Chapter 19

Bibliography.6—Amongst general historical works may be mentioned Napoleon III. and Col. Favé,Études sur le passé et l’avenir de l’artillerie(Paris. 1846-1871); C. von Decker,Geschichte des Geschützwesens(Berlin, 1822); H.W.L. Hime,Stray Military Papers(London, 1901);Die Beziehung Friedrichs des Grossen zu seiner Artillerie(Berlin, 1865); H. von Müller,Die Entwickelung der Feldartillerie, 1815-1892(Berlin, 1893-1894); J. Campana,L’Artillerie de campagne, 1792-1901(Paris, 1901); v. Reitzenstein,Das Geschützwesen, &c. in Hannover und Braunschweig 1365 bis zur Gegenwart(Leipzig, 1900); Kretschmar,Gesch. d. sächsischen Feldart. 1620-1878(1879); Schöning,Gesch. des brandenbg.-preuss. Art.(1844-1845); Schneller,Litteratur d. Artillerie(1768); v. Tempelhof,Gesch. d. Artillerie(1797); Duncan,Hist. of the Royal Artillery. A complete bibliography and criticism of the artillery works of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries will be found in Max Jähns,Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften, pp. 221-236, 382-424, 621, 658 and 747-752. For the early 17th century, Diego Ufano,Tratado de la Artilleria(1613) is a standard treatise of the time, but the mystery preserved by artillerists in regard to their arm is responsible for an astonishing dearth of artillery literature even in the time of the Thirty Years’ War. In 1650 appeared Casimir Simienowicz’Ars magnae artilleriae, an English translation of which was published in London in 1729, and in 1683 Michael Mieth publishedArtilleriae Recentior Praxis. The first edition of Surirey de S. Remy,Mémoires d’Artillerie, appeared in Paris in 1697. With the reorganization of the arm in the early 18th century came many manuals and other works (see Jähns,op. cit.pp. 1607-1621 and 1692-1698), amongst which may be mentioned the marquis de Quincy’sArt de la guerre(1726). From 1740 onwards numerous manuals appeared, mostly officialrèglements—see French General Staff,L’Artillerie française au XVIIIesiècle(1908); and the tactical handling of the arm is treated in general works, such as Guibert’s, on war. See also de Morla,Tratado de la Artilleria(1784), translated into German by Hoyer (Lehrbuch der Art.-Wissenschaft, Leipzig, 1821-1826);Du Service de l’artillerie à la guerre(Paris, 1780, German translation, Dresden, 1782, and English, by Capt. Thomson, R.A., London, 1789), Bardet de Villeneuve’sTraité de l’artillerie(Hague, 1741), and Hennébert,Gribeauval, Lieut.-Général des armées du Roy(Paris, 1896). Important works of the period 1800-1850 are Scharnhorst,Handbuch der Artillerie(Hanover, 1804-1806, French translation by Fourcy,Traité sur l’artillerie, Paris, 1840-1841); Rouvroy,Vorlesungen über die Artillerie(Dresden, 1821-1825); Timmerhans,Essai d’un traité d’artillerie(Brussels, 1839-1846); C. v. Decker,Die Artillerie für alle Waffen(1826); Griffiths,The Artillerist’s Manual(Woolwich, 1840); Piobert,Traité d’artillerie(Paris, 1845-1847); Taubert (translated by Maxwell),Use of Field Artillery on Service(London, 1856); Capt. Simmonds, R.A.,Application of Artillery in the Field(London, 1819); Gassendi,Aide-mémoire à l’usage des officiers d’artillerie(Paris, 1819). See also Girod de l’Ain,Grands artilleurs, Drouot, Sénarmont, Éblé(Paris, 1894). Among the numerous works on modern field artillery may be mentioned Prince Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen,Briefe über Artillerie(Berlin, 1887, 2nd ed., English translation by Col. Walford,Letters on Artillery, Woolwich, 1887); Hoffbauer,Taktik der Feldartillerie, 1866 und 1870-1871(Berlin, 1876), andApplikatorische Studie über Verwendung der Artillerie(Berlin, 1884); Erb,L’Artillerie dans les batailles de Metz(Paris, 1906); Leurs,L’Art. de campagne prussienne 1864-1870(Brussels, 1874); v. Schell,Studie über Taktik der Feldartillerie(quoted above); Hennébert,Artillerie moderne(Paris, 1889); and for quick-firing artillery, Langlois,Artillerie de campagne en liaison avec les autres armes(Paris, 1892 and 1907); Wille,Feldgeschütz der Zukunft(Berlin, 1891);Waffenlehre(2nd ed., 1901); andZur Feldgeschützfrage(Berlin, 1896); Rohne,Die Taktik der Feldartillerie(Berlin, 1900),Studie über d. Schnellfeuergeschütze in Rohrrücklauflafette(Berlin, 1901),Die französische Feldartillerie(Berlin, 1902);Entwicklung des Massengebrauchs der Feldartillerie(Berlin, 1900); and articles inJahrbücher f. d. Deutsche Armee und Marine(October 1901 and January 1905); Hoffbauer,Die Frage des Schnellfeuerfeldgeschützes(Berlin, 1902), andVerwendung der Feldhaubitzen(Berlin, 1901); Wangemann,Für die leichte Feldhaubitze(Berlin, 1904); von Reichenau,Studie über ... Ausbildung der Feldart. (Berlin, 1896),Einfluss der Schilde auf die Entwicklung des F.-A. Materials, andNeue Studien über die Entwicklung der Feldart.(Berlin, 1902 and 1903); Smekal,Führung und Verwendung der Divisions-Artillerie(Vienna, 1901); Korzen and Kühn,Waffenlehre(Vienna, 1906); G. Rouquerol,Emploi de l’artillerie de campagne à tir rapide(Paris, 1901), andOrganisation de l’artillerie de campagne(Paris, 1903); Girardon-Lagabbe,Organisation du matériel de l’artillerie de campagne(Paris, 1903); and in English, Capt. P. de B. Radcliffe’s translation of Rouquerol’s work (The Tactical Employment of Quick-firing Field Artillery, London, 1903), and especially Lt.-Col. H.A. Bethell,Modern Guns and Gunnery(Woolwich, 1907). See also the current drill manuals of the British, French and German artillery.

