he advanced on Rome, and besieged Alexander in the Coliseum. But the affairs of Lombardy left him no leisure to persecute a recalcitrant pontiff. In April 1167 a new league was formed between Cremona, Bergamo, Brescia, Mantua and Ferrara. In December of the same year this league allied itself with the elder Veronese league, and received the addition of Milan, Lodi, Piacenza, Parma, Modena and Bologna. The famous league of Lombard cities, styled Concordia in its acts of settlement, was now established. Novara, Vercelli, Asti and Tortona swelled its Lombard League. ranks; only Pavia and Montferrat remained imperialist between the Alps and Apennines. Frederick fled for his life by the Mont Cenis, and in 1168 the town of Alessandria was erected to keep Pavia and the marquisate in check. In the emperor’s absence, Ravenna, Rimini, Imola and Forli joined the league, which now called itself the “Society of Venice, Lombardy, the March, Romagna and Alessandria.” For the fifth time, in 1174, Frederick entered his rebellious dominions. The fortress town of Alessandria stopped his progress with those mud walls contemptuously named “of straw,” while the forces of the league assembled at Modena and obliged him to raise the siege. In the spring of 1176 Frederick threatened Milan. His army found itself a little to the north of the town near the village of Legnano, when the troops of the city, assisted only by a few allies from Piacenza, Verona, Brescia, Novara and Vercelli, met and overwhelmed it. The victory was complete. Frederick escaped alone to Pavia, whence he opened negotiations with Alexander. In consequence of these transactions, he was suffered to betake himself unharmed to Venice. Here, as upon neutral ground, the emperor met the pope, and a truce for six years was concluded with the Lombard burghs. Looking back from the vantage-ground of history upon the issue of this long struggle, we are struck with the small results which satisfied the Lombard communes. They had humbled and utterly defeated their foreign lord. They had proved their strength in combination. Yet neither the acts by which their league was ratified nor the terms negotiated for them by their patron Alexander evince the smallest desire of what we now understand as national independence. The name of Italy is never mentioned. The supremacy of the emperor is not called in question. The conception of a permanent confederation, bound together in Offensive and defensive alliance for common objects, has not occurred to these hard fighters and stubborn asserters of their civic privileges. All they claim is municipal autonomy; the right to manage their own affairs within the city walls, to fight their battles as they choose, and to follow their several ends unchecked. It is vain to lament that, when they might have now established Italian independence upon a secure basis, they chose local and municipal privileges. Their mutual jealousies, combined with the prestige of the empire, and possibly with the selfishness of the pope, who had secured his own position, and was not likely to foster a national spirit that would have threatened the ecclesiastical supremacy, deprived the Italians of the only great opportunity they ever had of forming themselves into a powerful nation.

When the truce expired in 1183, a permanent peace was ratified at Constance. The intervening years had been spent by the Lombards, not in consolidating their union, but in attempting to secure special privileges for their Peace of Constance. several cities. Alessandria della Paglia, glorious by her resistance to the emperor in 1174, had even changed her name to Cesarea! The signatories of the peace of Constance were divided between leaguers and imperialists. On the one side we find Vercelli, Novara, Milan, Lodi, Bergamo, Brescia, Mantua, Verona, Vicenza, Padua, Treviso, Bologna, Faenza, Modena, Reggio, Parma, Piacenza; on the other, Pavia, Genoa, Alba, Cremona, Como, Tortona, Asti, Cesarea. Venice, who had not yet entered the Italian community, is conspicuous by her absence. According to the terms of this treaty, the communes were confirmed in their right of self-government by consuls, and their right of warfare. The emperor retained the supreme courts of appeal within the cities, and 34 his claim for sustenance at their expense when he came into Italy.

The privileges confirmed to the Lombard cities by the peace of Constance were extended to Tuscany, where Florence, having ruined Fiesole, had begun her career of freedom and prosperity. The next great chapter in the history of War of cities against nobles. Italian evolution is the war of the burghs against the nobles. The consular cities were everywhere surrounded by castles; and, though the feudal lords had been weakened by the events of the preceding centuries, they continued to be formidable enemies. It was, for instance, necessary to the well-being of the towns that they should possess territory round their walls, and this had to be wrested from the nobles. We cannot linger over the details of this warfare. It must suffice to say that, partly by mortgaging their property to rich burghers, partly by entering the service of the cities as condottieri (mercenary leaders), partly by espousing the cause of one town against another, and partly by forced submission after the siege of their strong places, the counts were gradually brought into connexion of dependence on the communes. These, in their turn, forced the nobles to leave their castles, and to reside for at least a portion of each year within the walls. By these measures the counts became citizens, the rural population ceased to rank as serfs, and the Italo-Roman population of the towns absorbed into itself the remnants of Franks, Germans and other foreign stocks. It would be impossible to exaggerate the importance of this revolution, which ended by destroying the last vestige of feudality, and prepared that common Italian people which afterwards distinguished itself by the creation of European culture. But, like all the vicissitudes, of the Italian race, while it was a decided step forward in one direction, it introduced a new source of discord. The associated nobles proved ill neighbours to the peaceable citizens. They fortified their houses, retained their military habits, defied the consuls, and carried on feuds in the streets and squares. The war against the castles became a war against the palaces; and the system of government by consuls proved inefficient to control the clashing elements within the state. This led to the establishment of podestàs, who represented a compromise between two radically hostile parties in the city, and whose business it was to arbitrate and keep the peace between them. Invariably a foreigner, elected for a year with power of life and death and control of the armed force, but subject to a strict account at the expiration of his office, the podestà might be compared to a dictator invested with limited authority. His title was derived from that of Frederick Barbarossa’s judges; but he had no dependence on the empire. The citizens chose him, and voluntarily submitted to his rule. The podestà marks an essentially transitional state in civic government, and his intervention paved the way for despotism.

The thirty years which elapsed between Frederick Barbarossa’s death in 1190 and the coronation of his grandson Frederick II. in 1220 form one of the most momentous epochs in Italian history. Barbarossa, perceiving the advantage Innocent III. that would accrue to his house if he could join the crown of Sicily to that of Germany, and thus deprive the popes of their allies in Lower Italy, procured the marriage of his son Henry VI. to Constance, daughter of King Roger, and heiress of the Hauteville dynasty. When William II., the last monarch of the Norman race, died, Henry VI. claimed that kingdom in his wife’s right, and was recognized in 1194. Three years afterwards he died, leaving a son, Frederick, to the care of Constance, who in her turn died in 1198, bequeathing the young prince, already crowned king of Germany, to the guardianship of Innocent III. It was bold policy to confide Frederick to his greatest enemy and rival; but the pope honourably discharged his duty, until his ward outgrew the years of tutelage, and became a fair mark for ecclesiastical hostility. Frederick’s long minority was occupied by Innocent’s pontificate. Among the principal events of that reign must be reckoned the foundation of the two orders, Franciscan and Dominican, who were destined to form a militia for the holy see in conflict with the empire and the heretics of Lombardy. A second great event was the fourth crusade, undertaken in 1198, which established the naval and commercial supremacy of the Italians in the Mediterranean. The Venetians, who contracted for the transport of the crusaders, and whose blind doge Dandolo was first to land in Constantinople, received one-half and one-fourth of the divided Greek empire for their spoils. The Venetian ascendancy in the Levant dates from this epoch; for, though the republic had no power to occupy all the domains ceded to it, Candia was taken, together with several small islands and stations on the mainland. The formation of a Latin empire in the East increased the pope’s prestige; while at home it was his policy to organize Countess Matilda’s heritage by the formation of Guelph leagues, over which he presided. This is the meaning of the three leagues, in the March, in the duchy of Spoleto and in Tuscany, which now combined the chief cities of the papal territory into allies of the holy see. From the Tuscan league Pisa, consistently Ghibelline, stood aloof. Rome itself again at this epoch established a republic, with which Innocent would not or could not interfere. The thirteen districts in their council nominated four caporioni, who acted in concert with a senator, appointed, like the podestà of other cities, for supreme judicial functions. Meanwhile the Guelph and Ghibelline factions were beginning to divide Italy into minute parcels. Not only did commune range itself against commune under the two rival flags, but party rose up against party within the city walls. The introduction of the factions into Florence in 1215, owing to a private quarrel between the Buondelmonti, Amidei and Donati, is a celebrated instance of what was happening in every burgh.

Frederick II. was left without a rival for the imperial throne in 1218 by the death of Otto IV., and on the 22nd of November 1220, Honorius III., Innocent’s successor, crowned him in Rome. It was impossible for any section of the Frederick II. Emperor. Italians to mistake the gravity of his access to power. In his single person he combined the prestige of empire with the Crowns of Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Germany and Burgundy; and in 1225, by marriage with Yolande de Brienne, he added that of Jerusalem. There was no prince greater or more formidable in the habitable globe. The communes, no less than the popes, felt that they must prepare themselves for contest to the death with a power which threatened their existence. Already in 1218, the Guelphs of Lombardy had resuscitated their old league, and had been defeated by the Ghibellines in a battle near Ghibello. Italy seemed to lie prostrate before the emperor, who commanded her for the first time from the south as well as from the north. In 1227 Frederick, who had promised to lead a crusade, was excommunicated by Gregory IX. because he was obliged by illness to defer his undertaking; and thus the spiritual power declared war upon its rival. The Guelph towns of Lombardy again raised their levies. Frederick enlisted his Saracen troops at Nocera and Luceria, and appointed the terrible Ezzelino da Romano his vicar in the Marches of Verona to quell their insurrection. It was 1236, however, before he was able to take the field himself against the Lombards. Having established Ezzelino in Verona, Vicenza and Padua, he defeated the Milanese and their allies at Cortenuova in 1237, and sent their carroccio as a trophy of his victory to Rome. Gregory IX. feared lest the Guelph party would be ruined by this check. He therefore made alliance with Venice and Genoa, fulminated a new excommunication against Frederick, and convoked a council at Rome to ratify his ban in 1241. The Genoese undertook to bring the French bishops to this council. Their fleet was attacked at Meloria by the Pisans, and utterly defeated. The French prelates went in silver chains to prison in the Ghibelline capital of Tuscany. So far Frederick had been successful at all points. In 1243 a new pope, Innocent IV., was elected, who prosecuted the war with still bitterer spirit. Forced to fly to France, he there, at Lyons, in 1245, convened a council, which enforced his condemnation of the emperor. Frederick’s subjects were freed from their allegiance, and he was declared dethroned and deprived of all rights. Five times king and emperor as he was, Frederick, placed under the ban of the church, led henceforth a doomed existence. The mendicant monks stirred up the populace to acts of fanatical 35 enmity. To plot against him, to attempt his life by poison or the sword, was accounted virtuous. His secretary, Piero delle Vigne, was wrongly suspected of conspiring. The crimes of his vicar Ezzelino, who laid whole provinces waste and murdered men by thousands in his Paduan prisons, increased the horror with which he was regarded. Parma revolted from him, and he spent months in 1247-1248 vainly trying to reduce this one time faithful city. The only gleam of success which shone on his ill fortune was the revolution which placed Florence in the hands of the Ghibellines in 1248. Next year Bologna rose against him, defeated his troops and took his son Enzio, king of Sardinia, prisoner at Fossalta. Hunted to the ground and broken-hearted, Frederick expired at the end of 1250 in his Apulian castle of Fiorentino. It is difficult to judge his career with fairness. The only prince who could, with any probability of success, have established the German rule in Italy, his ruin proved the impossibility of that long-cherished scheme. The nation had outgrown dependence upon foreigners, and after his death no German emperor interfered with anything but miserable failure in Italian affairs. Yet from many points of view it might be regretted that Frederick was not suffered to rule Italy. By birth and breeding an Italian, highly gifted and widely cultivated, liberal in his opinions, a patron of literature, a founder of universities, he anticipated the spirit of the Renaissance. At his court Italian started into being as a language. His laws were wise. He was capable of giving to Italy a large and noble culture. But the commanding greatness of his position proved his ruin. Emperor and king of Sicily, he was the natural enemy of popes, who could not tolerate so overwhelming a rival.

After Frederick’s death, the popes carried on their war for eighteen years against his descendants. The cause of his son Conrad was sustained in Lower Italy by Manfred, one of Frederick’s many natural children; and, when Papal war against Frederick’s successors. Conrad died in 1254, Manfred still acted as vicegerent for the Swabians, who were now represented by a boy Conradin. Innocent IV. and Alexander IV. continued to make head against the Ghibelline party. The most dramatic incident in this struggle was the crusade preached against Ezzelino. This tyrant had made himself justly odious; and when he was hunted to death in 1259, the triumph was less for the Guelph cause than for humanity outraged by the iniquities of such a monster. The battle between Guelph and Ghibelline raged with unintermitting fury. While the former faction gained in Lombardy by the massacre of Ezzelino, the latter revived in Tuscany after the battle of Montaperti, which in 1260 placed Florence at the discretion of the Ghibellines. Manfred, now called king of Sicily, headed the Ghibellines, and there was no strong counterpoise against him. In this necessity Urban IV. and Clement IV. invited Charles of Anjou to enter Italy and take the Guelph command. They made him senator of Rome and vicar of Tuscany, and promised him the investiture of the regno provided he stipulated that it should not be held in combination with the empire. Charles accepted these terms, and was welcomed by the Guelph party as their chief throughout Italy. He defeated Manfred in a battle at Grandella near Benevento in 1266. Manfred was killed; and, when Conradin, a lad of sixteen, descended from Germany to make good his claims to the kingdom, he too was defeated at Tagliacozzo in 1267. Less lucky than his uncle, Conradin escaped with his life, to die upon a scaffold at Naples. His glove was carried to his cousin Constance, wife of Peter of Aragon, the last of the great Norman-Swabian family. Enzio died in his prison four years later. The popes had been successful; but they had purchased their bloody victory at a great cost. This first invitation to French princes brought with it incalculable evils.

Charles of Anjou, supported by Rome, and recognized as chief in Tuscany, was by far the most formidable of the Italian potentates. In his turn he now excited the jealousy of the popes, who began, though cautiously, to cast their weight into Civil War of Guelphs and Ghibellines. the Ghibelline scale. Gregory initiated the policy of establishing an equilibrium between the parties, which was carried out by his successor Nicholas III. Charles was forced to resign the senatorship of Rome and the signoria of Lombardy and Tuscany. In 1282 he received a more decided check, when Sicily rose against him in the famous rebellion of the Vespers. He lost the island, which gave itself to Aragon; and thus the kingdom of Sicily was severed from that of Naples, the dynasty in the one being Spanish and Ghibelline, in the other French and Guelph. Meanwhile a new emperor had been elected, the prudent Rudolf of Habsburg, who abstained from interference with Italy, and who confirmed the territorial pretensions of the popes by solemn charter in 1278. Henceforth Emilia, Romagna, the March of Ancona, the patrimony of St Peter and the Campagna of Rome held of the Holy See, and not of the empire. The imperial chancery, without inquiring closely into the deeds furnished by the papal curia, made a deed of gift, which placed the pope in the position of a temporal sovereign. While Nicholas III. thus bettered the position of the church in Italy, the Guelph party grew stronger than ever, through the crushing defeat of the Pisans by the Genoese at Meloria in 1284. Pisa, who had ruined Amalfi, was now ruined by Genoa. She never held her head so high again after this victory, which sent her best and bravest citizens to die in the Ligurian dungeons. The Mediterranean was left to be fought for by Genoa and Venice, while Guelph Florence grew still more powerful in Tuscany. Not long after the battle of Meloria Charles of Anjou died, and was succeeded by his son Charles II. of Naples, who played no prominent part in Italian affairs. The Guelph party was held together with a less tight hand even in cities so consistent as Florence. Here in the year 1300 new factions, subdividing the old Guelphs and Ghibellines under the names of Neri and Bianchi, had acquired such force that Boniface VIII., a violently Guelph pope, called in Charles of Valois to pacify the republic and undertake the charge of Italian affairs. Boniface was a passionate and unwise man. After quarrelling with the French king, Philip le Bel, he fell into the hands of the Colonna family at Anagni, and died, either of the violence he there received or of mortification, in October 1303.

After the short papacy of Benedict XI. a Frenchman, Clement V., was elected, and the seat of the papacy was transferred to Avignon. Thus began that Babylonian exile of the popes which placed them in subjection to the French Translation of the Papacy to Avignon. crown and ruined their prestige in Italy. Lasting seventy years, and joining on to the sixty years of the Great Schism, this enfeeblement of the papal authority, coinciding as it did with the practical elimination of the empire from Italian affairs, gave a long period of comparative independence to the nation. Nor must it be forgotten that this exile was due to the policy which induced the pontiffs, in their detestation of Ghibellinism, to rely successively upon the houses of Anjou and of Valois. This policy it was which justified Dante’s fierce epigram—the puttaneggiar co regi.

The period we have briefly traversed was immortalized by Dante in an epic which from one point of view might be called the poem of the Guelphs and Ghibellines. From the foregoing bare narration of events it is impossible to estimate the importance of these parties, or to understand their bearing on subsequent Italian history. We are therefore forced to pause awhile, and probe beneath the surface. The civil wars may be regarded as a continuation of the previous municipal struggle, intensified by recent hostilities between the burghers and the nobles. The quarrels of the church and empire lend pretexts and furnish war-cries; but the real question at issue is not the supremacy of pope or emperor. The conflict is a social one, between civic and feudal institutions, between commercial and military interests, between progress and conservatism. Guelph democracy and industry idealize the pope. The banner of the church waves above the camp of those who aim at positive prosperity and republican equality. Ghibelline aristocracy and immobility idealize the emperor. The prestige of the empire, based upon Roman law and feudal tradition, attracts imaginative patriots and systematic thinkers. The two ideals are counterposed and mutually exclusive. No city calls itself either Guelph 36 or Ghibelline till it has expelled one-half of its inhabitants; for each party is resolved to constitute the state according to its own conception, and the affirmation of the one programme is the negation of the other. The Ghibelline honestly believes that the Guelphs will reduce society to chaos. The Guelph is persuaded that the Ghibellines will annihilate freedom and strangle commerce. The struggle is waged by two sets of men who equally love their city, but who would fain rule it upon diametrically opposite principles, and who fight to the death for its possession. This contradiction enters into the minutest details of life—armorial bearings, clothes, habits at table, symbolize and accentuate the difference. Meanwhile each party forms its own organization of chiefs, finance-officers and registrars at home, and sends ambassadors to foreign cities of the same complexion. A network of party policy embraces and dominates the burghs of Italy, bringing the most distant centres into relation, and by the very division of the country augmenting the sense of nationality. The Italians learn through their discords at this epoch that they form one community. The victory in the conflict practically falls to the hitherto unenfranchised plebeians. The elder noble families die out or lose their preponderance. In some cities, as notably in Florence after the date 1292, it becomes criminal to be scioperato, or unemployed in industry. New houses rise into importance; a new commercial aristocracy is formed. Burghers of all denominations are enrolled in one or other of the arts or gilds, and these trading companies furnish the material from which the government or signoria of the city is composed. Plebeian handicrafts assert their right to be represented on an equality with learned professions and wealthy corporations. The ancient classes are confounded and obliterated in a population more homogeneous, more adapted for democracy and despotism.

In addition to the parliament and the councils which have been already enumerated, we now find a council of the party established within the city. This body tends to become a little state within the state, and, by controlling New constitution of the free cities. the victorious majority, disposes of the government as it thinks best. The consuls are merged in ancients or priors, chosen from the arts. A new magistrate, the gonfalonier of justice, appears in some of the Guelph cities, with the special duty of keeping the insolence of the nobility in check. Meanwhile the podestà still subsists; but he is no longer equal to the task of maintaining an equilibrium of forces. He sinks more and more into a judge, loses more and more the character of dictator. His ancient place is now occupied by a new functionary, no longer acting as arbiter, but concentrating the forces of the triumphant party. The captain of the people, acting as head of the ascendant Guelphs or Ghibellines, undertakes the responsibility of proscriptions, decides on questions of policy, forms alliances, declares war. Like all officers created to meet an emergency, the limitations to his power are ill-defined, and he is often little better than an autocrat.

V. Age of the Despots.—Thus the Italians, during the heat of the civil wars, were ostensibly divided between partisans of the empire and partisans of the church. After the death of Frederick II. their affairs were managed by Manfred Origin of Tyrannies. and by Charles of Anjou, the supreme captains of the parties, under whose orders acted the captains of the people in each city. The contest being carried on by warfare, it followed that these captains in the burghs were chosen on account of military skill; and, since the nobles were men of arms by profession, members of ancient houses took the lead again in towns where they had been absorbed into the bourgeoisie. In this way, after the downfall of the Ezzelini of Romano, the Della Scala dynasty arose in Verona, and the Carraresi in Padua. The Estensi made themselves lords of Ferrara; the Torriani headed the Guelphs of Milan. At Ravenna we find the Polenta family, at Rimini the Malatestas, at Parma the Rossi, at Piacenza the Scotti, at Faenza the Manfredi. There is not a burgh of northern Italy but can trace the rise of a dynastic house to the vicissitudes of this period. In Tuscany, where the Guelph party was very strongly organized, and the commercial constitution of Florence kept the nobility in check, the communes remained as yet free from hereditary masters. Yet generals from time to time arose, the Conte Ugolino della Gheradesca at Pisa, Uguccione della Faggiuola at Lucca, the Conte Guido di Montefeltro at Florence, who threatened the liberties of Tuscan cities with military despotism.

Left to themselves by absentee emperors and exiled popes, the Italians pursued their own course of development unchecked. After the commencement of the 14th century, the civil wars decreased in fury, and at the same time it was perceived that their effect had been to confirm tyrants in their grasp upon free cities. Growing up out of the captain of the people or signore of the commune, the tyrant annihilated both parties for his own profit and for the peace of the state. He used the dictatorial powers with which he was invested to place himself above the law, resuming in his person the state-machinery which had preceded him. In him, for the first time, the city attained self-consciousness; the blindly working forces of previous revolutions were combined in the will of a ruler. The tyrant’s general policy was to favour the multitude at the expense of his own caste. He won favour by these means, and completed the levelling down of classes, which had been proceeding ever since the emergence of the communes.

In 1309 Robert, grandson of Charles, the first Angevine sovereign, succeeded to the throne of Naples, and became the leader of the Guelphs in Italy. In the next year Henry VII. of Luxembourg crossed the Alps soon after his Decline of civil wars. Advent of the bourgeoisie. election to the empire, and raised the hopes of the Ghibellines. Dante from his mountain solitudes passionately called upon him to play the part of a Messiah. But it was now impossible for any German to control the “Garden of the Empire.” Italy had entered on a new phase of her existence, and the great poet’s De monarchia represented a dream of the past which could not be realized. Henry established imperial vicars in the Lombard towns, confirming the tyrants, but gaining nothing for the empire in exchange for the titles he conferred. After receiving the crown in Rome, he died at Buonconvento, a little walled town south of Siena, on his backward journey in 1313. The profits of his inroad were reaped by despots, who used the Ghibelline prestige for the consolidation of their own power. It is from this epoch that the supremacy of the Visconti, hitherto the unsuccessful rivals of the Guelphic Torriani for the signory of Milan, dates. The Scaligers in Verona and the Carraresi in Padua were strengthened; and in Tuscany Castruccio Castracane, Uguccione’s successor at Lucca, became formidable. In 1325 he defeated the Florentines at Alto Pascio, and carried home their carroccio as a trophy of his victory over the Guelphs. Louis of Bavaria, the next emperor, made a similar excursion in the year 1327, with even greater loss of imperial prestige. He deposed Galeazzo Visconti on his downward journey, and offered Milan for a sum of money to his son Azzo upon his return. Castruccio Castracane was nominated by him duke of Lucca; and this is the first instance of a dynastic title conferred upon an Italian adventurer by the emperor. Castruccio dominated Tuscany, where the Guelph cause, in the weakness of King Robert, languished. But the adventurer’s death in 1328 saved the stronghold of republican institutions, and Florence breathed freely for a while again. Can Grande della Scala’s death in the next year inflicted on the Lombard Ghibellines a loss hardly inferior to that of Castruccio’s on their Tuscan allies. Equally contemptible in its political results and void of historical interest was the brief visit of John of Bohemia, son of Henry VII., whom the Ghibellines next invited to assume their leadership. He sold a few privileges, conferred a few titles, and recrossed the Alps in 1333. It is clear that at this time the fury of the civil wars was spent. In spite of repeated efforts on the part of the Ghibellines, in spite of King Robert’s supine incapacity, the imperialists gained no permanent advantage. The Italians were tired of fighting, and the leaders of both factions looked exclusively to their own interests. Each city which had been the cradle of freedom thankfully accepted a master, to quench the conflagration of party strife, encourage 37 trade, and make the handicraftsmen comfortable. Even the Florentines in 1342 submitted for a few months to the despotism of the duke of Athens. They conferred the signory upon him for life; and, had he not mismanaged matters, he might have held the city in his grasp. Italy was settling down and turning her attention to home comforts, arts and literature. Boccaccio, the contented bourgeois, succeeded to Dante, the fierce aristocrat.

The most marked proof of the change which came over Italy towards the middle of the 14th century is furnished by the companies of adventure. It was with their own militia that the burghers won freedom in the war of independence, subdued the nobles, and fought the battles of the parties. But from this time forward they laid down their arms, and played the game of warfare by the aid of mercenaries. Ecclesiastical overlords, interfering from a distance in Italian politics; prosperous republics, with plenty of money to spend but no leisure or inclination for camp-life; cautious tyrants, glad of every pretext to emasculate their subjects, and courting popularity by exchanging conscription for taxation—all combined to favour the new system. Mercenary troops are said to have been first levied from disbanded Germans, together with Breton and English adventurers, whom the Visconti and Castruccio took into their pay. They soon appeared under their own captains, who hired them out to the highest bidder, or marched them on marauding expeditions up and down the less protected districts. The names of some of these earliest captains of adventure, Fra Moriale, Count Lando and Duke Werner, who styled himself the “Enemy of God and Mercy,” have been preserved to us. As the companies grew in size and improved their discipline, it was seen by the Italian nobles that this kind of service offered a good career for men of spirit, who had learned the use of arms. To leave so powerful and profitable a calling in the hands of foreigners seemed both dangerous and uneconomical. Therefore, after the middle of the century, this profession fell into the hands of natives. The first Italian who formed an exclusively Italian company was Alberico da Barbiano, a nobleman of Romagna, and founder of the Milanese house of Belgiojoso. In his school the great condottieri Braccio da Montone and Sforza Attendolo were formed; and henceforth the battles of Italy were fought by Italian generals commanding native troops. This was better in some respects than if the mercenaries had been foreigners. Yet it must not be forgotten that the new companies of adventure, who decided Italian affairs for the next century, were in no sense patriotic. They sold themselves for money, irrespective of the cause which they upheld; and, while changing masters, they had no care for any interests but their own. The name condottiero, derived from condotta, a paid contract to supply so many fighting men in serviceable order, sufficiently indicates the nature of the business. In the hands of able captains, like Francesco Sforza or Piccinino, these mercenary troops became moving despotisms, draining the country of its wealth, and always eager to fasten and found tyrannies upon the provinces they had been summoned to defend. Their generals substituted heavy-armed cavalry for the old militia, and introduced systems of campaigning which reduced the art of war to a game of skill. Battles became all but bloodless; diplomacy and tactics superseded feats of arms and hard blows in pitched fields. In this way the Italians lost their military vigour, and wars were waged by despots from their cabinets, who pulled the strings of puppet captains in their pay. Nor were the people only enfeebled for resistance to a real foe; the whole political spirit of the race was demoralized. The purely selfish bond between condottieri and their employers, whether princes or republics, involved intrigues and treachery, checks and counterchecks, secret terror on the one hand and treasonable practice on the other, which ended by making statecraft in Italy synonymous with perfidy.

It must further be noticed that the rise of mercenaries was synchronous with a change in the nature of Italian despotism. The tyrants, as we have already seen, established themselves as captains of the people, vicars of the empire, vicars for the Change in type of despotism. church, leaders of the Guelph and Ghibelline parties. They were accepted by a population eager for repose, who had merged old class distinctions in the conflicts of preceding centuries. They rested in large measure on the favour of the multitude, and pursued a policy of sacrificing to their interests the nobles. It was natural that these self-made princes should seek to secure the peace which they had promised in their cities, by freeing the people from military service and disarming the aristocracy. As their tenure of power grew firmer, they advanced dynastic claims, assumed titles, and took the style of petty sovereigns. Their government became paternal; and, though there was no limit to their cruelty when stung by terror, they used the purse rather than the sword, bribery at home and treasonable intrigue abroad in preference to coercive measures or open war. Thus was elaborated the type of despot which attained completeness in Gian Galeazzo Visconti and Lorenzo de’ Medici. No longer a tyrant of Ezzelino’s stamp, he reigned by intelligence and terrorism masked beneath a smile. He substituted cunning and corruption for violence. The lesser people tolerated him because he extended the power of their city and made it beautiful with public buildings. The bourgeoisie, protected in their trade, found it convenient to support him. The nobles, turned into courtiers, placemen, diplomatists and men of affairs, ended by preferring his authority to the alternative of democratic institutions. A lethargy of well-being, broken only by the pinch of taxation for war-costs, or by outbursts of frantic ferocity and lust in the less calculating tyrants, descended on the population of cities which had boasted of their freedom. Only Florence and Venice, at the close of the period upon which we are now entering, maintained their republican independence. And Venice was ruled by a close oligarchy; Florence was passing from the hands of her oligarchs into the power of the Medicean merchants.

Between the year 1305, when Clement V. settled at Avignon, and the year 1447, when Nicholas V. re-established the papacy upon a solid basis at Rome, the Italians approximated more nearly to self-government than at any other Discrimination of the five great powers. epoch of their history. The conditions which have been described, of despotism, mercenary warfare and bourgeois prosperity, determined the character of this epoch, which was also the period when the great achievements of the Renaissance were prepared. At the end of this century and a half, five principal powers divided the peninsula; and their confederated action during the next forty-five years (1447-1492) secured for Italy a season of peace and brilliant prosperity. These five powers were the kingdom of Naples, the duchy of Milan, the republic of Florence, the republic of Venice and the papacy. The subsequent events of Italian history will be rendered most intelligible if at this point we trace the development of these five constituents of Italian greatness separately.

When Robert of Anjou died in 1343, he was succeeded by his grand-daughter Joan, the childless wife of four successive husbands, Andrew of Hungary, Louis of Taranto, James of Aragon and Otto of Brunswick. Charles of The Two Sicilies. Durazzo, the last male scion of the Angevine house in Lower Italy, murdered Joan in 1382, and held the kingdom for five years. Dying in 1387, he transmitted Naples to his son Ladislaus, who had no children, and was followed in 1414 by his sister Joan II. She too, though twice married, died without issue, having at one time adopted Louis III. of Provence and his brother René, at another Alfonso V. of Aragon, who inherited the crown of Sicily. After her death in February 1435 the kingdom was fought for between René of Anjou and Alfonso, surnamed the Magnanimous. René found supporters among the Italian princes, especially the Milanese Visconti, who helped him to assert his claims with arms. During the war of succession which ensued, Alfonso was taken prisoner by the Genoese fleet in August 1435, and was sent a prisoner to Filippo Maria at Milan. Here he pleaded his own cause so powerfully, and proved so incontestably the advantage which might ensue to the Visconti from his alliance, if he held the regno, that he obtained his release and recognition as king. From the end of the year 1435 38 Alfonso reigned alone and undisturbed in Lower Italy, combining for the first time since the year 1282 the crowns of Sicily and Naples. The former he held by inheritance, together with that of Aragon. The latter he considered to be his by conquest. Therefore, when he died in 1458, he bequeathed Naples to his natural son Ferdinand, while Sicily and Aragon passed together to his brother John, and so on to Ferdinand the Catholic. The twenty-three years of Alfonso’s reign were the most prosperous and splendid period of South Italian history. He became an Italian in taste and sympathy, entering with enthusiasm into the humanistic ardour of the earlier Renaissance, encouraging men of letters at his court, administering his kingdom on the principles of an enlightened despotism, and lending his authority to establish that equilibrium in the peninsula upon which the politicians of his age believed, not without reason, that Italian independence might be secured.

The last member of the Visconti family of whom we had occasion to speak was Azzo, who bought the city in 1328 from Louis of Bavaria. His uncle Lucchino succeeded, but was murdered in 1349 by a wife against whose life he Duchy of Milan. had been plotting. Lucchino’s brother John, archbishop of Milan, now assumed the lordship of the city, and extended the power of the Visconti over Genoa and the whole of north Italy, with the exception of Piedmont, Verona, Mantua, Ferrara and Venice. The greatness of the family dates from the reign of this masterful prelate. He died in 1354, and his heritage was divided between three members of his house, Matteo, Bernabò and Galeazzo. In the next year Matteo, being judged incompetent to rule, was assassinated by order of his brothers, who made an equal partition of their subject cities—Bernabò residing in Milan, Galeazzo in Pavia. Galeazzo was the wealthiest and most magnificent Italian of his epoch. He married his daughter Violante to our duke of Clarence, and his son Gian Galeazzo to a daughter of King John of France. When he died in 1378, this son resolved to reunite the domains of the Visconti; and, with this object in view, he plotted and executed the murder of his uncle Bernabò. Gian Galeazzo thus became by one stroke the most formidable of Italian despots. Immured in his castle at Pavia, accumulating wealth by systematic taxation and methodical economy, he organized the mercenary troops who eagerly took service under so good a paymaster; and, by directing their operations from his cabinet, he threatened the whole of Italy with conquest. The last scions of the Della Scala family still reigned in Verona, the last Carraresi in Padua; the Estensi were powerful in Ferrara, the Gonzaghi in Mantua. Gian Galeazzo, partly by force and partly by intrigue, discredited these minor despots, pushed his dominion to the very verge of Venice, and, having subjected Lombardy to his sway, proceeded to attack Tuscany. Pisa and Perugia were threatened with extinction, and Florence dreaded the advance of the Visconti arms, when the plague suddenly cut short his career of treachery and conquest in the year 1402. Seven years before his death Gian Galeazzo bought the title of duke of Milan and count of Pavia from the emperor Wenceslaus, and there is no doubt that he was aiming at the sovereignty of Italy. But no sooner was he dead than the essential weakness of an artificial state, built up by cunning and perfidious policy, with the aid of bought troops, dignified by no dynastic title, and consolidated by no sense of loyalty, became apparent. Gian Galeazzo’s duchy was a masterpiece of mechanical contrivance, the creation of a scheming intellect and lawless will. When the mind which had planned it was withdrawn, it fell to pieces, and the very hands which had been used to build it helped to scatter its fragments. The Visconti’s own generals, Facino Cane, Pandolfo Malatesta, Jacopo dal Verme, Gabrino Fondulo, Ottobon Terzo, seized upon the tyranny of several Lombard cities. In others the petty tyrants whom the Visconti had uprooted reappeared. The Estensi recovered their grasp upon Ferrara, and the Gonzaghi upon Mantua. Venice strengthened herself between the Adriatic and the Alps. Florence reassumed her Tuscan hegemony. Other communes which still preserved the shadow of independence, like Perugia and Bologna, began once more to dream of republican freedom under their own leading families. Meanwhile Gian Galeazzo had left two sons, Giovanni Maria and Filippo Maria. Giovanni, a monster of cruelty and lust, was assassinated by some Milanese nobles in 1412; and now Filippo set about rebuilding his father’s duchy. Herein he was aided by the troops of Facino Cane, who, dying opportunely at this period, left considerable wealth, a well-trained band of mercenaries, and a widow, Beatrice di Tenda. Filippo married and then beheaded Beatrice after a mock trial for adultery, having used her money and her influence in reuniting several subject cities to the crown of Milan. He subsequently spent a long, suspicious, secret and incomprehensible career in the attempt to piece together Gian Galeazzo’s Lombard state, and to carry out his schemes of Italian conquest. In this endeavour he met with vigorous opponents. Venice and Florence, strong in the strength of their resentful oligarchies, offered a determined resistance; nor was Filippo equal in ability to his father. His infernal cunning often defeated its own aims, checkmating him at the point of achievement by suggestions of duplicity or terror. In the course of Filippo’s wars with Florence and Venice, the greatest generals of this age were formed—Francesco Carmagnola, who was beheaded between the columns at Venice in 1432; Niccolò Piccinino, who died at Milan in 1444; and Francesco Sforza, who survived to seize his master’s heritage in 1450. Son of Attendolo Sforza, this Francesco received the hand of Filippo’s natural daughter, Bianca, as a reward for past service and a pledge of future support. When the Visconti dynasty ended by the duke’s death in 1447, he pretended to espouse the cause of the Milanese republic, which was then re-established; but he played his cards so subtly as to make himself, by the help of Cosimo de’ Medici in Florence, duke de facto if not de jure. Francesco Sforza was the only condottiero among many aspiring to be tyrants who planted themselves firmly on a throne of first-rate importance. Once seated in the duchy of Milan, he displayed rare qualities as a ruler; for he not only entered into the spirit of the age, which required humanity and culture from a despot, but he also knew how to curb his desire for territory. The conception of confederated Italy found in him a vigorous supporter. Thus the limitation of the Milanese duchy under Filippo Maria Visconti, and its consolidation under Francesco Sforza, were equally effectual in preparing the balance of power to which Italian politics now tended.

(Click to enlarge.)

This balance could not have been established without the concurrent aid of Florence. After the expulsion of the duke of Athens in 1343, and the great plague of 1348, the Florentine proletariate rose up against the merchant princes. This insurgence of the artisans, in a republic which had been remodelled upon economical principles by Giano della Bella’s constitution of 1292, reached a climax in 1378, when the Ciompi rebellion placed the city for a few years in the hands of the Lesser Arts. The revolution was but temporary, and was rather a symptom of democratic tendencies in the state than the sign of any capacity for government on the part of the working classes. The necessities of war and foreign affairs soon placed Florence in the power of an oligarchy headed by the great Albizzi family. They fought the battles of the republic with success against the Visconti, and widely extended the Florentine domain over the Tuscan cities. During their season of ascendancy Pisa was enslaved, and Florence gained the access to the sea. But throughout this period a powerful opposition was gathering strength. It was led by the Medici, who sided with the common people, and increased their political importance by the accumulation and wise employment of vast commercial wealth. In 1433 the Albizzi and the Medici came to open strife. Cosimo de’ Medici, the chief of the opposition, was exiled to Venice. In the next year he returned, assumed the presidency of the democratic party, and by a system of corruption and popularity-hunting, combined with the patronage of arts and letters, established himself as the real but unacknowledged dictator of the commonwealth. Cosimo abandoned the policy of his predecessors. Instead of opposing Francesco Sforza in Milan, he lent him his prestige and influence, foreseeing that the dynastic future of his own family and the pacification of Italy might be secured by a balance of power in 39 which Florence should rank on equal terms with Milan and Naples.

The republic of Venice differed essentially from any other state in Italy; and her history was so separate that, up to this point, it would have been needless to interrupt the narrative by tracing it. Venice, however, in the 14th Venice. century took her place at last as an Italian power on an equality at least with the very greatest. The constitution of the commonwealth had slowly matured itself through a series of revolutions, which confirmed and defined a type of singular stability. During the earlier days of the republic the doge had been a prince elected by the people, and answerable only to the popular assemblies. In 1032 he was obliged to act in concert with a senate, called pregadi; and in 1172 the grand council, which became the real sovereign of the state, was formed. The several steps whereby the members of the grand council succeeded in eliminating the people from a share in the government, and reducing the doge to the position of their ornamental representative, cannot here be described. It must suffice to say that these changes culminated in 1297, when an act was passed for closing the grand council, or in other words for confining it to a fixed number of privileged families, in whom the government was henceforth vested by hereditary right. This ratification of the oligarchical principle, together with the establishment in 1311 of the Council of Ten, completed that famous constitution which endured till the extinction of the republic in 1797. Meanwhile, throughout the middle ages, it had been the policy of Venice to refrain from conquests on the Italian mainland, and to confine her energies to commerce in the East. The first entry of any moment made by the Venetians into strictly Italian affairs was in 1336, when the republics of Florence and St Mark allied themselves against Mastino della Scala, and the latter took possession of Treviso. After this, for thirty years, between 1352 and 1381, Venice and Genoa contested the supremacy of the Mediterranean. Pisa’s maritime power having been extinguished in the battle of Meloria (1284), the two surviving republics had no rivals. They fought their duel out upon the Bosporus, off Sardinia, and in the Morea, with various success. From the first great encounter, in 1355, Venice retired well-nigh exhausted, and Genoa was so crippled that she placed herself under the protection of the Visconti. The second and decisive battle was fought upon the Adriatic. The Genoese fleet under Luciano Doria defeated the Venetians off Pola in 1379, and sailed without opposition to Chioggia, which was stormed and taken. Thus the Venetians found themselves blockaded in their own lagoons. Meanwhile a fleet was raised for their relief by Carlo Zeno in the Levant, and the admiral Vittore Pisani, who had been imprisoned after the defeat at Pola, was released to lead their forlorn hope from the city side. The Genoese in their turn were now blockaded in Chioggia, and forced by famine to surrender. The losses of men and money which the war of Chioggia, as it was called, entailed, though they did not immediately depress the spirit of the Genoese republic, signed her naval ruin. During this second struggle to the death with Genoa, the Venetians had been also at strife with the Carraresi of Padua and the Scaligers of Verona. In 1406, after the extinction of these princely houses they added Verona, Vicenza and Padua to the territories they claimed on terra firma. Their career of conquest, and their new policy of forming Italian alliances and entering into the management of Italian affairs were confirmed by the long dogeship of Francesco Foscari (1423-1457), who must rank with Alfonso, Cosimo de’ Medici, Francesco Sforza and Nicholas V., as a joint-founder of confederated Italy. When Constantinople fell in 1453, the old ties between Venice and the Eastern empire were broken, and she now entered on a wholly new phase of her history. Ranking as one of the five Italian powers, she was also destined to defend Western Christendom against the encroachments of the Turk in Europe. (See Venice: History.)

By their settlement in Avignon, the popes relinquished their protectorate of Italian liberties, and lost their position as Italian potentates. Rienzi’s revolution in Rome (1347-1354), and his establishment of a republic upon a fantastic basis, half classical, The Papacy. half feudal, proved the temper of the times; while the rise of dynastic families in the cities of the church, claiming the title of papal vicars, but acting in their own interests, weakened the authority of the Holy See. The predatory expeditions of Bertrand du Poiet and Robert of Geneva were as ineffective as the descents of the emperors; and, though the cardinal Albornoz conquered Romagna and the March in 1364, the legates who resided in those districts were not long able to hold them against their despots. At last Gregory XI. returned to Rome; and Urban VI., elected in 1378, put a final end to the Avignonian exile. Still the Great Schism, which now distracted Western Christendom, so enfeebled the papacy, and kept the Roman pontiffs so engaged in ecclesiastical disputes, that they had neither power nor leisure to occupy themselves seriously with their temporal affairs. The threatening presence of the two princely houses of Orsini and Colonna, alike dangerous as friends or foes, rendered Rome an unsafe residence. Even when the schism was nominally terminated in 1415 by the council of Constance, the next two popes held but a precarious grasp upon their Italian domains. Martin V. (1417-1431) resided principally at Florence. Eugenius IV. (1431-1447) followed his example. And what Martin managed to regain Eugenius lost. At the same time, the change which had now come over Italian politics, the desire on all sides for a settlement, and the growing conviction that a federation was necessary, proved advantageous to the popes as sovereigns. They gradually entered into the spirit of their age, assumed the style of despots and made use of the humanistic movement, then at its height, to place themselves in a new relation to Italy. The election of Nicholas V. in 1447 determined this revolution in the papacy, and opened a period of temporal splendour, which ended with the establishment of the popes as sovereigns. Thomas of Sarzana was a distinguished humanist. Humbly born, he had been tutor in the house of the Albizzi, and afterwards librarian of the Medici at Florence, where he imbibed the politics together with the culture of the Renaissance. Soon after assuming the tiara, he found himself without a rival in the church; for the schism ended by Felix V.’s resignation in 1449. Nicholas fixed his residence in Rome, which he began to rebuild and to fortify, determining to render the Eternal City once more a capital worthy of its high place in Europe. The Romans were flattered; and, though his reign was disturbed by republican conspiracy, Nicholas V. was able before his death in 1455 to secure the modern status of the pontiff as a splendid patron and a wealthy temporal potentate.

Italy was now for a brief space independent. The humanistic movement had created a common culture, a common language and sense of common nationality. The five great powers, with their satellites—dukes of Savoy and Confederated Italy. Urbino, marquesses of Ferrara and Mantua, republics of Bologna, Perugia, Siena—were constituted. All political institutions tended toward despotism. The Medici became yearly more indispensable to Florence, the Bentivogli more autocratic in Bologna, the Baglioni in Perugia; and even Siena was ruled by the Petrucci. But this despotism was of a mild type. The princes were Italians; they shared the common enthusiasms of the nation for art, learning, literature and science; they studied how to mask their tyranny with arts agreeable to the multitude. When Italy had reached this point, Constantinople was taken by the Turks. On all sides it was felt that the Italian alliance must be tightened; and one of the last, best acts of Nicholas V.’s pontificate was the appeal in 1453 to the five great powers in federation. As regards their common opposition to the Turk, this appeal led to nothing; but it marked the growth of a new Italian consciousness.

Between 1453 and 1492 Italy continued to be prosperous and tranquil. Nearly all wars during this period were undertaken either to check the growing power of Venice or to further the ambition of the papacy. Having become despots, the popes sought to establish their relatives in principalities. The word nepotism acquired new significance in the reigns of Sixtus IV. and Innocent VIII. Though the country was convulsed by no great struggle, these forty years witnessed a truly appalling 40 increase of political crime. To be a prince was tantamount to being the mark of secret conspiracy and assassination. Among the most noteworthy examples of such attempts may be mentioned the revolt of the barons against Ferdinand I. of Naples (1464), the murder of Galeazzo Maria Sforza at Milan (1476) and the plot of the Pazzi to destroy the Medici (1478). After Cosimo de’ Medici’s death in 1464, the presidency of the Florentine republic passed to his son Piero, who left it in 1469 to his sons Lorenzo and Giuliano. These youths assumed the style of princes, and it was against their lives that the Pazzi, with the sanction of Sixtus IV., aimed their blow. Giuliano was murdered, Lorenzo escaped, to tighten his grasp upon the city, which now loved him and was proud of him. During the following fourteen years of his brilliant career he made himself absolute master of Florence, and so modified her institutions that the Medici were henceforth necessary to the state. Apprehending the importance of Italian federation, Lorenzo, by his personal tact and prudent leadership of the republic, secured peace and a common intelligence between the five powers. His own family was fortified by the marriage of his daughter to a son of Innocent VIII., which procured his son Giovanni’s elevation to the cardinalate, and involved two Medicean papacies and the future dependence of Florence upon Rome.

VI. Age of Invasions.—The year 1492 opened a new age for Italy. In this year Lorenzo died, and was succeeded by his son, the vain and weak Piero; France passed beneath the personal control of the inexperienced Charles Invasion of Charles VIII. VIII.; the fall of Granada freed Spain from her embarrassments; Columbus discovered America, destroying the commercial supremacy of Venice; last, but not least, Roderigo Borgia assumed the tiara with the famous title of Alexander VI. In this year the short-lived federation of the five powers was shaken, and Italy was once more drawn into the vortex of European affairs. The events which led to this disaster may be briefly told. After Galeazzo Maria’s assassination, his crown passed to a boy, Gian Galeazzo, who was in due course married to a grand-daughter of Ferdinand I. of Naples. But the government of Milan remained in the hands of this youth’s uncle, Lodovico, surnamed Il Moro. Lodovico resolved to become duke of Milan. The king of Naples was his natural enemy, and he had cause to suspect that Piero de’ Medici might abandon his alliance. Feeling himself alone, with no right to the title he was bent on seizing, he had recourse to Charles VIII. of France, whom he urged to make good his claim to the kingdom of Naples. This claim, it may be said in passing, rested on the will of King René of Anjou. After some hesitation, Charles agreed to invade Italy. He crossed the Alps in 1495, passed through Lombardy, entered Tuscany, freed Pisa from the yoke of Florence, witnessed the expulsion of the Medici, marched to Naples and was crowned there—all this without striking a blow. Meanwhile Lodovico procured his nephew’s death, and raised a league against the French in Lombardy. Charles hurried back from Naples, and narrowly escaped destruction at Fornovo in the passes of the Apennines. He made good his retreat, however, and returned to France in 1495. Little remained to him of his light acquisitions; but he had convulsed Italy by this invasion, destroyed her equilibrium, exposed her military weakness and political disunion, and revealed her wealth to greedy and more powerful nations.

The princes of the house of Aragon, now represented by Frederick, a son of Ferdinand I., returned to Naples. Florence made herself a republic, adopting a form of constitution analogous to that of Venice. At this crisis she Louis XII. was ruled by the monk Girolamo Savonarola, who inspired the people with a thirst for freedom, preached the necessity of reformation, and placed himself in direct antagonism to Rome. After a short but eventful career, the influence of which was long effective, he lost his hold upon the citizens. Alexander VI. procured a mock trial, and his enemies burned him upon the Piazza in 1498. In this year Louis XII. succeeded Charles VIII. upon the throne of France. As duke of Orleans he had certain claims to Milan through his grandmother Valentina, daughter of Gian Galeazzo, the first duke. They were not valid, for the investiture of the duchy had been granted only to male heirs. But they served as a sufficient pretext, and in 1499 Louis entered and subdued the Milanese. Lodovico escaped to Germany, returned the next year, was betrayed by his Swiss mercenaries and sent to die at Loches in France. In 1500 Louis made the blunder of calling Ferdinand the Catholic to help him in the conquest of Naples. By a treaty signed at Granada, the French and Spanish kings were to divide the spoil. The conquest was easy; but, when it came to a partition, Ferdinand played his ally false. He made himself supreme over the Two Sicilies, which he now reunited under a single crown. Three years later, unlessoned by this experience, Louis signed the treaty of Blois (1504), whereby he invited the emperor Maximilian to aid him in the subjugation of Venice. No policy could have been less far-sighted; for Charles V., joint heir to Austria, Burgundy, Castile and Aragon, the future overwhelming rival of France, was already born.

The stage was now prepared, and all the actors who were destined to accomplish the ruin of Italy trod it with their armies. Spain, France, Germany, with their Swiss auxiliaries, had been summoned upon various pretexts to partake her provinces. Then, too late, patriots like Machiavelli perceived the suicidal self-indulgence of the past, which, by substituting mercenary troops for national militias, left the Italians at the absolute discretion of their neighbours. Whatever parts the Italians themselves played in the succeeding quarter of a century, the game was in the hands of French, Spanish and German invaders. Meanwhile, no scheme for combination against common foes arose in the peninsula. Each petty potentate strove for his own private advantage in the confusion; and at this epoch the chief gains accrued to the papacy. Aided by his terrible son, Cesare Borgia, Alexander VI. chastised the Roman nobles, subdued Romagna and the March, threatened Tuscany, and seemed to be upon the point of creating a Central Italian state in favour of his progeny, when he died suddenly in 1503. His conquests reverted to the Holy See. Julius II., his bitterest enemy and powerful successor, continued Alexander’s policy, but no longer in the interest of his own relatives. It became the nobler ambition of Julius to aggrandize the church, and to reassume the protectorate of the Italian people. With this object, he secured Emilia, carried his victorious arms against Ferrara, and curbed the tyranny of the Baglioni in Perugia. Julius II. played a perilous game; but the stakes were high, and he fancied himself strong enough to guide the tempest he evoked. Quarrelling with the Venetians in 1508, he combined the forces of all Europe by the league of Cambray against them; and, when he had succeeded in his first purpose of humbling them even to the dust, he turned round in 1510, uttered his famous resolve to expel the barbarians from Italy, and pitted the Spaniards against the French. It was with the Swiss that he hoped to effect this revolution; but the Swiss, now interfering for the first time as principals in Italian affairs, were incapable of more than adding to the already maddening distractions of the people. Formed for mercenary warfare, they proved a perilous instrument in the hands of those who used them, and were hardly less injurious to their friends than to their foes. In 1512 the battle of Ravenna between the French troops and the allies of Julius—Spaniards, Venetians and Swiss—was fought. Gaston de Foix bought a doubtful victory dearly with his death; and the allies, though beaten on the banks of the Ronco, immediately afterwards expelled the French from Lombardy. Yet Julius II. had failed, as might have been foreseen. He only exchanged one set of foreign masters for another, and taught a new barbarian race how pleasant were the plains of Italy. As a consequence of the battle of Ravenna, the Medici returned in 1512 to Florence.

When Leo X. was elected in 1513, Rome and Florence rejoiced; but Italy had no repose. Louis XII. had lost the game, and the Spaniards were triumphant. But new actors appeared upon the scene, and the same old struggle was resumed with fiercer energy. By the victory of Marignano in 1515 Francis I., having now succeeded to the throne of France, regained the Milanese, 41 and broke the power of the Swiss, who held it for Massimiliano Sforza, the titular duke. Leo for a while relied on Francis; for the vast power of Charles V., who succeeded to the empire in 1519, as in 1516 he had succeeded to the crowns of Spain and Lower Italy, threatened the whole of Europe. It was Leo’s nature, however, to be inconstant. In 1521 he changed sides, allied himself to Charles, and died after hearing that the imperial troops had again expelled the French from Milan. During the next four years the Franco-Spanish war dragged on in Lombardy until the decisive battle of Pavia in 1525, when Francis was taken prisoner, and Italy lay open to the Spanish armies. Meanwhile Leo X. had been followed by Adrian VI., and Adrian by Clement VII., of the house of Medici, who had long ruled Florence. In the reign of this pope Francis was released from his prison in Madrid (1526), and Clement hoped that he might still be used in the Italian interest as a counterpoise to Charles. It is impossible in this place to follow the tangled intrigues of that period. The year 1527 was signalized by the famous sack of Rome. An army of mixed German and Spanish troops, pretending to act for the emperor, but which may rather be regarded as a vast marauding party, entered Italy under their leader Frundsberg. After his death, the Constable de Bourbon took command of them; they marched slowly down, aided by the marquis of Ferrara, and unopposed by the duke of Urbino, reached Rome, and took it by assault. The constable was killed in the first onslaught; Clement was imprisoned in the castle of St Angelo; Rome was abandoned to the rage of 30,000 ruffians. As an immediate result of this catastrophe, Florence shook off the Medici, and established a republic. But Clement, having made peace with the emperor, turned the remnants of the army which had sacked Rome against his native city. After a desperate resistance, Florence fell in 1530. Alessandro de’ Medici was placed there with the title of duke of Cività di Penna; and, on his murder in 1537, Cosimo de’ Medici, of the younger branch of the ruling house, was made duke. Acting as lieutenant for the Spaniards, he subsequently (1555) subdued Siena, and bequeathed to his descendants the grand-duchy of Tuscany.

VII. Spanish-Austrian Ascendancy.—It was high time, after the sack of Rome in 1527, that Charles V. should undertake Italian affairs. The country was exposed to anarchy, of which this had been the last and most disgraceful Settlement of Italy by Spain. example. The Turks were threatening western Europe, and Luther was inflaming Germany. By the treaty of Barcelona in 1529 the pope and emperor made terms. By that of Cambray in the same year France relinquished Italy to Spain. Charles then entered the port of Genoa, and on the 5th of November met Clement VII. at Bologna. He there received the imperial crown, and summoned the Italian princes for a settlement of all disputed claims. Francesco Sforza, the last and childless heir of the ducal house, was left in Milan till his death, which happened in 1535. The republic of Venice was respected in her liberties and Lombard territories. The Este family received a confirmation of their duchy of Modena and Reggio, and were invested in their fief of Ferrara by the pope. The marquessate of Mantua was made a duchy; and Florence was secured, as we have seen, to the Medici. The great gainer by this settlement was the papacy, which held the most substantial Italian province, together with a prestige that raised it far above all rivalry. The rest of Italy, however parcelled, henceforth became but a dependence upon Spain. Charles V., it must be remembered, achieved his conquest and confirmed his authority far less as emperor than as the heir of Castile and Aragon. A Spanish viceroy in Milan and another in Naples, supported by Rome and by the minor princes who followed the policy dictated to them from Madrid, were sufficient to preserve the whole peninsula in a state of somnolent inglorious servitude.

From 1530 until 1796, that is, for a period of nearly three centuries, the Italians had no history of their own. Their annals are filled with records of dynastic changes and redistributions of territory, consequent upon treaties signed by foreign powers, in the settlement of quarrels which no wise concerned the people. Italy only too often became the theatre of desolating and distracting wars. But these wars were fought for the most part by alien armies; the points at issue were decided beyond the Alps; the gains accrued to royal families whose names were unpronounceable by southern tongues. The affairs of Europe during the years when Habsburg and Bourbon fought their domestic battles with the blood of noble races may teach grave lessons to all thoughtful men of our days, but none bitterer, none fraught with more insulting recollections, than to the Italian people, who were haggled over like dumb driven cattle in the mart of chaffering kings. We cannot wholly acquit the Italians of their share of blame. When they might have won national independence, after their warfare with the Swabian emperors, they let the golden opportunity slip. Pampered with commercial prosperity, eaten to the core with inter-urban rivalries, they submitted to despots, renounced the use of arms, and offered themselves in the hour of need, defenceless and disunited to the shock of puissant nations. That they had created modern civilization for Europe availed them nothing. Italy, intellectually first among the peoples, was now politically and practically last; and nothing to her historian is more heart-rending than to watch the gradual extinction of her spirit in this age of slavery.

In 1534 Alessandro Farnese, who owed his elevation to his sister Giulia, one of Alexander VI.’s mistresses, took the tiara with the title of Paul III. It was his ambition to create a duchy for his family; and with this object he Pontificate of Paul III. gave Parma and Piacenza to his son Pier Luigi. After much wrangling between the French and Spanish parties, the duchy was confirmed in 1586 to Ottaviano Farnese and his son Alessandro, better known as Philip II.’s general, the prince of Parma. Alessandro’s descendants reigned in Parma and Piacenza till the year 1731. Paul III.’s pontificate was further marked by important changes in the church, all of which confirmed the spiritual autocracy of Rome. In 1540 this pope approved of Loyola’s foundation, and secured the powerful militia of the Jesuit order. The Inquisition was established with almost unlimited powers in Italy, and the press was placed under its jurisdiction. Thus free thought received a check, by which not only ecclesiastical but political tyrants knew how to profit. Henceforth it was impossible to publish or to utter a word which might offend the despots of church or state; and the Italians had to amuse their leisure with the polite triflings of academics. In 1545 a council was opened at Trent for the reformation of church discipline and the promulgation of orthodox doctrine. The decrees of this council defined Roman Catholicism against the Reformation; and, while failing to regenerate morality, they enforced a hypocritical observance of public decency. Italy to outer view put forth blossoms of hectic and hysterical piety, though at the core her clergy and her aristocracy were more corrupt than ever.

In 1556 Philip II., by the abdication of his father Charles V., became king of Spain. He already wore the crown of the Two Sicilies, and ruled the duchy of Milan. In the next year Ferdinand, brother of Charles, was elected emperor. Reign of Philip II. The French, meanwhile, had not entirely abandoned their claims on Italy. Gian Pietro Caraffa, who was made pope in 1555 with the name of Paul IV., endeavoured to revive the ancient papal policy of leaning upon France. He encouraged the duke of Guise to undertake the conquest of Naples, as Charles of Anjou had been summoned by his predecessors. But such schemes were now obsolete and anachronistic. They led to a languid lingering Italian campaign, which was settled far beyond the Alps by Philip’s victories over the French at St Quentin and Gravelines. The peace of Câteau Cambresis, signed in 1559, left the Spanish monarch undisputed lord of Italy. Of free commonwealths there now survived only Venice, which, together with Spain, achieved for Europe the victory of Lepanto in 1573; Genoa, which, after the ineffectual Fieschi revolution in 1547, abode beneath the rule of the great Doria family, and held a feeble sway in Corsica; and the two insignificant republics of Lucca and San Marino.

42

The future hope of Italy, however, was growing in a remote and hitherto neglected corner. Emmanuel Philibert, duke of Savoy, represented the oldest and not the least illustrious reigning house in Europe, and his descendants were destined to achieve for Italy the independence which no other power or prince had given her since the fall of ancient Rome. (See Savoy, House of.)

When Emmanuel Philibert succeeded to his father Charles III. in 1553, he was a duke without a duchy. But the princes of the house of Savoy were a race of warriors; and what Emmanuel Philibert lost as sovereign he regained as captain of adventure in the service of his cousin Philip II. The treaty of Câteau Cambresis in 1559, and the evacuation of the Piedmontese cities held by French and Spanish troops in 1574, restored his state. By removing the capital from Chambéry to Turin, he completed the transformation of the dukes of Savoy from Burgundian into Italian sovereigns. They still owned Savoy beyond the Alps, the plains of Bresse, and the maritime province of Nice.

Emmanuel Philibert was succeeded by his son Charles Emmanuel I., who married Catherine, a daughter of Philip II. He seized the first opportunity of annexing Saluzzo, which had been lost to Savoy in the last two reigns, and renewed the disastrous policy of his grandfather Charles III. by invading Geneva and threatening Provence. Henry IV. of France forced him in 1601 to relinquish Bresse and his Burgundian possessions. In return he was allowed to keep Saluzzo. All hopes of conquest on the transalpine side were now quenched; but the keys of Italy had been given to the dukes of Savoy; and their attention was still further concentrated upon Lombard conquests. Charles Emmanuel now attempted the acquisition of Montferrat, which was soon to become vacant by the death of Francesco Gonzaga, who held it together with Mantua. In order to secure this territory, he went to war with Philip III. of Spain, and allied himself with Venice and the Grisons to expel the Spaniards from the Valtelline. When the male line of the Gonzaga family expired in 1627, Charles, duke of Nevers, claimed Mantua and Montferrat in right of his wife, the only daughter of the last duke. Charles Emmanuel was now checkmated by France, as he had formerly been by Spain. The total gains of all his strenuous endeavours amounted to the acquisition of a few places on the borders of Montferrat.

Not only the Gonzagas, but several other ancient ducal families, died out about the date which we have reached. The legitimate line of the Estensi ended in 1597 by the death of Alfonso II., the last duke of Ferrara. He Extinction of old ducal families. left his domains to a natural relative, Cesare d’Este, who would in earlier days have inherited without dispute, for bastardy had been no bar on more than one occasion in the Este pedigree. Urban VIII., however, put in a claim to Ferrara, which, it will be remembered, had been recognized a papal fief in 1530. Cesare d’Este had to content himself with Modena and Reggio, where his descendants reigned as dukes till 1794. Under the same pontiff, the Holy See absorbed the duchy of Urbino on the death of Francesco Maria II., the last representative of Montefeltro and Della Rovere. The popes were now masters of a fine and compact territory, embracing no inconsiderable portion of Countess Matilda’s legacy, in addition to Pippin’s donation, and the patrimony of St Peter. Meanwhile Spanish fanaticism, the suppression of the Huguenots in France and the Catholic policy of Austria combined to strengthen their authority as pontiffs. Urban’s predecessor, Paul V., advanced so far as to extend his spiritual jurisdiction over Venice, which, up to the date of his election (1605), had resisted all encroachments of the Holy See. Venice offered the single instance in Italy of a national church. The republic managed the tithes, and the clergy acknowledged no chief above their own patriarch. Paul V. now forced the Venetians to admit his ecclesiastical supremacy; but they refused to readmit the Jesuits, who had been expelled in 1606. This, if we do not count the proclamation of James I. of England (1604), was the earliest instance of the order’s banishment from a state where it had proved disloyal to the commonwealth.

Venice rapidly declined throughout the 17th century. The loss of trade consequent upon the closing of Egypt and the Levant, together with the discovery of America and the sea-route to the Indies, had dried up her chief Decline of Venice and Spain. source of wealth. Prolonged warfare with the Ottomans, who forced her to abandon Candia in 1669, as they had robbed her of Cyprus in 1570, still further crippled her resources. Yet she kept the Adriatic free of pirates, notably by suppressing the sea-robbers called Uscocchi (1601-1617), maintained herself in the Ionian Islands, and in 1684 added one more to the series of victorious episodes which render her annals so romantic. In that year Francesco Morosini, upon whose tomb we still may read the title Peloponnesiacus, wrested the whole of the Morea from the Turks. But after his death in 1715 the republic relaxed her hold upon his conquests. The Venetian nobles abandoned themselves to indolence and vice. Many of them fell into the slough of pauperism, and were saved from starvation by public doles. Though the signory still made a brave show upon occasions of parade, it was clear that the state was rotten to the core, and sinking into the decrepitude of dotage. The Spanish monarchy at the same epoch dwindled with apparently less reason. Philip’s Austrian successors reduced it to the rank of a secondary European power. This decline of vigour was felt, with the customary effects of discord and bad government, in Lower Italy. The revolt of Masaniello in Naples (1647), followed by rebellions at Palermo and Messina, which placed Sicily for a while in the hands of Louis XIV. (1676-1678) were symptoms of progressive anarchy. The population, ground down by preposterous taxes, ill-used as only the subjects of Spaniards, Turks or Bourbons are handled, rose in blind exasperation against their oppressors. It is impossible to attach political importance to these revolutions; nor did they bring the people any appreciable good. The destinies of Italy were decided in the cabinets and on the battlefields of northern Europe. A Bourbon at Versailles, a Habsburg at Vienna, or a thick-lipped Lorrainer, with a stroke of his pen, wrote off province against province, regarding not the populations who had bled for him or thrown themselves upon his mercy.

This inglorious and passive chapter of Italian history is continued to the date of the French Revolution with the records of three dynastic wars, the war of the Spanish succession, the war of the Polish succession, the war of the Austrian Wars of Succession. succession, followed by three European treaties, which brought them respectively to diplomatic terminations. Italy, handled and rehandled, settled and resettled, upon each of these occasions, changed masters without caring or knowing what befell the principals in any one of the disputes. Humiliating to human nature in general as are the annals of the 18th-century campaigns in Europe, there is no point of view from which they appear in a light so tragi-comic as from that afforded by Italian history. The system of setting nations by the ears with the view of settling the quarrels of a few reigning houses was reduced to absurdity when the people, as in these cases, came to be partitioned and exchanged without the assertion or negation of a single principle affecting their interests or rousing their emotions.

In 1700 Charles II. died, and with him ended the Austrian family in Spain. Louis XIV. claimed the throne for Philip, duke of Anjou. Charles, archduke of Austria, opposed him. The dispute was fought out in Flanders; but Spanish Succession. Lombardy felt the shock, as usual, of the French and Austrian dynasties. The French armies were more than once defeated by Prince Eugene of Savoy, who drove them out of Italy in 1707. Therefore, in the peace of Utrecht (1713), the services of the house of Savoy had to be duly recognized. Victor Amadeus II. received Sicily with the title of king. Montferrat and Alessandria were added to his northern provinces, and his state was recognized as independent. Charles of Austria, now emperor, took Milan, Mantua, Naples and Sardinia for his portion of the Italian spoil. Philip founded the Bourbon line of Spanish kings, renouncing in Italy all that his Habsburg predecessors had gained. Discontented with this diminution 43 of the Spanish heritage, Philip V. married Elisabetta Farnese, heiress to the last duke of Parma, in 1714. He hoped to secure this duchy for his son, Don Carlos; and Elisabetta further brought with her a claim to the grand-duchy of Tuscany, which would soon become vacant by the death of Gian Gastone de’ Medici. After this marriage Philip broke the peace of Europe by invading Sardinia. The Quadruple Alliance was formed, and the new king of Sicily was punished for his supposed adherence to Philip V. by the forced exchange of Sicily for the island of Sardinia. It was thus that in 1720 the house of Savoy assumed the regal title which it bore until the declaration of the Italian kingdom in the last century. Victor Amadeus II.’s reign was of great importance in the history of his state. Though a despot, as all monarchs were obliged to be at that date, he reigned with prudence, probity and zeal for the welfare of his subjects. He took public education out of the hands of the Jesuits, which, for the future development of manliness in his dominions, was a measure of incalculable value. The duchy of Savoy in his days became a kingdom, and Sardinia, though it seemed a poor exchange for Sicily, was a far less perilous possession than the larger and wealthier island would have been. In 1730 Victor Amadeus abdicated in favour of his son Charles Emmanuel III. Repenting of this step, he subsequently attempted to regain Turin, but was imprisoned in the castle of Rivoli, where he ended his days in 1732.

