Page images
PDF

nature and appearance, and is much used by varnish-makers. The name is also given to Zanzibar copal (q.v.). ANIMISM (from animus, or anima, mind or soul), according to the definition of Dr E. B. Tylor, the doctrine of spiritual beings, including human souls; in practice, however, the term is often extended to include panthelism or animatism, the doctrine that a great part, if not the whole, of the inanimate kingdom, as well as all animated beings, are endowed with reason, intelligence and volition, identical with that of man. This latter theory, which in many cases is equivalent to personification, though it may be, like animism, a feature of the philosophy of peoples of low culture, should not be confused with it. But it is difficult in practice to distinguish the two phases of thought and no clear account of animatism can yet be given, largely on the ground that no people has yet been discovered which has not already developed to a greater or less extent an animistic philosophy. On theoretical grounds it is probable that animatism preceded animism; but savage thought is no more consistent than that of civilized man; and it may well be that animistic and panthelistic doctrines are held simultaneously by the same person. In like manner one portion of the savage explanation of nature may have been originally animistic, another part animatistic. Origin.—Animism may have arisen out of or simultaneously with animatism as a primitive explanation of many different phenomena; if animatism was originally applied to non-human or inanimate objects, animism may from the outset have been in vogue as a theory of the nature of man. Lists of phenomena from the contemplation of which the savage was led to believe in animism have been given by Dr Tylor, Herbert Spencer, Mr Andrew Lang and others; an animated controversy arose between the former as to the priority of their respective lists. Among these phenomena are: trance (q.v.) and unconsciousness, sickness, death, clairvoyance (q.v.), dreams (q.v.), apparitions (q.v.) of the dead, wraiths, hallucinations (q.v.), echoes, shadows and reflections. Primitive ideas on the subject of the soul, and at the same time the origin of them, are best illustrated by an analysis of the terms applied to it. Readers of Dante know the idea that the dead have no shadows; this was no invention of the poet’s but a piece of traditionary lore; at the present day among the Basutos it is held that a man walking by the brink of a river may lose his life if his shadow falls on the water, for a crocodile may seize it and draw him in; in Tasmania, North and South America and classical Europe is found the conception that the soul-aktā, umbra—is somehow identical with the shadow of a man. More familiar to the Anglo-Saxon race is the connexion between the soul and the breath; this identification is found both in Aryan and Semitic languages; in Latin we have spiritus, in Greek pneuma, in Hebrew ruach; and the idea is found extending downwards to the lowest planes of culture in Australia, America and Asia. For some of the Red Indians the Roman custom of receiving the breath of a dying man was no mere pious duty but a means of ensuring that his soul was transferred to a new body. Other familiar conceptions identify the soul with the liver (see OMEN) or the heart, with the reflected figure seen in the pupil of the eye, and with the blood. Although the soul is often distinguished from the vital principle, there are many cases in which a state of unconsciousness is explained as due to the absence of the soul; in South Australia wilyamarraba (without soul) is the word used for insensible. So too the autohypnotic trance of the magician or shaman is regarded as due to his visit to distant regions or the nether world, of which he brings back an accqunt. Telepathy or clairvoyance (q.v.), with or without trance, must have operated powerfully to produce a conviction of the dual nature of man, for it seems probable that facts unknown to the automatist are sometimes discovered by means of crystal-gazing (q.v.), which is widely found among savages, as among civilized peoples. Sickness is often explained as due to the absence of the soul; and means are sometimes taken to lure back the wandering soul; when a Chinese is at the point of death and his soul is supposed to have already left his body, the patient's coat is held up on a long bamboo while a priest endeavours to bring the departed spirit

back into the coat by means of incantations. If the bamboo begins to turn round in the hands of the relative who is deputed to hold it, it is regarded as a sign that the soul of the moribund has returned (see AUToMATISM). More important perhaps than all these phenomena, because more regular and normal, was the daily period of sleep with its frequent concomitant of fitful and incoherent ideas and images. The mere immobility of the body was sufficient to show that its state was not identical with that of waking; when, in addition, the sleeper awoke to give an account of visits to distant lands, from which, as modern psychical investigations suggest, he may even have brought back veridical details, the conclusion must have been irresistible that in sleep something journeyed forth, which was not the body. In a minor degree revival of memory during sleep and similar phenomena of the sub-conscious life may have contributed to the same result. Dreams are sometimes explained by savages as journeys performed by the sleeper, sometimes as visits paid by other persons, by animals or objects to