Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Kite-Flying" to "Kyshtym" (part 2)

KNOLLES (or Knollys), SIR ROBERT (c. 1325-1407), English soldier, belonged to a Cheshire family. In early life he served in Brittany, and he was one of the English survivors who were taken prisoners by the French after the famous “combat of the thirty” in March 1351. He was, however, quickly released and was among the soldiers of fortune who took advantage of the distracted state of Brittany, at this time the scene of a savage civil war, to win fame and wealth at the expense of the wretched inhabitants. After a time he transferred his operations to Normandy, when he served under the allied standards of England and of Charles II. of Navarre. He led the “great company” in their work of devastation along the valley of the Loire, fighting at this time for his own hand and for booty, and winning a terrible reputation by his ravages. After the conclusion of the treaty of Brétigny in 1360 Knolles returned to Brittany and took part in the struggle for the possession of the duchy between John of Montfort (Duke John IV.) and Charles of Blois, gaining great fame by his conduct in the fight at Auray (September 1364), where Du Guesclin was captured and Charles of Blois was slain. In 1367 he marched with the Black Prince into Spain and fought at the battle of Nájera; in 1369 he was with the prince in Aquitaine. In 1370 he was placed by Edward III. at the head of an expedition which invaded France and marched on Paris, but after exacting large sums of money as ransom a mutiny broke up the army, and its leader was forced to take refuge in his Breton castle of Derval and to appease the disappointed English king with a large monetary gift. Emerging from his retreat Knolles again assisted John of Montfort in Brittany, where he acted as John’s representative; later he led a force into Aquitaine, and he was one of the leaders of the fleet sent against the Spaniards in 1377. In 1380 he served in France under Thomas of Woodstock, afterwards duke of Gloucester, distinguishing himself by his valour at the siege of Nantes; and in 1381 he went with Richard II. to meet Wat Tyler at Smithfield. He died at Sculthorpe in Norfolk on the 15th of August 1407. Sir Robert devoted much of his great wealth to charitable objects. He built a college and an almshouse at Pontefract, his wife’s birthplace, where the almshouse still exists; he restored the churches of Sculthorpe and Harpley; and he helped to found an English hospital in Rome. Knolles won an immense reputation by his skill and valour in the field, and ranks as one of the foremost captains of his age. French writers call him Canolles, or Canole.

KNOLLYS, the name of an English family descended from Sir Thomas Knollys (d. 1435), lord mayor of London. The first distinguished member of the family was Sir Francis Knollys (c. 1514-1596), English statesman, son of Robert Knollys, or Knolles (d. 1521), a courtier in the service and favour of Henry VII. and Henry VIII. Robert had also a younger son, Henry, who took part in public life during the reign of Elizabeth and who died in 1583.

Francis Knollys, who entered the service of Henry VIII. before 1540, became a member of parliament in 1542 and was knighted in 1547 while serving with the English army in Scotland. A strong and somewhat aggressive supporter of the reformed doctrines, he retired to Germany soon after Mary became queen, returning to England to become a privy councillor, vice-chamberlain of the royal household and a member of parliament under Queen Elizabeth, whose cousin Catherine (d. 1569), daughter of William Carey and niece of Anne Boleyn, was his wife. After serving as governor of Plymouth, Knollys was sent in 1566 to Ireland, his mission being to obtain for the queen confidential reports about the conduct of the lord-deputy Sir Henry Sidney. Approving of Sidney’s actions he came back to England, and in 1568 was sent to Carlisle to take charge of Mary Queen of Scots, who had just fled from Scotland; afterwards he was in charge of the queen at Bolton Castle and then at Tutbury Castle. He discussed religious questions with his prisoner, although the extreme Protestant views which he put before her did not meet with Elizabeth’s approval, and he gave up the position of guardian just after his wife’s death in January 1569. In 1584 he introduced into the House of Commons, where since 1572 he had represented Oxfordshire, the bill legalizing the national association for Elizabeth’s defence, and he was treasurer of the royal household from 1572 until his death on the 19th of July 1596. His monument may still be seen in the church of Rotherfield Grays, Oxfordshire. Knollys was repeatedly free and frank in his objections to Elizabeth’s tortuous foreign policy; but, possibly owing to his relationship to the queen, he did not lose her favour, and he was one of her commissioners on such important occasions as the trials of Mary Queen of Scots, of Philip Howard earl of Arundel, and of Anthony Babington. An active and lifelong Puritan, his attacks on the bishops were not lacking in vigour, and he was also very hostile to heretics. He received many grants of land from the queen, and was chief steward of the city of Oxford and a knight of the garter.

Sir Francis’s eldest son Henry (d. 1583), and his sons Edward (d. c. 1580), Robert (d. 1625), Richard (d. 1596), Francis (d. c. 1648), and Thomas, were all courtiers and served the queen in parliament or in the field. His daughter Lettice (1540-1634) married Walter Devereux, earl of Essex, and then Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester; she was the mother of Elizabeth’s favourite, the 2nd earl of Essex.

Some of Knollys’s letters are in T. Wright’s Queen Elizabeth and her Times (1838) and the Burghley Papers, edited by S. Haynes (1740); and a few of his manuscripts are still in existence. A speech which Knollys delivered in parliament against some claims made by the bishops was printed in 1608 and again in W. Stoughton’s Assertion for True and Christian Church Policie (London, 1642).

Sir Francis Knollys’s second son William (c. 1547-1632) served as a member of parliament and a soldier during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, being knighted in 1586. His eldest brother Henry, having died without sons in 1583, William inherited his father’s estates in Oxfordshire, becoming in 1596 a privy councillor and comptroller of the royal household; in 1602 he was made treasurer of the household. Sir William enjoyed the favour of the new king James I., whom he had visited in Scotland in 1585, and was made Baron Knollys in 1603 and Viscount Wallingford in 1616. But in this latter year his fortunes suffered a temporary reverse. Through his second wife Elizabeth (1586-1658), daughter of Thomas Howard, earl of Suffolk, Knollys was related to Frances, countess of Somerset, and when this lady was tried for the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury her relatives were regarded with suspicion; consequently Lord Wallingford resigned the treasurership of the household and two years later the mastership of the court of wards, an office which he had held since 1614. However, he regained the royal favour, and was created earl of Banbury in 1626. He died in London on the 25th of May 1632.

His wife, who was nearly forty years her husband’s junior, was the mother of two sons, Edward (1627-1645) and Nicholas (1631-1674), whose paternity has given rise to much dispute. Neither is mentioned in the earl’s will, but in 1641 the law courts decided that Edward was earl of Banbury, and when he was killed in June 1645 his brother Nicholas took the title. In the Convention Parliament of 1660 some objection was taken to the earl sitting in the House of Lords, and in 1661 he was not summoned to parliament; he had not succeeded in obtaining his writ of summons when he died on the 14th of March 1674.

Nicholas’s son Charles (1662-1740), the 4th earl, had not been summoned to parliament when in 1692 he killed Captain Philip Lawson in a duel. This raised the question of his rank in a new form. Was he, or was he not, entitled to trial by the peers? The House of Lords declared that he was not a peer and therefore not so entitled, but the court of king’s bench released him from his imprisonment on the ground that he was the earl of Banbury and not Charles Knollys a commoner. Nevertheless the House of Lords refused to move from its position, and Knollys had not received a writ of summons when he died in April 1740. His son Charles (1703-1771), vicar of Burford, Oxfordshire, and his grandsons, William (1726-1776) and Thomas Woods (1727-1793), were successively titular earls of Banbury, but they took no steps to prove their title. However, in 1806 Thomas Woods’s son William (1763-1824), who attained the rank of general in the British army, asked for a writ of summons as earl of Banbury, but in 1813 the House of Lords decided against the claim. Several peers, including the great Lord Erskine, protested against this decision, but General Knollys himself accepted it and ceased to call himself earl of Banbury. He died in Paris on the 20th of March 1834. His eldest son, Sir William Thomas Knollys (1797-1883), entered the army and served with the Guards during the Peninsular War. Remaining in the army after the conclusion of the peace of 1815 he won a good reputation and rose high in his profession. From 1855 to 1860 he was in charge of the military camp at Aldershot, then in its infancy, and in 1861 he was made president of the council of military education. From 1862 to 1877 he was comptroller of the household of the prince of Wales, afterwards King Edward VII. From 1877 until his death on the 23rd of June 1883 he was gentleman usher of the black rod; he was also a privy councillor and colonel of the Scots Guards. His son Francis (b. 1837), private secretary to Edward VII. and George V., was created Baron Knollys in 1902; another son, Sir Henry Knollys (b. 1840), became private secretary to King Edward’s daughter Maud, queen of Norway.

See Sir N. H. Nicolas, Treatise on the Law of Adulterine Bastardy 1833); and G. E. C(okayne), Complete Peerage (1887), vol. i.

KNOT, a Limicoline bird very abundant at certain seasons on the shores of Britain and many countries of the northern hemisphere. Camden in the edition of his Britannia published in 1607 (p. 408) inserted a passage not found in the earlier issues of that work, connecting the name with that of King Canute, and this account of its origin has been usually received. But no other evidence in its favour is forthcoming, and Camden’s statement is merely the expression of an opinion, so that there is perhaps ground for believing him to have been mistaken, and that the clue afforded by Sir Thomas Browne, who (c. 1672) wrote the name “Gnatts or Knots,” may be the true one. Still the statement was so determinedly repeated by successive authors that Linnaeus followed them in calling the species Tringa canutus, and so it remains with nearly all modern ornithologists. Rather larger than a snipe, but with a shorter bill and legs, the knot visits the coasts of some parts of Europe, Asia and North America at times in vast flocks; and, though in temperate climates a good many remain throughout the winter, these are nothing in proportion to those that arrive towards the end of spring, in England generally about the 15th of May, and after staying a few days pass northward to their summer quarters, while early in autumn the young of the year throng to the same places in still greater numbers, being followed a little later by their parents. In winter the plumage is ashy-grey above (save the rump, which is white) and white beneath. In summer the feathers of the back are black, broadly margined with light orange-red, mixed with white, those of the rump white, more or less tinged with red, and the lower parts are of a nearly uniform deep bay or chestnut. The birds which winter in temperate climates seldom attain the brilliancy of colour exhibited by those which arrive from the south; the luxuriance generated by the heat of a tropical sun seems needed to develop the full richness of hue. The young when they come from their birthplace are clothed in ashy-grey above, each feather banded with dull black and ochreous, while the breast is more or less deeply tinged with warm buff. Much curiosity has long existed among zoologists as to the egg of the knot, of which not a single identified or authenticated specimen is known to exist in collections. The species was found breeding abundantly on the North Georgian (now commonly called the Parry) Islands by Parry’s Arctic expedition, as well as soon after on Melville Peninsula by Captain Lyons, and again during the voyage of Sir George Nares on the northern coast of Grinnell Land and the shores of Smith Sound, where Major Feilden obtained examples of the newly hatched young (Ibis, 1877, p. 407), and observed that the parents fed largely on the buds of Saxifraga oppositifolia. These are the only localities in which this species is known to breed, for on none of the arctic lands lying to the north of Europe or Asia has it been unquestionably observed. In winter its wanderings are very extensive, as it is recorded from Surinam, Brazil, Walfisch Bay in South Africa, China, Queensland and New Zealand. Formerly this species was extensively netted in England, and the birds fattened for the table, where they were esteemed a great delicacy, as witness the entries in the Northumberland and Le Strange Household Books; and the British Museum contains an old treatise on the subject: “The maner of kepyng of knotts, after Sir William Askew and my Lady, given to my Lord Darcy, 25 Hen. VIII.” (MSS. Sloane, 1592, 8 cat. 663).

(A. N.)

His words are simply “Knotts, i. Canuti aues, vt opinor e Dania enim aduolare creduntur.” In the margin the name is spelt “Cnotts,” and he possibly thought it had to do with a well-known story of that king. Knots undoubtedly frequent the sea-shore, where Canute is said on one occasion to have taken up his station, but they generally retreat, and that nimbly, before the advancing surf, which he is said in the story not to have done.

In this connexion we may compare the French maringouin, ordinarily a gnat or mosquito, but also, among the French Creoles of America, a small shore-bird, either a Tringa or an Aegialitis, according to Descourtilz (Voyage, ii. 249). See also Littré’s Dictionnaire, s.v.

There are few of the Limicolae, to which group the knot belongs, that present greater changes of plumage according to age or season, and hence before these phases were understood the species became encumbered with many synonyms, as Tringa cinerea, ferruginea, grisea, islandica, naevia and so forth. The confusion thus caused was mainly cleared away by Montagu and Temminck.

The Tringa canutus of Payer’s expedition seems more likely to have been T. maritima, which species is not named among the birds of Franz Josef Land, though it can hardly fail to occur there.

KNOT (O.E. cnotta, from a Teutonic stem knutt; cf. “knit,” and Ger. knoten), an intertwined loop of rope, cord, string or other flexible material, used to fasten two such ropes, &c., to one another, or to another object. (For the various forms which such “knots” may take see below.) The word is also used for the distance-marks on a log-line, and hence as the equivalent of a nautical mile (see Log), and for any hard mass, resembling a knot drawn tight, especially one formed in the trunk of a tree at the place of insertion of a branch. Knots in wood are the remains of dead branches which have become buried in the wood of the trunk or branch on which they were borne. When a branch dies down or is broken off, the dead stump becomes grown over by a healing tissue, and, as the stem which bears it increases in thickness, gradually buried in the newer wood. When a section is made of the stem the dead stump appears in the section as a knot; thus in a board it forms a circular piece of wood, liable to fall out and leave a “knot-hole.” “Knot” or “knob” is an architectural term for a bunch of flowers, leaves or other ornamentation carved on a corbel or on a boss. The word is also applied figuratively to any intricate problem, hard to disentangle, a use stereotyped in the proverbial “Gordian knot,” which, according to the tradition, was cut by Alexander the Great (see Gordium).

Knots, Bends, Hitches, Splices and Seizings are all ways of fastening cords or ropes, either to some other object such as a spar, or a ring, or to one another. The “knot” is formed to make a knob on a rope, generally at the extremity, and by untwisting the strands at the end and weaving them together. But it may be made by turning the rope on itself through a loop, as for instance, the “overhand knot” (fig. 1). A “bend” (from the same root as “bind”), and a “hitch” (an O.E. word), are ways of fastening or tying ropes together, as in the “Carrick bend” (fig. 21), or round spars as the Studding Sail Halyard Bend (fig. 19), and the Timber Hitch (fig. 20). A “splice” (from the same root as “split”) is made by untwisting two rope ends and weaving them together. A “seizing” (Fr. saisir) is made by fastening two spars to one another by a rope, or two ropes by a third, or by using one rope to make a loop on another—as for example the Racking Seizing (fig. 41), the Round Seizing (fig. 40), and the Midshipman’s Hitch (fig. 29). The use of the words is often arbitrary. There is, for instance, no difference in principle between the Fisherman’s Bend (fig. 18) and the Timber Hitch (fig. 20). Speaking generally, the Knot and the Seizing are meant to be permanent, and must be unwoven in order to be unfastened, while the Bend and Hitch can be undone at once by pulling the ropes in the reverse direction from that in which they are meant to hold. Yet the Reef Knot (figs. 3 and 4) can be cast loose with ease, and is wholly different in principle, for instance, from the Diamond Knot (figs. 42 and 43). These various forms of fastening are employed in many kinds of industry, as for example in scaffolding, as well as in seamanship. The governing principle is that the strain which pulls against them shall draw them tighter. The ordinary “knots and splices” are described in every book on seamanship.

Overhand Knot (fig. 1).—Used at the end of ropes to prevent their unreeving and as the commencement of other knots. Take the end a round the end b.

Figure-of-Eight Knot (fig. 2).—Used only to prevent ropes from unreeving; it forms a large knob.

Reef Knot (figs. 3, 4).—Form an overhand knot as above. Then take the end a over the end b and through the bight. If the end a were taken under the end b, a granny would be formed. This knot is so named from being used in tying the reef-points of a sail.

Bowline (figs. 5-7).—Lay the end a of a rope over the standing part b. Form with b a bight c over a. Take a round behind b and down through the bight c. This is a most useful knot employed to form a loop which will not slip. Running bowlines are formed by making a bowline round its own standing part above b. It is the most common and convenient temporary running noose.

Bowline on a Bight (figs. 8, 9).—The first part is made similar to the above with the double part of the rope; then the bight a is pulled through sufficiently to allow it to be bent over past d and come up in the position shown in fig. 9. It makes a more comfortable sling for a man than a single bight.

Half-Hitch (fig. 10).—Pass the end a of the rope round the standing part b and through the bight.

Two Half-Hitches (fig. 11).—The half-hitch repeated; this is commonly used, and is capable of resisting to the full strength of the rope. A stop from a to the standing part will prevent it jamming.

Clove Hitch (figs. 12, 13).—Pass the end a round a spar and cross it over b. Pass it round the spar again and put the end a through the second bight.

Blackwall Hitch (fig. 14).—Form a bight at the end of a rope, and put the hook of a tackle through the bight so that the end of the rope may be jammed between the standing part and the back of the hook.

Double Blackwall Hitch (fig. 15).—Pass the end a twice round the hook and under the standing part b at the last cross.

Cat’s-paw (fig. 16).—Twist up two parts of a lanyard in opposite directions and hook the tackle in the eyes i, i. A piece of wood should be placed between the parts at g. A large lanyard should be clove-hitched round a large toggle and a strap passed round it below the toggle.

Marling-spike Hitch (fig. 17).—Lay the end a over c; fold the loop over on the standing part b; then pass the marline-spike through, over both parts of the bight and under the part b. Used for tightening each turn of a seizing.

Fisherman’s Bend (fig. 18).—Take two turns round a spar, then a half-hitch round the standing part and between the spar and the turns, lastly a half-hitch round the standing part.

Studding-sail Halyard Bend (fig. 19).—Similar to the above, except that the end is tucked under the first round turn; this is more snug. A magnus hitch has two round turns and one on the other side of the standing part with the end through the bight.

Timber Hitch (fig. 20).—Take the end a of a rope round a spar, then round the standing part b, then several times round its own part c, against the lay of the rope.

Carrick Bend (fig. 21).—Lay the end of one hawser over its own part to form a bight as e´, b; pass the end of another hawser up through that bight near b, going out over the first end at c, crossing under the first long part and over its end at d, then under both long parts, forming the loops, and above the first short part at b, terminating at the end e´´, in the opposite direction vertically and horizontally to the other end. The ends should be securely stopped to their respective standing parts, and also a stop put on the becket or extreme end to prevent it catching a pipe or chock; in that form this is the best quick means of uniting two large hawsers, since they cannot jam. When large hawsers have to work through small pipes, good security may be obtained either by passing ten or twelve taut racking turns with a suitable strand and securing each end to a standing part of the hawser, or by taking half as many round turns taut, crossing the ends between the hawsers over the seizing and reef-knotting the ends. This should be repeated in three places and the extreme ends well stopped. Connecting hawsers by bowline knots is very objectionable, as the bend is large and the knots jam.

Sheet Bend (fig. 22).—Pass the end of one rope through the bight of another, round both parts of the other, and under its own standing part. Used for bending small sheets to the clews of sails, which present bights ready for the hitch. An ordinary net is composed of a series of sheet bends. A weaver’s knot is made like a sheet bend.

Single Wall Knot (fig. 23).—Unlay the end of a rope, and with the strand a form a bight. Take the next strand b round the end of a. Take the last strand c round the end of b and through the bight made by a. Haul the ends taut.

Single Wall Crowned (fig. 24).—Form a single wall, and lay one of the ends, a, over the knot. Lay b over a, and c over b and through the bight of a. Haul the ends taut.

Double Wall and Double Crown (fig. 25).—Form a single wall crowned; then let the ends follow their own parts round until all the parts appear double. Put the ends down through the knot.

Matthew Walker (figs. 26, 27).—Unlay the end of a rope. Take the first strand round the rope and through its own bight; the second strand round the rope, through the bight of the first, and through its own bight; the third through all three bights. Haul the ends taut.

Inside Clinch (fig. 28).—The end is bent close round the standing part till it forms a circle and a half, when it is securely seized at a, b and c, thus making a running eye; when taut round anything it jams the end. It is used for securing hemp cables to anchors, the standing parts of topsail sheets, and for many other purposes. If the eye were formed outside the bight an outside clinch would be made, depending entirely on the seizings, but more ready for slipping.

Midshipman’s Hitch (fig. 29).—Take two round turns inside the bight, the same as a half-hitch repeated; stop up the end or let another half-hitch be taken or held by hand. Used for hooking a tackle for a temporary purpose.

Turk’s Head (fig. 30).—With fine line (very dry) make a clove hitch round the rope; cross the bights twice, passing an end the reverse way (up or down) each time; then keeping the whole spread flat, let each end follow its own part round and round till it is too tight to receive any more. Used as an ornament variously on side-ropes and foot-ropes of jibbooms. It may also be made with three ends, two formed by the same piece of line secured through the rope and one single piece. Form with them a diamond knot; then each end crossed over its neighbour follows its own part as above.

Spanish Windlass (fig. 31).—An iron bar and two marling-spikes are taken; two parts of a seizing are twisted like a cat’s-paw (fig. 16), passed round the bar, and hove round till sufficiently taut. In heaving shrouds together to form an eye two round turns are taken with a strand and the two ends hove upon. When a lever is placed between the parts of a long lashing or frapping and hove round, we have what is also called a Spanish windlass.

Slings (fig. 32).—This is simply the bight of a rope turned up over its own part; it is frequently made of chain, when a shackle (bow up) takes the place of the bight at s and another at y, connecting the two ends with the part which goes round the mast-head. Used to sling lower yards. For boat’s yards it should be a grummet with a thimble seized in at y. As the tendency of all yards is to cant forward with the weight of the sail, the part marked by an arrow should be the fore-side—easily illustrated by a round ruler and a piece of twine.

Sprit-Sail Sheet Knot (fig. 33).—This knot consists of a double wall and double crown made by the two ends, consequently with six strands, with the ends turned down. Used formerly in the clews of sails, now as an excellent stopper, a lashing or shackle being placed at s and a lanyard round the head at l.

Turning in a Dead-Eye Cutter-Stay fashion (fig. 34).—A bend is made in the stay or shroud round its own part and hove together with a bar and strand; two or three seizings diminishing in size (one round and one or two either round or flat) are hove on taut and snug, the end being at the side of the fellow part. The dead-eye is put in and the eye driven down with a commander.

Turning in a Dead-Eye end up (fig. 35).—The shroud is measured round the dead-eye and marked where a throat-seizing is hove on; the dead-eye is then forced into its place, or it may be put in first. The end beyond a is taken up taut and secured with a round seizing; higher still the end is secured by another seizing. As it is important that the lay should always be kept in the rope as much as possible, these eyes should be formed conformably, either right-handed or left-handed. It is easily seen which way a rope would naturally kink by putting a little extra twist into it. A shroud whose dead-eye is turned in end up will bear a fairer strain, but is more dependent on the seizings; the under turns of the throat are the first to break and the others the first to slip. With the cutter-stay fashion the standing part of the shroud gives way under the nip of the eye. A rope will afford the greatest resistance to strain when secured round large thimbles with a straight end and a sufficient number of flat or racking seizings. To splice shrouds round dead-eyes is objectionable on account of opening the strands and admitting water, thus hastening decay. In small vessels, especially yachts, it is admissible on the score of neatness; in that case a round seizing is placed between the dead-eye and the splice. The dead-eyes should be in diameter 1½ times the circumference of a hemp shroud and thrice that of wire; the lanyard should be half the nominal size of hemp and the same size as wire: thus, hemp-shroud 12 in., wire 6 in., dead-eye 18 in., lanyard 6 in.

Short Splice (fig. 36).—The most common description of splice is when a rope is lengthened by another of the same size, or nearly so. Fig. 36 represents a splice of this kind: the strands have been unlaid, married and passed through with the assistance of a marling-spike, over one strand and under the next, twice each way. The ends are then cut off close. To render the splice neater the strands should have been halved before turning them in a second time, the upper half of each strand only being turned in; then all are cut off smooth. Eye Splice.—Unlay the strands and place them upon the same rope spread at such a distance as to give the size of the eye; enter the centre strand (unlaid) under a strand of the rope (as above), and the other two in a similar manner on their respective sides of the first; taper each end and pass them through again. If neatness is desired, reduce the ends and pass them through once more; cut off smooth and serve the part disturbed tightly with suitable hard line. Uses too numerous to mention. Cut Splice.—Made in a similar manner to an eye splice, but of two pieces of rope, therefore with two splices. Used for mast-head pendants, jib-guys, breast backstays, and even odd shrouds, to keep the eyes of the rigging lower by one part. It is not so strong as two separate eyes. Horseshoe Splice.—Made similar to the above, but one part much shorter than the other, or another piece of rope is spliced across an eye, forming a horseshoe with two long legs. Used for back-ropes on dolphin striker, back stays (one on each side) and cutter’s runner pendants. Long Splice.—The strands must be unlaid about three times as much as for a short splice and married—care being taken to preserve the lay or shape of each. Unlay one of the strands still further and follow up the vacant space with the corresponding strand of the other part, fitting it firmly into the rope till only a few inches remain. Treat the other side in a similar manner. There will then appear two long strands in the centre and a long and a short one on each side. The splice is practically divided into three distinct parts; at each the strands are divided and the corresponding halves knotted (as shown on the top of fig. 38) and turned in twice. The half strand may, if desired, be still further reduced before the halves are turned in for the second time. This and all other splices should be well stretched and hammered into shape before the ends are cut off. The long splice alone is adapted to running ropes.

Shroud Knot (fig. 37).—Pass a stop at such distance from each end of the broken shroud as to afford sufficient length of strands, when it is unlaid, to form a single wall knot on each side after the parts have been married; it will then appear as represented in the figure, the strands having been well tarred and hove taut separately. The part a provides the knot on the opposite side and the ends b, b; the part c provides the knot and the ends d, d. After the knot has been well stretched the ends are tapered, laid smoothly between the strands of the shroud, and firmly served over. This knot is used when shrouds or stays are broken. French Shroud Knot.—Marry the parts with a similar amount of and as before; stop one set of strands taut up on the shroud (to keep the parts together), and turn the ends back on their own part, forming bights. Make a single wall knot with the other three strands round the said bights and shroud; haul the knot taut first and stretch the whole; then heave down the bights close: it will look like the ordinary shroud knot. It is very liable to slip. If the ends by which the wall knot is made after being hove were passed through the bights, it would make the knot stronger. The ends would be tapered and served.

Flemish Eye (fig. 38).—Secure a spar or toggle twice the circumference of the rope intended to be rove through the eye; unlay the rope which is to form the eye about three times its circumference, at which part place a strong whipping. Point the rope vertically under the eye, and bind it taut up by the core if it is four-stranded rope, otherwise by a few yarns. While doing so arrange six or twelve pieces of spun-yarn at equal distances on the wood and exactly halve the number of yarns that have been unlaid. If it is a small rope, select two or three yarns from each side near the centre; cross them over the top at a, and half-knot them tightly. So continue till all are expended and drawn down tightly on the opposite side to that from which they came, being thoroughly intermixed. Tie the pieces of spun-yarn which were placed under the eye tightly round various parts, to keep the eye in shape when taken off the spar, till they are replaced by turns of marline hove on as taut as possible, the hitches forming a central line outside the eye. Heave on a good seizing of spun-yarn close below the spar, and another between six and twelve inches below the first; it may then be parcelled and served; the eye is served over twice, and well tarred each time. As large ropes are composed of so many yarns, a greater number must be knotted over the toggle each time; a 4-in. rope has 132 yarns, which would require 22 knottings of six each time; a 10-in. rope has 834 yarns, therefore, if ten are taken from each side every time, about twice that number of hitches will be required; sometimes only half the yarns are hitched, the others being merely passed over. The chief use of these eyes has been to form the collars of stays, the whole stay in each case having to be rove through it—a very inconvenient device. It is almost superseded for that purpose by a leg spliced in the stay and lashing eyes abaft the mast, for which it is commonly used at present. This eye is not always called by the same name, but the weight of evidence is in favour of calling it a Flemish eye. Ropemaker’s Eye, which also has alternative names, is formed by taking out of a rope one strand longer by 6 in. or a foot than the required eye, then placing the ends of the two strands a similar distance below the disturbance of the one strand, that is, at the size of the eye; the single strand is led back through the vacant space it left till it arrives at the neck of the eye, with a similar length of spare end to the other two strands. They are all seized together, scraped, tapered, marled and served. The principal merit is neatness. Mouse on a Stay.—Formed by turns of coarse spun-yarn hove taut round the stay, over parcelling at the requisite distance from the eye to form the collar; assistance is given by a padding of short yarns distributed equally round the rope, which, after being firmly secured, especially at what is to be the under part, are turned back over the first layer and seized down again, thus making a shoulder; sometimes it is formed with parcelling only. In either case it is finished by marling, followed by serving or grafting. The use is to prevent the Flemish eye in the end of the stay from slipping up any farther.

Rolling Hitch (fig. 39).—Two round turns are taken round a spar or large rope in the direction in which it is to be hauled and one half-hitch on the other side of the hauling part. This is very useful, as it can be put on and off quickly.

Round Seizing (fig. 40).—So named when the rope it secures does not cross another and there are three sets of turns. The size of the seizing line is about one-sixth (nominal) that of the ropes to be secured, but varies according to the number of turns to be taken. An eye is spliced in the line and the end rove through it, embracing both parts. If either part is to be spread open, commence farthest from that part; place tarred canvas under the seizing; pass the line round as many times (with much slack) as it is intended to have under-turns; and pass the end back through them all and through the eye. Secure the eye from rendering round by the ends of its splice; heave the turns on with a marling-spike (see fig. 17), perhaps seven or nine; haul the end through taut, and commence again the riding turns in the hollows of the first. If the end is not taken back through the eye, but pushed up between the last two turns (as is sometimes recommended), the riders must be passed the opposite way in order to follow the direction of the under-turns, which are always one more in number than the riders. When the riders are complete, the end is forced between the last lower turns and two cross turns are taken, the end coming up where it went down, when a wall knot is made with the strands and the ends cut close; or the end may be taken once round the shroud. Throat Seizing.—Two ropes or parts of ropes are laid on each other parallel and receive a seizing similar to that shown in figure 35—that is with upper and riding but no cross turns. As the two parts of rope are intended to turn up at right angles to the direction in which they were secured, the seizing should be of stouter line and short, not exceeding seven lower and six riding turns. The end is better secured with a turn round the standing part. Used for turning in dead-eyes and variously. Flat Seizing.—Commenced similarly to the above, but it has neither riding nor cross turns.

