Modern Greece is of smaller extent, and its limits are strictly determined by the arrangement between Great Britain, France, Russia, and Turkey, concluded at Constantinople on the 21st [9th] July 1832, which finally settled the question of frontier between Greece and Turkey. It left to Turkey the fertile Greek-speaking province of Thessaly and part of Acarnania, and fixed the northern boundary of Greece at a line running from the Gulf of Arta (Sinus Ambracius) to the Gulf of Volo (S. Pagasaeus), keeping along the crest of the Othrys mountain range. The pass of Khlomo was to belong entirely to Greece, and the fort of Punta (Actium) at the southern head of the Gulf of Arta was to continue to belong to Turkey, though Greek vessels were required to have free entry into the gulf. The Ionian islands, consisting of Corfu (Corcyra), Paxo (Paxos), Santa Maura (Leucas), Cephalonia, Thiake (Ithaca), and Zante (Zacynthus) on the west coast of Greece, and Cerigo (Cythera) on the south, which had remained under British protectorate for 50 years, were voluntarily ceded by Britain to Greece in 1864, after the accession of king George. Modern Greece is not more than two-thirds the size of Scotland; it is 200 miles long from north to south, and 180 broad from east to west, and has an entire area of 19,353 square miles, of which 8288 square miles are in the Morea, 7558 in the northern part of continental Greece, 2500 in the islands of the Aegean, and 1007 in the Ionian Islands.

Its most obvious geographical peculiarity is its remarkable richness in mountains, bays, and islands, which give it unexampled natural defences, unusual maritime facilities, and quite a peculiar variety of climate, vegetation, and scenery. In this respect it but gathers into a smaller page and expresses in distincter type the structural peculiarities of the continent to which it belongs. In the complexity of its make and the variety of its natural features Greece excels every country of Europe, as Europe excels every continent of the world. No part of Greece is 40 miles from the sea or 10 from the hills. Though not much more than half the size of Portugal, it has a coast-line greater than that of Spain, and Portugal together, and that coastline is broken everywhere into all manner of gulfs, and bays, and inlets, affording a rich supply of good natural harbours. The country is divided by its mountain chains into a number of independent parts, the capture of one of which by an cnemy is but a single step towards possession of the whole. The small basins of arable land between these hills maintained comparatively isolated populations, on account of the difficulty of inland intercommunication, and naturally developed that individuality of character, that local patriotism, and that political independence, which marked the ancient Greek communities. And the great variety of pursuit, interest, and stimulus which the geographical features of the country created could not fail to conduce to the uncommon mental vigour, quickness, and versatility which the people exhibited. The Greeks therefore owed their greatness largely to the country it was their fortune to dwell in.

The ruling feature in the mountain system of ancient Greece—and, to a certain extent, in modern Greece also—is the great chain of Pindus, which takes its rise in the Balkans (Haemus), and runs like a backbone through the entire length of the northern half of the peninsula, throwing out various branches to the east and the west on its way. At about 40° N. lat. the Cambunians leave it and go east, forming the boundary between Macedonia (Roumelia) and Thessaly, and as they approach the coast they turn in a southerly direction at the lofty and famous Mount Olympus, the highest mountain in ancient Greece, and are continued at intervals, on the other side of the vale of Tempe, by Ossa (Kissovo), Pelion (Zagora), and the hills of Euboea. At 39° the Othrys chain (Helloro), whose chief elevation is the conical Mount Veluchi (Tymphrestus), is sent out also to the east, and forms the northern bulwark of the present kingdom. A little further south the Oeta range (Katavothra) goes in the same direction, and reaches the Gulf of Zeitoum (Maliac Gulf) at the celebrated pass of Thermopylae. The Cambunian chain intersects Pindus at Mount Lacmon (Zygo), and thence westward the chain passes under the name of Taenarus and the Ceraunian Hills (Montes Acroceraunii) till it enters the sea at the Acroceraunian promontory (Cape Linguelta). From the point of junction with the Othrys, the Pindus chain is continued southwards in a.series of separate peaks—Parnassus (Liakura), Helicon, Cithaeron, Parnes, and Hymettus, on to the promontory of Sunium (Cape Colonna) in the southeast of Attica. Parnes divides Attica from Boeotia. The mountains of the Morea have no connexion with the mountain system of Northern Greece; they do not run in chains, but rather cluster in knots. The most important of these are Ziria (Cyllene), Khelmos, Olonos, and the range of Pentedaktylon (Taygetus), which stretches from the centre of Arcadia through the length of Laconia to Cape Matapan (Taenarum), and is the most imposing of all the mountains of Greece. The hegemony of Sparta in the Peloponnesus is attributed by some to its possessing both sides of this chain. Its highest point is Mount St Elias, called, like several other Greek mountains, after the prophet Elijah. None of the mountains of Greece is within the line of perpetual snow, though the tops of several are white for some months in the year. What is peculiar to Greece is not the presence of any one hill of pre-eminent height, but the great number it possesses of considerable and nearly equal elevation. Modern Greece has no summit so high as Olympus (9754 feet), but within its narrow area it has twenty-six hills above 3000 feet, of which eight are above 7000 feet, viz., Parnassus (8068), Taygetus (7904), Tymphrestus (7610). (Eta (7071), the three summits of Cyllene in Arcadia (7788), and Corax in Aetolia. The noted fortified hills of Greece were Acrocorinthus (1686 feet) which guards the isthmus, Ithome (2631 feet) at Messene, Larissa (900 feet) at Argos, and the Acropolis (150) at Athens.

Greece has few rivers, and these small, rapid, and, as a rule, turbid, as they could not help being in a country where they rise in high mountains and have no space to grow in before they reach the sea. They are either perennial rivers or torrents, the white beds of the latter being dry in summer, and only filled with water after the autumn rains. The chief rivers (none of which are navigable) are the Hellada (Sperchius) in Phthiotis, the Aspro Potamo (Achelous) in Aetolia, and the Roufia (Alpheus) and Vasiliko (Eurotas) in the Morea. Of the famous rivers of Athens, the one, the Ilissus, is only a chain of pools all summer, and the other, the Cephissus, though never absolutely dry, does not reach the sea, but is drawn off in numerous artificial channels to irrigate the neighbouring olive groves. The waters of both are clear and delicious to the taste. A frequent peculiarity of the Greek rivers is their sudden disappearance in subterranean chasms and reappearance on the surface again, such as gave rise to the fabled course of the Alpheus under the sea, and its emergence again in the fountain of Arethusa in Syracuse. Some of these chasms—“Katavothras ”—are merely sieves with herbage and gravel in the bottom, but others are large caverns through which the course of the river may be easily followed. Floods are frequent, especially in autumn, and natural fountains abound and gush out even from the tops of the hills. Aganippe rises high up among the peaks of Helicon, and Peirene flows from the summit of Acrocorinthus. It is surprising that there are no waterfalls in Greece, the only one worth mentioning being the famous Styx in Arcadia, which has a fall of 500 feet. During part of the year it is lost in the snow, and it is at all times almost inaccessible. Lakes are numerous, but few are of any size, and many merely marshes in summer. The largest are Trichonis in Aetolia, Copais in Boeotia, and Stymphalus in Arcadia.

