Chapter DXVII: Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this (7)

After the death of Eccelino, Verona, by its own choice came
under the government of the first Mastino della Scala, who
established the power of a house which became famous in
Italian history. Mastino's grandson, Cane, or Can' Grande
della Scala, "reigned in that city from 1312 to 1329, with a
splendor which no other prince in Ita]y equalled. … Among the
Lombard princes he was the first protector of literature and
the arts. The best poets, painters, and sculptors of Italy,
Dante, to whom he offered an asylum, as well as Uguccione da
Faggiuola, and many other exiles illustrious in war or
politics, were assembled at his court. He aspired to subdue
the Veronese and Trevisan marches, or what has since been
called the Terra Firma of Venice. He took possession of
Vicenza; and afterwards maintained a long war against the
republic of Padua, the most powerful in the district, and that
which had shown the most attachment to the Guelph party and to
liberty." In 1328, Padua submitted to him; and "the year
following he attacked and took Treviso, which surrendered on
the 6th of July, 1329. He possessed himself of Feltre and
Cividale soon after. The whole province seemed subjugated to
his power; but the conqueror also was subdued." He died on the
22d of the same month in which Treviso was taken.

_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 6._

Can' Grande was succeeded by his nephew, the second Mastino
della Scala, who, in the next six years, "extended his states
from the northeastern frontiers of Italy to the confines of
Tuscany; and the possession of the strong city of Lucca now
gave him a secure footing in this province. He shortly made it
appear to what purpose he meant to apply this new advantage.
Under the plea of re-establishing the Ghibelin interests, but
in reality to forward his own schemes of dominion, he began to
fill all Tuscany with his machinations. Florence was neither
slow to discover her danger, nor to resent the treachery of
her faithless ally,"—which Mastino had recently been.
Florence, according]y, formed an alliance with Venice, which
Mastino had rashly offended by restricting the manufacture of
salt on the Trevisan coast, and by laying heavy duties on the
navigation of the Po. Florence agreed "to resign to Venice the
sole possession of such conquests as might be made in that
quarter; only reserving for herself the acquisition of Lucca,
which she was to obtain by attacking Mastino in Tuscany,
entirely with her own resources. Upon these terms an alliance
was signed between the two republics, and the lord of Verona
had soon abundant reason to repent of the pride and treachery
by which he had provoked their formidable union (A. D. 1336).
… During three campaigns he was unable to oppose the league in
the field, and was compelled to witness the successive loss of
many of his principal cities (A. D. 1337). His brother Albert
was surprised and made prisoner in Padua, by the treachery of
the family of Carrara, who acquired the sovereignty of that
city; Feltro was captured by the Duke of Carinthia, Brescia
revolted, and fell with other places to Azzo Visconti. … In
this hopeless condition Mastino artfully addressed himself to
the Venetians, and, by satisfying all their demands, detached
them from the general interests of the coalition (A. D. 1338).
By a separate treaty which their republic concluded with him,
and which was then only communicated to the Florentines for
their acceptance, Mastino ceded to Venice Treviso, with other
fortresses and possessions, and the right of free navigation
on the Po; he agreed at the same time to yield Bassano and an
extension of territory to the new lord of Padua, and to
confirm the sovereignty of Brescia to Azzo Visconti; but for
the Florentine republic no farther advantage was stipulated
than the enjoyment of a few castles which they had already
conquered in Tuscany."

_G. Procter,
History of Italy,
chapter 4, part 3._

ALSO IN:
_H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
chapter 19 (volume 2)._

{3621}

VERONA: A. D. 1351-1387.
Degeneracy and fall of the Scaligeri.
Subjugation by the Visconti of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

VERONA: A. D. 1405.
Added to the dominion of Venice.

See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

VERONA: A. D. 1797.
Massacre of French Soldiers.

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

VERONA: A. D. 1814.
Surrender to the Austrians.

See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

----------VERONA: End--------

VERONA, The Congress of (after Troppau and Laybach).

"The rapid spread of revolution in Europe inspired serious
misgivings among the great powers, and impelled the Holy
Alliance [see HOLY ALLIANCE] to show its true colours. Austria
was especially alarmed by the movement in Naples [see ITALY:
A. D. 1820-1821], which threatened to overthrow its power in
Italy, and Metternich convoked a congress at Troppau, in Upper
Silesia (October, 1820), at which Austria, Russia, Prussia,
France and England were represented. Neapolitan affairs were
the chief subject of discussion, and it was soon evident that
Austria, Russia and Prussia were agreed as to the necessity of
armed intervention. England made a formal protest against such
high-handed treatment of a peaceful country; but as the
protest was not supported by France, and England was not
prepared to go to war for Naples, it was disregarded. The
three allied powers decided to transfer the congress to
Laybach and to invite Ferdinand I. to attend in person." The
result of the conference at Laybach was a movement of 60,000
Austrian troops into Naples and Sicily, in March, 1821, and a
restoration of Ferdinand, who made a merciless use of his
opportunity for revenge.

