Chapter 23

Authorities.—F. Combefis,Historia Monothelitarum(Paris, 1648); Arshak Ter Mikelian,Die armen. Kirche, iv. bis zum xiii. Jahrhundert(Leipzig, 1892); H. Gelzer, “Die Anfänge der armenischen Kirche” in theBerichte der Königlich. Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften: Historisch-philologische Classe(1895), p. 171; Gutschmid,Kleine Schriften(Leipzig, 1892), t. iii.; Langlois,Collection d’historiens arméniens(Paris, 1867) (the translations often careless); E.W. Brooks,The Syriac Chronicleknown asZachariah of Mitylene(London, 1899), p. 24; Dulaurier,Recherches sur la chronologie arménienne(Paris, 1859); Agop Manandian,Beiträge zur albanischen Geschichte(Leipzig, 1897); G. Owsepian,Die Entstehungsgeschichte des Monotheletismus(Leipzig, 1897); Cardinal Angelo Mai,Nova SS. patrum bibliotheca, 6 vols. (Rome, 1844-1871), vol. ii. contains Latin version of Armenian canons; Hergenrother,Photius(Regensburg, 1867); Tchamchian,History of Armenia(in Armenian at Venice and English abridged translation entitledM. Chamichby John Audall, Calcutta, 1827); Domini Joannis Onziensis,Opera Latine(Venice, 1834); Nersetis Clajensis,Opera omnia Latine(Venice, 1833); A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus in theRecueil de la société orthodoxe de Palestine(St Petersburg, 1892) (Armenian correspondence with Photius translated); Enthymius Zigabenus,Panoplia, Patrol. Gr.vol. 130, col. 1173; E. Dulaurier,Histoire de l’église armén.(Paris, 1857); le Quien,Oriens christianus; Mansi,Concilia, vol. 25; Steph. Azarian,Ecclesiae Armenae Traditio(Rome, 1870); A. Balgy,Historia doctrinae catholicae inter Armenos(Vienna, 1878); Clemens Galanus,Conciliatio Ecclesiae Armenae cum Romana(Rome, 1690); L. Alishan,Sissouan, contrée de l’Arménie(Venice, 1893), in Armenian, but also in French translation;Recueil d’actes relatifs aux Arméniens(3 vols., Moscow, 1833); St Martin,Mémoires historiques sur l’Arménie(Paris, 1818); V. Langlois,Voyage dans la Cilicie(Paris, 1861); H.G.O. Dwight,Christianity in Turkey(London, 1854); De Damas,Coup d’œil sur l’Arménie(Lyon, 1887); H.F.B. Lynch,Armenia(2 vols., London, 1902); J. Issaverdens,Armenia, Ecclesiastical History(Venice, 1875); E. Dulaurier,Historiens arméniens des Croisades(Paris); Giovanni de Serpos,Compendio Storico(Venice, 1786); Garabed Chahnazarian,Esquisse de l’histoire de l’Arménie(Paris, 1856); Gelzer, “Armenien” in Herzog-Hauck,Realencyklopadie für protestantische Theologie(ed. 3, Leipzig, 1897); Hefele,Hist. of Councils, vols. 3 and 9; F. Néve,L’Arménie chrétienne(Paris); P. Hunanian,Histoire des canciles d’Orient(Vienna, 1847); Gr. Chalathianz,Apocryphes(Moscow, 1897), and other works; Brosset,Collection d’historiens arméniens(St Petersburg, 1874), and numerous other works by the same author; J. Catergian,De fidei symbolo quo Armenii utuntur(Vienna, 1893); Ricaut,The present state of the Greek and Armenian Churches(London, 1679); H. Denzinger,Ritus orientalium(Würzburg, 1863); Fred. C. Conybeare,Rituale Armenorum(Oxford, 1905); F.E. Brightman,Eastern Liturgies(Oxford, 1896); P. Vetter,Chosroae magni explicatio missae(Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1880); L. Petit, articles on Armenian religious history, councils, literature, creed and discipline inDiction. de théologie catholique, cols. 1888-1968; F.C. Conybeare, “The Armenian canons of St Sahak” in theAmerican Journal of Theology(Chicago, 1898), p. 828; C.F. Neumann,Geschichte der armenischen Literatur(Leipzig, 1836); Simon Weber,Die katholische Kirche in Armenien(Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1903); Sukias Somal,Quadro della Storia Letteraria di Armenia(Venice, 1829); M.V. Ermoni, “L’Arménie” inRevue de l’orient chrétien(for year 1896); F. Tournebize, “Histoire de l’Arménie” (ib.1902-3-4-5); R.P.D. Girard, “Les Madag” (ib.for year 1902); H. Hübschmann,Armenische StudienandGrammatik(Leipzig, 1883 and 1895). Grammars by Petermann (inPorta Orientalium Linguarumseries), by Prof. Meillet of Paris, by Prof. N. Marr of St Petersburg (in Russian), by Joseph Karst (of the Cilician dialect). Texts of most of the Armenian fathers and historians have been printed by the Mechitharists of San Lazaro, Venice, and are readily procurable at their convent.

