Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Basso-relievo" to "Bedfordshire" (part 2)

BATTERING RAM (Lat. aries, ram), a military engine used before the invention of cannon, for beating down the walls of besieged fortresses. It consisted of a long heavy beam of timber, armed at the extremity with iron fashioned something like the head of a ram. In its simplest form the beam was carried in the hands of the soldiers, who assailed the walls with it by main force. The improved ram was composed of a longer beam, in some cases extending to 120 ft., shod with iron at one end, and suspended, either by the middle or from two points, from another beam laid across two posts. This is the kind described by Josephus as having been used at the siege of Jerusalem (B.J. iii. 7. 19). The ram was shielded from the missiles of the besieged by a penthouse (vinea) or other overhead protection. It was often mounted on wheels, which greatly facilitated its operations. A hundred soldiers at a time, and sometimes even a greater number, were employed to work it, and the parties were relieved in constant succession. No wall could resist the continued application of the ram, and the greatest efforts were always made to destroy it by various means, such as dropping heavy stones on the head of the ram and on the roof of the penthouse; another method being to seize the ram head with grapnels and then haul it up to a vertical position by suitable windlasses on the wall of the fortress. Sometimes the besieged ran countermines under the ram penthouse; this if successful would cause the whole engine to fall into the excavation. In medieval warfare the low penthouse, called cat, was generally employed with some form of ram.

BATTERSEA, a south-western metropolitan borough of London, England, bounded N. by the Thames, N.E. by Lambeth, and S.E., S., and W. by Wandsworth. Pop. (1901) 168,907. The principal thoroughfares are Wandsworth Road and Battersea Park and York Roads from east to west, connected north and south with the Victoria or Chelsea, Albert and Battersea bridges over the Thames. The two first of these three are handsome suspension bridges; the third, an iron structure, replaced a wooden bridge of many arches which was closed in 1881, after standing a little over a century. Battersea is a district mainly consisting of artisans’ houses, and there are several large factories by the river. The parish church of St Mary, Church Road (1776), preserves from an earlier building stained glass and monuments, including one to Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke (d. 1751), and his second wife, who had a mansion close by. Of this a portion remains on the riverside, containing a room associated with Pope, who is said to have worked here upon the “Essay on Man.” Wandsworth Common and Clapham Common (220 acres) lie partly within the borough, but the principal public recreation ground is Battersea Park, bordering the Thames between Albert and Victoria Bridges, beautifully laid out, containing a lake and subtropical garden, and having an area of nearly 200 acres. It was constructed with difficulty by embanking the river and raising the level of the formerly marshy ground, and was opened in 1858. Among institutions are the Battersea Polytechnic, the Royal Masonic Institution for girls, founded in 1788, and Church of England and Wesleyan Training Colleges. Battersea is in the parliamentary borough of Battersea and Clapham, including the whole of the Battersea division and part of the Clapham division. The borough council consists of a mayor, 9 aldermen and 54 councillors. Area, 2160.3 acres.

An early form of the name is Patricsey or Peter’s Island; the manor at the time of the Domesday survey, and until the suppression of the monasteries, belonging to the abbey of St Peter, Westminster. It next passed to the crown, and subsequently to the family of St John and to the earls Spencer. York Road recalls the existence of a palace of the archbishops of York, occasionally occupied by them between the reigns of Edward IV. and Mary. Battersea Fields, bordering the river, were formerly a favourite resort, so that the park also perpetuates a memory. The art of enamelling was introduced, c. 1750, at works in Battersea, examples from which are highly valued.

BATTERY (Fr. batterie, from battre, to beat), the action of beating, especially in law the unlawful wounding of another (see Assault). The term is applied to the apparatus used in battering, hence its use in military organization for the unit of mobile artillery of all kinds. This consists of from four to eight guns with their personnel, wagons and train. In the British service the term is applied to field, horse, field-howitzer, heavy and mountain artillery units. “Battery” is also used to imply a mass of guns in action, especially in connexion with the military history of the 18th and early 19th centuries. In siegecraft, a battery is simply an emplacement for guns, howitzers or mortars, constructed for the purposes of the siege, and protected as a rule by a parapet. In fortification the term is applied similarly to permanent or semi-permanent emplacements for the artillery of the defence. In all these senses the presence of artillery is implied in the use of the word (see Artillery, and Fortification and Siegecraft). The word is also used for the “pitcher” and “catcher” in baseball; for a collection of utensils, primarily of hammered copper or brass, especially in the French term batterie de cuisine; and for the instruments of percussion in an orchestra.

Electric Battery—This term was applied by the old electricians to a collection of Leyden jars, but is now used of a device for generating electricity by chemical action, or more exactly, of a number of such devices joined up together. There are two main classes of electric battery. In primary batteries, composed of a number of galvanic or voltaic “cells,” “couples” or “elements,” on the completion of the interactions between the substances on which the production of electricity depends, the activity of the cells comes to an end, and can only be restored with the aid of a fresh supply of those substances; in secondary batteries, also called storage batteries or accumulators (q.v.), the substances after the exhaustion of the cells can be brought back to a condition in which they will again yield an electric current, by means of an electric current passed through them in the reverse direction. The first primary battery was constructed about 1799 by Alessandro Volta. In one form, the “voltaic pile,” he placed a series of pairs of copper and zinc disks one above the other, separating each pair from the one above it by a piece of cloth moistened with a solution of common salt. In another form, the “couronne de tasses,” he took a number of vessels or cells containing brine or dilute acid, and placed in each a zinc plate and a copper plate; these plates were not allowed to touch each other within the vessels, but each zinc plate was connected to the copper plate of the adjoining vessel. In both these arrangements an electric current passes through a wire which is connected to the terminal plates at the two ends of the series. The direction of this current is from copper to zinc; within each cell itself it is from zinc to copper. The plate to which the current flows within the cell is the negative plate, and that from which it flows the positive plate; but the point on the negative plate at which the current enters the external wire is the positive pole, and the point on the positive plate at which it leaves the external circuit the negative pole. During the time that the external connexion is maintained between the two poles and the current passes in the wire, the zinc or positive plates are gradually dissolved, and hydrogen gas is liberated at the surface of the copper or negative plates; but when the external connexion is broken this action ceases. If the materials used in the cells were perfectly pure, probably the cessation would be complete. In practice, however, only impure commercial zinc is available, and with this corrosion continues to some extent, even though the external circuit is not closed, thus entailing waste of material. This “local action” is explained as due to the fact that the impurities in the zinc plate form miniature voltaic couples with the zinc itself, thus causing its corrosion by voltaic action; and an early improvement in the voltaic cell was the discovery, applied by W. Sturgeon in 1830, that the evil was greatly reduced if the surface of the zinc plates was amalgamated, by being rubbed with mercury under dilute sulphuric acid. Another disadvantage of the simple cell composed of copper and zinc in dilute acid is that the current it yields rapidly falls off. The hydrogen formed by the operation of the cell does not all escape, but some adheres as a film to the negative plate, and the result is the establishment of a counter or reverse electromotive force which opposes the main current flowing from the zinc plate and diminishes its force. This phenomenon is known as “polarization,” and various remedies have been tried for the evils it introduces in the practical use of primary batteries. Alfred Smee in 1839 modified the simple copper-zinc couple excited by dilute sulphuric acid by substituting for the copper thin leaves of platinum or platinized silver, whereby the elimination of the hydrogen is facilitated; and attempts have also been made to keep the plates free from the gas by mechanical agitation. The plan usually adopted, however, is either to prevent the formation of the film, or to introduce into the cell some “depolarizer” which will destroy it as it is formed by oxidizing the hydrogen to water (see also Electrolysis).

The former method is exemplified in the cell invented by J.F. Daniell in 1836. Here the zinc stands in dilute sulphuric acid (or in a solution of zinc sulphate), and the copper in a saturated solution of copper sulphate, the two liquids being separated by a porous partition. The hydrogen formed by the action of the cell replaces copper in the copper sulphate, and the displaced copper, instead of the hydrogen, being deposited on the copper plate polarization is avoided. The electromotive force is about one volt. This cell has been constructed in a variety of forms to suit different purposes. In a portable form, designed by Lord Kelvin in 1858, the copper plate, soldered to a gutta-percha covered wire, is placed at the bottom of a glass vessel and covered with crystals of copper sulphate; over these wet sawdust is sprinkled, and then mere sawdust, moistened with solution of zinc sulphate, upon which is placed the zinc plate. The Minotto cell is similar, except that sand is substituted for sawdust. In these batteries the sawdust or sand takes the place of the porous diaphragm. In another class of batteries the diaphragm is dispensed with altogether, and the action of gravity alone is relied upon to retard the interdiffusion of the liquids. The cell of J.H. Meidinger, invented in 1859, may be taken as a type of this class. The zinc is formed into a ring which fits the upper part of a glass beaker filled with zinc sulphate solution. At the bottom of the beaker is placed a smaller beaker, in which stands a ring of copper with an insulated connecting wire. The mouth of the beaker is closed by a lid with a hole in the centre, through which passes the long tapering neck of a glass balloon filled with crystals of copper sulphate; the narrow end of this neck dips into the smaller beaker, the copper sulphate slowly runs out, and being specifically heavier than the zinc sulphate it collects at the bottom about the copper ring. In Lord Kelvin’s tray-cell a large wooden tray is lined with lead, and is covered at the bottom with copper by electrotyping. The zinc plate is enveloped in a piece of parchment paper bent into a tray shape, the whole resting on little pieces of wood placed on the bottom of the leaden tray. Copper sulphate is fed in at the edge of the tray and zinc sulphate is poured upon the parchment. A battery is formed by arranging the trays in a stack one above the other.

Various combinations have been devised in which the hydrogen is got rid of more or less completely by oxidation. Sir W.R. Grove in 1839 employed nitric acid as the oxidizing agent, his cell consisting of a zinc positive plate in dilute sulphuric acid, separated by a porous diaphragm of unglazed earthenware from a platinum negative immersed in concentrated nitric acid. Its electromotive force is nearly two volts, but it has the objection of giving off disagreeable nitrous fumes. R.W. von Bunsen modified Grove’s cell by replacing the platinum with the much cheaper material, gas carbon. Chromic acid is much used as a depolarizer, and cells in which it is employed are about as powerful as, and more convenient than, either of the preceding. In its two-fluid form the chromic acid cell consists of a porous pot containing amalgamated zinc in dilute sulphuric acid, and a carbon plate surrounded with sulphuric acid and a solution of potassium or sodium bichromate or of chromic acid. But it is commonly used in a one-fluid form, the porous pot being dispensed with, and both zinc and carbon immersed in the chromic acid solution. Since the zinc is dissolved even when the circuit is not closed, arrangements are frequently provided by which either the zinc plate alone or both plates can be lifted out of the solution when the cell is not in use. In preparing the solution the sodium salt is preferable to the potassium, and chromic acid to either. In the cell devised by Georges Leclanché in 1868 a solid depolarizer is employed, in the shape of manganese dioxide packed with fragments of carbon into a porous pot round a carbon plate. A zinc rod constitutes the positive plate, and the exciting fluid is a solution of sal-ammoniac. Sometimes no porous pot is employed, and the manganese dioxide and granulated carbon are agglomerated into a solid block round the carbon plate. The electromotive force is about one and a half volt. The cell is widely used for such purposes as ringing electric bells, where current is required intermittently, and for such service it will remain effective for months or years, only needing water to be added to the outer jar occasionally to replace loss by evaporation. On a closed circuit the current rapidly falls off, because the manganese dioxide is unable to oxidize all the hydrogen formed, but the cell quickly recovers after polarization. The so-called “dry cells,” which came into considerable use towards the end of the 19th century, are essentially Leclanché cells in which the solution is present, not as a liquid, but as a paste formed with some absorbent material or gelatinized. Black oxide of copper is another solid depolarizer, employed in the Lalande cell. In the Edison-Lalande form the copper oxide is suspended in a light copper frame. The exciting solution consists of one part of caustic soda dissolved in three parts by weight of water, and to prevent it from being acted on by the carbonic acid of the air it is covered with a layer of petroleum oil. Sodium zincate, which is soluble, is formed by the action of the cell, and the hydrogen produced is oxidized by oxygen from the copper oxide. The electromotive force may be about one volt initially, but in practice only about three-quarters of a volt can be relied on.

Primary cells form a convenient means of obtaining electricity for laboratory experiments, and for such light services as working telegraphs, bells, &c.; but as a source of the heavy currents required for electric lighting and traction they are far too expensive in operation, apart from other considerations, to compete with dynamoelectric machinery driven by steam or water power. Certain forms, known as “standard cells,” are also used in electrical measurements as standards of electromotive force (see Potentiometer).

See W.R. Cooper, Primary Batteries (London, 1901); Park Benjamin, The Voltaic Cell (New York, 1893); W.E. Ayrton, Practical Electricity (London, 1896).

BATTEUX, CHARLES (1713-1780), French philosopher and writer on aesthetics, was born near Vouziers (Ardennes), and studied theology at Reims. In 1739 he came to Paris, and after teaching in the colleges of Lisieux and Navarre, was appointed to the chair of Greek and Roman philosophy in the Collège de France. In 1746 he published his treatise Les Beaux-Arts réduits à un même principe, an attempt to find a unity among the various theories of beauty and taste, and his views were widely accepted. The reputation thus gained, confirmed by his translation of Horace (1750), led to his becoming a member of the Académie des Inscriptions (1754) and of the French Academy (1761). His Cours de belles lettres (1765) was afterwards included with some minor writings in the large treatise, Principes de la liltérature (1774). The rules for composition there laid down are, perhaps, somewhat pedantic. His philosophical writings were La Morale d’Épicure tirée de ses propres écrits (1758), and the Histoire des causes premières (1769). In consequence of the freedom with which in this work he attacked the abuse of authority in philosophy, he lost his professorial chair. His last and most extensive work was a Cours d’études à l’usage des élèves de l’école militaire (45 vols.). In the Beaux-Arts, Batteux developed a theory which is derived from Locke through Voltaire’s sceptical sensualism. He held that Art consists in the faithful imitation of the beautiful in nature. Applying this principle to the art of poetry, and analysing, line by line and even word by word, the works of great poets, he deduced the law that the beauty of poetry consists in the accuracy, beauty and harmony of individual expression. This narrow and pedantic theory had at least the merit of insisting on propriety of expression. His Histoire des causes premières was among the first attempts at a history of philosophy, and in his work on Epicurus, following on Gassendi, he defended Epicureanism against the general attacks made against it.

See Dacier et Dupuy, “Éloges,” in Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions.

BATTHYANY, LOUIS (Lajos), Count (1806-1849), Hungarian statesman, was born at Pressburg in 1806. He supplied the defects of an indifferent education while serving in garrison in Italy as a lieutenant of hussars, and thenceforward adopted all the new ideas, economical and political. According to Széchenyi, he learnt much from a German tutor of the radical school, but it was not till after his marriage with the noble-minded and highly-gifted countess Antonia Zichy that he began working earnestly for the national cause. When Széchenyi drew nearer to the court in 1839-1840, Batthyány became the leader of the opposition in the Upper House, where his social rank and resolute character won for him great influence. Despite his “sardanapalian inclinations,” he associated himself unreservedly with the extremists, and spent large sums for the development of trade and industry. In 1847 he fiercely opposed the government, procured the election of Kossuth as the representative of Pest, took part in the Great Deputation of the 15th of March, and on the 31st of March 1848 became the first constitutional prime-minister of Hungary. His position became extremely difficult when Jellachich and the Croats took up arms. Convinced that the rigid maintenance of the constitution was the sole panacea, he did his utmost, in his frequent journeys to Innsbruck, to persuade the court to condemn Jellachich and establish a strong national government at Pest. Unfortunately, however, he was persuaded to consent to the despatch of Magyar troops to quell the Italian rising, before the Croat difficulty had been adjusted, and thenceforth, despite his perfect loyalty, and his admirable services as Honvéd minister in organizing the national forces, his authority in Hungary declined before the rising star of Kossuth. When Jellachich invaded Hungary, Batthyány resigned with the intention of forming a new ministry excluding Kossuth, but this had now become impossible. Then Batthyány attempted to mediate between the two extreme parties, and subsequently raised a regiment from among his peasantry and led them against the Croats. On the 11th of October he was incapacitated for active service by a fall from his horse which broke his arm. On his recovery he returned to Pest, laboured hard to bring about peace, and was a member of the deputation from the Hungarian diet to Prince Windischgrätz, whom the Austrian commander refused to receive. A few days later (8th of January 1849) he was arrested at Pest. As a magnate he was only indictable by the grand justiciary, as a minister he was responsible to the diet alone. At Laibach, whither he was taken, he asked that Deák might be his advocate, but this being refused he wrote his own defence. Sentence of hanging was finally pronounced upon him at Olmtitz for violating the Pragmatic Sanction, overthrowing the constitution, and aiding and abetting the rebellion. To escape this fate he Stabbed himself with a small concealed dagger, and bled to death in the night of the 5th of October 1849.

See Bertalan Szemere, Batthyány, Kossuth, Gorgei (Ger.), (Hamburg, 1853).

(R. N. B.)

BATTICALOA, the provincial capital of the eastern province of Ceylon, on the E. coast, 69 m. S.S.E. of Trincomalee, situated on an island in lat. 7° 44′ N. and long. 81° 52′ E. It is of importance for its haven and the adjacent salt lagoons. The population of the town in 1901 was 9969; of the district (2872 sq. m.) 143,161. The old Dutch fort dates from 1682. Batticaloa is the seat of a government agent and district judge; criminal sessions of the supreme court are also held. Rice and cocoanuts are the two staples of the district, and steamers trading round the island call regularly at the port. The lagoon is famous for its “singing fish,” supposed to be shell-fish which give forth musical notes. The district has a remnant of Veddahs or wild men of the wood. The average annual rainfall is 55½ in.; the average temperature 80.4° F.

BATTISHILL, JONATHAN (1738-1801), one of the best 18th century English composers of church music. Until 1764 he wrote chiefly for the theatre (incidental songs, pantomime music, and an opera in collaboration with Michael Arne, the son of Thomas Arne), but his later compositions are chiefly glees, part-songs and church music. In 1763 he had married a singer at Covent Garden theatre where he was harpsichordist. She retired from her profession when she married; and her death in 1777 so crushed him that he composed no more.

BATTLE, a market-town in the Rye parliamentary division of Sussex, England, 54½ m. S.E. by S. from London by the South Eastern & Chatham railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 2996. It is pleasantly situated in an undulating well-wooded district, 7 m. from the sea at Hastings. Its name is derived from the conflict in 1066, which insured to William the Norman the crown of England (see also Battle Abbey Roll). Before the battle, in which King Harold fell, William vowed to build an abbey on the spot if he should prove victorious, and in 1094 the consecration took place with great pomp. The gatehouse, forming a picturesque termination to the main street of the town, is Decorated; and there also remain parts of the foundations of the Norman church, of the Perpendicular cloisters, and of the Early English refectory. A mansion occupies part of the site, and incorporates some of the ancient building. The church of St Mary is of various dates, the earliest portions being transitional Norman.

See Chronicles of Battle Abbey. 1066-1176, translated, &c., by M.A. Lower (London, 1851).

BATTLE, a general engagement between the armed forces, naval or military, of enemies. The word is derived from the Fr. bataille, and this, like the Ital. battaglia, and Span. batalla, comes from the popular Lat. battalia for battualia. Cassiodorus Senator (480-?575) says: Battualia quae vulgo Batalia dicuntur ... exercitationes militum vel gladiatorum significant (see Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v. Batalia). The verb battuere, cognate with “beat,” is a rare word, found in Pliny, used of beating in a mortar or of meat before cooking. Suetonius (Caligula, 54-32) uses it of fencing, battuebat pugnatoriis armis, i.e. not with blunted weapons or foils. Battalia or batalia was used for the array of troops for battle, and hence was applied to the body of troops so arranged, or to a division of an army, whence the use of the word “battalion” (q.v.).

A “pitched battle,” loosely used as meaning almost a decisive engagement, is strictly, as the words imply, one that is fought on ground previously selected (“pitched” meaning arranged in a fixed order) and in accordance with the intentions of the commanders of both sides; the French equivalent is bataille arrangée, opposed to bataille manœuvrée, which is prearranged but may come off on any ground. With “battle,” in its usual meaning of a general engagement of hostile forces, are contrasted “skirmish,” a fight between small bodies (“skirmishing” technically means fighting by troops in extended or irregular order), and “action,” a more or less similar engagement between large bodies of troops. (See also Tactics and Strategy.)

This is the same word as “scrimmage,” and is derived from the Anglo-French eskrimir, modern escrimer, properly to fight behind cover, now to fence. The origin of this is the Old High German scirman, to fight behind a shield, scirm. Modern German Schirm.

BATTLE ABBEY ROLL. This is popularly supposed to have been a list of William the Conqueror’s companions preserved at Battle Abbey, on the site of his great victory over Harold. It is known to us only from 16th century versions of it published by Leland, Holinshed and Duchesne, all more or less imperfect and corrupt. Holinshed’s is much the fullest, but of its 629 names several are duplicates. The versions of Leland and Duchesne, though much shorter, each contain many names found in neither of the other lists. It was so obvious that several of the names had no right to figure on the roll, that Camden, as did Dugdale after him, held them to have been interpolated at various times by the monks, “not without their own advantage.” Modern writers have gone further, Sir Egerton Brydges denouncing the roll as “a disgusting forgery,” and E.A. Freeman dismissing it as “a transparent fiction.” An attempt to vindicate the roll was made by the last duchess of Cleveland, whose Battle Abbey Roll (3 vols., 1889) is the best guide to its contents.

It is probable that the character of the roll has been quite misunderstood. It is not a list of individuals, but only of family surnames, and it seems to have been intended to show which families had “come over with the Conqueror,” and to have been compiled about the 14th century. The compiler appears to have been influenced by the French sound of names, and to have included many families of later settlement, such as that of Grandson, which did not come to England from Savoy till two centuries after the Conquest. The roll itself appears to be unheard of before and after the 16th century, but other lists were current at least as early as the 15th century, as the duchess of Cleveland has shown. In 1866 a list of the Conqueror’s followers, compiled from Domesday and other authentic records, was set up in Dives church by M. Leopold Delisle, and is printed in the duchess’ work. Its contents are naturally sufficient to show that the Battle Roll is worthless.

See Leland, Collectanea; Holinshed, Chronicles of England; Duchesne, Historia Norm. Scriptores; Brydges, Censura Literaria; Thierry, Conquête de l’Angleterre, vol. ii. (1829); Burke, The Roll of Battle Abbey (annotated, 1848); Planché, The Conqueror and His Companions (1874); duchess of Cleveland, The Battle Abbey Roll (1889); Round, “The Companions of the Conqueror” (Monthly Review, 1901, iii. pp. 91-111).

(J. H. R.)

BATTLE CREEK, a city of Calhoun county, Michigan, U.S.A., at the confluence of the Kalamazoo river with Battle Creek, about 48 m. S. of Grand Rapids. Pop. (1890) 13,197; (1900) 18,563, of whom 1844 were foreign-born; (1910, census) 25,267. It is served by the Michigan Central and the Grand Trunk railways, and by interurban electric lines. Here are the hospital and laboratories of the American Medical Missionary College (of Chicago) and the Battle Creek Sanitarium, established in 1866, which was a pioneer in dietetic reform, and did much to make Battle Creek important in the manufacture of health foods, and in the publication of diet-reform literature. Among the principal buildings, besides the hospital and the sanitarium, are several fine churches, the central high school, the Post tavern and the Post theatre. The city is a trading centre for the rich agricultural and fruit-growing district by which it is surrounded, has good water-power, and is an important manufacturing centre, its chief manufactured products being cereal health foods, for which it has a wide reputation, and the manufacture of which grew out of the dietetic experiments made in the laboratories of the sanitarium; and threshing machines and other agricultural implements, paper cartons and boxes, flour, boilers, engines and pumps. Extensive locomotive and car shops of the Grand Trunk railway are here. In 1904 the total factory product of Battle Creek was valued at $12,298,244, an increase of 95% over that for 1900; and of the total in 1904 $5,191,655 was the value of food preparations, which was 8.5% of the value of food preparations manufactured in the United States, Battle Creek thus ranking first among American cities in this industry. The water-works are owned and operated by the municipality, the water being obtained from Lake Goguac, a summer pleasure resort about 2 m. from the city. Battle Creek, said to have been named from hostilities here between some surveyors and Indians, was settled in 1831, incorporated as a village in 1850, and chartered as a city in 1859, the charter of that year being revised in 1900.

BATTLEDORE AND SHUTTLECOCK, a game played by two persons with small rackets, called battledores, made of parchment or rows of gut stretched across wooden frames, and shuttlecocks, made of a base of some light material, like cork, with trimmed feathers fixed round the top. The object of the players is to bat the shuttlecock from one to the other as many times as possible without allowing it to fall to the ground. There are Greek drawings extant representing a game almost identical with battledore and shuttlecock, and it has been popular in China, Japan, India and Siam for at least 2000 years. In Europe it has been played by children for centuries. A further development is Badminton.

BATTLEMENT (probably from a lost Fr. form bastillement, cf. mod. Fr. bastille, from Med. Lat. bastilia, towers, which is derived from Ital. bastire, to build, cf. Fr. bâtir; the English word was, however, early connected with “battle”), a term given to a parapet of a wall, in which portions have been cut out at intervals to allow the discharge of arrows or other missiles; these cut-out portions are known as “crenels”; the solid widths between the “crenels” are called “merlons.” The earliest example in the palace at Medinet-Abu at Thebes in Egypt is of the inverted form, and is said to have been derived from Syrian fortresses. Through Assyria they formed the termination of all the walls surrounding the towns, as shown on bas reliefs from Nimrud and elsewhere. Traces of them have been found at Mycenae, and they are suggested on Greek vases. In the battlements of Pompeii, additional protection was given by small internal buttresses or spur walls against which the defender might place himself so as to be protected completely on one side. In the battlements of the middle ages the crenel was about one-third of the width of the merlon, and the latter was in addition pierced with a small slit. The same is also found in Italian battlements, where the merlon is of much greater height and is capped in a peculiar fashion. The battlements of the Mahommedans had a more decorative and varied character, and were retained from the 13th century onwards not so much for defensive purposes as for a crowning feature to their walls. They may be regarded therefore in the same light as the cresting found in the Spanish renaissance. The same retention of the battlement as a purely decorative feature is found throughout the Decorated and Perpendicular periods, and not only occurs on parapets but on the transoms of windows and on the tie-beams of roofs and on screens. A further decorative treatment was given in the elaborate panelling of the merlons and that portion of the parapet walls rising above the cornice, by the introduction of quatrefoils and other conventional forms filled with foliage and shields.

BATTUE (from Fr. battre, to beat), the beating of game from cover under the sportsmen’s fire; by analogy the word is used to describe any slaughter of defenceless crowds.

BATTUS, the legendary founder of the Greek colony of Cyrene in Libya (about 630 B.C.). The Greeks who accompanied him were, like himself, natives of Thera, and descended partly from the race of the Minyae. Various accounts are given both of the founding of Cyrene and of the origin of the founder’s name. According to the Cyrenaeans (Herod, iv. 150-156), Battus, having an impediment in his speech, consulted the oracle at Delphi, and was told to found a colony in Libya; according to the Theraeans, Battus was entrusted with this mission by their aged king Grinus. In another version, there was civil war in Thera; Battus, leader of one party, was banished, and, on applying to the oracle, was recommended to take out a colony to “the continent” (Schol. Pindar, Pyth. iv. 10). In any case the foundation is attributed to the direct instructions of Apollo. The name was connected by some with βατταρίζω, (“stammer”), but Herodotus (iv. 155) says that it was the Libyan word for “king,” that Battus was not called by the name until after his arrival at Libya, and that the oracle addressed him as “Battus” by anticipation. This, however, would imply on the part of the oracle a knowledge of Libya, which was not shared by the rest of Greece (Herod. l.c.), and it is noteworthy that the name occurs in Arcadian and Messenian legends. Herodotus does not know his real name, but Pindar (Pyth. v. 116), no doubt rightly, calls the founder of the colony Aristoteles, while Justin (xiii. 7) gives his name as Aristaeus who was worshipped at Cyrene. Four kings named Battus, alternating with four named Arcesilaus, ruled in Cyrene (q.v.) till the fall of the dynasty about 450 B.C.

See R.W. Macan’s Herodotus IV.-VI. (1895), vol. i. pp. 104 seq. and notes.

BATU, or Rock Islands (Dutch Batoe), a group of three greater and forty-eight lesser islands in the Dutch East Indies, W. of Sumatra, between 0° 10′ N. to 0° 45′ S. and 97° 50′-98° 35′ E., belonging to the Ayerbangi district of the lowlands of Padang (Sumatra). They are separated by the strait of Sibirut from the Mentawi group. The three chief islands, from N. to S., are Pini or Mintao, Masa, and Bala. The total land area of the group is 445 sq. m. The islands are generally low, and covered with forest, in which the cocoanut palm is conspicuous. There is trade in cocoanuts, oil, and other forest produce. The natives, about 3000 in number, are of Malayan or pre-Malayan stock, akin to those of the island of Nias to the north-west. Only about twenty of the smaller islands are inhabited.

BATUM, a seaport of Russian Transcaucasia, in the government of and 90 m. by rail S.W. of the city of Kutais, on the S.E. shore of the Black Sea, in 41° 39′ N. and 41° 38′ E. Pop. (1875) 2000; (1900) 28,512, very mixed. The bay is being filled up by the sand carried into it by several small rivers. The town is protected by strong forts, and the anchorage has been greatly improved by artificial works. Batum possesses a cathedral, finished in 1903, and the Alexander Park, with sub-tropical vegetation. The climate is very warm, lemon and orange trees, magnolias and palms growing in the open air; but it is at the same time extremely wet and changeable. The annual rainfall (90 in.) is higher than anywhere in Caucasia, but it is very unequally distributed (23 in. in August and September, sometimes 16 in. in a couple of days), and the place is still most unhealthy. The town is connected by rail with the main Transcaucasian railway to Tiflis, and is the chief port for the export of naphtha and paraffin oil, carried hither in great part through pipes laid down from Baku, but partly also in tank railway-cars; other exports are wheat, manganese, wool, silkworm-cocoons, liquorice, maize and timber (total value of exports nearly 5½ millions sterling annually). The imports, chiefly tin plates and machinery, amount to less than half that total. Known as Bathys in antiquity, as Vati in the middle ages, and as Bathumi since the beginning of the 17th century, Batum belonged to the Turks, who strongly fortified it, down to 1878, when it was transferred to Russia. In the winter of 1905-1906 Batum was in the hands of the revolutionists, and a “reign of terror” lasted for several weeks.

