Articles in This Slice

578

ARMOUR PLATES. The earliest recorded proposal to employ armour for ships of war (for body armour, &c., see Arms and Armour) appears to have been made in England by Sir William Congreve in 1805. In The Times of the 20th Defence for ships. of February of that year reference is made to Congreve’s designs for an armoured, floating mortar battery which the inventor considered would be proof against artillery fire. Among Congreve’s unpublished papers there is also a suggestion for armour-plating the embrasures of casemates. Nothing, however, seems to have come of these proposals, and a similar lack of appreciation befell the next advocate of armour, John Stevens of New Jersey, U.S.A., who submitted the plans of an armoured vessel to Congress in 1812. The Stevens family, however, continued to work at the subject, and by 1841 had determined by actual experiment the thickness of wrought-iron armour which was proof against the projectiles then in use. The necessity for armouring ships as a protection against shell fire was again History. pointed out by General Paixhans in 1841, and in 1845 Dupuy de Lôme had prepared the designs of an armoured frigate for the French government. During the period between 1827 and 1854, experiments in connexion with the proposed application of armour to both ships and forts were carried out in England, the United States and France, but the question did not get beyond the experimental stage until the latter year, when armoured floating batteries were laid down in all three countries, probably as the immediate outcome of the destruction of the Turkish fleet by shell fire at Sinope on the 30th of November 1853.

Three of the French floating batteries were in action at the bombardment of Kinburn in 1855, where they achieved a conspicuous success, silencing the Russian forts after a four hours’ engagement, during which they themselves, although frequently struck, were practically uninjured, their loss in personnel being but trifling. To quote Very: “This comparatively insignificant action, which had little if any effect upon the course of the Crimean War, changed the whole condition of armour for naval use from one of speculation to one of actual and constant necessity.” The military application of armour for the protection of guns mounted in permanent fortifications followed. Its development, however, took rather a different course, and the question of armour generally is of less importance for the military engineer than for the naval constructor. For the employment of armour in ship construction and in permanent works on land, see the articles Shipbuilding; Fortification and Siegecraft; the present article is concerned solely with the actual armour itself.

The earliest armour, both for ships and forts, was made of wrought iron, and was disposed either in a single thickness or in successive layers sandwiched with wood or concrete. Such armour is now wholly obsolete, though examples Construction and testing. of it may still be found in a few forts of early date. The chief application of armour in modern land defences is in the form of shields for the protection of guns mounted en barbette. Examples of such shields are shown in figs. 1 and 2. Fig. 1 shows a 4.5-in. steel shield for the U.S.A. government, face-hardened by the Harvey process, to which reference is made below. It was attacked by 5-in. and 6-in. armour-piercing shot, and proved capable of keeping out the 5-in. up to a striking velocity of nearly 1800 ft. per second, but was defeated by a 6-in. capped A.P. shot with a striking velocity of 1842 ft. per second. The mounting was not seriously damaged by the firing, but could be operated after the impact of one 3.2-in., five 5-in. and three 6-in. projectiles. Fig. 2 shows a gun-shield, manufactured by Messrs Hadfield of Sheffield, after attack by 4.1-in., 4.7-in. and 6-in. armour-piercing and other projectiles. The limit of the shield’s resistance was just reached by an uncapped 4.7-in. A.P. shell with a striking velocity of 2128 ft. per second. The shield (the average maximum thickness of which was 5.8 in.) showed great toughness, and although subjected to a 579 severe battering, and occasionally outmatched by the attacking projectiles, developed no visible crack. It is chiefly remarkable for the fact that it was cast and not forged. As is evident from the fringing around the hole made by the 6-in. A.P. shell, the shield was not face-hardened. A more highly developed form of the gun-shield is to be found in the armoured cupola, which has been employed to a very considerable extent in permanent fortifications, and whose use is still strongly advocated by continental European military engineers. The majority of the cupolas to be found in continental forts are not, however, of very recent date, those erected in 1894 at Molsheim near Strassburg being comparatively modern instances. Any cupolas constructed nowadays would be of steel, either forged or cast, and would probably be face-hardened, but a large number of those extant are of compound or even of iron armour. Many of those on sea-fronts are made of chilled cast iron. Such armour, which was introduced by Gruson of Magdeburg in 1868, is extremely hard, and cannot be perforated, but must be destroyed by fracture. It is thus the antithesis of wrought iron, which, when of good quality, does not break up under the impact of the shot but yields by perforation. Armour of the Gruson type is well adapted for curved surfaces such as cupolas, which on account of their shape are scarcely liable to receive a direct hit, except at distant ranges, and its extreme hardness would greatly assist it to throw off shot striking obliquely, which have naturally a tendency to glance. Chilled iron, on account of its liability to break up when subjected to a continuous bombardment by the armour-piercing steel projectiles of guns of even medium calibre, was usually considered unsuitable for employment in inland forts, where wrought iron, mild steel or compound armour was preferred. On the other hand, as pointed out by the late Captain C. Orde Browne, R.A., it was admirably adapted to resist the few rounds that the heavy guns of battleships might be expected to deliver during an attack of comparatively limited duration.

Chilled iron was never employed for naval purposes, and warship armour continued to be made exclusively of wrought iron until 1876 when steel was introduced by Schneider. In an important trial at Spezzia in that year the superiority in resisting power of steel to wrought iron was conclusively proved, but, on the other hand, steel showed a great tendency to through-cracking, a defect which led Messrs Cammell of Sheffield in 1877 to introduce compound armour consisting of a steel surface in intimate union with a wrought-iron foundation plate. In Cammell plates, which were made by the Wilson process, the steel face was formed by running molten steel on to a white-hot foundation plate of iron, while in the compound plates, made by Messrs John Brown & Co. according to the patent of J.D. Ellis, a thin steel surface plate was cemented on to the wrought-iron foundation by running in molten steel between. Compound armour possessed the advantages of a harder face than was then possible in a homogeneous steel plate, while, on the other hand, the back was softer and less liable to crack. Its weak point was the liability of the surface plate to crack through under fire and become detached from its iron backing. The manufacture of steel, however, continued to improve, so that in 1890 we find steel plates being made which were comparatively free from liability to through-cracking, while their power to resist perforation was somewhat greater than that of the best compound. The difference, however, was at no time very marked, and between 1880 and 1890 the resistance to perforation of either steel or compound as compared with wrought iron may be taken as about 1.3 to 1.

Compound armour required to be well backed to bring out its best qualities, and there is a case on record in 1883 when a 12-in. Cammell plate weighing 10½ tons, backed by granite, stopped a 16-in. Palliser shot with a striking energy of nearly 30,000 foot tons and a calculated perforation of 25 inches of wrought iron. As steel improved, efforts were made to impart an even greater hardness to the actual surface or skin of compound armour, and, with this object in view, Captain T.J. Tresidder, C.M.G., patented in 1887 a method of chilling the heated surface of a plate by means of jets of water under pressure. By this method it was found possible to obtain a degree of hardness which was prevented in ordinary plunging by the formation of a layer of steam between the water and the heated surface of the plate. Compound plates face-hardened on this system gave excellent results, and forged-steel armour-piercing projectiles were in some cases broken up on their surfaces as if they had been merely chilled iron. Attempts were also made to increase the toughness of the back by the substitution of mild nickel steel for wrought iron. The inherent defect of compound armour, however—its want of homogeneity,—remained, and in the year 1891 H.A. Harvey of Newark, N.J., introduced a process whereby an all steel plate could be face-hardened in such a way that the advantages of the compound principle were obtained in a homogeneous plate. The process in question consisted in carburizing or cementing the surface of a steel plate by keeping it for a fortnight or so at a high temperature in contact with finely divided charcoal, so that the heated surface absorbed a certain amount of carbon, which penetrated to a considerable depth, thus causing a difference in chemical composition between the front and back of the plate. After it had been left a sufficient time in the cementation furnace, the plate was withdrawn and allowed to cool slowly until it reached a dull red heat, when it was suddenly chilled by the application of water, but by a less perfect method than that employed by Tresidder. Steel plates treated by the Harvey and Tresidder processes, which shortly became combined, possessed about twice the resisting power of wrought iron. The figure of merit, or resistance to penetration as compared with wrought iron, varied with the thickness of the plate, being rather more than 2 with plates from 6 to 8 in. thick and rather less for the thicker plates. In 1889 Schneider introduced the use of nickel in steel for armour plates, and in 1891 or 1892 the St Chamond works employed a nickel steel to which was added a small percentage of chromium.

All modern armour contains nickel in percentages varying from 3 to 5, and from 1.0 to 2.0% of chromium is also employed as a general rule. Nickel in the above quantities adds greatly to the toughness as well as to the hardness of steel, while chromium enables it to absorb carbon to a greater depth during cementation, and increases its susceptibility to tempering, besides conducing to a tough fibrous condition in the body of a plate. Alloy steels of this nature appear to be very susceptible to thermal treatment, by suitable variation of which, with or without oil quenching, the physical condition of the same steel may be made to vary to an extraordinary extent, a peculiarity which is turned to good account in the manufacture of the modern armour plate.

The principal modern process is that introduced by Krupp in 1893. Although it is stated that a few firms both in Great Britain and in other countries use special processes of their own, it is probable that they differ only in detail from the Krupp process, which has been adopted by the great majority of makers. Krupp plates are made of nickel-chrome steel and undergo a special heat treatment during manufacture which is briefly described below. They can either be cemented or, as was usual in England until about 1902 in the case of the thinner plates (4 in. and under) and those used for curved structures such as casemates, non-cemented. They are in either case face-hardened by chilling. Messrs Krupp have, however, cemented plates of 3 in. and upward since 1895. Although the full process is now applied to plates of as little as 2 in. in thickness, there is some difference of opinion between manufacturers as to the value of cementing these very thin plates. The simple Harvey process is still employed to some extent in the case of plates between 5 and 3 in. in thickness, and excellent results are also stated to have been obtained with plates from 2 to 4 in. in thickness, manufactured from a special steel by the process patented by M. Charpy of the St Jacques steel works at Montluçon. A Krupp cemented (K.C.) plate is not perhaps harder as regards surface than a good Harveyed plate, but the depth of hard face is greater, and the plate is very much tougher in the back, a quality which is of particular importance in the thicker plates. The figure of merit varies, as in Harveyed plates, with the thickness of the armour, being about 2.7 in the case of good 6-in. plates 580 while for the thicker plates the value gradually falls off to about 2.3 in the case of 12-in. armour. This figure of merit is as against uncapped armour-piercing shot of approximately the same calibre as the thickness of the plate. The resisting power of the non-cemented Krupp plates is usually regarded as being considerably less than that of the cemented plates, and may be taken on an average to be 2.25 times that of wrought iron.

Figs. 3, 4 and 5 are illustrations of good cemented plates of the Krupp type. Fig. 3 shows an 11.8-in. plate, tried by Messrs Krupp in 1895, after attack by three 12-in. steel armour-piercing projectiles of from 712.7 to 716.1 ℔ in weight. In the third round the striking velocity of the projectile was 1993 ft. per second, the calculated perforation of wrought iron by Tresidder’s formula being 25.9 in. The attack was successfully resisted, all the projectiles being broken up without effecting perforation, while there were no serious cracks. The figure of merit of the plate was thus well in excess of 2.2. The great toughness of the plate is perhaps even more remarkable than its hardness; its width was only 6.28 ft., so that each shot head formed a wedge of approximately one-sixth of its width. The excellence of the metal which is capable of withstanding such a strain is apparent.

Fig. 4 is of a 9-in. K.C. plate, made by Messrs Armstrong, Whitworth & Co. for the Japanese government, after undergoing an unusually severe official test. The fourth round was capable of perforating 22 in. of wrought iron, so that the figure of merit of the plate must have been considerably in excess of 2.45, as there were no through-cracks, and the limit of resistance was far from being reached.

Fig. 5 shows the front of an excellent 6-in. cemented plate of Messrs Beardmore’s manufacture, tried at Eskmeals on the 11th of October 1901. It withstood the attack of four armour-piercing 6-in. shot of 100 ℔ weight, with striking velocities varying from 1996 to 2177 ft. per second. Its limit of resistance was just passed by the fifth round in which the striking velocity was no less than 2261 ft. per second. The projectile, which broke up in passing through the plate, did not get through the skin plate behind the wood backing, and evidently had no surplus energy left. The figure of merit of this plate was between 2.6 and 2.8, but was evidently much closer to the latter than to the former figure. A sixth round fired with a Johnson capped shot weighing 105.9 ℔ easily perforated both plate and backing with a striking velocity of 1945 ft. per second, thus reducing the figure of merit of the plate to below 2.2 and illustrating very clearly the advantage given by capping the point of an armour-piercing projectile. There were no through-cracks in the plate after this severe trial, the back being evidently as tough as the face was hard.

Fig. 6 shows a 3-in. K.N.C. plate of Messrs Vickers, Sons & Maxim’s manufacture, tested privately by the firm in November 1905. It proved to be of unusual excellence, its limit of resistance being just reached by a 12½-℔ armour-piercing shell of 3 in. calibre with a striking velocity of 2558 ft. per second, a result which, even if the projectiles used were not relatively of the same perforating power as those used in the proof of 6-in. and thicker plates, shows that its resisting power was very great. At a low estimate its figure of merit against 3-in. A.P. shot may be taken as about 2.6, which is exceptionally high for a non-cemented, or indeed for any but the best K.C. plates.

The plate also withstood the attack of a 4.7-in. service pattern steel armour-piercing shell of 45 ℔ weight striking the unbacked portion with a velocity of 1599 ft. per second, and was only just beaten by a similar shell with a velocity of 1630 ft. per second. The effect of all the above-mentioned rounds is shown in the photograph. The same plate subsequently kept out two 6-in. common shell filled up to weight with salt and plugged, with striking velocities of 1412 and 1739 ft. per second respectively, the former being against the unbacked and the latter against the backed half of the plate,—the only effect on the plate being that round 6 caused a fragment of the right-hand top corner of the plate to break off, and round 7 started a few surface cracks between the points of impact of rounds 1, 2 and 3.

Within the limitations referred to below, the resisting power of all hard-faced plates is very much reduced when the armour-piercing projectiles used in the attack are capped, the average figure of merit of Krupp cemented plates not being more than 2 against capped shot as compared with about 2.5 against uncapped. So long ago as 1878 it was suggested by Lt.-Col. (then Captain) T. English, R.E., that armour-piercing projectiles would be assisted in attacking compound plates if caps of wrought iron could be fitted to their points. Experiments at Shoeburyness, however, did not show that any advantage was gained by this device, and nothing further was heard of the cap until 1894, when experiments carried out in Russia with so-called “magnetic” shot against plates of Harveyed steel showed that the perforating power of an armour-piercing projectile was considerably augmented where hard-faced plates were concerned, if its point were protected by a cap of wrought iron or mild steel. The conditions of the Russian results (and of subsequent trials in various parts of the world which have confirmed them) differed considerably from the earlier English ones. The material of both projectiles and plates differed, as did also the velocities employed—the low velocities in the earlier trials probably contributing in large measure to the non-success of the cap. The cap, as now used, consists of a thimble of comparatively soft steel of from 3 to 5% of the weight of the projectile, attached to the point of the latter either by solder or by being pressed hydraulically or otherwise into grooves or indentations in the head. Its function appears to be to support the point on impact, and so to enable it to get unbroken through the hard face layers of the plate. Once through the cemented portion with its point intact, a projectile which is strong enough to remain undeformed, will usually perforate the plate by a true boring action if its striking velocity be high enough. In the case of the uncapped projectile, on the other hand, the point is almost invariably crushed against the hard face and driven back as a wedge into the body of the projectile, which is thus set up so that, instead of boring, it acts as a punch and dislodges or tends to dislodge a coned plug or disk of metal, the greatest diameter of which may be as much as four times the calibre of the projectile. The disproportion between the maximum diameter of the disk and that of the projectile is particularly marked when the calibre of the latter is much in excess of the thickness of the plate. When plate and projectile are equally matched, e.g. 6″ versus 6″, the plug of metal dislodged may be roughly cylindrical in shape, and its diameter not greatly in excess of that of the projectile. In all cases the greatest width of the plug or disk is at the back of the plate.

A stout and rigid backing evidently assists a plate very much more against this class of attack than against the perforating attack of a capped shot. Fig. 7 shows the back of a 6-in. plate attacked in 1898, and affords an excellent illustration of the difference in action of capped and uncapped projectiles. In round 7 the star-shaped opening made by the point of a capped shot boring its way through is seen, while rounds 2, 3, 4 and 5 show disks of plate partially dislodged by uncapped projectiles. The perforating action of capped armour-piercing projectiles is even better shown in fig. 8, which shows a 250-mm. (9.8 in.) Krupp plate after attack by 150-mm. (5.9 in.) capped A.P. shot. In rounds 5 and 6 the projectiles, with striking velocities of 2302 and 2281 ft. per second, perforated. Round 7, with a striking velocity of 2244 ft. per second, just got its point through and rebounded, while round 8, with a striking velocity of 2232, lodged in the plate. In many cases a capped projectile punches out a plug, usually more or less cylindrical in shape and of about the same diameter as the projectile, from a plate, and does not defeat it by a true boring action. In such cases it will probably be found that the projectile has been broken up, and that only the head, set up and in a more or less crushed condition, has got through the plate. This peculiarity of action can best be accounted for by attributing either abnormal excellence to the plate or to that portion of it concerned—for plates sometimes vary considerably and are not of uniform hardness throughout,—or comparative inferiority to the projectile. Whichever way it may be, what has happened appears to be that after the cap has given the point sufficient support to get it through the very hard 581 surface layers, the point has been flattened in the region of extreme hardness and toughness combined, which exists immediately behind the deeply carburized surface. The action from this point becomes a punching one, and the extra strain tends to break up the projectile, so that the latter gets through wholly or partially, in a broken condition, driving a plug of plate in front of it. At low striking velocities, probably in the neighbourhood of 1700 ft. per second, the cap fails to act, and no advantage is given by it to the shot. This is probably because the velocity is sufficiently low to give the cap time to expand and so fail to grip the point as the latter is forced into it. The cap also fails as a rule to benefit the projectile when the angle of incidence is more than 30° to the normal.

Plate I.

Plate II.

The laws governing the resistance of armour to perforation have been the subject of investigation for many years, and a considerable number of formulae have been put by means of which the thickness of armour Laws of Resistance. perforable by any given projectile at any given striking velocity may be calculated. Although in some cases based on very different theoretical considerations, there is a general agreement among them as far as perforation proper is concerned, and Tresidder’s formula for the perforation of wrought iron, t2 = wv3/dA, may be taken as typical. Here t represents the thickness perforable in inches, w the weight of the projectile in pounds, v its velocity in foot seconds, d its diameter in inches and A the constant given by log A = 8.8410.

For the perforation of Harveyed or Krupp cemented armour by capped armour-piercing shot, this formula may be employed in conjunction with a suitable constant according to the nature of armour attacked. In the case of K. C. armour the formula becomes t2 = wv3/4dA. A useful rough rule is t/d = v/1900.

Hard armour, such as chilled cast iron, cannot be perforated but must be destroyed by fracture, and its destruction is apparently dependent solely upon the striking energy of the projectile and independent of its diameter. The punching of hard-faced armour by uncapped projectiles is intermediate in character between perforation and cracking, but approaches the former more nearly than the latter. The formula most used in England in this case is Krupp’s formula for K.C., viz. t2 = wv2/dA1, where t, w, v and d are the same as before, and log A1 = 6.3532. This, if we assume the sectional density (w/d3) of projectiles to be constant and equal to 0.46, reduces to the very handy rule of thumb t/d = v/2200, which, within the limits of striking velocity obtainable under service conditions, is sufficiently accurate for practical purposes. For oblique attack up to an angle of 30° to the normal, the same formula may be employed, t sec θ being substituted for t, where θ is the angle of incidence and t the normal thickness of the plate attacked. More exact results would be obtained, however, by the use of Tresidder’s W.I. formula, given above, in conjunction with a suitable figure of merit, according to the nature and thickness of the plate. It should be remembered in this connexion that the figure of merit of a plate against a punching attack falls off very much when the thickness of the plate is considerably less than the calibre of the attacking projectile. For example, the F.M. of a 6-in. plate may be 2.6 against 6-in. uncapped A.P. projectiles, but only 2.2 against 9.2-in. projectiles of the same character. In the case of the perforating action of capped projectiles, on the other hand, the ratio of d and t does not appear to affect the F.M. to any great extent, though according to Tresidder, the latter is inclined to fall when d is considerably less than t, which is the exact opposite of what happens with punching.

Another method of measuring the quality of armour, which is largely employed upon the continent of Europe, is by the ratio, r, between the velocity requisite to perforate any given plate and that needed to pierce a plate of mild steel of the same thickness, according to the formula of Commandant Jacob de Marre, viz. v = Ae0.7·a0.75/p0.5 where e = the thickness of the plate in centimetres, a = the calibre of the projectile in centimetres, p = the weight of the projectile in kilogrammes, v = the striking velocity of the projectile in metres per second, and log A = 1.7347. Converted into the usual English units and notation, this formula becomes v = A1t0.7·d0.75/w0.5, in which log A1 = 3.0094; in this form it constitutes the basis of the ballistic tests for the acceptance of armour plates for the U.S. navy.

Common shell, which are not strong enough to remain undeformed on impact, derive little benefit from the cap and usually defeat a plate by punching rather than by perforation. Their punching power may be taken roughly as about 2⁄3 that of an uncapped armour-piercing shot. Shells filled with high explosives, unless special arrangements are made to deaden the bursting charge and so obviate detonation upon impact, are only effective against the thinnest armour.

With regard to manufacture, a brief account of the Krupp process as applied in one of the great English armour plate works (omitting confidential details of temperature, &c.) will illustrate the great complexity of treatment Manufacture. which the modern armour plate has to undergo before its remarkable qualities of combined hardness and toughness can be developed. The composition of the steel probably differs slightly with the manufacturer, and also with the thickness of the armour, but it will usually contain from 3 to 4% of nickel, from 1.0 to 2.0% of chromium and about 0.25 to 0.35% of carbon, together with from 0.3 to 0.7% of manganese. After being cast, the ingot is first heated to a uniform degree of temperature throughout its mass and then generally forged under the hydraulic forging press. It is then reheated and passed through the rolls. After rolling, the plate is allowed to cool, and is then subjected to a thermal treatment preparatory to surfacing and cutting. Its surface is then freed from scale and planed. After planing, the plate is passed into the cementation furnace, where its face remains for some weeks in contact with specially prepared carbon, the temperature being gradually raised to that required for cementation and as gradually lowered after that is effected. After cementation the plate is heated to a certain temperature and is then plunged into an oil bath in order to toughen it. After withdrawal from the oil bath, the plate is cooled, reheated to a lower temperature, quenched again in water, reheated and passed to the bending press, where it is bent to shape while hot, proper allowance being made for the slight change of curve which takes place on the final chilling. After bending it is again heated and then allowed to get cold, when the final machining, drilling and cutting are carried out. The plate is now placed in a furnace and differentially heated so that the face is raised to a higher temperature than the back. After being thus heated for a certain period the plate is withdrawn, and both back and face are douched simultaneously with jets of cold water under pressure, the result being that the face is left glass-hard while the back is in the toughest condition possible for such hard steel.

The cast-steel armour made by Hadfield has already been alluded to. That made by Krupp (the only other maker at present of this class of armour) is of face-hardened nickel steel. A 5.9-in. plate of this material tried in 1902 had a figure of merit of more than 2.2 against uncapped 5.9-in. armour-piercing projectiles of 112 ℔ in weight. The main advantage of cast armour is that it is well adapted to armoured structures of complicated design and of varying thickness, which it would be difficult or impossible to forge in one piece. It should also be cheaper than forged armour, and, should time be a consideration, could probably be turned out more quickly; on the other hand, it is improbable that heavy castings such as would be required could be as regular in quality and as free from flaws as is possible when forged material is used, and it is unlikely that the average resistance to attack of cast-steel armour will ever be equal to that of the best forged steel.

Of recent years there has been a considerable demand for thin steel plating proof against small-arm bullets at close ranges. This class of steel is used for field-gun shields and for sap shields, to afford cover for men in field-works, Defence against small-arms. for armoured trains, motor-cars and ambulances, and also very largely for armouring shallow-draught river-gunboats. Holtzer made chrome steel breastplates in 1890, 0.158 in. of which was proof against the 0.43-in. hard lead bullet of the Gras rifle at 10 metres range, while 0.236 in. was proof 582 against the 0.32 in. 231-grain Lebel bullet at the same distance, the striking velocities being approximately 1490 and 2070 ft. per second respectively. The bullet-proof steel made by Messrs Cammell, Laird & Co. in Great Britain may be taken as typical of that produced by the best modern manufacturers. It is proof against the 215-grain Lee-Enfield bullet of 0.303 in. calibre striking directly, as under:

The weight of the 0.08 in. plating is only 3.2 ℔ per sq. ft. The material is stated to be readily adaptable to the ordinary operation of bending, machining, drilling, &c., and is thus very suitable for the purposes indicated above.

ARMS AND ARMOUR (Lat. arma, from the Aryan root ar, to join or fit; cf. Gr. ἁρμός, joint; the form armour, from Lat. armatura, should strictly be armure). Under this heading are included weapons of offence (arms) and defensive equipment (armour). The history of the development of arms and armour begins with that of the human race; indeed, combined with domestic implements, the most primitive weapons which have been found constitute the most important, if not the only, tangible evidence on which the history of primitive man is based. It is largely from the materials and characteristics of the weapons and utensils found in caves, tombs and various strata of the earth’s crust, coupled with geological considerations, that the ethnological and chronological classifications of prehistoric man have been deduced. For a detailed account of this classification and the evidence see Archaeology; Bronze Age; Flint Implements, &c., and articles on special weapons.

Offensive weapons may be classified roughly, according to their shape (i.e. the kind of blow or wound which they are intended to inflict), and the way in which they are used, as follows:—(1) Arms which are wielded by hand at Classification. close quarters. These are subdivided into (a) cleaving weapons, e.g. axes; (b) crushing, e.g. clubs, maces and all hammer-like arms; (c) thrusting, e.g. pointed swords and daggers; (d) cutting, e.g. sabres (such weapons frequently combine both the cut and the thrust, e.g. swords with both edge and point); (e) those weapons represented by the spear, lance, pike, &c., which deal a thrusting blow but are distinguished from (c) by their greater length. (2) Purely missile weapons, e.g. darts, javelins and spears. Frequently these weapons are used also at close quarters as thrusting weapons; the typical example of these is the medium-length spear of not more than about 6 ft. in length. (3) Arms which discharge missiles, e.g. bows, catapults and fire-arms generally. (See Archery and section Fire-arms below.) The weapons in (2) and (3) are designed to avoid hand-to-hand fighting.

Weapons are also classified in a variety of other ways. Thus we have small-arms, i.e. all weapons in classes (1) and (2) with those in (3) which do not require carriages. Side-arms are those which, when not in use, are worn at the side, e.g. daggers, swords, bayonets. Armes blanches is a term used for offensive weapons of iron and steel which are used at close quarters.

Defensive armour consists of body armour, protections for the head and the limbs, and various types of shield.

1. Stone Age.—One of the chief problems which have perplexed archaeologists is that of finding a criterion which will enable them to distinguish the most primitive products of human skill from similar objects whose form is due History. to the forces of nature. It is often impossible to say precisely whether a rough piece of flint is to be regarded as a weapon (except so far as it could be used as a missile) or merely as a fragment of rock. Passing over these doubtful cases, we come first to indubitable examples of weapons deliberately fashioned in stone for offensive purposes. The use of stone weapons appears to have been universally characteristic of the earliest races of mankind, as it is still distinctive of those savage races which are most nearly allied to primitive man. These weapons were naturally simple in form and structure. The earliest examples (Palaeolithic) found in river-drift gravel in various parts of Europe are merely chipped flints, celts, &c. Later on we find polished implements (Neolithic) progressively more elaborate in design and workmanship, such as socketed stones with wooden handles and knives or daggers of flaked flint with handles. Besides flint the commonest materials are diorite, greenstone, serpentine and indurated clay-slate; there are also weapons of horn and bone (daggers and spear-heads). Spear-heads and arrow-points (leaf-shaped, lozenge-shaped, tanged and triangular) were chipped in flint with such skill as to be little inferior to their metal successors. They have accurately flaked barbs and tangs, and in some cases their edges are minutely chipped. The heads appear to have been fastened to the shafts by vegetable fibre and bitumen. Knife-daggers of flint, though practically of one single type, exhibit much variety of form. They vary in size also, but seldom exceed 12 in. in length. They are sometimes obtuse-edged like a scraping-tool, sometimes delicately chipped to a straight edge, while the flakes are so regularly removed from the convex part of the blade as to give a wavy surface, and the corners of the handle are delicately crimped. The daggers attain their highest perfection in the short, leaf-shaped form,—the precursor of the leaf-shaped sword which is peculiarly characteristic of the Bronze Age,—and the curved knives found especially in Great Britain and Russia, and also in Egypt. The precise object of the sharpening of both convex and concave edges in the curved variety is not clear. There have also been found sling-stones, and, in Scotland and Ireland, balls of stone with their “surfaces divided into a number of more or less projecting circles with channels between them.” These latter, Sir John Evans suggests, were attached to a thong which passed through the surface channels, and used like the bolas of South America. The weapon could thus deal a blow at close quarters, or could be thrown so as to entangle the limbs of an enemy. Of defensive armour of stone there is none. The only approximation is to be found in the small rectangular plates of slate, &c., perforated with holes at the corners, which are supposed to have been bound on to the arm to protect it from the recoil of the bow-string. Similar wristlets or bracers are in use among the Eskimos (of bone) and in India (of ivory). These plates measure generally about 4 in. by 1½ in.

2. Bronze Age.—It is impossible to assign any date as the beginning of the Bronze Age; indeed, archaeology has shown that the adoption of metal for weapons was very gradual. The stone weapon perseveres alongside the bronze, and there exist stone axes which, by their shape, suggest that they have been copied from metal axes. In the earliest interments in which the weapons deposited with the dead are of other materials than stone, a peculiar form of bronze dagger occurs. It consists of a well-finished, thin, knife-like blade, usually about 6 in. in length, broad at the hilt and tapering to the point, and attached to the handle by massive rivets of bronze. It has been found associated with stone celts; both of the roughly chipped and the highly polished kind, showing that these had not been entirely disused when bronze became available. A later type of bronze dagger is a broad, heavy, curved weapon, usually from 9 to 15 in. in length, with massive rivets for attachment to an equally massive handle. The leaf-shaped sword, however, is the characteristic weapon of the Bronze Age. It is found all over Europe, from Lapland to the Mediterranean. No warlike weapon of any period is more graceful in form or more beautifully finished. The finish seems to have been given in the mould without the aid of hammer or file, the edge being formed by suddenly reducing the thickness of the metal, so as to produce a narrow border of extreme thinness along 583 both sides of the blade from hilt to point. The handle-plate and blade were cast in one piece, and the handle itself was formed by side plates of bone, horn or wood, riveted through the handle-plates. There was no guard, and the weapon, though short, was well balanced, but more fitted for stabbing and thrusting than for cutting with the edge. The Scandinavian variety is not so decidedly leaf-shaped, and is longer and heavier than the common British form; and instead of a handle-plate, it was furnished with a tang on which a round, flat-topped handle was fastened, like that of the modern Highland dirk, sometimes surmounted by a crescent-like ornament of bronze. A narrow, rapier-shaped variety, tapering from hilt to point, was made without a handle-plate, and attached to the hilt by rivets like the bronze daggers already mentioned. This form is more common in the British Isles than in Scandinavia, and is most abundant in Ireland. The spear-heads of the Bronze Age present a considerable variety of form, though the leaf-shaped predominates, and barbed examples are extremely rare. Some British weapons of this form occasionally reach a length of 27 in. The larger varieties are often beautifully designed, having segmental openings on both sides of the central ridge of the blade, and elaborately ornamented with chevron patterns of chased or inlaid work both on the socket and blade. Arrow-points are much rarer in bronze than in flint. In all probability the flint arrow-point (which was equally effective and much more easily replaced when lost) continued to be used throughout the Bronze Age. Shields of bronze, circular, with hammered-up bosses, concentric ridges and rows of studs, were held in the hand by a central handle underneath the boss. The transition period between the Bronze and Iron Ages in central Europe is well defined by the occurrence of iron swords, which are simple copies of the leaf-shaped weapon, sometimes with flat handle-plate of bronze. These have been found associated with articles assigned to the 3rd or 4th century B.C.

An important distinction between the characteristic bronze swords peculiar to southern peoples and the swords both of iron and of bronze found together in the Hallstatt cemeteries (in the Salzkammergut, Austria, ancient Noricum) is Hallstatt Weapons. that whereas the former invariably have short handles (2¼ to 2½ in.), the latter are provided with handles from 3 to 3½ in. long, terminating in a round or oval pommel; the grip of one of the bronze swords even reaches a length of 4 in. The hilts are decorated with ivory, amber, wood, bronze, horn, and the decoration of blade and scabbard is often elaborate. The length of these swords is sometimes as much as 30 to 33 in. Again at La Tène on Lake Neuchâtel iron swords have been found to the number of one hundred, with handles of 4 to 7½ in. long and a total length varying from 30 to 38 in. Similar remains have been found in France at Bibracte and Alesia, and even in Ireland (cf. Munro, The Lake-dwellings of Europe, pp. 282, 383).

The occurrence at Hallstatt of bronze swords together with iron, having the characteristic long handle, has led to the hypothesis that the graves are those of an immigrant (probably Celtic) people of northern extraction which had conquered and overlaid a smaller-framed Bronze Age people, and had introduced the use of iron while continuing to use the bronze of their predecessors with the necessary modifications. This theory derived from tangible remains is corroborated by literary evidence. Thus Polybius (ii. 33, iii. 114) describes the Celtic peoples as fighting with a long pointless iron sword, which easily bent and was in any case too large to be used easily in a mêlée.

The graves at Hallstatt yielded in addition to these important swords a much larger number of spears. Of these two only were of bronze, the head of the larger being 7½ in. long. The much more numerous iron heads range up to as much as 2 ft. in length, and are all fastened to the shaft by rivets. All the arrow-heads found are of bronze, while of the axes the great majority are of iron; a few have iron edges fitted in a bed of bronze.

These examples are sufficient to show that the transition from bronze to iron was very slow. The fact that they were found in a district which is known to have been directly in the line of march pursued by invaders from the north tends to confirm the theory that the introduction of iron was the work of such invaders.

3. Early Greek Weapons.—The character of the weapons used by the early peoples of the Aegean in the periods known as Minoan, Mycenaean and Homeric is a problem which has given rise of recent years to much discussion. The Mycenaean and Homeric. controversy is an important part of the Homeric question as a whole, and the various theories of the weapons used in the Trojan War hinge on wider theories as to the date and authorship of the Homeric poems. One widely accepted hypothesis, based on the important monograph by Dr Wolfgang Reichel, Über homerische Waffen. Archäologische Untersuchungen (Vienna, 1894), is that the Homeric heroes, like those who created the civilization known as Mycenaean, had no defensive armour except the Mycenaean shield, and used weapons of bronze. This view is derived to a great extent from the Homeric poems themselves, in which the metal most frequently mentioned is χαλκός (bronze), and involves the assumption that all passages which describe the use of corslets, breastplates, small shields and greaves are later interpolations. It is maintained on the other hand (e.g. by Prof. W. Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, i. chap. 3), that the Homeric Achaeans (whom he regards as the descendants of the central European peoples, the makers of the Hallstatt iron swords) were far advanced into the Iron Age, and that the use of bronze weapons is merely another instance of the fact that the introduction of a new element does not necessarily banish the older. This theory would separate the Homeric from the Mycenaean altogether, and is part of a much more comprehensive ethnological hypothesis. According to another hypothesis, the Homeric poems are true descriptions of a single age, or, in other words, the weapons of the Homeric age were far more diverse and elaborate than is supposed by Reichel.

Very few traces of iron have been found in the Mycenaean settlements, nor have any examples of body armour been found except the ceremonial gold breastplates at Mycenae. The Mycenaean soldiers carried apparently a bronze spear, a bronze sword and a bow and arrows. The arrow-heads are first of obsidian and later of bronze. It would appear that only the chief warriors used spear and shield, while the majority fought with bows. The swords found at Mycenae are two-edged, of rigid bronze, and as long as 3 ft. or even more; from representations of battles it would seem that they were perhaps used for thrusting mainly. They are highly ornamented and some have hilts of wood, bone or ivory, or even gold mounting. Later swords became shorter and of a type like that of early iron swords found in Greece. Moreover in a few cases there have been found in pre-Mycenaean (late Minoan III.) tombs a few examples of short iron swords together with bronze remains. All Mycenaean spears are of bronze and, apparently, their shafts, unlike the Homeric, had no butt-piece. In the absence of any metal helmets in the tombs we may perhaps assume that the Mycenaean helmet was a leather cap, possibly strengthened with tusks, such as appears in Homer (Iliad, x.) also. The Mycenaean shield (generally, perhaps, made of leather) has given rise to much controversy, which hinges largely on the interpretation of the evidence provided by the representation on the Warrior Vase and the Painted Stele from Mycenae and pottery found at Tiryns. Professor Ridgeway regards these as describing post-Mycenaean conditions, and maintains that the true Mycenaean shield was always long (from neck to feet), and that it was either in the form of a figure-of-eight targe, or rectangular and sometimes incurved like the section of a cylinder; whereas the Homeric shield was round (e.g. κυκλότερος, εὔκυκλος, &c.). Dr Reichel’s followers believe that the Homeric shield was long (“like a tower”) and 584 incurved in the centre like the Mycenaean, that Homer knew nothing of the small round shield, and that the epithets implying roundness used in the poems are to be explained as meaning “well-balanced” or as late interpolations. On the whole we must conclude that the Mycenaean age is by no means a single homogeneous whole (see Aegean Civilization), and that the weapons are not exclusively of bronze, nor of any single type.

The Homeric warrior in full armour, according to the Homeric poems, wore: (1) shield (ἀσπίς, σάκος), (2) greaves (κνημῖδες), (3) band (ζῶμα), (4) belt (ζωστήρ)and mitrē, (5) tunic (χιτών), (6) helmet (κορύς), (7) breastplate (θώρηξ), (8) sword (ξίφος). The λαισήΐον was a protection worn by the archers in place of a shield. According to the usual view, the Homeric shield was, as we have seen, bent in about half way up each side (in the form of a figure-of-eight) to give freedom to the arms, and large enough to protect the whole body. The two curves were held rigid by two Wooden (probably) staves inside. It was composed of layers of ox-hide overlaid with bronze, forming a boss in the centre, and sometimes had studs upon it. Reichel’s view is that it was the weight of these huge shields which led to the use of the chariot as a means of going rapidly from one part of the field to another (though Professor Ridgeway and others contest this, and Helbig mentions more than one case of long journeys on foot under shield), and further that the round shield is entirely unknown to Homer. This large shield was clearly the natural protection against showers of missiles, rather than against enemies fighting with the sword.

The greaves were, no doubt, generally of hide, protected the leg all round, and were fastened at the knee with cords. On the other hand Mycenaean bronze greaves have been found at Enkomi (Cyprus) and at Glassinatz (Glasinac), and therefore it is not necessary, following Reichel, to cut out Homer’s references to the “bronze-greaved” Achaeans (Iliad, vii. 41), a phrase which has been taken as evidence for regarding the passage as spurious. The tin greaves of Achilles are obviously exceptional.

The thorex again is the subject of controversy. Reichel, arguing that the great shield rendered any breastplate unnecessary, regarded the word as a general term for body clothing, but Ridgeway strongly maintains the older theory that it was a bronze breastplate, and Andrew Lang points out that, on Reichel’s theory, a word which originally meant the “breast” was transferred to mean “loin-cloth” (which, to judge from the artistic representations, was all that the Mycenaean warrior wore), and subsequently in historic times returned to its natural use for the breastplate—a most unlikely evolution. The passages in Homer which describe it as a breastplate are regarded by Reichel’s school as later interpolations. Gilbert Murray thinks that the Homeric poems must be regarded as belonging to different periods of development, and therefore attributes the more elaborate armour to the “surface” (late Ionian) stratum. The zoma was probably a loin-cloth, and the mitrē a metal band about a foot wide in front and narrow behind to protect the lower part of the body. As a matter of fact, however, the big shield does not exclude the use of body armour, and it is quite likely that the Homeric warrior wore a bronze corslet, i.e. a somewhat improved form of the λινοθώρηξ, or stiffened shirt. On the other hand, it is probable, as we gather from the poems, that this corslet was not strong enough to do more than stop a spent spear. The chiton was worn over the mitrē, and reached the knees; it was held to the body by the zostēr, a metal-plated belt. Helmets were both of metal on leather, and of leather throughout; the crests were of horsehair (not of metal like the later Greek helmets) and there were no cheek-pieces.

The sword has already been mentioned. Ridgeway, in spite of the almost invariable mention of bronze as the material of the Homeric weapons, believes that it was generally of iron, but, while the presence of iron in the Homeric age is admitted in the case of implements, it is generally held that weapons were all of bronze. Except for one arrow-head (Iliad, iv. 123), and the mace of Areithoüs, mentioned as a unique example by Nestor (Iliad, vii. 141), no reference to an iron weapon proper occurs in the Homeric poems. But the sword was used only when the favourite spear or javelin had failed to decide the contest.

It must be admitted that the problem of pre-Homeric armour and Homeric armour must always be largely a matter of inference, based on a comparative study of the evidence literary and archaeological. Unless we are prepared to adopt the theory that the Homeric poems consist of a mosaic of interpolation informed by an archaizing editor, we must assume that they describe a single period of transition intermediate between the Mycenaean prime and the dawn of history proper. In this case we shall believe that the Homeric warrior has so far adapted to changing conditions the simple appliances of the Mycenaean that he has evolved a feeble corslet with minor pieces of body armour, while retaining the big double-bellied shield as a protection against the arrows which are still the chief weapon of the rank and file and are even used on occasion by the chiefs. If we further believe that the iron at his disposal was similar to that used by the Celts of Polybius, it is natural to believe also that he preferred the harder bronze for his weapons, though iron was common for domestic and other implements.

4. Greek, Historical.—The equipment does not differ generically from that described in the Homeric poems, except when we come to the reforms of the Macedonians. The hoplites, who formed the main army, wore helmet, body armour, greaves and shield, and fought with pike and sword. The helmets were (1) the Corinthian, which covered the face to the chin, with slits for the eyes, and often had no plume or crest; (2) the Athenian, which did not cover the face (though sometimes it had cheek-plates which could be turned up if necessary), had crests, sometimes triple, with plumes of feathers, horsehair or leather; (3) a steel cap (πῖλος) without crest, plumes or cheek-plates. The last seems to have been most common in the Spartan army. The body armour consisted of breast and back plates fastened together by thongs or straps and buckles; sometimes poverty compelled a man to be content with a leather jerkin (σπολάς) partly strengthened by metal plates, or even a quilted linen or stuffed shirt. Greaves were of pliant bronze fastened at the back above the ankle and below the knee. Shields were of the small round or oval type, adapted to the new conditions in which the bow and arrow had given place to hand-to-hand fighting. They were held by means of two handles (ὄχανα), the left hand being thrust through the first and grasping the second. In the 5th and 4th centuries the shield bore a device or initial representing the state and also the individual’s own crest. The hoplite’s pike, about 8 ft. long, unlike the Homeric weapon, was hardly ever thrown. In the Macedonian phalanx a pike (σάρισσα), certainly 18 ft., and perhaps later in the 3rd and and 2nd centuries even 24 ft. long, was introduced. The sword was straight, sharp-pointed, short, sometimes less than 20 in., and rarely more than 2 ft. long. It was double-edged and used for both cut and thrust. A less common type was the μάχαιρα or curved sabre used by the Spartans, with one sharp edge. The hoplite had no other offensive weapons.

The cavalry were heavy-armed like the hoplites except that they carried a smaller shield, or, more usually, none at all. They were armed with a lance which they wielded freely (i.e. not “in rest”) and occasionally threw. The Macedonian cavalry had a σάρισσα. The light-armed (γυμνῆτες, ψιλοί) were (1) ἀκοντισταί, armed with a javelin (3 to 5 ft. long) and a small shield; (2) τοξόται, archers; and (3) σφενδονῆται, slingers, whose missiles 585 were balls of lead, stones and hardened clay pellets. Between the heavy and the light armed were the peltasts. The pelta, from which they took the name, was a light shield or target, made of skin or leather on a wooden or wickerwork frame. The Athenian Iphicrates armed them with linen corslet and a larger spear and sword than those of the hoplites; he also invented a new footgear (called after him iphicratides) to replace the older greaves.

5. Roman.—The equipment of the Roman soldier, like the organization of the army (see Roman Army), passed through a great number of changes, and it is quite impossible to summarize it as a single subject. In the period of the kings the legion was the old Greek phalanx with Greek armour; the front ranks wore the Greek panoply and fought with long spears and the circular Argolic shield. The early Roman sword, like that of the Greeks, Egyptians and Etruscans, was of bronze. We have no direct statement as to its form, but in all probability it was of the ordinary leaf-shape. We gather from the monuments that, in the 1st century B.C., the Roman sword was short, worn on the right side (except by officers, who carried no shield), suspended from a shoulder-belt (balteus) or a waist-belt (cingulum), and reaching from the hollow of the back to the middle of the thigh, thus representing a length of from 22 in. to 2 ft. The blade was straight, double-edged, obtusely-pointed. On the Trajan column (A.D. 114) it is considerably longer, and under the Flavian emperors the long, single-edged spatha appears frequently along with the short sword.

The second period ending with the Punic wars witnessed a change. The hastati and the principes are both heavily armed, but the round shield has given way to the oblong (scutum), except for one-third of the hastati who bore only the spear and the light javelin (gaesa). The third period—that described by Polybius—is characterized by greater complexity of armour, due no doubt in part to the experience gained in conflicts with a wider range of peoples, and in part to the assimilation of the methods peculiar to the new Italian allies. Thus we find the skirmishers (velites) armed with a light javelin 3 ft. long and ¾ in. thick, with an iron point 9 in. long; this point was so fragile that it was rendered useless by the first cast. For defence they wore a hide-covered headpiece and a round buckler 3 ft. in diameter. The heavy-armed carried a scutum formed of two boards glued together, covered with canvas and skin, and incurved into the shape of a half-cylinder; its upper and lower edges were strengthened with iron rims and its centre with a boss (umbo). A greave was worn on the right leg, and the helmet was of bronze with a crest of three feathers. The wealthier soldiers wore the full cuirass of chain armour (lorica), the poorer a brass plate 9 in. square. For offence they carried a sword and two javelins. The former was the Spanish weapon, straight, double-edged and pointed, for both thrust and cut, in place of the old Greek sword.

The characteristic weapon, however, was the pilum (Gr. ὑσσός). The form of this weapon and the mode of using it have been minutely described by Polybius (vi. 23), but his description has been much misunderstood in consequence of the rarity of representations or remains of the pilum. It is shown on a monument of St Rémy in Provence, assigned to the age of the first emperors, and in a bas-relief at Mainz, on the grave-stone of Quintus Petilius Secundus, a soldier of the 15th legion. A specimen of the actual weapon is in the museum at Wiesbaden. It is a javelin with a stout iron head (7 in.), carried on an iron rod, about 20 in. in length, which terminates in a tang for insertion in the wooden shaft. As represented on the monuments, the iron part of the weapon is about one-third of its entire length (6¾ ft.). It was used primarily as a missile. When the point pierced the shield the weight of the stave pulled the shield downwards and rendered it useless. At close quarters it answered all the purposes, offensive and defensive, of the modern bayonet when “fixed.” Vegetius, in his Rei militaris instituta, describes it in a modified form as used in the armies of the lower empire, and in a still more modified form it reappears as the “argon” of the Franks. This equipment was characteristic of hastati, principes and triarii (save that the latter used the hasta instead of the pilum). We thus see how great is the change from the time when the hastati were the light-armed (from hasta) of the Greek phalanx.

The cavalry, which had originally been protected only by a light ox-hide shield and the most fragile spears, adopted, about Polybius’s time, the full Greek equipment of buckler, strong spear and breastplate.

In the last period of the republic the pilum became the universal weapon of the heavy-armed, while the auxiliaries (all foreigners, the velites having disappeared) used the hasta and the long single-edged sword (spatha). Under the empire the heavy-armed, according to Josephus, had helmet, cuirass, a long sword worn on the left side, and a dagger on the right, pilum and scutum. The special detachment detailed to attend the commander had a round shield (clipeus) and a long spear. The cavalry wore armour like that of the infantry, with a broadsword, a buckler slung from the horse’s side, a long pole for thrusting, and several javelins, almost as large as spears, in a sheath or quiver. Arrian, writing of a period some fifty years later, gives further particulars from which we gather that of the cavalry some were bowmen, some polemen, while others wielded lances and axes.

6. English from the Norman Conquest.—It is unnecessary here to trace in detail the history of European armour in the middle ages and after, but its use and fashion in England may illustrate the broad lines of the gradual perfection and the hurried abandonment of the ancient war-harness. Each country gave its armour something of the national character, the Spanish harness being touched with the Moorish taste, the Italian with the classical note borrowed from the monuments of old time, and the German with the Teutonic feeling for the grotesque.

To understand the development of English arms and armour it is well for us to consider carefully the fashion of these things at the time of that landmark of history, the Norman Conquest. Poets, chroniclers and law-makers give 11th-century Bayeux tapestry. us material for their description, and in the great embroidery of Bayeux, with its more than six hundred lively figures, we have pictured all the circumstances of war. We find that weapons and war gear have advanced little or nothing beyond the age which saw the Dacian warrior armed from crown to foot. A knight is reckoned fully armed if he have helmet, hawberk and shield; his weapons are sword and lance, although he sometimes carries axe or mace and, more rarely, a bow. The coat of fence, which the Norman called hawberk and the English byrnie, hangs from neck to knee, the sleeves loose and covering the elbow only, the skirt slit before and behind for ease in the saddle. The Bayeux artists (see fig. 4) commonly show these skirts as though they were short breeches, the hawberk taking the fashion at first sight of a man’s swimming dress, but other authorities set us right, and towards the end of the tapestry we see men stripping hawberks from the slain by pulling them over the head. Back and front are so much alike that he who armed Duke William for the fight slipped on the armour hind side before, an omen that he should change his state of a duke for that of a king. The hawberk might be mail of woven rings, of rings sewn upon leather or cotton, of overlapping scales of leather, horn or iron, of that jazerant work which was formed of little plates sewn to canvas or linen, or of thick cotton and old linen padded and quilted in lozenges, squares or lines. There are indications that the 586 hawberk was sometimes reinforced at the breast probably by a small oblong plate fastened underneath. Its weight is shown in the scene where William’s men carry arms to the ships, each hawberk being borne between two men upon a pole thrust through the sleeves.

The helmet is a brimless and pointed cap, either all of metal or of leather or even wood framed and strengthened with metal. Its characteristic piece is the guard which protects the nose and brow from swinging cuts, so disguising the knight that William must needs take off his helmet to show his men that he had not fallen. Such a nasal appears in a 10th-century illumination; at the time of the Conquest it was all but universal. It grows rare and all but disappears in the 13th century, although examples are found to the end of the middle ages. The helmet is laced under the chin, and under it the knight often wore a hood of mail or quilting which covered the top of the head, the ears and neck, but left the chin free—in two or three cases he has this hood without the helmet. A close coif was probably worn beneath it when it was of ringed mail, to spare the fretting of the metal on the head.

The knights’ legs are shown in most cases as unprotected save by stout hose or leg-bands: only in two or three instances does the tapestry picture a warrior with armed legs, and it is perhaps significant of the rarity of this defence that the duke is so armed. The feet are covered only by the leather boot, the heels having prick spurs.

Broad-bladed swords with cross-hilts of straight or drooping quills are fastened with a strap and buckle girdle to the left side. They have a short grip, and the blade would seem to be from 2½ to 3 ft. in length. The chieftain unarmed in his house is often seen with unbuckled and sheathed sword sceptre-wise in his hands, carrying it as an Indian raja will nurse his sheathed tulwar. The ash spears brandished or couched by the knights as they charge seem from 7 to 8 or 9 ft. in length. In a few cases a three-forked pennon flutters at the end. The axe, a weapon which the Normans, in spite of their Norse ancestry, do not carry in the battle, is of the type called the Danish axe, long-shafted, the large blade boldly curved out. Maces, such as that with which the bishop of Bayeux rallies his young men, seem knotted clubs of simple form. Short and strong bows are drawn to the breast by the Norman archers.

Of the shields in the fight, four or five borne by the English are of the old English form—large, round bucklers of linden-wood, bossed and ribbed with iron. For the rest the horsemen bear the Norman shield, kite-shaped, with tapering foot, and long enough to carry a dead warrior from the field. On the inner side are straps for the hand to grip and a long strap allowed the knight to hang the shield from his neck. Let us note that although wyvern-like monsters, crosses, roundels and other devices appear on these shields, none of them has any indication of true armory, whose origins must be placed in the next century.

The 12th century, although an age of riding and warring, affects but little the fashion of armour. The picture of a king on his seal may well stand for the full-armed knight of his age, but Henry Beauclerc, Stephen and Henry II. are 12th Century. shown in harness not much unlike that of the Bayeux needlework. But the sleeve of the hawberk goes to the wrist, and the kite shield grows less, Stephen’s shield being 30 in. long at the most. On Stephen’s second seal the mail hood is drawn over the point of the chin, and Henry II.’s seals show the chin covered to the lips. At least one seal of this king has the legs and feet armed with hose of ringed mail, probably secured by lacing at the back of the leg as a modern boot is laced. The first seal of Richard Lionheart marks an important movement. His hawberk, hood and hose clothe him, like his father, from crown to toe, and to this equipment he adds gloves of mail. Under the hawberk flows out to the heels the skirt of a long gown slit in front. But helm and shield are the most remarkable points. The shield has become flatter at the top, and at last the shield of an English king bears those armorial devices whose beginnings are seen elsewhere a generation before. The earlier seal has the shield with a rampant lion ramping to the sinister side and closely resembling that on the shield of Philip of Alsace, long believed to be the earliest example of true armory. But the shield in the second seal bears the three leopards which have been ever since the arms of the kings of England, and from this time to the end of the middle ages armorial devices become the common decorations of the knight’s shield, coat, saddle and horse-trapper. The helmet of the first seal is a high thimble-topped cap, without a nasal guard, but the second has the king’s head covered with the great helm, barrel-shaped and reinforced in front with a flat ventaile pierced in slits for the sight. This helm is crested with a semicircular ridge from which spring two wings, or rows of feathers fan-wise. On its side the ridge bears a single leopard, the forerunner of the coming crests.

For 13th-century arms, although but poor scraps remain of original material, we have authority in plenty—pictures, seals and carving, and, above all, the effigies in stone or brass which give us each visible link, strap and ornament. 13th Century. All these have for a commentary chronicles, poems and account books, so that the history of armour may be followed in detail.

The long, sleeveless surcoat seen over King John’s mail on his broad seal goes through the century and is often embroidered with arms. The shield becomes flat-topped the better to receive armorial charges. The great helm is common, although many knights on the day of battle like better the freedom of the mail hood with a steel cap worn over or under its crown, keeping for the tourney-yard the great helm which towards the century-end begins to carry its towering crest. Great variety is seen in the forms of the flat or round-topped helm, some being in one piece, pierced for sight and air, others having hinged or movable ventailes. At the end of the century a sugar-loaf type is the established form. The knight’s hawberk is worn over a gambeson of linen, quilted linen or cotton, which lesser men wear with a steel cap for all defence. Breast and back plates also are sometimes borne under the hawberk, and the first plates in sight at last appear in those knee-cops which protect the joining of the upper and lower hose, and in a few examples of bainbergs or greaves of metal or leather. At the end of Henry III.’s reign we have the admirable illustrations of a manuscript of Matthew Paris’s Lives of the Offas, with many pictures of knights. (See fig 5.) Here we see knights with knee-cop and greave and a plenty of curious headpieces, the plain mail hood and mail hoods with a plate ventaile to cover the face, barrel-helms and round-topped helms and even round-topped helmets with the Norman nose-guard.

In the last half of the 13th century appears the curious defence known as alettes. This name is given to a pair of leather plates generally oblong in form and tagged to the back of the shoulder. As a rule they are borne to display the wearer’s arms, but being sometimes plain they may have had some slight defensive value, covering a weak spot at the armpit and turning a sweeping sword-cut at the neck. They disappear in the earlier years of Edward III.

Surcoat, shield and trapper have the arms of their owner. The rowel-spur makes a rare appearance. Weapons change little. 587 although the sword is often longer and heavier. Richard I. had favoured the cross-bow, in spite of papal denunciations of that weapon hateful to God, and its use is common through all the 13th century, after which it makes way for the national weapon of the long-bow.

In the 14th century, the high-day of chivalry, the age of Creçy and Poitiers, of the Black Prince and Chandos, the age which saw enrolled the noble company of the Garter, the art of the armourer and weapon-smith strides forward. At its 14th century. beginning we see many knights still clad in chain mail with no visible plate. At its end the knight is often locked in plates from head to foot, no chainwork showing save the camail edge under the helm and the fringe of the mail skirt or hawberk.

Before the first quarter of the 14th century is past many of these plates are in common use. Sir John de Creke’s brass, about 1325-1330, is a fair example (fig. 6). His helmet is a basinet, pointed at the top, probably worn over a complete hood of mail flowing to the mid-breast. This hood was soon to lose its crown, the later basinets having the camail, a defence of mail covering neck, cheeks and chin and secured to the basinet with eyelet holes and loops through which a lace was passed. A rerebrace of plate defends the outer side of the upper arm, plain elbow-cops the elbow, and round bosses in the form of leopard heads guard the shoulder and the crook of the elbow. The fore-arm is covered with the plates of a vambrace which appears from under the hawberk sleeve. Large and decorated knee-cops cover the knees, ridged greaves the shins, and the upper part of the foot from pointed toe to ankle is fenced with those articulated and overlapping plates the perfection of which in the next century enabled the full-harnessed knight to move his body as freely as might an unarmed man. Under the plates the mail hose show themselves and the heels have rowelled spurs. He has a hawberk of mail whose front skirt ends in a point between the knees, the loose sleeves between wrist and elbow. Under this is a haketon of some soft material whose folds fall to a line above the height of the knee. Over the hawberk is a garment, perhaps of leather with a dagged skirt-edge, and over this again is a sleeveless gambeson or pourpoint of leather or quilted work, studded and enriched. Over all is the sleeveless surcoat, the skirt before cut squarely off at the height of the fork of the leg, the skirt behind falling to below the knee. The loose folds of this surcoat are gathered at the waist by a narrow belt, the sword hanging from a broader belt carried across the hip. Before 1350 the long surcoat of the 13th century was still further shortened, the tails being cut off squarely with the front. The fate of Sir John Chandos, who in 1369 stumbled on a slippery road, his long coat “armed with his arms” becoming tangled with his legs, points to the fact that an old soldier might cling to an old fashion.

The desire for a better defence than a steel cap and camail and a less cumbrous one than the great helm, in which the knight rode half stifled and half blind, brought in as a fighting headpiece the basinet with a movable viser. This is found throughout this century, disappearing in the next when the salet and its varieties displaced it. But there were many knights who still fought with the great helm covering basinet and camail, a fact which speaks eloquently of the mighty blows given in this warlike age. The many monumental brasses of the last half of the 14th century show us for the most part knights in basinet and camail with the face exposed, but their heads are commonly pillowed on the great helm and in any case the viser would hinder the artist’s desire to show the knight’s features.

