Chapter LXXX: Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this (6)

"It was a fact of the greatest importance for the development
of the fine arts in Italy that painting in Venice reached
maturity later than in Florence. Owing to this circumstance
one chief aspect of the Renaissance, its material magnificence
and freedom, received consummate treatment at the hands of
Titian, Tintoretto, and Veronese. To idealise the sensualities
of the external universe, to achieve for colour what the
Florentines had done for form, to invest the worldly grandeur
of human life at one of its most gorgeous epochs with the
dignity of the highest art, was what these great artists were
called on to accomplish. Their task could not have been so
worthily performed in the fifteenth century as in the
sixteenth, if the development of the æsthetic sense had been
more premature among the Venetians. Venice was precisely
fitted for the part her painters had to play. Free, isolated,
wealthy, powerful; famous throughout Europe for the pomp of
her state equipage, and for the immorality of her private
manners; ruled by a prudent aristocracy, who spent vast wealth
on public shows and on the maintenance of a more than imperial
civic majesty: Venice with her pavement of liquid chrysoprase,
with her palaces of porphyry and marble, her frescoed façades,
her quays and squares aglow with the costumes of the Levant,
her lagoons afloat with the galleys of all nations, her
churches floored with mosaics, her silvery domes and ceilings
glittering with sculpture bathed in molten gold: Venice
luxurious in the light and colour of a vaporous atmosphere,
where sea-mists rose into the mounded summer clouds; arched
over by the broad expanse of sky, bounded only by the horizon
of waves and plain and distant mountain ranges, and reflected
in all its many hues of sunrise and sunset upon the glassy
surface of smooth waters: Venice asleep like a miracle of opal
or of pearl upon the bosom of an undulating lake:—here and
here only on the face of the whole globe was the unique city
wherein the pride of life might combine with the lustre of the
physical universe to create and stimulate in the artist a
sense of all that was most sumptuous in the pageant of the
world of sense. … The Venetians had no green fields and trees,
no garden borders, no blossoming orchards, to teach them the
tender suggestiveness, the quaint poetry of isolated or
contrasted tints. Their meadows were the fruitless furrows of
the Adriatic, hued like a peacock's neck; they called the
pearl-shells of their Lido flowers, fior di mare. Nothing
distracted their attention from the glories of morning and of
evening presented to them by their sea and sky. It was in
consequence of this that the Venetians conceived colour
heroically, not as a matter of missal-margins or of
subordinate decoration, but as a motive worthy in itself of
sublime treatment. In like manner, hedged in by no limitary
hills, contracted by no city walls, stifled by no narrow
streets, but open to the liberal airs of heaven and ocean, the
Venetians understood space and imagined pictures almost
boundless in their immensity. Light, colour, air, space: those
are the elemental conditions of Venetian art; of those the
painters weaved their ideal world for beautiful and proud
humanity. … In order to understand the destiny of Venice in
art, it is not enough to concentrate attention on the
peculiarities of her physical environment. Potent as these
were in the creation of her style, the political and social
conditions of the Republic require also to be taken into
account. Among Italian cities Venice was unique. She alone was
tranquil in her empire, unimpeded in her constitutional
development, independent of Church interference, undisturbed
by the cross purposes and intrigues of the despots, inhabited
by merchants who were princes, and by a free-born people who
had never seen war at their gates. The serenity of undisturbed
security, the luxury of wealth amassed abroad and liberally
spent at home, gave a physiognomy of ease and proud
self-confidence to all her edifices. The grim and anxious
struggles of the Middle Ages left no mark on Venice. How
different was this town from Florence, every inch of whose
domain could tell of civic warfare. … It is not an
insignificant, though a slight, detail, that the predominant
colour of Florence is brown, while the predominant colour of
Venice is that of mother-of-pearl, concealing within its
general whiteness every tint that can be placed upon the
palette of a painter. The conditions of Florence stimulated
mental energy and turned the forces of the soul inwards. Those
of Venice inclined the individual to accept life as he found
it. Instead of exciting him to think, they disposed him to
enjoy, or to acquire by industry the means of manifold
enjoyment. To represent in art the intellectual strivings of
the Renaissance was the task of Florence and her sons; to
create a monument of Renaissance magnificence was the task of
Venice."

_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Fine Arts,
chapter 7._

{3613}

VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.
The Republic under the guidance of Fra Paolo Sarpi.
Conflict with the Pope.
The Interdict which had no terrors.

