Chapter CDIX: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (6)

"Sicyon was the starting point of the Ionic civilization which
pervaded the whole valley of the Asopus [a river which flows
from the mountains of Argolis to the Gulf of Corinth, in
northeastern Peloponnesus]; the long series of kings of Sicyon
testifies to the high age with which the city was credited. At
one time it was the capital of all Asopia as well as of the
shore in front of it, and the myth of Adrastus has preserved
the memory of this the historic glory of Sicyon. The Dorian
immigration dissolved the political connection between the
cities of the Asopus. Sicyon itself had to admit Dorian
families." The ascendancy which the Dorian invaders then
assumed was lost at a later time. The old Ionian population of
the country dwelling on the shores of the Corinthian gulf,
engaged in commerce and fishing, acquired superior wealth and
were trained to superior enterprise by their occupation. In
time they overthrew the Doric state, under the lead of a
family, the Orthagoridæ, which established a famous tyranny in
Sicyon (about 670 B. C.). Myron and Clisthenes, the first two
tyrants of the house, acquired a great name in Greece by their
wealth, by their liberal encouragement of art and by their
devotion to the sanctuaries at Olympus and at Delphi.

_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

See, also, TYRANTS, GREEK.

SICYON: B. C. 280-146.
The Achaian League.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SIDNEY, Algernon, The execution of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

SIDNEY, Sir Philip, The death of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

SIDON, The suicidal burning of.

About 346 B. C., Ochus, king of Persia, having subdued a
revolt in Cyprus, proceeded against the Phœnician cities,
which had joined in it. Sidon was betrayed to him by its
prince, and he intimated his intention to take signal revenge
on the city; whereupon the Sidonians "took the desperate
resolution, first of burning their fleet that no one might
escape—next, of shutting themselves up with their families,
and setting fire each man to his own house. In this deplorable
conflagration 40,000 persons are said to have perished; and
such was the wealth destroyed, that the privilege of searching
the ruins was purchased for a large sum of money."

_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 90._

SIDONIANS, The.

See PHŒNICIANS.

SIEBENBÜRGEN.

The early name given to the principality of Transylvania, and
having reference to seven forts erected within it.

_J. Samuelson,
Roumania,
page 182._

----------SIENA: Start--------

SIENA:
The mediæval factions.

"The way in which this city conducted its government for a
long course of years [in the Middle Ages] justified Varchi in
calling it 'a jumble, so to speak, and chaos of republics,
rather than a well-ordered and disciplined commonwealth.' The
discords of Siena were wholly internal. They proceeded from
the wrangling of five factions, or Monti, as the people of
Siena called them. The first of these was termed the Monte de'
Nobili; for Siena had originally been controlled by certain
noble families. … The nobles split into parties among
themselves. … At last they found it impossible to conduct the
government, and agreed to relinquish it for a season to nine
plebeian families chosen from among the richest and most
influential. This gave rise to the Monte de' Nove. … In time,
however, their insolence became insufferable. The populace
rebelled, deposed the Nove, and invested with supreme
authority 12 other families of plebeian origin. The Monte de'
Dodici, created after this fashion, ran nearly the same course
as their predecessors, except that they appear to have
administered the city equitably. Getting tired of this form of
government, the people next superseded them by 16 men chosen
from the dregs of the plebeians, who assumed the title of
Riformatori. This new Monte de' Sedici or de' Riformatori
showed much integrity in their management of affairs, but, as
is the wont of red republicans, they were not averse to
bloodshed. Their cruelty caused the people, with the help of
the surviving patrician houses, together with the Nove and the
Dodici, to rise and shake them off. The last governing body
formed in this diabolical five-part fugue of crazy statecraft
received the name of Monte del Popolo, because it included all
who were eligible to the Great Council of the State. Yet the
factions of the elder Monti still survived; and to what extent
they had absorbed the population may be gathered from the fact
that, on the defeat of the Riformatori, 4,500 of the Sienese
were exiled. It must be borne in mind that with the creation
of each new Monte a new party formed itself in the city, and
the traditions of these parties were handed down from
generation to generation. At last, in the beginning of the
16th century, Pandolfo Petrucci, who belonged to the Monte de'
Nove, made himself in reality, if not in name, the master of
Siena, and the Duke of Florence later on in the same century
[1557]) extended his dominion over the republic."

_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
chapter 3._

{2908}

SIENA: A. D. 1460.
War with Florence and victory at Montaperti.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

----------SIENA: End--------

SIENPI, The.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.

SIERRA LEONE.