(F. C. C.)

ARMENTIÈRES,a town of northern France, in the department of Nord, on the Lys, 13 m. W.N.W. of Lille on the Northern railway from that city to Dunkirk. Pop. (1906) 25,408. The chief building is the hôtel de ville with a 17th-century belfry. There are communal colleges for girls and boys, a board of trade-arbitrators, a chamber of commerce and a national technical school. The town is an important centre for the spinning and weaving of flax and cotton; bleaching, dyeing and the manufacture of machinery are among the other industries. Its industrial prosperity dates from the middle ages, when, however, woollen, not cotton, goods were the staple product.

ARMET(diminutive of Fr.arme), a form of helmet, which was developed out of existing forms in the latter part of the 15th century. It was round in shape, and often had a narrow ridge or comb along the top. It had a pivoted or hinged vizor and nosepiece, and complete chin, neck and cheek protection, closely connected with the gorget. It is distinguished from the basinet by its roundness, and by the fact that it protects the neck and chin by strong plates, instead of a “camail” or loose collar of mail; from the salade and heaume by its close fit and skull-cap shape; and from the various forms of vizored burgonets by the absence of the projecting brim. It remained in use until the final abandonment of the complete closed head-piece.

ARMFELT, GUSTAF MAURITZ,Count(1757-1814), son of Charles II.’s general, Carl Gustaf Armfelt, was born in Finland on the 31st of March 1757. In 1774 he became an ensign in the guards, but his frivolity provoked the displeasure of Gustavus III. and he thought it prudent to go abroad. Subsequently, however, (1780) he met the king again at Spa and completely won the monarch’s favour by his natural amiability, intelligence and brilliant social gifts. Henceforth his fortune was made. At first he was themaître des plaisirsof the Swedish court, but it was not long before more serious affairs were entrusted to him. He took part in the negotiations with Catherine II. (1783) and with the Danish government (1787), and during the Russian war of 1788-90 he was one of the king’s most trusted and active counsellors. He also displayed great valour in the field. In 1788 when the Danes unexpectedly invaded Sweden and threatened Gothenburg, it was Armfelt who under the king’s directions organized the Dalecarlian levies and led them to victory. He remained absolutely faithful to Gustavus when nearly the whole of the nobility fell away from him; brilliantly distinguished himself in the later phases of the Russian war; and was the Swedish plenipotentiary at the conclusion of the peace of Verelä. During the last years of Gustavus III. his influence was paramount, though he protested against his master’s headstrong championship of the Bourbons. On his deathbed Gustavus III. (1792) committed the care of his infant son to Armfelt and appointed him a member of the council of regency; but the anti-Gustavian duke-regent Charles sent Armfelt as Swedish ambassador to Naples to get rid of him. From Naples Armfelt communicated with Catherine II., urging her to bring about by means of a military demonstration a change in the Swedish government in favour of the Gustavians. The plot was discovered by the regent’s spies, and Armfelt only escaped from the man-of-war sent to Naples to seize him, with the assistance of Queen Caroline. He now fled to Russia, where he was interned at Kaluga, while at home he was condemned to confiscation and death as a traitor, and his unjustly accused mistress Magdalena Rudenschöld was publicly whipped to gratify an old grudge of the regent’s. When Gustavus IV. attained his majority, Armfelt was completely rehabilitated and sent as Swedish ambassador to Vienna (1802), but was obliged to quit that post two years later for sharply attacking the Austrian government’s attitude towards Bonaparte. From 1805 to 1807 he was commander-in-chief of the Swedish forces in Pomerania, where he displayed great ability and retarded the conquest of the duchy as long as it was humanly possible. On his return home, he was appointed commander-in-chief on the Norwegian frontier, but could do nothing owing to theordres, contre-ordres et désordresof his lunatic master. He would have nothing to say to the revolutionaries who in 1809 deposed Gustavus IV. and his whole family. Armfelt was the most courageous of the supporters of the crown prince Gustavus, and when Bernadotte was elected resolved to retire to Finland. His departure was accelerated by a decree of expulsion as a conspirator (1811). Over the impressionable Alexander I. of Russia, Armfelt exercised almost as great an influence as Czartoryski, especially as regards Finnish affairs. He contributed more than any one else to the erection of the grand-duchy into an autonomous state, and was its first and best governor-general. The plan of the Russian defensive campaigns is, with great probability, also attributed to him, and he gained Alexander over to the plan of uniting Norway with Sweden. He died at Tsarskoe Selo on the 19th of August 1814.

