(E. R. L.)
1The group Arthropoda itself, thus constituted, was precisely identical in its area with the Insecta of Linnaeus, the Entoma of Aristotle. But the word “Insect” had become limited since the days of Linnaeus to the Hexapod Pterygote forms, to the exclusion of his Aptera. Lamarck’s penetrating genius is chiefly responsible for the shrinkage of the word Insecta, since it was he who, forty years after Linnaeus’s death, set up and named the two great classes Crustacea and Arachnida (included by Linnaeus under Insecta as the order “Aptera”), assigning to them equal rank with the remaining Insecta of Linnaeus, for which he proposed the very appropriate class-name “Hexapoda.” Lamarck, however, appears not to have insisted on this name Hexapoda, and so the class of Pterygote Hexapods came to retain the group-name Insecta, which is, historically or etymologically, no more appropriate to them than it is to the classes Crustacea and Arachnida. The tendency to retain the original name of an old and comprehensive group for one of the fragments into which such group becomes divided by the advance of knowledge—instead of keeping the name for its logical use as a comprehensive term, including the new divisions, each duly provided with a new name—is most curiously illustrated in the history of the word physiology. Cicero says, “Physiologia naturae ratio,” and such was the meaning of the namePhysiologus, given to a cyclopaedia of what was known and imagined about earth, sea, sky, birds, beasts and fishes, which for a thousand years was the authoritative source of information on these matters, and was translated into every European tongue. With the revival of learning, however, first one and then another special study became recognized—anatomy, botany, zoology, mineralogy, until at last the great comprehensive term physiology was bereft of all its once-included subject-matter, excepting the study of vital processes pursued by the more learned members of the medical profession. Professional tradition and an astute perception on their part of the omniscience suggested by the terms, have left the medical men in English-speaking lands in undisturbed but illogical possession of the words physiology, physic and physician.2H. Milne-Edwards, who was followed by Huxley, long ago formulated the conclusion that the eye-stalks of Crustacea are modified appendages, basing his argument on a specimen of Palinurus (figured in Bateson’s book (1), in which the eye-stalk of one side is replaced by an antenniform palp. Hofer (6) in 1894 described a similar case in Astacus.3Embryological evidence of this is still wanting. In the other classes of Arthropoda we have more or less complete embryological evidence on the subject. It appears from observation of the embryo that whilst the first prosthomere of Centipedes has its appendages reduced and represented only by eye-patches (as in Arachnida, Crustacea and Hexapoda). the second has a rudimentary antenna, which disappears, whilst the third carries the permanent antennae, which accordingly correspond to the second antennae of Crustacea, and are absent in Hexapoda.
1The group Arthropoda itself, thus constituted, was precisely identical in its area with the Insecta of Linnaeus, the Entoma of Aristotle. But the word “Insect” had become limited since the days of Linnaeus to the Hexapod Pterygote forms, to the exclusion of his Aptera. Lamarck’s penetrating genius is chiefly responsible for the shrinkage of the word Insecta, since it was he who, forty years after Linnaeus’s death, set up and named the two great classes Crustacea and Arachnida (included by Linnaeus under Insecta as the order “Aptera”), assigning to them equal rank with the remaining Insecta of Linnaeus, for which he proposed the very appropriate class-name “Hexapoda.” Lamarck, however, appears not to have insisted on this name Hexapoda, and so the class of Pterygote Hexapods came to retain the group-name Insecta, which is, historically or etymologically, no more appropriate to them than it is to the classes Crustacea and Arachnida. The tendency to retain the original name of an old and comprehensive group for one of the fragments into which such group becomes divided by the advance of knowledge—instead of keeping the name for its logical use as a comprehensive term, including the new divisions, each duly provided with a new name—is most curiously illustrated in the history of the word physiology. Cicero says, “Physiologia naturae ratio,” and such was the meaning of the namePhysiologus, given to a cyclopaedia of what was known and imagined about earth, sea, sky, birds, beasts and fishes, which for a thousand years was the authoritative source of information on these matters, and was translated into every European tongue. With the revival of learning, however, first one and then another special study became recognized—anatomy, botany, zoology, mineralogy, until at last the great comprehensive term physiology was bereft of all its once-included subject-matter, excepting the study of vital processes pursued by the more learned members of the medical profession. Professional tradition and an astute perception on their part of the omniscience suggested by the terms, have left the medical men in English-speaking lands in undisturbed but illogical possession of the words physiology, physic and physician.
2H. Milne-Edwards, who was followed by Huxley, long ago formulated the conclusion that the eye-stalks of Crustacea are modified appendages, basing his argument on a specimen of Palinurus (figured in Bateson’s book (1), in which the eye-stalk of one side is replaced by an antenniform palp. Hofer (6) in 1894 described a similar case in Astacus.
3Embryological evidence of this is still wanting. In the other classes of Arthropoda we have more or less complete embryological evidence on the subject. It appears from observation of the embryo that whilst the first prosthomere of Centipedes has its appendages reduced and represented only by eye-patches (as in Arachnida, Crustacea and Hexapoda). the second has a rudimentary antenna, which disappears, whilst the third carries the permanent antennae, which accordingly correspond to the second antennae of Crustacea, and are absent in Hexapoda.
ARTHUR(Fr.Artus), the central hero of the cycle of romance known as theMatière de Bretagne(seeArthurian Legend). Whether there was an historic Arthur has been much debated; undoubtedly for many centuries after the appearance of Geoffrey of Monmouth’sHistoria Britonum(circ. 1136), the statements therein recorded of a mighty monarch, who ruled over Britain in the 5th-6th centuries, and carried his conquests far afield, even to the gates of Rome, obtained general, though not universal, credence. Even in the 12th century there were some who detected, and derided, the fictitious character of Geoffrey’s “History.” As was naturally to be expected, the pendulum swung to the other extreme, and in a more critical age the existence of Arthur was roundly denied. The truth probably lies midway between the two. The words of Wace, the Norman poet who translated theHistoriainto verse, are here admirably to the point. Speaking of the tales told of Arthur, he says:—
“Ne tot mençunge, ne tot veir,Ne tot fable, ne tot saveir,Tant ont li contéor conté,Et li fabléor tant fabléPor lor contes embeleterQue tout ont fait fable sembler.”1
“Ne tot mençunge, ne tot veir,
Ne tot fable, ne tot saveir,
Tant ont li contéor conté,
Et li fabléor tant fablé
Por lor contes embeleter
Que tout ont fait fable sembler.”1
The opinion now generally accepted by scholars is that the evidence of Nennius, whoseHistoria Britonumpreceded that of Geoffrey by some 400 years, is in the main to be relied on. He tells us that Arthur wasDux bellorum, and led the armies of the British kings against the Saxon invaders, whom he defeated in twelve great battles.Tunc Arthur pugnabat cum regibus Britonum, sed ipse dux erat bettorum.
The traditional site of these battles covers a very wide area, and it is supposed that Arthur held a post analogous to that of the general who, under the Roman occupation, was known asComes Britanniae, and held a roving commission to defend the island wherever attacked, in contradistinction to theDux Britanniarum, who had charge of the forces in the north, and theComes Littoris Saxonici, whose task it was to defend the south-east line. The Welsh texts never call Arthurgwledig(prince), butamheradawr(Latinimperator) or emperor, a title which would be bestowed on the highest official in the island. The truth thus appears to be that, while there was never aKingArthur, there was a noted chieftain and general of that name. If we say that he carried on a successful war against the Saxons, was probably betrayed by his wife and a near kinsman, and fell in battle, we have stated all which can be claimed as an historical nucleus for his legend. It is now generally admitted that the representation of Arthur as world conqueror,Welt-Kaiser, is due to the influence of the Charlemagne cycle. In the 12th century theMatière de Francewas waning, theMatière de Bretagnewaxing in popularity, and public opinion demanded that the central figure of the younger cycle (for whatever the date of the subject matter, as a literary cycle the Arthurian is the younger) should not be inferior in dignity and importance to that of the earlier. When we add to this the fact that the writers of the 12th century represented the personages and events of the 6th in the garb, and under the conditions, of their own time, we can understand the reason of the manifold difficulties which beset the study of the cycle.