"In the Constitution of the Republic at this time [1606] there
were three permanent officials called Counsellors of Law, or
State Counsellors, whose duties were to instruct the Doge and
Senate on the legal bearings of any question in dispute in
which the Republic was involved. But at the beginning of this
year, because of the ecclesiastical element that frequently
appeared in these quarrels (for they were mostly between the
State and the Pope), the Senate resolved to create a new
office, namely, that of 'Teologo-Consultore,' or Theological
Counsellor. In looking about for one to fill this office the
choice of Doge and Senate unanimously fell upon Fra Paolo
Sarpi. … I have called Fra Paolo Sarpi the greatest of the
Venetians. … Venice has produced many great men—Doges,
soldiers, sailors, statesmen, writers, poets, painters,
travellers—but I agree with Mrs. Oliphant that Fra Paolo is 'a
personage more grave and great, a figure unique in the midst
of this ever animated, strong, stormy, and restless race'; and
with Lord Macaulay, who has said of him that 'what he did, he
did better than anybody.' … He was supreme as a thinker, as a
man of action, and as a transcript and pattern of every
Christian principle. … Foreigners who came to Venice sought
above all things to see him as 'the greatest genius of his
age.' … On the 28th of January, 1606, he entered upon his
public duties." From that time until his death, seventeen
years later, he not only held the office of Theological
Counsellor, but the duties of the three Counsellors of Law
were gradually transferred to him, as those offices were
vacated, in succession, by death. "During this time question
after question arose for settlement, many of which were of
momentous import, the resolution of which bore, not upon the
interests of Venice merely, but of Europe; and affected, not
the then living generation only, but a remote posterity. In
every case Fra Paolo's advice was sought, in every case it was
followed, and in every case it was right. The consequence was
that the history of the Republic during these seventeen years
was one unbroken record of great intellectual and moral
victories. … Never was there in any land, by any Government, a
servant more honoured and more beloved. The solicitude of the
Doge, of the dreaded Council of Ten, of the Senate, of the
whole people, for the safety and well-being of their
Consultore, was like that of a mother for her only child.
'Fate largo a Fra Paolo'—'Make room for Fra Paolo,' was often
heard as he passed along the crowded Merceria. Fra Paolo loved
Venice with an undying devotion, and Venice loved him with a
romantic and tender affection. The Pope, whose quarrels with
the Republic were the chief cause of the creation of the
office of Theological Counsellor, and of Fra Paolo's election
to it, was Paul V. … Strained relations … [had] existed
between Venice and the Vatican during the last years of
Clement VIII.'s Pontificate. His seizure of the Duchy of
Ferrara, his conduct in the matter of the Patriarch Zane's
appointment, his attempt to cripple the book-trade of Venice
by means of the Index Expurgatorius, all led to serious
disputes, in everyone of which he got the worst of it. Pope
Paul V., who was then Cardinal Borghese, chafed at what he
considered Clement's pusillanimity. Talking of these matters
to the Venetian ambassador at Rome, Leonardo Donato, he once
said, 'If I were Pope, I would place Venice under an interdict
and excommunication;' 'And if I were Doge,' was the reply, 'I
would trample your interdict and excommunication under foot.'
Curiously enough, both were called upon to fill these offices,
and both proved as good as their words. … Paul V. … found
several excuses for quarrel. The Patriarch, Matteo Zane—he
whose appointment had been a matter of dispute with Clement
VIII.—died, and the Senate appointed Francesco Vendramin as
his successor. Pope Paul claimed the right of presentation,
and demanded that he should be sent to Rome for examination
and approval. The Senate replied by ordering his investiture,
and forbidding him to leave Venice. Again, money had to be
raised in Brescia for the restoration of the ramparts, and the
Senate imposed a tax on all the citizens—laymen and
ecclesiastics alike. Pope Paul V. claimed exemption for the
latter, as being his subjects. The Senate refused to listen to
him. … These differences were causing both the Pope and the
Republic to look to their armoury and to try the temper of
their weapons, when two more serious matters occurred which
brought them into open warfare. The prologue was passed, the
drama was about to open. First, two priests in high position
were leading flagrantly wicked and criminal lives. … The
Senate sent its officers, and had the offenders seized and
brought to Venice, and locked up from further mischief in the
dungeons of the Ducal Palace. Pope Paul V. angrily
remonstrated, and peremptorily demanded their instant
liberation, on the ground that being priests they were not
amenable to the secular arm. … Secondly, two ecclesiastical
property laws were in force throughout the Republic; by one
the Church was prohibited from building any new monasteries,
convents, or churches without the consent of the Government
under penalty of forfeiture; and by the other it was
disqualified from retaining property which it might become
possessed of by donation or by inheritance, but was bound to
turn it into money. … Pope Paul V. … demanded the repeal of
these property laws. These two demands, regarding the
imprisoned ecclesiastics and the property laws, were first put
forward in October, 1605. … Early in December, the Pope,
impatient to bring the quarrel to a head, threatened to place
Venice under interdict and excommunication if it did not yield
to his demands. … It was at this acute stage of the quarrel
that the Republic laid hold of Fra Paolo Sarpi, and, as we
have already noted, made him its Theological Counsellor, and
the struggle henceforth became, to a large extent, a duel
between 'Paul the Pope, and Paul the Friar.' On the very day
that Fra Paolo accepted this office he informed the Senate
that two courses of action were open to them. They could argue
the case either de jure or de facto. First, de jure, that is,
they could appeal against the judgment of the Pope to a Church
Council. … Secondly, the Republic could adopt the de facto
course; that is, it could rely on its own authority and
strength. It could set these over against the Pope's, and
whilst willing to argue out the matter in a spirit of reason
with him, yet meet his force with opposing force. If he turned
a deaf ear to right, there was no help for it but to make it a
question of might. The de facto course was therefore the one
Fra Paolo recommended; adding very significantly, 'He who
appeals to a Council admits that the righteousness of his
cause may be questioned, whereas that of Venice is
indisputable.'
{3614}
The Senate hailed the advice thus given, and instructed him to
draw out a reply to the Pope's brief in accordance with it. …
From the moment this reply was received a bitter controversy
was set on foot. Renewed demands came from Rome, and renewed
refusals were sent from Venice. … Meanwhile the eyes of all
the Courts of Europe were directed to the great struggle, and
Venice made them more than spectators by laying its case as
prepared by their Consultore fairly and fully before them. The
time had not arrived for any nation to enter as a party into
the contest, but all frankly expressed their opinions, which
were, with the exception of that of Spain, unequivocally on
the side of Venice. … At last the Pope determined to put into
execution the threats contained in the briefs, and to place
the Republic under interdict and excommunication. On the 17th
of April, 1606, the bull of interdict and excommunication was
launched; twenty-four days being allowed Venice for
repentance, with three more added of the Pope's gracious
clemency. The die was thus cast by Pope Paul V., by which he
was either to humble the Republic, or discredit himself and
his 'spiritual arms' in the sight of Europe. The bull was a
sweeping one. … No more masses were to be said. Baptism,
marriage, and burial services were to cease. The churches were
to be locked up, and the priests could withdraw from the
devoted land. All social relationships were dissolved.
Marriages were declared invalid, and all children born were
illegitimate. Husbands could desert their wives, and children
disobey their parents. Contracts of all kinds were declared
null and void. Allegiance to the Government was at an end."