"During the war of the [American] Revolution a large number of
blacks, chiefly runaway slaves, ranged themselves under the
British banner. At the close of the war a large number of
these betook themselves to Nova Scotia with the view of making
that their future home; while others followed the army, to
which they had been attached, to London. It was soon
ascertained that the climate of Nova Scotia was too severe for
those who had gone there; and those who followed the army to
London, when that was disbanded, found themselves in a strange
land, without friends and without the means of subsistence. In
a short time they were reduced to the most abject want and
poverty; and it was in view of their pitiable condition that
Dr. Smeathman and Granville Sharp brought forward the plan of
colonizing them on the coast of Africa. They were aided in
this measure by the Government. The first expedition left
England in 1787, and consisted of 400 blacks and about 60
whites, most of whom were women of the most debased character.
… On their arrival at Sierra Leone a tract of land of 20 miles
square was purchased from the natives of the country, and they
immediately commenced a settlement along the banks of the
river. In less than a year their number was reduced more than
one half, owing, in some measure, to the unhealthiness of the
climate, but more perhaps to their own irregularities. Two
years afterward they were attacked by a combination of
natives, and had nigh been exterminated. About this time the
'Sierra Leone Company' was formed to take charge of the
enterprise. Among its directors were enrolled the venerable
names of Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thornton, and Granville Sharp.
The first agent sent out by the Company to look after this
infant colony found the number of settlers reduced to about
60. In 1791 upward of 1,100 colored emigrants were taken from
Nova Scotia to Sierra Leone. About the same time as many as a
hundred whites embarked in England for the same place. … In
1798 it is said that Free-town had attained to the dimensions
of a full-grown town. … About the same time the colony was
farther reinforced by the arrival of more than 500 Maroons
from the Island of Jamaica. These Maroons were no better in
character than the original founders of the colony, and no
little disorder arose from mixing up such discordant elements.
These were the only emigrations of any consequence that ever
joined the colony of Sierra Leone from the Western hemisphere.
Its future accessions … came from a different quarter. In 1807
the slave-trade was declared piracy by the British Government,
and a squadron was stationed on the coast for the purpose of
suppressing it. About the same time the colony of Sierra Leone
was transferred to the Government, and has ever since been
regarded as a Crown colony. The slaves taken by the British
cruisers on the high seas have always been taken to this
colony and discharged there; and this has been the main source
of its increase of population from that time."

_J. L. Wilson,
Western Africa,
part 4, chapter 2._

SIEVERSHAUSEN, Battle of (1553).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.

SIEYES, Abbé, and the French Revolution.

See FRANCE:
A. D. 1789 (JUNE);
1790;
1791 (OCTOBER);
1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
1799 (NOVEMBER), and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

SIFFIN, Battle of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

SIGAMBRI, SICAMBRI.

See USIPETES;
also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

SIGEBERT I.,
King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 561-575.

SIGEBERT II.,
King of the Franks (Austrasia), 633-650.

SIGEL, General Franz.
Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI);
1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

Command in the Shenandoah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

SIGISMUND,
SIGMUND,
King of Hungary, A. D. 1386-1437;
King of Germany, 1410-1437;
Emperor, 1433-1437;
King of Bohemia, 1434-1437.

Sigismund, King of Sweden, 1522-1604.

Sigismund I., King of Poland, 1507-1548.

Sigismund II., King of Poland, 1548-1574.

Sigismund III., King of Poland, 1587-1632.

SIGNORY, The Florentine.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

SIGURD I., King of Norway, A. D. 1122-1130.

SIGURD II., King of Norway, 1136-1155.

SIKANS. SIKELS.

See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.

SIKHS, The.

"The founder of the Sikh religion was Nanak [or Nanuk], son of
a petty Hindu trader named Kalu. Nanak was born in the
vicinity of Lahor in the year 1469. A youth much given to
reflection, he devoted himself at an early period of his life
to a study of the rival creeds then prevailing in India, the
Hindu and the Muhammadan. Neither satisfied him. … After
wandering through many lands in search of a satisfying truth,
Nanak returned to his native country with the conviction that
he had failed. He had found, he said, many scriptures and many
creeds; but he had not found God. Casting off his habit of an
ascetic, he resumed his father's trade, married, became the
father of a family, and passed the remainder of his life in
preaching the doctrine of the unity of one invisible God, of
the necessity of living virtuously, and of practising
toleration towards others. He died in 1539, leaving behind him
a reputation without spot, and many zealous and admiring
disciples eager to perpetuate his creed. The founder of a new
religion, Nanak, before his death, had nominated his
successor—a man of his own tribe named Angad. Angad held the
supremacy for twelve years, years which he employed mainly in
committing to writing the doctrines of his great master and in
enforcing them upon his disciples. Angad was succeeded by
Ummar Das, a great preacher. He, and his son-in-law and
successor, Ram Das, were held in high esteem by the emperor
Akbar. But it was the son of Ram Das, Arjun, who established
on a permanent basis the new religion. … He fixed the seat of
the chief Guru, or high priest of the religion, and of his
principal followers, at Amritsar, then an obscure hamlet, but
which, in consequence of the selection, speedily rose into
importance.
{2909}
Arjun then regulated and reduced to a systematic tax the
offerings of his adherents, to be found even then in every
city and village in the Panjab and the cis-satlaj territories.
… The real successor of Arjun was his son, Hur Govind. Hur
Govind founded the Sikh nation. Before his time the followers
of the Guru had been united by no tie but that of obedience to
the book. Govind formed them into a community of warriors. He
did away with many of the restrictions regarding food,
authorised his followers to eat flesh, summoned them to his
standard, and marched with them to consolidate his power. A
military organisation based upon a religious principle, and
directed by a strong central authority, will always become
powerful in a country the government of which is tainted with
decay. The ties which bound the Mughul empire together were
already loosening under the paralysing influence of the
bigotry of Aurangzile, when, in 1675, Govind, fourth in
succession to the Hur Govind to whom I have adverted, assumed
the mantle of Guru of the Sikhs. … Govind still further
simplified the dogmas of the faith. Assembling his followers,
he announced to them that thenceforward the doctrines of the
'Khalsa,' the saved or liberated, alone should prevail. There
must be no human image or resemblance of the One Almighty
Father; caste must cease to exist; before Him all men were
equal; Muhammadanism was to be rooted out; social
distinctions, all the solaces of superstition, were to exist
no more; they should call themselves 'Singh' and become a
nation of soldiers. The multitude received Govind's
propositions with rapture. By a wave of the hand he found
himself the trusted leader of a confederacy of warriors in a
nation whose institutions were decaying. About 1695, twelve
years before the death of Aurangzile, Govind put his schemes
into practice. He secured many forts in the hill-country of
the Panjab, defeated the Mughul troops in several encounters,
and established himself as a thorn in the side of the empire."
But more than half a century of struggle with Moghul, Afghan
and Mahratta disputants was endured before the Sikhs became
masters of the Panjab. When they had made their possession
secure, they were no longer united. They were "divided into 12
confederacies or misls, each of which had its chief equal in
authority to his brother chiefs, … and it was not until 1784
that a young chieftain named Maha Singh gained, mainly by
force of arms, a position which placed him above his fellows."
The son of Maha Singh was Ranjit Singh, or Runjet Singh, who
established his sovereignty upon a solid footing, made terms
with his English neighbors (see INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816), and
extended his dominions by the capture of Multan in 1818, by
the conquest of Kashmere in 1819-20, and by the acquisition of
Peshawar in 1823.

