This is a modern-English version of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Italy" to "Jacobite Church": Volume 15, Slice 1, originally written by Various. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

Transcriber’s note: A few typographical errors have been corrected. They appear in the text like this, and the explanation will appear when the mouse pointer is moved over the marked passage. Sections in Greek will yield a transliteration when the pointer is moved over them, and words using diacritic characters in the Latin Extended Additional block, which may not display in some fonts or browsers, will display an unaccented version.

Links to other EB articles: Links to articles residing in other EB volumes will be made available when the respective volumes are introduced online.
 

THE

THE

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

 

ELEVENTH EDITION

11TH EDITION

 
FIRST edition, published in three volumes, 1768-1771.
SECOND ten 1777-1784.
THIRD eighteen 1788-1797.
FOURTH twenty 1801-1810.
FIFTH twenty 1815-1817.
SIXTH twenty 1823-1824.
SEVENTH twenty-one 1830-1842.
EIGHTH twenty-two 1853-1860.
NINTH twenty-five 1875-1889.
TENTH ninth edition and eleven supplementary volumes, 1902-1903.
ELEVENTH published in twenty-nine volumes, 1910-1911.
 

 

COPYRIGHT

COPYRIGHT

in all countries subscribing to the
Bern Convention

in all countries that are part of the
Bern Convention

by

by

THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS

THE CHANCELLOR, FACULTY AND STUDENTS

of the

of the

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

University of Cambridge

 

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

 

THE

THE

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA

 

A

A

DICTIONARY

DICTIONARY

OF

OF

ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL

ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE, AND MORE

INFORMATION

INFORMATION

 

ELEVENTH EDITION

11th Edition

 

VOLUME XV

VOLUME 15

ITALY to KYSHTYM

ITALY to KYSHTYM

 

New York

NYC

 

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

342 Madison Avenue

342 Madison Ave

 

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

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

 

VOLUME XV SLICE I

Italy to Jacobite Church


 

Articles in This Slice

Articles in This Section

ITALY JABLONSKI, DANIEL ERNST
ITEM JABORANDI
ITHACA (Greece) JACA
ITHACA (New York, U.S.A.) JACAMAR
ITINERARIUM JAÇANÁ
ITIUS PORTUS JACINI, STEFANO
ITO, HIROBUMI JACK
ITRI JACKAL
ITURBIDE, AUGUSTIN DE JACKDAW
ITZA JACKSON, ANDREW
ITZEHOE JACKSON, CYRIL
IUKA JACKSON, FREDERICK GEORGE
IULUS JACKSON, HELEN MARIA
IVAN JACKSON, MASON
IVANGOROD JACKSON, THOMAS
IVANOVO-VOZNESENSK JACKSON, THOMAS JONATHAN
IVARR, BEINLAUSI JACKSON, WILLIAM
IVIZA JACKSON (Michigan, U.S.A.)
IVORY, SIR JAMES JACKSON (Mississippi, U.S.A.)
IVORY JACKSON (Tennessee, U.S.A.)
IVORY COAST JACKSONVILLE (Florida, U.S.A.)
IVREA JACKSONVILLE (Illinois, U.S.A.)
IVRY-SUR-SEINE JACOB
IVY JACOB, JOHN
IWAKURA, TOMOMI JACOB BEN ASHER
IXION JACOB OF EDESSA
IXTACCIHUATL JACOB OF JÜTERBOGK
IYRCAE JACOB OF SĔRŪGH
IZBARTA JACOBA
IZHEVSK JACOBABAD
IZMAIL JACOBEAN STYLE
IZU-NO-SHICHI-TŌ JACOBI, FRIEDRICH HEINRICH
J JACOBI, JOHANN GEORG
JA’ALIN JACOBI, KARL GUSTAV JACOB
JABIRU JACOBINS, THE
JABLOCHKOV, PAUL JACOBITE CHURCH
 

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

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

 
A. A. M. Arthur Anthony Macdonell, M.A., Ph.D.
Boden Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Oxford. Keeper of the Indian Institute. Fellow of Balliol College; Fellow of the British Academy. Author of A Vedic Grammar; A History of Sanskrit Literature; Vedic Mythology; &c.

Kālidāsa.

Kālidāsa.

A. B. D. Rev. Andrew B. Davidson, PhD.
See the biographical article: Davidson, A. B.

Job (in part).

Job (partly).

A. C. S. Algernon Charles Swinburne.
See the biographical article: Swinburne, A. C.

Keats (in part).

Keats (partially).

A. D. Henry Austin Dobson, PhD.
See the biographical article: Dobson, H. Austin.

Kauffmann, Angelica.

Kauffmann, Angelica.

A. E. S. Arthur Everett Shipley, M.A., F.R.S., D.Sc.
Master of Christ’s College, Cambridge. Reader in Zoology, Cambridge University. Joint-editor of the Cambridge Natural History.

Kinorhyncha.

Kinorhyncha.

A. F. P. Albert Frederick Polìard, M.A., F.R.Hist.Soc.
Professor of English History in the University of London. Fellow of All Souls’ College, Oxford. Assistant Editor of the Dictionary of National Biography, 1893-1901. Lothian Prizeman (Oxford), 1892; Arnold prizeman, 1898. Author of England under the Protector Somerset; Henry VIII.; Life of Thomas Cranmer; &c.

Jewel, John.

John Jewel.

A. G. Major Arthur George Frederick Griffiths (d. 1908).
H.M. Inspector of Prisons, 1878-1896. Author of The Chronicles of Newgate; Secrets of the Prison House; &c.

Juvenile Offenders (in part).

Young Offenders (in part).

A. Go.* Rev. Alex Gordon, M.A.
Lecturer on Church History in the University of Manchester.

Joris;

Joris;

Knipperdollinck.

Knipperdollinck.

A. G. D. Arthur George Doughty, C.M.G., M.A., Litt.D., F.R.S.(Canada), F.R.Hist.S.
Dominion Archivist of Canada. Member of the Geographical Board of Canada. Author of The Cradle of New France; &c. Joint-editor of Documents relating to the Constitutional History of Canada.

Joly de Lotbinière.

Joly de Lotbinière.

A. H. S. Rev. Archibald Henry Sayce, Doctor of Literature, Doctor of Laws.
See the biographical article: Sayce, A. H.

Kassites.

Kassites.

A. H.-S. Sir A. Houtum-Schindler, C.I.E.
General in the Persian Army. Author of Eastern Persian Irak.

Karun;

Karun

Kerman;

Kerman

Khorasan;

Khorasan

Kishm.

Kishm.

A. H. Sm. Arthur Hamilton Smith, M.A., F.S.A.
Keeper of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the British Museum. Member of the Imperial German Archaeological Institute. Author of Catalogue of Greek Sculpture in the British Museum; &c.

Jewelry.

Jewelry.

A. M. C. Agnes Mary Clerke.
See the biographical article: Clerke, A. M.

Kepler.

Kepler.

A. Ml. Alfred Ogle Maskell, F.S.A.
Superintendent of the Picture Galleries, Indian and Colonial Exhibition, 1887. Cantor Lecturer, 1906. Founder and first editor of the Downside Review. Author of Ivories; &c.

Ivory.

Ivory.

A. N. Alfred Newton, F.R.S.
See the biographical article: Newton, Alfred.

Jabiru;

Jabiru

Jacamar;

Jacamar;

Jaçanā;

Jaçanã;

Jackdaw;

Jackdaw;

Jay;

Jay;

Kakapo;

Kakapo

Kestrel;

Kestrel

Killdeer;

Killdeer;

King-Bird;

King Bird;

Kingfisher;

Kingfisher

Kinglet;

Kinglet;

Kite;

Kite;

Kiwi;

Kiwi fruit;

Knot.

Knot.

A. T. I. Alexander Taylor Innés, M.A., LL.D.
Scotch advocate. Author of John Knox; Law of Creeds in Scotland; Studies in Scottish History; &c.

Knox, John.

John Knox.

A. W. H.* Arthur W. Holland.
Formerly Scholar of St John’s College, Oxford. Bacon Scholar of Gray’s Inn, 1900.

Jacobites.

Jacobites.

A. W. W. Adolphus William Ward, PhD, D.Litt.
See the biographical article: Ward, A. W.

Jonson, Ben.

Ben Jonson.

B. F. S. B.-P. Major Baden F. S. Baden-Powell, F.R.A.S., F.R.Met.S.
Inventor of man-lifting kites. Formerly President of Aeronautical Society. Author of Ballooning as a Sport; War in Practice; &c.

Kite-flying (in part).

Kite flying.

B. W. B. Rev. Benjamin Wisner Bacon, A.M., D.D., Litt.D., LL.D.
Professor of New Testament Criticism and Exegesis in Yale University. Formerly Director of American School of Archaeology, Jerusalem. Author of The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate; The Founding of the Church; &c.

James, Epistle of;

James, Letter of;

Jude, The General Epistle of.

Jude, The Letter of.

C. D. G. Rev. Dr. Christian David Ginsburg
See the biographical article: Ginsburg, C. D.

Kabbalah (in part).

Kabbalah (partially).

C. El. Sir Charles Norton Edgcumbe Eliot, K.C.M.G., C.B., M.A., LL.D., D.C.L.
Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield University. Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. H.M.’s Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief for the British East Africa Protectorate; Agent and Consul-General at Zanzibar; Consul-General for German East Africa, 1900-1904.

Kashgar (in part);

Kashgar (partially);

Khazars (in part);

Khazars (some);

Khiva (in part).

Khiva (partially).

C. E. D. B. C. E. D. Black.
Formerly Clerk for Geographical Records, India Office, London.

Kashgar (in part).

Kashgar (partially).

C. H. Ha. Carlton Huntley Hayes, A.M., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of History in Columbia University, New York City. Member of the American Historical Association.

John XXI.;

John XXI.

Julius II.

Pope Julius II.

C. H. T.* Crawford Howell Toy.
See the biographical article: Toy, Crawford Howell.

Job (in part).

Job (partially).

C. J. J. Charles Jasper Joly, F.R.S., F.R.A.S. (1864-1906).
Royal Astronomer of Ireland, and Andrews Professor of Astronomy in the University of Dublin, 1897-1906. Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. Secretary of the Royal Irish Academy.

Kaleidoscope.

Kaleidoscope.

C. J. L. Sir Charles James Lyall, K.C.S.I., C.I.E., LL.D. (Edin.).
Secretary, Judicial and Public Department, India Office. Fellow of King’s College, London. Secretary to Government of India in Home Department, 1889-1894. Chief Commissioner, Central Provinces, India, 1895-1898. Author of Translations of Ancient Arabic Poetry; &c.

Kabir.

Kabir.

C. L. K. Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, M.A., F.R.Hist.Soc., F.S.A.
Assistant Secretary to the Board of Education. Author of Life of Henry V. Editor of Chronicles of London, and Stow’s Survev of London.

Kempe.

Kempe.

C. Mi. Chedomille Mijatovich.
Senator of the Kingdom of Servia. Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the King of Servia to the Court of St James’s, 1895-1900, and 1902-1903.

Karageorge;

Karageorge;

Karajich.

Karajich.

C. M. W. Sir Charles Moore Watson, K.C.M.G., C.B.
Colonel, Royal Engineers. Deputy-Inspector-General of Fortifications, 1896-1902. Served under General Gordon in the Sudan, 1874-1875.

Jerusalem (in part).

Jerusalem (partially).

C. R. B. Charles Raymond Beazley, M.A., D.Litt., F.R.G.S., F.R.Hist.S.
Professor of Modern History in the University of Birmingham. Formerly Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, and University Lecturer in the History of Geography. Lothian Prizeman, Oxford, 1889. Lowell Lecturer, Boston, 1908. Author of Henry the Navigator; The Dawn of Modern Geography, &c.

Jordanus.

Jordanus.

C. S. C. Caspar Stanley Clark.
Assistant in Indian Section, Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington.

Kashi (in part).

Kashi (partially).

C. We. Cecil Weatherly.
Formerly Scholar of Queen’s College, Oxford. Barrister-at-Law, Inner Temple.

Knighthood: Orders of.

Knighthood: Orders of.

C. W. W. Sir Charles William Wilson, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., F.R.S. (1836-1907).
Major-General, Royal Engineers. Secretary to the North American Boundary Commission, 1858-1862. British Commissioner on the Servian Boundary Commission. Director-General of the Ordnance Survey, 1886-1894. Director-General of Military Education, 1895-1898. Author of From Korti to Khartoum; Life of Lord Clive; &c.

Jerusalem (in part);

Jerusalem (partly);

Jordan (in part);

Jordan (partially);

Kurdistan (in part).

Kurdistan (partially).

D. G. H. David George Hogarth, Master's Degree
Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Fellow of the British Academy. Excavated at Paphos, 1888; Naucratis, 1899 and 1903; Ephesus, 1904-1905; Assiut, 1906-1907. Director, British School at Athens, 1897-1900. Director, Cretan Exploration Fund, 1899.

Jebell;

Jebell;

Jordan (in part);

Jordan (partially);

Karamania;

Karamania;

Kharput;

Kharput

Konia.

Konia.

D. H. David Hannay.
Formerly British Vice-Consul at Barcelona. Author of Short History of the Royal Navy, 1217-1688; Life of Emilio Castelar; &c.

Junius;

Junius;

Kanaris;

Kanaris;

Keith, Viscount;

Keith, Viscount;

Keppel, Viscount.

Viscount Keppel.

E. B. Edward Breck, M.A., Ph.D.
Formerly Foreign Correspondent of the New York Herald and the New York Times. Author of Fencing; Wilderness Pets; Sporting in Nova Scotia; &c.

Kite-flying (in part).

Kite flying

E. Br. Ernest Barker, M.A.
Fellow and Lecturer in Modern History, St John’s College, Oxford. Formerly Fellow and Tutor of Merton College. Craven Scholar, 1895.

Jordanes (in part).

Jordanes (partially).

E. F. S. Edward Fairbrother Strange.
Assistant Keeper, Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington. Member of Council, Japan Society. Author of numerous works on art subjects; Joint-editor of Bell’s “Cathedral” Series.

Japan: Art (in part);

Japan: Art (partially);

Korin, Ogata;

Korin, Ogata;

Kyosai, Sho-Fu.

Kyosai, Sho-Fu.

E. G. Edmund Gosse, Ph.D.
See the biographical article: Gosse, Edmund.

Jacobsen, Jens Peter;

Jens Peter Jacobsen;

Kalewala;

Kalewala;

Kyd, Thomas.

Kyd, Thomas.

E. Gr. Ernest Arthur Gardner, Master's Degree
See the biographical article: Gardner, Percy.

Ithaca.

Ithaca.

E. He. Edward Heawood, M.A.
Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. Librarian of the Royal Geographical Society, London.

Kenya;

Kenya

Kilimanjaro.

Kilimanjaro.

E. H. B. Sir Edward Herbert Bunbury, Bart., M.A., F.R.G.S. (d. 1895).
M.P. for Bury St Edmunds, 1847-1852. Author of A History of Ancient Geography; &c.

Italy: Geography (in part).

Italy: Geography (partially).

E. H. M. Ellis Hovell Minns, M.A.
University Lecturer in Palaeography, Cambridge. Lecturer and Assistant Librarian at Pembroke College, Cambridge. Formerly Fellow of Pembroke College.

Iyrcae;

Iyrcae;

Kashubes.

Kashubs.

Ed. M. Eduard Meyer, Ph.D., D.Litt. (Oxon.), LL.D.
Professor of Ancient History in the University of Berlin. Author of Geschichte des Alterthums; Geschichte des alten Aegyptens; Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme.

Kavadh.

Kavadh.

E. O.* Edmund Owen, M.B., F.R.C.S., LL.D., D.Sc.
Consulting Surgeon to St Mary’s Hospital, London, and to the Children’s Hospital, Great Ormond Street; late Examiner in Surgery in the Universities of Cambridge, Durham and London. Author of A Manual of Anatomy for Senior Students.

Joints: Diseases and Injuries;

Joints: Conditions and Injuries;

Kidney Diseases (in part).

Kidney Diseases (partly).

E. Tn. Rev. Ethelred Luke Taunton (d. 1907).
Author of The English Black Monks of St Benedict; History of the Jesuits in England.

Jesuits (in part).

Jesuits (partly).

F. By. Captain Frank Brinkley, RN
Foreign Adviser to Nippon Yusen Kaisha, Tokyo. Correspondent of The Times in Japan. Editor of the Japan Mail. Formerly Professor of Mathematics at Imperial Engineering College, Tokyo. Author of Japan; &c.

Japan.

Japan.

F. C. C. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, M.A., D.Th. (Giessen).
Fellow of the British Academy. Formerly Fellow of University College, Oxford. Author of The Ancient Armenian Texts of Aristotle; Myth, Magic and Morals; &c.

Jacobite Church.

Jacobite Church.

F. G. M. B. Frederick George Meeson Beck, M.A.
Fellow and Lecturer in Classics, Clare College, Cambridge.

Kent, Kingdom of.

Kent, England.

F. G. P. Frederick Gymer Parsons, F.R.C.S., F.Z.S., F.R.Anthrop.Inst.
Vice-President, Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Lecturer on Anatomy at St Thomas’s Hospital and the London School of Medicine for Women. Formerly Hunterian Professor at the Royal College of Surgeons.

Joints: Anatomy.

Joints: Anatomy.

F. L. L. Lady Lugard.
See the biographical article: Lugard, Sir F. J. D.

Kano;

Kano;

Katagum.

Katagum.

F. LI. G. Francis Llewellyn Griffith, M.A., Ph.D. (Leipzig), F.S.A.
Reader in Egyptology, Oxford University. Editor of the Archaeological Survey and Archaeological Reports of the Egypt Exploration Fund. Fellow of Imperial German Archaeological Institute.

Karnak.

Karnak.

F. R. C. Frank R. Cana.
Author of South Africa from the Great Trek to the Union.

Kharga.

Kharga.

Fr. Sy. Friedrich Schiwwally.
Professor of Semitic Philology in the University of Giessen.

Koran (in part).

Quran (in part).

F. S. P, Francis Samuel Philbrick, M.A., Ph.D.
Formerly Teaching Fellow of Nebraska State University, and Scholar and Fellow of Harvard University. Member of American Historical Association.

Jefferson, Thomas.

Thomas Jefferson.

F. v. H. Baron Friedrich von Hügel.
Member of Cambridge Philological Society; Member of Hellenic Society. Author of The Mystical Element of Religion; &c.

John: The Apostle;

John: The Apostle;

John, Gospel of St.

Gospel of John

F. W. R.* Frederick William Rudler, I.S.O., F.G.S.
Curator and Librarian of the Museum of Practical Geology, London, 1879-1902. President of the Geologists’ Association, 1887-1889.

Jade;

Jade;

Jargoon;

Jargoon

Jasper;

Jasper;

Kaolin.

Kaolin.

G. A. Gr. George Abraham Grierson, C.I.E., Ph.D., D.Litt.
Member of the Indian Civil Service, 1873-1903. In charge of the Linguistic Survey of India, 1898-1902. Gold Medallist, Royal Asiatic Society, 1909. Vice-President of the Royal Asiatic Society. Formerly Fellow of Calcutta University. Author of The Languages of India; &c.

Kashmiri.

Kashmiri.

G. E. Rev. George Edmundson, M.A., F.R.Hist.S.
Formerly Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford. Ford’s Lecturer, 1909. Hon. Member, Dutch Historical Society, and Foreign Member, Netherlands Association of Literature.

Jacoba.

Jacoba.

G. F. Mo. Rev. George Foot Moore.
See the biographical article: Moore, George Foot.

Jehovah.

Jehovah.

G. G. Co. George Gordon Coulton, M.A.
Birkbeck Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History, Trinity College, Cambridge. Author of Medieval Studies; Chaucer and his England; From St Francis to Dante; &c.

Knighthood and Chivalry.

Knighthood and Chivalry.

G. H. Bo. Rev. George Herbert Box, M.A.
Rector of Sutton Sandy, Beds. Formerly Hebrew Master, Merchant Taylors’ School, London. Lecturer in Faculty of Theology, University of Oxford, 1908-1909. Author of Translation of Book of Isaiah; &c.

John the Baptist;

John the Baptist

Joseph (New Testament);

Joseph (New Testament);

Jubilee, Year of (in part).

Jubilee Year (in part).

G. K. Gustav Krüger.
Professor of Church History in the University of Giessen. Author of Das Papsttum; &c.

Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr.

G. Mi. Rev. George Milligan, Ph.D.
Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the University of Glasgow. Author of The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews; Lectures from the Greek Papyri; &c.

James (New Testament);

James (New Testament);

Judas Iscariot.

Judas Iscariot.

G. Sa. George Saintsbury, Ph.D., D.Litt.
See the biographical article: Saintsbury, G. E. B.

Joinville.

Joinville.

G. S. L. George Somes Layard.
Barrister-at-Law, Inner Temple. Author of Charles Keene; Shirley Brooks; &c.

Keene, Charles S.

Keene, Charles S.

G. S. R. Sir George Scott Robertson, K.C.S.I., D.C.L., M.P.
Formerly British Agent in Gilgit. Author of The Kafirs of the Hindu Kush; Chitral: the Story of a Minor Siege. M.P. Central Division, Bradford.

Kafiristan.

Kafiristan.

G. W. T. Rev. Griffithes Wheeler Thatcher, M.A., B.D.
Warden of Camden College, Sydney, N.S.W. Formerly Tutor in Hebrew and Old Testament History at Mansfield College, Oxford.

Jāḥiẓ;

Jāḥiẓ;

Jarir Ibn ‘Atiyya ul-Khatfl;

Jarir Ibn 'Atiyya al-Khatfi;

Jauhari;

Jauhari;

Jawāliqì;

Jawāliqì;

Jurjāni;

Jurjāni

Khalil Ibn Ahmad;

Khalil Ibn Ahmad;

Khansā;

Khansā

Kindi;

Kindi;

Kumait Ibn Zaid.

Kumait Ibn Zayd.

H. A. W. Hugh Alexander Webster.
Formerly Librarian of University of Edinburgh. Editor of the Scottish Geographical Magazine.

Java (in part).

Java (partially).

H. Ch. Hugh Chisholm, M.A.
Formerly Scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Editor of the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica; Co-editor of the 10th edition.

Joan of Arc (in part).

Joan of Arc (partially).

H. Cl. Sir Hugh Charles Clifford, K.C.M.G.
Colonial Secretary, Ceylon. Fellow of the Royal Colonial Institute. Formerly Resident, Pahang. Colonial Secretary, Trinidad and Tobago, 1903-1907. Author of Studies in Brown Humanity; Further India; &c. Joint-author of A Dictionary of the Malay Language.

Johor.

Johor.

H. C. H. Horace Carter Hovey, M.A., D.D.
Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Geological Society of America, National Geographic Society and Société de Spéléologie (France). Author of Celebrated American Caverns; Handbook of Mammoth Cave of Kentucky, &c.

Jacobs Cavern.

Jacobs Cave.

H. C. R. Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, Bart.
See the biographical article: Rawlinson, Sir H. C.

Kūrdistān (in part).

Kurdistan (in part).

H. De. Hippolyte Delehaye, S.J.
Assistant in the compilation of the Bollandist publications: Analecta Bollandiana and Acta sanctorum.

Januarius, St;

St. Januarius

Kilian, St.

Kilian, Saint

H. M. C. Hector Munro Chadwick, M.A.
Librarian and Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge. Reader in Scandinavian, Cambridge University. Author of Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions.

Jutes.

Jutes.

H. M. R. Hugh Munro Ross.
Formerly Exhibitioner of Lincoln College, Oxford. Editor of The Times Engineering Supplement. Author of British Railways.

Kelvin, Lord (in part).

Kelvin, Lord (in part).

H. M. V. Herbert M. Vaughan, F.S.A.
Keble College, Oxford. Author of The Last of the Royal Stuarts; The Medici Popes; The Last Stuart Queen.

James: the Pretender;

James: The Pretender;

King’s Evil.

King's Evil.

H. W. C. D. Henry William Carless Davis, M.A.
Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford. Fellow of All Souls’ College, Oxford, 1895-1902. Author of England under the Normans and Angevins; Charlemagne.

John, King of England;

John, King of England;

John of Hexham.

John of Hexham.

H. W. S. H. Wickham Steed.
Correspondent of The Times at Vienna. Correspondent of The Times at Rome, 1897-1902.

Italy: History (F.).

Italy: History (F.).

H. Y. Sir Henry Yule, K.C.S.I., C.B.
See the biographical article: Yule, Sir Henry.

Kublai Khan.

Kublai Khan.

I. A. Israel Abrahams, M.A.
Reader in Talmudic and Rabbinic Literature in the University of Cambridge Formerly President, Jewish Historical Society of England. Author of A Short History of Jewish Literature; Jewish Life in the Middle Ages; Judaism; &c.

Jacob ben Asher;

Jacob ben Asher;

Jellinek;

Jellinek;

Jews: Dispersion to Modern Times;

Jews: Dispersion to Today;

Joel;

Joel

Johanan Ben Zaceia;

Johanan ben Zakkai;

Josippon;

Joseph;

Kalisch, Marcus;

Kalisch, Marcus;

Krochmal.

Krochmal.

I. L. B. Isabella L. Bishop.
See the biographical article: Bishop, Isabella.

Korea (in part).

Korea (partially).

J. A. H John Allen Howe.
Curator and Librarian of the Museum of Practical Geology, London. Author of The Geology of Building Stones.

Joints (Geology);

Joints (Geology);

Jurassic;

Jurassic;

Keuper;

Keuper

Kimeridgian.

Kimeridgian.

J. A. R. Very Rev. Joseph Armitage Robinson, D.D.
Dean of Westminster. Fellow of the British Academy. Hon. Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge, and Norrisian Professor of Divinity in the University. Author of Some Thoughts on the Incarnation; &c.

Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ.

J. A. S. John Addington Symonds, Ph.D.
See the biographical article, Symonds, John Addington.

Italy: History (C.).

Italy: History (C.).

J. Br. Right Hon. James Bryce, D.C.L., D.Litt.
See the biographical article: Bryce, James.

Justinian I.

Justinian I.

J. Bt. James Bartlett.
Lecturer on Construction, Architecture, Sanitation, Quantities, &c., at King’s College, London. Member of Society of Architects. Member of Institute of Junior Engineers.

Joinery.

Woodworking.

J. B. A. Joseph Beavington Atkinson.
Formerly art-critic of the Saturday Review. Author of An Art Tour in the Northern Capitals of Europe; Schools of Modern Art in Germany.

Kaulbach.

Kaulbach.

J. F.-K. James Fitzmaurice-Kelly, Litt.D., F.R.Hist.S.
Gilmour Professor of Spanish Language and Literature, Liverpool University. Norman McColl Lecturer, Cambridge University. Fellow of the British Academy. Member of the Royal Spanish Academy. Knight Commander of the Order of Alphonso XII. Author of A History of Spanish Literature; &c.

Juan Manuel, Don.

Don Juan Manuel.

J. G. C. A. John George Clark Anderson, M.A.
Censor and Tutor of Christ Church, Oxford. Formerly Fellow of Lincoln College; Craven Fellow, Oxford, 1896. Conington Prizeman, 1893.

Kastamuni.

Kastamonu.

J. G. Sc. Sir James George Scott, K.C.I.E.
Superintendent and Political Officer, Southern Shan States. Author of Burma; The Upper Burma Gazetteer.

Karen;

Karen

Karen-Ni;

Karen-Ni;

Keng Tūng.

Keng Tūng.

J. Hn. Justus Hashagen, PhD.
Privatdozent in Medieval and Modern History, University of Bonn. Author of Das Rheinland unter die französische Herrschaft.

John, King of Saxony.

John, King of Saxony.

J. H. A. H. John Henry Arthur Hart, M.A.
Fellow, Theological Lecturer and Librarian, St John’s College, Cambridge.

Jews: Greek Domination;

Jews: Greek Control;

Josephus.

Josephus.

J. H. F. John Henry Freese, M.A.
Formerly Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge.

Janus;

Janus;

Julian (in part).

Julian (partially).

J. H. R. John Horace Round, M.A., LL.D. (Edin.).
Author of Feudal England; Studies in Peerage and Family History, Peerage and Pedigree.

Knight-Service.

Knight Service.

J. Hl. R. John Holland Rose, M.A., Litt.D.
Lecturer on Modern History to the Cambridge University Local Lectures Syndicate. Author of Life of Napoleon I.; Napoleonic Studies; The Development of the European Nations; The Life of Pitt; &c.

Italy: History (D.);

Italy: History (D.);

Josephine;

Josephine

Junot.

Junot.

J. Ja. Joseph Jacobs, PhD.
Professor of English Literature in the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York. Formerly President of the Jewish Historical Society of England. Corresponding Member of the Royal Academy of History, Madrid. Author of Jews of Angevin England; Studies in Biblical Archaeology, &c.

Jew, The Wandering.

Jew, The Wandering.

J. J. L,* Rev. John James Lias, M.A.
Chancellor of Llandaff Cathedral. Formerly Hulsean Lecturer in Divinity and Lady Margaret Preacher, University of Cambridge.

Ketteler, Baron von.

Baron von Ketteler.

J. Mt. James Moffatt, M.A., D.D.
Jowett Lecturer, London, 1907. Author of Historical New Testament; &c.

John, Epistles of.

John's Epistles.

J. N. K. John Neville Keynes, M.A., D.Sc.
Registrary of the University of Cambridge. University Lecturer in Moral Science. Secretary to the Local Examinations and Lectures Syndicate. Formerly Fellow of Pembroke College. Author of Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic; &c.

Jevons, William Stanley.

William Stanley Jevons.

J. P. P. John Percival Postgate, M.A., Litt.D.
Professor of Latin in the University of Liverpool. Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Fellow of the British Academy. Editor of the Classical Quarterly. Editor-in-Chief of the Corpus Poetarum Latinorum; &c.

Juvenal (in part).

Juvenal (partially).

J. P. Pe. Rev. John Punnett Peters, Ph.D., D.D.
Canon Residentiary, P.E. Cathedral of New York. Formerly Professor of Hebrew in the University of Pennsylvania. Director of the University Expedition to Babylonia, 1888-1895. Author of Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates.

Kerbela;

Kerbala

Kerkuk;

Kirkuk;

Khorsabad.

Khorsabad.

J. R. B. John Rose Bradford, M.D., D.Sc., F.R.C.P., F.R.S.
Physician to University College Hospital. Professor of Materia Medica and Therapeutics, University College, London. Secretary of the Royal Society. Formerly Member of Senate, University of London.

Kidney Diseases (in part).

Kidney Diseases (partially).

J. T. Be. John T. Bealby.
Joint-author of Stanford’s Europe. Formerly Editor of the Scottish Geographical Magazine. Translator of Sven Hedin’s Through Asia, Central Asia and Tibet; &c.

Kalmuck;

Kalmuck

Kaluga;

Kaluga;

Kamchatka;

Kamchatka;

Kara-Kum;

Kara-Kum Desert

Kars;

Kars;

Kazañ;

Kazañ;

Kerch;

Kerch;

Khingan;

Khingan

Khiva;

Khiva;

Khokand;

Khokand

Khotan;

Khotan

Kiev;

Kyiv

Kronstadt;

Kronstadt

Kubañ;

Kuban;

Kuen-Lun;

Kuen-Lun;

Kursk;

Kursk;

Kutais.

Kutaisi.

J. T. S.* James Thomson Shotwell, Ph.D.
Professor of History in Columbia University, New York City.

Joan of Arc (in part).

Joan of Arc (partly).

J. V.* Jules Viard.
Archivist at the National Archives, Paris. Officer of Public Instruction. Author of La France sous Philippe VI. de Valois; &c.

Jacquerie, The.

The Jacquerie.

J. W. He. James Wycliffe Headlam, M.A.
Staff Inspector of Secondary Schools under the Board of Education. Formerly Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge. Professor of Greek and Ancient History at Queen’s College, London. Author of Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire; &c.

Kossuth.

Kossuth.

K. Baron Dairoku Kikuchi, M.A., D.Sc., LL.D.
President of the Imperial University of Kyoto. President of Imperial Academy of Japan. Emeritus Professor, Imperial University, Tokio. Author of Japanese Education; &c.

Japan: The Claim of Japan.

Japan: The Claim of Japan.

K. S. Kathleen Schlesinger.
Editor of the Portfolio of Musical Archaeology. Author of The Instruments of the Orchestra; &c.

Jew’s Harp;

Jew's Harp;

Kettledrum;

Tom-tom;

Keyboard.

Keyboard.

L. Count Lützow, Ph.D. (Oxon.), PhD (Prague), F.R.G.S.
Chamberlain of H.M. the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia. Hon. Member of the Royal Society of Literature. Member of the Bohemian Academy, &c. Author of Bohemia, a Historical Sketch; The Historians of Bohemia (Ilchester Lecture, Oxford, 1904); The Life and Times of John Hus; &c.

Jerome of Prague.

Jerome of Prague.

L. F. V.-H. Leveson Francis Vernon-Harcourt, M.A., M.Inst.C.E. (1839-1907).
Formerly Professor of Civil Engineering at University College, London. Author of Rivers and Canals; Harbours and Docks; Civil Engineering as applied in Construction; &c.

Jetty.

Dock.

L. J. S. Leonard James Spencer, M.A.
Assistant in the Department of Mineralogy, British Museum. Formerly Scholar of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, and Harkness Scholar. Editor of the Mineralogical Magazine.

Jarosite.

Jarosite.

L. C. Rev. Lewis Campbell, D.C.L., LL.D.
See the biographical article: Campbell, Lewis.

Jowett.

Jowett.

L. D.* Louis Duchesne.
See the biographical article: Duchesne, L. M. O.

John XIX.;

John XIX;

Julius I.

Julius I.

L. V.* Luigi Villari.
Italian Foreign Office (Emigration Department). Formerly Newspaper Correspondent in east of Europe. Italian Vice-Consul in New Orleans, 1906; Philadelphia, 1907; Boston, U.S.A., 1907-1910. Author of Italian Life in Town and Country; Fire and Sword in the Caucasus; &c.

Italy: History (E. and G.).

Italy: History (E. and G.).

M. Lord Macaulay.
See the biographical article: Macaulay, Baron.

Johnson, Samuel.

Samuel Johnson.

M. Br. Margaret Bryant.

Keats (in part).

Keats (partially).

M. F. Sir Michael Foster, K.C.B., D.C.L., D.Sc., LL.D., F.R.S.
See the biographical article: Foster, Sir M.

Kölliker.

Kölliker.

M. M. Bh. Sir Mancherjee Merwanjee Bhownaggree.
Fellow of Bombay University. M.P. for N.E. Bethnal Green, 1895-1906. Author of History of the Constitution of the East India Company; &c.

Jeejeebhoy.

Jeejeebhoy.

M. O. B. C. Maximilian Otto Bismarck Caspari, M.A.
Reader in Ancient History at London University. Lecturer in Greek at Birmingham University, 1905-1908.

Justin II.

Justin II.

M. P.* Leon Jacques Maxime Prinet.
Formerly Archivist to the French National Archives. Auxiliary of the Institute of France (Academy of Moral and Political Sciences).

Joinville (Family);

Joinville (Family);

Joyeuse;

Joyeuse

Juge, Boffille de.

Judge, Boffille de.

N. M. Norman McLean, Master's degree
Lecturer in Aramaic, Cambridge University. Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer, Christ’s College, Cambridge. Joint-editor of the larger Cambridge Septuagint.

Jacob of Edessa;

Jacob of Edessa

Jacob of Sērūgh;

Jacob of Serugh;

Joshua the Stylite.

Joshua the Stylite.

N. V. Joseph Marie Noël Valois.
Member of Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris. Honorary Archivist at the Archives Nationales. Formerly President of the Société de l’Histoire de France and the Société de l’École de Chartes. Author of La France et le grand schisme d’Occident; &c.

John XXIII.

Pope John XXIII.

O. H.* Otto Hehner, F.I.C., F.C.S.
Public Analyst. Formerly President of Society of Public Analysts. Vice-President of Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Ireland. Author of works on butter analysis; Alcohol Tables; &c.

Jams and Jellies.

Jams & Jellies.

O. J. R. H. Osbert John Radcliffe Howarth, M.A.
Christ Church, Oxford. Geographical Scholar, 1901. Assistant Secretary of the British Association.

Java (in part);

Java (partially);

Korea (in part).

Korea (partly).

P. A. Paul Daniel Alphandéry.
Professor of the History of Dogma, École pratique des Hautes Études, Sorbonne, Paris. Author of Les Idées morales chez les hétérodoxes latines au début du XIIIe siècle.

Joachim of Floris;

Joachim of Fiore;

John XXII.

John XXII.

P. A. A. Philip A. Ashworth, M.A., J.D.
New College, Oxford. Barrister-at-Law. Translator of H. R. von Gneist’s History of the English Constitution.

Jhering.

Jhering.

P. A. K. Prince Peter Kropotkin.
See the biographical article: Kropotkin, P. A.

Kalmuck;

Kalmuck

Kaluga;

Kaluga

Kamchatka;

Kamchatka;

Kara-Kum;

Kara-Kum Desert

Kazañ;

Kazañ;

Kerch;

Kerch;

Khingan;

Khingan;

Khokand;

Khokand;

Kiev;

Kyiv;

Kronstadt;

Kronstadt

Kubañ;

Kuban;

Kuen-Lun;

Kuen-Lun

Kursk;

Kursk;

Kutais.

Kutaisi.

P. Gi. Peter Giles, M.A., J.D., Ph.D.
Fellow and Classical Lecturer of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and University Reader in Comparative Philology. Formerly Secretary of the Cambridge Philological Society. Author of Manual of Comparative Philology.

J.

J.

K.

K.

P. G. T. Peter Guthrie Tait.
See the biographical article: Tait, Peter Guthrie.

Knot.

Knot.

P. La. Philip Lake, M.A., F.G.S.
Lecturer on Physical and Regional Geography in Cambridge University. Formerly of the Geological Survey of India. Author of Monograph of British Cambrian Trilobites. Translator and Editor of Kayser’s Comparative Geology.

Japan: Geology.

Japan: Geological Features.

P. L. G. Philip Lyttelton Gell, M.A.
Sometime Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford. Secretary to the Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1884-1897. Fellow of King’s College, London.

Khazars (in part).

Khazars (partially).

P. Vi. Paul Vinogradoff, D.C.L., LL.D.
See the biographical article: Vlnogradoff, Paul.

Jurisprudence, Comparative.

Comparative Law.

R. A.* Robert Anchel.
Archivist to the Département de l’Eure.

Kersaint.

Kersaint.

R. Ad. Robert Adamson, PhD.
See the biographical article: Adamson, Robert.

Kant (in part).

Kant (partly).

R. A. S. M. Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister, M.A., F.S.A.
St John’s College, Cambridge. Director of Excavations for the Palestine Exploration Fund.

Joppa;

Joppa

Kerak.

Kerak.

R. A. W. Robert Alexander Wahab, C.B., C.M.G., C.I.E.
Colonel, Royal Engineers. Formerly H.M. Commissioner, Aden Boundary Delimitation, and Superintendent, Survey of India. Served with Tirah Expeditionary Force, 1897-1898; Anglo-Russian Boundary Commission, Pamirs, 1895; &c.

Kuwĕt.

Kuwait.

R. F. L. Rev. Richard Frederick Littledale, M.A., LL.D., D.C.L. (1833-1890).
Author of Religious Communities of Women in the Early Church; Catholic Ritual in the Church of England; Why Ritualists do not become Roman Catholics.

Jesuits (in part).

Jesuits (partly).

R. G. Richard Garnett, Ph.D.
See the biographical article: Garnett, Richard.

Krazewski.

Krazewski.

R. H. C. Rev. Robert Henry Charles, M.A., D.D., D.Litt. (Oxon.).
Grinfield Lecturer and Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Oxford and Fellow of Merton College. Fellow of the British Academy. Formerly Senior Moderator of Trinity College, Dublin. Author and Editor of Book of Enoch; Book of Jubilees; Assumption of Moses; Ascension of Isaiah; Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs; &c.

Jeremy, Epistle of;

Epistle of Jeremy;

Jubilees, Book of;

Book of Jubilees;

Judith, The Book of.

Judith, The Book.

R. I. P. Reginald Innes Pocock, F.Z.S.
Superintendent of the Zoological Gardens, London.

King-Crab.

King Crab.

R. J. M. Ronald John McNeill, MA
Christ Church, Oxford. Barrister-at-Law. Formerly Editor of the St James’s Gazette, London.

Jeffreys, 1st Baron;

Lord Jeffreys;

Keith: Family.

Keith: Fam.

R. K. D. Sir Robert Kennaway Douglas.
Formerly Keeper of Oriental Printed Books and MSS. at the British Museum, and Professor of Chinese, King’s College, London. Author of The Language and Literature of China; &c.

Jenghiz Khan;

Genghis Khan;

Julien.

Julien.

R. L.* Richard Lydekker, F.R.S., F.G.S., F.Z.S.
Member of the Staff of the Geological Survey of India, 1874-1882. Author of Catalogue of Fossil Mammals, Reptiles and Birds in the British Museum; The Deer of all Lands; The Game Animals of Africa; &c.

Jerboa;

Jerboa

Kangaroo (in part).

Kangaroo (in part).

R. N. B. Robert Nisbet Bain (d. 1909).
Assistant Librarian, British Museum, 1883-1909. Author of Scandinavia, the Political History of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 1513-1900; The First Romanovs, 1613-1725; Slavonic Europe, the Political History of Poland and Russia from 1469 to 1796; &c.

Ivan I.-VI.;

Ivan I-VI;

Jellaehieh;

Jellaehieh;

John III.: Sobieski;

John III.: Sobieski;

Juel, Jens;

Juel, Jens;

Juel, Neils;

Juel, Neils;

Kármán;

Kármán

Kemeny, Baron;

Kemeny, Baron;

Kisfaludy;

Kisfaludy

Kollontaj;

Kollontai

Koniecpolski;

Koniecpolski;

Kosciuszko;

Kosciuszko

Kurakin, Prince.

Prince Kurakin.

R. Po. René Poupardin, D. ès L.
Secretary of the École des Chartes. Honorary Librarian at the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Author of Le Royaume de Provence sous les Carolingiens; Recueil des chartes de Saint-Germain; &c.

John, Duke of Burgundy.

John, Duke of Burgundy.

R. P. S. R. Phené Spiers, F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A.
Formerly Master of the Architectural School, Royal Academy, London. Past President of Architectural Association. Associate and Fellow of King’s College, London. Corresponding Member of the Institute of France. Editor of Fergusson’s History of Architecture. Author of Architecture: East and West; &c.

Jacobean Style.

Jacobean Style.

R. S. C. Robert Seymour Conway, M.A., D.Litt. (Cantab.).
Professor of Latin and Indo-European Philology in the University of Manchester. Formerly Professor of Latin in University College, Cardiff; and Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. Author of The Italic Dialects.

Italy: History (A.).

Italy: History (A.).

S. A. C. Stanley Arthur Cook, M.A.
Lecturer in Hebrew and Syriac, and formerly Fellow, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. Editor for Palestine Exploration Fund. Examiner in Hebrew and Aramaic, London University, 1904-1908. Author of Glossary of Aramaic Inscriptions; The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi; Critical Notes on Old Testament History; Religion of Ancient Palestine; &c.

Jacob;

Jacob

Jehoiakim;

Jehoiakim

Jehoram;

Jehoram;

Jehoshaphat;

Jehoshaphat

Jehu;

Jehu;

Jephthah;

Jephthah;

Jerahmeel;

Jerahmeel;

Jeroboam;

Jeroboam

Jews: Old Testament History;

Jews: Hebrew Bible History;

Jezebel;

Jezebel;

Joab;

Joab

Joash;

Joash

Joseph: Old Testament;

Joseph: Hebrew Bible;

Joshua;

Josh;

Josiah;

Josiah;

Judah;

Judah;

Judges, Book of;

Book of Judges;

Kabbalah (in part);

Kabbalah (partially);

Kenites;

Kenites

Kings, Books of.

Books of Kings.

St. C. Viscount St. Cyres.
See the biographical article: Iddesleigh, 1st Earl of.

Jansen;

Jansen

Jansenism.

Jansenism.

S. N. Simon Newcomb, PhD, LLD.
See the biographical article: Newcomb, Simon.

Jupiter: Satellites.

Jupiter: Moons.

T. As. Thomas Ashby, M.A., D.Litt. (Oxon.).
Director of British School of Archaeology at Rome. Formerly Scholar of Christ Church, Oxford. Craven Fellow, 1897. Conington Prizeman, 1906. Member of the Imperial German Archaeological Institute.

Italy: Geography and Statistics; History (B.);

Italy: Geography and Stats; History (B.);

Ivrea.

Ivrea.

T. A. I. Thomas Allan Ingram, M.A., LL.D.
Trinity College, Dublin.

Juvenile Offenders (in part).

Young Offenders (in part).

T. A. J. Thomas Athol Joyce, M.A.
Assistant in Department of Ethnography, British Museum. Hon. Sec., Royal Anthropological Institute.

Kavirondo.

Kavirondo.

T. F. C. Theodore Freylinghuysen Collier, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of History, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass., U.S.A.

Julius III.

Julius III.

T. H. Thomas Hodgkin, D.C.L., LL.D.
See the biographical article: Hodgkin, T.

Jordanes (in part).

Jordanes (partially).

T. H. H.* Sir Thomas Hungerford Holdich, K.C.M.G., K.C.I.E., D.Sc., F.R.G.S.
Colonel in the Royal Engineers. Superintendent Frontier Surveys, India, 1892-1898. Gold Medallist, R.G.S. (London), 1887. H.M. Commissioner for the Perso-Beluc Boundary, 1896. Author of The Indian Borderland; The Gates of India; &c.

Kabul;

Kabul

Kalat;

Kalat;

Kandahar;

Kandahar

Kashmir;

Kashmir

Khyber Pass;

Khyber Pass

Kunar;

Kunar

Kushk.

Kushk.

T. K. Thomas Kirkup, M.A., LL.D.
Author of An Inquiry into Socialism; Primer of Socialism; &c.

Julian (in part).

Julian (partially).

T. K. C. Rev. Thomas Kelly Cheyne, Ph.D.
See the biographical article: Cheyne, T. K.

Jeremiah;

Jeremiah;

Joel (in part);

Joel (in part);

Jonah.

Jonah.

Th. N. Theodore Nöldeke, Ph.D.
See the biographical article: Nöldeke, Theodor.

Koran (in part).

Quran (in part).

T. Se. Thomas Seccombe, Master's Degree
Balliol College, Oxford. Lecturer in History, East London and Birkbeck Colleges, University of London. Stanhope Prizeman, Oxford, 1887. Assistant Editor of Dictionary of National Biography, 1891-1901. Author of The Age of Johnson. Joint-author of Bookman History of English Literature; &c.

Johnson, Samuel.

Samuel Johnson.

T. Wo. Thomas Woodhouse.
Head of the Weaving and Textile Designing Department, Technical College, Dundee.

Jute.

Jute.

T. W. R. D. Thomas William Rhys Davids, LL.D., Ph.D.
Professor of Comparative Religion, Manchester. Professor of Pali and Buddhist Literature, University College, London, 1882-1904. President of the Pali Text Society. Fellow of the British Academy. Secretary and Librarian of Royal Asiatic Society, 1885-1902. Author of Buddhism; Sacred Books of the Buddhists; Early Buddhism; Buddhist India; Dialogues of the Buddha; &c.

Jains;

Jains

Jātaka;

Jātaka

Kanishka.

Kanishka.

W. An. William Anderson, F.R.C.S.
Formerly Chairman of Council of the Japan Society. Author of The Pictorial Arts of Japan; Japanese Wood Engravings; Catalogue of Chinese and Japanese Pictures in the British Museum; &c.

Japan: Art (in part).

Japan: Art (partially).

W. A. B. C. Rev. William Augustus Brevoort Coolidge, M.A., F.R.G.S., Ph.D. (Bern).
Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Professor of English History, St David’s. College, Lampeter, 1880-1881. Author of Guide to Switzerland; The Alps in Nature and in History, &c. Editor of The Alpine Journal, 1880-1889.

Jenatsch, Georg;

Georg Jenatsch;

Jungfrau;

Jungfrau;

Jura.

Jura.

W. A. P. Walter Alison Phillips, M.A.
Formerly Exhibitioner of Merton College and Senior Scholar of St John’s College, Oxford. Author of Modern Europe; &c.

Jacobins;

Jacobins;

King;

King;

Kriemhild;

Kriemhild;

Krüdener, Baroness von.

Baroness von Krüdener.

W. B.* William Burton, M.A., F.C.S.
Chairman, Joint Committee of Pottery Manufacturers of Great Britain. Author of English Stoneware and Earthenware; &c.

Kashi (in part).

Kashi (partly).

W. Ba. Will Bacher, Ph.D.
Professor of Biblical Studies at the Rabbinical Seminary, Buda-Pest.

Jonah, Rabbi;

Rabbi Jonah;

Ḳimḥi.

Kimḥi.

W. Be. Sir Walter Besant.
See the biographical article: Besant, Sir Walter.

Jefferies.

Jefferies.

W. F. C. William Feilden Craies, M.A.
Barrister-at-Law, Inner Temple. Lecturer on Criminal Law at King’s College, London. Editor of Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, 23rd ed.

Jury.

Jury.

W. F. D. William Frederick Denning, F.R.A.S.
Gold Medal, R.A.S. President, Liverpool Astronomical Society, 1877-1878. Corresponding Fellow of Royal Astronomical Society of Canada; &c. Author of Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings; The Great Meteoric Shower; &c.

Jupiter.

Jupiter.

W. G. William Garnett, M.A., D.C.L.
Educational Adviser to the London County Council. Formerly Fellow and Lecturer of St John’s College, Cambridge. Principal and Professor of Mathematics, Durham College of Science, Newcastle-on-Tyne. Author of Elementary Dynamics; &c.

Kelvin, Lord.

Lord Kelvin.

W. G. S. William Graham Sumner.
See the biographical article: Sumner, William Graham.

Jackson, Andrew.

Andrew Jackson

W. H. Be. William Henry Bennett, M.A., D.D., D.Litt.(Cantab.).
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in New and Hackney Colleges, London. Formerly Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge. Lecturer in Hebrew at Firth College, Sheffield. Author of Religion of the Post-Exilic Prophets; &c.

Japheth.

Japheth.

W. H. Di. William Henry Dines, F.R.S.
Director of Upper Air Investigation for the English Meteorological Office.

Kite-flying (in part).

Kite flying

W. H. F. Sir William H. Flower, Ph.D.
See the biographical article: Flower, Sir W. H.

Kangaroo (in part).

Kangaroo (partially).

W. L. F. Walter Lynwood Fleming, M.A., Ph.D.
Professor of History in Louisiana State University. Author of Documentary History of Reconstruction; &c.

Knights of the Golden Circle;

Knights of the Golden Circle

Ku Klux Klan.

Ku Klux Klan.

W. L.-W. Sir William Lee-Warner, M.A., K.C.S.I.
Member of Council of India. Formerly Secretary in the Political and Secret Department of the India Office. Author of Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie; Memoirs of Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wylie Norman; &c.

Jung Bahadur, Sir.

Sir Jung Bahadur.

W. M. R. William M. Rossetti.
See the biographical article: Rossetti, Dante G.

Kneller.

Kneller.

W. M. Ra. Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, Doctor of Laws (LL.D.), Doctor of Civil Law (D.C.L.)
See the biographical article, Ramsay, Sir W. M.

Jupiter (in part).

Jupiter (partially).

W. P. J. William James.
Barrister-at-Law, Inner Temple. High Bailiff, Cardiff County Court. Author of Romantic Professions; &c.

Kipling, Rudyard.

Rudyard Kipling

W. R. S. William Robertson Smith, Ph.D.
See the biographical article: Smith, William Robertson.

Joel (in part);

Joel (partly);

Jubilee, Year of (in part).

Year of Jubilee (in part).

W. W. F.* William Warde Fowler, M.A.
Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. Sub-rector, 1881-1904. Gifford Lecturer, Edinburgh University, 1908. Author of The City-State of the Greeks and Romans; The Roman Festivals of the Republican Period; &c.

Juno;

Juno;

Jupiter (in part).

Jupiter (partially).

W. W. R.* William Walker Rockwell, Lic. Theol.
Assistant Professor of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, New York.

Jerusalem, Synod of.

Jerusalem, Synod.

W. Y. S. William Young Sellar, PhD.
See the biographical article: Sellar, W. Y.

Juvenal (in part).

Juvenal (partially).

1 A complete list, showing all individual contributors, appears in the final volume.

1 A complete list of all individual contributors can be found in the final volume.

 

 

PRINCIPAL UNSIGNED ARTICLES

MAIN UNSIGNED ARTICLES

Ivy.

Ivy.

Jamaica.

Jamaica.

Janissaries.

Janissaries.

Jaundice.

Jaundice.

Ju-Jutsu.

Jiu-Jitsu.

Jumping.

Leaping.

Juniper.

Juniper.

Jurisprudence.

Law.

Kaffirs.

Kaffirs.

Kansas.

Kansas.

Kent.

Kent.

Kentucky.

Kentucky.

Kerry.

Kerry.

Ketones.

Ketones.

Kildare.

Kildare.

Kilkenny.

Kilkenny.

Know Nothing Party.

Know Nothing Party.

1

1

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

ITALY (Italia), the name applied both in ancient and modern times to the large peninsula that extends from central Europe far south into the Mediterranean Sea, where the island of Sicily is seen as a continuation of the mainland. The part of the Mediterranean usually called the Tyrrhenian Sea borders it to the west and south, while the Adriatic Sea lies to the east. To the north, where it connects with the rest of Europe, it’s separated from the surrounding areas by the impressive barrier of the Alps, which curves in a large semicircle from the northern end of the Adriatic to the coast of Nice and Monaco.

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

Topography.—The land enclosed here stretches between the parallels of 46° 40′ and 36° 38′ N, and between 6° 30′ and 18° 30′ E. Its longest length in a straight line along the mainland runs from northwest to southeast, measuring 708 kilometers from the border near Courmayeur to Cape Santa Maria di Leuca, south of Otranto. However, the major mountain peninsula of Calabria extends about two degrees further south to Cape Spartivento at latitude 37° 55′. Its width is very irregular due to its shape. The northern section, measured from the Alps at Monte Viso to the mouth of the Po, is about 270 kilometers wide, while the maximum width, from Rocca Chiardonnet near Susa to a peak in the Isonzo Valley, is 354 kilometers. The peninsula of Italy, which makes up the largest part of the country, never exceeds 150 kilometers in width and typically measures no more than 100 kilometers across. Its southern tip, Calabria, forms a complete peninsula, connected to the landmass of Lucania or Basilicata by an isthmus just 35 kilometers wide, while the isthmus between the gulfs of Santa Eufemia and Squillace, linking the two sections of the province, is no more than 20 kilometers. The area of the Kingdom of Italy, excluding the large islands, is estimated at 91,277 square kilometers. Though the Alps define the northern boundary of Italy, the exact limits at the ends of the Alpine chain are not distinctly marked. Ancient geographers generally viewed the notable headland slanting down from the Maritime Alps to the sea between Nice and Monaco as Italy's limit in that direction, which is likely the best geographical point to select. However, Augustus, who was the first to establish a definitive political organization for Italy, set the border at the river Varus or Var, a few miles west of Nice. This river continued to be commonly recognized as the boundary between France and Italy in modern times. But in 1860, the annexation of Nice and the surrounding area to France shifted the political border further east to a point between Mentone and Ventimiglia, which does not constitute a natural limit.

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

Towards the northeast, where the Julian Alps get close to the shoreline (right at the springs of the small stream once known as the Timavus), seems to be the best natural boundary. However, under Augustus, the border was pushed further east to include Tergeste (Trieste), and initially, the little river Formio (Risano) was chosen as the limit. This was later shifted to the river Arsia (the Arsa), which flows into the Gulf of Quarnero, encompassing almost all of Istria. The fact that the coast of Istria was held by the Republic of Venice throughout the Middle Ages helped maintain this arrangement, so Istria was generally seen as part of Italy, even though it clearly wasn't a natural part of that country. Present-day Italian ambitions are directed similarly.

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

The only other part of Italy's northern border where the boundary isn't clearly defined by nature is Tirol or the Adige valley. Here, the main chain of the Alps (as indicated by the watershed) moves so far north that it has never served as the border. In ancient times, the upper valleys of the Adige and its tributaries were home to Raetian tribes and were part of the province of Raetia; the line separating that province from Italy was completely arbitrary, just like it is today. Tridentum, or Trent, was included in the tenth region of Italy, Venetia, during Pliny's time, but he notes that the people there were a Raetian tribe. Today, the border between Austria and the kingdom of Italy crosses the Adige about 30 meters below Trent—that city and its surrounding area, which before the Treaty of Lunéville in 1801 was governed by sovereign archbishops under the authority of the German emperors, is now part of the Austrian empire.

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

While the Alps make up the northern border of Italy, their shape and inner geography are mainly shaped by the Apennines, which branch off from the Maritime Alps between Nice and Genoa. This chain runs uninterrupted from the Gulf of Genoa to the Adriatic, then veers southward and continues through 2 Central and Southern Italy, effectively forming its backbone, until it reaches the southern tip of Calabria at Cape Spartivento. The prominent spur extending eastward toward Brindisi and Otranto is not directly connected to the central chain.

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

One major outcome of how the Apennines run through Italy from the Mediterranean to the Adriatic is the clear distinction between Northern Italy, which includes the area north of the Apennines and reaches down to the base of the Alps, and the central and southern parts of the peninsula. There isn't a similar dividing line further south, and while the terms Central and Southern Italy are commonly used by geographers and useful for description, they don't reflect any natural divisions.

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

1. Northern Italy.—Most of Northern Italy is made up of the Po River basin, which includes the entire wide plain stretching from the base of the Apennines to the base of the Alps, along with the valleys and slopes on either side. From its source at Monte Viso to where it flows into the Adriatic—more than 220 miles in a straight line—the Po gathers all the waters that flow north from the Apennines and all those that flow south from the Alps, including the Mincio (the outlet of Lake Garda). To the east, the next river is the Adige, which runs alongside the Po for a considerable distance before entering the Adriatic through a separate mouth. Farther north and northeast, several rivers in Venetia flow directly into the Gulf of Venice.

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

There’s no other place in Europe with a basin of similar size that's as clearly defined—the flatness of the plain is just as striking as the steepness with which the lower slopes of the mountains rise on either side. This is most evident on the side of the Apennines, where the Aemilian Way, which has been the main road since Roman times to the present day, maintains a straight line from Rimini to Piacenza, covering over 150 miles, during which the lower slopes of the mountains move closer to the road on the left without ever crossing it.

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

The geography of Northern Italy is best understood by following the Po river. This river starts as a mountain stream flowing down from two small dark lakes on the northern side of Monte Viso, at an elevation of over 6,000 feet above sea level. After less than 20 miles, it enters the plain at Saluzzo, and in the 30 miles between Saluzzo and Turin, it collects three major tributaries: the Chisone on the left bank, which carries water from the Fenestrelle valley, and the Varaita and Maira from the two valleys of the Alps located immediately south of the Po. A few miles downstream from Valenza, it meets the Tanaro, a large river that brings together the waters of the Stura, the Bormida, and several smaller rivers.

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

More important are the rivers that flow down from the main range of the Graian and Pennine Alps and join the Po on its left bank. Of these, the Dora (distinctively known as Dora Riparia), which merges with the larger river just below Turin, starts in Mont Genèvre and flows past Susa at the foot of Mont Cenis. Next is the Stura, which rises in the glaciers of Roche Melon; then comes the Orca, which flows through Val di Locana; and then the Dora Baltea, one of the largest Alpine tributaries of the Po, originating in the glaciers of Mont Blanc, above Courmayeur. It then descends through Val d’Aosta for about 70 miles until it reaches the plain at Ivrea, and after flowing about 20 more miles, it joins the Po a few miles below Chivasso. This vast valley—one of the most significant on the southern side of the Alps—has drawn attention, both in ancient and modern times, for leading to two of the most traveled passes across the great mountain chain—the Great and the Little St Bernard—the former diverging at Aosta and crossing the main ridges to the north into the Rhône Valley, while the latter heads more westward into Savoy. Below Aosta, the Dora Baltea also receives several substantial tributaries that descend from the glaciers between Mont Blanc and Monte Rosa.

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

About 25 miles below its junction with the Dora, the Po River takes in the Sesia, another large river. The Sesia starts near Alagna at the southern base of Monte Rosa, and after flowing past Varallo and Vercelli, it joins the Po about 14 miles downstream from Vercelli. About 30 miles east of this junction—where the Po curves sharply south to Valenza before heading back north—it meets the Ticino, a large and fast-moving river that carries the outflow from Lago Maggiore and all the streams that feed into it. The Ticino itself originates about 10 miles above Airolo at the base of St. Gotthard, and after flowing over 36 miles through the Val Leventina to Bellinzona (where it joins the Moësa, which brings in waters from Val Misocco), it enters the lake through a marshy area at Magadino, roughly 10 miles away. On the west side of the lake, the Toccia or Tosa flows down from the Gries pass almost directly south to Domodossola, where it takes in water from the Doveria coming from Simplon, and a few miles downstream, it receives waters from the Val d’Anzasca at the foot of Monte Rosa. Twelve miles farther, it empties into the lake between Baveno and Pallanza. Lago Maggiore also collects waters from Lago di Lugano on the east and Lago d’Orta on the west.

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

The next major tributary of the Po, the Adda, flows out of Lake Como and also has its sources in the Alps, above Bormio. It travels through the wide and fertile Valtellina valley for over 65 miles until it enters the lake near Colico. The Adda flows almost directly east to west in this section, but as it reaches the lake, the Liro descends from the San Giacomo valley, which runs nearly north and south from the Splügen pass, creating one of the most direct routes across the Alps. The Adda exits the lake at its southeastern end in Lecco and then flows over 70 miles through the plain before entering the Po between Piacenza and Cremona. It passes by Lodi and Pizzighettone and receives water from the Brembo, which comes down from Val Brembana, and the Serio from Val Seriana above Bergamo. The Oglio, a larger river than the last two, starts in Monte Tonale above Edolo and flows through Val Camonica to Lovere, where it widens into a large lake called Iseo, named after the town located on its southern shore. Exiting from the lake at its southwestern end, the Oglio has a long and winding path through the plain before finally reaching the Po a few miles above Borgoforte. In this lower section, it receives smaller streams such as the Mella, which flows by Brescia, and the Chiese, which comes from the small Lago d’Idro, situated between Lago d’Iseo and Lago di Garda.

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

The last of the major tributaries of the Po is the Mincio, which flows from Lake Garda and runs about 40 kilometers from Peschiera, where it exits the lake at its southeastern corner, until it merges with the Po. About 12 kilometers upstream from the confluence, it flows beneath the walls of Mantua and widens into a broad lake-like section that completely surrounds the city. Despite its size, Lake Garda isn't fed by the snow from the high Alps, nor is the stream that enters it at its northern end (in Riva) usually referred to as the Mincio, even though it is the main source of that river; it's actually called the Sarca, which originates at the foot of Monte Tonale.

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

The Adige River is formed by the meeting of two streams—the Etsch, or Adige itself, and the Eisak, both of which belong to Tirol rather than Italy. It flows all the way to Verona, entering the large plain with a north-to-south course that is almost parallel to the previously mentioned rivers. It seems likely that it would eventually flow into the Po, but below Legnago, it bends eastward and runs alongside the Po for about 40 miles before entering the Adriatic Sea through a separate mouth about 8 miles from the northern outlet of the larger river. However, the waters of the two rivers have been connected through artificial cuts and canals in several locations.

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

The Po, which is a very large river here, averages 400 to 600 yards wide and flows in a continuous stream until it reaches Sta Maria di Ariano, where it splits into two branches called the Po di Maestra and Po di Goro. These branches then divide into several other smaller streams, creating a delta over 20 meters wide from north to south. The point where it splits, currently about 25 meters from the sea, used to be much further inland, more than 10 meters west of Ferrara, where a smaller stream, still known as the Po di Ferrara, branches off from the main river. Before 1154, this channel was the primary flow of the river, and the two smaller branches it divides into, called the Po di Volano and Po di Primaro, were the main outlets in earlier times. The southernmost branch, the Po di Primaro, flows into the Adriatic about 12 meters north of Ravenna, which means that if you include these two branches, the delta of the Po stretches about 36 meters from south to north. The total length of the river, accounting for its twists and turns, is estimated to be around 450 meters.

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

Besides the delta of the Po and the large marshy areas it creates, there are extensive lagoons of saltwater on both sides, generally separated from the Adriatic by narrow strips of sand or embankments, which are partly natural and partly man-made. These lagoons have openings that allow the sea water to flow in and out, serving as ports for connection with the mainland. The best known and largest of these lagoons is the one where Venice is located, stretching from Torcello in the north to Chioggia and Brondolo in the south, a distance of over 40 miles. However, they used to be much larger, providing a continuous route for internal navigation known as “the Seven Seas” (Septem Maria), from Ravenna to Altinum, a few miles north of Torcello. That city, like Ravenna, was originally situated in the middle of a lagoon; and the coast to the east of it, extending toward Monfalcone where it meets the mountains, is filled with similar bodies of water, which are gradually being turned into dry land.

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

The area next to this long stretch of lagoons is, like the Po River basin, a wide, completely flat alluvial plain that stretches from the Adige River in the east to the Carnic Alps. These mountains come close to the Adriatic Sea between Aquileia and Trieste and extend northward to the base of the great mountain range, which arches in a semicircle from near Vicenza to Aquileia. This region was called Venetia in ancient times, a name that later referred to the famous city in the Middle Ages; the eastern part of it became known as Frioul or Friuli during that time.

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

When you head back to the south of the Po, the tributaries on the right bank below the Tanaro are much smaller and less significant than those from the north. Originating from the Ligurian 3 Apennines, which never reach the point of perpetual snow, they typically shrink to mere trickles in the summer. Starting from the Tanaro, the main ones are—(1) the Scrivia, a small but fast-flowing stream that comes from the Apennines behind Genoa; (2) the Trebbia, a much larger river with a similar torrent-like quality, rising near Torriglia, just 20 miles from Genoa, flowing past Bobbio, and joining the Po a few miles above Piacenza; (3) the Nure, a few miles east of the previous one; (4) the Taro, a more significant stream; (5) the Parma, which flows by the city of the same name; (6) the Enza; (7) the Secchia, which flows by Modena; (8) the Panaro, a few miles east of that city; (9) the Reno, flowing past Bologna, but instead of continuing to the Po as it did in Roman times, it is diverted into an artificial channel leading to the Po di Primaro. The other small streams east of this—of which the most notable are the Solaro, the Santerno, which flows by Imola, the Lamone by Faenza, and the Montone by Forlì, all of which were tributaries of the Po in Roman times—also flow into the Po di Primaro or through artificial mouths into the Adriatic between Ravenna and Rimini. The river Marecchia, which flows into the sea just north of Rimini, can be seen as the natural boundary of Northern Italy. Augustus used it as the boundary for Gallia Cispadana; the famous Rubicon was a small stream a few miles further north, now known as Fiumicino. The Savio is the only other stream of any significance that has always flowed directly into the Adriatic from this side of the Tuscan Apennines.

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

The narrow stretch of coastline between the Maritime Alps, the Apennines, and the sea—historically known as Liguria and now referred to as the Riviera of Genoa—is mostly mountainous from Nice to Genoa on one side and from Genoa to Spezia on the other. It is filled with the branches and offshoots of the mountain ranges that separate it from the extensive plain to the north, extending their ridges right to the water's edge, leaving only a few square miles of flat land at the river mouths and valley openings. The area is not lacking in fertility; the steep southern slopes enjoy such a great climate that they are ideal for growing fruit trees, especially olives, which are cultivated on terraces up the mountains. The openings of the valleys are generally home to towns or villages, some of which have become popular winter getaways.

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

Due to the mountains being so close to the sea, none of the rivers in this part of Italy has a long course; they are mostly just mountain streams that surge during winter and spring but are nearly dry in summer. The biggest and most significant rivers are those that flow down from the Maritime Alps between Nice and Albenga. The most notable ones are the Roja, which starts at the Col di Tenda and flows into Ventimiglia; the Taggia, which lies between San Remo and Oneglia; and the Centa, which empties into the sea at Albenga. The Lavagna, entering the sea at Chiavari, is the only significant stream between Genoa and the Gulf of Spezia. Just east of that inlet (a striking example of a deep, enclosed gulf with no rivers flowing into it), the Magra, which flows down from Pontremoli through the Lunigiana valley, is a major river and carries the waters of another important river, the Vara. The Magra (Macra), which in ancient times marked the border between Liguria and Etruria, can be seen as the boundary of Northern Italy on this side.

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

The Apennines (q.v.), as mentioned earlier, run across the entire width of Italy, separating the peninsula from the larger area of Northern Italy with a continuous barrier that is quite wide, though not as high as the Alps. The Ligurian Apennines are thought to begin near Savona, where a moderately elevated pass links them to the Maritime Alps, of which they are actually just an extension. From Savona to Genoa, they reach no more than 3000 to 4000 ft. and have passes that are under 2000 ft. As they move eastward, they increase in height; Monte Bue rises to 5915 ft., while Monte Cimone, a bit further east, reaches 7103 ft. This is the tallest point in the northern Apennines and is part of a series of peaks of similar height. The range continues from there between Tuscany and what are now known as the Emilian provinces, forming a continuous ridge from the mountains at the head of the Val di Mugello (just north of Florence) to where the famous Furlo Pass crosses. The highest point in this section of the range is Monte Falterona, above the sources of the Arno, which climbs to 5410 ft. Throughout this area, the Apennines are typically covered with large forests of chestnut, oak, and beech; their higher slopes provide excellent grazing land. There are few significant towns on either the northern or southern slopes, and the northern region in particular, which spans an area of 30 to 40 miles between the crest of the Apennines and the Po Valley, is one of the least known and least interesting parts of Italy.

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

2. Central Italy.—The geography of Central Italy is largely shaped by the Apennines, which run in a direction from about north-north-east to south-south-west, almost exactly parallel to the coast of the Adriatic from Rimini to Pescara. The line of the highest peaks and the watershed ranges is about 30 to 40 miles from the Adriatic, while roughly double that distance separates it from the Tyrrhenian Sea to the west. In this part of the range, we find nearly all the highest points of the Apennines. Starting from the group called the Alpi della Luna near the sources of the Tiber, which reaches 4435 ft, they continue with Monte Nerone (5010 ft), Monte Catria (5590 ft), and Monte Maggio to Monte Pennino near Nocera (5169 ft), and then to Monte della Sibilla, at the source of the Nar or Nera, which rises to 7663 ft. Moving further south, we encounter Monte Vettore (8128 ft), Pizzo di Sevo (7945 ft), and the two major mountainous areas of Monte Corno, commonly known as Gran Sasso d’Italia, the tallest of all the Apennines, reaching 9560 ft, and Monte della Maiella, whose highest peak is 9170 ft. Further south, there aren't many high peaks until we reach the Monti del Matese group in Samnium (6660 ft), which according to this classification belongs to Southern Italy. In addition to the prominent central peaks listed, there are two other high peaks, separated from the main range by significant valleys. These are Monte Terminillo, near Leonessa (7278 ft), and Monte Velino near Lake Fucino, rising to 8192 ft, both of which are covered in snow from November to May. However, the Apennines of Central Italy, instead of presenting a clear central ridge like the Alps and northern Apennines, form a broad mountain mass made up of several minor ranges and mountain groups that run generally parallel and are separated by elevated upland valleys, some of which are quite large and elevated above sea level. An example is the basin of Lake Fucino, located in the center of this mass, almost exactly halfway between the two seas, at an elevation of 2180 ft above them; while the upper valley of the Aterno, where Aquila is located, is 2380 ft above sea level. Even higher is the valley of the Gizio (a tributary of the Aterno), where Sulmona is the main town. This connects to the upper valley of the Sangro through a flat area called the Piano di Cinque Miglia, at an elevation of 4298 ft, recognized as the most wintry spot in Italy. Additionally, the highest peaks do not form a continuous high ridge over any considerable distance; they are rather a series of groups separated by lower areas creating natural passes across the range. In some places, like in almost all limestone regions, waters from the upland valleys turn sharply at right angles and break through the mountain ranges. Thus, the Gran Sasso and the Maiella are divided by the deep valley of the Aterno, while the Tronto flows between Monte Vettore and Pizzo di Sevo. This structure of the central Apennines has historically influenced the character of this part of Italy, which can be seen as naturally divided into two main regions—a cold and barren upland area, bordered on both sides by rich and fertile lands that enjoy a warm but temperate climate.

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

The area west of the Apennines is a region of great beauty and fertility, though it’s not as productive as Northern Italy. It generally corresponds to the areas known to students of ancient history as Etruria and Latium. Before Italy was united, these regions were part of Tuscany and the southern Papal States. The northern part of Tuscany is largely covered by the lower slopes and offshoots of the Apennines, which, in addition to the slopes and spurs of the main range forming its northern border with the Po Valley, also include several outlying ranges or groups. The most notable of these is the group between the valleys of the Serchio and the Magra, commonly known as the Carrara mountains, named after the famous marble quarries near that city. Two peaks in this group, Pizzo d’Uccello and Pania della Croce, reach heights of 6155 and 6100 ft. Another side range, Prato Magno, which branches off from the central chain at Monte Falterona, separates the upper valley of the Arno from its second basin and rises to 5188 ft. A similar branch, called the Alpe di Catenaja, which is of lower elevation, divides the upper course of the Arno from that of the Tiber.

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

The rest of this area is mainly a hilly, uneven landscape of moderate elevation, but Monte Amiata, near Radicofani, is an isolated volcanic massif that reaches a height of 5,650 feet. South of this, the land between the Tuscany border and the Tiber River is mostly volcanic, creating hills with noticeable crater-like basins, some of which have small lakes (like Lake Bolsena, Lake Vico, and Lake Bracciano). This volcanic region stretches across the Campagna of Rome until it rises again in the high Alban Hills, with the tallest peak, Monte Cavo, rising to 3,160 feet above sea level. Here, the Apennines are separated from the sea by the gently rolling volcanic plain of the Roman Campagna, from which the mountains rise like a wall, with the highest point, Monte Gennaro, reaching 4,165 feet. South of Palestrina, the main body of the Apennines extends outwards, historically known as the Volscian mountains (now called the Monti Lepini), separated from the central ranges by the wide valley of the Sacco, a tributary of the Liri (Liris) or Garigliano. This area forms a large, rugged mountain mass nearly 5,000 feet high, which descends to the sea at Terracina, and between that point and the mouth of the Liri, several rugged mountain headlands emerge, effectively marking the natural boundary between Latium and Campania, and thus the natural limit of Central Italy. Besides these extensions of the Apennines, there are several isolated mountains in this region of Central Italy, rising almost like islands along the coast, the most notable being Monte Argentario on the Tuscan coast near Orbetello (2,087 feet) and Monte Circello (1,771 feet) at the edge of the Pontine Marshes, which is separated from the Volscian Apennines.

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

The two valleys of the Arno and the Tiber (Ital. Tevere) can be seen as the key to the geography of this area of Italy west of the Apennines. The Arno, which starts in Monte Falterona, one of the highest peaks of the main chain of the Tuscan Apennines, flows almost south until it suddenly turns north-west near Arezzo, continuing that way to Pontassieve. There, it makes another sharp turn to the west and flows to the sea, passing through Florence and Pisa. Its main tributary is the Sieve, which joins it at Pontassieve, carrying water from the Val di Mugello. The Elsa and the Era, which join on its left bank, come down from the hills near Siena and Volterra, but they are minor streams. The Serchio, flowing from the region of Lucca and the Alpi Apuani, used to enter the Arno a few miles from the sea but now has its own channel to the ocean. The most significant rivers in Tuscany south of the Arno are the Cecina, which flows through the plain below Volterra, and the Ombrone, which rises in the hills near Siena and flows into the sea about 12 miles south of Grosseto.

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

The Tiber, a much more significant river than the Arno and the largest in Italy except for the Po, originates in the Apennines, about 20 miles east of the Arno's source. It flows nearly south past Borgo S. Sepolcro and Città di Castello, then between Perugia and Todi to Orte, where it receives the Nera just below. The Nera, which comes from the high area of Monte della Sibilla, is a substantial stream and carries the waters of the Velino (along with its tributaries, the Turano and the Salto), which joins it a few miles after the famous waterfall at Terni. The Teverone or Anio, which flows into the Tiber a few miles above Rome, is a smaller stream compared to the Nera but provides a significant amount of water from the mountains above Subiaco. Interestingly, in Central Italy's geography, the valleys of the Tiber and Arno are somewhat connected through the Chiana valley, a flat and marshy area where the waters flow partly into the Arno and partly into the Tiber.

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

The eastern slope of the central Apennines leading to the Adriatic is much less interesting and diverse than the western side. Here, the central range comes significantly closer to the sea, which means that, with a few exceptions, the rivers flowing from it have short courses and aren't particularly important. Starting from Rimini and heading south, these rivers are: (1) the Foglia; (2) the Metauro, which is historically significant and provides access to one of the most popular passes in the Apennines; (3) the Esino; (4) the Potenza; (5) the Chienti; (6) the Aso; (7) the Tronto; (8) the Vomano; (9) the Aterno; (10) the Sangro; (11) the Trigno, which marks the border of the southernmost province of the Abruzzi and can thus be considered the limit of Central Italy.

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

The entire area of Central Italy is hilly, marked by many streams from the mountains, but it's very fertile, especially for fruit trees, olives, and vines. It has been a densely populated region throughout history, filled with many small towns, although there are no large cities. Its main drawback is the lack of ports; the coastline is almost a straight line, with Ancona being the only notable port on the eastern coast of Central Italy.

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

3. Southern Italy.—The main range of the Apennines, which runs through Central Italy from northwest to southeast, continues in the same direction for about 100 miles further, stretching from the basin-shaped Monti del Matese (which rises to 6,660 feet) to near Potenza, in the heart of Basilicata, which closely corresponds to the ancient region of Lucania. The entire area known in ancient times as Samnium (part of which still retains the name Sannio, although it's officially called the province of Campobasso) is filled with an irregular mass of mountains, much shorter than those in Central Italy, and divided into various groups, crossed by rivers that mostly have very winding paths. This mountainous region, averaging 50 to 60 miles in width, is bordered to the west by the plain of Campania, now called Terra di Lavoro, and to the east by the much larger area of Apulia or Puglia, made up partly of flat plains but mostly of rolling hills, which starkly contrast with the steep mountain ranges of the Apennines that rise sharply above them. However, the central mountain mass extends two outlying ranges: one to the west, which separates the Bay of Naples from the Bay of Salerno, culminating in Monte S. Angelo above Castellammare (4,720 feet), while the isolated volcanic cone of Vesuvius (nearly 4,000 feet) stands apart from the nearby mountains by a stretch of plain. On the east side, similarly, Monte Gargano (3,465 feet), a detached limestone mass that juts boldly into the Adriatic as a promontory, creates the only disruption in the otherwise consistent coastline of Italy along that sea, although it is separated from the main body of the Apennines by a significant stretch of lowlands, making it merely an outlier from the central mass.

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

From the area around Potenza, the main ridge of the Apennines continues with the Monti della Maddalena heading almost directly south, getting close to the Gulf of Policastro before stretching all the way to Monte Pollino, the last of the tall peaks in the Apennine range, which is over 7000 ft. high. However, the range continues through what’s now known as Calabria, reaching the southern tip or “toe” of Italy, but in this section, it takes on a very different appearance. The rugged limestone range is the true continuation of the chain up to the vicinity of Nicastro and Catanzaro, hugging the west coast, while the east side is flanked by a large group of granitic mountains that rise to about 6000 ft. and are covered in vast forests, giving rise to the name La Sila. A similar mountain range, separated from the previous one by a low area of Tertiary hills, fills the entire southern tip of Italy from Squillace to Reggio. Its highest point is called Aspromonte (6420 ft.).

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

While the rough and mountainous region of Calabria stretches nearly directly south for over 150 miles, its character and shape come mainly from the Apennine mountain range. The long, spur-like peninsula that juts out to the east towards Brindisi and Otranto is just a continuation of the low area of Apulia, which has dry, limestone soil originating from the Tertiary period. Monte Volture, rising near Melfi and Venosa to 4,357 feet, is volcanic and largely separate from the nearby mass of the Apennines. Moving eastward, the ranges of low, bare hills known as the Murgie of Gravina and Altamura gradually lower into the even more moderate landscape that makes up the peninsula between Brindisi and Taranto, extending to the Cape of Santa Maria di Leuca, the southeastern tip of Italy. This protruding area, which can be called the “heel” or “spur” of Southern Italy, along with the large promontory of Calabria, creates the deep Gulf of Taranto, about 70 miles wide and somewhat deeper, which receives several streams from the central Apennines.

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

None of the rivers in Southern Italy is particularly significant. The Liri (Liris) or Garigliano, which starts in the central Apennines above Sora, not far from Lake Fucino, enters the Gulf of Gaeta about 10 miles east of the city with that name and carries a substantial amount of water; the same goes for the Volturno, which originates in the mountains between Castel di Sangro and Agnone, flows past Isernia, Venafro, and Capua, and reaches the sea about 15 miles from the Garigliano's mouth. About 16 miles above Capua, it receives the Calore, which flows by Benevento. The Silarus or Sele enters the Gulf of Salerno a few miles below the ruins of Paestum. Below this point, the watershed of the Apennines is too close to the sea on that side to allow for any large streams to form. As a result, the rivers flowing in the opposite direction into the Adriatic and the Gulf of Taranto have much longer courses, although they all behave like mountain torrents, rushing down violently in winter and after storms but shrinking in the summer into thin streams that wind lethargically through the great plains of Apulia. Moving south from the Trigno, which is already noted as the boundary of Central Italy, there are (1) the Biferno and (2) the Fortore, both originating in the Samnium mountains and flowing into the Adriatic west of Monte Gargano; (3) the Cervaro, south of the major promontory; and (4) the Ofanto, known as the Aufidus in Horace's writings, which represents a typical characteristic of almost all the rivers in Southern Italy. It rises about 15 miles west of Conza and only about 25 miles from the Gulf of Salerno, making it often (though incorrectly) described as crossing the entire range of the Apennines. In its lower section, it flows near Canosa and goes through the famous battlefield of Cannae. (5) The Bradano, which rises near Venosa, almost at the base of Monte Volture, flows southeast into the Gulf of Taranto, as do the Basento, the Agri, and the Sinni, all descending from the central Apennines south of Potenza. The Crati, which flows north from Cosenza and then turns sharply east to enter the same gulf, is the only noteworthy stream in the rugged region of Calabria; meanwhile, the dry limestone hills extending eastward to Capo di Leuca only give rise to small streams from the mouth of the Ofanto to the southeastern tip of Italy.

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

The only significant lakes are those located on or near the northern border, created by the expansion of the tributaries of the Po River. They've already been mentioned in relation to the rivers they are formed from, but they can be listed again in order of succession. They are, from west to east, (1) Lake Orta, (2) Lake Maggiore, (3) Lake Lugano, (4) Lake Como, (5) Lake Iseo, (6) Lake Idro, and (7) Lake Garda. Of these, the last one is by far the largest, covering an area of 143 square miles. It measures 32¼ miles long and 10 miles wide; meanwhile, Lake Maggiore, despite its name, is considerably longer (37 miles) but has a smaller surface area. All of them are very deep—Lake Maggiore has a maximum depth of 1198 feet, while Lake Como reaches 1365 feet. In contrast, Lake Varese, situated between Lake Maggiore and Lake Lugano, is just a shallow body of water, surrounded by modest hills. Two other small lakes in the same area, as well as Lakes Erba and Pusiano, located between Como and Lecco, share a similar shallow nature.

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

The lakes of Central Italy, which are relatively small, belong to a completely different category. The most significant of these is the Lacus Fucinus from ancient times, now known as Lago di Celano, located almost right in the center of the peninsula. It sits in a large basin, surrounded by mountains and with no natural outlet, at an elevation of over 2000 feet. A large portion of its waters has been drained through an artificial channel, leaving more than half of its surface exposed. Next in size is Lago Trasimeno, a wide expanse of shallow water, roughly 30 miles around, surrounded by low hills. The nearby Lago di Chiusi is similar but much smaller. All the other lakes in Central Italy, scattered throughout the volcanic regions west of the Apennines, are formed differently and sit in deep, bowl-shaped depressions that were likely once the craters of extinct volcanoes. This includes Lago di Bolsena, near the city of the same name, which is a large body of water, as well as the smaller Lago di Vico (known as the Ciminian lake to ancient writers) and Lago di Bracciano, closer to Rome. To the south of Rome, the well-known lakes of Albano and Nemi share a similar origin.

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

The only lake truly referred to as a lake in southern Italy is Lago del Matese, located in the center of the mountain range of the same name, and it is relatively small. The so-called lakes along the Adriatic coast, both north and south of the Gargano promontory, are actually brackish lagoons that connect to the sea.

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

The three major islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica are closely linked with Italy, both by their location and shared language, but they are discussed in separate articles. Among the smaller islands near Italy's coasts, the most notable is Elba, located off the west coast of central Italy, about 50 miles south of Leghorn, and separated from the mainland at Piombino by a strait that's only about 6 miles wide. To the north of Elba, roughly halfway between Corsica and Tuscany, lies the small, steep, and rocky island of Capraia, which is only 4.5 miles long but has a secure port. Gorgona, about 25 miles farther north, is even smaller and is just a rock, primarily inhabited by a few fishermen. South of Elba are the similarly minor islets of Pianosa and Montecristo, while the more significant island of Giglio is much closer to the mainland, directly across from the Monte Argentano promontory, which is almost an island itself. The islands further south in the Tyrrhenian Sea are quite different. Among these, Ischia and Procida, near the northern tip of the Bay of Naples, are of volcanic origin, as is the more distant group of the Ponza Islands, which consists of three islands: Ponza, Palmarola, and Zannone; while Ventotene (also volcanic) is located about halfway between Ponza and Ischia. In contrast, the island of Capri, situated opposite the southern tip of the Bay of Naples, is a steep limestone rock. The Aeolian or Lipari Islands, a notable volcanic group, are more closely associated with Sicily than with Italy, although Stromboli, the easternmost island, is roughly equally distant from both Sicily and the mainland.

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

The Italian coastline along the Adriatic Sea is really different from the shores opposite it. While the Dalmatian coast is lined with many islands, both big and small, the long, straight Italian coastline stretching from Otranto to Rimini has no nearby islands at all. The only exception is the small group of Tremiti Islands, located north of Monte Gargano and about 15 miles from the mainland, which interrupts the plainness of this section of the Adriatic.

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

Geology.—The geology of Italy largely relies on that of the Apennines (q.v.). On either side of this major mountain range, there are extensive Tertiary deposits. Sometimes, as seen in Tuscany and the Monferrat area, these deposits create a broken, hilly landscape. At other times, they spread out into wide plains or rolling hills, like the Tavoliere of Puglia and the area that forms the spur of Italy from Bari to Otranto.

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

Besides these, and not counting the islands, the Italian peninsula has four distinct volcanic areas. In three of them, the volcanoes are completely extinct, while the fourth is still very active.

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

1. The Euganean Hills are a small range that stretches for about 10 miles from near Padua to Este, separated from the lower foothills of the Alps by a section of the expansive Padua plain. Monte Venda, the highest peak, stands at 1,890 feet.

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

2. The Roman district, the largest of the four, stretches from the hills of Albano to the border of Tuscany, and from the lower slopes of the Apennines to the Tyrrhenian Sea. It can be divided into three groups: the Monti Albani, the second highest of which, Monte Cavo (3115 ft.), is the ancient Mons Albanus, where the temple of Jupiter Latialis once stood, hosting the gatherings of the cities in the Latin confederation; the Monti Cimini, which run from the Tiber valley to near Civita Vecchia, reaching a peak elevation of 3454 ft.; and the mountains of Radicofani and Monte Amiata, the latter being 5688 ft. tall. This district is home to the lakes of Bolsena (Vulsiniensis), Bracciano (Sabatinus), Vico (Ciminus), Albano (Albanus), Nemi (Nemorensis), and several smaller lakes; while between its southwestern edge and Monte Circello, the Pontine Marshes create a wide strip of alluvial soil plagued by malaria.

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

3. The volcanic area of Terra di Lavoro is separated from the Roman district by the Volscian mountains. It can also be divided into three groups. In Roccamonfina, located at the N.N.W. end of the Campanian Plain, the tallest cone, called Montagna di Santa Croce, stands at 3,291 feet. The Phlegraean Fields include all the land around Baiae and Pozzuoli and the nearby islands. The highest cones in this area are Monte Barbaro (Gaurus), northeast of the ancient site of Cumae, Monte San Nicola (Epomeus), which is 2,589 feet in Ischia, and Camaldoli, which is 1,488 feet, located west of Naples. The lakes Averno (Avernus), Lucrino (Lucrinus), Fusaro (Palus Acherusia), and Agnano are also part of this group, which has shown volcanic activity in historical times. A lava flow erupted from the crater of Solfatara in 1198, which continues to release steam and harmful gases; the Lava dell'Arso emerged from the northeast side of Monte Epomeo in 1302; and Monte Nuovo, northwest of Pozzuoli, which is 455 feet high, was formed in just three days in September 1538. Since its first recorded eruption in A.D. 79, Vesuvius or Somma, part of the third group, has been continuously active. The Punta del Nasone, the highest point of Somma, reaches 3,714 feet, while the Punta del Palo, the highest point on the edge of Vesuvius's crater, varies significantly with each eruption, ranging from 3,856 to 4,275 feet.

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

4. The Apulian volcanic formation is made up of the massive Monte Volture, which rises at the western edge of the plains of Apulia, on the border with Basilicata, and is surrounded by the Apennines to the southwest and northwest. Its highest peak, Pizzuto di Melfi, reaches an elevation of 4,365 feet. Inside the largest crater, there are two small lakes, Monticchio and San Michele. Connected to the volcanic areas, we can mention Le Mofete, the pools of Ampsanctus, located in a forested valley southeast of Frigento, in the province of Avellino, Campania (Virgil, Aeneid, vii. 563-571). The largest pool is only about 160 feet in circumference and 7 feet deep.

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

The entire plain of Lombardy is covered by Pleistocene and recent deposits. It’s a large depression—the extension of the Adriatic Sea—filled with sediment carried down by rivers from the mountains. This depression likely formed during the later stages of the Alps' development.

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

Climate and Vegetation.—Italy's geographic location, stretching from about 46° to 38° N., makes it one of the hottest countries in Europe. However, its southern latitude is moderated by its peninsular shape, bordered on both sides by extensive seas, as well as by the impressive range of the Alps, with its snow and glaciers to the north. This creates irregular climate variations. There are also significant climate differences between northern and southern Italy, largely due to other factors in addition to latitude differences. The vast plain in northern Italy is cooled by cold winds from the Alps, while the warm, damp winds from the Mediterranean are mostly blocked by the Ligurian Apennines. As a result, this area experiences a chilly winter climate, so even though Milan has a higher average summer temperature than Sassari and is comparable to Naples, the winter average temperature in Turin is actually lower than that of Copenhagen. The lowest winter temperature recorded in Turin is 5° Fahrenheit. In the region north of the Apennines, no plants can thrive that are not able to withstand occasional harsh frosts in winter, meaning that not only oranges and lemons but even olive trees can only be grown in particularly favorable areas. However, the coastal strip between the Apennines and the sea, known as the Riviera of Genoa, is not only very suitable for olive growth but also produces oranges and lemons abundantly, while aloe, cactus, and palm thrive in many locations.

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

Central Italy also shows notable variations in climate and temperature depending on how close you are to the mountains. Most of Tuscany and the provinces leading to Rome enjoy a mild winter climate, making them suitable for growing mulberries, olives, and vines. However, it isn't until you pass Terracina and head south along the western coast that the flora of southern Italy truly flourishes. Even in the central areas of Tuscany, though, the climate is significantly influenced by the nearby mountains, with the rising Apennines further south impacting the temperature. The coldest areas of Italy can be found in the central Apennines. In the upland valleys of the Abruzzi, snow starts falling as early as November, and heavy storms can occur well into May; communities can be isolated for months, and in some villages, paths are made through the snow for residents to communicate with one another. The region from the southeast of Lake Fucino to the Piano di Cinque Miglia, which includes the upper basin of the Sangro and the small lake of Scanno, is the coldest and most desolate part of Italy south of the Alps. Heavy snowfalls in June are not unusual, and only briefly at the end of July do the nights completely avoid light frosts. Yet, less than 40 miles east of this area, and even further north, the olive, fig tree, and orange thrive abundantly along the Adriatic coast from Ortona to Vasto. Similarly, while snow is rarely seen in the plains and hills around Naples, and when it does, it doesn't last long, just 20 miles east in the fertile valley of Avellino—despite being at a relatively low elevation and surrounded by high mountains—light frosts can occur as late as June. Eighteen miles further east, in the higher areas of San Angelo dei Lombardi and Bisaccia, residents dress warmly, and vines struggle to grow, only thriving in sheltered spots. Even further southeast, Potenza has one of the coldest climates in Italy, experiencing the lowest summer temperatures. However, nowhere are these contrasts more pronounced than in Calabria. The coastal areas, especially along the Tyrrhenian Sea, are lined with almost continuous groves of olive, orange, lemon, and citron trees, which reach sizes not found in northern Italy. Sugar cane thrives, cotton plants yield perfectly, date palms are seen in gardens, prickly pears cover the rocks, and field enclosures are made of agave and sometimes pomegranates. Wild licorice grows, and mastic, myrtle, and various types of oleander and cistus fill the underbrush of the natural forests of strawberry trees and evergreen oak. If you go just 5 or 6 miles inland from the shore, or often even less, the landscape changes dramatically. High areas filled with oaks and chestnuts replace this almost tropical vegetation; as you go higher, you reach the elevated regions of Pollino and Sila, covered in firs and pines, which offer rich pastures even in the summer when heavy dews and light frosts alternate in July and August, and snow starts to show up by the end of September or early October. Along the Adriatic shores, which face cold northeast winds blowing down from the Albanian mountains, delicate plants generally don’t thrive as well as they do at the same latitude along the shores of the Tyrrhenian Sea.

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

Southern Italy definitely has a very different climate compared to the northern part of the kingdom. While large areas are still covered by rugged mountains that are high enough to hold onto snow for a good part of the year, the regions near the sea have a climate that's similar to Greece and the southern parts of Spain. Sadly, many of these fertile areas suffer greatly from malaria (q.v.), especially the vast plain next to the Gulf of Tarentum, which in ancient times was surrounded by a network of Greek cities—some of which reached incredible prosperity—has been in a state of near-total desolation for centuries. 3

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

It's surprising that many of the vegetables from Italy that catch the visitor's eye today were actually introduced relatively recently and weren't known in ancient times. The olive has always covered the hills in much of the country, but the orange and lemon are imports from the East, while the cactus or Indian fig and aloe, which are so noticeable along the southern Italian coast and the Riviera of Genoa, originate from Mexico and could only have been introduced after the 16th century. The same is true for maize or Indian corn. Many botanists even believe that the sweet chestnut, which now makes up a significant portion of the forests on both the Alps and Apennines and provides a primary food source for some locals, is not originally from Italy; it definitely hadn't reached the same level of popularity and significance in ancient times that it has now. The eucalyptus is a relatively recent addition and has been widely planted in areas prone to malaria. However, the iconic cypress, ilex, and stone pine are native trees, with the stone pine thriving particularly near the coast. There’s a large number of evergreens, and they have a noticeable impact on the winter landscape.

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

Fauna.—The chamois, ibex, and marmot are found only in the Alps, not at all in the Apennines. In the Apennines, bears were present during Roman times, and it’s said that a few still remain. Wolves are more common, but only in the mountainous areas; flocks are protected from them by large white sheepdogs, which have some wolf ancestry. Wild boars can also be found in the mountains and forests. Foxes are prevalent near Rome. Among sea mammals, the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) is present. The birds are similar to those found in central Europe; in the mountains, you can find vultures, eagles, buzzards, kites, falcons, and hawks. Game birds include partridges, woodcock, snipe, etc., but all kinds of small birds are also hunted for food, which keeps their numbers down. Many migratory birds are caught in traps in the foothills on the southern side of the Alps, especially near Lake Como, during their migration. A large number of quails are shot in the spring. There are various kinds of lizards among reptiles. There are several types of snakes, with three species (all vipers) being venomous. Numerous varieties of sea fish exist, with the tuna, sardine, and anchovy being the most commercially important. Some other edible fish, like palombo, aren’t found in northern waters. Small cuttlefish are commonly used in diets. Tortoiseshell, an important commercial item, comes from the Thalassochelys caretta, a sea turtle. Among freshwater fish, the trout from mountain streams and eels from coastal lagoons can be mentioned. The tarantula spider and scorpion are found in southern Italy. The aquarium at the zoological station in Naples has the finest collection of marine animals in the world, showcasing the incredible diversity of the various species of fish, mollusks, crustaceans, etc., found in the Mediterranean.

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

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

Population.—The table below shows the areas of the various provinces (there are sixty-nine in total) and the population of each, based on the censuses from December 31, 1881, and February 9, 1901. (The larger divisions or categories grouping the provinces are not officially recognized.)

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

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

The number of foreigners in Italy in 1901 was 61,606, with 37,762 living in the kingdom.

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

The population shown in the table above is the resident or “legal” population, which is also listed for each town. This number is 490,251 more than the actual population, 32,475,253, determined by the census conducted on February 10, 1901; the difference is due to temporary absences from their homes of certain individuals on military duty, etc., who were likely counted twice, and also because 469,020 people were reported as absent from Italy, while only 61,606 foreigners were in Italy at the time of the census. The kingdom is divided into 69 provinces, 284 regions, of which 197 are classified as circondarii and 87 as districts (the latter belonging to the province of Mantua and the 8 provinces of Venetia), 1806 administrative divisions (mandamenti), and 8262 communes. These were the figures at the time of the census. In 1906, there were 1805 mandamenti and 8290 communes, along with 4 boroughs in Sardinia not linked to communes. The mandamenti or administrative divisions no longer line up with the judicial divisions (mandamenti giudiziarii), which were reduced from 1806 to 1535 in November 1891 by a law that stated judicial reform wouldn’t change current administrative and electoral divisions. The main elective local administrative bodies are the provincial and communal councils. The voting rights are slightly broader than for parliamentary elections. Both councils are elected for six years, with half being renewed every three years. The provincial council elects a provincial commission and the communal council elects a municipal council from among its own members; these smaller bodies handle the work of the larger ones when they are not in session. The syndic of each commune is elected by secret ballot by the communal council from within its own members.

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

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

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

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

The average density grew from 257.21 per sq. m. in 1881 to 293.28 in 1901. In Venetia, Emilia, the Marches, Umbria, and Tuscany, the concentration of the population is only between 40% and 55%; in Piedmont, Liguria, and Lombardy, that percentage increases to between 70% and 76%; in southern Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, it reaches a maximum of between 76% and 93%.

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

The population of towns with over 100,000 residents is shown in the following table based on estimates from 1906. The population of the town itself is separate from that of its commune, which frequently covers a significant area of the surrounding countryside.

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

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

The population of different regions in Italy varies in character and dialect, with little shared sentiment among them. The lifestyles and standards of comfort and morality in northern Italy and Calabria are very different, with the north being much more advanced. However, compulsory military service helps unify the country, as the rule is that no one serves in the military district they belong to. In almost all areas, the idea of personal loyalty (e.g., between employer and employee) still holds almost a feudal strength. The people in the north—the Piedmontese, Lombards, and Genoese, in particular—have been less affected by foreign domination and the mixing of lower racial elements, and the cold winter climate prevents the summer heat from being debilitating. They, along with those in central Italy, are more industrious than those in the southern provinces, who have yet to fully recover from centuries of poor governance and oppression. Southerners tend to be more passionate and excitable but are less stable, organized, or trustworthy. They often appear apathetic unless provoked, and socialist ideas are mainly supported in the north. Sicilians and Sardinians exhibit some Spanish dignity, but Sicilians are among the most mixed races, while Sardinians are likely one of the purest in the Italian kingdom. Physical traits vary widely; overall, Italians are somewhat short, with dark or black hair and eyes, often seen as attractive. Both men and women mature early. Mortality rates are declining, but judging by the physical condition of military recruits, there seems to be little to no improvement in the nation's physique. Much of this lack of progress is linked to the heavy manual (especially agricultural) labor performed by women and children. Women, in particular, age quickly due to this reason (E. Nathan, Vent’ anni di vita italiana attraverso all’ annuario, 169 sqq.).

Births, Marriages, Deaths.—Birth and marriage rates vary considerably, being highest in the centre and south (Umbria, the Marches, Apulia, Abruzzi and Molise, and Calabria) and lowest in the north (Piedmont, Liguria and Venetia), and in Sardinia. The death-rate is highest in Apulia, in the Abruzzi and Molise, and in Sardinia, and lowest in the north, especially in Venetia and Piedmont.

Births, Marriages, Deaths.—Birth and marriage rates vary significantly, being highest in the central and southern regions (Umbria, the Marches, Apulia, Abruzzi and Molise, and Calabria) and lowest in the north (Piedmont, Liguria, and Venetia), as well as in Sardinia. The death rate is highest in Apulia, Abruzzi and Molise, and in Sardinia, and lowest in the north, particularly in Venetia and Piedmont.

Taking the statistics for the whole kingdom, the annual marriage-rate for the years 1876-1880 was 7.53 per 1000; in 1881-1885 it rose to 8.06; in 1886-1890 it was 7.77; in 1891-1895 it was 7.41, and in 1896-1900 it had gone down to 7.14 (a figure largely produced by the abnormally low rate of 6.88 in 1898), and in 1902 was 7.23. Divorce is forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church, and only 839 judicial separations were obtained from the courts in 1902, more than half of the demands made having been abandoned. Of the whole population in 1901, 57.5% were unmarried, 36.0% married, and 6.5% widowers or widows. The illegitimate births show a decrease, having been 6.95 per 100 births in 1872 and 5.72 in 1902, with a rise, however, in the intermediate period as high as 7.76 in 1883. The birth-rate shows a corresponding decrease from 38.10 per 1000 in 1881 to 33.29 in 1902. The male births have since 1872 been about 3% (3.14 in 1872-1875 and 2.72 in 1896-1900) in excess of the female births, which is rather more than compensated for by the greater male mortality, the excess being 2.64 in 1872-1875 and having increased to 4.08 in 1896-1900. (The calculations are made 8 in both cases on the total of births and deaths of both sexes.) The result is that, while in 1871 there was an excess of 143,370 males over females in the total population, in 1881 the excess was only 71,138, and in 1901 there were 169,684 more females than males. The death-rate (excluding still-born children) was, in 1872, 30.78 per 1000, and has since steadily decreased—less rapidly between 1886-1890 than during other years; in 1902 it was only 22.15 and in 1899 was as low as 21.89. The excess of births over deaths shows considerable variations—owing to a very low birth-rate, it was only 3.12 per 1000 in 1880, but has averaged 11.05 per 1000 from 1896 to 1900, reaching 11.98 in 1899 and 11.14 in 1902. For the four years 1899-1902 24.66% died under the age of one year, 9.41 between one and two years. The average expectation of life at birth for the same period was 52 years and 11 months, 62 years and 2 months at the age of three years, 52 years at the age of fifteen, 44 years at the age of twenty-four, 30 years at the age of forty; while the average period of life, which was 35 years 3 months per individual in 1882, was 43 years per individual in 1901. This shows a considerable improvement, largely, but not entirely, in the diminution of infant mortality; the expectation of life at birth in 1882, it is true, was only 33 years and 6 months, and at three years of age 56 years 1 month; but the increase, both in the expectation of life and in its average duration, goes all through the different ages.

Taking the statistics for the entire kingdom, the annual marriage rate from 1876 to 1880 was 7.53 per 1,000; from 1881 to 1885 it increased to 8.06; from 1886 to 1890 it was 7.77; from 1891 to 1895 it was 7.41, and from 1896 to 1900 it dropped to 7.14 (a figure largely impacted by the unusually low rate of 6.88 in 1898), and in 1902 it was 7.23. Divorce is prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church, and only 839 judicial separations were granted by the courts in 1902, with more than half of the requests being withdrawn. Of the total population in 1901, 57.5% were unmarried, 36.0% were married, and 6.5% were widowed. Illegitimate births showed a decline, being 6.95 per 100 births in 1872 and 5.72 in 1902, although there was a rise in the period in between, peaking at 7.76 in 1883. The birth rate correspondingly decreased from 38.10 per 1,000 in 1881 to 33.29 in 1902. Since 1872, there have been about 3% (3.14 in 1872-1875 and 2.72 in 1896-1900) more male births than female births, which is somewhat offset by higher male mortality, with the excess being 2.64 in 1872-1875 and increasing to 4.08 in 1896-1900. (Calculations are made based on the total of births and deaths of both sexes.) This has resulted in an excess of 143,370 males over females in the total population in 1871, while in 1881 the excess was only 71,138, and by 1901, there were 169,684 more females than males. The death rate (excluding stillborn children) was 30.78 per 1,000 in 1872 and has steadily decreased since then—less rapidly between 1886 and 1890 than in other years; in 1902 it was only 22.15, and in 1899 it was as low as 21.89. The excess of births over deaths has shown considerable variation—due to a very low birth rate, it was only 3.12 per 1,000 in 1880, but averaged 11.05 per 1,000 from 1896 to 1900, reaching 11.98 in 1899 and 11.14 in 1902. For the four years from 1899 to 1902, 24.66% died before the age of one year, and 9.41% between one and two years. The average life expectancy at birth for this period was 52 years and 11 months, 62 years and 2 months at three years, 52 years at fifteen, 44 years at twenty-four, and 30 years at forty; while the average lifespan, which was 35 years and 3 months per individual in 1882, was 43 years per individual in 1901. This indicates a significant improvement, largely, but not entirely, due to a reduction in infant mortality; it is true that life expectancy at birth in 1882 was only 33 years and 6 months, and at three years of age, it was 56 years and 1 month; however, the increase in both life expectancy and average lifespan is evident across all age groups.

Occupations.—In the census of 1901 the population over nine years of age (both male and female) was divided as follows as regards the main professions:—

Occupations.—In the 1901 census, the population over nine years old (both male and female) was categorized as follows according to the main professions:—

  Total. Males. Females.
Agricultural (including hunting and fishing) 9,666,467 6,466,165 3,200,302
Industrial 4,505,736 3,017,393 1,488,343
Commerce and transport (public and private services) 1,003,888 885,070 118,818
Domestic service, &c. 574,855 171,875 402,980
Professional classes, administration, &c. 1,304,347 855,217 449,130
Defence 204,012 204,012 . .
Religion 129,893 89,329 40,564

Emigration.—The movement of emigration may be divided into two currents, temporary and permanent—the former going chiefly towards neighbouring European countries and to North Africa, and consisting of manual labourers, the latter towards trans-oceanic countries, principally Brazil, Argentina and the United States. These emigrants remain abroad for several years, even when they do not definitively establish themselves there. They are composed principally of peasants, unskilled workmen and other manual labourers. There was a tendency towards increased emigration during the last quarter of the 19th century. The principal causes are the growth of population, and the over-supply of and low rates of remuneration for manual labour in various Italian provinces. Emigration has, however, recently assumed such proportions as to lead to scarcity of labour and rise of wages in Italy itself. Italians form about half of the total emigrants to America.

Emigration.—The trend of emigration can be split into two types: temporary and permanent. The temporary group mainly migrates to nearby European countries and North Africa, consisting mostly of manual laborers, while the permanent group heads to overseas nations, mainly Brazil, Argentina, and the United States. These emigrants often stay abroad for several years, even if they don’t fully settle down there. They are primarily made up of peasants, unskilled workers, and other manual laborers. There was a noticeable increase in emigration during the last quarter of the 19th century. The main drivers are population growth and the surplus of low-paying manual labor jobs in various Italian regions. Recently, however, emigration has reached such levels that it is causing a labor shortage and wage increases within Italy itself. Italians make up about half of the total number of emigrants to America.

Year. Temporary Emigration. Permanent Emigration.
Total No. of
Emigrants.
Per every
100,000 of
Population.
Total No. of
Emigrants.
Per every
100,000 of
Population.
1881  94,225 333  41,607 147
1891 118,111 389 175,520 578
1901 281,668 865 251,577 772

The increased figures may, to a minor extent, be due to better registration, in consequence of the law of 1901.

The higher numbers may, to a small extent, be due to improved registration following the law of 1901.

From the next table will be seen the direction of emigration in the years specified:—

From the next table, you can see the direction of emigration in the specified years:—

  1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. 1904. 1905.
Europe 181,047 244,298 236,066 215,943 209,942 266,982
N. Africa 5,417 9,499 11,771 9,452 14,709 11,910
U.S. and Canada 89,400 124,636 196,723 200,383 173,537 322,627
Mexico (Central America) 2,069 997 766 1,311 1,828 2,044
South America 74,168 152,543 85,097 78,699 74,209 111,943
Asia and Oceania 691 1,272 1,086 2,168 2,966 2,715
   Total 352,792 533,245 531,509 507,956 477,191 718,221

The figures for 1905 show that the total of 718,221 emigrants was made up, as regards numbers, mainly by individuals from Venetia, Sicily, Campania, Piedmont, Calabria and the Abruzzi; while the percentage was highest in Calabria (4.44), the Abruzzi, Venetia, Basilicata, the Marches, Sicily (2.86), Campania, Piedmont (2.02). Tuscany gives 1.20, Latium 1.14%, Apulia only 1.02, while Sardinia with 0.34% occupies an exceptional position. The figure for Sicily, which was 106,000 in 1905, reached 127,000 in 1906 (3.5%), and of these about three-fourths would be adults; in the meantime, however, the population increases so fast that even in 1905 there was a net increase in Sicily of 20,000 souls; so that in three years 220,000 workers were replaced by 320,000 infants.

The statistics for 1905 show that the total of 718,221 emigrants primarily consisted of individuals from Venetia, Sicily, Campania, Piedmont, Calabria, and the Abruzzi. The highest percentage was from Calabria (4.44%), followed by the Abruzzi, Venetia, Basilicata, the Marches, and Sicily (2.86%), and then Campania and Piedmont (2.02%). Tuscany recorded 1.20%, Latium 1.14%, Apulia only 1.02%, while Sardinia had an exceptional rate of 0.34%. The figure for Sicily, which was 106,000 in 1905, grew to 127,000 in 1906 (3.5%), with about three-fourths of these being adults. Meanwhile, the population was increasing so rapidly that even in 1905, there was a net gain of 20,000 people in Sicily, meaning that over three years, 220,000 workers were replaced by 320,000 infants.

The phenomenon of emigration in Sicily cannot altogether be explained by low wages, which have risen, though prices have done the same. It has been defined as apparently “a kind of collective madness.”

The issue of emigration in Sicily can't be completely explained by low wages, which have increased, even though prices have too. It's been described as seemingly “a kind of collective madness.”

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

Agriculture.—It's tough to get accurate statistics on the areas used for different types of farming because of their varied and fragmented nature, along with the absence of a complete land survey. A full survey was mandated by the law on March 1, 1886, but it will take many years to finish. However, the law allowed provinces heavily burdened by land tax to speed up their portion of the survey and benefit from the new tax reassessment. You can get an idea of the survey's impact from the fact that assessments in the four provinces of Mantua, Ancona, Cremona, and Milan, which used to total £1,454,696, are now £2,788,080, representing a 91% increase. Out of Italy's total area of 70,793,000 acres, 71% is categorized as "productive." The unproductive area makes up 16% of the total area (including 4% taken up by lagoons or marshes and 1.75% of the area that can be improved by drainage). The uncultivated area is at 13%, which includes 3.50% of the total that can be cultivated.

The cultivated area may be divided into five agrarian regions or zones, named after the variety of tree culture which flourishes in them. (1) Proceeding from south to north, the first zone is that of the agrumi (oranges, lemons and similar fruits). It comprises a great part of Sicily. In Sardinia it extends along the southern and western coasts. It predominates along the Ligurian Riviera from Bordighera to Spezia, and on the Adriatic, near San Benedetto del Tronto and Gargano, and, crossing the Italian shore of the Ionian Sea, prevails in some regions of Calabria, and terminates around the gulfs of Salerno, Sorrento and Naples. (2) The region of olives comprises the internal Sicilian valleys and part of the mountain slopes; in Sardinia, the valleys near the coast on the S.E., S.W. and N.W.; on the mainland it extends from Liguria and from the southern extremities of the Romagna to Cape Santa Maria di Leuca in Apulia, and to Cape Spartivento in Calabria. Some districts of the olive region are near the lakes of upper Italy and in Venetia, and the territories of Verona, Vicenza, Treviso and Friuli. (3) The vine region begins on the sunny slopes of the Alpine spurs and in those Alpine valleys open towards the south, extending over the plains of Lombardy and Emilia. In Sardinia it covers the mountain slopes to a considerable height, and in Sicily covers the sides of the Madonie range, reaching a level above 3000 ft. on the southern slope of Etna. The Calabrian Alps, the less rocky sides of the Apulian Murgie and the whole length of the Apennines are covered at different heights, according to their situation. The hills of Tuscany, and of Monferrato in Piedmont, produce the most celebrated Italian vintages. (4) The region of chestnuts extends from the valleys to the high plateaus of the Alps, along the northern slopes of the Apennines in Liguria, Modena, Tuscany, Romagna, Umbria, the Marches and along the southern Apennines to the Calabrian and Sicilian ranges, as well as to the mountains of Sardinia. (5) The wooded region covers the Alps and Apennines above the chestnut level. The woods consist chiefly of pine and hazel upon the Apennines, and upon the Calabrian, Sicilian and Sardinian mountains of oak, ilex, hornbeam and similar trees.

The cultivated area can be divided into five agricultural regions or zones, named after the types of tree culture that thrive there. (1) Moving from south to north, the first zone is the one of agrumi (oranges, lemons, and similar fruits). It covers a large part of Sicily. In Sardinia, it stretches along the southern and western coasts. It is prominent along the Ligurian Riviera from Bordighera to Spezia, and on the Adriatic near San Benedetto del Tronto and Gargano, and, crossing the Italian shore of the Ionian Sea, it dominates in some areas of Calabria, ending around the gulfs of Salerno, Sorrento, and Naples. (2) The olive region includes the interior Sicilian valleys and parts of the mountain slopes; in Sardinia, the valleys near the southeast, southwest, and northwest coasts; on the mainland, it extends from Liguria and the southern ends of Romagna to Cape Santa Maria di Leuca in Apulia, and to Cape Spartivento in Calabria. Some districts of the olive region are near the lakes in northern Italy and in Veneto, and in the territories of Verona, Vicenza, Treviso, and Friuli. (3) The vine region starts on the sunny slopes of the Alpine foothills and in the Alpine valleys that face south, stretching over the plains of Lombardy and Emilia. In Sardinia, it covers the mountain slopes to a significant height, and in Sicily, it covers the sides of the Madonie range, reaching over 3000 ft. on the southern slope of Etna. The Calabrian Alps, the less rocky sides of the Apulian Murgie, and the entire length of the Apennines are covered at various heights, depending on their location. The hills of Tuscany and Monferrato in Piedmont produce the most famous Italian wines. (4) The chestnut region extends from the valleys to the high plateaus of the Alps, along the northern slopes of the Apennines in Liguria, Modena, Tuscany, Romagna, Umbria, the Marches, and along the southern Apennines to the Calabrian and Sicilian ranges, as well as to the mountains of Sardinia. (5) The wooded region covers the Alps and Apennines above the chestnut level. The woods are mainly composed of pine and hazel on the Apennines, and on the Calabrian, Sicilian, and Sardinian mountains, you'll find oak, ilex, hornbeam, and similar trees.

Between these regions of tree culture lie zones of different herbaceous culture, cereals, vegetables and textile plants. The style of cultivation varies according to the nature of the ground, terraces supported by stone walls being much used in mountainous districts. Cereal cultivation occupies the foremost place in area and quantity though it has been on the decline since 1903, still representing, however, an advance on previous years. Wheat is the most important crop and is widely distributed. In 1905 12,734,491 acres, or about 18% of the total area, produced 151,696,571 bushels of wheat, a yield of only 12 bushels per acre. The importation has, however, enormously increased since 1882—from 164,600 to 1,126,368 tons; while the extent of land devoted to corn cultivation has slightly decreased. Next in importance to wheat comes maize, occupying about 7% of the total area of the country, and cultivated almost everywhere as an alternative crop. The production of maize in 1905 9 reached about 96,250,000 bushels, a slight increase on the average. The production of maize is, however, insufficient, and 208,719 tons were imported in 1902—about double the amount imported in 1882.

Between these areas of tree cultivation, there are regions for growing various herbs, cereals, vegetables, and textile plants. The method of farming differs based on the type of land, with stone wall-supported terraces being commonly used in mountainous areas. Cereal farming takes up the most space and quantity, although it has been declining since 1903, still showing an improvement compared to previous years. Wheat is the most significant crop and is widely grown. In 1905, 12,734,491 acres, or about 18% of the total area, produced 151,696,571 bushels of wheat, yielding only 12 bushels per acre. However, imports have dramatically increased since 1882—from 164,600 to 1,126,368 tons; while the amount of land used for corn farming has slightly decreased. Next to wheat, maize is important, covering about 7% of the country's total area, and is grown almost everywhere as an alternative crop. The maize production in 1905 reached approximately 96,250,000 bushels, a minor increase from the average. Still, maize production is insufficient, and 208,719 tons were imported in 1902—about twice the amount imported in 1882.

Rice is cultivated in low-lying, moist lands, where spring and summer temperatures are high. The Po valley and the valleys of Emilia and the Romagna are best adapted for rice, but the area is diminishing on account of the competition of foreign rice and of the impoverishment of the soil by too intense cultivation. The area is about 0.5% of the total of Italy. The area under rye is about 0.5% of the total, of which about two-thirds lie in the Alpine and about one-third in the Apennine zone. The barley zone is geographically extensive but embraces not more than 1% of the total area, of which half is situated in Sardinia and Sicily. Oats, cultivated in the Roman and Tuscan maremma and in Apulia, are used almost exclusively for horses and cattle. The area of oats cultivation is 1.5% of the total area. The other cereals, millet and panico sorgo (Panicum italicum), have lost much of their importance in consequence of the introduction of maize and rice. Millet, however, is still cultivated in the north of Italy, and is used as bread for agricultural labourers, and as forage when mixed with buckwheat (Sorghum saccaratum). The manufacture of macaroni and similar foodstuff is a characteristic Italian industry. It is extensively distributed, but especially flourishes in the Neapolitan provinces. The exportation of “corn-flour pastes” sank, however, from 7100 tons to 350 between 1882 and 1902.

Rice is grown in low-lying, wet areas where the spring and summer temperatures are high. The Po Valley and the Emilia and Romagna valleys are the best suited for rice, but this area is shrinking due to competition from foreign rice and soil depletion from over-farming. It accounts for about 0.5% of Italy's total agricultural land. The area for rye is also around 0.5% of the total, with about two-thirds in the Alpine region and one-third in the Apennines. The barley-growing region is geographically large but only makes up about 1% of the total, with half located in Sardinia and Sicily. Oats, grown in the Roman and Tuscan marshlands and in Apulia, are mainly used for horses and cattle. Oat cultivation represents 1.5% of the total land area. Other grains like millet and panico sorgo (Panicum italicum) have decreased in importance due to the introduction of maize and rice. Millet is still farmed in northern Italy, where it is used as bread for farm workers and mixed with buckwheat (Sorghum saccaratum) for animal feed. The production of macaroni and similar foods is a notable Italian industry. It is widely practiced but particularly thrives in the Neapolitan provinces. However, the export of "corn-flour pastes" dropped from 7,100 tons to 350 tons between 1882 and 1902.

The cultivation of green forage is extensive and is divided into the categories of temporary and perennial. The temporary includes vetches, pulse, lupine, clover and trifolium; and the perennial, meadow-trefoil, lupinella, sulla (Hedysarum coronarium), lucerne and darnel. The natural grass meadows are extensive, and hay is grown all over the country, but especially in the Po valley. Pasture occupies about 30% of the total area of the country, of which Alpine pastures occupy 1.25%. Seed-bearing vegetables are comparatively scarce. The principal are: white beans, largely consumed by the working classes; lentils, much less cultivated than beans; and green peas, largely consumed in Italy, and exported as a spring vegetable. Chick-pease are extensively cultivated in the southern provinces. Horse beans are grown, especially in the south and in the larger islands; lupines are also grown for fodder.

The growth of green forage is widespread and is split into two categories: temporary and perennial. Temporary types include vetches, pulses, lupines, clover, and trifolium; while perennial types include meadow-trefoil, lupinella, sulla (Hedysarum coronarium), lucerne, and darnel. Natural grass meadows are plentiful, and hay is produced throughout the country, particularly in the Po Valley. Pasture covers about 30% of the total land area, with Alpine pastures making up 1.25%. Seed-bearing vegetables are relatively rare. The main ones are: white beans, widely eaten by the working class; lentils, which are not grown as much as beans; and green peas, which are popular in Italy and exported as a spring vegetable. Chickpeas are commonly grown in the southern provinces. Horse beans are mainly cultivated in the south and on the larger islands; lupines are also grown for animal feed.

Among tuberous vegetables the potato comes first. The area occupied is about 0.7% of the whole of the country. Turnips are grown principally in the central provinces as an alternative crop to wheat. They yield as much as 12 tons per acre. Beetroot (Beta vulgaris) is used as fodder, and yields about 10 tons per acre. Sugar beet is extensively grown to supply the sugar factories. In 1898-1899 there were only four sugar factories, with an output of 5972 tons; in 1905 there were thirty-three, with an output of 93,916 tons.

Among tuberous vegetables, the potato is the most important. It covers about 0.7% of the entire country. Turnips are mainly grown in the central provinces as a substitute crop for wheat, yielding as much as 12 tons per acre. Beetroot (Beta vulgaris) is used as animal feed and produces about 10 tons per acre. Sugar beet is widely cultivated to supply the sugar factories. In 1898-1899, there were only four sugar factories with an output of 5,972 tons; by 1905, there were thirty-three factories producing 93,916 tons.

Market gardening is carried on both near towns and villages, where products find ready sale, and along the great railways, on account of transport facilities. Rome is an exception to the former rule and imports garden produce largely from the neighbourhood of Naples and from Sardinia.

Market gardening takes place both near towns and villages, where products sell easily, and along major railways due to transportation options. Rome is an exception to this trend and heavily imports garden produce from the areas around Naples and from Sardinia.

Among the chief industrial plants is tobacco, which grows wherever suitable soil exists. Since tobacco is a government monopoly, its cultivation is subject to official concessions and prescriptions. Experiments hitherto made show that the cultivation of Oriental tobacco may profitably be extended in Italy. The yield for 1901 was 5528 tons, but a large increase took place subsequently, eleven million new plants having been added in southern Italy in 1905.

Among the main industrial crops is tobacco, which thrives wherever the soil is suitable. Because tobacco is a government monopoly, its cultivation is regulated by official licenses and regulations. Experiments conducted so far indicate that growing Oriental tobacco can be profitably expanded in Italy. The yield in 1901 was 5,528 tons, but there was a significant increase later, with eleven million new plants added in southern Italy in 1905.

The chief textile plants are hemp, flax and cotton. Hemp is largely cultivated in the provinces of Turin, Ferrara, Bologna, Forlì, Ascoli Piceno and Caserta. Bologna hemp is specially valued. Flax covers about 160,000 acres, with a product, in fibre, amounting to about 20,000 tons. Cotton (Gossypium herbaceum), which at the beginning of the 19th century, at the time of the Continental blockade, and again during the American War of Secession, was largely cultivated, is now grown only in parts of Sicily and in a few southern provinces. Sumach, liquorice and madder are also grown in the south.

The main textile plants are hemp, flax, and cotton. Hemp is mainly grown in the provinces of Turin, Ferrara, Bologna, Forlì, Ascoli Piceno, and Caserta, with Bologna hemp being especially prized. Flax covers around 160,000 acres, producing about 20,000 tons of fiber. Cotton (Gossypium herbaceum), which was widely cultivated at the beginning of the 19th century during the Continental blockade and again during the American Civil War, is now only grown in parts of Sicily and a few southern provinces. Sumac, licorice, and madder are also cultivated in the south.

The vine is cultivated throughout the length and breadth of Italy, but while in some of the districts of the south and centre it occupies from 10 to 20% of the cultivated area, in some of the northern provinces, such as Sondrio, Belluno, Grosseto, &c., the average is only about 1 or 2%. The methods of cultivation are varied; but the planting of the vines by themselves in long rows of insignificant bushes is the exception. In Lombardy, Emilia, Romagna, Tuscany, the Marches, Umbria and the southern provinces, they are trained to trees which are either left in their natural state or subjected to pruning and pollarding. In Campania the vines are allowed to climb freely to the tops of the poplars. In the rest of Italy the elm and the maple are the trees mainly employed as supports. Artificial props of several kinds—wires, cane work, trellis work, &c.—are also in use in many districts (in the neighbourhood of Rome canes are almost exclusively employed), and in some the plant is permitted to trail along the ground. The vintage takes place, according to locality and climate, from the beginning of September to the beginning of November. The vine has been attacked by the Oidium Tuckeri, the Phylloxera vastatrix and the Peronospora viticola, which in rapid succession wrought great havoc in Italian vineyards. American vines, are, however, immune and have been largely adopted. The production of wine in the vintage of 1907, which was extraordinarily abundant all over the country, was estimated at 1232 million gallons (56 million hectolitres), the average for 1901-1903 being some 352 million gallons less; of this the probable home consumption was estimated at rather over half, while a considerable amount remained over from 1906. The exportation in 1902 only reached about 45 million gallons (and even that is double the average), while an equally abundant vintage in France and Spain rendered the exportation of the balance of 1907 impossible, and fiscal regulations rendered the distillation of the superfluous amount difficult. The quality, too, owing to bad weather at the time of vintage, was not good; Italian wine, indeed, never is sufficiently good to compete with the best wines of other countries, especially France (though there is more opening for Italian wines of the Bordeaux and Burgundy type); nor will many kinds of it stand keeping, partly owing to their natural qualities and partly to the insufficient care devoted to their preparation. There has been some improvement, however, while some of the heavier white wines, noticeably the Marsala of Sicily, have excellent keeping qualities. The area cultivated as vineyards has increased enormously, from about 4,940,000 acres to 9,880,000 acres, or about 14% of the total area of the country. Over-production seems thus to be a considerable danger, and improvement of quality is rather to be sought after. This has been encouraged by government prizes since 1904.

The vine is grown all over Italy, but in some areas of the south and center, it occupies about 10 to 20% of the cultivated land, while in some northern provinces like Sondrio, Belluno, and Grosseto, the average is only about 1 or 2%. There are different methods of cultivation; however, planting vines alone in long rows of small bushes is rare. In Lombardy, Emilia, Romagna, Tuscany, the Marches, Umbria, and the southern regions, they are trained on trees, which are either left natural or pruned and pollarded. In Campania, the vines are allowed to climb up the poplars. In other parts of Italy, elm and maple trees are mostly used as supports. Various artificial supports—like wires, cane work, and trellis work—are also used in many areas (around Rome, canes are predominantly used), and in some places, the vines are allowed to spread along the ground. The harvest occurs, depending on the location and climate, from early September to early November. The vine has been attacked by the Oidium Tuckeri, Phylloxera vastatrix, and Peronospora viticola, which rapidly caused significant damage to Italian vineyards. However, American vines are resistant and have been widely accepted. The wine production in the 1907 harvest, which was exceptionally abundant across the country, was estimated at 1,232 million gallons (56 million hectoliters), with the average for 1901-1903 being about 352 million gallons less; of this, the estimated domestic consumption was slightly over half, while a significant amount was left over from 1906. Exports in 1902 were only about 45 million gallons (which is still double the average), while another abundant harvest in France and Spain made it impossible to export the surplus from 1907, and fiscal regulations made it difficult to distill the excess. The quality was also affected by poor weather during the harvest; Italian wine, in fact, is rarely good enough to compete with the best wines from other countries, especially France (though there's more opportunity for Italian wines in the Bordeaux and Burgundy categories); many varieties also don’t age well, partially due to their inherent qualities and partly due to the lack of care in their production. However, there has been some improvement, and some heavier white wines, particularly Sicily's Marsala, have excellent aging properties. The area cultivated as vineyards has significantly expanded, from about 4,940,000 acres to 9,880,000 acres, or about 14% of the country's total area. This overproduction seems to be a considerable threat, and quality improvement is still a priority. This has been supported by government prizes since 1904.

Next to cereals and the vine the most important object of cultivation is the olive. In Sicily and the provinces of Reggio, Catanzaro, Cosenza and Lecce this tree flourishes without shelter; as far north as Rome, Aquila and Teramo it requires only the slightest protection; in the rest of the peninsula it runs the risk of damage by frost every ten years or so. The proportion of ground under olives is from 20 to 36% at Porto Maurizio, and in Reggio, Lecce, Bari, Chieti and Leghorn it averages from 10 to 19%. Throughout Piedmont, Lombardy, Venetia and the greater part of Emilia, the tree is of little importance. In the olive there is great variety of kinds, and the methods of cultivation differ greatly in different districts; in Bari, Chieti and Lecce, for instance, there are regular woods of nothing but olive-trees, while in middle Italy there are olive-orchards with the interspaces occupied by crops of various kinds. The Tuscan oils from Lucca, Calci and Buti are considered the best in the world; those of Bari, Umbria and western Liguria rank next. The wood of the olive is also used for the manufacture of small articles. The olive-growing area occupies about 3.5% of the total area of the country, and the crop in 1905 produced about 75,000,000 gallons of oil. The falling off of the crop, especially in 1899, was due to bad seasons and to insects, notably the Cycloconium oleoginum, and the Dacus oleae, or oil-fly, which have ravaged the olive-yards, and it is noticeable that lately good and bad seasons seem to alternate; between 1900 and 1905 the crops were alternately one half of, and equal to, that of the latter year. With the development of agricultural knowledge, notable improvements have been effected in the manufacture of oil. The steam mills give the best results. The export trade, however, is decreasing considerably, while the home consumption is increasing. In 1901, 1985 imperial tuns of oil were shipped from Gallipoli for abroad—two-thirds to the United Kingdom, one-third to Russia—and 666 to Italian ports; while in 1904 the figures were reversed, 1633 tuns going to Italian ports, and only 945 tuns to foreign ports. The other principal port of shipping is Gioia Tauro, 30 m. N.N.E. of Reggio Calabria. A certain amount of linseed-oil is made in Lombardy, Sicily, Apulia and Calabria; colza in Piedmont, Lombardy, Venetia and Emilia; and castor-oil in Venetia and Sicily. The product is principally used for industrial purposes, and partly in the preparation of food, but the amount is decreasing.