The valleys are generally narrow, and the plains small in extent, deep basins walled in among the hills or more free at the mouths of the rivers. The principal plains are those of Thessaly (which is not in modem Greece), Boeotia, Messenia, Argos, and Marathon. The bottom of these plains consists of an alluvial soil, the most fertile in Greece. In some of the mountainous regions, especially in the Morea, are extensive table-lands. The plain of Mantinea is 2000 feet high, and the upland district of Sciritis, between Sparta and Tegea, is in some parts 3000 feet.

Strabo said that the guiding thing in the geography of Greece was the sea, which presses in upon it at all parts with a thousand arms. From the Gulf of Arta on the one side to the Gulf of Volo on the other the coast is indented with a succession of natural bays and gulfs. The most important are the Gulfs of Aegina (Saronicus) and Lepanto (Corinthiacus), which come in between the Morea and the northern mainland of Greece,—the first from the Aegean, the second from the Ionian Sea,—and are only prevented from joining their waters by the high land of the narrow isthmus of Corinth (3⅛ miles wide). The outer portion of the Gulf of Lepanto is called the Gulf of Patras, and the inner part the Bay of Corinth, and a narrow bay on the north side of the same gulf, called the Bay of Salona, penetrates northwards into Phocis so far that it is within 24 geographical miles of the Gulf of Zeitoum on the northeast coast of Greece. The width of the entrance to the gulf of Lepanto is subject to singular changes, which are ascribed to the formation of alluvial deposits by certain marine currents, and their removal again by others. At the time of the Peloponnesian war this channel was 1200 yards broad; in the time of Strabo it was only 850; and in our own day it has again increased to 2200. On the coast of the Morea there are several large gulfs, that of Arcadia (Cyparissus) on the west, Kalamatia (Messeniacus) and Kolokythia (Laconicus) on the south, and Nauplia (Argolicus) on the east. Then between Euboea and the mainland lie the channel of Talanti (Euboicum Mare) and the channel of Egripo, which are connected by the strait of Egripo (Euripus). This strait, which is spanned by a bridge, is 120 feet wide, and is remarkable for the unexplained eccentricity of its tide, which has puzzled ancients and moderns alike. The current runs at the rate of 8 miles an hour, but continues only for a short time in one direction, changing its course, it is said, ten or twelve times in a day.

There are no volcanoes on the mainland of Greece, but everywhere traces of volcanic action and frequently visitations of earthquakes, for it lies near a centre of volcanic agency, the island of Santorin, which has been within recent years in a state of eruption. There is an extinct crater at Mount Laphystium in Boeotia. The mountain of Methane, on the coast of Argolis, was produced by a volcanic eruption in 282 b.c. An earthquake laid Thebes in ruins in 1853, another destroyed every house in Corinth in 1858, and a third filled up the Castalian spring in 1870. There are hot springs at Thermopylae and other places, which are used for sanitary purposes. Various parts of the coast exhibit indications of upheaval within historical times. On the coast of Elis four rocky inlets are new joined to the land, which were separate from it in the days of aucient Greece. There are traces of earlier seabeaches at Corinth, and on the coast of the Morea, and at the mouth of the Hellada. The land has gained so much that the pass of Thermopylae, which was extremely narrow in the time of Leonidas and his three hundred, is now wide enough for the motions of a whole army.

The whole chain of the Pindus and some of the mountains of the Morea are composed of Primitive rocks,— granite, serpentine, porphyry, mica; and other schists,—but greater part of the country consists of Secondary formations, especially of a compact grey limestone, which hardens often into the purest marble. All Parnassus and Helicon consist of this rock. In the vicinity of Athens the limestone rests on mica schist, which prevails also in other parts of Attica, and in Euboea, Laconia, and the Cyclades. Clay slate is found in some districts, and coal, equal to two-thirds of an equal weight of Newcastle coal, is found at Kumi in Euboea, and of an inferior quality at Marco-poneo in Boeotia. Greece is not rich in minerals. Gold exists, but not in sufficient quantity to cover the expense of working. Copper is abundant, and silver, lead, iron, emery, antimony, cobalt, manganese, sulphur, and salt are found. Gypsum and porphyry are quarried. Marble is abundant, the chief kinds being the white marble of Pentelicus, of which the Parthenon was made, the blue marble of Hymettus, the green and red marble of the Morea, and the green and white of Caryste. In Mount Taygetus are beds of verd-antique jasper.

The scenery of Greece excites the warmest admiration of all travellers, mainly from three causes:—(1) its unusually rich variety; (2) its exquisite sensibility to every modification of the light of the sky; and (3) the graceful and almost severely classical outline of its hills.

The vegetation of Greece may be described as belonging to four distinct zones. (1) Up to δ00 feet above the sea is a region growing corn, vines, olives, oranges, melons, pomegranates, and other fruits; (2) from 1500 feet to 3500 feet is the region of the oak; (8) from 3500 feet to 5000 feet is the region of the beech and pine, interspersed still with a few com fields; (4) above 5000 feet is a sub-alpine region yielding only a few wild plants Most travellers are struck with the comparative scarcity of wood in Greece. But though most of the ancient forests have disappeared, more of the surface still remains woodland than travellers realize. Close on 15 per cent, of it was under forest in 1860, which is only 1 per cent, less than in Spain, and is 12 per cent, more than in Britain. The most common tree is the pine, but the oak, plane, walnut, chestnut, and olive are also abundant. The beech is said to be a modern invader from the north, where it covers the whole of the Pindus range, and in some places, as on Mount Pelion, which were covered with other kinds of trees in historical times, the beech seems now to have driven them entirely out. The palm thrives in Messenia, and finds a home even in Attica. Myrtles flourish in the west, and oleanders brighten the river beds.

The wild animals still to be found occasionally in Greeee are the boar, wolf, bear, lynx, wild cat, jackal, and fox. The wild goat, which has disappeared from the rest of Europe, finds a last asylum in some of the islands of the Greek archipelago. Game is abundant,—red deer, fallow deer, roe, hares, rabbits. It is said that hares and rabbits never occupy the same island, except in the case of Andros, where the hares are found in the north and the rabbits in the south. The birds are the eagle, vulture, hawk, owl, hoopoe, egret, pelican, pheasant, bustard, partridge, woodcock, nightingale, &c. Quails come in April. The domestic animals are the horse, ox, ass, mule, sheep, goat, pig, dog, and poultry. Poisonous snakes are only found in some few places, but mosquitos and gnats are everywhere sources of annoyance.