_G. B. Malleson,
The Decisive Battles of India,
chapter 11._

The wars of the Sikhs with the English, in 1845-6, and 1848-9,
the conquest and annexation of their country to British India,
and the after-career in exile of Dhuleep Singh, the heir, are
related under INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849, and 1849-1893.

ALSO IN:
_J. D. Cunningham,
History of the Sikhs._

_Sir L. Griffin,
Ranjit Singh._

SIKSIKAS, SISIKAS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

SIKYON.

See SICYON.

SILBURY HILL.

See ABURY.

SILCHESTER, Origin of.

See CALLEVA.

----------SILESIA: Start--------

SILESIA:
Origin of the name:

See LYGIANS.

SILESIA: 9th Century.
Included in the kingdom of Moravia.

See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.

SILESIA: A. D. 1355.
Declared an integral part of Bohemia.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

SILESIA: A. D. 1618.
Participation in the Bohemian revolt.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

SILESIA: A. D. 1633.
Campaign of Wallenstein.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

SILESIA: A. D. 1648.
Religious concessions in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

SILESIA: A. D. 1706.
Rights of the Protestants asserted and enforced by
Charles XII. of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

SILESIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
Invasion and conquest by Frederick the Great.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

SILESIA: A. D. 1742.
Ceded to Prussia by the Treaty of Breslau.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE).

SILESIA: A. D. 1748.
Cession to Prussia confirmed.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.

SILESIA: A. D. 1757.
Overrun by the Austrians.
Recovered by Frederick the Great.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

SILESIA: A. D. 1758.
Again occupied by the Austrians.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

SILESIA: A. D. 1760-1762.
Last campaigns of the Seven Years War.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1760; and 1761-1762.

SILESIA: A. D. 1763.
Final surrender to Prussia.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: A. D. 1763.

----------SILESIA: End--------

SILESIAN WARS, The First and Second.

The part which Frederick the Great took in the War of the
Austrian Succession, in 1740-1741, when he invaded and took
possession of Silesia, and in 1743-1745 when he resumed arms
to make his conquest secure, is commonly called the First
Silesian War and the Second Silesian War.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741; 1743-1744; and 1744-1745.

SILESIAN WARS, The Third.

The Seven Years War has been sometimes so-called.

See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1755-1756.

SILINGI, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

SILISTRIA: A. D. 1828-1829.
Siege and capture by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

SILK MANUFACTURE; transferred from Greece to Sicily and Italy.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

SILLERY, The Mission at.

See CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657.

SILO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 774-783.

SILOAM INSCRIPTION, The.

A very ancient and most important inscription which was
discovered in 1880 on the wall of a rock-cut channel leading
into the so-called Pool of Siloam, at Jerusalem. It relates
only to the excavating of the tunnel which carries water to
the Pool, "yet its importance epigraphically and
philologically is immense. … It shows us that several
centuries must have elapsed, during which the modifications of
form which distinguish the Phoenician, the Moabite and the
Hebrew scripts gradually developed, and that the Hebrews,
therefore, would probably have been in possession of the art
of writing as early at least as the time of Solomon."

_C. R. Conder,
Syrian Stone-Lore,
page 118._

{2910}

SILPHIUM.

See CYRENAICA.

SILURES, The.

An ancient tribe in southern Wales, supposed by some to
represent a mixture of the Celtic and pre-Celtic inhabitants
of Britain.

See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN;
also, BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.

The conquest of the Silures was effected by Claudius.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.

SILVER-GRAYS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

SILVER QUESTION, in America, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1873, 1878, 1890-1893;
also MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893, and 1853-1874.

SILVER QUESTION, in India, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1893.

SIMNEL, Lambert, Rebellion of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1487-1497.

SIMPACH, Battle of.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

SIN. SINÆ.

See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

SINDH.

See SCINDE.

SINDMAN, The.

See COMITATUS.

SINGARA, Battle of (A. D.348).

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

SINGIDUNUM.

See BELGRADE.

SINIM.

See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

SINITES, The.

A Canaanite tribe whose country was the mountain chain of
Lebanon.

SINSHEIM, Battle of (1674).

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

SION.

See JERUSALEM: CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION BY DAVID.

SIOUX, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SIPPARA, The exhumed Library of.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

SIRBONIS LAKE.

See SERBONIAN BOG.

SIRIS. SIRITIS. THURII. METAPONTIUM. TARENTUM.

