Chapter 6

A selection of his papers was published by F. Colincamp,Critique littéraire sous le premier Empire(1863), vol. i. of which contains a complete list of his works, and a “Notice Historique sur Monsieur B.,” by Naudet.

BOISSY D’ANGLAS, FRANÇOIS ANTOINE DE(1756-1828), French statesman, received a careful education and busied himself at first with literature. He had been a member of several provincial academies before coming to Paris, where he purchased a position as advocate to the parlement. In 1789 he was elected by the third estate of thesénéchausséeof Annonay as deputy to the states-general. He was one of those who induced the states-general to proclaim itself a National Assembly on the 17th of June 1789; approved, in several speeches, of the capture of the Bastille and of the taking of the royal family to Paris (October 1789); demanded that strict measures be taken against the royalists who were intriguing in the south of France, and published some pamphlets on finance. During the Legislative Assembly he wasprocureur-syndicfor the directory of the department of Ardeche. Elected to the Convention, he sat in the centre, “le Marais,” voting in the trial of Louis XVI. for his detention until deportation should be judged expedient for the state. He was then sent on a mission to Lyons to investigate the frauds in connexion with the supplies of the army of the Alps. During the Terror he was one of those deputies of the centre who supported Robespierre; but he was gained over by the members of the Mountain hostile to Robespierre, and his support, along with that of some other leaders of theMarais, made possible the 9th Thermidor. He was then elected a member of the Committee of Public Safety and charged with the superintendence of the provisioning of Paris. He presented the report supporting the decree of the 3rd Ventose of the year III. which established liberty of worship. In the critical days of Germinal and of Prairial of the year III. he showed great courage. On the 12th Germinal he was in the tribune, reading a report on the food supplies, when the hall of the Convention was invaded by the rioters, and when they withdrew he quietly continued where he had been interrupted. On the 1st Prairial he presided over the Convention, and remained unmoved by the insults and menaces of the insurgents. When the head of the deputy, Jean Féraud, was presented to him on the end of a pike, he saluted it impassively. He was reporter of the committee which drew up the constitution of the year III., and his report shows keen apprehension of a return of the Reign of Terror, and presents reactionary measures as precautions against the re-establishment of “tyranny and anarchy.” This report, the proposal that he made (August 27, 1795) to lessen the severity of the revolutionary laws, and the eulogies he received from several Paris sections suspected of disloyalty to the republic, resulted in his being obliged to justify himself (October 15, 1795). As a member of the Council of the Five Hundred he became more and more suspected of royalism. He presented a measure in favour of full liberty for the press, which at that time was almost unanimously reactionary, protested against the outlawry of returnedémigrés, spoke in favour of the deported priests and attacked the Directory. Accordingly he was proscribed on the 18th Fructidor, and lived in England until the Consulate. In 1801 he was made a member of the Tribunate, and in 1805 a senator. In 1814 he voted for Napoleon’s abdication, which won for him a seat in the chamber of peers; but during the Hundred Days he served Napoleon, and in consequence, on the second Restoration, was for a short while excluded. In the chamber he still sought to obtain liberty for the press—a theme upon which he published a volume of his speeches (Paris, 1817). He was a member of the Institute from its foundation, and in 1816, at the reorganization, became a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. He published in 1819-1821 a two-volumeEssai sur la vie et les opinions de M. de Malesherbes.

See F.A. Aulard,Les Orateurs de la Révolution(2nd ed., 1906); L. Sciout,Le Directoire(4 vols., 1895); and the “Notice sur la vie et les œuvres de M. Boissy d’Anglas” in theMémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions, ix.

(R. A.*)

BOITO, ARRIGO(1842- ), Italian poet and musical composer, was born at Padua on the 24th of February 1842. He studied music at the Milan Conservatoire, but even in those early days he devoted as much of his time to literature as to music, forecasting the divided allegiance which was to be the chief characteristic of his life’s history. While at the Conservatoire he wrote and composed, in collaboration with Franco Faccio, a cantata,Le Sorelle d’Italia, which was performed with success. On completing his studies Boito travelled for some years, and after his return to Italy settled down in Milan, dividing his time between journalism and music. In 1866 he fought under Garibaldi, and in 1868 conducted the first performance of his operaMefistofeleat the Scala theatre, Milan. The work failed completely, and was withdrawn after a second performance. It was revived in 1875 at Bologna in a much altered and abbreviated form, when its success was beyond question. It was performed in London in 1880 with success, but in spite of frequent revivals has never succeeded in firmly establishing itself in popular favour. Boito treated the Faust legend in a spirit far more nearly akin to the conception of Goethe than is found in Gounod’s Faust, but, in spite of many isolated beauties, his opera lacks cohesion and dramatic interest. His energies were afterwards chiefly devoted to the composition of libretti, of which the principal areOtelloandFalstaff, set to music by Verdi;La Gioconda, set by Ponchielli;Amleto, set by Faccio; andEro e Leandre, set by Bottesini and Mancinelli. These works display a rare knowledge of the requirements of dramatic poetry, together with uncommon literary value. Boito also published a book of poems and a novel,L’Alfier Meno. The degree of doctor of music was conferred upon him in 1893 by the university of Cambridge.

BOIVIN, FRANÇOIS DE,Baron de Villars (d. 1618), French chronicler, entered the service of Charles, Marshal Brissac, as secretary, and accompanied him to Piedmont in 1550 when the marshal went to take command of the French troops in the war with Spain. Remaining in this service he was sent after the defeat of the French at St Quentin in 1557 to assure the French king Henry II. of the support of Brissac. He took part in the negotiations which led to the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis in April 1559, but was unable to prevent Henry II. from ceding the conquests made by Brissac. Boivin wroteMémoires sur les guerres démêlées tant dans le Piémont qu’au Montferrat et duche de Milan par Charles de Cossé, comte de Brissac(Paris, 1607), which, in spite of some drawbacks, is valuable as the testimony of an eye-witness of the war. An edition, carefully revised,appears in theMémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France, tome x., edited by J.F. Michaud and J.J.F. Poujoulat (Paris, 1850). He also wroteInstruction sur les affaires d’état(Lyons, 1610).