See Robert Nisbet Bain,Gustavus III.vol. ii. (London, 1895); Elof Tegner,Gustaf Mauritz Armfelt(Stockholm, 1883-1887).

(R. N. B.)

ARMIDALE,a town in Sandon county, New South Wales, Australia, 313 m. by rail N. of Sydney. Pop. (1901) 4249. It lies at an elevation of 3313 ft., in a picturesque mountainous district, for the most part pastoral and agricultural, though it contains some alluvial gold diggings. Antimony is found in large quantities near the town. Armidale is a cathedral town, being the seat of a Roman Catholic bishop and belonging to the joint Anglican diocese of Grafton; Armidale St Peter’s, the Anglican cathedral, and St Mary’s, the Roman Catholic, are both fine buildings. The town is the centre of great educational activity, its schools including the New England girls’ school, St Patrick’s college, the high school, the Ursuline convent and state schools. Armidale became a municipality in 1863.

ARMILLA,ArmilorArmillary Sphere(from the Lat.armilla, a bracelet), an instrument used in astronomy. In its simplest form, consisting of a ring fixed in the plane of the equator, thearmillais one of the most ancient of astronomical instruments. Slightly developed, it was crossed by another ring fixed in the plane of the meridian. The first was an equinoctial, the second a solstitial armilla. Shadows were used as indices of the sun’s position, in combination with angular divisions. When several rings or circles were combined representing the great circles of the heavens, the instrument became an armillary sphere. Armillae are said to have been in early use in China. Eratosthenes (276-196B.C.) used most probably a solstitial armilla for measuring the obliquity of the ecliptic. Hipparchus (160-125B.C.) probably used an armillary sphere of four rings. Ptolemy (c.A.D.107-161) describes his instrument in theSyntaxis(book v. chap, i.), and it is of great interest as an example of the armillary sphere passing into the spherical astrolabe. It consisted of a graduated circle inside which another could slide, carrying two small tubes diametrically opposite, the instrument being kept vertical by a plumb-line.

No material advance was made on Ptolemy’s instrument until Tycho Brahe, whose elaborate armillary spheres passing into astrolabes are figured in hisAstronomiae Instauratae Mechanica.The armillary sphere survives as useful for teaching, and may be described as a skeleton celestial globe, the series of rings representing the great circles of the heavens, and revolving on an axis within a horizon. With the earth as centre such a sphere is known as Ptolemaic; with the sun as centre, as Copernican.

The designer of the instrument shown no doubt thought that the north pole might suitably have the same ornament as was used to mark N. on the compass card, and so surmounted it with thefleur-de-lys, traditionally chosen for that purpose on the compass by Flavio Gioja in honour of Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily and Naples.

Armillary spheres occur in many old sculptures, paintings and engravings; and from these sources we know that they were made for suspension, for resting on the ground or on a table, for holding by a short handle, or either for holding or for resting on a stand.

Authorities.—Tycho Brahe,Astronomiae Instauratae Mechanica;M. Blundeville, his Exercises; N. Bion,Traité des instrumens de mathématique; alsoL’Usage des globes célestes; Sédillot,Mémoire sur les instrumens; J.B. Delambre,Histoire de l’astronomie ancienne; R. Grant,History of Physical Astronomy.

(M. L. H.)