"Between the point [on the Tarentine gulf, southeastern Italy]
where the dominion of Sybaris terminated on the Tarentine
side, and Tarentum itself, there were two considerable Grecian
settlements—Siris, afterwards called Herakleia, and
Metapontium. The fertility and attraction of the territory of
Siris, with its two rivers, Akiris and Sins, were well-known
even to the poet Archilochus (660 B. C.). but we do not know
the date at which it passed from the indigenous Chonians, or
Chaonians into the hands of Greek settlers. … At the time of
the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, the fertile territory of
Siritis was considered as still open to be colonised; for the
Athenians, when their affairs appeared desperate, had this
scheme of emigration in reserve as a possible resource. … At
length, after the town of Thurii had been founded by Athens
[B. C. 443, under the administration of Perikles; the
historian Herodotus and the orator Lycias being among the
settlers], in the vicinity of the dismantled Sybaris, the
Thurians tried to possess themselves of the Siritid territory,
but were opposed by the Tarentines. According to the
compromise concluded between them, Tarentum was recognised as
the metropolis of the colony, but joint possession was allowed
both to Tarentines and Thurians. The former transferred the
site of the city, under the new name Herakleia, to a spot
three miles from the sea, leaving Siris as the place of
maritime access to it. About twenty-five miles eastward of
Siris, on the coast of the Tarentine gulf, was situated
Metapontium, a Greek town, … planted on the territory of the
Chonians, or Œnotrians; but the first colony is said to have
been destroyed by an attack of the Samnites, at what period we
do not know. It had been founded by some Achæan settlers. …
The fertility of the Metapontine territory was hardly less
celebrated than that of the Siritid. Farther eastward of
Metapontium, again at the distance of about twenty-five miles,
was situated the great city of Taras, or Tarentum, a colony
from Sparta founded after the first Messenian war, seemingly
about 707 B. C. … The Tarentines … stand first among the
Italiots, or Italian Greeks, from the year 400 B. C. down to
the supremacy of the Romans."

_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22._

SIRKARS, OR CIRCARS, The Northern.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

SIRMIUM.

Sirmium (modern Mitrovitz, on the Save) was the Roman capital
of Pannonia, and an important center of all military
operations in that region.

SIRMIUM:
Ruined by the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

SIRMIUM:
Captured by the Avars.

See AVARS.

SISECK, Siege and Battle of (1592).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

SISINNIUS, Pope, A. D. 708, January to February.

SISSETONS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SISTOVA, Treaty of (1791).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

SITABALDI HILLS, Battle of the (1817).

See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

SITVATOROK, Treaty of (1606).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

SIX ACTS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

SIX ARTICLES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.

SIX HUNDRED, The Charge of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

SIX NATIONS OF INDIANS.

See FIVE NATIONS.

SIXTEEN OF THE LEAGUE, in Paris, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

SIXTUS IV., Pope, A. D. 1471-1484.

SIXTUS V., Pope, 1585-1590.

SKALDS.

See SCALDS.

SKINNERS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SKITTAGETAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.

SKOBELEFF, General, Campaigns of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881;
and TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

SKODRA (Scutari).

See ILLYRIANS.

SKRÆLINGS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

SKUPTCHINA.

The Servian parliament or legislature.

{2911}

SKYTALISM.

See SCYTALISM.

SLAVE:
Origin of the servile signification of the word.

The term slave, in its signification of a servile state, is
derived undoubtedly from the name of the Slavic or Sclavic
people. "This conversion of a national into an appellative
name appears to have arisen in the eighth century, in the
Oriental France [Austrasia], where the princes and bishops
were rich in Sclavonian captives, not of the Bohemian
(exclaims Jordan), but of Sorabian race. From thence the word
was extended to general use, to the modern languages, and even
to the style of the last Byzantines."

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

See, also, AVARS; and SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SLAVE OR MAMELUKE DYNASTY OF INDIA, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

SLAVE RISING UNDER SPARTACUS.

See SPARTACUS;
and ROME: B. C. 78-68.

SLAVE TRADE, First measures for the suppression of the.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.

SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.

After the Romans became masters of Sicily the island was
filled rapidly with slaves, of which a vast number were being
continually acquired in the Roman wars of conquest. Most of
these slaves were employed as shepherds and herdsmen on great
estates, the owners of which gave little attention to them,
simply exacting in the most merciless fashion a satisfactory
product. The result was that the latter, half perishing from
hunger and cold, were driven to desperation, and a frightful
rising among them broke out, B. C. 133. It began at Enna, and
its leader was a Syrian called Eunus, who pretended to
supernatural powers. The inhabitants of Enna were massacred,
and that town became the stronghold of the revolt. Eunus
crowned himself and assumed the royal name of Antiochus.
Agrigentum, Messana and Tauromenium fell into the hands of the
insurgents, and more than a year passed before they were
successfully resisted. When, at last, they were overcome, it
was only at the end of most obstinate sieges, particularly at
Tauromenium and Enna, and the vengeance taken was without
mercy. In Italy there were similar risings at the same time,
from like causes, but these latter were quickly suppressed.
Thirty years later a second revolt of slaves was provoked,
both in southern Italy and in Sicily,—suppressed promptly in
the former, but growing to seriousness in the latter. The
Sicilian slaves had two leaders, Salvius and Athenio; but the
former established his ascendancy and called himself king
Triphon. The rebellion was suppressed at the cost of two heavy
battles.