See J. Lelong,Bibliothèque historique de la France(Paris, 1768-1778).

BOKENAM, OSBERN(1393?-1447?), English author, was born, by his own account, on the 6th of October 1393. Dr Horstmann suggests that he may have been a native of Bokeham, now Bookham, in Surrey, and derived his name from the place. In a concluding note to hisLives of the Saintshe is described as “a Suffolke man, frere Austyn of Stoke Clare.” He travelled in Italy on at least two occasions, and in 1445 was a pilgrim to Santiago de Compostela. He wrote a series of thirteen legends of holy maidens and women. These are written chiefly in seven- and eight-lined stanzas, and nine of them are preceded by prologues. Bokenam was a follower of Chaucer and Lydgate, and doubtless had in mind Chaucer’sLegend of Good Women. His chief, but by no means his only, source was theLegenda Aureaof Jacobus de Voragine, archbishop of Genoa, whom he cites as “Januence.” The first of the legends,Vita Scae Margaretae, virginis et martiris, was written for his friend, Thomas Burgh, a Cambridge monk; others are dedicated to pious ladies who desired the history of their name-saints. The Arundel MS. 327 (British Museum) is a unique copy of Bokenam’s work; it was finished, according to the concluding note, in 1447, and presented by the scribe, Thomas Burgh, to a convent unnamed “that the nuns may remember him and his sister, Dame Betrice Burgh.” The poems were edited (1835) for the Roxburghe Club with the titleLyvys of Seyntys..., and by Dr Carl Horstmann asOsbern Bokenams Legenden(Heilbronn, 1883), in E. Kölbing’sAltengl. Bibliothek, vol. i. Both editions include a dialogue written in Latin and English taken from Dugdale’sMonasticon Anglicanum(ed. 1846, vol. vi. p. 1600); “this dialogue betwixt a Secular asking and a Frere answerynge at the grave of Dame Johan of Acres shewith the lyneal descent of the lordis of the honoure of Clare fro ... MCCXLVIII to ... MCCCLVI”. Bokenam wrote, as he tells us, plainly, in the Suffolk speech. He explains his lack of decoration on the plea that the finest flowers had been already plucked by Chaucer, Gower and Lydgate.

BOKHARA,orBukhara(the common central Asian pronunciation is Bukhara), a state of central Asia, under the protection of Russia. It lies on the right bank of the middle Oxus, between 37° and 41° N., and between 62° and 72° E., and is bounded by the Russian governments of Syr-darya, Samarkand and Ferghana on the N., the Pamirs on the E., Afghanistan on the S., and the Transcaspian territory and Khiva on the W. Its south-eastern frontier on the Pamirs is undetermined except where it touches the Russian dominions. Including the khanates of Karateghin and Darvaz the area is about 85,000 sq. m. The western portion of the state is a plain watered by the Zarafshan and by countless irrigation canals drawn from it. It has in the east the Karnap-chul steppe, covered with grass in early summer, and in the north an intrusion of the Kara-kum sand desert. Land suitable for cultivation is found only in oases, where it is watered by irrigation canals, but these oases are very fertile. The middle portion of the state is occupied by high plateaus, about 4000 ft. in altitude, sloping from the Tian-shan, and intersected by numerous rivers, flowing towards the Oxus. This region, very fertile in the valleys and enjoying a cooler and damper climate than the lower plains, is densely populated, and agriculture and cattle-breeding are carried on extensively. Here are the towns of Karshi, Kitab, Shaar, Chirakchi and Guzar or Huzar. The Hissar range, a westward continuation of the Alai Mountains, separates the Zarafshan from the tributaries of the Oxus—the Surkhan, Kafirnihan and Vakhsh. Its length is about 200 m., and its passes, 1000 to 3000 ft. below the surrounding peaks, reach altitudes of 12,000 to 14,000 ft. and are extremely difficult. Numbers of rivers pierce or flow in wild gorges between its spurs. Its southern foot-hills, covered with loess, make the fertile valleys of Hissar and the Vakhsh. The climate is so dry, and the rains are so scarce, that an absence of forests and Alpine meadows is characteristic of the ridge; but when heavy rain falls simultaneously with the melting of the snows in the mountains, the watercourses become filled with furious torrents, which create great havoc. The main glaciers (12) are on the north slope, but none creeps below 10,000 to 12,000 ft. The Peter the Great range, or Periokh-tau, in Karateghin, south of the valley of the Vakhsh, runs west-south-west to east-north-east for about 130 m., and is higher than the Hissar range. From the meridian of Garm or Harm it rises above the snowline, attaining at least 18,000 ft. in the Sary-kaudal peak, and 20,000 ft. farther east where it joins the snow-clad Darvaz range, and where the group Sandal, adorned with several glaciers, rises to 24,000 or 25,000 ft. Only three passes, very difficult, are known across it.

Darvaz, a small vassal state of Bokhara, is situated on the Panj, where it makes its sharp bend westwards, and is emphatically a mountainous region, agriculture being possible only in the lower parts of the valleys. The population, about 35,000, consists chiefly of Moslem Tajiks, and the closely-related Galchas, and its chief town is Kala-i-khumb on the Panj, at an altitude of 4370 ft.