But into the figure of Arthur as we know him, other elements have entered; he is not merely an historic personality, but at the same time a survival of pre-historic myth, a hero of romance, and a fairy king; and all these threads are woven together in one fascinating but bewildering web. It is only possible here to summarize the leading features which may be claimed as characteristic of each phase.
Mythic.—Certain elements of the story point to Arthur as a culture hero; as such his name has been identified with theMercurius Artaiusof the Gauls. In this role he slays monsters, the boar Twrch Trwyth, the giant of Mont St Michel and the Demon Cat of Losanne (André de Coutances tells us that Arthur was really vanquished and carried off by the Cat, but that one durst not tell that tale before Britons!). He never, it should benoted, rides on purely chivalric ventures, such as aiding distressed damsels, seeking the Grail, &c. His expeditions are all more or less warlike. The story of his youth belongs, as Alfred Nutt (Folk-lore, vol. iv.) has shown, to the group of tales classified as theAryan Expulsion and Returnformula, found in all Aryan lands. Numerous parallels exist between the Arthurian and early Irish heroic cycles, notably the Fenian or Ossianic. This Fenian cycle is very closely connected with the Tuatha de Danaan, the Celtic deities of vegetation and increase; recent research has shown that two notable features of the Arthurian story, the Round Table and the Grail, can be most reasonably accounted for as survivals of this Nature worship, and were probably parts of the legend from the first.
Romantic.—The character of Arthur as a romantic hero is, in reality, very different from that which, mainly through the popularity of Tennyson’sIdylls, English people are wont to suppose. In the earlier poems he is practically a lay figure, his court the point of departure and return for the knights whose adventures are related in detail, but he himself a passive spectator. In the prose romances he is a monarch, the splendour of whose court, whose riches and generosity, are the admiration of all; but morally he is no whit different from the knights who surround him; he takes advantage of hisbonnes fortunesas do others. He has two sons, neither of them born in wedlock; one, Modred, is alike his son and his nephew. In certain romances, thePerlesvausandDiu Crône, he is a veritableroi fainéant, overcome by sloth and luxury. Certain traits of his story appear to show the influence of Northern romance. Such is the story of his begetting, where Uther takes upon him the form of Gorlois to deceive Yguerne, even as Siegfried changed shapes with Gunther to the undoing of Brünnhilde. The sword in the perron (stone pillar or block), the withdrawal of which proves his right to the kingdom, is the sword of the Branstock. Morgain carries him off, mortally wounded, to Avalon, even as the Valkyr bears the Northern hero to Valhal. Morgain herself has many traits in common with the Valkyrie; she is one of nine sisters, she can fly through the air as a bird (Swan maiden); she possesses a marvellous ointment (as does Hilde, the typical Valkyr). The idea of a slumbering hero who shall awake at the hour of his country’s greatest need is world-wide, but the most famous instances are Northern,e.g.Olger Danske and Barbarossa, and depend ultimately on an identification with the gods of the Northern Pantheon, notably Thor. W. Larminie cited an instance of a rhyme current in the Orkneys as a charm against nightmare, which confuses Arthur with Siegfried and his winning of the Valkyr.
Fairy.—We find that at Arthur’s birth (according to Layamon, who here differs from Wace), three ladies appeared and prophesied his future greatness. This incident is also found in the first continuation to thePerceval, where the prediction is due to a lady met with beside a forest spring, clearly here a water fairy. In the late romance ofLa Bataille de LoquiferAvalon has become a purely fairy kingdom, where Arthur rules in conjunction with Morgain. InHuon de Bordeauxhe is Oberon’s heir and successor, while in the romance ofBrun de la Montagne, preserved in a unique MS. of the Bibliothèque Nationale, we have the curious statement that all fairy-haunted places, wherever found, belong to Arthur:—
“Et touz ces lieux faésSont Artus de Bretagne.”
“Et touz ces lieux faés
Sont Artus de Bretagne.”
This brief summary of the leading features of the Arthurian tradition will indicate with what confused and complex material we are here dealing. (See alsoArthurian Legend,Grail,Merlin,Round Table; andCelt:Celtic literature.)
Texts. Historic:—Nennius,Historia Britonum; H. Zimmer,Nennius Vindicatus(Berlin, 1893), an examination into the credibility of Nennius; Geoffrey of Monmouth,Historia Britonum(translations of both histories are in Bohn’s Library); Wace, theBrut(ed. by Leroux de Lincey); Layamon (ed. by Sir Fred. Madden).Romantic:—Merlin—alike in the Ordinary, or Vulgate (ed. Sommer), theSuiteor “Huth”Merlin, the 13th centuryMerlin(ed. by G. Paris and J. Ulrich), and the unpublished and unique version ofBibl. nat. fonds français, 337 (cf. Freymond’s analysis inZeitschrift für franz. Sprache, xxii.)—devotes considerable space to the elaboration of the material supplied by the chronicles, the beginning of Arthur’s reign, his marriage and wars with the Saxons. The imitation of the Charlemagne romances is here evident; the Saxons bear names of Saracen origin, and camels and elephants appear on the scene. TheMorte Arthur, orMort au roi Artus, a metrical romance, of which a unique English version exists in the Thornton collection (ed. for Early English Text Society), gives an expanded account of the passing of Arthur; in the French prose form it is now always found incorporated with theLancelot, of which it forms the concluding section. The remains of the Welsh tradition are to be found in theMabinogion(cf. Nutt’s edition, where the stories are correctly classified), and in the Triads. Professor Rhys’Studies in the Arthurian Legendare largely based on Welsh material, and may be consulted for details, though the conclusions drawn are not in harmony with recent research. These are the only texts in which Arthur is the central figure; in the great bulk of the romances his is but a subordinate rôle.
Texts. Historic:—Nennius,Historia Britonum; H. Zimmer,Nennius Vindicatus(Berlin, 1893), an examination into the credibility of Nennius; Geoffrey of Monmouth,Historia Britonum(translations of both histories are in Bohn’s Library); Wace, theBrut(ed. by Leroux de Lincey); Layamon (ed. by Sir Fred. Madden).
Romantic:—Merlin—alike in the Ordinary, or Vulgate (ed. Sommer), theSuiteor “Huth”Merlin, the 13th centuryMerlin(ed. by G. Paris and J. Ulrich), and the unpublished and unique version ofBibl. nat. fonds français, 337 (cf. Freymond’s analysis inZeitschrift für franz. Sprache, xxii.)—devotes considerable space to the elaboration of the material supplied by the chronicles, the beginning of Arthur’s reign, his marriage and wars with the Saxons. The imitation of the Charlemagne romances is here evident; the Saxons bear names of Saracen origin, and camels and elephants appear on the scene. TheMorte Arthur, orMort au roi Artus, a metrical romance, of which a unique English version exists in the Thornton collection (ed. for Early English Text Society), gives an expanded account of the passing of Arthur; in the French prose form it is now always found incorporated with theLancelot, of which it forms the concluding section. The remains of the Welsh tradition are to be found in theMabinogion(cf. Nutt’s edition, where the stories are correctly classified), and in the Triads. Professor Rhys’Studies in the Arthurian Legendare largely based on Welsh material, and may be consulted for details, though the conclusions drawn are not in harmony with recent research. These are the only texts in which Arthur is the central figure; in the great bulk of the romances his is but a subordinate rôle.
(J. L. W.)
1Nor all a lie, nor all true, nor all fable, nor all known, so much have the story-tellers told, and the fablers fabled, in order to embellish their tales, that they have made all seem fable.
1Nor all a lie, nor all true, nor all fable, nor all known, so much have the story-tellers told, and the fablers fabled, in order to embellish their tales, that they have made all seem fable.