him; hallucinations, possibly more frequent in the lower stages of culture, must have contributed to fortify this interpretation, and the animistic theory in general. Seeing the phantasmic figures of friends at the moment when they were, whether at the point of death or in good health, many miles distant, must have led the savage irresistibly to the dualistic theory. But hallucinatory figures, both in dreams and waking life, are not necessarily those of the living; from the reappearance of dead friends or enemies primitive man was inevitably led to the belief that there existed an incorporeal part of man which survived the dissolution of the body. The soul was conceived to be a facsimile of the body, sometimes no less material, sometimes more subtle but yet material, sometimes altogether impalpable and intangible. Animism and Eschatology.-The psychological side of animism has already been dealt with; almost equally important in primitive creeds is the eschatological aspect. In many parts cf the world it is held that the human body is the seat of more than one soul; in the island of Nias four are distinguished, the shadow and the intelligence, which die with the body, a tutelary spirit, termed begoe, and a second which is carried on the head. Similar ideas are found among the Euahlayi of S.E. Australia, the Dakotas and many other tribes. Just as in Europe the ghost of a dead person is held to haunt the churchyard or the place of death, although more orthodox ideas may be held and enunciated by the same person as to the nature of a future life, so the savage, more consistently, assigns different abodes to the multiple souls with which he credits man. Of the four souls of a Dakota, one is held to stay with the corpse, another in the village, a third goes into the air, while the fourth goes to the land of souls, where its lot may depend on its rank in this life, its sex, mode of death or sepulture, on the dueobservanceoffuneral ritual, or many other points (see EscHATOLOGY). From the belief in the survival of the dead arose the practice of offering food, lighting fires, &c., at the grave, at first, maybe, as an act of friendship or filial piety, later as an act of worship (see ANCEstoR WorshTP). The simple offering of food or shedding of blood at the grave develops into an elaborate system of sacrifice; even where ancestor-worship is not found, the desire to provide the dead with comforts in the future life may lead to the sacrifice of wives, slaves, animals, &c., to the breaking or burning of objects at the grave or to the provision of the ferryman's toll, a coin put in the mouth of the corpse to pay the travelling expenses of the soul. But all is not finished with the passage of the soul to the land of the dead; the soul may return to avenge its death by helping to discover the murderer, or to wreak vengeance for itself; there is a widespread belief that those who die a violent death become malignant spirits and endanger the lives of those who come near the haunted spot; the woman who dies in child-birth becomes a pontianak, and threatens the life of human beings; and man resorts to magical or religious means of repelling his spiritual dangers. Development of Animism.—If the phenomena of dreams were, as suggested above, of great importance for the development of animism, the belief, which must originally have been a doctrine of human psychology, cannot have failed to expand speedily into a general philosophy of nature. Not only human beings but animals and objects are seen in dreams; and the conclusion would be that they too have souls; the same conclusion may have been reached by another line of argument; primitive psychology posited a spirit in a man to account, amongst other things, for his actions; a natural explanation of the changes in the external world would be that they are due to the operations and volitions of spirits. Animal Souls.—But apart from considerations of this sort, it is probable that animals must, early in the history of animistic beliefs, have been regarded as possessing souls. Education has brought with it a sense of the great gulf between man and animals; but in the lower stages of culture this distinction is not adequately recognized, if indeed it is recognized at all. The savage attributes to animals the same ideas, the same mental processes as himself, and at the same time vastly greater power and cunning. The dead animal is credited with a knowledge of how its remains are treated and sometimes with a power of taking vengeance on the fortunate hunter. Powers of reasoning are not denied to animals nor even speech, the silence of the brute creation may be put down to their superior cunning. We may assume that man attributed a soul to the beasts of the field almost as soon as he claimed one for himself. It is therefore not surprising to find that many peoples on the lower planes of culture respect and even worship animals (see ToTEM, ANIMAL WoRSHIP); though we need not attribute an animistic origin to all the developments, it is clear that the widespread respect paid to animals as the abode of dead ancestors,

and much of the cult of dangerous animals, is traceable to this

