Chapter IV: , VII (129)

"It is known that a masked and unknown prisoner, the object of
extraordinary surveillance, died, in 1703, in the Bastille, to
which he had been taken from the St. Marguerite Isles in 1698;
he had remained about ten years incarcerated in these isles,
and traces of him are with certainty found in the fort of
Exilles, and at Pignerol, as far back as about 1681. This
singular fact, which began to be vaguely bruited a little
before the middle of the 18th century, excited immense
curiosity after Voltaire had availed himself of it in his
'Siècle de Louis XIV.', wherein he exhibited it in the most
touching and tragic light. A thousand conjectures circulated:
no great personage had disappeared in Europe about 1680. What
interest so powerful had the government of Louis XIV. for
concealing this mysterious visage from every human eye? Many
explanations more or less plausible, more or less chimerical,
have been attempted in regard to the 'man with the iron mask'
(an erroneous designation that has prevailed; the mask was not
of iron, but of black velvet; it was probably one of those
'loups' so long in use), when, in 1837, the bibliophile Jacob
(M. Paul Lacroix) published a very ingenious book on this
subject, in which he discussed all the hypotheses, and
skilfully commented on all the facts and dates, in order to
establish that, in 1680, Fouquet was represented as dead; that
he was masked, sequestered anew, and dragged from fortress to
fortress till his real death in 1703. It is impossible for us
to admit this solution of the problem; the authenticity of the
minister Louvois' correspondence with the governor of the
prison of Pignerol, on the subject of Fouquet's death, in
March, 1680, appears to us incontestable; and did this
material proof not exist, we still could not believe in a
return of rigor so strange, so barbarous, and so unaccountable
on the part of Louis XIV., when all the official documents
attest that his resentment had gradually been appeased, and
that an old man who asked nothing more than a little free air
before dying had ceased to be feared. There are many more
presumptions in favor of Baron Heiss' opinion, reproduced by
several writers, and, in the last instance, by M. Delort
('Histoire de l'homme au masque de fer'; 1825),—the opinion
that the 'man with a mask' was a secretary of the Duke of
Mantua, named Mattioli, carried off by order of Louis XIV. in
1679, for having deceived the French government, and having
sought to form a coalition of the Italian princes against it.
But however striking, in certain respects, may be the
resemblances between Mattioli and the 'iron mask,' equally
guarded by the governor St. Mars at Pignerol and at Exilles,
however grave may be the testimony according to which Mattioli
was transferred to the St. Marguerite Isles, the subaltern
position of Mattioli, whom Catinat and Louvois, in their
letters, characterize as a 'knave' and St. Mars threatens with
a cudgel, ill accords, we do not say with the traditions
relating to the profound respect shown the prisoner by the
keepers, the governor, and even the minister,—these
traditions may be contested,—but with the authentic details
and documents given by the learned and judicious Father
Griffet in regard to the extreme mystery in which the prisoner
at the Bastille was enveloped, more than twenty years after
the abduction of the obscure Mattioli, in regard to the mask
that he never put off, in regard to the precautions taken
after his death to annihilate the traces of his sojourn at the
Bastille, which explains why nothing was found concerning him
after the taking of that fortress. Many minds will always
persist in seeking, under this impenetrable mask, a more
dangerous secret, a mysterious accusing resemblance; and the
most popular opinion, although the most void of an proof, will
always doubtless be that suffered to transpire by Voltaire,
under cover of his publisher, in the eighth edition of his
'Dictionnaire philosophique' (1771). According to this
opinion, the honor of the royal household was involved in the
secret, and the unknown victim was an illegitimate son of Anne
of Austria. The only private crime of which Louis XIV. was
perhaps capable, was a crime inspired by fanaticism for
monarchical honor. However this may be, history has no right
to pronounce upon what will never emerge from the domain of
conjecture."

_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, page 40, foot-note._

"The Paris correspondent of the 'Daily Telegraph' records a
fact which, if it is correctly reported, goes a long way
towards clearing up one of the problems of modern history. A
letter to Louvois by Louis XIV., written in cipher, has been
long in the archives of the Ministry of War, and has at length
been deciphered. In it the King orders Louvois to arrest
General de Burlonde for having raised the siege of Conti
without permission, to send him to Pignerol, and to conceal
his features under a 'loup' or black-velvet mask. The order
was executed, and the presumption is therefore violent that
the 'Man in the Iron Mask'—it was a black-velvet one with
iron springs—was General de Burlonde. The story tallies with
the known fact that the prisoner made repeated attempts to
communicate his name to soldiers, that he was treated with
respect by his military jailors, and that Louis XV., who knew
the truth of the whole affair, declared it to be a matter of
no importance. The difficulty is to discover the King's motive
for such a precaution; but he may have feared discontent among
his great officers, or the soldiery."

_The Spectator,
October 14, 1893._

The cipher despatch above referred to, and the whole subject
of the imprisonment of General de Burlonde, are discussed at
length, in the light of official records and correspondence,
by M. Émile Burgaud and Commandant Bazeries (the latter of
whom discovered the key to the cipher), in a book entitled "Le
Masque de Fer: Révélation de la correspondance chiffrée de
Louis XIV.," published at Paris in 1893. It seems to leave
small doubt that the mysteriously masked prisoner was no other
than General de Burlonde.

ALSO IN:
_G. A. Ellis,
True History of the State Prisoner commonly called
the Iron Mask._

_E. Lawrence,
The Man in the Iron Mask
(Harper's Magazine, volume 43, page 98)._

_M. Topin,
The Man in the Iron Mask
(Cornhill Magazine, volume 21, page 333)._

_Quarterly Review,
volume 34, page 19._

{1802}

IRONCLAD OATH.