ARTHUR I.(1187-1203), duke of Brittany, was the posthumous son of Geoffrey, the fourth son of Henry II. of England, and Constance, heiress of Conan IV., duke of Brittany. The Bretons hoped that their young prince would uphold their independence, which was threatened by the English. Henry II. tried to seize Brittany, and in 1187 forced Constance to marry one of his favourites, Randulph de Blundevill, earl of Chester (d. 1232). Henry, however, died soon afterwards (1189). The new king of England, Richard Cœur de Lion, claimed the guardianship of the young Arthur, but in 1190 Richard left for the Crusade. Constance profited by his absence by governing the duchy, and in 1194 she had Arthur proclaimed duke of Brittany by an assembly of barons and bishops. Richard invaded Brittany in 1196, but was defeated in 1197 and became reconciled to Constance. On his death in 1189, the nobles of Anjou, Maine and Touraine refused to recognize John of England, and did homage to Arthur, who declared himself the vassal of Philip Augustus. In 1202 war was resumed between the king of England and the king of France. The king of France recognized Arthur’s right to Brittany, Anjou, Maine and Poitou. While Philip Augustus was invading Normandy, Arthur tried to seize Poitou. But, surprised at Mirebeau, he fell into the hands of John, who sent him prisoner to Falaise. In the following year he was transferred to Rouen, and disappeared suddenly. It is thought that John killed him with his own hand. After this murder John was condemned by the court of peers of France, and stripped of the fiefs which he possessed in France.
See Ralph of Coggeshall, “Chronicon Anglicanum,” in theMonumenta Britanniae historica; Dom Lobineau,Histoire de Bretagne(1702); Dom Morice,Histoire de Bretagne(1742-1756); A. de la Borderie,Histoire de Bretagne, vol. iii. (1899); Bémont, “De la condamnation de Jean-sans-Terre par la Cour des Pairs de France,” in theRevue historique(1886), vol. xxxii.
See Ralph of Coggeshall, “Chronicon Anglicanum,” in theMonumenta Britanniae historica; Dom Lobineau,Histoire de Bretagne(1702); Dom Morice,Histoire de Bretagne(1742-1756); A. de la Borderie,Histoire de Bretagne, vol. iii. (1899); Bémont, “De la condamnation de Jean-sans-Terre par la Cour des Pairs de France,” in theRevue historique(1886), vol. xxxii.
ARTHUR III.(1393-1458), earl of Richmond, constable of France, and afterwards duke of Brittany, was the third son of John IV., duke of Brittany, and Joan of Navarre, afterwards the wife of Henry IV. of England. His brother, John V., gave him his earldom of Richmond in England. While still very young, he took part in the civil wars which desolated France during the reign of Charles VI. From 1410 to 1414 he served on the side of the Armagnacs, and afterwards entered the service of Louis the dauphin, whose intimate friend he became. He profited by his position at court to obtain the lieutenancy of the Bastille, the governorship of the duchy of Nemours, and the confiscated territories of Jean Larchevêque, seigneur of Parthenay. His efforts to reduce the latter were, however, interrupted by the necessity of marching against the English. At Agincourt he was wounded and captured, and remained a prisoner in England from 1415 to 1420. Released on parole, he gained the favour of King Henry V. by persuading his brother, the duke of Brittany, to conclude the treaty of Troyes, by which France was handed over to the English king. He was rewarded with the countship of Ivry.
In 1423 Arthur married Margaret of Burgundy, widow of the dauphin Louis, and became thus the brother-in-law of Philip the Good of Burgundy, and of the regent, the duke of Bedford. Offended, however, by Bedford’s refusal to give him a high command, he severed his connexion with the English, and in March 1425 accepted the constable’s sword from King Charles VII.He now threw himself with ardour into the French cause, and persuaded his brother, John V. of Brittany, to conclude with Charles VII. the treaty of Saumur (October 7, 1425). But though he saw clearly enough the measures necessary for success, he lacked the means to carry them out. In the field he met with a whole series of reverses; and at court, where his rough and overbearing manners made him disliked, his influence was overshadowed by that of a series of incompetent favourites. The peace concluded between the duke of Brittany and the English in September 1427 led to his expulsion from the court, where Georges de la Trémoille, whom he himself had recommended to the king, remained supreme for six years, during which Richmond tried in vain to overthrow him. In the meantime, in June 1429, he joined Joan of Arc at Orleans, and fought in several battles under her banner, till the influence of La Trémoille forced his withdrawal from the army. On the 5th of March 1432 Charles VII. concluded with him and with Brittany the treaty of Rennes; but it was not until June of the following year that La Trémoille was overthrown. Arthur now resumed the war against the English, and at the same time took vigorous measures against the plundering bands of soldiers and peasants known asroutiersorécorcheurs. On the 20th of September 1435, mainly as a result of his diplomacy, was signed the treaty of Arras between Charles VII. and the duke of Burgundy, to which France owed her salvation.
On the 13th of April 1436, Arthur took Paris from the English; but he was ill seconded by the king, and hampered by the necessity for leading frequent expeditions against theécorcheurs; it was not till May 1444 that the armistice of Tours gave him leisure to carry out the reorganization of the army which he had long projected. He now created thecompagnies d’ordonnance, and endeavoured to organize the militia of thefrancs archers. This reform had its effect in the struggles that followed. In alliance with his nephew, the duke of Brittany, he reconquered, during September and October 1449, nearly all the Cotentin; on the 15th of April 1450 he gained over the English the battle of Formigny; and during the year he recovered for France the whole of Normandy, which for the next six or seven years it was his task to defend from English attacks. On the death of his nephew Peter II., on the 22nd of September 1457, he became duke of Brittany, and though retaining his office of constable of France, he refused, like his predecessors, to do homage to the French king for his duchy. He reigned little more than a year, dying on the 26th of December 1458, and was succeeded by his nephew Francis II., son of his brother Richard, count of Étampes.
Arthur was three times married: (1) to Margaret of Burgundy, duchess of Guienne (d. 1442); (2) to Jeanne d’Albret, daughter of Charles II. of Albret (d. 1444); (3) to Catherine of Luxemburg, daughter of Peter of Luxemburg, count of St Pol, who survived him. He left no legitimate children.
Authorities.—The main source for the life of Duke Arthur III. is the chronicle of Guillaume Gruel (c.1410-1474-1482). Gruel entered the service of the earl of Richmond about 1425, shared in all his campaigns, and lived with him on intimate terms. The chronicle covers the whole period of the duke’s life, but the earlier part, up to 1425, is much less full and important than the later, which is based on Gruel’s personal knowledge and observation. In spite of a perhaps exaggerated admiration for his hero, Gruel displays in his work so much good faith, insight and originality that he is accepted as a thoroughly trustworthy authority. It was first published at Paris in 1622. Of the numerous later editions, the best is that of Achille le Vavasseur,Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont(Paris, 1890). See also E. Cosneau,Le Connétable de Richemont(Paris, 1886); G. du Fresne de Beaucourt,Histoire de Charles VII.(Paris, 1881, seq.).
Authorities.—The main source for the life of Duke Arthur III. is the chronicle of Guillaume Gruel (c.1410-1474-1482). Gruel entered the service of the earl of Richmond about 1425, shared in all his campaigns, and lived with him on intimate terms. The chronicle covers the whole period of the duke’s life, but the earlier part, up to 1425, is much less full and important than the later, which is based on Gruel’s personal knowledge and observation. In spite of a perhaps exaggerated admiration for his hero, Gruel displays in his work so much good faith, insight and originality that he is accepted as a thoroughly trustworthy authority. It was first published at Paris in 1622. Of the numerous later editions, the best is that of Achille le Vavasseur,Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont(Paris, 1890). See also E. Cosneau,Le Connétable de Richemont(Paris, 1886); G. du Fresne de Beaucourt,Histoire de Charles VII.(Paris, 1881, seq.).