principle. With the rise of species, deities and the cult of individual animals, the path towards anthropomorphization and polytheism is opened and the respect paid to animals tends to lose its strict animistic character. Plant Souls.-Just as human souls are assigned to animals, so primitive man often credits trees and plants with souls in both human or animal form. All over the world agricultural peoples practise elaborate ceremonies explicable, as Mannhardt has shown, on animistic principles. In Europe the corn spirit sometimes immanent in the crop, sometimes a presiding deity whose life does not depend on that of the growing corn, is conceived in some districts in the form of an ox, hare or cock, in others as an old man or woman; in the East Indies and America the rice or maize mother is a corresponding figure; in classical Europe and the East we have in Ceres and Demeter, Adonis and Dionysus, and other deities, vegetation gods whose origin we can readily trace back to the rustic corn spirit. Forest trees, no less than cereals, have their indwelling spirits; the fauns and satyrs of classical literature were goat-footed and the tree spirit of the Russian peasantry takes the form of a goat; in Bengal and the East Indies wood-cutters endeavour to propitiate the spirit of the tree which they cut down; and in many parts of the world trees are regarded as the abode of the spirits of the dead. Just as a process of syncretism has given rise to cults of animal gods, tree spirits tend to become detached from the trees, which are thenceforward only their abodes; and here again animism has begun to pass into polytheism. Object Souls.—We distinguish between animate and inanimate nature, but this classification has no meaning for the savage. The river speeding on its course to the sea, the sun and moon, if not the stars also, on their never-ceasing daily round, the lightning, fire, the wind, the sea, all are in motion and therefore animate; but the savage does not stop short here; mountains and lakes, stones and manufactured articles, are for him alike endowed with souls like his own; he deposits in the tomb weapons and food, clothes and implements, broken, it may be, in order to set free their souls; or he attains the same result by burning them, and thus sending them to the Other World for the use of the dead man. Here again, though to a less extent than in tree cults, the theriomorphic aspect recurs; in the north of Europe, in ancient Greece, in China, the water or river spirit is horse or bull-shaped; the water monster in serpent shape is even more widely found, but it is less strictly the spirit of the water. The spirit of syncretism manifests itself in this department of animism too; the

immanent spirit of the earlier period becomes the presiding genius or local god of later times, and with the rise of the doctrine of separable souls we again reach the confines of animism pure and simple. Spirits in General.-Side by side with the doctrine of separable souls with which we have so far been concerned, exists the belief in a great host of unattached spirits; these are not immanent souls which have become detached from their abodes, but have every appearance of independent spirits. Thus, animism is in some directions little developed, so far as we can see, among the Australian aborigines, but from those who know them best we learn that they believe in innumerable spirits and bush bogies, which wander, especially at night, and can be held at bay by means of fire; with this belief may be compared the ascription in European folk belief of prophylactic propertics to iron. These spirits are at first mainly malevolent; and side by side with them we find the spirits of the dead as hostile beings. At a higher stage the spirits of dead kinsmen are no longer unfriendly, nor yet all non-human spirits; as fetishes (see FETISHISM), naguals (see ToTEM), familiars, gods or demi-gods (for which and the general question see DEMONoLocy), they enter into relations with man. On the other hand there still subsists a belief in innumerable evil spirits, which manifest themselves in the phenomena of possession (q.v.), lycanthropy (q.v.), disease, &c. The fear of evil spirits has given rise to ceremonies of expulsion of evils (see ExoRCISM), designed to banish them from the community. Animism and Religion.—Animism is commonly described as the most primitive form of religion; but properly speaking it is not a religion at all, for religion implies, at any rate, some form of emotion (see RELIGION), and animism is in the first instance an explanation of phenomena rather than an attitude of mind toward the cause of them, a philosophy rather than a religion. The term may, however, be conveniently used to describe the early stage of religion in which man endeavours to set up relations between himself and the unseen powers, conceived as spirits, but differing in many particulars from the gods of polytheism. As an example of this stage in one of its aspects may be taken the European belief in the corn spirit, which is, however, the object of magical rather than religious rites; Dr Frazer has thus defined the character of the animistic pantheon, “they are restricted in their operations to definite departments of nature, their names are general, not proper; their attributes are generic rather than individual; in other words, there is an indefinite number of spirits of each class, and the individuals of a class are much alike; they have no definitely marked individuality; no accepted traditions are current as to their origin, life and character.” This stage of religion is well illustrated by the Red Indian custom of offering sacrifice to certain rocks, or whirlpools, or to the indwelling spirits connected with them; the rite is only performed in the neighbourhood of the object, it is an incident of a canoe or other voyage, and is not intended to secure any benefits beyond a safe passage past the object in question; the spirit to be propitiated has a purely local sphere of influence, and powers of a very limited nature. Animistic in many of their features too are the temporary gods of fetishism (q.v.), naguals or familiars, genii and even the dead who receive a cult. With the rise of a belief in departmental gods comes the age of polytheism; the belief in elemental spirits may still persist, but they fall into the background and receive no cult. Animism and the Origin of Religion.