Racking Seizing (fig. 41).—A running eye having been spliced round one part of the rope, the line is passed entirely round the other part, crossed back round the first part, and so on for ten to twenty turns, according to the expected strain, every turn being hove as tight as possible; after which round turns are passed to fill the spaces at the back of each rope, by taking the end a over both parts into the hollow at b, returning at c, and going over to d. When it reaches e a turn may be taken round that rope only, the end rove under it, and a half-hitch taken, which will form a clove-hitch; knot the end and cut it close. When the shrouds are wire (which is half the size of hemp) and the end turned up round a dead-eye of any kind, wire seizings are preferable. It appears very undesirable to have wire rigging combined with plates or screws for setting it up, as in case of accident—such as that of the mast going over the side, a shot or collision breaking the ironwork—the seamen are powerless.

Diamond Knot (figs. 42, 43).—The rope must be unlaid as far as the centre if the knot is required there, and the strands handled with great care to keep the lay in them. Three bights are turned up as in fig. 42, and the end of a is taken over b and up the bight c. The end of b is taken over c and up through a. The end c is taken over a and through b. When hauled taut and the strands are laid up again it will appear as in fig. 43. Any number of knots may be made on the same rope. They were used on man-ropes, the foot-ropes on the jibboom, and similar places, where it was necessary to give a good hold for the hands or feet. Turk’s heads are now generally used. Double Diamond.—Made by the ends of a single diamond following their own part till the knot is repeated. Used at the upper end of a side rope as an ornamental stopper-knot.

Stropping-Blocks.—There are various modes of securing blocks to ropes; the most simple is to splice an eye at the end of the rope a little longer than the block and pass a round seizing to keep it in place; such is the case with jib-pendants. As a general rule, the parts of a strop combined should possess greater strength than the parts of the fall which act against it. The shell of an ordinary block should be about three times the circumference of the rope which is to reeve through it, as a 9-in. block for a 3-in. rope; but small ropes require larger blocks in proportion, as a 4-in. block for a 1-in. rope. When the work to be done is very important the blocks are much larger: brace-blocks are more than five times the nominal size of the brace. Leading-blocks and sheaves in racks are generally smaller than the blocks through which the ropes pass farther away, which appears to be a mistake, as more power is lost by friction. A clump-block should be double the nominal size of the rope. A single strop may be made by joining the ends of a rope of sufficient length to go round the block and thimble by a common short splice, which rests on the crown of the block (the opposite end to the thimble) and is stretched into place by a jigger; a strand is then passed twice round the space between the block and the thimble and hove taut by a Spanish windlass to cramp the parts together ready for the reception of a small round seizing. The cramping or pinching into shape is sometimes done by machinery invented by a rigger in Portsmouth dockyard. The strop may be made the required length by a long splice, but it would not possess any advantage.

Grummet-Strop (fig. 44).—Made by unlaying a piece of rope of the desired size about a foot more than three times the length required for the strop. Place the centre of the rope round the block and thimble; mark with chalk where the parts cross; take one strand out of the rope; bring the two chalk marks together; and cross the strand in the lay on both sides, continuing round and round till the two ends meet the third time; they are then halved, and the upper halves half-knotted and passed over and under the next strands, exactly as one part of a long splice. A piece of worn or well-stretched rope will better retain its shape, upon which success entirely depends. The object is neatness, and if three or multiples of three strops are to be made it is economical.

Double Strop (fig. 45).—Made with one piece of rope, the splice being brought as usual to the crown of the block t, the bights fitting into scores some inches apart, converging to the upper part, above which the thimble receives the bights a, a; and the four parts of the strop are secured at s, s by a round seizing doubly crossed. If the block be not then on the right slew (the shell horizontal or vertical) a union thimble is used with another strop, which produces the desired effect; thus the fore and main brace-blocks, being very large and thin, are required (for appearance) to lie horizontally; a single strop round the yard vertically has a union thimble between it and the double strop round the block. The double strop is used for large blocks; it gives more support to the shell than the single strop and admits of smaller rope being used. Wire rope is much used for block-strops; the fitting is similar. Metal blocks are also used in fixed positions; durability is their chief recommendation. Great care should be taken that they do not chafe the ropes which pass by them as well as those which reeve through.

Selvagee Strop.—Twine, rope-yarn or rope is warped round two or more pegs placed at the desired distance apart, till it assumes the requisite size and strength; the two ends are then knotted or spliced. Temporary firm seizings are applied in several places to bind the parts together before the rope or twine is removed from the pegs, after which it is marled with suitable material. A large strop should be warped round four or six pegs in order to give it the shape in which it is to be used. This description of strop is much stronger and more supple than rope of similar size. Twine strops (covered with duck) are used for boats’ blocks and in similar places requiring neatness. Rope-yarn and spun-yarn strops are used for attaching luff-tackles to shrouds and for many similar purposes. To bring to a shroud or hawser, the centre of the strop is passed round the rope and each part crossed three or four times before hooking the “luff”; a spun-yarn stop above the centre will prevent slipping and is very necessary with wire rope. As an instance of a large selvagee block-strop being used—when the “Melville” was hove down at Chusan (China), the main-purchase-block was double stropped with a selvagee containing 28 parts of 3-in. rope; that would produce 112 parts in the neck, equal to a breaking strain of 280 tons, which is more than four parts of a 19-in cable. The estimated strain it bore was 80 tons.

Stoppers for ordinary running ropes are made by splicing a piece of rope to a bolt or to a hook and thimble, unlaying 3 or 4 ft., tapering it by cutting away some of the yarns, and marling it down securely, with a good whipping also on the end. It is used by taking a half-hitch round the rope which is to be hauled upon, dogging the end up in the lay and holding it by hand. The rope can come through it when hauled, but cannot go back.

Whipping and Pointing.—The end of every working rope should at least be whipped to prevent it fagging out; in ships of war and yachts they are invariably pointed. Whipping is done by placing the end of a piece of twine or knittle-stuff on a rope about an inch from the end, taking three or four turns taut over it (working towards the end); the twine is then laid on the rope again lengthways contrary to the first, leaving a slack bight of twine; and taut turns are repeatedly passed round the rope, over the first end and over the bight, till there are in all six to ten turns; then haul the bight taut through between the turns and cut it close. To point a rope, place a good whipping a few inches from the end, according to size; open out the end entirely; select all the outer yarns and twist them into knittles either singly or two or three together; scrape down and taper the central part, marling it firmly. Turn every alternate knittle and secure the remainder down by a turn of twine or a smooth yarn hitched close up, which acts as the weft in weaving. The knittles are then reversed and another turn of the weft taken, and this is continued till far enough to look well. At the last turn the ends of the knittles which are laid back are led forward over and under the weft and hauled through tightly, making it present a circle of small bights, level with which the core is cut off smoothly. Hawsers and large ropes have a becket formed in their ends during the process of pointing. A piece of 1 to 1½ in. rope about 1½ to 2 ft. long is spliced into the core by each end while it is open: from four to seven yarns (equal to a strand) are taken at a time and twisted up; open the ends of the becket only sufficient to marry them close in; turn in the twisted yarns between the strands (as splicing) three times, and stop it above and below. Both ends are treated alike; when the pointing is completed a loop a few inches in length will protrude from the end of the rope, which is very useful for reeving it. A hauling line or reeving line should only be rove through the becket as a fair lead. Grafting is very similar to pointing, and frequently done the whole length of a rope, as a side-rope. Pieces of white line more than double the length of the rope, sufficient in number to encircle it, are made up in hanks called foxes; the centre of each is made fast by twine and the weaving process continued as in pointing. Block-strops are sometimes so covered; but, as it causes decay, a small wove mat which can be taken off occasionally is preferable.

Sheep-Shank (fig. 46).—Formed by making a long bight in a topgallant back-stay, or any rope which it is desirable to shorten, and taking a half-hitch near each bend, as at a, a. Rope-yarn stops at b, b are desirable to keep it in place till the strain is brought on it. Wire rope cannot be so treated, and it is injurious to hemp rope that is large and stiff.

Knotting Yarns (fig. 47).—This operation becomes necessary when, a comparatively short piece of junk is to be made into spun-yarn, or large rope into small, which is called twice laid. The end of each yarn is divided, rubbed smooth and married (as for splicing). Two of the divided parts, as c, c and d, d, are passed in opposite directions round all the other parts and knotted. The ends e and f remain passive. The figure is drawn open, but the forks of A and B should be pressed close together, the knot hauled taut and the ends cut off.

Butt Slings (fig. 48).—Made of 4-in. rope, each pair being 26 ft. in length, with an eye spliced in one end, through which the other is rove before being placed over one end of the cask; the rope is then passed round the opposite side of the cask and two half-hitches made with the end, forming another running eye, both of which are beaten down taut as the tackle receives the weight. Slings for smaller casks requiring care should be of this description, though of smaller rope, as the cask cannot possibly slip out. Bale Slings are made by splicing the ends of about 3 fathoms of 3-in. rope together, which then looks like a long strop, similar to the double strop represented in fig. 45—the bights t being placed under the cask or bale and one of the bights a, a rove through the other and attached to the whip or tackle.

For a complete treatise on the subject the reader may be referred to The Book of Knots, being a Complete Treatise on the Art of Cordage, illustrated by 172 Diagrams, showing the Manner of making every Knot, Tie and Splice, by Tom Bowling (London, 1890).

Mathematical Theory of Knots.

In the scientific sense a knot is an endless physical line which cannot be deformed into a circle. A physical line is flexible and inextensible, and cannot be cut—so that no lap of it can be drawn through another.

The founder of the theory of knots is undoubtedly Johann Benedict Listing (1808-1882). In his “Vorstudien zur Topologie” (Göttinger Studien, 1847), a work in many respects of startling originality, a few pages only are devoted to the subject. He treats knots from the elementary notion of twisting one physical line (or thread) round another, and shows that from the projection of a knot on a surface we can thus obtain a notion of the relative situation of its coils. He distinguishes “reduced” from “reducible” forms, the number of crossings in the reduced knot being the smallest possible. The simplest form of reduced knot is of two species, as in figs. 49 and 50. Listing points out that these are formed, the first by right-handed the second by left-handed twisting. In fact, if three half-twists be given to a long strip of paper, and the ends be then pasted together, the two edges become one line, which is the knot in question. We may free it by slitting the paper along its middle line; and then we have the juggler’s trick of putting a knot on an endless unknotted band. One of the above forms cannot be deformed into the other. The one is, in Listing’s language, the “perversion” of the other, i.e. its image in a plane mirror. He gives a method of symbolizing reduced knots, but shows that in this method the same knot may, in certain cases, be represented by different symbols. It is clear that the brief notice he published contains a mere sketch of his investigations.

The most extensive dissertation on the properties of knots is that of Peter Guthrie Tait (Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., xxviii. 145, where the substance of a number of papers in the Proceedings of the same society is reproduced). It was for the most part written in ignorance of the work of Listing, and was suggested by an inquiry concerning vortex atoms.

Tait starts with the almost self-evident proposition that, if any plane closed curve have double points only, in passing continuously along the curve from one of these to the same again an even number of double points has been passed through. Hence the crossings may be taken alternately over and under. On this he bases a scheme for the representation of knots of every kind, and employs it to find all the distinct forms of knots which have, in their simplest projections, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 crossings only. Their numbers are shown to be 1, 1, 2, 4 and 8. The unique knot of three crossings has been already given as drawn by Listing. The unique knot of four crossings merits a few words, because its properties lead to a very singular conclusion. It can be deformed into any of the four forms—figs. 51 and 52 and their perversions. Knots which can be deformed into their own perversion Tait calls “amphicheiral” (from the Greek ἀμφί, on both sides, around, χείρ, hand), and he has shown that there is at least one knot of this kind for every even number of crossings. He shows also that “links” (in which two endless physical lines are linked together) possess a similar property; and he then points out that there is a third mode of making a complex figure of endless physical lines, without either knotting or linking. This may be called “lacing” or “locking.” Its nature is obvious from fig. 53, in which it will be seen that no one of the three lines is knotted, no two are linked, and yet the three are inseparably fastened together.

The rest of Tait’s paper deals chiefly with numerical characteristics of knots, such as their “knottiness,” “beknottedness” and “knotfulness.” He also shows that any knot, however complex, can be fully represented by three closed plane curves, none of which has double points and no two of which intersect. It may be stated here that the notion of beknottedness is founded on a remark of Gauss, who in 1833 considered the problem of the number of inter-linkings of two closed circuits, and expressed it by the electro-dynamic measure of the work required to carry a unit magnetic pole round one of the interlinked curves, while a unit electric current is kept circulating in the other. This original suggestion has been developed at considerable length by Otto Boeddicker (Erweiterung der Gauss’schen Theorie der Verschlingungen (Stuttgart, 1876). This author treats also of the connexion of knots with Riemann’s surfaces.

It is to be noticed that, although every knot in which the crossings are alternately over and under is irreducible, the converse is not generally true. This is obvious at once from fig. 54, which is merely the three-crossing knot with a doubled string—what Listing calls “paradromic.”

Christian Felix Klein, in the Mathematische Annalen, ix. 478, has proved the remarkable proposition that knots cannot exist in space of four dimensions.

(P. G. T.)

See P. G. Tait “On Listing’s Topologie,” Phil. Mag., xvii. 30.

KNOUT (from the French transliteration of a Russian word of Scandinavian origin; cf. A.-S. cnotta, Eng. knot), the whip used in Russia for flogging criminals and political offenders. It is said to have been introduced under Ivan III. (1462-1505). The knout had different forms. One was a lash of raw hide, 16 in. long, attached to a wooden handle, 9 in. long. The lash ended in a metal ring, to which was attached a second lash as long, ending also in a ring, to which in turn was attached a few inches of hard leather ending in a beak-like hook. Another kind consisted of many thongs of skin plaited and interwoven with wire, ending in loose wired ends, like the cat-o’-nine tails. The victim was tied to a post or on a triangle of wood and stripped, receiving the specified number of strokes on the back. A sentence of 100 or 120 lashes was equivalent to a death sentence; but few lived to receive so many. The executioner was usually a criminal who had to pass through a probation and regular training; being let off his own penalties in return for his services. Peter the Great is traditionally accused of knouting his son Alexis to death, and there is little doubt that the boy was actually beaten till he died, whoever was the executioner. The emperor Nicholas I. abolished the earlier forms of knout and substituted the pleti, a three-thonged lash. Ostensibly the knout has been abolished throughout Russia and reserved for the penal settlements.

KNOWLES, SIR JAMES (1831-1908), English architect and editor, was born in London in 1831, and was educated, with a view to following his father’s profession, as an architect at University College and in Italy. His literary tastes also brought him at an early age into the field of authorship. In 1860 he published The Story of King Arthur. In 1867 he was introduced to Tennyson, whose house, Aldworth, on Blackdown, he designed; this led to a close friendship, Knowles assisting Tennyson in business matters, and among other things helping to design scenery for The Cup, when Irving produced that play in 1880. Knowles became intimate with a number of the most interesting men of the day, and in 1869, with Tennyson’s co-operation, he started the Metaphysical Society, the object of which was to attempt some intellectual rapprochement between religion and science by getting the leading representatives of faith and unfaith to meet and exchange views.

The members from first to last were as follows: Dean Stanley, Seeley, Roden Noel, Martineau, W. B. Carpenter, Hinton, Huxley, Pritchard, Hutton, Ward, Bagehot, Froude, Tennyson, Tyndall, Alfred Barry, Lord Arthur Russell, Gladstone, Manning, Knowles, Lord Avebury, Dean Alford, Alex. Grant, Bishop Thirlwall, F. Harrison, Father Dalgairns, Sir G. Grove, Shadworth Hodgson, H. Sidgwick, E. Lushington, Bishop Ellicott, Mark Pattison, duke of Argyll, Ruskin, Robert Lowe, Grant Duff, Greg, A. C. Fraser, Henry Acland, Maurice, Archbishop Thomson, Mozley, Dean Church, Bishop Magee, Croom Robertson, FitzJames Stephen, Sylvester, J. C. Bucknill, Andrew Clark, W. K. Clifford, St George Mivart, M. Boulton, Lord Selborne, John Morley, Leslie Stephen, F. Pollock, Gasquet, C. B. Upton, William Gull, Robert Clarke, A. J. Balfour, James Sully and A. Barratt.

Papers were read and discussed at the various meetings on such subjects as the ultimate grounds of belief in the objective and moral sciences, the immortality of the soul, &c. An interesting description of one of the meetings was given by Magee (then bishop of Peterborough) in a letter of 13th of February 1873:—

“Archbishop Manning in the chair was flanked by two Protestant bishops right and left; on my right was Hutton, editor of the Spectator, an Arian; then came Father Dalgairns, a very able Roman Catholic priest; opposite him Lord A. Russell, a Deist; then two Scotch metaphysical writers, Freethinkers; then Knowles, the very broad editor of the Contemporary; then, dressed as a layman and looking like a country squire, was Ward, formerly Rev. Ward, and earliest of the perverts to Rome; then Greg, author of The Creed of Christendom, a Deist; then Froude, the historian, once a deacon in our Church, now a Deist; then Roden Noel, an actual Atheist and red republican, and looking very like one! Lastly Ruskin, who read a paper on miracles, which we discussed for an hour and a half! Nothing could be calmer, fairer, or even, on the whole, more reverent then the discussion. In my opinion, we, the Christians, had much the best of it. Dalgairns, the priest, was very masterly; Manning, clever and precise and weighty; Froude, very acute, and so was Greg. We only wanted a Jew and a Mahommedan to make our Religious Museum complete” (Life, i. 284).

The last meeting of the society was held on 16th May 1880. Huxley said that it died “of too much love”; Tennyson, “because after ten years of strenuous effort no one had succeeded in even defining metaphysics.” According to Dean Stanley, “We all meant the same thing if we only knew it.” The society formed the nucleus of the distinguished list of contributors who supported Knowles in his capacity as an editor. In 1870 he became editor of the Contemporary Review, but left it in 1877 and founded the Nineteenth Century (to the title of which, in 1901, were added the words And After). Both periodicals became very influential under him, and formed the type of the new sort of monthly review which came to occupy the place formerly held by the quarterlies. In 1904 he received the honour of knighthood. He died at Brighton on the 13th of February 1908.

KNOWLES, JAMES SHERIDAN (1784-1862), Irish dramatist and actor, was born in Cork, on the 12th of May 1784. His father was the lexicographer, James Knowles (1759-1840), cousin-german of Richard Brinsley Sheridan. The family removed to London in 1793, and at the age of fourteen Knowles published a ballad entitled The Welsh Harper, which, set to music, was very popular. The boy’s talents secured him the friendship of Hazlitt, who introduced him to Lamb and Coleridge. He served for some time in the Wiltshire and afterwards in the Tower Hamlets militia, leaving the service to become pupil of Dr Robert Willan (1757-1812). He obtained the degree of M.D., and was appointed vaccinator to the Jennerian Society. Although, however, Dr Willan generously offered him a share in his practice, he resolved to forsake medicine for the stage, making his first appearance probably at Bath, and playing Hamlet at the Crow Theatre, Dublin. At Wexford he married, in October 1809, Maria Charteris, an actress from the Edinburgh Theatre. In 1810 he wrote Leo, in which Edmund Kean acted with great success; another play, Brian Boroihme, written for the Belfast Theatre in the next year, also drew crowded houses, but his earnings were so small that he was obliged to become assistant to his father at the Belfast Academical Institution. In 1817 he removed from Belfast to Glasgow, where, besides conducting a flourishing school, he continued to write for the stage. His first important success was Caius Gracchus, produced at Belfast in 1815; and his Virginius, written for Edmund Kean, was first performed in 1820 at Covent Garden. In William Tell (1825) Macready found one of his favourite parts. His best-known play, The Hunchback, was produced at Covent Garden in 1832; The Wife was brought out at the same theatre in 1833; and The Love Chase in 1837. In his later years he forsook the stage for the pulpit, and as a Baptist preacher attracted large audiences at Exeter Hall and elsewhere. He published two polemical works—the Rock of Rome and the Idol Demolished by its own Priests—in both of which he combated the special doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Knowles was for some years in the receipt of an annual pension of £200, bestowed by Sir Robert Peel. He died at Torquay on the 30th of November 1862.

A full list of the works of Knowles and of the various notices of him will be found in the Life (1872), privately printed by his son, Richard Brinsley Knowles (1820-1882), who was well known as a journalist.

KNOW NOTHING (or American) PARTY, in United States history, a political party of great importance in the decade before 1860. Its principle was political proscription of naturalized citizens and of Roman Catholics. Distrust of alien immigrants, because of presumptive attachment to European institutions, has always been more or less widely diffused, and race antagonisms have been recurrently of political moment; while anti-Catholic sentiment went back to colonial sectarianism. These were the elements of the political “nativism”—i.e. hostility to foreign influence in politics—of 1830-1860. In these years Irish immigration became increasingly preponderant; and that of Catholics was even more so. The geographical segregation and the clannishness of foreign voters in the cities gave them a power that Whigs and Democrats alike (the latter more successfully) strove to control, to the great aggravation of naturalization and election frauds. “No one can deny that ignorant foreign suffrage had grown to be an evil of immense proportions” (J. F. Rhodes). In labour disputes, political feuds and social clannishness, the alien elements—especially the Irish and German—displayed their power, and at times gave offence by their hostile criticism of American institutions. In immigration centres like Boston, Philadelphia and New York, the Catholic Church, very largely foreign in membership and proclaiming a foreign allegiance of disputed extent, was really “the symbol and strength of foreign influence” (Scisco); many regarded it as a transplanted foreign institution, un-American in organization and ideas. Thus it became involved in politics. The decade 1830-1840 was marked by anti-Catholic (anti-Irish) riots in various cities and by party organization of nativists in many places in local elections. Thus arose the American-Republican (later the Native-American) Party, whose national career begun practically in 1845, and which in Louisiana in 1841 first received a state organization. New York City in 1844 and Boston in 1845 were carried by the nativists, but their success was due to Whig support, which was not continued, and the national organization was by 1847—in which year it endorsed the Whig nominee for the presidency—practically dead. Though some Whig leaders had strong nativist leanings, and though the party secured a few representatives in Congress, it accomplished little at this time in national politics. In the early ’fifties nativism was revivified by an unparalleled inflow of aliens. Catholics, moreover, had combated the Native-Americans defiantly. In 1852 both Whigs and Democrats were forced to defend their presidential nominees against charges of anti-Catholic sentiment. In 1853-1854 there was a wide-spread “anti-popery” propaganda and riots against Catholics in various cities. Meanwhile the Know Nothing Party had sprung from nativist secret societies, whose relations remain obscure. Its organization was secret; and hence its name—for a member, when interrogated, always answered that he knew nothing about it. Selecting candidates secretly from among those nominated by the other parties, and giving them no public endorsement, the Know Nothings, as soon as they gained the balance of power, could shatter at will Whig and Democratic calculations. Their power was evident by 1852—from which time, accordingly, “Know Nothingism” is most properly dated. The charges they brought against naturalization abuses were only too well founded; and those against election frauds not less so—though, unfortunately, the Know Nothings themselves followed scandalous election methods in some cities. The proposed proscription of the foreign-born knew no exceptions: many wished never to concede to them all the rights of natives, nor to their children unless educated in the public schools. As for Catholics, the real animus of Know Nothingism was against political Romanism; therefore, secondarily, against papal allegiance and episcopal church administration (in place of administration by lay trustees, as was earlier common practice in the United States); and, primarily, against public aid to Catholic schools, and the alleged greed (i.e. the power and success) of the Irish in politics. The times were propitious for the success of an aggressive third party; for the Whigs were broken by the death of Clay and Webster and the crushing defeat of 1852, and both the Whig and Democratic parties were disintegrating on the slavery issue. But the Know Nothings lacked aggression. In entering national politics the party abandoned its mysteries, without making compensatory gains; when it was compelled to publish a platform of principles, factions arose in its ranks; moreover, to draw recruits the faster from Whigs and Democrats, it “straddled” the slavery question, and this, although a temporary success, ultimately meant ruin. In 1854, however, Know Nothing gains were remarkable. Thereafter the organization spread like wildfire in the South, in which section there were almost no aliens, and the Whig dissolution was far advanced. The Virginia election of May 1855 proved conclusively, however, that Know Nothingism was no stronger against the Democrats than was the Whig party it had absorbed; it was the same organization under a new name. In the North it was even clearer that slavery must be faced. Know Nothing evasion probably helped the South, but neither Republicans nor Democrats would endure the evasion; Douglas and Seward, and later (1855-1856) their parties, denounced it. In the North-West the Know Nothings were swept into the anti-slavery movement in 1854 without retaining their organization. In the state campaigns of 1855 professions were measured to the latitude. The national platform of 1856 (adopted by a secret grand council), besides including anti-alien and anti-Catholic planks, offered sops to the North, the South and the “doughfaces” on the slavery issue. Millard Fillmore was nominated for the presidency. The anti-slavery delegates of eight Northern states bolted the convention, and eight months later the Republican wave swept the Know Nothings out of the North. The national field being thus lost, the state councils became supreme, and local opportunism fostered variation and weakness. By 1859 the party was confined almost entirely to the border states. The Constitutional Union—the “Do Nothing”—Party of 1860 was mainly composed of Know Nothing remnants. The year 1860 practically marked, also, the disappearance of the party as a local power.

Except in city politics nativism had no vitality; in state and national politics it really had no excuse. Race antipathies gave it local cohesive power in the North; various causes, already mentioned, advanced it in the South; and as a device to win offices it was of wide-spread attraction. Its only real contribution to government was the proof that nativism is not Americanism. Public opinion has never accepted its estimate of the alien nor of Catholic citizens. Some of its anti-Church principles, however—as the non-support of denominational schools—have been generally accepted; others—as the refusal to exclude the (Protestant) Bible from public schools—have been generally rejected; others—as the taxation of all Church property—remain disputed.

See L. D. Scisco, Political Nativism in New York State (doctoral thesis, Columbia University, New York, 1901); L. F. Schmeckebier, Know Nothing Party in Maryland (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1899); G. H. Haynes, “A Know Nothing Legislature” (Mass., 1855), in American Historical Assoc. Report, pt. 1 (1896); J. B. McMaster, With the Fathers, including “The Riotous Career of the Know Nothings” (New York, 1896); H. F. Desmond, The Know Nothing Party (Washington, 1905).

E.g. for some extraordinary “reform” programmes among German immigrants see Schmeckebier (as below), pp. 48-50.

“The actual offence of the Catholic Church was its non-conformity to American methods of church administration and popular education” (Scisco).

The Whigs bargained aid in New York city for “American” support in the state, and charged that the latter was not given. Millard Fillmore attributed the Whig loss of the state (see Liberty Party) to the disaffection of Catholic Whigs angered by the alliance with the nativists.

The Order of United Americans and the Order of the Star Spangled Banner, established in New York respectively in 1845 and 1850, were the most important sources of its membership.

This year “American Party” became the official name. Its strength in Congress was almost thirty-fold that of 1852. It elected governors, legislatures, or both, in four New England states, and in Maryland, Kentucky and California; minor officers elsewhere; and almost won six Southern states.

For it delayed anti-slavery organization in the North, and presumably discouraged immigration, which was a source of strength to the North rather than to the South.

They carried only Maryland. The popular vote in the North was under one-seventh, in the South above three-sevenths, of the total vote cast.

Note the presidential vote. Seward’s loss of the Republican nomination was partly due to Know Nothing hostility.

Its firmest hold was in Maryland. Its rule in Baltimore (1854-1860) was marked by disgraceful riots and abuses.

KNOX, HENRY (1750-1806), American general, was born in Boston, Massachusetts, of Scottish-Irish parentage, on the 25th of July 1750. He was prominent in the colonial militia and tried to keep the Boston crowd and the British soldiers from the clash known as the Boston massacre (1770). In 1771 he opened the “London Book-Store” in Boston. He had read much of tactics and strategy, joined the American army at the outbreak of the War of Independence, and fought at Bunker Hill, planned the defences of the camps of the army before Boston, and brought from Lake George and border forts much-needed artillery. At Trenton he crossed the river before the main body, and in the attack rendered such good service that he was made brigadier-general and chief of artillery in the Continental army on the following day. He was present at Princeton; was chiefly responsible for the mistake in attacking the “Chew House” at Germantown; urged New York as the objective of the campaign of 1778; served with efficiency at Monmouth and at Yorktown; and after the surrender of Cornwallis was promoted major-general, and served as a commissioner on the exchange of prisoners. His services throughout the war were of great value to the American cause; he was one of General Washington’s most trusted advisers, and he brought the artillery to a high degree of efficiency. From December 1783 until June 1784 he was the senior officer of the United States army. In April 1783 he had drafted a scheme of a society to be formed by the American officers and the French officers who had served in America during the war, and to be called the “Cincinnati”; of this society he was the first secretary-general (1783-1799) and in 1805 became vice-president-general. In 1785-1794 Knox was secretary of war, being the first man to hold this position after the organization of the Federal government in 1789. He urged ineffectually a national militia system, to enroll all citizens over 18 and under 60 in the “advanced corps,” the “main corps” or the “reserve,” and for this and his close friendship with Washington was bitterly assailed by the Republicans. In 1793 he had begun to build his house, Montpelier, at Thomaston, Maine, where he speculated unsuccessfully in the holdings of the Eastern Land Association; and he lived there until his death on the 25th of October 1806.