ARTHUR, CHESTER ALAN(1830-1886), twenty-first president of the United States, was born in Fairfield, Vermont, on the 5th of October 1830. His father, William Arthur (1796-1875), when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland, and, after teaching in various places in Vermont and Lower Canada, became a Baptist minister. William Arthur had married Malvina Stone, an American girl who lived at the time of the marriage in Canada, and the numerous changes of the family residence afforded a basis for allegations in 1880 that the son Chester was born not in Vermont, but in Canada, and was therefore ineligible for the presidency. Chester entered Union College as a sophomore, and graduated with honour in 1848. He then became a schoolmaster, at the same time studying law. In 1853 he entered a law office in New York city, and in the following year was admitted to the bar. His reputation as a lawyer began with his connexion with the famous “Lemmon slave case,” in which, as one of the special counsel for the state, he secured a decision from the highest state courts that slaves brought into New York while in transit between two slave states wereipso factofree. In another noted case, in 1855, he obtained a decision that negroes were entitled to the same accommodations as whites on the street railways of New York city. In politics he was actively associated from the outset with the Republican party. When the Civil War began he held the position of engineer-in-chief on Governor Edwin D. Morgan’s staff, and afterwards became successively acting quartermaster-general, inspector-general, and quartermaster-general of the state troops, in which capacities he showed much administrative efficiency. At the close of Governor Morgan’s term, on the 31st of December 1862, General Arthur resumed the practice of his profession, remaining active, however, in party politics in New York city. In November 1871 he was appointed by President U.S. Grant collector of customs for the port of New York. The custom-house had long been conspicuous for the most flagrant abuses of the “spoils system”; and though General Arthur admitted that the evils existed and that they rendered efficient administration impossible, he made no extensive reforms. In 1877 President Rutherford B. Hayes began the reform of the civil service with the New York custom-house. A non-partisan commission, appointed by Secretary John Sherman, recommended sweeping changes. The president demanded the resignation of Arthur and his two principal subordinates, George H. Sharpe, the surveyor, and Alonzo B. Cornell, the naval officer, of the Port. General Arthur refused to resign on the ground that to retire “under fire” would be to acknowledge wrong-doing, and claimed that as the abuses were inherent in a widespread system he should not be made to bear the responsibility alone. His cause was espoused by Senator Roscoe Conkling, for a time successfully; but on the 11th of July 1878, during a recess of the Senate, the collector was removed, and in January 1879, after another severe struggle, this action received the approval of the Senate. In 1880 General Arthur was a delegate at large from New York to the Republican national convention. In common with the rest of the “Stalwarts,” he worked hard for the nomination of Gen. U.S. Grant for a third term. Upon the triumph of James A. Garfield, the necessity of conciliating the defeated faction led to the hasty acceptance of Arthur for the second place on the ticket. His nomination was coldly received by the public; and when, after his election and accession, he actively engaged on behalf of Conkling in the great conflict with Garfield over the New York patronage, the impression was widespread that he was unworthy of his position. Upon the death of President Garfield, on the 19th of September 1881, Arthur took the oath as his successor. Contrary to the general expectation, his appointments were as a rule unexceptionable, and he earnestly promoted the Pendleton law for the reform of the civil service. His use of the veto in 1882 in the cases of a Chinese Immigration Bill (prohibiting immigration of Chinese for twenty years) and a River and Harbour Bill (appropriating over $18,000,000, to be expended on many insignificant as well as important streams) confirmed the favourable impression which had been made. The most important events of his administration were the passage of the Tariff Act of 1883 and of the “Edmunds Law” prohibiting polygamy in the territories, and the completion of three great trans-continental railways—the Southern Pacific, the Northern Pacific, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé. His administration was lacking in political situations of a dramatic character, but on all questions that arose his policy was sane and dignified. In 1884 he allowed his name to be presented for renomination in the Republican convention, but he was easily defeated by the friends of James G. Blaine.At the expiration of his term he resumed his residence in New York city, where he died on the 18th of November 1886.
For an account of his administration seeUnited States:History.
For an account of his administration seeUnited States:History.
ARTHURIAN LEGEND.By the “Arthurian legend,” orMatière de Brelagne, we mean the subject-matter of that important body of medieval literature known as the Arthurian cycle (seeArthur). The period covered by the texts in their present form represents, roughly speaking, the century 1150-1250. TheHistoryof Nennius is, of course, considerably earlier, and that of Geoffrey of Monmouth somewhat antedates 1150 (1136), but with these exceptions the dates above given will be found to cover the composition of all our extant texts.
As to the origin of thisMatière de Bretagne, and the circumstances under which it became a favourite theme for literary treatment, two diametrically opposite theories are held. One body of scholars, headed by Professor Wendelin Förster of Bonn, while admitting that, so far as any historic basis can be traced, the events recorded must have happened on insular ground, maintain that the knowledge of these events, and their romantic development, are due entirely to the Bretons of the continent. The British who fled before the Teutonic and Scandinavian invasions of the 6th and 8th centuries, had carried with them to Armorica, and fondly cherished, the remembrance of Arthur and his deeds, which in time had become interwoven with traditions of purely Breton origin. On the other side of the Channel,i.e.in Arthur’s own land, these memories had died out, or at most survived only as the faint echo of historic tradition. Through the medium of French-speaking Bretons these tales came to the cognizance of Northern French poets, notably Chrétien de Troyes, who wove them into romances. According to Professor Förster there were no Arthurian romances previous to Chrétien, and equally, of course, no insular romantic tradition. This theory reposes mainly on the supposed absence of pre-Chrétien poems, and on the writings of Professor H. Zimmer, who derives the Arthurian names largely from Breton roots. This represents the prevailing standpoint of German scholars, and may be called the “continental” theory. In opposition to this the school of which the late Gaston Paris was the leading, and most brilliant, representative, maintains that the Arthurian tradition, romantic equally with historic, was preserved in Wales through the medium of the bards, was by them communicated to their Norman conquerors, worked up into poems by the Anglo-Normans, and by them transmitted to the continental poets. This, the “insular” theory, in spite of its inherent probability, has hitherto been at a disadvantage through lack of positive evidence, but in a recently acquired MS. of the British Museum, Add. 36614, we find the first continuator of thePerceval, Wauchier de Denain, quoting as authority for stories of Gawain a certain Bleheris, whom he states to have been “born and bred in Wales.” The identity of this Bleheris with the Bledhericus mentioned by Giraldus Cambrensis asFamosus ille fabulator, living at a bygone and unspecified date, and with the Bréri quoted by Thomas as authority for theTristanstory, has been fully accepted by leading French scholars. Further, on the evidence of certain MSS. of thePerceval, notably the Paris MS. (Bibl. Nat. 1450), it is clear that Chrétien was using, and using freely, the work of a predecessor, large fragments of which have been preserved by the copyists who completed his unfinished work. The evidence of recent discoveries is all in favour of the insular, or French, view.
So far as the character, as distinguished from theprovenance, of this subject-matter is concerned, it is largely of folk-lore origin, representing the working over of traditions, in some cases (ase.g.in the account of Arthur’s birth and upbringing) common to all the Aryan peoples, in others specifically Celtic. Thus there are a number of parallels between the Arthurian and the Irish heroic cycles, the precise nature of which has yet to be determined. So far as Arthur himself is concerned these parallels are with the Fenian, or Ossianic, cycle, in the case of Gawain with the Ultonian.
In its literary form the cycle falls into three groups:—pseudo-historic: theHistoriesof Nennius and Geoffrey, theBrutof Wace and Layamon (seeArthur); poetic: the works of Chrétien de Troyes, Thomas, Raoul de Houdenc and others (seeGawain,Perceval,Tristan, and the writers named above); prose: the largest and most important group (seeGrail,Lancelot,Merlin,Tristan). Of these three branches the prose romances offer the most insuperable problems; none can be dated with any certainty; all are of enormous length; and all have undergone several redactions. Of not one do we as yet possess a critical and comparative text, and in the absence of such texts the publication of any definite and detailed theory as to the evolution and relative position of the separate branches of the Arthurian cycle is to be deprecated. The material is so vast in extent, and in so chaotic a condition, that the construction of any such theory is only calculated to invite refutation and discredit.