—Two animistic theories of the origin of religion have been put forward, the one, often termed the “ghost theory,” mainly associated with the name of Herbert Spencer, but also maintained by Grant Allen, refers the beginning of religion to the cult of dead human beings; the other, put forward by Dr E. B. Tylor, makes the foundation of all religion animistic, but recognizes the non-human character of polytheistic gods. Although ancestor-worship, or, more broadly, the cult of the dead, has in many cases overshadowed other cults or even extinguished them, we have no warrant, even in these cases, for asserting its priority, but rather the reverse; not only so, but in the majority of cases the pantheon is made up by a multitude of spirits in human, sometimes in animal form, which bear no signs of ever having been incarnate, sun gods and moon goddesses, gods of fire, wind and water, gods of the sea, and above all gods of the sky, show no signs of having been ghost gods at any period in their history. They may, it is true, be associated with ghost gods, but in Australia it cannot even be asserted that the gods are spirits at all, much less that they are the spirits of dead men; they are simply magnified magicians, super-men who have never died; we have no ground, therefore, for regarding the cult of the dead as the origin of religion in this area; this conclusion is the more probable, as ancestor-worship and the cult of the dead generally cannot be said to exist in Australia. The more general view that polytheistic and other gods are the elemental and other spirits of the later stages of animistic creeds, is equally inapplicable to Australia, where the belief seems to be neither animistic nor even animatistic in character. But we are hardly justified in arguing from the case of Australia to a general conclusion as to the origin of religious ideas in all other parts of the world. It is perhaps safest to say that the science of religions has no data on which to go, in formulating conclusions as to the original form of the objects of religious emotion; in this connexion it must be remembered that not only is it very difficult to get precise information of the subject of the religious ideas of people of low culture, perhaps for the simple reason that the ideas themselves are far from precise, but also that, as has been pointed out above, the conception of spiritual often approximates very closely to that of material. Where the soul is regarded as no more than a finer sort of matter, it will obviously be far from easy to decide whether the gods are spiritual or material. Even, therefore, if we can say that at the present day the gods are entirely spiritual, it is clearly possible to maintain that they have been spiritualized pari passu with the increasing importance of the animistic view of nature and of the greater prominence of eschatological beliefs. The animistic origin of religion is therefore not proven. Animism and Mythology.—But little need be said on the relation of animism and mythology (q.v.). While a large part of mythology has an animistic basis, it is possible to believe, e.g. in a sky world, peopled by corporeal beings, as well as by spirits of the dead; the latter may even be entirely absent; the mythology of the Australians relates largely to corporeal, non-spiritual beings; stories of transformation, deluge and doom myths, or myths of the origin of death, have not necessarily any animistic basis. At the same time, with the rise of ideas as to a future life and spiritual beings, this field of mythology is immensely widened, though it cannot be said that a rich mythology is necessarily genetically associated with or combined with belief in many spiritual beings. Animism in Philosophy.—The term “animism” has been applied to many different philosophical systems. It is used to describe Aristotle's view of the relation of soul and body held also by the Stoics and Scholastics. On the other hand monadology (Leibnitz) has also been termed animistic. The name is most commonly applied to vitalism, a view mainly associated with G. E. Stahl and revived by F. Bouillier (1813– 1899), which makes life, or life and mind, the directive principle in evolution and growth, holding that all cannot be traced back to chemical and mechanical processes, but that there is a directive force which guides energy without altering its amount. An entirely different class of ideas, also termed animistic, is the belief in the world soul, held by Plato, Schelling and others. Bibliog RAPHY-Tylor, Primitive Culture; Frazer, Golden Bough; Id. on Burial Customs in J. A. I. xv.; Mannhardt, Baumkultus; G. A. Wilken, Het Animisme; Koch on the animism of S. America in Internationales. Archiv, xiii., Suppl.; Andrew Lang, Making of Refigion; Skeat. Malay Magic: Sir G. Campbell, “Spirit Basis of Belief and Custom,” in Indian Antiquary, xxiii. and succeeding

volumes: Folklore, iii. 289. xi. 162; Spencer, Principles # Sociology, Mind (1877). I.4.1, 415 et seq or animism in philosophy, Stahl, Theoria, Bouillier, Du Principe vital. (N. W. #