The fully-armed man of the latter half of the 14th century seems to have worn a rounded breastplate and a back-plate over his chain hawberk. Chaucer’s Sir Thopas must always be cited for the defences of this age, the hero wearing the quilted haketon next his shirt, and over that the habergeon, a lesser hawberk of chain mail. His last defence is a fine hawberk “full strong of plate” showing that “hawberk” sometimes served as a word for the body plates. Over all this is the “cote-armure” or surcoat. Many passages from the chroniclers show that the three coats of fence one over the other were in common use in the field, and Froissart tells a tale of a knight struck by a dart in such wise that the head pierced through his plates, his coat of mail and his haketon stuffed with twisted silk. The surcoat in the age of Edward III. became a scanty garment sitting tightly to the body, laced up the back or sides, the close skirts ending at the fork of the leg with a dagged or slittered edge. The waistbelt is rarely in sight, but the broad belt across the hips, on which the dagger comes to hang as a balance to the sword, grows richer and heavier, the best work of the goldsmith or silversmith being spent upon it. Arms and legs and feet become cased in plate of steel or studded leather, and before the mid-century the shoulder-plates, like the steel shoes, are of overlapping pieces and the elbow also moves easily under the same defence. (See fig. 7.)

Such harness, ever growing more beautiful in its rich details, serves our champions until the beginning of the 15th century, when the fashion begins to turn. The scanty surcoat tends to disappear. It may be that during the bitter 15th century. feuds and fierce slaughters of the Wars of the Roses men were unwilling to display on their breasts the bearings by which their mortal foe might know them afar. The horseman’s shield went with the surcoat, its disuse hastened by the perfection of armour, and the banners of leaders remained as the only armorial signs commonly seen in war. But at jousts and tourneys, where personal distinction was eagerly sought, the loose tabard, which, after the middle of the century, bore the arms of the wearer on back, front and both sleeves, was still to be seen, with the crest of parchment or leather towering above a helm whose mantle, from the ribbon-like strip of the early 13th century, had grown into a fluttering cloak with wildly slittered edge streaming out behind the charging knight.

When a score of years of this 15th century had run we find the knight closed in with plates, no edge of chain mail remaining in sight. The surcoat being gone we see him armed in breast and back plate, his loins covered by a skirt of “tonlets,” as the defence of overlapping horizontal bands comes to be named (fig. 8). The chain camail has gone out of fashion, the basinet continuing itself with a chin and cheek plate which joins a gorget of plate covering the collar-bone, a movable viser shutting in the whole head with steel. The gussets of chain mail sewn into the leathern or fustian doublet worn below the body armour are unseen even at the gap at the hollow of the arm where the plates must be allowed to move freely, for a little plate, round, oval or oblong, is tagged to each side to fence the weak point. These plates often differ in size and shape one from the other, the sword-arm side carrying the smaller one.

588

Soon after this the six or eight “tonlets” grow fewer, being continued on the lower edge by the so-called tuilles, small plates strapped to the tonlets and swinging with the movement of the legs. A fine suit of armour is shown in the monument of Count Otto IV. of Henneberg (fig. 9). Knightly armour takes perhaps its last expression of perfection in such a noble harness as that worn by Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, whose armed effigy was wrought between 1451 and 1454 (fig. 10). In this we see the characteristic feature of the great elbow-cops, whose channelled and fluted edges overlapping vambrace and rerebrace become monstrous fan-like shapes in the brass of Richard Quartremayns, graven about 1460. At this time the harness of the left shoulder is often notably reinforced, as compared with that of the sword-arm shoulder. Towards the latter part of the century chain mail reappears as a skirt or breech of mail, showing itself under the diminished tonlets, and, when helm and gorget are removed, as a high-standing collar. The articulation by overlapping plates extends even to the breastplate, whose front is thus in two or more pieces. Very long-necked rowel-spurs are often found, and the toes of the sabbatons or steel shoes are sharply pointed. The characteristic helmet of the latter half of the century is the salet or salade, a large steel cap, whose edge is carried out from the brows and still more boldly at the back of the neck.

Knights abandon the great helm in war, but it is perfected for use in the tilt-yard, taking for that purpose an enormous size, to enable two good inches of stuffing to come between head or face and the steel plate. Such a helm sits well down on the shoulders, to which it is locked before and behind by strong buckles or rivets. The note of the 15th century in armour is that of fantastically elaborate forms boldly outlined and a splendour of colour which gained much from the custom of wearing over the full harness short cloaks or rich coats turned up with furs, or from another fashion of covering the body plates or brigandines with rich velvets studded with gold. The details of the harness take a thousand curious shapes, and even amongst the simpler jacks and steel caps of the archers the same glorious variety is seen.

If the note of the 15th century be variety of form, that of the 16th century, the last important chapter in the history of armour, is surface decoration, the harness of great folk atoning in some measure for loss of the 16th century. beautiful medieval sense of line by elaborate enrichment. Plain engraving, niello, russet work, golden inlay and beaten ornament are common methods of enrichment. The great plume of ostrich feathers flows from the helmet crown of leaders in war. As in the reign of Edward III., costume’s fashion affects the forms of armour, the broad toe of the Henry VIII. shoe being imitated in steel, as the wide fluted skirts of the so-called Maximilian armour imitate the German fashion in civil dress which the Imperial host popularized through northern Europe (fig. 11). These skirts have been called “lamboys” by modern writers on military antiquities, but the word seems an antiquarianism of no value, apparently a misreading of the word “jambeis” in some early document. So many notable examples of the armour of this 16th century are accessible in European collections, other illustrations occurring in great plenty, that its details call for little discussion; a fine and characteristic suit is that by the famous English armourer, Jacob Topf (fig. 12), which belonged to Sir Christopher Hatton. Into this century the arquebusier marches, demanding a chief place in the line of battle, although it is a common error that the improvement in fire-arms drove out the fully armed warrior, whose plates gave him no protection. Until the rifle came to the soldier’s hands, plate armour could easily be made shot-proof. 589 It was driven from the field by the new strategy which asked for long marches and rapid movements of armies. This century’s armour for the tilt-yard gives such protection to the champion, with its many reinforcing pieces, that unless the caged helm were used—the same which cost Henry II. of France his life—the risks of the tilt-yard must have fallen much below those of the polo-field. The horse with crinet, chafron and bards of steel was as well covered from harm.

Before the end of the 16th century the full suit of war harness is an antique survival. Long boots take the place of greaves and steel shoes, and early in the 16th century the military pedants are heard to bewail the common laying aside of other pieces. The mounted cavalier—cuirassier or pistolier—might take the field, even as late as the Great Rebellion, armed at all points save the backs of the thighs and the legs below the knee; but a combed and brimmed cap, breast and back plate and tassets equipped the pikeman, and the musketeer would march without any metal on him save his headpiece, for it was soon found that heavily armed musketeers, after a long trudge through summer dust or winter mud, were readier to rest than to shoot. Everywhere there was revolt against the burden of plates, and as early as 1593 Sir Richard Hawkins found that his adventurers would not use even the light corslets provided by him, “esteeming a pot of wine a better defence.” Gervase Markham, in his Souldier’s Accidence of 1645, asks that at least the captain of cuirassiers should be armed “at all peeces, cap a pee,” but he would have found few such captains, and Markham is a great praiser of noble old custom. The famous figure of a pikeman of 1668 (fig. 13) in Elton’s Art Military has steel cap, corslet and tassets, but he stands for a fashion dead or dying. The last noteworthy helmet was what is now termed the lobster-tail helmet, a headpiece with round top, flat brim before, a broad articulated brim behind, cheek-pieces hanging by straps and a grate of upright bars to cover the face, some having in place of the grate a movable nose-guard to be raised or lowered at will. The close resemblance of this helmet to that worn by the Japanese, with whom the Dutch were then trading, is worth remark, although each of the two pieces seems to have had its separate origin. Thus, save for a steel cap here and a corslet there, especially to be found amongst the guards of sovereigns who must cling to something of antique tradition, armour departs out of the civilized world.

When in the reign of Queen Victoria her mounted guardsmen were given back their breast and back plates, the last piece of body armour had been the tiny gilt crescent worn at the throat by officers of foot, which crescent was the Survival of armour. shrunken symbol of that great gorget of plate that came in with the 13th century. The shining plates of the Guards are parade pieces only, but a curious revival of an old defence was carried by English cavalry in the field at the end of the 19th century, when small gussets of chain mail were attached to the shoulders of certain cavalrymen as a defence against sword cuts. Through all the age of modern warfare inventors have pressed the claims of various bullet-proof breastplates, but where they have been effective against rifle fire their weight has made them too heavy an addition to the soldier’s burden. (See, however, Armour Plates, ad fin.) Last of all we may reckon those secret coats of mail which are said to be worn on occasion by modern rulers in dread of the assassin. The London detective department has such coats of fence in its armoury; and on the other side it may be remembered that the Kelly gang of bushrangers, driven to bay, were found to have forged suits of plate for themselves out of sheets of boiler-iron.

Ancient arms and armour are now eagerly sought by European and American collectors, and high prices are paid down for every noteworthy piece. The supply is assisted by the efforts of many forgers of false pieces, the most cunning of whom bring Collections. all archaeological skill to their aid, and few great national or private collections are free from some example of this industry. For the genuine pieces competition runs high. Suits of plate of the earliest period may be sought in vain, and the greatest collectors may hardly hope for such a panoply of the late Gothic period as that which is the ornament of the Wallace collection. Even this famous harness is not wholly free from suspicion of restoration. Armour of the latter half of the 16th century, however, often appears in the sale-rooms and is found in many private collections, although the “ancestral armour” which decorates so many ancient halls in England is generally the plates and pots which served the pikemen of the 17th-century militia.

It is not hard to understand this scarcity of ancient pieces. In the first place it must be remembered that the fully armed man was always a rare figure in war, and only the rich could engage in the costly follies of the later tournaments. The novelists have done much to encourage the belief that most men of gentle rank rode to the wars lance in hand, locked up in full harness of plate; but the country gentleman, serving as light horseman or mounted archer, would hold himself well armed had he a quilted jack or brigandine and a basinet or salet. Men armed cap a pee crowd the illuminations of chronicle books, the artists having the same tastes as the boy who decorates his Latin grammar with battles which are hand-to-hand conflicts of epauletted generals. Monuments and brasses also show these fully armed men, but here again we must recognize the tendency which made the last of the cheap miniaturists endow their clients lavishly with heavy watch-chains and rings. As late as the 18th century the portrait painters drew their military or naval sitters in the breastplates and pauldrons, vambraces and rerebraces of an earlier age. Ancient wills and inventories, save those of great folk or military adventurers, have scanty reference to complete harnesses. Ringed hawberks, in a damp northern climate, will not survive 590 long neglect, and many of them must have been cut in pieces for burnishers or for the mail skirts and gussets attached to the later arming doublets. As the fashion of plate armour changed, the smith might adapt an old harness to the new taste, but more often it would be cast aside. Men to whom the sight of a steel coat called up the business of their daily life wasted no sentimentality over an obsolete piece. The early antiquaries might have saved us many priceless things, but it was not until a few virtuosi of the 18th century were taken with the Gothic fancy that popular archaeology dealt with aught but Greek statuary and Roman inscriptions. The 19th century was well advanced before an interest in medieval antiquities became common amongst educated men, and for most contemporaries of Dr Johnson a medieval helm was a barbarous curiosity exciting the same measure of mild interest as does the Zulu knobkerry seen by us as we pass a pawnbroker’s window.

7. Fire-arms. (For the development of cannon, see Artillery and Ordnance.)—Hand-cannons appear almost simultaneously with the larger bombards. They were made by the Flemings in the 14th century. An early instance of the use of hand fire-arms in England is the siege of Huntercombe Manor in 1375. These were simply small cannon, provided with a stock of wood, and fired by the application of a match to the touch-hole. During the 15th century the hand-gun was steadily improved, and its use became more general. Edward IV., landing in England in 1471 to reconquer his throne, brought with him a force of Burgundian hand-gun men (mercenaries), and in 1476 the Swiss at Morat had no less than 6000 of their men thus armed. The prototype of the modern military weapon is the arquebus (q.v.), a form of which was afterwards called in England the caliver. Various dates are given for the introduction of the arquebus, which owed many of its details to the perfected crossbow which it superseded. The Spanish army in the Italian wars at the beginning of the 16th century was the first to make full and effective use of the new weapon, and thus to make the fire action of infantry a serious factor in the decision of battles. The Spaniards also took the next step in advance. The musket (q.v.) was heavier and more powerful than the arquebus, and, in the hands of the duke of Alva’s army in the Netherlands, so conclusively proved its superiority that it at once replaced its rival in the armies of Europe. Both the arquebus and the musket had a touch-hole on the right side of the barrel, with a pan for the priming, with which a lighted quick match was brought in contact by pressing a trigger. The musket, on account of its weight, was provided with a long rest, forked in the upper part and furnished with a spike to stick in the ground. The matchlock (long-barrelled matchlocks are still used by various uncivilized peoples, notably in India) was the typical weapon of the soldier for two centuries. The class of hand fire-arms provided with an arrangement for striking a spark to ignite the powder charge begins with the wheel-lock. This lock was invented at Nuremberg in 1515, but was seldom applied to the arquebus and musket on account of the costliness of its mechanism and the uncertainty of its action. The early forms of flint-lock (snaphance) were open to the same objections, and the fire-lock (as the flint-lock was usually called) remained for many years after its introduction the armament of special troops only, till about the beginning of the 18th century it finally superseded the old matchlock. Thenceforward the fire-lock (called familiarly in England “Brown Bess”) formed with the bayonet (q.v.) the armament of all infantry, and the fire-arms carried by other troops were constructed on the same principle. Flint-lock muskets were supplanted about 1830-1840 by the percussion musket, in which a fulminate cap was used. A Scottish clergyman, Alexander Forsyth, invented this method of ignition in 1807, but it was not till 1820 that it began to come into general use. (See Gun.) The system of firing the charge by a fulminate was followed by the invention of the needle-gun (q.v.). The muzzle-loading rifle, employed by special troops since about 1800, came into general use in the armies of Europe about 1854-1860. It was superseded, as a result of the success of the needle-gun in the war of 1866, by the breech-loading rifle, this in its turn giving way to the magazine rifle about 1886-1890. (See Rifle.) Neither breech-loaders nor revolvers, however, are inventions of modern date. Both were known in Germany as early as the close of the 15th century. There are in the Musée d’Artillerie at Paris wheel-lock arquebuses of the 16th century which are breech-loaders; and there is, in the Tower armoury, a revolver with the old matchlock, the date of which is about 1550. A German arquebus of the 16th century, in the museum of Sigmaringen, is a revolver of seven barrels. Nor is rifling a new thing in fire-arms, for there was a rifled arquebus of the 15th century, in which the balls were driven home by a mallet, and a patent was taken out in England for rifling in 1635. All these systems were thus known at an early period in the history of fire-arms, but for want of the minutely accurate workmanship required and, above all, of a satisfactory firing arrangement, they were left in an undeveloped state until modern times. The earliest pistols were merely shorter handguns, modified for mounted men, and provided with a straight stock which was held against the breastplate (poitrinal or petronel). The long-barrelled pistol was the typical weapon of the cavalry of the 16th century. (See Cavalry.) With the revival of shock tactics initiated by Gustavus Adolphus the length of the pistol barrel became less and less, and its stock was then shaped for the hand alone. (See Pistol.)

ARMSTEAD, HENRY HUGH (1828-1905), English sculptor, was first trained as a silversmith, and achieved the highest excellence with the “St George’s Vase” and the “Outram Shield.” He rose to the front rank among contemporary sculptors, his chief works being the external sculptural decorations of the colonial office in Whitehall, the sculptures on the southern and eastern sides of the podium of the Albert Memorial, the large fountain at King’s College, Cambridge, and numerous effigies, such as “Bishop Wilberforce” at Winchester, and “Lord John Thynne” at Westminster, with smaller portraiture and much ideal work. His sense of style and nobility was remarkable; and he was besides gifted with a fine power of design and draughtsmanship, which he put to good use in his early years for book illustration. He was elected associate of the Royal Academy in 1875 and a full member in 1880.

ARMSTRONG, ARCHIBALD (d. 1672), court jester, called “Archy,” was a native of Scotland or of Cumberland, and according to tradition first distinguished himself as a sheep-stealer; afterwards he entered the service of James VI., with whom he became a favourite. When the king succeeded to the English throne, Archy was appointed court jester. In 1611 he was granted a pension of two shillings a day, and in 1617 he accompanied James on his visit to Scotland. His influence was considerable and he was greatly courted and flattered, but his success appears to have turned his head. He became presumptuous, insolent and mischievous, excited foolish jealousies between the king and Henry, prince of Wales, and was much disliked by the members of the court. In 1623 he accompanied Prince Charles and Buckingham in their adventure into Spain, where he was much caressed and favoured by the Spanish court and, according to his own account, was granted a pension. His conduct here became more intolerable than ever. He rallied the infanta on the defeat of the Armada and censured the conduct of the expedition to Buckingham’s face. Buckingham declared he would have him hanged, to which the jester replied that “dukes had often been hanged for insolence but never fools for talking.” On his return he gained some complimentary allusions from Ben Jonson by his attacks upon the Spanish marriage. He retained his post on the accession of Charles I., and accumulated a considerable fortune, including the grant by the king of 1000 acres in Ireland. After the death of Buckingham in 1628, whom he declared “the greatest enemy of three kings,” the principal object of his dislike and rude jests was Laud, whom he openly vilified and ridiculed. He pronounced the following grace at Whitehall in Laud’s presence: “Great praise be given to God and little laud to the devil,” and after the news of the rebellion in Scotland in 1637 he greeted Laud on his way to the council chamber at Whitehall with: “Who’s fool now? Does not your 591 Grace hear the news from Stirling about the liturgy?” On Laud’s complaint to the council, Archy was sentenced the same day “to have his coat pulled over his head and be discharged the king’s service and banished the king’s court.” He settled in London as a money-lender, and many complaints were made to the privy council and House of Lords of his sharp practices. In 1641 on the occasion of Laud’s arrest, he enjoyed a mean revenge by publishing Archy’s Dream; sometimes Jester to his Majestie, but exiled the Court by Canterburie’s malice. Subsequently he resided at Arthuret in Cumberland, according to some accounts his birthplace, where he possessed an estate, and where he died in 1672, his burial taking place on the 1st of April. He was twice married, his second wife being Sybilla Bell. There is no record of any legal offspring, but the baptism of a “base son” of Archibald Armstrong is entered in the parish register of the 17th of December 1643. A Banquet of Jests: A change of Cheare, published about 1630, a collection chiefly of dull, stale jokes, is attributed to him, and with still less reason probably A choice Banquet of Witty Jests ... Being an addition to Archee’s Jests, taken out of his Closet but never published in his Lifetime (1660).

ARMSTRONG, JOHN (1709-1779), British physician and writer, was born about 1709 at Castletown, Roxburghshire, where his father was parish minister. He graduated M.D. (1732) at Edinburgh University, and soon afterwards settled in London, where he paid more attention to literature than to medicine. He was, in 1746, appointed one of the physicians to the military hospital behind Buckingham House; and, in 1760, physician to the army in Germany, an appointment which he held till the peace of 1763, when he retired on half-pay. For many years he was closely associated with John Wilkes, but quarrelled with him in 1763. He died on the 7th of September 1779. Armstrong’s first publication, an anonymous one, entitled An Essay for Abridging the Study of Physic (1735), was a satire on the ignorance of the apothecaries and medical men of his day. This was followed two years after by the Economy of Love, a poem the indecency of which damaged his professional practice. In 1744 appeared his Art of Preserving Health, a very successful didactic poem, and the one production on which his literary reputation rests. His Miscellanies (1770) contains some shorter poems displaying considerable humour.

ARMSTRONG, JOHN (1738-1843), American soldier, diplomatist and political leader, born at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the 25th of November 1758. His father, also named John Armstrong (1725-1795), a native of the north of Ireland, who had emigrated to the Pennsylvania frontier between 1745 and 1748, served successively as a brigadier-general in the Continental army (1776-77), as brigadier-general and then major-general of the Pennsylvania militia (1777-83), during the War of Independence, and was a member of the Continental Congress in 1779-1780 and again in 1787-1788. The son studied for a time at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), and served as a major in the War of Independence. In March 1783, while the Continental army was stationed at Newburgh (q.v.), New York, he wrote and issued, anonymously, the famous “Newburgh Addresses.” In 1784 he led a force of Pennsylvania militia against the Connecticut settlers in Wyoming Valley, and treated them in such a high-handed manner as to incur the disapproval even of the Pennsylvania legislature. In 1789 he married the sister of Chancellor Robert R. Livingston of New York, and removed to New York city, where his own ability and his family connexion gave him great political influence. In 1801-2 and again in 1803-4 he was a member of the United States Senate. From 1804 to 1810 he was the United States minister to France, and in March 1806 he was joined with James Bowdoin as a special minister to treat through France with Spain concerning the acquisition of Florida, Spanish spoliations of American commerce, and the “Louisiana” boundary. During the War of 1812, he was a brigadier-general in the United States army from July 1812 until January 1813, and from then until August 1814 secretary of war in the cabinet of President Madison, when his unpopularity forced him to resign. “In spite of Armstrong’s services, abilities and experience,” says Henry Adams, “something in his character always created distrust. He had every advantage of education, social and political connexion, ability and self-confidence; ... but he suffered from the reputation of indolence and intrigue.” Nevertheless, he “introduced into the army an energy wholly new,” an energy the results of which were apparent “for half a century.” After his resignation he lived in retirement at Red Hook, New York, where he died on the 1st of April 1843. He published Notices of the War of 1812 (2 vols., 1836; new ed., 1840), the value of which is greatly impaired by its obvious partiality.

ARMSTRONG, SAMUEL CHAPMAN (1839-1893), American soldier, philanthropist and educator, was born on Maui, one of the Hawaiian Islands, on the 30th of January 1839, his parents Richard and Clarissa Armstrong, being American missionaries. He was educated at the Punahou school in Honolulu, at Oahu College, into which the Punahou school developed in 1852, and at Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts, where he graduated in 1862. He served in the Civil War, on the Union side, from 1862 to 1865, rising in the volunteer service to the regular rank of colonel and the brevet rank of brigadier-general, and, after December 1863, acted as one of the officers of the coloured troops commanded by General William Birney. In November 1865 he was honourably mustered out of the volunteer service. His experience as commander of negro troops had added to his interest, always strong, in the negroes of the south, and in March 1866 he became superintendent of the Ninth District of Virginia, under the Freedman’s Bureau, with headquarters near Fort Monroe. While in this position he became convinced that the only permanent solution of the manifold difficulties which the freedmen encountered lay in their moral and industrial education. He remained in the educational department of the Bureau until this work came to an end in 1872; though five years earlier, at Hampton, Virginia, near Fort Monroe, he had founded, with the aid principally of the American Missionary Association, an industrial school for negroes, Hampton Institute, which was formally opened in 1868, and at the head of which he remained until his death, there, on the 11th of May 1893. After 1878 Indians were also admitted to the Institute, and during the last fifteen years of his life Armstrong took a deep interest in the “Indian question.” Much of his time after 1868 was spent in the Northern and Eastern states, whither he went to raise funds for the Institute. See Samuel Chapman Armstrong, a Biographical Study (New York, 1904), by his daughter, Edith Armstrong Talbot.

His brother, William N. Armstrong, was attorney-general in the cabinet of the Hawaiian king Kalakaua I. He accompanied that monarch on a prolonged foreign tour in 1881, visiting Japan, China, Siam, India, Europe and the United States, and in 1904 published an amusing account of the journey, called Round the World with a King.

ARMSTRONG, WILLIAM GEORGE ARMSTRONG, Baron (1810-1900), British inventor, founder of the Elswick manufacturing works, was born on the 26th of November 1810, at Newcastle-on-Tyne, and was educated at a school in Bishop Auckland. The profession which he adopted was that of a solicitor, and from 1833 to 1847 he was engaged in active practice in Newcastle as a member of the firm of Donkin, Stable & Armstrong. His sympathies, however, were always with mechanical and scientific pursuits, and several of his inventions date from a time anterior to his final abandonment of the law. In 1841-1843 he published several papers on the electricity of effluent steam. This subject he was led to study by the experience of a colliery engineman, who noticed that he received a sharp shock on exposing one hand to a jet of steam issuing from a boiler with which his other hand was in contact, and the inquiry was followed by the invention of the “hydro-electric” machine, a powerful generator of electricity, which was thought worthy of careful investigation by Faraday. The question of the utilization of water-power 592 had engaged his attention even earlier, and in 1839 he invented an improved rotary water motor. Soon afterwards he designed a hydraulic crane, which contained the germ of all the hydraulic machinery for which he and Elswick were subsequently to become famous. This machine depended simply on the pressure of water acting directly in a cylinder on a piston, which was connected with suitable multiplying gear. In the first example, which was erected on the quay at Newcastle in 1846, the necessary pressure was obtained from the ordinary water mains of the town; but the merits and advantages of the device soon became widely appreciated, and a demand arose for the erection of cranes in positions where the pressure afforded by the mains was insufficient. Of course pressure could always be obtained by the aid of special reservoirs, but to build these was not always desirable, or even practicable. Hence, when in 1850 a hydraulic installation was required for a new ferry station at New Holland, on the Humber estuary, the absence of water mains of any kind, coupled with the prohibitive cost of a special reservoir owing to the character of the soil, impelled him to invent a fresh piece of apparatus, the “accumulator,” which consists of a large cylinder containing a piston that can be loaded to give any desired pressure, the water being pumped in below it by a steam-engine or other prime mover. This simple device may be looked upon as the crown of the hydraulic system, since by its various modifications the installation of hydraulic power became possible in almost any situation. In particular, it was rendered practicable on board ship, and its application to the manipulation of heavy naval guns and other purposes on warships was not the least important of Armstrong’s achievements.

The Elswick works were originally founded for the manufacture of this hydraulic machinery, but it was not long before they became the birthplace of a revolution in gunmaking; indeed, could nothing more be placed to Armstrong’s credit than their establishment, his name would still be worthy of remembrance. Modern artillery dates from about 1855, when Armstrong’s first gun made its appearance. This weapon embodied all the essential features which distinguish the ordnance of to-day from the cannon of the middle ages—it was built up of rings of metal shrunk upon an inner steel barrel; it was loaded at the breech; it was rifled; and it threw, not a round ball, but an elongated projectile with ogival head. The guns constructed on this principle yielded such excellent results, both in range and accuracy, that they were adopted by the British government in 1859, Armstrong himself being appointed engineer of rifled ordnance and receiving the honour of knighthood. At the same time the Elswick Ordnance Company was formed to manufacture the guns under the supervision of Armstrong, who, however, had no financial interest in the concern; it was merged in the Elswick Engineering Works four years later. Great Britain thus originated a principle of gun construction which has since been universally followed, and obtained an armament superior to that possessed by any other country at that time. But while there was no doubt as to the shooting capacities of these guns, defects in the breech mechanism soon became equally patent, and in a few years caused a reversion to muzzle-loading. Armstrong resigned his position in 1863, and for seventeen years the government adhered to the older method of loading, in spite of the improvements which experiment and research at Elswick and elsewhere had during that period produced in the mechanism and performance of heavy guns. But at last Armstrong’s results could no longer be ignored; and wire-wound breech-loading guns were received back into the service in 1880. The use of steel wire for the construction of guns was one of Armstrong’s early ideas. He perceived that to coil many turns of thin wire round an inner barrel was a logical extension of the large hooped method already mentioned, and in conjunction with I.K. Brunel, was preparing to put the plan to practical test when the discovery that it had already been patented caused him to abandon his intention, until about 1877. This incident well illustrates the ground of his objection to the British system of patent law, which he looked upon as calculated to stifle invention and impede progress; the patentees in this case did not manage to make a practical success of their invention themselves, but the existence of prior patents was sufficient to turn him aside from a path which conducted him to valuable results when afterwards, owing to the expiry of those patents, he was free to pursue it as he pleased.

Lord Armstrong, who was raised to the peerage in 1887, was the author of A Visit to Egypt (1873), and Electric Movement in Air and Water (1897), besides many professional papers. He died on the 27th of December 1900, at Rothbury, Northumberland. His title became extinct, but his grand-nephew and heir, W.H.A.F. Watson-Armstrong (b. 1863), was in 1903 created Baron Armstrong of Bamburgh and Cragside.

ARMY (from Fr. armée, Lat. armata), a considerable body of men armed and organized for the purpose of warfare on land (Ger. Armee), or the whole armed force at the disposal of a state or person for the same purpose (Ger. Heer = host). The application of the term is sometimes restricted to the permanent, active or regular forces of a state. The history of the development of the army systems of the world is dealt with in this article in sections 1 to 38, being followed by sections 39 to 59 on the characteristics of present-day armies. The remainder of the article is devoted to sections on the history of the principal armies of Europe, and that of the United States. For the Japanese Army see Japan, and for the existing condition of the army in each country see under the country heading.

General History

1. Early Armies.—It is only with the evolution of the specially military function in a tribe or nation, expressed by the separation of a warrior-class, that the history of armies (as now understood) commences. Numerous savage tribes of the present day possess military organizations based on this system, but it first appears in the history of civilization amongst the Egyptians. By the earliest laws of Egypt, provision was made for the support of the warriors. The exploits of her armies under the legendary Sesostris cannot be regarded as historical, but it appears certain that the country possessed an army, capable of waging war in a regular fashion, and divided thus early into separate arms, these being chariots, infantry and archers. The systems of the Assyrians and Babylonians present no particular features of interest, save that horsemen, as distinct from charioteers, appear on the scene. The first historical instance of a military organization resembling those of modern times is that of the Persian empire.

2. Persia.—Drawn from a hardy and nomadic race, the armies of Persia at first consisted mainly of cavalry, and owed much of their success to the consequent ease and rapidity of their movements. The warlike Persians constantly extended their power by fresh conquests, and for some time remained a distinctly conquering and military race, attaining their highest power under Cyrus and Cambyses. Cyrus seems to have been the founder of a comprehensive military organization, of which we gather details from Xenophon and other writers. To each province was allotted a certain number of soldiers as standing army. These troops, formed originally of native Persians only, were called the king’s troops. They comprised two classes, the one devoted exclusively to garrisoning towns and castles, the other distributed throughout the country. To each province was appointed a military commander, responsible for the number and efficiency of the troops in his district, while the civil governor was answerable for their subsistence and pay. Annual musters were held, either by the king in person or by generals deputed for the purpose and invested with full powers. This organization seems to have fully answered its original purpose, that of holding a vast empire acquired by conquest and promptly repelling inroads or putting down insurrections. But when a great foreign war was contemplated, the standing army was augmented by a levy throughout the empire. The extent of the empire made such a levy a matter of time, and the heterogeneous and unorganized mass of men of all nations so brought together was a source of weakness rather than strength. Indeed, the vast hosts over which the Greeks gained their victories comprised 593 but a small proportion of the true Persians. The cavalry alone seems to have retained its national character, and with it something of its high reputation, even to the days of Alexander.

3. Greece.—The Homeric armies were tribal levies of foot, armed with spear, sword, bow, &c., and commanded by the chiefs in their war-chariots. In historic times all this is changed. Greece becomes a congeries of city-states, each with its own citizen-militia. Federal armies and permanent troops are rare, the former owing to the centrifugal tendency of Greek politics, the latter because the “tyrannies,” which must have relied very largely on standing armies to maintain themselves, had ultimately given way to democratic institutions. But the citizen-militia of Athens or Sparta resembled rather a modern “nation in arms” than an auxiliary force. Service was compulsory in almost all states, and as the young men began their career as soldiers with a continuous training of two or three years, Hellenic armies, like those of modern Europe, consisted of men who had undergone a thorough initial training and were subsequently called up as required. Cavalry, as always in the broken country of the Peloponnesus, was not of great importance, and it is only when the theatre of Greek history is extended to the plains of Thessaly that the mounted men become numerous. In the 4th century the mainstay of Greek armies was the hoplite (ὁπλίτης), the heavy-armed infantryman who fought in the corps de bataille; the light troops were men who could not provide the full equipment of the hoplite, rather than soldiers trained for certain special duties such as skirmishing. The fighting formation was that of the phalanx, a solid corps of hoplites armed with long spears. The armies were recruited for each war by calling up one or more classes of men in reserve according to age. It was the duty and privilege of the free citizen to bear arms; the slaves were rarely trusted with weapons.

4. Sparta.—So much is common to the various states. In Sparta the idea of the nation in arms was more thoroughly carried out than in any other state in the history of civilization. In other states the individual citizen often lived the life of a soldier, here the nation lived the life of a regiment. Private homes resembled the “married quarters” of a modern army; the unmarried men lived entirely in barracks. Military exercises were only interrupted by actual service in the field, and the whole life of a man of military age was devoted to them. Under these circumstances, the Spartans maintained a practically unchallenged supremacy over the armies of other Greek states; sometimes their superiority was so great that, like the Spanish regulars in the early part of the Dutch War of Independence, they destroyed their enemies with insignificant loss to themselves. The surrender of a Spartan detachment, hopelessly cut off from all assistance, and the victory of a body of well-trained and handy light infantry over a closed battalion of Spartiates were events so unusual as seriously to affect the course of Greek history.

5. Greek Mercenaries.—The military system of the 4th century was not called upon to provide armies for continuous service on distant expeditions. When, after the earlier campaigns of the Peloponnesian War, the necessity for such expeditions arose, the system was often strained almost to breaking point, (e.g. in the case of the Athenian expedition to Syracuse), and ultimately the states of Greece were driven to choose between unprofitable expenditure of the lives of citizens and recruiting from other sources. Mercenaries serving as light troops, and particularly as peltasts (a new form of disciplined “light infantry”) soon appeared. The corps de bataille remained for long the old phalanx of citizen hoplites. But the heavy losses of many years told severely on the resources of every state, and ultimately non-national recruits—adventurers and soldiers of fortune, broken men who had lost their possessions in the wars, political refugees, runaway slaves, &c.—found their way even into the ranks of the hoplites, and Athens at one great crisis (407) enlisted slaves, with the promise of citizenship as their reward. The Arcadians, like the Scots and the Swiss in modern history, furnished the most numerous contingent to the new professional armies. A truly national army was indeed to appear once more in the history of the Peloponnesus, but in the meantime the professional soldier held the field. The old bond of strict citizenship once broken, the career of the soldier of fortune was open to the adventurous Greek. Taenarum and Corinth became regular entrepôts for mercenaries. The younger Cyrus raised his army for the invasion of Persia precisely as the emperors Maximilian and Charles V. raised regiments of Landsknechte—by the issue of recruiting commissions to captains of reputation. This army became the famous Ten Thousand. It was a marching city-state, its members not desperate adventurers, but men with the calm self-respect of Greek civilization. On the fall of its generals, it chose the best officers of the army to command, and obeyed implicitly. Cheirisophus the Spartan and Xenophon the Athenian, whom they chose, were not plausible demagogues; they were line officers, who, suddenly promoted to the chief command under circumstances of almost overwhelming difficulty, proved capable of achieving the impossible. The merit of choosing such leaders is not the least title to fame of the Ten Thousand mercenary Greek hoplites. About the same time Iphicrates with a body of mercenary peltasts destroyed a mora or corps of Spartan hoplites (391 B.C.).

6. Epaminondas.—Not many years after this, Spartan oppression roused the Theban revolt, and the Theban revolt became the Theban hegemony. The army which achieved this under the leadership of Epaminondas, one of the great captains of history, had already given proofs of its valour against Xenophon and the Cyreian veterans. Still earlier it had won the great victory of Delium (424 B.C.).

It was organized, as were the professional armies, on the accepted model of the old armies, viz. the phalangite order, but the addition of peltasts now made a Theban army, unlike the Spartans, capable of operating in broken country as well as in the plain. The new tactics of the phalanx, introduced by Epaminondas, embodied, for the first time in the history of war, the modern principle of local superiority of force, and suggested to Frederick the Great the famous “oblique order of battle.” Further, the cavalry was more numerous and better led than that of Peloponnesian states. The professional armies had well understood the management of cavalry; Xenophon’s handbook of the subject is not without value in the 20th century. In Greek armies the dearth of horses and the consequent numerical weakness of the cavalry prevented the bold use of the arm on the battlefield (see Cavalry). But Thebes had always to deal with nations which possessed numerous horsemen. Jason of Pherae, for instance, put into the field against Thebes many thousands of Thessalian horse; and thus at the battle of Tegyra in 375 the Theban cavalry under Pelopidas, aided by the corps d’êlite of infantry called the Sacred Band, carried all before them. At Leuctra Epaminondas won a glorious victory by the use of his “oblique order” tactics; the same methods achieved the second great victory of Mantineia (362 B.c.) at which Epaminondas fell. Pelopidas had already been slain in a battle against the Thessalians, and there was no leader to carry on their work. But the new Greek system was yet to gain its greatest triumphs under Alexander the Great.

7. Alexander.—The reforms of Alexander’s father, Philip of Macedon, may most justly be compared to those of Frederick William I. in Prussia. Philip had lived at Thebes as a hostage, and had known Iphicrates, Epaminondas and Pelopidas. He grafted the Theban system of tactics on to the Macedonian system of organization. That the latter—a complete territorial system—was efficient was shown by the fact that Philip’s blow was always struck before his enemies were ready to meet it. That the new Greek tactics, properly used, were superior to the old was once more demonstrated at Chaeronea (338 B.C.), where the Macedonian infantry militia fought in phalanx, and the cavalry, led by the young Alexander, delivered the last crushing blow. On his accession, like Frederick the Great, Alexander inherited a well-trained and numerous army, and was not slow to use it. The invasion of Asia was carried out by an army of the Greek pattern, formed both of Hellenes and of 594 non-Hellenes on an exceedingly strong Macedonian nucleus. Alexander’s own guard was composed of picked horse and foot. The infantry of the line comprised Macedonian and Greek hoplites, the Macedonians being subdivided into heavy and medium troops. These fought in a grand phalanx, which was subdivided into units corresponding to the modern divisions, brigades and regiments, the fighting formation being normally a line of battalion masses. The arm of the infantry was the 18-foot pike (sarissa). The peltasts, Macedonian and Greek, were numerous and well trained, and there was the usual mass of irregular light troops, bowmen, slingers, &c. The cavalry included the Guard (ἄγημα), a body of heavy cavalry composed of chosen Macedonians, the line cavalry of Macedonia (ἑταῖροι) and Thessaly, the numerous small contingents of the Greek states, mercenary corps and light lancers for outpost work. The final blow and the gathering of the fruits of victory were now for the first time the work of the mounted arm. The solid phalanx was almost unbreakable in the earlier stages of the battle, but after a long infantry fight the horsemen had their chance. In former wars they were too few and too poorly mounted to avail themselves of it, and decisive victories were in consequence rarely achieved in battles of Greek versus Greek. Under Epaminondas, and still more under Philip and Alexander, the cavalry was strong enough for its new work. Battles are now ended by the shock action of mounted men, and in Alexander’s time it is noted as a novelty that the cavalry carried out the pursuit of a beaten army. There were further, in Alexander’s army, artillerymen with a battering train, engineers and departmental troops, and also a medical service, an improvement attributed to Jason of Pherae. The victories of this army, in close order and in open, over every kind of enemy and on every sort of terrain, produced the Hellenistic world, and in that achievement the history of Greek armies closes, for after the return of the greater part of the Europeans to their homes the armies of Alexander and his successors, while preserving much of the old form, become more and more orientalized.

The decisive step was taken in 323, when a picked contingent of Persians, armed mainly with missile weapons, was drafted into the phalanx, in which henceforward they formed the middle ranks of each file of sixteen men. But, like the third rank of Prussian infantry up to 1888, they normally fought as skirmishers in advance, falling into their place behind the pikes of the Macedonian file-leaders only if required for the decisive assault. The new method, of course, depended for success on the steadiness of the thin three-deep line of Macedonians thus left as the line of battle. Alexander’s veterans were indeed to be trusted, but as time went on, and little by little the war-trained Greeks left the service, it became less and less safe to array the Hellenistic army in this shallow and articulated order of battle. The purely formal organization of the phalanx sixteen deep became thus the actual tactical formation, and around this solid mass of 16,384 men gathered the heterogeneous levies of a typical oriental army. Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, retained far more of the tradition of Alexander’s system than his contemporaries farther east, yet his phalanx, comparatively light and mobile as it was, achieved victories over the Roman legion only at the cost of self-destruction. Even elephants quickly became a necessary adjunct to Hellenistic armies.

8. Carthage.—The military systems of the Jews present few features of unusual interest. The expedient of calling out successive contingents from the different tribes, in order to ensure continuity in military operations, should, however, be noticed. David and Solomon possessed numerous permanent troops which served as guards and garrisons; in principle this organization was identical with that of the Persians, and that of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Particular interest attaches to the Carthaginian military forces of the 3rd century B.C. Rarely has any army achieved such renown in the short space of sixty years (264-202 B.C.). Carthage produced a series of great generals, culminating in Hannibal, who is marked out, even by the little that is known of him, as the equal of Napoleon. But Napoleon was supported by a national army, Hannibal and his predecessors were condemned to work with armies of mercenaries. For the first time in the world’s history war is a matter with which the civil population has no concern. The merchants of Carthage fought only in the last extremity; the wars in which their markets were extended were conducted by non-national forces and directed by the few Carthaginian citizens who possessed military aptitudes. The civil authorities displayed towards their instruments a spirit of hatred for which it is difficult to find a parallel. Unsuccessful leaders were crucified, the mercenary soldiers were cheated of their pay, and broke out into a mutiny which shook the empire of Carthage to its foundations. But the magnetism of a leader’s personality infused a corporate military spirit into these heterogeneous Punic armies, and history has never witnessed so complete an illustration of the power of pure and unaided esprit de corps as in the case of Hannibal’s army in Italy, which, composed as it was of Spaniards, Africans, Gauls, Numidians, Italians and soldiers of fortune of every country, was yet welded by him into thorough efficiency. The army of Italy was as great in its last fight at Zama as the army of Spain at Rocroi; its victories of the Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae were so appalling that, two hundred years later, the leader to whom these soldiers devoted their lives was still, to a Roman, the “dire” Hannibal.

In their formal organization the Carthaginian armies resembled the new Greek model, and indeed they were created in the first instance by Xanthippus, a Spartan soldier in the service of Carthage, who was called upon to raise and train an army when the Romans were actually at the gates of Carthage, and justified his methods in the brilliant victory of Tunis (255 B.C.). For the solid Macedonian phalanx of 16,000 spears Xanthippus substituted a line of heavy battalions equal in its aggregate power of resistance to the older form, and far more flexible. The triumphs of the cavalry arm in Hannibal’s battles far excelled those of Alexander’s horsemen. Hannibal chose his fighting ground whenever possible with a view to using their full power, first to defeat the hostile cavalry, then to ride down the shaken infantry masses, and finally to pursue au fond. At Cannae, the greatest disaster ever suffered by the Romans, the decisive blow and the slaughter were the work of Hannibal’s line cavalry, the relentless pursuit that of his light horse. But a professional long-service army has always the greatest difficulty in making good its losses, and in the present case it was wholly unable to do so. Even Hannibal failed at last before the sustained efforts of the citizen army of Rome.

9. Roman Army under the Republic.—The earliest organization of the Roman army is attributed to Romulus, who formed it on the tribal principle, each of the three tribes contributing its contingent of horse and foot. But it was to Servius Tullius that Rome owed, traditionally, the complete classification of her citizen-soldiers. For the details of the Roman military system, see Roman Army. During the earlier period of Roman history the army was drawn entirely from the first classes of the population, who served without pay and provided their own arms and armour. The wealthiest men (equites) furnished the cavalry, the remainder the infantry, while the poorer classes either fought as light troops or escaped altogether the privilege and burden of military service. Each “legion” of 3000 heavy foot was at first formed in a solid phalanx. The introduction of the elastic and handy three-line formation with intervals (similar in many respects to Alexander’s) was brought about by the Gallic wars, and is attributed to M. Furius Camillus, who also, during the siege of Veii, introduced the practice of paying the soldiers, and thus removed the chief obstacle to the employment of the poorer classes. The new order of battle was fully developed in the Pyrrhic Wars, and the typical army of the Republic may be taken as dating from the latter part of the 3rd century B.C. The legionary was still possessed of a property qualification, but it had become relatively small. An annual levy was made at Rome to provide for the campaign of the year. Discipline was severe, and the rewards appealed as much to the soldier’s honour as to his desire of gain. A legion now consisted of three lines (Hastati, Principes, Triarii), each line composed of men of 595 similar age and experience, and was further subdivided into thirty “maniples,” each of two “centuries.” The normal establishment of 300 cavalry, 3000 heavy and 1200 light infantry was still maintained, though in practice these figures were often exceeded. In place of the old light-armed and somewhat inferior rorarii, the new velites performed light infantry duties (211 B.C.), at the same time retaining their place in the maniples, of which they formed the last ranks (compare the Macedonian phalanx as reorganized in 323, § 7 above). The 300 cavalry of the legion were trained for shock action. But the strength of the Roman army lay in the heavy legionary infantry of citizens. The thirty maniples of each legion stood in three lines of battle, but the most notable point of their formation was that each maniple stood by itself on its own small manœuvre-area, free to take ground to front or flank. To the Roman legion was added a legion of allies, somewhat differently organized and possessing more cavalry, and the whole force was called a “double legion” or briefly a “legion.” A consul’s army consisted nominally of two double legions, but in the Punic wars military exigencies rather than custom dictated the numbers of the army, and the two consuls at Cannae (216 B.C.) commanded two double consular armies, or eight double legions.

10. Characteristics of the Roman Army.—Such in outline was the Roman military organization at the time when it was put to the severe test of the Second Punic War. Its elements were good, its military skill superior to that of any other army of ancient history, while its organization was on the whole far better than any that had gone before. The handy formation of maniples at open order was unique in the ancient world, and it did not reappear in history up to the advent of Gustavus Adolphus. In this formation, in which everything was entrusted to the skill of subordinates and the individual courage of the rank and file, the Romans met and withstood with success every type of impact, from the ponderous shock of the Macedonian phalanx and the dangerous rush of Celtic savages to the charge of elephants. Yet it was no particular virtue in the actual form employed that carried the Roman arms to so many victories. There would have been positive danger in thus articulating the legion had it been composed of any but the most trustworthy soldiers. To swiftness and precision of manœuvre they added a dogged obstinacy over which nothing but overwhelming disaster prevailed. It is, therefore, not unnatural to ask wherein the system which produced these soldiers failed, as it did within a century after the battle of Zama. The greatest defect was the want of a single military command. The civil magistrates of Rome were ex officio leaders of her armies, and though no Roman officer lacked military training, the views of a consul or praetor were almost invariably influenced by the programme of his political party. When, as sometimes happened, the men under their command sided in the political differences of their leaders, all real control came to an end. The soldiers of the Republic hardly ever forgot that they were citizens with voting powers; they served as a rule only during a campaign; and, while there could be little question as to their patriotism and stubbornness, they lacked almost entirely that esprit de corps which is found only amongst the members of a body having a permanent corporate existence. Thus they had the vices as well as the virtues of a nation in arms, and they fell still further short of the ideal because of the dubious and precarious tenure of their generals’ commands. The great officers were usually sent home at the end of a campaign, to be replaced by their elected successors, and they showed all the hesitation and fear of responsibility usually found in a temporary commander. Above all, when two armies, each under its own consul or praetor, acted together, the command was either divided or exercised on alternate days.

11. Roman Empire.—The essential weaknesses of militia forces and the accidental circumstances of that under consideration led, even in earlier times, to the adoption of various expedients which for a time obviated the evils to which allusion has been made. But a change of far greater importance followed the final exploits of the armies of the old system. The increasing dominions of the Republic, the spread of wealth and luxury, the gradual decadence of the old Roman ideas, all tended to produce an army more suited to the needs of the newer time than the citizen militia of the 3rd century. Permanent troops were a necessity; the rich, in their newly acquired dislike of personal effort, ceased to bear their share in the routine life of the army, and thus the proletariat began to join the legions with the express intention of taking to a military career. The actual change from the old régime to the new was in the main the work of Gaius Marius. The urgent demand for men at the time of the Teutonic invasions caused the service to be thrown open to all Roman citizens irrespective of census. The new territories furnished cavalry, better and more numerous than the old equites, and light troops of various kinds to replace the velites. Only the heavy foot remained a purely Italian force, and the spread of the Roman citizenship gradually abolished the distinction between a Roman and an allied legion. The higher classes had repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to serve under plebeians (e.g. Varro and Flaminius); Marius preferred to have as soldiers men who did not despise him as an inferior. Under all these influences for good or for evil, the standing army was developed in the first half of the 1st century B.C. The tactical changes in the legion indicate its altered character. The small maniples gave way to heavy “cohorts,” ten cohorts forming the legion; as in the Napoleonic wars, light and handy formations became denser and more rigid with the progressive decadence in moral of the rank and file. It is more significant still that in the days of Marius the annual oath of allegiance taken by the soldier came to be replaced by a personal vow, taken once and for all, of loyalty to the general. Ubi bene, ibi patria was an expression of the new spirit of the army, and Caesar had but to address his men as quirites (civilians) to quell a mutiny. Hastati, principes and triarii were now merely expressions in drill and tactics. But perhaps the most important of all these changes was the growth of regimental spirit and tradition. The legions were now numbered throughout the army, and the Tenth Legion has remained a classic instance of a “crack” corps. The moral of the Roman army was founded no longer on patriotism, but on professional pride and esprit de corps.

With this military system Rome passed through the era of the Civil Wars, at the end of which Augustus found himself with forty-five legions on his hands. As soon as possible he carried through a great reorganization, by which, after ruthlessly rejecting inferior elements, he obtained a smaller picked force of twenty-five legions, with numerous auxiliary forces. These were permanently stationed in the frontier provinces of the Empire, while Italy was garrisoned by the Praetorian cohorts, and thus was formed a regular long-service army, the strength of which has been estimated at 300,000 men. But these measures, temporarily successful, produced in the end an army which not only was perpetually at variance with the civil populations it was supposed to protect, but frequently murdered the emperors to whom it had sworn allegiance when it raised them to the throne. The evil fame of the Italian cohorts has survived in the phrase “praetorianism” used to imply a venal military despotism. The citizens gradually ceased to bear arms, and the practice of self-mutilation became common. The inevitable dénouement was delayed from time to time by the work of an energetic prince. But the ever-increasing inefficiency and factiousness of the legions, and the evanescence of all military spirit in the civil population, made it easy for the barbarians, when once the frontier was broken through, to overrun the decadent Empire. The end came when the Gothic heavy horse annihilated the legions of Valens at Adrianople (A.D. 378).

There was now no resource but to take the barbarians into Roman pay. Under the name of foederati, the Gothic mercenary cavalry played the most conspicuous part in the succeeding wars of the Empire, and began the reign of the heavy cavalry arm, which lasted for almost a thousand years. Even so soon as within six years of the death of Valens twenty thousand Gothic horse decided a great battle in the emperor’s favour. These men, however, became turbulent and factious, and it was not until the emperor Leo I. had regenerated the native Roman soldier 596 that the balance was maintained between the national and the hired warrior. The work of this emperor and of his successors found eventual expression in the victories of Belisarius and Narses, in which the Romans, in the new role of horse-archers, so well combined their efforts with those of the foederati that neither the heavy cavalry of the Goths nor the phalanx of Frankish infantry proved to be capable of resisting the imperial forces. At the battle of Casilinum (553) Roman foot-archers and infantry bore no small part of the work. It was thus in the Eastern Empire that the Roman military spirit revived, and the Byzantine army, as evolved from the system of Justinian, became eventually the sole example of a fully organized service to be found in medieval history.

12. The “Dark Ages.”—In western Europe all traces of Roman military institutions quickly died out, and the conquerors of the new kingdoms developed fresh systems from the simple tribal levy. The men of the plains were horsemen, those of marsh and moor were foot, and the four greater peoples retained these original characteristics long after the conquest had been completed. In organization the Lombards and Franks, Visigoths and English scarcely differed. The whole military population formed the mass of the army, the chiefs and their personal retainers the élite. The Lombards and the Visigoths were naturally cavalry; the Franks and the English were, equally naturally, infantry, and the armies of the Merovingian kings differed but little from the English fyrd with which Offa and Penda fought their battles. But in these nations the use of horses and armour, at first confined to kings and great chiefs, gradually spread downwards to the ever-growing classes of thegns, comites, &c. Finally, under Charlemagne were developed the general lines of the military organization which eventually became feudalism. For his distant wars he required an efficient and mobile army. Hence successive “capitularies” were issued dealing with matters of recruiting, organization, discipline and field service work. Very noticeable are his system of forts (burgi) with garrisons, his military train of artillery and supplies, and the reappearance of the ancient principle that three or four men should equip and maintain one of themselves as a warrior. These and other measures taken by him tended to produce a strong veteran army, very different in efficiency from the tumultuary levy, to which recourse was had only in the last resort. While war (as a whole) was not yet an art, fighting (from the individual’s point of view) had certainly become a special function; after Charlemagne’s time the typical feudal army, composed of well-equipped cavalry and ill-armed peasantry serving on foot, rapidly developed. Enemies such as Danes and Magyars could only be dealt with by mounted men who could ride round them, compel them to fight, and annihilate them by the shock of the charge; consequently the practice of leaving the infantry in rear, and even at home, grew up almost as a part of the feudal system of warfare. England, however, sought a different remedy, and thus diverged from the continental methods. This remedy was the creation of a fleet, and, the later Danish wars being there carried out, not by bands of mounted raiders, but by large armies of military settlers, infantry retained its premier position in England up to the day of Hastings. Even the thegns, who there, as abroad, were the mainstay of the army, were heavy-armed infantry. The only contribution made by Canute to the military organization of England was the retention of a picked force of hus carles (household troops) when the rest of the army with which he had conquered his realm was sent back to Scandinavia. At Hastings, the forces of Harold consisted wholly of infantry. The English array was composed of the king and his personal friends, the hus carles, and the contingents of the fyrd under the local thegns; though better armed, they were organized after the manner of their forefathers. On that field there perished the best infantry in Europe, and henceforward for three centuries there was no serious rival to challenge the predominance of the heavy cavalry.

13. The Byzantines (cf. article Roman Empire, Later).—While the west of Europe was evolving feudalism, the Byzantine empire was acquiring an army and military system scarcely surpassed by any of those of antiquity and not often equalled up to the most modern times. The foederati disappeared after the time of Justinian, and by A.D. 600 the army had become at once professional and national. For generations, regiments had had a corporate existence. Now brigades and divisions also appeared in war, and, somewhat later, in peace likewise. With the disappearance of the barbarians, the army became one homogeneous service, minutely systematized, and generally resembling an army in the modern sense of the word. The militia of the frontier districts performed efficiently the service of surveillance, and the field forces of disciplined regulars were moved and employed in accordance with well-reasoned principles of war; their maintenance was provided for by a scutage, levied, in lieu of service, on the central provinces of the empire. Later, a complete territorial system of recruiting and command was introduced. Each “theme” (military district) had its own regular garrison, and furnished a field division of some 5000 picked troopers for a campaign in any theatre of war. Provision having been made in peace for a depot system, all weakly men and horses could be left behind, and local duties handed over to second line troops; thus the field forces were practically always on a war footing. Beside the “themes” under their generals, there were certain districts on the frontiers, called “clissuras,” placed under chosen officers, and specially organized for emergency service. The corps of officers in the Byzantine army was recruited from the highest classes, and there were many families (e.g. that from which came the celebrated Nicephorus Phocas) in which soldiering was the traditional career. The rank and file were either military settlers or men of the yeoman class, and in either case had a personal interest in the safety of the theme which prevented friction between soldiers and civilians. The principal arm was, of course, cavalry, and infantry was employed only in special duties. Engineer, train and medical services were maintained in each theme. Of the ensemble of the Byzantine army it has been said that “the art of war as it was understood at Constantinople ... was the only system of real merit existing. No western nation could have afforded such a training to its officers till the 16th or ... 17th century.” The vitality of such an army remained intact long after the rest of the empire had begun to decay, and though the old army practically ceased to exist after the great disaster of Manzikert (1071), the barbarians and other mercenaries who formed the new service were organized, drilled and trained to the same pitch of military efficiency. Indeed the greatest tactical triumph of the Byzantine system (Calavryta, 1079) was won by an army already largely composed of foreigners. But mercenaries in the end developed praetorianism, as usual, and at last they actually mutinied, in the presence of the enemy, for higher pay (Constantinople, 1204).

14. Feudalism.—From the military point of view the change under feudalism was very remarkable. For the first time in the history of western Europe there appears, in however rough a form, a systematized obligation to serve in arms, regulated on a territorial basis. That army organization in the modern sense—organization for tactics and command—did not develop in any degree commensurate with the development of military administration, was due to the peculiar characteristics of the feudal system, and the virtues and weaknesses of medieval armies were its natural outcome. Personal bravery, the primary virtue of the soldier, could not be wanting in the members of a military class, the métier of which was war and manly exercises. Pride of caste, ambition and knightly emulation, all helped to raise to a high standard the individual efficiency of the feudal cavalier. But the gravest faults of the system, considered as an army organization, were directly due to this personal element. Indiscipline, impatience of superior control, and dangerous knight-errantry, together with the absence of any chain of command, prevented the feudal cavalry from achieving results at all proportionate to the effort expended and the potentialities of a force with so many soldierly qualities. If such defects were habitually found in the best elements of the army—the feudal tenants and subtenants who formed the heavy cavalry arm—little 597 could be expected of the despised and ill-armed foot-soldiery of the levy. The swift raids of the Danes and others (see above) had created a precedent which in French and German wars was almost invariably followed. The feudal levy rarely appeared at all on the battlefield, and when it was thus employed it was ridden down by the hostile knights, and even by those of its own party, without offering more than the feeblest resistance. Above all, one disadvantage, common to all classes of feudal soldiers, made an army so composed quite untrustworthy. The service which a king was able to exact from his feudatories was so slight (varying from one month to three in the year) that no military operation which was at all likely to be prolonged could be undertaken with any hope of success.

15. Medieval Mercenaries.—It was natural, therefore, that a sovereign who contemplated a great war should employ mercenaries. These were usually foreigners, as practically all national forces served on feudal terms. While the greater lords rode with him on all his expeditions, the bulk of his army consisted of professional soldiers, paid by the levy of scutage imposed upon the feudal tenantry. There had always been soldiers of fortune. William’s host at Hastings contained many such men; later, the Flemings who invaded England in the days of Henry I. sang to each other—

“Hop, hop, Willeken, hop! England is mine and thine,”—

and from all the evidence it is clear that in earlier days the hired soldiers were adventurers seeking lands and homes. But these men usually proved to be most undesirable subjects, and sovereigns soon began to pay a money wage for the services of mercenaries properly so called. Such were the troops which figured in English history under Stephen. Such troops, moreover, formed the main part of the armies of the early Plantagenets. They were, as a matter of course, armed and armoured like the knights, with whom they formed the men-at-arms (gendarmes) of the army. Indeed, in the 11th and 12th centuries, the typical army of France or the Empire contains a relatively small percentage of “knights,” evidence of which fact may be found even in so fanciful a romance as Aucassin and Nicolete. It must be noted, however, that not all the mercenaries were heavy cavalry; the Brabançon pikeman and the Italian crossbowman (the value of whose weapon was universally recognized) often formed part of a feudal army.