_R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 25, section 8._

From Laybach, the allied sovereigns issued a circular to their
representatives at the various foreign courts, in which
portentous document they declared that "useful and necessary
changes in legislation and in the administration of states
could only emanate from the free will, and from the
intelligent and well-weighed convictions, of those whom God
has made responsible for power. Penetrated with this eternal
truth, the sovereigns have not hesitated to proclaim it with
frankness and vigour. They have declared that, in respecting
the rights and independence of legitimate power, they regarded
as legally null, and disavowed by the principles which
constituted the public right of Europe, all pretended reforms
operated by revolt and open hostilities." "These principles,
stated nakedly and without shame, were too much even for Lord
Castlereagh. In a despatch, written early in the year 1821,
while admitting the right of a state to interfere in the
internal affairs of another state when its own interests were
endangered, he protested against the pretension to put down
revolutionary movements apart from their immediate bearing on
the security of the state so intervening, and denied that
merely possible revolutionary movements can properly be made
the basis of a hostile alliance. The principles of the Holy
Alliance were not intended to remain a dead letter; they were
promptly acted upon. Popular movements were suppressed in
Naples and Piedmont; and intervention in Spain, where the
Cortes had been summoned and the despotic rule of Ferdinand
VII. had been overthrown, was in contemplation. Greece
imitated the example set in the western peninsulas of Europe.
The Congress of Verona was summoned, and Lord Castlereagh (now
the Marquis of Londonderry) was preparing to join it, when in
an access of despondency, the origin of which is variously
explained, he took his own life." He was succeeded in the
British Ministry by Mr. Canning.

_F. H. Hill,
George Canning,
chapter 20._

"The first business which presented itself to Mr. Cunning was
to devise a system by which the Holy Alliance could be
gradually dissolved, and England rescued from the consequences
of her undefined relations with its members. The adjourned
Congress was on the point of assembling at Verona, and as it
was necessary to send a representative in place of Lord
Castlereagh, who seems to have been terrified at the prospect
that lay before him, the Duke of Wellington was selected, and
dispatched without loss of time. … The very first blow he
[Canning] struck in the Congress of Verona announced to the
world the attitude which England was about to take, and her
total denial of the rights of the Alliance to interfere with
the internal affairs of any independent nation. It appeared
that France had collected a large army in the south, and not
having legitimate occupation for it, proposed to employ it in
the invasion of Spain [see Spain: A. D. 1814-1827]. This
monstrous project was submitted to Congress, and ardently
approved of by Russia. It was now that England spoke out for
the first time in this cabal of despots. … After some
interchanges of notes and discussions agreed to by the allies,
the British plenipotentiary, as he was instructed, refused all
participation in these proceedings, and withdrew from the
Congress. This was the first step that was taken to show the
Alliance that England would not become a party to any act of
unjust aggression or unjustifiable interference. A long
correspondence ensued between Mr. Canning and M. de
Chateaubriand. … The French king's speech, on opening the
Chambers, revealed the real intentions of the government,
which Mr. Canning had penetrated from the beginning. The
speech was, in fact, a declaration of war against Spain,
qualified by the slightest imaginable hypothesis. But, happily
for all interests, there was no possibility of disguising the
purpose of this war, which was plainly and avowedly to force
upon the people of Spain such a constitution as the king (a
Bourbon), in the exercise of his absolute authority, should
think fit to give them. … Against this principle Mr. Canning
entered a dignified protest. … Although he could not avert
from Spain the calamity of a French invasion, he made it clear
to all the world that England objected to that proceeding, and
that she was no longer even to be suspected of favoring the
designs of the Holy Alliance. The French army made the passage
of the Bidassoa. From that moment Mr. Canning interfered no
farther. He at once disclosed the system which he had already
matured and resolved upon. Having first protested against the
principle of the invasion, he determined to maintain the
neutrality of England in the war that followed.
{3622}
By this course he achieved the end he had in view, of severing
England from the Holy Alliance without embroiling her in any
consequent responsibilities. … Mr. Canning's 'system' of
foreign policy, as described in his own language, resolved
itself into this principle of action, that 'England should
hold the balance, not only between contending nations, but
between conflicting principles; that, in order to prevent
things from going to extremities, she should keep a distinct
middle ground, staying the plague both ways.' … The
development of this principle, as it applied to nations, was
illustrated in the strict but watchful neutrality observed
between France and Spain; and, as it applied to principles, in
the recognition of the independence of the Spanish-American
colonies. The latter act may be regarded as the most important
for which Mr. Canning was officially responsible, as that
which exerted the widest and most distinct influence over the
policy of other countries, and which most clearly and
emphatically revealed the tendency of his own. It showed that
England would recognize institutions raised up by the people,
as well as those which were created by kings. It gave the
death-blow to the Holy Alliance." The logic and meaning of Mr.
Canning's recognition of the Spanish American republics found
expression in one famous passage of a brilliant speech which
he made in the House of Commons, December 12, 1826,
vindicating his foreign policy. "If France," he said,
"occupied Spain, was it necessary, in order to avoid the
consequences of that occupation, that we should blockade
Cadiz? No, I looked another way—I sought materials of
compensation in another hemisphere. Contemplating Spain such
as our ancestors had known her, I resolved that if France had
Spain, it should not be Spain with the Indies. I called the
New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old."

_R. Bell,
Life of the Right Honourable George Canning,
chapter 13._

ALSO IN:
_F. H. Hill,
George Canning,
chapter 20._

_F. A. Châteaubriand,
The Congress of Verona._

_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1815-1852,
chapters 8 and 12 (volume l,—American edition)._

_S. Walpole,
History of England,
chapter 9 (volume 2)._

VERRAZANO, Voyages of.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

----------VERSAILLES: Start--------

VERSAILLES.