ANIMUCCIA, GIOVANNI, Italian musical composer, was born at Florence in the last years of the 15th century. At the request of St Filippo Neri he composed a number of Laudi, or hymns of praise, to be sung after sermon time, which have given him an accidental prominence in musical history, since their per

formance in St Filippo's Oratory eventually gave rise (on the disruption of 16th century schools of composition) to those early forms of “oratorio” that are not traceable to the Gregorianpolyphonic “Passions.” St Filippo admired Animuccia so warmly that he declared he had seen the soul of his friend fly upwards towards heaven. In 1555 Animuccia was appointed maestro di capella at St Peter's, an office which he held until his death in 1571. He was succeeded by Palestrina, who had been his friend and probably his pupil. The manuscript of many of Animuccia's compositions is still preserved in the Vatican Library. His chief published works were Madrigali e Motetti a quattro e cinque voci (Ven. 1548) and Il primo Libro di Messe (Rom. 1567). From the latter Padre Martini has taken two specimens for his Saggio di Contrapunto. A mass from the Primo Libro di Messe on the canto fermo of the hymn Conditor alme siderum is published in modern notation in the Anthologie des mattres religieux primitifs of the Chanteurs de Saint Gervais. It is solemn and noble in conception, and would be a great work but for a roughness which is more careless than archaic. Paolo ANIMUCCIA, a brother of Giovanni, was also celebrated as a composer; he is said by Fetis to have been maestro di capella at S. Giovanni in Laterano from the middle of January 155o until 1552, and to have died in 1563. ANISE (Pimpinella Anisum), an umbelliferous plant found in Egypt and the Levant, and cultivated on the continent of Europe for medicinal purposes. The officinal part of the plant is the fruit, which consists of two united carpels, called a cremocarp. It is known by the name of aniseed, and has a strong aromatic taste and a powerful odour. By distillation the fruit yields the volatile oil of anise, which is useful in the treatment of flatulence and colic in children. It may be given as Aqua Anisi, in doses of one or more ounces, or as the Spiritus Anisi, in doses of 5-20 minims. The main constituent of the oil (up to 90%) is anethol, CoH1.0 or C.H.[14](OCH3)(CH:CH-CH.) It also contains methyl chavicol, anisic aldehyde, anisic acid, and a terpene. Most of the oil of commerce, however, of which anethol is also the chief constituent, comes from Illicium verum (order Magnoliaceae, sub-order Wintereae), indigenous in N.E. China, the star-anise of liqueur makers. It receives its name from its flavour, and from its fruit spreading out like a star. The anise of the Bible (Matt. xxiii. 23) is Anethum or Peucedanum graveolens, i.e. dill (q.v.). ANJAR, a fortified town of India, and the capital of a district of the same name in the native state of Cutch, in the presidency of Bombay. The country is dry and sandy, and entirely depends on well irrigation for its water supply. The town is situated nearly 10 miles from the Gulf of Cutch. It suffered severely from an earthquake in 1819, which destroyed a large number of houses, and occasioned the loss of several lives. In 1901 the population was 18,014. The town and district of Anjar were both ceded to the British in 1816, but in 1822 they were again transferred to the Cutch government in consideration of an annual money payment. Subsequently it was discovered that this obligation pressed heavily upon the resources of the native state, and in 1832 the pecuniary equivalent for Anjar, both prospectively and inclusive of the arrears which had accrued to that date, was wholly remitted by the British government. ANJOU, the old name of a French territory, the political origin of which is traced to the ancient Gallic state of the Andes, on the lines of which was organized, after the conquest by Julius Caesar, the Roman civitas of the Andecavi. This was afterwards preserved as an administrative district under the Franks with the name first of pagus, then of comitatus, or countship of Anjou. This countship, the extent of which seems to have been practically identical with that of the ecclesiastical diocese of Angers, occupied the greater part of what is now the department of Maine-et-Loire, further embracing, to the north, Craon, Bazouges (Château-Gontier), Le Lude, and to the east, Château-la-Vallière and Bourgueil, while to the south, on the other hand, it included neither the present town of MontreuilBellay, nor Vihiers, Cholet, Beaupréau, nor the whole district lying to the west of the Ironne and Thouet, on the left bank of the Loire, which formed the territory of the Mauges. It was bounded on the north by the countship of Maine, on the east by that of Touraine, on the south by that of Poitiers and by the Mauges, on the west by the countship of Nantes. From the outset of the reign of Charles the Bald, the integrity of Anjou was seriously menaced by a two-fold danger: from Brittany and from Normandy. Lambert, a former count of Nantes, after devastating Anjou in concert with Nominoé, duke of Brittany, had by the end of the year 851 succeeded in occupying all the western part as far as the Mayenne. The principality, which he thus carved out for himself, was occupied, on his death, by Erispoé, duke of Brittany; by him it was handed down to his successors, in whose hands it remained till the beginning of the 10th century. All this time the Normans had not ceased ravaging the country; a brave man was needed to defend it, and