The War of the Polish Succession which now disturbed Europe is only important in Italian history because the treaty of Vienna in 1738 settled the disputed affairs of the duchies of Parma and Tuscany. The duke Antonio Farnese Polish Succession. died in 1731; the grand-duke Gian Gastone de’ Medici died in 1737. In the duchy of Parma Don Carlos had already been proclaimed. But he was now transferred to the Two Sicilies, while Francis of Lorraine, the husband of Maria Theresa, took Tuscany and Parma. Milan and Mantua remained in the hands of the Austrians. On this occasion Charles Emmanuel acquired Tortona and Novara.

Worse complications ensued for the Italians when the emperor Charles VI., father of Maria Theresa, died in 1740. The three branches of the Bourbon house, ruling in France, Spain and the Sicilies, joined with Prussia, Bavaria Austrian Succession. and the kingdom of Sardinia to despoil Maria Theresa of her heritage. Lombardy was made the seat of war; and here the king of Sardinia acted as in some sense the arbiter of the situation. After war broke out, he changed sides and supported the Habsburg-Lorraine party. At first, in 1745, the Sardinians were defeated by the French and Spanish troops. But Francis of Lorraine, elected emperor in that year, sent an army to the king’s support, which in 1746 obtained a signal victory over the Bourbons at Piacenza. Charles Emmanuel now threatened Genoa. The Austrian soldiers already held the town. But the citizens expelled them, and the republic kept her independence. In 1748 the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which put an end to the War of the Austrian Succession, once more redivided Italy. Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla were formed into a duchy for Don Philip, brother of Charles III. of the Two Sicilies, and son of Philip V. of Spain. Charles III. was confirmed in his kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The Austrians kept Milan and Tuscany. The duchy of Modena was placed under the protection of the French. So was Genoa, which in 1755, after Paoli’s insurrection against the misgovernment of the republic, ceded her old domain of Corsica to France.

From the date of this settlement until 1792, Italy enjoyed a period of repose and internal amelioration under her numerous paternal despots. It became the fashion during these forty-four years of peace to encourage the industrial Forty-four years’ peace. population and to experimentalize in economical reforms. The Austrian government in Lombardy under Maria Theresa was characterized by improved agriculture, regular administration, order, reformed taxation and increased education. A considerable amount of local autonomy was allowed, and dependence on Vienna was very slight and not irksome. The nobles and the clergy were rich and influential, but kept in order by the civil power. There was no feeling of nationality, but the people were prosperous, enjoyed profound peace and were placidly content with the existing order of things. On the death of Maria Theresa in 1780, the emperor Joseph II. instituted much wider reforms. Feudal privileges were done away with, clerical influence diminished and many monasteries and convents suppressed, the criminal law rendered more humane and torture abolished largely as a result of G. Beccaria’s famous pamphlet Dei delitti e delle pene. At the same time Joseph’s administration was more arbitrary, and local autonomy was to some extent curtailed. His anti-clerical laws produced some ill-feeling among the more devout part of the population. On the whole the Austrian rule in pre-revolutionary days was beneficial and far from oppressive, and helped Lombardy to recover from the ill-effects of the Spanish domination. It did little for the moral education of the people, but the same criticism applies more or less to all the European governments of the day. The emperor Francis I. ruled the grand-duchy of Tuscany by lieutenants until his death in 1765, when it was given, as an independent state, to his second son, Peter Leopold. The reign of this duke was long remembered as a period of internal prosperity, wise legislation and important public enterprise. Leopold, among other useful works, drained the Val di Chiana, and restored those fertile upland plains to agriculture. In 1790 he succeeded to the empire, and left Tuscany to his son Ferdinand. The kingdom of Sardinia was administered upon similar principles, but with less of geniality. Charles Emmanuel made his will law, and erased the remnants of free institutions from his state. At the same time he wisely followed his father’s policy with regard to education and the church. This is perhaps the best that can be said of a king who incarnated the stolid absolutism of the period. From this date, however, we are able to trace the revival of independent thought among the Italians. The European ferment of ideas which preceded the French Revolution expressed itself in men like Alfieri, the fierce denouncer of tyrants, Beccaria, the philosopher of criminal jurisprudence, Volta, the physicist, and numerous political economists of Tuscany. Moved partly by external influences and partly by a slow internal reawakening, the people was preparing for the efforts of the 19th century. The papacy, during this period, had to reconsider the question of the Jesuits, who made themselves universally odious, not only in Italy, but also in France and Spain. In the pontificate of Clement XIII. they ruled the Vatican, and almost succeeded in embroiling the pope with the concerted Bourbon potentates of Europe. His successor, Clement XIV. suppressed the order altogether by a brief of 1773.

D. Italy in the Napoleonic Period, 1796-1814

The campaign of 1796 which led to the awakening of the Italian people to a new consciousness of unity and strength is detailed in the article Napoleonic Campaigns. Here we can attempt only a general survey of the events, political, civic and social, which heralded the Risorgimento in its first phase. It is desirable in the first place to realize the condition of Italy at the time when the irruption of the French and the expulsion of the Austrians opened up a new political vista for that oppressed and divided people.

For many generations Italy had been bandied to and fro between the Habsburgs and the Bourbons. The decline of French influence at the close of the reign of Louis XIV. left the Habsburgs and the Spanish Bourbons without Influence of the French Revolution. serious rivals. The former possessed the rich duchies of Milan (including Mantua) and Tuscany; while through a marriage alliance with the house of Este of Modena (the Archduke Ferdinand had married the heiress of Modena) its influence over that duchy was supreme. It also had a few fiefs in Piedmont and in Genoese territory. By marrying her daughter, Maria Amelia, to the young duke of Parma, and another daughter, Maria Carolina, to Ferdinand of Naples, Maria Theresa consolidated Habsburg influence in the north and south of the peninsula. The Spanish Bourbons held Naples and Sicily, as well as the duchy of Parma. 44 Of the nominally independent states the chief were the kingdom of Sardinia, ruled over by the house of Savoy, and comprising Piedmont, the isle of Sardinia and nominally Savoy and Nice, though the two provinces last named had virtually been lost to the monarchy since the campaign of 1793. Equally extensive, but less important in the political sphere, were the Papal States and Venetia, the former torpid under the obscurantist rule of pope and cardinals, the latter enervated by luxury and the policy of unmanly complaisance long pursued by doge and council. The ancient rival of Venice, Genoa, was likewise far gone in decline. The small states, Lucca and San Marino, completed the map of Italy. The worst governed part of the peninsula was the south, where feudalism lay heavily on the cultivators and corruption pervaded all ranks. Milan and Piedmont were comparatively well governed; but repugnance to Austrian rule in the former case, and the contagion of French Jacobinical opinions in the latter, brought those populations into increasing hostility to the rulers. The democratic propaganda, which was permeating all the large towns of the peninsula, then led to the formation of numerous and powerful clubs and secret societies; and the throne of Victor Amadeus III., of the house of Savoy, soon began to totter under the blows delivered by the French troops at the mountain barriers of his kingdom and under the insidious assaults of the friends of liberty at Turin. Plotting was rife at Milan, as also at Bologna, where the memory of old liberties predisposed men to cast off clerical rule and led to the first rising on behalf of Italian liberty in the year 1794. At Palermo the Sicilians struggled hard to establish a republic Bonaparte in Italy. in place of the odious government of an alien dynasty. The anathemas of the pope, the bravery of Piedmontese and Austrians, and the subsidies of Great Britain failed to keep the league of Italian princes against France intact. The grand-duke of Tuscany was the first of the European sovereigns who made peace with, and recognized the French republic, early in 1795. The first fortnight of Napoleon’s campaign of 1796 detached Sardinia from alliance with Austria and England. The enthusiasm of the Italians for the young Corsican “liberator” greatly helped his progress. Two months later Ferdinand of Naples sought for an armistice, the central duchies were easily overrun, and, early in 1797, Pope Pius VI. was fain to sign terms of peace with Bonaparte at Tolentino, practically ceding the northern part of his states, known as the Legations. The surrender of the last Habsburg stronghold, Mantua, on the 2nd of February 1797 left the field clear for the erection of new political institutions.

Already the men of Reggio, Modena and Bologna had declared for a democratic policy, in which feudalism and clerical rule should have no place, and in which manhood suffrage, together with other rights promised by Bonaparte The Cispadane Republic. to the men of Milan in May 1796, should form the basis of a new order of things. In taking this step the Modenese and Romagnols had the encouragement of Bonaparte, despite the orders which the French directory sent to him in a contrary sense. The result was the formation of an assembly at Modena which abolished feudal dues and customs, declared for manhood suffrage and established the Cispadane Republic (October 1796).

The close of Bonaparte’s victorious campaign against the Archduke Charles in 1797 enabled him to mature those designs respecting Venice which are detailed in the article Napoleon. On a far higher level was his conduct towards the Milanese. While the French directory saw in that province little more than a district which might be plundered and bargained for, Bonaparte, though by no means remiss in the exaction of gold and of artistic treasures, was laying the foundation of a friendly republic. During his sojourn at the castle of Montebello or Mombello, near Milan, he commissioned several of the leading men of northern Italy to draw up a project of constitution and list of reforms for that province. Meanwhile he took care to curb the excesses of the Italian Jacobins and to encourage the Moderates, who were favourable to the French connexion as promising a guarantee against Austrian domination and internal anarchy. He summed up his conduct in the letter of the 8th of May 1797 to the French directory, “I cool the hot The Cisalpine Republic. heads here and warm the cool ones.” The Transpadane Republic, or, as it was soon called, the Cisalpine Republic, began its organized life on the 9th of July 1797, with a brilliant festival at Milan. The constitution was modelled on that of the French directory, and, lest there should be a majority of clerical or Jacobinical deputies, the French Republic through its general, Bonaparte, nominated and appointed the first deputies and administrators of the new government. In the same month it was joined by the Cispadane Republic; and the terms of the treaty of Campo Formio (October 17, 1797), while fatal to the political life of Venice, awarded to this now considerable state the Venetian territories west of the river Adige. A month later, under the pretence of stilling the civil strifes in the Valtelline, Bonaparte absorbed that Swiss district in the Cisalpine Republic, which thus included all the lands between Como and Verona on the north, and Rimini on the south.

Early in the year 1798 the Austrians, in pursuance of the scheme of partition agreed on at Campo Formio, entered Venice and brought to an end its era of independence which had lasted some 1100 years. Venice with its mainland End of the Venetian Republic. territories east of the Adige, inclusive of Istria and Dalmatia, went to the Habsburgs, while the Venetian isles of the Adriatic (the Ionian Isles) and the Venetian fleet went to strengthen France for that eastern expedition on which Bonaparte had already set his heart. Venice not only paid the costs of the war to the two chief belligerents, but her naval resources also helped to launch the young general on his career of eastern adventure. Her former rival, Genoa, had also been compelled, in June 1797, to bow before the young conqueror, and had undergone at his hands a remodelling on the lines already followed at Milan. The new Genoese republic, French in all but name, was renamed the Ligurian Republic.

Before he set sail for Egypt, the French had taken possession of Rome. Already masters of the papal fortress of Ancona, they began openly to challenge the pope’s authority at the Eternal City itself. Joseph Bonaparte, then French occupation of Rome. French envoy to the Vatican, encouraged democratic manifestations; and one of them, at the close of 1797, led to a scuffle in which a French general, Duphot, was killed. The French directory at once ordered its general, Berthier, to march to Rome: the Roman democrats proclaimed a republic on the 15th of February 1798, and on their invitation Berthier and his troops marched in. The pope, Pius VI., was forthwith haled away to Siena and a year later to Valence in the south of France, where he died. Thus fell the temporal power. The “liberators” of Rome thereupon proceeded to plunder the city in a way which brought shame on their cause and disgrace (perhaps not wholly deserved) on the general left in command, Masséna.

These events brought revolution to the gates of the kingdom of Naples, the worst-governed part of Italy, where the boorish king, Ferdinand IV. (il rè lazzarone, he was termed), and his whimsical consort, Maria Carolina, scarcely Naples. held in check the discontent of their own subjects. A British fleet under Nelson, sent into the Mediterranean in May 1798 primarily for their defence, checkmated the designs of Bonaparte in Egypt, and then, returning to Naples, encouraged that court to adopt a spirited policy. It is now known that the influence of Nelson and of the British ambassador, Sir William Hamilton, and Lady Hamilton precipitated the rupture between Naples and France. The results were disastrous. The Neapolitan troops at first occupied Rome, but, being badly handled by their leader, the Austrian general, Mack, they were soon scattered in flight; and the Republican troops under General The Parthenopaean Republic. Championnet, after crushing the stubborn resistance of the lazzaroni, made their way into Naples and proclaimed the Parthenopaean Republic (January 23, 1799). The Neapolitan Democrats chose five of their leading men to be directors, and tithes and feudal dues and customs 45 were abolished. Much good work was done by the Republicans during their brief tenure of power, but it soon came to an end owing to the course of events which favoured a reaction against France. The directors of Paris, not content with overrunning and plundering Switzerland, had outraged German sentiment in many ways. Further, at the close of 1798 they virtually compelled the young king of Sardinia, Charles Emmanuel IV., to abdicate at Turin. He retired to the island of Sardinia, while the French despoiled Piedmont, thereby adding fuel to the resentment rapidly growing against them in every part of Europe.

The outcome of it all was the War of the Second Coalition, in which Russia, Austria, Great Britain, Naples and some secondary states of Germany took part. The incursion of an Austro-Russian army, led by that strange but Suvarov in Italy. magnetic being, Suvarov, decided the campaign in northern Italy. The French, poorly handled by Schérer and Sérurier, were everywhere beaten, especially at Magnano (April 5) and Cassano (April 27). Milan and Turin fell before the allies, and Moreau, who took over the command, had much difficulty in making his way to the Genoese coast-line. There he awaited the arrival of Macdonald with the army of Naples. That general, Championnet’s successor, had been compelled by these reverses and by the threatening pressure of Nelson’s fleet to evacuate Naples and central Italy. In many parts the peasants and townsfolk, enraged by the licence of the French, hung on his flank and rear. The republics set up by the French at Naples, Rome and Milan collapsed as soon as the French troops retired; and a reaction in favour of clerical and Austrian influence set in with great violence. For the events which then occurred at Naples, so compromising to the reputation of Nelson, see Nelson and Naples. Sir William Hamilton was subsequently recalled in a manner closely resembling a disgrace, and his place was taken by Paget, who behaved with more dignity and tact.

Meanwhile Macdonald, after struggling through central Italy, had defeated an Austrian force at Modena (June 12, 1799), but Suvarov was able by swift movements utterly to overthrow him at the Trebbia (June 17-19). The wreck of his force drifted away helplessly towards Genoa. A month later the ambitious young general, Joubert, who took over Moreau’s command and rallied part of Macdonald’s following, was utterly routed by the Austro-Russian army at Novi (August 15) with the loss of 12,000 men. Joubert perished in the battle. The growing friction between Austria and Russia led to the transference of Suvarov and his Russians to Switzerland, with results which were to be fatal to the allies in that quarter. But in Italy the Austrian successes continued. Melas defeated Championnet near Coni on the 4th of November; and a little later the French garrisons at Ancona and Coni surrendered. The tricolour, which floated triumphantly over all the strongholds of Italy early in the year, at its close waved only over Genoa, where Masséna prepared for a stubborn defence. Nice and Savoy also seemed at the mercy of the invaders. Everywhere the old order of things was restored. The death of the aged Pope Pius VI. at Valence (August 29, 1799) deprived the French of whatever advantage they had hoped to gain by dragging him into exile; on the 24th of March 1800 the conclave, assembled for greater security on the island of San Giorgio at Venice, elected a new pontiff, Pius VII.

Such was the position of affairs when Bonaparte returned from Egypt and landed at Fréjus. The contrast presented by his triumphs, whether real or imaginary, to the reverses sustained by the armies of the French directory, was Campaign of Marengo. fatal to that body and to popular institutions in France. After the coup d’état of Brumaire (November 1799) he, as First Consul, began to organize an expedition against the Austrians (Russia having now retired from the coalition), in northern Italy. The campaign culminating at Marengo was the result. By that triumph (due to Desaix and Kellermann rather than directly to him), Bonaparte consolidated his own position in France and again laid Italy at his feet. The Austrian general, Melas, signed an armistice whereby he was to retire with his army beyond the river Mincio. Ten days earlier, namely on the 4th of June, Masséna had been compelled by hunger to capitulate at Genoa; but the success at Marengo, followed up by that of Macdonald in north Italy, and Moreau at Hohenlinden (December 2, 1800), brought the emperor Treaty of Lunéville. Francis to sue for peace which was finally concluded at Lunéville on the 9th of February 1801. The Cisalpine and Ligurian Republics (reconstituted soon after Marengo) were recognized by Austria on condition that they were independent of France. The rule of Pius VII. over the Papal States was admitted; and Italian affairs were arranged much as they were at Campo Formio: Modena and Tuscany now reverted to French control, their former rulers being promised compensation in Germany. Naples, easily worsted by the French, under Miollis, left the British alliance, and made peace by the treaty of Florence (March 1801), agreeing to withdraw her troops from the Papal States, to cede Piombino and the Presidii (in Tuscany) to France and to close her ports to British ships and commerce. King Ferdinand also had to accept a French garrison at Taranto, and other points in the south.

Other changes took place in that year, all of them in favour of France. By complex and secret bargaining with the court of Madrid, Bonaparte procured the cession to France of Louisiana, in North America, and Parma; while Napoleon’s reorganization of Italy. the duke of Parma (husband of an infanta of Spain) was promoted by him to the duchy of Tuscany, now renamed the kingdom of Etruria. Piedmont was declared to be a military division at the disposal of France (April 21, 1801); and on the 21st of September 1802, Bonaparte, then First Consul for life, issued a decree for its definitive incorporation in the French Republic. About that time, too, Elba fell into the hands of Napoleon. Piedmont was organized in six departments on the model of those of France, and a number of French veterans were settled by Napoleon in and near the fortress of Alessandria. Besides copying the Roman habit of planting military colonies, the First Consul imitated the old conquerors of the world by extending and completing the road-system of his outlying districts, especially at those important passes, the Mont Cenis and Simplon. He greatly improved the rough track over the Simplon Pass, so that, when finished in 1807, it was practicable for artillery. Milan was the terminus of the road, and the construction of the Foro Buonaparte and the completion of the cathedral added dignity to the Lombard capital. The Corniche road was improved; and public works in various parts of Piedmont, and the Cisalpine and Ligurian Republics attested the foresight and wisdom of the great organizer of industry and quickener of human energies. The universities of Pavia and Bologna were reopened and made great progress in this time of peace and growing prosperity. Somewhat later the Pavia canal was begun in order to connect Lake Como with the Adriatic for barge-traffic.

The personal nature of the tie binding Italy to France was illustrated by a curious incident of the winter of 1802-1803. Bonaparte, now First Consul for life, felt strong enough to impose his will on the Cisalpine Republic and to set at defiance one of the stipulations of the treaty of Lunéville. On the pretext of consolidating that republic, he invited 450 of its leading men to come to Lyons to a consulta. In reality he and his agents had already provided for the passing of proposals which were agreeable to him. The deputies having been dazzled by fêtes and reviews, Talleyrand and Marescalchi, ministers of foreign affairs at Paris and Milan, plied them with hints as to the course to be followed by the consulta; and, despite the rage of the more democratic of their number, everything corresponded to the wishes of the First Consul. It remained to find a chief. Very many were in favour of Count Melzi, a Lombard noble, who had been chief of the executive at Milan; but again Talleyrand and French agents set to work on behalf of their master, with the result that he was elected president for ten years. He accepted that office because, as he frankly informed the deputies, he had found no one who “for his services rendered to his country, his authority with the people and his separation from party 46 has deserved such an office.” Melzi was elected vice-president with merely honorary functions. The constitution comprised a consulta charged with executive duties, a legislative body of 150 members and a court charged with the maintenance of the fundamental laws. These three bodies were to be chosen by three electoral colleges consisting of (a) landed proprietors, (b) learned men and clerics, (c) merchants and traders, holding their sessions biennially at Milan, Bologna and Brescia respectively. In practice the consulta could override the legislature; and, as the consulta was little more than the organ of the president, the whole constitution may be pronounced as autocratic as that of France after the changes brought about by Bonaparte in August 1802. Finally we must note that the Cisalpine now took the name of the Italian Republic, and that by a concordat with the pope, Bonaparte regulated its relations to the Holy See in a manner analogous to that adopted in the famous French concordat promulgated at Easter 1802 (see Concordat). It remains to add that the Ligurian Republic and that of Lucca remodelled their constitutions in a way somewhat similar to that of the Cisalpine.

Bonaparte’s ascendancy did not pass unchallenged. Many of the Italians retained their enthusiasm for democracy and national independence. In 1803 movements in these directions took place at Rimini, Brescia and Bologna; but they Kingdom of Italy. were sharply repressed, and most Italians came to acquiesce in the Napoleonic supremacy as inevitable and indeed beneficial. The complete disregard shown by Napoleon for one of the chief conditions of the treaty of Lunéville (February 1801)—that stipulating for the independence of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics—became more and more apparent every year. Alike in political and commercial affairs they were for all practical purposes dependencies of France. Finally, after the proclamation of the French empire (May 18, 1804) Napoleon proposed to place his brother Joseph over the Italian state, which now took the title of kingdom of Italy. On Joseph declining, Napoleon finally decided to accept the crown which Melzi, Marescalchi, Serbelloni and others begged him to assume. Accordingly, on the 26th of May 1805, in the cathedral at Milan, he crowned himself with the iron crown of the old Lombard kings, using the traditional formula, “God gave it me: let him beware who touches it.” On the 7th of June he appointed his step-son, Eugène Beauharnais, to be viceroy. Eugène soon found that his chief duty was to enforce the will of Napoleon. The legislature at Milan having ventured to alter some details of taxation, Eugène received the following rule of conduct from his step-father: “Your system of government is simple: the emperor wills it to be thus.” Republicanism was now everywhere discouraged. The little republic of Lucca, along with Piombino, was now awarded as a principality by the emperor to Elisa Bonaparte and her husband, Bacciocchi.

In June 1805 there came a last and intolerable affront to the emperors of Austria and Russia, who at that very time were seeking to put bounds to Napoleon’s ambition and to redress the balance of power. The French emperor, at the supposed request of the doge of Genoa, declared the Ligurian Republic to be an integral part of the French empire. This defiance to the sovereigns of Russia and Austria rekindled the flames of war. The third coalition was formed between Great Britain, Russia and Austria, Naples soon joining its ranks.

For the chief events of the ensuing campaigns see Napoleonic Campaigns. While Masséna pursued the Austrians into their own lands at the close of 1805, Italian forces under Eugène and Gouvion St Cyr (q.v.) held their ground against allied forces landed at Naples. After Austerlitz (December 2, 1805) Austria made peace by the treaty of Pressburg, ceding to the kingdom of Italy her part of Venetia along with the provinces of Istria and Dalmatia. Napoleon then turned fiercely against Maria Carolina of Naples upbraiding her with her “perfidy.” He sent Joseph Bonaparte and Masséna southwards with a strong column, compelled the Anglo-Russian forces to evacuate Naples, and occupied the south of the peninsula with little opposition except at the fortress of Gaeta. The Bourbon court sailed away to Palermo, where it remained for eight years under the protection afforded by the British fleet and a Joseph Bonaparte in Naples. British army of occupation. On the 15th of February 1806 Joseph Bonaparte entered Naples in triumph, his troops capturing there two hundred pieces of cannon. Gaeta, however, held out stoutly against the French. Sir Sidney Smith with a British squadron captured Capri (February 1806), and the peasants of the Abruzzi and Calabria soon began to give trouble. Worst of all was the arrival of a small British force in Calabria under Sir John Stuart, which beat off with heavy loss an attack imprudently delivered by General Réynier on level ground near the village of Maida (July 4). The steady volleys of Kempt’s light infantry were fatal to the French, who fell back in disorder under a bayonet charge of the victors, with the loss of some 2700 men. Calabria now rose in revolt against King Joseph, and the peasants dealt out savage reprisals to the French troops. On the 18th of July, however, Gaeta surrendered to Masséna, and that marshal, now moving rapidly southwards, extricated Réynier, crushed the Bourbon rising in Calabria with great barbarity, and compelled the British force to re-embark for Sicily. At Palermo Queen Maria Carolina continued to make vehement but futile efforts for the overthrow of King Joseph.

It is more important to observe that under Joseph and his ministers or advisers, including the Frenchmen Roederer, Dumas, Miot de Melito and the Corsican Saliceti, great progress was made in abolishing feudal laws and customs, in reforming the judicial procedure and criminal laws on the model of the Code Napoléon, and in attempting the beginnings of elementary education. More questionable was Joseph’s policy in closing and confiscating the property of 213 of the richer monasteries of the land. The monks were pensioned off, but though the confiscated property helped to fill the empty coffers of the state, the measure aroused widespread alarm and resentment among that superstitious people.

The peace of Tilsit (July 7, 1807) enabled Napoleon to press on his projects for securing the command of the Mediterranean, thenceforth a fundamental axiom of his policy. Consequently, in the autumn of 1807 he urged on Joseph the adoption of vigorous measures for the capture of Sicily. Already, in the negotiations with England during the summer of 1806, the emperor had shown his sense of the extreme importance of gaining possession of that island, which indeed caused the breakdown of the peace proposals then being considered; and now he ordered French squadrons into the Mediterranean in order to secure Corfu and Sicily. His plans respecting Corfu succeeded. That island and some of the adjacent isles fell into the hands of the French (some of them were captured by British troops in 1809-10); but Sicily remained unassailable. Capri, however, fell to the French on the 18th of October 1808, shortly after the arrival at Naples of the new king, Murat.

This ambitious marshal, brother-in-law of Napoleon, foiled in his hope of gaining the crown of Spain, received that of Naples in the summer of 1808, Joseph Bonaparte being moved from Naples to Madrid. This arrangement pleased Murat, King of Naples. neither of the relatives of the emperor; but his will now was law on the continent. Joseph left Naples on the 23rd of May 1808; but it was not until the 6th of September that Joachim Murat made his entry. A fortnight later his consort Caroline arrived, and soon showed a vigour and restlessness of spirit which frequently clashed with the dictates of her brother, the emperor and the showy, unsteady policy of her consort. The Spanish national rising of 1808 and thereafter the Peninsular War diverted Napoleon’s attention from the affairs of south Italy. In June 1809, during his campaign against Austria, Sir John Stuart with an Anglo-Sicilian force sailed northwards, captured Ischia and threw Murat into great alarm; but on the news of the Austrian defeat at Wagram, Stuart sailed back again.

It is now time to turn to the affairs of central Italy. Early in 1808 Napoleon proceeded with plans which he had secretly concerted after the treaty of Tilsit for transferring the infanta 47 of Spain who, after the death of her consort, reigned at Florence Central Italy. on behalf of her young son, Charles Louis, from her kingdom of Etruria to the little principality of Entre Douro e Minho which he proposed to carve out from the north of Portugal. Etruria reverted to the French empire, but the Spanish princess and her son did not receive the promised indemnity. Elisa Bonaparte and her husband, Bacciocchi, rulers of Lucca and Piombino, became the heads of the administration in Tuscany, Elisa showing decided governing capacity.

The last part of the peninsula to undergo the Gallicizing influence was the papal dominion. For some time past the relations between Napoleon and the pope, Pius VII., had been severely strained, chiefly because the emperor insisted Napoleon and the Papacy. on controlling the church, both in France and in the kingdom of Italy, in a way inconsistent with the traditions of the Vatican, but also because the pontiff refused to grant the divorce between Jerome Bonaparte and the former Miss Patterson on which Napoleon early in the year 1806 laid so much stress. These and other disputes led the emperor, as successor of Charlemagne, to treat the pope in a very highhanded way. “Your Holiness (he wrote) is sovereign of Rome, but I am its emperor”; and he threatened to annul the presumed “donation” of Rome by Charlemagne, unless the pope yielded implicit obedience to him in all temporal affairs. He further exploited the Charlemagne tradition for the benefit of the continental system, that great engine of commercial war by which he hoped to assure the ruin of England. This aim prompted the annexation of Tuscany, and his intervention in the affairs of the Papal States. To this the pope assented under pressure from Napoleon; but the latter soon found other pretexts for intervention, and in February 1808 a French column under Miollis occupied Rome, and deposed the papal authorities. Against this violence Pius VII. protested in vain. Napoleon sought to push matters to an extreme, and on the 2nd of April Annexation of the Papal States. he adopted the rigorous measure of annexing to the kingdom of Italy the papal provinces of Ancona, Urbino, Macerata and Camerina. This measure, which seemed to the pious an act of sacrilege, and to Italian patriots an outrage on the only independent sovereign of the peninsula, sufficed for the present. The outbreak of war in Spain, followed by the rupture with Austria in the spring of 1809, distracted the attention of the emperor. But after the occupation of Vienna the conqueror dated from that capital on the 17th of May 1809 a decree virtually annexing Rome and the Patrimonium Petri to the French empire. Here again he cited the action of Charlemagne, his “august predecessor,” who had merely given “certain domains to the bishops of Rome as fiefs, though Rome did not thereby cease to be part of his empire.”

In reply the pope prepared a bull of excommunication against those who should infringe the prerogatives of the Holy See in this matter. Thereupon the French general, Miollis, who still occupied Rome, caused the pope to be arrested and carried him away northwards into Tuscany, thence to Savona; finally he was taken, at Napoleon’s orders, to Fontainebleau. Thus, a second time, fell the temporal power of the papacy. By an imperial decree of the 17th of February 1810, Rome and the neighbouring districts, including Spoleto, became part of the French empire. Rome thenceforth figured as its second city, and entered upon a new life under the administration of French officials. The Roman territory was divided into two departments—the Tiber and Trasimenus; the Code Napoléon was introduced, public works were set on foot and great advance was made in the material sphere. Nevertheless the harshness with which the emperor treated the Roman clergy and suppressed the monasteries caused deep resentment to the orthodox.

There is no need to detail the fortunes of the Napoleonic states in Italy. One and all they underwent the influences emanating from Paris; and in respect to civil administration, law, judicial procedure, education and public works, Character of Napoleon’s rule. they all experienced great benefits, the results of which never wholly disappeared. On the other hand, they suffered from the rigorous measures of the continental system, which seriously crippled trade at the ports and were not compensated by the increased facilities for trade with France which Napoleon opened up. The drain of men to supply his armies in Germany, Spain and Russia was also a serious loss. A powerful Italian corps marched under Eugène Beauharnais to Moscow, and distinguished itself at Malo-Jaroslavitz, as also during the horrors of the retreat in the closing weeks of 1812. It is said that out of 27,000 Italians who entered Russia with Eugène, only 333 saw their country again. That campaign marked the beginning of Collapse of Napoleon’s rule. the end for the Napoleonic domination in Italy as elsewhere. Murat, left in command of the Grand Army at Vilna, abandoned his charge and in the next year made overtures to the allies who coalesced against Napoleon. For his vacillations at this time and his final fate, see Murat. Here it must suffice to say that the uncertainty caused by his policy in 1813-1814 had no small share in embarrassing Napoleon and in precipitating the downfall of his power in Italy. Eugène Beauharnais, viceroy of the kingdom of Italy, showed both constancy and courage; but after the battle of Leipzig (October 16-19, 1813) his power crumbled away under the assaults of the now victorious Austrians. By an arrangement with Bavaria, they were able to march through Tirol and down the valley of the Adige in force, and overpowered the troops of Eugène whose position was fatally compromised by the defection of Murat and the dissensions among the Italians. Very many of them, distrusting both of these kings, sought to act independently in favour of an Italian republic. Lord William Bentinck with an Anglo-Sicilian force landed at Leghorn on the 8th of March 1814, and issued a proclamation to the Italians bidding them rise against Napoleon in the interests of their own freedom. A little later he gained possession of Genoa. Amidst these schisms the defence of Italy collapsed. On the 16th of April 1814 Eugène, on hearing of Napoleon’s overthrow at Paris, signed an armistice at Mantua by which he was enabled to send away the French troops beyond the Alps and entrust himself to the consideration of the allies. The Austrians, under General Bellegarde, entered Milan without resistance; and this event precluded the restoration of the old political order.

The arrangements made by the allies in accordance with the treaty of Paris (June 12, 1814) and the Final Act of the congress of Vienna (June 9, 1815), imposed on Italy boundaries which, roughly speaking, corresponded to those of the pre-Napoleonic era. To the kingdom of Sardinia, now reconstituted under Victor Emmanuel I., France ceded its old provinces, Savoy and Nice; and the allies, especially Great Britain and Austria, insisted on the addition to that monarchy of the territories of the former republic of Genoa, in respect of which the king took the title of duke of Genoa, in order to strengthen it for the duty of acting as a buffer state between France and the smaller states of central Italy. Austria recovered the Milanese, and all the possessions of the old Venetian Republic on the mainland, including Istria and Dalmatia. The Ionian Islands, formerly belonging to Venice, were, by a treaty signed at Paris on the 5th of November 1815, placed under the protection of Great Britain. By an instrument signed on the 24th of April 1815, the Austrian territories in north Italy were erected into the kingdom of Lombardo-Venetia, which, though an integral part of the Austrian empire, was to enjoy a separate administration, the symbol of its separate individuality being the coronation of the emperors with the ancient iron crown of Lombardy (“Proclamation de l’empereur d’Autriche, &c.,” April 7, 1815, State Papers, ii. 906). Francis IV., son of the archduke Ferdinand of Austria and Maria Beatrice, daughter of Ercole Rinaldo, the last of the Estensi, was reinstated as duke of Modena. Parma and Piacenza were assigned to Marie Louise, daughter of the Austrian emperor and wife of Napoleon, on behalf of her son, the little Napoleon, but by subsequent arrangements (1816-1817) the duchy was to revert at her death to the Bourbons of Parma, then reigning at Lucca. Tuscany was restored to the grand-duke Ferdinand III. of Habsburg-Lorraine. The duchy of Lucca was given to Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma, who, at the death of Marie Louise of Austria, would 48 return to Parma, when Lucca would be handed over to Tuscany. The pope, Pius VII., who had long been kept under restraint by Napoleon at Fontainebleau, returned to Rome in May 1814, and was recognized by the congress of Vienna (not without some demur on the part of Austria) as the sovereign of all the former possessions of the Holy See. Ferdinand IV. of Naples, not long after the death of his consort, Maria Carolina, in Austria, returned from Sicily to take possession of his dominions on the mainland. He received them back in their entirety at the hands of the powers, who recognized his new title of Ferdinand I. of the Two Sicilies. The rash attempt of Murat in the autumn of 1815, which led to his death at Pizzo in Calabria, enabled the Bourbon dynasty to crush malcontents with all the greater severity. The reaction, which was dull and heavy in the dominions of the pope and of Victor Emmanuel, systematically harsh in the Austrian states of the north, and comparatively mild in Parma and Tuscany, excited the greatest loathing in southern Italy and Sicily, because there it was directed by a dynasty which had aroused feelings of hatred mingled with contempt.

There were special reasons why Sicily should harbour these feelings against the Bourbons. During eight years (1806-1814) the chief places of the island had been garrisoned by British troops; and the commander of the force which upheld the tottering rule of Ferdinand at Palermo naturally had great authority. The British government, which awarded a large annual subsidy to the king and queen at Palermo, claimed to have some control over the administration. Lord William Bentinck finally took over large administrative powers, seeing that Ferdinand, owing to his dulness, and Maria Carolina, owing to her very suspicious intrigues with Napoleon, could never be trusted. The contest between the royal power and that of the Sicilian estates threatened to bring matters to a deadlock, until in 1812, under the impulse of Lord William Bentinck, a constitution modelled largely on that of England was passed by the estates. After the retirement of the British troops in 1814 the constitution lapsed, and the royal authority became once more absolute. But the memory of the benefits conferred by “the English constitution” remained fresh and green amidst the arid waste of repression which followed. It lived on as one of the impalpable but powerful influences which spurred on the Sicilians and the democrats of Naples to the efforts which they put forth in 1821, 1830, 1848 and 1860.

This result, accruing from British intervention, was in some respects similar to that exerted by Napoleon on the Italians of the mainland. The brutalities of Austria’s white coats in the north, the unintelligent repression then characteristic of the house of Savoy, the petty spite of the duke of Modena, the medieval obscurantism of pope and cardinals in the middle of the peninsula and the clownish excesses of Ferdinand in the south, could not blot out from the minds of the Italians the recollection of the benefits derived from the just laws, vigorous administration and enlightened aims of the great emperor. The hard but salutary training which they had undergone at his hands had taught them that they were the equals of the northern races both in the council chamber and on the field of battle. It had further revealed to them that truth, which once grasped can never be forgotten, that, despite differences of climate, character and speech, they were in all essentials a nation.

E. The Risorgimento, 1815-1870

As the result of the Vienna treaties, Austria became the real mistress of Italy. Not only did she govern Lombardy and Venetia directly, but Austrian princes ruled in Modena, Parma and Tuscany; Piacenza, Ferrara and Comacchio had Austrian garrisons; Prince Metternich, the Austrian chancellor, believed that he could always secure the election of an Austrophil pope, and Ferdinand of Naples, reinstated by an Austrian army, had bound himself, by a secret article of the treaty of June 12, 1815, not to introduce methods of government incompatible with those adopted in Austria’s Italian possessions. Austria also concluded offensive and defensive alliances with Sardinia, Tuscany and Naples; and Metternich’s ambition was to make Austrian predominance over Italy still more absolute, by placing an Austrian archduke on the Sardinian throne.

Victor Emmanuel I., the king of Sardinia, was the only native ruler in the peninsula, and the Savoy dynasty was popular with all classes. But although welcomed with enthusiasm on his return to Turin, he introduced a system of Reaction in the Italian States. reaction which, if less brutal, was no less uncompromising than that of Austrian archdukes or Bourbon princes. His object was to restore his dominions to the conditions preceding the French occupation. The French system of taxation was maintained because it brought in ampler revenues; but feudalism, the antiquated legislation and bureaucracy were revived, and all the officers and officials still living who had served the state before the Revolution, many of them now in their dotage, were restored to their posts; only nobles were eligible for the higher government appointments; all who had served under the French administration were dismissed or reduced in rank, and in the army beardless scions of the aristocracy were placed over the heads of war-worn veterans who had commanded regiments in Spain and Russia. The influence of a bigoted priesthood was re-established, and “every form of intellectual and moral torment, everything save actual persecution and physical torture that could be inflicted on the ‘impure’ was inflicted” (Cesare Balbo’s Autobiography). All this soon provoked discontent among the educated classes. In Genoa the government was particularly unpopular, for the Genoese resented being handed over to their old enemy Piedmont like a flock of sheep. Nevertheless the king strongly disliked the Austrians, and would willingly have seen them driven from Italy.

In Lombardy French rule had ended by making itself unpopular, and even before the fall of Napoleon a national party, called the Italici puri, had begun to advocate the independence of Lombardy, or even its union with Austrian rule in Italy. Sardinia. At first a part of the population were content with Austrian rule, which provided an honest and efficient administration; but the rigid system of centralization which, while allowing the semblance of local autonomy, sent every minute question for settlement to Vienna; the severe police methods; the bureaucracy, in which the best appointments were usually conferred on Germans or Slavs wholly dependent on Vienna, proved galling to the people, and in view of the growing disaffection the country was turned into a vast armed camp. In Modena Duke Francis proved a cruel tyrant. In Parma, on the other hand, there was very little oppression, the French codes were retained, and the council of state was consulted on all legislative matters. Lucca too enjoyed good government, and the peasantry were well cared for and prosperous. In Tuscany the rule of Ferdinand and of his minister Fossombroni was mild and benevolent, but enervating and demoralizing. The Papal States were ruled by a unique system of theocracy, for not only the head of the state but all the more important officials were ecclesiastics, assisted by the Inquisition, the Index and all the paraphernalia Reaction in Rome. of medieval church government. The administration was inefficient and corrupt, the censorship uncompromising, the police ferocious and oppressive, although quite unable to cope with the prevalent anarchy and brigandage; the antiquated pontifical statutes took the place of the French laws, and every vestige of the vigorous old communal independence was swept away. In Naples King Ferdinand retained some of the laws and institutions of Murat’s régime, and many Naples. of the functionaries of the former government entered his service; but he revived the Bourbon tradition, the odious police system and the censorship; and a degrading religious bigotry, to which the masses were all too much inclined, became the basis of government and social life. The upper classes were still to a large extent inoculated with French ideas, but the common people were either devoted to the dynasty or indifferent. In Sicily, which for centuries had enjoyed a feudal constitution modernized and Anglicized under British auspices in 1812, and where anti-Neapolitan feeling was strong, autonomy 49 was suppressed, the constitution abolished in 1816, and the island, as a reward for its fidelity to the dynasty, converted into a Neapolitan province governed by Neapolitan bureaucrats.

To the mass of the people the restoration of the old governments undoubtedly brought a sense of relief, for the terrible drain in men and money caused by Napoleon’s wars had caused much discontent, whereas now there was a prospect of peace and rest. But the restored governments in their terror of revolution would not realize that the late régime had wafted a breath of new life over the country and left ineffaceable traces in the way of improved laws, efficient administration, good roads and the sweeping away of old abuses; while the new-born idea of Italian unity, strengthened by a national pride revived on many a stricken field from Madrid to Moscow, was a force to be reckoned with. The oppression and follies of the restored governments made men forget the evils of French rule and remember only its good side. The masses were still more or less indifferent, but among the nobility and the educated middle Secret societies. The Carbonari. classes, cut off from all part in free political life, there was developed either the spirit of despair at Italy’s moral degradation, as expressed in the writings of Foscolo and Leopardi, or a passion of hatred and revolt, which found its manifestation, in spite of severe laws, in the development of secret societies. The most important of these were the Carbonari lodges, whose objects were the expulsion of the foreigner and the achievement of constitutional freedom (see Carbonari).

When Ferdinand returned to Naples in 1815 he found the kingdom, and especially the army, honeycombed with Carbonarism, to which many noblemen and officers were affiliated; and although the police instituted prosecutions Revolution in Naples, 1820. and organized the counter-movement of the Calderai, who may be compared to the “Black Hundreds” of modern Russia, the revolutionary spirit continued to grow, but it was not at first anti-dynastic. The granting of the Spanish constitution of 1820 proved the signal for the beginning of the Italian liberationist movement; a military mutiny led by two officers, Silvati and Morelli, and the priest Menichini, broke out at Monteforte, to the cry of “God, the King, and the Constitution!” The troops sent against them commanded by General Guglielmo Pepe, himself a Carbonaro, hesitated to act, and the king, finding that he could not count on the army, granted the constitution (July 13, 1820), and appointed his son Francis regent. The events that followed are described in the article on the history of Naples (q.v.). Not only did the constitution, which was modelled on the impossible Spanish constitution of 1812, prove unworkable, but the powers of the Grand Alliance, whose main object was to keep the peace of Europe, felt themselves bound to interfere to prevent the evil precedent of a successful military revolution. The diplomatic developments that led to the intervention of Austria are sketched elsewhere (see Europe: History); in general the result of the deliberations of the congresses of Troppau and Laibach was to establish, not the general right of intervention claimed in the Troppau Protocol, but the special right of Austria to safeguard her interests in Italy. The defeat of General Pepe by the Austrians at Rieti (March 7, 1821) and the re-establishment of King Ferdinand’s autocratic power under the protection of Austrian bayonets were the effective assertion of this principle.

The movement in Naples had been purely local, for the Neapolitan Carbonari had at that time no thought save of Naples; it was, moreover, a movement of the middle and upper classes in which the masses took little Military revolt in Piedmont. interest. Immediately after the battle of Rieti a Carbonarist mutiny broke out in Piedmont independently of events in the south. Both King Victor Emmanuel and his brother Charles Felix had no sons, and the heir presumptive to the throne was Prince Charles Albert, of the Carignano branch of the house of Savoy. Charles Albert felt a certain interest in Liberal ideas and was always surrounded by young nobles of Carbonarist and anti-Austrian tendencies, and was therefore regarded with suspicion by his royal relatives. Metternich, too, had an instinctive dislike for him, and proposed to exclude him from the succession by marrying one of the king’s daughters to Francis of Modena, and getting the Salic law abolished so that the succession would pass to the duke and Austria would thus dominate Piedmont. The Liberal movement had gained ground in Piedmont as in Naples among the younger nobles and officers, and the events of Spain and southern Italy aroused much excitement. In March 1821, Count Santorre di Santarosa and other conspirators informed Charles Albert of a constitutional and anti-Austrian plot, and asked for his help. After a momentary hesitation he informed the king; but at his request no arrests were made, and no precautions were taken. On the 10th of March the garrison of Alessandria mutinied, and its example was followed on the 12th by that of Turin, where the Spanish constitution was demanded, and the black, red and blue flag of the Carbonari paraded the streets. The next day the king abdicated after appointing Charles Albert regent. The latter immediately proclaimed the constitution, but the new king, Charles Felix, who was at Modena at the time, repudiated the regent’s acts and exiled him to Tuscany; and, with his consent, an Austrian army invaded Piedmont and crushed the constitutionalists at Novara. Many of the conspirators were condemned to death, but all succeeded in escaping. Charles Felix was most indignant with the ex-regent, but he resented, as an unwarrantable interference, Austria’s attempt to have him excluded from the succession at the congress of Verona (1822). Charles Albert’s somewhat equivocal conduct also roused the hatred of the Liberals, and for a long time the esecrato Carignano was regarded, most unjustly, as a traitor even by many who were not republicans.

Carbonarism had been introduced into Lombardy by two Romagnols, Count Laderchi and Pietro Maroncelli, but the leader of the movement was Count F. Confalonieri, who was in favour of an Italian federation composed Liberalism in Lombardy. of northern Italy under the house of Savoy, central Italy under the pope, and the kingdom of Naples. There had been some mild plotting against Austria in Milan, and an attempt was made to co-operate with the Piedmontese movement of 1821; already in 1820 Maroncelli and the poet Silvio Pellico had been arrested as Carbonari, and after the movement in Piedmont more arrests were made. The mission of Gaetano Castiglia and Marquis Giorgio Pallavicini to Turin, where they had interviewed Charles Albert, although without any definite result—for Confalonieri had warned the prince that Lombardy was not ready to rise—was accidentally discovered, and Confalonieri was himself arrested. The plot would never have been a menace to Austria but for her treatment of the conspirators. Pellico and Maroncelli were immured in the Spielberg; Confalonieri and two dozen others were condemned to death, their sentences being, however, commuted to imprisonment in that same terrible fortress. The heroism of the prisoners, and Silvio Pellico’s account of his imprisonment (Le mie Prigioni), did much to enlist the sympathy of Europe for the Italian cause.

During the next few years order reigned in Italy, save for a few unimportant outbreaks in the Papal States; there was, however, perpetual discontent and agitation, especially in Romagna, where misgovernment was extreme. The Papal States. Under Pius VII. and his minister Cardinal Consalvi oppression had not been very severe, and Metternich’s proposal to establish a central inquisitorial tribunal for political offences throughout Italy had been rejected by the papal government. But on the death of Pius in 1823, his successor Leo XII. (Cardinal Della Genga) proved a ferocious reactionary under whom barbarous laws were enacted and torture frequently applied. The secret societies, such as the Carbonari, the Adelfi and the Bersaglieri d’America, which flourished in Romagna, replied to these persecutions by assassinating the more brutal officials and spies. The events of 1820-1821 increased the agitation in Romagna, and in 1825 large numbers of persons were condemned to death, imprisonment or exile. The society of the Sanfedisti, formed of the dregs of the populace, whose object was to murder every Liberal, was openly protected and encouraged. Leo died 50 in 1829, and the mild, religious Pius VIII. (Cardinal Castiglioni) only reigned until 1830, when Gregory XVI. (Cardinal Cappellari) was elected through Austrian influence, and proved another Revolutions of 1830. zelante. The July revolution in Paris and the declaration of the new king, Louis Philippe, that France, as a Liberal monarchy, would not only not intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, but would not permit other powers to do so, aroused great hopes among the oppressed peoples, and was the immediate cause of a revolution in Romagna and the Marches. In February 1831 these provinces rose, raised the red, white and green tricolor (which henceforth took the place of the Carbonarist colours as the Italian flag), and shook off the papal yoke with surprising ease.11 At Parma too there was an outbreak and a demand for the constitution; Marie Louise could not grant it because of her engagements with Austria, and, therefore, abandoned her dominions. In Modena Duke Francis, ambitious of enlarging his territories, coquetted with the Carbonari of Paris, and opened indirect negotiations with Menotti, the revolutionary leader in his state, believing that he might assist him in his plans. Menotti, for his part, conceived the idea of a united Italian state under the duke. A rising was organized for February 1831; but Francis got wind of it, and, repenting of his dangerous dallying with revolution, arrested Menotti and fled to Austrian territory with his prisoner. In his absence the insurrection took place, and Biagio Nardi, having been elected dictator, proclaimed that “Italy is one; the Italian nation one sole nation.” But the French king soon abandoned his principle of non-intervention on which the Italian revolutionists had built their hopes; the Austrians intervened unhindered; the old governments were re-established in Parma, Modena and Romagna; and Menotti and many other patriots were hanged. The Austrians evacuated Romagna in July, but another insurrection having broken out immediately afterwards which the papal troops were unable to quell, they returned. This second intervention gave umbrage to France, who by way of a counterpoise sent a force to occupy Ancona. These two foreign occupations, which were almost as displeasing to the pope as to the Liberals, lasted until 1838. The powers, immediately after the revolt, presented a memorandum to Gregory recommending certain moderate reforms, but no attention was paid to it. These various movements proved in the first place that the masses were by no means ripe for revolution, and that the idea of unity, although now advocated by a few revolutionary leaders, was far from being generally accepted even by the Liberals; and, secondly, that, in spite of the indifference of the masses, the despotic governments were unable to hold their own without the assistance of foreign bayonets.

On the 27th of April 1831, Charles Albert succeeded Charles Felix on the throne of Piedmont. Shortly afterwards he received a letter from an unknown person, in which he was exhorted with fiery eloquence to place himself at the Mazzini and “Young Italy.” head of the movement for liberating and uniting Italy and expelling the foreigner, and told that he was free to choose whether he would be “the first of men or the last of Italian tyrants.” The author was Giuseppe Mazzini, then a young man of twenty-six years, who, though in theory a republican, was ready to accept the leadership of a prince of the house of Savoy if he would guide the nation to freedom. The only result of his letter, however, was that he was forbidden to re-enter Sardinian territory. Mazzini, who had learned to distrust Carbonarism owing to its lack of a guiding principle and its absurd paraphernalia of ritual and mystery, had conceived the idea of a more serious political association for the emancipation of his country not only from foreign and domestic despotism but from national faults of character; and this idea he had materialized in the organization of a society called the Giovane Italia (Young Italy) among the Italian refugees at Marseilles. After the events of 1831 he declared that the liberation of Italy could only be achieved through unity, and his great merit lies in having inspired a large number of Italians with that idea at a time when provincial jealousies and the difficulty of communications maintained separatist feelings. Young Italy spread to all centres of Italian exiles, and by means of literature carried on an active propaganda in Italy itself, where the party came to be called “Ghibellini,” as though reviving the traditions of medieval anti-Papalism. Though eventually this activity of the Giovane Italia supplanted that of the older societies, in practice it met with no better success; the two attempts to invade Savoy in the hope of seducing the army from its allegiance failed miserably, and only resulted in a series of barbarous sentences of death and imprisonment which made most Liberals despair of Charles Albert, while they called down much criticism on Mazzini as the organizer of raids in which he himself took no part. He was now forced to leave France, but continued his work of agitation from London. The disorders in Naples and Sicily in 1837 had no connexion with Mazzini, but the forlorn hope of the brothers Bandiera, who in 1844 landed on the Calabrian coast, was the work of the Giovane Italia. The rebels were captured and shot, but the significance of the attempt lies in the fact that it was the first occasion on which north Italians (the Bandieras were Venetians and officers in the Austrian navy) had tried to raise the standard of revolt in the south.

Romagna had continued a prey to anarchy ever since 1831; the government organized armed bands called the Centurioni (descended from the earlier Sanfedisti), to terrorize the Liberals, while the secret societies continued their “propaganda by deeds.” It is noteworthy that Romagna was the only part of Italy where the revolutionary movement was accompanied by murder. In 1845 several outbreaks occurred, and a band led by Pietro Renzi captured Rimini, whence a proclamation drawn up by L. C. Farini was issued demanding the reforms advocated by the powers’ memorandum of 1831. But the movement collapsed without result, and the leaders fled to Tuscany.

On the death of Pope Gregory XVI. in 1846 Austria hoped to secure the election of another zealot; but the Italian cardinals, who did not want an Austrophil, finished the conclave before the arrival of Cardinal Gaysrück, Austria’s Election of Pius IX. mouthpiece, and in June elected Giovanni Maria Mastai Ferretti as Pius IX. The new pope, who while bishop of Imole had evinced a certain interest in Liberalism, was a kindly man, of inferior intelligence, who thought that all difficulties could be settled with a little good-will, some reforms and a political amnesty. The amnesty which he granted was the beginning of the immense if short-lived popularity which he was to enjoy. But he did not move so fast in the path of reform as was expected, and agitation continued throughout the papal states.12 In 1847 some administrative reforms were enacted, the laity were admitted to certain offices, railways were talked about, and political newspapers permitted. In April Pius created a Consulta, or consultative assembly, and soon afterwards a council of ministers and a municipality for Rome. Here he would willingly have stopped, but he soon realized that he had hardly begun. Every fresh reform edict was greeted with demonstrations of enthusiasm, but the ominous cry “Viva Pio Nono solo!” signified dissatisfaction with the whole system of government. A lay ministry was now demanded, a constitution, and an Italian federation for war against Austria. Rumours of a reactionary plot by Austria and the Jesuits against Pius, induced him to create a national guard and to appoint Cardinal Ferretti as secretary of state.

Events in Rome produced widespread excitement throughout Europe. Metternich had declared that the one thing which had not entered into his calculations was a Liberal pope, only that was an impossibility; still he was much disturbed by Pius’s attitude, and tried to stem the revolutionary tide by frightening the princes. Seizing the agitation in Romagna as a pretext, he had the town of Ferrara occupied by Austrian troops, which provoked the indignation not only of the Liberals but also of the pope, for according to the treaties Austria had the right of occupying the citadel alone. There was great resentment throughout Italy, and in answer to the pope’s request Charles Albert declared that he was with him in everything, while from South America Giuseppe Garibaldi wrote to offer his services to His Holiness. Charles Albert, although maintaining his reactionary policy, had introduced administrative reforms, built railways, reorganized the army and developed the resources of the country. He had little sympathy with Liberalism and abhorred revolution, but his hatred of Austria and his resentment at the galling tutelage to which she subjected him had gained strength year by year. Religion was still his dominant passion, and when a pope in Liberal guise appeared on the scene and was bullied by Austria, his two strongest feelings—piety and hatred of Austria—ceased Revolutionary agitation, 1847. to be incompatible. In 1847 Lord Minto visited the Italian courts to try to induce the recalcitrant despots to mend their ways, so as to avoid revolution and war, the latter being England’s especial anxiety; this mission, although not destined to produce much effect, aroused extravagant hopes among the Liberals. Charles Louis, the opera-bouffe duke of Lucca, who had coquetted with Liberalism in the past, now refused to make any concessions to his subjects, and in 1847 sold his duchy to Leopold II. of Tuscany (the successor of Ferdinand III. since 1824) to whom it would have reverted in any case at the death of the duchess of Parma. At the same time Leopold ceded Lunigiana to Parma and Modena in equal parts, an arrangement which provoked the indignation of the inhabitants of the district (especially of those destined to be ruled by Francis V. of Modena, who had succeeded to Francis IV. in 1846), and led to disturbances at Fivizzano. In September 1847, Leopold gave way to the popular agitation for a national guard, in spite of Metternich’s threats, and allowed greater freedom of the press; every concession made by the pope was followed by demands for a similar measure in Tuscany.

Ferdinand I. of the Two Sicilies had died in 1825, and was succeeded by Francis I. At the latter’s death in 1830 Ferdinand II. succeeded, and although at first he gave promise of proving a wiser ruler, he soon reverted to the traditional Bourbon methods. An ignorant bigot, he concentrated the whole of the executive into his own hands, was surrounded by priests and monks, and served by an army of spies. In 1847 there were unimportant disturbances in various parts of the kingdom, but there was no anti-dynastic outbreak, the jealousy between Naples and Sicily largely contributing to the weakness of the movement. On the 12th of January, however, a revolution, the first of the many throughout Europe that was to make the year 1848 memorable, broke out at Palermo under the leadership of Ruggiero Settimo. The Neapolitan army sent to crush the rising was at first unsuccessful, and the insurgents demanded the constitution of 1812 or complete independence. Disturbances occurred at Naples also, and the king, who could not obtain Austrian help, as the pope refused to allow Austrian troops to pass through his dominions, on the advice of his prime minister, the duke of Serracapriola, granted a constitution, freedom of the press, the national guard, &c. (January 28).

The news from Naples strengthened the demand for a constitution in Piedmont. Count Camillo Cavour, then editor of a new and influential paper called Il Risorgimento, had advocated it strongly, and monster demonstrations Revolutions of 1848. were held every day. The king disliked the idea, but great pressure was brought to bear on him, and finally, on the 4th of March 1848, he granted the charter which was destined to be the constitution of the future Italian kingdom. It provided for a nominated senate and an elective chamber of deputies, the king retaining the right of veto; the press censorship was abolished, and freedom of meeting, of the press and of speech were guaranteed. Balbo was called upon to form the first constitutional ministry. Three days later the grand-duke of Tuscany promised similar liberties, and a charter, prepared by a commission which included Gino Capponi and Bettino Ricasoli, was promulgated on the 17th.

In the Austrian provinces the situation seemed calmer, and the government rejected the moderate proposals of Daniele Manin and N. Tommaseo. A demonstration in favour of Pius IX. on the 3rd of January at Milan was dispersed with unnecessary severity, and martial law was proclaimed the following month. The revolution which broke out on the 8th of March in Vienna itself and the subsequent flight of Metternich (see Austria-Hungary: History), led to the granting of feeble concessions to Lombardy and Venetia, which were announced in Milan on the 18th. But it was too late; and in spite of the exhortations of the mayor, Gabrio Casati, and of the republican C. Cattaneo, who believed that a rising against 15,000 Austrian soldiers under Field-Marshal Radetzky was madness, the famous Five Days’ revolution began. It was a popular outburst of pent-up hate, unprepared by leaders, although leaders such as Luciano Manara soon arose. Radetzky occupied the citadel and other points of vantage; but in the night barricades sprang up by the hundred and were manned by citizens of all classes, armed with every kind of weapon. The desperate struggle lasted until the 22nd, when the Austrians, having lost 5000 killed and wounded, were forced to evacuate the city. The rest of Lombardy and Venetia 52 now flew to arms, and the Austrian garrisons, except in the Quadrilateral (Verona, Peschiera, Mantua and Legnano) were expelled. In Venice the people, under the leadership of Manin, rose in arms and forced the military and civil governors (Counts Zichy and Palffy) to sign a capitulation on the 22nd of March, after which the republic was proclaimed. At Milan, where there was a division of opinion between the monarchists under Casati and the republicans under Cattaneo, a provisional administration was formed and the question of the form of government postponed for the moment. The duke of Modena and Charles Louis of Parma (Marie Louise was now dead) abandoned their capitals; in both cities provisional governments were set up which subsequently proclaimed annexation to Piedmont. In Rome the pope gave way to popular clamour, granting one concession after another, and on the 8th of February he publicly called down God’s blessing on Italy—that Italy hated by the Austrians, whose name it had hitherto been a crime to mention. On the 10th of March he appointed a new ministry, under Cardinal Antonelli, which included several Liberal laymen, such as Marco Minghetti, G. Pasolini, L. C. Farini and Count G. Recchi. On the 11th a constitution drawn up by a commission of cardinals, without the knowledge of the ministry, was promulgated, a constitution which attempted the impossible task of reconciling the pope’s temporal power with free institutions. In the meanwhile preparations for war against Austria were being carried on with Pius’s sanction.

There were now three main political tendencies, viz. the union of north Italy under Charles Albert and an alliance with the pope and Naples, a federation of the different states under their present rulers, and a united republic of all Italy. All parties, however, were agreed in favour of war against Austria, for which the peoples forced their unwilling rulers to prepare. But the only state capable of taking the initiative was Piedmont, and the king still hesitated. Then came the news of the Five Days of Milan, which produced the wildest excitement in Turin; unless First war of Italy against Austria. the army were sent to assist the struggling Lombards at once the dynasty was in jeopardy. Cavour’s stirring articles in the Risorgimento hastened the king’s decision, and on the 23rd of March he declared war (see for the military events Italian Wars, 1848-70). But much precious time had been lost, and even then the army was not ready. Charles Albert could dispose of 90,000 men, including some 30,000 from central Italy, but he took the field with only half his force. He might yet have cut off Radetzky on his retreat, or captured Mantua, which was only held by 300 men. But his delays lost him both chances and enabled Radetzky to receive reinforcements from Austria. The pope, unable to resist the popular demand for war, allowed his army to depart (March 23) under the command of General Durando, with instructions to act in concert with Charles Albert, and he corresponded with the grand-duke of Tuscany and the king of Naples with a view to a military alliance. But at the same time, fearing a schism in the church should he attack Catholic Austria, he forbade his troops to do more than defend the frontier, and in his Encyclical of the 29th of April stated that, as head of the church, he could not declare war, but that he was unable to prevent his subjects from following the example of other Italians. He then requested Charles Albert to take the papal troops under his command, and also wrote to the emperor of Austria asking him voluntarily to relinquish Lombardy and Venetia. Tuscany and Naples had both joined the Italian league; a Tuscan army started for Lombardy on the 30th of April, and 17,000 Neapolitans commanded by Pepe (who had returned after 28 years of exile) went to assist Durando in intercepting the Austrian reinforcements under Nugent. The Piedmontese defeated the enemy at Pastrengo (April 30), but did not profit by the victory. The Neapolitans reached Bologna on the 17th of May, but in the meantime a dispute had broken out at Naples between the king and parliament as to the nature of the royal oath; a cry of treason was raised by a group of factious youngsters, barricades were erected and street fighting ensued (May 15). On the 17th Ferdinand dissolved parliament and recalled the army. On receiving the order to return, Pepe, after hesitating for some time between his oath to the king and his desire to fight for Italy, finally resigned his commission and crossed the Po with a few thousand men, the rest of his force returning south. The effects of this were soon felt. A force of Tuscan volunteers was attacked by a superior body of Austrians at Curtatone and Montanaro and defeated after a gallant resistance on the 27th of May; Charles Albert, after wasting precious time round Peschiera, which capitulated on the 30th of May, defeated Radetzky at Goito. But the withdrawal of the Neapolitans left Durando too weak to intercept Nugent and his 30,000 men; and the latter, although harassed by the inhabitants of Venetia and repulsed at Vicenza, succeeded in joining Radetzky, who was soon further reinforced from Tirol. The whole Austrian army now turned on Vicenza, which after a brave resistance surrendered on the 10th of June. All Venetia except the capital was thus once more occupied by the Austrians. On the 23rd, 24th and 25th of July (first battle of Custozza) the Piedmontese were defeated and forced to retire on Milan with Radetzky’s superior force in pursuit. The king was the object of a hostile demonstration in Milan, and although he was ready to defend the city to the last, the town council negotiated a capitulation with Radetzky. The mob, egged on by the republicans, attacked the palace where the king was lodged, and he escaped with difficulty, returning to Piedmont with the remnants of his army. On the 6th of August Radetzky re-entered Milan, and three days later an armistice was concluded between Austria and Piedmont, the latter agreeing to evacuate Lombardy and Venetia. The offer of French assistance, made after the proclamation of the republic in the spring of 1848, had been rejected mainly because France, fearing that the creation of a strong Italian state would be a danger to her, would have demanded the cession of Nice and Savoy, which the king refused to consider.

Meanwhile, the republic had been proclaimed in Venice; but on the 7th of July the assembly declared in favour of fusion with Piedmont, and Manin, who had been elected president, resigned his powers to the royal commissioners. Daniele Manin and Venice. Soon after Custozza, however, the Austrians blockaded the city on the land side. In Rome the pope’s authority weakened day by day, and disorder increased. The Austrian attempt to occupy Bologna was repulsed by the citizens, but unfortunately this success was followed by anarchy and murder, and Farini only with difficulty restored a semblance of order. The Mamiani ministry having failed to achieve anything, Pius summoned Pellegrino Rossi, a learned lawyer who had long been exiled in France, to form a cabinet. On the 15th of November he was assassinated, and as no one was punished for this crime the insolence of the disorderly elements increased, and shots were exchanged with the Swiss Guard. The terrified pope fled in disguise to Gaeta (November 25), and when parliament requested him to return he refused even to receive the deputation. This meant a complete rupture; on the 5th of February 1849 a constituent assembly was summoned, and on the 9th it voted the downfall of the temporal Proclamation of the Roman Republic. power and proclaimed the republic. Mazzini hurried to Rome to see his dream realized, and was chosen head of the Triumvirate. On the 18th Pius invited the armed intervention of France, Austria, Naples and Spain to restore his authority. In Tuscany the government drifted from the moderates to the extreme democrats; the Ridolfi ministry was succeeded after Custozza by that of Ricasoli, and the latter by that of Capponi. The lower classes provoked disorders, which were very serious at Leghorn, and were only quelled by Guerrazzi’s energy. Capponi resigned in October 1848, and Leopold reluctantly consented to a democratic ministry led by Guerrazzi and Montanelli, the former a very ambitious and unscrupulous man, the latter honest but fantastic. Following the Roman example, a constituent assembly was demanded to vote on union with Rome and eventually with the rest of Italy. The grand-duke, fearing an excommunication from the pope, refused the request, and left Florence for Siena and 53 S. Stefano; on the 8th of February 1849 the republic was proclaimed, and on the 21st, at the pressing request of the pope and the king of Naples, Leopold went to Gaeta.

Ferdinand did not openly break his constitutional promises until Sicily was reconquered. His troops had captured Messina after a bombardment which earned him the sobriquet of “King Bomba”; Catania and Syracuse fell soon after, hideous atrocities being everywhere committed with his sanction. He now prorogued parliament, adopted stringent measures against the Liberals, and retired to Gaeta, the haven of refuge for deposed despots.