BATWA, a tribe of African pygmies living in the mountainous country around Wissmann Falls in the Kasai district of the Belgian Congo. They were discovered in 1880 by Paul Pogge and Hermann von Wissmann, and have been identified with Sir H.M. Stanley’s Vouatouas. They are typical of the negrito family south of the Congo. They are well made, with limbs perfectly proportioned, and are seldom more than 4 ft. high. Their complexion is a yellow-brown, much lighter than their Bantu-Negroid neighbours. They have short woolly hair and no beard. They are feared rather than despised by the Baluba and Bakuba tribes, among whom they live. They are nomads, cultivating nothing, and keeping no animals but a small type of hunting-dog. Their weapon is a tiny bow, the arrows for which are usually poisoned. They build themselves temporary huts of a bee-hive shape. As hunters they are famous, bounding through the jungle growth “like grasshoppers” and fearlessly attacking elephants and buffalo with their tiny weapons. Their only occupation apart from hunting is the preparation of palm-wine which they barter for grain with the Baluba. They are monogamous and display much family affection. See further Pygmy; Akka; Wochua; Bambute.

See A. de Quatrefages, The Pygmies (Eng. ed., 1895); Sir H.H. Johnston, Uganda Protectorate (1902); Hermann von Wissmann, My Second Journey through Equatorial Africa (London, 1891).

BATYPHONE (Ger. and Fr. Batyphon), a contrabass clarinet which was the outcome of F.W. Wieprecht’s endeavour to obtain a contrabass for the reed instruments. The batyphone was made to a scale twice the size of the clarinet in C, the divisions of the chromatic scale being arranged according to acoustic principles. For convenience in stopping holes too far apart to be covered by the fingers, crank or swivel keys were used. The instrument was constructed of maple-wood, had a clarinet mouthpiece of suitable size connected by means of a cylindrical brass crook with the upper part of the tube, and a brass bell. The pitch was two octaves below the clarinet in C, the compass being the same, and thus corresponding to the modern bass tuba. The tone was pleasant and full, but not powerful enough for the contrabass register in a military band. The batyphone had besides one serious disadvantage: it could be played with facility only in its nearly related keys, G and F major. The batyphone was invented and patented in 1839 by F.W. Wieprecht, director general of all the Prussian military bands, and E. Skorra, the court instrument manufacturer of Berlin. In practice the instrument was found to be of little use, and was superseded by the bass tuba. A similar attempt was made in 1843 by Adolphe Sax, and met with a similar fate.

A batyphone bearing the name of its inventors formed part of the Snoeck collection which was acquired for Berlin’s collection of ancient musical instruments at the Technische Hochschule für Musik. The description of the batyphone given above is mainly derived from a MS. treatise on instrumentation by Wieprecht, in 1909 in the possession of Herr Otto Lessmann (Berlin), and reproduced by Capt. C.R. Day, in Descriptive Catalogue of the Musical Instruments of the Royal Military Exhibition, London, 1890 (London, 1891), p. 124.

(K. S.)

BAUAN (or Baun), a town of the province of Batangas, Luzon, Philippine Islands, at the head of Batangas Bay, about 54 m. S. of Manila. Pop. (1903) 39,094. A railway to connect the town with Manila was under construction in 1908. Bauan has a fine church and is known as a market for “sinamay” or hemp cloth, the hemp and cotton being imported and dyed and woven by the women in their homes. Palm-fibre mats and hats, fans, bamboo baskets and cotton fish-nets are woven here. There is excellent fishing in the bay. Hogs and horses are raised for the Manila market. The surrounding country is fertile and grows cacao, indigo, oranges, sugar-cane, corn and rice. The language is Tagalog.

BAUBLE (probably a blend of two different words, an old French baubel, a child’s plaything, and an old English babyll, something swinging to and fro), a word applied to a stick with a weight attached, used in weighing, to a child’s toy, and especially to the mock symbol of office carried by a court jester, a baton terminating in a figure of Folly with cap and bells, and sometimes having a bladder fastened to the other end; hence a term for any triviality or childish folly.

BAUCHI, a province in the highlands of the British protectorate of Northern Nigeria. It lies approximately between 11° 15′ and 9° 15′ N. and 11° 15′ and 8° 30′ E. Bauchi is bounded N. by the provinces of Kano, Katagum and Bornu; E. by Bornu, S. by Yola and Muri, and W. by the provinces of Zaria and Nassarawa. The province has an area of about 21,000 sq. m. The altitude rises from 1000 ft. above the sea in its north-eastern corner to 4000 ft. and 6000 ft. in the south-west. The province is traversed diagonally from N.E. to S.W. by a belt of mountain ranges alternating with fertile plateaus. Towards the south the country is very rugged and a series of extinct volcanic craters occur.

Amongst the more important plateaus are the Assab or Kibyen country, having a general level of upwards of 4000 ft., and the Sura country, also reaching to elevations of from 3000 to 5000 ft. Both these extensive plateaus are situated in the south-west portion of the province. Their soil is fertile, they possess an abundance of pure water, the air is keen and bracing, and the climate is described as resembling in many respects that of the Transvaal. They form the principal watershed not only of the province of Bauchi, but of the protectorate of Northern Nigeria. The Gongola, flowing east and south to the Benue, rises in the Sura district, and from the Kibyen plateau streams flow north to Lake Chad, west to the Kaduna, and south to the Benue. The soil is generally fertile between the hills, and in the volcanic districts the slopes are cultivated half-way up the extinct craters. The climate in the western parts is temperate and healthy. In the winter months of November and December the thermometer frequently falls to freezing-point, and in the hottest months the maximum on the Kibyen plateau has been found to be rarely over 85°.

The population of Bauchi is estimated at about 1,000,000 and is of a very various description. The upper classes are Fula, and there are some Hausa and Kanuri (Bornuese), but the bulk of the people are pagan tribes in a very low state of civilization. Sixty-four tribes sufficiently differentiated from each other to speak different languages have been reported upon. Hausa is the lingua franca of the whole. The pagan population has been classified for practical purposes as Hill pagans and Plains pagans, Mounted pagans and Foot pagans. The Foot pagans of the plains were brought under the Fula yoke in the beginning of the 19th century and have never cast it off. The Hill pagans were partly conquered, but many remained independent or have since succeeded in asserting their freedom. The Mounted pagans are confined to the healthy plateaus of the south-west corner of the province. They are independent and there is considerable variety in the characteristics of the different tribes. The better types are hardy, orderly and agriculturally industrious. They are intelligent and have shown themselves peaceful and friendly to Europeans. Others are, on the contrary, disposed to be turbulent and warlike. Amongst the different tribes many are cannibals. They all go practically naked. They are essentially horsemen, and have a cruel habit of gashing the backs of their ponies that they may get a good seat in the blood. They are armed with bows and arrows, but depend almost entirely in battle on the charges of their mounted spearmen.

The native name “Bauchi,” which is of great antiquity, Signifies the “Land of Slaves,” and from the earliest times the uplands which now form the principal portion of the province been the hunting ground of the slave raider, while the hill fastnesses have offered defensible refuge to the population. So entirely was slavery a habit of the people, that as late as 1905, after the slave-trade had been abolished for three years, it was found that, in consequence of a famine which rendered food difficult to obtain, a whole tribe (the Tangali) were selling themselves as slaves to their neighbours. Children are readily sold by their parents at a price varying from the equivalent of one shilling to one and sixpence.

The province of Bauchi was conquered by the Fula at the beginning of the 19th century, and furnished them with a valuable slave preserve. But the more civilized portion had already, under enlightened native rulers, attained to a certain degree of prosperity and order. Mahommedanism was partly adopted by the upper classes in the 18th century, if not earlier, and the son of a Mahommedan native ruler, educated at Sokoto, accepted the flag of Dan Fodio and conquered the country for the Fula. The name of this remarkable soldier and leader was Yakoba (Jacob). His father’s name was Daouad (David), and his grandfather was Abdullah, all names which indicate Arab or Mahommedan influence. The town of Bauchi and capital of the province was founded by Yakoba in the year 1809, and the emirate remained under Fula rule until the year 1902. In that year, in consequence of determined slave-raiding and the defiant misrule of the emir, a British expedition was sent against the capital, which submitted without fighting. The emir was deposed, and the country was brought under British control. A new emir was appointed, but he died within a few months. The slave-trade was immediately abolished, and the slave-market which was held at Bauchi, as in all Fula centres, was closed. The Kano-Sokoto campaign in 1903 rendered necessary a temporary withdrawal of the British resident from Bauchi, and comparatively little progress was made until the following year. In 1904 the province was organized for administration on the same system as the rest of Northern Nigeria, and the reigning emir took the oath of allegiance to the British crown. The province has been subdivided into thirteen administrative districts, which again have been grouped into their principal divisions, with their respective British headquarters at Bauchi, Kanan and Bukuru. The Fula portion of this province, held like the other Hausa states under a feudal system of large landowners or fief-holders, has been organized and assessed for taxation on the system accepted by the emirs throughout the protectorate, and the populations are working harmoniously under British rule. Roads and telegraphs are in process of construction, and the province is being gradually opened to trade. Valuable indications of tin have been found to the north of the Kibyen plateau, and have attracted the attention of the Niger Company.

Bauchi is a province of special importance from the European point of view because, with free communication from the Benue assured, it is probable that on the Kibyen and Sura plateaus, which are the healthiest known in the protectorate, a sanatorium and station for a large civil population might be established under conditions in which Europeans could live free from the evil effects of a West African climate.

The emirate of Gombe, which is included in the first division of the Bauchi province, is a Fula emirate independent of the emirs of Bauchi. It forms a rich and important district, and its chiefs held themselves in a somewhat sullen attitude of hostility to the British. It was at Burmi in this district that the last stand was made by the religious following of the defeated sultan of Sokoto, and here the sultan was finally overthrown and killed in July 1903. Gombe has now frankly accepted British rule.

(F. L. L.)

BAUDELAIRE, CHARLES PIERRE (1821-1867), French poet, was born in Paris on the 9th of April 1821. His father, who was a civil servant in good position and an amateur artist, died in 1827, and in the following year his mother married a lieutenant-colonel named Aupick, who was afterwards ambassador of France at various courts. Baudelaire was educated at Lyons and at the Collège Louis-le Grand in Paris. On taking his degree in 1839 he determined to enter on a literary career, and during the next two years pursued a very irregular way of life, which led his guardians, in 1841, to send him on a voyage to India. When he returned to Paris, after less than a year’s absence, he was of age; but in a year or two his extravagance threatened to exhaust his small patrimony, and his family obtained a decree to place his property in trust. His salons of 1845 and 1846 attracted immediate attention by the boldness with which he propounded many views then novel, but since generally accepted. He took part with the revolutionaries in 1848, and for some years interested himself in republican politics but his permanent convictions were aristocratic and Catholic. Baudelaire was a slow and fastidious worker, and it was not until 1857 that he produced his first and famous volume of poems, Fleurs du mal. Some of these had already appeared in the Revue des deux mondes when they were published by Baudelaire’s friend Auguste Poulet Malassis, who had inherited a printing business at Alençon. The consummate art displayed in these verses was appreciated by a limited public, but general attention was caught by the perverse selection of morbid subjects, and the book became a by-word for unwholesomeness among conventional critics. Victor Hugo, writing to the poet, said, “Vous dotez le ciel de l’art d’un rayon macabre, vous créez un frisson nouveau.” Baudelaire, the publisher, and the printer were successfully prosecuted for offending against public morals. The obnoxious pieces were suppressed, but printed later as Les Épaves (Brussels, 1866). Another edition of the Fleurs du mal, without these poems, but with considerable additions, appeared in 1861.

Baudelaire had learnt English in his childhood, and had found some of his favourite reading in the English “Satanic” romances, such as Lewis’s Monk. In 1846-1847 he became acquainted with the works of Edgar Allan Poe, in which he discovered romances and poems which had, he said, long existed in his own brain, but had never taken shape. From this time till 1865 he was largely occupied with his version of Poe’s works, producing masterpieces of the art of translation in Histoires extraordinaires (1852), Nouvelles Histoires extraordinaires (1857), Adventures d’Arthur Gordon Pym, Eureka, and Histoires grotesques et sérieuses (1865). Two essays on Poe are to be found in his Œuvres complètes (vols. v. and vi.). Meanwhile his financial difficulties grew upon him. He was involved in the failure of Poulet Malassis in 1861, and in 1864 he left Paris for Belgium, partly in the vain hope of disposing of his copyrights. He had for many years a liaison with a coloured woman, whom he helped to the end of his life in spite of her gross conduct. He had recourse to opium, and in Brussels he began to drink to excess. Paralysis followed, and the last two years of his life were spent in maisons de santé in Brussels and in Paris, where he died on the 31st of August 1867.

His other works include:—Petits Poèmes en prose; a series of art criticisms published in the Pays, Exposition universelle; studies on Gustave Flaubert (in L’artiste, 18th of October 1857); on Théophile Gautier (Revue contemporaine, September 1858); valuable notices contributed to Eugène Crépet’s Poètes français; Les Paradis artificiels opium et haschisch (1860); Richard Wagner et Tannhäuser à Paris (1861); Un Dernier Chapitre de l’histoire des œuvres de Balzac (1880), originally an article entitled “Comment on paye ses dettes quand on a du génie,” in which his criticism is turned against his friends H. de Balzac, Théophile Gautier, and Gérard de Nerval.

Bibliography.—An edition of his Lettres (1841-1866) was issued by the Soc. du Mercure de France in 1906. His Œuvres complètes were edited (1868-1870) by his friend Charles Asselineau, with a preface by Théophile Gautier. Asselineau also undertook a vindication of his character from the attacks made upon it in his Charles Baudelaire, sa vie, son œuvre (1869). He left some material of more private interest in a MS. entitled Baudelaire. See Charles Baudelaire, souvenirs, correspondance, bibliographie (1872), by Charles Cousin and Spoelberch de Lovenjoul; Charles Baudelaire, œuvres posthumes et correspondances inédites (1887), containing a journal entitled Mon cœur mis à nu, and a biographical study by Eugène Crépet; also Le Tombeau de Charles Baudelaire (1896), a collection of pieces unpublished or prohibited during the author’s lifetime, edited by S. Mallarmé and others, with a study of the text of the Fleurs du mal by Prince A. Ourousof; Féli Gautier, Charles Baudelaire (Brussels, 1904), with facsimiles of drawings by Baudelaire himself; A. de la Fitzelière and C. Decaux, Charles Baudelaire (1868) in the series of Essais de bibliographie contemporaine; essays by Paul Bourget, Essais de psychologie conlemporaine (1883), and Maurice Spronck, Les Artistes littéraires (1889). Among English translations from Baudelaire are Poems in Prose, by A. Symons (1905), and a selection for the Canterbury Poets (1904), by F.P. Sturm.

BAUDIER, MICHEL (c. 1589-1645), French historian, was born in Languedoc. During the reign of Louis XIII. he was historiographer to the Court of France. He contributed to French history by writing Histoire de la guerre de Flandre 1559-1609 (Paris, 1615); Histoire de l’administration du cardinal d’Amboise, grand ministre d’état en France (Paris, 1634), a defence of the cardinal; and Histoire de l’administration de l’abbé Suger (Paris, 1645). Taking an especial interest in the Turks he wrote Inventaire général de l’histoire des Turcs (Paris, 1619); Histoire générale de la religion des Turcs avec la vie de leur prophète Mahomet (Paris, 1626); and Histoire générale du sérail et de la cour du grand Turc (Paris, 1626; English trans. by E. Grimeston, London, 1635). Having heard the narrative of a Jesuit who had returned from China, Baudier wrote Histoire de la cour du roi de Chine (Paris, 1626; English trans. in vol. viii. of the Collection of Voyages and Travels of A. and J. Churchill, London, 1707-1747). He also wrote Vie du cardinal Ximénès (Paris, 1635), which was again published with a notice of the author by E. Baudier (Paris, 1851), and a curious romance entitled Histoire de l’incomparable administration de Romieu, grand ministre d’état de Raymond Bérenger, comte de Provence (Paris, 1635).

See J. Lelong, Bibliothèque historique de la France (Paris, 1768-1778); L. Moréri, Le Grand Dictionnaire historique (Amsterdam, 1740).

BAUDRILLART, HENRI JOSEPH LÉON (1821-1892), French economist, was born in Paris on the 28th of November 1821. His father, Jacques Joseph (1774-1832), was a distinguished writer on forestry, and was for many years in the service of the French government, eventually becoming the head of that branch of the department of agriculture which had charge of the state forests. Henri was educated at the Collège Bourbon, where he had a distinguished career, and in 1852 he was appointed assistant lecturer in political economy to M. Chevalier at the Collège de France. In 1866, on the creation of a new chair of economic history, Baudrillart was appointed to fill it. His first work was an Éloge de Turgot (1846), which at once won him notice among the economists. In 1853 he published an erudite work on Jean Bodin et son temps; then in 1857 a Manuel d’économie politique; in 1860, Des rapports de la morale et de l’économie politique; in 1865, La Liberté du travail; and from 1878 to 1880, L’Histoire du luxe ... depuis l’antiquité jusqu’à nos jours, in four volumes. At the instance of the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques he investigated the condition of the farming classes of France, and published the results in four volumes (1885, et seq.). From 1855 to 1864 he directed the Journal des économistes, and contributed many articles to the Journal des débats and to the Revue des deux mondes. His writings are distinguished by their style, as well as by their profound erudition. In 1863 he was elected member of the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques; in 1870 he was appointed inspector-general of public libraries, and in 1881 he succeeded J. Garnier as professor of political economy at the École des Ponts et Chaussées. Baudrillart was made an officer of the Legion of Honour in 1889. He died in Paris on the 24th of January 1892.

BAUDRY, or Balderich, OF BOURGUEIL (1046 or 1047-1130), archbishop of Dol, historian and poet, was born at Meung-sur-Loire, where he passed his early days. Educated at Meung and at Angers, he entered the Benedictine abbey of Bourgueil, and in 1079 became abbot of this place, but his time was devoted to literary pursuits rather than to his official duties. Having failed to secure the bishopric of Orleans in 1097, he became archbishop of Dol in 1107, and went to Rome for his pallium in 1108. The bishopric of Dol had been raised to the rank of an archbishopric during the 10th century by Nomenoé, king of Brittany, but this step had been objected to by the archbishops of Tours. Consequently the position of the see was somewhat ambiguous, and Baudry is referred to both as archbishop and as bishop of Dol. He appears to have striven earnestly to do something for the education of the ignorant inhabitants of Brittany but his efforts were not very successful, and he soon abandoned the task. In 1116 he attended the Lateran council, and in 1119 the council of Reims, after which he paid a visit of two years’ duration to England. Returning to France he neglected the affairs of his diocese, and passed his time mainly at St Samson-sur-Risle in Normandy. He died on the 5th or 7th of January 1130.

Baudry wrote a number of Latin poems of very indifferent quality. The most important of these, from the historical point of view, have been published in the Historiae Francorum Scriptores, tome iv., edited by A. Duchesne (Paris 1639-1649). Baudry’s prose works are more important. The best known of these is his Historiae Hierosolymitance, a history of the first crusade from 1095 to 1099. This is a history in four books, the material for which was mainly drawn from the anonymous Gesta Francorum, but some valuable information has been added by Baudry. It was very popular during the middle ages, and was used by Ordericus Vitalis for his Historiae ecclesiasticae; by William, archbishop of Tyre, for his Belli sacri historia; and by Vincent of Beauvais for his Speculum historiale. The best edition is that by C. Thurot, which appears in the Recueil des historiens des croisades, tome iv. (Paris, 1841-1887), Other works probably by Baudry are Epistola ad Fiscannenses monachos, a description of the monastery of Fécamp; Vita Roberti de Arbrissello; Vita S. Hugonis archiepiscopi Rothomagensis; Translatio capitis Gemeticum et miracula S. Valentini martyris; Relatio de scuto et gladio, a history of the arms of St. Michael; and Vita S. Samsonis Dolensis episcopi. Other writings which on very doubtful authority have been attributed to Baudry are Acta S. Valeriani martyris Trenorchii; De visitatione infirmorum; Vita S. Maglorii Dolensis episcopi et Vita S. Maclovii, Alectensis episcopi; De revelatione abbatum Fiscannensium; and Confirmatio bonorum monasterii S. Florentii. Many of these are published by J.P. Migne in the Patrologia Latina, tomes 160, 162 and 166 (Paris 1844).

See Histoire littéraire de la France, tome xi. (Paris, 1865-1869); H. von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (Leipzig, 1881); A. Thurot, “Études critiques sur les historiens de la première croisade; Baudri de Bourgueil” in the Revue historique (Paris, 1876).

BAUDRY, PAUL JACQUES AIMÉ (1828-1886), French painter, was born at La Roche-sur-Yonne (Vendée). He studied under Drolling, a sound but second-rate artist, and carried off the Prix de Rome in 1850 by his picture of “Zenobia found on the banks of the Araxes.” His talent from the first revealed itself as strictly academical, full of elegance and grace, but somewhat lacking originality. In the course of his residence in Italy Baudry derived strong inspiration from Italian art with the mannerism of Coreggio, as was very evident in the two works he exhibited in the Salon of 1857, which were purchased for the Luxembourg: “The Martyrdom of a Vestal Virgin” and “The Child.” His “Leda,” “St John the Baptist,” and a “Portrait of Beulé,” exhibited at the same time, took a first prize that year. Throughout this early period Baudry commonly selected mythological or fanciful subjects, one of the most noteworthy being “The Pearl and the Wave.” Once only did he attempt an historical picture, “Charlotte Corday after the murder of Marat” (1861), and returned by preference to the former class of subjects or to painting portraits of illustrious men of his day—Guizot, Charles Garnier, Edmond About. The works that crowned Baudry’s reputation were his mural decorations, which show much imagination and a high artistic gift for colour, as may be seen in the frescoes in the Paris Cour de Cassation, at the château of Chantilly, and some private residences—the hôtel Fould and hôtel Paiva—but, above all, in the decorations of the foyer of the Paris opera house. These, more than thirty paintings in all, and among them compositions figurative of dancing and music, occupied the painter, for ten years. Baudry died in Paris in 1886. He was a member of the Institut de France, succeeding Jean Victor Schnetz. Two of his colleagues, Dubois and Marius Jean Mercie, co-operating with his brother, Baudry the architect, erected a monument to him in Paris (1890). The statue of Baudry at La Roche-sur-Yonne (1897) is by Gérôme.

See H. Delaborde, Notice sur la vie et les ouvrages de Baudry (1886); Ch. Ephrussi, Baudry, sa vie et son œuvre (1887).

(H. Fr.)

BAUER, BRUNO (1809-1882), German theologian and historian, was born on the 6th of September 1809, the son of a painter in a porcelain factory, at Eisenberg in Saxe-Altenburg. He studied at Berlin, where he attached himself to the “Right” of the Hegelian school under P. Marheineke. In 1834 he began to teach in Berlin as a licentiate of theology, and in 1839 was transferred to Bonn. In 1838 he published his Kritische Darstellung der Religion des Alten Testaments (2 vols.), which shows that at that date he was still faithful to the Hegelian Right. Soon afterwards his opinions underwent a change, and in two works, one on the Fourth Gospel, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes (1840), and the other on the Synoptics, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker (1841), as well as in his Herr Hengstenberg, kritische Briefe über den Gegensatz des Gesetzes und des Evangeliums, he announced his complete rejection of his earlier orthodoxy. In 1842 the government revoked his license and he retired for the rest of his life to Rixdorf, near Berlin. Henceforward he took a deep interest in modern history and politics, as well as in theology, and published Geschichte der Politik, Kultur und Aufklärung des 18ten Jahrhunderts (4 vols. 1843-1845), Geschichte der französischen Revolution (3 vols. 1847), and Disraelis romantischer und Bismarcks socialistischer Imperialismus (1882). Other critical works are: a criticism of the gospels and a history of their origin, Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs (1850-1852), a book on the Acts of the Apostles, Apostelgeschichte (1850), and a criticism of the Pauline epistles, Kritik der paulinischen Briefe (1850-1852). He died at Rixdorf on the 13th of April 1882. His criticism of the New Testament was of a highly destructive type. David Strauss in his Life of Jesus had accounted for the Gospel narratives as half-conscious products of the mythic instinct in the early Christian communities. Bauer ridiculed Strauss’s notion that a community could produce a connected narrative. His own contention, embodying a theory of C.G. Wilke (Der Urevangelist, 1838), was that the original narrative was the Gospel of Mark; that this was composed in the reign of Hadrian; and that after this the other narratives were modelled by other writers. He, however, “regarded Mark not only as the first narrator, but even as the creator of the gospel history, thus making the latter a fiction and Christianity the invention of a single original evangelist” (Pfleiderer). On the same principle the four principal Pauline epistles were regarded as forgeries of the 2nd century. He argued further for the preponderance of the Graeco-Roman element, as opposed to the Jewish, in the Christian writings. The writer of Mark’s gospel was “an Italian, at home both in Rome and Alexandria”; that of Matthew’s gospel “a Roman, nourished by the spirit of Seneca”; the Pauline epistles were written in the West in antagonism to the Paul of the Acts, and so on. Christianity is essentially “Stoicism triumphant in a Jewish garb.” This line of criticism has found few supporters, mostly in the Netherlands. It certainly had its value in emphasizing the importance of studying the influence of environment in the formation of the Christian Scriptures. Bauer was a man of restless, impetuous activity and independent, if ill-balanced, judgment, one who, as he himself perceived, was more in place as a free-lance of criticism than as an official teacher. He came in the end to be regarded kindly even by opponents, and he was not afraid of taking a line displeasing to his liberal friends on the Jewish question (Die Judenfrage, 1843).

His attitude towards the Jews is dealt with in the article in the Jewish Encyclopedia. See generally Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopadie; and cf. Otto Pfleiderer, Development of Theology, p. 226; Carl Schwarz, Zur Geschichte der neuesten Theologie, pp. 142 ff.; and F. Lichtenberger, History of German Theology in the 19th Century (1889), pp. 374-378.

BAUERNFELD, EDUARD VON (1802-1890), Austrian dramatist, was born at Vienna on the 13th of January 1802. Having studied jurisprudence at the university of Vienna, he entered the government service in a legal capacity, and after holding various minor offices was transferred in 1843 to a responsible post on the Lottery Commission. He had already embarked upon politics, and severely criticized the government in a pamphlet, Pia Desideria eines österreichischen Schriftstellers (1842); and in 1845 he made a journey to England, after which his political opinions became more pronounced. After the Revolution, in 1848, he quitted the government service in order to devote himself entirely to letters. He lived in Vienna until his death on the 9th of August 1890, and was ennobled for his work. As a writer of comedies and farces, Bauernfeld takes high rank among the German playwrights of the century; his plots are clever, the situations witty and natural and the diction elegant. His earliest essays, the comedies Leichtsinn aus Liebe (1831); Das Liebes-Protokoll (1831) and Die ewige Liebe (1834); Bürgerlich und Romantisch, (1835) enjoyed great popularity. Later he turned his attention to so-called Salonstücke (drawing-room pieces), notably Aus der Gesellschaft (1866); Moderne Jugend (1869), and Der Landfrieden (1869), in which he portrays in fresh, bright and happy sallies the social conditions of the capital in which he lived.

A complete edition of Bauernfeld’s works, Gesammelte Schriften, appeared in 12 vols. (Vienna, 1871-1873); Dramatischer Nachlass, ed. by F. von Saar (1893); selected works, ed. by E. Horner (4 vols., 1905). See A. Stern, Bauernfeld, Ein Dichterportrat (1890), R. von Gottschall, “E. von Bauernfeld” (in Unsere Zeit, 1890), and E. Horner, Bauernfeld (1900).

BAUFFREMONT, a French family which derives its name from a village in the Vosges, spelt nowadays Beaufremont. In consequence of an alliance with the house of Vergy the Bauffremonts established themselves in Burgundy and Franche-Comté. In 1448 Pierre de Bauffremont, lord of Charny, married Maríe, a legitimatized daughter of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy. Nicolas de Bauffremont, his son Claude, and his grandson Henri, all played important parts in the states-general of 1576, 1588 and 1614, and their speeches have been published. Alexandre Emmanuel Louis de Bauffremont (1773-1833), a prince of the Holy Roman Empire, was created a peer of France in 1817, and duke in 1818. After having served in the army of the princes he returned to France under the Empire, and had been made a count by Napoleon.

(M. P.*)

BAUHIN, GASPARD (1560-1624), Swiss botanist and anatomist, was the son of a French physician, Jean Bauhin (1511-1582), who had to leave his native country on becoming a convert to Protestantism. He was born at Basel on the 17th of January 1560, and devoting himself to medicine, he pursued his studies at Padua, Montpellier, and some of the celebrated schools in Germany. Returning to Basel in 1580, he was admitted to the degree of doctor, and gave private lectures in botany and anatomy. In 1582 he was appointed to the Greek professorship in that university, and in 1588 to the chair of anatomy and botany. He was afterwards made city physician, professor of the practice of medicine, rector of the university, and dean of his faculty. He died at Basel on the 5th of December 1624. He published several works relative to botany, of which the most valuable was his Pinax Theatri Botanici, seu Index in Theophrasti, Dioscoridis, Plinii, et botanicorum qui a seculo scripserunt opera (1596). Another great work which he planned was a Theatrum Botanicum, meant to be comprised in twelve parts folio, of which he finished three; only one, however, was published (1658). He also gave a copious catalogue of the plants growing in the environs of Basel, and edited the works of P.A. Mattioli (1500-1577) with considerable additions. He likewise wrote on anatomy, his principal work on this subject being Theatrum Anatomicum infinitis locis auctum (1592).

