Chapter CCCLXXIII: Section 7 (1)

There shall be a strict registration of all qualified voters *
* * and no person shall be permitted to vote whose name has
not been entered upon the list of voters before the polls are
opened.

It thus appears that the people of Rhode Island have at last
adopted an amendment to the Constitution, more liberal in its
qualifications of electors, than the terms asked by Mr. Dorr,
in 1842. … All that was asked by Mr. Dorr, and even by those
of his party, more radical than himself, has been granted, and
even more. And yet they were denounced with every species of
vile epithet as Free Suffrage Men."

_S. S. Rider,
The End of a great Political Struggle in Rhode Island
(Book Notes, volume 5, paged 53-57)._

----------RHODE ISLAND: End--------

----------RHODES: Start--------

RHODES.

The island of Rhodes, with its picturesque capital city
identical in name, lying in the Ægean Sea, near the
southwestern corner of Asia Minor, has a place alike notable
in the history of ancient and mediæval times; hardly less of a
place, too, in prehistoric legends and myths. It has been
famed in every age for a climate almost without defect. Among
the ancients its Doric people [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK
COLONIES] were distinguished for their enterprise in commerce,
their rare probity, their courage, their refinement, their
wealth, their liberality to literature and the arts. In the
middle ages all this had disappeared, but the island and the
city had become the seat of the power of the Knights of St.
John—the last outpost of European civilization in the east,
held stoutly against the Turks until 1522. The unsuccessful
siege of Rhodes, B. C. 305 or 304, by Demetrius, the son of
Antigonus, was one of the great events of ancient military
history. It "showed not only the power but the virtues of this
merchant aristocracy. They rebuilt their shattered city with
great magnificence. They used the metal of Demetrius's
abandoned engines for the famous Colossus [see below], a
bronze figure of the sun about 100 feet high, which, however,
was thrown down and broken by the earthquake of B. C. 227, and
lay for centuries near the quays, the wonder of all visitors.
… It is said that the Saracens sold the remnants of this
statue for old metal when they captured Rhodes. … It was
doubtless during the same period that Rhodes perfected that
system of marine mercantile law which was accepted not only by
all Hellenistic states, but acknowledged by the Romans down to
the days of the empire. … We do not know what the detail of
their mercantile system was, except that it was worked by
means of an active police squadron, which put down piracy, or
confined it to shipping outside their confederacy, and also
that their persistent neutrality was only abandoned when their
commercial interests were directly attacked. In every war they
appear as mediators and peace-makers. There is an allusion in
the 'Mercator' of Plautus to young men being sent to learn
business there, as they are now sent to Hamburg or Genoa. The
wealth and culture of the people, together with the stately
plan of their city, gave much incitement and scope to artists
in bronze and marble, as well as to painters, and the names of
a large number of Rhodian artists have survived on the
pedestals of statues long since destroyed. But two famous
works—whether originals or copies seems uncertain—still
attest the genius of the school, the 'Laocoon,' now in the
Vatican, and the 'Toro Farnese.'"

_J. P. Mahaffy,
Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 20, with foot-note._

RHODES: B. C. 412.
Revolt from Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

RHODES: B. C. 378-357.
In the new Athenian Confederacy.
Revolt and secession.
The Social War.

See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

RHODES: B. C. 305-304.
Siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes.

One of the memorable sieges of antiquity was that in which the
brave, free citizens of Rhodes held their splendid town (B. C.
305) for one whole year against the utmost efforts of
Demetrius, called Poliorcetes, or "the Besieger," son of
Antigonus, the would-be successor of Alexander (see MACEDONIA:
B. C. 310-301). Demetrius was a remarkable engineer, for his
age, and constructed machinery for the siege which was the
wonder of the Grecian world. His masterpiece was the
Helepolis, or "city-taker," —a wooden tower, 150 feet high,
sheathed with iron, travelling on wheels and moved by the
united strength of 3,400 men. He also assailed the walls of
Rhodes with battering rams, 150 feet long, each driven by
1,000 men. But all his ingenious appliances failed and he was
forced in the end to recognize the independence of the valiant
Rhodians.

_C. Torr,
Rhodes in Ancient Times,
pages 13-14, 44._

ALSO IN:
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 59._

{2649}

RHODES: B. C. 191.
Alliance with Rome.
War with Antiochus the Great.
Acquisition of territory in Caria and Lycia.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

RHODES: B. C. 88.
Besieged by Mithridates.

At the beginning of his first war with the Romans, B. C. 88,
Mithridates made a desperate attempt to reduce the city of
Rhodes, which was the faithful ally of Rome. But the Rhodians
repelled all his assaults, by sea and by land, and he was
forced to abandon the siege.

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapter 20._

RHODES: A. D. 1310.
Conquest and occupation by the
Knights Hospitallers of St. John.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1310.

RHODES: A. D. 1480.
Repulse of the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.

RHODES: A. D. 1522.
Siege and conquest by the Turks.
Surrender and withdrawal of the Knights of St. John.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1522.

----------RHODES: End--------

RHODES, The Colossus of.