See F. S. Drake, Memoir of General Henry Knox (Boston, 1873); and Noah Brooks, Henry Knox (New York, 1900) in the “American Men of Energy” series.

KNOX, JOHN (c. 1505-1572), Scottish reformer and historian. Of his early life very little is certainly known, in spite of the fact that his History of the Reformation and his private letters, especially the latter, are often vividly autobiographical. Even the year of his birth, usually given as 1505, is matter of dispute. Beza, in his Icones, published in 1580, makes it 1515; Sir Peter Young (tutor to James VI. of Scotland), writing to Beza from Edinburgh in 1579, says 1513; and a strong case has been made out for holding that the generally accepted date is due to an error in transcription (see Dr Hay Fleming in the Bookman, Sept. 1905). But Knox seems to have been reticent about his early life, even to his contemporaries. What is known is that he was a son of William Knox, who lived in or near the town of Haddington, that his mother’s name was Sinclair, and that his forefathers on both sides had fought under the banner of the Bothwells. William Knox was “simple,” not “gentle”—perhaps a prosperous East Lothian peasant. But he sent his son John to school (no doubt the well-known grammar school of Haddington), and thereafter to the university, where, like his contemporary George Buchanan, he sat “at the feet” of John Major. Major was a native of Haddington, who had recently returned to Scotland from Paris with a great academical reputation. He retained to the last, as his History of Greater Britain shows, the repugnance characteristic of the university of Paris to the tyranny of kings and nobles; but like it, he was now alarmed by the revolt of Luther, and ceased to urge its ancient protest against the supremacy of the pope. He exchanged his “regency” or professorship in Glasgow University for one in that of St Andrews in 1523. If Knox’s college time was later than that date (as it must have been, if he was born near 1515), it was no doubt spent, as Beza narrates, at St Andrews, and probably exclusively there. But in Major’s last Glasgow session a “Joannes Knox” (not an uncommon name, however, at that time in the west of Scotland) matriculated there; and if this were the future reformer, he may thereafter either have followed his master to St Andrews or returned from Glasgow straight to Haddington. But till twenty years after that date his career has not been again traced. Then he reappears in his native district as a priest without a university degree (Sir John Knox) and a notary of the diocese of St Andrews. In 1543 he certainly signed himself “minister of the sacred altar” under the archbishop of St Andrews. But in 1546 he was carrying a two-handed sword in defence of the reformer George Wishart, on the day when the latter was arrested by the archbishop’s order. Knox would have resisted, though the arrest was by his feudal superior, Lord Bothwell; but Wishart himself commanded his submission, with the words “One is sufficient for a sacrifice,” and was handed over for trial at St Andrews. And next year the archbishop himself had been murdered, and Knox was preaching in St Andrews a fully developed Protestantism.

Knox gives us no information as to how this startling change in himself was brought about. During those twenty years Scotland had been slowly tending to freedom in religious profession, and to friendship with England rather than with France. The Scottish hierarchy, by this time corrupt and even profligate, saw the twofold danger and met it firmly. James V., the “Commons’ King” had put himself into the hands of the Beatons, who in 1528 burned Patrick Hamilton. On James’s death there was a slight reaction, but the cardinal-archbishop took possession of the weak regent Arran, and in 1546 burned George Wishart. England had by this time rejected the pope’s supremacy. In Scotland by a recent statute it was death even to argue against it; and Knox after Wishart’s execution was fleeing from place to place, when, hearing that certain gentlemen of Fife had slain the cardinal and were in possession of his castle of St Andrews, he gladly joined himself to them. In St Andrews he taught “John’s Gospel” and a certain catechism—probably that which Wishart had got from “Helvetia” and translated; but his teaching was supposed to be private and tutorial and for the benefit of his friends’ “bairns.” The men about him however—among them Sir David Lindsay of the Mount, “Lyon King” and poet—saw his capacity for greater things, and, on his at first refusing “to run where God had not called him,” planned a solemn appeal to Knox from the pulpit to accept “the public office and charge of preaching.” At the close of it the speaker (in Knox’s own narrative) “said to those that were present, ‘Was not this your charge to me? And do ye not approve this vocation?’ They answered, ‘It was, and we approve it.’ Whereat the said Johnne, abashed, burst forth in most abundant tears and withdrew himself to his chamber,” remaining there in “heaviness” for days, until he came forth resolved and prepared. Knox is probably not wrong in regarding this strange incident as the spring of his own public life. The St Andrews invitation was really one to danger and death; John Rough, who spoke it, died a few years after in the flames at Smithfield. But it was a call which many in that ardent dawn were ready to accept, and it had now at length found, or made, a statesman and leader of men. For what to the others was chiefly a promise of personal salvation became for the indomitable will of Knox an assurance also of victory, even in this world, over embattled forces of ancient wrong. It is certain at least that from this date he never changed and scarcely even varied his public course. And looking back upon that course afterwards, he records with much complacency how his earliest St Andrews sermon built up a whole fabric of aggressive Protestantism upon Puritan theory, so that his startled hearers muttered, “Others sned (snipped) the branches; this man strikes at the root.”

Meantime the system attacked was safe for other thirteen years. In June 1547 St Andrews yielded to the French fleet, and the prisoners, including Knox, were thrown into the galleys on the Loire, to remain in irons and under the lash for at least nineteen months. Released at last (apparently through the influence of the young English king, Edward VI.), Knox was appointed one of the licensed preachers of the new faith for England, and stationed in the great garrison of Berwick, and afterwards at Newcastle. In 1551 he seems to have been made a royal chaplain; in 1552 he was certainly offered an English bishopric, which he declined; and during most of this year he used his influence, as preacher at court and in London, to make the new English settlement more Protestant. To him at least is due the Prayer-book rubric which explains that, when kneeling at the sacrament is ordered, “no adoration is intended or ought to be done.” While in Northumberland Knox had been betrothed to Margaret Bowes, one of the fifteen children of Richard Bowes, the captain of Norham Castle. Her mother, Elizabeth, co-heiress of Aske in Yorkshire, was the earliest of that little band of women-friends whose correspondence with Knox on religious matters throws an unexpected light on his discriminating tenderness of heart. But now Mary Tudor succeeded her brother, and Knox in March 1554 escaped into five years’ exile abroad, leaving Mrs. Bowes a fine treatise on “Affliction,” and sending back to England two editions of a more acrid “Faithful Admonition” on the crisis there. He first drifted to Frankfort, where the English congregation divided as English Protestants have always done, and the party opposed to Knox got rid of him at last by a complaint to the authorities of treason against the emperor Charles V. as well as Philip and Mary. At Geneva he found a more congenial pastorate. Christopher Goodman (c. 1520-1603) and he, with other exiles, began there the Puritan tradition, and prepared the earlier English version of the Bible, “the household book of the English-speaking nations” during the great age of Elizabeth. Here, and afterwards at Dieppe (where he preached in French), Knox kept in communication with the other Reformers, studied Greek and Hebrew in the interest of theology, and having brought his wife and her mother from England in 1555 lived for years a peaceful life.

But even here Knox was preparing for Scotland, and facing the difficulties of the future, theoretical as well as practical. In his first year abroad he consulted Calvin and Bullinger as to the right of the civil “authority” to prescribe religion to his subjects—in particular, whether the godly should obey “a magistrate who enforces idolatry and condemns true religion,” and whom should they join “in the case of a religious nobility resisting an idolatrous sovereign.” In August 1555 be visited his native country and found the queen-mother, Mary of Lorraine, acting as regent in place of the real “sovereign,” the youthful and better-known Mary, now being brought up at the court of France. Scripture-reading and the new views had spread widely, and the regent was disposed to wink at this in the case of the “religious nobility.” Knox was accordingly allowed to preach privately for six months throughout the south of Scotland, and was listened to with an enthusiasm which made him break out, “O sweet were the death which should follow such forty days in Edinburgh as here I have had three!” Before leaving he even addressed a letter to the regent, urging her to favour the Evangel. She accepted it jocularly as a “pasquil,” and Knox on his departure was condemned and burned in effigy. But he left behind him a “Wholesome Counsel” to Scottish heads of families, reminding them that within their own houses they were “bishop and kings,” and recommending the institution of something like the early apostolic worship in private congregations. Of the Protestant barons Knox, though in exile, seems to have been henceforward the chief adviser; and before the end of 1557 they, under the name of the “Lords of the Congregation,” had entered into the first of the religious “bands” or “covenants” afterwards famous in Scotland. In 1558 he published his “Appellation” to the nobles, estates and commonalty against the sentence of death recently pronounced upon him, and along with it a stirring appeal “To his beloved brethren, the Commonalty of Scotland,” urging that the care of religion fell to them also as being “God’s creatures, created and formed in His own image,” and having a right to defend their conscience against persecution. About this time, indeed, there was in Scotland a remarkable approximation to that solution of the toleration difficulty which later ages have approved; for the regent was understood to favour the demand of the “congregation” that at least the penal statutes against heretics “be suspended and abrogated,” and “that it be lawful to us to use ourselves in matters of religion and conscience as we must answer to God.” It was a consummation too ideal for that early date; and next year the regent, whose daughter was now queen of France and there mixed up with the persecuting policy of the Guises, forbade the reformed preaching in Scotland. A rupture ensued at once, and Knox appeared in Edinburgh on the 2nd of May 1559 “even in the brunt of the battle.” He was promptly “blown to the horn” at the Cross there as an outlaw, but escaped to Dundee, and commenced public preaching in the chief towns of central Scotland. At Perth and at St Andrews his sermons were followed by the destruction of the monasteries, institutions disliked in that age in Scotland alike by the devout and the profane. But while he notes that in Perth the act was that of “the rascal multitude,” he was glad to claim in St Andrews the support of the civic “authority”; and indeed the burghs, which were throughout Europe generally in favour of freedom, soon became in Scotland a main support of the Reformation. Edinburgh was still doubtful, and the queen regent held the castle; but a truce between her and the lords for six months to the 1st of January 1560 was arranged on the footing that every man there “may have freedom to use his own conscience to the day foresaid”—a freedom interpreted to let Knox and his brethren preach publicly and incessantly.

Scotland, like its capital, was divided. Both parties lapsed from the freedom-of-conscience solution to which each when unsuccessful appealed; both betook themselves to arms; and the immediate future of the little kingdom was to be decided by its external alliances. Knox now took a leading part in the great transaction by which the friendship of France was exchanged for that of England. He had one serious difficulty. Before Elizabeth’s accession to the English crown, and after the queen mother in Scotland had disappointed his hopes, he had published a treatise against what he called “The Monstrous Regiment (regimen or government) of Women”; though the despotism of that despotic age was scarcely appreciably worse when it happened to be in female hands. Elizabeth never forgave him; but Cecil corresponded with the Scottish lords, and their answer in July 1559, in Knox’s handwriting, assures England not only of their own constancy, but of “a charge and commandment to our posterity, that the amity and league between you and us, contracted and begun in Christ Jesus, may by them be kept inviolated for ever.” The league was promised by England; but the army of France was first in the field, and towards the end of the year drove the forces of the “congregation” from Leith into Edinburgh, and then out of it in a midnight rout to Stirling—“that dark and dolorous night,” as Knox long afterwards said, “wherein all ye, my lords, with shame and fear left this town,” and from which only a memorable sermon by their great preacher roused the despairing multitude into new hope. Their leaders renounced allegiance to the regent; she ended her not unkindly, but as Knox calls it “unhappy,” life in the castle of Edinburgh; the English troops, after the usual Elizabethan delays and evasions, joined their Scots allies; and the French embarked from Leith. On the 6th of July 1560 a treaty was at last made, nominally between Elizabeth and the queen of France and Scotland; while Cecil instructed his mistress’s plenipotentiaries to agree “that the government of Scotland be granted to the nation of the land.” The revolution was in the meantime complete; and Knox, who takes credit for having done much to end the enmity with England which was so long thought necessary for Scotland’s independence, was strangely enough destined, beyond all other men, to leave the stamp of a more inward independence upon his country and its history.

At the first meeting of the Estates, in August 1560, the Protestants were invited to present a confession of their faith. Knox and three others drafted it, and were present when it was offered and read to the parliament. The statute-book says it was “by the estates of Scotland ratified and approved, as wholesome and sound doctrine grounded upon the infallible truth of God’s word.” The Scots confession, though of course drawn up independently, is in substantial accord with the others then springing up in the countries of the Reformation, but is Calvinist rather than Lutheran. It remained for two centuries the authorized Scottish creed, though in the first instance the faith of only a fragment of the people. Yet its approval became the basis for three acts passed a week later; the first of which, abolishing the pope’s authority and jurisdiction in Scotland, may perhaps have been consistent with toleration, as the second, rescinding old statutes which had established and enforced that and other catholic tenets, undoubtedly was. But the third, inflicting heavy penalties, with death on a third conviction, on those who should celebrate mass or even be present at it, showed that the reformer and his friends had crossed the line, and that their position could no longer be described as, in Knox’s words, “requiring nothing but the liberty of conscience, and our religion and fact to be tried by the word of God.” He was prepared indeed to fall back upon that, in the event of the Estates at any time refusing sanction to either church or creed, as their sovereign in Paris promptly refused it. But the parliament of 1560 gave no express sanction to the Reformed Church, and Knox did not wait until it should do so. Already “in our towns and places reformed,” as the Confession puts it, there were local or “particular kirks,” and these grew and spread and were provincially united, till, in the last month of this memorable year, the first General Assembly of their representatives met, and became the “universal kirk,” or “the whole church convened.” It had before it the plan for church government and maintenance, drafted in August at the same time with the Confession, under the name of The Book of Discipline, and by the same framers. Knox was even more clearly in this case the chief author, and he had by this time come to desire a much more rigid Presbyterianism than he had sketched in his “Wholesome Counsel” of 1555. In planning it he seems to have used his acquaintance with the “Ordonnances” of the Genevan Church under Calvin, and with the “Forma” of the German Church in London under John Laski (or A. Lasco). Starting with “truth” contained in Scripture as the church’s foundation, and the Word and Sacraments as means of building it up, it provides ministers and elders to be elected by the congregations, with a subordinate class of “readers,” and by their means sermons and prayers each “Sunday” in every parish. In large towns these were to be also on other days, with a weekly meeting for conference or “prophesying.” The “plantation” of new churches is to go on everywhere under the guidance of higher church officers called superintendents. All are to help their brethren, “for no man may be permitted to live as best pleaseth him within the Church of God.” And above all things the young and the ignorant are to be instructed, the former by a regular gradation or ladder of parish or elementary schools, secondary schools and universities. Even the poor were to be fed by the Church’s hands; and behind its moral influence, and a discipline over both poor and rich, was to be not only the coercive authority of the civil power but its money. Knox had from the first proclaimed that “the teinds (tithes of yearly fruits) by God’s law do not appertain of necessity to the kirkmen.” And this book now demands that out of them “must not only the ministers be sustained, but also the poor and schools.” But Knox broadens his plan so as to claim also the property which had been really gifted to the Church by princes and nobles—given by them indeed, as he held, without any moral right and to the injury of the people, yet so as to be Church patrimony. From all such property, whether land or the sheaves and fruits of land, and also from the personal property of burghers in the towns, Knox now held that the state should authorize the kirk to claim the salaries of the ministers, and the salaries of teachers in the schools and universities, but above all, the relief of the poor—not only of the absolutely “indigent” but of “your poor brethren, the labourers and handworkers of the ground.” For the danger now was that some gentlemen were already cruel in exactions of their tenants, “requiring of them whatever before they paid to the Church, so that the papistical tyranny shall only be changed into the tyranny of the lords or of the laird.” The danger foreseen alike to the new Church, and to the commonalty and poor, began to be fulfilled a month later, when the lords, some of whom had already acquired, as others were about to acquire, much of the Church property, declined to make any of it over for Knox’s magnificent scheme. It was, they said, “a devout imagination.” Seven years afterwards, however, when the contest with the Crown was ended, the kirk was expressly acknowledged as the only Church in Scotland, and jurisdiction given it over all who should attempt to be outsiders; while the preaching of the Evangel and the planting of congregations went on in all the accessible parts of Scotland. Gradually too stipends for most Scottish parishes were assigned to the ministers out of the yearly teinds; and the Church received—what it retained even down to recent times—the administration both of the public schools and of the Poor Law of Scotland. But the victorious rush of 1560 was already somewhat stayed, and the very next year raised the question whether the transfer of intolerance to the side of the new faith was as wise as it had at first seemed to be successful.

Mary Queen of Scots had been for a short time also queen of France, and in 1561 returned to her native land, a young widow on whom the eyes of Europe were fixed. Knox’s objections to the “regiment of women” were theoretical, and in the present case he hoped at first for the best, favouring rather his queen’s marriage with the heir of the house of Hamilton. Mary had put herself into the hands of her half-brother, Lord James Stuart afterwards earl of Moray, the only man who could perhaps have pulled her through. A proclamation now continued the “state of religion” begun the previous year; but mass was celebrated in the queen’s household, and Lord James himself defended it with his sword against Protestant intrusion. Knox publicly protested; and Moray, who probably understood and liked both parties, brought the preacher to the presence of his queen. There is nothing revealed to us by “the broad clear light of that wonderful book,” The History of the Reformation in Scotland, more remarkable than the four Dialogues or interviews, which, though recorded only by Knox, bear the strongest stamp of truth, and do almost more justice to his opponent than to himself. Mary took the aggressive and very soon raised the real question. “Ye have taught the people to receive another religion than their princes can allow; and how can that doctrine be of God, seeing that God commands subjects to obey their princes?” The point was made keener by the fact that Knox’s own Confession of Faith (like all those of that age, in which an unbalanced monarchical power culminated) had held kings to be appointed “for maintenance of the true religion,” and suppression of the false; and the reformer now fell back on his more fundamental principle, that “right religion took neither original nor authority from worldly princes, but from the Eternal God alone.” All through this dialogue too, as in another at Lochleven two years afterwards, Knox was driven to axioms, not of religion but of constitutionalism, which Buchanan and he may have learned from their teacher Major, but which were not to be accepted till a later age. “’Think ye,’ quoth she, ‘that subjects, having power, may resist their princes?’ ‘If their princes exceed their bounds, Madam, they may be resisted and even deposed,’” Knox replied. But these dialectics, creditable to both parties, had little effect upon the general situation. Knox had gone too far in intolerance, and Moray and Maitland of Lethington gradually withdrew their support. The court and parliament, guided by them, declined to press the queen or to pass the Book of Discipline; and meantime the negotiations as to the queen’s marriage with a Spanish, a French or an Austrian prince revealed the real difficulty and peril of the situation. Her marriage to a great Catholic prince would be ruinous to Scotland, probably also to England, and perhaps to all Protestantism. Knox had already by letter formally broken with the earl of Moray, “committing you to your own wit, and to the conducting of those who better please you”; and now, in one of his greatest sermons before the assembled lords, he drove at the heart of the situation—the risk of a Catholic marriage. The queen sent for him for the last time and burst into passionate tears as she asked, “What have you to do with my marriage? Or what are you within this commonwealth?” “A subject born within the same,” was the answer of the son of the East Lothian peasant; and the Scottish nobility, while thinking him overbold, refused to find him guilty of any crime, even when, later on, he had “convocated the lieges” to Edinburgh to meet a crown prosecution. In 1564 a change came. Mary had wearied of her guiding statesmen, Moray and the more pliant Maitland; the Italian secretary David Rizzio, through whom she had corresponded with the pope, now more and more usurped their place; and a weak fancy for her handsome cousin, Henry Darnley, brought about a sudden marriage in 1565 and swept the opposing Protestant lords into exile. Darnley, though a Catholic, thought it well to go to Knox’s preaching; but was so unfortunate as to hear a very long sermon, with allusions not only to “babes and women” as rulers, but to Ahab who did not control his strong-minded wife. Mary and the lords still in her council ordered Knox not to preach while she was in Edinburgh, and he was absent or silent during the weeks in which the queen’s growing distaste for her husband, and advancement of Rizzio over the nobility remaining in Edinburgh, brought about the conspiracy by Darnley, Morton and Ruthven. Knox does not seem to have known beforehand of Rizzio’s “slaughter,” which had been intended to be a semi-judicial act; but soon after it he records that “that vile knave Davie was justly punished, for abusing of the commonwealth, and for other villainy which we list not to express.” The immediate effect however of what Knox thus approved was to bring his cause to its lowest ebb, and on the very day when Mary rode from Holyrood to her army, he sat down and penned the prayer, “Lord Jesus, put an end to this my miserable life, for justice and truth are not to be found among the sons of men!” He added a short autobiographic fragment, whose mingled self-abasement and exultation are not unworthy of its striking title—“John Knox, with deliberate mind, to his God.” During the rest of the year he was hidden in Ayrshire or elsewhere, and throughout 1566 he was forbidden to preach when the court was in Edinburgh. But he was influential at the December Assembly in the capital where a greater tragedy was now preparing, for Mary’s infatuation for Bothwell was visible to all. At the Assembly’s request, however, Knox undertook a long visit to England, where his two sons by his first wife were being educated, and were afterwards to be Fellows of St John’s, Cambridge, the younger becoming a parish clergyman. It was thus during the reformer’s absence that the murder of Darnley, the abduction and subsequent marriage of Mary, the flight of Bothwell, and the imprisonment in Lochleven of the queen, unrolled themselves before the eyes of Scotland. Knox returned in time to guide the Assembly which sat on the 25th of June 1567 in dealing with this unparalleled crisis, and to wind up the revolution by preaching at Stirling on the 9th of July 1567, after Mary’s abdication, at the coronation of the infant king.

His main work was now really done; for the parliament of 1567 made Moray regent, and Knox was only too glad to have his old friend back in power, though they seem to have differed on the question whether the queen should be allowed to pass into retirement without trial for her husband’s death, as they had differed all along on the question of tolerating her private religion. Knox’s victory had not come too early, for his physical strength soon began to fail. But Mary’s escape in 1568 resulted only in her defeat at Langside, and in a long imprisonment and death in England. In Scotland the regent’s assassination in 1570 opened a miserable civil war, but it made no permanent change. The massacre of St Bartholomew rather united English and Scottish Protestantism; and Knox in St Giles’ pulpit, challenging the French ambassador to report his words, denounced God’s vengeance on the crowned murderer and his posterity. When open war broke out between Edinburgh Castle, held by Mary’s friends, and the town, held for her son, both parties agreed that the reformer, who had already had a stroke of paralysis, should remove to St Andrews. While there he wrote his will, and published his last book, in the preface to which he says, “I heartily take my good-night of the faithful of both realms ... for as the world is weary of me, so am I of it.” And when he now merely signs his name, it is “John Knox, with my dead hand and glad heart.” In the autumn of 1572 he returned to Edinburgh to die, probably in the picturesque house in the “throat of the Bow,” which for generations has been called by his name. With him were his wife and three young daughters; for though he had lost Margaret Bowes at the close of his year of triumph 1560, he had four years after married Margaret Stewart, a daughter of his friend Lord Ochiltree. She was a bride of only seventeen and was related to the royal house; yet, as his Catholic biographer put it, “by sorcery and witchcraft he did so allure that poor gentlewoman that she could not live without him.” But lords, ladies and burghers also crowded around his bed, and his colleague and his servant have severally transmitted to us the words in which his weakness daily strove with pain, rising on the day before his death into a solemn exultation—yet characteristically, not so much on his own account as for “the troubled Church of God.” He died on the 24th of November 1572, and at his funeral in St Giles’ Churchyard the new Regent Morton, speaking under the hostile guns of the castle, expressed the first surprise of those around as they looked back on that stormy life, that one who had “neither flattered nor feared any flesh” had now “ended his days in peace and honour.” Knox himself had a short time before put in writing a larger claim for the historic future, “What I have been to my country, though this unthankful age will not know, yet the ages to come will be compelled to bear witness to the truth.”

Knox was a rather small man, with a well-knit body; he had a powerful face, with dark blue eyes under a ridge of eyebrow, high cheek-bones, and a long black beard which latterly turned grey. This description, taken from a letter in 1579 by his junior contemporary Sir Peter Young, is very like Beza’s fine engraving of him in the Icones—an engraving probably founded on a portrait which was to be sent by Young to Beza along with the letter. The portrait, which was unfortunately adopted by Carlyle, has neither pedigree nor probability. After his two years in the French galleys, if not before, Knox suffered permanently from gravel and dyspepsia, and he confesses that his nature “was for the most part oppressed with melancholy.” Yet he was always a hard worker; as sole minister of Edinburgh studying for two sermons on Sunday and three during the week, besides having innumerable cares of churches at home and abroad. He was undoubtedly sincere in his religious faith, and most disinterested in his devotion to it and to the good of his countrymen. But like too many of them, he was self-conscious, self-willed and dogmatic; and his transformation in middle life, while it immensely enriched his sympathies as well as his energies, left him unable to put himself in the place of those who retained the views which he had himself held. All his training too, university, priestly and in foreign parts, tended to make him logical overmuch. But this was mitigated by a strong sense of humour (not always sarcastic, though sometimes savagely so), and by tenderness, best seen in his epistolary friendships with women; and it was quite overborne by an instinct and passion for great practical affairs. Hence it was that Knox as a statesman so often struck successfully at the centre of the complex motives of his time, leaving it to later critics to reconcile his theories of action. But hence too he more than once took doubtful shortcuts to some of his most important ends; giving the ministry within the new Church more power over laymen than Protestant principles would suggest, and binding the masses outside who were not members of it, equally with their countrymen who were, to join in its worship, submit to its jurisdiction, and contribute to its support. And hence also his style (which contemporaries called anglicized and modern), though it occasionally rises into liturgical beauty, and often flashes into vivid historical portraiture, is generally kept close to the harsh necessities of the few years in which he had to work for the future. That work was indeed chiefly done by the living voice; and in speaking, this “one man,” as Elizabeth’s very critical ambassador wrote from Edinburgh, was “able in one hour to put more life in us than five hundred trumpets continually blustering in our ears.” But even his eloquence was constraining and constructive—a personal call for immediate and universal co-operation; and that personal influence survives to this day in the institutions of his people, and perhaps still more in their character. His countrymen indeed have always believed that to Knox more than to any other man Scotland owes her political and religious individuality. And since his 19th century biography by Dr Thomas McCrie, or at least since his recognition in the following generation by Thomas Carlyle, the same view has taken its place in literature.

Bibliography.—Knox’s books, pamphlets, public documents and letters are collected into the great edition in six volumes of Knox’s Works, by David Laing (Edinburgh, 1846-1864), with introductions, appendices and notes. Of his books the chief are the following: 1.—The History of the Reformation in Scotland, incorporating the Confession and the Book of Discipline. Begun by Knox as a party manifesto in 1560, it was continued and revised by himself in 1566 as so to form four books, with a fifth book apparently written after his death from materials left by him. It was partly printed in London in 1586 by Vautrollier, but was suppressed by authority and published by David Buchanan, with a Life, in 1664. 2.—On Predestination: an Answer to an Anabaptist (London, 1591). 3.—On Prayer (1554). 4.—On Affliction (1556). 5.—Epistles, and Admonition, both to English Brethren in 1554. 6.—The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (1558). 7.—An Answer to a Scottish Jesuit (1572).

Knox’s life is more or less touched upon by all the Scottish histories and Church histories which include his period, as well as in the mass of literature as to Queen Mary. Dr Laing’s edition of the Works contains important biographical material. But among the many express biographies two especially should be consulted—those by Thomas McCrie (Edinburgh, 1811; revised and enlarged in 1813, the later editions containing valuable notes by the author); and by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1895). John Knox and the Reformation, by Andrew Lang (London, 1905), is not so much a biography as a collection of materials, bearing upon many parts of the life, but nearly all on the unfavourable side.

(A. T. I.)

John Hill Burton (Hist. of Scotland, iii. 339). Mr Burton’s view (differing from that of Professor Hume Brown) was that the dialogues—the earlier of them at least—must have been spoken in the French tongue, in which Knox had recently preached for a year.

KNOX, PHILANDER CHASE (1853- ), American lawyer and political leader, was born in Brownsville, Pennsylvania, on the 4th of May 1853. He graduated from Mount Union College (Ohio) in 1872, and was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1875. He settled in Pittsburg, where he continued in private practice, with the exception of two years’ service (1876-1877) as assistant United States district attorney, acquiring a large practice as a corporation lawyer. In April 1901 he became attorney-general of the United States in the cabinet of President McKinley, and retained this position after the accession of President Roosevelt until June 1904, when he was appointed by Governor Pennypacker of Pennsylvania to fill the unexpired term of Matthew S. Quay in the United States Senate; in 1905 he was re-elected to the Senate for the full term. In March 1909 he became secretary of state in the cabinet of President Taft.

KNOXVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Knox county, Tennessee, U.S.A., in the E. part of the state, 160 m. E. of Nashville, and about 190 m. S.E. of Louisville, Kentucky, on the right bank of the Tennessee river, 4 m. below the point where it is formed by the junction of the French Broad and Holston Rivers. Pop. (1880), 9693; (1890), 22,535; (1900), 32,637, of whom 7359 were negroes and 895 were foreign-born; (1910 census), 36,346. It is served by the main line and by branches of the Louisville & Nashville and the Southern railways, by the Knoxville & Bristol railway (Morristown to Knoxville, 58 m.), by the short Knoxville & Augusta railroad (Knoxville to Walland, 26 m.), and by passenger and freight steamboat lines on the Tennessee river, which is here navigable for the greater part of the year. A steel and concrete street-car bridge crosses the Tennessee at Knoxville. Knoxville is picturesquely situated at an elevation of from 850 to 1000 ft. in the valley between the Smoky Mountains and the Cumberland Mountains, and is one of the healthiest cities in the United States. There are several beautiful parks, of which Chilhowie and Fountain City are the largest, and among the public buildings are a city-hall, Federal building, court-house, the Knoxville general hospital, the Lincoln memorial hospital, the Margaret McClung industrial home, a Young Men’s Christian Association building and the Lawson-McGhee public library. A monument to John Sevier stands on the site of the blockhouse first built there. Knoxville is the seat of Knoxville College (United Presbyterian, 1875) for negroes, East Tennessee institute, a secondary school for girls, the Baker-Himel school for boys, Tennessee Medical College (1889), two commercial schools and the university of Tennessee. The last, a state co-educational institution, was chartered as Blount College in 1794 and as East Tennessee College in 1807, but not opened until 1820—the present name was adopted in 1879. It had in 1907-1908 106 instructors, 755 students (536 in academic departments), and a library of 25,000 volumes. With the university is combined the state college of agriculture and engineering; and a large summer school for teachers is maintained. At Knoxville are the Eastern State insane asylum, state asylums for the deaf and dumb (for both white and negro), and a national cemetery in which more than 3200 soldiers are buried. Knoxville is an important commercial and industrial centre and does a large jobbing business. It is near hardwood forests and is an important market for hardwood mantels. Coal-mines in the vicinity produce more than 2,000,000 tons annually, and neighbouring quarries furnish the famous Tennessee marble, which is largely exported. Excellent building and pottery clays are found near Knoxville. Among the city’s industrial establishments are flour and grist mills, cotton and woollen mills, furniture, desk, office supplies and sash, door, and blind factories, meat-packing establishments, clothing factories, iron, steel and boiler works, foundries and machine shops, stove works and brick and cement works. The value of the factory product increased from $6,201,840 in 1900 to $12,432,880 in 1905, or 100.5%, in 1905 the value of the flour and grist mill products alone being $2,048,509. Just outside the city the Southern railway maintains large car and repair shops. Knoxville was settled in 1786 by James White (1737-1815), a North Carolina pioneer, and was first known as “White’s Fort”; it was laid out as a town in 1791, and named in honour of General Henry Knox, then secretary of war in Washington’s cabinet. In 1791 the Knoxville Gazette, the first newspaper in Tennessee (the early issue, printed at Rogersville) began publication. From 1792 to 1796 Knoxville was the capital of the “Territory South of the Ohio,” and until 1811 and again in 1817 it was the capital of the state. In 1796 the convention which framed the constitution of the new state of Tennessee met here, and here later in the same year the first state legislature was convened. Knoxville was chartered as a city in 1815. In its early years it was several times attacked by the Indians, but was never captured. During the Civil War there was considerable Union sentiment in East Tennessee, and in the summer of 1863 the Federal authorities determined to take possession of Knoxville as well as Chattanooga and to interrupt railway communications between the Confederates of the East and West through this region. As the Confederates had erected only slight defences for the protection of the city, Burnside, with about 12,000 men, easily gained possession on the 2nd of September 1863. Fortifications were immediately begun for its defence, and on the 4th of November, Bragg, thinking his position at Chattanooga impregnable against Grant, Sherman, Thomas and Hooker, despatched a force of 20,000 men under Longstreet to engage Burnside. Longstreet arrived in the vicinity on the 16th of November, and on the following day began a siege, which was continued with numerous assaults until the 28th, when a desperate but unsuccessful attack was made on Fort Sanders, and upon the approach of a relief force under Sherman, Longstreet withdrew on the night of the 4th of December. The Confederate losses during the siege were 182 killed, 768 wounded and 192 captured or missing; the Union losses were 92 killed, 394 wounded and 207 captured or missing. West Knoxville (incorporated in 1888) and North Knoxville (incorporated in 1889) were annexed to Knoxville in 1898.

See the sketch by Joshua W. Caldwell in Historic Towns of the Southern States, edited by L. P. Powell (New York, 1900); and W. Rule, G. F. Mellen and J. Wooldridge, Standard History of Knoxville (Chicago, 1900).

KNUCKLE (apparently the diminutive of a word for “bone,” found in Ger. Knochen), the joint of a finger, which, when the hand is shut, is brought into prominence. In mechanical use the word is applied to the round projecting part of a hinge through which the pin is run, and in ship-building to an acute angle on some of the timbers. A “knuckle-duster,” said to have originally come from the criminal slang of the United States, is a brass or metal instrument fitting on to the hand across the knuckles, with projecting studs and used for inflicting a brutal blow.

KNUCKLEBONES (Hucklebones, Dibs, Jackstones, Chuck-stones, Five-stones), a game of very ancient origin, played with five small objects, originally the knucklebones of a sheep, which are thrown up and caught in various ways. Modern “knucklebones” consist of six points, or knobs, proceeding from a common base, and are usually of metal. The winner is he who first completes successfully a prescribed series of throws, which, while of the same general character, differ widely in detail. The simplest consists in tossing up one stone, the jack, and picking up one or more from the table while it is in the air; and so on until all five stones have been picked up. Another consists in tossing up first one stone, then two, then three and so on, and catching them on the back of the hand. Different throws have received distinctive names, such as “riding the elephant,” “peas in the pod,” and “horses in the stable.”

The origin of knucklebones is closely connected with that of dice, of which it is probably a primitive form, and is doubtless Asiatic. Sophocles, in a fragment, ascribed the invention of draughts and knucklebones (astragaloi) to Palamedes, who taught them to his Greek countrymen during the Trojan War. Both the Iliad and the Odyssey contain allusions to games similar in character to knucklebones, and the Palamedes tradition, as flattering to the national pride, was generally accepted throughout Greece, as is indicated by numerous literary and plastic evidences. Thus Pausanias (Corinth xx.) mentions a temple of Fortune in which Palamedes made an offering of his newly invented game. According to a still more ancient tradition, Zeus, perceiving that Ganymede longed for his playmates upon Mount Ida, gave him Eros for a companion and golden dibs with which to play, and even condescended sometimes to join in the game (Apollonius). It is significant, however, that both Herodotus and Plato ascribe to the game a foreign origin. Plato (Phaedrus) names the Egyptian god Theuth as its inventor, while Herodotus relates that the Lydians, during a period of famine in the days of King Atys, originated this game and indeed almost all other games except chess. There were two methods of playing in ancient times. The first, and probably the primitive method, consisted in tossing up and catching the bones on the back of the hand, very much as the game is played to-day. In the Museum of Naples may be seen a painting excavated at Pompeii, which represents the goddesses Latona, Niobe, Phoebe, Aglaia and Hileaera, the last two being engaged in playing at Knucklebones (see Greek Art, fig. 42). According to an epigram of Asclepiodotus, astragals were given as prizes to school-children, and we are reminded of Plutarch’s anecdote of the youthful Alcibiades, who, when a teamster threatened to drive over some of his knucklebones that had fallen into the wagon-ruts, boldly threw himself in front of the advancing team. This simple form of the game was generally played only by women and children, and was called pentalitha or five-stones. There were several varieties of it besides the usual toss and catch, one being called tropa, or hole-game, the object having been to toss the bones into a hole in the earth. Another was the simple and primitive game of “odd or even.”

The second, probably derivative, form of the game was one of pure chance, the stones being thrown upon a table, either with the hand or from a cup, and the values of the sides upon which they fell counted. In this game the shape of the pastern-bones used for astralagoi, as well as for the tali of the Romans, with whom knucklebones was also popular, determined the manner of counting. The pastern-bone of a sheep, goat or calf has, besides two rounded ends upon which it cannot stand, two broad and two narrow sides, one of each pair being concave and one convex. The convex narrow side, called chios or “the dog” counted 1; the convex broad side 3; the concave broad side 4; and the concave narrow side 6. Four astragals were used and 35 different scores were possible at a single throw, many receiving distinctive names such as Aphrodite, Midas, Solon, Alexander, and, among the Romans, Venus, King, Vulture, &c. The highest throw in Greece, counting 40, was the Euripides, and was probably a combination throw, since more than four sixes could not be thrown at one time. The lowest throw, both in Greece and Rome, was the Dog.

See Cassell’s Book of Sports and Pastimes (London, 1896); Games and Songs of American Children, by W. W. Newell (1893); and The Young Folks’ Cyclopaedia of Games and Sports (New York, 1899), for the modern children’s game. For the history see Les Jeux des Anciens, by L. Becq de Fouquières (Paris, 1869); Das Knochelspiel der Alten, by Bolle (Wismar, 1886); Die Spiele der Griechen und Römer, by W. Richter (Leipzig, 1887).

KNUTSFORD, a market town in the Knutsford parliamentary division of Cheshire, England; on the London & North-Western and Great Central railways, 24 m. E.N.E. of Chester, on the Cheshire Lines and London & North-Western railway. Pop. of urban district (1901), 5172. It is pleasantly situated on an elevated ridge, with the fine domains of Tatton Park and Tabley respectively north and west of it. The meres in these domains are especially picturesque. Knutsford is noted in modern times as the scene of Mrs Gaskell’s novel Cranford. Among several ancient houses the most interesting are a cottage with the date 1411 carved on its woodwork, and the Rose and Crown tavern, dated 1641. A number of curious old customs linger in the town, such as the practice of working designs in coloured sand, when a wedding takes place, before the bride’s house. In what is probably the oldest Unitarian graveyard in the kingdom Mrs Gaskell lies buried; and in a churchyard a mile from the town stood the ancient church, which, though partially rebuilt in the time of Henry VIII., fell into ruin in 1741. The church of St John, built in 1744, and enlarged in 1879, was supplemented, in 1880, by St Cross Church, in Perpendicular style. The town has a grammar school, founded before the reign of Henry VIII., but reorganized in 1885. Lord Egerton built the Egerton schools in 1893. The industries comprise cotton, worsted and leather manufactures; but Knutsford is mainly a residential town, as many Manchester merchants have settled here, attracted by the fine climate and surroundings. Knutsford was the birthplace of Sir Henry Holland, Physician Extraordinary to Queen Victoria (1788-1873); and his son, the second Sir Henry, who was secretary of state for the colonies (1887-1892), was raised to the peerage in 1888 with the title of Baron Knutsford.

The name Knutsford (Cunetesford, Knotesford) is said to signify Cnut’s ford, but there is no evidence of a settlement here previous to Domesday. In 1086 Erthebrand held Knutsford immediately of William FitzNigel, baron of Halton, who was himself a mesne lord of Hugh Lupus earl of Chester. In 1292 William de Tabley, lord of both Over and Nether Knutsford, granted free burgage to his burgesses in both Knutsfords. This charter is the only one which gives Knutsford a claim to the title of borough. It provided that the burgesses might elect a bailiff from amongst themselves every year. The office however carried little real power with it, and soon lapsed. In the same year as the charter to Knutsford the king granted to William de Tabley a market every Saturday at Nether Knutsford, and a three days’ fair at the Feast of St Peter and St Paul. When this charter was confirmed by Edward III. another market (Friday) and another three days’ fair (Feast of St Simon and St Jude) were added. The Friday market was certainly dropped by 1592, if it was ever held. May-day revels are still kept up here and attract large crowds from the neighbourhood. A silk mill was erected here in 1770, and there was also an attempt to foster the cotton trade, but the lack of means of communication made the undertaking impossible.

See Henry Green, History of Knutsford (1859).

KOALA (Phascolarctus cinereus), a stoutly built marsupial, of the family Phascolmyidae, which also contains the wombats. This animal, which inhabits the south-eastern parts of the Australian continent, is about 2 ft. in length, and of an ash-grey colour, an excellent climber, residing generally in lofty eucalyptus trees, the buds and tender shoots of which form its principal food, though occasionally it descends to the ground in the night in search of roots. From its shape the koala is called by the colonists the “native bear”; the term “native sloth” being also applied to it, from its arboreal habits and slow deliberate movements. The flesh is highly prized by the natives, and is palatable to Europeans. The skins are largely imported into England, for the manufacture of articles in which a cheap and durable fur is required.

KOBDO, a town of the Chinese Empire, in north-west Mongolia, at the northern foot of the Mongolian Altai, on the right bank of the Buyantu River, 13 m. from its entrance into Lake Khara-usu; 500 m. E.S.E. of Biysk (Russian), and 470 m. W. of Ulyasutai. It is situated amidst a dreary plain, and consists of a fortress, the residence of the governor of the Kobdo district, and a small trading town, chiefly peopled by Chinese and a few Mongols. It is, however, an important centre for trade between the cattle-breeding nomads and Peking. It was founded by the Chinese in 1731, and pillaged by the Mussulmans in 1872. The district of Kobdo occupies the north-western corner of Mongolia, and is peopled chiefly by Mongols, and also by Kirghiz and a few Soyotes, Uryankhes and Khotons. It is governed by a Chinese commissioner, who has under him a special Mongol functionary (Mongol, dzurgan). The chief monastery is at Ulangom. Considerable numbers of sheep (about 1,000,000), sheepskins, sheep and camel wool are exported to China, while Chinese cottons, brick tea and various small goods are imported. Leather, velveteen, cotton, iron and copper goods boxes, &c., are imported from Russia in exchange for cattle, furs and wool. The absence of a cart road to Biysk hinders the development of this trade.

KOBELL, WOLFGANG XAVER FRANZ, Baron Von (1803-1882), German mineralogist, was born at Munich on the 19th of July 1803. He studied chemistry and mineralogy at Landshut (1820-1823), and in 1826 became professor of mineralogy in the university of Munich. He introduced some new methods of mineral analyses, and in 1835 invented the stauroscope for the study of the optical properties of crystals. He contributed numerous papers to scientific journals, and described many new minerals. He died at Munich on the 11th of November, 1882.

Publications.—Charakteristik der Mineralien (2 vols. 1830-1831); Tafeln zur Bestimmung der Mineralien &c. (1833; and later editions, ed. 12, by K. Oebbeke, 1884); Grundzüge der Mineralogie (1838); Geschichte der Mineralogie von 1650-1860 (1864).

KOCH, ROBERT (1843-1910), German bacteriologist, was born at Klausthal, Hanover, on the 11th of December 1843. He studied medicine at Göttingen, and it was while he was practising as a physician at Wollstein that he began those bacteriological researches that made his name famous. In 1876 he obtained a pure culture of the bacillus of anthrax, announcing a method of preventive inoculation against that disease seven years later. He became a member of the Sanitary Commission at Berlin and a professor at the School of Medicine in 1880, and five years later he was appointed to a chair in Berlin University and director of the Institute of Health. In 1882, largely as the result of the improved methods of bacteriological investigation he was able to elaborate, he discovered the bacillus of tuberculosis; and in the following year, having been sent on an official mission to Egypt and India to study the aetiology of Asiatic cholera, he identified the comma bacillus as the specific organism of that malady. In 1890 great hopes were aroused by the announcement that in tuberculin he had prepared an agent which exercised an inimical influence on the growth of the tubercle bacillus, but the expectations that were formed of it as a remedy for consumption were not fulfilled, though it came into considerable vogue as a means of diagnosing the existence of tuberculosis in animals intended for food. At the Congress on Tuberculosis held in London in 1901 he maintained that tuberculosis in man and in cattle is not the same disease, the practical inference being that the danger to men of infection from milk and meat is less than from other human subjects suffering from the disease. This statement, however, was not regarded as properly proved, and one of its results was the appointment of a British Royal Commission to study the question. Dr Koch also investigated the nature of rinderpest in South Africa in 1896, and found means of combating the disease. In 1897 he went to Bombay at the head of a commission formed to investigate the bubonic plague, and he subsequently undertook extensive travels in pursuit of his studies on the origin and treatment of malaria. He was summoned to South Africa a second time in 1903 to give expert advice on other cattle diseases, and on his return was elected a member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. In 1906-1907 he spent eighteen months in East Africa, investigating sleeping-sickness. He died at Baden-Baden of heart-disease on the 28th of May 1910. Koch was undoubtedly one of the greatest bacteriologists ever known, and a great benefactor of humanity by his discoveries. Honours were showered upon him, and in 1905 he was awarded the Nobel prize for medicine.

Among his works may be mentioned: Weitere Mitteilungen über ein Heilmittel gegen Tuberkulose (Leipzig, 1891); and Reiseberichte über Rinderpest, Bubonenpest in Indien und Afrika, Tsetse- oder Surra-Krankheit, Texasfieber, tropische Malaria, Schwarzwasserfieber (Berlin, 1898). From 1886 onwards he edited, with Dr Karl Flügge, the Zeitschrift für Hygiene und Infektionskrankheiten (published at Leipzig). See Loeffler, “Robert Koch, zum 60ten Geburtstage” in Deut. Medizin. Wochenschr. (No. 50, 1903).

KOCH, a tribe of north-eastern India, which has given its name to the state of Kuch Behar (q.v.). They are probably of Mongolian stock, akin to the Mech, Kachari, Garo and Tippera tribes, and originally spoke, like these, a language of the Bodo group. But since one of their chiefs established a powerful kingdom at Kuch Behar in the 16th century they have gradually become Hinduized, and now adopt the name of Rajbansi (= “of royal blood”). In 1901 the number in Eastern Bengal and Assam was returned at nearly 2½ millions.

KOCK, CHARLES PAUL DE (1793-1871), French novelist, was born at Passy on the 21st of May 1793. He was a posthumous child, his father, a banker of Dutch extraction, having been a victim of the Terror. Paul de Kock began life as a banker’s clerk. For the most part he resided on the Boulevard St Martin, and was one of the most inveterate of Parisians. He died in Paris on the 27th of April 1871. He began to write for the stage very early, and composed many operatic libretti. His first novel, L’Enfant de ma femme (1811), was published at his own expense. In 1820 he began his long and successful series of novels dealing with Parisian life with Georgette, ou la mère du Tabellion. His period of greatest and most successful activity was the Restoration and the early days of Louis Philippe. He was relatively less popular in France itself than abroad, where he was considered as the special painter of life in Paris. Major Pendennis’s remark that he had read nothing of the novel kind for thirty years except Paul de Kock, “who certainly made him laugh,” is likely to remain one of the most durable of his testimonials, and may be classed with the legendary question of a foreign sovereign to a Frenchman who was paying his respects, “Vous venez de Paris et vous devez savoir des nouvelles. Comment se porte Paul de Kock?” The disappearance of the grisette and of the cheap dissipation described by Henri Murger practically made Paul de Kock obsolete. But to the student of manners his portraiture of low and middle class life in the first half of the 19th century at Paris still has its value.

The works of Paul de Kock are very numerous. With the exception of a few not very felicitous excursions into historical romance and some miscellaneous works of which his share in La Grande ville, Paris (1842), is the chief, they are all stories of middle-class Parisian life, of guinguettes and cabarets and equivocal adventures of one sort or another. The most famous are André le Savoyard (1825) and Le Barbier de Paris (1826).

His Mémoires were published in 1873. See also Th. Trimm, La Vie de Charles Paul de Kock (1873).

KODAIKANAL, a sanatorium of southern India, in the Madura district of Madras, situated in the Palni hills, about 7000 ft. above sea-level; pop. (1901), 1912, but the number in the hot season would be much larger. It is difficult of access, being 44 m. from a railway station, and the last 11 m. are impracticable for wheeled vehicles. It contains a government observatory, the appliances of which are specially adapted for the study of terrestrial magnetism, seismology and solar physics.

KODAMA, GENTARO, Count (1852-1907), Japanese general, was born in Choshu. He studied military science in Germany, and was appointed vice-minister of war in 1892. He became governor-general of Formosa in 1900, holding at the same time the portfolio of war. When the conflict with Russia became imminent in 1903, he gave up his portfolio to become vice-chief of the general staff, a sacrifice which elicited much public applause. Throughout the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5) he served as chief of staff to Field Marshal Oyama, and it was well understood that his genius guided the strategy of the whole campaign, as that of General Kawakami had done in the war with China ten years previously. General Kodama was raised in rapid succession to the ranks of baron, viscount and count, and his death in 1907 was regarded as a national calamity.

KODUNGALUR (or Cranganur), a town of southern India, in Cochin state, within the presidency of Madras. Though now a place of little importance, its historical interest is considerable. Tradition assigns to it the double honour of having been the first field of St Thomas’s labours (A.D. 52) in India and the seat of Cheraman Perumal’s government. The visit of St Thomas is generally considered mythical; but it is certain that the Syrian Church was firmly established here before the 9th century (Burnell), and probably the Jews’ settlement was still earlier. The latter, in fact, claim to hold grants dated A.D. 378. The cruelty of the Portuguese drove most of the Jews to Cochin. Up to 1314, when the Vypin harbour was formed, the only opening in the Cochin backwater, and outlet for the Periyar, was at Kodungalur, which must then have been the best harbour on the coast. In 1502 the Syrian Christians invoked the protection of the Portuguese. In 1523 the latter built their first fort there, and in 1565 enlarged it. In 1661 the Dutch took the fort, the possession of which for the next forty years was contested between this nation, the zamorin, and the raja of Kodungalur. In 1776 Tippoo seized the stronghold. The Dutch recaptured it two years later, and, having ceded it to Tippoo in 1784, sold it to the Travancore raja, and again in 1789 to Tippoo, who destroyed it in the following year. The country round Kodungalur now forms an autonomous principality, tributary to the raja of Cochin.

KOENIG, KARL DIETRICH EBERHARD (1774-1851), German palaeontologist, was born at Brunswick in 1774, and was educated at Göttingen. In 1807 he became assistant keeper, and in 1813 he was appointed keeper, of the department of natural history in the British Museum, and afterwards of geology and mineralogy, retaining the post until the close of his life. He described many fossils in the British Museum in a classic work entitled Icones fossilium sectiles (1820-1825). He died in London on the 6th of September 1851.

KOESFELD, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Westphalia, on the Berkel, 38 m. by rail N.N.W. of Dortmund. Pop. (1905), 8449. It has three Roman Catholic churches, one of which—the Gymnasial Kirche—is used by the Protestant community. Here are the ruins of the Ludgeri Castle, formerly the residence of the bishops of Münster, and also the castle of Varlar, the residence of the princes of Salm-Horstmar. The leading industries include the making of linen goods and machinery.

KOHAT, a town and district of British India, in the Peshawar division of the North-West Frontier Province. The town is 37 m. south of Peshawar by the Kohat Pass, along which a military road was opened in 1901. The population in 1901 was 30,762, including 12,670 in the cantonment, which is garrisoned by artillery, cavalry and infantry. In the Tirah campaign of 1897-98 Kohat was the starting-point of Sir William Lockhart’s expedition against the Orakzais and Afridis. It is the military base for the southern Afridi frontier as Peshawar is for the northern frontier of the same tribe, and it lies in the heart of the Pathan country.

The District of Kohat has an area of 2973 sq. m. It consists chiefly of a bare and intricate mountain region east of the Indus, deeply scored with river valleys and ravines, but enclosing a few scattered patches of cultivated lowland. The eastern or Khattak country especially comprises a perfect labyrinth of ranges, which fall, however, into two principal groups, to the north and south of the Teri Toi river. The Miranzai valley, in the extreme west, appears by comparison a rich and fertile tract. In its small but carefully tilled glens, the plane, palm, fig and many orchard trees flourish luxuriantly; while a brushwood of wild olive, mimosa and other thorny bushes clothes the rugged ravines upon the upper slopes. Occasional grassy glades upon their sides form favourite pasture grounds for the Waziri tribes. The Teri Toi, rising on the eastern limit of Upper Miranzai, runs due eastward to the Indus, which it joins 12 m. N. of Makhad, dividing the district into two main portions. The drainage from the northern half flows southward into the Teri Toi itself, and northward into the parallel stream of the Kohat Toi. That of the southern tract falls northwards also into the Teri Toi, and southwards towards the Kurram and the Indus. The frontier mountains, continuations of the Safed Koh system, attain in places a considerable elevation, the two principal peaks, Dupa Sir and Mazi Garh, just beyond the British frontier, being 8260 and 7940 ft. above the sea respectively. The Waziri hills, on the south, extend like a wedge between the boundaries of Bannu and Kohat, with a general elevation of less than 4000 ft. The salt-mines are situated in the low line of hills crossing the valley of the Teri Toi, and extending along both banks of that river. The deposit has a width of a quarter of a mile, with a thickness of 1000 ft.; it sometimes forms hills 200 ft. in height, almost entirely composed of solid rock-salt, and may probably rank as one of the largest veins of its kind in the world. The most extensive exposure occurs at Bahadur Khel, on the south bank of the Teri Toi. The annual output is about 16,000 tons, yielding a revenue of £40,000. Petroleum springs exude from a rock at Panoba, 23 m. east of Kohat; and sulphur abounds in the northern range. In 1901 the population was 217,865, showing an increase of 11% in the decade. The frontier tribes on the Kohat border are the Afridis, Orakzais, Zaimukhts and Turis. All these are described under their separate names. A railway runs from Kushalgarh through Kohat to Thal, and the river Indus has been bridged at Kushalgarh.

KOHAT PASS, a mountain pass in the North-West Frontier Province of India, connecting Kohat with Peshawar. From the north side the defile commences at 4½ m. S.W. of Fort Mackeson, whence it is about 12 or 13 m. to the Kohat entrance. The pass varies from 400 yds. to 1¼ m. in width, and its summit is some 600 to 700 ft. above the plain. It is inhabited by the Adam Khel Afridis, and nearly all British relations with that tribe have been concerned with this pass, which is the only connexion between two British districts without crossing and recrossing the Indus (see Afridi). It is now traversed by a cart-road.

KOHISTAN, a tract of country on the Peshawar border of the North-West Frontier Province of India. Kohistan means the “country of the hills” and corresponds to the English word highlands; but it is specially applied to a district, which is very little known, to the south and west of Chilas, between the Kagan valley and the river Indus. It comprises an area of over 1000 sq. m., and is bounded on the N.W. by the river Indus, on the N.E. by Chilas, and on the S. by Kagan, the Chor Glen and Allai. It consists roughly of two main valleys running east and west, and separated from each other by a mountain range over 16,000 ft. high. Like the mountains of Chilas, those in Kohistan are snow-bound and rocky wastes from their crests downwards to 12,000 ft. Below this the hills are covered with fine forest and grass to 5000 or 6000 ft., and in the valleys, especially near the Indus, are fertile basins under cultivation. The Kohistanis are Mahommedans, but not of Pathan race, and appear to be closely allied to the Chilasis. They are a well-built, brave but quiet people who carry on a trade with British districts, and have never given the government much trouble. There is little doubt that the Kohistanis are, like the Kafirs of Kafiristan, the remnants of old races driven by Mahommedan invasions from the valleys and plains into the higher mountains. The majority have been converted to Islam within the last 200 years. The total population is about 16,000.

An important district also known as Kohistan lies to the north of Kabul in Afghanistan, extending to the Hindu Kush. The Kohistani Tajiks proved to be the most powerful and the best organized clans that opposed the British occupation of Kabul in 1879-80. Part of their country is highly cultivated, abounding in fruit, and includes many important villages. It is here that the remains of an ancient city have been lately discovered by the amir’s officials, which may prove to be the great city of Alexander’s founding, known to be to the north of Kabul, but which had hitherto escaped identification.

The name of Kohistan is also applied to a tract of barren and hilly country on the east border of Karachi district, Sind.

KOHL. (1) The name of the cosmetic used from the earliest times in the East by women to darken the eyelids, in order to increase the lustre of the eyes. It is usually composed of finely powdered antimony, but smoke black obtained from burnt almond-shells or frankincense is also used. The Arabic word koḥl, from which has been derived “alcohol,” is derived from kaḥala, to stain. (2) “Kohl” or “kohl-rabi” (cole-rape, from Lat. caulis, cabbage) is a kind of cabbage (q.v.), with a turnip-shaped top, cultivated chiefly as food for cattle.

KOHLHASE, HANS, a German historical figure about whose personality some controversy exists. He is chiefly known as the hero of Heinrich von Kleist’s novel, Michael Kohlhaas. He was a merchant, and not, as some have supposed, a horsedealer, and he lived at Kölln in Brandenburg. In October 1532, so the story runs, whilst proceeding to the fair at Leipzig, he was attacked and his horses were taken from him by the servants of a Saxon nobleman, one Günter von Zaschwitz. In consequence of the delay the merchant suffered some loss of business at the fair and on his return he refused to pay the small sum which Zaschwitz demanded as a condition of returning the horses. Instead Kohlhase asked for a substantial amount of money as compensation for his loss, and failing to secure this he invoked the aid of his sovereign, the elector of Brandenburg. Finding however that it was impossible to recover his horses, he paid Zaschwitz the sum required for them, but reserved to himself the right to take further action. Then unable to obtain redress in the courts of law, the merchant, in a Fehdebrief, threw down a challenge, not only to his aggressor, but to the whole of Saxony. Acts of lawlessness were soon attributed to him, and after an attempt to settle the feud had failed, the elector of Saxony, John Frederick I., set a price upon the head of the angry merchant. Kohlhase now sought revenge in earnest. Gathering around him a band of criminals and of desperadoes he spread terror throughout the whole of Saxony; travellers were robbed, villages were burned and towns were plundered. For some time the authorities were practically powerless to stop these outrages, but in March 1540 Kohlhase and his principal associate, Georg Nagelschmidt, were seized, and on the 22nd of the month they were broken on the wheel in Berlin.

The life and fate of Kohlhase are dealt with in several dramas. See Burkhardt, Der historische Hans Kohlhase und H. von Kleists Michael Kohlhaas (Leipzig, 1864).

KOKOMO, a city and the county-seat of Howard county, Indiana, U.S.A., on the Wildcat River, about 50 m. N. of Indianapolis. Pop. (1890), 8261; (1900), 10,609 of whom 499 were foreign-born and 359 negroes; (1910 census), 17,010. It is served by the Lake Erie & Western, the Pittsburg Cincinnati Chicago & St Louis, and the Toledo St Louis & Western railways, and by two interurban electric lines. Kokomo is a centre of trade in agricultural products, and has various manufactures, including flint, plate and opalescent glass, &c. The total value of the factory product increased from $2,062,156 in 1900 to $3,651,105 in 1905, or 77.1%; and in 1905 the glass product was valued at $864,567, or 23.7% of the total. Kokomo was settled about 1840 and became a city (under a state law) in 1865.

KOKO-NOR (or Kuku-Nor) (Tsing-hai of the Chinese, and Tso-ngombo of the Tanguts), a lake of Central Asia, situated at an altitude of 9975 ft., in the extreme N.E. of Tibet, 30 m. from the W. frontier of the Chinese province of Kan-suh, in 100° E. and 37° N. It lies amongst the eastern ranges of the Kuen-lun, having the Nan-shan Mountains to the north, and the southern Koko-nor range (10,000 ft.) on the south. It measures 66 m. by 40 m., and contains half a dozen islands, on one of which is a Buddhist (i.e. Lamaist) monastery, to which pilgrims resort. The water is salt, though an abundance of fish live in it, and it often remains frozen for three months together in winter. The surface is at times subject to considerable variations of level. The lake is entered on the west by the river Buhain-gol. The nomads who dwell round its shores are Tanguts.