finally towards 861, Charles the Bald entrusted it to Robert the Strong (q.v.), but he unfortunately met with his death in 866 in a battle against the Normans at Brissarthe. Hugh the Abbot succeeded him in the countship of Anjou as in most of his other duties, and on his death (886) it passed to Odo (q.v.), the eldest son of Robert the Strong, who, on his accession to the throne of France (888), probably handed it over to his brother Robert. In any case, during the last years of the 9th century, in Anjou as elsewhere the power was delegated to a viscount, Fulk the Red (mentioned under this title after 898), son of a certain Ingelgerius. In the second quarter of the 10th century Fulk the Red had already usurped the title of count, which his descendants kept for three centuries. He was succeeded first by his son Fulk II. the Good (941 or 942-c. 960), and then by the son of the latter, Geoffrey I. Grisegonelle (Greytunic) (c. 960-21st of July 987), who inaugurated a policy of expansion, having as its objects the extension of the boundaries of the ancient countship and the reconquest of those parts of it which had been annexed by the neighbouring states; for, though western Anjou had been recovered from the dukes of Brittany since the beginning of the 10th century, in the east all the district of Saumur had already by that time fallen into the hands of the counts of Blois and Tours. Geoffrey Greytunic succeeded in making the count of Nantes his vassal, and in obtaining from the duke of Aquitaine the concession in fief of the district of Loudun. Moreover, in the wars of king Lothaire against the Normans and against the emperor Otto II. he distinguished himself by feats of arms which the epic poets were quick to celebrate. His son Fulk III. Nerra (q.v.) (21st of July 987–21st of June 1040) found himself confronted on his accession with a coalition of Odo I., count of Blois, and Conan I., count of Rennes. The latter having seized upon Nantes, of which the counts of Anjou held themselves to be suzerains, Fulk Nerra came and laid siege to it, routing Conan's army at Conquereuil (27th of June 992) and re-establishing Nantes under his own suzerainty. Then turning his attention to the count of Blois, he proceeded to establish a fortress at Langeais, a few miles from Tours, from which, thanks to the intervention of the king Hugh Capet, Odo failed to oust him. On the death of Odo I., Fulk seized Tours (996); but King Robert the Pious turned against him and took the town again (997). In 1016 a fresh struggle arose between Fulk and Odo II., the new count of Blois. Odo II. was utterly defeated at Pontlevoy (6th of July 1016), and a few years later, while Odo was besieging Montboyau, Fulk surprised and took Saumur (1026). Finally, the victory gained by Geoffrey Martcl (q.v.) (21st of June 1040-14th of November 1060), the son and successor of Fulk, over Theobald III., count of Blois, at Nouy (21st of August 1044), assured to the Angevins the possession of the countship of Touraine. At the same time, continuing in this quarter also the work of his father (who in 1025 took prisoner Herbert Wake-Dog and only set him free on condition of his doing him homage), Geoffrey succeeded in reducing the countship of Maine to complete dependence on himself. During his father's life-time he had been beaten by Gervais, bishop of Le Mans (1938), but now (1047 or 1048) succeeded in taking the latter prisoner, for which he was excommunicated by Pope Leo IX.

at the council of Reims (October 1049). In spite, however, of the concerted attacks of William the Bastard (the Conqueror), duke of Normandy, and Henry I., king of France, he was able in 1051 to force Maine to recognize his authority, though failing to revenge himself on William. On the death of Geoffrey Martel (14th of November 1060) there was a dispute as to the succession. Geoffrey Martel, having no children, had bequeathed the countship to his eldest nephew, Geoffrey III. the Bearded, son of Geoffrey, count of Gâtinais, and of Ermengarde, daughter of Fulk Nerra. But Fulk le Réchin (the Cross-looking), brother of Geoffrey the Bearded. who had at first been contented with an appanage consisting of Saintonge and the châtellenie of Wihiers, having allowed Saintonge to be taken in 1062 by the duke of Aquitaine, took advantage of the general discontent aroused in the countship by the unskilful policy of Geoffrey to make himself master of Saumur (25th of February 1067) and Angers (4th of April), and cast Geoffrey into prison at Sablé. Compelled by the papal authority to release him after a short interval and to restore the countship to him, he soon renewed the struggle, beat Geoffrey near Brissac and shut him up in the castle of Chinon (1068). In order, however, to obtain his recognition as count, Fulk IV. Réchin (1068–14th of April 1109) had to carry on a long struggle with his barons, to cede Gâtinais to King Philip I., and to do homage to the count of Blois for Touraine. On the other hand, he was successful on the whole in pursuing the policy of Geoffrey Martel in Maine: after destroying La Flèche, by the peace of Blanchelande (1081), he received the homage of Robert “Courteheuse” (“Curthose”), son of William the Conqueror, for Maine. Later, he upheld Elias, lord of La Flèche, against William Rufus, king of England, and on the recognition of Elias as count of Maine in 11oo, obtained for Fulk the Young, his son by Bertrade de Montfort, the hand of Eremburge, Elias's daughter and sole heiress. Fulk V. the Young (14th of April 1109-1129) succeeded to the countship