_A. Robertson,
Fra Paolo Sarpi,
chapter 5, and preface._

"It was proposed in the college of Venice to enter a solemn
protest, as had been done in earlier times; but this proposal
was rejected, on the ground that the sentence of the pope was
in itself null and void, and had not even a show of justice.
In a short proclamation, occupying only a quarto page,
Leonardo Donato made known to the clergy the resolution of the
republic to maintain the sovereign authority, 'which
acknowledges no other superior in worldly things save God
alone.' Her faithful clergy would of themselves perceive the
nullity of the 'censures' issued against them, and would
continue the discharge of their functions, the cure of souls
and the worship of God, without interruption. No alarm was
expressed, no menaces were uttered, the proclamation was a
mere expression of confidence and security. It is, however,
probable that something more may have been done by verbal
communication. By these proceedings, the question of claim and
right became at once a question of strength and of possession.
Commanded by their two superiors—the pope and the republic—to
give contradictory proofs of obedience, the Venetian clergy
were now called on to decide to which of the two they would
render that obedience. They did not hesitate; they obeyed the
republic: not a copy of the brief was fixed up. The delay
appointed by the pope expired; public worship was everywhere
conducted as usual. As the secular clergy had decided, so did
also the monastic orders. The only exception to this was
presented by the orders newly instituted, and in which the
principle of ecclesiastical restoration was more particularly
represented; these were the Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins.
The Jesuits, in so far as they were themselves concerned, were
not altogether decided; they first took counsel of their
Provincial at Ferrara, and afterwards of their General in
Rome, who referred the question to the pope himself. Paul V.
replied that they must either observe the interdict, or shake
the dust from their feet and leave Venice. A hard decision
assuredly, since they were distinctly informed that they would
never be permitted to return; but the principle of their
institution allowed them no choice. Embarking in their boats,
they departed from the city, and took shelter in the papal
dominions. Their example influenced the other two orders. A
middle course was proposed by the Theatines, but the Venetians
did not think it advisable; they would suffer no division in
their land, and demanded either obedience or departure. The
deserted churches were easily provided with other priests, and
care was taken that none should perceive a deficiency. … It is
manifest that the result was a complete schism. The pope was
amazed; his exaggerated pretensions were confronted by the
realities of things with the most unshrinking boldness. Did
any means exist by which these might be overcome? Paul V.
thought at times of having recourse to arms. … Legates were
despatched, and troops fitted out; but in effect they dared
not venture to attempt force. There would have been cause to
apprehend that Venice would call the Protestants to her aid,
and thus throw all Italy, nay the Catholic world at large,
into the most perilous commotions. They must again betake
themselves, as on former occasions, to political measures, for
the adjustment of these questions touching the rights of the
Church. … I have neither inclination nor means for a detailed
account of these negotiations through the whole course of the
proceedings. … The first difficulty was presented by the pope,
who insisted, before all things, that the Venetian laws, which
had given him so much offence, should be repealed; and he made
the suspension of his ecclesiastical censures to depend on
their repeal. But the Venetians, also, on their part, with a
certain republican self-complacency, were accustomed to
declare their laws sacred and inviolable. When the papal
demand was brought under discussion in January, 1607, although
the college wavered, yet at last it was decidedly rejected in
the senate. The French, who had given their word to the pope,
succeeded in bringing the question forward once more in March,
when of the four opponents in the college, one at least
withdrew his objections. After the arguments on both sides had
again been fully stated in the senate, there was still, it is
true, no formal or express repeal of the laws, but a decision
was adopted to the effect that 'the republic would conduct
itself with its accustomed piety.' However obscure these words
appear, the ambassador and the pope thought they discovered in
them the fulfilment of their wishes. The pope then suspended
his censures."

_L. Ranke,
History of the Popes,
book 6, section 12 (volume 2)._

"The moral victory remained with Venice. She did not recall
her laws as to taxation of the clergy and the foundation of
new churches and monasteries [nor permit the Jesuits to
return, until many years later]. … The hero of the whole
episode, Fra Paolo Sarpi, continued to live quietly in his
convent of the Servites at S. Fosca.

{3615}

The Government received warning from Rome that danger was
threatening. In its turn it cautioned Fra Paolo. But he paid
little or no heed." On the 25th of October, 1607, towards five
o'clock in the evening, as he was returning to his convent, he
was attacked by three assassins, who inflicted serious wounds
upon him and left him for dead. By great care, however, Fra
Paolo's life was saved, and prolonged until 1623. The would-be
assassins escaped into the Papal States, where "they found not
only shelter but a welcome."

_H. F. Brown,
Venice,
chapter 20._

ALSO IN:
_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
chapter 10 (volume 2)._

_T. A. Trollope,
Paul the Pope and Paul the Friar._

See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

VENICE: A. D. 1620-1626.
The Valteline War.
Alliance with France and Savoy against the Austro-Spanish power.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

VENICE: A. D. 1629-1631.
League with France against Spain and the Emperor.
The Mantuan War.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

VENICE: A. D. 1645-1669.
The war of Candia with the Turks.
Loss of Crete.

