Chapter 15

See Nakko,History of Bessarabia, in Russian (1873).

(P. A. K.; J. T. Be.)

BESSARION, JOHANNES,orBasilius(c.1395-1472), titular patriarch of Constantinople, and one of the illustrious Greek scholars who contributed to the great revival of letters in the 15th century, was born at Trebizond, the year of his birth being variously given as 1389, 1395 or 1403. He was educated at Constantinople, and in 1423 went to the Peloponnese to hear Gemistus Pletho expound the philosophy of Plato. On entering the order of St Basil, he adopted the name of an old Egyptian anchorite Bessarion, whose story he has related. In 1437 he was made archbishop of Nicaea by John VII. Palacologus, whom he accompanied to Italy in order to bring about a union between the Greek and Latin churches with the object of obtaining help from the West against the Turks. The Greeks had bitterly resented his attachment to the party which saw no difficulty in a reconciliation of the two churches. At the councils held in Ferrara and Florence Bessarion supported the Roman church, and gained the favour of Pope Eugenius IV., who invested him with the rank of cardinal. From that time he resided permanently in Italy, doing much, by his patronage of learned men, by his collection of books and manuscripts, and by his own writings, to spread abroad the new learning. He held in succession the archbishopric of Siponto and the bishoprics of Sabina and Frascati. In 1463 he received the title of Latin patriarch of Constantinople; and it was only on account of his Greek birth that he was not elevated to the papal chair. For five years (1450-1455) he was legate at Bologna, and he was engaged on embassies to many foreign princes, among others to Louis XI. of France in 1471. Vexation at an insult offered him by Louis is said to have hastened his death, which took place on the 19thof November 1472, at Ravenna. Bessarion was one of the most learned scholars of his time. Besides his translations of Aristotle’sMetaphysicsand Xenophon’sMemorabilia, his most important work is a treatise directed against George of Trebizond, a violent Aristotelian, entitledIn Calumniatorem Platonis. Bessarion, though a Platonist, is not so thoroughgoing in his admiration as Gemistus Pletho, and rather strives after a reconciliation of the two philosophies. His work, by opening up the relations of Platonism to the main questions of religion, contributed greatly to the extension of speculative thought in the department of theology. His library, which contained a very extensive collection of Greek MSS., was presented by him to the senate of Venice, and formed the nucleus of the famous library of St Mark.

See A.M. Bandini,De Vita et Rebus Gestis Bessarionis(1777); H. Vast,Le Cardinal Bessarion(1878); E. Legrand,Bibliographie Hellénique(1885); G. Voigt,Die Wiederbelebung des klassischen Altertums, ii. (1893); on Bessarion at the councils of Ferrara and Florence, A. Sadov,Bessarion de Nicée(1883); on his philosophy, monograph by A. Kandelos (in Greek: Athens, 1888); most of his works are in Migne,Patrologia Graeca, clxi.

BESSBOROUGH, EARLS OF. The Ponsonby family, who have contributed many conspicuous men to Irish and English public life, trace their descent to Sir John Ponsonby (d. 1678), of Cumberland, a Commonwealth soldier who obtained land grants in Ireland. His son William (1657-1724) was created Baron Bessborough (1721) and Viscount Duncannon (1723), and the latter’s son Brabazon was raised to the earldom of Bessborough in 1739. He was the father not only of the 2nd earl (1704-1793), but of John Ponsonby (q.v.), speaker of the Irish House of Commons. The 2nd earl was a well-known Whig politician, who held various offices of state; and his son the 3rd earl (1758-1844) was father of the 4th earl (1781-1847), first commissioner of works in 1831-1834, lord privy seal from 1835 to 1839 and lord-lieutenant of Ireland in 1846. He was succeeded by his three sons, the 5th earl (d. 1880), 6th earl (1815-1895), a famous cricketer and chairman of the Bessborough commission (1881) to inquire into the Irish land system, and 7th earl (d. 1906), and the last named by his son the 8th earl.

BESSÈGES,a town of south-eastern France, in the department of Gard, on the Cèze, 20 m. north of Alais by rail. Pop. (1906) 7662. The town is important for its coal-mines, blast-furnaces and iron-works.