KOKSHAROV, NĪKOLAÍ ĪVANOVICH VON (1818-1893), Russian mineralogist and major-general in the Russian army, was born at Ust-Kamenogork in Tomsk, on the 5th of December 1818 (O.S.). He was educated at the military school of mines in St Petersburg. At the age of twenty-two he was selected to accompany R. I. Murchison and De Verneuil, and afterwards De Keyserling, in their geological survey of the Russian Empire. Subsequently he devoted his attention mainly to the study of mineralogy and mining, and was appointed director of the Institute of Mines. In 1865 he became director of the Imperial Mineralogical Society of St Petersburg. He contributed numerous papers on euclase, zircon, epidote, orthite, monazite and other mineralogical subjects to the St Petersburg and Vienna academies of science, to Poggendorf’s Annalen, Leonhard and Brown’s Jahrbuch, &c. He also issued as separate works Materialen zur Mineralogie Russlands (10 vols., 1853-1891), and Vorlesungen über Mineralogie (1865). He died in St Petersburg on the 3rd of January 1893 (O.S.).

KOKSTAD, a town of South Africa, the capital of Griqualand East, 236 m. by rail S.W. of Durban, 110 m. N. by W. of Port Shepstone, and 150 m. N. of Port St John, Pondoland. Pop. (1904), 2903, of whom a third were Griquas. The town is built on the outer slopes of the Drakensberg and is 4270 ft. above the sea. Behind it Mount Currie rises to a height of 7297 ft. An excellent water supply is derived from the mountains. The town is well laid out, and possesses several handsome public buildings. It is the centre of a thriving agricultural district and has a considerable trade in wool, grain, cattle and horses with Basutoland, Pondoland and the neighbouring regions of Natal. The town is named after the Griqua chief Adam Kok, who founded it in 1869. In 1879 it came into the possession of Cape Colony and was granted municipal government in 1893. It is the residence of the Headman of the Griqua nation. (See Kaffraria and Griqualand.)

KOLA, a peninsula of northern Russia, lying between the Arctic Ocean on the N. and the White Sea on the S. It forms part of the region of Lapland and belongs administratively to the government of Archangel. The Arctic coast, known as the Murman coast (Murman being a corruption of Norman), is 260 m. long, and being subject to the influence of the North Atlantic drift, is free from ice all the year round. It is a rocky coast, built of granite, and rising to 650 ft., and is broken by several excellent bays. On one of these, Kola Bay, the Russian government founded in 1895 the naval harbour of Alexandrovsk. From May to August a productive fishery is carried on along this coast. Inland the peninsula rises up to a plateau, 1000 ft. in general elevation, and crossed by several ranges of low mountains, which go up to over 3000 ft. in altitude. The lower slopes of these mountains are clothed with forest up to 1300 ft., and in places thickly studded with lakes, some of them of very considerable extent, e.g. Imandra (330 sq. m.), Ump-jaur, Nuorti-järvi, Guolle-jaur or Kola Lake, and Lu-jaur. From these issue streams of appreciable magnitude, such as the Tuloma, Voronya, Yovkyok or Yokanka, and Ponoi, all flowing into the Arctic, and the Varsuga and Umba, into the White Sea. The area of the peninsula is estimated at 50,000 sq. m.

See A. O. Kihlmann and Palmén, Die Expedition nach der Halbinsel Kola (1887-1892) (Helsingfors); A. O. Kihlmann, Bericht einer naturwissenschaftlichen Reise durch Russisch-Lappland (Helsingfors, 1890); and W. Ramsay, Geologische Beobachtungen auf der Halbinsel Kola (Helsingfors, 1899).

KOLABA (or Colaba), a district of British India, in the southern division of Bombay. Area, 2131 sq. m.; pop. (1901), 605,566, showing an increase of 2% in the decade. The headquarters are at Alibagh. Lying between the Western Ghats and the sea, Kolaba district abounds in hills, some being spurs running at right angles to the main range, while others are isolated peaks or lofty detached ridges. The sea frontage, of about 20 m., is throughout the greater part of its length fringed by a belt of coco-nut and betel-nut palms. Behind this belt lies a stretch of flat country devoted to rice cultivation. In many places along the banks of the salt-water creeks there are extensive tracts of salt marshland, some of them reclaimed, some still subject to tidal inundation, and others set apart for the manufacture of salt. The district is traversed by a few small streams. Tidal inlets, of which the principal are the Nagothna on the north, the Roha or Chaul in the west, and the Bankot creek in the south, run inland for 30 or 40 m., forming highways for a brisk trade in rice, salt, firewood, and dried fish. Near the coast especially, the district is well supplied with reservoirs. The Western Ghats have two remarkable peaks—Raigarh, where Sivaji built his capital, and Miradongar. There are extensive teak and black wood forests, the value of which is increased by their proximity to Bombay. The Great Indian Peninsula railway crosses part of the district, and communication with Bombay is maintained by a steam ferry. Owing to its nearness to that city, the district has suffered severely from plague. Kolaba district takes its name from a little island off Alibagh, which was one of the strongholds of Angria, the Mahratta pirate of the 18th century. The same island has given its name to Kolaba Point, the spur of Bombay Island running south that protects the entrance to the harbour. On Kolaba Point are the terminus of the Bombay & Baroda railway, barracks for a European regiment, lunatic asylum and observatory.

KOLAR, a town and district of India, in the state of Mysore. The town is 43 m. E. of Bangalore. Pop. (1901), 12,210. Although of ancient foundation, it has been almost completely modernized. Industries include the weaving of blankets and the breeding of turkeys for export.

The District of Kolar has an area of 3180 sq. m. It occupies the portion of the Mysore table-land immediately bordering the Eastern Ghats. The principal watershed lies in the north-west, around the hill of Nandidrug (4810 ft.), from which rivers radiate in all directions; and the whole country is broken by numerous hill ranges. The chief rivers are the Palar, the South Pinakini or Pennar, the North Pinakini, and the Papagani, which are industriously utilized for irrigation by means of anicuts and tanks. The rocks of the district are mostly syenite or granite, with a small admixture of mica and feldspar. The soil in the valleys consists of a fertile loam; and in the higher levels sand and gravel are found. The hills are covered with scrub, jungle and brushwood. In 1901 the population was 723,600, showing an increase of 22% in the decade. The district is traversed by the Bangalore line of the Madras railway, with a branch 10 m. long, known as the Kolar Goldfields railway. Gold prospecting in this region began in 1876, and the industry is now settled on a secure basis. Here are situated the mines of the Mysore, Champion Reef, Ooregum, and Nandidrug companies. To the end of 1904 the total value of gold produced was 21 millions sterling, and there had been paid in dividends 9 millions, and in royalty to the Mysore state one million. The municipality called the Kolar Gold Fields had in 1901 a population of 38,204; it has suffered severely from plague. Electricity from the falls of the Cauvery (93 m. distant) is utilized as the motive power in the mines. Sugar manufacture and silk and cotton weaving are the other principal industries in the district. The chief historical interest of modern times centres round the hill fort of Nandidrug, which was stormed by the British in 1791, after a bombardment of 21 days.

KOLBE, ADOLPHE WILHELM HERMANN (1818-1884), German chemist, was born on the 27th of September 1818 at Elliehausen, near Göttingen, where in 1838 he began to study chemistry under F. Wöhler. In 1842 he became assistant to R. W. von Bunsen at Marburg, and three years later to Lyon Playfair at London. From 1847 to 1851 he was engaged at Brunswick in editing the Dictionary of Chemistry started by Liebig, but in the latter year he went to Marburg as successor to Bunsen in the chair of chemistry. In 1865 he was called to Leipzig in the same capacity, and he died in that city on the 25th of November 1884. Kolbe had an important share in the great development of chemical theory that occurred about the middle of the 19th century, especially in regard to the constitution of organic compounds, which he viewed as derivatives of inorganic ones, formed from the latter—in some cases directly—by simple processes of substitution. Unable to accept Berzelius’s doctrine of the unalterability of organic radicals, he also gave a new interpretation to the meaning of copulae under the influence of his fellow-worker Edward Frankland’s conception of definite atomic saturation-capacities, and thus contributed in an important degree to the subsequent establishment of the structure theory. Kolbe was a very successful teacher, a ready and vigorous writer, and a brilliant experimentalist whose work revealed the nature of many compounds the composition of which had not previously been understood. He published a Lehrbuch der organischen Chemie in 1854, smaller textbooks of organic and inorganic chemistry in 1877-1883, and Zur Entwickelungsgeschichte der theoretischen Chemie in 1881. From 1870 he was editor of the Journal für praktische Chemie, in which many trenchant criticisms of contemporary chemists and their doctrines appeared from his pen.

KOLBERG (or Colberg), a town of Germany, and seaport of the Prussian province of Pomerania, on the right bank of the Persante, which falls into the Baltic about a mile below the town, and at the junction of the railway lines to Belgard and Gollnow. Pop. (1905), 22,804. It has a handsome market-place with a statue of Frederick William III.; and there are extensive suburbs, of which the most important is Münde. The principal buildings are the huge red-brick church of St Mary, with five aisles, one of the most remarkable churches in Pomerania, dating from the 14th century; the council-house (Rathaus), erected after the plans of Ernst F. Zwirner; and the citadel. Kolberg also possesses four other churches, a theatre, a gymnasium, a school of navigation, and an exchange. Its bathing establishments are largely frequented and attract a considerable number of summer visitors. It has a harbour at the mouth of the Persante, where there is a lighthouse. Woollen cloth, machinery and spirits are manufactured; there is an extensive salt-mine in the neighbouring Zillenberg; the salmon and lamprey fisheries are important; and a fair amount of commercial activity is maintained. In 1903 a monument was erected to the memory of Gneisenau and the patriot, Joachim Christian Nettelbeck (1738-1824), through whose efforts the town was saved from the French in 1806-7.

Originally a Slavonic fort, Kolberg is one of the oldest places of Pomerania. At an early date it became the seat of a bishop, and although it soon lost this distinction it obtained municipal privileges in 1255. From about 1276 it ranked as the most important place in the episcopal principality of Kamin, and from 1284 it was a member of the Hanseatic League. During the Thirty Years’ War it was captured by the Swedes in 1631, passing by the treaty of Westphalia to the elector of Brandenburg, Frederick William I., who strengthened its fortifications. The town was a centre of conflict during the Seven Years’ War. In 1758 and again in 1760 the Russians besieged Kolberg in vain, but in 1762 they succeeded in capturing it. Soon restored to Brandenburg, it was vigorously attacked by the French in 1806 and 1807, but it was saved by the long resistance of its inhabitants. In 1887 the fortifications of the town were razed, and it has since become a fashionable watering-place, receiving annually nearly 15,000 visitors.

See Riemann, Geschichte der Stadt Kolberg (Kolberg, 1873); Stoewer, Geschichte der Stadt Kolberg (Kolberg, 1897); Schönlein, Geschichte der Belagerungen Kolbergs in den Jahren 1758, 1760, 1761 und 1807 (Kolberg, 1878); and Kempin, Führer durch Bad Kolberg (Kolberg, 1899).

KÖLCSEY, FERENCZ (1790-1838), Hungarian poet, critic and orator, was born at Szodemeter, in Transylvania, on the 8th of August 1790. In his fifteenth year he made the acquaintance of Kazinczy and zealously adopted his linguistic reforms. In 1809 Kölcsey went to Pest and became a “notary to the royal board.” Law proved distasteful, and at Cseke in Szatmár county he devoted his time to aesthetical study, poetry, criticism, and the defence of the theories of Kazinczy. Kölcsey’s early metrical pieces contributed to the Transylvanian Museum did not attract much attention, whilst his severe criticisms of Csokonai, Kis, and especially Berzsenyi, published in 1817, rendered him very unpopular. From 1821 to 1826 he published many separate poems of great beauty in the Aurora, Hebe, Aspasia, and other magazines of polite literature. He joined Paul Szemere in a new periodical, styled Élet és literatura (“Life and Literature”), which appeared from 1826 to 1829, in 4 vols., and gained for Kölcsey the highest reputation as a critical writer. From 1832 to 1835 he sat in the Hungarian Diet, where his extreme liberal views and his singular eloquence soon rendered him famous as a parliamentary leader. Elected on the 17th of November 1830 a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, he took part in its first grand meeting; in 1832, he delivered his famous oration on Kazinczy, and in 1836 that on his former opponent Daniel Berzsenyi. When in 1838 Baron Wesselényi was unjustly thrown into prison upon a charge of treason, Kölcsey eloquently though unsuccessfully conducted his defence; and he died about a week afterwards (August 24) from internal inflammation. His collected works, in 6 vols., were published at Pest, 1840-1848, and his journal of the diet of 1832-1836 appeared in 1848. A monument erected to the memory of Kölcsey was unveiled at Szatmár-Németi on the 25th of September 1864.

See G. Steinacker, Ungarische Lyriker (Leipzig, and Pest, 1874); F. Toldy, Magyar Költök élete (2 vols., Pest, 1871); J. Ferenczy and J. Danielik, Magyar Irók (2 vols., Pest, 1856-1858).

KOLDING, a town of Denmark in the amt (county) of Vejle, on the east coast of Jutland, on the Koldingfjord, an inlet of the Little Belt, 9 m. N. of the German frontier. Pop. (1901), 12,516. It is on the Eastern railway of Jutland. The harbour throughout has a depth of over 20 ft. A little to the north-west is the splendid remnant of the royal castle Koldinghuus, formerly called Oernsborg or Arensborg. It was begun by Duke Abel in 1248; in 1808 it was burned. The large square tower was built by Christian IV. (1588-1648), and was surmounted by colossal statues, of which one is still standing. It contains an antiquarian and historical museum (1892). The name of Kolding occurs in the 10th century, but its earliest known town-rights date from 1321. In 1644 it was the scene of a Danish victory over the Swedes, and on the 22nd of April 1849 of a Danish defeat by the troops of Schleswig-Holstein. A comprehensive view of the Little Belt with its islands, and over the mainland, is obtained from the Skamlingsbank, a slight elevation 8½ m. S.E., where an obelisk (1863) commemorates the effort made to preserve the Danish language in Schleswig.

KOLGUEV, Kolgueff or Kalguyev, an island off the north-west of Russia in Europe, belonging to the government of Archangel. It lies about 50 m. from the nearest point of the mainland, and is of roughly oval form, 54 m. in length from N.N.E. to S.S.W. and 39 m. in extreme breadth. It lies in a shallow sea, and is quite low, the highest point being 250 ft. above the sea. Peat-bogs and grass lands cover the greater part of the surface; there are several considerable streams and a large number of small lakes. The island is of recent geological formation; it consists almost wholly of disintegrated sandstone or clay (which rises at the north-west into cliffs up to 60 ft. high), with scattered masses of granite. Vegetation is scanty, but bears, foxes and other Arctic animals, geese, swans, &c., provide means of livelihood for a few Samoyed hunters.

KOLHAPUR, a native state of India, within the Deccan division of Bombay. It is the fourth in importance of the Mahratta principalities, the other three being Baroda, Gwalior and Indore; and it is the principal state under the political control of the government of Bombay. Together with its jagirs or feudatories, it covers an area of 3165 sq. m. In 1901 the population was 910,011. The estimated revenue is £300,000. Kolhapur stretches from the heart of the Western Ghats eastwards into the plain of the Deccan. Along the spurs of the main chain of the Ghats lie wild and picturesque hill slopes and valleys, producing little but timber, and till recently covered with rich forests. The centre of the state is crossed by several lines of low hills running at right angles from the main range. In the east the country becomes more open and presents the unpicturesque uniformity of a well-cultivated and treeless plain, broken only by an occasional river. Among the western hills are the ancient Mahratta strongholds of Panhala, Vishalgarh, Bavda and Rungna. The rivers, though navigable during the rains by boats of 2 tons burthen, are all fordable during the hot months. Iron ore is found in the hills, and smelting was formerly carried on to a considerable extent; but now the Kolhapur mineral cannot compete with that imported from Europe. There are several good stone quarries. The principal agricultural products are rice, millets, sugar-cane, tobacco, cotton, safflower and vegetables.

The rajas of Kolhapur trace their descent from Raja Ram, a younger son of Sivaji the Great, the founder of the Mahratta power. The prevalence of piracy caused the British government to send expeditions against Kolhapur in 1765 and 1792; and in the early years of the 19th century the misgovernment of the chief compelled the British to resort to military operations, and ultimately to appoint an officer to manage the state. In recent years the state has been conspicuously well governed, on the pattern of British administration. The raja Shahu Chhatrapati, G.C.S.I. (who is entitled to a salute of 21 guns) was born in 1874, and ten years later succeeded to the throne by adoption. The principal institutions are the Rajaram college, the high school, a technical school, an agricultural school, and training-schools for both masters and mistresses. The state railway from Miraj junction to Kolhapur town is worked by the Southern Mahratta company. In recent years the state has suffered from both famine and plague.

The town of Kolhapur, or Karvir, is the terminus of a branch of the Southern Mahratta railway, 30 m. from the main line. Pop. (1901), 54,373. Besides a number of handsome modern public buildings, the town has many evidences of antiquity. Originally it appears to have been an important religious centre, and numerous Buddhist remains have been discovered in the neighbourhood.

KOLIN, or Neu-Kolin (also Kollin; Czech, Nový Kolín), a town of Bohemia, Austria, 40 m. E. of Prague by rail. Pop. (1900), 15,025, mostly Czech. It is situated on the Elbe, and amongst its noteworthy buildings may be specially mentioned the beautiful early Gothic church of St Bartholomew, erected during the latter half of the 14th century. The industries of the town include sugar-refining, steam mills, brewing, and the manufacture of starch, syrup, spirits, potash and tin ware. The neighbourhood is known for the excellence of its fruit and vegetables. Kolin is chiefly famous on account of the battle here on the 18th of June 1757, when the Prussians under Frederick the Great were defeated by the Austrians under Daun (see Seven Years’ War). The result was the raising of the siege of Prague and the evacuation of Bohemia by the Prussians. Kolin was colonized in the 13th century by German settlers and made a royal city. In 1421 it was captured by the men of Prague, and the German inhabitants who refused to accept “the four articles” were expelled. In 1427 the town declared against Prague, was besieged by Prokop the Great, and surrendered to him upon conditions at the close of the year.

KOLIS, a caste or tribe of Western India, of uncertain origin. Possibly the name is derived from the Turki kuleh a slave; and, according to one theory, this name has been passed on to the familiar word “cooly” for an agricultural labourer. They form the main part of the inferior agricultural population of Gujarat, where they were formerly notorious as robbers; but they also extend into the Konkan and the Deccan. In 1901 the number of Kolis in all India was returned as nearly 3¾ millions; but this total includes a distinct weaving caste of Kolis or Koris in northern India.

KÖLLIKER, RUDOLPH ALBERT VON (1817-1905), Swiss anatomist and physiologist, was born at Zürich on the 6th of July 1817. His father and his mother were both Zürich people, and he in due time married a lady from Aargau, so that Switzerland can claim him as wholly her own, though he lived the greater part of his life in Germany. His early education was carried on in Zürich, and he entered the university there in 1836. After two years, however, he moved to the university of Bonn, and later to that of Berlin, becoming at the latter place the pupil of Johannes Müller and of F. G. J. Henle. He graduated in philosophy at Zürich in 1841, and in medicine at Heidelberg in 1842. The first academic post which he held was that of prosector of anatomy under Henle; but his tenure of this office was brief, for in 1844 his native city called him back to its university to occupy a chair as professor extraordinary of physiology and comparative anatomy. His stay here too, however, was brief, for in 1847 the university of Würzburg, attracted by his rising fame, offered him the post of professor of physiology and of microscopical and comparative anatomy. He accepted the appointment, and at Würzburg he remained thenceforth, refusing all offers tempting him to leave the quiet academic life of the Bavarian town, where he died on the 2nd of November 1905.

Kölliker’s name will ever be associated with that of the tool with which during his long life he so assiduously and successfully worked, the microscope. The time at which he began his studies coincided with that of the revival of the microscopic investigation of living beings. Two centuries earlier the great Italian Malpighi had started, and with his own hand had carried far the study by the help of the microscope of the minute structure of animals and plants. After Malpighi this branch of knowledge, though continually progressing, made no remarkable bounds forward until the second quarter of the 19th century, when the improvement of the compound microscope on the one hand, and the promulgation by Theodor Schwann and Matthias Schleiden of the “cell theory” on the other, inaugurated a new era of microscopic investigation. Into this new learning Kölliker threw himself with all the zeal of youth, wisely initiated into it by his great teacher Henle, whose sober and exact mode of inquiry went far at the time to give the new learning a right direction and to counteract the somewhat fantastic views which, under the name of the cell theory, were tending to be prominent. Henle’s labours were for the most part limited to the microscopic investigation of the minute structure of the tissues of man and of the higher animals, the latter being studied by him mainly with the view of illustrating the former. But Kölliker had another teacher besides Henle, the even greater Johannes Müller, whose active mind was sweeping over the whole animal kingdom, striving to pierce the secrets of the structure of living creatures of all sorts, and keeping steadily in view the wide biological problems of function and of origin, which the facts of structure might serve to solve. We may probably trace to the influence of these two great teachers, strengthened by the spirit of the times, the threefold character of Kölliker’s long-continued and varied labours. In all of them, or in almost all of them, the microscope was the instrument of inquiry, but the problem to be solved by means of the instrument belonged now to one branch of biology, now to another.

At Zürich, and afterwards at Würzburg, the title of the chair which he held laid upon him the duty of teaching comparative anatomy, and very many of the numerous memoirs which he published, including the very first paper which he wrote, and which appeared in 1841 before he graduated, “On the Nature of the so-called Seminal Animalcules,” were directed towards elucidating, by help of the microscope, the structure of animals of the most varied kinds—that is to say, were zoological in character. Notable among these were his papers on the Medusae and allied creatures. His activity in this direction led him to make zoological excursions to the Mediterranean Sea and to the coasts of Scotland, as well as to undertake, conjointly with his friend C. T. E. von Siebold, the editorship of the Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, which, founded in 1848, continued under his hands to be one of the most important zoological periodicals.

At the time when Kölliker was beginning his career the influence of Karl Ernst von Baer’s embryological teaching was already being widely felt, men were learning to recognize the importance to morphological and zoological studies of a knowledge of the development of animals; and Kölliker plunged with enthusiasm into the relatively new line of inquiry. His earlier efforts were directed to the invertebrata, and his memoir on the development of cephalopods, which appeared in 1844, is a classical work; but he soon passed on to the vertebrata, and studied not only the amphibian embryo and the chick, but also the mammalian embryo. He was among the first, if not the very first, to introduce into this branch of biological inquiry the newer microscopic technique—the methods of hardening, section-cutting and staining. By doing so, not only was he enabled to make rapid progress himself, but he also placed in the hands of others the means of a like advance. The remarkable strides forward which embryology made during the middle and during the latter half of the 19th century will always be associated with his name. His Lectures on Development, published in 1861, at once became a standard work.

But neither zoology nor embryology furnished Kölliker’s chief claim to fame. If he did much for these branches of science, he did still more for histology, the knowledge of the minute structure of the animal tissues. This he made emphatically his own. It may indeed be said that there is no fragment of the body of man and of the higher animals on which he did not leave his mark, and in more places than one his mark was a mark of fundamental importance. Among his earlier results may be mentioned the demonstration in 1847 that smooth or unstriated muscle is made up of distinct units, of nucleated muscle-cells. In this work he followed in the footsteps of his master Henle. A few years before this men were doubting whether arteries were muscular, and no solid histological basis as yet existed for those views as to the action of the nervous system on the circulation, which were soon to be put forward, and which had such a great influence on the progress of physiology. By the above discovery Kölliker completed that basis.

Even to enumerate, certainly to dwell on, all his contributions to histology would be impossible here: smooth muscle, striated muscle, skin, bone, teeth, blood-vessels and viscera were all investigated by him; and he touched none of them without striking out some new truths. The results at which he arrived were recorded partly in separate memoirs, partly in his great textbook on microscopical anatomy, which first saw the light in 1850, and by which he advanced histology no less than by his own researches. In the case of almost every tissue our present knowledge contains something great or small which we owe to Kölliker; but it is on the nervous system that his name is written in largest letters. So early as 1845, while still at Zürich, he supplied what was as yet still lacking, the clear proof that nerve-fibres are continuous with nerve-cells, and so furnished the absolutely necessary basis for all sound speculations as to the actions of the central nervous system. From that time onward he continually laboured, and always fruitfully, at the histology of the nervous system, and more especially at the difficult problems presented by the intricate patterns in which fibres and cells are woven together in the brain and spinal cord. In his old age, at a time when he had fully earned the right to fold his arms, and to rest and be thankful, he still enriched neurological science with results of the highest value. From his early days a master of method, he saw at a glance the value of the new Golgi method for the investigation of the central nervous system, and, to the great benefit of science, took up once more in his old age, with the aid of a new means, the studies for which he had done so much in his youth. It may truly be said that much of that exact knowledge of the inner structure of the brain, which is rendering possible new and faithful conceptions of its working, came from his hands.

Lastly, Kölliker was in his earlier years professor of physiology as well as of anatomy; and not only did his histological labours almost always carry physiological lessons, but he also enriched physiology with the results of direct researches of an experimental kind, notably those on curare and some other poisons. In fact, we have to go back to the science of centuries ago to find a man of science of so many-sided an activity as he. His life constituted in a certain sense a protest against that specialized differentiation which, however much it may under certain aspects be regretted, seems to be one of the necessities of modern development. In Johannes Müller’s days no one thought of parting anatomy and physiology; nowadays no one thinks of joining them together. Kölliker did in his work join them together, and indeed said himself that he thought they ought never to be kept apart.

Naturally a man of so much accomplishment was not left without honours. Formerly known simply as Kölliker, the title “von” was added to his name. He was made a member of the learned societies of many countries; in England, which he visited more than once, and where he became well known, the Royal Society made him a fellow in 1860, and in 1897 gave him its highest token of esteem, the Copley medal.

(M. F.)

KOLLONTAJ, HUGO (1750-1812), Polish politician and writer, was born in 1750 at Niecislawice in Sandomir, and educated at Pinczow and Cracow. After taking orders he went (1770) to Rome, where he obtained the degree of doctor of theology and common law, and devoted himself enthusiastically to the study of the fine arts, especially of architecture and painting. At Rome too he obtained a canonry attached to Cracow cathedral, and on his return to Poland in 1755 threw himself heart and soul into the question of educational reform. His efforts were impeded by the obstruction of the clergy of Cracow, who regarded him as an adventurer; but he succeeded in reforming the university after his own mind, and was its rector for three years (1782-1785). Kollontaj next turned his attention to politics. In 1786 he was appointed referendarius of Lithuania, and during the Four Years’ Diet (1788-1792) displayed an amazing and many-sided activity as one of the reformers of the constitution. He grouped around him all the leading writers, publicists and progressive young men of the day; declaimed against prejudices; stimulated the timid; inspired the lukewarm with enthusiasm; and never rested till the constitution of the 3rd of May 1791 had been carried through. In June 1791 Kollontaj was appointed vice-chancellor. On the triumph of the reactionaries and the fall of the national party, he secretly placed in the king’s hands his adhesion to the triumphant Confederation of Targowica, a false step, much blamed at the time, but due not to personal ambition but to a desire to save something from the wreck of the constitution. He then emigrated to Dresden. On the outbreak of Kosciuszko’s insurrection he returned to Poland, and as member of the national government and minister of finance took a leading part in affairs. But his radicalism had now become of a disruptive quality, and he quarrelled with and even thwarted Kosciuszko because the dictator would not admit that the Polish republic could only be saved by the methods of Jacobinism. On the other hand, the more conservative section of the Poles regarded Kollontaj as “a second Robespierre,” and he is even suspected of complicity in the outrages of the 17th and 18th of June 1794, when the Warsaw mob massacred the political prisoners. On the collapse of the insurrection Kollontaj emigrated to Austria, where from 1795 to 1802 he was detained as a prisoner. He was finally released through the mediation of Prince Adam Czartoryski, and returned to Poland utterly discredited. The remainder of his life was a ceaseless struggle against privation and prejudice. He died at Warsaw on the 28th of February 1812.

Of his numerous works the most notable are: Political Speeches as Vice-Chancellor (Pol.) (in 6 vols., Warsaw, 1791); On the Erection and Fall of the Constitution of May (Pol.) (Leipzig, 1793; Paris, 1868); Correspondence with T. Czacki (Pol.) (Cracow, 1854); Letters written during Emigration, 1792-1794 (Pol.) (Posen, 1872).

See Ignacz Badeni, Necrology of Hugo Kollontaj (Pol.) (Cracow, 1819); Henryk Schmitt, Review of the Life and Works of Kollontaj (Pol.) (Lemberg, 1860); Wojciek Grochowski, “Life of Kollontaj” (Pol.) in Tygod Illus. (Warsaw, 1861).

(R. N. B.)

KOLOMEA (Polish, Kolomyja), a town of Austria, in Galicia, 122 m. S. of Lemberg by rail. Pop. (1900), 34,188, of which half were Jews. It is situated on the Pruth, and has an active trade in agricultural products. To the N.E. of Kolomea, near the Dniester, lies the village of Czernelica, with ruins of a strongly fortified castle, which served as the residence of John Sobieski during his campaigns against the Turks. Kolomea is a very old town and is mentioned already in 1240, but the assertion that it was a Roman settlement under the name of Colonia is not proved. It was the principal town of the Polish province of Pokutia, and it suffered severely during the 15th and 16th centuries from the attacks of the Moldavians and the Tatars.