_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 48,
and book 6, chapter 55._

ALSO IN:
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
chapter 9._

----------SLAVERY: Start--------

SLAVERY: Ancient.
Among the Oriental races.

"From the writings of the Old Testament a fairly distinct
conception can be formed of slavery among the Hebrews. Many
modern critics hold the picture presented in the Book of
Genesis, of the patriarchal age, its slavery included, to be
not a transcript of reality, but an idealisation of the past.
Whether this is so or not, can only be properly decided by the
historico-critical investigations of specialists. Although the
Hebrews are described as having shown extreme ferocity in the
conquest of Canaan, their legislation as to slavery was, on
the whole, considerate and humane. Slaves were not numerous
among them, at least after the exile. Hebrew slavery has
naturally been the subject of much research and controversy.
The best treatise regarding it is still that of Mielziner.
Slavery in the great military empires, which arose in ancient
times in anterior Asia, was doubtless of the most cruel
character; but we have no good account of slavery in these
countries. The histories of Rawlinson, Duncker, Ranke, Ed.
Meyer, and Maspero, tell us almost nothing about Chaldean,
Assyrian, and Medo-Persian slavery. Much more is known as to
slavery, and the condition of the labouring classes, in
ancient Egypt, although of even this section of the history
there is much need for an account in which the sources of
information, unsealed by modern science, will be fully
utilised. While in Egypt there were not castes, in the strict
sense of the term, classes were very rigidly defined. There
were troops of slaves, and as population was superabundant,
labour was so cheap as to be employed to an enormous extent
uselessly. It may suffice to refer to Wilkinson, Rawlinson,
and Buckle. It does not seem certain that the Vedic Aryans had
slaves before the conquest of India. Those whom they conquered
became the Sudras, and a caste system grew up, and came to be
represented as of divine appointment. The two lower castes of
the Code of Manu have now given place to a great many. There
was not a slave caste, but individuals of any caste might
become slaves in exceptional circumstances. Even before the
rise of Buddhism there were ascetics who rejected the
distinction of castes. Buddhism proclaimed the religious
equality of Brahmans and Sudras, but not the emancipation of
the Sudras."

_R. Flint,
History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
pages 128-129._

ALSO IN:
_E. J. Simcox,
Primitive Civilizations._

SLAVERY:
Among the Greeks.

"The institution of slavery in Greece is very ancient; it is
impossible to trace its origin, and we find it even in the
very earliest times regarded as a necessity of nature, a point
of view which even the following ages and the most enlightened
philosophers adopted. In later times voices were heard from
time to time protesting against the necessity of the
institution, showing some slight conception of the idea of
human rights, but these were only isolated opinions. From the
very earliest times the right of the strongest had established
the custom that captives taken in war, if not killed or
ransomed, became the slaves of the conquerors, or were sold
into slavery by them. … Besides the wars, piracy, originally
regarded as by no means dishonourable, supplied the slave
markets; and though in later times endeavours were made to set
a limit to it, yet the trade in human beings never ceased,
since the need for slaves was considerable, not only in
Greece, but still more in Oriental countries.
{2912}
In the historic period the slaves in Greece were for the most
part barbarians, chiefly from the districts north of the
Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor. The Greek dealers supplied
themselves from the great slave markets held in the towns on
the Black Sea and on the Asiatic coast of the Archipelago, not
only by the barbarians themselves, but even by Greeks, in
particular the Chians, who carried on a considerable slave
trade. These slaves were then put up for sale at home; at
Athens there were special markets held for this purpose on the
first of every month. … A large portion of the slave
population consisted of those who were born in slavery; that
is, the children of slaves or of a free father and slave
mother, who as a rule also became slaves, unless the owner
disposed otherwise. We have no means of knowing whether the
number of these slave children born in the houses in Greece
was large or small. At Rome thy formed a large proportion of
the slave population, but the circumstances in Italy differed
greatly from those in Greece, and the Roman landowners took as
much thought for the increase of their slaves as of their
cattle. Besides these two classes of slave population, those
who were taken in war or by piracy and those who were born
slaves, there was also a third, though not important, class.
In early times even free men might become slaves by legal
methods; for instance foreign residents, if they neglected
their legal obligations, and even Greeks, if they were
insolvent, might be sold to slavery by their creditors [see
DEBT: ANCIENT GREEK], a severe measure which was forbidden by
Solon's legislation at Athens, but still prevailed in other
Greek states. Children, when exposed, became the property of
those who found and educated them, and in this manner many of
the hetaerae and flute girls had become the property of their
owners. Finally, we know that in some countries the Hellenic
population originally resident there were subdued by foreign
tribes, and became the slaves of their conquerors, and their
position differed in but few respects from that of the
barbarian slaves purchased in the markets. Such native serfs
were the Helots at Sparta, the Penestae in Thessaly, the
Clarotae in Crete, etc. We have most information about the
position and treatment of the Helots; but here we must receive
the statements of writers with great caution, since they
undoubtedly exaggerated a good deal in their accounts of the
cruelty with which the Spartans treated the Helots. Still, it
is certain that in many respects their lot was a sad one. …
The rights assigned by law to the master over his slaves were
very considerable. He might throw them in chains, put them in
the stocks, condemn them to the hardest labour —for instance,
in the mills—leave them without food, brand them, punish them
with stripes, and attain the utmost limit of endurance; but,
at any rate at Athens, he was forbidden to kill them. … Legal
marriages between slaves were not possible, since they
possessed no personal rights; the owner could at any moment
separate a slave family again, and sell separate members of
it. On the other hand, if the slaves were in a position to
earn money, they could acquire fortunes of their own; they
then worked on their own account, and only paid a certain
proportion to their owners, keeping the rest for themselves,
and when they had saved the necessary amount they could
purchase their freedom, supposing the owner was willing to
agree, for he was not compelled. … The protection given to
slaves by the State was very small, but here again there were
differences in different states. … It would be impossible to
make a guess at the number of slaves in Greece. Statements on
the subject are extant, but these are insufficient to give us
any general idea. There can be no doubt that the number was a
very large one; it was a sign of the greatest poverty to own
no slaves at all, and Aeschines mentions, as a mark of a very
modest household, that there were only seven slaves to six
persons. If we add to these domestic slaves the many thousands
working in the country, in the factories, and the mines, and
those who were the property of the State and the temples,
there seems no doubt that their number must have considerably
exceeded that of the free population."