BESSEL, FRIEDRICH WILHELM(1784-1846), German astronomer, was born at Minden on the 22nd of July 1784. Placed at the age of fifteen in a counting-house at Bremen, he was impelled by his desire to obtain a situation as supercargo on a foreign voyage to study navigation, mathematics and finally astronomy. In 1804 he calculated the orbit of Halley’s comet from observations made in 1607 by Thomas Harriot, and communicated his results to H.W.M. Olbers, who procured their publication (Monatliche Correspondenz, x. 425), and recommended the young aspirant in 1805 for the post of assistant in J.H. Schröter’s observatory at Lilienthal. A masterly investigation of the comet of 1807 (Königsberg, 1810) enhanced his reputation, and the king of Prussia summoned him, in 1810, to superintend the erection of a new observatory at Königsberg, of which he acted as director from its completion in 1813 until his death. In this capacity he inaugurated the modern era of practical astronomy. For the purpose of improving knowledge of star-places he reduced James Bradley’s Greenwich observations, and derived from them an invaluable catalogue of 3222 stars, published in the volume rightly namedFundamenta Astronomiae(1818). InTabulae Regiomontanae(1830), he definitively established the uniform system of reduction still in use. During the years 1821-1833, he observed all stars to the ninth magnitude in zones extending from -15° to +45° dec., and thus raised the number of those accurately determined to about 50,000. He corrected the length of the seconds’ pendulum in 1826, in a discussion re-published by H. Bruns in 1889; measured an arc of the meridian in East Prussia in 1831-1832; and deduced for the earth in 1841 an ellipticity of1⁄299. His ascertainment in 1838 (Astr. Nach., Nos. 365-366) of a parallax of 0″.31 for 61 Cygni was the first authentic result of the kind published. He announced in 1844 the binary character of Sirius and Procyon from their disturbed proper motions; and was preparing to attack the problem solved later by the discovery of Neptune, when fatal illness intervened. He died at Königsberg on the 17th of March 1846. Modern astronomy of precision is essentially Bessel’s creation. Apart from the large scope of his activity, he introduced such important novelties as the effective use of the heliometer, the correction for personal equation (in 1823), and the systematic investigation of instrumental errors. He issued 21 volumes ofAstronomische Beobachtungen auf der Sternwarte zu Königsberg(1815-1844), and a list of his writings drawn up by A.L. Busch appeared in vol. 24 of the same series. Especial attention should be directed to hisAstronomische Untersuchungen(2 vols. 1841-1842),Populäre Vorlesungen(1848), edited by H.C. Schumacher, and to the important collection entitledAbhandlungen(4 vols. 1875-1882), issued by R. Engelmann at Leipzig. His minor treatises numbered over 350. In pure mathematics he enlarged the resources of analysis by the invention of Bessel’s Functions. He made some preliminary use of these expressions in 1817, in a paper on Kepler’s Problem (Transactions Berlin Academy, 1816-1817, p. 49), and fully developed them seven years later, for the purposes of a research into planetary perturbations (Ibid.1824, pp. 1-52).

See also H. Durège,Bessels Leben und Wirken(Zürich, 1861); J.F. Encke,Gedächtnissrede auf Bessel(Berlin, 1846); C.T. Anger,Erinnerung an Bessels Leben und Wirken(Danzig, 1845);Astronomische Nachrichten, xxiv. 49, 331 (1846);Monthly Notices Roy. Astr. Society, vii. 199 (1847);Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, ii. 558-567.

BESSEL FUNCTION,a certain mathematical relation between two variables. TheBessel function of order msatisfies the differential equation

and may be expressed as the series

the function ofzero orderis deduced by making m = 0, and is equivalent to the series 1 − ρ²/2² + ρ4/2²·4², &c. O. Schlömilch defines these functions as the coefficients of the power of t in the expansion of exp ½ρ(t − t−1). The symbol generally adopted to represent these functions is Jm(ρ) where m denotes the order of the function. These functions are named after Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel, who in 1817 introduced them in an investigation on Kepler’s Problem. He discussed their properties and constructed tables for their evaluation. Although Bessel was the first to systematically treat of these functions, it is to be noted that in 1732 Daniel Bernoulli obtained the function of zero order as a solution to the problem of the oscillations of a chain suspended at one end. This problem has been more fully discussed by Sir A.G. Greenhill. In 1764 Leonhard Euler employed the functions of both zero and integral orders in an analysis into the vibrations of a stretched membrane; an investigation which has been considerably developed by Lord Rayleigh, who has also shown (1878) that Bessel’s functions are particular cases of Laplace’s functions. There is hardly a branch of mathematical physics which is independent of these functions. Of the many applications we may notice:—Joseph Fourier’s (1824) investigation of the motion of heat in a solid cylinder, a problem which, with the related one of the flow of electricity, has been developed by W.E. Weber, G.F. Riemann and S.D. Poisson; the flow of electromagnetic waves along wires (Sir J.J. Thomson, H. Hertz, O. Heaviside); the diffraction of light (E. Lömmel, Lord Rayleigh, Georg Wilhelm Struve); the theory of elasticity (A.E. Love, H. Lamb, C. Chree, Lord Rayleigh); and to hydrodynamics (Lord Kelvin, Sir G. Stokes).

The remarkable connexion between Bessel’s functions and spherical harmonics was established in 1868 by F.G. Mehler, who proved that a simple relation existed between the function of zero order and the zonal harmonic of ordern. Heinrich Eduard Heine has shown that the functions of higher orders may be considered as limiting values of the associated functions;this relation was discussed independently, in 1878, by Lord Rayleigh.

For the mathematical investigation seeSpherical Harmonicsand for tables seeTable, Mathematical.

See A. Gray and G.B. Matthews,Treatise on Bessel’s Functions(1895);Encyclopädie der math. Wissenschaften; F.W. Bessel,Untersuchung des Teils der planetarischen Störungen(1824).

BESSEMER, SIR HENRY(1813-1898), English engineer, was born on the 19th of January 1813, at Charlton, in Hertfordshire. Throughout his life he was a prolific inventor, but his name is chiefly known in connexion with the Bessemer process for the manufacture of steel, by which it has been rendered famous throughout the civilized world. Though this process is now largely supplemented, and even displaced, by various rivals, at the time it was brought out it was of enormous industrial importance, since it effected a great cheapening in the price of steel, and led to that material being widely substituted for others which were inferior in almost every respect but that of cost. Bessemer’s attention was drawn to the problem of steel manufacture in the course of an attempt to improve the construction of guns. Coming to the conclusion that if any advance was to be made in artillery better metal must be available, he established a small iron-works in St Pancras, and began a series of experiments. These he carried on for two years before he evolved the essential idea of his process, which is the decarbonization of cast iron by forcing a blast of air through the mass of metal when in the molten condition. The first public announcement of the process was made at the Cheltenham meeting of the British Association in 1856, and immediately attracted considerable notice. Many metallurgists were sceptical on theoretical grounds about his results, and only became convinced when they saw that his process was really able to convert melted cast iron into malleable iron in a perfectly fluid state. But though five firms applied without delay for licences to work under his patents, success did not at once attend his efforts; indeed, after several ironmasters had put the process to practical trial and failed to get good results, it was in danger of being thrust aside and entirely forgotten. Its author, however, instead of being discouraged by this lack of success, continued his experiments, and in two years was able to turn out a product, the quality of which was not inferior to that yielded by the older methods. But when he now tried to induce makers to take up his improved system, he met with general rebuffs, and finally was driven to undertake the exploitation of the process himself. To this end he erected steelworks in Sheffield, on ground purchased with the help of friends, and began to manufacture steel. At first the output was insignificant, but gradually the magnitude of the operations was enlarged until the competition became effective, and steel traders generally became aware that the firm of Henry Bessemer & Co. was underselling them to the extent of £20 a ton. This argument to the pocket quickly had its effect, and licences were applied for in such numbers that, in royalties for the use of his process, Bessemer received a sum in all considerably exceeding a million sterling.

