Chapter 8

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

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

See life by Semler (Halle, 1758).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(M. A. C.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(L. J. S.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Receipts.Mks.Direct taxes38,199,000Customs and indirect taxes50,900,990State railways184,551,000Posts and telegraphs41,665,100Forests and agricultural dues37,395,000Imperial assignments62,571,605—————415,282,695========== £20,764,135Disbursements.Mks.Civil list5,402,475State debt51,323,200Ministry of the Royal house and of Foreign dept.688,398Ministry of Justice20,615,299Ministry of interior30,055,338Public worship and education34,667,673Minister of finance6,696,780Constribution to imperial exchequer72,647,090—————222,296,253========== £11,114,813

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

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

(P. A. A.)

History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henry I. of Lower Bavaria spent most of his time in quarrels with his brother, with Ottakar II. of Bohemia and with various ecclesiastics. When he died in February 1200 Lower Bavaria was ruled by his three sons, Otto III., LouisLower Bavaria.III. and Stephen I. Louis died childless in 1296; Stephen left two sons at his death in 1310, namely, Henry II. and Otto IV., and Otto, who was king of Hungary from 1305 to1308, died in 1312, leaving a son, Henry III. Lower Bavaria was governed by these three princes until 1333, when Henry III. died, followed in 1334 by his cousin Otto; and as both died without sons the whole of Lower Bavaria then passed to Henry II. Dying in 1339, Henry left an only son, John I., who died childlessReunion of the duchy.in the following year, when the emperor Louis IV., by securing Lower Bavaria for himself, united the whole of the duchy under his sway. The consolidation of Bavaria under Louis lasted for seven years, during which the emperor was able to improve the condition of the country. When he died in 1347 he left six sons to share his possessions, who agreed upon a division of Bavaria in 1349. Its history, however, was complicated by its connexion with Brandenburg, Holland and Tirol, all of which had also been left by the emperor to his sons. All the six brothers exercised some authority in Bavaria; but three alone left issue, and of these the eldest, Louis, margrave of Brandenburg, died in 1361; and two years later was followed to the grave by his only son Meinhard, who was childless. The two remaining brothers, Stephen II. and Albert I., ruled over Bavaria-Landshut and Bavaria-Straubing respectively, and when Stephen died in 1375 his portion of Bavaria was governed jointly by his three sons. In 1392, when all the lines except those of Stephen and Albert had died out, an important partition took place, by which the greater part of the duchy was divided among Stephen’s three sons, Stephen III., Frederick and John II., who founded respectively the lines of Ingolstadt, Landshut and Munich. Albert’s duchy of Bavaria-Straubing passed on his death in 1404 to his son William II., and in 1417 to his younger son John, who resigned the bishopric of Liége to take up his new position. When John died in 1425 this family became extinct, and after a contest between various claimants Bavaria-Straubing was divided between the three remaining branches of the family.

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

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

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

Back to Index Next