16. Infantry in Feudal Times.—These mercenary foot soldiers came as a rule from districts in which the infantry arm had maintained its ancient predominance in unbroken continuity. The cities of Flanders and Brabant, and those of the Lombard plain, had escaped feudal interference with their methods of fighting, and their burgher militia had developed into solid bodies of heavy-armed pikemen. These were very different from those of the feudal levy, and individual knightly bravery usually failed to make the slightest impression on a band of infantry held together by the stringent corporate feeling of a trade-gild. The more adventurous of the young men, like those of the Greek cities, took service abroad and fought with credit in their customary manner. The reign of the “Brabançon” as a mercenary was indeed short, but he continued, in his own country, to fight in the old way, and his successor in the profession of arms, the Genoese crossbowman, was always highly valued. In England, moreover, the infantry of the old fyrd was not suffered to decay into a rabble of half-armed countrymen, and in France a burgher infantry was established by Louis VI. under the name of the milice des communes, with the idea of creating a counterpoise to the power of the feudatories. Feudalism, therefore, as a military system, was short-lived. Its limitations had always necessitated the employment of mercenaries, and in several places a solid infantry was coming into existence, which was drawn from the sturdy and self-respecting middle classes, and in a few generations was to prove itself a worthy opponent not only to the knight, but to the professional man-at-arms.

17. The Crusades.—It is an undoubted fact that the long wars of the Crusades produced, directly, but slight improvement in the feudal armies of Europe. In the East large bodies of men were successfully kept under arms for a considerable period, but the application of crusading methods to European war was altogether impracticable. In the first place, much of the permanent force of these armies was contributed by the military orders, which had no place in European political activities. Secondly, enthusiasm mitigated much of the evil of individualism. In the third place, there was no custom to limit the period of service, since the Crusaders had undertaken a definite task and would merely have stultified their own purpose in leaving the work only half done. There were, therefore, sharp contrasts between crusading and European armies. In the latter, systematization was confined to details of recruiting; in the armies of the Cross, men were from time to time obtained by the accident of religious fervour, while at the same time continuous service produced a relatively high system of tactical organization. Different conditions, therefore, produced different methods, and crusading unity and discipline could not have been imposed on an ordinary army, which indeed with its paid auxiliaries was fairly adequate for the somewhat desultory European wars of that time. The statement that the Crusaders had a direct influence on the revival of infantry is hardly susceptible of convincing demonstration, but it is at any rate beyond question that the social and economic results of the Crusades materially contributed to the downfall of the feudal knight, and in consequence to a rise in the relative importance of the middle classes. Further, not only were the Crusading knights compelled by their own want of numbers to rely on the good qualities of the foot, but the foot themselves were the “survivors of the fittest,” for the weakly men died before they reached the Holy Land, and with them there were always knights who had lost their horses and could not obtain remounts. Moreover, when “simple” and “gentle” both took the Cross there could be no question of treating Crusaders as if they were the mere feudal levy. But the little direct influence of the whole of these wars upon military progress in Europe is shown clearly enough by the fact that at the very close of the Crusades a great battle was lost through knight-errantry of the true feudal type (Mansurah).

18. The Period of Transition (1290-1490).—Besides the infantry already mentioned, that of Scotland and that of the German cities fought with credit on many fields. Their arm was the pike, and they were always formed in solid masses (called in Scotland, schiltrons). The basis of the medieval commune being the suppression of the individual in the social unit, it was natural that the burgher infantry should fight “in serried ranks and in better order” than a line of individual knights, who, moreover, were almost powerless before walled cities. But these forces lacked offensive power, and it was left for the English archers, whose importance dates from the latter years of the 13th century, to show afresh, at Creçy, Poitiers and Agincourt, the value of missile action. When properly supported by other arms, they proved themselves capable of meeting both the man-at-arms and the pikeman. The greatest importance attaches to the evolution of this idea of mutual support and combination. Once it was realized, war became an art, and armies became specially organized bodies of troops of different arms. It cannot be admitted, indeed, as has been claimed, that the 14th century had a scientific system of tactics, or that the campaign of Poitiers was arranged by the French “general staff.” Nevertheless, during this century armies were steadily coming to consist of expert soldiers, to the exclusion of national levies and casual mercenaries. It is true that, by his system of “indents,” Edward III. of England raised national armies of a professional type, but the English soldier thus enrolled, when discharged by his own sovereign, naturally sought similar employment elsewhere. This system produced, moreover, a class of unemployed soldiers, and these, with others who became adventurers from choice or necessity, and even with foreign troops, formed the armies which fought in the Wars of the Roses—armies which differed but slightly from others of the time. The natural result of these wars was to implant a hatred of soldiery in the heart of a nation which had formerly produced the best fighting men in Europe, a hatred which left a deep imprint on the constitutional and social life of the people. In 598 France, where Joan of Arc passed like a meteor across the military firmament, the idea of a national regular army took a practical form in the middle of the 15th century. Still, the forces thus brought into existence were not numerous, and the soldier of fortune, in spite of such experiences of his methods as those of the Wars of the Roses, was yet to attain the zenith of his career.

19. The Condottieri.—The immediate result of this confused period of destruction and reconstruction was the condottiere, who becomes important about 1300. In Italy, where the condottieri chiefly flourished, they were in demand owing to the want of feudal cavalry, and the inability of burgher infantry to undertake wars of aggression. The “free companies” (who served in great numbers in France and Spain as well as in Italy) were “military societies very much like trade-gilds,” which (so to speak) were hawked from place to place by their managing directors, and hired temporarily by princes who needed their services. Unlike the older hirelings, they were permanently organized, and thus, with their experience and discipline, became the best troops in existence. But the carrying on of war “in the spirit of a handicraft” led to bloodless battles, indecisive campaigns, and other unsatisfactory results, and the reign of the condottieri proper was over by 1400, subsequent free companies being raised on a more strictly national basis. With all their defects, however, they were the pioneers of modern organization. In the inextricable tangle of old and new methods which constitutes the military system of the 15th century, it is possible to discern three marked tendencies. One is the result of a purely military conception of the now special art of war, and its exposition as an art by men who devote their whole career to it. The second is the idea of a national army, resulting from many social, economical and political causes. The third is the tendency towards minuter organization and subdivision within the army. Whereas the individual feudatories had disliked the close supervision of a minor commander, and their army had in consequence remained always a loosely-knit unit, the men who made war into an art belonged to small bands or corps, and naturally began their organization from the lower units. Herein, therefore, was the germ of the regimental system of the present day.

20. The Swiss.—The best description of a typical European army at the opening of the new period of development is that of the French army in Italy in 1494, written by Paolo Giovio. He notes with surprise that the various corps of infantry and cavalry are distinct, the usual practice of the time being to combine one lancer, one archer, one groom, &c., into a small unit furnished and commanded by the lancer. There were Swiss and German infantry, armed with pike and halbert, with a few “shot,” who marched in good order to music. There were the heavy men-at-arms (gendarmes), accompanied as of old by mounted archers, who, however, now fought independently. There were, further, Gascon slingers and crossbowmen, who had probably acquired, from contact with Spain, some of the lightness and dash of their neighbours. The artillery train was composed of 140 heavy pieces and a great number of lighter guns; these were then and for many generations thereafter a special arm outside the military establishments (see Artillery). In all this the only relic of the days of Creçy is the administrative combination of the men-at-arms and the horse archers, and even this is no longer practised in action. The most important element in the army is the heavy infantry of Swiss and Germans. The Swiss had for a century past gradually developed into the most formidable troops of the day. The wars of Žižka (q.v.) in Bohemia (1420) materially assisted in the downfall of the heavy cavalry; and the victories of the Swiss, beginning with Sempach (1382), had by 1480 proved that their solid battalions, armed with the long pike and the halberd, were practically invulnerable to all but missile and shock action combined. By fortune of war, they never met the English, who had shown the way to deal with the schiltron as early as Falkirk. So great was their confidence against ordinary troops, that on one occasion (1444) they detached 1600 men to engage 50,000. It was natural that a series of victories such as Granson, Morat and Nancy should place them in the forefront of the military nations of Europe. The whole people devoted itself thereupon to professional soldiering, particularly in the French service, and though their monopoly of mercenary employment lasted a short time only, they continued to furnish regiments to the armies of France, Spain and the Pope up to the most modern times. But their efficiency was thoroughly sapped by the growth of a mutinous and insubordinate spirit, the memory of which has survived in the proverb Point d’argent, point de Suisse, and inspired Machiavelli with the hatred of mercenaries which marks every page of his work on the art of war. One of their devices for extorting money was to appear at the muster with many more soldiers than had been contracted for by their employers, who were forced to submit to this form of blackmail. At last the French, tired of these caprices, inflicted on the Swiss the crushing defeat of Marignan (q.v.), and their tactical system received its death-blow from the Spaniards at Pavia (1525).

21. The Landsknechts.—The modern army owes far more of its organization and administrative methods to the Landsknechts (“men of the country,” as distinct from foreigners) than to the Swiss. As the latter were traditionally the friends of France, so these Swabians were the mainstay of the Imperial armies, though both were mercenaries. The emperor Maximilian exerted himself to improve the new force, which soon became the model for military Europe. A corps of Landsknechts was usually raised by a system resembling that of “indents,” commissions being issued by the sovereign to leaders of repute to enlist men. A “colour” (Fähnlein) numbered usually about 400 men, a corps consisted of a varying number of colours, some corps having 12,000 men. From these troops, with their intense pride, esprit de corps and comradeship, there has come down to modern times much of present-day etiquette, interior economy and “regimental customs”—in other words, nearly all that is comprised in the “regimental” system. Amongst the most notable features of their system were the functions of the provost, who combined the modern offices of provost-marshal, transport and supply officer, and canteen manager; the disciplinary code, which admitted the right of the rank and file to judge offences touching the honour of the regiment; and the women who, lawfully or unlawfully attached to the soldiers, marched with the regiment and had a definite place in its corporate life. The conception of the regiment as the home of the soldier was thus realized in fact.

22. The Spanish Army.—The tendencies towards professional soldiering and towards subdivision had now pronounced themselves. At the same time, while national armies, as dreamed of by Machiavelli; were not yet in existence, two at least of the powers were beginning to work towards an ideal. This ideal was an army which was entirely at the disposal of its own sovereign, trained to the due professional standard, and organized in the best way found by experience to be applicable to military needs. On these bases was formed the old Spanish army which, from Pavia (1525) to Rocroi (1643), was held by common consent to be the finest service in existence. Almost immediately after emerging from the period of internal development, Spain found herself obliged to maintain an army for the Italian wars. In the first instance this was raised from amongst veterans of the war of Granada, who enlisted for an indefinite time. Probably the oldest line regiments in Europe are those descended from the famous tercios, whose formation marks the beginning of military establishments, just as the Landsknechts were the founders of military manners and customs. The great captains who led the new army soon assimilated the best points of the Swiss system, and it was the Spanish army which evolved the typical combination of pike and musket which flourished up to 1700. Outside the domain the tactics, it must be credited with an important contribution to the science of army organization, in the depot system, whereby the tercios in the field were continually “fed” and kept up to strength. The social position of the soldier was that of a gentleman, and the young nobles (who soon came to prefer the tercios to the cavalry service) thought it no shame, 599 when their commands were reduced, to “take a pike” in another regiment. The provost and his gallows were as much in evidence in a Spanish camp as in one of Landsknechts, but the comradeship and esprit de corps of a tercio were the admiration of all contemporary soldiers. With all its good qualities, however, this army was not truly national; men soon came from all the various nations ruled by the Habsburgs, and the soldier of fortune found employment in a tercio as readily as elsewhere. But it was a great gain that corps, as such, were fully recognized as belonging to the government, however shifting the personnel might be. Permanence of regimental existence had now been attained, though the universal acceptance and thorough application of the principle were still far distant. During the 16th century, the French regular army (originating in the compagnies d’ordonnance of 1445), which was always in existence, even when the Swiss and gendarmes were the best part of the field forces, underwent a considerable development, producing amongst other things the military terminology of the present day. But the wars of religion effectually checked all progress in the latter part of the century, and the European reputation of the French army dates only from the latter part of the Thirty Years’ War.

23. The Sixteenth Century.—The battle of St Quentin (1557) is usually taken as the date from which the last type of a purely mercenary arm (as distinct from corps) comes into prominence. “Brabançon” or “Swiss” implied pikemen without further qualification, the new term “Reiter” similarly implied mercenary cavalry fighting with the pistol. Heavy cavalry could disperse arquebusiers and musketeers, but it was helpless against solid masses of pikemen; the Reiters solved the difficulty by the use of the pistol. They were well armoured and had little to fear from musket-balls. Arrayed in deep squadrons, therefore, they rode up to the pikes with impunity, and fired methodically dans le tas, each rank when it had discharged its pistols filing to the rear to reload. These Reiters were organized in squadrons of variable strength, and recruited in the same manner as were the Landsknechts. They were much inferior, however, to the latter in their discipline and general conduct, for cavalry had many more individual opportunities of plunder than the foot, and the rapacity and selfishness of the Reiters were consequently in marked contrast to the good order and mutual helpfulness in the field and in quarters which characterized the regimental system of the Landsknechts.

24. Dutch System.—The most interesting feature of the Dutch system, which was gradually evolved by the patriots in the long War of Independence, was its minute attention to detail. In the first years of the war, William the Silent had to depend, for field operations, on mutinous and inefficient mercenaries and on raw countrymen who had nothing but devotion to oppose to the discipline and skill of the best regular army in the world. Such troops were, from the point of view of soldiers like Alva, mere canaille, and the ludicrous ease with which their armies were destroyed (as at Jemmingen and Mookerheyde), at the cost of the lives of perhaps a dozen Spanish veterans, went far to justify this view. But, fortunately for the Dutch, their fortified towns were exceedingly numerous, and the individual bravery of citizen-militia, who were fighting for the lives of every soul within their walls, baffled time after time all the efforts of Alva’s men. In the open, Spanish officers took incredible liberties with the enemy; once, at any rate, they marched for hours together along submerged embankments with hostile vessels firing into them from either side. Behind walls the Dutch were practically a match for the most furious valour of the assailants.

The insurgents’ first important victory in the open field, that of Rymenant near Malines (1577), was won by the skill of “Bras de Fer,” de la Noue, a veteran French general, and the stubbornness of the English contingent of the Dutch army—for England, from 1572 onwards, sent out an ever-increasing number of volunteers. This battle was soon followed by the great defeat of Gembloux (1578), and William the Silent was not destined to see the rise of the Dutch army. Maurice of Nassau was the real organizer of victory. In the wreck of all feudal and burgher military institutions, he turned to the old models of Xenophon, Polybius, Aelian and the rest. Drill, as rigid and as complicated as that of the Macedonian phalanx, came into vogue, the infantry was organized more strictly into companies and regiments, the cavalry into troops or cornets. The Reiter tactics of the pistol were followed by the latter, the former consisted of pikes, halberts and “shot.” This form was generally followed in central Europe, as usual, without the spirit, but in Holland it was the greater trustworthiness of the rank and file that allowed of more flexible formations, and here we no longer see the foot of an army drawn up, as at Jemmingen, in one solid and immovable “square.” In their own country and with the system best suited thereto, the Dutch, who moreover acquired greater skill and steadiness day by day, maintained their ground against all the efforts of a Parma and a Spinola. Indeed, it is the best tribute to the vitality of the Spanish system that the inevitable débâcle was so long delayed. The campaigns of Spinola in Germany demonstrated that the “Dutch” system, as a system for general use, was at any rate no better than the system over which it had locally asserted its superiority, and the spirit, and not the form, of Maurice’s practice achieved the ultimate victory of the Netherlanders. In the Thirty Years’ War, the unsuccessful armies of Mansfeld and many others were modelled on the Dutch system,—the forces of Spinola, of Tilly and of Wallenstein, on the Spanish. In other words, these systems as such meant little; the discipline and spirit behind them, everything. Yet the contribution made by the Dutch system to the armies of to-day was not small; to Maurice and his comrades we owe, first the introduction of careful and accurate drill, and secondly the beginnings of an acknowledged science of war, the groundwork of both being the theory and practice of antiquity. The present method of “forming fours” in the British infantry is ultimately derived from Aelian, just as the first beats of the drums in a march represent the regimental calls of the Landsknechts, and the depots and the drafts for the service battalions date from the Italian wars of Spain.

25. The Thirty Years’ War.—Hitherto all armies had been raised or reduced according to the military and political situation of the moment. Spain had indeed maintained a relatively high effective in peace, but elsewhere a few personal guards, small garrisons, and sometimes a small regular army to serve as a nucleus, constituted the only permanent forces kept under arms by sovereigns, though, in this era of perpetual wars, armies were almost always on a war footing. The expense of maintenance at that time practically forbade any other system than this, called in German Werbe-system, a term for which in English there is no nearer equivalent than “enlistment” or “levy” system. It is worth noticing that this very system is identical in principle with that of the United States at the present day, viz., a small permanent force, inflated to any required size at the moment of need. The exceptional conditions of the Dutch army, indeed, secured for its regiments a long life; yet when danger was finally over, a large portion of the army was at once reduced. The history of the British army from about 1740 to 1820 is a most striking, if belated, example of the Werbe-system in practice. But the Thirty Years’ War naturally produced an unusual continuity of service in corps raised about 1620-1630, and fifty years later the principle of the standing army was universally accepted. It is thus that the senior regiments of the Prussian and Austrian armies date from about 1630. At this time an event took place which was destined to have a profound influence on the military art. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden landed in Germany with an army better organized, trained and equipped than any which had preceded it. This army, by its great victory of Breitenfeld (1631), inaugurated the era of “modern” warfare, and it is to the system of Gustavus that the student must turn for the initial point of the progressive development which has produced the armies of to-day. Spanish and Dutch methods at once became as obsolete as those of the Landsknechts.

26. The Swedish Army.—The Swedish army was raised by a carefully regulated system of conscription, which was “preached in every pulpit in Sweden.” There were indeed enlisted regiments of the usual type, and it would seem that Gustavus 600 obtained the best even of the soldiers of fortune. But the national regiments were raised on the Indelta system. Each officer and man, under this scheme, received a land grant within the territorial district of his corps, and each of these districts supplied recruits in numbers proportionate to its population. This curious mixture of feudal and modern methods produced the best elements of an army, which, aided by the tactical and technical improvements introduced by Gustavus, proved itself incomparably superior to its rivals. Of course the long and bloody campaigns of 1630-34 led to the admission of great numbers of mercenaries even into the Swedish corps; and German, Scottish and other regiments figured largely, not only in the armies of Duke Bernhard and his successors, but in the army of Gustavus’ own lifetime. As early as 1632 one brigade of the army was distinguished by the title “Swedish,” as alone containing no foreigners. Yet the framework was much the same as it had been in 1630. The battle-organization of two lines and two wings, which was typical of the later “linear” tactics, began to supplant the system of the tercios. How cumbrous the latter had become by 1630 may be judged from any battle-plan of the period, and notably from that of Lützen. Gustavus’ cavalry fought four or three deep only, and depended as little as possible on the pistol. The work of riding down the pikes was indeed rendered easier by the improved tactical handiness of the musketeers, but it was fiery leading which alone compelled victory, for there were relatively few Swedish horse and many squadrons of Germans and others, who in themselves were far less likely to charge boldly than the “Pappenheimers” and other crack corps of the enemy. The infantry was of the highest class, and only on that condition could loose and supple lines be trusted to oppose the solid tercios of Tilly and Wallenstein. Cumbrous indeed these were, but by long practice they had acquired no small manœuvring power, of which Breitenfeld affords a striking example. The Swedes, however, completely surpassed them. The progress thus made may be gauged from the fact that under Gustavus the largest closed body of infantry was less than 300 strong. Briefly, the genius of a great commander, the ardour of a born cavalry leader, better arms and better organization, carried the Swedes to the end of their career of victory, but how personal was the vis viva which inspired the army was quickly noticeable after the death of Gustavus. Even a Bernhard could, in the end, evoke no more heroism from a Swedish army than from any other, and the real Swedish troops fought their last battle at Nördlingen (1634). After this, little distinguished the “Swedish” forces from the general mass of the armies of the time, save their system, to which, and to its influence on the training of such leaders as Banér, Torstensson and Wrangel, all their later victories were due. So much of Gustavus’ work survived even the carnage of Nördlingen, and his system always obtained better results, even with the heterogeneous troops of this later period, than any other of the time.

27. The English Civil War (see Great Rebellion).—The armies on either side which, about the same time, were fighting out the constitutional quarrel in England were essentially different from all those of the continent, though their formal organization was similar to that of the Swedes. The military expression of a national conscience had appeared rarely indeed in the Thirty Years’ War, which was a means of livelihood for, rather than an assertion of principle by, those who engaged in it. In England, on the other hand, there were no mercenaries, and the whole character of the operations was settled by the burning desire of a true “nation in arms” to decide at once, by the arbitrament of battle, the vital points at issue. A German critic (Fritz Hoenig) has indicated Worcester as the prototype of Sedan; at any rate, battles of this kind invariably resulted in failure when entrusted to a “standing” army of the 18th century. But the national armies disappeared at the end of the struggle; after the Restoration, English political aims became, so far as military activity was concerned, similar in scope and execution to those of the continent; and the example of Cromwell and the “New Model,” which might have revolutionized military Europe, passed away without having any marked influence on the armies of other nations.

28. Standing Armies.—Nine years after Nördlingen, the old Spanish army fought its last and most honourable battle at Rocroi. Its conquerors were the new French troops, whose victory created as great a sensation as Pavia and Creçy had done. Infusing a new military spirit into the formal organization of Gustavus’ system, the French army was now to “set the fashion” for a century. France had been the first power to revive regular forces, and the famous “Picardie” regiment disputed for precedence even with the old tercios. The country had emerged from the confusion of the past century with the foreign and domestic strength of a practically absolute central power. The Fronde continued the military history of the army from the end of the Thirty Years’ War; and when the period of consolidation was finally closed, all was prepared for the introduction of a “standing army,” practically always at war strength, and entirely at the disposal of the sovereign. The reorganization of the military establishments by Louvois may be taken as the formal date at which standing armies came into prominence (see historical sketch of the French army below). Other powers rapidly followed the lead of France, for the defects of enlisted troops had become very clear, and the possession of an army always ready for war was an obvious advantage in dynastic politics. The French proprietary system of regiments, and the general scheme of army administration which replaced it, may be taken as typical of the armies of other great powers in the time of Louis XIV.

29. Character of the Standing Armies.—A peculiar character was from the first imparted to the new organizations by the results of the Thirty Years’ War. A well-founded horror of military barbarity had the effect of separating the soldier from the civilian by an impassable gulf. The drain of thirty years on the population, resources and finances of almost every country in middle Europe, everywhere limited the size of the new armies; and the decision in 1648 of all questions save those of dynastic interest dictated the nature of their employment. The best soldiers of the time pronounced in favour of small field armies, for in the then state of communications and agriculture large forces proved in practice too cumbrous for good work. In every country, therefore, the army took the form of a professional body, nearly though not quite independent of extra recruits for war, set apart entirely from all contact with civil life, rigidly restricted as to conduct in peace and war, and employed mostly in the “maintenance” of their superiors’ private quarrels. Iron discipline produced splendid tenacity in action, and wholesale desertion at all times. In the Seven Years’ War, for instance, the Austrians stated one-fifth of their total loss as due to desertion, and Thackeray’s Barry Lyndon gives no untrue picture of the life of a soldier under the old regime. Further, since men were costly, rigid economy of their lives in action, and minute care for their feeding and shelter on the march, occupied a disproportionate amount of the attention of their generals. Armies necessarily moved slowly and remained concentrated to facilitate supply and to check desertion, and thus, when a commander had every unit of his troops within a short ride of his headquarters, there was little need for intermediate general officers, and still less for a highly trained staff.

30. Organization in the 18th Century.—All armies were now almost equal in fighting value, and war was consequently reduced to a set of rules (not principles), since superiority was only to be gained by methods, not by men. Soldiers such as Marlborough, who were superior to these jejune prescriptions, met indeed with uniform success. But the methods of the 18th century failed to receive full illustration, save by the accident of a great captain’s direction, even amidst the circumstances for which they were designed. It is hardly to be wondered at, therefore, that they failed, when forced by a new phase of development to cope with events completely beyond their element. The inner organization was not markedly altered. Artillery was still outside the normal organization of the line of battle, though in the period 1660-1740 much was done in all countries to improve 601 the material, and above all to turn the personnel into disciplined soldiers. Cavalry was organized in regiments and squadrons, and armed with sabre and pistol. Infantry had by 1703 begun to assume its three-deep line formation and the typical weapons of the arm, musket and bayonet. Regiments and battalions were the units of combat as well as organization. In the fight the company was entirely merged in the higher unit, but as an administrative body it still remained. As for the higher organization, an army consisted simply of a greater or less number of battalions and squadrons, without, as a rule, intermediate commands and groupings. The army was arrayed as a whole in two lines of battle, with the infantry in the centre and the cavalry on the flanks, and an advanced guard; the so-called reserve consisting merely of troops not assigned to the regular commands. It was divided, for command in action, into right and left wings, both of cavalry and infantry, of each line. This was the famous “linear” organization, which in theory produced the maximum effort in the minimum time, but in practice, handled by officers whose chief care was to avoid the expenditure of effort, achieved only negative results. To see its defects one need only suppose a battalion of the first line hard pressed by the enemy. A battalion of the second line was directly behind it, but there was no authority, less than that of the wing commander, which could order it up to support the first. All the conditions of the time were opposed to tactical subdivision, as the term is now understood. That the 18th century did not revive schiltrons was due to the new fire tactics, to which everything but control was sacrificed. This “control,” as has been said, implied not so much command as police supervision. But far beyond any faults of organization and recruiting, the inherent vice of these armies was, as Machiavelli had pointed out two centuries previously, and as Prussia was to learn to her cost in 1806, that once they were thoroughly defeated, the only thing left to be done was to make peace at once, since there was no other armed force capable of retrieving a failure.

31. Frederick the Great.—The military career of Frederick the Great is very different from those of his predecessors. With an army organized on the customary system, and trained and equipped, better indeed, but still on the same lines as those of his rivals, the king of Prussia achieved results out of all proportion to those imagined by contemporary soldiers. It is to his campaigns, therefore, that the student must refer for the real, if usually latent, possibilities of the army of the 18th century. The prime secret of his success lay in the fact that he was his own master, and responsible to no superior for the uses to which he put his men. This position had never, since the introduction of standing armies, been attained by any one, even Eugene and Leopold of Dessau being subject to the common restriction; and with this extraordinary advantage over his opponents, Frederick had further the firmness and ruthless energy of a great commander. Prussia, moreover, was more strictly organized than other countries, and there was relatively little of that opposition of local authorities to the movement of troops which was conspicuous in Austria. The military successes of Prussia, therefore, up to 1757, were not primarily due to the system and the formal tactics, but were the logical outcome of greater energy in the leading, and less friction in the administration, of her armies. But the conditions were totally different in 1758-1762, when the full force of the alliance against Prussia developed itself in four theatres of war. Frederick was driven back to the old methods of making war, and his men were no longer the soldiers of Leuthen and Hohenfriedberg. If discipline was severe before, it was merciless then; the king obtained men by force and fraud from every part of Germany, and had both to repress and to train them in the face of the enemy. That under such conditions, and with such men, the weaker party finally emerged triumphant, was indeed a startling phenomenon. Yet its result for soldiers was not the production of the national army, though the dynastic forces had once more shown themselves incapable of compassing decisive victories, nor yet the removal of the barrier between army and people, for the operations of Frederick’s recruiting agents made a lasting impression, and, further, large numbers of men who had thought to make a profession of arms were turned adrift at the end of the war. On the contrary, all that the great and prolonged tour de force of these years produced was a tendency, quite in the spirit of the age, to make a formal science out of the art of war. Better working and better methods were less sought after than systematization of the special practices of the most successful commanders. Thus Frederick’s methods, since 1758 essentially the same as those of others, were taken as the basis of the science now for the first time called “strategy,” the fact that his opponents had also practised it without success being strangely ignored. Along with this came a mania for imitation. Prussian drill, uniforms and hair-powder were slavishly copied by every state, and for the next twenty years, and especially when the war-trained officers and men had left active service, the purest pedantry reigned in all the armies of Europe, including that of Prussia. One of the ablest of Frederick’s subordinates wrote a book in which he urged that the cadence of the infantry step should be increased by one pace per minute. The only exceptions to the universal prevalence of this spirit were in the Austrian army, which was saved from atrophy by its Turkish wars, and in a few British and French troops who served in the American War of Independence. The British regiments were sent to die of fever in the West Indies; when the storm of the French Revolution broke over Europe, the Austrian army was the only stable element of resistance.

32. The French Revolution.—Very different were the armies of the Revolution. Europe, after being given over to professional soldiers for five hundred years, at last produced the modern system of the “nation in arms.” The French volunteers of 1792 were a force by which the routine generals of the enemy, working with instruments and by rules designed for other conditions, were completely puzzled, and France gained a short respite. The year 1793 witnessed the most remarkable event that is recorded in the history of armies. Raw enthusiasm was replaced, after the disasters and defections which marked the beginning of the campaign, by a systematic and unsparing conscription, and the masses of men thus enrolled, inspired by ardent patriotism and directed by the ferocious energy of the Committee of Public Safety, met the disciplined formalists with an opposition before which the attack completely collapsed. It was less marvellous in fact than in appearance that this should be so. Not to mention the influence of pedantry and senility on the course of the operations, it may be admitted that Frederick and his army at their best would have been unable to accomplish the downfall of the now thoroughly roused French. Tactically, the fire of the regulars’ line caused the Revolutionary levies to melt away by thousands, but men were ready to fill the gaps. No complicated supply system bound the French to magazines and fortresses, for Europe could once more feed an army without convoys, and roads were now good and numerous. No fear of desertion kept them concentrated under canvas, for each man was personally concerned with the issue. If the allies tried to oppose them on an equal front, they were weak at all points, and the old organization had no provision for the working of a scattered army. While ten victorious campaigns had not carried Marlborough nearer to Paris than some marches beyond the Sambre, two campaigns now carried a French army to within a few miles of Vienna. It was obvious that, before such forces and such mobility, the old system was doomed, and with each successive failure the old armies became more discouraged. Napoleon’s victories finally closed this chapter of military development, and by 1808 the only army left to represent it was the British. Even to this the Peninsular War opened a line of progress, which, if different in many essentials from continental practice, was in any case much more than a copy of an obsolete model.

33. The Conscription.—In 1793, at a moment when the danger to France was so great as to produce the rigorous emergency methods of the Reign of Terror, the combined enemies of the Republic had less than 300,000 men in the field between Basel and Dunkirk. On the other hand, the call of the “country in 602 danger” produced more than four times this number of men for the French armies within a few months. Louis XIV., even when all France had been awakened to warlike enthusiasm by a similar threat (1709), had not been able to put in the field more than one-fifth of this force. The methods of the great war minister Carnot were enforced by the ruthless committee, and when men’s lives were safer before the bayonets of the allies than before the civil tribunals at home, there was no difficulty in enlisting the whole military spirit of France. There is therefore not much to be said as to the earliest application of the conscription, at least as regards its formal working, since any system possessing elasticity would equally have served the purpose. In the meanwhile, the older plans of organization had proved inadequate for dealing with such imposing masses of men. Even with disciplined soldiers they had long been known as applicable only to small armies, and the deficiencies of the French, with their consequences in tactics and strategy, soon produced the first illustrations of modern methods. Unable to meet the allies in the plain, they fought in broken ground and on the widest possible front. This of course produced decentralization and subdivision; and it became absolutely necessary that each detachment on a front of battle 30 m. long (e.g. Stokach) should be properly commanded and self-sufficing. The army was therefore constituted in a number of divisions, each of two or more brigades with cavalry and artillery sufficient for its own needs. It was even more important that each divisional general, with his own staff, should be a real commander, and not merely the supervisor of a section of the line of battle, for he was almost in the position that a commander-in-chief had formerly held. The need of generals was easily supplied when there was so wide a field of selection. For the allies the mere adoption of new forms was without result, since it was contrary both to tradition and to existing organization. The attempts which were made in this direction did not tend to mitigate the evils of inferior numbers and moral. The French soon followed up the divisional system with the further organization of groups of divisions under specially selected general officers; this again quickly developed into the modern army corps.

34. Napoleon.—Revolutionary government, however, gave way in a few years to more ordinary institutions, and the spirit of French politics had become that of aggrandizement in the name of liberty. The ruthless application of the new principle of masses had been terribly costly, and the disasters of 1799 reawakened in the mass of the people the old dislike of war and service. Even before this it had been found necessary to frame a new act, the famous law proposed by General Jourdan (1798). With this the conscription for general service began. The legal term of five years was so far exceeded that the service came to be looked upon as a career, or servitude, for life; it was therefore both unavoidable and profitable to admit substitutes. Even in 1806 one quarter of Napoleon’s conscripts failed to come up for duty. The Grande Armée thus from its inception contained elements of doubtful value, and only the tradition of victory and the 50% of veterans still serving aided the genius of Napoleon to win the brilliant victories of 1805 and 1806. But these veterans were gradually eliminated by bloodshed and service exposure, and when, after the peace of Tilsit, “French” armies began to be recruited from all sorts of nations, decay had set in. As early as 1806 the emperor had had to “anticipate” the conscription, that is, call up the conscripts before their time, and by 1810 the percentage of absentees in France had grown to about 80, the remainder being largely those who lacked courage to oppose the authorities. Finally, the armies of Napoleon became masses of men of all nations fighting even more unwillingly than the armies of the old régime. Little success attended the emperor’s attempt to convert a “nation in arms” into a great dynastic army. Considered as such, it had even fewer elements of solidity than the standing armies of the 18th century, for it lacked the discipline which had made the regiments of Frederick invincible. After 1812 it was attacked by huge armies of patriots which possessed advantages of organization and skilful direction that the levée en masse of 1793 had lacked. Only the now fully developed genius and magnificent tenacity of Napoleon staved off for a time the débâcle which was as inevitable as had been that of the old régime.

35. The Grande Armée.—In 1805-1806, when the older spirit of the Revolution was already represented by one-half only of French soldiers, the actual steadiness and manœuvring power of the Grande Armée had attained its highest level. The army at this time was organized into brigades, divisions and corps, the last-named unit being as a rule a marshal’s command, and always completed as a small army with all the necessary arms and services. Several such corps (usually of unequal strength) formed the army. The greatest weakness of the organization, which was in other respects most pliant and adaptable, was the want of good staff-officers. The emperor had so far cowed his marshals that few of them could take the slightest individual responsibility, and the combatant staff-officers remained, as they had been in the 18th century, either confidential clerks or merely gallopers. No one but a Napoleon could have managed huge armies upon these terms; in fact the marshals, from Berthier downwards, generally failed when in independent commands. Of the three arms, infantry and cavalry regiments were organized in much the same way as in Frederick’s day, though tactical methods were very different, and discipline far inferior. The greatest advance had taken place in the artillery service. Field and horse batteries, as organized and disciplined units, had come into general use during the Revolutionary wars, and the division, corps and army commanders had always batteries assigned to their several commands as a permanent and integral part of the fighting troops. Napoleon himself, and his brilliant artillery officers Sénarmont and Drouot, brought the arm to such a pitch of efficiency that it enabled him to win splendid victories almost by its own action. As a typical organization we may take the III. corps of Marshal Davout in 1806. This was formed of the following troops:—

A comparison of this ordre de bataille with that of a modern army corps will show that the general idea of corps organization has undergone but slight modification since the days of Napoleon. More troops allotted to departmental duties, and additional engineers for the working of modern scientific aids, are the only new features in the formal organization of a corps in the 20th century. Yet the spirit of 1806 and that of 1906 were essentially different, and the story of the development of this difference through the 19th century closes for the present the history of progress in tactical organization.

36. The Wars of Liberation.—The Prussian defeat at Jena was followed by a national surrender so abject as to prove conclusively the eternal truth, that a divorce of armies from national interests is completely fatal to national well-being. But the oppression of the victors soon began to produce a spirit of ardent patriotism which, carefully directed by a small band of able soldiers, led in the end to a national uprising of a steadier and more lasting kind than that of the French Revolution. Prussia was compelled, by the rigorous treaty of peace, to keep a small force only under arms, and circumstances thus drove her into the path of military development which she subsequently followed. The stipulation of the treaty was evaded by the Krümper system, by which men were passed through the ranks as hastily as possible and dismissed to the reserve, their places being taken by recruits. The regimental establishments were therefore mere cadres, and the personnel, recruited by universal service with few exemptions, ever-changing. This system depended on the willingness of the reserves to come up when called upon, and the arrogance of 603 the French was quite sufficient to ensure this. The dénouement of the Napoleonic wars came too swiftly for the full development of the armed strength of Prussia on these lines; and at the outbreak of the Wars of Liberation a newly formed Landwehr and numerous volunteer corps took the field with no more training than the French had had in 1793. Still, the principles of universal service (allgemeine Wehrpflicht) and of the army reserve were, for the first time in modern history, systematically put into action, and modern military development has concerned itself more with the consolidation of the Krümper system than with the creation of another. The début of the new Prussian army was most unsuccessful, for Napoleon had now attained the highest point of soldierly skill, and managed to inflict heavy defeats on the allies. But the Prussians were not discouraged; like the French in 1793 they took to broken ground, and managed to win combats against all leaders opposed to them except Napoleon himself. The Russian army formed a solid background for the Prussians, and in the end Austria joined the coalition. Reconstituted on modern lines, the Austrian army in 1813, except in the higher leading, was probably the best-organized on the continent. After three desperate campaigns the Napoleonic régime came to an end, and men felt that there would be no such struggle again in their lifetime. Military Europe settled down into grooves along which it ran until 1866. France, exhausted of its manhood, sought a field for military activities in colonial wars waged by long-service troops. The conscription was still in force, but the citizens served most unwillingly, and substitution produced a professional army, which as usual became a dynastic tool. Austria, always menaced with foreign war and internal disorder, maintained the best army in Europe. The British army, though employed far differently, retained substantially the Peninsular system.

37. European Armies 1815-1870.—The events of the period 1815-1859 showed afresh that such long-service armies were incomparably the best form of military machine for the purpose of giving expression to a hostile “view” (not “feeling”). Austrian armies triumphed in Italy, French armies in Spain, Belgium, Algeria, Italy and Russia, British in innumerable and exacting colonial wars. Only the Prussian forces retained the characteristics of the levies of 1813, and the enthusiasm which had carried these through Leipzig and the other great battles was hardly to be expected of their sons, ranged on the side of despotism in the troubled times of 1848-1850. But the principle was not permitted to die out. The Bronnzell-Olmütz incident of 1850 (see Seven Weeks’ War) showed that the organization of 1813 was defective, and this was altered in spite of the fiercest opposition of all classes. Soon afterwards, and before the new Prussian army proved itself on a great battlefield, the American Civil War, a fiercer struggle than any of those which followed it in Europe, illustrated the capabilities and the weaknesses of voluntary-service troops. Here the hostile “view” was replaced by a hostile “feeling,” and the battles of the disciplined enthusiasts on either side were of a very different kind from those of contemporary Europe. But, if the experiences of 1861-1865 proved that armies voluntarily enlisted “for the war” were capable of unexcelled feats of endurance, they proved further that such armies, whose discipline and training in peace were relatively little, or indeed wholly absent, were incapable of forcing a swift decision. The European “nation in arms,” whatever its other failings, certainly achieved its task, or failed decisively to do so, in the shortest possible time. Only the special characteristics of the American theatre of war gave the Union and Confederate volunteers the space and time necessary for the creation of armies, and so the great struggle in North America passed without affecting seriously the war ideas and preparations of Europe. The weakness of the staff work with which both sides were credited helped further to confirm the belief of the Prussians in their system, and in this instance they were justified by the immense superiority of their own general staff to that of any army in existence. It was in this particular that a corps of 1870 differed so essentially from a corps of Napoleon’s time. The formal organization had not been altered save as the varying relative importance of the separate arms had dictated. The almost intangible spirit which animates the members of a general staff, causes them not merely to “think”—that was always in the quartermaster-general’s department—but to “think alike,” so that a few simple orders called “directives” sufficed to set armies in motion with a definite purpose before them, whereas formerly elaborate and detailed plans of battle had to be devised and distributed in order to achieve the object in view. A comparison of the number of orders and letters written by a marshal and by his chief of staff in Napoleon’s time with similar documents in 1870 indicates clearly the changed position of the staff. In the Grande Armée and in the French army of 1870 the officers of the general staff were often absent entirely from the scene of action. In Prussia the new staff system produced a far different result—indeed, the staff, rather than the Prussian military system, was the actual victor of 1870. Still, the system would probably have conquered in the end in any case, and other nations, convinced by events that their departure from the ideal of 1813, however convenient formerly, was no longer justified, promptly copied Prussia as exactly, and, as a matter of fact, as slavishly, as they had done after the Seven Years’ War.

38. Modern Developments.—Since 1870, then, with the single exception of Great Britain, all the major European powers have adopted the principle of compulsory short service with reserves. Along with this has come the fullest development of the territorial system (see below). The natural consequence therefore of the heavy work falling upon the shoulders of the Prussian officer, who had to instruct his men, was, in the first place, a general staff of the highest class, and in the second, a system of distributing the troops over the whole country in such a way that the regiments were permanently stationed in the district in which they recruited and from which they drew their reserves. Prussia realized that if the reservists were to be obtained when required the unit must be strictly localized; France, on the contrary, lost much time and spent much trouble, in the mobilization of 1870, in forwarding the reservists to a regiment distant, perhaps, 300 m. The Prussian system did not work satisfactorily at first, for until all the district staff-officers were trained in the same way there was great inequality in the efficiency of the various army corps, and central control, before the modern development of railways, was relatively slight. Further, the mobilization must be completed, or nearly so, before concentration begins, and thus an active professional army, always at war strength, might annihilate the frontier corps before those in the interior were ready to move. But the advantages far outweighed the defects of the system, and, such professional armies having after 1870 disappeared, there was little to fear. Everywhere, therefore, save in Great Britain (for at that time the United States was hardly counted as a great military power, in spite of its two million war-trained veterans in civil life), the German model was followed, and is now followed, with but slight divergence. The period of reforms after the Prussian model (about 1873-1890) practically established the military systems which are treated below as those of the present day. The last quarter of the century witnessed a very great development of military forces, without important organic changes. The chief interest to the student of this period lies in the severe competition between the great military powers for predominance in numbers, expressed usually in the reduction of the period of service with the colours to a minimum. The final results of this cannot well be predicted: it is enough to say that it is the Leitmotiv in the present stage in the development of armies. Below will be found short historical sketches of various armies of the present day which are of interest in respect of their historical development. Details of existing forces are given in articles dealing with the several states to which they belong. Historical accounts of the armies of Japan and of Egypt will be found in the articles on those states. The Japanese wars of 1894-95 and 1904-5 contributed little to the history of military organization as a pure science. The 604 true lessons of this war were the demonstration of the wide applicability of the German methods, upon which exclusively the Japanese army had formed itself, and still more the first illustration of the new moral force of nationalities as the decisive factor. The form of armies remained unaltered. Neither the events of the Boer War of 1899-1902 nor the Manchurian operations were held by European soldiers to warrant any serious modifications in organization. It is to the moral force alluded to above, rather than to mere technical improvements, that the best soldiers of Europe, and notably those of the French general staff (see the works of General H. Bonnal), have of late years devoted their most earnest attention.

Present-Day Armies

39. The main principles of all military organization as developed in history would seem to be national recruiting and allegiance, distinctive methods of training and administration, continuity of service and general homogeneity of form. The method of raising men is of course different in different states. In this regard armies may conveniently be classed as voluntarily enlisted, levied or conscript, and militia, represented respectively by the forces of Great Britain, Germany and Switzerland. It must not be forgotten, however, that voluntary troops may be and are maintained even in states in which the bulk of the army is levied by compulsion, and the simple militia obligation of defending the country is universally recognized.

40. Compulsory Service.—Universal liability to service (allgemeine Wehrpflicht) draws into the active army all, or nearly all, the men of military age for a continuous period of short service, after which they pass successively to the reserve, the second and the third line troops (Landwehr, Landsturm, &c.). In this way the greatest number of soldiers is obtained at the cheapest rate and the number of trained men in reserve available to keep the army up to strength is in theory that of the able-bodied manhood of the country. In practice the annual levy is, however, not exhaustive, and increased numerical strength is obtained by reducing the term of colour-service to a minimum. This may be less in a hard-worked conscript army than in one which depends upon the attractions of the service to induce recruits to join. In conscript armies, training for war is carried out with undeviating rigour. In these circumstances the recruits are too numerous and the time available is too limited for the work of training to be committed to a few selected instructors, and every officer has therefore to instruct his own men. The result is usually a corps of officers whose capacity is beyond question, while the general staff is composed of men whose ability is above a high general average. As to the rank and file, the men taken for service are in many respects the best of the nation, and this superiority is progressively enhanced, since increase of population is not often accompanied by a corresponding increase in the military establishments. In Germany in 1905, it is stated, nearly half the contingent was excused from serving in peace time, over and above the usual numbers exempted or medically rejected. The financial aspect of compulsory service may be summed up in a few words. The state does not offer a wage, the pay of the soldier is a mere trifle, and, for a given expenditure, at least three times as many men may be kept under arms as under any known “voluntary” system. Above all, the state has at its disposal for war an almost inexhaustible supply of trained soldiers. This aspect of compulsory service has indeed led its admirers sometimes to sacrifice quality to quantity; but, provided always that the regular training is adequate, it may be admitted that there is no limit to the numbers which are susceptible of useful employment. There are, however, many grave defects inherent in all armies raised by compulsory levy (see Conscription, for a discussion of the chief economical and social questions involved). Most of the advantages of universal service result, not from the compulsory enlistment, but from the principle of short service and reserves. But the cost of maintaining huge armies of the modern European type on the voluntary system would be entirely prohibitive, and those nations which have adopted the allgemeine Wehrpflicht have done so with full cognizance of the evil as well as of the good points of the system.

The chief of these evils is the doubtful element which exists in all such armies. Under the merciless discipline of the old régime the most unwilling men feared their officers more than the enemy. Modern short service, however, demands the good-will of all ranks and may fail altogether to make recalcitrants into good soldiers, and it may be taken for granted that every conscript army contains many men who cannot be induced to fight. Herein lies the justification of the principle of “masses,” and of reduced colour-service; by drawing into the ranks the maximum number of men, the government has an eventual residuum of the bravest men in the nation left in the ranks. What has been said of the officers of these armies cannot be applied to the non-commissioned officers. Their promotion is necessarily rapid, and the field of selection is restricted to those men who are willing to re-engage, i.e. to serve beyond their compulsory term of two or three years. Many men do so to avoid the struggles of civil life, and such “fugitive and cloistered virtue” scarcely fosters the moral strength required for command. As the best men return to civil life, there is no choice but to promote inferior men, and the latter, when invested with authority, not infrequently abuse it. Indeed in some armies the soldier regards his officer chiefly as his protector from the rapacity or cruelty of his sergeant or corporal. A true short-service army is almost incapable of being employed on peace service abroad; quite apart from other considerations, the cost of conveying to and from home annually one-third or one-half of the troops would be prohibitive. If, as must be the case, a professional force is maintained for oversea service many men would join it who would otherwise be serving as non-commissioned officers at home and the prevailing difficulty would thus be enhanced. When colonial defence calls for relatively large numbers of men, i.e. an army, home resources are severely strained.

41. Conscription in the proper sense, i.e. selection by lot of a proportion of the able-bodied manhood of a country, is now rarely practised. The obvious unfairness of selection by lot has always had the result of admitting substitutes procured by those on whom the lot has fallen; hence the poorer classes are unduly burdened with the defence of the country, while the rich escape with a money payment. In practice, conscription invariably produces a professional long-service army in which each soldier is paid to discharge the obligations of several successive conscripts. Such an army is therefore a voluntary long-service army in the main, plus a proportion of the unwilling men found in every forced levy. The gravest disadvantage is, however, the fact that the bulk of the nation has not been through the regular army at all; it is almost impossible to maintain a large and costly standing army and at the same time to give a full training to auxiliary forces. The difference between a “national guard” such as that of the siege of Paris in 1870-71 and a Landwehr produced under the German system, was very wide. Regarded as a compromise between universal and voluntary service, conscription still maintains a precarious existence in Europe. As the cardinal principle of recruiting armies, it is completely obsolete.

42. Voluntary Service.—Existing voluntary armies have usually developed from armies of the old régime, and seem to owe their continued existence either to the fact that only comparatively small armaments are maintained in peace, other and larger armies being specially recruited during a war (a modification of the “enlistment system”), or to the necessities of garrisoning colonial empires. The military advantages and disadvantages of voluntary service are naturally the faults and merits of the opposite system. The voluntary army is available for general service. It includes few unwilling soldiers, and its resultant advantage over an army of the ordinary type has been stated to be as high as 30%. At all events, we need only examine military history to find that with conscript armies wholesale shirking is far from unknown. That loss from this cause does not paralyse operations as it paralysed those of the 18th century, 605 is due to the fact that such fugitives do not desert to the enemy, but reappear in the ranks of their own side; it must not therefore be assumed that men have become braver because the “missing” are not so numerous. In colonial and savage warfare the superior personal qualities of the voluntary soldier often count for more than skill on the part of the officers. These would be diminished by shortening the time of service, and this fact, with the expense of transport, entails that a reasonably long period must be spent with the colours. On the other hand, the provision of the large armies of modern warfare requires the maintenance of a reserve, and no reserve is possible if the whole period for which men will enlist is spent with the colours. The demand for long service in the individual, and for trained men in the aggregate, thus produces a compromise. The principle of long service, i.e. ten years or more with the colours, is not applicable to the needs of the modern grande guerre; it gives neither great initial strength nor great reserves. The force thus produced is costly and not lightly to be risked; it affords relatively little opportunity for the training of officers, and tends to become a class apart from the rest of the population. On the other hand, such a force is the best possible army for foreign and colonial service. A state therefore which relies on voluntary enlistment for its forces at home and abroad, must either keep an army which is adaptable to both functions or maintain a separate service for each.

In a state where relatively small armaments are maintained in peace, voluntary armies are infinitely superior to any that could be obtained under any system of compulsion. The state can afford to give a good wage, and can therefore choose its recruits carefully. It can thus have either a few incomparable veteran soldiers (long-service), or a fairly large number of men of superior physique and intelligence, who have received an adequate short-service training. Even the youngest of such men are capable of good service, while the veterans are probably better soldiers than any to be found in conscript armies. This is, however, a special case. The raw material of any but a small voluntary army usually tends to be drawn from inferior sources; the cost of a larger force, paid the full wages of skilled labourers, would be very great, and numbers commensurate with those of an army of the other model could only be obtained at an exorbitant price. The short-service principle is therefore accepted. Here, however, as recruiting depends upon the good-will of the people, it is impossible to work the soldiers with any degree of rigour. Hence the voluntary soldier must serve longer than a conscript in order to attain the same proficiency. The reserve is thus weakened, and the total trained regular force diminished. Moreover, as fewer recruits are required annually, there is less work for the officers to do. In the particular case of Great Britain it is practically certain that in future, reliance will be placed upon the auxiliary forces and the civil population for the provision of the enormous reserves required in a great war; this course is, however, only feasible in the case of an insular nation which has time to collect its strength for the final and decisive blow overseas. The application of the same principle to a continental military power depends on the capacity for stern and unflagging resistance displayed by the corps de couverture charged with the duty of gaining the time necessary for the development and concentration of the national masses. In Great Britain (except in the case of a surprise invasion) the place of this corps would be taken by “command of the sea.” Abroad, the spirit of the exposed regiments themselves furnishes the only guarantee, and this can hardly be calculated with sufficient certainty, under modern conditions, to justify the adoption of this new “enlistment system.” Voluntary service, therefore, with all its intrinsic merits, is only applicable to the conditions of a great war when the war reserve can be trained ad hoc.

43. The militia idea (see Militia) has been applied most completely in Switzerland, which has no regular army, but trains almost the whole nation as a militia. The system, with many serious disadvantages, has the great merit that the maximum number of men receives a certain amount of training at a minimum cost both to the state and to the individual. Mention should also be made of the system of augmenting the national forces by recruiting “foreign legions.” This is, of course, a relic of the Werbe-system; it was practised habitually by the British governments of the 18th and early 19th centuries. “Hessians” figured conspicuously in the British armies in the American War of Independence, and the “King’s German Legion” was only the best and most famous of many foreign corps in the service of George III. during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. A new German Legion was raised during the Crimean War, but the almost universal adoption of the Krümper system has naturally put an end to the old method, for all the best recruits are now accounted for in the service of their own countries.

Army Organization

44. Arms of the Service.—Organization into “arms” is produced by the multiplicity of the weapons used, their functions and their limitations. The “three arms”—a term universally applied to infantry (q.v.), cavalry (q.v.) and artillery (q.v.)—coexist owing to the fact that each can undertake functions which the others cannot properly fulfil. Thus cavalry can close with an enemy at the quickest pace, infantry can work in difficult ground, and artillery is effective at great ranges. Infantry indeed, having the power of engaging both at close quarters and at a distance, constitutes the chief part of a fighting force. Other “arms,” such as mounted infantry, cyclists, engineers, &c., are again differentiated from the three chief arms by their proper functions. In deciding upon the establishment in peace, or the composition of a force for war, it is therefore necessary to settle beforehand the relative importance of these functions in carrying out the work in hand. Thus an army operating in Essex would be unusually strong in infantry, one on Salisbury Plain would possess a great number of guns, and an army operating on the South African veldt would consist very largely of mounted men. The normal European war has, however, naturally been taken as the basis upon which the relative proportions of the three arms are calculated. At the battle of Kolin (1757) the cavalry was more than half as strong as the infantry engaged. At Borodino (1812) there were 39 cavalry to 100 of other arms, and 5 guns per 1000 men. In 1870 the Germans had at the outset 7 cavalrymen to every 100 men of other arms, the French 10. As for guns, the German artillery had 3, the French 3½ per 1000 men. In more modern times the proportions have undergone some alteration, the artillery having been increased, and the cavalry brought nearer to the Napoleonic standard. Thus the relative proportions, in peace time, now stand at 5 or 6 guns per 1000 men, and 16 cavalry soldiers to 100 men of other arms. It must be borne in mind that cavalry and artillery are maintained in peace at a higher effective than infantry, the strength of the latter being much inflated in war, while cavalry and artillery are not easily extemporized. Thus in the Manchurian campaign these proportions were very different. The Russian army on the eve of the battle of Mukden (20th of February 1905) consisted of 370 battalions, 142 squadrons and 153 field batteries (1200 guns), with, in addition, over 200 heavy guns. The strength of this force, which was organized in three armies, was about 300,000 infantry and 18,000 cavalry and Cossacks, with 3½ guns per 1000 men of other arms. The Japanese armies consisted of 300,000 infantry, 11,000 cavalry, 900 field and 170 heavy guns, the proportion of field artillery being 2½ guns per 1000 men.

It is perhaps not superfluous to mention that all the smaller units in a modern army consist of one arm only. Formerly several dissimilar weapons were combined in the same unit. The knight with his four or five variously armed retainers constituted an example of this method of organization, which slowly died out as weapons became more uniform and their functions better defined.

45. Command.—The first essential of a good organization is to ensure that each member of the organized body, in his own sphere of action, should contribute his share to the achievement of the common object. Further, it is entirely beyond the power 606 of one man, or of a few, to control every action and provide for every want of a great number of individuals. The modern system of command, therefore, provides for a system of grades, in which, theoretically, officers of each grade control a group of the next lower units. A lieutenant-colonel, for instance, may be in charge of a group of eight companies, each of which is under a captain. In practice, all armies are permanently organized on these lines, up to the colonel’s or lieutenant-colonel’s command, and most of them are permanently divided into various higher units under general officers, the brigade, division and army corps. The almost invariable practice is to organize infantry into companies, battalions and regiments. Cavalry is divided into troops, squadrons and regiments. Artillery is organized in batteries, these being usually grouped in various ways. The other arms and departments are subdivided in the same general way. The commands of general officers are the brigade of infantry, cavalry, and in some cases artillery, the division of two or more infantry brigades and a force of artillery and mounted troops, or of cavalry and horse artillery, and the army corps of two or more divisions and “corps troops.” Armies of several corps, and groups of armies are also formed.

46. A brigade is the command of a brigadier or major-general, or of a colonel. It consists almost invariably of one arm only. In armies of the old régime it was not usual to assign troops of all arms to the subordinate generals. Hence the brigade is a much older form of organization than the division of all arms, and in fact dates from the 16th century. The infantry brigade consists, in the British service, of the brigadier and his staff, four battalions of infantry, and administrative and medical units, the combatant strength being about 4000 men. In Germany and France the brigade is composed of the staff, and two regiments (6 battalions) with a total of over 6000 combatants at war strength. The cavalry brigade is sometimes formed of three, sometimes of two regiments; the number of squadrons to a regiment on service is usually four, exceptionally three, and rarely five and six. The “brigade” of artillery in Great Britain is a lieutenant-colonel’s command, and the term here corresponds to the Abtheilung of the German, and the groupe of the French armies (see Artillery). In Germany and France, however, an artillery brigade consists of two or more regiments, or twelve batteries at least, under the command of an artillery general officer.

47. A division is an organization containing troops of all arms. Since the virtual abolition of the “corps artillery” (see Artillery), the force of field artillery forming part of an infantry division is sometimes as high as 72 guns (Germany); in Great Britain the augmented division of 1906 has 54 field guns, 12 field howitzers, and 4 heavy guns, a total of 70. The term “infantry” division is, in strictness, no longer applicable, since such a unit is a miniature army corps of infantry, artillery and cavalry, with the necessary services for the supply of ammunition, food and forage, and for the care of the sick and wounded. A more exact title would be “army” division. In general it is composed, so far as combatants are concerned, of the divisional commander and his staff, two or more infantry brigades, a number of batteries of field artillery forming a regiment, brigade or group, a small force, varying from a squadron to a regiment, of cavalry (divisional cavalry), with some engineers. The force of the old British division (1905) may be taken, on an average, as 10,000 men, increased in the 1906 reorganization to about 15,000 combatants. In other armies the fighting force of the division amounts to rather more than 14,000. The cavalry division (see Cavalry) is composed of the staff, two or three cavalry brigades, horse artillery, with perhaps mounted infantry, cyclists, or even light infantry in addition. In many, if not most, armies cavalry divisions are formed only in war. In the field the cavalry division is usually an independent unit with its own commander and staff. “Cavalry corps” of several divisions have very rarely been formed in the past, a division having been regarded as the largest unit capable of being led by one man. There is, however, a growing tendency in favour of the corps organization, at any rate in war.