But so long as Piedmont was not completely crushed none of the princes dared to take decisive measures against their subjects; in spite of Custozza, Charles Albert still had an army, and Austria, with revolutions in Vienna, Hungary and Bohemia on her hands, could not intervene. In Piedmont the Pinelli-Revel ministry, which had continued the negotiations for an alliance with Leopold and the pope, resigned as it could not count on a parliamentary majority, and in December the returned exile Gioberti formed a new ministry. His proposal to reinstate Leopold and the pope with Piedmontese arms, so as to avoid Austrian intervention, was rejected by both potentates, and met with opposition even in Piedmont, which would thereby have forfeited its prestige throughout Italy. Austrian mediation was now imminent, as the Vienna revolution had been crushed, and the new emperor, Francis Joseph, refused to consider any settlement other than on the basis of the treaties of 1815. But Charles Albert renews the war. Charles Albert, who, whatever his faults, had a generous nature, was determined that so long as he had an army in being he could not abandon the Lombards and the Venetians, whom he had encouraged in their resistance, without one more effort, though he knew full well that he was staking all on a desperate chance. On the 12th of March 1849, he denounced the armistice, and, owing to the want of confidence in Piedmontese strategy after 1848, gave the chief command to the Polish General Chrzanowski. His forces amounted to 80,000 men, including a Lombard corps and some Roman, Tuscan and other volunteers. But the discipline and moral of the army were shaken and its organization faulty. General Ramorino, disobeying his instructions, failed to prevent a corps of Austrians under Lieut. Field-Marshal d’Aspre from seizing Mortara, a fault for which he was afterwards court-martialled and shot, and after some preliminary fighting Radetzky won the decisive battle of Novara (March 23) which broke up the Piedmontese army. The king, who had sought death in vain all day, had to ask terms of Radetzky; the latter demanded Accession of Victor Emmanuel II. a slice of Piedmont and the heir to the throne (Victor Emmanuel) as a hostage, without a reservation for the consent of parliament. Charles Albert, realizing his own failure and thinking that his son might obtain better terms, abdicated and departed at once for Portugal, where he died in a monastery a few months later. Victor Emmanuel went in person to treat with Radetzky on the 24th of March. The Field-Marshal received him most courteously and offered not only to waive the demand for a part of Piedmontese territory, but to enlarge the kingdom, on condition that the constitution should be abolished and the blue Piedmontese flag substituted for the tricolor. But the young king was determined to abide by his father’s oath, and had therefore to agree to an Austrian occupation of the territory between the Po, the Ticino and the Sesia, and of half the citadel of Alessandria, until peace should be concluded, the evacuation of all districts occupied by his troops outside Piedmont, the dissolution of his corps of Lombard, Polish and Hungarian volunteers and the withdrawal of his fleet from the Adriatic.

Novara set Austria free to reinstate the Italian despots. Ferdinand at once re-established autocracy in Naples; though the struggle in Sicily did not end until May, when Palermo, after a splendid resistance, capitulated. In Tuscany disorder continued, and although Guerrazzi, who had been appointed dictator, saved the country from complete anarchy, a large part of the population, especially among the peasantry, was still loyal to the grand-duke. After Novara the chief question was how to avoid an Austrian occupation, and owing to the prevailing confusion the town council of Florence took matters into its own hands and declared the grand-duke reinstated, but on a constitutional basis and without foreign help (April 12). Leopold accepted as regards the constitution, but said nothing about foreign intervention. Count Serristori, the grand-ducal commissioner, arrived in Florence on the 4th of May 1849; the national guard was disbanded; and on the 25th, the Austrians under d’Aspre entered Florence.

On the 28th of July Leopold returned to his capital, and while that event was welcomed by a part of the people, the fact that he had come under Austrian protection ended by destroying all loyalty to the dynasty, and consequently contributed not a little to Italian unity.

In Rome the triumvirate decided to defend the republic to the last. The city was quieter and more orderly than it had ever been before, for Mazzini and Ciceruacchio successfully Garibaldi. opposed all class warfare; and in April the defenders received a priceless addition to their strength in the person of Garibaldi, who, on the outbreak of the revolution in 1848, had returned with a few of his followers from his exile in South America, and in April 1849 entered Rome with some 500 men to fight for the republic. At this time France, as a counterpoise to Austrian intervention in other parts of Italy, decided to restore the pope, regardless of the fact that this France and the Roman Republic. action would necessitate the crushing of a sister republic. As yet, however, no such intention was publicly avowed. On the 25th of April General Oudinot landed with 8000 men at Civitavecchia, and on the 30th attempted to capture Rome by surprise, but was completely defeated by Garibaldi, who might have driven the French into the sea, had Mazzini allowed him to leave the city. The French republican government, in order to gain time for reinforcements to arrive, sent Ferdinand de Lesseps to pretend to treat with Mazzini, the envoy himself not being a party to this deception. Mazzini refused to allow the French into the city, but while the negotiations were being dragged on Oudinot’s force was increased to 35,000 men. At the same time an Austrian army was marching through the Legations, and Neapolitan and Spanish troops were advancing from the south. The Roman army (20,000 men) was commanded by General Rosselli, and included, besides Garibaldi’s red-shirted legionaries, volunteers from all parts of Italy, mostly very young men, many of them wealthy and of noble family. The Neapolitans were ignominiously beaten in May and retired to the frontier; on the 1st of June Oudinot declared that he would attack Rome on the 4th, but by beginning operations on the 3rd, when no attack was expected, he captured an important position in the Pamphili gardens.

In spite of this success, however, it was not until the end of the month, and after desperate fighting, that the French penetrated within the walls and the defence ceased (June 29). The Assembly, which had continued in session, was dispersed by the French troops on the 2nd of July, but Mazzini escaped a week later. Garibaldi quitted the city, followed by 4000 of his men, and attempted to join the defenders of Venice. In spite of the fact that he was pursued by the armies of four Powers, he succeeded in reaching San Marino; but his force melted away and, after hiding in the marshes of Ravenna, he fled across the peninsula, assisted by nobles, peasants and priests, to the Tuscan coast, whence he reached Piedmont and eventually America, to await a new call to fight for Italy (see Garibaldi).

After a heroic defence, conducted by Giuseppe Martinengo, Brescia was recaptured in April by the Austrians under Lieut. Field-Marshal von Haynau, the atrocities which followed earning for Haynau the name of “The Reduction of Venice by Austria. Hyena of Brescia.” In May they seized Bologna, and Ancona in June, restoring order in those towns by the same methods as at Brescia. Venice alone still held out; after Novara the Piedmontese commissioners withdrew and Manin again took charge of the government. The assembly 54 voted: “Venice resists the Austrians at all costs,” and the citizens and soldiers, strengthened by the arrival of volunteers from all parts of Italy, including Pepe, who was given the chief command of the defenders, showed the most splendid devotion in their hopeless task. By the end of May the city was blockaded by land and sea, and in July the bombardment began. On the 24th the city, reduced by famine, capitulated on favourable terms. Manin, Pepe and a few others were excluded from the amnesty and went into exile.

Thus were despotism and foreign predominance re-established throughout Italy save in Piedmont. Yet the “terrible year” was by no means all loss. The Italian cause had been crushed, but revolution and war had strengthened the feeling of unity, for Neapolitans had fought for Venice, Lombards for Rome, Piedmontese for all Italy. Piedmont was shown to possess the qualities necessary to constitute the nucleus of a great nation. It was now evident that the federal idea was impossible, for none of the princes except Victor Emmanuel could be trusted, and that unity and freedom could not be achieved under a republic, for nothing could be done without the Piedmontese army, which was royalist to the core. All reasonable men were now convinced that the question of the ultimate form of the Italian government was secondary, and that the national efforts should be concentrated on the task of expelling the Austrians; the form of government could be decided afterwards. Liberals were by no means inclined to despair of accomplishing this task; for hatred of the foreigners, and of the despots restored by their bayonets, had been deepened by the humiliations and cruelties suffered during the war into a passion common to all Italy.

When the terms of the Austro-Piedmontese armistice were announced in the Chamber at Turin they aroused great indignation, but the king succeeded in convincing the deputies that they were inevitable. The peace negotiations Piedmont after the war. dragged on for several months, involving two changes of ministry, and D’Azeglio became premier. Through Anglo-French mediation Piedmont’s war indemnity was reduced from 230,000,000 to 75,000,000 lire, but the question of the amnesty remained. The king declared himself ready to go to war again if those compromised in the Lombard revolution were not freely pardoned, and at last Austria agreed to amnesty all save a very few, and in August the peace terms were agreed upon. The Chamber, however, refused to ratify them, and it was not until the king’s eloquent appeal from Moncalieri to his people’s loyalty, and after a dissolution and the election of a new parliament, that the treaty was ratified (January 9, 1850). The situation in Piedmont was far from promising, the exchequer was empty, the army disorganized, the country despondent and suspicious of the king. If Piedmont was to be fitted for the part which optimists expected it to play, everything must be built up anew. Legislation had to be entirely reformed, and the bill for abolishing the special jurisdiction for the clergy (foro ecclesiastico) and other medieval privileges aroused the bitter opposition of the Vatican as well as of the Piedmontese clericals. This Cavour. same year (1850) Cavour, who had been in parliament for some time and had in his speech of the 7th of March struck the first note of encouragement after the gloom of Novara, became minister of agriculture, and in 1851 also assumed the portfolio of finance. He ended by dominating the cabinet, but owing to his having negotiated a union of the Right Centre and the Left Centre (the Connubio) in the conviction that the country needed the moderate elements of both parties, he quarrelled with D’Azeglio (who, as an uncompromising conservative, failed to see the value of such a move) and resigned. But D’Azeglio was not equal to the situation, and he, too, resigned in November 1852; whereupon the king appointed Cavour prime minister, a position which with short intervals he held until his death.

The Austrians in the period from 1849 to 1859, known as the decennio della resistenza (decade of resistance), were made to feel that they were in a conquered country where they could have no social intercourse with the people; for no self-respecting Austrian rule after 1849. Lombard or Venetian would even speak to an Austrian. Austria, on the other hand, treated her Italian subjects with great severity. The Italian provinces were the most heavily taxed in the whole empire, and much of the money thus levied was spent either for the benefit of other provinces or to pay for the huge army of occupation and the fortresses in Italy. The promise of a constitution for the empire, made in 1849, was never carried out; the government of Lombardo-Venetia was vested in Field-Marshal Radetzky; and although only very few of the revolutionists were excluded from the amnesty, the carrying of arms or the distribution or possession of revolutionary literature was punished with death. Long terms of imprisonment and the bastinado, the latter even inflicted on women, were the penalties for the least expression of anti-Austrian opinion.

The Lombard republicans had been greatly weakened by the events of 1848, but Mazzini still believed that a bold act by a few revolutionists would make the people rise en masse and expel the Austrians. A conspiracy, planned with the object, among others, of kidnapping the emperor while on a visit to Venice and forcing him to make concessions, was postponed in consequence of the coup d’état by which Louis Napoleon became emperor of the French (1852); but a chance discovery led to a large number of arrests, and the state trials at Mantua, conducted in the most shamelessly inquisitorial manner, resulted in five death sentences, including that of the priest Tazzoli, and many of imprisonment for long terms. Even this did not convince Mazzini of the hopelessness of such attempts, for he was out of touch with Italian public opinion, and he greatly weakened his influence by favouring a crack-brained outbreak at Milan on the 6th of February 1853, which was easily quelled, numbers of the insurgents being executed or imprisoned. Radetzky, not satisfied with this, laid an embargo on the property of many Lombard emigrants who had settled in Piedmont and become naturalized, accusing them of complicity. The Piedmontese government rightly regarded this measure as a violation of the peace treaty of 1850, and Cavour recalled the Piedmontese minister from Vienna, an action which was endorsed by Italian public opinion generally, and won the approval of France and England.

Cavour’s ideal for the present was the expulsion of Austria from Italy and the expansion of Piedmont into a north Italian kingdom; and, although he did not yet think of Italian unity as a question of practical policy, he began to foresee it as a future possibility. But in reorganizing the shattered finances of the state and preparing it for its greater destinies, he had to impose heavy taxes, which led to rioting and involved the minister himself in considerable though temporary unpopularity. His ecclesiastical legislation, too, met with bitter opposition from the Church.

But the question was soon forgotten in the turmoil caused by the Crimean War. Cavour believed that by taking part in the war his country would gain for itself a military status and a place in the councils of the great Powers, and Crimean War. establish claims on Great Britain and France for the realization of its Italian ambitions. One section of public opinion desired to make Piedmont’s co-operation subject to definite promises by the Powers; but the latter refused to bind themselves, and both Victor Emmanuel and Cavour realized that, even without such promises, participation would give Piedmont a claim. There was also the danger that Austria might join the allies first and Piedmont be left isolated; but there were also strong arguments on the other side, for while the Radical party saw no obvious reason why Piedmont should fight other people’s battles, and therefore opposed the alliance, there was the risk that Austria might join the alliance together with Piedmont, which would have constituted a disastrous situation. Da Italy and the Congress of Paris, 1856. Bormida, the minister for foreign affairs, resigned rather than agree to the proposal, and other statesmen were equally opposed to it. But after long negotiations the treaty of alliance was signed in January 1855, and while Austria remained neutral, a well-equipped Piedmontese force of 15,000 men, under General La Marmora, sailed for the Crimea. Everything turned out as Cavour had hoped. 55 The Piedmontese troops distinguished themselves in the field, gaining the sympathies of the French and English; and at the subsequent congress of Paris (1856), where Cavour himself was Sardinian representative, the Italian question was discussed, and the intolerable oppression of the Italian peoples by Austria and the despots ventilated.

Austria at last began to see that a policy of coercion was useless and dangerous, and made tentative efforts at conciliation. Taxation was somewhat reduced, the censorship was made less severe, political amnesties were granted, humaner officials were appointed and the Congregations (a sort of shadowy consultative assembly) were revived. In 1856 the emperor and empress visited their Italian dominions, but were received with icy coldness; the following year, on the retirement of Radetzky at the age of ninety-three, the archduke Maximilian, an able, cultivated and kind-hearted man, was appointed viceroy. He made desperate efforts to conciliate the population, and succeeded with a few of the nobles, who were led to believe in the possibility of an Italian confederation, including Lombardy and Venetia which would be united to Austria by a personal union alone; but the immense majority of all classes rejected these advances, and came to regard union with Piedmont with increasing favour.13

Meanwhile Francis V. of Modena, restored to his duchy by Austrian bayonets, continued to govern according to the traditions of his house. Charles II. of Parma, after having been reinstated by the Austrians, abdicated in favour of his Restored governments after 1849. son Charles III. a drunken libertine and a cruel tyrant (May 1849); the latter was assassinated in 1854, and a regency under his widow, Marie Louise, was instituted during which the government became somewhat more tolerable, although by no means free from political persecution; in 1857 the Austrian troops evacuated the duchy. Leopold of Tuscany suspended the constitution, and in 1852 formally abolished it by order from Vienna; he also concluded a treaty of semi-subjection with Austria and a Concordat with the pope for granting fresh privileges to the Church. His government, however, was not characterized by cruelty like those of his brother despots, and Guerrazzi and the other Liberals of 1849, although tried and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, were merely exiled. Yet the opposition gained recruits among all the ablest and most respectable Tuscans. In Rome, after the restoration of the temporal power by the French troops, the pope paid no attention to Louis Napoleon’s advice to maintain some form of constitution, to grant a general amnesty, and to secularize the administration. He promised, indeed, a consultative council of state, and granted an amnesty from which no less than 25,000 persons were excluded; but on his return to Rome (12th April 1850), after he was quite certain that France had given up all idea of imposing constitutional limitations on him, he re-established his government on the old lines of priestly absolutism, and, devoting himself to religious practices, left political affairs mostly to the astute cardinal Antonelli, who repressed with great severity the political agitation which still continued. At Naples Persecution of Liberals in Naples. a trifling disturbance in September 1849, led to the arrest of a large number of persons connected with the Unità Italiana, a society somewhat similar to the Carbonari. The prisoners included Silvio Spaventa, Luigi Settembrini, Carlo Poerio and many other cultured and worthy citizens. Many condemnations followed, and hundreds of “politicals” were immured in hideous dungeons, a state of things which provoked Gladstone’s famous letters to Lord Aberdeen, in which Bourbon rule was branded for all time as “the negation of God erected into a system of government.” But oppressive, corrupt and inefficient as it was, the government was not confronted by the uncompromising hostility of the whole people; the ignorant priest-ridden masses were either indifferent or of mildly Bourbon sympathies; the opposition was constituted by the educated middle classes and a part of the nobility. The revolutionary attempts of Bentivegna in Sicily (1856) and of the Mazzinian Carlo Pisacane, who landed at Sapri in Calabria with a few followers in 1857, failed from lack of popular support, and the leaders were killed.

The decline of Mazzini’s influence was accompanied by the rise of a new movement in favour of Italian unity under Victor Emmanuel, inspired by the Milanese marquis Giorgio Pallavicini, who had spent 14 years in the Spielberg, New Unionist movement. and by Manin, living in exile in Paris, both of them ex-republicans who had become monarchists. The propaganda was organized by the Sicilian La Farina by means of the Società Nazionale. All who accepted the motto “Unity, Independence and Victor Emmanuel” were admitted into the society. Many of the republicans and Mazzinians joined it, but Mazzini himself regarded it with no sympathy. In the Austrian provinces and in the duchies it carried all before it, and gained many adherents in the Legations, Rome and Naples, although in the latter regions the autonomist feeling was still strong even among the Liberals. In Piedmont itself it was at first less successful; and Cavour, although he aspired ultimately to a united Italy with Rome as the capital,14 openly professed no ambition beyond the expulsion of Austria and the formation of a North Italian kingdom. But he gave secret encouragement to the movement, and ended by practically directing its activity through La Farina. The king, too, was in close sympathy with the society’s aims, but for the present it was necessary to hide this attitude from the eyes of the Powers, whose sympathy Cavour could only hope to gain by professing hostility to everything that savoured of revolution. Both the king and his minister realized that Piedmont alone, even with the help of the National Society, could not expel Austria from Italy without foreign assistance. Piedmontese finances had been strained to breaking-point to organize an army obviously intended for other than merely defensive purposes. Cavour now set himself to the task of isolating Austria and securing an alliance for her expulsion. A British alliance would have been preferable, but the British government was too much concerned with the preservation of Napoleon III. and Italy. European peace. The emperor Napoleon, almost alone among Frenchmen, had genuine Italian sympathies. But were he to intervene in Italy, the intervention would not only have to be successful; it would have to bring tangible advantages to France. Hence his hesitations and vacillations, which Cavour steadily worked to overcome. Suddenly on the 14th of January 1858 Napoleon’s life was attempted by Felice Orsini (q.v.) a Mazzinian Romagnol, who believed that Napoleon was the chief obstacle to the success of the revolution in Italy. The attempt failed and its author was caught and executed, but while it appeared at first to destroy Napoleon’s Italian sympathies and led to a sharp interchange of notes between Paris and Turin, the emperor was really impressed by the attempt and by Orsini’s letter from prison exhorting him to intervene in Italy. He realized how deep the Italian feeling for independence must be, and that a refusal to act now might result in further attempts on his life, as indeed Orsini’s letter stated. Consequently negotiations with Cavour were resumed, and a meeting with him was arranged to take place at Plombières (20th and 21st of July 1858). There it was agreed that France should supply 200,000 men and Piedmont 100,000 for the expulsion of the Austrians from Italy, that Piedmont should be expanded into a kingdom of North Italy, that central Italy should form a separate kingdom, on the throne of which the emperor contemplated placing one of his own relatives, and Naples another, possibly under Lucien Murat; the pope, while retaining only the “Patrimony of St Peter” (the Roman province), would be president of the Italian confederation. In exchange for French assistance Piedmont would cede Savoy and perhaps Nice to France; and a marriage between Victor Emmanuel’s daughter Clothilde and Jerome Bonaparte, to which Napoleon attached great importance, although not made a definite condition, was also discussed. No written agreement, however, was signed.

56

On the 1st of January 1859, Napoleon astounded the diplomatic world by remarking to Baron Hübner, the Austrian ambassador, at the New Year’s reception at the Tuileries, that he regretted that relations between France and Austria were “not so good as they had been”; and at the opening of the Piedmontese parliament on the 10th Victor Emmanuel pronounced the memorable words that he could not be insensible to the cry of pain (il grido di dolore) which reached him from all parts of Italy. Yet after these warlike declarations and after the signing of a military convention at Turin, the king agreeing to all the conditions proposed by Napoleon, the latter suddenly became pacific again, and adopted the Russian suggestion that Italian affairs should be settled by a congress. Austria agreed on condition that Piedmont should disarm and should not be admitted to the congress. Lord Malmesbury urged the Sardinian government to yield; but Cavour refused to disarm, or to accept the principle of a congress, unless Piedmont were admitted to it on equal terms with the other Powers. As neither the Sardinian nor the Austrian government seemed disposed to yield, the idea of a congress had to be abandoned. Lord Malmesbury now proposed that all three Powers should disarm simultaneously and that, as suggested by Austria, the precedent of Laibach should be followed and all the Italian states invited to plead their cause at the bar of the Great Powers. To this course Napoleon consented, to the despair of King Victor Emmanuel and Cavour, who saw in this a proof that he wished to back out of his engagement and make war impossible. When war seemed imminent volunteers from all parts of Italy, especially from Lombardy, had come pouring into Piedmont to enrol themselves in the army or in the specially raised volunteer corps (the command of which was given to Garibaldi), and “to go to Piedmont” became a test of patriotism throughout the country. Urged by a peremptory message from Napoleon, Cavour saw the necessity of bowing to the will of Europe, of disbanding the volunteers and reducing the army to a peace footing. The situation, however, was saved by a false move on the part of Austria. At Vienna the war party was in the ascendant; the convention for disarmament had been signed, but so far from its being carried out, the reserves were actually called out on the 12th of April; and on the 23rd, before Cavour’s decision was known at Vienna, an Austrian ultimatum reached Turin, summoning Piedmont to disarm within three days on pain of invasion. Cavour was filled with joy at the turn affairs had taken, for Italian war of 1859. Austria now appeared as the aggressor. On the 29th Francis Joseph declared war, and the next day his troops crossed the Ticino, a move which was followed, as Napoleon had stated it would be, by a French declaration of war. The military events of the Italian war of 1859 are described under Italian Wars. The actions of Montebello (May 20), Palestro (May 31) and Melegnano (June 8) and the battles of Magenta (June 4) and Solferino (June 24) all went against the Austrians. Garibaldi’s volunteers raised the standard of insurrection and held the field in the region of the Italian lakes. After Solferino the allies prepared to besiege the Quadrilateral. Then Napoleon suddenly drew back, unwilling, for many reasons, to continue the campaign. Firstly, he doubted whether the allies were strong enough to attack the Quadrilateral, for he saw the defects of his own army’s organization; secondly, he began to fear intervention by Prussia, whose attitude appeared menacing; thirdly, although really anxious to expel the Austrians from Italy, he did not wish to create a too powerful Italian state at the foot of the Alps, which, besides constituting a potential danger to France, might threaten the pope’s temporal power, and Napoleon believed that he could not stand without the clerical vote; fourthly, the war had been declared against the wishes of the great majority of Frenchmen and was even now far from popular. Consequently, to the surprise of all Europe, while the allied forces were drawn up ready for battle, Napoleon, without consulting Victor Emmanuel, sent General Fleury on the 6th of July to Francis Joseph to ask for an armistice, which was agreed to. The king was now informed, and on the 8th Generals Vaillant, Della Rocca and Hess met at Villafranca and arranged an armistice until the 15th of August. But the king and Cavour were terribly upset by Armistice of Villafranca. this move, which meant peace without Venetia; Cavour hurried to the king’s headquarters at Monzambano and in excited, almost disrespectful, language implored him not to agree to peace and to continue the war alone, relying on the Piedmontese army and a general Italian revolution. But Victor Emmanuel on this occasion proved the greater statesman of the two; he understood that, hard as it was, he must content himself with Lombardy for the present, lest all be lost. On the 11th the two emperors met at Villafranca, where they agreed that Lombardy should be ceded to Piedmont, and Venetia retained by Austria but governed by Liberal methods; that the rulers of Tuscany, Parma and Modena, who had been again deposed, should be restored, the Papal States reformed, the Legations given a separate administration and the pope made president of an Italian confederation including Austria as mistress of Venetia. It was a revival of the old impossible federal idea, which would have left Italy divided and dominated by Austria and France. Victor Emmanuel regretfully signed the peace preliminaries, adding, however, pour ce qui me concerne (which meant that he made no undertaking with regard to central Italy), and Cavour resigned office.

The Lombard campaign had produced important effects throughout the rest of Italy. The Sardinian government had formally invited that of Tuscany to participate in the war of liberation, and on the grand-duke rejecting Unionist movements in Central Italy. the proposal, moderates and democrats combined to present an ultimatum to Leopold demanding that he should abdicate in favour of his son, grant a constitution and take part in the campaign. On his refusal Florence rose as one man, and he, feeling that he could not rely on his troops, abandoned Tuscany on the 27th of April 1859. A provisional government was formed, led by Ubaldino Peruzzi, and was strengthened on the 8th of May by the inclusion of Baron Bettino Ricasoli, a man of great force of character, who became the real head of the administration, and all through the ensuing critical period aimed unswervingly at Italian unity. Victor Emmanuel, at the request of the people, assumed the protectorate over Tuscany, where he was represented by the Sardinian minister Boncompagni. On the 23rd of May Prince Napoleon, with a French army corps, landed at Leghorn, his avowed object being to threaten the Austrian flank;15 and in June these troops, together with a Tuscan contingent, departed for Lombardy. In the duchy of Modena an insurrection had broken out, and after Magenta Duke Francis joined the Austrian army in Lombardy, leaving a regency in charge. But on the 14th of June the municipality formed a provisional government and proclaimed annexation to Piedmont; L. C. Farini was chosen dictator, and 4000 Modenese joined the allies. The duchess-regent of Parma also withdrew to Austrian territory, and on the 11th of June annexation to Piedmont was proclaimed. At the same time the Austrians evacuated the Legations and Cardinal Milesi, the papal representative, departed. The municipality of Bologna formed a Giunta, to which Romagna and the Marches adhered, and invoked the dictatorship of Victor Emmanuel; at Perugia, too, a provisional government was constituted under F. Guardabassi. But the Marches were soon reoccupied by pontifical troops, and Perugia fell, its capture being followed by an indiscriminate massacre of men, women and children. In July the marquis D’Azeglio arrived at Bologna as royal commissioner.

After the meetings at Villafranca Napoleon returned to France. The question of the cession of Nice and Savoy had not been raised; for the emperor had not fulfilled his part of the bargain, that he would drive the Austrians out of Italy, since Venice was yet to be freed. At the same time he was resolutely opposed to the Piedmontese annexations in central Italy. But here Cavour intervened, for he was determined to maintain the annexations, at all costs. Although he had resigned, he remained 57 in office until Rattazzi could form a new ministry; and while officially recalling the royal commissioners according to the preliminaries of Villafranca, he privately encouraged them to remain and organize resistance to the return of the despots, if necessary by force (see Cavour). Farini, who in August was elected dictator of Parma as well as Modena, and Ricasoli, who since, on the withdrawal of the Sardinian commissioner Boncompagni, had become supreme in Tuscany, were now the men who by their energy and determination achieved the annexation of central Italy to Piedmont, in spite of the strenuous opposition of the French emperor and the weakness of many Italian Liberals. In August Marco Minghetti succeeded in forming a military league and a customs union between Tuscany, Romagna and the duchies, and in procuring the adoption of the Piedmontese codes; and envoys were sent to Paris to mollify Napoleon. Constituent assemblies met and voted for unity under Victor Emmanuel, but the king could not openly accept the proposal owing to the emperor’s opposition, backed by the presence of French armies in Lombardy; at a word from Napoleon there might have been an Austrian, and perhaps a Franco-Austrian, invasion of central Italy. But to Napoleon’s statement that he could not agree to the unification of Italy, as he was bound by his promises to Austria at Villafranca, Victor Emmanuel replied that he himself, after Magenta and Solferino, was bound in honour to link his fate with that of the Italian people; and General Manfredo Fanti was sent by the Turin government to organize the army of the Central League, with Garibaldi under him.

The terms of the treaty of peace signed at Zürich on the 10th of November were practically identical with those of the preliminaries of Villafranca. It was soon evident, however, that the Italian question was far from being settled. Treaty of Zürich. Central Italy refused to be bound by the treaty, and offered the dictatorship to Prince Carignano, who, himself unable to accept owing to Napoleon’s opposition, suggested Boncompagni, who was accordingly elected. Napoleon now realized that it would be impossible, without running serious risks, to oppose the movement in favour of unity. He suggested an international congress on the question; inspired a pamphlet, Le Pape et le Congrès, which proposed a reduction of the papal territory, and wrote to the pope advising him to cede Romagna in order to obtain better guarantees for the rest of his dominions. The proposed congress fell through, and Napoleon thereupon raised the question of the cession of Nice and Savoy as the price of his consent to the union of the central provinces with the Italian kingdom. In January 1866 the Rattazzi ministry fell, after completing the fusion of Lombardy with Piedmont, and Cavour was again summoned by the king to the head of affairs.

Cavour well knew the unpopularity that would fall upon him by consenting to the cession of Nice, the birthplace of Garibaldi, and Savoy, the cradle of the royal house; but he realized the necessity of the sacrifice, if central Italy was to be won. The negotiations were long drawn out; for Cavour struggled to save Nice and Napoleon was anxious to make conditions, especially as regards Tuscany. At last, on the 24th of March, the treaty was signed whereby the cession was agreed upon, but subject to the vote of the populations concerned and ratification by the Italian parliament. The king having formally accepted the voluntary annexation of the duchies, Tuscany and Romagna, appointed the prince of Carignano viceroy with Ricasoli as governor-general (22nd of March), and was immediately afterwards excommunicated by the pope. On the 2nd of April 1860 the new Italian parliament, including members from central Italy, assembled at Turin. Three weeks later the treaty of Turin ceding Savoy and Nice to France was ratified, though not without much opposition, and Cavour was fiercely reviled for his share in the transaction, especially by Garibaldi, who even contemplated an expedition to Nice, but was induced to desist by the king.

In May 1859 Ferdinand of Naples was succeeded by his son Francis II., who gave no signs of any intention to change his father’s policy, and, in spite of Napoleon’s advice, refused to grant a constitution or to enter into an alliance with Sardinia. Naples under Francis II. The result was a revolutionary agitation which in Sicily, stirred up by Mazzini’s agents, Rosalino Pilo and Francesco Crispi, culminated, on the 5th of April 1860, in open revolt. An invitation had been sent Garibaldi to put himself at the head of the movement; at first he had refused, but reports of the progress of the insurrection soon determined him to risk all on a bold stroke, and on the 5th of May he embarked at Quarto, near Genoa, with Bixio, the Hungarian Türr and some 1000 picked followers, on two steamers. The preparations for the expedition, openly made, were viewed by Cavour with mixed feelings. With its object he sympathized; yet he could not give official sanction to an armed attack on a friendly power, nor on the other hand could he forbid an action enthusiastically approved by public opinion. He accordingly directed the Sardinian admiral Persano only to arrest the expedition should it touch at a Sardinian port; while in reply to the indignant protests of the continental powers he disclaimed all knowledge of the affair. On the 11th Garibaldi landed at Marsala, without opposition, defeated the Neapolitan forces at Calatafimi on the 15th, and on the 27th entered Palermo in triumph, where he proclaimed himself, in King Victor Emmanuel’s name, dictator of Sicily. By the end of July, after the hard-won victory of Milazzo, the whole island, with the exception of the citadel of Messina and a few unimportant ports, was in his hands.

From Cavour’s point of view, the situation was now one of extreme anxiety. It was certain that, his work in Sicily done, Garibaldi would turn his attention to the Neapolitan dominions on the mainland; and beyond these lay Umbria and the Marches and—Rome. It was all-important that whatever victories Garibaldi might win should be won for the Italian kingdom, and, above all, that no ill-timed attack on the Papal States should provoke an intervention of the powers. La Farina was accordingly sent to Palermo to urge the immediate annexation of Sicily to Piedmont. But Garibaldi, who wished to keep a free hand, distrusted Cavour and scorned all counsels of expediency, refused to agree; Sicily was the necessary base for his projected invasion of Naples; it would be time enough to announce its union with Piedmont when Victor Emmanuel had been proclaimed king of United Italy in Rome. Foiled by the dictator’s stubbornness, Cavour had once more to take to underhand methods; and, while continuing futile negotiations with King Francis, sent his agents into Naples to stir up disaffection and create a sentiment in favour of national unity strong enough, in any event, to force Garibaldi’s hand.

On the 8th of August, in spite of the protests and threats of most of the powers, the Garibaldians began to cross the Straits, and in a short time 20,000 of them were on the mainland. The Bourbonists in Calabria, utterly disorganized, Garibaldi in Naples. broke before the invincible red-shirts, and the 40,000 men defending the Salerno-Avellino line made no better resistance, being eventually ordered to fall back on the Volturno. On the 6th of September King Francis, with his family and several of the ministers, sailed for Gaeta, and the next day Garibaldi entered Naples alone in advance of the army, and was enthusiastically welcomed. He proclaimed himself dictator of the kingdom, with Bertani as secretary of state, but as a proof of his loyalty he consigned the Neapolitan fleet to Persano.

His rapid success, meanwhile, inspired both the French emperor and the government of Turin with misgivings. There was a danger that Garibaldi’s entourage, composed of ex-Mazzinians, might induce him to proclaim a republic Intervention of Piedmont. and march on Rome; which would have meant French intervention and the undoing of all Cavour’s work. King Victor Emmanuel and Cavour both wrote to Garibaldi urging him not to spoil all by aiming at too much. But Garibaldi poured scorn on all suggestions of compromise; and Cavour saw that the situation could only be saved by the armed participation of Piedmont in the liberation of south Italy.

58

The situation was, indeed, sufficiently critical. The unrest in Naples had spread into Umbria and the Marches, and the papal troops, under General Lamoricière, were preparing to suppress it. Had they succeeded, the position of the Piedmontese in Romagna would have been imperilled; had they failed, the road would have been open for Garibaldi to march on Rome. In the circumstances, Cavour decided that Piedmont must anticipate Garibaldi, occupy Umbria and the Marches and place Italy between the red-shirts and Rome. His excuse was the pope’s refusal to dismiss his foreign levies (September 7). On the 11th of September a Piedmontese army of 35,000 men crossed the frontier at La Cattolica; on the 18th the pontifical army was crushed at Castelfidardo; and when, on the 29th, Ancona fell, Umbria and the Marches were in the power of Piedmont. On the 15th of October King Victor Emmanuel crossed the Neapolitan border at the head of his troops.

It had been a race between Garibaldi and the Piedmontese. “If we do not arrive at the Volturno before Garibaldi reaches La Cattolica,” Cavour had said, “the monarchy is lost, and Italy will remain in the prison-house of the Revolution.”16 Fortunately for his policy, the red-shirts had encountered a formidable obstacle to their advance in the Neapolitan army entrenched on the Volturno under the guns of Capua. On the 19th of September the Garibaldians began their attack on this position with their usual impetuous valour; but they were repulsed again and again, and it was not till the 2nd of October, after a two days’ pitched battle, that they succeeded in carrying the position. The way was now open for the advance of the Piedmontese, who, save at Isernia, encountered practically no resistance. On the 29th Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi met, and on the 7th of November they entered Naples together. Garibaldi now resigned his authority into the king’s hands and, refusing the title and other honours offered to him, retired to his island home of Caprera.17

Gaeta remained still to be taken. The Piedmontese under Cialdini had begun the siege on the 5th of November, but it was not until the 10th of January 1861, when at the instance of Great Britain Napoleon withdrew his Recognition of the united kingdom of Italy. squadron, that the blockade could be made complete. On the 13th of February the fortress surrendered, Francis and his family having departed by sea for papal territory. The citadel of Messina capitulated on the 22nd, and Civitella del Tronto, the last stronghold of Bourbonism, on the 21st of March. On the 18th of February the first Italian parliament met at Turin, and Victor Emmanuel was proclaimed king of Italy. The new kingdom was recognized by Great Britain within a fortnight, by France three months later, and subsequently by other powers. It included the whole peninsula except Venetia and Rome, and these the government and the nation were determined to annex sooner or later.

On the 18th of April the question of the volunteers was discussed in one of the most dramatic sittings of the Italian parliament. Garibaldi, elected member for Naples, denounced Cavour in unmeasured terms for his treatment of the volunteers and for the cession of Nice, accusing him of leading the country to civil war. These charges produced a tremendous uproar, but Bixio by a splendid appeal for concord succeeded in calming the two adversaries. On the 23rd of April they were formally reconciled in the presence of the king, but the scene of the 18th of April hastened Cavour’s end. In May the Roman question was discussed in parliament. Cavour had often declared that in the end the capital of Italy must be Rome, for it alone of all Italian cities had an unquestioned claim to moral supremacy, and his views of a free church in a free state were well known. He had negotiated secretly with the pope through unofficial agents, and sketched out a scheme of settlement of the Roman question, which foreshadowed in its main features the law of papal guarantees. But it was not given him to see this problem Death of Cavour. solved, for his health was broken by the strain of the last few years, during which practically the whole administration of the country was concentrated in his hands. He died after a short illness on the 6th of June 1861, at a moment when Italy had the greatest need of his statesmanship.

Ricasoli now became prime minister, Cavour having advised the king to that effect. The financial situation was far from brilliant, for the expenses of the administration of Italy were far larger than the total of those of all the Ricasoli Ministry. Financial difficulties. separate states, and everything had to be created or rebuilt. The budget of 1861 showed a deficit of 344,000,000 lire, while the service of the debt was 110,000,000; deficits were met by new loans issued on unfavourable terms (that of July 1861 for 500,000,000 lire cost the government 714,833,000), and government stock fell as low as 36. It was now that the period of reckless finance began which, save for a lucid interval under Sella, was to last until nearly the end of the century. Considering the state of the country and the coming war for Venice, heavy expenditure was inevitable, but good management might have rendered the situation less dangerous. Ricasoli, honest and capable as he was, failed to win popularity; his attitude on the Roman question, which became more uncompromising after the failure of his attempt at conciliation, and his desire to emancipate Italy from French predominance, brought down on him the hostility of Napoleon. He fell in March 1862, and was succeeded by Rattazzi, who being more Rattazzi Ministry. pliable and intriguing managed at first to please everybody, including Garibaldi. At this time the extremists and even the moderates were full of schemes for liberating Venice and Rome. Garibaldi had a plan, with which the premier was connected, for attacking Austria by raising a revolt in the Balkans and Hungary, and later he contemplated a raid 59 into the Trentino; but the government, seeing the danger of such an attempt, arrested several Garibaldians at Sarnico (near Brescia), and in the émeute which followed several persons were shot. Garibaldi now became an opponent of the ministry, and Garibaldi and Rome. Affair of Aspromonte, 1862. in June went to Sicily, where, after taking counsel with his former followers, he decided on an immediate raid on Rome. He summoned his legionaries, and in August crossed over to Calabria with 1000 men. His intentions in the main were still loyal, for he desired to capture Rome for the kingdom; and he did his best to avoid the regulars tardily sent against him. On the 29th of August 1862, however, he encountered a force under Pallavicini at Aspromonte, and, although Garibaldi ordered his men not to fire, some of the raw Sicilian volunteers discharged a few volleys which were returned by the regulars. Garibaldi himself was seriously wounded and taken prisoner. He was shut up in the fortress of Varignano, and after endless discussions as to whether he should be tried or not, the question was settled by an Minghetti Ministry. amnesty. The affair made the ministry so unpopular that it was forced to resign. Farini, who succeeded, retired almost at once on account of ill-health, and Minghetti became premier, with Visconti-Venosta as minister for foreign affairs. The financial situation continued to be seriously embarrassing; deficit was piled on deficit, loan upon loan, and the service of the debt rose from 90,000,000 lire in 1860 to 220,000,000 in 1864.

Negotiations were resumed with Napoleon for the evacuation of Rome by the French troops; but the emperor, though he saw that the temporal power could not for ever be supported by French bayonets, desired some guarantee that the France, Italy and the Roman question. evacuation should not be followed, at all events immediately, by an Italian occupation, lest Catholic opinion should lay the blame for this upon France. Ultimately the two governments concluded a convention on the 15th of September 1864, whereby France agreed to withdraw her troops from Rome so soon as the papal army should be reorganized, or at the outside within two years, Italy undertaking not to attack it nor permit others to do so, and to transfer the capital from Turin to some other city within six months.18 The change of capital would have the appearance of a definite abandonment of the Roma capitale programme, although in reality it was to be merely a tappa (stage) on the way. The convention was kept secret, Capital transferred to Florence, 1865. but the last clause leaked out and caused the bitterest feeling among the people of Turin, who would have been resigned to losing the capital provided it were transferred to Rome, but resented the fact that it was to be established in any other city, and that the convention was made without consulting parliament. Demonstrations were held which were repressed with unnecessary violence, and although the change of capital was not unpopular in the rest of Italy, where the Piemontesismo of the new régime was beginning to arouse jealousy, the secrecy with which the affair was arranged and the shooting down of the people in Turin raised such a storm of disapproval that the king for the first time used his privilege La Marmora Ministry. of dismissing the ministry. Under La Marmora’s administration the September convention was ratified, and the capital was transferred to Florence the following year. This affair resulted in an important political change, for the Piedmontese deputies, hitherto the bulwarks of moderate conservatism, now shifted to the Left or constitutional opposition.

Meanwhile, the Venetian question was becoming more and more acute. Every Italian felt the presence of the Austrians in the lagoons as a national humiliation, and between 1859 and 1866 countless plots were hatched for their Venetian question. expulsion. But, in spite of the sympathy of the king, the attempt to raise armed bands in Venetia had no success, and it became clear that the foreigner could only be driven from the peninsula by regular war. To wage this alone Italy was still too weak, and it was necessary to look round for an ally. Napoleon was sympathetic; he desired to see the Austrians expelled, and the Syllabus of Pius IX., which had stirred up the more aggressive elements among the French clergy against his government, had brought him once more into harmony with the views of Victor Emmanuel; but he dared not brave French public opinion by another war with Austria, nor did Italy desire an alliance which would only have been bought at the price of further cessions. There remained Prussia, which, now that the Danish campaign of 1864 was over, was completing her preparations for the final struggle with Austria for the hegemony of Germany; and Napoleon, who saw in the furthering of Bismarck’s plans the surest means of securing his own influence in a divided Europe, willingly lent his aid in negotiating a Prusso-Italian alliance. In the summer of 1865 Bismarck made formal proposals to La Marmora; but the pourparlers were interrupted by the conclusion of the convention of Gastein (August 14), to which Austria agreed partly under pressure of the Prusso-Italian entente. Prusso-Italian Alliance of 1866. To Italy the convention seemed like a betrayal; to Napoleon it was a set-back which he tried to retrieve by suggesting to Austria the peaceful cession of Venetia to the Italian kingdom, in order to prevent any danger of its alliance with Prussia. This proposal broke on the refusal of the emperor Francis Joseph to cede Austrian territory except as the result of a struggle; and Napoleon, won over by Bismarck at the famous interview at Biarritz, once more took up the idea of a Prusso-Italian offensive and defensive alliance. This was actually concluded on the 8th of April 1866. Its terms, dictated by a natural suspicion on the part of the Italian government, stipulated that it should only become effective in the event of Prussia declaring war on Austria within three months. Peace was not to be concluded until Italy should have received Venetia, and Prussia an equivalent territory in Germany.

The outbreak of war was postponed by further diplomatic complications. On the 12th of June Napoleon, whose policy throughout had been obscure and contradictory, signed a secret treaty with Austria, under which Venice was to be handed over to him, to be given to Italy in the event of her making a separate peace. La Marmora, however, who believed himself bound in honour to Prussia, refused to enter into a separate arrangement. On the 16th the Prussians began hostilities, and on the 20th Italy declared war.

Victor Emmanuel took the supreme command of the Italian army, and La Marmora resigned the premiership (which was assumed by Ricasoli), to become chief of the staff. La Marmora had three army corps (130,000 men) Ricasoli Ministry. under his immediate command, to operate on the Mincio, while Cialdini with 80,000 men was to operate on the Po. The Austrian southern army consisting of 95,000 men was commanded by the archduke Albert, with General von John as chief of the staff. On the 23rd of June La Marmora crossed the Mincio, and on the 24th a battle was fought at Custozza, under circumstances highly disadvantageous to the Italians, which after a stubborn contest ended in a crushing Austrian victory. Bad generalship, bad organization and the jealousy between La Marmora and Della Rocca were responsible for this defeat. Custozza might have been afterwards retrieved, for the Italians had plenty of fresh troops besides Cialdini’s army; but nothing was done, as both the king and La Marmora believed the situation to be much worse than it actually was. On the Battle of Königgrätz. 3rd of July the Prussians completely defeated the Austrians at Königgrätz, and on the 5th Austria ceded Venetia to Napoleon, accepting his mediation in favour of peace. The Italian iron-clad fleet commanded by the incapable Persano, after wasting much time at Taranto and Ancona, made an unsuccessful attack on the Dalmatian island of Lissa on the 18th of July, and on the 20th was completely defeated by the Austrian squadron, consisting of wooden ships, but commanded by the capable Admiral Tegethoff.

On the 22nd Prussia, without consulting Italy, made an armistice with Austria, while Italy obtained an eight days’ truce on condition of evacuating the Trentino, which had almost entirely 60 fallen into the hands of Garibaldi and his volunteers. Ricasoli wished to go on with the war, rather than accept Venetia as a gift from France; but the king and La Marmora saw that peace must be made, as the whole Austrian army of 350,000 men was now free to fall on Italy. An armistice was accordingly signed at Cormons on the 12th of August; Austria Venice united to Italy. handed Venetia over to General Leboeuf, representing Napoleon; and on the 3rd of October peace between Austria and Italy was concluded at Vienna. On the 19th Leboeuf handed Venetia over to the Venetian representatives, and at the plebiscite held on the 21st and 22nd, 647,246 votes were returned in favour of union with Italy, only 69 against it. When this result was announced to the king by a deputation from Venice he said: “This is the finest day of my life; Italy is made, but it is not complete.” Rome was still wanting.

Custozza and Lissa were not Italy’s only misfortunes in 1866. There had been considerable discontent in Sicily, where the government had made itself unpopular. The priesthood Revolt in Sicily, 1866. and the remnants of the Bourbon party fomented an agitation, which in September culminated in an attack on Palermo by 3000 armed insurgents, and in similar outbreaks elsewhere. The revolt was put down owing to the energy of the mayor of Palermo, Marquis A. Di Rudini, and the arrival of reinforcements. The Ricasoli cabinet fell over the law against the religious houses, and was succeeded Rattazzi Ministry. by that of Rattazzi, who with the support of the Left was apparently more fortunate. The French regular troops were withdrawn from Rome in December 1866; but the pontifical forces were largely recruited in France and commanded by officers of the imperial army, and service under the pope was considered by the French war office as equivalent to service in France. This was a violation of the letter as well as of the spirit of the September convention, and a stronger and more straightforward statesman than Rattazzi would have declared Italy absolved from its provisions. Mazzini now wanted to promote an insurrection in Roman territory, whereas Garibaldi advocated an invasion from without. He delivered a series of violent speeches against the papacy, and made open preparations for a raid, which were not interfered with by the government; but on the 23rd of September 1867 Rattazzi had him suddenly arrested and confined to Caprera. In spite of the Garibaldi attacks Rome. vigilance of the warships he escaped on the 14th of October and landed in Tuscany. Armed bands had already entered papal territory, but achieved nothing in particular. Their presence, however, was a sufficient excuse for Napoleon, under pressure of the clerical party, to send another expedition to Rome (26th of October). Rattazzi, after ordering a body of troops to enter papal territory with no Menabrea Ministry. definite object, now resigned, and was succeeded by Menabrea. Garibaldi joined the bands on the 23rd, but his ill-armed and ill-disciplined force was very inferior to his volunteers of ’49, ’60 and ’66. On the 24th he captured Monte Rotondo, but did not enter Rome as the expected insurrection had not broken out. On the 29th a French force, under de Failly, arrived, and on the 3rd of November a battle Battle of Mentana. took place at Mentana between 4000 or 5000 red-shirts and a somewhat superior force of French and pontificals. The Garibaldians, mowed down by the new French chassepôt rifles, fought until their last cartridges were exhausted, and retreated the next day towards the Italian frontier, leaving 800 prisoners.

The affair of Mentana caused considerable excitement throughout Europe, and the Roman question entered on an acute stage. Napoleon suggested his favourite expedient of a congress but the proposal broke down owing to Great Britain’s refusal to participate; and Rouher, the French premier, declared in the Chamber (5th of December 1867) that France could never permit the Italians to occupy Rome. The attitude of France strengthened that anti-French feeling in Italy which had begun with Villafranca; and Bismarck was not slow to make use of this hostility, with a view to preventing Italy from taking sides with France against Germany in the struggle between the two powers which he saw to be inevitable. At the same time Napoleon was making overtures both to Austria and to Italy, overtures which were favourably received. Victor Emmanuel was sincerely anxious to assist Napoleon, for in spite of Nice and Savoy and Mentana he felt a chivalrous desire to help the man who had fought for Italy. But with the French at Civitavecchia (they had left Rome very soon after Mentana) a war for France was not to be thought of, and Napoleon would not promise more than the literal observance of the September convention. Austria would not join France unless Italy did the same, and she realized that that was impossible unless Napoleon gave way about Rome. Consequently the negotiations were suspended. Lanza Ministry. A scandal concerning the tobacco monopoly led to the fall of Menabrea, who was succeeded in December 1869 by Giovanni Lanza, with Visconti-Venosta at the foreign office and Q. Sella as finance minister. The latter introduced a sounder financial policy, which was maintained until the fall of the Right in 1876. Mazzini, now openly hostile to the monarchy, was seized with a perfect monomania for insurrections, and promoted various small risings, the only effect of which was to show how completely his influence was gone.

In December 1869 the XXI. oecumenical council began its sittings in Rome, and on the 18th of July 1870 proclaimed the infallibility of the pope (see Vatican Council). Two days previously Napoleon had declared war on Prussia, and immediately afterwards he withdrew his troops from Civitavecchia; but he persuaded Lanza to promise to abide by the September convention, and it was not until after Worth and Gravelotte that he offered to give Italy a free hand to occupy Rome. Then it was too late; Victor Emmanuel asked Thiers if he could give his word of honour that with 100,000 Italian troops France could be saved, but Thiers remained silent. Austria replied like Italy: “It is too late.” On the 9th of August Italy made a declaration of neutrality, and three weeks later Visconti-Venosta informed the powers that Italy was about to occupy Rome. On the 3rd of September the news of Sédan reached Florence, and with the fall of Napoleon’s empire the September convention ceased to have any value. The powers having engaged to abstain from intervention in Italian affairs, Victor Emmanuel addressed a letter to Pius IX. asking him in the name of religion and peace to accept Italian protection instead of the Italian occupation of Rome. temporal power, to which the pope replied that he would only yield to force. On the 11th of September General Cadorna at the head of 60,000 men entered papal territory. The garrison of Civitavecchia surrendered to Bixio, but the 10,000 men in Rome, mostly French, Belgians, Swiss and Bavarians, under Kanzler, were ready to fight. Cardinal Antonelli would have come to terms, but the pope decided on making a sufficient show of resistance to prove that he was yielding to force. On the 20th the Italians began the attack, and General Mazé de la Roche’s division having effected a breach in the Porta Pia, the pope ordered the garrison to cease fire and the Italians poured into the Eternal City followed by thousands of Roman exiles. By noon the whole city on the left of the Tiber was occupied and the garrison laid down their arms; the next day, at the pope’s request, the Leonine City on the right bank was also occupied. It had been intended to leave that part of Rome to the pope, but by the earnest desire of the inhabitants it too was included in the Italian kingdom. At the plebiscite there were 133,681 votes for union and 1507 against it. In July 1872 King Victor Emmanuel made his solemn entry into Rome, which was then declared the capital of Italy. Thus, after a struggle of more than half a century, in spite of apparently insuperable obstacles, the liberation and the unity of Italy were accomplished.

F. History, 1870-1902

The downfall of the temporal power was hailed throughout Italy with unbounded enthusiasm. Abroad, Catholic countries at first received the tidings with resignation, and Protestant countries with joy. In France, where the Italian occupation of Rome. Government of National Defence had replaced the Empire, Crémieux, as president of the government delegation at Tours, hastened to offer his congratulations to Italy. The occupation of Rome caused no surprise to the French government, which had been forewarned on 11th September of the Italian intentions. On that occasion Jules Favre had recognized the September convention to be dead, and, while refusing explicitly to denounce it, had admitted that unless Italy went to Rome the city would become a prey to dangerous agitators. At the same time he made it clear that Italy would occupy Rome upon her own responsibility. Agreeably surprised by this attitude on the part of France, Visconti-Venosta lost no time in conveying officially the thanks of Italy to the French government. He doubtless foresaw that the language of Favre and Crémieux would not be endorsed by the French Clericals. Prussia, while satisfied at the fall of the temporal power, seemed to fear lest Italy might recompense the absence of French opposition to the occupation of Rome by armed intervention in favour of France. Bismarck, moreover, was indignant at the connivance of the Italian government in the Garibaldian expedition to Dijon, and was irritated by Visconti-Venosta’s plea in the Italian parliament for the integrity of French territory. The course of events in France, however, soon calmed German apprehensions. The advent of Thiers, his attitude towards the petition of French bishops on behalf of the pope, the recall of Senard, the French minister at Florence—who had written to congratulate Victor Emmanuel on the capture of Rome—and the instructions given to his successor, the comte de Choiseul, to absent himself from Italy at the moment of the king’s official entry into the new capital (2nd July 1871), together with the haste displayed in appointing a French ambassador to the Holy See, rapidly cooled the cordiality of Franco-Italian relations, and reassured Bismarck on the score of any dangerous intimacy between the two governments.

The friendly attitude of France towards Italy during the period immediately subsequent to the occupation of Rome seemed to cow and to dishearten the Vatican. For a few weeks the relations between the Curia and the Attitude of the Vatican. Italian authorities were marked by a conciliatory spirit. The secretary-general of the Italian foreign office, Baron Blanc, who had accompanied General Cadorna to Rome, was received almost daily by Cardinal Antonelli, papal secretary of state, in order to settle innumerable questions arising out of the Italian occupation. The royal commissioner for finance, Giacomelli, had, as a precautionary measure, seized the pontifical treasury; but upon being informed by Cardinal Antonelli that among the funds deposited in the treasury were 1,000,000 crowns of Peter’s Pence offered by the faithful to the pope in person, the commissioner was authorized by the Italian council of state not only to restore this sum, but also to indemnify the Holy See for moneys expended for the service of the October coupon of the pontifical debt, that debt having been taken over by the Italian state. On the 29th of September Cardinal Antonelli further apprised Baron Blanc that he was about to issue drafts for the monthly payment of the 50,000 crowns inscribed in the pontifical budget for the maintenance of the pope, the Sacred College, the apostolic palaces and the papal guards. The Italian treasury at once honoured all the papal drafts, and thus contributed a first instalment of the 3,225,000 lire per annum afterwards placed by Article 4 of the Law of Guarantees at the disposal of the Holy See. Payments would have been regularly continued had not pressure from the French Clerical party coerced the Vatican into refusing any further instalment.

Once in possession of Rome, and guarantor to the Catholic world of the spiritual independence of the pope, the Italian government prepared juridically to regulate its relations to the Holy See. A bill known as the Law of The Law of Guarantees. Guarantees was therefore framed and laid before parliament. The measure was an amalgam of Cavour’s scheme for a “free church in a free state,” of Ricasoli’s Free Church Bill, rejected by parliament four years previously, and of the proposals presented to Pius IX. by Count Ponza di San Martino in September 1870. After a debate lasting nearly two months the Law of Guarantees was adopted in secret ballot on the 21st of March 1871 by 185 votes against 106.

On the 12th of July 1871, Articles 268, 269 and 270 of the Italian Penal Code were so modified as to make ecclesiastics liable to imprisonment for periods varying from six months to five years, and to fines from 1000 to 3000 lire, for spoken or written attacks against the laws of the state, or for the fomentation of disorder. An encyclical of Pius IX. to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the 15th of May 1871 repudiated the Law of Guarantees, and summoned Catholic princes to co-operate in restoring the temporal power. Practically, therefore, the law has remained a one-sided enactment, by which Italy considers herself bound, and of which she has always observed the spirit, even though the exigencies of self-defence may have led in some minor respects to non-observance of the letter. The annuity payable to the pope has, for instance, been made subject to quinquennial prescription, so that in the event of tardy recognition of the law the Vatican could at no time claim payment of more than five years’ annuity with interest.

For a few months after the occupation of Rome pressing questions incidental to a new change of capital and to the administration of a new domain distracted public attention from the real condition of Italian affairs. The rise of the Tiber and the flooding of Rome in December 1870 (tactfully used by Victor Emmanuel as an opportunity for a first visit to the new capital) illustrated the imperative necessity of reorganizing the drainage of the city and of constructing the Tiber embankment. In spite of pressure from the French government, which desired Italy to maintain Florence as the political and to regard Rome merely as the moral capital of the realm, the government offices and both legislative chambers were transferred in 1871 to the Eternal City. Early in the year the crown prince Humbert with the Princess Margherita took up their residence in the Quirinal Palace, which, in view of the Vatican refusal to deliver up the keys, had to be opened by force. Eight monasteries were expropriated to make room for the chief state departments, pending the construction of more suitable edifices. The growth of Clerical influence in France engendered a belief that Italy would soon have to defend with the sword her newly-won unity, while the tremendous lesson of the Franco-Prussian War convinced the military authorities of the need for thorough military reform. General Ricotti Magnani, minister of war, therefore framed an Army Reform Bill designed to bring the Italian army as nearly as possible up to the Prussian standard. Sella, minister of finance, notwithstanding the sorry plight of the Italian exchequer, readily granted the means for the reform. “We must arm,” he said, “since we have overturned the papal throne,” and he pointed to France as the quarter from which attack was most likely to come.

Though perhaps less desperate than during the previous decade, the condition of Italian finance was precarious indeed. With taxation screwed up to breaking point on personal and real estate, on all forms of commercial and industrial Finance. activity, and on salt, flour and other necessaries of life; with a deficit of £8,500,000 for the current year, and the prospect of a further aggregate deficit of £12,000,000 during the next quinquennium, Sella’s heroic struggle against national bankruptcy was still far from a successful termination. He chiefly had borne the brunt and won the laurels of the unprecedented fight against deficit in which Italy had been involved since 1862. As finance minister in the Rattazzi cabinet of that year he had been confronted with a public debt of nearly £120,000,000, and with an immediate deficit of nearly £18,000,000. In 1864, as minister in the La Marmora cabinet, he had again to face an excess of expenditure over income amounting to more than £14,600,000. By the seizure and sale of Church lands, by the sale of state railways, by “economy to the bone” and on one supreme occasion by an appeal to taxpayers to advance a year’s quota of the land-tax, he had met the most pressing engagements of that troublous period. The king was persuaded to forgo one-fifth of his civil list, ministers and the higher civil servants were required to relinquish a portion of their meagre salaries, but, in spite of all, Sella had found himself in 1865 compelled to propose the most hated of fiscal burdens—a grist tax on cereals. This tax (macinato) had long been known in Italy. Vexatious methods of assessment and collection had made it so unpopular that the Italian government in 1859-1860 had thought it expedient to abolish it throughout the realm. Sella hoped by the application of a mechanical meter both to obviate the odium attaching to former methods of collection and to avoid the maintenance of an army of inspectors and tax-gatherers, whose stipends had formerly eaten up most of the proceeds of the impost. Before proposing the reintroduction of the tax, Sella and his friend Ferrara improved and made exhaustive experiments with the meter. The result of their efforts was laid before parliament in one of the most monumental and most painstaking preambles ever prefixed to a bill. Sella, nevertheless, fell before the storm of opposition which his scheme aroused. Scialoja, who succeeded him, was obliged to adopt a similar proposal, but parliament again proved refractory. Ferrara, successor of Scialoja, met a like fate; but Count Cambray-Digny, finance minister in the Menabrea cabinet of 1868-1869, driven to find means to cover a deficit aggravated by the interest on the Venetian debt, succeeded, with Sella’s help, in forcing a Grist Tax Bill through parliament, though in a form of which Sella could not entirely approve. When, on the 1st of January 1869, the new tax came into force, nearly half the flour-mills in Italy ceased work. In many districts the government was obliged to open mills on its own account. Inspectors and tax-gatherers did their work under police protection, and in several parts of the country riots had to be suppressed manu militari. At first the net revenue from the impost was less than £1,100,000; but under Sella’s firm administration (1869-1873), and in consequence of improvements gradually introduced by him, the net return ultimately exceeded £3,200,000. The parliamentary opposition to the impost, which the Left denounced as “the tax on hunger,” was largely factitious. Few, except the open partisans of national bankruptcy, doubted its necessity; yet so strong was the current of feeling worked up for party purposes by opponents of the measure, that Sella’s achievement in having by its means saved the financial situation of Italy deserves to rank among the most noteworthy performances of modern parliamentary statesmanship.

Under the stress of the appalling financial conditions represented by chronic deficit, crushing taxation, the heavy expenditure necessary for the consolidation of the kingdom, the reform of the army and the interest on the pontifical debt, Sella, on the 11th of December 1871, exposed to parliament the financial situation in all its nakedness. He recognized that considerable improvement had already taken place. Revenue from taxation had risen in a decade from £7,000,000 to £20,200,000; profit on state monopolies had increased from £7,000,000 to £9,400,000; exports had grown to exceed imports; income from the working of telegraphs had tripled itself; railways had been extended from 2200 to 6200 kilometres, and the annual travelling public had augmented from 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 persons. The serious feature of the situation lay less in the income than in the “intangible” expenditure, namely, the vast sums required for interest on the various forms of public debt and for pensions. Within ten years this category of outlay had increased from £8,000,000 to £28,800,000. During the same period the assumption of the Venetian and Roman debts, losses on the issue of loans and the accumulation of annual deficits, had caused public indebtedness to rise from £92,000,000 to £328,000,000, no less than £100,000,000 of the latter sum having been sacrificed in premiums and commissions to bankers and underwriters of loans. By economies and new taxes Sella had reduced the deficit to less than £2,000,000 in 1871, but for 1872 he found himself confronted with a total expenditure of £8,000,000 in excess of revenue. He therefore proposed to make over the treasury service to the state banks, to increase the forced currency, to raise the stamp and registration duties and 63 to impose a new tax on textile fabrics. An optional conversion of sundry internal loans into consolidated stock at a lower rate of interest was calculated to effect considerable saving. The battle over these proposals was long and fierce. But for the tactics of Rattazzi, leader of the Left, who, by basing his opposition on party considerations, impeded the secession of Minghetti and a part of the Right from the ministerial majority, Sella would have been defeated. On the 23rd of March 1872, however, he succeeded in carrying his programme, which not only provided for the pressing needs of the moment, but laid the foundation of the much-needed equilibrium between expenditure and revenue.

In the spring of 1873 it became evident that the days of the Lanza-Sella cabinet were numbered. Fear of the advent of a Radical administration under Rattazzi alone prevented the Minghettian Right from revolting against the government. The Left, conscious of its strength, impatiently awaited the moment of accession to power. Sella, the real head of the Lanza cabinet, was worn out by four years’ continuous work and disheartened by the perfidious misrepresentation in which Italian politicians, particularly those of the Left, have ever excelled. By sheer force of will he compelled the Chamber early in 1873 to adopt some minor financial reforms, but on the 29th of April found himself in a minority on the question of a credit for a proposed state arsenal at Taranto. Pressure from all sides of the House, however, induced the ministry to retain office until after the debate on the application to Rome and the Papal States of the Religious Orders Bill (originally passed in 1866)—a measure which, with the help of Ricasoli, was carried at the end of May. While leaving intact the general houses of the various confraternities Religious Orders Bill. (except that of the Jesuits), the bill abolished the corporate personality of religious orders, handed over their schools and hospitals to civil administrators, placed their churches at the disposal of the secular clergy, and provided pensions for nuns and monks, those who had families being sent to reside with their relatives, and those who by reason of age or bereavement had no home but their monasteries being allowed to end their days in religious houses specially set apart for the purpose. The proceeds of the sale of the suppressed convents and monasteries were partly converted into pensions for monks and nuns, and partly allotted to the municipal charity boards which had undertaken the educational and charitable functions formerly exercised by the religious orders. To the pope was made over £16,000 per annum as a contribution to the expense of maintaining in Rome representatives of foreign orders; the Sacred College, however, rejected this endowment, and summoned all the suppressed confraternities to reconstitute themselves under the ordinary Italian law of association. A few days after the passage of the Religious Orders Bill, the death of Rattazzi (5th June 1873) removed all probability of the immediate advent of the Left. Sella, uncertain of the loyalty of the Right, challenged a vote on the immediate discussion of further financial reforms, and on the 23rd of June was overthrown by a coalition of the Left under Depretis with a part of the Right under Minghetti and the Tuscan Centre under Correnti. The administration which thus fell was unquestionably the most important since the death of Cavour. It had completed national unity, transferred the capital to Rome, overcome the chief obstacles to financial equilibrium, initiated military reform and laid the foundation of the relations between state and church.

The succeeding Minghetti-Visconti-Venosta cabinet—which held office from the 10th of July 1873 to the 18th of March 1876—continued in essential points the work of the preceding administration. Minghetti’s finance, though less clear-sighted Minghetti. and less resolute than that of Sella, was on the whole prudent and beneficial. With the aid of Sella he concluded conventions for the redemption of the chief Italian railways from their French and Austrian proprietors. By dint of expedients he gradually overcame the chronic deficit, and, owing to the normal increase of revenue, ended his term of office with the announcement of a surplus of some £720,000. The question whether this surplus was real or only apparent has been much debated, but there is no reason to doubt its substantial reality. It left out of account a sum of £1,000,000 for railway construction which was covered by credit, but, on the other hand, took no note of £360,000 expended in the redemption of debt. Practically, therefore, the Right, of which the Minghetti cabinet was the last representative administration, left Italian finance with a surplus of £80,000. Outside the all-important domain of finance, the attention of Minghetti and his colleagues was principally absorbed by strife between church and state, army reform and railway redemption. For some time after the occupation of Rome the pope, in order to substantiate the pretence that his spiritual freedom had been diminished, avoided the creation of cardinals and the nomination of bishops. On the 22nd of December 1873, however, he unexpectedly created twelve cardinals, and subsequently proceeded to nominate a number of bishops. Visconti-Venosta, who had retained the portfolio for foreign affairs in the Minghetti cabinet, at once drew the attention of the European powers to this proof of the pope’s spiritual freedom and of the imaginary nature of his “imprisonment” in the Vatican. At the same time he assured them that absolute liberty would be guaranteed to the deliberations of a conclave. In relation to the Church in Italy, Minghetti’s policy was less perspicacious. He let it be understood that the announcement of the appointment of bishops and the request for the royal exequatur might be made to the government impersonally by the congregation of bishops and regulars, by a municipal council or by any other corporate body—a concession of which the bishops were quick to take advantage, but which so irritated Italian political opinion that, in July 1875, the government was compelled to withdraw the temporalities of ecclesiastics who had neglected to apply for the exequatur, and to evict sundry bishops who had taken possession of their palaces without authorization from the state. Parliamentary pressure further obliged Bonghi, minister of public instruction, to compel clerical seminaries either to forgo the instruction of lay pupils or to conform to the laws of the state in regard to inspection and examination, an ordinance which gave rise to conflicts between ecclesiastical and lay authorities, and led to the forcible dissolution of the Mantua seminary and to the suppression of the Catholic university in Rome.

More noteworthy than its management of internal affairs were the efforts of the Minghetti cabinet to strengthen and consolidate national defence. Appalled by the weakness, or rather the non-existence, of the navy, Admiral Military and naval reform. Saint-Bon, with his coadjutor Signor Brin, addressed himself earnestly to the task of recreating the fleet, which had never recovered from the effects of the disaster of Lissa. During his three years of office he laid the foundation upon which Brin was afterwards to build up a new Italian navy. Simultaneously General Ricotti Magnani matured the army reform scheme which he had elaborated under the preceding administration. His bill, adopted by parliament on the 7th of June 1875, still forms the ground plan of the Italian army.