The best general study of the cycle is to be found in Gaston Paris’s manualLa Littérature française au moyen âge(new and revised edition, 1905). See also the introduction to vol. xxx. ofHistoire littéraire de la France. For the theories as to origin, see the Introductions to Professor Förster’s editions of the poems of Chrétien de Troyes, notably that to vol. iv.,Der Karrenritter, which is a long and elaborate restating of his position. Also Professor H. Zimmer’s articles inGottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 12 and 20. For the Insular view, Ferd. Lot’s “Études sur la provenance du cycle arthurien,”Romania, vols. xxiv.-xxviii., are very valuable. For a popular treatment of the subject, cf. Nos. i. and iv. ofPopular Studies in Romance and Folk-lore(Nutt). Robert Huntington Fletcher’s “The Arthurian Matter in the Chronicles” (vol. x. ofHarvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature), is a most useful summary.
The best general study of the cycle is to be found in Gaston Paris’s manualLa Littérature française au moyen âge(new and revised edition, 1905). See also the introduction to vol. xxx. ofHistoire littéraire de la France. For the theories as to origin, see the Introductions to Professor Förster’s editions of the poems of Chrétien de Troyes, notably that to vol. iv.,Der Karrenritter, which is a long and elaborate restating of his position. Also Professor H. Zimmer’s articles inGottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 12 and 20. For the Insular view, Ferd. Lot’s “Études sur la provenance du cycle arthurien,”Romania, vols. xxiv.-xxviii., are very valuable. For a popular treatment of the subject, cf. Nos. i. and iv. ofPopular Studies in Romance and Folk-lore(Nutt). Robert Huntington Fletcher’s “The Arthurian Matter in the Chronicles” (vol. x. ofHarvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature), is a most useful summary.
(J. L. W.)
ARTICHOKE. The common artichoke,Cynara, scolymus, is a plant belonging to the natural order Compositae, having some resemblance to a large thistle. It has long been esteemed as a culinary vegetable; the parts chiefly employed being the immature receptacle or floret disk, with the lower part of the surrounding leaf-scales, which are known as “artichoke bottoms.” In Italy the receptacles, dried, are largely used in soups; those of the cultivated plant asCarciofo domestico, and of the wild variety asCarciofo spinoso.
The Jerusalem artichoke,Helianthus tuberosus, is a distinct plant belonging to the same order, cultivated for its tubers. It closely resembles the sunflower, and its popular name is a corruption of the ItalianGirasole Articiocco, the sunflower artichoke. It is a native of Canada and the north-eastern United States, and was cultivated by the aborigines. The tubers are rich in the carbohydrate inulin and in sugar.
The name is derived from the northern Italianarticiocco, orarciciocco, moderncarciofo; these words come, through the Spanish, from the Arabical-kharshūf. False etymology has corrupted the word in many languages: it has been derived in English from “choke,” and “heart,” or the Latinhortus, a garden; and in French, the formartichauthas been connected withchaud, hot, andchou, a cabbage.
ARTICLE(from Lat.articulus, a joint), a term primarily for that which connects two parts together, and so transferred to the parts thus joined; thus the word is used of the separate clauses or heads in contracts, treaties or statutes and the like; of a literary composition on some specific subject in a periodical; or of particular commodities, as in “articles of trade and commerce.” It appears also in the phrase “in the article of death” to translatein articulo mortis, at the moment of death. In grammar the term is used of the adjectives which state the extension of a substantive,i.e.the number of individuals to which a name applies; the indefinite article denoting one or any of a particular class, the definite denoting a particular member of a class.
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION,in English company law, the regulations for the internal management of a joint stock company registered under the Companies Acts. They are, in fact, the terms of the partnership agreed upon by the shareholders among themselves. They regulate such matters as the transfer and forfeiture of shares, calls upon shares, the appointment and qualification of directors, their powers and proceedings, general meetings of the shareholders, votes, dividends, the keeping and audit of accounts, and other such matters. In regard to theseinternal regulations the legislature has left the company free to adopt whatever terms of association it chooses. It has furnished in the schedule to the Companies Act 1862 (Table A), a model or specimen set of regulations, but their adoption, wholly or in part, is optional; only if a company does not register articles of its own these statutory regulations are to apply. When, as is commonly the case, a company decides to have articles of its own framing, such articles must be expressed in separate paragraphs, numbered arithmetically, and signed by the subscribers of the memorandum of association. They must also be printed, stamped like a deed, and attested. When so perfected, they are to be delivered, with the memorandum of association, to the registrar of joint stock companies, who is to retain and register them. The articles of association thereupon become a public document, which any person may inspect on payment of a fee of one shilling. This has important consequences, because every person dealing with the company is presumed to be acquainted with its constitution, and to have read its articles. The articles, also, upon registration, bind the company and its members to the same extent as if each member had subscribed his name and affixed his seal to them. (See alsoMemorandum of Association;Company;Incorporation.)
In the United States, articles of association are any instrument in writing which sets forth the purposes, the terms and conditions upon which a body of persons have united for the prosecution of a joint enterprise. When this instrument is duly executed and filed, the law gives it the force and effects of a charter of incorporation.
ARTICULATA,a zoological name now obsolete, applied by Cuvier to animals, such as insects and worms, in which the body displays a jointed structure. (SeeArthropoda.)
ARTICULATION(from Lat.articulare, to divide into joints), the act of joining together; in anatomy the junction of the bones (seeJoints); in botany the point of attachment and separation of the deciduous parts of a plant, such as a leaf. The word is also used for division into distinct parts, as of human speech by words or syllables.
ARTILLERY(the O. Fr.artiller, to equip with engines of war, probably comes from Late Lat.articulum, dim. ofars, art, cf. “engine” fromingenium, or ofartus, joint), a term originally applied to all engines for discharging missiles, and in this sense used in English in the early 17th century. In a more restricted sense, artillery has come to mean all firearms not carried and used by hand, and also thepersonneland organization by which the power of such weapons is wielded. It is, however, not usual to classmachine guns(q.v.) as artillery. The present article deals with the development and contemporary state of the artillery arm in land warfare, in respect of its organization, personnel and special or “formal” employment. For thematériel—the guns, their carriages and their ammunition—seeOrdnanceandAmmunition. Forballistics, see that heading, and for the work of artillery in combination with the other arms, seeTactics.
Artillery, as distinct from ordnance, is usually classified in accordance with the functions it has to perform. The simplest division is that intomobileandimmobileartillery, the former being concerned with the handling of all weapons so mounted as to be capable of more or less easy movement from place to place, the latter with that of weapons which are installed in fixed positions. Mobile artillery is subdivided, again chiefly in respect of its employment, intohorseandfieldbatteries,heavy fieldorpositionartillery,field howitzers, mountain artilleryandsiege trains, adapted to every kind of terrain in which field troops may be employed, and work they may have to do. Immobile artillery is used in fixed positions of all kinds, and above all in permanent fortifications; it cannot, therefore, be classified as above, inasmuch as theraison d’être, and consequently the armament of one fort or battery may be totally distinct from that of another. “Fortress,” “Garrison” and “Foot” artillery are the usual names for this branch. The dividing line, indeed, in the case of the heavier weapons, varies with circumstances; guns of position may remain on their ground while elaborate fortifications grow up around them, or the deficiencies of a field army in artillery may be made good from thematériel, more frequently still from thepersonnel, of the fortress artillery. Thus it may happen that mobile artillery becomes immobile and vice versa. But under normal circumstances the principle of classification indicated is maintained in all organized military forces.