Louis XIV. "preferred Versailles to his other chateaux,
because Fontainebleau, Chambord, Saint-Germain, were
existences ready created, which Francois I. and Henri IV. had
stamped with the ineffaceable imprint of their glory: at
Versailles, everything was to be made, save the modest
beginning left by Louis XIII. … At Versailles, everything was
to be created, we say,—not only the monuments of art, but
nature itself. This solitary elevation of ground, although
pleasing enough through the woods and hills that surrounded
it, was without great views, without sites, without waters,
without inhabitants. … The sites would be created by creating
an immense landscape by the hand of man; the waters would be
brought from the whole country by works which appalled the
imagination; the inhabitants would be caused, if we may say
so, to spring from the earth, by erecting a whole city for the
service of the chateau. Louis would thus make a city of his
own, a form of his own, of which he alone would be the life.
Versailles and the court would be the body and soul of one and
the same being, both created for the same end, the
glorification of the terrestrial God to whom they owed
existence. … The same idea filled the interior of the palace.
Painting deified Louis there under every form, in war and in
peace, in the arts and in the administration of the empire; it
celebrated his amours as his victories, his passions as his
labors. All the heroes of antiquity, all the divinities of
classic Olympus, rendered him homage or lent him their
attributes in turn. He was Augustus, he was Titus, he was
Alexander; he was thundering Jupiter, he was Hercules, the
conqueror of monsters; oftener, Apollo, the inspirer of the
Muses and the king of enlightenment. Mythology was no longer
but a great enigma, to which the name of Louis was the only
key; he was all the gods in himself alone. … Louis, always
served in his desires by the fertility of his age, had found a
third artist, Lenostre, to complete Lebrun and Mansart. Thanks
to Lenostre, Louis, from the windows of his incomparable
gallery of mirrors, saw nought that was not of his own
creation. The whole horizon was his work, for his garden was
the whole horizon. … Whole thickets were brought full-grown
from the depths of the finest forests of France, and the arts
of animating marble and of moving waters filled them with
every prodigy of which the imagination could dream. An
innumerable nation of statues peopled the thickets and lawns,
was mirrored in the waters, or rose from the bosom of the
wave. … Louis had done what he wished; he had created about
him a little universe, in which he was the only necessary and
almost the only real being. But terrestrial gods do not create
with a word like the true God. These buildings which stretch
across a frontage of twelve hundred yards, the unheard-of
luxury of these endless apartments, this incredible multitude
of objects of art, these forests transplanted, these waters of
heaven gathered from all the slopes of the heights into the
windings of immense conduits from Trappes and Palaiseau to
Versailles, these waters of the Seine brought from Marly by
gigantic machinery through that aqueduct which commands from
afar the valley of the river like a superb Roman ruin, and
later, an enterprise far more colossal! that river which was
turned aside from its bed and which it was undertaken to bring
thirty leagues to Versailles over hills and valleys, cost
France grievous efforts and inexhaustible sweats, and
swallowed up rivers of gold increasing from year to year. …
Versailles has cost France dearly, very dearly; nevertheless
it is important to historic truth to set aside in this respect
too long accredited exaggerations. … The accounts, or at least
the abstracts of the accounts, of the expenditures of Louis
XIV. for building, during the greater part of his reign, have
been discovered. The costs of the construction, decoration,
and furnishing of Versailles, from 1664 to 1690, including the
hydraulic works and the gardens, in addition to the
appendages,—that is, Clagny, Trianon, Saint-Cyr, and the two
churches of the new city of Versailles,—amount to about one
hundred and seven millions, to which must be added a million,
or a million and a half perhaps, for the expenses of the years
1661-1663, the accounts of which are not known, and three
million two hundred and sixty thousand francs for the
sumptuous chapel, which was not built until 1699-1710.
{3623}
The proportion of the mark to the franc having varied under
Louis XIV., it is difficult to arrive at an exact reduction to
the present currency. … The expenses of Versailles would
represent to-day more than four hundred millions. This amount
is enormous; but it is not monstrous like the twelve hundred
millions of which Mirabeau speaks, nor, above all, madly
fantastic like the four thousand six hundred millions imagined
by Volney."

_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_L. Ritchie,
Versailles._

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1789.
Opening scenes of the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY), and after.

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1870.
Headquarters of the German court and the army besieging Paris.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1871.
Assumption of the dignity of Emperor of Germany
by King William of Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1871.

----------VERSAILLES: End--------

VERTERÆ.

A Roman city in Britain, which probably occupied the site of
the modern town of Brough, in Westmoreland, where many remains
of the Romans have been found.

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

VERTURIONES, The.

A name by which one of the Caledonian tribes was known to the
Romans.

VERULAMIUM. VERULAM.

"The 'oppidum' of Cassivelaunus [the stronghold which Cæsar
reduced on his second invasion of Britain] is generally
believed to have been situated where the modern town of St.
Alban's now stands [but the point is still in dispute]. An
ancient ditch can still be traced surrounding a considerable
area on the banks of the River Ver, from which the Roman town
of Verulam [Verulamium] took its name. This town, which
probably originated in the camp of Cæsar, grew into an
important city in Roman times. It stands on the opposite side
of the River Ver, and is still known for its Roman remains."

_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 2._

See BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

VERVINS, Treaty of (1598).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

VESONTIO.

Modern Besançon, in France; originally the largest of the
towns of the Sequani.

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 2._

VESPASIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 69-79.

VESPUCIUS, Americus (or Amerigo Vespucci), The voyages of.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497-1498; 1499-1500;
1500-1514; 1503-1504.

Also (in Supplement)
AMERICA: THE ALLEGED FIRST VOYAGE OF VESPUCIUS.

VESTAL VIRGINS.

"The Vestals ('virgines Vestales,' 'virgines Vestæ') were
closely connected with the college of pontifices. They are
said to have come from Alba soon after the foundation of Rome:
at first there were two Vestals for each of the two tribes,
Ramnes and Tities; afterwards two others were added for the
Luceres, and the number of six was exceeded at no period. The
vestal, on being chosen, was not allowed to be younger than
six or older than ten years. … She was clad in white garments
and devoted to the service of Vesta for thirty years. … After
this period she was at liberty either to remain in the service
of the goddess (which was generally done) or to return to her
family and get married. Her dress was always white; round her
forehead she wore a broad band like a diadem ('infula'), with
ribbons ('vittæ') attached to it. During the sacrifice, or at
processions, she was covered with a white veil. … She was
carefully guarded against insult or temptation; an offence
offered to her was punished with death; … in public everyone,
even the consul, made way to the lictor preceding the maiden.
At public games and pontifical banquets she had the seat of
honour; and a convicted criminal accidentally meeting her was
released. Amongst her priestly functions was the keeping of
the eternal fire in the temple of Vesta, each Vestal taking
her turn at watching. … Breach of chastity on the part of the
Vestal was punished with death."