The climate of Greece, which ancient writers praised for its equableness, presents to modern observers two peculiarities which do not possess that character. One is a greater intensity of heat in summer and of cold in winter than obtains in Spain, Italy, and other countries which lie within the same latitudes, and are even less open to the tempering influences of the sea. This peculiarity is due to the exposure of the country to the cold winds from the snow hills in close proximity to it on the north, and to the exhausting sirocco from the sands of Africa on the south. The other peculiarity is the remarkable local contrasts and rapid transitions which the climate manifests, and which are a natural effect of the diversity of the geographical configuration. The remark of Gell is often quoted, that in travelling through the Morea in March he found summer in Messenia, spring in Laconia, and winter in Arcadia, without moving beyond a radius of 50 miles. There is great diversity in the rainfall in different parts of Greece. As a rale, rain is more prevalent in the west than in the east, which accounts for the fertile look of the hills of Elis and the barren aspect of those of Argolis. Attica is the driest part of Greece, and Boeotia has still the same heavy moist atmosphere it had of old; and, what is remarkable, the old contrast between the people of those two provinces, which was proverbial when both were Greek by...

CHURCH. As the Gospel spread in the first ages both east and west, the first Christian churches were so denominated. From the languages respectively used in their devotions, they were also called the Greek and Latin or Roman churches. For the first seven centuries these churches preserved a friendly communion with each other, notwithstanding they disagreed as to the time of keeping Easter, and some other points. But about the middle of the eighth century, disputes arose, which terminated in a schism, that continues to this day. It arose out of a controversy respecting the use of images in the churches. It happened that at this time both churches were under prelates equally dogmatical and ambitious. The patriarch of Constantinople insisted on putting down the use of all images and pictures, not only in his own church, but at Rome also, which the pope resented with equal violence and asperity. They mutually excommunicated each other; and the pope of Rome excommunicated not only the patriarch of Constantinople, but the emperor also. The controversy respecting images engendered another, no less bitter, respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost both from the Father and the Son, which the Greeks flatly denied, and charged the Romans with interpolating the word _filioque_ into the ancient creeds. These controversies occupied the eighth and ninth centuries, after which some intervals of partial peace occurred; but in the eleventh century, the flame broke out afresh, and a total separation took place. At that time, the Patriarch Michael Cerularius, who was desirous to free himself from the papal authority, published an invective against the Latin church, and accused its members of maintaining various errors. Pope Leo retorted the charge, and sent legates from Rome to Constantinople. The Greek patriarch refused to see them; upon which they excommunicated him and his adherents, publicly, in the church of St. Sophia, A. D. 1054. The Greek patriarch excommunicated those legates, with all their adherents and followers, in a public council; and procured an order of the emperor for burning the act of excommunication which they had pronounced against the Greeks. Thus the separation was completed, and at this day a very considerable part of the world profess the religion of the Greek or eastern church. The Nicene and Athanasian creeds, with the exception of the words above-mentioned, are the symbols of their faith.

A variety of solutions has been given to the question, why the New Testament was written in Greek. The true reason is, that it was the language most generally understood both by writers and readers; being spoken and written, read and understood, throughout the Roman empire, and particularly in the eastern provinces. To the universality of the Greek language, Cicero, Seneca, and Juvenal bear ample testimony: and the circumstances of the Jews having long had political, civil, and commercial relations with the Greeks, and being dispersed through various parts of the Roman empire, as well as their having cultivated the philosophy of the Greeks, of which we have evidence in the New Testament, all sufficiently account for their being acquainted with the Greek language. And if the eminent Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, had motives for preferring to write in Greek, there is no reason, at least there is no general presumption, why the first publishers of the Gospel might not use the Greek language. It is indeed probable, that many of the common people were acquainted with it; though it is also certain the Christian churches being in many countries composed chiefly of that class of persons, some did not understand Greek. But in every church, says Macknight, there were persons endowed with the gift of tongues, and of the interpretation of tongues, who could readily turn the Apostles’ Greek epistles into the language of the church to which they were sent. In particular, the president or the spiritual man, who read the Apostle’s Greek letter to the Hebrews in their public assemblies, could without any hesitation render it into the Hebrew language, for the edification of those who did not understand Greek. And with respect to the Jews in the provinces, Greek being the native language of most of them, this epistle was much better calculated for their use, written in the Greek language, than if it had been written in the Hebrew, which few of them understood. Farther, it was proper that all the apostolical epistles should be written in the Greek language, because the different doctrines of the Gospel being delivered and explained in them, the explanation of these doctrines could with more advantage be compared so as to be better understood, being expressed in one language, than if, in the different epistles, they had been expressed in the language of the churches and persons to whom they were sent. Now what should that one language be, in which it was proper to write the Christian revelation, but the Greek, which was then generally understood, and in which there were many books extant; that treated of all kinds of literature, and on that account were likely to be preserved, and by the reading of which Christians, in after ages, would be enabled to understand the Greek of the New Testament? This advantage none of the provincial dialects used in the Apostles’ days could pretend to. Being limited to particular countries, they were soon to be disused; and few (if any) books being written in them which merited to be preserved, the meaning of such of the Apostles’ letters as were composed in the provincial languages could not easily have been ascertained.

The principal points which distinguish the Greek church from the Latin, are as follows: they maintain that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only, and not from the Father and Son. They disown the authority of the pope, and deny that the church of Rome is the only true catholic church. They do not affect the character of infallibility, and utterly disallow works of supererogation, and indulgences. They admit of prayers and services for the dead, as an ancient and pious custom; but they will not admit the doctrine of purgatory, nor determine any thing dogmatically concerning the state of departed souls. In baptism they practise triune immersion, or dip three times; but some, as the Georgians, defer the baptism of their children till they are three, four, or more years of age. The chrism, or baptismal unction, immediately follows baptism. This chrism, solemnly consecrated on Maunday Thursday, is called the unction with ointment, and is a mystery peculiar to the Greek communion, holding the place of confirmation in that of the Roman: it is styled, “the seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” They administer the Lord’s Supper in both kinds, dipping the bread in the cup of wine, in which a small portion of warm water is also inserted. They give it both to the clergy and laity, and to children after baptism. They exclude confirmation and extreme unction out of the number of sacraments; but they use the holy oil, which is not confined to persons in the close of life, like extreme unction, but is administered, if required, to all sick persons. Three priests, at least, are required to administer this sacrament, each priest, in his turn, anointing the sick person, and praying for his recovery. They deny auricular confession to be a divine command; but practise confession attended with absolution, and sometimes penance. Though they believe in transubstantiation, or rather consubstantiation, they do not worship the elements. They pay a secondary kind of adoration to the virgin and other saints. They do not admit of images or figures in bas-relief, or embossed work; but use paintings and silver shrines. They admit matrimony to be a sacrament, and celebrate it with great formality. Their secular clergy, under the rank of bishops, are allowed to marry once, and laymen twice; but fourth marriages they hold in abomination. They observe a great number of holy days, and keep four fasts in the year more solemn than the rest, of which Good Friday is the chief.