"In the elementary works for the instruction of young people,
we find frequent mention of the Colossus of Rhodes. The statue
is always represented with gigantic limbs, each leg resting on
the enormous rocks which face the entrance to the principal
port of the Island of Rhodes; and ships in full sail passed
easily, it is said, between its legs; for, according to Pliny
the ancient, its height was 70 cubits. This Colossus was
reckoned among the seven wonders of the world, the six others
being, as is well known, the hanging gardens of Babylon,
devised by Nitocris, wife of Nebuchadnezzar; the pyramids of
Egypt; the statue of Jupiter Olympus; the Mausoleum of
Halicarnassus; the temple of Diana at Ephesus; and the Pharos
of Alexandria, completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1303.
Nowhere has any authority been found for the assertion that
the Colossus of Rhodes spanned the entrance to the harbour of
the island and admitted the passage of vessels in full sail
between its wide-stretched limbs. … The following is the real
truth concerning the Colossus." After the abandonment of the
siege of Rhodes, in 305, by Demetrius Poliorcetes, "the
Rhodians, inspired by a sentiment of piety, and excited by
fervent gratitude for so signal a proof of the divine favour,
commanded Charès to erect a statue to the honour of their
deity [the sun-god Helios]. An inscription explained that the
expenses of its construction were defrayed out of the sale of
the materials of war left by Demetrius on his retreat from the
island of Rhodes. This statue was erected on an open space of
ground near the great harbour, and near the spot where the
pacha's seraglio now stands; and its fragments, for many years
after its destruction, were seen and admired by travellers."

_O. Delepierre,
Historical Difficulties,
chapter 1._

RHODES, Knights of.

During their occupation of the island, the Knights
Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called
Knights of Rhodes, as they were afterwards called Knights of
Malta.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

RI, The.

"The Ri or king, who was at the head of the tribe [the
'tuath,' or tribe, in ancient Ireland], held that position not
merely by election, but as the representative in the senior
line of the common ancestor, and had a hereditary claim to
their obedience. As the supreme authority and judge of the
tribe he was the Ri or king. This was his primary function. …
As the leader in war he was the 'Toisech' or Captain."

_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 3, page 140._

See, also, TUATH, THE.

RIALTO: Made the seat of Venetian government.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

RIBBON SOCIETIES. RIBBONISM.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

RIBCHESTER, Origin of.

See COCCIUM.

RICH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

RICHARD
(of Cornwall), King of Germany, A. D. 1256-1271.

Richard I. (called Cœur de Leon), King of England, 1189-1199.

Richard II. King of England, 1377-1399.

Richard III. King of England, 1483-1485.

RICHBOROUGH, England, Roman origin of.

See RUTUPIÆ.

RICHELIEU, The Ministry of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1642-1643.

----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Start--------

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Powhatan's residence.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1781.
Lafayette's defense of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861.
Made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862.
McClellan's Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capital.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA);
(MAY: VIRGINIA);
(JUNE: VIRGINIA);
(JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA);
and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (March).
Kilpatrick's and Dahlgren's Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (May).
Sheridan's Raid to the city lines.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) SHERIDAN'S RAID.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL).
Abandonment by the Confederate army and government.
Destructive conflagration.
President Lincoln in the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: End--------

RICIMER, Count, and his Roman imperial puppets.

See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

RICOS HOMBRES, of Aragon.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH

RIDGEWAY, Battle of.

See CANADA: A.D. 1866-1871.

RIDINGS OF YORKSHIRE.

The name Ridings is a corruption of the word Trithings, or
'Thirds,' which was applied to the large divisions of
Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (England) in the time of the
Angles.

_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 1, note._

RIEL'S REBELLION.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

RIENZI'S REVOLUTION.

See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

{2650}

RIGA: A. D. 1621.
Siege and capture by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

RIGA: A. D. 1700. Unsuccessful siege by the King of Poland.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

"RIGHT," "LEFT," AND "CENTER," The.

In France, and several other continental European countries,
political parties in the legislative bodies are named
according to the positions of the seats which they occupy in
their respective chambers. The extreme conservatives gather at
the right of the chair of the presiding officer, and are
known, accordingly, as "The Right." The extreme radicals
similarly collected on the opposite side of the chamber, are
called "The Left." Usually, there is a moderate wing of each
of these parties which partially detaches itself and is
designated, in one case, "The Right Center," and in the other,
"The Left Center"; while, midway between all these divisions,
there is a party of independents who take the name of "The
Center."

RIGHT OF SEARCH, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

RIGHTS, Declaration and Bill of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY),
and (OCTOBER).

RIGSDAG, The.

The legislative assembly of Denmark and Sweden.

See
SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

RIGSRET.

See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

RIGVEDA, The.

See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND
CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

RIMINI,
Origin of the city.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

RIMINI,
The Malatesta family.

See MALATESTA FAMILY.

RIMINI, A. D. 1275.
Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

RIMMON.

"The name of Rimmon, which means pomegranate,' occurs
frequently in the topography of Palestine, and was probably
derived from the culture of this beautiful tree."

_J. Kenrick,
Phœnicia,
chapter 2._

RIMNIK, Battle of (1789).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

RINGGOLD, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

RINGS OF THE AVARS.

See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

RIOTS, Draft.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.

RIPON, Lord, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

RIPON, Treaty of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

RIPUARIAN FRANKS, The.

See FRANKS.

RIPUARIANS, Law of the.

"On the death of Clovis, his son, Theodoric, was king of the
eastern Franks; that is to say, of the Ripuarian Franks; he
resided at Metz. To him is generally attributed the
compilation of their law. … According to this tradition, then,
the law of the Ripuarians should be placed between the years
511 and 534. It could not have, like the Salic, the pretension
of ascending to the right-hand bank of the Rhine, and to
ancient Germany. … I am inclined to believe that it was only
under Dagobert I., between the years 628 and 638, that it took
the definite form under which it has reached us."

_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 10._

RIVOLI, Battle of (1797).

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

ROAD OF THE SWANS, The.

See NORMANS: NAME AND ORIGIN.

ROANOKE: A. D. 1585-1590.
The first attempts at English settlement in America.
The lost colony.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.