_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 103._

VESTINIANS, The.

See SABINES.

VESUVIUS:
Great eruption.
Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum.

See POMPEII.

VESUVIUS, Battle of (B. C. 338).

See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

VETERA: A. D. 69.
Siege and Massacre.

The most important success achieved by the Batavian patriot,
Civilis, in the revolt against the Romans which he led, A. D.
69, was the siege and capture of Vetera,—a victory sullied by
the faithless massacre of the garrison after they had
capitulated.

_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 58._

VETO, The Aragon.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

VETO:
The Polish Liberum Veto.

See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

VETO:
Of the President of the United States.

See CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Article I., Section 7.

VETTONES, The.

A people who occupied the part of ancient Spain between the
Tagus and the Upper Douro at the time of the Roman conquest
of that country.

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 1._

VIA SACRA AT ROME, The.

"The Via Sacra began at the Sacellum Streniæ, which was on the
part of the Esquiline nearest to the Colosseum; on reaching
the Summa Via Sacra … it turned a little to the right,
descending the Clivus Sacer; at the foot of the slope it
passed under the arch of Fabius, by the side of the Regia;
thence it ran in a straight line, passing by the Basilica
Æmilia, the arch of Janus, the Curia Hostilia, till it reached
the foot of the Capitoline Hill, where, turning to the left,
it ascended the Clivus Capitolinus, and reached its
termination at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. The Via
Sacra, as Ovid tells us, took its name from the sacred rites
which were performed on it. Along this road passed the
processions of priests with the sacred animals to be
sacrificed at the altar of Jupiter Capitolinus. … Along this
road also passed the triumphal processions of the victorious
Roman generals. The procession entered Rome by the Porta
Triumphalis, passed through the Circus Maximus, then, turning
to the left, proceeded along the road at the foot of the
southeast slope of the Palatine, when it joined the Via Sacra,
and again turned to the left and ascended the Velia; on reaching
the Summa Via Sacra it descended the Clivus Sacer, and then
passed along the rest of the Via Sacra till it reached its
destination at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, where the
victorious general lay before the god the spoils of his
conquests."

_H. M. Westropp,
Early and Imperial Rome,
page 121._

ALSO IN:
_J. H. Parker,
Archaeology of Rome,
part 6._

{3624}

VICARS, or Vice-Præfects, of the Roman Empire.

See DIOCESES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

VICENZA: A. D. 1237.
Pillage by Eccelino di Romano.

See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

VICKSBURG: A. D. 1862-1863.
The defense, the siege and the capture.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI),
and (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI);
1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI):
and 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

VICTOR II., Pope, A. D. 1055-1057.

Victor III., Pope, 1086-1087.

Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, 1630-1637.

Victor Amadeus II.,
Duke of Savoy, 1675-1730:
King of Sicily, 1713-1720;
King of Sardinia, 1720-1730.

Victor Amadeus III.,
Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1773-1796.

Victor Emanuel I.,
Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1802-1821.

Victor Emanuel II.,
King of Sardinia, 1849-1861;
King of Italy, 1861-1878.

VICTORIA, Queen of England, A. D. 1837.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1837.
The founding of the colony.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1850-1855.
Separation from New South Wales.
Discovery of gold.
Adoption of a Constitution.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1862-1892.
Comparative view.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (AUSTRALIA): A. D. 1862-1892;
and AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.

VICTORIA CROSS, The.

An English naval and military decoration, instituted after the
Crimean War, on the 29th of January, 1856, by the command of
Queen Victoria.

VICUS.

According to Niebuhr, the term "Vicus" in Roman
topography—about which there has been much controversy—"means
nothing else but a quarter or district [of the city] under the
superintendence of its own police officer."

_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,
volume 2, page 86._

See, also, GENS.

VIDOMME.

See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

----------VIENNA, Austria: Start--------

VIENNA, Austria: Origin of.

See VINDOBONA.

VIENNA, Austria: 12th Century.
Fortification and commercial advancement by the Austrian Dukes.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1485.
Siege, capture, and occupation by Matthias of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1529.
Siege by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1619.
Threatened by the Bohemian army.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1645.
Threatened by the Swedes.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1683.
Siege by the Turks.
Deliverance by John Sobieski.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1805.
Surrendered to Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1809.
Capitulation to Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1848.
Revolutionary riots.
Bombardment of the city.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

VIENNA, The Congress of.