_H. Blümner,
The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks,
chapter 15._

ALSO IN:
_C. C. Felton,
Greece, Ancient and Modern,
lectures 2-3, third course (volume 2)._

SLAVERY:
Among the Romans.

Slavery, under the Roman Empire, "was carried to an excess
never known elsewhere, before or since.

See ROME: B. C. 159-133.

Christianity found It permeating and corrupting every domain
of human life, and in six centuries of conflict succeeded in
reducing it to nothing. … Christianity, in the early ages,
never denounced slavery as a crime; never encouraged or
permitted the slaves to rise against their masters and throw
off the yoke; yet she permeated the minds of both masters and
slaves with ideas utterly inconsistent with the spirit of
slavery. Within the Church, master and slave stood on an
absolute equality."

_W. R. Brownlow,
Lectures on Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
lectures 1-2._

SLAVERY: Mediæval and Modern.

SLAVERY:
Villeinage.
Serfdom.

"The persons employed in cultivating the ground during the
ages under review [the 7th to the 11th centuries, in Europe]
may be divided into three classes:

I. 'Servi,' or slaves. This seems to have been the most
numerous class, and consisted either of captives taken in war,
or of persons the property in whom was acquired in some one of
the various methods enumerated by Du Cange, voc. Servus,
volume vi. page 447. The wretched condition of this numerous
race of men will appear from several circumstances.

1. Their masters had absolute dominion over their persons.
They had the power of punishing their slaves capitally,
without the intervention of any judge. This dangerous right
they possessed not only in the more early periods, when their
manners were fierce, but it continued as late as the 12th
century. … Even after this jurisdiction of masters came to be
restrained, the life of a slave was deemed to be of so little
value that a very slight compensation atoned for taking it
away. If masters had power over the lives of their slaves, it
is evident that almost no bounds would be set to the rigour of
the punishments which they might inflict upon them. … The
cruelty of these was, in many instances, excessive. Slaves
might be put to the rack on very slight occasions. The laws
with respect to these points are to be found in Potgiesserus,
lib. iii. cap. 7. 2. and are shocking to humanity.

{2913}

2. If the dominion of masters over the lives and persons of
their slaves was thus extensive, it was no less so over their
actions and property. They were not originally permitted to
marry. Male and female slaves were allowed, and even
encouraged, to cohabit together. But this union was not
considered as a marriage. … When the manners of the European
nations became more gentle, and their ideas more liberal,
slaves who married without their master's consent were
subjected only to a fine. …

3. All the children of slaves were in the same condition with
their parents, and became the property of their master. …

4. Slaves were so entirely the property of their masters that
they could sell them at pleasure. While domestic slavery
continued, property in a slave was sold in the same manner
with that which a person had in any other moveable. Afterwards
slaves became 'adscripti glebæ,' and were conveyed by sale,
together with the farm or estate to which they belonged. …

5. Slaves had a title to nothing but subsistence and clothes
from their master; all the profits of their labour accrued to
him. …

6. Slaves were distinguished from freemen by a peculiar dress.
Among all the barbarous nations, long hair was a mark of
dignity and of freedom; slaves were for that reason, obliged
to shave their heads. …

II. 'Villani.' They were likewise 'adscripti glebæ,' or
'villæ,' from which they derived their name, and were
transferable along with it. Du Cange, voc. Villanus. But in
this they differed from slaves, that they paid a fixed rent to
their master for the land which they cultivated, and, after
paying that, all the fruits of their labour and industry
belonged to themselves in property. This distinction is marked
by Pierre de Fontain's Conseil. Vie de St. Louis par
Joinville, page 119, édit. de Du Cange. Several cases decided
agreeably to this principle are mentioned by Muratori, ibid,
page 773.

III. The last class of persons employed in agriculture were
freemen. … Notwithstanding the immense difference between the
first of these classes and the third, such was the spirit of
tyranny which prevailed among the great proprietors of lands …
that many freemen, in despair, renounced their liberty, and
voluntarily surrendered themselves as slaves to their powerful
masters. This they did in order that their masters might
become more immediately interested to afford them protection,
together with the means of subsisting themselves and their
families. … It was still more common for freemen to surrender
their liberty to bishops or abbots, that they might partake of
the security which the vassals and slaves of churches and
monasteries enjoyed. … The number of slaves in every nation of
Europe was immense. The greater part of the inferior class of
people in France were reduced to this state at the
commencement of the third race of kings. Esprit des Loix, liv.
xxx. c. ii. The same was the case in England. Brady, Pref. to
Gen. Hist. … The humane spirit of the christian religion
struggled long with the maxims and manners of the world, and
contributed more than any other circumstance to introduce the
practice of manumission. … The formality of manumission was
executed in a church, as a religious solemnity. … Another
method of obtaining liberty was by entering into holy orders,
or taking the vow in a monastery. This was permitted for some
time; but so many slaves escaped by this means out of the
hands of their masters that the practice was afterwards
restrained, and at last prohibited, by the laws of almost all
the nations of Europe. … Great … as the power of religion was,
it does not appear that the enfranchisement of slaves was a
frequent practice while the feudal system preserved its
vigour. … The inferior order of men owed the recovery of their
liberty to the decline of that aristocratical policy."