The chief river of Bokhara is the Oxus or Amu-darya, which separates it from Afghanistan on the south, and then flows along its south-west border. It is navigated from the mouth of the Surkhan, and steamboats ply on it up to Karki near the Afghan frontier. The next largest river, the Zarafshan, 660 m. long, the water of which is largely utilized for irrigation, is lost in the sands 20 m. before reaching the Oxus. The Kashka-darya, which flows westwards out of the glaciers of Hazret-sultan (west of the Hissar range), supplies the Shahri-sabs (properly Shaar-sabiz) oasis with water, but is lost in the desert to the west of Karshi.

The climate of Bokhara is extreme. In the lowlands a very hot summer is followed by a short but cold winter, during which a frost of -20° Fahr. may set in, and the Oxus may freeze for a fortnight. In the highlands this hot and dry summer is followed by four months of winter; and, finally, in the regions above 8000 ft. there is a great development of snowfields and glaciers, the passes are buried under snow, and the short summer is rainy. The lowlands are sometimes visited by terrible sand-storms from the west, which exhaust men and kill the cotton trees. Malaria is widely prevalent, and in some years, after a wet spring, assumes a malignant character.

The population is estimated at 1,250,000. The dominant race is the Uzbegs, who are fanatical Moslem Sunnites, scorn work, despise their Iranian subjects, and maintain their old division into tribes or clans. The nomad Turkomans and the nomad Kirghiz are also of Turkish origin; while the Sarts, who constitute the bulk of the population in the towns, are a mixture of Turks with Iranians. The great bulk of the population in the country is composed of Iranian Tajiks, who differ but very little from Sarts. Besides these there are Afghans, Persians, Jews, Arabs and Armenians. Much of the trade is in the hands of a colony of Hindus from Shikarpur. Nearly 20% of the population are nomads and about 15% semi-nomads.

On the irrigated lowlands rice, wheat and other cereals are cultivated, and exported to the highlands. Cotton is widely grown and exported. Silk is largely produced, and tobacco, wine, flax, hemp and fruits are cultivated. Cattle-breeding is vigorously prosecuted in Hissar and the highlands generally. Cotton, silks, woollen cloth, and felt are manufactured, also boots, saddles, cutlery and weapons, pottery and various oils. Salt, as also some iron and copper, and small quantities of gold are extracted. Trade has been greatly promoted by the building of the Transcaspian railway across the country (from Charjui on the Oxus to Kati-kurgan) in 1886-1888. The exports to Russia consist of raw cotton and silk, lamb-skins, fruits and carpets, and the imports of manufactured goods and sugar. The imports from India are cottons, tea, shawls and indigo. There are very few roads; goods are transported on camels, or on horses and donkeys in the hilly tracts.

Bokhara has for ages been looked upon as the centre of Mussulman erudition in central Asia. About one-fourth of thepopulation is said to be able to read and write. The primary schools are numerous in the capital, as well as in the other cities, and even exist in villages, andmadrasasor theological seminaries for higher courses of study are comparatively plentiful. Themullahsor priests enjoy very great influence, but the people are very superstitious, believing in witchcraft, omens, spirits and the evil eye. Women occupy a low position in the social scale, though slavery has been abolished at the instance of Russia. The emir of Bokhara is an autocratic ruler, his power being limited only by the traditional custom (sheriat) of the Mussulmans. He maintains an army of some 11,000 men, but is subject to Russian control, being in fact a vassal of that empire.