Historical Sketch
1.Early Artillery.—Mechanical appliances for throwing projectiles were produced early in the history of organized warfare, and “engines invented by cunning men to shoot arrows and great stones” are mentioned in the Old Testament. These were continually improved, and, under the various names ofcatapulta, balista, onager, trébuchet, &c., were employed throughout the ancient and medieval periods of warfare. The machines finally produced were very powerful, and, even when a propelling agent so strong as gunpowder was discovered and applied, the supersession of the older weapons was not effected suddenly nor without considerable opposition. The date of the first employment of cannon cannot be established with any certainty, but there is good evidence to show that the Germans used guns at the siege of Cividale in Italy (1331). The terms of a commission given (1414) by Henry V. to hismagister operationum, ingeniarum, et gunnarum ac aliarum ordinationum, one Nicholas Merbury, show that the organization of artillery establishments was grafted upon that which was already in existence for the service of the old-fashioned machines. Previously to this it is recorded that of some 340 men forming the ordnance establishment of Edward III. in 1344 only 12 were artillerymen and gunners. Two years later, at Creçy, it is said, the English brought guns into the open field for the first time. At the siege of Harfleur (1415) the ordnance establishment included 25 “master gunners” and 50 “servitour gunners.” The “gunner” appears to have been the captain of the gun, with general charge of the guns and stores, and the special duty of laying and firing the piece in action.
2.The Beginnings of Field Artillery.—It is clear, from such evidence as we possess, that the chief and almost the only use of guns at this time was to batter the walls of fortifications, and it is not until later in the 15th century that their employment in the field became general (see alsoCavalry). The introduction of field artillery may be attributed to John Žižka, and it was in his Hussite wars (1419-1424) that theWagenburg, a term of more general application, but taken here as denoting a cart or vehicle armed with several small guns, came into prominence. This device allowed a relatively high manœuvring power to be attained, and it is found occasionally in European wars two centuries later, as for instance at Wimpfen in 1622 and Cropredy Bridge in 1644. In an act of attainder passed by the Lancastrian party against the Yorkists (1459), it is stated that the latter were “traiterously ranged in bataill ... their cartes with gonnes set before their batailles” (Rot. Parl. 38 Henry VI., v. 348). In the London fighting of 1460, small guns were used to clear the streets, heavy ordnance to batter the walls of the Tower. The battle of Lose Coat Field (1469) was decided almost entirely by Edward IV.’s field guns, while at Blackheath (1497) “some cornets of horse, and bandes of foot, and good store of artillery wheeling about” were sent to “put themselves beyond” the rebel camp (Bacon,Henry VII.). The greatest example of artillery work in the 15th century was the siege of Constantinople in 1453, at which the Turks used a large force of artillery, and in particular some monster pieces, some of which survived to engage a British squadron in 1807, when a stone shot weighing some 700 ℔ cut the mainmast of Admiral (Sir) J.T. Duckworth’s flagship in two, and another killed and wounded sixty men. For siege purposes the new weapon was indeed highly effective, and the castles of rebellious barons were easily knocked to pieces by the prince who owned, or succeeded in borrowing, a few pieces of ordnance (cf. Carlyle,Frederick the Great, book iii. chap. i.).
3.The 16th Century.—In the Italian wars waged by CharlesVIII., Louis XII. and Francis I. of France, artillery played a most conspicuous part, both in siege and field warfare. Indeed, cannon did excellent service in the field before hand firearms attained any considerable importance. At Ravenna (1512) and Marignan (1515) field artillery did great execution, and at the latter battle “the French artillery played a new and distinguished part, not only by protecting the centre of the army from the charges of the Swiss phalanxes, and causing them excessive loss, but also by rapidly taking up such positions from time to time ... as enabled the guns to play upon the flanks of the attacking columns” (Chesney,Observations on Firearms, 1852). In this connexion it must, however, be observed that, when the arquebus and other small arms became really efficient (about 1525), less is heard of this small and handy field artillery, which had hitherto been the only means of breaking up the heavy masses of the hostile pikemen. We have seen that artillery was not ignored in England; but, in view of the splendid and unique efficiency of the archers, there was no great opportunity of developing the new arm. In the time of Henry VIII., the ordnance in use in the field consisted in the main of heavyculverinsand other guns of position, and of lighter field pieces, termedsakers, falcons, &c. It is to be noticed that already the lightest pieces had disappeared, the smallest of the above being a 2-pounder. In the earlier days of field artillery, the artillery train was a miscellaneous congeries of pontoon, supply, baggage and tool wagons, heavy ordnance and light guns in carts. With the development of infantry fire the use of the last-named weapons died out, and it is largely due to this fact that “artillery” came to imply cumbrous and immobile guns of position. Little is, therefore, heard of smart manoeuvring, such as that at Marignan, during the latter part of the 16th century. The guns now usually come into action in advance of the troops, but, from their want of mobility, could neither accompany a farther advance nor protect a retreat, and they were generally captured and recaptured with every changing phase of the fight. Great progress was in the meanwhile made in the adaptation of ordnance to the attack and defence of fortresses and, in particular, vertical fire came into vogue. A great Turkish gun, carrying a 600-℔ stone shot, was used in the siege of Constantinople, apparently in this way, since Gibbon records that at the range of a mile the shot buried itself a fathom deep in earth, a fact which implies that a high angle of elevation was given. In the celebrated siege of Malta in 1565 artillery played a conspicuous part.
4.The Thirty Years’ War.—Such, in its broadest outlines, is the history of artillery work during the first three centuries of its existence. Whilst the material had undergone a very considerable improvement, the organization remained almost unchanged, and the tactical employment of guns had become restricted, owing to their slowness and difficulty of movement on the march and immobility in action. In wars of the type of the War of Dutch Independence and the earlier part of the Thirty Years’ War, this heavy artillery naturally remained useful enough, and theWagenburghad given place to the musketry initiated by the Spaniards at Bicocca and Pavia, which since 1525 had steadily improved and developed. It is not, therefore, until the appearance of a captain whose secret of success was vigour and mobility that the first serious attempt was made to produce field artillery in the proper sense of the word, that is, a gun of good power, and at the same time so mounted as to be capable of rapid movement. The “carte with gonnes” had been, as is the modern machine gun, a mechanical concentration of musketry rather than a piece of artillery. Maurice of Nassau, indeed, helped to develop the field gun, and the French had invented the limber, but Gustavus Adolphus was the first to give artillery its true position on the battlefield. At the first battle of Breitenfeld (1631) Gustavus had twelve heavy and forty-two light guns engaged, as against Tilly’s heavy 24-pounders, which were naturally far too cumbrous for field work. At the Lech (1632) Gustavus seems to have obtained a local superiority over his opponent owing to the handiness of his field artillery even more than by its fire-power. At Lützen (1632) he had sixty guns to Wallenstein’s twenty-one. His field pieces were not the celebrated “leather” guns (which were indeed a mere makeshift used in Gustavus’ Polish wars) but iron 4-pounders. These were distributed amongst the infantry units, and thus began the system of “battalion guns” which survived in the armies of Europe long after the conditions requiring it had vanished. The object of thus dispersing the guns was doubtless to ensure in the first place more certain co-operation between the two arms, and in the second to exercise a military supervision over the lighter and more useful field pieces which it was as yet impossible to exercise over thepersonnelof the heavy artillery.