KOLOMNA, a town of Russia, in the government of Moscow, situated on the railway between Moscow and Ryazan, 72 m. S.E. of Moscow, at the confluence of the Moskva river with the Kolomenka. Pop. (1897), 20,970. It is an old town, mentioned in the annals in 1177, and until the 14th century was the capital of the Ryazan principality. It suffered greatly from the invasions of the Tatars in the 13th century, who destroyed it four times, as well as from the wars of the 17th century; but it always recovered and has never lost its commercial importance. During the 19th century it became a centre for the manufacture of silks, cottons, ropes and leather. Here too are railway workshops, where locomotives and wagons are made. Kolomna carries on an active trade in grain, cattle, tallow, skins, salt and timber. It has several old churches of great archaeological interest, including two of the 14th century, one being the cathedral. One gate (restored in 1895) of the fortifications of the Kreml still survives.

KOLOZSVÁR (Ger. Klausenburg; Rum. Cluj), a town of Hungary, in Transylvania, the capital of the county of Kolozs, and formerly the capital of the whole of Transylvania, 248 m. E.S.E. of Budapest by rail. Pop. (1900), 46,670. It is situated in a picturesque valley on the banks of the Little Szamos, and comprises the inner town (formerly surrounded with walls) and five suburbs. The greater part of the town lies on the right bank of the river, while on the other side is the so-called Bridge Suburb and the citadel (erected in 1715). Upon the slopes of the citadel hill there is a gipsy quarter. With the exception of the old quarter, Kolozsvár is generally well laid out, and contains many broad and fine streets, several of which diverge at right angles from the principal square. In this square is situated the Gothic church of St Michael (1396-1432); in front is a bronze equestrian statue of King Matthias Corvinus by the Hungarian sculptor Fadrusz (1902). Other noteworthy buildings are the Reformed church, built by Matthias Corvinus in 1486 and ceded to the Calvinists by Bethlen Gabor in 1622; the house in which Matthias Corvinus was born (1443), which contains an ethnographical museum; the county and town halls, a museum, and the university buildings. A feature of Kolozsvár is the large number of handsome mansions belonging to the Transylvanian nobles, who reside here during the winter. It is the seat of a Unitarian bishop, and of the superintendent of the Calvinists for the Transylvanian circle. Kolozsvár is the literary and scientific centre of Transylvania, and is the seat of numerous literary and scientific associations. It contains a university (founded in 1872), with four faculties—theology, philosophy, law and medicine—frequented by about 1900 students in 1905; and amongst its other educational establishments are a seminary for Unitarian priests, an agricultural college, two training schools for teachers, a commercial academy, and several secondary schools for boys and girls. The industry comprises establishments for the manufacture of woollen and linen cloth, paper, sugar, candles, soap, earthenwares, as well as breweries and distilleries.

Kolozsvár is believed to occupy the site of a Roman settlement named Napoca. Colonized by Saxons in 1178, it then received its German name of Klausenburg, from the old word Klause, signifying a “mountain pass.” Between the years 1545 and 1570 large numbers of the Saxon population left the town in consequence of the introduction of Unitarian doctrines. In 1798 the town was to a great extent destroyed by fire. As capital of Transylvania and the seat of the Transylvanian diets, Kolozsvár from 1830 to 1848 became the centre of the Hungarian national movement in the grand principality; and in December 1848 it was taken and garrisoned by the Hungarians under General Bem.

KOLPINO, one of the chief iron-works of the crown in Russia, in the government of St Petersburg, 16 m. S.E. of the city of St Petersburg, on the railway to Moscow, and on the Izhora river. Pop. (1897), 8076. A sacred image of St Nicholas in the Trinity church is visited by numerous pilgrims on the 22nd of May every year. Here is an iron-foundry of the Russian admiralty.

KOLS, a generic name applied by Hindus to the Munda, Ho and Oraon tribes of Bengal. The Mundas are an aboriginal tribe of Dravidian physical type, inhabiting the Chota Nagpur division, and numbering 438,000 in 1901. The majority of them are animists in religion, but Christianity is making rapid strides among them. The village community in its primitive form still exists among the Mundas; the discontent due to the oppression of their landlords led to the Munda rising of 1899, and to the remedy of the alleged grievances by a new settlement of the district. The Hos, who are closely akin to the Mundas, also inhabit the Chota Nagpur division; in 1901 they numbered 386,000. They were formerly a very pugnacious race, who successfully defended their territory against all comers until they were subdued by the British in the early part of the 19th century, being known as the Larka (or fighting) Kols. They are still great sportsmen, using the bow and arrow. Like the Mundas they are animists, but they show little inclination for Christianity. Both Mundas and Hos speak dialects of the obscure linguistic family known as Munda or Kol.

See Imp. Gazetteer of India, vols. xiii., xviii. (Oxford, 1908).

KOLYVAÑ. (1) A town of West Siberia, in the government of Tomsk, on the Chaus river, 5 m. from the Ob and 120 m. S.S.W. of the city of Tomsk. It is a wealthy town, the merchants carrying on a considerable export trade in cattle, hides, tallow, corn and fish. It was founded in 1713 under the name of Chausky Ostrog, and has grown rapidly. Pop. (1897), 11,703. (2) Kolyvañskiy Zavod, another town of the same government, in the district of Biysk, Altai region, on the Byelaya river, 192 m. S.E. of Barnaul; altitude, 1290 ft. It is renowned for its stone-cutting factory, where marble, jasper, various porphyries and breccias are worked into vases, columns, &c. Pop., 5000. (3) Old name of Reval (q.v.).

KOMÁROM (Ger., Komorn), the capital of the county of Komárom, Hungary, 65 m. W.N.W. of Budapest by rail. Pop. (1900), 16,816. It is situated at the eastern extremity of the island Csallóköz or Grosse Schütt, at the confluence of the Waag with the Danube. Just below Komárom the two arms into which the Danube separates below Pressburg, forming the Grosse Schütt island, unite again. Since 1896 the market-town of Uj-Szöny, which lies on the opposite bank of the Danube, has been incorporated with Komárom. The town is celebrated chiefly for its fortifications, which form the centre of the inland fortifications of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. A brisk trade in cereals, timber, wine and fish is carried on. Komárom is one of the oldest towns of Hungary, having received its charter in 1265. The fortifications were begun by Matthias Corvinus, and were enlarged and strengthened during the Turkish wars (1526-64). New forts were constructed in 1663 and were greatly enlarged between 1805 and 1809. In 1543, 1594, 1598 and 1663 it was beleaguered by the Turks. It was raised to the dignity of a royal free town in 1751. During the revolutionary war of 1848-49 Komárom was a principal point of military operations, and was long unsuccessfully besieged by the Austrians, who on the 11th of July 1849 were defeated there by General Görgei, and on the 3rd of August by General Klapka. On the 27th of September the fortress capitulated to the Austrians upon honourable terms, and on the 3rd and 4th of October was evacuated by the Hungarian troops. The treasure of the Austrian national bank was removed here from Vienna in 1866, when that city was threatened by the Prussians.

KOMATI, a river of south-eastern Africa. It rises at an elevation of about 5000 ft. in the Ermelo district of the Transvaal, 11 m. W. of the source of the Vaal, and flowing in a general N. and E. direction reaches the Indian Ocean at Delagoa Bay, after a course of some 500 miles. In its upper valley near Steynsdorp are gold-fields, but the reefs are almost entirely of low grade ore. The river descends the Drakensberg by a pass 30 m. S. of Barberton, and at the eastern border of Swaziland is deflected northward, keeping a course parallel to the Lebombo mountains. Just W. of 32° E. and in 25° 25´ S. it is joined by one of the many rivers of South Africa named Crocodile. This tributary rises, as the Elands river, in the Bergendal (6437 ft.) near the upper waters of the Komati, and flows E. across the high veld, being turned northward as it reaches the Drakensberg escarpment. The fall to the low veld is over 2000 ft. in 30 m., and across the country between the Drakensberg and the Lebombo (100 m.) there is a further fall of 3000 ft. A mile below the junction of the Crocodile and Komati, the united stream, which from this point is also known as the Manhissa, passes to the coast plain through a cleft 626 ft. high in the Lebombo known as Komati Poort, where are some picturesque falls. At Komati Poort, which marks the frontier between British and Portuguese territory, the river is less than 60 m. from its mouth in a direct line, but in crossing the plain it makes a wide sweep of 200 m., first N. and then S., forming lagoon-like expanses and backwaters and receiving from the north several tributaries. In flood time there is a connexion northward through the swamps with the basin of the Limpopo. The Komati enters the sea 15 m. N. of Lourenço Marques. It is navigable from its mouth, where the water is from 12 to 18 ft. deep, to the foot of the Lebombo.

The railway from Lourenço Marques to Pretoria traverses the plain in a direct line, and at mile 45 reaches the Komati. It follows the south bank of the river and enters the high country at Komati Poort. At a small town with the same name, 2 m. W. of the Poort, on the 23rd of September 1900, during the war with England, 3000 Boers crossed the frontier and surrendered to the Portuguese authorities. From the Poort westward the railway skirts the south bank of the Crocodile river throughout its length.

KOMOTAU (Czech, Chomútov), a town of Bohemia, Austria 79 m. N.N.W. of Prague by rail. Pop. (1900), 15,925, almost exclusively German. It has an old Gothic church, and its town-hall was formerly a commandery of the Teutonic knights. The industrial establishments comprise manufactories of woollen cloth, linen and paper, dyeing houses, breweries, distilleries, vinegar works and the central workshops of the Buschtĕhrad railway. Lignite is worked in the neighbourhood. Komotau was originally a Czech market-place, but in 1252 it came into the possession of the Teutonic Order and was completely Germanized. In 1396 it received a town charter; and in 1416 the knights sold both town and lordship to Wenceslaus IV. On the 16th of March 1421, the town was stormed by the Taborites, sacked and burned. After several changes of ownership, Komotau came in 1588 to Popel of Lobkovic, who established the Jesuits here, which led to trouble between the Protestant burghers and the over-lord. In 1594 the lordship fell to the crown, and in 1605 the town purchased its freedom and was created a royal city.

KOMURA, JUTARO, Count (1855- ), Japanese statesman, was born in Hiuga. He graduated at Harvard in 1877, and entered the foreign office in Tokyo in 1884. He served as chargé d’affaires in Peking, as Japanese minister in Seoul, in Washington, in St Petersburg, and in Peking (during the Boxer trouble), earning in every post a high reputation for diplomatic ability. In 1901 he received the portfolio of foreign affairs, and held it throughout the course of the negotiations with Russia and the subsequent war (1904-5), being finally appointed by his sovereign to meet the Russian plenipotentiaries at Portsmouth, and subsequently the Chinese representatives in Peking, on which occasions the Portsmouth treaty of September 1905 and the Peking treaty of November in the same year were concluded. For these services, and for negotiating the second Anglo-Japanese alliance, he received the Japanese title of count and was made a K.C.B. by King Edward VII. He resigned his portfolio in 1906 and became privy councillor, from which post he was transferred to the embassy in London, but he returned to Tokyo in 1908 and resumed the portfolio of foreign affairs in the second Katsura cabinet.

KONARAK or Kanarak, a ruined temple in India, in the Puri district of Orissa, which has been described as for its size “the most richly ornamented building—externally at least—in the whole world.” It was erected in the middle of the 13th century, and was dedicated to the sun-god. It consisted of a tower, probably once over 180 ft. high, with a porch in front 140 ft. high, sculptured with figures of lions, elephants, horses, &c.

KONG, the name of a town, district and range of hills in the N.W. of the Ivory Coast colony, French West Africa. The hills are part of the band of high ground separating the inner plains of West Africa from the coast regions. In maps of the first half of the 19th century the range is shown as part of a great mountain chain supposed to run east and west across Africa, and is thus made to appear a continuation of the Mountains of the Moon, or the snow-clad heights of Ruwenzori. The culminating point of the Kong system is the Pic des Kommono, 4757 ft. high. In general the summits of the hills are below 2000 ft. and not more than 700 ft. above the level of the country. The “circle of Kong,” one of the administrative divisions of the Ivory Coast colony, covers 46,000 sq. m. and has a population of some 400,000. The inhabitants are negroes, chiefly Bambara and Mandingo. About a fourth of the population profess Mahommedanism; the remainder are spirit worshippers. The town of Kong, situated in 9° N., 4° 20´ W., is not now of great importance. Probably René Caillié, who spent some time in the western part of the country in 1827, was the first European to visit Kong. In 1888 Captain L. G. Binger induced the native chiefs to place themselves under the protection of France, and in 1893 the protectorate was attached to the Ivory Coast colony. For a time Kong was overrun by the armies of Samory (see Senegal), but the capture of that chief in 1898 was followed by the peaceful development of the district by France (see Ivory Coast).

KONGSBERG, a mining town of Norway in Buskerud amt (county), on the Laagen, 500 ft. above the sea, and 61 m. W.S.W. of Christiania by rail. Pop. (1900), 5585. With the exception of the church and the town-house, the buildings are mostly of wood. The origin and whole industry of the town are connected with the government silver-mines in the neighbourhood. Their first discovery was made by a peasant in 1623, since which time they have been worked with varying success. During the 18th century Kongsberg was more important than now, and contained double its present population. Within the town are situated the smelting-works, the mint, and a Government weapon factory. Three miles below the Laagen forms a fine fall of 140 ft. (Labrofos). The neighbouring Jonksnut (2950 ft.) commands extensive views of the Telemark. A driving-road from Kongsberg follows a favourite route for travellers through this district, connecting with routes to Sand and Odde on the west coast.

KONIA. (1) A vilayet in Asia Minor which includes the whole, or parts of, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Phrygia, Lycaonia, Cilicia and Cappadocia. It was formed in 1864 by adding to the old eyalet of Karamania the western half of Adana, and part of south-eastern Anadoli. It is divided into five sanjaks: Adalia, Buldur, Hamid-abad, Konia and Nigdeh. The population (990,000 Moslems and 80,000 Christians) is for the most part agricultural and pastoral. The only industries are carpet-weaving and the manufacture of cotton and silk stuffs. There are mines of chrome, mercury, cinnabar, argentiferous lead and rock salt. The principal exports are salt, minerals, opium, cotton, cereals, wool and livestock; and the imports cloth-goods, coffee, rice and petroleum. The vilayet is now traversed by the Anatolian railway, and contains the railhead of the Ottoman line from Smyrna.

(2) The chief town [anc. Iconium (q.v.)], altitude 3320 ft., situated at the S.W. edge of the vast central plain of Asia Minor, amidst luxuriant orchards famous in the middle ages for their yellow plums and apricots and watered by streams from the hills. Pop. 45,000, including 5000 Christians. There are interesting remains of Seljuk buildings, all showing strong traces of Persian influence in their decorative details. The principal ruin is that of the palace of Kilij Arslan II., which contained a famous hall. The most important mosques are the great Tekke, which contains the tomb of the poet Mevlana Jelal ed-din Rumi, a mystic (sufi) poet, founder of the order of Mevlevi (whirling) dervishes, and those of his successors, the “Golden” mosque and those of Ala ed-Din and Sultan Selim. The walls, largely the work of Ala ed-Din I., are preserved in great part and notable for the number of ancient inscriptions built into them. They once had twelve gates and were 30 ells in height. The climate is good—hot in summer and cold, with snow, in winter. Konia is connected by railway with Constantinople and is the starting-point of the extension towards Bagdad. After the capture of Nicaea by the Crusaders (1097), Konia became the capital of the Seljuk Sultans of Rum (see Seljuks and Turks). It was temporarily occupied by Godfrey, and again by Frederick Barbarossa, but this scarcely affected its prosperity. During the reign of Ala ed-Din I. (1219-1236) the city was thronged with artists, poets, historians, jurists and dervishes, driven westwards from Persia and Bokhara by the advance of the Mongols, and there was a brief period of great splendour. After the break up of the empire of Rum, Konia became a secondary city of the amirate of Karamania and in part fell to ruin. In 1472 it was annexed to the Osmanli empire by Mahommed II. In 1832 it was occupied by Ibrahim Pasha who defeated and captured the Turkish general, Reshid Pasha, not far from the walls. It had come to fill only part of its ancient circuit, but of recent years it has revived considerably, and, since the railway reached it, has acquired a semi-European quarter, with a German hotel, cafés and Greek shops, &c.

See W. M. Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor (1890); St Paul the Traveller (1895); G. Le Strange, Lands of the E. Caliphate (1905).

(D. G. H.)

KONIECPOLSKI, STANISLAUS (1591-1646), Polish soldier, was the most illustrious member of an ancient Polish family which rendered great services to the Republic. Educated at the academy of Cracow, he learned the science of war under the great Jan Chodkiewicz, whom he accompanied on his Muscovite campaigns, and under the equally great Stanislaus Zolkiewski, whose daughter Catherine he married. On the death of his first wife he wedded, in 1619, Christina Lubomirska. In 1619 he took part in the expedition against the Turks which terminated so disastrously at Cecora, and after a valiant resistance was captured and sent to Constantinople, where he remained a close prisoner for three years. On his return he was appointed commander of all the forces of the Republic, and at the head of an army of 25,000 men routed 60,000 Tatars at Martynow, following up this success with fresh victories, for which he received the thanks of the diet and the palatinate of Sandomeria from the king. In 1625 he was appointed guardian of the Ukraine against the Tatars, but in 1626 was transferred to Prussia to check the victorious advance of Gustavus Adolphus. Swedish historians have too often ignored the fact that Koniecpolski’s superior strategy neutralized all the efforts of the Swedish king, whom he defeated again and again, notably at Homerstein (April 1627) and at Trzciand (April 1629). But for the most part the fatal parsimony of his country compelled Koniecpolski to confine himself to the harassing guerrilla warfare in which he was an expert. In 1632 he was appointed to the long vacant post of hetman wielki koronny, or commander in chief of Poland, and in that capacity routed the Tatars at Sasowy Rogi (April 1633) and at Paniawce (April and October 1633), and the Turks, with terrific loss, at Abazd Basha. To keep the Cossacks of the Ukraine in order he also built the fortress of Kudak. As one of the largest proprietors in the Ukraine he suffered severely from Cossack depredations and offered many concessions to them. Only after years of conflict, however, did he succeed in reducing these unruly desperadoes to something like obedience. In 1644 he once more routed the Tatars at Ockmatow, and again in 1646 at Brody. This was his last exploit, for he died the same year, to the great grief of Wladislaus IV., who had already concerted with him the plan for a campaign on a grand scale against the Turks, and relied principally upon the Grand Hetman for its success. Though less famous than his contemporaries Zolkiehwski and Chodkiewicz, Koniecpolski was fully their equal as a general, and his inexorable severity made him an ideal lord-marcher.

See an unfinished biography in the Tyg. Illus. of Warsaw for 1863; Stanislaw Przylenski, Memorials of the Koniecpolskis (Pol.) (Lemberg, 1842).

(R. N. B.)

KÖNIG, KARL RUDOLPH (1832-1901), German physicist, was born at Königsberg (Prussia) on the 26th of November 1832, and studied at the university of his native town, taking the degree of Ph.D. About 1852 he went to Paris, and became apprentice to the famous violin-maker, J. B. Vuillaume, and some six years later he started business on his own account. He called himself a “maker of musical instruments,” but the instruments for which his name is best known are tuning-forks, which speedily gained a high reputation among physicists for their accuracy and general excellence. From this business König derived his livelihood for the rest of his life. He was, however, very far from being a mere tradesman, and even as a manufacturer he regarded the quality of the articles that left his workshop as a matter of greater solicitude than the profits they yielded. Acoustical research was his real interest, and to that he devoted all the time and money he could spare from his business. An exhibit which he sent to the London Exhibition of 1862 gained a gold medal, and at the Philadelphia Exposition at 1876 great admiration was expressed for a tonometric apparatus of his manufacture. This consisted of about 670 tuning-forks, of as many different pitches, extending over four octaves, and it afforded a perfect means for testing, by enumeration of the beats, the number of vibrations producing any given note and for accurately tuning any musical instrument. An attempt was made to secure this apparatus for the university of Pennsylvania, and König was induced to leave it behind him in America on the assurance that it would be purchased; but, ultimately, the money not being forthcoming, the arrangement fell through, to his great disappointment and pecuniary loss. Some of the forks he disposed of to the university of Toronto and the remainder he used as a nucleus for the construction of a still more elaborate tonometer. While the range of the old apparatus was only between 128 and 4096 vibrations a second, the lowest fork of the new one made only 16 vibrations a second, while the highest gave a sound too shrill to be perceptible by the human ear. König will also be remembered as the inventor and constructor of many other beautiful pieces of apparatus for the investigation of acoustical problems, among which may be mentioned his wave-sirens, the first of which was shown at Philadelphia in 1876. His original work dealt, among other things, with Wheatstone’s sound-figures, the characteristic notes of the different vowels, manometric flames, &c.; but perhaps the most important of his researches are those devoted to the phenomena produced by the interference of two tones, in which he controverted the views of H. von Helmholtz as to the existence of summation and difference tones. He died in Paris on the 2nd of October 1901.

KÖNIGGRÄTZ (Czech, Hradec Králové), a town and episcopal see of Bohemia, Austria, 74 m. E. of Prague by rail. Pop. (1900), 9773, mostly Czech. It is situated in the centre of a very fertile region called the “Golden Road,” and contains many buildings of historical and architectural interest. The cathedral was founded in 1303 by Elizabeth, wife of Wenceslaus II; and the church of St John, built in 1710, stands on the ruins of the old castle. The industries include the manufacture of musical instruments, machinery, colours, and carton-pierre, as well as gloves and wax candles. The original name of Königgrätz, one of the oldest settlements in Bohemia, was Chlumec Dobroslavský; the name Hradec, or “the Castle,” was given to it when it became the seat of a count, and Kralove, “of the queen” (Ger. Königin), was prefixed when it became one of the dower towns of the queen of Wenceslaus II., Elizabeth of Poland, who lived here for thirty years. It remained a dower town till 1620. Königgrätz was the first of the towns to declare for the national cause during the Hussite wars. After the battle of the White Mountain (1620) a large part of the Protestant population left the place. In 1639 the town was occupied for eight months by the Swedes. Several churches and convents were pulled down to make way for the fortifications erected under Joseph II. The fortress was finally dismantled in 1884. Near Königgrätz took place, on the 3rd of July 1866, the decisive battle (formerly called Sadowa) of the Austro-Prussian war (see Seven Weeks’ War).

KÖNIGINHOF (Dvur Kralove in Czech), the seat of a provincial district and of a provincial law-court, is situated in north-eastern Bohemia on the left bank of the Elbe, about 160 kilometres from Prague. Brewing, corn-milling and cotton-weaving are the principal industries. Pop. about 11,000. The city is of very ancient origin. Founded by King Wenceslaus II. of Bohemia (1278-1305), it was given by him to his wife Elizabeth, and thus received the name of Dvur Kralove (the court of the queen). During the Hussite wars, Dvur Kralove was several times taken and retaken by the contending parties. In a battle fought partly within the streets of the town, the Austrian army was totally defeated by the Prussians on the 29th of June 1866. In the 19th century Dvur Kralove became widely known as the spot where a MS. was found that was long believed to be one of the oldest written documents in the Czech language. In 1817 Wenceslas Hanka, afterwards for a long period librarian of the Bohemian museum, declared that he had found in the church tower in the town of Dvur Kralove when on a visit there, a very ancient MS. containing epic and lyric poems. Though Dobrovsky, the greatest Czech philologist of the time, from the first expressed suspicions, the MS. known as the Kralodvorsky Rukopis manuscript of Königinhof was long accepted as genuine, frequently printed and translated into most European languages. Doubts as to the genuineness of the document never, however, ceased, and they became stronger when Hanka was convicted of having fabricated other false Bohemian documents. A series of works and articles written by Professors Goll, Gebauer, Masoryk, and others have recently proved that the MS. is a forgery, and hardly any Bohemian scholars of the present day believe in its genuineness.

The discussion of the authenticity of the MS. of Dvur Kralove lasted with short interruptions about seventy years, and the Bohemian works written on the subject would fill a considerable library. Count Lützow’s History of Bohemian Literature gives a brief account of the controversy.

KÖNIGSBERG (Polish Krolewiec), a town of Germany, capital of the province of East Prussia and a fortress of the first rank. Pop. (1880), 140,800; (1890), 161,666; (1905), 219,862 (including the incorporated suburbs). It is situated on rising ground, on both sides of the Pregel, 4½ m. from its mouth in the Frische Haff, 397 m. N. E. of Berlin, on the railway to Eydtkuhnen and at the junction of lines to Pillau, Tilsit and Kranz. It consists of three parts, which were formerly independent administrative units, the Altstadt (old town), to the west, Löbenicht to the east, and the island Kneiphof, together with numerous suburbs, all embraced in a circuit of 9½ miles. The Pregel, spanned by many bridges, flows through the town in two branches, which unite below the Grüne Brücke. Its greatest breadth within the town is from 80 to 90 yards, and it is usually frozen from November to March. Königsberg does not retain many marks of antiquity. The Altstadt has long and narrow streets, but the Kneiphof quarter is roomier. Of the seven market-places only that in the Altstadt retains something of its former appearance. Among the more interesting buildings are the Schloss, a long rectangle begun in 1255 and added to later, with a Gothic tower 277 ft. high and a chapel built in 1592, in which Frederick I. in 1701 and William I. in 1861 crowned themselves kings of Prussia; and the cathedral, begun in 1333 and restored in 1856, a Gothic building with a tower 164 ft. high, adjoining which is the tomb of Kant. The Schloss was originally the residence of the Grand Masters of the Teutonic order and later of the dukes of Prussia. Behind is the parade-ground, with the statues of Albert I. and of Frederick William III. by August Kiss, and the grounds also contain monuments to Frederick I. and William I. To the east is the Schlossteich, a long narrow ornamental lake covering 12 acres. The north-west side of the parade-ground is occupied by the new university buildings, completed in 1865; these and the new exchange on the south side of the Pregel are the finest architectural features of the town. The university (Collegium Albertinum) was founded in 1544 by Albert I., duke of Prussia, as a “purely Lutheran” place of learning. It is chiefly distinguished for its mathematical and philosophical studies, and possesses a famous observatory, established in 1811 by Frederick William Bessel, a library of about 240,000 volumes, a zoological museum, a botanical garden, laboratories and valuable mathematical and other scientific collections. Among its famous professors have been Kant (who was born here in 1724 and to whom a monument was erected in 1864), J. G. von Herder, Bessel, F. Neumann and J. F. Herbart. It is attended by about 1000 students and has a teaching staff of over 100. Among other educational establishments, Königsberg numbers four classical schools (gymnasia) and three commercial schools, an academy of painting and a school of music. The hospitals and benevolent institutions are numerous. The town is less well equipped with museums and similar institutions, the most noteworthy being the Prussia museum of antiquities, which is especially rich in East Prussian finds from the Stone age to the Viking period. Besides the cathedral the town has fourteen churches.

Königsberg is a naval and military fortress of the first order. The fortifications were begun in 1843 and were only completed in 1905, although the place was surrounded by walls in early times. The works consist of an inner wall, brought into connexion with an outlying system of works, and of twelve detached forts, of which six are on the right and six on the left bank of the Pregel. Between them lie two great forts, that of Friedrichsburg on an island in the Pregel and that of the Kaserne Kronprinz on the east of the town, both within the environing ramparts. The protected position of its harbour has made Königsberg one of the most important commercial cities of Germany. A new channel has recently been made between it and its port, Pillau, 29 miles distant, on the outer side of the Frische Haff, so as to admit vessels drawing 20 feet of water right up to the quays of Königsberg, and the result has been to stimulate the trade of the city. It is protected for a long distance by moles, in which a break has been left in the Fischhauser Wiek, to permit of freer circulation of the water and to prevent damage to the mainland.

The industries of Königsberg have made great advances within recent years, notable among them are printing-works and manufactures of machinery, locomotives, carriages, chemicals, toys, sugar, cellulose, beer, tobacco and cigars, pianos and amber wares. The principal exports are cereals and flour, cattle, horses, hemp, flax, timber, sugar and oilcake. There are two pretty public parks, one in the Hufen, with a zoological garden attached, another the Luisenwahl which commemorates the sojourn of Queen Louisa of Prussia in the town in the disastrous year 1806.

The Altstadt of Königsberg grew up around the castle built in 1255 by the Teutonic Order, on the advice of Ottaker II. King of Bohemia, after whom the place was named. Its first site was near the fishing village of Steindamm, but after its destruction by the Prussians in 1263 it was rebuilt in its present position. It received civic privileges in 1286, the two other parts of the present town—Löbenicht and Kneiphof—receiving them a few years later. In 1340 Königsberg entered the Hanseatic League. From 1457 it was the residence of the grand master of the Teutonic Order, and from 1525 till 1618 of the dukes of Prussia. The trade of Königsberg was much hindered by the constant shifting and silting up of the channels leading to its harbour; and the great northern wars did it immense harm, but before the end of the 17th century it had almost recovered.

In 1724 the three independent parts were united into a single town by Frederick William I.

Königsberg suffered severely during the war of liberation and was occupied by the French in 1807. In 1813 the town was the scene of the deliberations which led to the successful uprising of Prussia against Napoleon. During the 19th century the opening of a railway system in East Prussia and Russia gave a new impetus to its commerce, making it the principal outlet for the Russian staples—grain, seeds, flax and hemp. It has now regular steam communication with Memel, Stettin, Kiel, Amsterdam and Hull.

See Faber, Die Haupt- und Residenzstadt Königsberg in Preussen (Königsberg, 1840); Schubert, Zur 600-jährigen Jubelfeier Königsbergs (Königsberg, 1855); Beckherrn, Geschichte der Befestigungen Königsbergs (Königsberg, 1890); H. G. Prutz, Die königliche Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg im 19 Jahrhundert (Königsberg, 1894); Armstedt, Geschichte der königlichen Haupt- und Residenzstadt Königsberg (Stuttgart, 1899); M. Schultze, Königsberg und Ostpreussen zu Anfang 1813 (Berlin, 1901); and Gordak, Wegweiser durch Königsberg (Königsberg, 1904).