See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

VENICE: A. D. 1684-1696.
War of the Holy League against the Turks.
Siege and capture of Athens.
Conquest of the Morea and parts of Dalmatia and Albania.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

VENICE: A. D. 1699.
Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.
Turkish Cession of part of the Morea and most of Dalmatia.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

VENICE: A. D. 1714-1718.
War with the Turks.
The Morea lost.
Defense of Corfu.
Peace of Passarowitz.

See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

VENICE: A. D. 1767.
Expulsion of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

VENICE: A. D. 1796.
Bonaparte's schemes for the destruction of the Republic.
The picking of the quarrel.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

VENICE: A. D. 1797.
The ignominious overthrow of the Republic by Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
and 1797 (APRIL-MAY).

VENICE: A. D. 1797 (October).
City and territories given over to Austria
by the Treaty of Campo-Formio.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

VENICE: A. D. 1805.
Territories ceded by Austria to the kingdom of Italy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

VENICE: A. D. 1814.
Transfer of Venetian states to Austria.
Formation of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF; AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846;
and ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.

VENICE: A. D. 1815.
Restoration of the Bronze Horses taken away by Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

VENICE: A. D. 1848-1849.
Insurrection.
Expulsion of the Austrians.
Provisional government under Daniel Manin.
Renewed subjugation.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

VENICE: A. D. 1859.
Grievous disappointment in the Austro-Italian war.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

VENICE: A. D. 1866.
Relinquishment by Austria.
Annexation to the kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

----------VENICE: End--------

VENICONII, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VENLOO, Surrender of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

VENNER'S INSURRECTION.

See FIFTH MONARCHY MEN.

VENNONES, The.

See RHÆTIA.

VENTA.

Three important cities in Roman Britain bore the name of
Venta; one occupying the site of modern Winchester, a second
standing near Norwich, the third at Caerwent in Wales. They
were distinguished, respectively, as Venta Belgarum, Venta
Icenorum and Venta Silurum.

_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon._

VENTÔSE, The month.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER) NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

VERA CRUZ, Mexico: A. D. 1519.
Founded by Cortes.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

VERA CRUZ, Mexico: A. D. 1839.
Attacked by the French.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.

VERA CRUZ, Mexico: A. D. 1847.
Bombardment and capture by the Americans.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

VERAGUA: A. D. 1502.
Attempted settlement by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A D. 1498-1505.

VERAGUA: A. D. 1509.
Attempted settlement by Nicuesa.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1511.

VERCELLI: A. D. 1638-1659.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
Restoration to Savoy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

VERDUN: A. D. 1552-1559.
Possession taken by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

VERDUN: A. D. 1648.
Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

VERDUN, The Treaty of: A. D. 843.

The contest and civil war which arose between the three
grandsons of Charlemagne resulted in a treaty of partition,
brought about in 843, which forever dissolved the great Frank
Empire of Clovis, and of the Pippins and Karls who finished
what he began. "A commission of 300 members was appointed to
distribute itself over the surface of the empire, and by an
exact examination of the wealth of each region, and the wishes
of its people, acquire a knowledge of the best means of making
an equitable division. The next year the commissioners
reported the result of their researches to the three kings,
assembled at Verdun, and a treaty of separation was drawn up
and executed, which gave Gaul, from the Meuse and Saone as far
as the Pyrenees, to Karl; which gave Germany, beyond the
Rhine, to Ludwig the Germanic; and which secured to Lother
Italy, with a broad strip on the Rhine, between the dominions
of Karl and Ludwig, under the names of Lotheringia or
Lorraine. This was the first great treaty of modern Europe; it
began a political division which lasted for many centuries;
the great empire of Karl was formally dismembered by it, and
the pieces of it scattered among his degenerate descendants."

_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 18._

{3616}

"The treaty of Verdun, in 843, abrogated the sovereignty that
had been attached to the eldest brother and to the imperial
name in former partitions; each held his respective kingdom as
an independent right. This is the epoch of a final separation
between the French and German members of the empire. Its
millenary was celebrated by some of the latter nation in
1843."

_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 1 (volume l)._

See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 814-962.

VERGARA, Treaty of (1839).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

VERGENNES, Count de,
and the French alliance with the revolted American Colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AM.: A. D. 1776-1778;
1778 (FEBRUARY): 1778-1779,
and 1782 (SEPTEMBER) and (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

VERGNIAUD AND THE GIRONDISTS.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

VERGOBRET, The.

The chief magistrate of the tribe of Gauls known as the Ædui
was called the vergobret. "Cæsar terms this magistrate
vergobretus, which Celtic scholars derive from the words
'ver-go-breith,' ('homme de jugement,' O'Brien, Thierry). He
was elected by a council of priests and nobles, and had the
power of life and death. But his office was only annual."
Divitiacus, the Æduian friend of Cæsar and the Romans, had
been the vergobret of his tribe.

_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 6, foot-note._

VERMANDOIS, House of.

The noble House of Vermandois which played an important part
in French history during the Middle Ages, boasted a descent
from Charlemagne, through his best loved son, Pippin, king of
Italy. "Peronne and the Abbey of Saint-Quintin composed the
nucleus of their Principality; but, quietly and without
contradiction, they had extended their sway over the heart of
the kingdom of Soissons; and that antient Soissons, and the
rock of Lâon, and Rheims, the prerogative city of the Gauls,
were all within the geographical ambit of their territory. In
such enclavures as we have named, Vermandois did not possess
direct authority. Lâon, for example, had a Count and a bishop,
and was a royal domain."