Next to grains and vineyards, the olive is one of the most important crops. In Sicily and the provinces of Reggio, Catanzaro, Cosenza, and Lecce, this tree thrives without any protection; as far north as Rome, Aquila, and Teramo, it only needs minimal shelter; in the rest of the peninsula, it risks frost damage about every ten years. The area planted with olives ranges from 20 to 36% in Porto Maurizio, and in Reggio, Lecce, Bari, Chieti, and Leghorn, it averages between 10 to 19%. Throughout Piedmont, Lombardy, Venetia, and most of Emilia, the tree holds little significance. There is a wide variety of olive types, and cultivation methods vary greatly between regions; for example, in Bari, Chieti, and Lecce, there are dedicated groves of only olive trees, whereas in central Italy there are olive orchards interspersed with various crops. The olive oils from Lucca, Calci, and Buti in Tuscany are considered the best in the world, while oils from Bari, Umbria, and western Liguria follow closely behind. Olive wood is also used to make small items. The olive-growing area makes up about 3.5% of the country’s total land, with the 1905 harvest producing around 75 million gallons of oil. The decline in production, especially in 1899, was due to poor weather and pests, particularly the Cycloconium oleoginum and the Dacus oleae, or oil-fly, which have devastated olive groves. It’s also noticeable that good and bad seasons seem to alternate; between 1900 and 1905, the yields varied between half of and equal to those of the latter year. With advancements in agricultural knowledge, there have been significant improvements in oil production. Steam mills provide the best results. However, exports are decreasing significantly while domestic consumption is rising. In 1901, 1985 imperial tuns of oil were shipped from Gallipoli abroad—two-thirds to the United Kingdom and one-third to Russia—along with 666 tuns to Italian ports; by 1904, these numbers flipped, with 1633 tuns going to Italian ports and only 945 tuns to international markets. Another major shipping port is Gioia Tauro, located 30 miles N.N.E. of Reggio Calabria. A certain amount of linseed oil is produced in Lombardy, Sicily, Apulia, and Calabria; colza oil in Piedmont, Lombardy, Venetia, and Emilia; and castor oil in Venetia and Sicily. Most of this product is used for industrial purposes and partly for food preparation, but the amount is declining.

The cultivation of oranges, lemons and their congeners (collectively designated in Italian by the term agrumi) is of comparatively modern date, the introduction of the Citrus Bigaradia being probably due to the Arabs. Sicily is the chief centre of cultivation—the area occupied by lemon and orange orchards in the province of Palermo alone having increased from 11,525 acres in 1854 to 54,340 in 1874. Reggio Calabria, Catanzaro, Cosenza, Lecce, Salerno, Naples and Caserta are the continental provinces which come next after Sicily. In Sardinia the cultivation is extensive, but receives little attention. Both crude and concentrated lime-juice is exported, and essential oils are extracted from the rind of the agrumi, more particularly from that of the lemon and the bergamot. In northern and central Italy, except in the province of Brescia, the agrumi are almost non-existent. The trees are planted on irrigated soil and the fruit gathered between November and August. Considerable trade is done in agro di limone or lemon extract, which forms the basis of citric acid. Extraction is extensively carried on in the provinces of Messina and Palermo.

The cultivation of oranges, lemons, and their relatives (commonly referred to in Italian as agrumi) is relatively recent, with the introduction of Citrus Bigaradia likely credited to the Arabs. Sicily is the main center for this cultivation— the area taken up by lemon and orange orchards in the Palermo province alone grew from 11,525 acres in 1854 to 54,340 in 1874. The continental provinces that follow Sicily are Reggio Calabria, Catanzaro, Cosenza, Lecce, Salerno, Naples, and Caserta. In Sardinia, the cultivation is widespread but receives little attention. Both raw and concentrated lime juice is exported, and essential oils are extracted from the peel of the agrumi, especially from lemons and bergamots. In northern and central Italy, except for the Brescia province, agrumi are nearly absent. The trees are planted in irrigated soil, and the fruit is harvested between November and August. There is significant trade in agro di limone or lemon extract, which serves as the foundation for citric acid. Extraction is widely carried out in the provinces of Messina and Palermo.

Among other fruit trees, apple-trees have special importance. Almonds are widely cultivated in Sicily, Sardinia and the southern provinces; walnut trees throughout the peninsula, their wood being more important than their fruit; hazel nuts, figs, prickly pears (used in the south and the islands for hedges, their fruit being a minor consideration), peaches, pears, locust beans and pistachio nuts are among the other fruits. The mulberry-tree (Morus alba), whose leaves serve as food for silkworms, is cultivated in every region, considerable progress having been made in its cultivation and in the rearing of silkworms since 1850. Silkworm-rearing establishments 10 of importance now exist in the Marches, Umbria, in the Abruzzi, Tuscany, Piedmont and Venetia. The chief silk-producing provinces are Lombardy, Venetia and Piedmont. During the period 1900-1904 the average annual production of silk cocoons was 53,500 tons, and of silk 5200 tons.

Among other fruit trees, apple trees hold special significance. Almonds are widely grown in Sicily, Sardinia, and the southern provinces; walnut trees are found all across the peninsula, with their wood being more valuable than their fruit; other fruits include hazelnuts, figs, prickly pears (which are used in the south and the islands for hedges, while their fruit is considered less important), peaches, pears, locust beans, and pistachio nuts. The mulberry tree (Morus alba), whose leaves are food for silkworms, is grown in every region, with significant advancements in its cultivation and in silkworm rearing since 1850. Important silkworm-rearing facilities now exist in the Marches, Umbria, Abruzzi, Tuscany, Piedmont, and Venetia. The main silk-producing provinces are Lombardy, Venetia, and Piedmont. Between 1900 and 1904, the average annual production of silk cocoons was 53,500 tons, and of silk, 5,200 tons.

The great variety in physical and social conditions throughout the peninsula gives corresponding variety to the methods of agriculture. In the rotation of crops there is an amazing diversity—shifts of two years, three years, four years, six years, and in many cases whatever order strikes the fancy of the farmer. The fields of Tuscany for the most part bear wheat one year and maize the next, in perpetual interchanges, relieved to some extent by green crops. A similar method prevails in the Abruzzi, and in the provinces of Salerno, Benevento and Avellino. In Lombardy a six-year shift is common: either wheat, clover, maize, rice, rice, rice (the last year manured with lupines) or maize, wheat followed by clover, clover, clover ploughed in, and rice, rice and rice manured with lupines. The Emilian region is one where regular rotations are best observed—a common shift being grain, maize, clover, beans and vetches, &c., grain, which has the disadvantage of the grain crops succeeding each other. In the province of Naples, Caserta, &c., the method of fallows is widely adopted, the ground often being left in this state for fifteen or twenty years; and in some parts of Sicily there is a regular interchange of fallow and crop year by year. The following scheme indicates a common Sicilian method of a type which has many varieties: fallow, grain, grain, pasture, pasture—other two divisions of the area following the same order, but beginning respectively with the two years of grain and the two of pasture.

The wide range of physical and social conditions across the peninsula leads to a corresponding variety in agricultural practices. The crop rotation methods are impressively diverse—with cycles of two years, three years, four years, six years, or even whatever order the farmer prefers. In Tuscany, for example, fields typically grow wheat one year and maize the next, constantly alternating, with some green crops included. A similar approach is found in the Abruzzi and the provinces of Salerno, Benevento, and Avellino. In Lombardy, a six-year rotation is common: either wheat, clover, maize, rice, rice, rice (with the last year fertilized with lupines) or maize, followed by wheat, then clover, clover, clover tilled in, and rice, rice, and rice manured with lupines. The Emilian region is known for its well-observed rotations, with a common cycle being grain, maize, clover, beans, and vetches, etc., where grain crops follow one another. In Naples, Caserta, and surrounding areas, the practice of leaving land fallow is widespread, often for fifteen to twenty years; while in some parts of Sicily, there is a regular exchange of fallow and crops each year. The following scheme illustrates a common Sicilian method that has many variations: fallow, grain, grain, pasture, pasture—other sections of the land following this same sequence but starting with either two years of grain or two years of pasture.

Woods and forests play an important part, especially in regard to the consistency of the soil and to the character of the watercourses. The chestnut is of great value for its wood and its fruit, an article of popular consumption. Good timber Woods and forests. is furnished by the oak and beech, and pine and fir forests of the Alps and Apennines. Notwithstanding the efforts of the government to unify and co-ordinate the forest laws previously existing in the various states, deforestation has continued in many regions. This has been due to speculation, to the unrestricted pasturage of goats, to the rights which many communes have over the forests, and to some extent to excessive taxation, which led the proprietors to cut and sell the trees and then abandon the ground to the Treasury. The results are—a lack of water-supply and of water-power, the streams becoming mere torrents for a short period and perfectly dry for the rest of the year; lack of a sufficient supply of timber; the denudation of the soil on the hills, and, where the valleys below have insufficient drainage, the formation of swamps. If the available water-power of Italy, already very considerable, be harnessed, converted into electric power (which is already being done in some districts), and further increased by reafforestation, the effect upon the industries of Italy will be incalculable, and the importation of coal will be very materially diminished. The area of forest is about 14.3% of the total, and of the chestnut-woods 1.5 more; and its products in 1886 were valued at £3,520,000 (not including chestnuts). A quantity of it is really brushwood, used for the manufacture of charcoal and for fuel, coal being little used except for manufacturing purposes. Forest nurseries have also been founded.

Woods and forests are crucial, especially for maintaining soil quality and the nature of watercourses. The chestnut tree is valuable for its timber and its fruit, which is widely consumed. Good quality wood comes from oak and beech, along with pine and fir forests in the Alps and Apennines. Despite the government's attempts to standardize and coordinate forest laws across different states, deforestation has continued in many areas. This is due to speculation, unrestricted goat grazing, communal rights to forest land, and to some extent, heavy taxation, which has led owners to cut down trees and abandon the land to the government. The consequences are a lack of water supply and hydro power, causing streams to become sudden torrents for a short time and completely dry for the rest of the year; insufficient timber supply; soil erosion on hills; and in valleys with poor drainage, the creation of swamps. If Italy's already significant water power is harnessed, transformed into electric power (which is already taking place in some areas), and further enhanced through reforestation, the impact on Italy's industries would be immense, significantly reducing the need for coal imports. Forests cover about 14.3% of the total land, and chestnut woods add another 1.5%; the value of their products in 1886 was £3,520,000 (excluding chestnuts). A significant portion consists of brushwood used for making charcoal and fuel, with coal mainly used for manufacturing. Forest nurseries have also been established.

According to an approximate calculation the number of head of Live stock. live stock in Italy in 1890 was 16,620,000, thus divided:—horses, 720,000; asses, 1,000,000; mules, 300,000; cattle, 5,000,000; sheep, 6,000,000; goats, 1,800,000; swine, 1,800,000.

According to an estimated calculation, the number of livestock in Italy in 1890 was 16,620,000, broken down as follows: horses, 720,000; donkeys, 1,000,000; mules, 300,000; cattle, 5,000,000; sheep, 6,000,000; goats, 1,800,000; pigs, 1,800,000.

The breed of cattle most widely distributed is that known as the Podolian, usually with white or grey coat and enormous horns. Of the numerous sub-varieties, the finest is said to be that of the Val di Chiana, where the animals are stall-fed all the year round; next is ranked the so-called Valle Tiberina type. Wilder varieties roam in vast herds over the Tuscan and Roman maremmas, and the corresponding districts in Apulia and other regions. In the Alpine districts there is a stock distinct from the Podolian, generally called razza montanina. These animals are much smaller in stature and more regular in form than the Podolians; they are mainly kept for dairy purposes. Another stock, with no close allies nearer than the south of France, is found in the plain of Racconigi and Carmagnola; the mouse-coloured Swiss breed occurs in the neighbourhood of Milan: the Tirolese breed stretches south to Padua and Modena; and a red-coated breed named of Reggio or Friuli is familiar both in what were the duchies of Parma and Modena, and in the provinces of Udine and Treviso. In Sicily the so-called Modica race is of note; and in Sardinia there is a distinct stock which seldom exceeds the weight of 700 ℔. Buffaloes are kept in several districts, more particularly of southern Italy.

The most widely distributed breed of cattle is the Podolian, typically having a white or grey coat and large horns. Among the many sub-varieties, the best is considered to be from the Val di Chiana, where the animals are fed in stalls year-round; next in quality is the Valle Tiberina type. Wilder varieties wander in large herds across the Tuscan and Roman maremmas, as well as in similar areas in Apulia and other regions. In the Alpine districts, there is a breed distinct from the Podolian, commonly known as razza montanina. These animals are much smaller and have a more uniform shape than the Podolians; they are primarily raised for dairy. Another breed, with no close relatives except those found in southern France, exists in the plains of Racconigi and Carmagnola; the mouse-colored Swiss breed is found near Milan: the Tirolese breed extends south to Padua and Modena; and a red-coated breed from Reggio or Friuli is well-known in the former duchies of Parma and Modena, as well as in the provinces of Udine and Treviso. In Sicily, the Modica race is notable; and in Sardinia, there is a distinct breed that usually weighs no more than 700 pounds. Buffaloes are raised in several areas, particularly in southern Italy.

Enormous flocks are possessed by professional sheep-farmers, who pasture them in the mountains in the summer, and bring them down to the plains in the winter. At Saluzzo in Piedmont there is a stock with hanging ears, arched face and tall stature, kept for its dairy qualities; and in the Biellese the merino breed is maintained by some of the larger proprietors. In the upper valleys of the Alps there are many local varieties, one of which at Ossola is like the Scottish blackface. Liguria is not much adapted for sheep-farming on a large scale; but a number of small flocks come down to the plain of Tuscany in the winter. With the exception of a few sub-Alpine districts near Bergamo and Brescia, the great Lombard plain is decidedly unpastoral. The Bergamo sheep is the largest breed in the country; that of Cadore and Belluno approaches it in size. In the Venetian districts the farmers often have small stationary flocks. Throughout the Roman province, and Umbria, Apulia, the Abruzzi, Basilicata and Calabria, is found in its full development a remarkable system of pastoral migration with the change of seasons which has been in existence from the most ancient times, and has attracted attention as much by its picturesqueness as by its industrial importance (see Apulia). Merino sheep have been acclimatized in the Abruzzi, Capitanata and Basilicata. The number of sheep, however, is on the decrease. Similarly, the number of goats, which are reared only in hilly regions, is decreasing, especially on account of the existing forest laws, as they are the chief enemies of young plantations. Horse-breeding is on the increase. The state helps to improve the breeds by placing choice stallions at the disposal of private breeders at a low tariff. The exportation is, however, unimportant, while the importation is largely on the increase, 46,463 horses having been imported in 1902. Cattle-breeding varies with the different regions. In upper Italy cattle are principally reared in pens and stalls; in central Italy cattle are allowed to run half wild, the stall system being little practised; in the south and in the islands cattle are kept in the open air, few shelters being provided. The erection of shelters, however, is encouraged by the state. Swine are extensively reared in many provinces. Fowls are kept on all farms and, though methods are still antiquated, trade in fowls and eggs is rapidly increasing.

Enormous flocks are managed by professional sheep farmers, who graze them in the mountains during the summer and bring them down to the plains in the winter. In Saluzzo, Piedmont, there's a breed with droopy ears, a curved face, and a tall stature, raised for its dairy qualities; and in Biellese, some of the larger farms maintain the Merino breed. In the upper valleys of the Alps, there are many local varieties, one of which in Ossola resembles the Scottish blackface. Liguria isn't well-suited for large-scale sheep farming, but several small flocks winter in the Tuscan plains. Except for a few sub-Alpine areas near Bergamo and Brescia, the great Lombard plain is definitely not pastoral. The Bergamo sheep is the largest breed in the country; the ones from Cadore and Belluno are similar in size. In the Venetian regions, farmers often have small resident flocks. Throughout the Roman province, as well as in Umbria, Apulia, Abruzzi, Basilicata, and Calabria, a remarkable system of seasonal pastoral migration has existed since ancient times, capturing attention for both its picturesque nature and its economic significance (see Apulia). Merino sheep have adapted well in Abruzzi, Capitanata, and Basilicata. However, the sheep population is declining. Likewise, the number of goats, which are raised only in hilly areas, is on the decline, mainly due to current forest laws as they tend to damage young plantations. Horse breeding is on the rise. The state aids in improving breeds by providing quality stallions to private breeders at a low cost. However, exports are not significant, while imports have greatly increased, with 46,463 horses imported in 1902. Cattle breeding varies by region. In northern Italy, cattle are mainly raised in pens and stalls; in central Italy, they are allowed to roam semi-wild, with few facilities; in the south and on the islands, cattle are kept outside with minimal shelters. The state encourages the construction of shelters. Pigs are widely raised in many provinces. Chickens are kept on all farms, and even though practices are still outdated, the trade in chickens and eggs is rapidly growing.

In 1905 Italy exported 32,786 and imported 17,766 head of cattle; exported 33,574 and imported 6551 sheep; exported 95,995 and imported 1604 swine. The former two show a very large decrease and the latter a large increase on the export figures for 1882. The export of agricultural products shows a large increase.

In 1905, Italy exported 32,786 and imported 17,766 cattle; exported 33,574 and imported 6,551 sheep; exported 95,995 and imported 1,604 pigs. The first two categories show a significant drop, while the last one shows a considerable rise compared to the export numbers from 1882. The export of agricultural products has also seen a significant increase.

The north of Italy has long been known for its great dairy districts. Parmesan cheese, otherwise called Lodigiano (from Lodi) or grana, was presented to King Louis XII. as early as 1509. Parmesan is not confined to the province from which it derives its name; it is manufactured in all that part of Emilia in the neighbourhood of the Po, and in the provinces of Brescia, Bergamo, Pavia, Novara and Alessandria. Gorgonzola, which takes its name from a town in the province, has become general throughout the whole of Lombardy, in the eastern parts of the “ancient provinces,” and in the province of Cuneo. The cheese known as the cacio-cavallo is produced in regions extending from 37° to 43° N. lat. Gruyère, extensively manufactured in Switzerland and France, is also produced in Italy in the Alpine regions and in Sicily. With the exception of Parmesan, Gorgonzola, La Fontina and Gruyère, most of the Italian cheese is consumed in the locality of its production. Co-operative dairy farms are numerous in north Italy, and though only about half as many as in 1889 (114 in 1902) are better organized. Modern methods have been introduced.

The northern part of Italy has been famous for its incredible dairy areas. Parmesan cheese, also known as Lodigiano (from Lodi) or grana, was offered to King Louis XII. as early as 1509. Parmesan isn't just made in the province it’s named after; it’s produced throughout Emilia near the Po River, and in the provinces of Brescia, Bergamo, Pavia, Novara, and Alessandria. Gorgonzola, named after a town in the province, has become popular throughout Lombardy, in the eastern parts of the “ancient provinces,” and in Cuneo. The cheese called cacio-cavallo is made in regions ranging from 37° to 43° N latitude. Gruyère, widely produced in Switzerland and France, is also made in Italy in the Alpine regions and in Sicily. Aside from Parmesan, Gorgonzola, La Fontina, and Gruyère, most Italian cheese is eaten locally where it's made. There are many cooperative dairy farms in northern Italy, and while there are only about half as many as there were in 1889 (114 in 1902), they are better organized. Modern methods have been introduced.

The drainage of marshes and marshy lands has considerably Drainage, &c. extended. A law passed on the 22nd of March 1900 gave a special impulse to this form of enterprise by fixing the ratio of expenditure incumbent respectively upon the State, the provinces, the communes, and the owners or other private individuals directly interested.

The drainage of wetlands and marshy areas has significantly increased. Drainage, etc. A law passed on March 22, 1900, boosted this type of project by determining how much each party—the State, provinces, municipalities, and private property owners or other interested individuals—should spend.

The Italian Federation of Agrarian Unions has greatly contributed to agricultural progress. Government travelling teachers Agrarian economics. of agriculture, and fixed schools of viticulture, also do good work. Some unions annually purchase large quantities of merchandise for their members, especially chemical manures. The importation of machinery amounted to over 5000 tons in 1901.

The Italian Federation of Agrarian Unions has significantly contributed to advancements in agriculture. Government traveling teachers of agriculture and established schools for viticulture also play an important role. Some unions buy large quantities of supplies for their members each year, particularly chemical fertilizers. In 1901, the import of machinery totaled over 5000 tons.

Income from land has diminished on the whole. The chief diminution has taken place in the south in regard to oranges and lemons, cereals and (for some provinces) vines. Since 1895, however, the heavy import corn duty has caused a slight rise in the income from corn lands. The principal reasons for the general decrease are the fall in prices through foreign competition and the closing of certain markets, the diseases of plants and the increased outlay required to combat them, and the growth of State and local taxation. One of the great evils of Italian agricultural taxation is its lack of elasticity and of adaptation to local conditions. Taxes are not sufficiently proportioned to what the land may reasonably be expected to produce, nor sufficient allowance made for the exceptional conditions of a southern climate, in which a few hours’ bad weather may destroy a whole crop. The Italian agriculturist has come to look (and often in vain) for action on a large scale from the state, for irrigation, drainage of uncultivated low-lying land, which may be made fertile, river regulation, &c.; while to the small proprietor the state often appears only as a hard and inconsiderate tax-gatherer.

Income from land has generally decreased. The biggest drop has occurred in the south, especially for oranges and lemons, crops, and (in some areas) grapes. Since 1895, though, the high import duty on corn has led to a slight increase in income from cornfields. The main reasons for the overall decline are falling prices due to foreign competition and the closing of certain markets, plant diseases, the rising costs to combat them, and growing state and local taxes. A major drawback of Italian agricultural taxation is its inflexibility and failure to adapt to local conditions. Taxes are not well-suited to what the land can realistically produce, and there’s no sufficient consideration for the unique challenges of a southern climate, where a few hours of bad weather can ruin an entire crop. Italian farmers often look (often in vain) for significant state action, such as irrigation, draining of unproductive marshy land that could be made fertile, river management, etc.; meanwhile, to small landowners, the state often seems like a relentless tax collector.

The relations between owners and tillers of the soil are still regulated by the ancient forms of agrarian contract, which have remained almost untouched by social and political changes. The possibility of reforming these contracts in some parts of the kingdom has been studied, in the hope of bringing them into closer harmony with the needs of rational cultivation and the exigencies of social justice.

The relationships between landowners and farmers are still governed by ancient types of agricultural contracts, which have hardly changed despite social and political shifts. The potential to reform these contracts in certain areas of the kingdom has been explored, with the aim of aligning them more closely with the demands of effective farming and the requirements of social justice.

Peasant proprietorship is most common in Lombardy and Piedmont, but it is also found elsewhere. Large farms are found in certain 11 of the more open districts; but in Italy generally, and especially in Sardinia, the land is very much subdivided. The following forms of contract are most usual in the several regions: In Piedmont the mezzadria (métayage), the terzieria, the colonia parziaria, the boaria, the schiavenza and the affitto, or lease, are most usual. Under mezzadria the contract generally lasts three years. Products are usually divided in equal proportions between the owner and the tiller. The owner pays the taxes, defrays the cost of preparing the ground, and provides the necessary implements. Stock usually belongs to the owner, and, even if kept on the half-and-half system, is usually bought by him. The peasant, or mezzadro, provides labour. Under terzieria the owner furnishes stock, implements and seed, and the tiller retains only one-third of the principal products. In the colonia parziaria the peasant executes all the agricultural work, in return for which he is housed rent-free, and receives one-sixth of the corn, one-third of the maize and has a small money wage. This contract is usually renewed from year to year. The boaria is widely diffused in its two forms of cascina fatta and paghe. In the former case a peasant family undertakes all the necessary work in return for payment in money or kind, which varies according to the crop; in the latter the money wages and the payment in kind are fixed beforehand. Schiavenza, either simple or with a share in the crops, is a form of contract similar to the boaria, but applied principally to large holdings. The wages are lower than under the boaria. In the affitto, or lease, the proprietor furnishes seed and the implements. Rent varies according to the quality of the soil.

Peasant ownership is most common in Lombardy and Piedmont, but it can also be found in other areas. Large farms exist in some of the more open regions; however, throughout Italy, especially in Sardinia, land is highly subdivided. The most common types of contracts in various regions include: In Piedmont, the mezzadria (also called métayage), terzieria, colonia parziaria, boaria, schiavenza, and affitto (or lease) are prevalent. With mezzadria, the contract usually lasts three years, and the products are typically split evenly between the owner and the farmer. The owner covers the taxes, pays for land preparation, and supplies the necessary tools. The livestock usually belongs to the owner, and even if shared equally, it’s generally purchased by them. The farmer, or mezzadro, provides the labor. In the terzieria contract, the owner supplies livestock, tools, and seeds, while the farmer keeps only one-third of the main products. In the colonia parziaria, the farmer does all the farming work in exchange for free housing, one-sixth of the grain, one-third of the corn, and a small cash wage. This contract is typically renewed annually. The boaria exists in two forms, cascina fatta and paghe. In the former, a peasant family handles all the necessary work for payment in cash or goods, which varies depending on the crop; in the latter, cash wages and goods payment are predetermined. Schiavenza, which can be simple or involve a share of the harvest, is a type of contract similar to the boaria, but primarily used for large estates. The wages tend to be lower than those in the boaria. In the affitto (or lease), the owner provides seeds and tools, and the rent varies based on soil quality.

In Lombardy, besides the mezzadria, the lease is common, but the terzieria is rare. The lessee, or farmer, tills the soil at his own risk; usually he provides live stock, implements and capital, and has no right to compensation for ordinary improvements, nor for extraordinary improvements effected without the landlord’s consent. He is obliged to give a guarantee for the fulfilment of his engagements. In some places he pays an annual tribute in grapes, corn and other produce. In some of the Lombard mezzadria contracts taxes are paid by the cultivator.

In Lombardy, besides the mezzadria, leasing is common, but the terzieria is rare. The lessee, or farmer, works the land at his own risk; he usually provides livestock, tools, and capital, and he has no right to compensation for regular improvements, nor for significant improvements made without the landlord’s permission. He must give a guarantee to fulfill his obligations. In some areas, he pays an annual fee in grapes, corn, and other products. In some of the Lombard mezzadria contracts, the cultivator is responsible for paying taxes.

In Venetia it is more common than elsewhere in Italy for owners to till their own soil. The prevalent forms of contract are the mezzadria and the lease. In Liguria, also, mezzadria and lease are the chief forms of contract.

In Venice, it’s more common than in other parts of Italy for owners to farm their own land. The main types of contracts are the mezzadria and leases. In Liguria, mezzadria and leases are also the primary types of contracts.

In Emilia both mezzadria and lease tenure are widely diffused in the provinces of Ferrara, Reggio and Parma; but other special forms of contract exist, known as the famiglio da spesa, boaria, braccianti obbligati and braccianti disobbligati. In the famiglio da spesa the tiller receives a small wage and a proportion of certain products. The boaria is of two kinds. If the tiller receives as much as 45 lire per month, supplemented by other wages in kind, it is said to be boaria a salario; if the principal part of his remuneration is in kind, his contract is called boaria a spesa.

In Emilia, both mezzadria and lease agreements are common in the provinces of Ferrara, Reggio, and Parma; however, there are other specific types of contracts known as famiglio da spesa, boaria, braccianti obbligati, and braccianti disobbligati. In the famiglio da spesa, the worker gets a small wage along with a share of certain products. There are two kinds of boaria. If the worker earns up to 45 lire per month, along with additional wages in kind, it's referred to as boaria a salario; if most of his payment is in kind, his contract is known as boaria a spesa.

In the Marches, Umbria and Tuscany, mezzadria prevails in its purest form. Profits and losses, both in regard to produce and stock, are equally divided. In some places, however, the landlord takes two-thirds of the olives and the whole of the grapes and the mulberry leaves. Leasehold exists in the province of Grosseto alone. In Latium leasehold and farming by landlords prevail, but cases of mezzadria and of “improvement farms” exist. In the agro Romano, or zone immediately around Rome, land is as a rule left for pasturage. It needs, therefore, merely supervision by guardians and mounted overseers, or butteri, who are housed and receive wages. Large landlords are usually represented by ministri, or factors, who direct agricultural operations and manage the estates, but the estate is often let to a middleman, or mercante di campagna. Wherever corn is cultivated, leasehold predominates. Much of the work is done by companies of peasants, who come down from the mountainous districts when required, permanent residence not being possible owing to the malaria. Near Velletri and Frosinone “improvement farms” prevail. A piece of uncultivated land is made over to a peasant for from 20 to 29 years. Vines and olives are usually planted, the landlord paying the taxes and receiving one-third of the produce. At the end of the contract the landlord either cultivates his land himself or leases it, repaying to the improver part of the expenditure incurred by him. This repayment sometimes consists of half the estimated value of the standing crops.

In the Marches, Umbria, and Tuscany, mezzadria is at its most traditional. Profits and losses from both crops and livestock are shared equally. However, in some areas, the landlord takes two-thirds of the olives, as well as all the grapes and mulberry leaves. Leasehold is found only in the province of Grosseto. In Latium, leasehold and landlord farming are common, but there are also instances of mezzadria and “improvement farms.” In the agro Romano, the area directly around Rome, land is generally used for grazing. This requires only oversight by guardians and mounted overseers, or butteri, who are housed and paid. Large landlords are usually represented by ministri, or factors, who oversee agricultural activities and manage the estates, although the estate is often leased to a middleman, or mercante di campagna. In places where corn is grown, leasehold is more common. Much of the labor is performed by groups of peasants who come down from the mountains as needed, since permanent residence isn't feasible due to malaria. Near Velletri and Frosinone, “improvement farms” are prevalent. An uncultivated plot is assigned to a peasant for 20 to 29 years. Vines and olives are typically planted, with the landlord covering the taxes and receiving one-third of the harvest. At the end of the contract, the landlord either cultivates the land himself or leases it out, reimbursing the improver for part of their costs. This reimbursement often includes half the estimated value of the standing crops.

In the Abruzzi and in Apulia leasehold is predominant. Usually leases last from three to six years. In the provinces of Foggia and Lecce long leases (up to twenty-nine years) are granted, but in them it is explicitly declared that they do not imply enfiteusi (perpetual leasehold), nor any other form of contract equivalent to co-proprietorship. Mezzadria is rarely resorted to. On some small holdings, however, it exists with contracts lasting from two to six years. Special contracts, known as colonie immovibili and colonie temporanee are applied to the latifondi or huge estates, the owners of which receive half the produce, except that of the vines, olive-trees and woods, which he leases separately. “Improvement contracts” also exist. They consist of long leases, under which the landlord shares the costs of improvements and builds farm-houses; also leases of orange and lemon gardens, two-thirds of the produce of which go to the landlord, while the farmer contributes half the cost of farming besides the labour. Leasehold, varying from four to six years for arable land and from six to eighteen years for forest-land, prevails also in Campania, Basilicata and Calabria. The estaglio, or rent, is often paid in kind, and is equivalent to half the produce of good land and one-third of the produce of bad land. “Improvement contracts” are granted for uncultivated bush districts, where one fourth of the produce goes to the landlord, and for plantations of fig-trees, olive-trees and vines, half of the produce of which belongs to the landlord, who at the end of ten years reimburses the tenant for a part of the improvements effected. Other forms of contract are the piccola mezzadria, or sub-letting by tenants to under-tenants, on the half-and-half system; enfiteusi, or perpetual leases at low rents—a form which has almost died out; and mezzadria (in the provinces of Caserta and Benevento).

In Abruzzo and Apulia, leasehold is the most common form of land tenure. Typically, leases last between three to six years. In the provinces of Foggia and Lecce, longer leases (up to twenty-nine years) are offered, but it's clearly stated that these do not imply enfiteusi (perpetual leasehold) or any other type of contract that resembles co-ownership. Mezzadria is rarely used. However, it does exist on some small farms with contracts lasting from two to six years. Special contracts, known as colonie immovibili and colonie temporanee, apply to latifondi or large estates, where the owners receive half of the produce, except for the harvest from vineyards, olive trees, and forests, which are leased separately. "Improvement contracts" are also available. These consist of long leases where the landlord covers some of the improvement costs and builds farmhouses. Additionally, leases for orange and lemon orchards typically allocate two-thirds of the produce to the landlord, while the farmer pays half of the farming costs and provides labor. Leasehold arrangements vary from four to six years for arable land and from six to eighteen years for forest land, and are also common in Campania, Basilicata, and Calabria. The estaglio, or rent, is often paid in kind, amounting to half of the produce from good land and one-third from poor land. "Improvement contracts" are offered for uncultivated bush areas, where one-fourth of the produce goes to the landlord, and for fig, olive, and vine plantations, where half of the yield belongs to the landlord, who reimburses the tenant for part of the improvements made after ten years. Other types of contracts include piccola mezzadria, or sub-letting by tenants to under-tenants, on a half-and-half basis; enfiteusi, or low-rent perpetual leases—which are nearly obsolete; and mezzadria (in the provinces of Caserta and Benevento).

In Sicily leasehold prevails under special conditions. In pure leasehold the landlord demands at least six months’ rent as guarantee, and the forfeiture of any fortuitous advantages. Under the gabella lease the contract lasts twenty-nine years, the lessee being obliged to make improvements, but being sometimes exempted from rent during the first years. Inquilinaggio is a form of lease by which the landlord, and sometimes the tenant, makes over to tenant or sub-tenant the sowing of corn. There are various categories of inquilinaggio, according as rent is paid in money or in kind. Under mezzadria or metateria the landlord divides the produce with the farmer in various proportions. The farmer provides all labour. Latifondi farms are very numerous in Sicily. The landlord lets his land to two or more persons jointly, who undertake to restore it to him in good condition with one-third of it “interrozzito,” that is, fallow, so as to be cultivated the following year according to triennial rotation. These lessees are usually speculators, who divide and sub-let the estate. The sub-tenants in their turn let a part of their land to peasants in mezzadria, thus creating a system disastrous both for agriculture and the peasants. At harvest-time the produce is placed in the barns of the lessor, who first deducts 25% as premium, then 16% for battiteria (the difference between corn before and after winnowing), then deducts a proportion for rent and subsidies, so that the portion retained by the actual tiller of the soil is extremely meagre. In bad years the tiller, moreover, gives up seed corn before beginning harvest.

In Sicily, leasehold operates under specific conditions. In a standard leasehold, the landlord requires at least six months’ rent as a security deposit, along with the loss of any unexpected benefits. Under the gabella lease, the agreement lasts for twenty-nine years, with the tenant required to make improvements, but sometimes exempted from rent during the initial years. Inquilinaggio is a type of lease where the landlord, and sometimes the tenant, allows the tenant or sub-tenant to plant corn. There are several types of inquilinaggio, depending on whether rent is paid in money or goods. Under mezzadria or metateria, the landlord shares the harvest with the farmer in various proportions, with the farmer handling all the work. Latifondi farms are quite common in Sicily. The landlord leases his land to two or more people together, who promise to return it in good shape with one-third of it “interrozzito,” meaning fallow, to be cultivated the following year according to a three-year rotation. These tenants are usually speculators, who divide and sub-lease the estate. The sub-tenants then rent part of their land to peasants under mezzadria, resulting in a system that is detrimental to both agriculture and the peasants. During harvest, the crops are stored in the lessor's barns, who first takes 25% as a premium, then 16% for battiteria (the difference between corn before and after winnowing), and then deducts a share for rent and subsidies, leaving the actual farmer with an extremely small amount. In poor years, the farmer also has to forfeit seed corn before the harvest begins.

In Sardinia landlord-farming and leasehold prevail. In the few cases of mezzadria the Tuscan system is followed.

In Sardinia, landlord-farming and leasing are the norms. In the rare cases of mezzadria, the Tuscan system is used.

Mines.—The number of mines increased from 589 in 1881 to 1580 in 1902. The output in 1881 was worth about £2,800,000, but by 1895 had decreased to £1,800,000, chiefly on account of the fall in the price of sulphur. It afterwards rose, and was worth more than £3,640,000 in 1899, falling again to £3,118,600 in 1902 owing to severe American competition in sulphur (see Sicily). The chief minerals are sulphur, in the production of which Italy holds one of the first places, iron, zinc, lead; these, and, to a smaller extent, copper of an inferior quality, manganese and antimony, are successfully mined. The bulk of the sulphur mines are in Sicily, while the majority of the lead and zinc mines are in Sardinia; much of the lead smelting is done at Pertusola, near Genoa, the company formed for this purpose having acquired many of the Sardinian mines. Iron is mainly mined in Elba. Quicksilver and tin are found (the latter in small quantities) in Tuscany. Boracic acid is chiefly found near Volterra, where there is also a little rock salt, but the main supply is obtained by evaporation. The output of stone from quarries is greatly diminished (from 12,500,000 tons, worth £1,920,000, in 1890, to 8,000,000 tons, worth £1,400,000, in 1899), a circumstance probably attributable to the slackening of building enterprise in many cities, and to the decrease in the demand for stone for railway, maritime and river embankment works. The value of the output had, however, by 1902 risen to £1,600,000, representing a tonnage of about 10,000,000. There is good travertine below Tivoli and elsewhere in Italy; the finest granite is found at Baveno. Lava is much used for paving-stones in the neighbourhood of volcanic districts, where pozzolana (for cement) and pumice stone are also important. Much of Italy contains Pliocene clay, which is good for pottery and brickmaking. Mineral springs are very numerous, and of great variety.

Mines.—The number of mines increased from 589 in 1881 to 1580 in 1902. The output in 1881 was worth about £2,800,000, but by 1895 had decreased to £1,800,000, mainly due to the drop in the price of sulphur. It later rose again, reaching over £3,640,000 in 1899, but fell back to £3,118,600 in 1902 because of intense American competition in sulphur (see Sicily). The primary minerals are sulphur, where Italy is among the top producers, as well as iron, zinc, and lead; these, along with lesser amounts of lower-quality copper, manganese, and antimony, are mined successfully. Most sulphur mines are in Sicily, while the majority of lead and zinc mines are in Sardinia; much of the lead smelting occurs in Pertusola, near Genoa, where the company established for this purpose has acquired many Sardinian mines. Iron is primarily extracted in Elba. Quicksilver and tin are found (the latter in small amounts) in Tuscany. Boracic acid is mainly located near Volterra, where a small amount of rock salt is also present, but the majority is sourced through evaporation. The output of stone from quarries has significantly decreased (from 12,500,000 tons, worth £1,920,000, in 1890 to 8,000,000 tons, valued at £1,400,000, in 1899), likely due to a slowdown in construction activities in various cities and a reduction in demand for stone used in railway, maritime, and river embankment projects. However, by 1902, the output value had risen to £1,600,000, representing a tonnage of about 10,000,000. There is quality travertine found below Tivoli and in other parts of Italy; the best granite is located at Baveno. Lava is widely used for paving stones in volcanic areas, where pozzolana (for cement) and pumice stone are also significant. Much of Italy contains Pliocene clay, which is ideal for pottery and brickmaking. Numerous mineral springs of great variety are found throughout the country.

Fisheries.—The number of boats and smacks engaged in the fisheries has considerably increased. In 1881 the total number was 15,914, with a tonnage of 49,103. In 1902 there were 23,098 boats, manned by 101,720 men, and the total catch was valued at just over half a million sterling—according to the government figures, which are certainly below the truth. The value has, however, undoubtedly diminished, though the number of boats and crews increases. Most of the fishing boats, properly so called, start from the Adriatic coast, the coral boats from the western Mediterranean coast, and the sponge boats from the western Mediterranean and Sicilian coasts. Fishing and trawling are carried on chiefly off the Italian (especially Ligurian), Austrian and Tunisian coasts; coral is found principally near Sardinia and Sicily, and sponges almost exclusively off Sicily and Tunisia in the neighbourhood of Sfax. For sponge fishing no accurate statistics are available before 1896; in that year 75 tons of sponges were secured, but there has been considerable diminution since, only 31 tons being obtained in 1902. A considerable proportion was obtained by foreign boats. The island of Lampedusa may be considered its centre. Coral fishing, which fell off between 1889 and 1892 on account of the temporary closing of the Sciacca coral reefs has greatly decreased since 1884, when the fisheries produced 643 tons, whereas in 1902 they only produced 225 tons. The value of the product has, however, proportionately increased, so that the sum realized was little less, while less than half the number of men 12 was employed. Sardinian coral commands from £3 to £4 per kilogramme (2.204 ℔), and is much more valuable than the Sicilian coral. The Sciacca reefs were again closed for three winters by a decree of 1904. The fishing is largely carried on by boats from Torre del Greco, in the Gulf of Naples, where the best coral beds are now exhausted. In 1879 4000 men were employed; in 1902 only just over 1000. In 1902 there were 48 tunny fisheries, employing 3006 men, and 5116 tons of fish worth £80,000 were caught. The main fisheries are in Sardinia, Sicily and Elba. Anchovy and sardine fishing (the products of which are reckoned among the general total) are also of considerable importance, especially along the Ligurian and Tuscan coasts. The lagoon fisheries are also of great importance, more especially those of Comacchio, the lagoon of Orbetello and the Mare Piccolo at Taranto &c. The deep-sea fishing boats in 1902 numbered 1368, with a total tonnage of 16,149; 100 of these were coral-fishing boats and 111 sponge-fishing boats.

Fisheries.—The number of boats and smacks involved in fishing has significantly increased. In 1881, the total was 15,914, with a tonnage of 49,103. By 1902, there were 23,098 boats operated by 101,720 men, and the total catch was valued at just over half a million pounds—according to government figures, which are likely lower than reality. However, the value has definitely decreased, even though the number of boats and crews has gone up. Most of the fishing boats, in the proper sense, depart from the Adriatic coast, while the coral boats come from the western Mediterranean coast, and the sponge boats operate from the western Mediterranean and Sicilian coasts. Fishing and trawling are mainly done off the Italian (especially Ligurian), Austrian, and Tunisian coasts; coral is primarily found near Sardinia and Sicily, and sponges are almost exclusively harvested off Sicily and Tunisia around Sfax. There are no accurate statistics for sponge fishing before 1896; in that year, 75 tons of sponges were collected, but there has been a significant decline since then, with only 31 tons being caught in 1902. A considerable amount came from foreign boats. The island of Lampedusa can be considered the center for this activity. Coral fishing, which decreased between 1889 and 1892 due to the temporary closure of the Sciacca coral reefs, has greatly diminished since 1884 when the fisheries produced 643 tons, dropping to only 225 tons in 1902. However, the value of the products has proportionately increased, meaning the total revenue was not much less, even with fewer than half the number of men 12 employed. Sardinian coral sells for £3 to £4 per kilogram (2.204 lbs), and is much more valuable than Sicilian coral. The Sciacca reefs were again closed for three winters due to a decree in 1904. Fishing is largely carried out by boats from Torre del Greco in the Gulf of Naples, where the best coral beds are now depleted. In 1879, 4,000 men were employed; by 1902, just over 1,000 were left. In 1902, there were 48 tunny fisheries employing 3,006 men, yielding 5,116 tons of fish worth £80,000. The main fisheries are in Sardinia, Sicily, and Elba. Anchovy and sardine fishing (which are included in the overall totals) are also quite important, especially along the Ligurian and Tuscan coasts. The lagoon fisheries are also significant, particularly those of Comacchio, the lagoon of Orbetello, and the Mare Piccolo at Taranto, etc. In 1902, the number of deep-sea fishing boats was 1,368, with a total tonnage of 16,149; among these were 100 coral-fishing boats and 111 sponge-fishing boats.

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

Industrial Progress.—Italy has made significant industrial progress since 1880. Many products that were once imported are now produced domestically, and some Italian goods have started to compete in international markets. Italy has only minor lignite and anthracite mines, but it has plenty of water power, which has been widely used in various industries, especially for generating electricity. The electric power needed for tramways and street lighting in Rome is completely provided by turbines located at Tivoli, and this is the case in other areas as well. The potential for expanding the use of this water power is considerable. One indicator of industrial growth is the increasing number of manufacturing companies, both Italian and foreign.

The chief development has taken place in mechanical industries, though it has also been marked in metallurgy. Sulphur mining supplies large industries of sulphur-refining and grinding, in spite of American competition. Very little pig iron is Mechanical industries. made, most of the iron ore being exported, and iron manufactured consists of old iron resmelted. For steel-making foreign pig iron is chiefly used. The manufacture of steel rails, carried on first at Terni and afterwards at Savona, began in Italy in 1886. Tin has been manufactured since 1892. Lead, antimony, mercury and copper are also produced. The total salt production in 1902 was 458,497 tons, of which 248,215 were produced in the government salt factories and the rest in the free salt-works of Sicily. Great progress has been made in the manufacture of machinery; locomotives, railway carriages, electric tram-cars, &c., and machinery of all kinds, are now largely made in Italy itself, especially in the north and in the neighbourhood of Naples. At Turin the manufacture of motor-cars has attained great importance and the F.I.A.T. (Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino) factory employs 2000 workmen, while eight others employ 2780 amongst them.

The main progress has happened in mechanical industries, although metallurgy has also seen significant advancements. Sulphur mining supports large sulphur-refining and grinding industries, despite competition from American sources. Very little pig iron is produced, with most of the iron ore being exported, and the iron that is manufactured primarily comes from recycled old iron. For making steel, foreign pig iron is mainly used. The production of steel rails began in Italy in 1886, first at Terni and then at Savona. Tin has been produced since 1892. Lead, antimony, mercury, and copper are also obtained. The total salt production in 1902 was 458,497 tons, with 248,215 tons produced in government salt factories, and the remainder coming from Sicily's free salt-works. Significant strides have been made in machinery manufacturing; locomotives, railway carriages, electric tram-cars, and various types of machinery are now widely produced in Italy, especially in the north and around Naples. In Turin, the production of motor cars has become very significant, with the F.I.A.T. (Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino) factory employing 2,000 workers, while eight other factories together employ 2,780.

The textile industries, some of which are of ancient date, are among those that have most rapidly developed. Handlooms and small spinning establishments have, in the silk industry, given place to large establishments with steam looms. The production Textiles. of raw silk at least tripled itself between 1875 and 1900, and the value of the silks woven in Italy, estimated in 1890 to be £2,200,000, is now, on account of the development of the export trade, calculated to be almost £4,000,000. Lombardy (especially Como, Milan and Bergamo), Piedmont and Venetia are the chief silk-producing regions. There are several public assay offices in Italy for silk; the first in the world was established in Turin in 1750. The cotton industry has also rapidly developed. Home products not only supply the Italian market in increasing degree, but find their way into foreign markets. While importation of raw cotton increases importations of cotton thread and of cotton stuffs have rapidly decreased. The value of the annual produce of the various branches of the cotton industry, which in 1885 was calculated to be £7,200,000, was in 1900, notwithstanding the fall in prices, about £12,000,000. The industry is chiefly developed in Lombardy, Piedmont and Liguria; to some extent also in Campania, Venetia and Tuscany, and to a less extent in Lazio (Rome), Apulia, Emilia, the Marches, Umbria, the Abruzzi and Sicily. A government weaving school was established in Naples in 1906. As in the case of cotton, Italian woollen fabrics are conquering the home market in increasing degree. The industry centres chiefly in Piedmont (province of Novara), Venetia (province of Vicenza), Tuscany (Florence), Lombardy (Brescia), Campania (Caserta), Genoa, Umbria, the Marches and Rome. To some extent the industry also exists in Emilia, Calabria, Basilicata, the Abruzzi, Sardinia and Sicily. It has, however, a comparatively small export trade.

The textile industry, some parts of which date back to ancient times, has seen rapid growth. Handlooms and small spinning operations in the silk sector have been replaced by large factories with steam looms. The production of raw silk at least tripled between 1875 and 1900, and the estimated value of silks woven in Italy, which was £2,200,000 in 1890, is now about £4,000,000, thanks to the growth of export trade. The main silk-producing regions are Lombardy (especially Como, Milan, and Bergamo), Piedmont, and Venetia. Italy has several public assay offices for silk; the first one in the world was set up in Turin in 1750. The cotton industry has also developed quickly. Domestic products not only increasingly supply the Italian market but also reach foreign markets. While the import of raw cotton is rising, imports of cotton thread and cotton goods have decreased significantly. The annual production value of various cotton industry branches, estimated at £7,200,000 in 1885, was about £12,000,000 in 1900, despite falling prices. The industry is mainly concentrated in Lombardy, Piedmont, and Liguria, with some presence in Campania, Venetia, and Tuscany, and a lesser extent in Lazio (Rome), Apulia, Emilia, the Marches, Umbria, the Abruzzi, and Sicily. A government weaving school was established in Naples in 1906. Similarly, Italian woolen fabrics are increasingly dominating the domestic market. The industry is mainly focused in Piedmont (province of Novara), Venetia (province of Vicenza), Tuscany (Florence), Lombardy (Brescia), Campania (Caserta), Genoa, Umbria, the Marches, and Rome. There is also some activity in Emilia, Calabria, Basilicata, the Abruzzi, Sardinia, and Sicily, although its export trade is relatively small.

The other textile industries (flax, jute, &c.) have made notable progress. The jute industry is concentrated in a few large factories, which from 1887 onwards have more than supplied the home market, and have begun considerably to export.

The other textile industries (flax, jute, etc.) have made significant progress. The jute industry is focused in a few large factories that, since 1887, have more than met the domestic market's needs and have started exporting significantly.

Chemical industries show an output worth £2,640,000 in 1902 as against £1,040,000 in 1893. The chief products are sulphuric acid; sulphate of copper, employed chiefly as a preventive of certain maladies of the vine; carbonate of lead, hyperphosphates Chemicals. and chemical manures; calcium carbide; explosive powder; dynamite and other explosives. Pharmaceutical industries, as distinguished from those above mentioned, have kept pace with the general development of Italian activity. The principal product is quinine, the manufacture of which has acquired great importance, owing to its use as a specific against malaria. Milan and Genoa are the principal centres, and also the government military pharmaceutical factory at Turin. Other industries of a semi-chemical character are candle-, soap-, glue-, and perfume-making, and the preparation of india-rubber. The last named has succeeded, by means of the large establishments at Milan in supplying not only the whole Italian market but an export trade.

Chemical industries had an output worth £2,640,000 in 1902, compared to £1,040,000 in 1893. The main products include sulfuric acid, copper sulfate (mainly used to prevent certain vine diseases), lead carbonate, hyperphosphates, and chemical fertilizers; calcium carbide; explosive powder; dynamite, and other explosives. Pharmaceutical industries, which are different from those mentioned above, have kept up with the overall growth of Italian industry. The key product is quinine, which has become very important due to its use as a treatment for malaria. Milan and Genoa are the main hubs, along with the government military pharmaceutical factory in Turin. Other semi-chemical industries include candle, soap, glue, and perfume manufacturing, as well as rubber preparation. The latter has successfully supplied not just the entire Italian market but also an export trade, thanks to the large factories in Milan.

The match-making industry is subject to special fiscal conditions. In 1902-1903 there were 219 match factories scattered throughout Italy, but especially in Piedmont, Lombardy and Venetia. The number has been reduced to less than half since 1897 by the suppression of smaller factories, while the production has increased from 47,690 millions to 59,741 millions.

The match-making industry is subject to specific financial conditions. In 1902-1903, there were 219 match factories spread across Italy, mainly in Piedmont, Lombardy, and Venetia. Since 1897, the number has dropped to less than half due to the closure of smaller factories, even though production has increased from 47,690 million to 59,741 million.

The beetroot-sugar industry has attained considerable proportions in Umbria, the Marches, Lazio, Venetia and Piedmont since 1890. In 1898-1899, 5972 tons were produced, while in 1905 the figure had risen to 93,916. The rise of the industry has been favoured by protective tariffs and by a system of excise which allows a considerable premium to manufacturers.

The beetroot-sugar industry has grown significantly in Umbria, the Marches, Lazio, Venetia, and Piedmont since 1890. In 1898-1899, 5,972 tons were produced, while in 1905, that number increased to 93,916. The growth of the industry has been supported by protective tariffs and an excise system that gives manufacturers a substantial advantage.

Alcohol has undergone various oscillations, according to the legislation governing distilleries. In 1871 only 20 hectolitres were produced, but in 1881 the output was 318,000 hectolitres, the maximum hitherto attained. Since then special laws have hampered development, some provinces, as for instance Sardinia, being allowed to manufacture for their own consumption but not for export. In other parts the industry is subjected to an almost prohibitive excise-duty. The average production is about 180,000 hectolitres per annum. The greatest quantity is produced in Lombardy, Piedmont, Venetia and Tuscany. The quantity of beer is about the same, the greater part of the beer drunk being imported from Germany, while the production of artificial mineral waters has somewhat decreased. There is a considerable trade (not very large for export, however) in natural mineral waters, which are often excellent.

Alcohol production has experienced various changes based on the laws governing distilleries. In 1871, only 20 hectolitres were produced, but by 1881, production reached 318,000 hectolitres, the highest amount achieved up to that point. Since then, specific laws have restricted growth, with some provinces like Sardinia allowed to produce for their own consumption but not for export. In other regions, the industry faces nearly prohibitive excise duties. The average production is around 180,000 hectolitres annually. The highest quantities are produced in Lombardy, Piedmont, Venetia, and Tuscany. Beer production is roughly similar, with most of the beer consumed being imported from Germany, while the production of artificial mineral waters has decreased somewhat. There is a significant trade in natural mineral waters, although it’s not very large for export, and these waters are often of excellent quality.

Paper-making is highly developed in the provinces of Novara, Caserta, Milan, Vicenza, Turin, Como, Lucca, Ancona, Genoa, Brescia, Cuneo, Macerata and Salerno. The hand-made paper of Fabriano is especially good.

Paper-making is well established in the provinces of Novara, Caserta, Milan, Vicenza, Turin, Como, Lucca, Ancona, Genoa, Brescia, Cuneo, Macerata, and Salerno. The handmade paper from Fabriano is particularly excellent.

Furniture-making in different styles is carried on all over Italy, especially as a result of the establishment of industrial schools. Each region produces a special type, Venetia turning out imitations of 16th- and 17th-century styles, Tuscany the 15th-century or cinquecento style, and the Neapolitan provinces the Pompeian style. Furniture and cabinet-making in great factories are carried on particularly in Lombardy and Piedmont. Bent-wood factories have been established in Venetia and Liguria.

Furniture-making in various styles is happening all over Italy, largely due to the establishment of industrial schools. Each region produces a unique type: Venetia creates imitations of 16th- and 17th-century styles, Tuscany focuses on the 15th-century or cinquecento style, and the Neapolitan provinces feature the Pompeian style. Furniture and cabinet-making are primarily carried out in large factories in Lombardy and Piedmont. Bent-wood factories have also been set up in Venetia and Liguria.

A characteristic Italian industry is that of straw-plaiting for hat-making, which is carried on principally in Tuscany, in the district of Fermo, in the Alpine villages of the province of Vicenza, and in some communes of the province of Messina. The plaiting is done by country women, while the hats are made up in factories. Both plaits and hats are largely exported.

A notable Italian industry is straw weaving for hat-making, mainly found in Tuscany, in the Fermo area, in the Alpine villages of Vicenza province, and in some towns in Messina province. Country women do the weaving, while factories handle the hat production. Both the straw and the hats are largely exported.

Tobacco is entirely a government monopoly; the total amount manufactured in 1902-1903 was 16,599 tons—a fairly constant figure.

Tobacco is completely controlled by the government; the total amount produced in 1902-1903 was 16,599 tons—a fairly consistent number.

The finest glass is made in Tuscany and Venetia; Venetian glass is often coloured and of artistic form.

The best glass is made in Tuscany and Venice; Venetian glass is often colorful and artistically shaped.

In the various ceramic arts Italy was once unrivalled, but the ancient tradition for a long time lost its primeval impulse. The works at Vinovo, which had fame in the 18th century, came to an untimely end in 1820; those of Castelli (in the Abruzzi), Artistic industries. which have been revived, were supplanted by Charles III.’s establishment at Capodimonte, 1750, which after producing articles of surprising execution was closed before the end of the century. The first place now belongs to the Della Doccia works at Florence. Founded in 1735 by the marquis Carlo Ginori, they maintained a reputation of the very highest kind down to about 1860; but since then they have not kept pace with their younger rivals in other lands. They still, however, are commercially successful. Other cities where the ceramic industries keep their ground are Pesaro, Gubbio, Faenza (whose name long ago became the distinctive term for the finer kind of potter’s work in France, faïence), Savona and Albissola, Turin, Mondovi, Cuneo, Castellamonte, Milan, Brescia, Sassuolo, Imola, Rimini, Perugia, Castelli, &c. In all these the older styles, by which these places became famous in the 16th-18th centuries, have been revived. It is estimated that the total production of the finer wares amounts on the average to £400,000 per annum. The ruder branches of the art—the making of tiles and common wares—are pretty generally diffused.

In the world of ceramics, Italy was once unmatched, but the ancient tradition lost its original spark for a long time. The famous works in Vinovo, which gained acclaim in the 18th century, came to an unfortunate end in 1820. The creations from Castelli (in Abruzzi), which have been revived, were overtaken by Charles III’s establishment at Capodimonte in 1750, which produced surprisingly exquisite items but shut down before the century ended. Now, the top spot belongs to the Della Doccia factory in Florence. Founded in 1735 by Marquis Carlo Ginori, they had a stellar reputation until about 1860; however, they have not kept up with their younger competitors from other countries since then. Nevertheless, they remain commercially successful. Other cities maintaining their ceramic industries include Pesaro, Gubbio, Faenza (whose name became synonymous with high-quality pottery in France, known as faïence), Savona, Albissola, Turin, Mondovi, Cuneo, Castellamonte, Milan, Brescia, Sassuolo, Imola, Rimini, Perugia, Castelli, and so on. In all these places, the older styles that made them famous from the 16th to the 18th centuries have experienced a revival. It is estimated that the total production of fine ceramics averages about £400,000 per year. The more basic branches of the art—like tile making and everyday pottery—are widely spread.

The jeweller’s art received large encouragement in a country which had so many independent courts; but nowhere has it attained a fuller development than at Rome. A vast variety of trinkets—in coral, glass, lava, &c.—is exported from Italy, or carried away by the annual host of tourists. The copying of the paintings of the old masters is becoming an art industry of no small mercantile importance in some of the larger cities.

The jeweler's craft was greatly supported in a country with so many independent courts, but it has reached its highest development in Rome. A wide range of jewelry—in coral, glass, lava, etc.—is exported from Italy or taken home by the many tourists each year. Replicating the paintings of the old masters is becoming a significant art industry in some of the larger cities.

The production of mosaics is an industry still carried on with much success in Italy, which indeed ranks exceedingly high in the 13 department. The great works of the Vatican are especially famous (more than 17,000 distinct tints are employed in their productions), and there are many other establishments in Rome. The Florentine mosaics are perhaps better known abroad; they are composed of larger pieces than the Roman. Those of the Venetian artists are remarkable for the boldness of their colouring. There is a tendency towards the fostering of feminine home industries—lace-making, linen-weaving, &c.

The production of mosaics is an industry that continues to thrive in Italy, which ranks very high in this area. The famous works of the Vatican are particularly well-known (over 17,000 different colors are used in their creations), and there are many other studios in Rome. The Florentine mosaics might be more recognized internationally; they use larger pieces compared to the Roman ones. The works of Venetian artists stand out for their vibrant colors. There is also a push to support women's home industries—like lace-making, linen-weaving, etc.

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

Condition of the Working Classes.—The situation of the many agricultural workers (who make up one-third of the population) is, except in some areas, tough, and in certain places, truly miserable. The agricultural inquiry (inchiesta agraria) completed in 1884 shed much light on their situation. The high number of emigrants, mainly from rural backgrounds, is another evidence of poverty. The terms of farming contracts and leases (except in areas where mezzadria is mainly practiced) are unfavorable to the workers, who face the burden of providing guarantees for rent payment, repayment of seed, and sharing the produce.

It was only at the close of the 19th century that the true cause of malaria—the conveyance of the infection by the bite of the Anopheles claviger—was discovered. This mosquito does Malaria. not as a rule enter the large towns; but low-lying coast districts and ill-drained plains are especially subject to it. Much has been done in keeping out the insects by fine wire netting placed on the windows and the doors of houses, especially in the railwaymen’s cottages. In 1902 the state took up the sale of quinine at a low price, manufacturing it at the central military pharmaceutical laboratory at Turin. Statistics show the difference produced by this measure.

It was only at the end of the 19th century that the real cause of malaria—the transmission of the infection through the bite of the Anopheles claviger mosquito—was discovered. This mosquito usually doesn't enter large cities; however, low-lying coastal areas and poorly drained plains are particularly vulnerable. A lot has been done to keep the insects out by using fine wire mesh on the windows and doors of homes, especially in the railway workers’ cottages. In 1902, the government began selling quinine at a low price, producing it at the central military pharmaceutical lab in Turin. Statistics show the impact of this initiative.

Financial Year. Pounds of
quinine sold.
Deaths by
Malaria.
1901-1902 . . 13,358
1902-1903  4,932  9,908
1903-1904 15,915  8,513
1904-1905 30,956  8,501
1905-1906 41,166  7,838
1906-1907 45,591  4,875

The profit made by the state, which is entirely devoted to a special fund for means against malaria, amounted in these five years to £41,759. It has been established that two 3-grain pastilles a day are a sufficient prophylactic; and the proprietors of malarious estates and contractors for public works in malarious districts are bound by law to provide sufficient quinine for their workmen, death for want of this precaution coming under the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act. Much has also been, though much remains to be, done in the way of bonificamento, i.e. proper drainage and improvement of the (generally fertile) low-lying and hitherto malarious plains.

The profit generated by the state, which is entirely dedicated to a special fund for malaria prevention, totaled £41,759 over the past five years. It has been confirmed that two 3-grain pastilles a day provide adequate protection; and the owners of malaria-prone estates and contractors for public works in these areas are legally required to supply enough quinine for their workers, with failure to do so resulting in penalties under the workers' compensation act. A lot has been accomplished, but there is still much more to be done in terms of bonificamento, i.e. proper drainage and the improvement of the (generally fertile) low-lying regions that have historically been affected by malaria.

In Venetia the lives of the small proprietors and of the salaried peasants are often extremely miserable. There and in Lombardy the disease known as pellagra is most widely diffused. The disease is due to poisoning by micro-organisms produced by deteriorated maize, and can be combated by care in ripening, drying and storing the maize. The most recent statistics show the disease to be diminishing. Whereas in 1881 there were 104,067 (16.29 per 1000) peasants afflicted by the disease, in 1899 there were only 72,603 (10.30 per 1000) peasants, with a maximum of 39,882 (34.32 per 1000) peasants in Venetia, and 19,557 (12.90 per 1000) peasants in Lombardy. The decrease of the disease is a direct result of the efforts made to combat it, in the form of special hospitals or pellagrosari, economic kitchens, rural bakeries and maize-drying establishments. A bill for the better prevention of pellagra was introduced in the spring of 1902. The deaths from it dropped in that year to 2376, from 3054 in the previous year and 3788 in 1900.

In Venetia, the lives of small landowners and wage-earning farmers are often very miserable. There and in Lombardy, the disease known as pellagra is widespread. This disease is caused by toxins from micro-organisms found in spoiled corn, and it can be managed by properly ripening, drying, and storing the corn. Recent statistics show that the incidence of the disease is decreasing. In 1881, there were 104,067 (16.29 per 1000) farmers affected by the disease; by 1899, this number had dropped to 72,603 (10.30 per 1000), with a peak of 39,882 (34.32 per 1000) in Venetia and 19,557 (12.90 per 1000) in Lombardy. This reduction in cases is a direct result of efforts to fight the disease through special hospitals or pellagrosari, community kitchens, rural bakeries, and corn drying facilities. A new bill aimed at better preventing pellagra was introduced in the spring of 1902. In that year, deaths from the disease fell to 2,376, down from 3,054 the previous year and 3,788 in 1900.

In Liguria, on account of the comparative rarity of large estates, agricultural labourers are in a better condition. Men earn between 1s. 3d. and 2s. 1d. a day, and women from 5d. to 8d. In Emilia the day labourers, known as disobbligati, earn, on the contrary, low wages, out of which they have to provide for shelter and to lay by something against unemployment. Their condition is miserable. In Tuscany, however, the prevalence of mezzadria, properly so called, has raised the labourers’ position. Yet in some Tuscan provinces, as, for instance, that of Grosseto, where malaria rages, labourers are organized in gangs under “corporals,” who undertake harvest work. They are poverty-stricken, and easily fall victims to fever. In the Abruzzi and in Apulia both regular and irregular workmen are engaged by the year. The curatori or curatoli (factors) receive £40 a year, with a slight interest in the profits; the stockmen hardly earn in money and kind £13; the muleteers and under-workmen get between £5 to £8, plus firewood, bread and oil; irregular workmen have even lower wages, with a daily distribution of bread, salt and oil. In Campania and Calabria the curatoli and massari earn, in money and kind, about £12 a year; cowmen, shepherds and muleteers about £10; irregular workmen are paid from 8½d. to 1s. 8d. per day, but only find employment, on an average, 230 days in the year. The condition of Sicilian labourers is also miserable. The huge extent of the latifondi, or large estates, often results in their being left in the hands of speculators, who exploit both workmen and farmers with such usury that the latter are often compelled, at the end of a scanty year, to hand over their crops to the usurers before harvest. In Sardinia wage-earners are paid 10d. a day, with free shelter and an allotment for private cultivation. Irregular adult workmen earn between 10d. and 1s. 3d., and boys from 6d. to 10d. a day. Woodcutters and vine-waterers, however, sometimes earn as much as 3s. a day.

In Liguria, due to the relative scarcity of large estates, agricultural workers are in a better position. Men earn between 1s. 3d. and 2s. 1d. a day, while women make between 5d. and 8d. In Emilia, however, day laborers, known as disobbligati, earn lower wages, and they have to cover their own housing and save something for times of unemployment. Their situation is dire. In Tuscany, the widespread use of mezzadria has improved the position of laborers. Still, in some Tuscan provinces, like Grosseto, where malaria is prevalent, workers are organized into groups under “corporals” who manage harvest work. They live in poverty and are prone to falling ill with fever. In the Abruzzi and Apulia, both regular and irregular workers are hired for the year. The curatori or curatoli (factors) earn £40 a year, along with a small share of the profits; stockmen barely earn around £13 in cash and produce; muleteers and other lower-level workers make between £5 and £8, plus firewood, bread, and oil; irregular workers make even less, receiving daily distributions of bread, salt, and oil. In Campania and Calabria, curatoli and massari earn about £12 a year in cash and kind; cowmen, shepherds, and muleteers make around £10; and irregular workers are paid between 8½d. and 1s. 8d. per day, but they only find work, on average, 230 days a year. The situation for Sicilian laborers is also grim. The vast size of the latifondi, or large estates, often leads to them being controlled by speculators who exploit both workers and farmers with such high-interest rates that farmers are often forced to hand over their crops to the loan sharks before harvest time at the end of a difficult year. In Sardinia, wage earners receive 10d. a day, along with free lodging and a plot for personal farming. Irregular adult workers earn between 10d. and 1s. 3d., while boys make from 6d. to 10d. a day. However, woodcutters and vine-waterers can sometimes earn up to 3s. a day.

The peasants somewhat rarely use animal food—this is most largely used in Sardinia and least in Sicily—bread and polenta or macaroni and vegetables being the staple diet. Wine is the prevailing drink.

The peasants rarely use animal food—it's mostly used in Sardinia and the least in Sicily—while bread, polenta, or macaroni and vegetables make up the staple diet. Wine is the main drink.

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

The condition of workers in manufacturing has improved in recent years. Wages are higher, the cost of basic necessities is generally lower, although taxes on some of them are still quite high; therefore, overall compensation for work has gotten better. Considering the changes in wages and the price of wheat, it's estimated that the number of hours needed to earn an amount equal to the price of a hundredweight of wheat dropped from 183 in 1871 to 73 in 1894. In 1898, it rose to 105 due to the increase in wheat prices, and from then until 1902, it fluctuated between 105 and 95.

Wages have risen from 22.6 centimes per hour (on an average) to 26.3 centimes, but not in all industries. In the mining and woollen industries they have fallen, but have increased in mechanical, chemical, silk and cotton industries. Wages vary greatly in different parts of Italy, according to the cost of the necessaries of life, the degree of development of working-class needs and the state of working-class organization, which in some places has succeeded in increasing the rates of pay. Women are, as a rule, paid less than men, and though their wages have also increased, the rise has been slighter than in the case of men. In some trades, for instance the silk trade, women earn little more than 10d. a day, and, for some classes of work, as little as 7d. and 4½d. The general improvement in sanitation has led to a corresponding improvement in the condition of the working classes, though much still remains to be done, especially in the south. On the other hand, it is generally the case that even in the most unpromising inn the bedding is clean.

Wages have increased from 22.6 centimes per hour (on average) to 26.3 centimes, but this isn't true for all industries. In mining and the wool industry, wages have dropped, while they've gone up in mechanical, chemical, silk, and cotton industries. Wages vary significantly across different areas of Italy, depending on the cost of living, the level of workers' needs, and the state of workers' organization, which in some regions has managed to push for higher pay rates. Typically, women earn less than men, and while their wages have also gone up, the increase has been smaller compared to men's. In certain trades, like the silk industry, women make just over 10d. a day, and in some jobs, they earn as little as 7d. and 4½d. Overall improvements in sanitation have resulted in better living conditions for the working class, although there's still a lot of work to be done, especially in the south. However, it's generally true that even in the most run-down inns, the bedding is clean.

The number of industrial strikes has risen from year to year, although, on account of the large number of persons involved in Strikes. some of them, the rise in the number of strikers has not always corresponded to the number of strikes. During the years 1900 and 1901 strikes were increasingly numerous, chiefly on account of the growth of Socialist and working-class organizations.

The number of industrial strikes has increased yearly, although, because of the large number of people involved in Strikes. some of them, the rise in the number of strikers hasn’t always matched the number of strikes. In 1900 and 1901, strikes became more frequent, mainly due to the growth of Socialist and working-class organizations.

The greatest proportion of strikes takes place in northern Italy, especially Lombardy and Piedmont, where manufacturing industries are most developed. Textile, building and mining industries show the highest percentage of strikes, since they give employment to large numbers of men concentrated in single localities. Agricultural strikes, though less frequent than those in manufacturing industries, have special importance in Italy. They are most common in the north and centre, a circumstance which shows them to be promoted less by the more backward and more ignorant peasants than by the better-educated labourers of Lombardy and Emilia, among whom Socialist organizations are widespread. Since 1901 there have been, more than once, general strikes at Milan and elsewhere, and one in the autumn of 1905 caused great inconvenience throughout the country, and led to no effective result.

The highest number of strikes happens in northern Italy, particularly in Lombardy and Piedmont, where manufacturing is most advanced. The textile, construction, and mining industries have the highest rates of strikes, as they employ large groups of workers concentrated in specific areas. Agricultural strikes, while less common than those in manufacturing, hold particular significance in Italy. They mainly occur in the north and center, indicating they are driven more by the well-educated workers of Lombardy and Emilia, where Socialist organizations are prevalent, rather than by the less developed and less educated farmers. Since 1901, there have been several general strikes in Milan and other locations, with one in the fall of 1905 causing significant disruptions across the country, ultimately resulting in no real change.

Although in some industrial centres the working-class movement has assumed an importance equal to that of other countries, there is no general working-class organization comparable to the English trade unions. Mutual benefit and co-operative societies serve the purpose of working-class defence or offence against the employers. In 1893, after many vicissitudes, the Italian Socialist Labour Party was founded, and has now become the Italian Socialist Party, in which the majority of Italian workmen enrol themselves. Printers and hat-makers, however, possess trade societies. In 1899 an agitation began for the organization of “Chambers of Labour,” intended to look after the technical education of workmen and to form commissions of arbitration in case of strikes. They act also as employment bureaux, and are often centres of political propaganda. At present such “chambers” exist in many Italian cities, while “leagues of improvement,” or of “resistance,” are rapidly spreading in the country districts. In many cases the action of these organizations has proved, at least temporarily, advantageous to the working classes.

Although in some industrial centers the working-class movement has become as important as in other countries, there isn't a general working-class organization that compares to the English trade unions. Mutual benefit and cooperative societies provide support for workers against employers. In 1893, after many ups and downs, the Italian Socialist Labour Party was established, which has now evolved into the Italian Socialist Party, where most Italian workers are members. However, printers and hat-makers have their own trade societies. In 1899, a movement started to form “Chambers of Labour,” aimed at overseeing the technical education of workers and creating arbitration committees for strikes. They also serve as job placement offices and often act as hubs for political activism. Currently, these “chambers” exist in many Italian cities, while “leagues of improvement” or “resistance” are quickly growing in rural areas. In many cases, the efforts of these organizations have proven to be beneficial to the working class, at least for the time being.

Labour legislation is backward in Italy, on account of the late development of manufacturing industry and of working-class organization. On the 17th of April 1898 a species of Employers’ Liability Act compelled employers of more than five workmen in certain industries to insure their employees against accidents. 14 On the 17th of July 1898 a national fund for the insurance of workmen against illness and old age was founded by law on the principle of optional registration. In addition to an initial endowment by the state, part of the annual income of the fund is furnished in various forms by the state (principally by making over a proportion of the profits of the Post Office Savings Bank), and part by the premiums of the workmen. The minimum annual premium is six lire for an annuity of one lira per day at the age of sixty, and insurance against sickness. The low level of wages in many trades and the jealousies of the “Chambers of Labour” and other working-class organizations impede rapid development.

Labor laws in Italy are outdated due to the slow growth of the manufacturing industry and the organization of the working class. On April 17, 1898, a type of Employers’ Liability Act required employers with more than five workers in certain industries to insure their employees against accidents. 14 On July 17, 1898, a national fund for worker insurance against illness and old age was established by law on the basis of optional registration. In addition to an initial contribution from the government, part of the fund's annual income comes from various sources provided by the state (mainly from a portion of the profits of the Post Office Savings Bank), while the rest comes from worker premiums. The minimum annual premium is six lire for an annuity of one lira per day starting at age sixty, along with sickness insurance. The low wages in many industries and the rivalries among the “Chambers of Labour” and other working-class organizations hinder quick progress.

A law came into operation in February 1908, according to which a weekly day of rest (with few exceptions) was established on Sunday in every case in which it was possible, and otherwise upon some other day of the week.

A law took effect in February 1908, establishing a weekly day of rest (with a few exceptions) on Sundays whenever possible, and on another day of the week otherwise.

The French institution of Prudhommes was introduced into Italy in 1893, under the name of Collegi di Probiviri. The institution has not attained great vogue. Most of the colleges deal with matters affecting textile and mechanical industries. Each “college” is founded by royal decree, and consists of a president, with not fewer than ten and not more than twenty members. A conciliation bureau and a jury are elected to deal with disputes concerning wages, hours of work, labour contracts, &c., and have power to settle the disputes, without appeal, whenever the amounts involved do not exceed £8.

The French institution of Prudhommes was brought to Italy in 1893, under the name Collegi di Probiviri. The institution hasn’t gained much popularity. Most of the colleges focus on issues related to the textile and mechanical industries. Each “college” is established by royal decree and consists of a president and between ten and twenty members. A conciliation bureau and a jury are elected to handle disputes regarding wages, working hours, labor contracts, etc., and they have the authority to resolve these disputes without appeal, as long as the amounts involved do not exceed £8.

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

Provident institutions have significantly evolved in Italy as savings banks, insurance companies Credit Unions. and mutual benefit societies. In addition to the Post Office Savings Bank and regular savings banks, numerous co-operative credit societies and conventional credit banks accept savings deposits.

The greatest number of savings banks exists in Lombardy; Piedmont and Venetia come next. Campania holds the first place in the south, most of the savings of that region being deposited in the provident institutions of Naples. In Liguria and Sardinia the habit of thrift is less developed. Assurance societies in Italy are subject to the general dispositions of the commercial code regarding commercial companies. Mutual benefit societies have increased rapidly, both because their advantages have been appreciated, and because, until recently, the state had taken no steps directly to insure workmen against illness. The present Italian mutual benefit societies resemble the ancient beneficent corporations, of which in some respects they may be considered a continuation. The societies require government recognition if they wish to enjoy legal rights. The state (law of the 15th of April 1896) imposed this condition in order to determine exactly the aims of the societies, and, while allowing them to give help to their sick, old or feeble members, or aid the families of deceased members, to forbid them to pay old-age pensions, lest they assumed burdens beyond their financial strength. Nevertheless, the majority of societies have not sought recognition, being suspicious of fiscal state intervention.

The highest number of savings banks can be found in Lombardy; Piedmont and Venetia follow closely. Campania leads in the south, with most of the savings in that area deposited in the savings institutions of Naples. In Liguria and Sardinia, the culture of saving is not as strong. Insurance companies in Italy are governed by the general provisions of the commercial code related to commercial enterprises. Mutual benefit societies have grown rapidly, as their benefits have become recognized, and until recently, the state did not take action to provide direct insurance for workers against illness. Today's Italian mutual benefit societies are similar to the old benevolent societies, which in some ways they can be seen as a continuation of. The societies need government recognition to gain legal rights. The state (law of April 15, 1896) imposed this requirement to clearly define the societies' objectives, allowing them to support their sick, elderly, or weak members, or assist the families of deceased members, while prohibiting them from providing old-age pensions to avoid placing financial burdens on them. Despite this, most societies have not pursued recognition, wary of state financial oversight.

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

Cooperation in credit, distribution, production, and labor has developed significantly in Italy. Credit cooperation is represented by a special type of association known as People’s Banks (Banche Popolari). Cooperation. Typically, these banks are supported not by workers or peasants, but by small business owners, manufacturers, and farmers. They play a valuable role in protecting their clients from the harsh usury that is common, especially in the south. A newer form of cooperative credit banks is the Casse Rurali or rural banks, based on the Raiffeisen system, which lend money to peasants and small landowners using capital raised through credit or donations. These loans are made based on personal security, but the bank members do not contribute any share of the capital, even though their liability is unlimited in case of loss. They are particularly common in Lombardy and Venetia.

Distributive co-operation is confined almost entirely to Piedmont, Liguria, Lombardy, Venetia, Emilia and Tuscany, and is practically unknown in Basilicata, the Abruzzi and Sardinia.

Distributive cooperation is mostly limited to Piedmont, Liguria, Lombardy, Venetia, Emilia, and Tuscany, and is virtually unknown in Basilicata, the Abruzzi, and Sardinia.

Co-operative dairies are numerous. They have, however, much decreased in number since 1889. More numerous are the agricultural and viticultural co-operative societies, which have largely increased in number. They are to be found mainly in the fertile plains of north Italy, where they enjoy considerable success, removing the cause of labour troubles and strikes, and providing for cultivation on a sufficiently large scale. The richest, however, of the co-operative societies, though few in number, are those for the production of electricity, for textile industries and for ceramic and glass manufactures.

Cooperative dairy farms are common, but their numbers have significantly declined since 1889. In contrast, agricultural and wine-producing cooperatives have become much more prevalent. They are primarily located in the fertile plains of northern Italy, where they have found considerable success, addressing labor issues and strikes, and facilitating large-scale farming. However, the wealthiest cooperative societies, though few in number, are those involved in electricity production, textile manufacturing, and ceramic and glass production.

Co-operation in general is most widely diffused, in proportion to population, in central Italy; less so in northern Italy, and much less so in the south and the islands. It thus appears that co-operation flourishes most in the districts in which the mezzadria system has been prevalent.

Cooperation is most widespread, relative to the population, in central Italy; it's less common in northern Italy, and even less so in the south and the islands. It seems that cooperation thrives the most in areas where the mezzadria system has been common.

Railways.—The first railway in Italy, a line 16 m. long from Naples to Castellammare, was opened in 1840. By 1881 there were some 5500 m. open, in 1891 some 8000 m., while in 1901 the total length was 9317 m. In July 1905 all the principal lines, which had been constructed by the state, but had been since 1885 let out to three companies (Mediterranean, Adriatic, Sicilian), were taken over by the state; their length amounted in 1901 to 6147 m., and in 1907 to 8422 m. The minor lines (many of them narrow gauge) remain in the hands of private companies. The total length, including the Sardinian railways, was 10,368 m. in 1907. The state, in taking over the railways, did not exercise sufficient care to see that the lines and the rolling stock were kept up to a proper state of efficiency and adequacy for the work they had to perform; while the step itself was taken somewhat hastily. The result was that for the first two years of state administration the service was distinctly bad, and the lack of goods trucks at the ports was especially felt. A capital expenditure of £4,000,000 annually was decided on to bring the lines up to the necessary state of efficiency to be able to cope with the rapidly increasing traffic. It was estimated in 1906 that this would have to be maintained for a period of ten years, with a further total expenditure of £14,000,000 on new lines.

Railways.—The first railway in Italy, a 16 km line from Naples to Castellammare, was opened in 1840. By 1881, there were about 5,500 km of railway open; by 1891, this grew to about 8,000 km; and in 1901, the total length reached 9,317 km. In July 1905, all the major lines, which had been built by the state but leased to three companies (Mediterranean, Adriatic, Sicilian) since 1885, were taken back by the state. Their length was 6,147 km in 1901 and 8,422 km in 1907. The smaller lines (many of which are narrow gauge) remain under private companies. The total length, including the Sardinian railways, was 10,368 km in 1907. When the state took over the railways, they didn't do a good job of ensuring that the lines and rolling stock were maintained properly for the work required; the takeover itself was done rather quickly. As a result, the service was notably poor during the first two years of state management, and there was a particular shortage of goods trucks at the ports. A capital expenditure of £4,000,000 per year was planned to bring the lines up to the necessary level of efficiency to handle the rapidly increasing traffic. It was estimated in 1906 that this expenditure would need to be sustained for ten years, along with an additional total of £14,000,000 for new lines.

Comparing the state of things in 1901 with that of 1881, for the whole country, we find the passenger and goods traffic almost doubled (except the cattle traffic), the capital expenditure almost doubled, the working expenses per mile almost imperceptibly increased, and the gross receipts per mile slightly lower. The personnel had increased from 70,568 to 108,690. The construction of numerous unremunerative lines, and the free granting of concessions to government and other employees (and also of cheap tickets on special occasions for congresses, &c., in various towns, without strict inquiry into the qualifications of the claimants) will account for the failure to realize a higher profit. The fares (in slow trains, with the addition of 10% for expenses) are: 1st class, 1.85d.; 2nd, 1.3d.; 3rd, 0.725d. per mile. There are, however, considerable reductions for distances over 93 m., on a scale increasing in proportion to the distance.

Comparing the situation in 1901 to that of 1881 for the entire country, we see that passenger and freight traffic nearly doubled (except for cattle traffic), capital expenditure almost doubled, the operating costs per mile increased slightly, and gross receipts per mile dropped a bit. The workforce grew from 70,568 to 108,690. The construction of many unprofitable routes, along with the free granting of concessions to government and other employees (as well as discounted tickets on special occasions for conferences, etc., in various towns, without thoroughly checking the qualifications of those requesting them) explains why higher profits weren't realized. The fares (for slow trains, with an additional 10% for expenses) are: 1st class, 1.85d.; 2nd class, 1.3d.; 3rd class, 0.725d. per mile. However, there are significant discounts for distances over 93 miles, with reductions increasing along with the distance.

The taking over of the main lines by the state has of course produced a considerable change in the financial situation of the railways. The state incurred in this connexion a liability of some £20,000,000, of which about £16,000,000 represented the rolling stock. The state has considerably improved the engines and passenger carriages. The capital value of the whole of the lines, rolling stock, &c., for 1908-1909 was calculated approximately at £244,161,400, and the profits at £5,295,019, or 2.2%.

The takeover of the main rail lines by the government has significantly changed the financial situation of the railways. The government took on a debt of around £20,000,000, with about £16,000,000 of that representing the rolling stock. The government has also greatly improved the engines and passenger cars. The total value of all the lines, rolling stock, etc., for 1908-1909 was estimated at about £244,161,400, with profits of £5,295,019, or 2.2%.

Milan is the most important railway centre in the country, and is followed by Turin, Genoa, Verona, Bologna, Rome, Naples. Lombardy and Piedmont are much better provided with railways in proportion to their area than any other parts of Italy; next come Venetia, Emilia and the immediate environs of Naples.

Milan is the most important railway hub in the country, followed by Turin, Genoa, Verona, Bologna, Rome, and Naples. Lombardy and Piedmont have significantly more railways relative to their size than any other regions in Italy; next are Venetia, Emilia, and the surrounding areas of Naples.

The northern frontier is crossed by the railway from Turin to Ventimiglia by the Col di Tenda, the Mont Cenis line from Turin to Modane (the tunnel is 7 m. in length), the Simplon line (tunnel 11 m. in length) from Domodossola to Brigue, the St Gotthard from Milan to Chiasso (the tunnel is entirely in Swiss territory), the Brenner from Verona to Trent, the line from Udine to Tarvis and the line from Venice to Triest by the Adriatic coast. Besides these international lines the most important are those from Milan to Turin (via Vercelli and via Alessandria), to Genoa via Tortona, to Bologna via Parma and Modena, to Verona, and the shorter lines to the district of the lakes of Lombardy; from Turin to Genoa via Savona and via Alessandria; from Genoa to Savona and Ventimiglia along the Riviera, and along the south-west coast of Italy, via Sarzana (whence a line runs to Parma) to Pisa (whence lines run to Pistoia and Florence) and Rome; from Verona to Modena, and to Venice via Padua; from Bologna to Padua, to Rimini (and thence along the north-east coast via Ancona, Castellammare Adriatico and Foggia to Brindisi and Otranto), and to Florence and Rome; from Rome to Ancona, to Castellammare Adriatico and to Naples; from Naples to Foggia, via Metaponto (with a junction for Reggio di Calabria), to Brindisi and to Reggio di Calabria. (For the Sicilian and Sardinian lines, see Sicily and Sardinia.) The speed of the trains is not high, nor are the runs without stoppage long as a rule. One of the fastest runs is from Rome to Orte, 52.40 m. in 69 min., or 45.40 m. per hour, but this is a double line with little traffic. The low speed reduces the potentiality of the lines. The insufficiency of rolling stock, and especially of goods wagons, is mainly caused by delays in “handling” traffic consequent on this or other causes, among which may be mentioned the great length of the single lines south of Rome. It is thus a matter of difficulty to provide trucks for a sudden emergency, e.g. the vintage season; and in 1905-1907 complaints were many, while the seaports were continually short of trucks. This led to deficiencies in the supply of coal to the manufacturing centres, and to some diversion elsewhere of shipping.

The northern border is crossed by the railway from Turin to Ventimiglia via the Col di Tenda, the Mont Cenis line from Turin to Modane (the tunnel is 7 m long), the Simplon line (tunnel 11 m long) from Domodossola to Brigue, the St Gotthard from Milan to Chiasso (the tunnel is entirely in Swiss territory), the Brenner line from Verona to Trent, the line from Udine to Tarvis, and the line from Venice to Trieste along the Adriatic coast. In addition to these international lines, the main domestic routes include the ones from Milan to Turin (via Vercelli and Alessandria), to Genoa via Tortona, to Bologna via Parma and Modena, to Verona, and the shorter lines to the lakes in Lombardy; from Turin to Genoa via Savona and Alessandria; from Genoa to Savona and Ventimiglia along the Riviera, and along the southwest coast of Italy, via Sarzana (where a line goes to Parma) to Pisa (where lines go to Pistoia and Florence) and Rome; from Verona to Modena, and to Venice via Padua; from Bologna to Padua, to Rimini (and then along the northeast coast via Ancona, Castellammare Adriatico, and Foggia to Brindisi and Otranto), and to Florence and Rome; from Rome to Ancona, to Castellammare Adriatico, and to Naples; from Naples to Foggia, via Metaponto (with a junction for Reggio di Calabria), to Brindisi, and to Reggio di Calabria. (For the Sicilian and Sardinian lines, see Sicily and Sardinia.) The speed of the trains isn't very high, and the trips usually have frequent stops. One of the fastest routes is from Rome to Orte, covering 52.40 m in 69 minutes, or 45.40 m per hour, but this is a double line with little traffic. The low speed limits the effectiveness of the lines. The shortage of rolling stock, especially freight cars, is mainly due to delays in "handling" traffic caused by this and other factors, including the long single lines south of Rome. It becomes challenging to provide trucks for sudden needs, such as during the grape harvest season; and between 1905 and 1907, there were many complaints, while seaports were constantly short on trucks. This led to a lack of coal supply to manufacturing centers and some diversion of shipping elsewhere.

Steam and Electric Tramways.—Tramways with mechanical traction have developed rapidly. Between 1875, when the first line was opened, and 1901, the length of the lines grew to 1890 m. of steam and 270 m. of electric tramways. These lines exist principally in Lombardy (especially in the province of Milan), in Piedmont, 15 especially in the province of Turin, and in other regions of northern and central Italy. In the south they are rare, on account partly of the mountainous character of the country, and partly of the scarcity of traffic. All the important towns of Italy are provided with internal electric tramways, mostly with overhead wires.

Steam and Electric Tramways.—Tramways powered by machines have grown quickly. From 1875, when the first line opened, to 1901, the length of the lines expanded to 1,890 meters of steam and 270 meters of electric tramways. These lines are mainly found in Lombardy (especially in the province of Milan), in Piedmont, particularly in the province of Turin, and in other areas of northern and central Italy. In the south, they are uncommon, partly due to the mountainous terrain and partly because of limited traffic. All major cities in Italy have internal electric tramways, mostly with overhead wires.

Carriage-roads have been greatly extended in modern times, although their ratio to area varies in different localities. In north Italy there are 1480 yds. of road per sq. m.; in central Italy 993; in southern Italy 405; in Sardinia 596, and in Sicily only 244. They are as a rule well kept up in north and central Italy, less so in the south, where, especially in Calabria, many villages are inaccessible by road and have only footpaths leading to them. By the act of 1903 the state contributes half and the province a quarter of the cost of roads connecting communes with the nearest railway stations or landing places.

Carriage roads have expanded significantly in modern times, although their density varies across different regions. In northern Italy, there are 1,480 yards of road per square mile; in central Italy, 993; in southern Italy, 405; in Sardinia, 596, and in Sicily, only 244. Generally, the roads are well maintained in northern and central Italy, but less so in the south, where, especially in Calabria, many villages are inaccessible by road and only have footpaths leading to them. According to the act of 1903, the state covers half and the province contributes a quarter of the cost for roads connecting communities with the nearest railway stations or landing spots.

Inland Navigation.—Navigable canals had in 1886 a total length of about 655 m.; they are principally situated in Piedmont, Lombardy and Venetia, and are thus practically confined to the Po basin. Canals lead from Milan to the Ticino, Adda and Po. The Po is itself navigable from Turin downwards, but through its delta it is so sandy that canals are preferred, the Po di Volano and the Po di Primaro on the right, and the Canale Bianco on the left. The total length of navigable rivers is 967 m.

Inland Navigation.—By 1886, navigable canals had a total length of about 655 m.; they are mainly located in Piedmont, Lombardy, and Venetia, and are therefore mostly limited to the Po basin. Canals connect Milan to the Ticino, Adda, and Po rivers. The Po is navigable from Turin downwards, but its delta is so sandy that canals are preferred, including the Po di Volano and the Po di Primaro on the right, and the Canale Bianco on the left. The total length of navigable rivers is 967 m.

Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones.—The number of post offices (including collettorie, or collecting offices, which are rapidly being eliminated) increased from 2200 in 1862 to 4823 in 1881, 6700 in 1891 and 8817 in 1904. In spite of a large increase in the number of letters and post cards (i.e. nearly 10 per inhabitant per annum in 1904, as against 5.65 in 1888) the average is considerably below that of most other European countries. The number of state telegraph offices was 4603, of other offices (railway and tramway stations, which accept private telegrams for transmission) 1930. The telephone system is considerably developed; in 1904, 92 urban and 66 inter-urban systems existed. They were installed by private companies, but have been taken over by the state. International communication between Rome and Paris, and Italy and Switzerland also exists. The parcel post and money order services have largely increased since 1887-1888, the number of parcels having almost doubled (those for abroad are more than trebled), while the number of money orders issued is trebled and their value doubled (about £40,000,000). The value of the foreign orders paid in Italy increased from £1,280,000 to £2,356,000—owing to the increase of emigration and of the savings sent home by emigrants.

Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones.—The number of post offices (including collecting offices, which are quickly being phased out) grew from 2,200 in 1862 to 4,823 in 1881, 6,700 in 1891, and 8,817 in 1904. Despite a substantial rise in the number of letters and postcards (almost 10 per person per year in 1904, compared to 5.65 in 1888), the average is still much lower than in most other European countries. The number of state telegraph offices was 4,603, with an additional 1,930 offices at railway and tramway stations that accept private telegrams for delivery. The telephone system has developed significantly; in 1904, there were 92 urban and 66 inter-urban systems. These were initially set up by private companies but have since been taken over by the state. International communication between Rome and Paris, as well as between Italy and Switzerland, is also available. The parcel post and money order services have greatly expanded since 1887-1888, with the number of parcels nearly doubling (those sent abroad have more than tripled), while the number of money orders issued has tripled, and their total value has doubled to about £40 million. The value of foreign money orders cashed in Italy increased from £1,280,000 to £2,356,000—thanks to the rise in emigration and the remittances sent home by emigrants.

At the end of 1907 Italy was among the few countries that had not adopted the reduction of postage sanctioned at the Postal Union congress, held in Rome in 1906, by which the rates became 2½d. for the first oz., and 1½d. per oz. afterwards. The internal rate is 15c. (1½d.) per ½ oz.; post-cards 10c. (1d.), reply 15c. On the other hand, letters within the postal district are only 5c. (½d.) per ½ oz. Printed matter is 2c. (15d.) per 50 grammes (123 oz.). The regulations provide that if there is a greater weight of correspondence (including book-packets) than 1¼ ℔ for any individual by any one delivery, notice shall be given him that it is lying at the post office, he being then obliged to arrange for fetching it. Letters insured for a fixed sum are not delivered under any circumstances.

At the end of 1907, Italy was one of the few countries that hadn't adopted the postage rate reductions approved at the Postal Union congress held in Rome in 1906. The new rates were set at 2½d. for the first ounce, and 1½d. for each additional ounce. The internal rate is 15c. (1½d.) per ½ ounce, while postcards cost 10c. (1d.) and reply cards are 15c. On the other hand, letters within the postal district are only 5c. (½d.) per ½ ounce. Printed matter costs 2c. (1⁄5d.) for every 50 grams (1²⁄³ oz.). The regulations state that if someone has more than 1¼ pounds of correspondence (including book packets) being delivered at one time, they will be notified that it is at the post office, and they must arrange to pick it up. Letters that are insured for a fixed amount are not delivered under any circumstances.

Money order cards are very convenient and cheap (up to 10 lire [8s.] for 10c. [1d.]), as they need not be enclosed in a letter, while a short private message can be written on them. Owing to the comparatively small amount of letters, it is found possible to have a travelling post office on all principal trains (while almost every train has a travelling sorter, for whom a compartment is reserved) without a late fee being exacted in either case. In the principal towns letters may be posted in special boxes at the head office just before the departure of any given mail train, and are conveyed direct to the travelling post office. Another convenient arrangement is the provision of letter-boxes on electric tram-cars in some cities.

Money order cards are very convenient and inexpensive (up to 10 lire [8s.] for 10c. [1d.]), since they don’t need to be sent in an envelope, and you can write a short personal message on them. Because there are relatively few letters, it's possible to have a traveling post office on all major trains (and almost every train has a traveling sorter, for whom a compartment is reserved) without a late fee being charged in either situation. In the major towns, letters can be posted in special boxes at the main office just before the departure of any scheduled mail train, and they're sent directly to the traveling post office. Another handy feature is the letter boxes on electric trams in some cities.

Mercantile Marine.—Between the years 1881 and 1905 the number of ships entered and cleared at Italian ports decreased slightly (219,598 in 1881 and 208,737 in 1905), while their aggregate tonnage increased (32,070,704 in 1881 and 80,782,030 in 1905). In the movement of shipping, trade with foreign countries prevails (especially as regards arrivals) over trade between Italian ports. Most of the merchandise and passengers bound for and hailing from foreign ports sail under foreign flags. Similarly, foreign vessels prevail over Italian vessels in regard to goods embarked. European countries absorb the greater part of Italian sea-borne trade, whereas most of the passenger traffic goes to North and South America. The substitution of steamships for sailing vessels has brought about a diminution in the number of vessels belonging to the Italian mercantile marine, whether employed in the coasting trade, the fisheries or in traffic on the high seas. Thus:—

Mercantile Marine.—Between 1881 and 1905, the number of ships entering and leaving Italian ports dropped slightly (from 219,598 in 1881 to 208,737 in 1905), while their total tonnage increased (from 32,070,704 in 1881 to 80,782,030 in 1905). In shipping activity, trade with foreign countries, especially regarding arrivals, is more prominent than trade between Italian ports. Most of the goods and passengers going to and coming from foreign ports travel under foreign flags. Likewise, foreign vessels are more common than Italian ones for loading cargo. European countries take up the majority of Italian sea-borne trade, while most of the passenger traffic goes to North and South America. The shift from sailing ships to steamships has led to a decrease in the number of vessels in the Italian mercantile marine, whether they are used for coastal trade, fishing, or ocean traffic. Thus:—

Year. Total
No. of
Ships.
Steamships. Sailing Vessels.
Number. Tonnage
(Net.)
Number. Tonnage
(Net.)
1881 7815 176  93,698 7,639 895,359
1905 5596 513 462,259 5,083 570,355

Among the steamers the increase has chiefly taken place in vessels of more than 1000 tons displacement, but the number of large sailing vessels has also increased. The most important Italian ports are (in order): Genoa, Naples, Palermo, Leghorn, Messina, Venice, Catania.

Among the steamers, the growth has mainly occurred in vessels over 1,000 tons displacement, but the number of large sailing ships has also gone up. The most important Italian ports are (in order): Genoa, Naples, Palermo, Leghorn, Messina, Venice, Catania.

Foreign Trade.—Italian trade with foreign countries (imports and exports) during the quinquennium 1872-1876 averaged £94,000,000 a year; in the quinquennium 1893-1897 it fell to £88,960,000 a year. In 1898, however, the total rose to £104,680,000, but the increase was principally due to the extra importation of corn in that year. In 1899 it was nearly £120,000,000. Since 1899 there has been a steady increase both in imports and exports. Thus:—

Foreign Trade.—Italian trade with other countries (imports and exports) during the five-year period from 1872 to 1876 averaged £94,000,000 annually; in the five-year period from 1893 to 1897, it dropped to £88,960,000 a year. However, in 1898, the total rose to £104,680,000, mainly due to higher corn imports that year. In 1899, it was close to £120,000,000. Since 1899, there has been a consistent increase in both imports and exports. Thus:—

Year. Trade with Foreign Countries in £1000
(exclusive of Precious Metals).*
Totals. Imports. Exports. Excess of
Imports over
Exports.
1871 81,966 38,548 43,418 −4,870
1881 96,208 49,587 46,621  2,966
1891 80,135 45,063 35,072  9,991
1900 121,538 68,009 53,529 14,480
1904 140,437 76,549 63,888 12,661

* No account has here been taken of fluctuations of exchange.

* No account has been taken of changes in exchange rates.

The great extension of Italian coast-line is thought by some to be not really a source of strength to the Italian mercantile marine, as few of the ports have a large enough hinterland to provide them with traffic, and in this hinterland (except in the basin of the Po) there are no canals or navigable rivers. Another source of weakness is the fact that Italy is a country of transit and the Italian mercantile marine has to enter into competition with the ships of other countries, which call there in passing. A third difficulty is the comparatively small tonnage and volume of Italian exports relatively to the imports, the former in 1907 being about one-fourth of the latter, and greatly out of proportion to the relative value; while a fourth is the lack of facilities for handling goods, especially in the smaller ports.

The extensive Italian coastline is seen by some as not really beneficial for the Italian merchant marine, since many of the ports lack a large enough surrounding area to generate significant traffic, and in this area (except for the Po basin), there are no canals or navigable rivers. Another issue is that Italy is a transit country, meaning the Italian merchant marine has to compete with ships from other nations that come through. A third challenge is the relatively small amount of cargo and volume of Italian exports compared to imports, with exports in 1907 being about one-fourth of imports, which is highly disproportionate in terms of value. Lastly, there is a lack of facilities to handle goods, especially in the smaller ports.

The total imports for the first six months of 1907 amounted to £57,840,000, an increase of £7,520,000 as compared with the corresponding period of 1906. The exports for the corresponding period amounted to £35,840,000, a diminution of £1,520,000 as compared with the corresponding period of 1906. The diminution was due to a smaller exportation of raw silk and oil. The countries with which this trade is mainly carried on are: (imports) United Kingdom, Germany, United States, France, Russia and India; (exports) Switzerland, United States, Germany, France, United Kingdom and Argentina.

The total imports for the first six months of 1907 were £57,840,000, an increase of £7,520,000 compared to the same period in 1906. The exports for that period were £35,840,000, a decrease of £1,520,000 compared to the same time in 1906. The decrease was due to a lower export of raw silk and oil. The main trading partners for imports include the United Kingdom, Germany, the United States, France, Russia, and India; for exports, they are Switzerland, the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Argentina.

The most important imports are minerals, including coal and metals (both in pig and wrought); silks, raw, spun and woven; stone, potter’s earths, earthenware and glass; corn, flour and farinaceous products; cotton, raw, spun and woven; and live stock. The principal exports are silk and cotton tissues, live stock, wines, spirits and oils; corn, flour, macaroni and similar products; and minerals, chiefly sulphur. Before the tariff reform of 1887 manufactured articles, alimentary products and raw materials for manufacture held the principal places in the imports. In the exports, alimentary products came first, while raw materials for manufacture and manufactured articles were of little account. The transformation of Italy from a purely agricultural into a largely industrial country is shown by the circumstance that trade in raw stuffs, semi-manufactured and manufactured materials, now preponderates over that in alimentary products and wholly-manufactured articles, both the importation of raw materials and the exportation of manufactured articles having increased. The balance of Italian trade has undergone frequent fluctuations. The large predominance of imports over exports after 1884 was a result of the falling off of the export trade in live stock, olive oil and wine, on account of the closing of the French market, while the importation of corn from Russia and the Balkan States increased considerably. In 1894 the excess of imports over exports fell to £2,720,000, but by 1898 it had grown to £8,391,000, in consequence chiefly of the increased importation of coal, raw cotton and cotton thread, pig and cast iron, old iron, grease and oil-seeds for use in Italian industries. In 1899 the excess of imports over exports fell to £3,006,000; but since then it has never been less than £12,000,000.

The main imports consist of minerals like coal and metals (both pig and wrought), silks (raw, spun, and woven), stone, potter’s earth, ceramics, and glass; grains like corn and flour; cotton (raw, spun, and woven); and livestock. The key exports are silk and cotton fabrics, livestock, wines, spirits, and oils; grains, flour, macaroni, and similar products; as well as minerals, primarily sulfur. Before the tariff reform of 1887, manufactured goods, food products, and raw materials for manufacturing were the top imports. In exports, food products were the most significant, while raw materials and manufactured goods were minor. Italy's shift from an agricultural society to a largely industrial one is evident in the fact that trade in raw, semi-manufactured, and manufactured materials now outweighs that of food products and fully-manufactured items, with both raw material imports and manufactured goods exports on the rise. The balance of Italy's trade has seen frequent changes. The significant excess of imports over exports after 1884 was due to a decline in the export trade of livestock, olive oil, and wine because of the closing of the French market, while imports of corn from Russia and the Balkan States saw considerable increases. In 1894, the surplus of imports over exports dropped to £2,720,000, but by 1898 it climbed to £8,391,000, mainly because of the increased imports of coal, raw cotton, cotton thread, pig and cast iron, scrap iron, grease, and oil-seeds for Italian industries. In 1899, the surplus fell to £3,006,000; however, since then it has never been below £12,000,000.

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

Education.—Public education in Italy is overseen by the government, which operates public schools at all levels and mandates that other public schools adhere to the guidelines of state schools. No individual can establish a school without government approval. Schools can be categorized as follows:—

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

1. Elementary schools have two grades, with at least one available for boys and one for girls in each community for the lower grade; the upper grade is required in communities with normal and secondary schools or more than 4,000 residents. Attendance is free at both levels, and these schools are funded by the communities, sometimes with support from the state. 16 The age range is six to nine years for the lower grade and up to twelve for the higher grade, with mandatory attendance for the higher grade when it is available. 2. Secondary education includes (i.) classical studies in the ginnasi and licei, with the latter preparing students for university; (ii.) technical education. 3. Higher education comprises universities, higher institutes, and specialized schools.

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

Of the secondary and higher education methods, the state covers the salaries of the staff and provides scientific materials in normal schools and high schools, and often provides significant support for gymnasiums and technical schools, which by law should be funded by the local municipalities. Universities are funded by the state and their own long-established resources, while higher specialized schools receive funding from the state, provincial governments, local municipalities, and (occasionally) the local chamber of commerce.

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

The number of people who can’t read or write has gradually decreased, both in total and as a percentage of the population. The census of 1871 reported 73% illiteracy, 67% in 1881, and 56% in 1901, with 51.8% for males and 60.8% for females. In Piedmont, 17.7% of people over six were illiterate (the lowest rate), while in Calabria, it was 78.7% (the highest), with the national average at 48.5%. As expected, the most significant progress has occurred in areas where education was most widespread at the time of national unification. For example, in 1872, 26% of grooms in the province of Turin couldn’t write their names, compared to 90% in the Calabrian province of Cosenza; by 1899, that percentage in Turin had dropped to 5%, while it remained at 76% in Cosenza. The number of kindergartens (where young children between two and a half and six years old receive their first basic education) and elementary schools has increased significantly. There has also been a corresponding rise in the number of students. Thus:—

Year. Infant Asylums
(Public and Private).
Daily Elementary Schools
(Public and Private).
Number of
Asylums
Number of
Scholars.
Number of
Schoolrooms.
Number of
Scholars.
1885-86 2083 240,365 53,628 2,252,898
1890-91 2296 278,204 57,077 2,418,692
1901-02 3314 355,594 61,777 2,733,349

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

The teachers in 1901-1902 totaled 65,739 (not including 576 non-teaching directors and 322 teachers of special subjects), which averages to about 41.5 students per teacher.

The rate of increase in the public state-supported schools has been much greater than in the private schools. School buildings have been improved and the qualifications of teachers raised. Nevertheless, many schools are still defective, both from a hygienic and a teaching point of view; while the economic position of the elementary teachers, who in Italy depend upon the communal administrations and not upon the state, is still in many parts of the country extremely low.

The growth rate of publicly funded schools has been much higher than that of private schools. School buildings have been upgraded, and teacher qualifications have improved. However, many schools still have issues, both in terms of cleanliness and teaching quality. Additionally, the financial situation for elementary teachers, who in Italy rely on local government instead of the state, remains very low in many areas of the country.

The law of 1877 rendering education compulsory for children between six and nine years of age has been the principal cause of the spread of elementary education. The law is, however, imperfectly enforced for financial reasons. In 1901-1902 only 65% out of the whole number of children between six and nine years of age were registered in the lower standards of the elementary and private schools. The evening schools have to some extent helped to spread education. Their number and that of their scholars have, however, decreased since the withdrawal of state subsidies. In 1871-1872 there were 375,947 scholars at the evening schools and 154,585 at the holiday schools, while in 1900-1901 these numbers had fallen to 94,510 and 35,460 respectively. These are, however, the only institutions in which a decrease is shown, and by the law of 1906 5000 of these institutions are to be provided in the communes where the proportion of illiterates is highest. In 1895 they numbered 4245, with 138,181 scholars. Regimental schools impart elementary education to illiterate soldiers. Whereas the levy of 1894 showed 40% of the recruits to be completely illiterate, only 27% were illiterate when the levy was discharged in 1897. Private institutions and working-class associations have striven to improve the intellectual conditions of the working classes. Popular universities have lately attained considerable development. The number of institutes devoted to secondary education remained almost unchanged between 1880-1881 and 1895-1896. In some places the number has even been diminished by the suppression of private educational institutes. But the number of scholars has considerably increased, and shows a ratio superior to the general increase of the population. The greatest increase has taken place in technical education, where it has been much more rapid than in classical education. There are three higher commercial schools, with academic rank, at Venice, Genoa and Bari, and eleven secondary commercial schools; and technical and commercial schools for women at Florence and Milan. The number of agricultural schools has also grown, although the total is relatively small when compared with population. The attendance at the various classes of secondary schools in 1882 and 1902 is shown by the following table:—

The 1877 law making education compulsory for children ages six to nine has been the main reason for the growth of elementary education. However, the law is not enforced effectively due to financial issues. In 1901-1902, only 65% of all children in that age group were enrolled in the lower grades of elementary and private schools. Evening schools have somewhat contributed to education expansion, but their numbers and enrollment have dropped since state funding was cut. In 1871-1872, there were 375,947 students in evening schools and 154,585 in holiday schools, but by 1900-1901, those numbers had decreased to 94,510 and 35,460, respectively. However, these are the only educational institutions showing a decline, and according to the 1906 law, 5,000 of these schools are to be established in areas with the highest illiteracy rates. In 1895, there were 4,245 of these institutions with 138,181 students. Regimental schools provide basic education to illiterate soldiers. While a 1894 survey found 40% of recruits were completely illiterate, that number dropped to 27% by the time the 1897 draft was completed. Private schools and working-class organizations have worked to improve the education of the working class. Recently, popular universities have seen significant growth. The number of institutions for secondary education remained mostly stable from 1880-1881 to 1895-1896, with some areas seeing a decrease due to the closure of private educational institutions. However, enrollment has increased significantly and outpaces the overall population growth. The biggest rise has been in technical education, which has grown much quicker than classical education. There are three higher commercial schools with academic status in Venice, Genoa, and Bari, along with eleven secondary commercial schools, plus technical and commercial schools for women in Florence and Milan. The number of agricultural schools has also increased, though still small compared to the population. The attendance in various classes of secondary schools in 1882 and 1902 is shown by the following table:—

  1882. 1902. No. of
Schools.
Ginnasi—      
 Government 13,875 24,081 192
 On an equal footing with
  government schools
6,417 7,208 76
 Not on such a footing 22,609 24,850* 442
Total 42,811 56,139 710
Technical schools—      
 Government 7,510 30,411 188
 On an equal footing 8,653 12,055 101
 Not on such a footing 8,670 3,623* 106*
Total 24,833 46,089 395
Licei—      
 Government 6,623 10,983 121
 On an equal footing 1,167 1,955 33
 Not on such a footing 4,600 4,962* 187
Total 12,390 17,900 341
Technical institutes—      
 Government 5,555 9,654 54
 On an equal footing 1,684 1,898 18
 Not on such a footing 619 378* 7
Total 7,858 11,930 79
Nautical institutes—      
 Government 758 1,878 18
 On an equal footing 69 38 1
 Not on such a footing 13 29* 1
Total 816 1,945 20
* 1896.

The schools which do not obtain equality with government schools are either some of those conducted by religious orders, or else those in which a sufficient standard is not reached. The total number of such schools was, in 1896, 742 with 33,813 pupils.

The schools that don’t match the standards of government schools are either run by religious organizations or fail to meet a sufficient standard. In 1896, there were a total of 742 such schools with 33,813 students.

The pupils of the secondary schools reach a maximum of 6.60 per 1000 in Liguria and 5.92 in Latium, and a minimum of 2.30 in the Abruzzi, 2.27 in Calabria and 1.65 in Basilicata.

The students in secondary schools peak at 6.60 per 1000 in Liguria and 5.92 in Latium, while the lowest rates are 2.30 in the Abruzzi, 2.27 in Calabria, and 1.65 in Basilicata.

For the boarding schools, or convitti, there are only incomplete reports except for the institutions directly dependent on the ministry of public instruction, which are comparatively few. The rest are largely directed by religious institutions. In 1895-1896 there were 919 convitti for boys, with 59,066 pupils, of which 40, with 3814 pupils, were dependent on the ministry (in 1901-1902 there were 43 of these with 4036 pupils); and 1456 for girls, with 49,367 pupils, of which only 8, with about 600 pupils, were dependent on the ministry.

For the boarding schools, or convitti, there are only partial reports available, except for the institutions that are directly managed by the Ministry of Public Instruction, which are relatively few. The majority are run by religious organizations. In 1895-1896, there were 919 boys' convitti, with 59,066 students, of which 40, with 3,814 students, were under the ministry’s supervision (in 1901-1902, there were 43 of these with 4,036 students); and 1,456 girls' convitti, with 49,367 students, of which only 8, with about 600 students, were overseen by the ministry.

The scuole normali or training schools (117 in number, of which 75 were government institutions) for teachers had 1329 male students in 1901-1902, showing hardly any increase, while the female students increased from 8005 in 1882-1883 to 22,316 in 1895-1896, but decreased to 19,044 in 1901-1902, owing to the admission of women to telegraph and telephone work. The female secondary schools in 1881-1882 numbered 77, of which 7 were government institutions, with 3569 pupils; in 1901-1902 there were 233 schools (9 governmental) with 9347 pupils.

The scuole normali or training schools (117 in total, with 75 being government-run) for teachers had 1,329 male students in 1901-1902, which showed barely any increase. In contrast, the number of female students rose from 8,005 in 1882-1883 to 22,316 in 1895-1896, but then dropped to 19,044 in 1901-1902 due to women being admitted to telegraph and telephone jobs. In 1881-1882, there were 77 female secondary schools, 7 of which were government-run, with 3,569 students. By 1901-1902, the number had increased to 233 schools (9 government-run) with 9,347 students.

The total attendance of students in the various faculties at the different universities and higher institutes is as follows:—

The total number of students attending the various faculties at the different universities and higher institutions is as follows:—

  1882. 1902.
Law 4,801 8,385
Philosophy and letters 419 1,703
Medicine and surgery 4,428 9,055
Professional diploma, pharmacy 798 3,290
Mathematics and natural science 1,364 3,500
Engineering 982 1,293
Agriculture 145 507
Commerce 128 167
Total 13,065 27,900

17

17

Thus a large all-round increase in secondary and higher education is shown—satisfactory in many respects, but showing that more young men devote themselves to the learned professions (especially to the law) than the economic condition of the country will justify. There are 21 universities—Bologna, Cagliari, Camerino, Catania, Ferrara, Genoa, Macerata, Messina, Modena, Naples, Padua, Palermo, Parma, Pavia, Perugia, Pisa, Rome, Sassari, Siena, Turin, Urbino, of which Camerino, Ferrara, Perugia and Urbino are not state institutions; university courses are also given at Aquila, Bari and Catanzaro. Of these the most frequented in 1904-1905 were: Naples (4745), Turin (3451), Rome (2630), Bologna (1711), Pavia (1559), Padua (1364), Genoa (1276), and the least frequented, Cagliari (254), Siena (235) and Sassari (200). The professors are ordinary and extraordinary, and free professors (liberi docenti), corresponding to the German Privatdozenten, are also allowed to be attached to the universities.

Thus, there’s been a significant increase in secondary and higher education, which is good in many ways, but it also shows that more young men are pursuing learned professions (especially law) than the country's economic situation can support. There are 21 universities—Bologna, Cagliari, Camerino, Catania, Ferrara, Genoa, Macerata, Messina, Modena, Naples, Padua, Palermo, Parma, Pavia, Perugia, Pisa, Rome, Sassari, Siena, Turin, Urbino—of which Camerino, Ferrara, Perugia, and Urbino are not state institutions. University courses are also offered in Aquila, Bari, and Catanzaro. The most attended in 1904-1905 were: Naples (4745), Turin (3451), Rome (2630), Bologna (1711), Pavia (1559), Padua (1364), Genoa (1276), and the least attended were Cagliari (254), Siena (235), and Sassari (200). The professors include both ordinary and extraordinary, and free professors (liberi docenti), similar to the German Privatdozenten, are also allowed to be associated with the universities.

The institutions which co-operate with the universities are the special schools for engineers at Turin, Naples, Rome and Bologna (and others attached to some of the universities), the higher technical institute at Milan, the higher veterinary schools of Milan, Naples and Turin, the institute for higher studies at Florence (Istituto di studi superiori, pratici e di perfezionamento), the literary and scientific academy of Milan, the higher institutes for the training of female teachers at Florence and Rome, the Institute of Social Studies at Florence, the higher commercial schools at Venice, Bari and Genoa, the commercial university founded by L. Bocconi at Milan in 1902, the higher naval school at Genoa, the higher schools of agriculture at Milan and Portici, the experimental institute at Perugia, the school of forestry at Vallambrosa, the industrial museum at Turin. The special secondary institutions, distinct from those already reckoned under the universities and allied schools, include an Oriental institute at Naples with 243 pupils; 34 schools of agriculture with (1904-1905) 1925 students; 2 schools of mining (at Caltanisetta and Iglesias) with (1904-1905) 83 students; 308 industrial and commercial schools with (1903-1904) 46,411 students; 174 schools of design and moulding with (1898) 12,556 students; 13 government fine art institutes (1904-1905) with 2778 students and 13 non-government with 1662 students; 5 government institutes of music with 1026 students, and 51 non-government with 4109 pupils (1904-1905). Almost all of these show a considerable increase.

The institutions that collaborate with the universities include special engineering schools in Turin, Naples, Rome, and Bologna (as well as others linked to some universities), the higher technical institute in Milan, the higher veterinary schools in Milan, Naples, and Turin, the Institute for Higher Studies in Florence (Istituto di studi superiori, pratici e di perfezionamento), the literary and scientific academy in Milan, higher institutes for training female teachers in Florence and Rome, the Institute of Social Studies in Florence, higher commercial schools in Venice, Bari, and Genoa, the commercial university founded by L. Bocconi in Milan in 1902, the higher naval school in Genoa, the higher schools of agriculture in Milan and Portici, the experimental institute in Perugia, the forestry school in Vallambrosa, and the industrial museum in Turin. The special secondary institutions, separate from those already counted under the universities and affiliated schools, include an Oriental institute in Naples with 243 students; 34 schools of agriculture with (1904-1905) 1,925 students; 2 mining schools (in Caltanisetta and Iglesias) with (1904-1905) 83 students; 308 industrial and commercial schools with (1903-1904) 46,411 students; 174 design and molding schools with (1898) 12,556 students; 13 government-run fine arts institutes (1904-1905) with 2,778 students and 13 non-government ones with 1,662 students; 5 government music institutes with 1,026 students, and 51 non-government ones with 4,109 students (1904-1905). Almost all of these institutions show a significant increase.

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

Libraries are plentiful in Italy, with even smaller cities often housing rich collections of manuscripts and valuable works. Data gathered in 1893-1894 and 1896 showed that there were 1,831 libraries, either private (but open to the public) or fully public. Since 1870, public libraries have greatly increased due to the merging of resources from suppressed monastic institutions. The Vatican Library is the richest in manuscripts, especially after acquiring the Barberini Library in 1902; it now holds over 34,000 manuscripts. The Vatican archives are also extremely significant. Most large towns have important state or local archives, where significant research is conducted by local scholars; various local history societies (Società di Storia Patria) do excellent work and publish valuable materials; the treasures held in these archives are far from fully explored. Libraries and archives are overseen by the Ministry of Public Instruction. A separate department within this ministry, led by a director-general, manages antiquities and fine arts, conducts archaeological digs, and oversees those done by private entities (permissions for foreigners, including foreign schools, to excavate in Italy are rarely granted), as well as maintains numerous state museums and art galleries. Exporting works of art and antiquities from Italy without the ministry's permission is prohibited (though this has sometimes been bypassed in the past). A list of items that cannot be exported under any circumstances has been created, and the ministry has a budget of £200,000 available for acquiring important works of art of all types.

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

Charities.—In Italy, there is no legal right for the poor to receive support from the parish or local government, nor is there any obligation for the local government to assist the poor—except for abandoned children and the sick. Public charity is carried out through permanent charitable foundations (opere pie), which are, however, very unevenly distributed across different regions. The areas of Italy that showed the largest growth in new institutions or donations to existing ones between 1881 and 1903 are Lombardy, Piedmont, and Liguria, while Sardinia, Calabria, and Basilicata rank lowest, with Latium being relatively low as well.

The patrimony of Italian charitable institutions is considerable and is constantly increasing. In 1880 the number of charitable institutions (exclusive of public pawnshops, or Monti di Pietà, and other institutions which combine operations of credit with charity) was approximately 22,000, with an aggregate patrimony of nearly £80,000,000. The revenue was about £3,600,000; after deduction of taxes, interest on debts, expenses of management, &c., £2,080,000. Adding to this £1,240,000 of communal and provincial subsidies, the product of the labour of inmates, temporary subscriptions, &c., the net revenue available for charity was, during 1880, £3,860,000. Of this sum £260,000 was spent for religious purposes. Between 1881 and 1905 the bequests to existing institutions and sums left for the endowment of new institutions amounted to about £16,604,600.

The assets of Italian charitable organizations are substantial and continually growing. In 1880, there were around 22,000 charitable institutions (not including public pawnshops, or Monti di Pietà, and other organizations that mix credit operations with charity) with a total asset worth of nearly £80,000,000. The revenue reached about £3,600,000; after taxes, debt interest, management costs, etc., this left £2,080,000. When adding £1,240,000 from local and provincial subsidies, income from the labor of residents, temporary donations, etc., the net revenue available for charity in 1880 amounted to £3,860,000. Out of this amount, £260,000 was spent on religious purposes. Between 1881 and 1905, bequests to existing organizations and funds for new institutions reached approximately £16,604,600.

Charitable institutions take, as a rule, the two forms of outdoor and indoor relief and attendance. The indoor institutions are the more important in regard to endowment, and consist of hospitals for the infirm (a number of these are situated at the seaside); of hospitals for chronic and incurable diseases; of orphan asylums; of poorhouses and shelters for beggars; of infant asylums or institutes for the first education of children under six years of age; of lunatic asylums; of homes for the deaf and dumb; and of institutes for the blind. The outdoor charitable institutions include those which distribute help in money or food; those which supply medicine and medical help; those which aid mothers unable to rear their own children; those which subsidize orphans and foundlings; those which subsidize educational institutes; and those which supply marriage portions. Between 1881 and 1898 the chief increases took place in the endowments of hospitals; orphan asylums; infant asylums; poorhouses; almshouses; voluntary workhouses; and institutes for the blind. The least creditably administered of these are the asylums for abandoned infants; in 1887, of a total of 23,913, 53.77% died; while during the years 1893-1896 (no later statistics are available) of 117,970 51.72% died. The average mortality under one year for the whole of Italy in 1893-1896 was only 16.66%.

Charitable organizations generally take two forms: outdoor and indoor relief and support. Indoor institutions are more significant in terms of funding and include hospitals for the sick (many of which are located by the seaside); hospitals for chronic and incurable conditions; orphanages; poorhouses and shelters for homeless individuals; infant care facilities or programs for early education of children under six; mental health hospitals; homes for the deaf and mute; and facilities for the blind. Outdoor charitable organizations include those that distribute aid in the form of money or food; those that provide medicine and medical assistance; those that support mothers who cannot raise their own children; those that provide financial support for orphans and foundlings; those that subsidize educational institutions; and those that offer dowries. Between 1881 and 1898, the most significant increases occurred in the funding of hospitals; orphanages; infant care facilities; poorhouses; almshouses; voluntary workhouses; and facilities for the blind. The least well-managed of these are the orphanages for abandoned infants; in 1887, out of a total of 23,913, 53.77% died; while from 1893 to 1896 (no more recent data is available), of 117,970, 51.72% died. The average mortality rate for infants under one year old across all of Italy from 1893 to 1896 was only 16.66%.

Italian charity legislation was reformed by the laws of 1862 and 1890, which attempted to provide efficacious protection for endowments, and to ensure the application of the income to the purposes for which it was intended. The law considers as “charitable institutions” (opere pie) all poorhouses, almshouses and institutes which partly or wholly give help to able-bodied or infirm paupers, or seek to improve their moral and economic condition; and also the Congregazioni di carità (municipal charity boards existing in every commune, and composed of members elected by the municipal council), which administer funds destined for the poor in general. All charitable institutions were under the protection of provincial administrative junta, existing in every province, and empowered to control the management of charitable endowments. The supreme control was vested in the minister of the Interior. The law of 1890 also empowers every citizen to appeal to the tribunals on behalf of the poor, for whose benefit a given charitable institution may have been intended. A more recent law provides for the formation of a central body, with provincial commissions under it. Its effect, however, has been comparatively small.

Italian charity laws were updated by the laws of 1862 and 1890, which aimed to provide effective protection for endowments and ensure that the income was used for its intended purposes. The law defines “charitable institutions” (opere pie) as all poorhouses, almshouses, and organizations that partially or fully assist able-bodied or sick individuals in need, or work to improve their moral and economic situation; it also includes the Congregazioni di carità (municipal charity boards present in every commune, made up of members elected by the municipal council), which manage funds intended for the general poor. All charitable institutions were under the oversight of a provincial administrative board in each province, which had the authority to regulate the management of charitable endowments. The ultimate authority was held by the minister of the Interior. The law of 1890 also gives every citizen the right to appeal to the courts on behalf of the poor, for whom a specific charitable institution may have been established. A more recent law allows for the creation of a central body with provincial commissions underneath it. However, its impact has been relatively minimal.

Public pawnshops or Monti di pietà numbered 555 in 1896, with a net patrimony of £2,879,625. In that year their income, including revenue from capital, was £416,385, and their expenditure £300,232. The amount lent on security was £4,153,229.

Public pawnshops or Monti di pietà numbered 555 in 1896, with a net worth of £2,879,625. In that year, their income, including revenue from capital, was £416,385, and their expenses were £300,232. The amount lent against collateral was £4,153,229.

The Monti frumentarii or co-operative corn deposits, which lend seed corn to farmers, and are repaid after harvest with interest in kind, numbered 1615 in 1894, and possessed a patrimony of £240,000.

The Monti frumentarii, or cooperative corn deposits, provided seed corn to farmers and were repaid after harvest with interest in kind. In 1894, there were 1,615 of them, and they had an asset base of £240,000.

In addition to the regular charitable institutions, the communal and provincial authorities exercise charity, the former (in 1899) to the extent of £1,827,166 and the latter to the extent of £919,832 per annum. Part of these sums is given to hospitals, and part spent directly by the communal and provincial authorities. Of the sum spent by the communes, about ½ goes for the sanitary service (doctors, midwives, vaccination), 18 for the maintenance of foundlings, 110 for the support of the sick in hospitals, and 122 for sheltering the aged and needy. Of the sum spent by the provincial authorities, over half goes to lunatic asylums and over a quarter to the maintenance of foundling hospitals.

In addition to the regular charities, local and regional authorities also provide support, with the former contributing £1,827,166 in 1899 and the latter £919,832 each year. Some of this money goes to hospitals, while the rest is used directly by the local and regional authorities. Of the amount spent by local governments, about half is allocated for public health services (like doctors, midwives, and vaccinations), 1/8 for the care of foundlings, 1/10 for supporting the sick in hospitals, and 1/22 for housing the elderly and those in need. From the amount spent by the regional authorities, more than half goes to mental health facilities, and over a quarter supports foundling hospitals.

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

Religion.—The vast majority of Italians—97.12%—are Roman Catholics. In addition to the standard Latin rite, several others are acknowledged. The Armenians in Venice uphold their traditional customs. The Albanians in the southern provinces still use the Greek rite and the Greek language in their public worship, and their priests, like those of the Greek Church, are allowed to marry. Certain unique elements introduced by St. Ambrose set Milan's ritual apart from that of the broader church. Until 1871, the island of Sicily was, according to Urban II's decree, ecclesiastically dependent on the king and exempt from the pope's canonical authority.

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

Although the territorial authority of the papal see was practically abolished in 1870, the fact that Rome is the administrative center of the vast organization of the church is still significant for the nation. In the same city where the governmental functions are centralized, there remains the court of the spiritual leader, which in 1879 included 1,821 members. There are about 65,000 Protestants, half of whom are Italian and half foreign, with 22,500 of the Italians being Waldensians. The Jewish population was recorded as 36,000 but is likely higher. Additionally, there are around 2,500 members of the Greek Orthodox Church in Italy. In 1901, there were 20,707 parishes in Italy, along with 68,444 secular clergy and 48,043 regular clergy (monks, lay brothers, and nuns). The size of parishes varies by province; Sicily has larger parishes due to old Sicilian church laws, while Naples and some areas of central Italy have smaller ones. The Italian parishes had a total gross revenue in 1901, including allocations from the public worship endowment fund, of £1,280,000, averaging £63 per parish; 51% of this gross amount came from glebe lands.

The kingdom is divided into 264 sees and ten abbeys, or prelatures nullius dioceseos. The dioceses are as follows:—

The kingdom is divided into 264 sees and ten abbeys, or prelatures nullius dioceseos. The dioceses are as follows:—

A. 6 suburbicarian sees—Ostia and Velletri, Porto and Sta Rufina, Albano, Frascati, Palestrina, Sabina—all held by cardinal bishops.

A. 6 suburbicarian sees—Ostia and Velletri, Porto and Sta Rufina, Albano, Frascati, Palestrina, Sabina—all held by cardinal bishops.

B. 74 sees immediately subject to the Holy See, of which 12 are archiepiscopal and 61 episcopal.

B. 74 sees are directly under the Holy See, including 12 archiepiscopal and 61 episcopal.

C. 37 ecclesiastical provinces, each under a metropolitan, composed of 148 suffragan dioceses. Their position is indicated in the following table:—

C. 37 church provinces, each led by a metropolitan, made up of 148 supporting dioceses. Their location is shown in the following table:—

Metropolitans. Suffragans.

Acerenza-Matera

Acerenza-Matera

Anglona-Tursi, Tricarico, Venosa.

Anglona-Tursi, Tricarico, Venosa.

Bari

Bari

Conversano, Ruvo-Bitonto.

Conversano, Ruvo-Bitonto.

Benevento

Benevento

S. Agata de’ Goti, Alife, Ariano, Ascoli Satriano Cerignola, Avellino, Bojano, Bovino, Larino, Lucera, S. Severo, Telese (Cerreto), Termoli.

S. Agata de’ Goti, Alife, Ariano, Ascoli Satriano Cerignola, Avellino, Bojano, Bovino, Larino, Lucera, S. Severo, Telese (Cerreto), Termoli.

Bologna

Bologna, Italy

Faenza, Imola.

Faenza, Imola.