It was fortunate for Italy that during the whole period 1860-1876 the direction of her foreign policy remained in the experienced hands of Visconti-Venosta, a statesman whose trustworthiness, dignity and moderation even political Foreign policy under the Right. opponents have been compelled to recognize. Diplomatic records fail to substantiate the accusations of lack of initiative and instability of political criterion currently brought against him by contemporaries. As foreign minister of a young state which had attained unity in defiance of the most formidable religious organization in the world and in opposition to the traditional policy of France, it could but be Visconti-Venosta’s aim to uphold the dignity of his country while convincing European diplomacy that United Italy was an element of order and progress, and that the spiritual independence of the Roman pontiff had suffered no diminution. Prudence, moreover, counselled avoidance of all action likely to serve the predominant anti-Italian party in France as a pretext for violent intervention in favour of the pope. On the occasion of the Metrical Congress, which met in Paris in 1872, he, however, successfully protested against the recognition of the Vatican delegate, Father Secchi, 64 as a representative of a “state,” and obtained from Count de Rémusat, French foreign minister, a formal declaration that the presence of Father Secchi on that occasion could not constitute a diplomatic precedent. The irritation displayed by Bismarck at the Francophil attitude of Italy towards the end of the Franco-German War gave place to a certain show of goodwill when the great chancellor found himself in his turn involved in a struggle against the Vatican and when the policy of Thiers began to strain Franco-Italian relations. Thiers had consistently opposed the emperor Napoleon’s pro-Italian policy. In the case of Italy, as in that of Germany, he frankly regretted the constitution of powerful homogeneous states upon the borders of France. Personal pique accentuated this feeling in regard to Italy. The refusal of Victor Emmanuel II. to meet Thiers at the opening of the Mont Cenis tunnel (a refusal not unconnected with offensive language employed at Florence in October 1870 by Thiers during his European tour, and with his instructions to the French minister to remain absent from Victor Emmanuel’s official entry into Rome) had wounded the amour propre of the French statesman, and had decreased whatever inclination he might otherwise have felt to oppose the French Clerical agitation for the restoration of the temporal power, and for French interference with the Italian Religious Orders Bill. Consequently relations between France and Italy became so strained that in 1873 both the French minister to the Quirinal and the Italian minister to the Republic remained for several months absent from their posts. At this juncture the emperor of Austria invited Victor Emmanuel to visit the Vienna Exhibition, and the Italian government received a confidential intimation that acceptance of the invitation to Vienna would be followed by a further invitation from Berlin. Perceiving the advantage of a visit to the imperial and apostolic court after the Italian occupation of Rome and the suppression of the religious orders, and convinced of the value of more cordial intercourse with the German empire, Visconti-Venosta and Minghetti advised their sovereign to accept both the Austrian and the subsequent German invitations. The visit to Vienna took place on the 17th to the 22nd of September, and that to Berlin on the 22nd to the 26th of September 1873, the Italian monarch being accorded in both capitals a most cordial reception, although the contemporaneous publication of La Marmora’s famous pamphlet, More Light on the Events of 1866, prevented intercourse between the Italian ministers and Bismarck from being entirely confidential. Visconti-Venosta and Minghetti, moreover, wisely resisted the chancellor’s pressure to override the Law of Guarantees and to engage in an Italian Kulturkampf. Nevertheless the royal journey contributed notably to the establishment of cordial relations between Italy and the central powers, relations which were further strengthened by the visit of the emperor Francis Joseph to Victor Emmanuel at Venice in April 1875, and by that of the German emperor to Milan in October of the same year. Meanwhile Thiers had given place to Marshal Macmahon, who effected a decided improvement in Franco-Italian relations by recalling from Civitavecchia the cruiser “Orénoque,” which since 1870 had been stationed in that port at the disposal of the pope in case he should desire to quit Rome. The foreign policy of Visconti-Venosta may be said to have reinforced the international position of Italy without sacrifice of dignity, and without the vacillation and short-sightedness which was to characterize the ensuing administrations of the Left.

The fall of the Right on the 18th of March 1876 was an event destined profoundly and in many respects adversely to affect the course of Italian history. Except at rare and not auspicious intervals, the Right had held office from 1849 to 1876. Its rule was associated in the popular mind with severe administration; hostility to the democratic elements represented by Garibaldi, Crispi, Depretis and Bertani; ruthless imposition and collection of taxes in order to meet the financial engagements forced upon Italy by the vicissitudes of her Risorgimento; strong predilection for Piedmontese, Lombards and Tuscans, and a steady determination, not always scrupulous in its choice of means, to retain executive power and the most important administrative offices of the state for the consorteria, or close corporation, of its own adherents. For years the men of the Left had worked to inoculate the electorate with suspicion of Conservative methods and with hatred of the imposts which they nevertheless knew to be indispensable to sound finance. In regard to the grist tax especially, the agitators of the Left had placed their party in a radically false position. Moreover, the redemption of the railways by the state—contracts for which had been signed by Sella in 1875 on behalf of the Minghetti cabinet with Rothschild at Basel and with the Austrian government at Vienna—had been fiercely opposed by the Left, although its members were for the most part convinced of the utility of the operation. When, at the beginning of March 1876, these contracts were submitted to parliament, a group of Tuscan deputies, under Cesare Correnti, joined the opposition, and on the 18th of March took advantage of a chance motion concerning the date of discussion of an interpellation on the grist tax to place the Minghetti cabinet in a minority. Depretis, ex-pro-dictator of Sicily, and successor of Rattazzi in the leadership of the Left, was entrusted by the king with the formation of a Liberal ministry. Besides the premiership, Depretis assumed the First Depretis Cabinet. portfolio of finance; Nicotera, an ex-Garibaldian of somewhat tarnished reputation, but a man of energetic and conservative temperament, was placed at the ministry of the interior; public works were entrusted to Zanardelli, a Radical doctrinaire of considerable juridical attainments; General Mezzacapo and Signor Brin replaced General Ricotti Magnani and Admiral Saint-Bon at the war office and ministry of marine; while to Mancini and Coppino, prominent members of the Left, were allotted the portfolios of justice and public instruction. Great difficulty was experienced in finding a foreign minister willing to challenge comparison with Visconti-Venosta. Several diplomatists in active service were approached, but, partly on account of their refusal, and partly from the desire of the Left to avoid giving so important a post to a diplomatist bound by ties of friendship or of interest to the Right, the choice fell upon Melegari, Italian minister at Bern.

The new ministers had long since made monarchical professions of faith, but, up to the moment of taking office, were nevertheless considered to be tinged with an almost revolutionary hue. The king alone appeared to feel no misgiving. His shrewd sense of political expediency and his loyalty to constitutional principles saved him from the error of obstructing the advent and driving into an anti-dynastic attitude politicians who had succeeded in winning popular favour. Indeed, the patriotism and loyalty of the new ministers were above suspicion. Danger lay rather in entrusting men schooled in political conspiracy and in unscrupulous parliamentary opposition with the government of a young state still beset by enemies at home and abroad. As an opposition party the Left had lived upon the facile credit of political promises, but had no well-considered programme nor other discipline nor unity of purpose than that born of the common eagerness of its leaders for office and their common hostility to the Right. Neither Depretis, Nicotera, Crispi, Cairoli nor Zanardelli was disposed permanently to recognize the superiority of any one chief. The dissensions which broke out among them within a few months of the accession of their party to power never afterwards disappeared, except at rare moments when it became necessary to unite in preventing the return of the Conservatives. Considerations such as these could not be expected to appeal to the nation at large, which hailed the advent of the Left as the dawn of an era of unlimited popular sovereignty, diminished administrative pressure, reduction of taxation and general prosperity. The programme of Depretis corresponded only in part to these expectations. Its chief points were extension of the franchise, incompatibility of a Programme of the Left. parliamentary mandate with an official position, strict enforcement of the rights of the State in regard to the Church, protection of freedom of conscience, maintenance of the military and naval policy inaugurated by the Conservatives, acceptance of the railway redemption contracts, consolidation of the financial equilibrium, abolition of the forced 65 currency, and, eventually, fiscal reform. The long-promised abolition of the grist tax was not explicitly mentioned, opposition to the railway redemption contracts was transformed into approval, and the vaunted reduction of taxation replaced by lip-service to the Conservative deity of financial equilibrium. The railway redemption contracts were in fact immediately voted by parliament, with a clause pledging the government to legislate in favour of farming out the railways to private companies.

Nicotera, minister of the interior, began his administration of home affairs by a sweeping change in the personnel of the prefects, sub-prefects and public prosecutors, but found himself obliged to incur the wrath of his supporters by prohibiting Radical meetings likely to endanger public order, and by enunciating administrative principles which would have befitted an inveterate Conservative. In regard to the Church, he instructed the prefects strictly to prevent infraction of the law against religious orders. At the same time the cabinet, as a whole, brought in a Clerical Abuses Bill, threatening with severe punishment priests guilty of disturbing the peace of families, of opposing the laws of the state, or of fomenting disorder. Depretis, for his part, was compelled to declare impracticable the immediate abolition of the grist tax, and to frame a bill for the increase of revenue, acts which caused the secession of some sixty Radicals and Republicans from the ministerial majority, and gave the signal for an agitation against the premier similar to that which he himself had formerly undertaken against the Right. The first general election under the Left (November 1876) had yielded the cabinet the overwhelming majority of 421 Ministerialists against 87 Conservatives, but the very size of the majority rendered it unmanageable. The Clerical Abuses Bill provoked further dissensions: Nicotera was severely affected by revelations concerning his political past; Zanardelli refused to sanction the construction of a railway in Calabria in which Nicotera was interested; and Depretis saw fit to compensate the supporters of his bill for the increase of revenue by decorating at one stroke sixty ministerial deputies with the Order of the Crown of Italy. A further derogation from the ideal of democratic austerity was committed by adding £80,000 per annum to the king’s civil list (14th May 1877) and by burdening the state exchequer with royal household pensions amounting to £20,000 a year. The civil list, which the law of the 10th of August 1862 had fixed at £650,000 a year, but which had been voluntarily reduced by the king to £530,000 in 1864, and to £490,000 in 1867, was thus raised to £570,000 a year. Almost the only respect in which the Left could boast a decided improvement over the administration of the Right was the energy displayed by Nicotera in combating brigandage and the mafia in Calabria and Sicily. Successes achieved in those provinces failed, however, to save Nicotera from the wrath of the Chamber, and on the 14th of December 1877 a cabinet crisis arose over a question concerning the secrecy of telegraphic correspondence. Depretis thereupon reconstructed his administration, excluding Nicotera, Melegari and Zanardelli, placing Crispi at the home office, entrusting Magliani with finance, and himself assuming the direction of foreign affairs.

In regard to foreign affairs, the début of the Left as a governing party was scarcely more satisfactory than its home policy. Since the war of 1866 the Left had advocated an Italo-Prussian alliance in opposition to the Francophil Foreign policy of the Left. tendencies of the Right. On more than one occasion Bismarck had maintained direct relations with the chiefs of the Left, and had in 1870 worked to prevent a Franco-Italian alliance by encouraging the “party of action” to press for the occupation of Rome. Besides, the Left stood for anti-clericalism and for the retention by the State of means of coercing the Church, in opposition to the men of the Right, who, with the exception of Sella, favoured Cavour’s ideal of “a free Church in a free State,” and the consequent abandonment of state control over ecclesiastical government. Upon the outbreak of the Prussian Kulturkampf the Left had pressed the Right to introduce an Italian counterpart to the Prussian May laws, especially as the attitude of Thiers and the hostility of the French Clericals obviated the need for sparing French susceptibilities. Visconti-Venosta and Minghetti, partly from aversion to a Jacobin policy, and partly from a conviction that Bismarck sooner or later would undertake his Gang nach Canossa, regardless of any tacit engagement he might have assumed towards Italy, had wisely declined to be drawn into any infraction of the Law of Guarantees. It was, however, expected that the chiefs of the Left, upon attaining office, would turn resolutely towards Prussia in search of a guarantee against the Clerical menace embodied in the régime of Marshal Macmahon. On the contrary, Depretis and Melegari, both of whom were imbued with French Liberal doctrines, adopted towards the Republic an attitude so deferential as to arouse suspicion in Vienna and Berlin. Depretis recalled Nigra from Paris and replaced him by General Cialdini, whose ardent plea for Italian intervention in favour of France in 1870, and whose comradeship with Marshal Macmahon in 1859, would, it was supposed, render him persona gratissima to the French government. This calculation was falsified by events. Incensed by the elevation to the rank of embassies of the Italian legation in Paris and the French legation to the Quirinal, and by the introduction of the Italian bill against clerical abuses, the French Clerical party not only attacked Italy and her representative, General Cialdini, in the Chamber of Deputies, but promoted a monster petition against the Italian bill. Even the coup d’état of the 16th of May 1877 (when Macmahon dismissed the Jules Simon cabinet for opposing the Clerical petition) hardly availed to change the attitude of Depretis. As a precaution against an eventual French attempt to restore the temporal power, orders were hurriedly given to complete the defences of Rome, but in other respects the Italian government maintained its subservient attitude. Yet at that moment the adoption of a clear line of policy, in accord with the central powers, might have saved Italy from the loss of prestige entailed by her bearing in regard to the Russo-Turkish War and the Austrian acquisition of Bosnia, and might have prevented the disappointment subsequently occasioned by the outcome of the Congress of Berlin. In the hope of inducing the European powers to “compensate” Italy for the increase of Austrian influence on the Adriatic, Crispi undertook in the autumn of 1877, with the approval of the king, and in spite of the half-disguised opposition of Depretis, a semi-official mission to Paris, Berlin, London and Vienna. The mission appears not to have been an unqualified success, though Crispi afterwards affirmed in the Chamber (4th March 1886) that Depretis might in 1877 “have harnessed fortune to the Italian chariot.” Depretis, anxious only to avoid “a policy of adventure,” let slip whatever opportunity may have presented itself, and neglected even to deal energetically with the impotent but mischievous Italian agitation for a “rectification” of the Italo-Austrian frontier. He greeted the treaty of San Stefano (3rd March 1878) with undisguised relief, and by the mouth of the king, congratulated Italy (7th March 1878) on having maintained with the powers friendly and cordial relations “free from suspicious precautions,” and upon having secured for herself “that most precious of alliances, the alliance of the future”—a phrase of which the empty rhetoric was to be bitterly demonstrated by the Berlin Congress and the French occupation of Tunisia.

The entry of Crispi into the Depretis cabinet (December 1877) placed at the ministry of the interior a strong hand and sure eye at a moment when they were about to become imperatively necessary. Crispi was the only man of truly Crispi. statesmanlike calibre in the ranks of the Left. Formerly a friend and disciple of Mazzini, with whom he had broken on the question of the monarchical form of government which Crispi believed indispensable to the unification of Italy, he had afterwards been one of Garibaldi’s most efficient coadjutors and an active member of the “party of action.” Passionate, not always scrupulous in his choice and use of political weapons, intensely patriotic, loyal with a loyalty based rather on reason than sentiment, quick-witted, prompt in action, determined and pertinacious, he possessed in eminent degree many qualities lacking in other 66 Liberal chieftains. Hardly had he assumed office when the unexpected death of Victor Emmanuel II. (9th January Deaths of Victor Emmanuel II. and Pius IX. 1878) stirred national feeling to an unprecedented depth, and placed the continuity of monarchical institutions in Italy upon trial before Europe. For thirty years Victor Emmanuel had been the centre point of national hopes, the token and embodiment of the struggle for national redemption. He had led the country out of the despondency which followed the defeat of Novara and the abdication of Charles Albert, through all the vicissitudes of national unification to the final triumph at Rome. His disappearance snapped the chief link with the heroic period, and removed from the helm of state a ruler of large heart, great experience and civil courage, at a moment when elements of continuity were needed and vital problems of internal reorganization had still to be faced. Crispi adopted the measures necessary to ensure the tranquil accession of King Humbert with a quick energy which precluded any Radical or Republican demonstrations. His influence decided the choice of the Roman Pantheon as the late monarch’s burial-place, in spite of formidable pressure from the Piedmontese, who wished Victor Emmanuel II. to rest with the Sardinian kings at Superga. He also persuaded the new ruler to inaugurate, as King Humbert I., the new dynastical epoch of the kings of Italy, instead of continuing as Humbert IV. the succession of the kings of Sardinia. Before the commotion caused by the death of Victor Emmanuel had passed away, the decease of Pius IX (7th February 1878) placed further demands upon Crispi’s sagacity and promptitude. Like Victor Emmanuel, Pius IX. had been bound up with the history of the Risorgimento, but, unlike him, had represented and embodied the anti-national, reactionary spirit. Ecclesiastically, he had become the instrument of the triumph of Jesuit influence, and had in turn set his seal upon the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the Syllabus and Papal Infallibility. Yet, in spite of all, his jovial disposition and good-humoured cynicism saved him from unpopularity, and rendered his death an occasion of mourning. Notwithstanding the pontiff’s bestowal of the apostolic benediction in articulo mortis upon Victor Emmanuel, the attitude of the Vatican had remained so inimical as to make it doubtful whether the conclave would be held in Rome. Crispi, whose strong anti-clerical convictions did not prevent him from regarding the papacy as preeminently an Italian institution, was determined both to prove to the Catholic world the practical independence of the government of the Church and to retain for Rome so potent a centre of universal attraction as the presence of the future pope. The Sacred College having decided to hold the conclave abroad, Crispi assured them of absolute freedom if they remained in Rome, or of protection to the frontier should they migrate, but warned them that, once evacuated, the Vatican would be occupied in the name of the Italian government and be lost to the Church as headquarters of the papacy. The cardinals thereupon overruled their former decision, and the conclave was held in Rome, the new pope, Cardinal Pecci, being elected on the 20th of February 1878 without let or hindrance. The Italian government not only Leo XIII. prorogued the Chamber during the conclave to prevent unseemly inquiries or demonstrations on the part of deputies, but by means of Mancini, minister of justice, and Cardinal di Pietro, assured the new pope protection during the settlement of his outstanding personal affairs, an assurance of which Leo XIII. on the evening after his election, took full advantage. At the same time the duke of Aosta, commander of the Rome army corps, ordered the troops to render royal honours to the pontiff should he officially appear in the capital. King Humbert addressed to the pope a letter of congratulation upon his election, and received a courteous reply. The improvement thus signalized in the relations between Quirinal and Vatican was further exemplified on the 18th of October 1878, when the Italian government accepted a papal formula with regard to the granting of the royal exequatur for bishops, whereby they, upon nomination by the Holy See, recognized state control over, and made application for, the payment of their temporalities.

The Depretis-Crispi cabinet did not long survive the opening of the new reign. Crispi’s position was shaken by a morally plausible but juridically untenable charge of bigamy, while on the 8th of March the election of Cairoli, an Cairoli. opponent of the ministry and head of the extremer section of the Left, to the presidency of the Chamber, induced Depretis to tender his resignation to the new king. Cairoli succeeded in forming an administration, in which his friend Count Corti, Italian ambassador at Constantinople, accepted the portfolio of foreign affairs, Zanardelli the ministry of the interior, and Seismit Doda the ministry of finance. Though the cabinet had no stable majority, it induced the Chamber to sanction a commercial treaty which had been negotiated with France and a general “autonomous” customs tariff. The commercial treaty was, however, rejected by the French Chamber in June 1878, a circumstance necessitating the application of the Italian general tariff, which implied a 10 to 20% increase in the duties on the principal French exports. A highly imaginative financial exposition by Seismit Doda, who announced a surplus of £2,400,000, paved the way for a Grist Tax Reduction Bill, which Cairoli had taken over from the Depretis programme. The Chamber, though convinced of the danger of this reform, the perils of which were incisively demonstrated by Sella, voted by an overwhelming majority for an immediate reduction of the impost by one-fourth, and its complete abolition within four years. Cairoli’s premiership was, however, destined to be cut short by an attempt made upon the king’s life in November 1878, during a royal visit to Naples, by a miscreant named Passanante. In spite of the courage and presence of mind of Cairoli, who received the dagger thrust intended for the king, public and parliamentary indignation found expression in a vote which compelled the ministry to resign.

Though brief, Cairoli’s term of office was momentous in regard to foreign affairs. The treaty of San Stefano had led to the convocation of the Berlin Congress, and though Count Corti was by no means ignorant of the rumours concerning Italy and the Berlin Congress. secret agreements between Germany, Austria and Russia, and Germany, Austria and Great Britain, he scarcely seemed alive to the possible effect of such agreements upon Italy. Replying on the 9th of April 1878 to interpellations by Visconti-Venosta and other deputies on the impending Congress of Berlin, he appeared free from apprehension lest Italy, isolated, might find herself face to face with a change of the balance of power in the Mediterranean, and declared that in the event of serious complications Italy would be “too much sought after rather than too much forgotten.” The policy of Italy in the congress, he added, would be to support the interests of the young Balkan nations. Wrapped in this optimism, Count Corti proceeded, as first Italian delegate, to Berlin, where he found himself obliged, on the 28th of May, to join reluctantly in sanctioning the Austrian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the 8th of July the revelation of the Anglo-Ottoman treaty for the British occupation of Cyprus took the congress by surprise. Italy, who had made the integrity of the Ottoman empire a cardinal point of her Eastern policy, felt this change of the Mediterranean status quo the more severely inasmuch as, in order not to strain her relations with France, she had turned a deaf ear to Austrian, Russian and German advice to prepare to occupy Tunisia in agreement with Great Britain. Count Corti had no suspicion that France had adopted a less disinterested attitude towards similar suggestions from Bismarck and Lord Salisbury. He therefore returned from the German capital with “clean” but empty hands, a plight which found marked disfavour in Italian eyes, and stimulated anti-Austrian Irredentism. Irredentism. Ever since Venetia had been ceded by Austria to the emperor Napoleon, and by him to Italy, after the war of 1866, secret revolutionary committees had been formed in the northern Italian provinces to prepare for the “redemption” of Trent and Trieste. For twelve years these committees had remained comparatively inactive, but in 1878 the presence of the ex-Garibaldian Cairoli at the head of the government, and popular dissatisfaction at the 67 spread of Austrian sway on the Adriatic, encouraged them to begin a series of noisy demonstrations. On the evening of the signature at Berlin of the clause sanctioning the Austrian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, an Irredentist riot took place before the Austrian consulate at Venice. The Italian government attached little importance to the occurrence, and believed that a diplomatic expression of regret would suffice to allay Austrian irritation. Austria, indeed, might easily have been persuaded to ignore the Irredentist agitation, had not the equivocal attitude of Cairoli and Zanardelli cast doubt upon the sincerity of their regret. The former at Pavia (15th October 1878), and the latter at Arco (3rd November), declared publicly that Irredentist manifestations could not be prevented under existing laws, but gave no hint of introducing any law to sanction their prevention. “Repression, not prevention” became the official formula, the enunciation of which by Cairoli at Pavia caused Count Corti and two other ministers to resign.

The fall of Cairoli, and the formation of a second Depretis cabinet in 1878, brought no substantial change in the attitude of the government towards Irredentism, nor was the position improved by the return of Cairoli to power in the following July. Though aware of Bismarck’s hostility towards Italy, of the conclusion of the Austro-German alliance of 1879, and of the undisguised ill-will of France, Italy not only made no attempt to crush an agitation as mischievous as it was futile, but granted a state funeral to General Avezzana, president of the Irredentist League. In Bonghi’s mordant phrase, the foreign policy of Italy during this period may be said to have been characterized by “enormous intellectual impotence counterbalanced by equal moral feebleness.” Home affairs were scarcely better managed. Parliament had degenerated into a congeries of personal groups, whose members were eager only to overturn cabinets in order to secure power for the leaders and official favours for themselves. Depretis, who had succeeded Cairoli in December 1878, fell in July 1879, after a vote in which Cairoli and Nicotera joined the Conservative opposition. On 12th July Cairoli formed a new administration, only to resign on 24th November, and to reconstruct his cabinet with the help of Depretis. The administration of finance was as chaotic as the condition of parliament. The £2,400,000 surplus announced by Seismit Doda proved to be a myth. Nevertheless Magliani, who succeeded Seismit Doda, had neither the perspicacity nor the courage to resist the abolition of the grist tax. The first vote of the Chamber for the immediate diminution of the tax, and for its total abolition on 1st January Finance. 1883, had been opposed by the Senate. A second bill was passed by the Chamber on 18th July 1879, providing for the immediate repeal of the grist tax on minor cereals, and for its total abolition on 1st January 1884. While approving the repeal in regard to minor cereals, the Senate (24th January 1880) again rejected the repeal of the tax on grinding wheat as prejudicial to national finance. After the general election of 1880, however, the Ministerialists, aided by a number of factious Conservatives, passed a third bill repealing the grist tax on wheat (10th July 1880), the repeal to take effect from the 1st of January 1884 onwards. The Senate, in which the partisans of the ministry had been increased by numerous appointments ad hoc, finally set the seal of its approval upon the measure. Notwithstanding this prospective loss of revenue, parliament showed great reluctance to vote any new impost, although hardly a year previously it had sanctioned (30th June 1879) Depretis’s scheme for spending during the next eighteen years £43,200,000 in building 5000 kilometres of railway, an expenditure not wholly justified by the importance of the lines, and useful principally as a source of electoral sops for the constituents of ministerial deputies. The unsatisfactory financial condition of the Florence, Rome and Naples municipalities necessitated state help, but the Chamber nevertheless proceeded with a light heart (23rd February 1881) to sanction the issue of a foreign loan for £26,000,000, with a view to the abolition of the forced currency, thus adding to the burdens of the exchequer a load which three years later again dragged Italy into the gulf of chronic deficit.

In no modern country is error or incompetence on the part of administrators more swiftly followed by retribution than in Italy; both at home and abroad she is hemmed in by political and economic conditions which leave Tunisia. little margin for folly, and still less for “mental and moral insufficiency,” such as had been displayed by the Left. Nemesis came in the spring of 1881, in the form of the French invasion of Tunisia. Guiccioli, the biographer of Sella, observes that Italian politicians find it especially hard to resist “the temptation of appearing crafty.” The men of the Left believed themselves subtle enough to retain the confidence and esteem of all foreign powers while coquetting at home with elements which some of these powers had reason to regard with suspicion. Italy, in constant danger from France, needed good relations with Austria and Germany, but could only attain the goodwill of the former by firm treatment of the revolutionary Irredentist agitation, and of the latter by clear demonstration of Italian will and ability to cope with all anti-monarchical forces. Depretis and Cairoli did neither the one nor the other. Hence, when opportunity offered firmly to establish Italian predominance in the central Mediterranean by an occupation of Tunisia, they found themselves deprived of those confidential relations with the central powers, and even with Great Britain, which might have enabled them to use the opportunity to full advantage. The conduct of Italy in declining the suggestions received from Count Andrássy and General Ignatiev on the eve of the Russo-Turkish War—that Italy should seek compensation in Tunisia for the extension of Austrian sway in the Balkans—and in subsequently rejecting the German suggestion to come to an arrangement with Great Britain for the occupation of Tunisia as compensation for the British occupation of Cyprus, was certainly due to fear lest an attempt on Tunisia should lead to a war with France, for which Italy knew herself to be totally unprepared. This very unpreparedness, however, rendered still less excusable her treatment of the Irredentist agitation, which brought her within a hair’s-breadth of a conflict with Austria. Although Cairoli, upon learning of the Anglo-Ottoman convention in regard to Cyprus, had advised Count Corti of the possibility that Great Britain might seek to placate France by conniving at a French occupation of Tunisia, neither he nor Count Corti had any inkling of the verbal arrangement made between Lord Salisbury and Waddington at the instance of Bismarck, that, when convenient, France should occupy Tunisia, an agreement afterwards confirmed (with a reserve as to the eventual attitude of Italy) in despatches exchanged in July and August 1878 between the Quai d’Orsay and Downing Street. Almost up to the moment of the French occupation of Tunisia the Italian government believed that Great Britain, if only out of gratitude for the bearing of Italy in connexion with the Dulcigno demonstration in the autumn of 1880, would prevent French acquisition of the Regency. Ignorant of the assurance conveyed to France by Lord Granville that the Gladstone cabinet would respect the engagements of the Beaconsfield-Salisbury administration, Cairoli, in deference to Italian public opinion, endeavoured to neutralize the activity of the French consul Roustan by the appointment of an equally energetic Italian consul, Macciò. The rivalry between these two officials in Tunisia contributed not a little to strain Franco-Italian relations, but it is doubtful whether France would have precipitated her action had not General Menabrea, Italian ambassador in London, urged his government to purchase the Tunis-Goletta railway from the English company by which it had been constructed. A French attempt to purchase the line was upset in the English courts, and the railway was finally secured by Italy at a price more than eight times its real value. This pertinacity engendered a belief in France that Italy was about to undertake in Tunisia a more aggressive policy than necessary for the protection of her commercial interests. Roustan therefore hastened to extort from the bey concessions calculated to neutralize the advantages which Italy had hoped to secure by the possession of the Tunis-Goletta line, and at the same time the French government prepared at Toulon an expeditionary corps for the occupation of the Regency. In the spring of 1881 68 the Kroumir tribe was reported to have attacked a French force on the Algerian border, and on the 9th of April Roustan informed the bey of Tunis that France would chastise the assailants. The bey issued futile protests to the powers. On the 26th of April the island of Tabarca was occupied by the French, Bizerta was seized on the 2nd of May, and on the 12th of May the bey signed the treaty of Bardo accepting the French protectorate. France undertook the maintenance of order in the Regency, and assumed the representation of Tunisia in all dealings with other countries.

Italian indignation at the French coup de main was the deeper on account of the apparent duplicity of the government of the Republic. On the 11th of May the French foreign minister, Barthélémy Saint Hilaire, had officially assured the Italian ambassador in Paris that France “had no thought of occupying Tunisia or any part of Tunisian territory, beyond some points of the Kroumir country.” This assurance, dictated by Jules Ferry to Barthélémy Saint Hilaire in the presence of the Italian ambassador, and by him telegraphed en clair to Rome, was considered a binding pledge that France would not materially alter the status quo in Tunisia. Documents subsequently published have somewhat attenuated the responsibility of Ferry and Saint Hilaire for this breach of faith, and have shown that the French forces in Tunisia acted upon secret instructions from General Farre, minister of war in the Ferry cabinet, who pursued a policy diametrically opposed to the official declarations made by the premier and the foreign minister. Even had this circumstance been known at the time, it could scarcely have mitigated the intense resentment of the whole Italian nation at an event which was considered tantamount not only to the destruction of Italian aspirations to Tunisia, but to the ruin of the interests of the numerous Italian colony and to a constant menace against the security of the Sicilian and south Italian coasts.

Had the blow thus struck at Italian influence in the Mediterranean induced politicians to sink for a while their personal differences and to unite in presenting a firm front to foreign nations, the crisis in regard to Tunisia might not have been wholly unproductive of good. Unfortunately, on this, as on other critical occasions, deputies proved themselves incapable of common effort to promote general welfare. While excitement over Tunisia was at its height, but before the situation was irretrievably compromised to the disadvantage of Italy, Cairoli had been compelled to resign by a vote of want of confidence in the Chamber. The only politician capable of dealing adequately with the situation was Sella, leader of the Right, and to him the crown appealed. The faction leaders of the Left, though divided by personal jealousies and mutually incompatible ambitions, agreed that the worst evil which could befall Italy would be the return of the Right to power, and conspired to preclude the possibility of a Sella cabinet. An attempt by Depretis to recompose the Cairoli ministry proved fruitless, and after eleven precious days had been lost, King Humbert was obliged, on the 19th of April 1881, to refuse Cairoli’s resignation. The conclusion of the treaty of Bardo on the 12th of May, however, compelled Cairoli to sacrifice himself to popular indignation. Again Sella was called upon, but again the dog-in-the-manger policy of Depretis, Cairoli, Nicotera and Baccarini, in conjunction with the intolerant attitude of some extreme Conservatives, proved fatal to his endeavours. Depretis then succeeded in recomposing the Cairoli cabinet without Cairoli, Mancini being placed at the foreign office. Except in regard to an increase of the army estimates, urgently demanded by public opinion, the new ministry had practically no programme. Public opinion was further irritated against France by the massacre of some Italian workmen at Marseilles on the occasion of the return of the French expedition from Tunisia, and Depretis, in response to public feeling, found himself obliged to mobilize a part of the militia for military exercises. In this condition of home and foreign affairs occurred disorders at Rome in connexion with the transfer of the remains of Pius IX. from St Peter’s to the basilica of San Lorenzo. Most of the responsibility lay with the Vatican, which had arranged the procession in the way best calculated to irritate Italian feeling, but little excuse can be offered for the failure of the Italian authorities to maintain public order. In conjunction with the occupation of Tunisia, the effect of these disorders was to exhibit Italy as a country powerless to defend its interests abroad or to keep peace at home. The scandal and the pressure of foreign Catholic opinion compelled Depretis to pursue a more energetic policy, and to publish a formal declaration of the intangibility of the Law of Guarantees.

Meanwhile a conviction was spreading that the only way of escape from the dangerous isolation of Italy lay in closer agreement with Austria and Germany. Depretis tardily recognized the need for such agreement, if only to Growth of the Triple Alliance. remove the “coldness and invincible diffidence” which, by subsequent confession of Mancini, then characterized the attitude of the central powers; but he was opposed to any formal alliance, lest it might arouse French resentment, while the new Franco-Italian treaty was still unconcluded, and the foreign loan for the abolition of the forced currency had still to be floated. He, indeed, was not disposed to concede to public opinion anything beyond an increase of the army, a measure insistently demanded by Garibaldi and the Left. The Right likewise desired to strengthen both army and navy, but advocated cordial relations with Berlin and Vienna as a guarantee against French domineering, and as a pledge that Italy would be vouchsafed time to effect her armaments without disturbing financial equilibrium. The Right also hoped that closer accord with Germany and Austria would compel Italy to conform her home policy more nearly to the principles of order prevailing in those empires. More resolute than Right or Left was the Centre, a small group led by Sidney Sonnino, a young politician of unusual fibre, which sought in the press and in parliament to spread a conviction that the only sound basis for Italian policy would be close alliance with the central powers and a friendly understanding with Great Britain in regard to Mediterranean affairs. The principal Italian public men were divided in opinion on the subject of an alliance. Peruzzi, Lanza and Bonghi pleaded for equal friendship with all powers, and especially with France; Crispi, Minghetti, Cadorna and others, including Blanc, secretary-general to the foreign office, openly favoured a pro-Austrian policy. Austria and Germany, however, scarcely reciprocated these dispositions. The Irredentist agitation had left profound traces at Berlin as well as at Vienna, and had given rise to a distrust of Depretis which nothing had yet occurred to allay. Nor, in view of the comparative weakness of Italian armaments, could eagerness to find an ally be deemed conclusive proof of the value of Italian friendship. Count di Robilant, Italian ambassador at Vienna, warned his government not to yield too readily to pro-Austrian pressure, lest the dignity of Italy be compromised, or her desire for an alliance be granted on onerous terms. Mancini, foreign minister, who was as anxious as Depretis for the conclusion of the Franco-Italian commercial treaty, gladly followed this advice, and limited his efforts to the maintenance of correct diplomatic relations with the central powers. Except in regard to the Roman question, the advantages and disadvantages of an Italian alliance with Austria and Germany counterbalanced each other. A rapprochement with France and a continuance of the Irredentist movement could not fail to arouse Austro-German hostility; but, on the other hand, to draw near to the central powers would inevitably accentuate the diffidence of France. In the one hypothesis, as in the other, Italy could count upon the moral support of Great Britain, but could not make of British friendship the keystone of a Continental policy. Apart from resentment against France on account of Tunisia there remained the question of the temporal power of the pope to turn the scale in favour of Austria and Germany. Danger of foreign interference in the relations between Italy and the papacy had never been so great since the Italian occupation of Rome, as when, in the summer of 1881, the disorders during the transfer of the remains of Pius IX. had lent an unwonted ring of plausibility to the papal complaint concerning the “miserable” position of the Holy See. Bismarck at that moment had entered upon his “pilgrimage to Canossa,” and was anxious to obtain from the 69 Vatican the support of German Catholics. What resistance could Italy have offered had the German chancellor, seconded by Austria, and assuredly supported by France, called upon Italy to revise the Law of Guarantees in conformity with Catholic exigencies, or had he taken the initiative of making papal independence the subject of an international conference? Friendship and alliance with Catholic Austria and powerful Germany could alone lay this spectre. This was the only immediate advantage Italy could hope to obtain by drawing nearer the central Powers.

The political conditions of Europe favoured the realization of Italian desires. Growing rivalry between Austria and Russia in the Balkans rendered the continuance of the “League of the Three Emperors” a practical impossibility. The Austro-German alliance of 1879 formally guaranteed the territory of the contracting parties, but Austria could not count upon effectual help from Germany in case of war, since Russian attack upon Austria would certainly have been followed by French attack upon Germany. As in 1860-1870, it therefore became a matter of the highest importance for Austria to retain full disposal of all her troops by assuring herself against Italian aggression. The tsar, Alexander III., under the impression of the assassination of his father, desired, however, the renewal of the Dreikaiserbund, both as a guarantee of European peace and as a conservative league against revolutionary parties. The German emperor shared this desire, but Bismarck and the Austrian emperor wished to substitute for the imperial league some more advantageous combination. Hence a tacit understanding between Bismarck and Austria that the latter should profit by Italian resentment against France to draw Italy into the orbit of the Austro-German alliance. For the moment Germany was to hold aloof lest any active initiative on her part should displease the Vatican, of whose help Bismarck stood in need.

At the beginning of August 1881 the Austrian press mooted the idea of a visit from King Humbert to the emperor Francis Joseph. Count di Robilant, anxious that Italy should not seem to beg a smile from the central Powers, advised Mancini to receive with caution the suggestions of the Austrian press. Depretis took occasion to deny, in a form scarcely courteous, the probability of the visit. Robilant’s opposition to a precipitate acceptance of the Austrian hint was founded upon fear lest King Humbert at Vienna might be pressed to disavow Irredentist aspirations, and upon a desire to arrange for a visit of the emperor Francis Joseph to Rome in return for King Humbert’s visit to Vienna. Seeing the hesitation of the Italian government, the Austrian and German semi-official press redoubled their efforts to bring about the visit. By the end of September the idea had gained such ground in Italy that the visit was practically settled, and on the 7th of October Mancini informed Robilant (who was then in Italy) of the fact. Though he considered such precipitation impolitic, Robilant, finding that confidential information of Italian intentions had already been conveyed to the Austrian government, sought an interview with King Humbert, and on the 17th of October started for Vienna to settle the conditions of the visit. Depretis, fearing to jeopardize the impending conclusion of the Franco-Italian commercial treaty, would have preferred the visit to take the form of an act of personal courtesy between sovereigns. The Austrian government, for its part, desired that the king should be accompanied by Depretis, though not by Mancini, lest the presence of the Italian foreign minister should lend to the occasion too marked a political character. Mancini, unable to brook exclusion, insisted, however, upon accompanying the king. King Humbert with Queen Margherita reached Vienna on the morning of the 27th of October, and stayed at the Hofburg until the 31st of October. The visit was marked by the greatest cordiality, Count Robilant’s fears of inopportune pressure with regard to Irredentism proving groundless. Both in Germany and Austria the visit was construed as a preliminary to the adhesion of Italy to the Austro-German alliance. Count Hatzfeldt, on behalf of the German Foreign Office, informed the Italian ambassador in Berlin that whatever was done at Vienna would be regarded as having been done in the German capital. Nor did nascent irritation in France prevent the conclusion of the Franco-Italian commercial treaty, which was signed at Paris on the 3rd of November.

In Italy public opinion as a whole was favourable to the visit, especially as it was not considered an obstacle to the projected increase of the army and navy. Doubts, however, soon sprang up as to its effect upon the minds of Austrian statesmen, since on the 8th of November the language employed by Kállay and Count Andrássy to the Hungarian delegations on the subject of Irredentism was scarcely calculated to soothe Italian susceptibilities. But on 9th November the European situation was suddenly modified by the formation of the Gambetta cabinet, and, in view of the policy of revenge with which Gambetta was supposed to be identified, it became imperative for Bismarck to assure himself that Italy would not be enticed into a Francophil attitude by any concession Gambetta might offer. As usual when dealing with weaker nations, the German chancellor resorted to intimidation. He not only re-established the Prussian legation to the Vatican, suppressed since 1874, and omitted from the imperial message to the Reichstag (17th November 1881) all reference to King Humbert’s visit to Vienna, but took occasion on the 29th of November to refer to Italy as a country tottering on the verge of revolution, and opened in the German semi-official press a campaign in favour of an international guarantee for the independence of the papacy. These manœuvres produced their effect upon Italian public opinion. In the long and important debate upon foreign policy in the Italian Chamber of Deputies (6th to 9th December) the fear was repeatedly expressed lest Bismarck should seek to purchase the support of German Catholics by raising the Roman question. Mancini, still unwilling frankly to adhere to the Austro-German alliance, found his policy of “friendship all round” impeded by Gambetta’s uncompromising attitude in regard to Tunisia. Bismarck nevertheless continued his press campaign in favour of the temporal power until, reassured by Gambetta’s decision to send Roustan back to Tunis to complete as minister the anti-Italian programme begun as consul, he finally instructed his organs to emphasize the common interests of Germany and Italy on the occasion of the opening of the St Gothard tunnel. But the effect of the German press campaign could not be effaced in a day. At the new year’s reception of deputies King Humbert aroused enthusiasm by a significant remark that Italy intended to remain “mistress in her own house”; while Mancini addressed to Count de Launay, Italian ambassador in Berlin, a haughty despatch, repudiating the supposition that the pope might (as Bismarckian emissaries had suggested to the Vatican) obtain abroad greater spiritual liberty than in Rome, or that closer relations between Italy and Germany, such as were required by the interests and aspirations of the two countries, could be made in any way contingent upon a modification of Italian freedom of action in regard to home affairs.

The sudden fall of Gambetta (26th January 1882) having removed the fear of immediate European complications, the cabinets of Berlin and Vienna again displayed diffidence towards Italy. So great was Bismarck’s distrust of Italian parliamentary instability, his doubts of Italian capacity for offensive warfare and his fear of the Francophil tendencies of Depretis, that for many weeks the Italian ambassador at Berlin was unable to obtain audience of the chancellor. But for the Tunisian question Italy might again have been drawn into the wake of France. Mancini tried to impede the organization of French rule in the Regency by refusing to recognize the treaty of Bardo, yet so careless was Bismarck of Italian susceptibilities that he instructed the German consul at Tunis to recognize French decrees. Partly under the influence of these circumstances, and partly in response to persuasion by Baron Blanc, secretary-general for foreign affairs, Mancini instructed Count di Robilant to open negotiations for an Italo-Austrian alliance—instructions which Robilant neglected until questioned by Count Kalnóky on the subject. The first exchange of ideas between the two Governments 70 proved fruitless, since Kalnóky, somewhat Clerical-minded, was averse from guaranteeing the integrity of all Italian territory, and Mancini was equally unwilling to guarantee to Austria permanent possession of Trent and Trieste. Mancini, moreover, wished the treaty of alliance to provide for reciprocal protection of the chief interests of the contracting Powers, Italy undertaking to second Austria-Hungary in the Balkans, and Austria and Germany pledging themselves to support Italy in Mediterranean questions. Without some such proviso Italy would, in Mancini’s opinion, be exposed single-handed to French resentment. At the request of Kalnóky, Mancini defined his proposal in a memorandum, but the illness of himself and Depretis, combined with an untoward discussion in the Italian press on the failure of the Austrian emperor to return in Rome King Humbert’s visit to Vienna, caused negotiations to drag. The pope, it transpired, had refused to receive the emperor if he came to Rome on a visit to the Quirinal, and Francis Joseph, though anxious to return King Humbert’s visit, was unable to offend the feelings of his Catholic subjects. Meanwhile (11th May 1882) the Italian parliament adopted the new Army Bill, involving a special credit of £5,100,000 for the creation of two new army corps, by which the war footing of the regular army was raised to nearly 850,000 men and the ordinary military estimates to £8,000,000 per annum. Garibaldi, who, since the French occupation of Tunis, had ardently worked for the increase of the army, had thus the satisfaction of seeing his Death of Garibaldi. desire realized before his death at Caprera, on the 2nd of June 1882. “In spirit a child, in character a man of classic mould,” Garibaldi had remained the nation’s idol, an almost legendary hero whose place none could aspire to fill. Gratitude for his achievements and sorrow for his death found expression in universal mourning wherein king and peasant equally joined. Before his death, and almost contemporaneously with the passing of the Army Bill, negotiations for the alliance were renewed. Encouraged from Berlin, Kalnóky agreed to the reciprocal territorial guarantee, but declined reciprocity in support of special interests. Mancini had therefore to be content with a declaration that the allies would act in mutually friendly intelligence. Depretis made some opposition, but finally acquiesced, and the treaty of triple alliance was signed on the 20th of May 1882, five days after the promulgation of the Franco-Italian commercial treaty in Paris. Though partial Signature of the Treaty, 1882. revelations have been made, the exact tenor of the treaty of triple alliance has never been divulged. It is known to have been concluded for a period of five years, to have pledged the contracting parties to join in resisting attack upon the territory of any one of them, and to have specified the military disposition to be adopted by each in case attack should come either from France, or from Russia, or from both simultaneously. The Italian General Staff is said to have undertaken, in the event of war against France, to operate with two armies on the north-western frontier against the French armée des Alpes, of which the war strength is about 250,000 men. A third Italian army would, if expedient, pass into Germany, to operate against either France or Russia. Austria undertook to guard the Adriatic on land and sea, and to help Germany by checkmating Russia on land. Germany would be sufficiently employed in carrying on war against two fronts. Kalnóky desired that both the terms of the treaty and the fact of its conclusion should remain secret, but Bismarck and Mancini hastened to hint at its existence, the former in the Reichstag on the 12th of June 1882, and the latter in the Italian semi-official press. A revival of Irredentism in connexion with the execution of an Austrian deserter named Oberdank, who after escaping into Italy endeavoured to return to Austria with explosive bombs in his possession, and the cordial references to France made by Depretis at Stradella (8th October 1882), prevented the French government from suspecting the existence of the alliance, or from ceasing to strive after a Franco-Italian understanding. Suspicion was not aroused until March 1883, when Mancini, in defending himself against strictures upon his refusal to co-operate with Great Britain in Egypt, practically revealed the existence of the treaty, thereby irritating France and destroying Depretis’s secret hope of finding in the triple alliance the advantage of an Austro-German guarantee without the disadvantage of French enmity. In Italy the revelation of the treaty was hailed with satisfaction except by the Clericals, who were enraged at the blow thus struck at the restoration of the pope’s temporal power, and by the Radicals, who feared both the inevitable breach with republican France and the reinforcement of Italian constitutional parties by intimacy with strong monarchical states such as Germany and Austria. These very considerations naturally combined to recommend the fact to constitutionalists, who saw in it, besides the territorial guarantee, the elimination of the danger of foreign interference in the relations between Italy and the Vatican, such as Bismarck had recently threatened and such as France was believed ready to propose.

Nevertheless, during its first period (1882-1887) the triple alliance failed to ensure cordiality between the contracting Powers. Mancini exerted himself in a hundred ways to soothe French resentment. He not only refused to join Great Britain in the Egyptian expedition, but agreed to suspend Italian consular jurisdiction in Tunis, and deprecated suspicion of French designs upon Morocco. His efforts were worse than futile. France remained cold, while Bismarck and Kalnóky, distrustful of the Radicalism of Depretis and Mancini, assumed towards their ally an attitude almost hostile. Possibly Germany and Austria may have been influenced by the secret treaty signed between Austria, Germany and Russia on the 21st of March 1884, and ratified during the meeting of the three emperors at Skierniewice in September of that year, by which Bismarck, in return for “honest brokerage” in the Balkans, is understood to have obtained from Austria and Russia a promise of benevolent neutrality in case Germany should be “forced” to make war upon a fourth power—France. Guaranteed thus against Russian attack, Italy became in the eyes of the central powers a negligible quantity, and was treated accordingly. Though kept in the dark as to the Skierniewice arrangement, the Italian government soon discovered from the course of events that the triple alliance had practically lost its object, European peace having been assured without Italian co-operation. Meanwhile France provided Italy with fresh cause for uneasiness by abating her hostility to Germany. Italy in consequence drew nearer to Great Britain, and at the London conference on the Egyptian financial question sided with Great Britain against Austria and Germany. At the same time negotiations took place with Great Britain for an Italian occupation of Massawa, and Mancini, dreaming of a vast Anglo-Italian enterprise against the Mahdi, expatiated in the spring of 1885 upon the glories of an Anglo-Italian alliance, an indiscretion which drew upon him a scarcely-veiled démenti from London. Again speaking in the Chamber, Mancini claimed for Italy the principal merit in the conclusion of the triple alliance, but declared that the alliance left Italy full liberty of action in regard to interests outside its scope, “especially as there was no possibility of obtaining protection for such interests from those who by the alliance had not undertaken to protect them.” These words, which revealed the absence of any stipulation in regard to the protection of Italian interests in the Mediterranean, created lively dissatisfaction in Italy and corresponding satisfaction in France. They hastened Mancini’s downfall (17th June 1885), and prepared the advent of count di Robilant, who three months later succeeded Mancini at the Italian Foreign Office. Robilant, for whom the Skierniewice pact was no secret, followed a firmly independent policy throughout the Bulgarian crisis of 1885-1886, declining to be drawn into any action beyond that required by the treaty of Berlin and the protection of Italian interests in the Balkans. Italy, indeed, came out of the Eastern crisis with enhanced prestige and with her relations to Austria greatly improved. Towards Prince Bismarck Robilant maintained an attitude of dignified independence, and as, in the spring of 1886, the moment for the renewal of the triple alliance drew near, he profited by the development of the Bulgarian crisis and the 71 threatened Franco-Russian understanding to secure from the central powers “something more” than the bare territorial guarantee of the original treaty. This “something more” consisted, at least in part, of the arrangement, with the help of Austria and Germany, of an Anglo-Italian naval understanding having special reference to the Eastern question, but providing for common action by the British and Italian fleets in the Mediterranean in case of war. A vote of the Italian Chamber on the 4th of February 1887, in connexion with the disaster to Italian troops at Dogali, in Abyssinia, brought about the resignation of the Depretis-Robilant cabinet. The crisis dragged for three months, and before its definitive solution by the formation of a Depretis-Crispi ministry, Robilant succeeded (17th March 1887) in renewing the triple alliance on terms more favourable to First renewal of the Triple Alliance. Italy than those obtained in 1882. Not only did he secure concessions from Austria and Germany corresponding in some degree to the improved state of the Italian army and navy, but, in virtue of the Anglo-Italian understanding, assured the practical adhesion of Great Britain to the European policy of the central powers, a triumph probably greater than any registered by Italian diplomacy since the completion of national unity.

The period between May 1881 and July 1887 occupied, in the region of foreign affairs, by the negotiation, conclusion and renewal of the triple alliance, by the Bulgarian crisis and by the dawn of an Italian colonial policy, was Internal reforms. marked at home by urgent political and economic problems, and by the parliamentary phenomena known as trasformismo. On the 29th of June 1881 the Chamber adopted a Franchise Reform Bill, which increased the electorate from 600,000 to 2,000,000 by lowering the fiscal qualification from 40 to 19.80 lire in direct taxation, and by extending the suffrage to all persons who had passed through the two lower standards of the elementary schools, and practically to all persons able to read and write. The immediate result of the reform was to increase the political influence of large cities where the proportion of illiterate workmen was lower than in the country districts, and to exclude from the franchise numbers of peasants and small proprietors who, though of more conservative temperament and of better economic position than the artizan population of the large towns, were often unable to fulfil the scholarship qualification. On the 12th of April 1883 the forced currency was formally abolished by the resumption of treasury payments in gold with funds obtained through a loan of £14,500,000 issued in London on the 5th of May 1882. Owing to the hostility of the French market, the loan was covered with difficulty, and, though the gold premium fell and commercial exchanges were temporarily facilitated by the resumption of cash payments, it is doubtful whether these advantages made up for the burden of £640,000 additional annual interest thrown upon the exchequer. On the 6th of March 1885 parliament finally sanctioned the conventions by which state railways were farmed out to three private companies—the Mediterranean, Adriatic and Sicilian. The railways redeemed in 1875-1876 had been worked in the interval by the government at a heavy loss. A commission of inquiry reported in favour of private management. The conventions, concluded for a period of sixty years, but terminable by either party after twenty or forty years, retained for the state the possession of the lines (except the southern railway, viz. the line from Bologna to Brindisi belonging to the Società Meridionale to whom the Adriatic lines were now farmed), but sold rolling stock to the companies, arranged various schedules of state subsidy for lines projected or in course of construction, guaranteed interest on the bonds of the companies and arranged for the division of revenue between the companies, the reserve fund and the state. National control of the railways was secured by a proviso that the directors must be of Italian nationality. Depretis and his colleague Genala, minister of public works, experienced great difficulty in securing parliamentary sanction for the conventions, not so much on account of their defective character, as from the opposition of local interests anxious to extort new lines from the government. In fact, the conventions were only voted by a majority of twenty-three votes after the government had undertaken to increase the length of new state-built lines from 1500 to 2500 kilometres. Unfortunately, The railway conventions. the calculation of probable railway revenue on which the conventions had been based proved to be enormously exaggerated. For many years the 37½% of the gross revenue (less the cost of maintaining the rolling stock, incumbent on the state) scarcely sufficed to pay the interest on debts incurred for railway construction and on the guaranteed bonds. Gradually the increase of traffic consequent upon the industrial development of Italy decreased the annual losses of the state, but the position of the government in regard to the railways still remained so unsatisfactory as to render the resumption of the whole system by the state on the expiration of the first period of twenty years in 1905 inevitable.

Intimately bound up with the forced currency, the railway conventions and public works was the financial question in general. From 1876, when equilibrium between expenditure and revenue had first been attained, Finance. taxation yielded steady annual surpluses, which in 1881 reached the satisfactory level of £2,120,000. The gradual abolition of the grist tax on minor cereals diminished the surplus in 1882 to £236,000, and in 1883 to £110,000, while the total repeal of the grist tax on wheat, which took effect on the 1st of January 1884, coincided with the opening of a new and disastrous period of deficit. True, the repeal of the grist tax was not the only, nor possibly even the principal, cause of the deficit. The policy of “fiscal transformation” inaugurated by the Left increased revenue from indirect taxation from £17,000,000 in 1876 to more than £24,000,000 in 1887, by substituting heavy corn duties for the grist tax, and by raising the sugar and petroleum duties to unprecedented levels. But partly from lack of firm financial administration, partly through the increase of military and naval expenditure (which in 1887 amounted to £9,000,000 for the army, while special efforts were made to strengthen the navy), and principally through the constant drain of railway construction and public works, the demands upon the exchequer grew largely to exceed the normal increase of revenue, and necessitated the contraction of new debts. In their anxiety to remain in office Depretis and the finance minister, Magliani, never hesitated to mortgage the financial future of their country. No concession could be denied to deputies, or groups of deputies, whose support was indispensable to the life of the cabinet, nor, under such conditions, was it possible to place any effective check upon administrative abuses in which politicians or their electors were interested. Railways, roads and harbours which contractors had undertaken to construct for reasonable amounts were frequently made to cost thrice the original estimates. Minghetti, in a trenchant exposure of the parliamentary condition of Italy during this period, cites a case in which a credit for certain public works was, during a debate in the Chamber, increased by the government from £6,600,000 to £9,000,000 in order to conciliate local political interests. In the spring of 1887 Genala, minister of public works, was taken to task for having sanctioned expenditure of £80,000,000 on railway construction while only £40,000,000 had been included in the estimates. As most of these credits were spread over a series of years, succeeding administrations found their financial liberty of action destroyed, and were obliged to cover deficit by constant issues of consolidated stock. Thus the deficit of £940,000 for the financial year 1885-1886 rose to nearly £2,920,000 in 1887-1888, and in 1888-1889 attained the terrible level of £9,400,000.

Nevertheless, in spite of many and serious shortcomings, the long series of Depretis administrations was marked by the adoption of some useful measures. Besides the realization of the formal programme of the Left, consisting of the repeal of the grist tax, the abolition of the forced currency, the extension of the suffrage and the development of the railway system, Depretis laid the foundation for land tax re-assessment by introducing a new cadastral survey. Unfortunately, the new survey was made largely optional, so that provinces which had reason 72 to hope for a diminution of land tax under a revised assessment hastened to complete their survey, while others, in which the average of the land tax was below a normal assessment, neglected to comply with the provisions of the scheme. An important undertaking, known as the Agricultural Inquiry, brought to light vast quantities of information valuable for future agrarian legislation. The year 1885 saw the introduction and adoption of a measure embodying the principle of employers’ liability for accidents to workmen, a principle subsequently extended and more equitably defined in the spring of 1899. An effort to encourage the development of the mercantile marine was made in the same year, and a convention was concluded with the chief lines of passenger steamers to retain their fastest vessels as auxiliaries to the fleet in case of war. Sanitation and public hygiene received a potent impulse from the cholera epidemic of 1884, many of the unhealthiest quarters in Naples and other cities being demolished and rebuilt, with funds chiefly furnished by the state. The movement was strongly supported by King Humbert, whose intrepidity in visiting the most dangerous spots at Busca and Naples while the epidemic was at its height, reassuring the panic-stricken inhabitants by his presence, excited the enthusiasm of his people and the admiration of Europe.

During the accomplishment of these and other reforms the condition of parliament underwent profound change. By degrees the administrations of the Left had ceased to rely solely upon the Liberal sections of the Chamber, and “Trasformismo.” had carried their most important bills with the help of the Right. This process of transformation was not exclusively the work of Depretis, but had been initiated as early as 1873, when a portion of the Right under Minghetti had, by joining the Left, overturned the Lanza-Sella cabinet. In 1876 Minghetti himself had fallen a victim to a similar defection of Conservative deputies. The practical annihilation of the old Right in the elections of 1876 opened a new parliamentary era. Reduced in number to less than one hundred, and radically changed in spirit and composition, the Right gave way, if not to despair, at least to a despondency unsuited to an opposition party. Though on more than one occasion personal rancour against the men of the Moderate Left prevented the Right from following Sella’s advice and regaining, by timely coalition with cognate parliamentary elements, a portion of its former influence, the bulk of the party, with singular inconsistency, drew nearer and nearer to the Liberal cabinets. The process was accelerated by Sella’s illness and death (14th March 1884), an event which cast profound discouragement over the more thoughtful of the Conservatives and Moderate Liberals, by whom Sella had been regarded as a supreme political reserve, as a statesman whose experienced vigour and patriotic sagacity might have been trusted to lift Italy from any depth of folly or misfortune. By a strange anomaly the Radical measures brought forward by the Left diminished instead of increasing the distance between it and the Conservatives. Numerically insufficient to reject such measures, and lacking the fibre and the cohesion necessary for the pursuance of a far-sighted policy, the Right thought prudent not to employ its strength in uncompromising opposition, but rather, by supporting the government, to endeavour to modify Radical legislation in a Conservative sense. In every case the calculation proved fallacious. Radical measures were passed unmodified, and the Right was compelled sadly to accept the accomplished fact. Thus it was with the abolition of the grist tax, the reform of the suffrage, the railway conventions and many other bills. When, in course of time, the extended suffrage increased the Republican and Extreme Radical elements in the Chamber, and the Liberal “Pentarchy” (composed of Crispi, Cairoli, Nicotera, Zanardelli and Baccarini) assumed an attitude of bitter hostility to Depretis, the Right, obeying the impulse of Minghetti, rallied openly to Depretis, lending him aid without which his prolonged term of office would have been impossible. The result was parliamentary chaos, baptized trasformismo. In May 1883 this process received official recognition by the elimination of the Radicals Zanardelli and Baccarini from the Depretis cabinet, while in the course of 1884 a Conservative, Signor Biancheri, was elected to the presidency of the Chamber, and another Conservative, General Ricotti, appointed to the War Office. Though Depretis, at the end of his life in 1887, showed signs of repenting of the confusion thus created, he had established a parliamentary system destined largely to sterilize and vitiate the political life of Italy.

Contemporaneously with the vicissitudes of home and foreign policy under the Left there grew up in Italy a marked tendency towards colonial enterprise. The tendency itself dated from 1869, when a congress of the Italian chambers of Colonial policy. commerce at Genoa had urged the Lanza cabinet to establish a commercial depôt on the Red Sea. On the 11th of March 1870 an Italian shipper, Signor Rubattino, had bought the bay of Assab, with the neighbouring island of Darmakieh, from Beheran, sultan of Raheita, for £1880, the funds being furnished by the government. The Egyptian government being unwilling to recognize the sovereignty of Beheran over Assab or his right to sell territory to a foreign power, Visconti-Venosta thought it opportune not then to occupy Assab. No further step was taken until, at the end of 1879, Rubattino prepared to establish a commercial station at Assab. The British government made inquiry as to his intentions, and on the 19th of April 1880 received a formal undertaking from Cairoli that Assab would never be fortified nor be made a military establishment. Meanwhile (January 1880) stores and materials were landed, and Assab was permanently occupied. Eighteen months later a party of Italian sailors and explorers under Lieutenant Biglieri and Signor Giulietti were massacred in Egyptian territory. Egypt, however, refused to make thorough inquiry into the massacre, and was only prevented from occupying Raheita and coming into conflict with Italy by the good offices of Lord Granville, who dissuaded the Egyptian government from enforcing its sovereignty. On the 20th of September 1881 Beheran formally accepted Italian protection, and in the following February an Anglo-Italian convention established the Italian title to Assab on condition that Italy should formally recognise the suzerainty of the Porte and of the khedive over the Red Sea coast, and should prevent the transport of arms and munitions of war through the territory of Assab. This convention was never recognized by the Porte nor by the Egyptian government. A month later (10th March 1882) Rubattino made over his establishment to the Italian government, and on the 12th of June the Chamber adopted a bill constituting Assab an Italian crown colony.

Within four weeks of the adoption of this bill the bombardment of Alexandria by the British fleet (11th July 1882) opened an era destined profoundly to affect the colonial position of Italy. The revolt of Arabi Pasha (September 1881) The Egyptian Question. had led to the meeting of an ambassadorial conference at Constantinople, promoted by Mancini, Italian minister for foreign affairs, in the hope of preventing European intervention in Egypt and the permanent establishment of an Anglo-French condominium to the detriment of Italian influence. At the opening of the conference (23rd June 1882) Italy secured the signature of a self-denying protocol whereby all the great powers undertook to avoid isolated action; but the rapid development of the crisis in Egypt, and the refusal of France to co-operate with Great Britain in the restoration of order, necessitated vigorous action by the latter alone. In view of the French refusal, Lord Granville on the 27th of July invited Italy to join in restoring order in Egypt; but Mancini and Depretis, in spite of the efforts of Crispi, then in London, declined the offer. Financial considerations, lack of proper transports for an expeditionary corps, fear of displeasing France, dislike of a “policy of adventure,” misplaced deference towards the ambassadorial conference in Constantinople, and unwillingness to thwart the current of Italian sentiment in favour of the Egyptian “nationalists,” were the chief motives of the Italian refusal, which had the effect of somewhat estranging Great Britain and Italy. Anglo-Italian relations, however, regained their normal cordiality two years later, and found expression in the support 73 lent by Italy to the British proposal at the London conference on the Egyptian question (July 1884). About the same time Mancini was informed by the Italian agent in Cairo that Great Britain would be well disposed towards an extension of Italian influence on the Red Sea coast. Having sounded Lord Granville, Mancini received encouragement to seize Beilul and Massawa, in view of the projected restriction of the Egyptian zone of military occupation consequent on the Mahdist rising in the Sudan. Lord Granville further inquired whether Italy would co-operate in pacifying the Sudan, and received an affirmative reply. Italian action was hastened by news that, in December 1884, an exploring party under Signor Bianchi, royal commissioner for Assab, had been massacred in the Aussa (Danakil) country, an event which aroused in Italy a desire to punish the assassins and to obtain satisfaction for the still unpunished massacre of Signor Giulietti and his companions. Partly to satisfy public opinion, partly in order to profit by the favourable disposition of the British government, and partly in the hope of remedying the error committed in 1882 by refusal to co-operate with Great Britain in Egypt, the Italian government in January 1885 despatched an expedition under Admiral Caimi and Colonel Saletta to occupy Massawa and Beilul. The occupation, effected on the 5th of February, was accelerated by fear lest Italy might be forestalled by France or Russia, both of which powers were suspected of desiring to establish themselves firmly on the Red Sea and to exercise a protectorate over Abyssinia. News of the occupation reached Europe simultaneously with the tidings of the fall of Khartum, an event which disappointed Italian hopes of military co-operation with Great Britain in the Sudan. The resignation of the Gladstone-Granville cabinet further precluded the projected Italian occupation of Suakin, and the Italians, wisely refraining from an independent attempt to succour Kassala, then besieged by the Mahdists, bent their efforts to the increase of their zone of occupation around Massawa. The extension of the Italian zone excited the suspicions of John, negus of Abyssinia, whose apprehensions were assiduously fomented by Alula, ras of Tigré, and by French and Greek adventurers. Measures, apparently successful, were taken to reassure the negus, but shortly afterwards protection inopportunely accorded by Italy to enemies of Ras Alula, induced the Abyssinians to enter upon hostilities. In January 1886 Ras Alula raided the village of Wa, to the west of Zula, but towards the end of the year (23rd November) Wa was occupied by the irregular troops of General Gené, who had superseded Colonel Saletta at Massawa. Angered by this step, Ras Alula took prisoners the members of an Italian exploring party commanded by Count Salimbeni, and held them as hostages for the evacuation of Wa. General Gené nevertheless reinforced Wa and pushed forward a detachment to Saati. On the 25th of January 1887 Ras Alula attacked Saati, but was repulsed with loss. On the following day, however, the Abyssinians succeeded in surprising, near the village of Dogali, an Italian force of 524 officers and men under Colonel De Cristoforis, Disaster of Dogali. who were convoying provisions to the garrison of Saati. The Abyssinians, 20,000 strong, speedily overwhelmed the small Italian force, which, after exhausting its ammunition, was destroyed where it stood. One man only escaped. Four hundred and seven men and twenty-three officers were killed outright, and one officer and eighty-one men wounded. Dead and wounded alike were horribly mutilated by order of Alula. Fearing a new attack, General Gené withdrew his forces from Saati, Wa and Arafali; but the losses of the Abyssinians at Saati and Dogali had been so heavy as to dissuade Alula from further hostilities.

In Italy the disaster of Dogali produced consternation, and caused the fall of the Depretis-Robilant cabinet. The Chamber, eager for revenge, voted a credit of £200,000, and sanctioned the despatch of reinforcements. Meanwhile Abyssinia. Signor Crispi, who, though averse from colonial adventure, desired to vindicate Italian honour, entered the Depretis cabinet as minister of the interior, and obtained from parliament a new credit of £800,000. In November 1887 a strong expedition under General di San Marzano raised the strength of the Massawa garrison to nearly 20,000 men. The British government, desirous of preventing an Italo-Abyssinian conflict, which could but strengthen the position of the Mahdists, despatched Mr (afterwards Sir) Gerald Portal from Massawa on the 29th of October to mediate with the negus. The mission proved fruitless. Portal returned to Massawa on the 25th of December 1887, and warned the Italians that John was preparing to attack them in the following spring with an army of 100,000 men. On the 28th of March 1888 the negus indeed descended from the Abyssinian high plateau in the direction of Saati, but finding the Italian position too strong to be carried by assault, temporized and opened negotiations for peace. His tactics failed to entice the Italians from their position, and on the 3rd of April sickness among his men compelled John to withdraw the Abyssinian army. The negus next marched against Menelek, king of Shoa, whose neutrality Italy had purchased with 5000 Remington rifles and a supply of ammunition, but found him with 80,000 men too strongly entrenched to be successfully attacked. Tidings of a new Mahdist incursion into Abyssinian territory reaching the negus induced him to postpone the settlement of his quarrel with Menelek until the dervishes had been chastised. Marching towards the Blue Nile, he joined battle with the Mahdists, but on the 10th of March 1889 was killed, in the hour of victory, near Gallabat. His death gave rise to an Abyssinian war of succession between Mangashà, natural son of John, and Menelek, grandson of the Negus Sella-Sellassié. Menelek, by means of Count Antonelli, resident in the Shoa country, requested Italy to execute a diversion in his favour by occupying Asmarà and other points on the high plateau. Antonelli profited by the situation to obtain Menelek’s signature to a treaty fixing the frontiers of the Italian Treaty of Uccialli. colony and defining Italo-Abyssinian relations. The treaty, signed at Uccialli on the 2nd of May 1899, arranged for regular intercourse between Italy and Abyssinia and conceded to Italy a portion of the high plateau, with the positions of Halai, Saganeiti and Asmarà. The main point of the treaty, however, lay in clause 17:—

Upon this clause Italy founded her claim to a protectorate over Abyssinia. In September 1889 the treaty of Uccialli was ratified in Italy by Menelek’s lieutenant, the Ras Makonnen. Makonnen further concluded with the Italian premier, Crispi, a convention whereby Italy recognized Menelek as emperor of Ethiopia, Menelek recognized the Italian colony, and arranged for a special Italo-Abyssinian currency and for a loan. On the 11th of October Italy communicated article 17 of the treaty of Uccialli to the European powers, interpreting it as a valid title to an Italian protectorate over Abyssinia. Russia alone neglected to take note of the communication, and persisted in the hostile attitude she had assumed at the moment of the occupation of Massawa. Meanwhile the Italian mint coined thalers bearing the portrait of King Humbert, with an inscription referring to the Italian protectorate, and on the 1st of January 1890 a royal decree conferred upon the colony the name of “Eritrea.”