History.—Bokhara was known to the ancients under the name of Sogdiana. It was too far removed to the east ever to be brought under the dominion of Rome, but it has shared deeply in all the various and bloody revolutions of Asia. The foundation of the capital is ascribed to Efrasiab, the great Persian hero. After the conquests of Alexander the Great Sogdiana formed part of the empire of the Seleucidae, and shared the fortunes of the rather better-known Bactria. Somewhat later the nomad Yue-chi began to move into the valley of the Oxus from the east, and gradually became a settled territorial power in Bactria and Sogdiana, and the dominions of their king, Kadphises I. (who is believed to have come to the throne aboutA.D.45), extended from Bokhara to the Indus. The district, however, was reconquered by Persia under the Sassanian dynasty, and we hear of Nestorian Christians at Samarkand, at any rate in the 6th century. Islam was introduced shortly after the Arab conquest of Persia (640-642) and speedily became the dominant faith. In the early centuries of Mahommedan rule Sogdiana was one of the most celebrated and flourishing districts of central Asia. It was called Sughd, and contained the two great cities of Samarkand and Bokhara, of which the former was generally the seat of government, while the latter had a high reputation as a seat of religion and learning. During the early middle ages this legion was also known as Ma wara ’l Nahr or Ma-vera-un-nahr, the meaning of which is given in the alternative classical title of Transoxiana. Malik Shah, third of the Seljuk dynasty of Persia, passed the Oxus about the end of the 11th century, and subdued the whole country watered by that river and the Jaxartes. In 1216 Bokhara was again subdued by Mahommed Shah Khwarizm, but his conquest was wrested from him by Jenghiz Khan in 1220. The country was wasted by the fury of this savage conqueror, but recovered something of its former prosperity under Ogdai Khan, his son, whose disposition was humane and benevolent. His posterity kept possession till 1369, when Timur or Tamerlane bore down everything before him, and established his capital at Samarkand, which with Bokhara regained for a time its former splendour. Babar, the fifth in descent from Timur, was originally prince of Ferghana, but conquered Samarkand and northern India, where he founded the Mogul (Mughal) empire. His descendants ruled in the country until about 1500, when it was overrun by the Uzbeg Tatars, under Abulkhair or Ebulkheir Khan, the founder of the Shaibani dynasty, with which the history of Bokhara properly commences. The most remarkable representative of this family was Abdullah Khan (1556-1598), who greatly extended the limits of his kingdom by the conquest of Badakshan, Herat and Meshhed, and increased its prosperity by the public works which he authorized. Before the close of the century, however, the dynasty was extinct, and Bokhara was at once desolated by a Kirghiz invasion and distracted by a disputed succession. At length, in 1598, Baki Mehemet Khan, of the Astrakhan branch of the Timur family, mounted the throne, and thus introduced the dynasty of the Ashtarkhanides. The principal event of his reign was the defeat he inflicted on Shah Abbas of Persia in the neighbourhood of Balkh. His brother Vali Mehemet, who succeeded in 1605, soon alienated his subjects, and was supplanted by his nephew Imamkuli. After a highly prosperous reign this prince resigned in favour of his brother, Nazr Mehemet, under whom the country was greatly troubled by the rebellion of his sons, who continued to quarrel with each other after their father’s death. Meanwhile the district of Khiva, previously subject to Bokhara, was made an independent khanate by Abdul-Gazi Bahadur Khan; and in the reign of Subhankuli, who ascended the throne in 1680, the political power of Bokhara was still further lessened, though it continued to enjoy the unbounded respect of the Sunnite Mahommedans. Subhankuli died in 1702, and a war of succession broke out between his two sons, who were supported by the rivalry of two Uzbeg tribes. After five years the contest terminated in favour of Obeidullah, who was little better than a puppet in the hands of Rehim Bi Atalik, his vizier. The invasion of Nadir Shah of Persia came to complete the degradation of the land; and in 1740 the feeble king, Abu ’l-Faiz, paid homage to the conqueror, and was soon after murdered and supplanted by his vizier. The time of the Ashtarkhanides had been for the most part a time of dissolution and decay; fanaticism and imbecility went hand in hand. On its fall (1785) the throne was seized by the Manghit family in the person of Mir Ma’sum, who pretended to the most extravagant sanctity, and proved by his military career that he had no small amount of ability. He turned his attention to the encroachments of the Afghans, and in 1781 reconquered the greater part of what had been lost to the south of the Oxus. Dying in 1802 he was succeeded by Saïd, who in bigotry and fanaticism was a true son of his father. In 1826 Nasrullah mounted the throne, and began with the murder of his brother a reign of continued oppression and cruelty. Meanwhile Bokhara became an object of rivalry to Russia and England, and envoys were sent by both nations to cultivate the favour of the emir, who treated the Russians with arrogance and the English with contempt. Two emissaries of the British government, Colonel C. Stoddart and Captain A. Conolly, were thrown by Nasrullah into prison, where they were put to death in 1842. In 1862-1864 Arminius Vambéry made in the disguise of a dervish a memorable journey through this fanatical state. At this time the Russian armies were gradually advancing, and at last they appeared in Khokand; but the new emir, Mozaffer-eddin, instead of attempting to expiate the insults of his predecessor, sent a letter to General M.G. Chernayev summoning him to evacuate the country, and threatening to raise all the faithful against him. In 1866 the Russians invaded the territory of Bokhara proper, and a decisive battle was fought on the 20th of May at Irdjar on the left bank of the Jaxartes. The Bokharians were defeated; but after a period of reluctant peace they forced the emir to renew the war. In 1868 the Russians entered Samarkand (May 14), and the emir was constrained to submit to the terms of the conqueror, becoming henceforward only a Russian puppet.

See Khanikov’sBokhara, translated by De Bode (1845); Vambéry,Travels in Central Asia(1864),Sketches of Central Asia(1868), andHistory of Bokhara(1873); Fedchenko’s “Sketch of the Zarafshan Valley” inJourn. R. Geogr. Soc.(1870); Hellwald,Die Russen in Central Asien(1873); Lipsky,Upper Bukhara, in Russian (1902); Skrine and Ross,The Heart of Asia(1899); Lord Ronaldshay,Outskirts of Empire in Asia(1904); and Le Strange,The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate(1905).

(P. A. K.; C. El.)

BOKHARA(Bokkara-i-Sherif), capital of the state of Bokhara, on the left bank of the Zarafshan, and on the irrigation canal of Shahri-rud, situated in a fertile plain. It is 8 m. from the Bokhara station of the Transcaspian railway, 162 m. by rail W. of Samarkand, in 39° 47′ N. lat. and 64° 27′ E. long. The city is surrounded by a stone wall 28 ft. high and 8 m. long, with semicircular towers and eleven gates of little value as a defence. The present city was begun inA.D.830 on the site of an older city, was destroyed by Jenghiz Khan in 1220, and rebuilt subsequently. The water-supply is very unhealthy. The city has no less than 360 mosques. Nearly 10,000 pupils are said to receive their education in its 140madrasasor theological colleges; primary schools are kept at most mosques. Some of these buildings exhibit very fine architecture. The most notable of the mosques is the Mir-Arab, built in the 16th century, with its beautiful lecture halls; the chief mosque of the emir is the Mejid-kalyan, or Kok-humbez, close by which stands a brick minaret, 203 ft. high, from the top of which state criminals used to be thrown until 1871. Of the numerous squares the Raghistanis the principal. It has on one side the citadel, erected on an artificially made eminence 45 ft. high, surrounded by a wall 1 m. long, and containing the palace of the emir, the houses of the chief functionaries, the prison and the water-cisterns. The houses are mostly one-storeyed, built of unburned bricks, and have flat roofs.