His son, Jean Gaspard Bauhin (1606-1685), was professor of botany at Basel for thirty years. His elder brother, Jean Bauhin (1541-1613), after studying botany at Tübingen under Leonard Fuchs (1501-1566), and travelling with Conrad Gesner, began to practise medicine at Basel, where he was elected professor of rhetoric in 1766. Four years later he was invited to become physician to the duke of Württemberg at Montbéliard, where he remained till his death in 1613. He devoted himself chiefly to botany. His great work, Historia plantarum nova et absolutissima, a compilation of all that was then known about botany, was not complete at his death, but was published at Yverdon in 1650-1651, the Prodromus having appeared at the same place in 1619. He also wrote a book De aquis medicatis (1605).

BAULK, or Balk (a word common to Teutonic languages, meaning a ridge, partition, or beam), the ridge left unploughed between furrows or ploughed fields; also the uncultivated strip of land used as a boundary in the “open-field” system of agriculture. From the meaning of something left untouched comes that of a hindrance or check, so of a horse stopping short of an obstacle, of the “baulk-line” in billiards, or of the deceptive motion of the pitcher in baseball. From the other original meaning, i.e. “beam,” comes the use of the word for the cross or tie-beam of a roof, or for a large log of timber sawn to a one or one and a half foot square section (see Joinery).

BAUMBACH, RUDOLF (1840-1905), German poet, was born at Kranichfeld on the Ilm in Thuringia, on the 28th of September 1840, the son of a local medical practitioner, and received his early schooling at the gymnasium of Meiningen, to which place his father had removed. After studying natural science in various universities, he engaged in private tuition, both independently and in families, in the Austrian towns of Graz, Brünn, Görz and Triest respectively. In Triest he caught the popular taste with an Alpine legend, Zlatorog (1877), and songs of a journeyman apprentice, Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen (1878), both of which have run into many editions. Their success decided him to embark upon a literary career. In 1885 he returned to Meiningen, where he received the title of Hofrat, and was appointed ducal librarian. His death occurred on the 14th of September 1905.

Baumbach was a poet of the breezy, vagabond school, and wrote, in imitation of his greater compatriot, Victor Scheffel, many excellent drinking songs, among which Die Lindenwirtin has endeared him to the German student world. But his real strength lay in narrative verse, especially when he had the opportunity of describing the scenery and life of his native Thuringia. Special mention may be made of Frau Holde (1881), Spielmannslieder (1882), Von der Landstrasse (1882), Thüringer Lieder (1891), and his prose, Sommermärchen (1881).

BAUMÉ, ANTOINE (1728-1804), French chemist, was born at Senlis on the 26th of February 1728. He was apprenticed to the chemist Claude Joseph Geoffroy, and in 1752 was admitted a member of the École de Pharmacie, where in the same year he was appointed professor of chemistry. The money he made in a business he carried on in Paris for dealing in chemical products enabled him to retire in 1780 in order to devote himself to applied chemistry, but, ruined in the Revolution, he was obliged to return to a commercial career. He devised many improvements in technical processes, e.g. for bleaching silk, dyeing, gilding, purifying saltpetre, &c., but he is best known as the inventor of the hydrometer associated with his name (often in this connexion improperly spelt Beaumé). Of the numerous books and papers he wrote the most important is his Élémens de pharmacie théorique et pratique (9 editions, 1762-1818). He became a member of the Academy of Sciences in 1772, and an associate of the Institute in 1796. He died in Paris on the 15th of October 1804.

BAUMGARTEN, ALEXANDER GOTTLIEB (1714-1762), German philosopher, born at Berlin. He studied at Halle, and became professor of philosophy at Halle and at Frankfort on the Oder, where he died in 1762. He was a disciple of Leibnitz and Wolff, and was particularly distinguished as having been the first to establish the Theory of the Beautiful as an independent science. Baumgarten did good service in severing aesthetics (q.v.) from the other philosophic disciplines, and in marking out a definite object for its researches. The very name (Aesthetics), which Baumgarten was the first to use, indicates the imperfect and partial nature of his analysis, pointing as it does to an element so variable as feeling or sensation as the ultimate ground of judgment in questions pertaining to beauty. It is important to notice that Baumgarten’s first work preceded those of Burke, Diderot, and P. André, and that Kant had a great admiration for him. The principal works of Baumgarten are the following: Dispulationes de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus (1735); Aesthetics; Metaphysica (1739; 7th ed. 1779); Ethica philosophica (1751, 2nd ed. 1763); Initia philosophiae practicae primae (1760). After his death, his pupils published a Philosophia Generalis (1770) and a Jus Naturae (1765), which he had left in manuscript.

See Meyer, Baumgarten’s Leben (1763); Abbt, Baumgarten’s Leben und Charakler (1765); H.G. Meyer, Leibnitz und Baumgarten (1874); J. Schmidt, Leibnitz und Baumgarten (Halle, 1875); and article Aesthetics.

His brother, Siegmund Jacob Baumgarten (1706-1757), was professor of theology at Halle, and applied the methods of Wolff to theology. His chief pupil, Johann Salomo Semler (q.v.), is sometimes called, the father of German rationalism. Baumgarten, though he did not renounce the Pietistic doctrine, began the process which Semler completed. His works include Evangelische Glaubenslehre (1759); Auszug der Kirchengeschichte (1743-1762); Primae lineae breviarii anliquitatum Christianarum (1747); Geschichte der Religionsparteien (1760); Nachricht van merkwürdigen Buchern (1752-1757); Nachrichten van einer hallischen Bibliothek (1748-1751).

See life by Semler (Halle, 1758).

BAUMGARTEN, MICHAEL (1812-1889), German Protestant theologian, was born at Haseldorf in Schleswig-Holstein on the 25th of March 1812. He studied at Kiel University (1832), and became professor ordinarius of theology at Rostock (1850). A liberal scholar, he became widely known in 1854 through a work, Die Nachtgesichte Sacharjas. Eine Prophetenstimme aus der Gegenwart, in which, starting from texts in the Old Testament and assuming the tone of a prophet, he discussed topics of every kind. At a pastoral conference in 1856 he boldly defended evangelical freedom as regards the legal sanctity of Sunday. This, with other attempts to liberalize religion, brought him into conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities of Mecklenburg, and in 1858 he was deprived of his professorship. He then travelled throughout Germany, demanding justice, telling the story of his life (Christliche Selbstgespräche, 1861), and lecturing on the life of Jesus (Die Geschichte Jesu. Für das Verständniss der Gegenwart, 1859). In 1865 he helped to found the Deutsche Protestantenverein, but withdrew from it in 1877. On several occasions (1874, 1877 and 1878) he sat in the Reichstag as a member of the progressive party. He died on the 21st of July 1889. Other works: Apostelgeschichte oder Entwicklungsgang der Kirche van Jerusalem bis Rom (2 vols. 2nd ed., 1859), and Doktor Martin Luther, ein Volksbuch (1883).

H.H. Studt published his autobiography in 1891 (2 vols.); see also C. Schwartz, Neueste Theologie (1869); Lichtenberger, Hist. Germ. Theol., 1889; Calwer-Zeller, Kirchen-Lexikon.

BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS, LUDWIG FRIEDRICH OTTO (1788-1842), German Protestant divine, was born at Merseburg. In 1805 he entered the university of Leipzig and studied theology and philology. After acting as Privatdocent at Leipzig, he was, in 1812, appointed professor extraordinarius of theology at Jena, where he remained to the end of his life, rising gradually to the head of the theological faculty. He died on the 31st of May 1842. With the exception of Church history, he lectured on all branches of so-called theoretical theology, especially on New Testament exegesis, biblical theology, dogmatic ethics, and the history of dogma, and his comprehensive knowledge, accurate scholarship and wide sympathies gave peculiar value to his lectures and treatises, especially those on the development of church doctrine. His published works are many, the most important being:—Lehrbuch der christtichen Sittenlehre (1826); Grundzuge der biblischen Theologie (1828); Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (1832); Compendium der Dogmengeschichte (1840). The last, perhaps his best work, was left unfinished, but was completed from his notes in 1846 by Karl Hase.

BAUR, FERDINAND CHRISTIAN (1792-1860), leader of the Tübingen school of theology, was born at Schmiden, near Canstatt, on the 21st of June 1792. After receiving an early training in the theological seminary at Blaubeuren, he went in 1809 to the university of Tübingen. Here he studied for a time under Ernst Bengel, grandson of the eminent New Testament critic, Johann Albrecht Bengel, and at this early stage in his career he seems to have been under the influence of the old Tübingen school. But at the same time the philosophers Immanuel Fichte and Friedrich Schelling were creating a wide and deep impression. In 1817 Baur returned to the theological seminary at Blaubeuren as professor. This move marked a turning-point in his life, for he was now able to set to work upon those investigations on which his reputation rests. He had already, in 1817, written a review of G. Kaiser’s Biblische Theologie for Bengel’s Archiv für Theologie (ii. 656); its tone was moderate and conservative. When, a few years after his appointment at Blaubeuren, he published his first important, work, Symbolik und Mythologie oder die Naturreligion des Altertums (1824-1825), it became evident that he had made a deeper study of philosophy, and had come under the influence of Schelling and more particularly of Friedrich Schleiermacher. The learning of the work was fully recognized, and in 1826 the author was called to Tübingen as professor of theology. It is with Tübingen that his greatest literary achievements are associated. His earlier publications here treated of mythology and the history of dogma. Das manichäische Religionssystem appeared in 1831, Apollonius von Tyana in 1832, Die christliche Gnosis in 1835, and Über das Christliche im Platonismus oder Socrates und Christus in 1837. As Otto Pfleiderer (Development of Theology, p. 285) observes, “the choice not less than the treatment of these subjects is indicative of the large breadth of view and the insight of the historian into the comparative history of religion.” Meantime Baur had exchanged one master in philosophy for another, Schleiermacher for Hegel. In doing so, he had adopted completely the Hegelian philosophy of history. “Without philosophy,” he has said, “history is always for me dead and dumb.” The change of view is illustrated clearly in the essay, published in the Tubinger Zeitschrift for 1831, on the Christ-party in the Corinthian Church, Die Chrislusparlei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen in der älsten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom, the trend of which is suggested by the title. Baur contends that St Paul was opposed in Corinth by a Jewish-Christian party which wished to set up its own form of Christian religion instead of his universal Christianity. He finds traces of a keen conflict of parties in the post-apostolic age. The theory is further developed in a later work (1835, the year in which David Strauss’ Leben Jesu was published), Über die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe. In this Baur attempts to prove that the false teachers mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus are the Gnostics, particularly the Marcionites, of the second century, and consequently that the Epistles were produced in the middle of this century in opposition to Gnosticism. He next proceeded to investigate the Pauline Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles in the same manner, publishing his results in 1845 under the title Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre. In this he contends that only the Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians and Romans are genuinely Pauline, and that the Paul of Acts is a different person from the Paul of these genuine Epistles, the author being a Paulinist who, with an eye to the different parties in the Church, is at pains to represent Peter as far as possible as a Paulinist and Paul as far as possible as a Petrinist. Thus it becomes clear that Baur is prepared to apply his theory to the whole of the New Testament; in the words of H.S. Nash, “he carried a sweeping hypothesis into the examination of the New Testament.” Those writings alone he considers genuine in which the conflict between Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians is clearly marked. In his Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhaltniss zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung (1847) he turns his attention to the Gospels, and here again finds that the authors were conscious of the conflict of parties; the Gospels reveal a mediating or conciliatory tendency (Tendenz) on the part of the writers or redactors. The Gospels, in fact, are adaptations or redactions of an older Gospel, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews, of Peter, of the Egyptians, or of the Ebionites. The Petrine Matthew bears the closest relationship to this original Gospel (Urevangelium); the Pauline Luke is later and arose independently; Mark represents a still later development; the account in John is idealistic: it “does not possess historical truth, and cannot and does not really lay claim to it.” Baur’s whole theory indeed starts with the supposition that Christianity was gradually developed out of Judaism. Before it could become a universal religion, it had to struggle with Jewish limitations and to overcome them. The early Christians were Jewish-Christians, to whom Jesus was the Messiah. Paul, on the other hand, represented a breach with Judaism, the Temple, and the Law. Thus there was some antagonism between the Jewish apostles, Peter, James and John and the Gentile apostle Paul, and this struggle continued down to the middle of the 2nd century. In short, the conflict between Petrinism and Paulinism is, as Carl Schwarz puts it, the key to the literature of the 1st and 2nd century.

But Baur was a theologian and historian as well as a Biblical critic. As early as 1834 he published a strictly theological work, Gegensatz des Katholicismus und Protestantismus nach den Prinzipien und Hauptdogmen der beiden Lehrbegriffe, a strong defence of Protestantism on the lines of Schleiermacher’s Glaubenslehre, and a vigorous reply to J. Möhler’s Symbolik (1833). This was followed by his larger histories of dogma, Die christliche Lehre van der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung bis auf die neueste Zeit (1838), Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (3 vols., 1841-1843), and the Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte (1847). The value of these works is impaired somewhat by Baur’s habit of making the history of dogma conform to the formulae of Hegel’s philosophy, a procedure “which only served to obscure the truth and profundity of his conception of history as a true development of the human mind” (Pfleiderer). Baur, however, soon came to attach more importance to personality, and to distinguish more carefully between religion and philosophy. The change is marked in his Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung (1852), Das Christenthum und die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte (1853), and Die christliche Kirche von Anfang des vierten bis zum Ende des sechsten Jahrhunderts (1859), works preparatory to his Kirchengeschichte, in which the change of view is specially pronounced. The Kirchengeschichte was published in five volumes during the years 1853-1863, partly by Baur himself, partly by his son, Ferdinand Baur, and his son-in-law, Eduard Zeller, from notes and lectures which the author left behind him. Pfleiderer describes this work, especially the first volume, as “a classic for all time.” “Taken as a whole, it is the first thorough and satisfactory attempt to explain the rise of Christianity and the Church on strictly historical lines, i.e. as a natural development of the religious spirit of our race under the combined operation of various human causes” (Development of Theology, p. 288). Baur’s lectures on the history of dogma, Ausführlichere Vorlesungen über die christliche Dogmengeschichte, were published later by his son (1865-1868).

Baur’s views were revolutionary and often extreme; but, whatever may be thought of them, it is admitted that as a critic he rendered a great service to theological science. “One thing is certain: New Testament study, since his time, has had a different colour” (H.S. Nash). He has had a number of disciples or followers, who have in many cases modified his positions.

A full account of F.C. Baur’s labours, and a complete list of his writings will be found in the article in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopadie, in which his work is divided into three periods: (1) “Philosophy of Religion,” (2) “Biblical criticism,” (3) “Church History.” See also H.S. Nash, The History of the Higher Criticism of the New Testament (New York, 1901); Otto Pfleiderer, The Development of Theology in Germany since Kant (trans., 1890); Carl Schwarz, Zur Geschichte der neuesten Theologie (Leipzig, 1869); R.W. Mackay, The Tübingen School and its Antecedents (1863); A.S. Farrar, A Critical History of Free Thought in reference to the Christian Religion (Bampton Lectures, 1862); and cf. the article on “The Tübingen Historical School,” in Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xix. No. 73, 1862.

(M. A. C.)

BAUTAIN, LOUIS EUGÈNE MARIE (1796-1867), French philosopher and theologian, was born at Paris. At the École Normale he came under the influence of Cousin. In 1816 he adopted the profession of higher teaching, and was soon after called to the chair of philosophy in the university of Strassburg. He held this position for many years, and gave a parallel course of lectures as professor of the literary faculty in the same city. The reaction against speculative philosophy, which carried away De Maistre and Lamennais, influenced him also. In 1828 he took orders, and resigned his chair at the university. For several years he remained at Strassburg, lecturing at the Faculty and at the college of Juilly, but in 1840 he set out for Paris as vicar of the diocese. At Paris he obtained considerable reputation as an orator, and in 1853 was made professor of moral theology at the theological faculty. This post he held till his death. Like the Scholastics, he distinguished reason and faith, and held that revelation supplies facts, otherwise unattainable, which philosophy is able to group by scientific methods. Theology and philosophy thus form one comprehensive science. Yet Bautain was no rationalist; like Pascal and Newman he exalted faith above reason. He pointed out, following chiefly the Kantian criticism, that reason can never yield knowledge of things in themselves. But there exists in addition to reason another faculty which may be called intelligence, through which we are put in connexion with spiritual and invisible truth. This intelligence does not of itself yield a body of truth; it merely contains the germs of the higher ideas, and these are made productive by being brought into contact with revealed facts. This fundamental conception Bautain worked out in the departments of psychology and morals. The details of this theology are highly imaginative. He says, for instance, that there is a spirit of the world and a spirit of nature; the latter gives birth to a physical and psychical spirit, and the physical spirit to the animal and vegetable spirits. His theories may well be compared with the arbitrary mysticism of van Helmont and the Gnostics. The most important of his works are:—Philosophie du Christianisme (1835); Psychologic expérimentale (1839), new edition entitled Esprit humain et ses facultés (1859); Philosophie morale (1840); Religion et liberté (1848); La Morale de l’évangile comparée aux divers systèmes de morale (Strassburg, 1827; Paris, 1855); De l’éducation publique en France au XIXe siècle (Paris, 1876).

BAUTZEN (Wendish Budissin, “town”), a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Saxony and the capital of Saxon Upper Lusatia. Pop. (1890) 21,515; (1905) 29,412. It occupies an eminence on the right bank of the Spree, 680 ft. above the level of the sea, 32 m. E.N.E. from Dresden, on the Dresden-Görlitz-Breslau main line of railway, and at the junction of lines from Schandau and Königswartha. The town is surrounded by walls, and outside these again by ramparts, now in great measure turned into promenades, and has extensive suburbs partly lying on the left bank of the river. Among its churches the most remarkable is the cathedral of St Peter, dating from the 15th century, with a tower 300 ft. in height. It is used by both Protestants and Roman Catholics, an iron screen separating the parts assigned to each. There are five other churches, a handsome town hall, an orphan-asylum, several hospitals, a mechanics’ institute, a famous grammar school (gymnasium), a normal and several other schools, and two public libraries. The general trade and manufactures are considerable, including woollen (stockings and cloth), linen and cotton goods, leather, paper, saltpetre, and dyeing. It has also iron foundries, potteries, distilleries, breweries, cigar factories, &c.

Bautzen was already in existence when Henry I., the Fowler, conquered Lusatia in 928. It became a town and fortress under Otto I., his successor, and speedily attained considerable wealth and importance, for a good share of which it was indebted to the pilgrimages which were made to the “arm of St Peter,” preserved in one of the churches. It suffered greatly during the Hussite war, and still more during the Thirty Years’ War, in the course of which it was besieged and captured by the elector of Brandenburg, John George (1620), fell into the hands of Wallenstein (1633), and, in the following year was burned by its commander before being surrendered to the elector of Saxony. At the peace of Prague in 1635 it passed with Lusatia to Saxony as a war indemnity.

The town gives its name to a great battle in which, on the 20th and 21st of May 1813, Napoleon I. defeated an allied army of Russians and Prussians (see Napoleonic Campaigns). The position chosen by the allies as that in which to receive the attack of Napoleon ran S.W. to N.E. from Bautzen on the left to the village of Gleina on the right. Bautzen itself was held as an advanced post of the left wing (Russians), the main body of which lay 2 m. to the rear (E.) near Jenkwitz. On the heights of Burk, 2½ m. N.E. of Bautzen, was Kleist’s Prussian corps, with Yorck’s in support. On Kleist’s right at Pliskowitz (3 m. N.E. of Burk) lay Blücher’s corps, and on Blücher’s right, formed at an angle to him, and refused towards Gleina (7 m. N.E. by E. of Bautzen), were the Russians of Barclay de Tolly. The country on which the battle was fought abounded in strong defensive positions, some of which were famous as battlegrounds of the Seven Years’ War. The whole line was covered by the river Spree, which served as an immediate defence for the left and centre, and an obstacle to any force moving to attack the right; moreover the interval between the river and the position on this side was covered with a network of ponds and watercourses. Napoleon’s right and centre approached (on a broad front owing to the want of cavalry) from Dresden by Bischofswerda and Kamenz; the left under Ney, which was separated by nearly 40 m. from the left of the main body at Luckau, was ordered to march via Hoyerswerda, Weissig and Klix to strike the allies’ right. At noon on the 20th, Napoleon, after a prolonged reconnaissance, advanced the main army against Bautzen and Burk, leaving the enemy’s right to be dealt with by Ney on the morrow. He equally neglected the extreme left of the allies in the mountains, judging it impossible to move his artillery and cavalry in the broken ground there. Oudinot’s (XII.) corps, the extreme right wing, was to work round by the hilly country to Jenkwitz in rear of Bautzen, Macdonald’s (XI.) corps was to assault Bautzen, and Marmont, with the VI. corps, to cross the Spree and attack the Prussians posted about Burk. These three corps were directed by Soult. Farther to the left, Bertrand’s (IV.) corps was held back to connect with Ney, who had then reached Weissig with the head of his column. The Guard and other general reserves were in rear of Macdonald and Marmont. Bautzen was taken without difficulty; Oudinot and Marmont easily passed the Spree on either side, and were formed up on the other bank of the river by about 4 P.M. A heavy and indecisive combat took place in the evening between Oudinot and the Russian left, directed by the tsar in person, in which Oudinot’s men made a little progress towards Jenkwitz. Marmont’s battle was more serious. The Prussians were not experienced troops, but were full of ardour and hatred of the French. Kleist made a most stubborn resistance on the Burk ridge, and Bertrand’s corps was called up by Napoleon to join in the battle; but part of Blücher’s corps fiercely engaged Bertrand, and Burk was not taken till 7 P.M. The French attack was much impeded by the ground and by want of room to deploy between the river and the enemy. But Napoleon’s object in thus forcing the fighting in the centre was achieved. The allies, feeling there the weight of the French attack, gradually drew upon the reserves of their left and right to sustain the shock. At nightfall Bautzen and Burk were in possession of the French, and the allied line now stretched from Jenkwitz northward to Pliskowitz, Blücher and Barclay maintaining their original positions at Pliskowitz and Gleina. The night of the 20th-21st was spent by both armies on the battlefield. Napoleon cared little that the French centre was almost fought out; it had fulfilled its mission, and on the 21st the decisive point was to be Barclay’s position. Soon after daybreak fighting was renewed along the whole line; but Napoleon lay down to sleep until the time appointed for Ney’s attack. To a heavy counter-stroke against Oudinot, which completely drove that marshal from the ground won on the 20th, the emperor paid no more heed than to order Macdonald to support the XII corps. For in this second position of the allies, which was far more formidable than the original line, the decisive result could be brought about only by Ney. That commander had his own (III) corps, the corps of Victor and of Lauriston and the Saxons under Reynier, a total force of 60,000 men. Lauriston, at the head of the column, had been sharply engaged on the 19th, but had spent the 20th in calculated inaction. Early on the 21st the flank attack opened; Ney and Lauriston moving direct upon Gleina, while Reynier and Victor operated by a wide turning movement against Barclay’s right rear. The advance was carried out with precision; the Russians were quickly dislodged, and Ney was now closing upon the rear of Blücher’s corps at the village of Preititz. Napoleon at once ordered Soult’s four corps to renew their attacks in order to prevent the allies from reinforcing their right. But at the critical moment Ney halted; his orders were to be in Preititz at 11 A.M. and he reached that place an hour earlier. The respite of an hour enabled the allies to organize a fierce counter-attack; Ney was checked until the flanking columns of Victor and Reynier could come upon the scene. At 1 P.M., when Ney resumed his advance, it was too late to cut off the retreat of the allies. Napoleon now made his final stroke. The Imperial Guard and all other troops in the centre, 80,000 strong and covered by a great mass of artillery, moved forward to the attack; and shortly the allied centre, depleted of its reserves, which had been sent to oppose Ney, was broken through and driven off the field. Blücher, now almost surrounded, called back the troops opposing Ney to make head against Soult, and Ney’s four corps then carried all before them. Preparations had been made by the allies, ever since Ney’s appearance, to break off the engagement, and now the tsar ordered a general retreat eastwards, himself with the utmost skill and bravery directing the rearguard. Thus the allies drew off unharmed, leaving no trophies in the hands of Napoleon, whose success, tactically unquestionable, was, for a variety of reasons, and above all owing to the want of cavalry, a coup manqué strategically. The troops engaged were, on the French side 163,000 men, on that of the allies about 100,000; and the losses respectively about 20,000 and 13,500 killed and wounded.

BAUXITE, a substance which has been considered to be a mineral species, having the composition Al2O(OH)4 (corresponding with alumina 73.9, water 26.1%), and thus to be distinct from the crystallized aluminium hydroxides, diaspore (AlO(OH)) and gibbsite (= hydrargillite, Al(OH)3). It was first described by P. Berthier in 1821 as “alumine hydratée de Beaux,” and was named beauxite by P.A. Dufrénoy in 1847 and bauxite by E.H. Sainte-Claire Deville in 1861; this name being derived from the original locality, the village of Les Baux (or Beaux), near Arles, dep. Bouches-du-Rhône in the south of France, where the material has been for many years extensively mined as an ore of aluminium. It is never found in a crystallized state, but always as earthy, clay-like or concretionary masses, often with a pisolitic structure. In colour it varies from white through yellow and brown to red, depending on the amount and the degree of hydration of the iron present. The specific gravity also varies with the amount of iron; that of the variety known as wocheinite (from near Lake Wochein, near Radmannsdorf, in northern Carniola) is given as 2.55. The numerous chemical analyses, which have mostly been made for technical purposes, show that material known as bauxite varies very widely in composition, the maximum and minimum percentages of each constituent being as follows: alumina (Al2O3) 33.2-76.9; water (H2O) 8.6-31.4; iron oxide (Fe2O3) 0.1-48.8; silica (SiO2) 0.3-37.8; titanic acid (TiO2) up to 4. The material is thus usually very impure, being mixed with clay, quartz-sand and hydroxides of iron in variable amounts, the presence of which may be seen by a microscopical examination. Analyses of purer material often approximate to diaspore or gibbsite in composition, and minute crystalline scales of these minerals have been detected under the microscope.

Bauxite can therefore scarcely be regarded as a simple mineral, but rather as a mixture of gibbsite and diaspore with various impurities; it is in fact strikingly like laterite, both in chemical composition and in microscopical structure. Laterite is admittedly a decomposition-product of igneous or other crystalline rocks, and the same is no doubt also true of bauxite. The deposits in Co. Antrim occur with pisolitic iron ore inter-bedded with the Tertiary basalts, and similar deposits are met with in connexion with the basaltic rocks of the Westerwald in Germany. On the other hand, the more extensive deposits in the south of France (departments Bouches-du-Rhône, Ariège, Hérault, Var) and the southern United States (Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas) are often associated with limestones; in this case the origin of the bauxite has been ascribed to the chemical action of solutions of aluminium sulphate on the limestones.

Bauxite is of value chiefly as a source of metallic aluminium (q.v.); the material is first purified by chemical processes, after which the aluminium hydroxide is reduced in the electric furnace. Bauxite is also largely used in the manufacture of alum and other aluminium salts used in dyeing. Its refractory qualities render it available for the manufacture of fire-bricks and crucibles.

(L. J. S.)

BAVAI, a town of northern France in the department of Nord, 15 m. E.S.E. of Valenciennes by rail. Pop. (1906) 1622. The town carries on the manufacture of iron goods and of fertilizers. Under the name of Bagacum or Bavacum it was the capital of the Nervii and, under the Romans, an important centre of roads, the meeting-place of which was marked by a milestone, destroyed in the 17th century and replaced in the 19th century by a column. Bavai was destroyed during the barbarian invasions and never recovered its old importance. It suffered much during the wars of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.

BAVARIA (Ger. Bayern), a kingdom of southern Germany, next to Prussia the largest state of the German empire in area and population. It consists of two distinct and unequal portions. Bavaria proper, and the Palatinate of the Rhine, which lie from 25 to 40 m. W. apart and are separated by the grand-duchies of Baden and Hesse.

Physical Features.—Bavaria proper is bounded on the S. by the Alps, on the N.E., towards Bohemia, by a long range of mountains known as the Böhmerwald, on the N. by the Fichtelgebirge and the Frankenwald, which separate it from the kingdom of Saxony, the principality of Reuss, the duchies of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Meiningen and the Prussian province of Hesse-Cassel. The ranges seldom exceed the height of 3000 or 4000 ft.; but the ridges in the south, towards Tirol, frequently attain an elevation of 9000 or 10,000 ft. On the W. Bavaria is bounded by Württemberg, Baden and Hesse-Darmstadt. The country mainly belongs to the basins of the Danube and the Main; by far the greater portion being drained by the former river, which, entering from Swabia as a navigable stream, traverses the entire breadth of the kingdom, with a winding course of 200 m., and receives in its passage the Iller, the Lech, the Isar and the Inn from the south, and the Naab, the Altmühl and the Wörnitz from the north. The Inn is navigable before it enters Bavarian territory, and afterwards receives the Salzach, a large river flowing from Upper Austria. The Isar does not become navigable till it has passed Munich; and the Lech is a stream of a similar size. The Main traverses the northern regions, or Upper and Lower Franconia, with a very winding course and greatly facilitates the trade of the provinces. The district watered by the southern tributaries of the Danube consists for the most part of an extensive plateau, with a mean elevation of 2390 ft. In the mountainous parts of the country there are numerous lakes and in the lower portions considerable stretches of marshy ground. The smaller or western portion, the Palatinate, is bounded on the E. by the Rhine, which divides it from the grand-duchy of Baden, on the S. by Alsace, and on the W. and N. by a lofty range of hills, the Haardtgebirge, which separate it from Lorraine and the Prussian Rhine province.

The climate of Bavaria differs greatly according to the character of the region, being cold in the vicinity of Tirol but warm in the plains adjoining the Danube and the Main. On the whole, the temperature is in the winter months considerably colder than that of England, and a good deal hotter during summer and autumn.

Area and Population.—Bavaria proper, or the eastern portion, contains an area of 26,998 sq. m., and the Palatinate or western, 2288 sq. m., making the whole extent of the kingdom about 29,286 sq. m. The total population, according to the census of 1905, was 6,512,824. Almost a quarter of the inhabitants live in towns, of which Munich and Nuremberg have populations exceeding 100,000, Augsburg, Würzburg, Fürth and Ludwigshafen between 50,000 and 100,000, while twenty-six other towns number from 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants.

Ethnographically, the Bavarians belong to various ancient tribes; Germanized Slavs in the north-east, Swabians and Franks in the centre, Franks towards the west, and, in the Palatinate, Walloons. Politically, the country is divided into eight provinces, as follows:—

Provinces. Capital. Pop. of Province
in 1905. Area in
sq. m.

Upper Bavaria Munich 1,410,763 6,456

Lower Bavaria Landshut 706,345 4,152

Upper Palatinate Regensburg 573,476 3,728

Upper Franconia Bayreuth 637,239 2,702

Middle Franconia Ansbach 868,072 2,925

Lower Franconia Würzburg 680,769 3,243

Swabia Augsburg 750,880 3,792

The Palatinate Spires 885,280 2,288

Total 6,512,824 29,286

Religion.—The majority of the inhabitants (about 70%) are Roman Catholics. The Protestant-Evangelical Church claims about 29%, while Jews, and a very small number of other sects, account for the remainder.

The districts of Lower Bavaria, Upper Bavaria and the Upper Palatinate are almost wholly Roman Catholic, while in the Rhine Palatinate, Upper Franconia, and especially Middle Franconia, the preponderance is on the side of the Protestants. The exercise of religious worship in Bavaria is altogether free. The Protestants have the same civil rights as the Roman Catholics, and the sovereign may be either Roman Catholic or Protestant. Of the Roman Catholic Church the heads are the two archbishops of Munich-Freising and Bamberg, and the six bishops of Eichstätt, Spires, Würzburg, Augsburg, Regensburg and Passau, of whom the first three are suffragans of Bamberg. The “Old Catholic” party, under the bishop of Bonn, has failed, despite its early successes, to take deep root in the country. Among the Protestants the highest authority is the general consistory of Munich. The numbers of the different religions in 1900 were as follows:—Roman Catholics, 4,357,133; Protestants, 1,749,206; Jews, 54,928.

Education.—Bavaria, formerly backward in education, has recently done much in this connexion. The state has two Roman Catholic universities, Munich and Würzburg, and a Lutheran, Erlangen; in Munich there are a polytechnic, an academy of sciences and an academy of art.

Agriculture.—Of the total surface of Bavaria about one-half is under cultivation, one-third forest, and the remaining sixth mostly pasture. The level country, including both Lower Bavaria (extending northwards to the Danube) and the western and middle parts of Franconia, is productive of rye, oats, wheat, barley and millet, and also of hemp, flax, madder and fruit and vines. The last are grown chiefly in the vicinity of the Lake of Constance, on the banks of the Main, in the lower part of its course, and in the Palatinate of the Rhine. Hops are extensively grown in central Franconia; tobacco (the best in Germany) round Nuremberg and in the Palatinate, which also largely produces the sugar-beet. Potatoes are cultivated in all the provinces, but especially in the Palatinate and in the Spessart district, which lies in the north-west within a curve of the Main. The southern divisions of Swabia and Upper Bavaria, where pasture-land predominates, form a cattle-breeding district and the dairy produce is extensive. Here also horses are bred in large numbers.

The extent of forest forms nearly a third of the total area of Bavaria. This is owing to various causes: the amount of hilly and mountainous country, the thinness of the population and the necessity of keeping a given extent of ground under wood for the supply of fuel. More than a third of the forests are public property and furnish a considerable addition to the revenue. They are principally situated in the provinces of Upper Bavaria, Lower Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine. The forests are well stocked with game, deer, chamois (in the Alps), wild boars, capercailzie, grouse, pheasants, &c. being plentiful. The greater proportion of the land throughout the kingdom is in the hands of peasant proprietors, the extent of the separate holdings differing very much in different districts. The largest peasant property may be about 170 acres, and the smallest, except in the Palatinate, about 50.

Minerals.—The chief mineral deposits in Bavaria are coal, iron ore, graphite and salt. The coal mines lie principally in the districts of Amberg, Kissingen, Steben, Munich and the Rhine Palatinate. Salt is obtained on a large scale partly from brine springs and partly from mines, the principal centres being Halle, Berchtesgaden, Traunstein and Rosenheim. The government monopoly which had long existed was abolished in 1867 and free trade was established in salt between the members of the customs-union. Of quicksilver there are several mines, chiefly in the Palatinate of the Rhine; and small quantities of copper, manganese and cobalt are obtained. There are numerous quarries of excellent marble, alabaster, gypsum and building stone; and the porcelain-clay is among the finest in Europe. To these may be added emery, steatite, barytes, felspar and ochre, in considerable quantities; excellent lithographic stone is obtained at Solenhofen; and gold and silver are still worked, but to an insignificant extent.

Manufactures and Trade.—A great stimulus was given to manufacturing industry in Bavaria by the law of 1868, which abolished the last remains of the old restrictions of the gilds, and gave the whole country the liberty which had been enjoyed by the Rhine Palatinate alone. The chief centres of industry are Munich, Nuremberg, Augsburg, Fürth, Erlangen, Aschaffenburg, Regensburg, Würzburg, Bayreuth, Ansbach, Bamberg and Hof in Bavaria proper, and in the Palatinate Spires and the Rhine port of Ludwigshafen. The main centres of the hardware industry are Munich, Nuremberg, Augsburg and Fürth; the two first especially for locomotives and automobiles, the last for tinfoil and metal toys. Aschaffenburg manufactures fancy goods, Augsburg and Hof produce excellent cloth, and Munich has a great reputation for scientific instruments. In Franconia are numerous paper-mills, and the manufacture of wooden toys is largely carried on in the forest districts of Upper Bavaria. A considerable quantity of glass is made, particularly in the Böhmerwald. Brewing forms an important industry, the best-known breweries being those of Munich, Nuremberg, Erlangen and Kulmbach. Other articles of manufacture are leather, tobacco, porcelain, cement, spirits, lead pencils (Nuremberg), plate-glass, sugar, matches, aniline dyes, straw hats and baskets. The commerce of Bavaria is very considerable. The exports consist chiefly of corn, potatoes, hops, beer, wine, cloth, cotton goods, glass, fancy wares, toys, cattle, pigs and vegetables. The seat of the hop-trade is Nuremberg; of wool, Augsburg. The imports comprise sugar, tobacco, cocoa, coffee, oils, silk and pig iron.

Communications.—Trade is served by an excellent railway system and there are steamboat services on the navigable rivers, to the east by way of Passau on the Danube, and to the west by Ludwigshafen. The high roads of Bavaria, many of which are military roads laid out at the beginning of the 19th century, extend in all over about 10,000 m. There were 4377 m. of railways in operation in 1904, of which about 3800 were in the hands of the state, and about 440 m. belonged to the private system of the Palatinate. The principal canal is the Ludwigskanal, which connects the Rhine with the Danube, extending from Bamberg on the Regnitz to Dietfurt on the Altmühl. There is an extensive network of telegraph and telephone lines. All belong to the government post office, which forms an administrative system independent of the imperial German post office.

Constitution and Administration.—By the treaty of Versailles (23rd November 1870) and the imperial constitution of the 16th of April 1871, Bavaria was incorporated with the German empire, reserving, however, certain separate privileges (Sonderrechte) in respect of the administration of the army, the railways and the posts, the excise duties on beer, the rights of domicile and the insurance of real estate. The king is the supreme chief of the army, and matters requiring adjudication in the adjutant-general’s court are referred to a special Bavarian court attached to the supreme imperial military tribunal in Berlin. Bavaria is represented in the Bundesrat by six votes and sends forty-eight deputies to the imperial diet. The Bavarian constitution is mainly founded on the constitutional act of the 26th of May 1818, modified by subsequent acts—that of the 9th of March 1828 as affecting the upper house, and those of the 4th of June 1848 and of the 21st of March 1881 as affecting the lower—and is a limited monarchy, with a legislative body of two houses. The crown is hereditary in the house of Wittelsbach, according to the rights of primogeniture, females being excluded from succession so long as male agnates of equal birth exist. The title of the sovereign is king of Bavaria, that of his presumptive heir is crown-prince of Bavaria, and during the minority or incapacity of the sovereign a regency is declared, which is vested in the nearest male agnate capable of ascending the throne. Such a regency began on the 10th of June 1886, at first for King Louis II., and after the 14th of the same month for King Otto I., in the person of the prince regent Luitpold. The executive power resides in the king and the responsibility for the government of the kingdom in his ministers. The royal family is Roman Catholic, and the seat of government is Munich, the capital.

The upper house of the Bavarian parliament (Kammer der Reichsräte) is composed of (1) the princes of the blood royal (being of full age), (2) the ministers of the crown, (3) the archbishops of Munich, Freising and Bamberg, (4) the heads of such noble families as were formerly “immediate” so long as they retain their ancient possessions in Bavaria, (5) of a Roman Catholic bishop appointed by the king for life, and of the president for the time being of the Protestant consistory, (6) of hereditary counsellors (Reichsräte) appointed by the king, and (7) of other counsellors appointed by the king for life. The lower house (Kammer der Abgeordneten) or chamber of representatives, consists, since 1881, of 159 deputies, in proportion of one—reckoned on the census of 1875—to every 31,500 inhabitants. A general election takes place every six years, and, under the electoral law of 1906, is direct. Qualifications for the general body of electors are full age of twenty-five years, Bavarian citizenship of one year at least, and discharge of all rates and taxes. Parliament must be assembled every three years, but as the budget is taken every two years, it is regularly called together within that period. No laws affecting the liberty or property of the subject can be passed without the sanction of parliament.

Revenue.—The following is a fairly typical statement of the budget estimates (1902-1903), in marks (= 1 shilling sterling):—

Receipts.

Mks.

Direct taxes 38,199,000

Customs and indirect taxes 50,900,990

State railways 184,551,000

Posts and telegraphs 41,665,100

Forests and agricultural dues 37,395,000

Imperial assignments 62,571,605

415,282,695

= £20,764,135

Disbursements.

Mks.

Civil list 5,402,475

State debt 51,323,200

Ministry of the Royal house and of Foreign dept. 688,398

Ministry of Justice 20,615,299

Ministry of interior 30,055,338

Public worship and education 34,667,673

Minister of finance 6,696,780

Constribution to imperial exchequer 72,647,090

222,296,253

= £11,114,813

The public debt amounts to about £95,000,000, of which over 75% was incurred for railways.

Army.—The Bavarian army forms a separate portion of the army of the German empire, with a separate administration, but in time of war is under the supreme command of the German emperor. The regulations applicable to other sections of the whole imperial army are, however, observed. It consists, on a peace footing, of three army corps, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Royal Bavarian (each of two divisions), the headquarters of which are in Munich, Nuremberg and Würzburg respectively. The Bavarian army comprises sixty-seven battalions of infantry, two battalions of rifles, ten regiments of cavalry (two heavy, two Ulan and six Chevauxlegers), a squadron of mounted infantry (Jäger-zu-pferde), twelve field- and two foot-artillery regiments, three battalions of engineers, three of army service, and a balloon section; in all 60,000 men with 10,000 horses. In time of war the total force is trebled.

(P. A. A.)

History

The earliest known inhabitants of the district afterwards called Bavaria were a people, probably of Celtic extraction, who were subdued by the Romans just before the opening of the Christian era, when colonies were founded among them and their land was included in the province of Raetia. During the 5th century it was ravaged by the troops of Odoacer and, after being almost denuded of inhabitants, was occupied by tribes who, pushing along the valley of the Danube, settled there between A.D. 488 and 520. Many conjectures have been formed concerning the race and origin of these people, who were certainly a new and composite social aggregate. Most likely they were descendants of the Marcomanni, Quadi and Narisci, tribes of the Suevic or Swabian race, with possibly a small intermixture of Gothic or Celtic elements. They were called Baioarii, Baiowarii, Bawarii or Baiuwarii, words derived most probably from Baja or Baya, corruptions of Bojer, and given to them because they came from Bojerland or Bohemia. Another but less probable explanation derives the name from a combination of the old high German word uuâra, meaning league, and bai, a Gothic word for both. The Bavarians are first mentioned in a Frankish document of 520, and twenty years later Jordanes refers to them as lying east of the Swabians. Their country bore some traces of Roman influence, and its main boundaries were the Enns, the Danube, the Lech and the Alps; but its complete settlement was a work of time.

The Bavarians soon came under the dominion of the Franks, probably without a serious struggle; and were ruled from 555 to 788 by dukes of the Agilolfing family, who were possibly of Frankish descent. For a century and a half a succession of dukes resisted the inroads of the Slavs on their eastern frontier, and by the time of Duke Theodo I., who died in 717, were completely independent of the feeble Frankish kings. When Charles Martel became the virtual ruler of the Frankish realm he brought the Bavarians into strict dependence, and deposed two dukes successively for contumacy. Pippin the Short was equally successful in maintaining his authority, and several marriages took place between the family to which he belonged and the Agilolfings, who were united in a similar manner with the kings of the Lombards. The ease with which various risings were suppressed by the Franks gives colour to the supposition that they were rather the outcome of family quarrels than the revolt of an oppressed people. Between the years 739 and 748 the Bavarian law was committed to writing and supplementary clauses were afterwards added, all of which bear evident traces of Frankish influence. Thus, while the dukedom belongs to the Agilolfing family, the duke must be chosen by the people and his election confirmed by the Frankish king, to whom he owes fealty. He has a fivefold wergild, summons the nobles and clergy for purposes of deliberation, calls out the host, administers justice and regulates finance. There are five noble families, possibly representing a former division of the people, after whom come the freeborn, and then the freedmen. The country is divided into gaus or counties, under their counts, who are assisted by judges responsible for declaring the law.

Christianity had lingered in Bavaria from Roman times; but a new era set in when Rupert, bishop of Worms, came to the country at the invitation of Duke Theodo I. in 696. He founded several monasteries, and a similar work was also performed by St Emmeran, bishop of Poitiers; with the result that before long the bulk of the people professed Christianity and relations were established between Bavaria and Rome. The 8th century witnessed indeed a heathen reaction; but it was checked by the arrival in Bavaria about 734 of St. Boniface, who organized the Bavarian church and founded or restored bishoprics at Salzburg, Freising, Regensburg and Passau.

Tassilo III., who became duke of the Bavarians in 749, recognized the supremacy of the Frankish king Pippin the Short in 757, but soon afterwards refused to furnish a contribution to the war in Aquitaine. Moreover, during the early years of the reign of Charlemagne, Tassilo gave decisions in ecclesiastical and civil causes in his own name, refused to appear in the assemblies of the Franks, and in general acted as an independent ruler. His position as possessor of the Alpine passes, as an ally of the Avars, and as son-in-law of the Lombard king Desiderius, was so serious a menace to the Frankish kingdom that Charlemagne determined to crush him. The details of this contest are obscure. Tassilo appears to have done homage in 781, and again in 787, probably owing to the presence of Frankish armies. But further trouble soon arose, and in 788 the duke was summoned to Ingelheim, where on a charge of treachery he was sentenced to death. He was, however, pardoned by the king; and he then entered a monastery and formally renounced his duchy at Frankfort in 794. The country was ruled by Gerold, a brother-in-law of Charlemagne, till his death in a battle with the Avars in 799, when its administration was entrusted to Frankish counts and assimilated with that of the rest of the Carolingian empire, while its condition was improved by the measures taken by Charlemagne for the intellectual progress and material welfare of his realm. The Bavarians offered no resistance to the change which thus abolished their dukedom; and their incorporation with the Frankish dominions, due mainly to the unifying influence of the church, was already so complete that Charlemagne did not find it necessary to issue more than two capitularies dealing especially with Bavarian affairs.

The history of Bavaria for the ensuing century is bound up with that of the Carolingian empire. Given at the partition of 817 to the king of the East Franks, Louis the German, it formed part of the larger territories which were confirmed to him in 843 by the treaty of Verdun, Louis made Regensburg the centre of his government, and was active in improving the condition of Bavaria, and providing for its security by numerous campaigns against the Slavs. When he divided his possessions in 865 it passed to his eldest son, Carloman, who had already undertaken its government, and after his death in 880 it formed part of the extensive territories of the emperor Charles the Fat. Its defence was left by this incompetent emperor to Arnulf, an illegitimate son of Carloman, and it was mainly owing to the support of the Bavarians that Arnulf was able to take the field against Charles in 887, and to secure his own election as German king in the following year. Bavaria, which was the centre of the East Frankish kingdom, passed in 899 to Louis the Child, during whose reign it was constantly ravaged by the Hungarians. The resistance to these inroads became gradually feebler, and it is said that on the 5th of July 907 almost the whole of the Bavarian race perished in battle with these formidable enemies. For the defence of Bavaria the mark of Carinthia had been erected on the south-eastern frontier, and during the reign of Louis the Child this was ruled by Liutpold, count of Scheyern, who possessed large domains in Bavaria. He was among those who fell in the great fight of 907; but his son Arnulf, surnamed the Bad, rallied the remnants of the race, drove back the Hungarians, and was chosen duke of the Bavarians in 911, when Bavaria and Carinthia were united under his rule. Refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of the German king Conrad I., he was unsuccessfully attacked by the latter, and in 920 was recognized as duke by Conrad’s successor, Henry I., the Fowler, who admitted his right to appoint the bishops, to coin money and to issue laws. A similar conflict took place between Arnulf’s son and successor Eberhard and Otto the Great; but Eberhard was less successful than his father, for in 938 he was driven from Bavaria, which was given by Otto with reduced privileges to the late duke’s uncle, Bertold; and a count palatine in the person of Eberhard’s brother Arnulf was appointed to watch the royal interests. When Bertold died in 947 Otto conferred the duchy upon his own brother Henry, who had married Judith, a daughter of Duke Arnulf. Henry was disliked by the Bavarians and his short reign was spent mainly in disputes with his people. The ravages of the Hungarians ceased after their defeat on the Lechfeld in 955, and the area of the duchy was temporarily increased by the addition of certain adjacent districts in Italy. In 955 Henry was succeeded by his young son Henry, surnamed the Quarrelsome, who in 974 was implicated in a conspiracy against King Otto II. The reason for this rising was that the king had granted the duchy of Swabia to Henry’s enemy, Otto, a grandson of the emperor Otto the Great, and had given the new Bavarian East Mark, afterwards known as Austria, to Leopold I., count of Babenberg. The revolt was, however, soon suppressed; but Henry, who on his escape from prison renewed his plots, was formally deposed in 976 when Bavaria was given to Otto, duke of Swabia. At the same time Carinthia was made into a separate duchy, the office of count palatine was restored, and the church was made dependent on the king instead of on the duke. Restored in 985, Henry proved himself a capable ruler by establishing internal order, issuing important laws and taking measures to reform the monasteries. His son and successor, who was chosen German king as Henry II. in 1002, gave Bavaria to his brother-in-law Henry of Luxemburg; after whose death in 1026 it passed successively to Henry, afterwards the emperor Henry III., and to another member of the family of Luxemburg, as Duke Henry VII. In 1061 the empress Agnes, mother of and regent for the German king Henry IV., entrusted the duchy to Otto of Nordheim, who was deposed by the king in 1070, when the duchy was granted to Count Welf, a member of an influential Bavarian family. In consequence of his support of Pope Greegory VII. in his quarrel with Henry, Welf lost but subsequently regained Bavaria; and was followed successively by his sons, Welf II. in 1101, and Henry IX. in 1120, both of whom exercised considerable influence among the German princes. Henry was succeeded in 1126 by his son Henry X., called the Proud, who obtained the duchy of Saxony in 1137. Alarmed at this prince’s power, King Conrad III. refused to allow two duchies to remain in the same hands; and, having declared Henry deposed, he bestowed Bavaria upon Leopold IV., margrave of Austria. When Leopold died in 1141, the king retained the duchy himself; but it continued to be the scene of considerable disorder, and in 1143 he entrusted it to Henry II., surnamed Jasomirgott, margrave of Austria. The struggle for its possession continued until 1156, when King Frederick I. in his desire to restore peace to Germany persuaded Henry to give up Bavaria to Henry the Lion, a son of Duke Henry the Proud.

A new era of government set in when, in consequence of Henry being placed under the imperial ban in 1180, the duchy was given by Frederick I. to Otto, a member of the old Bavarian family of Wittelsbach (q.v.), and a descendant of the counts of Scheyern. During the years following the destruction of the Carolingian empire the borders of Bavaria were continually changing, and for a lengthened period after 955 this process was one of expansion. To the west the Lech still divided Bavaria from Swabia, but on three other sides the opportunities for extension had been taken advantage of, and the duchy embraced an area of considerable dimensions north of the Danube. During the later years of the rule of the Welfs, however, a contrary tendency had operated, and the extent of Bavaria had been reduced. The immense energies of Duke Henry the Lion had been devoted to his northern rather than his southern duchy, and when the dispute over the Bavarian succession was settled in 1156 the district between the Enns and the Inn had been transferred to Austria. The increasing importance of the mark of Styria, erected into a duchy in 1180, and the county of Tirol, had diminished both the actual and the relative strength of Bavaria, which was now deprived on almost all sides of opportunities for expansion. The neighbouring duchy of Carinthia, the great temporal possessions of the archbishop of Salzburg, as well as a general tendency to independence on the part of both clerical and lay nobles, were additional forces of similar influence.

When Otto of Wittelsbach was invested with Bavaria at Altenburg in September 1180 the duchy was bounded by the Böhmerwald, the Inn, the Alps and the Lech; and the power of the duke was practically confined to his extensive private domains around Wittelsbach, Kelheim and Straubing. Otto only enjoyed his new dignity for three years, and was succeeded in 1183 by his son Louis I., who took a leading part in German affairs during the earlier years of the reign of the emperor Frederick II., and was assassinated at Kelheim in September 1231. His son Otto II., called the Illustrious, was the next duke, and his loyalty to the Hohenstaufen caused him to be placed under the papal ban, and Bavaria to be laid under an interdict. Like his father, Otto increased the area of his lands by purchases; and he had considerably strengthened his hold upon the duchy before he died in November 1253. The efforts of the dukes to increase their power and to give unity to the duchy had met with a fair measure of success; but they were soon vitiated by partitions among different members of the family which for 250 years made the history of Bavaria little more than a jejune chronicle of territorial divisions bringing war and weakness in their train. The first of these divisions was made in 1255 between Louis II. and Henry I., the sons of Duke Otto II., who for two years after their father’s death had ruled Bavaria jointly; and by it Louis obtained the western part of the duchy, afterwards called Upper Bavaria, and Henry secured eastern or Lower Bavaria. In the course of a long reign Louis, who was called the Stern, became the most powerful prince in southern Germany. He was the uncle and guardian of Conradin of Hohenstaufen, and when this prince was put to death in Italy in 1268, Louis and his brother Henry inherited the domains of the Hohenstaufen in Swabia and elsewhere. He supported Rudolph, count of Habsburg, in his efforts to secure the German throne in 1273, married the new king’s daughter Mechtild, and aided him in campaigns in Bohemia and elsewhere. For some years after Louis’ death in 1294 his sons Rudolph I. and Louis, afterwards the emperor Louis IV., ruled their duchy in common; but as their relations were never harmonious a division of Upper Bavaria was made in 1310, by which Rudolph received the land east of the Isar together with the town of Munich, and Louis the district between the Isar and the Lech. It was not long, however, before this arrangement led to war between the brothers, the outcome of which was that in 1317, three years after he had been chosen German king, Louis compelled Rudolph to abdicate, and for twelve years ruled alone over the whole of Upper Bavaria. But in 1329 a series of events induced him to conclude the treaty of Pavia with Rudolph’s sons, Rudolph and Rupert, to whom he transferred the Palatinate of the Rhine, which had been in the possession of the Wittelsbach family since 1214, and also a portion of Upper Bavaria north of the Danube, which was afterwards called the Upper Palatinate. At the same time it was decided that the electoral vote should be exercised by the two lines alternately, and that in the event of either branch of the family becoming extinct the surviving branch should inherit its possessions.

Henry I. of Lower Bavaria spent most of his time in quarrels with his brother, with Ottakar II. of Bohemia and with various ecclesiastics. When he died in February 1200 Lower Bavaria was ruled by his three sons, Otto III., Louis III. and Stephen I. Louis died childless in 1296; Stephen left two sons at his death in 1310, namely, Henry II. and Otto IV., and Otto, who was king of Hungary from 1305 to 1308, died in 1312, leaving a son, Henry III. Lower Bavaria was governed by these three princes until 1333, when Henry III. died, followed in 1334 by his cousin Otto; and as both died without sons the whole of Lower Bavaria then passed to Henry II. Dying in 1339, Henry left an only son, John I., who died childless in the following year, when the emperor Louis IV., by securing Lower Bavaria for himself, united the whole of the duchy under his sway. The consolidation of Bavaria under Louis lasted for seven years, during which the emperor was able to improve the condition of the country. When he died in 1347 he left six sons to share his possessions, who agreed upon a division of Bavaria in 1349. Its history, however, was complicated by its connexion with Brandenburg, Holland and Tirol, all of which had also been left by the emperor to his sons. All the six brothers exercised some authority in Bavaria; but three alone left issue, and of these the eldest, Louis, margrave of Brandenburg, died in 1361; and two years later was followed to the grave by his only son Meinhard, who was childless. The two remaining brothers, Stephen II. and Albert I., ruled over Bavaria-Landshut and Bavaria-Straubing respectively, and when Stephen died in 1375 his portion of Bavaria was governed jointly by his three sons. In 1392, when all the lines except those of Stephen and Albert had died out, an important partition took place, by which the greater part of the duchy was divided among Stephen’s three sons, Stephen III., Frederick and John II., who founded respectively the lines of Ingolstadt, Landshut and Munich. Albert’s duchy of Bavaria-Straubing passed on his death in 1404 to his son William II., and in 1417 to his younger son John, who resigned the bishopric of Liége to take up his new position. When John died in 1425 this family became extinct, and after a contest between various claimants Bavaria-Straubing was divided between the three remaining branches of the family.

The main result of the threefold division of 1392 was a succession of civil wars which led to the temporary eclipse of Bavaria as a force in German politics. Neighbouring states encroached upon its borders, and the nobles ignored the authority of the dukes, who, deprived of the electoral vote, were mainly occupied for fifty years with intestine strife. This condition of affairs, however, was not wholly harmful. The government of the country and the control of the finances passed mainly into the hands of an assembly called the Landtag or Landschaft, which had been organized in 1392. The towns, assuming a certain independence, became strong and wealthy as trade increased, and the citizens of Munich and Regensburg were often formidable antagonists to the dukes. Thus a period of disorder saw the growth of representative institutions and the establishment of a strong civic spirit. Stephen III., duke of Bavaria-Ingolstadt, was distinguished rather as a soldier than as a statesman; and his rule was marked by struggles with various towns, and with his brother, John of Bavaria-Munich. Dying in 1413 he was followed by his son, Louis, called the Bearded, a restless and quarrelsome prince, who before his accession had played an important part in the affairs of France, where his sister Isabella was the queen of King Charles VI. About 1417 he became involved in a violent quarrel with his cousin, Henry of Bavaria-Landshut, fell under both the papal and the imperial ban, and in 1439 was attacked by his son Louis the Lame. This prince, who had married a daughter of Frederick I. of Hohenzollern, margrave of Brandenburg, was incensed at the favour shown by his father to an illegitimate son. Aided by Albert Achilles, afterwards margrave of Brandenburg, he took the elder Louis prisoner and compelled him to abdicate in 1443. When Louis the Lame died in 1445 his father came into the power of his implacable enemy, Henry of Bavaria-Landshut, and died in prison in 1447. The duchy of Bavaria-Ingolstadt passed to Henry, who had succeeded his father Frederick as duke of Bavaria-Landshut in 1393, and whose long reign was almost entirely occupied with family feuds. He died in July 1450, and was followed by his son, Louis IX. (called the Rich), and about this time Bavaria began to recover some of its former importance. Louis IX. expelled the Jews from his duchy, did something for the security of traders, and improved both the administration of justice and the condition of the finances. In 1472 he founded the university of Ingolstadt, attempted to reform the monasteries, and was successful in a struggle with Albert Achilles of Brandenburg. On his death in January 1479 he was succeeded by his son George, also called the Rich; and when George, a faithful adherent of the German king Maximilian I., died without sons in December 1503, a war broke out for the possession of his duchy.

Bavaria-Munich passed on the death of John II. in 1397 to his sons Ernest and William III., but they only obtained possession of their lands after a struggle with Stephen of Bavaria-Ingolstadt. Both brothers were then engaged in warfare with the other branches of the family and with the citizens of Munich. William, a loyal servant of the emperor Sigismund, died in 1435, leaving an only son, Adolf, who died five years later; and Ernest, distinguished for his bodily strength, died in 1438. In 1440 the whole of Bavaria-Munich came to Ernest’s son Albert, who had been estranged from his father owing to his union with the unfortunate Agnes Bernauer (q.v.). Albert, whose attempts to reform the monasteries earned for him the surname of Pious, was almost elected king of Bohemia in 1440. He died in 1460, leaving five sons, the two elder of whom, John IV. and Sigismund, reigned in common until the death of John in 1463. The third brother, Albert, who had been educated for the church, joined his brother in 1465, and when Sigismund abdicated two years later became sole ruler in spite of the claims of his two younger brothers. Albert, who was called the Wise, added the district of Abensberg to his possessions, and in 1504 became involved in the war which broke out for the possession of Bavaria-Landshut on the death of George the Rich. Albert’s rival was George’s son-in-law, Rupert, formerly bishop of Freising, and son of Philip, count palatine of the Rhine; and the emperor Maximilian I., interested as archduke of Austria and count of Tirol, interfered in the dispute. Rupert died in 1504, and the following year an arrangement was made at the diet of Cologne by which the emperor and Philip’s grandson, Otto Henry, obtained certain outlying districts, while Albert by securing the bulk of George’s possessions united Bavaria under his rule. In 1506 Albert decreed that the duchy should pass undivided according to the rules of primogeniture, and endeavoured in other ways also to consolidate Bavaria. He was partially successful in improving the condition of the country; and in 1500 Bavaria formed one of the six circles into which Germany was divided for the maintenance of peace. He died in March 1508, and was succeeded by his son, William IV., whose mother, Kunigunde, was a daughter of the emperor Frederick III. In spite of the decree of 1506 William was compelled in 1516, after a violent quarrel, to grant a share in the government to his brother Louis, an arrangement which lasted until the death of Louis in 1545.