In the colony itself General Baldissera, who had replaced General Saletta, delayed the movement against Mangashà desired by Menelek. The Italian general would have preferred to wait until his intervention was requested Operations in Abyssinia. by both pretenders to the Abyssinian throne. Pressed by the home government, he, however, instructed a native ally to occupy the important positions of Keren and Asmarà, and prepared himself to take the offensive against Mangashà and Ras Alula. The latter retreated south of the river Mareb, leaving the whole of the cis-Mareb territory, including the provinces of Hamasen, Agameh, Seraè and Okulè-Kusai, in Italian hands. General Orero, successor of Baldissera, pushed offensive action more vigorously, and on the 26th of January 1890 entered Adowa, a city considerably to the south of the Mareb—an imprudent step which aroused Menelek’s suspicions, and had hurriedly to be retraced. Mangashà, seeing further resistance to be useless, submitted to Menelek, who at the end 74 of February ratified at Makallé the additional convention to the treaty of Uccialli, but refused to recognize the Italian occupation of the Mareb. The negus, however, conformed to article 17 of the treaty of Uccialli by requesting Italy to represent Abyssinia at the Brussels anti-slavery conference, an act which strengthened Italian illusions as to Menelek’s readiness to submit to their protectorate. Menelek had previously notified the chief European powers of his coronation at Entotto (14th December 1889), but Germany and Great Britain replied that such notification should have been made through the Italian government. Germany, moreover, wounded Menelek’s pride by employing merely the title of “highness.” The negus took advantage of the incident to protest against the Italian text of article 17, and to contend that the Amharic text contained no equivalent for the word “consent,” but merely stipulated that Abyssinia “might” make use of Italy in her relations with foreign powers. On the 28th of October 1890 Count Antonelli, negotiator of the treaty, was despatched to settle the controversy, but on arriving at Adis Ababa, the new residence of the negus, found agreement impossible either with regard to the frontier or the protectorate. On the 10th of April 1891, Menelek communicated to the powers his views with regard to the Italian frontier, and announced his intention of re-establishing the ancient boundaries of Ethiopia as far as Khartum to the north-west and Victoria Nyanza to the south. Meanwhile the marquis de Rudini, who had succeeded Crispi as Italian premier, had authorized the abandonment of article 17 even before he had heard of the failure of Antonelli’s negotiations. Rudini was glad to leave the whole dispute in abeyance and to make with the local ras, or chieftains, of the high plateau an arrangement securing for Italy the cis-Mareb provinces of Seraè and Okulè-Kusai under the rule of an allied native chief named Bath-Agos. Rudini, however, was able to conclude two protocols with Great Britain (March and April 1891) whereby the British government definitely recognized Abyssinia as within the Italian sphere of influence in return for an Italian recognition of British rights in the Upper Nile.

The period 1887-1890 was marked in Italy by great political activity. The entry of Crispi into the Depretis cabinet as minister of the interior (4th April 1887) introduced into the government an element of vigour which had First Crispi Cabinet. long been lacking. Though sixty-eight years of age, Crispi possessed an activity, a rapidity of decision and an energy in execution with which none of his contemporaries could vie. Within four months the death of Depretis (29th July 1887) opened for Crispi the way to the premiership. Besides assuming the presidency of the council of ministers and retaining the ministry of the interior, Crispi took over the portfolio of foreign affairs which Depretis had held since the resignation of Count di Robilant. One of the first questions with which he had to deal was that of conciliation between Italy and the Vatican. At the end of May the pope, in an allocution to the cardinals, had spoken of Italy in terms of unusual cordiality, and had expressed a wish for peace. A few days later Signor Bonghi, one of the framers of the Law of Guarantees, published in the Nuova Antologia a plea for reconciliation on the basis of an amendment to the Law of Guarantees and recognition by the pope of the Italian title to Rome. The chief incident cf the movement towards conciliation consisted, however, in the publication of a pamphlet entitled La Conciliazione by Father Tosti, a close friend and confidant of the pope, extolling the advantages of peace between Vatican and Quirinal. Tosti’s pamphlet was known to represent papal ideas, and Tosti himself Tosti and conciliation. was persona grata to the Italian government. Reconciliation seemed within sight when suddenly Tosti’s pamphlet was placed on the Index, ostensibly on account of a phrase, “The whole of Italy entered Rome by the breach of Porta Pia; the king cannot restore Rome to the pope, since Rome belongs to the Italian people.” On the 4th of June 1887 the official Vatican organ, the Osservatore Romano, published a letter written by Tosti to the pope conditionally retracting the views expressed in the pamphlet. The letter had been written at the pope’s request, on the understanding that it should not be published. On the 15th of June the pope addressed to Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, secretary of state, a letter reiterating in uncompromising terms the papal claim to the temporal power, and at the end of July Cardinal Rampolla reformulated the same claim in a circular to the papal nuncios abroad. The dream of conciliation was at an end, but the Tosti incident had served once more to illustrate the true position of the Vatican in regard to Italy. It became clear that neither the influence of the regular clergy, of which the Society of Jesus is the most powerful embodiment, nor that of foreign clerical parties, which largely control the Peter’s Pence fund, would ever permit renunciation of the papal claim to temporal power. France, and the French Catholics especially, feared lest conciliation Terms of the “Roman Question.” should diminish the reliance of the Vatican upon France, and consequently French hold over the Vatican. The Vatican, for its part, felt its claim to temporal power to be too valuable a pecuniary asset and too efficacious an instrument of church discipline lightly to be thrown away. The legend of an “imprisoned pope,” subject to every whim of his gaolers, had never failed to arouse the pity and loosen the purse-strings of the faithful; dangerous innovators and would-be reformers within the church could be compelled to bow before the symbol of the temporal power, and their spirit of submission tested by their readiness to forgo the realization of their aims until the head of the church should be restored to his rightful domain. More important than all was the interest of the Roman curia, composed almost exclusively of Italians, to retain in its own hands the choice of the pontiff and to maintain the predominance of the Italian element and the Italian spirit in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Conciliation with Italy would expose the pope and his Italian entourage to suspicion of being unduly subject to Italian political influence—of being, in a word, more Italian than Catholic. Such a suspicion would inevitably lead to a movement in favour of the internationalization of the curia and of the papacy. In order to avoid this danger it was therefore necessary to refuse all compromise, and, by perpetual reiteration of a claim incompatible with Italian territorial unity, to prove to the church at large that the pope and the curia were more Catholic than Italian. Such rigidity of principle need not be extended to the affairs of everyday contact between the Vatican and the Italian authorities, with regard to which, indeed, a tacit modus vivendi was easily attainable. Italy, for her part, could not go back upon the achievements of the Risorgimento by restoring Rome or any portion of Italian territory to the pope. She had hoped by conciliation to arrive at an understanding which should have ranged the church among the conservative and not among the disruptive forces of the country, but she was keenly desirous to retain the papacy as a preponderatingly Italian institution, and was ready to make whatever formal concessions might have appeared necessary to reassure foreign Catholics concerning the reality of the pope’s spiritual independence. The failure of the conciliation movement left profound irritation between Vatican and Quirinal, an irritation which, on the Vatican side, found expression in vivacious protests and in threats of leaving Rome; and, on the Italian side, in the deposition of the syndic of Rome for having visited the cardinal-vicar, in the anti-clerical provisions of the new penal code, and in the inauguration (9th June 1889) of a monument to Giordano Bruno on the very site of his martyrdom.

The internal situation inherited by Crispi from Depretis was very unsatisfactory. Extravagant expenditure on railways and public works, loose administration of finance, the cost of colonial enterprise, the growing demands for the army and navy, the impending tariff war with France, and the over-speculation in building and in industrial ventures, which had absorbed all the floating capital of the country, had combined to produce a state of affairs calling for firm and radical treatment. Crispi, burdened by the premiership and by the two most important portfolios in the cabinet, was, however, unable to exercise efficient control over all departments of state. Nevertheless his administration was by no means unfruitful. Zanardelli, 75 minister of justice, secured in June 1888 the adoption of a new penal code; state surveillance was extended to the opere pie, or charitable institutions; municipal franchise was reformed by granting what was practically manhood suffrage with residential qualification, provision being made for minority representation; and the central state administration was reformed by a bill fixing the number and functions of the various ministries. The management of finance was scarcely satisfactory, for though Giolitti, who had succeeded Magliani and Perazzi at the treasury, suppressed the former’s illusory “pension fund,” he lacked the fibre necessary to deal with the enormous deficit of nearly £10,000,000 in 1888-1889, the existence of which both Perazzi and he had recognized. The most successful feature of Crispi’s term of office was his strict maintenance of order and the suppression of Radical and Irredentist agitation. So vigorous was his treatment of Irredentism that he dismissed without warning his colleague Seismit Doda, minister of finance, for having failed to protest against Irredentist speeches delivered in his presence at Udine. Firmness such as this secured for him the support of all constitutional elements, and after three years’ premiership his position was infinitely stronger than at the outset. The general election of 1890 gave the cabinet an almost unwieldy majority, comprising four-fifths of the Chamber. A lengthy term of office seemed to be opening out before him when, on the 31st of January 1891, Crispi, speaking in a debate upon an unimportant bill, angrily rebuked the Right for its noisy interruptions. The rebuke infuriated the Conservative deputies, who, protesting against Crispi’s words in the name of the “sacred memories” of their party, precipitated a division and placed the cabinet in a minority. The incident, whether due to chance or guile, brought about the resignation of Crispi. A few days later he was succeeded in the premiership by the marquis di Rudini, leader of the Right, who formed a coalition cabinet with Nicotera and a part of the Left.

The sudden fall of Crispi wrought a great change in the character of Italian relations with foreign powers. His policy had been characterized by extreme cordiality towards Austria and Germany, by a close understanding with Rudini. Great Britain in regard to Mediterranean questions, and by an apparent animosity towards France, which at one moment seemed likely to lead to war. Shortly before the fall of the Depretis-Robilant cabinet Count Robilant had announced the intention of Italy to denounce the commercial treaties with France and Austria, which would lapse on the 31st of December 1887, and had intimated his readiness to negotiate new treaties. On the 24th of June 1887, in view of a possible rupture of commercial relations with France, the Depretis-Crispi cabinet introduced a new general tariff. The probability of the conclusion of a new Franco-Italian treaty was small, both on account of the protectionist spirit of France and of French resentment at the renewal of the triple alliance, but even such slight probability vanished after a visit paid to Bismarck by Crispi (October 1887) within three months of his appointment to the premiership. Crispi entertained no a priori animosity towards France, but was strongly convinced that Italy must emancipate herself from the position of political dependence on her powerful neighbour which had vitiated the foreign policy of the Left. So far was he from desiring a rupture with France, that he had subordinated acceptance of the portfolio of the interior in the Depretis cabinet to an assurance that the triple alliance contained no provision for offensive warfare. But his ostentatious visit to Friedrichsruh, and a subsequent speech at Turin, in which, while professing sentiments of friendship and esteem for France, he eulogized the personality of Bismarck, aroused against him a hostility on the part of the French which he was never afterwards able to allay. France was equally careless of Italian susceptibilities, and in April 1888 Goblet made a futile but irritating attempt to enforce at Massawa the Ottoman régime of the capitulations in regard to non-Italian residents. In such circumstances the negotiations for the new commercial treaty could but fail, and though the old treaty was prolonged by special arrangement for two months, differential tariffs were put in force on both sides of the frontier on the 29th of February 1888. The value of French exports into Italy decreased immediately by one-half, while Italian exports to France decreased by nearly two-thirds. At the end of 1889 Crispi abolished the differential duties against French imports and returned to the general Italian tariff, but France declined to follow his lead and maintained her prohibitive dues. Meanwhile the enthusiastic reception accorded to the young German emperor on the occasion of his visit to Rome in October 1888, and the cordiality shown towards King Humbert and Crispi at Berlin in May 1889, increased the tension of Franco-Italian relations; nor was it until after the fall of Prince Bismarck in March 1890 that Crispi adopted towards the Republic a more friendly attitude by sending an Italian squadron to salute President Carnot at Toulon. The chief advantage derived by Italy from Crispi’s foreign policy was the increase of confidence in her government on the part of her allies and of Great Britain. On the occasion of the incident raised by Goblet with regard to Massawa, Bismarck made it clear to France that, in case of complications, Italy would not stand alone; and when in February 1888 a strong French fleet appeared to menace the Italian coast, the British Mediterranean squadron demonstrated its readiness to support Italian naval dispositions. Moreover, under Crispi’s hand Italy awoke from the apathy of former years and gained consciousness of her place in the world. The conflict with France, the operations in Eritrea, the vigorous interpretation of the triple alliance, the questions of Morocco and Bulgaria, were all used by him as means to stimulate national sentiment. With the instinct of a true statesman, he felt the pulse of the people, divined their need for prestige, and their preference for a government heavy-handed rather than lax. How great had been Crispi’s power was seen by contrast with the policy of the Rudini cabinet which succeeded him in February 1891. Crispi’s so-called “megalomania” gave place to retrenchment in home affairs and to a deferential Second renewal of the Triple Alliance. attitude towards all foreign powers. The premiership of Rudini was hailed by the Radical leader, Cavallotti, as a pledge of the non-renewal of the triple alliance, against which the Radicals began a vociferous campaign. Their tactics, however, produced a contrary effect, for Rudini, accepting proposals from Berlin, renewed the alliance in June 1891 for a period of twelve years. None of Rudini’s public utterances justify the supposition that he assumed office with the intention of allowing the alliance to lapse on its expiry in May 1892; indeed, he frankly declared it to form the basis of his foreign policy. The attitude of several of his colleagues was more equivocal, but though they coquetted with French financiers in the hope of obtaining the support of the Paris Bourse for Italian securities, the precipitate renewal of the alliance destroyed all probability of a close understanding with France. The desire of Rudini to live on the best possible terms with all powers was further evinced in the course of a visit paid to Monza by M. de Giers in October 1891, when the Russian statesman was apprised of the entirely defensive nature of Italian engagements under the triple alliance. At the same time he carried to a successful conclusion negotiations begun by Crispi for the renewal of commercial treaties with Austria and Germany upon terms which to some extent compensated Italy for the reduction of her commerce with France, and concluded with Great Britain conventions for the delimitation of British and Italian spheres of influence in north-east Africa. In home affairs his administration was weak and vacillating, nor did the economies effected in naval and military expenditure and in other departments suffice to strengthen the position of a cabinet which had disappointed the hopes of its supporters. On the 14th of April 1892 dissensions between ministers concerning the financial programme led to a cabinet crisis, and though Rudini succeeded in reconstructing his administration, he was defeated in the Chamber on the 5th of May and obliged to resign. King Humbert, Giolitti. who, from lack of confidence in Rudini, had declined to allow him to dissolve parliament, entrusted Signor Giolitti, a Piedmontese deputy, sometime treasury minister in the Crispi cabinet, with the formation of a ministry of 76 the Left, which contrived to obtain six months’ supply on account, and dissolved the Chamber.

The ensuing general election (November 1892), marked by unprecedented violence and abuse of official pressure upon the electorate, fitly ushered in what proved to be the most unfortunate period of Italian history since Bank scandals. the completion of national unity. The influence of Giolitti was based largely upon the favour of a court clique, and especially of Rattazzi, minister of the royal household. Early in 1893 a scandal arose in connexion with the management of state banks, and particularly of the Banca Romana, whose managing director, Tanlongo, had issued £2,500,000 of duplicate bank-notes. Giolitti scarcely improved matters by creating Tanlongo a member of the senate, and by denying in parliament the existence of any mismanagement. The senate, however, manifested the utmost hostility to Tanlongo, whom Giolitti, in consequence of an interpellation in the Chamber, was compelled to arrest. Arrests of other prominent persons followed, and on the 3rd of February the Chamber authorized the prosecution of De Zerbi, a Neapolitan deputy accused of corruption. On the 20th of February De Zerbi suddenly expired. For a time Giolitti successfully opposed inquiry into the conditions of the state banks, but on the 21st of March was compelled to sanction an official investigation by a parliamentary commission composed of seven members. On the 23rd of November the report of the commission was read to the Chamber amid intense excitement. It established that all Italian cabinets since 1880 had grossly neglected the state banks; that the two preceding cabinets had been aware of the irregularities committed by Tanlongo; that Tanlongo had heavily subsidized the press, paying as much as £20,000 for that purpose in 1888 alone; that a number of deputies, including several ex-ministers, had received from him loans of a considerable amount, which they had apparently made no effort to refund; that Giolitti had deceived the Chamber with regard to the state banks, and was open to suspicion of having, after the arrest of Tanlongo, abstracted a number of documents from the latter’s papers before placing the remainder in the hands of the judicial authorities. In spite of the gravity of the charges formulated against many prominent men, the report merely “deplored” and “disapproved” of their conduct, without proposing penal proceedings. Fear of extending still farther a scandal which had already attained huge dimensions, and the desire to avoid any further shock to national credit, convinced the commissioners of the expediency of avoiding a long series of prosecutions. The report, however, sealed the fate of the Giolitti cabinet, and on the 24th of November it resigned amid general execration.

Apart from the lack of scruple manifested by Giolitti in the bank scandals, he exhibited incompetence in the conduct of foreign and home affairs. On the 16th and 18th of August 1893 a number of Italian workmen were Aigues-Mortes massacre. massacred at Aigues-Mortes. The French authorities, under whose eyes the massacre was perpetrated, did nothing to prevent or repress it, and the mayor of Marseilles even refused to admit the wounded Italian workmen to the municipal hospital. These occurrences provoked anti-French demonstrations in many parts of Italy, and revived the chronic Italian rancour against France. The Italian foreign minister, Brin, began by demanding the punishment of the persons guilty of the massacre, but hastened to accept as satisfactory the anodyne measures adopted by the French government. Giolitti removed the prefect of Rome for not having prevented an expression of popular anger, and presented formal excuses to the French consul at Messina for a demonstration against that consulate. In the following December the French tribunal at Angoulême acquitted all the authors of the massacre. At home Giolitti displayed the same weakness. Riots at Naples in August 1893 and symptoms of unrest in Sicily found him, as usual, unprepared and vacillating. The closing of the French market to Sicilian produce, the devastation wrought by the phylloxera and the decrease of the sulphur trade had combined to produce in Sicily a discontent of which Socialist agitators took advantage to organize the workmen of the towns and the peasants of the country into groups known as fasci. Insurrection in Sicily. The movement had no well-defined object. Here and there it was based upon a bastard Socialism, in other places it was made a means of municipal party warfare under the guidance of the local mafia, and in some districts it was simply popular effervescence against the local octrois on bread and flour. As early as January 1893 a conflict had occurred between the police and the populace, in which several men, women and children were killed, an occurrence used by the agitators further to inflame the populace. Instead of maintaining a firm policy, Giolitti allowed the movement to spread until, towards the autumn of 1893, he became alarmed and drafted troops into the island, though in numbers insufficient to restore order. At the moment of his fall the movement assumed the aspect of an insurrection, and during the interval between his resignation (24th November) and the formation of a new Crispi cabinet (10th December) conflicts between the public forces and the rioters were frequent. The return of Crispi to power—a return imposed by public opinion as that of the only man capable of dealing with the desperate situation—marked the turning-point of the crisis. Intimately acquainted with the conditions of his native island, Crispi adopted efficacious remedies. The fasci were suppressed, Sicily was filled with troops, the reserves were called out, a state of siege proclaimed, military courts instituted and the whole movement crushed in a few weeks. The chief agitators were either sentenced to heavy terms of imprisonment or were compelled to flee the country. A simultaneous insurrection at Massa-Carrara was crushed with similar vigour. Crispi’s methods aroused great outcry in the Radical press, but the severe sentences of the military courts were in time tempered by the Royal prerogative of amnesty.

But it was not alone in regard to public order that heroic measures were necessary. The financial situation inspired serious misgivings. While engagements contracted by Depretis in regard to public works had more than Financial crisis. neutralized the normal increase of revenue from taxation, the whole credit of the state had been affected by the severe economic and financial crises of the years 1889-1893. The state banks, already hampered by maladministration, were encumbered by huge quantities of real estate which had been taken over as compensation for unredeemed mortgages. Baron Sidney Sonnino, minister of finance in the Crispi cabinet, found a prospective deficit of £7,080,000, and in spite of economies was obliged to face an actual deficit of more than £6,000,000. Drastic measures were necessary to limit expenditure and to provide new sources of revenue. Sonnino applied, and subsequently amended, the Bank Reform Bill passed by the previous Administration (August 10, 1893) for the creation of a supreme state bank, the Bank of Italy, which was entrusted with the liquidation of the insolvent Banca Romana. The new law forbade the state banks to lend money on real estate, limited their powers of discounting bills and securities, and reduced the maximum of their paper currency. In order to diminish the gold premium, which under Giolitti had risen to 16%, forced currency was given to the existing notes of the banks of Italy, Naples and Sicily, while special state notes were issued to meet immediate currency needs. Measures were enforced to prevent Italian holders of consols from sending their coupons abroad to be paid in gold, with the result that, whereas in 1893 £3,240,000 had been paid abroad in gold for the service of the January coupons and only £680,000 in paper in Italy, the same coupon was paid a year later with only £1,360,000 abroad and £2,540,000 at home. Economies for more than £1,000,000, were immediately effected, taxes, calculated to produce £2,440,000, were proposed to be placed upon land, incomes, salt and corn, while the existing income-tax upon consols (fixed at 8% by Cambray-Digny in 1868, and raised to 13.20% by Sella in 1870) was increased to 20% irrespectively of the stockholders’ nationality. These proposals met with opposition so fierce as to cause a cabinet crisis, but Sonnino who resigned office as minister of finance, 77 returned to power as minister of the treasury, promulgated some of his proposals by royal decree, and in spite of vehement opposition secured their ratification by the Chamber. The tax upon consols, which, in conjunction with the other severe fiscal measures, was regarded abroad as a pledge that Italy intended at all costs to avoid bankruptcy, caused a rise in Italian stocks. When the Crispi cabinet fell in March 1896 Sonnino had the satisfaction of seeing revenue increased by £3,400,000, expenditure diminished by £2,800,000, the gold premium reduced from 16 to 5%, consolidated stock at 95 instead of 72, and, notwithstanding the expenditure necessitated by the Abyssinian War, financial equilibrium practically restored.

While engaged in restoring order and in supporting Sonnino’s courageous struggle against bankruptcy, Crispi became the object of fierce attacks from the Radicals, Socialists and anarchists. On the 16th of June an attempt by Attacks on Crispi. an anarchist named Lega was made on Crispi’s life; on the 24th of June President Carnot was assassinated by the anarchist Caserio; and on the 30th of June an Italian journalist was murdered at Leghorn for a newspaper attack upon anarchism—a series of outrages which led the government to frame and parliament to adopt (11th July) a Public Safety Bill for the prevention of anarchist propaganda and crime. At the end of July the trial of the persons implicated in the Banca Romana scandal revealed the fact that among the documents abstracted by Giolitti from the papers of the bank manager, Tanlongo, were several bearing upon Crispi’s political and private life. On the 11th of December Giolitti laid these and other papers before the Chamber, in the hope of ruining Crispi, but upon examination most of them were found to be worthless, and the rest of so private a nature as to be unfit for publication. The effect of the incident was rather to increase detestation of Giolitti than to damage Crispi. The latter, indeed, prosecuted the former for libel and for abuse of his position when premier, but after many vicissitudes, including the flight of Giolitti to Berlin in order to avoid arrest, the Chamber refused authorization for the prosecution, and the matter dropped. A fresh attempt of the same kind was then made against Crispi by the Radical leader Cavallotti, who advanced unproven charges of corruption and embezzlement. These attacks were, however, unavailing to shake Crispi’s position, and in the general election of May 1895 his government obtained a majority of nearly 200 votes. Nevertheless public confidence in the efficacy of the parliamentary system and in the honesty of politicians was seriously diminished by these unsavoury occurrences, which, in combination with the acquittal of all the defendants in the Banca Romana trial, and the abandonment of the proceedings against Giolitti, reinforced to an alarming degree the propaganda of the revolutionary parties.

The foreign policy of the second Crispi Administration, in which the portfolio of foreign affairs was held by Baron Blanc, was, as before, marked by a cordial interpretation of the triple alliance, and by close accord with Great Complications in Eritrea. Britain. In the Armenian question Italy seconded with energy the diplomacy of Austria and Germany, while the Italian fleet joined the British Mediterranean squadron in a demonstration off the Syrian coast. Graver than any foreign question were the complications in Eritrea. Under the arrangement concluded in 1891 by Rudini with native chiefs in regard to the Italo-Abyssinian frontier districts, relations with Abyssinia had remained comparatively satisfactory. Towards the Sudan, however, the Mahdists, who had recovered from a defeat inflicted by an Italian force at Agordat in 1890, resumed operations in December 1893. Colonel Arimondi, commander of the colonial forces in the absence of the military governor, General Baratieri, attacked and routed a dervish force 10,000 strong on the 21st of December. The Italian troops, mostly native levies, numbered only 2200 men. The dervish loss was more than 1000 killed, while the total Italian casualties amounted to less than 230. General Baratieri, upon returning to the colony, decided to execute a coup de main against the dervish base at Kassala, both in order to relieve pressure from that quarter and to preclude a combined Abyssinian and dervish attack upon the colony at the end of 1894. The protocol concluded with Great Britain on the 15th of April 1891, already referred to, contained a clause to the effect that, were Kassala occupied by the Italians, the place should be transferred to the Egyptian government as soon as the latter should be in a position to restore order in the Sudan. Concentrating a little army of 2600 men, Baratieri surprised and captured Kassala on the 17th of July 1894, and garrisoned the place with native levies under Italian officers. Meanwhile Menelek, jealous of the extension of Italian influence to a part of northern Somaliland and to the Benadir coast, had, with the support of France and Russia, completed his preparations for asserting his authority as independent ruler of Ethiopia. On the 11th of May 1893 he denounced the treaty of Uccialli, but the Giolitti cabinet, absorbed by the bank scandals, paid no heed to his action. Possibly an adroit repetition in favour of Mangashà and against Menelek of the policy formerly followed in favour of Menelek against the negus John might have consolidated Italian influence in Abyssinia by preventing the ascendancy of any single chieftain. The Italian government, however, neglected this opening, and Mangashà came to terms with Menelek. Consequently the efforts of Crispi and his envoy, Colonel Piano, to conclude a new treaty with Menelek in June 1894 not only proved unsuccessful, but formed a prelude to troubles on the Italo-Abyssinian frontier. Bath-Agos, the native chieftain who ruled the Okulé-Kusai and the cis-Mareb provinces on behalf of Italy, intrigued with Mangashà, ras of the trans-Mareb province of Tigre, and with Menelek, to raise a revolt against Italian rule on the high plateau. In December 1894 the revolt broke out, but Major Toselli with a small force marched rapidly against Bath Agos, whom he routed and killed at Halai. General Baratieri, having reason to suspect the complicity of Mangashà in the revolt, called upon him to furnish troops for a projected Italo-Abyssinian campaign against the Mahdists. Mangashà made no reply, and Baratieri crossing the Mareb advanced to Adowa, but four days later was obliged to return northwards. Mangashà thereupon took the offensive and attempted to occupy the village of Coatit in Okulé-Kusai, but was forestalled and defeated by Baratieri on the 13th of January 1895. Hurriedly retreating to Senafé, hard pressed by the Italians, who shelled Senafé on the evening of the 15th of January, Mangashà was obliged to abandon his camp and provisions to Baratieri, who also secured a quantity of correspondence establishing the complicity of Menelek and Mangashà in the revolt of Bath-Agos.

The comparatively facile success achieved by Baratieri against Mangashà seems to have led him to undervalue his enemy, and to forget that Menelek, negus and king of Shoa, had an interest in allowing Mangashà to be Conquest of Tigre. crushed, in order that the imperial authority and the superiority of Shoan over Tigrin arms might be the more strikingly asserted. After obtaining the establishment of an apostolic prefecture in Eritrea under the charge of Italian Franciscans, Baratieri expelled from the colony the French Lazarist missionaries for their alleged complicity in the Bath-Agos insurrection, and in March 1895 undertook the conquest of Tigre. Occupying Adigrat and Makallè, he reached Adowa on the 1st of April, and thence pushed forward to Axum, the holy city of Abyssinia. These places were garrisoned, and during the rainy season Baratieri returned to Italy, where he was received with unbounded enthusiasm. Whether he or the Crispi cabinet had any inkling of the enterprise to which they were committed by the occupation of Tigre is more than doubtful. Certainly Baratieri made no adequate preparations to repel an Abyssinian attempt to reconquer the province. Early in September both Mangashà and Menelek showed signs of activity, and on the 20th of September Makonnen, ras of Harrar, who up till then had been regarded as a friend and quasi-ally by Italy, expelled all Italians from his territory and marched with 30,000 men to join the negus. On returning to Eritrea, Baratieri mobilized his native reserves and pushed forward columns under Major Toselli and General Arimondi as far south as Amba Alagi. Mangashà fell back before the Italians, who obtained several minor successes; but on the 6th of December Toselli’s column, 2000 strong, which 78 through a misunderstanding continued to hold Amba Alagi, was almost annihilated by the Abyssinian vanguard of 40,000 men. Toselli and all but three officers and 300 men fell at their posts after a desperate resistance. Arimondi, collecting the survivors of the Toselli column, retreated to Makallè and Adigrat. At Makallè, however, he left a small garrison in the fort, which on the 7th of January 1896 was invested by the Abyssinian army. Repeated attempts to capture the fort having failed, Menelek and Makonnen opened negotiations with Baratieri for its capitulation, and on the 21st of January the garrison, under Major Galliano, who had heroically defended the position, were permitted to march out with the honours of war. Meanwhile Baratieri received reinforcements from Italy, but remained undecided as to the best plan of campaign. Thus a month was lost, during which the Abyssinian army advanced to Hausen, a position slightly south of Adowa. The Italian commander attempted to treat with Menelek, but his negotiations merely enabled the Italian envoy, Major Salsa, to ascertain that the Abyssinians were nearly 100,000 strong mostly armed with rifles and well supplied with artillery. The Italians, including camp-followers, numbered less than 25,000 men, a force too small for effective action, but too large to be easily provisioned at 200 m. from its base, in a roadless, mountainous country, almost devoid of water. For a moment Baratieri thought of retreat, especially as the hope of creating a diversion from Zaila towards Harrar had failed in consequence of the British refusal to permit the landing of an Italian force without the consent of France. The defection of a number of native allies (who, however, were attacked and defeated by Colonel Stevani on the 18th of February) rendered the Italian position still more precarious; but Baratieri, unable to make up his mind, continued to manœuvre in the hope of drawing an Abyssinian attack. These futile tactics exasperated the home government, which on the 22nd of February despatched General Baldissera, with strong reinforcements, to supersede Baratieri. On the 25th of February Crispi telegraphed to Baratieri, denouncing his operations as “mllitary phthisis,” and urging him to decide upon some strategic plan. Baratieri, anxious probably to obtain some success before the arrival of Baldissera, and alarmed by the rapid diminution of his stores, which precluded further immobility, called a council of war (29th of February) and obtained the approval of the divisional commanders for a plan of attack. During the night the army advanced towards Adowa in three divisions, under Generals Dabormida, Arimondi and Albertone, each division being between 4000 and 5000 Battle of Adowa. strong, and a brigade 5300 strong under General Ellena remaining in reserve. All the divisions, save that of Albertone, consisted chiefly of Italian troops. During the march Albertone’s native division mistook the road, and found itself obliged to delay in the Arimondi column by retracing its steps. Marching rapidly, however, Albertone outdistanced the other columns, but, in consequence of allowing his men an hour’s rest, arrived upon the scene of action when the Abyssinians, whom it had been hoped to surprise at dawn, were ready to receive the attack. Pressed by overwhelming forces, the Italians, after a violent combat, began to give way. The Dabormida division, unsupported by Albertone, found itself likewise engaged in a separate combat against superior numbers. Similarly the Arimondi brigade was attacked by 30,000 Shoans, and encumbered by the débris of Albertone’s troops. Baratieri vainly attempted to push forward the reserve, but the Italians were already overwhelmed, and the battle—or rather, series of distinct engagements—ended in a general rout. The Italian loss is estimated to have been more than 6000, of whom 3125 were whites. Between 3000 and 4000 prisoners were taken by the Abyssinians, including General Albertone, while Generals Arimondi and Dabormida were killed and General Ellena wounded. The Abyssinians lost more than 5000 killed and 8000 wounded. Baratieri, after a futile attempt to direct the retreat, fled in haste and reached Adi-Cajè before the débris of his army. Thence he despatched telegrams to Italy throwing blame for the defeat upon his troops, a proceeding which subsequent evidence proved to be as unjustifiable as it was unsoldier-like. Placed under court-martial for his conduct, Baratieri was acquitted of the charge for having been led to give battle by other than military considerations, but the sentence “deplored that in such difficult circumstances the command should have been given to a general so inferior to the exigencies of the situation.”

In Italy the news of the defeat of Adowa caused deep discouragement and dismay. On the 5th of March the Crispi cabinet resigned before an outburst of indignation which the Opposition had assiduously fomented, and five days later a new cabinet was formed by General Ricotti-Magnani, who, however, made over the premiership to the marquis di Rudini. The latter, though leader of the Right, had long been intriguing with Cavallotti, leader of the Extreme Left, to overthrow Crispi, but without the disaster of Adowa his plan would scarcely have succeeded. The first act of the new cabinet was to confirm instructions given by its predecessor to General Baldissera (who had succeeded General Baratieri on the 2nd of March) to treat for peace with Menelek if he thought desirable. Baldissera opened negotiations with the negus through Major Salsa, and simultaneously reorganized the Italian army. The negotiations having failed, he marched to relieve the beleaguered garrison of Adigrat; but Menelek, discouraged by the heavy losses at Abyssinian settlement. Adowa, broke up his camp and returned southwards to Shoa. At the same time Baldissera detached Colonel Stevani with four native battalions to relieve Kassala, then hard pressed by the Mahdists. Kassala was relieved on the 1st of April, and Stevani a few days later severely defeated the dervishes at Jebel Mokram and Tucruff. Returning from Kassala Colonel Stevani rejoined Baldissera, who on the 4th of May relieved Adigrat after a well-executed march. By adroit negotiations with Mangashà the Italian general obtained the release of the Italian prisoners in Tigré, and towards the end of May withdrew his whole force north of the Mareb. Major Nerazzini was then despatched as special envoy to the negus to arrange terms of peace. On the 26th of October Nerazzini succeeded in concluding, at Adis Ababa, a provisional treaty annulling the treaty of Uccialli; recognizing the absolute independence of Ethiopia; postponing for one year the definitive delimitation of the Italo-Abyssinian boundary, but allowing the Italians meanwhile to hold the strong Mareb-Belesa-Muna line; and arranging for the release of the Italian prisoners after ratification of the treaty in exchange for an indemnity of which the amount was to be fixed by the Italian government. The treaty having been duly ratified, and an indemnity of £400,000 paid to Menelek, the Shoan prisoners were released, and Major Nerazzini once more returned to Abyssinia with instructions to secure, if possible, Menelek’s assent to the definitive retention of the Mareb-Belesa-Muna line by Italy. Before Nerazzini could reach Adis Ababa, Rudini, in order partially to satisfy the demands of his Radical supporters for the abandonment of the colony, announced in the Chamber the intention of Italy to limit her occupation to the triangular zone between the points Asmarà, Keren and Massawa, and, possibly, to withdraw to Massawa alone. This declaration, of which Menelek was swiftly apprised by French agents, rendered it impossible to Nerazzini to obtain more than a boundary leaving to Italy but a small portion of the high plateau and ceding to Abyssinia the fertile provinces of Seraè and Okulé-Kusai. The fall of the Rudini cabinet in June 1898, however, enabled Signor Ferdinando Martini and Captain Cicco di Cola, who had been appointed respectively civil governor of Eritrea and minister resident at Adis Ababa, to prevent the cession of Seraè and Okulé-Kusai, and to secure the assent of Menelek to Italian retention of the Mareb-Belesa-Muna frontier. Eritrea has now approximately the same extent as before the revolt of Bath-Agos, except in regard (1) to Kassala, which was transferred to the Anglo-Egyptian authorities on the 25th of December 1897, in pursuance of the above-mentioned Anglo-Italian convention; and (2) to slight rectifications of its northern and eastern boundaries by conventions concluded between the Eritrean and the 79 Anglo-Egyptian authorities. Under Signor Ferdinando Martini’s able administration (1898-1906) the cost of the colony to Italy was reduced and its trade and agriculture have vastly improved.

While marked in regard to Eritrea by vacillation and undignified readiness to yield to Radical clamour, the policy of the marquis di Rudini was in other respects chiefly characterized by a desire to demolish Crispi and his supporters. Actuated by rancour against Crispi, he, on the 29th of April 1896, authorized the publication of a Green Book on Abyssinian affairs, in which, without the consent of Great Britain, the confidential Anglo-Italian negotiations in regard to the Abyssinian war were disclosed. This publication, which amounted to a gross breach of diplomatic confidence, might have endangered the cordiality of Anglo-Italian relations, had not the esteem of the British government for General Ferrero, Italian ambassador in London, induced it to overlook the incident. Fortunately for Italy, the marquis Visconti Venosta shortly afterwards consented to assume the portfolio of foreign affairs, which had been resigned by Duke Caetani di Sermoneta, and again to place, after an interval of twenty years, his unrivalled experience at the service of his country. In September 1896 he succeeded in concluding with France a treaty with regard to Tunisia in place of the old Italo-Tunisian treaty, denounced by the French Government a year previously. During the Greco-Turkish War of 1897 Visconti Venosta laboured to maintain the European concert, joined Great Britain in preserving Greece from the worst consequences of her folly, and lent moral and material aid in establishing an autonomous government in Crete. At the same time he mitigated the Francophil tendencies of some of his colleagues, accompanied King Humbert and Queen Margherita on their visit to Homburg in September 1897, and, by loyal observance of the spirit of the triple alliance, retained for Italy the confidence of her allies without forfeiting the goodwill of France.

The home administration of the Rudini cabinet compared unfavourably with that of foreign affairs. Bound by a secret understanding with the Radical leader Cavallotti, an able but unscrupulous demagogue, Rudini was compelled to bow to Radical exigencies. He threw all the influence of the government against Crispi, who was charged with complicity in embezzlements perpetrated by Favilla, managing director of the Bologna branch of the Bank of Naples. After being subjected to persecution for nearly two years, Crispi’s character was substantially vindicated by the report of a parliamentary commission appointed to inquire into his relations with Favilla. True, the commission proposed and the Chamber adopted a vote of censure upon Crispi’s conduct in 1894, when, as premier and minister of the interior, he had borrowed £12,000 from Favilla to replenish | the secret service fund, and had subsequently repaid the money as instalments for secret service were in due course furnished by the treasury. Though irregular, his action was to some extent justified by the depletion of the secret service fund under Giolitti and by the abnormal circumstances prevailing in 1893-1894, when he had been obliged to quell the insurrections in Sicily and Massa-Carrara. But the Rudini-Cavallotti alliance was destined to produce other results than those of the campaign against Crispi. Pressed by Cavallotti, Rudini in March 1897 dissolved the Chamber and conducted the general election in such a way as to crush by government pressure the partisans of Crispi, and greatly to strengthen the (Socialist, Republican and Radical) revolutionary parties. More than ever at the mercy of the Radicals and of their revolutionary allies, Rudini continued so to administer public affairs that subversive propaganda and associations obtained unprecedented extension. The effect was seen in May 1898, when, in consequence of a rise in the price of bread, disturbances occurred in southern Italy. The corn duty was reduced to meet the emergency, but the disturbed Riots of May, 1898. area extended to Naples, Foggia, Bari, Minervino-Murge, Molfetta and thence along the line of railway which skirts the Adriatic coast. At Faenza, Piacenza, Cremona, Pavia and Milan, where subversive associations were stronger, it assumed the complexion of a political revolt. From the 7th to the 9th of May Milan remained practically in the hands of the mob. A palace was sacked, barricades were erected and for forty-eight hours the troops under General Bava-Beccaris, notwithstanding the employment of artillery, were unable to restore order. In view of these occurrences, Rudini authorized the proclamation of a state of siege at Milan, Florence, Leghorn and Naples, delegating the suppression of disorder to special military commissioners. By these means order was restored, though not without considerable loss of life at Milan and elsewhere. At Milan alone the official returns confessed to eighty killed and several hundred wounded, a total generally considered below the real figures. As in 1894, excessively severe sentences were passed by the military tribunals upon revolutionary leaders and other persons considered to have been implicated in the outbreak, but successive royal amnesties obliterated these condemnations within three years.

No Italian administration since the death of Depretis underwent so many metamorphoses as that of the marquis di Rudini. Modified a first time within five months of its formation (July 1896) in connexion with General Ricotti’s Pelloux and obstruction. Army Reform Bill, and again in December 1897, when Zanardelli entered the cabinet, it was reconstructed for a third time at the end of May 1898 upon the question of a Public Safety Bill, but fell for the fourth and last time on the 18th of June 1898, on account of public indignation at the results of Rudini’s home policy as exemplified in the May riots. On the 29th of June Rudini was succeeded in the premiership by General Luigi Pelloux, a Savoyard, whose only title to office was the confidence of the king. The Pelloux cabinet possessed no clear programme except in regard to the Public Safety Bill, which it had taken over from its predecessor. Presented to parliament in November 1898, the bill was read a second time in the following spring, but its third reading was violently obstructed by the Socialists, Radicals and Republicans of the Extreme Left. After a series of scenes and scuffles the bill was promulgated by royal decree, the decree being postdated to allow time for the third reading. Again obstruction precluded debate, and on the 22nd of July 1899 the decree automatically acquired force of law, pending the adoption of a bill of indemnity by the Chamber. In February 1900 it was, however, quashed by the supreme court on a point of procedure, and the Public Safety Bill as a whole had again to be presented to the Chamber. In view of the violence of Extremist obstruction, an effort was made to reform the standing orders of the Lower House, but parliamentary feeling ran so high that General Pelloux thought it expedient to appeal to the country. The general election of June 1900 not only failed to reinforce the cabinet, but largely increased the strength of the extreme parties (Radicals, Republicans and Socialists), who in the new Chamber numbered nearly 100 out of a total of 508. General Pelloux therefore resigned, and on the 24th of June a moderate Liberal cabinet was formed by the aged Signor Saracco, president of the senate. Within five weeks of its formation King Humbert was shot by an anarchist assassin named Bresci while leaving an athletic festival at Monza, where his Majesty had distributed the prizes (29th July 1900). The death of the unfortunate Death of King Humbert. monarch, against whom an attempt had previously been made by the anarchist Acciarito (22nd April 1897), caused an outburst of profound sorrow and indignation. Though not a great monarch, King Humbert had, by his unfailing generosity and personal courage, won the esteem and affection of his people. During the cholera epidemic at Naples and Busca in 1884, and the Ischia earthquake of 1885, he, regardless of danger, brought relief and encouragement to sufferers, and rescued many lives. More than £100,000 of his civil list was annually devoted to charitable purposes. Accession of King Victor Emmanuel III. Humbert was succeeded by his only son, Victor Emmanuel III. (b. November 11, 1869), a liberal-minded and well-educated prince, who at the time of his father’s assassination was returning from a cruise in the eastern Mediterranean. The remains of King Humbert were laid to rest in the Pantheon at Rome beside those of his father, Victor Emmanuel II. (9th August). Two 80 days later Victor Emmanuel III. swore fidelity to the constitution before the assembled Houses of Parliament and in the presence of his consort, Elena of Montenegro, whom he had married in October 1896.

The later course of Italian foreign policy was marked by many vicissitudes. Admiral Canevaro, who had gained distinction as commander of the international forces in Crete (1896-1898), assumed the direction of foreign Foreign affairs. affairs in the first period of the Pelloux administration. His diplomacy, though energetic, lacked steadiness. Soon after taking office he completed the negotiations begun by the Rudini administration for a new commercial treaty with France (October 1898), whereby Franco-Italian commercial relations were placed upon a normal footing after a breach which had lasted for more than ten years. By the despatch of a squadron to South America he obtained satisfaction for injuries inflicted thirteen years previously upon an Italian subject by the United States of Colombia. In December 1898 he convoked a diplomatic conference in Rome to discuss secret means for the repression of anarchist propaganda and crime in view of the assassination of the empress of Austria by an Italian anarchist (Luccheni), but it is doubtful whether results of practical value were achieved. The action of the tsar of Russia in convening the Peace Conference at The Hague in May 1900 gave rise to a question as to the right of the Vatican to be officially represented, and Admiral Canevaro, supported by Great Britain and Germany, succeeded in preventing the invitation of a papal delegate. Shortly afterwards his term of office was brought to a close by the failure of an attempt to secure for Italy a coaling station at Sanmen and a sphere of influence in China; but his policy of active participation in Chinese affairs was continued in a modified form by his successor, the Marquis Visconti Venosta, who, entering the reconstructed Pelloux cabinet in May 1899, retained the portfolio of foreign affairs in the ensuing Saracco administration, and secured the despatch of an Italian expedition, 2000 strong, to aid in repressing the Chinese outbreak and in protecting Italian interests in the Far East (July 1900). With characteristic foresight, Visconti Venosta promoted an exchange of views between Italy and France in regard to the Tripolitan hinterland, which the Anglo-French convention of 1899 had placed within the French sphere of influence—a modification of the status quo ante considered highly detrimental to Italian aspirations in Tripoli. For this reason the Anglo-French convention had caused profound irritation in Italy, and had tended somewhat to diminish the cordiality of Anglo-Italian relations. Visconti Venosta is believed, however, to have obtained from France a formal declaration that France would not transgress the limits assigned to her influence by the convention. Similarly, in regard to Albania, Visconti Venosta exchanged notes with Austria with a view to the prevention of any misunderstanding through the conflict between Italian and Austrian interests in that part of the Adriatic coast. Upon the fall of the Saracco cabinet (9th February 1901) Visconti Venosta was succeeded at the foreign office by Signor Prinetti, a Lombard manufacturer of strong temperament, but without previous diplomatic experience. The new minister continued in most respects the policy of his predecessor. The outset of his administration was marked by Franco-Italian fêtes at Toulon (10th to 14th April 1901), when the Italian fleet returned a visit paid by the French Mediterranean squadron to Cagliari in April 1899; and by the despatch of three Italian warships to Prevesa to obtain satisfaction for damage done to Italian subjects by Turkish officials.

The Saracco administration, formed after the obstructionist crisis of 1899-1900 as a cabinet of transition and pacification, was overthrown in February 1901 in consequence of its vacillating conduct towards a dock strike at Genoa. Zanardelli-Giolitti Cabinet. It was succeeded by a Zanardelli cabinet, in which the portfolio of the interior was allotted to Giolitti. Composed mainly of elements drawn from the Left, and dependent for a majority upon the support of the subversive groups of the Extreme Left, the formation of this cabinet gave the signal for a vast working-class movement, during which the Socialist party sought to extend its political influence by means of strikes and the organization of labour leagues among agricultural labourers and artisans. The movement was confined chiefly to the northern and central provinces. During the first six months of 1901 the strikes numbered 600, and involved more than 1,000,000 workmen.

G. 1902-1909

In 1901-1902 the social economic condition of Italy was a matter of grave concern. The strikes and other economic agitations at this time may be divided roughly into three groups: strikes in industrial centres for higher wages, Labour troubles. shorter hours and better labour conditions generally; strikes of agricultural labourers in northern Italy for better contracts with the landlords; disturbances among the south Italian peasantry due to low wages, unemployment (particularly in Apulia), and the claims of the labourers to public land occupied illegally by the landlords, combined with local feuds and the struggle for power of the various influential families. The prime cause in most cases was the unsatisfactory economic condition of the working classes, which they realized all the more vividly for the very improvements that had been made in it, while education and better communications enabled them to organize themselves. Unfortunately these genuine grievances were taken advantage of by the Socialists for their own purposes, and strikes and disorders were sometimes promoted without cause and conciliation impeded by outsiders who acted from motives of personal ambition or profit. Moreover, while many strikes were quite orderly, the turbulent character of a part of the Italian people and their hatred of authority often converted peaceful demands for better conditions into dangerous riots, in which the dregs of the urban population (known as teppisti or the mala vita) joined.

Whereas in the past the strikes had been purely local and due to local conditions, they now appeared of more general and political character, and the “sympathy” strike came to be a frequent and undesirable addition to the ordinary economic agitation. The most serious movement at this time was that of the railway servants. The agitation had begun some fifteen years before, and the men had at various times demanded better pay and shorter hours, often with success. The next demand was for greater fixity of tenure and more regular promotion, as well as for the recognition by the companies of the railwaymen’s union. On the 4th of January 1902, the employees of the Mediterranean railway advanced these demands at a meeting at Turin, and threatened to strike if they were not satisfied. By the beginning of February the agitation had spread all over Italy, and the government was faced by the possibility of a strike which would paralyse the whole economic life of the country. Then the Turin gas men struck, and a general “sympathy” strike broke out in that city in consequence, which resulted in scenes of violence lasting two days. The government called out all the railwaymen who were army reservists, but continued to keep them at their railway work, exercising military discipline over them and thus ensuring the continuance of the service. At the same time it mediated between the companies and the employees, and in June a settlement was formally concluded between the ministers of public works and of the treasury and the directors of the companies concerning the grievances of the employees.

One consequence of the agrarian agitations was the increased use of machinery and the reduction in the number of hands employed, which if it proved advantageous to the landlord and to the few labourers retained, who received higher wages, resulted in an increase of unemployment. The Socialist party, which had grown powerful under a series of weak-kneed administrations, now began to show signs of division; on the one hand there was the revolutionary wing, led by Signor Enrico Ferri, the Mantuan deputy, which advocated a policy of uncompromising class warfare, and on the other the riformisti, or moderate Socialists, led by Signor Filippo Turati, deputy for Milan, who adopted a more conciliatory attitude and were ready to ally themselves with other parliamentary parties. Later the division took another 81 aspect, the extreme wing being constituted by the sindacalisti, who were opposed to all legislative parliamentary action and favoured only direct revolutionary propaganda by means of the sindacati or unions which organized strikes and demonstrations. In March 1902 agrarian strikes organized by the leghe broke out in the district of Copparo and Polesine (lower valley of the Po), owing to a dispute about the labour contracts, and in Apulia on account of unemployment. In August there were strikes among the dock labourers of Genoa and the iron workers of Florence; the latter agitation developed into a general strike in that city, which aroused widespread indignation among the orderly part of the population and ended without any definite result. At Como 15,000 textile workers remained on strike for nearly a month, but there were no disorders.

The year 1903, although not free from strikes and minor disturbances, was quieter, but in September 1904 a very serious situation was brought about by a general economic and political agitation. The troubles began with the General strike of 1904. disturbances at Buggeru in Sardinia and Castelluzzo in Sicily, in both of which places the troops were compelled to use their arms and several persons were killed and wounded; at a demonstration at Sestri Ponente in Liguria to protest against what was called the Buggeru “massacre,” four carabineers and eleven rioters were injured. The Monza labour exchange then took the initiative of proclaiming a general strike throughout Italy (September 15th) as a protest against the government for daring to maintain order. The strike spread to nearly all the industrial centres, although in many places it was limited to a few trades. At Milan it was more serious and lasted longer than elsewhere, as the movement was controlled by the anarchists under Arturo Labriola; the hooligans committed many acts of savage violence, especially against those workmen who refused to strike, and much property was wilfully destroyed. At Genoa, which was in the hands of the teppisti for a couple of days, three persons were killed and 50 wounded, including 14 policemen, and railway communications were interrupted for a short time. Venice was cut off from the mainland for two days and all the public services were suspended. Riots broke out also in Naples, Florence, Rome and Bologna. The deputies of the Extreme Left, instead of using their influence in favour of pacification, could think of nothing better than to demand an immediate convocation of parliament in order that they might present a bill forbidding the troops and police to use their arms in all conflicts between capital and labour, whatever the provocation might be. This preposterous proposal was of course not even discussed, and the movement caused a strong feeling of reaction against Socialism and of hostility to the government for its weakness; for, however much sympathy there might be with the genuine grievances of the working classes, the September strikes were of a frankly revolutionary character and had been fomented by professional agitators and kept going by the dregs of the people. The mayor of Venice sent a firm and dignified protest to the government for its inaction, and the people of Liguria raised a large subscription in favour of the troops, in recognition of their gallantry and admirable discipline during the troubles.

Early in 1905 there was a fresh agitation among the railway servants, who were dissatisfied with the clauses concerning the personnel in the bill for the purchase of the lines by the state. They initiated a system of obstruction Unrest of 1905. which hampered and delayed the traffic without altogether suspending it. On the 17th of April a general railway strike was ordered by the union, but owing to the action of the authorities, who for once showed energy, the traffic was carried on. Other disturbances of a serious character occurred among the steelworkers of Terni, at Grammichele in Sicily and at Alessandria. The extreme parties now began to direct especial attention to propaganda in the army, with a view to destroying its cohesion and thus paralysing the action of the government. The campaign was conducted on the lines of the anti-militarist movement in France identified with the name of Hervé. Fortunately, however, this policy was not successful, as military service is less unpopular in Italy than in many other countries; aggressive militarism is quite unknown, and without it anti-militarism can gain no foothold. No serious mutinies have ever occurred in the Italian army, and the only results of the propaganda were occasional meetings of hooligans, where Hervéist sentiments were expressed and applauded, and a few minor disturbances among reservists unexpectedly called back to the colours. In the army itself the esprit de corps and the sense of duty and discipline nullified the work of the propagandists.

In June and July 1907 there were again disturbances among the agricultural labourers of Ferrara and Rovigo, and a widespread strike organized by the leghe throughout those provinces caused very serious losses to all concerned. Strikes in 1907. The leghisti, moreover, were guilty of much criminal violence; they committed one murder and established a veritable reign of terror, boycotting, beating and wounding numbers of peaceful labourers who would not join the unions, and brutally maltreating solitary policemen and soldiers. The authorities, however, by arresting a number of the more prominent leaders succeeded in restoring order. Almost immediately afterwards an agitation of a still less defensible character broke out in various towns under the guise of anti-clericalism. Certain scandals had come to light in a small convent school at Greco near Milan. This was seized upon as a pretext for violent anti-clerical demonstrations all over Italy and for brutal and unprovoked attacks on unoffending priests; at Spezia a church was set on fire and another dismantled, at Marino Cardinal Merry del Val was attacked by a gang of hooligans, and at Rome the violence of the teppisti reached such a pitch as to provoke reaction on the part of all respectable people, and some of the aggressors were very roughly handled. The Socialists and the Freemasons were largely responsible for the agitation, and they filled the country with stories of other priestly and conventual immoralities, nearly all of which, except the original case at Greco, proved to be without foundation. In September 1907 disorders in Apulia over the repartition of communal lands broke out anew, and were particularly serious at Ruvo, Bari, Cerignola and Satriano del Colle. In some cases there was foundation for the labourers’ claims, but unfortunately the movement got into the hands of professional agitators and common swindlers, and the leader, a certain Giampetruzzi, who at one time seemed to be a worthy colleague of Marcelin Albert, was afterwards tried and condemned for having cheated his own followers.

In October 1907 there was again a general strike at Milan, which was rendered more serious on account of the action of the railway servants, and extended to other cities; traffic was disorganized over a large part of northern Italy, until the government, being now owner of the railways, dismissed the ringleaders from the service. This had the desired effect, and although the Sindacato dei ferrovieri (railway servants’ union) threatened a general railway strike if the dismissed men were not reinstated, there was no further trouble. In the spring of 1908 there were agrarian strikes at Parma; the labour contracts had pressed hardly on the peasantry, who had cause for complaint; but while some improvement had been effected in the new contracts, certain unscrupulous demagogues, of whom Alceste De Ambris, representing the “syndacalist” wing of the Socialist party, was the chief, organized a widespread agitation. The landlords on their part organized an agrarian union to defend their interests and enrolled numbers of non-union labourers to carry on the necessary work and save the crops. Conflicts occurred between the strikers and the independent labourers and the police; the trouble spread to the city of Parma, where violent scenes occurred when the labour exchange was occupied by the troops, and many soldiers and policemen, whose behaviour as usual was exemplary throughout, were seriously wounded. The agitation ceased in June with the defeat of the strikers, but not until a vast amount of damage had been done to the crops and all had suffered heavy losses, including the government, whose expenses for the maintenance of public order ran into tens of millions of lire. The failure of the strike caused the Socialists to quarrel among themselves and to accuse each other of dishonesty in the management of party funds; it appeared in fact 82 that the large sums collected throughout Italy on behalf of the strikers had been squandered or appropriated by the “syndacalist” leaders. The spirit of indiscipline had begun to reach the lower classes of state employees, especially the school teachers and the postal and telegraph clerks, and at one time it seemed as though the country were about to face a situation similar to that which arose in France in the spring of 1909. Fortunately, however, the government, by dismissing the ringleader, Dr Campanozzi, in time nipped the agitation in the bud, and it did attempt to redress some of the genuine grievances. Public opinion upheld the government in its attitude, for all persons of common sense realized that the suspension of the public services could not be permitted for a moment in a civilized country.

In parliamentary politics the most notable event in 1902 was the presentation of a divorce bill by Signor Zanardelli’s government; this was done not because there was any real demand for it, but to please the doctrinaire Internal politics, 1902. anti-clericals and freemasons, divorce being regarded not as a social institution but as a weapon against Catholicism. But while the majority of the deputies were nominally in favour of the bill, the parliamentary committee reported against it, and public opinion was so hostile that an anti-divorce petition received 3,500,000 signatures, including not only those of professing Catholics, but of free-thinkers and Jews, who regarded divorce as unsuitable to Italian conditions. The opposition outside parliament was in fact so overwhelming that the ministry decided to drop the bill. The financial situation continued satisfactory; a new loan at 3½% was voted by the Chamber in April 1902, and by June the whole of it had been placed in Italy. In October the rate of exchange was at par, the premium on gold had disappeared, and by the end of the year the budget showed a surplus of sixteen millions.

In January 1903 Signor Prinetti, the minister for foreign affairs, resigned on account of ill-health, and was succeeded by Admiral Morin, while Admiral Bettolo took the latter’s place as minister of marine. The unpopularity of 1903-1905. the ministry forced Signor Giolitti, the minister of the interior, to resign (June 1903), and he was followed by Admiral Bettolo, whose administration had been violently attacked by the Socialists; in October Signor Zanardelli, the premier, resigned on account of his health, and the king entrusted the formation of the cabinet to Signor Giolitti. The latter accepted the task, and the new administration included Signor Tittoni, late prefect of Naples, as foreign minister, Signor Luigi Luzzatti, the eminent financier, at the treasury, General Pedotti at the war office, and Admiral Mirabello as minister of marine. Almost immediately after his appointment Signor Tittoni accompanied the king and queen of Italy on a state visit to France and then to England, where various international questions were discussed, and the cordial reception which the royal pair met with in London and at Windsor served to dispel the small cloud which had arisen in the relations of the two countries on account of the Tripoli agreements and the language question in Malta. The premier’s programme was not well received by the Chamber, although the treasury minister’s financial statement was again satisfactory. The weakness of the government in dealing with the strike riots caused a feeling of profound dissatisfaction, and the so-called “experiment of liberty,” conducted with the object of conciliating the extreme parties, proved a dismal failure. In October 1904, after the September strikes, the Chamber was dissolved, and at the general elections in November a ministerial majority was returned, while the deputies of the Extreme Left (Socialists, Republicans and Radicals) were reduced from 107 to 94, and a few mild clericals elected. The municipal elections in several of the larger cities, which had hitherto been regarded as strongholds of socialism, marked an overwhelming triumph for the constitutional parties, notably in Milan, Turin and Genoa, for the strikes had wrought as much harm to the working classes as to the bourgeoisie. In spite of its majority the Giolitti cabinet, realizing that it had lost its hold over the country, resigned in March 1905.

Signor Fortis then became premier and minister of the interior, Signor Maiorano finance minister and Signor Carcano treasury minister, while Signor Tittoni, Admiral Mirabello and General Pedotti retained the portfolios they had 1905-1906. held in the previous administration. The new government was colourless in the extreme, and the premier’s programme aroused no enthusiasm in the House, the most important bill presented being that for the purchase of the railways, which was voted in June 1905. But the ministry never had any real hold over the country or parliament, and the dissatisfaction caused by the modus vivendi with Spain, which would have wrought much injury to the Italian wine-growers, led to demonstrations and riots, and a hostile vote in the Chamber produced a cabinet crisis (December 17, 1905); Signor Fortis, however, reconstructed the ministry, inducing the marquis di San Giuliano to accept the portfolio of foreign affairs. This last fact was significant, as the new foreign secretary, a Sicilian deputy and a specialist on international politics, had hitherto been one of Signor Sonnino’s staunchest adherents; his defection, which was but one of many, showed that the more prominent members of the Sonnino party were tired of waiting in vain for their chief’s access to power. Even this cabinet was still-born, and a hostile vote in the Chamber on the 30th of January 1906 brought about its fall.

Now at last, after waiting so long, Signor Sonnino’s hour had struck, and he became premier for the first time. This result was most satisfactory to all the best elements in the country, and great hopes were entertained that the 1906-1909. advent of a rigid and honest statesman would usher in a new era of Italian parliamentary life. Unfortunately at the very outset of its career the composition of the new cabinet proved disappointing; for while such men as Count Guicciardini, the minister for foreign affairs, and Signor Luzzatti at the treasury commanded general approval, the choice of Signor Sacchi as minister of justice and of Signor Pantano as minister of agriculture and trade, both of them advanced and militant Radicals, savoured of an unholy compact between the premier and his erstwhile bitter enemies, which boded ill for the success of the administration. For this unfortunate combination Signor Sonnino himself was not altogether to blame; having lost many of his most faithful followers, who, weary of waiting for office, had gone over to the enemy, he had been forced to seek support among men who had professed hostility to the existing order of things and thus to secure at least the neutrality of the Extreme Left and make the public realize that the “reddest” of Socialists, Radicals and Republicans may be tamed and rendered harmless by the offer of cabinet appointments. A similar experiment had been tried in France not without success. Unfortunately in the case of Signor Sonnino public opinion expected too much and did not take to the idea of such a compromise. The new premier’s first act was one which cannot be sufficiently praised: he suppressed all subsidies to journalists, and although this resulted in bitter attacks against him in the columns of the “reptile press” it commanded the approval of all right-thinking men. Signor Sonnino realized, however, that his majority was not to be counted on: “The country is with me,” he said to a friend, “but the Chamber is against me.” In April 1906 an eruption of Mount Etna caused the destruction of several villages and much loss of life and damage to property; in appointing a committee to distribute the relief funds the premier refused to include any of the deputies of the devastated districts among its members, and when asked by them for the reason of this omission, he replied, with a frankness more characteristic of the man than politic, that he knew they would prove more solicitous in the distribution of relief for their own electors than for the real sufferers. A motion presented by the Socialists in the Chamber for the immediate discussion of a bill to prevent “the massacres of the proletariate” having been rejected by an enormous majority, the 28 Socialist deputies resigned their seats; on presenting themselves for re-election their number was reduced to 25. A few days later the ministry, having received an adverse vote on a question of procedure, sent in its resignation (May 17).

83

The fall of Signor Sonnino, the disappointment caused by the non-fulfilment of the expectations to which his advent to power had given rise throughout Italy and the dearth of influential statesmen, made the return to power of Signor Giolitti inevitable. An appeal to the country might have brought about a different result, but it is said that opposition from the highest quarters rendered this course practically impossible. The change of government brought Signor Tittoni back to the foreign office; Signor Maiorano became treasury minister, General Viganò minister of war, Signor Cocco Ortu, whose chief claim to consideration was the fact of his being a Sardinian (the island had rarely been represented in the cabinet) minister of agriculture, Signor Gianturco of justice, Signor Massimini of finance, Signor Schanzer of posts and telegraphs and Signor Fusinato of education. The new ministry began auspiciously with the conversion of the public debt from 4% to 3¾%, to be eventually reduced to 3½%. This operation had been prepared by Signor Luzzatti under Signor Sonnino’s leadership, and although carried out by Signor Maiorano it was Luzzatti who deservedly reaped the honour and glory; the bill was presented, discussed and voted by both Houses on the 29th of June, and by the 7th of July the conversion was completed most successfully, showing on how sound a basis Italian finance was now placed. The surplus for the year amounted to 65,000,000 lire. In November Signor Gianturco died, and Signor Pietro Bertolini took his place as minister of public works; the latter proved perhaps the ablest member of the cabinet, but the acceptance of office under Giolitti of a man who had been one of the most trusted and valuable lieutenants of Signor Sonnino marked a further step in the dégringolade of that statesman’s party, and was attributed to the fact that Signor Bertolini resented not having had a place in the late Sonnino ministry. General Viganò was succeeded in December by Senator Casana, the first civilian to become minister of war in Italy. He made various reforms which were badly wanted in army administration, but on the whole the experiment of a civilian “War Lord” was not a complete success, and in April 1909 Senator Casana retired and was succeeded by General Spingardi, an appointment which received general approval.

The elections of March 1909 returned a chamber very slightly different from its predecessor. The ministerial majority was over three hundred, and although the Extreme Left was somewhat increased in numbers it was weakened in tone, and many of the newly elected “reds” were hardly more than pale pink.

Meanwhile, the relations between Church and State began to show signs of change. The chief supporters of the claims of the papacy to temporal power were the clericals of France and Austria, but in the former country they had lost Church and State. all influence, and the situation between the Church and the government was becoming every day more strained. With the rebellion of her “Eldest Daughter,” the Roman Church could not continue in her old attitude of uncompromising hostility towards United Italy, and the Vatican began to realize the folly of placing every Italian in the dilemma of being either a good Italian or a good Catholic, when the majority wished to be both. Outside of Rome relations between the clergy and the authorities were as a rule quite cordial, and in May 1903 Cardinal Sarto, the patriarch of Venice, asked for and obtained an audience with the king when he visited that city, and the meeting which followed was of a very friendly character. In July following Leo XIII. died, and that same Cardinal Sarto became pope under the style of Pius X. The new pontiff, although nominally upholding the claims of the temporal power, in practice attached but little importance to it. At the elections for the local bodies the Catholics had already been permitted to vote, and, availing themselves of the privilege, they gained seats in many municipal councils and obtained the majority in some. At the general parliamentary elections of 1904 a few Catholics had been elected as such, and the encyclical of the 11th of June 1905 on the political organization of the Catholics, practically abolished the non expedit. In September of that year a number of religious institutions in the Near East, formerly under the protectorate of the French government, in view of the rupture between Church and State in France, formally asked to be placed under Italian protection, which was granted in January 1907. The situation thus became the very reverse of what it had been in Crispi’s time, when the French government, even when anti-clerical, protected the Catholic Church abroad for political purposes, whereas the conflict between Church and State in Italy extended to foreign countries, to the detriment of Italian political interests. A more difficult question was that of religious education in the public elementary schools. Signor Giolitti wished to conciliate the Vatican by facilitating religious education, which was desired by the majority of the parents, but he did not wish to offend the Freemasons and other anti-clericals too much, as they could always give trouble at awkward moments. Consequently the minister of education, Signor Rava, concocted a body of rules which, it was hoped, would satisfy every one: religious instruction was to be maintained as a necessary part of the curriculum, but in communes where the majority of the municipal councillors were opposed to it it might be suppressed; the council in that case must, however, facilitate the teaching of religion to those children whose parents desire it. In practice, however, when the council has suppressed religious instruction no such facilities are given. At the general elections of March 1909, over a score of Clerical deputies were returned, Clericals of a very mild tone who had no thought of the temporal power and were supporters of the monarchy and anti-socialists; where no Clerical candidate was in the field the Catholic voters plumped for the constitutional candidate against all representatives of the Extreme Left. On the other hand, the attitude of the Vatican towards Liberalism within the Church was one of uncompromising reaction, and under the new pope the doctrines of Christian Democracy and Modernism were condemned in no uncertain tone. Don Romolo Murri, the Christian Democratic leader, who exercised much influence over the younger and more progressive clergy, having been severely censured by the Vatican, made formal submission, and declared his intention of retiring from the struggle. But he appeared again on the scene in the general elections of 1909, as a Christian Democratic candidate; he was elected, and alone of the Catholic deputies took his seat in the Chamber on the Extreme Left, where all his neighbours were violent anti-clericals.