KÖNIGSBORN, a spa of Germany, in the Prussian province of Westphalia, immediately to the N. of the town of Unna, of which it practically forms a suburb. It has large saltworks, producing annually over 15,000 tons. The brine springs, in connexion with which there is a hydropathic establishment, have a temperature of 93° F., and are efficacious in skin diseases, rheumatism and scrofula.

See Wegele, Bad Königsborn und seine Heilmittel (Essen, 1902).

KÖNIGSHÜTTE, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Silesia, situated in the middle of the Upper Silesian coal and iron district, 3 m. S. of Beuthen and 122 m. by rail S.E. of Breslau. Pop. (1852), 4495; (1875), 26,040; (1900), 57,919. In 1869 it was incorporated with various neighbouring villages, and raised to the dignity of a town. It has two Protestant and three Roman Catholic churches and several schools and benevolent institutions. The largest iron-works in Silesia is situated at Königshütte, and includes puddling works, rolling-mills, and zinc-works. Founded in 1797, it was formerly in the hands of government, but is now carried on by a company. There are also manufactures of bricks and glass and a trade in wood and coal. Nearly one-half of the population of the town consists of Poles.

See Mohr, Geschichte der Stadt Königshütte (Königshütte, 1890).

KÖNIGSLUTTER, a town of Germany, in the duchy of Brunswick, on the Lutter 36 m. E. of Brunswick by the railway to Eisleben and Magdeburg. Pop. (1905), 3260. It possesses an Evangelical church, a castle and some interesting old houses. Its chief manufactures are sugar, machinery, paper and beer. Near the town are the ruins of a Benedictine abbey founded in 1135. In its beautiful church, which has not been destroyed, are the tombs of the emperor Lothair II., his wife Richenza, and of his son-in-law, Duke Henry the Proud of Saxony and Bavaria.

KÖNIGSMARK, MARIA AURORA, Countess of (1662-1728), mistress of Augustus the Strong, elector of Saxony and king of Poland, belonged to a noble Swedish family, and was born on the 8th of May 1662. Having passed some years at Hamburg, where she attracted attention both by her beauty and her talents, Aurora went in 1694 to Dresden to make inquiries about her brother Philipp Christoph, count of Königsmark, who had suddenly and mysteriously disappeared from Hanover. Here she was noticed by Augustus, who made her his mistress; and in October 1696 she gave birth to a son Maurice, afterwards the famous marshal de Saxe. The elector however quickly tired of Aurora, who then spent her time in efforts to secure the position of abbess of Quedlinburg, an office which carried with it the dignity of a princess of the Empire, and to recover the lost inheritance of her family in Sweden. She was made coadjutor abbess and lady-provost (Pröpstin) of Quedlinburg, but lived mainly in Berlin, Dresden and Hamburg. In 1702 she went on a diplomatic errand to Charles XII. of Sweden on behalf of Augustus, but her adventurous journey ended in failure. The countess, who was described by Voltaire as “the most famous woman of two centuries,” died at Quedlinburg on the 16th of February 1728.

See F. Cramer, Denkwürdigkeiten der Gräfin M. A. Königsmark (Leipzig, 1836); and Biographische Nachrichten von der Gräfin M. A. Königsmark (Quedlinburg, 1833); W. F. Palmblad, Aurora Königsmark und ihre Verwandte (Leipzig, 1848-1853); C. L. de Pöllnitz, La Saxe galante (Amsterdam, 1734); and O. J. B. von Corvin-Wiersbitzki, Maria Aurora, Gräfin von Königsmark (Rudolstadt, 1902).

KÖNIGSMARK, PHILIPP CHRISTOPH, Count of (1665-1694), was a member of a noble Swedish family, and is chiefly known as the lover of Sophia Dorothea, wife of the English king George I. then electoral prince of Hanover. Born on the 14th of March 1665, Königsmark was a brother of the countess noticed above. After wandering and fighting in various parts of Europe he entered the service of Ernest Augustus, elector of Hanover. Here he made the acquaintance of Sophia Dorothea, and assisted her in one or two futile attempts to escape from Hanover. Regarded, rightly or wrongly, as the lover of the princess, he was seized, and disappeared from history, probably by assassination, on the 1st of July 1694. One authority states that George I. was accustomed to boast about this deed; but this statement is doubted, and the Hanoverian court resolutely opposed all efforts to clear up the mystery. It is not absolutely certain that Sophia Dorothea was guilty of a criminal intrigue with Königsmark, as it is probable that the letters which purport to have passed between the pair are forgeries. The question of her guilt or innocence, however, has been and still remains a fruitful and popular subject for romance and speculation.

See Briefwechsel des Grafen Königsmark und der Prinzessin Sophie Dorothea von Celle, edited by W. F. Palmblad (Leipzig, 1847); A. Köcher, “Die Prinzessin von Ahlden,” in the Historische Zeitschrift (Munich, 1882); and W. H. Wilkins, The Love of an Uncrowned Queen (London, 1900).

KÖNIGSSEE, or Lake of St Bartholomew, a lake of Germany, in the kingdom of Bavaria, province of Upper Bavaria, about 2½ m. S. from Berchtesgaden, 1850 ft. above sea-level. It has a length of 5 m., and a breadth varying from 500 yards to a little over a mile, and attains a maximum depth of 600 ft. The Königssee is the most beautiful of all the lakes in the German Alps, pent in by limestone mountains rising to an altitude of 6500 ft., the flanks of which descend precipitously to the green waters below. The lake abounds in trout, and the surrounding country is rich in game. On a promontory by the side of the lake is a chapel to which pilgrimages are made on St Bartholomew’s Day. Separated by a narrow strip of land from the Königssee is the Obersee, a smaller lake.

KÖNIGSTEIN, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Saxony, situated in a deep valley on the left bank of the Elbe, at the influx of the Biela, in the centre of Saxon Switzerland, 25 m. S.E. of Dresden by the railway to Bodenbach and Testchen. It contains a Roman Catholic and a Protestant church, a monument to the composer Julius Otto, and has some small manufactures of machinery, celluloid, paper, vinegar and buttons. It is chiefly remarkable for the huge fortress, lying immediately to the north-west of the town, which crowns a sandstone rock rising abruptly from the Elbe to a height of 750 ft. Across the Elbe lies the Lilienstein, a similar formation, but unfortified. The fortress of Königstein was probably a Slav stronghold as early as the 12th century, but it is not mentioned in chronicles before the year 1241, when it was a fief of Bohemia. In 1401 it passed to the margraves of Meissen and by the treaty of Eger in 1459 it was formally ceded by Bohemia to Saxony. About 1540 the works were strengthened, and the place was used as a point d’appui against inroads from Bohemia. Hence the phrase frequently employed by historians that Königstein is “the key to Bohemia.” As a fact, the main road from Dresden into that country lies across the hills several miles to the south-west, and the fortress has exercised little, if any, influence in strategic operations, either during the middle ages or in modern times. It was further strengthened under the electors Christian I., John George I. and Frederick Augustus II. of Saxony, the last of whom completed it in its present form. During the Prussian invasion of Saxony in 1756 it served as a place of refuge for the King of Poland, Augustus III., as it did also in 1849, during the Dresden insurrection of May in that year, to the King of Saxony, Frederick Augustus II. and his ministers. It was occupied by the Prussians in 1867, who retained possession of it until the peace of 1871. It is garrisoned by detachments of several Saxon infantry regiments, and serves as a treasure house for the state and also as a place of detention for officers sentenced to fortress imprisonment. A remarkable feature of the place is a well, hewn out of the solid rock to a depth of 470 ft.

See Klemm, Der Königstein in alter und neuer Zeit (Leipzig, 1905); and Gautsch, Aelteste Geschichte der sächsischen Schweiz (Dresden, 1880).

KÖNIGSWINTER, a town and summer resort of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine province, on the right bank of the Rhine, 24 m. S.S.E. of Cologne by the railway to Frankfort-on-Main, at the foot of the Siebengebirge. Pop. (1905), 3944. The romantic Drachenfels (1010 ft.), crowned by the ruins of a castle built early in the 12th century by the archbishop of Cologne, rises behind the town. From the summit, to which there is a funicular railway, there is a magnificent view, celebrated by Byron in Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage. A cave in the hill is said to have sheltered the dragon which was slain by the hero Siegfried. The mountain is quarried, and from 1267 onward supplied stone (trachyte) for the building of Cologne cathedral. The castle of Drachenburg, built in 1883, is on the north side of the hill. Königswinter has a Roman Catholic and an Evangelical church, some small manufactures and a little shipping. It has a monument to the poet, Wolfgang Müller. Near the town are the ruins of the abbey of Heisterbach.

KONINCK, LAURENT GUILLAUME DE (1809-1887), Belgian palaeontologist and chemist, was born at Louvain on the 3rd of May 1809. He studied medicine in the university of his native town, and in 1831 he became assistant in the chemical schools. He pursued the study of chemistry in Paris, Berlin and Giessen, and was subsequently engaged in teaching the science at Ghent and Liége. In 1856 he was appointed professor of chemistry in the Liége University, and he retained this post until the close of his life. About the year 1835 he began to devote his leisure to the investigation of the Carboniferous fossils around Liége, and ultimately he became distinguished for his researches on the palaeontology of the Palaeozoic rocks, and especially for his descriptions of the mollusca, brachiopods, crustacea and crinoids of the Carboniferous limestone of Belgium. In recognition of this work the Wollaston medal was awarded to him in 1875 by the Geological Society of London, and in 1876 he was appointed professor of palaeontology at Liége. He died at Liége on the 16th of July 1887.

Publications.—Éléments de chimie inorganique (1839); Description des animaux fossiles qui se trouvent dans le terrain Carbonifère de Belgique (1842-1844, supp. 1851); Recherches sur les animaux fossiles (1847, 1873). See Notice sur L. G. de Koninck, by E. Dupont; Annuaire de l’Acad. roy. de Belgique (1891), with portrait and bibliography.

KONINCK, PHILIP DE [de Coninck, de Koningh, van Koening] (1619-1688), Dutch landscape painter, was born in Amsterdam in 1619. Little is known of his history, except that he was a pupil of Rembrandt, whose influence is to be seen in all his work. He painted chiefly broad sunny landscapes, full of space, light and atmosphere. Portraits by him, somewhat in the manner of Rembrandt, also exist; there are examples of these in the galleries at Copenhagen and Christiania. Of his landscapes the principal are “Vue de l’embouchure d’une rivière,” at the Hague; a slightly larger replica is in the National Gallery, London; “Lisière d’un bois,” and “Paysage” (with figures by A. Vandevelde) at Amsterdam; and landscapes in Brussels, Florence (Uffizi), Berlin and Cologne.

Several of his works have been falsely attributed to Rembrandt, and many more to his namesake and fellow-townsman Salomon de Koninck (1609-1656), who was also a disciple of Rembrandt; his paintings and etchings consist mainly of portraits and biblical scenes.

Both these painters are to be distinguished from David de Koninck (1636-?1687), who is also known as “Rammelaar.” He was born in Antwerp. He studied there under Jan Fyt, and later settled in Rome, where he is stated to have died in 1687; this is, however, doubtful. His pictures are chiefly landscapes with animals, and still-life.

KONITZ, a town of Germany, in the province of West Prussia, at the junction of railways to Schneidemühl and Gnesen, 68 m. S.W. of Danzig. Pop. (1905), 11,014. It is still surrounded by its old fortifications, has two Evangelical and two Roman Catholic churches, a new town-hall, handsome public offices, and a prison. It has iron-foundries, saw-mills, electrical works, and manufactures of bricks. Konitz was the first fortified post established in Prussia by Hermann Balk, who in 1230 had been commissioned as Landmeister, by the grand-master of the Teutonic order, to reduce the heathen Prussians. For a long time it continued to be a place of military importance.

See Uppenkamp, Geschichte der Stadt Konitz (Konitz, 1873).

KONKAN, or Concan, a maritime tract of Western India, situated within the limits of the Presidency of Bombay, and extending from the Portuguese settlement of Goa on the S. to the territory of Daman, belonging to the same nation, on the N. On the E. it is bounded by the Western Ghats, and on the W. by the Indian Ocean. This tract comprises the three British districts of Thana, Ratnagiri and Kolaba, and the native states of Janjira and Sawantwari. It may be estimated at 300 m. in length, with an average breadth of about 40. From the mountains on its eastern frontier, which in one place attain a height of 4700 ft., the surface, marked by a succession of irregular hilly spurs from the Ghats, slopes to the westward, where the mean elevation of the coast is not more than 100 ft. above the level of the sea. Several mountain streams, but none of any magnitude, traverse the country in the same direction. One of the most striking characteristics of the climate is the violence of the monsoon rains—the mean annual fall at Mahabaleshwar amounting to 239 in. The coast has a straight general outline, but is much broken into small bays and harbours. This, with the uninterrupted view along the shore, and the land and sea breezes, which force vessels steering along the coast to be always within sight of it, rendered this country from time immemorial the seat of piracy; and so formidable had the pirates become in the 18th century, that all ships suffered which did not receive a pass from their chiefs. The Great Mogul maintained a fleet for the express purpose of checking them, and they were frequently attacked by the Portuguese. British commerce was protected by occasional expeditions from Bombay; but the piratical system was not finally extinguished until 1812. The southern Konkan has given its name to a dialect of Marathi, which is the vernacular of the Roman Catholics of Goa.

KONTAGORA, a province in the British protectorate of Northern Nigeria, on the east bank of the Niger to the north of Nupe and opposite Borgu. It is bounded W. by the Niger, S. by the province of Nupe, E. by that of Zaria, and N. by that of Sokoto. It has an area of 14,500 sq. m. and a population estimated at about 80,000. At the time of the British occupation of Northern Nigeria the province formed a Fula emirate. Before the Fula domination, which was established in 1864, the ancient pagan kingdom of Yauri was the most important of the lesser kingdoms which occupied this territory. The Fula conquest was made from Nupe on the south and a tribe of independent and warlike pagans continued to hold the country between Kontagora and Sokoto on the north. The province was brought under British domination in 1901 as the result of a military expedition sent to prevent audacious slave-raiding in British protected territory and of threats directed against the British military station of Jebba on the Niger. The town of Kontagora was taken in January of 1901. The emir Ibrahim fled, and was not captured till early in 1902. The province, after having been held for a time in military occupation, was organized for administration on the same system as the rest of the protectorate. In 1903 Ibrahim, after agreeing to take the oath of allegiance to the British crown and to accept the usual conditions of appointment, which include the abolition of the slave trade within the province, was reinstated as emir and the British garrison was withdrawn. Since then the development of the province has progressed favourably. Roads have been opened and Kontagora connected by telegraph with headquarters at Zungeru. British courts of justice have been established at the British headquarters, and native courts in every district. In 1904 an expedition reduced to submission the hitherto independent tribes in the northern belt, who had up to that time blocked the road to Sokoto. Their arms were confiscated and their country organized as a district of the province under a chief and a British assistant resident.

KOORINGA [Burra], a town of Burra county, South Australia on Burra Creek, 101 m. by rail N. by E. of Adelaide. Pop. (1901), 1994. It is the centre of a mining and agricultural district in which large areas are devoted to wheat-growing. The famous Burra Burra copper mine, discovered by a shepherd in 1844, is close to the town, while silver and lead ore is also found in the vicinity.

KÖPENICK (Cöpenick), a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Brandenburg, on an island in the Spree, 9 m. S.E. from Berlin by the railway to Fürstenwalde. Pop. (1905), 27,721. It contains a royal residence, which was built on the site of a palace which belonged to the great elector, Frederick William. This is surrounded by gardens and contains a fine banqueting hall and a chapel. Other buildings are a Roman Catholic and a Protestant church and a teachers’ seminary. The varied industries embrace the manufacture of glass, linoleum, sealing-wax and ink. In the vicinity is Spindlersfeld, with important dye-works.

Köpenick, which dates from the 12th century, received municipal rights in 1225. Shortly afterwards, it became the bone of contention between Brandenburg and Meissen, but, at the issue of the feud, remained with the former, becoming a favourite residence of the electors of Brandenburg. In the palace the famous court martial was held in 1730, which condemned the crown-prince of Prussia, afterwards Frederick the Great, to death. In 1906 the place derived ephemeral fame from the daring feat of a cobbler, one Wilhelm Voigt, who, attired as a captain in the army, accompanied by soldiers, whom his apparent rank deceived, took the mayor prisoner, on a fictitious charge of having falsified accounts and absconded with a considerable sum of municipal money. The “captain of Köpenick” was arrested, tried, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

See Graf zu Dohna, Kurfürstliche Schlösser in der Mark Brandenburg (Berlin, 1890).

KOPISCH, AUGUST (1799-1853), German poet, was born at Breslau on the 26th of May 1799. In 1815 he began the study of painting at the Prague academy, but an injury to his hand precluded the prospects of any great success in this profession, and he turned to literature. After a residence in Dresden Kopisch proceeded, in 1822, to Italy, where, at Naples, he formed an intimate friendship with the poet August, count of Platen Hallermund. He was an expert swimmer, a quality which enabled him in company with Ernst Fries to discover the blue grotto of Capri. In 1828 he settled at Berlin and was granted a pension by Frederick William IV., who in 1838 conferred upon him the title of professor. He died at Berlin on the 3rd of February 1853. Kopisch produced some very original poetry, light in language and in form. He especially treated legends and popular subjects, and among his Gedichte (Berlin, 1836) are some naïve and humorous little pieces such as Die Historie von Noah, Die Heinzelmännchen, Das grüne Tier and Der Scheiderjunge von Krippstedt, which became widely popular. He also published a translation of Dante’s Divine Comedy (Berlin, 1840), and under the title Agrumi (Berlin, 1838) a collection of translations of Italian folk songs.

Kopisch’s collected works were published in 5 vols. (Berlin, 1856.)

KOPP, HERMANN FRANZ MORITZ (1817-1892), German chemist, was born on the 30th of October 1817 at Hanau, where his father, Johann Heinrich Kopp (1777-1858), a physician, was professor of chemistry, physics and natural history at the Lyceum.

After attending the gymnasium of his native town, he studied at Marburg and Heidelberg, and then, attracted by the fame of Liebig, went in 1839 to Giessen, where he became a privatdozent in 1841, and professor of chemistry twelve years later. In 1864 he was called to Heidelberg in the same capacity, and he remained there till his death on the 20th of February 1892. Kopp devoted himself especially to physico-chemical inquiries, and in the history of chemical theory his name is associated with several of the most important correlations of the physical properties of substances with their chemical constitution. Much of his work was concerned with specific volumes, the conception of which he set forth in a paper published when he was only twenty-two years of age; and the principles he established have formed the basis of subsequent investigations in that subject, although his results have in some cases undergone modification. Another question to which he gave much attention was the connexion of the boiling-point of compounds, organic ones in particular, with their composition. In addition to these and other laborious researches, Kopp was a prolific writer. In 1843-1847 he published a comprehensive History of Chemistry, in four volumes, to which three supplements were added in 1869-1875. The Development of Chemistry in Recent Times appeared in 1871-1874, and in 1886 he published a work in two volumes on Alchemy in Ancient and Modern Times. In addition he wrote (1863) on theoretical and physical chemistry for the Graham-Otto Lehrbuch der Chemie, and for many years assisted Liebig in editing the Annalen der Chemie and the Jahresbericht.

He must not be confused with Emil Kopp (1817-1875), who, born at Warselnheim, Alsace, became in 1847 professor of toxicology and chemistry at the École supérieure de Pharmacie at Strasburg, in 1849 professor of physics and chemistry at Lausanne, in 1852 chemist to a Turkey-red factory near Manchester, in 1868 professor of technology at Turin, and finally, in 1871, professor of technical chemistry at the Polytechnic of Zürich, where he died in 1875.

KOPRÜLÜ, or Kuprili (Bulgarian Valésa, Greek Vélissa), a town of Macedonia, European Turkey, in the vilayet of Salonica, situated 600 ft. above sea-level, on the river Vardar, and on the Salonica-Mitrovitza railway, 25 m. S.E. of Uskub. Pop. (1905), about 22,000. Koprülü has a flourishing trade in silk; maize and mulberries are cultivated in the neighbourhood. The Greek and Bulgarian names of the town may be corrupt forms of the ancient Bylazora, described by Polybius as the chief city of Paeonia.

KORA, or Cora, an ancient town of Northern India, in the Fatehpur district of the United Provinces. Pop. (1901), 2806. As the capital of a Mahommedan province, it gave its name to part of the tract (with Allahabad) granted by Lord Clive to the titular Mogul emperor, Shah Alam, in 1765.

KORAN. The Koran (Kor’án) is the sacred Book of Islam, on which the religion of more than two hundred millions of Mahommedans is founded, being regarded by them as the immediate word of God. And since the use of the Koran in public worship, in schools and otherwise, is much more extensive than, for example, the reading of the Bible in most Christian countries, it has been truly described as the most widely-read book in existence. This circumstance alone is sufficient to give it an urgent claim on our attention, whether it suit our taste and fall in with our religious and philosophical views or not. Besides, it is the work of Mahomet, and as such is fitted to afford a clue to the spiritual development of that most successful of all prophets and religious personalities. It must be owned that the first perusal leaves on a European an impression of chaotic confusion—not that the book is so very extensive, for it is not quite as large as the New Testament. This impression can in some degree be modified only by the application of a critical analysis with the assistance of Arabian tradition.

To the faith of the Moslems, as has been said, the Koran is the word of God, and such also is the claim which the book itself advances. For except in sur. i.—which is a prayer for men—and some few passages where Mahomet (vi. 104, 114; xxvii. 93; xlii. 8) or the angels (xix. 65; xxxvii. 164 sqq.) speak in the first person without the intervention of the usual imperative “say” (sing. or pl.), the speaker throughout is God, either in the first person singular or more commonly the plural of majesty “we.” The same mode of address is familiar to us from the prophets of the Old Testament; the human personality disappears, in the moment of inspiration, behind the God by whom it is filled. But all the greatest of the Hebrew prophets fall back speedily upon the unassuming human “I”; while in the Koran the divine “I” is the stereotyped form of address. Mahomet, however, really felt himself to be the instrument of God; this consciousness was no doubt brighter at his first appearance than it afterwards became, but it never entirely forsook him. Nevertheless we cannot doubt his good-faith, not even in the cases in which the moral quality of his actions leaves most to be desired. In spite of all, the dominant fact remains, that to the end he was zealous for his God and for the salvation of his people, nay, of the whole of humanity, and that he never lost the unconquerable certainty of his divine mission.

The rationale of revelation is explained in the Koran itself as follows: In heaven is the original text (“the mother of the book,” xliii. 3; “a concealed book,” lv. 77; “a well-guarded tablet,” lxxxv. 22). By the process of “sending down” (tanzíl), one piece after another was communicated to the Prophet. The mediator was an angel, who is called sometimes the “Spirit” (xxvi. 193), sometimes the “holy Spirit” (xvi. 104), and at a later time “Gabriel” (only in ii. 91, 92; lxvi. 4). This angel dictates the revelation to the Prophet, who repeats it after him, and afterwards proclaims it to the world (lxxxvii. 6, &c.). It is plain that we have here a somewhat crude attempt of the Prophet to represent to himself the more or less unconscious process by which his ideas arose and gradually took shape in his mind. It is no wonder if in such confused imagery the details are not always self-consistent. When, for example, this heavenly archetype is said to be in the hands of “exalted scribes” (lxxx. 13 sqq.), this seems a transition to a quite different set of ideas, namely, the books of fate, or the record of all human actions—conceptions which are actually found in the Koran. It is to be observed, at all events, that Mahomet’s transcendental idea of God, as a Being exalted altogether above the world, excludes the thought of direct intercourse between the Prophet and God.

It is an explicit statement of the Koran that the sacred book was revealed (“sent down”) by God, not all at once, but piecemeal and gradually (xxv. 34). This is evident from the actual composition of the book, and is confirmed by Moslem tradition. That is to say, Mahomet issued his revelations in fly-leaves of greater or less extent. A single piece of this kind was called either, like the entire collection, kor’ān, i.e. “recitation,” “reading,” or, better still, is the equivalent of Aramaic geryānā “lectionary”; or kitāb, “writing”; or sūra, which is perhaps the late-Hebrew shūrā, and means literally “series.” The last became, in the lifetime of Mahomet, the regular designation of the individual sections as distinguished from the whole collection; and accordingly it is the name given to the separate chapters of the existing Koran. These chapters are of very unequal length. Since many of the shorter ones are undoubtedly complete in themselves, it is natural to assume that the longer, which are sometimes very comprehensive, have arisen from the amalgamation of various originally distinct revelations. This supposition is favoured by the numerous traditions which give us the circumstances under which this or that short piece, now incorporated in a larger section, was revealed; and also by the fact that the connexion of thought in the present sūras often seems to be interrupted. And in reality many pieces of the long sūras have to be severed out as originally independent; even in the short ones parts are often found which cannot have been there at first. At the same time we must beware of carrying this sifting operation too far,—as Nöldeke now believes himself to have done in his earlier works, and as Sprenger also sometimes seems to do. That some sūras were of considerable length from the first is seen, for example, from xii., which contains a short introduction, then the history of Joseph, and then a few concluding observations, and is therefore perfectly homogeneous. In like manner, xx., which is mainly occupied with the history of Moses, forms a complete whole. The same is true of xviii., which at first sight seems to fall into several pieces; the history of the seven sleepers, the grotesque narrative about Moses, and that about Alexander “the Horned,” are all connected together, and the same rhyme through the whole sūra. Even in the separate narrations we may observe how readily the Koran passes from one subject to another, how little care is taken to express all the transitions of thought, and how frequently clauses are omitted, which are almost indispensable. We are not at liberty, therefore, in every case where the connexion in the Koran is obscure, to say that it is really broken, and set it down as the clumsy patchwork of a later hand. Even in the old Arabic poetry such abrupt transitions are of very frequent occurrence. It is not uncommon for the Koran, after a new subject has been entered on, to return gradually or suddenly to the former theme,—a proof that there at least separation is not to be thought of. In short, however imperfectly the Koran may have been redacted, in the majority of cases the present sūras are identical with the originals.

How these revelations actually arose in Mahomet’s mind is a question which it is almost as idle to discuss as it would be to analyse the workings of the mind of a poet. In his early career, sometimes perhaps in its later stages also, many revelations must have burst from him in uncontrollable excitement, so that he could not possibly regard them otherwise than as divine inspirations. We must bear in mind that he was no cold systematic thinker, but an Oriental visionary, brought up in crass superstition, and without intellectual discipline; a man whose nervous temperament had been powerfully worked on by ascetic austerities, and who was all the more irritated by the opposition he encountered, because he had little of the heroic in his nature. Filled with his religious ideas and visions, he might well fancy he heard the angel bidding him recite what was said to him. There may have been many a revelation of this kind which no one ever heard but himself, as he repeated it to himself in the silence of the night (lxxiii. 4). Indeed the Koran itself admits that he forgot some revelations (lxxxvii. 7). But by far the greatest part of the book is undoubtedly the result of deliberation, touched more or less with emotion, and animated by a certain rhetorical rather than poetical glow. Many passages are based upon purely intellectual reflection. It is said that Mahomet occasionally uttered such a passage immediately after one of those epileptic fits which not only his followers, but (for a time at least) he himself also, regarded as tokens of intercourse with the higher powers. If that is the case, it is impossible to say whether the trick was in the utterance of the revelation or in the fit itself.

How the various pieces of the Koran took literary form is uncertain. Mahomet himself, so far as we can discover, never wrote down anything. The question whether he could read and write has been much debated among Moslems, unfortunately more with dogmatic arguments and spurious traditions than authentic proofs. At present one is inclined to say that he was not altogether ignorant of these arts, but that from want of practice he found it convenient to employ some one else whenever he had anything to write. After the migration to Medina (A.D. 622) we are told that short pieces—chiefly legal decisions—were taken down immediately after they were revealed, by an adherent whom he summoned for the purpose; so that nothing stood in the way of their publication. Hence it is probable that in Mecca, where the art of writing was commoner than in Medina, he had already begun to have his oracles committed to writing. That even long portions of the Koran existed in written form from an early date may be pretty safely inferred from various indications; especially from the fact that in Mecca the Prophet had caused insertions to be made, and pieces to be erased in his previous revelations. For we cannot suppose that he knew the longer sūras by heart so perfectly that he was able after a time to lay his finger upon any particular passage. In some instances, indeed, he may have relied too much on his memory. For example, he seems to have occasionally dictated the same sūra to different persons in slightly different terms. In such cases, no doubt, he may have partly intended to introduce improvements; and so long as the difference was merely in expression, without affecting the sense, it could occasion no perplexity to his followers. None of them had literary pedantry enough to question the consistency of the divine revelation on that ground. In particular instances, however, the difference of reading was too important to be overlooked. Thus the Koran itself confesses that the unbelievers cast it up as a reproach to the Prophet that God sometimes substituted one verse for another (xvi. 103). On one occasion, when a dispute arose between two of his own followers as to the true reading of a passage which both had received from the Prophet himself, Mahomet is said to have explained that the Koran was revealed in seven forms. In this apparently genuine dictum seven stands, of course, as in many other cases, for an indefinite but limited number. But one may imagine what a world of trouble it has cost the Moslem theologians to explain the saying in accordance with their dogmatic beliefs. A great number of explanations are current, some of which claim the authority of the Prophet himself; as, indeed, fictitious utterances of Mahomet play throughout a conspicuous part in the exegesis of the Koran. One very favourite, but utterly untenable interpretation is that the “seven forms,” are seven different Arabic dialects.

When such discrepancies came to the cognizance of Mahomet it was doubtless his desire that only one of the conflicting texts should be considered authentic; only he never gave himself much trouble to have his wish carried into effect. Although in theory he was an upholder of verbal inspiration, he did not push the doctrine to its extreme consequences; his practical good sense did not take these things so strictly as the theologians of later centuries. Sometimes, however, he did suppress whole sections or verses, enjoining his followers to efface or forget them, and declaring them to be “abrogated.” A very remarkable case is that of the two verses in liii., when he had recognized three heathen goddesses as exalted beings, possessing influence with God. This had occurred in a moment of weakness, in order that by such a promise, which yet left Allah in his lofty position, he might gain over his fellow-countrymen. This object he achieved, but soon his conscience smote him, and he declared these words to have been an inspiration of Satan.