The service of the Greek church is too long and complicated to be particularly described in this work; the greater part consists in psalms and hymns. Five orders of priesthood belong to the Greek church; namely, bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, and readers; which last includes singers, &c. The episcopal order is distinguished by the titles of metropolitan, archbishops, and bishops. The head of the Greek church, the patriarch of Constantinople, is elected by twelve bishops, who reside nearest that famous capital. This prelate calls councils by his own authority to govern the church. The other patriarchs are those of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, all nominated by the patriarch of Constantinople, who enjoys a most extensive jurisdiction. For the administration of ecclesiastical affairs, a synod, convened monthly, is composed of the heads of the church resident in Constantinople. In this assembly, the patriarch of Constantinople presides, with those of Antioch and Jerusalem, and twelve archbishops. In regard to discipline and worship, the Greek church has the same division of the clergy into regular and secular, the same spiritual jurisdiction of bishops and their officials, the same distinction of ranks and offices, with the church of Rome.

The Greek church comprehends a considerable part of Greece, the Grecian isles, Wallachia, Moldavia, Egypt, Abyssinia, Nubia, Lybia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Cilicia, and Palestine; Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; the whole of the Russian empire in Europe; great part of Siberia in Asia, Astrachan, Casan, and Georgia.

The Greek Church, like the Roman, soon spread out far beyond the imperial dioceses which at first fixed its boundaries, but,unlike the Roman, it did not keep for Christianity all the lands it had once laid hold of. What Rome Christianized, with the exception of Africa, remained Christian. The old empire was overrun by the barbarians, but the conquered empire imposed its law and its religion upon its conquerors, and pagan and heretic became in the end Catholic Christians. In the East it was otherwise. The empire naintained itself long and died hard; but its decline and fall meant not merely the overthrow of the supremacy of the emperors of the East, it meant also the destruction of civilization and the submergence of Christianity. In the West, German and Saxon, and Goth and Lombard, became Christian law-abiding peoples. In the E⅛st Arab and Kurd, the Seljuk and Ottoman Turk, remained what they were before they swarmed over the Eastern empire, and could never be taught either law or gospel. It is true that the Eastern Church more than made up for her losses by her missionary enterprise, but she never conquered her conquerors, and the historian is too apt to speak of her past glories and forget her present strength. The same reason also makes it difficult to describe, with any accuracy, the extent of the Greek Church She has shifted her position so often that to describe her extent at any one period must be misleading. The church never at any one period occupied all the territories she has possessed.

The patriarchate of Constantinople included the imperial dioceses of Pontus, Asia, Thrace, and Eastern Illyricum— i.e., speaking roughly, the greater part of Asia Minor, European Turkey, and Greece, with a small portion of Austria. The imperial diocese of Pontus was governed by the exarch of Caesarea, who ruled over thirteen metropolitans with more than 100 suffragans; now there are nine metropolitans (Kaisariéh, Nisi, Angouri, Niksar, Amasia, Isinid, Kadi-kiov, Broussa, Iznik), and one archbishopric (Trebizond), but the suffragans seem to have disappeared. Asia was governed by the exarch of Ephesus, who ruled over twelve metropolitans with more than 350 suffragan bishops. Of these there remain Ephesus, with its suffragans Aidene and Chisme, Smyrna, Artaki, Marmora, Allah Shehr, Rhodes, Samos, Khio, Cos, Paronaxia, Santorina, Andro, Milo, Lero, Scarpanto, Sephanto, Imbro, Lemno, Metelini, Molivo, Myra, and Konieh. In Asia Minor the church maintains but a small remnant of her former greatness; in Europe it is otherwise. The old outlines, however, are effaced wherever the Christian races have emancipated themselves from the Turkish rule, and the national churches of Greece, Servia, and Roumania have reorganized themselves on a new basis. Where the Turkish rule still prevails the church retains her old organization, but greatly impaired. The national churches of Russia, Georgia, and Armenia are offshoots from the patriarchate of Constantinople, but quite independent of its jurisdiction.

The patriarchate of Antioch has undergone most changes in extent of jurisdiction, arising from the transfer of sees to Jerusalem, from the progress of the schismatic churches of the East, and from the conquests of the Mahometans. At the height of his power the patriarch of Antioch ruled over 12 metropolitans and 250 suffragan bishops. Tn the time of the first crusade 153 still survived; now there are scarcely 20. Most of those that remain are called either metropolitan or archiépiscopal sees, but they have few or no suffragans. In Syria there are still Antioch, Aleppo, Laodicea, and Arcadia; in Phoenicia, Tyre and Sidon, Beyrout, Tripolis, Emesa, and Heliopolis; in Cilicia, Adana; in Syria, Epiphania; in Isauria, Seleucia; in Cyprus, Famagosta, with Piscopa, Baffo, Neapolis, Limasol, and Nicosia as suffragan sees. Cyprus has been independent of Antioch, however, since the council of Ephesus. Antioch also had jurisdiction beyond the bounds of the empire over Chaldaea and India, and the missionaries of Antioch seem to have preached Christianity in the borders of China. The Chaldaean Church now, however, is almost entirely Nestorian. The Thomas Christians of India do not belong to the Orthodox Greek Church. In Syria the Jacobites are more numerous than the Orthodox; while the Maronites of Lebanon have become subject to Rome.

In the earlier period of the church, ecclesiastical followed civil divisions so closely that Jerusalem, in spite of the sacred associations connected with it, was merely an ordinary bishopric dependent on the metropolitan of Caesarea, Ambitious prelates had from time to time endeavoured to advance the pretensions of their see, but it was not until the council of Chalcedon, in 451, that Jerusalem was made a patriarchate with jurisdiction over Palestine. From this time on to the inroad of the Saracens, the patriarchate of Jerusalem was highly prosperous. It ruled over three metro-> politans with eighty suffragans. The modern patriarch has seven suffragans, all of whom enjoy the titles of metropolitan or archbishop,—Caesarea, Scythopolis (Bethshan), Petra, Ptolemais, Sinai, Nablous, Samaria. The patriarchs, however, are non-resident (they live in Constantinople), and the primate of Palestine is the metropolitan of Caesarea.

The patriarch of Alexandria in ancient times possessed much more power than the others, and the church ruled by him was much more centralized. He had no metropolitans. His hundred suffragans were ordinary bishops. This perhaps in part accounts for the decay of the Orthodox church in Egypt; at present there is no bishop but the patriarch, The Christians in Egypt are for the most part Monophysites. The church of Nubia has been blotted out. The church of Aethiopia or Abyssinia is Monophysite, and acknowledges the Jacobite patriarch of Cairo.