Of course, patents of such obvious value did not escape criticism, and invalidity was freely urged against them on various grounds. But Bessemer was fortunate enough to maintain them intact without litigation, though he found it advisable to buy up the rights of one patentee, while in another case he was freed from anxiety by the patent being allowed to lapse in 1859 through non-payment of fees. At the outset he had found great difficulty in making steel by his process—in his first licences to the trade iron alone was mentioned. Experiments he made with South Wales iron were failures because the product was devoid of malleability; Mr Göransson, a Swedish ironmaster, using the purer charcoal pig iron of that country, was the first to make good steel by the process, and even he was successful only after many attempts. His results prompted Bessemer to try the purer iron obtained from Cumberland haematite, but even with this he did not meet with much success, until Robert Mushet showed that the addition of a certain quantity of spiegeleisen had the effect of removing the difficulties. Whether or not Mushet’s patents could have been sustained, the value of his procedure was shown by its general adoption in conjunction with the Bessemer method of conversion. At the same time it is only fair to say that whatever may have been the conveniences of Mushet’s plan, it was not absolutely essential; this Bessemer proved in 1865, by exhibiting a series of samples of steel made by his own process alone. The pecuniary rewards of Bessemer’s great invention came to him with comparative quickness; but it was not till 1879 that the Royal Society admitted him as a fellow and the government honoured him with a knighthood. Bessemer died at Denmark Hill, London, on the 15th of March 1898.

Among Bessemer’s numerous other inventions, not one of which attained a tithe of the success or importance of the steel process, were movable dies for embossed stamps, a gold paint, sugar machinery, and a ship which was to save her passengers from the miseries ofmal de mer. This last had her saloon mounted in such a way as to be free to swing relatively to the boat herself, and the idea was that this saloon should always be maintained steady and level, no matter how rough the sea. For this purpose hydraulic mechanism of Bessemer’s design was arranged under the control of an attendant, whose duty it was to keep watch on a spirit-level, and counteract by proper manipulation of the apparatus any deviation from the horizontal that might manifest itself on the floor of the saloon owing to the rolling of the vessel. A boat, called the “Bessemer,” was built on this plan in 1875 and put on the cross-Channel service to Calais, but the mechanism of the swinging saloon was not found effective in practice and was ultimately removed.

AnAutobiographywas published in 1905.

BESSEMER,a town of Jefferson county, Alabama, U.S.A., about 12 m. S.W. of Birmingham, a little N. of the centre of the state. Pop. (1890) 4544; (1900) 6538, including 3695 negroes; (1910) 10,864. The town is served by the Alabama Great Southern (Queen & Crescent route), the Louisville & Nashville, the Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham (St Louis & San Francisco system), the Birmingham Southern, and the Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic railways. Bessemer is situated in the midst of the iron ore and limestone district of Alabama, in the south part of Jones’ Valley (about 3 m. wide.); to the east is the Red Ore mountain range, rich in red haematite; to the north-west are the Warrior coalfields; to the south-west, south and south-east are immense fossiliferous iron ore seams and the Cahaba coalfields; in the immediate vicinity of the city are limestone quarries, and about 18 m. north-east are the limestone kilns of Gate City. Mining, iron smelting and the manufacture of iron and coke are the chief industries of Bessemer; truck farming is also an important industry. In 1900 Bessemer was the eighth city of the state in population, second in amount of capital invested in manufacturing, and fourth in the value of its manufactured product for the year. Bessemer was laid out in 1887, and was incorporated in 1889.