48. Army Corps.—The “corps” of the 18th century was simply a large detachment, more or less complete in itself, organized for some particular purpose (e.g. to cover a siege), and placed for the time being under some general officer other than the chief commander. The modern army corps is a development from the division of all arms, which originated in the French Revolutionary wars. It is a unit of considerable strength, furnished with the due proportion of troops of all arms and of the auxiliary and medical services, and permanently placed under the command of one general. The corps organization (though a corps d’armée was often spoken of as an armée) was used in Napoleon’s army in all the campaigns of the Empire. It may be mentioned, as a curious feature of Napoleon’s methods, that he invariably constituted each corps d’armée of a different strength, so that the enemy would not be able to estimate his force by the simple process of counting the corps flags which marked the marshals’ headquarters. Thus in 1812 he constituted one corps of 72,000 men, while another had but 18,000. After the fall of Napoleon a further advance was made. The adoption of universal service amongst the great military nations brought in its train the territorial organization, and the corps, representing a large district, soon became a unit of peace formation. For the smooth working of the new military system it was essential that the framework of the war army should exist in peace. The Prussians were the first to bring the system to perfection; long before 1866 Prussia was permanently divided into army corps districts, all the troops of the III. army corps being Brandenburgers, all those of the VI. Silesians, and so on, though political reasons required, and to some extent still require, modifications of this principle in dealing with annexed territory (e.g. Hanover and Alsace-Lorraine). The events of 1866 and of 1870-71 caused the almost universal adoption of the army corps regional system. In the case of the British army, operating as it usually did in minor wars, and rarely having more than sixty or seventy thousand men on one theatre even in continental wars, there was less need of so large a unit as the corps. Not only was a British army small in numbers, but it preserved high traditions of discipline, and was sufficiently well trained to be susceptible as a unit to the impulse given by one man. Even where the term “corps” does appear in Peninsular annals, the implication is of a corps in the old sense of a grand detachment. Neither cavalry nor artillery was assigned to any of the British “corps” at Waterloo.

49. Constitution of the Army Corps.—In 1870-71 the III. German army corps (with which compare Marshal Davout’s ordre de bataille above) consisted of the following combatant units: (a) staff; (b) two infantry divisions (4 brigades. 8 regiments or 24 battalions), with, in each division, a cavalry regiment, 4 batteries of artillery or 24 guns, and engineers; (c) corps troops, artillery (6 field batteries), pioneer battalion (engineers), train battalion (supply and transport). A rifle battalion was attached to one of the divisions.

This ordre de bataille was followed more or less generally by all countries up to the most modern times, but between 1890 and 1902 came a very considerable change in the point of view from which the corps was regarded as a fighting unit. This change was expressed in the abolition of the corps artillery. Formerly the corps commander controlled the greater part of the field artillery, as well as troops of other arms; at the present time he has a mere handful of troops. Unless battalions are taken from the divisions to form a corps reserve, the direct influence of the corps organization on the battle is due almost solely to the fact that the commander has at his disposal the special natures of artillery and also some horse artillery. Thus the (augmented) division is regarded by many as the fighting unit of the 20th, as the corps was that of the 19th century. In Europe there is even a tendency to substitute the ancient phrase “reserve artillery” for “corps artillery,” showing that the role to be played by the corps batteries is subordinated to the operations of the masses of divisional artillery, the whole being subject, of course, to the technical supervision of the artillery general officer who accompanies the corps headquarters. Thus limited, the army corps has now 607 come to consist of the staff, two or more divisions, the corps or reserve artillery (of special batteries), a small force of “corps” cavalry, and various technical and departmental troops. The cavalry is never very numerous, owing to the demands of the independent cavalry divisions on the one hand and those of the divisional cavalry on the other. The engineers of an army corps include telegraph, balloon and pontoon units. Attached to the corps are reserves of munitions and supplies in ammunition columns, field parks, supply parks, &c. The term and the organization were discontinued in England in 1906, on the augmentation of the divisions and the assignment of certain former “corps troops” to the direct control of the army commanders. It should be noticed that the Japanese, who had no corps organization during the war of 1904-5, afterwards increased the strength of their divisions from 15,000 to 20,000; the augmented “division,” with the above peace strength, becomes to all intents and purposes a corps, and the generals commanding divisions were in 1906 given the title of generals-in-chief.

50. Army.—The term “army” is applied, in war time, to any command of several army corps, or even of several divisions, operating under the orders of one commander-in-chief. The army in this sense (distinguished by a number or by a special title) varies, therefore, with circumstances. In the American Civil War, the Army of the Ohio consisted in 1864 only of the army staff and the XXIII. corps. At the other extreme we find that the German II. Army in 1870 consisted of seven army corps and two cavalry divisions, and the III. Army of six army corps and two cavalry divisions. The term “army” in this sense is therefore very elastic in its application, but it is generally held that large groups of corps operating in one theatre of war should be subdivided into armies, and that the strength of an army should not exceed about 150,000 men, if indeed this figure is reached at all. This again depends upon circumstances. It might be advisable to divide a force of five corps into two armies, or on the other hand it might be impossible to find suitable leaders for more than two armies when half a million men were present for duty. In France, organization has been carried a step further. The bulk of the national forces is, in case of war, organized into a “group of armies” under a commander, usually, though incorrectly, called the generalissimo. This office, of course, does not exist in peace, but the insignia, the distinctive marks of the headquarters flag, &c., are stated in official publications, and the names of the generalissimo and of his chief of staff are known. Under the generalissimo would be four or five army commanders, each with three or four army corps under him. Independent of this “group of armies” there would be other and minor “armies” where required.

51. Chief Command.—The leading of the “group of armies” referred to above does not, in France, imply the supreme command, which would be exercised by the minister of war in Paris. The German system, on the other hand, is based upon the leadership of the national forces by the sovereign in person, and even though the headquarters of the “supreme war lord” (Oberste Kriegsherr) are actually in the field in one theatre of operations, he directs the movements of the German armies in all quarters. Similarly, in 1864, General Grant accompanied and controlled as a “group” the Armies of the Potomac and the James, supervising at the same time the operations of other groups and armies. In the same campaign a subordinate general, Sherman, commanded a “group” consisting of the Armies of the Tennessee, the Cumberland and the Ohio. The question as to whether the supreme command and the command of the principal group of armies should be in the same hands is very difficult of solution. In practice, the method adopted in each case usually grows out of the military and political conditions. The advantage of the German method is that the supreme commander is in actual contact with the troops, and can therefore form an accurate judgment of their powers. Under these conditions the risk of having cabinet strategy forced upon the generals is at its minimum, and more especially so if the supreme commander is the head of the state. On the other hand, his judgment is very liable to be influenced unduly by facts, coming under his own notice, which may in reality have no more than a local significance. Further, the supreme commander is at the mercy of distant subordinates to a far greater degree than he would be if free to go from one army to another. Thus, in 1870 the king of Prussia’s headquarters before Paris were subjected to such pressure from subordinate army commanders that on several occasions selected staff-officers had to be sent to examine, for the king’s private information, the real state of things at the front. The conduct of operations by one group commander in the campaign of 1864 seemed, at a distance, so eccentric and dangerous that General Grant actually left his own group of armies and went in person to take over command at the threatened point. Balanced judgment is thus often impossible unless the supreme command is independent of, and in a position to exercise general supervision over, each and every group or army. At the other end of the scale is the system of command employed by the Turks in 1877, in which four armies, three of them being actually on the same theatre of war, were directed from Constantinople. This system may be condemned unreservedly. It is recognized that, once the armies on either side have become seriously engaged, a commander-in-chief on the spot must direct them. Thus in 1904, while the Japanese and Russian armies were under the supreme command of their respective sovereigns, General Kuropatkin and Marshal Oyama personally commanded the chief groups of armies in the field. This is substantially the same as the system of the French army. It is therefore permissible to regard the system pursued by the Germans in 1870, and by the Union government in 1864, more as suited to special circumstances than as a general rule. As has been said above, the special feature of the German system of command is the personal leadership of the German emperor, and this brings the student at once to the consideration of another important part of the “superior leading.”

52. The Chief of the General Staff is, as his title implies, the chief staff officer of the service, and as such, he has duties of the highest possible importance, both in peace and war. For the general subject of staff duties see Staff. Here we are concerned only with the peculiar position of the chief of staff under a system in which the sovereign is the actual commander-in-chief. It is obvious in the first place that the sovereign may not be a great soldier, fitted by mental gifts, training and character to be placed at the head of an army of, perhaps, a million men. Allowing that it is imperative that, whatever he may be in himself, the sovereign should ex officio command the armies, it is easy to see that the ablest general in these armies must be selected to act as his adviser, irrespective of rank and seniority. This officer must therefore be assigned to a station beyond that of his army rank, and his orders are in fact those of the sovereign himself. Nor is it sufficient that he should occupy an unofficial position as adviser, or ad latus. If he were no more than this, the sovereign could act without his adviser being even aware of the action taken. As the staff is the machinery for the transmission of orders and despatches, all orders of the commander-in-chief are signed by the chief of staff as a matter of course, and this position is therefore that in which the adviser has the necessary influence. The relations between the sovereign and his chief military adviser are thus of the first importance to the smooth working of the great military machine, and never have the possibilities of this apparently strange system been more fully exploited than by King William and his chief of staff von Moltke in 1866 and in 1870-71. It is not true to say that the king was the mere figurehead of the German armies, or that Moltke was the real commander-in-chief. Those who have said this forget that the sole responsibility for the consequences of every order lay with the king, and that it is precisely the fear of this responsibilty that has made so many brilliant subordinates fail when in chief command. The characters of the two men supplemented each other, as also in the case of Blücher and Gneisenau and that of Radetzky and Hess. Under these circumstances, the German system of command works, on the whole, smoothly. Matters would, however, be different if either of the two officers failed to realize their mutual interdependence, and the system is in any 608 case only required when the self-sufficing great soldier is not available for the chief executive command.

53. First and Second Lines.—The organization into arms and units is of course maintained in peace as well as for war. Military forces are further organized, in peace, into active and reserve troops, first and second lines, &c., according to the power possessed by the executive over the men. Broadly speaking, the latter fall into three classes, regulars, auxiliary forces and irregular troops. The regulars or active troops are usually liable to serve at all times and in any country to which they may be sent. Auxiliary forces may be defined as all troops which undergo actual military training without being constantly under arms, and in Great Britain these were until 1908 represented by the Militia, the Yeomanry and the Volunteers, and now by the Territorial Force and the Special Reserve. In a country in which recruiting is by voluntary enlistment the classification is, of course, very different from that prevailing in a conscript army. The various “lines” are usually composed of separate organizations; the men are recruited upon different engagements, and receive a varying amount of training. Of the men not permanently embodied, only the reserve of the active army has actually served a continuous term with the colours. Other troops, called by various appellations, of which “militia” may be taken as generic, go through their military training at intervals. The general lines of army organization in the case of a country recruiting by universal service are as follows:—The male population is divided into classes, by ages, and the total period of liability to service is usually about 25 years. Thus at any given time, assuming two years’ colour-service, the men of 20 and 21 years of age would constitute the active army serving with the colours, those of, say, 22 and 23, the reserve. The Landwehr or second line army would consist of all men who had been through the active army and were now aged 24 to 36. The third line would similarly consist of men whose ages were between 36 and 44. Assuming the same annual levy, the active army would consist of 200,000 men, its reserve 200,000, the second line of 1,300,000, and the third of 800,000. Thus of 2,500,000 men liable to, and trained for, military service, 200,000 only would be under arms at any given time. The simple system here outlined is of course modified and complicated in practice owing to re-engagements by non-commissioned officers, the speedy dismissal to the reserve of intelligent and educated men, &c.

54. War Reserves.—In war, the reserves increase the field armies to 400,000 men, the whole or part of the second line is called up and formed into auxiliary regiments, brigades and divisions, and in case of necessity the third line is also called upon, though usually this is only in the last resort and for home defence only. The proportion of reservists to men with the colours varies of course with the length of service. Thus in France or Germany, with two years’ service in force, half of the rank and file of a unit in war would be men recalled from civil life. The true military value of reservists is often questioned, and under certain circumstances it is probable that units would take the field at peace strength without waiting for their reservists. The frontier guards of the continental military powers, which are expected to move at the earliest possible moment after hostilities have begun, are maintained at a higher effective than other units, and do not depend to any great extent on receiving reservists. The peace footing of cavalry and artillery units is similarly maintained at an artificial level. An operation of the nature of a coup de main would in any case be carried out by the troops available at the moment, however large might be the force required—twenty weak battalions would, in fact, be employed instead of ten strong ones. There is another class of troops, which may be called depot troops. These consist of officers and men left behind when the active corps completed with reserves takes the field, and they have (a) to furnish drafts for the front—and (b) to form a nucleus upon which all later formations are built up. The troops of the second line undertake minor work, such as guarding railways, and also furnish drafts for the field army. Later, when they have been for some time under arms, the second line troops are often employed by themselves in first line. A year’s training under war conditions should bring such troops to the highest efficiency. As for irregulars, they have real military value only when the various permanent establishments do not take up the whole fighting strength of the nation, and thus states having universal service armies do not, as a rule, contemplate the employment of combatants other than those shown on the peace rolls. The status of irregulars is ill defined, but it is practically agreed that combatants, over whose conduct the military authorities have no disciplinary power, should be denied the privileges of recognized soldiers, and put to death if captured. So drastic a procedure is naturally open to abuse and is not always expedient. Still, it is perfectly right that the same man shall not be allowed, for example, to shoot a sentry at one moment, and to claim the privileges of a harmless civilian at the next. The division into first, second and third lines follows generally from the above. The first line troops, in a conscript army, are the “active army” or regulars, permanently under arms in peace time, and its reserves, which are used on the outbreak of war to complete the existing units to full strength. The German terms Landwehr and Landsturm are often applied to armies of the second and the third lines.

55. The military characteristics of the various types of regular troops have been dealt with in considering the advantages and disadvantages of the several forms of recruiting. It only remains to give some indication of the advantages which such forces (irrespective of their time of service) possess over troops which only come up for training at intervals. Physically, the men with the colours are always superior to the rest, owing to their constant exercise and the regularity and order under which they live; as soldiers, they are more under the control of their officers, who are their leaders in daily life, in closer touch with army methods and discipline, and, as regards their formal training, they possess infinitely greater power of strategic and tactical manœuvre. Their steadiness under fire is of course more to be relied upon than that of other troops. Wellington, speaking of the contrast between old and young soldiers (regulars), was of opinion that the chief difference lay in the greater hardiness, power of endurance, and general campaigning qualities given by experience. This is of course more than ever true in respect of regular and auxiliary troops, as was strikingly demonstrated in the Spanish-American War. On the whole, it is true to say that only a regular army can endure defeat without dissolution, and that volunteers, reservists or militiamen fresh from civil life may win a victory but cannot make the fullest use of it when won. At the same time, when they have been through one or two arduous campaigns, raw troops become to all intents and purposes equal to any regulars. On the other hand, the greatest military virtue of auxiliary forces is their enthusiasm. With this quality were won the great victories of 1792-94 in France, those of 1813 in Germany, and the beginnings of Italian unity at Calatafimi and Palermo. The earlier days of the American Civil War witnessed desperate fighting, of which Shiloh is the best example, between armies which had had but the slightest military training. In the same war the first battle of Bull Run illustrated what has been said above as to the weaknesses of unprofessional armies. Both sides, raw and untrained, fought for a long time with the greatest determination, after which the defeated army was completely dissolved in rout and the victors quite unable to pursue. So far it is the relative military value of the professional soldier and the citizen-soldier that has been reviewed. A continental army of the French or German stamp is differently constituted. It is, first of all, clear that the drilled citizen-soldier combines the qualities of training and enthusiasm. From this it follows that a hostile “feeling” as well as a hostile “view” must animate such an army if it is to do good service. If a modern “nation in arms” is engaged in a purely dynastic quarrel against a professional army of inferior strength, the result will probably be victory for the latter. But the active army of France or Germany constitutes but a small part of the “nation in arms,” and the army for war is 609 composed in addition of men who have at some period in the past gone through a regular training. Herein lies the difference between continental and British auxiliary forces. In the French army, an ex-soldier during his ten years of reserve service was by the law of 1905 only liable for two months’ training, and for the rest of his military career for two weeks’ service only. The further reduction of this liability was proposed in 1907 and led to much controversy. The question of the value of auxiliary forces, then, as between the continuous work of, say, English territorials, and the permanent though dwindling influence of an original period of active soldiering, is one of considerable importance. It is largely decided in any given case by the average age of the men in the ranks.

56. The transfer of troops from the state of peace to that of war is called mobilization. This is, of course, a matter which primarily depends on good administration, and its minutest details are in all states laid down beforehand. Reservists have to be summoned, and, on arrival, to be clothed and equipped out of stores maintained in peace. Officers and men of the regular army on leave have to be recalled, the whole medically examined for physical fitness to serve, and a thousand details have to be worked out before the unit is ready to move to its concentration station. The concentration and the strategic deployment are, of course, dependent upon the circumstances of each war, and the peace organization ceases to be applicable. But throughout a war the depots at home, the recruiting districts of second-line troops, and above all the various arsenals, manufactories and offices controlled by the war department are continually at work in maintaining the troops in the field at proper strength and effectiveness.

57. Territorial System.—The feudal system was of course a territorial system in principle. Indeed, as has been shown above, a feudal army was chiefly at fault owing to the dislocation of the various levies. Concentration was equally the characteristic of the professional armies which succeeded those of feudalism, and only such militia forces as remained in existence preserved a local character. The origin of territorial recruiting for first-line troops is to be found in the “cantonal” system, said to have been introduced by Louis XIV., but brought to the greatest perfection in Prussia under Frederick William I. But long service and the absence of a reserve vitiated the system in practice, since losses had to be made good by general recruiting, and even the French Revolution may hardly be said to have produced the territorial system as we understand it to-day. It was only in the deliberate preparation of the Prussian army on short-service lines that we find the beginning of the “territorial system of dislocation and command.” This is so intimately connected with the general system of organization that it cannot be considered merely as a method of recruiting by districts. It may be defined as a system whereby, for purposes of command in peace, recruiting, and of organization generally, the country is divided into districts, which are again divided and subdivided as may be required. In a country in which universal service prevails, an army corps district is divided into divisional districts, these being made up of brigade and of regimental districts. Each of these units recruits, and is in peace usually stationed, in its own area; the artillery, cavalry and special arms are recruited for the corps throughout the whole allotted area, and stationed at various points within the same. Thus in the German army the III. army corps is composed entirely of Brandenburgers. The infantry of the corps is stationed in ten towns, the cavalry in four and the artillery in five. In countries which adhere to voluntary recruiting, the system, depending as it does on the calculable certainty of recruiting, is not so fully developed, but in Great Britain the auxiliary forces have been reorganized in divisions of all arms on a strictly territorial basis. The advantage of the system as carried into effect in Germany is obvious. Training is carried out with a minimum of friction and expense, as each unit has an ample area for training. Whilst the brigadiers can exercise general control over the colonels, and the divisional generals over the brigadiers, there is little undue interference of superior authority in the work of each grade, and the men, if soldiers by compulsion, at any rate are serving close to their own homes. Most of the reservists required on mobilization reside within a few miles of their barracks. Living in the midst of the civil population, the troops do not tend to become a class apart. Small garrisons are not, as formerly, allowed to stagnate, since modern communications make supervision easy. Further, it must be borne in mind that the essence of the system is the organization and training for war of the whole military population. Now so great a mass of men could not be administered except through this decentralization of authority, and the corollary of short service universally applied is the full territorial system, in which the whole enrolled strength of the district is subjected to the authority of the district commander. Practice, however, falls short of theory, and the dangers of drawing whole units from disaffected or unmilitary districts are often foreseen and discounted by distributing the recruits, non-regionally, amongst more or less distant regiments.

58. Army Administration.—The existing systems of command and organization, being usually based upon purely military considerations, have thus much, indeed almost all, in common. Administration differs from them in one important respect. While the methods of command and organization are the result of the accumulated experience of many armies through many hundred years, the central administration in each case is the product of the historical evolution of the particular country, and is dependent upon forms of government, constitutions and political parties. Thus France, after 1870, remodelled the organization of her forces in accordance with the methods which were presumed to have given Germany the victory, but the headquarters staff at Paris is very different in all branches from that of Berlin. Great Britain adopted German tactics, and to some extent even uniform, but the Army Council has no counterpart in the administration of the German emperor’s forces.

The first point for consideration, therefore, is, what is the ultimate, and what is the proximate, authority supervising the administration? The former is, in most countries, the people or its representatives in parliament, for it is in their power to stop supplies, and without money the whole military fabric must crumble. The constitutional chief of the army is the sovereign, or, in republics, the president, but in most countries the direct control of army matters by the representatives of the people extends over all affairs into which the well-being of the civil population, the expenditure of money, alleged miscarriages of military justice, &c., enter, and it is not unusual to find grand strategy, and even the technical deficiencies of a field-gun or rifle, the subject of interpellation and debate. The peculiar influence of the sovereign is in what may be termed patronage (that is, the selection of officers to fill important positions and the general supervision of the officer-corps), and in the fact that loyalty is the foundation of the discipline and soldierly honour which it is the task of the officers to inculcate into their men. In all cases the head of the state is ipso facto the head of the army. The difference between various systems may then be held to depend on the degree of power allowed to or held by him. This reacts upon the central administration of the army, and is the cause of the differences of system alluded to. For the civil chief of the executive is not necessarily a soldier, much less an expert and capable soldier; he must, therefore, be provided with technical advisers. The chief of the general staff is often the principal of these, though in some cases a special commander-in-chief, or the minister for war, or, as in France and England, a committee or council, has the duty of advising the executive on technical matters.

59. Branches of Administration.—In these circumstances the only general principle of army administration common to all systems is the division of the labour between two great branches. Military administration, in respect of the troops and material which it has to control, is divided between the departments of the War Office and the General Staff. In the staff work of subordinate units, e.g. army corps and divisions, the same classification of duties is adopted, “general staff” duties being performed by one set of officers, “routine staff” duties by another.

610

The work of a General Staff may be taken as consisting in preparation for war, and this again, both in Great Britain and abroad, consists of military policy in all its branches, staff duties in war, the collection of intelligence, mobilization, plans of operations and concentration, training, military history and geography, and the preparation of war regulations. These subjects are usually subdivided into four or five groups, each of which is dealt with by a separate section of the general staff, the actual division of the work, of course, varying in different countries. Thus, the second section of the French staff deals with “the organization and tactics of foreign armies, study of foreign theatres of war, and military missions abroad.” A War Office is concerned with peace administration and with the provision of men and material in war. Under the former category fall such matters as “routine” administration, finance, justice, recruiting, promotion of officers (though not always), barracks and buildings generally, armament, equipment and clothing, &c., in fact all matters not directly relevant to the training of the troops for and the employment of the troops in war. In war, some of the functions of a war office are suspended, but on the other hand the work necessary for the provision of men and material to augment the army and to make good its losses is vastly increased. In 1870 the minister of war, von Roon, accompanied the headquarters in the field, but this arrangement did not work well, and will not be employed again. The chief duties other than those of the general staff fall into two classes, the “routine staff,” administration or adjutant-general’s branch, which deals with all matters affecting personnel, and the quartermaster-general’s branch, which supervises the provision and issue of supplies, stores and matériel of all kinds. Over and above these, provision has to be made for control of all the technical parts of administration, such as artillery and engineer services (in Great Britain, this, with a portion of the quartermaster-general’s department, is under the master-general of the ordnance), and for military legislation, preparation of estimates, &c. These are, of course, special subjects, not directly belonging to the general administrative system. It is only requisite that the latter should be sufficiently elastic to admit of these departments being formed as required. However these subordinate offices may be multiplied, the main work of the war office is in the two departments of the adjutant-general (personnel) and the quartermaster-general (matériel). Beyond and wholly distinct from these is the general staff, the creation of which is perhaps the most important contribution of the past century to the pure science of military organization.

British Army

60. Prior to the Norman Conquest the armed force of England was essentially a national militia. Every freeman was bound to bear arms for the defence of the country, or for the maintenance of order. To give some organization and training to the levy, the several sheriffs had authority to call out the contingents of their shires for exercise. The “fyrd,” as the levy was named, was available for home service only, and could not be moved even from its county except in the case of emergency; and it 611 was principally to repel oversea invasions that its services were required. Yet even in those days the necessity of some more permanent force was felt, and bodies of paid troops were maintained by the kings at their own cost. Thus Canute and his successors, and even some of the great earls kept up a household force (huscarles). The English army at Hastings consisted of the fyrd and the corps of huscarles.

The English had fought on foot; but the mailed horseman had now become the chief factor in war, and the Conqueror introduced into England the system of tenure by knight-service familiar in Normandy. This was based on the unit of the feudal host, the constabularia of ten knights, the Conqueror granting lands in return for finding one or more of these units (in the case of great barons) or some fraction of them (in the case of lesser tenants). The obligation was to provide knights to serve, with horse and arms, for forty days in each year at their own charges. This obligation could be handed on by sub-enfeoffment through a whole series of under-tenants. The system being based, not on the duty of personal service, but on the obligation to supply one or more knights (or it might be only the fraction of a knight), it was early found convenient to commute this for a money payment known as “scutage” (see Knight Service and Scutage). This money enabled the king to hire mercenaries, or pay such of the feudal troops as were willing to serve beyond the usual time. From time to time proclamations and statutes were issued reminding the holders of knights’ fees of their duties; but the immediate object was generally to raise money rather than to enforce personal service, which became more and more rare. The feudal system had not, however, abrogated the old Saxon levies, and from these arose two national institutions—the posse comitatus, liable to be called out by the sheriff to maintain the king’s peace, and later the militia (q.v.). The posse comitatus, or power of the county, included all males able to bear arms, peers and spiritual men excepted; and though primarily a police force it was also bound to assist in the defence of the country. This levy was organized by the Assize of Arms under Henry II. (1181), and subsequently under Edward I. (1285) by the so-called “Statute of Winchester,” which determined the numbers and description of weapons to be kept by each man according to his property, and also provided for their periodical inspection. The early Plantagenets made free use of mercenaries. But the weakness of the feudal system in England was preparing, through the 12th and 13th centuries, a nation in arms absolutely unique in the middle ages. The Scottish and Welsh wars were, of course, fought by the feudal levy, but this levy was far from being the mob of unwilling peasants usual abroad, and from the fyrd came the English archers, whose fame was established by Edward I.’s wars, and carried to the continent by Edward III. Edward III. realized that there was better material to be had in his own country than abroad, and the army with which he invaded France was an army of national mercenaries, or, more simply, of English soldiers. The army at Creçy was composed exclusively of English, Welsh and Irish. From the pay list of the army at the siege of Calais (1346) it appears that all ranks, from the prince of Wales downward, were paid, no attempt being made to force even the feudal nobles to serve abroad at their own expense. These armies were raised mainly by contracts entered into “with some knight or gentleman expert in war, and of great revenue and livelihood in the country, to serve the king in war with a number of men.” Copies of the indentures executed when Henry V. raised his army for the invasion of France in 1415 are in existence. Under these the contracting party agreed to serve the king abroad for one year, with a given number of men equipped according to agreement, and at a stipulated rate of pay. A certain sum was usually paid in advance, and in many cases the crown jewels and plate were given in pledge for the rest. The profession of arms seems to have been profitable. The pay of the soldier was high as compared with that of the ordinary labourer, and he had the prospect of a share of plunder in addition, so that it was not difficult to raise men where the commander had a good military reputation. Edward III. is said to have declined the services of numbers of foreign mercenaries who wished to enrol under him in his wars against France.

The funds for the payment of these armies were provided partly from the royal revenues, partly from the fines paid in lieu of military service, and other fines arbitrarily imposed, and partly by grants from parliament. As the soldier’s contract usually ended with the war, and the king had seldom funds to renew it even if he so wished, the armies disbanded of themselves at the close of each war. To secure the services of the soldier during his contract, acts were passed (18 Henry VI. c. 19; and 7 Henry VII. c. 1) inflicting penalties for desertion; and in Edward VI.’s reign an act “touching the true service of captains and soldiers” was passed, somewhat of the nature of a Mutiny Act.

61. It is difficult to summarize the history of the army between the Hundred Years’ War and 1642. The final failure of the English arms in France was soon followed by the Wars of the Roses, and in the long period of civil strife the only national force remaining to England was the Calais garrison. Henry VIII. was a soldier-king, but he shared the public feeling for the old bow and bill, and English armies which served abroad did not, it seems, win the respect of the advanced professional soldiers of the continent. In 1519 the Venetian ambassador described the English forces as consisting of 150,000 men whose peculiar, though not exclusive, weapon was the long bow (Fortescue i. 117). The national levy made in 1588 to resist the Armada and the threat of invasion produced about 750 lancers (heavy-armed cavalry), 2000 light horse and 56,000 foot, beside 20,000 men employed in watching the coasts. The small proportion of mounted men is very remarkable in a country in which Cromwell was before long to illustrate the full power of cavalry on the battlefield. It is indeed not unfair to regard this army as a miscellaneous levy of inferior quality.

It was in cavalry that England was weakest, and by three different acts it was sought to improve the breed of horses, though the light horse of the northern counties had a good reputation, and even won the admiration of the emperor Charles V. Perhaps the best organized force in England at this time was the London volunteer association which ultimately became the Honourable Artillery Company. At Floddon the spirit of the old English yeomanry triumphed over the outward form of continental battalions which the Scots had adopted, and doubtless the great victory did much to retard military progress in England. The chief service of Henry VIII. to the British army was the formation of an artillery train, in which he took a special interest. Before he died the forces came to consist of a few permanent troops (the bodyguard and the fortress artillery service), the militia or general levy, which was for home, and indeed for county, service only, and the paid armies which were collected for a foreign war and disbanded at the conclusion of peace, and were recruited on the same principle of indents which had served in the Hundred Years’ War. In the reign of Mary, the old Statute of Winchester was revised (1553), and the new act provided for a readjustment of the county contingents and in some degree for the rearmament of the militia. But, from the fall of Calais and the expedition to Havre up to the battle of the Dunes a century later, the intervention of British forces in foreign wars was always futile and generally disastrous. During this time, however, the numerous British regiments in the service of Holland learned, in the long war of Dutch independence, the art of war as it had developed on the continent since 1450, and assimilated the regimental system and the drill and armament of the best models. Thus it was that in 1642 there were many hundreds of trained and war-experienced officers and sergeants available for the armies of the king and the parliament. By this time bows and bills had long disappeared even from the militia, and the Thirty Years’ War, which, even more than the Low Countries, offered a career for the adventurous man, contributed yet more trained officers and soldiers to the English and Scottish forces. So closely indeed was war now studied by Englishmen that the respective adherents of the Dutch and the Swedish systems quarrelled on the eve of the battle of Edgehill. Francis 612 and Horace Vere, Sir John Norris, and other Englishmen had become generals of European reputation. Skippon, Astley, Goring, Rupert, and many others soon to be famous were distinguished as company and regimental officers in the battles and sieges of Germany and the Low Countries.

The home forces of England had, as has been said, little or nothing to revive their ancient renown. Instead, they had come to be regarded as a menace to the constitution. In Queen Elizabeth’s time the demands of the Irish wars had led to frequent forced levies, and the occasional billeting of the troops in England also gave rise to murmurs, but the brilliancy and energy of her reign covered a great deal, and the peaceful policy of her successor removed all immediate cause of complaint. But after the accession of Charles I. we find the army a constant and principal source of dispute between the king and parliament, until under William III. it is finally established on a constitutional footing. Charles, wishing to support the Elector Palatine in the Thirty Years’ War, raised an army of 10,000 men. He was already encumbered with debts, and the parliament refused all grants, on which he had recourse to forced loans. The army was sent to Spain, but returned without effecting anything, and was not disbanded, as usual, but billeted on the inhabitants. The billeting was the more deeply resented as it appeared that the troops were purposely billeted on those who had resisted the loan. Forced loans, billeting and martial law—all directly connected with the maintenance of the army—formed the main substance of the grievances set forth in the Petition of Right. In accepting this petition, Charles gave up the right to maintain an army without consent of parliament; and when in 1639 he wished to raise one to act against the rebellious Scots, parliament was called together, and its sanction obtained, on the plea that the army was necessary for the defence of England. This army again became the source of dispute between the king and parliament, and finally both sides appealed to arms.

62. The first years of the Great Rebellion (q.v.) showed primarily the abundance of good officers produced by the wars on the continent, and in the second place the absolute inadequacy of the military system of the country; the commissions of array, militia ordinances, &c., had at last to give way to regular methods of enlistment and a central army administration. It was clear, at the same time, that when the struggle was one of principles and not of dynastic politics, excellent recruits, far different from the wretched levies who had been gathered together for the Spanish war, were to be had in any reasonable number. These causes combined to produce the “New Model” which, originating in Cromwell’s own cavalry and the London trained bands of foot, formed of picked men and officers, severely disciplined, and organized and administered in the right way, quickly proved its superiority over all other armies in the field, and in a few years raised its general to supreme civil power. The 15th of February 1645 was the birthday of the British standing army, and from its first concentration at Windsor Park dates the scarlet uniform. The men were for the most part voluntarily enlisted from existing corps, though deficiencies had immediately to be made good by impressment.

Four months later the New Model decided the quarrel of king and parliament at Naseby. When Cromwell, the first lieutenant-general and the second captain-general of the army, sent his veterans to take part in the wars of the continent they proved themselves a match for the best soldiers in Europe. On the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 the army, now some 80,000 strong, was disbanded. It had enforced the execution of Charles I., it had dissolved parliament, and England had been for years governed under a military regime. Thus the most popular measure of the Restoration was the dissolution of the army. Only Monk’s regiment of foot (now the Coldstream Guards) survived to represent the New Model in the army of to-day. At the same time the troops (now regiments) of household cavalry, and the regiment of foot which afterwards became the Grenadier Guards, were formed, chiefly from Royalists, though the disbanded New Model contributed many experienced recruits. The permanent forces of the crown came to consist once more of the “garrisons and guards,” maintained by the king from the revenue allotted to him for carrying on the government of the country. The “garrisons” were commissioned to special fortresses—the Tower of London, Portsmouth, &c. The “guards” comprised the sovereign’s bodyguards (“the yeomen of the guard” and “gentlemen-at-arms,” who had existed since the times of Henry VII. and VIII.), and the regiments mentioned above. Even this small force, at first not exceeding 3000 men, was looked on with jealousy by parliament, and every attempt to increase it was opposed. The acquisition of Tangier and Bombay, as part of the dower of the infanta of Portugal, led to the formation of a troop of horse (now the 1st Royal Dragoons) and a regiment of infantry (the 2nd, now Queen’s R.W. Surrey, regiment) for the protection of the former; and a regiment of infantry (afterwards transferred to the East India Company) to hold the latter (1661). These troops, not being stationed in the kingdom, created no distrust; but whenever, as on several occasions during Charles’s reign, considerable armies were raised, they were mostly disbanded when the occasion ceased. Several regiments, however, were added to the permanent force, including Dumbarton’s regiment (the 1st or Royal Scots, nicknamed Pontius Pilate’s Bodyguard)—which had a long record of service in the armies of the continent, and represented the Scots brigade of Gustavus Adolphus’s army—and the 3rd Buffs, representing the English regiments of the Dutch army and through them the volunteers of 1572, and on Charles’s death in 1685 the total force of “guards and garrisons” had risen to 16,500, of whom about one-half formed what we should now call the standing army.

63. James II., an experienced soldier and sailor, was more obstinate than his predecessor in his efforts to increase the army, and Monmouth’s rebellion afforded him the opportunity. A force of about 20,000 men was maintained in England, and a large camp formed at Hounslow. Eight cavalry and twelve infantry regiments (the senior of which was the 7th “Royal” Fusiliers, formed on a new French model) were raised, and given the numbers which, with few exceptions, they still bear. James even proposed to disband the militia, which had not distinguished itself in the late rebellion, and further augment the standing army; and although the proposal was instantly rejected, he continued to add to the army till the Revolution deprived him of his throne. The army which he had raised was to a great extent disbanded, the Irish soldiers especially, whom he had introduced in large numbers on account of their religion, being all sent home.

The condition of the army immediately engaged the attention of parliament. The Bill of Rights had definitely established that “the raising or keeping of a standing army within the kingdom, unless it be by the consent of parliament, is against the law,” and past experience made them very jealous of such a force. But civil war was imminent, foreign war certain; and William had only a few Dutch troops, and the remains of James’s army, with which to meet the storm. Parliament therefore sanctioned a standing army, trusting to the checks established by the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement, and by placing the pay of the army under the control of the Commons. An event soon showed the altered position of the army. A regiment mutinied and declared for James. It was surrounded and compelled to lay down its arms; but William found himself without legal power to deal with the mutineers. He therefore applied to parliament, and in 1689 was passed the first Mutiny Act, which, after repeating the provisions regarding the army inserted in the Bill of Rights, and declaring the illegality of martial law, gave power to the crown to deal with the offences of mutiny and desertion by courts-martial. From this event is often dated the history of the standing army as a constitutional force (but see Fortescue, British Army, i. 335).

64. Under William the army was considerably augmented. The old regiments of James’s army were reorganized, retaining, however, their original numbers, and three of cavalry and eleven of infantry (numbered to the 28th) were added. In 1690 parliament sanctioned a force of 62,000 men, further increased to 613 65,000 in 1691; but on peace being made in 1697 the Commons immediately passed resolutions to the effect that the land forces be reduced to 7000 men in England and 12,000 in Ireland. The War of the Spanish Succession quickly obliged Great Britain again to raise a large army, at one time exceeding 200,000 men; but of these the greater number were foreign troops engaged for the continental war. Fortescue (op. cit. i. 555) estimates the British forces at home and abroad as 70,000 men at the highest figure. After the peace of Utrecht the force was again reduced to 8000 men in Great Britain and 11,000 in the plantations (i.e. colonies) and abroad. From that time to the present the strength of the army has been determined by the annual votes of parliament, and though frequently the subject of warm debates in both houses, it has ceased to be a matter of dispute between the crown and parliament. The following table shows the fluctuations from that time onward—the peace years showing the average peace strength, the war years the maximum to which the forces were raised:—

During William’s reign the small English army bore an honourable part in the wars against Louis XIV., and especially distinguished itself under the king at Steinkirk, Neerwinden and Namur. Twenty English regiments took part in the campaign of 1694. In the great wars of Queen Anne’s reign the British army under Marlborough acquired a European reputation. The cavalry, which had called forth the admiration of Prince Eugene when passed in review before him after its long march across Germany (1704), especially distinguished itself in the battle of Blenheim, and Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet were added to the list of English victories. But the army as usual was reduced at once, and even the cadres of old regiments were disbanded, though the alarm of Jacobite insurrections soon brought about the re-creation of many of these. During the reign of the first and second Georges an artillery corps was organized, and the army further increased by five regiments of cavalry and thirty-five of infantry. Fresh laurels were won at Dettingen (1743), in which battle twenty English regiments took part; and though Fontenoy (q.v.) was a day of disaster for the English arms, it did not lower their reputation, but rather added to it. Six regiments of infantry won the chief glory of Prince Ferdinand’s victory of Minden (q.v.) in 1759, and throughout the latter part of the Seven Years’ War the British contingent of Ferdinand’s army served with almost unvarying distinction in numerous actions. About this time the first English regiments were sent to India, and the 39th shared in Clive’s victory at Plassey. During the first half of George III.’s reign the army was principally occupied in America; and though the conquest of Canada may be counted with pride among its exploits, this page in its history is certainly the darkest. English armies capitulated at Saratoga and at Yorktown, and the war ended by the evacuation of the revolted states of America and the acknowledgment of their independence.

65. Before passing to the great French Revolutionary wars, from which a fresh period in the history of the army may be dated, it will be well to review the general condition of the army in the preceding century, injured as it was by the distrust of parliament and departmental weakness and corruption which went far to neutralize the good work of the duke of Cumberland as commander-in-chief and of Pitt as war administrator. Regiments were raised almost as in the days of the Edwards. The crown contracted with a distinguished soldier, or gentleman of high position, who undertook to raise the men, receiving a certain sum as bounty-money for each recruit. In some cases, in lieu of money, the contractor received the nomination of all or some of the officers, and recouped himself by selling the commissions. This system—termed “raising men for rank”—was retained for many years, and originally helped to create the “purchase system” of promotion. For the maintenance of the regiment the colonel received an annual sum sufficient to cover the pay of the men, and the expenses of clothing and of recruiting. The colonel was given a “beating order,” without which no enlistment was legal, and was responsible for maintaining his regiment at full strength. “Muster masters” were appointed to muster the regiments, and to see that the men for whom pay was drawn were really effective. Sometimes, when casualties were numerous, the allowance was insufficient to meet the cost of recruiting, and special grants were made. In war time the ranks were also filled by released debtors, pardoned criminals, and impressed paupers and vagrants. Where the men were raised by voluntary enlistment, the period of service was a matter of contract between the colonel and the soldier, and the engagement was usually for life; but exceptional levies were enlisted for the duration of war, or for periods of three or five years. As for the officers, the low rate of pay and the purchase system combined to exclude all but men of independent incomes. Appointments (except when in the gift of the colonel) were made by the king at home, and by the commander-in-chief abroad; even in Ireland the power of appointment rested with the local commander of the forces until the Union. The soldier was clothed by his colonel, the charge being defrayed from the “stock fund.” The army lived in barracks, camps or billets. The barrack accommodation in Great Britain at the beginning of the 18th century only sufficed for five thousand men; and though it had gradually risen to twenty thousand in 1792, a large part of the army was constantly in camps and billets—the latter causing endless complaints and difficulties.

66. The first efforts of the army in the long war with France did not tend to raise its reputation amongst the armies of Europe. The campaigns of allied armies under the duke of York in the Netherlands, in which British contingents figured largely, were uniformly unsuccessful (1793-94 and 1799), though in this respect they resembled those of almost all soldiers who commanded against the “New French” army. The policy of the younger Pitt sent thousands of the best soldiers to unprofitable employment, and indeed to death, in the West Indies. At home the administration was corrupt and ineffective, and the people generally shared the contemptuous feeling towards the regular army which was then prevalent in Europe. But a better era began with the appointment of Frederick Augustus, duke of York, as commander-in-chief of the army. He did much to improve its organization, discipline and training, and was ably seconded by commanders of distinguished ability. Under Abercromby in Egypt, under Stuart at Maida, and under Lake, Wellesley and others in India, the British armies again attached victory to their standards, and made themselves feared and respected. Later, Napoleon’s threat of invading England excited her martial spirit to the highest pitch to which it had ever attained. Finally, her military glory was raised by the series of successful campaigns in the Peninsula, until it culminated in the great victory of Waterloo; and the army emerged from the war with the most solidly founded reputation of any in Europe.

The events of this period belong to the history of Europe, and fall outside the province of an article dealing only with the army. The great augmentations required during the war were effected partly by raising additional regiments, but principally by increasing the number of battalions, some regiments being given as many as four. On the conclusion of peace these battalions were reduced, but the regiments were retained, and the army was permanently increased from about twenty thousand, the usual peace establishment before the war, to an average of eighty thousand. The duke of York, on first appointment to the command, had introduced a uniform drill throughout the army, which was further modified according to Sir David Dundas’s system in 1800; and, under the direction of Sir John Moore and others, a high perfection of drill was attained. At 614 the beginning of the war, the infantry, like that of the continental powers, was formed in three ranks; but a two-rank formation had been introduced in America and in India and gradually became general, and in 1809 was finally approved. In the Peninsula the army was permanently organized in divisions, usually consisting of two brigades of three or four battalions each, and one or two batteries of artillery. The duke of Wellington had also brought the commissariat and the army transport to a high pitch of perfection, but in the long peace which followed these establishments were reduced or broken up.

67. The period which elapsed between Waterloo and the Crimean War is marked by a number of Indian and colonial wars, but by no organic changes in the army, with perhaps the single exception of the Limited Service Act of 1847, by which enlistment for ten or twelve years, with power to re-engage to complete twenty-one, was substituted for the life enlistments hitherto in force. The army went to sleep on the laurels and recollections of the Peninsula. The duke of Wellington, for many years commander-in-chief, was too anxious to hide it away in the colonies in order to save it from further reductions or utter extinction, to attempt any great administrative reforms. The force which was sent to the Crimea in 1854 was an agglomeration of battalions, individually of the finest quality, but unused to work together, without trained staff, administrative departments or army organization of any kind. The lesson of the winter before Sevastopol was dearly bought, but was not thrown away. From that time successive war ministers and commanders-in-chief have laboured perseveringly at the difficult task of army organization and administration. Foremost in the work was Sidney Herbert (Lord Herbert of Lea), the soldier’s friend, who fell a sacrifice to his labours (1861), but not before he had done much for the army. The whole system of administration was revised. In 1854 it was inconceivably complicated and cumbersome. The “secretary of state for war and colonies,” sitting at the Colonial Office, had a general but vague control, practically limited to times of war. The “secretary at war” was the parliamentary representative of the army, and exercised a certain financial control, not extending, however, to the ordnance corps. The commander-in-chief was responsible to the sovereign alone in all matters connected with the discipline, command or patronage of the army, but to the secretary at war in financial matters. The master-general and board of ordnance were responsible for the supply of material on requisition, but were otherwise independent, and had the artillery and engineers under them. The commissariat department had its headquarters at the treasury, and until 1852 the militia were under the home secretary. A number of minor subdepartments, more or less independent, also existed, causing endless confusion, correspondence and frequent collision. In 1854 the business of the colonies was separated from that of war, and the then secretary of state, the duke of Newcastle, assumed control over all the other administrative officers. In the following year the secretary of state was appointed secretary at war also, and the duties of the two offices amalgamated. The same year the commissariat office was transferred to the war department, and the Board of Ordnance abolished, its functions being divided between the commander-in-chief and the secretary of state. The minor departments were gradually absorbed, and the whole administration divided under two great chiefs, sitting at the war office and Horse Guards respectively. In 1870 these two were welded into one, and the war office now existing was constituted.

Corresponding improvements were effected in every branch. The system of clothing the soldiers was altered, the contracts being taken from the colonels of regiments, who received a money allowance instead, and the clothing supplied from government manufactories. The pay, food and general condition of the soldier were improved; reading and recreation rooms, libraries, gymnasia and facilities for games of all kinds being provided. Barracks (q.v.) were built on improved principles, and a large permanent camp was formed at Aldershot, where considerable forces were collected and manœuvred together. Various educational establishments were opened, a staff college was established for the instruction of officers wishing to qualify for the staff, and regimental schools were improved.

68. The Indian Mutiny of 1857, followed by the transference of the government of India, led to important changes. The East India Company’s white troops were amalgamated with the Queen’s army, and the whole reorganized (see Indian Army below).

The fact that such difficulties as those of 1854 and 1857, not to speak of the disorders of 1848, had been surmounted by the weak army which remained over from the reductions of forty years, coupled with the instantaneous and effective rejoinder to the threats of the French colonels in 1859—the creation of the Volunteer Force—certainly lulled the nation and its representatives into a false sense of security. Thus the two obvious lessons of the German successes of 1866 and 1870—the power of a national army for offensive invasion, and the rapidity with which such an army when thoroughly organized could be moved—created the greatest sensation in England. The year 1870 is, therefore, of prime importance in the history of the regular forces of the crown. The strength of the home forces at different times between 1815 and 1870 is given as follows (Biddulph, Lord Cardwell at the War Office):—

69. The period of reform commences therefore with 1870, and is connected indissolubly with the name of Edward, Lord Cardwell, secretary of state for war 1869-1874. In the matter of organization the result of his labours was seen in the perfectly arranged expedition to Ashanti (1874); as for recruiting, the introduction of short service and reserve enlistment together with many rearrangements of pay, &c., proved so far popular that the number of men annually enlisted was more than trebled (11,742 in 1869; 39,971 in 1885; 40,729 in 1898), and so far efficient that “Lord Cardwell’s ... system, with but small modification, gave us during the Boer War 80,000 reservists, of whom 96 or 97% were found efficient, and has enabled us to keep an army of 150,000 regulars in the field for 15 months” (Rt. Hon. St John Brodrick, House of Commons, 8th of March 1901). The localization of the army, subsequently completed by the territorial system of 1882, was commenced under Cardwell’s régime, and a measure which encountered much powerful opposition at the time, the abolition of the purchase of commissions, was also effected by him (1871). The machinery of administration was improved, and autumn manœuvres were practised on a scale hitherto unknown in England. In 1871 certain powers over the militia, formerly held by lords-lieutenant, were transferred to the crown, and the auxiliary forces were placed directly under the generals commanding districts. In 1881 came an important change in the infantry of the line, which was entirely remodelled in two-battalion regiments bearing territorial titles. This measure (the “linked battalion” system) aroused great opposition; it was dictated chiefly by the necessity of maintaining the Indian and colonial garrisons at full strength, and was begun during Lord Cardwell’s tenure of office, the principle being that each regiment should have one battalion at home and one abroad, the latter being fed by the former, which in its turn drew upon the reserve to complete it for war. The working of the system is to be considered as belonging to present practice rather than to history, and the reader is therefore referred to the article United Kingdom. On these general lines the army progressed up to 1899, when the Boer War called into the field on a distant theatre of war all the resources of the regular army, and in addition drew largely upon the existing auxiliary forces, and even upon wholly untrained civilians, for the numbers required to make war in an area which 615 comprised nearly all Africa south of the Zambezi. As the result of this war (see Transvaal) successive schemes of reform were undertaken by the various war ministers, leading up to Mr Haldane’s “territorial” scheme (1908), which put the organization of the forces in the United Kingdom (q.v.) on a new basis.

Innovations had not been unknown in the period immediately preceding the war; as a single example we may take the development of the mounted infantry (q.v.). It was natural that the war itself, and especially a war of so peculiar a character, should intensify the spirit of innovation. The corresponding period in the German army lasted from 1871 to 1888, and such a period of unsettlement is indeed the common, practically the universal, result of a war on a large scale. Much that was of value in the Prussian methods, faithfully and even slavishly copied by Great Britain as by others after 1870, was temporarily forgotten, but the pendulum swung back again, and the Russo-Japanese War led to the disappearance, so far as Europe was concerned, of many products of the period of doubt and controversy which followed the struggle in South Africa. Side by side with continuous discussions of the greater questions of military policy, amongst these being many well-reasoned proposals for universal service, the technical and administrative efficiency of the service has undergone great improvement, and this appears to be of more real and permanent value than the greater part of the solutions given for the larger problems. The changes in the organization of the artillery afford the best evidence of this spirit of practical and technical reform. In the first place the old “royal regiment” was divided into two branches. The officers for the field and horse artillery stand now on one seniority list for promotion, the garrison, heavy and mountain batteries on another. In each branch important changes of organization have been also made. In the field branch, both for Royal Field and Royal Horse Artillery, the battery is no longer the one unit for all purposes. A lieutenant-colonel’s command, the “brigade,” has been created. It consists of a group, in the horse artillery of two, in the field artillery of three batteries. For the practical training of the horse and field artillery a large area of ground on the wild open country of Dartmoor, near Okehampton, has for some years been utilized. A similar school has been started at Glen Imaal in Ireland, and a new training ground has been opened on Salisbury Plain. Similarly, with the Royal Garrison Artillery a more perfect system has been devised for the regulation and practice of the fire of each fortress, in accordance with the varying circumstances of its position, &c. A practice school for the garrison artillery has been established at Lydd, but the various coast fortresses themselves carry out regular practice with service ammunition.

Indian Army

70. Historically, the Indian army grew up in three distinct divisions, the Bengal, Madras and Bombay armies. This separation was the natural result of the original foundation of separate settlements and factories in India; and each retains to the present day much of its old identity.

Austrian Army

78. The Landsknecht infantry constituted the mainstay of the imperial armies in the 16th century. Maximilian I. and Charles V. are recorded to have marched and carried the “long pike” in their ranks. Maximilian also formed a corps of Kyrisser, who were the origin of the modern cuirassiers. It was not, however, until much later that the Austrian army came into existence as a permanent force. Rudolph II. formed a small standing force about 1600, but relied upon the “enlistment” system, like other sovereigns of the time, for the bulk of his armies. The Thirty Years’ War produced the permanence of service which led in all the states of Europe to the rise of standing armies. In the Empire it was Wallenstein who first raised a distinctly imperial army of soldiers owing no duty but to the sovereign; and it was the suspicion that he intended to use this army, which was raised largely at his own expense, to further his own ends, that led to his assassination. From that time the regiments belonged no longer to their colonels, but to the emperor; and the oldest regiments in the present Austrian army date from the Thirty Years’ War, at the close of which Austria had 19 infantry, 6 cuirassier and 1 dragoon regiments. The almost continuous wars of Austria against France and the Turks (from 1495 to 1895 Austrian troops took part in 7000 actions of all sorts) led to a continuous increase in her establishments. The wars of the time of Montecucculi and of Eugene were followed by that of the Polish Succession, the two Turkish wars, and the three great struggles against Frederick the Great. Thus in 1763 the army had been almost continuously on active service for more than 100 years, in the course of which its organization had been modified in accordance with the lessons of each war. This, in conjunction with the fact that Austria took part in other Turkish campaigns subsequently, rendered this army the most formidable opponent of the forces of the French Revolution (1792). But the superior leading, organization and numbers of the emperor’s forces were totally inadequate to the magnitude of the task of suppressing the Revolutionary forces, and though such victories as Neerwinden were sufficient proof of the efficiency and valour of the Austrians, they made no headway. In later campaigns, in which the enemy had acquired war experience, and the best of their officers had come to the front, the tide turned against the Imperialists even on the field of battle. The archduke Charles’s victories of 1796 were more than counterbalanced by Bonaparte’s Italian campaign, and the temporary success of 1799 ended at Marengo and Hohenlinden.

79. The Austrians, during the short peace which preceded the war of 1805, suffered, in consequence of all this, from a feeling of distrust, not merely in their leaders, but also in the whole system upon which the army was raised, organized and trained. This was substantially the same as that of the Seven Years’ War time. Enlistment being voluntary and for long service, the numbers necessary to cope with the output of the French conscription could not be raised, and the inner history of the Austrian headquarters in the Ulm campaign shows that the dissensions and mutual distrust of the general officers had gone far towards the disintegration of an army which at that time had the most esprit de corps and the highest military qualities of any army in Europe. But the disasters of 1805 swept away good and bad alike in the abolition of the old system. Already the archduke Charles had designed a “nation in arms” after the French model, and on this basis the reconstruction was begun. The conscription was put in force and the necessary numbers thus obtained; the administration was at the same time reformed and the organization and supply services brought into line with modern requirements. The war of 1809 surprised Austria in the midst of her reorganization, yet the new army fought with the greatest spirit. The invasion of Bavaria was by no means so leisurely as it had been in 1805, and the archduke Charles obtained one signal victory over Napoleon in person. Aspern and Wagram were most desperately contested, and though the archduke ceased to take part in the administration after 1809 the work went on steadily until, in 1813, the Austrian armies worthily represented the combination of discipline with the “nation in arms” principle. Their intervention in the War of Liberation was decisive, and Austria, in spite of her territorial losses of the past years, put into the field well-drilled armies far exceeding in numbers those which had appeared in the wars of the Revolution. After the fall of Napoleon, Austria’s hold on Italy necessitated the maintenance of a large army of occupation. This army, and in particular its cavalry, was admittedly the best in Europe, and, having to be ready to march at a few days’ notice, it was saved from the deadening influence of undisturbed peace which affected every other service in Europe from 1815 to 1850.

80. The Austrian system has conserved much of the peculiar tone of the army of 1848, of which English readers may obtain a good idea from George Meredith’s Vittoria. It was, however, a natural result of this that the army lost to some considerable extent the spirit of the “nation in arms” of 1809 and 1813. It was employed in dynastic wars, and the conscription was of course modified by substitution; thus, when the war of 1859 resulted unfavourably to the Austrians, the army began to lose confidence, precisely as had been the case in 1805. Once more, in 1866, an army animated by the purely professional spirit, which was itself weakened by distrust, met a “nation in arms,” and in this case a nation well trained in peace and armed with a breechloader. Bad staff work, and tactics which can only be described as those of pique, precipitated the disaster, and in seven weeks the victorious Prussians were almost at the gates of Vienna.

The result of the war, and of the constitutional changes about this time, was the re-adoption of the principles of 1806-1813, the abolition of conscription and long service in favour of universal service for a short term, and a thorough reform in the methods of command and staff work. It has been said of the Prussian army that “discipline is—the officers.” This is more true of the “K.K.” army1 than of any other in Europe; the great bond of union between the heterogeneous levies of recruits of many races is the spirit of the corps of officers, which retains the personal and professional characteristics of the old army of Italy.

French Army

81. The French army (see for further details France: Law and Institutions) dates from the middle of the 15th century, at which time Charles VII. formed, from mercenaries who had served him in the Hundred Years’ War, the compagnies d’ordonnance, and thus laid the foundation of a national standing army. But the armies that followed the kings in their wars still consisted mainly of mercenaries, hired for the occasion; and the work of Charles and his successors was completely undone in the confusion of the religious wars. Louvois, who was minister of Louis XIV., was the true creator of the French royal army. The organization of the first standing army is here given in some detail, as it served as a model for all armies for more than a century, and is also followed to some extent in our own times. Before the advent of Louvois, the forces were royal only in name. The army was a fortuitous concourse of regiments of horse and foot, each of which was the property of its colonel. The companies similarly 618 belonged to their captains, and, the state being then in no condition to buy out these vested interests, superior control was almost illusory. Indeed, all the well-known devices for eluding such control, for instance, showing imaginary men on the pay lists, can be traced to the French army of the 16th century. A further difficulty lay in the existence of the offices called Colonel-General, Marshal-General and Grand Master of Artillery, between whom no common administration was possible. The grand master survived until 1743, but Louvois managed to suppress the other offices, and even to put one of his own subordinates into the office of grand master. Thus was assured direct royal control, exercised through the war minister. Louvois was unable indeed to overthrow the proprietary system, but he made stringent regulations against abuses, and confined it to the colonels (mestre de camp in the cavalry) and the captains. Henceforward the colonel was a wealthy noble, with few duties beyond that of spending money freely and of exercising his court influence on behalf of his regiment. The real work of the service was done by the lieutenant-colonels and lieutenants, and the king and the minister recognized this on all occasions. Thus Vauban was given, as a reward for good service, a company in the “Picardie” regiment without purchase. Promotions from the ranks were very rare but not unknown, and all promotions were awarded according to merit except those to captain or colonel. One of the captains in a regiment was styled major, and acted as adjutant. This post was of course filled by selection and not by purchase. The grades of general officers were newly fixed by Louvois—the brigadier, maréchal de camp, lieutenant-general and marshal of France. The general principle was to give command, but not promotion, according to merit. The rank and file were recruited by voluntary enlistment for four years’ service. The infantry company was maintained in peace at an effective of 60, except in the guards and the numerous foreign corps, in which the company was always at the war strength of 100 to 200 men. This arm was composed, in 1678, of the Gardes françaises, the Swiss guards, the old (vieux and petits vieux) regiments of the line, of which the senior, “Picardie,” claimed to be the oldest regiment in Europe, and the regiments raised under the new system. The régiment du roi, which was deliberately made the model of all others and was commanded by the celebrated Martinet, was the senior of these latter. The whole infantry arm in 1678 numbered 320,000 field and garrison troops. The cavalry consisted of the Maison du Roi (which Louvois converted from a “show” corps to one of the highest discipline and valour), divided into the Gardes du Corps and the Mousquetaires, the Gendarmerie (descended from the old feudal cavalry and the ordonnance companies) and the line cavalry, the whole being about 55,000 strong. There were also 10,000 dragoons. In addition to the regular army, the king could call out, in case of need, the ancient arrière-ban or levy, as was in fact done in 1674. On that occasion, however, it behaved badly, and it was not again employed. In 1688 Louvois organized a militia raised by ballot. This numbered 25,000 men and proved to be better, at any rate, than the arrière-ban. Many infantry regiments of the line were, as has been said, foreign, and in 1678 the foreigners numbered 30,000, the greater part of these being Swiss.