History.— Controversies and Schisms.— To describe the controversies of the Greek Church is to write the history of the church of the first five centuries; in a short sketch like this all that can be done is to mention those causes of division which led (1) to the formation of the schismatic churches of the East, and (2) to the open rupture with Latin Christianity.

The great dogmatic work of the Greek Church was the definition of that portion of the creed of Christendom which concerns theology proper,— the doctrines of the essential nature of the Godhead, and the doctrine of the Godhead in relation with manhood in the incarnation, while it fell to the Latin Church to define anthropology, or the doctrine of man’s nature and needs. The controversies which concern us are all about the person of Christ, the Theanthropos, for they alone are represented in the schismatic churches of the East. These controversies are most easily described, at least for our purpose, by reference to the oecumenical councils Df the ancient and undivided church.

Pise of Sects.— All the churches of the East, schismatic as well as orthodox, accept unreservedly the decrees of the first two councils. The schismatic churches protest against the additions made to the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople by succeeding councils. The Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan creed declared that Christ was consubstantial (fμοονσιοs) with the Father, and that He had become man (⅛ανθρω7rησας). Disputes arose when theologians tried to explain the latter phrase. These differences took two separate and extreme types, the one of which forcibly separated the two natures so as to deny anything like a real union, while the other insisted upon a mixture of the two, or an absorption of the human in the divine. The former was the creed of Chaldaea and the latter the creed of Egypt; Chaldaea was the home of Nestorianism, Egypt the land of Monophysitism. The Nestorians accept the decisions of the first two councils, and reject the decrees of all the rest as unwarranted alterations of the creed of Nicaea. The Monophysite3 accept the first three councils, but reject the decree of Chalcedon and all that come after it.

The council of Ephesus, the third oecumenical, had insisted upon applying the term Theotokos to the Virgin Mary, and this was repeated in the symbol of Chalcedon, which says that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, “according to the manhood.” The same symbolalso declares that Christ is “to be acknowledged in two natures, . . . indivisibly and inseparably.” Hence the Nestorians, who insisted upon the duality of the natures to such a degree as to lose sight of the unity of the person, and who rejected the term Theotokos, repudiated the decrees both of Ephesus and of Chalcedon, and upon the promulgation of the decrees of Chalcedon formally separated from the church. Nestorianism had sprung from an exaggeration of the theology of the school of Antioch, and the schism weakened that patriarchate and its dependencies. It took root in Chaldaea, and became very powerful. No small part of the literature and science of the Mahometan Arabs came from Nestorian teachers, and Nestorian Christianity spread widely. “It was successfully preached to the Bactrians, th⅛ Huns, the Persians, the Indians, the Persarmenians, the Medes, the Elamites. The barbaric churches from the Gulf of Persia to the Caspian Sea were almost infinite. . . . The Malabar coast and the Isles of the Ocean, Zocotra and Ceylon, were peopled with an increasing number of Christians. The missionaries of Balkh and Samarcand pursued without fear the footsteps of the roving Tartar, and insinuated themselves into the valleys of the Imaus and the banks of the Selinga.” Their principal bishop took the title of patriarch of Babylon. His seat was later removed to Baghdad and then to Mosul; it is now at Julamerik in Kurdistan. In the 11th century he ruled over twenty-five metropolitans, and his jurisdiction extended from the Tigris to China, from Lake Baikal to South India. Persecutions weakened the church, Timur almost extirpated it. In the 16th century a schism occurred; many of the Nestorians yielded obedience to Rome. The Roman Nestorians are usually called Chaldaeans, though all lay claim to the title. At present the patriarch rules over two metropolitans and sixteen suffragan bishops. The Nestorians dwell principally in Kurdistan, though many are found in Mesopotamia and in India. In the latter country they are numerous on the Malabar coast, and are called Thomas Christians.

The council of Chalcedon, the fourth oecumenical, declared that Christis to be acknowledged “in two natures— unconfusedly, unchangeably,” and therefore decided against the opinions of all who either believed that the divinity is the sole nature of Christ, or who, rejecting this, taught only one composite nature of Christ (one nature and one person, instead of two natures and one person). The advocates of the one nature theory were called Monophysites, and they gave rise to numerous sects, and to at least three separate national churches—the Jacobites of Syria, the Copts of Egypt, and the Abyssinian Church.

The term “Jacobite” (from Jacobus Baradaeus, a Syrian theologian) is properly confined to the Syrian Monophysites, but is sometimes used to denote all the various divisions of this heresy, The Jacobites therefore accept the first three councils and reject those that follow. The Armenian Church does the same, and it is common to class the Armenians with the Jacobites, while some theologians have made them more heretical than the Jacobites of Syria and Egypt (Neale, Holy Eastern Church, Patriarchate of Alexandria, pp. 8-10). This, however, seems a wrong opinion, and the Armenians ought to be reckoned as Orthodox (see Armenian Church). Apart, however, from theological criticism, the Jacobites are arranged under three patriarchates—Antioch, Alexandria, and Armenia. Antioch and Alexandria have intercommunion, but Armenia, in spite of times of reconciliation, stands apart. Under the patriarch of Alexandria is the metran or metropolitan of Abyssinia, and under the patriarch of Antioch the maphrian or primate of the East. The Jacobites or Copts of Egypt greatly outnumber the members of the Orthodox Greek Church there. The patriarch assumes jurisdiction over Egypt, Jerusalem, Nubia, Abyssinia, and the Pentapolis. He now resides in Cairo, and is chosen by lot in a council of all the bishops from a number of monks recommended by four convents to whom belongs this privilege. He has for suffragans the bishops of Menouf, Sherkeyeh, Behnese, Fayoum, Miniyeh, Senabau, Manfalout, Siout, Abuteg, Aschumin, Esne, Kauss and Nekada, and Khartoum. He has besides jurisdiction over twenty-six monasteries, and rules nominally over the Church of Abyssinia.

The Syrian Jacobites also form a patriarchate—the patriarchate of Antioch. While Antioch belonged to the empire the persecution of the state drove the Jacobite patriarch from the city. He settled at Amida, now called Caramit, which is still the ecclesiastical centre. The second dignitary is the maphrian (fruitbearer) of the East, who was originally a missionary bishop to the regions east of the Tigris. He is now settled at Mosul. The Syrian Jacobites could at one time boast 20 metropolitans and 103 bishops; now there are only 5 metropolitans (Caramit, Mosul, Maadan, Aleppo, and Jerusalem) without suffragans.

The decisions of Chalcedon, which were the occasion of the formation of all these sects outside, did not put an end to Christological controversy inside the Orthodox Greek Church. The most prominent question which emerged in attempting to define further the person of Christ was whether the will belonged to the nature or the person, or, as it came to be stated, whether Christ had two wills or only one. The church in the sixth oecumenical council at Constantinople declared that Christ had two wills. The Monotheletes refused to submit, and the result was the formation of another schismatic church—the Maronite Church of the Lebanon range. The Maronites, however, in the 12 th century were reconciled to Rome, and cannot now be said to belong to the Greek Church.

Confli t with Rome.— The relation of the Greek Church to the Roman may be described a3 one of growing estrangement from the 5th to the 11th century, and a series of abortive attempts at reconciliation since the latter date. The estrangement and final rupture may be traced to the overweening pretensions of the Roman bishops and to Western innovation in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, accompanied by an alteration of creed. In the early church three bishops stood forth prominently, principally from the political eminence of the cities in which they ruled—the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The transfer of the seit of empire from Rome to Constantinople gave the bishops of Rome a possible rival in the patriarch of Constantinople, but the absence of an overawing court and meddling statesmen did more than recoup the loss to the head of the Roman Church. The theological calmness of the West, amid the violent theological disputes which troubled the Eastern patriarchates, and the statesmanlike wisdom of Rome’s greater bishops, combined to give a unique position to the pope, which councils in vain strove to shake, and which in time of difficulty the Eastern patriarchs were fain to acknowledge and make use of, however they might protest against it and the conclusions deduced from it But this pre-eminence, or rather the Roman idea of what was involved in it, was never acknowledged in the East; to prese it upon the Eastern patriarchs was to prepare the way for separation, to insist upon it in times of irritation was to cause a schism. The theological genius of the East wa3 different from that of the West. The Greek theology had its roots in Greek philosophy, while a great deal of Western theology was based on Roman law. The Greek fathers succeeded the Sophists, the Latin theologians succeeded the Roman advocates (Stanley’s East. Ch., ch. i.). This gave rise to misunderstandings, and at last led to two widely separate ways of regarding and defining one important doctrine—the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father or from the Father and the Son. Political jealousies and interests intensified the disputes, and at last, after many premonitory symptoms, the final break came in 1054, when Leo. IX. smote Michael Cerularius and the whole of the Eastern Church with an excommunication. There had been mutual excommunications before, but they had not resulted in permanent schisms. “It was scarce two centuries since anathemas had been exchanged between Adrian I. and Photius, between Photius and Nicholas I. The sixth council had formally anathematized Honorius I. by name. There had been great violence of language in the 6th century between Gregory I. and John the Faster, and not many years before that the name of Vigilius had been deliberately erased from every one of the diptychs of the Eastern Church’’ (Ffoulkes’s Christendom's Divisions, i. § 17). Now, however, the separation was final, and the ostensible cause of its finality was the introduction by the Latins of two words filioque into the creed. It is this addition which was and which still remains the permanent cause of separation. Ffoulkes has pointed out in his second volume (ch. 1-3) that there was a resumption of intercourse more than once between Rome and Constantinople after 1054, and that the overbearing character of the Norman crusaders, and finally the horrors of the sack of Constantinople in the fourth crusade, were the real causes of the permanent estrangement. It is undeniable, however, that the filioque question has always come up to bar the way in any subsequent attempts at intercommunion. The theological question involved is a very small one, but it brings out clearly the opposing characteristics of Eastern and Western theology, and so has acquired an importance far beyond its own worth. The question is really one about the relations subsisting between the persons of the Trinity and their hypostatical properties. The Western Church affirms that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from” the Father and from the Son. It believes that the Spirit of the Father must be the Spirit of the Son also. Such a theory seems alone able to satisfy the practical instincts of the West, which did not concern itself with the metaphysical aspect of the Trinity, but with Godhead in its relation to redeemed humanity. The Eastern Church affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. The Eastern theologian thinks that the Western double procession degrades the Deity and destroys the perfection of the Trinity. The double procession, in his eyes, means two active principles (αiτιαι) in the Deity, and it means also that there is a confusion between the hypostatical properties; a property possessed by the Father and distinctive of the First Person is attributed also to the Second. This is the theological, and there is conjoined with it an historical and moral dispute. The Greeks allege that the addition of the words filioque was...

For further details see Receplα varia de ρrceρaratiοηe ignis Groeci, Sloane MS. 282; also Arundel MS. 164; Beckmann, Gcsch. der Erfindungen ; Dufresne, Esprit des Croissades, Amsterdam, 1780; Gibbon; Grose, Mil. Antiq.∙, Hoefer, Hist, de la Chimie·, Joinville, Memoirs, 1807; Libri, Hist, des sciences math, en Italie ; Mechanics' Magazine, 18th August 1844; Napoleon III., Études sur . . . . V Artillerie ∙, Poggendorff, Gesch. d. Physik, 1879; Roy. Instit. Quart. Journ., xiv.; Scotfern, Projectile Weapons, 1858; and the writings of the Byzantine historians.

HORACE GREELEY, an eminent American editor, was born at Amherst, New Hampshire, February 3, 1811. His parents were of Scotch-Irish descent, but the ancestors of both had been in New England for several generations. He was the third of seven children. His father, Zaccheus Greeley, owned a farm of 50 acres of stony, sterile land, from which a bare support was wrung. Horace was a feeble and precocious lad, taking little interest in the ordinary sports of childhood, learning to read before he was able to talk plainly, and being the prodigy of the neighbourhood for accurate spelling. Before he was ten years old his father, through bad management and endorsing for his neighbours, became bankrupt, and his home wa3 sold by the sheriff, while Zaccheus Greeley himself fled the State to escape arrest for debt. The family soon removed to West Haven, Vermont, where, all working together, they made a scanty living as day labourers. Horace Greeley from childhood desired to be a printer, and, when barely eleven years old, tried to be taken as an apprentice in a village office, but was rejected on account of his youth. After three years more with the family as a day labourer at West Haven, he succeeded, with his father’s consent, in being apprenticed in the office of The Northern Spectator, at East Poultney, Vermont. Here he soon became a good workman, developed a passion for politics, and especially for political statistics, came to be depended upon for more or less of the editing of the paper, and was a figure in the village debating society. He received only $40 a year, but he spent almost nothing himself, and sent most of his money to his father. In his twentieth year The Northern Spectator was suspended. Meantime his father had removed to a small tract of wild land in the dense forests of Western Pennsylvania, 30 miles from Erie. The released apprentice now visited his parents, and worked for a little time with them on the farm, meanwhile seeking employment in various printing offices, and, when he got it, giving nearly his whole earnings to his father. At last, with no further prospect of work nearer home, he started for New York. He travelled on foot and by canal-boat, entering New York in August 1831, with all his clothes in a bundle carried over his back with a stick, and with but $10 in his pocket. More than half of this sum was exhausted while he made vain efforts to find employment. Many refused, in the belief that he was a runaway apprentice, and his poor, ill-fitting apparel and rustic look were everywhere greatly against him. At last he found work on a 32mo New Testament, set in agate, double columns, with a middle column of notes in pearl. It was so difficult and so poorly paid that other printers had all abandoned it. He barely succeeded in making enough to pay his board bill, but he finished the task, and thus found subsequent employment easier to get.

In January 1833 Greeley formed a partnership with Francis V. Story, a fellow-workman. Their combined capital amounted to $150. Procuring their type on credit, they opened a small office, an<l undertook the printing of the first cheap paper published in New York. Its projector, Dr H. D. Sheppard, meant to sell it for one cent, but under the arguments of Greeley lie was persuaded to fix the price at two cents. The paper failed in three weeks, the printers only losing $50 or $60 by the experiment. They still had a “Bank Note Reporter” to print, and soon got some lottery printing. Within six months Story was drowned, but his brother-in-law, James Winchester, took his place in the firm. Greeley waβ now asked by James Gordon Bennett to go into partnership with him in starting The Herald. He declined the venture, but recommended the partner whom Bennett subsequently took. On the 22d of March 1834, Greeley and Winchester issued the first number of The New Yorker, a weekly literary and news paper, the firm then supposing itself to be worth about $3000. Of the first number they sold about 100 copies; of the second, nearly 200. There was an average increase for the next month of about 100 copies per week. The second volume began with a circulation of about 4550 copies, and with a loss on the first year’s publication of $3000. The second year ended with 7000 subscribers, and a further loss of $2000. By the end of the third year The New Yorker had reached a circulation of 9500 copies, and a total loss of $7000. It was published nearly seven years and was never profitable, but it was widely popular, and it gave Greeley, who was its sole editor, much prominence. On the 5th of July 1836 Greeley married Miss Mary Y. Cheney, a Connecticut school teacher, whom he had met in a Grahamite (vegetarian) boarding-house in New York.

During the publication of The New Yorker he added to the scanty income which the job printing brought him by supplying editorials to The Daily Whig and various other publications. 1 n 1838 he had gained such standing as a writer that he was selected by Thurlow Weed, William H. Seward, and other leaders of the Whig party, for the editorship of a campaign paper entitled The Jeffersonian, published at Albany. He continued The New Yorker, and travelled between Albany and New York each week to edit the two papers. The Jeffersonian was a quiet and instructive τather than a vehement campaign sheet, and the Whigs believed that it had a great effect upon the elections of the next year. When, on the 2d of May 1840, some time after the nomination by the Whig party of William Henry Harrison for the Presidency, Greeley began the publication of a new weekly campaign paper, The Log Cabin, it sprang at once into a great circulation; 48,000 copies of the first number were sold, and it finally rose to 90,000. It was considered a brilliant political success, but it was not profitable. On April 3, 1841, Greeley announced that on the following Saturday he would begin the publication of a daily newspaper of the same general principles, to be called The Tribune. He was now entirely without money. From a personal friend, Mr James Coggeshall, he borrowed $1000, on which capital and the editor’s reputation The Tribune was founded. It began with 600 subscribers. The first week’s expenses were $525 and the receipts $92. By the end of the fourth week it had run up a circulation of 6000, and by the seventh reached 11,000, which was then the full capacity of its press. It was alert, cheerful, and aggressive, was greatly helped by the attacks of rival papers, and promised success almost from the start.

From this time Greeley was popularly identified with The Tribune, and its share in the public discussion of the time is his history. It soon became moderately prosperous, and his assured income should have placed him beyond pecuniary worry. In a period of twenty-four years The Tribune divided between its owners the sum of $1,240,000, besides a surplus of $381,939 earned and invested in real estate and improved machinery. The average annual dividend on each share (representing τ ⅞- 5 - of the property) was $516.66. Greeley’s income was long above $15,000 per year, frequently as much as $35,000 or more. But (he lacked business thrift, inherited a disposition to endorse for his friends, and was often unable to distinguish between deserving applicants for aid and adventurers. He was thus frequently straitened, and, as his necessities pressed, he sold successive interests in his newspaper. At the outset he owned the whole of it. When it was already clearly established, he took in Thomas M ’ Elrath as an equal partner, upon the contribution of $2000 to the common fund. By the 1st of January 1849 he had reduced his interest to 31 ⅜ shares out of 100; by July 2, 1860, to 15 shares; in 1868 he owned only 9; and in 1872, only 6. In 1867 the stock sold for $6500 per share, and his last sale was for $9600. He bought wild lands, took stock in mining companies, desiccated egg companies, patent looms, photo-lithographic companies, gave away profusely, lent to plausible rascals, and was the ready prey of every new inventor who chanced to find him with money or with property that he could readily convert into money.

In the autumn of 1851 Greeley merged his weekly papers, The Log Cabin and The New Yorker, into the The Weekly Tribune, which soon attained as wide circulation as its predecessors, and was much more profitable. It rose in a time of great political excitement to a total circulation of a quarter of a million, and it sometimes had for successive years 140,000 to 150,000. For several years it was rarely much below 100,000. Its subscribers were found throughout all quarters of the northern half of the Union from Maine to Oregon, large packages going to remote rural districts beyond the Mississippi or Missouri, whose only connexion with the outside world was through a weekly or semi-weekly mail. The readers of this weekly paper acquired a personal affection for Its editor, and he was thus for many years the American writer most widely known and most popular among the rural classes. The circulation of The Daily Tribune was never proportionately great— its advocacy of a protective tariff, prohibitory liquor legislation, and other peculiarities, repelling a large support which it might otherwise have commanded in New York. It rose within a short time after its establishment to a circulation of 20,000, reached 50,000 and 60,000 during the war for the Union, and thereafter ranged at from 30,000 to 45,000. A semi-weekly edition was also planted, which ultimately reached a steady circulation of from 15,000 to 25,000.