BESSIÈRES, JEAN BAPTISTE,duke of Istria (1768-1813), French marshal, was born near Cahors in 1768. He served for a short time in the “Constitutional Guard” of Louis XVI. and as a non-commissioned officer took part in the war against Spain. In the Army of the Eastern Pyrenees and in the Army of the Moselle he repeatedly distinguished himself for valour, and in 1796, as captain, he served in Bonaparte’s Italian campaign. At Roveredo his conduct brought him to his chief’s notice, and after Rivoli he was sent to France to deliver the captured colours to the Directory. Hastening back to the front, he accompanied Napoleon in the invasion of Styria in command of the “Guides,” who formed the nucleus of the later Consular and Imperial Guard. Aschef de brigadehe next served in the Egyptian expedition, and won further distinction at Acre and Aboukir. Returning to Europe with Napoleon, he was present at Marengo (1800) as second-in-command of the Consular Guard, and led a brilliant and successful cavalry charge at the close of the day, though its effect on the battle was not as decisive as Napoleon pretended. Promoted general of division in 1802 and marshal of France in 1804, he made the most famouscampaigns of the Grande Armée as colonel-general of the Guard Cavalry (1805, 1806, 1807). In 1805 he had received the Grand Eagle of the Legion of Honour, and in 1800 was created duke of Istria. With the outbreak of the Peninsular War, Marshal Bessières had his first opportunity of an independent command, and his crushing victory over the Spaniards at Medina del Rio Seco (1808) justified Napoleon’s choice. When disaster in other parts of the theatre of war called Napoleon himself to the Peninsula, Bessières continued to give the emperor the very greatest assistance in his campaign. In 1809 he was again with theGrande Arméein the Danube valley. At Essling his repeated and desperate charges checked the Austrians in the full tide of their success. At Wagram he had a horse killed under him. Replacing Bernadotte in the command of the Army of the North, a little later in the same year, the newly-created duke of Istria successfully opposed the British Walcheren expedition, and in 1811 he was back again, in a still more important command, in Spain. As Masséna’s second-in-command he was present at the battle of Fuentes d’Onoro, but Napoleon never detached him for very long, and in 1812 he commanded the Guard Cavalry at Borodino and in the retreat from Moscow. Wherever engaged he won further distinction, and at the beginning of the 1813 campaign he was appointed to the command of the whole of Napoleon’s cavalry. Three days after the opening of the campaign, while reconnoitring the defile of Poserna-Rippach, Bessières was killed by a musket-ball. Napoleon, who deeply felt the loss of one of his truest friends and ablest commanders, protected his children, and his eldest son was made a member of the Chamber of Peers by Louis XVIII. As a commander, especially of cavalry, Bessières left a reputation excelled by very few of Napoleon’s marshals, and his dauntless courage and cool judgment made him a safe leader in independent command. He was personally beloved to an extraordinary extent amongst his soldiers, and (unlike most of the French generals of the time) amongst his opponents. It is said that masses were performed for his soul by the priests of insurgent Spain, and the king of Saxony raised a monument to his memory.

His younger brother,Bertrand, Baron Bessières(1773-1855), was a distinguished divisional leader under Napoleon. After serving with a good record in Italy, in Egypt and at Hohenlinden, he had a command in theGrande Armée, and in 1808 was sent to Spain. He commanded a division in Catalonia and played a notable part at the action of Molins de Rey near Barcelona. Disagreements with his superior, General Duhesme, led to his resignation, but he subsequently served with Napoleon in all the later campaigns of the empire. Placed on the retired list by the Bourbons, his last public act was his defence of the unfortunate Ney. The rest of his long life was spent in retirement.

BESSUS,satrap of Bactria and Sogdiana under Darius III. In the battle of Gaugamela (1st of October 331) he commanded the troops of his satrapy. When Alexander pursued the Persian king on his flight to the East (summer 330), Bessus with some of the other conspirators deposed Darius and shortly afterwards killed him. He then tried to organize a national resistance against the Macedonian conqueror in the eastern provinces, proclaimed himself king and adopted the name Artaxerxes. But he was taken prisoner by treachery in the summer of 329. Alexander sent him to Ecbatana, where he was condemned to death. Before his execution his nose and ears were cut off, according to the Persian custom; we learn from the Behistun inscription that Darius I. punished the usurpers in the same way.

BEST, WILLIAM THOMAS(1826-1897), English organist, the son of a solicitor, was born at Carlisle on the 13th of August 1826. Having decided upon a musical career, he received his first instruction from the cathedral organist. He applied himself especially to Bach’s music, and became a player of great skill. His successive appointments were to Pembroke chapel, Liverpool, 1840; to a church for the blind, 1847, and the Liverpool Philharmonic Society, 1848. For a short time (1854-1855) he was in London at the Panopticon in Leicester Square, the church of St Martin-in-the-Fields, and Lincoln’s Inn chapel. In 1855 he returned to Liverpool as organist of St George’s Hall, where his performances rapidly became famous throughout England. Ill-health compelled him at last to retire in 1894. He was engaged as solo organist at all the Handel festivals at the Crystal Palace, and also as organist at the Albert Hall, where he inaugurated the great organ in 1871. He had been in the receipt of a civil list pension of £100 a year since 1880, and in 1890 went to Australia to give organ recitals in the town hall of Sydney. Best died at Liverpool on the 10th of May 1897.

His command over all the resources of his own instrument was masterly; his series of Saturday recitals at St George’s Hall, carried on for many years, included the whole field of organ music, and of music that could be arranged for the organ, ancient and modern; and his performances of Bach’s organ works were particularly fine. His own compositions for the organ, chiefly comprised in the publication entitledOrgan Pieces for Church Use, have a strong and marked individuality. Best, unlike many soloists, was an all-round musician, and fully acquainted with every branch of the art. His bust, by Conrad Dressler, has been placed on the platform in front of the Liverpool organ, as a memorial of his long series of performances there.

BESTIA,the name of a family in ancient Rome, of which the following were the most distinguished.

1.Lucius Calpurnius Bestia, Roman tribune of the people in 121B.C., consul in 111. Having been appointed to the command of the operations against Jugurtha, he at first carried on the campaign energetically, but soon, having been heavily bribed, concluded a disgraceful peace. On his return to Rome he was brought to trial for his conduct and condemned, in spite of the efforts of Marcus Scaurus who, though formerly his legate and equally guilty, was one of the judges. He is probably identical with the Bestia who encouraged the Italians in their revolt, and went into exile (90) to avoid punishment under the law of Q. Varius, whereby those who had secretly or openly aided the Italian allies against Rome were to be brought to trial (Appian,Bell. Civ.i. 37; Val. Max. viii. 6. 4). Both Cicero and Sallust express a high opinion of Bestia’s abilities, but his love of money demoralized him. He is mentioned in a Carthaginian inscription as one of a board of three, perhaps an agricultural commission.