of Maine on the death of Elias (11th of July 111o); but this increase of Angevin territory came into such direct collision with the interests of Henry I., king of England, who was also duke of Normandy, that a struggle between the two powers became inevitable. In 1112 it broke out, and Fulk, being unable to prevent Henry I. from taking Alençon and making Robert, lord of Bellême, prisoner, was forced, at the treaty of Pierre Pecoulée, near Alençon (23rd of February 1113), to do homage to Henry for Maine. In revenge for this, while Louis VI. was overrunning the Vexin in 1118, he routed Henry's army at Alençon (November), and in May 1119 Henry demanded a peace, which was sealed in June by the marriage of his eldest son, William the Aetheling, with Matilda, Fulk's daughter. William the Aetheling having perished in the wreck of the “White Ship" (25th of November 1120), Fulk, on his return from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land (1120–1121), married his secord daughter Sibyl, at the instigation of Louis VI., to William Clito, son of Robert Courteheuse, and a claimant to the duchy of Normandy, giving her Maine for a dowry (1122 or 1123). Henry I. managed to have the marriage annulled, on the plea of kinship between the parties (1123 or 1124). But in 1127 a new alliance was made, and on the 22nd of May at Rouen, Henry I. betrothed his daughter Matilda, widow of the emperor Henry V., to Geoffrey the Handsome, son of Fulk, the marriage being celebrated at Le Mans on the 2nd of June 1129. Shortly after, on the invitation of Baldwin II., king of Jerusalem, Fulk departed to the Holy Land for good, married Melisinda, Baldwin's daughter and heiress, and succeeded to the throne of Jerusalem (14th of September 1131). His eldest son, Geoffrey IV, the Handsome or “Plantagenet,” succeeded him as count of Anjou (11297th of September 1151). From the first he tried to profit by his marriage, and after the death of Henry I. (1st of December 1135), laid the foundation of the conquest of Normandy by a series of campaigns: about the end of 1135 or the beginning of 1136 he entered that country and rejoined his wife, the countess Matilda, who had received the submission of Argentan, Domfront and Exmes. Having been abruptly recalled into Anjou by a revolt of his barons, he returned to the charge in September 1136 with a

strong army, including in its ranks William, duke of Aquitaine, Geoffrey, count of Vendôme, and William Talvas, count of Ponthieu, but after a few successes was wounded in the foot at the siege of Le Sap (October 1) and had to fall back. In May 1137 began a fresh campaign in which he devastated the district of Hiémois (round Exmes) and burnt Bazoches. In June 1138, with the aid of Robert of Gloucester, Geoffrey obtained the submission of Bayeux and Caen; in October he devastated the neighbourhood of Falaise; finally, in March 1141, on hearing of his wife's success in England, he again entered Normandy, when he made a triumphal procession through the country. Town after town surrendered: in 1141, Verneuil, Nonancourt, Lisieux, Falaise; in 1142, Mortain, Saint-Hilaire, Pontorson; in 1143, Avranches, Saint-Lô, Cérences, Coutances, Cherbourg; in the beginning of 1144 he entered Rouen, and on the 19th of January received the ducal crown in its cathedral. Finally, in 1149, after crushing a last attempt at revolt, he handed over the duchy to his son Henry “Curtmantel,” who received the investiture at the hands of the king of France. All the while that Fulk the Young and Geoffrey the Handsome were carrying on the work of extending the countship of Anjou, they did not neglect to strengthen their authority at home, to which the unruliness of the barons was a menace. As regards Fulk the Young we know only a few isolated facts and dates: about 1109 Doué and L'ile Bouchard were taken; in 1112 Brissac was besieged, and about the same time Eschivard of Preuilly subdued; in 1114 there was a general war against the barons who were in revolt, and in 1118 a fresh rising, which was put down after the siege of Montbazon; in 1123 the lord of Doué revolted, and in 1124 Montreuil-Bellay was taken after a siege of nine weeks. Geoffrey the Handsome, with his indefatigable energy, was eminently fitted to suppress the coalitions of his vassals, the most formidable of which was formed in 1129. Among those who revolted were Guy of Laval, Giraud of Montreuil-Bellay, the viscount of Thouars, the lords of Mirebeau, Amboise, Parthenay and Sablé. Geoffrey succeeded in beating them one after another, razed the keep of Thouars and occupied Mirebeau. Another rising was crushed in 1134 by the destruction of Candé and the taking of L'Ile Bouchard. In 1136, while the count was in Normandy, Robert of Sablé put himself at the head of the movement, to which Geoffrey responded by destroying Briollay and occupying La Suze, and Robert of Sablé himself was forced to beg humbly for pardon through the intercession of the bishop of Angers. In 1139 Geoffrey took Mirebeau, and in 1142 Champtoceaux, but in 1145 a new revolt broke out, this time under the leadership of Elias, the count's own brother, who, again with the assistance of Robert of Sablé, laid claim to the countship of Maine. Geoffrey took Elias prisoner, forced Robert of Sablé to beat a retreat, and reduced the other barons to reason. In 1147 he destroyed Doué and Blaison. Finally in 1150 he was checked by the revolt of Giraud, lord of Montreuil-Bellay: for a year he besieged the place till it had to surrender; he then took Giraud prisoner and only released him on