Bokhara has for ages been a centre of learning and religious life. The mysticism which took hold on Persia in the middle ages spread also to Bokhara, and later, when the Mongol invasions of the 13th century laid waste Samarkand and other Moslem cities, Bokhara, remaining independent, continued to be a chief seat of Islamitic learning. Themadrasalibraries, some of which were very rich, have been scattered and lost, or confiscated by the emirs, or have perished in conflagrations. But there are still treasures of literature concealed in private libraries, and Afghan, Persian, Armenian and Turkish bibliophiles still repair to Bokhara to buy rare books. Bokhara is, in fact, the principal book-market of central Asia. The population is supposed by Russian travellers not to exceed 50,000 or 60,000, but is otherwise estimated at 75,000 to 100,000. Amongst them is a large and ancient colony of Jews. Bokhara is the most important trading town in central Asia. In the city bazaars are made or sold silk stuffs, metal (especially copper) wares, Kara-kul (i.e.astrakhan) lamb-skins and carpets.

New Bokhara, orKagan, a Russian town near the railway station, 8 m. from Bokhara itself, is rapidly growing, on a territory ceded by the emir. Pop. 2000.

(P. A. K.)

BOKSBURG,a town of the Transvaal; 14 m. E. of Johannesburg by rail. Pop. of the municipality (1904) 14,757, of whom 4175 were whites. It is the headquarters of the Witwatersrand coal mining industry. The collieries extend from Boksburg eastward to Springs, 11 m. distant. Brakpan, the largest colliery in South Africa, lies midway between the places named.

BOLAN PASS,an important pass on the Baluch frontier, connecting Jacobabad and Sibi with Quetta, which has always occupied an important place in the history of British campaigns in Afghanistan. Since the treaty of Gandamak, which was signed at the close of the first phase of the Afghan War in 1879, the Bolan route has been brought directly under British control, and it was selected for the first alignment of the Sind-Pishin railway from the plains to the plateau. From Sibi the line runs south-west, skirting the hills to Rindli, and originally followed the course of the Bolan stream to its head on the plateau. The destructive action of floods, however, led to the abandonment of this alignment, and the railway now follows the Mashkaf valley (which debouches into the plains close to Sibi), and is carried from near the head of the Mashkaf to a junction with the Bolan at Mach. An alternative route from Sibi to Quetta was found in the Harnai valley to the N.E. of Sibi, the line starting in exactly the opposite direction to that of the Bolan and entering the hills at Nari. The Harnai route, although longer, is the one adopted for all ordinary traffic, the Bolan loop being reserved for emergencies. At the Khundilani gorge of the Bolan route conglomerate cliffs enclose the valley rising to a height of 800 ft., and at Sir-i-Bolan the passage between the limestone rocks hardly admits of three persons riding abreast. The temperature of the pass in summer is very high, whereas in winter, near its head, the cold is extreme, and the ice-cold wind rushing down the narrow outlet becomes destructive to life. Since 1877, when the Quetta agency was founded, the freedom of the pass from plundering bands of Baluch marauders (chiefly Marris) has been secured, and it is now as safe as any pass in Scotland.

(T. H. H.*)

BOLAS(plural of Span,bola, ball), a South American Indian weapon of war and the chase, consisting of balls of stone attached to the ends of a rope of twisted or braided hide or hemp. Charles Darwin thus describes them in hisVoyage of the Beagle: “Thebolas, or balls, are of two kinds: the simplest, which is used chiefly for catching ostriches, consists of two round stones, covered with leather, and united by a thin, plaited thong, about 8 ft. long. The other kind differs only in having three balls united by thongs to a common centre. The Gaucho (native of Spanish descent) holds the smallest of the three in his hand, and whirls the other two around his head; then, taking aim, sends them like chain shot revolving through the air. The balls no sooner strike any object, than, winding round it, they cross each other and become firmly hitched.” Bolas have been used for centuries in the South American pampas and even the forest regions of the Rio Grande. F. Ratzel (History of Mankind) supposes them to be a form of lasso. The Eskimos use a somewhat similar weapon to kill birds.Bolas perdidas(i.e.lost) are stones attached to a very short thong, or, in some cases, having none at all.

BOLBEC,a town of northern France, in the department of Seine-Inférieure, on the Bolbec, 19 m. E.N.E. of Havre by rail. Pop. (1906) 10,959. Bolbec is important for its cotton spinning and weaving, and carries on the dyeing and printing of the fabric, and the manufacture of sugar. There are a chamber of commerce and a board of trade-arbitration. The town was enthusiastic in the cause of the Reformed Religion in the 16th century, and still contains many Protestants. It was burned almost to the ground in 1765.

BOLE(Gr.βῶλος, “a clod of earth”), a clay-like substance of red, brown or yellow colour, consisting essentially of hydrous aluminium silicate, with more or less iron. Most bole differs from ordinary clay in not being plastic, but in dropping to pieces when placed in water, thus behaving rather like fuller’s-earth. Bole was formerly in great repute medicinally, the most famous kind being the Lemnian Earth (γῆ Λήμνια), from the Isle of Lemnos in the Greek Archipelago. The earth was dug with much ceremony only once a year, and having been mixed with goats’ blood was made into little cakes or balls, which were stamped by the priests, whence they became known asTerra sigillata(“sealed earth”). Large quantities of bole occur as red partings between the successive lava flows of the Tertiary volcanic series in the north of Ireland and the west of Scotland. Here it seems to have resulted from the decomposition of the basalt and kindred rocks by meteoric agencies, during periods of volcanic repose. In Antrim the bole is associated with lithomarge, bauxite and pisolitic iron-ore. Bole occurs in like manner between the great sheets of the Deccan traps in India; and a similar substance is also found interbedded with some of the doleritic lavas of Etna.

In the sense of stem or trunk of a tree, “bole” is from the O. Norwegianbolr, of. Ger.Bohle, plank. It is probably connected with the large number of words, such as “boll,” “ball,” “bowl,” &c., which stand for a round object.