ROANOKE: A. D. 1862.
Capture by Burnside's Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

ROBE, La Noblesse de la.

See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

ROBERT,
Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1221-1228.

Robert, King of Naples, 1309-1343.

Robert I., King of France, 922-923.

Robert I. (Bruce), King of Scotland, 1306-1329.

Robert II., King of France, 996-1031.

Robert II. (first of the Stuarts), King of Scotland, 1370-1390.

Robert III., King of Scotland, 1390-1406.

ROBERTSON, James, and the early settlement of Tennessee.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.

ROBESPIERRE, and the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER),
to 1794 (JULY).

ROBINSON, John, and his Congregation.

See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617;
and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

ROBOGDII, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

ROCCA SECCA, Battle of (1411).

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

ROCHAMBEAU,
Count de, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY);
1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ROCHE-ABEILLE, La, Battle of (1569).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

----------ROCHELLE: Start--------

ROCHELLE:
Early Importance.
Expulsion of the English.
Grant of Municipal independence.

"Rochelle had always been one of the first commercial places
of France; it was well known to the English under the name of
the White Town, as they called it, from its appearance when
the sun shone and was reflected from its rocky coasts. It was
also much frequented by the Netherlanders. … The town had …
enjoyed extraordinary municipal franchises ever since the
period of the English wars.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360, and 1360-1380.

It had by its own unaided power revolted from the English
dominion [1372], for which Charles V., in his customary
manner, conferred upon the townsfolk valuable
privileges,—among others, that of independent jurisdiction in
the town and its liberties. The design of Henry II. to erect a
citadel within their walls they had been enabled fortunately
to prevent, through the favour of the Chatillons and the
Moutmorencies. Rochelle exhibited Protestant sympathies at an
early period."

_L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy if France,
in the 16th and 17th Centuries,
chapter 14._

{2651}

ALSO IN:
_H. M. Baird,
History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
volume 2, page 270-273._

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1568.
Becomes the headquarters of the Huguenots.
Arrival of the Queen of Navarre.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1573.
Siege and successful defense.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1620-1622.
Huguenot revolt in support of Navarre and Bearn.
The unfavorable Peace of Montpelier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1625-1626.
Renewed revolt.
Second treaty of Montpelier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1627-1628.
Revolt in alliance with England.
Siege and surrender.
Richelieu's dyke.
The decay of the city.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

----------ROCHELLE: End--------

ROCHESTER, England:
Origin.

One of two Roman towns in Britain called Durobrivæ is
identified in site with the modern city of Rochester. It
derived its Saxon name—originally "Hrofescester"—"according to
Bede, from one of its early rulers or prefects named Hrof,
who, for some circumstance or other, had probably gained
greater notoriety than most persons of his class and rank."

_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapters 5 and 16._

ROCKINGHAM MINISTRIES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768: and 1782-1783.

ROCROI: A. D. 1643.
Siege and Battle.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

ROCROI: A. D. 1653.
Siege by Condé in the Spanish service.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

ROCROI: A. D. 1659.
Recovered by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

RODNEY'S NAVAL VICTORY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

RODOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 654-659.

RODOLPH.

See RUDOLPH.

ROESKILDE, Treaty of (1658).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

ROGATION.

With reference to the legislation of the Romans, "he word
Rogatio is frequently used to denote a Bill proposed to the
people. … After a Rogatio was passed it became a Lex; but in
practice Rogatio and Lex were used as convertible terms, just
as Bill and Law are by ourselves."

_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 4._

ROGER I.,
Count of Sicily, A. D. 1072-1101.

ROGER II.,
Count of Sicily, 1106-1129;
King of Naples and Sicily, 1129-1154.

ROGUE RIVER INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

ROHAN, Cardinal-Prince de, and the Diamond Necklace.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.

ROHILLA WAR, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

ROIS FAINÉANS.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

ROLAND, Madame, and the Girondists.

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

ROLAND, The great Bell.

See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

ROLICA, Battle of (1808).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

ROLLO, Duke,
The conquest of Normandy by.

See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911;
and NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.

ROLLS OF THE PIPE. ROLLS OF THE CHANCERY.

See EXCHEQUER.

ROMA QUADRATA.

See PALATINE HILL.

ROMAGNA.

The old exarchate of Ravenna, "as having been the chief seat
of the later Imperial power in Italy, got the name of Romania,
Romandiola, or Romagna."

_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
pages 234 and 238._

ROMAGNANO, Battle of (1524).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

ROMAN AUGURS.

See AUGURS.

ROMAN CALENDAR. ROMAN YEAR.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

ROMAN CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.

See CAMPAGNA.

ROMAN CATACOMBS, The.

See CATACOMBS.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

See PAPACY,
and CATHOLICS.

----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Start--------

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:
Under the Republic.

See CIVES ROMANI;
also, QUIRITES.

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:
Under the Empire.

"While Pompeius, Cæsar, Augustus and others extended the Latin
rights to many provincial communities, they were careful to
give the full Roman qualification [the 'privileges of
Quiritary proprietorship, which gave not merely the empty
title of the suffrage, but the precious immunity from tribute
or land-tax'] to persons only. Of such persons, indeed, large
numbers were admitted to citizenship by the emperors. The full
rights of Rome were conferred on the Transalpine Gauls by
Claudius, and the Latin rights on the Spaniards by Vespasian;
but it was with much reserve that any portions of territory
beyond Italy were enfranchised, and rendered Italic or
Quiritary soil, and thus endowed with a special immunity. …
The earlier emperors had, indeed, exercised a jealous reserve
in popularizing the Roman privileges; but from Claudius
downwards they seem to have vied with one another in the
facility with which they conferred them as a boon, or imposed
them as a burden. … The practice of purchasing Civitas was
undoubtedly common under Claudius. … Neither Hadrian, as
hastily affirmed by St. Chrysostom, nor his next successor, as
has been inferred from a confusion of names, was the author of
the decree by which the Roman franchise was finally
communicated to all the subjects of the empire. Whatever the
progress of enfranchisement may have been, this famous
consummation was not effected till fifty years after our
present date, by the act of Autoninus Caracalla [A. D.
211-217]."

_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 67, with foot-note._

----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: End--------

ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

The "Roman chief festival or festival of the city (ludi
maximi, Romani) … was an extraordinary thanksgiving festival
celebrated in honour of the Capitoline Jupiter and the gods
dwelling along with him, ordinarily in pursuance of a vow made
by the general before battle, and therefore usually observed
on the return home of the burgess-force in autumn. A festal
procession proceeded toward the Circus staked off between the
Palatine and Aventine. … In each species of contest there was
but one competition, and that between not more that two
competitors."

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 15. _

{2652}

ROMAN COINAGE AND MONEY.

See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME.

ROMAN COMITIA.

See COMITIA CENTURIATA,
AND COMITIA CURIATA.

ROMAN CONSULS.

See CONSUL.

ROMAN CONTIONES.

See CONTIONES.

ROMAN DECEMVIRS.

See DECEMVIRS.

ROMAN EDUCATION.

See EDUCATION, ROMAN.

----------ROMAN EMPIRE: Start--------

ROMAN EMPIRE: B. C. 31.
Its beginning, and after.

See ROME: B. C. 31, and after.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 476.
Interruption of the line of Emperors in the West.

See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800.
Charlemagne's restoration of the Western Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 800.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 843-951.
Dissolution of the Carolingian fabric.

See ITALY: A. D. 843-951.

----------ROMAN EMPIRE: End--------

----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: Start--------

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.
Founded by Otto the Great.
Later Origin of the Name.

"The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it
commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty
of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the
creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well
as technically, it was a prolongation of the Empire of Charles
[Charlemagne]; and it rested (as will be shewn in the sequel)
upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about
the coronation of A. D. 800. … This restored Empire, which
professed itself a continuation of the Carolingian, was in
many respects different. It was less wide, including, if we
reckon strictly, only Germany proper and two-thirds of Italy;
or counting in subject but separate kingdoms, Burgundy,
Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Denmark, perhaps Hungary. Its
character was less ecclesiastical. Otto exalted indeed the
spiritual potentates of his realm, and was earnest in
spreading Christianity among the heathen: he was master of the
Pope and De·fender of the Holy Roman Church. But religion held
a less important place in his mind and his administration. …
It was also less Roman. … Under him the Germans became not
only a united nation, but were at once raised on a pinnacle
among European peoples as the imperial race, the possessors of
Rome and Rome's authority. While the political connection with
Italy stirred their spirit, it brought with it a knowledge and
culture hitherto unknown." It was not until the reign of
Frederick Barbarossa that the epithet "Holy" was prefixed to
the title of the revived Roman Empire. "Of its earlier origin,
under Conrad II (the Salic), which some have supposed, there
is no documentary trace, though there is also no proof to the
contrary. So far as is known it occurs first in the famous
Privilege of Austria, granted by Frederick in the fourth year
of his reign, the second of his empire. … Used occasionally by
Henry VI and Frederick II, it is more frequent under their
successors. William, Richard, Rudolf, till after Charles IV's
time it becomes habitual, for the last few centuries
indispensable. Regarding the origin of so singular a title
many theories have been advanced. … We need not, however, be
in any great doubt as to its true meaning and purport. … Ever
since Hildebrand had claimed for the priesthood exclusive
sanctity and supreme jurisdiction, the papal party had not
ceased to speak of the civil power as being, compared with
that of their own chief, merely secular, earthly, profane. It
may be conjectured that, to meet this reproach, no less
injurious than insulting, Frederick or his advisers began to
use in public documents the expression 'Holy Empire'; thereby
wishing to assert the divine institution and religious duties
of the office he held. … It is almost superfluous to observe
that the beginning of the title 'Holy' has nothing to do with
the beginning of the Empire itself. Essentially and
substantially, the Holy Roman Empire was, as has been shewn
already, the creation of Charles the Great. Looking at it more
technically, as the monarchy, not of the whole West, like that
of Charles, but of Germany and Italy, with a claim, which was
never more than a claim, to universal sovereignty, its
beginning is fixed by most of the German writers, whose
practice has been followed in the text, at the coronation of
Otto the Great. But the title was at least one, and probably
two centuries later."

_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapters 6, 9 and 12, with foot-note._

Otto, or Otho, the Great, the second of the Saxon line of
Germanic kings, crossed the Alps and made himself master of
the distracted kingdom of Italy in 951, on the invitation of
John XII, who desired his assistance against the reigning king
of Italy, Berengar II, and who offered him the imperial
coronation (there had been no acknowledged emperor for forty
years) as his reward. He easily reduced Berengar to vassalage,
and, after receiving the imperial crown from Pope John, he did
not scruple to depose that licentious and turbulent pontiff,
by the voice of a synod which he convoked in St. Peter's, and
to seat another in his place. Three revolts in the city of
Rome, which were stirred up by the deposed pope, the emperor
suppressed with a heavy hand, and he took away from the city
all its forms of republican liberty, entrusting the government
to the pope as his viceroy.