"At the end of September [1814] the centre of European
interest passed to Vienna. The great council of the Powers, so
long delayed, was at length assembled. The Czar of Russia, the
Kings of Prussia, Denmark, Bavaria, and Würtemberg, and nearly
all the statesmen of eminence in Europe, gathered round the
Emperor Francis and his Minister, Metternich, to whom by
common consent the presidency of the Congress was offered.
Lord Castlereagh represented England, and Talleyrand France.
Rasumoffsky and other Russian diplomatists acted under the
immediate directions of their master, who on some occasions
even entered into personal correspondence with the Ministers
of the other Powers. Hardenberg stood in a somewhat freer
relation to King Frederick William: Stein was present, but
without official place. The subordinate envoys and attaches of
the greater Courts, added to a host of petty princes and the
representatives who came from the minor Powers, or from
communities which had ceased to possess any political
existence at all, crowded Vienna. In order to relieve the
antagonisms which had already come too clearly into view,
Metternich determined to entertain his visitors in the most
magnificent fashion; and although the Austrian State was
bankrupt, and in some districts the people were severely
suffering, a sum of about £10,000 a day was for some time
devoted to this purpose. The splendour and the gaieties of
Metternich were emulated by his guests. … The Congress had
need of its distractions, for the difficulties which faced it
were so great that, even after the arrival of the Sovereigns,
it was found necessary to postpone the opening of the regular
sittings until November. By the secret articles of the Peace
of Paris, the Allies had reserved to themselves the disposal
of all vacant territory, although their conclusions required
to be formally sanctioned by the Congress at large. The
Ministers of Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia accordingly
determined at the outset to decide upon all territorial
questions among themselves, and only after their decisions
were completely formed to submit them to France and the other
Powers. Talleyrand, on hearing of this arrangement, protested
that France itself was now one of the Allies, and demanded
that the whole body of European States should at once meet in
open Congress. The four Courts held to their determination,
and began their preliminary sittings without Talleyrand. But
the French statesman had, under the form of a paradox, really
stated the true political situation. The greater Powers were
so deeply divided in their aims that their old bond of common
interest, the interest of union against France, was now less
powerful than the impulse that made them seek the support of
France against one another.
{3625}
Two men had come to the Congress with a definite aim:
Alexander had resolved to gain the Duchy of Warsaw, and to
form it, with or without some part of Russian Poland, into a
Polish kingdom, attached to his own crown: Talleyrand had
determined, either on the question of Poland, or on the
question of Saxony, which arose out of it, to break allied
Europe into halves, and to range France by the side of two of
the great Powers against the two others. The course of events
favoured for a while the design of the Minister: Talleyrand
himself prosecuted his plan with an ability which, but for the
untimely return of Napoleon from Elba, would have left France,
without a war, the arbiter and the leading Power of Europe.
Since the Russian victories of 1812, the Emperor Alexander had
made no secret of his intention to restore a Polish Kingdom
and a Polish nationality. Like many other designs of this
prince, the project combined a keen desire for personal
glorification with a real generosity of feeling. Alexander was
thoroughly sincere in his wish not only to make the Poles
again a people, but to give them a Parliament and a free
Constitution. The King of Poland, however, was to be no
independent prince, but Alexander himself: although the Duchy
of Warsaw, the chief if not the sole component of the proposed
new kingdom, had belonged to Austria and Prussia after the
last partition of Poland, and extended into the heart of the
Prussian monarchy. Alexander insisted on his anxiety to atone
for the crime of Catherine in dismembering Poland: the
atonement, however, was to be made at the sole cost of those
whom Catherine had allowed to share the booty. Among the other
Governments, the Ministry of Great Britain would gladly have
seen a Polish State established in a really independent form;
failing this, it desired that the Duchy of Warsaw should be
divided, as formerly, between Austria and Prussia. Metternich
was anxious that the fortress of Cracow at any rate should not
fall into the hands of the Czar. Stein and Hardenberg, and
even Alexander's own Russian counsellors, earnestly opposed
the Czar's project, not only on account of the claims of
Prussia on Warsaw, but from dread of the agitation likely to
be produced by a Polish Parliament among all Poles outside the
new State. King Frederick William, however, was unaccustomed
to dispute the wishes of his ally; and the Czar's offer of
Saxony in substitution for Warsaw gave to the Prussian
Ministers, who were more in earnest than their master, at
least the prospect of receiving a valuable equivalent for what
they might surrender. By the treaty of Kalisch, made when
Prussia united its arms with those of Russia against Napoleon
(February 27th, 1813), the Czar had undertaken to restore the
Prussian monarchy to an extent equal to that which it had
possessed in 1805. It was known before the opening of the
Congress that the Czar proposed to do this by handing over to
King Frederick William the whole of Saxony, whose Sovereign,
unlike his colleagues in the Rhenish Confederacy, had
supported Napoleon up to his final overthrow at Leipzig. Since
that time the King of Saxony had been held a prisoner, and his
dominions had been occupied by the Allies. The Saxon question
had thus already gained the attention of all the European
Governments. … Talleyrand alone made the defence of the King
of Saxony the very centre of his policy, and subordinated all
other aims to this. His instructions, like those of
Castlereagh, gave priority to the Polish question; but
Talleyrand saw that Saxony, not Poland, was the lever by which
he could throw half of Europe on to the side of France; and
before the four Allied Courts had come to any single
conclusion, the French statesman had succeeded, on what at
first passed for a subordinate point, in breaking up their
concert. For a while the Ministers of Austria, Prussia, and
England appeared to be acting in harmony; and throughout the
month of October all three endeavoured to shake the purpose of
Alexander regarding Warsaw. Talleyrand, however, foresaw that
the efforts of Prussia in this direction would not last very
long, and he wrote to Louis XVIII. asking for his permission
to make a definite offer of armed assistance to Austria in
case of need. Events took the turn which Talleyrand expected.
… He had isolated Russia and Prussia, and had drawn to his own
side not only England and Austria but the whole body of the
minor German States. … On the 3rd of January, 1815, after a
rash threat of war uttered by Hardenberg, a secret treaty was
signed by the representatives of France, England, and Austria,
pledging these Powers to take the field, if necessary, against
Russia and Prussia in defence of the principles of the Peace
of Paris. The plan of the campaign was drawn up, the number of
the forces fixed. Bavaria had already armed; Piedmont,
Hanover, and even the Ottoman Porte, were named as future
members of the alliance. It would perhaps be unfair to the
French Minister to believe that he actually desired to kindle
a war on this gigantic scale. Talleyrand had not, like
Napoleon, a love for war for its own sake. His object was
rather to raise France from its position as a conquered and
isolated Power; to surround it with allies. … The conclusion
of the secret treaty of January 3rd marked the definite
success of his plans. France was forthwith admitted into the
council hitherto known as that of the Four Courts, and from
this time its influence visibly affected the action of Russia
and Prussia, reports of the secret treaty having reached the
Czar immediately after its signature. The spirit of compromise
now began to animate the Congress. Alexander had already won a
virtual decision in his favour on the Polish question, but he
abated something of his claims, and while gaining the lion's
share of the Duchy of Warsaw, he ultimately consented that
Cracow, which threatened the Austrian frontier, should be
formed into an independent Republic, and that Prussia should
receive the fortresses of Dantzic and Thorn on the Vistula,
with the district lying between Thorn and the border of
Silesia. This was little for Alexander to abandon; on the
Saxon question the allies of Talleyrand gained most that they
demanded. The King of Saxony was restored to his throne, and
permitted to retain Dresden and about half of his dominions.
Prussia received the remainder. In lieu of a further expansion
in Saxony, Prussia was awarded territory on the left bank of
the Rhine, which, with its recovered Westphalian provinces,
restored the monarchy to an area and population equal to that
which it had possessed in 1805. But the dominion given to
Prussia beyond the Rhine, though considered at the time to be
a poor equivalent for the second half of Saxony, was in
reality a gift of far greater value.
{3626}
It made Prussia, in defence of its own soil, the guardian and
bulwark of Germany against France. … It gave to Prussia
something more in common with Bavaria and the South, and
qualified it, as it had not been qualified before, for its
future task of uniting Germany under its own leadership. The
Polish and Saxon difficulties, which had threatened the peace
of Europe, were virtually settled before the end of the month
of January."