ARMINIUS,the Latinized form of the name ofHermann, or more probablyArmin(17B.C.-A.D.21), the German national hero. He was a son of a certain Segimer, a prince of the tribe of the Cherusci, and in early life served with distinction as an officer in the Roman armies. Returning to his own people he found them chafing under the yoke of the Roman governor, Quintilius Varus; he entertained for them hopes of freedom, and cautiously inducing neighbouring tribes to join his standard he led the rebellion which broke out in the autumn ofA.D.9. Heavily laden with baggage the troops of Varus were decoyed into the fastnesses of the Teutoburger Wald, and there attacked, the completeness of the barbarian victory being attested by the virtual annihilation of three legions, by the voluntary death of Varus, and by the terror which reigned in Rome when the news of the defeat became known, a terror which found utterance in the emperor’s despairing cry: “Varus, give me back my legions!” Then inA.D.15 Germanicus Caesar led the Romans against Arminius, and captured his wife, Thusnelda. An indecisive battle was fought in the Teutoburger Wald, where Germanicus narrowly escaped the fate of Varus, and in the following year Arminius was defeated. The hero’s later years were spent in fighting against Marbod, prince of the Marcomanni, and in disputes with his own people occasioned probably by his desire to found a powerful kingdom. He was murdered inA.D.21.

In 1875 a great monument to Arminius was completed. This stands on the Grotenburg mountain near Detmold. Klopstock and other poets have used his exploits as material for dramas.

Much discussion has taken place with regard to the exact spot in the Teutoburger Wald where the great battle between Arminius and Varus was fought. There is an immense literature on this subject, and the following may be consulted:—T. Mommsen,Die Ortlichkeit der Varusschlacht(1885); E. Meyer,Untersuchungen über die Schlacht im Teutoburger Walde(1893); A. Wilms,Die Schlacht im Teutoburger Walde(1899); F. Knoke,Das Schlachtfeld im Teutoburger Walde(1899); E. Dünzelmann,Der Schauplatz der Varusschlacht(1889); and P. Höfer,Die Varusschlacht(1888). For more general accounts of Arminius see: Tacitus,Annals, edited by H. Furneaux (1884-1891); O. Kemmer,Arminius(1893); F.W. Fischer,Armin und die Römer(1893); W. Uhl,Das Portrait des Arminius(1898); and F. Knoke,Die Kriegszüge des Germanicus in Deutschland(1887).

ARMINIUS, JACOBUS(1560-1609), Dutch theologian, author of the modified reformed theology that receives its name of Arminian from him, was born at Oudewater, South Holland, on the 10th of October 1560. Arminius is a Latinized form of his patronymic Hermanns or Hermansen. His father, Hermann Jakobs, a cutler, died while he was an infant, leaving a widow and three children. Theodorus Aemilius, a priest, who had turned Protestant, adopting Jakob, sent him to school at Utrecht, but died when his charge was in his fifteenth year. Rudolf Snellius (Snel van Roijen, 1546-1613), the mathematician, a native of Oudewater, then a professor at Marburg, happening at the time to visit his early home, met the boy, saw promise in him and undertook his maintenance and education. But hardly was he settled at Marburg when the news came that the Spaniards had besieged and taken Oudewater, and murdered its inhabitants almost without exception. Arminius hurried home, but only to find all his relatives slain. In February the same year (1575), the university of Leiden had been founded, and thither, by the kindness of friends, Arminius was sent to study theology. The six years he remained at Leiden (1576-1582) were years of active and innovating thought in Holland. The War of Independence had started conflicting tendencies in men’s minds. To some it seemed to illustrate the necessity of the state tolerating only one religion, but to others the necessity of the state tolerating all. Dirck Coornhert argued, in private conferences and public disputations, that it was wrong to punish heretics, and his great opponents were, as a rule, the ministers, who maintained that there was no room for more than one religion in a state. Caspar Koolhaes, the heroic minister of Leiden—its first lecturer, too, in divinity—pleaded against a too rigid uniformity, for such an agreement on “fundamentals” as had allowed Reformed, Lutherans and Anabaptists to unite. Leiden had been happy, too, in its first professors. There taught in theology Guillaume Feuguières or Feuguereius (d. 1613), a mild divine, who had written a treatise on persuasion in religion, urging that as to it “men could be led, not driven”; Lambert Danaeus, who deserves remembrance as the first to discuss Christian ethics scientifically, apart from dogmatics; Johannes Drusius, the Orientalist, one of the most enlightened and advanced scholars of his day, settled later at Franeker; Johann Kolmann the younger, best known by his saying that high Calvinism made God “both a tyrant and an executioner.” Snellius, Arminius’s old patron, now removed to Leiden, expounded the Ramist philosophy, and did his best to start his students on the search after truth, unimpeded by the authority of Aristotle. Under these men and influences, Arminius studied with signal success; and the promise he gave induced the merchants’ gild of Amsterdam to bear the further expenses of his education. In 1582 he went to Geneva, studied there awhile under Theodore Beza, but had soon, owing to his active advocacy of the Ramist philosophy, to remove to Basel. After a short but brilliant career there he turned to Geneva, studied for three years, travelled, in 1586, in Italy, heard Giacomo Zarabella (1533-1589) lecture on philosophy in Padua, visited Rome, and, open-minded enough to see its good as well as its evil, was suspected by the stern Dutch Calvinists of “popish” leanings. Next year he was called to Amsterdam, and there, in 1588, was ordained. He soon acquired the reputation of being a good preacher and faithful pastor. He was commissioned to organize the educational system of the city, and is said to have done it well. He greatly distinguished himself by fidelity to duty during a plague that devastated Amsterdam in 1602. In 1603 he was called, in succession to Franz Junius, to a theological professorship at Leiden, which he held till his death on the 19th of October 1609.

Arminius is best known as the founder of the anti-Calvinistic school in Reformed theology, which created the Remonstrant Church in Holland (seeRemonstrants), and contributed to form the Arminian tendency or party in England. He was a man of mild and liberal spirit, broadened by varied culture, constitutionally averse from narrow views and enforced uniformity. He lived in a period of severe systematizing. The Reformed strengthened itself against the Roman Catholic theology by working itself, on the one hand, into vigorous logical consistency, and supporting itself, on the other, on the supreme authority of the Scriptures. Calvin’s first principle, the absolute sovereignty of God, had been so applied as to make the divine decree determine alike the acts and the destinies of men; and his formal principle had been so construed as to invest his system with the authority of the source whence it professed to have been drawn. Calvinism had become, towards the close of the 16th century, supreme in Holland, but the very rigour of the uniformity it exacted provoked a reaction. Coornhert could not plead for the toleration of heretics without assailing the dominant Calvinism, and so he opposed a conditional to its unconditional predestination. The two ministers of Delft, who had debated the point with him, had, the better to turn his arguments, descended from thesupralapsarian to the infralapsarian position,i.e.made the divine decree, instead of precede and determine, succeed the Fall. This seemed to the high Calvinists of Holland a grave heresy. Arminius, fresh from Geneva, familiar with the dialectics of Beza, appeared to many the man able to speak the needed word, and so, in 1589, he was simultaneously invited by the ecclesiastical court of Amsterdam to refute Coornhert, and by Martin Lydius, professor at Franeker, to combat the two infralapsarian ministers of Delft. Thus led to confront the questions of necessity and free will, his own views became unsettled, and the further he pursued his inquiries the more he was inclined to assert the freedom of man and limit the range of the unconditional decrees of God. This change became gradually more apparent in his preaching and in his conferences with his clerical associates, and occasioned much controversy in the ecclesiastical courts where, however, he successfully defended his position. The controversy was embittered and the differences sharpened by his appointment to the professorship at Leiden. He had as colleague Franz Gomarus, a strong supralapsarian, perfervid, irrepressible; and their collisions, personal, official, political, tended to develop and define their respective positions.

Arminius died, worn out by uncongenial controversy and ecclesiastical persecution, before his system had been elaborated into the logical consistency it attained in the hands of his celebrated successor, Simon Episcopius; but though inchoate in detail, it was in its principles clear and coherent enough. These may be thus stated:

1. The decree of God is, when it concerns His own actions, absolute, but when it concerns man’s, conditional,i.e.the decree relative to the Saviour to be appointed and the salvation to be provided is absolute, but the decree relative to the persons saved or condemned is made to depend on the acts—belief and repentance in the one case, unbelief and impenitence in the other—of the persons themselves.

2. The providence or government of God, while sovereign, is exercised in harmony with the nature of the creatures governed,i.e.the sovereignty of God is so exercised as to be compatible with the freedom of man.

3. Man is by original nature, through the assistance of divine grace, free, able to will and perform the right; but is in his fallen state, of and by himself, unable to do so; he needs to be regenerated in all his powers before he can do what is good and pleasing to God.