5.Personnel and Classification.—More than 300 years after the first employment of ordnance, the men working the guns and the transport drivers were still civilians. The actual commander of the artillery was indeed, both in Germany and in England, usually a soldier, and Lennart Torstensson, the commander of Gustavus’ artillery, became a brilliant and successful general. But the transport and the drivers were still hired, and even the gunners were chiefly concerned for the safety of their pieces, the latter being often the property, not of the king waging war, but of some “master gunner” whose services he had secured, and the latter’s apprentices were usually in entire charge of the material. These civilian “artists,” as they were termed, owed no more duty to the prince than any other employés, and even Gustavus, it would appear, made no great improvement in the matter of the reorganization of artillery trains. Soldiers as drivers do not appear until 150 years later, and in the meanwhile companies of “firelocks” and “fusiliers” (q.v.) came into existence, as much to prevent the gunners and drivers from running away as to protect them from the enemy. A further cause of difficulties, in England at any rate, was the age of the “gunners.” In the reign of Elizabeth, some of the Tower gunners were over ninety years of age. Complaints as to the inefficiency of these men are frequent in the years preceding the English Civil War. Gustavus, however, has the merit of being the first to make the broad classification of artillery, as mobile or non-mobile, which has since been almost universally in force. In his time the 12-pounder was the heaviest gun classed as mobile, and the “feildpeece”par excellencewas the 9-pounder ordemi-culverin. After the death of Gustavus at Lützen (1632), his principles came universally into practice, and amongst them were those of the employment of field artillery.
6.The English Civil War.—Even in the English Civil War (Great Rebellion), in which artillery was hampered by the previous neglect of a century, its field work was not often contemptible, and on occasion the arm did excellent service. But in the campaigns of this war, fought out by men whose most ardent desire was to decide the quarrel swiftly, the marching and manoeuvring were unusually rapid. The consequence of this was that the guns were sometimes either late in arriving, as at Edgehill, or absent altogether, as at Preston. Therôleof guns was further reduced by the fact that there were few fortresses to be reduced, and country houses, however strong, rarely required to be battered by a siege train. The New Model army usually sent for siege guns only when they were needed for particular service. On such occasions, indeed, the heavy ordnance did its work so quickly and effectually that the assault often took place one or two days after the guns had opened fire. Cromwell in his sieges made great use of shells, 12-inch and even larger mortars being employed. The castle of Devizes, which had successfully resisted the Parliamentary battering guns, succumbed at once to vertical fire. It does not, however, appear certain that there was any separation of field from siege ordnance, although the Swedish system was followed in almost all military matters.
7.Artillery Progress, 1660-1740.—Cromwell’s practice of relegating heavy guns to the rear, except when a serious siege operation was in view, and in very rapid movements leaving even the field pieces far behind, was followed to some extent in the campaigns of the age of Louis XIV. The number of ammunition wagons, and above all of horses, required for each gun was four or five times as great as that required even for a modern quick-firer. In the days of Turenne heavy guns were much employed,as the campaigns of the French were directed as a rule to the methodical conquest of territory and fortified towns. Similarly, Marlborough, working amidst the fortresses of the Netherlands in 1706, had over 100 pieces of artillery (of which 60 were mortars) to a force of some 11,000 men, or about 9 pieces per 1000 men. On the other hand, in his celebrated march to the Danube in 1704, he had but few guns, and the allied armies at Blenheim brought into the field only 1 piece per 1000 men. At Oudenarde “from therapidity of the march... the battle was fought with little aid from artillery on either side” (Coxe,Marlborough). There was less need now than ever before for rapid manœuvres of mobile artillery, since the pike finally disappeared from the scene about 1700, and infantry fire-power had become the decisive factor in battles. In the meantime, artillery was gradually ceasing to be the province of the skilled workman, and assuming its position as an arm of the military service. In the 17th century, when armies were as a rule raised only “for the war” and disbanded at the conclusion of hostilities, there had been no very pressing need for the maintenance in peace of an expensivepersonneland material. Gunners therefore remained, as civilians, outside the regular administration of the forces, until the general adoption of the “standing army” principle in the last years of the century (seeArmy). From this time steps were taken, in all countries, to organize the artillery as a military force. After various attempts had been made, the “Royal Regiment of Artillery” came into existence in England in 1716. It is, however, stated that the English artillery did not “begin to assume a military appearance until the Flanders campaigns” of the War of the Austrian Succession. Even in the War of American Independence a dispute arose as to whether a general officer, whose regimental service had been in the Royal Artillery, was entitled to command troops of all arms, and the artillery drivers were not actually soldiers until 1793 at the earliest. French artillery officers received military rank only in 1732.
8.Artillery in the Wars of Frederick the Great.—By the time of Frederick the Great’s first wars, artillery had thus been divided into (a) those guns moving with an army in the field, and (b) those which were either wholly stationary or were called upon only when a siege was expected. Thepersonnelwas gradually becoming more efficient and more amenable to discipline; the transport arrangements, however, remained in a backward state. Siege and fortress artillery was now organized and employed in accordance with the system of the “formal attack” as finally developed by Vauban. For details of this, as involving the tactical procedure of artillery in the attack and defence of fortresses, the reader is referred toFortification and Siegecraft. We are concerned here more especially with the progress of field artillery. The part played by this arm began now to vary according to the circumstances of each action, and the “moral” support of guns was calculated as a factor in the dispositions. In the early Silesian wars, heavy or reserve guns protected the deployment of the army and endeavoured to prepare for the subsequent advance by firing upon the hostile troops; the battalion guns remained close to the infantry, accompanied its movements and assisted in the fire fight. Their support was not without value, and the heavy guns often provoked the enemy into a premature advance, as at Mollwitz. But the infantry or the cavalry forced the decision. It has been mentioned that with the final disappearance of the pike, about 1700, infantry fire-power ruled the battlefield. Throughout the 18th century, it will be found, when the infantry is equal to its work the guns have only a subordinate part in the fighting of pitched battles. At Kunersdorf (1759) the first dashing charge of the Prussian grenadiers captured 72 guns from the Russian army. Later the total of captured ordnance reached 180, yet the Russians, then almost wholly in flight, were not cut to pieces, for only a few light guns of the Prussian army could get to the front; their heavy pieces, though twelve horses were harnessed to each, never came into action. This example will serve to illustrate the difference between the artillery of 1760 and that of fifty years later. According to Tempelhof, who was present, Kunersdorf was the finest opportunity for field artillery that he had ever seen. Yet the field artillery of the 18th century was, if anything, more powerful than that of Napoleon’s time; it was the want of mobility alone which prevented the Prussians from turning to good account an opportunity fully as favourable as that of the German artillery at Sedan. That Frederick made more use of his guns in the later campaigns of the Seven Years’ War is accounted for by the fact that his infantry and cavalry were no longer capable of forcing a decision, and also by changes in the general character of the operations. These were fought in and about broken country and entrenched positions, and the mobility of the other arms sank to that of the artillery. Thus power came to the front again, and the heavier weapons regained their former supremacy. In abataille rangéein the open field the proportion of guns to men had been, in 1741, 2 per 1000. At Leuthen (1757) heavy fortress guns were brought to the front for a special purpose. At Kunersdorf the proportion was 4 and 5 per 1000 men, with what degree of effectiveness we have seen. In the later campaigns the Austrian artillery, which was, throughout the Seven Years’ War, the best in Europe, placed its numerous and powerful ordnance (an “amphitheatre of 400 guns,” as Frederick said) in long lines of field works. The combination of guns and obstacles was almost invariably too formidable to offer the slightest chance of a successful assault. It was at this stage that Frederick, in 1759, introduced horse artillery to keep pace with the movements of cavalry, a proof, if proof were needed, of the inability of the field artillery to manœuvre. The field howitzer, the weaponpar excellencefor the attack of field works, has never perhaps been more extensively employed than it was by the Prussians at that time. At Burkersdorf (1762) Frederick placed 45 howitzers in one battery. In those days the mobile artillery was always formed in groups or “batteries” of from 10 to 20 pieces. England too was certainly abreast of other countries in the organization of the field artillery arm. About the middle of the 18th century the guns in use consisted of 24-pounders, 12-pounders, 6-pounders and 3-pounders. The guns were divided into “brigades” of four, five and six guns respectively, and began to be separated into “heavy” and “light” brigades. Each field gun was drawn by four horses, the two leaders being ridden by artillerymen, and had 100 rounds of shot and 30 rounds of grape. The British artillery distinguished itself in the latter part of the Seven Years’ War. Foreign critics praised its lightness, its elegance and the good quality of its materials. At Marburg (1760) “the English artillery could not have been better served; it followed the enemy with such vivacity, and maintained its fire so well, that it was impossible for the latter to re-form,” says Tempelhof, the Prussian artillery officer who records the lost opportunity of Kunersdorf. The merits and the faults of the artillery had been made clear, and nowhere was the lesson taken to heart more than in France, where General Gribeauval, a French officer who had served in the war with the Austrian artillery, initiated reforms which in the end led to the artillery triumphs of the Napoleonic era. While Frederick had endeavoured to employ, as profitably as possible, the existing heavy equipments, Gribeauval sought improvement in other directions.