_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 2, chapter 1._

"Prussia obtained Posen with the town of Thorn in the east,
and in the west all that had been lost by the treaty of
Tilsit, the duchies of Jülich and Berg, the old electoral
territories of Cologne and Trier with the city of Aachen, and
parts of Luxemburg and Limburg. Russia received the whole of
the grand-duchy of Warsaw except Posen and Thorn, and
Alexander fulfilled his promises to the Poles by granting them
a liberal constitution. … Swedish Pomerania had been ceded by
the treaty of Kiel to Denmark, but had long been coveted by
Prussia. The Danish claims were bought off with two million
thalers and the duchy of Lauenburg, but Hanover had to be
compensated for the latter by the cession of the devotedly
loyal province of East Friesland, one of the acquisitions of
Frederick the Great. Hanover, which now assumed the rank of a
kingdom without opposition, was also aggrandised by the
acquisition of Hildesheim, Goslar, and other small districts.
Austria was naturally one of the great gainers by the
Congress. Eastern Galicia was restored by Russia, and the
Tyrol, Salzburg, and the Inn district by Bavaria. As
compensation for the Netherlands, Venetia and Lombardy became
Austrian provinces. Bavaria, in return for its losses in the
east, received Würzburg, Aschaffenburg, and its former
possessions in the Palatinate. Long discussions took place
about the constitution to be given to Germany, and here the
hopes of the national party were doomed to bitter
disappointment. … Finally a Confederation was formed which
secured the semblance of unity, but gave almost complete
independence to the separate states.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

The members numbered thirty-eight, and included the four
remaining free cities, Frankfort, Hamburg, Lübeck, and Bremen,
and the kings of Denmark and the Netherlands. … In Italy the
same process of restoration and subdivision was carried out.
Victor Emmanuel I. recovered his kingdom of Sardinia, with the
addition of Genoa as compensation for the portion of Savoy
which France retained. Modena was given to a Hapsburg prince,
Francis IV., son of the archduke Ferdinand, and Beatrice the
heiress of the house of Este. Tuscany was restored to
Ferdinand III., a brother of the Austrian Emperor. Charles
Louis, son of the Bourbon king of Etruria, was compensated
with Lucca and a promise of the succession in the duchy of
Parma, which was for the time given to Napoleon's wife, Maria
Louisa. Pius VII. had already returned to Rome, and the Papal
states now recovered their old extent. But Pius refused at
first to accept these terms because he was deprived of Avignon
and the Venaissin, and because Austrian garrisons were in
occupation of Ferrara and Comacchio. Naples was left for a
time in the hands of Joachim Murat, as a reward for his
desertion of Napoleon after the battle of Leipzig. Switzerland
was declared independent and neutral, but its feudal unity was
loosened by a new constitution (August, 1815). The number of
cantons were raised to twenty-two by the addition of Geneva,
Wallis (Vallais), and Neufchâtel the last under Prussian
suzerainty. The position of capital was to be enjoyed in
rotation by Berne, Zurich, and Lucerne. The kingdom of the
Netherlands was formed for the house of Orange by the union of
Holland and Belgium and the addition of Luxemburg, which made
the king a member of the German Confederation. The professed
object of this artificial union of Catholics and Protestants
was the erection of a strong bulwark against French
aggressions."

_R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 24, section 52._

ALSO IN:
_E. Hertslet,
The Map of Europe by Treaty,
volume 1, number 27._

_Prince Talleyrand,
Memoirs,
part 8 (volume 2)._

_Prince Talleyrand,
Correspondence with Louis XVIII.
during the Congress of Vienna._

_Prince Metternich,
Memoirs,
volume 2, pages 553-599._

_J. R. Seeley,
Life and Times of Stein,
part 8 (volume 3)._

_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 92 (volume 19)._

VIENNA, Imperial Library of.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: EUROPE.

VIENNA,
Treaty of (1725).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

Treaty of (1735).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

Treaty of (1864).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

VIENNE, OR VIENNA, on the Rhone.