At 5 A.M. on the 28th of December 1908, an earthquake of appalling severity shook the whole of southern Calabria and the eastern part of Sicily, completely destroying the cities of Reggio and Messina, the smaller towns of Canitello, Earthquake of December 1908. Scilla, Villa San Giovanni, Bagnara, Palmi, Melito, Porto Salvo and Santa Eufemia, as well as a large number of villages. In the case of Messina the horror of the situation was heightened by a tidal wave. The catastrophe was the greatest of its kind that has ever occurred in any country; the number of persons killed was approximately 150,000, while the injured were beyond calculation.

The characteristic feature of Italy’s foreign relations during this period was the weakening of the bonds of the Triple Alliance and the improved relations with France, while the traditional friendship with England remained unimpaired. Foreign affairs. Franco-Italian friendship was officially cemented by the visit of King Victor Emmanuel and Queen Elena in October 1903 to Paris where they received a very cordial welcome. The visit was returned in April 1904 when M. Loubet, the French president, came to Rome; this action was strongly resented by the pope, who, like his predecessor since 1870, objected to the presence of foreign Catholic rulers in Rome, and led to the final rupture between France and the Vatican. The Franco-Italian understanding had the effect of raising Italy’s credit, and the Italian rente, which had been shut out of the French bourses, resumed its place there once more, a fact which contributed to increase its price and to reduce the unfavourable rate of exchange. That agreement also served to clear up the situation in Tripoli; while Italian aspirations towards Tunisia had been ended by the French occupation of that territory, Tripoli and Bengazi were now recognized as coming within the Italian “sphere of influence.” The Tripoli hinterland, 84 however, was in danger of being absorbed by other powers having large African interests; the Anglo-French declaration of the 21st of March 1899 in particular seemed likely to interfere with Italian activity.

The Triple Alliance was maintained and renewed as far as paper documents were concerned (in June 1902 it was reconfirmed for 12 years), but public opinion was no longer so favourably disposed towards it. Austria’s petty persecutions of her Italian subjects in the irredente provinces, her active propaganda incompatible with Italian interests in the Balkans, and the anti-Italian war talk of Austrian military circles, imperilled the relations of the two “allies”; it was remarked, indeed, that the object of the alliance between Austria and Italy was to prevent war between them. Austria had persistently adopted a policy of pin-pricks and aggravating police provocation towards the Italians of the Adriatic Littoral and of the Trentino, while encouraging the Slavonic element in the former and the Germans in the latter. One of the causes of ill-feeling was the university question; the Austrian government had persistently refused to create an Italian university for its Italian subjects, fearing lest it should become a hotbed of “irredentism,” the Italian-speaking students being thus obliged to attend the German-Austrian universities. An attempt at compromise resulted in the institution of an Italian law faculty at Innsbruck, but this aroused the violent hostility of the German students and populace, who gave proof of their superior civilization by an unprovoked attack on the Italians in October 1902. Further acts of violence were committed by the Germans in 1903, which led to anti-Austrian demonstrations in Italy. The worst tumults occurred in November 1904, when Italian students and professors were attacked at Innsbruck without provocation; being outnumbered by a hundred to one the Italians were forced to use their revolvers in self-defence, and several persons were wounded on both sides. Anti-Italian demonstrations occurred periodically also at Vienna, while in Dalmatia and Croatia Italian fishermen and workmen (Italian citizens, not natives) were subject to attacks by gangs of half-savage Croats, which led to frequent diplomatic “incidents.” A further cause of resentment was Austria’s attitude towards the Vatican, inspired by the strong clerical tendencies of the imperial family, and indeed of a large section of the Austrian people. But the most serious point at issue was the Balkan question. Italian public opinion could not view without serious misgivings the active political propaganda which Austria was conducting in Albania. The two governments frequently discussed the situation, but although they had agreed to a self-denying ordinance whereby each bound itself not to occupy any part of Albanian territory, Austria’s declarations and promises were hardly borne out by the activity of her agents in the Balkans. Italy, therefore, instituted a counter-propaganda by means of schools and commercial agencies. The Macedonian troubles of 1903 again brought Austria and Italy into conflict. The acceptance by the powers of the Mürzsteg programme and the appointment of Austrian and Russian financial agents in Macedonia was an advantage for Austria and a set-back for Italy; but the latter scored a success in the appointment of General de Giorgis as commander of the international Macedonian gendarmerie; she also obtained, with the support of Great Britain, France and Russia, the assignment of the partly Albanian district of Monastir to the Italian officers of that corps.

In October 1908 came the bombshell of the Austrian annexation of Bosnia, announced to King Victor Emmanuel and to other rulers by autograph letters from the emperor-king. The news caused the most widespread sensation, and public opinion in Italy was greatly agitated at what it regarded as an act of brigandage on the part of Austria, when Signor Tittoni in a speech at Carate Brianza (October 6th) declared that “Italy might await events with serenity, and that these could find her neither unprepared nor isolated.” These words were taken to mean that Italy would receive compensation to restore the balance of power upset in Austria’s favour. When it was found that there was to be no direct compensation for Italy a storm of indignation was aroused against Austria, and also against Signor Tittoni.

On the 29th of October, however, Austria abandoned her military posts in the sandjak of Novibazar, and the frontier between Austria and Turkey, formerly an uncertain one, which left Austria a half-open back door to the Aegean, was now a distinct line of demarcation. Thus the danger of a “pacific penetration” of Macedonia by Austria became more remote. Austria also gave way on another point, renouncing her right to police the Montenegrin coast and to prevent Montenegro from having warships of its own (paragraphs 5, 6 and 11 of art. 29 of the Berlin Treaty) in a note presented to the Italian foreign office on the 12th of April 1909. Italy had developed some important commercial interests in Montenegro, and anything which strengthened the position of that principality was a guarantee against further Austrian encroachments. The harbour works in the Montenegrin port of Antivari, commenced in March 1905 and completed early in 1909, were an Italian concern, and Italy became a party to the agreement for the Danube-Adriatic Railway (June 2, 1908) together with Russia, France and Servia; Italy was to contribute 35,000,000 lire out of a total capital of 100,000,000, and to be represented by four directors out of twelve. But the whole episode was a warning to Italy, and the result was a national movement for security. Credits for the army and navy were voted almost without a dissentient voice; new battleships were laid down, the strength of the army was increased, and the defences of the exposed eastern border were strengthened. It was clear that so long as Austria, bribed by Germany, could act in a way so opposed to Italian interests in the Balkans, the Triple Alliance was a mockery, and Italy could only meet the situation by being prepared for all contingencies.

ITEM (a Latin adverb meaning “also,” “likewise”), originally used adverbially in English at the beginning of each separate head in a list of articles, or each detail in an account book or ledger or in a legal document. The word is thus applied, as a noun, to the various heads in any such enumeration and also to a piece of information or news.

ITHACA (Ἰθάκη), vulgarly Thiaki (Φιάκη), next to Paxo the smallest of the seven Ionian Islands, with an area of about 44 sq. m. It forms an eparchy of the nomos of Cephalonia in the kingdom of Greece, and its population, which was 9873 in 1870, is now about 13,000. The island consists of two mountain masses, connected by a narrow isthmus of hills, and separated by a wide inlet of the sea known as the Gulf of Molo. The northern and greater mass culminates in the heights of Anoi (2650 ft.), and the southern in Hagios Stephanos, or Mount Merovigli (2100 ft.). Vathy (Βαθύ = “deep”), the chief town and port of the island, lies at the northern foot of Mount Stephanos, its whitewashed houses stretching for about a mile round the deep bay in the Gulf of Molo, to which it owes its name. As there are only one or two small stretches of arable land in Ithaca, the inhabitants are dependent on commerce for their grain supply; and olive oil, wine and currants are the principal products obtained by the cultivation of the thin stratum of soil that covers the calcareous rocks. Goats are fed in considerable number on the brushwood pasture of the hills; and hares (in spite of Aristotle’s supposed assertion of their absence) are exceptionally abundant. The island is divided into four districts: Vathy, Aeto (or Eagle’s Cliff), Anoge (Anoi) or Upland, and Exoge (Exoi) or Outland.

The name has remained attached to the island from the earliest historical times with but little interruption of the tradition; though in Brompton’s travels (12th century) and in the old Venetian maps we find it called Fale or Val de Compar, and at a later date it not unfrequently appears as Little Cephalonia. This last name indicates the general character of Ithacan history (if history it can be called) in modern and indeed in ancient times; for the fame of the island is almost solely due to its position in the Homeric story of Odysseus. Ithaca, according to the Homeric epos, was the royal seat and residence of King Odysseus. The island is incidentally described with no small variety of detail, picturesque and topographical; the Homeric localities for which counterparts have been sought are Mount Neritos, Mount Neion, the harbour of Phorcys, the town and palace of Odysseus, the fountain of Arethusa, the cave of the Naiads, the stalls of the swineherd Eumaeus, the orchard of Laertes, the Korax or Raven Cliff and the island Asteris, where the suitors lay in ambush for Telemachus. Among the “identificationists” there are two schools, one placing the town at Polis on the west coast in the northern half of the island (Leake, Gladstone, &c.), and the other at Aeto on the isthmus. The latter site, which was advocated by Sir William Gell (Topography and Antiquities of Ithaca, London, 1807), was supported by Dr H. Schliemann, who carried on excavations in 1873 and 1878 (see H. Schliemann, Ithaque, le Péloponnèse, Troie, Paris, 1869, also published in German; his letter to The Times, 26th of September, 1878; and the author’s life prefixed to Ilios, London, 1880). But his results were mainly negative. The fact is that no amount of ingenuity can reconcile the descriptions given in the Odyssey with the actual topography of this island. Above all, the passage in which the position of Ithaca is described offers great difficulties. “Now Ithaca lies low, farthest up the sea line towards the darkness, but those others face the dawning and the sun” (Butcher and Lang). Such a passage fits very ill an island lying, as Ithaca does, just to the east of Cephalonia. Accordingly Professor W. Dörpfeld has suggested that the Homeric Ithaca is not the island which was called Ithaca by the later Greeks, but must be identified with Leucas (Santa Maura, q.v.). He succeeds in fitting the Homeric topography to this latter island, and suggests that the name may have been transferred in consequence of a migration of the inhabitants. There is no doubt that Leucas fits the Homeric descriptions much better than Ithaca; but, on the other hand, many scholars maintain that it is a mistake to treat the imaginary descriptions of a poet as if they were portions of a guide-book, or to look, in the author of the Odyssey, for a close familiarity with the geography of the Ionian islands.

ITHACA, a city and the county-seat of Tompkins county, New York, U.S.A., at the southern end of Cayuga Lake, 60 m. S.W. of Syracuse. Pop. (1890) 11,079, (1900) 13,136, of whom 1310 were foreign-born, (1910 census) 14,802. It is served by the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western and the Lehigh Valley railways and by inter-urban electric line; and steamboats ply on the lake. Most of the city is in the level valley, from which it spreads up the heights on the south, east and west. The finest residential district is East Hill, particularly Cornell and Cayuga Heights (across Fall Creek from the Cornell campus). Renwick Beach, at the head of the lake, is a pleasure resort. The neighbouring region is one of much beauty, and is frequented by summer tourists. Near the city are many waterfalls, the most notable being Taughannock Falls (9 m. N.), with a fall of 215 ft. Through the city from the east run Fall, Cascadilla and Six Mile Creeks, the first two of which have cut deep gorges and have a number of cascades and waterfalls, the largest, Ithaca Fall in Fall Creek, being 120 ft. high. Six Mile Creek crosses the south side of the city and empties into Cayuga Inlet, which crosses the western and lower districts, often inundated in the spring. The Inlet receives the waters of a number of small streams descending from the south-western hills. Among the attractions in this direction are Buttermilk Falls and ravine, on the outskirts of the city, Lick Brook Falls and glen and Enfield Falls and glen, the last 7 m. distant. Fall Creek furnishes good water-power. The city has various manufactures, including fire-arms, calendar clocks, traction engines, electrical appliances, patent chains, incubators, autophones, artesian well drills, salt, cement, window glass and wall-paper. The value of the factory product increased from $1,500,604 in 1900 to $2,080,002 in 1905, or 38.6%. Ithaca is also a farming centre and coal market, and much fruit is grown in the vicinity. The city is best known as the seat of Cornell University (q.v.). It has also the Ezra Cornell Free Library of about 28,000 volumes, the Ithaca Conservatory of Music, the Cascadilla School and the Ithaca High School. Ithaca was settled about 1789, the name being given to it by Simeon De Witt in 1806. It was incorporated as a village in 1821, and was chartered as a city in 1888. At Buttermilk Falls stood the principal village of the Tutelo Indians, Coreorgonel, settled in 1753 and destroyed in 1779 by a detachment of Sullivan’s force.

ITINERARIUM (i.e. road-book, from Lat. iter, road), a term applied to the extant descriptions of the ancient Roman roads and routes of traffic, with the stations and distances. It is usual to distinguish two classes of these, Itineraria adnotata or scripta and Itineraria picta—the former having the character of a book, and the latter being a kind of travelling map. Of the Itineraria Scripta the most important are: (1) It. Antonini (see Antonini Itinerarium), which consists of two parts, the 86 one dealing with roads in Europe, Asia and Africa, and the other with familiar sea-routes—the distances usually being measured from Rome; (2) It. Hierosolymitanum or Burdigalense, which belongs to the 4th century, and contains the route of a pilgrimage from Bordeaux to Jerusalem and from Heraclea by Rome to Milan (ed. G. Parthey and M. Pinder, 1848, with the Itinerarium Antonini); (3) It. Alexandria containing a sketch of the march-route of Alexander the Great, mainly derived from Arrian and prepared for Constantius’s expedition in A.D. 340-345 against the Persians (ed. D. Volkmann, 1871). A collected edition of the ancient itineraria, with ten maps, was issued by Fortia d’Urban, Recueil des itinéraires anciens (1845). Of the Itineraria Picta only one great example has been preserved. This is the famous Tabula Peutingeriana, which, without attending to the shape or relative position of the countries, represents by straight lines and dots of various sizes the roads and towns of the whole Roman world (facsimile published by K. Miller, 1888; see also Map).

ITIUS PORTUS, the name given by Caesar to the chief harbour which he used when embarking for his second expedition to Britain in 54 B.C. (De bello Gallico, v. 2). It was certainly near the uplands round Cape Grisnez (Promuntorium Itium), but the exact site has been violently disputed ever since the renaissance of learning. Many critics have assumed that Caesar used the same port for his first expedition, but the name does not appear at all in that connexion (B. G. iv. 21-23). This fact, coupled with other considerations, makes it probable that the two expeditions started from different places. It is generally agreed that the first embarked at Boulogne. The same view was widely held about the second, but T. Rice Holmes in an article in the Classical Review (May 1909) gave strong reasons for preferring Wissant, 4 m. east of Grisnez. The chief reason is that Caesar, having found he could not set sail from the small harbour of Boulogne with even 80 ships simultaneously, decided that he must take another point for the sailing of the “more than 800” ships of the second expedition. Holmes argues that, allowing for change in the foreshore since Caesar’s time, 800 specially built ships could have been hauled above the highest spring-tide level, and afterwards launched simultaneously at Wissant, which would therefore have been “commodissimus” (v. 2) or opposed to “brevissimus traiectus” (iv. 21).

ITO, HIROBUMI, Prince (1841-1909), Japanese statesman, was born in 1841, being the son of Ito Jūzō, and (like his father) began life as a retainer of the lord of Choshu, one of the most powerful nobles of Japan. Choshu, in common with many of his fellow Daimyos, was bitterly opposed to the rule of the shôgun or tycoon, and when this rule resulted in the conclusion of the treaty with Commodore M. C. Perry in 1854, the smouldering discontent broke out into open hostility against both parties to the compact. In these views Ito cordially agreed with his chieftain, and was sent on a secret mission to Yedo to report to his lord on the doings of the government. This visit had the effect of causing Ito to turn his attention seriously to the study of the British and of other military systems. As a result he persuaded Choshu to remodel his army, and to exchange the bows and arrows of his men for guns and rifles. But Ito felt that his knowledge of foreigners, if it was to be thorough, should be sought for in Europe, and with the connivance of Choshu he, in company with Inouye and three other young men of the same rank as himself, determined to risk their lives by committing the then capital offence of visiting a foreign country. With great secrecy they made their way to Nagasaki, where they concluded an arrangement with the agent of Messrs Jardine, Matheson & Co. for passages on board a vessel which was about to sail for Shanghai (1863). At that port the adventurers separated, three of their number taking ship as passengers to London, while Ito and Inouye preferred to work their passages before the mast in the “Pegasus,” bound for the same destination. For a year these two friends remained in London studying English methods, but then events occurred in Japan which recalled them to their country. The treaties lately concluded by the shôgun with the foreign powers conceded the right to navigate the strait of Shimonoseki, leading to the Inland Sea. On the northern shores of this strait stretched the feudal state ruled over by Prince Choshu, who refused to recognize the clause opening the strait, and erected batteries on the shore, from which he opened fire on all ships which attempted to force the passage. The shôgun having declared himself unable in the circumstances to give effect to the provision, the treaty powers determined to take the matter into their own hands. Ito, who was better aware than his chief of the disproportion between the fighting powers of Europe and Japan, memorialized the cabinets, begging that hostilities should be suspended until he should have had time to use his influence with Choshu in the interests of peace. With this object Ito hurried back to Japan. But his efforts were futile. Choshu refused to give way, and suffered the consequences of his obstinacy in the destruction of his batteries and in the infliction of a heavy fine. The part played by Ito in these negotiations aroused the animosity of the more reactionary of his fellow-clansmen, who made repeated attempts to assassinate him. On one notable occasion he was pursued by his enemies into a tea-house, where he was concealed by a young lady beneath the floor of her room. Thus began a romantic acquaintance, which ended in the lady becoming the wife of the fugitive. Subsequently (1868) Ito was made governor of Hiogo, and in the course of the following year became vice-minister of finance. In 1871 he accompanied Iwakura on an important mission to Europe, which, though diplomatically a failure, resulted in the enlistment of the services of European authorities on military, naval and educational systems.

After his return to Japan Ito served in several cabinets as head of the bureau of engineering and mines, and in 1886 he accepted office as prime minister, a post which, when he resigned in 1901, he had held four times. In 1882 he was sent on a mission to Europe to study the various forms of constitutional government; on this occasion he attended the coronation of the tsar Alexander III. On his return to Japan he was entrusted with the arduous duty of drafting a constitution. In 1890 he reaped the fruits of his labours, and nine years later he was destined to witness the abrogation of the old treaties, and the substitution in their place of conventions which place Japan on terms of equality with the European states. In all the great reforms in the Land of the Rising Sun Ito played a leading part. It was mainly due to his active interest in military and naval affairs that he was able to meet Li Hung-chang at the end of the Chinese and Japanese War (1895) as the representative of the conquering state, and the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902 testified to his triumphant success in raising Japan to the first rank among civilized powers. As a reward for his conspicuous services in connexion with the Chinese War Ito was made a marquis, and in 1897 he accompanied Prince Arisugawa as a joint representative of the Mikado at the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria. At the close of 1901 he again, though in an unofficial capacity, visited Europe and the United States; and in England he was created a G.C.B. After the Russo-Japanese War (1905) he was appointed resident general in Korea, and in that capacity he was responsible for the steps taken to increase Japanese influence in that country. In September 1907 he was advanced to the rank of prince. He retired from his post in Korea in July 1909, and became president of the privy council in Japan. But on the 26th of October, when on a visit to Harbin, he was shot dead by a Korean assassin.

ITRI, a town of Campania, Italy, in the province of Caserta, 6 m. by road N.W. of Formia. Pop. (1901) 5797. The town is picturesquely situated 690 ft. above sea-level, in the mountains which the Via Appia traverses between Fondi and Formia. 87 Interesting remains of the substruction wall supporting the ancient road are preserved in Itri itself; and there are many remains of ancient buildings near it. The brigand Fra Diavolo, the hero of Auber’s opera, was a native of Itri, and the place was once noted for brigandage.

ITURBIDE (or Yturbide), AUGUSTIN DE (1783-1824), emperor of Mexico from May 1822 to March 1823, was born on the 27th of September 1783, at Valladolid, now Morelia, in Mexico, where his father, an Old Spaniard from Pampeluna, had settled with his creole wife. After enjoying a better education than was then usual in Mexico, Iturbide entered the military service, and in 1810 held the post of lieutenant in the provincial regiment of his native city. In that year the insurrection under Hidalgo broke out, and Iturbide, more from policy, it would seem, than from principle, served in the royal army. Possessed of splendid courage and brilliant military talents, which fitted him especially for guerilla warfare, the young creole did signal service, and rapidly rose in military rank. In December 1813 Colonel Iturbide, along with General Llano, dealt a crushing blow to the revolt by defeating Morelos, the successor of Hidalgo, in the battle of Valladolid; and the former followed it up by another decisive victory at Puruaran in January 1814. Next year Don Augustin was appointed to the command of the army of the north and to the governorship of the provinces of Valladolid and Guanajuato, but in 1816 grave charges of extortion and violence were brought against him, which led to his recall. Although the general was acquitted, or at least although the inquiry was dropped, he did not resume his commands, but retired into private life for four years, which, we are told, he spent in a rigid course of penance for his former excesses. In 1820 Apodaca, viceroy of Mexico, received instructions from the Spanish cortes to proclaim the constitution promulgated in Spain in 1812, but although obliged at first to submit to an order by which his power was much curtailed, he secretly cherished the design of reviving the absolute power for Ferdinand VII. in Mexico. Under pretext of putting down the lingering remains of revolt, he levied troops, and, placing Iturbide at their head, instructed him to proclaim the absolute power of the king. Four years of reflection, however, had modified the general’s views, and now, led both by personal ambition and by patriotic regard for his country, Iturbide resolved to espouse the cause of national independence. His subsequent proceedings—how he issued the Plan of Iguala, on the 24th of February 1821, how by the refusal of the Spanish cortes to ratify the treaty of Cordova, which he had signed with O’Donoju, he was transformed from a mere champion of monarchy into a candidate for the crown, and how, hailed by the soldiers as Emperor Augustin I. on the 18th of May 1822, he was compelled within ten months, by his arrogant neglect of constitutional restraints, to tender his abdication to a congress which he had forcibly dissolved—will be found detailed under Mexico. Although the congress refused to accept his abdication on the ground that to do so would be to recognize the validity of his election, it permitted the ex-emperor to retire to Leghorn in Italy, while in consideration of his services in 1820 a yearly pension of £5000 was conferred upon him. But Iturbide resolved to make one more bid for power; and in 1824, passing from Leghorn to London, he published a Statement, and on the 11th of May set sail for Mexico. The congress immediately issued an act of outlawry against him, forbidding him to set foot on Mexican soil on pain of death. Ignorant of this, the ex-emperor landed in disguise at Soto la Marina on the 14th of July. He was almost immediately recognized and arrested, and on the 19th of July 1824 was shot at Padilla, by order of the state of Tamaulipas, without being permitted an appeal to the general congress. Don Augustin de Iturbide is described by his contemporaries as being of handsome figure and ingratiating manner. His brilliant courage and wonderful success made him the idol of his soldiers, though towards his prisoners he displayed the most cold-blooded cruelty, boasting in one of his despatches of having honoured Good Friday by shooting three hundred excommunicated wretches. Though described as amiable in his private life, he seems in his public career to have been ambitious and unscrupulous, and by his haughty Spanish temper, impatient of all resistance or control, to have forfeited the opportunity of founding a secure imperial dynasty. His grandson Augustin was chosen by the ill-fated emperor Maximilian as his successor.

ITZA, an American-Indian people of Mayan stock, inhabiting the country around Lake Peten in northern Guatemala. Chichen-Itza, among the most wonderful of the ruined cities of Yucatan, was the capital of the Itzas. Thence, according to their traditions they removed, on the breaking up of the Mayan kingdom in 1420, to an island in the lake where another city was built. Cortes met them in 1525, but they preserved their independence till 1697, when the Spaniards destroyed the city and temples, and a library of sacred books, written in hieroglyphics on bark fibre. The Itzas were one of the eighteen semi-independent Maya states, whose incessant internecine wars at length brought about the dismemberment of the empire of Xibalba and the destruction of Mayan civilization.

ITZEHOE, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein, on the Stör, a navigable tributary of the Elbe, 32 m. north-west of Hamburg and 15 m. north of Glückstadt. Pop. (1900) 15,649. The church of St Lawrence, dating from the 12th century, and the building in which the Holstein estates formerly met, are noteworthy. The town has a convent founded in 1256, a high school, a hospital and other benevolent institutions. Itzehoe is a busy commercial place. Its sugar refineries are among the largest in Germany. Ironfounding, shipbuilding and wool-spinning are also carried on, and the manufactures include machinery, tobacco, fishing-nets, chicory, soap, cement and beer. Fishing employs some of the inhabitants, and the markets for cattle and horses are important. A considerable trade is carried on in agricultural products and wood, chiefly with Hamburg and Altona.

Itzehoe is the oldest town in Holstein. Its nucleus was a castle, built in 809 by Egbert, one of Charlemagne’s counts, against the Danes. The community which sprang up around it was diversely called Esseveldoburg, Eselsfleth and Ezeho. In 1201 the town was destroyed, but it was restored in 1224. To the new town the Lübeck rights were granted by Adolphus IV. in 1238, and to the old town in 1303. During the Thirty Years’ War Itzehoe was twice destroyed by the Swedes, in 1644 and 1657, but was rebuilt on each occasion. It passed to Prussia in 1867, with the duchy of Schleswig-Holstein.

IUKA, the county-seat of Tishomingo county, Mississippi, U.S.A., about 25 m. S.E. of Corinth in the N.E. corner of the state and 8 m. S. of the Tennessee river. Pop. (1900) 882; (1910) 1221. It is served by the Southern railway, and has a considerable trade in cotton and farm products. Its mineral springs make it a health resort. In the American Civil War, a Confederate force under General Sterling Price occupied the town on the 14th of September 1862, driving out a small Union garrison; and on the 19th of September a partial engagement took place between Price and a Federal column commanded by General Rosecrans, in which the Confederate losses were 700 and the Union 790. Price, whose line of retreat was threatened by superior forces under General Grant, withdrew from Iuka on the morning of the 20th of September.

IULUS, in Roman legend: (a) the eldest son of Ascanius and grandson of Aeneas, founder of the Julian gens (gens Iulia), deprived of his kingdom of Latium by his younger brother Silvius (Dion. Halic. i. 70); (b) another name for, or epithet of, Ascanius.

IVAN (John), the name of six grand dukes of Muscovy and tsars of Russia.

Ivan I., called Kalita, or Money-Bag (d. 1341), grand duke of Vladimir, was the first sobiratel, or “gatherer” of the scattered Russian lands, thereby laying the foundations of the future autocracy as a national institution. This he contrived to do by adopting a policy of complete subserviency to the khan of the Golden Horde, who, in return for a liberal and punctual tribute, permitted him to aggrandize himself at the expense of the lesser 88 grand dukes. Moscow and Tver were the first to fall. The latter Ivan received from the hand of the khan, after devastating it with a host of 50,000 Tatars (1327). When Alexander of Tver fled to the powerful city of Pskov, Ivan, not strong enough to attack Pskov, procured the banishment of Alexander by the aid of the metropolitan, Theognost, who threatened Pskov with an interdict. In 1330 Ivan extended his influence over Rostov by the drastic methods of blackmail and hanging. But Great Novgorod was too strong for him, and twice he threatened that republic in vain. In 1340 Ivan assisted the khan to ravage the domains of Prince Ivan of Smolensk, who had refused to pay the customary tribute to the Horde. Ivan’s own domains, at any rate during his reign, remained free from Tatar incursions, and prospered correspondingly, thus attracting immigrants and their wealth from the other surrounding principalities. Ivan was a most careful, not to say niggardly economist, keeping an exact account of every village or piece of plate that his money-bags acquired, whence his nickname. The most important event of his reign was the transference of the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow, which gave Muscovy the pre-eminence over all the other Russian states, and made the metropolitan the ecclesiastical police-superintendent of the grand duke. The Metropolitan Peter built the first stone cathedral of Moscow, and his successor, Theognost, followed suit with three more stone churches. Simultaneously Ivan substituted stone walls for the ancient wooden ones of the Kreml’, or citadel, which made Moscow a still safer place of refuge.

Ivan II. (1326-1359), grand duke of Vladimir, a younger son of Ivan Kalita, was born in 1326. In 1353 he succeeded his elder brother Simeon as grand duke, despite the competition of Prince Constantine of Suzdal, the Khan Hanibek preferring to bestow the yarluik, or letter of investiture, upon Ivan rather than upon Constantine. At first the principalities of Suzdal, Ryazan and the republic of Novgorod refused to recognize him as grand duke, and waged war with him till 1354. The authority of the grand duchy sensibly diminished during the reign of Ivan II. The surrounding principalities paid but little attention to Moscow, and Ivan, “a meek, gentle and merciful prince,” was ruled to a great extent by the tuisyatsky, or chiliarch, Alexis Khvost, and, after his murder by the jealous boyars in 1357, by Bishop Alexis. He died in 1359. Like most of his predecessors, Ivan, by his last will, divided his dominions among his children.

Ivan III. (1440-1505), grand duke of Muscovy, son of Vasily (Basil) Vasilievich the Blind, grand duke of Moscow, and Maria Yaroslavovna, was born in 1440. He was co-regent with his father during the latter years of his life and succeeded him in 1462. Ivan tenaciously pursued the unifying policy of his predecessors. Nevertheless, cautious to timidity, like most of the princes of the house of Rurik, he avoided as far as possible any violent collision with his neighbours until all the circumstances were exceptionally favourable, always preferring to attain his ends gradually, circuitously and subterraneously. Muscovy had by this time become a compact and powerful state, whilst her rivals had grown sensibly weaker, a condition of things very favourable to the speculative activity of a statesman of Ivan III.’s peculiar character. His first enterprise was a war with the republic of Novgorod, which, alarmed at the growing dominancy of Muscovy, had placed herself beneath the protection of Casimir IV., king of Poland, an alliance regarded at Moscow as an act of apostasy from orthodoxy. Ivan took the field against Novgorod in 1470, and after his generals had twice defeated the forces of the republic, at Shelona and on the Dvina, during the summer of 1471, the Novgorodians were forced to sue for peace, which they obtained on engaging to abandon for ever the Polish alliance, ceding a considerable portion of their northern colonies, and paying a war indemnity of 15,500 roubles. From henceforth Ivan sought continually a pretext for destroying Novgorod altogether; but though he frequently violated its ancient privileges in minor matters, the attitude of the republic was so wary that his looked-for opportunity did not come till 1477. In that year the ambassadors of Novgorod played into his hands by addressing him in public audience as “Gosudar” (sovereign) instead of “Gospodin” (“Sir”) as heretofore. Ivan at once seized upon this as a recognition of his sovereignty, and when the Novgorodians repudiated their ambassadors, he marched against them. Deserted by Casimir IV., and surrounded on every side by the Muscovite armies, which included a Tatar contingent, the republic recognized Ivan as autocrat, and surrendered (January 14, 1478) all her prerogatives and possessions (the latter including the whole of northern Russia from Lapland to the Urals) into his hands. Subsequent revolts (1479-1488) were punished by the removal en masse of the richest and most ancient families of Novgorod to Moscow, Vyatka and other central Russian cities. After this, Novgorod, as an independent state, ceased to exist. The rival republic of Pskov owed the continuance of its own political existence to the readiness with which it assisted Ivan against its ancient enemy. The other principalities were virtually absorbed, by conquest, purchase or marriage contract—Yaroslavl in 1463, Rostov in 1474, Tver in 1485.

Ivan’s refusal to share his conquests with his brothers, and his subsequent interference with the internal politics of their inherited principalities, involved him in several wars with them, from which, though the princes were assisted by Lithuania, he emerged victorious. Finally, Ivan’s new rule of government, formally set forth in his last will to the effect that the domains of all his kinsfolk, after their deaths, should pass directly to the reigning grand duke instead of reverting, as hitherto, to the princes’ heirs, put an end once for all to these semi-independent princelets. The further extension of the Muscovite dominion was facilitated by the death of Casimir IV. in 1492, when Poland and Lithuania once more parted company. The throne of Lithuania was now occupied by Casimir’s son Alexander, a weak and lethargic prince so incapable of defending his possessions against the persistent attacks of the Muscovites that he attempted to save them by a matrimonial compact, and wedded Helena, Ivan’s daughter. But the clear determination of Ivan to appropriate as much of Lithuania as possible at last compelled Alexander in 1499 to take up arms against his father-in-law. The Lithuanians were routed at Vedrosha (July 14, 1500), and in 1503 Alexander was glad to purchase peace by ceding to Ivan Chernigov, Starodub, Novgorod-Syeversk and sixteen other towns.

It was in the reign of Ivan III. that Muscovy rejected the Tatar yoke. In 1480 Ivan refused to pay the customary tribute to the grand Khan Ahmed. When, however, the grand khan marched against him, Ivan’s courage began to fail, and only the stern exhortations of the high-spirited bishop of Rostov, Vassian, could induce him to take the field. All through the autumn the Russian and Tatar hosts confronted each other on opposite sides of the Ugra, till the 11th of November, when Ahmed retired into the steppe. In the following year the grand khan, while preparing a second expedition against Moscow, was suddenly attacked, routed and slain by Ivak, the khan of the Nogai Tatars, whereupon the Golden Horde suddenly fell to pieces. In 1487 Ivan reduced the khanate of Kazan (one of the offshoots of the Horde) to the condition of a vassal-state, though in his later years it broke away from his suzerainty. With the other Mahommedan powers, the khan of the Crimea and the sultan of Turkey, Ivan’s relations were pacific and even amicable. The Crimean khan, Mengli Girai, helped him against Lithuania and facilitated the opening of diplomatic intercourse between Moscow and Constantinople, where the first Russian embassy appeared in 1495.

The character of the government of Muscovy under Ivan III. changed essentially and took on an autocratic form which it had never had before. This was due not merely to the natural consequence of the hegemony of Moscow over the other Russian lands, but even more to the simultaneous growth of new and 89 exotic principles falling upon a soil already prepared for them. After the fall of Constantinople, orthodox canonists were inclined to regard the Muscovite grand dukes as the successors by the Byzantine emperors. This movement coincided with a change in the family circumstances of Ivan III. After the death of his first consort, Maria of Tver (1467), at the suggestion of Pope Paul II. (1469), who hoped thereby to bind Russia to the holy see, Ivan III. wedded the Catholic Zoe Palaeologa (better known by her orthodox name of Sophia), daughter of Thomas, despot of the Morea, who claimed the throne of Constantinople as the nearest relative of the last Greek emperor. The princess, however, clave to her family traditions, and awoke imperial ideas in the mind of her consort. It was through her influence that the ceremonious etiquette of Constantinople (along with the imperial double-headed eagle and all that it implied) was adopted by the court of Moscow. The grand duke henceforth held aloof from his boyars. The old patriarchal systems of government vanished. The boyars were no longer consulted on affairs of state. The sovereign became sacrosanct, while the boyars were reduced to the level of slaves absolutely dependent on the will of the sovereign. The boyars naturally resented so insulting a revolution, and struggled against it, at first with some success. But the clever Greek lady prevailed in the end, and it was her son Vasily, not Maria of Tver’s son, Demetrius, who was ultimately crowned co-regent with his father (April 14, 1502). It was in the reign of Ivan III. that the first Russian “Law Book,” or code, was compiled by the scribe Gusev. Ivan did his utmost to promote civilization in his realm, and with that object invited many foreign masters and artificers to settle in Muscovy, the most noted of whom was the Italian Ridolfo di Fioravante, nicknamed Aristotle because of his extraordinary knowledge, who built the cathedrals of the Assumption (Uspenski) and of Saint Michael or the Holy Archangels in the Kreml.

Ivan IV., called “the Terrible” (1530-1584), tsar of Muscovy, was the son of Vasily [Basil] III. Ivanovich, grand duke of Muscovy, by his second wife, Helena Glinska. Born on the 25th of August 1530, he was proclaimed grand duke on the death of his father (1533), and took the government into his own hands in 1544, being then fourteen years old. Ivan IV. was in every respect precocious; but from the first there was what we should now call a neurotic strain in his character. His father died when he was three, his mother when he was only seven, and he grew up in a brutal and degrading environment where he learnt to hold human life and human dignity in contempt. He was maltreated by the leading boyars whom successive revolutions placed at the head of affairs, and hence he conceived an inextinguishable hatred of their whole order and a corresponding fondness for the merchant class, their natural enemies. At a very early age he entertained an exalted idea of his own divine authority, and his studies were largely devoted to searching in the Scriptures and the Slavonic chronicles for sanctions and precedents for the exercise and development of his right divine. He first asserted his power by literally throwing to the dogs the last of his boyar tyrants, and shortly afterwards announced his intention of assuming the title of tsar, a title which his father and grandfather had coveted but never dared to assume publicly. On the 16th of January 1547, he was crowned the first Russian tsar by the metropolitan of Moscow; on the 3rd of February in the same year he selected as his wife from among the virgins gathered from all parts of Russia for his inspection, Anastasia Zakharina-Koshkina, the scion of an ancient and noble family better known by its later name of Romanov.

Hitherto, by his own showing, the private life of the young tsar had been unspeakably abominable, but his sensitive conscience (he was naturally religious) induced him, in 1550, to summon a Zemsky Sobor or national assembly, the first of its kind, to which he made a curious public confession of the sins of his youth, and at the same time promised that the realm of Russia (for whose dilapidation he blamed the boyar regents) should henceforth be governed justly and mercifully. In 1551 the tsar submitted to a synod of prelates a hundred questions as to the best mode of remedying existing evils, for which reason the decrees of this synod are generally called stoglav or centuria. The decennium extending from 1550 to 1560 was the good period of Ivan IV.’s reign, when he deliberately broke away from his disreputable past and surrounded himself with good men of lowly origin. It was not only that he hated and distrusted the boyars, but he was already statesman enough to discern that they could not be fitted into the new order of things which he aimed at introducing. Ivan meditated the regeneration of Muscovy, and the only men who could assist him in his task were men who could look steadily forward to the future because they had no past to look back upon, men who would unflinchingly obey their sovereign because they owed their whole political significance to him alone. The chief of these men of good-will were Alexis Adashev and the monk Sylvester, men of so obscure an origin that almost every detail of their lives is conjectural, but both of them, morally, the best Muscovites of their day. Their influence upon the young tsar was profoundly beneficial, and the period of their administration coincides with the most glorious period of Ivan’s reign—the period of the conquest of Kazan and Astrakhan.

In the course of 1551 one of the factions of Kazan offered the whole khanate to the young tsar, and on the 20th of August 1552 he stood before its walls with an army of 150,000 men and 50 guns. The siege was long and costly; the army suffered severely; and only the tenacity of the tsar kept it in camp for six weeks. But on the 2nd of October the fortress, which had been heroically defended, was taken by assault. The conquest of Kazan was an epoch-making event in the history of eastern Europe. It was not only the first territorial conquest from the Tatars, before whom Muscovy had humbled herself for generations; at Kazan Asia, in the name of Mahomet, had fought behind its last trench against Christian Europe marshalled beneath the banner of the tsar of Muscovy. For the first time the Volga became a Russian river. Nothing could now retard the natural advance of the young Russian state towards the east and the south-east. In 1554 Astrakhan fell almost without a blow. By 1560 all the Finnic and Tatar tribes between the Oka and the Kama had become Russian subjects. Ivan was also the first tsar who dared to attack the Crimea. In 1555 he sent Ivan Sheremetev against Perekop, and Sheremetev routed the Tatars in a great two days’ battle at Sudbishenska. Some of Ivan’s advisers, including both Sylvester and Adashev, now advised him to make an end of the Crimean khanate, as he had already made an end of the khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan. But Ivan, wiser in his generation, knew that the thing was impossible, in view of the immense distance to be traversed, and the predominance of the Grand Turk from whom it would have to be wrested. It was upon Livonia that his eyes were fixed, which was comparatively near at hand and promised him a seaboard and direct communication with western Europe. Ivan IV., like Peter I. after him, clearly recognized the necessity of raising Muscovy to the level of her neighbours. He proposed to do so by promoting a wholesale immigration into his tsardom of master-workmen and skilled artificers. But all his neighbours, apprehensive of the consequences of a civilized Muscovy, combined to thwart him. Charles V. even went so far as to disperse 123 skilled Germans whom Ivan’s agent had collected and brought to Lübeck for shipment to a Baltic port. After this, Ivan was obliged to help himself as best he could. His opportunity seemed to have come when, in the middle of the 16th century, the Order of the Sword broke up, and the possession of Livonia was fiercely contested between Sweden, Poland and Denmark. Ivan intervened in 1558 and quickly captured Narva, Dorpat and a dozen smaller fortresses; then, in 1560, Livonia placed herself beneath the protection of Poland, and King Sigismund II. warned Ivan off the premises.

By this time, Ivan had entered upon the second and evil portion of his reign. As early as 1553 he had ceased to trust 90 Sylvester and Adashev, owing to their extraordinary backwardness in supporting the claims of his infant son to the throne while he himself lay at the point of death. The ambiguous and ungrateful conduct of the tsar’s intimate friends and protégés on this occasion has never been satisfactorily explained, and he had good reason to resent it. Nevertheless, on his recovery, much to his credit, he overlooked it, and they continued to direct affairs for six years longer. Then the dispute about the Crimea arose, and Ivan became convinced that they were mediocre politicians as well as untrustworthy friends. In 1560 both of them disappeared from the scene, Sylvester into a monastery at his own request, while Adashev died the same year, in honourable exile as a general in Livonia. The death of his deeply beloved consort Anastasia and his son Demetrius, and the desertion of his one bosom friend Prince Kurbsky, about the same time, seem to have infuriated Ivan against God and man. During the next ten years (1560-1570) terrible and horrible things happened in the realm of Muscovy. The tsar himself lived in an atmosphere of apprehension, imagining that every man’s hand was against him. On the 3rd of December 1564 he quitted Moscow with his whole family. On the 3rd of January 1565 he declared in an open letter addressed to the metropolitan his intention to abdicate. The common people, whom he had always favoured at the expense of the boyars, thereupon implored him to come back on his own terms. He consented to do so, but entrenched himself within a peculiar institution, the oprichina or “separate estate.” Certain towns and districts all over Russia were separated from the rest of the realm, and their revenues were assigned to the maintenance of the tsar’s new court and household, which was to consist of 1000 carefully selected boyars and lower dignitaries, with their families and suites, in the midst of whom Ivan henceforth lived exclusively. The oprichina was no constitutional innovation. The duma, or council, still attended to all the details of the administration; the old boyars still retained their ancient offices and dignities. The only difference was that the tsar had cut himself off from them, and they were not even to communicate with him except on extraordinary and exceptional occasions. The oprichniki, as being the exclusive favourites of the tsar, naturally, in their own interests, hardened the tsar’s heart against all outsiders, and trampled with impunity upon every one beyond the charmed circle. Their first and most notable victim was Philip, the saintly metropolitan of Moscow, who was strangled for condemning the oprichina as an unchristian institution, and refusing to bless the tsar (1569). Ivan had stopped at Tver, to murder St Philip, while on his way to destroy the second wealthiest city in his tsardom—Great Novgorod. A delator of infamous character, one Peter, had accused the authorities of the city to the tsar of conspiracy; Ivan, without even confronting the Novgorodians with their accuser, proceeded at the end of 1569 to punish them. After ravaging the land, his own land, like a wild beast, he entered the city on the 8th of January 1570, and for the next five weeks, systematically and deliberately, day after day, massacred batches of every class of the population. Every monastery, church, manor-house, warehouse and farm within a circuit of 100 m. was then wrecked, plundered and left roofless, all goods were pillaged, all cattle destroyed. Not till the 13th of February were the miserable remnants of the population permitted to rebuild their houses and cultivate their fields once more.

An intermittent and desultory war, with Sweden and Poland simultaneously, for the possession of Livonia and Esthonia, went on from 1560 to 1582. Ivan’s generals (he himself rarely took the field) were generally successful at first, and bore down their enemies by sheer numbers, capturing scores of fortresses and towns. But in the end the superior military efficiency of the Swedes and Poles invariably prevailed. Ivan was also unfortunate in having for his chief antagonist Stephen Báthory, one of the greatest captains of the age. Thus all his strenuous efforts, all his enormous sacrifices, came to nothing. The West was too strong for him. By the peace of Zapoli (January 15th, 1582) he surrendered Livonia with Polotsk to Báthory, and by the truce of Ilyusa he at the same time abandoned Ingria to the Swedes. The Baltic seaboard was lost to Muscovy for another century and a half. In his latter years Ivan cultivated friendly relations with England, in the hope of securing some share in the benefits of civilization from the friendship of Queen Elizabeth, one of whose ladies, Mary Hastings, he wished to marry, though his fifth wife, Martha Nagaya, was still alive. Towards the end of his life Ivan was partially consoled for his failure in the west by the unexpected acquisition of the kingdom of Siberia in the east, which was first subdued by the Cossack hetman Ermak or Yermak in 1581.

In November 1580 Ivan in a fit of ungovernable fury at some contradiction or reproach, struck his eldest surviving son Ivan, a prince of rare promise, whom he passionately loved, a blow which proved fatal. In an agony of remorse, he would now have abdicated “as being unworthy to reign longer”; but his trembling boyars, fearing some dark ruse, refused to obey any one but himself. Three years later, on the 18th of March 1584, while playing at chess, he suddenly fell backwards in his chair and was removed to his bed in a dying condition. At the last moment he assumed the hood of the strictest order of hermits, and died as the monk Jonah.

Ivan IV. was undoubtedly a man of great natural ability. His political foresight was extraordinary. He anticipated the ideals of Peter the Great, and only failed in realizing them because his material resources were inadequate. But admiration of his talents must not blind us to his moral worthlessness, nor is it right to cast the blame for his excesses on the brutal and vicious society in which he lived. The same society which produced his infamous favourites also produced St Philip of Moscow, and by refusing to listen to St Philip Ivan sank below even the not very lofty moral standard of his own age. He certainly left Muscovite society worse than he found it, and so prepared the way for the horrors of “the Great Anarchy.” Personally, Ivan was tall and well-made, with high shoulders and a broad chest. His eyes were small and restless, his nose hooked, he had a beard and moustaches of imposing length. His face had a sinister, troubled expression; but an enigmatical smile played perpetually around his lips. He was the best educated and the hardest worked man of his age. His memory was astonishing, his energy indefatigable. As far as possible he saw to everything personally, and never sent away a petitioner of the lower orders.

Ivan V.1 (1666-1696), tsar of Russia, was the son of Tsar Alexius Mikhailovich and his first consort Miloslavzkoya. Physically and mentally deficient, Ivan was the mere tool of the party in Muscovy who would have kept the children of the tsar Alexis, by his second consort Natalia Naruishkina, from the throne. In 1682 the party of progress, headed by Artamon Matvyeev and the tsaritsa Natalia, passed Ivan over and placed his half-brother, the vigorous and promising little tsarevich Peter, on the throne. On the 23rd of May, however, the Naruishkin faction was overthrown by the stryeltsi (musketeers), secretly worked upon by Ivan’s half-sister Sophia, and Ivan was associated as tsar with Peter. Three days later he was proclaimed “first tsar,” in order still further to depress the Naruishkins, and place the government in the hands of Sophia exclusively. In 1689 the name of Ivan was used as a pretext by Sophia in her attempt to oust Peter from the throne altogether. Ivan was made to distribute beakers of wine to his sister’s adherents with his own hands, but subsequently, beneath the influence of his uncle Prozorovsky, he openly declared that “even for his sister’s 91 sake, he would quarrel no longer with his dear brother.” During the reign of his colleague Peter, Ivan V. took no part whatever in affairs, but devoted himself “to incessant prayer and rigorous fasting.” On the 9th of January 1684 he married Praskovia Saltuikova, who bore him five daughters, one of whom, Anne, ultimately ascended the Russian throne. In his last years Ivan was a paralytic. He died on the 29th of January 1696.

Ivan VI. (1740-1764), emperor of Russia, was the son of Prince Antony Ulrich of Brunswick, and the princess Anna Leopoldovna of Mecklenburg, and great-nephew of the empress Anne, who adopted him and declared him her successor on the 5th of October 1740, when he was only eight weeks old. On the death of Anne (October 17th) he was proclaimed emperor, and on the following day Ernest Johann Biren, duke of Courland, was appointed regent. On the fall of Biren (November 8th), the regency passed to the baby tsar’s mother, though the government was in the hands of the capable vice-chancellor, Andrei Osterman. A little more than twelve months later, a coup d’état placed the tsesarevna Elizabeth on the throne (December 6, 1741), and Ivan and his family were imprisoned in the fortress of Dünamünde (Ust Dvinsk) (December 13, 1742) after a preliminary detention at Riga, from whence the new empress had at first decided to send them home to Brunswick. In June 1744 they were transferred to Kholmogory on the White Sea, where Ivan, isolated from his family, and seeing nobody but his gaoler, remained for the next twelve years. Rumours of his confinement at Kholmogory having leaked out, he was secretly transferred to the fortress of Schlüsselburg (1756), where he was still more rigorously guarded, the very commandant of the fortress not knowing who “a certain arrestant” committed to his care really was. On the accession of Peter III. the condition of the unfortunate prisoner seemed about to be ameliorated, for the kind-hearted emperor visited and sympathized with him; but Peter himself was overthrown a few weeks later. In the instructions sent to Ivan’s guardian, Prince Churmtyev, the latter was ordered to chain up his charge, and even scourge him should he become refractory. On the accession of Catherine still more stringent orders were sent to the officer in charge of “the nameless one.” If any attempt were made from outside to release him, the prisoner was to be put to death; in no circumstances was he to be delivered alive into any one’s hands, even if his deliverers produced the empress’s own sign-manual authorizing his release. By this time, twenty years of solitary confinement had disturbed Ivan’s mental equilibrium, though he does not seem to have been actually insane. Nevertheless, despite the mystery surrounding him, he was well aware of his imperial origin, and always called himself gosudar (sovereign). Though instructions had been given to keep him ignorant, he had been taught his letters and could read his Bible. Nor could his residence at Schlüsselburg remain concealed for ever, and its discovery was the cause of his ruin. A sub-lieutenant of the garrison, Vasily Mirovich, found out all about him, and formed a plan for freeing and proclaiming him emperor. At midnight on the 5th of July 1764, Mirovich won over some of the garrison, arrested the commandant, Berednikov, and demanded the delivery of Ivan, who there and then was murdered by his gaolers in obedience to the secret instructions already in their possession.

IVANGOROD, a fortified town of Russian Poland, in the government of Lublin, 64 m. by rail S.E. from Warsaw, at the confluence of the Wieprz with the Vistula. It is defended by nine forts on the right bank of the Vistula and by three on the left bank, and, with Warsaw, Novo-Georgievsk and Brest-Litovsk, forms the Polish “quadrilateral.”

IVANOVO-VOZNESENSK, a town of middle Russia, in the government of Vladimir, 86 m. by rail N. of the town of Vladimir. Pop. (1887) 22,000; (1900) 64,628. It consists of what were originally two villages—Ivanovo, dating from the 16th century, and Voznesensk, of much more recent date—united into a town in 1861. Of best note among the public buildings are the cathedral, and the church of the Intercession of the Virgin, formerly associated with an important monastery founded in 1579 and abandoned in 1754. One of the colleges of the town contains a public library. Linen-weaving was introduced in 1751, and in 1776 the manufacture of chintzes was brought from Schlüsselburg. The town has cotton factories, calico print-works, iron-works and chemical works.

IVARR, BEINLAUSI (d. 873), son of Ragnar Lothbrok, the great Viking chieftain, is known in English and Continental annals as Inuaer, Ingwar or Hingwar. He was one of the Danish leaders in the Sheppey expedition of 855 and was perhaps present at the siege of York in 867. The chief incident in his life was his share in the martyrdom of St Edmund in 870. He seems to have been the leader of the Danes on that occasion, and by this act he probably gained the epithet “crudelissimus” by which he is usually described. It is probable that he is to be identified with Imhar, king of the Norsemen of all Ireland and Britain, who was active in Ireland between the years 852 and 873, the year of his death.

IVIZA, Ibiza or Iviça, an island in the Mediterranean Sea, belonging to Spain, and forming part of the archipelago known as the Balearic Islands (q.v.). Pop. (1900) 23,524; area 228 sq. m. Iviza lies 50 m. S.W. of Majorca and about 60 m. from Cape San Martin on the coast of Spain. Its greatest length from north-east to south-west is about 25 m. and its greatest breadth about 13 m. The coast is indented by numerous small bays, the principal of which are those of San Antonio on the north-west, and of Iviza on the south-east. Of all the Balearic group, Iviza is the most varied in its scenery and the most fruitful. The hilly parts which culminate in the Pico de Atalayasa (1560 ft.), are richly wooded. The climate is for the most part mild and agreeable, though the hot winds from the African coast are sometimes troublesome. Oil, corn and fruits (of which the most important are the fig, prickly pear, almond and carob-bean) are the principal products; hemp and flax are also grown, but the inhabitants are rather indolent, and their modes of culture are very primitive. There are numerous salt-pans along the coast, which were formerly worked by the Spanish government. Fruit, salt, charcoal, lead and stockings of native manufacture are exported. The imports are rice, flour, sugar, woollen goods and cotton. The capital of the island, and, indeed, the only town of much importance—for the population is remarkably scattered—is Iviza or La Ciudad (6527), a fortified town on the south-east coast, consisting of a lower and upper portion, and possessing a good harbour, a 13th-century Gothic collegiate church and an ancient castle. Iviza was the see of a bishop from 1782 to 1851.

South of Iviza lies the smaller and more irregular island of Formentera (pop., 1900, 2243; area, 37 sq. m.), which is said to derive its name from the production of wheat. With Iviza it agrees both in general appearance and in the character of its products, but it is altogether destitute of streams. Goats and sheep are found in the mountains, and the coasts are greatly frequented by flamingoes. Iviza and Formentera are the principal islands of the lesser or western Balearic group, formerly known as the Pityusae or Pine Islands.

IVORY, SIR JAMES (1765-1842), Scottish mathematician, was born in Dundee in 1765. In 1779 he entered the university of St Andrews, distinguishing himself especially in mathematics. He then studied theology; but, after two sessions at St Andrews and one at Edinburgh, he abandoned all idea of the church, and in 1786 he became an assistant-teacher of mathematics and natural philosophy in a newly established academy at Dundee. Three years later he became partner in and manager of a flax-spinning company at Douglastown in Forfarshire, still, however, prosecuting in moments of leisure his favourite studies. He was essentially a self-trained mathematician, and was not only deeply 92 versed in ancient and modern geometry, but also had a full knowledge of the analytical methods and discoveries of the continental mathematicians. His earliest memoir, dealing with an analytical expression for the rectification of the ellipse, is published in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1796); and this and his later papers on “Cubic Equations” (1799) and “Kepler’s Problem” (1802) evince great facility in the handling of algebraic formulae. In 1804 after the dissolution of the flax-spinning company of which he was manager, he obtained one of the mathematical chairs in the Royal Military College at Marlow (afterwards removed to Sandhurst); and till the year 1816, when falling health obliged him to resign, he discharged his professional duties with remarkable success. During this period he published in the Philosophical Transactions several important memoirs, which earned for him the Copley medal in 1814 and ensured his election as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1815. Of special importance in the history of attractions is the first of these earlier memoirs (Phil. Trans., 1809), in which the problem of the attraction of a homogeneous ellipsoid upon an external point is reduced to the simpler case of the attraction of another but related ellipsoid upon a corresponding point interior to it. This theorem is known as Ivory’s theorem. His later papers in the Philosophical Transactions treat of astronomical refractions, of planetary perturbations, of equilibrium of fluid masses, &c. For his investigations in the first named of these he received a royal medal in 1826 and again in 1839. In 1831, on the recommendation of Lord Brougham, King William IV. granted him a pension of £300 per annum, and conferred on him the Hanoverian Guelphic order of knighthood. Besides being directly connected with the chief scientific societies of his own country, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Royal Irish Academy, &c., he was corresponding member of the Royal Academy of Sciences both of Paris and Berlin, and of the Royal Society of Göttingen. He died at London on the 21st of September 1842.

IVORY (Fr. ivoire, Lat. ebur), strictly speaking a term confined to the material represented by the tusk of the elephant, and for commercial purposes almost entirely to that of the male elephant. In Africa both the male and female elephant produce good-sized tusks; in the Indian variety the female is much less bountifully provided, and in Ceylon perhaps not more than 1% of either sex have any tusks at all. Ivory is in substance very dense, the pores close and compact and filled with a gelatinous solution which contributes to the beautiful polish which may be given to it and makes it easy to work. It may be placed between bone and horn; more fibrous than bone and therefore less easily torn or splintered. For a scientific definition it would be difficult to find a better one than that given by Sir Richard Owen. He says:1 “The name ivory is now restricted to that modification of dentine or tooth substance which in transverse sections or fractures shows lines of different colours, or striae, proceeding in the arc of a circle and forming by their decussations minute curvilinear lozenge-shaped spaces.” These spaces are formed by an immense number of exceedingly minute tubes placed very close together, radiating outwards in all directions. It is to this arrangement of structure that ivory owes its fine grain and almost perfect elasticity, and the peculiar marking resembling the engine-turning on the case of a watch, by which many people are guided in distinguishing it from celluloid or other imitations. Elephants’ tusks are the upper incisor teeth of the animal, which, starting in earliest youth from a semi-solid vascular pulp, grow during the whole of its existence, gathering phosphates and other earthy matters and becoming hardened as in the formation of teeth generally. The tusk is built up in layers, the inside layer being the last produced. A large proportion is embedded in the bone sockets of the skull, and is hollow for some distance up in a conical form, the hollow becoming less and less as it is prolonged into a narrow channel which runs along as a thread or as it is sometimes called, nerve, towards the point of the tooth. The outer layer, or bark, is enamel of similar density to the central part. Besides the elephant’s tooth or tusk we recognize as ivory, for commercial purposes, the teeth of the hippopotamus, walrus, narwhal, cachalot or sperm-whale and of some animals of the wild boar class, such as the warthog of South Africa. Practically, however, amongst these the hippo and walrus tusks are the only ones of importance for large work, though boars’ tusks come to the sale-rooms in considerable quantities from India and Africa.

Generally speaking, the supply of ivory imported into Europe comes from Africa; some is Asiatic, but much that is shipped from India is really African, coming by way of Zanzibar and Mozambique to Bombay. A certain amount is furnished by the vast stores of remains of prehistoric animals still existing throughout Russia, principally in Siberia in the neighbourhood of the Lena and other rivers discharging into the Arctic Ocean. The mammoth and mastodon seem at one time to have been common over the whole surface of the globe. In England tusks have been recently dug up—for instance at Dungeness—as long as 12 ft. and weighing 200 ℔. The Siberian deposits have been worked for now nearly two centuries. The store appears to be as inexhaustible as a coalfield. Some think that a day may come when the spread of civilization may cause the utter disappearance of the elephant in Africa, and that it will be to these deposits that we may have to turn as the only source of animal ivory. Of late years in England the use of mammoth ivory has shown signs of decline. Practically none passed through the London sale-rooms during 1903-1906. Before that, parcels of 10 to 20 tons were not uncommon. Not all of it is good; perhaps about half of what comes to England is so, the rest rotten; specimens, however, are found as perfect and in as fine condition as if recently killed, instead of having lain hidden and preserved for thousands of years in the icy ground. There is a considerable literature (see Shooting) on the subject of big-game hunting, which includes that of the elephant, hippopotamus and smaller tusk-bearing animals. Elephants until comparatively recent times roamed over the whole of Africa from the northern deserts to the Cape of Good Hope. They are still abundant in Central Africa and Uganda, but civilization has gradually driven them farther and farther into the wilds and impenetrable forests of the interior.

The quality of ivory varies according to the districts whence it is obtained, the soft variety of the eastern parts of the continent being the most esteemed. When in perfect condition African ivory should be if recently cut of a warm, transparent, mellow tint, with as little as possible appearance of grain or mottling. Asiatic ivory is of a denser white, more open in texture and softer to work. But it is apt to turn yellow sooner, and is not so easy to polish. Unlike bone, ivory requires no preparation, but is fit for immediate working. That from the neighbourhood of Cameroon is very good, then ranks the ivory from Loango, Congo, Gabun and Ambriz; next the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone and Cape Coast Castle. That of French Sudan is nearly always “ringy,” and some of the Ambriz variety also. We may call Zanzibar and Mozambique varieties soft; Angola and Ambriz all hard. Ambriz ivory was at one time much esteemed, but there is comparatively little now. Siam ivory is rarely if ever soft. Abyssinian has its soft side, but Egypt is practically the only place where both descriptions are largely distributed. A drawback to Abyssinian ivory is a prevalence of a rather thick bark. Egyptian is liable to be cracked, from the extreme variations of temperature; more so formerly than now, since better methods of packing and transit are used. Ivory is extremely sensitive to sudden extremes of temperature; for this reason billiard balls should be kept where the temperature is fairly equable.

The market terms by which descriptions of ivory are distinguished are liable to mislead. They refer to ports of shipment rather than to places of origin. For instance, “Malta” ivory is a well-understood term, yet there are no ivory producing animals in that island.

Tusks should be regular and tapering in shape, not very curved or twisted, for economy in cutting; the coat fine, thin, clear and transparent. The substance of ivory is so elastic 93 and flexible that excellent riding-whips have been cut longitudinally from whole tusks. The size to which tusks grow and are brought to market depends on race rather than on size of elephants. The latter run largest in equatorial Africa. Asiatic bull elephant tusks seldom exceed 50 ℔ in weight, though lengths of 9 ft. and up to 150 ℔ weight are not entirely unknown. Record lengths for African tusks are the one presented to George V., when prince of Wales, on his marriage (1893), measuring 8 ft. 7½ in. and weighing 165 ℔, and the pair of tusks which were brought to the Zanzibar market by natives in 1898, weighing together over 450 ℔. One of the latter is new in the Natural History Museum at South Kensington; the other is in Messrs Rodgers & Co.’s collection at Sheffield. For length the longest known are those belonging to Messrs Rowland Ward, Piccadilly, which measure 11 ft. and 11 ft. 5 in. respectively, with a combined weight of 293 ℔. Osteodentine, resulting from the effects of injuries from spearheads or bullets, is sometimes found in tusks. This formation, resembling stalactites, grows with the tusk, the bullets or iron remaining embedded without trace of their entry.

The most important commercial distinction of the qualities of ivory is that of the hard and soft varieties. The terms are difficult to define exactly. Generally speaking, hard or bright ivory is distinctly harder to cut with the saw or other tools. It is, as it were, glassy and transparent. Soft contains more moisture, stands differences of climate and temperature better, and does not crack so easily. The expert is guided by the shape of the tooth, by the colour and quality of the bark or skin, and by the transparency when cut, or even before, as at the point of the tooth. Roughly, a line might be drawn almost centrally down the map of Africa, on the west of which the hard quality prevails, on the east the soft. In choosing ivory for example for knife-handles—people rather like to see a pretty grain, strongly marked; but the finest quality in the hard variety, which is generally used for them, is the closest and freest from grain. The curved or canine teeth of the hippopotamus are valuable and come in considerable quantities to the European markets. Owen describes this variety as “an extremely dense, compact kind of dentine, partially defended on the outside by a thin layer of enamel as hard as porcelain; so hard as to strike fire with steel.” By reason of this hardness it is not at all liked by the turner and ivory workers, and before being touched by them the enamel has to be removed by acid, or sometimes by heating and sudden cooling, when it can be scaled off. The texture is slightly curdled, mottled or damasked. Hippo ivory was at one time largely used for artificial teeth, but now mostly for umbrella and stick-handles; whole (in their natural form) for fancy door-handles and the like. In the trade the term is not “riverhorse” but “seahorse teeth.” Walrus ivory is less dense and coarser than hippo, but of fine quality—what there is of it, for the oval centre which has more the character of coarse bone unfortunately extends a long way up. At one time a large supply came to the market, but of late years there has been an increasing scarcity, the animals having been almost exterminated by the ruthless persecution to which they have been subjected in their principal haunts in the northern seas. It is little esteemed now, though our ancestors thought highly of it. Comparatively large slabs are to be found in medieval sculpture of the 11th and 12th centuries, and the grips of most oriental swords, ancient and modern, are made from it. The ivory from the single tusk or horn of the narwhal is not of much commercial value except as an ornament or curiosity. Some horns attain a length of 8 to 10 ft., 4 in. thick at the base. It is dense in substance and of a fair colour, but owing to the central cavity there is little of it fit for anything larger than napkin-rings.

Ivory in Commerce, and its Industrial Applications.—Almost the whole of the importation of ivory to Europe was until recent years confined to London, the principal distributing mart of the world. But the opening up of the Congo trade has placed the port of Antwerp in a position which has equalled and, for a time, may surpass that of London. Other important markets are Liverpool and Hamburg; and Germany, France and Portugal have colonial possessions in Africa, from which it is imported. America is a considerable importer for its own requirements. From the German Cameroon alone, according to Schilling, there were exported during the ten years ending 1905, 452,100 kilos of ivory. Mr Buxton estimates the amount of ivory imported into the United Kingdom at about 500 tons. If we give the same to Antwerp we have from these two ports alone no less than 1000 tons a year to be provided. Allowing a weight so high as 30 ℔ per pair of tusks (which is far too high, perhaps twice too high) we should have here alone between thirty and forty thousand elephants to account for. It is true that every pair of tusks that comes to the market represents a dead elephant, but not necessarily by any means a slain or even a recently killed one, as is popularly supposed and unfortunately too often repeated. By far the greater proportion is the result of stores accumulated by natives, a good part coming from animals which have died a natural death. Not 20% is live ivory or recently killed; the remainder is known in the trade as dead ivory.

The important part which ivory plays in the industrial arts not only for decorative, but also for domestic applications is hardly sufficiently recognized. Nothing is wasted of this valuable product. Hundreds of sacks full of cuttings and shavings, and scraps returned by manufacturers after they have used what they require for their particular trade, come to the mart. The dust is used for polishing, and in the preparation of Indian ink, and even for food in the form of ivory jelly. The scraps come in for inlaying and for the numberless purposes in which ivory is used for small domestic and decorative objects. India, which has been called the backbone of the trade, takes enormous quantities of the rings left in the turning of billiard-balls, which serve as women’s bangles, or for making small toys and models, and in other characteristic Indian work. Without endeavouring to enumerate all the applications, a glance may be cast at the most important of those which consume the largest quantity. Chief among these is the manufacture of billiard-balls, of cutlery handles, of piano-keys and of brushware and toilet articles. Billiard-balls demand the highest quality of ivory; for the best balls the soft description is employed, though recently, through the competition of bonzoline and similar substitutes, the hard has been more used in order that the weight may be assimilated to that of the artificial kind. Therefore the most valuable tusks of all are those adapted for the billiard-ball trade. The term used is “scrivelloes,” and is applied to teeth proper for the purpose, weighing not over about 7 ℔. The division of the tusk into smaller pieces for subsequent manufacture, in order to avoid waste, is a matter of importance.