the mediation of the king of France. Thus, on the death of Geoffrey the Handsome (7th of September 1151), his son Henry found himself heir to a great empire, strong and consolidated, to which his marriage with Eleanor of Aquitaine (May 1152) further added Aquitaine. At length on the death of King Stephen, Henry was recognised as king of England (19th of December 1154). But then his brother Geoffrey, who had received as appanage the three fortresses of Chinon, Loudun and Mirebeau, tried to seize upon Anjou, on the pretext that, by the will of their father, Geoffrey the Handsome, all the paternal inheritance ought to descend to him, if Henry succeeded in obtaining possession of the maternal £ On hearing of this, Henry, although he had sworn observe this will, had himself released from his oath by the pope, and hurriedly marched against his brother, from whom in the beginning of 1156 he succeeded in taking Chinon and Mirebeau; and in July he forced Geoffrey to give up even his three fortresses in return for an annual pension. Henceforward Henry succeeded in keeping the countship of Anjou all his life; for

though he granted it in 1168 to his son Henry “of the Short Mantle,” when the latter became old enough to govern it, he absolutely refused to allow him to enjoy his power. After Henry II.'s death in 1189 the countship, together with the rest of his dominions, passed to his son Richard I. of England, but on the death of the latter in 1199, Arthur of Brittany (born in 1187) laid claim to the inheritance, which ought, according to him, to have fallen to his father Geoffrey, fourth son of Henry II., in accordance with the custom by which “the son of the eldest brother should succeed to his father's patrimony.” He therefore set himself up in rivalry with John Lackland, youngest son of Henry II., and supported by Philip Augustus of France, and aided by William des Roches, seneschal of Anjou, he managed to enter Angers (18th of April 1199) and there have himself recognized as count of the three countships of Anjou, Maine and Touraine, for which he did homage to the king of France. King John soon regained the upper hand, for Philip Augustus having deserted Arthur by the treaty of Le Goulet (22nd of May 1200), John made his way into Anjou, and on the 18th of June 12oo was recognized as count at Angers. In 1202 he refused to do homage to Philip Augustus, who, in consequence, confiscated all his continental possessions, including Anjou, which was allotted by the king of France to Arthur. The defeat of the latter, who was taken prisoner at Mirebeau on the 1st of August 1202, seemed to ensure John's success, but he was abandoned by William des Roches, who in 1203 assisted Philip Augustus in subduing the whole of Anjou. A last effort on the part of John to possess himself of it, in 1214, led to the taking of Angers (17th of June), but broke down lamentably at the battle of La Rocheaux-Moines (2nd of July), and the countship was attached to the crown of France. Shortly afterwards it was separated from it again, when in August 1246 King Louis IX. gave it as an appanage to his son Charles, count of Provence, soon to become king of Naples and Sicily (see NAPLEs). Charles I. of Anjou, engrossed with his other dominions, gave little thought to Anjou, hor did his son Charles II. the Lame, who succeeded him on the 7th of January 1285. On the 16th of August 1290, the latter married his daughter Margaret to Charles of Valois, son of Philip III. the Bold, giving her Anjou and Maine for dowry, in exchange for the kingdoms of Aragon and Valentia and the countship of Barcelona given up by Charles. Charles of Valois at once entered into possession of the countship of Anjou, to which Philip IV. the Fair, in September 1297, attached a peerage of France. On the 16th of December 1325, Charles died, leaving Anjou to his eldest son Philip of Valois, on whose recognition as king of France (Philip VI.) on the 1st of April 1328, the countship of Anjou was again united to the crown. On the 17th of February 1332, Philip VI. bestowed it on his son John the Good, who, when he became king in turn (22nd of August 1350), gave the countship to his second son Louis I., raising it to a duchy in the peerage of France by letters patent of the 25th of October 1360. Louis I., who became in time count of Provence and king of Naples (see Louis I.,king of Naples,) died in 1384, and was succeeded by his son Louis II., who devoted most of his energies to his kingdom of Naples, and left the administration of Anjou almost entirely in the hands of his wife, Yolande of Aragon. On his death (29th of April 1417) she took upon herself the guardianship of their young son Louis III., and in her capacity of regent defended the duchy against the English. Louis III., who also succeeded his father as king of Naples, died on the 15th of November 1434, leaving no children. The duchy of Anjou then passed to his cousin René, second son of Louis II. and Yolande of Aragon, and king of Naples and Sicily (see NAPLEs). Unlike his predecessors, who had rarely stayed long in Anjou, René from 1443 onwards paid long visits to it, and his court at Angers became one of the most brilliant in the kingdom of France. But after the sudden death of his son John in December 1470, René, for reasons which are not altogether clear, decided to move his residence to Provence and leave Anjou for good. After making an inventory of all his possessions, he left the duchy in October 1471, taking with him the most valuable of his

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »