Bibliography.—The special literature of cytology has grown to large dimensions. The following are the more important text-books and papers of general interest: E. B. Wilson,The Cell in Development and Inheritance(2nd ed., 1900); A. Gurwitsch,Morphologie und Biologie der Zelle(Jena, 1904); O. Hertwig,Allgemeine Biologie(Jena, 1906); Korschelt and Heider,Lehrbuch der vergl. Entwicklungsgeschichte der wirbellosen Tiere, Allgem. Teil, “The Germ Cells and Experimental Embryology” (Jena, 1903); Whitman, “The Inadequacy of the Cell Theory of Development,”Journ. Morph.viii., 1893; Adam Sedgwick, “On the Inadequacy of the Cellular Theory of Development,”Quart. Journ. Micro. Science, xxxvii.; G. C. Bourne, “A Criticism of the Cell Theory” (an answer to Sedgwick’s paper),Quart. Journ. Micro. Science, xxxviii.; Th. Boveri, “Befruchtung,”Merkel-Bonnets Ergebnisse der Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch.Bd. i. (1892),Das Problem der Befruchtung(Jena, 1902),Ergebnisse über die Konstitution der chromatischen Substanz des Zellkerns(Jena, 1904); J. Rückert, “Die Chromatinreduktion bei der Reifung der Sexualzellen,”Merkel-Bonnets Ergebnisse, Bd. iii. (1894); V. Häcker, “Die Reifungserscheinungen,”Ergebn. Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch.Bd. viii. (1898); F. Meves, “Zellteilung,”Merkel-Bonnets Ergebnisse, Bd. viii. (1898, 1899); W. Waldeyer, “Die Geschlechtszellen,” in O. Hertwig’sHandbuch der vergleich. u. experiment. Entwicklungslehre d. Wirbeltiere(1901, 1903).
Bibliography.—The special literature of cytology has grown to large dimensions. The following are the more important text-books and papers of general interest: E. B. Wilson,The Cell in Development and Inheritance(2nd ed., 1900); A. Gurwitsch,Morphologie und Biologie der Zelle(Jena, 1904); O. Hertwig,Allgemeine Biologie(Jena, 1906); Korschelt and Heider,Lehrbuch der vergl. Entwicklungsgeschichte der wirbellosen Tiere, Allgem. Teil, “The Germ Cells and Experimental Embryology” (Jena, 1903); Whitman, “The Inadequacy of the Cell Theory of Development,”Journ. Morph.viii., 1893; Adam Sedgwick, “On the Inadequacy of the Cellular Theory of Development,”Quart. Journ. Micro. Science, xxxvii.; G. C. Bourne, “A Criticism of the Cell Theory” (an answer to Sedgwick’s paper),Quart. Journ. Micro. Science, xxxviii.; Th. Boveri, “Befruchtung,”Merkel-Bonnets Ergebnisse der Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch.Bd. i. (1892),Das Problem der Befruchtung(Jena, 1902),Ergebnisse über die Konstitution der chromatischen Substanz des Zellkerns(Jena, 1904); J. Rückert, “Die Chromatinreduktion bei der Reifung der Sexualzellen,”Merkel-Bonnets Ergebnisse, Bd. iii. (1894); V. Häcker, “Die Reifungserscheinungen,”Ergebn. Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch.Bd. viii. (1898); F. Meves, “Zellteilung,”Merkel-Bonnets Ergebnisse, Bd. viii. (1898, 1899); W. Waldeyer, “Die Geschlechtszellen,” in O. Hertwig’sHandbuch der vergleich. u. experiment. Entwicklungslehre d. Wirbeltiere(1901, 1903).
(G. C. C.)
1Allgemeine Physiologie, p. 53 (1895).2Vom inwendigen Bau der Gewachse(1806).3The Chromoplastids of the vegetable cell come under a different category of cell-inclusions; seePlants:Cytology.4Cf. Pfeffer’s classical experiments on the physiological significance of cell-continuity in plant tissues (Über den Einfluss des Zellkerns auf die Bildung der Zellhaut, 1896). The recent work in physiology on the influence substances secreted by certain tissues and circulating in the blood-stream exert upon other and widely different tissues, should not be lost sight of in this connexion.5The influence this protoplasmic continuity may have upon our conception of the cell as a unit of organization is referred to below (Present Position of the Cell-theory).6A term (fromκάρυον, kernel) suggested by Flemming to replace Strasburger’s hybrid term “nucleoplasm” (1882). The earlier workers,e.g.Leydig, Schultze, Brücke, de Bary, &c., restricted the term protoplasm to the cell-body—the “Cytoplasm” of Strasburger, an example still followed by O. Hertwig.7Fromlinum, a thread, Schwarz, 1887.8Fromχρῶμα, colour, Flemming, 1879.9The formation of pseudopodia and accompanying changes in form ofAmoebawere observed as early as 1755 by Raesel von Rosenhof, who named it on this account the “little Proteus.”10“Sur les rapports des cils vibratiles avec les centrosomes,”Archives d’anatomie microscopique(1898).11“Über Zentralkörper in männlichen Geschlechtszellen von Schmetterlingen” (Anat. Anz. Bd. xiv., 1897). Cf. also the papers of Lenhossek (Über Flimmerzellen, 1898), Karl Peter (Das Zentrum für die Flimm- und Giesselbewegung, 1899) and Verworn (Studien zur Physiologie der Flimmerbewegung, 1899).12Cf., however, the present writer’s interpretation of this structure in the oocyte ofAntedon.Phil. Trans. Royal Soc.(1906), B. 249.13Claude Bernard expressed the same conclusion in 1885. Rejecting both the view that vital phenomena were identical with chemico-physical phenomena, and that which regarded them as totally distinct, he suggested a third point of view: “l’élément ultime du phénomène est physique; l’arrangement est vital.”14Many forms of response to stimulus involve no visible specialization,e.g.positive and negative heliotropism, chemiotropism, geotropism, &c., seen more especially in plants, but occurring also in the animal kingdom.15Prominent among these are: Schleiden (1873), Fol (1873-1877), Auerbach (1874), Bütschli (1876), Strasburger (1875-1888), O. Hertwig (1875-1890), R. Hertwig (1875-1877); Flemming (1879-1891), van Beneden (1883-1887), Rabl (1889), Boveri (1887-1903).16This distinction between the chromatic and achromatic portions of the mitotic figure is due to Flemming.17The genesis of the spireme thread was first described by E. G. Balbiani in 1876.18“Recherches sur la maturation de l’œuf, la fécondation et la division cellulaire” (Archives de biologie, vol. iv.).19First discovered by Flemming in 1879 and confirmed by Retzius in 1881.20The discovery by Hermann of the central spindle first clearly showed that two kinds of fibres must be recognized in the mitotic figure. Those of the central spindle correspond to the continuous spindle fibres of Flemming (1891) and Strasburger (1884), and the mantle fibres,i.e.half-spindle orPolstrahlen, of van Beneden (1887) and Boveri (1889-1890).21Planter, Watasé, Griffen and others.22e.g.Euglypha(Schewiakoff, 1888), Infusoria (R. Hertwig, 1898). So also Korschelt forOphryotrocha, and many other cases.23e.g.Bauer, spermatogenic cells ofAscaris univalens.24Cf. also Watasé, Solger and Zimmermann.25This term is due to Boveri (Zellenstudien, ii., 1888, p. 68;Jen. Zeit.xxii.), but it was intended by him to include the region of modified cytoplasm or “centrosphere” often enclosing the centrosome proper,i.e.“centriole” of Boveri.26For outline of fertilization see articleReproduction.27e.g.lymph and various epithelial and connective tissue cells of salamander larva (Flemming, 1891; Heidenhain, 1892); pigment cells of fishes (Solger, 1891); red blood corpuscles (Heidenhain, Eisen, 1897); and numerous other cases.28For an interesting development of this subject see Watasé (1894). This author not only identifies the centrosome with the structures seen in lymph cells, &c., but compares it to the basal granules of ciliated cells and to the varicose swellings on the sarcostyles of striped muscle cells!29The force of this evidence is admitted by Boveri himself. Meves, however, maintains the possibility that the numerous centrosomes appearing in the egg arise by the rapid fragmentation of a centrosome already present.30Cf. especially the behaviour of the centrosomes in the fertilization of the egg ofPleurophyllidia(MacFarland, 1897) and that ofCerebratulus(Coe, 1901). Not only may the sperm centrosomes totally disappear before reaching the egg-nucleus, but in the latter type the definitive centrosomes appear while the last traces of the sperm asters are still visible.31e.g.Meves; Spermatagonia of Salamandra.32Cf. especially the artificial production of amitosis inSpirogyra; W. Pfeffer, 1899.33Cf. Boveri, 1904, p. 13. (For Boveri’s criticism of Delage’s views, cf. Boveri, 1901 and 1902.)34It should, however, be noted that the assumption that a particular group of characters remains always associated in a particular chromosome is one that is very difficult to reconcile with the mode of inheritance of Mendelian pairs of characters in the case of organisms with a relatively small chromosome number.35Boveri (1902), “Fertilization of enucleatedEchinus-egg fragments,” and M. Boveri (1903); by shaking the egg shortly after fertilization the sperm centrosome is prevented from dividing, and a monaster instead of a diaster results, the divided chromosomes remaining in the one nucleus.36Cf. especially in this connexion Häcker’s paperÜber die Schicksale der elterlichen und grosselterlichen Kernanteile(1902).37Each nucleus contains a duplicate set of chromosomes, the one of maternal, the other of paternal origin, and either of these sets alone suffices for development. This is clearly shown by the experiments of Loeb (1899) and Wilson (1901) on the artificial parthenogenesis of the sea-urchin egg; and those of O. Hertwig (1889 and 1895), Delage (1899) and Winkler (1901), on the fertilization of enucleated Echinoderm eggs (Merogony, Delage). The fact that in some forms,e.g.Ascaris megalocephalavar.univalens, only one chromosome is derived from each parent, originally led Boveri to conclude thatallchromosomes must necessarily be physiologically equivalent.38Über mehrpolige Mitosen als Mittel zur Analyse des Zellkerns(1902).39Über das Auseinandergehen von Furchungs- und Gewebezellen in kalkfreien Medium(1900).40“Entwicklungsmechanische Studien V.” (Zeit. für wiss. Zool., Bd. lv., 1892).41See Geddes and Thomson,Sex, esp. pp. 127, 137 and 139.42The equivalence of the germ nuclei in development is shown by the experiments on the fertilization of enucleated eggs and artificial parthenogenesis already referred to.43O. Hertwig, 1873; but esp. van Beneden, 1883.44Häcker, “Über die Selbstständigkeit der väterlichen und mütterlichen Kernbestandteile,”Arch. f. mikr. Anat.Bd. xlvi. (1896).45First discovered by van Beneden (1883, 1887) for the egg ofAscaris.46In the case of the egg the whole of the yolk stored by the “oocyte” (cell-generation immediately preceding the maturation divisions) is handed on to only one of the four resulting cells—an obvious economy. The three yolkless cells are necessarily functionless—abortive ova—and are known as the “polar bodies” (Hertwig). In spermatogenesis the maturation divisions, though bearing the same relation to reduction as in oogenesis (Platner, 1889; O. Hertwig, 1890), give rise to four functional germ-cells. The explanation of sexual differentiation given above, and that of polar body formation given here, render it needless to do more than mention the theories of Mimot (1877), van Beneden (1883) and others, by which “maturation” was regarded as removing the “male” element from the otherwise “hermaphrodite” egg.47Weismann postulated a transverse division of the chromosomes, not a distribution of entire chromosomes; but the result as far as the reduction in the number of hereditary qualities goes is the same. The inability of the mitotic mechanism to effect the transverse division of unsplit chromosomes is pointed out by Boveri (1904).48For an exhaustive account of reduction in Invertebrates see Korschelt and Heider,Entwicklungsgeschichte, Allgem. Teil ii. (Jena, 1903).49Nevertheless the possibility of a pseudomitotic interpretation of maturation inAscarisalso has been maintained by O. Hertwig (1890), p. 277, Carnoy and Boveri (1904).50The partial or even complete reconstruction of the nucleus between the heterotype and homotype division in Vertebrates makes it difficult to determine the identity of the split seen in the anaphase of the heterotype with that reappearing in the prophase of the homotype.51e.g.Moore, 1895 (Scyllium); Flemming, 1897; Carnoy and Lebrun, 1899 (Amphibia); McGregor, 1899; Lenhossek, 1898 (mammals), and many others. So also for plants: Strasburger and Mottier, 1897; Dixon, 1896; Sargant, 1896-1897; Farmer and Moore, 1895; Gregoire, 1899; Guignard, 1899, &c.52H. Henking (1899), T. Montgomery (1898) and F. C. Paulmeir (1899) describe the diverging bivalent halves of the tetrad as being united each bytwofibres with the corresponding spindle pole. At the next division, at which the diad is resolved into its constituent univalent chromosomes, the daughter chromosomes are attached to the spindle pole each by only one fibre; the two fibres now passing to opposite poles of the spindle being the same fibres which, in the preceding mitosis, were attached to one and the same pole.53Reference may be here made to Rosenberg’s description (1904) of the heterotype mitosis inDroserahybrids. In the one parent (D. rotundifolia) the somatic number is 20, in the other (D. longifolia) 10; while the hybrid itself has a somatic number of 30. The reduced number in the hybrid, however, is not 15 but 20. Of these 10 are large and 10 small, the latter presumably representing the supernumerary, and hence unpaired, chromosomes of theD. rotundifoliaparent.54In their 1905 paper J. B. Farmer and J. E. S. Moore describe two successive synaptic stages (e.g.Elasmobranchs), the first during the contraction of the spireme thread, the second during the looping up of the bivalent segments. (In this paper the authors suggest the term “Meiosis” or “Meiotic phase” for the nuclear changes accompanying the two maturation divisions in plants and animals (μείωσις, reduction).55Whitman,Jour. Morph., 1903.56This “Precocious segregation” (Lankester, 1877) is well seen in the eggs of many Ctenophorae, Annelids, Gastropods and Nematodes. See the papers by Lillie (1901), Conklin (1902), &c., and especially Wilson on “Dentalium,”Journ. of Exp. Zool., No. 1, 1904.57Hofmeister, de Bary, Sachs, &c.58Loc. cit.59Quart. Journ. Micro. Science, 1894, vol. xxxvii.
1Allgemeine Physiologie, p. 53 (1895).
2Vom inwendigen Bau der Gewachse(1806).
3The Chromoplastids of the vegetable cell come under a different category of cell-inclusions; seePlants:Cytology.
4Cf. Pfeffer’s classical experiments on the physiological significance of cell-continuity in plant tissues (Über den Einfluss des Zellkerns auf die Bildung der Zellhaut, 1896). The recent work in physiology on the influence substances secreted by certain tissues and circulating in the blood-stream exert upon other and widely different tissues, should not be lost sight of in this connexion.
5The influence this protoplasmic continuity may have upon our conception of the cell as a unit of organization is referred to below (Present Position of the Cell-theory).
6A term (fromκάρυον, kernel) suggested by Flemming to replace Strasburger’s hybrid term “nucleoplasm” (1882). The earlier workers,e.g.Leydig, Schultze, Brücke, de Bary, &c., restricted the term protoplasm to the cell-body—the “Cytoplasm” of Strasburger, an example still followed by O. Hertwig.
7Fromlinum, a thread, Schwarz, 1887.
8Fromχρῶμα, colour, Flemming, 1879.
9The formation of pseudopodia and accompanying changes in form ofAmoebawere observed as early as 1755 by Raesel von Rosenhof, who named it on this account the “little Proteus.”
10“Sur les rapports des cils vibratiles avec les centrosomes,”Archives d’anatomie microscopique(1898).
11“Über Zentralkörper in männlichen Geschlechtszellen von Schmetterlingen” (Anat. Anz. Bd. xiv., 1897). Cf. also the papers of Lenhossek (Über Flimmerzellen, 1898), Karl Peter (Das Zentrum für die Flimm- und Giesselbewegung, 1899) and Verworn (Studien zur Physiologie der Flimmerbewegung, 1899).
12Cf., however, the present writer’s interpretation of this structure in the oocyte ofAntedon.Phil. Trans. Royal Soc.(1906), B. 249.
13Claude Bernard expressed the same conclusion in 1885. Rejecting both the view that vital phenomena were identical with chemico-physical phenomena, and that which regarded them as totally distinct, he suggested a third point of view: “l’élément ultime du phénomène est physique; l’arrangement est vital.”
14Many forms of response to stimulus involve no visible specialization,e.g.positive and negative heliotropism, chemiotropism, geotropism, &c., seen more especially in plants, but occurring also in the animal kingdom.
15Prominent among these are: Schleiden (1873), Fol (1873-1877), Auerbach (1874), Bütschli (1876), Strasburger (1875-1888), O. Hertwig (1875-1890), R. Hertwig (1875-1877); Flemming (1879-1891), van Beneden (1883-1887), Rabl (1889), Boveri (1887-1903).
16This distinction between the chromatic and achromatic portions of the mitotic figure is due to Flemming.
17The genesis of the spireme thread was first described by E. G. Balbiani in 1876.
18“Recherches sur la maturation de l’œuf, la fécondation et la division cellulaire” (Archives de biologie, vol. iv.).
19First discovered by Flemming in 1879 and confirmed by Retzius in 1881.
20The discovery by Hermann of the central spindle first clearly showed that two kinds of fibres must be recognized in the mitotic figure. Those of the central spindle correspond to the continuous spindle fibres of Flemming (1891) and Strasburger (1884), and the mantle fibres,i.e.half-spindle orPolstrahlen, of van Beneden (1887) and Boveri (1889-1890).
21Planter, Watasé, Griffen and others.
22e.g.Euglypha(Schewiakoff, 1888), Infusoria (R. Hertwig, 1898). So also Korschelt forOphryotrocha, and many other cases.
23e.g.Bauer, spermatogenic cells ofAscaris univalens.
24Cf. also Watasé, Solger and Zimmermann.
25This term is due to Boveri (Zellenstudien, ii., 1888, p. 68;Jen. Zeit.xxii.), but it was intended by him to include the region of modified cytoplasm or “centrosphere” often enclosing the centrosome proper,i.e.“centriole” of Boveri.
26For outline of fertilization see articleReproduction.
27e.g.lymph and various epithelial and connective tissue cells of salamander larva (Flemming, 1891; Heidenhain, 1892); pigment cells of fishes (Solger, 1891); red blood corpuscles (Heidenhain, Eisen, 1897); and numerous other cases.
28For an interesting development of this subject see Watasé (1894). This author not only identifies the centrosome with the structures seen in lymph cells, &c., but compares it to the basal granules of ciliated cells and to the varicose swellings on the sarcostyles of striped muscle cells!
29The force of this evidence is admitted by Boveri himself. Meves, however, maintains the possibility that the numerous centrosomes appearing in the egg arise by the rapid fragmentation of a centrosome already present.
30Cf. especially the behaviour of the centrosomes in the fertilization of the egg ofPleurophyllidia(MacFarland, 1897) and that ofCerebratulus(Coe, 1901). Not only may the sperm centrosomes totally disappear before reaching the egg-nucleus, but in the latter type the definitive centrosomes appear while the last traces of the sperm asters are still visible.
31e.g.Meves; Spermatagonia of Salamandra.
32Cf. especially the artificial production of amitosis inSpirogyra; W. Pfeffer, 1899.
33Cf. Boveri, 1904, p. 13. (For Boveri’s criticism of Delage’s views, cf. Boveri, 1901 and 1902.)
34It should, however, be noted that the assumption that a particular group of characters remains always associated in a particular chromosome is one that is very difficult to reconcile with the mode of inheritance of Mendelian pairs of characters in the case of organisms with a relatively small chromosome number.
35Boveri (1902), “Fertilization of enucleatedEchinus-egg fragments,” and M. Boveri (1903); by shaking the egg shortly after fertilization the sperm centrosome is prevented from dividing, and a monaster instead of a diaster results, the divided chromosomes remaining in the one nucleus.
36Cf. especially in this connexion Häcker’s paperÜber die Schicksale der elterlichen und grosselterlichen Kernanteile(1902).
37Each nucleus contains a duplicate set of chromosomes, the one of maternal, the other of paternal origin, and either of these sets alone suffices for development. This is clearly shown by the experiments of Loeb (1899) and Wilson (1901) on the artificial parthenogenesis of the sea-urchin egg; and those of O. Hertwig (1889 and 1895), Delage (1899) and Winkler (1901), on the fertilization of enucleated Echinoderm eggs (Merogony, Delage). The fact that in some forms,e.g.Ascaris megalocephalavar.univalens, only one chromosome is derived from each parent, originally led Boveri to conclude thatallchromosomes must necessarily be physiologically equivalent.
38Über mehrpolige Mitosen als Mittel zur Analyse des Zellkerns(1902).
39Über das Auseinandergehen von Furchungs- und Gewebezellen in kalkfreien Medium(1900).
40“Entwicklungsmechanische Studien V.” (Zeit. für wiss. Zool., Bd. lv., 1892).
41See Geddes and Thomson,Sex, esp. pp. 127, 137 and 139.
42The equivalence of the germ nuclei in development is shown by the experiments on the fertilization of enucleated eggs and artificial parthenogenesis already referred to.
43O. Hertwig, 1873; but esp. van Beneden, 1883.
44Häcker, “Über die Selbstständigkeit der väterlichen und mütterlichen Kernbestandteile,”Arch. f. mikr. Anat.Bd. xlvi. (1896).
45First discovered by van Beneden (1883, 1887) for the egg ofAscaris.
46In the case of the egg the whole of the yolk stored by the “oocyte” (cell-generation immediately preceding the maturation divisions) is handed on to only one of the four resulting cells—an obvious economy. The three yolkless cells are necessarily functionless—abortive ova—and are known as the “polar bodies” (Hertwig). In spermatogenesis the maturation divisions, though bearing the same relation to reduction as in oogenesis (Platner, 1889; O. Hertwig, 1890), give rise to four functional germ-cells. The explanation of sexual differentiation given above, and that of polar body formation given here, render it needless to do more than mention the theories of Mimot (1877), van Beneden (1883) and others, by which “maturation” was regarded as removing the “male” element from the otherwise “hermaphrodite” egg.
47Weismann postulated a transverse division of the chromosomes, not a distribution of entire chromosomes; but the result as far as the reduction in the number of hereditary qualities goes is the same. The inability of the mitotic mechanism to effect the transverse division of unsplit chromosomes is pointed out by Boveri (1904).
48For an exhaustive account of reduction in Invertebrates see Korschelt and Heider,Entwicklungsgeschichte, Allgem. Teil ii. (Jena, 1903).
49Nevertheless the possibility of a pseudomitotic interpretation of maturation inAscarisalso has been maintained by O. Hertwig (1890), p. 277, Carnoy and Boveri (1904).
50The partial or even complete reconstruction of the nucleus between the heterotype and homotype division in Vertebrates makes it difficult to determine the identity of the split seen in the anaphase of the heterotype with that reappearing in the prophase of the homotype.
51e.g.Moore, 1895 (Scyllium); Flemming, 1897; Carnoy and Lebrun, 1899 (Amphibia); McGregor, 1899; Lenhossek, 1898 (mammals), and many others. So also for plants: Strasburger and Mottier, 1897; Dixon, 1896; Sargant, 1896-1897; Farmer and Moore, 1895; Gregoire, 1899; Guignard, 1899, &c.
52H. Henking (1899), T. Montgomery (1898) and F. C. Paulmeir (1899) describe the diverging bivalent halves of the tetrad as being united each bytwofibres with the corresponding spindle pole. At the next division, at which the diad is resolved into its constituent univalent chromosomes, the daughter chromosomes are attached to the spindle pole each by only one fibre; the two fibres now passing to opposite poles of the spindle being the same fibres which, in the preceding mitosis, were attached to one and the same pole.
53Reference may be here made to Rosenberg’s description (1904) of the heterotype mitosis inDroserahybrids. In the one parent (D. rotundifolia) the somatic number is 20, in the other (D. longifolia) 10; while the hybrid itself has a somatic number of 30. The reduced number in the hybrid, however, is not 15 but 20. Of these 10 are large and 10 small, the latter presumably representing the supernumerary, and hence unpaired, chromosomes of theD. rotundifoliaparent.
54In their 1905 paper J. B. Farmer and J. E. S. Moore describe two successive synaptic stages (e.g.Elasmobranchs), the first during the contraction of the spireme thread, the second during the looping up of the bivalent segments. (In this paper the authors suggest the term “Meiosis” or “Meiotic phase” for the nuclear changes accompanying the two maturation divisions in plants and animals (μείωσις, reduction).
55Whitman,Jour. Morph., 1903.
56This “Precocious segregation” (Lankester, 1877) is well seen in the eggs of many Ctenophorae, Annelids, Gastropods and Nematodes. See the papers by Lillie (1901), Conklin (1902), &c., and especially Wilson on “Dentalium,”Journ. of Exp. Zool., No. 1, 1904.
57Hofmeister, de Bary, Sachs, &c.
58Loc. cit.
59Quart. Journ. Micro. Science, 1894, vol. xxxvii.
CYZICENUS,the architectural term given by Vitruvius to the large hall, used by the Greeks, which faced the north, with a prospect towards the gardens; the windows of this hall opened down to the ground, so that the green verdure could be seen by those lying on the couches.
CYZICUS,an ancient town of Mysia in Asia Minor, situated on the shoreward side of the present peninsula of Kapu-Dagh (Arctonnesus), which is said to have been originally an island in the Sea of Marmora, and to have been artificially connected with the mainland in historic times. It was, according to tradition, occupied by Thessalian settlers at the coming of the Argonauts, and in 756B.C.the town was founded by Greeks from Miletus. Owing to its advantageous position it speedily acquired commercial importance, and the goldstatersof Cyzicus were a staple currency in the ancient world till they were superseded by those of Philip of Macedon. During the Peloponnesian War (431-404B.C.) Cyzicus was subject to the Athenians and Lacedaemonians alternately, and at the peace of Antalcidas (387B.C.), like the other Greek cities in Asia, it was made over to Persia. The history of the town in Hellenistic times is closely connected with that of the dynasts of Pergamum, with whose extinction it came into direct relations with Rome. Cyzicus was held for the Romans against Mithradates in 74B.C.till the siege was raised by Lucullus: the loyalty of the city was rewarded by an extension of territory and other privileges. Still a nourishing centre in Imperial times, the place appears to have been ruined by a series of earthquakes—the last inA.D.1063—and the population was transferred to Artaki at least as early as the 13th century, when the peninsula was occupied by the Crusaders. The site is now known as Bal-Kiz (Παλαία Κύζικος?) and entirely uninhabited, though under cultivation. The principal extant ruins are:—the walls, which are traceable for nearly their whole extent, a picturesque amphitheatre intersected by a stream, and the substructures of the temple of Hadrian. Of this magnificent building, sometimes ranked among the seven wonders of the ancient world, thirty-one immense columns still stood erect in 1444. These have since been carried away piecemeal for building purposes by the Turks.
See J. Marquardt,Cyzicus(Berlin, 1830); G. Perrot,Exploration de la Galatie(Paris, 1862); F. W. Hasluck and A. E. Henderson inJournal of Hellenic Studies(1904), 135-143.
See J. Marquardt,Cyzicus(Berlin, 1830); G. Perrot,Exploration de la Galatie(Paris, 1862); F. W. Hasluck and A. E. Henderson inJournal of Hellenic Studies(1904), 135-143.
(F. W. Ha.)
CZARNIECKI, STEPHEN(1590-1665), Polish general, learnt the science of war under Stanislaw Koniecpolski in the Prussian campaigns against Gustavus Adolphus (1626-1629), and under Wladislaus IV. in the Muscovite campaign of 1633. On the 15th of April 1648 he was one of the many noble Polish prisoners who fell into the hands of Chmielnicki at the battle of “Yellow Waters,” and was sent in chains to the Crimea, whence he was ransomed in 1649. He took an active part in all the subsequent wars with the Cossacks and received more disfiguring wounds than any other commander. When Charles X. of Sweden invaded Poland in 1655, Czarniecki distinguished himself by his heroic defence of Cracow, which he only surrendered under the most honourable conditions. His energy and ability as a leader of guerillas hampered Charles X. at every step, and though frequently worsted he from time to time inflicted serious defeats upon the Swedes, notably at Jaroslaw and at Kozienice in 1656. Under his direction the popular rising against the invader ultimately proved triumphant. It was he who brought King John Casimir back from exile and enabled him to regain his lost kingdom. It was against his advice that the great battle of Warsaw was fought, and his subsequent strategy neutralized the ill effects of that national disaster. On the retirement of the Swedes from Cracow and Warsaw, and the conclusion of the treaty of Copenhagen with the Danes, he commanded the army corps sent to drive the troops of Charles X. out of Jutland and greatly contributed to the ultimate success of the Allies. On the conclusion of the Peace of Oliva, which adjusted the long outstanding differences between Poland and Sweden, Czarniecki was transferred to the eastern frontier where the war with Muscovy was still raging. In the campaign of 1660 he won the victories of Polonka and Lachowicza and penetrated to the heart of the enemy’s country. The diet of 1661 publicly thanked him for his services; the king heaped honours and riches upon him, and in 1665 he was appointed acting commander-in-chief of Poland, but died a few days after receiving this supreme distinction. By his wife Sophia Kobierzycka he left two daughters. Czarniecki is rightly regarded as one of the most famous of heroic Poland’s great captains, and to him belongs the chief merit of extricating her from the difficulties which threatened to overwhelm her during the disastrous reign of John Casimir. Czarniecki raised partisan-warfare to the dignity of a science, and by his ubiquity and tenacity demoralized and exhausted the regular armies to which he was generally opposed.
See Ludwik Jenike,Stephen Czarniecki(Pol.) (Warsaw, 1891); Michal Dymitr Krajewski,History of Stephen Czarniecki(Pol.), (Cracow, 1859).
See Ludwik Jenike,Stephen Czarniecki(Pol.) (Warsaw, 1891); Michal Dymitr Krajewski,History of Stephen Czarniecki(Pol.), (Cracow, 1859).
CZARTORYSKI, ADAM GEORGE,Prince(1770-1861), Polish statesman, was the son of Prince Adam Casimir Czartoryski and Isabella Fleming. After a careful education at home by eminent specialists, mostly Frenchmen,1he first went abroad in 1786. At Gotha he heard Goethe read hisIphigenie auf Tauris, and made the acquaintance of the dignified Herder and “fat little Wieland.” In 1789 he visited England with his mother, and was present at the trial of Warren Hastings. On a second visit in 1793 he made many acquaintances among the English aristocracy and studied the English constitution. In the interval between these visits he fought for his country during the war of the second partition, and would subsequently have served under Kosciuszko also had he not been arrested on his way to Poland at Brussels by the Austrian government. After the third partition the estates of the Czartoryskis were confiscated, and in May 1795 Adam and his younger brother Constantine were summoned to St Petersburg; later in the year they were commanded to enter the Russian service, Adam becoming an officer in the horse, and Constantine in the foot guards. Catherine was so favourably impressed by the youths that she restored them part of their estates, and in the beginning of 1796 made them gentlemen in waiting. Adam had already met the grand duke Alexander at a ball at the princess Golitsuin’s, and the youths at once conceived a strong “intellectual friendship” for each other. On the accession of the emperor Paul, Czartoryski was appointed adjutant to Alexander, now Cesarevich, and was permitted to revisit his Polish estates for three months. At this time the tone of the Russian court was extremely liberal, humanitarian enthusiasts like Peter Volkonsky and Nikolai Novosiltsov possessing great influence.
Throughout the reign of Paul, Czartoryski was in high favour and on terms of the closest intimacy with the emperor, who in December 1798 appointed him ambassador to the court of Sardinia. On reaching Italy Czartoryski found that the monarch to whom he was accredited was a king without a kingdom, so that the outcome of his first diplomatic mission was a pleasant tour through Italy to Naples, the acquisition of the Italian language, and a careful exploration of the antiquities of Rome. In the spring of 1801 the new emperor Alexander summoned his friend back to St Petersburg. Czartoryski found the tsar still suffering from remorse at his father’s assassination, and incapable of doing anything but talk religion and politics to a small circle of private friends. To all remonstrances he only replied “There’s plenty of time.” The senate did most of the current business; Peter Vasilevich Zavadovsky, a pupil of the Jesuits, was minister of education. Alexander appointed Czartoryski curator of the academy of Vilna (April 3, 1803) that he might give full play to his advanced ideas. He was unable, however, to give much attention to education, for from the beginning of 1804, as adjunct of foreign affairs, he had the practical control of Russian diplomacy. His first act was to protest energetically against the murder of the due d’Enghien (March 20, 1804), and insist on an immediate rupture with France. On the 7th of June the French minister Hédouville quitted St Petersburg; and on the 11th of August a note dictated by Czartoryski to Alexander was sent to the Russian minister in London, urging the formation of an anti-French coalition. It was Czartoryski also who framed the Convention of the 6th of November 1804, whereby Russia agreed to put 115,000 and Austria 235,000 men in the field against Napoleon. Finally, on the 11th of April 1805 he signed an offensive-defensive alliance with England. But his most striking ministerial act was a memorial written in 1805, but otherwise undated, which aimed at transforming the whole map of Europe. In brief it amounted to this. Austria and Prussia were to divide Germany between them. Russia was to acquire the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora, the Bosphorus with Constantinople, and Corfu. Austria was to have Bosnia, Wallachia and Ragusa. Montenegro, enlarged by Mostar and the Ionian Islands, was to form a separate state. England and Russia together were to maintain the equilibrium of the world. In return for their acquisitions in Germany, Austria and Prussia were to consent to the erection of an autonomous Polish state extending from Danzig to the sources of the Vistula, under the protection of Russia. Fantastic as it was in some particulars, this project was partly realized2in more recent times, and it presented the best guarantee for the independent existence of Poland which had never been able to govern itself. But in the meantime Austria had come to an understanding with England as to subsidies, and war had begun.
In 1805 Czartoryski accompanied Alexander both to Berlin and Olmütz as chief minister. He regarded the Berlin visit as a blunder, chiefly owing to his profound distrust of Prussia; but Alexander ignored his representations, and in February 1807 he lost favour and was superseded by Andrei Eberhard Budberg. But though no longer a minister Czartoryski continued to enjoy Alexander’s confidence in private, and in 1810 the emperor candidly admitted to Czartoryski that his policy in 1805 had been erroneous and he had not made a proper use of his opportunities. The same year Czartoryski quitted St Petersburg for ever; but the personal relations between him and Alexander were never better. The friends met again at Kalisch shortly before the signature of the Russo-Prussian alliance of the 20th of February 1813, and Czartoryski was in the emperor’s suite at Paris in 1814, and rendered his sovereign material services at the congress of Vienna.
On the erection of the congressional kingdom of Polandevery one thought that Czartoryski, who more than any other man had prepared the way for it, would be its first governor-general, but he was content with the title of senator-palatine and a share in the administration. In 1817 the prince married Anna Sapiezanko, the wedding leading to a duel with his rival Pac. On the death of his father in 1823 he retired to his ancestral castle at Pulawy; but the Revolution of 1830 brought him back to public life. As president of the provisional government he summoned (Dec. 18th, 1830) the Diet of 1831, and after the termination of Chlopicki’s dictatorship was elected chief of the supreme council by 121 out of 138 votes (January 30th). On the 16th of September his disapproval of the popular excesses at Warsaw caused him to quit the government after sacrificing half his fortune to the national cause; but it must be admitted that throughout the insurrection he did not act up to his great reputation. Yet the energy of the sexagenarian statesman was wonderful. On the 23rd of August he joined Girolano Ramorino’s army-corps as a volunteer, and subsequently formed a confederation of the three southern provinces of Kalisch, Sandomir and Cracow. At the end of the war he emigrated to France, where he resided during the last thirty years of his life. He died at his country residence at Montfermeil, near Meaux, on the 15th of July 1861. He left two sons, Witold (1824-1865), and Wladyslaus (1828-1894), and a daughter Isabella, who married Jan Dzialynski in 1857. The principal works of Czartoryski areEssai sur la diplomatie(Marseilles, 1830);Life of J. U. Niemcewiez(Pol). (Paris, 1860);Alexander I. et Czartoryski: correspondance ... et conversations(1801-1823) (Paris, 1865);Mémoires et correspondance avec Alex. I., with preface by C. de Mazade, 2 vols. (Paris, 1887); an English translationMemoirs of Czartoryski, &c., edited by A. Gielguch, with documents relating to his negotiations with Pitt, and conversations with Palmerston in 1832 (2 vols., London, 1888).
See Bronislaw Zaleski,Life of Adam Czartoryski(Pol.) (Paris, 1881); Lubomir Gadon,Prince Adam Czartoryski(Pol.) (Cracow, 1892); Ludovik Debicki,Pulawy, vol. iv.; Lubomir Gadon,Prince Adam Czartoryski during the Insurrection of November(Pol.) (Cracow, 1900).
See Bronislaw Zaleski,Life of Adam Czartoryski(Pol.) (Paris, 1881); Lubomir Gadon,Prince Adam Czartoryski(Pol.) (Cracow, 1892); Ludovik Debicki,Pulawy, vol. iv.; Lubomir Gadon,Prince Adam Czartoryski during the Insurrection of November(Pol.) (Cracow, 1900).
(R. N. B.)
1Among them was the famous democrat Dupont de Nemours.2e.g.Austria obtained Bosnia, and Montenegro has been enlarged.
1Among them was the famous democrat Dupont de Nemours.
2e.g.Austria obtained Bosnia, and Montenegro has been enlarged.
CZARTORYSKI, FRYDERYK MICHAL,Prince(1696-1775), Polish statesman, was born in 1696. Of small means and no position, he owed his elevation in the world to extraordinary ability, directed by an energetic but patriotic ambition. After a careful education on the best French models, which he completed at Paris, Florence and Rome, he attached himself to the court of Dresden, and through the influence of Count Fleming, the leading minister there, obtained the vice-chancellorship of Lithuania and many other dignities. Czartoryski was one of the many Polish nobles who, when Augustus II. was seriously ill at Bialyvostok in 1727, signed the secret declaration guaranteeing the Polish succession to his son; but this did not prevent him from repudiating his obligations when Stanislaus Leszczynski was placed upon the throne by the influence of France in 1733. When Stanislaus abdicated in 1735 Czartoryski voted for Augustus III. (of Saxony), who gladly employed him and his family to counteract the influence of the irreconcilable Potokis. For the next forty years Czartoryski was certainly the leading Polish statesman. In foreign affairs he was the first to favour an alliance with Russia, Austria and England, as opposed to France and Prussia—a system difficult to sustain and not always beneficial to Poland or Saxony. In Poland Czartoryski was at the head of the party of reform. His palace was the place where the most promising young gentlemen of the day were educated and sent abroad that they might return as his coadjutors in the great work. His plan aimed at the restoration of the royal prerogative and the abolition of theliberum veto, an abuse that made any durable improvement impossible. These patriotic endeavours made the Czartoryskis very unpopular with the ignorantszlachta, but for many years they had the firm and constant support of the Saxon court, especially after Brühl succeeded Fleming.
Czartoryski reached the height of his power in 1752 when he was entrusted with the great seal of Lithuania; but after that date the influence of his rival Mniszek began to prevail at Dresden, whereupon Czartoryski sought a reconciliation with his political opponents at home and foreign support both in England and Russia. In 1755 he sent his nephew Stanislaus Poniatowski to St Petersburg as Saxon minister, a mission which failed completely. Czartoryski’s philo-Russian policy had by this time estranged Brühl, but he frustrated all the plans of the Saxon court by dissolving the diets of 1760, 1761 and 1762. In 1763 he went a step farther and proposed the dethronement of Augustus III., who died the same year. During the ensuing interregnum the prince chancellor laboured night and day at the convocation diet of 1764 to reform the constitution, and it was with displeasure that he saw his incompetent nephew Stanislaus finally elected king in 1765. But though disgusted with the weakness of the king and obliged to abandon at last all hope of the amelioration of his country, Czartoryski continued to hold office till the last; and as chancellor of Lithuania he sealed all the partition treaties. He died in the full possession of his faculties and was considered by the Russian minister Repnin “the soundest head in the kingdom.” It is a mistake, however, to regard Czartoryski as the sole reforming statesman of his day, and despite his great services there were occasions when the partisan in him got the better of the statesman. His foreign policy, moreover, was very vacillating, and he changed his “system” more frequently perhaps than any contemporary diplomatist. But when all is said he must remain one of the noblest names in Polish history.
See theCorrespondenceof Czartoryski in the Collections of the Russian Historical Society, vols. 7, 10, 13, 48, 51, 67 (St Petersburg, 1890, &c.); Wladyslaw Tadeusz Kisielewski,Reforms of the Czartorysccy(Pol.) (Sambor, 1880); Adalbert Roepell,Polen um die Mitte des XVIII. Jahrhunderts(Gotha, 1876); Jacques Victor Albert de Broglie,Le Secret du roi(Paris, 1878); Antoni Waliszewki,The Potoccy and the Czartorysccy(Pol.); Carl Heinrich Heyking,Aus Polens und Kurlands letzten Tagen(Berlin, 1897); Ludwik Denbicki,Pulawy(Pol.) (Lemberg, 1887-1888).
See theCorrespondenceof Czartoryski in the Collections of the Russian Historical Society, vols. 7, 10, 13, 48, 51, 67 (St Petersburg, 1890, &c.); Wladyslaw Tadeusz Kisielewski,Reforms of the Czartorysccy(Pol.) (Sambor, 1880); Adalbert Roepell,Polen um die Mitte des XVIII. Jahrhunderts(Gotha, 1876); Jacques Victor Albert de Broglie,Le Secret du roi(Paris, 1878); Antoni Waliszewki,The Potoccy and the Czartorysccy(Pol.); Carl Heinrich Heyking,Aus Polens und Kurlands letzten Tagen(Berlin, 1897); Ludwik Denbicki,Pulawy(Pol.) (Lemberg, 1887-1888).
(R. N. B.)
CZECH(in Bohemian,Čech), a name which signifies an inhabitant of Čechy, the native designation of Bohemia. The Czechs belong to the Slavic race, and according to the usually accepted division they form, together with the Poles and the almost extinct Lusatians, the group of the Western Slavs. Speaking generally, it can be said that the Czechs inhabit a large part of Bohemia, a yet larger part of Moravia, parts of Silesia—both Austrian and Prussian—and extensive districts in northern Hungary. In the 19th century the Czechs of Hungary—much to their own detriment—developed a written language that differs slightly from that used in Bohemia, but as regards their race they are identical with the Bohemians and Moravians. Beyond the borders of this continuous territory there are many Czechs in Lower Austria. Vienna in particular has a large and increasing Czech population. There are also numerous Czechs in Russia, particularly Volhynia, in the United States—where a large number of newspapers and periodicals are published in the Czech language—and in London. Though the statistics are very uncertain and untrustworthy, it can be stated that the Czechs number about eight millions.
The period at which the Czechs settled in Bohemia is very uncertain; all theories, indeed, with regard to the advent of the Slavs in northern and eastern Europe are merely conjectural. It was formerly generally accepted as a fact that all Bohemia was originally inhabited by Celtic tribes, who were succeeded by the Germanic Marcomanni, and later by the Slavic Czechs. According to a very ancient tradition reproduced in the book of Cosmas, the earliest Bohemian chronicler, the Czechs arrived in Bohemia led by their eponymous chief Čechus, and first settled on the Řip Hill (Georgberg) near Roudnice. It is a strange proof of the intense obscurity of the earliest Bohemian history that Cosmas, writing at the beginning of the 12th century, is already unaware of the existence of pre-Slavic inhabitants of Bohemia. It is historically certain that the Czechs inhabited parts of Bohemia as early as the 6th century. In the absence of all historical evidence, modern Czech scholars have endeavoured by other means to throw some light on the earliest period of theCzechs. By craniological studies and a thorough examination of the fields where the dead were burnt (in Czechžárove pole), still found in some parts of Bohemia, they have arrived at the conclusion that parts of the country were inhabited by Czechs, or at least by Slavs, long before the Christian era, perhaps about the year 500B.C.
It is certain that the Slavs at the time when they first appeared in history had a common language, known as the ancient Slavic (praslovanský) language. When in the course of time the Slavs occupied various countries, which were often widely apart, different dialects arose among them, many of which were influenced by the language of the neighbouring non-Slavic populations. Thus the Czech language from an early period absorbed many German words. It is probable that the development of the Czech language as an independent one, was very gradual. Existent documents, such as the hymn to St Wenceslas, which belongs to the second half of the 10th century, are written partly in old-Slavic, partly in Czech. When the Slavs first occupied Bohemia, they were probably divided into several tribes, of which the Czechs, who inhabited Prague and the country surrounding it, were the most powerful. It is probable that these smaller tribes were only gradually subdued by the Czechs and that some of them had previously to their absorption adopted special dialects. The Netolice, Lučane, Pšovane, Sedlčane appear to have been among the more important tribes who were forced to acknowledge the supremacy of the Czechs, and it may be conjectured that their language for a time differed slightly from that of their conquerors. The Czech language has, like all Slavic ones, a strong tendency to develop dialects; this was the case at the time of its first appearance as an independent language, and has to a certain extent continued up to the present day. The dialects of Moravia and the northern districts of Hungary still show variations from the generally accepted forms of the Czech language, though since the foundation of the Czech university of Prague this—at least among the educated classes—is no longer true to the same extent as it formerly was. The Czech language at the time of its formation naturally remained closest to those other Slav-speaking countries which were geographically its neighbours, the Poles and the Lusatians, and it may be said that this is still the case. The Czech language at the time when in the 12th and 13th centuries it first appears as a separate and distinct one, differed considerably from that of the present day. Ancient Czech had several diphthongs, such as:ia,ie,iu,uoandau, that are unknown to the present language. The letter “l” had a threefold sound, and besides the lettersb,p,m,v, the softer formsb′,p′,m′,v′, were also in existence. The letterg(as in other Slavic languages) was often used where modern Czechs employ the letterh. Ancient Bohemian had three numbers, the singular, plural and dual; of the dual only scant vestiges remain in modern Czech.