An oath popularly styled the "Ironclad oath" was prescribed by
the Congress of the United States, during the War of the
Rebellion, in July, 1862, to be taken by every person elected
or appointed to any office under the Government of the United
States, the President only excepted. He was required to swear
that he had "never voluntarily borne arms against the United
States"; that he had "voluntarily given no aid, countenance,
counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed
hostility to the National Government"; that he had "neither
sought nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions
of any office whatever under authority or pretended authority
in hostility to the United States"; that he had "never yielded
a voluntary support to any pretended Government within the
United States, hostile or inimical thereto."

_J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 2, page 88._

IRONSIDES, Cromwell's.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (MAY).

"IRONSIDES, Old."

A name popularly given to the American frigate "Constitution."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.

IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, The.

According to their traditions, the founder of the League or
confederacy which united the five nations of the Iroquois—the
Mohawks, the Onondagas, the Oneidas, the Cayugas, and the
Senecas, was Hiawatha, the hero of Iroquois legend.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

He was an Onondaga chief, and is supposed to have lived about
the middle of the 15th century. "Hiawatha had long beheld with
grief the evils which afflicted not only his own nation, but
all the other tribes about them, through the continual wars in
which they were engaged, and the misgovernment and miseries at
home which these wars produced. With much meditation he had
elaborated in his mind the scheme of a vast confederation
which would ensure universal peace. In the mere plan of a
confederation there was nothing new. There are probably few,
if any, Indian tribes which have not, at one time or another,
been members of a league or confederacy. It may almost be said
to be their normal condition. But the plan which Hiawatha had
evolved differed from all others in two particulars. The
system which he devised was to be not a loose and transitory
league, but a permanent government. While each nation was to
retain its own council and its management of local affairs,
the general control was to be lodged in a federal senate,
composed of representatives elected by each nation, holding
office during good behavior, and acknowledged as ruling chiefs
throughout the whole confederacy. Still further, and more
remarkably, the confederation was not to be a limited one. It
was to be indefinitely expansible. The avowed design of its
proposer was to abolish war altogether. He wished the
federation to extend until all the tribes of men should be
included in it, and peace should everywhere reign. Such is the
positive testimony of the Iroquois themselves: and their
statement, as will be seen, is supported by historical
evidence. … His conceptions were beyond his time, and beyond
ours; but their effect, within a limited sphere, was very
great. For more than three centuries the bond which he devised
held together the Iroquois nations in perfect amity. It
proved, moreover, as he intended, elastic. The territory of
the Iroquois, constantly extending as their united strength
made itself felt, became the 'Great Asylum' of the Indian
tribes. … Among the interminable stories with which the
common people [of the Five Nations] beguile their winter
nights, the traditions of Atotarho and Hiawatha became
intermingled with the legends of their mythology. An
accidental similarity, in the Onondaga dialect, between the
name of Hiawatha and that of one of their ancient divinities,
led to a confusion between the two, which has misled some
investigators. This deity bears, in the sonorous Canienga
tongue, the name of Taronhiawagon, meaning 'the Holder of the
Heavens.' The Jesuit missionaries style him 'the great god of
the Iroquois.' Among the Onondagas of the present day, the
name is abridged to Taonhiawagi, or Tahiawagi. The confusion
between this name and that of Hiawatha (which, in another
form, is pronounced Tahionwatha) seems to have begun more than
a century ago. … Mr. J. V. H. Clark, in his interesting
History of Onondaga, makes the name to have been originally
Ta-own-ya-wat-ha, and describes the bearer as 'the deity who
presides over fisheries and hunting-grounds.' He came down
from heaven in a white canoe, and after sundry adventures,
which remind one of the labors of Hercules, assumed the name
of Hiawatha (signifying, we are told, 'a very wise man'), and
dwelt for a time as an ordinary mortal among men, occupied in
works of benevolence. Finally, after founding the confederacy
and bestowing many prudent counsels upon the people, he
returned to the skies by the same conveyance in which he had
descended. This legend, or, rather, congeries of intermingled
legends, was communicated by Clark to Schoolcraft, when the
latter was compiling his 'Notes on the Iroquois.' Mr.
Schoolcraft, pleased with the poetical cast of the story, and
the euphonious name, made confusion worse confounded by
transferring the hero to a distant region and identifying him
with Manabozho, a fantastic divinity of the Ojibways.
Schoolcraft's volume, which he chose to entitle 'The Hiawatha
Legends,' has not in it a single fact or fiction relating
either to Hiawatha himself or to the Iroquois deity
Taronhiawagon. Wild Ojibway stories concerning Manabozho and
his comrades form the staple of its contents. But it is to
this collection that we owe the charming poem of Longfellow;
and thus, by an extraordinary fortune, a grave Iroquois
lawgiver of the fifteenth century has become, in modern
literature, an Ojibway demigod, son of the West Wind, and
companion of the tricksy Paupukkeewis, the boastful Iagoo, and
the strong Kwasind. If a Chinese traveler, during the middle
ages, inquiring into the history and religion of the western
nations, had confounded King Alfred with King Arthur, and both
with Odin, he would not have made a more preposterous
confusion of names and characters than that which has hitherto
disguised the genuine personality of the great Onondaga
reformer."

_H. Hale, editor,
The Iroquois Book of Rites
(Brinton's Library of Aboriginal American Literature,
number 2, pages 21-36)._

{1803}

IRREDENTISTS.

"This is the name given to a political organisation formed in
1878, with the avowed object of freeing all Italians from
foreign rule, and of reuniting to the Italian kingdom all
those portions of the Italy of old which have passed under
foreign dominion. The operations of the 'Italia Irredenta'
party are chiefly carried on against Austria, in consequence
of the retention by that Empire of Trieste and the Southern
Tyrol. Until these territories have been relinquished, Italy,
or at least a certain part of it, will remain unsatisfied."

_J. S. Jeans,
Italy (National Life and Thought, chapter 8)._

ISAAC II. (Comnenus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1057-1059.

Isaac II. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), 1185-1195.