Vienne, on the Rhone, was the chief town of the Allobroges in
ancient times,—subsequently made a Roman colony. It was from
Vienne that Lugdunum (Lyons) was originally colonized.

VIENNE on the Rhone: A. D. 500.
Under the Burgundians.

See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

VIENNE on the Rhone: 11th Century.
Founding of the Dauphiny.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

VIENNE on the Rhone: A. D. 1349.
The appanage of the Dauphins of France.

See DAUPHINS;
also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.

VIGILANCE COMMITTEE OF SAN FRANCISCO, The.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.

VIGO BAY, The Destruction of Spanish treasure ships in.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

VIKINGS.

See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES.

VILAGOS, Hungarian surrender at (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

VILLA VICIOSA, VILLA VIÇOSA, Battle of (1665).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

VILLA VICIOSA: Battle of (1710).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

VILLAFRANCA. Peace of.

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

VILLALAR, Battle of (1521).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

VILLEIN TAX, OR TAILLE.

See TAILLE AND GABELLE.

VILLEINAGE. Tenure in.

See FEUDAL TENURES; and MANORS.

VILLEINS. VILLANI.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN (ESPECIALLY UNDER ENGLAND);
also, DEDITITIUS.

VILLERSEXEL, Battle of (1871).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

VILLMERGEN, Battles of(1656, 1712, and 1841).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789: and 1803-1848.

{3627}

VIMIERO, Battle of (1808).

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

VIMINAL, The.

See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

VIMORY, Battle of (1587).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

VINCENNES, Indiana: A. D. 1735.
Founded by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

VINCENNES, Indiana: A. D. 1778-1779.
Taken and retaken from the British by
the Virginian General Clark.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779
CLARK'S CONQUEST.

VINCENTIAN CONGREGATION, The.

See LAZARISTS.

VINCI, Battle of (A. D. 717).

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

VINDALIUM, Battle at (B. C. 121).

See ALLOBROGES, CONQUEST OF THE.

VINDELICIANS, The.

See RHÆTIA.

VINDOBONA.

Vindobona, modern Vienna, on the Danube, originally a town of
the Celts, in Pannonia, became a Roman military and naval
station and a frontier city of importance. Marcus Aurelius
died at Vindobona, A. D. 180.

VINEÆ.

The vineæ of Roman siege operations were "covered galleries,
constructed of wicker work (vimina) generally, and sometimes
of wood, for the purpose of covering the approach of the
besiegers."

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 3, foot-note._

VINLAND.

See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

VIONVILLE, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

VIRCHOW, and Cellular Pathology.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

VIRGATE.

See HIDE OF LAND;
also, MANORS.

----------VIRGINIA: Start--------

VIRGINIA.
The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, POWHATAN CONFEDERACY,
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH,
and CHEROKEES.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1584.

The name given first to Raleigh's Roanoke settlement,
on the Carolina coast.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.
The Virginia Company of London and its charter.
The colony planted at Jamestown.

"The colonization of the North American coast had now become
part of the avowed policy of the British government. In 1606 a
great joint-stock company was formed for the establishment of
two colonies in America. The branch which was to take charge
of the proposed southern colony had its headquarters in
London; the management of the northern branch was at Plymouth
in Devonshire. Hence the two branches are commonly spoken of
as the London and Plymouth Companies. The former was also
called the Virginia Company, and the latter the North Virginia
Company, as the name of Virginia was then loosely applied to
the entire Atlantic coast north of Florida. The London Company
had jurisdiction from 34° to 38° north latitude; the Plymouth
Company had jurisdiction from 45° down to 41°; the intervening
territory, between 38° and 41° was to go to whichever company
should first plant a self-supporting colony."

_J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 2._

"The charter for colonizing the great central territory of the
North American continent, which was to be the chosen abode of
liberty, gave to the mercantile corporation nothing but a
wilderness, with the right of peopling and defending it. By an
extension of the prerogative, which was in itself illegal, the
monarch assumed absolute legislative as well as executive
powers. … The general superintendence was confided to a
council in England; the local administration of each colony to
a resident council. The members of the superior council in
England were appointed exclusively by the king, and were to
hold office at his good pleasure. Their authority extended to
both colonies, which jointly took the name of Virginia. Each
of the two was to have its own resident council, of which the
members were from time to time to be ordained and removed
according to the instructions of the king. To the king,
moreover, was reserved supreme legislative authority over the
several colonies, extending to their general condition and the
most minute regulation of their affairs. … The summer was
spent in preparations for planting the first colony, for which
the king found a grateful occupation in framing a code of
laws. The superior council in England was permitted to name
the colonial council, which was independent of the emigrants,
and had power to elect or remove its president, to remove any
of its members, and to supply its own vacancies. Not an
element of popular liberty or control was introduced. Religion
was established according to the doctrine and rites of the
church within the realm. … Then, on the 19th day of December,
in the year of our Lord 1606, one hundred and nine years after
the discovery of the American continent by Cabot, forty-one
years from the settlement of Florida, the squadron of three
vessels, the largest not exceeding 100 tons' burden, with the
favor of all England, stretched their sails for 'the dear
strand of Virginia, earth's only paradise.' … The enterprise
was ill concerted. Of the 105 on the list of emigrants, there
were but 12 laborers and few mechanics. They were going to a
wilderness, in which, as yet, not a house was standing; and
there were 48 gentlemen to 4 carpenters. Neither were there
any men with families. Newport, who commanded the ships, was
acquainted with the old passage, and sailed by way of the
Canaries and the West India Islands. As he turned to the
north, a severe storm, in April, 1607, carried his fleet
beyond the settlement of Raleigh, into the magnificent bay of
the Chesapeake. The headlands received and retain the names of
Cape Henry and Cape Charles, from the sons of King James; the
deep water for anchorage, 'putting the emigrants in good
Comfort,' gave a name to the northern point; and within the
capes a country opened which appeared to 'claim the
prerogative over the most pleasant places in the world.' … A
noble river was soon entered, which was named from the
monarch; and, after a search of seventeen days, … on the 13th
of May they reached a peninsula about 50 miles above the mouth
of the stream, where the water near the shore was so very deep
that the ships were moored to trees.
{3628}
Here the council, except Smith, who for no reason unless it
were jealousy of his superior energy was for nearly a month
kept out of his seat, took the oath of office, and the
majority elected Edward Maria Wingfield president for the
coming year. Contrary to the earnest and persistent advice of
Bartholomew Gosnold, the peninsula was selected for the site
of the colony, and took the name of Jamestown."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States,
part 1, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_E. D. Neill,
History of the Virginia Company of London,
chapter 1,
and Virginia Vetusta,
chapters 1-2._