Once it had obtained its independence, the Czech language developed rapidly, and the philosophical and theological writings of Thomas of Štitný (1331-1401) proved that it could already be used even for dealing with the most abstract subjects, though Štitný was blamed by the monks for not writing in Latin, as was then customary. The Czech language is greatly indebted also to John Hus, whose best and most original works were written in the language of his country. Hus showed great interest in the orthography and grammar of his language, and has devoted an interesting treatise entitled “Orthographia bohemica” to it. As already mentioned, the Czech language had sprung from diverse dialects, and Hus endeavoured to establish uniformity. To the Bohemian reformer is also due the system of so-called diacritic marks—such asč,ů,ý—which with some modifications are still in use.1The Latin characters which were in the earliest times, as again at the present day, used when writing Czech, are quite unable to reproduce some sounds peculiar to Slavic languages. This was remedied by the introduction of these marks, and Hus’s system of orthography became known as the diacritic one. The Bohemian reformer, zealous for the purity of the language of his country, often in his sermons inveighed quaintly and vehemently against those who defiled the Czech language by introducing numerous “Germanisms.” A century later the Czech language was largely indebted to the then recently founded community of the Bohemian (or as they were also often called, Moravian) brethren. A member of the community, Brother John Blakoslav, wrote in 1571 aGrammatika Česká, that still has considerable philological interest. It contains a full account of the construction of the Czech language, based on Latin grammar, with which the writer was thoroughly acquainted. Divines belonging to the same community also at the end of the 16th century published at Kralice in Moravia a complete Czech version of the Old and New Testaments. Together with theLabyrint Světa(Labyrinth of the World) of Komensky (Comenius), who was also a member of the brotherhood, it can be considered a model of the Czech language in the period immediately preceding its downfall.
The Czechs have always enthusiastically upheld the language of their country. In ancient Czech, indeed, the same wordjazykdenotes both “nation” and “language.” As late as in 1608 a decree of the estates of Bohemia declared that Czech was the only official and recognized state-language, and that all who wished to acquire citizenship in the country should be obliged to acquire the knowledge of it. While all patriots thus supported the national language, it was greatly disliked by the absolutists who were opposed to the ancient free constitution of Bohemia, as well as by all who favoured the Church of Rome. The overthrow of Bohemian independence at the battle of the White Mountain (1620) was therefore shortly followed by the decline of the Czech language. All Czech writings which could be found were destroyed by the Austrian authorities as being tainted with heresy, while no new books written in Czech appeared, except occasional prayer-books and almanacs. For these scanty writings the German so-called “Schwabach” characters were used, and this custom only ceased in the middle of the 19th century. The Czech language, for some time entirely excluded from the schools, all but ceased to be written, and its revival at the beginning of the 19th century was almost a resurrection.
The first originator of the movement, Joseph Dobrovský or Doubravský (1753-1829) seems himself, at least at the beginning of his life, to have considered it impossible that Czech should again become a widely-spoken language, and one whose literature could successfully compete with that of larger countries. Yet it was the works of this “patriarch of Slavic philology” which first drew the public attention to the half-forgotten Czech language. Dobrovský’s work was afterwards continued by Kolar, Jungmann, Palacký, Šafařek, and many others, and Czech literature has, both as regards its value and its extension, reached a height that in the middle of the 19th century would have appeared incredible.
Though met by constant opposition on the part of the Austrian authorities, the Czechs have succeeded in re-establishing the use of their language in many of the lower and middle schools of Bohemia and Moravia, and the foundation of a Czech university at Prague (1882-1884) has of course contributed very largely to the ever-increasing expansion of the Czech language. The national language has at all times appeared to the Bohemians as the palladium of their nationality and independence, and the movement in favour of the revival of the Czech language necessarily became a political one, as soon as circumstances permitted. The friends of the national language at the beginning of the 19th century were generally known as thevlastenci(patriots), but when in 1848 representatives of many parts of Austria met at Vienna, the deputies of Bohemia—with the exception of the Germans—formed what was called the national or Czech party. Parliamentary government did not at that period long survive, and at the end of the year 1851 absolutism had been re-established. In 1860 a new attempt to establish constitutional government in Austria was made, and representatives of the Czech party appeared at the provincial diet of Prague and the central parliament at Vienna. The Czech party endeavoured to obtain the re-establishment of the ancientBohemian constitution, but, allied as they were with a large part of the Bohemian nobility, it was their policy to maintain a somewhat conservative attitude. After having absented themselves for a considerable time from the parliament of Vienna, the legality of which they denied, the Czech deputies reappeared in Vienna in 1879, and, together with the representatives of the Bohemian nobility, formed there what was known as the Česky Klub.
While the Czechs for a time continued united at Vienna, a schism among them had some time previously occurred at Prague. Dissatisfied with the policy of the Czechs, a new party had been formed in Bohemia which affected more advanced views and became known as the “Young Czech” party. The more conservative Czechs were henceforth known as the “Old Czechs.” The “Young Czechs,” when the party first became independent in 1872, had thirty-five representatives in the diet of Prague, but at the elections of 1874 their number was reduced to seven. They continued, however, to gain in strength, and obtained for a long time a large majority in the diet, while the Old Czech party for a considerable period almost disappeared. In Vienna also the Old Czech party gradually lost ground. Its leader Dr Rieger, indeed, obtained for the Czechs certain concessions which, underrated at the time, have since proved by no means valueless. The decision of the Old Czech party to take part at a conference in Vienna under the presidency of Count Taafe—then Austrian prime-minister—which was to settle the national differences in Bohemia, caused its complete downfall. The proposals of the Vienna conference were rejected with indignation, and the Old Czechs, having become very unpopular, for a time ceased to contest the elections for the legislative assemblies of Prague and Vienna. The victorious Young Czechs, however, soon proved themselves very unskilful politicians. After very unsuccessfully assuming for a short time an attitude of intransigeant opposition, they soon became subservient to the government of Vienna to an extent which the Old Czechs had never ventured. Dr Kramář, in particular, as leader of the Young Czech party, supported the foreign policy of Austria even when its tendency was most hostile to the interests of Bohemia. The Vienna government has, in recent years, as regards internal affairs, also adopted a policy very unfavourable to the Czech race. Even the continuance of some of the concessions formerly obtained by the Old Czechs has become doubtful. At the elections to the diet of Prague which took place in March 1908, the Young Czechs lost many seats to the Old Czechs, while the Agrarians, Clericals and Radicals were also successful.