Fig. 1.

The ivory for piano-keys is delivered to the trade in the shape of what are known as heads and tails, the former for the parts which come under the fingers, the latter for that running up between the black keys. The two are joined afterwards on the keyboard with extreme accuracy. Piano-keys are bleached, but organists for some reason or other prefer unbleached keys. The soft variety is mostly used for high-class work and preferably of the Egyptian type.

Fig. 2.

The great centres of the ivory industry for the ordinary objects of common domestic use are in England, for cutlery handles Sheffield, for billiard-balls and piano-keys London. For cutlery a large firm such as Rodgers & Sons uses an average of some twenty tons of ivory annually, mostly of the hard variety. But for billiard-balls and piano-keys America is now a large producer, and a considerable quantity is made in France and Germany. Brush backs are almost wholly in English hands. Dieppe has long been famous for the numberless little ornaments and useful articles such as statuettes, crucifixes, little bookcovers, paper-cutters, combs, serviette-rings and articles de Paris generally. And St Claude in the Jura, and Geislingen in Würtemberg, and Erbach in Hesse, Germany, are amongst the most important centres of the industry. India and China supply the multitude of toys, models, chess and draughtsmen, puzzles, workbox fittings and other curiosities.

Ivory Sculpture and the Decorative Arts.—The use of ivory as a material peculiarly adapted for sculpture and decoration has been universal in the history of civilization. The earliest examples which have come down to us take us back to prehistoric times, when, so far as our knowledge goes, civilization as we understand it had attained no higher degree than that of the dwellers in caves, or of the most primitive races. Throughout succeeding ages there is continued evidence that no other substance—except perhaps wood, of which we have even fewer ancient examples—has been so consistently connected with man’s art-craftsmanship. It is hardly too much to say that to follow properly the history of ivory sculpture involves the study of the whole world’s art in all ages. It will take us back to the most remote antiquity, for we have examples of the earliest dynasties of Egypt and Assyria. Nor is there entire default when we come to the periods of the highest civilization of Greece and Rome. It has held an honoured place in all ages for the adornment of the palaces of the great, not only in sculpture proper but in the rich inlay of panelling, of furniture, chariots and other costly articles. The Bible teems with references to its beauty and value. And when, in the days of Pheidias, Greek sculpture had reached the highest perfection, we learn from ancient writers that colossal statues were constructed—notably the “Zeus of Olympia” and the “Athena of the Parthenon.” The faces, hands and other exposed portions of these figures were of ivory, and the question, therefore, of the method of production of such extremely large slabs as perhaps were used has been often debated. A similar difficulty arises with regard to other pieces of considerable size, found, for example, amongst consular diptychs. It has been conjectured that some means of softening and moulding ivory was known to the ancients, but as a matter of fact though it may be softened it cannot be again restored to its original condition. If up to the 4th century we are unable to point to a large number of examples of sculpture in ivory, from that date onwards the chain is unbroken, and during the five or six hundred years of unrest and strife from the decline of the Roman empire in the 5th century to the dawn of the Gothic revival of art in the 11th or 12th, ivory sculpture alone of the sculptural arts carries on the preservation of types and traditions of classic times in central Europe. Most important indeed is the rôle which existing examples of ivory carving play in the history of the last two centuries of the consulates of the Western and Eastern empires. Though the evidences of decadence in art may be marked, the close of that period brings us down to the end of the reign of Justinian (527-563). Two centuries later the iconoclastic persecutions in the Eastern empire drive westward and compel to settle there numerous colonies of monks and artificers. Throughout the Carlovingian period, the examples of ivory sculpture which we possess in not inconsiderable quantity are of extreme importance in the history of the early development of Byzantine art in Europe. And when the Western world of art arose from its torpor, freed itself from Byzantine shackles and traditions, and began to think for itself, it is to the sculptures in ivory of the Gothic art of the 13th and 14th centuries that we turn with admiration of their exquisite beauty of expression. Up to about the 14th century the influence of the church was everywhere predominant in all matters relating to art. In ivories, as in mosaics, enamels or miniature painting it would be difficult to find a dozen examples, from the age of Constantine onwards, other than sacred ones or of sacred symbolism. But as the period of the Renaissance approached, the influence of romantic literature began to assert itself, and a feeling and style similar to those which are characteristic of the charming series of religious art in ivory, so touchingly conceived and executed, meet us in many objects in ivory destined for ordinary domestic uses and ornament. Mirror cases, caskets for jewelry or toilet purposes, combs, the decoration of arms, or of saddlery or of weapons of the chase, are carved and chased with scenes of real life or illustrations of the romances, which bring home to us in a vivid manner details of the manners and customs, amusements, dresses and domestic life of the times. With the Renaissance and a return to classical ideas, joined with a love of display and of gorgeous magnificence, art in ivory takes a secondary place. There is a want of simplicity and of originality. It is the period of the commencement of decadence. Then comes the period nicknamed rococo, which persisted so long. Ivory carving follows the vulgar fashion, is content with copying or adapting, and until the revival in our own times is, except in rare instances, no longer to be classed as a fine art. It becomes a trade and is in the hands of the mechanic of the workshop. In this necessarily brief and condensed sketch we have been concerned mainly with ivory carving in Europe. It will be necessary to give also, presently, some indications enabling the inquirer to follow the history—or at least to put him on the track of it—not only in the different countries of the West but also in India, China and Japan.

Prehistoric Ivory Carvings.—These are the result of investigations made about the middle of the 19th century in the cave dwellings of the Dordogne in France and also of the lake dwellings of Switzerland. As records they are unique in the history of art. Further than this our wonderment is excited at finding these engravings or sculptures in the round, these chiselled examples of the art of the uncultivated savage, conceived and executed with a feeling of delicacy and restraint which the most modern artist might envy. Who they were who executed them must be left to the palaeontologist and geologist to decide. We can only be certain that they were contemporary with the period when the mammoth and the reindeer still roved freely in southern France. The most important examples are the sketch of the mammoth (see Painting, Plate I.), on a slab of ivory now in the museum of the Jardin des Plantes, the head and shoulders of an ibex carved in the round on a piece of reindeer horn, and the figure of a woman (instances of representations of the human form are most rare) naked and wearing a necklace and bracelet. Many of the originals are in the museum at St Germain-en-Laye, and casts of a considerable number are in the British Museum.

Fig. 3.—Panel with Cartouche, Nineveh.

Ancient Assyrian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman Ivories.—We know from ancient writers that the Egyptians were skilled in ivory carving and that they procured ivory in large quantities from Ethiopia. The Louvre possesses examples of a kind of flat castanets or clappers, in the form of the curve of the tusks themselves, engraved in outline, beautifully modelled hands 96 forming the tapering points; and large quantities of small objects, including a box of plain form and simple decoration identified from the inscribed praenomen as the fifth dynasty, about 4000 B.C. The British Museum and the museum at Cairo are also comparatively rich. But no other collection in the world contains such an interesting collection of ancient Assyrian ivories as that in the British Museum. Those exhibited number some fifty important pieces, and many other fragments are, on account of their fragility or state of decay, stowed away. The collection is the result of the excavations by Layard about 1840 on the supposed site of Nineveh opposite the modern city of Mosul. When found they were so decomposed from the lapse of time as scarcely to bear touching or the contact of the external air. Layard hit upon the ingenious plan of boiling in a solution of gelatine and thus restoring to them the animal matter which had dried up in the course of centuries. Later, the explorations of Flinders Petrie and others at Abydos brought to light a considerable number of sculptured fragments which may be even two thousand years older than those of Nineveh. They have been exhibited in London and since distributed amongst various museums at home and abroad.

From photo by W. A. Mansell & Co.

Fig. 4.—Leaf of diptych showing combats with stags; in the Liverpool Museum.

Consular and Official and Private Diptychs.—About fifty of the remarkable plaques called “consular diptychs,” of the time of the three last centuries of the consulates of the Roman and Greek empire have been preserved. They range in date from perhaps mid-fourth to mid-sixth centuries, and as with two or three exceptions the dates are certain it would be difficult to overestimate their historic or intrinsic value. The earliest of absolutely certain date is the diptych of Aosta (A.D. 408), the first after the recognition of Christianity; or, if the Monza diptych represents, as some think, the Consul Stilicon, then we may refer back six years earlier. At any rate the edict of Theodosius in A.D. 384, concerning the restriction of the use of ivory to the diptychs of the regular consuls, is evidence that the custom must have been long established. According to some authorities the beautiful leaf of diptych in the Liverpool Museum (fig. 4) is a consular one and to be ascribed to Marcus Julius Philippus (A.D. 248). Similarly the Gherardesca leaf in the British Museum may be accepted as of the Consul Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 308). But the whole question of the half dozen earliest examples is conjectural. With a few notable exceptions they show decadence in art. Amongst the finest may be cited the leaf with the combats with stags at Liverpool, the diptych of Probianus at Berlin and the two leaves, one of Anastasius, the other of Orestes, in the Victoria and Albert Museum. The literature concerning these diptychs is voluminous, from the time of the erudite treatise by Gori published in 1759 to the present day. The latest of certain date is that of Basilius, consul of the East in 541, the last of the consuls. The diptychs of private individuals or of officials number about sixteen, and in the case of the private ones have a far greater artistic value. Of these the Victoria and Albert Museum possesses the most beautiful leaf of perhaps the finest example of ancient ivory sculpture which has come down to us, diptychon Meleretense, representing a Bacchante (fig. 5). The other half, which is much injured, is in the Cluny Museum. Other important pieces are the Aesculapius and Hygeia at Liverpool, the Hippolytus and Phaedra at Brescia, the Barberini in the Bargello and at Vienna and the Rufius Probianus at Berlin. Besides the diptychs ancient Greek and Roman ivories before the recognition of Christianity are comparatively small in number and are mostly in the great museums of the Vatican, Naples, the British Museum, the Louvre and the Cluny Museum. Amongst them are the statuette of Penthea, perhaps of the 3rd century (Cluny), a large head of a woman (museum of Vienna) and the Bellerophon (British Museum), nor must those of the Roman occupation in England and other countries be forgotten. Notable instances are the plaque and ivory mask found at Caerleon. Others are now in the Guildhall and British Museums, and most continental European museums have examples connected with their own history.

Fig. 5.—Leaf of Roman diptych, representing a Bacchante; in the Victoria and Albert Museum.	From photo by W. A. Mansell & Co.
	Fig. 6.—Leaf of Diptych, representing Archangel; in the British Museum.

Early Christian and Early Byzantine Ivories.—The few examples we possess of Christian ivories previous to the time of Constantine are not of great importance from the point of view of the history of art. But after that date the ivories which we may ascribe to the centuries from the end of the 4th to at least the end of the 9th become of considerable interest, on account of their connexion with the development of Byzantine art in western Europe. With regard to exact origins and dates opinions are largely divergent. In great part they are due to the carrying on of traditions and styles by which the makers of the sarcophagi were inspired, and the difficulties of ascription are increased when in addition to the primitive elements the influence of Byzantine systems introduced many new ideas derived from many extraneous sources. The questions involved are of no small archaeological, iconographical and artistic importance, but it must be admitted that we are reduced to conjecture in many cases, and compelled to theorize. And it would seem to be impossible to be more precise as to dates than within a margin of sometimes three centuries. Then, again, we are met by the question how far these ivories are connected with Byzantine art; whether they were made in the West by immigrant Greeks, or indigenous works, or purely imported productions. Some German critics have endeavoured to construct a system of schools, and to form definite groups, assigning them to Rome, Ravenna, Milan and Monza. Not only so, but they claim to be precise in dating even to a certain decade of a century. But it is certainly more than doubtful whether there is sufficient evidence on which to found such assumptions. It is at least probable that a considerable number of the ivories whose dates are given by such a number of critics so wide a range as from the 4th to the 10th century are nothing more than the work of the monks of the numerous monasteries founded throughout the Carlovingian empire, copying and adapting from whatever 97 came into their hands. Many of them were Greek immigrants exiled at the time of the iconoclastic persecutions. To these must be added the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon missionaries, who brought with them and disseminated their own national feeling and technique. We have to take into account also the relations which existed not only with Constantinople but also with the great governing provinces of Syria and Egypt. Where all our information is so vague, and in the face of so much conflicting opinion amongst authorities, it is not unreasonable to hold with regard to very many of these ivories that instead of assigning them to the age of Justinian or even the preceding century we ought rather to postpone their dating from one to perhaps three centuries later and to admit that we cannot be precise even within these limits. It would be impossible to follow here the whole of the arguments relating to this most important period of the development of ivory sculpture or to mention a tithe of the examples which illustrate it. Amongst the most striking the earliest is the very celebrated leaf of a diptych in the British Museum representing an archangel (fig. 6). It is generally admitted that we have no ivory of the 5th or 6th centuries or in fact of any early medieval period which can compare with it in excellence of design and workmanship. There is no record (it is believed) from whence the museum obtained the ivory. There are at least plausible grounds for surmising that it is identical with the “Angelus longus eburneus” of a book-cover among the books brought to England by St Augustine which is mentioned in a list of things belonging to Christchurch, Canterbury (see Dart, App. p. xviii.). The dating of the four Passion plaques, also in the British Museum, varies from the 5th to the 7th century. But although most recent authorities accept the earlier date, the present writer holds strongly that they are not anterior to, at earliest, the 7th century. Even then they will remain, with the exception of the Monza oil flask and perhaps the St Sabina doors, the earliest known representation of the crucifixion. The ivory vase, with cover, in the British Museum, appears to possess defined elements of the farther East, due perhaps to the relations between Syria and Christian India or Ceylon. Other important early Christian ivories are the series of pyxes, the diptych in the treasury of St Ambrogio at Milan, the chair of Maximian at Ravenna (most important as a type piece), the panel with the “Ascension” in the Bavarian National Museum, the Brescia casket, the “Lorsch” bookcovers of the Vatican and Victoria and Albert Museum, the Bodleian and other bookcovers, the St Paul diptych in the Bargello at Florence and the “Annunciation” plaque in the Trivulzio collection. So far as unquestionably oriental specimens of Byzantine art are concerned they are few in number, but we have in the famous Harbaville triptych in the Louvre a super-excellent example.

Fig. 7.—Mirror Case, illustrating the Storming of the Castle of Love; in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Gothic Ivories.—The most generally charming period of ivory sculpture is unquestionably that which, coincident with the Gothic revival in art, marked the beginning of a great and lasting change. The formalism imposed by Byzantine traditions gave place to a brighter, more delicate and tenderer conception. This golden age of the ivory carver—at its best in the 13th century—was still in evidence during the 14th, and although there is the beginning of a transition in style in the 15th century, the period of neglect and decadence which set in about the beginning of the 16th hardly reached the acute stage until well on into the 17th. To review the various developments both of religious art which reigned almost alone until the 14th century, or of the secular side as exemplified in the delightful mirror cases and caskets carved with subjects from the romantic stories which were so popular, would be impossible here. Almost every great museum and famous private collection abounds in examples of the well-known diptychs and triptychs and little portable oratories of this period. Some, as in a famous panel in the British Museum, are marvels of minute workmanship, others of delicate openwork and tracery. Others, again, are remarkable for the wonderful way in which, in the compass of a few inches, whole histories and episodes of the scriptural narratives are expressed in the most vivid and telling manner. Charming above all are the statuettes of the Virgin and Child which French and Flemish art, especially, have handed down to us. Of these the Victoria and Albert Museum possesses a representative collection. Another series of interest is that of the croziers or pastoral staves, the development of which the student of ivories will be careful to study in connexion with the earlier ones and the tau-headed staves. In addition there are shrines, reliquaries, bookcovers, liturgical combs, portable altars, pyxes, holy water buckets and sprinklers, flabella or liturgical fans, rosaries, memento mori, paxes, small figures and groups, and almost every conceivable adjunct of the sanctuary or for private devotion. It is to French or Flemish art that the greater number and the most beautiful must be referred. At the same time, to take one example only—the diptych and triptych of Bishop Grandison in the British Museum—we have evidence that English ivory carvers were capable of rare excellence of design and workmanship. Nor can crucifixes be forgotten, though they are of extreme rarity before the 17th century. A most beautiful 13th-century figure for one—though only a fragment—is in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Amongst secular objects of this period, besides the mirror cases (fig. 7) and caskets, there are hunting horns (the earlier ones probably oriental, or more or less faithfully copied from oriental models), chess and draughtsmen (especially the curious set from the isle of Lewis), combs, marriage coffers (at one period remarkable Italian ones of bone), memorandum tablets, seals, the pommels and cantles of saddles and a 98 unique harp now in the Louvre. The above enumeration will alone suffice to show that the inquirer must be referred for details to the numerous works which treat of medieval ivory sculpture.

Ivory Sculpture from the 16th to the 19th Century.—Compared with the wealth of ivory carving of the two preceding centuries, the 15th, and especially the 16th, centuries are singularly poor in really fine work. But before we arrive at the period of real decadence we shall come across such things as the knife of Diana of Poitiers in the Louvre, the sceptre of Louis XIII., the Rothschild hunting horn, many Italian powder horns, the German Psyche in the Louvre, or the “Young Girl and Death” in the Munich Museum, in which there is undoubtedly originality and talent of the first order. The practice of ivory carving became extremely popular throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, especially in the Netherlands and in Germany, and the amount of ivory consumed must have been very great. But, with rare exceptions, and these for the most part Flemish, it is art of an inferior kind, which seems to have been abandoned to second-rate sculptors and the artisans of the workshop. There is little originality, the rococo styles run riot, and we seem to be condemned to wade through an interminable series of gods and goddesses, bacchanalians and satyrs, pseudo-classical copies from the antique and imitations of the schools of Rubens. As a matter of fact few great museums, except the German ones, care to include in their collections examples of these periods. Some exceptions are made in the case of Flemish sculptors of such talent as François Duquesnoy (Fiammingo), Gerard van Obstal or Lucas Fayd’herbe. In a lesser degree, in Germany, Christoph Angermair, Leonhard Kern, Bernhard Strauss, Elhafen, Kruger and Rauchmiller; and, in France, Jean Guillermin, David le Marchand and Jean Cavalier. Crucifixes were turned out in enormous numbers, some of not inconsiderable merit, but, for the most part, they represent anatomical exercises varying but slightly from a pattern of which a celebrated one attributed to Faistenberger may be taken as a type. Tankards abound, and some, notably the one in the Jones collection, than which perhaps no finer example exists, are also of a high standard. Duquesnoy’s work is well illustrated by the charming series of six plaques in the Victoria and Albert Museum known as the “Fiammingo boys.” Amongst the crowd of objects in ivory of all descriptions of the early 18th century, the many examples of the curious implements known as rappoirs, or tobacco graters, should be noticed. It may perhaps be necessary to add that although the character of art in ivory in these periods is not of the highest, the subject is not one entirely unworthy of attention and study, and there are a certain number of remarkable and even admirable examples.

Ivory Sculpture of Spain, Portugal, India, China and Japan.—Generally speaking, with regard to Spain and Portugal, there is little reason to do otherwise than confine our attention to a certain class of important Moorish or Hispano-Moresque ivories of the time of the Arab occupation of the Peninsula, from the 8th to the 15th centuries. Some fine examples are in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Of Portuguese work there is little except the hybrid productions of Goa and the Portuguese settlements in the East. Some mention must be made also of the remarkable examples of mixed Portuguese and savage art from Benin, now in the British Museum. Of Indian ivory carving the India Museum at Kensington supplies a very large and varied collection which has no equal elsewhere. But there is little older than the 17th century, nor can it be said that Indian art in ivory can occupy a very high place in the history of the art. What we know of Chinese carving in ivory is confined to those examples which are turned out for the European market, and can hardly be considered as appealing very strongly to cultivated tastes. A brief reference to the well-known delightful netsukés and the characteristic inlaid work must suffice here for the ivories of Japan (see Japan: Art).

Ivory Sculpture in the 19th Century and of the Present Day.—Few people are aware of the extent to which modern ivory sculpture is practised by distinguished artists. Year by year, however, a certain amount is exhibited in the Royal Academy and in most foreign salons, but in England the works—necessarily not very numerous—are soon absorbed in private collections. On the European continent, on the contrary, in such galleries as the Belgian state collections or the Luxembourg, examples are frequently acquired and exhibited. In Belgium the acquisition of the Congo and the considerable import of ivory therefrom gave encouragement to a definite revival of the art. Important exhibitions have been held in Belgium, and a notable one in Paris in 1904. Though ivory carving is as expensive as marble sculpture, all sculptors delight in following it, and the material entails no special knowledge or training. Of 19th-century artists there were in France amongst the best known, besides numerous minor workers of Dieppe and St Claude, Augustin Moreau, Vautier, Soitoux, Belleteste, Meugniot, Pradier, Triqueti and Gerôme; and in the first decade of the 20th century, besides such distinguished names in the first rank as Jean Dampt and Théodore Rivière, there were Vever, Gardet, Caron, Barrias, Allouard, Ferrary and many others. Nor must the decorative work of René Lalique be omitted. No less than forty Belgian sculptors exhibited work in ivory at the Brussels exhibition of 1887. The list included artists of such distinction as J. Dillens, Constantin Meunier, van der Stappen, Khnopff, P. Wolfers, Samuel and Paul de Vigne, and amongst contemporary Belgian sculptors are also van Beurden, G. Devreese, Vincotte, de Tombay and Lagae. In England the most notable work includes the “Lamia” of George Frampton, the “St Elizabeth” of Alfred Gilbert, the “Mors Janua Vitae” of Harry Bates, the “Launcelot” of W. Reynolds-Stephens and the use of ivory in the applied arts by Lynn Jenkins, A. G. Walker, Alexander Fisher and others.

IVORY COAST (Côte d’Ivoire), a French West African colony, bounded S. by the Gulf of Guinea, W. by Liberia and French Guinea, N. by the colony of Upper Senegal and Niger, E. by the Gold Coast. Its area is approximately 120,000 sq. m., and its population possibly 2,000,000, of whom some 600 are Europeans. Official estimates (1908) placed the native population as low as 980,000.

Inhabitants.—The coast districts are inhabited by Negro tribes allied on the one hand to the Krumen (q.v.) and on the other to the people of Ashanti (q.v.). The Assinis are of Ashanti origin, and chiefly of the Ochin and Agni tribes. Farther west are found the “Jack-Jacks” and the “Kwa-Kwas,” sobriquets given respectively to the Aradian and Avikom by the early European traders. The Kwa-Kwa are said to be so called because their salutation “resembles the cry of a duck.” In the interior the Negro strain predominates but with an admixture of Hamitic or Berber blood. The tribes represented include Jamans, Wongaras and Mandingos (q.v.), some of whom are Moslems. The Mandingos have intermarried largely with the Bambara or Sienuf, an agricultural people of more than average intelligence widely spread over the country, of which they are considered to be the indigenous race. The Bambara themselves are perhaps only a distinct branch of the original Mandingo stock. The Baulé, who occupy the central part of the colony, are of Agni-Ashanti origin. The bulk of the inhabitants are fetish worshippers. On the northern confines of the great forest belt live races of cannibals, whose existence was first made known by Captain d’Ollone in 1899. In general the coast tribes are peaceful. They have the reputation of being neither industrious nor intelligent. The traders are chiefly Fanti, Sierra Leonians, Senegalese and Mandingos.

History.—The Ivory Coast is stated to have been visited by Dieppe merchants in the 14th century, and was made known by the Portuguese discoveries towards the end of the 15th century. It was thereafter frequented by traders for ivory, slaves and other commodities. There was a French settlement at Assini, 1700-1704, and a French factory was maintained at Grand Bassam from 1700 to 1707. In the early part of the 19th century several French traders had established themselves along the coast. In 1830 Admiral (then Commandant) Bouët-Willaumez (1808-1871) began a series of surveys and expeditions which yielded valuable results. In 1842 he obtained from the native chiefs cessions of territory at Assini and Grand Bassam to France and the towns named were occupied in 1843. From that time French influence gradually extended along the coast, but no attempt was made to penetrate inland. As one result of the Franco-Prussian War, France in 1872 withdrew her garrisons, handing over the care of the establishments to a merchant named Verdier, to whom an annual subsidy of £800 was paid. This merchant sent an agent into the interior who made friendly treaties between France and some of the native chiefs. In 1883, in view of the claims of other European powers to territory in Africa, France again took over the actual administration of Assini and Bassam. Between 1887 and 1889 Captain Binger (an officer of marine infantry, and subsequently director of the African department at the colonial ministry) traversed the whole region between the coast and the Niger, visited Bontuku and the Kong country, and signed protectorate treaties with the chiefs. The kingdom of Jaman, it may be mentioned, was for a few months included in the Gold Coast hinterland. In January 1889 a British mission sent by the governor of the Gold Coast concluded a treaty with the king of Jaman at Bontuku, placing his dominions under British protection. 100 The king had, however, previously concluded treaties of “commerce and friendship” with the French, and by the Anglo-French agreement of August 1889 Jaman, with Bontuku, was recognized as French territory. In 1892 Captain Binger made further explorations in the interior of the Ivory Coast, and in 1893 he was appointed the first governor of the colony on its erection into an administration distinct from that of Senegal. Among other famous explorers who helped to make known the hinterland was Colonel (then Captain) Marchand. It was to the zone between the Kong states and the hinterland of Liberia that Samory (see Senegal) fled for refuge before he was taken prisoner (1898), and for a short time he was master of Kong. The boundary of the colony on the west was settled by Franco-Liberian agreements of 1892 and subsequent dates; that on the east by the Anglo-French agreements of 1893 and 1898. The northern boundary was fixed in 1899 on the division of the middle Niger territories (up to that date officially called the French Sudan) among the other French West African colonies. The systematic development of the colony, the opening up of the hinterland and the exploitation of its economic resources date from the appointment of Captain Binger as governor, a post he held for over three years. The work he began has been carried on zealously and effectively by subsequent governors, who have succeeded in winning the co-operation of the natives.

In the older books of travel are often found the alternative names for this region, Tooth Coast (Côte des Dents) or Kwa-Kwa Coast, and, less frequently, the Coast of the Five and Six Stripes (alluding to a kind of cotton fabric in favour with the natives). The term Côte des Dents continued in general use in France until the closing years of the 19th century.

IVREA (anc. Eporedia), a town and episcopal see of Piedmont, Italy, in the province of Turin, from which it is 38 m. N.N.E. by rail and 27 m. direct, situated 770 ft. above sea-level, on the Dora Baltea at the point where it leaves the mountains. Pop. (1901) 6047 (town), 11,696 (commune). The cathedral was built between 973 and 1005; the gallery round the back of the apse and the crypt have plain cubical capitals of this period. The two campanili flanking the apse at each end of the side aisle are the oldest example of this architectural arrangement. The isolated tower, which is all that remains of the ancient abbey of S. Stefano, is slightly later. The hill above the town is crowned by the imposing Castello delle Quattro Torri, built in 1358, and now a prison. One of the four towers was destroyed by lightning in 1676. A tramway runs to Santhià.

The ancient Eporedia, standing at the junction of the roads from Augusta Taurinorum and Vercellae, at the point where the road to Augusta Praetoria enters the narrow valley of the Duria (Dora Baltea), was a military position of considerable importance belonging to the Salassi who inhabited the whole upper valley of the Duria. The importance of the gold-mines of the district led to its seizure by the Romans in 143 B.C. The centre of the mining industry seems to have been Victumulae (see Ticinum), until in 100 B.C. a colony of Roman citizens was founded at Eporedia itself; but the prosperity of this was only assured when the Salassi were finally defeated in 25 B.C. and Augusta Praetoria founded. There are remains of a theatre of the time of the Antonines and the Ponte Vecchio rests on Roman foundations.

In the middle ages Ivrea was the capital of a Lombard duchy, and later of a marquisate; both Berengar II. (950) and Arduin (1002) became kings of Italy for a short period. Later it submitted to the marquises of Monferrato, and in the middle of the 14th century passed to the house of Savoy.

IVRY-SUR-SEINE, a town of northern France, in the department of Seine, near the left bank of the Seine, less than 1 m. S.S.E. of the fortifications of Paris. Pop. (1906) 30,532. Ivry has a large hospital for incurables. It manufactures organs, earthenware, wall-paper and rubber, and has engineering works, breweries, and oil-works, its trade being facilitated by a port on the Seine. The town is dominated by a fort of the older line of defence of Paris.

IVY (A.S. ifig, Ger. Epheu, perhaps connected with apium, ἄπιον), the collective designation of certain species and varieties of Hedera, a member of the natural order Araliaceae. There are fifty species of ivy recorded in modern books, but they may be reduced to two, or at the most, three. The European ivy, Hedera Helix (fig. 1), is a plant subject to infinite variety in the forms and colours of its leaves, but the tendency of which is always to a three- to five-lobed form when climbing and a regular ovate form of leaf when producing flower and fruit. The African ivy, H. canariensis, often regarded as a variety of H. Helix and known as the Irish ivy, is a native of North Africa and the adjacent islands. It is the common large-leaved climbing ivy, and also varies, but in a less degree than H. Helix, from which its leaves differ in their larger size, rich deep green colour, and a prevailing tendency to a five-lobed outline. When in fruit the leaves are usually three-lobed, but they are sometimes entire and broadly ovate. The Asiatic ivy, H. colchica (fig. 2), now considered to be a form of H. Helix, has ovate, obscurely three-lobed leaves of a coriaceous texture and a deep green colour; in the tree or fruiting form the leaves are narrower than in the climbing form, and without any trace of lobes. Distinctive characters are also to be found in the appendages of the pedicels and calyx, H. Helix having six-rayed stellate hairs, H. canariensis fifteen-rayed hairs and H. colchica yellowish two-lobed scales.

Fig. 1.—Ivy (Hedera Helix) fruiting branch. 1. Flower. 2. Fruit.

Fig. 2.—Hedera colchica.	Fig. 3.—Climbing Shoot of Ivy.

The Australian ivy, H. australiana, is a small glabrous shrub 101 with pinnate leaves. It is a native of Queensland, and is practically unknown in cultivation.

It is of the utmost importance to note the difference of characters of the same species of ivy in its two conditions of climbing and fruiting. The first stage of growth, which we will suppose to be from the seed, is essentially scandent, and the leaves are lobed more or less. This stage is accompanied with a plentiful production of the claspers or modified roots by means of which the plant becomes attached and obtains support. When it has reached the summit of the tree or tower, the stems, being no longer able to maintain a perpendicular attitude, fall over and become horizontal or pendent. Coincidently with this change they cease to produce claspers, and the leaves are strikingly modified in form, being now narrower and less lobed than on the ascending stems. In due time this tree-like growth produces terminal umbels of greenish flowers, which have the parts in fives, with the styles united into a very short one. These flowers are succeeded by smooth black or yellow berries, containing two to five seeds. The yellow-berried ivy is met with in northern India and in Italy, but in northern Europe it is known only as a curiosity of the garden, where, if sufficiently sheltered and nourished, it becomes an exceedingly beautiful and fruitful tree.

It is stated in books that some forms of sylvestral ivy never flower, but a negative declaration of this kind is valueless. Sylvestral ivies of great age may be found in woods on the western coasts of Britain that have apparently never flowered, but this is probably to be explained by their inability to surmount the trees supporting them, for until the plant can spread its branches horizontally in full daylight, the flowering or tree-like growth is never formed.

A question of great practical importance arises out of the relation of the plant to its means of support. A moderate growth of ivy is not injurious to trees; still the tendency is from the first inimical to the prosperity of the tree, and at a certain stage it becomes deadly. Therefore the growth of ivy on trees should be kept within reasonable bounds, more especially in the case of trees that are of special value for their beauty, history, or the quality of their timber. In regard to buildings clothed with ivy, there is nothing to be feared so long as the plant does not penetrate the substance of the wall by means of any fissure. Should it thrust its way in, the natural and continuous expansion of its several parts will necessarily hasten the decay of the edifice. But a fair growth of ivy on sound walls that afford no entrance beyond the superficial attachment of the claspers is, without any exception whatever, beneficial. It promotes dryness and warmth, reduces to a minimum the corrosive action of the atmosphere, and is altogether as conservative as it is beautiful.

The economical uses of the ivy are not of great importance. The leaves are eaten greedily by horses, deer, cattle and sheep, and in times of scarcity have proved useful. The flowers afford a good supply of honey to bees; and, as they appear in autumn, they occasionally make amends for the shortcomings of the season. The berries are eaten by wood pigeons, blackbirds and thrushes. From all parts of the plant a balsamic bitter may be obtained, and this in the form of hederic acid is the only preparation of ivy known to chemists.

In the garden the uses of the ivy are innumerable, and the least known though not the least valuable of them is the cultivation of the plant as a bush or tree, the fruiting growth being selected for this purpose. The variegated tree forms of H. Helix, with leaves of creamy white, golden green or rich deep orange yellow, soon prove handsome miniature trees, that thrive almost as well in smoky town gardens as in the pure air of the country, and that no ordinary winter will injure in the least. The tree-form of the Asiatic ivy (H. colchica) is scarcely to be equalled in beauty of leafage by any evergreen shrub known to English gardens, and, although in the course of a few years it will attain to a stature of 5 or 6 ft., it is but rarely we meet with it, or indeed with tree ivies of any kind, but little attention having been given to this subject until recent years. The scandent forms are more generally appreciated, and are now much employed in the formation of marginal lines, screens and trained pyramids, as well as for clothing walls. A very striking example of the capabilities of the commonest ivies, when treated artistically as garden plants, may be seen in the Zoological Gardens of Amsterdam, where several paddocks are enclosed with wreaths, garlands and bands of ivy in a most picturesque manner.

About sixty varieties known in gardens are figured and described in The Ivy, a Monograph, by Shirley Hibberd (1872). To cultivate these is an extremely simple matter, as they will thrive in a poor soil and endure a considerable depth of shade, so that they may with advantage be planted under trees. The common Irish ivy is often to be seen clothing the ground beneath large yew trees where grass would not live, and it is occasionally planted in graveyards in London to form an imitation of grass turf, for which purpose it is admirably suited.

The ivy, like the holly, is a scarce plant on the American continent. In the northern United States and British America the winters are not more severe than the ivy can endure, but the summers are too hot and dry, and the requirements of the plant have not often obtained attention. In districts where native ferns abound the ivy will be found to thrive, and the varieties of Hedera Helix should have the preference. But in the drier districts ivies might often be planted on the north side of buildings, and, if encouraged with water and careful training for three or four years, would then grow rapidly and train themselves. A strong light is detrimental to the growth of ivy, but this enhances its value, for we have no hardy plants that may be compared with it for variety and beauty that will endure shade with equal patience.

The North American poison ivy (poison oak), Rhus Toxicodendron (nat. order Anacardiaceae), is a climber with pinnately compound leaves, which are very attractive in their autumn colour but poisonous to the touch to some persons, while others can handle the plant without injury. The effects are redness and violent itching followed by fever and a vesicular eruption.

The ground ivy, Nepeta Glechoma (nat. order Labiatae), is a small creeping plant with rounded crenate leaves and small blue-purple flowers, occurring in hedges and thickets.

IWAKURA, TOMOMI, Prince (1835-1883), Japanese statesman, was born in Kiōto. He was one of the court nobles (kuge) of Japan, and he traced his descent to the emperor Murakami (A.D. 947-967). A man of profound ability and singular force of character, he acted a leading part in the complications preceding the fall of the Tokugawa shōgunate, and was obliged to fly from Kiōto accompanied by his coadjutor, Prince Sanjō. They took refuge with the Daimyō of Chōshū, and, while there, established relations which contributed greatly to the ultimate union of the two great fiefs, Satsuma and Chōshū, for the work of the Restoration. From 1867 until the day of his death Iwakura was one of the most prominent figures on the political stage. In 1871 he proceeded to America and Europe at the head of an imposing embassy of some fifty persons, the object being to explain to foreign governments the actual conditions existing in Japan, and to pave the way for negotiating new treaties consistent with her sovereign rights. Little success attended the mission. Returning to Japan in 1873, Iwakura found the cabinet divided as to the manner of dealing with Korea’s insulting attitude. He advocated peace, and his influence carried the day, thus removing a difficulty which, though apparently of minor dimensions, might have changed the whole course of Japan’s modern history.

102

IXION, in Greek legend, son of Phlegyas, king of the Lapithae in Thessaly (or of Ares), and husband of Dia. According to custom he promised his father-in-law, Deïoneus, a handsome bridal present, but treacherously murdered him when he claimed the fulfilment of the promise. As a punishment, Ixion was seized with madness, until Zeus purified him of his crime and admitted him as a guest to Olympus. Ixion abused his pardon by trying to seduce Hera; but the goddess substituted for herself a cloud, by which he became the father of the Centaurs. Zeus bound him on a fiery wheel, which rolls unceasingly through the air or (according to the later version) in the underworld (Pindar, Pythia, ii. 21; Ovid, Metam. iv. 461; Virgil, Aeneid, vi. 601). Ixion is generally taken to represent the eternally moving sun. Another explanation connects the story with the practice (among certain peoples of central Europe) of carrying a blazing, revolving wheel through fields which needed the heat of the sun, the legend being invented to explain the custom and subsequently adopted by the Greeks (see Mannhardt, Wald- und Feldkulte, ii. 1905, p. 83). In view of the fact that the oak was the sun-god’s tree and that the mistletoe grew upon it, it is suggested by A. B. Cook (Class. Rev. xvii. 420) that Ἰξίων is derived from ἰξός (mistletoe), the sun’s fire being regarded as an emanation from the mistletoe. Ixion himself is probably a by-form of Zeus (Usener in Rhein. Mus. liii. 345).

IXTACCIHUATL, or Iztaccihuatl (“white woman”), a lofty mountain of volcanic origin, 10 m. N. of Popocatepetl and about 40 m. S.S.E of the city of Mexico, forming part of the short spur called the Sierra Nevada. According to Angelo Heilprin (1853-1907) its elevation is 16,960 ft.; other authorities make it much less. Its apparent height is dwarfed somewhat by its elongated summit and the large area covered. It has three summits of different heights standing on a north and south line, the central one being the largest and highest and all three rising above the permanent snow-line. As seen from the city of Mexico the three summits have the appearance of a shrouded human figure, hence the poetic Aztec appellation of “white woman” and the unsentimental Spanish designation “La mujer gorda.” The ascent is difficult and perilous, and is rarely accomplished.

IYRCAE, an ancient nation on the north-east trade route described by Herodotus (iv. 22) beyond the Thyssagetae, somewhere about the upper basins of the Tobol and the Irtysh. They were distinguished by their mode of hunting, climbing a tree to survey their game, and then pursuing it with trained horses and dogs. They were almost certainly the ancestors of the modern Magyars, also called Jugra.

IZBARTA, or Sparta [anc. Baris], the chief town of the Hamid-abad sanjak of the Konia vilayet, in Asia Minor, well situated on the edge of a fertile plain at the foot of Aghlasun Dagh. It was once the capital of the Emirate of Hamid. It suffered severely from the earthquake of the 16th-17th of January 1889. It is a prosperous place with an enlightened Greek element in its population (hence the numerous families called “Spartali” in Levantine towns); and it is, in fact, the chief inland colony of Hellenism in Anatolia; Pop. 20,000 (Moslems 13,000, Christians 7000). The new Aidin railway extends from Dineir to Izbarta via Buldur.

IZHEVSK, a town of Russia, in the government of Vyatka, 140 m. S.W. of Perm and 22 m. W. from the Kama, on the Izh river. Pop. (1897) 21,500. It has one of the principal steel and rifle works of the Russian crown, started in 1807. The making of sporting guns is an active industry.

IZMAIL, or Ismail, a town of Russia, in the government of Bessarabia, on the left bank of the Kilia branch of the Danube, 35 m. below Reni railway station. Pop. (1866) 31,779, (1900) 33,607, comprising Great and Little Russians, Bulgarians, Jews and Gipsies. There are flour-mills and a trade in cereals, wool, tallow and hides. Originally a Turkish fortified post, Izmail had by the end of the 18th century grown into a place of 30,000 inhabitants. It was occupied by the Russians in 1770, and twenty years later its capture was one of the brilliant achievements of the Russian general, Count A. V. Suvarov. On that occasion the garrison was 40,000 strong, and the assault cost the assailants 10,000 and the defenders 30,000 men. The victory was the theme of one of the Russian poet G. R. Derzhavin’s odes. In 1809 the town was again captured by the Russians; and, when in 1812 it was assigned to them by the Bucharest peace, they chose it as the central station for their Danube fleet. It was about this time that the town of Tuchkov, with which it was later (1830) incorporated, grew up outside of the fortifications. These were dismantled in accordance with the treaty of Paris (1856), by which Izmail was made over to Rumania. The town was again transferred to Russia by the peace of Berlin (1878).

IZU-NO-SHICHI-TŌ, the seven (shichi) islands (to) of Izu, included in the empire of Japan. They stretch in a southerly direction from a point near the mouth of Tokyo Bay, and lie between 33° and 34° 48′ N. and between 139° and 140° E. Their names, beginning from the north, are Izu-no-Oshima, To-shima, Nii-shima, Kozu-shima, Miyake-shima and Hachijo-shima. There are some islets in their immediate vicinity. Izu-no-Oshima, an island 10 m. long and 5½ m. wide, is 15 m. from the nearest point of the Izu promontory. It is known to western cartographers as Vries Island, a name derived from that of Captain Martin Gerritsz de Vries, a Dutch navigator, who is supposed to have discovered the island in 1643. But the group was known to the Japanese from a remote period, and used as convict settlements certainly from the 12th century and probably from a still earlier era. Hachijo, the most southerly, is often erroneously written “Fatsisio” on English charts. Izu-no-Oshima is remarkable for its smoking volcano, Mihara-yama (2461 ft.), a conspicuous object to all ships bound for Yokohama. Three others of the islands—Nii-shima, Kozu-shima and Miyake-shima—have active volcanoes. Those on Nii-shima and Kozu-shima are of inconsiderable size, but that on Miyake-shima, namely, Oyama, rises to a height of 2707 ft. The most southerly island, Hachijo-shima, has a still higher peak, Dsubotake (2838 ft.), but it does not emit any smoke.

103

J A letter of the alphabet which, as far as form is concerned, is only a modification of the Latin I and dates back with a separate value only to the 15th century. It was first used as a special form of initial I, the ordinary form being kept for use in other positions. As, however, in many cases initial i had the consonantal value of the English y in iugum (yoke), &c., the symbol came to be used for the value of y, a value which it still retains in German: Ja! jung, &c. Initially it is pronounced in English as an affricate dzh. The great majority of English words beginning with j are (1) of foreign (mostly French) origin, as “jaundice,” “judge”; (2) imitative of sound, like “jar” (the verb); or (3) influenced by analogy, like “jaw” (influenced by chaw, according to Skeat). In early French g when palatalized by e or i sounds became confused with consonantal i (y), and both passed into the sound of j which is still preserved in English. A similar sound-change takes place in other languages, e.g. Lithuanian, where the resulting sound is spelt dž. Modern French and also Provençal and Portuguese have changed j = dzh into ž (zh). The sound initially is sometimes represented in English by g: gem, gaol as well as jail. At the end of modern English words the same sound is represented by -dge as in judge, French juge. In this position, however, the sound occurs also in genuine English words like bridge, sedge, singe, but this is true only for the southern dialects on which the literary language is founded. In the northern dialects the pronunciation as brig, seg, sing still survives.

JA’ALIN (from Jā’al, to settle, i.e. “the squatters”), an African tribe of Semitic stock. They formerly occupied the country on both banks of the Nile from Khartum to Abu Hamed. They claim to be of the Koreish tribe and even trace descent from Abbas, uncle of the prophet. They are of Arab origin, but now of very mixed blood. According to their own tradition they emigrated to Nubia in the 12th century. They were at one time subject to the Funj kings, but their position was in a measure independent. At the Egyptian invasion in 1820 they were the most powerful of Arab tribes in the Nile valley. They submitted at first, but in 1822 rebelled and massacred the Egyptian garrison at Shendi. The revolt was mercilessly suppressed, and the Jā’alin were thenceforward looked on with suspicion. They were almost the first of the northern tribes to join the mahdi in 1884, and it was their position to the north of Khartum which made communication with General Gordon so difficult. The Jā’alin are now a semi-nomad agricultural people. Many are employed in Khartum as servants, scribes and watchmen. They are a proud religious people, formerly notorious as cruel slave dealers. J. L. Burckhardt says the true Jā’alin from the eastern desert is exactly like the Bedouin of eastern Arabia.

JABIRU, according to Marcgrave the Brazilian name of a bird, subsequently called by Linnaeus Mycteria americana, one of the largest of the storks, Ciconiidae, which occurs from Mexico southwards to the territory of the Argentine Republic. It stands between 4 and 5 ft. in height, and is conspicuous for its massive bill, slightly upturned, and its entirely white plumage; but the head and neck are bare and black, except for about the lower third part of the latter, which is bright red in the living bird. Very nearly allied to Mycteria, and also commonly called jabirus, are the birds of the genera Xenorhynchus and Ephippiorhynchus—the former containing one or (in the opinion of some) two species, X. australis and X. indicus, and the latter one only, E. senegalensis. These belong to the countries indicated by their names, and differ chiefly by their feathered head and neck, while the last is sometimes termed the saddle-billed stork from the very singular shape of its beak. Somewhat more distantly related are the gigantic birds known to Europeans in India and elsewhere as adjutant birds, belonging to the genus Leptoptilus, distinguished by their sad-coloured plumage, their black scabrous head, and their enormous tawny pouch, which depends occasionally some 16 in. or more in length from the lower part of the neck, and seems to be connected with the respiratory and not, as commonly believed, with the digestive system. In many parts of India L. dubius, the largest of these birds, the hargila as Hindus call it, is a most efficient scavenger, sailing aloft at a vast height and descending on the discovery of offal, though frogs and fishes also form part of its diet. It familiarly enters the large towns, in many of which an account of its services it is strictly protected from injury, and, having satisfied its appetite, seeks the repose it has earned, sitting with its feet extended in front in a most grotesque attitude. A second and smaller species, L. javanicus, has a more southern and eastern range; while a third, L. crumenifer, of African origin, and often known as the marabou-stork, gives its name to the beautifully soft feathers so called, which are the under-tail-coverts; the “marabout” feathers of the plume-trade are mostly supplied by other birds, the term being apparently applied to any downy feathers.

Jabiru.

JABLOCHKOV, PAUL (1847-1894), Russian electrical engineer and inventor, was born at Serdobsk, in the government of Saratov, on the 14th of September 1847, and educated at St Petersburg. In 1871 he was appointed director of the telegraph lines between Moscow and Kursk, but in 1875 he resigned his position in order to devote himself to his researches on electric lighting by arc lamps, which he had already taken up. In 1876 he settled in Paris, and towards the end of the year brought out his famous “candles,” known by his name, which consisted of two carbon parallel rods, separated by a non-conducting partition; alternating currents were employed, and the candle was operated by a high-resistance carbon match connecting the tips of the rods, a true arc forming between the parallel carbons when this burnt off, and the separators volatilizing as the carbons burnt away. For a few years his system of electric lighting was widely adopted, but it was gradually superseded 104 (see Lighting: Electric) and is no longer in use. Jablochkov made various other electrical inventions, but he died in poverty, having returned to Russia on the 19th of March 1894.

JABLONSKI, DANIEL ERNST (1660-1741), German theologian, was born at Nassenhuben, near Danzig, on the 20th of November 1660. His father was a minister of the Moravian Church, who had taken the name of Peter Figulus on his baptism; the son, however, preferred the Bohemian family name of Jablonski. His maternal grandfather, Johann Amos Comenius (d. 1670), was a bishop of the Moravian Church. Having studied at Frankfort-on-the-Oder and at Oxford, Jablonski entered upon his career as a preacher at Magdeburg in 1683, and then from 1686 to 1691 he was the head of the Moravian college at Lissa, a position which had been filled by his grandfather. Still retaining his connexion with the Moravians, he was appointed court preacher at Königsberg in 1691 by the elector of Brandenburg, Frederick III., and here, entering upon a career of great activity, he soon became a person of influence in court circles. In 1693 he was transferred to Berlin as court preacher, and in 1699 he was consecrated a bishop of the Moravian Church. At Berlin Jablonski worked hard to bring about a union between the followers of Luther and those of Calvin; the courts of Berlin, Hanover, Brunswick and Gotha were interested in his scheme, and his principal helper was the philosopher Leibnitz. His idea appears to have been to form a general union between the German, the English and the Swiss Protestants, and thus to establish una eademque sancta catholica et apostolica eademque evangelica et reformata ecclesia. For some years negotiations were carried on with a view to attaining this end, but eventually it was found impossible to surmount the many difficulties in the way; Jablonski and Leibnitz, however, did not cease to believe in the possibility of accomplishing their purpose. Jablonski’s next plan was to reform the Church of Prussia by introducing into it the episcopate, and also the liturgy of the English Church, but here again he was unsuccessful. As a scholar Jablonski brought out a Hebrew edition of the Old Testament, and translated Bentley’s A Confutation of Atheism into Latin (1696). He had some share in founding the Berlin Academy of Sciences, of which he was president in 1733, and he received a degree from the university of Oxford. He died on the 25th of May 1741.

Jablonski’s son, Paul Ernst Jablonski (1693-1757), was professor of theology and philosophy at the university of Frankfort-on-the-Oder.

JABORANDI, a name given in a generic manner in Brazil and South America generally to a number of different plants, all of which possess more or less marked sialogogue and sudorific properties. In the year 1875 a drug was introduced under the above name to the notice of medical men in France by Dr Coutinho of Pernambuco, its botanical source being then unknown. Pilocarpus pennatifolius, a member of the natural order Rutaceae, the plant from which it is obtained, is a slightly branched shrub about 10 ft. high, growing in Paraguay and the eastern provinces of Brazil. The leaves, which are placed alternately on the stem, are often 1½ ft. long, and consist of from two to five pairs of opposite leaflets, the terminal one having a longer pedicel than the others. The leaflets are oval, lanceolate, entire and obtuse, with the apex often slightly indented, from 3 to 4 in. long and 1 to 1½ in. broad in the middle. When held up to the light they may be observed to have scattered all over them numerous pellucid dots or receptacles of secretion immersed in the substance of the leaf. The leaves in size and texture bear some resemblance to those of the cherry-laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), but are less polished on the upper surface. The flowers, which are produced in spring and early summer, are borne on a raceme, 6 or 8 in. long, and the fruit consists of five carpels, of which not more than two or three usually arrive at maturity. The leaves are the part of the plant usually imported, although occasionally the stems and roots are attached to them. The active principle for which the name pilocarpine, suggested by Holmes, was ultimately adopted, was discovered almost simultaneously by Hardy in France and Gerrard in England, but was first obtained in a pure state by Petit of Paris. It is a liquid alkaloid, slightly soluble in water, and very soluble in alcohol, ether and chloroform. It strongly rotates the plane of polarization to the right, and forms crystalline salts of which the nitrate is that chiefly used in medicine. The nitrate and phosphate are insoluble in ether, chloroform and benzol, while the hydrochlorate and hydrobromate dissolve both in these menstrua and in water and alcohol; the sulphate and acetate being deliquescent are not employed medicinally. The formula of the alkaloid is C11H16N2O2.

Certain other alkaloids are present in the leaves. They have been named jaborine, jaboridine and pilocarpidine. The first of these is the most important and constant. It is possibly derived from pilocarpine, and has the formula C22H32N4O4. Jaborine resembles atropine pharmacologically, and is therefore antagonistic to pilocarpine. The various preparations of jaborandi leaves are therefore undesirable for therapeutic purposes, and only the nitrate of pilocarpine itself should be used. This is a white crystalline powder, soluble in the ratio of about one part in ten of cold water. The dose is 1⁄20-1⁄2 grain by the mouth, and up to one-third of a grain hypodermically, in which fashion it is usually given.

Jaborandi—a, leaf (reduced); b, leaflet (natural size); c, flower; d, fruit (natural size).

JACA, a city of northern Spain, in the province of Huesca, 114 m. by rail N. by W. of Saragossa, on the left bank of the river Aragon, and among the southern slopes of the Pyrenees, 2380 ft. above the sea. Pop. (1900), 4934. Jaca is an episcopal see, and was formerly the capital of the Aragonese county of Sobrarbe. Its massive Gothic cathedral dates at least from the 11th century, and possibly from the 9th. The city derives some importance from its position on the ancient frontier road from Saragossa to Pau. In August 1904 the French and Spanish governments agreed to supplement this trade-route by building a railway from Oloron in the Basses Pyrénées to Jaca. Various frontier defence works were constructed in the neighbourhood at the close of the 19th century.

The origin of the city is unknown. The Jaccetani (Ἰάκκητανοί) are mentioned as one of the most celebrated of the numerous small tribes inhabiting the basin of the Ebro by Strabo, who adds that their territory was the theatre of the wars which took place in the 1st century B.C. between Sertorius and Pompey. They are probably identical with the Lacetani of Livy (xxi. 60, 61) and Caesar (B.C. i. 60). Early in the 8th century Jaca fell into the possession of the Moors, by whose writers it is referred to under the name of Dyaka as one of the chief places in the province of Sarkosta (Saragossa). The date of its reconquest is uncertain, but it must have been before the time of Ramiro I. of Aragon (1035-1063), who gave it the title of “city,” and in 1063 held within its walls a council, which, inasmuch as the people were called in to sanction its decrees, is regarded as of great importance in the history of the parliamentary institutions of the Peninsula. In 1705 Jaca supported King Philip V. from whom, in consequence, it received the title of muy noble, muy leal y vencedora, “most noble, most loyal and victorious.” During the Peninsular War it surrendered to the French in 1809, and was recaptured in 1814.

JACAMAR, a word formed by Brisson from Jacameri, the Brazilian name of a bird, as given by Marcgrave, and since adopted in most European tongues for the species to which it was first applied and others allied to it, forming the family Galbulidae1 of ornithologists, the precise position of which is uncertain, since the best authorities differ. All will agree that the jacamars belong to the great heterogeneous group called by Nitzsch Picariae, but further into detail it is hardly safe to go. The Galbulidae have zygodactylous or pair-toed feet, like the Cuculidae, Bucconidae and Picidae, they also resemble both the latter in laying glossy white eggs, but in this respect they bear the same resemblance to the Momotidae, Alcedinidae, Meropidae and some other groups, to which affinity has been claimed for them. In the opinion of Sclater (A Monograph of the Jacamars and Puff-birds) the jacamars form two groups—one consisting of the single genus and species Jacamerops aureus (J. grandis of most authors), and the other including all the rest, viz. Urogalba with two species, Galbula with nine, Brachygalba with five, and Jacamaralcyon and Galbalcyrhynchus with one each. They are all rather small birds, the largest known being little over 10 in. in length, with long and sharply pointed bills, and the plumage more or less resplendent with golden or bronze reflections, but at the same time comparatively soft. Jacamaralcyon tridactyla differs from all the rest in possessing but three toes (as its name indicates), on each foot, the hallux being deficient. With the exception of Galbula melanogenia, which is found also in Central America and southern Mexico, all the jacamars inhabit the tropical portions of South America eastward of the Andes, Galbula ruficauda, however, extending its range to the islands of Trinidad and Tobago.2 Very little is known of the habits of any of the species. They are seen sitting motionless on trees, sometimes solitarily, at other times in companies, whence they suddenly dart off at any passing insect, catch it on the wing, and return to their perch. Of their nidification almost nothing has been recorded, but the species occurring in Tobago is said by Kirk to make its nest in marl-banks, digging a hole about an inch and a half in diameter and some 18 in. deep.

JAÇANÁ, the Brazilian name, according to Marcgrave, of certain birds, since found to have some allies in other parts of the world, which are also very generally called by the same appellation. They have been most frequently classed with the water-hens or rails (Rallidae), but are now recognized by many systematists as forming a separate family, Parridae,1 whose leaning seems to be rather towards the Limicolae, as apparently first suggested by Blyth, a view which is supported by the osteological observations of Parker (Proc. Zool. Society, 1863, p. 513), though denied by A. Milne-Edwards (Ois. foss. de la France, ii. p. 110). The most obvious characteristic of this group of birds is the extraordinary length of their toes and claws, whereby they are enabled to walk with ease over water-lilies and other aquatic plants growing in rivers and lakes. The family has been divided into four genera—of which Parra, as now restricted, inhabits South America; Metopidius, hardly differing from it, has representatives in Africa, Madagascar and the Indian region; Hydralector, also very nearly allied to Parra, belongs to the 106 northern portion of the Australian region; and Hydrophasianus, the most extravagant form of the whole, is found in India, Ceylon and China. In habits the jaçanás have much in common with the water-hens, but that fact is insufficient to warrant the affinity asserted to exist between the two groups; for in their osteological structure there is much difference, and the resemblance seems to be only that of analogy. The Parridae lay very peculiar eggs of a rich olive-brown colour, in most cases closely marked with dark lines, thus presenting an appearance by which they may be readily known from those of any other birds, though an approach to it is occasionally to be noticed in those of certain Limicolae, and especially of certain Charadriidae.

Pheasant-tailed Jaçaná.

JACINI, STEFANO, Count (1827-1891), Italian statesman and economist, was descended from an old and wealthy Lombard family. He studied in Switzerland, at Milan, and in German universities. During the period of the Austrian restoration in Lombardy (1849-1859) he devoted himself to literary and economic studies. For his work on La Proprietà fondiaria in Lombardia (Milan, 1856) he received a prize from the Milanese Società d’incoraggiamento di scienze e lettere and was made a member of the Istituto Lombardo. In another work, Sulle condizioni economiche della Valtellina (Milan, 1858, translated into English by W. E. Gladstone), he exposed the evils of Austrian rule, and he drew up a report on the general conditions of Lombardy and Venetia for Cavour. He was minister of Public Works under Cavour in 1860-1861, in 1864 under La Marmora, and down to 1867 under Ricasoli. In 1866 he presented a bill favouring Italy’s participation in the construction of the St Gotthard tunnel. He was instrumental in bringing about the alliance with Prussia for the war of 1866 against Austria, and in the organization of the Italian railways. From 1881 to 1886 he was president of the commission to inquire into the agricultural conditions of Italy, and edited the voluminous report on the subject. He was created senator in 1870, and given the title of count in 1880. He died in 1891.

JACK, a word with a great variety of meanings and applications, all traceable to the common use of the word as a by-name of a man. The question has been much discussed whether “Jack” as a name is an adaptation of Fr. Jacques, i.e. James, from Lat. Jacobus, Gr. Ἰάκωβος, or whether it is a direct pet formation from John, which is its earliest and universal use in English. In the History of the Monastery of St Augustine at Canterbury, 1414, Jack is given as a form of John—Mos est Saxonum ... verba et nomina transformare ... ut ... pro Johanne Jankin sive Jacke (see E. W. B. Nicholson, The Pedigree of Jack and other Allied Names, 1892). “Jack” was early used as a general term for any man of the common people, especially in combination with the woman’s name Jill or Gill, as in the nursery rhyme. The New English Dictionary quotes from the Coventry Mysteries, 1450: “And I wole kepe the feet this tyde Thow ther come both Iakke and Gylle.” Familiar examples of this generic application of the name are Jack or Jack Tar for a sailor, which seems to date from the 17th century, and such compound uses as cheap-jack and steeple-jack, or such expressions as “jack in office,” “jack of all trades,” &c. It is a further extension of this that gives the name to the knave in a pack of cards, and also to various animals, as jackdaw, jack-snipe, jack-rabbit (a species of large prairie-hare); it is also used as a general name for pike.

The many applications of the word “jack” to mechanical devices and other objects follow two lines of reference, one to objects somewhat smaller than the ordinary, the other to appliances which take the place of direct manual labour or assist or save it. Of the first class may be noticed the use of the term for the small object bowl in the game of bowls or for jack rafters, those rafters in a building shorter than the main rafters, especially the end rafters in a hipped roof. The use of jack as the name for a particular form of ship’s flag probably arose thus, for it is always a smaller flag than the ensign. The jack is flown on a staff on the bowsprit of a vessel. In the British navy the jack is a small Union flag. (The Union flag should not be styled a Union Jack except when it is flown as a jack.) The jack of other nations is usually the canton of the ensign, as in the German and the United States navies, or else is a smaller form of the national ensign, as in France. (See Flag.)

The more common use of “jack” is for various mechanical and other devices originally used as substitutes for men or boys. Thus the origin of the boot-jack and the meat-jack is explained in Isaac Watts’s Logic, 1724: “So foot boys, who had frequently the common name of Jack given them, were kept to turn the spit or pull off their masters’ boots, but when instruments were invented for both these services, they were both called jacks.” The New English Dictionary finds a transitional sense in the use of the name “jack” for mechanical figures which strike the hours on a bell of a clock. Such a figure in the clock of St Lawrence Church at Reading is called a jack in the parish accounts for 1498-1499. There are many different applications of “jack,” to certain levers and other parts of textile machinery, to metal plugs used for connecting lines in a telephone exchange, to wooden uprights connecting the levers of the keys with the strings in the harpsichord and virginal, to a framework forming a seat or staging which can be fixed outside a window for cleaning or painting purposes, and to many devices containing a roller or winch, as in a jack towel, a long towel hung on a roller. The principal mechanical application of the word, however, is to a machine for raising weights from below. A jack chain, so called from its use in meat-jacks, is one in which the links, formed each in a figure of eight, are set in planes at right angles to each other, so that they are seen alternately flat or edgeways.

In most European languages the word “jack” in various forms appears for a short upper outer garment, particularly in the shape of a sleeveless (quilted) leather jerkin, sometimes with plates or rings of iron sewn to it. It was the common coat of defence of the infantry of the middle ages. The word in this case is of French origin and was an adaptation of the common name Jacques, as being a garment worn by the common people. In French the word is jaque, and it appears in Italian as giaco, or giacco, in Dutch jak, Swedish jacka and German Jacke, still the ordinary name for a short coat, as is the English jacket, from the diminutive French jaquette. It was probably from some resemblance to the leather coat that the well-known leather vessels for holding liquor or for drinking were known as jacks or black jacks. These drinking vessels, which are often of great size, were not described as black jacks till the 16th century, though known as jacks much earlier. Among the important specimens that have survived to this day is one with the initials and crown of Charles I. and the date, 1646, which came from Kensington Palace and is now in the British Museum; one each at Queen’s College and New College, Oxford; two at Winchester College; one at Eton College; and six at the Chelsea Hospital. Many specimens are painted with shields of arms, initials and other devices; they are very seldom mounted in silver, though spurious specimens with silver medallions of Cromwell and other prominent personages exist. At the end of the 17th century a smaller jack of a different form, like an ordinary drinking mug with a tapering cylindrical body, often mounted in silver, came into vogue in a limited degree. The black jack is a distinct type of drinking vessel from the leather botel and the bombard. The jack-boot, the heavy riding boot with long flap covering the knee and part of the thigh, and worn by troopers first during the 17th century, was so called probably from association with the leather jack or jerkin. The jack-boot is still worn by the Household Cavalry, and the name is applied to a high riding boot reaching to the knee as distinguished from the riding boot with tops, used in full hunting-kit or by grooms or coachmen.

Jack, sometimes spelled jak, is the common name for the fruit of the tree Artiocarpus integrifolia, found in the East Indies. The word is an adaptation of the Portuguese jaca from the Malay name chakka. (See Bread Fruit.)

The word “jackanapes,” now used as an opprobrious term for a swaggering person with impertinent ways and affected airs 107 and graces, has a disputed and curious history. According to the New English Dictionary it first appears in 1450 in reference to William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk (Political Poems, “Rolls Series,” II. 224), “Jack Napys with his clogge hath tiede Talbot oure gentille dogge.” Suffolk’s badge was a clog and chain, such as was often used for an ape kept in captivity, and he is alluded to (ibid. 222) as “Ape clogge.” Jack Napes, Jack o’ Napes, Jackanapes, was a common name for a tame ape from the 16th century, and it seems more likely that the word is a fanciful name for a monkey than that it is due to the nickname of Suffolk.

JACKAL (Turk, chakāl), a name properly restricted to Canis aureus, a wolf-like wild member of the dog family inhabiting eastern Europe and southern Asia, but extended to include a number of allied species. Jackals resemble wolves and dogs in their dentition, the round eye-pupils, the period of gestation, and to a large extent also in habits. The European species grows to a height of 15 in. at the shoulders, and to a length of about 2 ft., exclusive of its bushy tail. Typically the fur is greyish-yellow, darker on the back and lighter beneath. The range of the common jackal (C. aureus) extends from Dalmatia to India, the species being represented by several local races. In Senegal this species is replaced by C. anthus, while in Egypt occurs the much larger C. lupaster, commonly known as the Egyptian wolf. Nearly allied to the last is the so-called Indian wolf (C. pallipes). Other African species are the black-backed jackal (C. mesomelas), the variegated jackal (C. variegatus), and the dusky jackal (C. adustus). Jackals are nocturnal animals, concealing themselves until dusk in woody jungles and other natural lurking places, and then sallying forth in packs, which sometimes number two hundred individuals, and visiting farmyards, villages and towns in search of food. This consists for the most part of the smaller mammals and poultry; although the association in packs enables these marauders to hunt down antelopes and sheep. When unable to obtain living prey, they feed on carrion and refuse of all kinds, and are thus useful in removing putrescent matter from the streets. They are also fond of grapes and other fruits, and are thus the pests of the vineyard as well as the poultry-yard. The cry of the jackal is even more appalling than that of the hyena, a shriek from one member of a pack being the signal for a general chorus of screams, which is kept up during the greater part of the night. In India these animals are hunted with foxhounds or greyhounds, and from their cunning and pluck afford excellent sport. Jackals are readily tamed; and domesticated individuals are said, when called by their masters, to wag their tails, crouch and throw themselves on the ground, and otherwise behave in a dog-like fashion. The jackal, like the fox, has an offensive odour, due to the secretion of a gland at the base of the tail.

Egyptian Jackal (Canis lupaster).

JACKDAW, or simply Daw (Old Low German, Daha; Dutch, Kaauw), one of the smallest species of the genus Corvus (see Crow), and a very well known inhabitant of Europe, the C. monedula of ornithologists. In some of its habits it much resembles its congener the rook, with which it constantly associates during a great part of the year; but, while the rook only exceptionally places its nest elsewhere than on the boughs of trees and open to the sky, the daw almost invariably chooses holes, whether in rocks, hollow trees, rabbit-burrows or buildings. Nearly every church-tower and castle, ruined or not, is more or less numerously occupied by daws. Chimneys frequently give them the accommodation they desire, much to the annoyance of the householder, who finds the funnel choked by the quantity of sticks brought together by the birds, since their industry in collecting materials for their nests is as marvellous as it often is futile. In some cases the stack of loose sticks piled up by daws in a belfry or tower has been known to form a structure 10 or 12 ft. in height, and hence this species may be accounted one of the greatest nest-builders in the world. The style of architecture practised by the daw thus brings it more than the rook into contact with man, and its familiarity is increased by the boldness of its disposition which, though tempered by discreet cunning, is hardly surpassed among birds. Its small size, in comparison with most of its congeners, alone incapacitates it from inflicting the serious injuries of which some of them are often the authors, yet its pilferings are not to be denied, though on the whole its services to the agriculturist are great, for in the destruction of injurious insects it is hardly inferior to the rook, and it has the useful habit of ridding sheep, on whose backs it may be frequently seen perched, of some of their parasites.

The daw displays the glossy black plumage so characteristic of the true crows, varied only by the hoary grey of the ear-coverts, and of the nape and sides of the neck, which is the mark of the adult; but examples from the east of Europe and western Asia have these parts much lighter, passing into a silvery white, and hence have been deemed by some authorities to constitute a distinct species (C. collaris, Drumm.). Further to the eastward occurs the C. dauuricus of Pallas, which has not only the collar broader and of a pure white, but much of the lower parts of the body white also. Japan and northern China are inhabited also by a form resembling that of western Europe, but wanting the grey nape of the latter. This is the C. neglectus of Professor Schlegel, and is said by Dresser, on the authority of Swinhoe, to interbreed frequently with C. dauuricus. These are all the birds that seem entitled to be considered daws, though Dr Bowdler Sharpe (Cat. B. Brit. Museum, iii. 24) associates with them (under the little-deserved separate generic distinction Coloeus) the fish-crow of North America, which appears both in structure and in habits to be a true crow.