_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 5, section 6 (volume 1)._

----------VERMONT: Start--------

VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.
Beginning of settlement.
The New Hampshire Grants and the conflict with New York.
Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys.

"Among the causes of the controversies which existed between
the colonies in early times, and continued down to the
revolution, was the uncertainty of boundary lines as described
in the old charters. … A difficulty of this kind arose between
the colony of New York and those of Connecticut,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. By the grant of King Charles
II. to his brother, the Duke of York, the tract of country
called New York was bounded on the east by Connecticut River,
thus conflicting with the express letter of the Massachusetts
and Connecticut charters, which extended those colonies
westward to the South Sea, or Pacific Ocean. After a long
controversy, kept up at times with a good deal of heat on both
sides, the line of division between these colonies was fixed
by mutual agreement at 20 miles east of Hudson's River,
running nearly in a north and south direction. … The
Massachusetts boundary was decided much later to be a
continuation of the Connecticut line to the north, making the
western limit of Massachusetts also 20 miles from the same
river. … Meantime New Hampshire had never been brought into
the controversy, because the lands to the westward of that
province beyond Connecticut River had been neither settled nor
surveyed. There was indeed a small settlement at Fort Dummer
on the western margin of the River, which was under the
protection of Massachusetts. … Such was the state of things
when Benning Wentworth became governor of New Hampshire, with
authority from the King to issue patents for unimproved lands
within the limits of his province. Application was made for
grants to the west of Connecticut River, and even beyond the
Green Mountains, and in 1749 he gave a patent for a township 6
miles square, near the north west angle of Massachusetts, to
be so laid out, that its western limit should be 20 miles from
the Hudson, and coincide with the boundary line of Connecticut
and Massachusetts continued northward. This township was
called Bennington. Although the governor and council of New
York remonstrated against this grant, and claimed for that
colony the whole territory north of Massachusetts as far
eastward as Connecticut River, yet Governor Wentworth was not
deterred by this remonstrance from issuing other patents,
urging in his justification, that New Hampshire had a right to
the same extension westward as Massachusetts and Connecticut."
After the British conquest of Canada, 1760, "applications for
new patents thronged daily upon Governor Wentworth, and within
four years' time the whole number of townships granted by him,
to the westward of Connecticut River, was 138. The territory
including these townships was known by the name of the New
Hampshire Grants, which it retained till the opening of the
revolution, when its present name of Vermont began to be
adopted."

_J. Sparks,
Life of Ethan Allen
(Library of American Biographies, volume 1)._

"Lieutenant Governor Colden, acting chief magistrate of New
York in the absence of General Monckton, perceiving the
necessity of asserting the claims of that province to the
country westward of the Connecticut river, wrote an energetic
letter to Governor Wentworth, protesting against his grants.
He also sent a proclamation among the people, declaring the
Connecticut river to be the boundary between New York and New
Hampshire. But protests and proclamations were alike unheeded
by the governor and the people until the year 1764, when the
matter was laid before the King and council for adjudication.
The decision was in favor of New York. Wentworth immediately
bowed to supreme authority, and ceased issuing patents for
lands westward of the Connecticut. The settlers, considering
all questions in dispute to be thus finally disposed of, were
contented, and went on hopefully in the improvement of their
lands. Among these settlers in the Bennington township were
members of the Allen family, in Connecticut, two of whom,
Ethan and Ira, were conspicuous in public affairs for many
years, as we shall hereafter have occasion to observe. The
authorities of New York, not content with the award of
territorial jurisdiction over the domain, proceeded, on the
decision of able legal authority, to assert the right of
property in the soil of that territory, and declared
Wentworth's patents all void.
{3617}
They went further. Orders were issued for the survey and sale
of farms in the possession of actual settlers, who had bought
and paid for them, and, in many instances, had made great
progress in improvements. In this, New York acted not only
unjustly, but very unwisely. This oppression, for oppression
it was, was a fatal mistake. It was like sowing dragons' teeth
to see them produce a crop of full-armed men. The settlers
were disposed to be quiet, loyal subjects of New York. They
cared not who was their political master, so long as their
private rights were respected. But this act of injustice
converted them into rebellious foes, determined and defiant. …
Meanwhile speculators had been purchasing from New York large
tracts of these estates in the disputed territory, and were
making preparations to take possession. The people of the
Grants sent one of their number to England, and laid their
cause before the King and council. He came back in August,
1767, armed with an order for the Governor of New York to
abstain from issuing any more patents for lands eastward of
Lake Champlain. But as the order was not 'ex post facto' in
its operations, the New York patentees proceeded to take
possession of their purchased lands. This speedily brought on
a crisis, and for seven years the New Hampshire Grants formed
a theater where all the elements of civil war, except actual
carnage, were in active exercise. … The hardy yeomanry who
first appeared in arms for the defense of their territorial
rights, and afterwards as patriots in the common cause when
the Revolution broke out, were called Green Mountain Boys."

_B. J. Lossing,
Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
volume 1, chapter 12._

ALSO IN:
_S. Williams,
History of Vermont,
chapter 9._

_W. Slade, editor,
Vermont State Papers,
pages 1-49._

_Vermont Historical Society Collection,
volumes 1 and 3._

VERMONT: A. D. 1775.
Ticonderoga surprised by the Green Mountain Boys.

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

VERMONT: A. D. 1777.
Stark's victory at Bennington.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

VERMONT: A. D. 1777-1778.
State independence declared and constitution framed.
Admission to the Union denied.