Brindisi and Ostuni

Brindisi and Ostuni

No suffragan.

No assistant bishop.

Cagliari

Cagliari

Galtelli-Nuoro, Iglesias, Ogliastra.

Galtelli, Nuoro, Iglesias, Ogliastra.

Capua

Capua

Caiazzo, Calvi-Teano, Caserta, Isernia-Venafro, Sessa.

Caiazzo, Calvi-Teano, Caserta, Isernia-Venafro, Sessa.

Chieti and Vasto

Chieti and Vasto

No suffragan.

No assistant bishop.

Conza and Campagna

Conza and Campagna

S. Angelo de’ Lombardi-Bisaccia, Lacedonia, Muro Lucano.

S. Angelo de’ Lombardi-Bisaccia, Lacedonia, Muro Lucano.

Fermo

Fermo

Macerata-Tolentino, Montalto, Ripatransone, S. Severino.

Macerata-Tolentino, Montalto, Ripatransone, S. Severino.

Florence

Florence

Borgo S. Sepolcro, Colle di Val d’Elsa, Fiesole, S. Miniato, Modigliana, Pistoia-Prato.

Borgo S. Sepolcro, Colle di Val d’Elsa, Fiesole, S. Miniato, Modigliana, Pistoia-Prato.

Genoa

Genoa

Albenga, Bobbio, Chiavari, Savona-Noli, Tortona, Ventimiglia.

Albenga, Bobbio, Chiavari, Savona-Noli, Tortona, Ventimiglia.

Lanciano and Ortona

Lanciano and Ortona

No suffragan.

No assistant bishop.

Manfredonia and Viesti

Manfredonia and Vieste

No suffragan.

No assistant bishop.

Messina

Messina

Lipari, Nicosia, Patti.

Lipari, Nicosia, Patti.

Milan

Milan

Bergamo, Brescia, Como, Crema, Cremona, Lodi, Mantua, Pavia.

Bergamo, Brescia, Como, Crema, Cremona, Lodi, Mantua, Pavia.

Modena

Modena

Carpi, Guastalla, Massa-Carrara, Reggio.

Carpi, Guastalla, Massa-Carrara, Reggio.

Monreale

Monreale

Caltanisetta, Girgenti.

Caltanissetta, Agrigento.

Naples

Napoli

Acerra, Ischia, Nola, Pozzuoli.

Acerra, Ischia, Nola, Pozzuoli.

Oristano

Oristano

Ales-Terralba.

Ales-Terralba.

Otranto

Otranto

Gallipoli, Lecce, Ugento.

Gallipoli, Lecce, Ugento.

Palermo

Palermo

Cefalù, Mazzara, Trapani.

Cefalù, Mazara, Trapani.

Pisa

Pisa

Leghorn, Pescia, Pontremoli, Volterra.

Leghorn, Pescia, Pontremoli, Volterra.

Ravenna

Ravenna

Bertinoro, Cervia, Cesena, Comacchio, Forlì, Rimini, Sarsina.

Bertinoro, Cervia, Cesena, Comacchio, Forlì, Rimini, Sarsina.

Reggio Calabria

Reggio Calabria

Bova, Cassano, Catanzaro, Cotrone, Gerace, Nicastro, Oppido, Nicotera-Tropea, Squillace.

Bova, Cassano, Catanzaro, Cotrone, Gerace, Nicastro, Oppido, Nicotera-Tropea, Squillace.

Salerno

Salerno

Acerno, Capaccio-Vallo, Diano, Marsico-Nuovo and Potenza, Nocera dei Pagani, Nusco, Policastro.

Acerno, Capaccio-Vallo, Diano, Marsico-Nuovo and Potenza, Nocera dei Pagani, Nusco, Policastro.

Sassari

Sassari

Alghero, Ampurias and Tempio, Bisarhio, Bosa.

Alghero, Ampurias and Tempio, Bisarhio, Bosa.

S. Severino

S. Severino

Cariati.

Cariati.

Siena

Siena

Chiusi-Pienza, Grosseto, Massa Marittima, Sovana-Pitigliano.

Chiusi-Pienza, Grosseto, Massa Marittima, Sovana-Pitigliano.

Syracuse

Syracuse

Caltagirone, Noto, Piazza-Armerina.

Caltagirone, Noto, Piazza Armerina.

Sorrento

Sorrento

Castellammare.

Castellammare.

Taranto

Taranto

Castellaneta, Oria.

Castellaneta, Oria.

Trani-Nazareth-Barletta, Bisceglie

Trani, Nazareth, Barletta, Bisceglie

Andria.

Andria.

Turin

Turin

Acqui, Alba, Aosta, Asti, Cuneo, Fossano, Ivrea, Mondovi, Pinerolo, Saluzzo, Susa.

Acqui, Alba, Aosta, Asti, Cuneo, Fossano, Ivrea, Mondovi, Pinerolo, Saluzzo, Susa.

Urbino

Urbino

S. Angelo in Vado-Urbania, Cagli-Pergola, Fossombrone, Montefeltro, Pesaro, Sinigaglia.

S. Angelo in Vado-Urbania, Cagli-Pergola, Fossombrone, Montefeltro, Pesaro, Sinigaglia.

Venice (patriarch)

Venice (bishop)

Adria, Belluno-Feltre, Ceneda (Vittorio), Chioggia, Concordia-Portogruaro, Padua, Treviso, Verona, Vicenza.

Adria, Belluno-Feltre, Ceneda (Vittorio), Chioggia, Concordia-Portogruaro, Padua, Treviso, Verona, Vicenza.

Vercelli

Vercelli

Alessandria della Paglia, Biella, Casale, Monferrato, Novara, Vigevano.

Alessandria della Paglia, Biella, Casale, Monferrato, Novara, Vigevano.

Twelve archbishops and sixty-one bishops are independent of all metropolitan supervision, and hold directly of the Holy See. The archbishops are those of Amalfi, Aquila, Camerino and Treia, Catania, Cosenza, Ferrara, Gaeta, Lucca, Perugia, Rossano, Spoleto, and Udine, and the bishops those of Acireale, Acquapendente, Alatri, Amelia, Anagni, Ancona-Umana, Aquino-Sora-Pontecorvo, Arezzo, Ascoli, Assisi, Aversa, Bagnorea, Borgo San Donnino, Cava-Sarno, Città di Castello, Città della Pieve, Cività Castellana-Orte-Gallese, Corneto-Civita Vecchia, Cortona, Fabriano-Matelica, Fano, Ferentino, Foggia, Foligno, Gravina-Montepeloso, Gubbio, Jesi, Luni-Sarzana and Bragnato, S. Marco-Bisignano, Marsi (Pescina), Melfi-Rapolla, Mileto, Molfetta-Terlizzi-Giovennazzo, Monopoli, Montalcino, Montefiascone, Montepulciano, Nardo, Narni, Nocera in Umbria, Norcia, Orvieto, Osimo-Cingoli, Parma, Penne-Atri, Piacenza, Poggio Mirteto, Recanati-Loreto, Rieti, Segni, Sutri-Nepi, Teramo, Terni, Terracina-Piperno-Sezze, Tivoli, Todi, Trivento, Troia, Valva-Sulmona, Veroli, Viterbo-Toscanella. Excluding the diocese of Rome and suburbicarian sees, each see has an average area of 430 sq. m. and a population of 121,285 souls. The largest sees exist in Venetia and Lombardy, and the smallest in the provinces of Naples, Leghorn, Forlì, Ancona, Pesaro, Urbino, Caserta, Avellino and Ascoli. The Italian sees (exclusive of Rome and of the suburbicarian sees) have a total annual revenue of £206,000 equal to an average of £800 per see. The richest is that of Girgenti, with £6304, and the poorest that of Porto Maurizio, with only £246. In each diocese is a seminary or diocesan school.

Twelve archbishops and sixty-one bishops are independent of all metropolitan oversight and report directly to the Holy See. The archbishops are from Amalfi, Aquila, Camerino and Treia, Catania, Cosenza, Ferrara, Gaeta, Lucca, Perugia, Rossano, Spoleto, and Udine, while the bishops include those from Acireale, Acquapendente, Alatri, Amelia, Anagni, Ancona-Umana, Aquino-Sora-Pontecorvo, Arezzo, Ascoli, Assisi, Aversa, Bagnorea, Borgo San Donnino, Cava-Sarno, Città di Castello, Città della Pieve, Cività Castellana-Orte-Gallese, Corneto-Civita Vecchia, Cortona, Fabriano-Matelica, Fano, Ferentino, Foggia, Foligno, Gravina-Montepeloso, Gubbio, Jesi, Luni-Sarzana and Bragnato, S. Marco-Bisignano, Marsi (Pescina), Melfi-Rapolla, Mileto, Molfetta-Terlizzi-Giovennazzo, Monopoli, Montalcino, Montefiascone, Montepulciano, Nardo, Narni, Nocera in Umbria, Norcia, Orvieto, Osimo-Cingoli, Parma, Penne-Atri, Piacenza, Poggio Mirteto, Recanati-Loreto, Rieti, Segni, Sutri-Nepi, Teramo, Terni, Terracina-Piperno-Sezze, Tivoli, Todi, Trivento, Troia, Valva-Sulmona, Veroli, and Viterbo-Toscanella. Excluding the diocese of Rome and the suburbicarian sees, each see has an average area of 430 sq. m. and a population of 121,285 people. The largest sees are located in Venetia and Lombardy, while the smallest are in the provinces of Naples, Leghorn, Forlì, Ancona, Pesaro, Urbino, Caserta, Avellino, and Ascoli. The Italian sees (excluding Rome and the suburbicarian sees) generate a total annual revenue of £206,000, averaging £800 per see. The wealthiest is Girgenti, with £6304, while the least wealthy is Porto Maurizio, with only £246. Each diocese also has a seminary or diocesan school.

In 1855 an act was passed in the Sardinian states for the disestablishment of all houses of the religious orders not engaged in preaching, teaching or the care of the sick, of all chapters of collegiate churches not having a cure of souls or existing Religious Foundations. in towns of less than 20,000 inhabitants, and of all private benefices for which no service was paid by the holders. The property and money thus obtained were used to form an ecclesiastical fund (Cassa Ecclesiastica) distinct from the finances of the state. This act resulted in the suppression of 274 monasteries with 3733 friars, of 61 nunneries with 1756 nuns and of 2722 chapters and benefices. In 1860 and 1861 the royal commissioners (even before the constitution of the new kingdom of Italy had been formally declared) issued decrees by which there were abolished—(1) in Umbria, 197 monasteries and 102 convents with 1809 male and 2393 female associates, and 836 chapters or benefices; (2) in the Marches, 292 monasteries and 127 convents with 2950 male and 2728 female associates; (3) in the Neapolitan provinces, 747 monasteries and 275 convents with 8787 male and 7493 female associates. There were thus disestablished in seven or eight years 2075 houses of the regular clergy occupied by 31,649 persons; and the confiscated property yielded a revenue of £398,298. And at the same time there had been suppressed 11,889 chapters and benefices of the secular clergy, which yielded an annual income of £199,149. The value of the capital thus potentially freed was estimated at £12,000,000; though hitherto the ecclesiastical possessions in Lombardy, Emilia, Tuscany and Sicily had been untouched. As yet the Cassa Ecclesiastica had no right to dispose of the property thus entrusted to it; but in 1862 an act was passed by which it transferred all its real property to the national domain, and was credited with a corresponding amount by the exchequer. The property could now be disposed of like the other property of the domain; and except in Sicily, where the system of emphyteusis was adopted, the church lands began to be sold by auction. To encourage the poorer classes of the people to become landholders, it was decided that the lots offered for sale should be small, and that the purchaser should be allowed to pay by five or ten yearly instalments. By a new act in 1866 the process of secularization was extended to the whole kingdom. All the members of the suppressed communities received full exercise of all the ordinary political and civil rights of laymen; and annuities were granted to all those who had taken permanent religious vows prior to the 18th of January 1864. To priests and choristers, for example, of the proprietary or endowed orders were assigned £24 per annum if they were upwards of sixty years of age, £16 if upwards of 40, and £14, 8s. if younger. The Cassa Ecclesiastica was abolished, and in its stead was instituted a Fondo pel Culto, or public worship fund. From the general confiscation were exempted the buildings actually used for public worship, as episcopal residences or seminaries, &c., or which had been appropriated to the use of schools, poorhouses, hospitals, &c.; as well as the buildings, appurtenances, and movable property of the abbeys of Monte Casino, Della Cava dei Tirreni, San Martino della Scala, Monreale, Certosa near Pavia, and other establishments of the same kind of importance as architectural or historical monuments. An annuity equal to the ascertained revenue of the suppressed institutions was placed to the credit of the fund in the government 5% consols. A fourth of this sum was to be handed to the communes to be employed on works of beneficence or education as soon as a surplus was obtained from that part of the annuity assigned for the payment of monastic pensions; and in Sicily, 209 communes entered on their privileges as soon as the patrimony was liquidated. Another act in 1867 decreed the suppression of certain foundations which had escaped the action of previous measures, put an extraordinary tax of 30% on the whole of the patrimony of the church, and granted the government the right of issuing 5% bonds sufficient to bring into the treasury £16,000,000, 19 which were to be accepted at their nominal value as purchase money for the alienated property. The public worship endowment fund has relieved the state exchequer of the cost of public worship; has gradually furnished to the poorer parish priests an addition to their stipends, raising them to £32 per annum, with the prospect of further raising them to £40; and has contributed to the outlay incurred by the communes for religious purposes. The monastic buildings required for public purposes have been made over to the communal and provincial authorities, while the same authorities have been entrusted with the administration of the ecclesiastical revenues previously set apart for charity and education, and objects of art and historical interest have been consigned to public libraries and museums. By these laws the reception of novices was forbidden in the existing conventual establishments the extinction of which had been decreed, and all new foundations were forbidden, except those engaged in instruction and the care of the sick. But the laws have not been rigorously enforced of late years; and the ecclesiastical possessions seized by the state were thrown on the market simultaneously, and so realized very low prices, being often bought up by wealthy religious institutions. The large number of these institutions was increased when these bodies were expelled from France.

In 1855, an act was passed in the Sardinian states to disband all religious orders not involved in preaching, teaching, or caring for the sick, as well as all chapters of collegiate churches that didn't have a pastoral role, those in towns with fewer than 20,000 residents, and all private benefices where no services were provided by the holders. The property and money gained were used to create an ecclesiastical fund (Cassa Ecclesiastica) that was separate from the state finances. This act led to the closure of 274 monasteries housing 3,733 friars, 61 nunneries with 1,756 nuns, and 2,722 chapters and benefices. In 1860 and 1861, royal commissioners issued decrees that abolished—(1) in Umbria, 197 monasteries and 102 convents with 1,809 male and 2,393 female members, plus 836 chapters or benefices; (2) in the Marches, 292 monasteries and 127 convents with 2,950 male and 2,728 female members; (3) in the Neapolitan provinces, 747 monasteries and 275 convents housing 8,787 male and 7,493 female members. Over seven or eight years, this resulted in the disbanding of 2,075 houses of regular clergy housing 31,649 individuals, with confiscated property bringing in a revenue of £398,298. At the same time, 11,889 chapters and benefices of the secular clergy were suppressed, which had an annual income of £199,149. The value of the released capital was estimated at £12,000,000; however, the ecclesiastical properties in Lombardy, Emilia, Tuscany, and Sicily remained untouched. Initially, the Cassa Ecclesiastica had no authority to manage the properties assigned to it, but in 1862, a law was passed allowing it to transfer all its real estate to the national domain and receive a matching credit from the treasury. The properties could now be sold like other state property, and except in Sicily, where a rental system was used, church lands began to be sold at auction. To encourage poorer people to become landowners, the lots sold were kept small, and buyers were allowed to pay in five or ten annual installments. In 1866, a new law extended the process of secularization to the entire kingdom. All members of the dissolved communities could fully exercise the usual political and civil rights of laypeople; annuities were granted to those who had committed to permanent religious vows before January 18, 1864. For instance, priests and choristers from proprietary or endowed orders received £24 per year if they were over sixty, £16 if over 40, and £14.8 if younger. The Cassa Ecclesiastica was dissolved, and a new Fondo pel Culto, or public worship fund, was established. Buildings actually used for public worship, such as episcopal residences or seminaries, as well as those designated for schools, poorhouses, hospitals, etc., were exempt from the general confiscation, along with properties and movable assets belonging to significant abbeys like Monte Cassino, Della Cava dei Tirreni, San Martino della Scala, Monreale, Certosa near Pavia, and other major architectural or historical sites. An annuity equal to the assessed income of the suppressed institutions was credited to the fund in the government's 5% bonds. A quarter of this amount was to be given to the municipalities for charitable or educational work as soon as there was a surplus from that portion of the annuity meant for monastic pensions, and in Sicily, 209 municipalities utilized their rights once the assets were liquidated. Another law in 1867 ordered the closure of certain foundations that had avoided previous actions, imposed a 30% extraordinary tax on the entirety of the church's assets, and granted the government permission to issue 5% bonds to bring in £16,000,000, 19 which would be accepted at their face value as payment for the expropriated properties. The public worship fund has relieved the state treasury of the costs of public worship; it has gradually provided poorer parish priests with additional income, increasing their stipends to £32 per year, with an expectation of raising it to £40; and it has aided the expenses incurred by municipalities for religious purposes. The monastic buildings needed for public use have been transferred to local and provincial authorities, which have also been given control over the ecclesiastical revenues previously allocated for charity and education, with artworks and historical items sent to public libraries and museums. These laws forbade the admission of novices into existing convents designated for closure and prohibited any new foundations, except those focused on education or caring for the sick. However, enforcement of these laws has been lax in recent years, and the seized ecclesiastical properties were put on the market at the same time, leading to low selling prices, often being purchased by affluent religious institutions. The number of these institutions grew when similar groups were expelled from France.

On the 30th of June 1903 the patrimony of the endowment fund amounted to £17,339,040, of which only £264,289 were represented by buildings still occupied by monks or nuns. The rest was made up of capital and interest. The liabilities of the fund (capitalized) amounted to £10,668,105, of which monastic pensions represented a rapidly diminishing sum of £2,564,930. The chief items of annual expenditure drawn from the fund are the supplementary stipends to priests and the pensions to members of suppressed religious houses. The number of persons in receipt of monastic pensions on the 30th of June 1899 was 13,255; but while this item of expenditure will disappear by the deaths of those entitled to pensions, the supplementary stipends and contributions are gradually increasing. The following table shows the course of the two main categories of the fund from 1876 to 1902-1903:—

On June 30, 1903, the endowment fund was worth £17,339,040, of which only £264,289 was tied up in buildings still occupied by monks or nuns. The rest was made up of capital and interest. The fund's liabilities (capitalized) totaled £10,668,105, with monastic pensions accounting for a quickly shrinking amount of £2,564,930. The main annual expenses from the fund include supplementary salaries for priests and pensions for members of dissolved religious houses. On June 30, 1899, there were 13,255 people receiving monastic pensions; however, while this expense will eventually disappear as pensioners pass away, the supplementary salaries and contributions are gradually increasing. The following table shows the trends in these two main categories of the fund from 1876 to 1902-1903:—

  1876. 1885-1886. 1898-1899. 1902-1903.

Monastic pensions, liquidation of religious property and provision of shelter for nuns

Monastic pensions, selling off religious property, and providing housing for nuns

£749,172 £491,339 £220,479 £165,144

Supplementary stipends to bishops and parochial clergy, assignments to Sardinian clergy and expenditure for education and charitable purposes and charitable purposes

Supplementary payments to bishops and local clergy, assignments for Sardinian clergy, and expenses for education and charitable initiatives.

142,912 128,521 210,020 347,940

Roman Charitable and Religious Fund.—The law of the 19th of June 1873 contained special provisions, in conformity with the character of Rome as the seat of the papacy, and with the situation created by the Law of Guarantees. According to the census of 1871 there were in the city and province of Rome 474 monastic establishments (311 for monks, 163 for nuns), occupied by 4326 monks and 3825 nuns, and possessing a gross revenue of 4,780,891 lire. Of these, 126 monasteries and 90 convents were situated in the city, 51 monasteries and 22 convents in the “suburbicariates.” The law of 1873 created a special charitable and religious fund of the city, while it left untouched 23 monasteries and 49 convents which had either the character of private institutions or were supported by foreign funds. New parishes were created, old parishes were improved, the property of the suppressed religious corporations was assigned to charitable and educational institutions and to hospitals, while property having no special application was used to form a charitable and religious fund. On the 30th of June 1903 the balance-sheet of this fund showed a credit amounting to £1,796,120 and a debit of £460,819. Expenditure for the year 1902-1903 was £889,858 and revenue £818,674.

Roman Charitable and Religious Fund.—The law of June 19, 1873 included specific provisions that aligned with Rome's role as the seat of the papacy and the circumstances established by the Law of Guarantees. According to the 1871 census, there were 474 monastic establishments in the city and province of Rome (311 for monks and 163 for nuns), housing 4,326 monks and 3,825 nuns, with a total revenue of 4,780,891 lire. Of these, 126 monasteries and 90 convents were in the city, and 51 monasteries and 22 convents were in the “suburbicariates.” The 1873 law established a special charitable and religious fund for the city while leaving 23 monasteries and 49 convents intact, either as private institutions or supported by foreign funds. New parishes were established, existing parishes were enhanced, the property of dissolved religious corporations was allocated to charitable and educational institutions and hospitals, while property without a specific purpose was utilized to create a charitable and religious fund. On June 30, 1903, the balance sheet of this fund showed a credit of £1,796,120 and a debit of £460,819. The expenditures for the year 1902-1903 amounted to £889,858, with revenue at £818,674.

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

Constitution and Government.—The Vatican palace (along with St. Peter’s), the Lateran palace, and the papal villa at Castel Gandolfo have been granted extraterritorial status by the law of 1871. The small republic of San Marino is the only other independent area within Italian borders. Italy is a constitutional monarchy, where the executive power is held solely by the sovereign, while the legislative power is shared with parliament. The sovereign has supreme command over land and sea, appoints ministers and officials, enacts laws, mints money, grants honors, has the right to pardon, and can call or dissolve parliament. However, treaties with foreign countries must be approved by parliament. The sovereign is not held responsible; instead, the ministers, whose signature is required to validate royal decrees, are accountable. Parliament consists of two chambers: the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, which are nominally equal, although the elected chamber is practically more significant. The Senate is made up of princes of the blood who are of legal age, along with an unlimited number of senators over forty years old, who qualify under one of twenty-one specified categories—by either having held high office or gained recognition in fields like science and literature. In 1908, there were 318 senators, excluding five members of the royal family. Senators are nominated for life by the king. Besides legislative functions, the Senate serves as the highest court for political crimes or the impeachment of ministers. The lower house, or Chamber of Deputies, has 508 members, i.e. one for every 64,893 people, and all electoral districts have single-member representation. The party system isn't very strong. Voting rights extend to all citizens over twenty-one who can read and write and meet certain educational standards or qualify by paying rent, which ranges from £6 in communities with 2,500 inhabitants to £16 in those with 150,000, or, if they are peasant farmers, a rent of 16 shillings; or they can be eligible by sharing profits from farms that pay at least £3, 4 shillings in direct (including provincial) taxes; or by paying a minimum of £16 in direct taxes. Certain groups, like members of the professional classes, qualify to vote based on their status. The number of voters (2,541,327) in the general election of 1904 represented 29% of the male population over twenty-one and 7.6% of the total population—excluding those temporarily disenfranchised due to military service; of these, 62.7% cast votes. A candidate cannot be elected without receiving more than half of the votes and more than one-sixth of the total registered; otherwise, a second ballot is required. Candidates must be at least thirty years old and qualified as voters. All salaried government officials (except for ministers, undersecretaries, certain high-ranking officials, and military officers) and clergy members are disqualified from election. Senators and deputies do not receive a salary, but they do have free travel on trains throughout Italy and some ferry lines. Parliaments meet every five years, but the king can dissolve the Chamber of Deputies at any time, although they must convene a new chamber within four months. The executive is required to summon parliament yearly. Both chambers can introduce new bills, as can the government; however, all financial bills must originate in the Chamber of Deputies. The approval of both chambers and the king's assent is necessary for bills to pass. Ministers can attend debates in either house but can only vote in the house they belong to. Sessions of both houses are open to the public, and a simple majority of members must be present for a session to be valid. There are eleven ministers, each earning about £1000; the presidency of the Council of Ministers (established in 1889) can be held independently or alongside another portfolio. The ministries include: interior (which oversees prefects in the provinces), foreign affairs, treasury (separated from finance in 1889), finance, public works, justice and ecclesiastical affairs, war, the navy, public instruction, commerce, industry and agriculture, and postal services (separated from public works in 1889). Each minister is supported by an undersecretary of state earning £500. There is also a council of state with advisory powers, which can resolve some administrative questions, particularly those from local authorities and disputes between ministries, and a court of accounts that oversees detailed state spending. In every country, the bureaucracy is often criticized for being slow, hesitant, and bogged down by “red tape,” and Italy is no exception. Officials are generally not well-paid and are certainly numerous; while various checks and balances are intended to prevent dishonesty, they have not always been effective.

20

20

Titles of Honour.—The former existence of so many separate sovereignties and “fountains of honour” gave rise to a great many hereditary titles of nobility. Besides many hundreds of princes, dukes, marquesses, counts, barons and viscounts, there are a large number of persons of “patrician” rank, persons with a right to the designation nobile or signori, and certain hereditary knights or cavalieri. In the “Golden Book of the Capitol” (Libro d’Oro del Campidoglio) are inscribed 321 patrician families, and of these 28 have the title of prince and 8 that of duke, while the others are marquesses, counts or simply patricians. For the Italian orders of knighthood see Knighthood and Chivalry: Orders of Knighthood. The king’s uncle is duke of Aosta, his son is prince of Piedmont and his cousin is duke of Genoa.

Titles of Honour.—The historical existence of numerous separate sovereignties and “fountains of honour” resulted in a wide array of hereditary noble titles. In addition to many hundreds of princes, dukes, marquesses, counts, barons, and viscounts, there are many individuals of “patrician” rank, who have the right to the titles nobile or signori, as well as certain hereditary knights or cavalieri. The “Golden Book of the Capitol” (Libro d’Oro del Campidoglio) lists 321 patrician families, among which 28 hold the title of prince and 8 hold the title of duke, while the rest are marquesses, counts, or simply patricians. For the Italian orders of knighthood see Knighthood and Chivalry: Orders of Knighthood. The king’s uncle is the duke of Aosta, his son is the prince of Piedmont, and his cousin is the duke of Genoa.

Justice.—The judiciary system of Italy is mainly framed on the French model. Italy has courts of cassation at Rome, Naples, Palermo, Turin, Florence, 20 appeal court districts, 162 tribunal districts and 1535 mandamenti, each with its own magistracy (pretura). In 13 of the principal towns there are also pretori who have exclusively penal jurisdiction. For minor civil cases involving sums up to 100 lire (£4), giudici conciliatori have also jurisdiction, while they may act as arbitrators up to any amount by request. The Roman court of cassation is the highest, and in both penal and civil matters has a right to decide questions of law and disputes between the lower judicial authorities, and is the only one which has jurisdiction in penal cases, while sharing with the others the right to revise civil cases.

Justice.—The judicial system in Italy is mainly based on the French model. Italy has courts of cassation in Rome, Naples, Palermo, Turin, and Florence, along with 20 appeal court districts, 162 tribunal districts, and 1,535 mandamenti, each with its own magistracy (pretura). In 13 major towns, there are also pretori who have exclusive authority over criminal cases. For minor civil cases involving amounts up to 100 lire (£4), giudici conciliatori also have jurisdiction, and they can act as arbitrators for any amount upon request. The Roman court of cassation is the highest court and has the authority to decide on legal questions and resolve disputes between lower courts, holding exclusive jurisdiction in criminal cases and sharing the authority to review civil cases with other courts.

The pretori have penal jurisdiction concerning all misdemeanours (contravvenzioni) or offences (delitti) punishable by imprisonment not exceeding three months or by fine not exceeding 1000 lire (£40). The penal tribunals have jurisdiction in cases involving imprisonment up to ten years, or a fine exceeding £40, while the assize courts, with a jury, deal with offences involving imprisonment for life or over ten years, and have exclusive jurisdiction (except that the senate is on occasion a high court of justice) over all political offences. Appeal may be made from the sentences of the pretori to the tribunals, and from the tribunals to the courts of appeal; from the assize courts there is no appeal except on a point of form, which appeal goes to the court of cassation at Rome. This court has the supreme power in all questions of legality of a sentence, jurisdiction or competency.

The pretori have the authority to handle all minor crimes (contravvenzioni) or offenses (delitti) that can result in imprisonment for up to three months or a fine of up to 1000 lire (£40). The penal tribunals manage cases involving imprisonment of up to ten years or fines exceeding £40, while the assize courts, which include a jury, handle offenses that can lead to life imprisonment or sentences longer than ten years, and they have sole authority over all political crimes (unless the senate occasionally acts as a high court of justice). You can appeal decisions made by the pretori to the tribunals, and from the tribunals to the courts of appeal; however, there is no appeal from the assize courts except on a formal issue, which can be appealed to the court of cassation in Rome. This court has the ultimate authority on all matters regarding the legality of a sentence, jurisdiction, or competence.

The penal code was unified and reformed in 1890. A reform of late years is the condanna condizionale, equivalent to the English “being bound over to appear for judgment if called upon,” applied in 94,489 cases in 1907. In civil matters there is appeal from the giudice conciliatore to the pretore (who has jurisdiction up to a sum of 1500 lire = £60) from the pretore to the civil tribunal, from the civil tribunal to the court of appeal, and from the court of appeal to the court of cassation.

The penal code was unified and reformed in 1890. A recent reform is the condanna condizionale, which is similar to the English term “being bound over to appear for judgment if called upon,” used in 94,489 cases in 1907. In civil matters, there is an appeal process from the giudice conciliatore to the pretore (who has jurisdiction for amounts up to 1500 lire = £60), from the pretore to the civil tribunal, from the civil tribunal to the court of appeal, and from the court of appeal to the court of cassation.

The judges of all kinds are very poorly paid. Even the first president of the Rome court of cassation only receives £600 a year.

The judges of all types are paid very poorly. Even the chief justice of the Rome court of cassation only makes £600 a year.

The statistics of civil proceedings vary considerably from province to province. Lombardy, with 25 lawsuits per 1000 inhabitants, holds the lowest place; Emilia comes next with 31 per 1000; Tuscany has 39; Venetia, 42; Calabria, 144; Rome, 146; Apulia, 153; and Sardinia, 360 per 1000. The high average in Sardinia is chiefly due to cases within the competence of the conciliation offices. The number of penal proceedings, especially those within the competence of praetors, has also increased, chiefly on account of the frequency of minor contraventions of the law referred to in the section Crime. The ratio of criminal proceedings to population is, as a rule, much higher in the south than in the north.

The statistics for civil cases differ a lot from one province to another. Lombardy, with 25 lawsuits for every 1,000 residents, has the lowest rate; Emilia follows with 31 per 1,000; Tuscany has 39; Venetia, 42; Calabria, 144; Rome, 146; Apulia, 153; and Sardinia, 360 per 1,000. The high average in Sardinia is mainly due to cases handled by the conciliation offices. The number of criminal cases, especially those dealt with by praetors, has also gone up, mostly because of the frequent minor legal violations mentioned in the section Crime. Generally, the ratio of criminal cases to the population is much higher in the south than in the north.

A royal decree, dated February 1891, established three classes of prisons: judiciary prisons, for persons awaiting examination or persons sentenced to arrest, detention or seclusion for less than six months; penitentiaries of various kinds (ergastoli, case di reclusione, detenzione or custodia), for criminals condemned to long terms of imprisonment; and reformatories, for criminals under age and vagabonds. Capital punishment was abolished in 1877, penal servitude for life being substituted. This generally involves solitary confinement of the most rigorous nature, and, as little is done to occupy the mind, the criminal not infrequently becomes insane. Certain types of dangerous individuals are relegated after serving a sentence in the ordinary convict prisons, and by administrative, not by judicial process, to special penal colonies known as domicilii coatti or “forced residences.” These establishments are, however, unsatisfactory, being mostly situated on small islands, where it is often difficult to find work for the coatti, who are free by day, being only confined at night. They receive a small and hardly sufficient, allowance for food of 50 centesimi a day, which they are at liberty to supplement by work if they can find it or care to do it.

A royal decree, dated February 1891, established three types of prisons: judicial prisons, for people awaiting trial or those sentenced to arrest, detention, or confinement for less than six months; various types of penitentiaries (ergastoli, case di reclusione, detenzione, or custodia), for criminals sentenced to long prison terms; and reformatories, for underage criminals and vagrants. Capital punishment was abolished in 1877, replaced by life imprisonment. This generally means being held in solitary confinement under strict conditions, and since little is done to engage the mind, prisoners often end up insane. Certain types of dangerous individuals are sent, after serving a sentence in regular prisons, through an administrative process—not judicial—to special penal colonies known as domicilii coatti or “forced residences.” However, these facilities are inadequate, mostly located on small islands where it's often hard to find work for the coatti, who are free during the day but confined at night. They receive a meager food allowance of 50 centesimi a day, which they can supplement with work if they can find it or want to do it.

Notwithstanding the construction of new prisons and the transformation of old ones, the number of cells for solitary confinement is still insufficient for a complete application of the penal system established by the code of 1890, and the moral effect of the association of the prisoners is not good, though the system of solitary confinement as practised in Italy is little better. The total number of prisoners, including minors and inhabitants of enforced residences, which from 76,066 (2.84 per 1000 inhabitants) on the 31st of December 1871 rose to a maximum of 80,792 on the 31st of December 1879 (2.87 per 1000), decreased to a minimum of 60,621 in 1896 (1.94 per 1000), and on the 31st of December 1898 rose again to 75,470 (2.38 per 1000), of whom 7038, less than one-tenth, were women. The lowness of the figures regarding women is to be noticed throughout. On the 31st of December 1903 it had decreased to 65,819, of which 6044 were women. Of these, 31,219 were in lockups, 25,145 in penal establishments, 1837 minors in government, and 4547 in private reformatories, and 3071 (males) were inmates of forced residences.

Despite the building of new prisons and the renovation of old ones, there still aren't enough solitary confinement cells for the complete implementation of the penal system set by the code of 1890. The impact of prisoners being associated together isn't beneficial, although the solitary confinement system used in Italy isn't much better. The total number of prisoners, including minors and residents of enforced placements, increased from 76,066 (2.84 per 1000 inhabitants) on December 31, 1871, reaching a peak of 80,792 on December 31, 1879 (2.87 per 1000). It then dropped to a low of 60,621 in 1896 (1.94 per 1000) before climbing back up to 75,470 on December 31, 1898 (2.38 per 1000), with 7038, less than one-tenth, being women. The low numbers of women are noticeable throughout the data. By December 31, 1903, the total had decreased to 65,819, with 6044 being women. Of these, 31,219 were in lockups, 25,145 in penal institutions, 1837 minors in government facilities, and 4547 in private reformatories, while 3071 (males) were in enforced residences.

Crime.—Statistics of offences, including contravvenzioni or breaches of by-laws and regulations, exhibit a considerable increase per 100,000 inhabitants since 1887, and only a slight diminution on the figures of 1897. The figure was 1783.45 per 100,000 in 1887, 2164.46 in 1892, 2546.49 in 1897, 2497.90 in 1902. The increase is partly covered by contravvenzioni, but almost every class of penal offence shows a rise except homicide, and even in that the diminution is slow, 5418 in 1880, 3966 in 1887, 4408 in 1892, 4005 in 1897, 3202 in 1902; and Italy remains, owing to the frequent use of the knife, the European country in which it is most frequent. Libels, insults, &c., resistance to public authority, offences against good customs, thefts and frauds, have increased; assaults are nearly stationary. There is also an increase in juvenile delinquency. From 1890 to 1900 the actual number rose by one-third (from 30,108 to 43,684), the proportion to the rest of those sentenced from one-fifth to one-fourth; while in 1905 the actual number rose to 67,944, being a considerable proportionate rise also. In Naples, the Camorra and in Sicily, the Mafia are secret societies whose power of resistance to authority is still not inconsiderable.

Crime.—Statistics on offenses, including contravvenzioni or violations of local laws and regulations, show a significant increase per 100,000 residents since 1887, with only a slight decrease from the figures of 1897. The rate was 1783.45 per 100,000 in 1887, 2164.46 in 1892, 2546.49 in 1897, and 2497.90 in 1902. The increase is partially due to contravvenzioni, but almost every category of crime shows a rise except for homicide, which has seen a slow decline: 5418 in 1880, 3966 in 1887, 4408 in 1892, 4005 in 1897, and 3202 in 1902; Italy remains, due to the frequent use of knives, the European country with the highest rate of such incidents. Libels, insults, resistance to public authority, offenses against public morality, thefts, and frauds have increased; assaults have remained relatively stable. There is also an increase in juvenile crime. From 1890 to 1900, the actual number rose by one-third (from 30,108 to 43,684), with the proportion of young offenders increasing from one-fifth to one-fourth of those sentenced; by 1905, the actual number climbed to 67,944, representing a significant proportional rise as well. In Naples, the Camorra and in Sicily, the Mafia are secret societies that still have considerable power to resist authority.

Procedure, both civil and criminal, is somewhat slow, and the preliminary proceedings before the juge d’instruction occupy much time; and recent murder trials, by the large number of witnesses called (including experts) and the lengthy speeches of counsel, have been dragged out to an unconscionable length. In this, as in the intervention of the presiding judge, the French system has been adopted; and it is said (e.g. by Nathan, Vent’ anni di vita italiana, p. 241) that the efforts of the juge d’instruction are, as a rule, in fact, though not in law, largely directed to prove that the accused is guilty. In 1902 of 884,612 persons accused of penal offences, 13.12% were acquitted during the period of the instruction, 30.31 by the courts, 46.32 condemned and the rest acquitted in some other way. This shows that charges, often involving preliminary imprisonment, are brought against an excessive proportion of persons who either are not or cannot be proved to be guilty. The courts of appeal and cassation, too, often have more than they can do; in the year 1907 the court of cassation at Rome decided 948 appeals on points of law in civil cases, while no fewer than 460 remained to be decided.

Procedure, both civil and criminal, tends to be pretty slow, and the initial steps taken by the juge d’instruction take up a lot of time. Recent murder trials, due to the large number of witnesses, including experts, and the lengthy arguments from lawyers, have stretched on for an unacceptable amount of time. In this, as in the role of the presiding judge, the French system has been adopted; and it’s said (e.g. by Nathan, Vent’ anni di vita italiana, p. 241) that the efforts of the juge d’instruction are typically aimed more at proving the accused's guilt in practice, even if not in law. In 1902, out of 884,612 people accused of criminal offenses, 13.12% were acquitted during the instruction phase, 30.31% by the courts, 46.32% were convicted, and the rest were acquitted in other ways. This indicates that charges, which often involve preliminary detention, are brought against too many people who either are not guilty or cannot be proven guilty. The courts of appeal and cassation also often have more than they can handle; in 1907, the court of cassation in Rome resolved 948 appeals on legal points in civil cases, while 460 were still pending.

As in most civilized countries, the number of suicides in Italy has increased from year to year.

As in most developed countries, the number of suicides in Italy has risen year after year.

The Italian suicide rate of 63.6 per 1,000,000 is, however, lower than those of Denmark, Switzerland, Germany and France, while it approximates to that of England. The Italian rate is highest in the more enlightened and industrial north, and lowest in the south. Emilia gives a maximum rate of 10.48 per 100,000, while that of Liguria and Lazio is little lower. The minimum of 1.27 is found in the Basilicata, though Calabria gives only 2.13. About 20% of the total are women, and there is an increase of nearly 3% since 1882 in the proportion of suicides under twenty years of age.

The Italian suicide rate of 63.6 per 1,000,000 is, however, lower than those of Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, and France, while it’s similar to that of England. The rate in Italy is highest in the more progressive and industrialized north and lowest in the south. Emilia has a maximum rate of 10.48 per 100,000, while Liguria and Lazio are slightly lower. The minimum rate of 1.27 is found in Basilicata, while Calabria has a rate of only 2.13. About 20% of the total suicides are women, and there has been an increase of nearly 3% since 1882 in the proportion of suicides among those under twenty.

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

Army.—The Italian army developed from the old Piedmontese army, which primarily facilitated Italy's unification. This unification involved incorporating troops from all over Italy, resulting in significant differences in physical abilities, morale, political views, and education. Additionally, the strategic geography of the country required most of the army to be stationed close to the north-eastern and north-western borders. These factors made a recruitment or organization system based on territory, like that in Germany, nearly impossible. To achieve relatively uniform effectiveness across different units and to promote national unity, soldiers from Piedmont, Umbria, and Naples were mixed in the same units and shared barracks. However, when soldiers finished their service, they returned home, leading to a situation where a regiment needs to rely heavily on nearby reservists during mobilization, regardless of their original unit. The solution to this issue has involved a complex and artificial system of transferring officers and soldiers between units at regular intervals during peacetime, but this is just a temporary fix, and there are other significant challenges that need to be addressed. Consequently, in Italy, the universal service system, while likely the best arrangement for both the army and the nation, operates with considerable friction. "Army Reform" has therefore been a major focus in recent years due to the growing distance from Austria (which can mobilize much more quickly), but financial challenges have so far prevented any radical and significant reforms. Even the proposals from the 1907 Commission, mentioned below, have only been partially implemented.

The law of 1875 therefore still regulates the principles of military service in Italy, though an important modification was made in 1907-1908. By this law, every man liable and accepted for service served for eight or nine years on the Active Army and its Reserve (of which three to five were spent with the colours), four or five in the Mobile Militia, and the rest of the service period of nineteen years in the Territorial Militia. Under present regulations the term of liability is divided into nine years in the Active Army and Reserve (three or two years with the colours) four in the Mobile Militia and six in the Territorial Militia. But these figures do not represent the actual service of every able-bodied Italian. Like almost all “Universal Service” countries, Italy only drafts a small proportion of the available recruits into the army.

The law of 1875 still governs the principles of military service in Italy, although a significant change was made in 1907-1908. According to this law, every man who is eligible and accepted for service spends eight or nine years in the Active Army and its Reserve (with three to five years spent on active duty), four or five years in the Mobile Militia, and the remaining time in the Territorial Militia, totaling nineteen years. Under the current regulations, the service period is divided into nine years in the Active Army and Reserve (with three or two years of active duty), four years in the Mobile Militia, and six years in the Territorial Militia. However, these numbers do not reflect the actual service of every able-bodied Italian. Like many other countries with “Universal Service,” Italy only enlists a small percentage of eligible recruits into the army.

The following table shows the operation of the law of 1875, with the figures of 1871 for comparison:—

The following table shows how the law of 1875 worked, with the figures from 1871 for comparison:—

  30th Sept. 30th June.
1871. 1881. 1891. 1901.
Officers* 14,070 22,482 36,739 36,718
Men 521,969 1,833,554 2,821,367 3,330,202
Acting Army & Reserve 536,039 731,149 843,160 734,401
Mobile Militia .. 294,714 445,315 320,170
Territorial Militia .. 823,970 1,553,784 2,275,631
* Including officers on special service or in the reserve.

Thus, on the 30th of September 1871 the various categories of the army included only 2% of the population, but on the 30th of June 1898 they included 10%. But in 1901 the strength of the active army and reserve shows a marked diminution, which became accentuated in the year following. The table below indicates that up to 1907 the army, though always below its nominal strength, never absorbed more than a quarter of the available contingent.

Thus, on September 30, 1871, the different categories of the army made up only 2% of the population, but by June 30, 1898, they made up 10%. However, in 1901, the number of active and reserve army members showed a significant decline, which became more pronounced the following year. The table below indicates that up to 1907, the army, although always below its nominal strength, never constituted more than a quarter of the available contingent.

  1902. 1903. 1904. 1906.
Liable 441,171 453,640 469,860 475,737
Physically unfit 91,176 98,065 119,070 122,559
Struck off 12,270 13,189 13,130 18,222
Failed to appear 33,634 34,711 39,219 0,226
Put back for re-examination 108,835 108,618 107,173 122,205
Assigned to Territorial Militia
 and excused peace service
92,952 96,916 94,136 87,032
Assigned to active army 102,204 102,141 97,132 87,493
|Joined active army 88,666 86,448 81,581 66,836

The serious condition of recruiting was quickly noticed, and the tabulation of each year’s results was followed by a new draft law, but no solution was achieved until a special commission assembled. The inquiries made by this body revealed an unsatisfactory condition in the national defences, traceable in the main to financial exigencies, and as regards recruiting a new law was brought into force in 1907-1908.

The serious state of recruitment was quickly recognized, and the results of each year's data were followed by a new draft law, but no solution was found until a special commission was formed. The investigations conducted by this body uncovered inadequate conditions in the national defenses, mainly due to financial pressures, and regarding recruitment, a new law was implemented in 1907-1908.

One specially difficult point concerned the effectives of the peace-strength army. Hitherto the actual time of training had been less than the nominal. The recruits due to join in November were not incorporated till the following March, and thus in the winter months Italy was defenceless. The army is always maintained at a low peace effective (about one-quarter of war establishment) and even this was reduced, by the absence of the recruits, until there were often only 15 rank and file with a company, whose war strength is about 230. Even in the summer and autumn a large proportion of the army consisted of men with but a few months’ service—a highly dangerous state of things considering the peculiar mobilization conditions of the country. Further—and this case no legislation can cover—the contingent, and (what is more serious) the reserves, are being steadily weakened by emigration. The increase in the numbers rejected as unfit is accounted for by the fact that if only a small proportion of the contingent can be taken for service, the medical standard of acceptance is high.

One particularly difficult issue was the effectiveness of the peacetime army. Until now, the actual training time had been less than what was officially stated. The recruits scheduled to join in November weren't incorporated until the following March, leaving Italy defenseless during the winter months. The army is usually kept at a low peacetime strength (about one-quarter of the wartime establishment), and this was further reduced by the lack of recruits, often resulting in only 15 soldiers in a company that should have around 230. Even in the summer and fall, a large portion of the army consisted of men with just a few months of service—an extremely risky situation given the unique mobilization requirements of the country. Additionally—and this cannot be solved through legislation—the number of active soldiers and, more critically, the reserves, are being steadily reduced due to emigration. The rise in the number of recruits deemed unfit is due to the fact that if only a small percentage of the recruits can be accepted for service, the medical standards for acceptance are high.

The new recruiting scheme of 1907 re-established three categories of recruits,4 the 2nd category corresponding practically to the German Ersatz-Reserve. The men classed in it have to train for six months, and they are called up in the late summer to bridge the gap above mentioned. The new terms of service for the other categories have been already stated. In consequence, in 1908, of 490,000 liable, some 110,000 actually joined for full training and 24,000 of the new 2nd category for short training, which contrasts very forcibly with the feeble embodiments of 1906 and 1907. These changes threw a considerable strain on the finances, but the imminence of the danger caused their acceptance.

The new recruiting system of 1907 reintroduced three categories of recruits, with the 2nd category being nearly equivalent to the German Ersatz-Reserve. Men in this category need to train for six months and are called up in late summer to fill the previously mentioned gap. The updated terms of service for the other categories have already been outlined. As a result, in 1908, out of 490,000 people eligible, around 110,000 actually enlisted for full training and 24,000 from the new 2nd category for short training, which is a stark contrast to the weak numbers from 1906 and 1907. These changes put significant pressure on the finances, but the urgency of the situation led to their acceptance.

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

The peacekeeping force under the new plan is officially 300,000 but averages about 240,000 throughout the year. The army is organized into 12 corps (each consisting of 2 divisions), with 6 based in the plains of Lombardy and Venetia and along the borders, and 2 more in northern Central Italy. Their headquarters are: I. Turin, II. Alessandria, III. Milan, IV. Genoa, V. Verona, VI. Bologna, VII. Ancona, VIII. Florence, IX. Rome, X. Naples, XI. Bari, XII. Palermo, Sardinian division Cagliari. Additionally, there are 22 “Alpini” battalions and 15 mountain batteries stationed along the Alpine borders.

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

The war strength was estimated in 1901 as, Active Army (including Reserve) 750,000, Mobile Militia 320,000, Territorial Militia 2,300,000 (with over half of the last group untrained). These figures, with a slight increase in the Regular Army, are still relevant today. However, when the 1907 plan is fully implemented, the Active Army and Mobile Militia will each be increased by about one-third. By 1915, the field army should, including officers and permanent cadres, be around 1,012,000 strong. The Mobile Militia, however, will not yet have experienced the effects of the plan, and the Territorial Militia (taking into account the impact of emigration against the growing population) will likely stay at about the same level as in 1901.

The army consists of 96 three-battalion regiments of infantry of the line and 12 of bersaglieri (riflemen), each of the latter having a cyclist company (Bersaglieri cyclist battalions are being (1909) provisionally formed); 26 regiments of cavalry, of which 10 are lancers, each of 6 squadrons; 24 regiments of artillery, each of 8 batteries;5 1 regiment of horse artillery of 6 batteries; 1 of mountain artillery of 12 batteries, and 3 independent mountain batteries. The armament of the infantry is the Männlicher-Carcano magazine rifle of 1891. The field and horse artillery was in 1909 in process of rearmament with a Krupp quick-firer. The garrison artillery consists of 3 coast and 3 fortress regiments, with a total of 72 companies. There are 4 regiments (11 battalions) of engineers. The carabinieri or gendarmerie, some 26,500 in number, are part of the standing army; they are recruited from selected volunteers from the army. In 1902 the special corps in Eritrea numbered about 4700 of all ranks, including nearly 4000 natives.

The army is made up of 96 three-battalion infantry regiments and 12 bersaglieri (riflemen) regiments, each of which has a cyclist company (Bersaglieri cyclist battalions are being provisionally formed as of 1909); 26 cavalry regiments, with 10 of them being lancers, each consisting of 6 squadrons; 24 artillery regiments, each with 8 batteries; 1 horse artillery regiment with 6 batteries; 1 mountain artillery regiment with 12 batteries, and 3 independent mountain batteries. Infantry troops are armed with the Männlicher-Carcano magazine rifle from 1891. As of 1909, field and horse artillery were being rearmed with a Krupp quick-firer. Garrison artillery consists of 3 coast and 3 fortress regiments, totaling 72 companies. There are 4 engineer regiments (11 battalions). The carabinieri, or gendarmerie, number around 26,500 and are part of the standing army, recruited from selected volunteers from the army. In 1902, the special corps in Eritrea included about 4,700 personnel of all ranks, nearly 4,000 of whom were natives.

Ordinary and extraordinary military expenditure for the financial year 1898-1899 amounted to nearly £10,000,000, an increase of £4,000,000 as compared with 1871. The Italian Chamber decided that from the 1st of July 1901 until the 30th of June 1907 Italian military expenditure proper should not exceed the maximum of £9,560,000 per annum fixed by the Army Bill of May 1897, and that military pensions should not exceed £1,440,000. Italian military expenditure was thus until 1907 £11,000,000 per annum. In 1908 the ordinary and extraordinary expenditure was £10,000,000. The demands of the Commission were only partly complied with, but a large special grant was voted amounting to at least £1,000,000 per annum for the next seven years. The amount spent is slight compared with the military expenditure of other countries.

Ordinary and extraordinary military spending for the financial year 1898-1899 totaled nearly £10,000,000, which is an increase of £4,000,000 compared to 1871. The Italian Chamber decided that from July 1, 1901, to June 30, 1907, Italian military spending should not exceed the maximum of £9,560,000 per year set by the Army Bill of May 1897, and that military pensions should not exceed £1,440,000. Therefore, Italian military expenditure was capped at £11,000,000 per year until 1907. In 1908, the ordinary and extraordinary expenditure was £10,000,000. The Commission's demands were only partially met, but a significant special grant of at least £1,000,000 per year was approved for the next seven years. The total amount spent is relatively small compared to the military expenditures of other countries.

The Alpine frontier is fortified strongly, although the condition of the works was in many cases considered unsatisfactory by the 1907 Commission. The fortresses in the basin of the Po chiefly belong to the era of divided Italy and are now out of date; the chief coast fortresses are Vado, Genoa, Spezia, Monte Argentaro, Gaeta, Straits of Messina, Taranto, Maddalena. Rome is protected by a circle of forts from a coup de main from the sea, the coast, only 12 m. off, being flat and deserted.

The Alpine border is heavily fortified, although the 1907 Commission found that many of the defenses were not in great shape. The fortresses in the Po Valley mostly date back to the time of a divided Italy and are now outdated; the main coastal fortresses are Vado, Genoa, Spezia, Monte Argentario, Gaeta, the Straits of Messina, Taranto, and Maddalena. Rome is safeguarded by a ring of forts against a sudden attack from the sea, with the shoreline just 12 miles away being flat and uninhabited.

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

Navy.—For the organization of the navy, the Italian coast is divided into three maritime departments, with headquarters in Spezia, Naples, and Venice; and into two comandi militari, with headquarters in Taranto and on the island of Maddalena. The personnel of the navy includes the following branches: (1) General staff; (2) naval engineers, primarily responsible for building and repairing warships; (3) sanitary corps; (4) commissariat corps, for supplies and accounting; (5) crews.

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

The matériel of the Italian navy has been completely transformed, especially due to the bill passed on March 31, 1875. Old types of vessels have been sold or demolished and replaced with newer ones.

22

22

In March 1907 the Italian navy contained, excluding ships of no fighting value:—

In March 1907, the Italian navy included, excluding non-combat ships:—

  Effective. Completing. Projected.
Modern battleships  4 4  3
Old battleships 10 .. ..
Armoured cruisers  6 2 ..
Protected cruisers 14 .. ..
Torpedo gunboats 13 .. ..
Destroyers 13 4 10
Modern torpedo boats 34 .. 15
Submarines  1 4  2

The four modern ships—the “Vittorio Emanuele” class, laid down in 1897—have a tonnage of 12,625, two 12-in. and twelve 8-in. guns, an I.H.P. of 19,000, and a designed speed of 22 knots, being intended to avoid any battleship and to carry enough guns to destroy any cruiser.

The four modern ships—the “Vittorio Emanuele” class, built in 1897—have a tonnage of 12,625, two 12-inch guns, and twelve 8-inch guns, with a horsepower of 19,000 and a top speed of 22 knots. They are designed to evade battleships and possess enough firepower to take out any cruiser.

The personnel on active service consisted of 1799 officers and 25,000 men, the former being doubled and the latter trebled since 1882.

The personnel on active duty included 1,799 officers and 25,000 soldiers, with the number of officers doubling and the number of soldiers tripling since 1882.

Naval expenditure has enormously increased since 1871, the total for 1871 having been about £900,000, and the total for 1905-1906 over £5,100,000. Violent fluctuations have, however, taken place from year to year, according to the state of Italian finances. To permit the steady execution of a normal programme of shipbuilding, the Italian Chamber, in May 1901, adopted a resolution limiting naval expenditure, inclusive of naval pensions and of premiums on mercantile shipbuilding, to the sum of £4,840,000 for the following six years, i.e. from 1st July 1901 until 30th June 1907. This sum consists of £4,240,000 of naval expenditure proper, £220,000 for naval pensions and £380,000 for premiums upon mercantile shipbuilding. During the financial year ending on the 30th of June 1901 these figures were slightly exceeded.

Naval spending has significantly increased since 1871, with the total for that year being around £900,000 and the total for 1905-1906 exceeding £5,100,000. However, there have been wild fluctuations from year to year, depending on the state of Italian finances. To allow for a consistent execution of a regular shipbuilding program, the Italian Chamber, in May 1901, passed a resolution capping naval expenditure, including naval pensions and subsidies for commercial shipbuilding, at £4,840,000 for the next six years, i.e. from July 1, 1901, to June 30, 1907. This amount is made up of £4,240,000 for naval spending itself, £220,000 for naval pensions, and £380,000 for subsidies on commercial shipbuilding. During the financial year ending June 30, 1901, these amounts were slightly exceeded.

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

Finance.—The size of the Italian budget has significantly grown in terms of both income and spending. Income of £60,741,418 in 1881 increased to £69,917,126 in 1899-1900; meanwhile, spending rose from £58,705,929 in 1881 to £69,708,706 in 1899-1900, leading to a rise of £9,175,708 in income and £11,002,777 in expenditure. There has been an even greater increase since then, with the figures for 1905-1906 showing (excluding items that appear on both sides of the account) an increase of £8,766,995 in income and £5,434,560 in expenditure compared to 1899-1900. These figures include not only the categories of “income and expenditure” itself but also those labeled as “movement of capital,” “railway constructions,” and “partite di giro,” which do not represent true income and expenditure. 6 If we only consider proper income and expenditure, the approximate totals are:—

Financial Year. Revenue. Expenditure. Surpluses or
Deficits.
1882 £52,064,800 £51,904,800 £+  160,000
1885-1886 56,364,000 57,304,400 −  940,000
1890-1891 61,600,000 64,601,600 −3,001,600
1895-1896 65,344,000 67,962,800 −2,618,800
1898-1899 66,352,800 65,046,400 +1,306,400
1899-1900 66,860,800 65,323,600 +1,537,200
1900-1901 68,829,200 66,094,400 +2,734,800
1905-1906 77,684,100 75,143,300 +2,540,900

The financial year 1862 closed with a deficit of more than £16,000,000, which increased in 1866 to £28,840,000 on account of the preparations for the war against Austria. Excepting the increases of deficit in 1868 and 1870, the annual deficits tended thenceforward to decrease, until in 1875 equilibrium between expenditure and revenue was attained, and was maintained until 1881. Advantage was taken of the equilibrium to abolish certain imposts, amongst them the grist tax, which prior to its gradual repeal produced more than £3,200,000 a year. From 1885-1886 onwards, outlay on public works, military and colonial expenditure, and especially the commercial and financial crises, contributed to produce annual deficits; but owing to drastic reforms introduced in 1894-1895 and to careful management the year 1898-1899 marked a return of surpluses (nearly £1,306,400).

The financial year of 1862 ended with a deficit of over £16,000,000, which grew to £28,840,000 in 1866 due to the preparations for the war against Austria. Except for the increases in deficits in 1868 and 1870, the annual deficits gradually decreased from that point on, and by 1875, a balance between spending and revenue was achieved, which was maintained until 1881. This balance was used as an opportunity to eliminate certain taxes, including the grist tax, which had previously generated more than £3,200,000 a year before its gradual repeal. From 1885-1886 onward, spending on public works, military and colonial expenses, and especially the commercial and financial crises led to annual deficits; however, thanks to significant reforms implemented in 1894-1895 and careful management, the year 1898-1899 marked a return to surpluses (nearly £1,306,400).

The revenue in the Italian financial year 1905-1906 (July 1, 1905 to June 30, 1906) was £102,486,108, and the expenditure £99,945,253, or, subtracting the partite di giro, £99,684,121 and £97,143,266, leaving a surplus of £2,540,855.7 The surplus was made up by contributions from every branch of the effective revenue, except the “contributions and repayments from local authorities.” The railways showed an increase of £351,685; registration transfer and succession, £295,560; direct taxation, £42,136 (mainly from income tax, which more than made up for the remission of the house tax in the districts of Calabria visited by the earthquake of 1906); customs and excise, £1,036,742; government monopolies, £291,027; posts, £41,310; telegraphs, £23,364; telephones, £65,771. Of the surplus £1,000,000 was allocated to the improvement of posts, telegraphs and telephones; £1,000,000 to public works (£720,000 for harbour improvement and £280,000 for internal navigation); £200,000 to the navy (£132,000 for a second dry dock at Taranto and £68,000 for coal purchase); and £200,000 as a nucleus of a fund for the purchase of valuable works of art which are in danger of exportation.

The revenue in Italy for the fiscal year 1905-1906 (July 1, 1905, to June 30, 1906) was £102,486,108, and the expenditure was £99,945,253, or, after subtracting the partite di giro, £99,684,121 and £97,143,266, resulting in a surplus of £2,540,855.7The surplus came from contributions across all areas of effective revenue except for “contributions and repayments from local authorities.” The railways saw an increase of £351,685; registration transfer and succession fees contributed £295,560; direct taxation added £42,136 (primarily from income tax, which compensated for the reduction in house tax in the earthquake-stricken areas of Calabria in 1906); customs and excise generated £1,036,742; government monopolies contributed £291,027; posts added £41,310; telegraphs brought in £23,364; and telephones accounted for £65,771. From the surplus, £1,000,000 was designated for the enhancement of posts, telegraphs, and telephones; £1,000,000 was allocated for public works (£720,000 for harbor improvements and £280,000 for internal navigation); £200,000 was set aside for the navy (£132,000 for a second dry dock in Taranto and £68,000 for coal purchases); and £200,000 was earmarked as the start of a fund to acquire valuable artworks at risk of being exported.

The state therefore draws its principal revenues from the imposts, the taxes and the monopolies. According to the Italian tributary system, “imposts,” properly so called are those upon land, buildings and personal estate. The impost upon land is Taxation. based upon the cadastral survey independently of the vicissitudes of harvests. In 1869 the main quota to the impost was increased by one-tenth, in addition to the extra two-tenths previously imposed in 1866. Subsequently, it was decided to repeal these additional tenths, the first being abolished in 1886 and the rest in 1887. On account of the inequalities still existing in the cadastral survey, in spite of the law of 1886 (see Agriculture, above), great differences are found in the land tax assessments in various parts of Italy. Land is not so heavily burdened by the government quota as by the additional centimes imposed by the provincial and communal authorities. On an average Italian landowners pay nearly 25% of their revenues from land in government and local land tax. The buildings impost has been assessed since 1866 upon the basis of 12.50% of “taxable revenue.” Taxable revenue corresponds to two-thirds of actual income from factories and to three-fourths of actual income from houses; it is ascertained by the agents of the financial administration. In 1869, however, a third additional tenth was added to the previously existing additional two-tenths, and, unlike the tenths of the land tax, they have not been abolished. At present the main quota with the additional three-tenths amounts to 16.25% of taxable income. The imposts on incomes from personal estate (ricchezza mobile) were introduced in 1866; it applies to incomes derived from investments, industry or personal enterprise, but not to landed revenues. It is proportional, and is collected by deduction from salaries and pensions paid to servants of the state, where it is assessed on three-eighths of the income, and from interest on consolidated stock, where it is assessed on the whole amount; and by register in the cases of private individuals, who pay on three-fourths of their income, professional men, capitalists or manufacturers, who pay on one-half or nine-twentieths of their income. From 1871 to 1894 it was assessed at 13.20% of taxable income, this quota being formed of 12% main quota and 1.20% as an additional tenth. In 1894 the quota, including the additional tenth, was raised to the uniform level of 20%. One-tenth of the tax is paid to the communes as compensation for revenues made over to the state.

The state primarily collects its revenue from taxes, tariffs, and monopolies. According to the Italian tax system, “imposts” refer to taxes on land, buildings, and personal property. The land tax is based on a cadastral survey and is unaffected by changes in harvests. In 1869, the main rate for this tax was raised by one-tenth, in addition to the extra two-tenths imposed in 1866. Later, it was decided to repeal these extra tenths, with the first being removed in 1886 and the others in 1887. Due to ongoing discrepancies in the cadastral survey, despite the 1886 law (see Agriculture, above), significant variations exist in land tax assessments across different regions of Italy. Landowners face a heavier financial burden from additional charges imposed by local and provincial authorities than from the government tax itself. On average, Italian landowners pay about 25% of their land revenue in government and local land taxes. The building tax has been based since 1866 on 12.50% of “taxable revenue.” Taxable revenue is calculated as two-thirds of actual income from factories and three-fourths of actual income from houses, as determined by financial administration agents. In 1869, a third additional tenth was added to the existing two-tenths, and unlike the land tax tenths, these have not been removed. Currently, the main rate with the additional three-tenths totals 16.25% of taxable income. The tax on income from personal property (ricchezza mobile) was introduced in 1866; it applies to income from investments, industry, or personal enterprises but not to land income. This tax is proportional and is collected by withholding from state employees' salaries and pensions, where it is applied to three-eighths of the income, and from interest on consolidated stocks, where it is applied to the full amount; it's also collected via registration for individuals who pay on three-fourths of their income, while professionals, capitalists, or manufacturers pay on half or nine-twentieths of their income. From 1871 to 1894, this tax was set at 13.20% of taxable income, comprised of a 12% main rate and an additional tenth of 1.20%. In 1894, the total tax, including the additional tenth, was increased to a uniform 20%. One-tenth of this tax is paid to local governments as compensation for the revenues they have surrendered to the state.

Taxes proper are divided into (a) taxes on business transactions and (b) taxes on articles of consumption. The former apply principally to successions, stamps, registrations, mortgages, &c.; the latter to distilleries, breweries, explosives, native sugar and matches, though the customs revenue and octrois upon articles of general consumption, such as corn, wine, spirits, meat, flour, petroleum, butter, tea, coffee and sugar, may be considered as belonging to this class. The monopolies are those of salt, tobacco and the lottery.

Taxes are basically split into (a) taxes on business transactions and (b) taxes on goods we consume. The first category mainly includes things like inheritance taxes, stamp duties, registration fees, mortgages, etc.; while the second covers industries like distilleries, breweries, explosives, local sugar, and matches. Additionally, customs duties and taxes on commonly consumed items like corn, wine, spirits, meat, flour, oil, butter, tea, coffee, and sugar can be included here. The monopolies consist of salt, tobacco, and lotteries.

Since 1880, while income from the salt and lotto monopolies has remained almost stationary, and that from land tax and octroi has diminished, revenue derived from all other sources has notably increased, especially that from the income tax on personal estate, and the customs, the yield from which has been nearly doubled.

Since 1880, while income from the salt and lottery monopolies has stayed relatively the same, and revenue from land tax and octroi has decreased, income from all other sources has significantly risen, especially from the income tax on personal estates and customs, which has nearly doubled.

It will be seen that the revenue is swollen by a large number of taxes which can only be justified by necessity; the reduction and, still more, the readjustment of taxation (which now largely falls on articles of primary necessity) is urgently needed. The government in presenting the estimates for 1907-1908 proposed to set aside a sum of nearly £800,000 every year for this express purpose. It must be remembered that the sums realized by the octroi go in the main to the various communes. It is only in Rome and Naples that the octroi is collected directly by the government, which pays over a certain proportion to the respective communes.

It will be clear that the revenue is inflated by many taxes that can only be justified by necessity; there is an urgent need to reduce and, even more, to reorganize taxation (which currently mainly affects essential goods). When presenting the budget estimates for 1907-1908, the government proposed to set aside nearly £800,000 each year for this specific purpose. It's important to remember that the money collected by the octroi primarily goes to the various local governments. Only in Rome and Naples is the octroi collected directly by the government, which then allocates a certain percentage to the respective local authorities.

The external taxation is not only strongly protectionist, but is 23 applied to goods which cannot be made in Italy; hardly anything comes in duty free, even such articles as second-hand furniture paying duty, unless within six months of the date at which the importer has declared domicile in Italy. The application, too, is somewhat rigorous, e.g. the tax on electric light is applied to foreign ships generating their own electricity while lying in Italian ports.

The external taxation is not only highly protectionist, but is 23 imposed on goods that can't be produced in Italy; hardly anything comes in without a duty, even items like second-hand furniture are taxed unless they arrive within six months of the importer establishing residency in Italy. The enforcement is also quite strict, for example, the tax on electricity applies to foreign ships generating their own power while docked in Italian ports.

The annual consumption per inhabitant of certain kinds of food and drink has considerably increased, e.g. grain from 270 ℔ per head in 1884-1885 to 321 ℔ in 1901-1902 (maize remains almost stationary at 158 ℔); wine from 73 to 125 litres per head; oil from 12 to 13 ℔ per head (sugar is almost stationary at 7¼ ℔ per head, and coffee at about 1 ℔); salt from 14 to 16 ℔ per head. Tobacco slightly diminished in weight at a little over 1 ℔ per head, while the gross receipts are considerably increased—by over 2¼ millions sterling since 1884-1885—showing that the quality consumed is much better. The annual expenditure on tobacco was 5s. per inhabitant in 1902-1903, and is increasing.

The yearly consumption of certain types of food and drink per person has significantly gone up, for example, grain increased from 270 lbs per person in 1884-1885 to 321 lbs in 1901-1902 (maize stayed about the same at 158 lbs); wine rose from 73 to 125 liters per person; oil went from 12 to 13 lbs per person (sugar remained nearly unchanged at 7¼ lbs per person, and coffee stayed around 1 lb); salt increased from 14 to 16 lbs per person. Tobacco saw a slight decrease in weight to just over 1 lb per person, but overall revenue has increased significantly—by over £2.25 million since 1884-1885—indicating that the quality being consumed is much better. The annual spending on tobacco was 5 shillings per person in 1902-1903, and it’s on the rise.

The annual surpluses are largely accounted for by the heavy taxation on almost everything imported into the country,8 and by the monopolies on tobacco and on salt; and are as a rule spent, and well spent, in other ways. Thus, that of 1907-1908 was devoted mainly to raising the salaries of government officials and university professors; even then the maximum for both (in the former class, for an under-secretary of state) was only £500 per annum. The case is frequent, too, in which a project is sanctioned by law, but is then not carried into execution, or only partly so, owing to the lack of funds. Additional stamp duties and taxes were imposed in 1909 to meet the expenditure necessitated by the disastrous earthquake at the end of 1908.

The annual surpluses mostly come from the high taxes on nearly everything imported into the country, 8 and from the monopolies on tobacco and salt; generally, they are spent, and spent wisely, in other ways. For example, the surplus of 1907-1908 was mainly used to increase the salaries of government officials and university professors; even then, the highest salary for both (for an under-secretary of state in the former group) was only £500 per year. It's also common for a project to be approved by law but then not fully carried out, or only partially done, due to a lack of funds. In 1909, extra stamp duties and taxes were added to cover the expenses caused by the devastating earthquake at the end of 1908.

The way in which the taxes press on the poor may be shown by the number of small proprietors sold up owing to inability to pay the land and other taxes. In 1882 the number of landed proprietors was 14.52% of the population, in 1902 only 12.66, with an actual diminution of some 30,000. Had the percentage of 1882 been kept up there would have been in 1902 600,000 more proprietors than there were. Between 1884 and 1902 no fewer than 220,616 sales were effected for failure to pay taxes, while, from 1886 to 1902, 79,208 expropriations were effected for other debts not due to the state. In 1884 there were 20,422 sales, of which 35.28% were for debts of 4s. or less, and 51.95 for debts between 4s. and £2; in 1902 there were 4857 sales, but only 11.01% for debts under 4s. (the treasury having given up proceeding in cases where the property is a tiny piece of ground, sometimes hardly capable of cultivation), and 55.69% for debts between 4s. and £2. The expropriations deal as a rule with properties of higher value; of these there were 3217 in 1886, 5993 in 1892 (a period of agricultural depression), 3910 in 1902. About 22% of them are for debts under £40, about 49% from £40 to £200, about 26% from £200 to £2000.

The impact of taxes on the poor can be seen in the number of small property owners who lost their land due to an inability to pay land and other taxes. In 1882, 14.52% of the population were landowners; by 1902, that number had dropped to 12.66%, which corresponds to a loss of around 30,000 landowners. If the percentage from 1882 had been maintained, there would have been an additional 600,000 landowners in 1902. Between 1884 and 1902, 220,616 properties were sold due to unpaid taxes, and from 1886 to 1902, there were 79,208 expropriations for other debts unrelated to the state. In 1884, there were 20,422 sales, with 35.28% for debts of 4 shillings or less and 51.95% for debts between 4 shillings and £2; in 1902, there were 4,857 sales, with only 11.01% for debts under 4 shillings (the treasury had stopped pursuing cases where the property was a small plot of land, often barely cultivatable), and 55.69% for debts between 4 shillings and £2. The expropriations usually involve more valuable properties; there were 3,217 in 1886, 5,993 in 1892 (during a time of agricultural depression), and 3,910 in 1902. About 22% of these were for debts under £40, around 49% were for debts between £40 and £200, and about 26% were for debts between £200 and £2,000.

Of the expenditure a large amount is absorbed by interest on debt. Expenditure. Debt has continually increased with the development of the state. The sum paid in interest on debt amounted to £17,640,000 in 1871, £19,440,000 in 1881, £25,600,000 in 1891-1892 and £27,560,000 in 1899-1900; but had been reduced to £23,100,409 by the 30th of June 1906. The public debt at that date was composed as follows:—

A significant portion of spending goes towards paying interest on debt. Spending. Debt has consistently risen as the state has grown. The interest paid on the debt was £17,640,000 in 1871, £19,440,000 in 1881, £25,600,000 in 1891-1892, and £27,560,000 in 1899-1900; however, it had been lowered to £23,100,409 by June 30, 1906. The public debt at that time was made up as follows:—

Part I.—Funded Debt.
Grand Livre— Amount. 
 Consolidated 5% £316,141,802
    ”   3% 6,404,335
    ”   4½% net 28,872,511
    ”   4% net 7,875,592
    ”   3½% net 37,689,880
  —————
Total £396,984,120
Debts to be transferred to the Grand Livre 60,868
Perpetual annuity to the Holy See 2,580,000
Perpetual debts (Modena, Sicily, Naples) 2,591,807
Total £402,216,795
  —————
Part II.—Unfunded Debt.
Debts separately inscribed in the Grand Livre 10,042,027
Various railway obligations, redeemable, &c. 56,375,351
Sicilian indemnities 195,348
Capital value of annual payment to South Austrian Company 37,102,908
Long date Treasury warrants, law of July 7, 1901 1,416,200
Railway certificates (3.65% net), Art. 6 of law, June 25, 1905, No. 261 14,220,000
  —————
Total £119,351,834
Part I. £402,216,795
  —————
    Grand Total £521,568,629

The debt per head of population was, in 1905, £14, 16s. 3d., and the interest 13s. 5d.

The debt per person in 1905 was £14.81, and the interest was £0.67.

In July 1906 the 5% gross (4% net), and 4% net rente were successfully converted into 3¾% stock (to be reduced to 3½% after five years), to a total amount of £324,017,393. The demands for reimbursement at par represented a sum of only £187,588 and the market value of the stock was hardly affected; while the saving to the Treasury was to be £800,000 per annum for the first five years and about double the amount afterwards.

In July 1906, the 5% gross (4% net) and 4% net interest were successfully converted into 3¾% stock (which will drop to 3½% after five years), totaling £324,017,393. The requests for reimbursement at par were only £187,588, and the market value of the stock was hardly impacted; meanwhile, the savings for the Treasury were projected to be £800,000 per year for the first five years and about double that amount afterward.

Currency.—The lira (plural lire) of 100 centesimi (centimes) is equal in value to the French franc. The total coinage (exclusive of Eritrean currency) from the 1st of January 1862 to the end of 1907 was 1,104,667,116 lire (exclusive of recoinage), divided as follows: gold, 427,516,970 lire; silver, 570,097,025 lire; nickel, 23,417,000 lire; bronze, 83,636,121 lire. The forced paper currency, instituted in 1866, was abolished in 1881, in which year were dissolved the Union of Banks of Issue created in 1874 to furnish to the state treasury a milliard of lire in notes, guaranteed collectively by the banks. Part of the Union notes were redeemed, part replaced by 10 lire and 5 lire state notes, payable at sight in metallic legal tender by certain state banks. Nevertheless the law of 1881 did not succeed in maintaining the value of the state notes at a par with the metallic currency, and from 1885 onwards there reappeared a gold premium, which during 1899 and 1900 remained at about 7%, but subsequently fell to about 3% and has since 1902 practically disappeared. The paper circulation to the debit of the state and the paper currency issued by the authorized state banks is shown below:—

Currency.—The lira (plural lire) of 100 centesimi (centimes) is equal in value to the French franc. The total coinage (excluding Eritrean currency) from January 1, 1862, to the end of 1907 was 1,104,667,116 lire (not counting recoinage), broken down as follows: gold, 427,516,970 lire; silver, 570,097,025 lire; nickel, 23,417,000 lire; bronze, 83,636,121 lire. The forced paper currency, introduced in 1866, was abolished in 1881, the same year the Union of Banks of Issue, created in 1874 to provide the state treasury with a billion lire in notes guaranteed collectively by the banks, was dissolved. Some of the Union notes were redeemed, while others were replaced by 10 lire and 5 lire state notes, which were payable on demand in metal legal tender by certain state banks. However, the law of 1881 did not manage to keep the value of the state notes at par with the metallic currency, and starting in 1885, a gold premium reappeared, remaining around 7% during 1899 and 1900 but subsequently dropping to about 3% and nearly disappearing since 1902. The paper circulation owed by the state and the paper currency issued by the authorized state banks is shown below:—

Date. Direct Liability of State. Notes issued
by State
Banks.
Aggregate
Paper
Currency.
State Notes. Bons de
Caisse.*
    Lire. Lire. Lire. Lire.
31st December 1881 940,000,000 .. 735,579,197 1,675,579,197
1886 446,665,535 .. 1,031,869,712 1,478,535,247
1891 341,949,237 .. 1,121,601,079 1,463,550,316
1896 400,000,000 110,000,000 1,069,233,376 1,579,233,376
1899 451,431,780 42,138,152 1,180,110,330 1,673,680,262
1905 441,304,780 1,874,184 1,406,474,800 1,848,657,764
* These ceased to have legal currency at the end of 1901; they were notes of 1 and 2 lire.

Banks.—Until 1893 the juridical status of the Banks of Issue was regulated by the laws of the 30th of April 1874 on paper currency and of the 7th of April 1881 on the abolition of forced currency. At that time four limited companies were authorized to issue bank notes, namely, the National Bank, the National Bank of Tuscany, the Roman Bank and the Tuscan Credit Bank; and two banking corporations, the Bank of Naples and the Bank of Sicily. In 1893 the Roman Bank was put into liquidation, and the other three limited companies were fused, so as to create the Bank of Italy, the privilege of issuing bank notes being thenceforward confined to the Bank of Italy, the Bank of Naples and the Bank of Sicily. The gold reserve in the possession of the Banca d’Italia on September 30th 1907 amounted to £32,240,984, and the silver reserve to £4,767,861; the foreign treasury bonds, &c. amounted to £3,324,074, making the total reserve £40,332,919; while the circulation amounted to £54,612,234. The figures were on the 31st of December 1906:

Banks.—Until 1893, the legal status of the Banks of Issue was governed by the laws from April 30, 1874, regarding paper currency, and from April 7, 1881, concerning the abolition of forced currency. At that time, four limited companies were allowed to issue banknotes: the National Bank, the National Bank of Tuscany, the Roman Bank, and the Tuscan Credit Bank; along with two banking corporations, the Bank of Naples and the Bank of Sicily. In 1893, the Roman Bank went into liquidation, and the other three limited companies merged to form the Bank of Italy, which then became the only institution allowed to issue banknotes, alongside the Bank of Naples and the Bank of Sicily. On September 30, 1907, the gold reserve held by the Banca d’Italia was £32,240,984, and the silver reserve was £4,767,861; foreign treasury bonds, etc., totaled £3,324,074, bringing the total reserve to £40,332,919, while the circulation reached £54,612,234. The figures were as of December 31, 1906:

  Paper
Circulation.
Reserve.
Banca d’Italia £47,504,352 £36,979,235
Banca di Napoli 13,893,152 9,756,284
Banca di Sicilia 2,813,692 2,060,481
Total £64,211,196 £48,796,000

This is considerably in excess of the circulation, £40,404,000, fixed by royal decree of 1900; but the issue of additional notes was allowed, provided they were entirely covered by a metallic reserve, whereas up to the fixed limit a 40% reserve only was necessary. These notes are of 50, 100, 500 and 1000 lire; while the state issues notes for 5, 10 and 25 lire, the currency of these at the end of October 1906 being £17,546,967; with a total guarantee of £15,636,000 held against them. They were in January 1908 equal in value to the metallic currency of gold and silver.

This is significantly more than the circulation of £40,404,000 set by royal decree in 1900. However, the issuance of additional notes was permitted as long as they were completely backed by a metallic reserve, while only a 40% reserve was required up to the fixed limit. These notes are available in denominations of 50, 100, 500, and 1000 lire, while the state issues notes for 5, 10, and 25 lire. By the end of October 1906, the currency amount was £17,546,967, with a total guarantee of £15,636,000 held against them. By January 1908, they were equal in value to the metallic currency of gold and silver.

The price of Italian consolidated 5% (gross, 4% net, allowing for the 20% income tax) stock, which is the security most largely negotiated abroad, and used in settling differences between large financial institutions, has steadily risen during recent years. After being depressed between 1885 and 1894, the prices in Italy and abroad reached, in 1899, on the Rome Stock Exchange, the average of 100.83 and of 94.8 on the Paris Bourse. By the end of 1901 the price of Italian stock on the Paris Bourse had, however, risen to par or thereabouts. The average price of Italian 4% in 1905 was 105.29; since the conversion to 3¾% net (to be further reduced to 3½ in five more years), the price has been about 103.5. Rates of exchange, or, in other words the gold premium, favoured Italy during the years immediately following the abolition of the forced currency in 1881. In 1885, however, rates tended to rise, and though they fell in 1886 they subsequently increased to such an extent as to reach 110% at the end of August 1894. For the next four years they continued 24 low, but rose again in 1898 and 1899. In 1900 the maximum rate was 107.32, and the minimum 105.40, but in 1901 rates fell considerably, and were at par in 1902-1909.

The price of Italian consolidated 5% (gross, 4% net, after a 20% income tax) stock, which is the most widely traded security abroad and is used for settling disputes between major financial institutions, has consistently increased in recent years. After being low between 1885 and 1894, prices in Italy and abroad reached an average of 100.83 on the Rome Stock Exchange and 94.8 on the Paris Bourse in 1899. By the end of 1901, the price of Italian stock on the Paris Bourse had risen to around par. The average price of Italian 4% in 1905 was 105.29; after the conversion to 3¾% net (which will be reduced to 3½% in another five years), the price has been about 103.5. Exchange rates, or the gold premium, were favorable for Italy in the years right after the forced currency was abolished in 1881. However, in 1885, rates began to rise, and although they dropped in 1886, they increased again to 110% by the end of August 1894. For the next four years, they remained low, but rose again in 1898 and 1899. In 1900, the maximum rate was 107.32, and the minimum was 105.40, but in 1901, rates fell significantly and were at par from 1902 to 1909.

There are in Italy six clearing houses, namely, the ancient one at Leghorn, and those of Genoa, Milan, Rome, Florence and Turin, founded since 1882.

There are six clearing houses in Italy: the historic one in Leghorn and the ones in Genoa, Milan, Rome, Florence, and Turin, established since 1882.

The number of ordinary banks, which diminished between 1889 and 1894, increased in the following years, and was 158 in 1898. At the same time the capital employed in banking decreased by nearly one-half, namely, from about £12,360,000 in 1880 to about £6,520,000 in 1898. This decrease was due to the liquidation of a number of large and small banks, amongst others the Bank of Genoa, the General Bank, and the Società di Credito Mobiliare Italiano of Rome, and the Genoa Discount Bank—establishments which alone represented £4,840,000 of paid-up capital. Ordinary credit operations are also carried on by the co-operative credit societies, of which there are some 700.

The number of regular banks, which dropped between 1889 and 1894, increased in the following years and reached 158 by 1898. At the same time, the capital used in banking nearly halved, going from around £12,360,000 in 1880 to about £6,520,000 in 1898. This decline was caused by the liquidation of several large and small banks, including the Bank of Genoa, the General Bank, the Società di Credito Mobiliare Italiano of Rome, and the Genoa Discount Bank—these institutions alone accounted for £4,840,000 of paid-up capital. Regular credit operations are also conducted by the co-operative credit societies, of which there are about 700.

Certain banks make a special business of lending money to owners of land or buildings (credito fondiario). Loans are repayable by instalments, and are guaranteed by first mortgages not greater in amount than half the value of the hypothecated Agrarian Credit Banks. property. The banks may buy up mortgages and advance money on current account on the security of land or buildings. The development of the large cities has induced these banks to turn their attention rather to building enterprise than to mortgages on rural property. The value of their land certificates or cartelle fondiarie (representing capital in circulation) rose from £10,420,000 in 1881 to £15,560,000 in 1886, and to £30,720,000 in 1891, but fell to £29,320,000 in 1896, to £27,360,000 in 1898, and to £24,360,000 in 1907; the amount of money lent increased from £10,440,000 in 1881 to £15,600,000 in 1886, and £30,800,000 in 1891, but fell to £29,320,000 in 1896, to £27,360,000 in 1899, and to £21,720,000 in 1907. The diminution was due to the law of the 10th of April 1893 upon the banks of issue, by which they were obliged to liquidate the loan and mortgage business they had previously carried on.

Certain banks focus specifically on lending money to owners of land or buildings (credito fondiario). Loans are paid back in installments and are secured by first mortgages that do not exceed half the value of the property being pledged. The banks can purchase mortgages and provide funds based on the value of the land or buildings. The growth of large cities has prompted these banks to shift their focus toward building projects rather than mortgages on rural properties. The value of their land certificates, or cartelle fondiarie (representing capital in circulation), rose from £10,420,000 in 1881 to £15,560,000 in 1886, and to £30,720,000 in 1891, but then fell to £29,320,000 in 1896, £27,360,000 in 1898, and £24,360,000 in 1907. The total amount of money lent increased from £10,440,000 in 1881 to £15,600,000 in 1886, and £30,800,000 in 1891, but decreased to £29,320,000 in 1896, £27,360,000 in 1899, and £21,720,000 in 1907. The decline was due to the law enacted on April 10, 1893, regarding issuing banks, which required them to wind down the loan and mortgage business they had previously conducted.

Various laws have been passed to facilitate agrarian credit. The law of the 23rd of January 1887 (still in force) extended the dispositions of the Civil Code with regard to “privileges,”9 and established special “privileges” in regard to harvested produce, produce stored in barns and farm buildings, and in regard to agricultural implements. Loans on mortgage may also be granted to landowners and agricultural unions, with a view to the introduction of agricultural improvements. These loans are regulated by special disposition, and are guaranteed by a share of the increased value of the land after the improvements have been carried out. Agrarian credit banks may, with the permission of the government, issue cartelle agrarie, or agrarian bonds, repayable by instalments and bearing interest.

Various laws have been enacted to support agricultural credit. The law from January 23, 1887 (still in effect) expanded the provisions of the Civil Code concerning “privileges” and established specific “privileges” related to harvested crops, produce stored in barns and other farm buildings, and agricultural equipment. Loans secured by mortgages can also be provided to landowners and agricultural associations to encourage agricultural advancements. These loans are governed by special regulations and are backed by a portion of the increased value of the land after the improvements are completed. Agrarian credit banks may, with government approval, issue cartelle agrarie, or agrarian bonds, which are payable in installments and carry interest.

Internal Administration.—It was not till 1865 that the administrative unity of Italy was realized. Up to that year some of the regions of the kingdom, such as Tuscany, continued to have a kind of autonomy; but by the laws of the 20th of March the whole country was divided into 69 provinces and 8545 communes. The extent to which communal independence had been maintained in Italy through all the centuries of its political disintegration was strongly in its favour. The syndic (sindaco) or chief magistrate of the commune was appointed by the king for three years, and he was assisted by a “municipal junta.”

Internal Administration.—It wasn’t until 1865 that Italy achieved administrative unity. Until that year, some regions of the kingdom, like Tuscany, still had a degree of autonomy; however, the laws enacted on March 20 divided the entire country into 69 provinces and 8,545 municipalities. The level of communal independence that had been preserved in Italy throughout its long political disintegration worked strongly in its favor. The syndic (sindaco) or chief magistrate of the municipality was appointed by the king for a term of three years, and he was supported by a “municipal junta.”

Local government was modified by the law of the 10th of February 1889 and by posterior enactments. The syndics (or mayors) are now elected by a secret ballot of the communal council, though they are still government officials. In the provincial administrations the functions of the prefects have been curtailed. Each province has a prefect, responsible to and appointed by the Ministry of the Interior, while each of the regions (called variously circondarii and distretti) has its sub-prefect. Whereas the prefect was formerly ex-officio president of the provincial deputation or executive committee of the provincial council, his duties under the present law are reduced to mere participation in the management of provincial affairs, the president of the provincial deputation being chosen among and elected by the members of the deputation. The most important change introduced by the new law has been the creation in every province of a provincial administrative junta entrusted with the supervision of communal administrations, a function previously discharged by the provincial deputation. Each provincial administrative junta is composed, in part, of government nominees, and in larger part of elective elements, elected by the provincial council for four years, half of whom require to be elected every two years. The acts of communal administration requiring the sanction of the provincial administrative junta are chiefly financial. Both communal councils and prefects may appeal to the government against the decision of the provincial administrative juntas, the government being guided by the opinion of the Council of State. Besides possessing competence in regard to local government elections, which previously came within the jurisdiction of the provincial deputations, the provincial administrative juntas discharge magisterial functions in administrative affairs, and deal with appeals presented by private persons against acts of the communal and provincial administrations. The juntas are in this respect organs of the administrative jurisprudence created in Italy by the law of the 1st of May 1890, in order to provide juridical protection for those rights and interests outside the competence of the ordinary tribunals. The provincial council only meets once a year in ordinary session.

Local government was changed by the law on February 10, 1889, and by later laws. The mayors are now elected through a secret ballot by the communal council, but they are still government officials. In the provincial administrations, the powers of the prefects have been limited. Each province has a prefect who is responsible to and appointed by the Ministry of the Interior, while each region (variously called circondarii and distretti) has its sub-prefect. Previously, the prefect was the ex-officio president of the provincial executive committee, but now their duties are reduced to merely participating in provincial affairs, with the president being elected from among the members of the committee. The most significant change introduced by the new law is the establishment of a provincial administrative junta in each province to oversee communal administrations, a role previously held by the provincial committee. Each provincial administrative junta consists partly of government appointees and mostly of elected members chosen by the provincial council for four years, with half needing to be elected every two years. The communal administration actions that require approval from the provincial administrative junta are mainly financial. Both communal councils and prefects can appeal to the government against the decisions of the provincial administrative juntas, which will consider the opinion of the Council of State. In addition to overseeing local government elections, which were previously under the provincial committees’ jurisdiction, the provincial administrative juntas also have judicial functions in administrative matters and handle appeals made by individuals against actions of the communal and provincial administrations. The juntas serve as part of the administrative legal system established in Italy by the law of May 1, 1890, to protect rights and interests that fall outside ordinary court jurisdiction. The provincial council meets only once a year for its regular session.

The former qualifications for electorship in local government elections have been modified, and it is now sufficient to pay five lire annually in direct taxes, five lire of certain communal taxes, or a certain rental (which varies according to the population of a commune), instead of being obliged to pay, as previously, at least five lire annually of direct taxes to the state. In consequence of this change the number of local electors increased by more than one-third between 1887-1889; it decreased, however, as a result of an extraordinary revision of the registers in 1894. The period for which both communal and provincial councils are elected is six years, one-half being renewed every three years.

The previous requirements for voting in local government elections have been updated, and now it’s enough to pay five lire each year in direct taxes, five lire in certain local taxes, or a specific rental amount (which changes based on the population of a community), rather than having to pay at least five lire in direct taxes to the state each year as before. As a result of this change, the number of local voters increased by over one-third between 1887-1889; however, this number dropped again due to an extraordinary revision of the voter rolls in 1894. The term for which both local and provincial councils are elected is six years, with half being renewed every three years.

The ratio of local electors to population is in Piedmont 79%, but in Sicily less than 45%. The ratio of voters to qualified electors tends to increase; it is highest in Campania, Basilicata and in the south generally; the lowest percentages are given by Emilia and Liguria.

The ratio of local voters to the population in Piedmont is 79%, while in Sicily, it's less than 45%. The ratio of voters to eligible voters tends to rise; it's highest in Campania, Basilicata, and generally in the south; the lowest percentages come from Emilia and Liguria.

Local finance is regulated by the communal and provincial law of May 1898, which instituted provincial administrative juntas, empowered to examine and sanction the acts of the communal financial administrations. The sanction of the Local finance. provincial administrative junta is necessary for sales or purchases of property, alterations of rates (although in case of increase the junta can only act upon request of ratepayers paying an aggregate of one-twentieth of the local direct taxation), and expenditure affecting the communal budget for more than five years. The provincial administrative junta is, moreover, empowered to order “obligatory” expenditure, such as the upkeep of roads, sanitary works, lighting, police (i.e. the so-called “guardie di pubblica sicurezza,” the “carabinieri” being really a military force; only the largest towns maintain a municipal police force), charities, education, &c., in case such expenditure is neglected by the communal authorities. The cost of fire brigades, infant asylums, evening and holiday schools, is classed as “optional” expenditure. Communal revenues are drawn from the proceeds of communal property, interest upon capital, taxes and local dues. The most important of the local dues is the gate tax, or dazio di consumo, which may be either a surtax upon commodities (such as alcoholic drinks or meat), having already paid customs duty at the frontier, in which case the local surtax may not exceed 50% of the frontier duty, or an exclusively communal duty limited to 10% on flour, bread and farinaceous products,10 and to 20% upon other commodities. The taxes thus vary considerably in different towns.

Local finance is governed by the community and provincial law from May 1898, which established provincial administrative boards with the authority to review and approve the actions of local financial administrations. Approval from the provincial administrative board is required for property sales or purchases, changes in rates (though in cases of increases, the board can only intervene if requested by ratepayers who contribute a total of one-twentieth of the local direct taxes), and any budget expenses that affect the community budget for over five years. Additionally, the provincial administrative board can mandate "mandatory" expenses, such as road maintenance, sanitation projects, street lighting, and police services (i.e., the so-called "guardie di pubblica sicurezza," with the "carabinieri" being a military force; only the largest towns have their own police), charities, education, etc., if these responsibilities are neglected by local authorities. The expense for fire departments, child care centers, evening, and holiday schools is considered "optional" spending. Community revenues come from the proceeds of community-owned property, interest on capital, taxes, and local fees. The most significant of the local fees is the gate tax, or dazio di consumo, which can either be a surcharge on goods (like alcoholic beverages or meat) that have already paid customs duty at the border, where the local surcharge cannot exceed 50% of the border duty, or an exclusively local duty capped at 10% on flour, bread, and grain products, and at 20% on other goods. Tax rates can vary significantly between different towns.

In addition, the communes have a right to levy a surtax not exceeding 50% of the quota levied by the state upon lands and buildings; a family tax, or fuocatico, upon the total incomes of families, which, for fiscal purposes, are divided into various categories; a tax based upon the rent-value of houses, and other taxes upon cattle, horses, dogs, carriages and servants; also on licences for shopkeepers, hotel and restaurant keepers, &c.; on the slaughter of animals, stamp duties, one-half of the tax on bicycles, &c. Occasional sources of interest are found in the sale of communal property, the realization of communal credits, and the contraction of debt.

Additionally, the municipalities have the authority to impose a surtax that doesn’t exceed 50% of the amount the state charges on lands and buildings; a family tax, or fuocatico, based on the total incomes of families, which are categorized for tax purposes; a tax based on the rental value of houses, and various taxes on livestock, horses, dogs, carriages, and staff; as well as on licenses for shop owners, hotel and restaurant operators, etc.; on the slaughtering of animals, stamp duties, half of the tax on bicycles, etc. There are also occasional sources of revenue from selling municipal property, collecting municipal debts, and borrowing.

The provincial administrations are entrusted with the management of the affairs of the provinces in general, as distinguished from those of the communes. Their expenditure is likewise classed as “obligatory” and “optional.” The former category comprises the maintenance of provincial roads, bridges and watercourse embankments; secondary education, whenever this is not provided for by private institutions or by the state (elementary education being maintained by the communes), and the maintenance of foundlings and pauper lunatics. “Optional” expenditure includes the cost of services of general public interest, though not strictly indispensable. Provincial revenues are drawn from provincial property, school taxes, tolls and surtaxes on land and buildings. The provincial surtaxes may not exceed 50% of the quotas levied by the state. In 1897 the total provincial revenue was £3,732,253, of which £3,460,000 was obtained from the surtax upon lands and buildings. Expenditure amounted to £3,768,888, of which the principal items were £760,000 for roads and bridges, £520,000 for lunatic asylums, £240,000 for foundling hospitals, £320,000 for interest on debt and £200,000 for police. Like communal revenue, provincial revenue has considerably increased since 1880, principally on account of the increase in the land and building surtax.

The provincial administrations are responsible for managing the overall affairs of the provinces, separate from those of the communes. Their spending is categorized as “obligatory” and “optional.” The “obligatory” category includes the maintenance of provincial roads, bridges, and watercourse embankments; secondary education, unless provided by private institutions or the state (with elementary education maintained by the communes); and the care of foundlings and the mentally ill. “Optional” spending covers costs for general public services that aren't strictly necessary. Provincial revenues come from provincial property, school taxes, tolls, and surtaxes on land and buildings. The provincial surtaxes cannot exceed 50% of the amounts charged by the state. In 1897, total provincial revenue was £3,732,253, with £3,460,000 coming from the surtax on lands and buildings. Expenditure totaled £3,768,888, including £760,000 for roads and bridges, £520,000 for mental health facilities, £240,000 for foundling hospitals, £320,000 for debt interest, and £200,000 for police. Like communal revenue, provincial revenue has significantly increased since 1880, mainly due to the rise in land and building surtaxes.

The Italian local authorities, communes and provinces alike, have considerably increased their indebtedness since 1882. The ratio of communal and provincial debt per inhabitant has grown 25 from 30.79 lire (£1, 4s. 7½d.) to 43.70 lire (£1, 14s. 11d.), an increase due in great part to the need for improved buildings, hygienic reforms and education, but also attributable in part to the manner in which the finances of many communes are administered. The total was in 1900, £49,496,193 for the communes and £6,908,022 for the provinces. The former total is more than double and the latter more than treble the sum in 1873, while there is an increase of 62% in the former and 26% in the latter over the totals for 1882.

The Italian local authorities, both municipalities and provinces, have significantly increased their debt since 1882. The debt per person for municipalities and provinces has grown 25 from 30.79 lire (£1, 4s. 7½d.) to 43.70 lire (£1, 14s. 11d.). This increase is largely due to the need for better buildings, hygienic reforms, and education, but it's also partly because of how many municipalities manage their finances. In 1900, the total was £49,496,193 for municipalities and £6,908,022 for provinces. The former total is more than double and the latter more than triple the amount from 1873, while there's an increase of 62% in the former and 26% in the latter compared to the totals from 1882.

See Annuario statistico italiano (not, however, issued regularly each year) for general statistics; and other official publications; W. Deecke, Italy; a Popular Account of the Country, its People and its Institutions (translated by H. A. Nesbitt, London, 1904); B. King and T. Okey, Italy to-day (London, 1901); E. Nathan, Vent’ Anni di vita italiana attraverso all’ Annuario (Rome, 1906); G. Strafforello, Geografia dell’ Italia (Turin, 1890-1902).

See Annuario statistico italiano (though it isn't published every year) for general statistics, along with other official publications; W. Deecke, Italy; a Popular Account of the Country, its People and its Institutions (translated by H. A. Nesbitt, London, 1904); B. King and T. Okey, Italy today (London, 1901); E. Nathan, Twenty Years of Italian Life through the Annuario (Rome, 1906); G. Strafforello, Geography of Italy (Turin, 1890-1902).

(T. As.)

History

History

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

The challenge of Italian history is that until modern times, Italians had no political unity, no independence, and no organized identity as a nation. Divided into many rival communities, they never fully freed themselves from foreign control over the fourteen centuries since the fall of the old Western empire. It wasn't until recently that they learned to set aside their local and conflicting interests for the greater good of a unified Italy. Their history, therefore, isn't the story of a single people coming together through continuous evolution, but rather of a collection of related populations showcasing different types of constitutional development.

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

The early history of Italy can be found under Rome and related headings. This account mainly covers the periods after CE 476, when Romulus Augustulus was overthrown by Odoacer. Before that, there are two sections discussing (A) the ethnic and linguistic divisions of ancient Italy, and (B) the unification of the country under Augustus, the development of the road system, and more. The later history is divided into five periods: (C) From 476 to 1796; (D) From 1796 to 1814; (E) From 1815 to 1870; (F) From 1870 to 1902; (G) From 1902 to 1910.

A. Ancient Languages and Peoples

A. Ancient Languages and Cultures

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

The study of ancient Italy is a complex and challenging topic, and despite the efforts of modern scholars, it remains somewhat unclear. The country’s stunning beauty and fertile land, along with its appealing climate, have drawn waves of invaders from the north even in ancient times. These invaders sometimes displaced the original inhabitants of the most desirable areas, other times forced them into servitude, or settled amongst them until the two groups gradually merged. Ancient writers agree that Italy’s population was diverse and made up of various races. Unfortunately, the traditions they've passed down to us are often inconsistent and contradictory, and the most reliable way to analyze the connections between these groups—by comparing their languages—doesn't really apply, since the languages spoken in Italy around and before the 5th century B.C. are mostly preserved only in a few fragmentary inscriptions. However, from that period onward, we do have a fairly good record of many of them (see, e.g. Latin Language, Osca Lingua, Iguvium, Volsci, Etruria: section Language, and below). While these materials are not perfect, when they are combined with insights from ancient writers and evidence from archaeological digs, they can provide some reasonably certain results.

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

It should be noted that the term “Italians” was once limited to the Oenotrians; in fact, according to Antiochus of Syracuse (apud Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. ii. 1), the name Italy originally referred even more specifically to the southern part of the Bruttium peninsula (now called Calabria). However, by the time of that historian, as well as Thucydides, the names Oenotria and Italia, which seem to have been considered synonymous at that time, were extended to cover the coastline of the Tarentine Gulf up to Metapontum and then across to the gulfs of Laus and Posidonia on the Tyrrhenian Sea. At that point, it still included only the two regions that later became known as Lucania and Bruttium (see references s.v. “Italia” in R. S. Conway’s Italic Dialects, p. 5). The name appears to be a Greek-influenced form of an Italic Vitelia, derived from the root vitlo-, meaning “calf” (Lat. vitulus, Gr. Italian), and it may have been intended to mean “calf-land” or “grazing-land”; however, the origin is clearer than the meaning, as the calf could represent one of the many animals associated with Italian tribes (see Hirpini, Samnites).

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

Taking the term Italy to include the entire peninsula up to the Alps in the north, we first need to distinguish between the tribe or tribes that spoke Indo-European languages and those that didn’t. The only group we can confidently place in the latter category is the Etruscans (for the dates and extent of their presence in Italy, see Etruria: section Language). Among all the other tribes that lived in Italy up until the classical period, for which we have any records of their language (whether explicit or in the form of names and glosses), we cannot conclusively say that any of them did not belong to the Indo-European group. If we set aside the Etruscan language and the various Greek dialects of the Greek colonies, such as Cumae, Neapolis, and Tarentum, and move from south to north, the different languages or dialects that definitely existed at some point between, say, 600 and 200 BCE can be listed as follows: (1) Sicel, (2) South Oscan and Oscan, (3) Messapian, (4) North Oscan, (5) Volscian, (6) East Italic or “Sabellic,” (7) Latinian, (8) Sabine, (9) Iguvine or “Umbrian,” (10) Gallic, (11) Ligurian, and (12) Venetic.

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

Between some of these dialects, it's likely that there are closer connections. (1) It's probable, though not very clearly proven, that Venetic, East Italic, and Messapian are related to each other and to the ancient dialects spoken in Illyria (q.v.), so they might be temporarily labeled as the Adriatic group, which the language spoken by the Eteocretes of the city of Praesos in Crete until the 4th century BCE might also be connected to. (2) There is too little known about the Sicel language to clarify more than its Indo-European roots. However, it should be included among the languages of Italy due to the well-supported tradition of the early presence of the Sicels in Latium (see Siculi). Their potential position in the earlier layer of the Indo-European population is discussed under Sabini. There's not enough evidence to determine how much the language or languages spoken in Bruttium and at certain locations in Lucania, like Anxia, differed from the Oscan of Samnium and Campania (see Bruttii). (3) It's uncertain whether there are any actual inscriptions that can be confidently connected to the language of the Ligures, but some other evidence seems to connect them with the -CO- peoples, whose early distribution is discussed under Volsci and Liguria. (4) It is challenging to identify any definitive evidence that could help us determine when Gallic tribes first appeared in northern Italy. A satisfactory compilation of the Celtic inscriptions in Cisalpine Gaul has not been made, although many can be found scattered across different museums. For our current discussion, it's important to note that the archaeological layers in places like Bologna indicate that the Gallic period followed the Etruscan one. Until a scientific collection of the local and personal names from this area is created, and until the archaeological evidence is clearly interpreted, it's impossible to move beyond speculation regarding the tribe or tribes that occupied the Po Valley before the two invasions. However, it’s clear that the Celtic and Etruscan elements together occupied most of the area between the Apennines and the Alps until its Romanization, which happened gradually during the 2nd century B.C. Their linguistic neighbors were the Ligurians in the south and southwest, and the Veneti to the east.

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

We know from Roman historians that a large group of Gauls made it as far south as Rome in 390 BCE, and that some of this group settled in what became known as the Ager Gallicus, the easternmost stretch of coastline in what was later called Umbria, including the towns of Caesēna, Ravenna, and Arīminum. A bilingual inscription (in Gallic and Latin) from the 2nd century B.C. was discovered as far south as Tuder, now modern Todi (Italic Dialects, ii. 528; Stokes, Bezzenberger’s Beiträge, 11, p. 113).

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

(5) Now, let's look at the languages that make up the Italic group in a narrower sense: (a) Oscan; (b) the Velitran dialect, commonly known as Volscian; (c) Latinian (i.e. Latin and its closest relatives, like Faliscan); and (d) Umbrian (or, more accurately, Iguvine). Two principles of classification come to mind, the first being purely linguistic and the second combining linguistic and geographical aspects. Those who have written about the ethnology of Italy have generally focused on the first principle, which is the broad distinction between the dialects that retained the Indo-European velars (especially the aspirated plosive q) as velars or back-palatals (gutturals), with or without an added w-sound, and the dialects that transformed the velars entirely into labials. For instance, Latinian quis contrasted with Oscan, Volscian, and Umbrian pis (see further Latin Language).

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

This distinction, however, only takes us a little way toward organizing the tribes historically, since the only Latin dialects for which we have inscriptions, aside from Latin, are Faliscan and Marsian (see Falisci, Marsi); although the place names of the Aequi (q.v.) suggest they belong to the same group in this regard. Therefore, except for a very small and seemingly isolated area in the north of Latium and south of Etruria, all the tribes of Italy, despite some differences in their dialects, remain undifferentiated. This strongly contrasts with the evidence of tradition, which strongly asserts (1) the identity of the Sabines and Samnites; (2) the conquest of an earlier population by this tribe; and that (3) there is clear evidence of the identity of the Sabines with the ruling class, i.e. the patricians, in Rome itself (see Sabini; and Rome: Early History and Ethnology).

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

Some hints about this mystery might be found in the second classification principle proposed by the current writer at the International Congress of Historical Sciences in Rome (Atti del Congresso, ii) in 1903. It was noted at that time that the ethnic or tribal names of communities related to the Sabine stock featured the suffix -NO- as seen in Sabini; and there was some linguistic evidence suggesting that this population group replaced an earlier population that generally used ethnic names ending in -CO- or -TI- (like Marruci, Ardeates, which were later transformed into Marrucini, Ardeatini).

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

The relevance of this distinction and its outcomes are covered in Sabini and Volsci, but it's important to highlight its main consequences here.

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

1. Latin is regarded as the language of the earlier common people of Rome and Latium, likely once widespread across a large part of the peninsula, and somewhat related to the language or languages spoken in northern Italy before the Etruscan or Gallic invasions started.

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

2. It follows, on the other hand, that what is known as Oscan was the language of the invading Sabines (more accurately Safines), whose racial connections appear to be of a distinctly more northern origin, marking them, similar to the Dorians or Achaeans in Greece, as an early wave of invaders who have had a significant impact on the fate of the appealing southern land they pushed into, more than once in later history.

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

3. The language referred to as Volscian, which we only know about from the important inscription in the town of Velitrae, and the language called Umbrian, known from the famous Iguvine Tables along with a few other records, would be considered Safine dialects. These were spoken by Safine communities that had become somewhat isolated among earlier populations that were possibly partly Etruscanized. The result was that by the 4th century B.C., their language had experienced changes that it avoided in the Samnite mountains and in the independent and self-sufficient community of Rome.

For fuller details the reader must be referred to the separate articles already mentioned, and to Iguvium, Picenum, Osca Lingua, Marsi, Aequi, Siculi and Liguria. Such archaeological evidence as can be connected with the linguistic data will there be discussed.

For more details, readers should refer to the separate articles mentioned earlier, and to Iguvium, Picenum, Osca Lingua, Marsi, Aequi, Siculi, and Liguria. The archaeological evidence related to the linguistic data will be discussed there.

(R. S. C.)

B. Consolidation of Italy

B. Unification of Italy

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

We have seen that the name Italy was originally used only for the southernmost part of the peninsula and was gradually expanded to include central regions like Latium and Campania, which writers such as Thucydides and Aristotle referred to as Opicia. The details of this change are not easy to trace, but it’s clear that the expansion of Roman power and the eventual unification of the peninsula's nations under a single dominant authority made the need for a general name apparent. At first, the term was seemingly limited to the central and southern regions, excluding Cisalpine Gaul and the entire area north of the Apennines, and this remained the official meaning of the name until the end of the republic. However, the natural boundaries of Italy are so distinct that the name began to be used more broadly as a geographical term much earlier. For example, we see Polybius using it repeatedly in this broader sense to refer to the entire country up to the foot of the Alps, and it’s clear from various Latin writers that this was common usage during the times of Cicero and Caesar. Nonetheless, the official distinction was still kept. Cisalpine Gaul, which included all of northern Italy, was still referred to as a "province," a term never used for Italy itself. This region was assigned to Julius Caesar, along with Transalpine Gaul, and it wasn't until he crossed the Rubicon that he truly entered Italy in the strict sense.

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

Augustus was the first to create a clear administrative structure for all of Italy, and at the same time, he officially recognized the broader meaning of the name that had already become common and has remained in use ever since.

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

The division of Italy into eleven regions, established by Augustus for administrative reasons, which remained in official use until the reign of Constantine, was mainly based on the existing territorial divisions and largely kept the ancient boundaries with few exceptions.

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

The first area included Latium (in a broader sense, incorporating the lands of the Volsci, Hernici, and Aurunci), along with Campania and the region of the Picentini. It stretched from the mouth of the Tiber to that of the Silarus (see Latium).

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

The second region included Apulia and Calabria (the name the Romans typically used for the area the Greeks called Messapia or Iapygia), along with the land of the Hirpini, which had generally been regarded as part of Samnium.

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

The third region included Lucania and Bruttium; it was bordered on the west by the Silarus River and on the east by the Bradanus River.

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

The fourth region included all the Samnites (except the Hirpini), along with the Sabines and related tribes like the Frentani, Marrucini, Marsi, Peligni, Vestini, and Aequiculi. It was bordered to the south by the Tifernus River, separating it from Apulia, and to the north by the Matrinus River, which divided it from Picenum.

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

The fifth region was made up entirely of Picenum, stretching along the Adriatic coast from the mouth of the Matrinus River to that of the Aesis, past Ancona.

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

The sixth region was made up of Umbria, in the broader sense of the term, which included the Ager Gallicus, along the Adriatic coast from the Aesis to the Ariminus, and was separated from Etruria to the west by the Tiber.

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

The seventh region was Etruria, which kept its old boundaries, stretching from the Tiber River to the Tyrrhenian Sea, and it was bordered to the north by the Macra River, separating it from Liguria.

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

The eighth region, called Gallia Cispadana, included the southern part of Cisalpine Gaul and was bordered to the north (as its name suggests) by the Padus or Po River, from above Placentia to where it meets the sea. It was separated from Etruria and Umbria by the main range of the Apennines, and the Ariminus River replaced the famous Rubicon as its boundary on the Adriatic.

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

The ninth region included Liguria, stretching along the coastline from the Varus to the Macra, and inland up to the river Padus, which formed its northern boundary from its source in Mount Vesulus to its meeting point with the Trebia just north of Placentia.

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

The tenth region included Venetia from the Po River and the Adriatic Sea to the Alps, along with the nearby Istrian peninsula, and to the west, the land of the Cenomani, a Gallic tribe, stretching from the Adige River to the Adda River, which had previously been seen as part of Gallia Cisalpina.

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

The eleventh region, called Gallia Transpadana, covered all of Cisalpine Gaul from the Po River in the south and the Adda River in the east up to the base of the Alps.

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

The arrangements set up by Augustus remained largely the same until the time of Constantine and laid the foundation for all later administrative divisions until the fall of the Western empire.

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

The backbone of the Roman military control over Italy first, and later the entire empire, was the impressive system of roads. As Rome's dominance expanded across Italy, the Roman road system developed gradually, with each new conquest marked by the construction of roads through the heart of the newly acquired territory and the establishment of forts connected to them. It was in Italy that the Romans first recognized the military importance of a network of roads, and this lesson proved beneficial in the provinces. For military reasons, these roads were transformed from simple cart-tracks into permanent highways (T. Ashby, in Papers of the British School at Rome, i. 129). From Rome, roads spread out in all directions. Routes to the southeast were primarily provided by the Via Appia (referred to as the "queen of Roman roads" by Statius) and the Via Latina, which met near Casilinum, at the crossing of the Volturnus, 3 miles northwest of Capua, the second largest city in Italy during the 3rd century BCE, and the hub of the road system in Campania. Here, the Via Appia turned eastward toward Beneventum, while the Via Popilia continued southeast through the Campanian plain and further south through the Lucanian and Bruttian mountains to Rhegium. Lesser coast roads for through-traffic also existed on both sides of the "toe" of the boot. Other roads ran south from Capua to Cumae, Puteoli (Campania's most significant harbor), and Neapolis, accessible also by a coast road from Minturnae on the Via Appia. From Beneventum, another key road junction, the Via Appia itself headed southeast through the mountains past Venusia to Tarentum on the southwest coast of the "heel," and then across Calabria to Brundusium. Meanwhile, Trajan's improvement of the road, following an older mule track, ran northeast through the mountains and then through the plains of Apulia, reaching the coast at Barium. Both routes converged at Brundusium, the main port for trade with the East. From Aequum Tuticum, on the Via Traiana, the Via Herculia ran southeast, crossing the older Via Appia, then south to Potentia and continuing to connect with the Via Popilia in the heart of Lucania.

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

The only important main road leaving Rome and going east, the Via Valeria, wasn't completed all the way to the Adriatic until the time of Claudius. To the north and northwest, the main highways connected central and northern Italy and all areas of the Roman Empire accessible by land. The Via Salaria, an ancient road, and its branch, the Via Caecilia, headed northeast to the Adriatic coast. Similarly, the Via Flaminia reached the coast at Fanum Fortunae and then followed it to Ariminum. The road along the east coast from Fanum Fortunae down to Barium, which linked the endpoints of the Via Salaria, Via Valeria, and other roads further south from Campania, did not have a specific name in ancient times, as far as we know. The Via Flaminia was the earliest and most significant road to the north; it was soon extended (in 187 B.C.) by the Via Aemilia, which ran through Bononia to Placentia in a nearly straight line between the Po plain and the Apennines foothills. That same year, a road was built over the Apennines from Bononia to Arretium, but it's hard to believe that the Via Cassia, which directly connected Arretium and Rome, wasn't established until later. The Via Clodia served as an alternate route to the Cassia for the initial stretch out of Rome, with a branch built at the same time from Florentia to Lucca and Luna. Along the west coast, the Via Aurelia ran up to Pisa and was continued by another Via Aemilia to Genoa. From there, the Via Postumia led to Dertona, Placentia, and Cremona, while the Via Aemilia and the Via Julia Augusta continued along the coast into Gallia Narbonensis.

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

The road system of Cisalpine Gaul was mainly shaped by the rivers that needed to be crossed and the Alpine passes that had to be navigated.

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

Cremona, located on the north bank of the Po River, was a key intersection for roads, and so was Postilia (Ostiglia). Patavium, further east, along with Altinum and Aquileia even farther east, also served as important junctions. In fact, roads were nearly as common as railways today in the Po Valley.

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

As for the roads leaving Italy, from Aquileia, routes split off to the north into Raetia, east to Noricum and Pannonia, and south to the Istrian and Dalmatian coasts. Further west were the roads crossing the higher Alpine passes—the Brenner from Verona, the Septimer and the Splügen from Clavenna (Chiavenna), the Great and the Little St Bernard from Augusta Praetoria (Aosta), and the Mont Genèvre from Augusta Taurinorum (Turin).

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

Westward, two short but significant roads ran on either side of the Tiber to the great harbor at its mouth, while the coast of Latium was connected by a coastal road built by Septimius Severus. To the south-west, the roads were short and not very important.

On ancient Italian geography in general see articles in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie (1899, sqq.); Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1862 sqq.); G. Strafforello, Geografia dell’ Italia (Turin, 1890-1892); H. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde (Berlin, 1883-1902); also references in articles Rome, Latium, &c.

On ancient Italian geography in general, see articles in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie (1899, and following); Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1862 and following); G. Strafforello, Geografia dell’ Italia (Turin, 1890-1892); H. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde (Berlin, 1883-1902); also references in articles Rome, Latium, &c.

(T. As.)

C. From 476 to 1796

C. From 476 to 1796

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

The year 476 marked a new era for the Italian people. Odoacer, a leader of the Herulians, overthrew Romulus, the last Western Emperor, and put the peninsula under the nominal authority of the Byzantine emperors. At Pavia, the barbarian conquerors of Italy declared him king, and he received the title of Roman patrician from Zeno. This set the stage for a mixed government of Teutonic and Roman influences, which, in the absence of a national king, shaped the institutions of new Italy from the beginning with a dual system. The same revolution transferred ultimate power to an ineffective autocrat who didn’t reside in Italy, whose title gave him the right to meddle in Italian matters, but who didn’t have the power or desire to govern the people for his own or their benefit. Odoacer started a long line of foreign rulers—Greeks, Franks, Germans, Spaniards, and Austrians—who have contributed to Italy's misrule from afar.

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

I. Gothic and Lombard Kingdoms.—In 488, Theodoric, king of the East Goths, was sent by the Greek emperor Zeno to handle the situation in Italy. He defeated Odoacer, pushed him back to Ravenna, and besieged him there. By 493, he completed the conquest of the country by killing the Herulian chief himself. Theodoric respected the Roman institutions he found in Italy, held the Eternal City in high regard, and governed with ministers chosen from the Roman population. He settled in Ravenna, which had been Italy's capital since the time of Honorius, and which still shows through its monuments Theodoric’s efforts to adopt Roman ways. Those who believe that the Italians would have been stronger unified under a single monarchy must lament that this Gothic kingdom lacked stability. The Goths, except in the Po Valley, seemed more like an occupying army than a population large enough to merge with the Italic people. Although their rule was beneficial to the Romans, they were Arians; and the religious differences, along with the pride and rivalries of a nation used to imperial power, made the people of Italy eager to shake off their control. So, when Justinian began the reconquest of Italy, his generals, Belisarius and Narses, had support from the south. The conflict between the Greeks and the Goths lasted fourteen years, from 539 to 553, when Teias, the last Gothic king, was finally defeated in a bloody battle near Vesuvius. At the end of this struggle, the provinces of Italy were placed under Greek dukes, controlled by a governor-general called an exarch, who ruled in the name of the Byzantine emperor from Ravenna.

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

This new settlement lasted only a few years. Narses had used Lombard soldiers in his campaigns against the Goths, and when he was called back by an insulting message from the empress in 565, it’s said that he invited the fiercest and roughest of the Teutonic clans to take the riches of Italy. Regardless, the Lombards, now joined by the Gepidae they had recently defeated and remnants of other barbarian tribes, moved south under their king Alboin in 568. The Herulian invaders had been just a group of adventurers; the Goths were an army; but the Lombards, much more dangerous, were a nation on the move. Pavia put up a strong fight, but after a three-year siege, it was captured, and Alboin made it the capital of his new kingdom.

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

To understand Italy's future history, it's important to have a clear idea of how the Lombards conquered the region. They moved into the peninsula like a glacier or a thick flow of mud, taking control of the Po Valley and slowly moving down through the center of the country. Although they were more numerous than the Goths before them, they didn't have enough strength to take over the entire peninsula. Venice, which had sheltered Roman refugees since Attila's time, was left untouched. So were Genoa and its Riviera. Ravenna, protected by its lagoons, remained a Greek city. Rome managed to escape due to its strong prestige. The coastal cities in the south, along with the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, maintained their independence. As a result, the Lombards neither conquered the outskirts nor dominated the core of the country. The strength of Alboin's kingdom was in the north, with Pavia as its capital. While his people moved southward, they failed to take the coasts. Moreover, the future of these conquerors was jeopardized by Alboin's unexpected murder in 573. Following this event, the semi-independent heads of the Lombard tribes, who took the title of dukes from their Roman predecessors, seemed satisfied with securing their power in the areas they had claimed. The duchies of Spoleto in the center and Benevento in the south intruded into the middle of the peninsula, surrounding independent Rome, and were only loosely connected to the kingdom in Pavia. Italy was divided into regions, each vulnerable to outside attacks and nurturing the seeds of internal unrest. Three separate capitals should be noted: Pavia, the center of the new Lombard kingdom; Ravenna, the garrison city for the Byzantine emperor; and Rome, the focal point of the old nation, where the successor of St. Peter was beginning to take on a national protective role that would prove influential in the future.

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

It’s not necessary to go into detail about the history of the Lombard kingdom. It's enough to say that Lombard rule was initially much harsher on the local population and less respectful of their old customs than the Goths had been. Wherever the Lombards took control, they imposed a military governance that resembled what we now recognize as the feudal system. Although it’s likely that Roman laws were still enforced in the cities, the Lombard code was dominant; and since the Lombards were Arians, they added the burden of religious intolerance to that of military oppression and brutal greed. The Italians faced extreme hardship until Gregory the Great (590-604), who solidified his position through diplomatic ties with the duchy of Spoleto, facilitated the Lombards' conversion to orthodoxy and championed the rights of the remaining Roman population across Italy. The results of his strategy, which made Rome a counterbalance against the weakened Greek empire on one side and the feudal kingdom on the other, became evident in the following century. When Leo the Isaurian issued his edicts against the veneration of images in 726, Gregory II allied with Liudprand, the Lombard king, rejected loyalty to Byzantium, and established Rome's autonomy. This pope began the risky strategy of playing rival forces against each other to secure independence. He used the Lombards in his conflict with the Greeks, leaving his successors to handle these uneasy allies. This was achieved by calling on the Franks to oppose the Lombards. Liudprand pressed hard not only on the Greek territories of the exarchate but also on Rome itself. His successors, Rachis and Aistolf, tried to continue this path of conquest. However, the popes, Gregory III, Zachary, and Stephen II, committed to supporting their national interests and expanding their own power, continued to depend on the Franks. Pippin crossed the Alps twice and compelled Aistolf to give up his conquests, including Ravenna, Pentapolis, the coastal towns of Romagna, and a few cities in the duchy of Spoleto. He then handed these over to the pope of Rome. This donation from Pippin in 756 solidified the papal authority as the protector of the Italic faction, granting it sovereign rights. The practical outcome of the struggle that Rome had waged against Byzantium and Pavia since 726 was to place the popes in a position similar to that of the Greek exarch and to limit the Lombard kingdom. However, we should remember that southern Italy was relatively untouched. The dukes of the Greek empire and the Lombard dukes of Benevento, along with a few independent trading cities, still controlled Italy south of the Campagna of Rome (see Lombards).

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

II. Frankish Emperors.—The Franko-Papal alliance, which gave a crown to Pippin and sovereign rights to the see of Rome, contained the ideal of a mutually supportive papacy and empire that had a significant impact on medieval history. When Charlemagne deposed his father-in-law Desiderius, the last Lombard king, in 774, and received the imperial crown from Leo III in Rome in 800, he was merely completing and confirming the agreement that his grandfather, Charles Martel, had made with Gregory III. The relationship between the new emperor and the pope was vague; this ambiguity later led to countless troubles for Italy and Europe. However, at that moment, both seemed essential to each other, and that was enough. Charles took control of the kingdom of Italy, as defined by Pippin’s arrangement. The pope was confirmed in his governance of the cities given up by Aistolf, with a shared understanding—mostly unspoken—that just as he had reclaimed these provinces for the Italian people from the Greeks and Lombards, he could also claim the protectorate over other parts of Italy outside the kingdom that he could manage to acquire in the future. This seems to be the implication of the complex reorganization of the peninsula that Charles initiated. The kingdom of Italy, passed on to Charlemagne's death and later confirmed to his grandson Lothar by the peace of Verdun in 843, extended from the Alps to Terracina. The duchy of Benevento remained tributary but independent. The cities of Gaeta and Naples, Sicily, and the so-called Theme of Lombardy in South Apulia and Calabria still recognized the Byzantine emperor. Venice kept its distance, maintaining a nominal loyalty to the East. The divisions made by the Lombards across the peninsula remained largely unchanged, except for the new power gained by the see of Rome.

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

Internally, Charles managed the affairs of the Italian kingdom 29 much as he found them, except that he seems to have followed a policy of breaking up the larger fiefs of the Lombards, replacing dukes with counts, and increasing the privileges of the bishops. We can consider these measures some of the earliest benefits given to the cities, which still held most of the old Roman population and were set to play a crucial role two centuries later in Italian history. It's also important to note that the changes made in the administration of the fiefs, whether by modifying their boundaries or replacing Lombard vassals with Frankish ones, were key reasons why the feudal system never took a permanent hold in Italy. Feudalism was never really a national institution. The hierarchy of dukes, marquises, and counts was made up of foreign soldiers imposed on the local people; and the rapid turnover of conquerors—Lombards, Franks, and Germans—each trying to diminish the remaining power of their predecessors, prevented this foreign hierarchy from becoming stable due to consistent ownership. Among the many sufferings caused to Italy by the frequent changes in her northern rulers, at least this can be seen as a blessing.

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

The Italians recognized eight kings from the house of Charles the Great, ending with Charles the Fat, who was ousted in 888. After them came ten rulers, some of whom have been incorrectly labeled Italians by writers eager to claim any resemblance of national pride for a people who were passive under foreign control. The reality is that no period in Italian history was less genuinely glorious than the time that ended in 961 when Berengar II ceded his rights to Otto the Great. This era was primarily marked by the conquests of the Saracens, who began occupying Sicily in the early 9th century, overran Calabria and Apulia, captured Bari, and threatened Rome. Secondly, it was characterized by the restoration of Greek power, as they reestablished themselves in Bari in 890 and ruled the Theme of Lombardy through an official called the Catapan. Thirdly, it was noted for the decline of effective governance in Rome. Early in the 10th century, the papacy fell into the hands of a noble family, eventually known as the counts of Tusculum, who nearly succeeded in making the office hereditary and uniting the civil and ecclesiastical powers of the city under one of their own. It is unnecessary to recount the scandals of Marozia’s and Theodora’s rule, the disgrace of John XII, or the intrigues that aimed to turn Rome into a duchy. The most important point for historians of Italy to recognize is that during this time, the popes abandoned not only their significant roles as leaders of Christendom but also their protection of Italian freedoms. A fourth humiliating episode of this time was the invasion by the Magyar barbarians, who swept through northern Italy, turning its most beautiful regions into wastelands. In fact, anarchy and misery are the main characteristics of the long period that spanned from the death of Charles the Great to Otto's arrival. Through the almost impenetrable darkness and chaos, we can only see that Italy was powerless to unify itself as a nation.

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

The conflicts that arose after the collapse of Carolingian power, along with the weakness of the so-called Italian emperors, who couldn’t control the feudal lords (the marquises of Ivrea and Tuscany, the dukes of Friuli and Spoleto) from whom they originated, plunged Italy into worsening misrule. By this time, the country was heavily dotted with castles, the homes of greater and lesser nobles, all eager to break away from strict loyalty to the “Regno.” The cities, vulnerable to plunder by Huns in the north and Saracens in the south, and ravaged along the coast by Norse pirates, claimed their right to fortify themselves with walls and trained their citizens in the use of weapons. Within their fortified areas, bishops began to assert authority in competition with the counts, who had been responsible for governing the Italian towns since the time of Theodoric. Following feudal customs, these nobles, as their power grew, withdrew from the cities and built fortifications at strategic locations nearby. Thus, the titular king of Italy found himself simultaneously at war with powerful vassals who had chosen him from their ranks, with the rebellious factions of the Roman aristocracy, with unruly bishops in the rising cities, and with numerous lesser counts and barons who occupied the open lands and switched sides according to their interests. The last king of the near-Italian succession, Berengar II, marquis of Ivrea (951-961), made a strong attempt to restore the authority of the regno; and had he succeeded, it’s possible that Italy could have become an independent nation at that moment. However, this unification effort was viewed as a crime by Berengar. He only earned the animosity of all classes and was portrayed by the obscure chroniclers of the time as an oppressor of the church and a ruthless tyrant. In a divided Italy, caught between feudal nobles and nearly hereditary clergy, of foreign descent and outside sympathies, there was no sense of national identity. Berengar stood alone against a multitude that unanimously rejected discipline. His predecessor, Lothar, had left behind a young and beautiful widow, Adelheid. Berengar imprisoned her at Lake Como and threatened her with a forced marriage to his son Adalbert. She managed to escape to the castle of Canossa, where the powerful count of Tuscany supported her cause and sought help from Otto the Saxon. The king of Germany came to Italy and married Adelheid. After this incident, Berengar was more discredited and powerless than ever. In dire straits, he turned to Otto, formally ceding the Italian kingdom in his own name and on behalf of his son Adalbert to the Saxon as his overlord. This minor connection tied the crown of Italy to that of Germany; and the formal right of the elected king of Germany to be regarded as king of Italy and emperor can be traced back to this point.

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

III. The German Emperors.—Berengar didn't gain anything from his obedience to Otto. The major Italian nobles appealed to Germany. Otto entered Lombardy in 961, deposed Berengar, took the crown in San Ambrogio at Milan, and in 962 was proclaimed emperor by John XII. in Rome. From then on, Italy changed rulers depending on which German family was in power across the Alps. This is one of the clearest examples in history of how the idea of being ruled by a German emperor captured the Italians' imagination, leading them to take pride in their nation's dependence on leaders who only shared a name with the Roman emperors of the past.