BOLESLAUS I.,called “The Great,” king of Poland (d. 1025), was the son of Mieszko, first Christian prince of Poland, and the Bohemian princess Dobrawa, or Bona, whose chaplain, Jordan, converted the court from paganism to Catholicism. He succeeded his father in 992. A born warrior, he speedily raised the little struggling Polish principality on the Vistula to the rank of a great power. In 996 he gained a seaboard by seizing Pomerania, and subsequently took advantage of the troubles in Bohemia to occupy Cracow, previously a Czech city. Like his contemporaries, Stephen of Hungary and Canute of Denmark, Boleslaus recognized from the first the essential superiority of Christianity over every other form of religion, and he deserves with them the name of “Great” because he deliberately associated himself with the new faith. Thus despite an inordinate love of adventure, which makes him appear rather a wandering chieftain than an established ruler, he was essentially a man of insight and progress. He showed great sagacity in receiving the fugitive Adalbert, bishop of Prague, and when the saint suffered martyrdom at the hands of the pagan Slavs (April 23, 997), Boleslaus purchased his relics and solemnly laid them in the church of Gnesen, founded by his father, which now became the metropolitan see of Poland. It was at Gnesen that Boleslaus in the year 1000 entertained Otto III. so magnificently that the emperor, declaring such a man too worthy to be merelyprinceps, conferred upon him the royal crown, though twenty-five years later, in the last year of his life, Boleslaus thought it necessary to crown himself king a second time. On the death of Otto, Boleslaus invaded Germany, penetrated to the Elbe, occupying Stralsund andMeissen on his way, and extended his dominions to the Elster and the Saale. He also occupied Bohemia, till driven out by the emperor Henry IV. in 1004. The German war was terminated in 1018 by the peace of Bautzen, greatly to the advantage of Boleslaus, who retained Lusatia. He then turned his arms against Jaroslav, grand duke of Kiev, whom he routed on the banks of the Bug, then the boundary between Russia and Poland. For ten months Boleslaus remained at Kiev, whence he addressed triumphant letters to the emperors of the East and West. At his death in 1025 he left Poland one of the mightiest states of Europe, extending from the Bug to the Elbe, and from the Baltic to the Danube, and possessing besides the overlordship of Russia. But his greatest achievement was the establishment in Poland of a native church, the first step towards political independence.

See J.N. Pawlowski,St Adalbert(Danzig, 1860);Chronica Nestoris(Vienna, 1860); Heinrich R. von Zeissberg,Die Kriege Kaiser Heinrichs II. mit Herzog Boleslaw I.(Vienna, 1868).

BOLESLAUS II.,called “The Bold,” king of Poland (1039-1081), eldest son of Casimir I., succeeded his father in 1058. The domestic order and tranquillity of the kingdom had been restored by his painstaking father, but Poland had shrunk territorially since the age of his grandfather Boleslaus I., and it was the aim of Boleslaus II. to restore her dignity and importance. The nearest enemy was Bohemia, to whom Poland had lately been compelled to pay tribute for her oldest possession, Silesia. But Boleslaus’s first Bohemian war proved unsuccessful, and was terminated by the marriage of his sister Swatawa with the Czech king Wratyslaus II. On the other hand Boleslaus’s ally, the fugitive Magyar prince Bela, succeeded with Polish assistance in winning the crown of Hungary. In the East Boleslaus was more successful. In 1069 he succeeded in placing Izaslaus on the throne of Kiev, thereby confirming Poland’s overlordship over Russia and enabling Boleslaus to chastise his other enemies, Bohemia among them, with the co-operation of his Russian auxiliaries. But Wratyslaus of Bohemia speedily appealed to the emperor for help, and a war between Poland and the Empire was only prevented by the sudden rupture of Henry IV. with the Holy See and the momentous events which led to the humiliating surrender of the emperor at Canossa. There is nothing to show that Boleslaus took any part in this struggle, though at this time he was on the best of terms with Gregory VII. and there was some talk of sending papal legates to restore order in the Polish Church. On the 26th of December 1076 Boleslaus encircled his own brows with the royal diadem, a striking proof that the Polish kings did not even yet consider their title quite secure. A second successful expedition to Kiev to reinstate hisprotégéIzaslaus, is Boleslaus’s last recorded exploit. Almost immediately afterwards (1079) we find him an exile in Hungary, where he died about 1081. The cause of this sudden eclipse was the cruel vengeance he took on themilites, or noble order, who, emulating the example of their brethren in Bohemia, were already attempting to curb the royal power. The churchmen headed by Stanislaus Szczepanowski, bishop of Cracow, took the side of the nobles, whose grievances seem to have been real. Boleslaus in his fury slew the saintly bishop, but so general was the popular indignation that he had to fly his kingdom.

See M. Maksymilian Gumplowicz,Zur Geschichte Polens im Mittelalter(Innsbruck, 1898); W.P. Augerstein,Der Konflikt des polnischen Königs Boleslaw II. mit dem Bischof Stanislaus(Thorn, 1895).