(C. F. A.)

1Napoleon’s maxim, quoted above, reappears in spirit in the British F.A. Training of 1906 (p. 225).2The old smooth-bore mortar for high-angle fire has of course disappeared, but the name “mortar” is still applied in some countries to short rifled howitzers.3Though not of course against the direct impact of shrapnel or H.E. shells.4Finding the line is also an integral part of ranging. When an aiming point is used, the angle at which the guns must be laid with reference to it is calculated and given out by the battery commander. The modern goniometric sight permits of a wide angle (in England 180° right or left) being given. “Deflection” is a small angular correction applied to individual guns.5The “corrector” is an adjustment on the sights of the gun used to determine the correct fuze. In the British Q.F. equipment, a graduated dial or drum shows the elevation of the gun above the line of sight. The fuze lengths are marked on a movable scale opposite the range graduations to which they apply, and the “corrector” moves this fuze scale so as to bring different fuze lengths opposite the range graduation. For example, a certain corrector setting gives 11½ on the fuze scale opposite 4000 yds. on the range scale, and if the shells set to 11½ burst too high, a new corrector setting is taken, the fuze length 12 is now opposite to the 4000 range graduation, and this length gives bursts closer up and lower. In the German service a corrector (Aufsatzschieber) alters the real elevation given to the gun, so that while throughout the battery all guns have the same (nominal or ordered) elevation shown on the sights, the real elevations of individual guns vary according to the different corrector settings. Thus bursts at different heights and distances from the target are obtained by shifting the trajectory of the shell. The fuze, being set for the nominal elevation common to all the guns, burns for the same time in each case, and thus the burst will be lower and closer to the target with a less (real) elevation, and higher and farther from it with a greater.6Most of the works named deal with technical questions of equipment, ammunition, ballistics, &c.

1Napoleon’s maxim, quoted above, reappears in spirit in the British F.A. Training of 1906 (p. 225).

2The old smooth-bore mortar for high-angle fire has of course disappeared, but the name “mortar” is still applied in some countries to short rifled howitzers.

3Though not of course against the direct impact of shrapnel or H.E. shells.

4Finding the line is also an integral part of ranging. When an aiming point is used, the angle at which the guns must be laid with reference to it is calculated and given out by the battery commander. The modern goniometric sight permits of a wide angle (in England 180° right or left) being given. “Deflection” is a small angular correction applied to individual guns.

5The “corrector” is an adjustment on the sights of the gun used to determine the correct fuze. In the British Q.F. equipment, a graduated dial or drum shows the elevation of the gun above the line of sight. The fuze lengths are marked on a movable scale opposite the range graduations to which they apply, and the “corrector” moves this fuze scale so as to bring different fuze lengths opposite the range graduation. For example, a certain corrector setting gives 11½ on the fuze scale opposite 4000 yds. on the range scale, and if the shells set to 11½ burst too high, a new corrector setting is taken, the fuze length 12 is now opposite to the 4000 range graduation, and this length gives bursts closer up and lower. In the German service a corrector (Aufsatzschieber) alters the real elevation given to the gun, so that while throughout the battery all guns have the same (nominal or ordered) elevation shown on the sights, the real elevations of individual guns vary according to the different corrector settings. Thus bursts at different heights and distances from the target are obtained by shifting the trajectory of the shell. The fuze, being set for the nominal elevation common to all the guns, burns for the same time in each case, and thus the burst will be lower and closer to the target with a less (real) elevation, and higher and farther from it with a greater.

6Most of the works named deal with technical questions of equipment, ammunition, ballistics, &c.

ARTIODACTYLA(from Gr.ἄρτιος, even, andδάκτυλος, a finger or toe, “even-toed”), the suborder of ungulate mammals in which the central (and in some cases the only) pair of toes in each foot are arranged symmetrically on each side of a vertical line running through the axes of the limbs. As contrasted with the Perissodactyla living, and in a great degree extinct, Artiodactyla are characterized by the following structural features. The upper premolar and molar teeth are not alike, the former being single and the latter two-lobed; and the last lower molar of both first and second dentition is almost invariably three-lobed. Nasal bones not expanded posteriorly. No alisphenoid canal. Dorsal and lumbar vertebrae together always nineteen, though the former may vary from twelve to fifteen. Femur without third trochanter. Third and fourth digits of both feet almost equally developed, and their terminal phalanges flattened on their inner or contiguous surfaces, so that each is not symmetrical in itself, but when the two are placed together they form a figure symmetrically disposed to a line drawn between them. Or, in other words, the axis or median line of the whole foot is a line drawn between the third and fourth digits (fig. 1). Lower articular surface of the astragalus divided into two nearly equal facets, one for the navicular and a second for the cuboid bone. The calcaneum with an articular facet for the lower end of the fibula. Stomach almost always more or less complex. Colon convoluted. Caecum small. Placenta diffused or cotyledonary. Teats either few and inguinal, or numerous and abdominal.

Artiodactyla date from the Eocene period, when they appear to have been less numerous than the Perissodactyla, although at the present day they are immeasurably ahead of that group, and form indeed the dominant ungulates. As regards the gradual specialization and development of the modern types, the following features are noteworthy.