William followed the traditional Wittelsbach policy, opposition to the Habsburgs, until in 1534 he made a treaty at Linz with Ferdinand, king of Hungary and Bohemia. This was strengthened in 1546, when the emperor Charles V. obtained the help of the duke during the war of the league of Schmalkalden by promising him in certain eventualities the succession to the Bohemian throne, and the electoral dignity enjoyed by the count palatine of the Rhine. William also did much at a critical period to secure Bavaria for Catholicism. The reformed doctrines had made considerable progress in the duchy when the duke from the pope extensive rights over the bishoprics and monasteries, and took measures to repress the reformers, many of whom were banished; while the Jesuits, whom he invited into the duchy in 1541, made the university of Ingolstadt their headquarters for Germany. William, whose death occurred in March 1550, was succeeded by his son Albert IV., who had married a daughter of Ferdinand of Habsburg, afterwards the emperor Ferdinand I. Early in his reign Albert made some concessions to the reformers, who were still strong in Bavaria; but about 1563 he changed his attitude, favoured the decrees of the council of Trent, and pressed forward the work of the Counter-Reformation. As education passed by degrees into the hands of the Jesuits the progress of Protestantism was effectually arrested in Bavaria. Albert IV. was a great patron of art. His court at Munich was the resort of artists of all kinds, and the city was enriched with splendid buildings; while artistic works were collected from Italy and elsewhere. The expenses of a magnificent court led the duke to quarrel with the Landschaft, to oppress his subjects, and to leave a great burden of debt when he died in October 1579. The succeeding duke was Albert’s son, William V. (called the Pious), who was educated by the Jesuits and was keenly attached to their tenets. He secured the archbishopric of Cologne for his brother Ernest in 1583, and this dignity remained in the possession of the family for nearly 200 years. In 1597 he abdicated in favour of his son Maximilian I., and retired into a monastery, where he died in 1626. Maximilian found the duchy encumbered with debt and filled with disorder, but ten years of his vigorous rule effected a remarkable change. The finances and the judicial system were reorganized, a class of civil servants and a national militia founded, and several small districts were brought under the duke’s authority. The result was a unity and order in the duchy which enabled Maximilian to play an important part in the Thirty Years’ War; during the earlier years of which he was so successful as to acquire the Upper Palatinate and the electoral dignity which had been enjoyed since 1356 by the elder branch of the Wittelsbach family. In spite of subsequent reverses these gains were retained by Maximilian at the peace of Westphalia in 1648. During the later years of this war Bavaria, especially the northern part, suffered severely. In 1632 it was invaded by the Swedes, and, when Maximilian violated the treaty of Ulm in 1647, was ravaged by the French and the Swedes. After repairing this damage to some extent, the elector died at Ingolstadt in September 1651, leaving his duchy much stronger than he had found it. The recovery of the Upper Palatinate made Bavaria compact; the acquisition of the electoral vote made it influential; and the duchy was able to play a part in European politics which intestine strife had rendered impossible for the past four hundred years.

(A. W. H.*)

Whatever lustre the international position won by Maximilian I. might add to the ducal house, on Bavaria itself its effect during the next two centuries was more dubious. Maximillian’s son, Ferdinand Maria (1651-1679), who was a minor when he succeeded, did much indeed to repair the wounds caused by the Thirty Years’ War, encouraging agriculture and industries, and building or restoring numerous churches and monasteries. In 1669, moreover, he again called a meeting of the diet, which had been suspended since 1612. His good work, however, was largely undone by his son Maximilian II. Emmanuel (1679-1726), whose far-reaching ambition set him warring against the Turks and, on the side of France, in the great struggle of the Spanish succession. He shared in the defeat at Höchstädt on the 13th of August 1704; his dominions were temporarily partitioned between Austria and the elector palatine, and only restored to him, harried and exhausted, at the peace of Baden in 1714. Untaught by Maximilian Emmanuel’s experience, his son, Charles Albert (1726-1745), devoted all his energies to increasing the European prestige and power of his house. The death of the emperor Charles VI. was his opportunity; he disputed the validity of the Pragmatic Sanction which secured the Habsburg succession to Maria Theresa, allied himself with France, conquered Upper Austria, was crowned king of Bohemia at Prague and, in 1742, emperor at Frankfort. The price he had to pay, however, was the occupation of Bavaria itself by Austrian troops; and, though the invasion of Bohemia in 1744 by Frederick II. of Prussia enabled him to return to Munich, at his death on the 20th of January 1745 it was left to his successor to make what terms he could for the recovery of his dominions. Maximilian III. Joseph (1745-1777), by the peace of Füssen signed on the 22nd of April 1745, obtained the restitution of his dominions in return for a formal acknowledgment of the Pragmatic Sanction. He was a man of enlightenment, did much to encourage agriculture, industries and the exploitation of the mineral wealth of the country, founded the Academy of Sciences at Munich, and abolished the Jesuit censorship of the press. At his death, without issue, on the 30th of December 1777, the Bavarian line of the Wittelsbachs became extinct, and the succession passed to Charles Theodore, the elector palatine. After a separation of four and a half centuries, the Palatinate, to which the duchies of Jülich and Berg had been added, was thus reunited with Bavaria. So great an accession of strength to a neighbouring state, whose ambition she had so recently had just reason to fear, was intolerable to Austria, which laid claim to a number of lordships—forming one-third of the whole Bavarian inheritance—as lapsed fiefs of the Bohemian, Austrian, and imperial crowns. These were at once occupied by Austrian troops, with the secret consent of Charles Theodore himself, who was without legitimate heirs, and wished to obtain from the emperor the elevation of his natural children to the status of princes of the Empire. The protests of the next heir, Charles, duke of Zweibrücken (Deux-Ponts), supported by the king of Prussia, led to the war of Bavarian succession. By the peace of Teschen (May 13th, 1779) the Inn quarter was ceded to Austria, and the succession secured to Charles of Zweibrücken. For Bavaria itself Charles Theodore did less than nothing. He felt himself a foreigner among foreigners, and his favourite scheme, the subject of endless intrigues with the Austrian cabinet and the immediate cause of Frederick II.’s League of Princes (Fürstenbund) of 1785, was to exchange Bavaria for the Austrian Netherlands and the title of king of Burgundy. For the rest, the enlightened internal policy of his predecessor was abandoned. The funds of the suppressed order of Jesus, which Maximilian Joseph had destined for the reform of the educational system of the country, were used to endow a province of the knights of St John of Jerusalem, for the purpose of combating the enemies of the faith. The government was inspired by the narrowest clericalism, which culminated in the attempt to withdraw the Bavarian bishops from the jurisdiction of the great German metropolitans and place them directly under that of the pope. On the eve of the Revolution the intellectual and social condition of Bavaria remained that of the middle ages.

In 1792 the revolutionary armies overran the Palatinate; in 1795 the French, under Moreau, invaded Bavaria itself, advanced to Munich—where they were received with joy by the long-suppressed Liberals—and laid siege to Ingolstadt. Charles Theodore, who had done nothing to prevent or to resist the invasion, fled to Saxony, leaving a regency, the members of which signed a convention with Moreau, by which he granted an armistice in return for a heavy contribution (September 7th, 1796). Immediately afterwards he was forced to retire.

Between the French and the Austrians, Bavaria was now in an evil case. Before the death of Charles Theodore (February 16th, 1799) the Austrians had again occupied the country, preparatory to renewing the war with France. Maximilian IV. Joseph (of Zweibrücken), the new elector, succeeded to a difficult inheritance. Though his own sympathies, and those of his all-powerful minister, Max Josef von Montgelas (q.v.), were, if anything, French rather than Austrian, the state of the Bavarian finances, and the fact that the Bavarian troops were scattered and disorganized, placed him helpless in the hands of Austria; on the 2nd of December 1800 the Bavarian arms were involved in the Austrian defeat at Hohenlinden, and Moreau once more occupied Munich. By the treaty of Lunéville (February 9th, 1801) Bavaria lost the Palatinate and the duchies of Zweibrücken and Jülich.

In view of the scarcely disguised ambitions and intrigues of the Austrian court, Montgelas now believed that the interests of Bavaria lay in a frank alliance with the French republic; he succeeded in overcoming the reluctance of Maximilian Joseph; and, on the 24th of August, a separate treaty of peace and alliance with France was signed at Paris. By the third article of this the First Consul undertook to see that the compensation promised under the 7th article of the treaty of Lunéville for the territory ceded on the left bank of the Rhine, should be carried out at the expense of the Empire in the manner most agreeable to Bavaria (de Martens, Recueil, vol. vii. p. 365). In 1803, accordingly, in the territorial rearrangements consequent on Napoleon’s suppression of the ecclesiastical states, and of many free cities of the Empire, Bavaria received the bishoprics of Würzburg, Bamberg, Augsburg and Freisingen, part of that of Passau, the territories of twelve abbeys, and seventeen cities and villages, the whole forming a compact territory which more than compensated for the loss of her outlying provinces on the Rhine. Montgelas’ ambition was now to raise Bavaria to the rank of a first-rate power, and he pursued this object during the Napoleonic epoch with consummate skill, allowing fully for the preponderance of France—so long as it lasted—but never permitting Bavaria to sink, like so many of the states of the confederation of the Rhine, into a mere French dependency. In the war of 1805, in accordance with a treaty of alliance signed at Würzburg on the 23rd of September, Bavarian troops, for the first time since Charles VII., fought side by side with the French, and by the treaty of Pressburg, signed on the 26th of December, the principality of Eichstädt, the margraviate of Burgau, the lordship of Vorarlberg, the countships of Hohenems and Königsegg-Rothenfels, the lordships of Argen and Tetnang, and the city of Lindau with its territory were to be added to Bavaria. On the other hand Würzburg, obtained in 1803, was to be ceded by Bavaria to the elector of Salzburg in exchange for Tirol. By the 1st article of the treaty the emperor acknowledged the assumption by the elector of the title of king, as Maximilian I. The price which Maximilian had reluctantly to pay for this accession of dignity was the marriage of his daughter Augusta with Eugène Beauharnais.

For the internal constitution of Bavaria also the French alliance had noteworthy consequences. Maximilian himself was an “enlightened” prince of the 18th-century type, whose tolerant principles had already grievously offended his clerical subjects; Montgelas was a firm believer in drastic reform “from above,” and, in 1803, had discussed with the rump of the old estates the question of reforms. But the revolutionary changes introduced by the constitution proclaimed on the 1st of May 1808 were due to the direct influence of Napoleon. A clean sweep was made of the medieval polity surviving in the somnolent local diets and corporations. In place of the old system of privileges and exemptions were set equality before the law, universal liability to taxation, abolition of serfdom, security of person and property, liberty of conscience and of the press. A representative assembly was created on paper, based on a narrow franchise and with very limited powers, but was never summoned.

In 1809 Bavaria was again engaged in war with Austria on the side of France, and by the treaty signed at Paris on the 28th of February 1810 ceded southern Tirol to Italy and some small districts to Württemberg, receiving as compensation parts of Salzburg, the quarters of the Inn and Hausrück and the principalities of Bayreuth and Regensburg. So far the policy of Montgelas had been brilliantly successful; but the star of Napoleon had now reached its zenith, and already the astute opportunist had noted the signs of the coming change. The events of 1812 followed; in 1813 Bavaria was summoned to join the alliance against Napoleon, the demand being passionately backed by the crown prince Louis and by Marshal Wrede; on the 8th of October was signed the treaty of Ried, by which Bavaria threw in her lot with the Allies. Montgelas announced to the French ambassador that he had been compelled temporarily to bow before the storm, adding “Bavaria has need of France.” (For Bavaria’s share in the war see Napoleonic Campaigns.)

Immediately after the first peace of Paris (1814), Bavaria ceded to Austria Tirol and Vorarlberg; by the congress of Vienna it was decided that she was to add to these the greater part of Salzburg and the quarters of the Inn and Hausrück, receiving as compensation, besides Würzburg and Aschaffenburg, the Palatinate on the left bank of the Rhine and certain districts of Hesse and of the former abbacy of Fulda. But with the collapse of France the old fear and jealousy of Austria had revived in full force, and Bavaria only agreed to these cessions (treaty of Munich, April 16th, 1816) on Austria promising that, in the event of the powers ignoring her claim to the Baden succession in favour of that of the line of the counts of Hochberg, she should receive also the Palatinate on the right bank of the Rhine. The question was thus left open, the tension between the two powers remained extreme, and war was only averted by the authority of the Grand Alliance. At the congress of Aix (1818) the question of the Baden succession was settled in favour of the Hochberg line, without the compensation stipulated for in the treaty of Munich; and by the treaty of Frankfort, signed on behalf of the four great powers on the 20th of July 1819, the territorial questions at issue between Bavaria and Austria were settled, in spite of the protests of the former, in the general sense of the arrangement made at Vienna. A small strip of territory was added, to connect Bavaria with the Palatinate, and Bavarian troops were to garrison the federal fortress of Mainz.

Meanwhile, on the 1st of February 1817, Montgelas had been dismissed; and Bavaria had entered on a new era of constitutional reform. This implied no breach with the European policy of the fallen minister. In the new German confederation Bavaria had assumed the rôle of defender of the smaller states against the ambitions of Austria and Prussia, and Montgelas had dreamed of a Bavarian hegemony in South Germany similar to that of Prussia in the north. It was to obtain popular support for this policy and for the Bavarian claims on Baden that the crown prince pressed for a liberal constitution, the reluctance of Montgelas to concede it being the cause of his dismissal. On the 26th of May 1818 the constitution was proclaimed. The parliament was to consist of two houses; the first comprising the great hereditary landowners, government officials and nominees of the crown; the second, elected on a very narrow franchise, representatives of the small land-owners, the towns and the peasants. By additional articles the equality of religions was guaranteed and the rights of Protestants safeguarded, concessions which were denounced at Rome as a breach of the Concordat, which had been signed immediately before. The result of the constitutional experiment hardly justified the royal expectations; the parliament was hardly opened (February 5th, 1819) before the doctrinaire radicalism of some of its members, culminating in the demand that the army should swear allegiance to the constitution, so alarmed the king, that he appealed to Austria and Germany, undertaking to carry out any repressive measures they might recommend. Prussia, however, refused to approve of any coup d’état; the parliament, chastened by the consciousness that its life depended on the goodwill of the king, moderated its tone; and Maximilian ruled till his death as a model constitutional monarch. On the 13th of October 1825, he was succeeded by his son, Louis I., an enlightened patron of the arts and sciences, who transferred the university of Landshut to Munich, which, by his magnificent taste in building, he transformed into one of the most beautiful cities of the continent. The earlier years of his reign were marked by a liberal spirit and the reform, especially, of the financial administration; but the revolutions of 1831 frightened him into reaction, which was accentuated by the opposition of the parliament to his expenditure on building and works of art. In 1837 the Ultramontanes came into power with Karl von Abel (1788-1859) as prime minister. The Jesuits now gained the upper hand; one by one the liberal provisions of the constitution were modified or annulled; the Protestants were harried and oppressed; and a rigorous censorship forbade any free discussion of internal politics. The collapse of this régime was due, not to popular agitation, but to the resentment of Louis at the clerical opposition to the influence of his mistress, Lola Montez. On the 17th of February 1847, Abel was dismissed, for publishing his memorandum against the proposal to naturalize Lola, who was an Irishwoman; and the Protestant Georg Ludwig von Maurer (q.v.) took his place. The new ministry granted the certificate of naturalization; but riots, in which ultramontane professors of the university took part, were the result. The professors were deprived, the parliament dissolved, and, on the 27th of November, the ministry dismissed. Lola Montez, created Countess Landsfeld, was supreme in the state; and the new minister, Prince Ludwig von Oettingen-Wallerstein (1791-1870), in spite of his efforts to enlist Liberal sympathy by appeals to pan-German patriotism, was powerless to form a stable government. His cabinet was known as the “Lolaministerium”; in February 1848, stimulated by the news from Paris, riots broke out against the countess; on the 11th of March the king dismissed Oettingen, and on the 20th, realizing the force of public opinion against him, abdicated in favour of his son, Maximilian II.

Before his abdication Louis had issued, on the 6th of March, a proclamation promising the zealous co-operation of the Bavarian government in the work of German freedom and unity. To the spirit of this Maximilian was faithful, accepting the authority of the central government at Frankfort, and (19th of December) sanctioning the official promulgation of the laws passed by the German parliament. But Prussia was henceforth the enemy, not Austria. In refusing to agree to the offer of the imperial crown to Frederick William IV., Maximilian had the support of his parliament. In withholding his assent to the new German constitution, by which Austria was excluded from the Confederation, he ran indeed counter to the sentiment of his people; but by this time the back of the revolution was broken, and in the events which led to the humiliation of Prussia at Olmütz in 1851, and the restoration of the old diet of the Confederation, Bavaria was safe in casting in her lot with Austria (see Germany: History). The guiding spirit in this anti-Prussian policy, which characterized Bavarian statesmanship up to the war of 1866, was Ludwig Karl Heinrich von der Pfordten (1811-1880), who became minister for foreign affairs on the 19th of April 1849. His idea for the ultimate solution of the question of the balance of power in Germany was the so-called Trias, i.e. a league of the Rhenish states as a counterpoise to the preponderance of Austria and Prussia. In internal affairs his ministry was characterized by a reactionary policy less severe than elsewhere in Germany, which led none the less from 1854 onward to a struggle with the parliament, which ended in the dismissal of Pfordten’s ministry on the 27th of March 1859. He was succeeded by Karl Freiherr von Schrenk auf Notzing (1806-1884), an official of Liberal tendencies who had been Bavarian representative in the diet of the Confederation. Important reforms were now introduced, including the separation of the judicial and executive powers and the drawing up of a new criminal code. In foreign affairs Schrenk, like his predecessor, aimed at safeguarding the independence of Bavaria, and supported the idea of superseding the actual constitution of the Confederation by a supreme directory, in which Bavaria, as leader of the purely German states, would hold the balance between Prussia and Austria. Bavaria accordingly opposed the Prussian proposals for the reorganization of the Confederation, and one of the last acts of King Maximilian was to take a conspicuous part in the assembly of princes summoned to Frankfort in 1863 by the emperor Francis Joseph (see Germany).

Maximilian was succeeded on the 10th of March 1864 by his son Louis II., a youth of eighteen. The government was at first carried on by Schrenk and Pfordten in concert. Schrenk soon retired, when the Bavarian government found it necessary, in order to maintain its position in the Prussian Zollverein, to become a party to the Prussian commercial treaty with France, signed in 1862. In the complicated Schleswig-Holstein question (q.v.) Bavaria, under Pfordten’s guidance, consistently opposed Prussia, and headed the lesser states in their support of Frederick of Augustenburg against the policy of the two great German powers. Finally, in the war of 1866, in spite of Bismarck’s efforts to secure her neutrality, Bavaria sided actively with Austria.

The rapid victory of the Prussians and the wise moderation of Bismarck paved the way for a complete revolution in Bavaria’s relation to Prussia and the German question. The South German Confederation, contemplated by the 6th article of the treaty of Prague, never came into being; and, though Prussia, in order not prematurely to excite the alarm of France, opposed the suggestion that the southern states should join the North German Confederation, the bonds of Bavaria, as of the other southern states, with the north, were strengthened by an offensive and defensive alliance with Prussia, as the result of Napoleon’s demand for “compensation” in the Palatinate. This was signed at Berlin on the 22nd of August 1866, on the same day as the signature of the formal treaty of peace between the two countries. The separatist ambitions of Bavaria were thus formally given up; she had no longer “need of France”; and in the war of 1870-71, the Bavarian army marched, under the command of the Prussian crown prince, against the common enemy of Germany. It was on the proposal of King Louis II. that the imperial crown was offered to King William.

This was preceded, on the 23rd of November 1870, by the signature of a treaty between Bavaria and the North German Confederation. By this instrument, though Bavaria became an integral part of the new German empire, she reserved a larger measure of sovereign independence than any of the other constituent states. Thus she retained a separate diplomatic service, military administration, and postal, telegraph and railway systems. The treaty was ratified by the Bavarian chambers on the 21st of January 1871, though not without considerable opposition on the part of the so-called “patriot” party. Their hostility was increased by the Kulturkampf, due to the promulgation in 1870 of the dogma of papal infallibility. Munich University, where Döllinger (q.v.) was professor, became the centre of the opposition to the new dogma, and the “old Catholics” (q.v.) were protected by the king and the government. The federal law expelling the Jesuits was proclaimed in Bavaria on the 6th of September 1871 and was extended to the Redemptorists in 1873. On the 31st of March 1871, moreover, the bonds with the rest of the empire had been drawn closer by the acceptance of a number of laws of the North German Confederation, of which the most important was the new criminal code, which was finally put into force in Bavaria in 1879. The opposition of the “patriot” party, however, reinforced by the strong Catholic sentiment of the country, continued powerful, and it was only the steady support given by the king to successive Liberal ministries that prevented its finding disastrous expression in the parliament, where it remained in a greater or less majority till 1887, and has since, as the “centre,” continued to form the most compact party in an assembly made up of “groups.”

Meanwhile the royal dreamer, whose passion for building palaces was becoming a serious drain on the treasury, had been declared insane, and, on the 7th of June 1886, the heir-presumptive, Prince Luitpold, was proclaimed regent. Six days later, on the 13th of June, Louis committed suicide. His brother, Otto I., being also insane, the regency was confirmed to Prince Luitpold.

Since 1871 Bavaria has shared to the full in the marvellous development of Germany; but her “particularism,” founded on traditional racial and religious antagonism to the Prussians, was by no means dead, though it exhibited itself in no more dangerous form than the prohibition, reissued in 1900, to display any but the Bavarian flag on public buildings on the emperor’s birthday; a provision which has been since so far modified as to allow the Bavarian and imperial flags to be hung side by side.

Authorities.—Monumenta Boica (44 vols., Munich, 1763-1900); G.T. Rudhart, Aelteste Geschichte Bayerns (Hamburg, 1841); A. Quitzmann, Abstammung, Ursitz, und älteste Geschichte der Bairwaren (Munich, 1857), and Die älteste Geschichte der Baiern bis 911 (Brunswick, 1873); S. Riezler, Geschichte Bayerns (Gotha, 1878-1899); Ad. Brecher, Darstellung der geschichtlichen Entwickelung des bayrischen Staatsgebiets, map (Berlin, 1890); E. Rosenthal, Geschichte des Gerichtswesens und der Verwaltungsorganisation Bayerns (Würzburg, 1889); A. Buchner, Geschichte von Baiern (Munich, 1820-1853); Forschungen zur Geschichte Bayerns, edited by K. von Reinhardstottner (Berlin, 1897 fol.). Much valuable detail will be found in the lives of Bavarian princes and statesmen in the Allgemeine deutsche Biographie (Leipzig, 1875-1906 in progr.)

(W. A. P.)

See Recès de la députation de l’empire ... du 25 févr, 1803, &c., § II. vol. vii. p. 453 of G.F. de Martens, Recueil des Traités, &c. (Gottingue, 1831).

Text in de Martens’ Recueil, viii. p. 388.

BAVENO, a town of Piedmont, Italy, in the province of Novara, on the west shore of Lago Maggiore, 13 m. N.N.W. of Arona by rail. Pop. (1901) 2502. It is much frequented as a resort in spring, summer and autumn, and has many beautiful villas. To the north-west are the famous red granite quarries, which have supplied the columns for the cathedral of Milan, the church of S. Paolo fuori le Mura at Rome, the Galleria Vittorio Emanuele at Milan, and other important buildings.

BAWBEE (of very doubtful origin, the most plausible conjecture being that the word is a corruption from the name of the mint master Sillebawby, by whom they were first issued, c. 1541), the Scottish name for a halfpenny or other small coin, and hence used of money generally. A writer in 1573, quoted in Tytler’s History of Scotland, speaks of “a coin called a bawbee, ... which is in value English one penny and a quarter.” The word was sometimes written “babie,” and has therefore been identified merely with a “baby coin,” but this etymology is less probable.

BAXTER, ANDREW (1686-1750), Scottish metaphysician, was born in Aberdeen and educated at King’s College. He maintained himself by acting as tutor to noblemen’s sons. From 1741 to 1747 he lived with Lord Blantyre and Mr Hay of Drummelzier at Utrecht, and made excursions in Flanders, France and Germany. Returning to Scotland, he lived at Whittingehame, near Edinburgh, till his death in 1750. At Spa he had met John Wilkes, then twenty years of age, and formed a lasting friendship with him. His chief work, An Inquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul (editions 1733, 1737 and 1745; with appendix added in 1750 in answer to an attack in Maclaurin’s Account of Sir I. Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries, and dedication to John Wilkes), examines the properties of matter. The one essential property of matter is its inactivity, vis inertiae (accepted later by Monboddo). All movement in matter is, therefore, caused by some immaterial force, namely, God. But the movements of the body are not analogous to the movements of matter; they are caused by a special immaterial force, the soul. The soul, as being immaterial, is immortal, and its consciousness does not depend upon its connexion with the body. The argument is supported by an analysis of the phenomena of dreams, which are ascribed to direct spiritual influences. Lastly Baxter attempted to prove that matter is finite. His work is an attack on Toland’s Letters to Serena (1704), which argued that motion is essential to matter, and on Locke and Berkeley. His criticism of Berkeley (in the second volume) is, however, based on the common misinterpretation of his theory (see Berkeley). Sir Leslie Stephen speaks of him as a curious example of “the effects of an exploded metaphysics on a feeble though ingenious intellect.”

Beside the Inquiry, Baxter wrote Matho sive Cosmotheoria Puerilis (an exposition in Latin of the elements of astronomy written for his pupils—editions in English 1740, 1745 and 1765, with one dialogue re-written); Evidence of Reason in Proof of the Immortality of the Soul (published posthumously from MSS. by Dr Duncan in 1779).

See life in Biographia Britannica; McCosh’s Scottish Philosophy, pp. 42-49.

BAXTER, RICHARD (1615-1691), English puritan divine, called by Dean Stanley “the chief of English Protestant Schoolmen,” was born at Rowton, in Shropshire, at the house of his maternal grandfather, in November (probably the 12th) 1615. His ancestors had been gentlefolk, but his father had reduced himself to hard straits by loose living. About the time of Richard’s birth, however, he changed decisively for the better. The boy’s early education was poor, being mainly in the hands of the illiterate and dissolute clergy and readers who held the neighbouring livings at that time. He was better served by John Owen, master of the free school at Wroxeter, where he studied from about 1629 to 1632, and made fair progress in Latin. On Owen’s advice he did not proceed to Oxford (a step which he afterwards regretted), but went to Ludlow Castle to read with Richard Wickstead, the council’s chaplain there. Wickstead neglected his pupil entirely, but Baxter’s eager mind found abundant nourishment in the great library at the castle. He was persuaded—against his will—to turn his attention to a court life, and he went to London under the patronage of Sir Henry Herbert, master of the revels, to follow that course; but he very soon returned home with a fixed resolve—confirmed by the death of his mother—to study divinity. After three months’ schoolmastering for Owen at Wroxeter he read theology, and especially the schoolmen, with Francis Garbet, the local clergyman. About this time (1634) he met Joseph Symonds and Walter Cradock, two famous Nonconformists, whose piety and fervour influenced him considerably. In 1638 he was nominated to the mastership of the free grammar school, Dudley, in which place he commenced his ministry, having been ordained and licensed by John Thornborough, bishop of Worcester. His success as a preacher was, at this early period, not very great; but he was soon transferred to Bridgnorth (Shropshire), where, as assistant to a Mr Madstard, he established a reputation for the vigorous discharge of the duties of his office.

He remained at Bridgnorth nearly two years, during which time he took a special interest in the controversy relating to Nonconformity and the Church of England. He soon, on some points, especially matters of discipline, became alienated from the Church; and after the requirement of what is called “the et cetera oath,” he rejected episcopacy in its English form. He could not, however, be called more than a moderate Nonconformist; and such he continued to be throughout his life. Though commonly denominated a Presbyterian, he had no exclusive attachment to Presbyterianism, and often manifested a willingness to accept a modified Episcopalianism. All forms of church government were regarded by him as subservient to the true purposes of religion.

One of the first measures of the Long Parliament was to effect the reformation of the clergy; and, with this view, a committee was appointed to receive complaints against them. Among the complainants were the inhabitants of Kidderminster, a town which had become famous for its ignorance and depravity. This state of matters was so clearly proved that an arrangement was agreed to on the part of the vicar (Dance), by which he allowed £60 a year, out of his income £200, to a preacher who should be chosen by certain trustees. Baxter was invited to deliver a sermon before the people, and was unanimously elected as the minister of the place. This happened in April 1641, when he was twenty-six years of age.

His ministry continued, with very considerable interruptions, for about nineteen years; and during that time he accomplished a work of reformation in Kidderminster and the neighbourhood which is as notable as anything of the kind upon record. Civilized behaviour succeeded to brutality of manners; and, whereas the professors of religion had been but small exceptions to the mass, the unreligious people became the exceptions in their turn. He formed the ministers in the country around him into an association for the better fulfilment of the duties of their calling, uniting them together irrespective of their differences as Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Independents. The spirit in which he acted may be judged of from The Reformed Pastor, a book published in relation to the general ministerial efforts he promoted. It drives home the sense of clerical responsibility with extraordinary power. The result of his action is that, to this day his memory is cherished as that of the true apostle of the district where he laboured.

The interruptions to which his Kidderminster life was subjected arose from the condition of things occasioned by the civil war. Baxter blamed both parties, but Worcestershire was a cavalier county, and a man in his position was, while the war continued, exposed to annoyance and danger in a place like Kidderminster. He therefore removed to Gloucester, and afterwards (1643-1645) settled in Coventry, where he preached regularly both to the garrison and the citizens. After the battle of Naseby he took the situation of chaplain to Colonel Whalley’s regiment, and continued to hold it till February 1647. During these stormy years he wrote his Aphorisms of Justification, which on its appearance in 1649 excited great controversy.

Baxter’s connexion with the Parliamentary army was a very characteristic one. He joined it that he might, if possible, counteract the growth of the sectaries in that field, and maintain the cause of constitutional government in opposition to the republican tendencies of the time. He regretted that he had not previously accepted an offer of Cromwell to become chaplain to the Ironsides, being confident in his power of persuasion under the most difficult circumstances. His success in converting the soldiery to his views does not seem to have been very great, but he preserved his own consistency and fidelity in a remarkable degree. By public disputation and private conference, as well as by preaching, he enforced his doctrines, both ecclesiastical and political, and shrank no more from urging what he conceived to be the truth upon the most powerful officers than he did from instructing the meanest followers of the camp. Cromwell disliked his loquacity and shunned his society; but Baxter having to preach before him after he had assumed the Protectorship, chose for his subject the old topic of the divisions and distractions of the church, and in subsequent interviews not only opposed him about liberty of conscience, but spoke in favour of the monarchy he had subverted. There is a striking proof of Baxter’s insight into character in his account of what happened under these circumstances. Of Cromwell he says, “I saw that what he learned must be from himself.” It is worthy of notice that this intercourse with Cromwell occurred when Baxter was summoned to London to assist in settling “the fundamentals of religion,” and made the memorable declaration, in answer to the objection that what he had proposed as fundamental “might be subscribed by a Papist or Socinian,”—“So much the better, and so much the fitter it is to be the matter of concord.” In 1647 he was staying at the home of Lady Rouse of Rouse-Lench, and there, in much physical weakness, wrote a great part of his famous work, The Saints’ Everlasting Rest (1650). On his recovery he returned to his charge at Kidderminster, where he also became a prominent political leader, his sensitive conscience leading him into conflict with almost every one of the contending parties in state and church. His conduct now, as at all times, did “credit to his conscientiousness rather than to his wisdom.”

After the Restoration in 1660 Baxter, who had helped to bring about that event, settled in London. He preached there till the Act of Uniformity took effect in 1662, and was employed in seeking for such terms of comprehension as would have permitted the moderate dissenters with whom he acted to have remained in the Church of England. In this hope he was sadly disappointed. There was at that time on the part of the rulers of the church no wish for such comprehension, and their object in the negotiations that took place was to excuse the breach of faith which their rejection of all reasonable methods of concession involved. The chief good that resulted from the Savoy conference was the production of Baxter’s Reformed Liturgy, a work of remarkable excellence, though it was cast aside without consideration. The same kind of reputation which Baxter had obtained in the country he secured in the larger and more important circle of the metropolis. The power of his preaching was universally felt, and his capacity for business placed him at the head of his party. He had been made a king’s chaplain, and was offered the bishopric of Hereford, but he could not accept the offer without virtually assenting to things as they were. This he could not do, and after his refusal he was not allowed, even before the passing of the Act of Uniformity, to be a curate in Kidderminster, though he was willing to serve that office gratuitously. Bishop Morley even prohibited him from preaching in the diocese of Worcester. Baxter, however, found much consolation in his marriage on the 24th of September 1662 with Margaret Charlton, a woman like-minded with himself. She died in 1681.

From the ejectment of 1662 to the indulgence of 1687, Baxter’s life was constantly disturbed by persecution of one kind or another. He retired to Acton in Middlesex, for the purpose of quiet study, and was dragged thence to prison for keeping a conventicle. The mittimus was pronounced illegal and irregular, and Baxter procured a habeas corpus in the court of common pleas. He was taken up for preaching in London after the licences granted in 1672 were recalled by the king. The meetinghouse which he had built for himself in Oxendon Street was closed against him after he had preached there but once. He was, in 1680, seized in his house, and conveyed away at the risk of his life; and though he was released that he might die at home, his books and goods were distrained. He was, in 1684, carried three times to the sessions house, being scarcely able to stand, and without any apparent cause was made to enter into a bond for £400 in security for his good behaviour.

But his worst encounter was with the chief justice, Sir George Jeffreys, in May 1685. He had been committed to the king’s bench prison on the ridiculous charge of libelling the Church in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, and was tried before Jeffreys on this accusation. The trial is well known as among the most brutal perversions of justice which have occurred in England, though it must be remembered that no authoritative report of the trial exists. If the partisan account on which tradition is based is to be accepted, it would appear that Jeffreys himself acted like an infuriated madman. (See Jeffreys, Sir George.) Baxter was sentenced to pay 500 marks, to lie in prison till the money was paid, and to be bound to his good behaviour for seven years. It was even asserted at the time that Jeffreys proposed he should be whipped at the cart’s tail through London. The old man, for he was now seventy, remained in prison for eighteen months, when the government, vainly hoping to win his influence to their side, remitted the fine and released him.

During the long time of oppression and injury which followed the ejectment, Baxter was sadly afflicted in body. His whole life was indeed one continued illness, but in this part of it his pain and languor had greatly increased. Yet this was the period of his greatest activity as a writer. He was a most voluminous author, his separate works, it is said, amounting to 168. They are as learned as they are elaborate, and as varied in their subjects as they are faithfully composed. Such treatises as the Christian Directory, the Methodus Theologiae Christianae, and the Catholic Theology, might each have occupied the principal part of the life of an ordinary man. His Breviate of the Life of Mrs Margaret Baxter records the virtues of his wife, and reveals on the part of Baxter a tenderness of nature which might otherwise have been unknown. His editors have contented themselves with re-publishing his “Practical Works,” and his ethical, philosophical, historical and political writings still await a competent editor.

The remainder of Baxter’s life, from 1687 onwards, was passed in peace and honour. He continued to preach and to publish almost to the end. He was surrounded by attached friends, and reverenced by the religious world. His saintly behaviour, his great talents, and his wide influence, added to his extended age, raised him to a position of unequalled reputation. He helped to bring about the downfall of James II. and complied with the Toleration Act under William and Mary. He died in London on the 8th of December 1691, and his funeral was attended by churchmen as well as dissenters. A similar tribute of general esteem was paid to him nearly two centuries later, when a statue was erected to his memory at Kidderminster in July 1875.

Baxter was possessed by an unconquerable belief in the power of persuasive argument. He thought every one was amenable to reason—bishops and levellers included. And yet he was as far as possible from being a quarrelsome man. He was at once a man of fixed belief and large appreciation, so that his dogmatism and his liberality sometimes came into collision. His popularity as a preacher was deservedly pre-eminent; but no more diligent student ever shut himself up with his books. He was singularly fitted for intellectual debate, but his devotional tendency was equally strong with his logical aptitude. Some of his writings, from their metaphysical subtilty, will always puzzle the learned; but he could write to the level of the common heart without loss of dignity or pointedness. His Reasons for the Christian Religion is still, for its evidential purpose, better than most works of its kind. His Poor Man’s Family Book is a manual that continues to be worthy of its title. His Saints’ Everlasting Rest will always command the grateful admiration of pious readers. It is also charged with a robust and manly eloquence and a rare and unsought felicity of language that make it a masterpiece of style. Perhaps no thinker has exerted so great an influence upon nonconformity as Baxter has done, and that not in one direction only, but in every form of development, doctrinal, ecclesiastical and practical. He is the type of a distinct class of the Christian ministry—that class which aspires after scholarly training, prefers a broad to a sectarian theology, and adheres to rational methods of religious investigation and appeal. The rational element in him was very strong. He had a settled hatred of fanaticism. Even Quakerism he could scarcely endure. Religion was with him all and in all—that by which all besides was measured, and to whose interests all else was subordinated. Isaac Barrow said that “his practical writings were never minded, and his controversial ones seldom confuted,” and John Wilkins, bishop of Chester, asserted that “if he had lived in the primitive time he had been one of the fathers of the church.”

Bibliography.—Our most valuable source is Baxter’s autobiography, called Reliquiae Baxterianae or Mr Richard Baxter’s Narrative of the most memorable Passages of his Life and Times (published by Matthew Sylvester in 1696). Edmund Calamy abridged this work (1702). The abridgment forms the first volume of the account of the ejected ministers, but whoever refers to it should also acquaint himself with the reply to the accusations which had been brought against Baxter, and which will be found in the second volume of Calamy’s Continuation. William Orme’s Life and Times of Richard Baxter appeared in 2 vols. in 1830; it also forms the first volume of “Practical Works” (1830, reprinted 1868). Sir James Stephen’s interesting paper on Baxter, contributed originally to the Edinburgh Review, is reprinted in the second volume of his Essays. More recent estimates of Baxter are those given by John Tulloch in his English Puritanism and its Leaders, and by Dean Stanley in his address at the inauguration of the statue to Baxter at Kidderminster (see Macmillan’s Magazine, xxxii. 385).

There is a good portrait of Baxter in the Williams library, Gordon Square, London.

BAXTER, ROBERT DUDLEY (1827-1875), English economist and statistician, was born at Doncaster in 1827. He was educated privately and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He studied law and entered his father’s firm of Baxter & Co., solicitors, with which he was connected till his death. Though studiously attentive to business, he was enabled, as a member of the Statistical and other learned societies, to accomplish much useful economic work. His principal economic writings were The Budget and the Income Tax (1860), Railway Extension and its Results (1866), The National Income (1868), The Taxation of the United Kingdom (1869), National Debts of the World (1871), Local Government and Taxation (1874), and his purely political writings included The Volunteer Movement (1860), The Redistribution of Seats and the Counties (1866), History of English Parties and Conservatism (1870), and The Political Progress of the Working Classes (1871).

BAXTER, WILLIAM (1650-1723), British antiquarian, critic and grammarian, nephew of Richard Baxter, the divine, was born at Llanllugan, Montgomeryshire. When he went to Harrow school, at the age of eighteen, he was unable to read, and could speak no language except Welsh. His progress must have been remarkable, since he published his Latin grammar about ten years afterwards. During the greater part of his life Baxter was a schoolmaster, and was finally headmaster of the Mercers’ school, where he remained till shortly before his death on the 31st of May 1723. He was an accomplished linguist, and his learning was undoubtedly very great. His published works are: De Analogia (1679), an advanced Latin grammar; Anacreontis Teii Carmina, including two odes of Sappho (1695; reprinted in 1710, “with improvements,” which he was accused of having borrowed from the edition of Joshua Barnes); Horace (1701 and subsequent editions, regarded as remarkable for its abuse of Bentley); Glossarium Antiquitatum Britannicarum (1719); and Glossarium Antiquitatum Romanarum (1826). The last two works were published by the Rev. Moses Williams, the second (which goes no farther than the letter A) under the title of Reliquiae Baxterianae, including an autobiographical fragment. Baxter also contributed to a joint translation of Plutarch’s Moralia, and left notes on Juvenal and Persius.

BAY, a homonymous term of which the principal branches are as follows, (1) The name of the sweet laurel (Laurus nobilis) or bay tree (see Laurel); this word is derived through the O. Fr. baie, from Lat. baca, berry, the bay bearing a heavy crop of dark purple berries. The leaves of the bay were woven in garlands to crown poets, and hence the word is often used figuratively in the sense of fame and reward. (2) A wide opening or indentation in a coast line. This may be of the same origin as “bay,” in the architectural sense, or from a Latin word which is seen in the place name Baiae. (3) The name of a colour, of a reddish brown, principally used of the colour in horses; there are various shades, light bay, bright bay, &c. This word is derived from the Latin badius, which is given by Varro (in Nonnius, pp. 80-82) as one of the colours of horses. The word is also seen in baize (q.v.). (4) The deep bark of dogs. This word is also seen in the expression “at bay,” properly of a hunted animal who at the last turns on the “baying” hounds and defends itself. The origin of the word is the O. Fr. bayer, abayer, Lat. badare, properly to gape, open wide the mouth. (5) An architectural term (Fr. travée, Ital. compartimento, Ger. Abteilung) for any division or compartment of an arcade, roof, &c. Each space from pillar to pillar in a cathedral, church or other building is called a “bay” or “severy.” This word is also to be referred to bayer, to gape.

A “bay-window” or “bow-window” is a window projecting outwards and forming a recess in the apartment. Bay-windows may be rectangular, polygonal or semicircular in plan, in the last case being better known as bow-windows. The bay-window would seem to have been introduced in the 15th century, but the earliest examples of importance are those which were built during the reign of Edward IV. (1461-1483), when it was largely employed in the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge and in the feudal castles of the period. Examples are found in the palace at Eltham, Cowdray Castle in Sussex, Thornbury Castle in Gloucestershire, and in the George Inn at Glastonbury; one of the finest of a later date is that of the Banqueting Hall at Hampton Court, some 50 ft. high. In the great entrance halls of ancient mansions the floor of the last bay of the hall was generally raised two or three steps, and this portion was reserved for the lord of the manor and his guests, and was known as the dais. The usual position of the bay-window is at one end of this dais, and occasionally but rarely at both ends. The sills of the windows are at a lower level than those in the hall, and, raised on one or two steps, are seats in the recess. The recess of the bay-window was generally covered with a ribbed vault of elaborate design, and the window itself subdivided by mullions and transoms. In some of the larger windows such as those at Cowdray and Hampton Court there are no fewer than five transoms, and this sub-division gave great scale to the design. The same feature when employed in an upper storey and supported by corbels or brackets is known as an oriel window. (See also Dais and Hall.)

BAYAMO, an old inland city on the N. slope of the Sierra Maestra in Santiago province, Cuba. Pop. (1907) 4102. It lies on a plain by the Bayamo river, in a fertile country, but isolated from sea and from railway. Its older parts are extraordinarily irregular. The streets are of all widths, and of all degrees of crookedness, and run in all directions. Bayamo was the third of the seven cities founded by Diego Velazquez, and was established in 1513. During much of the 16th century it was one of the most important agricultural and commercial settlements of the island. Its inland situation gave it relative security against the pirates who then infested West Indian seas, and the misfortunes of Santiago were the fortunes of Bayamo. Down the river Cauto, then open to the sea for vessels of 200 tons, and through Manzanillo, Bayamo drove a thriving contraband trade that made it at the opening of the 17th century the leading town of Cuba. A tremendous flood, in 1616, choking the Cauto with trees and wrecked vessels, cut it off from direct access to the sea; but through Manzanillo it continued a great clandestine traffic with Curaçao, Jamaica, and other foreign islands all through the 17th and 18th centuries. Bayamo was then surrounded by fine plantations. It was a rich and turbulent city. In the war of 1868-78 it was an insurgent stronghold; near it was fought one of the most desperate conflicts of the war, and it was nearly destroyed by the opposing parties. Bayamo was the birthplace and the home of Carlos Manuel de Céspedes (1819-1874), first president of the “first” Cuban republic, and was also the birthplace and home of Tomás Estrada Palma (1835-1908), first president of the present Cuban republic.

BAYARD, PIERRE TERRAIL, Seigneur de (1473-1524), French soldier, the descendant of a noble family, nearly every head of which for two centuries past had fallen in battle, was born at the château Bayard, Dauphiné (near Pontcharra, Isère), about 1473. He served as a page to Charles I., duke of Savoy, until Charles VIII. of France, attracted by his graceful bearing, placed him among the royal followers under the seigneur (count) de Ligny (1487). As a youth he was distinguished for comeliness, affability of manner, and skill in the tilt-yard. In 1494 he accompanied Charles VIII. into Italy, and was knighted after the battle of Fornova (1495), where he had captured a standard. Shortly afterwards, entering Milan alone in ardent pursuit of the enemy, he was taken prisoner, but was set free without a ransom by Lodovico Sforza. In 1502 he was wounded at the assault of Canossa. Bayard was the hero of a celebrated combat of thirteen French knights against an equal number of Germans, and his restless energy and valour were conspicuous throughout the Italian wars of this period. On one occasion it is said that, single-handed, he made good the defence of the bridge of the Garigliano against about 200 Spaniards, an exploit that brought him such renown that Pope Julius II. sought to entice him into the papal service, but unsuccessfully. In 1508 he distinguished himself again at the siege of Genoa by Louis XII., and early in 1509 the king made him captain of a company of horse and foot. At the siege of Padua he won further distinction, not only by his valour, but also by his consummate skill. He continued to serve in the Italian wars up to the siege of Brescia in 1512. Here his intrepidity in first mounting the rampart cost him a severe wound, which obliged his soldiers to carry him into a neighbouring house, the residence of a nobleman, whose wife and daughters he protected from threatened insult. Before his wound was healed, he hurried to join Gaston de Foix, under whom he served in the terrible battle of Ravenna (1512). In 1513, when Henry VIII. of England routed the French at the battle of the Spurs (Guinegate, where Bayard’s father had received a lifelong injury in a battle of 1479), Bayard in trying to rally his countrymen found his escape cut off. Unwilling to surrender, he rode suddenly up to an English officer who was resting unarmed, and summoned him to yield; the knight complying, Bayard in turn gave himself up to his prisoner. He was taken into the English camp, but his gallantry impressed Henry as it had impressed Lodovico, and the king released him without ransom, merely exacting his parole not to serve for six weeks. On the accession of Francis I. in 1515 Bayard was made lieutenant-general of Dauphiné; and after the victory of Marignan, to which his valour largely contributed, he had the honour of conferring knighthood on his youthful sovereign. When war again broke out between Francis I. and Charles V., Bayard, with 1000 men, held Mézières, which had been declared untenable, against an army of 35,000, and after six weeks compelled the imperial generals to raise the siege. This stubborn resistance saved central France from invasion, as the king had not then sufficient forces to withstand the imperialists. All France rang with the achievement, and Francis gained time to collect the royal army which drove out the invaders (1521). The parlement thanked Bayard as the saviour of his country; the king made him a knight of the order of St Michael, and commander in his own name of 100 gens d’armes, an honour till then reserved for princes of the blood. After allaying a revolt at Genoa, and striving with the greatest assiduity to check a pestilence in Dauphiné, Bayard was sent, in 1523, into Italy with Admiral Bonnivet, who, being defeated at Robecco and wounded in a combat during his retreat, implored Bayard to assume the command and save the army. He repulsed the foremost pursuers, but in guarding the rear at the passage of the Sesia was mortally wounded by an arquebus ball (April 30th, 1524). He died in the midst of the enemy, attended by Pescara, the Spanish commander, and by his old comrade the constable de Bourbon. His body was restored to his friends and interred at Grenoble. Chivalry, free of fantastic extravagance, is perfectly mirrored in the character of Bayard. As a soldier he was one of the most skilful commanders of the age. He was particularly noted for the exactitude and completeness of his information of the enemy’s movements; this he obtained both by careful reconnaissance and by a well-arranged system of espionage. In the midst of mercenary armies Bayard remained absolutely disinterested, and to his contemporaries and his successors he was, with his romantic heroism, piety and magnanimity, the fearless and faultless knight, le chevalier sans peur et sans reproche. His gaiety and kindness won him, even more frequently, another name bestowed by his contemporaries, le bon chevalier.

Contemporary lives of Bayard are the following:—“Le loyal serviteur” (? Jacques de Maille); La très joyeuse, plaisante, et récréative histoire ... des faiz, gestes, triumphes et prouesses du bon chevalier sans paour et sans reproche, le gentil seigneur de Bayart (original edition printed at Paris, 1527; the modern editions are very numerous, those of M.J. Roman and of L. Larchey appeared in 1878 and 1882); Symphorien Champier, Les Gestes, ensemble la vie du preulx chevalier Bayard (Lyons, 1525); Aymar du Rivail, Histoire des Allobroges (edition of de Terrebasse, 1844); see Bayard in Répertoire des sources historiques, by Ulysse Chevalier, and in particular A. de Terrebasse, Hist. de Pierre Terrail, seigneur de Bayart (1st ed., Paris, 1828; 5th ed., Vienna, 1870).

BAYARD, THOMAS FRANCIS (1828-1898), American diplomatist, was born in Wilmington, Delaware, on the 29th of October 1828. His great-grandfather, Richard Bassett (1745-1815), governor of Delaware; his grandfather, James Asheton Bayard (1767-1815), a prominent Federalist, and one of the United States commissioners who negotiated the treaty of Ghent with Great Britain after the War of 1812; his uncle, Richard Henry Bayard (1796-1868); and his father, James Asheton Bayard (1799-1880), a well-known constitutional lawyer, all represented Delaware in the United States Senate. Intending to go into business, he did not receive a college education; but in 1848 he began the study of law in the office of his father, and was admitted to the bar in 1851. Except from 1855 to 1857, when he was a partner of William Shippen in Philadelphia, he practised chiefly in Wilmington. He was a United States senator from Delaware from 1869 to 1885, and in 1881 was (October 10th to 13th) president pro tempore of the Senate. His abilities made him a leader of the Democrats in the Senate, and his views on financial and legal questions gave him a high reputation for statesmanship. He was a member of the electoral commission of 1877. In the Democratic national conventions of 1872, 1876, 1880 and 1884 he received votes for nomination as the party candidate for the presidency. He was secretary of state, 1885-1889, during the first administration of President Cleveland, and pursued a conservative policy in foreign affairs, the most important matter with which he was called upon to deal being the Bering Sea controversy. As ambassador to Great Britain, 1893-1897, his tall dignified person, unfailing courtesy, and polished, if somewhat deliberate, eloquence made him a man of mark in all the best circles. He was considered indeed by many Americans to have become too partial to English ways; and, for the expression of some criticisms regarded as unfavourable to his own countrymen, the House of Representatives went so far as to pass, on the 7th of November 1895, a vote of censure on him. The value of Mr Bayard’s diplomacy was, however, fully recognized in the United Kingdom, where he worthily upheld the traditions of a famous line of American ministers. He was the first representative of the United States in Great Britain to hold the diplomatic rank of an ambassador. He died in Dedham, Massachusetts, on the 28th of September 1898.

See Edward Spencer, Public Life and Services of T.F. Bayard (New York, 1880).

BAYAZID, or Bajazet, a border fortress of Asiatic Turkey, chief town of a sanjak of the Erzerum vilayet, situated close to the frontiers of Russia and Persia, and looking across a marshy plain to the great cone of Ararat, at a general altitude of 6000 ft. It occupies a site of great antiquity, as the cuneiform inscriptions on the neighbouring rocks testify; it stands on the site of the old Armenian town of Pakovan. It is picturesquely situated in an amphitheatre of sharp, rocky hills. The great trade route from Trebizond by Erzerum into N.W. Persia crosses the frontier at Kizil Dize a few miles to the south and does not enter the town. A knoll above the town is occupied by the half-ruined fort or palace of former governors, built for Mahmud Pasha by a Persian architect and considered one of the most beautiful buildings in Turkey. It contains two churches and a monastery, the Kasa Kilissa, famous for its antiquity and architectural grandeur. The cuneiform inscriptions are on the rock pinnacles above the town, with some rock chambers, indicating a town or fortress of the Vannic period. The population has lately decreased and now numbers about 4000. A Russian consul resides here and the town is a military station. It was captured during the Russian campaigns of 1828 and 1854, also in 1878, but was then recaptured by the Turks, who subjected the Russian garrison to a long siege; the place was ultimately relieved, but a massacre of Christians then took place in the streets. Bayazid was restored to Turkey by the treaty of Berlin.

BAYBAY, a town of the province of Leyte, island of Leyte, Philippine Islands, on the W. coast. Pop. (1903) 22,990. The town proper is situated at the mouth of the Pagbañganan river, 45 m. S.S.W. of Tacloban, the provincial capital. A superior grade of hemp is exported. Other products are rice, corn, copra, cacao, sugar, cattle and horses. The Cebú dialect of the Visayan language is spoken.

BAY CITY, a city and the county seat of Bay county, Michigan, U.S.A., on the Saginaw river, about 2 m. from its entrance into Saginaw Bay and about 108 m. N.N.W. of Detroit. Pop. (1890) 27,839; (1900) 27,628, of whom 8483 were foreign-born, including 2413 English-Canadians, 1743 Germans, 1822 Poles—the city has a Polish weekly newspaper—and 1075 French-Canadians; (1910, census) 45,166. Bay City is served by the Michigan Central, the Père Marquette, the Grand Trunk and the Detroit & Mackinac railways, and by lake steamers. The city extends for several miles along both sides of the river, and is in a good farming district, with which it is connected by stone roads. Among the public buildings are the Federal building, the city hall and the public library. The city has lumber and fishing interests (perch, whitefish, sturgeon, pickerel, bass, &c. being caught in Saginaw Bay), large machine shops and foundries (value of products in 1905, $1,743,155, or 31% of the total of the city’s factory products), and various manufactures, including ships (wooden and steel), wooden ware, wood-pipe, veneer, railroad machinery, cement, alkali and chicory. A salt basin underlies the city, and, next to the lumber industry, the salt industry was the first to be developed, but its importance has dwindled, the product value in 1905 being $20,098 out of $5,620,866 for all factory products. Near the city are valuable coal mines, and there is one within the city limits. At Essexville (pop. in 1910, 1477), N.E., at Banks, N.W., and at Salzbury, S.W. of Bay City, are beet-sugar factories—sugar beets are extensively grown in the vicinity. Alcohol is made from the refuse molasses obtained from these beet-sugar factories. The municipality owns and operates the water-works and electric-lighting plant. The settlements of Lower Saginaw and Portsmouth were made in 1837, and were later united to form Bay City, which was incorporated as a village in 1859, and chartered as a city in 1865. In 1905 West Bay City (pop. 1900, 13,119) and Bay City were consolidated.

BAYEUX, a town of north-western France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Calvados, 18 m. N.W. of Caen on the Western railway. Pop. (1906) 6930. Bayeux is situated on the Aure, 5 m. from the English Channel. Its majestic cathedral was built in the 13th century on the site of a Romanesque church, to which the lateral arcades of the nave and the two western towers with their high stone spires belonged. A third and still loftier tower, the upper part of which, in the florid Gothic style, is modern, surmounts the crossing. The chancel, surrounded with radiating chapels, is a fine example of early Gothic. Underneath it there is a crypt of the 11th century restored in the 15th century. The oak stalls in the choir are fine examples of late 16th-century carving. The former bishop’s palace, parts of which are of great age though the main building is of the 18th century, serves as law-court and hôtel de ville. Bayeux possesses many quaint, timbered houses and stone mansions in its quiet streets. The museum contains the celebrated Bayeux tapestry (see below). The town is the seat of a bishop and of a sub-prefect; it has tribunals of first instance and of commerce, an ecclesiastical seminary, a communal college and a chamber of arts and manufactures. Dyeing, leather-dressing, lace-making and the manufacture of porcelain for household and laboratory purposes are carried on.

Till the 4th century Bayeux bore the name of Augustodurum, but afterwards, when it became the capital of the two tribes of the Baiocasses and Viducasses, took the name of Civitas Baiocassium. Its bishopric dates from the latter half of the 4th century. Before the Norman invasion it was governed by counts. Taken in 890 by the Scandinavian chief, Rollo, it was soon after peopled by the Normans and became a residence of the dukes of Normandy, one of whom, Richard I., built about 960 a castle which survived till the 18th century. During the quarrels between the sons of William the Conqueror it was pillaged and sacked by Henry I. in 1106, and in later times it underwent siege and capture on several occasions during the Hundred Years’ War and the religious wars of the 16th century. Till 1790 it was the capital of the Bessin, a district of lower Normandy.

BAYEUX TAPESTRY, THE. This venerable relic consists of a band of linen, 231 ft. long and 20 in. wide, now light brown with age, on which have been worked with a needle, in worsteds of eight colours, scenes representing the conquest of England by the Normans. Of these scenes there are seventy-two, beginning with Harold’s visit to Bosham on his way to Normandy, and ending with the flight of the English from the battle of Hastings, though the actual end of the strip has perished. Along the top and the bottom run decorative borders with figures of animals, scenes from fables of Aesop and of Phaedrus, from husbandry and the chase, and occasionally from the story of the Conquest itself (see Embroidery; Plate I. fig. 7). Formerly known as the Toile de St Jean, it was used on certain feast days to decorate the nave of Bayeux cathedral. Narrowly escaping the perils of the Revolution, it was exhibited in Paris, by Napoleon’s desire, in 1803-1804, and has since been in civil custody at Bayeux, where it is now exhibited under glass. In the Franco-German War (1871) it was hastily taken down and concealed.

“The noblest monument in the world relating to our old English history,” as William Stukeley described it in 1746, it has been repeatedly described, discussed and reproduced, both in France and in England since 1730. The best coloured reproduction is that by C.A. Stothard in 1818, published in the sixth volume of Vetusta Monumenta; but in 1871-1872 the “tapestry” was photographed for the English education authorities by E. Dossetter.

Local tradition assigned the work to the Conqueror’s wife. F. Pluquet, in his Essai historique sur la ville de Bayeux (Caen, 1829), was the first to reject this belief, and to connect it with the Conqueror’s half-brother Odo, bishop of Bayeux, and this view, which is now accepted, is confirmed by the fact that three of the bishop’s followers mentioned in Domesday Book are among the very few named figures on the tapestry. That Odo had it executed for his cathedral seems tolerably certain, but whether it was worked by English fingers or not has been disputed, though some of the words upon it have been held to favour that view. Freeman emphatically pronounced it to be “a contemporary work,” and historically “a primary authority ... in fact the highest authority on the Norman side.” As some of its evidence is unique, the question of its authority is important, and Freeman’s conclusions have been practically confirmed by recent discussion. In 1902 M. Marignan questioned, on archaeological grounds, the date assigned to the tapestry, as the Abbé de la Rue had questioned it ninety years before; but his arguments were refuted by Gaston Paris and M. Lanore, and the authority of the tapestry was vindicated. The famous relic appears to be the solitary survivor of a class, for Abbot Baudri described in Latin verse a similar work executed for Adela, daughter of the Conqueror, and in earlier days the widow of Brihtnoth had wrought a similar record of her husband’s exploits and death at the hard-fought battle of Maldon (991).

(By permission of G, Bell & Sons.)

(By permission of G. Bell & Sons.)

See E.A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, vol. iii. (ed. 1875), with summary of the discussion to date; Archaeologia, vols. xvii.—xix.; Dawson Turner, Tour in Normandy (1820); C.A. Stothard’s illustrations in Vetusta Monumenta, vol. vi.; Gentleman’s Magazine, 1837; Bolton Corney, Researches and Conjectures on the Bayeux Tapestry (1836-1838); A. de Caumont, “Un mot sur ... la tapisserie de Bayeux,” in Bulletin monumental de Vinstilut des provinces, vol. viii. (1841); J. Laffetay, Notice historique et descriptive sur la tapisserie ... (1874); J. Comte, Tapisserie de Bayeux; F.R. Fowke, The Bayeux Tapestry (ed. 1898); Marignan, Tapisserie de Bayeux (1902); G. Pans, “Tapisserie de Bayeux,” in Romania, vol. xxxi.; Lanore, “La Tapisserie de Bayeux,” in Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes, vol. lxiv. (1903); and J.H. Round, “The Bayeux Tapestry,” in Monthly Review, xvii. (1904).

(J. H. R.)

BAYEZID I. (1347-1403), Ottoman sultan, surnamed Yilderim or “LIGHTNING,” from the great rapidity of his movements, succeeded his father Murad I. on the latter’s assassination on the field of Kossovo, 1389, and signalized his accession by ordering at once the execution of his brother Yakub, who had distinguished himself in the battle. His arms were successful both in Europe and Asia, and he was the first Ottoman sovereign to be styled “sultan,” which title he induced the titular Abbasid caliph to confer on him. After routing the chivalry of Christendom at the battle of Nikopoli in 1396, he pursued his victorious career in Greece, and Constantinople would doubtless have fallen before his attack, had not the emperor Manuel Palaeologus bought him off by timely concessions which reduced him practically to the position of Bayezid’s vassal. But his conquests met with a sudden and overpowering check at the hands of Timur (Tamerlane). Utterly defeated at Angora by the Mongol invader, Bayezid became his prisoner, and died in captivity some months later, in March 1403.

Bayezid first married Devlet Shah Khatun, daughter of the prince of Kermian, who brought him in dowry Kutaiah and its dependencies. Two years before his accession he also married a daughter of the emperor John Palaeologus.

BAYEZID II. (1447-1512), sultan of Turkey, was the son of Mahommed II., whom he succeeded in 1481, but only after gaining over the janissaries by a large donative, which henceforth became for centuries the invariable prerogative of that undisciplined body on the accession of a new sultan. Before he could establish himself on the throne a long struggle ensued with his brother Prince Jem. Being routed, Jem fled for refuge to the knights of St John at Rhodes, who, in spite of a safe-conduct granted to him, accepted a pension from Bayezid as the price for keeping him a close prisoner. (See Aubusson, Pierre d’.)

So long as Jem lived he was a perpetual menace to the sultan’s peace, and there was considerable rivalry among the sovereigns of Europe for the possession of so valuable an instrument for bringing pressure to bear upon the Porte for the purpose of extracting money or concessions. By common consent the prince was ultimately entrusted to Pope Innocent VIII., who used him not only to extract an annual tribute out of the sultan, but to prevent the execution of Bayezid’s ambitious designs in the Mediterranean. His successor, Alexander VI., used him for a more questionable purpose, namely, not only to extract the arrears of the pension due for Jem’s safe-keeping, but, by enlarging on Charles V.’s intention of setting him up as sultan, to persuade Bayezid to aid him against the emperor. There appears, however, to be no truth in the report that Bayezid succeeded in bribing the pope to have Jem poisoned. The prince, who had lived on excellent terms with Alexander, died at Naples in February 1495, possibly as the result of excesses in which he had been deliberately encouraged by the pope.

Whether as a result of his fear of the rivalry of Jem, or of his personal character, Bayezid showed little of the aggressive spirit of his warlike predecessors; and Machiavelli said that another such sultan would cause Turkey to cease being a menace to Europe. He abandoned the attack on Rhodes at the first check, made concessions, for the sake of peace, to Venice and reduced the tribute due fiom Ragusa. His wars were of the nature of raids, on the Dalmatian coast and into Croatia, Hungary, Moldavia and Poland. The threat of the growing power in the Aegean of Venice, which had acquired Cyprus in 1489, at last roused him to a more serious effort; and in 1499 the war broke out with the republic, which ended in 1502 by the annexation to Turkey of Lepanto and Modon, Coron and Navarino in the Morea. Bayezid himself conducted the siege of Modon in 1500.

The comparative inactivity of Bayezid in the direction of Europe was partly due to preoccupation elsewhere. In the south he was threatened by the dangerous rivalry of Kait Bey, the Mameluke sultan of Egypt, who had extended his power northwards as far as Tarsus and Adana. In 1488 he gained a great victory over the Ottomans, and in 1491 a peace was made which was not again broken till after Bayezid’s death. On the side of Persia too, where the decisive battle of Shurur (1502) had raised to power Ismail, the first of the modern line of shahs, danger threatened the sultan, and the latter years of his reign were troubled by the spread, under the influence of the new Persian power, of the Shi’ite doctrine in Kurdistan and Asia Minor. The forces destined to maintain his authority in Asia had been entrusted by Bayezid to his three sons, Ahmed, Corcud and Selim; and the sultan’s declining years were embittered by their revolts and rivalry. Soon after the great earthquake of 1509, which laid Constantinople in ruins, Selim, the ungovernable pasha of Trebizond, whose vigorous rule in Asia had given Europe an earnest of his future career as sultan, appeared before Adrianople, where Bayezid had sought refuge. The sultan had designated Ahmed as his successor, but Selim, though temporarily defeated, succeeded in winning over the janissaries. On the 25th of April 1512 Bayezid was forced to abdicate in his favour, and died a few days later.

See J.B. Bury in the Cambridge Modern History, vol. i. chap. iii. and bibliography p. 700.

BAY ISLANDS (Islas de la Bahía), a small archipelago in the Caribbean Sea, off the coast of Honduras, of which country it forms an administrative district. Pop. (1905) about 3000, including 500 Indians. The archipelago consists of Roatan or Ruatan, Guanaja or Bonacca, Utilla, Barbareta, Helena, Morat, the Puercos or Hog Islands, and many cays or islets. The Bay Islands have a good soil, a fine climate and an advantageous position. Roatan, the largest, is about 30 m. long by 9 m. broad, with mountains rising to the height of 900 ft., covered with valuable woods and abounding with deer and wild hogs. Its chief towns are Coxen Hole and Puerto Real. Its trade is chiefly with New Orleans in plantains, cocoa-nuts, pineapples and other fruit. Guanaja is 9 m. long by 5 m. broad; it lies 15 m. E.N.E. of Roatan. Wild hogs abound in its thickly-wooded limestone hills. The other islands are comparatively small, and may, in some cases, be regarded as detached parts of Roatan, with which they are connected by reefs. Guanaja was discovered in 1502 by Columbus, but the islands were not colonized until the 17th century, when they were occupied by British logwood cutters from Belize, and pearlers from the Mosquito Coast. Forts were built on Roatan in 1742, but abandoned in 1749. In 1852 the islands were annexed by Great Britain. In 1859 they were ceded to Honduras.

BAYLE, PIERRE (1647-1706), French philosopher and man of letters, was born on the 18th of November 1647, at le Carla-le-Comte, near Pamiers (Ariège). Educated by his father, a Calvinist minister, and at an academy at Puylaurens, he afterwards entered a Jesuit college at Toulouse, and became a Roman Catholic a month later (1669). After seventeen months he resumed his former religion, and, to avoid persecution, fled to Geneva, where he became acquainted with Cartesianism. For some years he acted under the name of Bèle as tutor in various Parisian families, but in 1675 he was appointed to the chair of philosophy at the Protestant university of Sedan. In 1681 the university at Sedan was suppressed, but almost immediately afterwards Bayle was appointed professor of philosophy and history at Rotterdam. Here in 1682 he published his famous Pensées diverses sur la comète de 1680 and his critique of Maimbourg’s work on the history of Calvinism. The great reputation achieved by this critique stirred the envy of Bayle’s colleague, P. Jurieu, who had written a book on the same subject. In 1684 Bayle began the publication of his Nouvelles de la république des lettres, a kind of journal of literary criticism. In 1690 appeared a work entitled Avis important aux refugiés, which Jurieu attributed to Bayle, whom he attacked with animosity. After a long quarrel Bayle was deprived of his chair in 1693. He was not depressed by this misfortune, especially as he was at the time closely engaged in the preparation of the Historical and Critical Dictionary (Dictionnaire historique et critique). The remaining years of Bayle’s life were devoted to miscellaneous writings, arising in many instances out of criticisms made upon his Dictionary. He died in exile at Rotterdam on the 28th of December 1706. In 1906 a statue in his honour was erected at Pamiers, “la réparation d’un long oubli.” Bayle’s erudition, despite the low estimate placed upon it by Leclerc, seems to have been very considerable. As a constructive thinker, he did little. As a critic he was second to none in his own time, and even yet one can admire the delicacy and the skill with which he handles his subject. The Nouvelles de la république des lettres (see Louis P. Betz, P. Bayle und die Nouvelles de la république des lettres, Zürich, 1896) was the first thorough-going attempt to popularize literature, and it was eminently successful. The Dictionary, however, is Bayle’s masterpiece.

Editions.—Historical and Critical Dictionary (1695-1697; 1702, enlarged; best that of P. des Maizeaux, 4 vols., 1740); Les Œuvres de Bayle (3 vols., The Hague); see des Maizeaux, Vie de Bayle; L.A. Feuerbach, Pierre Bayle (1838); Damiron, La Philosophie en France au XVIIe siècle (1858-1864); Sainte-Beuve, “Du génie critique et de Bayle” (Revue des deux mondes, 1st Dec. 1835); A. Deschamps, La Génèse du scepticisme érudit chez Bayle (Liége, 1878); J. Denis, Bayle et Jurieu (Paris, 1886); F. Brunetière, La Critique littéraire au XVIIIe siècle (vol. i., 1890), and La Critique de Bayle (1893); Émile Gigas, Choix de la correspondance inédite de Pierre Bayle (Paris, 1890, reviewed in Revue critique, 22nd Dec. 1890); de Budé, Lettres inédites adressées à J.A. Turretini (Paris, 1887); J.F. Stephen, Horae Sabbaticae (London, 1892, 3rd ser. pp. 174-192); A. Cazes, P. Bayle, sa vie, ses idées, &c. (1905).

BAYLO (Lat. bajulus or baillivus; cf. Ital. balio, Fr. bailli, Eng. bailiff), in diplomacy, the title borne by the Venetian representative at Constantinople. His functions were originally in the nature of those of a consul-general, but from the 16th century onwards he had also the rank and functions of a diplomatic agent of the first class. “Under the name of bayle,” says A. de Wicquefort, “he performs also the functions of consul and judge; not only between members of his own nation, but also between all the other merchants who trade in the Levant under the flag of St Mark.” (See Diplomacy.)

BAYLY, THOMAS HAYNES (1797-1839), English songwriter and dramatist, was born at Bath on the 13th of October 1797. He was educated at Winchester and at St Mary Hall, Oxford, with a view to entering the church. While on a visit to Dublin, however, he discovered his ability to write ballads, and on his return to England in 1824 he quickly gained a wide reputation with “I’d be a butterfly,” following this up with “We met—’twas in a crowd,” “She wore a wreath of roses,” “Oh, no, we never mention her,” and other light and graceful songs for which his name is still remembered. He set some of his songs to music himself; a well-known example is “Gaily the troubadour.” Bayly also wrote two novels, The Aylmers and A Legend of Killarney, and numerous plays. His most successful dramatic piece was Perfection, which was produced by Madame Vestris and received high praise from Lord Chesterfield. Bayly had married in 1826 an Irish heiress, but her estates were mismanaged and the anxiety caused by financial difficulties undermined his health. He died on the 22nd of April 1839.

His Collected Works (1844) contain a memoir by his wife.

BAYNES, THOMAS SPENCER (1823-1887), English editor and man of letters, the son of a Baptist minister, was born at Wellington, Somerset, on the 24th of March 1823. He studied at Edinburgh University, where he was a pupil of Sir William Hamilton, whose assistant he became and of whose views on logic he became the authorized exponent. This teaching was embodied in his Essay on the New Analytic of Logical Forms, published in 1850, the same year in which he took his London University degree. This was followed in the next year by a translation of Arnauld’s Port Royal Logic. In 1850 he had become editor of the Edinburgh Guardian, but after four years’ work his health gave way. He spent two years in Somerset and then went to London, becoming, in 1858, assistant editor of the Daily News. In 1864 he was appointed professor of logic metaphysics and English literature at the university of St Andrews, and in 1873 the editorship of the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was entrusted to him. He conducted it singly until 1881, when the decline of his health rendered it necessary to provide him with a coadjutor in the person of Prof. W. Robertson Smith. Baynes, however, continued to be engaged upon the work until his death on the 31st May 1887, shortly before its completion. His article on Shakespeare (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed.) was republished in 1894, along with other essays on Shakespearian topics and a memoir by Prof. Lewis Campbell.

BAYONET, a short thrusting weapon, fixed to the muzzle or fore-end of a rifle or musket and carried by troops armed with the latter weapons. The origin of the word is disputed, but there is some authority for the supposition that the name is derived from the town of Bayonne, where the short dagger called bayonnette was first made towards the end of the 15th century. The elder Puységur, a native of Bayonne, says (in his Memoirs, published posthumously in Paris, 1747) that when he was commanding the troops at Ypres in 1647 his musketeers used bayonets consisting of a steel dagger fixed in a wooden haft, which fitted into the muzzle of the musket—in fact plug-bayonets. Courts-martial were held on some English soldiers at Tangier in 1663-1664 for using their daggers on their comrades. As bayonets were at first called daggers, and as there were few or no pikemen in Tangier until 1675, the probable conclusion is that the troops in Tangier used plug-bayonets. In 1671 plug-bayonets were issued to the French regiment of fusiliers then raised. They were issued to part of an English dragoon regiment raised in 1672 and disbanded in 1674, and to the Royal Fusiliers when raised in 1685. The danger incurred by the use of this bayonet (which put a stop to all fire) was felt so early that the younger Puységur saw a ring-bayonet in 1678 which could be fixed without stopping the fire. The English defeat at Killiecrankie in 1689 was due (among other things) to the use of the plug-bayonet; and shortly afterwards the defeated leader, General Mackay, introduced a ring-bayonet of his own invention. A trial with badly-fitting socket or zigzag bayonets was made after the battle of Fleurus, 1690, in the presence of Louis XIV., who refused to adopt them. Shortly after the peace of Ryswick (1697) the English and Germans abolished the pike and introduced these bayonets, and plates of them are given in Surirey de St Remy’s Mémoires d’Artillerie, published in Paris in that year; but owing to a military cabal they were not issued to the French infantry until 1703. Henceforward the bayonet became, with the musket or other firearm, the typical weapon of infantry. This bayonet remained in the British service until 1805, when Sir John Moore introduced a bayonet fastened to the musket by a spring clip. The triangular bayonet (so called from the cross-section of its blade) was used in the British army until the introduction of the magazine rifle, when it was replaced by the sword-bayonet or dagger-bayonet. Sword-bayonets—weapons which could be used as sword or dagger apart from the rifle—had long been in use by special troops such as engineers and rifles, and many ingenious attempts have been made to produce a bayonet fitted for several uses. A long curved sword-bayonet with a saw-edged back was formerly used by the Royal Engineers, but all troops are now supplied with the plain sword-bayonet. The bayonet is usually hung in a scabbard on the belt of the soldier and only fixed during the final stages of a battle; the reason for this is that the “jump” of the rifle due to the shock of explosion is materially altered by the extra weight at the muzzle, which thus deranges the sighting. In the short Lee-Enfield rifle of 1903, the bayonet, not being directly attached to the barrel, does not influence accuracy, but with the long rifles, when the bayonet is fixed, the sight must be raised by two or three graduations to ensure correct elevation. In the Russian army troops almost invariably carry the bayonet (triangular) fixed; the model (1891) of Italian carbine has an inseparable bayonet; the United States rifle (the new short model of 1903) has a knife bayonet, the model of 1905, which is 20.5875 in. long, with the lower edge of the blade sharpened along its entire length and the upper edge sharpened 5 in. from the point; this bayonet is carried in a wooden and leather scabbard attached to the cartridge belt. The British bayonet (pattern 1903) has a blade 1 ft. in length. The length of the rifle and bayonet together, considered as an arme blanche, varies considerably, that of the French Lebel pattern of 1886 being 6 ft., as against the 4 ft. 8¾ in. of the British short Lee-Enfield of 1903. The German rifles (1898) have a length with bayonet of 5 ft. 9¾ in.; the Russian (1894) 5 ft. 9 in.; and the Japanese 5 ft. 5½ in. In 1908 a new British bayonet was approved, 5 in. longer than its predecessor of 1903, the shape of the point being modified to obtain the thrusting effect of a spear or lance head.

BAYONNE, a town of south-western France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Basses-Pyrénées, 66 m. W.N.W. of Pau on the Southern railway. Pop. (1906) 21,779. Bayonne, a first-class fortified place, is situated at the confluence of the Adour and its left-hand tributary, the Nive, about 3 m. from the sea. The two rivers divide the town into three nearly equal parts, communicating with each other by bridges. Grand Bayonne lies on the left bank of the Nive; the two squares which lie close together at the mouth of that river constitute the most animated quarter of the town. Petit Bayonne lies between the right bank of the Nive and the Adour; Saint Esprit, dominated by a citadel which is one of the finest works of Vauban, occupies the right bank of the Adour. The last is inhabited partly by a colony of Jews dating at least from the early 16th century. To the north-west of the town are the Allées Marines, fine promenades which border the Adour for a mile and a quarter, and the Allées Paulmy, skirting the fortifications. The cathedral of Ste Marie in Grand Bayonne is an imposing Gothic structure of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. It consists of a choir with deambulatory and apsidal chapels (the oldest part of the church), a transept, nave and aisles. The towers at the west end were only completed during the general restoration which took place in the latter half of the 19th century. A fine cloister of the 13th century adjoins the south side of the church. Ste Marie contains glass windows of the 15th and 16th centuries and other rich decoration. The Vieux-Château, also in Grand Bayonne, dates from the 12th and 15th centuries and is built upon a portion of the old Roman fortifications; it is used for military purposes. The Château Neuf (15th and 16th centuries) serves as barracks and prison. Bayonne is the seat of a bishopric and of a sub-prefect; it has tribunals of first instance and of commerce, a chamber of commerce, a lycée, a school of music, a library, an art museum with a large collection of the works of the painter Léon Bonnat, and a branch of the Bank of France. There are consulates of the chief nations of Europe, of the United States of America and of several Central and South American republics. The town also possesses an important military arsenal and military hospital. The commerce of Bayonne is much more important than its industries, which include the manufacture of leather and of chocolate. The port consists of an outer harbour, the so-called “rade” (roadstead) and the port proper, and occupies the course of the Adour from its mouth, which is obstructed by a shifting bar, to the Pont St Esprit, and the course of the Nive as far as the Pont Mayou. Above these two bridges the rivers are accessible only to river navigation. Vessels drawing from 16 to 22 ft. can make the port in normal weather. In the five years 1901-1905 the average value of the imports was £502,000, of the exports £572,000; for the five years 1896-1900 the average value of imports was £637,000, of exports £634,000. Exports include timber, mine-props, turpentine, resinous material from the Pyrénées and Landes and zinc ore; leading imports are the coal and Spanish minerals which supply the large metallurgical works of Le Boucau at the mouth of the river, the raw material necessary for the chemical works of the same town, wine, and the cereals destined for the flour mills of Pau, Peyrehorade and Orthez. During the early years of the 20th century the shipping of the port increased considerably in tonnage. In 1900 there entered 741 vessels, tonnage 277,959; and cleared 743, tonnage 276,992. In 1907 there entered 661 vessels, tonnage, 336,773; cleared 650, tonnage 335,849.

In the 3rd century Bayonne (Lapurdum) was a Roman military post and the principal port of Novempopulana. In the middle ages it belonged to the dukes of Aquitaine and then to the kings of England, one of whom, John, granted it full communal rights in 1216. In 1451 it offered a strenuous opposition to the French, by whom it was eventually occupied. By this time its maritime commerce had suffered disaster owing to the silting up of its port and the deflection of the Adour. New fortifications were constructed under Louis XII. and Francis I., and in 1523 the town was able to hold out against a Spanish army. In 1565 it was the scene of an interview between Charles IX. and Catherine de’ Medici on the one hand and Elizabeth, queen of Spain, and the duke of Alva on the other. It is thought that on this occasion the plans were formed for the massacres of St Bartholomew, a crime in which Bayonne took no part, in 1572. In 1808 Napoleon met Charles IV., king of Spain, and his son Ferdinand at the Château de Marrac, near the town, and induced them to renounce their rights to the crown of Spain, which fell to Napoleon’s brother Joseph. In 1814, after a severe siege, Bayonne was occupied by the English (see Peninsular War).

See J. Balasque and E. Dulaurens, Études historiques sur la ville de Bayonne (3 vols., Bayonne, 1862-1875); E. Ducéré, Bayonne historique et pittoresque (Bayonne, 1893), Histoire topographigue et anecdotique des rues de Bayonne (Bayonne, 1894); H. Léon, Histoire des juifs de Bayonne (Paris, 1893).

BAYONNE, a city of Hudson county, New Jersey, U.S.A., occupying the peninsula (about 5½ m. long and about ¾ m. wide) between New York harbour and Newark Bay, and immediately adjoining the south boundary of Jersey City, from which it is partly separated by the Morris Canal. It is separated from Staten Island only by the narrow strip of water known as the Kill van Kull, and it has a total water frontage of about 10 m. Pop. (1890) 19,033; (1900) 32,722, of whom 10,786 were foreign-born (3168 Irish, 1868 Russian, 1656 German); (1910) 55,545. Land area about 4 sq. m. Bayonne is served by the Central of New Jersey and by the Lehigh Valley railways (the latter for freight only), and by electric railway lines to Newark and Jersey City. The principal public buildings are the city hall, the public library, the post-office and the city hospital. Besides having a considerable share in the commerce of the port of New York, Bayonne is an important manufacturing centre; among its manufactures are refined petroleum, refined copper and nickel (not from the ore), refined borax, foundry and machine-shop products, tubular boilers, electric launches and electric motors, chemicals (including ammonia and sulphuric and nitric acids), iron and brass products, wire cables and silk goods. In 1905 the value of its factory product was $60,633,761, an increase of 57.1% over that of 1900, Bayonne ranking third in 1905 among the manufacturing cities of the state. It is the principal petroleum-distributing centre on the Atlantic seaboard, the enormous refineries and storehouses of the Standard Oil Company, among the largest in the world, being located here; there are connecting pipe lines with the Ohio and Pennsylvania oil fields, and with New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Washington. Much coal is shipped from the city. Bayonne, which comprises several former villages (Bayonne, Bergen Point, Pamrapo and Centerville), was settled about 1665-1670 by the Dutch. Originally a part of Bergen, it was set off as a township in 1861. It was chartered as a city in 1869.

BAYOU (pronounced bai-yoo, probably a corruption of Fr. boyau, gut), an “ox-bow” lake left behind by a river that has abandoned its old channel in the lower stages of its course. Good examples are found in Palmyra Lake, in the Mississippi valley below Vicksburg, and in Osage river, Missouri. As a river swings from side to side in a series of curves which widen laterally where the current is slow and the country more or less level, there is a tendency in flood times for the water to impinge more strongly upon the convex bank where the curve leaves the main channel. This bank will be eaten away, and the process will be repeated until the base of the “isthmus” is cut through, and the descending channel meets the returning curve, which is thus left stranded and filled with dead water, while the stream runs directly past it in the shorter course cut by the flood waters that deepen the new channel, and leave an isolated ox-bow lake in the old curve.

BAYREUTH, or Baireuth, a town of Bavaria, Germany, district of Upper Franconia, 58 m. by rail N.N.E. from Nuremberg. Pop. (1900) 29,384. In Richard-Wagner-strasse is Wagner’s house, with his grave in the garden. Franz Liszt (1811-1886) is buried here, as well as Jean Paul Friedrich Richter, who is commemorated by a monument (1841). His house was in Friedrichstrasse. Most of the buildings are of comparatively modern date, the city having suffered severely from the Hussites in 1430 and from a conflagration in 1621. There should be mentioned the palace of Duke Alexander of Württemberg, the administrative offices, the statue of King Maximilian II. (1860) and the collections of the historical society Among the ecclesiastical buildings, the Stadt-Pfarrkirche, dating from 1439, and containing the monuments of the margraves of Bayreuth, is the most important. Bayreuth is a railway junction and has an active trade, chiefly in grain and horses. It manufactures woollen, linen and cotton goods, leather, delft and other earthenware, and tobacco, and has also several breweries and distilleries. The village of St Georgen is a suburb to the north east noted for its marble works; and about 2 m. to the east is the Hermitage, a fanciful building, erected in 1715 by the margrave George William (d. 1726), with gardens containing terraces, statues and fountains. Bayreuth was formerly the capital of a principality of the same name, which was annexed in 1791 to the kingdom of Prussia. In 1807 it was ceded by Prussia to France, which kept possession of it till 1810, when it was transferred to Bavaria.

The Wagner Theatre.—Among the many advantages which Wagner gained from his intimacy with Ludwig II., king of Bavaria, not the least was the practical support given to his plan of erecting a theatre for the ideal performance of his own music-dramas. The first plan of building a new theatre for the purpose in Munich itself was rejected, because Wagner rightly felt that the appeal of his advanced works, like the Nibelungen trilogy, would be far stronger if the comparatively small number of people who wished to hear them were removed from the distractions of a large capital; Bayreuth possessed the desired seclusion, being on a line of railway that could not be approached from any quarter without changing. The municipality furthered Wagner’s scheme in every way, and in May 1872 the foundation stone of the Festspielhaus was laid, the event being commemorated by a notable performance of Beethoven’s Choral Symphony in the old opera-house. The funds for the erection of the theatre were raised in part by the issue of 1000 certificates of patronage (Patronatscheine), but the bulk of the sum was raised by founding “Wagner Societies” from St Petersburg to Cairo, from London to New York; these societies sprang up with such success that the theatre was opened in the summer of 1876 with the first complete performance of Der Ring des Nibelungen. The theatre, which stands on a height a little under a mile from the town, is built from the plans of Gustav Semper, the idea of the design being Wagner’s own, an experiment indeed, but one which succeeded beyond all expectation. The seats are arranged on a kind of sloping wedge, in such a manner that every one has an almost equally good view of the stage, for there are no boxes, and the only galleries are quite at the back, one, the Fürstenloge, being reserved for distinguished guests, the other, above it, for the townspeople. Immediately in front of the foremost row of seats a hood or sloping screen of wood covers a part of the orchestra, and another hood of similar shape starts from the front of the stage at a slightly lower level. Thus there is left a space between the two hoods through which the sound of the orchestra ascends with wonderfully blended effect; the conductor, sitting at the highest point of the orchestra, though under the screen, has a complete view of the stage as well as of his instrumentalists, and the sound of the orchestra is sent most forcibly in the direction of the stage, so that the voices are always well supported.

As an important addition to the work of the theatre, a permanent school has been established at Bayreuth for the sake of training young musicians to take part in the festival performances, which were at first exclusively, and then partially, undertaken by artists from other German and foreign theatres. The special feature upon which most stress has been laid, ever since Wagner’s death in 1883, has been not so much the musical as the dramatic significance of the works; it is contended by the inmost circle of Wagnerian adherents that none but they can fully realize the master’s intentions or hand down his traditions. What is called the “Bayreuth Idea” is set forth in much detail from this point of view by Houston Stewart Chamberlain, in his Richard Wagner (1897 and 1900).

BAZA, a town of southern Spain, in the province of Granada; in the Hoya de Baza, a fruitful valley of the Sierra Nevada, not far from the small river Gallego, and at the terminus of a railway from Lorca. Pop. (1900) 12,770. The dome-shaped mountain of Javaleon (4715 ft.) overlooks the town from the north-west. The ancient collegiate church of San Maximo occupies the traditional site of a cathedral founded by the Visigothic king Reccared about 600, and afterwards converted into a mosque. There is a brisk local trade in farm produce, and in the linen, hempen goods and pottery manufactured in Baza. The town nearly doubled its population in the last quarter of the 10th century. Sulphurous springs exist in the vicinity.

Baza is the Roman Basti, the medieval Basta or Bastiana; and numerous relics of antiquity, both Roman and medieval, have been found in the neighbourhood. Its bishopric was founded in 306. Under Moorish rule (c. 713-1489) it was one of the three most important cities in the kingdom of Granada, with an extensive trade, and a population estimated at 50,000. In 1489, after a stubborn defence lasting seven months, it was captured by the Spaniards under Isabella of Castile, whose cannon still adorn the Alameda or public promenade. On the 10th of August 1810 the French under Marshal Soult defeated a large Spanish force close to the town.

BAZAAR (Pers. bazar, market), a permanent market or street of shops, or a group of short narrow streets of stalls under one roof. The word has spread westward into Arabic, Turkish and, in special senses, into European languages, and eastward it has invaded India, where it has been generally adopted. In southern India and Ceylon bazaar means a single shop or stall. The word seems to have early reached South Europe (probably through Turkish), for F. Balducci Pegolotti in his mercantile handbook (c. 1340) gives “bazarra” as a Genoese word for market-place. The Malayan peoples have adopted the word as pazar. The meaning of the word has been much extended in English, where it is now equivalent to any sale, for charitable or mere commercial purposes, of mixed goods and fancy work.

BAZAINE, ACHILLE FRANÇOIS (1811-1888), marshal of France, was born at Versailles on the 13th of February 1811. He entered the army as a private soldier in 1831, with a view to service in Algeria, and received a commission as sub-lieutenant in 1833. By his gallantry in action he won the cross of the Legion of Honour, and he was promoted lieutenant in 1835. He served two campaigns with the Foreign Legion against the Carlists in Spain in 1837-38, returning to Africa as captain in 1839. During the succeeding decade he saw continual active service in Africa, and rose to be a brigadier-general with the charge of the district of Tlemçen. In the Crimean War he commanded a brigade, and maintained his reputation in the trenches before Sevastopol. On the capture of the south side he was appointed governor of the place, and was promoted general of division. He also commanded the French forces in the expedition to Kinburn. In Lombardy in 1859 he was wounded when in command of a division at Melegnano, and took a conspicuous part in the battle of Solferino. For his services in the campaign he received the grand cross of the Legion of Honour, of which he was already (1855) a commander. He commanded with great distinction the first division under General (afterwards marshal) Forey in the Mexican expedition in 1862, succeeded him in supreme command in 1863, and became marshal and senator of France in the following year. He at first pursued the war with great vigour and success, entering Mexico in 1863 and driving President Juarez to the frontier. The marshal’s African experience as a soldier and as an administrator stood him in good stead in dealing with the guerrilleros of the Juarez party, but he was less successful in his relations with Maximilian, with whose court the French headquarters was in constant strife. Here, as later in his own country, Bazaine’s policy seems to have been directed, at least in part, to his own establishment in the rôle of a mayor of the palace. His own army thought that he aspired to play the part of a Bernadotte. His marriage to a rich Mexican lady, whose family were supporters of Juarez, still further complicated his relations with the unfortunate emperor, and when at the close of the American Civil War the United States sent a powerful war-trained army to the Mexican frontier, the French forces were withdrawn (see Mexico, History). Bazaine skilfully conducted the retreat and embarkation at Vera Cruz (1867). On his return to Paris he was but coldly received by his sovereign; public opinion was, however, in his favour, and he was held to have been made a scapegoat for the faults of others.

At the outbreak of the Franco-German War (q.v.) Marshal Bazaine was placed in command of the III. corps of the Army of the Rhine. He took no part in the earlier battles, but Napoleon III. soon handed over the chief command of the army to him. How far his inaction was the cause of the disaster of Spicheren is a matter of dispute. The best that can be said of his conduct is that the evil traditions of warfare on a small scale and the mania for taking up “strong positions,” common to the French generals of 1870, were in Bazaine’s own case emphasized by his personal dislike for the “schoolmaster” Frossard, lately the Prince Imperial’s tutor and now commander of the army corps posted at Spicheren. Frossard himself, the leader of the “strong positions” school, could only blame his own theories for the paralysis of the rest of the army, which left the corps at Spicheren to fight unsupported. Bazaine, indeed, when called upon for help, moved part of his corps forward, but only to “take up strong positions,” not to strike a blow on the battlefield. A few days later he took up the chief command, and his tenure of it is the central act in the tragedy of 1870. He found the army in retreat, ill-equipped and numerically at a great disadvantage, and the generals and staffs discouraged and distrustful of one another. There was practically no chance of success. The question was one of extricating the army and the government from a disastrous adventure, and Bazaine’s solution of it was to bring back his army to Metz. For the events which led up to the battles before Metz and the investment of Bazaine’s whole army in the fortress, see Franco-german War and Metz, Battles.

It seems to be clearly established that the charges of treason to which later events gave so strong a colour had, as yet, no foundation in fact. Nor, indeed, can his unwillingness to leave the Moselle region, while there was yet time to slip past the advancing enemy, be considered even as proof of special incompetence. The resolution to stay in the neighbourhood of Metz was based on the knowledge that if the slow-moving French army ventured far out it would infallibly be headed off and brought to battle in the open by superior numbers. In “strong positions” close to his stronghold, however, Bazaine hoped that he could inflict damaging repulses and heavy slaughter on the ardent Germans, and in the main the result justified the expectation. The scheme was creditable, and even heroic, but the execution throughout all ranks, from the marshal to the battalion commanders, fell far short of the idea. The minutely cautious methods of movement, which Algerian experience had evolved suitable enough for small African desert columns, which were liable to surprise rushes and ambushes, reduced the mobility of a large army, which had favourable marching conditions, to 5 m. a day as against the enemy’s rate of 15. When, before he had finally decided to stay in Metz, Bazaine attempted half-heartedly to begin a retreat on Verdun, the staff work and organization of the movement over the Moselle was so ineffective that when the German staff calculated that Bazaine was nearing Verdun, the French had in reality barely got their artillery and baggage trains through the town of Metz. Even on the battlefield the marshal forbade the general staff to appear, and conducted the fighting by means of his personal orderly officers. After the cumbrous army had passed through Metz it encountered an isolated corps of the enemy, which was commanded by the brilliant leader Constantin von Alvensleben, and promptly attacked the French. At almost every moment of the day victory was in Bazaine’s hands. Two corps of the Germans fought all day for bare existence. But Bazaine had no confidence in his generals or his troops, and contented himself with inflicting severe losses on the most aggressive portions of the German army. Two days later, while the French actually retreated on Metz—taking seven hours to cover 5 to 6 m.—the masses of the Germans gathered in front of him, intercepting his communication with the interior of France. This Bazaine expected, and feeling certain that the Germans would sooner or later attack him in his chosen position, he made no attempt to interfere with their concentration. The great battle was fought, and having inflicted severe punishment on his assailants, Bazaine fell back within the entrenched camp of Metz. But although he made no appeals for help, public opinion, alarmed and excited, condemned the only remaining army of France, Marshal MacMahon’s “Army of Châlons,” to rescue Bazaine at all costs. The adventure ended at Sedan, and with Sedan the Third Empire collapsed.

Up to this point Bazaine had served his country perhaps as well as circumstances allowed, and certainly with enough skill and a sufficient measure of success to justify his appointment. His experience, wide as it was, had not fitted him for the command of a large army in a delicate position. Since his Mexican expedition, moreover, he had himself fallen into a state of moral and physical lethargy, which, imperceptible on the field of battle, because his reputation for impassive bearing under fire was beyond question, was only too obvious in the staff offices, where the work of manoeuvring the army and framing plans and orders was chiefly done. But, in spite of these defects, it cannot be asserted that any one of Bazaine’s subordinates would have done better, with the possible exception of Ladmirault, and Ladmirault was one of the junior corps commanders.

Bazaine, therefore, in the main justified his reputation for ability. He was now to justify his reputation for intriguing and underhand diplomacy. If in Mexico he aspired to the rôle of mayor of the palace, it was far more so in Metz, where, as commander of the only organized army of France, he conceived himself to be the ruler of the country’s destiny. Accordingly he engaged in a series of diplomatic intrigues, some of which to this day have never been properly cleared up. Negotiations passed between the outer world and the besieged commander, the purport of which remains still to some extent obscure, but it is beyond question that he proposed with the permission of the Germans to employ his army in “saving France from herself.” The scheme, however, collapsed, and the army of the Rhine became prisoners of war to the number of 140,000. At the moment of the surrender a week’s further resistance would have enabled the levies of the National Defence government to crush the weak forces of the Germans on the Loire and to relieve Paris. But the army of Prince Frederick Charles, set free by the surrender, hurried up in time to check and to defeat the great effort at Orleans (q.v.). The responsibility for this crushing blow was naturally enough, and justly enough, placed on Bazaine’s shoulders, and although, when he returned from captivity, the marshal enjoyed a brief immunity, he was in 1873 brought to trial before a military court. He was found guilty of negotiating with and capitulating to the enemy before doing all that was prescribed by duty and honour, and sentenced to degradation and death, but very strongly recommended to mercy. His sentence was commuted to twenty years’ seclusion, and the humiliating ceremonies attending degradation were dispensed with. He was incarcerated in the Ile Sainte-Marguérite and treated rather as an exile than as a convict; thence he escaped in 1874 to Italy. He finally took up his abode in Madrid, where he was treated with marked respect by the government of Alfonso XII. He died there on the 23rd of September 1888. He published Épisodes de la guerre de 1870 (Madrid, 1883). He also wrote L’Armée du Rhin (Paris, 1872).

See the bibliography appended to the article Franco-German War; also memoir by C. Pelletan in La Grande Encyclopédie; for Bazaine’s conduct see Bazaine et l’armée du Rhin (1873); J. Valfrey, Le Maréchal et l’armée du Rhin (1873); Count A. de la Guerronière, L’Homme de Metz (1871); Rossel, Les Derniers Jours de Metz (1871). See also the article Bourbaki for the curious Regnier episode connected with the surrender of Metz.

BAZALGETTE, SIR JOSEPH WILLIAM (1819-1891), English engineer, was born at Enfield on the 28th of March 1819. At the age of seventeen he was articled to an engineer, and a few years later he began to practise successfully on his own account. His name is best known for the engineering works he carried out in London, especially for the construction of the main drainage system and the Thames embankment. In 1848 the control of London drainage, which had hitherto been divided among eight distinct municipal bodies, was consolidated under twelve commissioners, who were in 1849 superseded by a second commission. Under the latter Bazalgette accepted an appointment which he continued to hold under the three successive commissions which in the course of a year or two followed the second one, and when finally in 1855 these bodies were replaced by the Metropolitan Board of Works, he was at once appointed its chief engineer. His plans were ready, but the work was delayed by official obstruction and formality until 1858. Once begun, however, it was vigorously pushed on, and in 1865 the system was formally opened. It consisted of 83 m. of large intercepting sewers, draining more than 100 sq. m. of buildings, and calculated to deal with 420 million gallons a day. The cost was £4,600,000. Almost simultaneously Bazalgette was engaged on the plans for the Thames embankment. The section between Westminster and Vauxhall on the Surrey side was built between 1860 and 1869, and the length between Westminster and Blackfriars was declared open by the prince of Wales in 1870. The Chelsea embankment followed in 1871-1874, and in 1876 Northumberland Avenue was formed. The total outlay on the scheme exceeded £2,000,000. Bazalgette was also responsible for various other engineering works in the metropolitan area, designing, for example, new bridges at Putney and Battersea, and the steam ferry between north and south Woolwich. He also prepared plans for a bridge over the river near the Tower and for a tunnel under it at Blackwall, but did not live to see either of these projects carried out. He died on the 15th of March 1891 at Wimbledon.

BAZARD, AMAND (1791-1832), French socialist, the founder of a secret society in France corresponding to the Carbonari of Italy, was born at Paris. He took part in the defence of Paris in 1815, and afterwards occupied a subordinate situation in the prefecture of the Seine. About 1820 he united some patriotic friends into a society, called Amis de la vérité. From this was developed a complete system of Carbonarism, the peculiar principles of which were introduced from Italy by two of Bazard’s friends. Bazard himself was at the head of the central body, and, while taking a general lead, contributed extensively to the Carbonarist journal, L’Aristarque. An unsuccessful outbreak at Belfort ruined the society, and the leaders were compelled to conceal themselves. Bazard, after remaining for some time in obscurity in Paris, came to the conclusion that the ends of those who wished well to the people would be most easily attained, not through political agitation, but by effecting a radical change in their social condition. This train of thinking naturally drew him towards the socialist philosophers of the school of Saint-Simon, whom he joined. He contributed to their journal, Le Producteur; and in 1828 began to give public lectures on the principles of the school (see Saint-Simon). His opposition to the emancipation of women brought about a quarrel with Enfantin (q.v.) in 1831, and Bazard found himself almost deserted by the members of the society. He attacked Enfantin violently, and in a warm discussion between them he was struck down by apoplexy. After lingering for a few months he died on the 29th of July 1832.

BAZAS, a town of south-western France, in the department of Gironde, 38½ m. S.S.E. of Bordeaux by rail. Pop. (1906) town, 2505; commune, 4684. The town, which was the seat of a bishop from at least the beginning of the 6th century till 1790, has a Gothic church (formerly the cathedral) dating from the 13th to the 16th centuries. There are remains of ramparts (15th and 16th centuries) and several old houses of the 16th century. The vineyards of the vicinity produce white wine. The town is capital of an arrondissement, and carries on tanning, &c., and trade in the well-known Bazadais cattle.

Bazas (Cossio) was capital of the ancient tribe of the Vasates, and under the Romans one of the twelve cities of Novempopuluna. In later times it was capital of the district of Bazadais. It was the scene of much bloodshed during the religious wars of the 16th century.

BAZIGARS, a nomad gipsy-folk of India, found throughout the peninsula, and variously known as Bazigars, Panchpiri, Nats, Bediyas, &c. They live a life apart from the surrounding Hindu population, and still preserve a certain ethnical identity, scarcely justified by any indications given by their physique. They make a living as jugglers, dancers, basket-weavers and fortune-tellers; and in true European gipsy fashion each clan has its king.

BAZIN, RENÉ (1853- ), French novelist and man of letters, was born at Angers on the 26th of December 1853. He studied law in Paris, and on his return to Angers became professor of law in the Catholic university there. He contributed to Parisian journals a series of sketches of provincial life and descriptions of travel, but he made his reputation by Une Tache d’encre (1888), which received a prize from the Academy. Other novels of great charm and delicacy followed: La Sarcelle bleue (1892); Madame Corentine (1893); Humble Amour (1894); De toute son âme (1897); La Terre qui meurt (1899); Les Oberlé (1901), an Alsatian story which was dramatized and acted in the following year; L’Âme alsacienne (1903); Donatienne (1903); L’Isolée (1905); Le Blé qui lève (1907); Mémoires d’une vieille fille (1908). La Terre qui meurt, a picture of the decay of peasant farming and a story of La Vendée, is an indirect plea for the development of provincial France. A volume of Questions littéraires et sociales appeared in 1906. René Bazin was admitted to the Academy on the 28th of April 1904.

BAZIRE, CLAUDE (1764-1794), French revolutionist, was deputy for the Côte d’Or in the Legislative Assembly, and made himself prominent by denouncing the court and the “Austrian committee” of the Tuileries. On the 20th of June 1792 he spoke in favour of the deposition of the king. In the Convention he sat with the Mountain, opposed adjourning the trial of Louis XVI., and voted for his death. He joined in the attack upon the Girondists, but, as member of the committee of general security, he condemned the system of the Terror. He was implicated by François Chabot in the falsification of a decree relative to the East India Company, and though his share seems to have been simply that he did not reveal the plot, of which he knew but part, he was accused before the Revolutionary Tribunal at the same time as Danton and Camille Desmoulins, and was executed on the 5th of April 1794.

BDELLIUM (βδέλλιον, used by Pliny and Dioscorides as the name of a plant which exuded a fragrant gum), a name applied to several gums or gum-resins that simulate and are sometimes found as adulterants of true myrrh (q.v.).

BEACH, a word of unknown origin; probably an old dialect word meaning shingle, hence, by transference, the place covered by shingle. Beach sometimes denotes the material thrown up by the waves, sometimes the long resulting ridge, but more frequently the area between high and low water, or even the area between land and sea covered with material thrown up by exceptional storms.

The actual character of beach material depends upon the nature and structure of the rocks inshore, the strength and direction of currents, and the force of the waves. The southern shore of the Isle of Wight furnishes a good example. The island ends westward in the well-known “Needles,” consisting of chalk with flints. The disintegration of this rock by wave action separates the finer chalk, which is carried seawards in suspension, from the hard flint, which is piled in rough shingle upon the shore. The currents sweep constantly eastward up channel, and the rough flint shingle is rolled along by wave action toward the Ventnor rampart, and ground finer and finer until it arrives as a very fine flinty gravel at Ventnor pier. The sweep of Sandown Bay follows, where the cliffs are composed for the most part of greensand, and here the beach at low water is sandy and smooth. The eastern end of the island is again composed of chalk with flints, and here the beach material as at the western end consists of very coarse flint shingle. In this, as in similar cases, the material has been dragged seawards from the land by constant action of the undertow that accompanies each retreating tide and each returning wave. The resulting accumulated ridge is battered by every storm, and thrown above ordinary high-water mark in a ridge such as the Chesil Bank or the long grass-grown mound that has blocked the old channel of the Yar and diverted its waters into Yaverland Bay. Sandown furnishes an instructive example of the power of the eastward currents carrying high-storm waves. The groins built to preserve the foreshore are piled to the top with coarse shingle on the western side, while there is a drop of over 8 ft. on to the sands east of the wall, many thousands of tons of shingle having been moved bodily by the waves and deposited against each groin. The force of the waves has been measured on the west coast of Scotland and found to be as much as 3 tons per square foot. Against these forces the preservation of the shore from the advance of the sea becomes an extremely difficult and often a hopeless undertaking, since blocks of rock over 100 tons in weight have been moved by the waves. The beach is therefore unstable in its position. It advances in front of the encroaching sea, burying former beaches under the sand and mud of the now deeper water, or it retreats when the sea is withdrawn from the land or the land rises locally, leaving the old shingle stranded in a “raised beach,” but its formation is in all cases due to the form and structure of the shore, the sapping action of the waves, the backward drag of the undertow plastering the shore with material, which is in turn bombarded by waves and swept by currents that cover the finer débris of the undertow with a layer of coarse fragments that are re-sorted by the daily action of currents and tides.

BEACHY HEAD, a promontory on the coast of Sussex, England, S.W. of Eastbourne, about 3 m. from the centre of the town. It consists of a perpendicular chalk cliff 532 ft. high, and forms the eastern termination of the hill-range known as the South Downs. The old Bell Tout lighthouse, 285 ft. above high-water mark, erected in 1831 on the second cliff to the westward, in 0° 10′ 18″ E., 50° 43′ 30″ N., has been superseded by a new lighthouse built in the sea at the foot of the head itself.

Battle of Beachy Head.—This naval battle, known to the French as Bévisier (a corruption of Pevensey), was fought on the 30th of June 1690. An allied force of 37 British sail of the line, under command of the earl of Torrington (Arthur Herbert), and of 22 Dutch under C. Evertsen, was at anchor under the headland, while a French fleet of over 70 sail, commanded by the comte de Tourville, was anchored some miles off to the south-west. The French fleet had orders to co-operate with an expected Jacobite rising in England. Torrington, to whom the general direction of the allied fleet belonged, was much disturbed by the enemy’s superiority in number, and on the 26th had written to the Council of Regency suggesting that he ought to retire to the Gunfleet at the mouth of the Thames, and observe the enemy from a distance till he could be reinforced. The council, which had the support of Admiral Russell, afterwards earl of Orford, considered that a retreat to the Gunfleet would have fatal consequences, by which they no doubt meant that it would leave the French free to land troops for the support of the Jacobites. They therefore ordered Herbert not to lose sight of the enemy, but rather to fight if he could secure an advantage of position. The admiral, who was on very bad terms with the council, elected to treat this as a peremptory order to fight. At daybreak on the 30th he got under way and bore down on the enemy. The wind was at north-east and gave him the weather-gage. As his fleet was only 57 sail in all he was not able to engage the enemy from end to end, but as the French were arranged in a line from east to west he could have fallen on the end nearest him, and could have guarded himself by telling off a part of his ships to watch the remainder. Torrington preferred to bring his fleet down in such a way that his van, consisting of the Dutch ships, should be opposite the enemy’s van, his centre opposite their centre, and his rear should engage their rear. The inferiority of the allies in numbers made it therefore inevitable that there should be gaps between the different divisions. As the fleets actually did come to action, the Dutch with a few English ships pressed on the French van, their leading ship being abreast of the ninth or tenth Frenchman. Torrington took his station opposite the rear of the French centre, leaving a great gap between himself and the ships in the van. Being apprehensive that the French centre would tack and pass this gap so as to put him between two fires, he kept a long way off so as to be free to manoeuvre against them if they made the attempt. The English rear division, consisting of the English blue squadron under Sir Ralph Delaval, fought a close action with the French opposite to them. In the meantime the French ships, ahead of the leading Dutchman, succeeded in turning to windward and putting part of Evertsen’s squadron between two fires. The Dutch ships suffered heavily, and one of them which was dismasted drifted among the French and was taken. More severe loss would have followed if the better average seamanship of the English and Dutch had not stood them in good stead. The tide turned from flood to ebb during the action, and the surface current which in the Channel sets to the west with the ebb began to carry the fleets with it. The Dutch and English dropped anchor. The French, who were not equally alert, did not and were carried westward. When the tide turned the allies retreated to the Thames, abandoning several of the most damaged ships in Pevensey Bay. The pursuit of the French was ineffective, for Tourville persisted in keeping his ships in line of battle, which forced them to regulate their speed by the slowest among them. Torrington was tried for his conduct but acquitted.

A full account of the battle of Beachy Head, written with ample quotation of documents, and for the purpose of vindicating Herbert, will be found in Admiral Colomb’s Naval Warfare (London, 1899).

(D. H.)

BEACON (from the O. Eng. béacn, a sign, cf. “beckon,” another form of the same word), a signal, especially a fire lit on a high hill, structure or building for the purpose of sending a message of alarm or of important news over long distances. Such was the courier-fire (ἄγγαρος πῦρ) that brought the news of the fall of Troy to Argos (Aeschylus, Agamemnon), or the chain of signals that told of the approach of the Spanish Armada, or which circled the British Isles in the jubilee years of 1887 and 1897. The word occurs in many names for lofty and conspicuous hills, such as Dunkery Beacon in Somerset, the highest point on Exmoor. On many such hills the remains of old beacon towers and cressets are still found. The word is used generally of a lighthouse, but technically it means either a small unattended light, a superstructure on a floating buoy, such as a staff and cage, or staff and globe, or an unlighted structure, forming a conspicuous object at sea, used in each case to guide or warn sailors. (See Lighthouse and Buoy.)

BEACONSFIELD, BENJAMIN DISRAELI, Earl of (1804-1881), British statesman, second child and eldest son of Isaac D’Israeli (q.v.) and Maria Basevi, who were married in 1802, was born at No. 6 John Street, Bedford Row, on the 21st of December 1804. Of Isaac D’Israeli’s other children, Sarah was born in 1802, Naphtali in 1807, Ralph (Raphael) in 1809, and James (Jacob) in 1813. None of the family was akin to Benjamin for genius and character, except Sarah, to whom he was deeply indebted for a wise, unswerving and sympathetic devotion, when, in his earlier days, he needed it most. All Isaac D’Israeli’s children were born into the Jewish communion, in which, however, they were not to grow up. It is a reasonable inference from Isaac’s character that he was never at ease in the ritual of Judaism. His father died in the winter of 1816, and soon afterwards Isaac formally withdrew with all his household from the Jewish church. His son Benjamin, who had been admitted to it with the usual rites eight days after his birth, was baptized at St Andrew’s church in Holborn on the 31st of July 1817. One of Isaac D’Israeli’s reasons for quitting the tents of his people was that rabbinical Judaism, with its unyielding laws and fettering ceremonies, “cuts off the Jews from the great family of mankind.” Little did he know, when therefore he cut off the D’Israeli family from Judaism, what great things he was doing for one small member of it. The future prime minister was then short of thirteen years old, and there was yet time to provide the utmost freedom which his birth allowed for the faculties and ambitions he was born with. Taking the worldly view alone, of course, most fortunate for his aspirations in youth was his withdrawal from Judaism in childhood. That it was fully sanctioned by his intellect at maturity is evident; but the vindication of unbiased choice would not have been readily accepted had Disraeli abandoned Judaism of his own will at the pushing Vivian Grey period or after. And though a mind like Disraeli’s might work to satisfaction with Christianity as “completed Judaism,” it could but dwell on a breach of continuity which means so much to Jews and which he was never allowed to forget amongst Christians. With all, he was proud of his race as truly, if not as vehemently, as his paternal grandmother detested it. Family pride contributed to the feeling in his case; for in his more speculative moods he could look back upon an ancestry which was of those, perhaps, who colonized the shores of the Mediterranean from before the time of the Captivity. More definite is the history of descent from an ennobled Spanish family which escaped from the Torquemada persecutions to Venice, there found a new home, took a new name, and prospered for six generations. The Benjamin D’Israeli, Lord Beaconsfield’s grandfather, who came to England in 1748, was a younger son sent at eighteen to try his fortune in London. “A man of ardent character, sanguine, courageous, speculative, fortunate, with a temper which no disappointment could disturb” (so Lord Beaconsfield described him), he soon made the beginnings of a handsome fortune and turned country gentleman. That his grandson exaggerated his prosperity is highly probable; but that he became a man of wealth and consideration is certain. He married twice. His second wife was Sarah Siprout de Gabay, “a beautiful woman of strong intellect” and importunate ambitions, who hated the race she belonged to because it was despised by others. She felt so keenly the social disabilities it brought upon her, and her husband’s indifference to them, that “she never pardoned him his name.” Her literary son Isaac suffered equally or even more; for though he had ambitions he had none that she could recognize as such. She could ridicule him for the aspirations which he had not and for those which he had; on the other hand, he never heard from her a tender word “though she lived to be eighty.” Nor did any other member of her family, according to her grandson.

Isaac D’Israeli was devoted to the reading and writing of books in domestic quiet; and his son Benjamin suffered appreciably from his father’s gentle preoccupations. As a child—unruly and disturbing no doubt—he was sent to a school of small account at Blackheath, and was there “for years” before he was recalled at the age of twelve on the death of his grandfather. Isaac D’Israeli was his father’s sole heritor, but change of fortune seems to have awakened in him no ambitions for the most hopeful of his sons. At fifteen, not before, Benjamin was sent to a Unitarian school at Walthamstow—a well-known school, populous enough to be a little world of emulation and conflict but otherwise unfit. Not there, nor in any similar institution at that illiberal time, perhaps, was a Jewish boy likely to make a fortunate entry into “the great family of mankind.” His name, the foreign look of him, and some pronounced incompatibilities not all chargeable to young Disraeli (as afterwards the name came to be spelt), soon raised a crop of troubles. His stay at Walthamstow was brief, his departure abrupt, and he went to school no more. With the run of his father’s library, and the benefits of that born bookman’s guidance, he now set out to educate himself. This he did with an industry stiffened by matchless self-confidence and by ambitions fully mature before he was eighteen. Yet he yielded to an attempt to make a man of business of him. He was barely seventeen when (in November 1821) he was taken into the office of Messrs Swain, Stevens and Co., solicitors, in Frederick’s Place, Old Jewry. Here he remained for three years—“most assiduous in his attention to business,” said one of the partners, “and showing great ability in the transaction of it.” It was then determined that he should go to the bar; and accordingly he was entered at Lincoln’s Inn in 1824. But Disraeli had found other studies and an alien use for his pen. Though “assiduous in his attention to business” in Frederick’s Place, he found time to write for the printer. Dr Smiles, in his Memoirs of John Murray, tells of certain pamphlets on the brightening prospects of the Spanish South American colonies, then in the first enjoyment of emancipation—pamphlets seemingly written for a Mr Powles, head of a great financial firm, whose acquaintance Disraeli had made. In the same year, apparently, he wrote a novel—his first, and never published. Aylmer Papillon was the title of it, Dr Smiles informs us; and he prints a letter from Disraeli to the John Murray of that day, which indicates its character pretty clearly. The last chapter, its author says, is taken up with “Mr Papillon’s banishment under the Alien Act, from a ministerial misconception of a metaphysical sonnet.” About the same time he edited a History of Paul Jones, originally published in America, the preface of the English edition being Disraeli’s first appearance as an author. Murray could not publish Aylmer Papillon, but he had great hopes of its boyish writer (Isaac D’Israeli was an old friend of his), “took him into his confidence, and related to him his experiences of men and affairs.” Disraeli had not completed his twenty-first year when (in 1825) Murray was possessed by the idea of bringing out a great daily newspaper; and if his young friend did not inspire that idea he keenly urged its execution, and was entrusted by Murray with the negotiation of all manner of preliminaries, including the attempt to bring Lockhart in as editor. The title of the paper, The Representative, was Disraeli’s suggestion. He chose reporters, looked to the setting-up of a printing-office, busied himself in all ways to Murray’s great satisfaction, and, as fully appears from Dr Smiles’s account of the matter, with extraordinary address. But when these arrangements were brought to the point of completion, Disraeli dropped out of the scheme and had nothing more to do with it. He was to have had a fourth share of the proprietorship, bringing in a corresponding amount of capital. His friend Mr Powles, whom he had enlisted for the enterprise, was to have had a similar share on the same conditions. Neither seems to have paid up, and that, perhaps, had to do with the quarrel which parted Benjamin Disraeli and John Murray before a sheet of the luckless Representative was printed. Many years afterwards (1853) Disraeli took an active interest in The Press, a weekly journal of considerable merit but meagre fortunes.

At the death of the elder Benjamin (1817), his son Isaac had moved from the King’s Road, Gray’s Inn (now Theobald’s Road), to No. 6 Bloomsbury Square. Here he entertained the many distinguished friends, literary and political, who had been drawn to him by his “Curiosities” and other ingenious works, and here his son Benjamin also had their acquaintance and conversation. In Bloomsbury Square lived the Austens, and to their house, a great resort of similar persons, Mrs Austen cordially welcomed him. Murray’s friendship and associations helped him in like manner, no doubt; and thus was opened to Disraeli the younger a world in which he was to make a considerable stir. The very much smaller society of that day was, of course, more comprehensible to sight and hearing, when once you were within its borders, than the society of this. Reverberations of the gossip of St James’s and Mayfair extended to Bloomsbury in those days. Yet Disraeli’s range of observation must have been not only brief but limited when he sat down at twenty or twenty-one to write Vivian Grey. It is therefore a probable conjecture that Mrs Austen, a clever woman of the world, helped him from her knowledge. His own strongly perceptive imagination (the gift in which he was to excel every other politician of his time) and the bent of political reading and aspiration from boyhood completed his equipment; and so the wonder that so young a man in Disraeli’s social position should write a book like Vivian Grey is accounted for. It was published in 1826. The success of this insolently clever novel, the immediate introduction of its author to the great world, and the daring eccentricities of dress, demeanour, and opinion by which he fixed attention on himself there, have always been among the most favourite morsels of Disraeli’s history. With them it began, and successive generations of inquirers into a strange career and a character still shrouded and baffling refer to them as settled starting-points of investigation. What was the man who, in such a society and with political aspirations to serve, could thrive by such vagaries as these, or in spite of them? If unaffected, what is to be thought of them as keys to character? If affected, what then? Inquiry still takes this shape, and when any part of Disraeli’s career is studied, the laces and essences, the rings over gloves, the jewelled satin shirt-fronts, the guitareries and chibouqueries of his early days are never remote from memory. The report of them can hardly be doubted; and as the last relation was made (to the writer of this article) not with intent to ridicule Mr Disraeli’s taste but to illustrate his conquering abilities, the story is repeated here. One of Disraeli’s first friends in the world of fashion and genius was Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer. “And,” said Sir Henry Bulwer (“Pelham’s” brother), “we heard so much at the time of Edward’s amazingly brilliant new friend that we were the less inclined to make his acquaintance.” At length, however, Sir Edward got up a little dinner-party to convince the doubters. It was to meet at the early hour of those days at one of the Piccadilly hotels. “There was my brother, Alexander Cockburn, myself and (I think) Milnes; but for a considerable time no Mr Disraeli. Waiting for Mr Disraeli did not enhance the pleasure of meeting him, nor when he did arrive did his appearance predispose us in his favour. He wore green velvet trousers, a canary-coloured waistcoat, low shoes, silver buckles, lace at his wrists, and his hair in ringlets.” The description of the coat is forgotten. “We sat down. Not one of us was more than five-and-twenty years old. We were all—if you will allow me to include myself—on the road to distinction, all clever, all ambitious, and all with a perfect conceit of ourselves. Yet if on leaving the table we had been severally taken aside and asked which was the cleverest of the party, we should have been obliged to say ‘the man in the green velvet trousers.’” This story is a little lamp that throws much light. Here we see at their sharpest the social prejudices that Disraeli had to fight against, provocation of them carried to its utmost in every way open to him, and complete conquest in a company of young men less likely to admit superiority in a wit of their own years, probably, than any other that could have been brought together at that time.