ISABELLA,
Queen of Castile
(wife of Ferdinand II., King of Aragon), A. D. 1474-1504.

Isabella I., Queen of Spain, 1833-1868.

ISABELLA.
The city founded by Columbus on the island of Hispaniola, or
Hayti.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

ISANDLANA, The English disaster at (1879).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

ISASZEG, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

ISAURIAN DYNASTY, The.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797.

ISAURIANS, The.

The Isaurians were a fierce and savage race of mountaineers,
who occupied anciently a district in Asia Minor, between
Cilicia and Pamphylia on the south and Phrygia on the north.
They were persistently a nation of robbers, living upon the
spoils taken from their neighbors, who were never able to
punish them justly in their mountain fastnesses. Even the iron
hand of the Romans failed to reduce the Isaurians to order,
although P. Servilius, in 78 B. C., destroyed most of their
strongholds, and Pompey, eleven years later, in his great
campaign against the pirates, put an end to the lawless
depredations on sea and land of the Cilicians, who had become
confederated with the Isaurians. Five centuries afterwards, in
the days of the Eastern Empire, the Isaurians were the best
soldiers of its army, and even gave an emperor to the throne
at Constantinople in the person of Zeno or Zenon.

_E. W. Brooks,
The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians
(English Historical Review, April, 1893)._

ISCA.

The name of two towns in Roman Britain, one of which is
identified with modern Exeter and the other with
Caerleon-on-Usk. The latter was the station of the 2d legion.

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 5._

See EXETER, ORIGIN OF;
also, CAERLEON.

ISHMAELIANS, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171;
also, ASSASSINS;
and CARMATHIANS.

ISIDORE, The False Decretals of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

ISINÆ.

See CAUSENNÆ.

ISLAM.

"The religion founded by Mahomet is called Islam, a word
meaning 'the entire surrender of the will to God'; its
professors are called Mussulmans—'those who have surrendered
themselves,' or 'Believers,' as opposed to the 'Rejectors' of
the Divine messengers, who are named 'Kafirs,' or 'Mushrikin,'
that is, 'those who associate, are [not?] companions or
sharers with the Deity.' Islam is sometimes divided under the
two heads of Faith and Practical Religion.

I. Faith (Iman) includes a belief in one God, omnipotent,
omniscient, all-merciful, the author of all good; and in
Mahomet as his prophet, expressed in the formula 'There is no
God but God, and Mahomet is the Prophet of God.' It includes,
also, a belief in the authority and sufficiency of the Koran,
in angels, genii, and the devil, in the immortality of the
soul, the resurrection, the day of judgment and in God's
absolute decree for good and evil.

II. Practical religion (Din) consists of five observances:
(1) Recital of the formula of Belief,
(2) Prayer with Ablution,
(3) Fasting,
(4) Almsgiving,
(5) the Pilgrimage.

… The standard of Moslem orthodoxy is essentially the Koran
and to it primary reference is made; but … some more
extended and discriminating code became necessary. The
deficiency was supplied by the compilation of the 'Sunnah,' or
Traditional Law, which is built upon the sayings and practices
of Mahomet, and, in the opinion of the orthodox, is invested
with the force of law, and with some of the authority of
inspiration. … In cases where both the Koran and the Sunnah
afford no exact precept, the 'Rule of Faith' in their dogmatic
belief, as well as the decisions of their secular courts, is
based upon the teaching of one of the four great Imams, or
founders of the orthodox sects, according as one or another of
these prevails in any particular country. … The great Sunni
sect is divided among the orthodox schools mentioned above,
and is so called from its reception of the 'Sunnah,' as having
authority concurrent with and supplementary to the Koran. In
this respect it differs essentially from the Shias, or
partisans of the house of Ali [the nephew of Mahomet and
husband of his daughter Fatima] who, adhering to their own
traditions, reject the authority of the 'Sunnah.' These two
sects, moreover, have certain observances and matters of
belief peculiar to themselves, the chief of which is the Shia
doctrine, that the sovereign Imamat, or temporal and spiritual
lordship over the faithful, was by divine right vested in Ali
and in his descendants, through Hasan and Hosein, the children
of Fatima, the daughter of the prophet. And thus the Persian
Shias add to the formula of belief the confession, 'Ali is the
Caliph of God.' In Persia the Shia doctrines prevail, and
formerly so intense was sectarian hatred that the Sunni
Mahometans paid a higher capitation tax there than the
infidels. In Turkey the great majority are Sunni. In India the
Shias number about one in twenty. The Shias, who reject this
name, and call themselves Adliyah, or the 'Society of the
Just,' are subdivided into a great variety of minor sects; but
these … are united in asserting that the first three
Caliphs, Abu Bekr, Omar, and Othman were usurpers, who had
possessed themselves of the rightful and inalienable
inheritance of Ali."

_J. W. H. Stobart,
Islam and its Founder,
chapter 10._

"The twelve Imams, or pontiffs, of the Persian creed, are Ali,
Hassan, Hosein, and the lineal descendants of Hosein to the ninth
generation. Without arms, or treasures, or subjects, they
successively enjoyed the veneration of the people and provoked
the jealousy of the reigning caliphs. … The twelfth and last
of the Imams, conspicuous by the title of Mahadi, or the
Guide, surpassed the solitude and sanctity of his
predecessors. He concealed himself in a cavern near Bagdad:
the time and place of his death are unknown; and his votaries
pretend that he still lives and will appear before the day of
judgment."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 50._

ALSO IN:
_E. Sell,
The Faith of Islam._

_S. Lane-Poole,
Studies in a Mosque,
chapters 3 and 7._

_R. D. Osborn,
Islam under the Arabs,
part 2, chapter 1._

_W. C. Taylor,
History of Mohammedanism,
chapters 5-13._

_R. Bosworth Smith,
Mohammed and Mohammedanism_

_T. Nöldeke,
Sketches from Eastern History,
chapter 3._

See, also,
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.