1. As regards the teeth, we have the passage of a simply tubercular, or bunodont (βουνός, a hillock) type of molar into one in which the four main tubercles, or columns, have assumed a crescentic form, whence this type is termed selenodont (σελήνη, the new moon). Further, there is the modification of the latter from a short-crowned, or brachyodont type, to one in which the columns are tall, constituting the hypsodont, or hypsiselenodont, type. It is noteworthy, however, that in some instances there appears to have been a retrograde modification from the selenodont towards the bunodont type, the hippopotamus being a case in point. Other modifications are the loss of the upper incisors;the development of the canines into projecting tusks; and the loss of the anterior premolars.

2. As regards the limbs. Reduction of the ulna from a complete and distinct bone to a comparatively rudimentary state in which it coalesces more or less firmly with the radius. Reduction of the fibula till nothing but its lower extremity remains. Reduction and final loss of outer pair of digits (second and fifth), with coalescence of the metacarpal and metatarsal bones of the two middle digits to form a cannon-bone. Union of the navicular and cuboid, and sometimes the ectocuneiform bone, of the tarsus.

3. Change of form of the odontoid process of the second or axis vertebrae from a cone to a hollow half-cylinder.

4. Development of horns or antlers on the frontal bones, and gradual complication of form of antlers.

5. By inference only, increasing complication of stomach with ruminating function superadded. Modification of placenta from simple diffused to cotyledonary form.

A, Pig (Sus scrofa).

B, Red deer (Cervus elaphus).

C, Camel (Camelus bactrianus).

U, Ulna.

R, Radius.

c, Cuneiform.

l, Lunar.

s, Scaphoid.

u, Unciform.

m, Magnum.

td, Trapezoid.

The primitive Artiodactyla thus probably had the typical number (44) of incisor, canine and molar teeth, brachyodont molars, conical odontoid process, four distinct toes on each foot, with metacarpal, metatarsal and all the tarsal bones distinct, and no frontal appendages.

As regards classification, the first group is that of the Pecora, or Cotylophora, in which the cheek-teeth are selenodont, but there are no upper incisors or canine-like premolars, while upper canines are generally absent, though sometimesPecora.largely developed. Inferior incisors, three on each side with an incisiform canine in contact with them. Cheek-teeth consisting ofp.3⁄3,m.3⁄3, in continuous series. Auditory bulla simple and hollow within. Odontoid process of second vertebra in the form of a crescent, hollow above. Lower extremity of the fibula represented by a distinct malleolar bone articulating with the outer surface of the lower end of the tibia. Third and fourth metacarpals and metatarsals confluent into cannon-bones (fig. 1 B), and the toes enclosed in hoofs. Outer toes small and rudimentary, or in some cases entirely suppressed; their metacarpal or metatarsal bones never complete. Navicular and cuboid bones of tarsus united. The skull generally lacks a sagittal crest; and the condyle of the lower jaw is transversely elongated. Horns or antlers usually present, at least in the male sex. Left brachial artery arising from a common innominate trunk, instead of coming off separately from the aortic arch. Stomach with four complete cavities. Placenta cotyledonous. Teats 2 or 4.

The group at the present day is divided intoGiraffidae(giraffe and okapi),Cervidae(deer),Antilocapridae(prongbuck), andBovidae(oxen, sheep, goats, antelopes, &c.). (SeePecora.)

The second group is represented at the present day by the camels (Camelus) of the Old, and the llamas (Lama) of the New World, collectively constituting the familyCamelidae. They derive their name of Tylopoda (“boss-footed”)Tylopoda.from the circumstance that the feet form large cushion-like pads, supporting the weight of the body, while the toes have broad nails on their upper surface only, instead of being encased in hoofs. The cheek-teeth are selenodont, and one pair of upper incisors is retained, while some of the anterior premolars assume a canine-like shape, and are separated from the rest of the cheek-series. Auditory bulla filled with honeycombed bony tissue. Odontoid process of second vertebra semi-cylindrical; skull with a sagittal crest; and the condyle of the lower jaw rounded. Third and fourth metacarpals and metatarsals (which are alone present) fused into cannon-bones for the greater part of their length, but diverging inferiorly (fig. 1, C) and with their articular surfaces for the toes smooth, instead of ridged as in the Pecora. Navicular and cuboid bones of tarsus distinct. No horns or antlers. Stomach, although complex, differing essentially from that of the Pecora. Placenta diffuse, without cotyledons. Teats few. (SeeTylopoda.)

In the same sectional group is included the North American family of oreodonts (Oreodontidae), which are much more primitive ruminants, with shorter necks and limbs, the full series of 44 teeth, all in apposition, and the metacarpal and metatarsal bones separate, and the toes generally of more normal type, although sometimes claw-like. (SeeOreodon.) The Eocene American genusHomacodonis regarded as representing a third family group, theHomacodontidae(=Pantolestidae), in which the molars were of a bunodont type, and approximate to those of the Condylarthra from which this family appears to have sprung, and to have given origin on the one hand to theOreodontidae, and on the other to theCamelidae. The family is represented in the Lower, or Wasatch, Eocene byTrigonolestes, in the Middle (Bridger) Eocene byHomacodon(Pantolestes), and in the Upper (Uinta) Eocene byBunomeryx.