See Sallust,Jugurtha; Cicero,Brutus, xxxiv. 128; for the general history, A.H.J. Greenidge,Hist. of Rome, vol. i. (1904), pp. 346 foll.

2.Lucius Calpurnius Bestia, one of the Catilinarian conspirators, possibly a grandson of the above. He was tribune elect in 63, and it had been arranged that, after entering upon his office, he should publicly accuse Cicero of responsibility for the impending war. This was to be the signal for the outbreak of revolution. The conspiracy, however, was put down and Bestia had to content himself with delivering a violent attack upon the consul on the expiration of his office. This Bestia is probably not the Lucius Calpurnius Bestia, aedile, and a candidate for the praetorship in 57. He was accused of bribery during his candidature, and, in spite of Cicero’s defence, was condemned. In 43 he attached himself to the party of Antony, apparently in the hope of obtaining the consulship.

Sallust,Catiline, xvii. 43; Appian,Bell. Civ.ii. 3; Cicero,Ad Q. Fr.ii. 3, 6.

BESTUZHEV-RYUMIN, ALEXIUS PETROVICH,Count(1693-1768), grand chancellor of Russia, the second son of Count Peter Bestuzhev, the early favourite of the empress Anne, was born at Moscow on the 1st of June 1693. Educated abroad, with his elder brother Mikhail, at Copenhagen and Berlin, he especially distinguished himself in languages and the applied sciences. Peter the Great, in 1712, attached him to Prince Kurakin at the Utrecht Congress that he might learn diplomacy, and for the same reason permitted him in 1713 to enter the service of the elector of Hanover. George I. took him to London in 1714, and sent him to St Petersburg as his accredited minister with a notification of his accession. Bestuzhev then returned to England, where he remained four years. It was the necessary apprenticeship to his brilliant diplomatic career. His passion for intrigue is curiously illustrated by his letter to the tsarevichAlexius at Vienna, assuring his “future sovereign” of his devotion, and representing his sojourn in England as a deliberate seclusion of a zealous but powerless well-wisher. This extraordinary indiscretion might well have cost him his life, but the tsarevich fortunately destroyed the letter.1On his return to Russia he served for two years without any salary as chief gentleman of the Bedchamber at the court of Anne of Courland, and in 1721 succeeded Vasily Dolgoruki as Russian minister at Copenhagen. Copenhagen was then a whirlpool of diplomatic intrigue, for George I. was endeavouring to arm the northern powers against Peter the Great, and this it was Bestuzhev’s mission to counteract. On the occasion of the peace of Nystad, which terminated the 21 years war between Russia and Sweden, Bestuzhev designed and struck a commemorative medal with a panegyrical Latin inscription, which so delighted Peter (then at Derbent) that he sent a letter of thanks written with his own hand and his portrait set in brilliants. It was at this time too that the many-sided Alexius invented his famous “drops,” ortinctura toniconervina Bestuscheffi, the recipe of which was stolen by the French brigadier Lamotte, who made his fortune by introducing it at the French court, where it was known asÉlixir d’Or.

The sudden death of Peter the Great seriously injured Bestuzhev’s prospects. For more than ten years he remained at Copenhagen, looking vainly towards Russia as a sort of promised land from which he was excluded by enemies or rivals. He rendered some important services, however, to the empress Anne, for which he was decorated and made a privy councillor. He also won the favour of Biren, and on the tragic fall of Artemy Voluinsky in 1739 was summoned home to take his place in the council. He assisted Biren to obtain the regency in the last days of the empress Anne, but when his patron fell three weeks later, his own position became extremely precarious. His chance came when the empress Elizabeth, immediately after her accession, summoned him back to court, and appointed him vice-chancellor. For the next twenty years, during a period of exceptional difficulty, he practically controlled the foreign policy of Russia. Bestuzhev rightly recognized that, at this time, France was the natural enemy of Russia. The interests of the two states in Turkey, Poland and Sweden were diametrically opposed, and Russia could never hope to be safe from the intrigues of France in these three borderlands. All the enemies of France were thus necessarily the friends of Russia, and her friends Russia’s enemies. Consequently Great Britain, and still more Austria, were Russia’s natural allies, while the aggressive and energetic king of Prussia was a danger to be guarded against. It was, therefore, the policy of Bestuzhev to bring about a quadruple alliance between Russia, Austria, Great Britain and Saxony, to counterpoise the Franco-Prussian league. But he was on dangerous ground. The empress herself was averse from an alliance with Great Britain and Austria, whose representatives had striven to prevent her accession; and many of her personal friends, in the pay of France and Prussia, took part in innumerable conspiracies to overthrow Bestuzhev. Nevertheless, step by step, Bestuzhev, aided by his elder brother Mikhail, carried out his policy. On the 11th of December 1742, a defensive alliance was concluded between Great Britain and Russia. Bestuzhev had previously rejected with scorn the proposals of the French government to mediate between Russia and Sweden on the basis of a territorial surrender on the part of the former; and he conducted the war so vigorously that by the end of 1742 Sweden lay at the mercy of the empress. At the peace congress of Åbo (January-August 1743) he insisted that the whole of Finland should be ceded to Russia, by way of completing the testament of Peter the Great. But the French party contrived to get better terms for Sweden, by artfully appealing to the empress’s fondness for the house of Holstein. The Swedes, at the desire of Elizabeth, accepted Adolphus Frederick, duke of Holstein, as their future king, and, in return, received back Finland, with the exception of a small strip of land up to the river Kymmene. Nor could Bestuzhev prevent the signing of a Russo-Prussian defensive alliance (March 1743); but he deprived it of all political significance by excluding from it the proposed guarantee of Frederick’s Silesian conquests. Moreover, through Bestuzhev’s efforts, the credit of the Prussian king (whom he rightly regarded as more dangerous than France) at the Russian court fell steadily, and the vice-chancellor prepared the way for an alliance with Austria by acceding to the treaty of Breslau (1st of November 1743). A bogus conspiracy, however, got up by the Holstein faction, aided by France and Prussia, who persuaded Elizabeth that the Austrian ambassador was intriguing to replace Ivan VI. on the throne, alienated the empress from Austria for a time; and Bestuzhev’s ruin was regarded as certain when, in 1743, the French agent, the marquis de La Chétardie, arrived to reinforce his other enemies. But he found a friend in need in M.L. Vorontsov, the empress’s confidant, who shared his political views. Still his position was most delicate, especially when the betrothal between the grand-duke Peter and Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst (afterwards Catharine II.) was carried through against his will, and Elizabeth of Holstein, the mother of the bride, arrived in the Prussian interests to spy upon him. Frederick II., conscious of the instability of his French ally, was now eager to contract an offensive alliance with Russia; and the first step to its realization was the overthrow of Bestuzhev, “upon whom,” he wrote to his minister Axel von Mardefeld, “the fate of Prussia and my own house depends.” But Bestuzhev succeeded, at last, in convincing the empress that Chétardie was an impudent intriguer, and on the 6th of June 1744, that diplomatist was ordered to quit Russia within twenty-four hours. Five weeks later Bestuzhev was made grand chancellor (July 15th). Before the end of the year Elizabeth of Holstein was also expelled from Russia, and Bestuzhev was supreme.