{1804}

ISLAM, Dar-ul-, and Dar-ul-harb.

See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

ISLAND NUMBER TEN, The capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

ISLE OF FRANCE.

The old French province containing Paris. Also the French name
of Mauritius island, taken by England in 1810.

ISLE ROYALE.

See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

ISLES, Lords of the.

See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504,
and HARLAW, BATTLE OF.

ISLES OF THE BLESSED.

See CANARY ISLANDS.

ISLY, Battle of (1843).

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

ISMAIL, Khedive of Egypt, The reign and the fall of.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869; 1870-1883;
and 1875-1882.

Ismail I., Shah of Persia, A. D. 1502-1523.

Ismail II., Shah of Persia, 1576-1577.

ISMAIL, Siege and capture of (1790).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

ISMAILEANS, OR ISHMAELIANS.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171;
also, ASSASSINS;
and CARMATHIANS.

ISONOMY. ISOTIMY. ISAGORIA.

"The principle underlying democracy is the struggle for a
legalised equality which was usually described [by the ancient
Greeks] by the expressions Isonomy, or equality of law for
all,—Isotimy, or proportionate regard paid to all,
—Isagoria, or equal freedom of speech, with special reference
to courts of justice and popular assemblies."

_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 2, chapter 12._

ISONZO, Battle of the (A. D. 489).

See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

ISOPOLITY.

"Under Sp. Cassius [B. C. 493], Rome concluded a treaty with
the Latins, in which the right of isopolity or the 'jus
municipi' was conceded to them. The idea of isopolity changed
in the course of time, but its essential features in early
times were these: between the Romans and Latins and between
the Romans and Caerites there existed this arrangement, that
any citizen of the one state who wished to settle in the
other, might forthwith be able to exercise there the rights of
a citizen."

_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on the History of Rome,
lecture 13 (volume 1)._

ISRAEL.

See JEWS.

ISRAEL, Lost Ten Tribes of.

See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

ISSUS, Battle of (B. C. 333).

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

ISTÆVONES, The.

See GERMANY: AS KNOWN TO TACITUS.

ISTAKR, OR STAKR.

The native name under the later, or Sassanian, Persian empire,
of the ancient capital, Persepolis.

_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 3, footnote._

ISTER, The.

The ancient Greek name of the Danube, below the junction of
the Theiss and the Save.

ISTHMIAN GAMES.

See NEMEAN.

----------ISTRIA: Start--------

ISTRIA:
Slavonic Occupation of.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: SIXTH AND SEVENTH CENTURIES.

ISTRIA: A. D. 1797.
Acquisition by Austria.

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

----------ISTRIA: End--------

ISTRIANS, The.

See ILLYRIANS.

ISURIUM.

A Roman town in Britain, which had previously been the chief
town of the British tribe of the Brigantes. It is identified
with Aldborough, Yorkshire, "where the excavator meets
continually with the tessellated floors of the Roman houses."

_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._

ITALI, The.

See ŒNOTRIANS.

ITALIAN WAR, The.

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

ITALIOTES.

See SICELIOTEB.

----------ITALY: Start--------

[Image: Two maps of Italy, at the beginning of the Seventh Century, and A. D. 1492.]

ITALY:
Ancient.
Early Italians.

"It was not till the close of the Republic, or rather the
beginning of the Empire, that the name of Italy was employed,
as we now employ it, to designate the whole Peninsula, from
the Alps to the Straits of Messina.

See ROME: B. C. 275.

The term Italia, borrowed from the name of a primæval tribe
who occupied the southern portion of the land, was gradually
adopted as a generic title in the same obscure manner in which
most of the countries of Europe, or (we may say) the
Continents of the world, have received their appellations. In
the remotest times the name only included Lower Calabria: from
these narrow limits it gradually spread upwards, till about
the time of the Punic Wars, its northern boundary ascended the
little river Rubicon (between Umbria and Cisalpine Gaul), then
followed the ridge of the Appennines westward to the source of
the Macra, and was carried down the bed of that small stream
to the Gulf of Genoa. When we speak of Italy, therefore, in
the Roman sense of the word, we must dismiss from our thoughts
all that fertile country which was at Rome entitled the
provincial district of Gallia Cisalpina, and Liguria."

_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
introduction, section. 2._

"Philological research teaches us to distinguish three
primitive Italian stocks, the Iapygian, the Etruscan, and that
which we shall call the Italian. The last is divided into two
main branches,—the Latin branch, and that to which the
dialects of the Umbri, Marsi, Volsci and Samnites belong. As
to the Iapygian stock, we have but little information.
{1805}
At the southeastern extremity of Italy, in the Messapian or
Calabrian peninsula, inscriptions in a peculiar extinct
language have been found in considerable numbers; undoubtedly
remains of the dialect of the Iapygians, who are very
distinctly pronounced by tradition also to have been different
from the Latin and Samnite stocks. … With the recognition of
… a general family relationship or peculiar affinity between
the Iapygians and Hellenes (a recognition, however, which by
no means goes so far as to warrant our taking the Iapygian
language to be a rude dialect of Greek), investigation must
rest content. … The middle of the peninsula was inhabited,
as far back as reliable tradition reaches, by two peoples or
rather two branches of the same people, whose position in the
Indo-Germanic family admits of being determined with greater
precision than that of the Iapygian nation. We may with
propriety call this people the Italian, since upon it rests
the historical significance of the peninsula. It is divided
into the two branch-stocks of the Latins and the Umbrians; the
latter including their southern off-shoots, the Marsians and
Samnites, and the colonies sent forth by the Samnites in
historical times. … These examples [philological examples,
given in the work, but omitted from this quotation], selected
from a great abundance of analogous phenomena, suffice to
establish the individuality of the Italian stock as
distinguished from the other members of the Indo-Germanic
family, and at the same time show it to be linguistically the
nearest relative, as it is geographically the next neighbour,
of the Greek. The Greek and the Italian are brothers; the
Celt, the German and the Slavonian are their cousins. …
Among the languages of the Italian stock, again, the Latin
stands in marked contrast with the Umbro-Samnite dialects. It
is true that of these only two, the Umbrian and the Samnite or
Oscan, are in some degree known to us. … A conjoint view,
however, of the facts of language and of history leaves no
doubt that all these dialects belonged to the Umbro-Samnite
branch of the great Italian stock. … It may … be regarded
as certain that the Italians, like the Indians, migrated into
their peninsula from the north. The advance of the
Umbro-Sabellian stock along the central mountain-ridge of
Italy, in a direction from north to south, can still be
clearly traced; indeed its last phases belong to purely
historical times. Less is known regarding the route which the
Latin migration followed. Probably it proceeded in a similar
direction along the west coast, long, in all likelihood,
before the first Sabellian stocks began to move."

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapters 2-3._

See, also,
ETRUSCANS; LATIUM; SABINES; SAMNITES;
UMBRIANS; MAGNA GRÆCIA;
also, ROME: B. C. 343-290, and 339-338.

"In the February number of the 'Civiltà Cattolica,' Padre de
Cara pleads for a national effort on the part of Italian
archaeologists to solve the question of the origin of their
country's civilisation by the systematic exploration and
excavation of Pelasgic Italy. … In a series of articles,
extending over several years, the learned father has contended
for the identity of the Hittites and Proto-Pelasgians on
archaeological, etymological, and historical grounds; and he
here repeats that, if 'Italic' means Aryan, then it is among
the peoples speaking Oscan, Umbrian, Latin, and other dialects
of the Indo-European family that the parentage of Italian
civilisation must be sought; but that 'Italy' meant in the
first place the country of the Hittites (Hethei), and hence of
the Pelasgians, and that name and civilisation are alike
Pelasgic. Those who hold it to have been Aryan have not only
the testimony of Greek and Roman writers against them, but
also the facts that there were Pelasgians in Italy whose stone
constructions are standing to this day, and that the Etruscan
language and culture had no Aryan affinities. The writer
further points out that the walls of Pelasgic cities, whether
in Italy, Greece, or Asia Minor, all resemble each other, and
that the origin of Greek civilisation was also Pelasgian. In
Greece, as in Italy, the Aryans followed centuries after the
Hittite-Pelasgians, and Aryan Greece carried the arts of
Pelasgic Greece to perfection. He believes that, of two
migratory bands of Hittites, one invaded Greece and the other
Italy, about the same time. He also draws attention to the
coincidence that it is not very long since Greece, like Italy
at the present time, could date its civilisation no further
back than 700 or 800 B. C. Schliemann recovered centuries for
Greece, but 'Italy still remains imprisoned in the iron circle
of the seventh century.' To break it, she must follow
Schliemann's plan; and as he had steady faith in the
excavation of the Pelasgic cities and cemeteries of Greece, so
will like faith and conduct on the part of Italian
archaeologists let in light upon this once dark problem."

_Academy,
March 31, 1894, page 273._

ITALY:
Under the dominion of Rome.

See ROME.

ITALY:
Invasions Repelled by Rome.

See ROME: B. C. 390-347, 282-275; PUNIC WARS;
CIMBRI AND TEUTONES; ALEMANNI; and RADAGAISUS.

ITALY: A. D. 400-410.
Alaric's invasions.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403;
and ROME: A. D. 408-410.

ITALY: A. D. 452.
Attila's invasion.
The origin of Venice.

See HUNS: A. D. 452; and VENICE: A. D. 452.

ITALY: A. D. 476-553.
The fall of the Western Roman Empire.
The Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric, and its fall.
Recovery of Italy by Justinian.

See ROME: A. D. 455-476, to 535-553.

ITALY: A. D. 539-553.
Frank invasions.

See FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.

ITALY: A. D. 554-800.
Rule of the Exarchs of Ravenna.

See ROME: A. D. 554-800;
and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

ITALY: A. D. 568-800.
Lombard conquests and kingdom.
Rise of the Papal power at Rome.
Alliance of the Papacy with the sovereigns of the Franks.
Revival of the Roman Empire under Charlemagne.

"Since the invasion of Alboin, Italy had groaned under a
complication of evils. The Lombards who had entered along with
that chief in A. D. 568 [see LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573, and
after] had settled in considerable numbers in the valley of
the Po, and founded the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento,
leaving the rest of the country to be governed by the exarch
of Ravenna as viceroy of the Eastern crown. This subjection
was, however, little better than nominal. Although too few to
occupy the whole peninsula, the invaders were yet strong
enough to harass every part of it by inroads which met with no
resistance from a population unused to arms, and without the
spirit to use them in self-defence. … Tormented by their
repeated attacks, Rome sought help in vain from Byzantium,
whose forces, scarce able to repel from their walls the Avars
and Saracens, could give no support to the distant exarch of
Ravenna.
{1806}
The Popes were the Emperor's subjects; they it waited his
confirmation, like other bishops; they had more than once been
the victims of his anger. But as the city became more
accustomed in independence, and the Pope rose to a
predominance, real if not yet legal [see ROME: A. D. 590-640,
and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774], his tone grew bolder than that of
the Eastern patriarchs. In the controversies that had raged in
the Church, he had had the wisdom or good fortune to espouse
(though not always from the first) the orthodox side: it was
now by another quarrel of religion that his deliverance from
an unwelcome yoke was accomplished. The Emperor Leo, born
among the Isaurian mountains, where a purer faith may yet have
lingered, and stung by the Mohammedan taunt of idolatry,
determined to abolish the worship of images, which seemed fast
obscuring the more spiritual part of Christianity. An attempt
sufficient to cause tumults among the submissive Greeks,
excited in Italy a fiercer commotion. The populace rose with
one heart in defence of what had become to them more than a
symbol: the exarch was slain: the Pope, though unwilling to
sever himself from the lawful head and protector of the
Church, must yet excommunicate the prince whom he could not
reclaim from so hateful a heresy.

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

Liudprand, king of the Lombards, improved his opportunity:
falling on the exarchate as the champion of images, on Rome as
the minister of the Greek Emperor, he overran the one, and all
but succeeded in capturing the other. The Pope escaped for the
moment, but saw his peril: placed between a heretic and a
robber, he turned his gaze beyond the Alps, to a Catholic
chief who had just achieved a signal deliverance for
Christendom on the field of Poitiers. Gregory II. had already
opened communications with Charles Martel, mayor of the
palace, and virtual ruler of the Frankish realm. As the crisis
becomes more pressing, Gregory III. finds in the same quarter
his only hope, and appeals to him in urgent letters, to haste
to the succour of Holy Church. … Charles died before he
could obey the call; but his son Pipin (surnamed the Short)
made good use of the new friendship with Rome. He was the
third of his family who had ruled the Franks with a monarch's
full power [see FRANKS: A. D. 511-752]: it seemed time to
abolish the pageant of Merovingian royalty; yet a departure
from the ancient line might shock the feelings of the people.
A course was taken whose dangers no one then foresaw: the Holy
See, now for the first time invoked as an international power,
pronounced the deposition of Childric, and gave to the royal
office of his successor Pipin a sanctity hitherto unknown. …
The compact between the chair of Peter and the Teutonic throne
was hardly sealed, when the latter was summoned to discharge
its share of the duties. Twice did Aistulf the Lombard assail
Rome, twice did Pipin descend to the rescue: the second time
at the bidding of a letter written in the name of St. Peter
himself. Aistulf could make no resistance; and the Frank
bestowed on the Papal chair all that belonged to the exarchate
in North Italy, receiving as the meed of his services the
title of Patrician [754]. … When on Pipin's death the
restless Lombards again took up arms and menaced the
possessions of the Church, Pipin's son Charles or Charlemagne
swept down like a whirlwind from the Alps at the call of Pope
Hadrian, seized king Desiderius in his capital, assumed
himself the Lombard crown, and made northern Italy
thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish empire [see
GERMANY: A. D. 68-800]. … For the next twenty-four years
Italy remained quiet. The government of Rome was carried on in
the name of the Patrician Charles, although it does not appear
that he sent thither any official representative; while at the
same time both the city and the exarchate continued to admit
the nominal supremacy of the Eastern Emperor, employing the
years of his reign to date documents."

_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 4._

"Thus, by German hands, the internal ascendancy of the German
race in Italy, which had lasted, first under the Goths, and
then under the Lombards, for 281 years, was finally broken. A
German was still king over Italy, as for ages Germans were
still to be. But Roman and native influence reconquered its
supremacy in Italy, under the management and leadership of the
bishops of Rome. The Lombards, already becoming Italianized,
melted into provincial Italians. The Teutonic language
disappeared, leaving a number of words to Italian dialects,
and a number of names to Italian families. The last king of
the Lombards bore an Italian name, Desiderius. The latest of
Italian national heroes bears the Bavarian and Lombard name of
Garibaldi. But the overthrow of the Lombards, and the gift of
provinces and cities to St. Peter had even more eventful
results. The alliance between the king of the Franks and the
bishop of Rome had become one of the closest kind. … The
German king and the Italian pope found themselves together at
the head of the modern world of the West. But the fascination
of the name of Rome still, as it had done for centuries, held
sway over the Teutonic mind. … It was not unnatural that the
idea should recommend itself, both to the king and the pope,
of reviving in the West, in close connexion with the Roman
primacy, that great name which still filled the imagination of
the world, and which in Roman judgments, Greek Byzantium had
wrongfully stolen away—the name of Cæsar Augustus, the claim
to govern the world. There was a longing in the West for the
restoration of the name and authority, 'lest,' as the
contemporary writers express it, 'the heathen should mock at
the Christian if the name of Emperor had ceased among them.'
And at this moment, the government at Constantinople was in
the hands of a woman, the Empress Irene. Charles's services to
the pope were recompensed, and his victorious career of more
than thirty years crowned, by the restoration at Rome, in his
person, of the Roman empire and the imperial dignity. The same
authority which had made him 'patrician,' and consecrated him
king, now created him Emperor of the Romans. On Christmas day,
800, when Charles came to pay his devotions before the altar
of St. Peter's, Pope Leo III.—without Charles's knowledge or
wish, so Charles declared to his biographer, Einhard, and, it
may be, prematurely, as regards Charles's own feeling—placed
a golden crown on his head, while all the people shouted, 'to
Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned of God, the great
and peace-giving Emperor of the Romans, life and victory.' …
{1807}
Thus a new power arose in Europe, new in reality and in its
relations to society, though old in name. It was formally but
the carrying on the line of the successors of Augustus and
Constantine. But substantially it was something very
different. Its authors could little foresee its destinies; but
it was to last, in some sort the political centre of the world
which was to be, for 1,000 years. And the Roman Church, which
had done such great things, which had consecrated the new and
mighty kings of the Franks, and had created for the mightiest
of them the imperial claim to universal dominion, rose with
them to a new attitude in the world. … The coronation of
Charles at Rome, in the face of an imperial line at
Constantinople, finally determined, though it did not at once
accomplish, the separation of East and West, of Greek and
Latin Christianity. This separation had long been impending,
perhaps, becoming inevitable. … One Roman empire was still
the only received theory. But one Roman empire, with its seat
in the West, or one Roman empire, governed in partnership by
two emperors of East and West, had become impossible in fact.
The theory of its unity continued for ages; but whether the
true successor of Augustus and Theodosius sat at
Constantinople, or somewhere in the West, remained in dispute,
till the dispute was ended by the extinction of the Eastern
empire by the Turks on May 29, 1453."

_R. W. Church,
The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 7._

See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

ITALY: A. D. 685-1014.
The founding of the duchy of Tuscany.

See TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.

ITALY: A. D. 781.
Erected into a separate kingdom by Charlemagne.

In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into
two separate kingdoms, placing his infant sons Pipin and
Ludwig on the thrones.

_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 16._

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 800-1016.
Conflict of Greeks, Saracens and Franks.

"The southern provinces [of Italy], which now compose the
kingdom of Naples, were subject, for the most part [in the 8th
and 9th centuries], to the Lombard dukes and princes of
Beneventum—so powerful in war that they checked for a moment
the genius of Charlemagne—so liberal in peace that they
maintained in their capital an academy of thirty-two
philosophers and grammarians. The division of this flourishing
state produced the rival principalities of Benevento, Salerno,
and Capua; and the thoughtless ambition or revenge of the
competitors invited the Saracens to the ruin of their common
inheritance. During a calamitous period of two hundred years,
Italy was exposed to a repetition of wounds which the invaders
were not capable of healing by the union and tranquillity of a
perfect conquest. Their frequent and almost annual squadrons
issued from the port of Palermo and were entertained with too
much indulgence by the Christians of Naples: the more
formidable fleets were prepared on the African coasts. … A
colony of Saracens had been planted at Bari, which commands
the entrance of the Adriatic Gulf; and their impartial
depredations provoked the resentment and conciliated the union
of the two emperors. An offensive alliance was concluded
between Basil the Macedonian [of the Byzantine Empire], the
first of his race, and Lewis, the great grandson of
Charlemagne; and each party Supplied the deficiencies of his
associate. … The fortress of Bari was invested by the
infantry of the Franks and by the cavalry and galleys of the
Greeks; and, after a defence of four years, the Arabian emir
submitted [A. D. 871] to the clemency of Lewis, who commanded
in person the operations of the siege. This important conquest
had been achieved by the concord of the East and West; but
their recent amity was soon embittered by the mutual
complaints of jealousy and pride. … Whoever might deserve
the honour, the Greek emperors, Basil and his son Leo, secured
the advantage of the reduction of Bari. The Italians of Apulia
and Calabria were persuaded or compelled to acknowledge their
supremacy, and an ideal line from Mount Garganus to the Bay of
Salerno leaves the far greater part of the [modern] kingdom of
Naples under the dominion of the Eastern empire. Beyond that
line the dukes or republics of Amalfi and Naples, who had
never forfeited their voluntary allegiance, rejoiced in the
neighbourhood of their lawful sovereign; and Amalfi was
enriched by supplying Europe with the produce and manufactures
of Asia. But the Lombard princes of Benevento, Salerno, and
Capua, were reluctantly torn from the communion of the Latin
world, and too often violated their oaths of servitude and
tribute. The city of Bari rose to dignity and wealth as the
metropolis of the new theme or province of Lombardy; the title
of Patrician, and afterwards the singular name of Catapan, was
assigned to the supreme governor. … As long as the sceptre
was disputed by the princes of Italy, their efforts were
feeble and adverse; and the Greeks resisted or eluded the
forces of Germany which descended from the Alps under the
imperial standard of the Othos. The first and greatest of
those Saxon princes was compelled to relinquish the siege of
Bari: the second, after the loss of his stoutest bishops and
barons, escaped with honour from the bloody field of Crotona
(A. D. 983). On that day the scale of war was turned against
the Franks by the valour of the Saracens. … The Caliph of
Egypt had transported 40,000 Moslems to the aid of his
Christian ally. The successors of Basil amused themselves with
the belief that the conquest of Lombardy had been achieved,
and was still preserved, by the justice of their laws, the
virtues of their ministers, and the gratitude of a people whom
they had rescued from anarchy and oppression. A series of
rebellions might dart a ray of truth into the palace of
Constantinople; and the illusions of flattery were dispelled
by the easy and rapid success of the Norman adventurers."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 56._

ITALY: A. D. 803-810.
Charlemagne's boundary treaties with the Byzantine Emperor.
Attempts of Pipin against the Venetians.
The founding of Modern Venice.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

ITALY: A. D. 810-961.
Spread of Venetian commerce and naval prowess.

See VENICE: A. D. 810-961.

{1808}

ITALY: A. D. 843-951.
In the breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire.
The founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

In the partition of Charlemagne's Empire among his three
grandsons, by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, Italy, together
with the new kingdom called Lotharingia, or Lorraine, was
assigned to the elder, Lothar, who bore the title of Emperor.
Lothar, who died in 855, redivided his dominions among three
sons, and Lorraine, separated from Italy, was soon dismembered
and shared between Germany and France. The Italian kingdom
fell to Louis or Ludwig II., who was crowned Emperor, and on
his death without issue, A. D. 875, it was seized, together
with the imperial title, by the French Carlovingian king,
Charles the Bald. Two years afterwards he died, and Italy,
together with the imperial crown, was acquired by the last
legitimate survivor of the German Carlovingian line, Charles
the Fat, who died in 888. "At that memorable era (A. D. 888)
the four kingdoms which this prince [Charles the Fat] had
united fell asunder: West France, where Odo or Eudes [Duke of
Paris, ancestor of the royal line of Capet] then began to
reign, was never again united to Germany; East France
(Germany) chose Arnulf; Burgundy split up into two
principalities, in one of which (Transjurane) Rudolf
proclaimed himself king, while the other (Cisjurune with
Provence) submitted to Boso; while Italy was divided between
the parties of Berengar of Friuli and Guido of Spoleto. The
former was chosen king by the estates of Lombardy; the latter,
and on his speedy death his son Lambert, was crowned Emperor
by the Pope. Arnulf's [the German king's] descent chased them
away and vindicated the claims of the Franks, but on his
flight Italy and the anti-German faction at Rome became again
free. Berengar was made king of Italy, and afterwards Emperor.
Lewis of Burgundy, son of Boso, renounced his fealty to
Arnulf, and procured the imperial dignity, whose vain title he
retained through years of misery and exile, till A. D. 928.
None of these Emperors were strong enough to rule well even in
Italy; beyond it they were not so much as recognized. … In
A. D. 924 died Berengar, the last of these phantom Emperors.
After him Hugh of Burgundy and Lothar his son reigned as kings
of Italy, if puppets in the hands of a riotous aristocracy can
be so called. Rome was meanwhile ruled by the consul or
senator Alberic [called variously senator, consul, patrician,
and prince of the Romans], who had renewed her never quite
extinct republican institutions, and in the degradation of the
papacy was almost absolute in the city." Affairs in Italy were
at this stage when Otto or Otho, the vigorous and chivalrous
German king of the new line, came in 951 to re-establish and
reconstitute the Roman Empire of Charlemagne and to make it a
lasting entity in European politics—the "Holy Roman Empire"
of modern history.

_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 6._

See GERMANY: A. D. 936-973.

ALSO IN:
_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
lecture 24._

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49._

See, also,
ROME: A. D. 903-964;
and ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

ITALY: A. D. 900-924.
Ravaged by the Hungarians.

"The vicinity of Italy had tempted their early inroads; but
from their camp on the Brenta they beheld with some terror the
apparent strength and populousness of the new-discovered
country. They requested leave to retire; their request was
proudly rejected by the Italian king; and the lives of 20,000
Christians paid the forfeit of his obstinacy and rashness.
Among the cities of the West the royal Pavia was conspicuous
in fame and splendour; and the pre-eminence of Rome itself was
only derived from the relies of the apostles. The Hungarians
appeared; Pavia was in flames; forty-three churches were
consumed; and, after the massacre of the people, they spared
about 200 wretches who had gathered some bushels of gold and
silver (a vague exaggeration) from the smoking ruins of their
country. In these annual excursions from the Alps to the
neighbourhood of Rome and Capua, the churches that yet escaped
resounded with a fearful litany: 'Oh! save and deliver us from
the arrows of the Hungarians!' But the saints were deaf or
inexorable; and the torrent rolled forward, till it was
stopped by the extreme land of Calabria."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 55._

ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.
Subjection to Germany.

"Otho I., his son Otho II., and his grandson Otho III., were
successively acknowledged emperors and kings of Italy, from
961 to 1002. When this branch of the house of Saxony became
extinct, Henry II. of Bavaria, and Conrad the Salic of
Franconia, filled the throne from 1004 to 1039. During this
period of nearly eighty years, the German emperors twelve
times entered Italy at the head of their armies, which they
always drew up in the plains of Roncaglia near Placentia;
there they held the states of Lombardy, received homage from
their Italian feudatories, caused the rents due to be paid,
and promulgated laws for the government of Italy. A foreign
sovereign, however, almost always absent, known only by his
incursions at the head of a barbarous army, could not
efficaciously govern a country which he hardly knew, and where
his yoke was detested. … The emperors were too happy to
acknowledge the local authorities, whatever they were,
whenever they could obtain from them their pecuniary dues:
sometimes they were dukes or marquises, whose dignities had
survived the disasters of various invasions and of civil wars;
sometimes the archbishops and bishops of great cities, whom
Charlemagne and his successors had frequently invested with
duchies and counties escheated to the crown, reckoning that
lords elected for life would remain more dependent than
hereditary lords; sometimes, finally, they were the
magistrates themselves, who, although elected by the people,
received from the monarch the title of imperial vicars, and
took part with the nobles and prelates in the Plaids
(placita), or diets of Roncaglia. After a stay of some months,
the emperor returned with his army into Germany; the nobles
retired to their castles, the prelates and magistrates to
their cities: neither of these last acknowledged a superior
authority to their own, nor reckoned on any other force than
what they could themselves employ to assert what they called
their rights. Opposite interests could not fail to produce
collision, and the war was universal."

_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 1._

{1809}

During the reign of Henry II. (A. D. 1002-1024), against whom
a rival king of Italy was set up by the Italians, "there was
hardly any recognised government, and the Lombards became more
and more accustomed, through necessity, to protect themselves,
and to provide for their own internal police. Meanwhile the
German nation had become odious to the Italians. The rude
soldiery, insolent and addicted to intoxication, were engaged
in frequent disputes with the citizens, wherein the latter, as
is usual in similar cases, were exposed first to the summary
vengeance of the troops, and afterwards to penal chastisement
for sedition. In one of these tumults, at the entry of Henry
II. in 1004, the city of Pavia was burned to the ground, which
inspired its inhabitants with a constant animosity against
that emperor. Upon his death, in 1024, the Italians were
disposed to break once more their connexion with Germany,
which had elected as sovereign Conrad duke of Franconia. They
offered their crown to Robert king of France and to William
duke of Guienne." But neither of these princes would accept
the troublesome diadem; and, in the end, the archbishop of
Milan and other Lombard lords "repaired to Constance and
tendered the crown to Conrad, which he was already disposed to
claim as a sort of dependency upon Germany. It does not appear
that either Conrad or his successors were ever regularly
elected to reign over Italy; but whether this ceremony took
place or not, we may certainly date from that time the
subjection of Italy to the Germanic body. It became an
unquestionable maxim, that the votes of a few German princes
conferred a right to the sovereignty of a country which had
never been conquered, and which had never formally recognised
this superiority."

_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1)._

"The Italian Kingdom of the Karlings, the kingdom which was
reunited to Germany under Otto the Great, was … a
continuation of the old Lombard kingdom. It consisted of that
kingdom, enlarged by the Italian lands which fell off from the
Eastern Empire in the eighth century; that is by the Exarchate
and the adjoining Pentapolis, and the immediate territory of
Rome itself."

_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 8, section 3._

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090.
Conquests and settlement of the Normans.