The third group is that represented by the chevrotains or mouse-deer, forming the familyTragulidae, withTragulusin south-eastern Asia andDorcatherium(orHyomoschus) in equatorial Africa. The cheek-teeth are selenodont,Tragulina.as in the two preceding groups; there are no upper incisors, but there are long, narrow and pointed upper canines, which attain a large size in the males; the lower canines are incisor-like, as in the Pecora, and there are no caniniform premolars in either jaw. Cheek-teeth in a continuous series consisting ofp.3⁄3,m.3⁄3. Odontoid process of axis conical. Fibula complete. Four complete toes on each foot. The middle metacarpals and metatarsals generally confluent, the outer ones (second and fifth) slender but complete,i.e.extending from the carpus or tarsus to the digit. Navicular, cuboid and ectocuneiform bones of tarsus united. Auditory bulla of skull filled with cancellar tissue. No frontal appendages. Ruminating, but the stomach with only three distinct compartments, the maniplies or third cavity of the stomach of the Pecora being rudimentary. Placenta diffused. (SeeChevrotain.)

In this place must be mentioned the extinct Oligocene European group typified by the well-known genusAnoplotheriumof the Paris gypsum-quarries, and hence termed Anoplotherina, although the alternative titleAnoplotherina.Dichobunoidea has been suggested. It includes the two familiesAnoplotheriidaeandDichobunidae, of which the first died out with the Oligocene, while the second may have given origin to the Tragulina and perhaps the Pecora. There is the full series of 44 teeth, generally without any gaps, and most of the bones of the skeleton are separate and complete; while, in many instances at any rate, the tail was much longer than in any existing ungulates, and the whole bodily formapproximated to that of a carnivore. The upper molars, which may be either selenodont or buno-selenodont, carry five cusps each, instead of the four characteristic of all the preceding groups; and they are all very low-crowned, so as to expose the whole of the valleys between the cusps. InAnoplotherium, some of the species of which were larger than tapirs, there were either two or three toes, the latter number being almost unique among the Artiodactyla. Allied genera areDiplobuneandDacrytherium.

TheDichobunidaeinclude the genusDichobune, of which the species were small animals with buno-selenodont molars.XiphodonandDichodonrepresent another type with cutting premolars and selenodont molars; whileCaenotheriumandPlesiomeryxform yet another branch, with resemblances to the ruminants. The most interesting genera are however, the Upper Oligocene and Lower MioceneGelocusandProdremotherium, which have perfectly selenodont teeth, and the third and fourth metacarpal and metatarsal bones respectively fused into an imperfect cannon-bone, with the reduction of the lateral metacarpals and metatarsals to mere remnants of their upper and lower extremities. WhileGelocusexhibits a marked approximation to theTragulidae, Prodremotheriumcomes nearer to theCervidae, of which it not improbably indicates the ancestral type. TheDichobunidaemay be regarded as occupying a position analogous to that of theHomacodontidaein the Tylopoda, and like the latter, are probably the direct descendants of Condylarthra.

The last section of the Artiodactyla is that of the Suina, represented at the present day by the pigs (Suidae), and the hippopotamuses (Hippopotamidae), and in past times by theAnthracotheriidae, in which may probably beSuina.included theElotheriidae.In the existing members of the group the cheek-teeth approximate to the bunodont type, although showing signs of being degenerate modifications of the selenodont modification. There is at least one pair of upper incisors, while the full series of 44 teeth may be present. The metacarpals and metatarsals are generally distinct (fig. 1 A), and never fuse into a complete cannon-bone; and the navicular and cuboid bones of the tarsus are separate. The odontoid process of the second vertebra is pig-like: and the tibia and fibula and radius and ulna are severally distinct. The stomach is simple or somewhat complex, and the placenta diffused. TheSuidaeinclude the Old World pigs (Suinae) and the American peccaries (Dicotylinae), and are characterized by the snout terminating in a fleshy disk-like expansion, in the midst of which are perforated the nostrils; while the toes are enclosed in sharp hoofs, of which the lateral ones do not touch the ground. There is a caecum. TheDicotylinaediffer from theSuinaein that the upper canines are directed downwards (instead of curving upwards) and have sharp cutting-edges, while the toes are four in front and three behind (instead of four on each foot), and the stomach is complex instead of simple. In the Old World a large number of fossil forms are known, of which the earliest is the Egyptian EoceneGeniohyus.Originally the family was an Old World type, but in the Miocene it gained access into North America, where the earliest form isBothriolabis, an ancestral peccary showing signs of affinity with the European Miocene genusPalaeochoerus.(SeeSwineandPeccary.)

TheHippopotamidaeare an exclusively Old World group, in which the muzzle is broad and rounded and quite unlike that of theSuidae, while the crowns of the cheek-teeth form a distinctly trefoil pattern, when partially worn, which is only foreshadowed in those of the latter. The short and broad teeth terminate in four subequal toes, protected by short rounded hoofs, and all reaching the ground. The hinder end of the lower jaw is provided with a deep descending flange. Both incisors and canines are devoid of roots and grow throughout life, the canines, and in the typical species one pair of lower incisors, growing to an immense size. The stomach is complex; but there is no caecum. Although now exclusively African, the family (of which all the representatives may be included in the single genusHippopotamus, with several subgeneric groups) is represented in the Pliocene of Europe and the Lower Pliocene of northern India. Its place of origin cannot yet be determined.