9.Gribeauval’s Reforms.—At the commencement of the 18th century, French artillery had made but little progress. The carriages and wagons were driven by wagoners on foot, and on the field of battle the guns were dragged about by ropes or remained stationary. Towards the middle of the century some improvements were made. Field guns and carriages were lightened, and the guns separated into brigades. Siege carriages were introduced. From 1765 onwards, however, Gribeauval strove to build up a complete system both ofpersonnelandmatériel, creating a distinctmatérielfor field, siege, garrison and coast artillery. Alive to the vital importance of mobility for field artillery, he dismissed to other branches all pieces of greater calibre than 12-pounders, and reduced the weight of those retained. His reforms were resisted, and for a time successfully; but in 1776 he became first inspector-general of artillery, and was able to put his ideas into force. The field artillery of the new system included 4-pounder regimental guns,and for the reserve 8- and 12-pounders, with 6-inch howitzers. For siege and garrison service Gribeauval adopted the 16-pounder and 12-pounder guns, 8-inch howitzer and 10-inch mortar, 12-, 10- and 8-inch mortars being introduced in 1785.
The carriages were constructed on a uniform model and technically improved. The horses were harnessed in pairs, instead of in file as formerly, but the manner in which the teams were driven remained much the same. Theprolong(a sort of tow-rope) was introduced, to unite the trail of the gun and the limber in slow retiring movements. Siege carriages differed from those of field artillery only in details. Gribeauval also introduced new carriages for garrison and coast service. The great step made was in a uniform construction being adopted for allmatériel, and in making the parts interchangeable so far as possible. In 1765 thepersonnelof the French artillery was reorganized. The corps or reserve artillery was organized in divisions of eight guns. The battery or division was thus made a unit, with guns, munitions and gunners complete, the horses and drivers being added at a later date. Horse artillery was introduced into the French army in 1791. The last step was made in 1800, when the establishment of a driver corps of soldiers put an end to the old system of horsing by contract.
10.British Artillery, 1793-1815.—Meanwhile the numbers of the English artillery had increased to nearly 4000 men. For some five centuries the word “artillery” in England meant entirely garrison artillery; the field artillery only existed in time of war. When war broke out, a train of artillery was organized, consisting of a certain number of field (or siege) guns, manned by garrison gunners; and when peace was proclaimed the train was disbanded, thematérielbeing returned into store, and the gunners reverting to some fort or stronghold. In 1793 the British artillery was anything but efficient. Guns were still dispersed among the infantry, mobility had declined again since the Seven Years’ War, and the American war had been fought out by the other arms. The drivers were mere carters on foot with long whips, and the whole field equipment was scarcely able to break from a foot-pace. Prior to the Peninsular War, however, the exertions of an able officer, Major Spearman, had done much to bring about improvement. Horse artillery had been introduced in 1793, and the driver corps established in 1794. Battalion guns were abolished in 1802, and field “brigades of six guns” were formed, horse artillery batteries being styled “troops.” Military drivers were introduced, and the horses teamed in pairs. The drivers were mounted on the near horses, the gunners either rode the off horses or were carried on the limbers and wagons. The equipment was lightened, and a new system of manœuvres introduced. A troop of horse artillery and a field brigade each had five guns and one howitzer. The “driver corps,” raised in 1794, was divided into troops, the addition of one of which to a company of foot artillery converted it into a field brigade. The horse artillery possessed both drivers and horses, and required very limited assistance from the driver corps.
11.French Revolutionary Wars.—During the long wars of the French Revolution and Empire the artillery of the field army by degrees became field artillery as we know it to-day. The development of musketry in the 16th century had taken the work of preparing an assault out of the hands of the gunners.Per contra, the decadence of infantry fire-power in the latter part of the Seven Years’ War had reinstated the artillery arm. A similar decadence of the infantry arm was destined to produce, in 1807, artillery predominance, but this time with an important difference, viz.mobility, and when mobility is thus achieved we have the first modern field artillery. The new tactics of the French in the Revolutionary wars, forced upon them by circumstances, involved an almost complete abandonment of the fire-tactics of Frederick’s day, and the need for artillery was, from the first fight at Valmy onwards, so obvious that its moral support was demanded even in the outpost line of the new French armies. St Cyr (Armies of the Rhine, p. 112) quotes a case in which “right in the very farthest outpost line” the original 4-pounder guns were replaced by 8-, 16-, and in the end by 24-pounders. The cardinal principle of massing batteries was not, indeed, forgotten, notwithstanding the weakness of raw levies. But though, as we have seen, thematérielhad already been greatly improved, and the artillery was less affected by the Revolution than other arms of the service, circumstances were against it, and we rarely find examples of artillery work in the Revolutionary wars which show any great improvement upon older methods. The field guns were however, at last organized in batteries each complete in itself, as mentioned above. The battalion gun disappeared; it was a relic of days in which it was thought advisable, both for other reasons and also because the short range of guns forbade any attempt at concentration of fire from several positions at one target, to have some force of artillery at any point that might be threatened. Though it was officially retained in the regulations of the French army, “officers and men combined to reject it” (Rouquerol,Q. F. Field Artillery, p. 121), and its last appearances, in 1809 and in 1813, were due merely to an endeavour on the part of Napoleon to give cohesion thereby to the battalions of raw soldiers which then constituted his army. But, with the development of mobility, it was probably found that sufficient guns could be taken to any threatened point, and no one had ever denied the principle of massed batteries, although, in practice, dispersion had been thought to be unavoidable.
12.Napoleon’s Artillery Tactics.—During the war the French artillery steadily improved in manoeuvring power. But many years elapsed before perfection was attained. Meanwhile, the infantry, handled without regard to losses in every fight, had in consequence deteriorated. The final production of the field artillery battle, usually dated as from the battle of Friedland (June 14, 1807), therefore saved the situation for the French. Henceforward Napoleon’s battles depend for their success on an “artillery preparation,” the like of which had never been seen. Napoleon’s own maxim illustrates the typical tactics of 1807-1815. “When once themeléehas begun,” he says, “the man who is clever enough to bring up an unexpected force of artillery, without the enemy knowing it, is sure to carry the day.” The guns no longer “prepared” the infantry advance by slowly disintegrating the hostile forces. Still less was it their business merely to cover a deployment. On the contrary, they now went in to the closest ranges and, by actuallyannihilatinga portion of the enemy’s line with case-shot fire, “covered” the assault so effectively that columns of cavalry and infantry reached the gap thus created without striking a blow. It is unnecessary to give examples. Every one of Napoleon’s later battles illustrates the principle. The most famous case is that of the great battery of 100 guns at Wagram (q.v.) which preceded the final attack of the centre. When Napoleon at Leipzig saw the allied guns forming up in long lines to prepare the assault, he exclaimed, “At last they have learned something.” This “case-shot preparation,” of course, involved a high degree of efficiency in manœuvre, as the guns had to gallop forward far in front of the infantry. The want of this quality had retarded the development of field artillery for 300 years, during which it had only been important relatively to the occasional inferiority of other troops. After Napoleon’s time the art of tactics became the art ofcombining the three arms.
Plate I.
Plate II.