82. The artillery had been an industrial concern rather than an arm of the service. In sieges a sum of money was paid for each piece put in battery, and the grand master was not subordinated to the war office. A nominee of Louvois, as has been said, filled the post at this time, and eventually Louvois formed companies of artillerymen, and finally the regiment of “Fusiliers” which Vauban described as the “finest regiment in the world.” The engineer service, as organized by Vauban, was composed of engineers “in ordinary,” and of line officers especially employed in war. Louvois further introduced the system of magazines. To ensure the regular working of supply and transport, he instituted direct control by the central executive, and stored great quantities of food in the fortresses, thereby securing for the French armies a precision and certainty in military operations which had hitherto been wanting. The higher administration of the army, under the minister of war, fell into two branches, that of the commissaries and that of the inspecting officers. The duties of the former resembled those of a modern “routine” staff—issue of equipment, checking of returns, &c. The latter exercised functions analogous to those of a general staff, supervising the training and general efficiency of the troops. Louvois also created an excellent hospital service, mobile and stationary, founded the Hôtel des Invalides in Paris for the maintenance of old soldiers, established cadet schools for the training of young officers, and stimulated bravery and good conduct by reviving and creating military orders of merit.

83. The last half of the 17th century is a brilliant period in the annals of the French armies. Thoroughly organized, animated by the presence of the king, and led by such generals as Condé, Turenne, Luxembourg, Catinat and Vendôme, they made head against coalitions which embraced nearly all the powers of Europe, and made France the first military nation of Europe. The reverses of the later part of Louis XIV.’s reign were not of course without result upon the tone of the French army, and the campaigns of Marlborough and Eugene for a time diminished the repute in which the troops of Louis were held by other powers. Nevertheless the War of the Spanish Succession closed with French victories, and generals of the calibre of Villars and Berwick were not to be found in the service of every prince. The war of the Polish Succession in Germany and Italy reflected no discredit upon the French arms; and the German general staff, in its history of the wars of Frederick the Great, states that “in 1740 the French army was still regarded as the first in Europe.” Since the death of Louvois very little had changed. The army was still governed as it had been by the great war minister, and something had been done to reduce evils against which even he had been powerless. A royal regiment of artillery had come into existence, and the engineers were justly regarded as the most skilful in Europe. Certain alterations had been made in the organization of both the guard and the line, and the total strength of the French in peace was somewhat less than 200,000. Relatively to the numbers maintained in other states, it was thus as powerful as before. Indeed, only one feature of importance differentiated the French army from its contemporaries—the proportion of officers to men, which was one to eleven. In view of this, the spirit of the army was necessarily that of its officers, and these were by no means the equals of their predecessors of the time of Turenne or Luxembourg. Louvois’ principle of employing professional soldiers for command and wealthy men for colonelcies and captaincies was not deliberately adopted, but inevitably grew out of the circumstances of the time. The system answered fairly whilst continual wars gave the professional soldiers opportunities for distinction and advancement. But in a long peace the captains of eighteen and colonels of twenty-three blocked all promotion, and there was no work save that of routine to be done. Under these conditions the best soldiers sought service in other countries, the remainder lived only for pleasure, whilst the titular chiefs of regiments and companies rarely appeared on parade. Madame de Genlis relates how, when young courtiers departed to join their regiments for a few weeks’ duty, the ladies of the court decked them with favours, as if proceeding on a distant and perilous expedition.

On the other hand, the fact that the French armies required large drafts of militia to bring up their regular forces to war strength gave them a vitality which was unusual in armies of the time. Even in the time of Louis XIV. the military spirit of the country had arisen at the threat of invasion, and the French armies of 1709 fought far more desperately, as the casualty lists of the allies at Malplaquet showed, than those of 1703 or 1704. In the time of the Revolution the national spirit of the French army formed a rallying-point for the forces of order, whereas Prussia, whose army was completely independent of the people, lost all power of defending herself after a defeat in the field. It is difficult to summarize the conduct of the royal armies in the wars of 1740-63. With a few exceptions the superior leaders proved themselves incompetent, and in three great battles, at least, the troops suffered ignominious defeat (Dettingen 1743, Rossbach 1757, Minden 1759). On the other hand, 619 Marshal Saxe and others of the younger generals were excellent commanders, and Fontenoy was a victory of the first magnitude. The administration, however, was corrupt and inefficient, and the general reputation of the French armies fell so low that Frederick the Great once refused an important command to one of his generals on the ground that his experience had been gained only against French troops.

Under Louis XVI. things improved somewhat; the American War and the successes of Lafayette and Rochambeau revived a more warlike spirit. Instruction was more carefully attended to, and a good system of drill and tactics was elaborated at the camp of St Omer. Attempts were made to reform the administration. Artillery and engineer schools had come into existence, and the intellectual activity of the best officers was remarkable (see Max Jähns, Gesch. der Kriegswissenschaften, vol. iii. passim). But the Revolution soon broke over France, and the history of the royal army was henceforward carried on by that revolutionary army, which, under a new flag, was destined to raise the military fame of France to its greatest height.

84. If Louis was the creator of the royal army, Carnot was so of the revolutionary army. At the outbreak of the Revolution the royal army consisted of 224 infantry battalions, 7 regiments of artillery, and 62 regiments of cavalry, numbering about 173,000 in all, but capable of augmentation on war strength to 210,000. To this might be added about 60,000 militia (see Chuquet, Première invasion prussienne).

The first step of the Constituent Assembly was the abrogation of an edict of 1781 whereby men of non-noble birth had been denied commissioned rank (1790). Thus, when many of the officers emigrated along with their fellows of the noblesse, trained non-commissioned officers, who would already have been officers save for this edict, were available to fill their places. The general scheme of reform (see Conscription) was less satisfactory, but the formation of a National Guard, comprising in theory the whole military population, was a step of the highest importance. At this time the titles of regiments were abandoned in favour of numbers, and the costly and dangerous Maison du Roi abolished. But voluntary enlistment soon failed; the old corps, which kept up their discipline, were depleted, and the men went to the volunteers, where work was less exacting and promotion more rapid. ”Aussi fut-on,” says a French writer, ”réduit bientôt à forcer l’engagement volontaire et à imposer le choix du corps.” The “first invasion” (July 1792) put an end to half-measures, and the country was declared “in danger.” Even these measures, however, were purely designed to meet the emergency, and, after Valmy, enthusiasm waned to such a degree that, of a paper strength of 800,000 men (December 1792), only 112,000 of the line and 290,000 volunteers were actually present. The disasters of the following spring once more called for extreme energy, and 300,000 national guards were sent to the line, a step which was followed by a compulsory levée en masse; one million men were thus assembled to deal with the manifold dangers of civil and foreign war. France was saved by mere numbers and the driving energy of the Terrorists, not by discipline and organization. The latter was chaotic, and almost every element of success was wanting to the tumultuary levies of the year 1793 save a ferocious energy born of liberty and the guillotine. But under the Terrorist régime the army became the rallying-point of the nation, and when Lazare Carnot (q.v.) became minister of war a better organization and discipline began to appear. The amalgamation of the old army and the volunteers, which had been commenced but imperfectly carried out, was effected on a different and more thorough principle. The infantry was organized in demi-brigades of three battalions (usually one of the old army to two of volunteers). A permanent organization in divisions of all arms was introduced, and the ablest officers selected for the commands. Arsenals and manufactories of warlike stores were created, schools of instruction were re-established; the republican forces were transformed from hordes to armies, well disciplined, organized and equipped. Later measures followed the same lines, and the artillery and engineers, which in 1790 were admittedly the best in Europe and which owing to the roturier element in their officer cadres had not been disorganized by the emigration, steadily improved. The infantry, and in a less degree the cavalry, became good and trustworthy soldiers, and the glorious campaigns of 1794, 1795 and 1796, which were the direct result of Carnot’s administration, bore witness to the potentialities of the essentially modern system. But, great as was the triumph of 1796-97, the exhaustion of years of continuous warfare had made itself felt: the armies were reduced to mere skeletons, and no sufficient means existed of replenishing them, till in 1798 the conscription was introduced. From that time the whole male population of France was practically at her ruler’s disposal; and Napoleon had full scope for his genius in organizing these masses. His principal improvements were effected in the interval between the peace of Amiens and the war with the third coalition, while threatening the invasion of England. His armies were collected in large camps on the coasts of the Channel, and there received that organization which, with minor variations, they retained during all his campaigns, and which has since been copied by all European nations. The divisions had already given place to the army corps, and Napoleon completed the work of his predecessors. He withdrew the whole of the cavalry and a portion of the artillery from the divisions, and thus formed “corps troops” and cavalry and artillery reserves for the whole army. The grade of marshal of France was revived at Napoleon’s coronation. At the same time, the operation of Jourdan’s law, acquiesced in during times of national danger and even during peace, soon found opposition when the conscripts realized that long foreign wars were to be their lot. It was not the actual losses of the field armies, great as these undoubtedly were, which led Napoleon in the full tide of his career to adopt the fatal practice of “anticipating” the conscription, but the steady increase in the number of réfractaires, men who refused to come up for service. To hunt these men down, no less than forty thousand picked soldiers were engaged within the borders of France, and the actual French element in the armies of Napoleon grew less and less with every extension of the empire. Thus, in the Grand Army of 1809, about one-third of the corps of all arms were purely German, and in 1812 the army which invaded Russia, 467,000 strong, included 280,000 foreigners. In other words, the million of men produced by the original conscription of 1793 had dwindled to about half that number (counting the various subsidiary armies in Spain, &c.), and one hundred thousand of the best and sturdiest Frenchmen were engaged in a sort of civil war in France itself. The conscription was “anticipated” even in 1806, the conscripts for 1807 being called up before their time. As the later wars of the Empire closed one by one the foreign sources of recruiting, the conscription became more terrible every year, with the result that more réfractaires and more trusted soldiers to hunt them down were kept in non-effective employment. Finally the capacity for resistance was exhausted, and the army, from the marshals downward, showed that it had had enough.

85. One of the first acts of the Restoration was to abolish the conscription, but it had again to be resorted to within three years. In 1818 the annual contingent was fixed at 40,000, and the period of service at six years; in 1824 the contingent was increased to 60,000, and in 1832 to 80,000. Of this, however, a part only, according to the requirements of the service, were enrolled; the remainder were sent home on leave or furlough. Up to 1855 certain exemptions were authorized, and substitution or exchange of lots amongst young men who had drawn was permitted, but the individual drawn was obliged either to serve personally or find a substitute. The long series of Algerian wars produced further changes, and in 1855 the law of “dotation” or exemption by payment was passed, and put an end to personal substitution. The state now undertook to provide substitutes for all who paid a fixed sum, and did so by high bounties to volunteers or to soldiers for re-engaging. Although the price of exemption was fixed as high as £92, on an average 23,000 were claimed annually, and in 1859 as many as 42,000 were granted. Thus gradually the conscription became 620 rather subsidiary to voluntary enlistment, and in 1866, out of a total establishment of 400,000, only 120,000 were conscripts. Changes had also taken place in the constitution of the army. On the Restoration its numbers were reduced to 150,000, the old regiments broken up and recast, and a royal guard created in place of the old imperial one. When the revolution of July 1830 had driven Charles X. from his throne, the royal guard, which had made itself peculiarly obnoxious, was dissolved; and during Louis Philippe’s reign the army was augmented to about 240,000 with the colours. Under the Provisional Government of 1848 it was further increased, and in 1854, when France allied herself with England against Russia, the army was raised to 500,000 men. The imperial guard was re-created, and every effort made to revive the old Napoleonic traditions in the army. In 1859 Napoleon III. took the field as the champion and ally of Italy, and the victories of Montebello, Magenta and Solferino raised the reputation of the army to the highest pitch, and for a time made France the arbiter of Europe. But the campaign of 1866 suddenly made the world aware that a rival military power had arisen, which was prepared to dispute that supremacy.

Marshal Niel (q.v.), the then war minister, saw clearly that the organization which had with difficulty maintained 150,000 men in Italy, was no match for that which had within a month thrown 250,000 into the very heart of Austria, while waging a successful war on the Main against Bavaria and her allies. In 1867, therefore, he brought forward a measure for the reorganization of the army. This was to have been a true “nation in arms” based on universal service, and Niel calculated upon producing a first-line army 800,000 strong—half with the colours, half in reserve—with a separate army of the second line. But many years must elapse before the full effect of this principle of recruiting can be produced, as the army is incomplete in some degree until the oldest reservist is a man who has been through the line training. Niel himself died within a year, and 1870 witnessed the complete ruin of the French army. The law of 1868 remained therefore no more than an expression of principle.

86. At the outbreak of the Franco-German War (q.v.) the French field troops consisted of 368 battalions, 252 squadrons, and 984 guns. The strength of the entire army on peace footing was 393,000 men; on war footing, 567,000. Disasters followed one another in rapid succession, and the bulk of this war-trained long-service army was captive in Germany within three months of the opening battle. But the spirit of the nation rose to the occasion as it had done in 1793. The next year’s contingent of recruits was called out and hastily trained. Fourth battalions were formed from the depot cadres, and organized into régiments de marche. The gardes mobiles (Niel’s creation) were mobilized, and by successive decrees and under various names nearly all the manhood of the country called to arms.

The regular troops raised as régiments de marche, &c., amounted to 213,000 infantry, 12,000 cavalry and 10,000 artillery. The garde mobile exceeded 300,000, and the mobilized national guard exceeded 1,100,000—of whom about 180,000 were actually in the field and 250,000 in Paris; the remainder preparing themselves in camps or depots for active work. Altogether the new formations amounted to nearly 1,700,000. Though, in the face of the now war-experienced well-led and disciplined Germans, their efforts failed, this cannot detract from the admiration which must be felt by every soldier for the patriotism of the people and the creative energy of their leaders, of whom Gambetta and Freycinet were the chief. After the war every Frenchman set himself to solve the army problem not less seriously than had every Prussian after Jena, and the reformed French army (see France) was the product of the period of national reconstruction. The adoption of the “universal service” principle of active army, reserves and second-line troops, the essential feature of which is the line training of every man, was almost as a matter of course the basis of the reorganization, for the want of a trained reserve was the most obvious cause of the disasters of “the terrible year.”

German Army

87. The German army, strictly speaking, dates only from 1871, or at earliest 1866. Before the unification of the German empire or confederation, the several states possessed distinct armies, federal armies when required being formed from the contingents which the members of the union, like those of an ordinary alliance, engaged to furnish. The armies of the Holy Roman Empire were similarly formed from “single,” “double,” or “treble” contingents under the supreme command of specially appointed field marshals of the Empire. In the troubles of 1848 there was witnessed the curious spectacle of half of a victorious army being unable to pursue the enemy; this, being composed of “Prussian” as distinct from “federal contingent” troops, had to stop at the frontier of another state. The events of 1866 and 1870 put an end to all this, and to a very great extent to the separate armies of the old confederation, all being now remodelled on Prussian lines. The Prussian army therefore is at once the most important and historically the most interesting of the forces of the German empire. Its début (about 1630) was not satisfactory, and in the Thirty Years’ War troops of Sweden, of the Emperor, of the League, &c., plundered Brandenburg unharmed. The elector, when appealed to for protection, could but answer, “Que faire? Ils ont des canons.” The humiliations of this time, were, however, avenged by the troops of the next ruler of Brandenburg, called the Great Elector. The supposed invincibility of the Swedes did not prevent him from inflicting upon them a severe defeat at Fehrbellin, and thereafter the Prussian contingents which took part in the many European wars of the time acquitted themselves creditably. One of their generals was the famous Leopold of Anhalt-Dessau, and the reckless gallantry of this leader was conspicuous on many fields, from Blenheim to Malplaquet. But Leopold’s greatest work was done in the years of peace (1715-40), during which Prussia was preparing the army with which Frederick the Great won his battles. He had introduced (about 1700) iron ramrods into the infantry service, and for over twenty years the Prussian infantry was drilled to a perfection which gave it a superiority of five to three over the best-drilled troops of the Austrian service, and still greater predominance over the French, which was then accounted the best in Europe. Frederick William I., king of Prussia, directed and supervised the creation of the new Prussian army, and Leopold was his principal assistant. In organization and methods of recruiting, as well as in tactical efficiency, the army of 1740 was equally pre-eminent. Then came the wars of Frederick the Great. It is not too much to say that the infantry won his earlier battles; the cavalry had been neglected both by Frederick William and by Leopold, and Frederick wrote that “it was not worth the devil’s while to fetch it away.” But the predominance of the infantry was so far indisputable that Frederick was able to devote himself to the reorganization of the mounted arm, with results which appeared in the splendid victories of Hohenfriedberg, Rossbach, Leuthen and Zorndorf. But long before the close of the Seven Years’ War the incomparable infantry of the old army had disappeared, to be replaced by foreigners, deserters and vagabonds of all kinds, not to mention the unwilling Saxon and other recruits forced into the king’s service. The army of 200,000 men which Frederick bequeathed to his successor was indeed superb, and deserved to be the model of Europe. But with Frederick’s death the genius which had animated it, and which alone gave value to such heterogeneous materials, was gone. The long peace had the customary effect of sapping the efficiency of the long-service troops. They still retained their imposing appearance and precision of movement, and overweening self-confidence. But in 1806, after two crushing defeats and a series of humiliating surrenders, Prussia found herself at the feet of the conqueror, shorn of half her territory, obliged to receive French troops in all her towns and fortresses, and only existing on sufferance. But in these very disasters were laid the seeds of her future greatness. By the treaty of Tilsit the Prussian army was limited to 43,000 men. This limitation suggested 621 to Scharnhorst “universal service” on the Krümper2 system already described (see § 36 above).

88. The bitter humiliation and suffering endured under the French yoke aroused a national spirit which was capable of any sacrifices. The civilian became eager to be trained to fight against the oppressor of his country; and when Prussia rose in 1813, the armies she poured into the field were no longer professional, but national armies, imperfectly trained and organized, but animated by a spirit which more than compensated for these defects. At the close of the war her rulers, with far-seeing sagacity, at once devoted themselves to organize on a permanent footing the system which had sprung up under the necessities and enthusiasm of the moment. Universal compulsory service, and a three years’ term in the ranks, with further periods in the reserve and Landwehr, were then introduced; and though variations have subsequently been made in the distribution of time, the principles were substantially the same as those now in force. By the law of 1814 the periods of service were fixed at three years in the army, two in the reserve and fourteen in the Landwehr, and the annual contingent at 40,000 men. As the population increased, it was felt that the service was unequally distributed, pressing unnecessarily heavily on some, while others escaped altogether. Further, the experiences of Bronnzell and Olmütz in 1850, and of 1859, when Prussia armed in anticipation of a war with France, aroused great doubts as to the efficiency of the Landwehr, which then formed the bulk of Prussia’s forces, and of whom many had been as long as ten years away from the colours. At this time the French remark that the Prussian army was “a sort of militia” was by no means untrue. Accordingly, by the law of 1860 the annual contingent was fixed at 63,000, the period in the reserve was increased from two to four years, and that in the Landwehr reduced from fourteen to five. The total armed force thus remained nearly the same (12 contingents of 63,000, in place of 19 of 40,000), but the army and its reserves were more than doubled (increased from 5 × 40,000 to 7 × 63,000) while the Landwehr was proportionately reduced.

This change was not effected without great opposition, and led to a prolonged struggle between the king, guided by Bismarck, and the parliament. It required the victories of 1866 and 1870, and the position thereby won for Prussia, to reconcile the nation to the new law. The military alliance (1866) of Prussia with the other German states gave place in 1871 to the union of all the armies into the German army as it is to-day. Some retained their old peculiarities of uniform, and even more than this was allowed to Bavaria and to Saxony, but the whole army, which has been increased year by year to its present strength, is modelled on the Prussian part of it. The Prussian army corps are the Guard, and the line numbered I. to XI., and XV. to XVIII.

89. The Saxon Army formerly played a prominent part in all the wars of northern Europe, chiefly in connexion with Poland. In the War of the Austrian Succession the Saxon army played a prominent part, but in the end it suffered a heavy defeat in the battle of Kesselsdorf (1745). In the Seven Years’ War Saxony was overrun by the Prussians almost without resistance, and the military forces of the country under Field Marshal Rutowski were forced to surrender en masse at Pirna (1756); the men were compelled by Frederick the Great to join the Prussian army, and fought, though most unwillingly, through the remainder of the war as Prussian soldiers. A few outlying regiments which had not been involved in the catastrophe served with the Austrians, and on one occasion at least, at Kolin, inflicted a severe blow on the Prussians. At the outbreak of the wars of the French Revolution the Saxon army was over 30,000 strong. It took part in the campaign of Jena on the side of the Prussians, and during the Napoleonic domination in Germany Saxony furnished strong contingents to the armies of Napoleon, who in return recognized her elector as king, and largely increased his territories. The newly made king remained faithful to Napoleon even in his reverses; but the army was too German in feeling to fight willingly under the French flag. Their defection at Leipzig contributed not a little to the results of that bloody day. After the peace the king was shorn of a great part of his dominions, and the army was reconstituted on a smaller scale. In 1866 Saxony sided with Austria, and her army shared in the disasters of the brief campaign and the crowning defeat at Königgrätz. Under the crown prince’s leadership, however, the Saxons distinguished themselves by their courage and steadiness wherever they were engaged. After the war Saxony became part of the North German Confederation, and in 1870-1871 her troops, under the command of the crown prince, formed the XII. corps of the great German army. They were assigned to the II. army of Prince Frederick Charles, and delivered the decisive attack on the French right at Gravelotte. Subsequently a IV. army was formed under the command of the crown prince, in which the XII. corps, now under Prince George of Saxony, served with unvarying credit in the campaign of Sedan and the siege of Paris. The Saxon army is now organized in every respect on Prussian lines, and forms two army corps (XII. at Dresden and XIX. at Leipzig) of the German army. The German emperor, in concert with the king of Saxony, names the officers for the higher commands. Saxony retains, however, her separate war ministry, budget, &c.; and appointments and promotion to all but the highest commands are made by the king. The colours of the older Saxon forces, and especially the green of the tunics, are retained in many of the uniforms of the present day.

Italian Army

93. The old conscription law of the kingdom of Sardinia is the basis of the military organization of Italy, as its constitution is of that of the modern Italian kingdom. The Piedmontese have long borne a high reputation for their military qualities, a 622 reputation shared by the rulers of the house of Savoy (q.v.), many of whom showed special ability in preserving the independence of their small kingdom between two such powerful neighbours as France and Austria. During the wars of the French Revolution Piedmont was temporarily absorbed into the French republic and empire. The Italian troops who fought under Napoleon proved themselves, in many if not most cases, the best of the French allies, and Italy contributed large numbers of excellent general officers to the Grande Armée.

Russian Army

94. The history of the Russian army begins with the abolition of the Strelitz (q.v.) by Peter the Great in 1698, the nucleus of the new forces being four regiments of foot, two of which are well known to-day under their old titles of Preobrazhenski and Semenovski. Throughout the 18th century Russian military progress obeyed successive dynasties of western European models—first those of Prussia, then those of France. In the earlier part of the 19th century the army, used chiefly in wars against the revolutionary spirit, became, like others of that time, a dynastic force; subsequently the “nation in arms” principle reasserted itself, and on this basis has been carried out the reorganization of Russia’s military power. The enormous development of this since 1874 is one of the most striking phenomena in recent military history. In 1892, in expectation of a general European war, whole armies were massed in the districts of Warsaw and Vilna, three-fifths of the entire forces being in position on the German and Austrian frontiers.

Spanish Army

95. The feudal sovereignties of medieval Spain differed but little, in their military organization, from other feudal states. As usual, mercenaries were the only forces on which reliance was placed for foreign wars. These troops called almugávares (Arabic=scouts) won a great reputation on Italian and Greek battlefields of the 13th century, and with many transformations in name and character appeared from time to time up to the Peninsular War. Castile, however, had a military system very different from the rest. The forces of the kingdom were composed of local contingents similar to the English fyrd, professional soldiers who were paid followers of the great lords, and the heavy cavalry of the military orders. The groups of cities called Hermandades, while they existed, also had permanent forces in their pay. At the union of Castile and Aragon the Castilian methods received a more general application. The new Hermandad was partly a light cavalry, partly a police, and was organized in the ratio of one soldier to every hundred families. In the conquest of Grenada (1482-92) mesnadas or contingents were furnished by the crown, the nobles and the cities, and permanently kept in the field. The Hermandad served throughout the war as a matter of course. From the veterans of this war was drawn the army which in the Italian wars won its reputation as the first army in Europe.

In 1596 the home defence of Spain was reorganized and the ordenanza, or militia, which was then formed of all men not belonging to the still extant feudal contingents, was generally analogous to the system of “assizes at arms” in England. This ordenanza served in the Peninsular War.

Turkish Army

98. The writers who have left the most complete and trustworthy contemporary accounts of the Turkish army in the 14th and 15th centuries, when it reached the height of its most characteristic development, are Bertrandon de la Brocquière, equerry to Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, and Francesco Filelfo of Tolentino. Bertrandon, a professional soldier, visited Palestine in 1432, and returned overland in 1433, traversing the Balkan Peninsula by the main trade-route from Constantinople to Belgrade. He wrote an account of his journey for Philip: see Early Travels in Palestine, translated and edited by T. Wright (London, 1848). Filelfo served as secretary to the Venetian baylo at Constantinople, and recorded his observations in a series of letters (see Filelfo). Both ascribe the military superiority of the Turks over the nations of western Europe to two facts—firstly to their possession of a well-organized standing army, an institution unknown elsewhere, and secondly to their far stricter discipline, itself a result of their military organization and of the moral training afforded by Islam.

United States Army

99. The regular army of the United States has always been small. From the first it has been a voluntary force, and until 1898 its chief work in peace was to furnish numerous small posts on the frontier and amongst the Indians, and to act as a reserve to the civil power in the great cities. In war-time the regular army, if, as was usually the case, it was insufficient in numbers for the task of subduing the enemy, formed the nucleus of large armies raised “for the war.” In 1790 the rank and file of the army, as fixed by act of Congress, amounted to 1216 men; and in 1814 an English expedition of only 3500 men was able to seize and burn Washington, the capital of a country which even then numbered eight millions of inhabitants. In 1861, at the beginning of the Civil War, the whole regular force amounted to about 15,300 men. In April of that year the president called out 75,000 volunteers for three months; and in May a further call for 42,000 was made. In July a call for 500,000 men was authorized by Congress, and as even this vast force proved insufficient it was found necessary to use a system of drafts. In October 1863 a levy of 300,000 men was ordered, and in February 1864 a further call of 500,000 was made. Finally, in the beginning of 1865 two further levies, amounting in all to 500,000 men, were ordered, but were only partially carried out in consequence of the cessation of hostilities. The total number of men called under arms by the government of the United States, between April 1861 and April 1865, amounted to 2,759,049, of whom 2,656,053 were actually embodied in the armies. If to these be added the 1,100,000 men embodied by the South during the same time, the total armed forces reach the enormous amount of nearly four millions, drawn from a population of only 32 millions—figures before which the celebrated uprising of the French nation in 1793, or the efforts of France and Germany in the Franco-German War, sink into insignificance. These 2,700,000 Federals were organized into volunteer regiments bearing state designations. The officers, except general and staff officers, were appointed by the governors of the respective states. The maximum authorized strength of the regular army never, during the war, exceeded 40,000 men; and the number in the field, especially towards the close of the war, was very much less. The states, in order to obtain men to fill their quotas, offered liberal bounties to induce men to enlist, and it therefore became very difficult to obtain recruits for the regular army, for which no bounties were given. The regular regiments accordingly dwindled away to skeletons. The number of officers present was also much reduced, since many of them, while retaining their regular commissions, held higher rank in the volunteer army. After the close of the Civil War the volunteers were mustered out; and by the act of Congress of the 28th of July 1866 the line of the army was made to consist of 10 regiments of cavalry of 12 troops each, 5 regiments of artillery of 12 batteries each and 45 regiments of infantry of 10 companies. The actual strength in August 1867 was 53,962. The act of the 3rd of March 1869 reduced the number of infantry regiments to 25 and the enlisted strength of the army to 35,036. The numbers were further reduced, without change in organization, to 32,788 in 1870 and to 25,000 in 1874. The latter number remained the maximum for twenty-four years.

In March 1898, in view of hostilities with Spain, the artillery was increased by 2 regiments, and, in April, 2 companies were added to each infantry regiment, giving it 624 3 battalions of 4 companies each. The strength of batteries, troops and companies was increased, the maximum enlisted strength reached during 1898 being over 63,000. A volunteer army was also organized. Of this army, 3 regiments of engineer troops, 3 of cavalry and 10 of infantry were United States volunteers, all the officers being commissioned by the president. The other organizations came from the states, the officers being appointed by the respective governors. As fast as they were organized and filled up, they were mustered into the service of the United States. The total number furnished for the war with Spain was 10,017 officers and 213,218 enlisted men. All general and staff officers were appointed by the president. Three hundred and eighty-seven officers of the regular army received volunteer commissions. After the conclusion of hostilities with Spain, the mustering out of the volunteers was begun, and by June 1899 all the volunteers, except those in the Philippines, were out of the service. The latter, as well as those serving elsewhere, having enlisted only for the war, were brought home and mustered out as soon as practicable.

The act of the 2nd of March 1899 added 2 batteries to each regiment of artillery. On the 2nd of February 1901 Congress passed an important bill providing for the reorganization and augmentation (max. 100,000) of the regular army, and other measures followed in the next years. (See United States.)

ARNAL, ÉTIENNE (1794-1872), French actor, was born at Meulan, Seine-et-Oise, on the 1st of February 1794. After serving in the army, and working in a button factory, he took to the stage. His first appearance (1815) was in tragedy, and for some time he was unsuccessful; it was not until 1827 that he showed his real ability in comedy parts, especially in plays by Félix August Duvert (1795-1876) and Augustin Théodore Lauzanne (1805-1877), whose Cabinets particuliers (1832), Le Mari de la dame de chœurs (1837), Passé minuit, L’Homme blasé (1843), La Clef dans le dos (1848), &c., contained parts written for him. He was twenty years at the Vaudeville, and completed at the various Parisian theatres a stage career of nearly half a century. Arnal was the author of Epître à bouffé (1840), which is reprinted in his volume of poetry, Boutades en vers (1861).

ARNALDUS DE VILLA NOVA, also called Arnaldus de Villanueva, Arnaldus Villanovanus or Arnaud de Villeneuve (c. 1235-1313), alchemist, astrologer and physician, appears to have been of Spanish origin, and to have studied chemistry, medicine, physics, and also Arabian philosophy. After having lived at the court of Aragon, he went to Paris, where he gained a considerable reputation; but he incurred the enmity of the ecclesiastics and was forced to flee, finally finding an asylum in Sicily. About 1313 he was summoned to Avignon by Pope Clement V., who was ill, but he died on the voyage. Many alchemical writings, including Thesaurus Thesaurorum or Rosarius Philosophorum, Novum Lumen, Flos Florum, and Speculum Alchimiae, are ascribed to him, but they are of very doubtful authenticity. Collected editions of them were published at Lyons in 1504 and 1532 (with a biography by Symphorianus Campegius), at Basel in 1585, at Frankfort in 1603, and at Lyons in 1686. He is also the reputed author of various medical works, including Breviarium Practicae.

ARNAUD, HENRI (1641-1721), pastor and general of the Vaudois or Waldensians of Piedmont, was born at Embrun. About 1650 his family returned to their native valley of Luserna, where Arnaud was educated at La Tour (the chief village), later visiting the college at Basel (1662 and 1668) and the Academy at Geneva (1666). He then returned home, and seems to have been pastor in several of the Vaudois valleys before attaining that position at La Tour (1685). He was thus the natural leader of his co-religionists after Victor Amadeus expelled them (1686) from their valleys, and most probably visited Holland, the ruler of which, William of Orange, certainly gave him help and money. Arnaud occupied himself with organizing his 3000 countrymen who had taken refuge in Switzerland, and who twice (1687-1688) attempted to regain their homes. The English revolution of 1688, and the election of William to the throne, encouraged the Vaudois to make yet another attempt. Furnished with detailed instructions from the veteran Josué Janavel (prevented by age from taking part in the expedition) Arnaud, with about 1000 followers, started (August 17, 1689) from near Nyon on the Lake of Geneva for the glorieuse rentrée. On the 27th of August, the valiant band, after many hardships and dangers, 626 reached the Valley of St Martin, having passed by Sallanches and crossed the Col de Very (6506 ft.), the Enclave de la Fenêtre (7425 ft.), the Col du Bonhomme (8147 ft.), the Col du Mont Iseran (9085 ft.), the Grand Mont Cenis (6893 ft.), the Petit Mont Cenis (7166 ft.), the Col de Clapier (8173 ft.), the Col de Côteplane (7589 ft.), and the Col du Piz (8550 ft.). They soon took refuge in the lofty and secure rocky citadel of the Balsille, where they were besieged (October 24, 1689 to May 14, 1690) by the troops (about 4000 in number) of the king of France and the duke of Savoy. They maintained this natural fortress against many fierce attacks and during the whole of a winter. In particular, on the 2nd of May, one assault was defeated without the loss of a single man of Arnaud’s small band. But another attack (May 14) was not so successful, so that Arnaud withdrew his force, under cover of a thick mist, and led them over the hills to the valley of Angrogna, above La Tour. A month later the Vaudois were received into favour by the duke of Savoy, who had then abandoned his alliance with France for one with Great Britain and Holland. Hence for the next six years the Vaudois helped Savoy against France, though suffering much from the repeated attacks of the French troops. But by a clause in the treaty of peace of 1696, made public in 1698, Victor Amadeus again became hostile to the Vaudois, about 3000 of whom, with Arnaud, found a shelter in Protestant countries, mainly in Württemberg, where Arnaud became the pastor of Dürrmenz-Schönenberg, N.W. of Stuttgart (1699). Once again (1704-1706) the Vaudois aided the duke against France. Arnaud, however, took no part in the military operations, though he visited England (1707) to obtain pecuniary aid from Queen Anne. He died at Schönenberg (which was the church hamlet of the parish of Dürrmenz) in 1721. It was during his retirement that he compiled from various documents by other hands his Histoire de la glorieuse rentrée des Vaudois dans leurs vallées, which was published (probably at Cassel) in 1710, with a dedication to Queen Anne. It was translated into English (1827) by H. Dyke Acland, and has also appeared in German and Dutch versions. A part of the original MS. is preserved in the Royal Library in Berlin.

ARNAULD, the surname of a family of prominent French lawyers, chiefly remembered in connexion with the Jansenist troubles of the 17th century. At their head was Antoine Arnauld (1560-1619), a leader of the Paris bar; in this capacity he delivered a famous philippic against the Jesuits in 1594, accusing them of gross disloyalty to the newly converted Henry IV. This speech was afterwards known as the original sin of the Arnaulds.

Of his twenty children several grew up to fight the Jesuits on more important matters. Five gave themselves up wholly to the church. Henri Arnauld (1597-1692), the second son, became bishop of Angers in 1649, and represented Jansenism on the episcopal Bench for as long as forty-three years. The youngest son, Antoine (1612-1694), was the most famous of Jansenist theologians (see below). The second daughter, Angélique (1591-1661), was abbess and reformer of Port Royal; here she was presently joined by her sister Agnes (1593-1671) and two younger sisters, both of whom died early.

Only two of Antoine’s children married—Robert Arnauld d’Andilly (1588-1674), the eldest son, and Catherine Lemaistre (1590-1651), the eldest daughter. But both of these ended their lives under the shadow of the abbey. Andilly’s five daughters all took the veil there; the second, Angélique de St Jean Arnauld d’Andilly (1624-1684) rose to be abbess, was a writer of no mean repute, and one of the most remarkable figures of the second generation of Jansenism. One of Andilly’s sons became a hermit at Port Royal; the eldest, Antoine (1615-1699), was first a soldier, afterwards a priest. As the Abbé Arnauld, he survives as author of some interesting Memoirs of his time. The second son, Simon Arnauld de Pomponne (1616-1699), early entered public life. After holding various embassies, he rose to be foreign secretary to Louis XIV., and was created marquis de Pomponne. Lastly Madame Lemaistre and two of her sons became identified with Port Royal. On her husband’s death she took the veil there. Her eldest son, Antoine Lemaistre (1608-1658), became the first of the solitaires, or hermits of Port Royal. There he was joined by his younger brother, Isaac Lemaistre de Saci (1613-1684), who presently took holy orders, and became confessor to the hermits.

The Arnaulds’ connexion with Port Royal (q.v.)—a convent of Cistercian nuns in the neighbourhood of Versailles—dated back to 1599, when the original Antoine secured the abbess’s chair for his daughter Angélique, then a child of eight. About 1608 she started to reform her convent in the direction of its original Rule; but about 1623 she made the acquaintance of du Vergier (q.v.) and thenceforward began to move in a Jansenist direction. Her later history is entirely bound up with the fortunes of that revival. Angélique’s strength lay chiefly in her character. Her sister and collaborator, Agnes, was also a graceful writer; and her Letters, edited by Prosper Feugère (2 vols., Paris, 1858), throw most valuable light on the inner aims and aspirations of the Jansenist movement. The first relative to join their projects of reform was their nephew, Antoine Lemaistre, who threw up brilliant prospects at the bar to settle down at the Abbey gates (1638). Here he was presently joined by his brother, de Saci, and other hermits, who led an austere semi-monastic existence, though without taking any formal vow. In 1646 they were joined by their uncle, Arnauld d’Andilly, hitherto a personage of some importance at court and in the world; he was a special favourite of the queen regent, Anne of Austria, and had held various offices of dignity in the government. Uncle and nephews passed their time partly in ascetic exercises—though Andilly never pretended to vie in austerity with the younger men—partly in managing the convent estates, and partly in translating religious classics. Andilly put Josephus, St Augustine’s Confessions, and many other works, into singularly delicate French. Lemaistre attacked the lives of the saints; in 1654 Saci set to work on a translation of the Bible. His labours were interrupted by the outbreak of persecution. In 1661 he was forced to go into hiding; in 1666 he was arrested, thrown into the Bastille, and kept there more than two years. Meanwhile his friends printed his translation of the New Testament—really in Holland, nominally at Mons in the Spanish Netherlands (1667). Hence it is usually known as the Nouveau Testament de Mons. It found enthusiastic friends and violent detractors. Bossuet approved its orthodoxy, but not its over-elaborate style; and it was destructively criticized by Richard Simon, the founder of Biblical criticism in France. On the other hand it undoubtedly did much to popularize the Bible, and was bitterly attacked by the Jesuits on that ground.

By far the most distinguished of the family, however, was Antoine—le grand Arnauld, as contemporaries called him—the twentieth and youngest child of the original Antoine. Born in 1612, he was originally intended Le grand Arnauld. for the bar; but decided instead to study theology at the Sorbonne. Here he was brilliantly successful, and was on the high-road to preferment, when he came under the influence of du Vergier, and was drawn in the direction of Jansenism. His book, De la fréquente Communion (1643), did more than anything else to make the aims and ideals of this movement intelligible to the general public. Its appearance raised a violent storm, and Arnauld eventually withdrew into hiding; for more than twenty years he dared not make a public appearance in Paris. During all this time his pen was busy with innumerable Jansenist pamphlets. In 1655 two very outspoken Lettres à un duc et pair on Jesuit methods in the confessional brought on a motion to expel him from the Sorbonne. This motion was the immediate cause of Pascal’s Provincial Letters. Pascal, however, failed to save his friend; in February 1656 Arnauld was solemnly degraded. Twelve years later the tide of fortune turned. The so-called peace of Clement IX. put an end to 627 persecution. Arnauld emerged from his retirement, was most graciously received by Louis XIV., and treated almost as a popular hero. He now set to work with Nicole (q.v.) on a great work against the Calvinists: La Perpétuité de la foi catholique touchant l’eucharistie. Ten years later, however, another storm of persecution burst. Arnauld was compelled to fly from France, and take refuge in the Netherlands, finally settling down at Brussels. Here the last sixteen years of his life were spent in incessant controversy with Jesuits, Calvinists and misbelievers of all kinds; here he died on the 8th of August 1694. His inexhaustible energy is best expressed by his famous reply to Nicole, who complained of feeling tired. “Tired!” echoed Arnauld, “when you have all eternity to rest in?” Nor was this energy by any means absorbed by purely theological questions. He was one of the first to adopt the philosophy of Descartes, though with certain orthodox reservations; and between 1683 and 1685 he had a long battle with Malebranche on the relation of theology to metaphysics. On the whole, public opinion leant to Arnauld’s side. When Malebranche complained that his adversary had misunderstood him, Boileau silenced him with the question: “My dear sir, whom do you expect to understand you, if M. Arnauld does not?” And popular regard for Arnauld’s penetration was much increased by his Art de penser, commonly known as the Port-Royal Logic, which has kept its place as an elementary text-book until quite modern times. Lastly a considerable place has quite lately been claimed for Arnauld among the mathematicians of his age; a recent critic even describes him as the Euclid of the 17th century. In general, however, since his death his reputation has been steadily on the wane. Contemporaries admired him chiefly as a master of close and serried reasoning; herein Bossuet, the greatest theologian of the age, was quite at one with d’Aguesseau, the greatest lawyer. But a purely controversial writer is seldom attractive to posterity. Anxiety to drive home every possible point, and cut his adversary off from every possible line of retreat, makes him seem intolerably prolix. “In spite of myself,” Arnauld once said regretfully, “my books are seldom very short.” And even lucidity may prove a snare to those who trust to it alone, and scornfully refuse to appeal to the imagination or the feelings. It is to be feared that, but for his connexion with Pascal, Arnauld’s name would be almost forgotten—or, at most, live only in the famous epitaph Boileau consecrated to his memory—

ARNAULT, ANTOINE VINCENT (1766-1834), French dramatist, was born in Paris in January 1766. His first play, Marius à Minturnes (1791), immediately established his reputation. A year later he followed up his first success with a second republican tragedy, Lucrèce. He left France during the Terror and on his return was arrested by the revolutionary authorities, but was liberated through the intervention of Fabre d’Eglantine and others. He was commissioned by Bonaparte in 1797 with the reorganization of the Ionian Islands, and was nominated to the Institute and made secretary general of the university. He was faithful to his patron through his misfortunes, and after the Hundred Days remained in exile until 1819. In 1829 he was re-elected to the Academy and became perpetual secretary in 1833. Others of his plays are Blanche et Montcassin, ou les Vénitiens (1798); and Germanicus (1816), the performance of which was the occasion of a disturbance in the parterre which threatened serious political complications. His tragedies are perhaps less known now than his Fables (1813, 1815 and 1826), which are written in very graceful verse. Arnault collaborated in a Vie politique et militaire de Napoléon (1822), and wrote some very interesting Souvenirs d’un sexagénaire (1833), which contain much out-of-the-way information about the history of the years previous to 1804. Arnault died at Goderville on the 16th of September 1834.

His eldest son, Émilien Lucien (1787-1863), wrote several tragedies, the leading rôles in which were interpreted by Talma.

ARNDT, ERNST MORITZ (1769-1860), German poet and patriot, was born on the 26th of December 1769 at Schoritz in the island of Rügen, which at that time belonged to Sweden. He was the son of a prosperous farmer, and emancipated serf of the lord of the district, Count Putbus; his mother came of well-to-do German yeoman stock. In 1787 the family removed into the neighbourhood of Stralsund, where Arndt was enabled to attend the academy. After an interval of private study he went in 1791 to the university of Greifswald as a student of theology and history, and in 1793 removed to Jena, where he fell under the influence of Fichte. On the completion of his university course he returned home, was for two years a private tutor in the family of Ludwig Kosegarten (1758-1818), pastor of Wittow and poet, and having qualified for the ministry as a “candidate of theology,” assisted in the church services. At the age of twenty-eight he renounced the ministry, and for eighteen months he led a wandering life, visiting Austria, Hungary, Italy, France and Belgium. Returning homewards up the Rhine, he was moved by the sight of the ruined castles along its banks to intense bitterness against France. The impressions of this journey he later described in Reisen durch einen Theil Teutschlands, Ungarns, Italiens und Frankreichs in den Jahren 1798 und 1799 (1802-1804). In 1800 he settled in Greifswald as privat-docent in history, and the same year published Über die Freiheit der alien Republiken. In 1803 appeared Germanien und Europa,” a fragmentary ebullition,” as be himself called it, of his views on the French aggression. This was followed by one of the most remarkable of his books, Versuch einer Geschichte der Leibeigenschaft in Pommern und Rügen (Berlin, 1803), a history of serfdom in Pomerania and Rügen, which was so convincing an indictment that King Gustavus Adolphus IV. in 1806 abolished the evil. Arndt had meanwhile risen from privat-docent to extraordinary professor, and in 1806 was appointed to the chair of history at the university. In this year he published the first part of his Geist der Zeit, in which he flung down the gauntlet to Napoleon and called on his countrymen to rise and shake off the French yoke. So great was the excitement it produced that Arndt was compelled to take refuge in Sweden to escape the vengeance of Napoleon. Settling in Stockholm, he obtained government employment, but devoted himself to the great cause which was nearest his heart, and in pamphlets, poems and songs communicated his enthusiasm to his countrymen. Schill’s heroic death at Stralsund impelled him to return to Germany and, under the disguise of “Almann, teacher of languages,” he reached Berlin in December 1809. In 1810 he returned to Greifswald, but only for a few months. He again set out on his adventurous travels, lived in close contact with the first men of his time, such as Blücher, Gneisenau and Stein, and in 1812 was summoned by the last named to St Petersburg to assist in the organization of the final struggle against France. Meanwhile, pamphlet after pamphlet, full of bitter hatred of the French oppressor, came from his pen, and his stirring patriotic songs, such as Was ist das deutsche Vaterland? Der Gott, der Eisen wachsen liess, and Was blasen die Trompeten? were on all lips. When, after the peace, the university of Bonn was founded in 1818, Arndt was appointed to 628 the chair of modern history. In this year appeared the fourth part of his Geist der Zeit, in which he criticized the reactionary policy of the German powers. The boldness of his demands for reform offended the Prussian government, and in the summer of 1819 he was arrested and his papers confiscated. Although speedily liberated, he was in the following year, at the instance of the Central Commission of Investigation at Mainz, established in accordance with the Carlsbad Decrees, arraigned before a specially constituted tribunal. Although not found guilty, he was forbidden to exercise the functions of his professorship, but was allowed to retain the stipend. The next twenty years he passed in retirement and literary activity. In 1840 he was reinstated in his professorship, and in 1841 was chosen rector of the university. The revolutionary outbreak of 1848 rekindled in the venerable patriot his old hopes and energies, and he took his seat as one of the deputies to the National Assembly at Frankfort. He formed one of the deputation that offered the imperial crown to Frederick William IV., and indignant at the king’s refusal to accept it, he retired with the majority of von Gagern’s adherents from public life. He continued to lecture and to write with freshness and vigour, and on his 90th birthday received from all parts of Germany good wishes and tokens of affection. He died at Bonn on the 29th of January 1860. Arndt was twice married, first in 1800, his wife dying in the following year; a second time in 1817.

ARNDT, JOHANN (1555-1621), German Lutheran theologian, was born at Ballenstedt, in Anhalt, and studied in several universities. He was at Helmstadt in 1576; at Wittenberg in 1577. At Wittenberg the crypto-Calvinist controversy was then at its height, and he took the side of Melanchthon and the crypto-Calvinists. He continued his studies in Strassburg, under the professor of Hebrew, Johannes Pappus (1549-1610), a zealous Lutheran, the crown of whose life’s work was the forcible suppression of Calvinistic preaching and worship in the city, and who had great influence over him. In Basel, again, he studied theology under Simon Sulzer (1508-1585), a broad-minded divine of Lutheran sympathies, whose aim was to reconcile the churches of the Helvetic and Wittenberg confessions. In 1581 he went back to Ballenstedt, but was soon recalled to active life by his appointment to the pastorate at Badeborn in 1583. After some time his Lutheran tendencies exposed him to the anger of the authorities, who were of the Reformed Church. Consequently, in 1590 he was deposed for refusing to remove the pictures from his church and discontinue the use of exorcism in baptism. He found an asylum in Quedlinburg (1590), and afterwards was transferred to St Martin’s church at Brunswick (1599). Arndt’s fame rests on his writings. These were mainly of a mystical and devotional kind, and were inspired by St Bernard, J. Tauler and Thomas à Kempis. His principal work, Wahres Christentum (1606-1609), which has been translated into most European languages, has served as the foundation of many books of devotion, both Roman Catholic and Protestant. Arndt here dwells upon the mystical union between the believer and Christ, and endeavours, by drawing attention to Christ’s life in His people, to correct the purely forensic side of the Reformation theology, which paid almost exclusive attention to Christ’s death for His people. Like Luther, Arndt was very fond of the little anonymous book, Deutsche Theologie. He published an edition of it and called attention to its merits in a special preface. After Wahres Christentum, his best-known work is Paradiesgärtlein aller christlichen Tugenden, which was published in 1612. Both these books have been translated into English; Paradiesgärtlein with the title the Garden of Paradise. Several of his sermons are published in R. Nesselmann’s Buch der Predigten (1858). Arndt has always been held in very high repute by the German Pietists. The founder of Pietism, Philipp Jacob Spener, repeatedly called attention to him and his writings, and even went so far as to compare him with Plato (cf. Karl Scheele, Plato und Johann Arndt, Ein Vortrag, &c., 1857).

ARNE, THOMAS AUGUSTINE (1710-1778), English musical composer, was born in London on the 12th of March 1710, his father being an upholsterer. Intended for the legal profession, he was educated at Eton, and afterwards apprenticed to an attorney for three years. His natural inclination for music, however, proved irresistible, and his father, finding from his performance at an amateur musical party that he was already a skilful violinist, furnished him with the means of educating himself in his favourite art. On the 7th of March 1733 he produced his first work at Lincoln’s Inn Fields theatre, a setting of Addison’s Rosamond, the heroine’s part being performed by his sister, Susanna Maria, who afterwards became celebrated as Mrs Gibber. This proving a success was immediately followed by a burletta, entitled The Opera of Operas, based on Fielding’s Tragedy of Tragedies. The part of Tom Thumb was played by Arne’s young brother, and the opera was produced at the Haymarket theatre. On the 19th of December 1733 Arne produced at the same theatre the masque Dido and Aeneas, a subject of which the musical conception had been immortalized for Englishmen more than half a century earlier by Henry Purcell. Arne’s individuality of style first distinctly asserted itself in the music to Dr Dalton’s adaptation of Milton’s Comus, which was performed at Drury Lane in 1738, and speedily established his reputation. In 1740 he wrote the music for Thomson and Mallet’s Masque of Alfred, which is noteworthy as containing the most popular of all his airs—“Rule, Britannia!” In 1740 he also wrote his beautiful settings of the songs, “Under the greenwood tree,” “Blow, blow, thou winter wind” and “When daisies pied,” for a performance of Shakespeare’s As You Like It. Four years before this, in 1736, he had married Cecilia, the eldest daughter of Charles Young, organist of All Hallows Barking. She was considered the finest English singer of the day and was frequently engaged by Handel in the performance of his music. In 1742 Arne went with his wife to Dublin, where he remained two years and produced his oratorio Abel, containing the beautiful melody known as the Hymn of Eve, the operas Britannia, Eliza and Comus, and where he also gave a number of successful concerts. On his return to London he was engaged as leader of the band at Drury Lane theatre (1744), and as composer at Vauxhall (1745). In this latter year he composed his successful pastoral dialogue, Colin and Phoebe, and in 1746 the song, “Where the bee sucks.” In 1759 he received the degree of doctor of music from Oxford. In 1760 he transferred his services to Covent Garden theatre, where on the 28th of November he produced his Thomas and Sally. Here, too, on the 2nd of February 1762 he produced his Artaxerxes, an opera in the Italian style with recitative instead of spoken dialogue, the popularity of which is attested by the fact that it continued to be performed at intervals for upwards of eighty years. The libretto, by Arne himself, was a very poor translation of Metastasio’s Artaserse. In 1762 also was produced the ballad-opera Love in a Cottage. His oratorio Judith, of which the first performance was on the 27th of February 1761 at Drury Lane, was revived at the chapel of the Lock hospital, Pimlico, on the 629 29th of February 1764, in which year was also performed his setting of Metastasio’s Olimpiade in the original language at the King’s theatre in the Haymarket. At a later performance of Judith at Covent Garden theatre on the 26th of February 1773 Arne for the first time introduced female voices into oratorio choruses. In 1769 he wrote the musical parts for Garrick’s ode for the Shakespeare jubilee at Stratford-on-Avon, and in 1770 he gave a mutilated version of Purcell’s King Arthur. One of his last dramatic works was the music to Mason’s Caractacus, published in 1775. Though inferior to Purcell in intensity of feeling, Arne has not been surpassed as a composer of graceful and attractive melody. There is true genius in such airs as “Rule, Britannia!” and “Where the bee sucks,” which still retain their original freshness and popularity. As a writer of glees he does not take such high rank, though he deserves notice as the leader in the revival of that peculiarly English form of composition. He was author as well as composer of The Guardian outwitted, The Rose, The Contest of Beauty and Virtue, and Phoebe at Court. Dr Arne died on the 5th of March 1778, and was buried at St Paul’s, Covent Garden.

ARNETH, ALFRED, Ritter von (1819-1897), Austrian historian, born at Vienna on the both of July 1819, was the son of Joseph Calasanza von Arneth (1791-1863), a well-known historian and archaeologist, who wrote a history of the Austrian empire (Vienna, 1827) and several works on numismatics. Alfred Arneth studied law, and became an official of the Austrian state archives, of which in 1868 he was appointed keeper. He was a moderate liberal in politics and a supporter of the ideal of German unity. As such he was elected to the Frankfort parliament in 1848. In 1861 he became a member of the Lower Austrian diet and in 1869 was nominated to the Upper House of the Austrian Reichsrath. In 1879 he was appointed president of the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften (Academy of Sciences) at Vienna, and in 1896 succeeded von Sybel as chairman of the historical commission at Münich. He died on the 30th of July 1897.

Arneth was an indefatigable worker, and, as director of the archives, his broad-minded willingness to listen to the advice of experts, as well as his own sound sense, did much to promote the more scientific treatment and use of public records in most of the archives of Europe. His scientific temper and the special facilities which he enjoyed for drawing from original sources give to his numerous historical works a very special value.

ARNHEM, or Arnheim, the capital of the province of Gelderland, Holland, on the right bank of the Rhine (here crossed by a pontoon bridge), and a junction station 35 m. by rail E.S.E. of Utrecht. Pop. (1900) 57,240. It is connected by tramway with Zutphen and Utrecht, and there is a regular service of steamers to Cologne, Amsterdam, Nijmwegen, Tiel, ’s Hertogenbosch and Rotterdam. Arnhem is a gay and fashionable town prettily situated at the foot of the Veluwe hills, and enjoys a special reputation for beauty on account of its wooded and hilly surroundings, which have attracted many wealthy people to its neighbourhood. The Groote Kerk of St Eusebius, built in the third quarter of the 15th century, contains the marble monument to Charles (d. 1538), the last duke of Gelderland of the Egmont dynasty. High up against the wall is an effigy of the same duke in his armour. The fine lofty tower contains a chime of forty-five bells. The Roman Catholic church of St Walburgis is of earlier date, and a new Roman Catholic church dates from 1894. The town hall was built as a palace by Maarten van Rossum, Duke Charles’s general, at the end of the 15th century, and was only converted to its present use in 1830. Its grotesque external ornamentation earned for it the name of Duivelshuis, or devil’s house. The provincial government house occupies the site of the former palace of the dukes of Gelderland. Other buildings are the court-house, a public library containing many old works, a theatre, a large concert-hall, a museum of antiquities (as well as a separate collection of Spanish antiquities), a gymnasium, a teachers’ and art school, a building (1880) to contain the provincial archives, a hospital (1889) and barracks. On account of its proximity to the fertile Betuwe district and its situation near the confluence of the Rhine and Ysel, the markets and shipping of Arnhem are in a flourishing condition. A wharf for building and repairing iron steamers was constructed in 1889. The manufactures include woollen and cotton goods, paper, earthenware, soap, carriages, furniture and tobacco, which is cultivated in the neighbourhood. Wool-combing and dyeing are also carried on, and there are oil and timber mills.

The environs of Arnhem are much admired. Following either the Zutphen or the Utrecht road, numerous pleasing views of the Rhine valley present themselves, and country houses and villas appear among the woods on every side. At Bronbeek, a short distance east of the town, is a hospital endowed by King William III. for soldiers of the colonial army. Beyond is the popular summer resort of Velp, with the castle of Biljoen built by Charles, duke of Gelderland, in 1530, and the beautiful park of the ancient castle of Rozendaal in the vicinity. The origin of the castle of Rozendaal is unknown. The first account of it is in connexion with a tournament given there by Reinald I., count of Gelderland, in the beginning of the 14th century, and it ever after remained the favourite residence of the counts and dukes of Gelderland. About the beginning of the 18th century fountains and lanes in the style of those at Versailles were laid out in the park, and soon after the castle itself, of which only the round tower remained (and is still standing), was rebuilt. The park is open to the public, and is famous for the beauty of the beech avenues and fir woods. Beyond this is De Steeg, another popular resort, whence stretches the famous Middachten Allee of beech trees to Dieren. On the Apeldoorn road is Sonsbeek, with a wooded park and small lakes, formerly a private seat and now belonging to the municipality. On the west of Arnhem is another pleasure ground, called the Reeberg, with a casino, and the woods of Heienoord. Close by is the ancient and well-preserved castle of Doornwerth with its own chapel. It was the seat of an independent lordship until 1402, after which time it was held in fief from the dukes of Gelderland. Beyond Doornwerth, at Renkum, is the royal country seat called Oranje-Nassau’s Oord, which was bought by the crown in 1881.

History.—Arnhem, called Arnoldi Villa in the middle ages, is, according to some, the Arenacum of the Romans, and is first mentioned in a document in 893. In 1233 Otto II., count of Gelderland, chose this spot as his residence, conferred municipal rights on the town, and fortified it. At a later period it entered the Hanseatic League. In 1473 it was captured by Charles the Bold of Burgundy. In 1505 it received the right of coining from Philip, son of the emperor Maximilian I. In 1514 Charles of Egmont, duke of Gelderland, took it from the Spaniards; but in 1543 it fell to the emperor Charles V., who made it the seat of the council of Gelderland. It joined the union of Utrecht in 1579, and came finally under the effective government of the states-general in 1585, all the later attacks of the Spaniards being repulsed. In 1586 Sir Philip Sidney died in the town from 630 the effects of his wound received before Zutphen. The French took the town in 1672, but left it dismantled in 1674. It was refortified by the celebrated Dutch general of engineers, Coehoorn, in the beginning of the 18th century. In 1795 it was again stormed by the French, and in 1813 it was taken from them by the Prussians under Büllow. Gardens and promenades have now taken the place of the old ramparts, the last of which was levelled in 1853.