The extinctAnthracotheriidaewere evidently nearly allied to theHippopotamidae, of which they are in all probability the ancestral stock. They agree, for instance, with that family in the presence of a descending flange at the hinder end of each side of the lower jaw; but their dentition is of a more generalized type, comprising the full series of 44 teeth, among which the incisors and canines are of normal form, but specially enlarged, and developing roots in the usual manner. The molars are partially selenodont in the typical genusAnthracotherium, with five cusps, or columns, on the crowns of those of the upper jaw, which are nearly square. The genus has a very wide distribution, extending from Europe through Asia to North America, and occurring in strata which are of Oligocene and Miocene age. InAncodon(Hyopotamus) the cusps on the molars are taller, so that the dentition is more decidedly selenodont; the distribution of this genus includes not only Europe, Asia and North Africa, but also Egypt where it occurs in Upper Eocene beds in company with the European genusRhagatherium, which is nearerAnthracotherium.On the other hand, inMerycopotamus, of the Lower Pliocene of India and Burma, the upper molars have lost the fifth intermediate cusp ofAncodon; and thus, although highly selenodont, might be easily modified, by a kind of retrograde development, into the trefoil-columned molars ofHippopotamus.In the above genera, so far as is known, the feet were four-toed, although with the lateral digits relatively small; but inElotherium(orEntelodon), from the Lower Miocene of Europe and the Oligocene of North America, the two lateral digits in each foot had disappeared. This is the more remarkable seeing thatElotheriummay be regarded as a kind of bunodontAnthracotherium.It shows the characteristic hippopotamus-flange to the lower jaw, but has also a large descending process from the jugal bone of the zygomatic arch of the skull. Finally, we have in the Pliocene of India the genusTetraconodon, remarkable for the enormous size attained by the bluntly conical premolars; as the molars are purely bunodont, this genus seems to be a late and specialized survivor of a primitive type.

(R. L.*)

ARTISAN,orArtizan, a mechanic; a handicraftsman in distinction to an artist. The English word (from Late Lat.artitianus, instructed in arts) at one time meant “artist,” but has been restricted to signify the operative workman only.

ARTOIS,an ancient province of the north of France, corresponding to the present department of Pas de Calais, with the exclusion of the arrondissements of Boulogne and Montreuil, which belonged to Picardy. It is a rich and well-watered country, producing abundance of grain and hops, and yielding excellent pasture for cattle. The capital of the province was Arras, and the other important places were Saint-Omer, Béthune, Aire, Hesdin, Bapaume, Lens, Lillers, Saint-Pol and Saint-Venant. The name Artois (still more corrupted in “Arras”) is derived from the Atrebates, who possessed the district in the time of Caesar. From the 9th to the 12th century Artois belonged to the counts of Flanders. It was bestowed in 1180 on Philip Augustus of France by Philip of Alsace, as the dowry of his niece Isabella of Hainaut. At her death in 1190, Baldwin IX., count of Flanders (d. 1206), and then his son-in-law, Ferrand (Ferdinand) of Portugal, count of Flanders, disputed the possession of the country with the king of France, Ferrand being in the coalition which was overthrown by Philip Augustus at Bouvines (1214). In 1237 Artois, which was raised to a countship the following year, was conferred as an appanage by Saint Louis on his brotherRobert, who died on crusade in 1250. His son, Robert II., took part in the wars in Navarre, Sicily, Guienne and Flanders, and was killed at the battle of Courtrai in 1302. After his death, his son Philip having predeceased him (1298), Artois was adjudged to his daughter Mahaut, or Matilda, as against her nephew Robert, son of Philip, who attempted to support his claim to the countship by forged titles. Banished from France for this crime (1322), Robert of Artois took refuge in England, where he became earl of Richmond, and incited Edward III. to make war upon Philip of Valois. His descendants, the counts of Eu (q.v.), continued to style themselves counts of Artois. By the marriage of Mahaut (d. 1329) with Otto IV., Artois passed to the house of Burgundy, in whose possession it remained till the marriage of Mary, the daughter of Charles the Bold, to the archduke Maximilian brought it to the house of Austria. Louis XI., however, occupied portions of Artois, and the claims of Austria were contested by France until the treaty of Senlis (1493). The emperor Charles V. established the council of Artois, with sovereign authority. At the end of the Thirty Years’ War Artois was again conquered by the French, and the conquest was ratified in the treaty of the Pyrenees (1659) by Spain, to whom the province had fallen in 1634. During the war between France and Holland (1672-77) and that of the Spanish Succession. Artois was invaded again, but the treaties of Nijmwegen (1678) and of Utrecht (1713) confirmed the sovereignty of France. The title of count of Artois was borne by Charles X. of France before his accession to the throne. This new creation became extinct on the death of the comte de Chambord in 1883.