_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 9._

ALSO IN:
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 3, part 1._

See, also,
ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
GERMANY: A. D. 936-973;
and ROMANS: KING OF THE.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 12th Century.
Rise of the College of Electors.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 13th Century.
Its degradation after the fall of the Hohenstaufen.
The Great Interregnum.
Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 15th Century.
Its character.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 1806.
Its end.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: End--------

ROMAN EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

See EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

ROMAN FAMILY AND PERSONAL NAMES.

See GENS.

ROMAN FETIALES.

See FETIALES.

ROMAN INDICTION.

See INDICTIONS.

{2653}

ROMAN LAW, and its lasting influence.

"Roman Law as taught in the writings of the Roman jurists is a
science, a science of great perfection, a science so perfect as
to almost approach the harmonious finish of art. But Roman Law
is not only a marvellous system of the legal customs and
concepts of the Romans; its value is not restricted to
students of Roman Law; it has an absolute value for students
of any law whatever. In other words the Romans outstripped all
other nations, both ancient and modern, in the scientific
construction of legal problems. They alone offer that curious
example of one nation's totally eclipsing the scientific
achievements of all other nations. By law, however, we here
understand not all branches of law, as constitutional,
criminal, pontifical, and private law, together with
jurisprudence. By Roman Law we mean exclusively Roman Private
Law. The writings of Roman jurists on constitutional and
criminal law have been superseded and surpassed by the
writings of more modern jurists. Their writings on questions
of Private Law, on the other hand, occupy a unique place; they
are, to the present day, considered as the inexhaustible
fountain-head, and the inimitable pattern of the science of
Private Law. … A Roman lawyer, and even a modern French or
German lawyer—French and German Private Law being essentially
Roman Law—were, and are, never obliged to ransack whole
libraries of precedents to find the law covering a given case.
They approach a case in the manner of a physician: carefully
informing themselves of the facts underlying the case, and
then eliciting the legal spark by means of close meditation on
the given data according to the general principles of their
science. The Corpus juris civilis is one stout volume. This
one volume has sufficed to cover billions of cases during more
than thirteen centuries. The principles laid down in this
volume will afford ready help in almost every case of Private
Law, because they emanate from Private Law alone, and have no
tincture of non–legal elements."

_E. Reich,
Graeco-Roman Institutions,
pages 3-13._

"'The Responsa prudentum,' or answers of the learned in the
law, consisted of explanations of authoritative written
documents. It was assumed that the written law was binding,
but the responses practically modified and even overruled it.
A great variety of rules was thus supposed to be educed from
the Twelve Tables [see ROME: B. C. 451-449], which were not in
fact to be found there. They could be announced by any
jurisconsult whose opinions might, if he were distinguished,
have a binding force nearly equal to enactments of the
legislature. The responses were not published by their author,
but were recorded and edited by his pupils, and to this fact
the world is indebted for the educational treatises, called
Institutes or Commentaries, which are among the most
remarkable features of the Roman system. The distinction
between the 'responses' and the 'case law' of England should
be noticed. The one consists of expositions by the bar, and
the other by the bench. It might have been expected that such
a system would have popularized the law. This was not the
fact. Weight was only attached to the responses of conspicuous
men who were masters of the principles as well as details of
jurisprudence. The great development of legal principles at
Rome was due to this method of producing law. Under the
English system no judge can enunciate a principle until an
actual controversy arises to which the rule can be applied;
under the Roman theory, there was no limit to the question to
which a response might be given, except the skill and
ingenuity of the questioner. Every possible phase of a legal
principle could thus be examined, and the result would show
the symmetrical product of a single master mind. This method
of developing law nearly ceased at the fall of the republic.
The Responses were systematized and reduced into compendia.
The right to make responses was limited by Augustus to a few
jurisconsults. The edict of the Prætor became a source of law,
and a great school of jurists, containing such men as Ulpian,
Paulus, Gaius, and Papinian, arose, who were authors of
treatises rather than of responses."

_T. W. Dwight,
Introduction to Maine's "Ancient Law."_

"Apart from the more general political conditions on which
jurisprudence also, and indeed jurisprudence especially
depends, the causes of the excellence of the Roman civil law
lie mainly in two features: first, that the plaintiff and
defendant were specially obliged to explain and embody in due
and binding form the grounds of the demand and of the
objection to comply with it; and secondly, that the Romans
appointed a permanent machinery for the edictal development of
their law, and associated it immediately with practice. By the
former the Romans precluded the pettifogging practices of
advocates, by the latter they obviated incapable law-making,
so far as such things can be prevented at all; and by means of
both in conjunction they satisfied, as far as is possible, the
two conflicting requirements, that law shall constantly be
fixed, and that it shall constantly be in accordance with the
spirit of the age. … This state [Rome], which made the highest
demands on its burgesses and carried the idea of subordinating
the individual to the interest of the whole further than any
state before or since has done, only did and only could do so
by itself removing the barriers to intercourse and unshackling
liberty quite as much as it subjected it to restriction. In
permission or in prohibition the law was always absolute. … A
contract did not ordinarily furnish a ground of action, but
where the right of the creditor was acknowledged, it was so
all-powerful that there was no deliverance for the poor
debtor, and no humane or equitable consideration was shown
towards him. It seemed as if the law found a pleasure in
presenting on all sides its sharpest spikes, in drawing the
most extreme consequences, in forcibly obtruding on the
bluntest understanding the tyrannic nature of the idea of
right. The poetical form and the genial symbolism, which so
pleasingly prevail in the Germanic legal ordinances, were
foreign to the Roman; in his law all was clear and precise; no
symbol was employed, no institution was superfluous. It was
not cruel; everything necessary was performed without tedious
ceremony, even the punishment of death; that a free man could
not be tortured was a primitive maxim of Roman law, to obtain
which other peoples have had to struggle for thousands of
years. Yet this law was frightful in its inexorable severity,
which we cannot suppose to have been very greatly mitigated by
humanity in practice, for it was really the law of the people;
more terrible than Venetian piombi and chambers of torture was
that series of living entombments which the poor man saw
yawning before him in the debtors' towers of the rich. But the
greatness of Rome was involved in, and was based upon, the
fact that the Roman people ordained for itself and endured a
system of law, in which the eternal principles of freedom and
of subordination, of property and of legal redress, reigned
and still at the present day reign unadulterated and
unmodified."