BOLESLAUS III.,king of Poland (1086-1139), the son of Wladislaus I. and Judith of Bohemia, was born on the 23rd of December 1086 and succeeded his father in 1102. His earlier years were troubled continually by the intrigues of his natural half-brother Zbigniew, who till he was imprisoned and blinded involved Boleslaus in frequent contests with Bohemia and the emperor Henry V. The first of the German wars began in 1109, when Henry, materially assisted by the Bohemians, invaded Silesia. It was mainly a war of sieges, Henry sitting down before Lubusz, Glogau and Breslau, all of which he failed to take. The Poles avoided an encounter in the open field, but harried the Germans so successfully around Breslau that the plain was covered with corpses, which Henry had to leave to the dogs on his disastrous retreat; hence the scene of the action was known as “the field of dogs.” The chief political result of this disaster was the complete independence of Poland for the next quarter of a century. It was during this respite that Boleslaus devoted himself to the main business of his life—the subjugation of Pomerania (i.e.the maritime province) with the view of gaining access to the sea. Pomerania, protected on the south by virgin forests and almost impenetrable morasses, was in those days inhabited by a valiant and savage Slavonic race akin to the Wends, who clung to paganism with unconquerable obstinacy. The possession of a seaboard enabled them to maintain fleets and build relatively large towns such as Stettin and Kolberg, whilst they ravaged at will the territories of their southern neighbours the Poles. In self-defence Boleslaus was obliged to subdue them. The struggle began in 1109, when Boleslaus inflicted a terrible defeat on the Pomeranians at Nackel which compelled their temporary submission. In 1120-1124 the rebellion of his vassal Prince Warceslaus of Stettin again brought Boleslaus into the country, but the resistance was as stout as ever, and only after 18,000 of his followers had fallen and 8000 more had been expatriated did Warceslaus submit to his conqueror. The obstinacy of the resistance convinced Boleslaus that Pomerania must be christianized before it could be completely subdued; and this important work was partially accomplished by St Otto, bishop of Bamberg, an old friend of Boleslaus’s father, who knew the Slavonic languages. In 1124 the southern portions of the land were converted by St Otto, but it was only under the threat of extermination if they persisted in their evil ways that the people of Stettin accepted the faith in the following year. In 1128, at the council of Usedom, St Otto appointed his disciple Boniface bishop of Julin, the first Pomeranian diocese, and the foundation of a better order of things was laid. In his later years Boleslaus waged an unsuccessful war with Hungary and Bohemia, and was forced to claim the mediation of the emperor Lothair, to whom he did homage for Pomerania and Rügen at the diet of Merseburg in 1135. He died in 1139.

See Gallus,Chronicon, ed. Finkal (Cracow, 1899); Maksymilian Gumplowicz,Zur Geschichte Polens im Mittelalter(Innsbruck, 1898).

BOLETUS,a well-marked genus of fungi (orderPolyporeae), characterized by the central stem, the cap or pileus, the soft, fleshy tissue, and the vertical, closely-packed tubes or pores which cover the under surface of the pileus and are easily detachable. The species all grow on the ground, in woods or under trees, in the early autumn. They are brown, red or yellow in colour; the pores also vary in colour from pure white to brown, red, yellow or green, and are from one or two lines to nearly an inch long. A few are poisonous; several are good for eating. One of the greatest favourites for the table isBoletus edulis, recognized by its brown cap and white pores which become green when old. It is thecepsof the continental European markets. There are forty-nine British species ofBoletus.

BOLEYN(orBullen),ANNE(c.1507-1536), queen of Henry VIII. of England, daughter of Sir Thomas Boleyn, afterwards earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde, and of Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, afterwards duke of Norfolk, was born, according to Camden, in 1507, but her birth has been ascribed, though not conclusively, to an earlier date (to 1502 or 1501) by some later writers.1In 1514 she accompanied Mary Tudor to France on the marriage of the princess to Louis XII., remained there after the king’s death, and became one of the women in waiting to Queen Claude, wife of Francis I. She returned in 1521 or 1522 to England, where she had many admirers and suitors. Among the former was the poet Sir Thomas Wyatt,2and among the latter, Henry Percy, heir of the earl of Northumberland, a marriage with whom, however, was stopped by the king and another match provided for her in theperson of Sir James Butler. Anne Boleyn, however, remained unmarried, and a series of grants and favours bestowed by Henry on her father between 1522 and 1525 have been taken, though very doubtfully, as a symptom of the king’s affections. Unlike her sister Mary, who had fallen a victim to Henry’s solicitations,3Anne had no intention of being the king’s mistress; she meant to be his queen, and her conduct seems to have been governed entirely by motives of ambition. The exact period of the beginning of Anne’s relations with Henry is not known. They have been surmised as originating as early as 1523; but there is nothing to prove that Henry’s passion was anterior to the proceedings taken for the divorce in May 1527, the celebrated love letters being undated. Her name is first openly connected with the king’s as a possible wife in the event of Catherine’s divorce, in a letter of Mendoza, the imperial ambassador, to Charles V. of the 16th of August 1527,4during the absence in France of Wolsey, who, not blinded by passion like Henry, naturally opposed the undesirable alliance, and was negotiating a marriage with Renée, daughter of Louis XII. Henry meanwhile, however, had sent William Knight, his secretary, on a separate mission to Rome to obtain facilities for his marriage with Anne; and on the cardinal’s return in August he found her installed as the king’s companion and proposed successor to Catherine of Aragon. After the king’s final separation from his wife in July 1531, Anne’s position was still more marked, and in 1532 she accompanied Henry on the visit to Francis I., while Catherine was left at home neglected and practically a prisoner. Soon after their return Anne was found to be pregnant, and in consequence Henry married her about the 25th of January 15335(the exact date is unknown), their union not being made public till the following Easter. Subsequently, on the 23rd of May, their marriage was declared valid and that with Catherine null, and in June Anne was crowned with great state in Westminster Abbey. Anne Boleyn had now reached the zenith of her hopes. A weak, giddy woman of no stability of character, her success turned her head and caused her to behave with insolence and impropriety, in strong contrast with Catherine’s quiet dignity under her misfortunes. She, and not the king, probably was the author of the petty persecutions inflicted upon Catherine and upon the princess Mary, and her jealousy of the latter showed itself in spiteful malice. Mary was to be forced into the position of a humble attendant upon Anne’s infant, and her ears were to be boxed if she proved recalcitrant. She urged that both should be brought to trial under the new statute of succession passed in 1534, which declared her own children the lawful heirs to the throne. She was reported as saying that when the king gave opportunity by leaving England, she would put Mary to death even if she were burnt or flayed alive for it.6She incurred the remonstrances of the privy council and alienated her own friends and relations. Her uncle, the duke of Norfolk, whom she was reported to have treated “worse than a dog,” reviled her, calling her a “grande putaine.” But her day of triumph was destined to be even shorter than that of her predecessor. There were soon signs that Henry’s affection, which had before been a genuine passion, had cooled or ceased. He resented her arrogance, and a few months after the marriage he gave her cause for jealousy, and disputes arose. A strange and mysterious fate had prepared for Anne the same domestic griefs that had vexed and ruined Catherine and caused her abandonment. In September 1533 the birth of a daughter, afterwards Queen Elizabeth, instead of the long-hoped-for son, was a heavy disappointment; next year there was a miscarriage, and on the 29th of January 1536, the day of Catherine’s funeral, she gave birth to a dead male child.