ARNICA, a genus of plants belonging to the natural order Compositae, and containing 18 species, mostly north-west American. The most important species is Arnica montana (mountain tobacco), a perennial herb found in upland meadows in northern and central Europe (but not extending to Britain), and on the mountains of western and central Europe. A closely allied species (A. angustifolia), with very narrow leaves, is met with in Arctic Asia and America. The heads of flowers are large, 2 to 2½ in. across, orange-yellow in colour, and borne on the summit of the stem or branches; the outer ray-flowers are an inch in length. The achenes (fruits) are brown and hairy, and are crowned by a tuft of stiffish hairs (pappus). The root-stock of A. montana is tough, slender, of a dark brown colour and an inch or two in length. It gives off numerous simple roots from its under side, and shows on its upper side the remains of rosettes of leaves. It yields an essential oil in small quantity, and a resinous matter called arnicin, C12H22O2, a yellow crystalline substance with an acrid taste. The tincture prepared from it is an old remedy which has a popular reputation in the treatment of bruises and sprains. The plant was introduced into English gardens about the middle of the 18th century, but is not often grown; it is a handsome plant for a rockery.

ARNIM, ELISABETH (Bettina) von (1785-1859), German authoress, sister of Klemens Brentano, was born at Frankfort-On-Main on the 4th of April 1785. After being educated at a convent school in Fritzlar, she lived for a while with her grandmother, the novelist, Sophie Laroche (1731-1807), at Offenbach, and from 1803 to 1806 with her brother-in-law, Friedrich von Savigny, the famous jurist, at Marburg. In 1807 she made at Weimar the acquaintance of Goethe, for whom she entertained a violent passion, which the poet, although entering into correspondence with her, did not requite, but only regarded as a harmless fancy. Their friendship came to an abrupt end in 1811, owing to “Bettina’s” insolent behaviour to Goethe’s wife. In this year she married Ludwig Achim von Arnim (q.v.), by whom she had seven children. After her husband’s death in 1831, her passion for Goethe revived, and in 1835 she published her remarkable book, Goethes Briefwechsel mit einem Kinde, which purported to be a correspondence between herself and the poet. Regarded at first as genuine, it was afterwards for many years looked upon as wholly fictitious, until the publication in 1879 of G. von Loeper’s Briefe Goethes an Sophie Laroche und Bettina Brentano, nebst dichterischen Beilagen, which proved it to be based on authentic material, though treated with the greatest poetical licence. Equally fantastic is her correspondence Die Gunderode (1840), with her unhappy friend, the poet, Karoline von Gunderode (1780-1806), who committed suicide, and that with her brother Klemens Brentano, under the title Klemens Brentanos Fruhlingskranz (1844). She also published Dies Buck gehort dem König (1843), in which she advocated the emancipation of the Jews, and the abolition of capital punishment. Among her other works may be mentioned Ilius Pamphilius und die Ambrosia (1848), also a supposititious correspondence. In all her writings she showed real poetical genius, combined with evidence of an unbalanced mind and a mannerism which becomes tiresome. She died at Berlin on the 20th of January 1859. Part of a design by her for a colossal statue of Goethe, executed in marble by the sculptor Karl Steinhauser (1813-1878), is in the museum at Weimar.

ARNIM, HARRY KARL KURT EDUARD VON, Count (1824-1881), German diplomatist, was a member of one of the most numerous and most widely spread families of the Prussian nobility. He was born in Pomerania on the 3rd of October 1824, and brought up by his uncle Heinrich von Arnim, who was Prussian ambassador at Paris and foreign minister from March to June 1848, while Count Arnim-Boytzenburg, whose daughter Harry von Arnim afterwards married, was minister-president. It is noticeable that the uncle was brought before a court of justice and fined for publishing a pamphlet directed against the ministry of Manteuffel. After holding other posts in the diplomatic service Arnim was in 1864 appointed Prussian envoy (and in 1867 envoy of the North German Confederation) at the papal court. In 1869 he proposed that the governments should appoint representatives to be present at the Vatican council, a suggestion which was rejected by Bismarck, and foretold that the promulgation of papal infallibility would bring serious political difficulties. After the recall of the French troops from Rome he attempted unsuccessfully to mediate between the pope and the Italian government. He was appointed in 1871 German commissioner to arrange the final treaty with France, a task which he carried out with such success that in 1871 he was appointed German envoy at Paris, and in 1872 received his definite appointment as ambassador, a post of the greatest difficulty and responsibility. Differences soon arose between him and Bismarck; he wished to support the monarchical party which was trying to overthrow Thiers, while Bismarck ordered him to stand aloof from all French parties; he did not give that implicit obedience to his instructions which Bismarck required. Bismarck, however, was unable to recall him because of the great influence which he enjoyed at court and the confidence which the emperor placed in him. He was looked upon by the Conservative party, who were trying to overthrow Bismarck, as his successor, and it is said that he was closely connected with the court intrigues against the chancellor. In the beginning of 1874 he was recalled and appointed to the embassy at Constantinople, but this appointment was immediately revoked. A Vienna newspaper published some correspondence on the Vatican council, including confidential despatches of Arnim’s, with the object of showing that he had shown greater foresight than Bismarck. It was then found that a considerable number of papers were missing from the Paris embassy, and on the 4th of October Arnim was arrested on the charge of embezzling state papers. This recourse to the criminal law against a man of his rank, who had held one of the most important diplomatic posts, caused great astonishment. His defence was that the papers were not official, and he was acquitted on the charge of embezzlement, but convicted of undue delay in restoring official papers and condemned to three months’ imprisonment. On appeal the sentence was increased to nine months. Arnim avoided imprisonment by leaving the country, and in 1875 published anonymously at Zurich a pamphlet entitled “Pro nihilo,” in which he attempted to show that the attack on him was caused by Bismarck’s personal jealousy. For this he was accused of treason, insult to the emperor, and libelling Bismarck, and in his absence condemned to five years’ penal servitude. From his exile in Austria he published two more pamphlets on the ecclesiastical policy of Prussia, “Der Nunzius kommt!” (Vienna, 1878), and “Quid faciamus nos?” (ib. 1879). He made repeated attempts, which were supported by his family, to be allowed to return to Germany in order to take his trial afresh on the charge of treason; his request had just been granted when he died on the 19th of May 1881.

In 1876 Bismarck carried an amendment to the criminal code making it an offence punishable with imprisonment or a fine up to £250 for an official of the foreign office to communicate to others official documents, or for an envoy to act contrary to his instructions. These clauses are commonly spoken of in Germany as the “Arnim paragraphs.”

ARNIM, LUDWIG ACHIM (JOACHIM) VON (1781-1831), German poet and novelist, was born at Berlin on the 26th of January 1781. He studied natural science at Halle and 631 Göttingen, and published one or two essays on scientific subjects; but his bent was from the first towards literature. From the earlier writings of Goethe and Herder he learned to appreciate the beauties of German traditional legends and folk-songs; and, forming a collection of these, published the result (1806-1808), in collaboration with Klemens Brentano (q.v.) under the title Des Knaben Wunderhorn. From 1810 onward he lived with his wife Bettina, Brentano’s sister, alternately at Berlin and on his estate at Wiepersdorf, near Dahme in Brandenburg, where he died on the 21st of January 1831. Arnim was a prolific and versatile writer, gifted with a sense of humour and a refined imagination—qualities shown in the best-known of his works, Des Knaben Wunderhorn, deficient as this is in the philological accuracy and faithfulness to original sources which would now be expected of such a compilation. In general, however, his writings, full as they are of the exaggerated sentiment and affectations of the romantic school, make but little appeal to modern taste. There are possible exceptions, such as the short stories Furst Ganzgott und Sanger Halbgott and Der tolle Invalide auf dem Fort Ratonneau and the unfinished romance Die Kronenwachter (1817), which promised to develop into one of the finest historical romances of the 19th century. Among Arnim’s other works may be mentioned Hollins Liebesleben (1802), Der Wintergarten (1809), a collection of tales; Armut, Reichtum Schuld, und Busse der Grafin Dolores (1810), a novel; Halle und Jerusalem (1811), a dramatic romance; and one or two smaller novels, such as Isabella von Ägypten (1812).

ARNIM-BOYTZENBURG, HANS GEORG VON (1581-1641), German general and diplomatist, was born in 1581 at Boytzenburg in Brandenburg. From 1613 to 1617 he served in the Swedish army under Gustavus Adolphus, took part in the Russian War, and afterwards fought against the Turks in the service of the king of Poland. In 1626, though a Protestant, he was induced by Wallenstein to join the new imperial army, in which he quickly rose to the rank of field marshal, and won the esteem of his soldiers as well as that of his commander, whose close friend and faithful ally he became. This attachment to Wallenstein, and a spirit of religious toleration, were the leading motives of a strange career of military and political inconstancy. Thus the dismissal of Wallenstein and the perilous condition of German Protestantism after the edict of Restitution combined to induce Arnim to quit the imperial service for that of the elector of Saxony. He had served under Gustavus many years before, and later he had defeated him in the field, when in command of a Polish army; the fortune of war now placed Arnim at the head of the Saxon army which fought by the side of the Swedes at Breitenfeld (1631), and indeed the alliance of these two Protestant powers in the cause of their common religion was largely his work. The reappearances of Wallenstein, however, caused him to hesitate and open negotiations, though he did not attempt to conceal his proceedings from the elector and Gustavus. During the Lützen campaign, Arnim was operating with success at the head of an allied army in Silesia. In the following year he was under the hard necessity of opposing his old friend in the field, but little was done by either; the complicated political situation which followed the death of Gustavus at Lützen led him into a renewal of the private negotiations of the previous year, though he did nothing actually treasonable in his relations with Wallenstein. In 1634 Wallenstein was assassinated, and Arnim began at once more active operations. He won an important victory at Liegnitz in May 1634, but from this time he became more and more estranged from the Swedes. The peace of Prague followed, in which Arnim’s part, though considerable, was not all-important (1635). Soon after this event he refused an offer of high command in the French army and retired from active life. From 1637 to 1638 he was imprisoned in Stockholm, having been seized at Boytzenburg by the Swedes on suspicion of being concerned in various intrigues. He made his escape ultimately, and returned to Saxony. Arnim died suddenly at Dresden in 1641, whilst engaged in raising an army to free German soil from foreign armies of all kinds. (See Thirty Years’ War.)

ARNO, Arn or Aquila (c. 750-821), bishop and afterwards archbishop of Salzburg, entered the church at an early age, and after passing some time at Freising became abbot of Elnon, or St Amand as it was afterwards called, where he made the acquaintance of Alcuin. In 785 he was made bishop of Salzburg and in 787 was employed by Tassilo III., duke of the Bavarians, as an envoy to Charlemagne at Rome. He appears to have attracted the notice of the Frankish king, through whose influence in 798 Salzburg was made the seat of an archbishopric; and Arno, as the first holder of this office, became metropolitan of Bavaria and received the pallium from Pope Leo III. The area of his authority was extended to the east by the conquests of Charlemagne over the Avars, and he began to take a prominent part in the government of Bavaria. He acted as one of the missi dominici, and spent some time at the court of Charlemagne, where he was known by the assembled scholars as Aquila, and his name appears as one of the signatories to the emperor’s will. He established a library at Salzburg, furthered in other ways the interests of learning, and presided over several synods called to improve the condition of the church in Bavaria. Soon after the death of Charlemagne in 814, Arno appears to have withdrawn from active life, although he retained his archbishopric until his death on the 24th of January 821. Aided by a deacon named Benedict, Arno drew up about 788 a catalogue of lands and proprietary rights belonging to the church in Bavaria, under the title of Indiculus or Congestum Arnonis. An edition of this work, which is of considerable value to historical students, was published at Münich in 1869 with notes by F. Keinz. Many other works were produced under the protection of Arno, among them a Salzburg consuetudinary, an edition of which appears in Quellen und Erorterungen zur bayrischen und deutschen Geschichte, Band vii., edited by L. Rockinger (Münich, 1856). It has been suggested by W. von Giesebrecht that Arno was the author of an early section of Annales Laurissenses majores, which deals with the history of the Frankish kings from 741 to 829, and of which an edition appears in Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores, Band i. pp. 128-131, edited by G.H. Pertz (Hanover, 1826). If this supposition be correct, Arno was the first extant writer to apply the name Deutsch (theodisca) to the German language.

ARNO (anc. Arnus), a river of Italy which rises from the Monte Falterona, about 25 m. E.N.E. of Florence, 4265 ft. above the sea. It first runs S.S.E. through a beautiful valley, the Casentino; near Arezzo it turns W., and at Montevarchi N.N.W.; 10 m. below it forces its way through the limestone rock at Incisa and 10 m. farther on, at Pontassieve, it is joined by the Sieve. Thence it runs westward to Florence and through the gorge of Golfolina onwards to Empoli and Pisa, receiving various tributaries in its course, and falls into the sea 7½ m. west of Pisa, after a total course of 155 m. In prehistoric times the river ran straight on along the valley of the Chiana and joined the Tiber near Orvieto; and there was a great lake, the north end of which was at Incisa and the south at the lake of Chiusi. The distance from Pisa to the mouth in the time of Strabo was only 2½ m. The Serchio (anc. Auser), which joined the Arno at Pisa in ancient times, now flows into the sea independently. The Arno is navigable for barges as far as Florence; but it is liable to sudden floods, and brings down with it large quantities of earth and stones, so that it requires careful regulation. The most remarkable inundations were those of 1537 and 1740; in the former year the water rose to 8 ft. in the streets of Florence. The valley between Incisa and Arezzo contains accumulations of fossil bones of the deer, elephant, rhinoceros, mastodon, hippopotamus, bear, tiger, &c.

632

ARNOBIUS (called Afer, and sometimes “the Elder”), early Christian writer, was a teacher of rhetoric at Sicca Venerea in proconsular Africa during the reign of Diocletian. His conversion to Christianity is said by Jerome to have been occasioned by a dream; and the same writer adds that the bishop to whom Arnobius applied distrusted his professions, and asked some proof of them, and that the treatise Adversus Gentes was composed for this purpose. But this story seems rather improbable; for Arnobius speaks contemptuously of dreams, and besides, his work bears no traces of having been written in a short time, or of having been revised by a Christian bishop. From internal evidence (bk. iv. 36) the time of composition may be fixed at about A.D. 303. Nothing further is known of the life of Arnobius. He is said to have been the author of a work on rhetoric, which, however, has not been preserved. His great treatise, in seven books, Adversus Gentes (or Nationes), on account of which he takes rank as a Christian apologist, appears to have been occasioned by a desire to answer the complaint then brought against the Christians, that the prevalent calamities and disasters were due to their impiety and had come upon men since the establishment of their religion. In the first book Arnobius carefully discusses this complaint; he shows that the allegation of greater calamities having come upon men since the Christian era is false; and that, even if it were true, it could by no means be attributed to the Christians. He skilfully contends that Christians who worship the self-existent God cannot justly be called less religious than those who worship subordinate deities, and concludes by vindicating the Godhead of Christ. In the second book Arnobius digresses into a long discussion on the soul, which he does not think is of divine origin, and which he scarcely believes to be immortal. He even says that a belief in the soul’s immortality would tend to remove moral restraint, and have a prejudicial effect on human life. In the concluding chapters he answers the objections drawn from the recent origin of Christianity. Books iii., iv. and v. contain a violent attack on the heathen mythology, in which he narrates with powerful sarcasm the scandalous chronicles of the gods, and contrasts with their grossness and immorality the pure and holy worship of the Christian. These books are valuable as a repertory of mythological stories. Books vi. and vii. ably handle the questions of sacrifices and worship of images. The confusion of the final chapter points to some interruption. The work of Arnobius appears to have been written when he was a recent convert, for he does not possess a very extensive knowledge of Scripture. He knows nothing of the Old Testament, and only the life of Christ in the New, while he does not quote directly from the Gospels. He is also at fault in regard to the Jewish sects. He was much influenced by Lucretius and had read Plato. His statements concerning Greek and Roman mythology are based respectively on the Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria, and on Antistius Labeo, who belonged to the preceding generation and attempted to restore Neoplatonism. There are some pleasing passages in Arnobius, but on the whole he is a tumid and a tedious author.

ARNOBIUS (“the younger”), Christian priest or bishop in Gaul, flourished about 460. He is the author of a mystical and allegorical commentary on the Psalms, first published by Erasmus in 1522, and by him attributed to the elder Arnobius. It has been frequently reprinted, and in the edition of De la Barre, 1580, is accompanied by some notes on the Gospels by the same author. To him has sometimes been ascribed the anonymous treatise, Arnobii catholici et Serapionis conflictus de Deo trino et uno ... de gratiae liberi arbitrii concordia, which was probably written by a follower of Augustine. The opinions of Arnobius, as appears from the commentary, are semi-Pelagian.

ARNOLD, known as “Arnold of Brescia” (d. 1155), one of the most ardent adversaries of the temporal power of the popes. He belonged to a family of importance, if not noble, and was born probably at Brescia, in Italy, towards the end of the 11th century. He distinguished himself in his monastic studies, and went to France about 1115. He studied theology in Paris, but there is no proof that he was a pupil of Abelard. Returning to Italy he became a canon regular. His life was rigidly austere, St Bernard calling him “homo neque manducans neque bibens.” He at once directed his efforts against the corruption of the clergy, and especially against the temporal ambitions of the high dignitaries of the church. During the schism of Anacletus (1131-1137) the town of Brescia was torn by the struggles between the partisans of Pope Innocent II. and the adherents of the anti-pope, and Arnold gave effect to his abhorrence of the political episcopate by inciting the people to rise against their bishop, and, exiled by Innocent II., went to France. St Bernard accused him of sharing the doctrines of Abelard (see Ep. 189, 195), and procured his condemnation by the council of Sens (1140) at the same time as that of the great scholastic. This was perhaps no more than the outcome of the fierce polemical spirit of the abbot of Clairvaux, which led him to include all his adversaries under a single anathema. It seems certain that Arnold professed moral theology in Paris, and several times reprimanded St Bernard, whom he accused of pride and jealousy. St Bernard, as a last resort, begged King Louis VII. to take severe measures against Arnold, who had to leave France and take refuge at Zurich. There he soon became popular, especially with the lay nobility; but, denounced anew by St Bernard to the ecclesiastical authorities, he returned to Italy, and turned his steps towards Rome (1145). It was two years since, in 1143, the Romans had rejected the temporal power of the pope. The urban nobles had set up a republic, which, under forms ostensibly modelled on antiquity (e.g. patriciate, senatus populusque romanus, &c.), concealed but clumsily a purely oligarchical government. Pope Eugenius III. and his adherents had been forced after a feeble resistance to resign themselves to exile at Viterbo. Arnold, after returning to Rome, immediately began a campaign of virulent denunciation against the Roman clergy, and, in particular, against the Curia, which he stigmatized as a “house of merchandise and den of thieves.” His enemies have attributed to him certain doctrinal heresies, but their accusations do not bear examination. According to Otto of Freising (Lib. de gestis Friderici, bk. ii. chap. xx.) the whole of his teaching, outside the preaching of penitence, was summed up in these maxims:—“Clerks who have estates, bishops who hold fiefs, monks who possess property, cannot be saved.” His eloquence gained him a hearing and a numerous following, including many laymen, but consisting principally of poor ecclesiastics, who formed around him a party characterized by a rigid morality and not unlike the Lombard Patarenes of the 11th century. But his purely political action was very restricted, and not to be compared with that of a Rienzi or a Savonarola. The Roman revolution availed itself of Arnold’s popularity, and of his theories, but was carried out without his aid. His name was associated with this political reform solely because his was the only vigorous personality which stood out from the mass of rebels, and because he was the principal victim of the repression that ensued. On the 15th of July 1148 Eugenius III. anathematized Arnold and his adherents; but when, a short time afterwards, the pope, through the support of the king of Naples and the king of France, succeeded in entering Rome, Arnold remained in the town unmolested, under the protection of the senate. But in 1152 the German king Conrad III., whom the papal party and the Roman republic had in vain begged to intervene, was succeeded by Frederick I. Barbarossa. Frederick, whose authoritative temper was at once offended by the independent tone of the Arnoldist party, concluded with the pope a treaty of alliance (October 16, 1152) of such a nature that the Arnoldists were at once put in a minority in the Roman government; and when the second successor of Eugenius III., the energetic and austere Adrian IV. (the 633 Englishman, Nicholas Breakspear), placed Rome under an interdict, the senate, already rudely shaken, submitted, and Arnold was forced to fly into Campania (1155). At the request of the pope he was seized by order of the emperor Frederick, then in Italy, and delivered to the prefect of Rome, by whom he was condemned to death. In June 1155 Arnold was hanged, his body burnt, and the ashes were thrown into the Tiber. His death produced but a feeble sensation in Rome, which was already pacified, and passed almost unnoticed in Italy. The adherents of Arnold do not appear actually to have formed, either before or after his death, a heretical sect. It is probable that his adherents became merged in the communities of the Lombard Waldenses, who shared their ideas on the corruption of the clergy. Legend, poetry, drama and politics have from time to time been much occupied with the personality of Arnold of Brescia, and not seldom have distorted it, through the desire to see in him a hero of Italian independence and a modern democrat. He was before everything an ascetic, who denied to the church the right of holding property, and who occupied himself only as an accessory with the political and social consequences of his religious principles.

ARNOLD, BENEDICT (1741-1801), American soldier, born in Norwich, Connecticut, on the 14th of January 1741. He was the great-grandson of Benedict Arnold (1615-1678), thrice colonial governor of Rhode Island between 1663 and 1678; and was the fourth in direct descent to bear the name. He received a fair education but was not studious, and his youth was marked by the same waywardness which characterized his whole career. At fifteen he ran away from home and took part in an expedition against the French, but, restless under restraint, he soon deserted and returned home. In 1762 he settled in New Haven, where he became the proprietor of a drug and book shop; and he subsequently engaged successfully in trade with the West Indies. Immediately after the battle of Lexington Arnold led the local militia company, of which he was captain, and additional volunteers to Cambridge, and on the 29th of April 1775 he proposed to the Massachusetts Committee of Safety an expedition against Crown Point and Ticonderoga. After a delay of four days the offer was accepted, and as a colonel of Massachusetts militia he was directed to enlist in the west part of Massachusetts and in the neighbouring colonies the men necessary for the undertaking. He was forestalled, however, by Ethan Allen (q.v.), acting on behalf of some members of the Connecticut Assembly. Under him, reluctantly waiving his own claim to command, Arnold served as a volunteer; and soon afterwards, Massachusetts having yielded to Connecticut, and having angered Arnold by sending a committee to make an inquiry into his conduct, he resigned and returned to Cambridge. He was then ordered to co-operate with General Richard Montgomery in the invasion of Canada, which he had been one of the first to suggest to the Continental Congress. Starting with 1100 men from Cambridge on the 17th of September 1775, he reached Gardiner, Maine, on the 20th, advanced through the Maine woods, and after suffering terrible privations and hardships, his little force, depleted by death and desertion, reached Quebec on the 13th of November. The garrison had been forewarned, and Arnold was compelled to await the coming of Montgomery from Montreal. The combined attack on the 31st of December 1775 failed; Montgomery was killed, and Arnold was severely wounded. Arnold, who had been commissioned a brigadier-general in January 1776, remained in Canada until the following June, being after April in command at Montreal.

Some time after the retreat from Canada, charges of misconduct and dishonesty, growing chiefly out of his seizure from merchants in Montreal of goods for the use of his troops, were brought against him; these charges were tardily investigated by the Board of War, which in a report made on the 23rd of May 1777, and confirmed by Congress, declared that his “character and conduct” had been “cruelly and groundlessly aspersed.” Having constructed a flotilla on Lake Champlain, Arnold engaged a greatly superior British fleet near Valcour Island (October 11, 1776), and after inflicting severe loss on the enemy, made his escape under cover of night. Two days later he was overtaken by the British fleet, which however he, with only one war-vessel, and that crippled, delayed long enough to enable his other vessels to make good their escape, fighting with desperate valour and finally running his own ship aground and escaping to Crown Point. The engagement of the 11th was the first between British and American fleets. Arnold’s brilliant exploits had drawn attention to him as one of the most promising of the Continental officers, and had won for him the friendship of Washington. Nevertheless, when in February 1777 Congress created five new major-generals, Arnold, although the ranking brigadier, was passed over, partly at least for sectional reasons—Connecticut had already two major-generals—in favour of his juniors. At this time it was only Washington’s urgent persuasion that prevented Arnold from leaving the service. Two months later while he was at New Haven, Governor Tryon’s descent on Danbury took place; and Arnold, who took command of the militia after the death of General Wooster, attacked the British with such vigour at Ridgefield (April 27, 1777) that they escaped to their ships with difficulty.

In recognition of this service Arnold was now commissioned major-general (his commission dating from 17th February) but without his former relative rank. After serving in New Jersey with Washington, he joined General Philip Schuyler in the Northern Department, and in August 1777 proceeded up the Mohawk Valley against Colonel St Leger, and raised the siege of Fort Stanwix (or Schuyler). Subsequently, after Gates had superseded Schuyler (August 19), Arnold commanded the American left wing in the first battle of Saratoga (September 19, 1777). His ill-treatment at the hands of General Gates, whose jealousy had been aroused, led to a quarrel which terminated in Arnold being relieved of command. He remained with the army, however, at the urgent request of his brother officers, and although nominally without command served brilliantly in the second battle of Saratoga (October 7, 1777), during which he was seriously wounded. For his services he was thanked by Congress, and received a new commission giving him at last his proper relative rank.

In June 1778 Washington placed him in command of Philadelphia. Here he soon came into conflict with the state authorities, jealous of any outside control. In the social life of Philadelphia, largely dominated by families of Loyalist sympathies, Arnold was the most conspicuous figure; he lived extravagantly, entertained lavishly, and in April 1779 took for his second wife, Margaret Shippen (1760-1804), the daughter of Edward Shippen (1729-1806), a moderate Loyalist, who eventually became reconciled to the new order and was in 1799-1805 chief-justice of the state. Early in February 1779 the executive council of Pennsylvania, presided over by Joseph Reed, one of his most persistent enemies, presented to Congress eight charges of misconduct against Arnold, none of which was of any great importance. Arnold at once demanded an investigation, and in March a committee of Congress made a report exonerating him; but Reed obtained a reconsideration, and in April 1779 Congress, though throwing out four charges, referred the other four to a court-martial. Despite Arnold’s demand for a speedy trial, it was December before the court was convened. It was probably during this period of vexatious delay that Arnold, always sensitive and now incited by a keen sense of injustice, entered into a secret correspondence with Sir Henry Clinton with a view to joining the British service. On the 26th of January 1780 the court, before which Arnold had ably argued his own case, rendered its verdict, practically acquitting him of all intentional wrong, but, apparently in deference to the Pennsylvania authorities, directing Washington to reprimand him 634 for two trivial and very venial offences. Arnold, who had confidently expected absolute acquittal, was inflamed with a burning anger that even Washington’s kindly reprimand, couched almost in words of praise, could not subdue.

It was now apparently that he first conceived the plan of betraying some important post to the British. With this in view he sought and obtained from Washington (August 1780) command of West Point, the key to the Hudson River Valley. Arnold’s offers now became more explicit, and, in order to perfect the details of the plot, Clinton’s adjutant-general, Major John André, met him near Stony Point on the night of the 21st of September. On the 23rd, while returning by land, André with incriminating papers was captured, and the officer to whom he was entrusted unsuspectingly sent information of his capture to Arnold, who was thus enabled to escape to the British lines. Arnold, commissioned a brigadier-general in the British army, received £6315 in compensation for his property losses, and was employed in leading an expedition into Virginia which burned Richmond, and in an attack upon New London (q.v.) in September 1781. In December 1781 he removed to London and was consulted on American affairs by the king and ministry, but could obtain no further employment in the active service. Disappointed at the failure of his plans and embittered by the neglect and scorn which he met in England, he spent the years 1787-1791 at St John, New Brunswick, once more engaging in the West India trade, but in 1791 he returned to London, and after war had broken out between Great Britain and France, was active in fitting out privateers. Gradually sinking into melancholia, worn down by depression, and suffering from a nervous disease, he died at London on the 14th of June 1801.

Arnold had three sons—Benedict, Richard and Henry—by his first wife, and four sons—Edward Shippen, James Robertson, George and William Fitch—by his second wife; five of them, and one grandson, served in the British army. Benedict (1768-1795) was an officer of the artillery and was mortally wounded in the West Indies. Edward Shippen (1780-1813) became lieutenant of the Sixth Bengal Cavalry and later paymaster at Muttra, India. James Robertson (1781-1854) entered the corps of Royal Engineers in 1798, served in the Napoleonic wars, in Egypt and in the West Indies, and rose to the rank of lieutenant-general, was an aide-de-camp to William IV., and was created a knight of the Hanoverian Guelphic order and a knight of the Crescent. George (1787-1828) was a lieutenant-colonel in the Second Bengal Cavalry at the time of his death. William Fitch (1794-1828) became a captain in the Nineteenth Royal Lancers; his son, William Trail (1826-1855) served in the Crimean War as captain of the Fourth Regiment of Foot and was killed during the siege of Sevastopol.

ARNOLD, SIR EDWIN (1832-1904), British poet and journalist, was born on the 10th of June 1832, and was educated at the King’s school, Rochester; King’s College, London; and University College, Oxford, where in 1852 he gained the Newdigate prize for a poem on Belshazzar’s feast. On leaving Oxford he became a schoolmaster, and went to India as principal of the government Sanskrit College at Poona, a post which he held during the mutiny of 1857, when he was able to render services for which he was publicly thanked by Lord Elphinstone in the Bombay council. Returning to England in 1861 he worked as a journalist on the staff of the Daily Telegraph, a newspaper with which he continued to be associated for more than forty years. It was he who, on behalf of the proprietors of the Daily Telegraph in conjunction with the New York Herald, arranged for the journey of H.M. Stanley to Africa to discover the course of the Congo, and Stanley named after him a mountain to the north-east of Albert Edward Nyanza. Arnold must also be credited with the first idea of a great trunk line traversing the entire African continent, for in 1874 he first employed the phrase “a Cape to Cairo railway” subsequently popularized by Cecil Rhodes. It was, however, as a poet that he was best known to his contemporaries. The Light of Asia appeared in 1879 and won an immediate success, going through numerous editions both in England and America. It is an Indian epic, dealing with the life and teaching of Buddha, which are expounded with much wealth of local colour and not a little felicity of versification. The poem contains many lines of unquestionable beauty; and its immediate popularity was rather increased than diminished by the twofold criticism to which it was subjected. On the one hand it was held by Oriental scholars to give a false impression of Buddhist doctrine; while, on the other, the suggested analogy between Sakyamuni and Christ offended the taste of some devout Christians. The latter criticism probably suggested to Arnold the idea of attempting a second narrative poem of which the central figure should be the founder of Christianity, as the founder of Buddhism had been that of the first. But though The Light of the World (1891), in which this idea took shape, had considerable poetic merit, it lacked the novelty of theme and setting which had given the earlier poem much of its attractiveness; and it failed to repeat the success attained by The Light of Asia. Arnold’s other principal volumes of poetry were Indian Song of Songs (1875), Pearls of the Faith (1883), The Song Celestial (1885), With Sadi in the Garden (1888), Potiphar’s Wife (1892) and Adzuma (1893). In his later years Arnold resided for some time in Japan, and his third wife was a Japanese lady. In Seas and Lands (1891) and Japonica (1892) he gives an interesting study of Japanese life. He received the order of C.S.I. on the occasion of the proclamation of Queen Victoria as empress of India in 1877, and in 1888 was created K.C.I.E. He also possessed decorations conferred by the rulers of Japan, Persia, Turkey and Siam. Sir Edwin Arnold died on the 24th of March 1904.

ARNOLD, GOTTFRIED (1666-1714), German Protestant divine, was born at Annaberg, in Saxony, where his father was a schoolmaster. In 1682 he went to the Gymnasium at Gera, and three years later to the university of Wittenberg. Here he made a special study of theology and history, and afterwards, through the influence of P.J. Spener, “the father of pietism,” he became tutor in Quedlinburg. His first work, Die Erste Liebe zu Christo, to which in modern times attention was again directed by Leo Tolstoy, appeared in 1696. It went through five editions before 1728, and gained the author much reputation. In the year after its publication he was invited to Giessen as professor of church history. The life and work here, however, proved so distasteful to him that he resigned in 1698, and returned to Quedlinburg. In 1699 he began to publish his largest work, described by Tolstoy (The Kingdom of God is within You, chap, iii.) as “remarkable, although little known,” Unparteiische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, in which he has been thought by some to show more impartiality towards heresy than towards the Church (cp. Otto Pfleiderer, Development of Theology, p. 277). His next work, Geheimniss der göttlichen Sophia, published in 1700, seemed to indicate that he had developed a form of mysticism. Soon afterwards, however, his acceptance of a pastorate marked a change, and he produced a number of noteworthy works on practical theology. He was also known as the author 635 of sacred poems. Gottfried Arnold has rightly been classed with the pietistic section of Protestant historians (Bibliotheca Sacra, 1850).

ARNOLD, MATTHEW (1822-1888), English poet, literary critic and inspector of schools, was born at Laleham, near Staines, on the 24th of December 1822. When it is said that he was the son of the famous Dr Arnold of Rugby, and that Winchester, Rugby and Balliol College, Oxford, contributed their best towards his education, it seems superfluous to add that, in estimating Matthew Arnold and his work, training no less than original endowment has to be considered. A full academic training has its disadvantages as well as its gains. In the individual no less than in the species the history of man’s development is the history of the struggle between the impulse to express original personal force and the impulse to make that force bow to the authority of custom. Where in any individual the first of these impulses is stronger than usual, a complete academic training is a gain; but where the second of these impulses is the dominant one, the effect of the academic habit upon the mind at its most sensitive and most plastic period is apt to be crippling. In regard to Matthew Arnold, it would be a bold critic of his life and his writings who should attempt to say what his work would have been if his training had been different. In his judgments on Goethe, Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley and Hugo, it may be seen how strong was his impulse to bow to authority. On the other hand, in Arnold’s ingenious reasoning away the conception of Providence to “a stream of tendency not ourselves which makes for righteousness,” we see how strong was his natural impulse for taking original views. The fact that the very air Arnold breathed during the whole of the impressionable period of his life was academic is therefore a very important fact to bear in mind.

In one of his own most charming critical essays he contrasts the poetry of Homer, which consists of “natural thoughts in natural words,” with the poetry of Tennyson, which consists of “distilled thoughts in distilled words.” “Distilled” is one of the happiest words to be found in poetical criticism, and may be used with equal aptitude in the criticism of life. To most people the waters of life come with all their natural qualities—sweet or bitter—undistilled. Only the ordinary conditions of civilization, common to all, flavoured the waters of life to Shakespeare, to Cervantes, to Burns, to Scott, to Dumas, and those other great creators whose minds were mirrors—broad and clear—for reflecting the rich drama of life around them. To Arnold the waters of life came distilled so carefully that the wonder is that he had any originality left. A member of the upper stratum of that “middle class” which he despised, or pretended to despise—the eldest son of one of the most accomplished as well as one of the most noble-tempered men of his time—Arnold from the moment of his birth drank the finest distilled waters that can be drunk even in these days. Perhaps, on the whole, the surprising thing is how little he suffered thereby. Indeed those who had formed an idea of Arnold’s personality from their knowledge of his “culture,” and especially those who had been delighted by the fastidious and feminine delicacy of his prose style, used to be quite bewildered when for the first time they met him at a dinner-table or in a friend’s smoking-room. His prose was so self-conscious that what people expected to find in the writer was the Arnold as he was conceived by certain “young lions” of journalism whom he satirized—a somewhat over-cultured petit-maître—almost, indeed, a coxcomb of letters. On the other hand, those who had been captured by his poetry expected to find a man whose sensitive organism responded nervously to every uttered word as an aeolian harp answers to the faintest breeze. What they found was a broad-shouldered, manly—almost burly—Englishman with a fine countenance, bronzed by the open air of England, wrinkled apparently by the sun, wind-worn as an English skipper’s, open and frank as a fox-hunting squire’s—and yet a countenance whose finely chiselled features were as high-bred and as commanding as Wellington’s or Sir Charles Napier’s. The voice they heard was deep-toned, fearless, rich and frank, and yet modulated to express every nuance of thought, every movement of emotion and humour. In his prose essays the humour he showed was of a somewhat thin-lipped kind; in his more important poems he showed none at all. It was here, in this matter of humour, that Arnold’s writings were specially misleading as to the personality of the man. Judged from his poems, it was not with a poet like the writer of “The Northern Farmer,” or a poet like the writer of “Ned Bratts,” that any student of poetry would have dreamed of classing him. Such a student would actually have been more likely to class him with two of his contemporaries between whom and himself there were but few points in common, the “humourless” William Morris and the “humourless” Rossetti. For, singularly enough, between him and them there was this one point of resemblance: while all three were richly endowed with humour, while all three were the very lights of the sets in which they moved, the moment they took pen in hand to write poetry they became sad. It would almost seem as if, like Rossetti, Arnold actually held that poetry was not the proper medium for humour. No wonder, then, if the absence of humour in his poetry did much to mislead the student of his work as to the real character of the man.

After a year at Winchester, Matthew Arnold entered Rugby school in 1837. He early began to write and print verses. His first publication was a Rugby prize poem, Alaric at Rome, in 1840. This was followed in 1843, after he had gone up to Oxford in 1840 as a scholar of Balliol, by his poem Cromwell, which won the Newdigate prize. In 1844 he graduated with second-class honours, and in 1845 was elected a fellow of Oriel College, where among his colleagues was A.H. Clough, his friendship with whom is commemorated in that exquisite elegy Thyrsis. From 1847 to 1851 he acted as private secretary to Lord Lansdowne; and in the latter year, after acting for a short time as assistant-master at Rugby, he was appointed to an inspectorship of schools, a post which he retained until two years before his death. He married, in June 1851, the daughter of Mr Justice Wightman, Meanwhile, in 1849, appeared The Strayed Reveller, and other Poems, by A, a volume which gained a considerable esoteric reputation. In 1852 he published another volume under the same initial, Empedocles on Etna, and other Poems. Empedocles is as undramatic a poem perhaps as was ever written in dramatic form, but studded with lyrical beauties of a very high order. In 1853 Arnold published a volume of Poems under his own name. This consisted partially of poems selected from the two previous volumes. A second series of poems, which contained, however, only two new ones, was published in 1855. So great was the impression made by these in academic circles, that in 1857 Arnold was elected professor of poetry at Oxford, and he held the chair for ten years. In 1858 he published his classical tragedy, Merope. Nine years afterwards his New Poems (1867) were published. While he held the Oxford professorship he published several series of lectures, which gave him a high place as a scholar and critic. The essays1 On Translating Homer: Three Lectures given at Oxford, published in 1861, supplemented in 1862 by On Translating Homer: Last Words, a fourth lecture given in reply to F.W. Newman’s Homeric Translation in Theory and Practice (1861), and On the Study of Celtic Literature, published in 1867, were full of subtle and brilliant if not of profound criticism. So were the two series of Essays in Criticism, the first of which, consisting of articles reprinted from various reviews, appeared in 1865. The essay on “A Persian Passion Play” was added in the editions of 1875; and a second series, edited by Lord Coleridge, appeared in 1888.

Arnold’s poetic activity almost ceased after he left the chair of poetry at Oxford. He was several times sent by government to make inquiries into the state of education in France, Germany, Holland and other countries; and his reports, with their thorough-going and searching criticism of continental methods, 636 as contrasted with English methods, showed how conscientiously he had devoted some of his best energies to the work. His fame as a poet and a literary critic has somewhat overshadowed the fact that he was during thirty-five years of his life—from 1851 to 1836—employed in the Education Department as one of H.M. inspectors of schools, while his literary work was achieved in such intervals of leisure as could be spared from the public service. At the time of his appointment the government, by arrangement with the religious bodies, entrusted the inspection of schools connected with the Church of England to clergymen, and agreed also to send Roman Catholic inspectors to schools managed by members of that communion. Other schools—those of the British and Foreign Society, the Wesleyans, and undenominational schools generally—were inspected by laymen, of whom Arnold was one. There were only three or four of these officers at first, and their districts were necessarily large. It is to the experience gained in intercourse with Nonconformist school managers that we may attribute the curiously intimate knowledge of religious sects which furnished the material for some of his keen though good-humoured sarcasms. The Education Act of 1870, which simplified the administrative system, abolished denominational inspection, and thus greatly reduced the area assigned to a single inspector. Arnold took charge of the district of Westminster, and remained in that office until his resignation, taking also an occasional share in the inspection of training colleges for teachers, and in conferences at the central office. His letters, passim, show that some of the routine which devolved upon him was distasteful, and that he was glad to entrust to a skilled assistant much of the duty of individual examination and the making up of schedules and returns. But the influence he exerted on schools, on the department, and on the primary education of the whole country, was indirectly far greater than is generally supposed. His annual reports, of which more than twenty were collected into a volume by his friend and official chief, Sir Francis (afterwards Lord) Sandford, attracted, by reason of their freshness of style and thought, much more of public attention than is usually accorded to blue-book literature; and his high aims, and his sympathetic appreciation of the efforts and difficulties of the teachers, had a remarkable effect in raising the tone of elementary education, and in indicating the way to improvement. In particular, he insisted on the formative elements of school education, on literature and the “humanities,” as distinguished from the collection of scraps of information and “useful knowledge”; and he sought to impress all the young teachers with the necessity of broader mental cultivation than was absolutely required to obtain the government certificate. In his reports also he dwelt often and forcibly on the place which the study of the Bible, not the distinctive formularies of the churches, ought to hold in English schools. He urged that besides the religious and moral purposes of Scriptural teaching, it had a literary value of its own, and was the best instrument in the hands even of the elementary teacher for uplifting the soul and refining and enlarging the thoughts of young children.

On three occasions Arnold was asked to assist the government by making special inquiries into the state of education in foreign countries. These duties were especially welcome to him, serving as they did as a relief from the monotony of school inspection at home, and as opportunities for taking a wider survey of the whole subject of education, and for expressing his views on principles and national aims as well as administrative details. In 1859, as foreign assistant commissioner, he prepared for the duke of Newcastle’s commission to inquire into the subject of elementary education a report (printed 1860) which was afterwards reprinted (1861) in a volume entitled The Popular Education of France, with Notices of that of Holland and Switzerland. In 1865 he was again employed as assistant-commissioner by the Schools Inquiry Commission under Lord Taunton; and his report on this subject, On Secondary Education in Foreign Countries (1866), was subsequently reprinted under the title Schools and Universities on the Continent (1868). Twenty years later he was sent by the Education Department to make special inquiries on certain specified points, e.g. free education, the status and training of teachers, and compulsory attendance at schools. The result of this investigation appeared as a parliamentary paper, Special Report on certain points connected with Elementary Education in Germany, Switzerland and France, in 1886. He also contributed the chapter on “Schools” (1837-1887) to the second volume of Mr Humphry Ward’s Reign of Queen Victoria. Part of his official writings may be studied in Reports for Elementary Schools (1852-1882), edited by Sir F. Sandford in 1889.

All these reports form substantial contributions to the history and literature of education in the Victorian age. They have been quoted often, and have exercised marked influence on subsequent changes and controversies. One great purpose underlies them all. It is to bring home to the English people a conviction that education ought to be a national concern, that it should not be left entirely to local, or private, or irresponsible initiative, that the watchful jealousy so long shown by Liberals, and especially by Nonconformists, in regard to state action was a grave practical mistake, and that in an enlightened democracy, animated by a progressive spirit and noble and generous ideals, it was the part of wisdom to invoke the collective power of the state to give effect to those ideals. To this theme he constantly recurred in his essays, articles and official reports. “Porro unum est necessarium. One thing is needful; organize your secondary education.”

In 1883 a pension of £250 was conferred on Arnold in recognition of his literary merits. In the same year he went to the United States on a lecturing tour, and again in 1886, his subjects being “Emerson” and the “Principles and Value of Numbers.” The success of these lectures, though they were admirable in matter and form, was marred by the lecturer’s lack of experience in delivery. It is sufficient, further, to say that Culture and Anarchy: an Essay in Political and Social Criticism, appeared in 1869; St Paul and Protestantism, with an Introduction on Puritanism and the Church of England (1870); Friendship’s Garland: being the Conversations, Letters and Opinions of the late Arminius Baron van Thunder-ten-Tronckh (1871); Literature and Dogma: an Essay towards a Better Apprehension of the Bible (1873); God and the Bible: a Review of Objections to Literature and Dogma (1875); Last Essays on Church and Religion (1877); Mixed Essays (1879); Irish Essays and Others (1882); Discourses in America (1885). Such essays as the first of these, embodying as they did Arnold’s views of theological and polemical subjects, attracted much attention at the time of their publication, owing to the state of the intellectual atmosphere at the moment; but it is doubtful, perhaps, whether they will be greatly considered in the near future. Many severe things have been said, and will be said, concerning the inadequacy of poets like Coleridge and Wordsworth when confronting subjects of a theological or philosophical kind. Wordsworth’s High Church Pantheism and Coleridge’s disquisitions on the Logos seem farther removed from the speculations of to-day than do the dreams of Lucretius. But these two great writers lived before the days of modern science. Arnold, living only a few years later, came at a transition period when the winds of tyrannous knowledge had blown off the protecting roof that had covered the centuries before, but when time and much labour were needed to build another roof of new materials—a period when it was impossible for the poet to enjoy either the quietism of High Church Pantheism in which Wordsworth had basked, or the sheltering protection of German metaphysics under which Coleridge had preached—a period, nevertheless, when the wonderful revelations of science were still too raw, too cold and hard, to satisfy the yearnings of the poetic soul. Objectionable as Arnold’s rationalizing criticism was to contemporary orthodoxy, and questionable as was his equipment in point of theological learning, his spirituality of outlook and ethical purpose were not to be denied. Yet it is not Arnold’s views that have become current coin so much as his literary phrases—his craving for “culture” and “sweetness and light,” his contempt for “the dissidence of Dissent and the Protestantism 637 of the Protestant religion,” his “stream of tendency not ourselves making for righteousness,” his classification of “Philistines and barbarians”—and so forth. His death at Liverpool, of heart failure on the 15th of April 1888, was sudden and quite unexpected.

Arnold was a prominent figure in that great galaxy of Victorian poets who were working simultaneously—Tennyson, Browning, Rossetti, William Morris and Swinburne—poets between whom there was at least this connecting link, that the quest of all of them was the old-fashioned poetical quest of the beautiful. Beauty was their watchword, as it had been the watchword of their immediate predecessors—Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats, Shelley and Byron. That this group of early 19th-century poets might be divided into two—those whose primary quest was physical beauty, and those whose primary quest was moral beauty-is no doubt true. Still, in so far as beauty was their quest they were all akin. And so with the Victorian group to which Arnold belonged. As to the position which he takes among them opinions must necessarily vary. On the whole, his place in the group will be below all the others. The question as to whether he was primarily a poet or a prosateur has been often asked. If we were to try to answer that question here, we should have to examine his poetry in detail—we should have to inquire whether his primary impulse of expression was to seize upon the innate suggestive power of words, or whether his primary impulse was to rely upon the logical power of the sentence. In nobility of temper, in clearness of statement, and especially in descriptive power, he is beyond praise. But intellect, judgment, culture and study of great poets may do much towards enabling a prose-writer to write what must needs be called good poetry. What they cannot enable him to do is to produce those magical effects which poets of the rarer kind can achieve by seizing that mysterious, suggestive power of words which is far beyond all mere statement. Notwithstanding the exquisite work that Arnold has left behind him, some critics have come to the conclusion that his primary impulse in expression was that of the poetically-minded prosateur rather than that of the born poet. And this has been said by some who nevertheless deeply admire poems like “The Scholar Gypsy,” “Thyrsis,” “The Forsaken Merman,” “Dover Beach,” “Heine’s Grave,” “Rugby Chapel,” “The Grande Chartreuse,” “Sohrab and Rustum,” “The Sick King in Bokhara,” “Tristram and Iseult,” &c. It would seem that a man may show all the endowments of a poet save one, and that one the most essential—the instinctive mastery over metrical effects.

In all literary expression there are two kinds of emphasis, the emphasis of sound and the emphasis of sense. Indeed the difference between those who have and those who have not the true rhythmic instinct is that, while the former have the innate faculty of making the emphasis of sound and the emphasis of sense meet and strengthen each other, the latter are without that faculty. But so imperfect is the human mind that it can rarely apprehend or grasp simultaneously these two kinds of emphasis. While to the born prosateur the emphasis of sense comes first, and refuses to be more than partially conditioned by the emphasis of sound, to the born poet the emphasis of sound comes first, and sometimes will, even as in the case of Shelley, revolt against the tyranny of the emphasis of sense. Perhaps the very origin of the old quantitative metres was the desire to make these two kinds of emphasis meet in the same syllable. In manipulating their quantitative metrical system the Greeks had facilities for bringing one kind of emphasis into harmony with the other such as are unknown to writers in accentuated metres. This accounts for the measureless superiority of Greek poetry in verbal melody as well as in general harmonic scheme to all the poetry of the modern world. In writers so diverse in many ways as Homer, Æschylus, Sophocles, Pindar, Sappho, the harmony between the emphasis of sound and the emphasis of sense is so complete that each of these kinds of emphasis seems always begetting, yet always born of the other. When in Europe the quantitative measures were superseded by the accentuated measures a reminiscence was naturally and inevitably left behind of the old system; and the result has been, in the English language at least, that no really great line can be written in which the emphasis of accent, the emphasis of quantity and the emphasis of sense do not meet on the same syllable. Whenever this junction does not take place the weaker line, or lines, are always introduced, not for makeshift purposes, but for variety, as in the finest lines of Milton and Wordsworth. Wordsworth no doubt seems to have had a theory that the accent of certain words, such as “without,” “within,” &c., could be disturbed in an iambic line; but in his best work he does not act upon his theory, and endeavours most successfully to make the emphasis of accent, of quantity and of sense meet. It might not be well for a poem to contain an entire sequence of such perfect lines as

“I thought of Chatterton, the marvellous boy,”

or

“Thy soul was like a star and dwelt apart,”

for then the metricist’s art would declare itself too loudly and weaken the imaginative strength of the picture. But such lines should no doubt form the basis of the poem, and weaker lines—lines in which there is no such combination of the three kinds of emphasis—should be sparingly used, and never used for makeshift purposes. Now, neither by instinct nor by critical study was Arnold ever able to apprehend this law of prosody. If he does write a line of the first order, metrically speaking, he seems to do so by accident. Such weak lines as these are constantly occurring—

Much has been said about what is called the “Greek temper” of Matthew Arnold’s muse. A good deal depends upon what it meant by the Hellenic spirit. But if the Greek temper expresses itself, as is generally supposed, in the sweet acceptance and melodious utterance of the beauty of the world as it is, accepting that beauty without inquiring as to what it means and as to whither it goes, it is difficult to see where in Arnold’s poetry this temper declares itself. Surely it is not in Empedocles on Etna, and surely it is not in Merope. If there is a poem of his in which one would expect to find the joyous acceptance of life apart from questionings about the civilization in which the poet finds himself environed (its hopes, its fears, its aspirations and its failures)—such questionings, in short, as were for ever Vexing Arnold’s soul—it would be in “The Scholar Gypsy,” a poem in which the poet tries to throw himself into the mood of a “Romany Rye.” The great attraction of the gypsies to Englishmen of a certain temperament is that they alone seem to feel the joyous acceptance of life which is supposed to be specially Greek. Hence it would have been but reasonable to look, if anywhere, for the expression of Arnold’s Greek temper in a poem which sets out to describe the feelings of the student who, according to Glanville’s story, left Oxford to wander over England with the Romanies. But instead of this we got the old fretting about the unsatisfactoriness of modern civilization. Glanville’s Oxford student, whose story is glanced at now and again in the poem, flits about in the scenery like a cloud-shadow on the grass; but the way in which Arnold contrives to avoid giving us the faintest idea either dramatic or pictorial of the student about whom he talks so much, and the gypsies with whom the student lived, is one of the most singular feats in poetry. The reflections which come to a young Oxonian lying on the grass and longing to escape life’s fitful fever without shuffling off this mortal coil, are, no doubt, beautiful reflections beautifully expressed, but the temper they show is the very opposite of the Greek. To say this is not in the least to disparage Arnold. “A man is more like the age in which he lives,” says the Chinese aphorism, “than he is like his own father and mother,” and Arnold’s polemical writings alone are sufficient to show that the waters of life he drank were from fountains distilled, seven times distilled, at the topmost slope of 19th-century civilization. Mr George Meredith’s “Old Chartist” exhibits far more of the temper of acceptance than does any poem by Matthew Arnold.

His most famous critical dictum is that poetry is a “criticism 638 of life.” What he seems to have meant is that poetry is the crowning fruit of a criticism of life; that just as the poet’s metrical effects are and must be the result of a thousand semiconscious generalizations upon the laws of cause and effect in metric art, so the beautiful things he says about life and the beautiful pictures he paints of life are the result of his generalizations upon life as he passes through it, and consequently that the value of his poetry consists in the beauty and the truth of his generalizations. But this is saying no more than is said in the line—

or in the still more famous lines—

To suppose that Arnold confounded the poet with the writer of pensées would be absurd. Yet having decided that poetry consists of generalizations on human life, in reading poetry he kept on the watch for those generalizations, and at last seemed to think that the less and not the more they are hidden behind the dramatic action, and the more unmistakably they are intruded as generalizations, the better. For instance, in one of his essays he quotes those lines from the “Chanson de Roland” of Turoldus, where Roland, mortally wounded, lays himself down under a pine-tree with his face turned towards Spain and the enemy, and begins to “call many things to remembrance; all the lands which his valour conquered, and pleasant France, and the men of his lineage, and Charlemagne, his liege lord, who nourished him”—

“That,” says Arnold, “is primitive work, I repeat, with an undeniable poetic quality of its own. It deserves such praise, and such praise is sufficient for it.” Then he contrasts it with a famous passage in Homer—that same passage which is quoted in the article Poetry, for the very opposite purpose to that of Arnold’s, quoted indeed to show how the epic poet, leaving the dramatic action to act as chorus, weakens the ἀπάτη of the picture—the passage in the Iliad (iii 243-244) where the poet, after Helen’s pathetic mention of her brother’s comments on the causes of their absence, “criticizes life” and generalizes upon the impotence of human intelligence, the impotence even of human love, to pierce the darkness in which the web of human fate is woven. He appends Dr Hawtrey’s translation:—

“We are here,” says Arnold, “in another world, another order of poetry altogether; here is rightly due such supreme praise as that which M. Vitel gives to the Chanson de Roland. If our words are to have any meaning, if our judgments are to have any solidity, we must not heap that supreme praise upon poetry of an order immeasurably inferior.” He does not see that the two passages cannot properly be compared at all. In the one case the poet gives us a dramatic picture; in the other; a comment on a dramatic picture.

Perhaps, indeed, the place Arnold held and still holds as a critic is due more to his exquisite felicity in expressing his views than to the penetration of his criticism. Nothing can exceed the easy grace of his prose at the best. It is conversational and yet absolutely exact in the structure of the sentences; and in spite of every vagary, his distinguishing note is urbanity. Keen-edged as his satire could be, his writing for the most part is as urbane as Addison’s own. His influence on contemporary criticism and contemporary ideals was considerable, and generally wholesome. His insistence on the necessity of looking at “the thing in itself,” and the need for acquainting oneself with “the best that has been thought and said in the world,” gave a new stimulus alike to originality and industry in criticism; and in his own selection of subjects—such as Joubert, or the de Guérins—he opened a new world to a larger class of the better sort of readers, exercising in this respect an awakening influence in his own time akin to that of Walter Pater a few years afterwards. The comparison with Pater might indeed be pressed further, and yet too far. Both were essentially products of Oxford. But Arnold, whose description of that “home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names, and impossible loyalties,” is in itself almost a poem, had a classical austerity in his style that savoured more intimately of Oxford tradition, and an ethical earnestness even in his most flippant moments which kept him notably aloof from the more sensuous school of aesthetics.

ARNOLD, SAMUEL (1740-1802), English composer, was born at London on the both of August 1740. He received a thorough musical education at the Chapel Royal, and when little more than twenty years of age was appointed composer at Covent Garden theatre. Here, in 1765, he produced his popular opera, The Maid of the Mill, many of the songs in which were selected from the works of Italian composers. In 1776 he transferred his services to the Haymarket theatre. In 1783 he was made composer to George III. Between 1765 and 1802 he wrote as many as forty-three operas, after-pieces and pantomimes, of which the best were The Maid of the Mill, Rosamond, Inkle and Yarico, The Battle of Hexham, The Mountaineers. His oratorios included The Cure of Saul (1767), Abimelech (1768), The Resurrection (1773), The Prodigal Son (1777) and Elisha (1795). In 1783 he became organist to the Chapel Royal. In 1786 he began an edition of Handel’s works, which extended to 40 volumes, but was never completed. In 1793 he became organist of Westminster Abbey, where he was buried after his death on the 22nd of October 1802. Arnold is chiefly remembered now for the publication of his Cathedral Music, being a collection in score of the most valuable and useful compositions for that service by the several English masters of the last 200 years (1790).

ARNOLD, THOMAS (1705-1842), English clergyman and headmaster of Rugby school, was born at West Cowes, in the Isle of Wight, on the 13th of June 1795. He was the son of William and Martha Arnold, the former of whom occupied the 639 situation of collector of customs at Cowes. His father died suddenly of spasm in the heart in 1801, and his early education was confided by his mother to her sister, Miss Delafield. From her tuition he passed to that of Dr Griffiths, at Warminster, in Wiltshire, in 1803; and in 1807 he was removed to Winchester, where he remained until 1811, having entered as a commoner, and afterwards become a scholar of the college. In after life he retained a lively feeling of interest in Winchester school, and remembered with admiration and profit the regulative tact of Dr Goddard and the preceptorial ability of Dr Gabell, who were successively head-masters during his stay there.

From Winchester he removed to Oxford in 1811, where he became a scholar at Corpus Christi College; in 1815 he was elected fellow of Oriel College, and there he continued to reside until 1819. This interval was diligently devoted to the pursuit of classical and historical studies, to preparing himself for ordination, and to searching investigations, under the stimulus of continued discussion with a band of talented and congenial associates, of the profoundest questions in theology, ecclesiastical polity and social philosophy. The authors he most carefully studied at this period were Thucydides and Aristotle, and for their writings he formed an attachment which remained to the close of his life, and exerted a powerful influence upon his mode of thought and opinions, as well as upon his literary occupations in subsequent years. Herodotus also came in for a considerable share of his regard, but more, apparently, for recreation than for work. Accustomed freely and fearlessly to investigate whatever came before him, and swayed by a scrupulous dread of insincerity, he was doomed to long and anxious hesitation concerning some of the fundamental points of theology before arriving at a firm conviction of the truth of Christianity. Once satisfied, however, his faith remained clear and firm; and thenceforward his life became that of a supremely religious man.

To the name of Christ he was prepared to “surrender his whole soul,” and to render before it “obedience, reverence without measure, intense humility, most unreserved adoration” (Serm. ns. vol. iv. p. 210). He did not often talk about religion; he had not much of the accredited phraseology of piety even when he discoursed on spiritual topics; but more than most men he was directed by religious principle and feeling in all his conduct. He left Oxford in 1819, and settled at Laleham, near Staines, where he took pupils for the university. His spare time was devoted to the prosecution of studies in philology and history, more particularly to the study of Thucydides, and of the new light which had been cast upon Roman history and upon historical method in general by the researches of Niebuhr. He was also occasionally engaged in preaching, and it was whilst here that he published the first volume of his sermons. Shortly after he settled at Laleham, he married Mary, youngest daughter of the Rev. John Penrose, rector of Fledborough, Nottinghamshire. After nine years spent at Laleham he was induced to offer himself as a candidate for the vacant head-mastership of Rugby; and though he entered somewhat late upon the contest, and though none of the electors was personally known to him, he was elected in December 1827. In June 1828 he received priest’s orders; in April end November of the same year he took his degrees of B.D. and D.D., and in August entered on his new office.

In one of the testimonials which accompanied his application to the trustees of Rugby, the writer stated it as his conviction that “if Mr Arnold were elected, he would change the face of education all through the public schools of England.” This somewhat hazardous pledge was nobly redeemed. Under Arnold’s superintendence the school became not merely a place where a certain amount of classical or general learning was to be obtained, but a sphere of intellectual, moral and religious discipline, where healthy characters were formed, and men were trained for the duties, and struggles and responsibilities of life. His energies were chiefly devoted to the business of the school; but he found time also for much literary work, as well as for an extensive correspondence. Five volumes of sermons, an edition of Thucydides, with English notes and dissertations, a History of Rome in three vols. 8vo, beside numerous articles in reviews, journals, newspapers and encyclopædias, are extant to attest the untiring activity of his mind, and his patient diligence during this period. His interest also in public matters was incessant, especially ecclesiastical questions, and such as bore upon the social welfare and moral improvement of the masses.

In 1841, after fourteen years at Rugby, Dr Arnold was appointed by Lord Melbourne, then prime minister, to the chair of modern history at Oxford. On the 2nd of December 1841 he delivered his inaugural lecture. Seven other lectures were delivered during the first three weeks of the Lent term of 1842. When the midsummer vacation arrived, he was preparing to set out with his family to Fox How in Westmoreland, where he had purchased some property and built a house. But he was suddenly attacked by angina pectoris, and died on Sunday, the 12th of June 1842. His remains were interred on the following Friday in the chancel of Rugby chapel, immediately under the communion table.

The great peculiarity and charm of Dr Arnold’s nature seemed to lie in the supremacy of the moral and the spiritual element over his whole being. He was not a notable scholar, and he had not much of what is usually called tact in his dealings either with the juvenile or the adult mind. What gave him his power, and secured for him so deeply the respect and veneration of his pupils and acquaintances, was the intensely religious character of his whole life. He seemed ever to act from a severe and lofty estimate of duty. To be just, honest and truthful, he ever held to be the first aim of his being.

ARNOTT, NEIL (1788-1874), Scottish physician, was born at Arbroath on the 15th of May 1788. He studied medicine first at Aberdeen, and subsequently in London under Sir Everard Home (1756-1832), through whom he obtained, while yet in his nineteenth year, the appointment of full surgeon to an East Indiaman. After making two voyages to China he settled in 1811 to practise in London, and speedily acquired high reputation in his profession. Within a few years he was made physician to the French and Spanish embassies, and in 1837 he became a physician extraordinary to the queen. From his earliest youth Arnott had an intense love of natural philosophy, and to this was added an inventiveness which served him in good stead in his profession and yielded the “Arnott water-bed,” the “Arnott ventilator,” the “Arnott stove,” &c. He was the author of several works bearing on physical science or its applications, the most important being his Elements of Physics (1827), which went through six editions in his lifetime. In 1838 he published a treatise on Warming and Ventilating, and, in 1855, one on the Smokeless Fireplace. He was a strong advocate of scientific, as opposed to purely classical, education; and he manifested his interest in natural philosophy by the gift of £2000 to each of the four universities of Scotland and to the university of London, to promote its study in the experimental and practical form. He died in London on the 2nd of March 1874.

ARNOULD-PLESSY, JEANNE SYLVANIE (1819-1897), French actress, was born in Metz on the 7th of September 1819, the daughter of a local actor named Plessy. She was a pupil of Samson at the Conservatoire in 1829, and made her début as Emma at the Comédie Française in 1834 in Alexandre Duval’s La Fille d’honneur. She had an immense success, and Mlle Mars, to whom the public already compared her, took her up. Until 1845 she had prominent parts in all the plays, new and old, at the Théâtre Français, when suddenly at the height of her success, she left Paris and went to London, marrying the dramatic author, J.F. Arnould (d. 1854), a man much older than herself. The Comédie Française, after having tried in vain to bring her back, brought a suit against her, and obtained heavy damages. In the meantime Madame Arnould-Plessy accepted an engagement at the French theatre at St Petersburg, where she played for nine years. In 1855 she returned to Paris and was re-admitted to the Comédie Française, as pensionnaire with an engagement for eight years. This second part of her career was even more brilliant than the first. She revived some of her old rôles, but began to abandon the jeunes premières for 640 the “lead,” in which she had a success unequalled since the retirement of Mlle Mars. Her later triumphs were especially associated with new plays by Émile Augier, Le Fils de Giboyer and Maître Guerin. Her last appearance was in Edouard Cadol’s La Grand-maman; she retired in 1876, and died in 1897.

ARNSBERG, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Westphalia, romantically situated on an eminence almost surrounded by the river Ruhr, 44 m. S.E. of Münster and 58 m. E.N.E. of Düsseldorf by rail. Pop. (1900) 8490. It is the seat of the provincial authorities, and has three churches, a court of appeal, a Roman Catholic gymnasium, which was formerly the Benedictine abbey of Weddinghausen, a library, a normal school and a chamber of commerce. Weaving, brewing and distilling are carried on, and there are manufactories of white lead, shot and paper, works for the production of railway plant, and saw-mills. Near the town are the ruins of the castle of the counts of Arnsberg, the last of whom, Gottfried, sold his countship, in 1368, to the archbishop of Cologne. The countship was incorporated by the archbishops in their duchy of Westphalia, which in 1802 was assigned to Hesse-Darmstadt and in 1815 to Prussia. The town, which had received its first charter in 1237 and later joined the Hanseatic League, became the capital of the duchy.

ARNSTADT, a town in the principality of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, Germany, on the river Gera, 11 m. S. of Erfurt, with which it is connected by rail. Pop. (1900) 14,413. There are five churches, four Protestant and one Catholic. The Evangelical Liebfrauenkirche, a Romanesque building (mainly 12th-century), has two octagonal towers and a 10th-century porch. The palace contains collections of pictures and porcelain, and attached to it is a magnificent tower, all that remains of the castle built in 1560. The town hall dates from 1561. The industries of Arnstadt include iron and other metal founding, the manufacture of leather, cloth, tobacco, weighing-machines, paper, playing-cards, chairs, gloves, shoes, iron safes, and beer, and market-gardening and trade in grain and wood are carried on. There are copper-mines in the neighbourhood, as well as tepid saline springs, the waters of which are used for bathing, and are much frequented in summer. Arnstadt dates back to the 8th century. It was bought in 1306 by the counts of Schwarzburg, who lived here till 1716.

ARNSWALDE, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Prussia, in a marshy district between four lakes, 20 m. S.W. of Stargard and on the main line between that place and Posen. Besides the Gothic church there are no noteworthy public buildings. Its industries include iron founding, machinery, and manufactures of cloth, matches and starch. Pop. (1900) 8665.

ARNULF (c. 850-899), Roman emperor, illegitimate son of Carloman, king of Bavaria and Italy, was made margrave of Carinthia about 876, and on his father’s death in 880 his dignity and possessions were confirmed by the new king of the east Franks, Louis III. The failure of legitimate male issue of the later Carolingians gave Arnulf a more important position than otherwise he would have occupied; but he did homage to the emperor Charles the Fat in 882, and spent the next few years in constant warfare with the Slavs and the Northmen. In 887, however, Arnulf identified himself with the disgust felt by the Bavarians and others at the incapacity of Charles the Fat. Gathering a large army, he marched to Tribur; Charles abdicated and the Germans recognized Arnulf as their king, a proceeding which L. von Ranke describes as “the first independent action of the German secular world.” Arnulf’s real authority did not extend far beyond the confines of Bavaria, and he contented himself with a nominal recognition of his supremacy by the kings who sprang up in various parts of the Empire. Having made peace with the Moravians, he gained a great and splendid victory over the Northmen near Louvain in October 891, and in spite of some opposition succeeded in establishing his illegitimate son, Zwentibold, as king of the district afterwards called Lorraine. Invited by Pope Formosus to deliver him from the power of Guido III., duke of Spoleto, who had been crowned emperor, Arnulf went to Italy in 894, but after storming Bergamo and receiving the homage of some of the nobles at Pavia, he was compelled by desertions from his army to return. The restoration of peace with the Moravians and the death of Guido prepared the way for a more successful expedition in 895 when Rome was stormed by his troops; and Arnulf was crowned emperor by Formosus in February 896. He then set out to establish his authority in Spoleto, but on the way was seized with paralysis. He returned to Bavaria, where he died on the 8th of December 899, and was buried at Regensburg. He left, by his wife Ota, a son Louis surnamed the Child. Arnulf possessed the qualities of a soldier, and was a loyal supporter of the church.

AROIDEAE (Arum family), a large and wide-spread botanical order of Monocotyledons containing about 1000 species in 105 genera. It is generally distributed in temperate and tropical regions, but especially developed in warm countries. The common British representative of the order, Arum maculatum (cuckoo-pint, lords and ladies, or wake robin), gives a meagre idea of its development. The plants are generally herbaceous, often, however, reaching a gigantic size, but are sometimes shrubby, as in Pothos, a genus of shrubby climbing plants, chiefly Malayan. Monstera is a tropical American genus of climbing shrubs, with large often much-perforated leaves; the fruiting spikes of a Mexican species, M. deliciosa, are eaten. The roots of the climbing species are of interest in their adaptation 641 to the mode of life of the plant. For instance, some species of Philodendron have a growth like that of ivy, with feeding roots penetrating the soil and clasping roots which fix the plant to its support. In other species of the genus the seed germinates on a branch, and the seedling produces clasping roots, and roots which grow downwards hanging like stout cords, and ultimately reaching the ground. The leaves, which show great variety in size and form, are generally broad and net-veined, but in sweet-flag (Acorus Calamus) are long and narrow with parallel veins. In Arum the blade is simple, as also in the so-called arum-lily (Richardia), a South African species common in Britain as a greenhouse plant, and in Caladium, a tropical South American genus, and Alocasia (tropical Asia), species of which are favourite warm-greenhouse plants on account of their variegated leaves. In other genera the leaves are much divided and sometimes very large; those of Dracontium (tropical America) may be 15 ft. high, with a long stem-like stalk and a much-branched spreading blade. The East Indian genus Amorphophallus has a similar habit. A good series of tropical aroids is to be seen in the aroid house at Kew. The so-called water cabbage (Pistia Stratiotes) is a floating plant widely distributed in the tropics, and consisting of rosettes of broadish leaves several inches across and a tuft of roots hanging in the water.

The small flowers are densely crowded on thick fleshy spikes, which are associated with, and often more or less enveloped by, a large leaf (bract), the so-called spathe, which, as in cuckoo-pint, where it is green in colour, Richardia, where it is white, creamy or yellow, Anthurium, where it is a brilliant scarlet, is often the most striking feature of the plant. The details of the structure of the flower show a wide variation; the flowers are often extremely simple, sometimes as in Arum, reduced to a single stamen or pistil. The fruit is a berry—the scarlet berries of the cuckoo-pint are familiar objects in the hedges in late summer. The plants generally contain an acrid poisonous juice. The underground stems (rhizomes or tubers) are rich in starch; from that of Arum maculatum Portland arrowroot was formerly extensively prepared by pounding with water and then straining; the starch was deposited from the strained liquid.

The order is represented in Britain by Arum maculatum, a low herbaceous plant common in woods and hedgerows in England, but probably not wild in Scotland. It grows from a whitish root-stock which sends up in the spring a few long-stalked, arrow-shaped leaves of a polished green, often marked with dark blotches. These are followed by the inflorescence, a fleshy spadix bearing in the lower part numerous closely crowded simple unisexual flowers and continued above into a purplish or yellowish appendage; the spadix is enveloped by a leafy spathe, constricted in the lower part to form a chamber, in which are the flowers. The mouth of this chamber is protected by a ring of hairs pointing downwards, which allow the entrance but prevent the escape of small flies; after fertilization of the pistils the hairs wither. The insects visit the plant in large numbers, attracted by the foetid smell, and act as carriers of the pollen from one spathe to another. As the fruit ripens the spathe withers, and the brilliant red berries are exposed.

The sweet-flag Acorus Calamus (q.v.), which occurs apparently wild in England in ditches, ponds, &c., is supposed to have been introduced.

AROLSEN, a town of Germany, capital of the principality of Waldeck, 25 m. N.W. of Cassel, with which it is connected by rail via Warburg. Pop. 3000. It lies in a pleasant undulating country at an elevation of 900 ft. above the sea. The Evangelical parish church contains some fine statues by Christian Rauch, and the palace (built 1710-1720), in addition to a valuable library of 30,000 vols., a collection of coins and pictures, among the latter several by Angelica Kauffmann. Arolsen is the birthplace of the sculptor C. Rauch and of the painters Wilhelm and Friedrich Kaulbach.

ARONA, a town of Piedmont, Italy, in the province of Novara, on the W. bank of Lake Maggiore, 3 m. from its S. extremity, 23 m. N. of Novara, and 42 m. N.W. of Milan by rail. Pop. (1901) 4700. It is a railway centre of some importance on the Simplon line, and is also the southern terminus of the steamers which ply on Lake Maggiore. The church of S. Maria contains a fine altar-piece by Gaudenzio Ferrari. On a hill to the north of the town stands a colossal bronze statue of S. Carlo Borromeo (born here in 1538), erected in 1697. The pedestal, of red granite, is 42 ft. high, and the statue 70 ft. high; the latter is hollow, and can be ascended from within.

ARPEGGIO (from Ital. arpeggiare, to play upon the harp), in music, the notes of a chord, played in rapid succession as on a harp, and not together.

ARPI (Gr. Ἀργόριππα), an ancient city of Apulia, 20 m. W. of the sea coast, and 5 m. N. of the modern Foggia. The legend attributes its foundation to Diomedes, and the figure of a horse, which appears on its coins, shows the importance of horse-breeding in early times in the district. Its territory extended to the sea, and Strabo says that from the extent of the city walls one could gather that it had once been one of the greatest cities of Italy. As a protection against the Samnites Arpi became an ally of Rome, and remained faithful until after the battle of Cannae, but Fabius captured it in 213 B.C., and it never recovered its former importance. It lay on a by-road from Luceria to Sipontum. No Roman inscriptions have, indeed, been found here, and remains of antiquity are scanty. Foggia is its medieval representative.

ARPINO (anc. Arpinum), a town of Campania, Italy, in the province of Caserta, 1475 ft. above sea-level; 12 m. by rail N.W. of Roccasecca, a station on the railway from Naples to Rome. Pop. (1901) 10,607. Arpino occupies the lower part of the site of the ancient Volscian town of Arpinum, which was finally taken from the Samnites by the Romans in 305 B.C. It became a civitas sine suffragio, but received full privileges (civitas cum suffragio) in 188 B.C. with Formiae and Fundi; it was governed as a praefectura until the Social War, and then became a municipium. The ancient polygonal walls, which are still finely preserved, are among the best in Italy. They are built of blocks of pudding-stone, originally well jointed, but now much weathered. They stand free in places to a height of 11 ft., and are about 7 ft. wide at the top. A single line of wall, with medieval round towers at intervals, runs on the north side from the present town to Civitavecchia (2055 ft.), on the site of the ancient citadel. Here is the Porta dell’ Arco, a gate of the old wall, with an aperture 15 ft. high, formed by the gradual inclination of the two sides towards one another. Below Arpino, in the valley of the Liris, between the two arms of its tributary the Fibrenus, and ¾ m. north of Isola del Liri, lies the church of S. Domenico, which marks the site of the villa in which Cicero was born and frequently resided. Near it is an ancient bridge, of a road which crossed the Liris to Cereatae (modern Casamari). The painter Giuseppe Cesari (1560-1640), more often known as the Cavaliere d’ Arpino, was also born here.

ARQUÀ PETRARCA, a village of Venetia, Italy, in the province of Padua, 3 m. to the S.W. of Battaglia. Pop. (1901) 1573. It is chiefly famous as the place where Petrarch lived his last few years and died in 1374. His house still exists, and his tomb, a sarcophagus supported by four short columns of red marble, stands in front of the church. Near Arquà, on the banks of the small Lago della Costa, is the site of a prehistoric lake village, excavations in which have produced interesting results.

ARQUEBUS (also called harquebus, hackbut, &c.), a firearm of the 16th century, the immediate predecessor of the musket. The word itself is certainly to be derived from the German Hakenbühse (mod. Hakenbüchse, cf. Eng. hackbut and hackbush), “hook gun.” The “hook” is often supposed to refer to the bent shape of the butt, which differentiated it from the straight-stocked hand gun, but it has also been suggested that the original arquebus had a metal hook near the muzzle, which was used to grip the wall (or other fixed object) so as to steady the aim and take up the force of recoil, that from this 642 the name Hakenbühse spread till it became the generic name for small arms, and that the original form of the weapon then took the name of arquebus à croc. The French form arquebuse and Italian arcobugio, archibugio, often and wrongly supposed to indicate the hackbut’s affinity with the crossbow (“hollow bow” or “mouthed bow”), are popular corruptions, the Italian being apparently the earlier of the two and supplanting the first and purest French form haquebut. Previous to the French wars in Italy, hand-gun men and even arbalisters seem to have been called arquebusiers, but in the course of these wars the arquebus or hackbut came into prominence as a distinct type of weapon. The Spanish arquebusiers, who used it with the greatest effect in the Italian wars, notably at Bicocca (1522) and Pavia (1525), are the originators of modern infantry fire action. Filippo Strozzi made many improvements in the arquebus about 1530, and his weapons were effective up to four and five hundred paces. He also standardized the calibres of the arquebuses of the French army, and from this characteristic feature of the improved weapon arose the English term “caliver.” In the latter part of the 16th century (c. 1570) the arquebus began to be displaced by the musket.

ARQUES-LA-BATAILLE, a village of France, in the department of Seine-Inférieure, 4 m. S.E. of Dieppe by the Western railway. Pop. (1906) 1250. Arques is situated near the confluence of the rivers Varenne and Bethune; the forest of Arques stretches to the north-east. The interest of the place centres in the castle dominating the town, which was built in the 11th century by William of Arques; his nephew, William the Conqueror, regarding it as a menace to his own power, besieged and occupied it. After frequently changing hands, it came into the possession of the English, who were expelled in 1449 after an occupation of thirty years. In 1589 its cannon decided the battle of Arques in favour of Henry IV. Since 1869 the castle has been state property. The first line of fortification was the work of Francis I.; the second line and the donjon date back to the 11th century. The church of Arques, a building of the 16th century, preserves a fine stone rood screen, statuary, stained glass and other relics of the Renaissance period.

ARRACK, Rack or Rak, a generic name applied to a variety of spirituous liquors distilled in the Far East. According to some authorities the word is derived from the Arabic arak (perspiration), but according to others (see Morewood’s History of Inebriating Liquors, 1834, p. 140) it is derived from the areca-nut, a material from which a variety of arrack was long manufactured, and is of Indian origin. The liquor to which this or a similar name is applied is (or was, since the introduction of European spirits and methods of manufacture is gradually causing the native spirit industries on the old lines to decay) manufactured in India, Ceylon, Siam, Java, Batavia, China, Corea, &c., and its manufacture still constitutes a considerable industry. The term arrack as designating a distilled liquor does not, however, appear to have been confined to the Far East, as, in Timkowski’s Travels, it is stated that a spirit distilled from koumiss (q.v.) by the Tatars, Mongols and presumably the Caucasian races generally, is called arrack, araka or ariki. In Ceylon arrack is distilled chiefly from palm toddy, which is the fermented juice drawn from the unexpanded flower-spathes of various palms, such as the Palmyra palm (Borassus flabelliformis) and the cocoa palm (Cocos nucifera). At the beginning of the 19th century the arrack industry of Ceylon was of considerable dimensions, whole woods being set apart for no other purpose than that of procuring toddy, and the distillation of the spirit took place at every village round the coast. The land rents in 1831 included a sum of £35,573 on the cocoa-nut trees, and the duties on the manufacture and retail of the spirit amounted to over £30,000. On the Indian continent arrack is made from palm toddy, rice and the refuse of the sugar refineries, but mainly from the flowers of the muohwa or mahua tree (Bassia latifolia). The mahua flowers are very rich in sugar, and may, according to H.H. Mann, contain as much as 58% of fermentable sugar, calculated on the total solids. Even at the present day the process of manufacture is very primitive, the fermentation as a rule being carried on in so concentrated a liquid that complete fermentation rarely takes place. According to Mann, the total sugar in the liquor ready for fermentation may reach 20%. The ferment employed (it is so impure that it can scarcely be called yeast) is obtained from a previous fermentation, and, as the latter is never vigorous, it is not surprising that the resulting spirit contains, compared with the more scientifically prepared European spirits, a very high proportion of by-products (acid, fusel oil, &c.). The injurious nature of these native spirits has long been known and has been frequently set down to the admixture of drugs, such as hemp (ganga), but a recent investigation of this question appears to show that this is not generally the case. The chemical constitution of these liquors alone affords sufficient proof of their inferior and probably injurious character.

ARRAH, a town of British India, headquarters of Shahabad district, in the Patna division of Bengal, situated on a navigable canal connecting the river Sone with the Ganges. It is a station on the East Indian railway, 368 m. from Calcutta. In 1901 the population was 40,170. Arrah is famous for an incident in the Mutiny, when a dozen Englishmen, with 50 Sikhs, defended an ordinary house against 2000 Sepoys and a multitude of armed insurgents, perhaps four times that number. A British regiment, despatched to their assistance from Dinapur, was disastrously repulsed; but they were ultimately relieved, after eight days’ continuous fighting, by a small force under Major (afterwards Sir Vincent) Eyre.

ARRAIGNMENT (from Lat. ad, to, and rationare, to reason, call to account), a law term, properly denoting the calling of a person to answer in form of law upon an indictment. After a true bill has been found against a prisoner by the grand jury, he is called by name to the bar, the indictment is read over to him, and he is asked whether he be guilty or not of the offence charged. This is the arraignment. Formerly, it was usual to require the prisoner to hold up his hand, in order to identify him the more completely, but this practice is now obsolete, as well as that of asking him how he will be tried. His plea in answer to the charge is then entered, or a plea of not guilty is entered for him if he stands mute of malice and refuses to plead, If a person is mute by the visitation of God (i.e. deaf and dumb), it will be no bar to an arraignment if intelligence can be conveyed to him by signs or symbols. If he pleads guilty, sentence may be passed forthwith; if he pleads not guilty, he is then given in charge to a jury of twelve men to inquire into the truth of the indictment. He may also plead in abatement, or to the jurisdiction, or demur on a point of law. Several defendants, except those entitled to the privilege of peerage, charged on the same indictment, are arraigned together.

In Scots law the term for arraignment is calling the diet.

The Clerk of Arraigns is a subordinate officer attached to assize courts and to the Old Bailey. He is appointed by the clerk of assize (see Assize) and acts as his deputy. He assists at the arraignment of prisoners, and puts the formal questions to the jury when delivering their verdict.

ARRAN, EARLS OF. The extinct Scottish title of the earls of Arran (not to be confused with the modern Irish earls of Arran—from the Arran or Aran Islands, Galway—a title created in 1762) was borne by some famous characters in Scottish history. Except the first earl, Thomas Boyd (see Arran), and James Stewart, all the holders of this title were members of the Hamilton family.

James Hamilton, 1st earl of Arran of the new creation (c. 1475-1529), son of James, 1st Lord Hamilton, and of Mary Stewart, daughter of James II. of Scotland, was born about 1475, and succeeded in 1479 to his father’s titles and estates. In 1489 he was made sheriff of Lanark, was appointed a privy councillor to James IV., and in 1503 negotiated in England the marriage between the king and Margaret Tudor. Hamilton excelled in the knightly exercises of the day, and the same year on the 11th of August, after distinguishing himself in a famous tournament, he was created earl and justiciary of Arran. In 643 1504 as lieutenant-general of the realm he was employed in reducing the Hebrides, and about the same time in an expedition with 10,000 men in aid of John, king of Denmark. In 1507 he was sent ambassador to France, and on his return through England was seized and imprisoned by Henry VII. After the accession of Henry VIII., Arran, in 1509, signed the treaty of peace between the two countries, and later, when hostilities began, was given command of a great fleet equipped for the aid of France in 1513. The expedition proved a failure, Arran wasting time by a useless attack on Carrickfergus, lingering for months on the Scottish coast, and returning with a mere remnant of his fleet, the larger ships having probably been purchased by the French government. During his absence the battle of Flodden had been lost, and Arran found his rival Angus, who enjoyed Henry’s support, married to the queen dowager and in control of the government. Arran naturally turned to the French party and supported the regency of the duke of Albany. Later, however, becoming impatient of the latter’s monopoly of power, he entered into various plots against him, and on Albany’s departure in 1517 he was chosen president of the council of regency and provost of Edinburgh. The same year he led an expedition to the border to punish the murderers of the French knight La Bastie. In September, however, after a temporary absence with the young king, the gates of Edinburgh were shut against him by the Douglases, and on the 30th of April 1520 the fierce fight of “Cleanse the Causeway” took place in the streets between the two factions, in which the Hamiltons were worsted. The quarrel, however, between Angus and his wife, the queen-mother, with whom Arran now allied himself, gave the latter another opportunity of regaining power, which he held from 1522, after Albany’s return to France, till 1524, when he was forced to include Angus in the government. In 1526, on the refusal of the latter to give up his control of the king on the expiry of his term of office, Arran took up arms, but retreated before Angus’s forces, and having made terms with him, supported him in his close custody of the king, in September defeating the earl of Lennox, who was marching to Edinburgh to liberate James. On the proscription of Angus and the Douglases, Arran joined the king at Stirling. He died in 1529. His eldest son James succeeded him.

James Hamilton, 2nd earl of Arran and duke of Châtelherault (c. 1515-1575), accompanied James V. in 1536 to France, and on the latter’s death in 1542 was, in consequence of his position as next successor to the throne after the infant Mary, proclaimed protector of the realm and heir-presumptive of the crown, in 1543. He was a zealous supporter of the reformation, authorized the translation and reading of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, and at first supported the English policy in opposition to Cardinal Beaton, whom he arrested on the 27th of January 1543, arranging the treaty with England and the marriage of Mary with Prince Edward in July, and being offered by Henry the hand of the princess Elizabeth for his son. But on the 3rd of September he suddenly joined the French party, met Beaton at Stirling, and abjured his religion for Roman Catholicism. On the 13th of January 1544, with Angus, Lennox and others, he signed a bond repudiating the English alliance. In 1544 an attempt was made to transfer the regency from him to Mary of Lorraine, but Arran fortified Edinburgh and her forces retired; in March 1545 a truce was arranged by which each had a share in the government. Meanwhile, immediately on the repudiation of the treaty, war had broken out with England, and Arran was unable either to maintain order within the realm or defend it from outside aggression, the Scots being defeated at Pinkie on the 10th of September 1547. He reluctantly agreed in July 1548 to the marriage of the dauphin with Mary, whom he had designed for his son, to the appeal for French aid, and to the removal of Mary for security to France, and on the 5th of February 1549 was created duke of Châtelherault in Poitou, his eldest son James being henceforth commonly styled earl of Arran. In June 1548 he had also been made a knight of the order of St Michael in France. On the 12th of April 1554 he abdicated in favour of the queen-mother, whose government he supported till after the capture of Edinburgh in October 1559 by the lords of the congregation, when he declared himself on their side and took the Covenant. The same month he was one of the council of the Protestant lords, joined them in suspending Mary of Lorraine from the regency, and was made provisionally one of the governors of the kingdom. In order to discredit him with the English government a letter was forged by his enemies, in which Arran declared his allegiance to Francis II., but the plot was exposed. On the 27th of February 1560 he agreed to the treaty of Berwick with Elizabeth, which placed Scotland under her protection. The death the same year of Francis II. renewed his hopes of a union between his son and Mary, but disappointment drove him into an attitude of hostility to the court. In 1562 he was accused by his son, probably already insane, of plots against Mary’s person, and he was obliged to give up Dumbarton Castle. Lennox claimed precedence over Arran in the succession to the throne, on the plea of the latter’s supposed illegitimacy, and his restoration to favour in 1564, together with the project of Mary’s marriage with Darnley, still further embittered Arran; he refused to appear at court, was declared a traitor, and fled to England, where on his consent to go into exile for five years he received a pardon from Mary. In 1566 he went to France, where he made vain attempts to regain his confiscated duchy. After the murder of Darnley in 1567 he was nominated by Mary on her abdication one of the regents, and he returned to Scotland in 1569 as a strong supporter of her cause. In March in an assembly of nobles called by Murray, he acknowledged James as king, but on the 5th of April he was arrested for not fulfilling the compact, and continued in confinement till April 1570. After Murray’s assassination in January 1570, the regency in July was given to Lennox, and in June 1571 Arran assembled a parliament, when it was declared that Mary’s abdication was obtained by fear, and the king’s coronation was annulled. On the 28th of August he was declared a traitor and “forfeited,” but he continued to support Mary’s hopeless cause and to appeal for help to France and Spain, in spite of the pillage of his houses and estates, till February 1573, when he acknowledged James’s authority and laid down his arms. He died on the 22nd of January 1575. He was by general consent a weak, fickle man, whose birth alone called him to high office. He married Margaret, daughter of James Douglas, 3rd earl of Morton, and had, besides several daughters, four sons: James, who succeeded him as 3rd earl of Arran, John, 1st marquess of Hamilton, David, and Claud, Lord Paisley, ancestor of the dukes of Abercorn.

James Hamilton, 3rd earl (c. 1537-1609), was styled earl of Arran after the creation of his father as duke of Châtelherault in 1549; the latter title did not descend to him, having been resumed by the French crown. His father’s ambition destined him for the hand of Mary queen of Scots, and his union with the princess Elizabeth was proposed by Henry VIII. as the price of his father’s adherence to the English interest. He was early involved in the political troubles in which Scotland was then immersed. In 1546 he was seized as a hostage at St Andrews by the murderers of Cardinal Beaton and released in 1547. In 1550 he went to France, was given the command of the Scots guards, and in 1557 distinguished himself in the defence of St Quentin. He became a strong adherent of the reformed doctrine. His arrest was ordered by Henry II. in 1559, Mary (probably in consequence of his projected union with Elizabeth which would have raised the Hamiltons higher than the Stuarts) declaring her wish that he should be “used as an arrant traitor.” He, however, escaped to Geneva and then to England, and had an interview with Elizabeth in August. He returned to Scotland in September, where he supported his father’s adherence to the lords of the Congregation against Mary of Lorraine, upheld the alliance with Elizabeth, and became one of the leaders of the Protestant party in the subsequent fighting, in particular organizing, together with Lord James Stuart (afterwards earl of Murray), in 1560, a stubborn resistance to the French at Dysart, and saving Fife. In November 1559 he had declined Bothwell’s challenge to single combat. Subsequently he signed the treaty of Berwick, became one of the lords of the Congregation, and was appointed a visitor 644 for the destruction of the religious houses. The same year proposals were again made for his marriage with Elizabeth, which were rejected by the latter in 1561; and subsequently after the death of Francis II. (in December 1560), he became, with the strong support of the Protestants and Hamiltons, a suitor for Mary, also without success. He was chosen a member of her council on her arrival in Scotland in 1561, but took up a hostile attitude to the court in consequence of the practice of the Roman Catholic religion. He now showed marked signs of insanity, and was confined in Edinburgh Castle, where he remained till May 1566. He had then lost the power of speech, and from 1568 he lived in retirement with his mother at Craignethan Castle, while his estates were administered by his brother John, afterwards 1st marquess of Hamilton. In 1579, at the time of the fresh prosecution of the Hamiltons, when the helpless Arran was also included in the attainder of his brothers and his titles forfeited, the castle was besieged on the pretence of delivering him from unlawful confinement, and Arran and his mother were brought to Linlithgow, while the charge of his estates was taken over by the government. In 1580 James Stewart (see below) was appointed his guardian, and in 1581 acquired the earldom; but his title and estates were restored after Stewart’s disgrace in 1586, when the forfeiture was repealed. Arran died unmarried in March 1609, the title devolving on his nephew James, 2nd marquess of Hamilton.

James Stewart (d. 1595), the rival earl of Arran above referred to, was the son of Andrew Stewart, 2nd Lord Ochiltree. He served in his youth with the Dutch forces in Holland against the Spanish, and returned to Scotland in 1579. He immediately became a favourite of the young king, and in 1580 was made gentleman of the bedchamber and tutor of his cousin, the 3rd earl of Arran. The same year he was the principal accuser of the earl of Morton, and in 1581 was rewarded for having accomplished the latter’s destruction by being appointed a member of the privy council, and by the grant the same year, to the prejudice of his ward, of the earldom of Arran and the Hamilton estates, on the pretence that the children of his grandmother’s father, the 1st earl of Arran, by his third wife, from whom sprang the succeeding earls of Arran, were illegitimate. He claimed the position of second person in the kingdom as nearest to the king by descent. The same year he married Elizabeth, daughter of John Stewart, earl of Atholl, and wife of the earl of March, after both had been compelled to undergo the discipline of the kirk on account of previous illicit intercourse. He became the rival of Lennox for the chief power in the kingdom, but both were deprived of office by the raid of Ruthven on the 22nd of August 1582, and Arran was imprisoned till September under the charge of the earl of Gowrie. In 1583, however, he assembled a force of 12,000 men against the new government; the Protestant lords escaped over the border, and Arran, returning to power, was made governor of Stirling Castle and in 1584 lord chancellor. The same year Gowrie was captured through Arran’s treachery and executed after the failure of the plot of the Protestant lords against the latter’s government. He now obtained the governorship of Edinburgh Castle and was made provost of the city and lieutenant-general of the king’s forces. Arran induced the English government to refrain from aiding the banished lords, and further secured his power by the forfeitures of his opponents. His tyranny and insolence, however, stirred up a multitude of enemies and caused his rapid fall from power. His agent in England, Patrick, Master of Gray, was secretly conspiring against him at Elizabeth’s court. On account of the murder of Lord Russell on the border in July 1585, of which he was accused by Elizabeth, he was imprisoned at the castle of St Andrews, and subsequently the banished lords with Elizabeth’s support entered Scotland, seized the government and proclaimed Arran a traitor. He fled in November, and from this time his movements are furtive and uncertain. In 1586 he was ordered to leave the country, but it is doubtful whether he ever quitted Scotland. He contrived secretly to maintain friendly communications with James, and in 1592 returned to Edinburgh, and endeavoured unsuccessfully to get reinstated in the court and kirk. Subsequently he is reported as making a voyage to Spain, probably in connexion with James’s intrigues with that country. His unscrupulous and adventurous career was finally terminated towards the close of 1595 by his assassination near Symontown in Lanarkshire at the hands of Sir James Douglas (nephew of his victim the earl of Morton), who carried his head in triumph on the point of a spear through the country, while his body was left a prey to the dogs and swine. He had three sons, the eldest of whom became Lord Ochiltree.

ARRAN, the largest island of the county of Bute, Scotland, at the mouth of the Firth of Clyde. Its greatest length, from the Cock of Arran to Bennan Head, is about 20 m., and the greatest breadth—from Drumadoon Point to King’s Cross Point—is 11 m. Its area is 105,814 acres or 165 sq. m. In 1891 its population was 4824, in 1901, 4819 (or 29 persons to the sq. m.). In 1901 there were 1900 persons who spoke English and Gaelic and nine Gaelic only. There is daily winter communication with Brodick and Lamlash by steamer from Ardrossan, and in summer by many steamers which call not only at these piers, but at Corrie, Whiting Bay and Loch Ranza.

The chief mountains are in the north. The highest is Goatfell (2866 ft., the name said to be a corruption of the Gaelic Goadh Bhein, “mountain of the winds”). Others are Caistel Abhail (2735 ft., “peaks of the castles”), Beinn Tarsuinn (2706 ft.), Cir Mhor (2618 ft.) and Beinn Nuis (2597 ft.). In the south Tighvein (1497 ft.) and Cnoc Dubh (1385 ft.) are the most important. Owing to the mountainous character of the island, glens are numerous. Glen Rosa and Glen Sannox are remarkable for their wild beauty, and among others are Iorsa, Catacol, Chalmadale, Cloy, Shant, Shurig, Tuie, Clachan, Monamore, Ashdale (with two cascades) and Scorrodale. Excepting Loch Tanna, the inland lakes are small. Loch Ranza, an arm of the sea, is one of the most beautiful in Scotland. The streams, or “waters” as they are called, are nearly all hill burns, affording good fishing.

The oldest rocks, consisting of slate, mica-schists and grits, which have been correlated with the metamorphic series of the eastern Highlands, form an incomplete ring round the granite in the north of the island and occupy the whole of the west coast from Loch Ranza south to Dougrie. On the east side in North Glen Sannox Burn, they are associated with cherts, grits and dark schists with pillowy lavas, tuffs and agglomerates which, on lithological grounds, have been regarded as probably of the same age as the Arenig cherts and volcanic rocks in the south of Scotland. The Lower Old Red Sandstone strata are separated from the foregoing series by a fault and forma curving belt extending from Corloch on the east coast south by Brodick Castle to Dougrie on the west shore. Consisting of red sandstones, mudstones and conglomerates, they are inclined at high angles usually away from the granite massif and the encircling metamorphic rocks. They are associated with a thin band of lava visible on the west side of the island near Auchencar and traceable inland to Garbh Thorr. The Upper Old Red Sandstone, composed of red sandstone and conglomerates, is only sparingly developed. The strata occur on the east shore between the Fallen Rocks and Corrie, and they appear along a narrow strip to the east and south of the lower division of the system, between Sannox Bay and Dougrie. On the north side of North Glen Sannox they rest unconformably on the Lower Old Red rocks. Contemporaneous lavas, highly decomposed, are intercalated with this division on the north side of North Glen Sannox where the band is highly faulted. The Carboniferous rocks of Arran include representatives of the Calciferous Sandstone, the three subdivisions of the Carboniferous Limestone series, and to a small extent the Coal Measures, and are confined to the north part of the island. They appear on the east coast between the Fallen Rocks and the Cock of Arran, where they form a strip about a quarter of a mile broad, bounded on the west by a fault. Here there is an ascending sequence from the Calciferous Sandstone, through the Carboniferous Limestone with thin coals formerly worked, to the Coal Measures, the strata being inclined at high angles to the north. On the south side of a well-marked 645 anticline in the Upper Old Red Sandstone at North Sannox, the Carboniferous strata reappear on the coast with a south dip showing a similar ascending sequence for about half a mile. The lower limestones are well seen at Corrie, but the thin coals are not there represented. From Corrie they can be traced southwards and inland to near the head of Ben Lister Glen. The small development of Upper Carboniferous strata, visible on the shore south of Corrie and in Ben Lister Glen, consists of sandstones, red and mottled clays and purple shales, which yield plant-remains of Upper Carboniferous facies. These may represent partly the Millstone Grit and partly the Coal Measures. Contemporaneous volcanic rocks, belonging to three stages of the Carboniferous formation, occur in Arran. The lowest group is on the horizon of the Calciferous Sandstone series, being visible at Corrie where it underlies the Corrie limestone, and is traceable southwards beyond Brodick. The second is represented by a thin lava, associated with the Upper Limestone group of the Carboniferous Limestone series, and the highest is found in Ben Lister Glen intercalated with the Upper Carboniferous strata, and may be the equivalent of the volcanic series which, in Ayrshire, occupies the position of the Millstone Grit. The Triassic rocks are arranged in two groups, a lower, composed of conglomerates and sandstones, and an upper one consisting of red and mottled shales and marls with thin sandstones and nodular limestones. In the extreme north at the Cock of Arran, there is a small development of these beds; they also occupy the whole of the east coast south of Corrie, and they spread over the south part of the island south of a line between Brodick Bay and Machrie Bay on the west. At Corrie and the Cock of Arran they rest on Upper Carboniferous strata; in Ben Lister Glen, on the lower limestone group of the Carboniferous Limestone series; and on the west coast they repose on the Old Red Sandstone. There is, therefore, a clear discordance between the Trias and all older strata in Arran. The former extension of Rhaetic, Liassic and Cretaceous formations in the island is indicated by the presence of fragments of these strata in a large volcanic vent on the plateau, on the south side of the road leading from Brodick to Shiskine. The fossils from the Rhaetic beds belong to the Avicula contorta zone, those from the Lias to the Ammonites angulatus zone, while the blocks of limestone with chert contain Inoceramus, Cretaceous foraminifera and other organisms. The materials yielding these fossils are embedded in a course volcanic agglomerate which gives rise to crags and is pierced by acid and basic igneous rocks. One of the striking features in the geology of Arran is the remarkable series of intrusive igneous rocks of Tertiary age which occupy nearly one-half of the area and form the wildest and grandest scenery in the island. Of these the most important is the great oval mass of granite in the North, composed of two varieties; one, coarse-grained and older, forms the outside rim, while the fine-grained and newer type occurs in the interior. Another granite area appears on the south side of the road between Brodick and Shiskine, where it is associated with granophyre and quartz-diorite and traverses the volcanic vent of post-Cretaceous or Tertiary age already described. In the south of the island there are sills and dykes of felsite, quartz-porphyry, rhyolite, trachyte and pitchstone. The felsite sheets are well represented in Holy Island. It is worthy of note that the dykes and sheets of felsite are seldom pierced by the basalt dykes and are probably about the most recent of the intrusive rocks. The best example of the basic sills forms the Clauchland Hills and runs out to sea at Clauchland Point. Finally the basic dykes of dolerite, basalt and augite-andesite are abundant and traverse the various sedimentary formations and the granite.

The chief crops are oats and potatoes. Cattle and sheep are raised in considerable numbers. The game, which is abundant, consisting of blackcock and grouse, is strictly preserved. A few red deer still occur in the wilder hilly district. The fisheries are of some value. Loch Ranza being an important station.

Standing stones, cairns and other memorials of a remote antiquity occur near Tormore, on Machrie Bay, Lamlash, and other places. The Norse raiders found a home in Arran for a long period until the defeat of Haakon V. at Largs (1263) compelled them to retire. The chief name in the island’s history is that of Robert Bruce, who found shelter in the King’s Caves on the western coast. One was reputed to be his kitchen, another his cellar, a third his stable, while the hill above was styled the King’s Hill. From a point still known as King’s Cross he crossed over to Carrick, in answer to the signal which warned him that the moment for the supreme effort for his country was come. In Glen Cloy the ruins of a fort bear the name of Bruce’s Castle, in which his men lay concealed, and on the southern arm of Loch Ranza stands a picturesque ruined castle which is said to have been his hunting-seat. Kildonan Castle, near the south-easternmost point, is a fine ruin of the 14th century, once a royal stronghold. The island gave the title of earl to Thomas Boyd, who married the elder sister of James III., a step so unpopular with his peers that he had to fly the country, and the title soon afterwards passed to the Hamiltons. Brodick Castle, the ancestral seat of the dukes of Hamilton, is a splendid mansion on the northern shore of Brodick Bay.

Brodick is the chief village in Arran, but most of the dwelling-houses have been built at Invercloy, close to the pier. Three m. south (by road) is Lamlash, on a fine bay so completely sheltered by Holy Island as to form an excellent harbour for ships of all sizes. Four m. to the north lies the village of Corrie which takes its name from a rugged hollow in the hill of Am Binnein (2172 ft.) which overshadows it. Daniel Macmillan (1813-1857), the founder of the publishing firm of Macmillan & Co., was a native of Corrie.

About a mile and a half east of Lamlash village lies Holy Island, which forms a natural breakwater to the bay. It is 1¾ m. long, nearly ¾ m. wide, and its finely-marked basaltic cone rises to a height of 1030 ft. The island takes its name from the fact that St Molios, a disciple of St Columba, founded a church near the north-western point. In the saint’s cave on the shore may be seen the rocky shelf on which he made his bed, but his remains were interred in the hamlet of Clachan, some 2 m. from Blackwaterfoot. Off the south-eastern coast, ¾ m. from Port Dearg, lies the pear-shaped isle of Pladda, which serves as the telegraph station from which the arrival of vessels in the Clyde is notified to Glasgow and Greenock.

ARRANT (a variant of “errant,” from Lat. errare, to wander), a word at first used in its original meaning of wandering, as in “knight-errant,” thus an arrant or itinerant preacher, an arrant thief, one outlawed and wandering at large; the meaning easily passed to that of self-declared, notorious, and by the middle of the 16th century was confined, as an intensive adjective, to words of opprobrium and abuse, an arrant coward meaning thus a self-declared, downright coward.

ARRAS, a city of northern France, chief town of the department of Pas-de-Calais, 38 m. N.N.E. of Amiens on the Northern railway between that city and Lille. Pop (1906) 20,738. Arras is situated in a fertile plain on the right and southern bank of the Scarpe, at its junction with the Crinchon which skirts the town on the south and east. Of the fortifications erected by Vauban in the 17th century, only a gateway and the partially dismantled citadel, nicknamed la Belle Inutile, are left. The most interesting quarter lies in the east of the town, where the lofty houses which border the spacious squares known as the Grande and the Petite Place are in the Flemish style. They are built with their upper storeys projecting over the footway and supported on columns so as to form arcades; beneath these are deep cellars extending under the squares themselves. The celebrated hôtel de ville of the 16th century overlooks the Petite Place; its belfry, which contains a fine peal of bells, rises to a height of 240 ft. The decoration is in the richest Gothic style, and is especially admirable in the case of the windows. Of the numerous ecclesiastical buildings the cathedral, a church of the 18th century possessing some good pictures, is the most important. It occupies the site of the church of the abbey of St Vaast, the buildings of which adjoin it and contain the bishop’s palace, the ecclesiastical seminary, a museum of antiquities, paintings and sculptures, and a rich library.

Arras is the seat of a prefect and of a bishop. It has tribunals 646 of first instance and of commerce, a chamber of commerce, a branch of the Bank of France, a communal college, training colleges, and a school of military engineering. Its industrial establishments include oil-works, dye-works and breweries, and manufactories of hosiery, railings and other iron-work, and of oil-cake. For the tapestry manufacture formerly flourishing at Arras see Tapestry. It has a very important market for cereals and oleaginous grains. The trade of the town is facilitated by the canalization of the Scarpe, the basin of which forms the port.

Before the opening of the Christian era Arras was known as Nemetacum, or Nemetocenna, and was the chief town of the Atrebates, from which the word Arras is derived. Passing under the rule of the Romans, it became a place of some importance, and traces of the Roman occupation have been found. In 407 it was destroyed by the Vandals, and having been partially rebuilt, came into the hands of the Franks. Christianity was introduced by St Vedast (Vaast), who founded a bishopric at Arras about 500. This was soon transferred to Cambrai, but brought back to its original seat about 1100. As the chief town of the province of Artois, Arras passed to Baldwin I., count of Flanders, in 863, and about 880 was ravaged by the Normans. During this troubled period it retained some vestiges of its former trade, and the woollen manufacture was established here at an early date. Early in the 12th century a commune was established here, but the earliest known charter only dates from about 1180; owing to the importance of Arras, this soon became a model for many neighbouring communes. At this time the city appears to have been divided into two parts, one dependent upon the bishop, and the other upon the count. When Philip Augustus, king of France, married Isabella, niece of Philip, count of Flanders, Arras came under the rule of the French king, who confirmed its privileges in 1194. As part of Artois it came in 1237 to Robert, son of Louis VIII., king of France, and in 1384 to Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy, who promised to respect its privileges. Anxious to recover the city for France, Louis XI. placed a garrison therein after the death of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, in 1477. This was driven out by the inhabitants, and Louis then stormed Arras, razed the walls, deported the citizens, whose places were taken by Frenchmen, and changed the name to Franchise. The successor of Louis, Charles VIII., restored the city to its former name and position, and as part of the inheritance of Mary, daughter and heiress of Charles the Bold, it was contended for by the French king, and his rival, the German king, Maximilian I. The peace of Senlis in 1493 gave Arras to Maximilian, and in spite of attacks by the French, it remained under the rule of the Habsburgs until 1640. Taken in this year by the French, this capture was ratified by the peace of the Pyrenees in 1659, and henceforward it remained part of France. It suffered severely during the French Revolution, especially from Joseph Lebon, who, like the brothers Maximilien and Augustin Robespierre, was a native of the town. Owing to its position and importance, Arras has been the scene of various treaties. In 1414 the peace between the Armagnacs and the Burgundians was made here, and in 1435 a congress met here to make peace between the English and their Burgundian allies on the one side, and the French on the other, and after the English representatives had withdrawn, a treaty was signed on the 20th of September between France and Burgundy. In 1482 Louis XI. made a treaty here with the estates and towns of Flanders about the inheritance of Mary of Burgundy, wife of the German king Maximilian I.

ARRAY (from the O. Fr. areyer, Med. Lat. arredare, to get ready), an orderly arrangement, particularly the drawing up of an army in position of battle. From the 13th century onwards in England “Commissions of Array” issued from the king for the levy of military forces (see Militia). In English law the term is used for the setting in order, name by name, of the panel of a jury, which may be challenged as a whole, “to the array,” or individually, “to the polls.”

ARRENOTOKOUS, ARRENOTOKY (from Gr. ἄρρην, male, and τόκος from τίκτειν, to beget), biological terms proposed by Leuckart and Eduard von Siebold to denote those parthenogenetic females which produce male young, while “thelytokous” and “thelytoky” would denote their producing female young.

ARREST (Fr. arrester, arrêter, to stop or stay), the restraint of a man’s person, for the purpose of compelling him to be obedient to the law. It is defined to be the execution of the command of some court of record or officer of justice.

Arrests in England are either in civil or in criminal cases.

I. In Civil Cases.—The arrest must be by virtue of a precept or order out of some court, and must be effected by corporal seizing or touching the defendant’s body, or as directed by the writ, capias et attachias, take and catch hold of. And if the defendant make his escape it is a rescous, or rescue, and attachment may be had against him, and the bailiff may then justify the breaking open of the house in which he is, to carry him away.

Arrests on mesne process (see Process), before judgment obtained, were abolished by the Debtors Act 1869, s. 6; an exception, however, is made in cases in which the plaintiff proves, at any time before final judgment, by evidence on oath to the satisfaction of a judge of one of the superior courts, that he has a good cause of action to the amount of £50, that the defendant is about to quit the country, and that his absence will materially prejudice the plaintiff in prosecuting his action. In such cases an order for arrest may be obtained till security to the amount of the claim be found.

Formerly a judgment creditor might arrest his debtor under a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum, but since 1869 imprisonment for debt has been abolished in England, except in certain cases, and in these the period of detention must not exceed one year.

The following persons are privileged from arrest, viz., 1st, members of the royal family and the ordinary servants of the king or queen regnant, chaplains, lords of the bedchamber, &c. This privilege does not extend to servants of a consort queen or dowager. 2nd, peers of the realm, peeresses by birth, creation or marriage, Scottish and Irish peers and peeresses. 3rd, members of the House of Commons during the session of parliament, and for a convenient time (forty days) before and after it. Members of Convocation appear to have the same privilege. 4th, foreign ambassadors and their “domestics and domestic servants.” Temporary privilege from arrest in civil process is enjoyed by barristers travelling on circuit, by parties, witnesses or attorneys connected with a cause, and by clergymen whilst performing divine service.

The arrest of any privileged person is irregular ab initio, and the party may be discharged on motion. The only exception is as to indictable crimes, such as treason, felony and breach of the peace.

There are no longer any places where persons are privileged from arrest, such as the Mint, Savoy, Whitefriars, &c., on the ground of their being ancient palaces.

Except in cases of treason, felony or breach of the peace, an arrest cannot be made on a Sunday, and if made it is void (Sunday Observance Act 1677); but it may be made in the night as well as in the day.

II. In Criminal Cases.—All persons whatsoever are, without distinction, equally liable to this arrest, and any man may arrest without warrant or precept, and outer doors may be broken open for that purpose. The arrest may be made,—1st, by warrant; 2nd, by an officer without warrant; 3rd, by a private person without warrant; or, 4th, by a hue and cry.

1. Warrants are ordinarily granted by justices of the peace on information or complaint in writing and upon oath, and they must be indorsed when it is intended they should be executed in another county by a magistrate of that county (see Indictable Offences Act 1848). A warrant issued by a metropolitan police magistrate can be executed anywhere by a metropolitan police officer. Warrants are also granted in cases of treason or other offence affecting the government by the privy council, or one of the secretaries of state, and also by the chief or other justice of the court of king’s bench (bench-warrant) in cases of felony, 647 misdemeanour or indictment found, or criminal information granted in that court. Every warrant ought to specify the offence charged, the authority under which the arrest is to be made, the person who is to execute it and the person who is to be arrested. A warrant remains in force till executed or discharged by order of a court. An officer may break open doors in order to execute a warrant in cases of treason, felony or indictable offences, provided that, on demand, admittance cannot otherwise be obtained. (See Warrant.)

2. The officers who may arrest without warrant are,—justices of the peace, for felony or breach of the peace committed in their presence; the sheriff and the coroner in their county, for felony; constables, for treason, felony or breach of the peace committed in their view,—and within the metropolitan police district they have even larger powers (Metropolitan Police Acts 1829-1895).

3. A private person is bound to arrest for a felony committed in his presence, under penalty of fine and imprisonment. By the Prevention of Offences Act 1851, a private person is allowed to arrest any one whom he finds committing an indictable offence by night, and under the Malicious Damage Act 1861, any person committing an offence against that act may be arrested without warrant by the owner of the property damaged, or his servants, or persons authorized by him. So, too, by the Coinage Offences Act 1861. s. 31, any person may arrest any one whom he shall find committing any offence relating to the coin, or other offence against that act.

A person arrested without warrant must not be detained in private custody but must be taken with all convenient speed to a police station or justice and there charged (Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879).

4. The arrest by hue and cry is where officers and private persons are concerned in pursuing felons, or such as have dangerously wounded others. By the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, provision was made for the arrest in the United Kingdom of persons committing treason, and felony in any of the British colonies and vice versa; as to the arrest of fugitives in foreign countries see Extradition.

The remedy for a wrongful arrest is by an action for false imprisonment.

In Scotland the law of arrest in criminal procedure has a general constitutional analogy with that of England, though the practice differs with the varying character of the judicatories. Colloquially the word arrest is used in compulsory procedure for the recovery of debt; but the technical term applicable in that department is caption, and the law on the subject is generically different from that of England. There never was a practice in Scottish law corresponding with the English arrest in mesne process; but by old custom a warrant for caption could be obtained where a creditor made oath that he had reason to believe his debtor meditated flight from the country, and the writ so issued is called a warrant against a person in meditatione fugae. Imprisonment of old followed on ecclesiastical cursing, and by fiction of law in later times it was not the creditor’s remedy, but the punishment of a refractory person denounced rebel for disobedience to the injunctions of the law requiring fulfilment of his obligation. The system was reformed and stripped of its cumbrous fictions by an act of the year 1837. Although the proceedings against the person could only follow on completed process, yet, by a peculiarity of the Scottish law, documents executed with certain formalities, and by special statute bills and promissory notes, can be registered in the records of a court for execution against the person as if they were judgments of the court.

The general principles as to the law of arrest in most European countries correspond more or less exactly to those prevailing in England.

An arrest of a ship, which is the method of enforcing the admiralty process in rem, founded either on a maritime lien or on a claim against the ship, is dealt with under Admiralty Jurisdiction.

See also article Attachment.

Arrest of Judgment is the assigning just reason why judgment should not pass, notwithstanding verdict given, either in civil or in criminal cases, and from intrinsic causes arising on the face of the record.

United States.—The law of arrest assimilates to that existing in England. Actual manual touching is not necessary (Pike v. Hanson, 9 N.H. 491; Hill v. Taylor, 50 Mich. 549); words of arrest by the officer, not protested against and no resistance offered, are sufficient (Emery v. Chesley, 18 N.H. 198; Goodell v. Tower, 1904, 58 Am. Rep. 790). Words of arrest, staying over night at prisoner’s house, going with him before the magistrate next day constitute arrest (Courtery v. Dozier, 20 Ga. 369). Restraining a person in his own house is arrest.

In civil cases in most of the states arrest for debt is abolished, except in cases of fraud or wilful injury to persons or property by constitutional provision or by statute. One arrested under process of a federal court cannot be arrested under that of a state court for the same cause. There is no provision in the United States constitution as to imprisonment for debt, but congress has enacted (in Rev. Stat., s. 990) that all the provisions of the law of any state applicable to such imprisonment shall apply to the process of federal courts in that state. A woman can be arrested in New York for wilful injury to person, character or property, and in certain other cases (Code, s. 553). The president, federal officials, governors of states, members of congress and of state legislatures (during the session), marines, soldiers and sailors on duty, voters while going to and from the polls, judges, court officials (1904, 100 N.W. 591), coroners and jurors while attending upon their public duties, lawyers, parties and witnesses while going to, attending or returning from court, and generally married women without separate property, are exempt from arrest.

In criminal cases a bench-warrant in New York may be served in any county without being backed by a magistrate (Code Crim. Proc., s. 304). In Nebraska one found violating the law may be arrested and detained until a legal warrant can be issued (Crim. Code, s. 283). A bail may lawfully recapture his principal (1905) 121 Georgia Rep. 594. Foreign ambassadors and ministers and their servants are exempt from arrest. Exemption from arrest is a privilege, not of the court, as in England, but of the person, and can be waived (Petrie v. Fitzgerald, 1 Daly 401).

ARRESTMENT, in Scots law, the process by which a creditor detains the goods or effects of his debtor in the hands of third parties till the debt due to him shall be paid. It is divided into two kinds: (1) Arrestment in security, used when proceedings are commencing, or in other circumstances where a claim may become, but is not yet, enforceable; and (2) Arrestment in execution, following on the decree of a court, or on a registered document, under a clause or statutory power of registration, according to the custom of Scotland. By the process of arrestment the property covered is merely retained in place; to realize it for the satisfaction of the creditor’s claim a further proceeding called “furthcoming” is necessary. By old practice, alimentary funds, i.e. those necessary for subsistence, were not liable to arrestment. By the Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) Act 1870, the wages of all labourers, farm-servants, manufacturers, artificers and work-people are not arrestable except (1) in so far as they exceed 20s. per week; but the expense of the arrestment is not to be charged against the debtor unless the sum recovered exceed the amount of the said expense; or (2) under decrees for alimentary allowances and payments, or for rates and taxes imposed by law.