So much for abrogated readings; the case is somewhat different when we come to the abrogation of laws and directions to the Moslems, which often occurs in the Koran. There is nothing in this at variance with Mahomet’s idea of God. God is to him an absolute despot, who declares a thing right or wrong from no inherent necessity but by his arbitrary fiat. This God varies his commands at pleasure, prescribes one law for the Christians, another for the Jews, and a third for the Moslems; nay, he even changes his instructions to the Moslems when it pleases him. Thus, for example, the Koran contains very different directions, suited to varying circumstances, as to the treatment which idolaters are to receive at the hands of believers. But Mahomet showed no anxiety to have these superseded enactments destroyed. Believers could be in no uncertainty as to which of two contradictory passages remained in force; and they might still find edification in that which had become obsolete. That later generations might not so easily distinguish the “abrogated” from the “abrogating” did not occur to Mahomet, whose vision, naturally enough, seldom extended to the future of his religious community. Current events were invariably kept in view in the revelations. In Medina it called forth the admiration of the Faithful to observe how often God gave them the answer to a question whose settlement was urgently required at the moment. The same näiveté appears in a remark of the Caliph Othman about a doubtful case: “If the Apostle of God were still alive, methinks there had been a Koran passage revealed on this point.” Not unfrequently the divine word was found to coincide with the advice which Mahomet had received from his most intimate disciples. “Omar was many a time of a certain opinion,” says one tradition, “and the Koran was then revealed accordingly.”

The contents of the different parts of the Koran are extremely varied. Many passages consist of theological or moral reflections. We are reminded of the greatness, the goodness, the righteousness of God as manifested in Nature, in history, and in revelation through the prophets, especially through Mahomet. God is magnified as the One, the All-powerful. Idolatry and all deification of created beings, such as the worship of Christ as the Son of God, are unsparingly condemned. The joys of heaven and the pains of hell are depicted in vivid sensuous imagery, as is also the terror of the whole creation at the advent of the last day and the judgment of the world. Believers receive general moral instruction, as well as directions for special circumstances. The lukewarm are rebuked, the enemies threatened with terrible punishment, both temporal and eternal. To the sceptical the truth of Islam is held forth; and a certain, not very cogent, method of demonstration predominates. In many passages the sacred book falls into a diffuse preaching style, others seem more like proclamations or general orders. A great number contain ceremonial or civil laws, or even special commands to individuals down to such matters as the regulation of Mahomet’s harem. In not a few definite questions are answered which had actually been propounded to the Prophet by believers or infidels. Mahomet himself, too, repeatedly receives direct injunctions, and does not escape an occasional rebuke. One sūra (i.) is a prayer, two (cxiii. cxiv.) are magical formulas. Many sūras treat of a single topic, others embrace several.

From the mass of material comprised in the Koran—and the account we have given is far from exhaustive—we should select the histories of the ancient prophets and saints as possessing a peculiar interest. The purpose of Mahomet is to show from these histories how God in former times had rewarded the righteous and punished their enemies. For the most part the old prophets only serve to introduce a little variety in point of form, for they are almost in every case facsimiles of Mahomet himself. They preach exactly like him, they have to bring the very same charges against their opponents, who on their part behave exactly as the unbelieving inhabitants of Mecca. The Koran even goes so far as to make Noah contend against the worship of certain false gods, mentioned by name, who were worshipped by the Arabs of Mahomet’s time. In an address which is put in the mouth of Abraham (xxvi. 75 sqq.), the reader quite forgets that it is Abraham, and not Mahomet (or God himself), who is speaking. Other narratives are intended rather for amusement, although they are always well seasoned with edifying phrases. It is no wonder that the godless Korrishites thought these stories of the Koran not nearly so entertaining as those of Rostam and Ispandiār, related by Naḍr the son of Ḥārith, who had learned in the course of his trade journeys on the Euphrates the heroic mythology of the Persians. But the Prophet was so exasperated by this rivalry that when Naḍr fell into his power after the battle of Badr, he caused him to be executed; although in all other cases he readily pardoned his fellow-countrymen.

These histories are chiefly about Scripture characters, especially those of the Old Testament. But the deviations from the Biblical narratives are very marked. Many of the alterations are found in the legendary anecdotes of the Jewish Haggada and the New Testament Apocrypha; but many more are due perhaps to misconceptions such as only a listener (not the reader of a book) could fall into. One would suppose that the most ignorant Jew could never have mistaken Haman, the minister of Ahasuerus, for the minister of Pharaoh, as happens in the Koran, or identified Miriam, the sister of Moses, with Mary (= Mariām), the mother of Christ. So long, however, as we have no closer acquaintance with Arab Judaism and Christianity, we must always reckon with the possibility that many of these mistakes were due to adherents of these religions who were his authorities, or were a naïve reproduction of versions already widely accepted by his contemporaries. In addition to his misconceptions there are sundry capricious alterations, some of them very grotesque, due to Mahomet himself. For instance, in his ignorance of everything out of Arabia, he makes the fertility of Egypt—where rain is almost never seen and never missed—depend on rain instead of the inundations of the Nile (xii. 49).

It is uncertain whether his account of Alexander was borrowed from Jews or Christians, since the romance of Alexander belonged to the stereotyped literature of that age. The description of Alexander as “the Horned” in the Koran is, however, in accordance with the result of recent researches, to be traced to a Syrian legend dating from A.D. 514-515 (Th. Nöldeke, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Alexanderromanes” in Denkschriften Akad. Wien, vol. xxxviii. No. 5, p. 27, &c.). According to this, God caused horns to grow on Alexander’s head to enable him to overthrow all things. This detail of the legend is ultimately traceable, as Hottinger long ago supposed, to the numerous coins on which Alexander is represented with the ram’s horns of Ammon. Besides Jewish and Christian histories there are a few about old Arabian prophets. In these he seems to have handled his materials even more freely than in the others.

The opinion has already been expressed that Mahomet did not make use of written sources. Coincidences and divergences alike can always be accounted for by oral communications from Jews who knew a little and Christians who knew next to nothing. Even in the rare passages where we can trace direct resemblances to the text of the Old Testament (cf. xxi. 105 with Ps. xxxvii. 29; i. 5 with Ps. xxvii. 11) or the New (cf. vii. 48 with Luke xvi. 24; xlvi. 19 with Luke xvi. 25), there is nothing more than might readily have been picked up in conversation with any Jew or Christian. In Medina, where he had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with Jews of some culture, he learned some things out of the Mishna, e.g. v. 35 corresponds almost word for word with Mishna Sanhedrin iv. 5; compare also ii. 183 with Mishna Berak’hoth i. 2. That these are only cases of oral communication will be admitted by any one with the slightest knowledge of the circumstances. Otherwise we might even conclude that Mahomet had studied the Talmud; e.g. the regulation as to ablution by rubbing with sand, where water cannot be obtained (iv. 46), corresponds to a talmudic ordinance (Berak’hoth 15 a). Of Christianity he can have been able to learn very little, even in Medina; as may be seen from the absurd travesty of the institution of the Eucharist in v. 112 sqq. For the rest, it is highly improbable that before the Koran any real literary production—anything that could be strictly called a book—existed in the Arabic language.

In point of style and artistic effect, the different parts of the Koran are of very unequal value. An unprejudiced and critical reader will certainly find very few passages where his aesthetic susceptibilities are thoroughly satisfied. But he will often be struck, especially in the older pieces, by a wild force of passion, and a vigorous, if not rich, imagination. Descriptions of heaven and hell, and allusions to God’s working in Nature, not unfrequently show a certain amount of poetic power. In other places also the style is sometimes lively and impressive; though it is rarely indeed that we come across such strains of touching simplicity as in the middle of xciii. The greater part of the Koran is decidedly prosaic; much of it indeed is stiff in style. Of course, with such a variety of material, we cannot expect every part to be equally vivacious, or imaginative, or poetic. A decree about the right of inheritance, or a point of ritual, must necessarily be expressed in prose, if it is to be intelligible. No one complains of the civil laws in Exodus or the sacrificial ritual in Leviticus, because they want the fire of Isaiah or the tenderness of Deuteronomy. But Mahomet’s mistake consists in persistent and slavish adherence to the semi-poetic form which he had at first adopted in accordance with his own taste and that of his hearers. For instance, he employs rhyme in dealing with the most prosaic subjects, and thus produces the disagreeable effect of incongruity between style and matter. It has to be considered, however, that many of those sermonizing pieces which are so tedious to us, especially when we read two or three in succession (perhaps in a very inadequate translation), must have had a quite different effect when recited under the burning sky and on the barren soil of Mecca. There, thoughts about God’s greatness and man’s duty, which are familiar to us from childhood, were all new to the hearers—it is hearers we have to think of in the first instance, not readers—to whom, at the same time, every allusion had a meaning which often escapes our notice. When Mahomet spoke of the goodness of the Lord in creating the clouds, and bringing them across the cheerless desert, and pouring them out on the earth to restore its rich vegetation, that must have been a picture of thrilling interest to the Arabs, who are accustomed to see from three to five years elapse before a copious shower comes to clothe the wilderness once more with luxuriant pastures. It requires an effort for us, under our clouded skies, to realize in some degree the intensity of that impression.

The fact that scraps of poetical phraseology are specially numerous in the earlier sūras, enables us to understand why the prosaic mercantile community of Mecca regarded their eccentric townsman as a “poet,” or even a “possessed poet.” Mahomet himself had to disclaim such titles, because he felt himself to be a divinely inspired prophet; but we too, from our standpoint, shall fully acquit him of poetic genius. Like many other predominantly religious characters, he had no appreciation of poetic beauty; and if we may believe one anecdote related of him, at a time when every one made verses, he affected ignorance of the most elementary rules of prosody. Hence the style of the Koran is not poetical but rhetorical; and the powerful effect which some portions produce on us is gained by rhetorical means. Accordingly the sacred book has not even the artistic form of poetry; which, among the Arabs, includes a stringent metre, as well as rhyme. The Koran is never metrical, and only a few exceptionally eloquent portions fall into a sort of spontaneous rhythm. On the other hand, the rhyme is regularly maintained; although, especially in the later pieces, after a very slovenly fashion. Rhymed prose was a favourite form of composition among the Arabs of that day, and Mahomet adopted it; but if it imparts a certain sprightliness to some passages, it proves on the whole a burdensome yoke. The Moslems themselves have observed that the tyranny of the rhyme often makes itself apparent in derangement of the order of words, and in the choice of verbal forms which would not otherwise have been employed; e.g. an imperfect instead of a perfect. In one place, to save the rhyme, he calls Mount Sinai Sīnīn (xcv. 2) instead of Sīnā (xxiii. 20); in another Elijah is called Ilyāsīn (xxxvii. 130) instead of Ilyās (vi. 85; xxxvii. 123). The substance even is modified to suit exigencies of rhyme. Thus the Prophet would scarcely have fixed on the unusual number of eight angels round the throne of God (lxix. 17) if the word thamāniyah, “eight,” had not happened to fall in so well with the rhyme. And when lv. speaks of two heavenly gardens, each with two fountains and two kinds of fruit, and again of two similar gardens, all this is simply because the dual termination (ān) corresponds to the syllable that controls the rhyme in that whole sūra. In the later pieces, Mahomet often inserts edifying remarks, entirely out of keeping with the context, merely to complete his rhyme. In Arabic it is such an easy thing to accumulate masses of words with the same termination, that the gross negligence of the rhyme in the Koran is doubly remarkable. One may say that this is another mark of the Prophet’s want of mental training, and incapacity for introspective criticism.

On the whole, while many parts of the Koran undoubtedly have considerable rhetorical power, even over an unbelieving reader, the book, aesthetically considered, is by no means a first-rate performance. To begin with what we are most competent to criticize, let us look at some of the more extended narratives. It has already been noticed how vehement and abrupt they are where they ought to be characterized by epic repose. Indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence of events, are often omitted, so that to understand these histories is sometimes far easier for us than for those who heard them first, because we know most of them from better sources. Along with this, there is a great deal of superfluous verbiage; and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration. Contrast in these respects the history of Joseph (xii.) and its glaring improprieties with the admirably conceived and admirably executed story in Genesis. Similar faults are found in the non-narrative portions of the Koran. The connexion of ideas is extremely loose, and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness. Anacolutha are of frequent occurrence, and cannot be explained as conscious literary devices. Many sentences begin with a “when” or “on the day when” which seems to hover in the air, so that the commentators are driven to supply a “think of this” or some such ellipsis. Again, there is no great literary skill evinced in the frequent and needless harping on the same words and phrases; in xviii., for example, “till that” (ḥattā idhā) occurs no fewer than eight times. Mahomet, in short, is not in any sense a master of style. This opinion will be endorsed by any European who reads through the book with an impartial spirit and some knowledge of the language, without taking into account the tiresome effect of its endless iterations. But in the ears of every pious Moslem such a judgment will sound almost as shocking as downright atheism or polytheism. Among the Moslems, the Koran has always been looked on as the most perfect model of style and language. This feature of it is in their dogmatic the greatest of all miracles, the incontestable proof of its divine origin. Such a view on the part of men who knew Arabic infinitely better than the most accomplished European Arabist will ever do, may well startle us. In fact, the Koran boldly challenged its opponents to produce ten sūras, or even a single one, like those of the sacred book, and they never did so. That, to be sure, on calm reflection, is not so very surprising. Revelations of the kind which Mahomet uttered, no unbeliever could produce without making himself a laughing-stock. However little real originality there is in Mahomet’s doctrines, as against his own countrymen he was thoroughly original, even in the form of his oracles. To compose such revelations at will was beyond the power of the most expert literary artist; it would have required either a prophet or a shameless impostor. And if such a character appeared after Mahomet, still he could never be anything but an imitator, like the false prophets who arose about the time of his death and afterwards. That the adversaries should produce any sample whatsoever of poetry or rhetoric equal to the Koran is not at all what the Prophet demands. In that case he would have been put to shame, even in the eyes of many of his own followers, by the first poem that came to hand. Nevertheless, it is on a false interpretation of this challenge that the dogma of the incomparable excellence of the style and diction of the Koran is based. The rest has been accomplished by dogmatic prejudice, which is quite capable of working other miracles besides turning a defective literary production into an unrivalled masterpiece in the eyes of believers. This view once accepted, the next step was to find everywhere evidence of the perfection of the style and language. And if here and there, as one can scarcely doubt, there was among the old Moslems a lover of poetry who had his difficulties about this dogma, he had to beware of uttering an opinion which might have cost him his head. We know of at least one rationalistic theologian who defined the dogma in such a way that we can see he did not believe it (Shahrastānī, p. 39). The truth is, it would have been a miracle indeed if the style of the Koran had been perfect. For although there was at that time a recognized poetical style, already degenerating to mannerism, a developed prose style did not exist. All beginnings are difficult; and it can never be esteemed a serious charge against Mahomet that his book, the first prose work of a high order in the language, testifies to the awkwardness of the beginner. And further, we must always remember that entertainment and aesthetic effect were at most subsidiary objects. The great aim was persuasion and conversion; and, say what we will, that aim has been realized on the most imposing scale.

Mahomet repeatedly calls attention to the fact that the Koran is not written, like other sacred books, in a strange language, but in Arabic, and therefore is intelligible to all. At that time, along with foreign ideas, many foreign words had crept into the language; especially Aramaic terms for religious conceptions of Jewish or Christian origin. Some of these had already passed into general use, while others were confined to a more limited circle. Mahomet, who could not fully express his new ideas in the common language of his countrymen, but had frequently to find out new terms for himself, made free use of such Jewish and Christian words, as was done, though perhaps to a smaller extent, by certain thinkers and poets of that age who had more or less risen above the level of heathenism. In Mahomet’s case this is the less wonderful because he was indebted to the instruction of Jews and Christians, whose Arabic—as the Koran pretty clearly intimates with regard to one of them—was very defective. On the other hand, it is yet more remarkable that several of such borrowed words in the Koran have a sense which they do not possess in the original language. It is not necessary that this phenomenon should in every case be due to the same cause. Just as the prophet often misunderstood traditional traits of the sacred history, he may, as an unlearned man, likewise have often employed foreign expressions wrongly. Other remarkable senses of words were possibly already acclimatized in the language of Arabian Jews or Christians. Thus, forqān means really “redemption,” but Mahomet uses it for “revelation.” The widespread opinion that this sense first asserted itself in reference to the Arab root (faraqa), “sever,” or “decide,” is open to considerable doubt. There is, for instance, no difficulty in deriving the Arab meaning of “revelation” from the common Aramaic “salvation,” and this transference must have taken place in a community for which salvation formed the central object of faith, i.e. either amongst those Jews who looked to the coming of a Messiah or more probably, among Christians, since Christianity is in a very peculiar sense the religion of salvation. Milla is properly “word” (= Aramaic mellthā), but in the Koran “religion.” It is actually used of the religion of the Jews and Christians (once), of the heathen (5 times), but mostly (8 times) of the religion of Abraham, which Mahomet in the Medina period places on the same level with Islam. Although of the Aramaic dialects none employs the term Melltha in the sense of religion, it appears that the prophet found such a use. Illiyūn, which Mahomet uses of a heavenly book (Sūra 83; 18, 19), is clearly the Hebrew elyōn, “high” or “exalted.” It is, however, doubtful in what sense this word appeared to him, either as a name of God, as in the Old Testament it often occurs and regularly without the article, or actually as the epithet of a heavenly book, although this use cannot be substantiated from Jewish literature. So again the word mathānī is, as Geiger has conjectured, the regular plural of the Aramaic mathnīthā, which is the same as the Hebrew Mishnah, and denotes in Jewish usage a legal decision of some of the ancient Rabbins. But in the Koran Mahomet appears to have understood it in the sense of “saying” or “sentence” (cf. xxxix. 24). On the other hand, it is by no means certain that by “the Seven Mathani” (xv. 87) the seven verses of Sūra i. are meant. Words of undoubtedly Christian origin are less frequent in the Koran. It is an interesting fact that of these a few have come over from the Abyssinian; such as hawārīyūn “apostles,” māida “table,” munāfig “doubter, sceptic,” ragūn “cursed,” miḥrāb “temple”; the first three of these make their first appearance in sūras of the Medina period. The word shaitān “Satan,” which was likewise borrowed, at least in the first instance, from the Abyssinian, had probably been already introduced into the language. Sprenger has rightly observed that Mahomet makes a certain parade of these foreign terms, as of other peculiarly constructed expressions; in this he followed a favourite practice of contemporary poets. It is the tendency of the imperfectly educated to delight in out-of-the-way expressions, and on such minds they readily produce a remarkably solemn and mysterious impression. This was exactly the kind of effect that Mahomet desired, and to secure it he seems even to have invented a few odd vocables, as ghislīn (lxix. 36), sijjīn (lxxxiii. 7, 8), tasnīm (lxxxiii. 27), and salsabīl (lxxvi. 18). But, of course, the necessity of enabling his hearers to understand ideas which they must have found sufficiently novel in themselves, imposed tolerably narrow limits on such eccentricities.

The constituents of our present Koran belong partly to the Mecca period (before A.D. 622), partly to the period commencing with the migration to Medina (from the autumn of 622 to 8th June 632). Mahomet’s position in Medina was entirely different from that which he had occupied in his native town. In the former he was from the first the leader of a powerful party, and gradually became the autocratic ruler of Arabia; in the latter he was only the despised preacher of a small congregation. This difference, as was to be expected, appears in the Koran. The Medina pieces, whether entire sūras or isolated passages interpolated in Meccan sūras, are accordingly pretty broadly distinct, as to their contents, from those issued in Mecca. In the great majority of cases there can be no doubt whatever whether a piece first saw the light in Mecca or in Medina; and for the most part the internal evidence is borne out by Moslem tradition. And since the revelations given in Medina frequently take notice of events about which we have fairly accurate information, and whose dates are at least approximately known, we are often in a position to fix their date with at any rate considerable certainty; here again tradition renders valuable assistance. Even with regard to the Medina passages, however, a great deal remains uncertain, partly because the allusions to historical events and circumstances are generally rather obscure, partly because traditions about the occasion of the revelation of the various pieces are often fluctuating, and often rest on misunderstanding or arbitrary conjecture. An important criterion for judging the period during which individual Meccan sūras, interpolated in Medina revelations, arose (e.g. Sūr. xvi. 124, vi. 162) is provided by the Ibrāhīm legend, the great importance of which, as throwing light on the evolution of Mahomet’s doctrine in its relation to older revealed religions, has been convincingly set forth by Dr Snouck Hurgronje in his dissertation for the doctor’s degree and in later essays. According to this, Ibrāhīm, after the controversy with the Jews, first of all became Mahomet’s special forerunner in Medina, then the first Moslem, and finally the founder of the Ka’ba. But at all events it is far easier to arrange in some sort of chronological order the Medina sūras than those composed in Mecca. There is, indeed, one tradition which professes to furnish a chronological list of all the sūras. But not to mention that it occurs in several divergent forms, and that it takes no account of the fact that our present sūras are partly composed of pieces of different dates, it contains so many suspicious or undoubtedly false statements, that it is impossible to attach any great importance to it. Besides, it is a priori unlikely that a contemporary of Mahomet should have drawn up such a list; and if any one had made the attempt he would have found it almost impossible to obtain reliable information as to the order of the earlier Meccan sūras. We have in this list no genuine tradition, but rather the lucubrations of an undoubtedly conscientious Moslem critic, who may have lived about a century after the Flight.

Among the revelations put forth in Mecca there is a considerable number of (for the most part) short sūras, which strike every attentive reader as being the oldest. They are in an altogether different strain from many others, and in their whole composition they show least resemblance to the Medina pieces. It is no doubt conceivable—as Sprenger supposes—that Mahomet might have returned at intervals to his earlier manner; but since this group possesses a remarkable similarity of style, and since the gradual formation of a different style is on the whole an unmistakable fact, the assumption has little probability; and we shall therefore abide by the opinion that these form a distinct group. At the opposite extreme from them stands another cluster, showing quite obvious affinities with the style of the Medina sūras, which must therefore be assigned to the later part of the Prophet’s work in Mecca. Between these two groups stand a number of other Meccan sūras, which in every respect mark the transition from the first period to the third. It need hardly be said that the three periods—which were first distinguished by Professor Weil—are not separated by sharp lines of division. With regard to some sūras, it may be doubtful whether they ought to be reckoned amongst the middle group, or with one or other of the extremes. And it is altogether impossible, within these groups, to establish even a probable chronological arrangement of the individual revelations. In default of clear allusions to well-known events, or events whose date can be determined, we might indeed endeavour to trace the psychological development of the Prophet by means of the Koran, and arrange its parts accordingly. But in such an undertaking one is always apt to take subjective assumptions or mere fancies for established data. Good traditions about the origin of the Meccan revelations are not very numerous. In fact the whole history of Mahomet previous to the Flight is so imperfectly related that we are not even sure in what year he appeared as a prophet. Probably it was in A.D. 610; it may have been somewhat earlier, but scarcely later. If, as one tradition says, xxx. 1 seq. (“The Romans are overcome in the nearest neighbouring land”) refers to the defeat of the Byzantines by the Persians, not far from Damascus, about the spring of 614, it would follow that the third group, to which this passage belongs, covers the greater part of the Meccan period. And it is not in itself unlikely that the passionate vehemence which characterizes the first group was of short duration. Nor is the assumption contradicted by the tolerably well attested, though far from incontestable statement, that when Omar was converted (A.D. 615 or 616), xx., which belongs to the second group, already existed in writing. But the reference of xxx. 1 seq. to this particular battle is by no means so certain that positive conclusions can be drawn from it. It is the same with other allusions in the Meccan sūras to occurrences whose chronology can be partially ascertained. It is better, therefore, to rest satisfied with a merely relative determination of the order of even the three great clusters of Meccan revelations.

In the pieces of the first period the convulsive excitement of the Prophet often expresses itself with the utmost vehemence. He is so carried away by his emotion that he cannot choose his words; they seem rather to burst from him. Many of these pieces remind us of the oracles of the old heathen soothsayers, whose style is known to us from imitations, although we have perhaps not a single genuine specimen. Like those other oracles, the sūras of this period, which are never very long, are composed of short sentences with tolerably pure but rapidly changing rhymes. The oaths, too, with which many of them begin were largely used by the soothsayers. Some of these oaths are very uncouth and hard to understand, some of them perhaps were not meant to be understood, for indeed all sorts of strange things are met with in these chapters. Here and there Mahomet speaks of visions, and appears even to see angels before him in bodily form. There are some intensely vivid descriptions of the resurrection and the last day which must have exercised a demonic power over men who were quite unfamiliar with such pictures. Other pieces paint in glowing colours the joys of heaven and the pains of hell. However, the sūras of this period are not all so wild as these; and those which are conceived in a calmer mood appear to be the oldest. Yet, one must repeat, it is exceedingly difficult to make out any strict chronological sequence. For instance, it is by no means certain whether the beginning of xcvi. is really, what a widely circulated tradition calls it, the oldest part of the whole Koran. That tradition goes back to the Prophet’s favourite wife Ayesha; but as she was not born at the time when the revelation is said to have been made, it can only contain at the best what Mahomet told her years afterwards, from his own not very clear recollection, with or without fictitious additions, and this woman is little trustworthy. Moreover, there are other pieces mentioned by others as the oldest. In any case xcvi. 1 sqq. is certainly very early. According to the traditional view, which appears to be correct, it treats of a vision in which the Prophet receives an injunction to recite a revelation conveyed to him by the angel. It is interesting to observe that here already two things are brought forward as proofs of the omnipotence and care of God: one is the creation of man out of a seminal drop—an idea to which Mahomet often recurs; the other is the then recently introduced art of writing, which the Prophet instinctively seizes on as a means of propagating his doctrines. It was only after Mahomet encountered obstinate resistance that the tone of the revelations became thoroughly passionate. In such cases he was not slow to utter terrible threats against those who ridiculed the preaching of the unity of God, of the resurrection, and of the judgment. His own uncle Abū Lahab had rudely repelled him, and in a brief special sūra (cxi.) he and his wife are consigned to hell. The sūras of this period form almost exclusively the concluding portions of the present text. One is disposed to assume, however, that they were at one time more numerous, and that many of them were lost at an early period.

Since Mahomet’s strength lay in his enthusiastic and fiery imagination rather than in the wealth of ideas and clearness of abstract thought on which exact reasoning depends, it follows that the older sūras, in which the former qualities have free scope, must be more attractive to us than the later. In the sūras of the second period the imaginative glow perceptibly diminishes; there is still fire and animation, but the tone becomes gradually more prosaic. As the feverish restlessness subsides, the periods are drawn out, and the revelations as a whole become longer. The truth of the new doctrine is proved by accumulated instances of God’s working in nature and in history; the objections of opponents, whether advanced in good faith or in jest, are controverted by arguments; but the demonstration is often confused or even weak. The histories of the earlier prophets, which had occasionally been briefly touched on in the first period, are now related, sometimes at great length. On the whole, the charm of the style is passing away.

There is one piece of the Koran, belonging to the beginning of this period, if not to the close of the former, which claims particular notice. This is Sūra i., the Lord’s Prayer of the Moslems, a vigorous hymn of praise to God, the Lord of both worlds, which ends in a petition for aid and true guidance (hudā). The words of this sūra, which is known as al-fātiḥa (“the opening one”), are as follows:—

(1) In the name of God, the compassionate compassioner. (2) Praise be [literally “is”] to God, the Lord of the worlds, (3) the compassionate compassioner, (4) the Sovereign of the day of judgment. (5) Thee do we worship and of Thee do we beg assistance. (6) Direct us in the right way; (7) in the way of those to whom Thou hast been gracious, on whom there is no wrath, and who go not astray.

The thoughts are so simple as to need no explanation; and yet the prayer is full of meaning. It is true that there is not a single original idea of Mahomet’s in it. Of the seven verses of the sūra no less than five (verses 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) have an extremely suspicious relationship with the stereotyped formulae of Jewish and Christian liturgies. Verse 6 agrees, word for word, with Ps. xxvii. 11. On the other hand, the question must remain open whether Mahomet only gave free renderings of the several borrowed formulae, or whether in actually composing them he kept existing models. The designation of God as the “Compassioner,” Raḥmān, is simply the Jewish Raḥmānā, which was a favourite name for God in the Talmudic period. The word had long before Mahomet’s time been used for God in southern Arabia (cf. e.g. the Sabaean Inscriptions, Glaser, 554, line 32; 618, line 2).

Mahomet seems for a while to have entertained the thought of adopting al-Raḥmān as a proper name of God, in place of Allāh, which was already used by the heathens. This purpose he ultimately relinquished, but it is just in the sūras of the second period that the use of Raḥmān is specially frequent. If, for this reason, it is to a certain extent certain that Sūra i. belongs to this period, yet we can neither prove that it belongs to the beginning of the Mecca period nor that the present introductory formula “In the name of God,” &c., belonged to it from the first. It may therefore even be doubted whether Mahomet at the outset looked upon the latter as revealed. Tradition, of course, knows in this connexion no doubt, and looks upon the Fātiḥa precisely as the most exalted portion of the Koran. Every Moslem who says his five prayers regularly—as the most of them do—repeats it not less than twenty times a day.

The sūras of the third Meccan period, which form a fairly large part of our present Koran, are almost entirely prosaic. Some of the revelations are of considerable extent, and the single verses also are much longer than in the older sūras. Only now and then a gleam of poetic power flashes out. A sermonizing tone predominates. The sūras are very edifying for one who is already reconciled to their import, but to us at least they do not seem very well fitted to carry conviction to the minds of unbelievers. That impression, however, is not correct, for in reality the demonstrations of these longer Meccan sūras appear to have been peculiarly influential for the propagation of Islam. Mahomet’s mission was not to Europeans, but to a people who, though quick-witted and receptive, were not accustomed to logical thinking, while they had outgrown their ancient religion.