The attention of European diplomacy at this time was concentrated upon the king of Prussia, whose insatiable acquisitiveness disturbed all his neighbours. Bestuzhev’s offer, communicated to the British government at the end of 1745, to attack Prussia if Great Britain would guarantee subsidies to the amount of some £6,000,000, was rejected as useless now that Austria and Prussia were coming to terms. Then he turned to Austria, and on the 22nd of May 1746, an offensive and defensive alliance was concluded between the two powers manifestly directed against Prussia. In 1747, alliances were also concluded with Denmark and the Porte. At the same time Bestuzhev resisted any rapprochement with France, and severely rebuked the court of Saxony for its intrigues with that of Versailles. About this time he was hampered by the persistent opposition of the vice-chancellor Mikhail Vorontsov, formerly his friend, now his jealous rival, who was secretly supported by Frederick the Great. In 1748, however, he got rid of him by proving to the empress that Vorontsov was in the pay of Prussia. The hour of Bestuzhev’s triumph coincided with the peace congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, which altered the whole situation of European politics and introduced fresh combinations, the breaking away of Prussia from France and a rapprochement between England and Prussia, with the inevitable corollary of an alliance between France and the enemies of Prussia. Bestuzhev’s violent political prejudices at first prevented him from properly recognizing this change. Passion had always been too large an ingredient in his diplomacy. His Anglomania also misled him. His enemies, headed by his elder brother Mikhail and the vice-chancellor Vorontsov, powerless while his diplomacy was faultless, quickly took advantage of his mistakes. When, on the 16th of January 1756, the Anglo-Prussian, and on the 2nd of May the Franco-Austrian alliances were concluded, Vorontsov advocated the accession of Russia to the latter league, whereas Bestuzhev insisted on a subsidy treaty with Great Britain. But his influence was now on the wane. The totally unexpected Anglo-Prussian alliance had justified the arguments of his enemies that England was impossible, while his hatred of France prevented him from adopting the only alternative of an alliance with her. To preventundergroundintrigues, Bestuzhev now proposed the erection of a council of ministers, to settle all importantaffairs, and at its first session (14th-30th of March) an alliance with Austria, France and Poland against Frederick II. was proposed, though Bestuzhev opposed any composition with France. He endeavoured to support his failing credit by a secret alliance with the grand-duchess Catherine, whom he proposed to raise to the throne instead of her Holstein husband, Peter, from whom Bestuzhev expected nothing good either for himself or for Russia. The negotiations were conducted through the Pole Stanislaus Poniatowski. The accession of Russia to the anti-Prussian coalition (1756) was made over his head, and the cowardice and incapacity of Bestuzhev’s friend, the Russian commander-in-chief, Stephen Apraksin, after the battle of Gross-Jagersdorf (1757), was made the pretext for overthrowing the chancellor. His unwillingness to agree to the coalition was magnified into a determination to defeat it, though it is quite obvious that he could only gain by the humiliation of Frederick, and nothing was ever proved against him. Nevertheless he was deprived of the chancellorship and banished to his estate at Goretovo (April 1759), where he remained till the accession of Catharine II., who recalled him to court and created him a field marshal. But he took no leading part in affairs and died on the 21st of April 1768, the last of his race.

SeeThe Sbornik of the Russian Historical Society, vols. 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, 22, 26, 66, 79, 80, 81, 85-86, 91-92, 96, 99, 100, 103 (St Petersburg, 1870, &c.);Politische Correspondenz Friedrichs des Grossen, vols. 1-21 (Berlin, 1879-1904.); R. Nisbet Bain,The Daughter of Peter the Great(London, 1899).

(R. N. B.)

1A copy of the letter was taken by way of precaution, beforehand, by the Austrian ministers, and this copy is still in the Vienna archives.