4. Divine grace originates, maintains and perfects all the good in man, so much so that he cannot, though regenerate, conceive, will or do any good thing without it.

5. The saints possess, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, sufficient strength to persevere to the end in spite of sin and the flesh, but may so decline from sound doctrine as to cause divine grace to be ineffectual.

6. Every believer may be assured of his own salvation.

7. It is possible for a regenerate man to live without sin.

Arminius’s works are mostly occasional treatises drawn from him by controversial emergencies, but they everywhere exhibit a calm, well-furnished, undogmatic and progressive mind. He was essentially an amiable man, who hated the zeal for an impossible orthodoxy that constrained “the church to institute a search after crimes which have not betrayed an existence, yea, and to drag into open contentions those who are meditating no evil.” His friend Peter Bertius, who pronounced his funeral oration, closed it with these words: “There lived a man whom it was not possible for those who knew him sufficiently to esteem; those who entertained no esteem for him are such as never knew him well enough to appreciate his merits.”

The works of Arminius (in Latin) were published in a single quarto volume at Leiden in 1629, at Frankfort in 1631 and 1635. Two volumes of an English translation, with copious notes, by James Nichols, were published at London, 1825-1828; three volumes (complete) at Buffalo, 1853. A life was written by Caspar Brandt, son of Gerard Brandt, the historian of the Dutch reformation, and published in 1724; republished and annotated by J.L. Mosheim in 1725; and translated into English by the Rev. John Guthrie, 1854. James Nichols also wrote a life (London, 1843).

ARMISTICE(from Lat.arma, arms, andsistere, to stop), a suspension of hostilities by mutual agreement between two nations at war, or their respective forces. An armistice may be either general or particular; in the first case there is a complete cessation of hostile operations in every part of the dominions of the belligerent powers; in the second there is merely a temporary truce between two contending armies, or between a besieged fortress and the force besieging it. Such a temporary truce, when for a very limited period and for a special purpose,e.g.the collection of the wounded and the burial of the dead, is termed asuspension of arms. A general armistice cannot be concluded by the commanders-in-chief unless special authority has been previously delegated to them by their respective governments; otherwise any arrangement entered into by them requires subsequent ratification by the supreme powers of the states. A partial truce may be concluded by the officers of the respective powers, without any special authority from their governments, wherever, from the nature and extent of the commands they exercise, their duties could not be efficiently discharged without their possession of such a power. The conduct of belligerent parties during an armistice is usually regulated in modern warfare by express agreement between the parties, but where this is not the case the following general conditions may be laid down. (1) Each party may do, within the limits prescribed by the truce, whatever he could have done in time of peace. For example, he can raise troops, collect stores, receive reinforcements and fortify places that are not actually in a state of siege. (2) Neither party can take advantage of the armistice to do what he could not have done had military operations continued. Thus he cannot throw provisions or reinforcements into a besieged town, and neither besiegers nor besieged are at liberty to repair their fortifications or erect new works. (3) All things contained in places the possession of which was contested, must remain in the state in which they were before the armistice began. Any infringement by either party of the conditions of the truce entitles the other to recommence hostile operations without previous intimation.