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1)._

{2654}

"Though hard to realise, and especially so for Englishmen, it
is true that modern Europe owes to the Romans its ancient
inherited sense of the sacredness of a free man's person and
property, and its knowledge of the simplest and most rational
methods by which person and property may be secured with least
inconvenience to the whole community. The nations to come
after Rome were saved the trouble of finding out all this for
themselves; and it may be doubted whether any of them had the
requisite genius. We in England, for example, owe the peculiar
cumbrousness of our legal system to the absence of those
direct Roman influences, which, on the continent, have
simplified and illuminated the native legal material."

_W. W. Fowler,
The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
page 209._

"In all the lands which had obeyed Rome, and were included in
the nominal supremacy of the revived Western Empire, it [Roman
Law] acquired a prevalence and power not derived from the
sanction of any distinct human authority. No such authority
was for the time being strong enough to compete in men's
esteem and reverence with the shadow of majesty that still
clung to the relics of Roman dominion. Thus the Roman law was
not merely taken as (what for many purposes and in many states
it really was) a common groundwork of institutions, ideas, and
method, standing towards the actual rules of a given community
somewhat in the same relation as in the Roman doctrine ius
gentium to ius civile; but it was conceived as having, by its
intrinsic reasonableness, a kind of supreme and eminent
virtue, and as claiming the universal allegiance of civilised
mankind. If I may use a German term for which I cannot find a
good English equivalent, its principles were accepted not as
ordained by Cæsar, but as in themselves binding on the
Rechtsbewusstsein of Christendom. They were part of the
dispensation of Roman authority to which the champions of the
Empire in their secular controversy with the Papacy did not
hesitate to attribute an origin no less divine than that of
the Church itself. Even in England (though not in English
practice, for anything I know) this feeling left its mark. In
the middle of the thirteenth century, just when our legal and
judicial system was settling into its typical form, Bracton
copied whole pages of the Bolognese glossator Azo. On the
Continent, where there was no centralised and countervailing
local authority, the Roman law dwarfed everything else. Yet
the law of the Corpus Juris and the glossators was not the
existing positive law of this or that place: the Roman law was
said to be the common law of the Empire, but its effect was
always taken as modified by the custom of the country or city.
'Stadtrecht bricht Landrecht, Landrecht bricht gemein Recht.'
Thus the main object of study was not a system of actually
enforced rules, but a type assumed by actual systems as their
exemplar without corresponding in detail to any of them. Under
such conditions it was inevitable that positive authority
should be depreciated, and the method of reasoning, even for
practical purposes, from an ideal fitness of things, should be
exalted, so that the distinction between laws actually
administered and rules elaborated by the learned as in
accordance with their assumed principles was almost lost sight
of."

_Sir F. Pollock,
Oxford Lectures,
pages 30-32._

"In some of the nations of modern Continental Europe (as, for
example, in France), the actual system of law is mainly of
Roman descent; and in others of the same nations (as, for
example in the States of Germany), the actual system of law,
though not descended from the Roman, has been closely
assimilated to the Roman by large importations from it.
Accordingly, in most of the nations of modern Continental
Europe, much of the substance of the actual system, and much
of the technical language in which it is clothed, is derived
from the Roman Law, and without some knowledge of the Roman
Law, the technical language is unintelligible; whilst the
order or arrangement commonly given to the system, imitates
the exemplar of a scientific arrangement which is presented by
the Institutes of Justinian. Even in our own country, a large
portion of the Ecclesiastical and Equity, and some (though a
smaller) portion of the Common, Law, is derived immediately
from the Roman Law, or from the Roman through the Canon. Nor
has the influence of the Roman Law been limited to the
positive law of the modern European nations. For the technical
language of this all-reaching system has deeply tinctured the
language of the international law or morality which those
nations affect to observe. … Much has been talked of the
philosophy of the Roman Institutional writers. Of familiarity
with Grecian philosophy there are few traces in their
writings, and the little that they have borrowed from that
source is the veriest foolishness: for example, their account
of Jus naturale, in which they confound law with animal
instincts; law, with all those wants and necessities of
mankind which are causes of its institution. Nor is the Roman
law to be resorted to as a magazine of legislative wisdom. The
great Roman Lawyers are, in truth, expositors of a positive or
technical system. Not Lord Coke himself is more purely
technical. Their real merits lie in their thorough mastery of
that system; in their command of its principles; in the
readiness with which they recall, and the facility and
certainty with which they apply them. In support of my own
opinion of these great writers I shall quote the authority of
two of the most eminent Jurists of modern times. 'The
permanent value of the Corpus Juris Civilis,' says Falck,
'does not lie in the Decrees of the Emperors, but in the
remains of juristical literature which have been preserved in
the Pandects. Nor is it so much the matter of these juristical
writings, as the scientific method employed by the authors in
explicating the notions and maxims with which they have to
deal, that has rendered them models to all succeeding ages,
and pre-eminently fitted them to produce and to develope those
qualities of the mind which are requisite to form a Jurist.'
And Savigny says, 'It has been shown above, that, in our
science, all results depend on the possession of leading
principles; and it is exactly this possession upon which the
greatness of the Roman jurists rests. The notions and maxims
of their science do not appear to them to be the creatures of
their own will; they are actual beings, with whose existence
and genealogy they have become familiar from long and intimate
intercourse.
{2655}
Hence their whole method of proceeding has a certainty which
is found nowhere else except in mathematics, and it may be
said without exaggeration that they calculate with their
ideas. If they have a case to decide, they begin by acquiring
the most vivid and distinct perception of it, and we see
before our eyes the rise and progress of the whole affair, and
all the changes it undergoes. It is as if this particular case
were the germ whence the whole science was to be developed.
Hence, with them, theory and practice are not in fact
distinct; their theory is so thoroughly worked out as to be
fit for immediate application, and their practice is uniformly
ennobled by scientific treatment. In every principle they see
a case to which it may be applied; in every case, the rule by
which it is determined; and in the facility with which they
pass from the general to the particular and the particular to
the general, their mastery is indisputable.' In consequence of
this mastery of principles, of their perfect consistency
('elegantia') and of the clearness of the method in which they
are arranged, there is no positive system of law which it is
so easy to seize as a whole. The smallness of its volume tends
to the same end."

_J. Austin,
Lectures on Jurisprudence,
volume 3, pages 358-361._

"A glance at the history of those countries in Europe that did
not adopt Roman Law will prove and illustrate the political
origin of the 'reception' of this law in Germany and France
still more forcibly. The Kingdom of Hungary never adopted the
theory or practice of Roman Law. This seems all the more
strange since Hungary used Latin as the official language of
her legislature, laws, and law–courts down to the first
quarter of this century. A country so intensely imbued with
the idiom of Rome would seem to be quite likely to adopt also
the law of Rome. This, however, the Hungarians never did.
Their law is essentially similar to the common law of England,
in that it is derived mainly from precedents and usage. The
unwillingness of the Hungarians to adopt Roman Law was based
on a political consideration. Roman Law, they noticed,
requires a professional and privileged class of jurists who
administer law to the exclusion of all other classes. In
German territories the privileged class of civilians were in
the service of the rulers. But it so happened that ever since
1526 the ruler, or at least the nominal head of Hungary, was a
foreigner: the Archduke of Austria, or Emperor of Germany.
Hence to introduce Roman Law in Hungary would have been
tantamount to surrendering the law of the country to the
administration of foreigners, or of professors, who had a
vital interest to work in the interest of their foreign
employer, the Archduke of Austria. Consequently the Hungarians
prudently abstained from the establishment of numerous
Universities, and persistently refused to adopt Roman Law, the
scientific excellence of which they otherwise fully
acknowledged. For, the Hungarians always were, and to the
present moment still are, the only nation on the continent who
maintained an amount of political liberty and self·government
quite unknown to the rest of continental Europe, particularly
in the last two centuries. The same reason applies to England.
England never adopted Roman Law, because it was against the
interests of English liberty to confide the making and
interpretation of law to the hands of a privileged class of
jurists. As said before, Roman Law cannot be adopted unless
you adopt a privileged class of professional jurists into the
bargain. The hatred of the English was not so much a hatred of
civil law, but of the civilians. These jurists develop law on
the strength of theoretical principles, and actual cases are
not decided according to former judgments given in similar
cases, but by principles obtained through theoretico-practical
speculation. Hence there is no division of questions of law
and fact in civil cases; nor is there, in a system of Roman
Private Law, any room for juries, and thus law is taken
completely out of the hands of the people. This, however, the
English would not endure, and thus they naturally fell to
confiding their law to their judges. English common law is
judge-made law."

_E. Reich,
Graeco-Roman Institutions,
pages 62-63._

See, also, CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS;
and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ITALY.

ROMAN LEGION.

See LEGION, ROMAN.

ROMAN LIBRARIES.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ROME.

ROMAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1ST CENTURY, and 2D CENTURY.

ROMAN PEACE.

The benefits conferred upon the world by the universal
dominion of Rome were of quite inestimable value. First of
these benefits, … was the prolonged peace that was enforced
throughout large portions of the world where chronic warfare
had hitherto prevailed. The 'pax romana' has perhaps been
sometimes depicted in exaggerated colours; but as compared
with all that had preceded, and with all that followed, down
to the beginning of the nineteenth century, it deserved the
encomiums it has received."

_J. Fiske,
American Political Ideas viewed from the
Standpoint of Universal History,
lecture 2._

ROMAN PONTIFICES.

See AUGURS.

ROMAN PRÆTORS.

See CONSUL.

ROMAN PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR.

See PROCONSUL.

ROMAN QUESTION, The.

See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

"Four principal lines of road have been popularly known as
'the four Roman ways.' In the time of Edward the Confessor,
and probably much earlier, there were four roads in England
protected by the king's peace. These were called
Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hickenilde-strete, and Ermine-strete.
Watling-street runs from London to Wroxeter. The Fosse from
the sea coast near Seaton in Devonshire to Lincoln. The
Ikenild·street from Iclingham near Bury St. Edmund's in
Suffolk, to Wantage in Berkshire, and on to Cirencester and
Gloucester. The Erming-street ran through the Fenny district
of the east of England. These streets seem to have represented
a combination of those portions of the Roman roads which in
later times were adopted and kept in repair for the sake of
traffic. … The name of 'Watling-street' became attached to
other roads, as the Roman road beyond the Northumbrian wall,
which crossed the Tyne at Corbridge and ran to the Frith of
Forth at Cramond, bears that name; and the Roman road beyond
Uriconium (Wroxeter) to Bravinium (Leintwarden) Salop, is also
called Watling-street. The street in Canterbury through which
the road from London to Dover passes is known as
Watling-street, and a street in London also bears that name. …
Two lines of road also bear the name of the Icknield-street,
or Hikenilde-street; but there is some reason to believe that
the Icknield-street was only a British trackway and never
became a true Roman road."

_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 13._

{2656}

"In the fifth year after the Conquest, inquisition was made
throughout the kingdom into the ancient laws and customs of
England. … From this source we learn, that there were, at that
time in England four great roads protected by the King's
Peace, of which two ran lengthways through the island, and two
crossed it, and that the names of the four were respectively,
Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hikenilde-strete and Erming-strete.
These are the roads which are popularly but incorrectly known
as 'the four Roman ways.' … The King's Peace was a high
privilege. Any offence committed on these high ways was tried,
not in the local court, where local influence might interfere
with the administration of justice, but before the king's own
officers."

_E. Guest,
Origines Celticae,
volume 2: The Four Roman Ways._

See, also, WATLING STREET.

ROMAN ROADS IN ITALY.

See
ÆMILIAN WAY;
APPIAN WAY;
AURELIAN ROAD:
CASSIAN ROAD;
POSTUMIAN ROAD;
and ROME: B. C. 295-191.

ROMAN SENATE.

See SENATE, ROMAN.

ROMAN VESTALS.

See VESTAL VIRGINS.

ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

There were two great fortified walls constructed by the Romans
in Britain, but the name is most often applied to the first
one, which was built under the orders of the Emperor Hadrian,
from the Solway to the Tyne, 70 miles long and from 18 to 19
feet high, of solid masonry, with towers at intervals and with
ditches throughout. In the reign of Antoninus Pius a second
fortified line, farther to the north, extending from the Forth
to the Clyde, was constructed. This latter was a rampart of
earth connecting numerous forts. Hadrian's wall was
strengthened at a later time by Severus and is sometimes
called by his name. Popularly it is called "Graham's Dike."
Both walls were for the protection of Roman Britain from the
wild tribes of Caledonia.

_E. Guest,
Origines Celticae,
volume 2, page 88-94._

ALSO IN:
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 66-67._

ROMANCE LANGUAGE, Earliest Monument of.

See STRASBURG: A. D. 842.

ROMANIA, The Empire of.

The new feudal empire, constituted by the Crusaders and the
Venetians, after their conquest of Constantinople, and having
the great and venerable but half ruined capital of the
Byzantines for its seat, received the name of the Empire of
Romania. The reign of its first emperor, the excellent Baldwin
of Flanders, was brought to a tragical end in little more than
a year from his coronation. Summoned to quell a revolt at
Adrianople, he was attacked by the king of Bulgaria, defeated,
taken prisoner and murdered within a year by his savage
captor. He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Henry, a
capable, energetic and valiant prince; but all the ability and
all the vigor of Henry could not give cohesion and strength to
an empire which was false in its constitution and predestined
to decay. On Henry's death, without children (A. D. 1216), his
sister Yoland's husband, Peter of Courtenay, a French baron,
was elected emperor; but that unfortunate prince, on
attempting to reach Constantinople by a forced march through
the hostile Greek territory of Epirus, was taken captive and
perished in an Epirot prison. His eldest son, Philip of Namur,
wisely refused the imperial dignity; a younger son, Robert,
accepted it, and reigned feebly until 1228, when he died. Then
the venerable John de Brienne, ex-king of Jerusalem, was
elected emperor-regent for life, the crown to pass on his
death to Baldwin of Courtenay, a young brother of Robert.
"John de Brienne died in 1237, after living to witness his
empire confined to a narrow circuit round the walls of
Constantinople. Baldwin II. prolonged the existence of the
empire by begging assistance from the Pope and the king of
France; and he collected the money necessary for maintaining
his household and enjoying his precarious position, by selling
the holy relics preserved by the Eastern Church [such, for
example, as the crown of thorns, the bonds, the sponge and the
cup of the crucifixion, the rod of Moses, etc.]. He was
fortunate in finding a liberal purchaser in St. Louis. … At
length, in the year 1261, a division of the Greek army [of the
empire of Nicæa] surprised Constantinople, expelled Baldwin,
and put an end to the Latin power, without the change
appearing to be a revolution of much importance beyond the
walls of the city."

See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D. 1204-1261

_G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 4._

In the last days of the sham empire, Baldwin II. maintained
his court "by tearing the copper from the domes of the public
buildings erected by the Byzantine emperors, which he coined
into money, and by borrowing gold from Venetian bankers, in
whose hands he placed his eldest son Philip as a pledge."

_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
book 4, chapter 1, section 3 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 61._

For an account of the creation of the Empire of Romania.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

ROMANOFFS, Origin of the dynasty of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

ROMANS, King of the.

Henry II.,—St. Henry by canonization—the last of the German
emperors of the House of Saxony (A. D. 1002-1024), abstained
from styling himself "Emperor," for some years, until he had
gone to Rome and received the imperial crown from the hands of
the Pope. Meantime he invented and assumed the title of King
of the Romans. His example was followed by his successors. The
King of the Romans in later history was Emperor of the Holy
Roman Empire in embryo.

_S. A. Dunham,
History of the Germanic Empire,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

"It was not till the reign of Maximilian that the actual
coronation at Rome was dispensed with, and the title of
Emperor taken immediately after the election."

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

ROMANUS, Pope, A. D. 897-898.

Romanus I. (colleague of Constantine VII.),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 919-944.

Romanus II., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), 959-963.