BESTUZHEV-RYUMIN, MIKHAIL PETROVICH,Count(1688-1760), Russian diplomatist, elder brother of the foregoing, was educated at Berlin, and was sent by Peter the Great to represent Russia at Copenhagen in 1705. In 1720 he was appointed resident at London at a time when the English court was greatly inflamed against Peter, who was regarded as a dangerous rival in the Baltic; and Bestuzhev was summarily dismissed for protesting against the lately-formed Anglo-Swedish alliance. On the conclusion of the peace of Nystad in 1721 he was sent as ambassador to the court of Stockholm. His first official act was the signing of a defensive alliance between Russia and Sweden for twelve years, in 1724. He was successively transferred to Warsaw (1726) and to Berlin (1730), but returned to Stockholm in 1732. How far Bestuzhev was concerned in the murder (June 28th, 1739) of the Swedish diplomatic agent Sinclair in Silesia on his journey home from Constantinople, it is difficult to say. It is certain that Bestuzhev sent information to his court of Sinclair’s mission, which was supposed to be hostile to Russia, and even supplied the portrait of the envoy for recognition. The Swedish authorities are unanimous in describing Bestuzhev as the arch-plotter in this miserable affair; yet, while the active agents were banished to Siberia, Bestuzhev was not even censured. The Sinclair murder led ultimately to the Swedish-Russian War of 1741, when Bestuzhev was transferred first to Hamburg and subsequently to Hanover, where he endeavoured to conclude an alliance between Great Britain and Russia. On his return to Russia in 1743, he was made grand marshal, and married Anna, the widow of Paul Yaguzhinsky, Peter the Great’s famous pupil. A few months later his wife was implicated in a bogus conspiracy got up by the French ambassador, the marquis de La Chétardie, to ruin the Bestuzhevs (seeBestuzhev-Ryumin, Alexius), and after a public whipping, had her tongue cut out and was banished to Siberia. Thither Bestuzhev had not the manhood to follow her, but went abroad, and subsequently resumed his diplomatic career. His last and most brilliant mission was to Versailles, shortly after the conclusion of the coalition against Frederick the Great, where he cut a great figure. He died at Paris on the 26th of February 1760.

See Robert Nisbet Bain,The Daughter of Peter the Great(London, 1899); Mikhail Sergyievich,History of Russia(Rus.), vols. xv.-xxii. (2nd ed., St Petersburg, 1897).

(R. N. B.)

BETandBETTING(probably from O. Fr.abeter, to instigate, Eng. “abet,”i.e.with money). To “bet” is to stake money or something valuable on some future contingency. Betting in some form or other has been in vogue from the earliest days, commencing in the East with royal and noble gamblers, and gradually extending itself westwards and throughout all classes. In all countries where the English tongue is spoken betting is now largely indulged in; and in the United Kingdom it spread to such an extent amongst all grades of society, during the 19th century, that the interference of the legislature was necessary (seeGaming and Wagering). Bets can, of course, be made on any subject, and are a common method of backing one’s opinion or skill, whether at games of cards or in any other connexion; but the commonest form of betting is associated with the turf. In the early days of horse-racing persons who wished to bet often failed to gratify their inclination because of the difficulty of finding any one ready to wager. To obviate this difficulty the professional bookmaker arose. It was perceived that if a man laid money against a number of horses, conducting his business on discreet principles, he would in all probability receive enough to pay the bettor who was successful and to leave a surplus for himself; for the “bookmaker,” as the professional betting man came to be called, had enormous advantages in his favour. He was presumably shrewd and wary, whereas many of those with whom he dealt were precisely the opposite, and benefit arose to him from the mistakes and miscalculations of owners and trainers of horses, and from the innumerable accidents which occur to prevent anticipated success; moreover, if he carried out the theory of his calling he would so arrange his book, by what is called “betting to figures,” that the money he received would be more than he could possibly be called upon to pay. In practice, of course, this often does not happen, because “backers” will sometimes support two or three horses in a race only, and the success of one may result in loss to the bookmaker; but in the long run it has been almost invariably found that the bookmaker grows rich and that the backer of horses loses money. It is the bookmaker who regulates the odds, and this he does, sometimes by anticipating, sometimes by noting, the desire of backers to support certain animals. Such things as stable secrets can scarcely be said to exist at the present time; the bookmaker is usually as well able as any one else to estimate the chances of the various horses engaged in races. Notwithstanding that the reports of a trial gallop are of comparatively little value to any except the few persons who know what weights the animals carried when tried, the bookmaker is extraordinarily keen, and frequently successful, in his search for information; and on this the odds depend.

Betting in connexion with horse-racing is of two kinds: “post,” when wagering does not begin until the numbers of the runners are hoisted on the board; and “ante-post,” when wagering opens weeks or months before the event; though of this latter there is far less than was formerly the case, doubtless for the reason that before the introduction of so many new and valuable stakes attention was generally concentrated on a comparatively small number of races. Bets on the Derby, the Oaks and the St Leger were formerly common nearly a year before the running of the races, and a few handicaps, such as the Chester Cup, used to occupy attention months beforehand; the weights, of course, being published at a much longer interval prior to the contest than is at present the rule. As regards ante-post betting, bookmakers have their own ideas as to the relative prospects of the horses entered. A person who wishes to back a horse asks the price, and accepts or declines, as the case may be. If the bet is laid it will probably be quoted in the newspapers, and other persons who propose to wager on the race are so likely to follow suit that it is shrewdly suspected that in not a few cases bets are quoted which never have been laid, in order to induce the backers to speculate. According to the public demand for a horse the price shortens. If there is little or no demand the odds increase, the market being almost entirely regulated by the money; so that if a great many people bet on a certain animal the odds become shorter and shorter, till in many cases instead of laying odds against a horse, the bookmaker comes to take odds, that is, to agree to pay a smaller sum than he would receive from the backer if the animal lost. Post betting is conducted on very much the same principles. When the numbers arehoisted bookmakers proclaim their readiness to lay or take certain odds, which vary according to the demand for the different animals. Backers are influenced by many considerations: by gossip, by the opinions of writers on racing, and in many cases, unfortunately, by the advice of “tipsters,” who by advertisements and circulars profess their ability to indicate winners, a pretence which is obviously absurd, as if these men possessed the knowledge they claim, they would assuredly keep it to themselves and utilize it for their own private purposes.