From the outset it was a cardinal principle with Greeley to hear all sides, and to extend a special hospitality to new ideas. In The Tribune's first year it began to give one column daily to a discussion of the doctrines of Charles Fourier, contributed by Albert Brisbane. Gradually Greeley came to advocate some of these doctrines editorially. In 1846 he had a sharp discussion upon them with a former subordinate, Henry J. Raymond, then employed upon a rival journal. It continued through twelve articles on each side, and was subsequently published in book form. Greeley became personally interested in one of the Fourierite associations, the American Phalanx, at Red Bank, N. J. (1843-50), while the influence of his discussions doubtless led to other socialistic experiments. One of these was that at Brook Farm, which embraced Ralph Waldo Emerson and Nathaniel Hawthorne among its members. When this was abandoned, its president, George Ripley, with one or two other members, sought employment from Greeley upon The Tribune. Greeley dissented from many of Fourier’s propositions, and in later years was careful to explain that the principle of association for the common good of working men and the elevation of labour was the chief feature which attracted him. Co-operation among working men he continued to urge throughout his life. In 1848 the Fox Sisters, on his wife’s invitation, spent some time at his house. His attitude toward their “rappings” and “spiritual manifestations” was one of observation and inquiry; and, while he never pronounced all the manifestations fraudulent, he distrusted most of them, and declared that as yet he saw no good in them, and nothing specially requiring the attention of intelligent men. From boyhood he had believed in a protective tariff, and throughout his active life he was its most trenchant advocate and propagandist. Besides constantly urging it in the columns of The Tribune, he appeared as early as 1843 in a public debate on “The Grounds of Protection,” with Samuel J. Tilden and Parke Godwin as his opponents. A series of popular essays on the subject were published over his own signature in The Tribune in 1869, and subsequently republished in book form, with a title-page describing protection to home industry as a system of national co-operation for the elevation of labour. He opposed woman suffrage on the ground that the majority of women did not want it and never would, but aided practical efforts for extending the sphere of woman’s employments. He opposed the theatres, and for a time refused to publish their advertisements. He held the most rigid views on the sanctity of marriage and against easy divorce, and vehemently defended them in controversies with Robert Dale Owen and others. He practised and pertinaciously advocated total abstinence from spirituous liquors, but did not regard prohibitory laws as always wise. He denounced the repudiation of State debts oι - the failure to pay interest on them. He was zealous for Irish repeal, once held a place in the “Directory of the Friends of Ireland,” and contributed liberally to its support. He used the occasion of Dickens’s first visit to America to urge international copyright, and was one of the few editors to avoid alike the flunkeyism with which Dickens was first received, and the ferocity with which he was assailed after the publication of his American Notes. On the occasion of Dickens’s second visit to America Greeley presided at the great banquet given him by the press of the country’. He made the first elaborate reports of popular scientific lectures by Agassiz and other authorities. He gave ample hearing to the advocates of phonography and of phonetic spelling. He was one of the most conspicuous advocates of the Pacific railroads, and of many other internal improvements.

But it is as an anti-slavery leader, and as perhaps the chief agency in educating the mass of the Northern people to that opposition through legal forms to the extension of slavery which culminated in the election of Abraham Lincoln and the War of the Rebellion, that Greeley’s main work was done. Incidents in it were his vehement opposition to the Mexican war as a scheme for more slave territory, the assault made upon him in Washington by Congressman Albert Rust of Arkansas in 1856, an indictment in Virginia in the same year for circulating incendiary documents, perpetual denunciation of him in Southern newspapers and speeches, and the hostility of the Abolitionists, who regarded his course as too conservative. His anti-slavery work culminated in his appeal to President Lincoln, entitled “The Prayer of Twenty Millions,” in which he urged “that all attempts to put down the rebellion and at the same time uphold its inciting cause” were “preposterous and futile,” and that “every hour of deference to slavery” was “an hour of added and deepened peril to the Union.” President Lincoln in his reply said :—“My paramount object is to save the Union, and not either to save or destroy slavery. . . . What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union I

have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.” Precisely’ one month after the date of this reply the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.

Greeley’s political activity, first as a Whig, and then as one of the founders of the Republican party, was incessant; but he held few offices. In 1848-9 he served a three months’ term in Congress, filling a vacancy. He introduced the first bill for giving small tracts of Government land free to actual settlers, and published an exposure of abuses in the allowance of mileage to members, which corrected the evil but brought him much personal obloquy. In the National Republican Convention in 1860, not being sent by the Republicans of his own State on account of his opposition to Governor Seward as a candidate, he was made a delegate for Oregon. His active hostility to Seward did much to prevent the success of that statesman, and to bring about instead the nomination of Abraham Lincoln. This was attributed by his opponents to personal motives, and a letter from Greeley to Seward, the publication of which he challenged, was produced, to show that in his struggling days he had been wounded at Seward’s failure to offer him office. In 1861 he was a candidate for United States Senator, his principal opponent being William Μ. Evarts. When it was clear that Mr Evarts could not be elected, his supporters threw their votes for a third candidate, Ira Harris, who was thus chosen over Greeley by a small majority. At the outbreak of the war he favoured allowing the Southern States to secede, provided a majority of their people at a fair election should so decide, declaring ‘ ‘ that he hoped never to live in a Republic whereof one section was pinned to the other by bayonets.” When the war began he urged the most vigorous prosecution of it. The “On to Richmond” appeal, which appeared day after day in The Tribune, was incorrectly attributed to him, and it did not wholly meet his approval; but after the defeat at Bull Run he was widely blamed for it. In 1864 he urged negotiations for peace with representatives of the Southern Confederacy in Canada, and was seDt by President Lincoln to confer with them. They were found to have no sufficient authority. In 1864 he was one of the Lincoln Presidential electors for New York. At the close of the war, contrary to the general feeling of his party, he urged universal amnesty and impartial suffrage as the basis of reconstruction. In 1867 his friends again wished to elect him to the Senate of the United States, and the indications were all in his favour. But he refused to be elected under any misapprehension of his attitude, and with what his friends thought unnecessary candour restated his obnoxious views on universal amnesty at length, just before the time for the election, with the certainty that this would prevent his success. Some months later he signed the bail bond of Jefferson Davis, and this provoked a torrent of public indignation. He had written a popular history of the late war, the first volume having an immense sale and bringing him unusually large profits. The second was just issued, and the subscribers, in their anger, refused by thousands to receive it. The Union League Club, of New York, gave him notice, through its President, John Jay, of a special meeting called to consider his conduct. In an indignant letter he refused to attend the meeting, and challenged the club to a direct issue. “Your attempt,” he wrote, “to base a great, enduring party on the hate and wrath necessarily engendered by a bloody civil war is as though you should plant a colony on an iceberg which had somehow drifted into a tropical ocean. I tell you here that, out of a life earnestly devoted to the good of human kind, your children will select my going to Richmond and signing that bail bond as the wisest act. .... All I care for is that you make this a square, stand-up fight, and record your judgment by yeas and nays. I care not how few vote with me, nor how many vote against me; for I know that the latter will repent it in dust and ashes before three years have passed.”

The effort to expel him failed. In 1867 he was elected delegate at large to the Convention for the revision of the State constitution. In 1869 he was the Republican candidate for State Controller. There was no hope that any one on the ticket that year could be elected, but he received more votes than most of his associates. In 1870 he was nominated for Congress in a Democratic district. His illness prevented his making any canvass, but his nomination reduced the Democratic majority from 2700 two years before to about 1000, and he ran 300 ahead of the Republican candidate for Governor.

He was dissatisfied with the conduct of General Grant’s administration, and became its sharp critic. The discontent which he did much to develop ended in the organization of the “Liberal Republican” party, which held its National Convention at Cincinnati in 1872, and was confidently expected to nominate Charles Francis Adams for the presidency. Greeley, however, had unexpected strength, especially among the Southern delegates, and on the sixth ballot received 332 votes against 324 for Adams,—immediate changes reducing the Adams vote still further, so that as the ballot was recorded it stood—Greeley, 482; Adams, 187. For a time the tide of feeling ran strongly in his favour. It was first checked by the action of his life-long opponents, the Democrats, who also...