_W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
notes 9 and 20._

ALSO IN:
_A. Gurowski,
Slavery in History,
chapters 15-20._

_T. Smith,
Arminius,
part 3, chapter 5._

See, also, DEDITITIUS.

SLAVERY: England.
Villeinage.

"Chief of all causes [of slavery] in early times and among all
peoples was capture in war. The peculiar nature of the English
conquests, the frequent wars between the different kingdoms
and the private expeditions for revenge or plunder would
render this a fruitful means whereby the number of slaves
would increase on English soil. In this way the Romanized
Briton, the Welshman, the Angle and Saxon and the Dane would
all go to swell the body of those without legal status. In
those troubled times any were liable to a reduction to
slavery; the thegn might become a thrall, the lord might
become the slave of one who had been in subjection under him,
and Wulfstan, in that strong sermon of his to the English
[against Slavery—preserved by William of Malmesbury], shows
that all this actually took place. It was at the time of the
Danish invasion and the sermon seems to point clearly to a
region infested by Danes, a region in which was the seat of
Wulfstan's labors, for he was Archbishop of York from 1002 to
1023. Wulfstan's graphic picture does not seem to be
corroborated by the evidence of the Domesday Survey. Mr.
Seebohm's map shows that in the west and southwest there
appears the greatest percentage in that record; that in
Gloucestershire nearly one fourth of the population,
twenty-four per cent., were in a state of slavery; that in
Cornwall, Devon, and Stafford the proportion was only one to
every five; in central England about one to every seven; in
the east, Essex, Surrey, Cambridge and Herts one to every
nine; in East Anglia and Wessex one to every twenty-five,
while in the northerly districts in Nottinghamshire one to two
hundred is given, and in York, Rutland, Huntingdon and Lincoln
no slaves at all are recorded. From this it is evident that
the Danish invasion was less serious from this point of view
than had been the original conquest. Domesday records the
social condition 500 years after the settlement, and many
influences, with Christianity as the primary, were at work to
alter the results of that movement. The main inference to be
drawn is that the continued warfare along the Welsh marches
replenished the supply in the west, while in the east the
slave element was rapidly decreasing and in the north,
notwithstanding the Danish invasion, there was rather a
commingling of peoples than a subjection of the one by the
other. A second cause was the surrender into slavery of the
individual's own body either by himself or a relative. This
could be voluntary, the free act of the individual or his
relatives, or it could be forced, resulting from the storm and
stress of evil days: This surrender was one of the most
unfortunate phases of the Anglo-Saxon servitude and indicates
to us the growing increase of the traffic in slaves; and the
personal subjection was largely the outcome of that which was
common to all peoples, the demand for slaves.
{2914}
Even as early as the time of Strabo, in the half century
following Cæsar's conquest, the export of slaves began in
Britain and before the Norman Conquest the sale of slaves had
become a considerable branch of commerce. The insular position
of England, her numerous ports, of which Bristol was one of
the chief, gave rise during the Saxon occupation to a traffic
in the slaves of all nations, and we know that slaves were
publicly bought and sold throughout England and from there
transported to Ireland or the continent. It was the prevalence
of this practice and the wretched misery which it brought upon
so many human beings, as well as the fact that it was against
the precepts if not the laws of the church, that led Wulfstan,
the Wilberforce of his time, to bring about the cessation of
the slave trade at Bristol. From this place lines of women and
children, gathered together from all England, were carried
into Ireland and sold. … Besides this sale into slavery for
purposes of traffic, which as a regular commerce was not
prohibited until after the Norman conquest, many seem to have
submitted themselves to the mastery of another through the
need of food, which a year of famine might bring. A charter in
the Codex Diplomaticus tells us of those men who bowed their
heads for their meat in the evil days. Kemble thinks that such
cases might have been frequent and Simeon of Durham, writing
of the year 1069 when there was a dreadful famine in England,
which raged particularly in the north, says that many sold
themselves into slavery, that they might receive the needed
support. … Even so late as the so-called laws of Henry I, such
an act was recognized and a special procedure provided. … In
addition to all those thus born into slavery or reduced to
that condition in the ways above noted, there was another
class made up of such as were reduced to slavery unwillingly
as a penalty for debt or crime: these were known as
'witetheowas' or 'wite-fæstanmen.' … The legal condition of
the slave was a particularly hard one; as a thing, not as a
person, he was classed with his lord's goods and cattle and
seems to have been rated according to a similar schedule, to
be disposed of at the lord's pleasure like his oxen or horses.
… They had no legal rights before the law and could bear no
arms save the cudgel, the 'billum vel strublum,' as the laws
of Henry I call it. Yet the position of the slave appears to
have improved in the history of Anglo-Saxon law. … Hardly any
part of the work of the Church was of greater importance than
that which related to the moral and social elevation of the
slave class. Its influence did much to mitigate their hard
lot, both directly and indirectly."

_C. McL. Andrews,
The Old English Manor,
page 181-188._

The Domesday Survey "attests the existence [in England, at the
time of the Norman Conquest] of more than 25,000 servi, who
must be understood to be, at the highest estimate of their
condition, landless labourers; over 82,000 bordarii; nearly
7,000 cotarii and cotseti, whose names seem to denote the
possession of land or houses held by service of labour or rent
paid in produce; and nearly 110,000 villani. Above these were
the liberi homines and sokemanni, who seem to represent the
medieval and modern freeholder. The villani of Domesday are no
doubt the ceorls of the preceding period, the men of the
township, the settled cultivators of the land, who in a
perfectly free state of society were the owners of the soil
they tilled, but under the complicated system of rights and
duties which marked the close of the Anglo-Saxon period had
become dependent on a lord, and now under the prevalence of
the feudal idea were regarded as his customary tenants;
irremoveable cultivators, who had no proof of their title but
the evidence of their fellow ceorls. For two centuries after
the Conquest the villani are to be traced in the possession of
rights both social and to a certain extent political. … They
are spoken of by the writers of the time as a distinct order
of society, who, although despicable for ignorance and
coarseness, were in possession of considerable comforts, and
whose immunities from the dangers of a warlike life
compensated for the somewhat unreasoning contempt with which
they were viewed by clerk and knight. During this time the
villein could assert his rights against every oppressor but
his master; and even against his master the law gave him a
standing-ground if he could make his complaint known to those
who had the will to maintain it. But there can be little doubt
that the Norman knight practically declined to recognise the
minute distinctions of Anglo-Saxon dependence, and that the
tendency of both law and social habit was to throw into the
class of native or born villeins the whole of the population
described in Domesday under the heads of servi, bordarii and
villani."

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 132._

"It has become a commonplace to oppose medieval serfdom to
ancient slavery, one implying dependence on the lord of the
soil and attachment to the glebe, the other being based on
complete subjection to an owner. … If, from a general survey
of medieval servitude we turn to the actual condition of the
English peasantry, say in the 13th century, the first fact we
have to meet will stand in very marked contrast to our general
proposition. The majority of the peasants are villains, and
the legal conception of villainage has its roots not in the
connexion of the villain with the soil, but in his personal
dependence on the lord. … As to the general aspect of
villainage in the legal theory of English feudalism there can
be no doubt. The 'Dialogus de Scaccario' gives it in a few
words: the lords are owners not only of the chattels but of
the bodies of their 'ascripticii,' they may transfer them
wherever they please, 'and sell or otherwise alienate them if
they like.' Glanville and Bracton, Fleta and Britton follow in
substance the same doctrine, although they use different
terms. They appropriate the Roman view that there is no
difference of quality between serfs and serfs: all are in the
same abject state. Legal theory keeps a very firm grasp of the
distinction between status and tenure, between a villain and a
free man holding in villainage, but it does not admit of any
distinction of status among serfs: 'servus,' 'villanus' and
'nativus' are equivalent terms as to personal condition,
although this last is primarily meant to indicate something
else besides condition, namely, the fact that a person has
come to it by birth. … Manorial lords could remove peasants
from their holdings at their will and pleasure. An appeal to
the courts was of no avail.
{2915}
… Nor could the villain have any help as to the amount and
nature of his services; the King's Courts will not examine any
complaint in this respect, and may sometimes go so far as to
explain that it is no business of theirs to interfere between
the lord and his man. … Even as to his person, the villain was
liable to be punished and put into prison by the lord, if the
punishment inflicted did not amount to loss of life or injury
to his body. … It is not strange that in view of such
disabilities Bracton thought himself entitled to assume
equality of condition between the English villain and the
Roman slave, and to use the terms 'servus,' 'villanus,' and
'nativus' indiscriminately."

_P. Vinogradoff,
Villainage in England,
chapter 1._

"Serfdom is met with for the last time in the statute-book of
England under Richard II. By reason of the thriving condition
of the towns, many villeins who had betaken themselves
thither, partly with the consent of their owners and partly in
secret, became free. If a slave remained a year and a day in a
privileged town without being reclaimed in the interval, he
became free. The wars carried on against France, the fact that
serf-labour had become more expensive than that of free-men,
thus rendering emancipation an 'economical' consideration, and
finally, frequent uprisings, contributed to diminish the
number of these poor helots. How rapidly serfdom must have
fallen away may be inferred from the fact that the rebels
under Wat Tyler, in 1381, clamored for the removal of serfdom;
the followers of Jack Cade, in 1450, for everything else save
the abolition of slavery. … The few purchasable slaves under
the Tudors were met with only on the property of the churches,
the monasteries, and the bishoprics. This slavery was often of
a voluntary nature. On the king's domains bondmen were only
emancipated by Elizabeth in 1574. The last traces of personal
slavery, and of a subject race permanently annexed to the
soil, are met with in the reign of James I. As a rule, it may
be assumed that, with the Tudors, serfdom disappeared in
England."

_E. Fischel,
The English Constitution,
book 1, chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_F. Hargrave,
Argument in the Case of James Sommersett
(Howell's State Trials, volume 20)._

_W. R. Brownlow,
Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
lectures 3-4._

See, also, MANORS.

SLAVERY: France.
Villeinage.

On the condition of the servile classes in Gaul during the
first five or six centuries after the barbarian conquest.

See GAUL: 5-10TH CENTURIES.