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

The first thing to notice in the revolution that brought Otto the Great to the imperial throne is that the Italian kingdom, established by the Lombards, acknowledged by the Franks, and recently claimed by powerful Italian nobles, basically disappeared. It became part of the German kingdom; and since the German princes prioritized Germany, Italy began to be left increasingly to its own devices. The central authority of Pavia had always been weak; the regno failed to unify the nation. But now even that semblance of unity vanished, and Italians were left to the slow influences that started to fragment them into separate states. The most vibrant period of their mixed history, which includes the rise of communes, the trade of municipal freedom for despotism, and the gradual formation of the five major powers (Milan, Venice, Florence, the Papacy, and the kingdom of Naples), now begins. Among the forces that shaped the future of the Italian people, the new spirit of municipal independence stands out. We saw how cities built walls around themselves, and how bishops asserted their authority against that of the counts. Otto supported this change by placing the chief burghs beyond the control of the counts. Within those areas, bishops and citizens were independent of all feudal lords except the emperor. He also weakened the power of the large vassals by redistributing their lands and creating new regions he assigned to his German supporters. As a result of the disruption of the old aristocracy, the expanded jurisdiction of a power as democratic as the episcopate, and the enhanced privileges of the burghs, feudalism faced a significant setback in Italy. The Italian people, the ones who brought commerce and the arts of Florence to the world, were not yet apparent. However, the conditions needed for them to emerge—freeing themselves from foreign and feudal constraints, acknowledging their true heritage from ancient Rome, and rebuilding civility from the remnants of those glorious memories—were finally established. From this time on, the nobles retreated to the countryside and mountains, fortified themselves in strongholds outside the cities, and focused on nurturing the rural population. Within the cities and on the open lands, Italians in this century and the next doubled, tripled, and quadrupled their numbers. A population grew strong enough to challenge the empire itself, strong enough—aside from its own internal conflicts—to have become a nation equal to its more fortunate neighbors.

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

The recent scandals in the papacy led Otto to take away the Romans' right to elect popes. However, when he died in 973, his son Otto II (who was married to Theophano from the imperial Byzantine family) and his grandson Otto III, who came to Italy in 996, found that the issues in Rome and the southern regions were more than their imperial power could handle. The faction of the counts of Tusculum occasionally made a comeback in the Eternal City, and Rome still regarded itself as a commonwealth. Otto III’s untimely death in 1002 brought about new conflicts. Rome fell back into the hands of its nobles. The Lombards chose Ardoin, the marquis of Ivrea, as king, while Pavia backed his claim against Henry of Bavaria, who had been elected in Germany. Milan supported Henry; this is likely the first notable example of cities being viewed as powerful allies in the Italian power struggles. It also marks the beginning of the bitter rivalry between the two major capitals of Lombardy, a feud based on long-standing animosities between the Roman population of Mediolanum and the Lombard garrison of Alboin’s successors, which became detrimental to the national cause. Ardoin retired to a monastery, where he died in 1015. Henry nearly destroyed Pavia, was crowned in Rome, and died in 1024. Following this, Heribert, the archbishop of Milan, invited Conrad, the Franconian king of Germany, into Italy and crowned him with the iron crown of the kingdom.

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

The actions of this man, Heribert, force us to take a closer look at the cities of Northern Italy. It is here, during this time and for the next two centuries, that the essence and spirit of the Italian nation can be found; Heribert and the Lombard towns. Among the burghs of Lombardy, Milan, the oldest child of ancient Rome, takes the lead. In Milan, we hear the word Comune for the first time. In Milan, the citizens first come together to form a Parlamento. In Milan, the archbishop organizes the previously voiceless, defenseless population into a community that can express its needs and an army ready to defend its rights. Heribert is credited with the invention of the Carroccio, which played a unique and significant role in the warfare of Italian cities. This large cart, pulled by oxen and carrying the town's standard and an altar with the host, served as a rallying point in battle, reminding the armed craftsmen that they had a city and a church to fight for. Heribert’s innovation proved effective in boosting the morale of his townspeople and uniting them into a powerful group of warriors, as indicated by the fact that it was quickly adopted by all the free cities. However, it should not be assumed that at this time the liberties of the burghs were fully developed. The majority of the people remained unrepresented in the government; even if consuls existed during Heribert's time, they were merely modest legal officials handling matters for their constituents in the courts of the bishop and his viscount. It would take nearly another century of struggle for the burghers to gain independence from lordship and establish a fully organized commune, self-governed in its assemblies. While noting this, it is also important to point out that some Italian communities were further along the path to independence than others, particularly the maritime ports. Not to mention Venice, which had not yet become part of the Italian community and remained a Greek free city, Genoa and Pisa were quickly moving towards a loose form of autonomy. Their control of fleets gave them undeniable advantages, as seen when, for instance, Otto II used the Pisans in 980 against the Greeks in Southern Italy, and the Pisans and Genoese collaborated to attack the Saracens in Sardinia in 1017. Still, on the whole, the era of independence for the burghs had just begun when Heribert from Milan took the initial steps to organize a force that would become dominant both in peace and in war.

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

Next to Milan, and from a political standpoint even more than Milan, Rome now draws attention. The future of Italy depended on the role that the seat of St. Peter would play. Even the freedoms of its northern republics hinged on a struggle that rocked Europe from the 11th to the 12th centuries. The internal issues of that magnificent but troubled country were deeply intertwined with concerns that mobilized the civilized world. Italy's ancient prestige, strategic location, and the intellectual leadership of its finest minds made it a battlefield for principles that stirred all of Christendom and divided the nation forever. During Conrad II's reign, the faction of the counts of Tusculum re-emerged in Rome; Crescentius, declaring himself consul in the imperial city, attempted to regain control of the papal elections. When Henry III, Conrad's son, arrived in Italy in 1046, he discovered three popes in Rome. He dismissed them and took the appointments into his own hands, installing German bishops in the papacy. This policy, following the example set by Otto the Great, was a solution to urgent problems. It saved Rome from becoming a duchy ruled by the Tusculum family, but it failed to elevate the papacy's status or satisfy the Italians, who considered the Roman see as theirs. These German popes had short and ineffective reigns. Their appointment, based on the ideas forming within the church at this time, was viewed as simoniacal. During the lengthy minority of Henry IV, who succeeded his father in 1056, the harsh Tuscan monk, Hildebrand of Soana, forged tools that he wielded with devastating effect against imperial overreach. The church's condition seemed dire, needing a clearing of numerous scandals—such as the papacy's subservience to the powerful Roman nobles, its subordination to the German emperor, and its internal corruption. Hildebrand's approach over three papacies, during which he influenced Vatican policies before ascending to the papacy himself, was to prepare Italy and Europe for a significant transformation. His agenda included three key points: (1) the celibacy of the clergy; (2) the elimination of ecclesiastical appointments made by secular authorities; (3) the transfer of papal election authority to the Roman clergy and people, overseen by the curia of cardinals. How Hildebrand set the stage for these reforms during the papacies of Nicholas II and Alexander II, how he managed to elevate the papal office from its lowly state and exert considerable influence over European minds, and how his conflict with the empire established the still uncertain independence of Italian city-states, renewing the long-neglected guardianship of the Italian people and leaving his successors a national policy that had been forgotten since his great predecessor Gregory II, forms a chapter in European history that must now be paused. We need to follow the fates of unexpected allies, upon whom much of his success relied.

31

31

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

To keep some continuity through the complicated and messy changes of the Italian people, we have had to ignore those regions that didn’t directly contribute to its history. The Norman conquest of the Two Sicilies. For this reason, we have overlooked the entire southern region up to now. Sicily, controlled by the Muslims, the Lombard region of Lombardy under the weak authority of the Greek governors, the Lombard duchy of Benevento slowly falling apart, and the maritime republics of Naples, Gaeta, and Amalfi expanding their influence through trade in the Mediterranean, were essentially separated from the Italian kingdom, outside the jurisdiction of Rome, not included in any part of Italy proper. But now the time had come when this large group of provinces, which would form the future kingdom of the Two Sicilies, was about to officially and significantly become part of the Italian community. Some Norman adventurers, on a pilgrimage to St. Michael’s shrine on Monte Gargano, offered their swords in 1017 to the Lombard cities of Apulia against the Greeks. Twelve years later, we find the Normans established at Aversa under their Count Rainulf. From this base, the small group of adventurers, playing the Greeks against the Lombards and the Lombards against the Greeks, spread their power in all directions until they established themselves as the most significant force in southern Italy. William of Hauteville was proclaimed Count of Apulia. His half-brother, Robert Wiskard or Guiscard, after defeating the papal troops at Civitella in 1053, received from Leo IX the title for all current and future conquests in Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily, which he agreed to hold as fiefs of the Holy See. Nicholas II. confirmed this grant and officially recognized the title of count. After solidifying their possessions on the mainland, the Normans, under Robert Guiscard’s brother, the great Count Roger, began the conquest of Sicily in 1060. After a long struggle lasting thirty years, they took control of the entire island from the Saracens; and Roger, who died in 1101, passed on to his son Roger a kingdom in Calabria and Sicily that was unmatched in Europe for wealth and splendor. This was while the senior branch of the Hauteville family still held the title and lands of the Apulian duchy; but in 1127, upon the death of his cousin Duke William, Roger united the entire future realm. In 1130, he took on the title of King of Sicily, inscribing the famous hexameter on his sword—

“Appulus et Calaber Siculus mihi servit et Afer.”

“Appulus and the Calabrian Sicilian serve me, along with the African.”

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

This Norman conquest of the two Sicilies is one of the most romantic episodes in medieval Italian history. By bringing together Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily into a powerful kingdom, curbing the rise of the maritime republics, and acknowledging the authority of the papacy, the house of Hauteville shaped Italy's future more significantly than any previous rulers had influenced any part of the peninsula. Although Naples was occasionally separated from Sicily, their kingdom never completely lost the unity that had been established; and all the unrest in Italy later stemmed from papal manipulation of the rights acquired through Robert Guiscard’s act of homage. The southern region, under the control of the popes, became a major obstacle to Italy's unification, invited French intervention in Italian matters, brought in Spanish influence, and upheld the reality of feudal rule in those wealthy southern provinces long after this foreign element had been removed from the rest of Italy (see Normans; Sicily: History).

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

For clarity, we have skipped ahead nearly a century in our account. Now, let’s go back to when Hildebrand became pope in 1073, choosing the significant name Gregory VII. In the following year after his election, Hildebrand called a council and implemented rules enforcing clergy celibacy. In 1075, he condemned the practice of secular leaders appointing church officials. These two reforms challenged the most treasured privileges and deepest indulgences of the European aristocracy, igniting intense opposition. Henry IV, the king of Germany who had not yet been crowned emperor, held a meeting in Worms the next year, where Gregory was deposed and excommunicated. The pope responded with a much stronger excommunication, freeing the king’s subjects from their allegiance. This marked the beginning of a war between the two leaders of Western Christendom, known as the investiture conflict, which lasted beyond the lives of both Gregory and Henry, concluding in 1122. The dramatic events of this struggle are well known and don’t need further elaboration. As Gregory faced off against the power of Germany, he received significant support from Countess Matilda of Tuscany. She was the last heir of the prominent Canossa family, whose fiefs extended from Mantua across Lombardy, over the Apennines, covering the Tuscan plains, and including part of the Duchy of Spoleto. It was in her castle of Canossa that Henry IV did his three days of penance during the winter of 1077, and there she bequeathed her vast lands to the church. This gift, extended after Gregory's death to his successors, granted the popes enduring rights, which they later used to strengthen their temporal power. Matilda died in 1115. By then, Gregory had passed away, having been exiled in Salerno, where Robert Guiscard took him in 1084 amidst the chaos in rebellious Rome. Despite his unmet ambitions, the turmoil in Italy and Europe, and the uncertain outcome of the conflict, Gregory passed away in 1085, uttering these words: “I loved justice, I hated iniquity; therefore, I die in exile.”

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

The greatest of the popes passed away, but the new energy he infused into the papacy wasn’t going to die with him. Gregory's immediate successors, Victor III, Urban II, and Paschal II, continued his battle against Henry IV and his rival popes, encouraging the emperor's son to rebel and rallying Europe for the first crusade. When Henry IV died in 1106, having been imprisoned by his own son, Henry V crossed the Alps, entered Rome, wrested the imperial coronation from Paschal II, and forced the pope to accept his claims on the investitures. As soon as Henry returned to Germany, the Lateran rejected everything the pope had done, arguing that it had been obtained under duress. France supported the church while Germany denied the bull of investiture. A new attempt to invade Italy and take Rome again was unsuccessful. The emperor's real weakness lay in Germany, where his subjects openly voiced their dissatisfaction. Ultimately, he gave up the conflict that had preoccupied Europe. By the concordat of Worms in 1122, the emperor relinquished the right of investiture by ring and staff and granted the clergy the right to elect bishops. From then on, popes would be chosen by the cardinals, and bishops by the chapters with the pope’s approval. In return, the pope allowed the emperor the right of investiture by sceptre. However, the core issue of the struggle wasn’t just these details of church governance; it involved much deeper and broader principles. The relationship between pope and emperor, which had been vague since the agreement between Charlemagne and Leo III, was under scrutiny, and the two main powers of Christendom, no longer agreeing silently, faced each other in an irreconcilable rivalry. On this front, while the battle appeared to be inconclusive, the popes were the real victors. They remained independent of the emperor but he still needed to seek the crown from them. The claims of Otto the Great and Henry III to appoint popes were gone forever (see Papacy; Investiture).

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

IV. Age of the Communes.—The real beneficiaries of the investiture conflict were the Italians. First, from this point on, because popes were elected by the Roman curia, the Holy See remained under Italian control; while this was not entirely without its drawbacks, it was a significant source of pride for the nation. Secondly, the ongoing clash between the popes and the emperors, which became a tradition in the Holy College, compelled the popes to take on the role of protectors of the national cause. However, the greatest advantage for the Italians was the liberation of their towns. During the forty-seven years of conflict, as the pope and emperor vied for their loyalty and made concessions to gain support, the communes grew in independence, strength, and freedom. Just as the bishops had played a role in liberating them from their feudal lords, the investiture conflict freed them from reliance on their bishops. The era of true autonomy, marked by the dominance of consuls in the cities, had begun.

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

In the city-states, as we know them after the investiture conflict, government was managed by officials called consuls, with their number varying based on local customs and the division of the city into districts. These magistrates, as we've seen, were initially appointed to manage and protect the lower classes. However, as the population gained more power on the battlefield, the consuls grew in significance, replacing the bishops and starting to represent the city in dealings with neighboring regions. Popes and emperors needing the support of a city had to seek help from the consuls, which allowed these officials to gradually transform their vague and unclear authority into something resembling the presidency of a commonwealth. They were backed by a deliberative assembly called credenza, made up of more prominent citizens. In addition to this advisory council, there was a gran consiglio, which included citizens who had earned the right to directly involve themselves in public matters, and an even larger assembly called parlamento, which included the entire adult population. Although the institutions of the communes varied in different areas, this is the type they all tended to resemble. It's clear that this type was more oligarchical than truly democratic. Between the parlamento and the consuls with their advisory council, or credenza, was the gran consiglio of privileged citizens. They formed the town's aristocracy, controlling its affairs through their wealth and lineage. There is strong evidence to suggest that when the term popolo is used, it refers to this group rather than the entire population. The comune encompassed the whole city—bishop, consuls, oligarchy, councils, craftsmen, laborers. The popolo was the ruling or upper class. It was almost unavoidable during the shift from feudalism to democracy that this middle ground would be crossed; and the distinct Italian terms, primo popolo, secondo popolo, terzo popolo, and so forth, reflect the successive changes as the oligarchy transitioned from one stage to another in its evolution toward integration into democracy or tyranny.

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

Under their consuls, the Italian city-states experienced a peak of prosperity and splendor. Pisa constructed its Cathedral. Milan took on irrigation projects that forever enriched Lombardy's soil. Strong walls, impressive buildings, spacious ports, and better roads were the benefits this new government brought to Italy. It’s also important to note that people started to become aware of their history. They acknowledged that their heritage was Latin rather than Teutonic, and that they should look to ancient Rome for the memories that shape a nation’s identity. During this time, the study of Roman law gained significant momentum, which is the true meaning behind the legend that Pisa, thriving through its consuls, brought the legal texts together in a single volume from Amalfi. The very title "consul," along with the Roman-influenced style of the era’s best architecture, indicates the same revival of antiquity.

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

The rise of the Lombard city-states sparked a similar revolution in Rome that should be noted here. A monk named Arnold of Brescia, inspired by the Milanese, rallied the Romans to challenge the authority of their bishop. He attempted a large-scale effort to do what was happening gradually in the northern cities. Rome, always aware of its unique history, listened to Arnold’s sermons. A senate was formed, and the republic was declared. The title of patrician was revived and offered to Conrad, king of Italy, but he was not crowned emperor. Conrad turned it down, and the Romans gave it to one of their own nobles. Although these institutions borrowed grand titles from the past, they were actually imitations of the Lombard civic system. The patrician replaced the consuls. The senate, made up of nobles, represented the credenza and the gran consiglio. The pope was unable to stop this revolution, which is now mainly significant as further evidence of the uprising of the Latin against the feudal elements in Italy at this time (see Rome: History).

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

Though the cities gained a lot from the investiture wars, the split in the country between the pope’s and emperor’s factions came at a high cost for their independence. It brought upon Italy the unshakeable City battles. curse of party conflict, setting city against city and family against family, making it impossible to work together for a national cause. No sooner had the compromise of the investitures been reached than it became clear that the citizens of the newly freed communes were determined to turn their weapons against each other. We look in vain for a clear reason behind each individual conflict. What we do know is that, during this time, Rome tried to ruin Tivoli, and Venice fought Pisa; Milan battled Cremona, Cremona clashed with Crema, Pavia opposed Verona, Verona faced off with Padua, Piacenza engaged Parma, Modena and Reggio took on Bologna, Bologna and Faenza confronted Ravenna and Imola, and Florence and Pisa battled Lucca and Siena, continuing this pattern through all the cities. The closer the neighbors, the more intense and savage the fighting; and, as is typical in situations where hatred runs deep and no clear local disputes are evident, we must conclude that some deep-rooted unease pushed these rapidly growing communities into rivalry. Italy, in fact, was too small for her people. As the towns grew, they realized they had to exclude each other. They fought for survival, for dominance in trade, for control of seaports, for access to mountain passes, for rivers, roads, and all the routes to wealth and abundance. The pope’s side and the emperor’s side mattered little to the Italian citizens; the names Guelph and Ghibelline, which soon echoed through every street and market, held no significance for them. These terms are said to have originated in Germany during the disputed empire succession between 1135 and 1152, when the Welfs of Bavaria opposed the Waiblingen princes of Swabia. But in Italy, although they were associated with the papal and imperial factions, they truly represented rivalries that changed in nature from time to time and place to place, symbolizing more than just opposing political principles, but including differences significant enough to tear the social structure apart at its seams.

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

Under the imperial rule of Lothar the Saxon (1125-1137) and Conrad the Swabian (1138-1152), civil wars became more violent due to the lack of authority. Neither Lothar nor Conrad was strong at home; the former had no influence in Italy, and the latter never ventured into Italy at all. However, when Conrad died, the electors chose his nephew Frederick, nicknamed Barbarossa, who united the rival honors of Welf and Waiblingen to succeed him. It quickly became clear that the empire had a master who was intelligent and determined. Frederick immediately set out to reassert imperial rights in his southern provinces and to curb the warfare among the city-states. When he first crossed the Alps in 1154, Lombardy was roughly divided between two factions: one led by Pavia, loyal to the empire, and the other led by Milan, which was ready to resist its claims. The municipal conflicts of the previous quarter-century fueled these factions; yet neither the pro-imperial nor the anti-imperial party had any genuine interest in Frederick. He intended to replace self-government by consuls, strip the cities of their right to wage war independently, and impose his rights for provisions, supplies, and lodging for his armies. Only the habit of rivalry between cities prevented the communes from quickly uniting to resist demands that threatened their autonomy and would leave them at the mercy of a foreign ruler. The diet was convened at Roncaglia near Piacenza, where Frederick listened to the grievances of Como and Lodi against Milan, Pavia against Tortona, and the marquis of Montferrat against Asti and Chieri. The plaintiffs in each case were imperialists, and Frederick’s first action was to address their alleged grievances. He devastated Chieri, Asti, and Tortona, then claimed the Lombard crown at Pavia, leaving Milan for another time, and moved south to Rome. Outside the gates of Rome, he was met by a delegation from the senate he had come to replace, who greeted him with words reflecting the republican spirit of a new Italy confronting autocratic feudalism: “You were a stranger; I have made you a citizen”; it is Rome speaking: “You came as an outsider from beyond the Alps; I have granted you the principality.” Unmoved by the rhetoric of these presumptuous advocates, Frederick marched into the Leonine city and took the imperial crown from Adrian IV. In exchange for this compliance, the emperor handed over to the pope his troublesome rival Arnold of Brescia, who was burned alive by Nicholas Breakspear, the only English successor of St. Peter. The gates of Rome itself were shut against Frederick; and even on this initial occasion, his good rapport with Adrian began to falter. The disputes between them primarily revolved around Matilda’s legacy and the kingdom of Sicily, which the pope had declared independent of the empire by renewing its investiture in the name of the Holy See. In truth, the papacy and the empire had become irreconcilable. Each claimed unlimited authority, and neither was willing to respect the boundaries necessary for mutual tolerance. After his coronation, Frederick returned to Germany, while Milan prepared for the looming storm. In the ensuing conflict with the empire, that great city rose to the level of patriotic heroism. Through both their suffering and their daring deeds, its citizens proved themselves to be noble, devoted, and selfless, earning the purest laurels that illuminate Italian history. Almost in Frederick’s presence, they rebuilt Tortona, punished Pavia, Lodi, Cremona, and the marquis of Montferrat. Then they fortified the Adda and Ticino rivers and awaited the emperor’s next attack. He arrived in 1158 with a large army, swept through Lombardy, rallied his imperial allies, and laid siege to Milan. Famine forced the burghers into partial submission, and Frederick held a victorious diet at Roncaglia. Here, the jurists from Bologna appeared, armed with their new knowledge of Roman law, and explained Justinian’s code in favor of the German empire. It became clear how the absolutist ideas of autocracy developed in Justinian’s era at Byzantium would manifest in the formation of an imperial concept that was destined to be the illusory dream of medieval Italy. Frederick placed judges of his own choosing, called podestà, in all the Lombard communes; and this expansion of his authority, while aggravating his enemies, compelled even his allies to join forces against him. Meanwhile, the war dragged on. Crema fell after a heroic siege in 1160 and was left to the mercilessness of its fierce rival Cremona. Milan was besieged in 1161, starved into submission after nine months of resistance, and surrendered to total destruction by the Italian imperialists of Frederick’s army, so tainted by the vengeful passions of municipal rivalry was even this, the one great glorious struggle of Italian history. After destroying his rebellious city but failing to break its spirit, Frederick withdrew across the Alps. However, between his second and third visits, a league formed against him in northeastern Lombardy. Verona, Vicenza, Padua, Treviso, and Venice entered a pact to defend their freedoms; and when he returned in 1163 with an impressive entourage of German knights, the imperial cities refused to rally to his banners. This was the first ominous sign of a coming change.

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

Meanwhile, the election of Alexander III to the papacy in 1159 gave a strong ally to the republican party. Opposed by an anti-pope backed by the emperor, Alexander realized it was wiser to seek support from the anti-imperialist communes. In return, they gladly accepted a champion who provided the prestige and influence of the Church. When Frederick crossed the Alps again in 1166, he marched towards Rome and besieged Alexander in the Coliseum. However, the situation in Lombardy kept him too busy to pursue a defiant pope. In April 1167, a new league was formed among Cremona, Bergamo, Brescia, Mantua, and Ferrara. By December of the same year, this league allied with the older Veronese league and welcomed Milan, Lodi, Piacenza, Parma, Modena, and Bologna. The notable league of Lombard cities, known as Concordia in its agreements, was now established. Novara, Vercelli, Asti, and Tortona joined its ranks; only Pavia and Montferrat remained loyal to the empire between the Alps and the Apennines. Frederick fled for his life through Mont Cenis, and in 1168, the town of Alessandria was founded to keep Pavia and the marquisate in check. With the emperor absent, Ravenna, Rimini, Imola, and Forli joined the league, which then called itself the “Society of Venice, Lombardy, the March, Romagna, and Alessandria.” For the fifth time, in 1174, Frederick entered his rebellious territories. The fortified town of Alessandria blocked his advance with those mud walls mockingly referred to as “of straw,” while the league's forces gathered at Modena and compelled him to lift the siege. In the spring of 1176, Frederick threatened Milan. His army found itself just north of the town near the village of Legnano, where the city's troops, aided only by a few allies from Piacenza, Verona, Brescia, Novara, and Vercelli, met and overwhelmed it. The victory was decisive. Frederick managed to escape alone to Pavia, from where he began negotiations with Alexander. As a result of these discussions, he was allowed to go safely to Venice. Here, on neutral ground, the emperor met the pope, and a truce for six years was established with the Lombard towns. Looking back at this long struggle through the lens of history, we're struck by the limited outcomes that satisfied the Lombard communes. They had humbled and completely defeated their foreign lord. They proved their strength in unity. Yet neither the agreements that ratified their league nor the terms negotiated for them by their patron Alexander showed any desire for what we now understand as national independence. The name of Italy is never mentioned. The authority of the emperor is not questioned. The idea of a permanent confederation, united in an offensive and defensive alliance for common goals, did not occur to these determined fighters and fierce defenders of their civic rights. All they claimed was municipal autonomy; the right to manage their own affairs within city limits, to fight their battles as they saw fit, and to pursue their individual goals unchecked. It's futile to lament that when they could have established Italian independence on a solid foundation, they instead chose local and municipal privileges. Their mutual rivalries, along with the empire's influence, and possibly the self-interest of the pope, who had secured his own position and was unlikely to support a national spirit that threatened ecclesiastical supremacy, deprived the Italians of their one great opportunity to form a powerful nation.

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

When the truce ended in 1183, a lasting peace was agreed upon in Constance. The years leading up to this moment were spent by the Lombards, not in strengthening their alliance, but in trying to secure special privileges for their Peace of Constance. several cities. Alessandria della Paglia, famous for resisting the emperor in 1174, even changed its name to Cesarea! The signatories of the Peace of Constance were split between the league members and the imperialists. On one side were Vercelli, Novara, Milan, Lodi, Bergamo, Brescia, Mantua, Verona, Vicenza, Padua, Treviso, Bologna, Faenza, Modena, Reggio, Parma, and Piacenza; on the other were Pavia, Genoa, Alba, Cremona, Como, Tortona, Asti, and Cesarea. Venice, which had not yet joined the Italian community, stands out by its absence. According to the terms of this treaty, the communes were confirmed in their right to self-governance by consuls and their right to engage in warfare. The emperor kept the highest courts of appeal within the cities, and 34 maintained his claim for support at their expense whenever he entered Italy.

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

The privileges granted to the Lombard cities by the peace of Constance were extended to Tuscany, where Florence, after defeating Fiesole, had started her path to freedom and prosperity. The next significant chapter in the history of Italian development is the conflict between the towns and the nobles. The consular cities were surrounded by castles, and although the feudal lords had been weakened by past events, they still posed significant threats. For the towns to thrive, they needed territory around their walls, which had to be taken from the nobles. We can’t focus on the details of this conflict. It’s enough to say that the counts were gradually brought into a dependent relationship with the communes by mortgaging their property to wealthy townspeople, becoming mercenary leaders for the cities, supporting one town against another, and ultimately submitting after their strongholds were besieged. In turn, the communes forced the nobles to abandon their castles and spend part of each year within the city walls. Through these actions, the counts became citizens, the rural population stopped being classified as serfs, and the Italo-Roman population of the towns integrated the remnants of Franks, Germans, and other foreign groups. It’s impossible to overstate the significance of this revolution, which ultimately eradicated the last traces of feudalism and set the stage for the common Italian populace that would later contribute to European culture. However, like all changes in the Italian experience, while it was a clear advancement in one area, it also created a new source of conflict. The allied nobles became troublesome neighbors to the peaceful citizens. They fortified their homes, maintained their military lifestyles, defied the consuls, and engaged in feuds in the streets and squares. The fight against the castles turned into a fight against the palaces, and the consular system of government proved inadequate to manage the conflicting elements within the state. This situation led to the establishment of podestàs, who served as a compromise between the two hostile factions in the city, tasked with mediating and maintaining peace between them. Always a foreigner, elected for a year with power of life and death and control over the armed forces, but required to provide a detailed account at the end of his term, the podestà was similar to a dictator with limited powers. His title came from the judges of Frederick Barbarossa, but he was independent of the empire. The citizens chose him and willingly accepted his authority. The podestà represents a crucial transitional phase in civic governance, and his role set the groundwork for despotism.

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

The thirty years between Frederick Barbarossa’s death in 1190 and the coronation of his grandson Frederick II in 1220 represent one of the most significant periods in Italian history. Barbarossa recognized the benefit to his family if he could unite the crown of Sicily with that of Germany, thereby cutting off the popes' allies in Lower Italy. He arranged for his son Henry VI to marry Constance, the daughter of King Roger and heiress of the Hauteville dynasty. When William II, the last king of the Normans, died, Henry VI claimed the throne through his wife and was accepted in 1194. Three years later, Henry VI passed away, leaving his son Frederick in the care of Constance, who died in 1198, entrusting the young prince, already crowned king of Germany, to Innocent III. It was a daring move to hand Frederick over to his biggest enemy and rival; however, the pope fulfilled his responsibility honorably until Frederick was old enough to take care of himself, becoming a prime target for ecclesiastical rivalry. Frederick’s lengthy childhood coincided with Innocent's papacy. Among the key events during that time were the establishment of the Franciscan and Dominican orders, which were set to serve as a force for the holy see against the empire and the heretics of Lombardy. Another major event was the Fourth Crusade, launched in 1198, which secured the naval and trade dominance of the Italians in the Mediterranean. The Venetians, who arranged for the transport of the crusaders, and whose blind Doge Dandolo was the first to land in Constantinople, acquired half and a quarter of the dismembered Greek empire as their rewards. The Venetian supremacy in the Levant began at this time; even though the republic couldn't occupy all the lands given to it, they took Candia along with several small islands and coastal stations. The creation of a Latin empire in the East boosted the pope’s standing; meanwhile, at home, he focused on organizing Countess Matilda’s inheritance through the establishment of Guelph leagues, which he oversaw. This is the significance of the three leagues in the March, the duchy of Spoleto, and Tuscany, which linked the main cities of papal territory into allies of the holy see. Among these, Pisa, consistently Ghibelline, distanced itself from the Tuscan league. At this time, Rome again established a republic, which Innocent either would not or could not intervene in. The thirteen districts within their council appointed four caporioni, who worked together with a senator, chosen, like the podestà of other cities, for top judicial roles. Meanwhile, the Guelph and Ghibelline factions began to fragment Italy into small territories. Not only did communes align against one another under the two rival banners, but factions also rose up against each other within the city walls. The emergence of these factions in Florence in 1215, due to a personal dispute among the Buondelmonti, Amidei, and Donati, is a famous example of what was happening in every town.

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

Frederick II was without a rival for the imperial throne in 1218 after the death of Otto IV. On November 22, 1220, Honorius III, Innocent’s successor, crowned him in Rome. The Italians couldn’t mistake the significance of his rise to power. He combined the prestige of the empire with the crowns of Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Germany, and Burgundy; and in 1225, through his marriage to Yolande de Brienne, he added Jerusalem to his titles. There was no prince greater or more formidable anywhere in the world. The communes, as well as the popes, knew they had to prepare for a battle to the death against a power that threatened their existence. As early as 1218, the Guelphs of Lombardy had revived their old alliance and were defeated by the Ghibellines in a battle near Ghibello. Italy seemed completely submissive to the emperor, who commanded her for the first time from both the south and the north. In 1227, Frederick, who had promised to lead a crusade, was excommunicated by Gregory IX because he had to postpone his mission due to illness, and thus the spiritual authority declared war on its rival. The Guelph towns of Lombardy again raised their troops. Frederick enlisted his Saracen soldiers at Nocera and Luceria and appointed the ruthless Ezzelino da Romano as his vicar in the Marches of Verona to suppress their rebellion. However, it wasn’t until 1236 that he was able to go to battle himself against the Lombards. After securing Ezzelino in Verona, Vicenza, and Padua, he defeated the Milanese and their allies at Cortenuova in 1237 and sent the trophy of their carroccio as a symbol of his victory to Rome. Gregory IX feared that the Guelph party would be crushed by this defeat. Therefore, he allied with Venice and Genoa, declared a new excommunication against Frederick, and convened a council in Rome to confirm his ban in 1241. The Genoese pledged to bring French bishops to this council. Their fleet was attacked at Meloria by the Pisans and completely defeated. The French bishops were taken prisoner in silver chains to the Ghibelline capital of Tuscany. So far, Frederick had been successful in all areas. In 1243, a new pope, Innocent IV, was elected, who conducted the war with even more bitterness. Forced to flee to France, he convened a council in Lyons in 1245, which enforced his condemnation of the emperor. Frederick’s subjects were released from their loyalty, and he was declared dethroned and stripped of all rights. Five times a king and emperor, Frederick, now under the church's ban, led a doomed existence from then on. The mendicant monks incited the populace to acts of fanatical hostility. Plotting against him or attempting to take his life by poison or sword became seen as virtuous. His secretary, Piero delle Vigne, was wrongly suspected of conspiracy. The atrocities committed by his vicar Ezzelino, who devastated entire provinces and murdered thousands in his Paduan prisons, fueled the fear and hatred directed at him. Parma revolted against him, and he spent months in 1247-1248 futilely trying to bring this once-loyal city back under control. The only glimpse of success in his misfortune was the revolution that placed Florence in the hands of the Ghibellines in 1248. The following year, Bologna revolted against him, defeating his troops and capturing his son Enzio, king of Sardinia, at Fossalta. Hunted down and heartbroken, Frederick died at the end of 1250 in his Apulian castle of Fiorentino. It's challenging to evaluate his career fairly. He was the only prince who could have successfully established German rule in Italy, and his downfall revealed the impossibility of that long-held ambition. The nation had outgrown its dependence on foreigners, and after his death, no German emperor managed anything but miserable failures in Italian affairs. Yet, from various perspectives, one might regret that Frederick was not allowed to rule Italy. By birth and upbringing an Italian, highly talented and well-educated, liberal in his ideas, a supporter of literature, and a founder of universities, he foreshadowed the spirit of the Renaissance. At his court, Italian emerged as a language. His laws were wise, and he had the potential to give Italy a rich and noble culture. But the overwhelming nature of his position ultimately led to his downfall. As emperor and king of Sicily, he was a natural enemy of the popes, who could not tolerate such an overwhelming rival.

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

After Frederick’s death, the popes continued their fight against his descendants for eighteen years. His son Conrad was supported in Lower Italy by Manfred, one of Frederick’s many illegitimate children; and when Conrad died in 1254, Manfred still acted as vicegerent for the Swabians, now represented by a young boy named Conradin. Innocent IV and Alexander IV kept opposing the Ghibelline party. The most dramatic moment in this conflict was the crusade declared against Ezzelino. This tyrant had become justifiably hated; and when he was hunted down and killed in 1259, the victory felt less about the Guelph cause and more about humanity avenging the wrongs committed by such a monster. The battle between Guelph and Ghibelline raged with constant fury. While the Guelphs gained ground in Lombardy with Ezzelino's massacre, the Ghibellines revived in Tuscany after the battle of Montaperti, which in 1260 gave Florence to the Ghibellines. Manfred, now called king of Sicily, led the Ghibellines, and there was no strong opposition against him. In this situation, Urban IV and Clement IV invited Charles of Anjou to come to Italy and take the Guelph leadership. They made him the senator of Rome and vicar of Tuscany, promising him control of the kingdom as long as he agreed not to combine it with the empire. Charles accepted these terms and was welcomed by the Guelph party as their leader throughout Italy. He defeated Manfred in a battle at Grandella near Benevento in 1266. Manfred was killed; and when Conradin, a sixteen-year-old, came down from Germany to reclaim his rights to the kingdom, he was also defeated at Tagliacozzo in 1267. Unlike his uncle, Conradin managed to escape with his life, only to die on the scaffold in Naples. His glove was sent to his cousin Constance, wife of Peter of Aragon, the last of the great Norman-Swabian line. Enzio died in prison four years later. The popes had been victorious; but they paid a heavy price for their bloody triumph. This first invitation to French princes brought with it unimaginable troubles.

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

Charles of Anjou, backed by Rome and recognized as the main leader in Tuscany, was by far the most powerful of the Italian rulers. In turn, he sparked the jealousy of the popes, who began, albeit cautiously, to lean towards the Ghibelline faction. Gregory started a policy aimed at balancing the two sides, which continued under his successor Nicholas III. Charles had to give up his position as senator of Rome and his rule over Lombardy and Tuscany. In 1282, he faced a significant setback when Sicily revolted against him in the famous Vespers rebellion. He lost the island, which allied itself with Aragon, separating the kingdom of Sicily from that of Naples, with the first ruled by a Spanish Ghibelline dynasty, and the latter by a French Guelph one. Meanwhile, a new emperor, the wise Rudolf of Habsburg, was elected, who refrained from meddling in Italian affairs and confirmed the territorial claims of the popes through a formal charter in 1278. From then on, Emilia, Romagna, the March of Ancona, the patrimony of St. Peter, and the Campagna of Rome were under the Holy See rather than the empire. The imperial chancellery, without closely examining the documents provided by the papal curia, issued a deed that positioned the pope as a temporal sovereign. While Nicholas III. improved the church's standing in Italy, the Guelph party grew stronger than ever after the devastating defeat of the Pisans by the Genoese at Meloria in 1284. Pisa, which had previously destroyed Amalfi, was now ruined by Genoa. After this victory, she never regained her former glory, losing many of her best and bravest citizens to death in Ligurian prisons. The Mediterranean was left to be contested by Genoa and Venice, while Guelph Florence became even more powerful in Tuscany. Not long after the battle of Meloria, Charles of Anjou died and was succeeded by his son Charles II. of Naples, who did not play a significant role in Italian matters. The Guelph party became less tightly controlled even in consistently Guelph cities like Florence. In the year 1300, new factions emerged, splitting the old Guelphs and Ghibellines into the Neri and Bianchi, gaining enough power that Boniface VIII., a strongly Guelph pope, summoned Charles of Valois to restore order in the republic and take charge of Italian affairs. Boniface was an impulsive and reckless man. After clashing with the French king, Philip le Bel, he fell into the hands of the Colonna family in Anagni and died there, either from the violence he suffered or from the humiliation, in October 1303.

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

After the brief papacy of Benedict XI, a Frenchman named Clement V was elected, and the papacy was moved to Avignon. This marked the beginning of the popes' Babylonian exile, which subjected them to the French crown and damaged their reputation in Italy. Lasting seventy years and overlapping with the sixty years of the Great Schism, this weakening of papal authority, coinciding with the near-total absence of the empire from Italian matters, allowed the nation a long period of relative independence. It's important to note that this exile stemmed from the policy that led the popes, in their strong dislike of Ghibellinism, to increasingly rely on the houses of Anjou and Valois. This policy inspired Dante’s sharp epigram—the puttaneggiar co regi.

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

The period we've just covered was immortalized by Dante in an epic that, from one perspective, could be called the poem of the Guelphs and Ghibellines. From the previous straightforward recounting of events, it's hard to judge the significance of these factions or to understand their impact on later Italian history. Therefore, we need to take a moment and dig a little deeper. The civil wars can be seen as a continuation of the earlier city struggles, heightened by recent conflicts between the middle-class citizens and the nobles. The disputes between the church and the empire provide reasons and rallying cries for war, but the real issue isn't about who holds power—the pope or the emperor. It's a social conflict between civic and feudal structures, between business interests and military concerns, between progress and traditionalism. Guelph democracy and industry idealize the pope. The church's banner flies over those who seek economic success and equal republicanism. Ghibelline aristocracy and stability idealize the emperor. The empire’s prestige, rooted in Roman law and feudal customs, draws imaginative patriots and systematic thinkers. These two ideals are in opposition and cannot coexist. No city identifies as either Guelph or Ghibelline until it has expelled half of its population; each faction is determined to shape the state according to its own vision, and supporting one agenda negates the other. The Ghibellines genuinely believe that the Guelphs will plunge society into chaos. The Guelphs are convinced that the Ghibellines will destroy freedom and suffocate trade. The conflict is fought between two groups of people who share a love for their city but wish to govern it based on completely opposed principles, and they fight to the death for control. This contradiction seeps into the smallest details of life—heraldic symbols, clothing, dining customs symbolize and highlight the divide. Meanwhile, each faction establishes its own leadership, financial officers, and record-keepers at home while sending ambassadors to other cities with a similar alignment. A web of party politics binds and influences the towns of Italy, linking even the most distant centers and, ironically, strengthening the sense of national identity through their divisions. The Italians, through their conflicts during this time, realize that they are one community. In the end, victory in the struggle largely goes to the previously disenfranchised commoners. The older noble families fade or lose their dominance. In some cities, particularly in Florence after 1292, it becomes a crime to be scioperato, or unemployed. New families rise to prominence; a new commercial aristocracy emerges. Citizens from all backgrounds join one of the crafts or guilds, and these trade organizations provide the backbone of the city’s government or signoria. Common trades assert their right to be represented on equal footing with educated professions and wealthy entities. The ancient classes collapse and blend into a more homogeneous and adaptable population, suitable for both democracy and tyranny.

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

In addition to the parliament and the councils already mentioned, we now have a council of the party established within the city. This group is becoming a bit of a state within a state, and, by controlling the New constitution for the free cities. victorious majority, manages the government as it sees fit. The consuls are merged into ancients or priors, chosen from the various arts. A new official, the gonfalonier of justice, appears in some of the Guelph cities, tasked specifically with keeping the nobility's arrogance in check. Meanwhile, the podestà still exists, but he can no longer maintain a balance of power. He is increasingly becoming just a judge, losing the dictatorial role he once had. His former position is now taken by a new official who no longer acts as an arbitrator, but rather focuses on consolidating the forces of the winning party. The captain of the people, leading the dominant Guelphs or Ghibellines, takes on the responsibility for proscriptions, makes decisions on policies, forms alliances, and declares war. Like all officials created in emergencies, his power is poorly defined, and he often resembles an autocrat.

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

V. Age of the Despots.—During the intense civil wars, the Italians were seemingly divided between supporters of the empire and supporters of the church. After Frederick II's death, Manfred and Charles of Anjou managed their affairs, acting as the main leaders of the factions, while the heads of the people in each city followed their orders. As the conflict continued through warfare, these local leaders were chosen for their military skills; and since the nobles were professional soldiers, members of noble families once again took the lead in towns where they had integrated into the middle class. This led to the emergence of the Della Scala dynasty in Verona and the Carraresi in Padua after the fall of the Ezzelini of Romano. The Estensi became lords of Ferrara, and the Torriani led the Guelphs of Milan. In Ravenna, we have the Polenta family, in Rimini the Malatestas, in Parma the Rossi, in Piacenza the Scotti, and in Faenza the Manfredi. Every town in northern Italy can trace the rise of a noble house to the events of this period. In Tuscany, where the Guelph party was well-organized and the commercial system of Florence kept the nobility in check, the communes remained largely free from hereditary rulers. However, generals occasionally emerged, such as Conte Ugolino della Gheradesca in Pisa, Uguccione della Faggiuola in Lucca, and Conte Guido di Montefeltro in Florence, who threatened the liberties of Tuscan cities with military dictatorship.

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

Left alone by absent emperors and exiled popes, the Italians followed their own path of development without restraint. After the start of the 14th century, civil wars lessened in intensity, and it became clear that their impact had been to strengthen tyrants in their control over free cities. Emerging from the captain of the people or lord of the commune, the tyrant eliminated both sides for his own gain and for the stability of the state. He utilized the dictatorial powers granted to him to elevate himself above the law, taking control of the state machinery that existed before him. For the first time, the city became self-aware; the previously chaotic forces of earlier revolutions were now unified in the will of a single ruler. The tyrant’s overall strategy was to support the masses at the expense of his own class. He gained popularity through these actions and completed the ongoing process of class leveling that had been happening since the rise of the communes.

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

In 1309, Robert, the grandson of Charles, the first Angevine ruler, took the throne of Naples and became the leader of the Guelphs in Italy. The following year, Henry VII of Luxembourg crossed the Alps shortly after his election to the empire, raising hopes for the Ghibellines. Dante, from his mountain solitude, passionately urged him to be a Messiah. But it was clear that no German could control the "Garden of the Empire" anymore. Italy had entered a new era, and the great poet’s De monarchia represented a vision of the past that could no longer be achieved. Henry set up imperial vicars in the Lombard towns, supporting the tyrants but gaining nothing for the empire in return for the titles he granted. After being crowned in Rome, he died in Buonconvento, a small walled town south of Siena, on his way back in 1313. The despots reaped the rewards of his invasion, using Ghibelline prestige to strengthen their own power. This is when the supremacy of the Visconti began, who had previously been the unsuccessful rivals of the Guelphic Torriani for control of Milan. The Scaligers in Verona and the Carraresi in Padua grew stronger; in Tuscany, Castruccio Castracane, Uguccione’s successor in Lucca, became a significant force. In 1325, he defeated the Florentines at Alto Pascio and brought home their carroccio as a trophy from his victory over the Guelphs. Louis of Bavaria, the next emperor, made a similar expedition in 1327, with an even greater loss of imperial prestige. He deposed Galeazzo Visconti on his way down and offered Milan for a sum of money to his son Azzo upon his return. Castruccio Castracane was named the duke of Lucca; this was the first time a dynastic title was awarded to an Italian adventurer by the emperor. Castruccio dominated Tuscany, where the Guelph cause weakened due to King Robert’s ineffectiveness. However, Castruccio’s death in 1328 preserved the republican institutions, and Florence briefly breathed easier again. Can Grande della Scala’s death the following year dealt a blow to the Lombard Ghibellines that was hardly less significant than Castruccio's loss to their Tuscan allies. The short visit of John of Bohemia, son of Henry VII, whom the Ghibellines invited to lead them, was politically insignificant and historically uninteresting. He sold a few privileges, awarded some titles, and returned across the Alps in 1333. It was evident that the intensity of civil wars had subsided. Despite the Ghibellines' repeated efforts and King Robert’s weakness, the imperialists made no lasting gains. The Italians were weary of fighting, and leaders from both sides focused solely on their own interests. Each city that had once cherished freedom gladly accepted a ruler to end party strife, boost trade, and provide stability for workers. Even the Florentines briefly submitted to the rule of the duke of Athens in 1342. They granted him the signory for life; had he managed things better, he might have kept control of the city. Italy was calming down, turning its attention to home comforts, arts, and literature. Boccaccio, the satisfied bourgeois, followed Dante, the fierce aristocrat.

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

The most significant evidence of the change that swept through Italy around the mid-14th century is shown by the companies of mercenaries. It was with their own militia that the townspeople secured their freedom in the war of independence, defeated the nobles, and fought for their factions. But from that point onward, they put down their weapons and conducted warfare with the help of hired soldiers. Religious authorities, interfering from afar in Italian politics; wealthy republics, with ample funds but no time or desire for military life; cautious tyrants, who were eager to weaken their subjects and gain popularity by replacing conscription with taxation—all contributed to the rise of this new system. Mercenary troops are said to have first been recruited from disbanded German soldiers, along with Breton and English adventurers, who were hired by the Visconti and Castruccio. They soon appeared under their own leaders, who rented them out to the highest bidder or led them on loot-filled raids through the less protected areas. The names of some of these early mercenary leaders—Fra Moriale, Count Lando, and Duke Werner, who called himself the “Enemy of God and Mercy”—have survived to this day. As these companies grew in size and became more disciplined, Italian nobles recognized that this type of service provided a promising career for spirited men who had mastered the use of arms. Allowing such a powerful and lucrative profession to remain in the hands of foreigners seemed both risky and wasteful. Consequently, after the mid-century, this profession shifted into the hands of locals. The first Italian to create an exclusively Italian mercenary company was Alberico da Barbiano, a nobleman from Romagna and founder of the Milanese house of Belgiojoso. Under his leadership, the great mercenary leaders Braccio da Montone and Sforza Attendolo emerged; from then on, the battles in Italy were fought by Italian generals commanding local troops. This was an improvement in certain ways compared to having foreign mercenaries. However, it should not be overlooked that the new mercenary companies, which influenced Italian affairs for the next century, were in no way patriotic. They sold their services for money, regardless of the cause they supported; while changing allegiances, they showed no concern for any interests other than their own. The term condottiero, derived from condotta, a paid contract to provide a certain number of soldiers in fighting condition, clearly reflects the nature of this business. Under skilled leaders like Francesco Sforza or Piccinino, these mercenary troops turned into roaming despotisms, extracting wealth from the country and always eager to establish tyrannies in the regions they were called to protect. Their commanders replaced heavily armed cavalry with the old militia and introduced campaign strategies that reduced warfare to a game of skill. Battles grew nearly bloodless; diplomacy and tactics took precedence over heroic deeds and direct combat. In this way, Italians lost their military strength, and wars were conducted by tyrants from their offices, manipulating puppet leaders in their pay. The populace was not only weakened against actual enemies; the entire political spirit of the nation was demoralized. The purely self-serving relationship between mercenaries and their employers, whether princes or republics, led to intrigues and betrayals, checks and counter-checks, secret threats on one side and treasonous acts on the other, ultimately making statecraft in Italy synonymous with betrayal.

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

It should also be noted that the rise of mercenaries coincided with a shift in the nature of Italian despotism. The tyrants, as we've already seen, established themselves as leaders of the people, representatives of the empire, delegates of the church, and heads of the Guelph and Ghibelline factions. They were accepted by a populace eager for peace, who had blurred old class divisions during the conflicts of previous centuries. They relied heavily on the support of the masses and pursued a strategy of sacrificing the nobles for their own interests. It was natural for these self-made rulers to secure the peace they promised in their cities by freeing the people from military duties and disarming the aristocracy. As their grip on power became stronger, they pushed dynastic claims, adopted titles, and styled themselves as minor sovereigns. Their governance took on a paternal tone; and while there were no limits to their cruelty when provoked, they favored financial manipulation over violence, using bribery domestically and treasonous schemes abroad instead of coercive tactics or outright warfare. This paved the way for the type of despotism that came to full fruition in Gian Galeazzo Visconti and Lorenzo de’ Medici. No longer a tyrant in the mold of Ezzelino, he ruled through intelligence and fear disguised by a friendly appearance. He replaced brutality with cunning and corruption. The common people tolerated him because he enhanced their city’s power and beautified it with public structures. The bourgeoisie, protected in their trades, found it practical to support him. The nobles, transformed into courtiers, officials, diplomats, and businesspeople, ultimately preferred his authority over the prospect of democratic rule. A lethargy of comfort, interrupted only by the strain of tax burdens for war expenses or by outbursts of wild brutality and desire from the more reckless tyrants, settled over the inhabitants of cities that once prided themselves on their freedom. Only Florence and Venice, at the end of the period we are now entering, preserved their republican independence. And Venice was governed by a tight oligarchy; Florence was shifting from the control of its oligarchs to the power of the Medici merchants.

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

Between 1305, when Clement V settled in Avignon, and 1447, when Nicholas V re-established the papacy on a solid foundation in Rome, the Italians came closer to self-governance than at any other time in their history. The conditions of despotism, mercenary warfare, and bourgeois prosperity shaped this period, which also set the stage for the great achievements of the Renaissance. By the end of this century and a half, five major powers had divided the peninsula, and their combined efforts over the next forty-five years (1447-1492) brought Italy a time of peace and significant prosperity. These five powers were the Kingdom of Naples, the Duchy of Milan, the Republic of Florence, the Republic of Venice, and the papacy. The following events in Italian history will be clearer if we examine the development of these five elements of Italian greatness separately.

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

When Robert of Anjou died in 1343, he was succeeded by his granddaughter Joan, who was childless and had four successive husbands: Andrew of Hungary, Louis of Taranto, James of Aragon, and Otto of Brunswick. Charles of The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Durazzo, the last male heir of the Angevine family in Lower Italy, murdered Joan in 1382 and ruled the kingdom for five years. He died in 1387, passing Naples to his son Ladislaus, who had no children, and was succeeded in 1414 by his sister Joan II. She also died without any heirs, having briefly adopted Louis III of Provence and his brother René, and at another time Alfonso V of Aragon, who later took the crown of Sicily. After her death in February 1435, a struggle for the kingdom erupted between René of Anjou and Alfonso, known as the Magnanimous. René gained support from Italian princes, especially the Milanese Visconti, who helped him assert his claims with military force. During the ensuing succession war, Alfonso was captured by the Genoese fleet in August 1435 and taken prisoner to Filippo Maria in Milan. There, he advocated for his cause so convincingly and demonstrated the benefits of his alliance for the Visconti if he controlled the kingdom, that he secured his release and recognition as king. By the end of 1435, 38 Alfonso ruled alone and peacefully in Lower Italy, for the first time since 1282 uniting the crowns of Sicily and Naples. He inherited Sicily along with Aragon, while he claimed Naples through conquest. Thus, when he died in 1458, he left Naples to his illegitimate son Ferdinand, while Sicily and Aragon went to his brother John, and subsequently to Ferdinand the Catholic. The twenty-three years of Alfonso's reign were the most prosperous and glorious in South Italian history. He embraced Italian culture and the humanistic spirit of the early Renaissance, enthusiastically supporting writers at his court, governing his kingdom with enlightened despotism, and using his authority to establish a balance in the peninsula, which politicians of his time believed, not without reason, could secure Italian independence.

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

The last member of the Visconti family we discussed was Azzo, who bought the city in 1328 from Louis of Bavaria. His uncle Lucchino took over but was murdered in 1349 by a wife he had been plotting against. Lucchino’s brother John, the archbishop of Milan, then took control of the city and expanded the Visconti power over Genoa and all of northern Italy, except for Piedmont, Verona, Mantua, Ferrara, and Venice. The family's greatness began during this strong leader's reign. He died in 1354, and his legacy was divided between three members of his family: Matteo, Bernabò, and Galeazzo. The following year, Matteo was deemed unfit to rule and was killed by his brothers, who divided their territories equally—Bernabò living in Milan and Galeazzo in Pavia. Galeazzo was the richest and most magnificent Italian of his time. He married his daughter Violante to our duke of Clarence and his son Gian Galeazzo to a daughter of King John of France. When he died in 1378, his son aimed to reunite the Visconti domains and, to achieve this, plotted and carried out the murder of his uncle Bernabò. Thus, Gian Galeazzo became a dominant Italian tyrant. Confined in his Pavia castle, accumulating wealth through heavy taxation and strict budgeting, he organized mercenary troops who eagerly served such a generous employer; by directing their actions from his office, he threatened to conquer all of Italy. The last descendants of the Della Scala family still ruled in Verona, the last Carraresi in Padua; the Estensi were strong in Ferrara, and the Gonzaghi in Mantua. Gian Galeazzo, through force and manipulation, discredited these lesser tyrants, pushed his dominance to the outskirts of Venice, and, having brought Lombardy under his control, began to attack Tuscany. Pisa and Perugia faced destruction, and Florence feared the advance of the Visconti, when the plague abruptly ended his reign of treachery and conquest in 1402. Seven years before his death, Gian Galeazzo purchased the title of duke of Milan and count of Pavia from Emperor Wenceslaus, clearly aiming for the sovereignty of Italy. However, once he died, the inherent weakness of an artificial state built through cunning and betrayal, bolstered by bought troops and lacking a dynastic title or loyalty, quickly became evident. Gian Galeazzo’s duchy was a masterful, mechanical creation of a scheming mind and lawless will. When the architect of this power was gone, it fell apart, with even those who had helped to construct it contributing to its downfall. The Visconti’s own generals—Facino Cane, Pandolfo Malatesta, Jacopo dal Verme, Gabrino Fondulo, Ottobon Terzo—seized control of several Lombard cities. In others, the small tyrants that the Visconti had removed resurfaced. The Estensi reasserted control over Ferrara, and the Gonzaghi regained Mantua. Venice strengthened its position between the Adriatic and the Alps. Florence reclaimed its dominance in Tuscany. Other communes that still maintained a semblance of independence, like Perugia and Bologna, began to dream once more of republican freedom under their own leading families. Meanwhile, Gian Galeazzo left two sons, Giovanni Maria and Filippo Maria. Giovanni, notorious for his cruelty and lust, was assassinated by some nobles in Milan in 1412; then Filippo set about trying to rebuild his father’s duchy. He was aided by Facino Cane’s troops, who, conveniently dying at this moment, left behind significant wealth, a well-trained band of mercenaries, and a widow, Beatrice di Tenda. Filippo married and later beheaded Beatrice after a sham trial for adultery, having utilized her money and influence to reunite several territories under the crown of Milan. He then embarked on a long, secretive, and obscure campaign to piece together Gian Galeazzo’s Lombard state and pursue his ambitions of Italian conquest. In this quest, he faced strong opposition. Venice and Florence, emboldened by their resentful oligarchies, mounted fierce resistance, and Filippo was not as skilled as his father. His cunning often backfired, countering his own goals, thwarting him right at the brink of achievement with hints of deceit or intimidation. During Filippo’s conflicts with Florence and Venice, the greatest generals of the time emerged—Francesco Carmagnola, who was executed between the columns in Venice in 1432; Niccolò Piccinino, who died in Milan in 1444; and Francesco Sforza, who lived on to claim his master’s legacy in 1450. The son of Attendolo Sforza, Francesco married Filippo’s illegitimate daughter, Bianca, as a reward for past services and a promise of future support. When the Visconti dynasty ended with the duke’s death in 1447, he pretended to support the cause of the reestablished Milanese republic; however, he played his cards cleverly to make himself duke de facto if not de jure, thanks to the backing of Cosimo de’ Medici in Florence. Francesco Sforza was the only condottiero among many aspiring tyrants who firmly planted himself on a significant throne. Once established in the duchy of Milan, he displayed exceptional qualities as a ruler; he not only embraced the spirit of the age that demanded humanity and culture from a despot but also learned to restrain his territorial ambitions. The idea of a confederated Italy found a strong advocate in him. Thus, the limitations of the Milanese duchy under Filippo Maria Visconti and its strengthening under Francesco Sforza were both crucial in shaping the power dynamics that Italian politics began to reflect.

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

This balance couldn't have been established without the support of Florence. After the duke of Athens was expelled in 1343 and the great plague of 1348 hit, the working class in Florence rose up against the merchant elite. The uprising of the artisans, in a republic that had been reshaped based on economic principles by Giano della Bella’s constitution of 1292, peaked in 1378 with the Ciompi rebellion, which temporarily put the city in the hands of the Lesser Arts. However, the revolution was short-lived and was more a reflection of democratic tendencies in the state than an indication of the working class's ability to govern. The needs of war and foreign affairs soon put Florence under the control of an oligarchy led by the influential Albizzi family. They successfully fought for the republic against the Visconti and greatly expanded Florence's territory over the Tuscan cities. During their rise to power, they enslaved Pisa, allowing Florence access to the sea. But throughout this period, a strong opposition was building up, led by the Medici, who allied with the common people and enhanced their political significance through the accumulation and savvy use of substantial commercial wealth. In 1433, the Albizzi and the Medici openly clashed. Cosimo de’ Medici, the leader of the opposition, was exiled to Venice. The following year, he returned, took charge of the democratic party, and established himself as the real but unacknowledged dictator of the commonwealth through a mix of corruption, popularity efforts, and patronage of the arts and literature. Cosimo changed the policies of his predecessors. Instead of opposing Francesco Sforza in Milan, he supported him, seeing that the future of his own family and peace in Italy could be secured by maintaining a balance of power in which Florence would stand equally with Milan and Naples.

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

The Republic of Venice was different from any other state in Italy, and its history was so unique that there was no need to pause the narrative to explore it up to this point. However, in the 14th century, Venice finally established itself as an Italian power on par with the very greatest. The government structure of the commonwealth gradually evolved through a series of revolutions, creating a distinct type of stability. In the early days of the republic, the doge was a prince elected by the people and accountable only to popular assemblies. In 1032, the doge had to work alongside a senate called pregadi; by 1172, the grand council was established, which became the real authority of the state. I can't detail the steps by which the grand council members removed the people's role in governance and reduced the doge to a mere ceremonial figure. It's enough to say that these changes peaked in 1297 when a law was passed to limit the grand council to a specific number of privileged families, granting them hereditary rights to govern. This endorsement of an oligarchic system, combined with the establishment of the Council of Ten in 1311, finalized the notable constitution that lasted until the republic's fall in 1797. Throughout the Middle Ages, Venice aimed to avoid conquests on the Italian mainland and focused its efforts on trade in the East. The first significant involvement in Italian affairs occurred in 1336 when the republics of Florence and St. Mark joined forces against Mastino della Scala, who seized Treviso. After that, for thirty years, from 1352 to 1381, Venice and Genoa fought for dominance in the Mediterranean. With the defeat of Pisa’s naval power in the battle of Meloria (1284), the two surviving republics faced no rivals. They battled each other in the Bosporus, off Sardinia, and in the Morea, with various outcomes. After their first major encounter in 1355, Venice emerged nearly drained, while Genoa was so weakened that it sought the protection of the Visconti. The decisive battle took place in the Adriatic, where the Genoese fleet led by Luciano Doria defeated the Venetians off Pola in 1379 and sailed unopposed to Chioggia, which they captured. Consequently, the Venetians found themselves trapped in their own lagoons. Meanwhile, Carlo Zeno gathered a fleet in the Levant to aid them, and the admiral Vittore Pisani, who had been imprisoned after the defeat at Pola, was freed to lead their desperate effort from the city. The Genoese were now blockaded in Chioggia and, driven by starvation, were forced to surrender. Although the Chioggia war's losses in men and money did not immediately dampen the spirit of the Genoese republic, they marked the decline of its naval power. During this second existential struggle with Genoa, the Venetians also fought against the Carraresi of Padua and the Scaligers of Verona. In 1406, following the decline of these noble families, they added Verona, Vicenza, and Padua to their claimed territories on terra firma. Their expansion and new strategy of forming Italian alliances and engaging in Italian affairs were solidified by the long dogeship of Francesco Foscari (1423-1457), who stands alongside Alfonso, Cosimo de’ Medici, Francesco Sforza, and Nicholas V as a co-founder of a united Italy. When Constantinople fell in 1453, the old connections between Venice and the Eastern empire were severed, launching Venice into a completely new chapter in its history. Recognized as one of the five Italian powers, it was also set to defend Western Christendom against the Turkish advances in Europe. (See Venice: History.)

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

By settling in Avignon, the popes gave up their role as protectors of Italian liberties and lost their status as Italian rulers. Rienzi's revolution in Rome (1347-1354), where he created a republic based on a mix of classical ideas and feudalism, reflected the mood of the times. At the same time, the rise of powerful families in the church's cities, who claimed to be papal representatives but acted in their own interests, weakened the authority of the Holy See. The aggressive campaigns of Bertrand du Poiet and Robert of Geneva were as ineffective as the interventions of the emperors; and although Cardinal Albornoz conquered Romagna and the March in 1364, the legates in those areas soon struggled to maintain control against local leaders. Eventually, Gregory XI returned to Rome, and Urban VI, elected in 1378, brought an end to the Avignon exile. However, the Great Schism, which now divided Western Christianity, severely weakened the papacy and kept the Roman popes so caught up in church disputes that they couldn't focus on their secular responsibilities. The presence of the Orsini and Colonna families, equally dangerous as allies or enemies, made Rome an unstable place to live. Even when the schism was officially resolved in 1415 by the Council of Constance, the next two popes barely held onto their Italian territories. Martin V. (1417-1431) mainly lived in Florence, and Eugenius IV. (1431-1447) followed suit. What Martin managed to recover, Eugenius lost. Meanwhile, the political changes in Italy, the widespread desire for compromise, and the growing belief that a federation was necessary benefited the popes as leaders. They gradually embraced the spirit of their time, adopting the style of rulers and leveraging the flourishing humanistic movement to redefine their role in Italy. The election of Nicholas V. in 1447 marked a transformation in the papacy and opened a period of political grandeur that established the popes as sovereigns. Thomas of Sarzana was a notable humanist. He came from humble beginnings, had been a tutor in the Albizzi household, and later served as the librarian for the Medici in Florence, where he absorbed both Renaissance culture and politics. Shortly after he became pope, he found himself without any rivals in the church; the schism concluded with Felix V.’s resignation in 1449. Nicholas settled in Rome, which he began to rebuild and fortify, aiming to restore the Eternal City to a prominent status in Europe. The Romans appreciated this, and although his reign faced republican conspiracies, Nicholas V. managed, before his death in 1455, to solidify the modern role of the pope as a distinguished patron and a wealthy political leader.

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

Italy was briefly independent. The humanistic movement had created a shared culture, a common language, and a sense of national identity. The five great powers, along with their allies—the Dukes of Savoy and Urbino, the Marquesses of Ferrara and Mantua, and the republics of Bologna, Perugia, and Siena—were established. All political institutions leaned toward despotism. The Medici became increasingly essential to Florence, the Bentivogli more authoritarian in Bologna, and the Baglioni in Perugia; even Siena was ruled by the Petrucci. However, this despotism was relatively mild. The princes were Italians; they shared the nation's enthusiasm for art, learning, literature, and science, and they figured out how to disguise their tyranny with pleasing arts for the people. When Italy reached this point, Constantinople fell to the Turks. There was a strong sense that the Italian alliance needed to be strengthened, and one of the last significant acts of Nicholas V's papacy was the call in 1453 to the five great powers for federation. Although this appeal had no real impact on their unified stance against the Turks, it signified the emergence of a new Italian awareness.

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

Between 1453 and 1492, Italy remained prosperous and peaceful. Most wars during this time were fought either to counter Venice's rising power or to pursue the ambitions of the papacy. The popes, having become despots, aimed to establish their relatives in positions of power. The term nepotism gained new meaning during the reigns of Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII. Although the country wasn't shaken by major conflicts, this forty-year period saw a shocking rise in political crime. Being a prince was almost synonymous with being a target for secret plots and assassinations. Notable examples of these attempts included the barons' revolt against Ferdinand I of Naples (1464), the assassination of Galeazzo Maria Sforza in Milan (1476), and the Pazzi plot to kill the Medici (1478). After Cosimo de’ Medici's death in 1464, his son Piero took over the presidency of the Florentine republic, which he passed on in 1469 to his sons Lorenzo and Giuliano. These young men adopted the title of princes, and the Pazzi, with the approval of Sixtus IV, targeted them. Giuliano was killed, while Lorenzo managed to escape and tighten his control over the city, which now admired and took pride in him. Over the next fourteen years, during his outstanding career, Lorenzo became the absolute master of Florence and changed its institutions so that the Medici became essential to the state. Recognizing the importance of Italian unity, Lorenzo used his personal charm and wise leadership to maintain peace and cooperation among the five major powers. His family's position was strengthened by his daughter's marriage to a son of Innocent VIII, which led to his son Giovanni becoming a cardinal and resulted in two Medici popes, ensuring Florence's future dependence on Rome.

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

VI. Age of Invasions.—The year 1492 marked a new era for Italy. In this year, Lorenzo died and was succeeded by his son, the arrogant and ineffective Piero; France came under the direct control of the inexperienced Charles VIII.; the fall of Granada liberated Spain from its conflicts; Columbus discovered America, undermining the commercial dominance of Venice; and lastly, Roderigo Borgia became Pope with the renowned title of Alexander VI. This year saw the shaky short-lived federation of the five powers disturbed, and Italy was once again pulled into the chaos of European affairs. The events leading to this turmoil can be summarized briefly. After the assassination of Galeazzo Maria, his crown went to a boy, Gian Galeazzo, who eventually married a granddaughter of Ferdinand I of Naples. However, the government of Milan stayed in the hands of this young ruler's uncle, Lodovico, nicknamed Il Moro. Lodovico aimed to become the duke of Milan. The king of Naples was his natural adversary, and he had reason to doubt that Piero de’ Medici would stick to their alliance. Feeling isolated and lacking rightful claim to the title he sought, he turned to Charles VIII of France, urging him to assert his claim to the kingdom of Naples. This claim, it’s worth noting, was based on the will of King René of Anjou. After some initial reluctance, Charles agreed to invade Italy. He crossed the Alps in 1495, moved through Lombardy, entered Tuscany, liberated Pisa from Florence's control, witnessed the expulsion of the Medici, marched to Naples, and was crowned there—all without engaging in battle. Meanwhile, Lodovico arranged for his nephew’s death and formed a coalition against the French in Lombardy. Charles rushed back from Naples and barely avoided disaster at Fornovo in the Apennine passes. However, he managed to retreat and returned to France in 1495. Little remained of his easy gains; nonetheless, he had thrown Italy into turmoil with this invasion, shattered its balance, revealed its military weaknesses and political fragmentation, and showcased its wealth to greedy and more powerful nations.

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

The princes of the house of Aragon, now represented by Frederick, the son of Ferdinand I, returned to Naples. Florence established itself as a republic, adopting a constitution similar to that of Venice. At this time, it was governed by the monk Girolamo Savonarola, who inspired the people to seek freedom, preached the need for reform, and opposed Rome directly. After a brief but impactful period, his influence eventually faded, and he lost the support of the citizens. Alexander VI orchestrated a sham trial, and his enemies had him burned in the Piazza in 1498. That same year, Louis XII succeeded Charles VIII as king of France. As duke of Orleans, he had some claims to Milan through his grandmother Valentina, daughter of Gian Galeazzo, the first duke. However, these claims were invalid, as the investiture of the duchy had been granted only to male heirs. Still, they provided a sufficient excuse, and in 1499, Louis invaded and conquered Milan. Lodovico fled to Germany, returned the following year, was betrayed by his Swiss mercenaries, and was sent to die in Loches, France. In 1500, Louis made the mistake of asking Ferdinand the Catholic for help in conquering Naples. By a treaty signed in Granada, the French and Spanish kings were to divide the spoils. The conquest was easy, but when it came time to share the territory, Ferdinand deceived his ally. He became the supreme ruler of the Two Sicilies, which he now united under a single crown. Three years later, ignoring this experience, Louis signed the treaty of Blois (1504), inviting Emperor Maximilian to assist him in conquering Venice. No strategy could have been less foresighted, as Charles V, the future overwhelming rival of France and joint heir to Austria, Burgundy, Castile, and Aragon, was already born.

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

The stage was set, and all the actors destined to bring about Italy's downfall marched in with their armies. Spain, France, Germany, along with their Swiss allies, were summoned under various pretenses to take part of her provinces. Then, too late, patriots like Machiavelli recognized the self-destructive indulgence of the past, which, by replacing national militias with mercenary troops, left Italians completely at the mercy of their neighbors. No matter what roles the Italians themselves played in the next twenty-five years, the game was in the hands of French, Spanish, and German invaders. Meanwhile, no plans for unity against common enemies emerged in the peninsula. Each small ruler sought their own personal gain amid the chaos; during this time, the primary benefits went to the papacy. With the help of his formidable son, Cesare Borgia, Alexander VI punished the Roman nobles, conquered Romagna and the March, threatened Tuscany, and seemed on the verge of establishing a Central Italian state for his offspring when he died unexpectedly in 1503. His conquests reverted to the Holy See. Julius II., his fiercest enemy and powerful successor, continued Alexander’s strategy, but no longer for the sake of his own family. Julius aimed nobly to elevate the church and reclaim the protection of the Italian people. To achieve this, he secured Emilia, led his victorious forces against Ferrara, and repressed the tyranny of the Baglioni in Perugia. Julius II. played a risky game; the stakes were high, and he believed he was powerful enough to control the storm he stirred. Disputing with the Venetians in 1508, he united all of Europe against them through the League of Cambrai; having succeeded in his initial goal of bringing them low, he turned in 1510 and declared his famous resolve to drive the barbarians from Italy, setting the Spaniards against the French. He hoped to effect this change with the Swiss, who, meddling for the first time as primary players in Italian affairs, only contributed to the already overwhelming chaos faced by the people. Designed for mercenary warfare, they proved to be a dangerous tool for their users, harming their allies almost as much as their enemies. In 1512, the Battle of Ravenna took place between the French troops and Julius's allies—Spaniards, Venetians, and Swiss. Gaston de Foix paid dearly for a dubious victory with his life; and although the allies were beaten at the Ronco, they swiftly expelled the French from Lombardy soon after. Yet Julius II. ultimately fell short, as could have been predicted. He merely swapped one set of foreign rulers for another, teaching a new barbarian race how appealing the plains of Italy were. As a result of the battle of Ravenna, the Medici returned to Florence in 1512.

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

When Leo X was elected in 1513, Rome and Florence celebrated; but Italy was still restless. Louis XII had lost, and the Spaniards were victorious. However, new players entered the scene, and the same old conflict resumed with even greater intensity. After the victory at Marignano in 1515, Francis I, now king of France, regained Milan, 41 and weakened the Swiss forces, who had been supporting Massimiliano Sforza, the nominal duke. For a time, Leo relied on Francis; however, the immense power of Charles V, who became emperor in 1519 and had taken the crowns of Spain and Lower Italy in 1516, posed a threat to all of Europe. Leo's nature was, however, fickle. In 1521, he switched sides, allied himself with Charles, and died after hearing that the imperial troops had once again driven the French out of Milan. For the next four years, the Franco-Spanish war dragged on in Lombardy until the decisive battle of Pavia in 1525, when Francis was captured, leaving Italy open to the Spanish forces. Meanwhile, Leo X was succeeded by Adrian VI, and then Adrian was followed by Clement VII, from the Medici family, who had long ruled Florence. During Clement's papacy, Francis was released from his prison in Madrid (1526), and Clement hoped he could still serve as a counterbalance to Charles’s power in Italy. It’s impossible to trace all the complicated intrigues of that time here. The year 1527 was marked by the infamous sack of Rome. An army of mixed German and Spanish troops, claiming to act for the emperor but more like a huge band of marauders, entered Italy under their leader Frundsberg. After his death, the Constable de Bourbon took over, and they advanced slowly, helped by the marquis of Ferrara, and unopposed by the duke of Urbino, reached Rome and stormed it. The constable was killed in the initial assault; Clement was imprisoned in the castle of St. Angelo; and Rome was left at the mercy of 30,000 thugs. As an immediate consequence of this disaster, Florence expelled the Medici and established a republic. However, after Clement made peace with the emperor, he turned the remnants of the army that had sacked Rome against his home city. Following a fierce resistance, Florence fell in 1530. Alessandro de' Medici was placed there with the title of duke of Cività di Penna; and after his murder in 1537, Cosimo de' Medici, from the younger branch of the ruling family, was made duke. Acting as the Spaniards' lieutenant, he later (1555) conquered Siena and left his descendants the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.

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

VII. Spanish-Austrian Ascendancy.—After the sack of Rome in 1527, it was time for Charles V to take charge of Italian affairs. The country was facing anarchy, and this was the latest and most disgraceful example. The Turks were threatening western Europe, and Luther was stirring up trouble in Germany. By the treaty of Barcelona in 1529, the pope and emperor reached an agreement. In the same year, the treaty of Cambray saw France give up its claim to Italy in favor of Spain. Charles then arrived in the port of Genoa and met Clement VII in Bologna on November 5th. There, he received the imperial crown and called for the Italian princes to settle all disputed claims. Francesco Sforza, the last childless heir of the ducal house, remained in Milan until his death in 1535. The republic of Venice was allowed to keep its freedoms and territories in Lombardy. The Este family was confirmed in their duchy of Modena and Reggio and received their fief of Ferrara from the pope. The marquessate of Mantua was elevated to a duchy, and Florence was secured for the Medici, as we’ve seen. The biggest winner in this settlement was the papacy, which held the most significant Italian province and enjoyed a prestige that put it above all rivals. However, the rest of Italy, although divided, became dependent on Spain. It's important to note that Charles V achieved his conquests and reinforced his authority more as an heir of Castile and Aragon than as emperor. A Spanish viceroy in Milan and another in Naples, backed by Rome and the minor princes who followed Madrid's directives, were enough to keep the entire peninsula in a state of dull and dishonorable servitude.

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

From 1530 until 1796, nearly three centuries, the Italians had no history of their own. Their records are filled with accounts of changes in dynasties and land distribution due to treaties made by foreign powers in settling disputes that hardly concerned the people. Italy often became the stage for destructive and distracting wars. However, these wars were mostly fought by foreign armies; the issues were decided beyond the Alps, and the benefits went to royal families with names that were unpronounceable to southern tongues. The events in Europe during the years when the Habsburgs and Bourbons fought their domestic battles with the blood of noble families can teach important lessons to thoughtful people today, but none are more painful or more filled with humiliating memories than for the Italian people, who were treated like cattle in the market of bargaining kings. We can't completely absolve the Italians of their share of blame. When they had the chance to gain national independence after their struggles with the Swabian emperors, they let the golden opportunity slip away. Spoiled by commercial success and deeply affected by rivalries between cities, they submitted to tyrants, gave up the use of arms, and presented themselves, defenseless and divided, to the onslaught of powerful nations in their time of need. The fact that they had created modern civilization for Europe did them no good. Italy, once the intellectual leader among peoples, was now politically and practically at the bottom; and nothing is more heartbreaking for her historians than to witness the slow extinguishing of her spirit in this age of oppression.

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

In 1534, Alessandro Farnese, who rose to power thanks to his sister Giulia, a mistress of Alexander VI, became pope under the name Paul III. He aimed to create a duchy for his family, and to achieve this, he gave Parma and Piacenza to his son Pier Luigi. After a lot of disputes between the French and Spanish factions, the duchy was officially granted in 1586 to Ottaviano Farnese and his son Alessandro, who is better known as Philip II’s general, the prince of Parma. Alessandro’s descendants ruled Parma and Piacenza until 1731. Paul III’s papacy was also marked by major changes in the church, all of which reinforced the spiritual supremacy of Rome. In 1540, this pope endorsed the founding of the Jesuit order by Loyola, thus securing a powerful military force for the church. The Inquisition was established in Italy with almost unlimited powers, and the press was put under its control. As a result, free thought faced significant restrictions that both church and political leaders exploited. From that point on, it became impossible to publish or say anything that might upset the powerful figures in the church or government; Italians had to spend their free time engaging with the trivial pursuits of academia. In 1545, a council was convened in Trent to reform church discipline and promote orthodox doctrine. The decrees from this council defined Roman Catholicism in opposition to the Reformation, and while they failed to improve morality, they enforced a hypocritical adherence to public decency. Italy outwardly displayed signs of extreme and fervent piety, but at its core, the clergy and aristocracy were more corrupt than ever.

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

In 1556, Philip II became the king of Spain after his father Charles V abdicated. He already held the crown of the Two Sicilies and ruled the duchy of Milan. The following year, Ferdinand, Charles's brother, was elected emperor. Philip II's reign. Meanwhile, the French had not completely given up their claims on Italy. Gian Pietro Caraffa, who became pope in 1555 under the name Paul IV, tried to revive the old papal strategy of relying on France. He encouraged the duke of Guise to conquer Naples, like Charles of Anjou was called upon by his predecessors. However, these plans were now outdated and irrelevant. They resulted in a tedious and prolonged Italian campaign, which was ultimately resolved far beyond the Alps with Philip’s victories over the French at St Quentin and Gravelines. The peace of Câteau Cambresis, signed in 1559, established the Spanish monarch as the undisputed ruler of Italy. The only remaining free commonwealths were Venice, which, alongside Spain, secured a victory for Europe at Lepanto in 1573; Genoa, which remained under the control of the powerful Doria family after the unsuccessful Fieschi revolution in 1547 and maintained a weak influence in Corsica; and the two insignificant republics of Lucca and San Marino.

42

42

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

The future hope of Italy, however, was growing in a remote and previously overlooked area. Emmanuel Philibert, duke of Savoy, represented one of the oldest and most distinguished royal families in Europe, and his descendants were set to secure for Italy the independence that no other power or ruler had granted her since the fall of ancient Rome. (See Savoy, House of.)

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

When Emmanuel Philibert took over from his father Charles III in 1553, he was a duke without a duchy. But the princes of the Savoy family were warriors, and what Emmanuel Philibert lost as a ruler, he regained as a military leader serving his cousin Philip II. The treaty of Câteau-Cambrésis in 1559, and the withdrawal of French and Spanish troops from the Piedmontese cities in 1574, restored his territory. By moving the capital from Chambéry to Turin, he finalized the transformation of the dukes of Savoy from Burgundian rulers to Italian sovereigns. They still held Savoy beyond the Alps, the plains of Bresse, and the coastal province of Nice.

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

Emmanuel Philibert was succeeded by his son Charles Emmanuel I, who married Catherine, a daughter of Philip II. He quickly took the first chance to annex Saluzzo, which had been lost to Savoy in the last two reigns, and revived the unsuccessful tactics of his grandfather Charles III by invading Geneva and threatening Provence. Henry IV of France forced him in 1601 to give up Bresse and his Burgundian lands. In return, he was allowed to keep Saluzzo. All hopes of conquering land across the Alps were now dashed; however, the keys to Italy had been handed to the dukes of Savoy, and their focus was increasingly on conquering Lombardy. Charles Emmanuel then attempted to take Montferrat, which was about to become vacant due to the death of Francesco Gonzaga, who held it along with Mantua. To secure this territory, he went to war with Philip III of Spain and allied himself with Venice and the Grisons to drive the Spaniards out of the Valtelline. When the male line of the Gonzaga family died out in 1627, Charles, duke of Nevers, claimed Mantua and Montferrat through his wife, the only daughter of the last duke. Charles Emmanuel was now cornered by France, just as he had previously been by Spain. The total gains from all his hard efforts amounted to the acquisition of a few places on the borders of Montferrat.

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

Not only the Gonzagas, but several other ancient noble families, died out around the time we’ve reached. The legitimate line of the Estensi ended in 1597 with the death of Alfonso II, the last duke of Ferrara. He left his lands to a legitimate relative, Cesare d’Este, who would have inherited without dispute in earlier times, as illegitimacy had not been a barrier in the Este lineage before. Urban VIII, however, claimed Ferrara, which had been recognized as a papal fief in 1530. Cesare d’Este had to settle for Modena and Reggio, where his descendants ruled as dukes until 1794. Under the same pope, the Holy See took over the duchy of Urbino after the death of Francesco Maria II, the last representative of Montefeltro and Della Rovere. The popes now controlled a well-defined and compact territory, including a significant part of Countess Matilda’s legacy, in addition to Pippin’s donation and St. Peter's patrimony. Meanwhile, Spanish fanaticism, the suppression of the Huguenots in France, and Austria's Catholic policies combined to strengthen their authority as popes. Urban's predecessor, Paul V, even went so far as to extend his spiritual authority over Venice, which had resisted any Holy See encroachment up to the time of his election (1605). Venice was the only example in Italy of a national church. The republic managed the tithes, and the clergy recognized no authority above their own patriarch. Paul V now compelled the Venetians to accept his ecclesiastical supremacy; however, they refused to allow the Jesuits to return after they were expelled in 1606. This was, except for the proclamation of James I of England (1604), the earliest instance of the order being banned from a state where it had shown disloyalty to the commonwealth.

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

Venice quickly declined during the 17th century. The loss of trade due to the closing of Egypt and the Levant, along with the discovery of America and the sea route to the Indies, had cut off her main source of wealth. Ongoing warfare with the Ottomans, who forced her to give up Candia in 1669 after taking Cyprus in 1570, further weakened her resources. Yet, she managed to keep the Adriatic free of pirates, especially by dealing with the sea-robbers known as Uscocchi (1601-1617), maintained her presence in the Ionian Islands, and in 1684 added one more victory to her list of romantic historical moments. That year, Francesco Morosini, whose tomb still bears the title Peloponnesiacus, took the entire Morea from the Turks. However, after his death in 1715, the republic lost grip on the territories he had conquered. The Venetian nobles fell into laziness and vice, with many slipping into poverty and relying on public assistance to avoid starvation. Although the signory still put on a brave front during parades, it was evident that the state was rotting from within and deteriorating into old age. At the same time, the Spanish monarchy shrunk seemingly without reason. Philip’s Austrian successors relegated it to a secondary power in Europe. This weakening was felt, as usual, in Lower Italy, resulting in discord and poor governance. The revolt of Masaniello in Naples (1647), followed by uprisings in Palermo and Messina, which temporarily gave Sicily to Louis XIV. (1676-1678), were signs of growing anarchy. The population, crushed by ridiculous taxes and mistreated like subjects of Spaniards, Turks, or Bourbons, rose up in blind anger against their oppressors. It’s impossible to attribute significant political importance to these revolutions; they didn’t bring the people any real benefit. The fate of Italy was determined in the offices and battlefields of northern Europe. A Bourbon in Versailles, a Habsburg in Vienna, or a thick-lipped Lorrainer could dismiss provinces with a mere stroke of the pen, without regard for the people who had suffered for him or sought his mercy.

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

This shameful and passive part of Italian history continues up to the French Revolution with records of three dynastic wars: the War of the Spanish Succession, the War of the Polish Succession, and the War of the Austrian Succession Wars. These were followed by three European treaties that brought about diplomatic resolutions. Italy, repeatedly managed and reorganized, changed rulers each time without caring or knowing what happened to the main players in any of the disputes. The accounts of 18th-century campaigns in Europe are demeaning to human nature as a whole, but they seem especially tragi-comic when viewed through the lens of Italian history. The practice of pitting nations against each other to resolve the conflicts of a few royal families became absurd when the people, in these instances, were divided and swapped without any consideration for their interests or feelings.

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

In 1700, Charles II died, marking the end of the Austrian family in Spain. Louis XIV claimed the throne for Philip, Duke of Anjou, while Charles, Archduke of Austria, opposed him. The conflict played out in Flanders, but Lombardy, as usual, felt the effects of the French and Austrian dynasties. The French armies faced multiple defeats at the hands of Prince Eugene of Savoy, who expelled them from Italy in 1707. As a result, the peace of Utrecht in 1713 had to acknowledge the contributions of the House of Savoy. Victor Amadeus II received Sicily and the title of king, while Montferrat and Alessandria were added to his northern provinces, and his state was recognized as independent. Charles of Austria, now emperor, claimed Milan, Mantua, Naples, and Sardinia as his share of the Italian spoils. Philip founded the Bourbon line of Spanish kings, giving up all the Italian gains made by his Habsburg predecessors. Unhappy with this reduction of Spanish heritage, Philip V married Elisabetta Farnese, the heiress of the last Duke of Parma, in 1714, hoping to secure this duchy for his son, Don Carlos. Elisabetta also brought a claim to the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, which would soon become vacant after the death of Gian Gastone de’ Medici. After this marriage, Philip violated the peace of Europe by invading Sardinia. The Quadruple Alliance was formed, and the new king of Sicily was punished for allegedly supporting Philip V by being forced to exchange Sicily for Sardinia. Thus, in 1720, the House of Savoy took the royal title it held until the declaration of the Italian kingdom in the last century. Victor Amadeus II's reign was very significant in his state's history. Although a despot, as all monarchs had to be at that time, he ruled with prudence, integrity, and a genuine concern for his subjects' welfare. He took public education out of the hands of the Jesuits, a move that proved invaluable for the future development of manliness in his territories. During his time, the Duchy of Savoy became a kingdom, and while Sardinia seemed a poor trade for Sicily, it was a far less risky possession than the larger and wealthier island would have been. In 1730, Victor Amadeus abdicated in favor of his son Charles Emmanuel III. Regretting this decision, he later tried to reclaim Turin but was imprisoned in the castle of Rivoli, where he spent the rest of his days until 1732.

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

The War of the Polish Succession, which is currently causing unrest in Europe, is only significant in Italian history because the treaty of Vienna in 1738 resolved the contested issues of the duchies of Parma and Tuscany. Duke Antonio Farnese died in 1731, and Grand Duke Gian Gastone de’ Medici passed away in 1737. In the duchy of Parma, Don Carlos had already been declared. However, he was soon moved to the Two Sicilies, while Francis of Lorraine, husband of Maria Theresa, took over Tuscany and Parma. Milan and Mantua stayed under Austrian control. During this time, Charles Emmanuel gained Tortona and Novara.

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

Worse complications arose for the Italians when Emperor Charles VI, the father of Maria Theresa, died in 1740. The three branches of the Bourbon family, ruling in France, Spain, and the Sicilies, teamed up with Prussia, Bavaria Austrian War of Succession. and the Kingdom of Sardinia to take Maria Theresa's inheritance. Lombardy became the battleground; here, the King of Sardinia acted somewhat like an arbiter of the situation. After the war started, he switched sides and supported the Habsburg-Lorraine faction. Initially, in 1745, the Sardinians were defeated by the French and Spanish troops. However, Francis of Lorraine, who was elected emperor that year, sent an army to support the king, which secured a significant victory over the Bourbons at Piacenza in 1746. Charles Emmanuel then threatened Genoa. The Austrian soldiers had already taken the town, but the citizens expelled them, maintaining the republic's independence. In 1748, the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle ended the War of the Austrian Succession and redivided Italy once again. Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla were combined into a duchy for Don Philip, the brother of Charles III of the Two Sicilies and son of Philip V of Spain. Charles III was confirmed as the king of the Two Sicilies. The Austrians retained Milan and Tuscany. The Duchy of Modena came under French protection, as did Genoa, which in 1755, after Paoli’s uprising against the misrule of the republic, ceded its former territory of Corsica to France.

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

From the time of this settlement until 1792, Italy experienced a period of calm and internal improvement under its various controlling leaders. It became popular during these forty-four years of peace to support the industrial population and to test out economic reforms. The Austrian government in Lombardy under Maria Theresa was marked by better agriculture, organized administration, order, reformed taxation, and increased education. A significant amount of local autonomy was granted, and dependence on Vienna was minimal and manageable. The nobles and clergy were wealthy and influential but kept in check by civil authority. There was no sense of nationality, but the people prospered, enjoyed lasting peace, and were calmly satisfied with the current situation. After Maria Theresa’s death in 1780, Emperor Joseph II implemented much broader reforms. Feudal privileges were abolished, clerical influence was reduced, and many monasteries and convents were closed. The criminal justice system was made more humane, and torture was largely eliminated, partly due to G. Beccaria’s well-known pamphlet Dei delitti e delle pene. At the same time, Joseph’s administration was more authoritarian, and local autonomy was somewhat restricted. His anti-clerical laws created some resentment among the more religious segments of the population. Overall, Austrian rule before the revolution was beneficial and not overly oppressive, helping Lombardy recover from the negative effects of Spanish rule. It contributed little to the moral education of the people, but that criticism applies to most European governments of the time. Emperor Francis I governed the grand-duchy of Tuscany through lieutenants until his death in 1765, when the independent state was given to his second son, Peter Leopold. This duke's reign is often remembered as a time of internal prosperity, wise legislation, and significant public projects. Leopold, among other beneficial initiatives, drained the Val di Chiana and returned those fertile highland plains to farming. In 1790 he ascended to the empire and left Tuscany to his son Ferdinand. The kingdom of Sardinia was run on similar principles, but with less warmth. Charles Emmanuel made his will the law and eliminated the last remnants of free institutions from his territory. At the same time, he wisely continued his father’s approach to education and the church. This is perhaps the best one can say about a king who embodied the rigid absolutism of the era. From this point on, however, we can see the revival of independent thought among Italians. The wave of new ideas that preceded the French Revolution manifested in figures like Alfieri, the fierce critic of tyrants, Beccaria, the thinker of criminal law, Volta, the scientist, and many political economists from Tuscany. Driven partly by external influences and partly by a gradual internal awakening, the people were gearing up for the challenges of the 19th century. During this time, the papacy had to rethink its stance on the Jesuits, who had become widely disliked not just in Italy but also in France and Spain. During Clement XIII’s papacy, they controlled the Vatican and nearly drew the pope into conflict with the united Bourbon powers of Europe. His successor, Clement XIV, completely dissolved the order with a decree in 1773.

(J. A. S.)

D. Italy in the Napoleonic Period, 1796-1814

D. Italy in the Napoleonic Era, 1796-1814

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

The 1796 campaign that sparked a newfound sense of unity and strength among the Italian people is covered in the article Napoleonic Campaigns. Here, we can only provide a general overview of the political, civic, and social events that signaled the beginning of the Risorgimento. First, it’s important to understand Italy's situation at the time when the French invasion and the expulsion of the Austrians created a new political outlook for that oppressed and fragmented nation.

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

For many generations, Italy was tossed back and forth between the Habsburgs and the Bourbons. The decline of French influence at the end of Louis XIV's reign left the Habsburgs and the Spanish Bourbons without serious rivals. The Habsburgs controlled the wealthy duchies of Milan (including Mantua) and Tuscany. Through a marriage alliance with the house of Este of Modena (the Archduke Ferdinand had married the heiress of Modena), their influence over that duchy was strong. They also held a few fiefs in Piedmont and Genoese territory. By marrying her daughter, Maria Amelia, to the young duke of Parma, and another daughter, Maria Carolina, to Ferdinand of Naples, Maria Theresa strengthened Habsburg influence in the north and south of the peninsula. The Spanish Bourbons ruled Naples and Sicily, as well as the duchy of Parma. Of the nominally independent states, the main ones were the kingdom of Sardinia, ruled by the house of Savoy, which included Piedmont, the island of Sardinia, and nominally Savoy and Nice, although the last two provinces had essentially been lost to the monarchy since the 1793 campaign. Equally extensive but less politically significant were the Papal States and Venetia; the former remained inactive under the outdated rule of the pope and cardinals, while the latter was weakened by luxury and the unmanly complacency long maintained by the doge and council. Venice's ancient rival, Genoa, was also in decline. The small states of Lucca and San Marino completed the map of Italy. The worst governed part of the peninsula was the south, where feudalism weighed heavily on the farmers and corruption was widespread at all levels. Milan and Piedmont were relatively well governed, but resentment toward Austrian rule in Milan and the influence of French Jacobin ideas in Piedmont led to growing hostility among the populations. The democratic propaganda, which was spreading through all the major towns of the peninsula, gave rise to numerous and powerful clubs and secret societies; soon, the throne of Victor Amadeus III of the house of Savoy began to falter under the attacks from French troops at the mountain borders of his kingdom and the insidious pressure from liberty advocates in Turin. Plotting was rampant in Milan and also in Bologna, where the memory of old freedoms inspired people to shake off clerical control, leading to the first uprising for Italian liberty in 1794. In Palermo, the Sicilians fought hard to establish a republic in place of the hated rule of an alien dynasty. The pope's condemnations, the bravery of the Piedmontese and Austrians, and the financial support from Great Britain couldn't keep the league of Italian princes united against France. The grand-duke of Tuscany was the first European sovereign to make peace with and recognize the French republic, early in 1795. The first two weeks of Napoleon’s 1796 campaign pulled Sardinia away from its alliance with Austria and England. The enthusiasm of the Italians for the young Corsican “liberator” greatly assisted his efforts. Two months later, Ferdinand of Naples sought an armistice, the central duchies were quickly overrun, and by early 1797, Pope Pius VI was forced to sign a peace agreement with Bonaparte at Tolentino, effectively ceding the northern part of his states, known as the Legations. The surrender of the last Habsburg stronghold, Mantua, on February 2, 1797, left the way clear for new political institutions to take shape.

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

The men of Reggio, Modena, and Bologna had already committed to a democratic approach where feudalism and clerical control would not exist, and where universal male suffrage, along with other rights promised by Bonaparte The Cispadane Republic. to the people of Milan in May 1796, would be the foundation of a new system. In making this move, the Modenese and Romagnols were supported by Bonaparte, even though the French directory had sent him orders to the contrary. This resulted in the creation of an assembly in Modena that abolished feudal dues and customs, supported male suffrage, and established the Cispadane Republic (October 1796).

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

The end of Bonaparte’s successful campaign against Archduke Charles in 1797 allowed him to develop his plans for Venice, which are explained in the article Napoleon. His approach to the Milanese was on a much higher level. While the French directory viewed that region primarily as a place to plunder and negotiate over, Bonaparte, though not neglecting the collection of money and artistic treasures, was laying the groundwork for a friendly republic. During his stay at the castle of Montebello or Mombello, near Milan, he asked several leading figures from northern Italy to create a proposed constitution and a list of reforms for that region. At the same time, he made sure to rein in the excesses of the Italian Jacobins and support the Moderates, who favored the French connection as a way to protect against Austrian control and internal chaos. He summarized his actions in a letter to the French directory on May 8, 1797, saying, “I cool the hot heads here and warm the cool ones.” The Transpadane Republic, later known as the Cisalpine Republic, officially began its organized existence on July 9, 1797, with a grand celebration in Milan. The constitution was modeled after that of the French directory, and to prevent a majority of clerical or Jacobin representatives, the French Republic, through its general, Bonaparte, appointed the first deputies and administrators of the new government. That same month, it was joined by the Cispadane Republic; and the terms of the Treaty of Campo Formio (October 17, 1797), while disastrous for Venice’s political status, granted this now sizable state the Venetian territories west of the Adige River. A month later, under the guise of resolving civil conflicts in the Valtelline, Bonaparte incorporated that Swiss region into the Cisalpine Republic, which then encompassed all the land from Como to Verona in the north, and Rimini in the south.

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

Early in 1798, the Austrians, following the plan for partition agreed upon at Campo Formio, entered Venice and ended its independence, which had lasted around 1100 years. Venice, along with its mainland territories east of the Adige, including Istria and Dalmatia, was ceded to the Habsburgs, while the Venetian islands in the Adriatic (the Ionian Islands) and the Venetian fleet were given to France to strengthen its eastern campaign that Bonaparte had already set his sights on. Venice not only covered the expenses of the war for the two main warring parties, but its naval resources also helped launch the young general's career in eastern adventures. Its former rival, Genoa, was also forced, in June 1797, to submit to the young conqueror and underwent reorganization in a way similar to what had happened in Milan. The new Genoese republic, French in everything but name, was renamed the Ligurian Republic.

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

Before he set sail for Egypt, the French had taken over Rome. Already in control of the papal fortress of Ancona, they began to openly challenge the pope’s authority in the Eternal City itself. Joseph Bonaparte, who was then the French envoy to the Vatican, promoted democratic movements; one of these, at the end of 1797, resulted in a brawl where a French general, Duphot, was killed. The French directory immediately ordered its general, Berthier, to march to Rome: the Roman democrats declared a republic on February 15, 1798, and Berthier and his troops entered at their request. Pope Pius VI was soon taken away to Siena and a year later to Valence in southern France, where he died. This marked the end of the papal temporal power. The “liberators” of Rome then went on to loot the city in a way that brought shame to their cause and perhaps unfair disgrace to the general left in charge, Masséna.

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

These events brought revolution to the gates of the Kingdom of Naples, the worst-governed part of Italy, where the foolish king, Ferdinand IV. (il rè lazzarone, as he was called), and his unpredictable wife, Maria Carolina, struggled to control the discontent of their own subjects. A British fleet led by Nelson, sent into the Mediterranean in May 1798 mainly for their protection, thwarted Bonaparte's plans in Egypt and then, returning to Naples, encouraged that court to pursue a bold strategy. It’s now known that the influence of Nelson and the British ambassador, Sir William Hamilton, along with Lady Hamilton, triggered the split between Naples and France. The results were disastrous. The Neapolitan troops initially occupied Rome, but, being poorly led by their commander, the Austrian general, Mack, they quickly fell apart and fled; and the Republican forces under General Championnet, after defeating the stubborn resistance of the lazzaroni, entered Naples and declared the Parthenopaean Republic (January 23, 1799). The Neapolitan Democrats selected five of their leaders to be directors, and tithes, feudal dues, and customs 45 were abolished. The Republicans accomplished a lot during their short time in power, but it quickly came to an end due to events that favored a backlash against France. The directors in Paris, not satisfied with overrunning and plundering Switzerland, had already offended German sentiment in many ways. Additionally, at the end of 1798, they effectively forced the young king of Sardinia, Charles Emmanuel IV, to abdicate in Turin. He fled to the island of Sardinia while the French looted Piedmont, further fueling the growing resentment against them across Europe.

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

The result of it all was the War of the Second Coalition, where Russia, Austria, Great Britain, Naples, and some smaller German states were involved. The invasion of an Austro-Russian army, led by the unique and charismatic Suvarov in Italy, turned the tide in the campaign in northern Italy. The French, poorly commanded by Schérer and Sérurier, were consistently defeated, particularly at Magnano (April 5) and Cassano (April 27). Milan and Turin fell to the allies, and Moreau, who took over command, struggled to reach the coast near Genoa. There, he waited for Macdonald, the leader of the Naples army, to arrive. Macdonald, who succeeded Championnet, had to retreat from Naples and central Italy due to these setbacks and the looming presence of Nelson's fleet. In many places, the local peasants and townspeople, outraged by the French excesses, harassed his flanks and rear. The republics established by the French in Naples, Rome, and Milan crumbled as soon as the French troops withdrew, leading to a strong backlash in favor of clerical and Austrian influence. For the events that happened in Naples, which were damaging to Nelson's reputation, see Nelson and Naples. Sir William Hamilton was later recalled in a way that was almost disgraceful, and he was replaced by Paget, who acted with more dignity and tact.

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

Meanwhile, Macdonald, after struggling through central Italy, had defeated an Austrian force at Modena (June 12, 1799), but Suvarov was able to completely defeat him at the Trebbia (June 17-19) with quick movements. The remnants of his force helplessly drifted towards Genoa. A month later, the ambitious young general, Joubert, who took over Moreau’s command and rallied part of Macdonald’s remaining troops, was completely routed by the Austro-Russian army at Novi (August 15) with a loss of 12,000 men. Joubert died in the battle. The increasing tension between Austria and Russia led to the transfer of Suvarov and his Russians to Switzerland, resulting in significant setbacks for the allies in that area. But in Italy, Austrian successes continued. Melas defeated Championnet near Coni on November 4; shortly after, the French garrisons at Ancona and Coni surrendered. The tricolour, which had flown triumphantly over all the strongholds of Italy earlier in the year, by its end only waved over Genoa, where Masséna prepared for a determined defense. Nice and Savoy also appeared to be at the mercy of the invaders. Everywhere, the old order was being restored. The death of the aging Pope Pius VI. at Valence (August 29, 1799) deprived the French of any advantage they had hoped to gain by exiling him; on March 24, 1800, the conclave, gathered for more security on the island of San Giorgio in Venice, elected a new pope, Pius VII.

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

Such was the situation when Bonaparte returned from Egypt and landed at Fréjus. The contrast between his triumphs, whether real or imagined, and the defeats suffered by the armies of the French directory, was Marengo Campaign. devastating for that government and for popular institutions in France. After the coup d’état of Brumaire (November 1799), he, as First Consul, started organizing an expedition against the Austrians (with Russia now having pulled out of the coalition) in northern Italy. The campaign that culminated at Marengo was the result. This victory (due to Desaix and Kellermann more than to him directly) allowed Bonaparte to strengthen his position in France and once again bring Italy under his control. The Austrian general, Melas, signed an armistice in which he agreed to withdraw his army beyond the Mincio River. Ten days earlier, on June 4th, Masséna had to surrender at Genoa due to hunger; but the success at Marengo, followed by victories from Macdonald in northern Italy and Moreau at Hohenlinden (December 2, 1800), led Emperor Francis to seek peace, which was finally established at Lunéville on February 9, 1801. Austria recognized the Cisalpine and Ligurian Republics (which were reconstituted shortly after Marengo) on the condition that they were independent of France. The authority of Pius VII over the Papal States was accepted; and Italian affairs were arranged much like they had been at Campo Formio: Modena and Tuscany reverted to French control, with assurances of compensation for their former rulers in Germany. Naples, easily defeated by the French under Miollis, left the British alliance and made peace through the treaty of Florence (March 1801), agreeing to withdraw its troops from the Papal States, cede Piombino and the Presidii (in Tuscany) to France, and close its ports to British ships and trade. King Ferdinand also had to accept a French garrison at Taranto and other locations in the south.

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

Other changes happened that year, all of them benefiting France. Through complex and secret negotiations with the court in Madrid, Bonaparte secured the transfer of Louisiana in North America and Parma to France. Meanwhile, the duke of Parma (married to a Spanish infanta) was elevated by him to the duchy of Tuscany, which was renamed the Kingdom of Etruria. Piedmont was established as a military division under France's control on April 21, 1801; and on September 21, 1802, Bonaparte, who was then First Consul for life, issued a decree for its permanent incorporation into the French Republic. Around this time, Elba also came under Napoleon's control. Piedmont was organized into six departments based on the French model, and a group of French veterans were settled by Napoleon in and around the fortress of Alessandria. Besides adopting the Roman practice of establishing military colonies, the First Consul emulated the ancient conquerors of the world by expanding and enhancing the road system in his territories, particularly at key mountain passes like Mont Cenis and Simplon. He significantly improved the rough path over the Simplon Pass, so that, once finished in 1807, it could accommodate artillery. Milan served as the end point of the road, and the construction of Foro Buonaparte and the completion of the cathedral added prestige to the Lombard capital. The Corniche road was upgraded, and public works throughout Piedmont, as well as in the Cisalpine and Ligurian Republics, demonstrated the foresight and wisdom of the great organizer of industry and promoter of human energies. The universities of Pavia and Bologna reopened and thrived during this time of peace and growing prosperity. A little later, the Pavia canal project was started to link Lake Como with the Adriatic for barge traffic.

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

The personal connection between Italy and France was highlighted by an interesting incident during the winter of 1802-1803. Bonaparte, now the First Consul for life, felt strong enough to exert his influence over the Cisalpine Republic and ignore one of the terms of the Lunéville treaty. Under the pretext of strengthening that republic, he invited 450 of its prominent leaders to Lyons for a consulta. In reality, he and his agents had already arranged for proposals that suited him to be passed. As the deputies were dazzled by celebrations and military parades, Talleyrand and Marescalchi, foreign ministers in Paris and Milan, nudged them on what direction to take in the consulta; and, despite the anger of the more democratic members, everything aligned with the First Consul's preferences. The next step was to find a leader. Many supported Count Melzi, a noble from Lombardy who had been the head of the executive in Milan; but again, Talleyrand and French agents worked on behalf of their leader, resulting in his election as president for ten years. He accepted the position because, as he openly told the deputies, he found no one else who “for his services to the country, his authority with the people, and his separation from party has deserved such an office.” Melzi was elected as vice-president with only ceremonial duties. The constitution included a consulta responsible for executive functions, a legislative body with 150 members, and a court tasked with upholding the fundamental laws. These three bodies were to be selected by three electoral colleges made up of (a) landowners, (b) scholars and clergy, and (c) merchants and traders, who would meet every two years in Milan, Bologna, and Brescia, respectively. In practice, the consulta could override the legislature; and since the consulta was essentially an extension of the president's will, the whole constitution was as autocratic as that of France after the changes made by Bonaparte in August 1802. Lastly, it's important to note that the Cisalpine Republic was renamed the Italian Republic, and through a concordat with the Pope, Bonaparte organized its relationship with the Holy See similarly to the famous French concordat enacted at Easter 1802 (see Concordat). Additionally, the Ligurian Republic and that of Lucca updated their constitutions in a way that resembled the Cisalpine's changes.

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

Bonaparte's rise to power wasn't without challenges. Many Italians still held on to their passion for democracy and national independence. In 1803, movements toward these goals occurred in Rimini, Brescia, and Bologna; however, they were harshly suppressed, and most Italians began to accept Napoleonic rule as unavoidable and even beneficial. Napoleon's complete disregard for one of the key terms of the Lunéville treaty (February 1801)—which called for the independence of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics—became increasingly clear over the years. In both political and commercial matters, they were effectively dependencies of France. Eventually, after the declaration of the French empire (May 18, 1804), Napoleon proposed to place his brother Joseph in charge of the Italian state, which was then named the Kingdom of Italy. When Joseph declined, Napoleon decided to take the crown that Melzi, Marescalchi, Serbelloni, and others urged him to accept. So, on May 26, 1805, in the Milan Cathedral, he crowned himself with the iron crown of the ancient Lombard kings, using the customary phrase, "God gave it to me; let him beware who touches it." On June 7, he appointed his stepson, Eugène Beauharnais, as viceroy. Eugène quickly realized that his main responsibility was to carry out Napoleon's wishes. After the legislature in Milan tried to change some tax details, Eugène received this directive from his stepfather: "Your system of government is simple: the emperor wants it this way." Republicanism was now actively discouraged. The small republic of Lucca, along with Piombino, was granted as a principality by the emperor to Elisa Bonaparte and her husband, Bacciocchi.

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

In June 1805, there was one final and unacceptable insult to the emperors of Austria and Russia, who were trying to limit Napoleon’s ambitions and restore the balance of power. The French emperor, claiming it was at the request of the doge of Genoa, declared the Ligurian Republic to be part of the French empire. This challenge to the rulers of Russia and Austria reignited the flames of war. The third coalition was formed between Great Britain, Russia, and Austria, with Naples soon joining them.

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

For the main events of the upcoming campaigns, see Napoleonic Campaigns. While Masséna chased the Austrians back into their own territory at the end of 1805, Italian forces led by Eugène and Gouvion St Cyr (q.v.) held their position against the allied forces that landed in Naples. After Austerlitz (December 2, 1805), Austria made peace with the Treaty of Pressburg, giving up its part of Venetia to the Kingdom of Italy, along with the provinces of Istria and Dalmatia. Napoleon then fiercely targeted Maria Carolina of Naples, accusing her of “betrayal.” He sent Joseph Bonaparte and Masséna south with a strong force, forcing the Anglo-Russian troops to leave Naples and taking control of the southern peninsula with little resistance except at the fortress of Gaeta. The Bourbon court fled to Palermo, where it stayed for eight years under the protection of the British fleet and a British army of occupation. On February 15, 1806, Joseph Bonaparte entered Naples triumphantly, with his troops capturing two hundred pieces of cannon there. However, Gaeta held out strongly against the French. Sir Sidney Smith and a British squadron captured Capri (February 1806), and the local peasants in Abruzzi and Calabria soon started to cause problems. The biggest challenge came with the arrival of a small British force in Calabria under Sir John Stuart, which defeated General Réynier's reckless attack on level ground near the village of Maida (July 4), resulting in heavy casualties for the French. The steady fire from Kempt’s light infantry proved fatal, causing the French to retreat in disarray under a bayonet charge from the victors, losing around 2,700 men. Calabria then revolted against King Joseph, and the peasants retaliated violently against the French troops. However, on July 18, Gaeta surrendered to Masséna, who quickly moved south, rescued Réynier, brutally crushed the Bourbon uprising in Calabria, and forced the British troops to retreat to Sicily. In Palermo, Queen Maria Carolina continued to make passionate but unsuccessful efforts to overthrow King Joseph.

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

It’s important to note that under Joseph and his advisors, including the Frenchmen Roederer, Dumas, Miot de Melito, and the Corsican Saliceti, significant progress was made in eliminating feudal laws and customs, reforming judicial processes and criminal laws based on the model of the Code Napoléon, and starting early education initiatives. However, Joseph’s decision to close and seize the property of 213 of the wealthier monasteries in the country was more controversial. The monks were given pensions, but while the confiscated property helped to replenish the state's empty coffers, this move caused widespread fear and resentment among the superstitious population.

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

The peace of Tilsit (July 7, 1807) allowed Napoleon to move forward with his plans to secure control of the Mediterranean, which became a key principle of his strategy. Therefore, in the fall of 1807, he urged Joseph to take strong action to capture Sicily. Earlier, during negotiations with England in the summer of 1806, the emperor had recognized the critical importance of taking that island, which ultimately caused the collapse of the peace talks at that time; and now he sent French squadrons into the Mediterranean to secure Corfu and Sicily. His plans for Corfu were successful. That island and some nearby isles were taken by the French (though some were captured by British forces in 1809-10); but Sicily remained out of reach. Capri, however, fell to the French on October 18, 1808, shortly after the new king, Murat, arrived in Naples.

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

This ambitious marshal, Napoleon's brother-in-law, failed in his goal to take the crown of Spain and instead received the crown of Naples in the summer of 1808, with Joseph Bonaparte being moved from Naples to Madrid. This arrangement did not please Murat, King of Naples. either of the emperor's relatives, but his wishes were now law on the continent. Joseph left Naples on May 23, 1808; however, it wasn't until September 6 that Joachim Murat made his entrance. Two weeks later, his wife Caroline arrived and quickly demonstrated a determination and restlessness that often conflicted with her brother's, the emperor's, and her husband's flashy, unpredictable policies. The Spanish uprising in 1808 and the subsequent Peninsular War distracted Napoleon from the issues in southern Italy. In June 1809, during his campaign against Austria, Sir John Stuart, with an Anglo-Sicilian force, sailed north, captured Ischia, and caused great alarm for Murat; but upon hearing about the Austrian defeat at Wagram, Stuart returned.

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

It’s time to focus on the events in central Italy. In early 1808, Napoleon moved forward with plans he had secretly coordinated after the treaty of Tilsit to relocate the infanta of Spain, who was ruling in Florence on behalf of her young son, Charles Louis, following her husband’s death, from her kingdom of Etruria to the small principality of Entre Douro e Minho that he intended to create in northern Portugal. Etruria returned to the French empire, but the Spanish princess and her son did not receive the promised compensation. Elisa Bonaparte and her husband, Bacciocchi, who ruled Lucca and Piombino, became the leaders of the administration in Tuscany, with Elisa displaying strong governing skills.

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

The last area of the peninsula to be influenced by Gallic culture was the papal territory. For a while, the relationship between Napoleon and Pope Pius VII had been very tense, mainly because the emperor insisted on controlling the church in both France and the kingdom of Italy in a way that clashed with Vatican traditions. Additionally, the pope refused to grant the divorce between Jerome Bonaparte and the former Miss Patterson, which Napoleon had emphasized early in 1806. These and other disputes led the emperor, as Charlemagne's successor, to treat the pope with great arrogance. “Your Holiness,” he wrote, “is sovereign of Rome, but I am its emperor,” and he threatened to invalidate the so-called “donation” of Rome by Charlemagne unless the pope agreed to follow him completely in all worldly matters. He also exploited Charlemagne's legacy for the continental system, his ambitious plan for economic warfare aimed at bringing down England. This goal led to the annexation of Tuscany and his interference in the Papal States' issues. The pope reluctantly agreed under pressure from Napoleon, but the emperor soon found other reasons to intervene. In February 1808, a French force under Miollis occupied Rome and removed the papal authorities. Pope Pius VII protested against this brutality in vain. Napoleon aimed to push the situation to the limit, and on April 2nd, he took the drastic step of annexing the papal provinces of Ancona, Urbino, Macerata, and Camerina to the kingdom of Italy. This act, seen as sacrilege by the devout and an outrage by Italian patriots against the only independent ruler on the peninsula, was enough for the moment. The outbreak of war in Spain, followed by a conflict with Austria in the spring of 1809, drew the emperor's focus away. However, after he occupied Vienna, he issued a decree on May 17, 1809, stating the effective annexation of Rome and the Patrimonium Petri to the French empire. Again, he referenced Charlemagne's actions, his “august predecessor,” who had simply given “certain lands to the bishops of Rome as fiefs, yet Rome never ceased to be part of his empire.”

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

In response, the pope issued a bull of excommunication against anyone who violated the privileges of the Holy See in this situation. Then, the French general, Miollis, who was still in control of Rome, had the pope arrested and took him north to Tuscany, and then to Savona; ultimately, he was taken, on Napoleon’s orders, to Fontainebleau. Thus, for the second time, the temporal power of the papacy fell. By an imperial decree on February 17, 1810, Rome and the surrounding areas, including Spoleto, became part of the French Empire. From then on, Rome served as its second city and entered a new phase under the administration of French officials. The Roman territory was divided into two departments—the Tiber and Trasimenus; the Code Napoléon was implemented, public works were initiated, and significant progress was made in the material realm. However, the severity with which the emperor treated the Roman clergy and suppressed the monasteries caused deep resentment among the orthodox.

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

There’s no need to go into detail about the fortunes of the Napoleonic states in Italy. They all felt the impact of influences from Paris; and in terms of civil administration, law, judicial procedure, education, and public works, they all benefited greatly, with results that never fully faded away. However, they suffered from the harsh measures of the continental system, which severely damaged trade at the ports and didn’t make up for the benefits of increased trade with France that Napoleon offered. The loss of men to supply his armies in Germany, Spain, and Russia also took a toll. A strong Italian corps marched under Eugène Beauharnais to Moscow and distinguished itself at Malo-Jaroslavitz, as well as during the horrors of the retreat in the final weeks of 1812. It’s said that out of 27,000 Italians who entered Russia with Eugène, only 333 returned home. That campaign marked the beginning of the end for Napoleonic rule in Italy and elsewhere. Murat, who was left in command of the Grand Army at Vilna, abandoned his post and the next year reached out to the allies who came together against Napoleon. For his indecisiveness at this time and his final fate, see Murat. It should be noted that the uncertainty caused by his policy in 1813-1814 played a significant role in complicating Napoleon’s situation and hastening the fall of his power in Italy. Eugène Beauharnais, viceroy of the kingdom of Italy, displayed both determination and bravery; but after the battle of Leipzig (October 16-19, 1813), his power weakened under the attacks of the now victorious Austrians. Through an agreement with Bavaria, they marched through Tirol and down the Adige valley in force, overpowering Eugène’s troops, whose position was critically weakened by Murat's defection and infighting among the Italians. Many Italians, distrustful of both kings, sought to act independently for the sake of an Italian republic. Lord William Bentinck, with an Anglo-Sicilian force, landed at Leghorn on March 8, 1814, and issued a proclamation calling on Italians to rise against Napoleon for their own freedom. Shortly after, he took control of Genoa. Amidst these divisions, the defense of Italy fell apart. On April 16, 1814, upon hearing of Napoleon’s downfall in Paris, Eugène signed an armistice in Mantua, which allowed him to send the French troops beyond the Alps and appeal to the allies. The Austrians, led by General Bellegarde, entered Milan without resistance; and this event made it impossible to restore the old political order.

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

The arrangements made by the allies according to the Treaty of Paris (June 12, 1814) and the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna (June 9, 1815) imposed on Italy borders that roughly matched those of the pre-Napoleonic period. France ceded its former provinces of Savoy and Nice to the reconstituted Kingdom of Sardinia under Victor Emmanuel I., while the allies, particularly Great Britain and Austria, insisted that the monarchy also include the territories of the former Republic of Genoa. The king took the title of Duke of Genoa to strengthen it as a buffer state between France and the smaller states of central Italy. Austria regained control over the Milanese and all the territories of the old Venetian Republic on the mainland, including Istria and Dalmatia. The Ionian Islands, which used to belong to Venice, were placed under British protection by a treaty signed in Paris on November 5, 1815. An agreement signed on April 24, 1815, established the Austrian territories in northern Italy as the Kingdom of Lombardo-Venetia. Although it was an integral part of the Austrian Empire, it was meant to have its own administration, symbolized by the emperors being crowned with the ancient Iron Crown of Lombardy (“Proclamation of the Emperor of Austria, etc.,” April 7, 1815, State Papers, ii. 906). Francis IV., the son of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria and Maria Beatrice, daughter of Ercole Rinaldo, the last of the Estensi, was restored as Duke of Modena. Parma and Piacenza were assigned to Marie Louise, daughter of the Austrian emperor and Napoleon's wife, for her son, the young Napoleon. However, by later agreements (1816-1817), the duchy was set to revert to the Bourbons of Parma upon her death, who were then ruling in Lucca. Tuscany was returned to Grand Duke Ferdinand III. of Habsburg-Lorraine. The Duchy of Lucca was given to Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma, and when Marie Louise of Austria died, it would revert to Parma, and Lucca would then pass to Tuscany. Pope Pius VII, who had been held under restraint by Napoleon at Fontainebleau, returned to Rome in May 1814 and was recognized by the Congress of Vienna (not without some hesitation from Austria) as the sovereign of all the former possessions of the Holy See. Ferdinand IV of Naples, shortly after the passing of his wife, Maria Carolina, in Austria, came back from Sicily to reclaim his territories on the mainland. He was fully restored to his possessions by the powers, who recognized him as Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies. The reckless attempt by Murat in the autumn of 1815, which resulted in his death at Pizzo in Calabria, allowed the Bourbon dynasty to suppress dissenters with even greater harshness. The backlash was dull and heavy in the territories of the pope and Victor Emmanuel, systematically harsh in the northern Austrian states, and relatively mild in Parma and Tuscany, yet it sparked significant resentment in southern Italy and Sicily, as it was directed by a dynasty that had generated feelings of both hatred and disdain.

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

There were specific reasons why Sicily felt this way about the Bourbons. For eight years (1806-1814), the main cities on the island were occupied by British troops, and the commander in charge of supporting Ferdinand's weakening rule in Palermo naturally held significant power. The British government, which provided a substantial annual subsidy to the king and queen in Palermo, claimed to have some influence over the administration. Lord William Bentinck eventually assumed significant administrative authority, recognizing that Ferdinand, due to his incompetence, and Maria Carolina, because of her questionable dealings with Napoleon, could not be trusted. The struggle between royal power and the Sicilian estates was almost at a standstill until 1812 when, inspired by Lord William Bentinck, a constitution largely based on England’s was adopted by the estates. After the British troops left in 1814, the constitution was no longer in effect, and royal authority became absolute again. Still, the memory of the advantages brought by "the English constitution" remained vivid amid the harsh repression that followed. It continued to exist as one of the intangible yet influential forces that motivated the Sicilians and the democrats in Naples to take action in 1821, 1830, 1848, and 1860.

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

This result, coming from British intervention, was in some ways similar to the impact Napoleon had on the Italians of the mainland. The brutal actions of Austria’s soldiers in the north, the oppressive tactics typical of the house of Savoy, the petty malice of the duke of Modena, the medieval ignorance of the pope and cardinals in the middle of the peninsula, and the foolish excesses of Ferdinand in the south couldn't erase from the Italians' minds the benefits gained from the fair laws, strong administration, and progressive goals of the great emperor. The tough but valuable training they underwent under him taught them that they were equal to the northern races, both in politics and on the battlefield. It also revealed a truth that, once understood, can never be forgotten: that despite differences in climate, character, and language, they were fundamentally a nation.

(J. Hl. R.)

E. The Risorgimento, 1815-1870

E. The Italian Unification, 1815-1870

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

As a result of the Vienna treaties, Austria became the true ruler of Italy. Not only did it directly control Lombardy and Venetia, but Austrian princes also ruled Modena, Parma, and Tuscany; Piacenza, Ferrara, and Comacchio were occupied by Austrian troops. Prince Metternich, the Austrian chancellor, believed he could always ensure the election of a pro-Austrian pope, and Ferdinand of Naples, restored by an Austrian army, had committed himself, through a secret article of the treaty from June 12, 1815, not to introduce any government methods that were incompatible with those used in Austria’s Italian territories. Austria also formed offensive and defensive alliances with Sardinia, Tuscany, and Naples; Metternich’s ambition was to further cement Austrian dominance over Italy by placing an Austrian archduke on the Sardinian throne.

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

Victor Emmanuel I, the king of Sardinia, was the only native ruler in the region, and the Savoy dynasty was well-liked across all social classes. However, despite his enthusiastic welcome upon returning to Turin, he implemented a system of Reaction in Italy. This reaction, while less brutal, was just as strict as those of the Austrian archdukes or Bourbon princes. His goal was to restore his territories to the state they were in before the French occupation. The French taxation system was kept because it provided greater revenue; however, feudalism, outdated laws, and bureaucratic practices were reinstated, and all officials who had served the state before the Revolution—many of whom were now elderly—were returned to their positions. Only nobles were eligible for higher government roles, and anyone who had worked under the French administration was either dismissed or demoted. In the army, inexperienced young nobles were placed in charge over seasoned veterans who had commanded troops in Spain and Russia. The power of a narrow-minded priesthood was reestablished, and “every form of intellectual and moral torment, everything save actual persecution and physical torture that could be inflicted on the ‘impure’ was inflicted” (Cesare Balbo’s Autobiography). This soon sparked discontent among the educated classes. In Genoa, the government was especially unpopular, as the Genoese resented being handed over to their old adversary Piedmont like a flock of sheep. Despite this, the king had a strong aversion to the Austrians and would have gladly seen them expelled from Italy.

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

In Lombardy, French rule became unpopular and, even before Napoleon's fall, a national group called the Italici puri started to push for Lombardy's independence, or even its union with Austrian rule in Italy. At first, some people accepted Austrian governance, which provided honest and efficient leadership. However, the strict centralization system, which allowed a facade of local autonomy while sending every small issue to Vienna for resolution; the harsh police tactics; and the bureaucracy, where top positions were often given to Germans or Slavs loyal to Vienna, frustrated the population. In response to the rising discontent, the area was turned into a large military outpost. In Modena, Duke Francis was a cruel tyrant. In Parma, however, there was minimal oppression, French laws were kept, and the state council was involved in legislative matters. Lucca also had good governance, ensuring the well-being and prosperity of the peasantry. In Tuscany, Ferdinand and his minister Fossombroni ruled in a mild and kind manner, but it was also weakening and demoralizing. The Papal States operated under a unique theocratic system, where not only the head of state but also the major officials were clergy, supported by the Inquisition, the Index, and all the trappings of medieval church governance. The administration was ineffective and corrupt, censorship was harsh, and the police were brutal and oppressive, yet unable to manage the widespread lawlessness and banditry. The outdated papal laws replaced the French ones, erasing all traces of the strong old communal independence. In Naples, King Ferdinand kept some laws and institutions from Murat’s regime, and many former officials joined his government; however, he revived the Bourbon tradition, the oppressive police system, and censorship. A degrading religious bigotry, which the masses were all too prone to adopt, became the foundation of both government and social life. While the upper classes were still largely influenced by French ideas, the common people were either loyal to the monarchy or indifferent. In Sicily, which had enjoyed a feudal constitution modernized and Anglicized with British assistance in 1812, and where anti-Neapolitan sentiment was strong, autonomy was suppressed, the constitution abolished in 1816, and the island, rewarded for its loyalty to the dynasty, was turned into a Neapolitan province run by Neapolitan bureaucrats.

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

To most people, the return of the old governments definitely brought a sense of relief because the heavy toll in lives and resources from Napoleon’s wars had created a lot of discontent. Now, there was a chance for peace and rest. However, the restored governments, afraid of revolution, failed to recognize that the recent regime had breathed new life into the country and left lasting improvements in the form of better laws, effective administration, good roads, and the elimination of old abuses. Additionally, the new idea of Italian unity, fueled by a revived national pride from many battlefields ranging from Madrid to Moscow, was a powerful force to be acknowledged. The oppression and mistakes of the restored governments led people to forget the negatives of French rule and only recall its positives. While the general population remained indifferent, among the nobility and educated middle classes—who were excluded from any participation in a free political life—there emerged either a feeling of despair over Italy’s moral decline, as seen in the writings of Foscolo and Leopardi, or a passionate hatred and desire for revolt, which, despite strict laws, manifested in the rise of secret societies. The most significant of these were the Carbonari lodges, which aimed to remove foreign influences and achieve constitutional freedom (see Carbonari).

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

When Ferdinand returned to Naples in 1815, he found the kingdom, especially the army, filled with Carbonarism, which many nobles and officers were involved in. Although the police began prosecutions and organized a counter-movement by the Calderai, similar to the “Black Hundreds” of modern Russia, the revolutionary spirit kept growing, but it wasn't initially anti-dynastic. The granting of the Spanish constitution of 1820 marked the start of the Italian liberationist movement; a military mutiny led by two officers, Silvati and Morelli, and the priest Menichini erupted at Monteforte, shouting “God, the King, and the Constitution!” The troops sent to confront them, led by General Guglielmo Pepe, who was also a Carbonaro, hesitated to take action. The king, realizing he couldn’t rely on the army, granted the constitution on July 13, 1820, and appointed his son Francis as regent. The subsequent events are detailed in the article on the history of Naples (q.v.). Not only did the constitution, modeled on the impractical Spanish constitution of 1812, prove unworkable, but the powers of the Grand Alliance, primarily focused on maintaining peace in Europe, felt obligated to intervene to prevent a bad precedent of a successful military revolution. The diplomatic developments that led to Austria's intervention are covered elsewhere (see Europe: History); in general, the outcome of the congresses of Troppau and Laibach established not the general right of intervention claimed in the Troppau Protocol, but Austria's specific right to protect her interests in Italy. The defeat of General Pepe by the Austrians at Rieti on March 7, 1821, and the re-establishment of King Ferdinand’s autocratic power under the protection of Austrian bayonets were the effective assertion of this principle.

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

The movement in Naples was strictly local, as the Neapolitan Carbonari were focused solely on Naples at that time. It was a movement driven by the middle and upper classes, with little involvement from the masses. Military uprising in Piedmont. Right after the battle of Rieti, a Carbonarist mutiny erupted in Piedmont, separate from what was happening in the south. Both King Victor Emmanuel and his brother Charles Felix had no sons, making Prince Charles Albert, from the Carignano branch of the house of Savoy, the heir presumptive. Charles Albert was somewhat interested in Liberal ideas and kept company with young nobles who had Carbonarist and anti-Austrian views, leading his royal relatives to view him with suspicion. Metternich also had a natural dislike for him and suggested marrying one of the king’s daughters to Francis of Modena to eliminate him from the line of succession, intending to get the Salic law abolished so that the succession would go to the duke, allowing Austria to control Piedmont. The Liberal movement had gained traction in Piedmont as it had in Naples, especially among the younger nobility and military officers, with the events in Spain and southern Italy generating significant excitement. In March 1821, Count Santorre di Santarosa and other conspirators informed Charles Albert of a constitutional and anti-Austrian plot, asking for his support. After a brief hesitation, he informed the king; however, at the king's request, no arrests were made and no precautions were taken. On March 10, the garrison in Alessandria mutinied, followed by a similar outbreak in Turin on March 12, where a demand for the Spanish constitution was made, and the Carbonari’s black, red, and blue flag was displayed in the streets. The following day, the king abdicated, appointing Charles Albert as regent. Charles Albert then declared the constitution, but the new king, Charles Felix, who was in Modena at the time, rejected the regent’s actions and sent him into exile in Tuscany; with Charles Felix’s consent, an Austrian army invaded Piedmont and defeated the constitutionalists at Novara. Many conspirators received death sentences, but all managed to escape. Charles Felix was furious with the ex-regent, yet he viewed Austria's attempt to exclude him from the succession at the Congress of Verona (1822) as an unjustified interference. Charles Albert’s ambiguous behavior also sparked the Liberals' animosity, and for a long time, the esecrato Carignano was unjustly seen as a traitor, even by many who were not republicans.

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

Carbonarism was brought to Lombardy by two Romagnols, Count Laderchi and Pietro Maroncelli, but the movement was led by Count F. Confalonieri, who supported an Italian federation made up of northern Italy under the house of Savoy, central Italy under the pope, and the kingdom of Naples. There had been some minor plotting against Austria in Milan, and an effort was made to collaborate with the Piedmontese movement of 1821. By 1820, Maroncelli and the poet Silvio Pellico had been arrested as Carbonari, and more arrests followed after the Piedmont events. The mission of Gaetano Castiglia and Marquis Giorgio Pallavicini to Turin, where they met with Charles Albert but achieved no concrete results—since Confalonieri had informed the prince that Lombardy wasn't ready to rise—was accidentally uncovered, leading to Confalonieri's own arrest. The plot would not have posed a threat to Austria had it not been for how she treated the conspirators. Pellico and Maroncelli were imprisoned in Spielberg; Confalonieri and around two dozen others were sentenced to death, but their sentences were changed to imprisonment in that same dreadful fortress. The bravery of the prisoners and Silvio Pellico's account of his imprisonment (Le mie Prigioni) helped to garner sympathy across Europe for the Italian cause.

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

For the next few years, Italy was mostly peaceful, except for a few minor disturbances in the Papal States; however, there was ongoing discontent and unrest, particularly in Romagna, where mismanagement was severe. The Vatican City. Under Pius VII and his minister Cardinal Consalvi, oppression wasn't too harsh, and Metternich's proposal to create a central inquisitorial tribunal for political offenses across Italy was rejected by the papal government. But after Pius died in 1823, his successor Leo XII (Cardinal Della Genga) turned out to be a harsh reactionary who enacted brutal laws and frequently applied torture. Secret societies like the Carbonari, Adelfi, and Bersaglieri d’America, which thrived in Romagna, responded to this persecution by assassinating the more brutal officials and spies. The events of 1820-1821 increased agitation in Romagna, and by 1825, many people were sentenced to death, imprisonment, or exile. The Sanfedisti society, formed from the lowest of the populace and aimed at killing every Liberal, was openly supported and encouraged. Leo died 50 in 1829, and the gentle, religious Pius VIII (Cardinal Castiglioni) reigned only until 1830, when Gregory XVI (Cardinal Cappellari) was elected due to Austrian influence and proved to be another 1830 Revolutions. zelante. The July revolution in Paris and the new king Louis Philippe's declaration that France, as a Liberal monarchy, would not intervene in other countries' internal affairs and would not allow other powers to do so, sparked great hopes among the oppressed people, leading to a revolution in Romagna and the Marches. In February 1831, these provinces revolted, raised the red, white, and green tricolor (which replaced the Carbonarist colors as the Italian flag), and easily broke free from papal control. 11 In Parma, there was also an uprising and a demand for a constitution; Marie Louise couldn't grant it due to her obligations to Austria, so she abandoned her territories. In Modena, Duke Francis, eager to expand his lands, flirted with the Carbonari of Paris and began indirect talks with Menotti, the revolutionary leader in his state, hoping to assist him in his plans. Menotti, in turn, imagined a united Italian state under the duke. They organized a rising for February 1831; but Francis caught wind of it, regretted his dangerous flirtation with revolution, arrested Menotti, and fled to Austrian territory with his prisoner. In his absence, the insurrection occurred, and Biagio Nardi was elected dictator, proclaiming that "Italy is one; the Italian nation one sole nation." But the French king soon abandoned his non-intervention principle, which the Italian revolutionaries had relied on; the Austrians intervened without restraint; the old governments in Parma, Modena, and Romagna were reinstated; and Menotti along with many other patriots were hanged. The Austrians left Romagna in July, but another uprising broke out immediately afterwards that the papal troops couldn't suppress, prompting their return. This second intervention upset France, who sent forces to occupy Ancona as a counterbalance. These two foreign occupations, which were almost as unwelcome to the pope as to the Liberals, lasted until 1838. After the revolt, the powers submitted a memorandum to Gregory advising moderate reforms, but it was ignored. These various movements showed, firstly, that the masses were not ready for revolution, and that while a few revolutionary leaders were advocating for unity, it was far from being widely accepted even among the Liberals; secondly, despite the public's indifference, despotic governments couldn't maintain power without foreign military support.

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

On April 27, 1831, Charles Albert took over the throne of Piedmont from Charles Felix. Shortly after, he received a letter from an unknown sender, urging him with passionate language to lead the movement to liberate and unite Italy while driving out foreign influence. The letter suggested he could choose to be “the first of men or the last of Italian tyrants.” The author was Giuseppe Mazzini, a 26-year-old who, despite being a theoretical republican, was willing to accept the leadership of a prince from the Savoy family if it meant guiding the nation to freedom. However, the outcome of his letter was that he was banned from returning to Sardinian territory. Mazzini, having grown skeptical of Carbonarism due to its lack of guiding principles and its nonsensical rituals and mysteries, envisioned a more serious political organization aimed at freeing his country not only from foreign and domestic tyranny but also from its own flaws. He realized this vision by founding a society called Giovane Italia (Young Italy) among Italian refugees in Marseilles. After the events of 1831, he asserted that Italy could only be liberated through unity, and his significant achievement was inspiring many Italians with this idea during a time when regional rivalries and communication difficulties fostered separatist feelings. Young Italy spread among Italian exile communities and used literature to promote its message back in Italy, where the movement became known as “Ghibellini,” echoing the anti-Papal sentiments of medieval times. Although Giovane Italia eventually replaced older societies, it experienced similar shortcomings; two attempts to invade Savoy in an effort to sway the army away from its loyalty ended in failure and led to brutal sentences of death and imprisonment. These events caused many Liberals to lose hope in Charles Albert and brought criticism upon Mazzini for organizing raids he didn’t personally engage in. Forced to leave France, Mazzini continued his activism from London. The unrest in Naples and Sicily in 1837 had no connections to Mazzini, but the ill-fated effort by the Bandiera brothers, who landed on the Calabrian coast in 1844, was indeed the work of Giovane Italia. The rebels were captured and executed, but the importance of their attempt lies in it being the first instance of northern Italians (the Bandieras were Venetians and officers in the Austrian navy) attempting to incite a rebellion in the south.

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

Romagna had been in chaos since 1831; the government created armed groups called the Centurioni (which came from the earlier Sanfedisti) to intimidate the Liberals, while secret societies continued their “propaganda by deeds.” It's important to note that Romagna was the only region in Italy where the revolutionary movement was marked by murder. In 1845, there were several uprisings, and a group led by Pietro Renzi took over Rimini, from where a proclamation written by L. C. Farini was issued, demanding the reforms suggested in the powers’ memorandum of 1831. However, the movement failed to achieve anything, and the leaders escaped to Tuscany.

Side by side with the Mazzinian propaganda in favour of a united Italian republic, which manifested itself in secret societies, plots and insurrections, there was another Liberal movement based on the education of opinion and on economic development. Liberalism and economic development. In Piedmont, in spite of the government’s reactionary methods, a large part of the population were genuinely attached to the Savoy dynasty, and the idea of a regeneration of Italy under its auspices began to gain ground. Some writers proclaimed the necessity of building railways, developing agriculture and encouraging industries, before resorting to revolution; while others, like the Tuscan Gino Capponi, inspired by the example of England and France, wished to make the people fit for freedom by means of improved schools, books and periodicals. Vincenzo Gioberti (q.v.) published in 1843 his famous treatise Del primato morale e civile degli Italiani, a work, which, in striking contrast to the prevailing pessimism of the day, extolled the past greatness and achievements of the Italian people and their present virtues. His political ideal was a federation of all the Italian states under the presidency of the pope, on a basis of Catholicism, but without a constitution. In spite of all its inaccuracies and exaggerations the book served a useful purpose in reviving the self-respect of a despondent people. Another work of a similar kind was Le Speranze d’Italia (1844) by the Piedmontese Count Cesare Balbo (q.v.). Like Gioberti he advocated a federation of Italian states, but he declared that before this could be achieved Austria must be expelled from Italy and compensation found for her in the Near East by making her a Danubian power—a curious forecast that Italy’s liberation would begin with an eastern war. He extolled Charles Albert and appealed to his patriotism; he believed that the church was necessary and the secret societies harmful; representative government was undesirable, but he advocated a consultative assembly. Above all Italian character must be reformed and the nation educated. A third important publication was Massimo d’Azeglio’s Degli ultimi casi di Romagna, in which the author, another Piedmontese nobleman, exposed papal misgovernment while condemning the secret societies and advocating open resistance and protest. He upheld the papacy in principle, regarded Austria as the great enemy of Italian regeneration, and believed that the means of expelling her were only to be found in Piedmont.

Alongside Mazzini's propaganda advocating for a united Italian republic, which manifested through secret societies, plots, and uprisings, there was another Liberal movement focusing on educating public opinion and fostering economic growth. Liberalism and economic growth. In Piedmont, despite the government's reactionary tactics, a significant portion of the population genuinely supported the Savoy dynasty, and the idea of revitalizing Italy under its leadership began to gain traction. Some writers argued for the necessity of building railways, developing agriculture, and promoting industries before resorting to revolution; while others, like the Tuscan Gino Capponi, inspired by England and France, wanted to prepare the people for freedom through improved schools, books, and periodicals. Vincenzo Gioberti (q.v.) published his renowned treatise Del primato morale e civile degli Italiani in 1843, a work that, in sharp contrast to the era's prevailing pessimism, celebrated the past greatness and accomplishments of the Italian people and their current virtues. His political ideal was a federation of all Italian states under the presidency of the Pope, based on Catholicism but without a constitution. Despite its inaccuracies and exaggerations, the book played a valuable role in boosting the self-respect of a discouraged people. Another similar publication was Le Speranze d’Italia (1844) by the Piedmontese Count Cesare Balbo (q.v.). Like Gioberti, he supported a federation of Italian states, but insisted that before this could happen, Austria must be expelled from Italy and compensation provided in the Near East by making it a Danubian power—a curious prediction that Italy's liberation would start with an eastern war. He praised Charles Albert and appealed to his patriotism; he believed the church was necessary while secret societies were harmful; representative government was undesirable, but he favored a consultative assembly. Above all, he emphasized the need to reform Italian character and educate the nation. A third significant publication was Massimo d’Azeglio’s Degli ultimi casi di Romagna, where the author, another Piedmontese nobleman, criticized papal mismanagement while denouncing secret societies and promoting open resistance and protest. He supported the papacy in principle, viewed Austria as the main enemy of Italian renewal, and believed that the means to expel her could only be found in Piedmont.

Besides the revolutionists and republicans who promoted conspiracy and insurrection whenever possible, and the moderates or “Neo-Guelphs,” as Gioberti’s followers were called, we must mention the Italian exiles who were learning the art The Italian exiles. of war in foreign countries—in Spain, in Greece, in Poland, in South America—and those other exiles who, in Paris or London, eked out a bare subsistence by teaching Italian or 51 by their pen, and laid the foundations of that love of Italy which, especially in England, eventually brought the weight of diplomacy into the scales for Italian freedom. All these forces were equally necessary—the revolutionists to keep up agitation and make government by bayonets impossible; the moderates to curb the impetuosity of the revolutionists and to present a scheme of society that was neither reactionary nor anarchical; the volunteers abroad to gain military experience; and the more peaceful exiles to spread the name of Italy among foreign peoples. All the while a vast amount of revolutionary literature was being printed in Switzerland, France and England, and smuggled into Italy; the poet Giusti satirized the Italian princes, the dramatist G. B. Niccolini blasted tyranny in his tragedies, the novelist Guerrazzi re-evoked the memories of the last struggle for Florentine freedom in L’Assedio di Firenze, and Verdi’s operas bristled with political double entendres which escaped the censor but were understood and applauded by the audience.

Besides the revolutionaries and republicans who promoted conspiracy and rebellion whenever they could, and the moderates or “Neo-Guelphs,” as Gioberti’s supporters were called, we should also mention the Italian exiles who were learning the art of warfare in foreign countries—in Spain, Greece, Poland, and South America—and those other exiles who, in Paris or London, barely made a living by teaching Italian or through their writing, laying the groundwork for a love of Italy that, especially in England, eventually influenced diplomatic support for Italian freedom. All these forces were equally essential—the revolutionaries to maintain agitation and make military rule unfeasible; the moderates to hold back the rush of the revolutionaries and to offer a vision of society that was neither reactionary nor anarchic; the volunteers abroad to gain military skills; and the more peaceful exiles to promote the name of Italy among foreign nations. Meanwhile, a vast amount of revolutionary literature was being printed in Switzerland, France, and England, then smuggled into Italy; the poet Giusti criticized the Italian princes, the playwright G. B. Niccolini condemned tyranny in his tragedies, the novelist Guerrazzi recalled the memories of the last struggle for Florentine freedom in L’Assedio di Firenze, and Verdi’s operas were filled with political double meanings that slipped past the censor but were understood and applauded by the audience.

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

After the death of Pope Gregory XVI in 1846, Austria hoped to have another fervent supporter elected; however, the Italian cardinals, who didn’t want someone favoring Austria, completed the conclave before Cardinal Gaysrück, Austria’s representative, could arrive. In June, they elected Giovanni Maria Mastai Ferretti as Pius IX. The new pope, who had shown some interest in Liberalism while he was bishop of Imola, was a kind man with below-average intelligence, thinking that all problems could be solved with a little goodwill, some reforms, and a political amnesty. The amnesty he granted was the start of the huge but brief popularity he would enjoy. However, he didn’t move as quickly toward reform as people had hoped, and unrest continued throughout the papal states. In 1847, some administrative reforms were made, laypeople were allowed in certain positions, discussions about railways took place, and political newspapers were permitted. In April, Pius established a Consulta, or consultative assembly, and shortly after, he formed a council of ministers and a municipality for Rome. He would have liked to stop there, but he soon realized he had barely begun. Each new reform was met with enthusiastic demonstrations, but the alarming cry “Viva Pio Nono solo!” revealed dissatisfaction with the entire government system. A lay ministry was now being requested, along with a constitution and an Italian federation for war against Austria. Rumors of a reactionary plot by Austria and the Jesuits against Pius prompted him to create a national guard and appoint Cardinal Ferretti as secretary of state.

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

Events in Rome sparked widespread excitement across Europe. Metternich had stated that the one thing he hadn't expected was a Liberal pope—he thought that was impossible; still, he was quite disturbed by Pius's stance and tried to control the revolutionary wave by intimidating the princes. Using the unrest in Romagna as an excuse, he had Austrian troops occupy the town of Ferrara, which angered not only the Liberals but also the pope, since according to treaties, Austria only had the right to occupy the citadel. There was a great deal of resentment throughout Italy, and in response to the pope's request, Charles Albert declared his full support. Meanwhile, from South America, Giuseppe Garibaldi offered his services to the pope. Charles Albert, although sticking to his reactionary policies, had implemented some administrative reforms, built railways, reorganized the army, and developed the country’s resources. He had little sympathy for Liberalism and detested revolution, but his animosity towards Austria and resentment over the oppression she imposed had grown year by year. Religion remained his primary passion, and when a Liberal pope emerged and was bullied by Austria, his two strongest feelings—piety and resentment towards Austria—no longer seemed at odds with each other. In 1847, Lord Minto visited the Italian courts in an attempt to persuade the stubborn rulers to change their ways to avoid revolution and war, which was particularly concerning for England; this mission, although not expected to have much impact, sparked unrealistic hopes among the Liberals. Charles Louis, the playful duke of Lucca, who had previously flirted with Liberalism, now refused to make any concessions to his people and, in 1847, sold his duchy to Leopold II of Tuscany (the successor of Ferdinand III since 1824), to whom it would have gone back anyway upon the death of the duchess of Parma. At the same time, Leopold ceded Lunigiana to Parma and Modena in equal parts, which angered the residents of the region (especially those who were to be ruled by Francis V of Modena, who had succeeded Francis IV in 1846), leading to unrest in Fivizzano. In September 1847, Leopold yielded to the popular demand for a national guard, despite Metternich's threats, and allowed more freedom of the press; every concession made by the pope was followed by calls for similar reforms in Tuscany.

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

Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies died in 1825 and was succeeded by Francis I. After Francis I's death in 1830, Ferdinand II took over. Initially, he seemed like he would be a wiser ruler, but he quickly went back to the traditional Bourbon ways. An ignorant bigot, he centralized all executive power in his hands, was surrounded by priests and monks, and was supported by a network of spies. In 1847, there were some minor disturbances in various parts of the kingdom, but there wasn’t any significant anti-dynastic uprising, as the rivalry between Naples and Sicily weakened the movement. However, on January 12, a revolution broke out in Palermo under the leadership of Ruggiero Settimo, marking the first of many that would make 1848 a memorable year across Europe. The Neapolitan army sent to suppress the uprising initially failed, and the insurgents demanded either the constitution of 1812 or complete independence. There were also disturbances in Naples, and the king, unable to get Austrian assistance since the pope refused to let Austrian troops pass through his territory, ultimately granted a constitution, freedom of the press, a national guard, etc., on the advice of his prime minister, the Duke of Serracapriola, on January 28.

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

The news from Naples boosted the demand for a constitution in Piedmont. Count Camillo Cavour, who was then the editor of a new and influential newspaper called Il Risorgimento, strongly supported this idea, and massive demonstrations 1848 Revolutions. were held daily. The king did not like the concept, but significant pressure was put on him, and finally, on March 4, 1848, he granted the charter that would become the constitution of the future Italian kingdom. It included a nominated senate and an elected chamber of deputies, with the king retaining the right to veto; censorship of the press was abolished, and freedom of assembly, the press, and speech were guaranteed. Balbo was asked to form the first constitutional ministry. Three days later, the grand-duke of Tuscany promised similar freedoms, and a charter, prepared by a commission that included Gino Capponi and Bettino Ricasoli, was issued on the 17th.

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

In the Austrian provinces, things felt more settled, and the government turned down the moderate proposals from Daniele Manin and N. Tommaseo. A demonstration supporting Pius IX. on January 3rd in Milan was forcefully interrupted, and martial law was declared the following month. The revolution that erupted on March 8th in Vienna and the subsequent escape of Metternich (see Austria-Hungary: History) resulted in minimal concessions for Lombardy and Venetia, which were announced in Milan on the 18th. But it was too late; despite the pleas from Mayor Gabrio Casati and republican C. Cattaneo, who thought it was madness to rise up against 15,000 Austrian soldiers led by Field-Marshal Radetzky, the famous Five Days' revolution began. It was a spontaneous burst of long-held anger, initially leaderless, although figures like Luciano Manara soon emerged. Radetzky took control of the citadel and key positions, but that night, barricades appeared by the hundreds, manned by citizens of all backgrounds armed with various weapons. The intense struggle continued until the 22nd, when the Austrians, having suffered 5,000 casualties, were forced to retreat from the city. The rest of Lombardy and Venetia 52 now took up arms, and Austrian garrisons, except in the Quadrilateral (Verona, Peschiera, Mantua, and Legnano), were expelled. In Venice, the people, led by Manin, took up arms and compelled the military and civil governors (Counts Zichy and Palffy) to sign a capitulation on March 22nd, after which the republic was declared. In Milan, where there was a split between monarchists under Casati and republicans under Cattaneo, a provisional administration was formed, and the decision on the type of government was postponed for now. The Duke of Modena and Charles Louis of Parma (Marie Louise had passed away) fled their capitals; in both cities, provisional governments were established that later proclaimed annexation to Piedmont. In Rome, the pope succumbed to public pressure, making one concession after another, and on February 8th he publicly invoked God's blessing on Italy—that Italy hated by the Austrians, whose name had previously been taboo. On March 10th, he appointed a new ministry led by Cardinal Antonelli, which included several liberal laymen, such as Marco Minghetti, G. Pasolini, L. C. Farini, and Count G. Recchi. On March 11th, a constitution drafted by a commission of cardinals, unbeknownst to the ministry, was announced, a constitution that attempted the impossible feat of balancing the pope's temporal power with democratic institutions. Meanwhile, preparations for war against Austria were being made with the pope's approval.

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

There were now three main political movements: the unification of northern Italy under Charles Albert and an alliance with the Pope and Naples, a federation of the different states under their current rulers, and a united republic for all of Italy. However, all factions agreed on the need for war against Austria, which the people pressured their reluctant leaders to prepare for. But the only state capable of taking the lead was Piedmont, and the king was still unsure. Then came the news of the Five Days of Milan, which sparked intense excitement in Turin; if the army wasn't sent to support the struggling Lombards immediately, the monarchy would be at risk. Cavour’s motivating articles in the Risorgimento pushed the king to make a decision, and on March 23, he declared war (see for the military events Italian Wars, 1848-70). But precious time had been wasted, and even then, the army was not fully prepared. Charles Albert could field 90,000 men, including about 30,000 from central Italy, but he went into battle with only half that number. He might have managed to cut off Radetzky during his retreat or captured Mantua, which was only defended by 300 men. However, his delays caused him to miss both opportunities, allowing Radetzky to receive reinforcements from Austria. The Pope, unable to resist the popular demand for war, permitted his army to depart (March 23) under General Durando, with directions to cooperate with Charles Albert, and he communicated with the grand-duke of Tuscany and the king of Naples to discuss a military alliance. However, at the same time, fearing a divide in the church if he attacked Catholic Austria, he ordered his troops to only defend the borders and stated in his Encyclical of April 29 that, as head of the church, he couldn’t declare war, but he couldn’t stop his subjects from following the example of other Italians. He then asked Charles Albert to put the papal troops under his command and also wrote to the Austrian emperor requesting him to voluntarily give up Lombardy and Venetia. Tuscany and Naples had both joined the Italian alliance; a Tuscan army headed for Lombardy on April 30, and 17,000 Neapolitans, led by Pepe (who returned after 28 years of exile), went to help Durando intercept the Austrian reinforcements under Nugent. The Piedmontese defeated the enemy at Pastrengo (April 30), but did not capitalize on their victory. The Neapolitans reached Bologna on May 17, but in the meantime, a conflict erupted in Naples between the king and parliament over the royal oath; a group of rebellious youths raised a cry of treason, erected barricades, and street fighting broke out (May 15). On the 17th, Ferdinand dissolved parliament and summoned the army back. When ordered to return, Pepe, after grappling with his loyalty to the king versus his desire to fight for Italy, ultimately resigned his commission and crossed the Po with a few thousand men, while the rest of his troops headed south. The repercussions of this move were felt quickly. A group of Tuscan volunteers was attacked by a larger Austrian force at Curtatone and Montanaro and was defeated after a brave fight on May 27; Charles Albert, after wasting valuable time around Peschiera, which surrendered on May 30, defeated Radetzky at Goito. However, the Neapolitans' withdrawal left Durando too weak to intercept Nugent and his 30,000 troops; although they faced resistance from the people of Venetia and were pushed back at Vicenza, they managed to link up with Radetzky, who received further reinforcements from Tirol. The entire Austrian army then turned its attention to Vicenza, which surrendered on June 10 after a courageous defense. By then, all of Venetia except for the capital was once again occupied by the Austrians. On July 23, 24, and 25 (first battle of Custozza), the Piedmontese were defeated and forced to retreat to Milan, with Radetzky’s superior forces in pursuit. The king faced hostility in Milan, and although he was prepared to defend the city to the end, the town council negotiated a capitulation with Radetzky. A mob, incited by republicans, attacked the palace where the king was staying, and he barely escaped, returning to Piedmont with the remnants of his army. On August 6, Radetzky re-entered Milan, and three days later, an armistice was reached between Austria and Piedmont, with the latter agreeing to evacuate Lombardy and Venetia. The offer of French assistance, made after the proclamation of the republic in the spring of 1848, had been rejected mainly because France, fearing that a strong Italian state would pose a threat to her, would have required the cession of Nice and Savoy, which the king refused to entertain.

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

Meanwhile, a republic was declared in Venice; but on July 7th, the assembly decided to merge with Piedmont, and Manin, who had been elected president, handed over his powers to the royal commissioners. Daniele Manin and Venice. However, shortly after Custozza, the Austrians surrounded the city from the land. In Rome, the pope’s authority weakened daily, and chaos increased. The Austrian effort to take Bologna was pushed back by the citizens, but unfortunately, this victory was followed by anarchy and murder, and Farini struggled to restore some order. With the Mamiani ministry failing to make any progress, Pius called on Pellegrino Rossi, a well-educated lawyer who had been exiled in France for a long time, to create a government. On November 15th, he was assassinated, and since no one was held accountable for this crime, the boldness of the unruly elements grew, leading to exchanges of gunfire with the Swiss Guard. The frightened pope escaped in disguise to Gaeta (November 25th), and when parliament asked him to return, he even refused to meet with the delegation. This signaled a complete break; on February 5, 1849, a constituent assembly was called, and on the 9th, it voted to abolish the temporal authority and declared the republic. Mazzini rushed to Rome to see his dream come true and was chosen as the head of the Triumvirate. On the 18th, Pius called for military intervention from France, Austria, Naples, and Spain to restore his power. In Tuscany, the government shifted from moderates to far-left democrats; the Ridolfi ministry was replaced after Custozza by Ricasoli’s administration, which was then succeeded by Capponi's. The lower classes instigated serious disturbances, particularly in Leghorn, which were only quelled by Guerrazzi’s decisive action. Capponi resigned in October 1848, and Leopold reluctantly agreed to a democratic government led by Guerrazzi and Montanelli, the former being very ambitious and ruthless, while the latter was honest but idealistic. Following the example set in Rome, a constituent assembly was called to vote on uniting with Rome and eventually with the rest of Italy. The grand-duke, fearing excommunication from the pope, rejected the request and left Florence for Siena and 53 S. Stefano; on February 8, 1849, the republic was proclaimed, and on the 21st, at the urgent request of the pope and the king of Naples, Leopold went to Gaeta.

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

Ferdinand didn’t openly violate his constitutional promises until Sicily was retaken. His troops had taken Messina after a bombardment that got him the nickname “King Bomba”; Catania and Syracuse fell shortly after, with horrific atrocities happening everywhere with his approval. He then suspended parliament, implemented strict measures against the Liberals, and went to Gaeta, the refuge for overthrown tyrants.

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

But as long as Piedmont wasn't completely defeated, none of the princes dared to take serious action against their subjects; despite Custozza, Charles Albert still had an army, and Austria, dealing with revolutions in Vienna, Hungary, and Bohemia, couldn't intervene. In Piedmont, the Pinelli-Revel ministry, which was continuing negotiations for an alliance with Leopold and the Pope, resigned because it couldn't secure a parliamentary majority. In December, the returning exile Gioberti formed a new ministry. His proposal to bring back Leopold and the Pope with Piedmontese military support, to avoid Austrian intervention, was rejected by both leaders and faced opposition even in Piedmont, which would have lost its prestige throughout Italy. Austrian mediation was now unavoidable, as the Vienna revolution had been suppressed, and the new emperor, Francis Joseph, refused to consider any resolution other than based on the treaties of 1815. But Charles Albert reignites the conflict. Charles Albert, who, despite his shortcomings, had a generous spirit, was determined that as long as he had an army, he couldn't abandon the Lombards and Venetians, whom he had encouraged to resist, without one last attempt, even though he knew well that he was risking everything on a slim chance. On March 12, 1849, he declared the armistice over and, due to the lack of confidence in Piedmontese strategies after 1848, gave the main command to Polish General Chrzanowski. His forces were about 80,000 men, including a Lombard corps and some Roman, Tuscan, and other volunteers. However, the army's discipline and morale were weak, and its organization was flawed. General Ramorino, defying orders, failed to stop a corps of Austrians led by Lieutenant Field-Marshal d’Aspre from capturing Mortara, a mistake for which he was later court-martialed and executed, and after some initial fighting, Radetzky secured the decisive battle of Novara (March 23), which shattered the Piedmontese army. The king, who had sought death in vain all day, was forced to ask Radetzky for terms; the latter demanded Victor Emmanuel II becomes king. a portion of Piedmont and the heir to the throne (Victor Emmanuel) as a hostage, without needing parliamentary approval. Charles Albert, recognizing his failure and believing his son might negotiate better terms, abdicated and immediately left for Portugal, where he died in a monastery a few months later. Victor Emmanuel personally went to negotiate with Radetzky on March 24. The Field-Marshal received him very courteously and offered not only to drop the demand for part of Piedmontese territory but also to expand the kingdom, on the condition that the constitution be abolished and the blue Piedmontese flag replace the tricolor. But the young king was determined to honor his father's promise, so he had to agree to an Austrian occupation of the land between the Po, the Ticino, and the Sesia, and half of the citadel of Alessandria, until peace was established, the withdrawal of all troops outside Piedmont, the disbanding of his corps of Lombard, Polish, and Hungarian volunteers, and the removal of his fleet from the Adriatic.

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

Novara allowed Austria to bring back the Italian rulers. Ferdinand quickly re-established an autocratic government in Naples; however, the struggle in Sicily didn’t end until May, when Palermo, after a remarkable defense, surrendered. In Tuscany, chaos continued, and while Guerrazzi, who had been named dictator, prevented the country from falling into complete anarchy, a significant portion of the population, especially among the peasants, remained loyal to the grand-duke. After Novara, the main concern was how to prevent an Austrian occupation, and due to the ongoing confusion, the town council of Florence took charge and declared the grand-duke reinstated, but on a constitutional basis and without foreign assistance (April 12). Leopold agreed to the constitution but said nothing about foreign intervention. Count Serristori, the grand-ducal commissioner, arrived in Florence on May 4, 1849; the national guard was disbanded; and on the 25th, the Austrians under d’Aspre entered Florence.

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

On July 28th, Leopold returned to his capital, and while some people welcomed the event, the fact that he was now under Austrian protection ultimately killed off any loyalty to the dynasty, which in turn played a significant role in Italian unity.

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

In Rome, the triumvirate decided to defend the republic no matter what. The city was quieter and more organized than it had ever been before because Mazzini and Ciceruacchio successfully opposed all class warfare. In April, the defenders gained a priceless boost in their strength with Garibaldi, who returned with a few followers from his exile in South America when the revolution broke out in 1848. In April 1849, he entered Rome with about 500 men to fight for the republic. Meanwhile, France decided to restore the pope as a counterbalance to Austrian intervention in other parts of Italy, even though this meant crushing a fellow republic. However, this intention hadn't been publicly declared yet. On April 25th, General Oudinot landed with 8,000 men at Civitavecchia, and on the 30th, he tried to surprise Rome but was completely defeated by Garibaldi, who could have pushed the French back to the sea if Mazzini had let him leave the city. The French republican government, hoping to buy time for reinforcements, sent Ferdinand de Lesseps to pretend to negotiate with Mazzini, with de Lesseps himself unaware of the deception. Mazzini refused to allow the French into the city, but while negotiations dragged on, Oudinot’s force grew to 35,000 men. At the same time, an Austrian army marched through the Legations, and Neapolitan and Spanish troops advanced from the south. The Roman army, made up of 20,000 men and commanded by General Rosselli, included Garibaldi’s red-shirted legionaries and volunteers from all over Italy, mostly very young men, many of whom were wealthy and from noble families. The Neapolitans suffered a humiliating defeat in May and retreated to the border. On June 1st, Oudinot announced he would attack Rome on the 4th, but by starting operations on the 3rd when no one expected it, he captured an important position in the Pamphili gardens.

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

Despite this success, it wasn't until the end of the month, after intense fighting, that the French broke through the walls and the defenses finally fell (June 29). The Assembly, which had stayed in session, was disbanded by French troops on July 2, but Mazzini managed to escape a week later. Garibaldi left the city, followed by 4,000 of his men, and tried to join the defenders of Venice. Even though he was pursued by the armies of four Powers, he made it to San Marino; however, his force dwindled, and after hiding in the marshes of Ravenna, he fled across the peninsula, aided by nobles, peasants, and priests, to the Tuscan coast, from where he reached Piedmont and eventually America, waiting for a new call to fight for Italy (see Garibaldi).

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

After a heroic defense led by Giuseppe Martinengo, the Austrians under Lieutenant Field Marshal von Haynau recaptured Brescia in April, with the atrocities that followed earning Haynau the nickname “The Hyena of Brescia.” In May, they took Bologna, and in June, Ancona, restoring order in those towns using the same methods as in Brescia. Venice held out alone; after Novara, the Piedmontese commissioners withdrew, and Manin once again took charge of the government. The assembly voted: “Venice resists the Austrians at all costs,” and the citizens and soldiers, bolstered by volunteers from all over Italy, including Pepe, who was given the chief command of the defenders, displayed incredible devotion to their hopeless cause. By the end of May, the city was under blockade by land and sea, and in July, the bombardment commenced. On the 24th, the city, weakened by famine, surrendered on favorable terms. Manin, Pepe, and a few others were excluded from the amnesty and went into exile.

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

Despotism and foreign control were re-established throughout Italy except for Piedmont. However, the “terrible year” wasn’t all about losses. The Italian cause may have been crushed, but the revolution and war brought a stronger sense of unity, as Neapolitans fought for Venice, Lombards for Rome, and Piedmontese for all of Italy. It became clear that Piedmont had the qualities needed to be the core of a great nation. It was also evident that the federal idea was unworkable since none of the princes, except Victor Emmanuel, could be trusted. Unity and freedom couldn't be achieved under a republic, as nothing could happen without the Piedmontese army, which was royalist at its core. All reasonable people agreed that the form of the Italian government was a secondary issue and that national efforts should focus on expelling the Austrians; the type of government could be figured out later. Liberals weren’t ready to give up on this goal; their hatred for foreigners and the despots propped up by their guns had intensified due to the humiliating and cruel experiences of war, creating a shared passion across all of Italy.

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

When the terms of the Austro-Piedmontese armistice were announced in the Chamber in Turin, they sparked significant anger, but the king managed to persuade the deputies that they were unavoidable. The peace negotiations dragged on for several months, leading to two changes in ministry, with D’Azeglio becoming premier. Thanks to Anglo-French mediation, Piedmont’s war indemnity was reduced from 230,000,000 to 75,000,000 lire, but the issue of amnesty still lingered. The king expressed his willingness to go to war again if those involved in the Lombard revolution were not granted a full pardon. Eventually, Austria agreed to amnesty everyone except a small number of individuals, and in August, the peace terms were finalized. However, the Chamber refused to ratify them, and it wasn't until the king's passionate appeal from Moncalieri for his people's loyalty, along with a dissolution and the election of a new parliament, that the treaty was ratified on January 9, 1850. The situation in Piedmont was far from hopeful; the exchequer was empty, the army was disorganized, and the country was disheartened and suspicious of the king. If Piedmont was going to fit the role that optimists envisioned for it, everything needed to be rebuilt from scratch. Legislation had to be completely reformed, and the bill to eliminate the special jurisdiction for the clergy (foro ecclesiastico) and other medieval privileges faced fierce opposition from both the Vatican and the Piedmontese clericals. This same year (1850), Cavour, who had been in parliament for some time and had, in his speech on March 7th, sounded the first note of hope after the despair of Novara, became the minister of agriculture, and in 1851 also took on the finance portfolio. He ultimately dominated the cabinet, but after negotiating a coalition of the Right Centre and the Left Centre (the Connubio) because he believed the country needed the moderate elements from both parties, he clashed with D’Azeglio, who, as a staunch conservative, could not appreciate the significance of such a move, and resigned. However, D’Azeglio was not capable of handling the situation either, and he resigned in November 1852; following this, the king appointed Cavour as prime minister, a role he held, with short intervals, until his death.

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

The Austrians from 1849 to 1859, known as the decennio della resistenza (decade of resistance), felt like they were living in a conquered country where they were unable to interact socially with the locals; no self-respecting Lombard or Venetian would even talk to an Austrian. Austria, in return, treated her Italian subjects very harshly. The Italian provinces were the most heavily taxed in the entire empire, and much of the money collected was either used for the benefit of other provinces or to support the large occupation army and fortifications in Italy. The promise of a constitution for the empire made in 1849 was never fulfilled; the governance of Lombardo-Venetia was under Field-Marshal Radetzky; and while very few revolutionaries were excluded from the amnesty, carrying weapons or possessing or distributing revolutionary literature was punishable by death. Long prison sentences and the bastinado, which was even inflicted on women, were the punishments for the slightest expression of anti-Austrian sentiment.

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

The Lombard republicans had been seriously weakened by the events of 1848, but Mazzini still believed that a daring action by a few revolutionaries would inspire the people to rise up en masse and drive out the Austrians. A conspiracy was planned to kidnap the emperor during his visit to Venice and force him to make concessions, but it was postponed due to the coup d’état that brought Louis Napoleon to power as emperor of the French in 1852. However, a chance discovery led to many arrests, and the state trials in Mantua were conducted in an incredibly ruthless manner, resulting in five death sentences, including that of the priest Tazzoli, and many long-term imprisonments. Even this didn't convince Mazzini of the futility of such efforts, as he was out of touch with Italian public opinion, and he significantly undermined his influence by supporting a reckless uprising in Milan on February 6, 1853, which was quickly suppressed, resulting in many insurgents being executed or imprisoned. Radetzky, not satisfied with this, put a hold on the property of many Lombard emigrants who had settled in Piedmont and become naturalized, accusing them of complicity. The Piedmontese government correctly viewed this move as a violation of the peace treaty of 1850, leading Cavour to recall the Piedmontese minister from Vienna, an action that was positively received by Italian public opinion and gained the support of France and England.

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

Cavour's goal was to drive Austria out of Italy and to expand Piedmont into a northern Italian kingdom. While he didn't yet see Italian unity as something to focus on in practical terms, he started to envision it as a possibility for the future. However, in his efforts to fix the broken finances of the state and set it up for greater ambitions, he had to implement heavy taxes, which sparked riots and caused him significant, though temporary, unpopularity. His legislation regarding the Church also faced fierce opposition from religious leaders.

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

But soon, the question was forgotten amidst the chaos of the Crimean War. Cavour believed that by participating in the war, his country would gain military status and a place among the great Powers, as well as establish claims on Great Britain and France to support its Italian ambitions. Some public opinion wanted Piedmont’s cooperation to be contingent on specific promises from the Powers; however, they refused to commit, and both Victor Emmanuel and Cavour understood that participation alone would give Piedmont a claim. There was also a risk that Austria might side with the allies first, leaving Piedmont isolated; however, strong counterarguments existed because the Radical party saw no clear reason for Piedmont to engage in other people's conflicts and opposed the alliance. Still, there was the risk that Austria might join the alliance alongside Piedmont, which would have created a disastrous situation. Da Bormida, the foreign affairs minister, resigned rather than accept the proposal, and other politicians shared his opposition. But after prolonged negotiations, the treaty of alliance was signed in January 1855, and while Austria remained neutral, a well-equipped Piedmontese force of 15,000 men, led by General La Marmora, sailed for the Crimea. Everything turned out as Cavour had hoped. The Piedmontese troops distinguished themselves in battle, winning the admiration of the French and English; and at the subsequent congress of Paris (1856), where Cavour was the Sardinian representative, the Italian question was discussed, highlighting the unbearable oppression of the Italian people by Austria and the despots.

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

Austria finally began to realize that a policy of force was ineffective and risky, so it made initial attempts at reconciliation. Taxes were slightly lowered, censorship was eased, political pardons were granted, more compassionate officials were appointed, and the Congregations (a kind of vague advisory assembly) were brought back. In 1856, the emperor and empress visited their Italian territories, but they were met with chilly indifference; the next year, after Radetzky retired at ninety-three, the archduke Maximilian, a capable, educated, and kind-hearted man, was made viceroy. He made significant efforts to win over the population and had some success with a few nobles, who began to believe in the potential for an Italian confederation that would include Lombardy and Venetia, connecting with Austria through a personal union only. However, the vast majority from all social classes rejected these overtures and increasingly favored union with Piedmont.

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

Meanwhile, Francis V of Modena, restored to his duchy by Austrian force, continued to rule according to his family's traditions. Charles II of Parma, after being reinstated by the Austrians, abdicated in favor of his son Charles III, a drunkard and a cruel tyrant (May 1849); the latter was assassinated in 1854, and a regency under his widow, Marie Louise, was established during which the government became somewhat more tolerable, although it was still plagued by political persecution; in 1857 the Austrian troops withdrew from the duchy. Leopold of Tuscany suspended the constitution and in 1852 formally abolished it on orders from Vienna; he also signed a treaty of semi-submission with Austria and a Concordat with the pope to grant new privileges to the Church. However, his government was not as cruel as those of his fellow despots, and Guerrazzi and other Liberals from 1849, though tried and sentenced to long prison terms, were simply exiled. Still, the opposition attracted many of the most capable and respected Tuscans. In Rome, after the French troops restored the pope's temporal power, he ignored Louis Napoleon’s advice to maintain some form of constitution, grant a general amnesty, and secularize the administration. He did promise a consultative council of state and granted an amnesty that excluded no less than 25,000 people; but upon returning to Rome (12th April 1850), once he was sure that France had abandoned the idea of imposing constitutional limits on him, he re-established his government along the old lines of priestly absolutism, focusing on religious practices while leaving political matters largely to the shrewd Cardinal Antonelli, who severely suppressed the political unrest that persisted. In Naples, a minor disturbance in September 1849 led to the arrest of many individuals associated with the Unità Italiana, a society somewhat like the Carbonari. The prisoners included Silvio Spaventa, Luigi Settembrini, Carlo Poerio, and many other cultured and respectable citizens. Numerous sentences followed, and hundreds of “politicals” were locked away in dreadful dungeons, a situation that prompted Gladstone’s famous letters to Lord Aberdeen, which condemned Bourbon rule as “the negation of God erected into a system of government.” Yet, as oppressive, corrupt, and inefficient as it was, the government did not face outright hostility from the entire populace; the ignorant, priest-influenced masses were either indifferent or mildly supportive of the Bourbons; the opposition was made up of the educated middle class and some of the nobility. The revolutionary efforts of Bentivegna in Sicily (1856) and Mazzinian Carlo Pisacane, who landed at Sapri in Calabria with a few followers in 1857, failed due to a lack of popular support, resulting in the deaths of the leaders.

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

The decline of Mazzini's influence was matched by the emergence of a new movement for Italian unity under Victor Emmanuel, inspired by the Milanese marquis Giorgio Pallavicini, who had spent 14 years in Spielberg, New Unionist movement. and by Manin, who was living in exile in Paris. Both were former republicans who had turned into monarchists. The propaganda was organized by the Sicilian La Farina through the Società Nazionale. Anyone who embraced the motto "Unity, Independence and Victor Emmanuel" was welcome in the society. Many republicans and Mazzinians joined, but Mazzini himself had no sympathy for it. In the Austrian provinces and duchies, it gained momentum and attracted many followers in the Legations, Rome, and Naples, even though the autonomist sentiment remained strong among the Liberals in those areas. In Piedmont itself, however, it struggled initially. Cavour, who ultimately wished for a united Italy with Rome as its capital, 14 initially did not show any ambition beyond driving out Austria and forming a North Italian kingdom. Nonetheless, he secretly supported the movement and eventually directed its activities through La Farina. The king also shared the society's goals, but for the moment, it was crucial to conceal this stance from the Powers, as Cavour could only hope to win their favor by opposing anything that resembled revolution. Both the king and his minister understood that Piedmont alone, even with the National Society's help, couldn't expel Austria from Italy without foreign support. Piedmont's finances were stretched to their limits to organize an army clearly intended for purposes beyond mere defense. Cavour then focused on isolating Austria and securing an alliance to expel her. A British alliance would have been ideal, but the British government was too concerned with maintaining Napoleon III and Italy. European peace. Emperor Napoleon, almost uniquely among the French, genuinely sympathized with Italy. However, if he were to intervene in Italy, it would not only need to be successful but also provide tangible benefits to France. Hence, his hesitations and indecisions, which Cavour worked hard to overcome. Then, on January 14, 1858, Felice Orsini, a Mazzinian from Romagna, attempted to assassinate Napoleon, believing the emperor was the main obstacle to Italy's revolutionary success. The attempt failed, and Orsini was caught and executed, but initially, it seemed to diminish Napoleon’s support for Italy and led to a sharp exchange of messages between Paris and Turin. In reality, the emperor was struck by the attempt and by Orsini's letter from prison urging him to intervene in Italy. He recognized the depth of the Italian desire for independence and understood that refusing to act could lead to more attempts on his life, as Orsini’s letter warned. As a result, negotiations with Cavour resumed, and a meeting was scheduled at Plombières (July 20 and 21, 1858). There, they agreed that France would provide 200,000 troops and Piedmont 100,000 for the expulsion of the Austrians from Italy, that Piedmont would become the kingdom of North Italy, that central Italy would form a separate kingdom with one of Napoleon's relatives on the throne, and Naples would have another possibly under Lucien Murat; the pope, while keeping only the “Patrimony of St Peter” (the Roman province), would act as president of the Italian confederation. In return for French assistance, Piedmont would cede Savoy and maybe Nice to France; a marriage between Victor Emmanuel’s daughter Clothilde and Jerome Bonaparte was also discussed and was important to Napoleon, though it was not a definitive condition. No written agreement was signed, however.

56

56

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

On January 1, 1859, Napoleon shocked the diplomatic world by telling Baron Hübner, the Austrian ambassador, at the New Year's reception at the Tuileries that he regretted that relations between France and Austria were “not as good as they used to be.” Then, at the opening of the Piedmontese parliament on the 10th, Victor Emmanuel made the memorable statement that he couldn’t ignore the cry of pain (il grido di dolore) coming from all over Italy. However, after these bellicose declarations and the signing of a military convention in Turin, where the king accepted all the terms proposed by Napoleon, he suddenly became peaceful again and took up the Russian suggestion that Italian affairs should be resolved through a congress. Austria agreed on the condition that Piedmont disarmed and was not included in the congress. Lord Malmesbury urged the Sardinian government to yield; but Cavour refused to disarm or accept the idea of a congress unless Piedmont was included on equal terms with the other Powers. Since neither the Sardinian nor the Austrian government seemed willing to back down, the idea of the congress had to be dropped. Lord Malmesbury then suggested that all three Powers disarm simultaneously and that, as Austria proposed, the precedent of Laibach should be followed by inviting all the Italian states to present their cases to the Great Powers. Napoleon agreed to this, to the despair of King Victor Emmanuel and Cavour, who saw this as evidence that he wanted to back out of his commitments and make war impossible. When war seemed imminent, volunteers from all over Italy, especially Lombardy, began pouring into Piedmont to enlist in the army or in the specially created volunteer corps (which was put under Garibaldi’s command), and “to go to Piedmont” became a badge of patriotism across the country. Pressured by a stern message from Napoleon, Cavour realized he had to bow to the will of Europe, disband the volunteers, and reduce the army to peacetime levels. However, the situation changed because of a misstep by Austria. In Vienna, the war faction was in control; the disarmament convention had been signed, but instead of moving forward, reserves were actually called up on April 12. On the 23rd, before Cavour’s decision was known in Vienna, an Austrian ultimatum arrived in Turin, demanding that Piedmont disarm within three days or face invasion. Cavour was overjoyed at how things had shifted, as Austria was now the aggressor. On the 29th, Francis Joseph declared war, and the next day his troops crossed the Ticino, which, as Napoleon had predicted, led to a French declaration of war. The military events of the Italian war of 1859 are covered under Italian Wars. The battles of Montebello (May 20), Palestro (May 31), and Melegnano (June 8), along with the battles of Magenta (June 4) and Solferino (June 24), all resulted in defeats for the Austrians. Garibaldi’s volunteers raised the flag of insurrection and controlled the field around the Italian lakes. After Solferino, the allies prepared to besiege the Quadrilateral. Then suddenly, Napoleon pulled back, unwilling for various reasons to continue the campaign. First, he doubted whether the allies were strong enough to assault the Quadrilateral, recognizing the problems in his own army's organization. Second, he started to worry about intervention from Prussia, whose stance seemed menacing. Third, although he genuinely wanted to drive the Austrians out of Italy, he didn’t want to create a too-powerful Italian state at the foot of the Alps, which could pose a threat to France and possibly challenge the pope’s authority. Napoleon believed he couldn't ignore the clerical vote. Fourth, the war had been declared against the wishes of the majority of French people and remained unpopular. So, to everyone’s surprise, while the allied forces were poised for battle, Napoleon, without consulting Victor Emmanuel, sent General Fleury on July 6 to Francis Joseph to request an armistice, which was accepted. The king was then informed, and on the 8th, Generals Vaillant, Della Rocca, and Hess met at Villafranca to arrange an armistice until August 15. However, the king and Cavour were extremely upset by this move, which meant peace without Venetia. Cavour rushed to the king’s headquarters at Monzambano and, using excited, almost disrespectful language, implored him not to agree to peace and to continue the war alone, relying on the Piedmontese army and a general Italian revolution. But Victor Emmanuel, on this occasion, showed greater statesmanship; he understood that, as hard as it was, he must settle for Lombardy for now, lest everything be lost. On the 11th, the two emperors met in Villafranca, where they agreed that Lombardy would be handed over to Piedmont, while Venetia would be retained by Austria but governed by Liberal methods. The rulers of Tuscany, Parma, and Modena, who had been deposed again, were to be restored, the Papal States reformed, the Legations given their own administration, and the pope made president of an Italian confederation that included Austria as the owner of Venetia. It was a revival of the old, unrealistic federal idea that would have kept Italy divided and dominated by Austria and France. Victor Emmanuel reluctantly signed the peace preliminaries, adding, however, pour ce qui me concerne (which meant that he made no commitment regarding central Italy), and Cavour resigned from his position.

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

The Lombard campaign had significant effects throughout the rest of Italy. The Sardinian government formally invited Tuscany to join the liberation war, and when the grand duke rejected the proposal, moderates and democrats united to present an ultimatum to Leopold, demanding that he abdicate in favor of his son, grant a constitution, and get involved in the campaign. When he refused, Florence stood up as one, and feeling he couldn't trust his troops, he abandoned Tuscany on April 27, 1859. A provisional government was formed, led by Ubaldino Peruzzi, and was strengthened on May 8 by the addition of Baron Bettino Ricasoli, a man of strong character, who became the real leader of the administration, consistently working towards Italian unity. Victor Emmanuel, at the people's request, took on the protectorate over Tuscany, represented by the Sardinian minister Boncompagni. On May 23, Prince Napoleon landed at Leghorn with a French army corps, aiming to threaten the Austrian flank; and in June, these troops, along with a Tuscan contingent, headed for Lombardy. An uprising broke out in the duchy of Modena, and after Magenta, Duke Francis joined the Austrian army in Lombardy, leaving a regency in charge. However, on June 14, the municipality formed a provisional government and proclaimed annexation to Piedmont; L. C. Farini was selected as dictator, and 4,000 Modenese joined the allies. The duchess-regent of Parma also retreated to Austrian territory, and on June 11, annexation to Piedmont was announced. At the same time, the Austrians evacuated the Legations, and Cardinal Milesi, the papal representative, left. The municipality of Bologna established a Giunta, which Romagna and the Marches supported, and they called for the dictatorship of Victor Emmanuel; in Perugia, a provisional government was set up under F. Guardabassi. But soon, the Marches were reoccupied by papal troops, and Perugia fell, its capture leading to a widespread massacre of men, women, and children. In July, the marquis D’Azeglio arrived in Bologna as the royal commissioner.

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

After the meetings at Villafranca, Napoleon went back to France. The issue of giving up Nice and Savoy hadn't come up because the emperor hadn't kept his promise to drive the Austrians out of Italy, as Venice was still under their control. At the same time, he strongly opposed the Piedmontese annexations in central Italy. However, Cavour stepped in because he was determined to keep the annexations at any cost. Even though he had resigned, he stayed in office until Rattazzi could form a new government; while he officially recalled the royal commissioners as per the terms of Villafranca, he secretly encouraged them to stay and organize resistance against the despots' return, even if it required force (see Cavour). Farini, elected as dictator of Parma and Modena in August, and Ricasoli, who became the supreme authority in Tuscany after the Sardinian commissioner Boncompagni withdrew, were the key figures who, with their energy and determination, succeeded in annexing central Italy to Piedmont, despite the strong opposition from the French emperor and the weaknesses of many Italian Liberals. In August, Marco Minghetti managed to establish a military alliance and a customs union between Tuscany, Romagna, and the duchies, and he facilitated the adoption of the Piedmontese laws; envoys were sent to Paris to appease Napoleon. Constituent assemblies convened and voted for unification under Victor Emmanuel, but the king couldn't openly accept the proposal due to the emperor’s opposition and the presence of French troops in Lombardy; with a signal from Napoleon, there could have been an Austrian, and possibly a Franco-Austrian, invasion of central Italy. In response to Napoleon's claim that he couldn't agree to the unification of Italy because of his promises to Austria at Villafranca, Victor Emmanuel replied that after Magenta and Solferino, he felt honor-bound to align his fate with the Italian people; and General Manfredo Fanti was sent by the Turin government to organize the army of the Central League, with Garibaldi under his command.

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

The terms of the peace treaty signed in Zürich on November 10 were basically the same as those of the preliminaries of Villafranca. However, it quickly became clear that the Italian question was far from resolved. Treaty of Zurich. Central Italy refused to be bound by the treaty and offered the dictatorship to Prince Carignano, who, unable to accept due to Napoleon's opposition, suggested Boncompagni, who was then elected. Napoleon soon realized that it would be impossible to oppose the movement for unity without serious risks. He proposed an international congress on the issue, inspired a pamphlet, Le Pape et le Congrès, which suggested reducing papal territory, and wrote to the pope advising him to cede Romagna in exchange for better guarantees for the rest of his lands. The proposed congress fell apart, and Napoleon then raised the issue of ceding Nice and Savoy as the price for his agreement to unite the central provinces with the Italian kingdom. In January 1866, the Rattazzi ministry fell after merging Lombardy with Piedmont, and Cavour was summoned again by the king to lead the government.

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

Cavour was well aware of the backlash he would face for agreeing to give up Nice, the birthplace of Garibaldi, and Savoy, the home of the royal family; however, he understood that this sacrifice was necessary if they were to win central Italy. The negotiations dragged on, as Cavour fought to keep Nice while Napoleon was eager to impose conditions, especially regarding Tuscany. Finally, on March 24th, the treaty was signed, agreeing to the cession but dependent on the approval of the affected populations and ratification by the Italian parliament. The king, having officially accepted the voluntary annexation of the duchies of Tuscany and Romagna, appointed the Prince of Carignano as viceroy with Ricasoli as governor-general on March 22nd, and was promptly excommunicated by the pope. On April 2nd, 1860, the new Italian parliament, which included members from central Italy, convened in Turin. Three weeks later, the treaty of Turin ceding Savoy and Nice to France was ratified, though not without significant opposition, and Cavour faced harsh criticism for his role in the deal, especially from Garibaldi, who even considered launching an expedition to Nice but was persuaded to back down by the king.

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

In May 1859, Ferdinand of Naples was succeeded by his son Francis II., who showed no signs of wanting to change his father’s policies and, despite Napoleon’s advice, refused to grant a constitution or ally with Sardinia. Naples during Francis II's reign. This led to revolutionary unrest, particularly in Sicily, stirred up by Mazzini’s agents, Rosalino Pilo and Francesco Crispi, which erupted into open revolt on April 5, 1860. Garibaldi was invited to lead the movement; initially, he declined, but reports about the uprising soon motivated him to take a bold gamble. On May 5, he set off from Quarto, near Genoa, with Bixio, the Hungarian Türr, and around 1,000 selected followers, on two steamers. Cavour had mixed feelings about the openly made preparations for the expedition. He sympathized with its aim but couldn’t officially endorse an armed attack on a friendly nation, nor could he stop an action that was popular with public opinion. He instructed the Sardinian admiral Persano to only intercept the expedition if it landed at a Sardinian port, while he responded to angry protests from other countries by claiming to have no knowledge of the situation. On the 11th, Garibaldi landed in Marsala without facing any opposition, defeated the Neapolitan forces at Calatafimi on the 15th, and entered Palermo in triumph on the 27th, where he proclaimed himself dictator of Sicily in the name of King Victor Emmanuel. By the end of July, after the hard-won victory at Milazzo, he controlled the entire island, except for the citadel of Messina and a few minor ports.

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

From Cavour’s perspective, the situation was one of intense anxiety. It was clear that, with his mission in Sicily complete, Garibaldi would focus on the Neapolitan territories on the mainland; and beyond those lay Umbria, the Marches, and—Rome. It was crucial that any victories Garibaldi achieved benefited the Italian kingdom, and especially that no poorly timed attack on the Papal States would provoke intervention from other powers. La Farina was sent to Palermo to advocate for the immediate annexation of Sicily to Piedmont. However, Garibaldi, who wanted to maintain his independence, was suspicious of Cavour and disregarded all practical advice, refusing to agree; Sicily was essential for his planned invasion of Naples and he believed it would be the right time to announce its union with Piedmont only when Victor Emmanuel had been declared king of United Italy in Rome. Frustrated by the dictator’s stubbornness, Cavour resorted to underhanded tactics again; while he continued to engage in fruitless talks with King Francis, he sent his agents to Naples to incite discontent and foster a strong sentiment for national unity that would, in any case, compel Garibaldi to act.

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

On August 8th, despite the protests and threats from most major powers, the Garibaldians started crossing the Straits. Before long, 20,000 of them were on the mainland. The Bourbonists in Calabria, completely disorganized, fell apart in front of the unstoppable red-shirts, and the 40,000 defenders on the Salerno-Avellino line offered no stronger resistance, eventually receiving orders to retreat to the Volturno. On September 6th, King Francis, along with his family and several ministers, sailed to Gaeta. The next day, Garibaldi entered Naples alone ahead of the army and received a warm welcome. He declared himself dictator of the kingdom, with Bertani as secretary of state, but to show his loyalty, he handed over the Neapolitan fleet to Persano.

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

His quick success, meanwhile, raised concerns for both the French emperor and the government of Turin. There was a risk that Garibaldi’s entourage, made up of ex-Mazzinians, might push him to declare a republic Piedmont's intervention. and head for Rome; this would lead to French intervention and ruin all of Cavour’s efforts. King Victor Emmanuel and Cavour both reached out to Garibaldi, urging him not to ruin everything by aiming too high. But Garibaldi dismissed any suggestions of compromise; Cavour realized that the only way to resolve the situation was through Piedmont's armed involvement in liberating southern Italy.

58

58

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

The situation was certainly critical. The unrest in Naples had spread to Umbria and the Marches, and the papal troops, led by General Lamoricière, were getting ready to put it down. If they had succeeded, the Piedmontese position in Romagna would have been in danger; if they had failed, it would have cleared the way for Garibaldi to march on Rome. Given the circumstances, Cavour decided that Piedmont needed to get ahead of Garibaldi, occupy Umbria and the Marches, and place Italy between the red-shirts and Rome. His justification was the pope’s refusal to dismiss his foreign troops (September 7). On September 11, a Piedmontese army of 35,000 crossed the border at La Cattolica; on the 18th, the papal army was defeated at Castelfidardo; and when Ancona fell on the 29th, Umbria and the Marches were under Piedmont's control. On October 15, King Victor Emmanuel crossed into Naples at the head of his troops.

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

It was a race between Garibaldi and the Piedmontese. “If we don’t get to the Volturno before Garibaldi reaches La Cattolica,” Cavour had said, “the monarchy is lost, and Italy will stay trapped in the Revolution.” Fortunately for his plan, the red-shirts faced a strong obstacle to their advance in the Neapolitan army, which was entrenched on the Volturno under the guns of Capua. On September 19th, the Garibaldians started their attack on this position with their usual fierce courage, but they were pushed back again and again. It wasn’t until October 2nd, after two days of intense battle, that they managed to take the position. The path was now clear for the Piedmontese, who encountered almost no resistance except at Isernia. On the 29th, Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi met, and on November 7th, they entered Naples together. Garibaldi then handed over his authority to the king and, declining the title and other honors offered to him, retired to his island home of Caprera.

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

Gaeta was still to be captured. The Piedmontese forces under Cialdini started the siege on November 5th, but it wasn't until January 10, 1861, when Napoleon withdrew his squadron at the request of Great Britain, that the blockade could be fully enforced. The fortress surrendered on February 13th, with Francis and his family having left by sea for papal territory. The citadel of Messina surrendered on the 22nd, and Civitella del Tronto, the last stronghold of Bourbonism, fell on March 21st. On February 18th, the first Italian parliament convened in Turin, and Victor Emmanuel was declared king of Italy. The new kingdom was recognized by Great Britain within two weeks, by France three months later, and eventually by other nations. It encompassed the entire peninsula except for Venetia and Rome, which the government and the nation were determined to annex sooner or later.

There were, however, other serious problems calling for immediate attention. The country had to be built up and converted from an agglomeration of scattered medieval principalities into a unified modern nation. The first question Problems of the new government.
Brigandage.
which arose was that of brigandage in the south. Brigandage had always existed in the Neapolitan kingdom, largely owing to the poverty of the people; but the evil was now aggravated by the mistake of the new government in dismissing the Bourbon troops, and then calling them out again as recruits. A great many turned brigands rather than serve again, and together with the remaining adherents of Bourbon rule and malefactors of all kinds, were made use of by the ex-king and his entourage to harass the Italian administration. Bands of desperadoes were formed, commanded by the most infamous criminals and by foreigners who came to fight in what they were led to believe was an Italian Vendée, but which was in reality a campaign of butchery and plunder. Villages were sacked and burnt, men, women and children mutilated, tortured or roasted alive, and women outraged. The authors of these deeds when pursued by troops fled into papal territory, where they were welcomed by the authorities and allowed to refit and raise fresh recruits under the aegis of the Church. The prime organizers of the movement were King Francis’s uncle, the count of Trapani, and Mons. de Mérode, a Belgian ecclesiastic who enjoyed immense influence at the Vatican. The task of suppressing brigandage was entrusted to Generals La Marmora and Cialdini; but in spite of extreme severity, justifiable in the circumstances, it took four or five years completely to suppress the movement. Its vitality, indeed, was largely due to the mistakes made by the new administration, conducted as this was by officials ignorant of southern conditions and out of sympathy with a people far more primitive than in any other part of the peninsula. Politically, its sole outcome was to prove the impossibility of allowing the continuance of an independent Roman state in the heart of Italy.

There were, however, other serious issues that needed immediate attention. The country had to be developed and transformed from a collection of scattered medieval principalities into a unified modern nation. The first issue that emerged was the problem of banditry in the south. Banditry had always been present in the Neapolitan kingdom, mainly due to the poverty of the people, but the situation worsened when the new government made the mistake of dismissing the Bourbon troops and then trying to enlist them again. Many chose to become bandits instead of serving again, and together with the remaining supporters of Bourbon rule and various criminals, they were used by the ex-king and his entourage to disrupt the Italian administration. Groups of outlaws were formed, led by the most notorious criminals and by foreigners who came to fight in what they believed was an Italian Vendée, but which was actually a campaign of violence and theft. Villages were sacked and burned, and men, women, and children were mutilated, tortured, or burned alive, with women subjected to assault. The perpetrators of these acts, when pursued by troops, fled into papal territory, where they were welcomed by the authorities and allowed to regroup and recruit under the protection of the Church. The main organizers of this movement were King Francis’s uncle, the Count of Trapani, and Mons. de Mérode, a Belgian churchman who had significant influence at the Vatican. The task of suppressing banditry was assigned to Generals La Marmora and Cialdini; however, despite their harsh measures, which were understandable given the circumstances, it took four to five years to fully suppress the movement. Its persistence was mainly due to the mistakes made by the new administration, which was run by officials who were unfamiliar with southern conditions and lacked sympathy for a people who were much more primitive than those in other parts of the peninsula. Politically, the only outcome was to highlight the impossibility of allowing the continuation of an independent Roman state in the center of Italy.

Another of the government’s difficulties was the question of what to do with Garibaldi’s volunteers. Fanti, the minister of war, had three armies to incorporate in that of Piedmont, viz. that of central Italy, that of the Bourbons and that of Garibaldi. Garibaldi’s volunteers. The first caused no difficulty; the rank and file of the second were mostly disbanded, but a number of the officers were taken into the Italian army; the third offered a more serious problem. Garibaldi demanded that all his officers should be given equivalent rank in the Italian army, and in this he had the support of Fanti. Cavour, on the other hand, while anxious to deal generously with the Garibaldians, recognized the impossibility of such a course, which would not only have offended the conservative spirit of the Piedmontese military caste, which disliked and despised irregular troops, but would almost certainly have introduced into the army an element of indiscipline and disorder.

Another challenge for the government was figuring out what to do with Garibaldi’s volunteers. Fanti, the minister of war, needed to integrate three armies into the Piedmont army: the army from central Italy, the Bourbon army, and Garibaldi's. Garibaldi's volunteers. The first army posed no issues; most of the soldiers from the second were disbanded, although some officers were absorbed into the Italian army. The third army presented a more significant problem. Garibaldi insisted that all his officers should be given equivalent ranks in the Italian army, and he had Fanti's backing on this. However, Cavour, while wanting to treat the Garibaldians fairly, realized that this approach was impossible. Granting their demands would not only offend the conservative mindset of the Piedmontese military, which scorned and looked down upon irregular troops, but it would likely also bring an element of indiscipline and chaos into the army.

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

On April 18th, the issue of the volunteers was debated in one of the most intense sessions of the Italian parliament. Garibaldi, the elected representative for Naples, harshly criticized Cavour for how he treated the volunteers and for giving up Nice, accusing him of pushing the country toward civil war. These accusations caused a huge uproar, but Bixio, through a great appeal for unity, managed to calm the two rivals. By April 23rd, they were officially reconciled in front of the king, but the events of April 18th sped up Cavour’s downfall. In May, the Roman question was discussed in parliament. Cavour had frequently stated that ultimately, the capital of Italy must be Rome, as it uniquely held a claim to moral authority over all Italian cities, and his thoughts on a free church in a free state were well known. He had secretly negotiated with the pope through unofficial intermediaries and outlined a plan to resolve the Roman question, which in many ways anticipated the law of papal guarantees. However, he did not live to see this issue resolved, as his health was deteriorating from the toll of the last few years, during which he had practically handled the entire administration of the country. He passed away after a brief illness on June 6, 1861, at a time when Italy desperately needed his leadership.

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

Ricasoli became prime minister after Cavour advised the king to choose him. The financial situation was not great, as the costs of running Italy were much higher than the total expenses of the individual states, and everything needed to be created or rebuilt. The budget for 1861 revealed a deficit of 344,000,000 lire, while debt service amounted to 110,000,000. Deficits were covered by new loans on unfavorable terms (the loan of July 1861 for 500,000,000 lire ended up costing the government 714,833,000), and government bonds fell as low as 36. This marked the beginning of a period of reckless finance that, except for a brief pause under Sella, lasted until nearly the end of the century. Given the state of the country and the impending war for Venice, high spending was unavoidable, but better management might have made the situation less precarious. Despite being honest and competent, Ricasoli did not gain popularity; his stance on the Roman question, which became more rigid after his failed attempt at compromise, and his aim to free Italy from French dominance, drew Napoleon's ire. He resigned in March 1862 and was replaced by Rattazzi, who was more flexible and scheming, managing to initially please everyone, including Garibaldi. At this time, both extreme factions and moderates were full of ideas for liberating Venice and Rome. Garibaldi had a plan that involved attacking Austria by instigating a revolt in the Balkans and Hungary, and later he considered a raid into the Trentino; however, the government, recognizing the risks of such a move, arrested several of Garibaldi's supporters at Sarnico (near Brescia), and during the subsequent riot, several people were shot. Garibaldi became an opponent of the administration and in June went to Sicily, where, after consulting with his former followers, he decided on an immediate raid on Rome. He called on his legionaries and in August crossed to Calabria with 1,000 men. His primary aim was still loyal, as he intended to capture Rome for the kingdom; he did his best to avoid the regular troops that were reluctantly sent against him. On August 29, 1862, however, he encountered a force led by Pallavicini at Aspromonte, and although Garibaldi instructed his men not to fire, some of the inexperienced Sicilian volunteers fired off a few shots, which were returned by the regular forces. Garibaldi himself was seriously wounded and taken prisoner. He was confined in the fortress of Varignano, and after endless debates about whether he should be tried, the situation was resolved with an amnesty. This incident made the government so unpopular that it had to resign. Farini, who took over next, quickly resigned due to health issues, and Minghetti became prime minister, with Visconti-Venosta as foreign affairs minister. The financial situation remained seriously troubling; deficits stacked up, loans multiplied, and debt service increased from 90,000,000 lire in 1860 to 220,000,000 in 1864.

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

Negotiations were resumed with Napoleon for the withdrawal of French troops from Rome; however, the emperor, recognizing that the temporal power couldn’t rely on French soldiers forever, wanted some assurance that the evacuation wouldn’t be immediately followed by an Italian occupation, as Catholic sentiment might blame France for this. Ultimately, the two governments reached an agreement on September 15, 1864, in which France committed to withdrawing her troops from Rome as soon as the papal army was reorganized, or within two years at the latest, while Italy promised not to attack it or allow others to do so, and to move the capital from Turin to another city within six months. The change of capital would appear to be a definitive abandonment of the Roma capitale plan, although in reality, it was just a tappa (stage) in the process. The agreement was kept secret, but the last clause leaked out, provoking intense backlash from the people of Turin, who would have accepted losing the capital if it were moved to Rome, but felt resentful that it was going to another city and that the agreement was made without parliamentary consultation. Protests were held, which were suppressed with excessive force, and while the change of capital wasn’t unpopular in the rest of Italy—where the Piemontesismo of the new regime was starting to create jealousy—the secrecy surrounding the process and the violence against the people in Turin sparked such a wave of disapproval that the king, for the first time, exercised his power to dismiss the government. During La Marmora’s administration, the September agreement was ratified, and the capital was moved to Florence the following year. This incident led to a significant political shift, as the Piedmontese deputies, previously the stronghold of moderate conservatism, moved to the Left or constitutional opposition.

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

Meanwhile, the situation with Venice was becoming increasingly urgent. Every Italian felt that the Austrians' presence in the lagoons was a national disgrace, and between 1859 and 1866, countless plans were hatched to expel them. However, despite the king's support, efforts to raise armed groups in Venetia were unsuccessful, and it became clear that foreign forces could only be driven off the peninsula through a proper war. Italy was still too weak to wage this war alone, so it became necessary to find an ally. Napoleon was sympathetic; he wanted to see the Austrians removed, and the Syllabus of Pius IX., which had stirred up the more aggressive elements among the French clergy against his government, had brought him back in line with Victor Emmanuel's views. However, he didn't dare risk French public opinion by starting another war with Austria, nor did Italy want an alliance that would come with further concessions. Prussia was the remaining option, and with the Danish campaign of 1864 over, it was completing its preparations for the final showdown with Austria for control of Germany. Napoleon, who saw supporting Bismarck's plans as a way to secure his influence in a divided Europe, willingly helped negotiate a Prusso-Italian alliance. In the summer of 1865, Bismarck made formal proposals to La Marmora, but the talks were interrupted by the signing of the convention of Gastein (August 14), which Austria accepted partly under pressure from the Prusso-Italian agreement. For Italy, the convention felt like a betrayal; for Napoleon, it was a setback that he tried to fix by suggesting to Austria a peaceful transfer of Venetia to the Italian kingdom to prevent any risk of its alliance with Prussia. This proposal fell through when Emperor Francis Joseph refused to cede Austrian land without a fight; and after being won over by Bismarck in the famous meeting at Biarritz, Napoleon revived the idea of a Prusso-Italian offensive and defensive alliance. This was officially concluded on April 8, 1866. The terms, shaped by the Italian government's natural distrust, specified that the alliance would only take effect if Prussia declared war on Austria within three months. Peace was not to be made until Italy received Venetia and Prussia an equivalent territory in Germany.

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

The outbreak of war was delayed due to more diplomatic issues. On June 12, Napoleon, whose strategy had been unclear and conflicting, signed a secret treaty with Austria, which stated that Venice would be given to him, to be handed to Italy if she made a separate peace. However, La Marmora, who felt he had a duty to Prussia, refused to make a separate deal. On the 16th, the Prussians started hostilities, and on the 20th, Italy declared war.

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

Victor Emmanuel took command of the Italian army, and La Marmora resigned as prime minister (Ricasoli took over the role) to become the chief of staff. La Marmora had three army corps (130,000 men) Ricasoli Government. under his direct command, ready to operate on the Mincio, while Cialdini, with 80,000 men, was set to operate on the Po. The Austrian southern army, made up of 95,000 men, was led by Archduke Albert, with General von John as the chief of staff. On June 23rd, La Marmora crossed the Mincio, and on the 24th, a battle was fought at Custozza under conditions that were highly unfavorable for the Italians. After a tough struggle, it ended in a decisive Austrian victory. Poor leadership, bad organization, and the rivalry between La Marmora and Della Rocca were to blame for this defeat. Custozza could have been recovered later, as the Italians had plenty of fresh troops alongside Cialdini’s army; however, nothing was done because both the king and La Marmora believed the situation was much worse than it actually was. On July 3rd, the Prussians completely defeated the Austrians at Königgrätz, and on the 5th, Austria ceded Venetia to Napoleon, accepting his mediation for peace. The Italian ironclad fleet, commanded by the incompetent Persano, after wasting a lot of time at Taranto and Ancona, made an unsuccessful attack on the Dalmatian island of Lissa on July 18th, and on the 20th, they were completely defeated by the Austrian squadron, which consisted of wooden ships but was led by the capable Admiral Tegethoff.

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

On the 22nd, Prussia, without asking Italy, made a truce with Austria, while Italy secured an eight-day ceasefire on the condition of withdrawing from Trentino, which had almost entirely been taken by Garibaldi and his volunteers. Ricasoli wanted to continue the fight instead of accepting Venetia as a gift from France; however, the king and La Marmora realized that peace had to be made, as the entire Austrian army of 350,000 was now free to attack Italy. An armistice was signed at Cormons on August 12; Austria handed Venetia over to General Leboeuf, representing Napoleon, and on October 3, peace between Austria and Italy was finalized in Vienna. On the 19th, Leboeuf transferred Venetia to the Venetian representatives, and during the plebiscite held on the 21st and 22nd, 647,246 votes were cast in favor of joining Italy, with only 69 against it. When this outcome was reported to the king by a delegation from Venice, he said, “This is the finest day of my life; Italy is created, but it is not complete.” Rome was still missing.

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

Custozza and Lissa weren’t Italy’s only troubles in 1866. There was significant unrest in Sicily, where the government had lost popularity. The clergy and remnants of the Bourbon party stirred up agitation, which peaked in September with an attack on Palermo by 3,000 armed rebels, along with similar uprisings in other areas. The revolt was suppressed thanks to the efforts of the mayor of Palermo, Marquis A. Di Rudini, and the arrival of reinforcements. The Ricasoli cabinet fell over the law against religious houses and was replaced by Rattazzi’s government, which seemed to fare better with the support of the Left. French regular troops were pulled out of Rome in December 1866; however, the papal forces were primarily made up of recruits from France and led by officers from the imperial army. The French war office considered serving under the pope to be equivalent to serving in France. This violated both the letter and the spirit of the September convention, and a stronger, more decisive leader than Rattazzi would have declared Italy free from its terms. Mazzini wanted to incite an uprising within Roman territory, while Garibaldi pushed for an invasion from outside. He gave a series of fiery speeches against the papacy and openly prepared for a raid, which the government did not stop. Yet, on September 23, 1867, Rattazzi had him abruptly arrested and placed under confinement in Caprera. Despite the vigilance of the warships, he escaped on October 14 and landed in Tuscany. Armed groups had already entered papal territory but achieved little of significance. Their presence, though, provided a sufficient excuse for Napoleon, under pressure from the clerical party, to send another expedition to Rome on October 26. Rattazzi, after ordering a contingent of troops to enter papal territory with no clear objective, resigned and was succeeded by Menabrea. Garibaldi joined the forces on the 23rd, but his poorly armed and poorly trained troops were far weaker than his volunteers from ’49, ’60, and ’66. On the 24th, he captured Monte Rotondo, but did not enter Rome as the anticipated uprising had not occurred. On the 29th, a French force under de Failly arrived, and on November 3, a battle took place at Mentana between 4,000 to 5,000 red-shirts and a somewhat larger French and papal force. The Garibaldians, cut down by the new French chassepôt rifles, fought until they ran out of ammunition and retreated the next day towards the Italian border, leaving 800 prisoners.

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

The Mentana incident created a lot of excitement across Europe, and the issue regarding Rome reached a critical point. Napoleon suggested his usual idea of a congress, but the proposal fell apart because Great Britain refused to take part. Rouher, the French prime minister, stated in the Chamber on December 5, 1867, that France could never allow the Italians to take over Rome. France’s stance reinforced the anti-French sentiment in Italy that had started at Villafranca, and Bismarck quickly capitalized on this animosity to keep Italy from siding with France against Germany in the inevitable conflict between the two powers. Meanwhile, Napoleon was reaching out to both Austria and Italy, and his overtures were well-received. Victor Emmanuel genuinely wanted to support Napoleon because, despite the issues over Nice, Savoy, and Mentana, he felt a noble desire to help the man who had fought for Italy. But with French troops in Civitavecchia (who had left Rome shortly after Mentana), a war for France was out of the question, and Napoleon wouldn’t promise more than sticking to the September agreement. Austria wouldn’t ally with France unless Italy did, and they understood that wouldn’t happen unless Napoleon backed down on Rome. As a result, the negotiations were put on hold. Lanza Ministry. A scandal involving the tobacco monopoly led to Menabrea's resignation, and he was replaced in December 1869 by Giovanni Lanza, with Visconti-Venosta at the foreign office and Q. Sella as finance minister. Sella implemented a more solid financial policy, which continued until the Right fell in 1876. Mazzini, now openly against the monarchy, became obsessed with insurrections and promoted various small uprisings, which only highlighted how completely his influence had faded.

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

In December 1869, the XXI ecumenical council started its sessions in Rome, and on July 18, 1870, proclaimed the infallibility of the pope (see Vatican Council). Just two days earlier, Napoleon had declared war on Prussia and soon after withdrew his troops from Civitavecchia. However, he convinced Lanza to agree to the September convention, and it wasn’t until after the battles of Worth and Gravelotte that he offered Italy a free hand to take control of Rome. By then, it was too late; Victor Emmanuel asked Thiers if he could guarantee that 100,000 Italian troops could save France, but Thiers didn’t respond. Austria replied like Italy: “It’s too late.” On August 9, Italy declared neutrality, and three weeks later, Visconti-Venosta informed the powers that Italy was about to occupy Rome. On September 3, news of Sedan reached Florence, and with the fall of Napoleon’s empire, the September convention lost all its significance. The powers had committed to not intervening in Italian affairs, so Victor Emmanuel sent a letter to Pius IX, asking him in the name of religion and peace to accept Italian protection instead of the Italian takeover of Rome. temporal power, to which the pope replied that he would only submit to force. On September 11, General Cadorna, leading 60,000 men, entered papal territory. The garrison in Civitavecchia surrendered to Bixio, but the 10,000 men in Rome—mostly French, Belgians, Swiss, and Bavarians under Kanzler—were prepared for a fight. Cardinal Antonelli would have negotiated, but the pope insisted on putting up enough resistance to show he was yielding to force. On the 20th, the Italians launched their attack; after General Mazé de la Roche’s division breached the Porta Pia, the pope ordered the garrison to stop firing, and the Italians flooded into the Eternal City, followed by thousands of Roman exiles. By noon, the entire city west of the Tiber was occupied, and the garrison laid down their arms. The next day, at the pope’s request, the Leonine City on the east bank was also occupied. Initially, that part of Rome was meant to be left to the pope, but due to the strong desire of its residents, it was included in the Italian kingdom as well. In the plebiscite, 133,681 votes were for union and 1,507 against it. In July 1872, King Victor Emmanuel made his formal entrance into Rome, which was subsequently declared the capital of Italy. Thus, after more than fifty years of struggle, despite seemingly insurmountable challenges, the liberation and unity of Italy were achieved.

Bibliography.—A vast amount of material on the Risorgimento has been published both in Italy and abroad as well as numerous works of a literary and critical nature. The most detailed Italian history of the period is Carlo Tivaroni’s Storia critica del Risorgimento Italiano in 9 vols. (Turin, 1888-1897), based on a diligent study of the original authorities and containing a large amount of information; the author is a Mazzinian, which fact should be taken into 61 account, but he generally quotes the opinions of those who disagree with him as well. Another voluminous but less valuable work is F. Bertolini’s Storia d’Italia dal 1814 al 1878, in 2 parts (Milan, 1880-1881.) L. Chiala’s Lettere del Conte di Cavour (7 vols., Turin, 1883-1887) and D. Zanichelli’s Scritti del Conte di Cavour (Bologna, 1892) are very important, and so are Prince Metternich’s Mémoires (7 vols., Paris, 1881). P. Orsi’s L’Italia moderna (Milan, 1901) should also be mentioned. N. Bianchi’s Storia della diplomazia europea in Italia (8 vols., Turin, 1865) is an invaluable and thoroughly reliable work. See also Zini’s Storia d’ Italia (4 vols., Milan, 1875); Gualterio’s Gli ultimi rivolgimenti italiani (4 vols., Florence, 1850) is important for the period from 1831 to 1847, and so also is L. Farina’s Storia d’ Italia dal 1815 al 1849 (5 vols., Turin, 1851); W. R. Thayer’s Dawn of Italian Independence (Boston, 1893) is gushing and not always accurate; C. Cantù’s Dell’ indipendenza italiana cronistoria (Naples, 1872-1877) is reactionary and often unreliable; V. Bersezio, Il Regno di Vittorio Emanuele II (8 vols., Turin, 1889, &c.). For English readers Countess E. Martinengo Cesaresco’s Liberation of Italy (London, 1895) is to be strongly recommended, and is indeed, for accuracy, fairness and synthesis, as well as for charm of style, one of the very best books on the subject in any language; Bolton King’s History of Italian Unity (2 vols., London, 1899) is bulkier and less satisfactory, but contains a useful bibliography. A succinct account of the chief events of the period will be found in Sir Spencer Walpole’s History of Twenty-Five Years (London, 1904). See also the Cambridge Modern History, vols. x. and xi. (Cambridge, 1907, &c.), where full bibliographies will be found.

References.—A large amount of material on the Risorgimento has been published both in Italy and internationally, along with many literary and critical works. The most comprehensive Italian history of the period is Carlo Tivaroni’s Storia critica del Risorgimento Italiano in 9 volumes (Turin, 1888-1897), which is based on thorough research of original sources and contains a wealth of information; the author is a Mazzinian, which is important to consider, though he usually includes the viewpoints of those who disagree with him as well. Another extensive but less valuable work is F. Bertolini’s Storia d’Italia dal 1814 al 1878, in 2 parts (Milan, 1880-1881). L. Chiala’s Lettere del Conte di Cavour (7 vols., Turin, 1883-1887) and D. Zanichelli’s Scritti del Conte di Cavour (Bologna, 1892) are very significant, as are Prince Metternich’s Mémoires (7 vols., Paris, 1881). P. Orsi’s L’Italia moderna (Milan, 1901) should also be noted. N. Bianchi’s Storia della diplomazia europea in Italia (8 vols., Turin, 1865) is an invaluable and thoroughly reliable work. See also Zini’s Storia d'Italia (4 vols., Milan, 1875); Gualterio’s Gli ultimi rivolgimenti italiani (4 vols., Florence, 1850) is important for the period from 1831 to 1847, as is L. Farina’s Storia d'Italia dal 1815 al 1849 (5 vols., Turin, 1851); W. R. Thayer’s Dawn of Italian Independence (Boston, 1893) is somewhat enthusiastic and not always accurate; C. Cantù’s Dell’indipendenza italiana cronistoria (Naples, 1872-1877) is reactionary and often unreliable; V. Bersezio, Il Regno di Vittorio Emanuele II (8 vols., Turin, 1889, &c.). For English readers, Countess E. Martinengo Cesaresco’s Liberation of Italy (London, 1895) is highly recommended and is indeed one of the best books on the subject in any language for its accuracy, fairness, synthesis, and charm of style; Bolton King’s History of Italian Unity (2 vols., London, 1899) is bulkier and less satisfactory but includes a useful bibliography. A concise overview of the main events of the period can be found in Sir Spencer Walpole’s History of Twenty-Five Years (London, 1904). See also the Cambridge Modern History, vols. x. and xi. (Cambridge, 1907, &c.), which contain full bibliographies.

(L. V.*)

F. History, 1870-1902

F. History, 1870-1902

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

The fall of the papal authority was celebrated across Italy with immense excitement. In other countries, Catholic nations initially accepted the news with resignation, while Protestant nations reacted with joy. In France, where the Government of National Defense had taken over from the Empire, Crémieux, the president of the government delegation in Tours, was quick to congratulate Italy. The Italian occupation of Rome didn’t surprise the French government, which had been alerted on September 11 about Italy's plans. On that occasion, Jules Favre acknowledged that the September convention was essentially over, and while he didn’t outright reject it, he accepted that if Italy didn’t move into Rome, the city would fall into the hands of dangerous agitators. He also made it clear that Italy would occupy Rome on its own terms. Pleased by France's response, Visconti-Venosta quickly conveyed Italy's official thanks to the French government. He likely anticipated that Favre's and Crémieux’s sentiments wouldn’t be supported by the French Clericals. Meanwhile, Prussia, while happy about the collapse of papal power, seemed worried that Italy might counterbalance the lack of French opposition to the occupation by intervening militarily in support of France. Additionally, Bismarck was angry about the Italian government's involvement in the Garibaldian expedition to Dijon, and he was annoyed by Visconti-Venosta’s appeal in the Italian parliament for the integrity of French territory. However, events in France soon eased German concerns. The arrival of Thiers, along with his stance on the petition from French bishops on behalf of the pope, the recall of Senard, the French minister in Florence—who had congratulated Victor Emmanuel on the capture of Rome—and the orders given to his successor, Comte de Choiseul, to stay away from Italy during the king's official entry into the new capital on July 2, 1871, plus the rapid appointment of a French ambassador to the Holy See, quickly cooled the friendly relations between France and Italy and reassured Bismarck about any serious closeness between the two governments.

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

The friendly attitude of France towards Italy right after the occupation of Rome seemed to intimidate and discourage the Vatican. For a few weeks, the relationship between the Curia and the Vatican's stance. Italian authorities was marked by a spirit of cooperation. The secretary-general of the Italian foreign office, Baron Blanc, who had gone to Rome with General Cadorna, was almost daily received by Cardinal Antonelli, the papal secretary of state, to resolve numerous issues arising from the Italian occupation. The royal commissioner for finance, Giacomelli, had taken the precaution of seizing the papal treasury; however, after Cardinal Antonelli informed him that among the funds in the treasury were 1,000,000 crowns from Peter’s Pence donated by the faithful directly to the pope, the commissioner was authorized by the Italian council of state not only to restore that amount but also to compensate the Holy See for expenses related to the October coupon of the papal debt, which had been assumed by the Italian state. On September 29, Cardinal Antonelli further notified Baron Blanc that he was about to issue drafts for the monthly payment of 50,000 crowns allocated in the papal budget for the upkeep of the pope, the Sacred College, the apostolic palaces, and the papal guards. The Italian treasury promptly honored all the papal drafts, thereby providing the first installment of the 3,225,000 lire per year later allocated to the Holy See by Article 4 of the Law of Guarantees. The payments would have continued regularly had not pressure from the French Clerical party forced the Vatican to refuse any further installments.

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

Once the Italian government took control of Rome and ensured the pope's spiritual independence for the Catholic world, it began working on the legal framework to manage its relationship with the Holy See. A bill known as the Law of The Guarantee Law. Guarantees was created and presented to parliament. This legislation combined Cavour’s idea of a “free church in a free state,” Ricasoli’s Free Church Bill, which had been rejected by parliament four years earlier, and the proposals that Count Ponza di San Martino had presented to Pius IX in September 1870. After nearly two months of debate, the Law of Guarantees was passed in a secret ballot on March 21, 1871, with 185 votes in favor and 106 against.

It consisted of two parts. The first, containing thirteen articles, recognized (Articles 1 and 2) the person of the pontiff as sacred and intangible, and while providing for free discussion of religious questions, punished insults and outrages against the pope in the same way as insults and outrages against the king. Royal honours were attributed to the pope (Article 3), who was further guaranteed the same precedence as that accorded to him by other Catholic sovereigns, and the right to maintain his Noble and Swiss guards. Article 4 allotted the pontiff an annuity of 3,225,000 lire (£129,000) for the maintenance of the Sacred College, the sacred palaces, the congregations, the Vatican chancery and the diplomatic service. The sacred palaces, museums and libraries were, by Article 5, exempted from all taxation, and the pope was assured perpetual enjoyment of the Vatican and Lateran buildings and gardens, and of the papal villa at Castel Gandolfo. Articles 6 and 7 forbade access of any Italian official or agent to the above-mentioned palaces or to any eventual conclave or oecumenical council without special authorization from the pope, conclave or council. Article 8 prohibited the seizure or examination of any ecclesiastical papers, documents, books or registers of purely spiritual character. Article 9 guaranteed to the pope full freedom for the exercise of his spiritual ministry, and provided for the publication of pontifical announcements on the doors of the Roman churches and basilicas. Article 10 extended immunity to ecclesiastics employed by the Holy See, and bestowed upon foreign ecclesiastics in Rome the personal rights of Italian citizens. By Article 11, diplomatists accredited to the Holy See, and papal diplomatists while in Italy, were placed on the same footing as diplomatists accredited to the Quirinal. Article 12 provided for the transmission free of cost in Italy of all papal telegrams and correspondence both with bishops and foreign governments, and sanctioned the establishment, at the expense of the Italian state, of a papal telegraph office served by papal officials in communication with the Italian postal and telegraph system. Article 13 exempted all ecclesiastical seminaries, academies, colleges and schools for the education of priests in the city of Rome from all interference on the part of the Italian government.

It had two parts. The first part, with thirteen articles, recognized (Articles 1 and 2) the pope as sacred and untouchable, allowed for open discussion of religious matters, but penalized insults and attacks against the pope just like those against the king. The pope was granted royal honors (Article 3) and assured the same precedence as that given by other Catholic rulers, as well as the right to have his Noble and Swiss guards. Article 4 allocated the pope an annual payment of 3,225,000 lire (£129,000) for the upkeep of the Sacred College, the sacred palaces, the congregations, the Vatican chancery, and the diplomatic service. Article 5 exempted the sacred palaces, museums, and libraries from all taxes, guaranteeing the pope perpetual enjoyment of the Vatican and Lateran buildings and gardens, along with the papal villa at Castel Gandolfo. Articles 6 and 7 prohibited any Italian official or agent from entering the aforementioned palaces or any future conclave or ecumenical council without the pope’s special authorization, or from the conclave or council. Article 8 banned the seizure or examination of any ecclesiastical papers, documents, books, or registers of purely spiritual nature. Article 9 guaranteed the pope complete freedom in carrying out his spiritual duties, and allowed for pontifical announcements to be posted on the doors of Roman churches and basilicas. Article 10 extended immunity to ecclesiastics working for the Holy See and granted foreign ecclesiastics in Rome the same personal rights as Italian citizens. By Article 11, diplomats accredited to the Holy See, and papal diplomats while in Italy, were given the same status as diplomats accredited to the Quirinal. Article 12 allowed for the free transmission of all papal telegrams and correspondence in Italy with bishops and foreign governments, and approved the establishment, funded by the Italian state, of a papal telegraph office operated by papal officials in coordination with the Italian postal and telegraph system. Article 13 shielded all ecclesiastical seminaries, academies, colleges, and schools for training priests in Rome from any interference by the Italian government.

This portion of the law, designed to reassure foreign Catholics, met with little opposition; but the second portion, regulating the relations between state and church in Italy, was sharply criticized by deputies who, like Sella, recognized the ideal of a “free church in a free state” to be an impracticable dream. The second division of the law abolished (Article 14) all restrictions upon the right of meeting of members of the clergy. By Article 15 the government relinquished its rights to apostolic legation in Sicily, and to the appointment of its own nominees to the chief benefices throughout the kingdom. Bishops were further dispensed from swearing fealty to the king, though, except in Rome and suburbs, the choice of bishops was limited to ecclesiastics of Italian nationality. Article 16 abolished the need for royal exequatur and placet for ecclesiastical publications, but subordinated the enjoyment of temporalities by 62 bishops and priests to the concession of state exequatur and placet. Article 17 maintained the independence of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in spiritual and disciplinary matters, but reserved for the state the exclusive right to carry out coercive measures.

This part of the law, meant to reassure foreign Catholics, faced little opposition; however, the second part, which managed the relationship between the state and the church in Italy, was heavily criticized by deputies who, like Sella, saw the idea of a “free church in a free state” as an unrealistic dream. The second section of the law removed (Article 14) all restrictions on the right of clergy members to meet. Article 15 had the government give up its rights to apostolic legation in Sicily and to appoint its own candidates to major church positions throughout the kingdom. Bishops were also no longer required to swear loyalty to the king, although, outside of Rome and its suburbs, the selection of bishops was restricted to clergy of Italian nationality. Article 16 eliminated the need for royal exequatur and placet for church publications, but made the enjoyment of temporal benefits by bishops and priests dependent on receiving state exequatur and placet. Article 17 upheld the independence of ecclesiastical authority in spiritual and disciplinary matters but reserved for the state the exclusive right to enforce coercive measures.

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

On July 12, 1871, Articles 268, 269, and 270 of the Italian Penal Code were changed so that clergy could face imprisonment for six months to five years, as well as fines ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 lire, for making spoken or written attacks against state laws or inciting disorder. An encyclical from Pius IX. to the bishops of the Catholic Church on May 15, 1871, rejected the Law of Guarantees and called on Catholic rulers to help restore the Papal States. As a result, the law has remained a one-sided measure that Italy feels obligated to uphold, and it has always adhered to its spirit, even though the need for self-defense has sometimes led to minor violations of the letter of the law. For example, the papal annuity has been subject to a five-year limitation, which means that if the law is recognized late, the Vatican can only claim payment for a maximum of five years of annuity plus interest.

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

For a few months after Rome was occupied, pressing questions related to the shift of the capital and the administration of a new territory distracted the public from the true state of Italian affairs. The Tiber River's rise and the flooding of Rome in December 1870 (which Victor Emmanuel tactfully used as an opportunity for his first visit to the new capital) highlighted the urgent need to reorganize the city's drainage system and build the Tiber embankment. Despite pressure from the French government, which wanted Italy to keep Florence as the political capital and view Rome only as the moral capital, the government offices and both legislative chambers were moved to the Eternal City in 1871. Early in the year, Crown Prince Humbert and Princess Margherita moved into the Quirinal Palace, which had to be forcibly opened due to the Vatican's refusal to hand over the keys. Eight monasteries were taken over to make space for the main state departments, pending the construction of more appropriate buildings. The rise of clerical influence in France led to the belief that Italy would soon need to defend its newly gained unity with military force, while the drastic lessons of the Franco-Prussian War convinced military leaders of the necessity for comprehensive military reform. General Ricotti Magnani, the minister of war, therefore crafted an Army Reform Bill aimed at bringing the Italian army as close as possible to the Prussian standard. Sella, the minister of finance, despite the dire situation of the Italian treasury, readily approved the funds for the reform. “We must arm,” he stated, “since we have toppled the papal throne,” pointing to France as the most likely source of an attack.

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

Though perhaps less urgent than in the previous decade, the state of Italian finance was still quite fragile. With taxes pushed to the limit on personal income and real estate, on all types of commercial and industrial activities, and on essentials like salt and flour; facing a current deficit of £8,500,000 and a projected overall deficit of £12,000,000 over the next five years, Sella's heroic battle against national bankruptcy was far from a success. He primarily bore the weight and earned the recognition for the unprecedented struggle against the deficit that Italy had been engaged in since 1862. As finance minister in the Rattazzi cabinet that year, he faced a public debt of nearly £120,000,000 and an immediate deficit near £18,000,000. In 1864, as a minister in the La Marmora cabinet, he again had to confront an expenditure that exceeded income by more than £14,600,000. Through the seizure and sale of Church lands, the sale of state railways, extreme budgeting, and at one critical moment, an appeal to taxpayers to pay a year's worth of land tax upfront, he met the most urgent financial demands of that tumultuous time. The king agreed to give up one-fifth of his civil list, and ministers and higher civil servants had to forfeit part of their meager salaries. Yet, despite all this, Sella found himself in 1865 forced to propose the most unpopular tax—a grist tax on cereals. This tax (macinato) had been known in Italy for a long time. The cumbersome assessment and collection methods had made it so unpopular that the Italian government chose to abolish it nationwide during 1859-1860. Sella hoped to use a mechanical meter to eliminate the resentment associated with the previous collection methods and avoid having to maintain a large number of inspectors and tax collectors, whose salaries had previously consumed most of the tax revenue. Before proposing the tax's reintroduction, Sella and his friend Ferrara improved and thoroughly tested the meter. The results of their efforts were presented to parliament in one of the most detailed and thorough beginnings ever attached to a bill. However, Sella fell victim to the backlash his proposal created. Scialoja, who took over for him, had to present a similar plan, but parliament pushed back once again. Ferrara, who succeeded Scialoja, encountered the same opposition; but Count Cambray-Digny, finance minister in the Menabrea cabinet from 1868-1869, pressed to find ways to cover a deficit made worse by the interest on the Venetian debt, managed, with Sella's assistance, to push a Grist Tax Bill through parliament, though in a form Sella could not fully endorse. When the new tax took effect on January 1, 1869, nearly half of Italy's flour mills shut down. In many areas, the government had to open its own mills. Inspectors and tax collectors worked under police protection, and in several regions, riots had to be suppressed manu militari. Initially, the net revenue from the tax was less than £1,100,000; but under Sella's strong administration (1869-1873) and due to gradual improvements he implemented, the net return eventually surpassed £3,200,000. The parliamentary opposition to the tax, which the Left labeled as “the tax on hunger,” was largely fabricated. Few, except the outright supporters of national bankruptcy, doubted its necessity; yet the intense emotional opposition stirred up by opponents for political gain meant that Sella’s achievement in using it to save Italy's financial situation ranks among the most significant accomplishments of modern parliamentary governance.

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

Under the pressure of terrible financial conditions marked by a chronic deficit, heavy taxation, high costs needed to strengthen the kingdom, army reforms, and interest on the papal debt, Sella, on December 11, 1871, laid bare the financial situation to parliament. He acknowledged that significant progress had already been made. Revenue from taxation had increased from £7,000,000 to £20,200,000 over a decade; profits from state monopolies had risen from £7,000,000 to £9,400,000; exports had grown to surpass imports; income from telegraph operations had tripled; railways had expanded from 2,200 to 6,200 kilometers, and the annual number of travelers had grown from 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 people. The serious issue of the situation was less about income and more about the “intangible” spending, which included the vast amounts needed for interest on various types of public debt and pensions. In just ten years, this category of expenses had jumped from £8,000,000 to £28,800,000. During the same time, the taking on of Venetian and Roman debts, losses from loan issuances, and the buildup of annual deficits had caused public debt to soar from £92,000,000 to £328,000,000, with £100,000,000 of that amount being lost in premiums and commissions to bankers and loan underwriters. Through cost-cutting and new taxes, Sella had managed to lower the deficit to less than £2,000,000 in 1871, but in 1872 he faced a total expenditure of £8,000,000 more than the revenue. He therefore proposed transferring the treasury service to state banks, increasing the forced currency, raising stamp and registration duties, and imposing a new tax on textile fabrics. An optional conversion of various internal loans into consolidated stock at a lower interest rate was expected to save considerable amounts. The debate over these proposals was long and intense. But thanks to the strategies of Rattazzi, leader of the Left, who based his opposition on party lines and prevented Minghetti and part of the Right from breaking away from the ministerial majority, Sella managed to avoid defeat. On March 23, 1872, however, he succeeded in passing his program, which not only addressed immediate needs but also laid the groundwork for the necessary balance between expenditures and revenue.

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

In the spring of 1873, it became clear that the days of the Lanza-Sella cabinet were numbered. The fear of a Radical government under Rattazzi was the only thing stopping the Minghettian Right from rebelling against the government. The Left, aware of its power, eagerly awaited its opportunity to take charge. Sella, the real leader of the Lanza cabinet, was exhausted from four years of relentless work and disheartened by the deceitful misrepresentations that Italian politicians, especially those from the Left, were notorious for. By sheer determination, he forced the Chamber to adopt some minor financial reforms early in 1873, but on April 29, he found himself in a minority regarding a credit for a proposed state arsenal in Taranto. However, pressure from all sides of the House led the ministry to stay in office until after the debate on applying the Religious Orders Bill (originally passed in 1866) to Rome and the Papal States—a measure that was passed with Ricasoli's support at the end of May. While leaving the general houses of various religious orders intact (except for the Jesuits), the bill eliminated the corporate status of religious orders, transferred their schools and hospitals to civil administrators, made their churches available to the secular clergy, and provided pensions for nuns and monks. Those with families were sent to live with relatives, and those without a home due to age or loss were allowed to spend their remaining days in religious houses specifically designated for that purpose. The proceeds from the sales of the suppressed convents and monasteries were partly used for the pensions of monks and nuns and partly allocated to municipal charity boards that took over the educational and charitable roles previously held by the religious orders. The pope was given £16,000 a year to help cover the costs of maintaining representatives of foreign orders in Rome; however, the Sacred College rejected this funding and called upon all suppressed confraternities to reorganize themselves under regular Italian association laws. A few days after the Religious Orders Bill was passed, the death of Rattazzi on June 5, 1873, eliminated any immediate chance of the Left coming to power. Sella, unsure of the Right's loyalty, called for a vote on discussing further financial reforms immediately, and on June 23, he was overthrown by a coalition of the Left led by Depretis along with some of the Right under Minghetti and the Tuscan Center led by Correnti. The administration that fell was undoubtedly the most significant since Cavour's death. It had achieved national unity, moved the capital to Rome, addressed the main obstacles to financial stability, started military reforms, and established the groundwork for the relationship between the state and the church.

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

The following Minghetti-Visconti-Venosta cabinet—which was in office from July 10, 1873, to March 18, 1876—basically continued the work of the previous administration. Minghetti’s financial approach, while not as insightful or decisive as Sella’s, was generally cautious and beneficial. With Sella's help, he finalized agreements to buy back the main Italian railways from their French and Austrian owners. Through various strategies, he slowly tackled the ongoing deficit and, thanks to the regular increase in revenue, ended his term with a reported surplus of about £720,000. There has been considerable debate about whether this surplus was genuine or just an illusion, but there's little reason to question its substantial reality. It did overlook £1,000,000 earmarked for railway construction covered by credit, but it also did not account for £360,000 spent to reduce debt. Essentially, the Right, which the Minghetti cabinet represented, left Italian finances with a surplus of £80,000. Beyond finance, Minghetti and his team focused mostly on the conflict between church and state, military reform, and railway acquisition. For a while after the occupation of Rome, the pope, trying to emphasize that his spiritual freedom had been compromised, refrained from creating cardinals and appointing bishops. However, on December 22, 1873, he unexpectedly appointed twelve cardinals and then went on to name several bishops. Visconti-Venosta, who kept the foreign affairs portfolio in the Minghetti cabinet, immediately pointed out this evidence of the pope’s spiritual freedom to European powers, highlighting the fictitious nature of his "imprisonment" in the Vatican. He also assured them that the deliberations of a conclave would be guaranteed absolute freedom. Regarding the Church in Italy, Minghetti’s approach was less clear. He indicated that the announcement of bishop appointments and requests for royal exequatur could be made to the government in a more impersonal manner by the bishops' congregation or other corporate entities, a concession the bishops quickly took advantage of. However, this irritated Italian public opinion so much that, in July 1875, the government had to withdraw the privileges of clerics who failed to apply for the exequatur and evict several bishops who occupied their palaces without state authorization. Parliamentary pressure also compelled Bonghi, the Minister of Public Instruction, to force clerical seminaries to either stop instructing lay students or comply with state laws regarding inspections and examinations, leading to conflicts between ecclesiastical and secular authorities, the forced closure of the Mantua seminary, and the suppression of the Catholic University in Rome.

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

More notable than its handling of internal matters was the Minghetti cabinet's effort to strengthen and solidify national defense. Shocked by the weakness, or rather the complete lack, of the navy, Admiral Military and naval upgrades. Saint-Bon, along with his associate Signor Brin, took on the serious task of rebuilding the fleet, which had never bounced back from the disaster at Lissa. During his three years in office, he laid the groundwork that Brin would later use to develop a new Italian navy. At the same time, General Ricotti Magnani refined the army reform plan he had created under the previous administration. His bill, passed by parliament on June 7, 1875, still serves as the foundation of the Italian army.

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

It was fortunate for Italy that from 1860 to 1876, her foreign policy was guided by the experienced Visconti-Venosta, a statesman whose reliability, dignity, and moderation even his political opponents had to acknowledge. Diplomatic records do not support the claims of a lack of initiative and instability in political judgment that contemporaries frequently accused him of. As the foreign minister of a young nation that had achieved unity against one of the most powerful religious organizations in the world and in opposition to France's traditional policies, Visconti-Venosta aimed to uphold his country's dignity while showing European diplomacy that a united Italy was a force for order and progress, and that the spiritual independence of the Roman pontiff had not been diminished. Moreover, prudence advised against any actions that might give the dominant anti-Italian party in France a reason for violent intervention on behalf of the pope. During the Metrical Congress in Paris in 1872, he successfully protested against recognizing the Vatican delegate, Father Secchi, as a representative of a "state" and secured a formal declaration from Count de Rémusat, the French foreign minister, stating that Father Secchi's presence could not set a diplomatic precedent. Bismarck's irritation at Italy's pro-French stance toward the end of the Franco-German War eased into a degree of goodwill when he found himself in conflict with the Vatican and as Thiers' policies began straining Franco-Italian relations. Thiers had consistently opposed Emperor Napoleon's pro-Italian policies. He openly regretted the creation of strong, unified states on France’s borders, feeling particularly sensitive about Italy. The refusal by Victor Emmanuel II to meet Thiers at the opening of the Mont Cenis tunnel (which was partly due to Thiers' offensive remarks made in Florence in October 1870 during his European tour, and directed orders for the French minister to stay away from Victor Emmanuel’s official entry into Rome) hurt the French statesman's pride and reduced any inclination he might have had to oppose the French clergy’s push for restoring the pope’s temporal power and interfering with the Italian Religious Orders Bill. As a result, relations between France and Italy became so tense that in 1873, both the French ambassador in Rome and the Italian ambassador in France were absent from their posts for several months. At this point, the emperor of Austria invited Victor Emmanuel to the Vienna Exhibition, and the Italian government received a confidential message suggesting that if he accepted the invitation, he would soon be invited to Berlin as well. Recognizing the benefits of visiting the imperial court in light of the Italian occupation of Rome and the suppression of religious orders, and valuing a more friendly relationship with the German empire, Visconti-Venosta and Minghetti advised their king to accept both the Austrian and the later German invitations. The visit to Vienna occurred from September 17 to 22, and the trip to Berlin took place from September 22 to 26, 1873. The Italian king received a warm welcome in both cities, although the simultaneous publication of La Marmora’s well-known pamphlet, More Light on the Events of 1866, prevented interactions between the Italian ministers and Bismarck from being fully confidential. Visconti-Venosta and Minghetti also wisely resisted Bismarck's push to dismiss the Law of Guarantees and to engage in an Italian Kulturkampf. Still, the royal visits significantly established friendly relations between Italy and the central powers, a connection further solidified by Emperor Francis Joseph's visit to Victor Emmanuel in Venice in April 1875, and the German emperor's visit to Milan in October of the same year. Meanwhile, Thiers was replaced by Marshal MacMahon, who greatly improved Franco-Italian relations by withdrawing the cruiser "Orénoque" from Civitavecchia, which had been stationed there since 1870 for the pope if he wished to leave Rome. Visconti-Venosta's foreign policy is said to have strengthened Italy's international position without sacrificing dignity and without the indecisiveness and shortsightedness that would mark the following administrations of the Left.

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

The fall of the Right on March 18, 1876, was a significant event that would deeply and often negatively impact the course of Italian history. Except for a few brief and unfortunate intervals, the Right had been in power from 1849 to 1876. People associated their rule with a strict administration; opposition to the democratic forces represented by Garibaldi, Crispi, Depretis, and Bertani; severe taxation to meet the financial obligations imposed on Italy by the challenges of the Risorgimento; a strong preference for Piedmontese, Lombards, and Tuscans; and a determined, sometimes unscrupulous effort to keep executive power and key government positions within their close circle of supporters. For years, the Left had worked to instill suspicion of Conservative practices and resentment towards the taxes that they knew were necessary for stable finances. Particularly regarding the grist tax, the Left had put themselves in a significantly misleading position. Moreover, the government's buyback of the railways—contracts signed by Sella in 1875 on behalf of the Minghetti cabinet with Rothschild in Basel and the Austrian government in Vienna—had faced fierce opposition from the Left, even though many of its members understood the benefits of the deal. When these contracts were presented to parliament in early March 1876, a group of Tuscan deputies, led by Cesare Correnti, joined the opposition and, on March 18, seized a chance motion about the discussion date of an interpellation on the grist tax to push the Minghetti cabinet into a minority. Depretis, a former pro-dictator of Sicily and Rattazzi's successor in leading the Left, was tasked by the king with forming a Liberal ministry. In addition to the role of prime minister, Depretis also took on the finance portfolio; Nicotera, a former Garibaldian with a somewhat tarnished reputation but an energetic and conservative disposition, became the interior minister; public works went to Zanardelli, a Radical ideologue with significant legal expertise; General Mezzacapo and Signor Brin replaced General Ricotti Magnani and Admiral Saint-Bon at the war office and ministry of marine; while Mancini and Coppino, leading members of the Left, were assigned the justice and public instruction portfolios. Finding a foreign minister who could match Visconti-Venosta proved challenging. Several active diplomats were approached, but due to their refusals and the Left's desire not to give such an important position to someone closely tied to the Right, the choice was made to appoint Melegari, the Italian minister in Bern.

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

The new ministers had long since made royal declarations of loyalty, but until they took office, they still seemed to have a somewhat revolutionary vibe. Only the king seemed untroubled. His sharp sense of political strategy and commitment to constitutional values kept him from making the mistake of blocking the rise of politicians who had gained public support and pushing them into an anti-monarchy stance. In fact, the patriotism and loyalty of the new ministers were beyond doubt. The real danger lay in giving power to individuals trained in political scheming and ruthless parliamentary opposition in a young state still facing threats both domestically and internationally. As an opposition party, the Left thrived on the easy allure of political promises but lacked a solid plan, discipline, or a unified goal other than the shared ambition of its leaders for positions of power and their mutual dislike for the Right. Neither Depretis, Nicotera, Crispi, Cairoli, nor Zanardelli was willing to permanently acknowledge the superiority of any one leader. The disagreements that surfaced among them just months after their party came to power never really went away, except for rare moments when they needed to unite to block the Conservatives' return. These considerations likely didn't resonate with the general public, who viewed the Left's rise as the beginning of an era of limitless popular sovereignty, reduced administrative burdens, lower taxes, and overall prosperity. Depretis's program only partly met these expectations. Its main points included expanding voting rights, making parliamentary mandates incompatible with official positions, strictly enforcing state rights against the Church, protecting freedom of conscience, maintaining the military and naval policies started by the Conservatives, accepting railway redemption contracts, stabilizing financial balance, eliminating forced currency, and eventually, tax reform. The long-promised end to the grist tax was not specifically mentioned, opposition to the railway redemption contracts turned into approval, and the promised tax cuts were replaced by empty praise for the Conservative idol of financial balance. The railway redemption contracts were actually approved by parliament right away, with a condition promising the government would legislate to allow the railways to be handed over to private companies.

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

Nicotera, the interior minister, started his administration of home affairs by making significant changes to the staff of prefects, sub-prefects, and public prosecutors. However, he faced backlash from his supporters by banning Radical meetings that could disrupt public order and by expressing administrative principles more suited for a staunch Conservative. Regarding the Church, he instructed the prefects to strictly enforce laws against religious orders. At the same time, the cabinet introduced a Clerical Abuses Bill, proposing severe punishments for priests who disturbed family peace, opposed state laws, or incited disorder. Depretis, meanwhile, had to declare that abolishing the grist tax immediately was unfeasible and created a bill to increase revenue, leading to the departure of around sixty Radicals and Republicans from the ministerial majority and igniting protests against the premier, similar to those he had once led against the Right. The first general election under the Left (November 1876) had given the cabinet a strong majority of 421 Ministerialists to 87 Conservatives, but such a large majority proved unmanageable. The Clerical Abuses Bill caused further divisions: Nicotera suffered due to revelations about his political past; Zanardelli refused to approve a railway project in Calabria that involved Nicotera; and Depretis decided to reward supporters of his revenue bill by awarding sixty ministerial deputies with the Order of the Crown of Italy. Another deviation from the ideal of democratic frugality occurred with an increase of £80,000 per year to the king’s civil list (14th May 1877) and adding royal household pensions totaling £20,000 annually to the state budget. The civil list, originally set at £650,000 a year by the law of 10th August 1862 and voluntarily reduced by the king to £530,000 in 1864 and £490,000 in 1867, was raised to £570,000 a year. The only area in which the Left could claim significant improvement over the Right was Nicotera's vigorous efforts against banditry and the mafia in Calabria and Sicily. However, successes in those provinces did not protect Nicotera from the Chamber's discontent, and on 14th December 1877, a cabinet crisis erupted over an issue regarding the secrecy of telegraphic communication. In response, Depretis restructured his administration, leaving out Nicotera, Melegari, and Zanardelli, placing Crispi at the home office, assigning Magliani to finance, and taking charge of foreign affairs himself.

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

In terms of foreign affairs, the Left's start as a governing party was not much better than its domestic policy. Since the war of 1866, the Left had pushed for an alliance with Prussia against the Francophile tendencies of the Right. More than once, Bismarck directly engaged with the leaders of the Left and, in 1870, worked to prevent a Franco-Italian alliance by encouraging the “party of action” to advocate for the occupation of Rome. Moreover, the Left supported anti-clericalism and believed the State should keep the power to control the Church, unlike the Right, who, except for Sella, supported Cavour’s idea of “a free Church in a free State,” which meant giving up state control over Church governance. When the Prussian Kulturkampf began, the Left urged the Right to introduce an Italian version of the Prussian May laws, especially since Thiers' stance and the French Clericals’ hostility meant they didn't need to worry about offending French sensibilities. Visconti-Venosta and Minghetti, partly due to their dislike for a Jacobin approach and partly because they believed Bismarck would eventually backtrack on any informal commitments to Italy, wisely chose not to get involved in violating the Law of Guarantees. However, it was expected that the leaders of the Left, once in power, would decisively turn to Prussia for protection against the Clerical threat presented by Marshal Macmahon’s regime. Instead, Depretis and Melegari, who were both influenced by French Liberal ideas, took such a deferential approach toward the Republic that it raised suspicions in Vienna and Berlin. Depretis recalled Nigra from Paris and replaced him with General Cialdini, who had fervently advocated for Italian support of France in 1870 and had been a comrade of Marshal Macmahon in 1859, leading many to think he would be very welcome by the French government. This expectation was proven wrong by the events that followed. Angered by the promotion of the Italian legation in Paris to the level of embassies and by the introduction of Italian legislation against clerical abuses, the French Clerical party not only criticized Italy and her representative, General Cialdini, in the Chamber of Deputies, but also encouraged a massive petition against the Italian bill. Even the coup of May 16, 1877 (when Macmahon dismissed the Jules Simon cabinet for opposing the Clerical petition) hardly changed Depretis’ stance. As a precaution against a potential French attempt to restore temporal power, orders were quickly given to complete the defenses of Rome, but otherwise, the Italian government maintained its subservient position. Yet at that moment, a clear policy aligned with the central powers could have saved Italy from the loss of prestige due to its stance during the Russo-Turkish War and Austria's annexation of Bosnia, and might have prevented the disappointment caused by the outcome of the Congress of Berlin. Hoping to persuade European powers to “compensate” Italy for the rise of Austrian influence in the Adriatic, Crispi undertook a semi-official mission to Paris, Berlin, London, and Vienna in the autumn of 1877, with the king’s approval and despite Depretis' veiled opposition. The mission doesn't seem to have been a complete success, though Crispi later insisted in the Chamber (March 4, 1886) that Depretis could have “harnessed fortune to the Italian chariot” in 1877. Depretis, focused solely on avoiding “a policy of adventure,” missed any opportunity that might have come up and failed to deal assertively with the ineffective yet disruptive Italian agitation for a “correction” of the Italo-Austrian border. He expressed clear relief at the signing of the treaty of San Stefano (March 3, 1878) and, through the king, congratulated Italy (March 7, 1878) on maintaining “friendly and cordial relations” with the powers “free from suspicious precautions,” and for securing “that most precious of alliances, the alliance of the future”—a phrase that would soon be revealed as empty rhetoric by the Berlin Congress and the French occupation of Tunisia.

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

The entry of Crispi into the Depretis cabinet (December 1877) brought a strong leader and clear vision to the ministry of the interior at a time when it was desperately needed. Crispi was the only genuinely statesmanlike figure among the Left. Once a friend and follower of Mazzini, he had split with him over the necessity of a monarchy for the unification of Italy. Later, he became one of Garibaldi’s most effective supporters and an active member of the “party of action.” Passionate and not always careful in his political strategies, he was intensely patriotic, loyal based more on reason than emotions, quick on his feet, decisive, and persistent. He had many qualities that other Liberal leaders lacked. He had just taken office when the unexpected death of Victor Emmanuel II (January 9, 1878) stirred national sentiments deeply and tested the continuity of monarchy in Italy before Europe. For thirty years, Victor Emmanuel had been the focal point of national hopes, a symbol of the struggle for national redemption. He had guided the country out of despair following the defeat at Novara and the abdication of Charles Albert, navigating through the challenges of national unification to the ultimate victory in Rome. His passing severed a crucial link to the heroic past and removed from leadership a ruler with a big heart, extensive experience, and civil courage at a time when continuity and solutions to vital internal issues were essential. Crispi quickly implemented measures to ensure the peaceful succession of King Humbert, skillfully avoiding any Radical or Republican protests. His influence led to the choice of the Roman Pantheon as the burial place for the late monarch, despite strong opposition from the Piedmontese who wanted Victor Emmanuel II buried with the Sardinian kings at Superga. He also persuaded the new king to start a new dynastic era as King Humbert I, rather than continuing as Humbert IV, which would have linked him to the Sardinian royal line. Before the shock of Victor Emmanuel's death had faded, the death of Pius IX (February 7, 1878) further tested Crispi's wisdom and quick thinking. Like Victor Emmanuel, Pius IX had been intertwined with the history of the Risorgimento, but unlike him, he represented and embodied the anti-national, reactionary spirit. He had become a key figure of the Jesuit influence and had endorsed significant doctrines like the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility. Yet, his cheerful nature and good-humored cynicism saved him from being unpopular, making his death a moment of mourning. Despite the pope's blessing on Victor Emmanuel during his final moments, the Vatican had maintained a hostile stance, raising doubts about whether the conclave would be held in Rome. Crispi, whose strong anti-clerical beliefs didn’t stop him from viewing the papacy as a key Italian institution, was committed to showing the Catholic world the government’s practical independence from the Church, while also ensuring that Rome retained its significant status as a center of global attraction with the future pope's presence. When the Sacred College decided to hold the conclave outside of Italy, Crispi guaranteed them complete freedom if they stayed in Rome, or protection at the border if they moved. He warned them, however, that if they left, the Vatican would be occupied in the name of the Italian government and would be lost to the Church as the papal headquarters. The cardinals then changed their earlier decision, and the conclave took place in Rome, with Cardinal Pecci elected as the new pope on February 20, 1878, without any issues. The Italian government not only suspended the Chamber during the conclave to avoid any inappropriate inquiries or protests from deputies but also, through Justice Minister Mancini and Cardinal di Pietro, assured the new pope of protection while he sorted out his personal matters—an assurance that Leo XIII took full advantage of on the evening after his election. Meanwhile, the Duke of Aosta, commander of the army in Rome, ordered the troops to honor the pope if he officially appeared in the city. King Humbert sent a letter of congratulations to the pope upon his election and received a polite response. This improvement in relations between the Quirinal and the Vatican was further illustrated on October 18, 1878, when the Italian government accepted a papal formula regarding the royal exequatur for bishops, which allowed them, upon nomination by the Holy See, to acknowledge state control over, and to request payment for, their financial affairs.

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

The Depretis-Crispi cabinet didn’t last long after the new reign began. Crispi’s position was weakened by a morally believable but legally questionable accusation of bigamy. On March 8th, Cairoli, an opponent of the administration and leader of the more extreme faction of the Left, was elected president of the Chamber, which led Depretis to resign to the new king. Cairoli managed to form a government, where his friend Count Corti, the Italian ambassador in Constantinople, took on the role of foreign affairs minister, Zanardelli became the interior minister, and Seismit Doda was appointed as finance minister. Although the cabinet lacked a stable majority, it convinced the Chamber to approve a commercial treaty negotiated with France and a general “autonomous” customs tariff. However, the French Chamber rejected the commercial treaty in June 1878, forcing the application of the Italian general tariff, which led to a 10 to 20% increase in duties on major French exports. An imaginative financial report by Seismit Doda, who declared a surplus of £2,400,000, set the stage for a Grist Tax Reduction Bill, which Cairoli adopted from Depretis's agenda. The Chamber, despite being aware of the dangers of this reform—its risks were sharply pointed out by Sella—voted overwhelmingly for a one-fourth immediate reduction of the tax, aiming for its complete elimination within four years. However, Cairoli's time as prime minister was cut short by an assassination attempt on the king in November 1878 during a royal visit to Naples by a criminal named Passanante. Despite Cairoli’s bravery and quick thinking as he received the dagger meant for the king, public and parliamentary outrage resulted in a vote that forced the ministry to resign.

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

Though short, Cairoli's time in office was significant for foreign affairs. The treaty of San Stefano led to the Berlin Congress, and while Count Corti was aware of the rumors about secret agreements among Germany, Austria, Russia, and Great Britain, he didn’t seem to grasp how these agreements could impact Italy. In response to questions on April 9, 1878, from Visconti-Venosta and other deputies about the upcoming Congress of Berlin, he appeared unconcerned that Italy, isolated, might face a shift in the Mediterranean power balance, asserting that if serious complications arose, Italy would be “too much sought after rather than too much forgotten.” He added that Italy’s policy at the congress would be to support the interests of the young Balkan nations. Embracing this optimism, Count Corti traveled as Italy's first delegate to Berlin, where on May 28, he reluctantly agreed to approve the Austrian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On July 8, the announcement of the Anglo-Ottoman treaty, allowing British control of Cyprus, surprised the congress. Italy, which had emphasized the integrity of the Ottoman Empire as a key point in her Eastern policy, felt this shift in the Mediterranean situation acutely, especially since she had ignored Austrian, Russian, and German advice to prepare for an occupation of Tunisia in agreement with Great Britain, in order to maintain good relations with France. Count Corti had no idea that France had taken a less altruistic stance towards similar suggestions from Bismarck and Lord Salisbury. Consequently, he returned from Berlin with nothing tangible, a situation that was viewed negatively in Italy and fueled anti-Austrian Irredentism. Ever since Venetia was handed over by Austria to Emperor Napoleon, and then to Italy after the war of 1866, secret revolutionary groups had formed in northern Italy to prepare for the “redemption” of Trent and Trieste. For twelve years, these groups had been relatively inactive, but in 1878, with ex-Garibaldian Cairoli leading the government and growing public discontent over the expansion of Austrian influence in the Adriatic, they began to stage a series of loud protests. On the night the clause allowing the Austrian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was signed in Berlin, an Irredentist riot occurred outside the Austrian consulate in Venice. The Italian government downplayed the incident, believing a diplomatic note of regret would calm Austrian anger. Austria might have easily been persuaded to overlook the Irredentist unrest had Cairoli and Zanardelli's unclear stance not raised doubts about their sincerity. Cairoli in Pavia (October 15, 1878), and Zanardelli in Arco (November 3), publicly stated that existing laws could not prevent Irredentist activities, yet they offered no indication of introducing new laws to address this. “Repression, not prevention” became the official motto, the declaration of which by Cairoli in Pavia led to the resignation of Count Corti and two other ministers.

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

The fall of Cairoli and the formation of a second Depretis cabinet in 1878 didn’t lead to any significant change in the government's stance on Irredentism, nor did it improve with Cairoli's return to power the following July. Despite recognizing Bismarck’s animosity toward Italy, the signing of the Austro-German alliance in 1879, and France's clear hostility, Italy made no effort to eliminate a movement that was both harmful and pointless; instead, it honored General Avezzana, president of the Irredentist League, with a state funeral. In Bonghi’s biting words, Italy’s foreign policy during this time was marked by “massive intellectual weakness balanced by equal moral frailty.” Domestic affairs were hardly managed better. Parliament had turned into a collection of personal factions, with members focused solely on toppling governments to secure power for their leaders and benefits for themselves. Depretis, who took over from Cairoli in December 1878, fell in July 1879 after a vote where Cairoli and Nicotera allied with the Conservative opposition. On July 12, Cairoli formed a new administration, only to resign on November 24 and reconstruct his cabinet with Depretis's help. Financial administration was as disorganized as the state of parliament. The £2,400,000 surplus claimed by Seismit Doda turned out to be a fantasy. However, Magliani, who followed Seismit Doda, lacked the insight or bravery to oppose the abolition of the grist tax. The Chamber's first vote for an immediate reduction of the tax and for its full abolition on January 1, 1883, was blocked by the Senate. A second bill was passed by the Chamber on July 18, 1879, calling for the immediate repeal of the grist tax on minor cereals, with total abolition set for January 1, 1884. While the Senate approved the repeal for minor cereals on January 24, 1880, it rejected the repeal of the tax on grinding wheat, stating it would harm national finances. After the general election in 1880, however, the Ministerialists, supported by some factional Conservatives, passed a third bill repealing the grist tax on wheat on July 10, 1880, effective from January 1, 1884. The Senate, swelled by numerous ad hoc appointments favoring the ministry, finally approved the measure. Despite this anticipated revenue loss, parliament was very reluctant to impose any new taxes, even though less than a year earlier it had approved (June 30, 1879) Depretis’s plan to spend £43,200,000 over the next eighteen years on building 5,000 kilometers of railway, an expenses not fully justified by the lines' significance and mainly serving as electoral bribes for the ministries' constituents. The unsatisfactory financial conditions of the municipalities in Florence, Rome, and Naples required state assistance, yet the Chamber boldly approved (February 23, 1881) a foreign loan for £26,000,000 to eliminate the forced currency, further burdening the treasury and pulling Italy into a chronic deficit again three years later.

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

In no modern country is error or incompetence by administrators met with retribution as quickly as in Italy; both domestically and internationally, it faces political and economic conditions that leave little room for mistakes, and even less for “mental and moral inadequacy” exhibited by the Left. Nemesis arrived in the spring of 1881 with the French invasion of Tunisia. Guiccioli, the biographer of Sella, notes that Italian politicians struggle particularly with “the temptation of appearing crafty.” The Left believed they were clever enough to maintain the confidence and respect of all foreign powers while flirting with domestic elements that some of those powers viewed with suspicion. Italy, constantly at risk from France, needed strong relations with Austria and Germany, but could only secure Austria's goodwill by firmly addressing the revolutionary Irredentist agitation, and Germany's by clearly demonstrating Italy's resolve and ability to manage all anti-monarchical forces. Depretis and Cairoli did neither. Therefore, when the opportunity arose to firmly establish Italian dominance in the central Mediterranean by occupying Tunisia, they found themselves lacking the friendly relations with the central powers, and even with Great Britain, that could have allowed them to capitalize on the opportunity. Italy's decision to turn down suggestions from Count Andrássy and General Ignatiev just before the Russo-Turkish War—that Italy should seek compensation in Tunisia for the expansion of Austrian influence in the Balkans—and then subsequently rejecting Germany's proposal to negotiate with Great Britain for the occupation of Tunisia as compensation for the British takeover of Cyprus, was undoubtedly due to worries that trying for Tunisia would lead to war with France, for which Italy knew it was completely unprepared. However, this very lack of preparedness made its handling of the Irredentist agitation even more inexcusable, as it brought Italy to the brink of conflict with Austria. Although Cairoli, upon learning of the Anglo-Ottoman agreement regarding Cyprus, had warned Count Corti that Great Britain might try to appease France by allowing a French occupation of Tunisia, neither he nor Count Corti had any idea about the informal arrangement made between Lord Salisbury and Waddington at Bismarck's prompting, that, when convenient, France was to occupy Tunisia—an agreement later reaffirmed (with a caveat about Italy's eventual stance) in messages exchanged in July and August 1878 between the Quai d’Orsay and Downing Street. Almost up until the moment of the French occupation of Tunisia, the Italian government believed that Great Britain, if only out of gratitude for Italy's support during the Dulcigno demonstration in the autumn of 1880, would stop France from acquiring the Regency. Unaware of the assurance given to France by Lord Granville that the Gladstone cabinet would honor the commitments made by the Beaconsfield-Salisbury administration, Cairoli, in response to public opinion in Italy, tried to undermine the actions of the French consul Roustan by appointing an equally energetic Italian consul, Macciò. The rivalry between these two officials in Tunisia significantly strained Franco-Italian relations, but it's uncertain whether France would have acted so quickly if General Menabrea, the Italian ambassador in London, hadn’t urged his government to buy the Tunis-Goletta railway from the English company that built it. A French attempt to buy the line was blocked in English courts, and the railway was ultimately acquired by Italy at a price over eight times its actual worth. This persistence led France to believe that Italy was about to adopt a more aggressive stance in Tunisia than necessary for protecting its commercial interests. Consequently, Roustan hurried to extract concessions from the bey designed to neutralize the benefits Italy hoped to gain from owning the Tunis-Goletta line, while simultaneously, the French government prepared an expeditionary force in Toulon for the occupation of the Regency. In the spring of 1881, the Kroumir tribe was reported to have attacked a French force on the Algerian border, and on April 9, Roustan informed the bey of Tunis that France would retaliate against the attackers. The bey issued ineffective protests to the powers. On April 26, the French occupied the island of Tabarca, seized Bizerta on May 2, and on May 12, the bey signed the Treaty of Bardo, accepting the French protectorate. France took on the responsibility of maintaining order in the Regency and assumed the representation of Tunisia in all interactions with other countries.

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

Italian anger at the French coup de main was even stronger because of the obvious deceit of the Republic's government. On May 11th, the French foreign minister, Barthélémy Saint Hilaire, had assured the Italian ambassador in Paris that France “had no intention of occupying Tunisia or any part of Tunisian territory, except for a few points in the Kroumir region.” This assurance, dictated by Jules Ferry to Barthélémy Saint Hilaire in front of the Italian ambassador, and sent en clair to Rome, was seen as a binding promise that France would not significantly change the status quo in Tunisia. Later released documents softened the blame on Ferry and Saint Hilaire for this betrayal by showing that the French forces in Tunisia were acting on secret orders from General Farre, the minister of war in the Ferry cabinet, who followed a policy completely contrary to the official statements made by the premier and the foreign minister. Even if this information had been known at the time, it likely wouldn't have lessened the deep resentment felt by the entire Italian nation over an event that was seen as not only destroying Italian hopes for Tunisia but also jeopardizing the interests of the large Italian community there and posing a constant threat to the security of the Sicilian and southern Italian coasts.

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

Had the blow to Italian influence in the Mediterranean prompted politicians to set aside their personal differences and unite in presenting a solid front to foreign nations, the crisis regarding Tunisia might have yielded some positive outcomes. Unfortunately, as with other critical moments, the deputies showed themselves incapable of working together for the common good. While excitement over Tunisia was at its peak, and before the situation became irretrievably unfavorable for Italy, Cairoli was forced to resign due to a vote of no confidence in the Chamber. The only politician who could effectively handle the situation was Sella, the leader of the Right, and the crown turned to him for help. The leaders of the Left, despite their personal rivalries and conflicting ambitions, agreed that the worst thing for Italy would be a return of the Right to power, and they schemed to prevent the formation of a Sella cabinet. An attempt by Depretis to reform the Cairoli ministry was unsuccessful, and after eleven crucial days had been wasted, King Humbert was forced, on April 19, 1881, to reject Cairoli’s resignation. However, the signing of the treaty of Bardo on May 12 forced Cairoli to resign in the face of public outrage. Once again, Sella was called upon, but once more, the obstructive tactics of Depretis, Cairoli, Nicotera, and Baccarini, along with the rigid stance of some extreme Conservatives, thwarted his efforts. Depretis then managed to reform the Cairoli cabinet without Cairoli, with Mancini taking over the foreign office. With the exception of an increase in the army budget, urgently requested by public sentiment, the new cabinet had virtually no agenda. Public sentiment further turned against France following the massacre of some Italian workers in Marseilles during the return of the French troops from Tunisia, and Depretis, responding to public pressure, felt compelled to mobilize part of the militia for military drills. Amid these domestic and international troubles, riots broke out in Rome related to the transfer of Pius IX’s remains from St. Peter’s to the basilica of San Lorenzo. Most of the blame lay with the Vatican, which organized the procession in a manner designed to provoke Italian sentiments, but there was little excuse for the failure of Italian authorities to maintain public order. Alongside the occupation of Tunisia, these riots made Italy appear as a nation unable to defend its interests abroad or maintain peace at home. The scandal and pressure from foreign Catholic opinions forced Depretis to adopt a more assertive policy and to issue a formal declaration affirming the inviolability of the Law of Guarantees.

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

Meanwhile, a belief was spreading that the only way to escape the dangerous isolation of Italy was through closer ties with Austria and Germany. Depretis eventually acknowledged the necessity of such an agreement, if only to remove the "coldness and invincible diffidence" that Mancini later confessed characterized the central powers' attitude. However, he opposed any formal alliance for fear it would provoke French resentment while the new Franco-Italian treaty was still unfinished, and the foreign loan needed to eliminate the forced currency had yet to be secured. In fact, he wasn’t willing to concede to public opinion anything beyond an increase in the army, a change strongly demanded by Garibaldi and the Left. The Right also wanted to strengthen both the army and navy, but pushed for friendly relations with Berlin and Vienna as a safeguard against French dominance, ensuring Italy would have time to build up its military without upsetting financial stability. The Right hoped that closer ties with Germany and Austria would lead Italy to align its domestic policies more closely with the order principles upheld in those empires. More determined than either the Right or Left was the Centre, a small group led by Sidney Sonnino, a young politician of notable character, who sought to convey through the press and parliament that the best foundation for Italian policy would be a close alliance with the central powers, along with a friendly understanding with Great Britain regarding Mediterranean matters. Key Italian leaders were divided on the issue of an alliance. Peruzzi, Lanza, and Bonghi advocated for equal friendship with all powers, especially with France, while Crispi, Minghetti, Cadorna, and others, including Blanc, secretary-general at the foreign office, openly supported a pro-Austrian stance. However, Austria and Germany hardly reciprocated these sentiments. The Irredentist movement had left deep marks in both Berlin and Vienna, leading to a distrust of Depretis that had yet to be alleviated. Furthermore, given Italy's relatively weak military capabilities, the eagerness to find an ally couldn’t be taken as strong evidence of the value of Italian friendship. Count di Robilant, the Italian ambassador in Vienna, cautioned his government against yielding too easily to pro-Austrian pressure, as it could compromise Italy's dignity or result in an alliance with difficult terms. Mancini, the foreign minister, who was as eager as Depretis to finalize the Franco-Italian commercial treaty, gladly took this advice and focused on maintaining proper diplomatic relations with the central powers. Aside from the issue of the papacy, the pros and cons of an Italian alliance with Austria and Germany seemed to balance each other out. A rapprochement with France and the continuation of the Irredentist movement would undoubtedly provoke hostility from Austria and Germany; conversely, moving closer to the central powers would certainly heighten France's unease. In either scenario, Italy could count on Britain’s moral support but could not rely on British friendship as the foundation of a continental policy. Other than resentment against France over Tunisia, there was the ongoing issue of the pope's temporal power, which could shift favor towards Austria and Germany. The danger of foreign interference in the relationship between Italy and the papacy had never been as great since the Italian occupation of Rome, especially during the summer of 1881, when disturbances during the transfer of Pius IX's remains lent an unusual degree of credibility to the papal complaint about the "miserable" state of the Holy See. At that time, Bismarck had begun his "pilgrimage to Canossa" and was eager to gain support from German Catholics at the Vatican. What resistance could Italy have mustered if the German chancellor, backed by Austria and surely supported by France, called on Italy to revise the Law of Guarantees according to Catholic needs, or if he initiated discussions on papal independence at an international conference? Only friendship and alliance with Catholic Austria and powerful Germany could lay this ghost to rest. This was the only immediate benefit Italy could expect to gain by drawing closer to the central powers.

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

The political situation in Europe supported Italy’s ambitions. The increasing rivalry between Austria and Russia in the Balkans made it impossible to maintain the “League of the Three Emperors.” The Austro-German alliance of 1879 officially guaranteed the territories of the parties involved, but Austria couldn’t rely on effective help from Germany in the event of war, since a Russian attack on Austria would likely trigger a French attack on Germany. Just like from 1860 to 1870, it became crucial for Austria to keep full control of its troops by protecting itself against Italian aggression. Tsar Alexander III, influenced by the assassination of his father, wanted to revive the Dreikaiserbund as a way to ensure European peace and to create a conservative alliance against revolutionary movements. The German emperor shared this goal, but Bismarck and the Austrian emperor preferred to replace the imperial league with a more beneficial arrangement. Thus, there was a silent agreement between Bismarck and Austria to leverage Italy’s resentment toward France to bring Italy into the Austro-German alliance. For now, Germany would hold back to avoid taking any action that might upset the Vatican, whose support Bismarck needed.

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

At the beginning of August 1881, the Austrian press suggested that King Humbert visit Emperor Francis Joseph. Count di Robilant, worried that Italy might appear to be seeking favor from the Central Powers, advised Mancini to be cautious about the Austrian press’s suggestions. Depretis took the opportunity to dismiss the likelihood of the visit in a manner that was hardly courteous. Robilant's reluctance to quickly accept the Austrian proposal was based on his concern that King Humbert might be pressured in Vienna to disavow Irredentist aspirations, and on his desire to arrange a reciprocal visit from Emperor Francis Joseph to Rome following King Humbert’s trip to Vienna. Noticing the hesitation of the Italian government, the Austrian and German semi-official press intensified their efforts to promote the visit. By the end of September, the idea had gained so much traction in Italy that the visit was practically confirmed, and on October 7, Mancini informed Robilant (who was then in Italy) of this development. Although he thought this haste was unwise, Robilant, realizing that confidential information about Italy's intentions had already been communicated to the Austrian government, sought a meeting with King Humbert, and on October 17, he left for Vienna to finalize the visit's conditions. Depretis, worried about jeopardizing the upcoming conclusion of the Franco-Italian commercial treaty, would have preferred the visit to be more of a personal courtesy between the sovereigns. The Austrian government, on its side, wanted the king to be accompanied by Depretis but not by Mancini, to avoid giving the event a too overtly political tone. However, Mancini, unwilling to be excluded, insisted on accompanying the king. King Humbert and Queen Margherita arrived in Vienna on the morning of October 27 and stayed at the Hofburg until October 31. The visit was characterized by great cordiality, and Robilant's concerns about undue pressure regarding Irredentism proved unfounded. Both Germany and Austria viewed the visit as a preliminary step towards Italy joining the Austro-German alliance. Count Hatzfeldt, on behalf of the German Foreign Office, informed the Italian ambassador in Berlin that whatever happened in Vienna would be considered as having taken place in the German capital. Moreover, emerging tensions in France did not prevent the signing of the Franco-Italian commercial treaty, which occurred in Paris on November 3.

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

In Italy, public opinion was generally supportive of the visit, especially since it wasn’t seen as hindering the planned expansion of the army and navy. However, doubts quickly arose about its impact on Austrian officials, as on November 8th, the statements made by Kállay and Count Andrássy to the Hungarian delegations regarding Irredentism were unlikely to calm Italian sensitivities. But on November 9th, the European situation changed suddenly with the formation of the Gambetta cabinet, and given Gambetta's reputation for a revenge-driven policy, Bismarck needed to ensure that Italy wouldn’t be drawn into a pro-French stance by any concessions Gambetta might propose. As was his usual approach with weaker nations, the German chancellor resorted to intimidation tactics. He not only reinstated the Prussian legation to the Vatican, which had been suppressed since 1874, and omitted any mention of King Humbert’s visit to Vienna in the imperial message to the Reichstag (November 17, 1881), but also took the opportunity on November 29th to describe Italy as a nation on the brink of revolution, launching a campaign in the German semi-official press advocating for an international guarantee of the papacy's independence. These maneuvers influenced Italian public sentiment. During the lengthy and significant debate on foreign policy in the Italian Chamber of Deputies (December 6-9), there were repeated concerns that Bismarck might try to win over German Catholics by raising the Roman question. Mancini, still reluctant to fully commit to the Austro-German alliance, found his "friendship all round" policy stifled by Gambetta’s rigid stance regarding Tunisia. Nevertheless, Bismarck continued his press campaign supporting the temporal power until he was reassured by Gambetta's decision to send Roustan back to Tunis to finalize the anti-Italian agenda he had started as consul. He ultimately instructed his outlets to highlight the shared interests of Germany and Italy during the inauguration of the St. Gothard tunnel. However, the effects of the German press campaign couldn’t be erased overnight. At the New Year’s reception for deputies, King Humbert sparked enthusiasm with a significant remark about Italy wanting to remain “mistress in her own house,” while Mancini sent a haughty message to Count de Launay, the Italian ambassador in Berlin, rejecting the notion that the pope could gain more spiritual freedom abroad than in Rome, or that closer relationships between Italy and Germany, which were necessary for both countries' interests and ambitions, could be in any way contingent upon a change in Italy's autonomy regarding domestic affairs.

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

The sudden resignation of Gambetta on January 26, 1882, eased fears of immediate European complications, causing the governments in Berlin and Vienna to show reluctance towards Italy again. Bismarck's distrust of Italian parliamentary instability, skepticism about Italy's ability for offensive warfare, and concern over Depretis's pro-French leanings meant the Italian ambassador in Berlin struggled to get an audience with the chancellor for weeks. If not for the Tunisian issue, Italy might have been pulled back into France's sphere. Mancini attempted to hinder the establishment of French control in Tunisia by refusing to acknowledge the Treaty of Bardo, but Bismarck showed little regard for Italian sensitivities and instructed the German consul in Tunis to recognize French decrees. Influenced by these circumstances and persuaded by Baron Blanc, the foreign affairs secretary, Mancini directed Count di Robilant to begin talks for an Italo-Austrian alliance—though Robilant delayed these instructions until questioned by Count Kalnóky. The initial discussions between the two governments ended without agreement, as Kalnóky, who had somewhat clerical views, was unwilling to guarantee all of Italy's territorial integrity, while Mancini would not consent to Austria's permanent possession of Trent and Trieste. Mancini also wanted the alliance pact to promise mutual protection of both countries' key interests, with Italy supporting Austria-Hungary in the Balkans and Austria and Germany backing Italy on Mediterranean issues. Without such provisions, Mancini believed Italy would face French hostility alone. At Kalnóky's request, Mancini detailed his proposal in a memorandum, but negotiations stalled due to the illnesses of himself and Depretis, alongside negative discussions in the Italian press regarding the Austrian emperor's failure to reciprocate King Humbert's visit to Vienna. The pope had refused to meet the emperor during his visit to Rome, and though Francis Joseph wanted to return King Humbert's visit, he couldn't upset his Catholic subjects. Meanwhile, on May 11, 1882, the Italian parliament passed a new Army Bill, allocating £5,100,000 for two new army corps, raising the regular army's war strength to nearly 850,000 and increasing the annual military budget to £8,000,000. Garibaldi, who had passionately advocated for army expansion since the French occupation of Tunisia, felt pleased to see his wish granted before his death at Caprera on June 2, 1882. "In spirit a child, in character a man of classic mold," Garibaldi remained a national icon, a nearly mythical hero whose role no one could hope to match. The nation expressed gratitude for his achievements and sorrow for his passing in a wave of mourning that united both kings and peasants. Before his death, and almost concurrently with the Army Bill's passing, negotiations for the alliance resumed. Encouraged by Berlin, Kalnóky accepted the mutual territorial guarantee but refused reciprocity on special interests. Mancini had to settle for a statement that the allies would act in mutually friendly cooperation. Depretis expressed some opposition but ultimately agreed, and the treaty of the triple alliance was signed on May 20, 1882, just five days after the Franco-Italian commercial treaty was announced in Paris. While some details have been revealed, the precise terms of the triple alliance treaty have never been disclosed. It is known to have been established for five years, committing the signatories to join together against any attacks on one of them and specifying military plans in case of an assault from France, Russia, or both. The Italian General Staff reportedly planned to deploy two armies on the northwestern border against the French alpine forces, which had around 250,000 troops. A third Italian army would, if needed, move into Germany to engage either French or Russian forces. Austria agreed to secure the Adriatic by land and sea and to support Germany in countering Russia on land. Germany would be occupied managing war on two fronts. Kalnóky wanted the treaty's details and its conclusion to remain secret, but Bismarck and Mancini quickly hinted at its existence, with Bismarck mentioning it in the Reichstag on June 12, 1882, and Mancini in the Italian semi-official press. A revival of Irredentism linked to the execution of an Austrian deserter named Oberdank, who had tried to return to Austria from Italy with explosives, along with positive remarks about France from Depretis at Stradella on October 8, 1882, kept the French government from suspecting the alliance's existence or abandoning hopes for a Franco-Italian understanding. It wasn't until March 1883, when Mancini defended his refusal to work with Great Britain in Egypt, that the treaty's existence was effectively revealed, aggravating France and quashing Depretis's hopes for an Austro-German guarantee without rousing French hostility. In Italy, the treaty's revelation was welcomed, except by Clericals, who were furious about the setback to the pope's temporal power, and by Radicals, who feared the inevitable rift with republican France and the strengthening of Italian constitutional parties through ties with powerful monarchies like Germany and Austria. These concerns only made the treaty more appealing to constitutionalists, who viewed it as a territorial guarantee and a way to eliminate the threat of foreign interference in relations between Italy and the Vatican, something Bismarck had recently threatened and which France was believed likely to propose.

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

Nevertheless, during its first period (1882-1887), the triple alliance failed to foster good relations among the member countries. Mancini tried in many ways to ease French resentment. He not only refused to join Great Britain in the Egyptian expedition but also agreed to suspend Italian consular jurisdiction in Tunis and dismissed any suspicion of French intentions regarding Morocco. His efforts were ultimately ineffectual. France remained distant, while Bismarck and Kalnóky, suspicious of the Radicalism of Depretis and Mancini, adopted an almost hostile stance towards their ally. Germany and Austria may have been influenced by the secret treaty signed between Austria, Germany, and Russia on March 21, 1884, which was confirmed during the meeting of the three emperors at Skierniewice in September of that year. Bismarck, in exchange for "honest brokerage" in the Balkans, seemingly secured a promise of benevolent neutrality from Austria and Russia in the event that Germany was "forced" to go to war against a fourth power—France. Thus shielded from Russian attacks, Italy became, in the eyes of the central powers, a negligible entity, and was treated accordingly. Although Italy remained uninformed about the Skierniewice agreement, the government quickly realized that the triple alliance had effectively lost its purpose since European peace had been maintained without Italian involvement. Meanwhile, France gave Italy new reasons for concern by lessening its hostility towards Germany. Consequently, Italy grew closer to Great Britain, and at the London conference on the Egyptian financial matter, took a stand with Great Britain against Austria and Germany. Simultaneously, negotiations were underway with Great Britain for an Italian occupation of Massawa, and Mancini, envisioning a grand Anglo-Italian venture against the Mahdi, spoke highly in the spring of 1885 about the potential of an Anglo-Italian alliance, a remark that resulted in a thinly veiled disapproval from London. Again addressing the Chamber, Mancini claimed that Italy deserved the most credit for the formation of the triple alliance, but stated that the alliance allowed Italy full freedom to act regarding interests outside its scope, “especially since there was no possibility of obtaining protection for such interests from those who, through the alliance, had not agreed to protect them.” These remarks, which highlighted the lack of any commitment to safeguard Italian interests in the Mediterranean, sparked significant discontent in Italy and pleased France. They hastened Mancini’s downfall (June 17, 1885) and paved the way for Count di Robilant, who succeeded Mancini at the Italian Foreign Office three months later. For Robilant, the Skierniewice pact was not a secret, and he pursued a strictly independent policy throughout the Bulgarian crisis of 1885-1886, refusing to engage in any actions beyond what was required by the Treaty of Berlin and the protection of Italian interests in the Balkans. Italy, in fact, emerged from the Eastern crisis with enhanced prestige and improved relations with Austria. Towards Prince Bismarck, Robilant maintained a dignified independence, and as the time approached in the spring of 1886 for the renewal of the triple alliance, he capitalized on the developments of the Bulgarian crisis and the looming Franco-Russian agreement to secure "something more" from the central powers than just the basic territorial guarantees of the original treaty. This "something more" included, at least partially, the arrangement, with the support of Austria and Germany, of an Anglo-Italian naval agreement focusing on the Eastern question, which provided for coordinated action by the British and Italian fleets in the Mediterranean in case of war. A vote in the Italian Chamber on February 4, 1887, regarding the defeat of Italian troops at Dogali in Abyssinia, led to the resignation of the Depretis-Robilant cabinet. The crisis dragged on for three months, and before it could be definitively resolved by forming a Depretis-Crispi ministry, Robilant managed (March 17, 1887) to renew the triple alliance on terms more favorable to Italy than those established in 1882. Not only did he secure concessions from Austria and Germany that correlated with the improved condition of the Italian army and navy, but through the Anglo-Italian understanding, he ensured the practical support of Great Britain for the European policy of the central powers, a triumph likely greater than anything accomplished by Italian diplomacy since national unity was achieved.

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

The time from May 1881 to July 1887 was marked in foreign affairs by the negotiation, completion, and renewal of the triple alliance, the Bulgarian crisis, and the beginning of an Italian colonial policy, while at home it was filled with pressing political and economic issues, along with the parliamentary phenomenon known as trasformismo. On June 29, 1881, the Chamber passed a Franchise Reform Bill that raised the electorate from 600,000 to 2,000,000 by lowering the fiscal qualification from 40 to 19.80 lire in direct taxation and by extending the right to vote to anyone who had completed the two lower levels of elementary school, effectively giving the vote to anyone who could read and write. The immediate effect of the reform was to boost the political power of big cities where fewer workers were illiterate compared to rural areas, while excluding many peasants and small property owners who, despite being more conservative and economically better off than urban workers, often couldn’t meet the educational requirements. On April 12, 1883, forced currency was formally abolished as the treasury resumed gold payments funded by a loan of £14,500,000 obtained in London on May 5, 1882. Due to the unfriendly French market, covering the loan was a struggle, and although the gold premium decreased and commercial exchanges were temporarily eased by the return to cash payments, it’s questionable whether these benefits offset the additional annual interest burden of £640,000 placed on the treasury. On March 6, 1885, parliament finally approved the agreements that allowed three private companies—the Mediterranean, Adriatic, and Sicilian—to manage state railways. The railways, which had been reclaimed in 1875-1876, were operated by the government at a substantial loss during the interval. An investigative commission recommended private management. The agreements, set for sixty years but open to termination by either party after twenty or forty years, allowed the state to keep ownership of the lines (except for the southern railway, the line from Bologna to Brindisi, which belonged to the Società Meridionale, who were now leasing the Adriatic lines) but sold rolling stock to the companies, provided various state subsidies for lines being planned or built, guaranteed interest on the companies’ bonds, and organized revenue sharing among the companies, the reserve fund, and the state. National control of the railways was ensured by a requirement that directors be of Italian nationality. Depretis and his colleague Genala, the minister of public works, faced significant challenges in getting parliamentary approval for the agreements, not mainly because of their flawed nature, but due to local interests eager to secure new lines from the government. Ultimately, the agreements were approved by a slim majority of just twenty-three votes after the government committed to extending the length of new state-built lines from 1,500 to 2,500 kilometers. Unfortunately, the estimated railway revenue that the agreements relied on turned out to be highly exaggerated. For many years, the 37½% of gross revenue (after deducting the costs of maintaining the rolling stock, which was the state’s responsibility) barely covered the interest on debts incurred for railway construction and the guaranteed bonds. Over time, the rise in traffic from Italy’s industrial growth reduced the state’s annual losses, but the government’s situation regarding the railways remained so unsatisfactory that resuming control of the entire system by the state at the end of the initial twenty-year period in 1905 became unavoidable.

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

Intimately linked to the forced currency, railway agreements, and public works was the overall financial situation. Starting in 1876, when spending and revenue first balanced out, Finance. taxation generated consistent annual surpluses, which hit a favorable amount of £2,120,000 by 1881. The gradual elimination of the grist tax on minor cereals reduced the surplus to £236,000 in 1882 and to £110,000 in 1883, while the complete repeal of the grist tax on wheat on January 1, 1884, marked the start of a new and unfortunate period of deficit. Admittedly, the repeal of the grist tax wasn't the only factor, nor necessarily the main one, causing the deficit. The “fiscal transformation” policy started by the Left boosted revenue from indirect taxes from £17,000,000 in 1876 to over £24,000,000 in 1887, by replacing heavy corn duties for the grist tax and significantly increasing the sugar and petroleum duties. However, partly due to weak financial management, and partly because of rising military and naval spending (which reached £9,000,000 for the army in 1887, with special efforts to reinforce the navy), and mainly due to the ongoing drain from railway construction and public works, the pressures on the treasury far exceeded the normal rise in revenue, leading to the need for new debts. In their eagerness to stay in power, Depretis and Finance Minister Magliani were willing to compromise the financial future of their country. No concessions could be refused to deputies or groups whose support was crucial to the cabinet's survival, making it impossible to effectively curb administrative abuses that benefitted politicians or their voters. Railways, roads, and harbors that contractors had agreed to build for reasonable amounts often ended up costing three times the initial estimates. Minghetti, in a sharp critique of Italy's parliamentary situation during this time, points out an instance where funding for certain public works was increased from £6,600,000 to £9,000,000 by the government during a Chamber debate to satisfy local political interests. In the spring of 1887, Genala, the public works minister, faced criticism for authorizing £80,000,000 in railway construction, while only £40,000,000 had been projected in the estimates. Since most of these funds were spread over multiple years, successive administrations found their financial flexibility severely limited and had to cover the deficit with ongoing issues of consolidated stock. Consequently, the deficit of £940,000 for the financial year 1885-1886 surged to nearly £2,920,000 in 1887-1888, reaching a staggering £9,400,000 in 1888-1889.

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

However, despite many serious shortcomings, the long series of Depretis administrations was characterized by the introduction of some beneficial measures. In addition to fulfilling the formal agenda of the Left, which included the repeal of the grist tax, the abolition of forced currency, the expansion of voting rights, and the development of the railway system, Depretis also established a foundation for reassessing land taxes by initiating a new cadastral survey. Unfortunately, this new survey was mostly optional, leading provinces that expected a reduction in land tax to rush their surveys, while others, where the average land tax was below a typical assessment, ignored the requirements of the program. An important project known as the Agricultural Inquiry revealed a wealth of information that would be valuable for future agricultural legislation. In 1885, a law was introduced and adopted that established the principle of employers’ liability for workplace accidents, which was later expanded and better defined in spring 1899. That same year, efforts were made to promote the development of the merchant marine, and a convention was signed with leading passenger shipping lines to keep their fastest ships available as support for the fleet in the event of war. Public health and hygiene received a significant boost from the cholera epidemic of 1884, leading to the demolition and reconstruction of many of the most unhealthy areas in Naples and other cities, primarily funded by the state. This initiative was strongly backed by King Humbert, whose bravery in visiting the most dangerous areas in Busca and Naples during the peak of the epidemic reassured the terrified residents with his presence, igniting enthusiasm among his people and admiration throughout Europe.

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

During the implementation of these and other reforms, the situation in parliament saw significant changes. Gradually, the Left's administrations stopped relying solely on the Liberal factions of the Chamber, and "Transformism." started passing their most important bills with support from the Right. This transformation wasn't exclusively due to Depretis; it actually began back in 1873 when some of the Right under Minghetti allied with the Left to overthrow the Lanza-Sella cabinet. In 1876, Minghetti himself lost power due to a similar shift of Conservative deputies. The effective end of the old Right during the 1876 elections marked the start of a new parliamentary era. With their numbers reduced to less than one hundred and dramatically changed in both spirit and makeup, the Right fell into a state of despondency that wasn’t ideal for an opposition party. Although personal bitterness towards representatives of the Moderate Left prevented the Right from heeding Sella’s advice and forming timely coalitions with similar parliamentary groups to regain some of their former influence, most of the party, with surprising inconsistency, began to draw closer to the Liberal cabinets. This trend sped up following Sella’s illness and death on March 14, 1884, which deeply discouraged many thoughtful Conservatives and Moderate Liberals, who had seen Sella as a vital political force—a statesman whose seasoned energy and patriotic wisdom could pull Italy out of any crisis. In a strange twist, the Radical proposals put forth by the Left actually reduced, rather than increased, the gap between it and the Conservatives. The Right, lacking the numbers to reject such proposals and the unity and strength needed for a long-term strategy, wisely decided not to spend its energy in firm opposition. Instead, they chose to support the government in hopes of influencing Radical legislation in a Conservative direction. However, this strategy consistently backfired. Radical measures were passed unchanged, and the Right had to accept the outcome with disappointment. This was the case with the abolition of the grist tax, suffrage reform, railway agreements, and many other bills. Over time, as extended suffrage led to a rise in Republican and Extreme Radical members in the Chamber, and the Liberal “Pentarchy”—made up of Crispi, Cairoli, Nicotera, Zanardelli, and Baccarini—took a hostile stance toward Depretis, the Right, following Minghetti's lead, openly supported Depretis, providing him with the backing that was essential for his continued term in office. The result was a state of parliamentary chaos, called trasformismo. In May 1883, this process was formally recognized when the Radicals Zanardelli and Baccarini were removed from the Depretis cabinet, while in 1884, a Conservative named Signor Biancheri was elected as the president of the Chamber, and another Conservative, General Ricotti, was appointed to the War Office. Although by the end of his life in 1887 Depretis appeared to regret the disorder he had created, he had established a parliamentary system that largely dulled and corrupted the political life of Italy.

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

At the same time that the Left was navigating changes in domestic and foreign policy, a clear interest in colonial ventures was emerging in Italy. This interest began in 1869 when a congress of Italian chambers of commerce in Genoa urged the Lanza cabinet to set up a commercial depot on the Red Sea. On March 11, 1870, an Italian shipper, Signor Rubattino, purchased the bay of Assab and the nearby island of Darmakieh from Beheran, the sultan of Raheita, for £1880, with the government providing the funds. However, since the Egyptian government was reluctant to recognize Beheran's claim to sovereignty over Assab or his right to sell land to a foreign nation, Visconti-Venosta decided it was best not to occupy Assab at that time. No further actions were taken until the end of 1879 when Rubattino planned to set up a commercial station at Assab. The British government asked about his plans, and on April 19, 1880, they received a formal assurance from Cairoli that Assab would never be fortified or turned into a military base. Meanwhile, in January 1880, supplies were delivered, and Assab was permanently occupied. Eighteen months later, a group of Italian sailors and explorers led by Lieutenant Biglieri and Signor Giulietti was killed in Egyptian territory. However, Egypt did not conduct a thorough investigation into the massacre, and it was only through the efforts of Lord Granville that Egypt was discouraged from occupying Raheita and clashing with Italy. On September 20, 1881, Beheran officially accepted Italian protection, and the following February, an Anglo-Italian convention confirmed Italy's claim to Assab on the condition that Italy would formally acknowledge the authority of the Porte and the khedive over the Red Sea coast, as well as prevent the transport of weapons and ammunition through Assab. This convention was never acknowledged by the Porte or the Egyptian government. A month later, on March 10, 1882, Rubattino transferred his establishment to the Italian government, and on June 12, the Chamber passed a bill making Assab an Italian crown colony.

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

Within four weeks of the adoption of this bill, the British fleet bombarded Alexandria (July 11, 1882), marking the start of a period that would significantly impact Italy's colonial position. The revolt led by Arabi Pasha (September 1881) The Egypt Situation. prompted an ambassadorial conference in Constantinople, organized by Mancini, Italy's foreign affairs minister, to prevent European intervention in Egypt and the establishment of a lasting Anglo-French condominium that would undermine Italian influence. At the conference's opening (June 23, 1882), Italy secured a protocol where all major powers promised to avoid acting independently; however, the quick escalation of the crisis in Egypt and France's refusal to work with Great Britain on restoring order forced Britain to act alone. Due to France's refusal, Lord Granville invited Italy on July 27 to participate in restoring order in Egypt; yet, Mancini and Depretis declined the offer despite Crispi's attempts to persuade them while in London. Italy's refusal stemmed from various factors, including financial issues, lack of proper transport for an expeditionary force, concern over offending France, opposition to a “policy of adventure,” misplaced respect towards the ambassadorial conference in Constantinople, and reluctance to go against Italian public sentiment favoring the Egyptian “nationalists.” This decision created some distance between Great Britain and Italy. However, two years later, Anglo-Italian relations normalized, culminating in Italy's support of the British proposal at the London conference on the Egyptian question (July 1884). Around this time, Mancini was informed by the Italian agent in Cairo that Great Britain would welcome an extension of Italian influence along the Red Sea coast. After consulting with Lord Granville, Mancini received encouragement to take control of Beilul and Massawa, especially in light of the expected reduction of the Egyptian military occupation zone due to the Mahdist uprising in Sudan. Lord Granville also asked if Italy would assist in pacifying Sudan, to which Italy agreed. Italian action was prompted by news that in December 1884, an exploring party led by Signor Bianchi, the royal commissioner for Assab, had been killed in the Aussa (Danakil) region, stirring a desire in Italy to avenge the attackers and seek justice for the still-unpunished massacre of Signor Giulietti and his companions. To address public sentiment, capitalize on the British government's favorable attitude, and rectify the mistake made in 1882 by refusing to cooperate with Great Britain in Egypt, the Italian government dispatched an expedition headed by Admiral Caimi and Colonel Saletta in January 1885 to occupy Massawa and Beilul. This occupation, executed on February 5, was hastened by fears that Italy might be preempted by France or Russia, both believed to want a solid foothold on the Red Sea and to dominate Abyssinia. News of the occupation arrived in Europe just as Khartum fell, disappointing Italian aspirations for military collaboration with Great Britain in Sudan. The resignation of the Gladstone-Granville cabinet further prevented Italy from occupying Suakin, and the Italians wisely chose not to independently attempt to aid Kassala, which was under siege by the Mahdists, instead focusing on expanding their area of control around Massawa. This expansion raised suspicions from John, the negus of Abyssinia, whose fears were stoked by Alula, the ras of Tigré, and by various French and Greek adventurers. Efforts were made to reassure the negus, but shortly after, Italy's unwelcome support for Alula's enemies led the Abyssinians to engage in hostilities. In January 1886, Ras Alula raided the village of Wa, west of Zula, but by the end of the year (November 23), Wa was taken by the irregular troops of General Gené, who had replaced Colonel Saletta at Massawa. Upset by this action, Ras Alula captured members of an Italian exploring team led by Count Salimbeni and held them hostage to demand the evacuation of Wa. Nevertheless, General Gené reinforced Wa and sent a detachment to Saati. On January 25, 1887, Ras Alula attacked Saati but was repelled with losses. However, the next day, the Abyssinians managed to ambush an Italian force of 524 officers and men led by Colonel De Cristoforis, Dogali Disaster. who were transporting supplies to the garrison at Saati. The Abyssinians, numbering 20,000, quickly overwhelmed the small Italian force, which was destroyed after depleting its ammunition. Only one person escaped. Four hundred seven men and twenty-three officers were killed, with one officer and eighty-one men injured. The dead and wounded were horrifically mutilated by Alula's orders. Fearing another attack, General Gené withdrew his troops from Saati, Wa, and Arafali; however, the heavy losses incurred by the Abyssinians at Saati and Dogali deterred Alula from continuing hostilities.

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

In Italy, the disaster at Dogali caused a lot of shock and led to the fall of the Depretis-Robilant cabinet. The Chamber, eager for revenge, approved a budget of £200,000 and agreed to send reinforcements. Meanwhile, Ethiopia. Signor Crispi, who wasn't keen on colonial adventures but wanted to restore Italian honor, joined the Depretis cabinet as the minister of the interior and secured an additional £800,000 from parliament. In November 1887, a strong expedition led by General di San Marzano increased the Massawa garrison to nearly 20,000 men. The British government, wanting to avoid an Italo-Abyssinian conflict that would only strengthen the Mahdists, sent Mr. (later Sir) Gerald Portal from Massawa on October 29 to mediate with the negus. The mission was unsuccessful. Portal returned to Massawa on December 25, 1887, and warned the Italians that John was getting ready to attack them in the following spring with an army of 100,000 men. On March 28, 1888, the negus did indeed descend from the Abyssinian high plateau towards Saati, but realizing the Italian defenses were too strong to assault, he hesitated and opened negotiations for peace. His tactics didn't succeed in drawing the Italians out of their stronghold, and on April 3, illness among his troops forced John to pull back the Abyssinian army. The negus then marched against Menelek, the king of Shoa, whose neutrality Italy had secured with 5,000 Remington rifles and ammunition supplies, but found him with 80,000 men too well entrenched to be attacked successfully. News of a new Mahdist incursion into Abyssinian territory reached the negus, prompting him to delay settling his conflict with Menelek until the dervishes had been dealt with. Marching towards the Blue Nile, he engaged the Mahdists, but on March 10, 1889, was killed, at the moment of victory, near Gallabat. His death sparked a succession war in Abyssinia between Mangashà, John’s illegitimate son, and Menelek, the grandson of Negus Sella-Sellassié. Menelek, through Count Antonelli, who was in the Shoa region, asked Italy to make a diversion in his favor by taking over Asmarà and other locations on the high plateau. Antonelli took advantage of the situation to get Menelek to sign a treaty that defined the borders of the Italian Treaty of Uccialli. colony and outlined Italo-Abyssinian relations. The treaty, signed at Uccialli on May 2, 1899, established regular interactions between Italy and Abyssinia and granted Italy a part of the high plateau, including Halai, Saganeiti, and Asmarà. However, the crucial point of the treaty was in clause 17:—

“His Majesty the king of kings of Ethiopia consents to make use of the government of His Majesty the king of Italy for the treatment of all questions concerning other powers and governments.”

“His Majesty the king of kings of Ethiopia agrees to utilize the government of His Majesty the king of Italy for handling all matters related to other powers and governments.”

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

Upon this clause, Italy based its claim to a protectorate over Abyssinia. In September 1889, the treaty of Uccialli was ratified in Italy by Menelek’s lieutenant, Ras Makonnen. Makonnen also reached an agreement with the Italian premier, Crispi, where Italy recognized Menelek as the emperor of Ethiopia, Menelek acknowledged the Italian colony, and they arranged for a special Italo-Abyssinian currency and a loan. On October 11th, Italy communicated article 17 of the treaty of Uccialli to the European powers, interpreting it as a valid justification for an Italian protectorate over Abyssinia. Only Russia failed to acknowledge the communication and maintained the hostile stance she had taken at the time of the occupation of Massawa. Meanwhile, the Italian mint produced thalers featuring the portrait of King Humbert, with an inscription referencing the Italian protectorate, and on January 1st, 1890, a royal decree officially named the colony “Eritrea.”

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

In the colony, General Baldissera, who had taken over from General Saletta, postponed the operation against Mangashà that Menelek wanted. The Italian general preferred to wait until both claimants to the Abyssinian throne called for his help. However, under pressure from the home government, he instructed a local ally to take control of key positions in Keren and Asmarà and prepared to launch an attack against Mangashà and Ras Alula. Ras Alula retreated south of the Mareb River, leaving the entire cis-Mareb region, including the provinces of Hamasen, Agameh, Seraè, and Okulè-Kusai, in Italian hands. General Orero, who succeeded Baldissera, took a more aggressive approach and on January 26, 1890, entered Adowa, a city much further south of the Mareb—this reckless move raised Menelek’s suspicions and had to be quickly reversed. Seeing that further resistance was futile, Mangashà submitted to Menelek, who at the end of February ratified an additional agreement to the treaty of Uccialli at Makallé but refused to recognize the Italian occupation of the Mareb. However, the negus complied with Article 17 of the treaty of Uccialli by asking Italy to represent Abyssinia at the Brussels anti-slavery conference, which fueled Italian misconceptions about Menelek’s willingness to accept their protectorate. Menelek had previously informed the major European powers about his coronation at Entotto (December 14, 1889), but Germany and Great Britain responded that such notice should have gone through the Italian government. Germany further insulted Menelek by simply referring to him as “highness.” Taking advantage of this situation, the negus protested against the Italian wording of Article 17, arguing that the Amharic version didn’t use the word “consent” but merely stated that Abyssinia “might” engage Italy in foreign relations. On October 28, 1890, Count Antonelli, the negotiator of the treaty, was sent to resolve the dispute, but upon arriving in Adis Ababa, the new residence of the negus, he found it impossible to reach an agreement regarding the border or the protectorate. On April 10, 1891, Menelek shared his views on the Italian border with the powers and expressed his intention to restore the ancient boundaries of Ethiopia as far as Khartum to the northwest and Victoria Nyanza to the south. Meanwhile, Marquis de Rudini, who had replaced Crispi as Italian prime minister, had approved the abandonment of Article 17 even before hearing about the failure of Antonelli’s negotiations. Rudini was content to leave the entire issue unresolved and to reach an agreement with the local ras (chieftains) of the high plateau, securing Italian control over the cis-Mareb provinces of Seraè and Okulè-Kusai under an allied local chief named Bath-Agos. However, Rudini managed to finalize two agreements with Great Britain (in March and April 1891) through which the British government officially recognized Abyssinia as within the Italian sphere of influence in exchange for Italian acknowledgment of British rights in the Upper Nile.

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

The years 1887-1890 in Italy were marked by significant political activity. The appointment of Crispi as the Minister of the Interior in Depretis's cabinet on April 4, 1887, brought a much-needed energy to the government. At sixty-eight, Crispi exhibited a level of activity, quick decision-making, and implementation skills that none of his peers could match. Just four months later, Depretis's death on July 29, 1887, paved the way for Crispi to become prime minister. In addition to leading the council of ministers and retaining the Ministry of the Interior, Crispi also took on the foreign affairs portfolio that Depretis had held since Count di Robilant's resignation. One of his initial challenges was to find a way to reconcile Italy and the Vatican. At the end of May, the pope spoke warmly about Italy in a message to the cardinals and expressed hopes for peace. Shortly after, Signor Bonghi, one of the architects of the Law of Guarantees, called for reconciliation in the Nuova Antologia, suggesting an amendment to the Law of Guarantees and recognition of Italy's claim to Rome by the pope. However, the main event in the push for reconciliation was Father Tosti's pamphlet titled La Conciliazione. Tosti, a close friend of the pope, praised the benefits of peace between the Vatican and the Quirinal. His pamphlet was known to reflect papal views, and he was well-regarded by the Italian government. Just as reconciliation seemed possible, Tosti’s pamphlet was banned, ostensibly due to a phrase stating, “The whole of Italy entered Rome through the breach of Porta Pia; the king cannot return Rome to the pope because Rome belongs to the Italian people.” On June 4, 1887, the official Vatican newspaper, Osservatore Romano, published a letter from Tosti to the pope that conditionally retracted his views from the pamphlet, written at the pope’s request with the understanding it would remain unpublished. On June 15, the pope sent Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, the secretary of state, a letter reaffirming the papal claim to temporal power in uncompromising terms, and by the end of July, Cardinal Rampolla circulated this claim in a letter to papal nuncios abroad. The prospect of reconciliation faded, but the Tosti incident highlighted the Vatican's true position toward Italy. It became evident that neither the influence of the regular clergy, especially the Society of Jesus, nor that of foreign church factions, who heavily control the Peter’s Pence fund, would allow any renunciation of the papal claim to temporal power. France, particularly French Catholics, feared that reconciliation might weaken the Vatican's reliance on France, thus diminishing French influence over the Vatican. Conversely, the Vatican considered its claim to temporal power too valuable as a financial asset and an effective tool for church discipline to abandon easily. The narrative of an “imprisoned pope,” at the mercy of his captors, had consistently inspired sympathy and encouraged donations from the faithful. It allowed the church to pressure dangerous innovators and potential reformers to bow to the symbol of temporal power, testing their willingness to delay their ambitions until the pope regained his rightful authority. More critically, the Roman curia, primarily comprised of Italians, was eager to maintain control over the election of the pope and preserve the dominance of Italian interests within the church hierarchy. Conciliation with Italy could lead to suspicions that the pope and his Italian advisors were overly influenced by Italian politics, implying that they were more Italian than Catholic. Such suspicions would likely spark a movement advocating for the internationalization of the curia and papacy. To avoid this danger, it was necessary to reject all compromises and continually assert claims conflicting with Italian territorial unity to demonstrate to the wider church that the pope and curia were more Catholic than Italian. This rigid stance didn't extend to daily interactions between the Vatican and Italian authorities, where a tacit modus vivendi was achievable. Italy, on its part, could not reverse the accomplishments of the Risorgimento by returning Rome or any Italian territory to the pope. It had hoped that by seeking reconciliation, it could position the church as a conservative ally instead of a disruptive force. However, Italy was determined to keep the papacy predominantly Italian and willing to offer any necessary formal concessions to reassure foreign Catholics about the pope’s spiritual independence. The collapse of the reconciliation effort left deep-seated resentment between the Vatican and Quirinal, expressed by lively protests from the Vatican and threats to leave Rome, alongside actions from Italy, such as the removal of the syndic of Rome for meeting with the cardinal-vicar, anti-clerical measures in the new penal code, and the dedication of a monument to Giordano Bruno on June 9, 1889, at his martyrdom site.

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

The internal situation that Crispi inherited from Depretis was quite unsatisfactory. Overspending on railways and public works, loose financial management, the costs of colonial ventures, increasing demands for the army and navy, the looming tariff conflict with France, and over-speculation in construction and industrial projects— which had consumed all the available capital in the country—created a scenario that needed decisive and radical action. However, Crispi, overloaded with the premiership and the two most important cabinet positions, struggled to effectively oversee all government departments. Nevertheless, his administration was not without achievements. Zanardelli, the justice minister, secured the adoption of a new penal code in June 1888; state oversight was expanded to charitable institutions (opere pie); municipal voting rights were reformed to practically allow manhood suffrage with residential requirements, including provisions for minority representation; and a bill was passed to fix the number and roles of various ministries in the central state administration. Financial management was barely adequate since Giolitti, who replaced Magliani and Perazzi as treasury head, eliminated the former’s deceptive “pension fund,” yet he lacked the fortitude necessary to tackle the massive deficit of nearly £10,000,000 in 1888-1889, which both Perazzi and he acknowledged. The standout aspect of Crispi’s time in office was his strict enforcement of order and suppression of Radical and Irredentist movements. His approach to Irredentism was so forceful that he unexpectedly dismissed his colleague Seismit Doda, the finance minister, for not protesting against Irredentist speeches made in his presence at Udine. This kind of decisiveness earned him support from all constitutional factions, and after three years in office, his position was much stronger than when he started. The general election of 1890 gave the cabinet a nearly overwhelming majority, controlling four-fifths of the Chamber. A lengthy term in office seemed imminent for him when, on January 31, 1891, Crispi, during a debate on a minor bill, angrily reprimanded the Right for their disruptive interruptions. This rebuke enraged the Conservative delegates, who, in protest of Crispi’s remarks referencing their party's “sacred memories,” called for a vote, which resulted in the cabinet losing its majority. Whether by chance or strategy, this incident led to Crispi's resignation. A few days later, he was succeeded by the Marquis di Rudini, the Right leader, who formed a coalition cabinet with Nicotera and part of the Left.

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

The sudden downfall of Crispi brought significant changes to Italy's relationships with other countries. His approach had been marked by a very friendly attitude towards Austria and Germany, a strong partnership with Great Britain regarding issues in the Mediterranean, and an apparent hostility towards France, which at one point seemed to bring Italy close to war. Just before the Depretis-Robilant cabinet fell, Count Robilant announced Italy's plan to cancel the commercial treaties with France and Austria, set to expire on December 31, 1887, and expressed his willingness to negotiate new agreements. On June 24, 1887, anticipating a potential breakdown in trade relations with France, the Depretis-Crispi cabinet introduced a new general tariff. The likelihood of a new Franco-Italian treaty was low due to France's protectionist tendencies and French anger over the renewal of the triple alliance, but even the slight chance disappeared after Crispi visited Bismarck (October 1887) just three months into his role as prime minister. Crispi held no inherent grudge against France but strongly believed Italy needed to free itself from the political dependency on its powerful neighbor, which had tainted the Left's foreign policy. Far from wanting a break with France, he had made accepting the interior portfolio in the Depretis cabinet contingent on obtaining assurance that the triple alliance did not include plans for offensive military actions. However, his conspicuous visit to Friedrichsruh, along with a later speech in Turin where he, while professing friendship for France, praised Bismarck, generated hostility from the French that he could never fully resolve. France, in turn, showed little regard for Italy's sensitivities, and in April 1888, Goblet made a frustrating and unnecessary attempt to enforce the Ottoman regime of the capitulations at Massawa concerning non-Italian residents. Given these circumstances, negotiations for the new commercial treaty were doomed to fail, and although the old treaty was extended for two months, differential tariffs were implemented on both sides of the border on February 29, 1888. French exports to Italy dropped by half almost immediately, while Italian exports to France plummeted by nearly two-thirds. By the end of 1889, Crispi lifted the differential duties on French imports and reverted to the general Italian tariff, but France refused to follow suit and kept its prohibitive charges. Meanwhile, the warm welcome given to the young German emperor during his visit to Rome in October 1888 and the friendly treatment received by King Humbert and Crispi in Berlin in May 1889 heightened the tension between France and Italy. It wasn't until after Bismarck's fall in March 1890 that Crispi took a friendlier stance towards the Republic, sending an Italian fleet to honor President Carnot in Toulon. The main benefit Italy gained from Crispi’s foreign policy was an increased sense of confidence in her government among her allies and Great Britain. During the incident involving Goblet over Massawa, Bismarck made it clear to France that in case of complications, Italy wouldn’t be left to face them alone; and when a strong French fleet seemed to threaten the Italian coast in February 1888, the British Mediterranean squadron showed its readiness to support Italian naval actions. Additionally, under Crispi's leadership, Italy emerged from years of indifference and became aware of her position in the world. The conflict with France, the actions in Eritrea, the assertive interpretation of the triple alliance, and issues surrounding Morocco and Bulgaria were all used by him to boost national pride. With the instinct of a true statesman, he sensed the people's pulse, recognized their need for prestige, and their preference for a firm government over a lax one. The extent of Crispi’s power was highlighted by the contrasting policies of the Rudini cabinet that took over in February 1891. Crispi's so-called “megalomania” was replaced by a focus on austerity in domestic matters and a more submissive attitude towards all foreign powers. Rudini's leadership was celebrated by Radical leader Cavallotti as a sign that the triple alliance wouldn’t be renewed, prompting the Radicals to start a loud campaign against it. However, their efforts backfired when Rudini, accepting proposals from Berlin, renewed the alliance in June 1891 for another twelve years. None of Rudini’s public statements suggest he had intentions of letting the alliance expire in May 1892; in fact, he openly stated it was the foundation of his foreign policy. The positions of some of his colleagues were less clear-cut, but while they flirted with French financial backers to gain support from the Paris Bourse for Italian investments, their hasty renewal of the alliance made it unlikely to achieve a close partnership with France. Rudini’s desire to maintain amicable relations with all nations was further demonstrated during M. de Giers’ visit to Monza in October 1891, when the Russian diplomat was informed of the purely defensive nature of Italy’s commitments under the triple alliance. Simultaneously, he successfully concluded negotiations that Crispi had started for renewing trade treaties with Austria and Germany, terms which somewhat compensated Italy for the decline in its trade with France, and finalized agreements with Great Britain to delineate British and Italian spheres of influence in northeast Africa. Domestically, his administration was weak and indecisive, and the cutbacks in naval and military spending, along with other areas, were insufficient to bolster a cabinet that had disappointed its supporters. On April 14, 1892, conflicts among ministers over the financial agenda led to a cabinet crisis, and although Rudini managed to restructure his government, he was defeated in the Chamber on May 5 and had to resign. King Humbert, who distrusted Rudini and had refused to let him dissolve parliament, tasked Signor Giolitti, a representative from Piedmont and former treasury minister in the Crispi cabinet, to form a left-wing government that secured a six-month budget in advance and dissolved the Chamber.

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

The general election that took place in November 1892 was characterized by unprecedented violence and the misuse of official pressure on voters, marking the start of one of the most regrettable periods in Italian history since the completion of national unity. Giolitti's influence heavily relied on the support of a court clique, particularly from Rattazzi, the minister of the royal household. Early in 1893, a scandal erupted regarding the management of state banks, especially the Banca Romana, whose managing director, Tanlongo, had issued £2,500,000 in duplicate banknotes. Giolitti didn't help the situation by making Tanlongo a member of the senate and denying in parliament that any mismanagement occurred. However, the senate showed strong opposition to Tanlongo, leading Giolitti, after a question in the Chamber, to arrest him. Other prominent figures were subsequently arrested, and on February 3rd, the Chamber approved the prosecution of De Zerbi, a Neapolitan deputy accused of corruption. Then, on February 20th, De Zerbi suddenly died. For a while, Giolitti managed to fend off inquiries into the state banks' situation, but on March 21st, he had to permit an official investigation by a parliamentary commission of seven members. On November 23rd, the commission's report was presented to the Chamber amidst significant tension. It revealed that all Italian cabinets since 1880 had seriously neglected the state banks; the two previous cabinets were aware of the irregularities perpetrated by Tanlongo; Tanlongo had heavily funded the press, paying up to £20,000 for that in 1888 alone; several deputies, including former ministers, had taken considerable loans from him without effort to pay them back; Giolitti had misled the Chamber concerning the state banks and was suspected of having, after Tanlongo's arrest, removed documents from his files before handing over the rest to the judicial authorities. Despite the serious charges against many high-profile individuals, the report only “deplored” and “disapproved” of their actions without suggesting any criminal proceedings. Concerned about exacerbating a scandal that had already reached staggering proportions and wanting to avoid further damage to national credit, the commissioners found it prudent to sidestep a long series of prosecutions. However, the report sealed the fate of Giolitti's cabinet, leading it to resign on November 24th amid widespread outrage.

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

Apart from the lack of scruples shown by Giolitti during the bank scandals, he also showed incompetence in handling both foreign and domestic affairs. On August 16th and 18th, 1893, several Italian workers were Aigues-Mortes massacre. killed in Aigues-Mortes. The French authorities, who witnessed the massacre, did nothing to stop it, and the mayor of Marseilles even refused to allow the injured Italian workers into the municipal hospital. These events triggered anti-French protests in various parts of Italy and reignited long-standing Italian resentment towards France. The Italian foreign minister, Brin, initially demanded punishment for those responsible for the massacre, but quickly accepted the ineffective measures taken by the French government as satisfactory. Giolitti removed the prefect of Rome for failing to prevent expressions of public anger and formally apologized to the French consul in Messina for a protest against the consulate. By December, the French court in Angoulême acquitted all those involved in the massacre. At home, Giolitti exhibited similar weakness. Riots in Naples in August 1893 and signs of unrest in Sicily found him unprepared and indecisive, as usual. The closure of the French market to Sicilian products, the destruction caused by the phylloxera, and the decline in the sulphur trade combined to create discontent in Sicily, which Socialist agitators exploited to organize the town workers and rural peasants into groups known as fasci. Sicilian uprising. The movement lacked a clear objective. In some places, it had elements of a distorted Socialism, while in others, it was used as a tool for local party conflicts led by the mafia, and in certain areas, it was simply a public uprising against local taxes on bread and flour. As early as January 1893, a clash occurred between the police and the public, resulting in several deaths among men, women, and children, which the agitators used to further stir the populace. Instead of adopting a firm stance, Giolitti allowed the movement to grow, until by the autumn of 1893, he became alarmed and sent troops to the island, though in insufficient numbers to restore order. At the time of his downfall, the movement resembled an insurrection, and during the gap between his resignation on November 24th and the formation of a new Crispi cabinet on December 10th, conflicts between law enforcement and protesters were frequent. Crispi's return to power—a result of public demand for a leader capable of addressing the dire situation—marked a turning point in the crisis. Familiar with the conditions of his home island, Crispi implemented effective measures. The fasci were dismantled, Sicily was heavily garrisoned, reserves were called up, a state of siege was declared, military courts were established, and the entire movement was crushed within a few weeks. Key agitators either received heavy prison sentences or were forced to flee the country. A simultaneous uprising in Massa-Carrara was also suppressed with similar intensity. Crispi's tactics drew significant criticism from the Radical press, but over time, the harsh sentences from military courts were softened by the Royal power of amnesty.

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

But it wasn't just public order that required heroic measures. The financial situation raised serious concerns. The commitments made by Depretis regarding public works had more than Economic crisis. offset the usual increase in tax revenue, and the state's credit had been impacted by the severe economic and financial crises from 1889 to 1893. State banks, already struggling due to poor management, were burdened with large amounts of real estate taken as compensation for unpaid mortgages. Baron Sidney Sonnino, the finance minister in the Crispi cabinet, found a projected deficit of £7,080,000, and despite efforts to cut costs, he had to confront an actual deficit of over £6,000,000. Drastic measures were essential to cut spending and create new revenue sources. Sonnino applied for and later modified the Bank Reform Bill that had been passed by the previous government (August 10, 1893) to establish a central state bank, the Bank of Italy, which was tasked with handling the liquidation of the bankrupt Banca Romana. The new law prohibited state banks from lending money on real estate, limited their ability to discount bills and securities, and capped the maximum amount of their paper currency. To reduce the gold premium, which had risen to 16% under Giolitti, the existing banknotes from the banks of Italy, Naples, and Sicily were given forced currency status, and special state notes were issued to cover immediate currency needs. Measures were enforced to stop Italian holders of consols from sending their coupons abroad to get paid in gold, resulting in a significant shift: in 1893, £3,240,000 was paid abroad in gold for the January coupons, while only £680,000 was paid in paper in Italy. A year later, the same coupon accounted for only £1,360,000 abroad and £2,540,000 at home. Immediate savings of over £1,000,000 were achieved, and taxes expected to generate £2,440,000 were proposed on land, incomes, salt, and corn. Meanwhile, the existing income tax on consols— set at 8% by Cambray-Digny in 1868 and increased to 13.20% by Sella in 1870—was raised to 20%, regardless of the stockholders' nationality. These proposals faced fierce opposition that nearly led to a cabinet crisis, but Sonnino resigned as finance minister, returned as the treasury minister, enacted some of his proposals by royal decree, and despite strong opposition, managed to get them approved by the Chamber. The tax on consols, along with other stringent fiscal measures, was seen abroad as a commitment that Italy intended to avoid bankruptcy at all costs, leading to a rise in Italian stocks. When the Crispi cabinet collapsed in March 1896, Sonnino could take satisfaction in seeing revenues increase by £3,400,000, expenditures decreased by £2,800,000, the gold premium drop from 16% to 5%, and consolidated stock rise to 95 from 72, all while maintaining financial stability despite the costs of the Abyssinian War.

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

While working to restore order and supporting Sonnino’s brave fight against bankruptcy, Crispi became the target of fierce attacks from the Radicals, Socialists, and anarchists. On June 16th, an anarchist named Lega attempted to assassinate Crispi; on June 24th, President Carnot was killed by the anarchist Caserio; and on June 30th, an Italian journalist was murdered in Leghorn for criticizing anarchism in a newspaper—this series of violent events prompted the government to draft and parliament to pass (July 11th) a Public Safety Bill aimed at preventing anarchist propaganda and crime. By the end of July, the trial related to the Banca Romana scandal revealed that among the documents taken by Giolitti from the bank manager, Tanlongo, were several regarding Crispi’s political and personal life. On December 11th, Giolitti presented these and other documents to the Chamber, hoping to ruin Crispi, but upon review, most were found to be useless, and the rest were too private to be published. Ultimately, this incident increased the public's dislike for Giolitti rather than harm Crispi. In fact, Crispi sued Giolitti for libel and for misuse of his position as prime minister, but after many ups and downs, including Giolitti fleeing to Berlin to avoid arrest, the Chamber denied authorization for the prosecution, and the matter ended there. Another attempt against Crispi came from the Radical leader Cavallotti, who made unproven allegations of corruption and embezzlement. However, these attacks failed to undermine Crispi’s position, and in the general election of May 1895, his government secured a majority of nearly 200 votes. Nevertheless, public trust in the effectiveness of the parliamentary system and the integrity of politicians was seriously shaken by these unpleasant events, which, combined with the acquittal of all defendants in the Banca Romana trial and the discontinuation of proceedings against Giolitti, significantly bolstered the revolutionary parties' propaganda.

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

The foreign policy of the second Crispi Administration, led by Baron Blanc in charge of foreign affairs, continued to prioritize the friendly interpretation of the triple alliance and maintained close cooperation with Great Britain. Regarding the Armenian issue, Italy actively supported the diplomacy of Austria and Germany, while the Italian fleet joined the British Mediterranean squadron for a show of force off the Syrian coast. More serious than any foreign issues were the challenges in Eritrea. After an agreement made in 1891 by Rudini with local chiefs concerning the Italo-Abyssinian border areas, relations with Abyssinia remained relatively stable. However, in the Sudan, the Mahdists, who had bounced back from their defeat by an Italian force at Agordat in 1890, resumed their activities in December 1893. Colonel Arimondi, who commanded the colonial forces in the absence of military governor General Baratieri, attacked and defeated a dervish force of 10,000 on December 21. The Italian troops, primarily native levies, numbered just 2,200. The dervish losses exceeded 1,000, while Italian casualties totaled under 230. When General Baratieri returned to the colony, he planned a surprise attack against the dervish base at Kassala to ease the pressure from that region and prevent a combined Abyssinian and dervish attack on the colony at the end of 1894. The protocol with Great Britain from April 15, 1891, included a clause stating that if Kassala were occupied by the Italians, it should be handed over to the Egyptian government once their administration could restore order in the Sudan. Gathering a small army of 2,600 men, Baratieri surprised and captured Kassala on July 17, 1894, establishing a garrison with native levies under Italian officers. Meanwhile, Menelek, wary of Italian influence spreading into northern Somaliland and the Benadir coast, along with support from France and Russia, finalized his plans to assert himself as the independent ruler of Ethiopia. On May 11, 1893, he canceled the treaty of Uccialli, but the Giolitti cabinet, preoccupied with bank scandals, ignored his move. An intelligent repeat of the previous strategy that benefitted Menelek against the negus John, this time favoring Mangashà against Menelek, might have strengthened Italian influence in Abyssinia by preventing any one chief from gaining dominance. However, the Italian government missed this opportunity, and Mangashà reached an agreement with Menelek. As a result, the efforts by Crispi and his envoy, Colonel Piano, to negotiate a new treaty with Menelek in June 1894 not only failed but also set the stage for troubles along the Italo-Abyssinian border. Bath-Agos, the native chief overseeing the Okulé-Kusai and cis-Mareb provinces on Italy's behalf, conspired with Mangashà, the leader of the trans-Mareb province of Tigre, and with Menelek to incite a rebellion against Italian rule on the high plateau. The revolt began in December 1894, but Major Toselli quickly marched against Bath-Agos, defeating and killing him at Halai. General Baratieri, suspecting Mangashà's involvement in the revolt, requested troops from him for a planned Italo-Abyssinian campaign against the Mahdists. Mangashà did not respond, and Baratieri crossed the Mareb toward Adowa, but was forced to retreat north just four days later. Mangashà then took the offensive, attempting to seize the village of Coatit in Okulé-Kusai, but was preempted and defeated by Baratieri on January 13, 1895. As he hurriedly retreated to Senafé, pressed by the Italians, who shelled Senafé on the evening of January 15, Mangashà had to abandon his camp and supplies to Baratieri, who also secured documents establishing the collaboration of Menelek and Mangashà in Bath-Agos's revolt.

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

The relatively easy victory Baratieri achieved against Mangashà seems to have caused him to underestimate his enemy and forget that Menelek, the king of Shoa, had an interest in letting Mangashà be defeated to better assert imperial authority and Shoan superiority over Tigrin forces. After establishing an apostolic prefecture in Eritrea run by Italian Franciscans, Baratieri expelled French Lazarist missionaries from the colony for allegedly being involved in the Bath-Agos uprising and in March 1895, began the conquest of Tigre. After occupying Adigrat and Makallè, he reached Adowa on April 1 and then moved on to Axum, the holy city of Abyssinia. These locations were garrisoned, and during the rainy season, Baratieri returned to Italy, where he was welcomed with overwhelming enthusiasm. It’s uncertain whether he or the Crispi cabinet had any awareness of the ambitions they were committing to by occupying Tigre. Baratieri certainly made no proper preparations to fend off an Abyssinian attempt to reclaim the province. By early September, both Mangashà and Menelek were showing signs of action, and on September 20, Makonnen, the ras of Harrar, who had been viewed as a friend and quasi-ally by Italy, expelled all Italians from his territory and marched with 30,000 men to join the negus. Upon returning to Eritrea, Baratieri mobilized his local reserves and advanced troops under Major Toselli and General Arimondi as far south as Amba Alagi. Mangashà fell back before the Italians, who achieved several minor victories; however, on December 6, Toselli’s column of 2,000 men, which mistakenly continued to hold Amba Alagi, was nearly wiped out by the Abyssinian vanguard of 40,000 men. Toselli and all but three officers and 300 men perished after fierce resistance. Arimondi, gathering the surviving members of Toselli’s column, retreated to Makallè and Adigrat. At Makallè, though, he left a small garrison in the fort, which the Abyssinian army besieged on January 7, 1896. After multiple failed attempts to capture the fort, Menelek and Makonnen negotiated with Baratieri for its surrender, and on January 21, the garrison under Major Galliano, who had valiantly defended the position, was allowed to march out with honors. Meanwhile, Baratieri received reinforcements from Italy but remained unsure about the best course of action. This indecision cost a month during which the Abyssinian army advanced to Hausen, slightly south of Adowa. The Italian commander tried to negotiate with Menelek, but his talks merely revealed that the Abyssinians were nearly 100,000 strong, mostly armed with rifles and well-equipped with artillery. The Italians, including camp-followers, numbered less than 25,000, a force too small for effective action but too large to be easily supplied 200 miles from their base in a roadless, mountainous area with little water. For a moment, Baratieri considered retreating, especially since the hope of creating a diversion from Zaila toward Harrar failed due to the British refusal to allow an Italian force to land without France's permission. The defection of several native allies (who were later attacked and defeated by Colonel Stevani on February 18) further worsened the Italian situation; yet Baratieri, unable to make a decision, continued to maneuver in hopes of provoking an Abyssinian attack. These ineffective tactics frustrated the home government, which sent General Baldissera with reinforcements on February 22 to replace Baratieri. On February 25, Crispi sent a telegram to Baratieri, criticizing his actions as “military phthisis” and urging him to settle on a strategic plan. Probably anxious to achieve some victory before Baldissera arrived and alarmed by the rapid depletion of his supplies, which forced him to act, Baratieri called a council of war on February 29 and secured the support of divisional commanders for a plan to attack. During the night, the army moved toward Adowa in three divisions, led by Generals Dabormida, Arimondi, and Albertone, each with around 4,000 to 5,000 troops, while a brigade of 5,300 under General Ellena remained in reserve. All the divisions, except for Albertone’s, were mostly made up of Italian soldiers. During the march, Albertone’s native division lost its way and had to delay the Arimondi column by retracing its steps. However, marching quickly, Albertone outpaced the other columns but, having allowed his men a one-hour rest, arrived at the battlefield just as the Abyssinians, whom they hoped to surprise at dawn, were ready for an attack. Under overwhelming pressure, the Italians began to retreat after fierce fighting. The Dabormida division, unsupported by Albertone, found itself in a separate battle against larger numbers. Similarly, the Arimondi brigade was attacked by 30,000 Shoans, hampered by the remnants of Albertone’s forces. Baratieri tried unsuccessfully to push the reserve forward, but the Italians were already overwhelmed, and the battle—or rather a series of separate engagements—ended in a complete rout. Italian losses are estimated at over 6,000, with 3,125 being white soldiers. Between 3,000 and 4,000 soldiers were captured by the Abyssinians, including General Albertone, while Generals Arimondi and Dabormida were killed and General Ellena was wounded. The Abyssinians suffered over 5,000 dead and 8,000 wounded. Baratieri, after a vain attempt to direct the retreat, fled hurriedly and reached Adi-Cajè ahead of the remnants of his army. From there, he sent telegrams to Italy blaming his troops for the defeat, a move which later evidence deemed as unjustifiable and unsoldier-like. He faced a court-martial for his conduct but was cleared of the charge of fighting based on non-military reasons, although the court “deplored that in such difficult circumstances, command should have been given to a general so ill-equipped for the demands of the situation.”

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

In Italy, the news of the defeat at Adowa caused a lot of disappointment and distress. On March 5th, the Crispi cabinet resigned in the face of a wave of anger that the Opposition had skillfully stirred up. Five days later, General Ricotti-Magnani formed a new cabinet, but he handed over the premiership to Marquis di Rudini. The latter, who was the leader of the Right, had been secretly collaborating with Cavallotti, the leader of the Extreme Left, to oust Crispi; however, without the Adowa disaster, his plan probably wouldn't have succeeded. The new cabinet's first move was to confirm orders given by the previous one to General Baldissera (who took over from General Baratieri on March 2nd) to negotiate for peace with Menelek if he thought it was appropriate. Baldissera began talks with the negus through Major Salsa and simultaneously reorganized the Italian army. When the negotiations fell through, he marched to rescue the besieged garrison at Adigrat. However, Menelek, disheartened by the heavy losses at Adowa, packed up his camp and headed back south to Shoa. At the same time, Baldissera sent Colonel Stevani with four native battalions to relieve Kassala, which was under severe pressure from the Mahdists. Kassala was relieved on April 1st, and a few days later, Stevani achieved a significant victory against the dervishes at Jebel Mokram and Tucruff. After returning from Kassala, Colonel Stevani rejoined Baldissera, who on May 4th relieved Adigrat following a well-executed march. Through skilled negotiations with Mangashà, the Italian general secured the release of Italian prisoners in Tigré, and by the end of May, withdrew his entire force north of the Mareb. Major Nerazzini was then sent as a special envoy to the negus to negotiate terms of peace. On October 26th, Nerazzini successfully concluded a provisional treaty in Adis Ababa, which overturned the treaty of Uccialli; recognized Ethiopia's full independence; postponed for one year the final determination of the Italo-Abyssinian boundary, but allowed the Italians to hold the strong Mareb-Belesa-Muna line in the meantime; and arranged for the release of the Italian prisoners after the treaty was ratified in exchange for an indemnity amount to be determined by the Italian government. Once the treaty was ratified and an indemnity of £400,000 was paid to Menelek, the Shoan prisoners were released, and Major Nerazzini returned to Abyssinia with orders to secure, if possible, Menelek’s agreement for the final retention of the Mareb-Belesa-Muna line by Italy. Before Nerazzini could reach Adis Ababa, Rudini, trying to partly satisfy his Radical supporters' demands for abandoning the colony, announced in the Chamber that Italy intended to limit its occupation to the triangular zone between Asmarà, Keren, and Massawa, and possibly withdraw to Massawa alone. This statement, which Menelek quickly learned of through French agents, made it impossible for Nerazzini to secure a boundary that left Italy with more than a small part of the high plateau, transferring the fertile provinces of Seraè and Okulé-Kusai to Abyssinia. However, the fall of the Rudini cabinet in June 1898 allowed Signor Ferdinando Martini and Captain Cicco di Cola, who had been appointed as civil governor of Eritrea and minister resident at Adis Ababa respectively, to stop the transfer of Seraè and Okulé-Kusai and gain Menelek’s agreement to Italian control of the Mareb-Belesa-Muna frontier. Eritrea now has roughly the same extent as it did before the Bath-Agos revolt, except for: (1) Kassala, which was handed over to the Anglo-Egyptian authorities on December 25, 1897, in accordance with the previously mentioned Anglo-Italian convention; and (2) minor adjustments to its northern and eastern boundaries made through agreements between the Eritrean and the Anglo-Egyptian authorities. Under Signor Ferdinando Martini’s capable administration (1898-1906), the costs of the colony to Italy were reduced, and its trade and agriculture saw significant improvements.

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

While marked by inconsistency and a somewhat humiliating willingness to give in to radical demands regarding Eritrea, the policy of Marquis di Rudini was mainly driven by a desire to undermine Crispi and his supporters. Motivated by resentment towards Crispi, he authorized the publication of a Green Book on Abyssinian affairs on April 29, 1896, which disclosed confidential Anglo-Italian negotiations about the Abyssinian war without Great Britain's consent. This publication, a serious breach of diplomatic trust, could have jeopardized the friendly relations between Italy and Britain, but the British government’s respect for General Ferrero, the Italian ambassador in London, led them to overlook the incident. Fortunately for Italy, Marquis Visconti Venosta soon agreed to take over the foreign affairs portfolio, which Duke Caetani di Sermoneta had resigned, bringing his unmatched experience back to serve his country after twenty years. In September 1896, he successfully negotiated a new treaty with France regarding Tunisia, replacing the old Italo-Tunisian treaty that had been annulled by the French Government a year earlier. During the Greco-Turkish War of 1897, Visconti Venosta worked to maintain European collaboration, allied with Great Britain to shield Greece from the worst outcomes of its mistakes, and provided both moral and material support to establish an autonomous government in Crete. At the same time, he tempered the pro-French sentiments of some colleagues, accompanied King Humbert and Queen Margherita on their trip to Homburg in September 1897, and, by faithfully adhering to the spirit of the triple alliance, preserved Italy's trust with its allies while maintaining good relations with France.

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

The domestic management of the Rudini cabinet was not as effective as its handling of foreign affairs. Bound by a secret agreement with Radical leader Cavallotti, who was skilled but manipulative, Rudini had to comply with Radical demands. He used all the government’s influence against Crispi, who was accused of being involved in embezzlement by Favilla, the managing director of the Bologna branch of the Bank of Naples. After nearly two years of persecution, a parliamentary commission report vindicated Crispi's character regarding his connections with Favilla. However, the commission suggested, and the Chamber approved, a censure of Crispi’s behavior in 1894 when, as premier and minister of the interior, he borrowed £12,000 from Favilla to replenish the secret service fund, later repaying it as installments for secret service expenses covered by the treasury. Although his actions were irregular, they were somewhat justified by the depletion of the secret service fund under Giolitti and the unusual circumstances of 1893-1894 when he had to deal with uprisings in Sicily and Massa-Carrara. Yet, the Rudini-Cavallotti alliance led to outcomes beyond just the campaign against Crispi. Under pressure from Cavallotti, Rudini dissolved the Chamber in March 1897 and managed the general election in a way that suppressed Crispi’s supporters, significantly boosting the revolutionary (Socialist, Republican, and Radical) parties. More than ever reliant on the Radicals and their revolutionary allies, Rudini managed public affairs in a way that allowed subversive propaganda and groups to expand greatly. This culminated in May 1898, when a rise in bread prices triggered unrest in southern Italy. The corn duty was cut to address the crisis, but the disturbances spread to Naples, Foggia, Bari, Minervino-Murge, Molfetta, and along the railway line by the Adriatic coast. In Faenza, Piacenza, Cremona, Pavia, and Milan, where subversive groups were stronger, it turned into a political uprising. From May 7th to 9th, Milan was essentially under mob control. A palace was looted, barricades were set up, and for forty-eight hours, General Bava-Beccaris’ troops were unable to restore order even with artillery. In response to these events, Rudini declared a state of siege in Milan, Florence, Leghorn, and Naples, giving special military commissioners the power to suppress the unrest. Order was eventually restored, but not without significant loss of life, particularly in Milan, where official figures reported eighty dead and several hundred injured, which many viewed as an undercount. Similar to 1894, military courts handed down harsh sentences to revolutionary leaders and others deemed responsible for the chaos, but subsequent royal pardons nullified these sentences within three years.

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

No Italian government since Depretis's death has changed as much as that of Marquis di Rudini. It was first modified within five months of its creation (July 1896) due to General Ricotti’s Army Reform Bill, and again in December 1897 when Zanardelli joined the cabinet. It was reconstructed for a third time at the end of May 1898 over the Public Safety Bill but fell for the fourth and final time on June 18, 1898, due to public anger over the consequences of Rudini’s domestic policy, highlighted by the May riots. On June 29, Rudini was replaced as Prime Minister by General Luigi Pelloux, a Savoyard whose sole claim to office was the king's confidence. The Pelloux cabinet had no clear agenda except regarding the Public Safety Bill, which it inherited from the previous government. It was presented to parliament in November 1898, read a second time the following spring, but faced violent opposition from Socialists, Radicals, and Extreme Left Republicans during its third reading. After a series of disruptions and altercations, the bill was enacted by royal decree, which was postdated to give time for the third reading. Again, obstruction prevented discussion, and on July 22, 1899, the decree automatically became law pending the Chamber's passage of an indemnity bill. In February 1900, however, the supreme court annulled it on a procedural issue, forcing the entire Public Safety Bill to be reintroduced to the Chamber. Due to the severe obstruction by Extremists, an attempt was made to reform the standing orders of the Lower House, but parliamentary tensions were so high that General Pelloux decided it was best to turn to the electorate. The June 1900 general election not only failed to strengthen the cabinet but actually bolstered the extreme parties (Radicals, Republicans, and Socialists), who accounted for nearly 100 out of 508 members in the new Chamber. Therefore, General Pelloux resigned, and on June 24, a moderate Liberal cabinet was formed under the elderly Signor Saracco, president of the Senate. Within five weeks of its establishment, King Humbert was assassinated by anarchist Bresci while leaving an athletic event in Monza, where he had presented prizes (July 29, 1900). The death of the unfortunate monarch, against whom there had been a prior assassination attempt by anarchist Acciarito (April 22, 1897), provoked an outpouring of deep sorrow and anger. Although not a remarkable king, King Humbert had earned the respect and love of his people through his unwavering generosity and personal bravery. During the cholera epidemic in Naples and Busca in 1884, and the Ischia earthquake in 1885, he risked his life to provide relief and support to those suffering, saving many lives. Over £100,000 from his civil list was dedicated annually to charitable causes. Humbert was succeeded by his only son, Victor Emmanuel III (born November 11, 1869), a well-educated and liberal-minded prince who was returning from a Mediterranean cruise at the time of his father’s assassination. King Humbert's remains were interred in the Pantheon in Rome alongside those of his father, Victor Emmanuel II (August 9). Two days later, Victor Emmanuel III pledged loyalty to the constitution before the gathered Houses of Parliament and in the presence of his wife, Elena of Montenegro, whom he married in October 1896.

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

The later course of Italian foreign policy went through many ups and downs. Admiral Canevaro, who had made a name for himself as the commander of the international forces in Crete (1896-1898), took charge of foreign affairs during the early part of the Pelloux administration. His diplomacy was energetic but lacked consistency. Shortly after he took office, he wrapped up negotiations started by the Rudini administration for a new commercial treaty with France (October 1898), which put Franco-Italian commercial relations back on solid ground after a break of over ten years. By sending a naval squadron to South America, he secured compensation for injuries caused over a decade earlier to an Italian citizen by the United States of Colombia. In December 1898, he called a diplomatic conference in Rome to discuss secret measures to combat anarchist propaganda and violence, especially following the assassination of the Empress of Austria by an Italian anarchist (Luccheni), but it’s uncertain if any practical outcomes were achieved. The tsar of Russia convened the Peace Conference at The Hague in May 1900, which raised questions about whether the Vatican could be officially represented, and Admiral Canevaro, backed by Great Britain and Germany, successfully blocked the invitation for a papal delegate. Not long after, his term ended when an attempt to secure a coaling station at Sanmen and a sphere of influence in China failed; however, his policy of active involvement in Chinese affairs continued in a modified way under his successor, the Marquis Visconti Venosta. Visconti Venosta joined the reconstructed Pelloux cabinet in May 1899, kept the foreign affairs portfolio in the subsequent Saracco administration, and sent a 2,000-strong Italian expedition to help suppress the Chinese uprising and protect Italian interests in the Far East (July 1900). With keen insight, Visconti Venosta encouraged discussions between Italy and France regarding the Tripolitan hinterland, which the Anglo-French convention of 1899 had placed in the French sphere of influence—a change in the previous situation that was seen as highly damaging to Italian ambitions in Tripoli. This convention caused significant irritation in Italy and somewhat decreased the warmth of Anglo-Italian relations. However, Visconti Venosta is believed to have secured a formal assurance from France that it wouldn’t overstep the limits of influence set by the convention. In a similar vein, regarding Albania, Visconti Venosta exchanged notes with Austria to avoid misunderstandings stemming from the clashes between Italian and Austrian interests along that part of the Adriatic coast. After the Saracco cabinet fell (February 9, 1901), Visconti Venosta was succeeded at the foreign office by Signor Prinetti, a Lombard manufacturer with a strong personality but no prior diplomatic experience. The new minister largely continued his predecessor's policies. His administration began with Franco-Italian celebrations in Toulon (April 10-14, 1901), as the Italian fleet reciprocated a visit by the French Mediterranean squadron to Cagliari in April 1899, and included sending three Italian warships to Prevesa to seek compensation for damages caused to Italian citizens by Turkish officials.

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

The Saracco administration, created after the obstructionist crisis of 1899-1900 as a transitional and calming cabinet, was overthrown in February 1901 due to its indecisive response to a dock strike in Genoa. Zanardelli-Giolitti Government. It was replaced by a Zanardelli cabinet, where Giolitti was assigned the interior portfolio. This cabinet, mainly made up of members from the Left and relying on support from the radical groups of the Extreme Left for a majority, triggered a large-scale working-class movement. During this period, the Socialist party aimed to increase its political power through strikes and the organization of labor leagues among agricultural workers and artisans. The movement primarily took place in the northern and central provinces. In the first six months of 1901, there were 600 strikes involving over 1,000,000 workers.

(H. W. S.)

G. 1902-1909

G. 1902-1909

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

In 1901-1902, the socio-economic situation in Italy was a serious concern. The strikes and other economic unrest during this period can be roughly classified into three groups: strikes in industrial centers for higher wages, shorter hours, and generally better working conditions; strikes by agricultural laborers in northern Italy seeking better contracts with landlords; and unrest among the southern Italian peasantry due to low wages, unemployment (especially in Apulia), and the agricultural workers’ claims to public land that landlords were occupying illegally, along with local feuds and the power struggles of various influential families. The main issue in most cases was the unsatisfactory economic conditions for the working class, which they felt even more acutely due to the improvements that had been made. Education and better communication allowed them to organize effectively. Unfortunately, these legitimate grievances were exploited by the Socialists for their own agendas, leading to strikes and disturbances being occasionally incited without reason, while outside influences driven by personal ambition or profit hindered reconciliation. Additionally, though many strikes remained orderly, the volatile nature of some Italians and their disdain for authority often turned peaceful demands for better conditions into dangerous riots, involving the underprivileged segments of the urban population (known as teppisti or the mala vita).

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

Whereas in the past strikes were mostly local and based on local issues, they now seemed more widespread and political in nature, leading to frequent and unwanted "sympathy" strikes as a part of regular economic protests. The most significant movement at this time was among railway workers. The agitation had started about fifteen years earlier, and the workers had, at times, successfully demanded better pay and shorter hours. Their next request was for more job security, regular promotions, and recognition of their union by the companies. On January 4, 1902, employees of the Mediterranean railway presented these demands at a meeting in Turin and threatened to strike if their needs were not met. By early February, the unrest had spread across Italy, and the government was confronted with the potential of a strike that could paralyze the entire economic life of the country. Then, the gas workers in Turin went on strike, triggering a general "sympathy" strike in the city, which led to two days of violent clashes. The government called up all railway workers who were army reservists but kept them working on the railways, maintaining military discipline to ensure services continued. At the same time, it mediated between the companies and the workers, and in June, an agreement was officially reached between the ministers of public works and treasury and the company directors regarding the workers' grievances.

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

One result of the agrarian unrest was the increased use of machinery and a decrease in the number of workers employed. While this change benefited landlords and the few laborers who remained—who earned higher wages—it also led to a rise in unemployment. The Socialist party, which had become influential under a series of weak administrations, started to show signs of division. On one side was the revolutionary wing led by Signor Enrico Ferri, the Mantuan deputy, who pushed for a relentless class struggle. On the other side were the riformisti, or moderate Socialists, led by Signor Filippo Turati from Milan, who took a more conciliatory approach and were open to forming alliances with other parliamentary parties. Eventually, the division took on another dimension, with the extreme wing represented by the sindacalisti, who opposed any parliamentary legislative actions and only supported direct revolutionary actions through the sindacati or unions, which organized strikes and protests. In March 1902, agrarian strikes organized by the leghe erupted in the Copparo and Polesine areas (lower valley of the Po) due to disputes over labor contracts, and in Apulia because of unemployment. In August, there were strikes among the dock workers in Genoa and the metalworkers in Florence; the latter protests escalated into a general strike in that city, provoking widespread outrage among the more orderly segments of the population and ending without any clear resolution. In Como, 15,000 textile workers remained on strike for nearly a month, but there were no disturbances.

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

The year 1903, while not completely free of strikes and minor disturbances, was quieter. However, in September 1904, a very serious situation arose due to widespread economic and political agitation. The troubles began with the General strike of 1904. disturbances at Buggeru in Sardinia and Castelluzzo in Sicily, where troops were forced to use their weapons, resulting in several deaths and injuries. At a demonstration in Sestri Ponente, Liguria, protesting against what was called the Buggeru “massacre,” four carabineers and eleven rioters were hurt. The Monza labor exchange then took the lead in declaring a general strike across Italy on September 15th to protest the government's decision to maintain order. The strike spread to nearly all industrial centers, although in many places, it was limited to a few trades. In Milan, the situation was more serious and lasted longer than elsewhere, as the movement was led by anarchists under Arturo Labriola; the troublemakers committed numerous acts of extreme violence, especially against those workers who refused to strike, and much property was deliberately destroyed. In Genoa, under the control of the teppisti for a couple of days, three people were killed and 50 were injured, including 14 police officers, and railway services were briefly interrupted. Venice was isolated from the mainland for two days, and all public services were halted. Riots also broke out in Naples, Florence, Rome, and Bologna. The deputies of the Extreme Left, rather than using their influence to promote peace, could think of nothing better than demanding an immediate meeting of parliament to propose a bill that would forbid troops and police from using their weapons in any conflicts between capital and labor, regardless of the provocation. This ridiculous proposal was, of course, not even discussed, and the situation sparked a strong backlash against Socialism and resentment towards the government for its weakness. While there was sympathy for the genuine grievances of the working class, the September strikes were of a clearly revolutionary nature, stirred up by professional agitators and sustained by the lowest elements of society. The mayor of Venice sent a firm and dignified protest to the government for its inaction, and the people of Liguria raised a significant fund to support the troops, acknowledging their bravery and remarkable discipline during the turmoil.

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

Early in 1905, there was a new wave of protests among railway workers who were unhappy with the personnel clauses in the bill for the state's purchase of the rail lines. They started a disruption strategy that slowed down traffic without completely stopping it. On April 17, the union called for a general railway strike, but thanks to the authorities, who unexpectedly took decisive action, traffic continued. There were also serious unrests among steelworkers in Terni, at Grammichele in Sicily, and at Alessandria. The extreme groups began to focus on spreading their ideas within the army, aiming to weaken its unity and thus hinder the government's actions. This campaign mirrored the anti-militarist movement in France associated with Hervé. Fortunately, this approach wasn't successful, as military service is generally more accepted in Italy than in many other countries; aggressive militarism is quite unheard of, and without it, anti-militarism struggles to gain traction. There have never been any serious mutinies in the Italian army, and the only outcomes of the propaganda were occasional gatherings of troublemakers expressing and applauding Hervéist views, along with a few minor disturbances among reservists unexpectedly called back to service. Within the army itself, the sense of camaraderie and duty, along with discipline, countered the efforts of the propagandists.

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

In June and July of 1907, there were more disruptions among the agricultural workers in Ferrara and Rovigo, with a widespread strike organized by the leghe across those provinces leading to significant losses for everyone involved. 1907 strikes. The leghisti were also responsible for a lot of violent crime; they committed a murder and created a real climate of fear, boycotting, beating, and injuring many peaceful workers who refused to join the unions, and brutally mistreating lone policemen and soldiers. However, the authorities managed to restore order by arresting several of the prominent leaders. Almost immediately after, a more indefensible unrest broke out in various towns disguised as anti-clericalism. Certain scandals had surfaced in a small convent school in Greco near Milan. This was used as an excuse for violent anti-clerical demonstrations throughout Italy and for unprovoked attacks on innocent priests; in Spezia, a church was set on fire and another was torn down, at Marino, Cardinal Merry del Val was assaulted by a mob, and in Rome, the violence from the teppisti escalated to the point where it sparked a backlash from all respectable people, with some of the attackers being dealt with quite harshly. The Socialists and Freemasons played a large role in this agitation, spreading stories about other priestly and convent-related misconduct, most of which, aside from the initial case in Greco, were found to be unfounded. In September 1907, new disorders erupted in Apulia over the redistribution of communal land, particularly severe in Ruvo, Bari, Cerignola, and Satriano del Colle. In some cases, there was legitimacy to the workers’ claims, but unfortunately, the movement fell into the hands of professional agitators and con artists. The leader, a man named Giampetruzzi, who once appeared to be a reliable partner of Marcelin Albert, was later tried and convicted for cheating his own followers.

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

In October 1907, there was another general strike in Milan, which became more serious due to the actions of railway workers and spread to other cities. Traffic was disrupted across much of northern Italy until the government, now the owner of the railways, fired the ringleaders. This had the desired impact, and even though the railway workers’ union threatened a general railway strike if the fired workers weren’t reinstated, there were no further issues. In the spring of 1908, there were agricultural strikes in Parma; the labor contracts had heavily burdened the peasants, who had valid complaints. While some improvements were made in the new contracts, certain unscrupulous demagogues, led by Alceste De Ambris from the “syndicalist” wing of the Socialist party, incited widespread agitation. The landlords also formed an agrarian union to protect their interests and enlisted many non-union workers to maintain necessary operations and save the crops. Conflicts broke out between the strikers and independent workers, as well as with the police; the unrest reached Parma, where violent confrontations took place when troops occupied the labor exchange, resulting in serious injuries to many soldiers and police officers, who, as usual, behaved exemplary throughout. The agitation ended in June with the defeat of the strikers, but not before significant damage was inflicted on the crops, leading to heavy losses for everyone involved, including the government, whose costs for maintaining public order reached tens of millions of lire. The failure of the strike led to infighting among the Socialists, who accused each other of dishonesty regarding party funds; it became apparent that the large amounts collected throughout Italy for the strikers had been misused or taken by the “syndicalist” leaders. A spirit of discontent began to spread among lower-class state employees, especially teachers and postal and telegraph clerks, and at one point, it seemed like the country was on the brink of a situation similar to what occurred in France in the spring of 1909. Fortunately, the government managed to quell the agitation by firing the ringleader, Dr. Campanozzi, and did try to address some genuine grievances. Public opinion supported the government's stance, as everyone with common sense realized that the suspension of public services couldn't be allowed even for a moment in a civilized country.

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

In parliamentary politics, the most significant event in 1902 was the introduction of a divorce bill by Signor Zanardelli’s government. This move wasn’t made because there was any real demand for it, but rather to satisfy the ideologues among the anti-clericals and freemasons, who viewed divorce not as a social institution but as a tool against Catholicism. While most deputies claimed to support the bill, the parliamentary committee opposed it, and public opinion was so negative that an anti-divorce petition gathered 3,500,000 signatures, including not only those of professing Catholics but also free-thinkers and Jews, who found divorce inappropriate for Italian society. The external opposition was so intense that the ministry chose to abandon the bill. The financial situation remained stable; in April 1902, the Chamber approved a new loan at 3½%, and by June, it had all been issued in Italy. In October, the exchange rate was at par, the premium on gold had vanished, and by the end of the year, the budget reflected a surplus of sixteen million.

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

In January 1903, Signor Prinetti, the foreign affairs minister, resigned due to health issues, and Admiral Morin took over his position, while Admiral Bettolo replaced Morin as the marine minister. The unpopularity of the ministry forced Signor Giolitti, the interior minister, to resign in June 1903, and he was succeeded by Admiral Bettolo, who faced harsh criticism from the Socialists. In October, Signor Zanardelli, the premier, stepped down for health reasons, and the king tasked Signor Giolitti with forming a new cabinet. Giolitti accepted the challenge, and his new administration included Signor Tittoni, the former prefect of Naples, as foreign minister, Signor Luigi Luzzatti, a well-known financier, as treasury minister, General Pedotti at the war office, and Admiral Mirabello as marine minister. Shortly after his appointment, Signor Tittoni accompanied the king and queen of Italy on a state visit to France and then to England, where various international issues were discussed. The warm welcome the royal couple received in London and at Windsor helped ease tensions that had emerged between the two countries over the Tripoli agreements and the language issue in Malta. The premier’s agenda was not well received by the Chamber, even though the treasury minister’s financial report was again satisfactory. The government’s weakness in handling the strike riots led to widespread dissatisfaction, and the so-called “experiment of liberty,” aimed at reconciling extreme parties, turned out to be a significant failure. In October 1904, following the September strikes, the Chamber was dissolved, and in the general elections in November, a ministerial majority was returned, while the deputies of the Extreme Left (Socialists, Republicans, and Radicals) dropped from 107 to 94, with a few moderate clericals elected. The municipal elections in several major cities, previously seen as socialist bastions, resulted in a major victory for the constitutional parties, particularly in Milan, Turin, and Genoa, as the strikes had negatively impacted both the working class and the bourgeoisie. Despite its majority, the Giolitti cabinet, aware that it had lost its grip on the country, resigned in March 1905.

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

Signor Fortis then became Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, Signor Maiorano took the role of Finance Minister, and Signor Carcano became Treasury Minister, while Signor Tittoni, Admiral Mirabello, and General Pedotti kept the positions they held in the previous administration. The new government was extremely lackluster, and the Prime Minister's agenda failed to excite enthusiasm in the House, with the most important bill being the proposal to purchase the railways, which was approved in June 1905. However, the ministry never really connected with the country or parliament, and the dissatisfaction caused by the modus vivendi with Spain, which would have seriously harmed Italian wine-growers, led to protests and riots; a negative vote in the Chamber resulted in a cabinet crisis (December 17, 1905). Nevertheless, Signor Fortis reshaped the ministry, persuading the Marquis di San Giuliano to accept the Foreign Affairs portfolio. This was notable because the new foreign secretary, a Sicilian deputy and expert in international politics, had previously been one of Signor Sonnino's strongest supporters; his departure, along with many others, indicated that the more prominent members of the Sonnino party were growing tired of waiting in vain for their leader to gain power. Even this cabinet was short-lived, and a negative vote in the Chamber on January 30, 1906, led to its downfall.

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

Now at last, after waiting for so long, Signor Sonnino’s moment had arrived, and he became premier for the first time. This outcome was very satisfying to all the best elements in the country, and there were great hopes that the arrival of a strict and honest statesman would bring in a new era of Italian parliamentary life. Unfortunately, right from the start, the makeup of the new cabinet was disappointing; while people generally approved of Count Guicciardini, the foreign affairs minister, and Signor Luzzatti, the treasury minister, the selection of Signor Sacchi as justice minister and Signor Pantano as agriculture and trade minister—both of whom were progressive and militant Radicals—suggested an unholy alliance between the premier and his former bitter adversaries, which didn’t bode well for the administration's success. Signor Sonnino himself wasn’t entirely to blame for this unfortunate combination; having lost many of his most loyal supporters, who, tired of waiting for office, had switched sides, he had been forced to find backing among people who had previously opposed the current system and thus secure at least the neutrality of the Extreme Left, showing the public that the “reddest” of Socialists, Radicals, and Republicans could be contained and made harmless by offering them cabinet positions. A similar tactic had been attempted in France with some success. Unfortunately, in Signor Sonnino’s case, public opinion expected too much and didn’t like the idea of such a compromise. The new premier’s first action was highly commendable: he cut off all subsidies to journalists, which led to harsh critiques of him in the “reptile press,” but it was welcomed by all right-minded individuals. However, Signor Sonnino understood that he couldn’t rely on his majority: “The country is with me,” he told a friend, “but the Chamber is against me.” In April 1906, an eruption of Mount Etna destroyed several villages and caused significant loss of life and property damage; when he appointed a committee to distribute the relief funds, the premier refused to include any of the deputies from the affected areas in its membership, and when they asked him why he had excluded them, he candidly replied, which was more characteristic of him than diplomatic, that he knew they would be more concerned about distributing relief for their own constituents than for the actual victims. A motion presented by the Socialists in the Chamber for an immediate discussion of a bill to prevent “the massacres of the proletariat” was overwhelmingly rejected, leading the 28 Socialist deputies to resign their seats; when they ran for re-election, their number dropped to 25. A few days later, the government, having received a negative vote on a procedural matter, submitted its resignation (May 17).

83

83

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

The fall of Signor Sonnino, the disappointment caused by the unfulfilled expectations surrounding his rise to power across Italy, and the lack of influential politicians made Signor Giolitti's return to power unavoidable. A public referendum might have led to a different outcome, but it's said that opposition from the highest levels made this option nearly impossible. The change in government brought Signor Tittoni back to the foreign office; Signor Maiorano became the treasury minister, General Viganò took on the role of minister of war, Signor Cocco Ortu, primarily recognized for being a Sardinian (an island that had rarely been represented in the cabinet), became minister of agriculture, Signor Gianturco headed justice, Signor Massimini managed finance, Signor Schanzer oversaw posts and telegraphs, and Signor Fusinato was in charge of education. The new ministry started off well with the conversion of public debt from 4% to 3¾%, which would eventually be lowered to 3½%. This change had been prepared by Signor Luzzatti under Signor Sonnino’s leadership, and although Signor Maiorano executed it, Luzzatti justifiably received the credit; the bill was presented, debated, and passed by both Houses on June 29, and by July 7, the conversion was successfully completed, demonstrating the solid foundation of Italian finance at that time. The surplus for the year reached 65,000,000 lire. In November, Signor Gianturco passed away, and Signor Pietro Bertolini took over as minister of public works; he turned out to be perhaps the most capable member of the cabinet. However, the decision to take office under Giolitti by someone who had been one of Signor Sonnino's most trusted and valuable lieutenants marked a further decline for Sonnino’s party, as it was believed that Signor Bertolini was unhappy about not having a position in the recent Sonnino ministry. General Viganò was succeeded in December by Senator Casana, the first civilian to become minister of war in Italy. He implemented various necessary reforms in army administration, but overall, the experiment of a civilian "War Lord" wasn't entirely successful, and in April 1909, Senator Casana stepped down and was replaced by General Spingardi, an appointment that was generally well-regarded.

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

The elections in March 1909 resulted in a chamber that was only slightly different from the one before it. The ministerial majority was over three hundred, and although the Extreme Left gained some members, it became less decisive in its stance, with many of the newly elected "reds" being barely more than light pink.

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

Meanwhile, the relationship between the Church and State began to show signs of change. The main supporters of the papacy's claims to temporal power were the clericals from France and Austria, but in France, they had lost all influence, and the situation between the Church and the government was becoming increasingly strained. With the rebellion of her “Eldest Daughter,” the Roman Church could no longer maintain her old stance of uncompromising hostility towards United Italy, and the Vatican started to understand the mistake of putting every Italian in the position of being either a good Italian or a good Catholic, when most wanted to be both. Outside of Rome, relations between clergy and authorities were generally friendly, and in May 1903, Cardinal Sarto, the patriarch of Venice, asked for and received an audience with the king during his visit to the city, leading to a very cordial meeting. In July of that year, Leo XIII died, and Cardinal Sarto became pope, taking the name Pius X. The new pontiff, while nominally supporting the claims of temporal power, didn’t attach much importance to it in practice. Catholics had already been allowed to vote in local elections, and they took advantage of this right, gaining seats on many municipal councils and achieving a majority in some. In the general parliamentary elections of 1904, a few Catholics were elected, and the encyclical of June 11, 1905, on the political organization of Catholics effectively abolished the non expedit. In September of that year, several religious institutions in the Near East, previously under the protection of the French government, formally requested to be placed under Italian protection due to the Church-State conflict in France, and this was granted in January 1907. The situation had completely reversed from Crispi’s time, when the French government, even while anti-clerical, protected the Catholic Church abroad for political reasons, whereas the conflict between the Church and State in Italy extended internationally, harming Italian political interests. A more challenging issue was that of religious education in public elementary schools. Signor Giolitti wanted to appease the Vatican by facilitating religious education, which the majority of parents wanted, but he also didn’t want to offend Freemasons and other anti-clericals too much, as they could cause issues at inconvenient times. As a result, the minister of education, Signor Rava, created a set of rules that he hoped would satisfy everyone: religious instruction would remain a necessary part of the curriculum, but in municipalities where the majority of council members opposed it, it could be suppressed; however, the council would still need to allow religious education for children whose parents desired it. In practice, though, when the council suppressed religious instruction, no such options were provided. In the general elections of March 1909, over twenty Clerical deputies were elected, representing a very moderate clerical tone with no intention of pursuing temporal power, and who were supporters of the monarchy and anti-socialists; where no Clerical candidate was available, Catholic voters chose the constitutional candidate against all representatives of the Extreme Left. Conversely, the Vatican's stance toward Liberalism within the Church was one of steadfast reaction, and under the new pope, the doctrines of Christian Democracy and Modernism were condemned unequivocally. Don Romolo Murri, the Christian Democratic leader who had considerable influence over the younger, more progressive clergy, faced severe criticism from the Vatican, prompting him to formally submit and declare his intention to withdraw from the struggle. However, he resurfaced in the general elections of 1909 as a Christian Democratic candidate; he was elected and uniquely among Catholic deputies, took his seat in the Chamber on the Extreme Left, surrounded by vehement anti-clericals.

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

At 5 A.M. on December 28, 1908, a devastating earthquake hit southern Calabria and eastern Sicily, completely destroying the cities of Reggio and Messina, along with the smaller towns of Canitello, December 1908 earthquake. Scilla, Villa San Giovanni, Bagnara, Palmi, Melito, Porto Salvo, and Santa Eufemia, as well as many villages. In Messina, the horror of the situation was intensified by a tidal wave. This disaster was the worst of its kind ever recorded in any country; about 150,000 people were killed, and the number of injured was beyond count.

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

The main feature of Italy’s foreign relations during this time was the weakening of the Triple Alliance and improved relations with France, while the long-standing friendship with England remained strong. International relations. The Franco-Italian friendship was officially solidified by the visit of King Victor Emmanuel and Queen Elena to Paris in October 1903, where they were warmly welcomed. The visit was reciprocated in April 1904 when M. Loubet, the French president, came to Rome. This move upset the pope, who, like his predecessor since 1870, opposed the presence of foreign Catholic rulers in Rome, leading to a final break between France and the Vatican. The Franco-Italian agreement improved Italy’s standing, allowing Italian rente, which had previously been excluded from French markets, to return, helping to raise its price and improve the unfavorable exchange rate. This agreement also clarified the situation in Tripoli; Italian ambitions for Tunisia ended with the French occupation of that area, but Tripoli and Bengazi were now acknowledged as part of Italy's “sphere of influence.” However, the Tripoli hinterland was at risk of being taken over by other powers with significant interests in Africa; the Anglo-French declaration of March 21, 1899, in particular, seemed likely to hinder Italian efforts. 84

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

The Triple Alliance was kept and renewed as far as paperwork went (in June 1902 it was reconfirmed for 12 years), but public opinion was no longer as supportive of it. Austria’s petty oppressions of its Italian subjects in the irredente provinces, its aggressive propaganda that clashed with Italian interests in the Balkans, and the anti-Italian war rhetoric from Austrian military circles threatened the relationship between the two "allies." It was noted that the purpose of the alliance between Austria and Italy was to prevent war between them. Austria had consistently adopted a policy of small provocations and irritating police actions against Italians in the Adriatic Littoral and Trentino, while encouraging the Slavic population in the former and the Germans in the latter. One source of tension was the university issue; the Austrian government had persistently refused to establish an Italian university for its Italian citizens, fearing it would become a hotbed of "irredentism," forcing Italian-speaking students to attend German-Austrian universities. An attempt at compromise led to the creation of an Italian law faculty at Innsbruck, but this provoked strong hostility from the German students and locals, who demonstrated their superior civilization by launching an unprovoked attack on the Italians in October 1902. Further acts of violence were carried out by Germans in 1903, resulting in anti-Austrian protests in Italy. The worst riots happened in November 1904, when Italian students and professors were attacked at Innsbruck without provocation; outnumbered one hundred to one, the Italians had no choice but to use their revolvers in self-defense, resulting in several injuries on both sides. Anti-Italian protests also occurred regularly in Vienna, while in Dalmatia and Croatia, Italian fishermen and workers (Italian citizens, not locals) were attacked by gangs of unruly Croats, leading to frequent diplomatic "incidents." Another source of resentment was Austria’s stance toward the Vatican, driven by the strong clerical tendencies of the imperial family and a significant segment of the Austrian population. However, the most serious issue was the Balkan question. Italian public opinion was deeply concerned about Austria’s active political propaganda in Albania. The two governments often discussed the situation, but while they agreed to a self-denying ordinance committing each not to occupy any part of Albanian territory, Austria's declarations and promises were not reflected in the actions of her agents in the Balkans. Consequently, Italy launched its own counter-propaganda through schools and commercial agencies. The Macedonian troubles of 1903 again brought Austria and Italy into conflict. The acceptance of the Mürzsteg program by the powers and the appointment of Austrian and Russian financial agents in Macedonia was a win for Austria and a setback for Italy; however, Italy achieved a success with the appointment of General de Giorgis as commander of the international Macedonian gendarmerie and secured, with the backing of Great Britain, France, and Russia, the assignment of the partly Albanian district of Monastir to the Italian officers of that corps.

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

In October 1908, the shocking news of Austria's annexation of Bosnia was delivered to King Victor Emmanuel and other leaders through personal letters from the emperor-king. The announcement caused a huge uproar, and public opinion in Italy was deeply stirred as it viewed Austria's actions as a form of banditry. When Signor Tittoni spoke at Carate Brianza on October 6th, he stated that “Italy might await events with calm, and that these could find her neither unprepared nor isolated.” Many interpreted this as a signal that Italy would receive compensation to restore the balance of power disrupted in Austria's favor. When it became clear that Italy would not receive any direct compensation, a wave of outrage erupted against Austria and against Signor Tittoni as well.

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

On October 29th, Austria, however, pulled back from its military positions in the sandjak of Novibazar. The border between Austria and Turkey, which had previously been uncertain and allowed Austria a half-open back door to the Aegean, became a clear line of separation. As a result, the threat of Austria "peacefully penetrating" into Macedonia became less likely. Austria also made concessions by giving up its right to patrol the Montenegrin coast and to block Montenegro from having its own warships (paragraphs 5, 6, and 11 of art. 29 of the Berlin Treaty) in a note sent to the Italian foreign office on April 12, 1909. Italy had developed significant commercial interests in Montenegro, and anything that reinforced the position of that principality was seen as protection against further Austrian advances. The harbor construction in the Montenegrin port of Antivari, which started in March 1905 and finished in early 1909, was an Italian project, and Italy joined the agreement for the Danube-Adriatic Railway (June 2, 1908) along with Russia, France, and Serbia; Italy was to contribute 35,000,000 lire out of a total capital of 100,000,000 and would have four directors out of twelve. However, the entire situation served as a warning to Italy, resulting in a national push for security. Funding for the army and navy was approved almost unanimously; new battleships were commissioned, the army was expanded, and defenses along the vulnerable eastern border were reinforced. It was evident that as long as Austria, influenced by Germany, could act against Italian interests in the Balkans, the Triple Alliance was worthless, and Italy had to prepare for any eventuality.

Bibliography.—It is difficult to indicate in a short space the most important sources of general Italian history. Muratori’s great collection, the Rerum Italicarum scriptores in combination with his Dissertationes, the chronicles and other historical material published by the Archivio Storico Italiano, and the works of detached annalists of whom the Villani are the most notable, take first rank. Next we may mention Muratori’s Annali d’ Italia, together with Guicciardini’s Storia d’ Italia and its modern continuation by Carlo Botta. Among the more recent contributions S. de Sismondi’s Républiques italiennes (Brussels, 1838) and Carlo Troya’s Storia d’ Italia nel medio evo are among the most valuable general works, while the large Storia Politica d’ Italia by various authors, published at Milan, is also important—F. Bertolini, I Barbari; F. Lanzani, Storia dei comuni italiani dalle origini fino al 1313 (1882); C. Cipolla, Storia delle Signorie Italiane dal 1313 al 1530 (1881); A. Cosci, L’ Italia durante le preponderanze straniere, 1530-1789 (1875); A. Franchetti, Storia d’ Italia dal 1789 al 1799; G. de Castro, Storia d’ Italia dal 1789 al 1814 (1881). For the beginnings of Italian history the chief works are T. Hodgkin’s Italy and her Invaders (Oxford, 1892-1899) and P. Villari’s Le Invasioni barbariche (Milan, 1900), both based on original research and sound scholarship. The period from 1494 to modern times is dealt with in various volumes of the Cambridge Modern History, especially in vol. i., “The Renaissance,” which contains valuable bibliographies. Giuseppe Ferrari’s Rivoluzioni d’ Italia (1858) deserves notice as a work of singular vigour, though no great scientific importance, and Cesare Balbo’s Sommario (Florence, 1856) presents the main outlines of the subject with brevity and clearness. For the period of the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars see F. Lemmi’s Le Origini del risorgimento italiano (Milan, 1906); E. Bonnal de Ganges, La Chute d’une république [Venise] (Paris, 1885); D. Carutti, Storia della corte di Savoia durante la rivoluzione e l’ impero francese (2 vols., Turin, 1892); G. de Castro, Storia d’ Italia dal 1797 al 1814 (Milan, 1881); A. Dufourcq, Le Régime jacobin en Italie, 1796-1799 (Paris, 1900); A. Franchetti, Storia d’ Italia dal 1789 al 1799 (Milan, 1878); P. Gaffarel, Bonaparte et les républiques italiennes (1796-1799) (Paris, 1895); R. M. Johnston, The Napoleonic Empire in Southern Italy (2 vols., with full bibliography, London, 1904); E. Ramondini, L’ Italia durante la dominazione francese (Naples, 1882); E. Ruth, Geschichte des italienischen Volkes unter der napoleonischen Herrschaft (Leipzig, 1859). For modern times, see Bolton King’s History of Italian Unity (1899) and Bolton King and Thomas Okey’s Italy To-day (1901). With regard to the history of separate provinces it may suffice to notice N. Machiaveili’s Storia fiorentina, B. Corio’s Storia di Milano, G. Capponi’s Storia della repubblica di Firenze (Florence, 1875), P. Villari’s I primi due secoli della storia di Firenze (Florence, 1905), F. Pagano’s Istoria del regno di Napoli (Palermo-Naples, 1832, &c.), P. Romanin’s Storia documentata di Venezia (Venice, 1853), M. Amari’s Musulmani di Sicilia (1854-1875), F. Gregorovius’s Geschichte der Stadt Rom (Stuttgart, 1881), A. von Reumont’s Geschichte der Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867), L. Cibrario’s Storia della monarchia piemontese (Turin, 1840), and D. Carutti’s 85 Storia della diplomazia della corte di Savoia (Rome, 1875). The Archivii storici and Deputazioni di storia patria of the various Italian towns and provinces contain a great deal of valuable material for local history. From the point of view of papal history, L. von Ranke’s History of the Popes (English edition, London, 1870), M. Creighton’s History of the Papacy (London, 1897) and L. Pastor’s Geschichte der Päpste (Freiburg i. B., 1886-1896), should be mentioned. From the point of view of general culture, Jacob Burckhardt’s Cultur der Renaissance in Italien (Basel, 1860), E. Guinet’s Révolutions d’ Italie (Paris, 1857), and J. A. Symonds’s Renaissance in Italy (5 vols., London, 1875, &c.) should be consulted.

References.—It’s hard to list the most important sources for general Italian history in just a few words. Muratori’s extensive collection, the Rerum Italicarum scriptores along with his Dissertationes, the chronicles, and other historical records published by the Archivio Storico Italiano, along with the works of independent chroniclers, particularly the Villani, are top choices. Next, we can mention Muratori’s Annali d’ Italia, along with Guicciardini’s Storia d’ Italia and its modern follow-up by Carlo Botta. Among newer contributions, S. de Sismondi’s Républiques italiennes (Brussels, 1838) and Carlo Troya’s Storia d’ Italia nel medio evo are some of the most valuable general works, while the large Storia Politica d’ Italia by various authors published in Milan is also significant—F. Bertolini, I Barbari; F. Lanzani, Storia dei comuni italiani dalle origini fino al 1313 (1882); C. Cipolla, Storia delle Signorie Italiane dal 1313 al 1530 (1881); A. Cosci, L’ Italia durante le preponderanze straniere, 1530-1789 (1875); A. Franchetti, Storia d’ Italia dal 1789 al 1799; G. de Castro, Storia d’ Italia dal 1789 al 1814 (1881). For the early days of Italian history, the key works are T. Hodgkin’s Italy and her Invaders (Oxford, 1892-1899) and P. Villari’s Le Invasioni barbariche (Milan, 1900), which are based on original research and solid scholarship. The period from 1494 to modern times is covered in different volumes of the Cambridge Modern History, especially in vol. i., “The Renaissance,” which includes valuable bibliographies. Giuseppe Ferrari’s Rivoluzioni d’ Italia (1858) is noteworthy for its vigorous writing, although it lacks great scientific importance, and Cesare Balbo’s Sommario (Florence, 1856) outlines the subject concisely and clearly. For the time of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, see F. Lemmi’s Le Origini del risorgimento italiano (Milan, 1906); E. Bonnal de Ganges, La Chute d’une république [Venise] (Paris, 1885); D. Carutti, Storia della corte di Savoia durante la rivoluzione e l’ impero francese (2 vols., Turin, 1892); G. de Castro, Storia d’ Italia dal 1797 al 1814 (Milan, 1881); A. Dufourcq, Le Régime jacobin en Italie, 1796-1799 (Paris, 1900); A. Franchetti, Storia d’ Italia dal 1789 al 1799 (Milan, 1878); P. Gaffarel, Bonaparte et les républiques italiennes (1796-1799) (Paris, 1895); R. M. Johnston, The Napoleonic Empire in Southern Italy (2 vols., with full bibliography, London, 1904); E. Ramondini, L’ Italia durante la dominazione francese (Naples, 1882); E. Ruth, Geschichte des italienischen Volkes unter der napoleonischen Herrschaft (Leipzig, 1859). For modern times, see Bolton King’s History of Italian Unity (1899) and Bolton King and Thomas Okey’s Italy To-day (1901). For the history of specific provinces, we can highlight N. Machiavelli’s Storia fiorentina, B. Corio’s Storia di Milano, G. Capponi’s Storia della repubblica di Firenze (Florence, 1875), P. Villari’s I primi due secoli della storia di Firenze (Florence, 1905), F. Pagano’s Istoria del regno di Napoli (Palermo-Naples, 1832, &c.), P. Romanin’s Storia documentata di Venezia (Venice, 1853), M. Amari’s Musulmani di Sicilia (1854-1875), F. Gregorovius’s Geschichte der Stadt Rom (Stuttgart, 1881), A. von Reumont’s Geschichte der Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867), L. Cibrario’s Storia della monarchia piemontese (Turin, 1840), and D. Carutti’s Storia della diplomazia della corte di Savoia (Rome, 1875). The Archivii storici and Deputazioni di storia patria of various Italian towns and provinces contain a lot of valuable material for local history. From the perspective of papal history, L. von Ranke’s History of the Popes (English edition, London, 1870), M. Creighton’s History of the Papacy (London, 1897), and L. Pastor’s Geschichte der Päpste (Freiburg i. B., 1886-1896) should be noted. In terms of general culture, consult Jacob Burckhardt’s Cultur der Renaissance in Italien (Basel, 1860), E. Guinet’s Révolutions d’ Italie (Paris, 1857), and J. A. Symonds’s Renaissance in Italy (5 vols., London, 1875, &c.).

(L. V.*)

1 On the derivation see below, History, section A, ad. init.

1 For the details on the derivation, see below, History, section A, ad. init.

2 The actually highest point is the Maschio delle Faete (3137 ft.). (See Albanus Mons.)

2 The highest point is Maschio delle Faete (3,137 ft.). (See Albanus Mons.)

3 On the influence of malaria on the population of Early Italy see W. H. S. Jones in Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, ii. 97 sqq. (Liverpool, 1909).

3 For information on how malaria affected the population of Early Italy, see W. H. S. Jones in Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, ii. 97 sqq. (Liverpool, 1909).

4 The 2nd category of the 1875 law had practically ceased to exist.

4 The second category of the 1875 law had basically disappeared.

5 This may be reduced, in consequence of the adoption of the new Q.F. gun, 1 to 6.

5 This might be decreased due to the use of the new Q.F. gun, 1 to 6.

6 “Movement of capital” consists, as regards “income,” of the proceeds of the sale of buildings, Church or Crown lands, old prisons, barracks, &c., or of moneys derived from sale of consolidated stock. Thus “income” really signifies diminution of patrimony or increase of debt. In regard to “expenditure,” “movement of capital” refers to extinction of debt by amortization or otherwise, to purchases of buildings or to advances made by the state. Thus “expenditure” really represents a patrimonial improvement, a creation of credit or a decrease of indebtedness. The items referring to “railway construction” represent, on the one hand, repayments made to the exchequer by the communes and provinces of money disbursed on their account by the State Treasury; and, on the other, the cost of new railways incurred by the Treasury. The items of the “partite di giro” are inscribed both on the credit and debit sides of the budget, and have merely a figurative value.

6 “Movement of capital” in terms of “income” includes the money made from selling buildings, Church or Crown lands, old prisons, barracks, etc., or money received from selling consolidated stock. Therefore, “income” actually means a reduction in assets or an increase in debt. Regarding “expenditure,” “movement of capital” relates to paying off debt through amortization or other means, buying buildings, or advances made by the state. Hence, “expenditure” truly indicates an improvement in assets, a creation of credit, or a decrease in debt. The items related to “railway construction” show, on one hand, repayments made to the treasury by the municipalities and provinces for money spent on their behalf by the State Treasury; and on the other hand, the cost of new railways paid by the Treasury. The items listed under “partite di giro” appear on both the credit and debit sides of the budget and are purely figurative.

7 Financial operations (mainly in connexion with railway purchase) figure on each side of the account for about £22,000,000.

7 Financial operations (mainly related to railway purchases) show about £22,000,000 on each side of the account.

8 For example, wheat, the price of which was in 1902 26 lire per cwt., pays a tax of 7½ lire; sugar pays four times its wholesale value in tax; coffee twice its wholesale value.

8 For example, wheat, which cost 26 lire per cwt. in 1902, is taxed 7½ lire; sugar is taxed four times its wholesale value; coffee is taxed twice its wholesale value.

9 “Privileges” assure to creditors priority of claim in case of foreclosure for debt or mortgage. Prior to the law of the 23rd of January 1887 harvested produce and agricultural implements were legally exempt from “privilege.”

9 “Privileges” guarantee that creditors have priority over claims in the event of foreclosure due to debt or mortgage. Before the law enacted on January 23, 1887, harvested crops and farming equipment were legally protected from “privilege.”

10 At the beginning of 1902 the Italian parliament sanctioned a bill providing for the abolition of municipal duties on bread and farinaceous products within three years of the promulgation of the bill on 1st July 1902.

10 At the start of 1902, the Italian parliament approved a bill that allowed for the elimination of municipal taxes on bread and grain products within three years of the bill's enactment on July 1, 1902.

11 Among the insurgents of Romagna was Louis Napoleon, afterwards emperor of the French.

11 Among the rebels of Romagna was Louis Napoleon, who later became the emperor of France.

12 In Rome itself a certain Angelo Brunetti, known as Ciceruacchio, a forage merchant of lowly birth and a Carbonaro, exercised great influence over the masses and kept the peace where the authorities would have failed.

12 In Rome, a man named Angelo Brunetti, known as Ciceruacchio, a humble forage merchant and a Carbonaro, had a significant impact on the people and maintained order where the authorities would have struggled.

13 The popular cry of “Viva Verdi!” did not merely express enthusiasm for Italy’s most eminent musician, but signified, in initials: “Viva Vittorio Emanuele Re d’ Italia!”

13 The popular shout of “Viva Verdi!” wasn’t just a sign of excitement for Italy’s greatest musician; it also stood for, in initials: “Viva Vittorio Emanuele Re d’ Italia!”

14 La Farina’s Epistolario, ii. 426.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ La Farina’s Letters, ii. 426.

15 In reality the emperor was contemplating an Etrurian kingdom with the prince at its head.

15 In reality, the emperor was considering an Etrurian kingdom with the prince in charge.

16 N. Bianchi, Cavour, p. 118.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ N. Bianchi, Cavour, p. 118.

17 He asked for the Neapolitan viceroyalty for life, which the king very wisely refused.

17 He requested the Neapolitan viceroyalty for life, but the king wisely declined.

18 The counterblast of Pius IX. to this convention was the encyclical Quanta Cura of Dec. 8, 1864, followed by the famous Syllabus.

18 Pius IX's strong response to this convention was the encyclical Quanta Cura on December 8, 1864, followed by the well-known Syllabus.

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

ITEM (a Latin adverb meaning “also” or “likewise”) was originally used at the start of each item in a list of articles, or for each detail in an account book, ledger, or legal document. So, the word is used as a noun to refer to the various items in such lists and also to a piece of information or news.

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

ITHACA (Ithaca), commonly called Thiaki (Φιάκη), is the smallest of the seven Ionian Islands, next to Paxo, covering an area of about 44 square miles. It is part of the eparchy of the nomos of Cephalonia in Greece, with a population that was 9,873 in 1870 and is now about 13,000. The island features two mountain ranges connected by a narrow isthmus of hills and separated by a wide sea inlet known as the Gulf of Molo. The northern and larger range peaks at Anoi (2,650 ft.), while the southern range culminates in Hagios Stephanos, or Mount Merovigli (2,100 ft.). Vathy (Deep = “deep”), the main town and port of the island, sits at the northern base of Mount Stephanos, with its whitewashed houses extending about a mile along the deep bay of the Gulf of Molo, which gives it its name. Since there are only a couple of small areas of arable land in Ithaca, the residents rely on trade for their grain supply; olive oil, wine, and currants are the main products grown in the thin layer of soil over the limestone rocks. Goats are raised in significant numbers on the brushy pastures of the hills, and hares (despite Aristotle’s supposed claim that they are absent) are surprisingly plentiful. The island is divided into four districts: Vathy, Aeto (or Eagle’s Cliff), Anoge (Anoi) or Upland, and Exoge (Exoi) or Outland.

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

The name has been associated with the island from the earliest historical times, with very little disruption in the tradition. However, in Brompton’s travels (12th century) and early Venetian maps, it is referred to as Fale or Val de Compar, and later on, it often appears as Little Cephalonia. This last name reflects the general nature of Ithaca’s history (if it can even be called that) both in modern and ancient times, as the island’s fame largely comes from its place in the Homeric tale of Odysseus. According to Homer, Ithaca was the royal seat and home of King Odysseus. The island is described with a fair amount of detail, both picturesque and geographic; the Homeric locations that people have tried to match include Mount Neritos, Mount Neion, Phorcys' harbor, Odysseus's town and palace, the fountain of Arethusa, the cave of the Naiads, the pens of the swineherd Eumaeus, Laertes's orchard, the Korax or Raven Cliff, and the island Asteris, where the suitors ambushed Telemachus. Among the “identificationists,” there are two main schools of thought: one places the town at Polis on the west coast in the northern part of the island (Leake, Gladstone, etc.), while the other locates it at Aeto on the isthmus. The latter site was supported by Sir William Gell (Topography and Antiquities of Ithaca, London, 1807) and backed by Dr. H. Schliemann, who conducted excavations in 1873 and 1878 (see H. Schliemann, Ithaque, le Péloponnèse, Troie, Paris, 1869, also published in German; his letter to The Times, September 26, 1878; and the author’s life introduced in Ilios, London, 1880). However, his findings were mostly negative. The truth is that no amount of creativity can make the descriptions in the Odyssey fit the actual geography of this island. Most importantly, the part where Ithaca is described poses significant challenges: “Now Ithaca lies low, farthest up the sea line towards the darkness, but those others face the dawning and the sun” (Butcher and Lang). Such a passage does not suit an island like Ithaca, which is located just east of Cephalonia. Therefore, Professor W. Dörpfeld suggested that the Homeric Ithaca isn’t the island later known as Ithaca by the Greeks, but should be identified with Leucas (Santa Maura, q.v.). He manages to align the Homeric geography with this latter island and proposes that the name may have been moved due to a migration of the inhabitants. There’s no doubt that Leucas aligns with Homeric descriptions much better than Ithaca does; however, many scholars argue that it’s a mistake to treat a poet's imaginative descriptions as if they come from a travel guide, or to expect the author of the Odyssey to have a deep understanding of the geography of the Ionian islands.

See, besides the works already referred to, the separate works on Ithaca by Schreiber (Leipzig, 1829); Rühle von Lilienstern (Berlin, 1832); N. Karavias Grivas (Ἱστορία τῆς νήσου Ἰθάκης) (Athens, 1849); Bowen (London, 1851); and Gandar, (Paris, 1854); Hercher, in Hermes (1866); Leake’s Northern Greece; Mure’s Tour in Greece; Bursian’s Geogr. von Griechenland; Gladstone, “The Dominions of Ulysses,” in Macmillan’s Magazine (1877). A history of the discussions will be found in Buchholz, Die Homerischen Realien (Leipzig, 1871); Partsch, Kephallenia und Ithaka (1890); W. Dörpfeld in Mélanges Perrot, pp. 79-93 (1903); P. Goessler, Leukas-Ithaka (Stuttgart, 1904).

See, in addition to the works already mentioned, there are individual studies on Ithaca by Schreiber (Leipzig, 1829); Rühle von Lilienstern (Berlin, 1832); N. Karavias Grivas (History of the island of Ithaca) (Athens, 1849); Bowen (London, 1851); and Gandar (Paris, 1854); Hercher, in Hermes (1866); Leake’s Northern Greece; Mure’s Tour in Greece; Bursian’s Geogr. von Griechenland; Gladstone, “The Dominions of Ulysses,” in Macmillan’s Magazine (1877). A history of the discussions can be found in Buchholz, Die Homerischen Realien (Leipzig, 1871); Partsch, Kephallenia und Ithaka (1890); W. Dörpfeld in Mélanges Perrot, pp. 79-93 (1903); P. Goessler, Leukas-Ithaka (Stuttgart, 1904).

(E. Gr.)

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

ITHACA, is a city and the county seat of Tompkins County, New York, U.S.A., located at the southern end of Cayuga Lake, 60 miles southwest of Syracuse. The population was 11,079 in 1890, 13,136 in 1900, of which 1,310 were foreign-born, and 14,802 according to the 1910 census. It is served by the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western and Lehigh Valley railways, as well as interurban electric lines; steamboats also operate on the lake. Most of the city is situated in the flat valley, spreading up the hills to the south, east, and west. The best residential area is East Hill, particularly Cornell and Cayuga Heights (across Fall Creek from the Cornell campus). Renwick Beach, located at the head of the lake, is a popular resort. The surrounding area is very beautiful and attracts summer tourists. Nearby, there are several waterfalls, with Taughannock Falls (9 miles north) being the most notable, featuring a drop of 215 feet. Fall, Cascadilla, and Six Mile Creeks flow through the city from the east; the first two have carved deep gorges and contain several cascades and waterfalls, with Ithaca Fall in Fall Creek being the largest at 120 feet high. Six Mile Creek runs along the south side of the city and drains into Cayuga Inlet, which traverses the western and lower areas, often flooding in the spring. The Inlet collects the waters of several small streams flowing down from the southwestern hills. Nearby attractions include Buttermilk Falls and ravine, on the city's edge, Lick Brook Falls and glen, and Enfield Falls and glen, the latter being 7 miles away. Fall Creek provides a good water supply for power. The city has a variety of manufacturing industries, including firearms, calendar clocks, traction engines, electrical appliances, patent chains, incubators, autophones, artesian well drills, salt, cement, window glass, and wallpaper. The value of factory production increased from $1,500,604 in 1900 to $2,080,002 in 1905, a rise of 38.6%. Ithaca is also a farming center and coal market, with a significant amount of fruit grown in the area. The city is best known as the home of Cornell University (q.v.). It also has the Ezra Cornell Free Library, which houses about 28,000 volumes, the Ithaca Conservatory of Music, the Cascadilla School, and the Ithaca High School. Ithaca was settled around 1789, with the name given by Simeon De Witt in 1806. It was incorporated as a village in 1821 and chartered as a city in 1888. At Buttermilk Falls was the main village of the Tutelo Indians, Coreorgonel, which was established in 1753 and destroyed in 1779 by a detachment of Sullivan’s forces.

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

ITINERARY (i.e. road-book, from Lat. iter, road), a term used for the existing descriptions of ancient Roman roads and trade routes, including the stations and distances. It's common to categorize these into two types: Itineraria adnotata or scripta and Itineraria picta—the former resembling a book, and the latter a type of travel map. Among the Itineraria Scripta, the most significant are: (1) It. Antonini (see Antonini Itinerarium), which is divided into two sections: one covering roads in Europe, Asia, and Africa, and the other detailing well-known sea routes—the distances typically measured from Rome; (2) It. Hierosolymitanum or Burdigalense, from the 4th century, outlining a pilgrimage route from Bordeaux to Jerusalem and from Heraclea through Rome to Milan (ed. G. Parthey and M. Pinder, 1848, along with the Itinerarium Antonini); (3) It. Alexandria, providing an overview of Alexander the Great’s march route, primarily sourced from Arrian and meant for Constantius’s campaign in CE 340-345 against the Persians (ed. D. Volkmann, 1871). A collected edition of the ancient itineraries, featuring ten maps, was published by Fortia d’Urban, titled Recueil des itinéraires anciens (1845). Of the Itineraria Picta, only one major example has survived, the renowned Tabula Peutingeriana, which, disregarding the shape or relative positions of countries, depicts the roads and towns of the entire Roman world using straight lines and dots of various sizes (facsimile published by K. Miller, 1888; see also Map).

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

ITIUS PORTUS, is the name Caesar gave to the main harbor he used when setting off for his second expedition to Britain in 54 BCE (De bello Gallico, v. 2). It was definitely near the highlands around Cape Grisnez (Promuntorium Itium), but the exact location has been hotly debated since the revival of learning. Many scholars have assumed that Caesar used the same port for his first expedition, but the name doesn't appear in that context at all (B. G. iv. 21-23). This detail, along with other factors, makes it likely that the two expeditions departed from different locations. It's generally agreed that the first one left from Boulogne. The same belief was commonly held about the second, but T. Rice Holmes, in an article in the Classical Review (May 1909), provided strong evidence for supporting Wissant, 4 miles east of Grisnez. The main reason is that Caesar found he couldn't set sail from the small port of Boulogne with even 80 ships at once, so he decided he needed another spot to launch the “more than 800” ships of the second expedition. Holmes argues that, considering changes in the coastline since Caesar's time, 800 specially constructed ships could have been pulled above the highest spring tide level and then launched all at once from Wissant, which would therefore have been “commodissimus” (v. 2) or opposed to “brevissimus traiectus” (iv. 21).

See T. R. Holmes in Classical Review (May 1909), in which he partially revises the conclusions at which he arrived in his Ancient Britain (1907), pp. 552-594; that the first expedition started from Boulogne is accepted, e.g. by H. Stuart Jones, in English Historical Review (1909), xxiv. 115; other authorities in Holmes’s article.

See T. R. Holmes in Classical Review (May 1909), where he partially revises the conclusions he reached in his Ancient Britain (1907), pp. 552-594; the idea that the first expedition started from Boulogne is accepted, e.g. by H. Stuart Jones, in English Historical Review (1909), xxiv. 115; other sources in Holmes’s article.

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

ITO, HIROBUMI, Prince (1841-1909), a Japanese statesman, was born in 1841 as the son of Ito Jūzō. Like his father, he started his career as a retainer for the lord of Choshu, one of the most powerful nobles in Japan. Choshu, along with many other Daimyos, strongly opposed the shōgun's rule, and when this rule led to the signing of the treaty with Commodore M. C. Perry in 1854, the rising discontent turned into open hostility against both parties involved. Ito completely agreed with his lord on these issues and was sent on a secret mission to Yedo to report back on the government's activities. This trip made Ito seriously focus on studying British and other military systems. As a result, he convinced Choshu to reform his army, swapping bows and arrows for guns and rifles. However, Ito realized that to fully understand foreign systems, he needed to go to Europe. With Choshu's support, he, along with Inouye and three other young men of similar status, decided to risk their lives by committing the serious crime of traveling to a foreign country. They secretly made their way to Nagasaki, where they arranged with an agent of Messrs Jardine, Matheson & Co. for passage on a ship heading to Shanghai (1863). Once there, they split up: three of them took tickets to London, while Ito and Inouye chose to work their way across as crew on the “Pegasus,” also heading to London. The two friends studied English methods in London for a year, but events back in Japan called them home. The recently signed treaties by the shōgun with foreign powers allowed navigation through the strait of Shimonoseki, which leads to the Inland Sea. Choshu, ruling the northern shores of the strait, refused to acknowledge this clause and set up batteries along the shore, firing on any ships that tried to pass through. The shōgun declared himself unable to enforce the treaty under these circumstances, prompting the treaty powers to take action themselves. Ito, who understood better than his lord the imbalance of military power between Europe and Japan, petitioned the governments involved, pleading for a halt to hostilities until he could lobby for peace with Choshu. He rushed back to Japan with this goal in mind, but his efforts were in vain. Choshu remained stubborn and faced the consequences, including the destruction of his batteries and a hefty fine. Ito's role in these negotiations drew the ire of the more conservative members of his clan, who tried multiple times to assassinate him. On one notable occasion, he was chased into a tea-house, where a young woman hid him under the floor of her room. This encounter sparked a romantic relationship that ultimately led to her becoming his wife. Later, in 1868, Ito was appointed governor of Hiogo and the following year became vice-minister of finance. In 1871, he traveled with Iwakura on a significant mission to Europe, which, although diplomatically unsuccessful, led to the involvement of European experts in military, naval, and educational reforms.

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

After returning to Japan, Ito served in several cabinets as head of the engineering and mining bureau, and in 1886 he became prime minister, a position he held four times before resigning in 1901. In 1882, he was sent on a mission to Europe to study different forms of constitutional government and attended the coronation of Tsar Alexander III. Upon returning to Japan, he took on the challenging task of drafting a constitution. In 1890, he reaped the rewards of his work, and nine years later, he witnessed the annulment of the old treaties, replaced by agreements that put Japan on equal footing with European countries. Ito played a key role in all the significant reforms in the Land of the Rising Sun. His strong interest in military and naval affairs allowed him to meet Li Hung-chang at the end of the First Sino-Japanese War (1895) as the representative of the victorious nation, and the signing of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902 showcased his success in elevating Japan to a primary position among civilized nations. In acknowledgment of his notable contributions during the Chinese War, Ito was made a marquis, and in 1897 he represented the Mikado alongside Prince Arisugawa at Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee. At the end of 1901, he visited Europe and the United States again, this time unofficially, and in England, he was made a G.C.B. After the Russo-Japanese War (1905), he was appointed as the resident general in Korea, where he was responsible for steps to enhance Japanese influence in the region. In September 1907, he was promoted to the rank of prince. He retired from his position in Korea in July 1909 and became the president of the privy council in Japan. However, on October 26, during a visit to Harbin, he was assassinated by a Korean attacker.

He is to be distinguished from Admiral Count Yuko Ito (b. 1843), the distinguished naval commander.

He should be distinguished from Admiral Count Yuko Ito (b. 1843), the renowned naval commander.

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

ITRI, is a town in Campania, Italy, located in the province of Caserta, 6 miles by road northwest of Formia. Population (1901) was 5,797. The town is charmingly situated 690 feet above sea level, in the mountains that the Appian Way passes through between Fondi and Formia. 87 Interesting remains of the substruction wall supporting the ancient road can be found in Itri itself, and there are many remnants of ancient buildings nearby. The bandit Fra Diavolo, the protagonist of Auber’s opera, was born in Itri, and the area was once famous for banditry.

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

ITURBIDE (or Yturbide), AUGUSTIN DE (1783-1824), was the emperor of Mexico from May 1822 to March 1823. He was born on September 27, 1783, in Valladolid, now Morelia, Mexico, where his father, an Old Spaniard from Pampeluna, had settled with his Creole wife. After receiving a better education than was typical in Mexico at the time, Iturbide joined the military and held the rank of lieutenant in the provincial regiment of his hometown in 1810. That year, the rebellion led by Hidalgo broke out, and Iturbide served in the royal army, seemingly more out of strategy than conviction. He had great bravery and exceptional military skills, especially suited for guerrilla warfare, which allowed him to achieve significant success and quickly climb the ranks. In December 1813, Colonel Iturbide, alongside General Llano, dealt a severe blow to the insurgency by defeating Morelos, Hidalgo's successor, at the battle of Valladolid. He followed that up with another major victory at Puruaran in January 1814. The next year, Don Augustin was appointed to lead the army of the north and became governor of the provinces of Valladolid and Guanajuato, but in 1816, serious accusations of extortion and violence surfaced against him, leading to his recall. Although he was acquitted, or at least the inquiry was dropped, he didn't return to his commands and instead spent four years in private life, reportedly adhering to a strict regimen of penance for his past actions. In 1820, Apodaca, the viceroy of Mexico, received orders from the Spanish cortes to announce the constitution declared in Spain in 1812. While obliged to comply at first, which limited his power, he secretly planned to restore absolute power for Ferdinand VII in Mexico. Under the guise of quelling the remnants of the uprising, he raised troops and appointed Iturbide to lead them, instructing him to declare the king's absolute authority. However, after four years of reflection, Iturbide's views changed, and now driven by personal ambition and a sense of patriotism, he decided to support the cause of national independence. His later actions—how he issued the Plan of Iguala on February 24, 1821, how his transformation from a proponent of monarchy to a candidate for the crown occurred due to the Spanish cortes' refusal to ratify the treaty of Cordova, which he had signed with O'Donoju, and how he was hailed as Emperor Augustin I on May 18, 1822, only to be forced within ten months, because of his arrogant disregard for constitutional limits, to offer his abdication to a congress he had forcibly dissolved—are detailed under Mexico. Although Congress refused to accept his abdication because doing so would acknowledge the legality of his election, they allowed the ex-emperor to retire to Leghorn in Italy, granting him an annual pension of £5000 for his services in 1820. Nevertheless, Iturbide sought to regain power one last time; in 1824, moving from Leghorn to London, he published a Statement, and on May 11, set sail for Mexico. The congress promptly declared him an outlaw, prohibiting him from entering Mexican territory under penalty of death. Unaware of this, the ex-emperor landed in disguise at Soto la Marina on July 14. He was quickly recognized and arrested, then shot on July 19, 1824, at Padilla by order of the Tamaulipas state government, without being allowed to appeal to the general congress. Don Augustin de Iturbide was described by his contemporaries as handsome and charming. His remarkable courage and success made him a hero among his soldiers, but he showed brutal cruelty towards prisoners, even boasting in one of his reports about executing three hundred excommunicated individuals on Good Friday. Though portrayed as friendly in his private life, he appeared ambitious and ruthless in his public career, and his lofty Spanish temper, intolerant of any opposition or oversight, cost him the chance to establish a stable imperial dynasty. His grandson Augustin was selected by the ill-fated emperor Maximilian as his successor.

See Statement of some of the principal events in the public life of Augustin de Iturbide, written by himself (Eng. trans., 1824).

See Statement of some of the principal events in the public life of Augustin de Iturbide, written by himself (English translation, 1824).

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

ITZA, a Native American group of Mayan descent, living around Lake Peten in northern Guatemala. Chichen-Itza, one of the most impressive ruins in Yucatan, was the capital of the Itzas. According to their traditions, they moved to an island in the lake after the Mayan kingdom fell apart in 1420, where they built another city. Cortes encountered them in 1525, but they managed to maintain their independence until 1697, when the Spaniards destroyed the city and temples, along with a library of sacred texts written in hieroglyphics on bark fiber. The Itzas were one of the eighteen semi-independent Maya states, whose continuous internal conflicts ultimately led to the breakup of the Xibalba empire and the collapse of Mayan civilization.

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

ITZEHOE, a town in Germany, located in the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein, on the Stör, a navigable tributary of the Elbe, 32 miles northwest of Hamburg and 15 miles north of Glückstadt. Population (1900) 15,649. The Church of St. Lawrence, which dates back to the 12th century, and the building where the Holstein estates used to meet are notable landmarks. The town has a convent established in 1256, a high school, a hospital, and other charitable institutions. Itzehoe is a bustling commercial hub. Its sugar refineries are among the largest in Germany. The town also engages in iron founding, shipbuilding, and wool spinning, with products including machinery, tobacco, fishing nets, chicory, soap, cement, and beer. Fishing provides work for some residents, and the cattle and horse markets are significant. A substantial trade in agricultural products and wood is conducted, mainly with Hamburg and Altona.

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

Itzehoe is the oldest town in Holstein. Its core was a castle, built in 809 by Egbert, one of Charlemagne’s counts, to defend against the Danes. The community that developed around it was called Esseveldoburg, Eselsfleth, and Ezeho. The town was destroyed in 1201 but was restored in 1224. The new town was granted Lübeck rights by Adolphus IV in 1238, and the old town received them in 1303. During the Thirty Years’ War, Itzehoe was destroyed twice by the Swedes, in 1644 and 1657, but was rebuilt each time. It became part of Prussia in 1867, along with the duchy of Schleswig-Holstein.

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

IUKA, is the county seat of Tishomingo County, Mississippi, U.S.A., located about 25 miles southeast of Corinth in the northeastern part of the state and 8 miles south of the Tennessee River. Its population was 882 in 1900 and 1,221 in 1910. The town is served by the Southern Railway and has a significant trade in cotton and agricultural products. Its mineral springs make it a popular health resort. During the American Civil War, a Confederate force led by General Sterling Price occupied the town on September 14, 1862, driving out a small Union garrison. On September 19, a partial engagement occurred between Price and a Federal column led by General Rosecrans, resulting in Confederate losses of 700 and Union losses of 790. Price, whose retreat was threatened by larger forces under General Grant, withdrew from Iuka on the morning of September 20.

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

IULUS, in Roman legend: (a) the oldest son of Ascanius and grandson of Aeneas, founder of the Julian family (gens Iulia), who lost his kingdom of Latium to his younger brother Silvius (Dion. Halic. i. 70); (b) another name for, or title of, Ascanius.

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

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

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

Ivan I., known as Kalita or Money-Bag (d. 1341), was the grand duke of Vladimir and the first sobiratel, or “gatherer” of the scattered Russian lands, laying the groundwork for what would become a national autocracy. He achieved this by fully submitting to the khan of the Golden Horde, who allowed him to expand at the expense of the smaller grand dukes in exchange for a generous and timely tribute. Moscow and Tver were the first to fall. Ivan received Tver from the khan after destroying it with an army of 50,000 Tatars in 1327. When Alexander of Tver sought refuge in the strong city of Pskov, Ivan, unable to attack Pskov directly, had Alexander expelled with the help of the metropolitan, Theognost, who threatened Pskov with an interdict. In 1330, Ivan extended his influence over Rostov through harsh tactics like blackmail and execution. However, Great Novgorod proved too powerful, and he unsuccessfully threatened the republic twice. In 1340, Ivan aided the khan in devastating the lands of Prince Ivan of Smolensk, who had refused to pay the required tribute to the Horde. During his reign, Ivan's territories remained free from Tatar raids and thrived as a result, attracting immigrants and their wealth from neighboring principalities. Ivan was a meticulous and frugal manager, keeping detailed records of every village and piece of silver his money-bags acquired, earning him his nickname. The most significant event of his reign was the transfer of the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow, which elevated Muscovy above all other Russian states and made the metropolitan the ecclesiastical overseer of the grand duke. Metropolitan Peter constructed the first stone cathedral in Moscow, and his successor, Theognost, built three more stone churches. At the same time, Ivan replaced the old wooden walls of the Kremlin with stone ones, making Moscow an even safer refuge.

See S. M. Solov’ev, History of Russia (Rus.), vol. iii. (St Petersburg, 1895); Polezhaev, The Principality of Moscow in the first half of the 14th Century (Rus.) (St Petersburg, 1878).

See S. M. Solov’ev, History of Russia (Rus.), vol. iii. (St Petersburg, 1895); Polezhaev, The Principality of Moscow in the first half of the 14th Century (Rus.) (St Petersburg, 1878).

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

Ivan II. (1326-1359), grand duke of Vladimir, was the younger son of Ivan Kalita and was born in 1326. In 1353, he took over as grand duke after his older brother Simeon, despite competition from Prince Constantine of Suzdal, as Khan Hanibek chose to give the yarluik, or letter of investiture, to Ivan instead of Constantine. Initially, the principalities of Suzdal, Ryazan, and the republic of Novgorod refused to acknowledge him as grand duke and fought against him until 1354. The authority of the grand duchy noticeably weakened during Ivan II's rule. The neighboring principalities paid little attention to Moscow, and Ivan, described as “a meek, gentle and merciful prince,” was largely influenced by the tuisyatsky, or chiliarch, Alexis Khvost, and after his murder by envious boyars in 1357, by Bishop Alexis. He passed away in 1359. Like most of his predecessors, Ivan divided his territories among his children in his last will.

See Dmitry Ilovaisky, History of Russia (Rus.), vol. ii. (Moscow, 1876-1894).

See Dmitry Ilovaisky, History of Russia (Rus.), vol. ii. (Moscow, 1876-1894).

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

Ivan the Great. (1440-1505), grand duke of Muscovy, son of Vasily (Basil) Vasilievich the Blind, grand duke of Moscow, and Maria Yaroslavovna, was born in 1440. He shared the rule with his father during the last years of his life and took over in 1462. Ivan strongly pursued the unifying strategy of his predecessors. However, cautious to the point of timidity, like most princes from the house of Rurik, he avoided any major confrontations with his neighbors until the circumstances were highly favorable, always preferring to achieve his goals gradually, indirectly, and beneath the surface. By this time, Muscovy had become a solid and powerful state, while its rivals had noticeably weakened, a situation very favorable to the strategic ambitions of a statesman like Ivan III. His first major campaign was a war against the republic of Novgorod, which, alarmed by Muscovy's rising power, had sought protection from Casimir IV., king of Poland, an alliance viewed in Moscow as a betrayal of orthodoxy. Ivan launched an attack on Novgorod in 1470, and after his generals defeated the republic's forces twice, at Shelona and on the Dvina, in the summer of 1471, the Novgorodians were compelled to seek peace, which they achieved by agreeing to end their Polish alliance, ceding a significant portion of their northern territories, and paying a war indemnity of 15,500 roubles. From then on, Ivan constantly looked for a reason to completely destroy Novgorod; although he often infringed on its ancient rights in small ways, the republic's cautious stance meant his desired opportunity didn't arise until 1477. That year, Novgorod's ambassadors unwittingly aided him by addressing him in public as “Gosudar” (sovereign) instead of “Gospodin” (“Sir”) as before. Ivan seized this as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty, and when the Novgorodians rejected their ambassadors, he marched against them. Abandoned by Casimir IV. and surrounded on all sides by Muscovite armies, which included a Tatar unit, the republic recognized Ivan as autocrat and surrendered (January 14, 1478) all of its privileges and properties (including all of northern Russia from Lapland to the Urals) to him. Later uprisings (1479-1488) were dealt with by forcibly relocating the wealthiest and most prominent families of Novgorod to Moscow, Vyatka, and other central Russian cities. After this, Novgorod ceased to exist as an independent state. The rival republic of Pskov maintained its political existence by quickly aiding Ivan against its longtime foe. The other principalities were effectively absorbed through conquest, purchase, or marriage contracts—Yaroslavl in 1463, Rostov in 1474, Tver in 1485.

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

Ivan's refusal to share his gains with his brothers, along with his interference in the internal politics of their inherited territories, led to several wars with them. Despite the princes receiving help from Lithuania, Ivan came out on top. Ultimately, Ivan's new governing rule, clearly laid out in his last will stating that all his relatives' lands should go directly to the reigning grand duke after their deaths instead of being passed down to the princes' heirs, finally put an end to these semi-independent princes. The further expansion of Muscovite territory was assisted by the death of Casimir IV in 1492, when Poland and Lithuania once again separated. The throne of Lithuania was now held by Casimir's son Alexander, a weak and uninspired prince who was unable to defend his lands against continuous Muscovite attacks. He tried to protect them through a marriage alliance, marrying Helena, Ivan's daughter. However, Ivan's clear intent to seize as much of Lithuania as he could eventually forced Alexander in 1499 to go to war against his father-in-law. The Lithuanians were defeated at Vedrosha (July 14, 1500), and in 1503 Alexander was relieved to buy peace by ceding to Ivan Chernigov, Starodub, Novgorod-Syeversk, and sixteen other towns.

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

It was during the reign of Ivan III that Muscovy broke free from the Tatar rule. In 1480, Ivan refused to pay the usual tribute to the grand Khan Ahmed. However, when the grand khan marched against him, Ivan started to lose his nerve, and only the strong encouragement from the passionate bishop of Rostov, Vassian, motivated him to take action. Throughout the autumn, the Russian and Tatar armies faced each other on opposite sides of the Ugra River until November 11, when Ahmed retreated into the steppe. The following year, while preparing for a second attack on Moscow, the grand khan was unexpectedly ambushed, defeated, and killed by Ivak, the khan of the Nogai Tatars, leading to the sudden collapse of the Golden Horde. In 1487, Ivan made the khanate of Kazan, a branch of the Horde, into a vassal state, though it eventually broke away from his control in his later years. Ivan had peaceful and even friendly relations with other Muslim powers, including the Crimean khan and the Sultan of Turkey. The Crimean khan, Mengli Girai, assisted him against Lithuania and helped open diplomatic channels between Moscow and Constantinople, where the first Russian embassy arrived in 1495.

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

The government of Muscovy under Ivan III changed significantly and adopted an autocratic form it had never had before. This shift was not just a natural result of Moscow's dominance over other Russian territories, but also due to the simultaneous rise of new and unique ideas that found fertile ground there. After the fall of Constantinople, Orthodox canonists began to view the grand dukes of Moscow as the successors to the Byzantine emperors. This development coincided with changes in Ivan III's personal life. Following the death of his first wife, Maria of Tver (1467), and at the suggestion of Pope Paul II (1469), who hoped to draw Russia closer to the Catholic Church, Ivan III married the Catholic Zoe Palaeologa (better known by her Orthodox name, Sophia), the daughter of Thomas, the despot of Morea, who claimed to be the rightful heir to the throne of Constantinople as the closest relative of the last Greek emperor. However, the princess remained devoted to her family traditions, sparking imperial ideas in her husband’s mind. Through her influence, the formal court etiquette of Constantinople (along with the imperial double-headed eagle and all that it represented) was adopted by the Moscow court. From that point on, the grand duke distanced himself from the boyars. The previous patriarchal government systems disappeared. The boyars were no longer consulted on state matters. The sovereign became sacred, while the boyars were reduced to a status akin to slaves, completely dependent on the sovereign’s will. Naturally, the boyars resented such a degrading change and initially resisted it with some success. However, the clever Greek woman ultimately triumphed, and it was her son Vasily, rather than Maria of Tver’s son, Demetrius, who was eventually crowned co-regent with his father (April 14, 1502). It was during Ivan III's reign that the first Russian "Law Book," or code, was compiled by the scribe Gusev. Ivan worked hard to promote civilization in his realm and, in pursuit of this goal, invited many foreign experts and craftsmen to settle in Muscovy, the most notable of whom was the Italian Ridolfo di Fioravante, nicknamed Aristotle because of his extraordinary knowledge, who constructed the cathedrals of the Assumption (Uspenski) and of Saint Michael or the Holy Archangels in the Kremlin.

See P. Pierling, Mariage d’un tsar au Vatican, Ivan III. et Sophie Paléologue (Paris, 1891); E. I. Kashprovsky, The Struggle of Ivan III. with Sigismund I. (Rus.) (Nizhni, 1899); S. M. Solov’ev, History of Russia (Rus.), vol. v. (St Petersburg, 1895).

See P. Pierling, Mariage d’un tsar au Vatican, Ivan III. et Sophie Paléologue (Paris, 1891); E. I. Kashprovsky, The Struggle of Ivan III. with Sigismund I. (Rus.) (Nizhni, 1899); S. M. Solov’ev, History of Russia (Rus.), vol. v. (St Petersburg, 1895).

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

Ivan the Terrible., known as “the Terrible” (1530-1584), was the tsar of Muscovy and the son of Vasily [Basil] III. Ivanovich, grand duke of Muscovy, and his second wife, Helena Glinska. He was born on August 25, 1530, and became grand duke after his father’s death in 1533. He took control of the government in 1544 when he was just fourteen. Ivan IV. was exceptionally advanced for his age, but from the beginning, he showed what we would now call a neurotic side to his personality. His father passed away when he was three and his mother when he was only seven, forcing him to grow up in a harsh and demeaning environment where he learned to disregard human life and dignity. He was mistreated by the influential boyars who were in charge after political upheavals, leading to a deep-seated hatred for their class and a strong interest in the merchant class, who were their natural rivals. From a young age, he held an inflated view of his own divine authority, dedicating much of his studies to finding justification in the Scriptures and Slavonic chronicles for his divine right to rule. He first showed his power by literally throwing the last of his boyar oppressors to the dogs and soon after expressed his desire to take on the title of tsar, a title his father and grandfather had long desired but never had the courage to claim publicly. On January 16, 1547, he was crowned the first Russian tsar by the metropolitan of Moscow; on February 3 of the same year, he chose his wife from a group of virgins gathered from across Russia, selecting Anastasia Zakharina-Koshkina, who came from an old and noble family better known by its later name, Romanov.

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

Until now, according to his own account, the private life of the young tsar had been incredibly terrible, but his sensitive conscience (he was naturally religious) led him, in 1550, to call a Zemsky Sobor or national assembly, the first of its kind. During this assembly, he made a strange public confession of the mistakes of his youth and promised that the realm of Russia (which he blamed the boyar regents for ruining) would henceforth be governed justly and compassionately. In 1551, the tsar presented a hundred questions to a synod of prelates regarding the best way to address the current issues, which is why the decrees of this synod are generally referred to as stoglav or centuria. The decade from 1550 to 1560 marked the positive phase of Ivan IV’s reign when he intentionally distanced himself from his disgraceful past and surrounded himself with good men of humble backgrounds. It wasn’t just that he hated and distrusted the boyars; he was already astute enough to realize that they couldn't fit into the new order he wanted to create. Ivan envisioned the revitalization of Muscovy, and the only people who could help him were those who could look confidently toward the future because they had no past to distract them—individuals who would loyally serve their sovereign because their political significance depended solely on him. The main supporters in this effort were Alexis Adashev and the monk Sylvester, both coming from such obscure origins that almost every detail of their lives is speculative, yet both were, morally, the best Muscovites of their time. Their influence on the young tsar was profoundly positive, and the period of their leadership coincided with the most glorious phase of Ivan’s reign—the period of the conquests of Kazan and Astrakhan.

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

In 1551, one of the factions in Kazan offered the entire khanate to the young tsar. On August 20, 1552, he stood before its walls with an army of 150,000 men and 50 cannons. The siege was long and expensive; the army suffered greatly, and only the tsar's determination kept them camped there for six weeks. However, on October 2, the fortress, which had been heroically defended, was captured. The conquest of Kazan was a significant turning point in the history of Eastern Europe. It was not only the first territorial gain from the Tatars, whom Muscovy had submitted to for generations; at Kazan, Asia, in the name of Mahomet, had fought from its last stronghold against Christian Europe rallied under the banner of the tsar of Muscovy. For the first time, the Volga became a Russian river. Nothing could now slow down the natural expansion of the young Russian state toward the east and southeast. In 1554, Astrakhan fell almost without resistance. By 1560, all the Finnic and Tatar tribes between the Oka and the Kama had become subjects of Russia. Ivan was also the first tsar to dare to attack Crimea. In 1555, he sent Ivan Sheremetev against Perekop, and Sheremetev defeated the Tatars in a major two-day battle at Sudbishenska. Some of Ivan’s advisers, including Sylvester and Adashev, suggested that he eliminate the Crimean khanate, just as he had done with the khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan. But Ivan, wiser than his peers, understood that this was impossible due to the vast distance and the dominance of the Grand Turk from whom it would need to be taken. He focused instead on Livonia, which was relatively close and offered a coastline with direct access to Western Europe. Ivan IV., like Peter I. later, recognized the need to elevate Muscovy to the level of its neighbors. He planned to achieve this by encouraging a large immigration of skilled workers and craftsmen into his tsardom. However, all his neighbors, worried about the implications of a civilized Muscovy, united to thwart him. Charles V even went so far as to disperse 123 skilled Germans that Ivan's agent had gathered and brought to Lübeck for shipment to a Baltic port. After that, Ivan had to manage the situation as best he could. His chance appeared in the mid-16th century when the Order of the Sword fell apart, and Livonia was fiercely contested by Sweden, Poland, and Denmark. Ivan intervened in 1558 and quickly captured Narva, Dorpat, and a dozen smaller fortresses; however, in 1560, Livonia sought the protection of Poland, and King Sigismund II warned Ivan to stay away.

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

By this time, Ivan had entered the darker phase of his reign. As early as 1553, he had stopped trusting Sylvester and Adashev due to their significant failure to support his infant son's claim to the throne while he was critically ill. The confusing and ungrateful behavior of the tsar’s close friends and protégés during this time has never been fully understood, and he had good reason to feel hurt. However, after recovering, he graciously chose to overlook it, and they continued to manage affairs for another six years. Then a dispute over the Crimea arose, and Ivan became convinced that they were not only mediocre politicians but also untrustworthy friends. In 1560, both of them vanished from power; Sylvester entered a monastery at his own request, while Adashev died that same year, living in honorable exile as a general in Livonia. Around the same time, the deaths of his beloved wife Anastasia and his son Demetrius, along with the betrayal of his close friend Prince Kurbsky, seemed to incite Ivan's fury against both God and humanity. Over the next ten years (1560-1570), terrible and horrific events unfolded in Muscovy. The tsar himself lived in constant fear, believing that everyone was against him. On December 3, 1564, he left Moscow with his entire family. On January 3, 1565, he announced in an open letter to the metropolitan that he intended to abdicate. The common people, whom he had always supported over the boyars, then pleaded for him to return on his terms. He agreed to come back but set himself up within a unique institution, the oprichina or "separate estate." Certain towns and regions across Russia were cut off from the rest of the realm, and their revenues were designated for the upkeep of the tsar’s new court and household, which was to consist of 1,000 carefully selected boyars and lower officials, along with their families and entourages, among whom Ivan chose to live exclusively. The oprichina was not a constitutional change. The duma, or council, still managed all administrative details; the old boyars maintained their longstanding roles and honors. The only difference was that the tsar had isolated himself from them, and they were allowed to communicate with him only on rare occasions. The oprichniki, as the favored few of the tsar, naturally, in their own interest, steeled his heart against all outsiders and ruthlessly trampled anyone outside their circle. Their first and most notable victim was Philip, the saintly metropolitan of Moscow, who was strangled for condemning the oprichina as an unchristian institution and refusing to bless the tsar (1569). On his way to destroy the second wealthiest city in his empire—Great Novgorod—Ivan stopped in Tver to murder St. Philip. An infamous informer named Peter had accused the city's authorities of conspiracy to the tsar; without confronting the Novgorodians with their accuser, Ivan proceeded at the end of 1569 to punish them. After devastating the land, his own land, like a wild animal, he entered the city on January 8, 1570, and for the next five weeks, systematically and deliberately massacred groups of every class of the population. Every monastery, church, manor house, warehouse, and farm within a 100-mile radius was destroyed, plundered, and left without roofs; all goods were looted, and all livestock killed. Not until February 13 were the wretched remaining citizens allowed to rebuild their homes and farm their fields once again.

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

An ongoing and disorganized war with Sweden and Poland for control of Livonia and Esthonia took place from 1560 to 1582. Ivan’s generals (he rarely fought in battle himself) were mostly successful at first, overwhelming their opponents with sheer numbers and capturing many fortresses and towns. However, in the end, the greater military effectiveness of the Swedes and Poles always won out. Ivan was also unfortunate to face Stephen Báthory, one of the greatest military leaders of the time, as his main rival. As a result, all of Ivan’s hard work and significant sacrifices amounted to nothing. The West was too powerful for him. By the peace of Zapoli (January 15th, 1582), he handed over Livonia along with Polotsk to Báthory, and through the truce of Ilyusa, he simultaneously gave up Ingria to the Swedes. Muscovy lost the Baltic coastline for another century and a half. In his later years, Ivan sought friendly relations with England, hoping to gain some benefits of civilization from Queen Elizabeth’s friendship, as he wanted to marry one of her ladies, Mary Hastings, even though his fifth wife, Martha Nagaya, was still alive. Toward the end of his life, Ivan found some consolation for his failures in the west through the unexpected acquisition of the kingdom of Siberia in the east, which was first conquered by the Cossack leader Ermak in 1581.

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

In November 1580, Ivan, in a fit of uncontrollable anger at some contradiction or criticism, struck his eldest surviving son Ivan, a prince of great promise whom he deeply loved, with a blow that turned out to be fatal. Overcome with remorse, he wanted to step down, believing he was unworthy to rule any longer; however, his trembling boyars, fearing some dark scheme, refused to follow anyone but him. Three years later, on March 18, 1584, while playing chess, he suddenly fell backward in his chair and was taken to his bed in a dying state. At the last moment, he put on the hood of the strictest order of hermits and died as the monk Jonah.

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

Ivan IV was definitely a man of great natural talent. His political insight was exceptional. He foresaw the ideals of Peter the Great and only failed to realize them because his material resources were lacking. But while we can admire his skills, we shouldn't overlook his lack of moral integrity, nor is it fair to blame his excesses solely on the brutal and corrupt society he lived in. The same society that produced his notorious favorites also gave rise to St. Philip of Moscow, and by ignoring St. Philip, Ivan fell below even the not-so-high moral standards of his time. He certainly left Muscovite society in a worse state than he found it, paving the way for the horrors of “the Great Anarchy.” Physically, Ivan was tall and well-built, with high shoulders and a broad chest. His eyes were small and restless, his nose was hooked, and he had an impressively long beard and mustaches. His face had a sinister, troubled look, but an enigmatic smile constantly lingered around his lips. He was the best educated and the hardest working man of his time. His memory was incredible, and his energy was tireless. He took personal oversight of everything as much as possible, and he never turned away a petitioner from the lower classes.

See S. M. Solov’ev, History of Russia (Rus.) vol. v. (St Petersburg, 1895); A. Brückner, Geschichte Russlands bis zum Ende des 18ten Jahrhunderts (Gotha, 1896); E. Tikhomirov, The first Tsar of Moscovy, Ivan IV. (Rus.) (Moscow, 1888); L. G. T. Tidander, Kriget mellan Sverige och Ryssland åren 1555-1557 (Vesterås, 1888); P. Pierling, Un Arbitrage pontifical au XVIe siècle entre la Pologne et la Russie (Bruxelles, 1890); V. V. Novodvorsky, The Struggle for Livonia, 1570-1582 (Rus.) (St Petersburg, 1904); K. Waliszewski, Ivan le terrible (Paris, 1904); R. N. Bain, Slavonic Europe, ch. 5 (Cambridge, 1907).

See S. M. Solov’ev, History of Russia (Rus.) vol. v. (St Petersburg, 1895); A. Brückner, Geschichte Russlands bis zum Ende des 18ten Jahrhunderts (Gotha, 1896); E. Tikhomirov, The First Tsar of Moscovy, Ivan IV. (Rus.) (Moscow, 1888); L. G. T. Tidander, Kriget mellan Sverige och Ryssland åren 1555-1557 (Vesterås, 1888); P. Pierling, Un Arbitrage pontifical au XVIe siècle entre la Pologne et la Russie (Bruxelles, 1890); V. V. Novodvorsky, The Struggle for Livonia, 1570-1582 (Rus.) (St Petersburg, 1904); K. Waliszewski, Ivan le terrible (Paris, 1904); R. N. Bain, Slavonic Europe, ch. 5 (Cambridge, 1907).

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

Ivan V.1 (1666-1696), tsar of Russia, was the son of Tsar Alexius Mikhailovich and his first wife Miloslavzkoya. Physically and mentally challenged, Ivan was merely a pawn for the faction in Muscovy that wanted to keep the children of Tsar Alexis, from his second wife Natalia Naruishkina, off the throne. In 1682, the progressive faction, led by Artamon Matvyeev and Tsarina Natalia, bypassed Ivan and placed his half-brother, the energetic and promising young tsarevich Peter, on the throne. However, on May 23, the Naruishkin faction was overthrown by the stryeltsi (musketeers), who were secretly encouraged by Ivan’s half-sister Sophia, and Ivan was made co-tsar with Peter. Three days later, he was declared “first tsar” to further undermine the Naruishkins and put control of the government solely in Sophia's hands. In 1689, Ivan's name was used as a pretext by Sophia in her attempt to completely remove Peter from the throne. Ivan was made to personally serve drinks to his sister’s supporters, but later, influenced by his uncle Prozorovsky, he publicly stated that “even for his sister’s sake, he would no longer quarrel with his dear brother.” During Peter’s reign, Ivan V. had no role in government, devoting himself instead to “constant prayer and strict fasting.” On January 9, 1684, he married Praskovia Saltuikova, who bore him five daughters, one of whom, Anne, eventually became the Russian ruler. In his last years, Ivan was paralyzed. He died on January 29, 1696.

See R. Nisbet Bain, The First Romanovs (London, 1905); M. P. Pogodin, The First Seventeen Years of the Life of Peter the Great (Rus.) (Moscow, 1875).

See R. Nisbet Bain, The First Romanovs (London, 1905); M. P. Pogodin, The First Seventeen Years of the Life of Peter the Great (Rus.) (Moscow, 1875).

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

Ivan VI. (1740-1764), emperor of Russia, was the son of Prince Antony Ulrich of Brunswick and Princess Anna Leopoldovna of Mecklenburg, and the great-nephew of Empress Anne, who adopted him and named him her successor on October 5, 1740, when he was just eight weeks old. After Anne died on October 17, he was proclaimed emperor, and the next day, Ernest Johann Biren, Duke of Courland, was appointed regent. Following Biren's fall on November 8, the regency passed to the baby tsar’s mother, though the capable Vice-Chancellor, Andrei Osterman, ran the government. A little over a year later, a coup d’état placed Tsarevna Elizabeth on the throne (December 6, 1741), and Ivan and his family were imprisoned in the fortress of Dünamünde (Ust Dvinsk) (December 13, 1742) after being held briefly in Riga, where the new empress initially considered sending them back to Brunswick. In June 1744, they were moved to Kholmogory on the White Sea, where Ivan, cut off from his family and seeing no one but his jailer, stayed for the next twelve years. As rumors of his confinement at Kholmogory began to leak, he was secretly transferred to the fortress of Schlüsselburg (1756), where he was kept under even stricter guard, with even the fortress commandant unaware of the true identity of “a certain arrestant” in his care. When Peter III ascended the throne, it seemed the unfortunate prisoner’s situation might improve; the kind-hearted emperor visited him and expressed sympathy. However, Peter was overthrown just weeks later. Instructions sent to Ivan’s guardian, Prince Churmtyev, ordered that Ivan be chained and even whipped if he resisted. With Catherine's rise to power, even harsher orders were given to the officer responsible for “the nameless one.” If anyone attempted to rescue him, the prisoner was to be executed; he was never to be handed over alive to anyone, even if his rescuers presented an order for his release signed by the empress herself. By this time, twenty years of solitary confinement had affected Ivan’s mental state, although he didn’t appear to be completely insane. Despite the mystery surrounding him, he was well aware of his royal heritage and always referred to himself as gosudar (sovereign). Although he was meant to be kept in ignorance, he had learned to read and could understand his Bible. His residence at Schlüsselburg could not remain hidden forever, and its discovery ultimately led to his demise. A sub-lieutenant of the garrison, Vasily Mirovich, uncovered the truth about him and hatched a plan to free and proclaim him emperor. At midnight on July 5, 1764, Mirovich won over some members of the garrison, arrested the commandant, Berednikov, and demanded that Ivan be delivered, but he was murdered on the spot by his guards, following the secret instructions they already had.

See R. Nisbet Bain, The Pupils of Peter the Great (London, 1897); M. Semevsky, Ivan VI. Antonovich (Rus.) (St Petersburg, 1866); A. Brückner, The Emperor Ivan VI. and his Family (Rus.) (Moscow, 1874); V. A. Bilbasov, Geschichte Catherine II. (vol. ii., Berlin, 1891-1893).

See R. Nisbet Bain, The Pupils of Peter the Great (London, 1897); M. Semevsky, Ivan VI. Antonovich (Rus.) (St Petersburg, 1866); A. Brückner, The Emperor Ivan VI. and his Family (Rus.) (Moscow, 1874); V. A. Bilbasov, Geschichte Catherine II. (vol. ii., Berlin, 1891-1893).

(R. N. B.)

1 Ivan V., if we count from the first grand duke of that name, as most Russian historians do; Ivan II., if, with the minority, we reckon from Ivan the Terrible as the first Russian tsar.

1 Ivan V., if we start from the first grand duke with that name, as most Russian historians do; Ivan II., if, following the minority view, we consider Ivan the Terrible as the first Russian tsar.

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

IVANGOROD, is a fortified town in Russian Poland, located in the Lublin government, 64 miles southeast of Warsaw by train, at the point where the Wieprz River meets the Vistula. It is protected by nine forts on the right bank of the Vistula and three on the left bank, and along with Warsaw, Novo-Georgievsk, and Brest-Litovsk, it makes up the Polish “quadrilateral.”

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

IVANOVO-VOZNESENSK, a town in central Russia, in the Vladimir region, 86 miles by rail north of the town of Vladimir. Population (1887) 22,000; (1900) 64,628. It started as two villages—Ivanovo, which dates back to the 16th century, and Voznesensk, which is much newer—merged into a town in 1861. Notable public buildings include the cathedral and the Church of the Intercession of the Virgin, which was once linked to an important monastery founded in 1579 and abandoned in 1754. One of the town's colleges houses a public library. Linen weaving began in 1751, and in 1776, the production of chintzes was brought from Schlüsselburg. The town has cotton factories, calico print works, iron works, and chemical plants.

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

IVARR, BEINLAUSI (d. 873), son of Ragnar Lothbrok, the great Viking leader, is known in English and Continental histories as Inuaer, Ingwar, or Hingwar. He was one of the Danish leaders in the Sheppey expedition of 855 and might have been present at the siege of York in 867. The main event in his life was his involvement in the martyrdom of St Edmund in 870. He seems to have led the Danes during that event, earning him the title “crudelissimus” by which he is typically referred. It’s likely that he is the same as Imhar, king of the Norsemen of all Ireland and Britain, who was active in Ireland from 852 to 873, the year he died.

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

IVIZA, Ibiza or Iviça, an island in the Mediterranean Sea, belongs to Spain and is part of the Balearic Islands (q.v.). Population (1900) 23,524; area 228 sq. m. Ibiza is located 50 miles southwest of Majorca and about 60 miles from Cape San Martin on the Spanish coast. Its greatest length from northeast to southwest is about 25 miles and its widest point is around 13 miles. The coast features many small bays, with the main ones being San Antonio on the northwest and Ibiza on the southeast. Of all the Balearic Islands, Ibiza has the most diverse scenery and is the most fertile. The hilly areas, which peak at Pico de Atalayasa (1560 ft.), are lushly forested. The climate is mostly mild and pleasant, although hot winds from the African coast can occasionally be bothersome. The main products are oil, grains, and fruits (particularly figs, prickly pears, almonds, and carob beans); hemp and flax are also cultivated, but the local people tend to be somewhat lazy, and their farming methods are quite basic. There are many salt pans along the coast, previously managed by the Spanish government. Exports include fruit, salt, charcoal, lead, and locally made stockings. The island imports rice, flour, sugar, woolen goods, and cotton. The capital, and indeed the only significant town—since the population is quite dispersed—is Ibiza or La Ciudad (6527), a fortified town on the southeast coast composed of a lower and upper section, featuring a good harbor, a 13th-century Gothic collegiate church, and an ancient castle. Ibiza was the seat of a bishop from 1782 to 1851.

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

South of Ibiza lies the smaller and more irregular island of Formentera (pop., 1900, 2243; area, 37 sq. m.), which is said to get its name from wheat production. Like Ibiza, it shares a similar appearance and the character of its products, but it has no streams at all. Goats and sheep are found in the mountains, and the coasts are often visited by flamingos. Ibiza and Formentera are the main islands of the lesser or western Balearic group, which used to be known as the Pityusae or Pine Islands.

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

IVORY, SIR JAMES (1765-1842), a Scottish mathematician, was born in Dundee in 1765. In 1779, he started at the University of St Andrews, where he stood out particularly in mathematics. He later studied theology; however, after two sessions at St Andrews and one at Edinburgh, he gave up on the idea of becoming a clergyman, and in 1786 he became an assistant mathematics and natural philosophy teacher at a newly established academy in Dundee. Three years later, he became a partner and manager of a flax-spinning company in Douglastown, Forfarshire, while still pursuing his favorite studies in his spare time. He was mainly a self-taught mathematician, well-versed in both ancient and modern geometry, and had a comprehensive understanding of the analytical methods and discoveries of European mathematicians. His earliest paper, which discussed an analytical expression for the rectification of the ellipse, was published in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1796); this, along with his later papers on “Cubic Equations” (1799) and “Kepler’s Problem” (1802), showed his great skill in working with algebraic formulas. In 1804, after the flax-spinning company he managed dissolved, he secured one of the mathematics chairs at the Royal Military College in Marlow (later moved to Sandhurst), and he successfully fulfilled his professional obligations until 1816 when declining health forced him to step down. During this time, he published several significant papers in the Philosophical Transactions, earning him the Copley Medal in 1814 and his election as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1815. Of particular significance in the study of attractions is the first of these early papers (Phil. Trans., 1809), in which the problem of the attraction of a homogeneous ellipsoid on an external point is simplified to the attraction of another, related ellipsoid on a corresponding internal point. This theorem is known as Ivory’s theorem. His subsequent papers in the Philosophical Transactions addressed astronomical refractions, planetary perturbations, the equilibrium of fluid masses, and more. For his research on the first topic, he received a royal medal in 1826 and again in 1839. In 1831, following a recommendation from Lord Brougham, King William IV granted him a pension of £300 per year and awarded him the Hanoverian Guelphic order of knighthood. In addition to being connected with leading scientific societies in his own country, such as the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Royal Irish Academy, he was a corresponding member of the Royal Academies of Sciences in both Paris and Berlin, as well as the Royal Society of Göttingen. He passed away in London on September 21, 1842.

A list of his works is given in the Catalogue of Scientific Papers of the Royal Society of London.

A list of his works is provided in the Catalogue of Scientific Papers of the Royal Society of London.

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

IVORY (Fr. ivoire, Lat. ebur), technically speaking, this term refers specifically to the material made from the tusks of elephants, and for trade, it mainly applies to the tusks of male elephants. In Africa, both male and female elephants have sizable tusks, while in the Indian variety, females have much smaller tusks, and in Ceylon, only about 1% of either sex have any tusks at all. Ivory is very dense with tightly packed pores filled with a gelatinous solution, which gives it a beautiful polish and makes it easy to work with. It falls somewhere between bone and horn; it’s more fibrous than bone, making it less prone to tearing or splintering. A solid scientific definition comes from Sir Richard Owen, who states:1 “The name ivory is now restricted to that modification of dentine or tooth substance which in transverse sections or fractures shows lines of different colors, or striae, proceeding in the arc of a circle and forming by their intersections tiny curvilinear lozenge-shaped spaces.” These spaces are created by a vast number of extremely tiny tubes packed closely together, radiating outward in all directions. This structural arrangement gives ivory its fine grain and almost perfect elasticity, along with the unique markings that resemble engine-turning on a watch case, which many people use to tell it apart from celluloid or other synthetic alternatives. Elephants’ tusks are essentially their upper incisor teeth, which begin growing from a semi-solid vascular pulp in early youth and continue to grow throughout their lives, accumulating phosphates and other minerals, eventually hardening like typical teeth. The tusk develops in layers, with the innermost layer being the newest. A large portion of each tusk is embedded in the bone sockets of the skull and is hollow for some distance, tapering into a narrow channel, often referred to as the nerve, leading towards the tip of the tooth. The outer layer, or bark, is enamel of a similar density to the central core. In addition to elephant tusks, commercial ivory includes the teeth of the hippopotamus, walrus, narwhal, sperm whale, and some members of the wild boar family, like the warthog from South Africa. However, in practice, the only significant tusks for large-scale work come from hippos and walruses, whereas boar tusks are sold in considerable quantities from India and Africa.

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

Generally speaking, the supply of ivory imported into Europe comes from Africa; some is from Asia, but much of what is shipped from India actually originates in Africa, arriving via Zanzibar and Mozambique to Bombay. A certain amount comes from the vast reserves of prehistoric animal remains still found throughout Russia, mainly in Siberia near the Lena and other rivers that flow into the Arctic Ocean. The mammoth and mastodon seemed to have once roamed across the entire globe. In England, tusks have been recently unearthed—for example, at Dungeness—that are as long as 12 ft. and weigh 200 lbs. The Siberian deposits have been mined for nearly two centuries now. The supply appears to be as endless as a coalfield. Some believe that a day may come when civilization will lead to the complete extinction of elephants in Africa, and that we may have to rely on these deposits as the last source of animal ivory. In recent years, the use of mammoth ivory in England has been declining. Almost none passed through the London sale-rooms from 1903-1906. Previously, shipments of 10 to 20 tons were not unusual. Not all of it is of good quality; perhaps around half of what's imported to England meets that standard, while the rest is decayed; however, specimens are found in such perfect condition that they appear as if they were recently killed, rather than having been preserved for thousands of years in the frozen ground. There is a significant amount of literature (see Shooting) on big-game hunting, which includes elephants, hippopotamuses, and smaller tusk-bearing animals. Elephants roamed all over Africa, from the northern deserts to the Cape of Good Hope, until fairly recently. They are still plentiful in Central Africa and Uganda, but civilization has gradually pushed them further into the wild and dense forests of the interior.

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

The quality of ivory depends on where it comes from, with the softer variety from the eastern parts of the continent being the most valued. When in perfect condition, African ivory that has just been cut should have a warm, transparent, mellow color, with minimal grain or mottling visible. Asiatic ivory is denser, whiter, has a more open texture, and is easier to work with, but it tends to turn yellow more quickly and is harder to polish. Unlike bone, ivory doesn’t need any special preparation and can be worked with right away. Ivory from the area near Cameroon is quite good, followed by ivory from Loango, Congo, Gabun, and Ambriz; next is the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, and Cape Coast Castle. Ivory from French Sudan often has a “ringy” quality, and some of the Ambriz variety does too. We can classify the ivory from Zanzibar and Mozambique as soft; Angola and Ambriz are all hard. Ambriz ivory used to be highly valued, but there’s relatively little available now. Siam ivory is rarely soft. Abyssinian ivory can be soft, but Egypt is pretty much the only place where both types are widely available. A downside to Abyssinian ivory is that it often has a thick outer layer. Egyptian ivory can be prone to cracking due to extreme temperature changes, more so in the past than now, thanks to better packing and shipping methods. Ivory is very sensitive to sudden temperature changes, which is why billiard balls should be kept in a place with fairly stable temperatures.

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

The way ivory descriptions are labeled can be misleading. They point to shipping ports instead of the actual places where the ivory comes from. For example, "Malta" ivory is a commonly recognized term, but there are no ivory-producing animals on that island.

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

Tusks should be straight and tapering, not overly curved or twisted, for efficiency in cutting; the coat should be fine, thin, clear, and transparent. Ivory is so elastic and flexible that excellent riding whips have been made by cutting whole tusks longitudinally. The size of tusks when brought to market depends on the elephant's species rather than its size. The largest elephants are found in equatorial Africa. Asiatic bull elephant tusks usually weigh no more than 50 lbs, although lengths of 9 ft and weights up to 150 lbs are not entirely unheard of. The record lengths for African tusks include one given to George V, when he was the Prince of Wales, upon his marriage in 1893, measuring 8 ft 7½ in and weighing 165 lbs, and a pair of tusks brought to the Zanzibar market by locals in 1898, weighing over 450 lbs combined. One of those is currently in the Natural History Museum at South Kensington; the other is in the collection of Messrs Rodgers & Co. in Sheffield. For length, the longest known tusks belong to Messrs Rowland Ward on Piccadilly, measuring 11 ft and 11 ft 5 in, with a combined weight of 293 lbs. Osteodentine, which forms from injuries caused by spearheads or bullets, is sometimes found in tusks. This formation resembles stalactites and grows with the tusk, with bullets or iron remaining embedded without any visible trace of their entry.

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

The main commercial distinction in the qualities of ivory is between the hard and soft types. These terms are tricky to define precisely. Generally, hard or bright ivory is noticeably harder to cut with a saw or other tools. It has a glassy and transparent appearance. Soft ivory has more moisture, can handle changes in climate and temperature better, and is less likely to crack. Experts look at the shape of the tooth, the color and quality of the bark or skin, and the transparency when cut, or even before cutting, like at the tip of the tooth. Roughly, you could draw a line almost down the center of Africa: to the west, the hard quality is more common; to the east, the soft. When choosing ivory for things like knife handles, people prefer a beautiful grain with strong markings; however, the best quality of the hard variety, usually used for these purposes, is the one that is tight-grained and has no marks. The curved or canine teeth of the hippopotamus are valuable and available in large amounts in European markets. Owen describes this type as “an extremely dense, compact kind of dentine, partially covered on the outside by a thin layer of enamel as hard as porcelain; so hard that it can strike fire with steel.” Because of this hardness, it’s not favored by turners and ivory workers; before these artisans can work with it, the enamel must be removed, either with acid or by heating and then rapidly cooling so it can be scaled off. The texture appears slightly curdled, mottled, or damasked. Hippo ivory was once commonly used for artificial teeth, but now it’s mainly used for handles on umbrellas and sticks, and whole pieces (in their natural shape) are used for decorative door handles and similar items. In trade, it’s not referred to as “riverhorse” but rather “seahorse teeth.” Walrus ivory is less dense and coarser than hippo ivory, but it can be of fine quality—what little there is, as the oval center, which resembles coarse bone, extends quite far up. In the past, it was abundant in the market, but recently it has become increasingly rare due to the harsh hunting pressure that has nearly wiped out the animals in their main habitats in the northern seas. It is not highly valued now, even though our ancestors held it in high regard. Comparatively large pieces can be found in medieval sculptures from the 11th and 12th centuries, and the grips of many Eastern swords, both ancient and modern, are made from it. Ivory from the single tusk or horn of the narwhal has little commercial value except as a decorative item or curiosity. Some horns can reach lengths of 8 to 10 feet and are about 4 inches thick at the base. It is dense and has a decent color, but due to the central cavity, there is not much of it suitable for anything larger than napkin rings.

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

Ivory in Commerce and Its Industrial Applications.—Until recent years, almost all of the ivory imported to Europe was limited to London, the main trading hub in the world. However, the opening of the Congo trade has allowed the port of Antwerp to rival, and for a time possibly exceed, London's position. Other significant markets include Liverpool and Hamburg; Germany, France, and Portugal have colonial territories in Africa from which ivory is sourced. The United States also imports a substantial amount for its own needs. According to Schilling, during the ten years ending in 1905, 452,100 kilos of ivory were exported from the German Cameroon alone. Mr. Buxton estimates that about 500 tons of ivory are imported into the United Kingdom. If we assume a similar amount for Antwerp, that gives us at least 1,000 tons each year from these two ports alone. If we consider an average weight of 30 lbs per pair of tusks (which is probably too high, likely double the actual weight), this would account for between thirty and forty thousand elephants. It's true that every pair of tusks arriving on the market represents a dead elephant, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the elephant was killed recently or even intentionally, as is commonly believed and often repeated. The vast majority comes from stockpiles gathered by locals, with a significant portion from animals that died naturally. Less than 20% of the ivory is live ivory or from recently killed elephants; the rest is referred to in the trade as dead ivory.

In 1827 the principal London ivory importers imported 3000 cwt. in 1850, 8000 cwt. The highest price up to 1855 was £55 per cwt. At the July sales in 1905 a record price was reached for billiard-ball teeth of £167 per cwt. The total imports into the United Kingdom were, according to Board of Trade returns, in 1890, 14,349 cwt.; in 1895, 10,911 cwt.; in 1900, 9889 cwt.; in 1904, 9045 cwt.

In 1827, the main ivory importers in London brought in 3,000 cwt. In 1850, this increased to 8,000 cwt. The highest price until 1855 was £55 per cwt. At the July sales in 1905, a record price was set for billiard-ball ivory at £167 per cwt. According to Board of Trade returns, the total imports into the United Kingdom were 14,349 cwt. in 1890, 10,911 cwt. in 1895, 9,889 cwt. in 1900, and 9,045 cwt. in 1904.

From Messrs Hale & Son’s (ivory brokers, 10 Fenchurch Avenue) Ivory Report of the second quarterly sales in London, April 1906, it appears that the following were offered:—

From Messrs Hale & Son’s (ivory brokers, 10 Fenchurch Avenue) Ivory Report of the second quarterly sales in London, April 1906, it appears that the following were offered:—

  Tons.
From Zanzibar, Bombay, Mozambique and Siam 17 
Egyptian 19¼
West Coast African 11 
Lisbon 1 
Abyssinian
  ——
  55 
Sea horse (hippopotamus teeth)
Walrus ¼
Waste ivory 10¼
  ——
  67¼

Hard ivory was scarce. West Coast African was principally of the Gabun description, and some of very fine quality. There was very little inquiry for walrus. The highest prices ranged as follows: Soft East Coast tusks (Zanzibar, Mozambique, Bombay and Siam), 102 to 143 ℔. each £66, 10s. to £75, 10s. per cwt. Billiard-ball scrivelloes, £104 per cwt. Cut points for billiard-balls (318 in. to 238 to 3 in.) £114 to £151 per cwt. Seahorse (for best), 3s. 6d. to 4s. 1d. per ℔. Boars’ tusks, 6d. to 7d. per ℔.

Hard ivory was hard to find. The primary source from West Coast Africa was Gabun, and some was very high quality. There wasn’t much demand for walrus ivory. The highest prices were as follows: Soft East Coast tusks (from Zanzibar, Mozambique, Bombay, and Siam) ranged from £66.10 to £75.10 per hundredweight, averaging 102 to 143 pounds each. Billiard-ball scrivelloes went for £104 per hundredweight. Cut points for billiard balls (ranging from 3 1⁄8 in. to 2 3⁄8 in. to 3 in.) were priced at £114 to £151 per hundredweight. Seahorse (for the best) was priced at 3s. 6d. to 4s. 1d. per pound. Boars’ tusks were priced at 6d. to 7d. per pound.

Quantities of ivory offered to Public auction (from Messrs Hale & Son’s Reports).

Amounts of ivory available for public auction (from Messrs Hale & Son’s Reports).

  1903. 1904. 1905.
  Tons. Tons. Tons.
Zanzibar, Bombay, Mozambique and Siam 81  75  76 
Egyptian 49¾ 72¾ 81¾
Abyssinian 22¾ 23¼
West Coast African 46¾ 39½ 41½
Lisbon 3  3 
  203¼ 200  224¼
Seahorse teeth and Boars’ tusks 7  7 
  210¼ 209¾ 231½

Fluctuations in prices of ivory at the London Sale-Room (from Messrs Hale & Son’s Charts, which show the prices at each quarterly sale from 1870).

Variations in ivory prices at the London Sale-Room (from Messrs Hale & Son’s Charts, which display the prices at each quarterly sale since 1870).

  1870. 1880. 1890. 1900. 1905.
 Billiard Ball pieces £55 £90 £112 £68 £167
Averages—          
 Hard Egyptian 36 to 50 ℔. 30 38 50 29 48
 Soft East Indian 50 to 70 ℔. 67 55 88 57 72
 West Coast African 50 to 70 ℔. 36 57 65 48 61
 Hard East African 50 to 70 ℔. 37 49 64 48 61

In October 1889 soft East Indian fetched an average of £82 per cwt., but in several instances higher prices were realized, and one lot reached £88 per cwt. At the Liverpool April sales 1906 about 7¼ tons 94 were offered from Gabun, Angola, and Cameroon (from the last 5¾ tons). To the port of Antwerp the imports were 6830 cwt. in 1904 and 6570 cwt. in 1905; of which 5310 cwt. and 4890 cwt. respectively were from the Congo State.

In October 1889, soft East Indian fetched an average of £82 per cwt., but in some cases, higher prices were achieved, with one lot reaching £88 per cwt. At the Liverpool April sales in 1906, about 7¼ tons 94 were offered from Gabun, Angola, and Cameroon (from the last 5¾ tons). The imports to the port of Antwerp were 6830 cwt. in 1904 and 6570 cwt. in 1905; of which 5310 cwt. and 4890 cwt. respectively came from the Congo State.

The leading London sales are held quarterly in Mincing Lane, a very interesting and wonderful display of tusks and ivory of all kinds being laid out previously for inspection in the great warehouses known as the “Ivory Floor” in the London docks. The quarterly Liverpool sales follow the London ones, with a short interval.

The main sales in London happen every three months on Mincing Lane, showcasing a fascinating and impressive collection of tusks and ivory of all types, which are displayed beforehand for viewing in the large warehouses called the “Ivory Floor” at the London docks. The quarterly sales in Liverpool take place shortly after the London ones.

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

The significant role that ivory plays in industrial arts, not just for decorative uses but also for everyday applications, is not adequately recognized. Nothing from this valuable resource is wasted. Hundreds of sacks filled with cuttings, shavings, and scraps returned by manufacturers after they’ve taken what they need for their particular trade arrive at the marketplace. The dust is used for polishing, in making Indian ink, and even in food products like ivory jelly. The scraps are used for inlaying and for countless purposes involving small household and decorative items. India, often described as the backbone of the trade, purchases vast amounts of the rings left over from turning billiard balls, which are then made into women’s bangles, small toys, models, and other traditional Indian crafts. Without attempting to list all the uses, we can look at some of the most significant applications that require the largest quantities of ivory. The primary ones include the production of billiard balls, cutlery handles, piano keys, and brushware and toiletry items. Billiard balls require the highest quality ivory; the best balls are made from the softer type, although recently, due to competition from bonzoline and similar substitutes, the harder type has been used more to match the weight of the artificial ones. Consequently, the most valuable tusks are those suited for the billiard ball industry. The term "scrivelloes" is used to refer to teeth that are suitable for this purpose, weighing not more than about 7 pounds. Dividing the tusk into smaller pieces for future manufacturing, in order to prevent waste, is an important consideration.

Fig. 1.

The accompanying diagrams (figs. 1 and 2) show the method; the cuts are made radiating from an imaginary centre of the curve of the tusk. In after processes the various trades have their own particular methods for making the most of the material. In making a billiard-ball of the English size the first thing to be done is to rough out, from the cylindrical section, a sphere about 2¼ in. in diameter, which will eventually be 2116 or sometimes for professional players a little larger. One hemisphere—as shown in the diagrams (fig. 2)—is first turned, and the resulting ring detached with a parting tool. The diameter is accurately taken and the subsequent removals taken off in other directions. The ball is then fixed in a wooden chuck, the half cylinder reversed, and the operation repeated for the other hemisphere. It is now left five years to season and then turned dead true. The rounder and straighter the tusk selected for ball-making the better. Evidently, if the tusk is oval and the ball the size of the least diameter, its sides which come nearer to the bark or rind will be coarser and of a different density from those portions further removed from this outer skin. The matching of billiard-balls is important, for extreme accuracy in weight is essential. It is usual to bleach them, as the purchaser—or at any rate the distributing intermediary—likes to have them of a dead white. But this is a mistake, for bleaching with chemicals takes out the gelatine to some extent, alters the quality and affects the density; it also makes them more liable to crack, and they are not nearly so nice-looking. Billiard-balls should be bought in summer time when the temperature is most equable, and gently used till the winter season. On an average three balls of fine quality are got out of a tooth. The stock of more than one great manufacturer surpasses at times 30,000 in number. But although ball teeth rose in 1905 to £167 a cwt., the price of billiard-balls was the same in 1905 as it was in 1885. Roughly speaking, there are about twelve different qualities and prices of billiard-balls, and eight of pyramid- and pool-balls, the latter ranging from half a guinea to two guineas each.

The accompanying diagrams (figs. 1 and 2) illustrate the method; cuts are made radiating from an imaginary center of the tusk's curve. In later processes, different trades have specific techniques to maximize the material. When making a billiard ball of the English size, the first step is to shape a sphere about 2¼ inches in diameter from the cylindrical section, which will eventually measure 2116 or sometimes a bit larger for professional players. One hemisphere—as shown in the diagrams (fig. 2)—is turned first, and then the resulting ring is detached with a parting tool. The diameter is measured precisely, and additional material is removed in different directions. The ball is then secured in a wooden chuck, the half-cylinder is flipped, and the process is repeated for the other hemisphere. It is left to season for five years and then turned to be perfectly round. The closer to round and straight the selected tusk for making balls, the better. Clearly, if the tusk is oval and the ball is the size of the smallest diameter, the sides closer to the bark will be coarser and have a different density than those parts further from the outer skin. Matching billiard balls is crucial since extreme accuracy in weight is essential. They are usually bleached because buyers—or at least the distributors—prefer them to be pure white. However, this is a mistake because chemical bleaching removes some gelatin, alters quality, affects density, makes them more prone to cracking, and makes them less visually appealing. Billiard balls should be purchased in the summer when the temperature is most stable and used gently until winter. On average, three high-quality balls can be made from a single tooth. Some major manufacturers sometimes have stocks exceeding 30,000. Despite the price of ball teeth rising to £167 per cwt in 1905, the price of billiard balls remained the same in 1905 as it was in 1885. Generally, there are about twelve different qualities and prices for billiard balls, and eight for pyramid and pool balls, with the latter ranging from half a guinea to two guineas each.

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

The ivory for piano keys is supplied to the market in pieces known as heads and tails, with heads used for the parts that fingers touch and tails for the sections between the black keys. The two parts are then perfectly joined on the keyboard. Piano keys are usually bleached, but organists, for some reason, tend to prefer unbleached keys. The softer variety is mainly used for high-quality work, preferably of the Egyptian type.

Fig. 2.

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

The main hubs of the ivory industry for everyday household items are in England, with Sheffield known for cutlery handles and London for billiard balls and piano keys. A large company like Rodgers & Sons uses about twenty tons of ivory each year, mostly the harder type. However, America is now a major producer of billiard balls and piano keys, with significant production also happening in France and Germany. Brush backs are almost exclusively produced in England. Dieppe has been well-known for its countless small ornaments and useful items like figurines, crucifixes, small book covers, paper cutters, combs, napkin rings, and other "articles de Paris." In addition, St. Claude in the Jura, Geislingen in Württemberg, and Erbach in Hesse, Germany, are among the key centers of the industry. India and China provide a variety of toys, models, chess and checkers pieces, puzzles, workbox fittings, and other curiosities.

Vegetable Ivory, &c.—Some allusion may be made to vegetable ivory and artificial substitutes. The plants yielding the vegetable ivory of commerce represent two or more species of an anomalous genus of palms, and are known to botanists as Phytelephas. They are natives of tropical South America, occurring chiefly on the banks of the river Magdalena, Colombia, always found in damp localities, not only, however, on the lower coast region as in Darien, but also at a considerable elevation above the sea. They are mostly found in separate groves, not mixed with other trees or shrubs. The plant is severally known as the “tagua” by the Indians on the banks of the Magdalena, as the “anta” on the coast of Darien, and as the “pulli-punta” and “homero” in Peru. It is stemless or short-stemmed, and crowned with from twelve to twenty very long pinnatifid leaves. The plants are dioecious, the males forming higher, more erect and robust trunks than the females. The male inflorescence is in the form of a simple fleshy cylindrical spadix covered with flowers; the female flowers are also in a single spadix, which, however, is shorter than in the male. The fruit consists of a conglomerated head composed of six or seven drupes, each containing from six to nine seeds, and the whole being enclosed in a walled woody covering forming altogether a globular head as large as that of a man. A single plant sometimes bears at the same time from six to eight of these large heads of fruit, each weighing from 20 to 25 ℔. In its very young state the seed contains a clear insipid fluid, which travellers take advantage of to allay thirst. As it gets older this fluid becomes milky and of a sweet taste, and it gradually continues to change both in taste and consistence until it becomes so hard as to make it valuable as a substitute for animal ivory. In their young and fresh state the fruits are eaten with avidity by bears, hogs and other animals. The seeds, or nuts as they are usually called when fully ripe and hard, are used by the American Indians for making small ornamental articles and toys. They are imported into Britain in considerable quantities, frequently under the name of “Cỏrozo” nuts, a name by which the fruits of some species of Attalea (another palm with hard ivory-like seeds) are known in Central America—their uses being chiefly for small articles of turnery. Of vegetable ivory Great Britain imported in 1904 1200 tons, of which about 400 tons were re-exported, principally to Germany. It is mainly and largely used for coat buttons.

Vegetable Ivory, &c.—Some mention can be made of vegetable ivory and its artificial alternatives. The plants that produce the vegetable ivory found in commerce belong to two or more species of a unique genus of palms, known to botanists as Phytelephas. They are native to tropical South America, mainly along the banks of the Magdalena River in Colombia, and are typically found in damp areas, not only near the lower coastal region of Darien but also at significant elevations above sea level. These plants are usually seen in separate groves, not mixed with other trees or shrubs. The plant is referred to as “tagua” by the Indigenous people along the Magdalena, “anta” on the Darien coast, and “pulli-punta” and “homero” in Peru. It can be stemless or have a short stem, topped with twelve to twenty very long pinnate leaves. The plants are dioecious, meaning male plants have taller, sturdier trunks than the females. The male flowers grow in a simple fleshy cylindrical spadix covered with flowers, while the female flowers are also in a single spadix but are shorter than those of the male. The fruit is a cluster made up of six or seven drupes, each containing six to nine seeds, all enclosed in a woody shell that forms a globular head about the size of a human head. A single plant can produce six to eight of these large fruit heads at once, each weighing between 20 to 25 pounds. When very young, the seed contains a clear, tasteless fluid that travelers use to quench their thirst. As it matures, this fluid becomes milky and sweet, and it continues to change in taste and texture until it hardens enough to be valuable as a substitute for animal ivory. Bears, hogs, and other animals eagerly eat the fresh fruit. The seeds, often called nuts when fully ripe and hard, are used by Native Americans to make small decorative items and toys. They are imported into Britain in large amounts, often labeled as “Cỏrozo” nuts, a term used for the fruits of some species of Attalea, another palm with hard ivory-like seeds found in Central America, mostly used for small turned items. In 1904, Great Britain imported 1200 tons of vegetable ivory, with about 400 tons being re-exported, mainly to Germany. It is primarily used for making coat buttons.

Many artificial compounds have, from time to time, been tried as substitutes for ivory; amongst them potatoes treated with sulphuric 95 acid. Celluloid is familiar to us nowadays. In the form of bonzoline, into which it is said to enter, it is used largely for billiard balls; and a new French substitute—a caseine made from milk, called gallalith—has begun to be much used for piano keys in the cheaper sorts of instrument. Odontolite is mammoth ivory, which through lapse of time and from surroundings becomes converted into a substance known as fossil or blue ivory, and is used occasionally in jewelry as turquoise, which it very much resembles. It results from the tusks of antediluvian mammoths buried in the earth for thousands of years, during which time under certain conditions the ivory becomes slowly penetrated with the metallic salts which give it the peculiar vivid blue colour of turquoise.

Many artificial materials have been tried over time as substitutes for ivory, including potatoes treated with sulfuric acid. Celluloid is something we know well today. In the form of bonzoline, which it is said to include, it's widely used for billiard balls. A new French alternative called casein, made from milk and known as galalith, has also started to be used for piano keys in lower-end instruments. Odontolite is mammoth ivory that, over time and due to environmental factors, turns into a substance known as fossil or blue ivory. This is occasionally used in jewelry as it resembles turquoise a lot. It comes from the tusks of ancient mammoths that have been buried for thousands of years, during which the ivory is gradually infused with metallic salts, giving it the unique bright blue color of turquoise.

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

Ivory Sculpture and the Decorative Arts.—The use of ivory as a material especially suited for sculpture and decoration has been widespread throughout the history of civilization. The earliest examples we have date back to prehistoric times, when, as far as we know, civilization, as we understand it, had not progressed beyond cave dwellers or the most primitive tribes. Throughout subsequent ages, there is ongoing evidence that no other material—except perhaps wood, of which we have even fewer ancient examples—has been so consistently associated with human artistry. It’s not an overstatement to say that to truly understand the history of ivory sculpture requires studying the art of the entire world across all ages. This takes us back to the earliest dynasties of Egypt and Assyria. There is also considerable evidence from the peak periods of Greek and Roman civilization. Ivory has always had a respected place throughout the ages for decorating the palaces of the influential, both in proper sculpture and in the intricate inlays of panels, furniture, chariots, and other luxurious items. The Bible is filled with mentions of its beauty and worth. And when, in the era of Pheidias, Greek sculpture reached its peak, ancient writers tell us that colossal statues were created—notably the “Zeus of Olympia” and the “Athena of the Parthenon.” The faces, hands, and other exposed parts of these figures were made of ivory, which raises questions about how such large slabs were produced. A similar issue comes up with other sizable pieces, like those found among consular diptychs. It’s been speculated that the ancients had methods for softening and shaping ivory, but while it can be softened, it cannot be restored to its original state once altered. Although we might not find many examples of ivory sculpture up to the 4th century, from that point onward the continuity is unbroken. During the five or six hundred years of chaos and conflict, from the decline of the Roman Empire in the 5th century to the beginning of the Gothic revival in art in the 11th or 12th century, ivory sculpture alone among the sculptural arts has preserved the forms and traditions of classical times in central Europe. The surviving examples of ivory carving are crucial to understanding the last two centuries of the consulates of the Western and Eastern empires. Even though there are signs of decline in art, the end of this period brings us to the reign of Justinian (527-563). Two centuries later, the iconoclastic persecutions in the Eastern Empire push many monks and artisans westward to settle there. Throughout the Carolingian period, the ivory sculptures we have in significant quantity play an essential role in the early development of Byzantine art in Europe. When the Western art world revived from its stagnation, broke free from Byzantine constraints and traditions, and began to think for itself, it was to the exquisite ivory sculptures of Gothic art from the 13th and 14th centuries that we looked in admiration. Up to about the 14th century, the church's influence was predominant in all aspects of art. In ivories, like in mosaics, enamels, or miniature paintings, it would be hard to find more than a dozen examples from the time of Constantine onwards that are not sacred or of sacred symbolism. But as the Renaissance approached, the influence of romantic literature began to emerge, developing a feeling and style similar to those found in the charming religious art of ivory, so thoughtfully created, which we see in many everyday objects designed for domestic use and decoration. Mirror cases, jewelry or toiletry boxes, combs, and the decoration of weapons or saddlery are carved and adorned with scenes from everyday life or stories that vividly reflect the manners, customs, entertainment, clothing, and domestic life of the times. With the Renaissance and a return to classical ideas, alongside a desire for display and opulence, ivory art took a back seat. There was a lack of simplicity and originality. This marked the beginning of its decline. Then came the era known as rococo, which lasted a long time. Ivory carving followed popular trends, content to copy or adapt, and until the revival in modern times, it was, with rare exceptions, no longer considered a fine art. It became a trade and was managed by workshop craftsmen. In this necessarily brief overview, we have primarily focused on ivory carving in Europe. We will also need to provide some information allowing the interested reader to trace its history—not only in various Western countries but also in India, China, and Japan.

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

Prehistoric Ivory Carvings.—These are the results of investigations conducted around the mid-19th century in the cave dwellings of Dordogne, France, and the lake dwellings of Switzerland. As records, they are unique in the history of art. Furthermore, we are amazed to find these engravings or three-dimensional sculptures—these chiseled examples of the art of the uncultured savage—conceived and created with a sense of delicacy and restraint that even the most modern artist might envy. Who crafted them must be left to palaeontologists and geologists to determine. We can only be sure that they were contemporary with the time when mammoths and reindeer still roamed freely in southern France. The most significant examples include the sketch of the mammoth (see Painting, Plate I.), on a slab of ivory now held in the museum of the Jardin des Plantes, the head and shoulders of an ibex carved in the round on a piece of reindeer horn, and the figure of a naked woman (instances of human form representations are extremely rare) adorned with a necklace and bracelet. Many of the originals are in the museum at St Germain-en-Laye, and casts of a considerable number are held in the British Museum.

Fig. 3.—Panel with Cartouche, Nineveh.

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

Ancient Assyrian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman Ivories.—We know from old writers that the Egyptians were talented in ivory carving and that they obtained ivory in large amounts from Ethiopia. The Louvre has examples of flat castanets or clappers, shaped like the curves of the tusks, with beautifully modeled hands forming the tapering points; and a large number of small objects, including a plain box with simple decoration identified from the inscribed praenomen as dating back to the fifth dynasty, around 4000 B.C. The British Museum and the museum in Cairo also have a relatively rich collection. However, no other collection in the world holds such an intriguing assortment of ancient Assyrian ivories as the one in the British Museum. There are about fifty significant pieces on display, and many other fragments are stored away due to their fragility or condition. This collection comes from the excavations by Layard around 1840 at the believed site of Nineveh, directly across from the modern city of Mosul. When discovered, they were so decayed from age that they could barely withstand touch or exposure to the air. Layard came up with the clever method of boiling them in a solution of gelatin, which helped restore the animal matter that had dried up over the centuries. Later, the excavations by Flinders Petrie and others at Abydos uncovered a considerable number of sculptured fragments that might be even two thousand years older than those from Nineveh. These have been shown in London and subsequently shared between various museums both domestically and internationally.

From photo by W. A. Mansell & Co.
Fig. 4.—Leaf of diptych showing combats with stags; in the Liverpool Museum.

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

Consular and Official and Private Diptychs.—About fifty remarkable plaques known as “consular diptychs” from the last three centuries of the Roman and Greek empires have survived. They date from roughly the mid-fourth to the mid-sixth centuries, and except for a couple of exceptions, the dates are fairly certain, making it hard to overstate their historical or intrinsic value. The earliest diptych with an absolutely confirmed date is the diptych of Aosta (A.D. 408), which is the first after the recognition of Christianity; or, if the Monza diptych depicts, as some believe, the Consul Stilicon, we could potentially push that back six years. In any case, the edict of Theodosius in A.D. 384, which limited the use of ivory to the diptychs of regular consuls, shows that this practice must have been established for a long time. Some experts argue that the beautiful leaf of diptych in the Liverpool Museum (fig. 4) is a consular piece attributed to Marcus Julius Philippus (A.D. 248). Similarly, the Gherardesca leaf in the British Museum can be accepted as belonging to Consul Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 308). However, the entire discussion around the half dozen earliest examples is speculative. With a few notable exceptions, these pieces display a decline in artistic quality. Among the finest examples are the leaf depicting stag hunts in Liverpool, the diptych of Probianus in Berlin, and the two leaves, one of Anastasius and the other of Orestes, in the Victoria and Albert Museum. The literature related to these diptychs is extensive, starting with the scholarly treatise by Gori published in 1759 up to today. The most recent diptych with a certain date is from Basilius, consul of the East in 541, the last of the consuls. The diptychs of private individuals or officials number about sixteen, and the private ones tend to have much greater artistic value. Among these, the Victoria and Albert Museum holds the most beautiful leaf, possibly the finest example of ancient ivory sculpture that has survived, the diptychon Meleretense, which depicts a Bacchante (fig. 5). The other half, which is severely damaged, is in the Cluny Museum. Other significant pieces include Aesculapius and Hygeia at Liverpool, Hippolytus and Phaedra at Brescia, the Barberini in the Bargello and in Vienna, and Rufius Probianus in Berlin. Besides the diptychs, ancient Greek and Roman ivories from before the recognition of Christianity are relatively rare and are mostly found in major museums such as the Vatican, Naples, the British Museum, the Louvre, and the Cluny Museum. Among them are the statuette of Penthea, possibly from the 3rd century (Cluny), a large head of a woman (Vienna Museum), and the Bellerophon (British Museum). We should also remember those from Roman Britain and other countries, like the plaque and ivory mask found at Caerleon. Others are now in the Guildhall and British Museums, and most major continental European museums have examples related to their own histories.

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

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

Early Christian and Early Byzantine Ivories.—The few examples we have of Christian ivories before Constantine aren't very significant for the history of art. However, after that point, the ivories from the late 4th to at least the end of the 9th century become quite fascinating due to their connection with the rise of Byzantine art in western Europe. Opinions on their exact origins and dates vary greatly. This is largely due to the continuation of traditions and styles that influenced the makers of the sarcophagi, and the challenges of attribution are heightened when, along with the primitive elements, Byzantine systems introduced many new ideas from various external sources. The questions at hand are of considerable archaeological, iconographical, and artistic significance, but we often find ourselves guessing, compelled to theorize. It's likely that we cannot be more specific about dates than within a range of up to three centuries. Furthermore, we face the issue of how these ivories relate to Byzantine art; whether they were crafted in the West by immigrant Greeks, produced locally, or completely imported. Some German critics have attempted to build a system of schools and form distinct groups, assigning them to Rome, Ravenna, Milan, and Monza. Moreover, they claim precision in dating down to certain decades within centuries. However, it is highly debatable whether there's enough evidence to support such claims. It's probable that many of the ivories dated by a range of critics from the 4th to the 10th century are actually just the work of monks from various monasteries established throughout the Carolingian empire, copying and adapting whatever 97 came into their possession. Many of these artisans were Greek immigrants fleeing during the iconoclastic persecutions. Additionally, we must consider the influence of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon missionaries, who brought and spread their own national styles and techniques. We also need to account for the interactions with not only Constantinople but also the major governing regions of Syria and Egypt. Given the vagueness of our information and the conflicting opinions among experts, it's reasonable to suggest that for many of these ivories, instead of attributing them to the time of Justinian or even the previous century, we should rather push their dating back by one to perhaps three centuries and accept that we can't pinpoint them accurately even within those limits. It would be impossible to detail all the arguments related to this crucial period in the development of ivory sculpture or to mention even a fraction of the examples that illustrate it. Among the most notable is the renowned leaf of a diptych in the British Museum depicting an archangel (fig. 6). It's widely agreed that we lack any ivories from the 5th or 6th centuries, or indeed from any early medieval period, that can rival it in design and craftsmanship. There's no record (it’s believed) of where the museum sourced the ivory. There are at least reasonable grounds to suspect that it is the same as the “Angelus longus eburneus” from a book cover among the items brought to England by St. Augustine, which is listed among the possessions of Christchurch, Canterbury (see Dart, App. p. xviii.). The dating of the four Passion plaques also in the British Museum ranges from the 5th to the 7th century. While most recent scholars favor the earlier date, the author believes strongly that they are not from before the 7th century at the earliest. Nonetheless, they will remain, alongside the Monza oil flask and possibly the St. Sabina doors, the earliest known depictions of the crucifixion. The ivory vase with a cover in the British Museum shows distinct elements from the far East, possibly due to connections between Syria and Christian India or Ceylon. Other significant early Christian ivories include a series of pyxes, the diptych in the treasury of St. Ambrogio in Milan, the chair of Maximian in Ravenna (crucial as a type piece), the panel featuring the “Ascension” in the Bavarian National Museum, the Brescia casket, the “Lorsch” book covers in the Vatican and the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Bodleian and other book covers, the St. Paul diptych in the Bargello in Florence, and the “Annunciation” plaque in the Trivulzio collection. As far as indisputably oriental examples of Byzantine art go, they are few, but the famous Harbaville triptych in the Louvre stands as an outstanding example.

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

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

Gothic Ivories.—The most captivating period of ivory sculpture is definitely the one that coincided with the Gothic revival in art, marking the start of a significant and lasting transformation. The rigid forms dictated by Byzantine traditions gave way to a brighter, more delicate, and gentler vision. This golden age of ivory carving—at its peak in the 13th century—was still prominent in the 14th. Although we see the beginnings of a stylistic transition in the 15th century, the neglect and decline that began around the start of the 16th century didn’t become acute until well into the 17th. Discussing the various developments of religious art, which dominated almost entirely until the 14th century, or the secular side represented by the charming mirror cases and caskets carved with popular romantic scenes, would be impossible here. Almost every major museum and notable private collection is filled with examples of the well-known diptychs, triptychs, and small portable oratories from this period. Some, such as a renowned panel in the British Museum, are marvels of intricate craftsmanship, while others showcase delicate openwork and tracery. Moreover, some pieces are impressive for how they vividly encapsulate entire histories and episodes from scripture in just a few inches. Particularly delightful are the statuettes of the Virgin and Child, especially those passed down from French and Flemish art. The Victoria and Albert Museum has a representative collection of these. Another interesting series includes croziers or pastoral staffs, which students of ivories should study in relation to earlier designs and the tau-headed staffs. Additionally, there are shrines, reliquaries, book covers, liturgical combs, portable altars, pyxes, holy water buckets and sprinklers, flabella or liturgical fans, rosaries, memento mori, paxes, small figures and groups, and almost every imaginable accessory for the sanctuary or personal devotion. Most of the numerous and beautiful examples come from French or Flemish art. At the same time, to take just one example—the diptych and triptych of Bishop Grandison in the British Museum—we see that English ivory carvers also achieved remarkable excellence in design and craftsmanship. Crucifixes cannot be overlooked, although they are extremely rare before the 17th century. A stunning 13th-century figure—albeit only a fragment—can be found in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Among the secular items from this period, besides mirror cases (fig. 7) and caskets, there are hunting horns (likely of Oriental origin or closely based on Oriental models), chess pieces (notably the intriguing set from the Isle of Lewis), combs, marriage coffers (particularly remarkable Italian ones made of bone at one time), memorandum tablets, seals, saddle pommels and cantles, and a unique harp now housed in the Louvre. This list alone illustrates that anyone interested should refer to the many works detailing medieval ivory sculpture.

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

Ivory Sculpture from the 16th to the 19th Century.—Compared to the abundance of ivory carving from the two earlier centuries, the 15th, and especially the 16th, centuries are notably lacking in really outstanding work. However, before we reach the period of true decline, we encounter notable pieces like the knife of Diana of Poitiers in the Louvre, the scepter of Louis XIII, the Rothschild hunting horn, many Italian powder horns, the German Psyche in the Louvre, and the “Young Girl and Death” in the Munich Museum, which undoubtedly showcase originality and exceptional talent. Ivory carving became extremely popular during the 17th and 18th centuries, especially in the Netherlands and Germany, and a significant amount of ivory was used. However, with rare exceptions, mainly from Flemish artisans, the art is of an inferior quality, seemingly left to second-rate sculptors and workshop craftsmen. There is little originality, the rococo styles are excessive, and we appear to be stuck wading through an endless series of gods and goddesses, bacchanalians and satyrs, pseudo-classical copies from antiquity, and imitations of the schools of Rubens. In fact, few great museums, except for those in Germany, are keen to include examples from these periods in their collections. Some exceptions are made for talented Flemish sculptors like François Duquesnoy (Fiammingo), Gerard van Obstal, or Lucas Fayd’herbe. To a lesser extent, in Germany, Christoph Angermair, Leonhard Kern, Bernhard Strauss, Elhafen, Kruger, and Rauchmiller; and in France, Jean Guillermin, David le Marchand, and Jean Cavalier. Crucifixes were produced in huge numbers, some of significant merit, but for the most part, they represent anatomical exercises that vary only slightly from a pattern of which one famous example credited to Faistenberger can be taken as a standard. Tankards are plentiful, and some, notably the one in the Jones collection, which may be the finest example available, are also of high quality. Duquesnoy’s work is well represented by the charming series of six plaques in the Victoria and Albert Museum known as the “Fiammingo boys.” Among the diverse ivory objects from the early 18th century, many examples of the unusual implements known as rappoirs, or tobacco graters, deserve attention. It should perhaps be noted that while the quality of ivory art from these periods is not the highest, the subject is not entirely unworthy of interest and study, as there are a number of notable and even admirable examples.

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

Ivory Sculpture of Spain, Portugal, India, China and Japan.—Generally speaking, when it comes to Spain and Portugal, there’s not much reason to look beyond a specific group of significant Moorish or Hispano-Moresque ivories from the time when Arabs occupied the Peninsula, from the 8th to the 15th centuries. Some excellent examples are housed in the Victoria and Albert Museum. There’s little Portuguese work aside from the mixed creations from Goa and other Portuguese settlements in the East. It’s also worth mentioning the impressive examples of blended Portuguese and native art from Benin, currently displayed at the British Museum. The India Museum at Kensington offers a vast and diverse collection of Indian ivory carving, unmatched anywhere else. However, there isn’t much that predates the 17th century, and Indian ivory art doesn’t hold a particularly high place in the overall history of the craft. What we know of Chinese ivory carving is limited to pieces produced for the European market, which likely don’t appeal much to refined tastes. A quick nod to the popular charming netsukés and the distinctive inlaid work will suffice for discussing Japanese ivories (see Japan: Art).

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

Ivory Sculpture in the 19th Century and of the Present Day.—Few people realize how much modern ivory sculpture is created by talented artists. Every year, a small amount is showcased at the Royal Academy and in many international salons; however, in England, these works—naturally not very numerous—quickly get absorbed into private collections. In contrast, on the European continent, galleries like the Belgian state collections or the Luxembourg regularly acquire and display examples. Belgium's acquisition of the Congo and the significant import of ivory from there sparked a revival of the art. Major exhibitions have occurred in Belgium, including a notable one in Paris in 1904. Although ivory carving is as pricey as marble sculpture, all sculptors enjoy working with it, and the material doesn't require any specialized knowledge or training. Among 19th-century artists in France, some of the most well-known, along with many lesser-known craftsmen from Dieppe and St Claude, include Augustin Moreau, Vautier, Soitoux, Belleteste, Meugniot, Pradier, Triqueti, and Gerôme. In the first decade of the 20th century, alongside prominent figures like Jean Dampt and Théodore Rivière, artists such as Vever, Gardet, Caron, Barrias, Allouard, Ferrary, and many others made their mark. The decorative work of René Lalique should also be mentioned. A remarkable forty Belgian sculptors displayed their ivory works at the Brussels exhibition of 1887. The list featured distinguished artists like J. Dillens, Constantin Meunier, van der Stappen, Khnopff, P. Wolfers, Samuel and Paul de Vigne, and among contemporary Belgian sculptors are also van Beurden, G. Devreese, Vincotte, de Tombay, and Lagae. In England, noteworthy works include George Frampton's “Lamia,” Alfred Gilbert's “St Elizabeth,” Harry Bates' “Mors Janua Vitae,” W. Reynolds-Stephens' “Launcelot,” and the use of ivory in applied arts by Lynn Jenkins, A. G. Walker, Alexander Fisher, and others.

Authorities.—See generally A. Maskell, Ivories (1906), and the bibliography there given.

Authorities.—See generally A. Maskell, Ivories (1906), and the bibliography provided there.

On Early Christian and Early Byzantine ivories, the following works may be mentioned: Abbé Cabrol, Dictionnaire de l’archéologie chrétienne (in progress); O. M. Dalton, Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities in British Museum (1902); E. Dobbert, Zur Geschichte der Elfenbeinsculptur (1885); H. Graeven, Antike Schnitzereien (1903); R. Kanzler, Gli avori ... Vaticana (1903); Kondakov, L’Art byzantin; A. Maskell, Cantor Lectures, Soc. of Arts (1906) (lecture II., “Early Christian and Early Byzantine Ivories”); Strzygowski, Byzantinische Denkmäler (1891); V. Schulze, Archäologie der altchristlichen Kunst (1895); G. Stuhlfauth, Die altchristl. Elfenbeinplastik (1896).

On Early Christian and Early Byzantine ivories, the following works may be mentioned: Abbé Cabrol, Dictionnaire de l’archéologie chrétienne (in progress); O. M. Dalton, Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities in British Museum (1902); E. Dobbert, Zur Geschichte der Elfenbeinsculptur (1885); H. Graeven, Antike Schnitzereien (1903); R. Kanzler, Gli avori ... Vaticana (1903); Kondakov, L’Art byzantin; A. Maskell, Cantor Lectures, Soc. of Arts (1906) (lecture II., “Early Christian and Early Byzantine Ivories”); Strzygowski, Byzantinische Denkmäler (1891); V. Schulze, Archäologie der altchristlichen Kunst (1895); G. Stuhlfauth, Die altchristl. Elfenbeinplastik (1896).

On the consular diptychs, see H. F. Clinton, Fasti Romani (1845-1850); A. Gori, Thesaurus veterum diptychorum (1759); C. Lenormant, Trésor de numismatique et de glyptique (1834-1846); F. Pulszky, Catalogue of the Féjérváry Ivories (1856).

On the consular diptychs, see H. F. Clinton, Fasti Romani (1845-1850); A. Gori, Thesaurus veterum diptychorum (1759); C. Lenormant, Trésor de numismatique et de glyptique (1834-1846); F. Pulszky, Catalogue of the Féjérváry Ivories (1856).

On the artistic interest generally, see also C. Alabaster, Catalogue of Chinese Objects in the South Kensington Museum; Sir R. Alcock, Art and Art Industries in Japan (1878); Barraud et Martin, Le Bâton pastoral (1856); Bouchot, Les Reliures d’art à la Bibliothèque Nationale; Bretagne, Sur les peignes liturgiques; H. Cole, Indian Art at Delhi (1904); R. Garrucci, Storia dell’ arte Christiana (1881); A. Jacquemart, Histoire du mobilier (1876); J. Labarte, Histoire des arts industriels (1864); C. Lind, Über den Krummstab (1863); Sir F. Madden, “Lewis Chessmen” (in Archaeologia, vol. xxiv. 1832); W. Maskell, Ivories, Ancient and Medieval in the South Kensington Museum (1872); A. Michel, Histoire de l’art; E. Molinier, Histoire générale des arts (1896); E. Oldfield, Catalogue of Fictile Ivories sold by the Arundel Society (1855); A. H. Pitt Rivers, Antique Works of Art from Benin (1900); A. C. Quatremère de Quincy, Le Jupiter Olympien (1815); Charles Scherer, Elfenbeinplastik seit der Renaissance (1903); E. du Sommerard, Les Arts au moyen âge (1838-1846); G. Stephens, Runic Caskets (1866-1868); A. Venturi, Storia dell’ arte Italiana (1901); Sir G. Watt, Indian Art at Delhi (1904); J. O. Westwood, Fictile Ivories in the South Kensington Museum (1876). Sir M. D. Wyatt, Notices of Sculpture in Ivory (1856).

On the general artistic interest, see also C. Alabaster, Catalogue of Chinese Objects in the South Kensington Museum; Sir R. Alcock, Art and Art Industries in Japan (1878); Barraud et Martin, Le Bâton pastoral (1856); Bouchot, Les Reliures d’art à la Bibliothèque Nationale; Bretagne, Sur les peignes liturgiques; H. Cole, Indian Art at Delhi (1904); R. Garrucci, Storia dell’ arte Christiana (1881); A. Jacquemart, Histoire du mobilier (1876); J. Labarte, Histoire des arts industriels (1864); C. Lind, Über den Krummstab (1863); Sir F. Madden, “Lewis Chessmen” (in Archaeologia, vol. xxiv. 1832); W. Maskell, Ivories, Ancient and Medieval in the South Kensington Museum (1872); A. Michel, Histoire de l’art; E. Molinier, Histoire générale des arts (1896); E. Oldfield, Catalogue of Fictile Ivories sold by the Arundel Society (1855); A. H. Pitt Rivers, Antique Works of Art from Benin (1900); A. C. Quatremère de Quincy, Le Jupiter Olympien (1815); Charles Scherer, Elfenbeinplastik seit der Renaissance (1903); E. du Sommerard, Les Arts au moyen âge (1838-1846); G. Stephens, Runic Caskets (1866-1868); A. Venturi, Storia dell’ arte Italiana (1901); Sir G. Watt, Indian Art at Delhi (1904); J. O. Westwood, Fictile Ivories in the South Kensington Museum (1876). Sir M. D. Wyatt, Notices of Sculpture in Ivory (1856).

(A. Ml.)

1 Lecture before the Society of Arts (1856).

1 Lecture before the Society of Arts (1856).

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

IVORY COAST (Côte d’Ivoire), a French West African colony, located to the south by the Gulf of Guinea, to the west by Liberia and French Guinea, to the north by the colony of Upper Senegal and Niger, and to the east by the Gold Coast. Its area is around 120,000 square miles, with a population of about 2,000,000, including around 600 Europeans. Official estimates from 1908 suggested that the native population was as low as 980,000.

Physical Features.—The coast-line extends from 70° 30′ to 3° 7′ W. and has a length of 380 m. It forms an arc of a circle of which the convexity turns slightly to the north; neither bay nor promontory breaks the regularity of its outline. The shore is low, bordered in its 99 eastern half with lagoons, and difficult of access on account of the submarine bar of sand which stretches along nearly the whole of the coast, and also because of the heavy surf caused by the great Atlantic billows. The principal lagoons, going W. to E. are those of Grand Lahou, Grand Bassam or Ebrié and Assini. The coast plains extend inland about 40 m. Beyond the ground rises in steep slopes to a general level of over 1000 ft., the plateau being traversed in several directions by hills rising 2000 ft. and over, and cut by valleys with a general south-eastern trend. In the north-east, in the district of Kong (q.v.), the country becomes mountainous, Mt. Kommono attaining a height of 4757 ft. In the north-west, by the Liberian frontier, the mountains in the Gon region rise over 6000 ft. Starting from the Liberian frontier, the chief rivers are the Cavalla (or Kavalli), the San Pedro, the Sassandra (240 m. long), the Bandama (225 m.), formed by the White and the Red Bandama, the Komoe (360 m.) and the Bia. All these streams are interrupted by rapids as they descend from the highlands to the plain and are unnavigable by steamers save for a few miles from their mouths. The rivers named all drain to the Gulf of Guinea; the rivers in the extreme north of the colony belong to the Niger system, being affluents of the Bani or Mahel Balevel branch of that river. The watershed runs roughly from 9° N. in the west to 10° N. in the east, and is marked by a line of hills rising about 650 ft. above the level of the plateau. The climate is in general very hot and unhealthy, the rainfall being very heavy. In some parts of the plateau healthier conditions prevail. The fauna and flora are similar to those of the Gold Coast and Liberia. Primeval forest extends from the coast plains to about 8° N., covering nearly 50,000 sq. m.

Physical Features.—The coastline stretches from 70° 30' to 3° 7' W and measures 380 miles long. It forms an arc with a slight curve to the north, and there are no bays or promontories that disrupt its smooth outline. The shore is low and has lagoons along its eastern half, making it hard to access due to a sandy underwater bar that runs almost the entire length of the coast and the strong surf created by the large Atlantic waves. The main lagoons, moving from west to east, are Grand Lahou, Grand Bassam or Ebrié, and Assini. The coastal plains extend about 40 miles inland. Beyond this, the terrain quickly rises to over 1000 feet, with hills exceeding 2000 feet scattered throughout and valleys generally trending southeast. In the northeast, near Kong (q.v.), the landscape becomes mountainous, with Mt. Kommono reaching 4757 feet. In the northwest, near the Liberian border, the mountains in the Gon region soar over 6000 feet. Starting from the Liberian border, the main rivers are the Cavalla (or Kavalli), San Pedro, Sassandra (240 miles long), Bandama (225 miles), made up of the White and Red Bandama, Komoe (360 miles), and Bia. All these rivers are interrupted by rapids as they flow down from the highlands to the plains, making them unnavigable by steamers except for a few miles near their mouths. These rivers all drain into the Gulf of Guinea; those in the far north of the colony are part of the Niger system, being tributaries of the Bani or Mahel Balevel branch of that river. The watershed generally runs from 9° N in the west to 10° N in the east and is marked by a line of hills rising about 650 feet above the plateau level. The climate is mostly very hot and unhealthy, with heavy rainfall. In some areas of the plateau, healthier conditions can be found. The wildlife and plant life are similar to those of the Gold Coast and Liberia. Primeval forest extends from the coastal plains to about 8° N, covering nearly 50,000 square miles.

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

Inhabitants.—The coastal areas are home to Black tribes connected on one side to the Krumen (q.v.) and on the other to the Ashanti people (q.v.). The Assinis are of Ashanti descent, primarily from the Ochin and Agni tribes. Further west, you can find the “Jack-Jacks” and the “Kwa-Kwas,” nicknames given to the Aradian and Avikom by early European traders. The Kwa-Kwa are said to be named because their greeting “sounds like the quack of a duck.” In the interior, the Black population is predominant but mixed with some Hamitic or Berber ancestry. The tribes represented include Jamans, Wongaras, and Mandingos (q.v.), some of whom are Muslims. The Mandingos have largely intermarried with the Bambara or Sienuf, an agricultural group known for their above-average intelligence, spread throughout the region, considered the indigenous people. The Bambara themselves may just be a distinct branch of the original Mandingo population. The Baulé, occupying the central area of the colony, are of Agni-Ashanti heritage. Most inhabitants practice fetish worship. On the northern edges of the large forest belt live tribes of cannibals, whose existence was first revealed by Captain d’Ollone in 1899. Overall, the coastal tribes are generally peaceful. They are known for being neither particularly industrious nor intelligent. The traders are mainly Fanti, Sierra Leoneans, Senegalese, and Mandingos.

Towns.—The chief towns on the coast are Grand and Little Bassam, Jackville and Assini in the east and Grand Lahou, Sassandra and Tabu in the west. Grand and Little Bassam are built on the strip of sand which separates the Grand Bassam or Ebrié lagoon from the sea. This lagoon forms a commodious harbour, once the bar has been crossed. Grand Bassam is situated at the point where the lagoon and the river Komoe enter the sea and there is a minimum depth of 12 ft. of water over the bar. The town (pop. 5000, including about 100 Europeans) is the seat of the customs administration and of the judicial department, and is the largest centre for the trade of the colony. A wharf equipped with cranes extends beyond the surf line and the town is served by a light railway. It is notoriously unhealthy; yellow fever is endemic. Little Bassam, renamed by the French Port Bouet, possesses an advantage over the other ports on the coast, as at this point there is no bar. The sea floor is here rent by a chasm, known as the “Bottomless Pit,” the waters having a depth of 65 ft. Abijean (Abidjan), on the north side of the lagoon opposite Port Bouet is the starting-point of a railway to the oil and rubber regions. The half-mile of foreshore separating the port from the lagoon was in 1904-1907 pierced by a canal, but the canal silted up as soon as cut, and in 1908 the French decided to make Grand Bassam the chief port of the colony. Assini is an important centre for the rubber trade of Ashanti. On the northern shore of the Bassam lagoon, and 19 m. from Grand Bassam, is the capital of the colony, the native name Adjame having been changed into Bingerville, in honour of Captain L. G. Binger (see below). The town is built on a hill and is fairly healthy.

Towns.—The main coastal towns are Grand and Little Bassam, Jackville and Assini in the east, and Grand Lahou, Sassandra, and Tabu in the west. Grand and Little Bassam are located on the sandy strip that separates the Grand Bassam or Ebrié lagoon from the ocean. This lagoon provides a spacious harbor once the bar is crossed. Grand Bassam is at the point where the lagoon and the Komoe River meet the sea, with a minimum depth of 12 feet of water over the bar. The town (pop. 5,000, including about 100 Europeans) is home to the customs administration and the judicial department, making it the largest trade center in the colony. A wharf equipped with cranes extends beyond the surf, and the town is connected by a light railway. It is known for being unhealthy, with yellow fever being common. Little Bassam, renamed Port Bouet by the French, has an advantage over other coastal ports since there's no bar here. The seabed features a chasm called the “Bottomless Pit,” with waters reaching a depth of 65 feet. Abidjan, located on the north side of the lagoon opposite Port Bouet, is the starting point of a railway to the oil and rubber regions. A canal was cut through the half-mile of foreshore separating the port from the lagoon between 1904 and 1907, but it silted up immediately, leading the French to designate Grand Bassam as the chief port of the colony in 1908. Assini is a key center for the rubber trade in Ashanti. On the northern shore of the Bassam lagoon, 19 miles from Grand Bassam, is the capital of the colony, which was renamed Bingerville in honor of Captain L. G. Binger. The town is built on a hill and is relatively healthy.

In the interior are several towns, though none of any size numerically. The best known are Koroko, Kong and Bona, entrepôts for the trade of the middle Niger, and Bontuku, on the caravan route to Sokoto and the meeting-place of the merchants from Kong and Timbuktu engaged in the kola-nut trade with Ashanti and the Gold Coast. Bontuku is peopled largely by Wongara and Hausa, and most of the inhabitants, who number some 3000, are Moslems. The town, which was founded in the 15th century or earlier, is walled, contains various mosques and generally presents the appearance of an eastern city.

In the interior, there are several towns, but none are particularly large. The most well-known are Koroko, Kong, and Bona, which serve as trade hubs for the middle Niger, along with Bontuku, situated on the caravan route to Sokoto and a meeting point for merchants from Kong and Timbuktu involved in the kola nut trade with Ashanti and the Gold Coast. Bontuku has a population mainly consisting of Wongara and Hausa, and most of its approximately 3,000 residents are Muslims. The town, founded in the 15th century or earlier, is walled, features various mosques, and generally resembles an eastern city.

Agriculture and Trade.—The natives cultivate maize, plantains, bananas, pineapples, limes, pepper, cotton, &c., and live easily on the products of their gardens, with occasional help from fishing and hunting. They also weave cloth, make pottery and smelt iron. Europeans introduced the cultivation of coffee, which gives good results. The forests are rich in palm-tree products, rubber and mahogany, which constitute the chief articles of export. The rubber goes almost exclusively to England, as does also the mahogany. The palm-oil and palm kernels are sent almost entirely to France. The value of the external trade of the colony exceeded £1,000,000 for the first time in 1904. About 50% of the trade is with Great Britain. The export of ivory, for which the country was formerly famous, has almost ceased, the elephants being largely driven out of the colony. Cotton goods, by far the most important of the imports, come almost entirely from Great Britain. Gold exists and many native villages have small “placer” mines. In 1901 the government of the colony began the granting of mining concessions, in which British capital was largely invested. There are many ancient mines in the country, disused since the close of the 18th century, if not earlier.

Agriculture and Trade.—The locals grow maize, plantains, bananas, pineapples, limes, pepper, cotton, etc., and live comfortably off the products of their gardens, with occasional support from fishing and hunting. They also weave cloth, make pottery, and smelt iron. Europeans brought the cultivation of coffee, which has been successful. The forests are rich in palm products, rubber, and mahogany, which are the main export items. Most of the rubber goes to England, as does the mahogany. Palm oil and palm kernels are primarily sent to France. The value of the colony's external trade surpassed £1,000,000 for the first time in 1904. Around 50% of the trade is with Great Britain. The export of ivory, for which the region was once well-known, has nearly come to an end, as elephants have largely been driven out of the area. Cotton goods, the most significant of the imports, come almost entirely from Great Britain. Gold is present, and many local villages have small “placer” mines. In 1901, the colony's government began granting mining concessions, attracting significant British investment. There are many ancient mines in the country, which have been unused since the end of the 18th century, if not earlier.

Communications.—The railway from Little Bassam serves the east central part of the colony and runs to Katiola, in Kong, a total distance of 250 m. The line is of metre gauge. The cutting of two canals, whereby communication is effected by lagoon between Assini and Grand Lahou via Bassam, followed the construction of the railway. Grand and Little Bassam are in regular communication by steamer with Bordeaux, Marseilles, Liverpool, Antwerp and Hamburg. Grand Bassam is connected with Europe by submarine cable via Dakar. Telegraph lines connect the coast with all the principal stations in the interior, with the Gold Coast, and with the other French colonies in West Africa.

Communications.—The railway from Little Bassam services the central-eastern part of the colony and extends to Katiola in Kong, covering a total distance of 250 km. The line is meter gauge. The construction of two canals, allowing for lagoon communication between Assini and Grand Lahou via Bassam, followed the railway's development. Grand and Little Bassam have regular steamer connections with Bordeaux, Marseille, Liverpool, Antwerp, and Hamburg. Grand Bassam is linked to Europe by a submarine cable via Dakar. Telegraph lines connect the coast with all the major stations in the interior, the Gold Coast, and other French colonies in West Africa.

Administration, &c.—The colony is under the general superintendence of the government general of French West Africa. At the head of the local administration is a lieutenant-governor, who is assisted by a council on which nominated unofficial members have seats. To a large extent the native forms of government are maintained under European administrators responsible for the preservation of order, the colony for this purpose being divided into a number of “circles” each with its local government. The colony has a separate budget and is self-supporting. Revenue is derived chiefly from customs receipts and a capitation tax of frs. 2.50 (2s.), instituted in 1901 and levied on all persons over ten years old. The budget for 1906 balanced at £120,400.

Administration, &c.—The colony is overseen by the government of French West Africa. At the top of the local administration is a lieutenant-governor, who is supported by a council that includes nominated unofficial members. Native forms of government are largely preserved under European administrators accountable for maintaining order, with the colony divided into several “circles,” each having its own local government. The colony operates with its own budget and is self-sustaining. Revenue mainly comes from customs duties and a capitation tax of 2.50 francs (2 shillings), established in 1901 and charged to all individuals over ten years old. The budget for 1906 was balanced at £120,400.

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

History.—The Ivory Coast is believed to have been visited by Dieppe merchants in the 14th century and became known due to Portuguese discoveries towards the end of the 15th century. After that, it was frequently visited by traders looking for ivory, slaves, and other goods. There was a French settlement in Assini from 1700 to 1704, and a French trading post operated in Grand Bassam from 1700 to 1707. In the early 19th century, several French traders settled along the coast. In 1830, Admiral (then Commandant) Bouët-Willaumez (1808-1871) began a series of surveys and expeditions that produced valuable results. In 1842, he secured territory cessions at Assini and Grand Bassam from local chiefs for France, and those towns were occupied in 1843. From that point on, French influence gradually spread along the coast, but no efforts were made to move inland. Following the Franco-Prussian War, France withdrew its troops in 1872, transferring the management of its establishments to a merchant named Verdier, to whom they paid an annual subsidy of £800. This merchant sent an agent inland who negotiated friendly treaties between France and some of the local chiefs. In 1883, in light of claims from other European powers to African territory, France resumed direct administration of Assini and Bassam. Between 1887 and 1889, Captain Binger (a marine infantry officer and later director of the African department at the colonial ministry) explored the entire region between the coast and the Niger, visited Bontuku and the Kong country, and signed protectorate treaties with local chiefs. It’s worth noting that the kingdom of Jaman was briefly included in the Gold Coast hinterland. In January 1889, a British mission sent by the Gold Coast governor signed a treaty with the king of Jaman in Bontuku, placing his territory under British protection. However, the king had previously established “commerce and friendship” treaties with the French, and according to the Anglo-French agreement of August 1889, Jaman, along with Bontuku, was recognized as French territory. In 1892, Captain Binger conducted further explorations into the Ivory Coast's interior, and in 1893 he became the first governor of the colony when it was separated from Senegal's administration. Renowned explorers like Colonel (then Captain) Marchand also contributed to knowledge of the hinterland. It was in the area between the Kong states and Liberia's hinterland that Samory (see Senegal) sought refuge before being captured (1898), and he briefly ruled over Kong. The western boundary of the colony was established through Franco-Liberian agreements in 1892 and later years, while the eastern boundary was determined by Anglo-French agreements in 1893 and 1898. The northern boundary was set in 1899 during the division of the middle Niger territories (previously officially called the French Sudan) among other French West African colonies. The organized development of the colony, the opening of its hinterland, and the exploitation of its economic resources began with Captain Binger's appointment as governor, a position he held for over three years. The work he started has been continued diligently and effectively by his successors, who have successfully garnered the cooperation of the local people.

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

In older travel books, you'll often see different names for this area, like Tooth Coast (Côte des Dents) or Kwa-Kwa Coast, and less commonly, the Coast of the Five and Six Stripes (referring to a type of cotton fabric favored by the locals). The term Côte des Dents was still commonly used in France until the late 19th century.

See Dix ans à la Côte d’Ivoire (Paris, 1906) by F. J. Clozel, governor of the colony, and Notre colonie de la Côte d’Ivoire (Paris, 1903) by R. Villamur and Richaud. These two volumes deal with the history, geography, zoology and economic condition of the Ivory Coast. La Côte d’Ivoire by Michellet and Clement describes the administrative and land systems, &c. Another volume also called La Côte d’Ivoire (Paris, 1908) is an official monograph on the colony. For ethnology consult Coutumes indigènes de la Côte d’Ivoire (Paris, 1902) by F. J. Clozel and R. Villamur, and Les Coutumes Agni, by R. Villamur and Delafosse. Of books of travel see Du Niger au Golfe de Guinée par Kong (Paris, 1892) by L. G. Binger, and Mission Hostains-d’Ollone 1890-1900 (Paris, 1901) by Captain d’Ollone. A Carte de la Côte d’Ivoire by A. Meunier, on the scale of 1:500,000 (6 sheets), was published in Paris, 1905. Annual reports on the colony are published by the French colonial and the British foreign offices.

See Dix ans à la Côte d’Ivoire (Paris, 1906) by F. J. Clozel, the governor of the colony, and Notre colonie de la Côte d’Ivoire (Paris, 1903) by R. Villamur and Richaud. These two books cover the history, geography, zoology, and economic conditions of the Ivory Coast. La Côte d’Ivoire by Michellet and Clement discusses the administrative and land systems, among other things. There is another book also titled La Côte d’Ivoire (Paris, 1908) that is an official overview of the colony. For ethnology, refer to Coutumes indigènes de la Côte d’Ivoire (Paris, 1902) by F. J. Clozel and R. Villamur, and Les Coutumes Agni by R. Villamur and Delafosse. For travel literature, check out Du Niger au Golfe de Guinée par Kong (Paris, 1892) by L. G. Binger, and Mission Hostains-d’Ollone 1890-1900 (Paris, 1901) by Captain d’Ollone. A Carte de la Côte d’Ivoire by A. Meunier, at a scale of 1:500,000 (6 sheets), was published in Paris in 1905. Annual reports on the colony are issued by the French colonial office and the British foreign office.

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

IVREA (formerly Eporedia), a town and bishopric in Piedmont, Italy, located in the province of Turin, 38 miles N.N.E. by rail and 27 miles directly, sits 770 feet above sea level on the Dora Baltea river at the point it exits the mountains. Population (1901): 6,047 (town), 11,696 (commune). The cathedral was constructed between 973 and 1005; the gallery at the back of the apse and the crypt feature simple cubical capitals from this time. The two campanili flanking the apse at each end of the side aisle are the earliest example of this architectural arrangement. The stand-alone tower, which is what's left of the old abbey of S. Stefano, is slightly more recent. The hill above the town is topped by the impressive Castello delle Quattro Torri, built in 1358 and currently used as a prison. One of the four towers was struck by lightning and destroyed in 1676. A tramway connects to Santhià.

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

The ancient town of Eporedia, located at the crossroads of the routes from Augusta Taurinorum and Vercellae, where the road to Augusta Praetoria enters the narrow valley of the Duria (Dora Baltea), was a strategically significant military site for the Salassi, who lived throughout the upper valley of the Duria. The area's gold mines made it valuable, leading to its capture by the Romans in 143 B.C. The heart of the mining industry appears to have been Victumulae (see Ticinum), until a colony of Roman citizens was established at Eporedia itself in 100 B.C. However, its prosperity was only guaranteed after the Salassi were finally defeated in 25 B.C., paving the way for the founding of Augusta Praetoria. Remains of a theater from the time of the Antonines can still be seen, and the Ponte Vecchio is built on Roman foundations.

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

In the Middle Ages, Ivrea was the capital of a Lombard duchy and later a marquisate. Both Berengar II. (950) and Arduin (1002) were kings of Italy for a brief time. Eventually, it came under the control of the marquises of Monferrato, and in the mid-14th century, it became part of the house of Savoy.

(T. As.)

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

IVRY-SUR-SEINE, is a town in northern France, in the Seine department, located near the left bank of the Seine, less than 1 mile S.S.E. of the fortifications of Paris. Population (1906) was 30,532. Ivry has a large hospital for incurables. It produces organs, pottery, wallpaper, and rubber, and it has engineering works, breweries, and oil factories, with trade supported by a port on the Seine. The town is dominated by a fort from the older defense line of Paris.

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

IVY (A.S. ifig, Ger. Epheu, possibly related to apium, apion), is the general name for certain species and varieties of Hedera, part of the Araliaceae family. Modern sources list fifty species of ivy, though they can usually be categorized into just two or at most three. The European ivy, Hedera Helix (fig. 1), is a plant with countless variations in the shapes and colors of its leaves, but it typically has three- to five-lobed leaves when climbing and a regular oval shape when it’s flowering and producing fruit. The African ivy, H. canariensis, often considered a variety of H. Helix and commonly referred to as Irish ivy, originates from North Africa and the nearby islands. It's the typical large-leaved climbing ivy that also shows variations but less so than H. Helix. Its leaves are larger, a rich deep green, and usually have a five-lobed shape. When it bears fruit, the leaves generally have three lobes but can also be entire and broadly oval. The Asiatic ivy, H. colchica (fig. 2), now thought to be a variant of H. Helix, features oval, vaguely three-lobed leaves that are thick and deep green; in the tree or fruiting stage, the leaves are narrower and have no lobes. Unique characteristics are also found in the structures of the pedicels and calyx; H. Helix is identified by six-rayed star-shaped hairs, H. canariensis presents fifteen-rayed hairs, and H. colchica displays yellowish two-lobed scales.

Fig. 1.—Ivy (Hedera Helix) fruiting branch. 1. Flower. 2. Fruit.
Fig. 2.Hedera colchica. Fig. 3.—Climbing Shoot of Ivy.

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

The Australian ivy, H. australiana, is a small smooth shrub 101 with feathery leaves. It's native to Queensland and is almost entirely unrecognized in gardening.

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

It’s really important to recognize the difference in the characteristics of ivy of the same species in its two stages: climbing and fruiting. The first stage of growth, which we assume starts from the seed, is primarily climbing, and the leaves are somewhat lobed. This stage is marked by a plentiful production of claspers, or modified roots, that help the plant attach and gain support. Once it reaches the top of a tree or tower, the stems can no longer grow upright; they droop and become horizontal or hanging. At the same time, they stop producing claspers, and the leaves change noticeably in shape, becoming narrower and less lobed than those on the climbing stems. Eventually, this tree-like growth produces clusters of greenish flowers with parts in fives and styles that are merged into a very short structure. These flowers are followed by smooth black or yellow berries, which contain two to five seeds. The yellow-berried ivy can be found in northern India and Italy, but in northern Europe, it is mainly seen as a garden curiosity, where, if well-sheltered and nourished, it can become a strikingly beautiful and fruitful tree.

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

It’s mentioned in books that some types of wild ivy never flower, but a statement like this is worthless. Very old wild ivies can be found in woods along the western coasts of Britain that seem to have never bloomed, but this is likely because they can’t climb above the trees that support them. Until the plant can spread its branches out horizontally in full sunlight, it will never develop flowers or a tree-like structure.

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

A very important question arises from the relationship between the plant and what it clings to for support. A moderate amount of ivy growth isn't harmful to trees; however, its presence is initially detrimental to the tree’s health, and at some point, it can become lethal. Therefore, ivy should be kept under control on trees, especially those that are particularly valued for their beauty, history, or quality wood. As for buildings covered in ivy, there’s no cause for concern as long as the plant doesn’t work its way into the wall through any cracks. If it does manage to get inside, the natural growth of its various parts will likely speed up the building's decay. However, a healthy amount of ivy on sturdy walls without any openings beyond the surface contact of the tendrils is, without exception, beneficial. It helps retain dryness and warmth, minimizes the damaging effects of the atmosphere, and is both protective and aesthetically pleasing.

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

The economical uses of ivy aren't very significant. Horses, deer, cattle, and sheep eat the leaves eagerly, and they have been useful in times of scarcity. The flowers provide a decent supply of honey for bees; since they bloom in autumn, they sometimes compensate for the shortfalls of the season. Wood pigeons, blackbirds, and thrushes eat the berries. A balsamic bitter can be extracted from all parts of the plant, and this, in the form of hederic acid, is the only known preparation of ivy recognized by chemists.

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

In the garden, the uses of ivy are countless, and one of the least known but still valuable uses is cultivating the plant as a bush or tree, specifically selecting the fruiting varieties for this purpose. The variegated tree forms of H. Helix, with creamy white, golden green, or rich deep orange-yellow leaves, can quickly become attractive little trees that thrive just as well in smoky urban gardens as in the fresh air of the countryside, and no typical winter will damage them at all. The tree form of the Asiatic ivy (H. colchica) has leaf beauty that few evergreen shrubs in English gardens can match, and while it can grow to about 5 or 6 feet tall in a few years, we rarely encounter it—along with tree ivies in general—because this topic hasn't received much attention until recently. The climbing forms are more commonly appreciated now and are widely used for creating borders, screens, and trained pyramids, as well as for covering walls. A striking example of what even the most common ivies can achieve when used artistically as garden plants can be seen in the Zoological Gardens of Amsterdam, where several enclosures are surrounded by beautiful wreaths, garlands, and bands of ivy in a very picturesque way.

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

About sixty varieties commonly found in gardens are illustrated and described in The Ivy, a Monograph, by Shirley Hibberd (1872). Growing these is very straightforward, as they can thrive in poor soil and tolerate a significant amount of shade, making them ideal for planting under trees. The common Irish ivy is often seen covering the ground beneath large yew trees where grass won’t grow, and it is sometimes used in graveyards in London to mimic grass turf, making it perfectly suited for this purpose.

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

The ivy, like holly, is a rare plant on the American continent. In the northern United States and British America, the winters are not harsher than what ivy can handle, but the summers are too hot and dry, and the needs of the plant haven't received much attention. In areas where native ferns thrive, ivy is likely to flourish, and varieties of Hedera Helix should be favored. However, in drier areas, ivies can often be planted on the north side of buildings, and with adequate watering and careful training for three or four years, they would grow quickly and establish themselves. Bright light is harmful to ivy's growth, but this increases its value, as we have no hardy plants that can compare with it in variety and beauty that can tolerate shade just as well.

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

The North American poison ivy (poison oak), Rhus Toxicodendron (nat. order Anacardiaceae), is a climbing plant with feather-like compound leaves that look beautiful in the fall but can cause a rash for some people if touched, while others can handle it without any problems. The symptoms include redness, intense itching, followed by fever and a blistering rash.

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

The ground ivy, Nepeta Glechoma (nat. order Labiatae), is a small spreading plant with rounded serrated leaves and tiny blue-purple flowers, found in hedges and thickets.

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

IWAKURA, TOMOMI, Prince (1835-1883), a Japanese statesman, was born in Kyoto. He was a member of the court nobility (kuge) of Japan and traced his lineage back to Emperor Murakami (CE 947-967). A man of great talent and distinctive character, he played a key role in the events leading up to the fall of the Tokugawa shōgunate and was forced to flee from Kyoto, accompanied by his colleague, Prince Sanjō. They took refuge with the Daimyō of Chōshū, where they established connections that significantly contributed to the eventual unification of the two powerful domains, Satsuma and Chōshū, for the Restoration. From 1867 until his death, Iwakura was one of the most prominent figures in Japanese politics. In 1871, he traveled to America and Europe leading a substantial embassy of about fifty people, aiming to inform foreign governments about the true conditions in Japan and to facilitate negotiations for new treaties that respected Japan's sovereignty. The mission had little success. Upon returning to Japan in 1873, Iwakura found the cabinet divided on how to respond to Korea’s offensive behavior. He advocated for peace, and his influence won out, thus resolving an issue that, while seemingly minor, could have altered the entire trajectory of Japan’s modern history.

102

102

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

IXION, is a character from Greek mythology, the son of Phlegyas, the king of the Lapithae in Thessaly (or of Ares), and married to Dia. As was customary, he promised his father-in-law, Deïoneus, a generous wedding gift, but he treacherously killed him when Deïoneus came to collect. As punishment, Ixion was driven insane until Zeus purified him of his crime and welcomed him as a guest on Olympus. However, Ixion misused his second chance by attempting to seduce Hera; in response, the goddess replaced herself with a cloud, which led to him becoming the father of the Centaurs. Zeus then bound him to a fiery wheel that spins endlessly through the air or (according to later versions) in the underworld (Pindar, Pythia, ii. 21; Ovid, Metam. iv. 461; Virgil, Aeneid, vi. 601). Ixion is often thought to symbolize the constantly moving sun. Another interpretation links the tale to a practice among certain Central European cultures of carrying a blazing, spinning wheel through fields that needed sunlight, the legend being created to explain this custom and then adopted by the Greeks (see Mannhardt, Wald- und Feldkulte, ii. 1905, p. 83). Given that the oak tree was associated with the sun god and mistletoe grew on it, A. B. Cook suggests (Class. Rev. xvii. 420) that Ixion comes from ἰξός (mistletoe), with the sun's fire being viewed as a manifestation of the mistletoe. Ixion is likely a variant of Zeus (Usener in Rhein. Mus. liii. 345).

“The Myth of Ixion” (by C. Smith, in Classical Review, June 1895) deals with the subject of a red-figure cantharus in the British Museum.

“The Myth of Ixion” (by C. Smith, in Classical Review, June 1895) discusses a red-figure cantharus in the British Museum.

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

IXTACCIHUATL, or Iztaccihuatl (“white woman”) is a high volcanic mountain located 10 miles north of Popocatepetl and about 40 miles south-southeast of Mexico City, part of the short range known as the Sierra Nevada. Angelo Heilprin (1853-1907) reports that its elevation is 16,960 feet, while other sources suggest it’s significantly lower. Its apparent height seems less impressive due to its long summit and the large area it covers. The mountain has three summits of varying heights aligned north to south, with the central one being the largest and highest, and all three rising above the permanent snow line. From the perspective of Mexico City, the three peaks resemble the silhouette of a covered human figure, which gives rise to the poetic Aztec name “white woman” and the more blunt Spanish name “La mujer gorda.” Climbing it is tough and dangerous, and few manage to do so.

Heilprin says that the mountain is largely composed of trachytic rocks and that it is older than Popocatepetl. It has no crater and no trace of lingering volcanic heat. It is surmised that its crater, if it ever had one, has been filled in and its cone worn away by erosion through long periods of time.

Heilprin states that the mountain is mostly made up of trachytic rocks and that it is older than Popocatepetl. It doesn't have a crater or any signs of residual volcanic heat. It's believed that if it ever had a crater, it has been filled in, and its cone has been eroded over long periods.

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

IYRCAE, an ancient nation on the northeast trade route described by Herodotus (iv. 22) beyond the Thyssagetae, likely around the upper basins of the Tobol and the Irtysh. They were known for their unique hunting style, climbing trees to survey their game and then chasing it down with trained horses and dogs. They were almost certainly the ancestors of the modern Magyars, also known as Jugra.

The reading Τῦρκαι is an anachronism, and when Pliny (N.H. vi. 19) and Mela (i. 116) speak of Tyrcae it is also probably due to a false correction.

The reading Turks is outdated, and when Pliny (N.H. vi. 19) and Mela (i. 116) mention Tyrcae, it’s likely because of a mistaken revision.

(E. H. M.)

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

IZBARTA, or Sparta [anc. Baris], the main town of the Hamid-abad district in the Konia province of Asia Minor, is well-located on the edge of a fertile plain at the base of Aghlasun Dagh. It was once the capital of the Emirate of Hamid. The town was heavily impacted by the earthquake on January 16-17, 1889. It is a thriving place with an educated Greek community among its residents (which explains the many families known as “Spartali” in other Levantine towns); in fact, it serves as the main hub of Hellenism in Anatolia. The population is 20,000 (13,000 Muslims, 7,000 Christians). The new Aidin railway runs from Dineir to Izbarta via Buldur.

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

IZHEVSK, is a town in Russia, located in the Vyatka region, 140 km southwest of Perm and 22 km west of the Kama River, on the Izh River. Population (1897) was 21,500. It hosts one of the main steel and rifle factories of the Russian government, which began operating in 1807. The production of sporting guns is a thriving industry here.

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

IZMAIL, or Ismail, a town in Russia, located in the Bessarabia region on the left bank of the Kilia branch of the Danube, 35 miles below the Reni railway station. Population (1866) 31,779, (1900) 33,607, consisting of Great and Little Russians, Bulgarians, Jews, and Gypsies. It has flour mills and trades in cereals, wool, tallow, and hides. Originally a Turkish fort, by the end of the 18th century, Izmail had grown into a town with 30,000 residents. The Russians occupied it in 1770, and twenty years later, its capture was one of the notable achievements of Russian General Count A. V. Suvarov. At that time, the garrison numbered 40,000, and the assault resulted in 10,000 attackers and 30,000 defenders lost. This victory inspired one of the odes by Russian poet G. R. Derzhavin. In 1809, the Russians again took the town, and when it was assigned to them by the Bucharest peace treaty in 1812, they chose it as the main station for their Danube fleet. Around this time, the town of Tuchkov, which was incorporated in 1830, developed outside the fortifications. These fortifications were dismantled following the treaty of Paris in 1856, after which Izmail was transferred to Romania. The town was returned to Russia by the peace of Berlin in 1878.

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

IZU-NO-SHICHI-TŌ, the seven (shichi) islands (to) of Izu, are part of Japan. They stretch south from a point near the mouth of Tokyo Bay and are located between 33° and 34° 48′ N. and between 139° and 140° E. Their names, starting from the north, are Izu-no-Oshima, To-shima, Nii-shima, Kozu-shima, Miyake-shima, and Hachijo-shima. There are also some smaller islets nearby. Izu-no-Oshima, an island measuring 10 miles long and 5½ miles wide, is 15 miles from the nearest point of the Izu promontory. It's known to Western mapmakers as Vries Island, named after Captain Martin Gerritsz de Vries, a Dutch navigator who is believed to have discovered the island in 1643. However, the Japanese have known about this group of islands for a long time, using them as convict settlements at least since the 12th century, and likely even earlier. Hachijo, the southernmost island, is often mistakenly labeled “Fatsisio” on English maps. Izu-no-Oshima is notable for its active volcano, Mihara-yama (2461 ft.), which is a prominent landmark for ships heading to Yokohama. Three other islands—Nii-shima, Kozu-shima, and Miyake-shima—also have active volcanoes. The volcanoes on Nii-shima and Kozu-shima are relatively small, but Miyake-shima’s volcano, called Oyama, reaches a height of 2707 ft. The southernmost island, Hachijo-shima, boasts an even taller peak, Dsubotake (2838 ft.), but it doesn’t produce any smoke.

103

103

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

J A letter in the alphabet that, in terms of shape, is just a variation of the Latin I and really only gained its distinct value in the 15th century. It was initially used as a particular form of the initial I, while the regular form was retained for other contexts. However, since in many cases the initial i had the consonantal sound of the English y in iugum (yoke), etc., the symbol eventually came to represent the sound of y—something it still does in German: Ja! jung, etc. In English, it’s pronounced at the beginning as an affricate dzh. The vast majority of English words starting with j are (1) derived from foreign (mostly French) sources, like “jaundice,” “judge”; (2) imitative of sound, such as “jar” (the verb); or (3) influenced by analogy, like “jaw” (influenced by chaw, according to Skeat). In early French, g when softened by e or i sounds became confused with the consonantal i (y), and both evolved into the sound of j, which remains in English. A similar sound change happens in other languages, e.g. Lithuanian, where the resulting sound is spelled . Modern French, as well as Provençal and Portuguese, have shifted j = dzh into ž (zh). In English, this sound is sometimes shown with g: gem, gaol as well as jail. At the end of contemporary English words, the same sound is represented by -dge as in judge, French juge. In this position, however, the sound can also occur in genuine English words like bridge, sedge, singe, but this is only the case for the southern dialects that the literary language is based on. In the northern dialects, pronunciation remains as brig, seg, sing.

(P. Gi.)

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

JA’ALIN (from Jā’al, to settle, i.e. “the squatters”), an African tribe with Semitic heritage. They used to inhabit the land on both sides of the Nile from Khartum to Abu Hamed. They claim descent from the Koreish tribe and even trace their lineage back to Abbas, the prophet’s uncle. They are of Arab origin but now have a very mixed ancestry. According to their own tradition, they migrated to Nubia in the 12th century. They were once under the rule of the Funj kings, but had a degree of independence. During the Egyptian invasion in 1820, they were the strongest Arab tribe in the Nile valley. Initially, they submitted, but in 1822, they revolted and killed the Egyptian garrison at Shendi. The rebellion was brutally crushed, and from then on, the Jā’alin were viewed with suspicion. They were among the first northern tribes to join the Mahdi in 1884, and their location north of Khartum made it difficult for General Gordon to communicate with others. The Jā’alin are now a semi-nomadic agricultural community. Many work in Khartum as servants, clerks, and security guards. They are a proud and religious people, previously infamous for being brutal slave traders. J. L. Burckhardt notes that the true Jā’alin from the eastern desert resemble the Bedouin of eastern Arabia closely.

See The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, edited by Count Gleichen (London, 1905).

See The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, edited by Count Gleichen (London, 1905).

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

JABIRU, According to Marcgrave, this is the Brazilian name for a bird later classified by Linnaeus as Mycteria americana, one of the largest storks in the family Ciconiidae, found from Mexico down to Argentina. It stands between 4 and 5 ft. tall and is known for its large, slightly upturned bill and entirely white feathers; however, its head and neck are bare and black, except for the lower third of the neck, which is bright red in the living bird. Very closely related to Mycteria, and also commonly called jabirus, are the birds from the genera Xenorhynchus and Ephippiorhynchus. The first contains one or possibly two species, X. australis and X. indicus, while the latter has just one, E. senegalensis. These birds are found in the countries indicated by their names and mainly differ in having feathered heads and necks, with the last sometimes referred to as the saddle-billed stork due to its unique beak shape. More distantly related are the large birds known to Europeans as adjutant birds, belonging to the genus Leptoptilus. They are recognized by their dull-colored feathers, their black, rough heads, and their huge, tawny pouches, which can hang down over 16 inches from the lower part of their necks and are thought to be connected to their respiratory system, not, as commonly believed, their digestive system. In many parts of India, L. dubius, the largest of these birds, known as hargila by Hindus, is an effective scavenger, soaring high and descending when it spots carrion, although frogs and fish are also part of its diet. It often enters large towns, where it is strictly protected due to its beneficial role, and after eating, it rests in a comically awkward position with its feet stretched out in front of it. A second, smaller species, L. javanicus, has a range that extends more to the south and east, while a third, L. crumenifer, which comes from Africa and is often known as the marabou stork, gives its name to the very soft feathers from its under-tail-coverts; the “marabout” feathers in the plume trade mainly come from other birds, with the term seemingly applied to any fluffy feathers.