JACKSON, ANDREW (1767-1845), seventh president of the United States, was born on the 15th of March 1767, at the Waxhaw or Warsaw settlement, in Union county, North Carolina, or in Lancaster county, South Carolina, whither his parents had immigrated from Carrickfergus, Ireland, in 1765. He played a slight part in the War of Independence, and was taken prisoner in 1781, his treatment resulting in a lifelong dislike of Great Britain. He studied law at Salisbury, North Carolina, was admitted to the bar there in 1787, and began to practise at McLeansville, Guilford county, North Carolina, where for a time he was a constable and deputy-sheriff. In 1788, having been appointed prosecuting attorney of the western district of North Carolina (now the state of Tennessee), he removed to Nashville, the seat of justice of the district. In 1791 he married Mrs Rachel Robards (née Donelson), having heard that her husband had obtained a divorce through the legislature of Virginia. The 108 legislative act, however, had only authorized the courts to determine whether or not there were sufficient grounds for a divorce and to grant or withhold it accordingly. It was more than two years before the divorce was actually granted, and only on the basis of the fact that Jackson and Mrs Robards were then living together. On receiving this information, Jackson had the marriage ceremony performed a second time.

In 1796 Jackson assisted in framing the constitution of Tennessee. From December 1796 to March 1797 he represented that state in the Federal House of Representatives, where he distinguished himself as an irreconcilable opponent of President Washington, and was one of the twelve representatives who voted against the address to him by the House. In 1797 he was elected a United States senator; but he resigned in the following year. He was judge of the supreme court of Tennessee from 1798 to 1804. In 1804-1805 he contracted a friendship with Aaron Burr; and at the latter’s trial in 1807 Jackson was one of his conspicuous champions. Up to the time of his nomination for the presidency, the biographer of Jackson finds nothing to record but military exploits in which he displayed perseverance, energy and skill of a very high order, and a succession of personal acts in which he showed himself ignorant, violent, perverse, quarrelsome and astonishingly indiscreet. His combative disposition led him into numerous personal difficulties. In 1795 he fought a duel with Colonel Waitstill Avery (1745-1821), an opposing counsel, over some angry words uttered in a court room; but both, it appears, intentionally fired wild. In 1806 in another duel, after a long and bitter quarrel, he killed Charles Dickinson, and Jackson himself received a wound from which he never fully recovered. In 1813 he exchanged shots with Thomas Hart Benton and his brother Jesse in a Nashville tavern, and received a second wound. Jackson and Thomas Hart Benton were later reconciled.

In 1813-1814, as major-general of militia, he commanded in the campaign against the Creek Indians in Georgia and Alabama, defeated them (at Talladega, on the 9th of November 1813, and at Tohopeka, on the 29th of March 1814), and thus first attracted public notice by his talents. In May 1814 he was commissioned as major-general in the regular army to serve against the British; in November he captured Pensacola, Florida, then owned by Spain, but used by the British as a base of operations; and on the 8th of January 1815 he inflicted a severe defeat on the enemy before New Orleans, the contestants being unaware that a treaty of peace had already been signed. During his stay in New Orleans he proclaimed martial law, and carried out his measures with unrelenting sternness, banishing from the town a judge who attempted resistance. When civil law was restored, Jackson was fined $1000 for contempt of court; in 1844 Congress ordered the fine with interest ($2700) to be repaid. In 1818 Jackson received the command against the Seminoles. His conduct in following them up into the Spanish territory of Florida, in seizing Pensacola, and in arresting and executing two British subjects, Alexander Arbuthnot and Robert Ambrister, gave rise to much hostile comment in the cabinet and in Congress; but the negotiations for the purchase of Florida put an end to the diplomatic difficulty. In 1821 Jackson was military governor of the territory of Florida, and there again he came into collision with the civil authority. From this, as from previous troubles, John Quincy Adams, then secretary of state, extricated him.

In July 1822 the general assembly of Tennessee nominated Jackson for president; and in 1823 he was elected to the United States Senate, from which he resigned in 1825. The rival candidates for the office of president in the campaign of 1824 were Jackson, John Quincy Adams, W. H. Crawford and Henry Clay. Jackson obtained the largest number of votes (99) in the electoral college (Adams receiving 84, Crawford 41 and Clay 37); but no one had an absolute majority, and it thus became the duty of the House of Representatives to choose one of the three candidates—Adams, Jackson and Crawford—who had received the greatest numbers of electoral votes. At the election by the house (February 9, 1825) Adams was chosen, receiving the votes of 13 states, while Jackson received the votes of 7 and Crawford the votes of 4. Jackson, however, was recognized by the abler politicians as the coming man. Martin Van Buren and others, going into opposition under his banner, waged from the first a relentless and factious war on the administration. Van Buren was the most adroit politician of his time; and Jackson was in the hands of very astute men, who advised and controlled him. He was easy to lead when his mind was in solution; and he gave his confidence freely where he had once placed it. He was not suspicious, but if he withdrew his confidence he was implacable. When his mind crystallized on a notion that had a personal significance to himself, that notion became a hard fact that filled his field of vision. When he was told that he had been cheated in the matter of the presidency,1 he was sure of it, although those who told him were by no means so.

There was great significance in the election of Jackson in 1828. A new generation was growing up under new economic and social conditions. They felt great confidence in themselves and great independence. They despised tradition and Old World ways and notions; and they accepted the Jeffersonian dogmas, not only as maxims, but as social forces—the causes of the material prosperity of the country. By this generation, therefore, Jackson was recognized as a man after their own heart. They liked him because he was vigorous, brusque, uncouth, relentless, straightforward and open. They made him president in 1828, and he fulfilled all their expectations. He had 178 votes in the electoral college against 83 given for Adams. Though the work of redistribution of offices began almost at his inauguration, it is yet an incorrect account of the matter to say that Jackson corrupted the civil service. His administration is rather the date at which a system of democracy, organized by the use of patronage, was introduced into the federal arena by Van Buren. It was at this time that the Democratic or Republican party divided, largely along personal lines, into Jacksonian Democrats and National Republicans, the latter led by such men as Henry Clay and J. Q. Adams. The administration itself had two factions in it from the first, the faction of Van Buren, the secretary of state in 1829-1831, and that of Calhoun, vice-president in 1829-1832. The refusal of the wives of the cabinet and of Mrs Calhoun to accord social recognition to Mrs J. H. Eaton brought about a rupture, and in April 1831 the whole cabinet was reorganized. Van Buren, a widower, sided with the president in this affair and grew in his favour. Jackson in the meantime had learned that Calhoun as secretary of war had wished to censure him for his actions during the Seminole war in Florida in 1818, and henceforth he regarded the South Carolina statesman as his enemy. The result was that Jackson transferred to Van Buren his support for succession in the presidency. The relations between Jackson and his cabinet were unlike those existing under his predecessors. Having a military point of view, he was inclined to look upon the cabinet members as inferior officers, and when in need of advice he usually consulted a group of personal friends, who came to be called the “Kitchen Cabinet.” The principal members of this clique were William B. Lewis (1784-1866), Amos Kendall and Duff Green, the last named being editor of the United States Telegraph, the organ of the administration.

In 1832 Jackson was re-elected by a large majority (219 electoral votes to 49) over Henry Clay, his chief opponent. The battle raged mainly around the re-charter of the Bank of the United States. It is probable that Jackson’s advisers in 1828 had told him, though erroneously, that the bank had worked against him, and then were not able to control him. The first message of his first presidency had contained a severe reflection on the bank; and in the very height of this second campaign (July 1832) he vetoed the re-charter, which had been passed in 109 the session of 1831-1832. Jackson interpreted his re-election as an approval by the people of his war on the bank, and he pushed it with energy. In September 1833 he ordered the public deposits in the bank to be transferred to selected local banks, and entered upon the “experiment” whether these could not act as fiscal agents for the government, and whether the desire to get the deposits would not induce the local banks to adopt sound rules of currency. During the next session the Senate passed a resolution condemning his conduct. Jackson protested, and after a hard struggle, in which Jackson’s friends were led by Senator Thomas Hart Benton, the resolution was ordered to be expunged from the record, on the 16th of January 1837.

In 1832, when the state of South Carolina attempted to “nullify” the tariff laws, Jackson at once took steps to enforce the authority of the federal government, ordering two war vessels to Charleston and placing troops within convenient distance. He also issued a proclamation warning the people of South Carolina against the consequences of their conduct. In the troubles between Georgia and the Cherokee Indians, however, he took a different stand. Shortly after his first election Georgia passed an act extending over the Cherokee country the civil laws of the state. This was contrary to the rights of the Cherokees under a federal treaty, and the Supreme Court consequently declared the act void (1832). Jackson, however, having the frontiersman’s contempt for the Indian, refused to enforce the decision of the court (see Nullification; Georgia: History).

Jackson was very successful in collecting old claims against various European nations for spoliations inflicted under Napoleon’s continental system, especially the French spoliation claims, with reference to which he acted with aggressiveness and firmness. Aiming at a currency to consist largely of specie, he caused the payment of these claims to be received and imported in specie as far as possible; and in 1836 he ordered land-agents to receive for land nothing but specie. About the same time a law passed Congress for distributing among the states some $35,000,000 balance belonging to the United States, the public debt having all been paid. The eighty banks of deposit in which it was lying had regarded this sum almost as a permanent loan, and had inflated credit on the basis of it. The necessary calling in of their loans in order to meet the drafts in favour of the states, combining with the breach of the overstrained credit between America and Europe and the decline in the price of cotton, brought about a crash which prostrated the whole financial, industrial and commercial system of the country for six or seven years. The crash came just as Jackson was leaving office; the whole burden fell on his successor, Van Buren.

In the 18th century the influences at work in the American colonies developed democratic notions. In fact, the circumstances were those which create equality of wealth and condition, as far as civilized men ever can be equal. The War of Independence was attended by a grand outburst of political dogmatism of the democratic type. A class of men were produced who believed in very broad dogmas of popular power and rights. There were a few rich men, but they were almost ashamed to differ from their neighbours and, in some known cases, they affected democracy in order to win popularity. After the 19th century began the class of rich men rapidly increased. In the first years of the century a little clique at Philadelphia became alarmed at the increase of the “money power,” and at the growing perils to democracy. They attacked with some violence, but little skill, the first Bank of the United States, and they prevented its re-charter. The most permanent interest of the history of the United States is the picture it offers of a primitive democratic society transformed by prosperity and the acquisition of capital into a great republican commonwealth. The denunciations of the “money power” and the reiteration of democratic dogmas deserve earnest attention. They show the development of classes or parties in the old undifferentiated mass. Jackson came upon the political stage just when a wealthy class first existed. It was an industrial and commercial class greatly interested in the tariff, and deeply interested also in the then current forms of issue banking. The southern planters also were rich, but were agriculturists and remained philosophical Democrats. Jackson was a man of low birth, uneducated, prejudiced, and marked by strong personal feeling in all his beliefs and disbeliefs. He showed, in his military work and in his early political doings, great lack of discipline. The proposal to make him president won his assent and awakened his ambition. In anything which he undertook he always wanted to carry his point almost regardless of incidental effects on himself or others. He soon became completely engaged in the effort to be made president. The men nearest to him understood his character and played on it. It was suggested to him that the money power was against him. That meant that, to the educated or cultivated class of that day, he did not seem to be in the class from which a president should be chosen. He took the idea that the Bank of the United States was leading the money power against him, and that he was the champion of the masses of democracy and of the common people. The opposite party, led by Clay, Adams, Biddle, &c., had schemes for banks and tariffs, enterprises which were open to severe criticism. The political struggle was very intense and there were two good sides to it. Men like Thomas H. Benton, Edward Livingston, Amos Kendall, and the southern statesmen, found material for strong attacks on the Whigs. The great mass of voters felt the issue as Jackson’s managers stated it. That meant that the masses recognized Jackson as their champion. Therefore, Jackson’s personality and name became a power on the side opposed to banks, corporations and other forms of the new growing power of capital. That Jackson was a typical man of his generation is certain. He represents the spirit and temper of the free American of that day, and it was a part of his way of thinking and acting that he put his whole life and interest into the conflict. He accomplished two things of great importance in the history: he crushed excessive state-rights and established the contrary doctrine in fact and in the political orthodoxy of the democrats; he destroyed the great bank. The subsequent history of the bank left it without an apologist, and prejudiced the whole later judgment about it. The way in which Jackson accomplished these things was such that it cost the country ten years of the severest liquidation, and left conflicting traditions of public policy in the Democratic party. After he left Washington, Jackson fell into discord with his most intimate old friends, and turned his interest to the cause of slavery, which he thought to be attacked and in danger.

Jackson is the only president of whom it may be said that he went out of office far more popular than he was when he entered. When he went into office he had no political opinions, only some popular notions. He left his party strong, perfectly organized and enthusiastic on a platform of low expenditure, payment of the debt, no expenditure for public improvement or for glory or display in any form and low taxes. His name still remained a spell to conjure with, and the politicians sought to obtain the assistance of his approval for their schemes; but in general his last years were quiet and uneventful. He died at his residence, “The Hermitage,” near Nashville, Tennessee, on the 8th of June 1845.

JACKSON, CYRIL (1746-1819), dean of Christ Church, Oxford, was born in Yorkshire, and educated at Westminster 110 and Oxford. In 1771 he was chosen to be sub-preceptor to the two eldest sons of George III., but in 1776 he was dismissed, probably through some household intrigues. He then took orders, and was appointed in 1779 to the preachership at Lincoln’s Inn and to a canonry at Christ Church, Oxford. In 1783 he was elected dean of Christ Church. His devotion to the college led him to decline the bishopric of Oxford in 1799 and the primacy of Ireland in 1800. He took a leading part in framing the statute which, in 1802, launched the system of public examinations at Oxford, but otherwise he was not prominent in university affairs. On his resignation in 1809 he settled at Felpham, in Sussex, where he remained till his death.

JACKSON, FREDERICK GEORGE (1860-  ), British Arctic explorer, was educated at Denstone College and Edinburgh University. His first voyage in Arctic waters was on a whaling-cruise in 1886-1887, and in 1893 he made a sledge-journey of 3000 miles across the frozen tundra of Siberia lying between the Ob and the Pechora. His narrative of this journey was published under the title of The Great Frozen Land (1895). On his return, he was given the command of the Jackson-Harmsworth Arctic expedition (1894-1897), which had for its objective the general exploration of Franz Josef Land. In recognition of his services he received a knighthood of the first class of the Danish Royal Order of St Olaf in 1898, and was awarded the gold medal of the Paris Geographical Society in 1899. His account of the expedition was published under the title of A Thousand Days in the Arctic (1899). He served in South Africa during the Boer War, and obtained the rank of captain. His travels also include a journey across the Australian deserts.

JACKSON, HELEN MARIA (1831-1885), American poet and novelist, who wrote under the initials of “H. H.” (Helen Hunt), was born in Amherst, Massachusetts, on the 18th of October 1831, the daughter of Nathan Welby Fiske (1798-1847), who was a professor in Amherst College. In October 1852 she married Lieutenant Edward Bissell Hunt (1822-1863), of the U.S. corps of engineers. In 1870 she published a little volume of meditative Verses, which was praised by Emerson in the preface to his Parnassus (1874). In 1875 she married William S. Jackson, a banker, of Colorado Springs. She became a prolific writer of prose and verse, including juvenile tales, books of travel, household hints and novels, of which the best is Ramona (1884), a defence of the Indian character. In 1883, as a special commissioner with Abbot Kinney (b. 1850), she investigated the condition and needs of the Mission Indians in California. A Century of Dishonor (1881) was an arraignment of the treatment of the Indians by the United States. She died on the 12th of August 1885 in San Francisco.

JACKSON, MASON (c. 1820-1903), British engraver, was born at Berwick-on-Tweed about 1820, and was trained as a wood engraver by his brother, John Jackson, the author of a history of this art. In the middle of the 19th century he made a considerable reputation by his engravings for the Art Union of London, and for Knight’s Shakespeare and other standard books; and in 1860 he was appointed art editor of the Illustrated London News, a post which he held for thirty years. He wrote a history of the rise and progress of illustrated journalism. He died in December 1903.

JACKSON, THOMAS (1579-1640), president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and dean of Peterborough, was born at Witton-le-Wear, Durham, and educated at Oxford. He became a probationer fellow of Corpus in 1606, and was soon afterwards elected vice-president. In 1623 he was presented to the living of St Nicholas, Newcastle, and about 1625 to the living of Winston, Durham. Five years later he was appointed president of Corpus, and in 1632 the king presented him to the living of Witney, Oxfordshire. He was made a prebendary of Winchester in 1635, and was dean of Peterborough in 1635-1639. Although originally a Calvinist, he became in later life an Arminian.

JACKSON, THOMAS JONATHAN (1824-1863), known as “Stonewall Jackson,” American general, was born at Clarksburg, Virginia (now West Virginia), on the 21st of January 1824, and was descended from an Ulster family. At an early age he was left a penniless orphan, and his education was acquired in a small country school until he procured, mainly by his own energy, a nomination to the Military Academy. Lack of social graces and the deficiencies of his early education impeded him at first, but “in the end ‘Old Jack,’ as he was always called, with his desperate earnestness, his unflinching straightforwardness, and his high sense of honour, came to be regarded with something like affection.” Such qualities he displayed not less amongst the light-hearted cadets than afterwards at the head of troops in battle. After graduating he took part, as second lieutenant in the 1st U.S. Artillery, in the Mexican War. At Vera Cruz he won the rank of first lieutenant, and for gallant conduct at Contreras and Chapultepec respectively he was brevetted captain and major, a rank which he attained with less than one year’s service. During his stay in the city of Mexico his thoughts were seriously directed towards religion, and, eventually entering the Presbyterian communion, he ruled every subsequent action of his life by his faith. In 1851 he applied for and obtained a professorship at the Virginia military institute, Lexington; and here, except for a short visit to Europe, he remained for ten years, teaching natural science, the theory of gunnery and battalion drill. Though he was not a good teacher, his influence both on his pupils and on those few intimate friends for whom alone he relaxed the gravity of his manner was profound, and, little as he was known to the white inhabitants of Lexington, he was revered by the slaves, to whom he showed uniform kindness, and for whose moral instruction he worked unceasingly. As to the great question at issue in 1861, Major Jackson’s ruling motive was devotion to his state, and when Virginia seceded, on the 17th of April, and the Lexington cadets were ordered to Richmond, Jackson went thither in command of the corps. His intimate friend, Governor Letcher, appreciating his gifts, sent him as a colonel of infantry to Harper’s Ferry, where the first collision with the Union forces was hourly expected. In June he received the command of a brigade, and in July promotion to the rank of brigadier-general. He had well employed the short time at his disposal for training his men, and on the first field of Bull Run they won for themselves and their brigadier, by their rigid steadiness at the critical moment of the battle, the historic name of “Stonewall.”

After the battle of Bull Run Jackson spent some time in the further training of his brigade which, to his infinite regret, he was compelled to leave behind him when, in October, he was assigned as a major-general to command in the Shenandoah Valley. His army had to be formed out of local troops, and few modern weapons were available, but the Valley regiments retained the impress of Jackson’s training till the days of Cedar Creek. Discipline was not acquired at once, however, and the first ventures of the force were not very successful. At Kernstown, indeed, Jackson was tactically defeated by the Federals under Shields (March 23, 1862). But the Stonewall brigade had been sent to its old leader in November, and by the time that the famous Valley Campaign (see Shenandoah Valley Campaigns) began, the forces under Jackson’s command had acquired cohesion and power of manœuvre. On the 8th of May 1862 was fought the combat of McDowell, won by Jackson against the leading troops of Frémont’s command from West Virginia. Three weeks later the forces under Banks were being driven over the Potomac at Harper’s Ferry, and Jackson was master of the Valley. Every other plan of campaign in Virginia was at once subordinated to the scheme of “trapping Jackson.” But the Confederates, marching swiftly up the Valley, slipped between the converging columns of Frémont from the west and 111 McDowell from the east, and concluded a most daring campaign by the victorious actions of Cross Keys and Port Republic (8th and 9th of June). While the forces of the North were still scattered, Jackson secretly left the Valley to take a decisive part in Lee’s campaign before Richmond. In the “Seven Days” Jackson was frequently at fault, but his driving energy bore no small part in securing the defeat of McClellan’s advance on Richmond. Here he passed for the first time under the direct orders of Robert Lee, and the rest of his career was spent in command of the II. corps of the Army of Northern Virginia. As Lee’s chief and most trusted subordinate he was throughout charged with the execution of the more delicate and difficult operations of his commander’s hazardous strategy. After his victory over Banks at Cedar Mountain, near Culpeper, Virginia, Jackson led the daring march round the flank of General Pope’s army, which against all theoretical rules ended in the great victory of second Bull Run. In the Maryland campaign Lieut.-General Jackson was again detached from the main army. Eleven thousand Federals, surrounded in Harper’s Ferry, were forced to surrender, and Jackson rejoined Lee just in time to oppose McClellan’s advance. At the Antietam his corps bore the brunt of the battle, which was one of the most stubborn of modern warfare. At Fredericksburg his wing of Lee’s line of battle was heavily engaged, and his last battle, before Chancellorsville, in the thickets of the Wilderness, was his greatest triumph. By one of his swift and secret flank marches he placed his corps on the flank of the enemy, and on the 2nd of May flung them against the Federal XI. corps, which was utterly routed. At the close of a day of victory he was reconnoitring the hostile positions when suddenly the Confederate outposts opened fire upon his staff, whom they mistook in the dark and tangled forest for Federal cavalry. Jackson fell wounded, and on the 10th of May he died at Guinea’s station. He was buried, according to his own wish, at Lexington, where a statue and a memorial hall commemorate his connexion with the place; and on the spot where he was mortally wounded stands a plain granite pillar. The first contribution towards the bronze statue at Richmond was made by the negro Baptist congregation for which Jackson had laboured so earnestly in his Lexington years. He was twice married, first to Eleanor (d. 1854), daughter of George Junkin, president of Washington College, Virginia, and secondly in 1857 to Mary Anna Morrison, daughter of a North Carolina clergyman.

That Jackson’s death, at a critical moment of the fortunes of the Confederacy, was an irreparable loss was disputed by no one. Lee said that he had lost his right arm, and, good soldiers as were the other generals, not one amongst them was comparable to Jackson, whose name was dreaded in the North like that of Lee himself. His military character was the enlargement of his personal character—“desperate earnestness, unflinching straightforwardness,” and absolute, almost fatalist, trust in the guidance of providence. At the head of his troops, who idolized him, he was a Cromwell, adding to the zeal of a fanatic and the energy of the born leader the special military skill and trained soldierly spirit which the English commander had to gain by experience. His Christianity was conspicuous, even amongst deeply religious men like Lee and Stuart, and penetrated every part of his character and conduct.

JACKSON, WILLIAM (1730-1803), English musician, was born at Exeter on the 29th of May 1730. His father, a grocer, bestowed a liberal education upon him, but, on account of the lad’s strong predilection for music, was induced to place him under the care of John Silvester, the organist of Exeter Cathedral, with whom he remained about two years. In 1748 he went to London, and studied under John Travers, organist of the king’s chapel. Returning to Exeter, he settled there as a teacher and composer, and in 1777 was appointed subchanter, organist, lay-vicar and master of the choristers of the cathedral. In 1755 he published his first work, Twelve Songs, which became at once highly popular. His next publication, Six Sonatas for the Harpsichord, was a failure. His third work, Six Elegies for three voices, preceded by an Invocation, with an Accompaniment, placed him among the first composers of his day. His fourth work was another set of Twelve Songs, now very scarce; and his fifth work was again a set of Twelve Songs, all of which are now forgotten. He next published Twelve Hymns, with some good remarks upon that style of composition, although his precepts were better than his practice. A set of Twelve Songs followed, containing some good compositions. Next came an Ode to Fancy, the words by Dr Warton. Twelve Canzonets for two voices formed his ninth work; and one of them—“Time has not thinned my Flowing Hair”—long held a place at public and private concerts. His tenth work was Eight Sonatas for the Harpsichord, some of which were novel and pleasing. He composed three dramatic pieces,—Lycidas (1767), The Lord of the Manor, to General Burgoyne’s words (1780), and The Metamorphoses, a comic opera produced at Drury Lane in 1783, which did not succeed. In the second of these dramatic works, two airs—“Encompassed in an Angel’s Form” and “When first this Humble Roof I knew”—were great favourites. His church music was published after his death by James Paddon (1820); most of it is poor, but “Jackson in F” was for many years popular. In 1782 he published Thirty Letters on Various Subjects, in which he severely attacked canons, and described William Bird’s Non nobis Domine as containing passages not to be endured. But his anger and contempt were most strongly expressed against catches of all kinds, which he denounced as barbarous. In 1791 he put forth a pamphlet, Observations on the Present State of Music in London, in which he found fault with everything and everybody. He published in 1798 The Four Ages, together with Essays on Various Subjects,—a work which gives a favourable idea of his character and of his literary acquirements. Jackson also cultivated a taste for landscape painting, and imitated, not unsuccessfully, the style of his friend Gainsborough. He died on the 5th of July 1803.

JACKSON, a city and the county-seat of Jackson county, Michigan, U.S.A., on both sides of the Grand River, 76 m. W. of Detroit. Pop. (1890), 20,798; (1900), 25,180, of whom 3843 were foreign-born (1004 German, 941 English Canadian); (1910 census) 31,433. It is served by the Michigan Central, the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, the Grand Trunk and the Cincinnati Northern railways, and by inter-urban electric lines. It is the seat of the state prison (established 1839). Coal is mined in the vicinity; the city has a large trade with the surrounding agricultural district (whose distinctive product is beans); the Michigan Central railway has car and machine shops here; and the city has many manufacturing establishments. The total factory product in 1904 was valued at $8,348,125, an increase of 24.4% over that of 1900. The municipality owns and operates its water-works. The place was formerly a favourite camping ground of the Indians, and was settled by whites in 1829. In 1830 it was laid out as a town, selected for the county-seat, and named Jacksonburg in honour of Andrew Jackson; the present name was adopted in 1838. Jackson was incorporated as a village in 1843, and in 1857 was chartered as a city. It was at a convention held at Jackson on the 6th of July 1854 that the Republican party was first organized and so named by a representative state body.

JACKSON, a city and the county-seat of Hinds county, Mississippi, U.S.A., and the capital of the state, on the W. bank of the Pearl River, about 40 m. E. of Vicksburg and 185 m. N. of New Orleans, Louisiana. Pop. (1890), 5920; (1900), 7816, of whom 4447 were negroes. According to the Federal census taken in 1910 the population had increased to 21,262. Jackson is served by the Illinois Central, the Alabama & Vicksburg, the Gulf & Ship Island, New Orleans Great Northern, and the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley railways, and during the winter by small freight and passenger steamboats on the Pearl River. In Jackson is the state library, with more than 80,000 volumes. The new state capitol was finished in 1903. The old state capitol, dating from 1839, is of considerable interest; in it were held the secession 112 convention (1861), the “Black and Tan Convention” (1868), and the constitutional convention of 1890, and in it Jefferson Davis made his last speech (1884). Jackson is the seat of Millsaps College, chartered in 1890 and opened in 1892 (under the control of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South), and having, in 1907-1908, 12 instructors and 297 students; of Belhaven College (non-sectarian, 1894), for girls; and of Jackson College (founded in 1877 at Natchez by the American Baptist Home Mission Society; in 1883 removed to Jackson), for negroes, which had 356 students in 1907-1908. The city is a market for cotton and farm products, and has a number of manufactories. In 1821 the site was designated as the seat of the state government, and early in the following year the town, named in honour of Andrew Jackson, was laid out. The legislature first met here in December 1822. It was not until 1840 that it was chartered as a city. During the Civil War Jackson was in the theatre of active campaigning. On the 14th of May 1863 Johnston who then held the city, was attacked on both sides by Sherman and McPherson with two corps of Grant’s army, which, after a sharp engagement, drove the Confederates from the town. After the fall of Vicksburg Johnston concentrated his forces at Jackson, which had been evacuated by the Federal troops, and prepared to make a stand behind the intrenchments. On the 9th of July Sherman began an investment of the place, and during the succeeding week a sharp bombardment was carried on. In the night of the 16th Johnston, taking advantage of a lull in the firing, withdrew suddenly from the city. Sherman’s army entered on the 17th and remained five days, burning a considerable part of the city and ravaging the surrounding country.

JACKSON, a city and the county-seat of Madison county, Tennessee, U.S.A., situated on the Forked Deer river, about 85 m. N.E. of Memphis. Pop. (1890), 10,039; (1900), 14,511, of whom 6108 were negroes; (1910 census), 15,779. It is served by the Mobile & Ohio, the Nashville, Chattanooga & St Louis and the Illinois Central railways. The state supreme court holds its sessions here for the western district of Tennessee. The city is the seat of Union University (co-educational), chartered in 1875 as Southwestern Baptist University, and conducted under that name at Jackson until 1907, when the present name was adopted. In 1907-1908 the university had 17 instructors and 280 students. At Jackson, also, are St Mary’s Academy (Roman Catholic); the Memphis Conference Female Institute (Methodist Episcopal, South, 1843), and Lane College (for negroes), under the control of the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church. Jackson is an important cotton market, and is a shipping point for the farm products and fruits of the surrounding country. It has also numerous manufactures and railway shops. The total value of the factory product in 1905 was $2,317,715. The municipality owns and operates the electric-lighting plant and the water-works. There is in the city an electro-chalybeate well with therapeutic properties. Jackson was settled about 1820, incorporated as a town in 1823, chartered as a city in 1854, and in 1907 received a new charter by which the sale of intoxicating liquors is forever prohibited. After General Grant’s advance into Tennessee in 1862 Jackson was fortified and became an important base of operations for the Federal army, Grant himself establishing his headquarters here in October.

JACKSONVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Duval county, Florida, U.S.A., in the N.E. part of the state, on the left bank of the St John’s River, 14 m. from the Atlantic Ocean as the crow flies and about 27 m. by water. Pop. (1890), 17,201; (1900), 28,429, of whom 16,236 were negroes and 1166 foreign-born; (1910 census) 57,699; the city being the largest in the state. It is served by the Southern, the Atlantic Coast Line, the Seaboard Air Line, the Georgia Southern & Florida and the Florida East Coast railways, and by several steamship lines.1 It is the largest railway centre in the state, and is popularly known as the Gate City of Florida. In appearance Jacksonville is very attractive. It has many handsome buildings, and its residential streets are shaded with live-oaks, water oaks and bitter-orange trees. Jacksonville is the seat of two schools for negroes, the Florida Baptist Academy and Cookman Institute (1872; Methodist Episcopal). Many winter visitors are annually attracted by the excellent climate, the mean temperature for the winter months being about 55° F. Among the places of interest in the vicinity is the large Florida ostrich farm. There are numerous municipal and other parks. The city owns and operates its electric-lighting plant and its water-works system. The capital invested in manufacturing increased from $1,857,844 in 1900 to $4,837,281 in 1905, or 160.4%, and the value of the factory product rose from $1,798,607 in 1900 to $5,340,264 in 1905, or 196.9%. Jacksonville is the most important distributing centre in Florida, and is a port of entry. In 1909 its foreign imports were valued at $513,439; its foreign exports at $2,507,373.

The site of Jacksonville was called Cow Ford (a version of the Indian name, Wacca Pilatka), from the excellent ford of the St John’s River, over which went the King’s Road, a highway built by the English from St Augustine to the Georgia line. The first settlement was made in 1816. In 1822 a town was laid out here and was named in honour of General Andrew Jackson; in 1833 Jacksonville was incorporated. During the Civil War the city was thrice occupied by Federal troops. In 1888 there was an epidemic of yellow fever. On the 3rd of May 1901 a fire destroyed nearly 150 blocks of buildings, constituting nearly the whole of the business part of the city, the total loss being more than $15,000,000; but within two years new buildings greater in number than those destroyed were constructed, and up to December 1909 about 9000 building permits had been granted.

JACKSONVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Morgan county, Illinois, U.S.A., on Mauvaiseterre Creek, about 33 m. W. of Springfield. Pop. (1890), 12,935; (1900), 15,078, of whom 1497 were foreign-born; (1910 census), 15,326. It is served by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, the Chicago & Alton, the Chicago, Peoria & St Louis and the Wabash railways. It is the seat of several educational and philanthropic institutions. Illinois College (Presbyterian), founded in 1829 through the efforts of the Rev. John Millot Ellis (1793-1855), a missionary of the American Home Missionary Society and of the so-called Yale Band (seven Yale graduates devoted to higher education in the Middle West), is one of the oldest colleges in the Central States of the United States. The Jacksonville Female Academy (1830) and the Illinois Conservatory of Music (1871) were absorbed in 1903 by Illinois College, which then became co-educational. The college embraces, besides the collegiate department, Whipple Academy (a preparatory department), the Illinois Conservatory of Music and a School of Art, and in 1908-1909 had 21 instructors and 173 students. The Rev. Edward Beecher was the first president of the college (from 1830 to 1844), and among its prominent graduates have been Richard Yates, jun., the Rev. Thomas K. Beecher, Newton Bateman (1822-1897), superintendent of public instruction of Illinois from 1865 to 1875 and president of Knox College in 1875-1893, Bishop Theodore N. Morrison (b. 1850), Protestant Episcopal Bishop of Iowa after 1898, and William J. Bryan. The Illinois Woman’s College (Methodist Episcopal; chartered in 1847 as the Illinois Conference Female Academy) received its present name in 1899. The State Central Hospital for the Insane (opened in 1851), the State School for the deaf (established in 1839, opened in 1845, and the first charitable institution of the state) and the State School for the Blind (1849) are also in Jacksonville. Morgan Lake and Duncan Park are pleasure resorts. The total value of the factory product in 1905 was $1,981,582, an increase of 17.7% since 1900. Jacksonville was laid out in 1825 as the county-seat of Morgan county, was named probably in honour of Andrew Jackson, and was incorporated as a town in 1840, chartered as a 113 city in 1867, and re-chartered in 1887. The majority of the early settlers came from the southern and border states, principally from Missouri and Kentucky; but subsequently there was a large immigration of New England and Eastern people, and these elements were stronger in the population of Jacksonville than in any other city of southern Illinois. The city was a station of the “Underground Railroad.”

JACOB (Hebrew yă’ăqōb, derived, according to Gen. xxv. 26, xxvii. 36, from a root meaning “to seize the heel” or “supplant”), son of Isaac and Rebekah in the Biblical narrative, and the father of the twelve tribes of Israel. Jacob and his twin brother Esau are the eponyms of the Israelites and Edomites. It was said of them that they would be two nations, and that the elder would serve the younger. Esau was born first, but lost his superiority by relinquishing his birthright, and Jacob by an act of deceit gained the paternal blessing intended for Esau (Gen. xxvii., J and E).1 The popular view regarding Israel and Edom is expressed when the story makes Jacob a tent-dweller, and Esau a hunter, a man of the field. But whilst Esau married among the Canaanite “daughters of the land” (P in xxvi. 34; xxviii. 8 seq.), Jacob was sent, or (according to a variant tradition) fled from Beer-sheba, to take a wife from among his Syrian kinsfolk at Haran. On the way he received a revelation at Bethel (“house of God”) promising to him and to his descendants the whole extent of the land. The beautiful story of Jacob’s fortunes at Haran is among the best examples of Hebrew narrative: how he served seven years for Rachel, “and they seemed a few days for the love he had to her,” and was tricked by receiving the elder sister Leah, and how he served yet another seven years, and at last won his love. The patriarch’s increasing wealth caused him to incur the jealousy of his father-in-law, Laban, and he was forced to flee in secret with his family. They were overtaken at Gilead,2 whose name (interpreted “heap of witness”) is explained by the covenant into which Jacob and Laban entered (xxxi. 47 sqq.). Passing Mahanaim (“camps”), where he saw the camps of God, Jacob sent to Esau with friendly overtures. At the Jabbok he wrestled with a divine being and prevailed (cf. Hos. xii. 3 sqq.), hence he called the place Peniel or Penuel (“the face of God”), and received the new name Israel. He then effected an unexpected reconciliation with Esau, passed to Succoth, where he built “booths” for his cattle (hence its name), and reached Shechem. Here he purchased ground from the clan Hamor (cf. Judg. ix. 28), and erected an altar to “God (El) the God of Israel.” This was the scene of the rape of Dinah and of the attack of Simeon and Levi which led to their ruin (xxxiv.; see Dan, Levites, Simeon). Thence Jacob went down south to Bethel, where he received a divine revelation (P), similar to that recorded by the earlier narrator (J), and was called Israel (xxxv. 9-13, 15). Here Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, on the way to Ephrath. Rachel died in giving birth to Benjamin (q.v.), and further south Reuben was guilty of a grave offence (cf. xlix. 4). According to P, Jacob came to Hebron, and it was at this juncture that Jacob and Esau separated (a second time) and the latter removed to Mount Seir (xxxvi. 6 sqq.; cf. the parallel in xiii. 5 sqq.). Compelled by circumstances, described with much fullness and vividness, Jacob ultimately migrated to Egypt, receiving on the way the promise that God would make of him a great nation, which should come again out of Egypt (see Joseph). After an interview with the Pharaoh (recorded only by P, xlvii. 5-11), he dwelt with his sons in the land of Goshen, and as his death drew near pronounced a formal benediction upon the two sons of Joseph (Manasseh and Ephraim), intentionally exalting the younger. Then he summoned all the “sons” to gather round his bed, and told them “what shall befall in the latter days” (xlix.). He died at the age of 147 (so P), and permission was given to carry his body to Canaan to be buried.

These narratives are full of much valuable evidence regarding marriage customs, pastoral life and duties, popular beliefs and traditions, and are evidently typical of what was currently retailed. Their historical value has been variously estimated. The name existed long before the traditional date of Jacob, and the Egyptian phonetic equivalent of Jacob-el (cf. Isra-el, Ishma-el) appears to be the name of a district of central Palestine (or possibly east of Jordon) about 1500 B.C. But the stories in their present form are very much later. The close relation between Jacob and Aramaeans confirms the view that some of the tribes of Israel were partly of Aramaean origin; his entrance into Palestine from beyond the Jordan is parallel to Joshua’s invasion at the head of the Israelites; and his previous journey from the south finds independent support in traditions of another distinct movement from this quarter. Consequently, it would appear that these extremely elevated and richly developed narratives of Jacob-Israel embody, among a number of other features, a recollection of two distinct traditions of migration which became fused among the Israelites. See further Genesis; Jews.

JACOB, JOHN (1812-1858), Indian soldier and administrator, was born on the 11th of January 1812, educated at Addiscombe, and entered the Bombay artillery in 1828. He served in the first Afghan War under Sir John Keane, and afterwards led his regiment with distinction at the battles of Meeanee, Shahdadpur, and Umarkot; but it is as commandant of the Sind Horse and political superintendent of Upper Sind that he was chiefly famous. He was the pacificator of the Sind frontier, reducing the tribes to quietude as much by his commanding personality as by his ubiquitous military measures. In 1853 he foretold the Indian Mutiny, saying: “There is more danger to our Indian empire from the state of the Bengal army, from the feeling which there exists between the native and the European, and thence, spreads throughout the length and breadth of the land, than from all other causes combined. Let government look to this; it is a serious and most important truth”; but he was only rebuked by Lord Dalhousie for his pains. He was a friend of Sir Charles Napier and Sir James Outram, and resembled them in his outspoken criticisms and independence of authority. He died at the early age of 46 of brain fever, brought on by excessive heat and overwork. The town of Jacobabad, which has the reputation of being the hottest place in India, is named after him.

JACOB BEN ASHER (1280-1340), codifier of Jewish law, was born in Germany and died in Toledo. A son of Asher ben Yeḥiel (q.v.), Jacob helped to re-introduce the older elaborate method of legal casuistry which had been overthrown by Maimonides (q.v.). The Asheri family suffered great privations but remained faithful in their devotion to the Talmud. Jacob ben Asher is known as the Ba‘al ha-ṭurim (literally “Master of the Rows”) from his chief work, the four Ṭurim or Rows (the title is derived from the four Ṭurim or rows of jewels in the High Priest’s breastplate). In this work Jacob ben Asher codified Rabbinic law on ethics and ritual, and it remained a standard work of reference until it was edited with a commentary by Joseph Qaro, who afterwards simplified the code into the more popular Shulḥan Aruch. Jacob also wrote two commentaries on the Pentateuch.

JACOB OF EDESSA, who ranks with Barhebraeus as the most distinguished for scholarship among Syriac writers,1 was born at ’Ēn-dēbhā in the province of Antioch, probably about A.D. 640. From the trustworthy account of his life by Barhebraeus (Chron. Eccles. i. 289) we learn that he studied first at the famous monastery of Ken-neshrē (on the left bank of the Euphrates, opposite Jerābis) and afterwards at Alexandria, which had of course been 114 for some time in the hands of the Moslems.2 On his return he was appointed bishop of Edessa by his friend Athanasius II. (of Balad), probably in 684,3 but held this office only for three or four years, as the clergy withstood his strict enforcement of the Church canons and he was not supported by Julian, the successor of Athanasius in the patriarchate. Accordingly, having in anger publicly burnt a copy of the canons in front of Julian’s residence, Jacob retired to the monastery of Kaisūm near Samosāta, and from there to the monastery of Eusebhōnā,4 where for eleven years he taught the Psalms and the reading of the Scriptures in Greek. But towards the close of this period he again encountered opposition, this time from monks “who hated the Greeks,” and so proceeded to the great convent of Tell ’Addā or Teleda (? modern Tellādi, N.W. of Aleppo), where he spent nine years in revising and emending the Peshitta version of the Old Testament by the help of the various Greek versions. He was finally recalled to the bishopric of Edessa in 708, but died four months later, on the 5th of June.

JACOB OF JÜTERBOGK (c. 1381-1465), monk and theologian. Benedict Stolzenhagen, known in religion as Jacob, was born at Jüterbogk in Brandenburg of poor peasant stock. He became a Cistercian at the monastery of Paradiz in Poland, and was sent by the abbot to the university of Cracow, where he became master in philosophy and doctor of theology. He returned to his monastery, of which he became abbot. In 1441, however, discontented with the absence of strict discipline in his community, he obtained the leave of the papal legate at the council of Basel to transfer himself to the Carthusians, entering the monastery of Salvatorberg near Erfurt, of which he became prior. He lectured on theology at the university of Erfurt, of which he was rector in 1455. He died on the 30th of April 1465.

JACOB OF SĔRŪGH, one of the best Syriac authors, named by one of his biographers “the flute of the Holy Spirit and the harp of the believing church,” was born in 451 at Kurtam, a village on the Euphrates to the west of Ḥarrān, and was probably educated at Edessa. At an early age he attracted the attention of his countrymen by his piety and his literary gifts, and entered on the composition of the long series of metrical homilies on religious themes which formed the great work of his life. Having been ordained to the priesthood, he became periodeutes or episcopal visitor of Ḥaurā, in Sĕrūgh, not far from his birthplace. His tenure of this office extended over a time of great trouble to the Christian population of Mesopotamia, due to the fierce war carried on by Kavadh II. of Persia within the Roman borders. When on the 10th of January 503 Amid was captured by the Persians after a three months’ siege and all its citizens put to the sword or carried captive, a panic seized the whole district, and the Christian inhabitants of many neighbouring cities planned 115 to leave their homes and flee to the west of the Euphrates. They were recalled to a more courageous frame of mind by the letters of Jacob.1 In 519, at the age of 68, Jacob was made bishop of Baṭnān, another town in the district of Sĕrūgh, but only lived till November 521.

JACOBA, or Jacqueline (1401-1436), countess of Holland, was the only daughter and heiress of William, duke of Bavaria and count of Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut. She was married as a child to John, duke of Touraine, second son of Charles VI., king of France, who on the death of his elder brother Louis became dauphin. John of Touraine died in April 1417, and two months afterwards Jacoba lost her father. Acknowledged as sovereign in Holland and Zeeland, Jacoba was opposed by her uncle John of Bavaria, bishop of Liége. She had the support of the Hook faction in Holland. Meanwhile she had been married in 1418 by her uncle, John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, to her cousin John IV., duke of Brabant. By the mediation of John the Fearless, a treaty of partition was concluded in 1419 between Jacoba and John of Bavaria; but it was merely a truce, and the contest between uncle and niece soon began again and continued with varying success. In 1420 Jacoba fled to England; and there, declaring that her marriage with John of Brabant was illegal, she contracted a marriage with Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, in 1422. Two years later Jacoba, with Humphrey, invaded Holland, where she was now opposed by her former husband, John of Brabant, John of Bavaria having died of poison. In 1425 Humphrey deserted his wife, who found herself obliged to seek refuge with her cousin, Philip V., duke of Burgundy, to whom she had to submit, and she was imprisoned in the castle of Ghent. John of Brabant now mortgaged the two counties of Holland and Zeeland to Philip, who assumed their protectorate. Jacoba, however, escaped from prison in disguise, and for three years struggled gallantly to maintain herself in Holland against the united efforts of Philip of Burgundy and John of Brabant, and met at first with success. The death of the weak John of Brabant (April 1427) freed the countess from her quondam husband; but nevertheless the pope pronounced Jacoba’s marriage with Humphrey illegal, and Philip, putting out his full strength, broke down all opposition. By a treaty, made in July 1428, Jacoba was left nominally countess, but Philip was to administer the government of Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut, and was declared heir in case Jacoba should die without children. Two years later Philip mortgaged Holland and Zeeland to the Borselen family, of which Francis, lord of Borselen, was the head. Jacoba now made her last effort. In 1432 she secretly married Francis of Borselen, and endeavoured to foment a rising in Holland against the Burgundian rule. Philip invaded the country, however, and threw Borselen into prison. Only on condition that Jacoba abdicated her three countships in his favour would he allow her liberty and recognize her marriage with Borselen. She submitted in April 1432, retained her title of duchess in Bavaria, and lived on her husband’s estates in retirement. She died on the 9th of October 1436, leaving no children.

JACOBABAD, a town of British India, the administrative headquarters of the Upper Sind frontier district in Bombay; with a station on the Quetta branch of the North-Western railway, 37 m. from the junction at Ruk, on the main line. Pop. (1901), 10,787. It is famous as having consistently the highest temperature in India. During the month of June the thermometer ranges between 120° and 127° F. The town was founded on the site of the village of Khangarh in 1847 by General John Jacob, for many years commandant of the Sind Horse, who died here in 1858. It has cantonments for a cavalry regiment, with accommodation for caravans from Central Asia. It is watered by two canals. An annual horse show is held in January.

JACOBEAN STYLE, the name given to the second phase of the early Renaissance architecture in England, following the Elizabethan style. Although the term is generally employed of the style which prevailed in England during the first quarter of the 17th century, its peculiar decadent detail will be found nearly twenty years earlier at Wollaton Hall, Nottinghamshire, and in Oxford and Cambridge examples exist up to 1660, notwithstanding the introduction of the purer Italian style by Inigo Jones in 1619 at Whitehall. Already during Queen Elizabeth’s reign reproductions of the classic orders had found their way into English architecture, based frequently upon John Shute’s The First and Chief Grounds of Architecture, published in 1563, with two other editions in 1579 and 1584. In 1577, three years before the commencement of Wollaton Hall, a copybook of the orders was brought out in Antwerp by Jan Vredeman de Vries. Though nominally based on the description of the orders by Vitruvius, the author indulged freely not only in his rendering of them, but in suggestions of his own, showing how the orders might be employed in various buildings. Those suggestions were of a most decadent type, so that even the author deemed it advisable to publish a letter from a canon of the Church, stating that there was nothing in his architectural designs which was contrary to religion. It is to publications of this kind that Jacobean architecture owes the perversion of its forms and the introduction of strap work and pierced crestings, which appear for the first time at Wollaton (1580); at Bramshill, Hampshire (1607-1612), and in Holland House, Kensington (1624), it receives its fullest development.

JACOBI, FRIEDRICH HEINRICH (1743-1819), German philosopher, was born at Düsseldorf on the 25th of January 1743. The second son of a wealthy sugar merchant near Düsseldorf, he was educated for a commercial career. Of a retiring, meditative disposition, Jacobi associated himself at Geneva mainly with the literary and scientific circle of which the most prominent member was Lesage. He studied closely the works of Charles Bonnet, and the political ideas of Rousseau and Voltaire. In 1763 he was called back to Düsseldorf, and in the following year he married and took over the management of his father’s business. After a short period he gave up his commercial career, and in 1770 became a member of the council for the duchies of Jülich and Berg, in which capacity he distinguished himself by his ability in financial affairs, and his zeal in social reform. Jacobi kept up his interest in literary and philosophic matters by an extensive correspondence, and his mansion at Pempelfort, near Düsseldorf, was the centre of a distinguished literary circle. With C. M. Wieland he helped to found a new literary journal. Der Teutsche Mercur, in which some of his earliest writings, mainly on practical or economic subjects, were published. Here too appeared in part the first of his philosophic works, Edward Allwills Briefsammlung (1776), a combination of romance and speculation. This was followed in 1779 by Woldemar, a philosophic novel, of very imperfect structure, but full of genial 116 ideas, and giving the most complete picture of Jacobi’s method of philosophizing. In 1779 he visited Munich as member of the privy council, but after a short stay there differences with his colleagues and with the authorities of Bavaria drove him back to Pempelfort. A few unimportant tracts on questions of theoretical politics were followed in 1785 by the work which first brought Jacobi into prominence as a philosopher. A conversation which he had held with Lessing in 1780, in which Lessing avowed that he knew no philosophy, in the true sense of that word, save Spinozism, led him to a protracted study of Spinoza’s works. The Briefe über die Lehre Spinozas (1785; 2nd ed., much enlarged and with important Appendices, 1789) expressed sharply and clearly Jacobi’s strenuous objection to a dogmatic system in philosophy, and drew upon him the vigorous enmity of the Berlin clique, led by Moses Mendelssohn. Jacobi was ridiculed as endeavouring to re-introduce into philosophy the antiquated notion of unreasoning belief, was denounced as an enemy of reason, as a pietist, and as in all probability a Jesuit in disguise, and was especially attacked for his use of the ambiguous term “belief.” Jacobi’s next important work, David Hume über den Glauben, oder Idealismus und Realismus (1787), was an attempt to show not only that the term Glaube had been used by the most eminent writers to denote what he had employed it for in the Letters on Spinoza, but that the nature of the cognition of facts as opposed to the construction of inferences could not be otherwise expressed. In this writing, and especially in the Appendix, Jacobi came into contact with the critical philosophy, and subjected the Kantian view of knowledge to searching examination.

The outbreak of the war with the French republic induced Jacobi in 1793 to leave his home near Düsseldorf, and for nearly ten years he resided in Holstein. While there he became intimately acquainted with Reinhold (in whose Beiträge, pt. iii., 1801, his important work Über das Unternehmen des Kriticismus, die Vernunft zu Verstande zu bringen was first published), and with Matthias Claudius, the editor of the Wandsbecker Bote. During the same period the excitement caused by the accusation of atheism brought against Fichte at Jena led to the publication of Jacobi’s Letter to Fichte (1799), in which he made more precise the relation of his own philosophic principles to theology. Soon after his return to Germany, Jacobi received a call to Munich in connexion with the new academy of sciences just founded there. The loss of a considerable portion of his fortune induced him to accept this offer; he settled in Munich in 1804, and in 1807 became president of the academy. In 1811 appeared his last philosophic work, directed against Schelling specially (Von den göttlichen Dingen und ihrer Offenbarung), the first part of which, a review of the Wandsbecker Bote, had been written in 1798. A bitter reply from Schelling was left without answer by Jacobi, but gave rise to an animated controversy in which Fries and Baader took prominent part. In 1812 Jacobi retired from the office of president, and began to prepare a collected edition of his works. He died before this was completed, on the 10th of March 1819. The edition of his writings was continued by his friend F. Köppen, and was completed in 1825. The works fill six volumes, of which the fourth is in three parts. To the second is prefixed an introduction by Jacobi, which is at the same time an introduction to his philosophy. The fourth volume has also an important preface.

JACOBI, JOHANN GEORG (1740-1814), German poet, elder brother of the philosopher, F. H. Jacobi (1743-1819), was born at Düsseldorf on the 2nd of September 1740. He studied theology at Göttingen and jurisprudence at Helmstedt, and was appointed, in 1766, professor of philosophy in Halle. In this year he made the acquaintance of J. W. L. (“Vater”) Gleim, who, attracted by the young poet’s Poetische Versuche (1764), became his warm friend, and a lively literary correspondence ensued between Gleim in Halberstadt and Jacobi in Halle. In order to have Jacobi near him, Gleim succeeded in procuring for him a prebendal stall at the cathedral of Halberstadt in 1769, and here Jacobi issued a number of anacreontic lyrics and sonnets. He 117 tired, however, of the lighter muse, and in 1774, to Gleim’s grief, left Halberstadt, and for two years (1774-1776) edited at Düsseldorf the Iris, a quarterly for women readers. Meanwhile, he wrote many charming lyrics, distinguished by exquisite taste and true poetical feeling. In 1784 he became professor of literature at the university of Freiburg im Breisgau, a post which he held until his death there on the 4th of January 1814. In addition to the earlier Iris, to which Goethe, his brother F. H. Jacobi, Gleim and other poets contributed, he published, from 1803-1813, another periodical, also called Iris, in which Klopstock, Herder, Jean Paul, Voss and the brothers Stollberg also collaborated.

JACOBI, KARL GUSTAV JACOB (1804-1851), German mathematician, was born at Potsdam, of Jewish parentage, on the 10th of December 1804. He studied at Berlin University, where he obtained the degree of doctor of philosophy in 1825, his thesis being an analytical discussion of the theory of fractions. In 1827 he became extraordinary and in 1829 ordinary professor of mathematics at Königsberg, and this chair he filled till 1842, when he visited Italy for a few months to recruit his health. On his return he removed to Berlin, where he lived as a royal pensioner till his death, which occurred on the 18th of February 1851.

JACOBINS, THE, the most famous of the political clubs of the French Revolution. It had its origin in the Club Breton, which was established at Versailles shortly after the opening of the States General in 1789. It was at first composed exclusively of deputies from Brittany, but was soon joined by others from various parts of France, and counted among its early members Mirabeau, Sieyès, Barnave, Pétion, the Abbé Grégoire, Charles and Alexandre Lameth, Robespierre, the duc d’Aiguillon, and La Revellière-Lépeaux. At this time its meetings were secret and little is known of what took place at them. After the émeute of the 5th and 6th of October the club, still entirely composed of deputies, followed the National Assembly to Paris, where it rented the refectory of the monastery of the Jacobins in the Rue St Honoré, near the seat of the Assembly. The name “Jacobins,” given in France to the Dominicans, because their first house in Paris was in the Rue St Jacques, was first applied to the club in ridicule by its enemies. The title assumed by the club itself, after the promulgation of the constitution of 1791, was Société des amis de la constitution séants aux Jacobins à Paris, which was changed on the 21st of September 1792, after the fall of the monarchy, to Société des Jacobins, amis de la liberté et de l’égalité. It occupied successively the refectory, the library, and the chapel of the monastery.

Once transferred to Paris, the club underwent rapid modifications. The first step was its expansion by the admission as members or associates of others besides deputies; Arthur Young was so admitted on the 18th of January 1790. On the 8th of February the society was formally constituted on this broader basis by the adoption of the rules drawn up by Barnave, which were issued with the signature of the duc d’Aiguillon, the president. The objects of the club were defined as (1) to discuss in advance questions to be decided by the National Assembly; (2) to work for the establishment and strengthening of the constitution in accordance with the spirit of the preamble (i.e. of respect for legally constituted authority and the rights of man); (3) to correspond with other societies of the same kind which should be formed in the realm. At the same time the rules of order and forms of election were settled, and the constitution of the club determined. There were to be a president, elected every month, four secretaries, a treasurer, and committees elected to superintend elections and presentations, the correspondence, and the administration of the club. Any member who by word or action showed that his principles were contrary to the constitution and the rights of man was to be expelled, a rule which later on facilitated the “purification” of the society by the expulsion of its more moderate elements. By the 7th article the club decided to admit as associates similar societies in other parts of France and to maintain with them a regular correspondence.

This last provision was of far-reaching importance. By the 10th of August 1790 there were already one hundred and fifty-two affiliated clubs; the attempts at counter-revolution led to a great increase of their number in the spring of 1791, and by the close of the year the Jacobins had a network of branches all over France. It was this widespread yet highly centralized organization that gave to the Jacobin Club its formidable power.

At the outset the Jacobin Club was not distinguished by extreme political views. The somewhat high subscription confined its membership to men of substance, and to the last it was—so far as the central society in Paris was concerned—composed almost entirely of professional men, such as Robespierre, or well-to-do bourgeois, like Santerre. From the first, however, other elements were present. Besides Louis Philippe, duc de Chartres (afterwards king of the French), liberal aristocrats of the type of the duc d’Aiguillon, the prince de Broglie, or the vicomte de Noailles, and the bourgeois who formed the mass of the members, the club contained such figures as “Père” Michel Gérard, a peasant proprietor from Tuel-en-Montgermont, in Brittany, whose rough common sense was admired as the oracle of popular wisdom, and whose countryman’s waistcoat and plaited hair were later on to become the model for the Jacobin fashion.1 The provincial branches were from the first far more democratic, though in these too the leadership was usually in the hands of members of the educated or propertied classes. Up to the very eve of the republic, the club ostensibly supported the monarchy; it took no part in the petition of the 17th of July 1790 for the king’s dethronement; nor had it any official share even in the insurrections of the 20th of June and the 10th of August 1792; it only formally recognized the republic on the 21st of September. But the character and extent of the club’s influence cannot be gauged by its official acts alone, and long before it emerged as the principal focus of the Terror, its character had been profoundly changed by the secession of its more moderate elements, some to found the Club of 1789, some in 1791—among them Barnave, the Lameths, Duport and Bailly—to 118 found the club of the Feuillants scoffed at by their former friends as the club monarchique. The main cause of this change was the admission of the public to the sittings of the club, which began on the 14th of October 1791. The result is described in a report of the Department of Paris on “the state of the empire,” presented on the 12th of June 1792, at the request of Roland, the minister of the interior, and signed by the duc de La Rochefoucauld, which ascribes to the Jacobins all the woes of the state. “There exists,” it runs, “in the midst of the capital committed to our care a public pulpit of defamation, where citizens of every age and both sexes are admitted day by day to listen to a criminal propaganda.... This establishment, situated in the former house of the Jacobins, calls itself a society; but it has less the aspect of a private society than that of a public spectacle: vast tribunes are thrown open for the audience; all the sittings are advertised to the public for fixed days and hours, and the speeches made are printed in a special journal and lavishly distributed.”2 In this society—the report continues—murder is counselled or applauded, all authorities are calumniated and all the organs of the law bespattered with abuse; as to its power, it exercises “by its influence, its affiliations and its correspondence a veritable ministerial authority, without title and without responsibility, while leaving to the legal and responsible authorities only the shadow of power” (Schmidt, Tableaux i. 78, &c.).

The constituency to which the club was henceforth responsible, and from which it derived its power, was in fact the peuple bête of Paris; the sans-culottes—decayed lackeys, cosmopolitan ne’er-do-wells, and starving workpeople—who crowded its tribunes. To this audience, and not primarily to the members of the club, the speeches of the orators were addressed and by its verdict they were judged. In the earlier stages of the Revolution the mob had been satisfied with the fine platitudes of the philosophes and the vague promise of a political millennium; but as the chaos in the body politic grew, and with it the appalling material misery, it began to clamour for the blood of the “traitors” in office by whose corrupt machinations the millennium was delayed, and only those orators were listened to who pandered to its suspicions. Hence the elimination of the moderate elements from the club; hence the ascendancy of Marat, and finally of Robespierre, the secret of whose power was that they really shared the suspicions of the populace, to which they gave a voice and which they did not shrink from translating into action. After the fall of the monarchy Robespierre was in effect the Jacobin Club; for to the tribunes he was the oracle of political wisdom, and by his standard all others were judged.3 With his fall the Jacobins too came to an end.

Not the least singular thing about the Jacobins is the very slender material basis on which their overwhelming power rested. France groaned under their tyranny, which was compared to that of the Inquisition, with its system of espionage and denunciations which no one was too illustrious or too humble to escape. Yet it was reckoned by competent observers that, at the height of the Terror, the Jacobins could not command a force of more than 3000 men in Paris. But the secret of their strength was that, in the midst of the general disorganization, they alone were organized. The police agent Dutard, in a report to the minister Garat (April 30, 1793), describing an episode in the Palais Égalité (Royal), adds: “Why did a dozen Jacobins strike terror into two or three hundred aristocrats? It is that the former have a rallying-point and that the latter have none.” When the jeunesse dorée did at last organize themselves, they had little difficulty in flogging the Jacobins out of the cafés into comparative silence. Long before this the Girondin government had been urged to meet organization by organization, force by force; and it is clear from the daily reports of the police agents that even a moderate display of energy would have saved the National Convention from the humiliation of being dominated by a club, and the French Revolution from the blot of the Terror. But though the Girondins were fully conscious of the evil, they were too timid, or too convinced of the ultimate triumph of their own persuasive eloquence, to act. In the session of the 30th of April 1793 a proposal was made to move the Convention to Versailles out of reach of the Jacobins, and Buzot declared that it was “impossible to remain in Paris” so long as “this abominable haunt” should exist; but the motion was not carried, and the Girondins remained to become the victims of the Jacobins.

Meanwhile other political clubs could only survive so long as they were content to be the shadows of the powerful organization of the Rue St Honoré. The Feuillants had been suppressed on the 18th of August 1792. The turn of the Cordeliers came so soon as its leaders showed signs of revolting against Jacobin supremacy, and no more startling proof of this ascendancy could be found than the ease with which Hébert and his fellows were condemned and the readiness with which the Cordeliers, after a feeble attempt at protest, acquiesced in the verdict. It is idle to speculate on what might have happened had this ascendancy been overthrown by the action of a strong government. No strong government existed, nor, in the actual conditions of the country, could exist on the lines laid down by the constitution. France was menaced by civil war within, and by a coalition of hostile powers without; the discipline of the Terror was perhaps necessary if she was to be welded into a united force capable of resisting this double peril; and the revolutionary leaders saw in the Jacobin organization the only instrument by which this discipline could be made effective. This is the apology usually put forward for the Jacobins by republican writers of later times; they were, it is said (and of some of them it is certainly true), no mere doctrinaires and visionary sectaries, but practical and far-seeing politicians, who realized that “desperate ills need desperate remedies,” and, by having the courage of their convictions, saved the gains of the Revolution for France.

The Jacobin Club was closed after the fall of Robespierre on the 9th of Thermidor of the year III., and some of its members were executed. An attempt was made to re-open the club, which was joined by many of the enemies of the Thermidorians, but on the 21st of Brumaire, year III. (Nov. 11, 1794), it was definitively closed. Its members and their sympathizers were scattered among the cafés, where a ruthless war of sticks and chairs was waged against them by the young “aristocrats” known as the jeunesse dorée. Nevertheless the “Jacobins” survived, in a somewhat subterranean fashion, emerging again in the club of the Panthéon, founded on the 25th of November 1795, and suppressed in the following February (see Babeuf; François Noel). The last attempt to reorganize them was the foundation of the Réunion d’amis de l’égalité et de la liberté, in July 1799, which had its headquarters in the Salle du Manège of the Tuileries, and was thus known as the Club du Manège. It was patronized by Barras, and some two hundred and fifty members of the two councils of the legislature were enrolled as members, including many notable ex-Jacobins. It published a newspaper called the Journal des Libres, proclaimed the apotheosis of Robespierre and Babeuf, and attacked the Directory as a royauté pentarchique. But public opinion was now preponderatingly moderate or royalist, and the club was violently attacked in the press and in the streets, the suspicions of the government were aroused; it had to change its meeting-place from the Tuileries to the church of the Jacobins (Temple of Peace) in the Rue du Bac, and in August it was suppressed, after barely a month’s existence. Its members revenged themselves on the Directory by supporting Napoleon Bonaparte.

Long before the suppression of the Jacobin Club the name of “Jacobins” had been popularly applied to all promulgators of extreme revolutionary opinions. In this sense the word passed beyond the borders of France and long survived the Revolution. Canning’s paper, The Anti-Jacobin, directed against the English Radicals, consecrated its use in England; and in the 119 correspondence of Metternich and other leaders of the repressive policy which followed the second fall of Napoleon, “Jacobin” is the term commonly applied to anyone with Liberal tendencies, even to so august a personage as the emperor Alexander I. of Russia.

JACOBITE CHURCH. The name of “Jacobites” is first found in a synodal decree of Nicaea A.D. 787, and was invented by hostile Greeks for the Syrian Monophysite Church as founded, or rather restored, by Jacob or James Baradaeus, who was ordained its bishop A.D. 541 or 543. The Monophysites, who like the Greeks knew themselves simply as the Orthodox, were grievously persecuted by the emperor Justinian and the graecizing patriarchs of Antioch, because they rejected the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, in which they—not without good reason—saw nothing but a thinly veiled relapse into those opinions of Nestorius which the previous council of Ephesus had condemned. James was born a little before A.D. 500 at Tella or Tela, 55 m. east of Edessa, of a priestly family, and entered the convent of Phesilta on Mount Isla. About 528 he went with a fellow-monk Sergius to Constantinople to plead the cause of his co-religionists with the empress Theodora, and lived there fifteen years. Justinian during those years imprisoned, deprived or exiled most of the recalcitrant clergy of Syria, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, Cappadocia, and the adjacent regions. Once ordained bishop of Edessa, with the connivance of Theodora, James, disguised as a ragged beggar (whence his name Baradaeus, Syriac Burdĕānā, Arabic al-Barādiā), traversed these regions preaching, teaching and ordaining new clergy to the number, it is said, of 80,000. His later years were embittered by squabbles with his own clergy, and he died in 578. His work, however, endured, and in the middle ages the Jacobite hierarchy numbered 150 archbishops and bishops under a patriarch and his maphrian. About the year 728 six Jacobite bishops present at the council of Manazgert established communion with the Armenians, who equally rejected Chalcedon; they were sent by the patriarch of Antioch, and among them were the metropolitan of Urha (Edessa) and the bishops of Qarhan, Gardman, Nferkert and Amasia. How long this union lasted is not known. In 1842, when the Rev. G. P. Badger visited the chief Jacobite centres, their numbers in all Turkey had dwindled to about 100,000 souls, owing to vast secessions to Rome. At Aleppo at that date only ten families out of several hundred remained true to their old faith, and something like the same proportion at Damascus and Bagdad. Badger testifies that the Syrian proselytes to Rome were superior to their Jacobite brethren, having established schools, rebuilt their churches, increased their clergy, and, above all, having learned to live with each other on terms of peace and charity. As late as 1850 there were 150 villages of them in the Jebel Toor to the north-east of Mardin, 50 in the district of Urfah and Gawar, and a few in the neighbourhoods of Diarbekr, Mosul and Damascus. From about 1860, the seceders to Rome were able, thanks to French consular protection, to seize the majority of the Jacobite churches in Turkey; and this injustice has contributed much to the present degradation and impoverishment of the Jacobites.

They used leavened bread in the Eucharist mixed with salt and oil, and like other Monophysites add to the Trisagion the words “Who wast crucified for our sake.” They venerate pictures or images, and make the sign of the cross with one finger to show that Christ had but one nature. Deacons, as in Armenia, marry before taking priests’ orders. Their patriarch is styled of Antioch, but seldom comes west of Mardin. His maphrian (fertilizer) since 1089 has lived at Mosul and ordains the bishops. Monkery is common among them, but there are no nuns. Next to the Roman Uniats (whom they term Rassen or Venal) they most hate the Nestorian Syrians of Persia. In 1882, at the instance of the British government, the Turks began to recognize them as a separate organization.