"The settlers in the land which this year [1777] took the name
of Vermont refused by a great majority to come under the
jurisdiction of New York; on the 15th of January 1777, their
convention declared the independence of their state. At
Windsor, on the 2d of June, they appointed a committee to
prepare a constitution; and they hoped to be received into the
American union. But, as New York opposed, congress, by an
uncertain majority against a determined minority, disclaimed
the intention of recognising Vermont as a separate state. … On
the 2d of July the convention of Vermont reassembled at
Windsor. The organic law which they adopted, blending the
culture of their age with the traditions of Protestantism,
assumed that all men are born free and with inalienable
rights; that they may emigrate from one state to another, or
form a new state in vacant countries; that 'every sect should
observe the Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious
worship'; that every man may choose that form of religious
worship 'which shall seem to him most agreeable to the
revealed will of God. 'They provided for a school in each
town, a grammar-school in each county, and a university in the
state. All officers, alike executive and legislative, were to
be chosen annually and by ballot; the freemen of every town
and all one year's residents were electors. Every member of
the house of representatives must declare his 'belief in one
God …; in the divine inspiration of the scriptures; and in the
Protestant religion.' The legislative power was vested in one
general assembly, subject to no veto. … Slavery was forbidden
and forever; and there could be no imprisonment for debt. …
After the loss of Ticonderoga, the introduction of the
constitution was postponed [until March, 1778], lest the
process of change should interfere with the public defence."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States (Author's last revision),
volume 5, pages 157, and 161-162._

ALSO IN;
_Ira Allen,
History of Vermont
(Vermont Historical Society Collection,
volume 1, pages 375-393)._

_Vermont Historical Society Collection,
volume 3._

_R. E. Robinson,
Vermont: a Study of Independence,
chapters 10-14._

VERMONT: A. D. 1781.
Negotiations with the British authorities
as an independent State.

Vermont had repeatedly applied for admission into the Union;
but the opposition of her neighbors, who claimed her
territory, and the jealousy of the southern states, who
objected to the admission of another northern state, prevented
favorable action in Congress. In 1780 a fresh appeal was made
with a declaration that if it failed the people of the Green
Mountains would propose to the other New England states and to
New York, "an alliance and confederation for mutual defense,
independent of Congress and of the other states." If neither
Congress nor the northern states would listen to them, then,
said the memorial, "they are, if necessitated to it, at
liberty to offer or accept terms of cessation of hostilities
with Great Britain without the approbation of any other man or
body of men." "The British generals in America had for some
time entertained hopes of turning the disputes in relation to
Vermont to their own account, by detaching that district from
the American cause and making it a British province. But the
first intimation of their views and wishes was communicated in
a letter from Colonel Beverly Robinson to Ethan Allen; dated
New York, March 30th, 1780. In July, this letter was delivered
to Allen in the street in Arlington, by a British soldier in
the habit of an American farmer. Allen perused the letter, and
then told the bearer that he should consider it, and that he
might return. … Allen immediately communicated the contents of
this letter to Governor Chittenden and some other confidential
friends, who agreed in opinion, that no answer should be
returned. Robinson, not receiving a reply to his letter and
supposing it to have been miscarried, wrote again to Allen on
the 2d of February, 1781, enclosing his former letter. In his
second letter, after saying he had received new assurances of
the inclination of Vermont to join the king's cause, he said
that he could then write with more authority; and assured
Allen that he and the people of Vermont could obtain the most
favorable terms, provided they would take a decisive and
active part in favor of Great Britain. He requested an answer;
and that the way might be pointed out for continuing the
correspondence; and desired to be informed in what manner the
people of Vermont could be most serviceable to the British
cause.
{3618}
Allen returned no answer to either of these letters; but, on
the 9th of March, 1781, inclosed them in a letter to Congress,
informing them of all the circumstances which had thus far
attended the business. He then proceeded to justify the
conduct of Vermont in asserting her right to independence, and
expressed his determinate resolution to do every thing in his
power to establish it. … 'I am confident,' said he, 'that
Congress will not dispute my sincere attachment to the cause
of my country, though I do not hesitate to say, I am fully
grounded in opinion, that Vermont has an indubitable right to
agree on terms of a cessation of hostilities with Great
Britain, provided the United States persist in rejecting her
application for an union with them.' … During the spring of
1780, some of the scouting parties belonging to Vermont had
been taken by the British and carried prisoners to Canada. On
the application of their friends to Governor Chittenden, he,
in the month of July, sent a flag with a letter to the
commanding officer in Canada, requesting their release or
exchange. In the fall, the British came up lake Champlain in
great force, and a very favorable answer was returned by
General Haldimand to Governor Chittenden's letter. A flag was
at the same time sent to Ethan Allen, then a brigadier general
and commanding officer in Vermont, proposing a cessation of
hostilities with Vermont, during negotiations for the exchange
of prisoners."