(A. N.)
Jabiru.

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

JABLOCHKOV, PAUL (1847-1894), Russian electrical engineer and inventor, was born in Serdobsk, Saratov, on September 14, 1847, and educated in St. Petersburg. In 1871, he became the director of the telegraph lines between Moscow and Kursk, but he resigned in 1875 to focus on his research into electric lighting using arc lamps, which he had already started. In 1876, he moved to Paris and, later that year, introduced his famous “candles,” known by his name. These consisted of two parallel carbon rods separated by a non-conducting barrier; alternating currents were used, and the candle operated with a high-resistance carbon match connecting the tips of the rods. When the match burned out, a true arc formed between the parallel carbons, and the separators vaporized as the carbons burned away. For a few years, his electric lighting system was widely adopted but was gradually replaced 104 (see Lighting: Electric) and is no longer in use. Jablochkov created various other electrical inventions but died in poverty after returning to Russia on March 19, 1894.

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

JABLONSKI, DANIEL ERNST (1660-1741), German theologian, was born in Nassenhuben, near Danzig, on November 20, 1660. His father, a minister of the Moravian Church, was baptized as Peter Figulus; however, the son chose to use the Bohemian family name Jablonski. His maternal grandfather, Johann Amos Comenius (d. 1670), was a bishop in the Moravian Church. Jablonski studied at Frankfort-on-the-Oder and Oxford, beginning his preaching career in Magdeburg in 1683. From 1686 to 1691, he served as the head of the Moravian college at Lissa, a position previously held by his grandfather. While maintaining his connection with the Moravians, he was appointed court preacher in Königsberg in 1691 by the elector of Brandenburg, Frederick III. Here, he became actively involved and quickly gained influence in court circles. In 1693, he moved to Berlin as court preacher, and by 1699, he had been consecrated as a bishop in the Moravian Church. In Berlin, Jablonski worked diligently to promote a union between the followers of Luther and Calvin. The courts of Berlin, Hanover, Brunswick, and Gotha supported his initiative, with philosopher Leibnitz as his main ally. His vision was to create a general union among the German, English, and Swiss Protestants to establish una eademque sancta catholica et apostolica eademque evangelica et reformata ecclesia. For several years, negotiations took place to achieve this goal, but eventually, the numerous challenges proved insurmountable; nonetheless, Jablonski and Leibnitz continued to believe in the possibility of their aim. Jablonski’s next initiative was to reform the Church of Prussia by introducing the episcopate and the liturgy of the English Church, but he failed in this as well. As a scholar, Jablonski published a Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and translated Bentley’s A Confutation of Atheism into Latin (1696). He contributed to the founding of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, serving as president in 1733, and he received an honorary degree from the University of Oxford. He died on May 25, 1741.

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

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

Editions of the letters which passed between Jablonski and Leibnitz, relative to the proposed union, were published at Leipzig in 1747 and at Dorpat in 1899.

Editions of the letters exchanged between Jablonski and Leibnitz regarding the proposed union were published in Leipzig in 1747 and in Dorpat in 1899.

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

Jaborandi, is a term used in Brazil and generally in South America to refer to several different plants, all of which have pronounced sialogogue and sudorific properties. In 1875, a drug by this name was introduced to medical professionals in France by Dr. Coutinho from Pernambuco, although its botanical source was not known at the time. Pilocarpus pennatifolius, part of the Rutaceae family, is a slightly branched shrub that grows about 10 feet high in Paraguay and the eastern regions of Brazil. The leaves, which grow alternately on the stem, can reach up to 1½ feet long and consist of two to five pairs of opposite leaflets, with the terminal leaflet having a longer stalk than the others. The leaflets are oval, lance-shaped, smooth, and blunt-tipped, often with a slight indentation at the top, measuring about 3 to 4 inches long and 1 to 1½ inches wide in the middle. When held up to the light, they display numerous tiny clear dots or secretory cavities embedded within the leaf tissue. The leaves are somewhat similar in size and texture to those of the cherry-laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), but they are less shiny on the top surface. The flowers bloom in spring and early summer and are arranged in a raceme that is 6 to 8 inches long. The fruit consists of five carpels, but typically only two or three reach maturity. The leaves are the primary part of the plant that is imported, though sometimes stems and roots are also included. The active compound for which the name pilocarpine, proposed by Holmes, was ultimately accepted, was identified almost simultaneously by Hardy in France and Gerrard in England, but was first isolated in pure form by Petit in Paris. It is a liquid alkaloid that is slightly soluble in water and highly soluble in alcohol, ether, and chloroform. It significantly rotates the plane of polarization to the right and forms crystalline salts, with the nitrate being the most commonly used in medicine. The nitrate and phosphate are insoluble in ether, chloroform, and benzene, while the hydrochlorate and hydrobromate dissolve in these solvents as well as in water and alcohol; the sulphate and acetate are deliquescent and not used medicinally. The chemical formula for the alkaloid is C11H16N2O2.

Certain other alkaloids are present in the leaves. They have been named jaborine, jaboridine and pilocarpidine. The first of these is the most important and constant. It is possibly derived from pilocarpine, and has the formula C22H32N4O4. Jaborine resembles atropine pharmacologically, and is therefore antagonistic to pilocarpine. The various preparations of jaborandi leaves are therefore undesirable for therapeutic purposes, and only the nitrate of pilocarpine itself should be used. This is a white crystalline powder, soluble in the ratio of about one part in ten of cold water. The dose is 120-12 grain by the mouth, and up to one-third of a grain hypodermically, in which fashion it is usually given.

Certain other alkaloids are found in the leaves. They are called jaborine, jaboridine, and pilocarpidine. The first one is the most significant and consistently present. It may be derived from pilocarpine and has the formula C22H32N4O4. Jaborine is similar to atropine in its effects, making it an opponent to pilocarpine. As a result, the different preparations of jaborandi leaves are not suitable for therapeutic use, and only the nitrate of pilocarpine itself should be utilized. This comes as a white crystalline powder, which dissolves at about one part in ten of cold water. The dosage is 120-12 grain taken orally, and up to one-third of a grain given hypodermically, which is the usual method of administration.

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

The action of this powerful alkaloid closely resembles that of physostigmine, but whereas the latter is specially active in influencing the heart, the eye and the spinal cord, pilocarpine exerts its greatest power on the secretions. It has no external action. When taken by the mouth the drug is rapidly absorbed and stimulates the secretions of the entire alimentary tract, though not of the liver. The action on the salivary glands is the most marked and the best understood. The great flow of saliva is due to an action of the drug, after absorption, on the terminations of the chorda tympani, sympathetic and other nerves of salivary secretion. The gland cells themselves are unaffected. The nerves are so violently excited that direct stimulation of them by electricity adds nothing to the rate of salivary flow. The action is antagonized by atropine, which paralyses the nerve terminals. About 1100th of a grain of atropine 105 antagonizes half a grain of pilocarpine. The circulation is depressed by the drug, the pulse being slowed and the blood pressure falling. The cardiac action is due to stimulation of the vagus, but the dilatation of the blood-vessels does not appear to be due to a specific action upon them. The drug does not kill by its action on the heart. Its dangerous action is upon the bronchial secretion, which is greatly increased. Pilocarpine is not only the most powerful sialogogue but also the most powerful diaphoretic known. One dose may cause the flow of nearly a pint of sweat in an hour. The action is due, as in the case of the salivation, to stimulation of the terminals of the sudorific nerves. According to K. Binz there is also in both cases an action on the medullary centres for these secretions. Just as the saliva is a true secretion containing a high proportion of ptyalin and salts, and is not a mere transudation of water, so the perspiration is found to contain a high ratio of urea and chlorides. The great diaphoresis and the depression of the circulation usually cause a fall in temperature of about 2° F. The drug is excreted unchanged in the urine. It is a mild diuretic. When given internally or applied locally to the eye it powerfully stimulates the terminals of the oculomotor nerves in the iris and ciliary muscle, causing extreme contraction of the pupil and spasm of accommodation. The tension of the eyeball is at first raised but afterwards lowered.

The effects of this strong alkaloid are similar to those of physostigmine, but while the latter mainly impacts the heart, eye, and spinal cord, pilocarpine primarily focuses on secretions. It has no external effects. When taken orally, the drug is quickly absorbed and stimulates secretions throughout the entire digestive tract, although not from the liver. Its effect on the salivary glands is the most pronounced and best understood. The significant increase in saliva is due to the drug’s action, after absorption, on the endings of the chorda tympani, sympathetic, and other nerves involved in salivary secretion. The gland cells themselves are not affected. The nerves become so intensely stimulated that direct electrical stimulation does not increase the rate of saliva production. This effect is countered by atropine, which paralyzes the nerve endings. About 1100th of a grain of atropine 105 can counteract half a grain of pilocarpine. The drug lowers circulation, slowing the pulse and reducing blood pressure. The effect on the heart is due to vagus stimulation, but the dilation of the blood vessels doesn’t seem to be a direct effect on them. The drug doesn’t cause death through its effects on the heart; its dangerous effects arise from a significant increase in bronchial secretions. Pilocarpine is not only the strongest salivary stimulant but also the most potent diaphoretic known. A single dose can lead to nearly a pint of sweat within an hour. Similar to saliva production, this effect results from the stimulation of sudorific nerve endings. K. Binz also noted that there is an effect on the brain centers responsible for these secretions in both cases. Just as saliva is a true secretion containing a high level of ptyalin and salts and is not simply a transudation of water, sweat contains a substantial amount of urea and chlorides. The increased sweating and cardiovascular depression usually lead to a temperature drop of about 2° F. The drug is excreted unchanged in the urine. It acts as a mild diuretic. When taken internally or applied locally to the eye, it strongly stimulates the endings of the oculomotor nerves in the iris and ciliary muscle, leading to intense pupil contraction and spasm of accommodation. The eyeball pressure initially rises but later decreases.

The chief therapeutic use of the drug is as a diaphoretic in chronic Bright’s disease. It is also used to aid the growth of the hair—in which it is sometimes successful; in cases of inordinate thirst, when one-tenth of a grain with a little bismuth held in the mouth may be of much value; in cases of lead and mercury poisoning, where it aids the elimination of the poison in the secretions; as a galactagogue; and in cases of atropine poisoning (though here it is of doubtful value).

The main therapeutic use of the drug is as a diaphoretic for chronic Bright’s disease. It’s also used to promote hair growth—in which it is sometimes effective; in cases of excessive thirst, when one-tenth of a grain with a bit of bismuth held in the mouth can be quite beneficial; in cases of lead and mercury poisoning, where it helps eliminate the poison in the secretions; as a galactagogue; and in cases of atropine poisoning (although here its effectiveness is uncertain).

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

JACA, is a city in northern Spain, located in the province of Huesca, 114 miles by rail northwest of Zaragoza, on the left bank of the Aragon River and among the southern slopes of the Pyrenees, 2,380 feet above sea level. Population (1900), 4,934. Jaca is an episcopal seat and was once the capital of the Aragonese county of Sobrarbe. Its impressive Gothic cathedral dates back at least to the 11th century, and possibly to the 9th. The city is significant due to its position on the ancient trade route from Zaragoza to Pau. In August 1904, the French and Spanish governments decided to enhance this trade route by building a railway from Oloron in the Basses Pyrénées to Jaca. Various border defense works were constructed in the area at the end of the 19th century.

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

The origin of the city is unknown. The Jaccetani (Ἰάκκητανοί) are noted as one of the most famous among the many small tribes living in the Ebro basin by Strabo, who adds that their territory was the scene of the wars that occurred in the 1st century B.C. between Sertorius and Pompey. They are likely the same as the Lacetani mentioned by Livy (xxi. 60, 61) and Caesar (B.C. i. 60). Early in the 8th century, Jaca came under the control of the Moors, who referred to it as Dyaka, one of the main places in the province of Sarkosta (Saragossa). The exact date of its reconquest is unclear, but it must have happened before Ramiro I of Aragon (1035-1063), who granted it the title of “city,” and in 1063 held a council within its walls that is considered significant in the history of the peninsula's parliamentary institutions because the citizens were called to approve its decisions. In 1705, Jaca supported King Philip V, and as a result, it received the title of muy noble, muy leal y vencedora, meaning “most noble, most loyal, and victorious.” During the Peninsular War, it surrendered to the French in 1809 but was retaken in 1814.

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

JACAMAR, a term created by Brisson from Jacameri, the Brazilian name for a bird as noted by Marcgrave, which has since been adopted in most European languages for the species it was originally assigned to and its related species, forming the family Galbulidae1 of ornithologists, the exact classification of which remains unclear, as respected experts disagree. All seem to agree that jacamars belong to the large diverse group termed by Nitzsch as Picariae, but it's uncertain to delve deeper into specifics. The Galbulidae have zygodactyl feet, or pair-toed feet, similar to the Cuculidae, Bucconidae, and Picidae. They also share similarities with the latter in that they lay glossy white eggs, but in this regard, they also resemble the Momotidae, Alcedinidae, Meropidae, and some other groups that have been suggested as related to them. According to Sclater (A Monograph of the Jacamars and Puff-birds), jacamars are divided into two groups—one containing the single genus and species Jacamerops aureus (J. grandis in the majority of texts), and the other including all the others, like Urogalba with two species, Galbula with nine, Brachygalba with five, and Jacamaralcyon and Galbalcyrhynchus with one each. They are all relatively small birds, with the largest known reaching just over 10 inches in length, featuring long and sharply pointed beaks, and their plumage is more or less dazzling with golden or bronze highlights, while still being relatively soft. Jacamaralcyon tridactyla is distinct from all others in having only three toes (as indicated by its name) on each foot, lacking the hallux. Except for Galbula melanogenia, which is also found in Central America and southern Mexico, all jacamars are found in tropical parts of South America east of the Andes. Galbula ruficauda extends its habitat to the islands of Trinidad and Tobago.2 There is very little known about the behaviors of these species. They can be seen sitting still on trees, sometimes alone and other times in groups, from where they quickly swoop to catch any passing insect mid-flight and return to their perch. Almost nothing has been documented about their nesting habits, but according to Kirk, the species found in Tobago is said to dig its nest in marl-banks, creating a hole about an inch and a half in diameter and around 18 inches deep.

(A. N.)

1 Galbula was first applied to Marcgrave’s bird by Moehring. It is another form of Galgulus, and seems to have been one of the many names of the golden oriole. See Icterus.

1 Galbula was first used for Marcgrave’s bird by Moehring. It’s another version of Galgulus, and appears to have been one of the various names for the golden oriole. See Icterus.

2 The singular appearance, recorded by Canon Tristram (Zoologist, p. 3906), of a bird of this species in Lincolnshire seems to require notice. No instance seems to be known of any jacamar having been kept in confinement or brought to this country alive; but expert aviculturists are often not communicative, and many importations of rare birds have doubtless passed unrecorded.

2 The unique sighting, noted by Canon Tristram (Zoologist, p. 3906), of a bird from this species in Lincolnshire deserves attention. There doesn't seem to be any known case of a jacamar being kept in captivity or brought to this country alive; however, experienced birdkeepers are often not very open, and many imports of rare birds have likely gone unreported.

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

JAÇANÁ, the Brazilian name, according to Marcgrave, for certain birds that have now been found to have relatives in other parts of the world, which are also commonly referred to by the same name. They have often been categorized with water-hens or rails (Rallidae), but many taxonomists now recognize them as a separate family, Parridae,1 which seems to align more with the Limicolae, as first suggested by Blyth. This perspective is supported by the skeletal observations of Parker (Proc. Zool. Society, 1863, p. 513), although A. Milne-Edwards disputes this in Ois. foss. de la France, ii. p. 110. The most noticeable feature of this group of birds is the remarkable length of their toes and claws, allowing them to walk easily over water lilies and other aquatic plants found in rivers and lakes. The family is divided into four genera—Parra, as currently defined, inhabits South America; Metopidius, which is very similar, has representatives in Africa, Madagascar, and the Indian region; Hydralector, also closely related to Parra, is found in the northern part of the Australian region; and Hydrophasianus, the most extravagant of the group, is present in India, Sri Lanka, and China. In terms of behavior, jaçanás share many traits with water-hens, but this similarity is not enough to justify the claimed relationship between the two groups; in their skeletal structure, there are significant differences, and the resemblance appears to be merely superficial. The Parridae lay distinctly unique eggs that are a rich olive-brown color, usually marked with dark lines, giving them an appearance that readily distinguishes them from the eggs of other birds, although a similar appearance can occasionally be observed in the eggs of certain Limicolae, especially some Charadriidae.

(A. N.)
Pheasant-tailed Jaçaná.

1 The classic Parra is by some authors thought to have been the golden oriole (see Icterus), while others suppose it was a jay or pie. The word seems to have been imported into ornithology by Aldrovandus, but the reason which prompted Linnaeus to apply it, as he seems first to have done, to a bird of this group, cannot be satisfactorily stated.

1 Some authors believe that the classic Parra refers to the golden oriole (see Icterus), while others think it might be a jay or a magpie. The term appears to have been brought into ornithology by Aldrovandus, but the reason Linnaeus chose to apply it, as he seems to have been the first to do, to a bird in this group isn’t clearly explained.

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

JACINI, STEFANO, Count (1827-1891), an Italian politician and economist, came from a long-established and wealthy Lombard family. He studied in Switzerland, Milan, and German universities. During the Austrian restoration in Lombardy (1849-1859), he focused on literary and economic research. For his work titled La Proprietà fondiaria in Lombardia (Milan, 1856), he received an award from the Milanese Società d’incoraggiamento di scienze e lettere and became a member of the Istituto Lombardo. In another publication, Sulle condizioni economiche della Valtellina (Milan, 1858, translated into English by W. E. Gladstone), he highlighted the issues caused by Austrian rule and prepared a report on the overall conditions in Lombardy and Venetia for Cavour. He served as the Minister of Public Works under Cavour from 1860 to 1861, under La Marmora in 1864, and under Ricasoli until 1867. In 1866, he proposed a bill supporting Italy's involvement in the construction of the St. Gotthard tunnel. He played a key role in forming the alliance with Prussia for the war of 1866 against Austria and in organizing the Italian railways. From 1881 to 1886, he was the president of the commission investigating Italy's agricultural conditions, and he edited the extensive report on the topic. He became a senator in 1870 and was granted the title of count in 1880. He passed away in 1891.

L. Carpi’s Risorgimento italiano, vol. iv. (Milan, 1888), contains a short sketch of Jacini’s life.

L. Carpi’s Risorgimento italiano, vol. iv. (Milan, 1888), includes a brief overview of Jacini’s life.

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

JACK,__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ is a word with a wide range of meanings and uses, all stemming from its common use as a nickname for a man. There’s been a lot of debate about whether “Jack” as a name comes from the French Jacques, which means James, from the Latin Jacobus, or the Greek James, or if it directly derives from John, which is its earliest and most universal use in English. In the History of the Monastery of St Augustine at Canterbury, 1414, Jack is mentioned as a form of John—Mos est Saxonum ... verba et nomina transformare ... ut ... pro Johanne Jankin sive Jacke (see E. W. B. Nicholson, The Pedigree of Jack and other Allied Names, 1892). “Jack” was early on used as a general term for any man in the common folk, especially in combination with the woman’s name Jill or Gill, as in the nursery rhyme. The New English Dictionary cites a quote from the Coventry Mysteries, 1450: “And I wole kepe the feet this tyde Thow ther come both Iakke and Gylle.” Familiar examples of this generic use of the name include Jack or Jack Tar for a sailor, which seems to date back to the 17th century, and other combinations like cheap-jack and steeple-jack, or expressions like “jack in office,” “jack of all trades,” etc. It is this further extension that gives the name to the knave in a deck of cards, as well as various animals, such as jackdaw, jack-snipe, jack-rabbit (a type of large prairie hare); it is also used as a general name for a pike.

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

The various uses of the word “jack” for mechanical devices and other items can be divided into two categories: one refers to objects that are somewhat smaller than usual, and the other refers to tools that replace manual labor or help reduce it. In the first category, we can note that the term is used for the small object in the game of bowls or for jack rafters, which are the shorter rafters in a building, especially the end rafters in a hipped roof. The use of "jack" to describe a specific type of ship's flag likely came about for this reason, as it is always a smaller flag than the ensign. The jack is displayed on a staff at the front of a ship. In the British navy, the jack is a small Union flag. (The Union flag should only be called a Union Jack when it's flown as a jack.) The jack of other nations often consists of the canton of the ensign, as seen in the German and United States navies, or it can also be a smaller version of the national ensign, like in France. (See Flag.)

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

The more common use of “jack” refers to various mechanical and other devices that were originally used as substitutes for men or boys. This explains the origin of the boot-jack and the meat-jack, as noted in Isaac Watts’s Logic, 1724: “So foot boys, who were often called Jack, were kept to turn the spit or pull off their masters’ boots, but when tools were invented for these tasks, they both became known as jacks.” The New English Dictionary identifies a transitional meaning in the use of the name “jack” for mechanical figures that strike the hours on a clock bell. Such a figure in the clock of St Lawrence Church at Reading is referred to as a jack in the parish accounts for 1498-1499. The term “jack” is applied in many different contexts, including specific levers and parts of textile machinery, metal plugs used for connecting lines in a telephone exchange, wooden uprights that connect the levers of the keys to the strings in the harpsichord and virginal, a framework forming a seat or staging that can be attached outside a window for cleaning or painting, and various devices containing a roller or winch, like a jack towel, which is a long towel hung on a roller. However, the main mechanical application of the word refers to a machine for lifting weights from below. A jack chain, named for its use in meat-jacks, consists of links shaped like a figure eight, arranged in planes at right angles to each other, so they appear alternately flat or edge-on.

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

In most European languages, the word "jack" in various forms refers to a short outer garment, especially a sleeveless (quilted) leather jerkin, sometimes with iron plates or rings sewn onto it. This was the standard coat of defense for infantry during the Middle Ages. The term comes from French and derives from the common name Jacques, as it was a garment worn by ordinary people. In French, the word is jaque, and in Italian, it's giaco or giacco. In Dutch, it’s jak, Swedish jacka, and German Jacke, which still refers to a short coat, just like the English "jacket," from the diminutive French jaquette. It’s likely that the leather coat's resemblance led to leather vessels for holding or drinking liquor being called jacks or black jacks. Although these large drinking vessels were known as jacks much earlier, they weren't referred to as black jacks until the 16th century. Among the notable surviving examples is one with the initials and crown of Charles I, dated 1646, which came from Kensington Palace and is now in the British Museum; there’s one each at Queen’s College and New College, Oxford; two at Winchester College; one at Eton College; and six at Chelsea Hospital. Many of these vessels are decorated with shields of arms, initials, and other designs; they are rarely made with silver, although there are counterfeit ones with silver medallions of Cromwell and other notable figures. At the end of the 17th century, a smaller type of jack resembling a regular drinking mug with a tapering cylindrical body, often mounted in silver, became somewhat popular. The black jack is a different style of drinking vessel from the leather botel and the bombard. The jack-boot, which is a heavy riding boot with a long flap covering the knee and part of the thigh, was first worn by cavalrymen during the 17th century and likely got its name from its connection to the leather jack or jerkin. The jack-boot is still worn by the Household Cavalry, and the term now describes a high riding boot that reaches the knee, as opposed to the riding boot with tops, which is used in full hunting attire or by grooms or coachmen.

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

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

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

The term “jackanapes,” now used as an insulting label for someone who is arrogant and behaves in a disrespectful manner, has a debated and interesting history. According to the New English Dictionary, it first showed up in 1450 referring to William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk (Political Poems, “Rolls Series,” II. 224), “Jack Napys with his clogge hath tiede Talbot our gentille dogge.” Suffolk’s emblem was a clog and chain, which was often used for keeping a monkey in captivity, and he is mentioned (ibid. 222) as “Ape clogge.” Jack Napes, Jack o’ Napes, Jackanapes, was a common name for a pet monkey from the 16th century, and it seems more plausible that the word is a creative name for a monkey rather than stemming from Suffolk’s nickname. 107

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

JACKAL (Turk, chakāl) is a term that specifically refers to Canis aureus, a wolf-like wild member of the dog family found in eastern Europe and southern Asia, but it also includes several related species. Jackals look similar to wolves and dogs in their teeth structure, round pupils, gestation period, and largely in their behavior. The European species stands about 15 inches tall at the shoulders and is around 2 feet long, not counting its bushy tail. Typically, the fur is greyish-yellow, darker on the back and lighter underneath. The common jackal (C. aureus) ranges from Dalmatia to India, with several local varieties. In Senegal, this species is replaced by C. anthus, while in Egypt, the larger C. lupaster, known as the Egyptian wolf, can be found. Closely related is the so-called Indian wolf (C. pallipes). Other African species include the black-backed jackal (C. mesomelas), the variegated jackal (C. variegatus), and the dusky jackal (C. adustus). Jackals are nocturnal and hide in wooded areas and other natural spots until dusk, then come out in packs, which can number up to two hundred, to search for food in farmyards, villages, and towns. Their diet mostly consists of smaller mammals and poultry; however, being in groups allows them to hunt antelopes and sheep. If they can’t find live prey, they eat carrion and various scraps, making them helpful in cleaning up decaying matter from the streets. They also enjoy grapes and other fruits, which makes them nuisances in vineyards as well as in poultry yards. The jackal's cry is even more horrifying than a hyena's, with one pack member's scream triggering a chorus of howls that lasts most of the night. In India, these animals are hunted with foxhounds or greyhounds and, due to their cleverness and bravery, provide excellent sport. Jackals can be easily tamed; domesticated ones are known to wag their tails, crouch, and lie down when called by their owners, behaving much like dogs. Also, like foxes, jackals have an unpleasant odor coming from a gland at the base of their tail.

Egyptian Jackal (Canis lupaster).

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

JACKDAW, or simply Dude (Old Low German, Daha; Dutch, Kaauw), is one of the smallest species in the genus Corvus (see Crow) and is a well-known inhabitant of Europe, specifically the C. monedula recognized by ornithologists. In some of its habits, it closely resembles its relative, the rook, with which it often associates for much of the year. However, while the rook rarely nests outside of tree branches and in open areas, the daw almost always chooses holes, whether in rocks, hollow trees, rabbit burrows, or buildings. Almost every church tower and castle, whether in ruins or not, is more or less populated by daws. They often find cozy spots in chimneys, which can annoy homeowners as the funnels get blocked by the sticks they collect. Their ability to gather nesting materials is impressive, even when it sometimes proves to be in vain. In some cases, the pile of sticks that daws build in a belfry or tower can reach heights of 10 to 12 feet, making them one of the biggest nest builders in the world. The architectural style of the daw leads to more interaction with humans compared to the rook, and its familiarity is heightened by its bold personality, which is daring yet cleverly cautious—hardly matched among birds. Its small size, in contrast to many of its relatives, prevents it from causing the significant damage that some can, but it does engage in some stealing. Overall, however, its contributions to agriculture are significant; in controlling harmful insects, it is almost as effective as the rook, and it also has the beneficial habit of helping remove parasites from sheep, which it can often be seen perched on.

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

The daw shows off its shiny black feathers, a classic trait of true crows, with the only variation being the grayish color of the ear-coverts and the nape and sides of the neck, which indicates it's an adult. However, specimens from Eastern Europe and Western Asia have these areas much lighter, even reaching a silvery white, leading some experts to classify them as a separate species (C. collaris, Drumm.). Further east is C. dauuricus of Pallas, which not only has a wider, pure white collar but also much of its underbody is white. Japan and northern China are home to a similar form to that of Western Europe but lacks the gray nape found in the latter. This is referred to as C. neglectus by Professor Schlegel, and Dresser, citing Swinhoe, says they often interbreed with C. dauuricus. These are the birds generally recognized as daws, although Dr. Bowdler Sharpe (Cat. B. Brit. Museum, iii. 24) links them to the North American fish-crow, which, based on its structure and behavior, seems to be a true crow.

(A. N.)

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

JACKSON, ANDREW (1767-1845), the seventh president of the United States, was born on March 15, 1767, in the Waxhaw or Warsaw settlement in Union County, North Carolina, or in Lancaster County, South Carolina, where his parents had immigrated from Carrickfergus, Ireland, in 1765. He played a minor role in the War of Independence and was captured in 1781, which led to a lifelong resentment of Great Britain. He studied law in Salisbury, North Carolina, was admitted to the bar there in 1787, and began practicing in McLeansville, Guilford County, North Carolina, where he also worked briefly as a constable and deputy sheriff. In 1788, after being appointed as the prosecuting attorney for the western district of North Carolina (now the state of Tennessee), he moved to Nashville, the district's judicial center. In 1791, he married Mrs. Rachel Robards (née Donelson), believing her husband had divorced her through the Virginia legislature. However, the legislative act had only allowed the courts to decide if there were enough grounds for a divorce and to grant or deny it accordingly. It wasn't until more than two years later that the divorce was actually finalized, based on the fact that Jackson and Mrs. Robards were then living together. Upon learning this, Jackson had the marriage ceremony performed a second time.

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

In 1796, Jackson helped draft the constitution of Tennessee. From December 1796 to March 1797, he represented the state in the Federal House of Representatives, where he stood out as a staunch opponent of President Washington, being one of the twelve representatives who voted against the address to him by the House. In 1797, he was elected a United States senator, but he resigned the following year. He served as a judge on the supreme court of Tennessee from 1798 to 1804. In 1804-1805, he formed a friendship with Aaron Burr, and during Burr's trial in 1807, Jackson was one of his most notable supporters. Up until his nomination for the presidency, Jackson's biographer notes nothing but military achievements showcasing his determination, energy, and high-level skills, along with a series of personal actions that revealed his ignorance, violence, stubbornness, quarrelsomeness, and remarkable indiscretion. His combative nature got him into many personal conflicts. In 1795, he engaged in a duel with Colonel Waitstill Avery (1745-1821), an opposing lawyer, over some heated words exchanged in a courtroom; however, it seems both intentionally fired wide. In 1806, in another duel after a long and bitter argument, he killed Charles Dickinson and sustained a wound from which he never fully healed. In 1813, he exchanged gunfire with Thomas Hart Benton and his brother Jesse in a Nashville tavern, suffering a second injury. Eventually, Jackson and Thomas Hart Benton reconciled.

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

In 1813-1814, as a major-general of the militia, he led the campaign against the Creek Indians in Georgia and Alabama, defeating them (at Talladega on November 9, 1813, and at Tohopeka on March 29, 1814), which first brought him public recognition for his skills. In May 1814, he was made a major-general in the regular army to fight against the British; in November, he captured Pensacola, Florida, then owned by Spain but used by the British as a base. On January 8, 1815, he dealt a heavy defeat to the enemy before New Orleans, unaware that a peace treaty had already been signed. While in New Orleans, he declared martial law and enforced his decisions with harsh strictness, expelling a judge who tried to resist. When civil law was reinstated, Jackson was fined $1,000 for contempt of court; in 1844, Congress ordered the fine, with interest ($2,700), to be refunded. In 1818, Jackson took command against the Seminoles. His actions in chasing them into Spanish Florida, capturing Pensacola, and arresting and executing two British subjects, Alexander Arbuthnot and Robert Ambrister, drew significant criticism in the cabinet and Congress; however, negotiations for purchasing Florida resolved the diplomatic issues. In 1821, Jackson served as military governor of Florida, where he again clashed with civil authorities. From this and other previous conflicts, John Quincy Adams, who was secretary of state at the time, helped him get out of trouble.

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

In July 1822, the Tennessee general assembly nominated Jackson for president, and in 1823, he was elected to the United States Senate, from which he resigned in 1825. The main candidates for president in the 1824 election were Jackson, John Quincy Adams, W. H. Crawford, and Henry Clay. Jackson received the most electoral votes (99), while Adams got 84, Crawford got 41, and Clay got 37. However, since no one had an outright majority, it was up to the House of Representatives to choose one of the three candidates—Adams, Jackson, or Crawford—who had received the highest electoral votes. During the House election on February 9, 1825, Adams was chosen, securing votes from 13 states, while Jackson received votes from 7 and Crawford from 4. Still, Jackson was seen by savvy politicians as the rising star. Martin Van Buren and others opposed the administration under his banner, waging a determined and divisive battle from the start. Van Buren was the most skilled politician of his time, and Jackson was surrounded by very clever advisors who guided and influenced him. He was easy to lead when he was uncertain, and he trusted those he had once believed in. He wasn't inclined to suspicion, but if he lost trust, he held a grudge. When he became convinced of an idea that personally mattered to him, that idea turned into an unshakeable fact that dominated his thoughts. When he was told he had been cheated out of the presidency, he was convinced it was true, even though those who told him were not entirely certain.

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

There was a lot of importance in Jackson's election in 1828. A new generation was emerging under different economic and social conditions. They had a strong sense of self and independence. They rejected tradition and old-world ways and beliefs; they embraced Jeffersonian principles not just as ideas, but as driving forces behind the country's economic growth. Therefore, this generation saw Jackson as someone who represented their views. They appreciated him because he was energetic, blunt, unsophisticated, relentless, straightforward, and honest. They made him president in 1828, and he met all their expectations. He received 178 electoral votes compared to Adams's 83. While the process of reshuffling government positions started soon after his inauguration, it’s not accurate to say that Jackson corrupted the civil service. His administration marked the beginning of a democratic system organized through patronage, introduced into federal politics by Van Buren. Around this time, the Democratic or Republican party split, mostly along personal lines, into Jacksonian Democrats and National Republicans, led by figures like Henry Clay and J. Q. Adams. The administration itself was divided from the start, with Van Buren, who served as secretary of state from 1829-1831, and Calhoun, who was vice-president from 1829-1832. The snub of Mrs. J. H. Eaton by the wives of the cabinet and Mrs. Calhoun caused a rift, leading to a complete cabinet reorganization in April 1831. Van Buren, a widower, sided with the president in this matter and gained favor. Meanwhile, Jackson learned that Calhoun, as secretary of war, had wanted to censure him for his actions during the Seminole War in Florida in 1818, leading him to see the South Carolina politician as an enemy. As a result, Jackson shifted his support for the presidency to Van Buren. The relationship between Jackson and his cabinet was different from those of his predecessors. With a military perspective, he tended to view cabinet members as subordinate officers and when seeking advice, he often consulted a group of personal friends known as the “Kitchen Cabinet.” Key members of this group included William B. Lewis (1784-1866), Amos Kendall, and Duff Green, the latter being the editor of the United States Telegraph, the administration's publication.

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

In 1832, Jackson was re-elected by a significant majority (219 electoral votes to 49) over his main opponent, Henry Clay. The conflict largely centered around the re-chartering of the Bank of the United States. It's likely that Jackson's advisers in 1828 misled him into thinking that the bank had worked against him, and they failed to keep him in check. His first presidential message had included a strong critique of the bank; and at the peak of this second campaign (July 1832), he vetoed the re-charter, which had been approved in the session of 109 1831-1832. Jackson viewed his re-election as a endorsement from the public regarding his battle with the bank, and he pursued it vigorously. In September 1833, he ordered the public funds in the bank to be moved to select local banks and embarked on an "experiment" to see if these could serve as fiscal agents for the government, believing that the desire to obtain the deposits would encourage the local banks to adopt sound currency practices. During the next session, the Senate passed a resolution condemning his actions. Jackson objected, and after a tough struggle, led by his ally Senator Thomas Hart Benton, the resolution was ordered to be removed from the record on January 16, 1837.

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

In 1832, when South Carolina tried to “nullify” the tariff laws, Jackson immediately took action to assert the authority of the federal government, sending two warships to Charleston and placing troops nearby. He also issued a proclamation warning the people of South Carolina about the consequences of their actions. However, in the conflict between Georgia and the Cherokee Indians, he took a different approach. Shortly after his first election, Georgia passed a law that imposed the state’s civil laws over Cherokee territory. This was against the rights of the Cherokees as outlined in a federal treaty, and the Supreme Court subsequently declared the law invalid (1832). Despite this, Jackson, who had a frontiersman’s disdain for Native Americans, refused to enforce the court’s decision (see Nullification; Georgia: History).

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

Jackson was very successful in collecting old claims against various European nations for losses caused by Napoleon’s continental system, especially the French claims, which he pursued with determination and strength. Aiming for a currency that was mostly made up of hard cash, he ensured that payments for these claims were received and imported in cash whenever possible; in 1836, he instructed land-agents to accept only cash for land. Around the same time, Congress passed a law to distribute about $35,000,000 that belonged to the United States, as the public debt had been fully paid. The eighty deposit banks holding this money treated it as a permanent loan and had inflated their credit based on it. The required repayment of their loans to cover the states’ drafts, combined with a breakdown of the strained credit between America and Europe and a drop in cotton prices, led to a financial crash that devastated the entire financial, industrial, and commercial system of the country for six or seven years. The crash occurred just as Jackson was leaving office, and the entire burden fell on his successor, Van Buren.

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

In the 18th century, the influences shaping the American colonies fostered democratic ideas. The conditions created a sense of equality among people, as much as civilized society could achieve. The War of Independence sparked a significant surge in democratic political beliefs. A group emerged that strongly believed in broad principles of popular power and rights. There were a few wealthy individuals, but they were often embarrassed to stand out from their neighbors; in some cases, they embraced democratic ideals to gain favor. As the 19th century began, the wealthy class grew rapidly. In the early years of the century, a small group in Philadelphia grew concerned about the rise of "money power" and the threats it posed to democracy. They aggressively, though not very skillfully, attacked the first Bank of the United States and prevented its re-charter. The permanent interest in the history of the United States is the transformation of a primitive democratic society into a prosperous republican commonwealth through the accumulation of capital. Criticism of the "money power" and the repetition of democratic principles deserve serious attention. They underscore the emergence of classes or factions within the previously undifferentiated social mass. Jackson entered the political scene just as a wealthy class first emerged. This was an industrial and commercial class that was very invested in tariffs and the banking practices of the time. The southern planters were also wealthy, but as agriculturalists, they stayed aligned with the philosophical Democrats. Jackson was from a humble background, uneducated, biased, and driven by strong personal beliefs. He demonstrated a significant lack of discipline in his military and early political endeavors. His agreement to become president sparked his ambition. In everything he pursued, he aimed to achieve his goals without much regard for the consequences for himself or others. He soon became fully committed to his presidential campaign. Those close to him understood his character and played to it. It was suggested to him that the money power was against him, which meant that, to the educated class of that time, he didn’t fit the mold of someone who should be president. He took this to mean that the Bank of the United States was leading the opposition, and he saw himself as the champion of the common people and democracy. The opposing faction, led by Clay, Adams, Biddle, etc., had plans for banks and tariffs that faced heavy criticism. The political battle was intense, with valid arguments on both sides. People like Thomas H. Benton, Edward Livingston, Amos Kendall, and southern statesmen found strong material to attack the Whigs. The majority of voters understood the issues as Jackson's team presented them, leading the masses to see Jackson as their representative. Thus, Jackson’s persona and name became powerful symbols against banks, corporations, and the emerging capitalist force. That Jackson was typical of his generation is clear; he embodied the spirit of free Americans of his time, dedicating his whole life and energy to the conflict. He achieved two significant things in history: he curtailed excessive state rights and established a contrasting doctrine within the political orthodoxy of the Democrats; he also destroyed the great bank. The subsequent history of the bank left it without support and influenced later opinions about it. The manner in which Jackson achieved these goals cost the country ten years of intense economic downturn and created conflicting traditions of public policy in the Democratic party. After his time in Washington, Jackson fell out with some of his closest old friends and turned his attention to the issue of slavery, which he believed was under threat.

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

Jackson is the only president who can be said to have left office much more popular than when he took office. When he started, he had no clear political beliefs, just some popular ideas. He left his party strong, completely organized, and enthusiastic about a platform focused on low spending, paying off the debt, no spending on public improvements or for glory or displays, and low taxes. His name continued to hold significant influence, and politicians sought his approval for their plans; however, in general, his later years were calm and uneventful. He died at his home, “The Hermitage,” near Nashville, Tennessee, on June 8, 1845.

Bibliography.—Of the early biographies, that by J. H. Eaton (Philadelphia, 1824) is a history of Jackson’s early military exploits, written for political purposes. Amos Kendall’s Life (New York, 1843) is incomplete, extending only to 1814. James Parton’s elaborate work (3 vols., New York, 1860) is still useful. Parton prepared a shorter biography for the “Great Commanders Series” (New York, 1893), which emphasizes Jackson’s military career. W. G. Sumner’s Andrew Jackson in the “American Statesmen Series” (Boston, 1882; revised, 1899) combines the leading facts of Jackson’s life with a history of his times. W. G. Brown wrote an appreciative sketch (Boston, 1900) for the “Riverside Biographical Series.” Of more recent works the most elaborate are the History of Andrew Jackson, by A. C. Buell (New York, 1904), marred by numerous errors, and the Life and Times of Andrew Jackson, by A. S. Colyar (Nashville, 1904). Charles H. Peck’s The Jacksonian Epoch (New York, 1899) is an account of national politics from 1815 to 1840, in which the antagonism of Jackson and Clay is emphasized.

References.—From the early biographies, the one by J. H. Eaton (Philadelphia, 1824) focuses on Jackson’s early military achievements, written for political reasons. Amos Kendall’s Life (New York, 1843) is unfinished, covering only up to 1814. James Parton’s detailed work (3 vols., New York, 1860) is still relevant. Parton also created a shorter biography for the “Great Commanders Series” (New York, 1893), which highlights Jackson’s military career. W. G. Sumner’s Andrew Jackson in the “American Statesmen Series” (Boston, 1882; revised, 1899) combines key facts about Jackson’s life with a background on his era. W. G. Brown wrote a commendatory sketch (Boston, 1900) for the “Riverside Biographical Series.” Among more recent works, the most detailed are the History of Andrew Jackson by A. C. Buell (New York, 1904), which is marred by several inaccuracies, and the Life and Times of Andrew Jackson by A. S. Colyar (Nashville, 1904). Charles H. Peck’s The Jacksonian Epoch (New York, 1899) offers an overview of national politics from 1815 to 1840, highlighting the rivalry between Jackson and Clay.

(W. G. S.)

1 The charge was freely made then and afterwards (though, it is now believed, without justification) that Clay had supported Adams and by influencing his followers in the house had been instrumental in securing his election, as the result of a bargain by which Adams had agreed to pay him for his support by appointing him secretary of state.

1 It was commonly claimed back then and later (though it’s now thought to be unjustified) that Clay had backed Adams and, by swaying his supporters in the House, played a key role in getting him elected as part of a deal where Adams supposedly agreed to reward him with the position of Secretary of State for his support.

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

JACKSON, CYRIL (1746-1819), dean of Christ Church, Oxford, was born in Yorkshire and educated at Westminster110 and Oxford. In 1771, he was appointed sub-preceptor to the two oldest sons of George III, but he was dismissed in 1776, likely due to some household politics. He then took holy orders and was appointed in 1779 to the preachership at Lincoln’s Inn and a canonry at Christ Church, Oxford. He was elected dean of Christ Church in 1783. His commitment to the college led him to turn down the bishopric of Oxford in 1799 and the archbishopric of Ireland in 1800. He played a key role in creating the statute that, in 1802, established the system of public examinations at Oxford, but he wasn't very active in university matters otherwise. After resigning in 1809, he settled in Felpham, Sussex, where he lived until his death.

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

JACKSON, FREDERICK GEORGE (1860-  ), British Arctic explorer, was educated at Denstone College and Edinburgh University. His first trip to the Arctic was on a whaling cruise in 1886-1887, and in 1893 he undertook a 3000-mile sled journey across the frozen tundra of Siberia, between the Ob and Pechora rivers. His account of this journey was published as The Great Frozen Land (1895). Upon returning, he was put in charge of the Jackson-Harmsworth Arctic trip (1894-1897), which aimed to explore Franz Josef Land. In recognition of his contributions, he was knighted as a first-class member of the Danish Royal Order of St Olaf in 1898 and received the gold medal from the Paris Geographical Society in 1899. His account of the expedition was published as A Thousand Days in the Arctic (1899). He also served in South Africa during the Boer War and achieved the rank of captain. His travels included a journey across the Australian deserts.

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

JACKSON, HELEN MARIA (1831-1885), American poet and novelist, who wrote under the initials “H. H.” (Helen Hunt), was born in Amherst, Massachusetts, on October 18, 1831, the daughter of Nathan Welby Fiske (1798-1847), a professor at Amherst College. In October 1852, she married Lieutenant Edward Bissell Hunt (1822-1863) of the U.S. Corps of Engineers. In 1870, she published a small collection of meditative Verses, which was praised by Emerson in the preface to his Parnassus (1874). In 1875, she married William S. Jackson, a banker from Colorado Springs. She became a prolific writer of prose and poetry, including children's stories, travel books, household tips, and novels, with Ramona (1884) being her best-known work, which defends the character of Native Americans. In 1883, as a special commissioner alongside Abbot Kinney (b. 1850), she examined the conditions and needs of the Mission Indians in California. A Century of Dishonor (1881) criticized the treatment of Native Americans by the United States. She died on August 12, 1885, in San Francisco.

In addition to her publications referred to above, Mercy Philbrick’s Choice (1876), Hetty’s Strange History (1877), Zeph (1886), and Sonnets and Lyrics (1886) may be mentioned.

In addition to her previously mentioned publications, Mercy Philbrick’s Choice (1876), Hetty’s Strange History (1877), Zeph (1886), and Sonnets and Lyrics (1886) are worth noting.

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

JACKSON, MASON (c. 1820-1903), British engraver, was born in Berwick-on-Tweed around 1820 and learned wood engraving from his brother, John Jackson, who wrote a history of this art. In the mid-19th century, he gained significant recognition for his engravings for the Art Union of London and for Knight’s Shakespeare and other classic books. In 1860, he became the art editor of the Illustrated London News, a role he held for thirty years. He also wrote a history of the development of illustrated journalism. He passed away in December 1903.

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

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

His chief work was a series of commentaries on the Apostles’ Creed, the first complete edition being entitled The Works of Thomas Jackson, D.D. (London, 1673). The commentaries were, however, originally published in 1613-1657, as twelve books with different titles, the first being The Eternal Truth of Scriptures (London, 1613).

His main work was a series of commentaries on the Apostles’ Creed, with the first complete edition titled The Works of Thomas Jackson, D.D. (London, 1673). However, the commentaries were originally published between 1613 and 1657 as twelve books with different titles, the first being The Eternal Truth of Scriptures (London, 1613).

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

JACKSON, THOMAS JONATHAN (1824-1863), known as “Stonewall Jackson,” was an American general born in Clarksburg, Virginia (now West Virginia), on January 21, 1824, with roots tracing back to an Ulster family. As a child, he became a penniless orphan and got his education at a small country school until he worked hard to get a nomination to the Military Academy. Initially, his lack of social skills and the gaps in his early education held him back, but in the end, “Old Jack,” as he was famously called, earned respect for his intense seriousness, unwavering honesty, and high sense of honor, coming to be regarded with a kind of affection. He displayed these qualities not only among the carefree cadets but also later as he led troops in battle. After graduating, he served as a second lieutenant in the 1st U.S. Artillery during the Mexican War. At Vera Cruz, he earned the rank of first lieutenant, and for his courageous actions at Contreras and Chapultepec, he was promoted to captain and then major, achieving this rank in less than a year of service. While in Mexico City, he began to seriously consider his faith, eventually joining the Presbyterian church, which guided all his subsequent actions. In 1851, he applied for and obtained a teaching position at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, where he stayed for ten years aside from a brief visit to Europe, teaching natural science, gunnery theory, and battalion drill. Though he wasn't an effective teacher, his influence on his students and the few close friends he let his guard down around was significant, and despite being relatively unknown among the white population of Lexington, he was respected by the slaves, to whom he consistently showed kindness and dedicated efforts for their moral education. When the major issue arose in 1861, Major Jackson's primary motivation was his dedication to his state, and when Virginia seceded on April 17, and the cadets from Lexington were ordered to Richmond, Jackson went to command the corps. His close friend, Governor Letcher, recognizing his talents, assigned him as a colonel of infantry at Harper’s Ferry, where they expected the first conflict with Union forces to occur at any moment. In June, he was given command of a brigade, and by July, he was promoted to brigadier general. He effectively used the short time he had to train his men, and on the first battlefield at Bull Run, his brigade earned the historic title “Stonewall” for their steadfastness during the battle's critical moments.

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

After the Battle of Bull Run, Jackson took some time to further train his brigade, which, unfortunately, he had to leave behind when he was assigned as a major general to command in the Shenandoah Valley in October. His army had to be formed from local troops, and there were few modern weapons available, but the Valley regiments kept the impact of Jackson’s training until the days of Cedar Creek. However, discipline didn't come right away, and the initial attempts of the force weren't very successful. At Kernstown, Jackson was tactically defeated by the Federal troops under Shields (March 23, 1862). But the Stonewall Brigade had been sent back to their old leader in November, and by the time the famous Valley Campaign (see Shenandoah Valley Campaigns) began, the forces under Jackson’s command had gained cohesion and maneuverability. On May 8, 1862, the Battle of McDowell took place, which Jackson won against the leading troops of Frémont’s command from West Virginia. Three weeks later, the forces under Banks were being pushed over the Potomac at Harper’s Ferry, and Jackson had control of the Valley. Other campaign plans in Virginia were immediately set aside in favor of a scheme to “trap Jackson.” But the Confederates, moving quickly up the Valley, slipped between the converging columns of Frémont from the west and McDowell from the east, concluding a bold campaign with the victories at Cross Keys and Port Republic (June 8 and 9). While Northern forces were still scattered, Jackson secretly left the Valley to play a critical role in Lee’s campaign before Richmond. During the “Seven Days,” Jackson often made mistakes, but his driving energy played a significant part in defeating McClellan’s advance on Richmond. Here, he fell directly under the orders of Robert Lee for the first time, and the rest of his career was spent in command of the II corps of the Army of Northern Virginia. As Lee’s chief and most trusted subordinate, he was consistently responsible for carrying out the more delicate and challenging operations of his commander’s risky strategy. After his victory over Banks at Cedar Mountain, near Culpeper, Virginia, Jackson led a daring march around General Pope’s army, which, despite defying theoretical rules, resulted in the significant victory of second Bull Run. In the Maryland campaign, Lieutenant General Jackson was once again detached from the main army. Eleven thousand Federals, surrounded in Harper’s Ferry, were forced to surrender, and Jackson rejoined Lee just in time to confront McClellan’s advance. At Antietam, his corps faced the brunt of the battle, one of the toughest of modern warfare. At Fredericksburg, his section of Lee’s battle line was heavily engaged, and his final battle before Chancellorsville, in the thickets of the Wilderness, marked his greatest triumph. With one of his swift and secret flank marches, he positioned his corps on the enemy’s flank and on May 2, he attacked the Federal XI corps, which was completely routed. After a victorious day, he was scouting the enemy positions when suddenly the Confederate outposts fired on his staff, mistaking them in the dark and dense forest for Federal cavalry. Jackson was wounded, and he died on May 10 at Guinea’s Station. According to his wishes, he was buried in Lexington, where a statue and a memorial hall commemorate his connection to the place; and at the site where he was mortally wounded, there stands a plain granite pillar. The initial contribution toward the bronze statue in Richmond came from the Black Baptist congregation for which Jackson worked so hard during his years in Lexington. He was married twice, first to Eleanor (d. 1854), the daughter of George Junkin, president of Washington College, Virginia, and then in 1857 to Mary Anna Morrison, daughter of a North Carolina clergyman.

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

That Jackson's death, at a crucial time for the Confederacy, was an irreplaceable loss was agreed upon by everyone. Lee remarked that he had lost his right arm, and while the other generals were good soldiers, none compared to Jackson, whose name was feared in the North just like Lee's. His military character reflected his personal characteristics—“intense seriousness, unwavering honesty,” and an almost fatalistic trust in divine guidance. Leading his troops, who idolized him, he was like a Cromwell, combining the fervor of a fanatic and the energy of a natural leader with the special military expertise and disciplined spirit that the English commander had to acquire through experience. His Christianity was evident, even among deeply religious men like Lee and Stuart, and influenced every aspect of his character and actions.

See lives by R. L. Dabney (New York, 1883), J. E. Cooke (New York, 1866), M. A. Jackson (General Jackson’s widow) (New York, 1892); and especially G. F. R. Henderson, Stonewall Jackson (London, 1898), and H. A. White, Stonewall Jackson (Philadelphia, 1909).

See lives by R. L. Dabney (New York, 1883), J. E. Cooke (New York, 1866), M. A. Jackson (General Jackson’s widow) (New York, 1892); and especially G. F. R. Henderson, Stonewall Jackson (London, 1898), and H. A. White, Stonewall Jackson (Philadelphia, 1909).

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

JACKSON, WILLIAM (1730-1803), an English musician, was born in Exeter on May 29, 1730. His father, a grocer, provided him with a good education, but due to the boy’s strong interest in music, he decided to put him under the guidance of John Silvester, the organist of Exeter Cathedral, where he stayed for about two years. In 1748, he moved to London to study under John Travers, the organist of the king’s chapel. After returning to Exeter, he established himself as a teacher and composer, and in 1777, he was appointed subchanter, organist, lay-vicar, and master of the choristers of the cathedral. In 1755, he published his first work, Twelve Songs, which quickly gained popularity. His following publication, Six Sonatas for the Harpsichord, was unsuccessful. His third work, Six Elegies for three voices, preceded by an Invocation, with an Accompaniment, established him as one of the leading composers of his time. His fourth work was another collection of Twelve Songs, now quite rare, and his fifth work was yet another set of Twelve Songs, all of which are now forgotten. He then published Twelve Hymns, accompanied by some insightful remarks on that style of composition, although his advice was often better than his execution. This was followed by another Twelve Songs, containing some strong compositions. Next came an Ode to Fancy, with lyrics by Dr. Warton. Twelve Canzonets for two voices was his ninth work; one of them—“Time has not thinned my Flowing Hair”—remained a favorite at both public and private concerts for a long time. His tenth work was Eight Sonatas for the Harpsichord, some of which were innovative and enjoyable. He composed three dramatic pieces: Lycidas (1767), The Lord of the Manor, with lyrics by General Burgoyne (1780), and The Metamorphoses, a comic opera performed at Drury Lane in 1783, which did not succeed. In the second of these dramatic works, two songs—“Encompassed in an Angel’s Form” and “When first this Humble Roof I knew”—were particularly popular. His church music was released posthumously by James Paddon in 1820; most of it is subpar, but “Jackson in F” remained popular for many years. In 1782, he published Thirty Letters on Various Subjects, in which he harshly criticized canons and described William Bird’s Non nobis Domine as containing intolerable passages. His anger and disdain were most strongly directed toward catches of all types, which he condemned as barbaric. In 1791, he released a pamphlet titled Observations on the Present State of Music in London, where he found faults with everything and everyone. In 1798, he published The Four Ages, together with Essays on Various Subjects,—a work that offers a favorable view of his character and literary skills. Jackson also developed an interest in landscape painting and successfully emulated the style of his friend Gainsborough. He passed away on July 5, 1803.

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

JACKSON, is a city and the county seat of Jackson County, Michigan, U.S.A., located on both sides of the Grand River, 76 miles west of Detroit. Population: (1890) 20,798; (1900) 25,180, of which 3,843 were foreign-born (1,004 German, 941 English Canadian); (1910 census) 31,433. It is served by the Michigan Central, Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, Grand Trunk, and Cincinnati Northern railways, as well as inter-urban electric lines. It is home to the state prison (established in 1839). Coal is mined nearby; the city engages in significant trade with surrounding agricultural areas, particularly in beans; the Michigan Central railway has car and machine shops here, and the city hosts numerous manufacturing facilities. The total factory output in 1904 was valued at $8,348,125, a 24.4% increase from 1900. The municipality owns and operates its waterworks. The area was once a popular camping ground for Native Americans and was settled by white settlers in 1829. In 1830, it was planned as a town, chosen as the county seat, and named Jacksonburg in honor of Andrew Jackson; the current name was adopted in 1838. Jackson was incorporated as a village in 1843 and chartered as a city in 1857. It was at a convention held in Jackson on July 6, 1854, that the Republican Party was first organized and named by a representative state body.

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

JACKSON, is a city and the county seat of Hinds County, Mississippi, U.S.A., and the capital of the state. It's located on the west bank of the Pearl River, about 40 miles east of Vicksburg and 185 miles north of New Orleans, Louisiana. The population was 5,920 in 1890 and 7,816 in 1900, with 4,447 of those being Black. According to the Federal census from 1910, the population had grown to 21,262. Jackson is served by several railways including the Illinois Central, the Alabama & Vicksburg, the Gulf & Ship Island, New Orleans Great Northern, and the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley railways, as well as small freight and passenger steamboats on the Pearl River during the winter. The city is home to the state library, which has over 80,000 volumes. The new state capitol was completed in 1903, while the old state capitol, built in 1839, is historically significant; it hosted the secession convention (1861), the “Black and Tan Convention” (1868), and the constitutional convention of 1890, and it’s where Jefferson Davis gave his last speech (1884). Jackson is the location of Millsaps College, which was chartered in 1890 and opened in 1892, affiliated with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. In the 1907-1908 school year, it had 12 instructors and 297 students. It also hosts Belhaven College (non-sectarian, established in 1894) for girls, and Jackson College (founded in 1877 in Natchez by the American Baptist Home Mission Society and moved to Jackson in 1883) for Black students, which had 356 students in 1907-1908. The city serves as a market for cotton and agricultural products and has several manufacturing businesses. In 1821, this location was chosen as the site for the state government, and in early 1822, the town was laid out and named after Andrew Jackson. The legislature first convened here in December 1822, and it wasn't chartered as a city until 1840. During the Civil War, Jackson was the site of active military campaigns. On May 14, 1863, Johnston, who was in control of the city, was attacked on both sides by Sherman and McPherson with two corps from Grant’s army. After a fierce battle, the Confederates were forced out of the city. After Vicksburg fell, Johnston regrouped his forces at Jackson, which had been vacated by Federal troops, and made preparations to defend the area. On July 9, Sherman began besieging the city, and the following week saw intense bombardment. During the night of July 16, Johnston took advantage of a break in the firing and withdrew from the city. Sherman’s army entered on July 17 and stayed for five days, during which they burned a significant portion of the city and devastated the surrounding countryside.

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

JACKSON, is a city and the county seat of Madison County, Tennessee, U.S.A., located on the Forked Deer River, about 85 miles northeast of Memphis. Population: (1890) 10,039; (1900) 14,511, of which 6,108 were African Americans; (1910 census) 15,779. The city is served by the Mobile & Ohio, Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis, and Illinois Central railways. The state supreme court holds its sessions here for the western district of Tennessee. Jackson is home to Union University (co-educational), which was chartered in 1875 as Southwestern Baptist University and operated under that name until 1907, when the current name was adopted. In 1907-1908, the university had 17 instructors and 280 students. Additionally, Jackson hosts St. Mary’s Academy (Roman Catholic), the Memphis Conference Female Institute (Methodist Episcopal, South, established in 1843), and Lane College (for African Americans), which is managed by the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church. Jackson is a significant cotton market and a shipping point for agricultural products and fruits from the surrounding area. It also boasts various industries and railway shops. The total value of factory output in 1905 was $2,317,715. The city owns and operates its electric lighting plant and water works. There is an electro-chalybeate well in the city with therapeutic properties. Jackson was settled around 1820, incorporated as a town in 1823, chartered as a city in 1854, and received a new charter in 1907 that forever prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquors. After General Grant advanced into Tennessee in 1862, Jackson was fortified and became an important base for the Federal army, with Grant establishing his headquarters there in October.

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

JACKSONVILLE, is a city and the county seat of Duval County, Florida, U.S.A., located in the northeastern part of the state on the left bank of the St. John’s River, 14 miles from the Atlantic Ocean in a straight line and about 27 miles by water. The population was 17,201 in 1890, 28,429 in 1900—of which 16,236 were African American and 1,166 were foreign-born—and 57,699 according to the 1910 census, making it the largest city in the state. It has service from the Southern, Atlantic Coast Line, Seaboard Air Line, Georgia Southern & Florida, and Florida East Coast railways, along with several steamship lines.1 It is the largest railway hub in the state and is commonly known as the Gate City of Florida. Jacksonville is visually appealing, featuring many beautiful buildings, and its residential streets are lined with live oaks, water oaks, and bitter orange trees. The city hosts two schools for African Americans, the Florida Baptist Academy and Cookman Institute (founded in 1872; Methodist Episcopal). Each year, many winter visitors are drawn by the excellent climate, with the average temperature during winter months around 55° F. Nearby attractions include a large Florida ostrich farm, and there are numerous municipal and other parks. The city owns and operates its electric lighting plant and water works system. The capital invested in manufacturing increased significantly from $1,857,844 in 1900 to $4,837,281 in 1905, a rise of 160.4%, while the value of factory products rose from $1,798,607 in 1900 to $5,340,264 in 1905, an increase of 196.9%. Jacksonville is the most important distribution center in Florida and serves as a port of entry. In 1909, its foreign imports were valued at $513,439, and its foreign exports at $2,507,373.

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

The area now known as Jacksonville was originally called Cow Ford (a version of the Native American name, Wacca Pilatka), due to the good crossing point on the St. John's River, which the King's Road used, a highway built by the English that connected St. Augustine and the Georgia line. The first settlement started in 1816. In 1822, a town was established here and named after General Andrew Jackson; Jacksonville was incorporated in 1833. During the Civil War, the city was occupied by Federal troops three times. In 1888, there was an outbreak of yellow fever. On May 3, 1901, a fire devastated nearly 150 blocks of buildings, wiping out almost the entire business district of the city, with total damages exceeding $15,000,000. However, within two years, more new buildings were constructed than those that were lost, and by December 1909, about 9,000 building permits had been issued.


1 Shoals in the river and sand rock at its mouth long prevented the development of an extensive water trade, but in 1896 the United States Government made an appropriation (supplemented in 1902, 1903 and 1904) for deepening, for a width of 300 ft., the channel connecting the city and the ocean to 24 ft., and on the bar 27 ft. (mean low water), and by 1909 the work had been completed; further dredging to a 24 ft. depth between the navigable channel and pierhead lines was authorized in 1907 and completed by 1910.

1 Shallow areas in the river and rocky sand at its mouth used to block the growth of a major water trade, but in 1896, the U.S. Government allocated funds (added to in 1902, 1903, and 1904) to deepen the channel connecting the city and the ocean to 24 ft. and 27 ft. on the bar (mean low water). By 1909, this work was finished; additional dredging to maintain a 24 ft. depth between the navigable channel and pierhead lines was approved in 1907 and wrapped up by 1910.

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

JACKSONVILLE, is a city and the county seat of Morgan County, Illinois, U.S.A., located on Mauvaiseterre Creek, about 33 miles west of Springfield. Population (1890), 12,935; (1900), 15,078, of which 1,497 were foreign-born; (1910 census), 15,326. It is served by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, the Chicago & Alton, the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis, and the Wabash railways. It is home to several educational and philanthropic institutions. Illinois College (Presbyterian), founded in 1829 through the efforts of Rev. John Millot Ellis (1793-1855), a missionary of the American Home Missionary Society and part of the so-called Yale Band (seven Yale graduates dedicated to higher education in the Midwest), is one of the oldest colleges in the Central States. The Jacksonville Female Academy (1830) and the Illinois Conservatory of Music (1871) were merged into Illinois College in 1903, which then became co-educational. The college includes, in addition to the collegiate department, Whipple Academy (a preparatory department), the Illinois Conservatory of Music, and a School of Art. In the 1908-1909 academic year, it had 21 instructors and 173 students. Rev. Edward Beecher was the first president of the college (1830 to 1844), and among its notable graduates are Richard Yates, Jr., Rev. Thomas K. Beecher, Newton Bateman (1822-1897), who was the superintendent of public instruction of Illinois from 1865 to 1875 and president of Knox College from 1875 to 1893, Bishop Theodore N. Morrison (b. 1850), Protestant Episcopal Bishop of Iowa since 1898, and William J. Bryan. The Illinois Woman’s College (Methodist Episcopal; chartered in 1847 as the Illinois Conference Female Academy) received its present name in 1899. The State Central Hospital for the Insane (opened in 1851), the State School for the Deaf (established in 1839 and opened in 1845, the first charitable institution in the state), and the State School for the Blind (1849) are also located in Jacksonville. Morgan Lake and Duncan Park serve as recreational spots. The total value of the factory product in 1905 was $1,981,582, an increase of 17.7% since 1900. Jacksonville was established in 1825 as the county seat of Morgan County, likely named in honor of Andrew Jackson, and was incorporated as a town in 1840, chartered as a city in 1867, and re-chartered in 1887. Most of the early settlers came from the southern and border states, mainly Missouri and Kentucky; however, there was a significant influx of people from New England and the East later on, making these groups more prominent in Jacksonville's population than in any other city in southern Illinois. The city was also a station on the "Underground Railroad."

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

JACOB (Hebrew yă’ăqōb, derived, according to Gen. xxv. 26, xxvii. 36, from a root meaning “to seize the heel” or “supplant”), son of Isaac and Rebekah in the Biblical narrative, and the father of the twelve tribes of Israel. Jacob and his twin brother Esau are the namesakes of the Israelites and Edomites. It was said of them that they would become two nations, with the older serving the younger. Esau was born first but lost his status by giving up his birthright, and Jacob, through a deceitful act, received the father’s blessing meant for Esau (Gen. xxvii., J and E).1 The common view about Israel and Edom is illustrated when Jacob is portrayed as a tent-dweller, while Esau is depicted as a hunter, a man of the fields. However, while Esau married the Canaanite “daughters of the land” (P in xxvi. 34; xxviii. 8 seq.), Jacob was sent, or (according to another version) fled from Beer-sheba, to find a wife from his Syrian relatives in Haran. On his journey, he received a revelation at Bethel (“house of God”), promising him and his descendants the entire land. The captivating story of Jacob’s experiences at Haran is one of the finest examples of Hebrew narrative: how he worked for seven years for Rachel, “and they seemed like just a few days because of his love for her,” only to be tricked into marrying her older sister Leah, and how he then worked another seven years to finally marry Rachel. The patriarch’s growing wealth made his father-in-law, Laban, jealous, forcing him to escape secretly with his family. They were caught at Gilead,2 whose name (meaning “heap of witness”) relates to the covenant Jacob and Laban made (xxxi. 47 sqq.). After passing Mahanaim (“camps”), where he saw the camps of God, Jacob sent friendly overtures to Esau. At the Jabbok, he wrestled with a divine being and prevailed (cf. Hos. xii. 3 sqq.), so he named the place Peniel or Penuel (“the face of God”) and received the new name Israel. He then unexpectedly reconciled with Esau, traveled to Succoth, where he built “booths” for his cattle (which is how it got its name), and arrived at Shechem. Here he purchased land from the clan Hamor (cf. Judg. ix. 28) and built an altar to “God (El) the God of Israel.” This location witnessed the assault on Dinah and the retaliatory actions of Simeon and Levi that ultimately led to their downfall (xxxiv.; see Dan, Levites, Simeon). From there, Jacob traveled south to Bethel, where he received a divine revelation (P), similar to what was reported by the earlier narrator (J), and was called Israel (xxxv. 9-13, 15). Here, Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died while traveling to Ephrath. Rachel died during the birth of Benjamin (q.v.), and further south, Reuben committed a serious crime (cf. xlix. 4). According to P, Jacob arrived in Hebron, where he and Esau separated (a second time), with Esau moving to Mount Seir (xxxvi. 6 sqq.; cf. the parallel in xiii. 5 sqq.). Forced by circumstances described in detail, Jacob eventually migrated to Egypt, receiving along the way the promise that God would make him a great nation, which would come back out of Egypt (see Joseph). After a meeting with Pharaoh (noted only by P, xlvii. 5-11), he lived with his sons in the land of Goshen, and as his death approached, he formally blessed Joseph’s two sons (Manasseh and Ephraim), intentionally favoring the younger. Then he called all his “sons” to gather around his bed and told them “what would happen in the latter days” (xlix.). He died at the age of 147 (according to P), and permission was given to take his body back to Canaan for burial.

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

These stories contain a lot of valuable information about marriage customs, pastoral life and responsibilities, popular beliefs, and traditions, and they clearly reflect what was commonly shared at the time. Their historical significance has been assessed in various ways. The name was around long before the traditional dating of Jacob, and the Egyptian phonetic equivalent of Jacob-el (cf. Isra-el, Ishma-el) seems to be the name of an area in central Palestine (or possibly east of Jordan) around 1500 BCE However, the narratives in their current form are much later. The close relationship between Jacob and the Aramaeans supports the idea that some of the tribes of Israel had Aramaean roots; his entry into Palestine from across the Jordan parallels Joshua's invasion leading the Israelites, and his earlier journey from the south is backed up by separate traditions of another distinct movement from that region. As a result, it seems that these highly developed and elaborate stories of Jacob-Israel incorporate, among many other aspects, a memory of two different migration traditions that merged among the Israelites. See further Genesis; Jews.

(S. A. C.)

1 For the symbols J, E, P, as regards the sources of the book of Genesis, see Genesis; Bible: Old Test. Criticism.

1 For the symbols J, E, P, concerning the sources of the book of Genesis, see Genesis; Bible: Old Test. Criticism.

2 Since it is some 300 m. from Haran to Gilead it is probable that Laban’s home, only seven days’ journey distant, was nearer Gilead than the current tradition allows (Gen. xxxi. 22 sqq.).

2 Since it's about 300 m from Haran to Gilead, it's likely that Laban's home, which was only a seven-day journey away, was closer to Gilead than the current tradition suggests (Gen. xxxi. 22 sqq.).

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

JACOB, JOHN (1812-1858), Indian soldier and administrator, was born on January 11, 1812, educated at Addiscombe, and joined the Bombay artillery in 1828. He served in the first Afghan War under Sir John Keane and later led his regiment with distinction at the battles of Meeanee, Shahdadpur, and Umarkot; however, he is primarily known as the commandant of the Sind Horse and political superintendent of Upper Sind. He played a key role in pacifying the Sind frontier, calming the tribes largely through his strong personality and widespread military actions. In 1853, he warned about the Indian Mutiny, stating: “There is more danger to our Indian empire from the state of the Bengal army, from the feelings that exist between the native and the European, which then spread throughout the entire land, than from all other causes combined. Let the government pay attention to this; it is a serious and very important truth”; but for this, he received only a rebuke from Lord Dalhousie. He was a friend of Sir Charles Napier and Sir James Outram and shared their tendency for candid criticisms and independence from authority. He died at the young age of 46 from brain fever, caused by excessive heat and overwork. The town of Jacobabad, known for being the hottest place in India, is named after him.

See A. I. Shand, General John Jacob (1900).

See A. I. Shand, General John Jacob (1900).

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

JACOB BEN ASHER (1280-1340), a key figure in shaping Jewish law, was born in Germany and passed away in Toledo. He was the son of Asher ben Yeḥiel (q.v.), and he played a significant role in bringing back the older, more detailed method of legal reasoning that had been dismissed by Maimonides (q.v.). The Asheri family faced significant hardships but remained dedicated to the Talmud. Jacob ben Asher is known as the Ba‘al ha-ṭurim (which means “Master of the Rows”) due to his main work, the four Ṭurim or Rows (the title comes from the four Ṭurim or rows of jewels on the High Priest’s breastplate). In this work, Jacob ben Asher codified Rabbinic law regarding ethics and rituals, and it served as a key reference until it was revised with commentaries by Joseph Qaro, who later simplified the code into the widely-used Shulḥan Aruch. Jacob also wrote two commentaries on the Pentateuch.

See Graetz, History of the Jews (Eng. trans.), vol. iv. ch. iii.; Weiss, Dor dor we-dorashav, v. 118-123.

See Graetz, History of the Jews (Eng. trans.), vol. iv. ch. iii.; Weiss, Dor dor we-dorashav, v. 118-123.

(I. A.)

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

JACOB OF EDESSA, who is regarded alongside Barhebraeus as one of the most prominent scholars among Syriac writers, was born in ’Ēn-dēbhā in the province of Antioch, likely around CE 640. From the reliable biography of him by Barhebraeus (Chron. Eccles. i. 289), we find out that he initially studied at the renowned monastery of Ken-neshrē (on the left bank of the Euphrates, opposite Jerābis) and later at Alexandria, which had been under Muslim control for some time. 114 Upon his return, he was appointed bishop of Edessa by his friend Athanasius II. (of Balad), likely in 684, but he held this position for only three or four years because the clergy opposed his strict application of Church canons and he lacked support from Julian, Athanasius's successor in the patriarchate. Frustrated, he publicly burned a copy of the canons in front of Julian’s residence and then withdrew to the monastery of Kaisūm near Samosāta, and later to the monastery of Eusebhōnā, where he taught the Psalms and the reading of the Scriptures in Greek for eleven years. Toward the end of this time, he faced opposition again, this time from monks who "hated the Greeks," and so he moved to the large convent of Tell ’Addā or Teleda (? modern Tellādi, N.W. of Aleppo), where he spent nine years revising and correcting the Peshitta version of the Old Testament using various Greek versions. He was eventually recalled to the bishopric of Edessa in 708, but he passed away four months later, on June 5th.

In doctrine Jacob was undoubtedly Monophysite.5 Of the very large number of his works, which are mostly in prose, not many have as yet been published, but much information may be gathered from Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis and Wright’s Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum. (1) Of the Syriac Old Testament Jacob produced what Wright calls “a curious eclectic or patchwork text,” of which five volumes survive in Europe (Wright’s Catalogue 38). It was “the last attempt at a revision of the Old Testament in the Monophysite Church.” Jacob was also the chief founder of the Syriac Massorah among the Monophysites, which produced such MSS. as the one (Vat. cliii.) described by Wiseman in Horae syriacae, part iii. (2) Jacob was the author both of commentaries and of scholia on the sacred books; of these specimens are given by Assemani and Wright. They were largely quoted by later commentators, who often refer to Jacob as “the interpreter of the Scriptures.” With the commentaries may be mentioned his Hexahemeron, or treatise on the six days of creation, MSS. of which exist at Leiden and at Lyons. It was his latest work, and being left incomplete was finished by his friend George the bishop of the Arabs. Among apocrypha, the History of the Rechabites composed by Zosimus was translated from Greek into Syriac by Jacob (Wright’s Catalogue 1128, and Nau in Revue sémitique vi. 263, vii. 54, 136). (3) Mention has been made above of Jacob’s zeal on behalf of ecclesiastical canons. In his letter to the priest Addai we possess a collection of canons from his pen, given in the form of answers to Addai’s questions. These were edited by Lagarde in Reliquiae juris eccl. syriace, pp. 117 sqq. and Lamy in Dissert. pp. 98 sqq. Additional canons were given in Wright’s Notulae syriacae. The whole have been translated and expounded by Kayser, Die Canones Jacobs von Edessa (Leipzig, 1886). (4) Jacob made many contributions to Syriac liturgy, both original and translated (Wright, Short Hist. p. 145 seq.). (5) To philosophical literature his chief original contribution was his Enchiridion, a tract on philosophical terms (Wright’s Catalogue 984). The translations of works of Aristotle which have been attributed to him are probably by other hands (Wright, Short Hist. p. 149; Duval, Littérature syriaque, pp. 255, 258). The treatise De causa omnium causarum, which was the work of a bishop of Edessa, was formerly attributed to Jacob; but the publication of the whole by Kayser6 has made it clear that the treatise is of much later date. (6) An important historical work by Jacob—a Chronicle in continuation of that of Eusebius—has unfortunately perished all except a few leaves. Of these a full account is given in Wright’s Catalogue 1062. (7) Jacob’s fame among his countrymen rests most of all on his labours as a grammarian. In his letter to George, bishop of Sĕrūgh, on Syriac orthography (published by Phillips in London 1869, and by Martin in Paris the same year) he sets forth the importance of fidelity by scribes in the copying of minutiae of spelling. In his grammar7 (of which only some fragments remain), while expressing his sense of the disadvantage under which Syriac labours through its alphabet containing only consonants, he declined to introduce a general system of vowel-signs, lest the change should contribute to the neglect and loss of the older books written without vowels. At the same time he invented, by adaptation of the Greek vowels, such a system of signs as might serve for purposes of grammatical exposition, and elaborated the rules by which certain consonants serve to indicate vowels. He also systematized and extended the use of diacritical points. It is still a moot question how far Jacob is to be regarded as the author of the five vowel-signs derived from Greek which soon after came into use among the Jacobites.8 In any case he made the most important contribution to Syriac grammar down to the time of Barhebraeus. (8) As a translator Jacob’s greatest achievement was his Syriac version of the Homiliae cathedrales of Severus, the monophysite patriarch of Antioch (512-518, 535-536). This important collection is now in part known to us by E. W. Brooks’s edition and translation of the 6th book of selected epistles of Severus, according to another Syriac version made by Athanasius of Nisibis in 669. (9) A large number of letters by Jacob to various correspondents have been found in various MSS. Besides those on the canon law to Addai, and on grammar to George of Sĕrūgh referred to above, there are others dealing with doctrine, liturgy, &c. A few are in verse.

In terms of doctrine, Jacob was definitely a Monophysite. 5 Out of the many writings he produced, mostly in prose, not many have been published yet, but you can find a lot of information in Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis and Wright’s Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum. (1) For the Syriac Old Testament, Jacob created what Wright calls “a curious eclectic or patchwork text,” of which five volumes still exist in Europe (Wright’s Catalogue 38). This was “the last attempt at a revision of the Old Testament in the Monophysite Church.” Jacob was also a primary founder of the Syriac Massorah among the Monophysites, which produced manuscripts like the one (Vat. cliii.) described by Wiseman in Horae syriacae, part iii. (2) Jacob wrote commentaries and scholia on the sacred texts; Assemani and Wright provide examples of these. They were widely quoted by later commentators, who often referred to Jacob as “the interpreter of the Scriptures.” Among his commentaries is his Hexahemeron, a work on the creation across six days, with manuscripts housed in Leiden and Lyons. It was his final work and remained unfinished, so his friend George, the bishop of the Arabs, completed it. He also translated the History of the Rechabites, written by Zosimus, from Greek into Syriac (Wright’s Catalogue 1128, and Nau in Revue sémitique vi. 263, vii. 54, 136). (3) Earlier, we mentioned Jacob’s commitment to ecclesiastical canons. In a letter to the priest Addai, we have a collection of canons he authored, provided in response to Addai’s questions. These were edited by Lagarde in Reliquiae juris eccl. syriace, pp. 117 sqq. and by Lamy in Dissert. pp. 98 sqq. Additional canons appeared in Wright’s Notulae syriacae. The entire set has been translated and commented on by Kayser in Die Canones Jacobs von Edessa (Leipzig, 1886). (4) Jacob contributed significantly to the Syriac liturgy, both through original works and translations (Wright, Short Hist. p. 145 seq.). (5) His main original contribution to philosophical literature was his Enchiridion, a treatise on philosophical terms (Wright’s Catalogue 984). The translations of Aristotle’s works attributed to him likely come from other authors (Wright, Short Hist. p. 149; Duval, Littérature syriaque, pp. 255, 258). The treatise De causa omnium causarum, originally by a bishop of Edessa, was once believed to be Jacob's work; however, the publication of the complete text by Kayser 6 has clarified that it dates from much later. (6) A significant historical work by Jacob—a Chronicle that continues Eusebius’s account—has unfortunately mostly been lost, with only a few fragments remaining. A detailed account of these fragments can be found in Wright’s Catalogue 1062. (7) Jacob is most renowned among his peers for his contributions to grammar. In a letter to George, bishop of Sĕrūgh, regarding Syriac orthography (published by Phillips in London 1869, and by Martin in Paris the same year), he highlights the importance of accuracy by scribes when copying spelling details. His grammar 7 (of which only fragments survive) reflects his awareness of the challenges faced by Syriac, which has an alphabet consisting solely of consonants. He chose not to create a comprehensive system of vowel-signs as he feared this might lead to the neglect and loss of older texts that were written without vowels. At the same time, he adapted Greek vowels to develop a system of signs for grammatical explanation and outlined rules showing how certain consonants indicate vowels. He also organized and expanded the use of diacritical marks. There is ongoing debate about Jacob's role in creating the five vowel-signs derived from Greek, which were soon adopted among the Jacobites. 8 Regardless, he made the most crucial contributions to Syriac grammar up until the time of Barhebraeus. (8) Jacob's greatest achievement as a translator was his Syriac version of the Homiliae cathedrales of Severus, the Monophysite patriarch of Antioch (512-518, 535-536). This essential collection is partially known today through E. W. Brooks’s edition and translation of the sixth book of selected epistles by Severus, according to another Syriac version made by Athanasius of Nisibis in 669. (9) A significant number of letters from Jacob to various recipients have been discovered in different manuscripts. In addition to those on canon law to Addai and on grammar to George of Sĕrūgh mentioned above, there are others that address doctrine, liturgy, etc. A few of these letters are in verse.

Jacob impresses the modern reader mainly as an educator of his countrymen, and particularly of the clergy. His writings lack the fervid rhetoric and graceful style of such authors as Isaac of Antioch, Jacob of Sĕrūgh and Philoxenus of Mabbōg. But judged by the standard of his time he shows the qualities of a truly scientific theologian and scholar.

Jacob impresses contemporary readers mainly as an educator of his fellow countrymen, especially the clergy. His writings don’t have the passionate rhetoric and elegant style of authors like Isaac of Antioch, Jacob of Sĕrūgh, and Philoxenus of Mabbōg. However, when judged by the standards of his time, he demonstrates the qualities of a genuinely scientific theologian and scholar.

(N. M.)

1 “In the literature of his country Jacob holds much the same place as Jerome among the Latin fathers” (Wright, Short Hist. of Syr. Lit. p. 143).

1 “In the literature of his country, Jacob occupies a position similar to that of Jerome among the Latin fathers” (Wright, Short Hist. of Syr. Lit. p. 143).

2 Merx infers that the fact of Jacob’s going to Alexandria as a student tells against the view that the Arabs burned the great library (Hist. artis gramm. apud Syros, p. 35). On this question cf. Krehl in Alli del iv. congr. internaz. degli Orientalisti (Florence, 1880), pp. 433 sqq.

2 Merx suggests that Jacob’s decision to go to Alexandria as a student undermines the idea that the Arabs destroyed the great library (Hist. artis gramm. apud Syros, p. 35). For more on this topic, see Krehl in Alli del iv. congr. internaz. degli Orientalisti (Florence, 1880), pp. 433 sqq.

3 Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahrē says 677; but Athanasius was patriarch only 684-687.

3 Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahrē says 677; but Athanasius was patriarch only 684-687.

4 According to Merx (op. cit. p. 43) this may be the celebrated convent of Eusebius near Apamea.

4 According to Merx (op. cit. p. 43), this could be the famous convent of Eusebius near Apamea.

5 Assemani tried hard to prove him orthodox (B.O. i. 470 sqq.) but changed his opinion on reading his biography by Barhebraeus (ib. ii. 337). See especially Lamy, Dissert. de Syrorum fide, pp. 206 sqq.

5 Assemani worked diligently to show that he was orthodox (B.O. i. 470 sqq.) but changed his mind after reading his biography by Barhebraeus (ib. ii. 337). See especially Lamy, Dissert. de Syrorum fide, pp. 206 sqq.

6 Text at Leipzig 1889 (Das Buch der Erkenntniss der Wahrheit oder der Ursache aller Ursachen): translation (posthumously) at Strassburg 1893.

6 Text at Leipzig 1889 (Das Buch der Erkenntniss der Wahrheit oder der Ursache aller Ursachen): translation (after death) at Strassburg 1893.

7 The surviving fragments were published by Wright (London, 1871) and by Merx, op. cit. p. 73 sqq. of Syriac text.

7 The remaining fragments were published by Wright (London, 1871) and by Merx, op. cit. p. 73 sqq. of Syriac text.

8 An affirmative answer is given by Wiseman (Horae syr. pp. 181-8) and Wright (Catalogue 1168; Fragm. of the Syriac Grammar of Jacob of Edessa, preface; Short Hist. p. 151 seq.). But Martin (in Jour. As. May-June 1869, pp. 456 sqq.), Duval (Grammaire syriaque, p. 71) and Merx (op. cit. p. 50) are of the opposite opinion. The date of the introduction of the seven Nestorian vowel-signs is also uncertain.

8 Wiseman (Horae syr. pp. 181-8) and Wright (Catalogue 1168; Fragm. of the Syriac Grammar of Jacob of Edessa, preface; Short Hist. p. 151 seq.) provide a positive response. However, Martin (in Jour. As. May-June 1869, pp. 456 sqq.), Duval (Grammaire syriaque, p. 71), and Merx (op. cit. p. 50) disagree. The timing of when the seven Nestorian vowel-signs were introduced is also unclear.

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

JACOB OF JÜTERBOGK (c. 1381-1465), monk and theologian. Benedict Stolzenhagen, known in his religious life as Jacob, was born in Jüterbogk, Brandenburg, to a poor peasant family. He became a Cistercian at the Paradiz monastery in Poland and was sent by the abbot to the University of Cracow, where he earned a master's in philosophy and a doctorate in theology. He returned to his monastery, eventually becoming its abbot. However, in 1441, dissatisfied with the lack of strict discipline in his community, he received permission from the papal legate at the Council of Basel to join the Carthusians, entering the Salvatorberg monastery near Erfurt, where he became prior. He taught theology at the University of Erfurt, serving as its rector in 1455. He died on April 30, 1465.

Jacob’s main preoccupation was the reform of monastic life, the grave disorders of which he deplored, and to this end he wrote his Petitiones religiosorum pro reformatione sui status. Another work, De negligentia praelatorum, was directed against the neglect of their duties by the higher clergy, and he addressed a petition for the reform of the church (Advisamentum pro reformatione ecclesiae) to Pope Nicholas V. This having no effect, he issued the most outspoken of his works, De Septem ecclesiae statibus, in which he reviewed the work of the reforming councils of his time, and, without touching the question of doctrine, championed a drastic reform of life and practice of the church on the lines laid down at Constance and Basel.

Jacob was primarily focused on reforming monastic life, which he saw as severely troubled, and for this purpose, he wrote his Petitiones religiosorum pro reformatione sui status. Another work, De negligentia praelatorum, addressed the neglect of duties by higher clergy, and he submitted a petition for church reform (Advisamentum pro reformatione ecclesiae) to Pope Nicholas V. Since this had no effect, he published one of his most direct works, De Septem ecclesiae statibus, where he examined the efforts of the reforming councils of his time and, without addressing doctrine, advocated for significant reform in the church's life and practices based on the principles established at Constance and Basel.

His principal works are collected in Walch, Monimenta med. aev. i. and ii. (1757, 1771), and Engelbert Klüpfel, Vetus bibliotheca eccles. (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1780).

His main works are compiled in Walch, Monimenta med. aev. i. and ii. (1757, 1771), and Engelbert Klüpfel, Vetus bibliotheca eccles. (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1780).

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

JACOB OF SERUGH, one of the greatest Syriac authors, was described by one of his biographers as “the flute of the Holy Spirit and the harp of the believing church.” He was born in 451 in Kurtam, a village on the Euphrates west of Ḥarrān, and likely educated in Edessa. From a young age, he gained the attention of his fellow countrymen for his piety and literary talent, leading him to write a long series of metrical homilies on religious topics, which became the major work of his life. After his ordination as a priest, he served as the periodeutes or episcopal visitor of Ḥaurā, in Sĕrūgh, near his birthplace. His time in this role coincided with significant hardships for the Christian population of Mesopotamia, caused by the brutal war waged by Kavadh II of Persia against the Roman Empire. On January 10, 503, Amid was captured by the Persians following a three-month siege, with all its citizens either killed or taken captive, leading to widespread panic in the region. Many Christian residents of nearby cities considered fleeing their homes to the west of the Euphrates. However, the letters from Jacob encouraged them to stay strong. In 519, at age 68, Jacob was appointed bishop of Baṭnān, another town in the Sĕrūgh area, but he only lived until November 521.

From the various extant accounts of Jacob’s life and from the number of his known works, we gather that his literary activity was unceasing. According to Barhebraeus (Chron. Eccles. i. 191) he employed 70 amanuenses and wrote in all 760 metrical homilies, besides expositions, letters and hymns of different sorts. Of his merits as a writer and poet we are now well able to judge from P. Bedjan’s excellent edition of selected metrical homilies, of which four volumes have already appeared (Paris 1905-1908), containing 146 pieces.2 They are written throughout in dodecasyllabic metre, and those published deal mainly with biblical themes, though there are also poems on such subjects as the deaths of Christian martyrs, the fall of the idols, the council of Nicaea, &c.3 Of Jacob’s prose works, which are not nearly so numerous, the most interesting are his letters, which throw light upon some of the events of his time and reveal his attachment to the Monophysite doctrine which was then struggling for supremacy in the Syrian churches, and particularly at Edessa, over the opposite teaching of Nestorius.4

From the various existing accounts of Jacob’s life and the number of his known works, we can see that he was constantly active in writing. According to Barhebraeus (Chron. Eccles. i. 191), he had 70 assistants and wrote a total of 760 metrical homilies, along with expositions, letters, and different types of hymns. We can now evaluate his skill as a writer and poet thanks to P. Bedjan’s excellent edition of selected metrical homilies, which has released four volumes so far (Paris 1905-1908), containing 146 pieces.2 They are all written in dodecasyllabic meter, and the published works mainly focus on biblical themes, though there are also poems about topics like the deaths of Christian martyrs, the downfall of idols, the council of Nicaea, etc.3 Among Jacob’s prose works, which are not as numerous, the most interesting are his letters, which shed light on some events of his time and reveal his commitment to the Monophysite doctrine that was then vying for dominance in the Syrian churches, especially in Edessa, against the teachings of Nestorius.4

(N. M.)

1 See the contemporary Chronicle called that of Joshua the Stylite, chap. 54.

1 Check out the modern Chronicle referred to as that of Joshua the Stylite, chap. 54.

2 Assemani (Bibl. Orient. i. 305-339) enumerates 231 which he had seen in MSS.

2 Assemani (Bibl. Orient. i. 305-339) lists 231 that he had seen in manuscripts.

3 Some other historical poems M. Bedjan has not seen fit to publish, on account of their unreliable and legendary character (vol. i. p. ix. of preface).

3 M. Bedjan chose not to publish some other historical poems due to their unreliable and legendary nature (vol. i. p. ix. of preface).

4 A full list of the older editions of works by Jacob is given by Wright in Short History of Syriac Literature, pp. 68-72.

4 Wright provides a complete list of the earlier editions of works by Jacob in Short History of Syriac Literature, pp. 68-72.

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

JACOBA, or Jacqueline (1401-1436), Countess of Holland, was the only daughter and heiress of William, Duke of Bavaria, and Count of Holland, Zeeland, and Hainaut. She was married as a child to John, Duke of Touraine, the second son of Charles VI, King of France, who became the Dauphin after the death of his older brother Louis. John of Touraine died in April 1417, and two months later, Jacoba lost her father. Recognized as the sovereign in Holland and Zeeland, Jacoba faced opposition from her uncle John of Bavaria, the Bishop of Liège. She had the support of the Hook faction in Holland. Meanwhile, in 1418, her uncle John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, married her to her cousin John IV, Duke of Brabant. Through John the Fearless's mediation, a treaty of partition was established in 1419 between Jacoba and John of Bavaria, but it was merely a temporary peace, and the conflict between the uncle and niece resumed and continued with mixed results. In 1420, Jacoba fled to England; there, claiming her marriage to John of Brabant was illegal, she married Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, in 1422. Two years later, Jacoba and Humphrey invaded Holland, where she faced her former husband, John of Brabant, after John of Bavaria died from poison. In 1425, Humphrey abandoned his wife, forcing her to seek refuge with her cousin, Philip V, Duke of Burgundy, to whom she was subject, and she was imprisoned in the castle of Ghent. John of Brabant then mortgaged the counties of Holland and Zeeland to Philip, who took on their protection. However, Jacoba escaped from prison in disguise and fought bravely for three years to maintain her position in Holland against the combined efforts of Philip of Burgundy and John of Brabant, initially finding success. The death of the weak John of Brabant (April 1427) freed the countess from her former husband; however, the pope deemed Jacoba’s marriage to Humphrey illegal, and Philip, exerting his full power, crushed all opposition. By a treaty made in July 1428, Jacoba was left as the nominal countess, but Philip was to govern Holland, Zeeland, and Hainaut and was declared heir in case Jacoba died without children. Two years later, Philip mortgaged Holland and Zeeland to the Borselen family, led by Francis, Lord of Borselen. Jacoba then made one last desperate attempt. In 1432, she secretly married Francis of Borselen, hoping to spark a rebellion in Holland against Burgundian rule. However, Philip invaded the area and imprisoned Borselen. He only agreed to free Jacoba and recognize her marriage to Borselen if she abdicated her three counties in his favor. In April 1432, she complied, retained her title of duchess in Bavaria, and lived quietly on her husband's estates in retirement. She died on October 9, 1436, leaving no children.

Bibliography.—F. von Löher, Jakobäa von Bayern und ihre Zeit (2 vols., Nördlingen, 1862-1869); W. J. F. Nuyens, Jacoba van Beieren en de eerste helft der XV. eeuw (Haarlem, 1873); A. von Overstraten, Jacoba van Beieren (Amsterdam, 1790).

References.—F. von Löher, Jakobäa von Bayern und ihre Zeit (2 vols., Nördlingen, 1862-1869); W. J. F. Nuyens, Jacoba van Beieren en de eerste helft der XV. eeuw (Haarlem, 1873); A. von Overstraten, Jacoba van Beieren (Amsterdam, 1790).

(G. E.)

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

JACOBABAD, is a town in British India, serving as the administrative headquarters of the Upper Sind frontier district in Bombay. It has a station on the Quetta branch of the North-Western railway, 37 miles from the junction at Ruk on the main line. Population (1901) was 10,787. It’s well-known for having some of the highest temperatures in India, with the thermometer often reaching between 120° and 127° F during June. The town was established on the site of the village of Khangarh in 1847 by General John Jacob, who was the commandant of the Sind Horse for many years and passed away here in 1858. There are cantonments for a cavalry regiment and facilities for caravans from Central Asia. The town is supplied with water from two canals. An annual horse show takes place in January.

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

JACOBEAN STYLE, is the name for the second phase of early Renaissance architecture in England, which came after the Elizabethan style. Although the term is mostly applied to the style that was popular in England during the early 17th century, its distinct decadent details can be seen nearly twenty years earlier at Wollaton Hall in Nottinghamshire. Examples can also be found in Oxford and Cambridge up until 1660, despite the introduction of a cleaner Italian style by Inigo Jones in 1619 at Whitehall. Even during Queen Elizabeth's reign, reproductions of classical orders began appearing in English architecture, often based on John Shute’s The First and Chief Grounds of Architecture, published in 1563, with two more editions released in 1579 and 1584. In 1577, three years before work started on Wollaton Hall, Jan Vredeman de Vries published a copybook of the orders in Antwerp. Although it was nominally based on Vitruvius's descriptions of the orders, the author freely added his own interpretations and suggestions for how the orders might be used in different buildings. His suggestions were quite decadent, leading him to include a letter from a church canon stating that nothing in his architectural designs contradicted religious principles. It is through publications like this that Jacobean architecture gained its distorted forms and introduced features like strap work and pierced crestings, first seen at Wollaton (1580); at Bramshill, Hampshire (1607-1612); and in Holland House, Kensington (1624), where they were fully developed.

(R. P. S.)

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

JACOBI, FRIEDRICH HEINRICH (1743-1819), a German philosopher, was born in Düsseldorf on January 25, 1743. He was the second son of a wealthy sugar merchant from near Düsseldorf and was trained for a career in business. With a reserved and contemplative nature, Jacobi mainly connected with the literary and scientific community in Geneva, where Lesage was a leading figure. He closely studied the works of Charles Bonnet and the political ideas of Rousseau and Voltaire. In 1763, he returned to Düsseldorf, and the following year, he got married and took over his father's business. After a short time, he left the commercial world, and in 1770, he joined the council for the duchies of Jülich and Berg, where he made a name for himself through his financial skills and passion for social reform. Jacobi maintained his interest in literature and philosophy through extensive correspondence, and his home in Pempelfort, near Düsseldorf, became a hub for a prominent literary circle. Along with C. M. Wieland, he helped establish a new literary journal, Der Teutsche Mercur, which featured some of his earliest writings, mostly on practical or economic topics. Part of his first philosophical work, Edward Allwills Briefsammlung (1776), a mix of romance and speculation, was published here as well. This was followed in 1779 by Woldemar, a philosophical novel that, while structurally flawed, was rich in innovative ideas and provided a comprehensive view of Jacobi’s philosophizing approach. In 1779, he visited Munich as a member of the privy council, but his stay was cut short due to disagreements with his colleagues and local authorities, prompting his return to Pempelfort. A few minor pieces on theoretical politics were followed in 1785 by the work that first gave Jacobi significant recognition as a philosopher. A conversation he had with Lessing in 1780, where Lessing admitted he knew no philosophy beyond Spinozism, led Jacobi to study Spinoza’s works extensively. The Briefe über die Lehre Spinozas (1785; 2nd ed., significantly enlarged with important Appendices, 1789) clearly articulated Jacobi’s strong opposition to dogmatic philosophy and provoked a fierce backlash from the Berlin group, led by Moses Mendelssohn. He was mocked for trying to reinstate the outdated idea of unreasoning belief in philosophy, labeled an enemy of reason, called a pietist, and likely even a disguised Jesuit, with particular criticism aimed at his use of the ambiguous term “belief.” Jacobi’s next major work, David Hume über den Glauben, oder Idealismus und Realismus (1787), aimed to demonstrate that the term Glaube had been used by esteemed authors to denote what he had meant in the Letters on Spinoza, and that the way to understand the cognition of facts versus the construction of inferences could only be articulated this way. In this work, especially in the Appendix, Jacobi engaged with critical philosophy and rigorously critiqued the Kantian perspective on knowledge.

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

The outbreak of the war with the French Republic prompted Jacobi in 1793 to leave his home near Düsseldorf, and for nearly ten years he lived in Holstein. While there, he became closely acquainted with Reinhold (in whose Beiträge, pt. iii., 1801, his important work Über das Unternehmen des Kriticismus, die Vernunft zu Verstande zu bringen was first published) and with Matthias Claudius, the editor of the Wandsbecker Bote. During this time, the controversy surrounding the atheism accusation against Fichte at Jena led to the publication of Jacobi’s Letter to Fichte (1799), where he clarified the relationship between his philosophical principles and theology. Shortly after returning to Germany, Jacobi received an invitation to Munich in connection with the newly founded academy of sciences there. The loss of a significant portion of his fortune convinced him to accept this offer; he settled in Munich in 1804 and became president of the academy in 1807. In 1811, his last philosophical work appeared, directed specifically against Schelling (Von den göttlichen Dingen und ihrer Offenbarung), the first part of which, a review of the Wandsbecker Bote, had been written in 1798. A harsh response from Schelling went unanswered by Jacobi, but sparked a lively debate in which Fries and Baader played key roles. In 1812, Jacobi stepped down from the presidency and began preparing a collected edition of his works. He passed away before this was completed, on March 10, 1819. His friend F. Köppen continued the edition of his writings, which was completed in 1825. The works span six volumes, with the fourth volume divided into three parts. To the second volume, Jacobi added an introduction that also serves as an introduction to his philosophy. The fourth volume includes an important preface as well.

The philosophy of Jacobi is essentially unsystematic. A certain fundamental view which underlies all his thinking is brought to bear in succession upon those systematic doctrines which appear to stand most sharply in contradiction to it, and any positive philosophic results are given only occasionally. The leading idea of the whole is that of the complete separation between understanding and apprehension of real fact. For Jacobi understanding, or the logical faculty, is purely formal or elaborative, and its results never transcend the given material supplied to it. From the basis of immediate experience or perception thought proceeds by comparison and abstraction, establishing connexions among facts, but remaining in its nature mediate and finite. The principle of reason and consequent, the necessity of thinking each given fact of perception as conditioned, impels understanding towards an endless series of identical propositions, the records of successive comparisons and abstractions. The province of the understanding is therefore strictly the region of the conditioned; to it the world must present itself as a mechanism. If, then, there is objective truth at all, the existence of real facts must be made known to us otherwise than through the logical faculty of thought; and, as the regress from conclusion to premises must depend upon something not itself capable of logical grounding, mediate thought implies the consciousness of immediate truth. Philosophy therefore must resign the hopeless ideal of a systematic (i.e. intelligible) explanation of things, and must content itself with the examination of the facts of consciousness. It is a mere prejudice of philosophic thinkers, a prejudice which has descended from Aristotle, that mediate or demonstrated cognition is superior in cogency and value to the immediate perception of truths or facts.

The philosophy of Jacobi is mainly unsystematic. A certain fundamental view underlies all his thinking and is applied successively to those systematic beliefs that seem to contradict it most sharply, with any positive philosophical outcomes appearing only occasionally. The central idea here is the complete separation between understanding and the grasp of real facts. For Jacobi, understanding, or the logical faculty, is entirely formal or elaborative, and its outcomes never go beyond the raw material presented to it. Starting from immediate experience or perception, thought moves through comparison and abstraction, making connections among facts but remaining inherently mediate and finite. The principle of reason and consequence, which necessitates that each given fact of perception is conditioned, drives understanding toward an endless series of identical propositions, which are the records of successive comparisons and abstractions. Therefore, the realm of understanding is strictly that of the conditioned; the world must appear to it as a mechanism. If there is any objective truth at all, the existence of real facts must be revealed to us in ways other than through the logical faculty of thought; and since the process of moving from conclusions to premises relies on something that cannot itself be logically grounded, mediate thought implies the awareness of immediate truth. Philosophy must thus abandon the futile ideal of a systematic (i.e., intelligible) explanation of things and should focus on examining the facts of consciousness. It is merely a bias among philosophical thinkers, a bias inherited from Aristotle, that mediate or demonstrated knowledge is superior in strength and value to the immediate perception of truths or facts.

As Jacobi starts with the doctrine that thought is partial and limited, applicable only to connect facts, but incapable of explaining their existence, it is evident that for him any demonstrative system of metaphysic which should attempt to subject all existence to the principle of logical ground must be repulsive. Now in modern philosophy the first and greatest demonstrative system of metaphysic is that of Spinoza, and it lay in the nature of things that upon Spinoza’s system Jacobi should first direct his criticism. A summary of the results of his examination is thus presented (Werke, i. 216-223): (1) Spinozism is atheism; (2) the Kabbalistic philosophy, in so far as it is philosophy, is nothing but undeveloped or confused Spinozism; (3) the philosophy of Leibnitz and Wolff is not less fatalistic than that of Spinoza, and carries a resolute thinker to the very principles of Spinoza; (4) every demonstrative method ends in fatalism; (5) we can demonstrate only similarities (agreements, truths conditionally necessary), proceeding always in identical propositions; every proof presupposes something already proved, the principle of which is immediately given (Offenbarung, revelation, is the term here employed by Jacobi, as by many later writers, e.g. Lotze, to denote the peculiar character of an immediate, unproved truth); (6) the keystone (Element) of all human knowledge and activity is belief (Glaube). Of these propositions only the first and fourth require further notice. Jacobi, accepting the law of reason and consequent as the fundamental rule of demonstrative reasoning, and as the rule explicitly followed by Spinoza, points out that, if we proceed by applying this principle so as to recede from particular and qualified facts to the more general and abstract conditions, we land ourselves, not in the notion of an active, intelligent creator of the system of things, but in the notion of an all-comprehensive, indeterminate Nature, devoid of will or intelligence. Our unconditioned is either a pure abstraction, or else the impossible notion of a completed system of conditions. In either case the result is atheism, and this result is necessary if the demonstrative method, the method of understanding, is regarded as the only possible means of knowledge. Moreover, the same method inevitably lands in fatalism. For, if the action of the human will is to be made intelligible to understanding, it must be thought as a conditioned phenomenon, having its sufficient ground in preceding circumstances, and, in ultimate abstraction, as the outflow from nature which is the sum of conditions. But this is the fatalist conception, and any philosophy which accepts the law of reason and consequent as the essence of understanding is fatalistic. Thus for the scientific understanding there can be no God and no liberty. It is impossible that there should be a God, for if so he would of necessity be finite. But a finite God, a God that is known, is no God. It is impossible that there should be liberty, for if so the mechanical order of phenomena, by means of which they are comprehensible, would be disturbed, and we should have an unintelligible world, coupled with the requirement that it shall be understood. Cognition, then, in the strict sense, occupies the middle place between sense perception, which is belief in matters of sense, and reason, which is belief in supersensuous fact.

As Jacobi begins with the idea that thought is limited and only serves to connect facts, but can't explain why they exist, it's clear that for him, any metaphysical system trying to apply a logical foundation to all existence would be objectionable. In modern philosophy, the primary and most significant metaphysical system is Spinoza’s, and it’s expected that Jacobi would first critique Spinoza’s framework. A summary of his findings is presented as follows (Werke, i. 216-223): (1) Spinozism is atheism; (2) Kabbalistic philosophy, where it overlaps with philosophy, is merely an underdeveloped or confused version of Spinozism; (3) the philosophies of Leibnitz and Wolff are equally fatalistic as Spinoza’s, leading a determined thinker to Spinoza’s core concepts; (4) every demonstrative method results in fatalism; (5) we can only demonstrate similarities (agreements, conditionally necessary truths), always based on identical propositions; every proof relies on something already proven, the foundation of which is given immediately (Offenbarung, or revelation, is the term Jacobi, like many later writers including e.g. Lotze, uses to describe the unique nature of an immediate, unproven truth); (6) the foundation (Element) of all human knowledge and activity is belief (Glaube). Only the first and fourth propositions need further exploration. Jacobi accepts the law of reason and consequence as the basic rule of demonstrative reasoning, which Spinoza explicitly follows, and points out that if we apply this principle to move away from specific and qualified facts towards more general and abstract conditions, we end up not with the idea of an active, intelligent creator of the universe, but with a comprehensive, indeterminate Nature lacking will or intelligence. Our unconditioned is either a mere abstraction or the unrealistic idea of a complete system of conditions. In either case, the outcome is atheism, which is unavoidable if the demonstrative method, the method of comprehension, is seen as the only valid way to gain knowledge. Additionally, this same method inevitably leads to fatalism. For if we want to make sense of human will through understanding, it must be viewed as a conditioned event, with its sufficient reason rooted in prior circumstances, ultimately as an outcome of nature that is the aggregate of conditions. But this leads to a fatalist view, and any philosophy that accepts the law of reason and consequence as the core of understanding will be fatalistic. Thus, in a scientific understanding, there can be neither God nor freedom. A God must necessarily be finite if he exists. But a finite God, one that is known, is no God at all. Freedom is equally impossible, because if it existed, the mechanical order of phenomena that makes them comprehensible would be disrupted, resulting in a world that we couldn't understand, while still needing to be understood. Therefore, cognition occupies a middle ground between sense perception, which is belief in sensory matters, and reason, which is belief in things beyond the senses.

The best introduction to Jacobi’s philosophy is the preface to the second volume of the Works, and Appendix 7 to the Letters on Spinoza’s Theory. See also J. Kuhn, Jacobi und die Philosophie seiner Zeit (1834); F. Deycks, F. H. Jacobi im Verhältnis zu seinen Zeitgenossen (1848); H. Düntzer, Freundesbilder aus Goethes Leben (1853); E. Zirngiebl, F. H. Jacobis Leben, Dichten, und Denken, 1867; F. Harms, Über die Lehre von F. H. Jacobi (1876). Jacobi’s Auserlesener Briefwechsel has been edited by F. Roth in 2 vols. (1825-1827).

The best introduction to Jacobi’s philosophy is the preface to the second volume of the Works, and Appendix 7 of the Letters on Spinoza’s Theory. Also, check out J. Kuhn’s Jacobi und die Philosophie seiner Zeit (1834); F. Deycks’ F. H. Jacobi im Verhältnis zu seinen Zeitgenossen (1848); H. Düntzer’s Freundesbilder aus Goethes Leben (1853); E. Zirngiebl’s F. H. Jacobis Leben, Dichten, und Denken, 1867; and F. Harms’ Über die Lehre von F. H. Jacobi (1876). Jacobi’s Auserlesener Briefwechsel was edited by F. Roth in 2 vols. (1825-1827).

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

JACOBI, JOHANN GEORG (1740-1814), a German poet and older brother of the philosopher F. H. Jacobi (1743-1819), was born in Düsseldorf on September 2, 1740. He studied theology at Göttingen and law at Helmstedt, and in 1766, he became a professor of philosophy in Halle. That year, he met J. W. L. (“Vater”) Gleim, who, impressed by the young poet’s Poetische Versuche (1764), became a close friend, leading to a lively literary exchange between Gleim in Halberstadt and Jacobi in Halle. To keep Jacobi close, Gleim managed to arrange a prebendal position for him at the Halberstadt cathedral in 1769, where Jacobi published several anacreontic lyrics and sonnets. However, he grew tired of lighter poetry and, to Gleim’s dismay, left Halberstadt in 1774. He spent the next two years (1774-1776) editing the Iris, a quarterly magazine for women readers, in Düsseldorf. During this time, he wrote many lovely lyrics marked by exquisite taste and genuine poetic feeling. In 1784, he became a professor of literature at the university of Freiburg im Breisgau, a position he held until his death there on January 4, 1814. In addition to the earlier Iris, to which Goethe, his brother F. H. Jacobi, Gleim, and other poets contributed, he also published another periodical, also called Iris, from 1803-1813, which featured contributions from Klopstock, Herder, Jean Paul, Voss, and the brothers Stollberg.

Jacobi’s Sämmtliche Werke were published in 1774 (Halberstadt, 3 vols.). Other editions appeared at Zürich in 1807-1813 and 1825. See Ungedruckte Briefe von und an Johann Georg Jacobi (Strassburg, 1874); biographical notice by Daniel Jacoby in Allg. Deutsche Biographie; Longo, Laurence Sterne und Johann Georg Jacobi (Vienna, 1898); and Leben J. G. Jacobis, von einem seiner Freunde (1822).

Jacobi's Complete Works were published in 1774 (Halberstadt, 3 vols.). Other editions came out in Zürich between 1807 and 1813, as well as in 1825. See Unpublished Letters from and to Johann Georg Jacobi (Strassburg, 1874); biographical note by Daniel Jacoby in General German Biography; Longo, Laurence Sterne and Johann Georg Jacobi (Vienna, 1898); and The Life of J. G. Jacobi, by One of His Friends (1822).

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

JACOBI, KARL GUSTAV JACOB (1804-1851), a German mathematician, was born in Potsdam to Jewish parents on December 10, 1804. He studied at Berlin University, where he earned his Ph.D. in 1825, with a thesis that provided an analytical discussion of fraction theory. In 1827, he became an extraordinary professor and in 1829 an ordinary professor of mathematics at Königsberg, a position he held until 1842 when he traveled to Italy for a few months to improve his health. After returning, he moved to Berlin, where he lived as a royal pensioner until his death on February 18, 1851.

His investigations in elliptic functions, the theory of which he established upon quite a new basis, and more particularly his development of the theta-function, as given in his great treatise Fundamenta nova theoriae functionum ellipticarum (Königsberg, 1829), and in later papers in Crelle’s Journal, constitute his grandest analytical discoveries. Second in importance only to these are his researches in differential equations, notably the theory of the last multiplier, which is fully treated in his Vorlesungen über Dynamik, edited by R. F. A. Clebsch (Berlin, 1866). It was in analytical development that Jacobi’s peculiar power mainly lay, and he made many important contributions of this kind to other departments of mathematics, as a glance at the long list of papers that were published by him in Crelle’s Journal and elsewhere from 1826 onwards will sufficiently indicate. He was one of the early founders of the theory of determinants; in particular, he invented the functional determinant formed of the n² differential coefficients of n given functions of n independent variables, which now bears his name (Jacobian), and which has played an important part in many analytical investigations (see Algebraic Forms). Valuable also are his papers on Abelian transcendents, and his investigations in the theory of numbers, in which latter department he mainly supplements the labours of K. F. Gauss. The planetary theory and other particular dynamical problems likewise occupied his attention from time to time. He left a vast store of manuscript, portions of which have been published at intervals in Crelle’s Journal. His other works include Commentatio de transformatione integralis duplicis indefiniti in formam simpliciorem (1832), Canon arithmeticus (1839), and Opuscula mathematica (1846-1857). His Gesammelte Werke (1881-1891) were published by the Berlin Academy.

His research on elliptic functions, which he developed on a completely new foundation, especially his work on the theta-function as presented in his major paper Fundamenta nova theoriae functionum ellipticarum (Königsberg, 1829) and in later articles in Crelle’s Journal, represents his most significant analytical breakthroughs. Following these, his studies on differential equations, particularly the theory of the last multiplier, detailed in his Vorlesungen über Dynamik, edited by R. F. A. Clebsch (Berlin, 1866), are also crucial. Jacobi's unique strength lay in analytical development, and he made numerous important contributions in this area to other fields of mathematics, as evidenced by the extensive list of papers published by him in Crelle’s Journal and elsewhere from 1826 onward. He was one of the early founders of the theory of determinants; notably, he created the functional determinant composed of the n² differential coefficients of n given functions of n independent variables, now known as the Jacobian, which has been significant in many analytical studies (see Algebraic Forms). His papers on Abelian transcendents and his research in number theory, where he primarily expanded on the work of K. F. Gauss, are also valuable. He occasionally focused on planetary theory and other specific dynamical problems. He left behind a wealth of manuscripts, some of which have been periodically published in Crelle’s Journal. His other notable works include Commentatio de transformatione integralis duplicis indefiniti in formam simpliciorem (1832), Canon arithmeticus (1839), and Opuscula mathematica (1846-1857). His Gesammelte Werke (1881-1891) were published by the Berlin Academy.

See Lejeune-Dirichlet, “Gedächtnisrede auf Jacobi” in the Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie (1852).

See Lejeune-Dirichlet, “Memorial Speech on Jacobi” in the Proceedings of the Berlin Academy (1852).

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

JACOBINS, THE, the most well-known of the political clubs during the French Revolution. It started as the Club Breton, which was founded in Versailles shortly after the States General began in 1789. Initially, it was made up solely of deputies from Brittany but soon included members from different regions of France. Among its early members were Mirabeau, Sieyès, Barnave, Pétion, the Abbé Grégoire, Charles and Alexandre Lameth, Robespierre, the duc d’Aiguillon, and La Revellière-Lépeaux. At that time, its meetings were private, and not much is known about their discussions. After the riots on October 5th and 6th, the club, still made up entirely of deputies, moved to Paris with the National Assembly, where it rented the dining hall of the Jacobins monastery on Rue St Honoré, close to the Assembly's location. The name “Jacobins,” which referred to the Dominicans in France because their first house in Paris was on Rue St Jacques, was initially used mockingly by their opponents. The club officially adopted the title Société des amis de la constitution séants aux Jacobins à Paris after the constitution was proclaimed in 1791, which was then changed on September 21, 1792, following the monarchy's fall, to Société des Jacobins, amis de la liberté et de l’égalité. It successively occupied the dining hall, the library, and the chapel of the monastery.

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

Once the club moved to Paris, it quickly made changes. The first step was to expand by allowing others besides deputies to become members or associates; Arthur Young joined on January 18, 1790. On February 8, the society was officially established on this broader basis with the adoption of rules created by Barnave, which were issued with the signature of Duc d’Aiguillon, the president. The club's goals were defined as (1) to discuss upcoming issues to be decided by the National Assembly; (2) to advocate for the establishment and strengthening of the constitution in line with the spirit of the preamble (i.e., respect for legally constituted authority and human rights); (3) to communicate with similar societies that would form across the country. At the same time, the rules of order and election procedures were established, and the club's structure was defined. There would be a president elected every month, four secretaries, a treasurer, and committees chosen to oversee elections and presentations, manage correspondence, and handle the club's administration. Any member who demonstrated by word or action that their principles contradicted the constitution and human rights was to be expelled, a rule that later made it easier to "purify" the society by removing its more moderate members. By the 7th article, the club agreed to admit similar societies from other parts of France as associates and to maintain regular communication with them.

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

This last provision was extremely important. By August 10, 1790, there were already 152 affiliated clubs; attempts at counter-revolution led to a significant increase in their number in the spring of 1791, and by the end of the year, the Jacobins had a network of branches all over France. It was this widespread yet highly centralized organization that gave the Jacobin Club its powerful influence.

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

At first, the Jacobin Club wasn't known for extreme political views. The relatively high membership fee limited its members to well-off individuals, and until the end, it was—at least concerning the central society in Paris—almost entirely made up of professionals like Robespierre and affluent bourgeois like Santerre. Nevertheless, various other elements were present from the start. In addition to Louis Philippe, duc de Chartres (who would later become king of the French), there were liberal aristocrats like the duc d’Aiguillon, the prince de Broglie, and the vicomte de Noailles, along with the bourgeois who made up the bulk of the membership. The club also included figures like “Père” Michel Gérard, a peasant landowner from Tuel-en-Montgermont in Brittany, whose straightforward common sense was seen as the voice of popular wisdom, and whose countryman’s waistcoat and braided hair would later become the standard for Jacobin fashion. The provincial branches were much more democratic from the beginning, although the leadership was typically held by members of the educated or wealthy classes. Up until the very eve of the republic, the club officially supported the monarchy; it didn’t participate in the petition for the king’s dethronement on July 17, 1790, nor did it have any formal involvement in the uprisings on June 20 and August 10, 1792; it only officially recognized the republic on September 21. However, the character and scope of the club’s influence can’t be measured solely by its official actions, and long before it became the main center of the Terror, its nature had drastically changed due to the departure of its more moderate members, some of whom formed the Club of 1789 and others in 1791—like Barnave, the Lameths, Duport, and Bailly—who established the Feuillants club, which was mocked by their former associates as the club monarchique. The primary reason for this shift was the public's admission to the club's meetings, which began on October 14, 1791. A report on “the state of the empire,” presented on June 12, 1792, at the request of Roland, the interior minister, and signed by the duc de La Rochefoucauld, described the outcome, blaming the Jacobins for all the state’s issues. “There exists,” it states, “in the midst of the capital under our care a public pulpit of defamation, where citizens of every age and gender are admitted daily to hear criminal propaganda.... This establishment, located in the former house of the Jacobins, calls itself a society; but it resembles less a private society than a public spectacle: vast areas are opened for the audience; all meetings are announced to the public for set days and times, and the speeches made are printed in a special journal and widely distributed.” In this society—the report continues—murder is encouraged or celebrated, all authorities are slandered, and all legal institutions are insulted; as for its power, it exercises “by its influence, its affiliations, and its correspondence a true ministerial authority, without title and without accountability, while leaving to the legal and responsible authorities only the semblance of power” (Schmidt, Tableaux i. 78, etc.).

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

The group that the club was now responsible for, and from which it drew its influence, was essentially the peuple bête of Paris; the sans-culottes—fallen servants, wandering drifters, and starving workers—who filled its forums. The speeches of the orators were aimed at this audience, rather than primarily at the club members, and they were judged by its opinions. In the early days of the Revolution, the crowd had been satisfied with the empty statements of the philosophes and the vague promise of a political utopia; however, as political chaos grew and material suffering escalated, they started to demand the blood of the “traitors” in power, whose corrupt actions delayed the utopia. Only those orators who catered to their suspicions were heard. Thus, the moderate voices were pushed out of the club; this led to the rise of Marat and eventually Robespierre, whose true power lay in genuinely sharing the people's suspicions, voicing them, and not hesitating to take action. After the monarchy fell, Robespierre effectively became the Jacobin Club; to the forums, he was the source of political wisdom, and all others were measured against him. 3 With his downfall, the Jacobins also came to an end.

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

Notable about the Jacobins is the weak foundation on which their immense power stood. France suffered under their rule, compared to the Inquisition, with its system of surveillance and accusations that no one, whether famous or unknown, could escape. Yet, at the peak of the Terror, experts believed the Jacobins could muster no more than 3,000 men in Paris. Their strength lay in the fact that, amidst widespread chaos, they were the only group that was organized. The police agent Dutard, in a report to Minister Garat (April 30, 1793), noted an incident in the Palais Égalité (Royal), stating: “Why did a dozen Jacobins strike fear into two or three hundred aristocrats? It’s because the former have a rallying point while the latter do not.” When the jeunesse dorée finally organized, they easily pushed the Jacobins out of the cafés into relative silence. Long before this, the Girondin government had been advised to confront organization with organization, force with force; and daily reports from police agents showed that even a moderate show of energy could have spared the National Convention from being overpowered by a club and the French Revolution from the stain of the Terror. But despite being fully aware of the danger, the Girondins were too timid or overly sure of the eventual success of their own persuasive speech to take action. During the session on April 30, 1793, a proposal was made to move the Convention to Versailles, away from the Jacobins, and Buzot stated it was “impossible to stay in Paris” as long as “this horrible stronghold” existed; but the motion failed, and the Girondins stayed, ultimately becoming the victims of the Jacobins.

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

Meanwhile, other political clubs could only survive as long as they were willing to be the shadows of the powerful organization on Rue St. Honoré. The Feuillants were banned on August 18, 1792. The Cordeliers faced a similar fate as soon as their leaders showed signs of opposing Jacobin dominance, and no more shocking evidence of this power could be seen than the ease with which Hébert and his associates were condemned, along with the quickness with which the Cordeliers, after a weak attempt at protest, accepted the verdict. It's pointless to wonder what might have occurred if this dominance had been overthrown by a strong government. There was no strong government, nor could there be, under the conditions outlined by the constitution. France was threatened by civil war from within and by a coalition of hostile powers from outside; the discipline of the Terror was perhaps necessary to forge a united force capable of resisting this dual threat, and the revolutionary leaders viewed the Jacobin organization as the only means to effectively implement this discipline. This is the typical justification offered for the Jacobins by later republican writers; they argue that the Jacobins were, contrary to being mere theorists and dreamers, practical and forward-thinking politicians who understood that “desperate ills need desperate remedies,” and by standing firm in their beliefs, they protected the achievements of the Revolution for France.

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

The Jacobin Club was shut down after Robespierre fell on the 9th of Thermidor in year III, and some members were executed. There was an attempt to reopen the club, attracting many opponents of the Thermidorians, but on the 21st of Brumaire, year III (Nov. 11, 1794), it was permanently closed. Its members and supporters were scattered among cafés, where they faced a brutal fight with sticks and chairs from the young “aristocrats” known as the jeunesse dorée. Still, the “Jacobins” managed to survive in a somewhat underground manner, reemerging in the club of the Panthéon, founded on November 25, 1795, and shut down the following February (see Babeuf; François Noel). The last effort to reorganize them was the creation of the Réunion d’amis de l’égalité et de la liberté in July 1799, which was based in the Salle du Manège of the Tuileries, thus called the Club du Manège. It was supported by Barras, and around two hundred and fifty members of both legislative councils joined, including many notable former Jacobins. The club published a newspaper called the Journal des Libres, glorified Robespierre and Babeuf, and criticized the Directory as a royauté pentarchique. However, public opinion had shifted to being mainly moderate or royalist, and the club faced harsh criticism in the press and on the streets, raising the government’s suspicions. They had to move their meetings from the Tuileries to the church of the Jacobins (Temple of Peace) on Rue du Bac, and in August, it was disbanded after barely a month. Its members took their revenge on the Directory by supporting Napoleon Bonaparte.

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

Long before the Jacobin Club was suppressed, the term “Jacobins” was widely used to refer to anyone promoting extreme revolutionary ideas. In this sense, the word extended beyond France and continued to exist long after the Revolution. Canning’s publication, The Anti-Jacobin, aimed at the English Radicals, solidified its use in England; and in the 119 correspondence of Metternich and other leaders of the repressive policy that followed Napoleon’s second fall, “Jacobin” became the term commonly used for anyone with Liberal beliefs, including notable figures like Emperor Alexander I of Russia.

The most important source of information for the history of the Jacobins is F. A. Aulard’s La société des Jacobins, Recueil de documents (6 vols., Paris, 1889, &c.), where a critical bibliography will be found. This collection does not contain all the printed sources—notably the official Journal of the Club is omitted—but these sources, when not included, are indicated. The documents published are furnished with valuable explanatory notes. See also W. A. Schmidt, Tableaux de la révolution française (3 vols., Leipzig, 1867-1870), notably for the reports of the secret police, which throw much light on the actual working of the Jacobin propaganda.

The main source of information about the history of the Jacobins is F. A. Aulard’s La société des Jacobins, Recueil de documents (6 vols., Paris, 1889, &c.), where you can find a critical bibliography. This collection doesn’t include all the printed sources—most notably the official Journal of the Club is missing—but any not included are mentioned. The published documents come with useful explanatory notes. Also, check out W. A. Schmidt, Tableaux de la révolution française (3 vols., Leipzig, 1867-1870), especially for the reports of the secret police, which provide significant insights into how the Jacobin propaganda actually functioned.

(W. A. P.)

1 “When I first sat among you I heard so many beautiful speeches that I might have believed myself in heaven, had there not been so many lawyers present.” Instead of practical questions “we have become involved in a galimatias of Rights of Man of which I understand mighty little but that it is worth nothing.” Motion du Père Gérard in the Jacobins of the 27th of April 1790 (Aulard i. 63).

1 “When I first sat among you, I heard so many beautiful speeches that I might have believed I was in heaven, if it weren’t for all the lawyers present.” Instead of practical questions, “we have gotten caught up in a mess of Rights of Man that I don’t understand much, except that it’s worth nothing.” Motion du Père Gérard in the Jacobins of the 27th of April 1790 (Aulard i. 63).

2 i.e. Journal des débats et de la correspondance de la Société, &c. For the various newspapers published under the auspices of the Jacobins see Aulard i. p. cx., &c.

2 i.e. Journal des débats et de la correspondance de la Société, etc. For the different newspapers published by the Jacobins, see Aulard i. p. cx., etc.

3 In the published reports only the speeches of members are given, not the interruptions from the tribunes. But see the report (May 18, 1793) of Dutard to Garat on a meeting of the Jacobins (Schmidt, Tableaux ii. 242).

3 In the published reports, only the speeches from members are included, not the interruptions from the tribunes. But check out the report (May 18, 1793) from Dutard to Garat regarding a meeting of the Jacobins (Schmidt, Tableaux ii. 242).

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

JACOBITE CHURCH. The term “Jacobites” first appeared in a synodal decree from Nicaea in CE 787, created by opposed Greeks for the Syrian Monophysite Church established, or rather restored, by Jacob or James Baradaeus, who became its bishop around CE 541 or 543. The Monophysites, who, like the Greeks, referred to themselves simply as Orthodox, faced severe persecution from Emperor Justinian and the Greek-influenced patriarchs of Antioch because they rejected the decisions of the council of Chalcedon, which they believed was, not without reason, a disguised return to the ideas of Nestorius that the previous council of Ephesus had condemned. James was born just before CE 500 in Tella or Tela, located 55 miles east of Edessa, to a priestly family and joined the convent of Phesilta on Mount Isla. Around 528, he went to Constantinople with a fellow monk, Sergius, to argue for the rights of his fellow believers with Empress Theodora, where he stayed for fifteen years. During that time, Justinian imprisoned, disqualified, or exiled most of Syria's resistant clergy, including those from Mesopotamia, Cilicia, Cappadocia, and nearby areas. Once James was made bishop of Edessa, with Theodora's approval, he traveled around these regions disguised as a poor beggar (which is how he got the name Baradaeus, Syriac Burdĕānā, Arabic al-Barādiā), preaching, teaching, and ordaining new clergy, reportedly numbering around 80,000. His later years were marked by conflicts with his own clergy, and he passed away in 578. However, his efforts persisted, and by the middle ages, the Jacobite hierarchy had grown to include 150 archbishops and bishops, all under a patriarch and a maphrian. Around the year 728, six Jacobite bishops attending the council of Manazgert established a connection with the Armenians, who also rejected Chalcedon; they were sent by the patriarch of Antioch, including the metropolitan of Urha (Edessa) and the bishops of Qarhan, Gardman, Nferkert, and Amasia. The duration of this union is unknown. By 1842, when Rev. G. P. Badger visited the main Jacobite centers, their population in all of Turkey had decreased to roughly 100,000, largely due to a significant number converting to Roman Catholicism. At that time, only ten families out of several hundred in Aleppo remained loyal to their old faith, with a similar ratio in Damascus and Baghdad. Badger noted that Syrian converts to Catholicism were more prosperous than their Jacobite counterparts, having set up schools, rebuilt churches, increased their clergy, and, most importantly, learned to coexist peacefully and charitably. As late as 1850, there were 150 villages of Jacobites in the Jebel Toor region northeast of Mardin, 50 in the Urfah and Gawar areas, and a few around Diarbekr, Mosul, and Damascus. Starting around 1860, the Roman converts, with the help of French consular support, managed to take over most Jacobite churches in Turkey, a situation that has significantly contributed to the current decline and poverty of the Jacobites.

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

They use leavened bread in the Eucharist, mixed with salt and oil, and like other Monophysites, they add the words “Who was crucified for our sake” to the Trisagion. They venerate pictures or images and make the sign of the cross with one finger to indicate that Christ had only one nature. Deacons, similar to those in Armenia, get married before being ordained as priests. Their patriarch is referred to as being from Antioch but rarely travels west of Mardin. Since 1089, their maphrian (fertilizer) has been based in Mosul and ordains the bishops. Monastic life is common among them, but there are no nuns. After the Roman Uniats (whom they call Rassen or Venal), they dislike the Nestorian Syrians of Persia the most. In 1882, at the request of the British government, the Turks started to recognize them as a separate organization.

See M. Klein, Jacobus Baradaeus (Leiden, 1882); Assemani, Bibl. Or. ii. 62-69, 326 and 331; G. P. Badger, The Nestorians (London, 1852); Rubens Duval, La litérature syriaque (Paris, 1899); G. Krüger, Monophysitische Streitigkeiten (Jena, 1884); Silbernagel, Verfassung der Kirchen des Orients (Landshut, 1865); and G. Wright, History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894).

See M. Klein, Jacobus Baradaeus (Leiden, 1882); Assemani, Bibl. Or. ii. 62-69, 326 and 331; G. P. Badger, The Nestorians (London, 1852); Rubens Duval, La litérature syriaque (Paris, 1899); G. Krüger, Monophysitische Streitigkeiten (Jena, 1884); Silbernagel, Verfassung der Kirchen des Orients (Landshut, 1865); and G. Wright, History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894).

(F. C. C.)

Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!