The specious promises of such men do infinite mischief, as they so often appeal with success to the folly and gullibility of the ignorant, and in recent years the extent to which betting has grown has resulted in attempts to check it by organized means. A society for the purpose was formed in England called the Anti-Gambling League. A bookmaker named Dunn was summoned in 1897 for betting in Tattersall’s enclosure, which it was contended contravened the Betting House Act of 1853. This act had been aimed against what were known as “list houses,” establishments then kept by bookmakers for betting purposes, and associated with many disgraceful scandals. In the preamble to his bill Lord Cockburn began by remarking that “Whereas a new form of betting has of late sprung up,” and the Anti-Gambling League sought to argue that this included a form of betting which had not sprung up of late but had on the contrary been carried on without interference for many generations. The divisional court of the queen’s bench (Hawkev.Dunn, 13 T.L.R. 281) held that such betting was an infringement of the act, and that the enclosure was a “place” within the meaning of the act, and had been used by the respondent for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto, and that he was liable to be Convicted. The case was remitted to the justices, who convicted the defendant. A somewhat similar case was decided on the same day (M‘Inanyv.Hildreth, 1897, 13 T.L.R. 285), in which it was held that a professional bookmaker who went to a place known as the “pit heap” at Jarrow, to which the public had access at all times, and made bets with persons assembled there, was properly convicted, and that the “pit heap” itself and the place where he stood were “places” within the meaning of the act. It was afterwards held by the court of appeal (Powellv.Kempton Park Racecourse Co., Ltd., 1897, 2 Q.B. 242), in an action brought to restrain a racecourse company from opening or keeping an enclosure on a racecourse by allowing it to be used by bookmakers, that the words “other place” must be construed as meaning a defined place, that the user of such a place implied some exclusive right in the user against others, and that the racecourse owners had not been guilty of permitting the enclosure to be used in the manner prohibited by the act of 1853. The decision inHawkev.Dunnwas disapproved of; and the House of Lords afterwards affirmed the decision of the court of appeal.

The Street Betting Act 1906 enacted that any person frequenting or loitering in streets or public places for the purpose of bookmaking, or betting, or wagering, should be liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, in the case of a second offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a third or subsequent offence, or in any case where he is proved to have committed the offence of having a betting transaction with a person under the age of sixteen years, to a fine, on conviction on indictment, not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months. On summary conviction the fine is a sum not exceeding thirty pounds or imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months. A wide definition is given to the words “street” and “public place,” and racecourses are expressly exempted from the operation of the act.

On all French racecourses (since 1866), as on others nearly everywhere else on the continent, and likewise in the British colonies, a system of betting known as thePari-Mutuelor Totalizator, is carried on. Rows of offices are established behind or near the stands, on each of which lists are exhibited containing the numbers of the horses that are to run in the coming race. At some of these the minimum wager is five francs, at others ten, twenty, fifty, one hundred, five hundred and in some cases a thousand. The person who proposes to bet goes to the clerk at one of these offices, mentions the number, as indicated on the card, of the horse he wishes to back, and states whether he desires to bet on it to win or for a place only. He receives a voucher for his money. After the race the whole amount collected at the various offices is put together and divided after a percentage has been deducted for the administration and for the poor. As soon as this has been done, the money is divided and the prices to be paid to winners are exhibited on boards. These prices are calculated on a unit of ten francs. Thus, for instance, if the winner is notified as bringing in twenty-five francs, the meaning is that the backer receives his original stake of ten and fifteen in addition, the money being paid immediately by another clerk attached to the office at which the bet was made. The great French municipalities derive considerable revenue in relief of rates from theParis Mutuels. In Japan this system was made illegal in 1908.

BETAÏNE(Oxyneurine, Lycine), C5H13NO3, a substance discovered in the sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) in 1869 by C. Scheibler (Ber., 1869, 2, p. 292). It is also found in cotton seed, in the vetch and in wheat sprouts (E. Schulz and S. Frankfurt,Ber., 1893, 26, p. 2151). It may be synthetically prepared by oxidizing choline with chromic acid (O. Liebreich,Ber., 1869, 2, 13), (CH3)3N(OH)·CH2·CH2OH → C5H13NO3+ H2O; by heating trimethylamine with monochloracetic acid (Liebreich), (CH3)3N + CH2Cl·COOH = (CH3)3N(Cl)·CH2·COOH (betaïne hydrochloride); and by heating amino-acetic acid (glycocoll) with methyl iodide in the presence of an alkali (P. Griess,Ber., 1875, 8, p. 1406). It crystallizes from alcohol in large deliquescent crystals; and is readily soluble in water, but insoluble in ether. It is a weak base. As is shown by the various syntheses of the base, it is the methyl hydroxide of dimethyl glycocoll. This free base readily loses water on heating and gives an internal anhydride of constitutionwhich is the type of the so-called “betaïnes.” These organic betaïnes are internal anhydrides of carboxylic acids, which contain an ammonium hydroxide group in the α-position. A. Hantzsch (Ber., 1886, 19, p. 31) prepared the betaïnes of nicotinic, picolinic and collidine carboxylic acids from the potassium salts of the acids, by treatment with methyl iodide, followed by moist silver oxide. The reaction may be shown as follows:—

Back to Index Next