_Z. Thompson,
History of the State of Vermont,
chapter 4, section 6._

"The immediate results were a truce, which covered not only
Vermont but the frontiers of New York to Hudson river; the
disbanding of the militia of Vermont; and the retiring of the
British troops to winter quarters in Canada. Until the truce
became generally known, the results of it occasioned much
surprise in New York. It was further agreed, that the
commissioners of both parties should meet on the subject of
the cartel, and go together to Canada. This was attempted, but
failed on account of the difficulty of getting through the ice
on Lake Champlain. After contending several days with the
elements, the commissioners separated; but 'while their men
[wrote Ira Allen] were breaking through the ice, much
political conversation and exhibits of papers took place.'
Williams ['History of Vermont'] is more definite: 'the British
agents availed themselves of this opportunity to explain their
views, to make their proposals, and offer as complete an
establishment for Vermont, from the royal authority, as should
be desired. The commissioners from Vermont treated the
proposals with affability and good humor, and though they
avoided bringing anything to a decision, the British concluded
they were in a fair way to effect their purposes.' The
subsequent negotiations at Isle aux Noix, between Ira Allen
and the British commissioners, as to matters beyond settling a
cartel, were secret, and even the commander of the post had no
knowledge of them, although he was associated with the British
commissioners on the question of an exchange of prisoners.
These facts show that the public had no knowledge except of a
truce for a humane and proper attempt to relieve citizens of
Vermont, and its officers and soldiers, who were then
prisoners in Canada; and the conclusion is that all the
suspicion that then existed of the patriotism and fidelity of
the great body of the people of the state, and all the obloquy
since drawn from the negotiation with Haldimand and cast upon
the state, were entirely unjust. If any body was really at
fault, the number implicated was very small. Williams asserted
that 'eight persons only in Vermont, were in the secret of
this correspondence;' and Ira Allen that, in May, 1781, 'only
eight persons were in the secret, but more were added as the
circumstances required.'"

_Vermont Historical Society Collection,
volume 2, introduction._

"By the definitive treaty between Great Britain and the United
States, September 3, 1783, Vermont was included within the
boundaries separating the independent American from British
territory, and thus the independence of Vermont was
acknowledged first by the mother country. The State had been
de facto independent from its organization; and therefore the
following record, with the other papers contained in this and
the first volume of the Historical Society Collections covers
the existence of Vermont as an independent and sovereign
state."

_Vermont Historical Society Collection,
volume 2, page 397._

ALSO IN:
_Vermont Historical Society Collection,
volume 2,
Haldimand Papers._

_D. Brymner,
Report on Canadian Archives, 1889,
pages 53-58._

_R. E. Robinson,
Vermont: a Study of Independence,
chapter 15._

VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.
Renunciation of the claims of New York
and admission of the State to the Union.

"The rapid increase of the population of Vermont having
destroyed all hope on the part of New York, of re-establishing
her jurisdiction over that rebellious district, the holders of
the New York grants, seeing no better prospect before them,
were ready to accept such an indemnity as might be obtained by
negotiation. Political considerations had also operated. The
vote of Vermont might aid to establish the seat of the federal
government at New York. At all events, that state would serve
as a counterbalance to Kentucky, the speedy admission of which
was foreseen. The Assembly of New York [July, 1789] had
appointed commissioners with full powers to acknowledge the
independence of Vermont, and to arrange a settlement of all
matters in controversy. To this appointment Vermont had
responded, and terms had been soon arranged. In consideration
of the sum of $30,000, as an indemnity to the New York
grantees, New York renounced all claim of jurisdiction
[October 7, 1790], consented to the admission of Vermont into
the Union, and agreed to the boundary heretofore claimed—the
western line of the westernmost townships granted by New
Hampshire and the middle channel of Lake Champlain. This
arrangement was immediately ratified by the Legislature of
Vermont. A Convention, which met at the beginning of the year
[1791], had voted unanimously to ratify the Federal
Constitution, and to ask admission into the Union.
Commissioners were soon after appointed by the Assembly to
wait upon Congress and to negotiate the admission. No
opposition was made to it, and [February 18, 1791] within
fourteen days after the passage of the bill for the
prospective admission of Kentucky, Vermont was received into
the Union, from and after the termination of the present
session of Congress. The Constitution under which Vermont came
into the Union, originally adopted in 1777, had been slightly
altered in 1785. Most of its provisions seem to have been
copied from the first Constitution of Pennsylvania. … The
revision of 1785 struck out the requirement of Protestantism;
another revision in 1793, still following the example of
Pennsylvania, released the members of Assembly from the
necessity of any religious subscription."

_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
volume 4, chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_H. Beckley,
History of Vermont,
chapters 5-6._

_J. L. Heaton,
Story of Vermont,
chapter 4._

{3619}

VERMONT: A. D. 1812.
Vigorous support of the war with England.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

VERMONT: A. D. 1814.
The Hartford Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

VERMONT: A. D. 1864.
The St. Albans Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER)
THE ST. ALBANS RAID.

----------VERMONT: End--------

VERMONT UNIVERSITY.

"At the time of the organization of the State government, in
1798, the University of Vermont was endowed with lands which
proved subsequently to amount to 29,000 acres. In 1791 the
university was organized. … The early years of the university,
planted as it was in the wilderness, were full of struggles
and misfortunes. The State was generous in the extreme at the
beginning, but failed to support the university it had
created. The land was poor and brought little income, the
whole tract bringing but 2,500 dollars at that time. In 1813
the buildings of the university were seized by the Government
and used for the storage of United States arms, by which much
damage was suffered, and the houseless students all left, most
of them to shoulder muskets against the British invaders. The
buildings were rented in 1814 for the United States Army.
Worse misfortunes occurred in 1824, the buildings being
consumed by fire, but were restored by the citizens of
Burlington in the following year. For the first ninety-five
years of the corporate existence of the university the State
never gave anything toward the support of it more than has
been set forth in the above statements."

_F. W. Blackmar,
History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
in the United States
(Bureau of Education, Circ. of Information, 1890, number 1),
pages 125-126._

VERNEUIL, Battle of (1424).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

VERNICOMES.

A tribe in ancient Caledonia, whose territory was the eastern
half of Fife.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

VEROMANDUI, The.

See BELGÆ.

----------VERONA: Start--------

VERONA: A. D. 312.
Siege, battle, and victory of Constantine.

See ROME: A. D. 805-323.

VERONA: A. D. 403.
Defeat of Alaric by Stilicho.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403.

VERONA: A. D. 489.
Defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric.