ART SALES. The practice of selling objects of art by auction in England dates from the latter part of the 17th century, when in most cases the names of the auctioneers were suppressed. Evelyn (under date June 21, 1693) mentions a “great auction of pictures (Lord Melford’s) in the Banquetting House, Whitehall,” and the practice is frequently referred to by other contemporary and later writers. Before the introduction of regular auctions the practice was, as in the case of the famous collection formed by Charles I., to price each object and invite purchasers, just as in other departments of commerce. But this was a slow process, especially in the case of pictures, and lacked the incentive of excitement. The first really important art collection to come under the hammer was that of Edward, earl of Oxford, dispersed by Cock, under the Piazza, Covent Garden, on 8th March 1741/2 and the five following days, six more days being required by the coins. Nearly all the leading men of the day, including Horace Walpole, attended or were represented at this sale, and the prices varied from five shillings for an anonymous bishop’s “head” to 165 guineas for Vandyck’s group of “Sir Kenelm Digby, lady, and son.” The next great dispersal was Dr Richard Mead’s extensive collection, of which the pictures, coins and gems, &c., were sold by Langford in February and March 1754, the sale realizing the total, unprecedented up to that time, of £16,069. The thirty-eight days’ sale (1786) of the Duchess of Portland’s collection is very noteworthy, from the fact that it included the celebrated Portland vase, now in the British Museum. Many other interesting and important 18th-century sales might be mentioned. High prices did not become general until the Calonne, Trumbull (both 1795) and Bryan (1798) sales. As to the quality of the pictures which had been sold by auction up to the latter part of the 18th century, it may be assumed that this was not high. The importation of pictures and other objects of art had assumed extensive proportions by the end of the 18th century, but the genuine examples of the Old Masters probably fell far short of 1%. England was felt to be the only safe asylum for valuable articles, but the home which was intended to be temporary often became permanent. Had it not been for the political convulsions on the continent, England, instead of being one of the richest countries in the world in art treasures, would have been one of the poorest. This fortuitous circumstance had, moreover, another effect, in that it greatly raised the critical knowledge of pictures. Genuine works realized high prices, as, for example, at Sir William Hamilton’s sale (1801), when Beckford paid 1300 guineas for the little picture of “A Laughing Boy” by Leonardo da Vinci; and when at the Lafontaine sales (1807 and 1811) two Rembrandts each realized 5000 guineas, “The Woman taken in Adultery,” now in the National Gallery, and “The Master Shipbuilder,” now at Buckingham Palace. The Beckford sale of 1823 (41 days, £43,869) was the forerunner of the great art dispersal of the 19th century; Horace Walpole’s accumulation at Strawberry Hill, 1842 (24 days, £33,450), and the Stowe collection, 1848 (41 days, £75,562), were also celebrated. They comprised every phase of art work, and in all the quality was of a very high order. They acted as a most healthy stimulus to art collecting, a stimulus which was further nourished by the sales of the superb collection of Ralph Bernal in 1855 (32 days, £62,690), and of the almost equally fine but not so comprehensive collection of Samuel Rogers, 1856 (18 days, £42,367). Three years later came the dispersal of the 1500 pictures which formed Lord Northwick’s gallery at Cheltenham (pictures and works of art, 18 days, £94,722).

Towards the latter part of the first half of the 19th century an entirely new race of collectors gradually came into existence; they were for the most part men who had made, or were making, large fortunes in the various industries of the midlands and north of England and other centres. They were untrammelled by “collecting” traditions, and their patronage was almost exclusively extended to the artists of the day. The dispersals of these collections began in 1863 with the Bicknell Gallery, and continued at irregular intervals for many years,e.g.Gillott (1872), Mendel (1875), Wynn Ellis and Albert Levy (1876), Albert Grant (1877) and Munro of Novar (1878). These patrons purchased at munificent prices either direct from the easel or from the exhibitions not only pictures in oils but also water-colour drawings. As a matter of investment their purchases frequently realized far more than the original outlay; sometimes, however, the reverse happened, as, for instance, in the case of Landseer’s “Otter Hunt,” for which Baron Grant is said to have paid £10,000 and which realized shortly afterwards only 5650 guineas. One of the features of the sales of the ’seventies was the high appreciation of water-colour drawings. At the Gillott sale (1872) 160 examples realized £27,423, Turner’s “Bamborough Castle” fetching 3150 gns.; at the Quilter sale (1875) David Cox’s “Hayfield,” for which a dealer paid him 50 gns. in 1850, brought 2810 gns. The following are the most remarkable prices of later years. In 1895 Cox’s “Welsh Funeral” (which cost about £20) sold for 2400 gns., and Burne-Jones’s “Hesperides” for 2460 gns. In 1908, 13 Turner drawings fetched £12,415 (Acland-Hood sale) and 7 brought £11,077 (Holland sale), the “Heidelberg” reaching 4200 gns. For Fred Walker’s “Harbour of Refuge” 2580 gns. were paid (Tatham sale) and 2700 gns. for his “Marlow Ferry” (Holland). The demand for pictures by modern artists, whose works sold at almost fabulous prices in the ’seventies, has somewhat declined; but during all itsfurorethere was still a small band of collectors to whom the works of the Old Masters more especially appealed. The dispersal of such collections as the Bredel (1875), Watts Russell (1875), Foster of Clewer Manor (1876), the Hamilton Palace (17 days, £397,562)—the greatest art sale in the annals of Great Britain—Bale (1882), Leigh Court (1884), and Dudley (1892) resulted, as did the sale of many minor collections each season, in many very fine works of the Old Masters finding eager purchasers at high prices. A striking example of the high prices given was the £24,250 realized by the pair of Vandyck portraits of a Genoese senator and his wife in the Peel sale, 1900.

Since the last quarter of the 19th century the chief feature in art sales has been the demand for works, particularly female portraits, by Reynolds, his contemporaries and successors. This may be traced to the South Kensington Exhibitions of 1867 and 1868 and the annual winter exhibitions at Burlington House, which revealed an unsuspected wealth and charm in the works of many English artists who had almost fallen into oblivion. A few of the most remarkable prices for such pictures may be quoted: Reynolds’s “Lady Betty Delmé” (1894), 11,000 gns.; Romney’s “The Ladies Spencer” (1896), 10,500 gns.;Gainsborough’s “Duchess of Devonshire” (1876), 10,100 gns. (for the history of its disappearance seeGainsborough, Thomas), “Maria Walpole,” 12,100 gns. (Duke of Cambridge’s sale, 1904); Constable’s “Stratford Mill” (1895), 8500 gns.; Hoppner’s “Lady Waldegrave” (1906), 6000 gns.; Lawrence’s “Childhood’s Innocence” (1907), 8000 gns.; Raeburn’s “Lady Raeburn” (1905), 8500 gns. Here may also be mentioned the 12,600 gns. paid for Turner’s “Mortlake Terrace” in 1908 (Holland sale).