ARRETIUM (mod. Arezzo), an ancient city of Etruria, in the upper valley of the Arno, situated on the Via Cassia, 50 m. S.E. of Florentia. The site of the original city is not quite certain; some writers place it on the isolated hill called Poggio di S. Cornelio, 2½ m. to the S.E., where remains of a fortified enceinte still exist (cf. F. Noack in Römische Mitteilungen, 1897, p. 186); while others maintain, and probably rightly, that it occupied the hill at the summit of the modern town, where the medieval citadel (fortezza) was erected, and which was enclosed by an ancient wall. Numerous Etruscan tombs have been discovered within the lower portion of the area of the modern town, which 648 appears to correspond in site with the Roman (C.I.L. xi. p. 1082; G. Gamurrini in Notizie degli scavi, 1883, 262; 1887, 437). Vitruvius (ii. 8. 9) and Pliny (Nat. Hist. xxxv. 173) speak of the strength of its walls of bricks, but these have naturally disappeared. Many remains of Roman buildings have been discovered within the modern town, and the amphitheatre is still visible in the southern angle. Arretium appears as one of the cities which aided the Tarquins after their expulsion. It was an opponent of Rome at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd century B.C., but soon sought for help against the attacks of the Gauls, against whom it was almost a frontier fortress. It was an important Roman base during the Hannibalic wars (though at one time it threatened defection—Livy xxvii. 21-24), and in 205 B.C. was able to furnish Scipio with a considerable quantity of arms and provisions (Livy xxviii. 45). In 187 B.C. the high road was extended as far as Bononia. Arretium took the part of Marius against Sulla, and the latter settled some of his veterans there as colonists. Caesar, or Octavian, added others, so that there are three classes, Arretini veteres, Fidentiores, and Iulienses. A considerable contingent from Arretium joined Catiline and in 49 B.C. Caesar occupied it. C. Maecenas1 was perhaps a native of Arretium. Its fertility was famous in ancient times, and still more the red pottery made of the local clay, with its imitation of chased silver. The reliefs upon it are sometimes of considerable beauty, and large quantities of it, and the sites of several of the kilns, have been discovered in and near Arretium. It was also considerably exported. See Corp. Inscrip. Lat. xi. (Berlin, 1901) p. 1081, and Notizie degli scavi, passim (especially, 1884, 369, for the discovery of a fine group of the moulds from which these vases were made). The museum contains a very fine collection of these and a good collection of medieval majolica.

ARRHENIUS, SVANTE AUGUST (1859-  ), Swedish physicist and chemist, was born on the 19th of February 1859, at Schloss Wijk, near Upsala. He studied at Upsala from 1876 to 1881 and at Stockholm from 1881 to 1884, then returning to Upsala as privat-docent in physical chemistry. He spent two years from 1886 to 1888 in travelling, and visited Riga Polytechnic and the universities of Würzburg, Graz, Amsterdam and Leipzig. In 1891 he was appointed lecturer in physics at Stockholm and four years later became full professor. Arrhenius is specially associated with the development of the theory of electrolytic dissociation, and his great paper on the subject, Recherches sur la conductibilité galvanique des électrolytes—(1) conductibilité galvanique des solutions aqueuses extrêmement diluées, (2) théorie chimique des électrolytes, was presented to the Stockholm Academy of Sciences in 1883. He was subsequently continuously engaged in extending the applications of the doctrine of electrolytic conduction in relation not only to the problems of chemical action but also, on the supposition that in certain conditions the air conducts electrolytically, to the phenomena of atmospheric electricity. In 1900 he published a Lärobok i teoretik elektrokemi, which was translated into German and English, and his Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik appeared in 1903. In 1904 he delivered at the university of California a course of lectures, the object of which was to illustrate the application of the methods of physical chemistry to the study of the theory of toxins and antitoxins, and which were published in 1907 under the title Immunochemistry. In his Worlds in the Making (1908), an English translation of Das Werden der Welten (1907), he combated the generally accepted doctrine that the universe is tending to what Clausius termed Wärmetod through exhaustion of all sources of heat and motion, and suggested that by virtue of a mechanism which maintains its available energy it is self-renovating, energy being “degraded” in bodies which are in the solar state, but “elevated” or raised to a higher level in bodies which are in the nebular state. He further put forward the conception that life is universally diffused, constantly emitted from all habitable worlds in the form of spores which traverse space for years or ages, the majority being ultimately destroyed by the heat of some blazing star, but some few finding a resting-place on bodies which have reached the habitable stage.

ARRIA, in Roman history, the heroic wife of Caecina Paetus. When her husband was implicated in the conspiracy of Scribonianus against the emperor Claudius (A.D. 42), and condemned to death, she resolved not to survive him. She accordingly stabbed herself with a dagger, which she then handed to him with the words, “Paetus, it does not hurt” (Paete, non dolet; see Pliny, Epp. iii. 16; Martial i. 14; Dio Cassius lx. 16). Her daughter, also called Arria, was the wife of Thrasea Paetus. When he was condemned to death by Nero, she would have imitated her mother’s example, but was dissuaded by her husband, who entreated her to live for the sake of their children. She was sent into banishment (Tacitus, Annals, xvi. 34).

ARRIAN (Flavius Arrianus), of Nicomedia in Bithynia, Greek historian and philosopher, was born about A.D. 96, and lived during the reigns of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. In recognition of his abilities, he received the citizenship of both Athens and Rome. He was greatly esteemed by Hadrian, who appointed him governor (legatus) of Cappadocia (131-137), in which capacity he distinguished himself in a campaign against the Alani. This is the only instance before the 3rd century in which a first-rate Roman military command was given to a Greek. Arrian spent a considerable portion of his time at Athens, where he was archon 147-148. With his retirement or recall from Cappadocia his official career came to an end. In his declining years, he retired to his native place, where he devoted himself to literary work. He died about 180. His biography, by Dio Cassius, is lost.

When young, Arrian was the pupil and friend of Epictetus, who had probably withdrawn to Nicopolis, when Domitian expelled all philosophers from Rome. He took verbatim notes of his teacher’s lectures, which he subsequently published under the title of The Dissertations (Διατριβαί), in eight books, of which the first four are extant and constitute the chief authority for Stoic ethics, and The Encheiridion (i.e. Manual) of Epictetus, a handbook of moral philosophy, for many years a favourite instruction book with both Christians and pagans. It was adapted for Christian use by St Nilus of Constantinople (5th century), and Simplicius (about 550) wrote a commentary on it which we still possess.

The most important of Arrian’s original works is his Anabasis of Alexander, in seven books, containing the history of Alexander the Great from his accession to his death. Arrian’s chief authorities were, as he tells us, Aristobulus of Cassandreia and Ptolemy, son of Lagus (afterwards king of Egypt), who both accompanied Alexander on his campaigns. In spite of a too indulgent view of his hero’s defects, and some over-credulity, Arrian’s is the most complete and trustworthy account of Alexander that we possess.

Other extant works of Arrian are: Indica, a description of India in the Ionic dialect, including the voyage of Nearchus, intended as a supplement to the Anabasis; Acies Contra Alanos, a fragment of importance for the knowledge of Roman military affairs; Periplus of the Euxine, an official account written (131) for the emperor Hadrian; Tactica, attributed by some to Aelianus, who wrote in the reign of Trajan; Cynegeticus, a treatise on the chase, supplementing Xenophon’s work on the same subject; the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, attributed to him, is by a later compiler. Amongst his lost works may be mentioned: Τὰ μετ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρον, a history of the period succeeding Alexander, of which an epitome is preserved in Photius; histories of Bithynia, the Alani and the Parthian wars under Trajan; the lives of Timoleon of Syracuse, Dion of Syracuse and a famous brigand named Timoleon. Arrian’s style is simple, lucid and manly; but his language, though pure, presents some peculiarities. He was called “Xenophon the younger” from his imitation of that writer, and he even speaks of himself as Xenophon.

649

ARRIS (Fr. areste, or arête), in architecture, the sharp edge or angle in which two sides or surfaces meet.

ARRONDISSEMENT (from arrondir, to make round), an administrative subdivision of a department in France. Dating nominally from 1800, the arrondissement was really a re-creation of the “district” of 1790. It comprises within itself the canton and the commune. It differs from the department and from the commune in being merely an administrative division and not a complete legal personality with power to acquire and possess. The purposes for which it exists are, again, unlike those of the department and the commune, comparatively limited. It is the electoral district for the chamber of deputies, each arrondissement returning one member; if the population is in excess of 100,000 it is divided into two or more constituencies. It is also a judicial district having a court of first instance. It is under the control of a sub-prefect. There are 362 arrondissements in the 87 departments. Each arrondissement has a council, with as many members as there are cantons, whose function is to subdivide among the communes their quota of the direct taxes charged to the arrondissement by the general council of the department. (See France) Somewhat different from the arrondissements of the department are the arrondissements (20 in number) into which Paris is divided. They bear a certain resemblance to the sub-municipalities created in London by the London Government Act 1899, and each forms a local administrative unit (see Paris).

France is also subdivided, for purposes of defence, into five maritime divisions, termed arrondissements. Instituted originally under the Consulate, they were suppressed in 1815, but re-established again in 1826. They are under the direction of maritime prefects, who, by a decree of 1875, must be vice-admirals in the navy.

ARROWROOT. A large proportion of the edible starches obtained from the rhizomes or root-stocks of various plants are known in commerce under the name of arrowroot. Properly the name should be restricted to the starch yielded by two or three species of Maranta (nat. ord. Marantaceae), the chief of which is M. arundinacea; and when genuine or West Indian arrowroot is spoken of, it is understood that this is the variety meant. Maranta arundinacea is probably a native of Guiana and western Brazil, but it has long been cultivated in the West Indian Islands, and has now spread to most tropical countries. The plant is a herbaceous perennial with a creeping root-stock which gives off fleshy cylindrical branches or tubers, covered with pale brown or white scales and afterwards ringed with their scars. It is at the period when these tubers are gorged with starch, immediately before the season of rest, that it is ripe for use. In addition to about 25% of starch, the tubers contain a proportion of woody tissue, vegetable albumen and various salts. The arrowroot may be separated on a small scale in the same manner as potato-starch is frequently prepared, that is, by peeling the root and grating it in water, when the starch falls to the bottom. The liquor is then drained off, and the starch purified by repeated washings till it is ready for drying. On a large scale the manufacture of arrowroot is conducted with specially arranged machinery. The rhizomes when dug up are washed free of earthy impurities and afterwards skinned. Subsequently, according to Pereira’s Materia Medica, “the carefully skinned tubers are washed, then ground in a mill, and the pulp washed in tinned-copper cylindrical washing-machines. The fecula (dim. of Lat. faex, dregs, or sediment) is subsequently dried in drying-houses. In order to obtain the fecula free from impurity, pure water must be used, and great care and attention paid in every step of the process. The skinning or peeling of the tubers must be performed with great nicety, as the cuticle contains a resinous matter which imparts colour and a disagreeable flavour to the starch. German-silver palettes are used for skinning the deposited fecula, and shovels of the same metal for packing the dried fecula. The drying is effected in pans, covered with white gauze to exclude dust and insects.”

Arrowroot is distinguished by the granules agglomerating into small balls, by slightly crepitating when rubbed between the fingers, and by yielding with boiling water a fine, transparent, inodorous and pleasant-tasting jelly. In microscopic structure the granules present an ovoid form, marked with concentric lines very similar to potato-starch, but readily distinguished by having a “hilum” marking at the thick extremity of the granule, while in potato-starch the same appearance occurs at the thin end (compare figs. 3 and 4 below). In addition to the West Indian supplies, arrowroot is found in the commerce of Brazil, the East Indies, Australia, Cape Colony and Natal.

The name “arrowroot” is derived from the use by the Mexican Indians of the juice of the fresh root as an application to wounds produced by poisoned arrows. Sir Hans Sloane refers to it in his Catalogue of Jamaica Plants (1696), and it is said to have been introduced into England by William Houston about 1732. It is grown as a stove-plant in botanic gardens. The slender, much-branched stem is 5 or 6 ft. high, and bears numerous leaves with long, narrow sheaths and large spreading ovate blades, and a few short-stalked white flowers.

Tous-les-mois, or Tulema arrowroot, also from the West Indies, is obtained from several species of Canna, a genus allied to Maranta, and cultivated in the same manner. The granules of tous-les-mois are readily distinguishable by their very large size (fig. 5). East Indian arrowroot is obtained from the root-stocks of several species of the genus Curcuma (nat. ord. Zingiberaceae), chiefly C. angustifolia, a native of central India. Brazilian arrowroot is the starch of the cassava plant, a species of Manihot (fig. 6), which when agglutinated on hot plates forms the tapioca of commerce. The cassava is cultivated in the East Indian Archipelago as well as in South America. Tocca, or Otaheite 650 arrowroot, is the produce of Tacca pinnatifida, the pia plant of the South Sea Islands. Portland arrowroot was formerly prepared on the Isle of Portland from the tubers of the common cuckoo-pint, Arum maculatum. Various other species of arum yield valuable food-starches in hot countries. Under the name of British arrowroot the farina of potatoes is sometimes sold, and the French excel in the preparation of imitations of the more costly starches from this source. The chief use, however, of potato-farina as an edible starch is for adulterating other and more costly preparations. This falsification can readily be detected by microscopic examination, and the accompanying drawings exhibit the appearance under the microscope of the principal starches we have described. Although these starches agree in chemical composition, their value as articles of diet varies considerably, owing to different degrees of digestibility and pleasantness of taste. Arrowroot contains about 82% of starch, and about 1% of proteid and mineral matter. Farina, or British arrowroot, at about one-twelfth the price, is just as useful and pleasant a food.

ARROWSMITH, the name of an English family of geographers. The first of them, Aaron Arrowsmith (1750-1823), migrated to London from Winston in Durham when about twenty years of age, and was employed by John Gary, the engraver. In 1790 he made himself famous by his large chart of the world on Mercator’s projection. Four years later he published another large map of the world on the globular projection, with a companion volume of explanation. The maps of North America (1796) and Scotland (1807) are the most celebrated of his many later productions. He left two sons, Aaron and Samuel, the elder of whom was the compiler of the Eton Comparative Atlas, of a Biblical atlas, and of various manuals of geography. They carried on the business in company with John Arrowsmith (1790-1873), nephew of the elder Aaron. In 1834 John published his London Atlas, the best set of maps then in existence. He followed up the atlas with a long series of elaborate and carefully executed maps, those of Australia, America, Africa and India being especially valuable. In 1863 he received the gold medal of the Royal Geographical Society, of which body he was one of the founders.

ARROYO (O. Sp. arrogio, Lat. arrogium, a rivulet or stream), the channel of a stream cut in loose earth, found often at the head of a gully, where the water flows only at certain seasons of the year.

ARSACES, a Persian name, which occurs on a Persian seal, where it is written in cuneiform characters. The most famous Arsaces was the chief of the Parni, one of the nomadic Scythian or Dahan tribes in the desert east of the Caspian Sea. A later tradition, preserved by Arrian, derives Arsaces I. and Tiridates from the Achaemenian king Artaxerxes II., but this has evidently no historical value. Arsaces, seeking refuge before the Bactrian king Diodotes, invaded Parthia, then a province of the Seleucid empire, about 250 B.C. (Strabo xi. p. 515, cf. Arrian p. 1, Müller, in Photius, Cod. 58, and Syncellus p. 284). After two years (according to Arrian) he was killed, and his brother Tiridates, who succeeded him and maintained himself for a short time in Parthia, during the dissolution of the Seleucid empire by the attacks of Ptolemy III. (247 ff.), was defeated and expelled by Seleucus II. (about 238). But when this king was forced, by the rebellion of his brother, Antiochus Hierax, to return to the west, Tiridates came back and defeated the Macedonians (Strabo xi. pp. 513, 515; Justin xli. 4; Appian, Syr. 65; Isidorus of Charax 11). He was the real founder of the Parthian empire, which was of very limited extent until the final decay of the Seleucid empire, occasioned by the Roman intrigues after the death of Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (165 B.C.), enabled Mithradates I. and his successors to conquer Media and Babylonia. Tiridates adopted the name of his brother Arsaces, and after him all the other Parthian kings (who by the historians are generally called by their proper names), amounting to the number of about thirty, officially wear only the name Arsaces. With very few exceptions only the name ΑΡΣΑΚΗΣ (with various epithets) occurs on the coins of the Parthian kings, and the obverse generally shows the seated figure of the founder of the dynasty, holding in his hand a strung bow. The Arsacidian empire was overthrown in A.D. 226 by Ardashir (Artaxerxes), the founder of the Sassanid empire, whose conquests began about A.D. 212. The name Arsaces of Persia is also borne by some kings of Armenia, who were of Parthian origin. (See Persia and Parthia.)

ARS-AN-DER-MOSEL, a town of Germany, in the imperial province Alsace-Lorraine, 5 m. S. of Metz on the railway to Novéant. It has a handsome Roman Catholic church and extensive foundries. In the vicinity are the remains of a Roman aqueduct, which formerly spanned the valley. Pop. 5000.

ARSCHOT, PHILIPPE DE CROY, DUKE OF (1526-1595), governor-general of Flanders, was born at Valenciennes, and inherited the estates of the ancient and wealthy family of Croy. Becoming a soldier, he was made a knight of the order of the Golden Fleece by Philip II., king of Spain, and was afterwards employed in diplomatic work. He took part in the troubles in the Netherlands, and in 1563 refused to join William the Silent and others in their efforts to remove Cardinal Granvella from his post. This attitude, together with Arschot’s devotion to the Roman Catholic Church, which he expressed by showing his delight at the massacre of St Bartholomew, led Philip of Spain to regard him with still greater favour, which, however, was withdrawn in consequence of Arschot’s ambiguous conduct when welcoming the new governor, Don John of Austria, to the Netherlands in 1576. In spite, however, of his being generally distrusted by the inhabitants of the Netherlands, he was appointed governor of the citadel of Antwerp when the Spanish troops withdrew in 1577. After a period of vacillation he deserted Don John towards the end of that year. Jealous of the prince of Orange, he was then the head of the party which induced the archduke Matthias (afterwards emperor) to undertake the sovereignty of the Netherlands, and soon afterwards was appointed governor of Flanders by the state council. A strong party, including the burghers of Ghent, distrusted the new governor; and Arschot, who was taken prisoner during a riot at Ghent, was only released on promising to resign his office. He then sought to regain the favour of Philip of Spain, and having been pardoned by the king in 1580 again shared in the government of the Netherlands; but he refused to serve under the count of Fuentes when he became governor-general in 1594, and retired to Venice, where he died on the 11th of December 1595.

ARSENAL, an establishment for the construction, repair, receipt, storage and issue of warlike stores; details as to matériel will be found under Ammunition, Ordnance, &c. The word “arsenal” appears in various forms in Romanic languages (from which it has been adopted into Teutonic), i.e. Italian arzanale, Spanish arsenal, &c.; Italian also has arzana and darsena, and Spanish a longer form atarazanal. The word is of Arabic origin, being a corruption of daraṣ-ṣinā‘ah, house of trade or manufacture, dar, house, al, the, and ṣina‘ah, trade, manufacture, ṣana’a, to make. Such guesses as arx navalis, naval citadel, arx senatus (i.e. of Venice, &c.), are now entirely rejected.

A first-class arsenal, which can renew the matériel and equipment of a large army, embraces a gun factory, carriage factory, laboratory and small-arms ammunition factory, small-arms factory, harness, saddlery and tent factories, and a powder factory; in addition it must possess great store-houses. In a second-class arsenal the factories would be replaced by workshops. The situation of an arsenal should be governed by strategical considerations. If of the first class, it should be situated at the base of operations and supply, secure from attack, not too near a frontier, and placed so as to draw in readily the resources of the country. The importance of a large arsenal is such that its defences would be on the scale of those of a large fortress. The usual subdivision of branches in a great arsenal is into A, Storekeeping; B, Construction; C, Administration. Under A we should have the following departments and stores:—Departments of issue and receipt, pattern room, armoury department, ordnance or park, harness, saddlery and accoutrements, camp equipment, tools and instruments, 651 engineer store, magazines, raw material store, timber yard, breaking-up store, unserviceable store. Under B—Gun factory, carriage factory, laboratory, small-arms factory, harness and tent factory, powder factory, &c. In a second-class arsenal there would be workshops instead of these factories. C—Under the head of administration would be classed the chief director of the arsenal, officials military and civil, non-commissioned officers and military artificers, civilian foremen, workmen and labourers, with the clerks and writers necessary for the office work of the establishments. In the manufacturing branches are required skill, and efficient and economical work, both executive and administrative; in the storekeeping part, good arrangement, great care, thorough knowledge of all warlike stores, both in their active and passive state, and scrupulous exactness in the custody, issue and receipt of stores. For fuller details the reader is referred to papers by Sir E. Collen, R.A., in vol. viii., and Lieut. C.E. Grover, R.E., in vol. vi. Proceedings of R. Artillery Institution. In England the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, manufactures and stores the requirements of the army and navy (see Woolwich).

ARSENIC (symbol As, atomic weight 75.0), a chemical element, known to the ancients in the form of its sulphides. Aristotle gave them the name σανδαράκη, and Theophrastus mentions them under the name ἀρσενικόν. The oxide known as white arsenic is mentioned by the Greek alchemist Olympiodorus, who obtained it by roasting arsenic sulphide. These substances were all known to the later alchemists, who used minerals containing arsenic in order to give a white colour to copper. Albertus Magnus was the first to state that arsenic contained a metal-like substance, although later writers considered it to be a bastard or semi-metal, and frequently called it arsenicum rex. In 1733 G. Brandt showed that white arsenic was the calx of this element, and after the downfall of the phlogiston theory the views concerning the composition of white arsenic were identical with those which are now held, namely that it is an oxide of the element.

Arsenic is found in the uncombined condition in various localities, but more generally in combination with other metals and sulphur, in the form of more or less complex sulphides. Native arsenic is usually found as granular or curvilaminar masses, with a reniform or botryoidal surface. These masses are of a dull grey colour, owing to surface tarnish; only on fresh fractures is the colour tin-white with metallic lustre. The hardness is 3.5 and the specific gravity 5.63-5.73. Crystals of arsenic belong to the rhombohedral system, and have a perfect cleavage parallel to the basal plane; natural crystals are, however, of rare occurrence, and are usually acicular in habit. Native arsenic occurs usually in metalliferous veins in association with ores of antimony, silver, &c.; the silver mines of Freiberg in Saxony, St Andreasberg in the Harz, and Chañarcillo in Chile being well-known localities. Attractive globular aggregates of well-developed radiating crystals have been found at Akatani, a village in the province Echizen, in Japan.

Arsenic is a constituent of the minerals arsenical iron, arsenical pyrites or mispickel, tin-white cobalt or smaltite, arsenical nickel, realgar, orpiment, pharmacolite and cobalt bloom, whilst it is also met with in small quantities in nearly all specimens of iron pyrites. The ordinary commercial arsenic is either the naturally occurring form, which is, however, more or less contaminated with other metals, or is the product obtained by heating arsenical pyrites, out of contact with air, in earthenware retorts which are fitted with a roll of sheet iron at the mouth, and an earthenware receiver. By this method of distillation the arsenic sublimes into the receiver, leaving a residue of iron sulphide in the retort. For further purification, it may be sublimed, after having been previously mixed with a little powdered charcoal, or it may be mixed with a small quantity of iodine and heated. It can also be obtained by the reduction of white arsenic (arsenious oxide) with carbon. An electro-metallurgical process for the extraction of arsenic from its sulphides has also been proposed (German Patent. 67,973). These compounds are brought into solution by means of polysulphides of the alkali metals and the resultant liquor run into the cathode compartment of a bath, which is divided by diaphragms into a series of anode and cathode chambers; the anode divisions being closed and gas-tight, and containing carbon or platinum electrodes. The arsenic solution is decomposed at the cathode, and the element precipitated there.

Arsenic possesses a steel-grey colour, and a decided metallic lustre; it crystallizes on sublimation and slow condensation in rhombohedra, isomorphous with those of antimony and tellurium. It is very brittle. Its specific gravity is given variously from 5.395 to 5.959; its specific heat is 0.083, and its coefficient of linear expansion 0.00000559 (at 40° C.). It is volatile at temperatures above 100° C. and rapidly vaporizes at a dull red heat. It liquefies when heated under pressure, and its melting point lies between 446° C. and 457° C. The vapour of arsenic is of a golden yellow colour, and has a garlic odour. The vapour density is 10.6 (air = 1) at 564° C., corresponding to a tetratomic molecule As4; at a white heat the vapour density shows a considerable lowering in value, due to the dissociation of the complex molecule.

By condensing arsenic vapour in a glass tube, in a current of an indifferent gas, such as hydrogen, amorphous arsenic is obtained, the deposit on the portion of the tube nearest to the source of heat being crystalline, that farther along (at a temperature of about 210° C.) being a black amorphous solid, while still farther along the tube a grey deposit is formed. These two latter forms possess a specific gravity of 4.710 (14° C.) [A. Bettendorff, Annalen, 1867, 144, p. 110], and by heating at about 358°-360° C. pass over into the crystalline variety. Arsenic burns on heating in a current of oxygen, with a pale lavender-coloured flame, forming the trioxide. It is easily oxidized by heating with concentrated nitric acid to arsenic acid, and with concentrated sulphuric acid to arsenic trioxide; dilute nitric acid only oxidizes it to arsenious acid. It burns in an atmosphere of chlorine forming the trichloride; it also combines directly with bromine and sulphur on heating, while on fusion with alkalis it forms arsenites.

Arsenic and most of its soluble compounds are very poisonous, and consequently the methods used for the detection of arsenic are very important. For full accounts of methods used in detecting minute traces of arsenic in foods, &c., see “Report to Commission to Manchester Brewers’ Central Association,” the Analyst, 1900, 26, p. 8; “Report of Conjoint Committee of Society of Chemical Industry and Society of Public Analysts,” the Analyst, 1902, 27, p. 48; T.E. Thorpe, Journal of the Chemical Society, 1903, 83, p. 774; O. Hehner and others, Journal of Society of Chemical Industry, 1902, 21, p. 94; also Adulteration.

Pharmacology.—Of arsenic and its compounds, arsenious acid (dose 1⁄60-1⁄15 gr.) and its preparation liquor arsenicalis, Fowler’s solution (dose 2-8 ♏), are in very common use. The iodide of arsenic (dose 1⁄20-1⁄5 gr.) is one of the ingredients of Donovan’s solution (see Mercury); and iron arsenate (dose 1⁄16-¼ gr. in a pill), a mixture of ferrous and ferric arsenates with some iron oxide, is of great use in certain cases. Sodium arsenate (1⁄40-1⁄10 gr.) is somewhat less commonly prescribed, though all the compounds of this metal have great value in experienced hands.

Externally, arsenious acid is a powerful caustic when applied to raw surfaces, though it has no action on the unbroken skin. Internally, unless the dose be extremely small, all preparations are severe gastro-intestinal irritants. This effect is the same however the drug be administered, as, even after subcutaneous injection, the arsenic is excreted into the stomach after absorption, and thus sets up gastritis in its passage through the mucous membrane. In minute doses it is a gastric stimulant, promoting the flow of gastric juice. It is quickly absorbed into the blood, where its presence can be demonstrated especially in the white blood corpuscles. In certain forms of anaemia it increases the number of the red corpuscles and also their haemoglobin content. None of these known effects of arsenic is sufficient to account for the profound change that a course of the drug will often produce in the condition of a patient. It has some power of affecting the general metabolism, but no wholly satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. According to Binz and Schultz its power is due to the fact that it is an oxygen-carrier, arsenious acid withdrawing oxygen from the protoplasm to form arsenic acid, which subsequently yields up its oxygen again. It is thus vaguely called an alterative, since the patient recovers under its use. It is eliminated chiefly by the urine, and to a less extent by the alimentary canal, sweat, saliva, bile, milk, tears, hair, &c., but it is also stored up in the body mainly in the liver and kidneys.

Therapeutics.—Externally arsenious acid has been much used by quack doctors to destroy morbid growths, &c., a paste or solution being applied, strong enough to kill the mass of tissue and make it slough out quickly. But many accidents have resulted from the arsenic being absorbed, and the patient thereby poisoned. Internally it is useful in certain forms of dyspepsia, but as some patients are quite unable to tolerate the drug, it must always be administered in very small doses at first, the quantity being slowly increased as tolerance is shown. Children as a rule bear it better than adults. It should never be given on an empty stomach, but always after a full meal. Certain cases of anaemia which do not yield to iron are often much improved by arsenic, though in other apparently similar ones it appears to be valueless. It is the routine treatment for pernicious anaemia and Hodgkin’s disease, though here again the drug may be of no avail. For the neuralgia and anaemia following malaria, for rheumatoid arthritis, for chorea and also asthma and hay fever, it is constantly prescribed with excellent results. Certain skin diseases, as psoriasis, pemphigus and occasionally chronic eczema, are much benefited by its use, though occasionally a too prolonged course will produce the very lesion for which under other circumstances it is a cure. A recent method of using the drug is in the form of sodium cacodylate by subcutaneous injection, and this preparation is said to be free from the cumulative effects sometimes arising after the prolonged use of the other forms. Other organic derivatives employed are sodium metharsenite and sodium anilarsenate or atoxyl; hypodermic injections of the latter have been used in the treatment of sleeping sickness. Occasionally, as among the Styrians, individuals acquire the habit of arsenic-eating, which is said to increase their weight, strength and appetite, and clears their complexion. The probable explanation is that an antitoxin is developed within them.

Toxicology and Forensic Medicine.—The commonest source of arsenical poisoning is the arsenious acid or white arsenic, which in one form is white and opaque, like flour, for which it has been mistaken with fatal results. Also, as it has little taste and no colour it is easily mixed with food for homicidal purposes. When combined with potash or soda it is used to saturate flypapers, and strong solutions can be obtained by soaking these in water; this fact has also been used with criminal intent. Copper arsenite (or Scheele’s green) used to be much employed as a pigment for wall-papers and fabrics, and toxic effects have resulted from their use. Metallic arsenic is probably not poisonous, but as it usually becomes oxidized in the alimentary canal, the usual symptoms of arsenical poisoning follow its use.

In acute poisoning the interval between the reception of the poison and the onset of symptoms ranges from ten minutes, or even less, if a strong solution be taken on an empty stomach, to 654 twelve or more hours if the drug be taken in solid form and the stomach be full of food. The usual period, however, is from half an hour to an hour. In a typical case a sensation of heat developing into a burning pain is felt in the throat and stomach. This is soon followed by uncontrollable vomiting, and a little later by severe purging, the stools being first of all faecal but later assuming a rice water appearance and often containing blood. The patient suffers from intense thirst, which cannot be relieved, as drinking is immediately followed by rejection of the swallowed fluid. There is profound collapse, the features are sunken, the skin moist and cyanosed. The pulse is feeble and irregular, and respiration is difficult. The pain in the stomach is persistent, and cramps in the calves of the legs add to the torture. Death may be preceded by coma, but consciousness is often maintained to the end. The similarity of the symptoms to those of cholera is very marked, but if the suspicion arises it can soon be cleared up by examining any of the secretions for arsenic. More rarely the poison seems to centre itself on the nerve centres, and gastro-intestinal symptoms may be almost or quite absent. In such cases the acute collapse occurs in company with both superficial and deep anaesthesia of the limbs, and is soon followed by coma terminating in death. In criminal poisoning repeated doses are usually given, so that such cases may not be typical, but will present some of the aspects of acute and some of chronic arsenical poisoning. As regards treatment, the stomach must be washed out with warm water by means of a soft rubber tube, an emetic being also administered. Then, if available, freshly precipitated ferric hydrate must be given, which can be prepared by adding a solution of ammonia to one of iron perchloride. The precipitate is strained off, and the patient can swallow it suspended in water. While this is being obtained, magnesia, castor oil or olive oil can be given; or failing all these, copious draughts of water. The collapse must be treated with hot blankets and bottles, and subcutaneous injections of brandy, ether or strychnine. The pain can be lessened by injections of morphia.

Arsenic may be gradually absorbed into the system in very small quantities over a prolonged period, the symptoms of chronic poisoning resulting. The commonest sources used to be wall-papers, fabrics, artificial flowers and toys: also certain trades, as in the manufacture of arsenical sheep-dipping. But at the present time cases arising from these causes occur very rarely. In 1900 an outbreak of “peripheral neuritis” with various skin affections occurred in Lancashire, which was traced to beer made from glucose and invert sugar, in the preparation of which sulphuric acid contaminated with arsenic was said to have been used. But the nature of the disease in this case was decidedly obscure. The symptoms so closely resembled those of beri-beri that it has also been suggested that the illness was the same, and was caused by the manufacture of the glucose from mouldy rice (see Beri-Beri), though no proof of this was possible. The earliest symptoms are slight gastric disorders, loss of appetite and general malaise, followed later by colicky pains, irritation of eyelids and skin eruptions. But sooner or later peripheral neuritis develops, usually beginning with sensory disturbances, tingling, numbness, formication and occasionally cutaneous anaesthesia. Later the affected muscles become exquisitely tender, and then atrophy, while the knee-jerk or other reflex is lost. Pigmentation of the skin may occur in the later stages. Recovery is very slow, and in fatal cases death usually results from heart failure.

After acute poisoning, the stomach at a post-mortem presents signs of intense inflammation, parts or the whole of its mucous membrane being of a colour varying from dark red to bright vermilion and often corrugated. Submucous haemorrhages are usually present, but perforation is rare. The rest of the alimentary canal exhibits inflammatory changes in a somewhat lesser degree. After chronic poisoning a widely spread fatty degeneration is present. Arsenic is found in almost every part of the body, but is retained in largest amount by the liver, secondly by the kidneys. After death from chronic poisoning it is found present even in the brain and spongy bone. The detection of arsenic in criminal cases is effected either by Reinsch’s test or by Marsh’s test, the urine being the secretion analysed when available. But Reinsch’s test cannot be used satisfactorily for a quantitative determination, nor can it be used in the presence of chlorates or nitrates. And Marsh’s test is very unmanageable with organic liquids on account of the uncontrollable frothing that takes place. But in such cases the organic matter can be first destroyed by one of the various methods, usually the moist method devised by Fresenius being chosen.

ARSENIUS (c. 354-450), an anchorite, said to have been born of a noble Roman family, who achieved a high reputation for his knowledge of Greek and Roman literature. He was appointed by Theodosius the Great, tutor of the young princes Arcadius and Honorius, but at the age of forty he retired to Egypt, where for forty years he lived in monastic seclusion at Scetis in the Thebais, under the spiritual guidance of St John the Dwarf. He is said to have gained the admiration of his fellows by the extreme rigour of his asceticism. The remainder of his life he spent at Canopus, and Troë near Memphis, where he died at the age of ninety-five. Of his writings two collections of admonitory maxims are extant: the first, Διδασκαλία καὶ παραίνεσις, containing instructions for monks, is published with a Latin version by Fr. Combefis in Auctarium biblioth. patr. novissim. (Paris, 1672), pp. 301 f.; the second is a collection of forty-four wise sayings put together by his friends under the title of Ἀποφθέγματα (see Cotelerius, Eccl. graec. monum., 1677, i. pp. 353-372). In the Roman Catholic Church his festival is on the 19th of July, in the Orthodox Eastern Church on the 8th of May. His biography by Simeon Metaphrastes is largely fiction.

ARSENIUS AUTORIANUS (13th century), patriarch of Constantinople, lived about the middle of the 13th century. He received his education in Nicaea at a monastery of which he later became the abbot, though not in orders. Subsequently he gave himself up to a life of solitary asceticism in a Bithynian monastery, and is said, probably wrongly, to have remained some time in a monastery on Mount Athos. From this seclusion he was in A.D. 1255 called by Theodore II. Lascaris to the position of patriarch at Nicaea, and four years later, on that emperor’s death, became joint guardian of his son John. His fellow-guardian Georgios Mouzalon was immediately murdered by Michael Palaeologus, who assumed the position of tutor. Arsenius then took refuge in the monastery of Paschasius, retaining his office of patriarch but refusing to discharge its duties. Nicephorus of Ephesus was appointed in his stead. In 1261 Michael, having recovered Constantinople, induced Arsenius again to undertake the office of patriarch, but soon incurred his severe censure by ordering the young prince John to be blinded. Arsenius went so far as to excommunicate the emperor, who, having vainly sought for pardon, took refuge in false accusations against Arsenius and caused him to be banished to Proconnesus, where some years afterwards (according to Fabricius in 1264; others say in 1273) he died. Throughout these years he declined to remove the sentence of excommunication which he had passed upon Michael, and after his death, when the new patriarch Josephus gave absolution to the emperor, the quarrel was carried on between the “Arsenites” and the “Josephists.” The “Arsenian schism” lasted till 1315, when reconciliation was effected by the patriarch Niphon (see Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury, 1898, vol. vi. 467 foll.). Arsenius is said to have prepared from the decisions of the councils and the works of the Fathers a summary of divine laws under the title Synopsis Canonum. This was published (Greek original and Latin version) by G. Voël and H. Justel in Bibliotheca Jur. Canon. Vet. (Paris, 1661), 749 foll. Some hold that the Synopsis was the work of another Arsenius, a monk of Athos (see L. Petit in Vacant’s Dict. théol. cathol. i. col. 1994); the ascription depends on whether the patriarch Arsenius did or did not sojourn at Mount Athos.

ARSES, Persian king, youngest son of Artaxerxes III., was raised to the throne in 338 B.C. by Bagoas (q.v.), who had 655 murdered his father and all his brothers. But when the young king tried to make himself independent, Bagoas killed him too, with all his children, in the third year of his reign (336) (Diod. 17.5; Strabo 15. 736; Trogus, Prol. x., Alexander’s despatch to Darius III.; Arrian ii. 14. 5, and the chronographers). In Plutarch, De fort. Alex. ii. 3. 5, he is called Oarses; in Johannes Antioch. p. 38, Arsamos; in the canon of Ptolemy, Aroges (by Elias of Nisibis, Pīrūz); in a chronological tablet from Babylon (Brit. Mus. Sp. ii. 71, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, viii. 176, x. 64) he is abbreviated into Ar. See Persia: Ancient History.

ARSINOË, the name of four Egyptian princesses of the Ptolemaic dynasty. The name was introduced into the Ptolemaic dynasty by the mother of Ptolemy I. This Arsinoë was originally a mistress of Philip II. of Macedon, who presented her to a Macedonian soldier Loqus shortly before Ptolemy was born. It was, therefore, assumed by the Macedonians that the Ptolemaic house was really descended from Philip (see Ptolemies).

1. Daughter of Lysimachus, king of Thrace, first wife of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.). Accused of conspiring against her husband, who perhaps already contemplated marriage with his sister, also named Arsinoë, she was banished to Coptos, in Upper Egypt. Her son Ptolemy was afterwards king under the title of Euergetes. It is supposed by some (e.g. Niebuhr, Kleine Schriften; cf. Ehrlichs, De Callimachi hymnis) that she is to be identified with the Arsinoë who became wife of Magas, king of Cyrene, and that she married him after her exile to Coptos. But this hypothesis is apparently without foundation. Magas before his death had betrothed his daughter Berenice to the son of his brother Ptolemy II. Philadelphus, but Arsinoë, disliking the projected alliance, induced Demetrius the Fair, son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, to accept the throne of Cyrene as husband of Berenice. She herself, however, fell in love with the young prince, and Berenice in revenge formed a conspiracy, and, having slain Demetrius, married Ptolemy’s son (see Berenice, 3).

2. Daughter of Ptolemy I. Soter and Berenice. Born about 316 B.C., she married Lysimachus, king of Thrace, who made over to her the territories of his divorced wife, Amastris. To secure the succession for her own children she brought about the murder of her stepson Agathocles. Lysandra, the wife of Agathocles, took refuge with Seleucus, king of Syria, who made war upon Lysimachus and defeated him (281). After her husband’s death Arsinoë fled to Ephesus and afterwards to Cassandreia in Macedonia. Seleucus, who had seized Lysimachus’s kingdom, was murdered in 281 by Ptolemy Ceraunus (half-brother of Arsinoë), who thus became master of Thrace and Macedonia. To obtain possession of Cassandreia, he offered his hand in marriage to Arsinoë, and being admitted into the town, killed her two younger sons and banished her to Samothrace. Escaping to Egypt, she became the wife of her full brother Ptolemy II., the first instance of the practice (afterwards common) of the Greek kings of Egypt marrying their sisters. She was a woman of a masterful character and won great influence. Her husband, though she bore him no children, was devoted to her and paid her all possible honour after her death in 271. He gave her name to a number of cities, and also to a district (nome) of Egypt.1 It is related that he ordered the architect Dinochares to build a temple in her honour in Alexandria; in order that her statue, made of iron, might appear to be suspended in the air, the roof was to consist of an arch of loadstones (Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxiv. 42). Coins were also struck, showing her crowned and veiled on the obverse, with a double cornucopia on the reverse. She was worshipped as a goddess under the title of Θεὰ φιλάδελφος, and she and her husband as Θεοὶ ἄδελφοι (Justin xxiv. 2, 3; Pausanias i. 7).

3. Daughter of Ptolemy III. Euergetes, sister and wife of Ptolemy IV. Philopator. She seems to be erroneously called Eurydice by Justin (xxx. 2), and Cleopatra by Livy (xxvii. 4). Her presence greatly encouraged the troops at the battle of Raphia (217), in which Antiochus the Great was defeated. Her husband put her to death to please his mistress Agathocleia, a Samian dancer (between 210 and 205). She was worshipped as Θεὰ φιλοπάτωρ; she and her husband as Θεοὶ φιλοπάτορες (Polybius v. 83, 84, xv. 25-33).

4. Youngest daughter of Ptolemy XIII. Auletes, and sister of the famous Cleopatra. During the siege of Alexandria by Julius Caesar (48) she was recognized as queen by the inhabitants, her brother, the young Ptolemy, being then held captive by Caesar. Caesar took her with him to Rome as a precaution. After Caesar’s triumph she was allowed to return to Alexandria. After the battle of Philippi she was put to death at Miletus (or in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus) by order of Mark Antony, at the request of her sister Cleopatra (Dio Cassius xlii. 39; Caesar, Bell. civ. iii. 112; Appian, Bell. civ. v. 9).

ARSINOITHERIUM (so called from the Egyptian queen Arsinoë), a gigantic horned mammal from the Middle Eocene beds of the Fayum, Egypt, representing a sub-order of Ungulata, called Barypoda. The skull is remarkable for carrying a huge pair of horn-cores above the muzzle, which seem to be the enlarged nasal bones, and a rudimentary pair farther back; the front horn-cores, like the rest of the skull, consist of a mere shell of bone, and were probably clothed in life with horny sheaths. The teeth form a continuous even series, the small canines being crowded between the incisors and premolars; the crowns of the cheek-series are tall (hypsodont), with a distinctive pattern of their own. Although the brain is relatively larger, the bones of the limbs, especially the short, five-toed feet, approximate to those of the Amblypoda and Proboscidea; but in the articulation of the astragalus with both the navicular and cuboid Arsinoitherium is nearer the former than the latter group.

It is probable, however, that these resemblances are mainly due to parallelism in development, and are in all three cases adaptations necessary to support the enormous weight of the body. On the other hand, the marked resemblance of the structure of the tarsus is probably indicative of descent from nearly allied condylarthrous ancestors (see Phenacodus). No importance can be attached to the presence of horns as an indication of affinity between Arsinoitherium and the Amblypoda; and there are important differences in the structure of the skulls of the two, notably in the external auditory meatus, the occiput, the premaxillae, the palatal foramina and the lower jaw.

From the Proboscidea Arsinoitherium differs broadly in skull structure, in the form of the cheek-teeth, and in the persistence of the complete dental series of forty-four without gaps or enlargement of particular teeth. Whether there is any relationship with the Hyracoidea cannot be determined until we are acquainted with the forerunners of Arsinoitherium, which is evidently a highly specialized type.

It may be added that as the name Barypoda has been used at an earlier date for another group of animals, the alternative title Embrithopoda has been suggested in case the former should be considered barred.

ARSON (from Lat. ardere, to burn), a crime which has been described as the malicious and voluntary burning of the house of another (3 Co. Inst. 66). At common law in England it is an offence of the degree of felony. In the Roman civil law arson was punishable by death. It appears early in the history of English law, being known in ancient laws by the term of boernet. It is mentioned by Cnut as one of the bootless crimes, and under the Saxon laws was punishable by death. The sentence of death for arson was, says Stephen (Commentaries, iv. 89), in the reign of Edward I. executed by a kind of lex talionis, for the incendiaries were burnt to death; a punishment which was inflicted also under 656 the Gothic institutions. Death continued to be the penalty at least down to the reign of King John, according to a reported case (Gloucester Pleas, pl. 216), but in course of time the penalty became that of other common-law felonies, death by the gallows. It is one of the earliest crimes in which the mens rea, or criminal intent, was taken special notice of. Bracton deals at length with the mala conscientia, which he says is necessary for this crime, and contrasts it with negligentia (f. 146 b), while in many early indictments malice aforethought (malitia praecogitata) appears. Arson was deprived of “benefit of clergy” under the Tudors, while an act of 8 Henry VI. c. 6 (1429) made the wilful burning of houses, under particular circumstances, high treason, but acts of 1 Ed. VI. c. 12 (1547) and 1 Mary (1553) reduced it to an ordinary felony. The English law concerning arson was consolidated by 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 30, which was repealed and re-enacted by the Malicious Damage Act 1861.

The common-law offence of arson (which has been greatly enlarged by the act of 1861) required some part of the house to be actually burnt; neither a bare intention nor even an actual attempt by putting fire in or towards it will constitute the offence, if no part was actually burnt, but the burning of any part, however trifling, is sufficient, and the offence is complete even if the fire is put out or goes out of itself. The burning must be malicious and wilful, otherwise it is only a trespass. If a man by wilfully setting fire to his own house burn the house of his neighbour also, it will be a felony, even though the primary intention of the party was to burn his own house only. The word house, in the definition of the offence at common law, extends not only to dwelling-houses, “but to all out-houses which are parcel thereof, though not adjoining thereto.” Barns with corn and hay in them, though distant from a house, are within the definition.

The different varieties of the offence are specified in the Malicious Damage Act 1861. The following crimes are thereby made felonies: (1) setting fire to any church, chapel, meeting-house or other place of divine worship; (2) setting fire to a dwelling-house, any person being therein; (3) setting fire to a house, out-house, manufactory, farm-building, &c., with intent to impose and defraud any person; (4) setting fire to buildings appertaining to any railway, port, dock or harbour; or (5) setting fire to any public building. In these cases the act provides that the person convicted shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than three years (altered to five years by the Penal Servitude Acts Amendment Act 1864), or to be imprisoned for any time not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, and, if a male under sixteen years of age, with or without whipping. Setting fire to other buildings, and setting fire to goods in buildings under such circumstances that, if the building were thereby set fire to, the offence would amount to felony, are subject to the punishments last enumerated, with this exception that the period of penal servitude is limited to fourteen years. The attempt to set fire to any building, or any matter or thing not enumerated above, is punishable as a felony. Russell says (Crimes, p. 1781) that the term building is no doubt very indefinite, but it was used in 9 & 10 Vict. c. 25, s. 2; and it was thought much better to adopt this term and leave it to be interpreted as each case might arise, than to attempt to define; as any such attempt would probably have failed in producing any expression more certain than the term “building” itself. In R. v. Manning, 1872 (L.R. 1 C.C.R. 338), it was held that an unfinished house was a building within the meaning of the act. The setting fire to crops of hay, grass, corn, &c., is punishable by penal servitude for any period not exceeding fourteen years, but setting fire to stacks of the same, or any cultivated vegetable produce, or to peat, coals, &c., is regarded as a more serious offence, and the penal servitude may be for life. For the attempt to commit the last two offences penal servitude is limited to seven years. Setting fire to mines of coal, anthracite or other mineral fuel is visited with the full measure of penalty, and in the case of an attempt the penal servitude is limited to fourteen years. By the Dockyards, &c., Protection Act 1772 it is a felony punishable by death wilfully and maliciously to set fire to any of His Majesty’s ships or vessels of war, or any of His Majesty’s arsenals, magazines, dockyards, rope-yards, victualling offices or buildings therein, or any timber, material, stores or ammunition of war therein or in any part of His Majesty’s dominions. If the person guilty of the offence is a person subject to naval discipline, he is triable by court-martial, and if found guilty, a sentence of capital punishment may be passed. The Malicious Damage Act 1861, s. 43, also includes as a felony the setting fire to any ship or vessel, with intent to prejudice any owner or part owner of the vessel, or of any goods on the same, or any person who has underwritten any policy of insurance on the vessel, or upon any goods on board the same.

In Scotland the offence equivalent to arson in England is known by the more expressive name of fire-raising. The crime was punishable capitally by old consuetudinary law, but it is now no longer capital, and may be tried in the sheriff court (50 & 51 Vict. c. 35, s. 56). Formerly the public prosecutor had the privilege of declining to demand capital punishment, and he invariably did so. Wilful fire-raising, which is the most heinous form of the crime, requires the raising of fire, without any lawful object, but with the deliberate intention of destroying certain premises or things, whether directly by the application of fire thereto, or indirectly by its application to something contained in or forming part of or communicating with them; also the intention to destroy premises or things of a certain description (much as mentioned above); and such premises or things must be the property of another than the accused. Wicked, culpable and reckless fire-raising differs from wilful fire-raising in that the fire is raised without the deliberate intention of destroying premises or things, but while the accused was engaged in some unlawful act, or while he was in such a state of passion, excitement or recklessness as not to care what results might follow from his acts.

United States.—The same general principles apply to this crime in American law. In some states by statute the intent to injure or defraud must be shown, e.g. when the property is insured. In New York one who wilfully burns property (including a vessel or its cargo) with intent to defraud or prejudice the insurer thereof, though the offence of arson is not committed, is punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years (N.Y. Pen. Code, ss. 575, 578). There must be an intent to destroy the building (ibid. s. 490; California Code, s. 447). An agreement to commit arson is conspiracy (ibid. s. 171). Killing a person in committing the crime of arson is murder in the first degree (ibid. s. 183); this is so in California, even where the crime is merely an attempt to commit arson (Cal. Pen. Code, s. 189). Explosion of a house by gunpowder or dynamite is arson (Texas Pen. Code, art. 761), but a charge of arson by “burning” will not be sustained by proof of exploding by dynamite, even though part of the building is burnt by the explosion (Landers v. State [Tex.], 47 S.W. 1008).

ARSONVAL, a village of France in the department of Aube, lies on the right bank of the Aube, about 30 m. east of Troyes. It has a church dating from the 12th century. Pop. 434.

ARSOT, the name of a forest in France, in the immediate neighbourhood of Belfort. It has an area of about 1500 acres, is almost encircled by a small stream, the Eloie, and is about 1400 ft. above the sea. On the east it is continued by the forest of Denney, which contains the fortress of Roppe, dominating the road from Colmar into France.

ARSUF, a town on the coast of Palestine, 12 m. N.N.E. of Jaffa, famous as the scene of a victory of the crusaders under Richard I. of England over the army of Saladin. After the capture of Acre on the 12th of July 1191, the army of the crusaders, under Richard Cœur-de-Lion and the duke of Burgundy, opened their campaign for the recovery of Jerusalem by marching southward towards Jaffa, from which place it was intended to move direct upon the holy city. The march was 657 along the sea-shore, and, the forces of Saladin being in the vicinity, the army moved in such a formation as to be able to give battle at any moment. Richard thus moved slowly, but in such compact order as to arouse the admiration even of the enemy. The right column of baggage and supplies, guarded by infantry, was nearest the sea, the various corps of heavy cavalry, one behind the other, formed the central column, and on the exposed left flank was the infantry, well closed up, and “level and firm as a wall,” according to the testimony of Saracen authors. The columns were united into a narrow rectangle by the advanced and rear guards. The whole march was a running fight between untiring horse-archers and steady infantry. Only once did the column open out, and the opportunity was swiftly seized by the Saracens, yet so rapid was the rally of the crusaders that little damage was done (August 25). The latter maintained for many days an absolutely passive defence, and could not be tempted to fight; Richard and his knights made occasional charges, but quickly withdrew, and on the 7th of September this irregular skirmishing, in which the crusaders had scarcely suffered at all, culminated in the battle of Arsuf. Saladin had by now decided that the only hope of success lay in compelling the rear of the Christians’ column to halt—and thus opening a gap, should the van be still on the move. Richard, on the other hand, had prepared for action by closing up still more, and as the crusaders were now formed a simple left turn brought them into two lines of battle, infantry in first line, cavalry in second line. Near Arsuf the road entered a defile between the sea and a wooded range of hills; and from the latter the whole Moslem army suddenly burst forth. The weight of the attack fell upon the rear of Richard’s column, as Saladin desired. The column slowly continued its march, suffering heavily in horses, but otherwise unharmed. The first assault thus made no impression, but a fierce hand-to-hand combat followed, in which the Hospitallers, who formed the rear of the Christian army, were hard pressed. Their grand master, like many other subordinates in history, repeatedly begged to be allowed to charge, but Richard, who on this occasion showed the highest gift of generalship, that of feeling the pulse of the fight, waited for the favourable moment. Almost as he gave the signal for the whole line to charge, the sorely pressed Hospitallers rode out upon the enemy on their own initiative. At once the whole of the cavalry followed suit. The head (or right wing) and centre were not closely engaged, and their fleeter opponents had time to ride off, but the rear of the column carried all before it in its impetuous onset, and cut down the Saracens in great numbers. A second charge, followed by a third, dispersed the enemy in all directions. The total loss of the Saracens was more than tenfold that of the Christians, who lost but seven hundred men. The army arrived at Jaffa on the 10th of September.

ARSURE, a village of France in the department of Jura, has some stone quarries and extensive layers of peat in its neighbourhood. Its church has a choir dating from the 11th century. Pop. 370.

ARSURES, a village of France in the department of Jura, situated on a small stream, the Lurine. It is surrounded by vineyards, from which excellent wine is produced. Pop. 233.

ART, a word in its most extended and most popular sense meaning everything which we distinguish from Nature. Art and Nature are the two most comprehensive genera of which the human mind has formed the conception. Under the genus Nature, or the genus Art, we include all the phenomena of the universe. But as our conception of Nature is indeterminate and variable, so in some degree is our conception of Art. Nor does such ambiguity arise only because some modes of thought refer a greater number of the phenomena of the universe to the genus Nature, and others a greater number to the genus Art. It arises also because we do not strictly limit the one genus by the other. The range of the phenomena to which we point, when we say Art, is never very exactly determined by the range of the other phenomena which at the same time we tacitly refer to the order of Nature. Everybody understands the general meaning of a phrase like Chaucer’s “Nature ne Art ne koude him not amende,” or Pope’s “Blest with each grace of nature and of art.” In such phrases we intend to designate familiarly as Nature all which exists independently of our study, forethought and exertion—in other words, those phenomena in ourselves or the world which we do not originate but find; and we intend to designate familiarly as Art all which we do not find but originate—or, in other words, the phenomena, which we add by study, forethought and exertion to those existing independently of us. But we do not use these designations consistently. Sometimes we draw an arbitrary line in the action of individuals and societies, and say, Here Nature ends and Art begins—such a law, such a practice, such an industry even, is natural, and such another is artificial; calling those natural which happen spontaneously and without much reflection, and the others artificial. But this line different observers draw at different places. Sometimes we adopt views which waive the distinction altogether. One such view is that wherein all phenomena are regarded as equally natural, and the idea of Nature is extended so as to include “all the powers existing in either the outer or the inner world, and everything which exists by means of those powers.” In this view Art becomes a part of Nature. It is illustrated in the familiar passage of Shakespeare, where Polixenes reminds Perdita that

A posthumous essay of John Stuart Mill contains a full philosophical exposition and defence of this mode of regarding the relations of Nature and Art. Defining Nature as above, and again as a “collective name for all facts, actual and possible,” that writer proceeds to say that such a definition

Another mode of thought, in some sort complementary to the last, is based on the analogy which the operations of forces external to a man bear to the operations of man himself. Study, forethought and exertion are assigned to Nature, and her operations are called operations of Art. This view was familiar to ancient systems of philosophy, and especially to that of the Stoics. According to the report of Cicero, Nature as conceived by Zeno was a fire, and at the same time a voluntary agent having the power or art of creating things with regularity and design (“naturam esse ignem artificiosum ad gignendum progredientem via”). To this fire not merely creative force and 658 systematic action were ascribed, but actual personality. Nature was “non artificiosa solum, sed plane artifex.” “That which in the works of human art is done by hands, is done with much greater art by Nature, that is, by a fire which exercises an art and is the teacher of other arts.” This conception of Nature as an all-generating fire, and at the same time as a personal artist both teaching and including in her own activity all the human arts, on the one hand may be said, with Polixenes and J.S. Mill, to merge Art in Nature; but on the other hand it finds the essence of Nature in the resemblance of her operations to those of Art. “It is the proprium of art,” according to the same system, “to create and beget,” and the reasoning proceeds—Nature creates and begets, therefore Nature is an artist or Demiurgus. A kindred view is set forth by Sir Thomas Browne in the Religio Medici, when he declares that “all things are artificial; for Nature is the Art of God.”

But these modes of thought, according to which, on the one hand, the processes of Art are included among processes of Nature, or on the other the processes of Nature among the processes of Art, are exceptional. In ordinary use the two conceptions, each of them somewhat vague and inexact, are antithetical. Their antithesis was what Dr Johnson had chiefly in his mind when he defined Art as “the power of doing something which is not taught by Nature or by instinct.” But this definition is insufficient, because the abstract word Art, whether used of all arts at once or of one at a time, is a name not only for the power of doing something, but for the exercise of the power; and not only for the exercise of the power, but for the rules according to which it is exercised; and not only for the rules, but for the result. Painting, for instance, is an art, and the word connotes not only the power to paint, but the act of painting; and not only the act, but the laws for performing the act rightly; and not only all these, but the material consequences of the act or the thing painted. So of agriculture, navigation and the rest. Exception might also be taken to Dr Johnson’s definition on the ground that it excludes all actions of instinct from the genus Art, whereas usage has in more languages than one given the name of Art to several of those ingenuities in the lower animals which popular theory at the same time declares to be instinctive. Dante, for instance, speaks of boughs shaken by the wind, but not so violently as to make the birds forgo their Art—

And Fontenelle, speaking in the language not of poetry but of science:—“Most animals—as, for instance, bees, spiders and beavers—have a kind of art peculiar to themselves; but each race of animals has no more than one art, and this one has had no first inventor among the race. Man, on the other hand, has an infinity of different arts which were not born with his race, and of which the glory is his own.” Dr Johnson might reply that those properties of variety and of originality or individual invention, which Fontenelle himself alleges in the ingenuities of man but not in those of the lower animals, are sufficient to make a generic difference, and to establish the impropriety of calling a honeycomb or a spider’s web a work of Art. It is not our purpose to trespass on ground so debateable as that of the nature of consciousness in the lower animals. Enough that when we use the term Art of any action, it is because we are thinking of properties in the action from which we infer, whether justly or not, that the agent voluntarily and designedly puts forth skill for known ends and by regular and uniform methods. If, then, we were called upon to frame a general definition of Art, giving the word its widest and most comprehensive meaning, it would run thus:—Every regulated operation or dexterity by which organized beings pursue ends which they know beforehand, together with the rules and the result of every such operation or dexterity.

Here it will be well to consider very briefly the natural history of the name which has been given to this very comprehensive conception by the principal branches of civilized mankind. Our own word Art the English language has taken, as all the Romance languages of modern Europe have taken theirs, directly from the Latin. The Latin ars, according to the prevailing opinion of philologists, proceeds from a root AR, of which the primitive signification was to put or fit things together, and which is to be found in a large family of Greek words. The Greek τέχνη, the name both for arts in the particular and art in the abstract, is by its root related both to τέκ-των and τέκ-νον, and thus contains the allied ideas of making and begetting. The proprium of art in the logic of the Stoics, “to create and beget,” was strictly in accordance with this etymology. The Teutonic Kunst is formed from können, and können is developed from a primitive Ich kann. In kann philology is inclined to recognize a preterite form of a lost verb, of which we find the traces in Kin-d, a child; and the form Ich kann thus meaning originally “I begot,” contains the germ of the two several developments,—können, “to be master,” “to be able,” and kennen, “to know.” We thus see that the chief Indo-European languages have with one consent extended a name for the most elementary exercise of a constructive or productive power, till that name has covered the whole range of the skilled and deliberate operations of sentient beings.