See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

VERONA: A. D. 493-525.
Residence of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

"Pavia and Verona [as well as his ordinary capital city,
Ravenna] were also places honoured with the occasional
residence of Theodoric. At both he built a palace and public
baths. … At Verona, the palace, of which there were still some
noble remains incorporated into the castle of the Viscontis,
was blown up by the French in 1801, and an absolutely modern
building stands upon its site. … It seems probable that
Theodoric's residence at both these places depended on the
state of Transalpine politics. When the tribes of the middle
Danube were moving suspiciously to and fro, and the vulnerable
point by the Brenner Pass needed to be especially guarded, he
fixed his quarters at Verona. When Gaul menaced greater
danger, then he removed to Ticinum [Pavia]. It was apparently
the fact that Verona was his coign of vantage, from whence be
watched the German barbarians, which obtained for him from
their minstrels the title of Dietrich of Bern. Thus strangely
travestied, he was swept within the wide current of the
legends relating to Attila, and hence it is that the really
grandest figure in the history of the migration of the peoples
appears in the Nibelungen Lied, not as a great king and
conqueror on his own account, but only as a faithful squire of
the terrible Hunnish king whose empire had in fact crumbled
into dust before the birth of Theodoric."

_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3)._

VERONA: 11-12th Centuries.
Acquisition of Republican Independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.
The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano and the crusade against him.

"In the north-eastern corner of Italy the influence of the old
Lombard lords, which had been extinguished there as in most
other parts of the peninsula, was succeeded by that of a
family that had accompanied one of the emperors from Germany.
… The eye of a traveller passing from Verona to Padua may
still be struck by one or two isolated hills, which seem as it
were designed by nature to be meet residences for the tyrants
of the surrounding plains. One of these gave birth to a person
destined to become the scourge of the neighbouring country. …
Eccelino di Romano … was descended from a German noble brought
into Italy by Otho III. The office of Podesta of Verona had
become hereditary in his family. In the wars of the second
Frederic [1236-1250], he put himself at the head of the
Ghibellines in the surrounding principalities, and became a
strenuous supporter of the emperor. Under the protection of so
powerful an ally, be soon made himself master of Padua, where
he established his headquarters, and built the dungeons, where
the most revolting cruelties were inflicted on his victims."

_W. P. Urquhart,
Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

In 1237, the emperor, Frederick II., "obliged to return to
Germany, left under the command of Eccelino a body of German
soldiers, and another of Saracens, with which this able
captain made himself, the same year, master of Vicenza, which
he barbarously pillaged, and the following year of Padua. …
Eccelino judged it necessary to secure obedience, by taking
hostages from the richest and most powerful families; he
employed his spies to discover the malcontents, whom he
punished with torture, and redoubled his cruelty in proportion
to the hatred which he excited." Subsequently, the emperor
confided "the exclusive government of the Veronese marches
[also called the Trevisan marches] to Eccelino. The hatred
which this ferocious man excited by his crimes fell on the
emperor. Eccelino imprisoned in the most loathsome dungeons
those whom he considered his enemies, and frequently put them
to death by torture, or suffered them to perish by hunger. …
{3620}
In the single town of Padua there were eight prisons always
full, notwithstanding the incessant toil of the executioner to
empty them; two of these contained each 300 prisoners. A
brother of Eccelino, named Alberic, governed Treviso with less
ferocity, but with a power not less absolute." Eccelino
maintained the power which he had gathered into his hands for
several years after Frederick's death. At length, the pope,
"Alexander IV., to destroy the monster that held in terror the
Trevisan march, caused a crusade to be preached in that
country. He promised those who combated the ferocious Eccelino
all the indulgences usually reserved for the deliverers of the
Holy Land. The marquis d'Este, the count di San Bonifazio,
with the cities of Ferrara, Mantua, and Bologna, assembled
their troops under the standard of the church; they were
joined by a horde of ignorant fanatics from the lowest class."
Headed by the legate Philip, archbishop of Ravenna, the
crusaders took Padua, June 18, 1256, and "for seven days the
city was inhumanly pillaged by those whom it had received as
deliverers. As soon as Eccelino was informed of the loss he
had sustained, he hastened to separate and disarm the 11,000
Paduans belonging to his army; he confined them in prisons,
where all, with the exception of 200, met a violent or
lingering death. During the two following years, the Guelphs
experienced nothing but disasters: the legate, whom the pope
had placed at their head, proved incompetent to command them;
and the crowd of crusaders whom he called to his ranks served
only to compromise them, by want of courage and discipline. …
The following year, this tyrant, unequalled in Ita]y for
bravery and military talent, always an enemy to luxury, and
proof against the seductions of women, making the boldest
tremble with a look, and preserving in his diminutive person,
at the age of 65, all the vigor of a soldier, advanced into
the centre of Lombardy, in the hope that the nobles of Milan,
with whom he had already opened a correspondence, would
surrender this great city." But, by this time, even his old
Ghibelline associates had formed alliances with the Guelphs
against him, and he was beset on all sides. "On the 16th of
September, 1259, whilst he was preparing to retire, he found
himself stopped at the bridge of Cassano. … Repulsed, pursued
as far as Vimercato, and at last wounded in the foot, he was
made prisoner and taken to Soncino: there, he refused to
speak; rejected all the aid of medicine; tore off all the
bandages from his wounds, and finally expired, on the eleventh
day of his captivity. His brother with all his family were
massacred in the following year."

_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapters 3-4._

ALSO IN:
_J. Miley,
History of the Papal States,
book 7, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.
Rise of the House of the Scaligeri.
Successes of Can' Grande della Scala.
Wars and Reverses of Mastino.