The “appreciation” of the modern continental schools, particularly the French, has been marked since 1880; of high prices paid may be mentioned Corot’s “Danse des Amours” (1898), £7200; Rosa Bonheur’s “Denizens of the Highlands” (1888), 5550 gns.; Jules Breton’s “First Communion,” £9100 in New York (1886); Meissonier’s “Napoleon I. in the Campaign of Paris,” 12¼ in. by 9¼ in. (1882), 5800 gns., and “The Sign Painter” (1891), 6450 gns. High prices are also fetched by pictures of Daubigny, Fortuny, Gallait, Gérôme, Troyon and Israëls. The most marked feature of late has been the demand for the 18th-century painters Watteau, Boucher, Fragonard, Pater and Lancret; thus “La Ronde Champêtre” of the last named brought £11,200 at the Say Sale in 1908, and Fragonard’s “Le Reveil de Vénus” £5520 at the Sedelmeyer sale, 1907.

“Specialism” is the one important development in art collecting which has manifested itself since the middle of the 19th century. This accounts for and explains the high average quality of the Wellesley (1866), the Buccleuch (1888) and the Holford (1893) collections of drawings by the Old Masters; for the Sibson Wedgwood (1877), the Duc de Forli Dresden (1877), the Shuldham blue and white porcelain (1880), the Benson collection of antique coins (1909), and for the objects of art at the Massey-Mainwaring and Lewis-Hill sales of 1907. Very many other illustrations in nearly every department of art collecting might be quoted—the superb series of Marlborough gems (1875 and 1899) might be included in this category but for the fact that it was formed chiefly in the 18th century. The appreciation—commercially at all events—of mezzotint portraits and of portraits printed in colours, after masters of the early English school, was one of the most remarkable features in art sales during the last years of the 19th century. The shillings of fifty years before were then represented by pounds. The Fraser collection (December 4 to 6, 1900) realized about ten times the original outlay, the mezzotint of the “Sisters Frankland,” after Hoppner, by W. Ward, selling for 290 guineas as against 10 guineas paid for it about thirty years previously. The H.A. Blyth sale (March 11 to 13, 1901, 346 lots, £21,717 : 10s.) of mezzotint portraits was even more remarkable, and as a collection it was the choicest sold within recent times, the engravings being mostly in the first state. The record prices were numerous, and, in many cases, far surpassed the prices which Sir Joshua Reynolds received for the original pictures;e.g.the exceptionally fine example of the first state of the “Duchess of Rutland,” after Reynolds, by V. Green, realized 1000 guineas, whereas the artist received only £150 for the painting itself. Even this unprecedented price for a mezzotint portrait was exceeded on the 30th of April 1901, when an example of the first published state of “Mrs Carnac,” after Reynolds, by J.R. Smith, sold for 1160 guineas. At the Louis Huth sale (1905) 83 lots brought nearly £10,000, Reynolds’s “Lady Bampfylde” by T. Watson, first state before letters, unpublished, fetching 1200 guineas. Such prices as these and many others which might be quoted are exceptional, but they were paid for objects of exceptional rarity or quality.

It is not necessary to pursue the chronicle of recent sales, which have become a feature of every season. It is worth mentioning, however, that the Holland sale, in June 1908, realized £138,118 (432 lots), a “record” sum for a collection of pictures mainly by modern artists; and that for the Rodolphe Kann collection (Paris) of pictures and objects of art, including 11 magnificent Rembrandts, Messrs Duveen paid £1,000,000 in 1907. In every direction there has been a tendency to increase prices for really great artistic pieces, even to a sensational extent. The competition has become acute, largely owing to American and German acquisitiveness. The demand for the finest works of art of all descriptions is much greater than the supply. As an illustration of the magnitude of the art sale business it may be mentioned that the “turnover” of one firm in London alone has occasionally exceeded £1,000,000 annually.

Bibliography.—The chief compilations dealing with art sales in Great Britain are: G. Redford,Art Sales(1888); and W. Roberts,Memorials of Christie’s(1897); whilst other books containing much important matter are W. Buchanan,Memoirs of Painting;The Year’s Art(1880 and each succeeding year); F.S. Robinson,The Connoisseur; and L. Soullie,Les Ventes de tableaux, dessins et objets d’art au XIXesiècle(chiefly French).

ARTS AND CRAFTS,a comprehensive title for the arts of decorative design and handicraft—all those which, in association with the mother-craft of building (or architecture), go to the making of the house beautiful. Accounts of these will be found under separate headings. “Arts and crafts” are also associated with the movement generally understood as the English revival of decorative art, which began about 1875. The title itself only came into general use when the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society was founded, and held its first exhibition at the New Gallery, London, in the autumn of 1888, since which time arts and crafts exhibitions have been common all over Great Britain. The idea of forming a society for the purpose of showing contemporary work in design and handicraft really arose out of a movement of revolt or protest against the exclusive view of art encouraged by the Royal Academy exhibitions, in which oil paintings in gilt frames claimed almost exclusive attention—sculpture, architecture and the arts of decorative design being relegated to quite subordinate positions. In 1886, out of a feeling of discontent among artists as to the inadequacy of the Royal Academy exhibitions, considered as representing the art of Great Britain, a demand arose for a national exhibition to include all the arts of design. One of the points of this demand was for the annual election of the hanging committee by the whole body of artists. After many meetings the group representing the arts and crafts (who belonged to a larger body of artists and craftsmen called the Art-workers’ Guild, founded in 1884),1perceiving that the painters, especially the leading group of a school not hitherto well represented in the Academy exhibitions, only cherished the hope of forcing certain reforms on the Academy, and were by no means prepared to lose their chances of admission to its privileges, still less to run any risk in the establishment of a really comprehensive national exhibition of art, decided to organize an exhibition themselves in which artists and craftsmen might show their productions, so that contemporary work in decorative art should be displayed to the public on the same footing, and with the same advantages as had hitherto been monopolized by pictorial art. For many years previously there had been great activity in the study and revival in the practice of many of the neglected decorative handicrafts. Amateur societies and classes were in existence, like the Home Arts and Industries Association, which had established village classes in wood-carving, metal work, spinning and weaving, needlework, pottery and basket-work, and the public interest in handicraft was steadily growing. The machine production of an industrial century had laid its iron hands upon what had formerly been the exclusive province of the handicraftsman, who only lingered on in a few obscure trades and in forgotten corners of England for the most part. The ideal of mechanical perfection dominated British workmen, and the factory system, first by extreme division of labour, and then by the further specialization of the workman under machine production, left no room for individual artistic feeling among craftsmen trained and working under such conditions. The demand of the world-market ruled the character and quality of production, and to the few who would seek some humanity, simplicity of construction or artistic feeling in their domestic decorations and furniture, the only choice was that of the tradesman or salesman, or a plunge into costly and doubtful experiments in original design. From the ’forties onward there hadbeen much research and study of medieval art in England; there had been many able designers, architects and antiquaries, such as the Pugins and Henry Shaw (1800-1873) and later William Burges (1827-1881), William Butterfield (1814-1900) and G.E. Street and others. The school of pre-Raphaelite painters, by their careful and thorough methods, and their sympathy with medieval design, were among the first to turn attention to beauty of design, colour and significance in the accessories of daily life, and artists like D.G. Rossetti, Ford Madox Brown, and W. Holman Hunt themselves designed and painted furniture. The most successful and most practical effort indeed towards the revival of sounder ideas of construction and workmanship may be said to have arisen out of the work of this group of artists, and may be traced to the workshop of William Morris and his associates in Queen Square, London. William Morris, whose name covers so large a field of artistic as well as literary and social work, came well equipped to his task of raising the arts of design and handicraft, of changing the taste of his countrymen from the corrupt and vulgar ostentation of the Second Empire, and its cheap imitations, which prevailed in the ’fifties and ’sixties, and of winning them back, for a time at least, to the massive simplicity of plain oak furniture, or the delicate beauty of inlays of choice woods, or the charm of painted work, the richness and frank colour of formal floral and heraldic pattern in silk textiles and wall-hangings and carpets, the gaiety and freshness of printed cotton, or the romantic splendour of arras tapestry. Both William Morris and his artistic comrade and lifelong friend, Edward Burne-Jones, were no doubt much influenced at the outset by the imaginative insight, the passionate artistic feeling, and the love of medieval romance and colour of Dante Gabriel Rossetti, who remains so remarkable a figure in the great artistic and poetic revival of the latter half of the 19th century. To William Morris himself, in his artistic career, it was no small advantage to gain the ear of the English public first by his poetry. His verse-craft helped his handicraft, but both lived side by side. The secret of Morris’s great influence in the revival was no doubt to be attributed to his way of personally mastering the working details and handling of each craft he took up in turn, as well as to his power of inspiring his helpers and followers. He was painter, designer, scribe, illuminator, wood-engraver, dyer, weaver and finally printer and papermaker, and having mastered these crafts he could effectively direct and criticize the work of others. His own work and that of Burne-Jones were well known to the public, and in high favour long before the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society was formed, and though largely helped and inspired by the work of these two artists, the aims and objects of the society rather represented those of a younger generation, and were in some measure a fresh development both of the social and the artistic ideas which were represented by Ruskin, Rossetti and Morris, though the society includes men of different schools. Other sources of influence might be named, such as the work of Norman Shaw and Philip Webb in architecture and decoration, of Lewis Day in surface pattern, and William de Morgan in pottery. The demand for the acknowledgment of the personality of each responsible craftsman in a co-operative work was new, and it had direct bearing upon the social and economic conditions of artistic production. The principle, too, of regarding the material, object, method and purpose of a work as essential conditions of its artistic expression, the form and character of which must always be controlled by such conditions, had never before been so emphatically stated, though it practically endorsed the somewhat vague aspirations current for the unity of beauty with utility. Again, a very notable return to extreme simplicity of design in furniture and surface decoration may be remarked; and a certain reserve in the use of colour and ornament, and a love of abstract forms in decoration generally, which are characteristic of later taste. Not less remarkable has been the new development in the design and workmanship of jewelry, gold- and silversmiths’ work, and enamels, with which the names of Alexander Fisher, Henry Wilson, Nelson Dawson and C.R. Ashbee are associated. Among the arts and crafts of design which have blossomed into new life in recent years-and there is hardly one which has not been touched by the new spirit—book-binding must be named as having attained a fresh and tasteful development through the work of Mr Cobden-Sanderson and his pupils. The art and craft of the needle also must not be forgotten, and its progress is a good criterion of taste in design, choice of colour and treatment. The work of Mrs Morris, of Miss Burden (sometime instructress at the Royal School of Art Needlework, which has carried on its work from 1875), of Miss May Morris, of Miss Una Taylor, of Miss Buckle, of Mrs Walter Crane, of Mrs Newbery, besides many other skilled needlewomen, has been frequently exhibited. Good work is often seen in the national competition works of the students of the English art schools, shown at South Kensington in July. The increase of late years in these exhibitions of designs worked out in the actual material for which they were intended is very remarkable, and is an evidence of the spread of the arts and crafts movement (fostered no doubt by the increase of technical schools, especially of the type of the Central School of Arts and Crafts under the Technical Education Board of the London County Council), of which it may be said that if it has not turned all British craftsmen into artists or all British artists into craftsmen, it had done not a little to expand and socialize the idea of art, and (perhaps it is not too much to say) has made the tasteful English house with its furniture and decorations a model for the civilized world.

Back to Index Next