_J. Burk,
History of Virginia,
volume 1, chapter 3._

_E. M. Wingfield,
Discourse of Virginia,
edited by C. Deane (Archœologia Americana, volume 4)._

_H. W. Preston,
Documents Illustrative of American History,
page 1._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610.
The settlement at Jamestown and the services
of Captain John Smith.

"Among the leaders of the expedition were Gosnold, the voyager
and discoverer, and a prime mover in the affair; Wingfield,
one of the first-named patentees, John Smith, Ratcliffe,
Martin, Kendall, and Percy. Of these men John Smith has become
famous. He has taken place among the founders of states, and a
romantic interest has attached itself to his name. For
centuries his character and deeds have been applauded, while
in late years they have become a theme for censure and
detraction. Modern investigation has relentlessly swept a way
the romance, and torn in pieces many of the long accepted
narratives in which Smith recorded his own achievements. Yet
it was not wholly by a false and fluent pen that Smith
obtained and held his reputation. He was something more than a
plausible writer of fiction. He was the strongest and most
representative man among the Virginian colonists. … With this
hopeful company Newport left the Downs on the 1st of January,
1607. The worthy Richard Hakluyt sent them a paper containing
much good advice and some ingenious geographical speculations,
and Drayton celebrated their departure in clumsy verses filled
with high-flown compliments. The advice of the priest and the
praise of the poet were alike wasted. By an arrangement
ingeniously contrived to promote discord, devised probably by
royal sagacity, the box containing the names of the council
was not to be opened until the voyagers reached their
destination. Dissension broke out almost immediately. Whatever
the merits of the differences, this much is certain, that
Smith was the object of the concentrated jealousy and hatred
of his companions. … On the 13th of May, 1607, the settlers
landed at Jamestown, sent out exploring parties, and began
fortifications. A fortnight later, under the command of
Wingfield, they repulsed an attack by the Indians; and on the
22d of June Newport sailed for England, and left them to their
own resources. The prospect must have been a dreary one:
nothing answered to their expectations. Instead of valuable
mines, the adventurers found only a most fertile soil; instead
of timid, trusting South American Indians, they encountered
wild tribes of hardy, crafty, and hostile savages; instead of
rich, defenceless, and barbarian cities, an easy and splendid
spoil, they found a wilderness, and the necessity of hard
work. From the miserable character of the settlers, dangerous
factions prevailed from the first, until Smith obtained
control, and maintained some sort of order—despotically,
perhaps, but still effectually. No one would work, and famine
and the Indians preyed upon them mercilessly. A small fort and
a few wretched huts, built after much quarrelling, represented
for many months all that was accomplished. The only relief
from this dark picture of incompetent men perishing, without
achievement, and by their own folly, on the threshold of a
great undertaking, is to be found in the conduct of Smith.
Despite almost insurmountable obstacles, Smith kept the colony
together for two years. He drilled the soldiers, compelled
labor, repaired the fort, traded with the Indians, outwitted
them and kept their friendship, and made long and daring
voyages of discovery. He failed to send home a lump of gold,
but he did send an excellent map of the Company's territory.
He did not discover the passage to the South Sea, but he
explored the great bays and rivers of Virginia. He did not
find Raleigh's lost colonists, but he managed to keep his own
from total destruction. The great result of all Smith's
efforts was the character of permanency he gave to the
settlement. Because he succeeded in maintaining an English
colony for two consecutive years in America, the London
Company had courage to proceed; and this is what constitutes
Smith's strongest claim to the admiration and gratitude of
posterity. To suppose that he had the qualities of a founder
of a state is a mistake, although in some measure he did the
work of one. … His veracity as a historian in the later years
of his life has been well-nigh destroyed. But little faith can
be placed in the 'Generall Historie,' and modern investigation
has conclusively relegated to the region of legend and of
fiction the dramatic story of Smith's rescue by Pocahontas.
The shadow of doubt rests upon all his unsupported statements;
but nothing can obscure his great services, to which the world
owes the foundation of the first English colony in America.
Yet, after all his struggles, Smith was severely blamed by the
Company, apparently because Virginia was not Peru. In a manly
letter he sets forth the defects of the colony, the need of
good men with families, industrious tradesmen and farmers, not
'poor gentlemen and libertines.' Before, however, the actual
orders came to supersede him, Smith resigned, or was forced
out of the government, and returned to England. The feeble
life of the colony wasted fast after his departure and during
the sickness of Percy, who succeeded to the command."

_H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies in America,
chapter 1._

ALSO IN:
_Captain John Smith,
General Historie of Virginia,
books 2-3._

_J. Ashton,
Adventures and Discoveries of Captain John Smith,
newly ordered,
chapters 6-21._

_W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 11._

_E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye,
Pocahontas._