ARMOIRE,the French name (cf.Almery) given to a tall movable cupboard, or “wardrobe,” with one or more doors. It has varied considerably in shape and size, and the decoration of its doors and sides has faithfully represented mutations of fashion and modifications of use. It was originally exceedingly massive and found its chief decoration in elaborate hinges and locks of beaten iron. The finer ecclesiastical armoires or aumbries which have come down to us—used in churches for the safe custody of vestments, eucharistic vessels, reliquaries and other precious objects—are usually painted, sometimes even upon the interior, with sacred subjects or with incidents from the lives of the saints. The cathedrals of Bayeux and Noyon contain famous examples; the most typical English one is in York minster. By the end of the 14th century, when the carpenter and the wood-carver had acquired a better mastery of their material, the taste for painted surfaces appears to have given place to the vogue of carving, and the simple rectangular panels gradually became sculptured with a simple motive, such as the linen-fold or parchment patterns. In the treasury of St Germain l’Auxerrois the ends of the 15th-century armoires are treated in this way. In that and the two following centuries the keys and the escutcheons of the locks became highly ornamental; usually in forged iron, they were occasionally made of more precious metals. By slow degrees the shape of this receptacle changed—from breadth was evolved height, and the tall form of armoire became characteristic. The Renaissance exercised a notable effect upon this, as upon so many other varieties of furniture. It became less obviously and aggressively a thing of utility; its proportions shrank from the massive to the elegant; its artistic effectiveness was vastly enhanced by its division into an upper and a lower part. Enriched with columns and pilasters, its panels carved with mythology, its canopied niches filled with sculptured statuettes, and terminating with a rich cornice and perhaps a broken pediment, it was widely removed in appearance, if not in purpose, from the uncompromising iron-mounted receptacle of earliergenerations. During the 16th century, when the surging impulses of the Renaissance had died away, the armoire relapsed into plainness, its proportions increased, and it was again constructed in one piece. Ere long, however, it grew more sumptuous than ever. Boulle encrusted it with marqueterie from designs by Bérain; it glowed withamorini, with the torches and arrows of Cupid, with the garlands which he weaves for his captives, and when allusiveness left a corner vacant, it was filled with arabesques in ebony or ivory, in brass or white metal. While the royal palaces and the hôtels of the great nobility were filled with those costly splendours, the ordinary cabinetmaker continued to construct his modest pieces, and by the middle of the 18th century the armoire was found in every French house, ample in width and high in proportion to the lofty rooms of the period. It is not to be supposed that so useful a piece of furniture was confined to France. It was used, more or less, throughout a considerable part of Europe, but it was distinctively Gallic nevertheless, and never became thoroughly acclimatized elsewhere until about the beginning of the 19th century, when it developed into the glass-fronted wardrobe which is now an essential detail in the plenishing of the bed-chamber, not merely in France and England, but in many other countries. Thearmoire à glacewas known and occasionally made in France as far back as the middle of the 18th century, and almost the earliest mention of it connects it with the scandalous relations of the Maréchal de Richelieu and the beautifulfermière générale, Mme de la Popelinière, who had one made to mask a secret door. In the conventional and not very attractive wardrobe of commerce it is difficult to descry the gracious characteristics of the armoire of the Renaissance or the 17th century, and it is not altogether surprising that Théodore de Banville should have condemned one of the most solidly useful of household necessaries as a “hideous monster.”

ARMORICA(Aremorica), the Roman name, derived from two Celtic words meaning the “seaside” (ar, on, andmor, sea), for the land of the Armorici, roughly the peninsula of Brittany. At the time of the Roman advance on Gaul there were five principal tribes in Armorica, the Namneti, the Veneti, the Osismii, the Curiosolitae and the Redones. It was subdued by Caesar, who entirely destroyed the seafaring tribe of its south coast, the Veneti. Under the Empire it formed part of the province of Gallia Lugudunensis (Lugdunensis). It contained hardly any towns, though many large country houses, and was perhaps less Romanized than the rest of Gaul. In and after the later part of the 5th century it received many Celtic immigrants from the British Isles, fleeing (it is said) from the Saxons; and the Celtic dialect which the Bretons still speak is thought to owe its origin to these immigrants. (See furtherBrittany.)

ARMOUR, PHILIP DANFORTH(1832-1901), American merchant and philanthropist, was born in Stockbridge, New York, on the 16th of May 1832. He was educated at Cazenovia Academy, Cazenovia, N.Y., worked for several years on his father’s farm, and in 1852 with a small party went overland to California, a large part of the journey being made on foot. Here during the next four years he laid the foundations of his fortune. In 1856 he became associated with his friend, Frederick S. Miles, in a wholesale grocery and commission business at Milwaukee. In 1863 he became the head of the firm of Armour, Plankington & Co., pork packers, whose headquarters were at Milwaukee. He also obtained a large interest in the firm H.O. Armour & Co., which was founded by his brother, Herman Ossian Armour (1837-1901), and which, starting as a grain commission business, in 1868 established also a large pork-packing plant. Of this firm, the name of which was changed to Armour & Co. in 1870, he became the head in 1875, and thereafter the business made such rapid progress that in 1901 as many as 11,000 hands were employed. Besides contributing to many charitable enterprises, Armour founded the Armour Institute of Technology at Chicago in 1892 and the Armour Flats in Chicago, built for the purpose of supplying at a low rental good homes for working men and their families. He also contributed liberally to the Armour Mission in Chicago, which was founded in 1881 by his brother, Joseph Armour. At the time of his death, on the 6th of January 1901, Philip D. Armour’s private fortune was supposed to exceed $50,000,000.

Back to Index Next