On the 1st of May following the king suddenly broke up a tournament at Greenwich, leaving the company in bewilderment and consternation. The cause was soon known. Inquiries had been made on reports of the queen’s ill-conduct, and several of her reputed lovers had been arrested. On the 2nd Anne herself was committed to the Tower on a charge of adultery with various persons, including her own brother, Lord Rochford. On the 12th Sir Francis Weston, Henry Norris, William Brereton and Mark Smeaton were declared guilty of high treason, while Anne herself and Lord Rochford were condemned unanimously by an assembly of twenty-six peers on the 15th. Her uncle, the duke of Norfolk, presided as lord steward, and gave sentence, weeping, that his niece was to be burned or beheaded as pleased the king. Her former lover, the earl of Northumberland, left the court seized with sudden illness. Her father, who was excused attendance, had, however, been present at the trial of the other offenders, and had there declared his conviction of his daughter’s guilt. On the 16th, hoping probably to save herself by these means, she informed Cranmer of a certain supposed impediment to her marriage with the king—according to some accounts a previous marriage with Northumberland, though the latter solemnly and positively denied it—which was never disclosed, but which, having been considered by the archbishop and a committee of ecclesiastical lawyers, was pronounced, on the 17th, sufficient to invalidate her marriage. The same day all her reputed lovers were executed; and on the 19th she herself suffered death on Tower Green, her head being struck off with a sword by the executioner of Calais brought to England for the purpose.7She had regarded the prospect of death with courage and almost with levity, laughing heartily as she put her hands about her “little neck” and recalled the skill of the executioner. “I have seen many men” (wrote Sir William Kingston, governor of the Tower) “and also women executed, and all they have been in great sorrow, and to my knowledge this lady has much joy and pleasure in death.” On the following day Henry was betrothed to Jane Seymour.

Amidst the vituperations of the adherents of the papacy and the later Elizabethan eulogies, and in the absence of the records on which her sentence was pronounced, Anne Boleyn’s guilt remains unproved. To Sir William Kingston she protested her entire innocence, and on the scaffold while expressing her submission she made no confession.8Smeaton alone of her supposed lovers made a full confession, and it is possible that his statement was drawn from him by threats of torture or hopes of pardon. Norris, according to one account,9also confessed, but subsequently declared that he had been betrayed into making his statement. The others were all said to have “confessed in a manner” on the scaffold, but much weight cannot be placed on these general confessions, which were, according to the custom of the time, a declaration of submission to the king’s will and of general repentance rather than acknowledgment of the special crime. “I pray God save the king,” Anne herself is reported to have said on the scaffold, “and send him long to reign over you, for a gentler nor a more merciful prince was there never; and to me he was ever a good, a gentle and sovereign lord.” A principal witness for the charge of incest was Rochford’s own wife, a woman of infamous character, afterwards executed for complicity in the intrigues of Catherine Howard. The discovery of Anne’s misdeeds coincided in an extraordinary manner with Henry’s disappointment in not obtaining by her a male heir, while the king’s despotic power and the universal unpopularity of Anne both tended to hinder the administration of pure justice. Nevertheless, though unproved, Anne’s guilt is more than probable. It is almost incredible that two grandjuries, a petty jury, and a tribunal consisting of nearly all the lay peers of England, with the evidence before them which we do not now possess, should have all unanimously passed a sentence of guilt contrary to the facts and their convictions, and that such a sentence should have been supported by Anne’s own father and uncle. Every year since her marriage Anne had given birth to a child, and Henry had no reason to despair of more; while, if Henry’s state of health was such as was reported, the desire for children, which Anne shared with him, may be urged as an argument for her guilt. Sir Francis Weston in a letter to his family almost acknowledges his guilt in praying for pardon, especially for offences against his wife;10Anne’s own conduct and character almost prepare us for some catastrophe. Whether innocent or guilty, however, her fate caused no regrets and her misfortunes did not raise a single champion or defender. The sordid incidents of her rise, and the insolence with which she used her triumph, had alienated all hearts from the unhappy woman. Among the people she had always been intensely disliked; the love of justice, and the fear of trade losses imminent upon a breach with Charles V., combined to render her unpopular. She appealed to the king’s less refined instincts, and Henry’s deterioration of character may be dated from his connexion with her. She is described as “not one of the handsomest women in the world; she is of a middling stature, swarthy complexion, long neck, wide mouth, bosom not much raised, and in fact has nothing but the English king’s great appetite, and her eyes which are black and beautiful, and take great effect.”11Cranmer admired her—“sitting in her hair” (i.e.with her hair falling over her shoulders, which seems to have been her custom on great occasions), “upon a horse litter, richly apparelled,” at her coronation.12

Back to Index Next